Colorado LegiSource

An informational and educational resource for the Colorado General Assembly by the Office of Legislative Legal Services.

Month: March 2019

  • So How Do Those Amendments Get Into Your Bill?

    By Bethanie Pack

    Each bill faces a long, arduous journey from introduction to the Governor’s desk, a journey that many bills do not complete. But for those that do, this week’s article maps the process and provides some behind the scenes info on how the work gets done.

    Amending Stages of a Bill

    Committee Reports

    In the first house, a bill is introduced by reading the title and bill number (the first of three readings) and is then assigned to committee. Bills are often amended in committee, sometimes with multiple amendments. The Legislative Council staff merges the adopted amendments into a committee report for each bill. These committee reports are read across the House or Senate desk (within three legislative days after the hearing) and then published on the General Assembly’s website. At this point, the Enrolling Room —staff of the House or the Senate whose job it is to enroll each bill by inputting the amendments— merges those amendments into the introduced bill, creating an unofficial preamended version of the bill, which shows what the bill will look like if the committee report is adopted on second reading. If the bill is sent to multiple committees, there will be an unofficial preamended version of the bill after each committee report is read across the desk, which will include all the amendments adopted in each committee to date. Unofficial preamended versions of each bill are available on the General Assembly’s website. Click here for more information on committees of reference.

    Second Reading

    On second reading, the first house Committee of the Whole typically adopts the committee report(s) and sometimes passes additional amendments. Once the first house adopts the Committee of the Whole report, the Enrolling Room merges all of those amendments into the bill, creating the Engrossed version of the bill. Sometimes the Committee of the Whole lasts for many hours and late into the night, and nothing that the Committee of the Whole does is final until the first house adopts the Committee of the Whole report. For example, if Bill A is amended and passed by the Committee of the Whole at 10 a.m. but the Committee of the Whole continues working and is still debating Bill Z at 10 p.m., the amendments to Bill A are not yet adopted and the Enrolling Room cannot create the Engrossed version. The Engrossed versions of the bills are only available after all the bills on the second reading calendar have been addressed, the Committee of the Whole concludes their work, and the first house—sitting as the House or the Senate—adopts the Committee of the Whole report.  Click here for more information on the Committee of the Whole.

    Third Reading

    Generally, third reading amendments are only technical clean-up amendments. If the first house does adopt an amendment on third reading, it can be enrolled into the bill immediately after the bill is passed, creating the Reengrossed version. These amendments are a top priority for the Enrolling Room so that the bill can be transmitted to the second house as soon as possible. Click here for more information on third reading.

    This process is then repeated in the second house. The only difference is that the bill is called Revised after second reading in the second house and Rerevised after third reading.

    Behind the Scenes

    After a bill is amended on the House or Senate floor, staff presses a couple of buttons and then sends the bill off to the printer, right?

    Actually, no. At least four sets of eyes proofread and check the amendments before the amended bill goes to the printer. This process could take minutes or hours depending on the complexity, length, and number of amendments that were passed that day.

    The House and Senate Enrolling Rooms merge the amendments into the bills, and then there is a meticulous proofing process between the Enrolling Rooms and the Publications Team in the Office of Legislative Legal Services before sending the bills to the printer.

    Overview of the Process

    The role of the Enrolling Rooms is to verify that all of the amendments are placed into the bill in the correct place. Next, the Publications Team reviews the amendments in the bill for formatting and publications issues. They are looking for things such as numbering discrepancies, coding errors, punctuation errors, and effective date problems. Then, the amendments are given further review by the drafter whose role is to check the amendments within the context of the bill for any legal or substantive issues. This is important because amendments are confidential until moved and often multiple amendments from different legislators are adopted. The drafter needs to make sure the bill remains cohesive with the added amendments.

    Why so many steps?

    It would be lovely if there was a magical button or fairy dust that placed 105 amending instructions into a 40-page bill, but instead, the process is done manually to catch publishing issues and legal issues that a computer wouldn’t catch. Basically, the process is set up to ensure the best work product possible for the General Assembly, and that means lots of eyes on the bills throughout every step of the process, from the first draft to the Governor’s signature.

    Did you know?

    • Once the Enrolling Room and Publications Team “approve” the bill with the amendments merged in, it goes public online right away.
    • You can look at the bill with the committee amendments before the committee report is adopted on second reading. It’s called a preamended version. It’s an unofficial version, but it’s a helpful tool.
      • It’s available after the committee report is read across the desk and the process discussed above is completed.
      • You can find unofficial preamended versions on the General Assembly’s website when you search for the bill, scroll down to the “Bill Text” section, and then toggle the “Preamended Versions” dropdown menu.
  • Requesting an Interim Committee? All You Need is a Letter

    Requesting an Interim Committee? All You Need is a Letter

     (Reprinted with updates for the 2019 Legislative Session)

    Pursuant to section 2-3-303.3, C.R.S., a legislator who thinks a group of his or her colleagues should study a particular issue during the interim must submit a written request or formal letter to the Legislative Council for consideration and prioritization.

    Requesting the creation of an interim study committee is a fairly simple process. A legislator starts by contacting either the Office of Legislative Legal Services or the Legislative Council Staff office to initiate a written request or letter for the creation of the interim study committee. Legislators can also initiate the request through the iLegislate iPad application. The only information the legislator needs to provide when initiating the written request is the general topic that the interim committee will study. Both offices will assign staff to work with the legislator to develop the necessary details for the request and to prepare and finalize a letter. The legislator can also identify lobbyists or others who are authorized to work with staff in crafting the language of the letter.

    The final letter must specify key details concerning the interim committee, such as:

    • The scope of the policy issues the committee will examine;
    • The number of legislators on the committee;
    • How many times the committee will meet;
    • Whether a task force is needed to assist the committee; and
    • An estimate of the number of bills the interim committee may request to address the issues it studies.

    The legislator who submits the request may ask other legislators who are in favor of creating the interim study committee to sign on as “supporters” of the request, similar to signing on as cosponsors of a bill or resolution. Unlike bills and resolutions, however, a letter requesting the creation of an interim study committee cannot have joint prime sponsors.

    Once the letter is ready, the legislator must submit it to the Legislative Council for consideration by the Executive Committee. For the 2019 legislative session, the deadline for submitting this letter is Friday, April 5, 2019.  Legislative Leadership has stated no exceptions will be granted on this request deadline.

    To help ensure adequate time to prepare the final letter for submission to the Executive Committee, a legislator should submit his or her request for a letter to the Office of Legislative Legal Services or the Legislative Council Staff office no later than Tuesday, April 2, 2019.

    The Legislative Council will meet no later than Friday, April 19th, this year to review and prioritize all of the interim study requests. Before that meeting, the Director of Research of the Legislative Council will review the 2019-20 legislative budget and report to the Executive Committee of the Legislative Council the number of interim committee meetings that are funded for the 2019 legislative interim. The Legislative Council will consider this information in deciding how many interim studies to prioritize. The President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and the Minority Leaders of the Senate and the House will appoint the legislative members of the prioritized interim committees.

    This process is intended for one-time committees that meet during one interim period. Legislators who want to create a long-term, statutory committee will need to do so by introducing a bill.

    For questions, please contact the Office of Legislative Legal Services at (303) 866-2045 or the Legislative Council Staff office at (303) 866-3521. A template of the letter used to request an interim study committee can be found here.

  • What Happens When Multiple Bills Amend the Same Provision of Law?

    by Bethanie Pack

    It’s very common for multiple bills to amend the same provision of law in a given session, because let’s face it, great minds think alike, and there are a lot of great minds in our state legislature. So, when this occurs, one of five things can happen:

    1. The bills are harmonized upon publishing;
    2. Provisions are renumbered;
    3. The bills are amended without need of a conflict letter from the Revisor of Statutes;
    4. The Revisor of Statutes issues a conflict letter to the bill sponsors of both bills notifying them of the conflict and how to address it; or
    5. As a last resort, one of the bills supersedes the other.

    So what in the world does all this mean? Let me explain.

    After a bill passes second reading in each house, the publications team (a team in the Office of Legislative Legal Services that works under the direction and supervision of the Revisor of Statutes) performs a database search against all other bills in the current legislative session to ensure no bills change the same provision of law in a conflicting manner.

    Harmonize

    If only Bill A and Bill C are adopted, then the publications team can harmonize the section upon publication, and there is no conflict. In other words, the two bills “play nice together.” The section would appear as:

    45-1-101. Residential watering. A homeowner may water the lawn for a maximum of one hour up to five times a week.

    The changes from both bills can be combined in this section and they can be harmonized.

    Renumber/Reletter

    Now, ignore Bills A, B, and C for a moment, and take as an example two bills that both add a subsection (2) to the current version of 45-1-101. If both bills pass, one of them will be renumbered to add a subsection (3).

    Conflict Letter

    Back to our original example.  If both Bill A and Bill B were to pass, they cannot be harmonized; there is a conflict. The section of law cannot state that a homeowner may water the lawn both three and five times a week. In this scenario, the Revisor of Statutes writes a conflict letter, as directed by Joint Rule 16, to give notice of conflicting provisions to the prime sponsors of the conflicting bills.

    These letters are paper copies delivered to the desks of the prime sponsors upon transmittal to the opposite house after third reading. A copy of the letter is also stapled to the billback. The letter contains a statement about the conflict and a statement that the bill drafters know about the conflict and can provide guidance on how to address the issue.

    The publications team runs the conflict check after second reading in each house, which sometimes gives the drafter enough time to confer with the prime sponsor and draft a third reading amendment to fix the conflict. This would eliminate the need for a conflict letter before the bill gets transmitted to the opposite house.

    Typical resolutions to conflicts by amendment include mirroring the language in both bills to make them harmonizable, making the conflicting provision in one bill contingent on the passage of the other bill so that both provisions don’t go into effect, or eliminating the conflicting provision or moving it to a different place in statute. But sometimes, none of these approaches will work because the bill sponsors don’t agree to the amendments that would harmonize the bills or because harmonizing the bills would defeat the purposes of the bills. In these situations, the legislators may decide to allow one bill to supersede the other.

    Supersede

    The goal of the publications team is to give effect to every bill. So, allowing one provision of law to supersede another is the last resort and done if an amendment to fix the issue was not adopted. If two bills pass that cannot be harmonized, renumbered, or relettered, and they were not amended to “play nice together,” then one bill will supersede the other where the conflicting provision occurs. Which provision takes effect is typically based on the effective dates of the bills—the amendment with the later effective date prevails. Occasionally two conflicting bills will have the same effective date, in which case the provision that prevails is the one in the bill the Governor signs last. In some cases, however, the bill with the earlier effective date will prevail because it repeals the provision. A bill that repeals a provision will supersede a bill that amends the same provision, even if the amending bill has a later effective date, because the repealed provision is gone by the time the amending provision takes effect, and it cannot be brought back to life to implement the amendment.

    For more information on effective dates, see “When Does an Act become a Law? It depends.”

  • A Tale of Two Amendments: The Property Tax Dilemma

    By Vanessa Cleaver

    As any long-term resident of Colorado knows, over the past five years the state has undergone an explosive growth in population, making it one of the fastest growing states in the United States. Consequently, Denver’s housing market is booming, and Denver-metro residents have likely seen a steady rise in their property’s value. This increase would normally correlate to an increase in residential property taxes, but because of an interesting provision in the state constitution known as the “Gallagher Amendment,” residential property tax rates remain unequivocally low. For rural areas that are primarily supported by property taxes, and where property owners have not seen the exponential increase in property value that Denver has, the Gallagher Amendment has left local governments with less revenue to support a steadily growing population.

    Enacted as part of a constitutional amendment in 1982, the Gallagher Amendment was initially designed to maintain a constant ratio between property tax revenue from residential property and from commercial property. Although perhaps not its original intent, Gallagher has since kept property taxes low for homeowners so they aren’t financially overburdened by their property tax bill should their property value increase. It establishes a formula precluding the assessed value[1] of all residential property from being more than a target percentage[2] of the total assessed value of all real property in the state. Businesses, on the other hand, are responsible for fulfilling the remainder of that target percentage.

    Rather than set varying assessment rates across the state, Gallagher instead sets one statewide rate for residential property and one for commercial property. The commercial assessment rate was set at a fixed 29 percent while the residential assessment rate (RAR) was left to float up or down. Since there’s no set minimum for the RAR, it can drop as low as it needs to in order to uphold that constitutionally mandated balance between commercial and residential property. As complicated as all that sounds, basically what it comes down to is this: When residential property values go up relative to non-residential values, the RAR decreases; when property values drop, the RAR is technically supposed to increase again.

    But to add to the complexity of Gallagher, in 1992 voters passed an amendment to the Colorado constitution, commonly known as “TABOR,” which states, in part, that all increases in the valuation for assessment ratio for a property class must be approved by voters. This new restriction made any rise in the RAR subject to voter approval. Even in those years when Gallagher dictated an increase, the RAR remained unchanged because the General Assembly did not seek voter approval for the increase under TABOR. Since the inception of Gallagher, and especially since being tethered to TABOR, the RAR has been in steady decline. In 1983, the RAR established in the state constitution was 21 percent, the highest the rate has been in the past 30 years. Currently, the RAR is 7.2 percent,[3] and it appears that the General Assembly may need to lower it again in future reassessment cycles.[4]

    So what does all this have to do with local governments?

    With the exception of municipalities, a large number of local governments get most of their revenue from property taxes. Services such as fire protection, public education, and the establishment and operation of local libraries are primarily funded through the collection of property taxes. If there’s a decrease in that revenue, then those types of local governments struggle to provide even the most necessary services to their residents. Over the last few years local governments in rural Colorado have seen a significant decrease in property tax revenue. Specifically, fire districts, school districts, library districts, and other special districts have been impacted in their ability to support the populations they serve. This drop in revenue is primarily attributed to the continued fall of the RAR.

    As property values increase in the more metropolitan areas of the state, the RAR continues to fall to keep property taxes from going over the target percentage required by the Gallagher Amendment. For the Denver metro area, this drop in the RAR hasn’t had nearly as significant an impact on revenue, because it has a denser population to support it, and because home values in Denver have skyrocketed. But in rural Colorado, home values, as well as local populations, aren’t experiencing that same boom, and in some cases rural residents are paying less in property taxes than they have in years past.

    Prior to the passage of TABOR, a special district could float its mill levy (the number of mills assessed by a local government against the assessed property value, resulting in more property tax revenue) to counteract any cyclical economic cycles and help protect its primary revenue source. For example, a special district could raise its mill levy when the RAR decreased to ensure the incoming property tax revenue remained constant, and then decrease the levy if property values increased again. Since TABOR’s passage, though, special districts can float their mill levies down but are prohibited from floating their mill levies back up without a vote of the people, a costly and sometimes fruitless endeavor.

    Fire protection districts in particular have voiced great concern over their capacity to fight the wildfires that ravage the state every summer with a steadily decreasing budget, staff, and resources. In 2018, after being urged by the Colorado State Fire Chiefs, in conjunction with the Special District Association of Colorado, former Governor John Hickenlooper filed interrogatories with the Colorado Supreme Court asking them to weigh-in on the issue. The former governor submitted three legal questions: 1) whether TABOR and the Gallagher Amendment conflict with one another in the way they affect property taxes; 2) whether TABOR should take precedence over Gallagher; and 3) whether Gallagher should be stricken from the constitution altogether. The Court, however, declined the interrogatories.

    The property tax dilemma has, for now, been left in a state of uncertainty. Until a more permanent solution is reached that meets both the needs of taxpayers and local governments, the Gallagher Amendment in its current construct will continue to govern property tax law.

    [1] “Assessed value” is the base amount, which is equal to the actual value multiplied by the assessment rate, upon which property taxes are levied. A local government may assess a certain number of property tax mills against the assessed value of a piece of property. A mill is equal to 1/1000 of one dollar or $0.001.

    [2] The target percentage is used to maintain the ratio between residential property tax revenue and commercial property tax revenue. At Gallagher’s onset the target percentage for commercial property was 55 percent, with residential property responsible for the remaining 45 percent. But over the years the target percentage has slightly deviated from this 55/45 split. To give you an idea, in 2017 it was 54.33/45.67, and in 2015 it was 54.24/45.67. https://apps.larimer.org/tencounty/conference/2017/Gallagher-Slides-updated.pdf

    [3] § 39-1-104.2 (3)(p), C.R.S.

    [4] The Residential Assessment Rate Study for 2019-2020 projecting the new residential assessment rate to be 6.95 percent: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1o3HgqYCkWnDIQkRQx4YIxPi2Z0EiQHDz/view