Year: 2023

  • A Holiday Message

    Happy New Year!

    We wish you a happy and healthy 2024.

  • 2023 Interim Committee Recap – Part 3

    This is the final part in a series of three articles summarizing this year’s interim committee actions. As previously mentioned, we’re providing summaries of four of 12 committees and their recommended legislation. Here are links to Part 1 and Part 2 of the series. The Legislative Council met on Wednesday, November 15, to review interim committee legislation proposals. Click here to listen to the Legislative Council meeting.

    Sales and Use Task Simplification Task Force

    The task force met four times during the interim. It heard presentations from the Department of Revenue, the Colorado Municipal League, local government representatives, and private industry stakeholders. The meetings included public testimony and discussions relating to the electronic Sales and Use Tax System (SUTS), the need for accurate and up-to-date information from local taxing jurisdictions, thresholds for filing sales and use tax returns, participation by home rule municipalities, and local lodging taxes. The task force requested and recommended five bills to the Legislative Council as follows:

    • Bill A – Streamlining Filing of Sales and Use Tax Returns. The bill increases the monthly tax collected threshold at which taxpayers are permitted to make returns and pay taxes at quarterly intervals. It sets thresholds, effective on and after January 1, 2025, for self-collecting home rule municipalities that do not use SUTS allowing taxpayers to make returns and pay sales and uses taxes at certain intervals. It requires all local taxing jurisdictions, including all home rule municipalities, to begin using SUTS by July 1, 2025, and precludes any non-compliant jurisdiction from participating in the streamlined process for collecting sales and use taxes from certain retailers.
    • Bill B – Hold Harmless for Error in GIS Database Data. The Department of Revenue maintains a Geographic Information Systems database for vendors to use to determine the jurisdictions to which tax is owed and to calculate appropriate sales and use tax rates. The bill provides that a vendor that relies on the database to determine the local taxing jurisdictions to which tax is owed is held harmless in an audit by a local taxing jurisdiction for any underpayment of tax, charge, or fee liability that results solely from an error or omission in the database.
    • Bill C – Simplify Processes Regarding Certain Local Government Taxes. The bill requires local taxing jurisdictions that impose a local lodging tax or a sales or use tax on building or construction materials and integrates such sales or use tax into building permits to file certain information with the executive director of the department and for the executive director to publish the information. It modifies the scope of the task force’s charge to include simplification of local lodging tax systems and requires certain action during the 2024 interim by the task force related thereto. 
    • Bill D – Uniform Definition and Reporting for Local Lodging Tax.The bill requires local taxing jurisdictions, including any home rule municipalities, to apply the same standards to an accommodation intermediary as those applied to a marketplace facilitator that is obligated to collect and remit a local lodging tax. It prohibits local taxing jurisdictions from imposing additional information reporting requirements on accommodation intermediaries.
    • Bill E – Update of Local Government Sales and Use Tax Collection.The bill revises, modernizes, and harmonizes the separate statutes that govern the state administration of local sales or use tax by creating new parts 2 and 3 in article 2 of title 29. It makes various changes to the collection, administration, enforcement, and distribution of a statutory local government, special district, or requesting home rule jurisdiction sales or use taxes that are administered by the Department of Revenue and establishes a dispute resolution process when the local sales or use tax that is administered, collected, and enforced by the department is paid erroneously to the state or to the wrong locality.

    Transportation Legislation Review Committee

    The committee met three times and heard presentations from the Public Utilities Commission, Division of Motor Vehicles, Department of Public Safety, towing and recovery industry, Colorado Organization for Victim Assistance, Sierra Club, Department of Transportation, railroad industry, transportation industry labor unions, the Regional Transportation District, Denver Regional Council of Governments, Freight Panel Advisory Committee, Bicycle Colorado and the American Automobile Association of Colorado, Colorado Municipal League, the Greeley Evans Transit, the Colorado Association of Transit Agencies, the Southwest Energy Efficiency Project, the Public Highway Authorities, and the Colorado Energy Office. The committee recommended the following five bills to the Legislative Council for consideration:

    • Bill A – Vulnerable Road Users Protection Enterprise. The bill creates the vulnerable road user protection enterprise in the Department of Transportation for the purpose of providing funding for transportation system infrastructure improvements identified by the department that reduce the number of collisions with motor vehicles resulting in death or serious injury to vulnerable road users. The enterprise is required to impose the fee and the fee revenue is credited to a newly created fund and continuously appropriated to the enterprise, which is authorized to provide grants to fund eligible projects.
    • Bill B – Child Passenger Safety and Education. The bill creates the child passenger safety education and distribution grant program within the Department of Transportation. The department is required to create rules specifying elements of the grant program. The bill changes existing law regarding the age and weight requirements of children required to use child restraint systems and additional requirements for the restraint of older children.
    • Bill C – Railroad Safety Requirements. The bill imposes safety requirements on railroads operating trains in the state, including maximum train lengths. That, with certain exceptions, railroads must operate, maintain, and report the location of wayside detector systems that monitor passing trains for defects. Trains may not obstruct a public crossing for longer than 10 minutes unless continuously moving or prevented from moving by circumstances beyond its control. Any train crew member may report to a designated union representative a safety violation, injury, or death that occurred during the operation of a train and union representatives may enter a railroad’s place of operation to investigate that report. The Public Utilities Commission may impose fines for the violation of these safety requirements or for denying a union representative’s access and the bill creates the front range passenger rail district maintenance and safety fund, which consists of money collected as fines imposed by the commission. Requires railroads that transport hazardous material in Colorado to maintain insurance coverage to cover costs and liabilities resulting from accidents.
    • Bill D – Towing Carrier Regulation. The bill requires a tow truck driver to undergo a fingerprint-based criminal history record check. If the check produces a criminal history that the Public Utilities Commission determines is inappropriate for tow truck driver, the driver will not be permitted to drive the tow truck. The bill prohibits members of the Towing Task Force in the Department of Regulatory Agencies from voting on matters that will financially benefit them or if they are the subject of a complaint about which the task force is advising the commission. Requires the commission to promulgate a rule to require towing carriers to provide any information needed for its annual report to the General Assembly. A towing carrier is forbidden from patrolling or monitoring property to enforce parking restrictions on behalf of the property owner. Requires certain property owners to pay for the removal of the vehicle from their property and for any storage for the first 30 days. The towing carrier is required to notify the vehicle owner that the vehicle owner can retrieve the vehicle free of charge for the first 30 days. If a motor vehicle is nonconsensually towed in violation of state statute, the towing carrier must, within 48 hours after the determination of a statutory violation, return the vehicle to the place it was towed from.
    • Bill E – Methods to Increase the Use of Transit. The bill creates new programs and modifies an existing program with the goal of reducing ozone emissions through the increased use of transit. Creates the statewide transit pass exploratory committee within the Department of Transportation to produce a proposal for the creation, implementation, and administration of a statewide transit pass. Modifies the ozone season transit grant program by relocating the program to the department, creates certain stipulations regarding the disbursement of funds, and makes the program permanent. Creates the youth fare free transit grant program to provide grants to provide free year-round transit services for individuals who are 19 years of age or younger and specifies procedures and reporting requirements for receiving grant money. For income tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2024, but before January 1, 2029, the bill creates an income tax credit on the purchase of one or more transit passes for use by the taxpayer during that income tax year and the requirements for claiming the credit.

    Water Resources and Agriculture Review Committee

    The committee, which is actually a year-round committee, met four times during the interim and heard presentations concerning the Colorado River drought, pesticide regulation, impacts of conservation on water rights, reintroduction of gray wolves, tribal nations’ water rights, artificial turf, public rights on rivers, and stream restoration. The committee had 10 bills drafted and recommended the following nine bills to the Legislative Council:

    • Bill A – Veterinary technicians’ and veterinary technician specialists’ scope of practice. The bill requires the board of veterinary medicine to promulgate rules establishing certain veterinary medicine tasks that may be delegated to veterinary technicians and veterinary technician specialists and the recommended level of supervision for these tasks. A licensed veterinarian may delegate such tasks after first establishing a veterinarian-client-patient relationship with an animal or group of animals and the owner of the animal or animals. Beginning on January 1, 2026, the bill authorizes a veterinary technician to receive a specialist designation as part of the veterinary technician’s registration, grants title protection for specialists, and prohibits the unauthorized practice as a specialist by a person who does not have a specialist designation.
    • Bill B – Authorizing water management by conservation districts. The bill allows conservancy districts to conserve, develop, utilize, or dispose of water for commercial uses. Authorizes the district’s board of directors to submit and participate in a plan for augmentation for the benefit of water rights and wells within and outside of the boundaries of the district; contract with water users within and outside of the district for the provision of services; exercise certain powers concerning the management, control, delivery, use, and distribution of water in conjunction with a plan for augmentation; establish a water activity enterprise for the purpose of pursuing or continuing water activities; and sell, lease, or otherwise dispose of the use of water or capacity in works by term contracts or by contracts for the perpetual use of the water or works to certain entities. Authorizes a district to enter into long-term contracts with public and private entities and avail itself of aid, assistance, and cooperation from the federal government, the state government, and local governments.
    • Bill C – Public meetings requirement for members of certain state entities. Prior to the consolidation of the Division of Wildlife and the Division of Parks and Recreation and their respective commissions in Senate Bill 11-208, members of the Wildlife Commission were required to hold at least two public meetings per year in their respective geographic districts. This bill renews the public engagement requirement for the members of the Parks and Wildlife Commission and adds the same public engagement requirement for members of the State Agricultural Commission and the Colorado Water Conservation Board. Requires the public engagement meetings be held in person and for status updates on the commission and board members’ compliance with the public engagement requirement to be reported to the chair of each member’s respective commission or board and included in each member’s respective executive department’s annual “SMART Act” presentation to the General Assembly.
    • Bill D – Nonfunctional and artificial turf and invasive plant species. The bill, on and after January 1, 2025, prohibits local governments and unit owners’ associations of common interest communities from allowing the installation, planting, or placement of nonfunctional turf, artificial turf, or an invasive plant species on commercial, institutional, or industrial property or a transportation corridor. Prohibits the Department of Personnel from allowing the installation, planting, or placement of nonfunctional turf, artificial turf, or invasive plant species as part of a project for the construction or renovation of a state facility, which project commences on or after January 1, 2025.
    • Bill E – Veterinary telehealth. The bill allows a licensed veterinarian who has established a veterinarian-client-patient relationship to use telemedicine to provide veterinary services to clients and patients in Colorado with the consent of the client. A licensed veterinarian may also refer a patient to a veterinary specialist, who may provide veterinary services via telemedicine. It defines different types of telehealth tools that can be used in a veterinary practice and extends the veterinarian-client-patient relationship to other licensed veterinarians who share the same physical premises as the veterinarian who established the relationship. Authorizes the Board of Veterinary Medicine to establish rules for the use of telehealth to provide veterinary services.
    • Bill F – Green infrastructure feasibility study and pilot program. The bill requires a feasibility study of the use of green infrastructure (nature-based, watershed-scale water quality management solutions) that are an alternative to traditional gray infrastructure (centralized water treatment facilities) and the use of green financing mechanisms for water quality management. It establishes pilot projects to demonstrate the use of green infrastructure and green financing mechanisms; authorizes the adoption of rules establishing a pre-permit baseline date to assist municipalities and other water providers to pursue pre-permit solutions for compliance with water quality standards; and reporting to the committee on the progress of the feasibility study and any pilot projects and on any legislative and administrative recommendations to promote the use of green infrastructure and green financing mechanisms for water quality management.
    • Bill G – Enforcement of laws concerning noxious weeds. Current law allows the Commissioner of Agriculture to assess civil penalties for violations of state laws related to the prevention of noxious weeds. The bill clarifies that a board of county commissioners may allow for the assessment and collection of fines for violations of local laws enacted to enforce the management of noxious weeds in the county. Creates civil infractions and penalties; allows a county attorney to issue an injunction to prevent an ongoing violation; and allows a board to appoint a district attorney to enforce violations in the event that the county does not have a county attorney or in any other circumstance that the board deems appropriate.
    • Bill H – Raw milk. The bill authorizes a raw milk producer that registers with the Department of Public Health and Environment to engage in direct-to-consumer sales of raw milk in the state if the producer complies with certain labeling, storage, handling, record-keeping, and transportation requirements. The direct-to-consumer sales may take place at the producer’s place of business, at the consumer’s residence, or at a farmers’ market or roadside market. Authorizes the department to adopt rules regarding raw milk intended for sale directly to consumers; inspect and embargo producers’ raw milk and operations; enforce against a violation in court or by imposition of a civil penalty and, if two or more separate violations are committed in a 12-month period, suspend the producer from selling raw milk for 12 months; and prepare and distribute educational materials.
    • Bill I – Expenditure of moneys for the wild horse project. The bill extends, by three years, the time in which money appropriated to implement the wild horse project, created in Senate Bill 23-275, may be expended by the general assembly and the department of law.

    Wildfire Matters Review Committee

    The committee met four times during the 2023 interim.  The committee heard testimony from the Department of Public Safety, Division of Fire Prevention and Control, Northern Colorado Fireshed Collaboration, Department of Natural Resources, Colorado State Forest Service, Colorado Counties, Inc., University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, Colorado Rural Electric Association, Colorado Association of Municipal Utilities, Department of Public Health and Environment & Department of Public Safety, Colorado Forest Health Council, Center for Independence      , Center for People with Disabilities, Special District Association, American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Colorado Division of Insurance, Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety, Colorado State Fire Chiefs. The committee requested the drafting of nine bills and recommended the following five bills to the Legislative Council for consideration:

    • Bill A – A comprehensive study on biochar, including the use of biochar in wildfire mitigation efforts. The bill directs the Board of Governors of the Colorado State University System to conduct a comprehensive study on biochar, including its use in wildfire mitigation efforts. The board is required to submit a report on the findings of the study to specified committees of the general assembly.
    • Bill B –Strongly encouraging that emergency management plans address the needs of an individual with an animal during an emergency and that local governments make certain information publicly available relating to an individual with an animal during an emergency. The bill encourages a locally defined or interjurisdictional emergency management plan amended or created on or after July 1, 2024, to address the needs of an individual with an animal during an emergency by: including provisions for the evacuation, shelter, and transport of an individual with an animal and that animal; and requiring, to the extent practicable, that at least one shelter established during an emergency is designated to accommodate an individual with an animal. Encourages a city, county, or city and county to make available to the public information for animal emergency preparedness, including: information for creating an evacuation plan and emergency checklist for individuals with animals consistent with recommendations publicly published by the United States Department of Agriculture and the Federal Emergency Management Agency; local organizations that may provide emergency animal assistance; and local emergency shelters, cooling centers, or warming centers, when active, that can accommodate an individual with an animal.
    • Bill C – Assistance for rural communities to apply for wildfire-related grant money. The bill directs the Rural Opportunity Office in the Colorado Office of Economic Development to assist rural communities with identifying and applying for state or federal grants for wildfire mitigation, prevention, response, or risk management efforts. The office is required to prepare a report summarizing its work to assist rural communities with identifying and applying for wildfire-related grants and the report must include information about the rural communities that the office assists and the grants awarded. The office is required to submit the report to the committee or, if the committee no longer exists, to the legislative committees with jurisdiction over natural resources matters.
    • Bill D – Assisting local governments in disaster-related programs, including establishing the slash removal pilot program and providing guidance to local governments on debris removal programs.The bill establishes the slash removal pilot program under the wildfire mitigation incentives for local governments grant program administered by the Colorado State Forest Service. The forest service must establish the policies and procedures for the implementation and the selection of counties for participation in the pilot program. Requires the Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management in the Department of Public Safety to provide guidance to local governments concerning debris removal issues including: negotiating debris removal program terms with the federal emergency management agency to provide predictability and eliminate duplicate payments for debris removal; developing standard right of entry forms that include opt-in and opt-out provisions and clear insurance assignment of benefit language; establishing right-of-way cleanup procedures, including the removal of private vehicles, for public roadways; considering the removal of hazardous materials and other safety and environmental concerns; and ensuring that local debris removal programs are limited to residential debris removal and do not include commercial debris removal.
    • Bill E – The continuation of public outreach campaigns relating to wildfire risk mitigation in the wildland-urban interface. The bill requires the Colorado State Forest Service to conduct enhanced wildfire awareness month outreach campaigns through 2027 and other outreach efforts through the 2026-27 state fiscal year that are expected to increase awareness of wildfire risk mitigation by residents in the wildland-urban interface.
  • 2023 Interim Committee Recap – Part 2

    This is the second of three articles summarizing this year’s interim committee actions. As mentioned in Part 1 last week, we’re providing summaries of four of 12 committees and their recommended legislation. The Legislative Council met on Wednesday, November 15, to review interim committee legislation proposals. Click here to listen to the Legislative Council meeting.

    Legislative Oversight Committee Concerning the Treatment of Persons with Behavioral Health Disorders in the Criminal and Juvenile Justice Systems

    The committee met five times during the 2023 interim. It heard presentations from multiple stakeholders, behavioral and mental health advocates, and representatives from state executive departments concerning issues facing persons with behavioral health disorders who have been in contact, in one form or another, with the criminal or juvenile justice systems. The committee requested seven bills to be drafted and recommended the following five bills to the Legislative Council for consideration:

    • Bill A – Concerning persons detained in jail who are held on an emergency commitment. The bill prohibits a law enforcement officer or emergency officer or emergency service patrol officer who takes a person into protective custody from detaining a person in jail. Requires each local law enforcement agency that has taken a person into protective custody to provide an annual report to the Behavioral Health Administration that includes disaggregated and nonidentifying information concerning persons who were taken into protective custody. Requires each approved treatment facility or emergency medical services facility that detains or holds a person on an emergency commitment to provide a quarterly report to the Behavioral Health Administration.
    • Bill B – Concerning adult competency to stand trial. The bill reforms and clarifies the criminal competency to proceed process. Provides necessary parties with access to information related to the defendant’s claim of incompetency to proceed. Requires the Department of Human Services to search prior competency evaluations in its possession when the court orders a competency evaluation or the court finds the defendant incompetent to proceed and provide any evaluations to the court. Adds to the information that is included in a competency report. Delineates a court’s options when it finds that a defendant is incompetent to proceed. Directs when competency services may be provided on an outpatient basis. Sets forth the circumstances when a court has to dismiss the defendant’s case based on the highest level of charge against the defendant and how long the defendant has been waiting for restoration services.
    • Bill C – Concerning ongoing funding for the Colorado 911 resource center, and in connection therewith, requiring reporting to ensure that the funding is being expended efficiently and effectively, and making an appropriation.The bill requires the General Assembly to annually appropriate $250,000 from the general fund to the Department of Regulatory Agencies for use by the Public Utilities Commission to fund the operations of the Colorado 911 Resource Center. The center is required to provide a quarterly report outlining the use of the funding provided, and the commission is required to include an accounting of the expenditure and uses of this funding in an annual report that current law requires it to make to the members of the general assembly. The center is required to survey 911 professionals and local 911 emergency call authorities and summarize results in each quarterly report to the commission.
    • Bill D – Concerning expanding a program to continue responding to youth behavioral health crises.Under current law, the Department of Human Services offers statewide access to crisis system services for children and youth. The bill expands the services provided through the creation of the crisis resolution team program. The Behavioral Health Administration shall administer the program to provide community-based services to de-escalate and stabilize children or youth experiencing high-acuity behavioral health crises. The administration shall contract with crisis resolution team providers to provide community-based de-escalation and stabilization services to children or youth. The administration shall submit to the General Assembly a feasibility study to determine whether the program can be further expanded.
    • Bill E – Concerning considering factors related to the capability to participate in the judicial process in determining whether to place a person into a pretrial diversion program.The bill requires a district attorney’s office, or the office’s designee, to consider the use of a juvenile diversion program to prevent a juvenile who demonstrates behaviors or symptoms consistent with an intellectual and developmental disability, a mental or behavioral health issue, or a lack of mental capacity from further involvement in formal delinquency proceedings. Adds behavioral health services and services for juveniles with developmental disabilities to the types of services a juvenile may need and adds behavioral health treatment providers and providers who offer services to juveniles with developmental disabilities to the list of professionals who may provide the appropriate diversion services. If a defendant’s competency is raised or a defendant is found incompetent to proceed, the bill allows the defendant to enter into a diversion agreement if the court finds that the defendant has the ability to participate and is advised of the potential consequences of failure to comply.

    The Opioid and Other Substance Use Disorders Study Committee

    The committee met six times during the 2023 interim. It heard presentations from multiple stakeholders, state agencies, behavioral and mental health advocates, and other interested parties concerning the issues facing individuals with substance use disorders. The committee requested five bills to be drafted and recommended the following four bills to the Legislative Council for consideration:

    • Bill A – The Prevention of Substance Use Disorders. The bill modifies the prescription drug monitoring program by exempting veterinarians from complying with specific aspects of the program, adding reporting requirements for gabapentin, allowing the medical director of a medical practice or hospital to appoint designees to query the program, allowing the Department of Health Care Policy and Financing to access the program, and updating current language in the laws relating to the program by using more modern terminology. Creates the substance use disorder prevention gap grant program; permits a multidisciplinary and multiagency drug overdose fatality review team to request and receive information from certain specified persons and entities as necessary; and requires the substance use screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment grant program to implement a statewide adolescent program and referral practice for pediatricians and professionals in pediatric settings. Modifies the statewide perinatal substance use data linkage project and authorizes the University of Colorado School of Medicine to conduct a statewide opioid use disorder prevalence data linkage project.
    • Bill B – Treatment for Substance Use Disorders. The bill prohibits a carrier that provides coverage under a health benefit plan for a drug used to treat a substance use disorder from requiring prior authorization for the drug based solely on the dosage amount. Requires an insurance carrier and the medical assistance program to reimburse a licensed pharmacist prescribing or administering medication-assisted treatment pursuant to a collaborative pharmacy practice agreement at a rate equal to the reimbursement rate for other providers. Amends the practice of pharmacy to include prescriptive authority for any FDA-approved product or medication for opioid use disorder in accordance with federal law and requires that a protocol for pharmacists to prescribe, dispense, and administer medication-assisted treatment be developed. Authorizes certain licensed clinical social workers and licensed professional counselors to provide clinical supervision to individuals seeking certification as addiction technicians and addiction specialists and authorizes rules to be adopted relating to this clinical supervision. Establishes the behavioral health diversion pilot program and expands the medication-assisted treatment expansion pilot program. Requires the Department of Health Care Policy and Financing to seek federal authorization to provide certain screenings for physical and behavioral health needs to persons up to 90 days prior to release from jail, a juvenile institutional facility, or a Department of Corrections facility. Requires the Department of Health Care Policy and Financing to seek federal authorization to provide partial hospitalization for substance use disorder treatment, adds substance use disorder treatment to the list of health-care or mental health-care services that are required to be reimbursed at the same rate for telemedicine as in-person services, and places additional requirements on managed care entities and the Behavioral Health Administration.
    • Bill C – Substance use Disorders Harm Reduction. The bill excludes injuries involving the possession of drugs or drug paraphernalia from a physician’s mandatory reporting requirements. Clarifies that the civil and criminal immunity that protects a person who acts in good faith to furnish or administer an opioid antagonist also protects a person who distributes the opioid antagonist. Adds an exemption to the prohibition on possessing drug paraphernalia for possession of drug paraphernalia that a person received from an approved syringe exchange program or a program carried out by a harm reduction organization while the person was participating in the program. Specifies that money appropriated to the Department of Public Health and Environment to purchase non-laboratory synthetic opiate detection tests may also be used to purchase other drug testing equipment. Authorizes an organization operating a clean syringe exchange program to provide drug testing services through the program. Updates the term “opiate antagonist” to “opioid antagonist”.
    • Bill D – Substance Use Disorders Recovery. The bill implements a voluntary designation process for recovery-friendly workplaces. Allows a school district to include in the annual pupil count a student who has transferred to a recovery high school before the pupil count date. Allows a recovery community organization that receives a grant through the recovery support services grant program to use the money to provide guidance to individuals on the many pathways for recovery. Declares that recovery residences, sober living facilities, and sober homes are a residential use of land for zoning purposes. Places restrictions on where liquor-licensed drugstores and fermented malt beverage and wine retailers may display alcohol beverages on the stores’ licensed premises.

    Pension Review Commission and Pension Review Subcommittee

    The commission met twice during the 2023 interim. It heard presentations from the Fire and Police Pension Association and the Public Employees’ Retirement Association. In addition, the commission heard proposals for legislation from its own Pension Review Subcommittee. The subcommittee met three times during the 2023 interim to: (1) Hear presentations from PERA; (2) Discuss proposed legislation and questions to be submitted to PERA; (3) Hear from PERA regarding answers to their submitted questions; (4) Discuss inflation relief for PERA retirees; and (5) Discuss its annual reports to the General Assembly and the citizens of Colorado. The commission requested that six bills be drafted and recommended the four following bills to the Legislative Council for introduction:

    • Bill A – Additional PERA Service Retirees for Schools. With limited exceptions, current law limits the number of service retirees that a state college or university or an employer in the school or Denver Public Schools division of the Public Employees’ Retirement Association can hire, without a reduction in the service retirees’ benefits, to 10 service retirees when an employer determines there is a critical shortage of qualified candidates. The bill allows an employer to hire such service retirees when the employer determines there is a need. Authorizes an employer in the school or Denver Public Schools division with a student enrollment above 10,000 to hire, without a reduction in service retirees’ benefits, an additional service retiree for each 1,000 students enrolled above 10,000. An employer with 10,000 students or less will continue to be allowed to hire 10 service retirees. The bill requires an employer in the school or Denver Public Schools division to provide PERA with a list of all employed service retirees by September 1 of an applicable calendar year.
    • Bill B – PERA Retiree Refundable Income Tax Credit. The bill creates a refundable income tax credit that is available for income tax years commencing on or after January 1, 2024, but prior to January 1, 2026, for a qualifying public employees’ retirement association retiree, which means a full-time Colorado resident individual who is 65 years of age or older at the end of the 2024 or 2025 income tax year; and has an annual gross income of no more than $38,000 as a single filer or $76,000 as a joint filer.
    • Bill C – Fire and Police Pension Law Technical Corrections. House Bill 22-1034 merged three retirement plans administered by the Fire and Police Pension Association, the statewide defined benefit plan, the statewide hybrid plan, and the social security supplemental plan into a single statewide retirement plan. House Bill 22-1034 accomplished the merger in part by repealing several statutes and relocating some of the substantive provisions of those statutes into new statutes. In doing so, certain statutory cross references were not properly updated to reflect the repeals and relocations. The bill updates the obsolete statutory cross references. Updates the definition of “member” in the new hire pension plan statute to clarify that a portion of the definition applies only for purposes of the statewide money purchase plan. Repeals an inapplicable portion of the definition of “member” in the statewide retirement plan statute.
    • Bill D – State Contribution to FPPA Death & Disability Fund. For members of the Fire and Police Pension Association hired before January 1, 1997, death and disability benefits are paid from state money in the statewide death and disability trust fund. State funding for this benefit discontinued in 1997 based on an assumption that the last payment had fully funded all the benefits to be paid. An actuarial analysis from 2021 determined that the payment in 1997 was not sufficient to cover the benefit obligations associated with members hired prior to January 1, 1997. The 2021 actuarial analysis indicated a shortfall of $33.191 million. The state made payments to cover a portion of this shortfall. Based on the 2023 actuarial calculation, the remaining shortfall is now $27.39 million. The bill requires the state treasurer to pay a total of $27.39 million, in three equal payments of $9.13 million, to be made on July 1, 2024, July 1, 2025, and July 1, 2026, to the association for it to deposit into the trust fund so that there will be sufficient money to pay future death and disability benefits to these members.

    Recidivism Interim Study Committee

    The committee met three times during the 2023 interim to review Colorado state agency and department definitions of recidivism; examine other state and academic approaches to defining recidivism; review means other than recidivism that can be used to measure program success; and evaluate aligning agency and department recidivism definitions. It heard presentations from the National Conference of State Legislatures, the Treatment of Persons with Behavioral Health Disorders in the Criminal and Juvenile Justice System Task Force, various state departments, the state board of parole, the state public defender, the judicial branch, and experts in the field of criminal justice and recidivism. The committee requested three bills be drafted and recommended each of the three drafts to the Legislative Council for its consideration.

    • Bill A – Creating a Working Group to Develop a Definition of Recidivism. The bill requires the Division of Criminal Justice in the Department of Public Safety to convene a working group to develop a definition of “recidivism” to be used by each state entity that collects data or reports on recidivism in any report issued by the entity. The working group shall develop a definition of “recidivism” no later than January 15, 2025, and each state entity that collects data or reports on recidivism in any report issued by the entity shall begin using the working group’s definition on July 1, 2025.
    • Bill B – A Study of How to Measure the Effectiveness of the Criminal Justice System Using Metrics Other Than Recidivism. The bill creates the alternative metrics to measure criminal justice system performance working group to study metrics and methods, other than measuring recidivism, to supplement the current measure of recidivism; measure risk-reduction outcomes; comprehensively measure successful outcomes that consider various aspects of life, including employment, housing, education, mental health, personal well-being, social supports, and civic and community engagement; and more effectively measure criminal justice system performance. The working group shall submit a report to the House of Representatives Health and Insurance and Judiciary committees and the Senate Health and Human Services and Judiciary committees on or before July 1, 2025.
    • Bill C – A Study to Examine How Individuals Proceed Through the Criminal and Juvenile Justice Systems. The bill requires the Division of Criminal Justice in the Department of Public Safety to conduct a study to examine how individuals proceed through the various stages of criminal and juvenile justice proceedings, including sentences and alternative sentencing programs. The division shall solicit proposals for an entity to assist with the study. The bill requires the division to submit a report of its findings to the Joint Budget Committee and Judiciary committees of the House of Representatives and the Senate by June 30, 2025.

    Next week in Part 3, the final part of this series, will summarize the actions of four additional committees that met during this interim.

  • 2023 Interim Committee Recap – Part 1

    Several legislative committees held public meetings since the end of the last legislative session to discuss topics relevant to Colorado and to recommend legislation to the Legislative Council committee for approval for introduction in 2024. In this article we’re providing summaries of four of 12 committees and their recommended legislation. This is the first of three articles summarizing this interim’s committee actions. The Legislative Council met on Wednesday, November 15, to review interim committee legislation proposals. Click here to listen to the Legislative Council meeting.

    Colorado Health Insurance Exchange Oversight Committee

    The committee met twice during the interim and heard various updates on the insurance marketplace around the state. In particular, the committee heard updates from:

    • Connect for Health Colorado (the state health benefit exchange) regarding financial and enrollment assistance available for customers, the exchange’s preparations for open enrollment, how the exchange has assisted customers in maintaining coverage after Friday Health Plans left the market, and requested technical changes to the laws governing the exchange, its board of directors, and the committee;
    • The Department of Health Care Policy and Financing concerning the process to unwind Medicaid from expansions under the public health emergency and its efforts, through a health education campaign supported by the exchange board and the Medicaid to Marketplace Bridge, to help enrollees losing eligibility for Medicaid to transition to private health coverage plans available through the exchange; and
    • The Division of Insurance concerning the Affordable Care Act 1332 waiver, preliminary 2024 health insurance rates, and the division’s rate review timeline.

    The committee recommended one bill to the Legislative Council to modify provisions governing the state health benefit exchange  by eliminating the requirement for the board of directors of the exchange to submit a report on the development of the exchange to the Governor and the General Assembly by January 15, and instead requiring the report to be submitted annually and to address open enrollment; requiring the board to also present an open enrollment update to specified legislative committees during each legislative session; requiring the exchange, rather than the board, to annually present to the committee the exchange’s financial and operational plans and the major actions taken by the board; modifying the number of meetings of the committee during the interim; and eliminating from the committee membership appointees who are members of the legislative audit committee.

    Colorado Youth Advisory Council Review Committee

    The committee met three times during the interim. It heard presentations from its student members about gun violence, hygiene products, Asian American and Pacific Islander history, gender-affirming care, non-legal name changes, and increasing the number of school psychologists. The committee had six bills drafted and recommended the following three bills to the Legislative Council.

    • Bill A – Non-legal Name Changes. The bill requires public schools to use a student’s preferred name if requested by the student. A school’s refusal to use a student’s preferred name is deemed a form of discrimination. It creates a task force in the department of education to examine existing school policies and provide recommendations to schools on how to best implement student non-legal name change policies.
    • Bill B – School Mental Health Professional Loan Repayment Program. The bill creates a loan repayment program in the department of higher education to provide loan repayment of up to $10,000 to eligible school counselors, school psychologists, and school social workers who provide mental health services to students who have limited access to mental health services.
    • Bill C – Availability of Youth Gender-affirming Care Training. The bill requires the Department of Public Health and Environment to conduct a gender-affirming health-care provider study. The bill outlines required topics for the study, including the type and availability of gender-affirming health-care services available to patients; issues impacting gender-affirming health-care providers and facilities; and the availability of insurance coverage for different types of treatment.

    Colorado’s Child Welfare System Interim Study Committee

    The committee met five times during the 2023 interim. It requested 10 bills be drafted and recommended the following five bills to the Legislative Council:

    • Bill A – Concerning increasing support for kinship foster care homes. The bill makes changes to kinship care in Colorado, including expanding emergency assistance for kinship homes to include goods for basic care; establishing the process for a kinship home to apply for certification; allowing a kinship home to opt out of the certification process but remain eligible for supports; and making kinship homes eligible for the same reimbursement and supports as foster care homes.
    • Bill B – Concerning establishing a children’s behavioral health statewide system of care. The bill requires the creation of a statewide comprehensive children’s behavioral health system of care to serve as the point of access to address the behavioral health needs of children and youth up to 21 years of age who have mental health disorders, substance use disorders, co-occurring behavioral health disorders, or intellectual and developmental disabilities, regardless of payer, insurance, and income.
    • Bill C – Concerning addressing the high-acuity crisis for children and youth in need of residential care. The bill requires the Department of Health Care Policy and Financing, the Behavioral Health Administration, and the Department of Human Services to develop a high-acuity system of care for children and youth who are less than 21 years of age and who have complex behavioral health needs.
    • Bill D – Concerning measures to increase accessibility provided to persons who are involved in matters regarding a child’s welfare. The bill requires that certain services provided to children or their families comply with the provisions of Title VI of the federal “Civil Rights Act of 1964” if they are provided by a county department, city and county, or a private-entity contractor, including access to services in a primary language for a person with limited English proficiency. The bill also requires a court to provide language access, including translation and interpretation services, to parties in dependency and neglect cases for those with limited English.
    • Bill E – Concerning measures to enhance child welfare system tools. The bill requires the state Department of Human Services to develop and implement a screening process for county departments of human or social services to follow in responding to reports and inquiries to the hotline system. The screening must include questions about domestic violence and a procedure to determine demographic information. The bill also requires an audit of the Colorado family safety assessment and the Colorado family risk assessment on or before January 15, 2025.

    Legislative Oversight Committee Concerning Tax Policy

    The committee met five times during the interim. It heard presentations on the affordable housing tax credit, the Attorney General’s opinion concerning the Tyler v. Hennepin County case, affordable housing for low income individuals, the Department of Local Affairs and the Office of Economic Development and International Trade’s administration of Proposition 123, and property tax “circuit breakers”. 

    Additionally, the state auditor’s office presented tax expenditure evaluations. The committee also set forth the scope of tax policies to be considered by its subordinate Task Force Concerning Tax Policy to include applying the state income tax to federal adjusted gross income rather than federal taxable income, the construction of affordable housing units, options for addressing the affordability of home ownership and rental housing, and the creation of a permanent fund associated with the state’s levy and collection of severance tax. The committee requested 10 bills for drafting and recommended five to the Legislative Council for introduction:

    • Bill A – Adjustment of tax expenditures.  The bill eliminates 15 infrequently used tax exemptions, deductions, and credits.  It also modifies several tax expenditures, including increasing the health care preceptors tax credit, increasing the wildfire mitigation measures tax credit, requiring tax-free entities to file a tax return, and expanding a sales tax exemption to include modular homes. 
    • Bill B – Process for issuance of a treasurer’s deed for property subject to a property tax lien.  The bill establishes a process by which the lawful holder of a certificate of purchase of a tax lien may apply for a public auction for the sale of a certificate of option for treasurer’s deed. If the public auction results in an “overbid”, meaning the purchaser of the sale of a certificate of option for treasurer’s deed pays an amount in excess of the value of the tax lien, then the amount of the overbid must be paid in order of recording priority to junior lienors who have filed a notice of intent to redeem. After payment to all lienors, any remaining overbid must be paid to the owner of the property subject to the tax lien. By providing for payment of any remaining overbid amount to the property owner, the bill brings Colorado law into compliance with the United States Supreme Court’s recent decision affirming a property owner’s constitutional right to the value of their property in excess of their tax debt.
    • Bill C – Property tax treatment of real property that is used to provide lodging.  The bill provides that a short-term rental property leased for short-term stays for more than ninety days in a property tax year is classified as lodging property. 
    • Bill D – Analysis of tax policy by the state legislative branch.  The bill modifies requirements for evaluating state tax expenditures, requires the state auditor to prepare an annual report on federal tax law and changes that have significant impact on the state’s tax base, and extends the Legislative Oversight Committee Concerning Tax Policy and the Task Force Concerning Tax Policy.
    • Bill E – Reinstatement of an income tax credit to help income-qualified seniors afford housing.  The bill reinstates a refundable income tax credit that was available for income tax year 2022 so that the credit is available for income tax year 2024.  The credit is available for a person who is sixty-five years of age or older at the end of 2024, has an adjusted gross income that is $75,000 or less for a single return and $150,000 or less if filing a joint return, and has not claimed the senior property tax exemption for the 2024 property tax year.

    Next week Part 2 of this series will summarize the actions of four additional committees that met during this interim. And Part 3 will summarize the last four committees the following week.

  • Changes to the Safety Clause: What’s Old is New Again

    by Conrad Imel and Pierce Lively

    You might be familiar with the “safety clause” that is included at the end of some bills, but that clause now looks a little different. To better reflect the language in the Colorado Constitution, for all bills going forward the safety clause will be:

    “The general assembly finds, determines, and declares that this act is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety or for appropriations for the support and maintenance of the departments of the state and state institutions.” (New language in bold.)

    In this article, we will explain a little background about the safety clause and why the Office of Legislative Legal Services decided to make this technical change.

    The language of the safety clause derives from the stated exception to the referendum power described in article V, section 1 of the Colorado Constitution. At the general election held in 1910, Colorado voters adopted an amendment to the constitution to give the people the authority to make laws through the powers of initiative and referendum (for more information about both the initiative and referendum powers, check out this LegiSource article). The referendum power as set forth in article V, section 1 (3) reads as follows:

    “(3)  The second power hereby reserved is the referendum, and it may be ordered, except as to laws necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety, and appropriations for the support and maintenance of the departments of state and state institutions, against any act or item, section, or part of any act of the general assembly, either by a petition signed by registered electors in an amount equal to at least five percent of the total number of votes cast for all candidates for the office of the secretary of state at the previous general election or by the general assembly. [. . .].”

    What this means is that the people of Colorado may rescind all or part of an act passed by the General Assembly. By collecting and submitting signatures to the Secretary of State, an individual may place all or part of an act on the ballot for voter approval or disapproval. There is an exception, however, to this power: if the act is necessary 1) for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety; or 2) for appropriations to support a state agency or institution. The General Assembly invokes the exception by including a “safety clause” at the end of the act.

    The very first bill enacted with a safety clause, House Bill 348 adopted in 1913, referenced both types of laws excepted from the referendum power: “In the opinion of the General Assembly this act is necessary for the support and maintenance of the department of State and state institutions and it is hereby declared to be necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health and safety.” Initially, the General Assembly used inconsistent safety clause language, but for the past 75 years or so, the safety clause has only included the language related to the act being necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety.

    Which brings us to today. Prompted by discussions among Office of Legislative Legal Services staff, the Joint Budget Committee and Joint Budget Committee staff, the Office of Legislative Legal Services has decided to update the safety clause to reflect both types of acts excepted from the referendum power: preservation of the public peace, health, or safety, or appropriations to support a state agency or institution. This change does not alter the standard for when a safety clause may be included on a bill; it merely makes the safety clause better reflect the language in the constitution. It remains within the General Assembly’s discretion to invoke an exception to the referendum power by including a safety clause.

    Office of Legislative Legal Services staff has updated existing bill drafts that include a safety clause, including interim committee bill drafts, with the updated language. We hope this article helps legislators and the public understand the updated safety clause that they’ll start seeing on bills.

  • Happy Thanksgiving!

    A view of the capitol dome through orange leaves

    Happy Thanksgiving from the Office of Legislative Legal Services 

  • What’s So Special About a Special Session?

    Editor’s note: This article was originally posted on May 10, 2012, and has been updated with information pertaining to the upcoming special session commencing November 17, 2023.

    The Governor recently issued an executive order calling the General Assembly into a legislative special session. At this point, many legislators and other people may be wondering what, exactly, is a special session and how does it work?

    The most obvious things that are different about a special legislative session are:

    1. The General Assembly is in session even though the regular, 120-day legislative session has ended, and they can remain in session as long as they choose to do so; and
    2. The General Assembly is limited to addressing only certain subjects while meeting in special session.

    Governor’s Authority: Article IV, section 9 of the Colorado constitution authorizes the Governor to convene the General Assembly “on extraordinary occasions” by a proclamation, known as “the call,” that specifies the purposes for which the General Assembly is to convene. The only business the General Assembly may transact during the special session is the business the Governor specifically identifies in the call. The Governor decides what is an extraordinary occasion and sets the agenda of issues that the General Assembly may consider. The Governor’s call also sets the date and time at which the special session must begin.

    The Governor’s recent call and subsequent amendments to the call, direct the General Assembly to convene in special session at 9:00 a.m. on November 17, 2023. The Governor has identified several issues that the General Assembly may consider, mostly related to addressing the effects of Colorado’s rising home values and corresponding increases in property tax bills to provide relief to those affected by the steep rise in in the cost of living:

    • Concerning a property tax relief package to reduce Coloradans’ property tax burden in 2023;
    • Concerning the fiscal impact of the tax relief package on the interests of schools and local governments that are funded with property tax potentially utilizing reserves, TABOR surplus, and general fund;
    • Concerning necessary administrative changes attributed to the tax relief package only for 2023;
    • Concerning TABOR refund mechanisms only for the 2022-2023 fiscal year;
    • Concerning rental assistance only during the 2023-2024 fiscal year;
    • Concerning adjustments to the Earned Income Tax Credit only for the 2023 tax year, utilizing resources available from the 2022-2023 fiscal year;
    • Concerning the creation of a process to review and make recommendations on long-term-property relief; and
    • Concerning the nutrition of over 300,000 food-insecure Colorado children during the summer months by establishing departmental authority to authorize the Summer Electronic Benefits Transfer program in Colorado beginning in summer 2024.

    Agenda Items: The Governor sets the agenda items, but the Colorado Supreme Court has held that he cannot prescribe the specific form of legislation; he cannot describe the agenda items so narrowly that the General Assembly is forced, in the words of the Court, “to do the bidding of the governor, or not act at all.” The General Assembly decides whether to enact legislation to address the agenda items and, if enacted, how the legislation will address the agenda items.

    It is the advice of the Office of Legislative Legal Services that the question of whether a bill or resolution fits within the agenda items is a substantive, not a procedural, question and cannot be decided by a ruling of the chair of a committee or by a ruling of the President of the Senate or the Speaker of the House of Representatives. Similar to deciding whether a bill is constitutional, the Senate and the House of Representatives decide whether a bill fits within the agenda items when they vote on the bill or resolution.

    Timing: Although the General Assembly must convene on the date and time specified in the call, the General Assembly need not pass, nor even consider, any legislation while in special session, and the General Assembly decides how long the session will last. The Governor may not set a date by which the General Assembly must adjourn.

    General Assembly’s Authority: During a special session, the General Assembly retains its full plenary authority, other than being limited to considering only the agenda items. The General Assembly may convene and, after establishing the presence of a quorum, immediately adjourn. The General Assembly may consider but refuse to pass any legislation during a special session, or it may pass one or more bills that address one or more of the agenda items on the Governor’s call. The Governor has no authority to either force the General Assembly to stay in session or force the General Assembly to adjourn.

    Rules and Procedure: Although the agenda is limited, a special session operates under the same constitutional requirements and legislative rules, other than the deadline schedule, that apply during a regular session:

    • Each bill must have a single subject;
    • Each introduced bill must be assigned to a committee and receive consideration and a vote on the merits; and
    • The vote on second reading and the vote on third reading must occur on different calendar days, so it still takes at least three days to pass a bill.

    All of the legislative rules with regard to committees and the operations of the Senate and the House that apply in a regular legislative session also apply in a special legislation session. If you have additional questions about how the General Assembly operates during a special session, please consult the special session FAQ memo available on the Office of Legislative Legal Services website

  • The Borders of Colorado: From Kansas Territory to Statehood – Part 2

    by Sarah Meisch

    Colorado’s State Lines

    In Part 1 of this series, we explored how the US created its states, prioritizing geometric simplicity over geographical variance. Colorado stands uniquely symmetrical and rectangular among other states, and Part 2 of this series will examine how Colorado’s shape and dimensions were placed – and why its borders have been so controversial.

    Throughout its history, Colorado has been under the control of France, Spain, Mexico, the Republic of Texas, and the US. The Rocky Mountains formed a natural barrier between the American-owned Louisiana Purchase lands and the area belonging to Spanish Mexico. What would become the western and southern parts of Colorado were acquired by the US government through the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. Before the Anglo population grew in Colorado, the land was occupied by several indigenous tribes, including the Ute, Jicarilla Apache, Arapaho, Anasazi, Navajo, Comanche, Cheyenne, Kiowa, Pueblo, and Shoshone. Many of these tribes were forced to consolidate or give up their land when white settlers moved into the region. When Kansas Territory was created in 1854, most of central Colorado and the eastern plains were absorbed into Kansas; the parts of Colorado that lay west of the Rocky Mountains had become part of Utah Territory in 1850. 

    Following the Pike’s Peak gold rush of 1858-1860, the Front Range and foothills of the Rocky Mountains became more heavily populated, with most of the growth attributed to young and single male miners. The population would diminish over the following years as the spoils of the gold rush faded and the lawlessness of the region made the area unsettling for young families.

    With Kansas Territory’s capital being in eastern Kansas, inhabitants of present-day Colorado began to wish for a closer form of government, as well as more locally-enforced law enforcement of the region. In November 1858, Denver residents elected a delegate to the US Congress to officially request that Congress create a new territory.

    Colorado’s request was particularly troublesome, as the territorial population was strongly Republican, and Southern Democrats were concerned they would not find support in the area. In the heat of deadlock over the slavery debate, Congress would refuse to act on this request until 1861.

    In 1859, Colorado residents decided to take matters into their own hands and, without congressional approval, formed Jefferson Territory, named after the president who had overseen the Louisiana Purchase. For a year and a half, the territory illegitimately elected officials, created territorial boundaries, and established a legislature that adopted legislation related to personal and civil rights. The enlarged borders of Jefferson Territory would have made Colorado about 70% larger than it is today and would have included areas within Wyoming, Nebraska, Utah, and Kansas. This additional land would have contained much of the gold and silver of the region for mining and would also have brought the territory agricultural land, diversifying the economy of the territory from relying entirely on mineral resources. Geographically centering the Rocky Mountains within Jefferson Territory, rather than placing the mountains at the borders, would also “prevent disputes over profitable mining claims.”[1]

    Creating a provisional territory was not unusual. Other parts of the country had instituted provisional governments until Congress officially recognized territorial governments: Deseret became Utah and the State of Franklin became Tennessee. Jefferson Territory adopted a similar extralegal approach until Congress had established an official territory.

    A census found that Colorado was occupied by only 34,277 residents in 1860, making it too small to be a state but large enough for another structure of government. And most Colorado voters refused to vote for statehood when they had the opportunity in 1864, due to the higher taxation associated with new statehood. As a territory, the federal government footed the bills; however, this made the extralegal entity of Jefferson Territory unable to collect taxes from residents.

    Jefferson Territory ceased to exist when Congress and President Buchanan created the Colorado Territory on February 28, 1861. Members of Congress opposed naming states and territories after individuals, so the name Jefferson was dropped. Although some legislators favored naming the new territory “Idaho,” the delegate from Colorado successfully convinced legislators that “Colorado” would be a more fitting name, as the Colorado River started within the territory. Jefferson County is the sole remaining county from Jefferson Territory. 

    In the 1860s, there were several attempts by residents to make Colorado a state, but with Civil War and Reconstruction era policies dividing up the political scene in Washington, Colorado was not admitted as a state until 1876.[2] 

    The Borders of Colorado

    The eastern border of Colorado was determined by Kansas’ western border when Kansas achieved statehood in 1861, only a month before Colorado Territory was created. A contentious statehood debate raged over the possibility of a “Big Kansas,” which would have included large swaths of Nebraska and possibly areas of Colorado that had already been part of Kansas Territory. Some Kansans raised concerns over how the population of the mining areas in Colorado would upset the balance of power in Kansas. During the 1859 Wyandotte constitutional convention in Kansas, some local delegates claimed that eastern and western Kansas Territory varied too widely in culture and politics or that the Kansas government was too far away from the mining areas of Colorado to provide much responsiveness; linking these areas permanently in statehood would raise the potential for conflict. Others were concerned with the cost of having such a large state, with Republican delegate and future Kansas congressman M.F. Conway stating, “Had we retained the Pike’s Peak region, the mere mileage of the members of the Legislature and officers going to and returning from the State capital would more than exceed the cost of the whole State government.” Political divisions were clear on the matter, as “many Democrats opposed the exclusion of the western territory, while many Republicans approved of the rejection.”[3]

    The arguments for keeping part of present-day Colorado with Kansas were resource-driven. Some wanted the wealth of the mining industry in the Rockies to flow to Kansas, and others believed that the railroad builders would look favorably upon investing in Kansas with its connections to Colorado mineral resources. A few members of the convention argued that cutting off the Rockies and their mining settlements would bring the population of Kansas down to a point where statehood would be off the table, as territories needed to cross a certain population threshold to become a state.

    In 1859, the Wyandotte constitutional convention agreed with the “Little Kansas” proponents, which gave the state of Kansas its current size. Creating a homogenous Kansas and allowing the miners to create a government for their region was well-received in both Colorado and Kansas.

    When Colorado residents, including many miners, drew the boundaries for the extralegal Jefferson Territory, the same line was drawn with Kansas, exemplifying inhabitants’ agreement with Kansas’ proposed boundary line. Kansas became a state in 1861, solidifying the boundaries voted on in the Wyandotte constitution.

    Congress drew Colorado’s western borders according to the equitable principles outlined in Part 1, and with the western landscape largely open, Congress had a chance to make border divisions as equal as possible. The prairie states of North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, and Kansas all have three latitudinal degrees of height. Colorado, Wyoming, and Montana have four latitudinal degrees of height – the extra degree, given out of fairness, allows for the less arable agricultural land these states share. Colorado, Wyoming, the Dakotas, Oregon, and Washington also have nearly seven longitudinal degrees of width per state. This was intentionally done to promote border equality in the western states. Therefore, the western border Colorado shares with Utah was drawn to give the state seven longitudinal degrees of width from the border with Kansas.

    The northern border of Colorado was initially proposed to be drawn at the 42nd parallel, aligning with a 1790 agreement called the Nootka Convention, which was signed between England and Spain as a way of dividing their interests in western North America. This line currently provides borders for Oregon, California, Idaho, Nevada, and Utah.

    However, Congress wanted to ensure that four longitudinal degrees of height in Colorado were observed, so the northern border was lowered by a degree, as the southern border with New Mexico Territory had already been loosely planned in 1850. This allowed Wyoming and Montana to have four longitudinal degrees of height when they became states years later.

    The northern border of Colorado was initially proposed to be drawn at the 42nd parallel, aligning with a 1790 agreement called the Nootka Convention, which was signed between England and Spain as a way of dividing their interests in western North America. This line currently provides borders for Oregon, California, Idaho, Nevada, and Utah. However, Congress wanted to ensure that four longitudinal degrees of height in Colorado were observed, so the northern border was lowered by a degree, as the southern border with New Mexico Territory had already been loosely planned in 1850. This allowed Wyoming and Montana to have four longitudinal degrees of height when they became states years later.

     Colorado’s southern border with New Mexico was largely determined by the territorial acts of Utah and New Mexico in 1850 and has been rooted in controversy and violence. Colorado residents initially lobbied for Jefferson Territory to include northern New Mexico. There were several gold mines in the north central part of New Mexico Territory, and Coloradans wanted access to as much gold as possible to sustain its thriving mining industry. This expansion also unconstitutionally included a corner of Texas. When Congress set the southern border at the 37th parallel, it did so with the same logic that determined Colorado’s northern border – a desire to create a column of states with the same height and width. Simplicity of shape and size were prioritized over geography, and the border setting truncated the Hispano population in the San Luis Valley of New Mexico Territory. This set off animosity at the local level and in Congress. 

    In May of 1862, the House of Representatives debated dividing New Mexico in order to create Arizona Territory, and New Mexico’s delegates voiced anger over Colorado’s border with New Mexico Territory. John S. Watts, the delegate from New Mexico, recalled how residents of the San Luis Valley were betrayed when Colorado Territory was made “merely for the purpose of beautifying the lines of the new Territory of Colorado.” The following year, New Mexico’s legislature expressed resentment at the loss of territory and memorialized Congress about the boundary with Colorado, which had been left unsurveyed. New Mexico claimed that Colorado had taken advantage of the unsurveyed land and had started exercising their authority much further south than they were entitled to. 

    In 1865, New Mexico delegate Francisco Perea spoke before the House Committee on the Territories in favor of bringing the San Luis Valley settlements back into New Mexico Territory. He derided the “evenness and symmetry” of Colorado’s southern boundary, stating that the focus on a straight border cut off a fertile part of New Mexico and betrayed the long-standing interests of people who had always belonged to the rest of the New Mexico Hispano culture. His sentiments were echoed by the Santa Fe Weekly Gazette, which wrote that although clean-cut borders were pleasing to the eye, the border setting between New Mexico and Colorado did a disservice to the local population of Hispanos. In the end, Congress refused to change Colorado’s southern border, beyond addressing small surveying inaccuracies.

    Surveying ambiguities over the exact location of the border were left unresolved by Congress over the years, despite mounting frustration from New Mexico. In 1925, the US Supreme Court deemed that although a more accurate survey of the border existed, the boundary in force took precedence over a later survey. This confirmed that New Mexico would officially lose thousands of acres to Colorado.

    So it is that Colorado stretches from 37 degrees to 41 degrees latitude and 25 degrees to 32 degrees longitude. And you might be surprised to learn that it does not have four sides, but 697 – due to a large amount of small surveying errors. There have been attempts to change Colorado’s borders; as recently as 2013, northeastern Colorado county commissioners encouraged a small movement for the area to become its own state, which would be known as North Colorado or New Colorado. This was mostly a symbolic discussion, as some Colorado counties wanted to make a statement against policies being made at the state level. The boundaries determined by the state constitution in 1876, however, have not changed since Colorado became a state.

    Colorado’s borders were influenced by a desire by the US government to create states of equitable size, placing a priority on geometric design instead of working around or with geographic barriers. Colorado’s four borders are consistent with this policy and have given us a uniquely symmetrical shape and size on the nation’s map.


    [1] Everett, “Creating the American West,” 14.

    [2] To read more about Colorado’s failed attempts at achieving statehood before 1876, please see the following article: https://www.denverpost.com/2006/07/31/civil-rights-role-in-colorado-statehood/

    [3] Gower, “Kansas Territory and Its Boundary Question.”

    References

    Abbott, Carl, Stephen J Leonard, and Thomas J Noel. Colorado: A History of the Centennial State. Fifth. Boulder, Colorado: University Press of Colorado, 2013.

    American Library Association. “Indigenous Tribes of Colorado.” American Library Association, November 21, 2017. https://www.ala.org/aboutala/offices/denver-colorado-tribes.

    “Articles of Confederation (1777).” National Archives and Records Administration. Accessed August 31, 2023. https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/articles-of-confederation#:~:text=The%20Articles%20of%20Confederation%20were,day%20Constitution%20went%20into%20effect

    Berwanger, Eugene H. The Rise of the Centennial State: Colorado Territory, 1861-76. Urbana, Illinois: University Of Illinois Press, 2007.

    Cengage. “Jefferson Territory | Encyclopedia.com.” www.encyclopedia.com. Accessed June 6, 2023. https://www.encyclopedia.com/history/dictionaries-thesauruses-pictures-and-press-releases/jefferson-territory.

    Everett, Derek R. Creating the American West: Boundaries and Borderlands. Norman, Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma Press, 2014.

    Frederic Logan Paxson. History of the American Frontier, 1763-1893. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The Riverside Press, 1924.

    ‌Geurts, Jennie. 2014. “How Rivers Shaped the Shape of Colorado.” Water Education Colorado. July 24, 2014. https://www.watereducationcolorado.org/publications-and-radio/blog/how-rivers-shaped-the-shape-of-colorado/.

    Gower, Calvin. “Kansas Territory and Its Boundary Question, 1: ‘Big Kansas’ or ‘Little Kansas.’” Www.kshs.org 33, no. 1 (1967): 1–12. https://www.kshs.org/p/kansas-historical-quarterly-kansas-territory-and-its-boundary-question/13180.

    History, Art & Archives: United States House of Representatives. “Draft Bill for Colorado Territory | US House of Representatives: History, Art & Archives.” history.house.gov. Accessed June 6, 2023. https://history.house.gov/HouseRecord/Detail/15032436207.

    History Colorado. “Carving up a Continent: State Boundaries in the American West, Feat. Dr. Derek Everett.” www.youtube.com, October 5, 2021. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUit0Mj5QH8.

    History Colorado, and Michael Troyer. “Colorado Territory | Articles | Colorado Encyclopedia.” Coloradoencyclopedia.org, February 25, 2016. https://coloradoencyclopedia.org/article/colorado-territory.

    Humeyumptewa, Aleks, and Tracie Etheredge. “An Inventory of the Records of Arapahoe County, Colorado.” Denver, Colorado: The Colorado Historical Society, 1994. https://www.historycolorado.org/sites/default/files/media/documents/2018/mss.00015_arapahoe_county_colorado.pdf.

    “Is Colorado a Square State?” 2016. Denver Public Library History. August 1, 2016. https://history.denverlibrary.org/news/colorado-square-state.

    Jacobs, Frank. “Colorado Is Not a Rectangle—It Has 697 Sides.” Atlas Obscura. Big Think, April 14, 2023. https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/is-colorado-a-rectangle.

    Library Of Congress, and Sponsoring Body Library Of Congress. Center For The Book. How the States Got Their Shapes. Washington, D.C.: Library of Congress, -07-15, 2008. Video. https://www.loc.gov/item/2021687996/.

    Maness, Jack. “When Colorado Was Kansas, and the Nation Was (Even More?) Divided.” Denver Public Library, January 26, 2017. https://history.denverlibrary.org/news/when-colorado-was-kansas-and-nation-was-even-more-divided.

    Paxson, Frederic. “The Boundaries of Colorado.” The University of Colorado Studies 2, no. 2 (July 1904).

    Stein, Mark. How the States Got Their Shapes. New York: Smithsonian Books/Collins, 2008.

    The U.S. Today, with Dates of Statehood Wall Map. Mapszu. Accessed June 6, 2023. https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0268/2549/0485/products/maps.com-the-u.s.-today-with-dates-of-statehood-wall-map_2400x.jpg?v=1572562951.

    Trembath, Brian. “Jefferson Territory: The Renegade State That Almost Replaced Colorado.” Denver Public Library, June 24, 2020. https://history.denverlibrary.org/news/jefferson-territory-renegade-state-almost-replaced-colorado.

    www.native-languages.org. “Colorado Indian Tribes and Languages.” Native Languages of the Americas. Accessed June 6, 2023. http://www.native-languages.org/colorado.htm.

    Wikipedia. “Colorado Territory,” June 2, 2023. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_Territory.

    Wikipedia. “Four Corners,” May 7, 2023. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Corners#:~:text=The%20Four%20Corners%20area%20is.

    Zimmer, Amy. “Jefferson’s Legacy in Colorado.” www.coloradovirtuallibrary.org. Colorado Virtual Library, April 11, 2013. https://www.coloradovirtuallibrary.org/resource-sharing/state-pubs-blog/jeffersons-legacy-in-colorado/.

  • The Borders of Colorado: From Kansas Territory to Statehood – Part 1

    by Sarah Meisch

    How State Lines are Drawn

    Looking at a map of the United States, one spots a difference between the symmetrical states in the West and the more irregular borders of the East. At first glance, Colorado seems to have been easily drawn with its four clean borders. But why don’t we have the winding borders the eastern states have? Why are our mountains in the middle of the state, rather than drawn as a border? Is there a reason for the way our state cuts into part of Nebraska? This two-part series will address these questions and more, showing how the placement of Colorado’s state and territorial lines was part of a grander vision for political and cartographical harmony across the United States.

    Throughout its history, the US has drawn its state and territorial borders according to geometry, with a focus on equity between the states and their resources. The Confederation government (1781-1789) solidified the Enlightenment-era precedent of drawing boundaries in straight lines through several ordinances in the 1780s, creating a distinct preference for geometry over geography. Most scholars of boundary-making have expressed disapproval of this approach, with historian James Bryce writing in the 1880s that state lines “are for the most part not natural boundaries fixed by mountain ranges, nor even historical boundaries due to a series of events, but purely artificial boundaries determined by an authority which carved the national territory into strips of convenient size.” 

    In the US, only part of a single state line follows a chain of mountains; this line lies along the Continental Divide dividing Idaho and Montana. Only one-third of states incorporate rivers into their boundaries, and outside of relatively small surveying errors, American states are generally neat and well-defined. It was always the intention of the US government to create cleaner boundaries based on straight lines, rather than borders based on unpredictable natural barriers. This explains the confusion over the state boundaries here in Colorado, as according to historian Derek Everett “geographically, there is no sensible reason for the state of Colorado to exist….[T]he simple rectangle that demarcates Colorado’s boundaries affords practically nothing…capable of bringing this disparate region into a single political entity.”[1]

    However, in spite of the criticism aimed at geometric boundary-making, drawing lines based on geography has its drawbacks. Rivers are unreliable boundaries because they change dramatically over time; there have been several issues with the Missouri River as a boundary-maker over the years, as parts of Nebraska were found on the Missouri side of the river in the 1870s. Only the most entrenched and immovable rivers can realistically be used as boundaries, but these make up a very small portion of rivers. When the western states were being divided, there was a bit of public support for placing major rivers in the center of states instead to encourage riverine city and commercial development, but these petitions ultimately failed to convince Congress. 

    Mountain ranges as natural barriers are also difficult to use as state lines. It would be enormously difficult to survey a mountain range from peak to peak and cleft to cleft in all kinds of weather, even with modern technology. In the 1890s, scientist and explorer John Wesley Powell recommended state and county lines be drawn according to river basins, which are far less changeable over time than rivers, and also prioritize natural boundaries over geometric lines. There were many limitations with his plan for law enforcement and land ownership, and his suggestions came after the continental US had been divided up; therefore, it was too late to practically consider implementing Powell’s proposal.

    Congress attempted to create equality between states, drawing lines in order for states to share access to water, agriculture, and maintain relative equality of size. States that are far larger than others, such as California, Texas, and Alaska, are states that created themselves. When Congress asked California and Texas to readjust their borders after admittance to the Union, few borders were actually altered, and the economic benefit of these states being part of the US outweighed the high risk of alienating them to preserve boundary equality.

    Slavery was another integral piece of boundary making. To maintain an uneasy peace in the years leading up to the Civil War, the North and South would admit a slave-owning state when they would add a free state. This tit-for-tat division influenced the border placement of many states near the 36th and 37th parallels.

    Even as new territories and states were in the offing, the US Congress had an eye on the future. Congress placed an emphasis on intentional planning, allowing for and encouraging the explosive growth in the West. The tapestry of our nation could very well have been checkered with states of different sizes, shapes, and names from what exist today, if it hadn’t been for the vision of equity and symmetry championed by our Enlightenment thinkers.

    Stay tuned for Part 2 of this piece next week, which will explore the reasons behind Colorado’s borders, and how they have changed over time!


    [1] Everett, “Creating the American West,” 11.

    References

    Abbott, Carl, Stephen J Leonard, and Thomas J Noel. Colorado: A History of the Centennial State. Fifth. Boulder, Colorado: University Press of Colorado, 2013.

    American Library Association. “Indigenous Tribes of Colorado.” American Library Association, November 21, 2017. https://www.ala.org/aboutala/offices/denver-colorado-tribes.

    “Articles of Confederation (1777).” National Archives and Records Administration. Accessed August 31, 2023. https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/articles-of-confederation#:~:text=The%20Articles%20of%20Confederation%20were,day%20Constitution%20went%20into%20effect

    Berwanger, Eugene H. The Rise of the Centennial State: Colorado Territory, 1861-76. Urbana, Illinois: University Of Illinois Press, 2007.

    Cengage. “Jefferson Territory | Encyclopedia.com.” www.encyclopedia.com. Accessed June 6, 2023. https://www.encyclopedia.com/history/dictionaries-thesauruses-pictures-and-press-releases/jefferson-territory.

    Everett, Derek R. Creating the American West: Boundaries and Borderlands. Norman, Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma Press, 2014.

    Frederic Logan Paxson. History of the American Frontier, 1763-1893. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The Riverside Press, 1924.

    ‌Geurts, Jennie. 2014. “How Rivers Shaped the Shape of Colorado.” Water Education Colorado. July 24, 2014. https://www.watereducationcolorado.org/publications-and-radio/blog/how-rivers-shaped-the-shape-of-colorado/.

    Gower, Calvin. “Kansas Territory and Its Boundary Question, 1: ‘Big Kansas’ or ‘Little Kansas.’” Www.kshs.org 33, no. 1 (1967): 1–12. https://www.kshs.org/p/kansas-historical-quarterly-kansas-territory-and-its-boundary-question/13180.

    History, Art & Archives: United States House of Representatives. “Draft Bill for Colorado Territory | US House of Representatives: History, Art & Archives.” history.house.gov. Accessed June 6, 2023. https://history.house.gov/HouseRecord/Detail/15032436207.

    History Colorado. “Carving up a Continent: State Boundaries in the American West, Feat. Dr. Derek Everett.” www.youtube.com, October 5, 2021. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUit0Mj5QH8.

    History Colorado, and Michael Troyer. “Colorado Territory | Articles | Colorado Encyclopedia.” Coloradoencyclopedia.org, February 25, 2016. https://coloradoencyclopedia.org/article/colorado-territory.

    Humeyumptewa, Aleks, and Tracie Etheredge. “An Inventory of the Records of Arapahoe County, Colorado.” Denver, Colorado: The Colorado Historical Society, 1994. https://www.historycolorado.org/sites/default/files/media/documents/2018/mss.00015_arapahoe_county_colorado.pdf.

    “Is Colorado a Square State?” 2016. Denver Public Library History. August 1, 2016. https://history.denverlibrary.org/news/colorado-square-state.

    Jacobs, Frank. “Colorado Is Not a Rectangle—It Has 697 Sides.” Atlas Obscura. Big Think, April 14, 2023. https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/is-colorado-a-rectangle.

    Library Of Congress, and Sponsoring Body Library Of Congress. Center For The Book. How the States Got Their Shapes. Washington, D.C.: Library of Congress, -07-15, 2008. Video. https://www.loc.gov/item/2021687996/.

    Maness, Jack. “When Colorado Was Kansas, and the Nation Was (Even More?) Divided.” Denver Public Library, January 26, 2017. https://history.denverlibrary.org/news/when-colorado-was-kansas-and-nation-was-even-more-divided.

    Paxson, Frederic. “The Boundaries of Colorado.” The University of Colorado Studies 2, no. 2 (July 1904).

    Stein, Mark. How the States Got Their Shapes. New York: Smithsonian Books/Collins, 2008.

    The U.S. Today, with Dates of Statehood Wall Map. Mapszu. Accessed June 6, 2023. https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0268/2549/0485/products/maps.com-the-u.s.-today-with-dates-of-statehood-wall-map_2400x.jpg?v=1572562951.

    Trembath, Brian. “Jefferson Territory: The Renegade State That Almost Replaced Colorado.” Denver Public Library, June 24, 2020. https://history.denverlibrary.org/news/jefferson-territory-renegade-state-almost-replaced-colorado.

    www.native-languages.org. “Colorado Indian Tribes and Languages.” Native Languages of the Americas. Accessed June 6, 2023. http://www.native-languages.org/colorado.htm.

    Wikipedia. “Colorado Territory,” June 2, 2023. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_Territory.

    Wikipedia. “Four Corners,” May 7, 2023. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Corners#:~:text=The%20Four%20Corners%20area%20is.

    Zimmer, Amy. “Jefferson’s Legacy in Colorado.” www.coloradovirtuallibrary.org. Colorado Virtual Library, April 11, 2013. https://www.coloradovirtuallibrary.org/resource-sharing/state-pubs-blog/jeffersons-legacy-in-colorado/.

  • What Does Your Drafter Need to Know to Start Drafting?

    What Does Your Drafter Need to Know to Start Drafting?

    by Jery Payne and Patti Dahlberg

    It was a great stakeholder meeting. The stakeholders arrived prepared and ready to negotiate. The discussion was respectful, weighing the pros and cons of the policy alternatives. Because the discussion was good and the meeting was ebbing, I looked forward to the legislator and stakeholders settling on a policy. So you can imagine my surprise when the legislator looked over to me and said, “Do you have everything you need to draft this legislation?”

    After I cleaned up the coffee, I replied, “Well, I think you have a few decisions to make.”[1]

    What Are the Basics?

    So what does your drafter need to know to begin drafting your bill? The answer is, “It depends!”

    Helpful? Yep, that’s so helpful. If you’re not convinced, here are a few guidelines to help fill in the necessary details:

    • What problem are you trying to solve or address?
      • Is it a lack of access to a government service? Is someone defrauding the state or businesses? Is it an exploitative business practice? Is it a lack of habitat for wildlife?
    • What is the proposed solution?
      • Is it a grant program? Is it creating an exemption to a current prohibition? Is it a prohibition of a business practice?
    • What are the conditions that make the statute apply?
      •  Who is eligible for the grant? How do you define the prohibited business practice?
    • How does the state know whether these conditions apply?
      • If a grant recipient needs to be low income, how will the agency verify the low income status? If a business is prohibited from vertical integration, how will the state identify that the business is vertically integrating? Should the state require a type of business to be licensed? Or should the state authorize law enforcement to investigate complaints?
    • What happens when the policy isn’t followed?
      • What if a business decides to keep doing the exploitative business practice? Will the state fine the scofflaws? Will the state throw them in jail? Maybe the state will deny them a license? What happens if the grant money isn’t spent appropriately?
    • If you are working with stakeholders on the bill, the drafter will need to know who has drafting authority and who is authorized to give and receive information on the bill.
    • A promissory note to give the drafter a bottle of the drafter’s favorite beverage if you fail to provide this information… I suppose this isn’t absolutely necessary. … Okay, my editor is telling me to cut it out—I was just kidding anyway.

    Now where was I? Oh yeah:

    If you don’t have all these details figured out, it’s okay to give the drafter what you do have and then talk with your drafter to work out the rest. By the way, this is one of the reasons why submitting the bill request a bit earlier is a good idea: It gives you time to have these discussions with the drafter.

    Other Helpful Information to Tell Your Drafter

    In addition to these basic requirements, let your drafter know about any of the following:

    • Are there any no-go zones? In other words, should the bill avoid entangling with any other issues?
    • Background information is helpful, but your drafter doesn’t need all the political information, such as a list of the organizations who will support the policy or your argument for why it is good policy.
    • If your bill is based on an act from another state or if it is based on another Colorado statute, share that with the drafter.

    The drafter usually discovers additional decision points while they are drafting the bill. A great example is when your policy conflicts with something in current statutes. Your drafter will contact you to discuss these issues.

    Procedural Questions You’ll Need to Answer Before Introduction

    Before your bill is introduced, procedural questions need answers, such as:

    • Is it okay to release the bill for fiscal note analysis?
    • If the bill contains reporting requirements, should they expire in three years?
    • Do you prefer a safety clause or a petition clause? The default is a petition clause.
    • Do you want your bill to take effect on a specific date?

    For more detailed information on these questions and potential answers, see How Would You Like Your Bill? Questions a Bill Sponsor Must Decide.


    [1] Although this precise scenario hasn’t happened to me yet, I’ve been in many meetings that aren’t far from this scenario in different ways.