Colorado LegiSource

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

Author: olls

  • 2021 Interim Committee Recap – Part 2

    Last week, we brought you part 1 of the Interim Committee Recap series. Today, we’re bringing you part 2, covering the rest of the interim committees and their bills, which were all approved for introduction in the 2022 legislative session at the November 15 Legislative Council meeting.

     

    Colorado Youth Advisory Council Review Committee

    The Colorado Youth Advisory Council Review Committee met three times during the interim. The committee heard presentations from its student members about youth mental health, higher education tuition waivers for students who have been in foster care, and the Colorado Youth Advisory Council’s enabling legislation. The committee requested the drafting of three bills, one on each of the presented subjects. The committee recommended all three bills to the Legislative Council.

    • Bill A – Promoting Crisis Services to Students. The bill requires each student identification card issued to a public school student to contain the phone number, website address, and text talk number for the 24-hour telephone crisis service center (Colorado crisis services). If the school does not issue identification cards, the school shall request and display outreach materials from Colorado crisis services. The bill requires Colorado crisis services to notify each public school in the state that it can provide outreach materials explaining the services provided, how to engage the services, and the possibility of peer-to-peer counseling as part of the offered services. Colorado crisis services shall provide those materials upon request.
    • Bill B – Higher Education Support for Foster Youth. The bill requires all public higher education institutions (institutions) in Colorado to waive undergraduate tuition and fees for Colorado resident students who have been in foster care, or, following an adjudication as neglected or dependent, in noncertified kinship care, in Colorado while 13 years of age or at any time since (qualifying students). Each institution must designate an employee to serve as a liaison to qualifying or prospective qualifying students. The bill requires school district and state charter school institute child welfare education liaisons to provide students in out-of-home placement with information and assistance regarding the tuition waiver for qualifying students.
    • Bill C – Colorado Youth Advisory Council Updates. The bill makes changes to the structure of the Colorado Youth Advisory Council (council), including:
      • Changing the deadline to appoint nonlegislative members and removing the majority-vote requirement for approval of nonlegislative members of the council;
      • Requiring the council to adopt written bylaws setting forth a leadership structure for the council and clarifying that the council can elect members to serve in any leadership position described in its bylaws;
      • Requiring two council meetings each year be held in person;
      • Requiring that the council report to the Colorado Youth Advisory Council Review Committee (review committee) during the interim; and
      • Changing the process for appointing the chair and vice-chair of the review committee and specifying duties of the review committee chair.

     

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

    The Legislative Oversight Committee Concerning the Treatment of Persons with Mental Health Disorders in the Criminal and Juvenile Justice Systems (committee) met four times during the 2021 interim. The committee heard presentations from multiple stakeholders, mental health advocates, and representatives from state executive departments concerning the issues facing persons with mental health disorders who have been in contact, in one form or another, with the criminal or juvenile justice systems. The committee requested the drafting of 10 bills. Of those, two were withdrawn prior to the September 9, 2021, meeting, three were withdrawn at that meeting, and five bills were recommended by the committee to the Legislative Council for consideration.

    • Bill A – Treatment Behavioral Health Disorders Justice System. The bill updates provisions of the enabling statute for the committee Substantive changes include:
      • Broadening the name and scope of the committee and associated task force (task force) from concerning the treatment of “persons with mental health disorders” to “persons with behavioral health disorders”;
      • Allowing the task force to research topics for members of the committee upon request;
      • Adjusting task force membership;
      • Further defining issues for the task force to study; and
      • Extending the repeal date to July 1, 2027.
    • Bill B – Modifications to Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity. The bill requires the court to order an evaluation of a defendant found not guilty by reason of insanity to determine whether the defendant meets the criteria for inpatient hospitalization or if the defendant is eligible for conditional release in the community. The bill also specifies when, after receiving the evaluation, the court shall hold a hearing, prohibits how long a defendant found not guilty by reason of insanity may remain confined in inpatient hospitalization, specifies what information a court-ordered release examination must include, and requires the medical professional treating the defendant to develop a report certifying whether the defendant continues to meet the criteria for ongoing inpatient hospitalization. The chief executive officer of the facility in which the defendant is confined shall submit the report to the court on an annual basis.
    • Bill C – Pretrial Diversion for Person with Behavioral Health. The bill expands the existing pretrial diversion program to include diversion programs that are intended to identify eligible individuals with behavioral health disorders and divert such individuals out of the criminal justice system and into community treatment programs. This expansion replaces the alternative pilot programs to divert individuals with mental health conditions that are currently set to repeal July 1, 2022.
    • Bill D – Emergency Mental Health Treatment & Evaluation Standard. The bill changes the standard for an emergency 72-hour mental health commitment for treatment and evaluation to include when a person appears to have a mental health disorder or be gravely disabled and, as a result of such mental health disorder or being gravely disabled, appears to present an imminent or substantial risk of harm to self or others.
    • Bill E – Programs to Develop Housing Support Services. The bill establishes and expands programs within the division of housing in the department of local affairs to build the capacity of communities across the state to provide supportive housing services to individuals with behavioral, mental health, or substance use disorders who are homeless or at risk of becoming homeless and who have contact with the criminal or juvenile justice system.

     

    Transportation Legislation Review Committee Summary

    The Transportation Legislation Review Committee (TLRC) met at the capitol twice to hear reports and consider legislation and took a few trips to fulfill its statutory authority to review the planning and construction of highway projects. At the hearings, the TLRC heard reports from the Colorado Motor Carriers Association, the Colorado Energy Office and Colorado Department of Transportation, the Regional Transportation District, the Colorado Association of Transit Agencies, the Colorado Cross Disability Coalition, the Colorado Department of Health Care Policy & Financing, the Colorado Department of Transportation and the Transportation Commission, the Division of Motor Vehicles, the Department of Public Safety, and the North West Mayors and Commissioners Coalition. The committee also heard reports about public highway authorities, hydrogen development for zero-emission vehicles, and local government use of federal rescue plan funds.

    The committee considered and recommended the following legislation:

    • Bill A – Fluid Milk Product Not Divisible Load. Current law has weight limits for vehicles. One of the factors that determines a vehicle’s weight limit is whether a load is divisible, which means that the load can be divided up to lower its weight. The bill deems that a load of fluid milk products carried by a vehicle is not a divisible load.
    • Bill B – Statewide Regulation of Controlled Intersections. An existing statute allows a municipality or county to adopt an ordinance or resolution specifying that a person riding a bicycle, electrical assisted bicycle, or electric scooter may make a safety stop, rather than a full stop, under certain circumstances when approaching an intersection that is controlled by a stop sign or a traffic control signal. The bill amends the statute to make the substantive requirements uniform statewide for most persons who are not operating a motor vehicle, including pedestrians and operators of low-speed conveyances, approaching a controlled intersection.
    • Resolution A – Study State and Interstate Highway Vehicle Weight. The resolution asks the United States Congress:
      • To allow the Colorado Department of Transportation to conduct an analysis of increasing the gross vehicle weight limit for the Interstate Highway System in Colorado to harmonize it with other state highways where 85,000 pounds is the maximum weight; and
      • If the completed study determines it is in the best interests of Colorado to harmonize the weights for these types of highways, that Colorado be permitted by state statute to increase the gross vehicle weight limit to 85,000 pounds for vehicles traveling on the Interstate Highway System in Colorado.

     

    Sales and Use Tax Simplification Task Force

    The Sales and Use Tax Simplification Task Force (SUTSTF) met four times during the 2021 interim and heard briefings and presentations from the Office of Legislative Legal Services, the Colorado Department of Revenue, the Colorado Municipal League, the Colorado Automobile Dealers Association, the Coalition to Simplify Colorado Sales Tax, and members of the public on a variety of topics, including:

    • The ongoing progress toward widespread adoption of and potential areas of improvement for the electronic sales and use tax simplification system;
    • Municipal business licensing requirements; and
    • Sales and use taxes for motor vehicle purchases.

    The SUTSTF requested the drafting of five bills but recommended only the following three bills to the Legislative Council for introduction:

    • Bill A – Business Licensing. To streamline the imposition, collection, and administration of local sales and use taxes imposed on retail sales made by retailers through the streamlining of application requirements for and elimination of fees for local general business licenses, the bill requires the department of revenue (department) to require sufficient information to be collected from a qualifying retailer and made available to local taxing jurisdictions to ensure that concerns of local taxing jurisdictions are addressed. The department must accomplish these tasks expeditiously so that no later than July 1, 2023, and sooner if feasible, a qualifying retailer that has a state standard retail license and either does not have physical presence or has only incidental physical presence within a local taxing jurisdiction can make retail sales within the local taxing jurisdiction without having to obtain a general business license from the local taxing jurisdiction.
    • Bill B – Destination Sourcing Rule Exemption. Under current law, state sales tax is generally calculated based on the buyer’s address when a taxable product or service is delivered to a consumer, and this is known as destination sourcing. An exemption from destination sourcing that allows a small retailer with less than $100,000 in retail sales to source its sales to its business location regardless of where a purchaser receives the taxable product or service is scheduled to expire on February 1, 2022. The bill delays the repeal of the exemption to October 1, 2022.
    • Bill C – Simplify Sales Tax Exemption Forms. The bill requires the department of revenue to examine the forms that it requires to be completed by persons claiming certain exemptions from state and state-collected local sales and use taxes and its requirements relating to the use of the forms and, to the extent feasible without impairing the proper administration of the exemptions, simplify the forms and related requirements. Exceptions to existing statutory requirements relating to certain forms are made for any simplifications the department makes.

  • 2021 Interim Committee Recap – Part 1

    After a year off, legislative interim committees met this interim to discuss topics relevant to Colorado and to recommend legislation to the Legislative Council Committee. This week, we’re providing a summary of each committee and its recommended legislation. The Legislative Council Committee met on Monday, November 15, and approved all bills recommended to it by the interim committees for introduction in the 2022 legislative session.

    For more information about interim committees generally and how they operate, see “Interim Committees: Just the Facts, Ma’am”, posted 7/21/2017.

     

    Early Childhood and School Readiness Legislative Commission

    This interim, the Early Childhood and School Readiness Legislative Commission (Commission) focused its efforts on the transition to the new Department for Early Childhood (DEC) and the creation of the universal preschool program. DEC will coordinate early childhood programs and services throughout Colorado, including the new statewide universal, voluntary preschool program. House Bill 21-1304 established DEC and required the creation of a transition plan, which describes the coordination and administration of early childhood services and programs by DEC and existing departments. On November 18, 2021, the Commission will meet to review the approved transition plan.

    During its interim meetings, the Commission heard several presentations centered on workforce updates, reports on home-based child care, and the impacts of COVID-19 on early childhood education. The COVID-19 pandemic not only affected the early childhood educator workforce, but many children also experienced learning loss.

    On November 1, 2021, the Commission voted to recommend one bill to the Legislative Council for introduction during the 2022 legislative session:

    • Bill A – Early Childhood Educator Income Tax Credit. The bill creates a refundable income tax credit for an eligible early childhood educator who has an adjusted gross income below specified thresholds, holds an early childhood professional credential for at least six months of the taxable year, and is either the head of a family child care home or is employed with an eligible early childhood education program or a family child care home.

     

    Pension Review Commission and Pension Review Subcommittee

    The Pension Review Commission met twice during the interim. It heard presentations from the Fire and Police Pension Association (FPPA), the Public Employees’ Retirement Association (PERA), and its own Pension Review Subcommittee. The Pension Review Subcommittee itself met three times to hear presentations from: (1) Gabriel, Roeder, Smith & Company (GRS) regarding its statutorily required independent review of the economic, non-economic, and investment assumptions used to model Colorado PERA’s financial situation; (2) PERA regarding GRS’ recommendations and a general annual update; and (3) the Segal Group, Inc. regarding its summary review of December 31, 2020, actuarial valuation results for PERA’s division trust funds.

    The Pension Review Commission requested that three bills be drafted and recommended all of them to the Legislative Council for introduction:

    • Bill A – FPPA Statewide Retirement Plan. Effective January 1, 2023, the bill merges three pension plans administered by the FPPA—the statewide defined benefit plan, the statewide hybrid plan, and the social security supplemental plan—into separate components of a new plan to be known as the “statewide retirement plan”.
    • Bill B – State Payment Old Hire Death and Disability Benefits. To ameliorate a shortfall in the statewide death and disability trust fund and ensure that there will be sufficient money in the trust fund to pay future death and disability benefits to FPPA members hired before January 1, 1997, the bill requires the state treasurer to pay $33.191 million from the general fund to the FPPA for deposit into the trust fund.
    • Bill C – Compensatory Direct Distribution to PERA. To fully recompense PERA for the cancellation of a previously scheduled July 1, 2020, direct distribution of $225 million, the bill requires an additional direct distribution to PERA of $303.57 million to be made on July 1, 2022. This amount is the sum of $225 million plus an estimate of investment gains that would have accrued on that amount from July 1, 2020, through June 30, 2022, based on PERA’s actual one-year total fund policy benchmark return from July 1, 2020, through June 30, 2021, plus PERA’s assumed one-year rate of return of 7.25% from July 1, 2021, through June 30, 2022.

     

    Legislative Oversight Committee on Tax Policy

    The newly created Legislative Oversight Committee Concerning Tax Policy, a permanent successor to the previous Tax Expenditure Evaluation Interim Study Committee, met five times during its inaugural interim. The committee’s first order of business was to define the scope of tax policies that it and its subordinate Task Force Concerning Tax Policy would consider, and it identified five areas of study, which can be summarized as the income tax base, homestead exemptions, enterprise zones, property tax treatment of short-term rentals, and expanding the sales and use tax to services. The task force has been studying these issues, and presumably, the committee will consider these tax policies after the task force makes its recommendations about them.

    In addition, the committee considered the state auditor’s thoughtful and thorough tax expenditure evaluations. After listening and considering the evaluations, the committee approved 10 bills for drafting, of which five were approved as committee bills:

     

    Water Resources Review Committee

    During the 2021 interim, the Water Resources Review Committee (WRRC) held three meetings and took one field trip to the Colorado Water Congress in Steamboat Springs. The WRRC met with a broad range of water users and government officials, including local water providers, water policy experts, state water planners, and concerned citizens. The committee received briefings on major water issues affecting the state, including anti-speculation, recreational in-channel diversion, compact compliance and groundwater challenges, water efficiency in agriculture, dredge and fill permitting, and alternative transfer methods.

    On October 27, the WRRC met and voted to advance the following three bills for the consideration of the Legislative Council:

    • Bill A – Groundwater Compact Compliance and Sustainability. The bill creates the groundwater compact compliance and sustainability cash fund (fund), which may include appropriations or transfers by the General Assembly, federal funds, and gifts, grants, and donations. The Colorado Water Conservation Board will disburse money from the fund based on recommendations from the board of directors of either the Rio Grande Water Conservancy District or the Republican River Water Conservation District, after approval by the state engineer. When all groundwater reduction requirements and all statutorily mandated standards are achieved, the fund is repealed, and any remaining money is transferred to the general fund.
    • Bill B – Investment Water Speculation Prohibition. The bill defines and prohibits investment water speculation and authorizes the state engineer to investigate purchases of agricultural water rights that are suspected of investment water speculation. Persons engaged in water speculation may be subject to a fine not to exceed $10,000. The state engineer may refer any frivolous complaints of water speculation to the attorney general for investigation and prosecution in the courts. Persons who make frivolous complaints to the state engineer may be subject to a civil fine not to exceed $1,000.
    • Bill C – Expand Water Resources Review Committee to Include Agriculture. The bill expands the scope of inquiry for the WRRC to include identifying, monitoring, and addressing agricultural issues. The bill also changes the name of the committee to the “Water Resources and Agriculture Review Committee”.

    The WRRC also unanimously approved a letter to the Task Force on Economic Recovery and Relief Cash Fund. The letter requested that the Task Force consider water investment in its recommendations.

     

    Wildfire Matters Review Committee

    The Wildfire Matters Review Committee (WMRC) met five times during the 2021 interim. On October 28, 2021, the WMRC voted to advance the following five bills to the Legislative Council:

    • Bill A – Wildfire Mitigation and Recovery. The bill creates the wildfire mitigation and recovery grant program within the Colorado state forest service (CSFS). Grants are available to counties with forested areas to help them prevent and recover from wildfires by removing wildfire fuel and debris in a manner that reduces the amount of carbon that enters the atmosphere. The CSFS must submit an annual report to the General Assembly concerning the grant program beginning January 1, 2023. The grant program is repealed September 1, 2028, following a sunset review.
    • Bill B – Increase Wildfire Risk Mitigation Outreach Efforts. The bill directs the CSFS to convene a working group to develop and implement an enhanced wildfire awareness month outreach campaign in 2023 and 2024, in partnership with the Department of Fire Prevention and Control and the U.S. forest service. The state forester is required to report to the WMRC during the 2023 and 2024 legislative interims on money expended and efforts to increase outreach and awareness of wildfire risk mitigation.
    • Bill C – Resources for Volunteer Firefighters. The bill expands eligibility for certain state emergency wildfire response cash funds to fire departments. Specifically, fire departments that rely primarily on volunteer firefighters to provide fire protection services can receive reimbursement for fire suppression activities from the cash funds if certain conditions are met. The bill also allows the local firefighter safety and disease prevention fund (fund) to be used for behavioral and mental health services for wildland firefighters. Money from the funds is distributed through a needs-based grant program, and the bill requires priority be given to fire departments that rely primarily on volunteer firefighters and demonstrate a loss in tax revenue due to wildfires. Finally, the bill requires a $5 million annual appropriation to the fund.
    • Bill D – Assistance Landowner Wildfire Mitigation. The bill creates the wildfire mitigation resources and best practices grant program in the CSFS to be used to conduct outreach among land landowners regarding wildfire mitigation best practices. The grant will be available to local governments, tribal agencies, and nonprofit organizations beginning January 1, 2024. The CSFS must submit a report to the WMRC concerning the grant program beginning in 2025. The grant program is repealed January 1, 2029. The bill also replaces the current state income tax deduction for wildfire mitigation expenses with a state income tax credit beginning in tax year 2023 through tax year 2025. The credit is available to landowners who meet income requirements and is equal to 25% of the taxpayer cost for wildfire mitigation expenses, up to $625 per year.
    • Bill E – Wildfire Incentives for Local Governments. The bill creates the wildfire mitigation incentives for local government grant program in the CSFS to provide matching funds to local governments that raise dedicated revenue for forest management and wildfire mitigation activities such as forest thinning, wildfire fuel reduction, and outreach to property owners and the public. Beginning November 1, 2024, the CSFS must publish an annual report on the grant program.
  • The 2022 Legislative Session Is Just Over Two Months Away

    The 2022 Legislative Session Is Just Over Two Months Away

    Where did the interim go? The 2022 Legislative Session will convene at 10 a.m. on Wednesday, January 12, 2022, but, as those who follow the legislature know, bill drafting starts long before that date. Legislators have been submitting bill requests for the upcoming session since the end of the last session, and interim committees have been meeting and working with drafters since August on committee bill requests. So much is already going on that it might be easy to forget that the first bill request deadline is Wednesday, December 1, 2021. The December deadline is for a legislator’s first three bill requests. After December 1, a legislator may submit up to only two additional bill requests and only to meet  the five bill requests allowed by rule.*

    Once a legislator has bill requests in the system, the legislator must choose one of those requests to be a “prefile” bill. The “prefile” bill must be drafted and filed with the House or the Senate for introduction by the Friday before the session convening date. For the upcoming session, the “prefile” bill filing deadline is Friday, January 7, 2022. Generally, the bill deadlines require legislators to have completed, with the help of OLLS drafters, the bulk of their bill drafting well before the first day of the legislative session.

    What all legislators need to know about requesting bills [Joint Rule 24 (b)(1)(A)]:

    • The Joint Rules allow each legislator five bill requests each session. These five bill requests are in addition to any appropriation, committee-approved, or sunset bill requests that a legislator may choose to carry. (Legislators are not required to carry five bills.)
    • To reach the five-bill request limit within the bill request deadlines, legislators must submit at least three bill requests to the OLLS by the December 1 deadline. Legislators must submit the last two requests (assuming the legislator is under the five-request limit) by January 18, 2022.
    • If a legislator submits fewer than three requests on or before the December 1 deadline, the legislator forfeits the unsubmitted bill requests that were due by that date.* (Legislators need not carry five bills.)
    • The first bill request deadline is less than a month away, and it may feel like there is still plenty of time to request those bills. But if a legislator waits until December 1 to submit the first three bill requests, the legislator will need to provide sufficient drafting information with the request so that the drafters can draft all three of the bills in a timely manner. The legislator will also need to quickly decide which of these requests will become a “prefile” bill, which needs to be filed for introduction by January 7, 2022. 

    Legislators: If you have not yet submitted a bill request, you are encouraged to submit at least one bill request as soon as possible. Bill requests may address any subject and do not need to be completely conceptualized. The bill drafter can help you figure out how to word your bill, and the bill drafting process allows for potential issues or problems to rise to the surface, making it easier for you to decide whether the idea is “workable.” If a request is no longer needed or wanted, you can withdraw and replace it with a new request, as long as that decision is communicated to the OLLS before the December 1 deadline. By submitting bill requests and draft information as quickly as possible, legislators give drafters more time to work on their bill drafts, make it easier to determine if there are duplicate bill requests, and work out any drafting kinks before the first day of session.

    Legislators can submit more than three requests by the December 1 deadline. By doing so, a legislator may have the flexibility to withdraw and replace at least one request after the December deadline without losing a request. If a legislator submits only three requests by December 1 and later withdraws one of them, the legislator forfeits the withdrawn bill request. The rules allow a legislator to submit only two bill requests after the December deadline.* If a legislator submits four bill requests by December 1 and later withdraws one, the legislator is left with three bill requests that met the early request deadline. The legislator can still submit the two requests that are allowed after the early bill request deadline — for a total of five bill requests.

    Upcoming deadlines: Too many to remember and too important to forget.  Bill request and bill introduction deadlines are listed below. Deadlines that apply only to House bills are in green, deadlines that apply only to Senate bills are in red, and deadlines that apply to both the House and Senate are in blue.  Click here for a link to House and Senate bill drafting, finalization, and introduction deadlines. The listed OLLS internal deadlines are designed to allow sufficient time for editing and review in order to provide a higher-quality work product while still assuring that each bill meets the deadline. Paper copies of these tables are available in the OLLS Front Office, Room 091 of the Capitol.

    December deadlines:*

    December 1. The last day for legislators to request their first three (or early) bill requests. After December 1, legislators are only allowed two additional bill requests (only if they are under the five-bill limit).

    Upcoming filing and introduction deadlines:*

    January 7. Deadline to file prefile bills with House and Senate front desks.
    January 14. Deadline to file Senate early bills with the Senate front desk.
    January 18. Deadline to request last two bills (regular bills) if a legislator is under the five-bill limit.
    January 18. Deadline to file House early bills with the House front desk.
    January 28. Deadline to file Senate regular bills with the Senate front desk.
    February 2. Deadline to file House regular bills with the House front desk.

    Click here for the Deadline Schedule for the 2022 Legislative Session.

    * A legislator may seek permission from the House or Senate Committee on Delayed Bills, whichever is appropriate, to submit additional bill requests or to waive a bill request deadline.

  • Throwback Thursday: Extreme Weather a Century Ago

    Throwback Thursday: Extreme Weather a Century Ago

    by Patti Dahlberg

    Colorado’s weather has set numerous records for highs, lows, and coldest months on record over the past year or so. Just two years ago, we experienced an unheard of “bomb cyclone” snowstorm, severely testing Coloradans’ ability to navigate gusting winds, at times up to 96 mph, creating blizzard conditions, and virtually shutting down all transportation in Denver. The bomb cyclone designation referred to the 30-degree drop in the barometric pressure that day, to 970.4. (Low barometric pressures are typically associated with Category 2 or 3 hurricanes.) It was a record day in Colorado for extreme weather, but 1921 also had its share of extreme weather records in Colorado and across the country.

    Grays Harbor, Washington. The year started with the “Great Blowdown.” Around noon on January 29, 1921, the wind began hitting Grays Harbor, at that time considered the largest lumber shipyard in the world. By 2:00 p.m., the Olympic Peninsula felt the full force of an extreme windstorm, considered by some a cyclone and by others a tornado. Hurricane-force winds raked the shores of the Pacific Northwest from central Oregon to the Canadian border. The storm came without warning, and within a few hours gusts were reaching an estimated 150 mph — estimated, because the instrument measuring the wind gusts was carried away after measuring 126 mph. The storm blew down timber in a 2,000-square-mile area, toppling more than 40 percent of the trees on the southwest side of the Olympic Mountains. Some of the trees blown over measured 12 feet in diameter, with top-heavy and shallow-rooted great spruces particularly vulnerable. Hundreds of farm and forest animals were killed by falling tree branches and flying debris, but amazingly, only one person was killed during the storm, although several were injured.

    Silver Lake, Colorado. On April 14 and 15 of 1921, a major winter storm slammed the Front Range of Colorado’s Rocky Mountains, leaving more than 6 feet of snow in a 24-hour period. The 75.8 inches of measured snow that fell in a 24-hour period at Silver Lake in Boulder County remains the record for the most snowfall in a 24-hour period in the United States. Silver Lake’s snow totals continued to grow to 87 inches in 28 hours, and then 95 inches in 32 hours (that’s almost 8 feet of snow). Meanwhile, in Denver, only about 10 inches of snow fell, but the 50-mph winds accompanying the storm created snowdrifts throughout the city, some as high as 7 feet, and caused damage to trees, utility poles, and buildings.

    Pueblo, Colorado. During a typical summer cloudburst, more than half an inch of rain may fall in a matter of minutes, and that is exactly what happened in Pueblo on June 3, 1921, this time creating devastating consequences for the city. Beginning the day before, torrential rains began swelling creeks and streams throughout the Arkansas River drainage system. Fountain Creek, running south from Colorado Springs, overflowed its banks, and mountain tributaries of the Arkansas River reached flood stage. Mountain reservoirs failed, and a cresting flood, over 15 feet deep at times, moved swiftly down the Arkansas River on the afternoon of June 3, sweeping through Pueblo’s business and commercial district that evening. Two thousand railcars were smashed, overturned, or carried away. Eight of the nine bridges across the Arkansas River and Fountain Creek were seriously damaged or washed away. Hundreds of buildings were lost, including more than 500 houses and almost 100 businesses. Fires raged in the upper floors of flooded structures as houses and boxcars floated down Pueblo’s South Union Avenue. Telephone lines were destroyed, so there was little to no communication between Pueblo and the rest of the state. There was no official rainfall report for Pueblo at the time, but records from private citizens indicated that a total of 6 inches or more fell between June 3 and June 5.

    The 1921 Pueblo flood was the worst disaster in the history of Colorado. The floodplain covered more than 300 square miles, and the flood toll stood at 262 people dead, missing, or unaccounted for. The actual death toll was likely much higher because for several years, human remains were found many miles downstream. Much of the downtown area was destroyed, farmlands east and south of the Steel City were flooded, irrigation structures were wrecked, and Pueblo’s economy was dealt a long-lasting blow. Subsequent estimates of property damages and losses from the flood ranged from $13 to $19 million in a city whose assessed valuation in 1921 was just over $33 million. The 1921 flood was the worst of many floods on the Arkansas River, which averaged one flood every 10 years until the Pueblo Dam was completed in 1975.

    Tampa Bay, Florida. On October 25, 1921, Tampa Bay suffered the most destructive hurricane to hit the area since 1848. A 10- to 12-foot storm surge destroyed substantial portions of the seawall along coastal locations. Many vessels were smashed against the docks by the waves, and area citrus crops were destroyed. Powerful winds brought heavy damage to structures along the bay. Without the weather forecasting support of the satellites, radar, computer graphics, and mathematical models we have today, advance warning for such an event was extremely difficult. Most hurricane “forecasting” at that time was based on data from previous hurricanes moving through the Gulf of Mexico, which normally landed far north of the Tampa area. There were eight confirmed fatalities, mostly from drowning.

    Outer space (yep – outer space). From May 13 to 16, 1921, one of the two largest known solar storms burst from the sun and soared across space to create some havoc on Earth. This 1921 solar storm, called the New York Railroad Storm because of the disruption to trains in New York City following a fire in a control tower on May 15, unfolded in two phases, unleashing an opening burst of disruption before intensifying into a full-fledged superstorm. In reconstructing the timeline of the storm from scientific journals, newspapers, and other sources, it is believed that three major fires erupted on the same day. One, sparked by strong currents in telegraph wires at a railroad station in Brewster, N.Y., burned the station to the ground. The second fire destroyed a telephone exchange in Karlstad, Sweden, while the third occurred in Ontario. Telegraph systems and telephone lines were disrupted in the U.K., New Zealand, Denmark, Japan, Brazil, and Canada. It wasn’t all bad news: many locations around the world recorded sightings of spectacular auroras. Auroras were recorded near Paris, in Arizona, and in Samoa, which is not far from the equator. It is widely believed that if the 1921 storm occurred today, there would be widespread interference with our modern technology systems and widespread disruption of services.

    Resources:

  • A Journey of 14,000 Feet Begins With a Single Step, or “How to (Re)Name a Colorado Mountain”

    by Conrad Imel

    In 1861, when botanist Dr. Charles C. Parry was on his first botanical exploration of the Rocky Mountain region in Colorado, two tall mountain peaks attracted the doctor’s attention. Following the practice among botanists to name new plants after each other, Dr. Parry named the peaks after two of his colleagues, Asa Gray and John Torrey. Today, Grays Peak and Torreys Peak, the two “14ers” that sit just west of Denver, are popular with hikers, in part because their proximity allows a hiker to summit both in one day. If you (or anyone in OLLS… hint, hint) wanted to name a mountain after a colleague, how would you go about it? The answer is a little fuzzy, but let’s see if LegiSource can help make sense of it.

    Neither the state nor the federal government has the exclusive authority to name a mountain, so the General Assembly could take steps to rename a mountain for state purposes. But it’s likely the best approach is to work through the federal board responsible for naming geographic features for federal purposes. The names bestowed by the federal board are used on federal maps and often followed by state and local governments.

    Federal renaming process

    Geographic names, including names of mountains, specifically established by federal law or executive order are official for federal purposes and can only be changed by federal law or subsequent order. But many federally recognized geographic names aren’t established by Congress or the President, they are approved by the U.S. Board on Geographic Names (BGN). Congress established the current BGN in 1947 to promote uniformity within the federal government in naming geographic features. The BGN’s decisions only apply to the federal government; state and local governments generally use the federal names, but there is no law requiring them to do so.

    The BGN does not create names for geographic features; it approves or rejects names proposed by others, based on the BGN’s principles, policies, and procedures. For domestic names, anyone can suggest a name for approval by submitting a proposal online or printing and completing a Domestic Geographic Name Proposal form. After receiving a suggestion, the BGN will conduct an investigation to ensure the suggestion conforms to BGN policies. It will also receive input from the general public; state naming authorities; interested federal, state, and local agencies; and federally recognized Indian tribes.

    You probably haven’t noticed any changes to the names of Colorado landmarks lately, and there’s a reason for that. As part of the name change process, the BGN works with the state naming authority in the state where the geographic feature resides. Colorado’s state naming authority was disbanded in 2013, so the BGN ceased working on name changes for features within the state. But fear not, on July 2, 2020, Governor Polis established a new Colorado Geographic Naming Advisory Board that will work with the BGN. BGN staff has met with Colorado’s board to discuss a strategy for addressing the backlog of pending Colorado renaming cases, and the Colorado board recently made its first name change recommendation. On September 16, 2021, the Colorado Geographic Naming Advisory Board recommended changing the name of Squaw Mountain in Clear Creek County to Mestaa’ėhehe Mountain.

    State Geographic Naming

    Since the federal government does not have exclusive authority to name a geographic feature, states like Colorado can name (or rename) a mountain for state purposes. While there is no formal Colorado process for changing a name, there are historic examples where the General Assembly named a Colorado mountain peak, including some that occurred after the establishment of the modern BGN. The General Assembly adopted joint resolutions to name Mount Evans in 1895; rename Mount Wilson as Mount Franklin Roosevelt in 1937; and, in 1978, rename Lone Eagle Peak (named to honor Charles A. Lindbergh who had been known by the nickname “Lone Eagle”) as Lindbergh Peak. The 1978 Lindbergh Peak resolution directed that a copy of the resolution be sent to the BGN. In 1949, the General Assembly passed a bill to rename Veta Peak as Mount Mestas.

    More recently, in 1995, the Colorado Senate approved a resolution supporting the efforts to name a mountain peak in honor of one of Colorado’s legendary early mountain climbers, Carl Albert Blaurock. Eight years later, on October 1, 2003, to honor Blaurock’s legacy of climbing, the BGN approved naming a 13,616-foot peak in Colorado’s Collegiate Peaks range as Mount Blaurock.

    Another wrinkle in a state-specific renaming is that some mountains are in similarly named federal lands. For example, Mount Evans sits in the federal Mount Evans National Wilderness Area. Even if Colorado changed the name of the mountain for state purposes, it could not change the name of the national wilderness area, which was designated by Congress.

    Because it would not affect federal maps, signage, documents, or federally named lands, an exclusively state-based solution may not be the best approach for widespread acceptance of a new mountain name. Instead, working through the BGN’s process will get your (or your colleague’s) name on the map. While the federal renaming process can be lengthy, the first step is simple: head to the BGN’s website to review its policies and make a suggestion. If you’re a member of the General Assembly who would like to draft a resolution to change a mountain name at the state level, or suggest or support a federal change, please contact OLLS to put in your request.

    Research from Nate Carr and Jacob Baus was used in this post.

     

  • ARPA Part 2: The Task Forces

    by Bob Lackner

    As we covered in our last article, in SB21-137, SB21-291, and HB21-1329, the General Assembly created task forces to meet in the 2021 interim and make recommendations concerning how to spend the remaining ARPA funds. Here, we explain those task forces in more detail.

    The federal regulations construing ARPA specify in relevant part that funds may be used for programs or services that address housing insecurity, lack of affordable and workplace housing, or homelessness, including:

    1. Supportive housing or other programs or services to improve access to stable, affordable housing among unhoused individuals;
    2. The development of affordable housing; and
    3. Housing vouchers and assistance to allow individuals to relocate in neighborhoods with high levels of economic opportunity and to reduce concentrated levels of low economic opportunity.

    HB21-1329 requires the executive committee of the legislative council (executive committee), by resolution, to create a task force to meet during the 2021 interim and issue a report with recommendations to the General Assembly and the Governor on policies to create transformative change in the area of housing (Housing Task Force) using the money the state receives from the ARPA fund, which would include the money transferred into the affordable housing and home ownership cash fund.[1] Essentially, the Housing Task Force is to advise the General Assembly and the Governor on how best to spend the remaining $400 million or so now sitting in the affordable housing and home ownership cash fund that the state has received from the ARPA fund and that was not appropriated in the 2021 regular legislative session.[2]

    Similarly, SB21-137 requires the executive committee to create a task force to meet during the 2021 interim and issue a report with recommendations to the General Assembly and the Governor on policies to create transformative change in the area of behavioral health (Behavioral Health Task Force) using the money the state receives from the ARPA fund.

    SB21-291 requires the executive committee, by resolution, to create a task force to meet during the 2021 interim (Economic Recovery Task Force) and issue a report with recommendations to the General Assembly and the Governor on policies that use money from the economic recovery and relief cash fund to help stimulate the state’s economy, provide necessary relief for Coloradans, or address emerging economic disparities resulting from the pandemic.

    All three bills specify that their respective task forces may include nonlegislative members and create working groups to assist their work. In addition, HB21-1329 and SB21-137 direct the executive committee to hire a facilitator to guide the work of the Housing and Behavioral Health Task Forces. The executive committee hired Wellstone Collaborative Strategies as the facilitator.

    The executive committee has issued resolutions creating the Housing, Behavioral Health, and Economic Recovery Task Forces .[3] Both the Housing and Behavioral Health Task Forces consist of 16 members, ten of whom are appointed by majority and minority leadership of the General Assembly. The other six members of the respective task forces are various state officials with responsibility for setting and administering state policy on housing or behavioral health matters, as applicable. In accordance with HB21-1329 and SB21-137, the Housing and Behavioral Health Resolutions created the Affordable Housing Transformational Task Force Subpanel (Housing Subpanel) and the Behavioral Health Transformational Task Force (Behavioral Health Subpanel), respectively. Both subpanels are directed to meet during the 2021 interim to make recommendations to the Housing and Behavioral Health Task Forces on policies to create transformational change in the area of housing and behavioral health, as applicable, using money from the ARPA fund.

    The Housing Subpanel consists of 15 members. Five members of the Housing Subpanel are appointed by the Senate President. Six members are appointed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives. The Minority Leaders of the Senate and House of Representatives are each entitled to appoint two additional members of the task force. Members appointed to the Housing Subpanel must represent various groups and stakeholders and must possess knowledge or expertise in housing issues as specified in the Housing Resolution.

    The Behavioral Health Subpanel consists of 25 members, nine of whom are to be appointed by the Senate president and eight to be appointed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives. The Minority Leaders of the Senate and the House of Representatives are each entitled to appoint four additional members of the subpanel. As with the Housing Subpanel, members of the Behavioral Health Subpanel must represent various groups and stakeholders and must possess knowledge or expertise in behavioral health issues as specified in the Behavioral Health Resolution.

    Under the applicable resolutions, both the Housing and Behavioral Health Task Forces may meet up to ten times during the 2021 interim and the subpanels are required to meet up to 16 times in the 2021 interim. The Housing and Behavioral Health Subpanels are directed to make recommendations to their governing task forces for review, consideration, and approval by those bodies. Both the Housing and Behavioral Health Task Forces are directed to approve recommendations and the final report of each task force by a majority vote of all members of the body.

    The Economic Recovery Task Force consists of eight members, six of whom are appointed by the Majority and Minority leadership of the two chambers. The executive director of the Office of Economic Development and International Trade (OEDIT) and the executive director of the Office of State Planning and Budgeting (or their designees) fill out the remaining appointments to this Task Force. The resolution creating the Economic Recovery Task Force also creates the Economic Recovery and Relief Cash Fund Subpanel (Economic Recovery Subpanel) to meet during the 2021 interim to make recommendations to the Economic Recovery Task Force on policies that use money from the economic recovery and relief cash fund to help stimulate the state’s economy, provide necessary relief for Coloradans, or address emerging economic disparities resulting from the pandemic. The Economic Recovery Subpanel consists of five members, all of whom are required to be economists. Of the five appointments, the Senate President and House Speaker must jointly make two appointments, the Senate and House Minority leaders must jointly make one appointment, the Governor is to make one appointment, and the final appointment must come from OEDIT.

    The Economic Recovery Task Force and Subpanel may each meet up to four times during the 2021 interim. This task force is also directed to approve the final report of the task force by a majority vote of all members of the body.

    The Economic Recovery Resolution also directs the Economic Recovery Subpanel to analyze and synthesize data on the current state of the state’s economy, identify ongoing challenges with the state’s recovery and opportunities for larger growth in specific sectors or industries, and outline the underlying issues that are contributing to the overall economic gaps that are inhibiting recovery and growth.

    In addition, all three resolutions direct state departments and agencies with relevant information to provide assistance and information to the respective task forces and subpanels. With respect to the Housing and Behavioral Health Task Forces, staff from the legislative service agencies will provide support to the respective task forces and subpanels, except for those responsibilities delegated to the facilitators as specified in the requests for information issued for facilitation services. In the case of the Economic Recovery Task Force, the resolution directs the Legislative Council Staff Chief Economist, or his or her designee, to provide information and assistance to the Economic Recovery Subpanel in completing its duties relating to the analysis and synthesis of the state’s economic data.

    Both HB21-1329 and SB21-137 specify that the respective task forces are not subject to section 2-3-303.3, C.R.S., or Joint Rule 24A of the Joint Rules of the Senate and the House of Representatives, both of which govern the conduct of interim committees. This means these bodies will not be treated as regular interim committees and subject to the regular procedural and bill drafting requirements to which interim committees are subject.[4] Instead, both bills specify that the executive committee is to specify requirements governing members’ participation in the work of the respective task forces. Notably, all three bills also specify that the respective task forces are not to submit bill drafts as part of their recommendations.

    Both the Housing and Behavioral Health Resolutions direct the respective task forces to finalize their recommendations by January 11, 2022, and to submit their reports to the General Assembly and the Governor no later than January 21, 2022. Under the Economic Recovery Task Force resolution, the task force is required to finalize its recommendations by December 17, 2021, and to submit its recommendations to the General Assembly and the Governor by January 13, 2022.

    A different process is mandated by SB21-291 for the Economic Recovery Task Force. With respect to that body, the staff of the Joint Budget Committee will review the task force’s recommendations to ascertain whether the recommendations will result in programs requiring ongoing appropriations of state money after the federal money has been expended and to identify whether the recommendations are duplicative of any existing state programs or appropriations or duplicative of any existing federally funded state program. [5]

    It is expected that a major focus of the 2022 regular legislative session will be the drafting and consideration of legislative proposals to implement the recommendations of these task forces and subpanels in the important areas of affordable housing, behavioral health, and economic recovery.

     

    [1] Under the legislation, the General Assembly is also required to review recommendations for policies to create transformative change in the area of housing submitted by the Strategic Housing Working Group assembled by the Department of Local Affairs and the State Housing Board.

    [2] In particular, of the $550 million the state received from ARPA for housing purposes, for the 2021-22 state fiscal year, $98.5 million was appropriated to the Division of Housing in the Department of Local Affairs to expend on programs or services of the type and kind financed through the housing investment trust fund and the housing development grant fund to support programs or services that benefit populations, households, or geographic areas disproportionately affected by the COVID public health emergency to obtain affordable housing, focusing on housing insecurity, lack of affordable and workforce housing, and homelessness. In addition, $1.5 million was appropriated to the state judicial department for use by the eviction legal defense fund to provide legal representation to indigent tenants. Money from the ARPA fund was also used to finance other affordable-housing-related purposes.

    [3] Resolution of the Executive Committee of the Legislative Council, Affordable Housing Transformational Task Force, Updated July 30, 2021 (Housing Resolution);

    Resolution of the Legislative Council, Behavioral Health Transformational Task Force, updated July 30, 2021 (Behavioral Health Resolution)

    Resolution of the Executive Committee of the Legislative Council, Economic Relief and Recovery Task Force, August 26, 2021 (Economic Recovery Resolution)

    [4] SB21-291 fails to specify whether the Economic Recovery Task Force is subject to the normal interim committee requirements but, as with the other two bills, does state that the executive committee will specify requirements for members’ participation in the body.

    [5] The Economic Recovery Resolution summarizes this requirement as follows: “JBC Staff will review the Task Force report to offer analysis on whether programs already exist that would have overlapping missions, and whether anything would likely entail ongoing General Fund obligations.”

  • ARPA Part 1: The General Assembly’s Allocation

    by Ed DeCecco

    As part of the federal “American Rescue Plan Act of 2021” (ARPA), Colorado received $3,828,761,790 from the Coronavirus State Fiscal Recovery Fund. That is quite a bit of money. For context, consider that, if the state received this aid in $1 bills, the stack of cash would be almost 260 miles high, or if those bills were placed end to end, they would loop the earth almost 15 times! Thankfully, Treasury Secretary Yellen didn’t pay the state in singles.

    Nor did the state receive the money unconditionally. Under ARPA, this money must be used for any of the following purposes:

    1. To respond to the public health emergency with respect to the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID–19) or its negative economic impacts;
    2. To provide premium pay for essential workers;
    3. For the provision of government services to the extent of revenue lost due to COVID-19; and
    4. To make necessary investments in water, sewer, or broadband infrastructure.

    The state cannot, however, use this money for a pension payment nor to backfill revenue lost as a result of a tax cut. The federal Treasury Department issued an interim regulation that, among other things, identified a number of permissible uses under each of the broad categories above and established a methodology for determining lost revenue.

    Unlike the federal COVID relief aid the state received through the CARES Act, the General Assembly assumed responsibility over this ARPA money. And because the state need only obligate this money by the end of 2024, and spend it before the end of 2026, it was unnecessary to appropriate all of the money immediately. Instead, the 73rd General Assembly established a framework to allocate the money to several cash funds, which prioritized certain permissible uses, and appropriated a decent portion consistent with those uses.[1] Here is the allocation, with the amounts and related legislation noted:

    Most of the money was first deposited in the “American Rescue Plan Act of 2021” cash fund (ARPA fund), which included general requirements related to the money, such as reporting, that apply even after the money is transferred to and spent from any another fund (recipient fund). If the recipient fund has any other money in it, then, to avoid commingling of the funds, the state controller or department is required to create a companion fund that only has the federal funds but is otherwise legally identical.[2]

    Now, you may be thinking, “No wonder the author went to law school. He is terrible in math, as the amount transferred from the ARPA fund is significantly less than the amount transferred to it.” But that wasn’t a mistake. After the required transfers were made, $300 million was left in the ARPA fund, and that money is continuously appropriated to any department designated by the Governor for any allowable purpose under the Federal Act. In this way, the General Assembly returned the favor for Governor Polis giving it control over some of the COVID relief funds from the CARES Act.

    Still, the lion’s share of the money was transferred from the ARPA fund to other cash funds. The revenue restoration cash fund includes a portion of the money that the state can use for the provision of government services to the extent of revenue lost due to COVID-19. This money is basically for revenue backfill, and it is available for “government services,” which makes it like a baby general fund. No money was appropriated from this fund last session, although the General Assembly did apportion the money to be spent in roughly equal shares over three fiscal years. The other amount that the state thus far has available for “government services” is the $380 million that was directly deposited into Department of Transportation cash funds and allocated under SB21-260.

    The behavioral and mental health cash fund, the workers, employers, and workforce centers cash fund, and the affordable housing and home ownership cash fund were all established to focus on the public health emergency with respect to COVID-19 or its negative economic impacts, with each focusing on specific areas indicated by the fund’s name. The money in the economic recovery and relief cash fund may likewise be used for a number of purposes that fit that prong of the federal law, but the General Assembly may also appropriate the money to make necessary investments in water, sewer, or broadband infrastructure. During the 2021 session, the General Assembly appropriated or transferred over a half billion dollars from these four funds,[3] which means there is still plenty left to be spent over the next few legislative sessions. And to help it spend this remainder, the General Assembly created task forces in SB21-137, SB21-291, and HB21-1329. In our next article, we’ll go over these interesting task forces in detail.

     

     

    [1] Can this allocation change in the future? You bet it can because the General Assembly’s plenary power is not limited by a statute.

    [2] So when it’s all said and done, this framework is responsible for quite a few new cash funds. Apparently the concluding message in a prior LegiSource article, https://legisource.net/2017/02/17/a-legislators-guide-to-creating-cash-funds/, did not resonate.

    [3] For a detailed explanation of how the money was spent, see pages D-8 to D-10 of the Appendix to the Joint Budget Committee Staff’s Appropriation Report Fiscal Year 2021-22, https://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/fy21-22apprept.pdf.

  • LegiSource is on Hiatus

    The Colorado LegiSource is taking a break for the next several weeks. We expect to resume weekly postings on September 9. In the meantime, if you have questions you would like answered or issues you would like to see discussed on the Colorado LegiSource, please contact us using our feedback form.

    In other news, we have changed our email subscription service from Feedburner to MailChimp. If you were previously subscribed to receive emails for new posts, those should automatically continue.

  • 2021 Legislative Session Adjourns Late with Time to Spare

    By Julie Pelegrin

    Photo of the Colorado State Capitol, framed by trees on Sherman Street. Taken on Sine Die 2021.For the second year in a row, the General Assembly wrapped up the legislative session both early (if you’re looking at legislative days) and late (if you’re looking at the calendar). They started January 13, 2021, as required by the constitution, met for three days, then temporarily adjourned. When they returned on February 16, which normally would have been the 35th legislative day, they picked up counting with the 4th legislative day. So, while it may have felt like everything was running a month behind, the General Assembly was on track – or even a little ahead – for the remainder of the session. When they finally finished their work on June 8 – the 116th legislative day – the General Assembly adjourned sine die with four days of their maximum 120 calendar days to spare even though it was a month late compared to pre-pandemic sessions.

    This strange calendar was again the result of being in session while the Governor’s statewide public health disaster emergency order was in place and operating under Rule 44 of the Joint Rules of the Senate and House of Representatives. While the General Assembly was meeting in January, one of the actions they took was passing Senate Joint Resolution 21-001, which adopted the joint rules of the 72nd General Assembly as the temporary joint rules of the 73rd General Assembly, but made a couple of important changes to Joint Rule 44. First, the House and the Senate amended the rule to state that it remains in effect so long as the Governor’s public health disaster emergency is in effect or until the Executive Committee terminates the operation of the rule. With this change, a majority of the members of the Executive Committee (the President, the Majority Leader, and the Minority Leader of the Senate; and the Speaker, Majority Leader, and Minority Leader of the House of Representatives) can decide that the General Assembly is no longer operating under the rule, regardless of whether the public health disaster emergency order is still in effect.

    The other significant change to Joint Rule 44 affects how the legislative days are counted. During the 2020 legislative session, once the public health disaster emergency was declared and Joint Rule 44 came into effect, only those days on which one or both of the houses convened counted against the 120-day maximum. That meant that the weekends, when usually neither house convened, did not count, which significantly extended how late the session could continue into the year even if the General Assembly did not take a temporary adjournment. With the General Assembly’s changes to the rule, once the General Assembly convenes in a year in which Joint Rule 44 is in effect, every calendar day counts toward the 120-day maximum, unless both houses agree to temporarily adjourn for more than three days. So, the days during the temporary adjournment from January 16, 2021, through February 15, 2021, did not count, but once the house reconvened on February 16, every day counted.

    In terms of introduced bills, this session was a little low compared to past years, but the pass rate was the highest in at least the last eight sessions. In all, 623 bills were introduced; 503 bills (81%) were enacted and 120 bills (19%) were killed. Of those bills that were enacted, as of June 17, the Governor had vetoed one bill, allowed two bills to become law without his signature, and signed approximately 250 bills. Almost half of the enacted bills are still waiting for the Governor’s action; he has until July 8 to either sign or veto them. At 12:01 a.m. on July 9th, any bills not acted on will become law without his signature.

    Similar to last session, the remarkable thing about the 2021 session was not the total number of bills introduced, but the timeframe in which bills were introduced. Sixty-five bills were introduced after May 1, with just over a month left in the session. Fourteen of those bills were introduced with just two weeks left in the session. These late bills included the annual school finance bill and a separate bill to change the school finance funding formula; an almost 200-page transportation funding bill; several criminal law reform bills, including a 360-plus page bill on misdemeanor reform; a bill to modernize the public utilities commission; a bill to create a new department of early childhood; some climate change and energy bills; several significant tax reform measures; a prescription drug pricing bill; and several bills to spend millions of dollars in federal stimulus money. Suffice it to say, those final five weeks were busy.

    Even with so many bills so late in the session, the General Assembly managed to adjourn four days early, a feat few thought they could achieve. And at this point, the General Assembly has no plans to return until the second regular session of the 73rd General Assembly convenes on January 12, 2022. Here’s hoping the 2022 legislative session will follow a more normal pattern…whatever that means.

  • CO Supreme Court Holds that Independent Really Means Independent

    by Julie Pelegrin

    This week, we’re looking at the second set of interrogatories that the General Assembly sent to the Colorado Supreme Court during the 2021 legislative session. House Joint Resolution 21-1008 asked the court to determine whether the changes made in Senate Bill 21-247, concerning the procedures of the independent redistricting commissions, would be constitutional if adopted. The court held that the changes in the bill would not be constitutional and clarified a limit on the plenary authority of the General Assembly.

    To understand the questions and the answers, we’ll start with some background on the redistricting process in Colorado.

    Every 10 years, in the year following the U.S. Census, the boundaries for congressional and state legislative districts are redrawn to ensure equal population as required by the federal constitution. In 2018, voters passed Amendments Y and Z, codified in sections 44 to 48.4 of article V of the Colorado Constitution, which create the independent congressional redistricting commission and the independent legislative redistricting commission to draw the congressional and legislative district maps.[1] The amendments also provide instructions for how to draw the maps (usually called redistricting plans), including criteria to apply in determining the district boundaries and very specific timelines for proposing the redistricting plans, getting public feedback on the plans, and submitting the plans to the Colorado Supreme Court for final approval.

    These timelines are based on an initial triggering event: Receiving the “necessary census data,” presumably by April 1 of the year following the census. This year, however, due mainly to the COVID-19 pandemic, the states are not receiving the census data until much later. At this point, the anticipated date for receiving the data is August 16, 2021, more than four months late. And the data released by this date won’t be tabulated and user-friendly for data access. That data won’t be available until September 30, 2021.

    Obviously, this delay wreaks havoc with the timelines specified in the constitution, which require:

    • Preliminary redistricting plans to be prepared by early May;
    • The commissions to hold several public hearings on the plans before July 21;
    • The commissions to consider up to three staff plans that are prepared after the public hearings are complete;
    • Each commission to submit an approved plan to the Colorado Supreme Court by September 15;
    • The court to either approve each commission’s plan or sends the plans back for reconsideration by November 15; and
    • The court to finally approve plans for both congressional and legislative districts no later than December 29, 2021.

    If the independent commissions cannot meet this timeline, there’s a strong likelihood that the deadlines for the 2022 election cycle will need to be delayed. To avoid that situation, the General Assembly introduced SB21-247 to make it clear that the commissions could begin their work using preliminary census data, but that the final plans must be based on the final census data. Also, to avoid protracted legal challenges to the process that the commissions follow, SB21-247 provided that a court, in considering a challenge to the plans on technical grounds, would apply a substantial compliance standard; that is, the plans would not be found to be unconstitutional on technical grounds so long as the commissions substantially complied with the technical constitutional requirements.

    The constitution uses the term “necessary census data” to describe the data the independent commissions must use to create the redistricting plans. That term isn’t defined in the constitution, but it is defined in section 2-2-902 (1)(c), C.R.S., as the federal decennial data published for the state by the United States Census Bureau and adjusted by the General Assembly’s nonpartisan staff to reflect changes concerning the residential addresses of incarcerated persons. This, of course, is the data that the commissions will not receive until August or September this year – much too late to begin the process of preparing plans.

    SB21-247 redefined “necessary census data” for this year only, to include population estimates from the census data and other data selected by the independent commissions. The bill also required the final plans to be based on “final census data,” defined as the data the commissions will receive in August and September of this year. The bill also included provisions concerning how and when the commissions will release the plans that are based on the final census data, including the requirement to hold at least one public hearing after receiving the final census data.

    As faithful LegiSource readers will recall, the General Assembly has plenary legislative authority, meaning it may enact legislation with regard to any issue or subject, so long as the legislation is not prohibited by or in conflict with the constitution. Amendments Y and Z specifically instruct the General Assembly to set compensation for the persons who assist in selecting the commissioners, appropriate money for commission expenses, and provide a per diem allowance for commissioners. But the amendments do not appear to specifically limit the plenary authority of the General Assembly, and the provisions of SB21-247 do not conflict with any provision of the amendments. The General Assembly therefore was arguably acting within the boundaries of its plenary authority in enacting SB21-247 to facilitate the work of the independent commissions. However, to avoid any legal challenges to the redistricting plans based on the provisions of SB21-247 that would cause delay to the 2022 election cycle, the General Assembly asked the Colorado Supreme Court for its opinion as to whether the provisions of SB21-247 are constitutional.

    The court held in a 5-2 opinion that they are not.

    The court reviewed Amendments Y and Z and concluded that by their terms they do not require the independent commissions to use only final census data when creating the preliminary and staff plans. Thus, the commissions can begin their work without waiting to receive the data that are scheduled to be delivered in August and September. However, for the final redistricting plans to comply with the criteria specified in the constitution, those plans likely must be based on the final census data received in August and September.

    The court also concluded that the General Assembly’s grant of plenary authority actually does not extend to legislation concerning Amendments Y and Z; the General Assembly does not have authority to direct the actions or operations of the independent redistricting commissions, except as specifically stated in the amendments. The court held that, in adopting Amendments Y and Z, the voters specifically intended to “divest the legislature” of authority over the redistricting process and especially over the independent commissions. Any authority of the General Assembly over those commissions must be specifically stated within the amendments. And in this case, Amendments Y and Z give the independent redistricting commissions and their staff “sole constitutional authority to conduct all of the key tasks in the redistricting process.” In adopting Amendments Y and Z, the voters put the redistricting process “beyond the power of the legislature.”

    Finally, the court held that the General Assembly cannot define the standard that a court applies when reviewing compliance with constitutional requirements, even if those requirements are purely technical. The General Assembly may establish the standard for determining compliance with statutes that the General Assembly enacts, but it cannot set the standard for determining compliance with constitutional provisions that the people enact. That decision lies solely with the courts.

    While the court was considering the interrogatories, SB21-247 rested on the third reading calendar in the House of Representatives. After the court announced its decision on June 1, 2021, the House effectively killed the bill by agreeing to lay it over until July 8, 2021.

     

     

    [1] Before 2018, the General Assembly was charged with congressional redistricting and a redistricting commission appointed by the Governor, the Chief Justice of the Colorado Supreme Court, and legislative leadership created the legislative redistricting plans.