Colorado LegiSource

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

Author: olls

  • Bone-Dry Laws: The Sobering Truth of Colorado’s Prohibition Era

    by Alana Rosen and Nate Carr

    If you have ever tasted a Gin Rickey, a Sidecar, or an Old Fashioned, then you have sampled a popular cocktail created during the Prohibition Era. The Prohibition Era, which lasted as a federal ban from January 17, 1920, until December 5, 1933, is remembered for the underworld nightlife of jazz clubs, flappers, and bootleggers and is now, over 100 years later, often romanticized.[1] Recently, the glamorization of the Prohibition Era has even inspired a resurgence of speakeasies, Roaring ’20s costume parties, and the modern-day film interpretation The Great Gatsby with heartthrob Leonardo DiCaprio. Despite the fascination with this era, Prohibition was propelled by more sober reasoning.

    The Temperance Movement was a driving political force to pass prohibition legislation. In Colorado and across the country, the Temperance Movement included a number of diverse organizations, such as the Women’s Christian Temperance Union, religious leaders, itinerant preachers, suffragists, and progressive-minded community members. Temperance reformers believed alcohol was the cause of social problems, and with its eradication, “America would be fully cleansed of sin”.[2] In Colorado, women gained the right to vote in statewide elections in 1893, and many women advocated to ban alcohol because of the link between drinking and domestic violence at home. As early as 1907, temperance reformers in Colorado celebrated the passage of anti-saloon legislation.

    In 1907, the Colorado General Assembly passed the first bone-dry law, an act allowing political territories to vote to outlaw the sale of alcohol within the territory.[3] By 1910, 20 out of 25 counties that voted on the question of whether to become anti-saloon territories, chose to become anti-saloon territories. Denver was among the five holdouts. Despite fervent efforts, temperance reformers were unsuccessful in convincing the electorate to add a prohibition amendment to the Colorado Constitution. But that all changed in 1914.

    In 1914, Colorado voters passed a constitutional amendment limiting alcohol in the state except for medicinal or sacramental reasons by a vote of 129,589 to 118,017.[4] The constitutional amendment, Article XXII, took effect on January 1, 1916. Under Article XXII, no person, association, or corporation could manufacture for sale or gift, or keep for sale or gift, any intoxicating liquor, except in limited situations.[5]

    The City and County of Denver, however, disagreed with Article XXII and continued to issue licenses to businesses to sell intoxicating liquors under its home-rule authority found in Article XX of the Colorado constitution. This disagreement resulted in the Colorado Supreme Court case, People ex rel. Carlson v. City Council of Denver.[6] The Court held that Denver was not exempt from the Article XXII, and the city was required to cancel issued liquor licenses.

    In 1915, the Colorado General Assembly went a step further and passed Senate Bill 80 (S.B. 80), which enacted laws against the possession, distribution, and advertising of intoxicating liquors. S.B. 80 also outlined law enforcement’s duty to search, seize, and destroy intoxicating liquors. If an officer had personal knowledge or reasonable information that intoxicating liquors were kept in any place, the officer could search a business with or without a warrant. The law, however, exempted private residences from these searches. It was reported that on the last night of legal alcohol, December 31, 1915, the New Year’s Eve passed quietly, more like a wake than a celebration to ring in a new year.

    Later, in 1917, the Colorado General Assembly passed House Bill 164 (H.B. 164), which further limited the importation of intoxicating liquors, reduced the amount of alcohol each household could possess, and created a permit system that made enforcement of the law more efficient.[7] Under H.B. 164, it was unlawful for any person to receive at any one time more than two quarts of intoxicating liquor other than wine or beer, except in circumstances when the intoxicating liquor was consumed for medicinal or sacramental purposes, six quarts of wine, or 24 quarts of beer.

    Finally, on November 5, 1918, the Colorado General Assembly adopted an all-encompassing prohibition on intoxicating liquors.[8] The new law strictly limited possession of intoxicating liquors to druggists and broadened the search and seizure powers of law enforcement, including the ability to seize any device used to carry liquor, including automobiles.

    Meanwhile, despite the goal to reduce public drunkenness, arrests for drunken disorderly conduct increased during this period. Local crime organizations brewed, transported, and distributed intoxicating liquors. Parents even made bootleg liquor at home to ensure their children would not be poisoned by bad liquor made by underground organizations, though improperly brewed homemade distillations could contain highly toxic methanol or traces of lead from the still. Ingesting such impurities could lead to abdominal pain, anemia, renal failure, hypertension, blindness, and death.

    Although Coloradans were imbibing intoxicating liquor behind closed doors, Colorado’s bone-dry laws did not repeal until December 1933. The repeal followed approval of the 21st Amendment to the United States Constitution, which repealed the 18th Amendment, the constitutional provision that prohibited the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors. There was a final push by temperance reformers to maintain the bone-dry laws, but in 1933 Colorado voters passed Amendment Seven, finally repealing Prohibition in Colorado.

     

    [1] The 18th Amendment to the Constitution prohibited the “manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors…” The states ratified the 18th Amendment on January 16, 1919. On October 28, 1919, Congress passed the Volstead Act, which provided for the enforcement of the 18th Amendment. Prohibition ended on December 5, 1933, with the ratification of the 21st Amendment.

    [2] PBS, Roots of Prohibition, https://www.pbs.org/kenburns/prohibition/roots-of-prohibition/ (accessed November 2, 2021).

    [3] 1907 Colo. Sess. Laws 495.

    [4] Dick Kreck, High, Dry Times as Prohibition Era Sobered Denver, Denver Post (July 3, 2009).

    [5] Colo. Const. of 1915, art. XXII, § 1.

    [6] People ex rel. Carlson v. City Council of Denver, et al, 60 Colo. 370, 153 P. 690 (Colo. 1915).

    [7] 1917 Colo. Sess. Laws 280.

    [8] 1919 Colo. Sess. Laws 461.

     

  • The Office of Legislative Workplace Relations: Neutral, Nonpartisan, Confidential

    by Ben FitzSimons and Michael Pearsall

    In 2019, the Colorado General Assembly voted to create an office to provide human resources services within the Capitol. (§ 2-3-511, C.R.S.) This office was designed to serve anyone working, volunteering, testifying, or visiting the Capitol complex. This includes, but is not limited to, state legislators, legislative aides and interns, legislative branch staff (both partisan and nonpartisan), Capitol building staff, and some third parties including lobbyists, members of the media, and individuals testifying before legislative committees.

    The mission of the Office of Legislative Workplace Relations (OLWR) is to provide neutral, nonpartisan, and confidential support in conflict and complaint resolution within the work environment. The OLWR was developed after considerable research and feedback from experts, consultants, and an interim legislative committee.

    Located in Room 026, in the northwest quadrant of the Capitol basement, the OLWR is currently led by the office director, Ben FitzSimons, with the assistance of legislative support specialist, Michael Pearsall. Both Ben and Michael are committed to the office’s mission of providing professional conflict resolution and support in a neutral, nonpartisan, and confidential manner.

    The OLWR provides a number of specialized services within the Colorado General Assembly. These include:

    • Confidential consultation, facilitation, and resolution planning for workplace issues and concerns. This includes working with legislators and supervisors to help resolve concerns or issues with their staff members and working with staff members (including aides, interns, partisan and nonpartisan staff, and volunteers) to help resolve questions or concerns about the work environment or their supervisors.
    • Confidential consultation regarding corrective/disciplinary action and planning. In addition, the OLWR can review or draft documents related to performance management and resolution of personnel issues.
    • Harassment complaint intake, investigation, and resolution. Any person who is covered by the Colorado General Assembly’s Workplace Harassment or Workplace Expectations policies may speak confidentially with the OLWR regarding questions or concerns about behaviors that may fall under the policy. The OLWR will help to assess concerns to determine which policy they may fall under, discuss what options may be available for resolving the concerns, talk through what the various options may look like, and manage or coordinate any resolution processes pursuant to the policies under which the concerns fall.
    • Workplace training, including:
      • Annual workplace harassment and expectations training for all legislators, staff, and third parties;
      • Manager/Supervisor training – this includes topics like coaching, providing effective feedback, and effective meeting management; and
      • Other professional development training – this includes topics like effective training skills, introduction to project management, leadership, and workplace ethics.
    • Other employee relations services, including:
      • Employee engagement – working with management to brainstorm and implement programs and practices designed to ensure that staff feel connected and committed to their roles and agencies;
      • Succession planning – working with management to brainstorm and implement plans for providing their staff with the necessary skills, knowledge, and experience to fill high-level internal positions as the individuals in those roles retire or move on;
      • Personnel policy reviews and recommendations – this includes reviewing for best practices, legal compliance, and consistency; and
      • Exit interviews for departing staff – this includes collecting feedback confidentially and reporting data back to agencies without providing the individual identities of those interviewed.
    • Organizational development services, including:
      • Provision or coordination of organizational development services to teams or agencies;
      • Team or individual coaching;
      • Customized team-building programs or exercises; and
      • Team-based leadership development training and projects.
    • General Assembly Coordinator for Americans with Disabilities Act accommodation. The OLWR:
      • Serves as the initial point of contact for members of the public seeking accommodation in order to participate in or observe the legislative process; and
      • Oversees the formal and informal processes for grievances filed under the policy.

    Please feel welcome to contact the OLWR with any questions or concerns regarding any of the processes listed above. Both Ben and Michael would be more than happy to assist in any way possible.

    You may contact the OLWR by email at olwr.ga@coleg.gov or call (303) 866-3393. You may also visit the office in person in Room 026 of the basement level of the Capitol building.

  • A Holiday Message

    Wishing you a safe and happy holiday season!

     

  • Santa Claus, Safety Clause, or Petition Clause?

    by Julie Pelegrin

    ‘Tis the season. Children are working on their letters to Santa; legislators are working on their bills, diligently meeting with drafters, lobbyists, and stakeholders, trying to craft effective policy to address the state’s issues. Once the policy is worked out, a legislator may figure, “That’s it; all done drafting. Finally I can get that holiday baking done!” But wait – the bill drafter will be pestering legislators with one last question: “Do you want a safety clause or an act-subject-to-petition clause on your bill?”

    Here’s a little background information to use in making this important decision.

    When first approved in 1876, the Colorado Constitution placed the legislative power of the state solely in the hands of the elected members of the Colorado House and Senate. And that’s where it stayed for almost 35 years. But by the early twentieth century, many people had become disillusioned with government; they no longer trusted elected officials to act solely in the public interest. The progressive movement arose, and the people started demanding a role for themselves in making the laws. They wanted to put the “demo” back in democracy. At the general election held in 1910, Colorado voters adopted an amendment to the Colorado Constitution—placed on the ballot by the General Assembly—that put the power to make laws directly in the hands of the people through the twin powers of initiative and referendum.

    Using the power of initiative, any individual may propose a change to the constitution or to statute by collecting and submitting to the Secretary of State a sufficient number of signatures on a petition. To place an initiative on the 2022 ballot, an individual must collect at least 124,632 signatures (5% of the total number of votes cast for the office of Secretary of State in the previous general election). The initiative is a positive power, empowering the people to create, change, or repeal law.

    In contrast, the referendum power is a negative power, empowering the people only to rescind all or part of an act passed by the General Assembly. By collecting the same number of signatures required for an initiative and submitting those signatures to the Secretary of State, an individual may place all or part of an act on the ballot for the electorate’s approval or disapproval. But the time for rescinding an act is limited; the signatures must be filed with the Secretary of State within 90 days after the end of the legislative session in which the General Assembly passes the act.

    There are two exceptions to the power of referendum. The people cannot refer an act to the ballot if: 1) The act is “necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety”; or 2) the act is an appropriation to support a state agency or institution. Deciding whether an act is an appropriation is relatively straightforward. If all it does is appropriate money, and it does not enact any actual changes to the law, it is likely an appropriation and therefore not subject to the referendum power. But who decides whether an act is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety?

    The General Assembly does by including what’s called a “safety clause” at the end of the act: “The general assembly hereby finds, determines, and declares that this act is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety.”

    The Colorado courts have held that the General Assembly alone is authorized to determine whether that declaration is appropriately included in an act. While legislators may certainly debate whether to use a safety clause in a bill, once the General Assembly decides that question, the decision stands; the court will not overturn it. In Van Kleeck v. Ramer in 1916, the Colorado Supreme Court held that, in deciding whether an act is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety, the General Assembly “exercises a constitutional power exclusively vested in it, and hence, such declaration is conclusive upon the courts in so far as it abridges the right to invoke the referendum.”

    Deciding whether to include a safety clause in a bill is often a matter of timing. If an act is subject to the power of referendum, because it does not include a safety clause, that act cannot take effect for at least 90 days after the end of the legislative session in which it is passed. As previously explained, a citizen has 90 days after the session ends to collect enough signatures to place the act on the ballot. During that time, rather than risk implementing a law that the voters may reverse, the act is held in limbo; it cannot take effect until the time for collecting signatures expires. And if someone does collect enough signatures to put the act on the ballot, it cannot take effect until the Governor declares the vote after the next general election. General elections occur only in even-numbered years, so if an act passes in a legislative session held in an odd-numbered year and is referred to the ballot by petition, the act won’t take effect—if it even takes effect—until roughly 18 months after the end of the legislative session.

    The last act referred to the ballot was Senate Bill 19-042, which addressed an agreement among the states to elect the President of the United States by national popular vote. The General Assembly passed the act February 22, 2019, the Governor signed it March 15, 2019, but, because it was referred to the ballot, it did not take effect until December 31, 2020.

    In contrast, an act that passes with a safety clause may take effect as soon as the Governor either signs it or allows it to become law without signature.

    So if the bill sponsor thinks the bill makes a necessary policy change, and it’s important that the change take effect sooner than 90 days after the end of the legislative session, the bill will need a safety clause.

  • Statutory Powers to Address Epidemics

    by Jery Payne

    It’s a little known fact, but being a smart audience, you may have heard that an epidemic engulfed the nation and the world, which makes the epidemic a pandemic. It’s commonly known as “COVID-19,” which is a shortening of the phrase “Corona Virus Disease of 2019.”

    In 2020, the governor of Colorado declared an emergency and invoked emergency powers to address the spread of the virus. The state required people to stay at home as much as possible, mandated people wear masks, and implemented many other mandates. Local health agencies also issued mandates. This led many people to wonder, “Can they do that?” And like any good lawyer, I’m going to say, “It depends.”

    The Department of Public Health and Environment and local health agencies have many powers to control epidemics. First, the department has many statutory powers to protect public health, including the power to:

    • Close theaters, schools, and other public places, and to forbid gatherings of people;
    • Establish and approve laboratories;
    • Conduct laboratory investigations and examinations;
    • Establish and enforce standards for diagnostic tests by laboratories;
    • Purchase and distribute to licensed physicians, with or without charge, vaccines and other therapeutic products as necessary for the protection of public health;
    • Establish and enforce sanitary standards for the operation of just about any place used for public gatherings; and
    • Determine if there is a shortage of drugs critical to the public safety of the people of Colorado and declare an emergency to prevent the practice of unfair drug pricing.

    In addition, the department has several statutory powers specific to addressing epidemics, including the power to:

    • Investigate and control the causes of epidemic and communicable diseases affecting public health;
    • Require any person who has epidemic information to report the information to the State Board of Health, without patient consent, of occurrences of the epidemic or disease;
    • Access patient medical, coroner, and laboratory records relating to epidemic and communicable diseases determined to be dangerous to public health;
    • Investigate and monitor the spread of epidemic;
    • Establish and enforce isolation and quarantine, and, for this purpose only, exercise physical control over property and the people necessary for the protection of public health; and
    • When a specific place is a continuing source of an epidemic, make it stop, and if necessary, eliminate it.

    Together, these state statutes give the department broad powers to address epidemics.

    Local public health agencies, including county, municipal, and district agencies, also have statutory powers, granted by state law, to control epidemics within their jurisdictions. Local public health agencies have the power to:

    • Carry out the public health laws and rules of the state board;
    • Administer and enforce the orders, rules, and standards of state health agencies;
    • Investigate and control the causes of epidemic or communicable diseases;
    • Establish and enforce isolation and quarantine, and, for this purpose only, exercise the physical control over property and the people necessary for the protection of public health;
    • Close schools and public places and prohibit gatherings of people when necessary to protect public health;
    • When a specific place is a continuing source of an epidemic, make it stop, and if necessary, eliminate it;
    • Establish and approve laboratories;
    • Conduct laboratory investigations and examinations;
    • Purchase and distribute to licensed physicians, with or without charge, approved therapeutic products the agency determines is necessary to protect public health;
    • Initiate and carry out health programs consistent with state law; and
    • Make necessary sanitation and health investigations and inspections for matters affecting public health.

    Local boards of health are the policy-setting bodies for local health agencies. They develop policies and procedures to address epidemics and to administer and enforce the powers granted to local health agencies. This includes adopting rules and orders. Specifically, local boards of health have the statutory power to:

    • Develop and promote the public policies needed to secure the conditions necessary for a healthy community;
    • Determine general policies to be followed by the public health director;
    • Issue orders and adopt rules necessary for the proper exercise of the powers and duties vested in the local public health agency;
    • Accept and, through the public health director, use, disburse, and administer all aid for purposes that are within the functions of the local agency; and
    • To make agreements that may be required to receive money or other assistance.

    A person who is negatively affected by a decision, which can be a rule or order of a state or local health board, department, or agency, may seek judicial review. The person must bring the case within 90 days after the decision is publicly announced. The court may affirm the decision or may reverse or modify it if the rights of the person have been prejudiced because the decision is:

    • Contrary to constitutional rights or privileges;
    • In excess of the statutory authority or jurisdiction of a state or local health board or agency;
    • Affected by any error of law;
    • Made or promulgated upon unlawful procedure;
    • Unsupported by substantial evidence in view of the entire record; or
    • Arbitrary or capricious.

    Except in certain types of cases, judicial review of a board decision is conducted by the court without a jury. Even when statutory authority exists, a decision that violates the Colorado Constitution or the United States Constitution will be struck down if challenged. If a particular mandate is challenged, the court will review the record to determine whether to uphold or overturn the mandate based on whether the mandate is a reasonable use of the authority to protect public health.

    Although my guess is that not many people have flipped through these statute pages for a mighty long spell, you can bet that they have certainly been flipped through a lot lately. These statutes are useful guides as we wend our way through these weird times.

  • Happy Thanksgiving!

    Happy Thanksgiving from the Office of Legislative Legal Services

    A view of the capitol dome through orange leaves

  • 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: