The information contained herein is updated as of today's date.

Colorado Assessors' Association

HB17-1016 Exclude Value Mineral Resources Tax Increment Financing Division 
Comment: Bill coming from the City of Firestone.
Position:
Calendar Notification: NOT ON CALENDAR
News:
Short Title: Exclude Value Mineral Resources Tax Increment Financing Division
Sponsors: L. Saine | M. Gray / B. Martinez Humenik | R. Zenzinger
Summary:

The bill permits the governing body of a municipality, as applicable, to provide in an urban renewal plan that the valuation attributable to the extraction of mineral resources located within the urban renewal area is not subject to the division of taxes between base and incremental revenues that accompanies the tax increment financing of urban renewal projects. In such circumstances, the taxes levied on the valuation will be distributed to the public bodies as if the urban renewal plan was not in effect.

The bill defines the terms 'mineral resources' and 'valuation attributable to the extraction of mineral resources.'


(Note: This summary applies to the reengrossed version of this bill as introduced in the second house.)

Status: 3/8/2017 Governor Signed
Status History: Status History
Amendments:
Fiscal Notes:

Fiscal Note


HB17-1017 County Surveyor Duties 
Comment:
Position:
Calendar Notification: NOT ON CALENDAR
News:
Short Title: County Surveyor Duties
Sponsors: C. Kennedy / C. Jahn | R. Baumgardner
Summary:

The bill clarifies the specific duties of a county surveyor and provides that certain services may be provided at the surveyor's discretion and when compensated by agreement between the surveyor and the board of county commissioners. The board of county commissioners may elect to have some of the discretionary services contracted out to a private surveyor or have other county departments perform the services.

If the office of the county surveyor is vacant, current law requires the board of county commissioners to fill the vacancy within 90 days. The bill extends this period to 6 months.

The bill modifies the process used to fix and define an indefinite boundary line between 2 counties.


(Note: This summary applies to the reengrossed version of this bill as introduced in the second house.)

Status: 3/8/2017 Governor Signed
Status History: Status History
Amendments: Amendments
Fiscal Notes:

Fiscal Note


HB17-1019 Property Tax Redemption Third Party Costs 
Comment:
Position:
Calendar Notification: NOT ON CALENDAR
News:
Short Title: Property Tax Redemption Third Party Costs
Sponsors: D. Valdez / D. Coram
Summary:

When property taxes are delinquent, a county treasurer issues a tax certificate, which is a lien on the property. The property can be redeemed upon paying the delinquent taxes, interest, and specified publication, abstract, and search fees. The bill now requires the repayment of any amounts paid to 3rd parties for computer software costs incurred in connection with processing the redemption.


(Note: This summary applies to the reengrossed version of this bill as introduced in the second house.)

Status: 3/8/2017 Governor Signed
Status History: Status History
Amendments: Amendments
Fiscal Notes:

Fiscal Note


HB17-1029 Open Records Subject To Inspection Denial 
Comment:
Position:
Calendar Notification: NOT ON CALENDAR
News:
Short Title: Open Records Subject To Inspection Denial
Sponsors: P. Lawrence / B. Gardner
Summary:

The bill allows a custodian to deny access to confidential personal information records and employee personal e-mail addresses. The provisions of the 'Colorado Open Records Act' that relate to civil or administrative investigations and trade secrets and other privileged and confidential information apply to the judicial branch.


(Note: This summary applies to this bill as introduced.)

Status: 2/2/2017 House Committee on State, Veterans, & Military Affairs Postpone Indefinitely
Status History: Status History
Amendments:
Fiscal Notes:

Fiscal Note


HB17-1049 Eliminate Property Tax Abatement Refund Interest 
Comment: Stakeholder meeting on the bill took place on 1/26, and a compromise could develop.
Compromise developed and the bill passed the House; however, there are issues around the 'omitted language' section of the bill. Ken is going to work with the Senate sponsor to amend the language.
Position: Neutral
Calendar Notification: NOT ON CALENDAR
News:
Short Title: Eliminate Property Tax Abatement Refund Interest
Sponsors: D. Thurlow | M. Gray / D. Coram
Summary:

If property taxes are levied erroneously or illegally and a taxpayer has not protested the valuation within the time permitted by law, then the taxpayer has 2 years from the start of the property tax year to file a petition for abatement or refund. The board of county commissioners is required to abate the taxes, and the taxpayer is entitled to a refund for the incorrect amount and, in some circumstances, refund interest equal to 1% per month. The bill delays the start of the refund interest so that it accrues from the date a complete abatement petition is filed, with the exception of an abatement or refund for taxes paid as a result of omitted property being added to the assessment roll.


(Note: This summary applies to the reengrossed version of this bill as introduced in the second house.)

Status: 4/24/2017 Governor Signed
Status History: Status History
Amendments: Amendments
Fiscal Notes:

Fiscal Note


HB17-1063 Reduce Business Personal Property Taxes 
Comment:
Position: Monitor
Calendar Notification: NOT ON CALENDAR
News:
Short Title: Reduce Business Personal Property Taxes
Sponsors: T. Leonard / L. Crowder | T. Neville
Summary:

Under current law, if a business has less than $7,300 of personal property that would be listed on a single personal property schedule, then the personal property is exempt from the property tax and the business is not required to submit a schedule to the county assessor. With respect to this exemption, the bill reduces the amount of personal property tax that businesses pay by:

  • Increasing the exemption that applies per schedule from $7,300 to $50,000, adjusted for inflation in the future, which increase will allow more businesses to avoid filing personal property tax schedules; and
  • Allowing businesses whose personal property value exceeds the total exemption amount to claim the exemption.

For public utilities that are assessed statewide, the property tax administrator currently considers all of a public utility's tangible property within the state as a factor in determining the value of the public utility as a unit. The bill modifies the valuation process by:

  • Exempting the first $50,000 or an inflation-adjusted amount of personal property from the property tax and excluding it from the administrator's consideration for valuation purposes; and
  • Excluding the exempt personal property from the public utility's statement of property that it files with the administrator.
    (Note: This summary applies to this bill as introduced.)

Status: 2/1/2017 House Committee on State, Veterans, & Military Affairs Postpone Indefinitely
Status History: Status History
Amendments:
Fiscal Notes:

Fiscal Note


HB17-1152 Federal Mineral Lease District Investment Authority 
Comment:
Position:
Calendar Notification: NOT ON CALENDAR
News:
Short Title: Federal Mineral Lease District Investment Authority
Sponsors: Y. Willett | D. Mitsch Bush / R. Scott
Summary:

The bill gives a federal mineral lease district (district) the option, but not the obligation, to invest a portion of the funding it receives from the local government mineral impact fund in a fund. Current law requires the district to distribute the funding to impacted areas in the district, but also allows the district to reserve all or a portion of the funding for use in subsequent years.

The bill specifies that the district may appropriate and disburse any part of the invested funding and all sums in excess thereof, including interest, dividends, or similar appreciated values, but specifies that the district shall do so only upon the enactment of a resolution identifying the reason for the appropriation and disbursement.

The bill specifies that the district may invest the funding subject to the district's investment policy and in any investment in which the board of trustees of the public employees' retirement association may invest the funds of the association, which are the same investments in which the state treasurer is authorized to invest the local government permanent fund, which is comprised of 50% of the federal mineral lease bonus payments.

The bill allows the board of directors to engage the services of investment advisors, but specifies that the selection of investment advisors must be made following an open and competitive process.

The bill also requires the district to adopt an investment policy resolution that must be reviewed annually and must include:

  • An acknowledgment of the board of director's fiduciary responsibility with respect to oversight of the district's investment policy;
  • Performance benchmarks for all investments and for all investment advisors who may be hired by the board of directors;
  • A requirement for the preparation and publication of annual financial statements that must include, at a minimum, information regarding starting balances, contributions, investment income, and losses, if any, and any investment fees incurred;
  • Careful consideration of investment fees or other brokerage costs which might reduce investment returns; and
  • A requirement that the board of directors annually review the investments and annually set appropriations to be included in the trust fund.
    (Note: This summary applies to the reengrossed version of this bill as introduced in the second house.)

Status: 4/4/2017 Governor Signed
Status History: Status History
Amendments: Amendments
Fiscal Notes:

Fiscal Note


HB17-1161 TIF Tax Increment Financing Transparency 
Comment: The bill developed out of an issue in Littleton.
Position:
Calendar Notification: NOT ON CALENDAR
News:
Short Title: TIF Tax Increment Financing Transparency
Sponsors: S. Beckman
Summary:

Not later than 90 days after the end of the first fiscal year of an urban renewal authority (authority) after the governing body of a municipality has approved an urban renewal plan (plan) that allocates any incremental property or sales tax revenues of any taxing entity other than the municipality, and on the same day each year thereafter, the bill requires the authority to prepare a report for public distribution.

The authority is required to send a copy of the report by first class mail and by e-mail to each taxing entity other than the municipality whose incremental property or sales tax revenues will be allocated under the plan.

The bill specifies items the report is to address.

With the annual report, the bill also requires an authority to submit an independent audit of its financial status that is prepared by a certified public accountant attesting to the accuracy of the annual report. As part of the audit, the certified public accountant is also required to report whether the authority has used any incremental property or sales tax revenues for any unauthorized purposes other than for eligible costs. In connection with the preparation of the report, the authority must also provide any other financial information that is reasonably required by the governing body of the municipality.

If the audit finds that any incremental property or sales tax revenues have been used for any unauthorized purposes, the authority is liable for the repayment of such incremental tax revenues to the taxing entities whose incremental property or sales tax revenues were allocated under the plan.


(Note: This summary applies to this bill as introduced.)

Status: 2/21/2017 House Committee on Business Affairs and Labor Postpone Indefinitely
Status History: Status History
Amendments:
Fiscal Notes:

Fiscal Note


HB17-1167 Existing Businesses In Business Improvement District 
Comment:
Position:
Calendar Notification: NOT ON CALENDAR
News:
Short Title: Existing Businesses In Business Improvement District
Sponsors: T. Leonard / T. Neville
Summary:

A business improvement district (district) is a type of special district created within a municipality to fund certain types of improvements that will, among other things, promote the continued vitality of existing business areas within the municipality. The law currently allows a municipality to include areas in a district that do not have any existing businesses. The bill requires these areas to have existing businesses.


(Note: This summary applies to this bill as introduced.)

Status: 2/21/2017 House Committee on Business Affairs and Labor Postpone Indefinitely
Status History: Status History
Amendments:
Fiscal Notes:

Fiscal Note


HB17-1174 Exempt Rural Telecommunications Local Improvement District Requirements 
Comment:
Position:
Calendar Notification: NOT ON CALENDAR
News:
Short Title: Exempt Rural Telecommunications Local Improvement District Requirements
Sponsors: J. Wilson / L. Crowder | L. Guzman
Summary:

Under current law, a county seeking to establish a local improvement district to fund a telecommunications service improvement may construct the improvement if the county has an agreement with a telecommunications service provider to provide service, facilities, plants, or systems in the area in which the improvement will be constructed. The improvement must then be owned, operated, and maintained by the telecommunications service provider.

The bill allows a rural county with a population of fewer than 50,000 inhabitants to establish a local improvement district to fund an advanced service improvement in an unserved area of the county under the same conditions that apply to the funding of a telecommunications service improvement through a local improvement district. The bill also defines the terms 'advanced service', 'rural county', and unserved area'.


(Note: This summary applies to the reengrossed version of this bill as introduced in the second house.)

Status: 4/18/2017 Governor Signed
Status History: Status History
Amendments: Amendments
Fiscal Notes:

Fiscal Note


HB17-1177 Mediation For Disputes Arising Under CORA Colorado Open Records Act 
Comment:
Position:
Calendar Notification: NOT ON CALENDAR
News:
Short Title: Mediation For Disputes Arising Under CORA Colorado Open Records Act
Sponsors: C. Wist | A. Garnett / J. Cooke
Summary:

Under current law, any person denied the right to inspect any record covered by the 'Colorado Open Records Act' (CORA) may apply to the district court of the district wherein the record is found for an order directing the custodian of such record to show cause why the custodian should not permit the inspection of such record; except that, at least 3 business days prior to filing an application with the district court, the person who has been denied the right to inspect the record is required to file a written notice with the custodian who has denied the right to inspect the record informing the custodian that the person intends to file an application with the district court. The bill changes this deadline from 3 days to 14 days.

During the 14-day period before the person may file an application with the district court, the bill requires the custodian who has denied the right to inspect the record to either meet in person or communicate on the telephone with the person who has been denied access to the record to determine if the dispute may be resolved without filing an application with the district court. The meeting may include recourse to any method of dispute resolution that is agreeable to both parties. The bill requires any common expense necessary to resolve the dispute to be apportioned equally between or among the parties unless the parties have agreed to a different method of allocating the costs between or among them. If the person who has been denied access to inspect a record states in the required written notice to the custodian that the person needs to pursue access to the record on an expedited basis, the bill requires the person to provide such written notice, including a factual basis of the expedited need for the record, to the custodian at least 3 business days prior to the date on which the person files the application with the district court. In such circumstances, no meeting to determine if the dispute may be resolved without filing an application with the district court is required.


(Note: This summary applies to the reengrossed version of this bill as introduced in the second house.)

Status: 5/4/2017 Governor Signed
Status History: Status History
Amendments: Amendments
Fiscal Notes:

Fiscal Note


HB17-1256 Oil And Gas Facilities Distance From School Property 
Comment:
Position:
Calendar Notification: NOT ON CALENDAR
News:
Short Title: Oil And Gas Facilities Distance From School Property
Sponsors: M. Foote / I. Aguilar | M. Jones
Summary:

As part of the Colorado oil and gas conservation commission's (commission) authority to regulate oil and gas operations to prevent and mitigate significant adverse environmental impacts to protect public health, safety, and welfare, the commission requires oil and gas production facilities and wells to be located at least 1,000 feet from school buildings and other high occupancy buildings. The bill clarifies that the minimum 1,000-foot distance from which newly permitted production facilities and wells must be located from any school applies to the school property line and not the school building. The bill further clarifies that it does not apply if a school commences operations near production facilities or wells that are already actively in use or permitted and, with respect to property owned by a school district, the distance requirement applies to the school building, other facilities used for school activities, and real property on which a future permanent or temporary school building is planned within 5 years after a production facility application is filed.


(Note: This summary applies to the reengrossed version of this bill as introduced in the second house.)

Status: 4/12/2017 Senate Committee on Agriculture, Natural Resources, & Energy Postpone Indefinitely
Status History: Status History
Amendments: Amendments
Fiscal Notes:

Fiscal Note


HB17-1260 Contribution Limits For County Offices 
Comment:
Position:
Calendar Notification: NOT ON CALENDAR
News:
Short Title: Contribution Limits For County Offices
Sponsors: C. Kennedy / S. Fenberg
Summary:

Current law regulating campaign finance does not set limits on contributions to candidates for a county office. Section 1 of the bill sets the maximum amount of aggregate contributions that certain persons may make to a candidate committee of a candidate for a county office, and that a candidate committee for such candidate may accept from such persons, as follows:

  • In the case of any person other than a small donor committee or a political party, $1,250 for both the primary and general elections;
  • In the case of a small donor committee, $12,500 for both the primary and general elections; and
  • In the case of a political party, $22,125 for the applicable election cycle.

The bill defines 'county office' to mean a county commissioner, county clerk and recorder, sheriff, coroner, treasurer, assessor, or surveyor.

Section 1 also specifies that the contribution limits in the bill are required to be adjusted for inflation in the same manner as other contribution limits specified in the state constitution.

The bill also makes statutory requirements governing the disclosure of campaign finance information and the filing of disclosure reports applicable to a contribution made to, or received by, a candidate committee of a candidate for a county office.

Section 2 makes a conforming amendment.

For the 2017-18 state fiscal year, section 3 appropriates $10,000 to the department of state from the department of state cash fund. The department may use this appropriation for personal services related to information technology services.
(Note: This summary applies to the reengrossed version of this bill as introduced in the second house.)

Status: 5/1/2017 Senate Committee on State, Veterans, & Military Affairs Postpone Indefinitely
Status History: Status History
Amendments: Amendments
Fiscal Notes:

Fiscal Note


HB17-1311 Seller's Disclosure Estimated Future Property Tax 
Comment:
Position:
Calendar Notification: NOT ON CALENDAR
News:
Short Title: Seller's Disclosure Estimated Future Property Tax
Sponsors: D. Michaelson Jenet | M. Weissman / A. Williams
Summary:

No later than January 1, 2018, the bill requires the property tax administrator to make available a tool to estimate residential property taxes on the division of property taxation's website.


(Note: This summary applies to the reengrossed version of this bill as introduced in the second house.)

Status: 5/4/2017 Senate Committee on Finance Postpone Indefinitely
Status History: Status History
Amendments: Amendments
Fiscal Notes:

Fiscal Note


HB17-1349 Assessment Ratio For Residential Real Property 
Comment:
Position:
Calendar Notification: NOT ON CALENDAR
News:
Short Title: Assessment Ratio For Residential Real Property
Sponsors: D. Pabon | K. Van Winkle / T. Neville | L. Court
Summary:

The bill sets the ratio of valuation for assessment for residential real property at 7.2% for property tax years commencing on and after January 1, 2017, until the next property tax year that the general assembly adjusts this ratio.


(Note: This summary applies to the reengrossed version of this bill as introduced in the second house.)

Status: 6/5/2017 Governor Signed
Status History: Status History
Amendments:
Fiscal Notes:

Fiscal Note


HB17-1363 Exempt New Energy Requirement If Not Subordinate Lien 
Comment:
Position:
Calendar Notification: NOT ON CALENDAR
News:
Short Title: Exempt New Energy Requirement If Not Subordinate Lien
Sponsors: C. Hansen / B. Martinez Humenik
Summary:

Current law authorizes a homeowner to finance certain energy efficiency improvements to the home through a loan pursuant to the property assessed clean energy (PACE) program. The program requires an applicant to file a title commitment on the home and a hearing must be held in order to seek a voluntary subordination of existing liens to the program's junior lien.

The bill exempts a homeowner from the title commitment and hearing requirements if the owner or lender is not seeking to subordinate the priority of existing liens.


(Note: This summary applies to the reengrossed version of this bill as introduced in the second house.)

Status: 6/5/2017 Governor Signed
Status History: Status History
Amendments: Amendments
Fiscal Notes:

Fiscal Note


SB17-009 Business Personal Property Tax Exemption 
Comment:
Position: Monitor
Calendar Notification: NOT ON CALENDAR
News:
Short Title: Business Personal Property Tax Exemption
Sponsors: L. Crowder / T. Leonard
Summary:

There is an exemption from property tax for business personal property that would otherwise be listed on a single personal property schedule that is equal to $7,300 for the current property tax year cycle. The bill increases the exemption to $10,000 for the next 2 property tax years and adjusts it for inflation for subsequent property tax cycles.


(Note: This summary applies to the reengrossed version of this bill as introduced in the second house.)

Status: 5/3/2017 House Committee on State, Veterans, & Military Affairs Postpone Indefinitely
Status History: Status History
Amendments: Amendments
Fiscal Notes:

Fiscal Note


SB17-040 Public Access To Government Files 
Comment:
Position:
Calendar Notification: NOT ON CALENDAR
News:
Short Title: Public Access To Government Files
Sponsors: J. Kefalas / D. Pabon
Summary:

Section 1 of the bill adds a legislative declaration.

Section 4 of the bill modifies the 'Colorado Open Records Act' (CORA) by creating new procedures governing the inspection of public records that are stored as structured data. Section 2 defines key terms including 'structured data', which the bill defines as digital data that is stored in a fixed field within a record or file that is capable of being automatically read, processed, or manipulated by a computer. Section 2 of the bill provides a definition of the term 'infrastructure security data'. Section 2 also specifies that, for purpose of the definition of 'public records in CORA, the terms 'state' and 'agency' include the judicial department of state government.

If the custodian has made the requested records publicly available in a structured data format, section 3 of the bill allows the custodian to satisfy the request by redirecting the requester, in writing and in detail, to the location of the records.

If public records are stored as structured data, section 4 requires the custodian of the public records to provide an accurate copy of the public records in a structured data format when requested. If public records are not stored as structured data but are stored in an electronic or digital form and are searchable in their native format, the custodian is required to provide a copy of the public records in a format that is searchable when requested.

Section 4 specifies the circumstances that exempt the custodian from having to produce records in a searchable or structured data format.

If a custodian is not able to comply with a request to produce public records that are subject to disclosure in a requested format, the custodian is required to produce the records in an alternate format or issue a denial and to provide a written declaration attesting to the reasons the custodian is not able to produce the records in the requested format. If a court subsequently rules the custodian should have provided the data in the requested format attorney fees may be awarded only if the custodian's action was arbitrary or capricious.

Nothing in the bill requires a custodian to produce records in their native format or to release metadata.

When a custodian produces records in a searchable or structured format, the choice of format is in the sole discretion of the custodian.

Section 4 also clarifies that the bill does not relieve or mitigate the obligations of a custodian to produce records in a format accessible to individuals with disabilities in accordance with Title II of the federal 'Americans with Disabilities Act', and other federal or state laws.

Section 5 of the bill adds as an additional ground that a custodian has for disallowing the inspection of public records that the inspection seeks access to infrastructure security data.

This section of the bill also permits the custodian to deny the right of inspection of the following records, unless otherwise provided by law, on the ground that disclosure to the applicant would be contrary to the public interest: Software programs; network and systems architectural designs; source code; source documentation; information in tangible or intangible form relating to released and unreleased software or hardware, database design structures, database schema and architecture, security structures and architecture, and data stored in support structures; agency original design ideas; nonpublic business policies and practices relating to software development and use; and the terms and conditions of any actual or proposed license agreement or other agreement concerning the products and licensing negotiations.

The bill permits any public employee, or former public employee, of any branch or level of government, to request that his or her home address, personal telephone number, or other similar personal identifying or location information be withheld from the production of any public records produced in a structured data or searchable format by presenting to any custodian of such public records a written declaration signed by the employee attesting that disclosure of the personal identifying or location information poses a credible risk to the health, welfare, safety, or security of the employee or to any member of the employee's family or household.

Upon receipt of a signed declaration meeting the bill's requirements or a declaration containing the same information that has been executed by a federal law enforcement agency, POST certified law enforcement official, or a judicial officer, the custodian of any public records produced in a structured data or searchable format is required to either deny the inspection of such public records or redact from any such public records provided to any requester in a structured data or searchable format the employee's personal identifying or location information. The bill prohibits any claim of any kind from being asserted against either any records custodian or any agency of government that is premised on the failure of the custodian or the agency to comply with these requirements of the bill.

If the custodian denies access to any record on the grounds that the record contains infrastructure security data, the bill requires the custodian to forthwith furnish the applicant with a written statement specifying why the requested record is infrastructure security data. At the same time, the custodian is also required to provide copies of the written statement to the attorney general of the state and also to the division of homeland security and emergency management within the department of public safety. The applicant may apply to state district court for a determination that the requested record is in fact a public record and does not satisfy the definition of infrastructure security data. In such legal action, the applicant bears the burden of proof.

Section 5 also expands the grounds permitting the filing of a civil action seeking inspection of a public record to include an allegation of a violation of the digital format provisions in the bill or a violation of record transmission provisions specified in CORA. This section also specifies that altering an existing record, or excising fields of information, to remove information that the custodian is required or allowed to withhold does not constitute the creation of a new public record. Such alteration or excision may be subject to a research and retrieval fee or a fee for the programming of data as allowed under existing provisions of CORA.

Section 6 modifies CORA provisions governing the copy, printout, or photograph of a public record and the imposition of a research and retrieval fee. Among these modifications:

  • The bill deletes existing statutory language permitting the custodian to charge the same fee for services rendered in supervising the copying, printing out, or photographing of a public record as the custodian may charge for furnishing a copy, printout, or photograph;
  • The bill replaces a reference in the statute to the phrase 'manipulation of data' with the phrase 'programming, coding, or custom search queries so as to convert a record into a structured data or searchable format';
  • In connection with determining the amount of the fee for a paper or electronic copy of a public record, the bill specifies that, if a custodian performs programming, coding, or custom search queries to create a public record, the fee for a paper or electronic copy of that record may be based on recovery of the actual or incremental costs of performing the programming, coding, or custom search queries, together with a reasonable portion of the costs associated with building and maintaining the information systems; and
  • When a person makes a request to inspect or make copies or images of original public records, the bill permits the custodian to charge a fee for the time required for the custodian to supervise the handling of the records, when such supervision is necessary to protect the integrity or security of the original records.

Section 7 repeals the existing criminal misdemeanor offense and penalty for a willful and knowing violation of CORA.

Section 8 of the bill appropriates $50,810 to the judicial department for the 2017-18 state fiscal year from the general fund. This section of the bill also appropriates $855 to the department of law for the 2017-18 state fiscal year. This latter appropriation is from reappropriated funds received from the office of the state public defender in the judicial department. To implement the bill, the department of law is permitted to use this appropriation to provide legal services for the office of the state public defender in the judicial department.
(Note: This summary applies to the reengrossed version of this bill as introduced in the second house.)

Status: 6/1/2017 Governor Signed
Status History: Status History
Amendments: Amendments
Fiscal Notes:

Fiscal Note


SB17-078 Residential Storage Condo Unit Property Taxation 
Comment: Bill could be delayed in Senate Appropriations Committee.
Position: Oppose
Calendar Notification: NOT ON CALENDAR
News:
Short Title: Residential Storage Condo Unit Property Taxation
Sponsors: B. Gardner / K. Van Winkle | J. Melton
Summary:

The bill establishes that a residential storage condominium unit is a residential improvement. This allows the unit to be assessed as residential real property, which currently has an assessment ratio of 7.96%, instead of as nonresidential property, which has an assessment ratio of 29%.

A residential storage condominium unit is defined to mean a building that is:

  • A unit under the 'Colorado Common Interest Ownership Act';
  • Used by its owner to store items from or related to the owner's Colorado residence; and
  • Not used for storage related to a business.

For a property to qualify as a residential storage condominium unit, the owner of the building unit must submit an affidavit of intended use. The property tax administrator is required to establish the form of the affidavit and to prepare and publish standards for assessors to determine whether a property qualifies as a residential storage condominium unit. The bill establishes penalties for a person that knowingly provides false information on the affidavit.


(Note: This summary applies to the reengrossed version of this bill as introduced in the second house.)

Status: 4/10/2017 House Committee on Finance Postpone Indefinitely
Status History: Status History
Amendments: Amendments
Fiscal Notes:

Fiscal Note


SB17-248 Modify Previously Approved Regional Tourism Project 
Comment:
Position:
Calendar Notification: NOT ON CALENDAR
News:
Short Title: Modify Previously Approved Regional Tourism Project
Sponsors: O. Hill | M. Merrifield / L. Liston | P. Lee
Summary:

The 'Colorado Regional Tourism Act' includes a process by which one or more local governments may undertake a regional tourism project (project), create a regional tourism zone in which the project will be built, and create a regional tourism authority to use tax increment financing based on state sales tax revenue to finance eligible improvements related to the project. Currently, once a project has been approved, there is not a process to allow a local government to request and the Colorado economic development commission (commission) to approve a modification to the components of the project.

The bill allows a local government that is a participant in an approved project to apply to the commission to modify the project if the local government determines that a planned project component is no longer viable or that the new component will increase the number of out-of-state tourists visiting the project or net new revenue generated by the project.

A local government must submit an application to modify an approved project to the Colorado office of economic development (office) for initial review prior to the commencement of substantial work on the project component that will be replaced. The local government is required to include certain information in the proposal but is not required to provide any information that was in the original application and that remains unchanged. The application must include an economic analysis that details whether the modified project meets the requirements specified in law and in guidelines established by the office.

The office is required to review and forward an application for a modification of a project to the commission with a recommendation that the commission approve the application, deny it, or approve it with conditions. The commission is required approve the application unless the modified project no longer meets the criteria for a project established in law. The commission may amend its original award, including the percentage of sales tax increment that is awarded and the total cumulative dollar amount to be awarded if specifically impacted by the new component, but may not increase the total cumulative dollar amount of the award beyond that which was previously awarded.

If the application for a modification is approved, the commission is required to modify the resolution it adopted when it approved the original application as necessary to conform the resolution to the modified project.


(Note: This summary applies to this bill as introduced.)

Status: 4/6/2017 Senate Committee on Appropriations Postpone Indefinitely
Status History: Status History
Amendments:
Fiscal Notes:

Fiscal Note


SB17-279 Applicability Recent Urban Renewal Legislation 
Comment:
Position:
Calendar Notification: NOT ON CALENDAR
News:
Short Title: Applicability Recent Urban Renewal Legislation
Sponsors: B. Martinez Humenik | R. Zenzinger / M. Gray | S. Beckman
Summary:

The bill clarifies the applicability provisions of legislation enacted in 2015 and 2016 to promote an equitable financial contribution among affected public bodies in connection with urban redevelopment projects allocating tax revenues in the following respects:

  • The bill clarifies that a substantial modification of an urban renewal plan (plan) is a proposed modification that substantially changes provisions of the plan regarding land area, land use, authorization to collect incremental tax revenue, the extent of the use of tax increment financing, the scope or nature of the urban renewal project, the scope of method of financing, design, building requirements, timing, or procedure, as previously approved, or where the modification will substantially clarify a plan that, when approved, was lacking in specificity as to the urban renewal project or financing. If the modification is substantial, the modification is subject to pertinent requirements of the urban renewal law addressing modifications. For plans to which a pledge of the revenues deposited into the special fund was made by an indenture or other legally binding document that is separate from the plan itself prior to January 1, 2016, a pledge to secure the payment of refunding bonds is not a substantial modification and is not subject to the modification requirements of the urban renewal law.
  • Not less than 30 days prior to approving any modification of a plan, the bill requires the governing body or an urban renewal authority (authority) to provide a detailed written description of the proposed modification to each taxing entity that levies taxes on property located within the urban renewal area and a notice of the date and time of the meeting at which the governing body will consider the modification. Any taxing entity that levies taxes on property located within the urban renewal area may file an action in the state district court exercising jurisdiction over the county in which the urban renewal area is located for an order determining, under a de novo standard of review, whether the modification is a substantial modification. Further, if requested by the taxing entity, the court is required to enjoin any action by the authority pursuant to the modification until the court has determined whether the modification is a substantial modification and, if so, the court is required to further enjoin any action by the authority until there has been compliance with statutory provisions addressing the sharing of incremental property tax revenues.
  • The bill prohibits any action from being brought to enjoin any undertaking or activity of the authority to a plan, including the issuance of bonds, the incurrence of other financial obligations, or the pledge of revenue, unless the action is commenced within 45 days after the date the authority provided notice of its intention regarding such undertaking or activity. The notice must describe the undertaking or activity proposed to be engaged in by the authority and specify that any action to enjoin the undertaking or activity must be brought within 45 days from the date of the notice. The notice must be published one time in a newspaper of general circulation within the county. On or before the date of publication of the notice, the bill also requires the authority to mail a copy of the notice to each taxing entity that levies taxes on property within the urban renewal area.
  • Finally, the bill clarifies that legislation enacted in 2015 to promote an equitable financial contribution among affected public bodies in connection with urban redevelopment projects allocating tax revenues, legislation adopted in 2016 to clarify such 2015 legislation, and the bill apply to municipalities, authorities, and any plans created on or after January 1, 2016, and to any substantial modification of any plan approved on or after January 1, 2016.
    (Note: This summary applies to the reengrossed version of this bill as introduced in the second house.)

Status: 5/25/2017 Governor Signed
Status History: Status History
Amendments: Amendments
Fiscal Notes:

Fiscal Note


SB17-285 Downtown Development Authorities Fairness Act 
Comment:
Position:
Calendar Notification: NOT ON CALENDAR
News:
Short Title: Downtown Development Authorities Fairness Act
Sponsors: K. Grantham / P. Lawrence | K. Becker
Summary:

The bill modifies certain statutory requirements applicable to a downtown development authority (authority) in the following respects:

  • In all cases where any plan of development managed by the authority includes an allocation of property tax increment generated by the mill levy imposed by one or more public bodies that are not municipalities, the bill requires that one director of the board of such authority be appointed by agreement of the boards of county commissioners of each county other than a city and county whose property taxes are subject to allocation under any such plan. One director must also be appointed by agreement of the boards of education of each school district whose property taxes are subject to allocation under any such plan and one director must also be appointed by agreement of the boards of directors of each special district whose property taxes are subject to allocation under any such plan.
  • The bill specifies additional requirements applicable to the appointment of board members.
  • In connection with existing statutory procedures permitting an authority to allocate taxes it collects to a special fund to finance a plan of development, the bill clarifies that the taxes that may be allocated are the property taxes of specifically designated public bodies.
  • Before any plan of development containing any tax allocation provisions that allocates any taxes of any taxing entity other than the municipality may be approved by the municipal governing body, the bill requires the authority to notify the governing boards of each other taxing entity whose incremental property tax revenues would be allocated under such proposed plan. Representatives of the authority and the governing body of the municipality and of each taxing entity are then required to meet and attempt to negotiate an agreement governing the sharing of incremental property tax revenue collected within the plan of development area. The agreement may be entered into separately among the municipality, the authority, and each such taxing entity, or through a joint agreement among the municipality, the authority, and any taxing entity that has chosen to enter into that agreement. Any such shared incremental tax revenues governed by any agreement are limited to incremental revenue that may be allocated to a plan of development.
  • The bill gives the parties 120 days to negotiate an agreement. If, after such period has passed, the parties fail to enter into an agreement, the bill requires the parties to participate in mediation on the issue of the appropriate sharing of incremental property tax revenues and the costs of a development project among the municipality, the authority, and any such taxing entities whose incremental property tax revenues will be allocated pursuant to a plan of development and with whom an intergovernmental agreement with the municipality and the authority has not been reached.
  • The mediation is to be conducted by a mediator jointly selected by the parties. If the parties are unable to agree on the appointment of a single mediator, the bill specifies requirements governing the appointment by the parties of a 3-mediator panel, payment of the mediator's fees and costs, and issues the mediator is to consider in making his or her determination.
  • Within 90 days, the bill requires the mediator to issue his or her findings of fact as to the appropriate sharing of costs and incremental property tax revenues, and to promptly transmit such information to the parties. With respect to the use of incremental property tax revenues of each other taxing entity, following the issuance of findings by the mediator, the governing body of the municipality is required to:
  • Incorporate the mediator's findings on the use of incremental property tax revenues of any taxing body into the plan of development and an intergovernmental agreement and proceed to adopt the plan;
  • Amend the plan of development to delete authorization of the use of the incremental property tax revenues of any taxing body with whom an agreement has not been reached; or
  • Direct the authority to either incorporate the mediator's findings into one or more intergovernmental agreements with other taxing entities or enter into new negotiations with one or more taxing entities and enter into one or more intergovernmental agreements with such taxing entities that incorporate such new or different provisions concerning the sharing of costs and incremental property tax revenues with which the parties are in agreement.
  • The bill prohibits any incremental property tax revenues from being allocated to and paid into the special fund of the authority unless the municipality and the authority have satisfied the mediation and other requirements of the bill.
    (Note: This summary applies to this bill as introduced.)

Status: 4/18/2017 Senate Committee on Finance Postpone Indefinitely
Status History: Status History
Amendments:
Fiscal Notes:

Fiscal Note