Arapahoe County 2024 Internal Legislative Report
Bill # Short TitleSponsorsCategoryPositionBill SummaryMost Recent StatusCCI PositionCCAT PositionStaff RecommendationAnalyze ThisFiscal NoteCalendar Notification
HB24-1007Prohibit Residential Occupancy Limits M. Rutinel (D) | J. Mabrey (D) / T. Exum (D) | J. Gonzales (D) Housing/Land Use Support The act prohibits counties, cities and counties, and municipalities from limiting the number of people who may live together in a single dwelling based on familial relationship, while allowing local governments to implement residential occupancy limits based only on: Demonstrated health and safety standards, such as international building code standards, fire code regulations, or Colorado department of public health and environment wastewater and water quality standards; or Local, state, federal, or political subdivision affordable housing program guidelines. APPROVED by Governor April 15, 2024 EFFECTIVE July 1, 2024(Note: This summary applies to this bill as enacted.)  4/15/2024 Governor Signed
Amend Amend Amend  Q1: Describe the general impacts of the bill on Arapahoe County (Please do not summarize the bill language).
N/A: Tue, January 16, 2024, by Kathy Smith (KSmith@arapahoegov.com)
This bill will remove the ability to regulate the occupancy numbers of residences.

Q2: Describe the impacts of the bill on the County’s operations and the provision of public services.
N/A: Tue, January 16, 2024, by Kathy Smith (KSmith@arapahoegov.com)
This will have no direct impact on the operation and provision of public services in CR. With that said, this could cause concerns with living conditions resulting in overcrowding, which could lead to increase in Senior Resource services needed, HS impact, etc.

Q3: In as much specificity as possible, please estimate the fiscal impacts of the bill on the County. Does the bill adequately fund the demands it places on the County?
N/A: Tue, January 16, 2024, by Kathy Smith (KSmith@arapahoegov.com)
None

Q4: If applicable, specify the impacts of the bill to underserved/disadvantaged communities within the County.
N/A: Tue, January 16, 2024, by Kathy Smith (KSmith@arapahoegov.com)
This could increase the ability for more individuals to live together, reducing those impacted by homelessness. This could also cause concern for an increased risk of over-crowding in living conditions, which could have an impact on quality of living conditions.

Q5: If you selected amend, what specific changes would be needed to make the legislation better for the County?
N/A: Tue, January 16, 2024, by Kathy Smith (KSmith@arapahoegov.com)
N/A

Q1: Describe the general impacts of the bill on Arapahoe County (Please do not summarize the bill language).
Monitor: Wed, January 17, 2024, by Bob Hill (RHill@arapahoegov.com)
This bill would require Arapahoe County to amend its zoning to remove the family relation restriction. It would also seem prudent to amend the code to provide for a limit per square foot on the number of persons that may reside in a structure.

Q2: Describe the impacts of the bill on the County’s operations and the provision of public services.
Monitor: Wed, January 17, 2024, by Bob Hill (RHill@arapahoegov.com)
Could impact zoning enforcement by easing the enforcement against properties where more than five unrelated persons reside. But could increase enforcement needs on a public health level for residences that are over-occupied to the point of health and safety impacts.

Q3: In as much specificity as possible, please estimate the fiscal impacts of the bill on the County. Does the bill adequately fund the demands it places on the County?
Monitor: Wed, January 17, 2024, by Bob Hill (RHill@arapahoegov.com)
Probably little financial impact.

Q4: If applicable, specify the impacts of the bill to underserved/disadvantaged communities within the County.
Monitor: Wed, January 17, 2024, by Bob Hill (RHill@arapahoegov.com)
Could increase amount of residential rental space available.

Q5: If you selected amend, what specific changes would be needed to make the legislation better for the County?
Monitor: Wed, January 17, 2024, by Bob Hill (RHill@arapahoegov.com)


Q1: Describe the general impacts of the bill on Arapahoe County (Please do not summarize the bill language).
N/A: Wed, January 17, 2024, by Ron Carl (RCarl@arapahoegov.com)
This bill may require conforming changes to our land development code.

Q2: Describe the impacts of the bill on the County’s operations and the provision of public services.
N/A: Wed, January 17, 2024, by Ron Carl (RCarl@arapahoegov.com)
None

Q3: In as much specificity as possible, please estimate the fiscal impacts of the bill on the County. Does the bill adequately fund the demands it places on the County?
N/A: Wed, January 17, 2024, by Ron Carl (RCarl@arapahoegov.com)
Minor

Q4: If applicable, specify the impacts of the bill to underserved/disadvantaged communities within the County.
N/A: Wed, January 17, 2024, by Ron Carl (RCarl@arapahoegov.com)
Unknown

Q5: If you selected amend, what specific changes would be needed to make the legislation better for the County?
N/A: Wed, January 17, 2024, by Ron Carl (RCarl@arapahoegov.com)


Q1: Describe the general impacts of the bill on Arapahoe County (Please do not summarize the bill language).
Amend: Thu, January 18, 2024, by Jason Reynolds (jreynolds@arapahoegov.com)
We would need to revise our Land Development Code definition of "family", which currently restricts the number of unrelated people in a dwelling unit to five. The bill would remove the five person limit.

Q2: Describe the impacts of the bill on the County’s operations and the provision of public services.
Amend: Thu, January 18, 2024, by Jason Reynolds (jreynolds@arapahoegov.com)
We would need to revise our definition of "family," which would require staff time; the change could be included in another code amendment to reduce the burden. Zoning sometimes gets complaints about the number of unrelated people sharing a house - these cases are difficult to enforce. Removing the five-person restriction may actually save staff time in the long run.

Q3: In as much specificity as possible, please estimate the fiscal impacts of the bill on the County. Does the bill adequately fund the demands it places on the County?
Amend: Thu, January 18, 2024, by Jason Reynolds (jreynolds@arapahoegov.com)
It would remove some of the enforcement requests we receive from the public, reducing demands on county staff.

Q4: If applicable, specify the impacts of the bill to underserved/disadvantaged communities within the County.
Amend: Thu, January 18, 2024, by Jason Reynolds (jreynolds@arapahoegov.com)
It may help allow more group living arrangements, reducing housing costs for underserved communities.

Q5: If you selected amend, what specific changes would be needed to make the legislation better for the County?
Amend: Thu, January 18, 2024, by Jason Reynolds (jreynolds@arapahoegov.com)
Recommend adding clarification that this bill does not affect quasi-residential uses like group homes. I checked with Robert Hill and CRS 30-28-115 is limited to 8 residents, so we do not think it does - but it would still be good to clarify.

Q1: Describe the general impacts of the bill on Arapahoe County (Please do not summarize the bill language).
Amend: Thu, January 18, 2024, by Bryan Weimer (BWeimer@arapahoegov.com)
This bill will require the County to redefine our definition of “family”, which limits the number of unrelated people who can live together to five individuals. From an enforcement perspective, this wouldn’t be the worst thing to have happen – historically, this is one of the toughest definitions to enforce. The bill sets no limits on the number of people that live together except for “REGULATIONS TIED TO A MINIMUM REQUIRED SQUARE FOOTAGE PER PERSON THAT ARE NECESSARY TO REGULATE HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE”. There are no “occupancy” limitations relative to the International Residential Code (IRC) . However, there are load limitations. Specifically live-loads in living areas (40 PSF) and sleeping rooms (30 PSF). If you reference Chapter 10 of the International Building Code (IBC) and Chapter 3 of the IRC, there are specific design loads relative to floor areas and their use. The most restrictive is 40 PSF. This (According to the IBC) is limited to 200 Gross. (5 people in a 1000 SF area) The IRC references the same design live load in Chapter 3. In theory, if this were to be ignored, one could have a loading issue re: existing structure’s limitations. Not to say that this would emerge as an issue, but specific limitations in the IBC and “assumptions” in the IRC re: design live loads cannot be ignored. An example is the “Raver” that made the news in Tall Grass where the first floor collapsed to the basement. We would suggest language that not only talks about persons per SF, but also following code regarding dead and live load requirements of a structure to establish occupancy.

Q2: Describe the impacts of the bill on the County’s operations and the provision of public services.
Amend: Thu, January 18, 2024, by Bryan Weimer (BWeimer@arapahoegov.com)
One potential concern is with what the County calls Type A group homes, which we limit to 8 individuals. It would be helpful if the bill could clarify that it is not affecting group home definitions (which are licensed by the state). If they don’t clarify, a potential unintended consequence could be to allow larger group home facilities in residential neighborhoods. Some residents are already concerned about the 8-person group homes and creating a loophole to allow larger group homes might be a problem. We have forwarded to Bob H to see if he has any concerns on that issue, as we do

Q3: In as much specificity as possible, please estimate the fiscal impacts of the bill on the County. Does the bill adequately fund the demands it places on the County?
Amend: Thu, January 18, 2024, by Bryan Weimer (BWeimer@arapahoegov.com)
The fiscal impact is minimal.

Q4: If applicable, specify the impacts of the bill to underserved/disadvantaged communities within the County.
Amend: Thu, January 18, 2024, by Bryan Weimer (BWeimer@arapahoegov.com)
One potential concern is with what the County calls Type A group homes, which we limit to 8 individuals. It would be helpful if the bill could clarify that it is not affecting group home definitions (which are licensed by the state). If they don’t clarify, a potential unintended consequence could be to allow larger group home facilities in residential neighborhoods. Some residents are already concerned about the 8-person group homes and creating a loophole to allow larger group homes might be a problem. We have forwarded to Bob H to see if he has any concerns on that issue, as we do

Q5: If you selected amend, what specific changes would be needed to make the legislation better for the County?
Amend: Thu, January 18, 2024, by Bryan Weimer (BWeimer@arapahoegov.com)
This Bill does not define “Single Dwelling” as referenced on Line # 9. The Code has definitions for “Dwelling” and “Dwelling Unit”. Because the Code is adopted by most if not all communities having language that aligns with the Code would be helpful or at a minimum a definition of what is meant to be covered with the bill. Not sure if the bill is intended for signal family residents, ADUs, multi-family, apartments, etc. Also, where would STRs fit in this bill context. We would suggest language that not only talks about persons per SF, but also following code regarding dead and live load requirements of a structure to establish occupancy.

 

Fiscal Note 

NOT ON CALENDAR
HB24-1017Bill of Rights for Foster Youth L. Daugherty (D) | J. Parenti / R. Zenzinger | D. Michaelson Jenet (D) Human Services Support The act establishes a statutory bill of rights for children and youth (youth) in foster care in Colorado, including youth participating in the foster youth in transition program but excluding youth detained by or committed to the care and physical custody of the division of youth services. The office of the child's representative shall develop a written notice of the rights, and a county department of human or social services shall provide each youth who is 5 years of age or older with the written notice in the youth's primary language at the time of the youth's initial placement in foster care, at each placement change, and at least annually. APPROVED by Governor April 24, 2024 EFFECTIVE August 7, 2024(Note: This summary applies to this bill as enacted.)  4/24/2024 Governor Signed
Amend  Support  Q1: Describe the general impacts of the bill on Arapahoe County (Please do not summarize the bill language).
Support: Thu, January 18, 2024, by Cheryl Ternes (Cternes@arapahoegov.com)
This bill aligns with Arapahoe County Human Services philosophy and endeavor to comply with the certification through the Human Rights Campaign’s All Children All Families. There is no negative impact and in fact, will provide further support and enhancement of the rights of children in our care/custody

Q2: Describe the impacts of the bill on the County’s operations and the provision of public services.
Support: Thu, January 18, 2024, by Cheryl Ternes (Cternes@arapahoegov.com)
Additional training for our staff and for the support of foster/kinship care to ensure they understand the rights and comply with them. Additional training and support of all providers for children (medical, behavioral health, educational) to also ensure they understand the law and comply.

Q3: In as much specificity as possible, please estimate the fiscal impacts of the bill on the County. Does the bill adequately fund the demands it places on the County?
Support: Thu, January 18, 2024, by Cheryl Ternes (Cternes@arapahoegov.com)
Minimal to no fiscal impact to our operations.

Q4: If applicable, specify the impacts of the bill to underserved/disadvantaged communities within the County.
Support: Thu, January 18, 2024, by Cheryl Ternes (Cternes@arapahoegov.com)
Positive impacts to our youth involved in the Child Protection Services.

Q5: If you selected amend, what specific changes would be needed to make the legislation better for the County?
Support: Thu, January 18, 2024, by Cheryl Ternes (Cternes@arapahoegov.com)


 

Fiscal Note 

NOT ON CALENDAR
HB24-1019Crisis Resolution Team Program M. Bradfield (R) | J. Amabile (D) / R. Fields | R. Pelton (R) Human Services Support  Legislative Oversight Committee Concerning the Treatment of Persons with Behavioral Health Disorders in the Criminal and Juvenile Justice Systems. Under current law, the department of human services (department) offers statewide access to crisis system services (services) for children and youth. The bill expands the services provided through the creation of the crisis resolution team program (program) in the department. The behavioral health administration (BHA) shall administer the program to provide community-based services to de-escalate and stabilize children or youth experiencing high-acuity behavioral health crises. The BHA shall contract with crisis resolution team providers (providers) to provide community-based de-escalation and stabilization services to children or youth. A child or youth is eligible for services provided by the program if the child or youth: Is 21 years of age or younger; Has experienced high-acuity behavioral health crises as identified by the behavioral health crisis response system or emergency departments; and Is safe to remain in the home or the community while receiving intensive, short-term stabilization interventions. Providers shall offer the following services to children or youth and their caregivers: Counseling or therapy; Case management to help meet treatment plans; Peer support or family skills coaching to foster connectedness, goal setting, and new routines to achieve positive, lasting change; Medication management; and Care coordination to provide tailored support and connection. Providers shall offer services to a child or youth a minimum of 3 days per week with a variety of services offered daily depending on the child's or youth's clinical needs. Services must be offered to the child or youth for a minimum of 4 weeks up to a maximum of 6 weeks depending on the child's or youth's clinical needs. The BHA shall: Maintain existing relationships with community partners; Conduct outreach and educate community partners regarding providers' services; Provide technical assistance to providers regarding specialized training and the use of screening and assessment tools; and Conduct an annual evaluation of the program. On or before September 1, 2025, the BHA shall submit to the general assembly a feasibility study to determine whether the program can be further expanded statewide. (Note: This summary applies to this bill as introduced.)  5/14/2024 House Committee on Appropriations Lay Over Unamended - Amendment(s) Failed
Support  Support  Q1: Describe the general impacts of the bill on Arapahoe County (Please do not summarize the bill language).
Support: Thu, January 25, 2024, by Cheryl Ternes (Cternes@arapahoegov.com)
Positively impacts the community by creating a crisis resolution response team, an expansion of services already available, to high acuity children under the age of 21. This crisis resolution team will be required to meet the needs of these children and their families while also collaborating with existing systems/community partners and providing training/education, data sharing and an evaluation of its effectiveness.

Q2: Describe the impacts of the bill on the County’s operations and the provision of public services.
Support: Thu, January 25, 2024, by Cheryl Ternes (Cternes@arapahoegov.com)
Positively impacts child protection caseloads with high acuity children by enhancing services available and expediting department involvement to ensure children are served by the right system instead of being defaulted to the child welfare system.

Q3: In as much specificity as possible, please estimate the fiscal impacts of the bill on the County. Does the bill adequately fund the demands it places on the County?
Support: Thu, January 25, 2024, by Cheryl Ternes (Cternes@arapahoegov.com)
No fiscal impact

Q4: If you selected amend, what specific changes would be needed to make the legislation better for the County?
Support: Thu, January 25, 2024, by Cheryl Ternes (Cternes@arapahoegov.com)


 

Fiscal Note 

NOT ON CALENDAR
HB24-1031Accessibility for Persons in Child Welfare Matters B. Bradley (R) | J. Joseph (D) / B. Kirkmeyer (R) | D. Michaelson Jenet (D) Human Services Support The act requires that certain services provided to children or their families comply with the provisions of Title VI of the federal "Civil Rights Act of 1964" if they are provided by a county department of human or social services (county department), city and county, or a private-entity contractor. Furthermore, the act requires that the county department, city and county, or private-entity contractor take reasonable steps to ensure meaningful language access to services in the person's primary language for a person with limited English proficiency, in a timely manner and without unreasonable delay. The act requires a court to provide language access, including translation and interpretation services, to a child, parent, guardian, custodian, or other party in a dependency and neglect case if the person requests language access or has limited English proficiency. The act requires that during a dispositional hearing concerning the best interests of a child, the court consider services and programs that provide the parent and child with language access and effective communication. The act appropriates $74,953 from the judicial stabilization cash fund to the judicial department to implement the act. APPROVED by Governor June 3, 2024 EFFECTIVE August 7, 2024(Note: This summary applies to this bill as enacted.)  6/3/2024 Governor Signed
Amend Amend Amend  Q1: Describe the general impacts of the bill on Arapahoe County (Please do not summarize the bill language).
Amend: Thu, January 18, 2024, by Cheryl Ternes (Cternes@arapahoegov.com)
This will have a positive impact on families who are not proficient in English, or English is not their primary or preferred language. This will allow for them to participate more fully in child welfare cases, to ensure they understand their cases and to ensure their rights are not violated.

Q2: Describe the impacts of the bill on the County’s operations and the provision of public services.
Amend: Thu, January 18, 2024, by Cheryl Ternes (Cternes@arapahoegov.com)
Translation services, both in documents and in verbal communication, are already provided in most languages as dictated by the family’s identified need. Additionally, we now compensate staff for being bilingual. There are no demonstratable impacts to the county operations.

Q3: In as much specificity as possible, please estimate the fiscal impacts of the bill on the County. Does the bill adequately fund the demands it places on the County?
Amend: Thu, January 18, 2024, by Cheryl Ternes (Cternes@arapahoegov.com)
ACDHS already contracts with translation services providers and compensates employees who speak dual languages. Additionally funding from the state and federal government would be appreciated but is not necessary.

Q4: If applicable, specify the impacts of the bill to underserved/disadvantaged communities within the County.
Amend: Thu, January 18, 2024, by Cheryl Ternes (Cternes@arapahoegov.com)
This will have a positive impact on families who are not proficient in English, or English is not their primary or preferred language. This will allow for them to participate more fully in child welfare cases, to ensure they understand their cases and to ensure their rights are not violated.

Q5: If you selected amend, what specific changes would be needed to make the legislation better for the County?
Amend: Thu, January 18, 2024, by Cheryl Ternes (Cternes@arapahoegov.com)
Consider adding into the bill language, that client information must mandatorily be documented in Trails (Colorado’s Statewide Automated Child Welfare Information System) as to what their primary/preferred language is, and any lack of English proficiency (include type of proficiency) so that proper data can be retrieved to track, measure and ensure high quality translation services are sought after and provided based on identified need.

 

Fiscal Note 

NOT ON CALENDAR
HB24-1038High-Acuity Crisis for Children & Youth M. Young | B. Bradley (R) / B. Kirkmeyer (R) | R. Fields  Human Services Support The act requires the department of health care policy and financing (HCPF), in collaboration with the behavioral health administration (BHA) and the department of human services (CDHS), to develop a system of care (system of care) for children and youth who are less than 21 years of age and who have complex behavioral health needs. At a minimum, the system of care must include: Implementation of a standardized assessment tool; Intensive-care coordination; Expanded supportive services; and Expanded access to treatment foster care. The act requires HCPF to convene a leadership team that is responsible for the decision-making and oversight of the system of care and to convene an implementation team to create a plan to implement the system of care. The act requires CDHS and HCPF to report progress on the development and implementation of the system of care to the general assembly. The act creates the residential child care provider training academy in CDHS to create a pipeline of high-quality staff for residential child care providers and ensure that individuals hired to work at residential child care facilities receive the necessary training to perform the individual's job functions responsibly and effectively. The act requires CDHS to expand the number of treatment beds available for children and youth whose behavioral or mental health needs require services and treatment in a residential child care facility. The act requires CDHS to develop a system to establish and monitor quality standards for residential child care providers and ensure the quality standards are implemented into all levels of care that serve children and youth in out-of-home placement. The act requires CDHS to develop a system to incentivize residential child care providers to implement quality standards above CDHS' established minimum standards. The act requires CDHS to make publicly available on the department's website a directory of each residential child care provider's quality assurance. The CDHS program that provides emergency resources to certain licensed providers to help remove barriers the providers face in serving children and youth whose behavioral or mental health needs require services and treatment in a residential child care facility currently repeals on July 1, 2028. The act extends the program indefinitely and requires CDHS to contract with additional licensed providers for the delivery of services to children and youth who are eligible for and placed in the program. The act requires CDHS and the BHA to increase the minimum reimbursement rates paid to qualified residential treatment programs for the purpose of aligning room and board payments across payer sources. The act requires HCPF to contract with a third-party vendor to complete an actuarial analysis in order to determine the appropriate medicaid reimbursement rate for psychiatric residential treatment facilities. The act requires CDHS to contract with one or more third-party vendors to implement a pilot program to assess the needs of, and provide short-term residential services for, juvenile justice-involved youth who do not meet the criteria for detention. For the 2024-25 state fiscal year, the act appropriates money to the department of human services and the department of health care policy and financing to implement the act. APPROVED by Governor June 6, 2024 EFFECTIVE June 6, 2024(Note: This summary applies to this bill as enacted.)  6/6/2024 Governor Signed
Support Support Support  Q1: Describe the general impacts of the bill on Arapahoe County (Please do not summarize the bill language).
Support: Thu, January 18, 2024, by Cheryl Ternes (Cternes@arapahoegov.com)
This bill is intended to address and treat more effectively, high acuity children, often who languish in detention or inappropriate levels of care with their mental health/developmental disabilities not being properly treated and to address the lack of services and supports for their families and the child welfare system. The overall intent of this bill is positive for Arapahoe County families.

Q2: Describe the impacts of the bill on the County’s operations and the provision of public services.
Support: Thu, January 18, 2024, by Cheryl Ternes (Cternes@arapahoegov.com)
There is a lack of services and placement for children needing this high level of care, which means county child welfare agencies are forced to place children out of state, or to keep them in improper levels of care or provide direct care, stranding children in county offices. The level of care needed is expensive and largely inaccessible. Any support, services, structure and funding will positively impact Arapahoe County Human Services and reduce the costs for our Department.

Q3: In as much specificity as possible, please estimate the fiscal impacts of the bill on the County. Does the bill adequately fund the demands it places on the County?
Support: Thu, January 18, 2024, by Cheryl Ternes (Cternes@arapahoegov.com)
It is unclear what the fiscal impact will be, as it appears to fall upon the BHA and CDHS. At this time there does not appear to be any fiscal impact to ACDHS.

Q4: If applicable, specify the impacts of the bill to underserved/disadvantaged communities within the County.
Support: Thu, January 18, 2024, by Cheryl Ternes (Cternes@arapahoegov.com)
This bill will have a positive impact on the children and families that we serve. his bill is intended to address and treat more effectively, high acuity children, often who languish in detention or inappropriate levels of care with their mental health/developmental disabilities not being properly treated and to address the lack of services and supports for their families and the child welfare system. The overall intent of this bill is positive for Arapahoe County families.

Q5: If you selected amend, what specific changes would be needed to make the legislation better for the County?
Support: Thu, January 18, 2024, by Cheryl Ternes (Cternes@arapahoegov.com)


 

Fiscal Note 

NOT ON CALENDAR
HB24-1046Child Welfare System Tools M. Duran (D) | G. Evans / C. Kolker (D) | B. Kirkmeyer (R) Human Services Support Current law requires mandatory reporters to include certain information when reporting child abuse or neglect to the mandatory reporter's county department, local law enforcement, or through the statewide child abuse reporting hotline system (hotline system). The act requires a mandatory reporter to report any evidence of known domestic violence or intimate partner violence in the child's home, including any evidence of previous cases of known domestic violence or intimate partner violence in the child's home. The act requires the state department of human services (state department) to develop and implement a consistent screening process for a county department to follow, when possible, in responding to a report or inquiry to the hotline system. The screening process must include questions about domestic violence or intimate partner violence. The state department is required to develop and implement a disclosure procedure that notifies callers to the hotline system that calls are recorded. The act requires the state department to review the screening process used by county departments and hotline system operators to: Determine race; ethnicity; disability status; LGBTQ identity, if applicable; and English proficiency in a screening report and recommend a process for improving the accuracy of determining the demographic information, which must include opportunities to update the TRAILS statewide case management system; Understand the types of questions asked during the screening process to determine demographic information and recommend questions that reflect best practices and cultural competency; and Understand the sequence of questions asked during a screening process to determine demographic information and recommend a sequence of questions that better reflects best practices. The state department shall recommend and implement a screening process procedure to determine demographic information that reflects best practices and cultural competencies. No later than January 15, 2025, the office of the child protection ombudsman (ombudsman) shall select a third-party evaluator to conduct an audit on the Colorado family risk assessment (risk assessment) and the Colorado family safety assessment (safety assessment). In conducting an audit of the risk assessment, the third-party evaluator shall: Identify tools and resources to ensure the risk assessment is carried out consistently; Identify gaps and solutions to enable caseworkers to complete the risk assessment in real time while in the field; Examine the impacts of geography when using the risk assessment; Examine the impacts of race and ethnicity when using the risk assessment and how they affect communities that are over-represented in the child welfare system; Evaluate and recommend best practices for sharing the risk assessment with families, legal professionals, and the judicial branch; Evaluate and recommend best practices for training on the risk assessment; and Examine the risk assessment for domestic violence or intimate partner violence and recommend best practices. In conducting an audit of the safety assessment, the third-party evaluator shall: Examine the same issues set forth for the risk assessment; Study the inter-rater reliability of the safety assessment; and Study the required documentation for the planning and removal of a child from the child's primary caregiver. The third-party evaluator shall create a report summarizing the results of the audit. On or before March 1, 2026, the ombudsman is required to submit the audit report to the house of representatives public and behavioral health and human services committee and the senate health and human services committee, or their successor committees, the speaker of the house of representatives, the minority leader of the house of representatives, the president of the senate, and the minority leader of the senate. The act appropriates $109,392 from the general fund to the judicial department for use by the ombudsman to implement this act. APPROVED by Governor May 28, 2024 EFFECTIVE May 28, 2024(Note: This summary applies to this bill as enacted.)  5/28/2024 Governor Signed
Support Monitor Support  Q1: Describe the general impacts of the bill on Arapahoe County (Please do not summarize the bill language).
Support: Thu, January 18, 2024, by Cheryl Ternes (Cternes@arapahoegov.com)
Positive impacts include – • Collecting more information relating to domestic violence in the home from mandatory reporters which will assist us to respond appropriately. • Improve the screening process to be consistent and include domestic violence questions. • Callers will be notified that the call will be recorded which will be more transparent to the callers. There is no notification right now. • An audit conducted by the Child Protection Ombudsman will inform much needed improvements in several areas.

Q2: Describe the impacts of the bill on the County’s operations and the provision of public services.
Support: Thu, January 18, 2024, by Cheryl Ternes (Cternes@arapahoegov.com)
Additional policy, procedure, and training for implementation of this bill in the reporting of child abuse and neglect, as well as the creation and implementation of this new DV screening tool and participation in the mandatory 3rd party audit would need to be assessed carefully, which may have some impact on the county, although likely not significant

Q3: In as much specificity as possible, please estimate the fiscal impacts of the bill on the County. Does the bill adequately fund the demands it places on the County?
Support: Thu, January 18, 2024, by Cheryl Ternes (Cternes@arapahoegov.com)
The fiscal impact to the county would be much like the operational impacts mentioned above, which will be minimal.

Q4: If applicable, specify the impacts of the bill to underserved/disadvantaged communities within the County.
Support: Thu, January 18, 2024, by Cheryl Ternes (Cternes@arapahoegov.com)
The bill would result in a positive impact on families coming to the attention of Child Protection Services through better screening tools and recognition / response to domestic violence.

Q5: If you selected amend, what specific changes would be needed to make the legislation better for the County?
Support: Thu, January 18, 2024, by Cheryl Ternes (Cternes@arapahoegov.com)


 

Fiscal Note 

NOT ON CALENDAR
HB24-1083Construction Professional Insurance Coverage Transparency J. Willford (D) | K. Brown (D) / L. Cutter (D) Housing/Land Use Monitor  The bill requires the division of insurance (division) to conduct or cause to be conducted a study of construction liability insurance for construction professionals in Colorado. The study must identify the following: All insurers offering construction liability policies in Colorado (policies); The rates charged by insurers for policies and the basis for the rates, including data for the past 5 years, if available; Risk factors, classifications, and coverage descriptions insurers use to set policy rates; A comparison of the policy rates insurers charge with rates charged by other states in the region to cover similar residential projects; Policy coverage terms; and Common limitations or exclusions from policy coverage. The bill requires that, at least 14 days prior to closing the sale of a new residence, the seller of the residence provide the purchaser and the county clerk and recorder's office for the county where the new residence is located with information regarding the insurance coverage for the property subject to the sale, including: Identification of each policy and the coverage provider that may provide coverage for a construction professional's work on the residence; The amount of the policy limits for each policy identified; The policy period for each policy identified, including whether the policy provides coverage on a claims-made basis or occurrence basis; and Identification of relevant exclusions from coverage.(Note: This summary applies to this bill as introduced.)  5/14/2024 House Committee on Appropriations Lay Over Unamended - Amendment(s) Failed
 Monitor   Q1: Describe the general impacts of the bill on Arapahoe County (Please do not summarize the bill language).
N/A: Tue, January 16, 2024, by Kathy Smith (KSmith@arapahoegov.com)
This will have no direct impact on Arapahoe County.

Q2: Describe the impacts of the bill on the County’s operations and the provision of public services.
N/A: Tue, January 16, 2024, by Kathy Smith (KSmith@arapahoegov.com)
This will have no direct impact on Arapahoe County Community Resources or Open Spaces. This may assist some of our HUD grantees with soft costs of insurance.

Q3: In as much specificity as possible, please estimate the fiscal impacts of the bill on the County. Does the bill adequately fund the demands it places on the County?
N/A: Tue, January 16, 2024, by Kathy Smith (KSmith@arapahoegov.com)
None

Q4: If applicable, specify the impacts of the bill to underserved/disadvantaged communities within the County.
N/A: Tue, January 16, 2024, by Kathy Smith (KSmith@arapahoegov.com)
This may assist some of our HUD grantees with soft costs of insurance, enhancing affordable housing.

Q5: If you selected amend, what specific changes would be needed to make the legislation better for the County?
N/A: Tue, January 16, 2024, by Kathy Smith (KSmith@arapahoegov.com)
N/A

Q1: Describe the general impacts of the bill on Arapahoe County (Please do not summarize the bill language).
Monitor: Thu, January 18, 2024, by Ron Carl (RCarl@arapahoegov.com)
The bill will require the Clerk and Recorder to accept for filing disclosures about insurance coverage for homes built and sold in the County.

Q2: Describe the impacts of the bill on the County’s operations and the provision of public services.
Monitor: Thu, January 18, 2024, by Ron Carl (RCarl@arapahoegov.com)


Q3: In as much specificity as possible, please estimate the fiscal impacts of the bill on the County. Does the bill adequately fund the demands it places on the County?
Monitor: Thu, January 18, 2024, by Ron Carl (RCarl@arapahoegov.com)
I anticipate the cost for accepting and maintaining the required insurance disclosures by the Clerk and Recorder will be relatively minor (the Clerk's Office should be consulted as to the cost). The bill does not provide funding to the County.

Q4: If applicable, specify the impacts of the bill to underserved/disadvantaged communities within the County.
Monitor: Thu, January 18, 2024, by Ron Carl (RCarl@arapahoegov.com)


Q5: If you selected amend, what specific changes would be needed to make the legislation better for the County?
Monitor: Thu, January 18, 2024, by Ron Carl (RCarl@arapahoegov.com)


Q1: Describe the general impacts of the bill on Arapahoe County (Please do not summarize the bill language).
Monitor: Thu, January 18, 2024, by Bob Hill (RHill@arapahoegov.com)
There will be a new document that the County Clerk and Recorder will need to accept for recording.

Q2: Describe the impacts of the bill on the County’s operations and the provision of public services.
Monitor: Thu, January 18, 2024, by Bob Hill (RHill@arapahoegov.com)
Minimal.

Q3: In as much specificity as possible, please estimate the fiscal impacts of the bill on the County. Does the bill adequately fund the demands it places on the County?
Monitor: Thu, January 18, 2024, by Bob Hill (RHill@arapahoegov.com)
Minimal.

Q4: If applicable, specify the impacts of the bill to underserved/disadvantaged communities within the County.
Monitor: Thu, January 18, 2024, by Bob Hill (RHill@arapahoegov.com)
Minimal.

Q5: If you selected amend, what specific changes would be needed to make the legislation better for the County?
Monitor: Thu, January 18, 2024, by Bob Hill (RHill@arapahoegov.com)


Q1: Describe the general impacts of the bill on Arapahoe County (Please do not summarize the bill language).
Monitor: Thu, January 18, 2024, by Jason Reynolds (jreynolds@arapahoegov.com)
Clerk and Recorder would have another document to record. Otherwise it does not appear to affect us directly.

Q2: Describe the impacts of the bill on the County’s operations and the provision of public services.
Monitor: Thu, January 18, 2024, by Jason Reynolds (jreynolds@arapahoegov.com)


Q3: In as much specificity as possible, please estimate the fiscal impacts of the bill on the County. Does the bill adequately fund the demands it places on the County?
Monitor: Thu, January 18, 2024, by Jason Reynolds (jreynolds@arapahoegov.com)
Additional recording revenue.

Q4: If applicable, specify the impacts of the bill to underserved/disadvantaged communities within the County.
Monitor: Thu, January 18, 2024, by Jason Reynolds (jreynolds@arapahoegov.com)
n/a

Q5: If you selected amend, what specific changes would be needed to make the legislation better for the County?
Monitor: Thu, January 18, 2024, by Jason Reynolds (jreynolds@arapahoegov.com)


Q1: Describe the general impacts of the bill on Arapahoe County (Please do not summarize the bill language).
Monitor: Thu, January 18, 2024, by Bryan Weimer (BWeimer@arapahoegov.com)
As Construction defect legislation is commonly cited as a reason for certain residential housing units not being built (Condos), this Bill looks to be trying to provide some data related to insurance for this issue. While transparency is good, and having some data may allow for some change, I am not entirely sure what the end game for this Bill is and how it can used to solve housing? A question of whether the study as introduced would produce a pre-determined outcome, potentially worsening Colorado housing shortage through more litigation, rather than addressing that problem.

Q2: Describe the impacts of the bill on the County’s operations and the provision of public services.
Monitor: Thu, January 18, 2024, by Bryan Weimer (BWeimer@arapahoegov.com)
The “management” of the program seems to be lacking. Page 7 reflects requirements for the aforementioned insurance coverage to be filed with the County Clerk & Recorder’s Office. This appears to take PWD out of the equation. This seems like it would be managed by others outside of PWD’s purview and/or scope of responsibility. However, it would not affect our processes unless the bill sponsors add language along the lines of “no certificate of occupancy shall be issued until the seller files the required information at the Clerk & Recorder.” However, tying the filing to the sale probably makes more sense – somebody could get a CO and then rent the property (or offer it for sale for several months without success).

Q3: In as much specificity as possible, please estimate the fiscal impacts of the bill on the County. Does the bill adequately fund the demands it places on the County?
Monitor: Thu, January 18, 2024, by Bryan Weimer (BWeimer@arapahoegov.com)
Possibly just recording implications as required by the bill.

Q4: If applicable, specify the impacts of the bill to underserved/disadvantaged communities within the County.
Monitor: Thu, January 18, 2024, by Bryan Weimer (BWeimer@arapahoegov.com)
Could affect the clerk and recorder

Q5: If you selected amend, what specific changes would be needed to make the legislation better for the County?
Monitor: Thu, January 18, 2024, by Bryan Weimer (BWeimer@arapahoegov.com)
Section two could be problematic for developers and, if passed, this legislation could deter developers from building more housing. The Bill does not have a direct impacted on PWD and therefore a Monitor position is taken.

 

Fiscal Note 

NOT ON CALENDAR
HB24-1088Modifications to the Child Fatality Prevention Act T. Winter (R) / R. Pelton (R) Human Services Oppose  The "Child Fatality Prevention Act" establishes state and local or regional child fatality prevention review teams to conduct multidisciplinary reviews of child abuse, neglect, and fatalities. The bill: Repeals the requirement that a local or regional review team conduct reviews of child fatalities related to motor vehicle incidents; Requires that members of a local or regional review team be appointed by a board of county commissioners; Repeals the requirement that a local or regional review team review the cause and manner of a child fatality, as determined by the local coroner, pathologist, or medical examiner; Requires a local or regional review team to provide the parent or guardian of a deceased child with written notice of a review, an opportunity to be heard, and an opportunity to obtain legal representation during the review process; and Repeals the requirement that a state review team review a child fatality case that has not been reviewed by a local or regional review team.(Note: This summary applies to this bill as introduced.)  2/7/2024 House Committee on Health & Human Services Postpone Indefinitely
Oppose  Oppose  Q1: Describe the general impacts of the bill on Arapahoe County (Please do not summarize the bill language).
Oppose: Wed, January 24, 2024, by Jennifer Ludwig (jludwig@arapahoegov.com)
This bill would create significant barriers to the Child Fatality Prevention System (CFPS) review process by limiting Arapahoe County Public Health’s ability to facilitate an impartial, confidential, multi-stakeholder review of preventable child deaths in the county; to provide evidence-based recommendations for program and policy improvements at the local and state levels; and to implement upstream interventions that reduce child morbidity and mortality. CFPS is an evidence-based, nationally designed, and locally implemented program housed at Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment that began in 1989. The proposed bill interrupts the CFPS process that uses the National Fatality Review Case Reporting System to link information about the “who, when, where, and how” from data on child deaths and provides insights about “why” they occurred. This enables policymakers and community leaders to make informed decisions about prevention programs, including those that address child abuse and neglect.

Q2: Describe the impacts of the bill on the County’s operations and the provision of public services.
Oppose: Wed, January 24, 2024, by Jennifer Ludwig (jludwig@arapahoegov.com)
1. Motor vehicle incidents are one of the leading causes of child fatalities in our county. Removing these reviews would limit the generation of recommendations to prevent these deaths. 2. Currently, participation from a variety of sectors is required by the law, but the individual who participates is voluntary. This allows the right people to be at the table and limits political influence. Appointments for this group could significantly limit participation as well as the capacity to implement ideas from the group. 3. This would take away our legal authority to host reviews, request records from partners, and potentially take away funding. 4. Currently we do not involve impacted families in CFPS (although a few counties are piloting a family interview process this year). The purpose of CFPS is to allow confidential yet open discussion among partners about potential agency or systems changes. Legal representation is not needed.

Q3: In as much specificity as possible, please estimate the fiscal impacts of the bill on the County. Does the bill adequately fund the demands it places on the County?
Oppose: Wed, January 24, 2024, by Jennifer Ludwig (jludwig@arapahoegov.com)
There is no additional fiscal impact. Some funding is provided from CDPHE to support this mandated program.

Q4: If you selected amend, what specific changes would be needed to make the legislation better for the County?
Oppose: Wed, January 24, 2024, by Jennifer Ludwig (jludwig@arapahoegov.com)


Q1: Describe the general impacts of the bill on Arapahoe County (Please do not summarize the bill language).
Oppose: Wed, January 24, 2024, by Cheryl Ternes (Cternes@arapahoegov.com)
The Department of Human Services agrees with our Public Health Department that this bill will have negative impacts to the administration and operation of the CFRT.

Q2: Describe the impacts of the bill on the County’s operations and the provision of public services.
Oppose: Wed, January 24, 2024, by Cheryl Ternes (Cternes@arapahoegov.com)
This would be a new requirement for the BoCC to appoint each committee member and always ensure every position is filled. Prior to this bill, the membership was statutory prescribed by law and each required agency or office had to provide participation. Negative impacts include parental notification, participation and decision making in the review process may interfere with and increase the workload for those conducting the reviews. The statute for this review team already appoints who must be in attendance/participate, possibly causing an unnecessary workload for the BoCC to intervene and need make and continually keep appointments filled. Multiple sections of the bill denote that findings and notifications shall not be made, to include findings regarding child abuse/neglect fatalities not known to county human services, unless the parents have been notified, had a opportunity to be heard and/or an attorney present, and approve reporting to the State. This could impede county human services from receiving proper notifications and may also compromise a potential criminal investigation if one of the parents was a suspect/alleged perpetrator.

Q3: In as much specificity as possible, please estimate the fiscal impacts of the bill on the County. Does the bill adequately fund the demands it places on the County?
Oppose: Wed, January 24, 2024, by Cheryl Ternes (Cternes@arapahoegov.com)
NA

Q4: If you selected amend, what specific changes would be needed to make the legislation better for the County?
Oppose: Wed, January 24, 2024, by Cheryl Ternes (Cternes@arapahoegov.com)


Q1: Describe the general impacts of the bill on Arapahoe County (Please do not summarize the bill language).
Strongly Oppose: Thu, January 25, 2024, by Lisa Vantine (lvantine@arapahoegov.com)
This bill basically guts the child fatality prevention review process, and eliminates the ability of the CFPS to make informed prevention recommendations based on aggregated (anonymous!) death data. The teams are statutorily composed of subject matter experts to ensure data- and education-driven reviews. Prior CFPS work has led to graduated drivers license legislation, seatbelt laws, consumer product safety recommendations and recalls, etc., and these changes would handcuff the review process to the point of inability to make public health improvements and prevent future child fatalities. These effects would be felt at the county, state and national levels as this is a comprehensive CDC program.

Q2: Describe the impacts of the bill on the County’s operations and the provision of public services.
Strongly Oppose: Thu, January 25, 2024, by Lisa Vantine (lvantine@arapahoegov.com)
See above. This bill would eliminate the ability to make informed public health recommendations and improvements. Recommendations from the CFPS are used in public health, human services, and the medical community in evaluating the needs of our residents and how to better serve our community (including understanding what populations are in need of increased postpartum support, child care services, suicide prevention support, and driver training, and identifying roadway hazards or other commonalities that could be improved upon to prevent future deaths).

Q3: In as much specificity as possible, please estimate the fiscal impacts of the bill on the County. Does the bill adequately fund the demands it places on the County?
Strongly Oppose: Thu, January 25, 2024, by Lisa Vantine (lvantine@arapahoegov.com)
N/A

Q4: If you selected amend, what specific changes would be needed to make the legislation better for the County?
Strongly Oppose: Thu, January 25, 2024, by Lisa Vantine (lvantine@arapahoegov.com)


 

Fiscal Note 

NOT ON CALENDAR
HB24-1089Vehicle Electronic Notifications E. Hamrick (D) | L. Frizell (R) / R. Zenzinger | R. Pelton (R) Transportation Support By March 31, 2026, the act requires the department of revenue (department) to create a process for a vehicle owner to request to receive and for the department to provide electronic communications and notifications, instead of written notifications, concerning vehicle transactions, including electronic notifications regarding driver's licenses and hearings related to the suspension of a driver's license, vehicle registration renewals, other hearings, and issuance of license plates. The department is not permitted, however, to provide electronic notifications for the revocation of a vehicle registration or license plate. The act also requires the department to adopt rules to create procedures for a vehicle owner to request the electronic notification. The act makes it mandatory, instead of optional, that the department establish a system to allow the electronic transmission of registration, lien, and titling information for motor vehicles, off-highway vehicles, or special mobile machinery by March 31, 2026. The act also requires that the system support the ability to generate a title and registration for new leased vehicles and support the ability to generate a title for a lessee who purchases the lessee's leased vehicle without affecting the lessee's existing registration. On or before January 1, 2027, the system must support the ability to generate a new registration for a vehicle to a new lessee without modifying the title. For the 2024-25 state fiscal year, $645,368 is appropriated from the Colorado DRIVES vehicle services account in the highway users tax fund to the department to implement the act. APPROVED by Governor June 3, 2024 EFFECTIVE June 3, 2024(Note: This summary applies to this bill as enacted.)  6/3/2024 Governor Signed
  Support  Q1: Describe the general impacts of the bill on Arapahoe County (Please do not summarize the bill language).
Support: Wed, January 24, 2024, by Todd Weaver (tweaver@arapahoegov.com)
The ability of the Clerk's Office MV Division to send notifications electronically rather than printed media via USPS would likely reduce workload and expenses for the County.

Q2: Describe the impacts of the bill on the County’s operations and the provision of public services.
Support: Wed, January 24, 2024, by Todd Weaver (tweaver@arapahoegov.com)
The Clerk's Office would be able to articulate better, but likely lower workload in sending electronic notices rather than mailed, printed notices.

Q3: In as much specificity as possible, please estimate the fiscal impacts of the bill on the County. Does the bill adequately fund the demands it places on the County?
Support: Wed, January 24, 2024, by Todd Weaver (tweaver@arapahoegov.com)
The Clerk's Office has encumbrances for $105,000 for the State of Colorado to print renewal notices and $350,000 in postage for mailing notices. While the exact amount of people opting for electronic notices is unknown at this point, any amount of people opting for electronic notices would reduce these costs.

Q4: If you selected amend, what specific changes would be needed to make the legislation better for the County?
Support: Wed, January 24, 2024, by Todd Weaver (tweaver@arapahoegov.com)


Q1: Describe the general impacts of the bill on Arapahoe County (Please do not summarize the bill language).
Support: Thu, January 25, 2024, by Ron Carl (rcarl@arapahoegov.com)
This should save the County money by allowing notices to be sent via email rather than mail.

Q2: Describe the impacts of the bill on the County’s operations and the provision of public services.
Support: Thu, January 25, 2024, by Ron Carl (rcarl@arapahoegov.com)


Q3: In as much specificity as possible, please estimate the fiscal impacts of the bill on the County. Does the bill adequately fund the demands it places on the County?
Support: Thu, January 25, 2024, by Ron Carl (rcarl@arapahoegov.com)


Q4: If you selected amend, what specific changes would be needed to make the legislation better for the County?
Support: Thu, January 25, 2024, by Ron Carl (rcarl@arapahoegov.com)


 

Fiscal Note 

NOT ON CALENDAR
HB24-1098Cause Required for Eviction of Residential Tenant J. Mabrey (D) | M. Duran (D) / J. Gonzales (D) | N. Hinrichsen (D) Housing/Land Use Support With certain exceptions, the act prohibits a landlord from evicting a residential tenant unless the landlord has cause for eviction. Cause exists only when: A tenant or lessee is guilty of an unlawful detention of real property under certain circumstances described in existing law, as amended by the act; A tenant or lessee engages in conduct that creates a nuisance or disturbance that interferes with the quiet enjoyment of the landlord or other tenants at the property or an immediately adjacent property, or where the tenant negligently damaged the property; or Conditions exist constituting grounds for a "no-fault eviction". The following conditions constitute grounds for a "no-fault eviction" of a residential tenant, with certain limitations: Demolition or conversion of the residential premises; Substantial repairs or renovations to the residential premises; Occupancy of the residential premises is assumed by the landlord or a family member of the landlord; Withdrawal of the residential premises from the rental market for the purpose of selling the residential premises; A tenant refuses to sign a new lease with reasonable terms; and A tenant has a history of nonpayment of rent. If a landlord proceeds with an eviction of a tenant without cause, the tenant may seek relief as provided in existing laws concerning unlawful removal of a tenant and may assert the landlord's violation as an affirmative defense to an eviction proceeding. Current law allows a tenant to terminate a tenancy by serving written notice to the landlord within a prescribed time period, based on the length of the tenancy. For the purpose of such notices, certain provisions apply, including the following: Any person in possession of real property with the assent of the owner is presumed to be a tenant at will until the contrary is shown; and Certain provisions concerning notices to quit do not apply to the termination of a residential tenancy if the residential premises is a condominium unit. The act eliminates these provisions. Current law requires the management of a mobile home park to make a reasonable effort to notify a resident of the management's intention to enter the mobile home space at least 48 hours before entry. The act increases this notice period to 72 hours. APPROVED by Governor April 19, 2024 EFFECTIVE April 19, 2024(Note: This summary applies to this bill as enacted.)  4/19/2024 Governor Signed
 Monitor   Q1: Describe the general impacts of the bill on Arapahoe County (Please do not summarize the bill language).
No Effect: Mon, January 29, 2024, by Ron Carl (rcarl@arapahoegov.com)


Q2: Describe the impacts of the bill on the County’s operations and the provision of public services.
No Effect: Mon, January 29, 2024, by Ron Carl (rcarl@arapahoegov.com)


Q3: In as much specificity as possible, please estimate the fiscal impacts of the bill on the County. Does the bill adequately fund the demands it places on the County?
No Effect: Mon, January 29, 2024, by Ron Carl (rcarl@arapahoegov.com)


Q4: If you selected amend, what specific changes would be needed to make the legislation better for the County?
No Effect: Mon, January 29, 2024, by Ron Carl (rcarl@arapahoegov.com)


Q1: Describe the general impacts of the bill on Arapahoe County (Please do not summarize the bill language).
No Effect: Mon, January 29, 2024, by Katherine Smith (ksmith@arapahoegov.com)
This bill does not have a direct impact on the county.

Q2: Describe the impacts of the bill on the County’s operations and the provision of public services.
No Effect: Mon, January 29, 2024, by Katherine Smith (ksmith@arapahoegov.com)
This bill does not have impact on county operations.

Q3: In as much specificity as possible, please estimate the fiscal impacts of the bill on the County. Does the bill adequately fund the demands it places on the County?
No Effect: Mon, January 29, 2024, by Katherine Smith (ksmith@arapahoegov.com)
This bill does not have a fiscal impact on the county

Q4: If you selected amend, what specific changes would be needed to make the legislation better for the County?
No Effect: Mon, January 29, 2024, by Katherine Smith (ksmith@arapahoegov.com)
N/A

 

Fiscal Note 

NOT ON CALENDAR
HB24-1100Coroner Qualifications S. Vigil / S. Jaquez Lewis (D) General Government Support The act requires a coroner of a county with a population greater than 150,000 who is elected on or after November 5, 2024, to be either a death investigator certified by and in good standing with the American board of medicolegal death investigators or a forensic pathologist certified by and in good standing with the American board of pathology. APPROVED by Governor April 11, 2024 EFFECTIVE August 7, 2024(Note: This summary applies to this bill as enacted.)  4/11/2024 Governor Signed
 Monitor Support  Q1: Describe the general impacts of the bill on Arapahoe County (Please do not summarize the bill language).
Monitor: Mon, January 29, 2024, by Ron Carl (rcarl@arapahoegov.com)
This bill will require that our coroner be a certified death investigator or forensic pathologist. This will not impact our current coroner who is a forensic pathologist.

Q2: Describe the impacts of the bill on the County’s operations and the provision of public services.
Monitor: Mon, January 29, 2024, by Ron Carl (rcarl@arapahoegov.com)


Q3: In as much specificity as possible, please estimate the fiscal impacts of the bill on the County. Does the bill adequately fund the demands it places on the County?
Monitor: Mon, January 29, 2024, by Ron Carl (rcarl@arapahoegov.com)


Q4: If you selected amend, what specific changes would be needed to make the legislation better for the County?
Monitor: Mon, January 29, 2024, by Ron Carl (rcarl@arapahoegov.com)


Q1: Describe the general impacts of the bill on Arapahoe County (Please do not summarize the bill language).
Actively Support: Mon, January 29, 2024, by Lisa Vantine (lvantine@arapahoegov.com)
This bill would assure that our death investigation/coroner system continue to be overseen by a person with experience in and knowledge of the field; it would preserve our current operational standards and remove a layer of politics which does not belong in medicine.

Q2: Describe the impacts of the bill on the County’s operations and the provision of public services.
Actively Support: Mon, January 29, 2024, by Lisa Vantine (lvantine@arapahoegov.com)
Death investigations have serious implications for public health and safety, criminal justice, and to provide information for the family and friends of the deceased. We currently operate at the highest level of service and this bill would preserve that in the future, also serving to preserve our national accreditation (which would be lost if an untrained person were to become Coroner).

Q3: In as much specificity as possible, please estimate the fiscal impacts of the bill on the County. Does the bill adequately fund the demands it places on the County?
Actively Support: Mon, January 29, 2024, by Lisa Vantine (lvantine@arapahoegov.com)
No fiscal impact as we already provide the level of service the bill demands.

Q4: If you selected amend, what specific changes would be needed to make the legislation better for the County?
Actively Support: Mon, January 29, 2024, by Lisa Vantine (lvantine@arapahoegov.com)


 

Fiscal Note 

NOT ON CALENDAR
HB24-1107Judicial Review of Local Land Use Decision W. Lindstedt (D) | S. Bird (D) / J. Bridges (D) | F. Winter (D) Housing/Land Use Support The act requires a court to award reasonable attorney fees to a prevailing governmental entity in an action for judicial review of a local land use decision involving residential use with a net project density of 5 dwelling units per acre or more, except for an action brought by the land use applicant before the governmental entity. Filing an action for judicial review of a local land use decision does not affect the validity of the local land use decision. The act authorizes a governmental entity and the public to rely on the local land use decision in good faith for all purposes until the action for judicial review is resolved. APPROVED by Governor May 30, 2024 EFFECTIVE May 30, 2024(Note: This summary applies to this bill as enacted.)  5/30/2024 Governor Signed
 Monitor Support  Q1: Describe the general impacts of the bill on Arapahoe County (Please do not summarize the bill language).
Support: Mon, January 29, 2024, by Ron Carl (rcarl@arapahoegov.com)
This will reduce the chance that we will get sued on land use matters which in turn will help the County effectuate its goals with respect to affordable housing.

Q2: Describe the impacts of the bill on the County’s operations and the provision of public services.
Support: Mon, January 29, 2024, by Ron Carl (rcarl@arapahoegov.com)


Q3: In as much specificity as possible, please estimate the fiscal impacts of the bill on the County. Does the bill adequately fund the demands it places on the County?
Support: Mon, January 29, 2024, by Ron Carl (rcarl@arapahoegov.com)


Q4: If you selected amend, what specific changes would be needed to make the legislation better for the County?
Support: Mon, January 29, 2024, by Ron Carl (rcarl@arapahoegov.com)


 

Fiscal Note 

NOT ON CALENDAR
HB24-1120Resources for Persons in Child Welfare System G. Evans  Human Services Amend  The bill requires that prior to adding a person found responsible for child abuse or neglect (person) to the automated child welfare system (system), a county department of human or social services must provide, within 14 days, a written notice to the person of the opportunity for a hearing to appeal the finding. The written notice must include, among other things: Information about the factual history of the case and detailed information about the appeals process; Information about how the person may obtain, at no cost to the person, a complete copy of the record that will be added to the system, subject to redactions required by law; Information about how the person may request a complete copy of the law enforcement record, if any, of the alleged incident of child abuse or neglect; Information about the office of the child protection ombudsman; and Information about the office of the respondent parents' counsel. When a hearing is requested, the bill requires an administrative law judge to contact the parties to schedule the hearing, which must take place no later than 120 days after the date the person requests a hearing. The bill describes the rights accorded to the person. (Note: This summary applies to this bill as introduced.)  5/14/2024 House Committee on Appropriations Lay Over Unamended - Amendment(s) Failed
  Amend  Q1: Describe the general impacts of the bill on Arapahoe County (Please do not summarize the bill language).
Oppose: Thu, February 01, 2024, by Cheryl Ternes (Cternes@arapahoegov.com)
This bill provides more clarity and structure to an already existing process, which allows for child welfare clients (persons who perpetrate abuse/neglect) to appeal the findings of a substantiated child abuse/neglect case. This bill will provide guidance on the appeals process, as well as additional information about their case from their county department of human services (DHS). This bill ensures clients receive detailed information in a more expeditious manner, as well as better access to their records and whom they may contact if they are concerned about the county’s actions. These clients will also be afforded a more timely resolution of their appeal at the State level.

Q2: Describe the impacts of the bill on the County’s operations and the provision of public services.
Oppose: Thu, February 01, 2024, by Cheryl Ternes (Cternes@arapahoegov.com)
This bill will have a significant workload and fiscal impact on DHS, more specifically the Legal Department in providing heavily redacted records and full files to every person founded for child abuse or neglect to appeal their finding with the State, which in this bill would now be at no cost to the individual. Procedurally, much of the structure in the bill, already exists within our system. Clients have a right to appeal, and are provided a letter with the process they need to follow. Clients, upon request, can already receive copies of their records through our Legal Department, at a cost to them per the County’s CORA policy. The appeals are handled at the State level. This bill would require CDHS to update the letter that is generated out of our Statewide Automated Child Welfare Information System (Trails) to provide the new information required and would require county human services caseworkers and supervisors to more expeditiously provide that letter. The rest of the impacts regarding the appeals process, would fall to the State.

Q3: In as much specificity as possible, please estimate the fiscal impacts of the bill on the County. Does the bill adequately fund the demands it places on the County?
Oppose: Thu, February 01, 2024, by Cheryl Ternes (Cternes@arapahoegov.com)
$137,000+ DHS substantiates approximately 600 assessments per year for child abuse and neglect. (Approx. 12% of all assessments) For DHS Legal to retrieve, redact and process 600 cases per year for appeal, it would require approximately 2.8 work hours per case, averaging 670 pages per case, which equates to $40,800 to process 600 cases per our CORA policy in order to recoup a portion of the cost to produce these records. To accomplish this work, it would require 1 additional FTE with the expertise of our DHS Custodian of Records Paralegal, currently Grade N08 (Annual Mid $78,382.40), estimated full cost of $97,000 with Salary, Benefits and Operating Costs per year. For a very close comparison is case-type and discovery costs, the Paralegal doing DHS case discovery last year completed 406 cases, billing 1,164.75 hours, producing 272,597 documents, billing $27,648. That work was wholly separate from the types of appeals covered in this bill. Finally, under this new bill, DHS would no longer be legally permitted to bill for this discovery process at our current CORA policy rates, as we do at this time. We are recommending oppose at this time unless fully funded.

Q4: If you selected amend, what specific changes would be needed to make the legislation better for the County?
Oppose: Thu, February 01, 2024, by Cheryl Ternes (Cternes@arapahoegov.com)
We are not recommending amend as the issue is the fiscal note due to workload and reduction in revenue (CORA changes).

 

Fiscal Note 

NOT ON CALENDAR
HB24-1152Accessory Dwelling Units J. Amabile (D) | R. Weinberg (R) / K. Mullica (D) | T. Exum (D) Housing/Land Use Monitor Section 1 of the act creates a series of requirements related to accessory dwelling units. Section 1 establishes unique requirements for subject jurisdictions and for qualifying as an accessory dwelling unit supportive jurisdiction (supportive jurisdiction). As established in section 1, a subject jurisdiction is either: A municipality that has a population of 1,000 or more and that is within the area of a metropolitan planning organization; or The portion of a county that is both within a census designated place with a population of forty thousand or more, as reported in the most recent decennial census, and within the area of a metropolitan planning organization. Section 1 requires a subject jurisdiction, on or after June 30, 2025, to allow, subject to an administrative approval process, one accessory dwelling unit as an accessory use to a single-unit detached dwelling in any part of the subject jurisdiction where the subject jurisdiction allows single-unit detached dwellings. Section 1 also prohibits, on or after June 30, 2025, subject jurisdictions from enacting or enforcing certain local laws or otherwise acting in certain ways that would restrict the construction or conversion of an accessory dwelling unit. In order to qualify as a supportive jurisdiction, a local government must submit a report on or before June 30, 2025, to the department of local affairs (department) demonstrating that the local government: Has complied with the accessory dwelling unit requirements section 1 imposes on subject jurisdictions as a subject jurisdiction or, if the local government is not a subject jurisdiction, as if the local government were a subject jurisdiction; and Has implemented one or more specified strategies to encourage and facilitate the construction or conversion of accessory dwelling units. Section 1 also creates the accessory dwelling unit fee reduction and encouragement grant program within the department. The purpose of this grant program is for the department to provide grants to supportive jurisdictions for offsetting costs incurred in connection with developing pre-approved accessory dwelling unit plans, providing technical assistance to persons converting or constructing accessory dwelling units, or waiving, reducing, or providing financial assistance for accessory dwelling unit associated fees and other required costs. In addition to providing grants, the department is required to develop a toolkit to support local governments in encouraging accessory dwelling unit construction. Section 1 requires the state treasurer to transfer $5 million to the accessory dwelling unit fee reduction and encouragement grant program fund created for purposes of implementing the grant program. Section 2 requires the department to create, and for local governments to consider and adopt, model public safety code requirements related to geographic or climatic conditions for factory-built structures, including those structures that would be considered accessory dwelling units. Section 3 grants the Colorado economic development commission the power to expend $8 million to contract with the Colorado housing and finance authority to operate and establish the following programs to benefit low- to moderate-income residents of supportive jurisdictions: An accessory dwelling unit credit enhancement program that supports lenders offering affordable loans to eligible low- and moderate-income borrowers for the construction or conversion of accessory dwelling units; A program that allows for the buying down of interest rates on loans made to eligible low- and moderate-income borrowers in connection with the construction or conversion of accessory dwelling units; A program that offers down payment assistance in connection with accessory dwelling units, principal reduction on loans to eligible low- and moderate-income borrowers made in connection with accessory dwelling units, or both; and A program through which the Colorado housing and finance authority offers loans, revolving lines of credit, or grants to eligible non-profits, public housing authorities, and community development financial institutions to make direct loans or grants to support the construction or conversion of accessory dwelling units for low- and moderate-income borrowers or tenants. Section 4 directs the state treasurer to transfer $8 million from the general fund to the Colorado economic development fund for the purpose of the contracting described in section 3. Section 5 prohibits a subject jurisdiction's planned unit development resolution or ordinance for a planned unit development from restricting the permitting of an accessory dwelling unit more than the local law that applies to accessory dwelling units outside of the planned unit development. Section 6 states, subject to a reasonable restriction exception, that any prohibition on accessory dwelling units or the implementation of restrictive design or dimension standards by a unit owners' association in a supportive jurisdiction is void as a matter of public policy. Section 7 makes appropriations to the department, the division of local government within the department, and the office of the governor for use by the office of information technology for the purpose of implementing the act. APPROVED by Governor May 13, 2024 EFFECTIVE May 13, 2024(Note: This summary applies to this bill as enacted.)  5/13/2024 Governor Signed
 Amend Monitor - 4/5, Amend - Previous  Q1: Describe the general impacts of the bill on Arapahoe County (Please do not summarize the bill language).
Monitor: Wed, January 31, 2024, by Ron Carl (RCarl@arapahoegov.com)
This bill will require that the BOCC remove its ADU owner occupancy and parking restriction LDC requirements, but only for the limited areas that the bill applies to (those portions of the county that are both within a census designated place and within a metropolitan planning organization).

Q2: Describe the impacts of the bill on the County’s operations and the provision of public services.
Monitor: Wed, January 31, 2024, by Ron Carl (RCarl@arapahoegov.com)


Q3: In as much specificity as possible, please estimate the fiscal impacts of the bill on the County. Does the bill adequately fund the demands it places on the County?
Monitor: Wed, January 31, 2024, by Ron Carl (RCarl@arapahoegov.com)


Q4: If you selected amend, what specific changes would be needed to make the legislation better for the County?
Monitor: Wed, January 31, 2024, by Ron Carl (RCarl@arapahoegov.com)


Q1: Describe the general impacts of the bill on Arapahoe County (Please do not summarize the bill language).
No Effect: Fri, February 02, 2024, by Kathy Smith (KSmith@arapahoegov.com)
This bill would have no direct impact on Community Resources- This would have a bigger impact on PWD

Q2: Describe the impacts of the bill on the County’s operations and the provision of public services.
No Effect: Fri, February 02, 2024, by Kathy Smith (KSmith@arapahoegov.com)
This bill would have no operational impact on Community Resources

Q3: In as much specificity as possible, please estimate the fiscal impacts of the bill on the County. Does the bill adequately fund the demands it places on the County?
No Effect: Fri, February 02, 2024, by Kathy Smith (KSmith@arapahoegov.com)
This bill would have no fiscal impact on Community Resources

Q4: If you selected amend, what specific changes would be needed to make the legislation better for the County?
No Effect: Fri, February 02, 2024, by Kathy Smith (KSmith@arapahoegov.com)
N/A

Q1: Describe the general impacts of the bill on Arapahoe County (Please do not summarize the bill language).
Amend: Fri, February 02, 2024, by Jason Reynolds (jreynolds@arapahoegov.com)
This bill would classify us as a “subject jurisdiction” because we have two (and possibly three) census-designated places with a population larger than 10,000 people: Cherry Creek CDP (west of Cherry Creek State Park), Four Square Mile CDP, and maybe Columbine CDP near Platte Canyon (the population tally includes JeffCo, so we are not 100% sure we hit the 10,000 people threshold). We would need to change our ADU regulations (or at least not enforce the provisions): remove requirement for 1 ADU parking space, remove owner-occupancy requirement, and change the setbacks so they match accessory structures. We require a detached ADU to be 10 feet past the front building line while other accessory structures must only match (or exceed) the front building line setback. Subject jurisdictions must report to the state for confirmation that they meet state standards, so it will require some additional work for us. The reporting requirements are less onerous than for the TOC bill, at least. Recommending "amend" rather than oppose, given that the proposed requirements are not particularly onerous. They also have data to support their position on owner-occupancy- but if we want to stand up for local control, we can oppose.

Q2: Describe the impacts of the bill on the County’s operations and the provision of public services.
Amend: Fri, February 02, 2024, by Jason Reynolds (jreynolds@arapahoegov.com)
The bill exempts all parcels that do not have sewer/water service, so it would not affect rural areas. It will require staff time to adjust our code.

Q3: In as much specificity as possible, please estimate the fiscal impacts of the bill on the County. Does the bill adequately fund the demands it places on the County?
Amend: Fri, February 02, 2024, by Jason Reynolds (jreynolds@arapahoegov.com)
Reallocation of staff time to submit required reports. We should also update our LDC so it complies with state-mandated standards, which will require staff resources. The reporting requirements are not particularly burdensome. As a benefit, removing the owner-occupancy requirement will make issuing ADU permits less cumbersome – staff will no longer need to review and file deed restrictions with the Clerk and Recorder.

Q4: If you selected amend, what specific changes would be needed to make the legislation better for the County?
Amend: Fri, February 02, 2024, by Jason Reynolds (jreynolds@arapahoegov.com)
“Subject jurisdiction” means “that portion of a county that is both within a census designated place with a population of ten thousand or more…and within a metropolitan planning organization.” This implies that the bill’s requirements only apply to those areas within the county. If the state cannot confirm that intent, the following change would clarify that the state-mandated rules only apply to the areas that are triggered by the definition: 29-35-103 – insert after (1) on line 27 page 14: For those areas of a subject jurisdiction meeting 29-35-102(20)(a) or (b), A SUBJECT JURISDICTION SHALL ALLOW… 29-35-103 – insert after (2) on line 5 page 15: For those areas of a subject jurisdiction meeting 29-35-102(20)(a) or (b), A SUBJECT JURISDICTION SHALL NOT… If we care, we could request a similar change to the HOA section 38-33.3.-106.5. The proposed bill would prohibit HOA bylaws from restricting ADUs in single-family detached areas – both for existing and future bylaws. We could ask that the state preemption only apply to HOA bylaws within those areas that trigger the “subject jurisdiction” definition. I can see sponsors saying no to that, though – in theory an area could trigger that definition in the future and they’d argue it’s best not to have that invalid prohibition on the books. I’m not recommending a change to that section. The second recommended change is regarding the ADU supportive jurisdiction report. If you want to be an ADU supportive jurisdiction, you have to submit a report. However, if you’re a subject jurisdiction, you also have to submit a report. The supportive jurisdictions have to meet the minimum ADU standards AND must adopt additional ADU supportive practices. However, “subject jurisdictions” are also required to submit the same report. It’s not clear if the intent is that subject jurisdictions must adopt supportive practices or simply meet the minimum requirements. I’m going to assume the intent is the latter and recommend adding clarifying language: 29-35-104(b)(I) – line 7 page 18, replace the text after “subsection 1(a)(I)”: A SUBJECT JURISDICTION SHALL SUBMIT THE REPORT DESCRIBED IN SUBSECTION (1)(a)(I) and may submit the report described in subsection (1)(a)(II) OF THIS SECTION. With this change, it’s clear a subject jurisdiction must demonstrate that they meet minimum requirements and that if they want to go farther, they may submit additional information showing they’re “ADU supportive.”

Q1: Describe the general impacts of the bill on Arapahoe County (Please do not summarize the bill language).
Amend: Sun, February 04, 2024, by Bryan Weimer (BWeimer@arapahoegov.com)
The County just adopted ADU regulations that were developed over a year of analysis, public outreach/input, and public meeting process only to be modified and mandated by the State for designated areas of the County (population based). While some of the barriers may in fact create a limitation on the proliferation of ADUs, the real limit has to do with the costs of construction including but not limited to utilities. The Grant Program established in the Bill, while well intention for a local government, is a small portion of ADUs and covers the agency costs, not the major cost of construction. The other program for residents are financing mechanisms and not subsidize the costs. This Bill would classify us as a “subject jurisdiction” because we have two (and possibly three) census-designated places with a population larger than 10,000 people: Cherry Creek CDP (west of Cherry Creek State Park), Four Square Mile CDP, and maybe Columbine CDP near Platte Canyon (the population tally includes JeffCo, so we are not 100% sure we hit the 10,000 people threshold). We would need to change our ADU regulations (or at least not enforce the provisions): remove requirement for 1 ADU parking space, remove owner-occupancy requirement, change the setbacks so they match accessory structures, and eliminate the minimum ot size of 5000SF. We require a detached ADU to be 10 feet past the front building line while other accessory structures must only match (or exceed) the front building line setback. Subject jurisdictions must report to the state for confirmation that they meet state standards, so it will require some additional work for the County to produce. The reporting requirements are less onerous than for the proposed TOC Bill.

Q2: Describe the impacts of the bill on the County’s operations and the provision of public services.
Amend: Sun, February 04, 2024, by Bryan Weimer (BWeimer@arapahoegov.com)
The Bill, if approved as proposed, will require staff time to modify current ADU regulations to conform and build into Accela. If the County would decide to only apply to the designated areas of 10,000 pop then we would have different standards and workflows that would need to be built into Accela. The Bill exempts all parcels that do not have sewer/water service, so it would not affect rural areas.

Q3: In as much specificity as possible, please estimate the fiscal impacts of the bill on the County. Does the bill adequately fund the demands it places on the County?
Amend: Sun, February 04, 2024, by Bryan Weimer (BWeimer@arapahoegov.com)
Reallocation of staff time to submit required reports. We should also update our LDC so it complies with state-mandated standards, which will require staff resources. The reporting requirements are not particularly burdensome. As a benefit, removing the owner-occupancy requirement will make issuing ADU permits less cumbersome – staff will no longer need to review and file deed restrictions with the Clerk and Recorder.

Q4: If you selected amend, what specific changes would be needed to make the legislation better for the County?
Amend: Sun, February 04, 2024, by Bryan Weimer (BWeimer@arapahoegov.com)
“Subject jurisdiction” means “that portion of a county that is both within a census designated place with a population of ten thousand or more…and within a metropolitan planning organization.” This implies that the bill’s requirements only apply to those areas within the county. If the state cannot confirm that intent, the following change would clarify that the state-mandated rules only apply to the areas that are triggered by the definition: 29-35-103 – insert after (1) on line 27 page 14: For those areas of a subject jurisdiction meeting 29-35-102(20)(a) or (b), A SUBJECT JURISDICTION SHALL ALLOW… 29-35-103 – insert after (2) on line 5 page 15: For those areas of a subject jurisdiction meeting 29-35-102(20)(a) or (b), A SUBJECT JURISDICTION SHALL NOT… If we care, we could request a similar change to the HOA section 38-33.3.-106.5. The proposed bill would prohibit HOA bylaws from restricting ADUs in single-family detached areas – both for existing and future bylaws. We could ask that the state preemption only apply to HOA bylaws within those areas that trigger the “subject jurisdiction” definition. I can see sponsors saying no to that, though – in theory an area could trigger that definition in the future and they’d argue it’s best not to have that invalid prohibition on the books. This may not be a sword to fall on. The second recommended change is regarding the ADU supportive jurisdiction report. If you want to be an ADU supportive jurisdiction, you have to submit a report. However, if you’re a subject jurisdiction, you also have to submit a report. The supportive jurisdictions have to meet the minimum ADU standards AND must adopt additional ADU supportive practices. However, “subject jurisdictions” are also required to submit the same report. It’s not clear if the intent is that subject jurisdictions must adopt supportive practices or simply meet the minimum requirements. We are going to assume the intent is the latter and recommend adding clarifying language: 29-35-104(b)(I) – line 7 page 18, replace the text after “subsection 1(a)(I)”: A SUBJECT JURISDICTION SHALL SUBMIT THE REPORT DESCRIBED IN SUBSECTION (1)(a)(I) and may submit the report described in subsection (1)(a)(II) OF THIS SECTION. With this change, it’s clear a subject jurisdiction must demonstrate that they meet minimum requirements and that if they want to go farther, they may submit additional information showing they’re “ADU supportive.” We are pretty sure the sponsors will not budge on prohibiting owner-occupancy requirements and extra parking spaces, so we are not going to hit on those as amendments. Given the character of our single-family neighborhoods, losing our parking requirement is not going to be a big deal – we have plenty of on-street parking in our single-family neighborhoods (with the exception of the area around 10356 E Weaver Circle), but a we have seen with various examples throughout the County, parking is a hot topic and a quality of life issue for many. We recommend and Amend position for these clarifications, but this Bill to a certain extent, goes against the local control position the County has taken. If that is the stance the BOCC wants to take, then we would recommend oppose. If we’re going to expend our influence, it’s probably better directed at the proposed TOC Bill. As with other Housing Bills, the Bill includes unfunded mandates in the form of reporting requirements – though this reporting requirement for this Bill is very manageable compared to the Transit-Oriented Community Bill.

 

Fiscal Note 

NOT ON CALENDAR
HB24-1170Rights for Youth Division of Youth Services Facilities J. Joseph (D) | D. Ortiz / J. Gonzales (D) | D. Michaelson Jenet (D) Human Services Support The act establishes in statute a bill of rights for youth who are the responsibility of the department of human services (department), whether the youth is detained or committed to the care and physical custody of a juvenile facility operated by the department. APPROVED by Governor June 4, 2024 EFFECTIVE August 7, 2024(Note: This summary applies to this bill as enacted.)  6/4/2024 Governor Signed
  Support  Q1: Describe the general impacts of the bill on Arapahoe County (Please do not summarize the bill language).
Support: Wed, February 07, 2024, by Cheryl Ternes (Cternes@arapahoegov.com)
This bill has positive impacts for youth ages 10-21 years who are detained or committed within the Colorado Department of Youth Services. This bill allows them to be afforded certain rights including how they are treated, the ability to practice religion, to be in a safe and trauma responsive environment, have freedom from discrimination, be provided disability accommodations, have access to vote, be free from physical punishment/harassment/abuse/neglect. They would have freedom from interference of normal bodily functions of eating/sleeping/using the bathroom, as well as have access to media information, be able to exercise, have contact with family/friends. They will be free from mandatory unpaid work outside of basic daily cleanup/maintenance, have access to medical/mental health care, medications, and treatment. They would have access to specialized treatment/care for pregnancy, reproductive health. They would have unencumbered access to legal counsel, including court and confidential phone calls and visits, have unimpeded phone access to the Child Protection Ombudsman, and have the right to file a grievance/complaint, with a right to due process. They will also have a right to education including post-secondary education/training, and if this right is denied, CDHS must provide substantial evidence to support the denial. Rights also include freedom of expression, freedom of personal appearance, access to activities, adherence to proper rooms, searches, use of name/pronouns, clothing, showers/bathrooms, and confidentiality as it pertains to sexual orientation or gender identify/expression, as well as a right to gender affirming care. CDHS must uphold all of these rights. Youth will also be provided a copy of their rights and the DYS handbook.

Q2: Describe the impacts of the bill on the County’s operations and the provision of public services.
Support: Wed, February 07, 2024, by Cheryl Ternes (Cternes@arapahoegov.com)
None

Q3: In as much specificity as possible, please estimate the fiscal impacts of the bill on the County. Does the bill adequately fund the demands it places on the County?
Support: Wed, February 07, 2024, by Cheryl Ternes (Cternes@arapahoegov.com)
None

Q4: If you selected amend, what specific changes would be needed to make the legislation better for the County?
Support: Wed, February 07, 2024, by Cheryl Ternes (Cternes@arapahoegov.com)


 

Fiscal Note 

NOT ON CALENDAR
HB24-1173Electric Vehicle Charging System Permits A. Valdez (D) / K. Priola | S. Jaquez Lewis (D) Energy/Environment Monitor The act establishes permitting procedures for electric vehicle (EV) charging systems for counties with a population of 20,000 or more (covered county) and municipalities with a population of 10,000 or more (covered municipality). On or before December 31, 2025, a board of county commissioners of a covered county or the governing body of a covered municipality must do one of the following: Adopt an ordinance or resolution that incorporates the same standards and permitting process or less restrictive standards and permitting process as the standards and permitting process described in the Colorado energy office's EV charger permitting model code that the office is required to publish on or before March 31, 2025; Adopt an ordinance or resolution that establishes the covered county's or covered municipality's own objective standards and administrative review process to be used by the covered county or covered municipality permitting agency in the agency's review of EV charger permits, which ordinance or resolution must comply with certain requirements; or Adopt an ordinance or resolution that establishes that the covered county or covered municipality does not intend to adopt the EV charger model code or adopt the standards and administrative review process required by the act, but instead will continue to utilize the covered county's or covered municipality's existing permitting review process for EV charging systems. If a covered county or covered municipality establishes its own objective standards and administrative review process, the covered county or covered municipal permitting agency must provide a checklist to prospective applicants of all requirements that must be included in an application for an EV charger permit. The covered county or covered municipality may deny an application if the application does not comply with the objective standards for EV charging systems set forth by the covered county or covered municipality or for health or safety reasons. A covered county or covered municipality must also notify an EV charger permit applicant of the covered county permitting agency's or covered municipal permitting agency's decision to approve, conditionally approve, or deny an applicant within 3 business days after the date the agency makes such determination. The Colorado energy office, in addition to developing the model code regarding the approval of EV charger permits, is required to provide covered counties and covered municipalities technical assistance in developing and administering the expedited EV charger permitting process. If a board of county commissioners of a covered county or governing body of a covered municipality adopts the model code, it is not subject to the other requirements specified in the act. APPROVED by Governor May 21, 2024 EFFECTIVE August 7, 2024(Note: This summary applies to this bill as enacted.)  5/21/2024 Governor Signed
 Monitor Oppose  Q1: Describe the general impacts of the bill on Arapahoe County (Please do not summarize the bill language).
Monitor: Tue, February 06, 2024, by Ron Carl (rcarl@arapahoegov.com)
This bill will require that the County adopt an administrative process that is expedited and is based on objective criteria, that would allow for the approval of electric vehicle charging stations.

Q2: Describe the impacts of the bill on the County’s operations and the provision of public services.
Monitor: Tue, February 06, 2024, by Ron Carl (rcarl@arapahoegov.com)


Q3: In as much specificity as possible, please estimate the fiscal impacts of the bill on the County. Does the bill adequately fund the demands it places on the County?
Monitor: Tue, February 06, 2024, by Ron Carl (rcarl@arapahoegov.com)


Q4: If you selected amend, what specific changes would be needed to make the legislation better for the County?
Monitor: Tue, February 06, 2024, by Ron Carl (rcarl@arapahoegov.com)


Q1: Describe the general impacts of the bill on Arapahoe County (Please do not summarize the bill language).
Oppose: Wed, February 07, 2024, by Bryan Weimer (bweimer@arapahoegov.com)
This Bill will place an unfunded mandate on the turnaround time for an EV permit elevating it above all other types of permits. This will more than likely result in other permits being delayed. Additionally, no mechanism or logistical SOP exists for which to provide preferential treatment re: this type of permit. The process of installing these type of charging stations would likely require a land use process in addition to a issuance of a building permit, which is unrealistic to meet the timeframes suggested. From a Building Division perspective, historically, these types of permits have a low pass-rate on first time submittals re: permit issuance (as such it would be unwise to issue with conditions as that would be a field . There are elements within this Bill that stipulate performance metrics and expectations that are unrealistic, uncontrollable and also has what appears to be an “automated approval clause” by way of default. Staff has zero interest in rubber-stamping approval that circumvents the minimum requirement of the Code.? Staff is not interest in the State further dictating our processes or the way in which we conduct our business. Safety of the built environment will be impacted with an automatic approval of an EV permit if the timeframe is not meet. The first time that someone is electrocuted to death as a result of a non-compliant / unsafe installation, perhaps the enthusiasm re; this initiative will change.

Q2: Describe the impacts of the bill on the County’s operations and the provision of public services.
Oppose: Wed, February 07, 2024, by Bryan Weimer (bweimer@arapahoegov.com)
In addition to the potential to affect building permit review timeliness, Line 27, Page 5 requires us to submit a report to the state! So, even more extra work on top of the unfunded mandate. Additional resources, staff would inevitably be required and/or amendments to published review times, prioritization, and the likely conflicting language with previously-adopted HB’s that also address “EV Readiness and Model Energy Code”. As written there could be a lot of approvals because the time frame is too short without a true review or denials (which could be viewed as subjective – bill addresses) and then subsequent appeals to the BOCC (increase that workload)

Q3: In as much specificity as possible, please estimate the fiscal impacts of the bill on the County. Does the bill adequately fund the demands it places on the County?
Oppose: Wed, February 07, 2024, by Bryan Weimer (bweimer@arapahoegov.com)
The cost of the EV Permit could cover the increased costs to staffing (could we charge an “expedited EV permit” fee?) If we pursue an “expedited fee”, then there could be an unintended consequence that would result in many of our other applicants of different permit types offering to do the same. Therefore, if everything is a priority, then nothing changes. Building Division is running out of “elevator speeches” re: our current turnaround times due to work load. The required timeframes of this Bill only makes it worse. The Division has entertained acceleration before, and could not possibly meet the demands of everyone requesting expedited / premium service. It is an honest and reasonable suggestion though…with the appropriate resources. We would also need IT resources for future reporting requirements and configuration , plus consulting time to develop workflows in Accela.

Q4: If you selected amend, what specific changes would be needed to make the legislation better for the County?
Oppose: Wed, February 07, 2024, by Bryan Weimer (bweimer@arapahoegov.com)
Not require a timeline and an automatic approval if the timeline is not met. Nothing is this bill changes anything for the better. The process is the process, the quality and completeness of plans are what they are, and our workload cannot be controlled. Any prospect of waiving the provisions of the National Electrical Code (NEC) / NFPA-70 is sheer stupidity, particularly if automatic approval. Particularly where the NEC is 100% life-safety oriented. Note that the definition on Line 21 page 4 includes individual charging hookups. If the intent of the Bill is to expedite review of multi-unit charging systems, the Bill should clarify that it applies to those systems and not individual garage hookups. It should be noted that where charging stations can be placed is in existing Garage structures that may not be designed for vehicle weights that can range from 2000-7000 lb more than their gasoline counterparts. In addition, these stations are usually lumped together because infrastructure demand and as such create a point load that the structures may have not been designed to accommodate. All this means the review timeline becomes more difficult because of complexity. Also, if this is an area of state concern, one approach to offload onto the state building reviewers/inspectors, similar to how public schools work. The timelines are not reasonable given our building permit workload. Line 5, Page 9 provides a timeline for multiple pedestal EV charging stations – the bill should clarify if that’s meant to be the ENTIRE process (site plan/engineering review plus building permits or just the building permits?). If it’s meant to be all site planning, the timeframe is even more of a challenge – on a greenfield, they would need to design detention etc. While it might be attractive to offload the requirement to the state as discussed above, cross-jurisdictional matters create conflicts once they are established. An “invitation” to the State to oversee these installations in Arapahoe County will result in an absolute disaster re: historical record for activity and establish a dangerous precedent. Nothing that has been preserved for permanent record could be trusted, as the State not only does NOT perform plan reviews, they also do not require “As-Built Drawings”. Translation: We would never know what the State inevitably approved. The consequences would be disastrous re: future development, additions, alterations, improvements, electrical engineering considerations, serving-utility collaboration, FD approvals, site-conditions, etc. Therefore, rather than offloading the requirement, it would be better to further address the timing to be more realistic, focus on the quality of the land use and building permit application, and provide further clarification of what the Bill is intended to address.

 

Fiscal Note 

Wednesday, May 8 2024
THIRD READING OF BILLS - FINAL PASSAGE - CONT'D
(5) in senate calendar.  
HB24-1216Supports for Youth in Juvenile Justice System J. Bacon (D) | T. Hernandez / J. Coleman (D) Human Services Amend The act establishes a bill of rights for a K-12 student who is involved in any capacity with the juvenile or criminal justice system (justice-engaged student). School districts, boards of cooperative services, charter schools, and institute charter schools (local education providers) must follow the bill of rights for justice-engaged students. The bill of rights includes, but is not limited to: Providing the justice-engaged student with alternative solutions to a general education, when appropriate; Prompt enrollment or re-enrollment no later than 10 business days after the first request to the local education provider, so long as the student is eligible for enrollment, as determined by the local education provider; Appropriate credit for coursework completed while justice-engaged, and for that coursework to be applied toward graduation or school continuation; Providing the justice-engaged student with a graduation plan, developed in consultation with the justice-engaged student, the student's family, caregiver or advocate; Privacy, including privacy when related to diversion, probation, or questioning about a crime; Protection by the federal "Individuals with Disabilities Act", section 504 of the federal "Rehabilitation Act of 1973", applicable foster care regulations, and the federal "McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act"; Creating evidence of and being evaluated for giftedness; and Allowing the justice-engaged student to participate in school activities or career readiness pathways in accordance with rules promulgated by the state board of education (board). Each local education provider shall publish on its website an explanation of the services and resources available for justice-engaged students, including the name, phone number, and email address of a designated, trained point-of-contact person (contact person) at the local education provider. For small and rural school districts that are not members of a BOCES, a designated support person within the department of education (department) may act as a contact person. The contact person shall read and understand the guidance developed by the department and be knowledgeable about alternative education options and wraparound services. Upon notification or request, a local education provider will work with the team of professionals, including the multi-tiered systems of supports, and appropriate intervention teams, families, and justice-engaged students to ensure a pathway to graduation, including workforce development opportunities, access to alternative educational programming, and mental health and other supports as and if appropriate and available. On or before July 1, 2024, the department shall convene an interagency working group to review and make recommendations to the department and joint education committees of the house of representatives and the senate no later than December 1, 2024 regarding justice-engaged students. The board shall promulgate rules to establish a process and framework for interpreting and transferring credits and schoolwork completed by a justice-engaged student while in custody. Local education providers retain the right to suspend or expel a justice-engaged student pursuant to applicable laws. The department shall provide guidance to local education providers on how to allow a justice-engaged student to receive an accommodation to participate in school activities, including, but not limited to, graduation ceremonies, sporting events, after-school activities, and college or career readiness pathways. On or before September 1, 2026, the act requires the department to select and contract with an entity to establish and maintain a statewide hotline for justice-engaged students, families and caregivers, justice system personnel, and education personnel. Each justice-engaged student shall be provided information about the hotline by law enforcement after ticketing or arrest, by the division of youth services after release from the division, and by local education providers after notification that a student has become justice-engaged. The act requires the entity operating the hotline to submit a written report to the department and board on or before June 30, 2025, and each June 30 thereafter. The report must categorize and summarize the number of calls received, the type of person calling, types of supports or referrals provided, and the geography of calls received so that service gaps can be identified. Beginning July 1, 2025, the department shall assist students from small and rural school districts who have been denied re-entry into school by a local education provider. Under current law, if a child or youth is within a court's jurisdiction, a preliminary investigation is made to determine whether further actions be taken to protect the interests of the child or youth or the community. The court or judge or magistrate is encouraged to take into consideration a juvenile's educational progress and ability to achieve credits toward graduation when considering release options. If the court commits a justice-engaged student to the department of human services who does not include a physical threat or bodily injury to another person, the court is encouraged to order that the commitment take place in a manner that allows the justice-engaged student to continue to attend school prior to commitment to avoid disruption of the justice-engaged student's academic progress and ability to achieve credits for a semester. The act appropriates $82,883 from the general fund for the 2024-25 state fiscal year to the department of education for use by student pathways. APPROVED by Governor May 31, 2024 EFFECTIVE August 7, 2024(Note: This summary applies to this bill as enacted.)  5/31/2024 Governor Signed
  Amend  Q1: Describe the general impacts of the bill on Arapahoe County (Please do not summarize the bill language).
Amend: Thu, February 15, 2024, by Cheryl Ternes (Cternes@arapahoegov.com)
The section of this bill that rewrites 19-3-501 (pages 14 and 15) will negatively impact the county. In short, it creates an entirely new legal process of jurisdiction for the Juvenile Court that would be called a “Preliminary Investigation,” whereby the court would have the legal ability to order a DHS investigation on a family, which could continue for up to 6 months. Therefore, this section of the bill is vague, ambiguous, and not based in law. Additionally this portion of the bill is unnecessary, the educational rights of children under Section 3 of Title 19 would already be covered in pages 1-13 of this bill, and there are existing statutes, rules and regulations governing education rights for Title 19 Section 3 children. Pages 1-13 of this bill will positively impact children who are involved in the juvenile justice system by ensuring they are afforded their rights to education, and related activities and supports. This will ensure they have the ability to reach their full potential to include obtaining a high school diploma on time.

Q2: Describe the impacts of the bill on the County’s operations and the provision of public services.
Amend: Thu, February 15, 2024, by Cheryl Ternes (Cternes@arapahoegov.com)
The section of this bill that rewrites 19-3-501 (pages 14 and 15) will require DHS to become involved in, and well versed in serving a new type of case in Juvenile Court. However, pages 1-13 of this bill will have little to no impact to our operations within Human Services other than ensuring children in our custody have been provided information to ensure their rights are upheld. The impact falls largely on the Department of Education, our local school districts and the Division of Youth Services and the juvenile justice system.

Q3: In as much specificity as possible, please estimate the fiscal impacts of the bill on the County. Does the bill adequately fund the demands it places on the County?
Amend: Thu, February 15, 2024, by Cheryl Ternes (Cternes@arapahoegov.com)
The fiscal impact on the county is unknown since the impacts of these changes to 19-3-501 are so unclear, but it could be significant. There are no fiscal impacts of pages 1-13 of this bill.

Q4: If you selected amend, what specific changes would be needed to make the legislation better for the County?
Amend: Thu, February 15, 2024, by Cheryl Ternes (Cternes@arapahoegov.com)
Strike Page 14, lines 15-27, and Page 15, lines 1-16.

 

Fiscal Note 

NOT ON CALENDAR
HB24-1223Improved Access to the Child Care Assistance Program J. Willford (D) | L. Garcia (D) / L. Cutter (D) | D. Michaelson Jenet (D) Human Services Amend The act overhauls the Colorado child care assistance program (CCCAP). The act simplifies the application process by: Limiting the application requirements to only what is necessary to determine eligibility; Prohibiting counties from adding eligibility requirements; and Requiring recipients to provide only information that has changed when applying for redetermination. Income qualifications are changed to correspond with universal preschool program requirements. A county may exclude state and federal assistance program income eligibility guidelines in eligibility determinations. An employee of a child care provider may apply to the CCCAP and be granted full benefits for children from 6 weeks of age to 13 years of age, regardless of the employee's income. The act directs that child care providers be paid based on enrollment and not on attendance and be paid a weekly rate in advance. Employers are permitted to cover copayments, and copayments are limited to 7% of a family's income. The act authorizes grants and contracts for underserved populations. Starting July 1, 2025, the department shall create a pilot program for unlicensed providers to seek license-exempt status and establishment as an eligible CCCAP provider separate and distinct from the parent-initiated process. A CCCAP recipient is required to engage in an eligible activity to receive benefits. The act includes substance use disorder treatment programs, job training, and education activities as eligible activities. The department of early childhood education, in consultation with the department of public health and environment, shall conduct or contract for a study to determine the feasibility of de-linking eligibility for the federal child and adult care food program from the CCCAP. The act appropriates $100,000 from the general fund to the department of early childhood for the child and adult care food program study. APPROVED by Governor June 4, 2024 EFFECTIVE June 4, 2024(Note: This summary applies to this bill as enacted.)  6/4/2024 Governor Signed
 Monitor Amend  Q1: Describe the general impacts of the bill on Arapahoe County (Please do not summarize the bill language).
Amend: Wed, February 21, 2024, by Cheryl Ternes (Cternes@arapahoegov.com)
HB24-1223 would make the application process for child care assistance universal across counties and reduce the amount of information parents would have to provide which are positives. It also creates a 90 day presumptive eligibility which may reduce processing time. It also changes rules related to provider billing and parents portion of the cost of services being provided.

Q2: Describe the impacts of the bill on the County’s operations and the provision of public services.
Amend: Wed, February 21, 2024, by Cheryl Ternes (Cternes@arapahoegov.com)
Bill could potentially reduce processing time for applications for child care assistance and expand eligibility leading to increased # of eligible CCCAP families. The CCCAP caseload and workload will likely increase. This will impact our staffing as it is likely that we will need additional FTE in order to meet the need.

Q3: In as much specificity as possible, please estimate the fiscal impacts of the bill on the County. Does the bill adequately fund the demands it places on the County?
Amend: Wed, February 21, 2024, by Cheryl Ternes (Cternes@arapahoegov.com)
Due to limited data abilities for the child care assistance program, it is nearly impossible to accurately estimate the fiscal impact of the bill, but the provision of paying for the enrollment of each child instead of the attendance of the child, which is current rule, it is estimated there would be a 10% increase to the costs related to provider payments. We are not able to obtain the data needed to produce a viable fiscal note. The bill was removed from the calendar for now due to ongoing discussions regarding the fiscal note. Counties are asking for a stakeholder meeting.

Q4: If you selected amend, what specific changes would be needed to make the legislation better for the County?
Amend: Wed, February 21, 2024, by Cheryl Ternes (Cternes@arapahoegov.com)
Need a fiscal note for starters. County directors have several specific amendments they would like to see made, but fundamentally worry that if the fiscal note does not fully capture the costs, they will end up serving fewer children and families and have to establish more waitlists and freezes. In addition to this, they are particularly concerned about the specific part of the bill that would provide CCCAP to all parents who are child care providers regardless of income. In its current form, that language would result in an unfunded mandate to counties, as the bill states that those parents who are child care providers and aren’t federally eligible for CCCAP would be funded entirely by state and local funds. Some of the amendments that county directors would like to pursue include: • Remove provisions in the bill that were contemplated in proposed federal rule, but final federal rule has not yet been released. Those provisions include: reimbursement based on enrollment not attendance (proposed rules require this or an ‘alternative equally stabilizing approach’); limiting parent copays to 7% of family income; paying providers weekly rates in advance of services; use of grants and contracts for underserved populations (unclear on what this entails) o All of these policies would be quite costly; if they move forward, significant funding will be needed • Remove provision that parents who are child care providers are eligible for CCCAP without income limits – directors may discuss alternative policies here, such as excluding child care income from CCCAP eligibility; but all agree that CCCAP should remain an income-based program to serve those most in need • Remove presumptive eligibility – this was in federal proposed rules as an optional policy; this would be extremely costly and would also create confusion and instability for providers and families as families move on and off CCCAP. Some counties have noted current denial rates of CCCAP applicants between 18-30% (many due to being over income), meaning there could be quite a bit of churn • Remove provision around exploring a statewide reimbursement model, as this is a county administered program and that seems to allude to a state administered program • Amend the list of items for background checks that would preclude a provider from receiving CCCAP – directors are seeking county attorney feedback on what should be included in the list of convictions that pertain to child safety and should preclude a provider from receiving CCCAP • More technical amendments to address issues such as what can be asked on the application and what information is provided on the application

 

Fiscal Note 

Wednesday, May 8 2024
THIRD READING OF BILLS - FINAL PASSAGE
(2) in senate calendar.  
HB24-1229Presumptive Eligibility for Long-Term Care R. English (D) / K. Mullica (D) | P. Will  Human Services Amend Beginning January 1, 2026, the act removes the requirement that the department of health care policy and financing (department) fully assess a person in need of long-term services and supports for the appropriate level of care before the person is presumed eligible for the medical assistance program. The act authorizes the department to make any necessary changes to any other federal authorizations that are authorized by the federal centers for medicare and medicaid services in order to implement the presumptive eligibility requirements for persons in need of long-term services and supports. APPROVED by Governor June 3, 2024 PORTIONS EFFECTIVE August 7, 2024 PORTIONS EFFECTIVE January 1, 2026(Note: This summary applies to this bill as enacted.)  6/3/2024 Governor Signed
  Amend  Q1: Describe the general impacts of the bill on Arapahoe County (Please do not summarize the bill language).
Amend: Thu, March 14, 2024, by Georjette Dhliwayo (gdhliwayo@arapahoegov.com)
We are generally supportive of efforts to ease access to services for Long Term Care clients, but have concerns about the unknown impacts of a waiver. Many of the details would be worked out in the waiver process and depend on approval at the federal level, we are concerned about a potential increase in workload for our eligibility staff.

Q2: Describe the impacts of the bill on the County’s operations and the provision of public services.
Amend: Thu, March 14, 2024, by Georjette Dhliwayo (gdhliwayo@arapahoegov.com)
Workload increases are of great concern given the immense workload our eligibility staff are facing at this time. We want to ensure that work load impacts are considered and that we are fully engaged in the stakeholder process before the waiver is approved.

Q3: In as much specificity as possible, please estimate the fiscal impacts of the bill on the County. Does the bill adequately fund the demands it places on the County?
Amend: Thu, March 14, 2024, by Georjette Dhliwayo (gdhliwayo@arapahoegov.com)
Unknown at this time

Q4: If you selected amend, what specific changes would be needed to make the legislation better for the County?
Amend: Thu, March 14, 2024, by Georjette Dhliwayo (gdhliwayo@arapahoegov.com)
We along with the Human Services Director's Association recommend two amendments: One amendment would require that HCPF produce a report to the Joint Budget Committee or General Assembly that captures the workload impact on counties, which must include potential increases in appeals. The second amendment would clarify that counties must be included in the stakeholder process, which could be modeled off of language in HB23-1300.

 

Fiscal Note 

NOT ON CALENDAR
HB24-1230Protections for Real Property Owners J. Parenti | J. Bacon (D) / F. Winter (D) | L. Cutter (D) Housing/Land Use Monitor  Current law declares void any express waivers of or limitations on the legal rights or remedies provided by the "Construction Defect Action Reform Act" or the "Colorado Consumer Protection Act". Sections 1 and 4 make it a violation of the "Colorado Consumer Protection Act" to obtain or attempt to obtain a waiver or limitation that violates the aforementioned current law. Section 4 also requires a court to award to a claimant that prevails in a claim arising from alleged defects in a residential property construction, in addition to actual damages, prejudgment interest on the claim at a rate of 6% from the date the work is finished to the date it is sold to an occupant and 8% thereafter. Current law requires that a lawsuit against an architect, a contractor, a builder or builder vendor, an engineer, or an inspector performing or furnishing the design, planning, supervision, inspection, construction, or observation of construction of an improvement to real property must be brought within 6 years after the claim arises. Section 2 increases the amount of time in which a lawsuit may be brought from 6 to 10 years. Current law also provides that a claim of relief arises when a defect's physical manifestation was discovered or should have been discovered. Section 2 also changes the time when a claim of relief arises to include both the discovery of the physical manifestation and the cause of the defect. Section 3 voids a provision in a real estate contract that prohibits group lawsuits against a construction professional. Section 5 of the bill prohibits governing documents of a common interest community from setting different or additional requirements than those in current law for a construction defect action.(Note: This summary applies to this bill as introduced.)  5/7/2024 Senate Second Reading Laid Over to 05/09/2024 - No Amendments
    Q1: Describe the general impacts of the bill on Arapahoe County (Please do not summarize the bill language).
N/A: Tue, February 27, 2024, by Kathy Smith (KSmith@arapahoegov.com)
This bill would not have a direct impact on Community Resources as we are not doing construction in-house. This could have an impact on developers that we assist in providing grant funding for.

Q2: Describe the impacts of the bill on the County’s operations and the provision of public services.
N/A: Tue, February 27, 2024, by Kathy Smith (KSmith@arapahoegov.com)
This bill would not have a direct impact on Community Resources as we are not doing construction in-house. This could have an impact on developers that we assist in providing grant funding for.

Q3: In as much specificity as possible, please estimate the fiscal impacts of the bill on the County. Does the bill adequately fund the demands it places on the County?
N/A: Tue, February 27, 2024, by Kathy Smith (KSmith@arapahoegov.com)
This bill would not have a direct impact on Community Resources as we are not doing construction in-house. This could have an impact on developers that we assist in providing grant funding for.

Q4: If you selected amend, what specific changes would be needed to make the legislation better for the County?
N/A: Tue, February 27, 2024, by Kathy Smith (KSmith@arapahoegov.com)


Q1: Describe the general impacts of the bill on Arapahoe County (Please do not summarize the bill language).
Monitor: Thu, February 29, 2024, by Ron Carl (RCarl@arapahoegov.com)
This bill will lengthen the timeframe for filing a lawsuit against a construction professional.

Q2: Describe the impacts of the bill on the County’s operations and the provision of public services.
Monitor: Thu, February 29, 2024, by Ron Carl (RCarl@arapahoegov.com)


Q3: In as much specificity as possible, please estimate the fiscal impacts of the bill on the County. Does the bill adequately fund the demands it places on the County?
Monitor: Thu, February 29, 2024, by Ron Carl (RCarl@arapahoegov.com)


Q4: If you selected amend, what specific changes would be needed to make the legislation better for the County?
Monitor: Thu, February 29, 2024, by Ron Carl (RCarl@arapahoegov.com)


Q1: Describe the general impacts of the bill on Arapahoe County (Please do not summarize the bill language).
Monitor: Sun, March 03, 2024, by Bryan Weimer (BWeimer@arapahoegov.com)
The bill modifies consumer protections for residential property owners related to construction defect litigation standards and requirements.

Q2: Describe the impacts of the bill on the County’s operations and the provision of public services.
Monitor: Sun, March 03, 2024, by Bryan Weimer (BWeimer@arapahoegov.com)
Increasing the timeframe for which a claim can be made, could affect our recording and document retention requirements. Opinion by County Attorney is that the 6 year retention may apply to either paper or electronic documents. Hence it would be legal to scan the file before the 6 years is finished since it would be considered permanent in the PWD system. However, please note that PWD keeps all our records permanently. Also, to the extent district attorneys receive deceptive trade practice complaints related to the new deceptive trade practice under the bill, workload could increase to investigate complaints and seek relief when appropriate.

Q3: In as much specificity as possible, please estimate the fiscal impacts of the bill on the County. Does the bill adequately fund the demands it places on the County?
Monitor: Sun, March 03, 2024, by Bryan Weimer (BWeimer@arapahoegov.com)
Potential case load increase to DA, could be a fiscal issue.

Q4: If you selected amend, what specific changes would be needed to make the legislation better for the County?
Monitor: Sun, March 03, 2024, by Bryan Weimer (BWeimer@arapahoegov.com)
We are recommending monitoring as there is no direct impact to the County. One provision of this Bill allows for the aggregation of claims which could have an untended consequence of builders not wanting to take that risk over a longer period of time and possibly insurers. As such this could affect the Condo and townhome market further. However, if we want to show consumer protection, then a support position could be adopted.

 

Fiscal Note 

NOT ON CALENDAR
HB24-1235Reduce Aviation Impacts on Communities K. Brown (D) | S. Bird (D) / S. Fenberg | R. Zenzinger  Energy/Environment Support Section 2 of the act creates a state income tax credit for owners of aircraft that incur qualifying expenses to enable an aircraft that is powered by leaded aviation gasoline to be certified to instead be powered by unleaded aviation gasoline. Sections 3 and 6 provide explicit authority in the existing state aviation grant program for aviation fund grants: To general aviation airports and commercial airports at which there is significant general aviation activity to fund the design, engineering, construction, installation, acquisition, and inspection of infrastructure, including equipment, that allows the sale of unleaded aviation gasoline at such airports and to subsidize purchases of unleaded aviation gasoline at such airports; For airport noise monitoring devices; For evaluation, provision of education and technical assistance to airports about, prevention, or mitigation of adverse impacts to the health, safety, and welfare of individuals who reside or work near an airport; and At a time that electric aircraft technology has been appropriately certified by the federal aviation administration, for on-airport electric aircraft charging infrastructure. Section 6 also: Requires the lesser of 10% of the amount awarded in grants per year or $1,500,000 per year in grants to be designated for the aviation purposes of aiding and accelerating the transition from leaded aviation gasoline to unleaded aviation gasoline with priority given to airports with significant general aviation traffic in urban and suburban areas where surrounding communities may be disproportionately impacted by such traffic; and Subject to specified exceptions, prohibits grants from being awarded to an airport that is located in a densely populated residential area or has a significant number of flights over a densely populated residential area unless the airport or entity operating the airport demonstrates to the satisfaction of the aeronautics division of the department of transportation (division) that: By January 1, 2026, it has adopted a plan, in accordance with applicable federal requirements and guidance, for phasing out sales of leaded aviation gasoline at the airport by January 1, 2030; It has established, in consultation with flight schools and pilots that regularly use the airport, a voluntary noise abatement plan that meets specified requirements; and It complies with the requirements of any avigation easements or contracts that it has entered into. Section 4 adds to the division's duties: Working with the department of public health and environment (CDPHE) as it continues to provide data and information about the effects of leaded aviation fuel on human health to the department of transportation and airports; and Educating airports with significant general aviation activity, as determined by the division, regarding: The need to expedite the transition from leaded aviation gasoline to unleaded aviation gasoline; and Specified funding opportunities for projects and unleaded aviation gasoline subsidies, if offered by the division, that support the transition from leaded aviation gasoline to unleaded aviation gasoline and impose requirements for accessing that funding and, if offered, those subsidies. Section 5 increases the Colorado aeronautical board (board) from 7 to 9 voting members by requiring the appointment of 2 members who are residents of communities that are affected by general aviation airport traffic or traffic at a commercial airport at which there is significant general aviation activity and makes the executive director of CDPHE, or the executive director's designee, an ex officio nonvoting member of the board. In appointing the 2 new voting members, the governor is required to give priority to individuals who are not trained pilots, are familiar with airport infrastructure, aviation, and the mission of the board, and reside in a community that is significantly impacted by noise or lead emissions by a high-traffic airport with significant general aviation activity. The governor is also required to make appointments to the board so as to ensure a balance broadly representative of the activity level of airports throughout the state and further ensure that the racial, ethnic, and gender makeup of the board is representative of communities that are disproportionately impacted by general aviation airport traffic or traffic at a commercial airport at which there is significant general aviation activity. Section 7 requires the division to evaluate, educate, and provide technical assistance to airports about the adverse impacts of aircraft noise on health, safety, and welfare and requires the division to prioritize these activities at airports with significant general aviation activity that are located in densely populated residential areas or have a significant number of flights over such areas. Section 8 appropriates $44,609 from the general fund to the department of revenue and reappropriates $2,591 of the appropriation to the department of personnel for implementation of the act. APPROVED by Governor May 17, 2024 EFFECTIVE May 17, 2024(Note: This summary applies to this bill as enacted.)  5/17/2024 Governor Signed
    Q1: Describe the general impacts of the bill on Arapahoe County (Please do not summarize the bill language).
Monitor: Fri, February 16, 2024, by Bryan Weimer (bweimer@arapahoegov.com)
If adopted, it could reduce the amount of leaded fuel emissions at Centennial Airport – provided that it incentivizes general aviation aircraft owners to convert from leaded to unleaded fuels.

Q2: Describe the impacts of the bill on the County’s operations and the provision of public services.
Monitor: Fri, February 16, 2024, by Bryan Weimer (bweimer@arapahoegov.com)
There could be an impact to Commissioner Office operations as this is something the Board Office has been working on that could reduce the time for intergovernmental affairs at the state level, allowing the Board Office to focus more on the national level issues.

Q3: In as much specificity as possible, please estimate the fiscal impacts of the bill on the County. Does the bill adequately fund the demands it places on the County?
Monitor: Fri, February 16, 2024, by Bryan Weimer (bweimer@arapahoegov.com)
N/A

Q4: If you selected amend, what specific changes would be needed to make the legislation better for the County?
Monitor: Fri, February 16, 2024, by Bryan Weimer (bweimer@arapahoegov.com)
As this does not affect PWD directly we suggest monitoring, but there are benefits to our constituents that would benefit from a health perspective, where we as the County could support.

Q1: Describe the general impacts of the bill on Arapahoe County (Please do not summarize the bill language).
Support: Thu, February 22, 2024, by Ron Carl (rcarl@arapahoegov.com)
This bill is intended to promote reduction in the use of leaded fuel at general aviation airports and the reduction of noise impacts.

Q2: Describe the impacts of the bill on the County’s operations and the provision of public services.
Support: Thu, February 22, 2024, by Ron Carl (rcarl@arapahoegov.com)


Q3: In as much specificity as possible, please estimate the fiscal impacts of the bill on the County. Does the bill adequately fund the demands it places on the County?
Support: Thu, February 22, 2024, by Ron Carl (rcarl@arapahoegov.com)


Q4: If you selected amend, what specific changes would be needed to make the legislation better for the County?
Support: Thu, February 22, 2024, by Ron Carl (rcarl@arapahoegov.com)


 

Fiscal Note 

NOT ON CALENDAR
HB24-1239Single-Exit Stairway Multifamily Structure A. Valdez (D) | A. Boesenecker (D) / K. Priola  Housing/Land Use Oppose  On or before December 1, 2026, the bill requires a board of county commissioners or the governing body of a municipality to adopt a building code, or amend an existing building code, to allow up to 5 stories of a multifamily residential building to be served by a single exit. To satisfy this requirement, a local government shall incorporate by reference and adopt or adapt and adopt language from a portion of an existing building code that allows a single exit to serve no more than 5 stories of a group r-2 occupancy in the same building. If a local government so requests, the department of local affairs shall provide technical assistance to the local government in satisfying this requirement. The bill also clarifies that the adoption or amendment of a building code to satisfy the requirements of the bill does not qualify as adopting or enforcing a building code for the purpose of determining whether a board of county commissioners or the governing body of a municipality is required to adopt an energy code. (Note: This summary applies to this bill as introduced.)  4/10/2024 House Committee on Transportation, Housing & Local Government Postpone Indefinitely
    Q1: Describe the general impacts of the bill on Arapahoe County (Please do not summarize the bill language).
N/A: Tue, February 13, 2024, by Ron Carl (RCarl@arapahoegov.com)
This bill will require modifications to the County's building code to comply with the single-exit requirements of the bill.

Q2: Describe the impacts of the bill on the County’s operations and the provision of public services.
N/A: Tue, February 13, 2024, by Ron Carl (RCarl@arapahoegov.com)


Q3: In as much specificity as possible, please estimate the fiscal impacts of the bill on the County. Does the bill adequately fund the demands it places on the County?
N/A: Tue, February 13, 2024, by Ron Carl (RCarl@arapahoegov.com)


Q4: If you selected amend, what specific changes would be needed to make the legislation better for the County?
N/A: Tue, February 13, 2024, by Ron Carl (RCarl@arapahoegov.com)


Q1: Describe the general impacts of the bill on Arapahoe County (Please do not summarize the bill language).
Oppose: Fri, February 16, 2024, by Bryan Weimer (BWeimer@arapahoegov.com)
Overall this bill poses a series life safety concern. It is in direct conflict with building codes and the fire code that consider such items as number of people in a building, distance to travel for an exit, size of the egress, etc. A substantial reduction in the prescriptive elements of the Building Code, relative to the preservation of life may be in serious jeopardy as a result of the language proposed in this Bill. Duly-adopted Codes and jurisdictional discretion as to the protection of life & property would be undermined. This includes not only occupants / tenants, but also first responders re: ingress & free egress. (Fire & Law Enforcement). Design professionals are responsible for code analysis in determining the required number of stories & exits in a given design and is already addressed in the 2021 International Building Code (IBC). A blanket statement as represented in this Bill cannot address all life safety concerns under one umbrella. 2021 IBC 310.3 defines R-2 occupancies, and Section 1006 Number of Exits and Exit Access Doorways regulate basic requirements pertaining to egress based on occupant load and common path of egress travel distance. 2021 IBC Table 504.4 regulates number of stories above grade plane for R-2 occupancies based upon construction classification. This table includes multiple scenarios where 5 or more stories may be allowed.

Q2: Describe the impacts of the bill on the County’s operations and the provision of public services.
Oppose: Fri, February 16, 2024, by Bryan Weimer (BWeimer@arapahoegov.com)
The Bill represents a lack of understanding of the building code and the minimum standard and is in conflict with currently-adopted criteria for prescriptive building construction. Design professionals have the ability for be flexible in their designs and not a one size fits all approach. If adopted, the Building Division would have to orient their operations to address from a plan review and inspections perspective and not follow the County adopted and recognized code. We would have to perform a code update and new resolution. Simply put: It runs the obvious risk of making structures & installations throughout the County less safe.

Q3: In as much specificity as possible, please estimate the fiscal impacts of the bill on the County. Does the bill adequately fund the demands it places on the County?
Oppose: Fri, February 16, 2024, by Bryan Weimer (BWeimer@arapahoegov.com)
Increase to both plan review and inspection times for which to orient Building Division operations to adhere to more statutory requirements, in conflict with the adopted Code.

Q4: If you selected amend, what specific changes would be needed to make the legislation better for the County?
Oppose: Fri, February 16, 2024, by Bryan Weimer (BWeimer@arapahoegov.com)
PWD recommends opposed. We also understand that South Metro has opposed the Bill. The language in this bill, other than to possibly streamline existing structures for residential occupancy, where historically life-safety elements would have to be re-demonstrated as part of a change in use or reclassification (ex commercial to residential), and also accompanied by a comprehensive Code analysis. This type of proposal undermines the entire building industry as it is a reduction to the protection and preservation of life & property. Particularly for those incapable of self-preservation. (Elderly, children and the disabled). If the intent of the Bill is to provide easy conversion of office buildings to residential, egress is just one hurdle and as we heard from 1st bank they screen such proposals carefully because of the conversation costs and unknowns. Most times it is better to scrape and rebuild for the use desired. One last suggestion, Building Code creation should be made by Code professionals not via legislation.

 

Fiscal Note 

NOT ON CALENDAR
HB24-1260Prohibition Against Employee Discipline M. Duran (D) | T. Hernandez / J. Danielson (D) General Government Monitor The act prohibits an employer from subjecting or threatening to subject an employee to discipline, discharge, or an adverse employment action on account of the employee's refusal to attend or participate in an employer-sponsored meeting concerning religious or political matters or for declining to listen to the speech of or view religious or political communications from the employer or the agent, representative, or designee of the employer. With regard to state employees, the prohibitions apply only to meetings and communications relating to state employees' decisions to join or support a fraternal or labor organization. Certain employer communications are exempt from the prohibition, including communications: Required by law, a court order, or an agreement with a governmental entity to communicate to employees, but only to the extent of a legal requirement; That are necessary for an employee to perform the employee's job duties; or That are required to prevent unlawful discrimination or harassment. Certain communications from institutions of higher education and K-12 schools and school districts are also exempt when the communication is related to coursework, symposia, or an academic program. The act does not apply to certain religious corporations, entities, associations, educational institutions, societies, or nonprofit faith-based health systems or facilities. The act authorizes an aggrieved person to seek relief by filing a complaint with the department of labor and employment (department) or by filing an action in district court after the person has exhausted all administrative remedies and has filed a complaint with the department. The act also creates an affirmative defense for employers. Each employer is required to distribute, at the employer's workplace or through e-mail or a regularly used communication system, a notice to each employee of the employee rights outlined in the act. For the 2024-25 state fiscal year, $278,564 is appropriated from the general fund to the department for use by the division of labor standards and statistics to implement the act. VETOED by Governor May 17, 2024(Note: This summary applies to this bill as enacted.)  5/17/2024 Governor Vetoed
    Q1: Describe the general impacts of the bill on Arapahoe County (Please do not summarize the bill language).
Monitor: Thu, February 29, 2024, by Ron Carl (rcarl@arapahoegov.com)
We don't think this bill will really change any of our current practices. It prohibits employers from imposing religious or political speech on employees (with certain exceptions) and allow employers who violate this rule to be sued for damages.

Q2: Describe the impacts of the bill on the County’s operations and the provision of public services.
Monitor: Thu, February 29, 2024, by Ron Carl (rcarl@arapahoegov.com)


Q3: In as much specificity as possible, please estimate the fiscal impacts of the bill on the County. Does the bill adequately fund the demands it places on the County?
Monitor: Thu, February 29, 2024, by Ron Carl (rcarl@arapahoegov.com)


Q4: If you selected amend, what specific changes would be needed to make the legislation better for the County?
Monitor: Thu, February 29, 2024, by Ron Carl (rcarl@arapahoegov.com)


 

Fiscal Note 

NOT ON CALENDAR
HB24-1266Local Government Utility Relocation in Right-of-Way E. Hamrick (D) | L. Frizell (R) / R. Zenzinger  Transportation Support The act establishes a process by which local governments and investor-owned utility companies with more than 250,000 customers may coordinate on utility relocation work that is necessitated by a road improvement project. A road improvement project does not include a project in a roadway under the control of the Colorado department of transportation (CDOT) unless the construction is performed by or under the direction of the local government pursuant to an agreement with CDOT. Under the process established by the act, a local government is required to notify any affected utility company of the details of a road improvement project before beginning the project and in the event of a change in the scope of the proposed project. These details include the proposed design, funding details, the specifics of the utility conflict, and the estimated timeline for the road improvement project and utility relocation. If local governments and utility companies so choose, they may coordinate on road improvement projects necessitating the removal, relocation, or alteration of utility lines in a local government's right-of-way and commit to a schedule for utility relocation by means of a clearance letter. The required components for a clearance letter include the scope of the utility relocation, schedule and coordination requirements for the utility relocation, accountability for traffic management and the discovery of hazardous materials, a dispute resolution mechanism, and requirements for prompt performance, staking, and project approval. A clearance letter must also provide that the utility company pay for actual damages associated with its delay in the performance of the utility relocation, except those caused by a force majeure, the discovery of hazardous materials, or a change in the scope or schedule of the road improvement project. The act also outlines the timeline and process for a local government to accept or reject a completed utility relocation. The utility relocation coordination process outlined by the act does not prevent a local government from pursuing alterative arrangements for road improvement projects, in which case the local government and utility company need not follow the process requirements outlined in the act. The act does not cover a local government that has granted a franchise to a utility company and does not alter the terms of any franchise or license granted pursuant to statute or the state constitution. APPROVED by Governor June 3, 2024 EFFECTIVE August 7, 2024(Note: This summary applies to this bill as enacted.)  6/3/2024 Governor Signed
 Monitor   Q1: Describe the general impacts of the bill on Arapahoe County (Please do not summarize the bill language).
Support: Thu, February 22, 2024, by Ron Carl (rcarl@arapahoegov.com)
This is our bill!

Q2: Describe the impacts of the bill on the County’s operations and the provision of public services.
Support: Thu, February 22, 2024, by Ron Carl (rcarl@arapahoegov.com)


Q3: In as much specificity as possible, please estimate the fiscal impacts of the bill on the County. Does the bill adequately fund the demands it places on the County?
Support: Thu, February 22, 2024, by Ron Carl (rcarl@arapahoegov.com)


Q4: If you selected amend, what specific changes would be needed to make the legislation better for the County?
Support: Thu, February 22, 2024, by Ron Carl (rcarl@arapahoegov.com)


 

Fiscal Note 

NOT ON CALENDAR
HB24-1280Welcome, Reception, & Integration Grant Program E. Velasco (D) | L. Garcia (D) / R. Fields | L. Cutter (D) General Government Support The act creates the statewide welcome, reception, and integration grant program (grant program) in the department of labor and employment (department) to provide grants to community-based organizations that provide culturally and linguistically appropriate navigation of services and programs to migrants who are within one year of arrival in the United States. A grant may be used for: Conducting an intake and assessment of needs; Providing cultural orientation; case management; employment services or referrals to employment services; housing, housing-related services, or referrals to housing; English as a second language classes or referrals to classes; financial orientation; referrals to mental and physical health services and disability services; interpretation and translation services; transportation services; and immigration legal assistance or referrals to immigration legal services; Distributing emergency and transitional supplies; Assisting migrant parents to enroll their children in public school or summer programs, including early childhood programs; and Other eligible expenses. The act requires the department to issue a request for proposal for a nonprofit organization to administer the grant program. For the 2024-25 state fiscal year, the act appropriates $2.5 million from the general fund to the department for the grant program. APPROVED by Governor June 5, 2024 EFFECTIVE August 7, 2024(Note: This summary applies to this bill as enacted.)  6/5/2024 Governor Signed
  Monitor  Q1: Describe the general impacts of the bill on Arapahoe County (Please do not summarize the bill language).
No Effect: Fri, March 01, 2024, by Katherine Smith (ksmith@arapahoegov.com)
This bill would allow a grant for community based organizations to provide migrant support services

Q2: Describe the impacts of the bill on the County’s operations and the provision of public services.
No Effect: Fri, March 01, 2024, by Katherine Smith (ksmith@arapahoegov.com)
This does have a direct impact on our operations as we would not be eligible for these funds. This may increase referrals to ADWorks!

Q3: In as much specificity as possible, please estimate the fiscal impacts of the bill on the County. Does the bill adequately fund the demands it places on the County?
No Effect: Fri, March 01, 2024, by Katherine Smith (ksmith@arapahoegov.com)
There is not a direct fiscal impact unless there is an increase in those accessing services from referrals.

Q4: If you selected amend, what specific changes would be needed to make the legislation better for the County?
No Effect: Fri, March 01, 2024, by Katherine Smith (ksmith@arapahoegov.com)
N/A

Q1: Describe the general impacts of the bill on Arapahoe County (Please do not summarize the bill language).
No Effect: Fri, March 01, 2024, by Cheryl Ternes (Cternes@arapahoegov.com)
This bill will not directly impact Human Services since we are unable to serve migrants due to funding restrictions. However, we do recognize that if there is a CBO(s) who end up receiving grants through this bill that we may see more migrants in our community.

Q2: Describe the impacts of the bill on the County’s operations and the provision of public services.
No Effect: Fri, March 01, 2024, by Cheryl Ternes (Cternes@arapahoegov.com)
None for DHS.

Q3: In as much specificity as possible, please estimate the fiscal impacts of the bill on the County. Does the bill adequately fund the demands it places on the County?
No Effect: Fri, March 01, 2024, by Cheryl Ternes (Cternes@arapahoegov.com)
None

Q4: If you selected amend, what specific changes would be needed to make the legislation better for the County?
No Effect: Fri, March 01, 2024, by Cheryl Ternes (Cternes@arapahoegov.com)


Q1: Describe the general impacts of the bill on Arapahoe County (Please do not summarize the bill language).
N/A: Fri, March 01, 2024, by Jennifer Ludwig (jludwig@arapahoegov.com)
This bill has the potential to increase the number of individuals and families seeking services from public health, including WIC, Sexual Health, Harm Reduction, and Immunizations.

Q2: Describe the impacts of the bill on the County’s operations and the provision of public services.
N/A: Fri, March 01, 2024, by Jennifer Ludwig (jludwig@arapahoegov.com)
Arapahoe County Public Health does not turn anyone away for services, regardless of ability to pay or immigration status. Programs such as WIC and Immunizations are already seeing an increased need for services from migrants arriving in Denver. If a reception center were to open in Arapahoe County or a neighboring county, it would likely increase the number of individuals and families seeking our services and we do not have the capacity. WIC is already on a waitlist and Immunizations is at its max capacity. Many migrants arriving in Denver are landing in Arapahoe County and being referred to public health for services.

Q3: In as much specificity as possible, please estimate the fiscal impacts of the bill on the County. Does the bill adequately fund the demands it places on the County?
N/A: Fri, March 01, 2024, by Jennifer Ludwig (jludwig@arapahoegov.com)
An assessment would need to be done to determine fiscal impact.

Q4: If you selected amend, what specific changes would be needed to make the legislation better for the County?
N/A: Fri, March 01, 2024, by Jennifer Ludwig (jludwig@arapahoegov.com)


 

Fiscal Note 

Wednesday, May 8 2024
THIRD READING OF BILLS - FINAL PASSAGE - CONT'D
(7) in senate calendar.  
HB24-1296Modifications to the Colorado Open Records Act C. Kipp (D) | M. Soper (R) / J. Marchman (D) General Government Monitor  The bill makes the following changes to the "Colorado Open Records Act" (CORA): Requires a custodian to evaluate a request for public records promptly and for no longer than 2 days. Within the 2-day period the custodian shall notify the requester whether or not any costs or fees that may apply to the request and if extenuating circumstances exist that allow for an extension of the reasonable time to respond to a CORA request (response period). If there are costs or fees that may apply, the response period does not begin until the custodian receives a response from the requester acknowledging acceptance of the costs or fees. Alternatively, a requester may revise their request and the custodian shall evaluate the revised request within the 2-day evaluation period. Otherwise, the response period begins after the custodian has provided notice to the requester. Changes the reasonable time to respond to a CORA request, except for requests from a mass medium or a newsperson, from 3 working days to 5 working days and changes the extension of time for the response period if extenuating circumstances exist from not exceeding 7 additional days to not exceeding 10 additional days; Adds an extenuating circumstance that allows for an extension of the response period when the custodian is not scheduled to work within the response period; Requires public entities to post any rules or policies adopted pursuant to CORA, including what the public entity's records retention policy, and to post information for members of the public regarding how to make a public records request; If public records are in the sole and exclusive custody and control of someone who is not scheduled to work within the response period, a custodian shall provide all other available responsive public records within the response period and notify the requester of the earliest date on which the person is scheduled to return to work and make best efforts to make responsive records available for inspection within the response period or extended response period, as applicable expected to be available or that the person is not expected to return to work . The requester may make a subsequent request for additional responsive records, if any, on or after the date the person who is authorized to have custody and control of the records is scheduled to return to work custodian provides . Allows a custodian to determine that a requester is a vexatious requester, requires the custodian to make a sworn statement in support of the determination to provide to the requester, allows the custodian a 30-day response period when a requester is a vexatious requester, and permits the requester to appeal the determination that the requester is a vexatious requester to the district court; Excludes a mass medium or newsperson from being a vexatious requester; Allows a custodian , subject to certain exceptions, to determine that a request is made for the direct solicitation of business for pecuniary gain, requires the custodian to make a sworn statement in support provide written notice of the determination to provide to the requester, allows the custodian a 30-day response period for such a request, permits the requester to submit a signed statement affirming the request is not for the direct solicitation of business for pecuniary gain which the custodian must consider in making their determination, permits the requester to appeal the determination that the request is made for the direct solicitation of business for pecuniary gain to the district court, and allows a custodian to charge the requester for the full cost of responding to the request notwithstanding the allowance for the first hour of research and retrieval to otherwise be free of charge and notwithstanding the statutory cap on fees, which otherwise would apply; Prohibits disclosure of any other contact information of students in any public elementary or secondary school in addition to the prohibition of disclosure of addresses and telephone numbers that is in current law; Allows a custodian to deny the right of inspection of public records that are an employee's calendar, unless the public record is an elected official's calendar or the calendar of an employee who is in a leadership position or the request is made by a mass medium or newsperson; and Clarifies that if a custodian imposes any requirements concerning the pre-payment of fees or the payment of fees in connection with a request for inspection of public records, the requirements must be in accordance with the custodian's adopted rules or written policies and must not be inconsistent with the provisions of CORA; and Allows a custodian to treat a CORA request made within 14 calendar days of another CORA request made by the same person as one request for purposes of calculating the fee that the custodian may charge to the requester for research and retrieval of responsive public records. In addition, the bill requires that members of the general assembly retain public records for a minimum of 60 days. (Note: Italicized words indicate new material added to the original summary; dashes through words indicate deletions from the original summary.) (Note: This summary applies to the reengrossed version of this bill as introduced in the second house.)  5/1/2024 Senate Committee on State, Veterans, & Military Affairs Postpone Indefinitely
  Amend  Q1: Describe the general impacts of the bill on Arapahoe County (Please do not summarize the bill language).
Amend: Thu, February 22, 2024, by Ron Carl (rcarl@arapahoegov.com)
This bill makes both positive and negative changes to CORA that will impact the County. One example of a negative change is that the bill requires a response within 2 days of a request (currently it is 3 days). It is recommended that the County work with CCI/CCAT to analyze the impacts of the bill and recommend changes to make it a better bill (it is my understanding that the sponsor's intent was to help local governments).

Q2: Describe the impacts of the bill on the County’s operations and the provision of public services.
Amend: Thu, February 22, 2024, by Ron Carl (rcarl@arapahoegov.com)


Q3: In as much specificity as possible, please estimate the fiscal impacts of the bill on the County. Does the bill adequately fund the demands it places on the County?
Amend: Thu, February 22, 2024, by Ron Carl (rcarl@arapahoegov.com)


Q4: If you selected amend, what specific changes would be needed to make the legislation better for the County?
Amend: Thu, February 22, 2024, by Ron Carl (rcarl@arapahoegov.com)


 

Fiscal Note 

NOT ON CALENDAR
HB24-1304Minimum Parking Requirements S. Vigil | S. Woodrow (D) / K. Priola | N. Hinrichsen (D) Housing/Land Use Monitor The act prohibits a municipality that is within a metropolitan planning organization (MPO) or a county that has unincorporated areas within an MPO (local government), on or after June 30, 2025, from enacting or enforcing minimum parking requirements that apply to a land use approval for a multi-family residential development, adaptive re-use for residential purposes, or adaptive re-use mixed-use purposes which include at least 50% of use for residential purposes that is within, as applicable, the unincorporated area of the county or the municipality, within a metropolitan planning organization, and at least partially within an applicable transit service area. An applicable transit service area is an area identified by a map published by the department of local affairs as an area that is one-quarter mile of certain transit stops. The prohibition on enacting or enforcing minimum parking requirements does not lower the protections provided for persons with disabilities or prohibit a local government from: Enacting or enforcing a maximum parking requirement; Enforcing any agreement made before the effective date of the act in connection with a land use approval to provide regulated affordable housing in exchange for reducing minimum parking requirements; Being awarded funding for affordable housing that requires a ratio of a certain number of parking spaces; Enacting or enforcing a minimum parking requirement for bicycles; or Imposing the following requirements on a parking space that is voluntarily provided in connection with a development project: That the owners of such a parking space charge for the use of the space; That the owner of such a parking space contribute to a parking enterprise, permitting system, or shared parking plan; and That such a parking space allow for electric vehicle charging stations in accordance with existing law. Furthermore, notwithstanding the prohibition on enacting or enforcing minimum parking requirements, a local government may impose or enforce a minimum parking requirement in connection with a housing development project that is intended to contain twenty unity or more or contain regulated affordable housing. To impose or enforce such a minimum parking requirement, a county or municipality must publish certain written findings and annually report to the department of local affairs. Lastly, the act requires the department of local affairs: In consultation with the department of transportation, and the Colorado energy office, to develop and publish best practices and technical assistance materials concerning optimizing parking supply and managing parking; and In consultation with the department of transportation, the Colorado energy office, metropolitan planning organizations, and transit agencies that operate within metropolitan planning organizations, to publish a map that designates applicable transit service areas to be used by local governments in complying with the act. APPROVED by Governor May 10, 2024 EFFECTIVE August 7, 2024(Note: This summary applies to this bill as enacted.)  5/10/2024 Governor Signed
 Monitor Oppose  Q1: Describe the general impacts of the bill on Arapahoe County (Please do not summarize the bill language).
Oppose: Mon, February 19, 2024, by Bryan Weimer (BWeimer@arapahoegov.com)
This Bill removes local control. The Bill doesn’t require us to adopt parking maximums (though that is a best practice). So developers could continue to build the parking they see as necessary. And we could require the voluntarily constructed parking to feature EV charging and/or mandate that it be paid parking like Cherry Creek mall. In addition, DRCOG identified elimination of Parking Minimums as part of the GHG Mitigation Plan. We would need to revise our parking regulations to emphasize that they are merely suggestions (or we could remove them altogether). Most commercial and residential developers would continue to provide on-site parking. Where this would have the biggest impact is on missing middle housing or development of smaller apartment projects; those types of housing are challenging to build today because you have to provide off-street parking (example below). Mandatory off-street parking lots replace amenities and reduce potential density (or make large-scale projects the only ones that will pencil out; see AMLI at Dry Creek next to Maggiano’s for an example – they had enough units to afford structured parking). This Bill will increase the number of cars that park on the street further increasing the parking issues that we are currently experiencing in areas where multi-family exists (Primarily 4 Sq Mile Area). The County can adjust parking standards on our own.

Q2: Describe the impacts of the bill on the County’s operations and the provision of public services.
Oppose: Mon, February 19, 2024, by Bryan Weimer (BWeimer@arapahoegov.com)
For most commercial and residential projects, no impact; King Soopers is going to provide the parking corporate says they need. Staff would spend less time counting parking spaces during plan review. On-street parking management would become more of an issue in multi-family neighborhoods but there may be revenue opportunities. The requirement that communities prepare a report to the state every three years is ridiculous and stupid (page 10, lines 2-7). We should be able to certify that we’re meeting the parking requirement goal once and be done; sending the same memo every three years is a waste of precious staff time.

Q3: In as much specificity as possible, please estimate the fiscal impacts of the bill on the County. Does the bill adequately fund the demands it places on the County?
Oppose: Mon, February 19, 2024, by Bryan Weimer (BWeimer@arapahoegov.com)
We will likely receive more complaints about on-street parking but those may taper off as people get used to the new reality. There may be revenue opportunities if we can increase parking fines and enforcement (or require resident parking permits like Denver does - $20 per vehicle per year if you want to be able to ignore the “90 minute maximum” parking). This Bill does not fund the impacts the County will need to deal with parking violations. The Bill does not fund the increase in the need of transit services that are claimed to come from this Bill. I am not aware of RTD committing to increase services.

Q4: If you selected amend, what specific changes would be needed to make the legislation better for the County?
Oppose: Mon, February 19, 2024, by Bryan Weimer (BWeimer@arapahoegov.com)
Encourage and entice locals to change parking standards instead of forcing it to be done. Delete the periodic reporting requirement on page 10, lines 2-7. We can make the change to the code, tell the state, and be done. The recommendation is opposed as it takes local control away, but the ideas presented are sound and have backing regarding the legislative declarations .

Q1: Describe the general impacts of the bill on Arapahoe County (Please do not summarize the bill language).
N/A: Wed, February 21, 2024, by Kathy Smith (KSmith@arapahoegov.com)
This bill does not have a direct impact on Community Resources

Q2: Describe the impacts of the bill on the County’s operations and the provision of public services.
N/A: Wed, February 21, 2024, by Kathy Smith (KSmith@arapahoegov.com)
None for community resources

Q3: In as much specificity as possible, please estimate the fiscal impacts of the bill on the County. Does the bill adequately fund the demands it places on the County?
N/A: Wed, February 21, 2024, by Kathy Smith (KSmith@arapahoegov.com)
None for community resources

Q4: If you selected amend, what specific changes would be needed to make the legislation better for the County?
N/A: Wed, February 21, 2024, by Kathy Smith (KSmith@arapahoegov.com)


Q1: Describe the general impacts of the bill on Arapahoe County (Please do not summarize the bill language).
Monitor: Thu, February 22, 2024, by Ron Carl (RCarl@arapahoegov.com)
This bill will require the County to modify/eliminate some of the parking requirements contained in its Land Development Code.

Q2: Describe the impacts of the bill on the County’s operations and the provision of public services.
Monitor: Thu, February 22, 2024, by Ron Carl (RCarl@arapahoegov.com)


Q3: In as much specificity as possible, please estimate the fiscal impacts of the bill on the County. Does the bill adequately fund the demands it places on the County?
Monitor: Thu, February 22, 2024, by Ron Carl (RCarl@arapahoegov.com)


Q4: If you selected amend, what specific changes would be needed to make the legislation better for the County?
Monitor: Thu, February 22, 2024, by Ron Carl (RCarl@arapahoegov.com)


 

Fiscal Note 

NOT ON CALENDAR
HB24-1313Housing in Transit-Oriented Communities S. Woodrow (D) | I. Jodeh (D) / C. Hansen (D) | F. Winter (D) Housing/Land Use Monitor Section 1 of the act establishes a category of local government: A transit-oriented community. As defined in the act, a transit-oriented community is either a local government that: Is either entirely or partially within a metropolitan planning organization; Has a population of 4,000 or more; and Contains at least 75 acres of certain transit-related areas; or If the local government is a county, contains either a part of: A transit station area that is both in an unincorporated part of the county and within one-half mile of a station that serves a commuter rail service or light rail service; or A transit corridor area that both is in an unincorporated part of the county and is fully encompassed by one or more municipalities. The act requires a transit-oriented community to meet its housing opportunity goal. A housing opportunity goal is a zoning capacity goal determined based on an average zoned housing density of 40 dwelling units per acre multiplied by the number of acres of transit-related areas within a transit-oriented community. On or before September 30, 2024, the department of local affairs (department) shall develop a map that identifies the transit-related areas necessary for the calculation of a housing opportunity goal and the various reports required by the act. To accomplish its housing opportunity goal, a transit-oriented community shall ensure that the zoning capacity within certain areas of the transit-oriented community meets or exceeds the transit-oriented community's housing opportunity goal. The main category of area that the act requires a transit-oriented community to increase the zoning capacity of to meet the transit-oriented community's housing opportunity goal is a transit center. In order to qualify as a transit center, an area must: Be composed of zoning districts that uniformly allow a net housing density of at least 15 units per acre; Identify the effective net housing density for the area by accounting for dimensional or other restrictions used to regulate density in the area, accounting for minimum parking requirements, and assuming an average housing unit size; Not include any area where local law exclusively restricts housing occupancy based on age or other factors; Have an administrative approval process for multifamily residential property development on parcels that are 5 acres or less in size; and Be located wholly or partially within a transit area or optional transit area and not extend more than one-quarter mile from the edge of a transit area or optional transit area. In addition to designating an area as a transit center for purposes of meeting a housing opportunity goal, the act allows local governments to designate areas as neighborhood centers for that purpose. The act requires transit-oriented communities to submit a series of reports to the department regarding the calculation, satisfaction, and implementation of a transit-oriented community's housing opportunity goal. The act requires a transit-oriented community to submit the following to the department: On or before June 30, 2025, a preliminary transit-oriented community assessment report to the department that includes the transit-oriented community's housing opportunity goal, the data and method used to calculate that housing opportunity goal, and the areas within the transit-oriented community that may need to be zoned to accomplish that housing opportunity goal; On or before December 31, 2026, an identification of the affordability strategies from the standard and long-term affordability strategies menus in the act that the transit-oriented community will implement; On or before December 31, 2026, an identification of the displacement mitigation strategies from the long-term displacement mitigation strategies menus in the act that the transit-oriented community will implement; and On or before December 31, 2026, a housing opportunity goal report for the department's review and approval that demonstrates that the transit-oriented community has met its housing opportunity goal and complied with the affordability and displacement mitigation requirements of the act. Additionally, on or before December 31, 2026, a transit-oriented community may notify the department that the transit-oriented community has an insufficient water supply to accomplish its housing opportunity goal, and the transit-oriented community may make a corresponding request for the department to modify the transit-oriented community's housing opportunity goal. If the department approves a transit-oriented community's housing opportunity goal report on or before December 31, 2027, the department shall designate the transit-oriented community as a certified transit-oriented community. A certified transit-oriented community is the only eligible entity for the transit-oriented communities infrastructure fund grant program (grant program) created within the department. The purpose of the grant program is to assist transit-oriented communities in upgrading infrastructure within transit centers and neighborhood centers. In administering the grant program, the department shall prioritize grant applicants based on the information in the reports described in the act. Grants from the grant program are awarded from money in the transit-oriented communities infrastructure fund (fund). The fund consists of gifts, grants, and donations along with money that the general assembly may appropriate or transfer to the fund and money in the account described in the act. The fund is continuously appropriated. On July 1, 2024, the state treasurer shall transfer $35 million from the general fund to the fund. Section 2 prohibits a planned unit development resolution or ordinance that is adopted on or after the effective date of the act and that applies within a transit center or neighborhood center from restricting the development of housing more than the local law that applies to that transit center or neighborhood center. Section 3 requires a local government, when requiring a real property owner to dedicate real property to the public, to provide a private property owner the option of paying a fee, rather than dedicating the private real property to the public, if the real property does not meet local government standards for dedication. Section 4 makes any restriction by a unit owners' association within a transit center or neighborhood center on the development of housing that is adopted on or after the effective date of the act and is beyond the local law that applies to that transit center or neighborhood center void as a matter of public policy. Section 5 requires the department of transportation to conduct a study that identifies both: Policy barriers and opportunities within the department of transportation including an examination of policies within the state access code, roadway design standards, and the treatment of pedestrian and bicycle crossings. The study must examine the impact of these policies on neighborhood centers and transit centers; and The portions of state highway that pass through locally-identified transit centers and neighborhood centers that are appropriate for context-sensitive design, complete streets. In addition to the $35 million appropriated to the fund, section 7 makes 2 appropriations. First, section 7 appropriates $183,138 to the governor for use by the Colorado energy office to implement the act. Second, section 7 appropriates $70,000 to the governor for use by the office of information technology to provide information services for the department. APPROVED by Governor May 13, 2024 EFFECTIVE May 13, 2024(Note: This summary applies to this bill as enacted.)  5/13/2024 Governor Signed
 Amend Oppose  Q1: Describe the general impacts of the bill on Arapahoe County (Please do not summarize the bill language).
Amend: Thu, February 22, 2024, by Ron Carl (RCarl@arapahoegov.com)
There are a number of concerns about the impacts of this bill that will be discussed in more detail at the upcoming legislative study session. These include the extent of the unfunded mandates included in the bill, the one-size fits all approach and resulting limits on local control and flexibility, the reduction of public involvement in certain land use decision-making, the amount of housing density required to be allowed by the bill that may not be supported by existing or anticipated infrastructure and is unlikely to ever be built, and the inclusion of financial penalties for non-compliance.

Q2: Describe the impacts of the bill on the County’s operations and the provision of public services.
Amend: Thu, February 22, 2024, by Ron Carl (RCarl@arapahoegov.com)


Q3: In as much specificity as possible, please estimate the fiscal impacts of the bill on the County. Does the bill adequately fund the demands it places on the County?
Amend: Thu, February 22, 2024, by Ron Carl (RCarl@arapahoegov.com)


Q4: If you selected amend, what specific changes would be needed to make the legislation better for the County?
Amend: Thu, February 22, 2024, by Ron Carl (RCarl@arapahoegov.com)


 

Fiscal Note 

NOT ON CALENDAR
HB24-1322Medicaid Coverage Housing & Nutrition Services K. Brown (D) | S. Bird (D) / B. Kirkmeyer (R) | R. Rodriguez (D) Human Services Support The act directs the department of health care policy and financing (state department) to conduct a feasibility study (study) to explore seeking federal authorization to provide nutrition, housing, and tenant supportive services that address medicaid members' health-related social needs (HRSN). The state department shall report the study's findings to the joint budget committee on or before November 10, 2024. The study and report must address integrating HRSN services with existing nutrition-related, housing-related, and tenant supportive services. The act requires the state department to seek federal authorization to provide HRSN services no later than July 1, 2025, if seeking federal authorization would be budget neutral to the general fund. The act appropriates $222,920 from the general fund to the state department for use by the executive director's office (office). From this appropriation, the office may use $67,070 for personal services, $3,975 for operating expenses, and $151,875 for general professional services and special projects. The act anticipates that the state department will receive $222,919 in federal funds for the act's implementation. APPROVED by Governor June 3, 2024 EFFECTIVE June 3, 2024(Note: This summary applies to this bill as enacted.)  5/31/2024 Governor Signed
    Q1: Describe the general impacts of the bill on Arapahoe County (Please do not summarize the bill language).
No Effect: Mon, March 04, 2024, by Cheryl Ternes (Cternes@arapahoegov.com)
The outcome of the feasibility study could have a positive impact on Medicaid members as their health related social needs (HRSN) might be addressed if the HCPF department receives federal authorization to integrate HRSN services with existing housing-related and nutrition-related servcices,

Q2: Describe the impacts of the bill on the County’s operations and the provision of public services.
No Effect: Mon, March 04, 2024, by Cheryl Ternes (Cternes@arapahoegov.com)
No impact to County operations or the provision of public services.

Q3: In as much specificity as possible, please estimate the fiscal impacts of the bill on the County. Does the bill adequately fund the demands it places on the County?
No Effect: Mon, March 04, 2024, by Cheryl Ternes (Cternes@arapahoegov.com)


Q4: If you selected amend, what specific changes would be needed to make the legislation better for the County?
No Effect: Mon, March 04, 2024, by Cheryl Ternes (Cternes@arapahoegov.com)


 

Fiscal Note 

NOT ON CALENDAR
HB24-1362Measures to Incentivize Graywater Use M. Lukens (D) | M. Catlin (R) / D. Roberts (D) | C. Simpson (R) Energy/Environment Monitor Under current law, a board of county commissioners or governing body of a municipality (local government) may authorize the use of graywater within its jurisdiction. Graywater refers to certain types of wastewater that is collected from fixtures before it is treated and put to certain beneficial uses. The act authorizes the installation of graywater treatment works in new construction projects and the use of graywater statewide; except that a local government: May adopt an ordinance or a resolution prohibiting the installation of graywater treatment works or the use of all graywater or categories of graywater use within its jurisdiction; and Shall notify the division of administration in the department of public health and environment of any such local ordinance or resolution adopted and of any local ordinance or resolution adopted that authorizes a use of graywater previously prohibited. APPROVED by Governor May 29, 2024 EFFECTIVE January 1, 2026(Note: This summary applies to this bill as enacted.)  5/29/2024 Governor Signed
    Q1: Describe the general impacts of the bill on Arapahoe County (Please do not summarize the bill language).
Oppose: Sun, March 17, 2024, by Bryan Weimer (bweimer@arapahoegov.com)
Currently, if they want to allow graywater systems, a county commission must adopt a resolution to authorize them. This bill would reverse that – the county commission would need to adopt a resolution if they want to prohibit graywater. Graywater use would be allowed unless prohibited. It also creates a tax credit for taxpayers to install graywater systems. Under CDPHE Reg 86 requires local governments to meet numerous requirements if graywater were to be allowed. With this Bill Graywater would be allowed unless explicitly prohibited. If we did not prohibit then we would be required to establish a graywater program that meets all CDPHE Reg 86 requirements. I believe it is better to keep the legislation where it stands currently and if you want to allow then establish a program.

Q2: Describe the impacts of the bill on the County’s operations and the provision of public services.
Oppose: Sun, March 17, 2024, by Bryan Weimer (bweimer@arapahoegov.com)
This bill would either require the BOCC to adopt a resolution prohibiting a graywater use or establishing a graywater programs that meets CDPHE Reg 86. We may need to establish a new permit for plumbing of Graywater.

Q3: In as much specificity as possible, please estimate the fiscal impacts of the bill on the County. Does the bill adequately fund the demands it places on the County?
Oppose: Sun, March 17, 2024, by Bryan Weimer (bweimer@arapahoegov.com)
Potential for additional plumbing permit applications/revenue if many residents take advantage of the graywater conversion tax credit.

Q4: If you selected amend, what specific changes would be needed to make the legislation better for the County?
Oppose: Sun, March 17, 2024, by Bryan Weimer (bweimer@arapahoegov.com)
In my opinion it is better to explicitly allow through approval, as oppose to allow by right and having to exclude. Therefore, I oppose. If the bill would pass, and the BOCC would want to prohibit a resolution would need to be passed immediately, otherwise a graywater program meeting the CDPHE Reg 86 requirements would need to be established. If the Bill only included a tax credit under the current process I would suggest monitor.

Q1: Describe the general impacts of the bill on Arapahoe County (Please do not summarize the bill language).
Oppose: Mon, March 18, 2024, by Jennifer Ludwig (jludwig@arapahoegov.com)
Under current law, a board of county commissioners or governing body of a municipality (local government) may authorize the use of graywater within its jurisdiction. This bill authorizes the installation of graywater treatment works and the use of graywater statewide; except that a local government: May adopt an ordinance or a resolution prohibiting the installation of graywater treatment works or the use of all graywater or categories of graywater use within its jurisdiction. Unless the local county or city opts out, this bill makes it so people will be able to install graywater systems of laundry to landscape and indoor toilet flushing with or without a structure set in place first for local regulation development, program development, addition of software capability to track associated permits, as required in CDPHE Graywater Regulation (Regulation 86), program staff training and education prior to program implementation, in addition to development of inspection and design review methodology. In section 86.9 of Regulation 86, the Water Quality Control Commission set mandatory minimum requirements for a resolution or ordinance and, if applicable, rules as adopted by a local agency. The minimum requirements are intended to ensure that the local graywater control program meets the statutory requirements and to ensure a comprehensive graywater program. The bill “encourages” an MOU with the local board of health, local public health agencies, and any water and wastewater service providers serving the county concerning graywater usage and the proper installation and operation of graywater treatment works but does not require it. While this bill may incentivize the implementation of graywater systems statewide it is in conflict with Regulation 86 that requires a local graywater control program to be developed, in addition to many other requirements in the regulation that require regulatory oversight to ensure protection of health and environment.

Q2: Describe the impacts of the bill on the County’s operations and the provision of public services.
Oppose: Mon, March 18, 2024, by Jennifer Ludwig (jludwig@arapahoegov.com)
The misuse of graywater can lead to serious health risks, such as water and vegetation contamination. Disease such as legionella, shigella, and salmonella have been tied to graywater. To reduce the risk and burden of disease, a structure that includes a local graywater control program, as outlined in Regulation 86, permitting, internal software to support permitting, public and staff education, and inspection and design review should be in place before a county or city allows the use of graywater in residential settings, in addition to stakeholdering with industry and residents prior to adoption of a local graywater regulation. This would require additional resources, including FTE and equipment, for the public health department. A fee structure could be established, but it would likely not cover the cost of a new program.

Q3: In as much specificity as possible, please estimate the fiscal impacts of the bill on the County. Does the bill adequately fund the demands it places on the County?
Oppose: Mon, March 18, 2024, by Jennifer Ludwig (jludwig@arapahoegov.com)
It is hard to estimate the resources needed and cost without knowing if municipalities will opt out and what support systems they already have in place, or if they will enter into a MOU with Arapahoe County to provide the local graywater control program and regulatory oversight. Also an unknown is how many households would install graywater systems. Public Health does have a water quality program but would need to add 1-3 FTE to support education, permitting, inspecting and reviewing plans. Number of FTE would depend on number of municipalities that don’t opt out, number of municipalities requiring public health to manage program, and number of households that install graywater systems.

Q4: If you selected amend, what specific changes would be needed to make the legislation better for the County?
Oppose: Mon, March 18, 2024, by Jennifer Ludwig (jludwig@arapahoegov.com)


Q1: Describe the general impacts of the bill on Arapahoe County (Please do not summarize the bill language).
Neutral: Fri, March 22, 2024, by Ron Carl (rcarl@arapahoegov.com)
Will require the County to have graywater regulation unless it chooses to opt out.

Q2: Describe the impacts of the bill on the County’s operations and the provision of public services.
Neutral: Fri, March 22, 2024, by Ron Carl (rcarl@arapahoegov.com)


Q3: In as much specificity as possible, please estimate the fiscal impacts of the bill on the County. Does the bill adequately fund the demands it places on the County?
Neutral: Fri, March 22, 2024, by Ron Carl (rcarl@arapahoegov.com)


Q4: If you selected amend, what specific changes would be needed to make the legislation better for the County?
Neutral: Fri, March 22, 2024, by Ron Carl (rcarl@arapahoegov.com)


 

Fiscal Note 

NOT ON CALENDAR
HB24-1366Sustainable Local Government Community Planning M. Froelich (D) | K. Brown (D) Housing/Land Use Monitor  Section 1 of the bill requires state agencies to prioritize awarding grants that satisfy a list of criteria described in the bill. Sections 2 and 3 require, beginning January 1, 2025, upon updating a county or municipal master plan, a county or municipality (local government) to include a climate action element in its master plan. A climate action element must include climate-related goals, plans, or strategies and a description of any money from the federal, state, or a local government that a local government has received for the implementation of any of the plans or goals described in the climate action element. The bill requires a local government to provide the Colorado energy office (office) with the climate action element and then requires the office to deliver a copy of any climate element it receives to the department of local affairs, the Colorado department of transportation (CDOT), and any other state agency that the office determines. Section 4 requires CDOT to coordinate with metropolitan planning organizations to establish criteria that define growth corridors and identify these growth corridors. Having identified these growth corridors, the department and metropolitan planning organizations shall coordinate with local governments to develop transportation demand management plans for these growth corridors. Section 5 makes 2 changes related to the statewide transportation plan. First, the bill requires the statewide transportation plan to include: An examination of the impact of transportation decisions on land use patterns; The identification of highway segments where promotion of context-sensitive highway permitting and design can encourage the development of dense, walkable, and mixed-use neighborhoods in transit-oriented centers and neighborhood centers; and An emphasis on integrating planning efforts within CDOT to support multimodal transportation, neighborhood centers, and transit-oriented centers in infill areas as well as growth corridors through the associated transportation demand management corridor planning. Second, the bill requires CDOT to conduct a study in connection with the statewide transportation plan that identifies: Policy barriers and opportunities for the implementation of context-sensitive design, complete streets, and pedestrian-bicycle safety measures in locally-identified urban centers and neighborhood centers; and The portions of state highways that pass through locally identified transit-oriented centers and neighborhood centers that are candidates for context-sensitive design, complete streets, and pedestrian-bicycle safety measures.(Note: This summary applies to this bill as introduced.)  5/14/2024 House Committee on Appropriations Lay Over Unamended - Amendment(s) Failed
  Monitor  Q1: Describe the general impacts of the bill on Arapahoe County (Please do not summarize the bill language).
N/A: Fri, March 15, 2024, by Kathy Smith (KSmith@arapahoegov.com)
This bill would have an impact on PWD, it does not have a direct impact on CR

Q2: Describe the impacts of the bill on the County’s operations and the provision of public services.
N/A: Fri, March 15, 2024, by Kathy Smith (KSmith@arapahoegov.com)
None on CR

Q3: In as much specificity as possible, please estimate the fiscal impacts of the bill on the County. Does the bill adequately fund the demands it places on the County?
N/A: Fri, March 15, 2024, by Kathy Smith (KSmith@arapahoegov.com)
None on CR

Q4: If you selected amend, what specific changes would be needed to make the legislation better for the County?
N/A: Fri, March 15, 2024, by Kathy Smith (KSmith@arapahoegov.com)


Q1: Describe the general impacts of the bill on Arapahoe County (Please do not summarize the bill language).
Amend: Sat, March 16, 2024, by Bryan Weimer (BWeimer@arapahoegov.com)
Future master plans must include a climate action element, which is not currently a state-mandated element. This bill limits greenfield and “sprawl” development. That could have a tendency to push more 35 ac developments, which are less efficient in rural areas, plus limit affordability in rural developing areas. The conversion to electric vehicles and support of charging station is an element of the Master Plan, which was a concern of the BOCC with the County EV Action Plan.

Q2: Describe the impacts of the bill on the County’s operations and the provision of public services.
Amend: Sat, March 16, 2024, by Bryan Weimer (BWeimer@arapahoegov.com)
As noted above and below, it will require us to include climate action in our Comprehensive Plan and it could affect grant eligibility. The Climate Action plans suggest imposing a VMT Fee. A mechanism for doing this has yet to be developed and should not be a local entity responsibility to do. I suggest the state has to move forward with such a requirement.

Q3: In as much specificity as possible, please estimate the fiscal impacts of the bill on the County. Does the bill adequately fund the demands it places on the County?
Amend: Sat, March 16, 2024, by Bryan Weimer (BWeimer@arapahoegov.com)
No direct impact; though if the County applies for grants that do not support the outcomes listed in the bill, we would be less likely to get those grants. The will be additional effort and possible consultants to develop a climate action plan component of the “County Master Plan”.

Q4: If you selected amend, what specific changes would be needed to make the legislation better for the County?
Amend: Sat, March 16, 2024, by Bryan Weimer (BWeimer@arapahoegov.com)
Remove the requirement for master plans to include “a description of any money from the federal government, the state, or a local government that the [county or region or municipality] has received for implementing a goal, plan, or strategy (Page 6, Line 4). This does not seem to be appropriate as that is highly variable by year or even funding cycle. …Remove the imposition of a VMT fee as part of a climate action plan and require the state to develop such a fee as opposed to a local climate action plan. The identification of a Growth Corridor should include local governments and not just MPO and CDOT, as locals have land use responsibilities and the fact that they will be part of developing a TDM Plan for the Growth Corridor. Include the affected locals earlier in the process.

Q1: Describe the general impacts of the bill on Arapahoe County (Please do not summarize the bill language).
Monitor: Fri, March 22, 2024, by Ron Carl (RCarl@arapahoegov.com)
Will require that the County adopt a climate action element in its master plan.

Q2: Describe the impacts of the bill on the County’s operations and the provision of public services.
Monitor: Fri, March 22, 2024, by Ron Carl (RCarl@arapahoegov.com)


Q3: In as much specificity as possible, please estimate the fiscal impacts of the bill on the County. Does the bill adequately fund the demands it places on the County?
Monitor: Fri, March 22, 2024, by Ron Carl (RCarl@arapahoegov.com)


Q4: If you selected amend, what specific changes would be needed to make the legislation better for the County?
Monitor: Fri, March 22, 2024, by Ron Carl (RCarl@arapahoegov.com)


 

Fiscal Note 

NOT ON CALENDAR
HB24-1371More Uniform Local Massage Facilities Regulation A. Hartsook (R) | M. Lukens (D) / R. Fields | B. Gardner  General Government Monitor The law has allowed, but has not required, a county or a municipality to adopt a resolution or ordinance that either establishes business licensure requirements for massage facilities or regulates and prohibits unlawful activities to prevent the operation of illicit massage businesses that engage in human trafficking-related offenses. The act: Makes a legislative finding and declaration that it is a matter of mixed statewide and local concern to establish a statewide requirement that a massage facility operator, owner, or employee, including an independent contractor who is involved in the routine operations of a massage facility (employee), submit to a background check, which generally means a fingerprint-based criminal history record check (background check); Requires every county, city and county, and municipality (local government) that has a massage facility within its jurisdictional boundaries to adopt a local process that ensures that the required background checks are conducted; Requires such a local process to also require, as a condition for a person remaining as or becoming a massage facility operator, owner, or employee, that: Every current operator, owner, and employee submit to a background check on or before the earlier of October 1, 2025, or any other date specified in the local process; and Every prospective operator or owner to submit to a background check at least 30 days before being granted a license to operate the massage facility or assuming an ownership interest in a massage facility; Prohibits a person from being a massage facility owner if the person either has not submitted to a required background check or has either: Been convicted of or entered an accepted plea of nolo contendere for a felony or misdemeanor of solicitation of a prostitute, a human trafficking offense, or money laundering; or Is registered as a sex offender or is required by law to register as a sex offender; Prohibits a massage facility operator or owner from employing at a massage facility a person who has not submitted to a required background check; Authorizes an operator or owner to employ at a massage facility a person who has been convicted of or entered an accepted plea of nolo contendere for a felony or misdemeanor of solicitation of a prostitute, a human trafficking offense, or money laundering, or who is registered as a sex offender or is required by law to register as a sex offender, if the operator or owner believes that the person does not pose a threat to customers or employees of the massage facility; Authorizes the local licensing authority for a local government that has established massage facility business licensure requirements to suspend or revoke the license of any massage facility that has an owner or an employee who is prohibited from being a massage facility owner or employee; Requires a county and a municipality within the county to consult with each other when developing, as is still authorized but not required, a resolution or ordinance to establish business licensure requirements for massage facilities or regulate and prohibit unlawful activities to prevent the operation of illicit massage businesses that engage in human trafficking-related offenses, and, by mutual agreement between a county and a municipality within the county, allows a municipality to elect to have a county's resolution or ordinance apply to massage facilities operating within the jurisdictional boundaries of the municipality in lieu of adopting its own ordinance or resolution; and Because a massage therapist is required by current law to submit to a background check to obtain a license to practice massage therapy, exempts a licensed massage therapist from the act's background check requirement. APPROVED by Governor June 6, 2024 EFFECTIVE August 7, 2024(Note: This summary applies to this bill as enacted.)  6/6/2024 Governor Signed
  Monitor  Q1: Describe the general impacts of the bill on Arapahoe County (Please do not summarize the bill language).
Monitor: Fri, March 22, 2024, by Ron Carl (rcarl@arapahoegov.com)
This bill will require that the County adopt a massage parlor licensing ordinance. Adopting and enforcing such an ordinance will involve costs to the County, which can to some extent be offset by licensing fees.

Q2: Describe the impacts of the bill on the County’s operations and the provision of public services.
Monitor: Fri, March 22, 2024, by Ron Carl (rcarl@arapahoegov.com)


Q3: In as much specificity as possible, please estimate the fiscal impacts of the bill on the County. Does the bill adequately fund the demands it places on the County?
Monitor: Fri, March 22, 2024, by Ron Carl (rcarl@arapahoegov.com)


Q4: If you selected amend, what specific changes would be needed to make the legislation better for the County?
Monitor: Fri, March 22, 2024, by Ron Carl (rcarl@arapahoegov.com)


 

Fiscal Note 

NOT ON CALENDAR
HB24-1437Prohibit Flat Fees for Defending Indigent Clients M. Weissman (D) | M. Duran (D) / R. Fields | D. Michaelson Jenet (D) General Government Amend Beginning July 1, 2025, the act requires a municipality that prosecutes an act of domestic violence and that contracts directly with one or more defense attorneys to provide counsel to indigent defendants to ensure that the municipality's contract does not use a fixed or flat-fee payment structure for indigent defense services. The act requires the municipal court to instead use the same payment structure and rates that are paid by the state of Colorado to attorneys or other interdisciplinary team members under contract with the office of alternate defense counsel and consistent with chief justice directive 04-04. APPROVED by Governor June 6, 2024 EFFECTIVE July 1, 2025(Note: This summary applies to this bill as enacted.)  6/6/2024 Governor Signed
    Q1: Describe the general impacts of the bill on Arapahoe County (Please do not summarize the bill language).
Monitor: Wed, April 03, 2024, by Ron Carl (rcarl@arapahoegov.com)
This could have a fiscal impact on the County if the legislation causes Aurora to stop handling its domestic violence cases in its municipal courts, which would result in such cases being filed in state court, and in turn would cause the County to incur potentially significant increased DA and court related expenses.

Q2: Describe the impacts of the bill on the County’s operations and the provision of public services.
Monitor: Wed, April 03, 2024, by Ron Carl (rcarl@arapahoegov.com)


Q3: In as much specificity as possible, please estimate the fiscal impacts of the bill on the County. Does the bill adequately fund the demands it places on the County?
Monitor: Wed, April 03, 2024, by Ron Carl (rcarl@arapahoegov.com)


Q4: If you selected amend, what specific changes would be needed to make the legislation better for the County?
Monitor: Wed, April 03, 2024, by Ron Carl (rcarl@arapahoegov.com)


 

Fiscal Note 

NOT ON CALENDAR
HB24-1447Transit Reform W. Lindstedt (D) | M. Froelich (D) / F. Winter (D) Transportation Monitor The length of the bill summary for this bill requires it to be published on a separate page here: https://leg.colorado.gov/hb24-1447-bill-summary (Note: This summary applies to the reengrossed version of this bill as introduced in the second house.)  5/4/2024 Senate Committee on Transportation & Energy Refer Amended to Appropriations
  Monitor  Q1: Describe the general impacts of the bill on Arapahoe County (Please do not summarize the bill language).
Monitor: Fri, April 12, 2024, by Bryan Weimer (BWeimer@arapahoegov.com)
The Board of director change could be good and bad. RTD has not performed well so this could be a good but I am not sure. The bill requires greater transparency and coordination with DRCOG, which could be an improvement; it also directs RTD to provide a preference for transit centers when determining transit services and routes. It generally encourages linking transit and land use policies. Proponents say the large board is unwieldy and that most large transit agencies in the USA have smaller boards. Section 16 could provide more services/amenities like coffee shops on District property (currently RTD must collect fair market value rent; this would allow them to take less than FMV). This bill could help with transparency with the County which would be good. RTD will still struggle to provide service in unincorporated areas of the County.

Q2: Describe the impacts of the bill on the County’s operations and the provision of public services.
Monitor: Fri, April 12, 2024, by Bryan Weimer (BWeimer@arapahoegov.com)
The RTD district will be increased in size and could cause issues specific to an area to be lost in other issues of the bigger district. This bill requires a study to be performed and I question whether that is needed. Reimagine RTD was just completed.

Q3: In as much specificity as possible, please estimate the fiscal impacts of the bill on the County. Does the bill adequately fund the demands it places on the County?
Monitor: Fri, April 12, 2024, by Bryan Weimer (BWeimer@arapahoegov.com)
None at this time

Q4: If you selected amend, what specific changes would be needed to make the legislation better for the County?
Monitor: Fri, April 12, 2024, by Bryan Weimer (BWeimer@arapahoegov.com)
Public safety is not mentioned in the bill and should be addressed. This will help increase ridership which the bill says it is trying to do. In addition, if ridership increase is a desired outcome, then issues such as frequency of service, convenience, reliability, costs, safety are all factors that need to be considered and are not really addressed in the bill It is unclear who the “eligible electors” are who elect the board of directors. I do think it’s strange to designate three board members who are district-specific but are elected at large (It would be like having all voters vote on our District 3 Board member) – you’re really just creating all at-large seats but requiring a little geographic dispersion for who serves on the board. But apparently some counties do that, too. It also requires ranked-choice voting with instant runoffs, which is a better way to deal with multiple candidates than standard election practice. Line 3, page 34 has a typo – it should be “fare” instead of “fair”.

Q1: Describe the general impacts of the bill on Arapahoe County (Please do not summarize the bill language).
N/A: Fri, April 12, 2024, by Kathy Smith (KSmith@arapahoegov.com)
This does not have a direct impact on CR, but this could provide an avenue to partner with ADWorks! on the driver training program.

Q2: Describe the impacts of the bill on the County’s operations and the provision of public services.
N/A: Fri, April 12, 2024, by Kathy Smith (KSmith@arapahoegov.com)
None for CR

Q3: In as much specificity as possible, please estimate the fiscal impacts of the bill on the County. Does the bill adequately fund the demands it places on the County?
N/A: Fri, April 12, 2024, by Kathy Smith (KSmith@arapahoegov.com)
None for CR

Q4: If you selected amend, what specific changes would be needed to make the legislation better for the County?
N/A: Fri, April 12, 2024, by Kathy Smith (KSmith@arapahoegov.com)


 

Fiscal Note 

NOT ON CALENDAR
HB24-1454Grace Period Noncompliance Digital Accessibility D. Ortiz | R. Pugliese (R) / P. Lundeen (R) General Government Support Current law requires state agencies and public entities to comply with digital accessibility standards on or before July 1, 2024. The act provides a one-year extension to July 1, 2025, of immunity from liability for failure to comply with the digital accessibility standards for an agency that demonstrates good faith efforts toward compliance or toward resolution of any complaint of noncompliance. To be eligible for the extension, the act requires the agency to post quarterly reports on progress and create a process for redress for inaccessible digital products. APPROVED by Governor May 24, 2024 EFFECTIVE May 24, 2024(Note: This summary applies to this bill as enacted.)  5/24/2024 Governor Signed
    Q1: Describe the general impacts of the bill on Arapahoe County (Please do not summarize the bill language).
Support: Tue, April 16, 2024, by Ron Carl (rcarl@arapahoegov.com)
This will provide the County more time to comply with the digital accessibility regulations.

Q2: Describe the impacts of the bill on the County’s operations and the provision of public services.
Support: Tue, April 16, 2024, by Ron Carl (rcarl@arapahoegov.com)


Q3: In as much specificity as possible, please estimate the fiscal impacts of the bill on the County. Does the bill adequately fund the demands it places on the County?
Support: Tue, April 16, 2024, by Ron Carl (rcarl@arapahoegov.com)


Q4: If you selected amend, what specific changes would be needed to make the legislation better for the County?
Support: Tue, April 16, 2024, by Ron Carl (rcarl@arapahoegov.com)


 

Fiscal Note 

NOT ON CALENDAR
HB24-1455Effective Date 23rd Judicial District M. Weissman (D) | L. Frizell (R) / R. Fields | B. Gardner  General Government Amend The act changes the effective date of the creation of the new twenty-third judicial district from January 7, 2025, to January 14, 2025, to coincide with the date that the district attorney of that district will be sworn in. To facilitate the creation of the new judicial district, the act authorizes the operations and employees of the eighteenth judicial district to be divided into 2 distinct units. APPROVED by Governor May 24, 2024 EFFECTIVE May 24, 2024(Note: This summary applies to this bill as enacted.)  5/24/2024 Governor Signed
    

Fiscal Note 

NOT ON CALENDAR
SB24-004County Veterans Service Offices Administration R. Pelton (R) | R. Fields / L. Frizell (R) | W. Lindstedt (D) General Government Support Under current law, the division of veterans affairs (division) in the department of military and veterans affairs has a duty to supervise county veterans service offices (county offices). The act changes the division's duty to instead monitor county offices. The act changes procedures for the division's payment to counties for the performance of certain veterans services, and requires the division to convene a working group that includes county commissioners to develop a method for distributing state-funded payments. Under current law, the board of county commissioners (board) appoints all veterans service officers and staff for county offices. The board is required to appoint a county veterans service officer, and may authorize the appointed county veterans service officer to hire additional county veterans service officers and staff as the board finds necessary. Under current law, a county veterans service officer is required to have certain military qualifications. The act requires only an appointed county veterans service officer to have these military qualifications. The act adds state certification and United States department of veterans affairs accreditation requirements in order to be a county veterans service officer and for a county veterans service officer to be eligible to serve as a claimant's representative and to assist a veteran claimant with the preparation, presentation, or prosecution of a claim for a United States department of veterans affairs benefit. APPROVED by Governor March 22, 2024 EFFECTIVE August 7, 2024(Note: This summary applies to this bill as enacted.)  3/22/2024 Governor Signed
Amend  Support  Q1: Describe the general impacts of the bill on Arapahoe County (Please do not summarize the bill language).
Support: Wed, January 17, 2024, by Katherine Smith (ksmith@arapahoegov.com)
This bill would provide additional structure for the hiring of VSO's as well as change the reimbursement structure for services provided at the County level. This bill also requires accreditation for all VSO's.

Q2: Describe the impacts of the bill on the County’s operations and the provision of public services.
Support: Wed, January 17, 2024, by Katherine Smith (ksmith@arapahoegov.com)
This bill will not have impact on our operations as we currently accredit all of our VSO's already. The BoCC may choose, from this legislation, to appoint all of our officers rather than the supervisor only (as is done today), or can keep the current process in place.

Q3: In as much specificity as possible, please estimate the fiscal impacts of the bill on the County. Does the bill adequately fund the demands it places on the County?
Support: Wed, January 17, 2024, by Katherine Smith (ksmith@arapahoegov.com)
At this time, since the new hourly rates have not been determined or communicated, we are unsure of the exact fiscal impact this new way of billing will have on Arapahoe County's VSO. Since we currently provide the most accredited hours in the state, we anticipate that this will increase our funding reimbursement.

Q4: If applicable, specify the impacts of the bill to underserved/disadvantaged communities within the County.
Support: Wed, January 17, 2024, by Katherine Smith (ksmith@arapahoegov.com)
This bill works to ensure that our veterans are receiving a high level of service delivery.

Q5: If you selected amend, what specific changes would be needed to make the legislation better for the County?
Support: Wed, January 17, 2024, by Katherine Smith (ksmith@arapahoegov.com)
N/A

 

Fiscal Note 

NOT ON CALENDAR
SB24-005Prohibit Landscaping Practices for Water Conservation D. Roberts (D) | C. Simpson (R) / K. McCormick (D) | B. McLachlan  Energy/Environment Amend On and after January 1, 2026, the act prohibits local governments from allowing the installation, planting, or placement of nonfunctional turf, artificial turf, or invasive plant species on commercial, institutional, or industrial property, common interest community property, or a street right-of-way, parking lot, median, or transportation corridor. The act also prohibits the department of personnel from allowing the installation, planting, or placement of nonfunctional turf, artificial turf, or invasive plant species as part of a project for the construction or renovation of a state facility, which project design commences on or after January 1, 2025. Artificial turf on athletic fields of play is exempted from the prohibitions. APPROVED by Governor March 15, 2024 EFFECTIVE August 7, 2024(Note: This summary applies to this bill as enacted.)  3/15/2024 Governor Signed
Amend  Amend  Q1: Describe the general impacts of the bill on Arapahoe County (Please do not summarize the bill language).
Monitor: Thu, January 18, 2024, by Ron Carl (rcarl@arapahoegov.com)
This bill will prohibit the County from planting non-native grass or installing artificial turf on its properties after January 1, 2025 (except for athletic fields).

Q2: Describe the impacts of the bill on the County’s operations and the provision of public services.
Monitor: Thu, January 18, 2024, by Ron Carl (rcarl@arapahoegov.com)


Q3: In as much specificity as possible, please estimate the fiscal impacts of the bill on the County. Does the bill adequately fund the demands it places on the County?
Monitor: Thu, January 18, 2024, by Ron Carl (rcarl@arapahoegov.com)
The fiscal impact will be dependent on the relative cost of xeriscaping versus turf.

Q4: If applicable, specify the impacts of the bill to underserved/disadvantaged communities within the County.
Monitor: Thu, January 18, 2024, by Ron Carl (rcarl@arapahoegov.com)


Q5: If you selected amend, what specific changes would be needed to make the legislation better for the County?
Monitor: Thu, January 18, 2024, by Ron Carl (rcarl@arapahoegov.com)


Q1: Describe the general impacts of the bill on Arapahoe County (Please do not summarize the bill language).
Amend: Thu, January 18, 2024, by Bryan Weimer (bweimer@arapahoegov.com)
The County is drafting new landscape regulations. This bill is very similar to what we’ve got in the draft landscaping regulations. If the bill is approved, we can adjust some of the draft landscape language to match what they have currently.

Q2: Describe the impacts of the bill on the County’s operations and the provision of public services.
Amend: Thu, January 18, 2024, by Bryan Weimer (bweimer@arapahoegov.com)
Aligns with our proposed regulations

Q3: In as much specificity as possible, please estimate the fiscal impacts of the bill on the County. Does the bill adequately fund the demands it places on the County?
Amend: Thu, January 18, 2024, by Bryan Weimer (bweimer@arapahoegov.com)
N/A

Q4: If applicable, specify the impacts of the bill to underserved/disadvantaged communities within the County.
Amend: Thu, January 18, 2024, by Bryan Weimer (bweimer@arapahoegov.com)
N/A

Q5: If you selected amend, what specific changes would be needed to make the legislation better for the County?
Amend: Thu, January 18, 2024, by Bryan Weimer (bweimer@arapahoegov.com)
One suggested change (and perhaps SEMSWA should review the bill since this is their concern) – our draft landscape regulations include a provision allowing turf grass in water quality control measures. SEMSWA has a strong preference for turfgrass in those feature. Our understanding is that it’s easier to maintain and is less prone to erosion. The bill doesn’t include a stormwater management exemption which would be a good addition. Here’s what draft our code says: In industrial and commercial development, turf grass is prohibited, except in water quality control measures as described in the Arapahoe County Stormwater Management Manual Also, I think a definition of non-functional turf should be include “using water” since we could have native seeding that does not require water use. This has been used in right-of-way in the past (medians and shoulder areas).

 

Fiscal Note 

NOT ON CALENDAR
SB24-008Kinship Foster Care Homes R. Zenzinger | B. Kirkmeyer (R) / R. Pugliese (R) | M. Young  Human Services Support The act states that a court shall not delay permanency planning for a child or youth for purposes of maintaining financial support for a kinship foster care home or a non-certified kinship foster care home, unless there are exceptional circumstances as approved by the court. Prior to transferring temporary legal custody of a child or youth to a relative or kin, the court shall make findings that the relative or kin was advised regarding the differences between kinship foster care and non-certified kinship care, including, but not limited to, financial assistance, custody requirements, and long-term financial support options. The act allows the state department of human services (state department) to promulgate rules to modify the requirements for kinship foster care homes, including training topics for kinship foster care certification. Emergency financial assistance for a kinship foster care home is expanded to include goods needed for the child's basic care, including beds, clothing, and transportation costs, and limited rental or housing assistance not to exceed a 60-day subsidy. The act clarifies the definitions regarding foster care homes, kinship foster care homes (kinship home), and non-certified kinship foster care homes (non-certified kinship home). A kinship home is a home that has been certified by a county department of human or social services (county department) a child placement agency to provide 24-hour care for relatives or kin who are less than 21 years of age. A kinship home is eligible for the same foster care reimbursement, assistance, and other supports as foster care homes. "Kinship foster care home" does not include a non-certified kinship home. A non-certified kinship home means a relative or kin who has a significant relationship with the child or youth and who has either chosen not to pursue the certification process or who has not met the certification requirements for a kinship home. The act formally establishes the process by which a kinship home may apply for certification from a county department or child placement agency. A county department or child placement agency, upon the completion of the required background checks, may issue a one-time provisional certificate for a period of 6 months to an applicant at a specific location who is requesting provisional certification, if requested by the applicant. If the applicant completes the required background checks, the county department or child placement agency shall make payment beginning with the completion of the fingerprint background check. The county department or child placement agency shall complete the certification process within the timelines promulgated by rule of the state board of human services. The applicant has the right to appeal any denial of certification. The state department, a county department, or a child placement agency has the right to revoke a kinship home's certification for cause. Prior to issuing a certificate or subsequent certificate to an applicant to operate a kinship home, a county department or a child placement agency shall conduct a fingerprint-based criminal history record check (fingerprint check) through the Colorado bureau of investigation. The applicant shall pay, unless otherwise paid by a county department, the costs associated with the fingerprint check to the Colorado bureau of investigation. The county department or child placement agency to which the kinship home applied for certification shall extend the provisional certification by an additional 60 days if the applicant can demonstrate that the applicant did not cause the delay in completing all the requirements for certification. A kinship home may opt out of the provisional certification process and remain eligible for supports through sources other than foster care maintenance. Kinship foster care homes are eligible for financial reimbursement and supports at the same rate as foster care homes, as established in rules promulgated by the state board of human services. Non-certified kinship care homes are eligible for financial assistance and supports at 30% of the foster care rate, increasing to 50% beginning in the 2026-27 state fiscal year, based on the age of the child or youth receiving care. The state department shall reimburse the county departments 90% of the amounts expended by county departments for kinship foster care and non-certified kinship care daily rates to support financial assistance. The kinship foster care rate and non-certified kinship care rate are exempt from the state close-out process. The state department shall collaborate with the department of education, the department of public health and environment, and the department of health care policy and financing to develop an interagency resource. The state department shall prominently post the resource on the state department's website. The act directs the state department and the judicial department to collect data on the number of children who are placed with certified and non-certified kin through a dependency and neglect case, regardless of who has custody of the child or youth. The state department shall make the data available on its website on or before October 1, 2025. On or before October 1, 2025, the state department shall study and report to the general assembly the feasibility of using federal funds, including, but not limited to, federal IV-B, IV-E, or TANF funds, or other grant funding to provide or reimburse for the provision of brief legal services or legal representation of relative and kin caregivers. On or before August 1, 2025, and every August 1 thereafter until August 1, 2030, the state department shall submit a report to the joint budget committee on the implementation of non-certified kinship care homes, the impacts to the number of placements with kinship foster care homes, and the impacts to the number of placements with county departments in their ability to support providers. The state department shall submit data provided by county departments as a supplement to the report. The act makes conforming amendments to align statutory sections related to foster care homes with kinship homes. The act makes the following appropriations to the department of human services for the 2024-25 state fiscal year: $190,672 from the general fund for use by the administration and finance division; $5,516,580 from the Colorado long-term works reserve for use by the office of children, youth, and families for child welfare services; and $1,221,710 from local funds for use by the office of children, youth, and families for child welfare services. The act anticipates that the department of human services will receive $6,459,409 in federal funds to be used by the office of children, youth, and families for child welfare services. The act appropriates $55,748 to the department of public safety for the 2024-25 state fiscal year for use by the biometric identification and records unit. APPROVED by Governor May 30, 2024 EFFECTIVE September 1, 2024(Note: This summary applies to this bill as enacted.)  5/30/2024 Governor Signed
Amend Support Support  Q1: Describe the general impacts of the bill on Arapahoe County (Please do not summarize the bill language).
Support: Thu, January 18, 2024, by Cheryl Ternes (Cternes@arapahoegov.com)
This bill will allow for kinship providers to receive certification and financial compensation more equal to that of a foster care provider when taking a child into their care.

Q2: Describe the impacts of the bill on the County’s operations and the provision of public services.
Support: Thu, January 18, 2024, by Cheryl Ternes (Cternes@arapahoegov.com)
ACDHS is willing, supportive and capable of providing these services, but will need additional staffing, resources and increased funding to ensure proper certification, ensure regulations/rules adherence, and to provide additional support to kinship care providers seeking certification.

Q3: In as much specificity as possible, please estimate the fiscal impacts of the bill on the County. Does the bill adequately fund the demands it places on the County?
Support: Thu, January 18, 2024, by Cheryl Ternes (Cternes@arapahoegov.com)
A more definitive evaluation of current funding/resources will need to be completed to fully determine fiscal/resource impact, but it is estimated that an additional 5-10 kinship navigation/certification caseworkers and 3 supervisors will be needed as well as additional funding to cover allowable expenses made available through this legislation. Preliminary estimate of $1,000,000 annually. We are currently reviewing the Fiscal Note on the bill which does include $ for local governments in addition to other funding for the CDHS and other services. CCI and CHSDA will be reviewing further to determine accuracy of the fiscal impact statewide. Year one (2024-25) is $33,421,030 and year two (2025-26) is $33,847,258.

Q4: If applicable, specify the impacts of the bill to underserved/disadvantaged communities within the County.
Support: Thu, January 18, 2024, by Cheryl Ternes (Cternes@arapahoegov.com)
This bill will serve foster children in kinship care by providing more support and training to the caregivers. It is definitely better for children to be in the homes of kin. The outcomes are much better for these children.

Q5: If you selected amend, what specific changes would be needed to make the legislation better for the County?
Support: Thu, January 18, 2024, by Cheryl Ternes (Cternes@arapahoegov.com)


 

Fiscal Note 

NOT ON CALENDAR
SB24-022Regulate Flavored Tobacco Products K. Mullica (D) / K. Brown (D) | E. Velasco (D) Public Health Support  The bill allows a board of county commissioners to adopt an ordinance or resolution to: Regulate the distribution of cigarettes, tobacco products, or nicotine products; and Prohibit the distribution or retail sale of cigarettes, tobacco products, or nicotine products, including prohibiting the sale of any or all flavored cigarettes, flavored tobacco products, or flavored nicotine products. (Note: Italicized words indicate new material added to the original summary; dashes through words indicate deletions from the original summary.) (Note: This summary applies to the reengrossed version of this bill as introduced in the second house.)  3/7/2024 House Committee on Business Affairs & Labor Postpone Indefinitely
Monitor Support   Q1: Describe the general impacts of the bill on Arapahoe County (Please do not summarize the bill language).
Monitor: Wed, January 17, 2024, by Jennifer Ludwig (jludwig@arapahoegov.com)
This bill will not require Arapahoe County to take any action if passed. This bill clarifies that counties have the authority to regulate the distribution of flavored tobacco and nicotine products through licensing or to ban the sale or distribution of tobacco products.

Q2: Describe the impacts of the bill on the County’s operations and the provision of public services.
Monitor: Wed, January 17, 2024, by Jennifer Ludwig (jludwig@arapahoegov.com)
If the bill passes and the County takes action through the adoption of an ordinance, it would require a department to monitor, enforce, and conduct compliance checks. The bill does not require the County to take action.

Q3: In as much specificity as possible, please estimate the fiscal impacts of the bill on the County. Does the bill adequately fund the demands it places on the County?
Monitor: Wed, January 17, 2024, by Jennifer Ludwig (jludwig@arapahoegov.com)
There are no funds tied to this bill. Licensing could generate funds, but an analysis will need to be conducted to determine cost of monitoring, enforcing and conducting compliance checks.

Q4: If applicable, specify the impacts of the bill to underserved/disadvantaged communities within the County.
Monitor: Wed, January 17, 2024, by Jennifer Ludwig (jludwig@arapahoegov.com)
Tobacco use among adults is relatively low in Arapahoe County. 13% of adults report smoking daily and 7% report vaping. Prevalence is higher among African American or Black non-Hispanic adults, compared to non-Hispanic White adults. Among current smokers, 42% report they smoke menthol cigarettes, which is significantly higher than state average (29%). Among youth, 16% report vaping in the past 30 days. And LGBTQ students vape at a higher rate than heterosexual students. Regulating and/or banning tobacco products could protect our most vulnerable populations.

Q5: If you selected amend, what specific changes would be needed to make the legislation better for the County?
Monitor: Wed, January 17, 2024, by Jennifer Ludwig (jludwig@arapahoegov.com)


Q1: Describe the general impacts of the bill on Arapahoe County (Please do not summarize the bill language).
Monitor: Thu, January 18, 2024, by Ron Carl (rcarl@arapahoegov.com)
This bill will give the BOCC the additional power of being able to ban tobacco products.

Q2: Describe the impacts of the bill on the County’s operations and the provision of public services.
Monitor: Thu, January 18, 2024, by Ron Carl (rcarl@arapahoegov.com)


Q3: In as much specificity as possible, please estimate the fiscal impacts of the bill on the County. Does the bill adequately fund the demands it places on the County?
Monitor: Thu, January 18, 2024, by Ron Carl (rcarl@arapahoegov.com)
Minimal.

Q4: If applicable, specify the impacts of the bill to underserved/disadvantaged communities within the County.
Monitor: Thu, January 18, 2024, by Ron Carl (rcarl@arapahoegov.com)


Q5: If you selected amend, what specific changes would be needed to make the legislation better for the County?
Monitor: Thu, January 18, 2024, by Ron Carl (rcarl@arapahoegov.com)


 

Fiscal Note 

NOT ON CALENDAR
SB24-025Update Local Government Sales & UseTax Collection J. Bridges (D) | K. Van Winkle (R) / C. Kipp (D) | R. Taggart (R) Tax & Finance Support Under current law, the department of revenue (department) administers, collects, and enforces the local sales or use tax that a statutory local government or a special district imposes and, if requested, administers, collects, and enforces any such tax that a home rule jurisdiction imposes. The statutes that govern the administration, collection, and enforcement of these local sales or use taxes are located in multiple titles of the Colorado Revised Statutes. The act revises, modernizes, and harmonizes the separate statutes that govern the state administration of local sales or use tax by creating new parts 2 and 3 in article 2 of title 29. In general, the act makes clear that the department collects, administers, and enforces a local government sales or use tax in the same manner as it collects, administers, and enforces the state sales tax. The act: Requires a statutory local government, special district, or requesting home rule jurisdiction that imposes a new sales or use tax, makes a change to its existing sales or use tax, or changes its geographical boundaries by ordinance, resolution, or election to provide the department written notice within specified deadlines and establishes the applicability dates for such events; Requires each statutory local government, special district, and requesting home rule jurisdiction to designate one or more liaisons to coordinate with the department regarding the collection of its sales or use tax; Establishes a dispute resolution process when the local sales or use tax that is administered, collected, and enforced by the department is paid erroneously to the state or to the wrong statutory local government, special district, or home rule jurisdiction; Makes clear that a vendor who uses the department's geographic information system (GIS) database to determine the jurisdictions to which statutory local government, special district, or requesting home rule jurisdiction tax is owed is held harmless for any tax, charge, or fee liability that would otherwise be due solely as a result of an error or omission in the GIS database data; Clarifies that a statutory local government, special district, or requesting home rule jurisdiction may allow a retailer that collects and remits its sales or use tax to retain a percentage of the amount remitted to cover the vendors' expenses in collecting and remitting the statutory local government, special district, or requesting home rule jurisdiction's sales or use tax, but specifies that the statutory local government, special district, or requesting home rule jurisdiction may not impose a limit on the amount retained; Modifies the relief available under the provisions for local dispute resolution for sales or use taxes asserted by the local government to reflect the availability of the department's GIS database for accurately sourcing sales; and Makes conforming amendments for the collection, administration, enforcement, and distribution of statutory local government, special district, and requesting home rule jurisdiction sales or use taxes. APPROVED by Governor May 1, 2024 EFFECTIVE July 1, 2025(Note: This summary applies to this bill as enacted.)  5/1/2024 Governor Signed
Monitor  Support  Q1: Describe the general impacts of the bill on Arapahoe County (Please do not summarize the bill language).
Support: Thu, January 18, 2024, by Ron Carl (rcarl@arapahoegov.com)
None in its current form.

Q2: Describe the impacts of the bill on the County’s operations and the provision of public services.
Support: Thu, January 18, 2024, by Ron Carl (rcarl@arapahoegov.com)


Q3: In as much specificity as possible, please estimate the fiscal impacts of the bill on the County. Does the bill adequately fund the demands it places on the County?
Support: Thu, January 18, 2024, by Ron Carl (rcarl@arapahoegov.com)


Q4: If applicable, specify the impacts of the bill to underserved/disadvantaged communities within the County.
Support: Thu, January 18, 2024, by Ron Carl (rcarl@arapahoegov.com)


Q5: If you selected amend, what specific changes would be needed to make the legislation better for the County?
Support: Thu, January 18, 2024, by Ron Carl (rcarl@arapahoegov.com)


Q1: Describe the general impacts of the bill on Arapahoe County (Please do not summarize the bill language).
Monitor: Thu, January 18, 2024, by Todd Weaver (tweaver@arapahoegov.com)
The bill seeks to simplify and consolidate the State collection of sales and use tax on behalf of local governments to be more uniform with State collections and will impose specific notice and compliance requirements on the implementation of a new tax or an increase to an existing tax. The impact to the County's existing Open Space sales and use tax appears to be minimal but could impact the imposition of any future sales and use tax.

Q2: Describe the impacts of the bill on the County’s operations and the provision of public services.
Monitor: Thu, January 18, 2024, by Todd Weaver (tweaver@arapahoegov.com)
The provisions of this bill do not appear to have a significant impact on the county's funding or ability to provide services.

Q3: In as much specificity as possible, please estimate the fiscal impacts of the bill on the County. Does the bill adequately fund the demands it places on the County?
Monitor: Thu, January 18, 2024, by Todd Weaver (tweaver@arapahoegov.com)
If the necessary notice and compliance requirements are not met, it could delay the implementation of any new sales or use tax. Or, if the State DOR fails to make timely remittance of the sales and use tax to the local government, they would be required to add interest to such remittances.

Q4: If applicable, specify the impacts of the bill to underserved/disadvantaged communities within the County.
Monitor: Thu, January 18, 2024, by Todd Weaver (tweaver@arapahoegov.com)
I do not believe this will impact underserved/disadvantaged communities.

Q5: If you selected amend, what specific changes would be needed to make the legislation better for the County?
Monitor: Thu, January 18, 2024, by Todd Weaver (tweaver@arapahoegov.com)


 

Fiscal Note 

NOT ON CALENDAR
SB24-033Lodging Property Tax Treatment C. Hansen (D) / M. Weissman (D) Housing/Land Use Monitor  Legislative Oversight Committee Concerning Tax Policy. The bill establishes that, for property tax years commencing on or after January 1, 2026, a short-term rental unit, which is an improvement that is designated and used as a place of residency by a person, family, or families, but that is also leased for overnight lodging for less than 30 consecutive days in exchange for a monetary payment (short-term stay) and is not a primary residence, and the land upon which the improvement is located, may be classified as either residential real property or lodging property. If, during the previous property tax year, a short-term rental unit was leased for short-term stays for more than 90 days, then it is classified as lodging property. Otherwise, it is classified as residential real property. Actual value for a short-term rental unit that is classified as lodging property is to be determined solely by application of the market approach to appraisal. The bill also specifies, with an exception for a property that qualifies as a bed and breakfast, that a building designed for use predominantly as a place of residency by a person, a family, or families but that is actually used, or available for use, to provide short-term stays only is a hotel and motel. For purposes of applying the classification of either residential or lodging to a short-term rental unit, annually, the assessor is required to send notice to owners of short-term rental units of the number of days during the prior property tax year that the assessor has determined the property was leased for short-term stays. An owner must sign and return the notice and, if the owner disputes the number of days the property was leased for short-term stays, the owner must provide evidence demonstrating a different number of days the property was leased for short-term stays. Additionally, the property tax administrator is required to establish and administer a pilot program to develop a statewide database and uniform reporting system to track short-term rental units. (Note: This summary applies to this bill as introduced.)  4/16/2024 Senate Committee on Finance Postpone Indefinitely
Amend Amend Support  Q1: Describe the general impacts of the bill on Arapahoe County (Please do not summarize the bill language).
Neutral: Tue, January 16, 2024, by Kathy Smith (KSmith@arapahoegov.com)
This bill will provide regulation on short term rentals.

Q2: Describe the impacts of the bill on the County’s operations and the provision of public services.
Neutral: Tue, January 16, 2024, by Kathy Smith (KSmith@arapahoegov.com)
There would be no direct impact on the County's operations and the provision of services in CR or OS.

Q3: In as much specificity as possible, please estimate the fiscal impacts of the bill on the County. Does the bill adequately fund the demands it places on the County?
Neutral: Tue, January 16, 2024, by Kathy Smith (KSmith@arapahoegov.com)
None from a CR or OS perspective. This may have an impact on property taxes from a Finance perspective.

Q4: If applicable, specify the impacts of the bill to underserved/disadvantaged communities within the County.
Neutral: Tue, January 16, 2024, by Kathy Smith (KSmith@arapahoegov.com)
This may allow for more available tracking of short term rentals to assist in housing at risk households. Depending on the tax rates and the financial situation of the property owners, this could result in them reducing the available short term rentals as well.

Q5: If you selected amend, what specific changes would be needed to make the legislation better for the County?
Neutral: Tue, January 16, 2024, by Kathy Smith (KSmith@arapahoegov.com)
N/A

Q1: Describe the general impacts of the bill on Arapahoe County (Please do not summarize the bill language).
Monitor: Tue, January 16, 2024, by Todd Weaver (tweaver@arapahoegov.com)
The bill would impose a commercial/lodging property tax rate to residences that are used for short-term rentals more than 90 days in the year. This would be a 27.9% assessment rate compared to the current residential rate of 6.7%. There is an exception for bed and breakfasts.

Q2: Describe the impacts of the bill on the County’s operations and the provision of public services.
Monitor: Tue, January 16, 2024, by Todd Weaver (tweaver@arapahoegov.com)
The most significant impact would be to the Assessor's Office and how these properties will be determined to be lodging property vs. residential. There likely would be an administrative impact or burden on staff to send out the required form/notice to owners of short term rentals wihtin the county as well as review and follow up with owners, if needed.

Q3: In as much specificity as possible, please estimate the fiscal impacts of the bill on the County. Does the bill adequately fund the demands it places on the County?
Monitor: Tue, January 16, 2024, by Todd Weaver (tweaver@arapahoegov.com)
For revenue, this change should likely increase the revenue collected by the county for property taxes on residential property that is being used for short-term rentals. I cannot specifically enumerate the cost to the Assessor's Office and will follow up with them on anticipated impact.

Q4: If applicable, specify the impacts of the bill to underserved/disadvantaged communities within the County.
Monitor: Tue, January 16, 2024, by Todd Weaver (tweaver@arapahoegov.com)
Not sure how this would impact these communities.

Q5: If you selected amend, what specific changes would be needed to make the legislation better for the County?
Monitor: Tue, January 16, 2024, by Todd Weaver (tweaver@arapahoegov.com)
N/A

Q1: Describe the general impacts of the bill on Arapahoe County (Please do not summarize the bill language).
Monitor: Wed, January 17, 2024, by Bob Hill (RHill@arapahoegov.com)
It is my understanding that Arapahoe County does not have a lot of short term rental properties, at least compared to other counties. So, impacts may not be hugely significant. However, I see this bill as a means of reigning in short term rentals and having a net effect of making more units available for long term rentals or for sale.

Q2: Describe the impacts of the bill on the County’s operations and the provision of public services.
Monitor: Wed, January 17, 2024, by Bob Hill (RHill@arapahoegov.com)
The bill relies heavily on the Statewide database to be created and tasks the PTA to develop that database. However, it gives the PTA no tools to compel information from STR owners to provide accurate rental info to the database. What prevents an owner from under-reporting STR rental days or compels them to provide information? I am not sure if the PTA already has such tools elsewhere, but if not, I think such are needed for creating an effective database.

Q3: In as much specificity as possible, please estimate the fiscal impacts of the bill on the County. Does the bill adequately fund the demands it places on the County?
Monitor: Wed, January 17, 2024, by Bob Hill (RHill@arapahoegov.com)
More a question for the assessor, but it seems that this falls in line with the assessor office's existing capabilities, though might be a need for additional staff to administer.

Q4: If applicable, specify the impacts of the bill to underserved/disadvantaged communities within the County.
Monitor: Wed, January 17, 2024, by Bob Hill (RHill@arapahoegov.com)
Would expect a net effect of less properties being devoted to STRs which could mean more properties available for long term rental or placed on the market for sale.

Q5: If you selected amend, what specific changes would be needed to make the legislation better for the County?
Monitor: Wed, January 17, 2024, by Bob Hill (RHill@arapahoegov.com)


Q1: Describe the general impacts of the bill on Arapahoe County (Please do not summarize the bill language).
Monitor: Thu, January 18, 2024, by Jason Reynolds (jreynolds@arapahoegov.com)
Primarily affects the Assessor - they would be required to assess short-term rentals as either residential or lodging real property. This may make assessments (and appeals) more complicated.

Q2: Describe the impacts of the bill on the County’s operations and the provision of public services.
Monitor: Thu, January 18, 2024, by Jason Reynolds (jreynolds@arapahoegov.com)
Assessor staff is best able to summarize this.

Q3: In as much specificity as possible, please estimate the fiscal impacts of the bill on the County. Does the bill adequately fund the demands it places on the County?
Monitor: Thu, January 18, 2024, by Jason Reynolds (jreynolds@arapahoegov.com)
If short-term rentals are assessed as lodging, we would receive slightly more revenue (but we do not have that many STRs, so impact is likely minimal)

Q4: If applicable, specify the impacts of the bill to underserved/disadvantaged communities within the County.
Monitor: Thu, January 18, 2024, by Jason Reynolds (jreynolds@arapahoegov.com)


Q5: If you selected amend, what specific changes would be needed to make the legislation better for the County?
Monitor: Thu, January 18, 2024, by Jason Reynolds (jreynolds@arapahoegov.com)


Q1: Describe the general impacts of the bill on Arapahoe County (Please do not summarize the bill language).
Support: Thu, January 18, 2024, by Bryan Weimer (BWeimer@arapahoegov.com)
This bill looks to try to discourage STRs in lieu of uses a resident for housing purposes, which is certainly a mountain resort area concern. We are planning on adopting the STR regulations in 2024 and have a SS scheduled for the end of January.

Q2: Describe the impacts of the bill on the County’s operations and the provision of public services.
Support: Thu, January 18, 2024, by Bryan Weimer (BWeimer@arapahoegov.com)
We will want to consider our definition of “bed and breakfast” so that we don’t have a lot of STR operators trying to claim they’re a B&B and get lower tax rates. In addition, staff had some concern about us trying to track STR stays but the bill requires the state to maintain a database that our Assessor can use to determine which ones get the higher tax rate. No concerns otherwise with the proposed bill as it stands.

Q3: In as much specificity as possible, please estimate the fiscal impacts of the bill on the County. Does the bill adequately fund the demands it places on the County?
Support: Thu, January 18, 2024, by Bryan Weimer (BWeimer@arapahoegov.com)
If the state is tracking then fiscal impact to the County would be minimum. Taxing lodging vs residential has the potential to increase revenue somewhat from an assessed value perspective.

Q4: If applicable, specify the impacts of the bill to underserved/disadvantaged communities within the County.
Support: Thu, January 18, 2024, by Bryan Weimer (BWeimer@arapahoegov.com)
The bill would have the intended impact creating longer term rental property opening up potential affordability.

Q5: If you selected amend, what specific changes would be needed to make the legislation better for the County?
Support: Thu, January 18, 2024, by Bryan Weimer (BWeimer@arapahoegov.com)


Q1: Describe the general impacts of the bill on Arapahoe County (Please do not summarize the bill language).
Monitor: Tue, January 23, 2024, by Ron Carl (RCarl@arapahoegov.com)
Will require the Assessor to make changes to its processes for classifying and appraising short term rental properties.

Q2: Describe the impacts of the bill on the County’s operations and the provision of public services.
Monitor: Tue, January 23, 2024, by Ron Carl (RCarl@arapahoegov.com)


Q3: In as much specificity as possible, please estimate the fiscal impacts of the bill on the County. Does the bill adequately fund the demands it places on the County?
Monitor: Tue, January 23, 2024, by Ron Carl (RCarl@arapahoegov.com)


Q4: If applicable, specify the impacts of the bill to underserved/disadvantaged communities within the County.
Monitor: Tue, January 23, 2024, by Ron Carl (RCarl@arapahoegov.com)


Q5: If you selected amend, what specific changes would be needed to make the legislation better for the County?
Monitor: Tue, January 23, 2024, by Ron Carl (RCarl@arapahoegov.com)


 

Fiscal Note 

NOT ON CALENDAR
SB24-040State Funding for Senior Services J. Danielson (D) | J. Ginal / J. Willford (D) | M. Young  General Government Support No later than August 2024, and each August every 3 years thereafter, the act requires the department of human services (department), the office of state planning and budgeting, and representatives from area agencies on aging to review the adequacy of the appropriation for senior services for the prior 3 fiscal years to address the needs of senior citizens who request services pursuant to the "Older Coloradans' Act". The department is required to report the findings of the adequacy review during its "SMART Act" hearing. APPROVED by Governor May 24, 2024 EFFECTIVE May 24, 2024(Note: This summary applies to this bill as enacted.)  5/24/2024 Governor Signed
 Support Support  Q1: Describe the general impacts of the bill on Arapahoe County (Please do not summarize the bill language).
Support: Tue, January 23, 2024, by Katherine Smith (ksmith@arapahoegov.com)
This will increase needed funding for senior services in our area.

Q2: Describe the impacts of the bill on the County’s operations and the provision of public services.
Support: Tue, January 23, 2024, by Katherine Smith (ksmith@arapahoegov.com)
This could help increase funding or keep funding level for our current Senior Resources programs.

Q3: In as much specificity as possible, please estimate the fiscal impacts of the bill on the County. Does the bill adequately fund the demands it places on the County?
Support: Tue, January 23, 2024, by Katherine Smith (ksmith@arapahoegov.com)
This could help increase funding or keep funding level for our current Senior Resources programs.

Q4: If you selected amend, what specific changes would be needed to make the legislation better for the County?
Support: Tue, January 23, 2024, by Katherine Smith (ksmith@arapahoegov.com)
N/A

 

Fiscal Note 

NOT ON CALENDAR
SB24-043Authorizing Direct-to-Consumer Sales of Raw Milk D. Roberts (D) | B. Pelton (R) / J. McCluskie (D) Public Health Amend  Water Resources and Agriculture Review Committee. The bill authorizes a raw milk producer (producer) that registers with the department of public health and environment (department) to engage in direct-to-consumer sales of raw milk in the state if the producer complies with certain labeling, storage, handling, and transportation requirements. The direct-to-consumer sales may take place at the location where the raw milk is produced, at the consumer's residence, or at a farmers' market or roadside market. The bill authorizes the department of agriculture to: Adopt rules related to the storage, handling, and transportation of raw milk intended for sale directly to consumers; Inspect producers' raw milk and operations; Enforce against a violation in court or by imposition of a civil penalty.(Note: This summary applies to this bill as introduced.)  4/25/2024 Senate Second Reading Laid Over to 05/09/2024 - No Amendments
  Amend  Q1: Describe the general impacts of the bill on Arapahoe County (Please do not summarize the bill language).
Amend: Mon, January 29, 2024, by Jennifer Ludwig (jludwig@arapahoegov.com)
The bill introduces increased risk for disease transmission and outbreaks of unpasteurized cow and goat milk to residents and has implications to increase Arapahoe County Public Health workload: 1. To investigate communicable disease transmission and outbreaks associated with consumption of unpasteurized cow and goat milk. 2. To investigate complaints or refer complaints to the appropriate agency associated with consumer sales practices, labeling or sanitary practices.

Q2: Describe the impacts of the bill on the County’s operations and the provision of public services.
Amend: Mon, January 29, 2024, by Jennifer Ludwig (jludwig@arapahoegov.com)
Increased outbreaks could result in the need for additional Communicable Disease Epidemiologist(s) to conduct investigations.

Q3: In as much specificity as possible, please estimate the fiscal impacts of the bill on the County. Does the bill adequately fund the demands it places on the County?
Amend: Mon, January 29, 2024, by Jennifer Ludwig (jludwig@arapahoegov.com)
There could be an increase in staff time to investigate illness or complaints. The fiscal impact is unknown at this time. There is no funding provided in the bill to cover or recoup these costs.

Q4: If you selected amend, what specific changes would be needed to make the legislation better for the County?
Amend: Mon, January 29, 2024, by Jennifer Ludwig (jludwig@arapahoegov.com)
• Align with CALPHO’s fact sheet when ready. • Page 2, Line 12 – Raw Milk Definition - Add “fluid” unpasteurized cow or goat milk. • Page 2, Line 13 – Raw milk does not include – Add “other food products that include unpasteurized cow or goat milk” or something like this to exclude food products such as yogurt or cheeses. • Page 3, Line 10 - Define Farmer’s Market and Roadside Market • Page 3, Lines 12-13 – Clarify “sold no more than five days after the container is filled” Should be 'after milk is expressed from the animal'. Clarify time lapse from animal expression which could go into a larger primary container first and stored for a period of time to customer container to being sold. • Page 4, Line 7: Add producer’s business address. • Page 4, Lines 10-15 – Labeling – Add language that the product can only be consumed by the purchaser and purchaser’s household members. • Page 4, Lines 16-20 – Add language to fund adopting rules. • Page 5, Lines 15-20 – Add language to fund inspections and enforcement. • Page 6, Lines 11-16: Add “child care facilitates”. • Add a language to fund state and local health departments to investigate communicable diseases that result from consuming unpasteurized cow and goat milk because of this statute. Have collected penalties go towards this fund.

 

Fiscal Note 

NOT ON CALENDAR
SB24-050Colorado Workforce Demonstration Grants Pilot Program T. Exum (D) Workforce/Economic Development Amend  The bill creates the Colorado workforce demonstration grants pilot program (pilot program) in the office of economic development (office) to provide grants to eligible workforce training providers in order to facilitate workforce training for eligible participants. The office administers the pilot program and awards grants from the Colorado workforce demonstration grants pilot program cash fund (fund), which is created in the bill. In awarding grants, the office must: Give first priority to eligible workforce training providers that implement a proven program or practice; Give second priority to eligible workforce training providers that implement an evidence-informed program or practice; and Allocate one-third of the money appropriated to the fund to eligible workforce training providers that are qualified intermediaries, so long as at least one eligible workforce training provider that is a qualified intermediary selected to participate includes in its application a plan to conduct an evaluation that, once completed, will demonstrate that the qualified intermediary is offering a proven program or practice. An eligible workforce training provider that receives a grant from the pilot program must report to the office certain information concerning the proven programs or practices and the evidence-informed programs or practices that it provides or facilitates with the grant money. The office must conduct an evaluation of long-term wage outcomes for eligible participants served by eligible workforce training providers under the pilot program. The evaluation must anonymize personal data, aggregate data by each eligible workforce training provider, and be consolidated into a single annual report. The office must submit an annual summarized report to the legislative subject matter committees concerned with labor and employment. The pilot program is repealed, effective July 1, 2029. Any unexpended and unencumbered money remaining in the fund is transferred to the general fund. (Note: This summary applies to this bill as introduced.)  2/1/2024 Senate Committee on Business, Labor, & Technology Refer Unamended to Appropriations
 Monitor Oppose  Q1: Describe the general impacts of the bill on Arapahoe County (Please do not summarize the bill language).
Monitor: Wed, January 17, 2024, by Katherine Smith (ksmith@arapahoegov.com)
This bill would create a new cash fund (unclear from where) that would support a grant for non-profits to provide workforce services. This grant would be administered through OEDIT. This bill risks ensuring that workforce development services are streamlined through CDLE, as they are today, and provides funding only to non-profit entities.

Q2: Describe the impacts of the bill on the County’s operations and the provision of public services.
Monitor: Wed, January 17, 2024, by Katherine Smith (ksmith@arapahoegov.com)
At this time, this would not directly change ADWorks! provision of services, but it does open the door to risk if this grant is being administered by another state agency (aside from CDLE) and it creates an opportunity for funding that would typically go to the workforce centers to be provided to other entities.

Q3: In as much specificity as possible, please estimate the fiscal impacts of the bill on the County. Does the bill adequately fund the demands it places on the County?
Monitor: Wed, January 17, 2024, by Katherine Smith (ksmith@arapahoegov.com)
This bill does not create a fiscal impact at this time, but it does create a new fund, specifically for workforce services, outside of our current oversight entity (CDLE) and recommends providing additional grant funding to non-profit entities only.

Q4: If applicable, specify the impacts of the bill to underserved/disadvantaged communities within the County.
Monitor: Wed, January 17, 2024, by Katherine Smith (ksmith@arapahoegov.com)
Those being served by our current workforce system may not have a continuity of services if these funds are not well coordinated with our current system.

Q5: If you selected amend, what specific changes would be needed to make the legislation better for the County?
Monitor: Wed, January 17, 2024, by Katherine Smith (ksmith@arapahoegov.com)
I think we should consider recommending an amendment to have this grant administered by CDLE and to include the ability for other entities (in addition to non-profits) apply for this grant.

 

Fiscal Note 

NOT ON CALENDAR
SB24-053Racial Equity Study J. Coleman (D) / L. Herod | N. Ricks (D) Justice/Public Safety Support The act establishes the Black Coloradan racial equity commission (commission) in the legislative department to conduct a study to determine, and make recommendations related to, any historical and ongoing effects of slavery and subsequent systemic racism on Black Coloradans that may be attributed to Colorado state practices, systems, and policies. The study includes historical research conducted by the state historical society (society), commonly known as history Colorado, and an economic analysis conducted by a third party. The society may enter into an agreement with a third-party entity to conduct all or parts of the historical research. The society shall conduct at least 2 community engagement sessions for members of the public to provide input to the society. The society shall provide the commission with quarterly updates about the status of its research. The society is required to submit a report to the commission with the results of its research and any recommendations. The commission shall enter into an agreement with a third party to conduct an economic analysis of the financial impact of systemic racism on historically impacted Black Coloradans utilizing the findings of the society's historical research. The third party shall deliver the results of its economic analysis to the commission. At the conclusion of the study, the commission shall submit a report to the general assembly and the governor about the study and make the report available on a publicly accessible webpage of the general assembly's website. The report must include a description of the study's goals, the results of the historical research and economic analysis, and the commission's recommendations. After the commission submits the report, the commission shall work with any parties necessary to implement the recommendations in the report. The study is contingent upon the commission receiving $785,000 of gifts, grants, or donations for the purpose of conducting the study. The act creates the Black Coloradan racial equity study cash fund to accept the gifts, grants, or donations received for the study. The money in the cash fund is continuously appropriated to legislative council for use by the commission and to the society for conducting the historical research. APPROVED by Governor June 4, 2024 EFFECTIVE August 7, 2024(Note: This summary applies to this bill as enacted.)  6/4/2024 Governor Signed
 Support   

Fiscal Note 

NOT ON CALENDAR
SB24-059Children's Behavioral Health Statewide System of Care B. Kirkmeyer (R) | D. Michaelson Jenet (D) / M. Duran (D) | R. Pugliese (R) Human Services Support  Colorado's Child Welfare System Interim Study Committee. The bill requires the behavioral health administration (BHA), in partnership with the office of children, youth, and families in the department of human services; the department of health care policy and financing; the division of insurance in the department of regulatory agencies; and the department of public health and environment, to develop, establish, and maintain a comprehensive children's behavioral health statewide system of care (system of care). The system of care will serve as the single point of access to address the behavioral health needs of children and youth in Colorado, regardless of payer, insurance, and income. The system of care shall serve children and youth up to twenty-one years of age who have mental health disorders, substance use disorders, co-occurring behavioral health disorders, or intellectual and developmental disabilities. The system of care must include, at a minimum, a statewide behavioral health standardized screening and assessment, trauma-informed mobile crisis response and stabilization services for children and youth, tiered care coordination for moderate and intensive levels of need, parent and youth peer support, intensive in-home and community-based services, and respite services. The bill establishes the office of the children's behavioral health statewide system of care (office) in the BHA. The office is the primary governance entity and is responsible for convening all relevant state agencies involved in the system of care, including, but not limited to, the department of human services office of children, youth, and families, the division of child welfare, and the division of youth services; the department of health care policy and financing; the division of insurance in the department of regulatory agencies; and the department of public health and environment. The office will be directed by the deputy commissioner of the office. The bill requires the office to create and convene, on or before November 1, 2024, a leadership team responsible for decision-making and oversight. The leadership team is required to provide a report to the house of representatives public and behavioral health and human services committee and the senate health and human services committee, or their successor committees, on or before July 1, 2027. The office is required to create and convene, on or before January 15, 2025, an implementation team that shall create an implementation plan for the system of care. The implementation plan must receive an annual minimum appropriation of $10 million and include the creation of a capacity-building center, which shall develop, implement, and fund, within available appropriations, the following: A student loan forgiveness program for students in behavioral health disciplines who make a 3- to 5-year commitment to work in shortage areas in the system of care; Paid internships and clinical rotations in the system of care and a description of multiple options for payment; Revisions to graduate medical education programs at Colorado institutions of higher education to support internships, residencies, fellowships, and student programs in child and youth behavioral health; A financial aid program for youth transitioning out of foster care who wish to pursue a career in children and youth behavioral health, developed in partnership with Colorado institutions of higher education and community colleges; and An expansion of current BHA efforts related to behavioral health apprenticeships, internships, stipends, and pre-licensure workforce support specific to service children, youth, and families. On or before January 15, 2025, the office is required to create an advisory council, composed of, at a minimum, family and youth providers, local partners, county departments of human and social services, county commissioners, juvenile justice agencies, families or individuals with lived experience using children's or youths' behavioral health services, consumer advocacy organizations, and university partners. The BHA shall develop a state-level process to monitor, report on, and promptly resolve complaints, grievances, and appeals, including recipient rights issues. The process must be available to providers, clients, case management entities, and anyone else working with the children and youth in the system of care. The bill requires the leadership team to begin, or contract for, on or before January 1, 2025, a cost and utilization analysis of the populations of children and youth who are included in the system of care. On or before July 1, 2025, the department of health care policy and financing, in consultation with the office, is required to establish standard and uniform medical necessity criteria for all system of care services. The department of health care policy and financing is required to set standard rate and utilization floors for all system of care services across all managed care entities. On or before July 1, 2025, the bill requires the department of health care policy and financing to establish a standard statewide medicaid fee schedule or rate frame for behavioral health services for children and youth and incorporate the fee schedule and rate frame into the contracts with managed care entities and behavioral health administrative services organizations. The fee schedule or rate frame must increase rates and incorporate enhanced rates or quality bonuses for evidence-based practices and extended weekday and weekend clinic hours and allow maximum flexibility for use of telehealth to expand access. The bill requires that each managed care entity or behavioral health administrative services organization contract with or have single-use agreements with every qualified residential treatment facility or psychiatric residential treatment facility that is licensed in Colorado. The office, advised by state and county partners, providers, and racially, ethnically, culturally, and geographically diverse family and youth representatives, is required to develop and establish a data and quality team. The data team shall track and report annually on key child welfare factors. The bill requires the BHA, advised by the office, to establish or procure a capacity-building center. The capacity-building center shall, at a minimum: Train, coach, and certify providers of the array of services offered through the system of care; Provide training, coaching, and certification related to the use of behavioral health screening and assessment tools to support a uniform assessment process and training in trauma-informed care to staff at relevant state agencies; Work with rural health clinics and federally qualified health centers to expand their capacity to provide behavioral health services to children and youth; Offer training and other strategies to expand the number of behavioral health providers in rural and other underserved communities; and Utilize data and reports to target its investment to build capacity in regions identified as lacking capacity. The bill requires the BHA to develop a website to provide regularly updated information to families, youth, providers, staff, system partners, and others regarding the goals, principles, activities, progress, and timelines for the system of care. The website must include key performance dashboard indicators; changes in access by the child welfare population; changes in access disparities between racial, ethnic, and regional groups; and changes in access to intensive- and moderate-care coordination with high-fidelity wraparound. (Note: This summary applies to this bill as introduced.)  5/2/2024 House Committee on Health & Human Services Postpone Indefinitely
Support Support Support  Q1: Describe the general impacts of the bill on Arapahoe County (Please do not summarize the bill language).
Support: Wed, January 24, 2024, by Cheryl Ternes (Cternes@arapahoegov.com)
Taskforce to develop and implement, therefore streamlining the concept of comprehensive and centralized points of care, multi-system collaboration, standardized assessment tools, increased sites and mobile response for children, provision of wraparound services and support for youth and their families, increased availability of residential care, and removal of barriers to staffing those agencies/services, as well as intentional outreach and education of available services. These services will support any child under the age of 21, with mental health, substance abuse and intellectual/developmental disabilities. Services will be provided regardless of Medicaid/insurance/payor.

Q2: Describe the impacts of the bill on the County’s operations and the provision of public services.
Support: Wed, January 24, 2024, by Cheryl Ternes (Cternes@arapahoegov.com)
Lessening the burden on Child & Adult Protective Services, of serving in isolation, children and at-risk adults with mental health, substance abuse and IDD. Children will not languish in detention, hospitals or in inappropriate levels of care within the child welfare system. Children will not be denied care based on insurance/inability to pay, therefore defaulting to the child welfare system to pay/serve these children. Child welfare and adult protection caseworkers will have decreased workloads.

Q3: In as much specificity as possible, please estimate the fiscal impacts of the bill on the County. Does the bill adequately fund the demands it places on the County?
Support: Wed, January 24, 2024, by Cheryl Ternes (Cternes@arapahoegov.com)
This bill if passed, would free up county funding dedicated towards this population and save the county money. The bill does have a significant fiscal note requiring State General Fund dollars.

Q4: If you selected amend, what specific changes would be needed to make the legislation better for the County?
Support: Wed, January 24, 2024, by Cheryl Ternes (Cternes@arapahoegov.com)


 

Fiscal Note 

NOT ON CALENDAR
SB24-106Right to Remedy Construction Defects R. Zenzinger | J. Coleman (D) / S. Bird (D) Housing/Land Use Monitor  In the "Construction Defect Action Reform Act" (act), Colorado law establishes procedures for bringing a lawsuit for a construction defect (claim). Section 2 Section 4 of the bill clarifies that a person that has had a claim brought on the person's behalf is also considered a claimant, and therefore, the act applies to the person for whom the claim is brought. Sections 3 and 6 create a right for a construction professional to remedy a claim made against the construction professional by doing remedial work or hiring another construction professional to perform the work. The following applies to the remedy: The construction professional must notify the claimant and diligently make sure the remedial work is performed; and Upon completion, the claimant is deemed to have settled and released the claim, and the claimant is limited to claims regarding improper performance of the remedial work. Currently, a claim may be held in abeyance if the parties have agreed to mediation. Section 3 also adds other forms of alternative dispute resolution for which the claim would be held in abeyance. Alternative dispute resolution is binding. If a settlement offer of a payment is made and accepted in a claim, the payment constitutes a settlement of the claim and the cause of action is deemed to have been released, and an offer of settlement is not admissible in any subsequent action or legal proceeding unless the proceeding is to enforce the settlement. To bring a claim or related action, section 4 section 2 requires a unit owners' association (association) to obtain the written consent of at least two-thirds 60% of the actual owners of the units in the common interest community. The consent must contain the currently required notices must be signed by each consenting owner, and must have certain attestations. Under the act, a claimant is barred from seeking damages for failing to comply with building codes or industry standards unless the failure results in: Actual damage to real or personal property; Actual loss of the use of real or personal property; Bodily injury or wrongful death; or A risk of bodily injury or death to, or a threat to the life, health, or safety of, the occupants. Section 5 requires the actual property damage to be the result of a building code violation and requires the risk of injury or death or the threat to life, health, or safety to be imminent and unreasonable. Section 3 changes the standard concerning the risk of bodily injury or death to a verifiable danger to the occupants and adds another option to bring a claim if the defect results in a failure or lack of capacity of a building component to perform the intended purpose of the building component. Under current law, an association may institute, defend, or intervene in litigation or administrative proceedings in its own name on behalf of itself or 2 or more unit owners on matters affecting a common interest community. For a construction defect matter to affect a common interest community, section 7 requires that the matter concern real estate that is owned by the association or by all members of the association. Section 7 also establishes that, when an association makes a claim or takes legal action on behalf of unit owners when the matter does not concern real estate owned by the association: The association and each claim are subject to each defense, limitation, claim procedure, and alternative dispute resolution procedure that each unit owner would be subject to if the unit owner had brought the claim; and The association has a fiduciary duty to act in the best interest of each unit owner. (Note: Italicized words indicate new material added to the original summary; dashes through words indicate deletions from the original summary.) (Note: This summary applies to the reengrossed version of this bill as introduced in the second house.)  5/3/2024 House Committee on Transportation, Housing & Local Government Postpone Indefinitely
  Monitor  Q1: Describe the general impacts of the bill on Arapahoe County (Please do not summarize the bill language).
Monitor: Tue, February 06, 2024, by Ron Carl (rcarl@arapahoegov.com)
The purpose of this bill is to reduce the number of construction defect cases, which in turn may help bring about an increase in condominium construction in the County.

Q2: Describe the impacts of the bill on the County’s operations and the provision of public services.
Monitor: Tue, February 06, 2024, by Ron Carl (rcarl@arapahoegov.com)


Q3: In as much specificity as possible, please estimate the fiscal impacts of the bill on the County. Does the bill adequately fund the demands it places on the County?
Monitor: Tue, February 06, 2024, by Ron Carl (rcarl@arapahoegov.com)


Q4: If you selected amend, what specific changes would be needed to make the legislation better for the County?
Monitor: Tue, February 06, 2024, by Ron Carl (rcarl@arapahoegov.com)


 

Fiscal Note 

NOT ON CALENDAR
SB24-125Interstate Compact for the Placement of Children B. Pelton (R) | D. Michaelson Jenet (D) / G. Evans | A. Boesenecker (D) Human Services Support The act enacts the "Interstate Compact on Placement of Children" (compact). The purpose of the compact is to: Provide a process through which children subject to this compact are placed in safe and suitable homes in a timely manner; Facilitate ongoing supervision of a placement, the delivery of services, and communication between the states; Provide operating procedures that will ensure that children are placed in safe and suitable homes in a timely manner; Provide for promulgation and enforcement of administrative rules implementing the compact and regulating the covered activities of the member states; Provide for uniform data collection and information sharing between member states; Promote coordination between the compact, the interstate compact for juveniles, the interstate compact on adoption and medical assistance, and other compacts affecting the placement of children and provision of services to children otherwise subject to this compact; Provide for a state's continuing legal jurisdiction and responsibility for placement and care of a child that it would have had if the placement were intrastate; and Provide for the promulgation of guidelines, in collaboration with Indian tribes, for interstate cases involving Indian children as is or may be permitted by federal law. After the act takes effect, and subject to available appropriations, the executive director of the department of human services (executive director) shall convene a working group to review the proposal for enactment of the revised interstate compact on placement of children, and conclude one year later unless amended. The working group shall review and make recommendations, according to a time frame determined by the working group, to Colorado's commissioner to the compact on the following issues: Evaluating the current compact process for children and families; Determining the status of Colorado's implementation of the national electronic interstate compact enterprise requirements and what effect the implementation of these requirements may have on Colorado; Improving the use of cross-border agreements; Identifying any barriers to placing children in residential treatment facilities out of state and options for addressing barriers within existing law; Identifying and prioritizing any alternative efforts being made to address interstate placement issues at the national level; and Identifying language and processes to improve interstate placements. The compact takes effect after the executive director provides notice to the revisor of statutes that the thirty-fifth state has enacted the compact. APPROVED by Governor May 24, 2024 EFFECTIVE August 7, 2024(Note: This summary applies to this bill as enacted.)  5/24/2024 Governor Signed
  Support  Q1: Describe the general impacts of the bill on Arapahoe County (Please do not summarize the bill language).
Support: Tue, February 27, 2024, by Cheryl Ternes (Cternes@arapahoegov.com)
HS recommends a support position. The bill will adopt the revised ICPC that would address longstanding issues in the current ICPC process by ensuring more accountability of member states in the compact, clarifying the role of parents in the compact process as well as important exemptions for parents, and more enforcement tools to ensure compliance with the compact. Passage of this bill would allow Colorado to be at the table for creating regulations to implement the ICPC, which we and CHSDA believe is critical.

Q2: Describe the impacts of the bill on the County’s operations and the provision of public services.
Support: Tue, February 27, 2024, by Cheryl Ternes (Cternes@arapahoegov.com)
Enacting the ICPC in Colorado will move the state one step closer to a universal process, resulting in accountability for all states. The bill will: Provide a process through which children subject to this compact are placed in safe and suitable homes in a timely manner; Facilitate ongoing supervision of a placement, the delivery of services, and communication between the states; Provide operating procedures that will ensure that children are placed in safe and suitable homes in a timely manner; Provide for promulgation and enforcement of administrative rules implementing the compact and regulating the covered activities of the member states; Provide for uniform data collection and information sharing between member states; Promote coordination between the compact, the interstate compact for juveniles, the interstate compact on adoption and medical assistance, and other compacts affecting the placement of children and provision of services to children otherwise subject to this compact; Provide for a state's continuing legal jurisdiction and responsibility for placement and care of a child that it would have had if the placement were intrastate; and Provide for the promulgation of guidelines, in collaboration with Indian tribes, for interstate cases involving Indian children as is or may be permitted by federal law

Q3: In as much specificity as possible, please estimate the fiscal impacts of the bill on the County. Does the bill adequately fund the demands it places on the County?
Support: Tue, February 27, 2024, by Cheryl Ternes (Cternes@arapahoegov.com)
None anticipated.

Q4: If you selected amend, what specific changes would be needed to make the legislation better for the County?
Support: Tue, February 27, 2024, by Cheryl Ternes (Cternes@arapahoegov.com)


 

Fiscal Note 

NOT ON CALENDAR
SB24-131Prohibiting Carrying Firearms in Sensitive Spaces S. Jaquez Lewis (D) | C. Kolker (D) / K. Brown (D) | M. Lindsay (D) Justice/Public Safety Support The act prohibits a person from knowingly carrying a firearm, both openly and concealed, in the following government buildings, including their adjacent parking areas: State legislative buildings, including buildings at which the offices of elected members are located; A building of a local government's governing body, including buildings at which the offices of elected members or the chief executive officer of a local government are located (local government buildings); and A courthouse or other building used for court proceedings. Unlawful carrying of a firearm in a government building is a class 1 misdemeanor. The act includes exceptions for law enforcement officers, members of the United States armed forces or Colorado National Guard, security personnel, persons carrying as part of the lawful and common practices of a legal proceeding, and persons who hold a permit to carry a concealed handgun (concealed carry permit) who are carrying a concealed handgun in an adjacent parking area. The act permits a local government to enact a law permitting carrying at a local government building included in the act. Members of the general assembly are exempt from the prohibition on carrying in a state legislative building until January 5, 2025. The act prohibits a person from knowingly carrying a firearm, both openly and concealed, on the property of a child care center, other than a family child care home, that is licensed by the department of early childhood or is exempt from licensing pursuant to state law, and that operates with stated educational purposes (licensed child care center); public or private elementary, middle, junior high, high, or vocational school; or any public or private college, university, or seminary (higher education institution), with exceptions. A violation is a class 1 misdemeanor. The act maintains exceptions in existing law for carrying a firearm on the property of a public elementary, middle, junior high, or high school and adds exceptions for concealed carry permit holders carrying in the parking area of a licensed child care center or higher education institution; security personnel at a licensed child care center or higher education institution; and for a licensed child care center that is on the same property as another building or improvement, carrying a firearm in an area that is not designated as a licensed child care center. Existing law prohibits openly carrying a firearm within any polling location or central count facility, or within 100 feet of a ballot drop box or any building in which a polling location or central count facility is located, while an election or any related ongoing election administration activity is in progress. The act prohibits carrying a firearm in any manner at those locations. APPROVED by Governor May 31, 2024 EFFECTIVE July 1, 2024(Note: This summary applies to this bill as enacted.)  5/31/2024 Governor Signed
  Monitor  Q1: Describe the general impacts of the bill on Arapahoe County (Please do not summarize the bill language).
Monitor: Sun, February 11, 2024, by Ron Carl (rcarl@arapahoegov.com)
This bill will make it unlawful for a person to carry a gun in a county building or park, even if the person has a concealed weapons permit.

Q2: Describe the impacts of the bill on the County’s operations and the provision of public services.
Monitor: Sun, February 11, 2024, by Ron Carl (rcarl@arapahoegov.com)


Q3: In as much specificity as possible, please estimate the fiscal impacts of the bill on the County. Does the bill adequately fund the demands it places on the County?
Monitor: Sun, February 11, 2024, by Ron Carl (rcarl@arapahoegov.com)


Q4: If you selected amend, what specific changes would be needed to make the legislation better for the County?
Monitor: Sun, February 11, 2024, by Ron Carl (rcarl@arapahoegov.com)


 

Fiscal Note 

NOT ON CALENDAR
SB24-136Uniform Guardianship & Conservatorship Act B. Gardner | J. Ginal / M. Young | M. Soper (R) Human Services Amend  Colorado Commission on Uniform State Laws. The bill repeals the "Uniform Guardianship and Protective Proceedings Act" and enacts the "Uniform Guardianship, Conservatorship, and Other Protective Arrangements Act", drafted by the uniform law commission. The bill provides guidance for guardians and conservators and clarifies how appointees must make decisions on behalf of a person under guardianship or conservatorship. The bill encourages the use of protective arrangements and less restrictive alternatives instead of conservatorship or guardianship if a person's needs can be met with support services and technology. The bill expands the procedural rights for respondents to ensure that guardianships and conservatorships are only imposed when necessary. The bill provides for expanded monitoring of guardians and conservators to ensure compliance with fiduciary duties and prevent exploitation. The bill provides for visitation and communication rights for individuals subject to guardianship or conservatorship. This includes a limitation on a guardian's ability to prevent communication, visitation, or interactions between a person subject to guardianship and a third party. The bill provides for protections to prevent exploitation of vulnerable individuals by allowing the court to restrict access to the respondent or the respondent's property by a specified person without imposing a guardianship or conservatorship. The bill prohibits courts from establishing full guardianship or conservatorship if a limited guardianship or conservatorship would meet the respondent's needs, requires a petitioner seeking full guardianship or conservatorship to provide support to justify full guardianship or conservatorship, and requires courts to provide findings to support the imposition of full guardianship or conservatorship. The bill updates provisions concerning minors subject to guardianship and provides for involvement of a minor in decisions that involve the minor. The bill provides guidance for property management for individuals subject to guardianship. The bill contains model forms for petitioners and respondents to use when filing petitions and notice with the court. (Note: Italicized words indicate new material added to the original summary; dashes through words indicate deletions from the original summary.) (Note: This summary applies to the reengrossed version of this bill as introduced in the second house.)  5/4/2024 House Committee on Finance Postpone Indefinitely
  Oppose  Q1: Describe the general impacts of the bill on Arapahoe County (Please do not summarize the bill language).
Oppose: Thu, February 15, 2024, by Cheryl Ternes (Cternes@arapahoegov.com)
This bill would negatively impact the work the county does to protect at-risk adults under the DHS Adult Protective Services Division. This bill eradicates the confidentiality rules that protect an at-risk adult’s privacy, and makes their cases available to the public, and therefore the bad actor(s) abusing, neglecting, or exploiting them. The bill does this under the guise of transparency to the media, public and watchdog groups, but for an at-risk adult being abused and exploited, it is far from it. There are provisions of this bill that allow for bad actors to specifically disregard the legal authority, direction and decisions of the court ordered protective guardian if that person disagrees with the guardian, thereby allowing them to further mistreat or exploit them. This bill adds the right to a jury trial for guardianship and conservatorship hearings, which may sound like added protections of due process, but in this field it would do much more harm than good, not to mention increasing the necessary DHS casework and legal work tenfold in order to properly protect an at-risk adult from proven abuse, neglect and exploitation. This bill heightens the legal standard for guardianships and conservatorships to “clear and convincing,” thereby heightening the rights of the bad actors abusing and exploiting the at-risk adult, not the at-risk adult as this bill claims. Additionally, this bill does many other things to legally erode the protections and rights of at-risk adults to be free from abuse: the ability for their treating physicians to help them and not be conflicted off their court case; the ability for well-intended family members to step in to help without being requiring to legally notice many other parties including the bad actor(s); and the ability for the guardian to prohibit the bad actor(s) from visitation. Finally, there is also a section on “minor guardianships”, which would negatively affect the ability for DHS to adequately protect abused and neglected children in Colorado as well.

Q2: Describe the impacts of the bill on the County’s operations and the provision of public services.
Oppose: Thu, February 15, 2024, by Cheryl Ternes (Cternes@arapahoegov.com)
Significant negative impact, as noted in paragraph 1.

Q3: In as much specificity as possible, please estimate the fiscal impacts of the bill on the County. Does the bill adequately fund the demands it places on the County?
Oppose: Thu, February 15, 2024, by Cheryl Ternes (Cternes@arapahoegov.com)
Significant negative fiscal impact to DHS and their legal counsel. This would need analyzed more specifically to put a number on it. Second, in addition to the numbers and monetary mandates that come with this bill, the quality of life costs to our at-risk adult population of Arapahoe County, and Colorado at large, would be extreme.

Q4: If you selected amend, what specific changes would be needed to make the legislation better for the County?
Oppose: Thu, February 15, 2024, by Cheryl Ternes (Cternes@arapahoegov.com)


 

Fiscal Note 

NOT ON CALENDAR
SB24-139Creation of 911 Services Enterprise J. Gonzales (D) / C. deGruy Kennedy | W. Lindstedt (D) General Government Monitor The act creates the 911 services enterprise in the department of regulatory agencies (enterprise). The enterprise is authorized to impose a fee on service users (fee). A service user is a person who is provided a 911 access connection in the state. The fee is set annually by the enterprise and, together with the 911 surcharge that the public utilities commission (commission) imposes on service users for the benefit of meeting the needs of governing bodies to pay for basic emergency service and provide emergency telephone service (911 surcharge) and must not exceed $0.50 per month per 911 access connection. The fee is collected in the same manner as the 911 surcharge. Revenue from the fee will fund expenses and costs related to the provision of 911 services, including: Training initiatives and programs and public education campaigns for the public as determined by individual governing bodies or public safety answering points (PSAPs) throughout the state; Public education campaigns; Cybersecurity support; GIS programs; Grant programs for the benefit of governing bodies and PSAPs; Providing matching money for federal, state, or private grants related to 911 services or emergency notification services; Any other items related to a benefit for governing bodies and PSAPs for 911 services across the state as proposed by a group of such entities or by statewide associations representing Colorado 911 stakeholders; and Administrative expenses of the enterprise. The act also creates the 911 services enterprise cash fund, adds a requirement for the commission to include in its "state of 911" annual report the activity of the enterprise including its use of its revenue, and makes several technical updates to the statutes concerning the 911 surcharge and the commission's "state of 911" report. For the 2024-25 state fiscal year, the act appropriates $107,695 from the general fund to the department of regulatory agencies and reappropriates $38,406 of that appropriation to the department of law to implement the act. APPROVED by Governor May 31, 2024 EFFECTIVE August 7, 2024(Note: This summary applies to this bill as enacted.)  5/31/2024 Governor Signed
  Monitor  Q1: Describe the general impacts of the bill on Arapahoe County (Please do not summarize the bill language).
Monitor: Thu, February 29, 2024, by Bryan Weimer (bweimer@arapahoegov.com)
The bill does not affect PWD. Our involvement with (11 is usually a call from them to an on-call staff (Animal Services, R&B, Building, etc. where they call from some of our services and the bill does not appear to access a surcharge onto calls outbound, but calls inbound. It appears to affect the Sheriff Office more directly.

Q2: Describe the impacts of the bill on the County’s operations and the provision of public services.
Monitor: Thu, February 29, 2024, by Bryan Weimer (bweimer@arapahoegov.com)
It does not affect PWD and don't see it aversely affecting 911 services, but the Sheriff Office should comment on the impact since they are the administrator of the service.

Q3: In as much specificity as possible, please estimate the fiscal impacts of the bill on the County. Does the bill adequately fund the demands it places on the County?
Monitor: Thu, February 29, 2024, by Bryan Weimer (bweimer@arapahoegov.com)
The impact to the County would be extent that County receive grants or monetary support through this new enterprise, revenue will increase. Workload and expenditures will correspondingly increase to pursue grants, comply with grant requirements, and use available funding on allowable uses. The State is estimating that $696K could be generated with this fee, plus need for 1.2 FTE

Q4: If you selected amend, what specific changes would be needed to make the legislation better for the County?
Monitor: Thu, February 29, 2024, by Bryan Weimer (bweimer@arapahoegov.com)
One could argue that this is charging a user unfairly for for a service in a direr time of need, but the corollary is the user is paying for the service. I recommend monitoring, as I don't see a direct impact to the County other than being able to pursue grant funds for 911 services

Q1: Describe the general impacts of the bill on Arapahoe County (Please do not summarize the bill language).
No Effect: Thu, February 29, 2024, by Ron Carl (rcarl@arapahoegov.com)
This bill will establish a 911 enterprise fee, not to exceed 50 cents per month, to be imposed on 911 service users, and creates a trust fund and an oversight board. The funds are to be distributed to local governments and others who provide 911 services.

Q2: Describe the impacts of the bill on the County’s operations and the provision of public services.
No Effect: Thu, February 29, 2024, by Ron Carl (rcarl@arapahoegov.com)


Q3: In as much specificity as possible, please estimate the fiscal impacts of the bill on the County. Does the bill adequately fund the demands it places on the County?
No Effect: Thu, February 29, 2024, by Ron Carl (rcarl@arapahoegov.com)


Q4: If you selected amend, what specific changes would be needed to make the legislation better for the County?
No Effect: Thu, February 29, 2024, by Ron Carl (rcarl@arapahoegov.com)


 

Fiscal Note 

Wednesday, May 8 2024
THIRD READING OF BILLS - FINAL PASSAGE
(10) in house calendar.  
SB24-159Mod to Energy & Carbon Management Processes S. Jaquez Lewis (D) | K. Priola / A. Boesenecker (D) | J. Marvin  Energy/Environment Monitor  On or before July 1, 2027, section 2 of the bill requires the energy and carbon management commission (commission) to adopt rules (permitting rules) to cease issuing new oil and gas permits (permits) before January 1, 2030, which rules must include certain reductions in the total number of oil and gas wells covered by new permits issued in 2028 and 2029. Section 2 also requires the commission to include as a condition in any permit issued after July 1, 2024, that certain operations must commence on or before December 31, 2032, as to each oil and gas well included in the permit. If the commission determines that mitigation of adverse environmental impacts is necessary as a result of oil and gas operations, current law requires the commission to issue an order requiring a responsible party to perform the mitigation. If the responsible party refuses to perform the mitigation or is identified after the state provides funds for the mitigation, the commission must sue the responsible party to recover the costs of the mitigation. Section 3 changes current law by: Expanding mitigation to include mitigation of adverse environmental impacts as a result of any activity regulated by the commission; Adding a prior owner or operator to the definition of "responsible party"; and Allowing a current or prior owner or operator to be held jointly and severally liable for the costs of any mitigation. Section 4 requires the office of future of work to present recommendations as a result of the adoption of the permitting rules to the general assembly in January 2028.(Note: This summary applies to this bill as introduced.)  3/28/2024 Senate Committee on Agriculture & Natural Resources Postpone Indefinitely
 Monitor Monitor  Q1: Describe the general impacts of the bill on Arapahoe County (Please do not summarize the bill language).
Monitor: Thu, February 22, 2024, by Ron Carl (rcarl@arapahoegov.com)
This bill will phase out the granting of new oil and gas drilling permits, so that no new permits can be granted after 2029. This may ultimately have impacts on PWD in terms of a reduction in workload, and also may have a long-term impact on the amount of severance and property taxes the County receives from oil and gas operations.

Q2: Describe the impacts of the bill on the County’s operations and the provision of public services.
Monitor: Thu, February 22, 2024, by Ron Carl (rcarl@arapahoegov.com)


Q3: In as much specificity as possible, please estimate the fiscal impacts of the bill on the County. Does the bill adequately fund the demands it places on the County?
Monitor: Thu, February 22, 2024, by Ron Carl (rcarl@arapahoegov.com)


Q4: If you selected amend, what specific changes would be needed to make the legislation better for the County?
Monitor: Thu, February 22, 2024, by Ron Carl (rcarl@arapahoegov.com)


Q1: Describe the general impacts of the bill on Arapahoe County (Please do not summarize the bill language).
Monitor: Thu, February 29, 2024, by Bryan Weimer (bweimer@arapahoegov.com)
As limitation on ECMC permits begin in 2028, we could start seeing a number of permits applications submitted prior to this date to meet the restriction deadlines. As such, we speculate that impacts to could be the need for additional staff time to monitor the amount of well permits being issued so we process them in accordance to regulations and place any conditions of approval that operations must commence by 12-31-2-32 and staff time to monitor compliance for all well pads in question. In addition, there could be additional staff time necessary to stay in compliance.

Q2: Describe the impacts of the bill on the County’s operations and the provision of public services.
Monitor: Thu, February 29, 2024, by Bryan Weimer (bweimer@arapahoegov.com)
Depending on the amount of wells in question, we may or may not need additional FTE staff to track and monitor well pad activity for compliance with state law. Impact to provision of public service: means energy specialist staff have less time to address community concerns because of the additional time tracking well pad activity. In addition, it could affect the rules/regulations we are currently writing for an inspection program. I suspect if passed, certain groups will pressure the Board to ban O&G drilling now stating that it will be banned in 2030, so why shouldn't the County ban it now. Also, this Bill would have an interaction w/ HB24-1330 as there are either restrictions or more requirement of wells from a air quality perspective in non-attainment areas such as Lowry Ranch.

Q3: In as much specificity as possible, please estimate the fiscal impacts of the bill on the County. Does the bill adequately fund the demands it places on the County?
Monitor: Thu, February 29, 2024, by Bryan Weimer (bweimer@arapahoegov.com)
Potentially the cost of additional PWD employee(s) under the Energy Specialist tasked with tracking and monitoring well pad activity. Don’t see any funding language in the bill so no, doesn’t look like state is going to compensate for additional staff monitoring. Furthermore, over time there would be a reduction in revenue from O&G, but that is currently relatively small - 2023 Budget ( $1.718M Prop Tax Rev, $187.9K Severence Tax)

Q4: If you selected amend, what specific changes would be needed to make the legislation better for the County?
Monitor: Thu, February 29, 2024, by Bryan Weimer (bweimer@arapahoegov.com)
We recommend Monitor, but realize that it has the potential to place a large burden of monitoring and tracking well pads on County staff to ensure they are meeting these requirements. Also, if the County wants to advocate for air quality, a “support” position could be an option.

 

Fiscal Note 

NOT ON CALENDAR
SB24-165Air Quality Improvements K. Priola | L. Cutter (D) / M. Rutinel (D) | L. Garcia (D) Energy/Environment Monitor  On or before December 31, 2028, the bill requires the air quality control commission (AQCC) in the department of public health and environment (department) to adopt by rule certain emission standards and requirements for in-use, off-road, diesel-fueled fleets. On or before December 31, 2025, the AQCC must adopt rules for controlling emissions from facilities, buildings, structures, installations, or real property that generates mobile source activity that results in emissions of air pollutants (indirect source) within the 8-hour ozone Denver metro/north front range nonattainment area (covered nonattainment area). The rules must include emission reduction targets for indirect sources to achieve and a process for the division of administration (division) in the department to review alternative approaches proposed by an owner or operator of an indirect source. The commission may establish a fee for indirect sources within the covered nonattainment area to cover the division's costs in implementing the rules. The bill also defines "ozone season" as the period beginning May 1 and ending September 30 of each year (ozone season). Beginning in the 2025 ozone season, and in each ozone season thereafter, any oil and gas preproduction activity within the covered nonattainment area must pause for the duration of the ozone season. On or before June 30, 2024, and on or before each June 30 thereafter, an oil and gas operator in the state is required to submit an oil and natural gas annual emission inventory report (inventory report) to the division that includes, for the previous calendar year, the emissions of certain air pollutants from oil and gas operations under the control of the oil and gas operator. On or before October 1, 2024, and on or before each October 1 thereafter, the division, in coordination with the energy and carbon management commission (ECMC), must prepare a report regarding the inventory reports received by the division for the previous calendar year and certain other information. On or before November 30, 2024, and on or before each November 30 thereafter, for the ozone season of the subsequent year, an oil and gas operator that controls oil and gas operations in the covered nonattainment area must submit a report to the division estimating emissions of nitrogen oxides from the oil and gas operator's operations in the covered nonattainment area (estimates). For the 2025 ozone season, and for each ozone season thereafter, the ECMC, in consultation with the division, must develop an ozone season nitrogen oxides emission budget (budget) for the emissions of nitrogen oxides by oil and gas operations in the covered nonattainment area, which budget must set certain maximum average emission levels of nitrogen oxides by oil and gas operations. On or before February 1, 2025, and on or before each February 1 thereafter, the division must prepare a nitrogen oxides report regarding the estimates received by the division for use by the ECMC in determining if the total estimates received exceed the budget for the ozone season of the current year. Beginning in February 2025, and in each February thereafter, the ECMC, in consultation with the division, must act to limit emissions of nitrogen oxides from oil and gas operations in the covered nonattainment area in a manner that prevents an exceedance of the current year's budget. The bill also requires the department of transportation to establish vehicle miles traveled reduction targets for the covered nonattainment area and to develop policies and programs to assist applicable metropolitan planning organizations in meeting the targets. (Note: This summary applies to this bill as introduced.)  5/2/2024 Senate Committee on Finance Postpone Indefinitely
  Monitor  Q1: Describe the general impacts of the bill on Arapahoe County (Please do not summarize the bill language).
Monitor: Thu, February 29, 2024, by Ron Carl (rcarl@arapahoegov.com)
This bill requires the Air Quality Control Commission to establish rules to regulate and reduce emissions from certain types of infrastructure including roads and highways, parking lots and residential and commercial development, among other things.

Q2: Describe the impacts of the bill on the County’s operations and the provision of public services.
Monitor: Thu, February 29, 2024, by Ron Carl (rcarl@arapahoegov.com)


Q3: In as much specificity as possible, please estimate the fiscal impacts of the bill on the County. Does the bill adequately fund the demands it places on the County?
Monitor: Thu, February 29, 2024, by Ron Carl (rcarl@arapahoegov.com)


Q4: If you selected amend, what specific changes would be needed to make the legislation better for the County?
Monitor: Thu, February 29, 2024, by Ron Carl (rcarl@arapahoegov.com)


Q1: Describe the general impacts of the bill on Arapahoe County (Please do not summarize the bill language).
Amend: Sat, March 02, 2024, by Bryan Weimer (bweimer@arapahoegov.com)
The Bill would prohibit O&G production activity during ozone season and also regulate “in-use, off-road, diesel-fueled fleet” vehicles. That second provision seems aimed at vehicles related to O&G production but we interpret the definition would also apply to graders and other large vehicles we use in Road & Bridge, as well as contractors construction projects. This Bill describes “OFF-ROAD DIESEL-FUELED FLEET” – would a loader or other construction equipment qualify since it is utilized both on and off road, so some clarification would be helpful? We assume a tandem/plow truck would be exempt since it is used on-road, but clarification to ensure that is correct? I did not see construction equipment listed, but agricultural and recreational equipment is listed specifically. One could argue that the state should also increase the free ride program for transit to 5 months if they are addressing this industry impact.

Q2: Describe the impacts of the bill on the County’s operations and the provision of public services.
Amend: Sat, March 02, 2024, by Bryan Weimer (bweimer@arapahoegov.com)
This Bill would impact our equipment and that of contractors, as such it would be a concern during the peak construction timeframe ,by delaying projects, shortening construction season, etc. I based the fiscal impact below on replacing all units “both on-road and off-road” as I am not aware of the cost nor feasibility of “retrofits” or “repowering” units as provided as an option in the Bill. Also, FFM may have an issue finding a vendor to provide “renewable diesel”. While staff has heard of this product, they have not seen it readily available in the retail market, and they are unsure about the wholesale market. Overall, due to financial constraints, some equipment units may not be able to be replaced by December 31, 2028. As such, these units may be decommissioned and/or disposed of, but not replaced resulting in less equipment to service the County with which could impact general road maintenance and winter maintenance programs such as plowing snow.

Q3: In as much specificity as possible, please estimate the fiscal impacts of the bill on the County. Does the bill adequately fund the demands it places on the County?
Amend: Sat, March 02, 2024, by Bryan Weimer (bweimer@arapahoegov.com)
If O&G production is paused during the summer (if not electrical drill and fracturing), annual production and tax revenues will be reduced (though the total revenue over time may remain the same – same amount of oil extracted, just over more years). Depending on interpretation of the requirements, Arapahoe County Road and Bride has nine (9) units that were manufactured under either tier 1, 2, or 3 standards. The estimated cost to replace all units is $3.5M. Auction values for dispositioned equipment will likely be much less for units that fall within tier 1-3. While the fiscal impact is difficult to predict, it’s reasonable to assume at least 50% to 75% decrease in value since these units will likely need to be relocated outside of Colorado for future use. County contractors would likely be impacted, which would potentially increase contract cost for various services. The cost of diesel will likely increase based on the proposed measures within the Oil and Gas industry. The cost for asphalt will likely increase as well resulting in higher cost for maintenance and construction projects. This cost would increase in out years. Also, if this affects construction equipment then our construction project productivity, plus costs will be affected. Expanding that to the private sector, our revenue for new development would be delayed.

Q4: If you selected amend, what specific changes would be needed to make the legislation better for the County?
Amend: Sat, March 02, 2024, by Bryan Weimer (bweimer@arapahoegov.com)
We recommend Amend at this time. Furthermore, we have pointed out where are some clarification that could be helpful as to what equipment this applies to. Extend the deadline from December 31, 2028, to December 31, 2030. This would provide additional time for planning and implementation if our construction equipment is targeted. Consider an exemption for construction related equipment to be consistent with the exemption provided for agricultural and recreational equipment. Also, consideration should be given to equipment usage. Many times communities have equipment to meet a specific function but is only utilized periodically. It would be unreasonable and financially infeasible for jurisdictions have to purchase a piece of new equipment that is only used periodically. Finally, in my opinion a better measure for reduction targets that CDOT is charged to develop would be VHT than VMT.

 

Fiscal Note 

NOT ON CALENDAR
SB24-174Sustainable Affordable Housing Assistance B. Kirkmeyer (R) | R. Zenzinger / S. Bird (D) | R. Pugliese (R) Housing/Land Use Monitor The act requires the executive director of the department of local affairs (director), no later than December 31, 2024, to develop reasonable methodologies for conducting statewide, regional, and local housing needs assessments and reasonable guidance for a local government to identify areas at elevated risk of displacement. The act requires the director, no later than November 30, 2027, and every 6 years thereafter, to conduct a statewide housing needs assessment that analyzes existing and future statewide housing needs and to publish a report, based on the statewide housing needs assessment and regional and local housing needs assessments accepted by the department, identifying current housing stock and estimating statewide housing needs. The act requires each local government, beginning December 31, 2026, to conduct and publish a local housing needs assessment. The act outlines the process for a local government conducting a local housing needs assessment and for determining when a local government is exempt from conducting a local housing needs assessment. The act requires local governments to submit local housing needs assessments to the department of local affairs (department), which shall publish those assessments on the department's website. Relatedly, the act allows a regional entity to conduct a regional housing needs assessment. If a regional entity conducts a regional housing needs assessment, the act requires the regional entity to submit the assessment both to each local government in the region and to the department, which shall publish those assessments on the department's website. A housing action plan is an advisory document that demonstrates a local government's commitment to address housing needs and that guides a local government in developing legislative actions, promoting regional coordination, and informing the public of the local government's efforts to address housing needs in the local government's jurisdiction. The act requires a local government with a population of either 5,000 or more or 1,000 or more if the local government either participated in a regional housing needs assessment or is a rural resort community to make a housing action plan no later than January 1, 2028, and every 6 years thereafter. The act identifies the specific elements that a housing action plan must include, explains how a local government may update a housing action plan, requires a local government to report its progress in implementing the plan to the department, and requires a local government to submit a housing action plan to the department, which shall publish each accepted housing action plan on the department's website. The act requires the director to develop, by no later than June 30, 2025: A standard affordability strategies directory; A long-term affordability strategies directory; and A displacement risk mitigation strategies directory. The act establishes the minimum required elements for all three directory types. The act also requires the director to submit a statewide strategic growth report to the general assembly no later than October 31, 2025, and develop and publish, in consultation with relevant state agencies, a natural land and agricultural interjurisdictional opportunities report no later than December 31, 2025. The act requires the division of local government (division) to provide technical assistance and guidance through a grant program, the provision of consultant services, or both to aid local governments in: Establishing regional entities; Creating local and regional housing needs assessments; Conducting a displacement risk analysis with a state-created tool; Identifying and implementing strategies included in the standard affordability strategies directory, long-term affordability strategies directory, or displacement risk mitigation strategies directory; Making and adopting a housing action plan; Enacting laws and policies that encourage the development of a range of housing types, including regulated affordable housing, or mitigate the impact of displacement; and Creating strategic growth elements in master plans. The act creates the continuously appropriated housing needs planning technical assistance fund to contain the money necessary for the division to provide this technical assistance and guidance. The act requires the state treasurer to transfer $10.5 million from the local government severance tax fund and $4.5 million from the local government mineral impact fund to this fund. Further, the act directs the division to serve as a clearing house for the benefit of local governments and regional entities in accomplishing the goals of the act. The division shall report on the assistance requested and provided under the act. On and after December 1, 2027, for any grant program conducted by the department, the Colorado energy office, the office of economic development, the department of transportation, the department of natural resources, the department of public health and environment, or the department of personnel and administration that awards grants to local governments for the primary purpose of supporting land use planning or housing, the act requires the awarding entity to prioritize awarding grants to a local government that: Has completed and filed a housing needs assessment; Has adopted a housing action plan that has been accepted by the department; Has reported progress to the department regarding the adoption of any strategies or changes to local laws identified in the housing action plan; and Is the subject of a master plan that includes a water supply element and a strategic growth element. In the case of a local government that is not required to do any of the above, the department is required to prioritize that local government in the same way that it prioritizes a local government that has done all of the above. On or before June 30, 2025, the act requires the department to designate criteria for the designation of a neighborhood center by a local government. If a local government designates a neighborhood center, the local government must submit a report to the department describing the neighborhood center. Furthermore, on or after December 31, 2026, the act requires certain grant programs to prioritize projects supporting or concerning neighborhood centers. The act modifies the requirements of both county and municipal master plans so that those master plans must include: A narrative description of the procedure used for the development and adoption of the master plan; No later than December 31, 2026, a water supply element; and No later than December 31, 2026, a strategic growth element. The water supply element in a county or municipal master plan must identify the general location and extent of an adequate and suitable supply of water, identify supplies and facilities sufficient to meet the needs of local infrastructure, and include water conservation policies. The strategic growth element in a master plan must include: A description of existing and potential policies and tools to promote strategic growth and prevent sprawl; An analysis of vacant and underutilized sites and the use of those sites for the development of housing; and An analysis of underdeveloped sites that are not adjacent to developed land for the use of those sites for residential use. The act requires both counties and municipalities to submit their master plan and any separately approved water or strategic growth element to the division for the division's review. The act prohibits a unit owners' association of a common interest community from, through any declaration or bylaw, rules, or regulation adopted or amended by an association on or after July 1, 2024, prohibiting or restricting the construction of accessory dwelling units or middle housing if the zoning laws of the association's local jurisdiction would otherwise allow such construction. For the 2024-25 state fiscal year, $583,864 is appropriated, from reappropriated funds received from the department of local affairs from the housing needs planning technical assistance fund, to the office of the governor for use by the office of information technology to provide information technology services for the department of local affairs for the implementation of the act. APPROVED by Governor May 30, 2024 EFFECTIVE May 30, 2024(Note: This summary applies to this bill as enacted.)  5/31/2024 Governor Signed
  Amend  Q1: Describe the general impacts of the bill on Arapahoe County (Please do not summarize the bill language).
Amend: Wed, March 06, 2024, by Kathy Smith (KSmith@arapahoegov.com)
This bill would require the county to complete a local housing needs assessment every 6 years as well as to submit to the state a local housing action plan every 6 years.

Q2: Describe the impacts of the bill on the County’s operations and the provision of public services.
Amend: Wed, March 06, 2024, by Kathy Smith (KSmith@arapahoegov.com)
At this time, the county already completes a housing needs assessment every 5 years as required by HUD. The housing action plan would be a new requirement. The county would also look to participate in the regional housing needs assessments, which would be new. These new assessments and plans could assist the counties and our region in making data informed decisions and goals related to housing needs in our area.

Q3: In as much specificity as possible, please estimate the fiscal impacts of the bill on the County. Does the bill adequately fund the demands it places on the County?
Amend: Wed, March 06, 2024, by Kathy Smith (KSmith@arapahoegov.com)
This could require additional staff time to complete these additional plans and assessments, but we do not believe it to be cost prohibitive to us.

Q4: If you selected amend, what specific changes would be needed to make the legislation better for the County?
Amend: Wed, March 06, 2024, by Kathy Smith (KSmith@arapahoegov.com)
The current bill requires local housing needs assessments and plans to be completed "every 6 years". This language would eventually put us out of compliance or would require us to do an additional plan in the future, as we are currently doing these every 5 years. We would like to continue to do these every 5 years and would recommend the language be amended to say "no more than every 6 years thereafter".

Q1: Describe the general impacts of the bill on Arapahoe County (Please do not summarize the bill language).
Support: Thu, March 07, 2024, by Ron Carl (RCarl@arapahoegov.com)
This bill is largely consistent with affordable housing strategies that the County has supported, and with the CCI white papers.

Q2: Describe the impacts of the bill on the County’s operations and the provision of public services.
Support: Thu, March 07, 2024, by Ron Carl (RCarl@arapahoegov.com)


Q3: In as much specificity as possible, please estimate the fiscal impacts of the bill on the County. Does the bill adequately fund the demands it places on the County?
Support: Thu, March 07, 2024, by Ron Carl (RCarl@arapahoegov.com)


Q4: If you selected amend, what specific changes would be needed to make the legislation better for the County?
Support: Thu, March 07, 2024, by Ron Carl (RCarl@arapahoegov.com)


Q1: Describe the general impacts of the bill on Arapahoe County (Please do not summarize the bill language).
Amend: Sat, March 16, 2024, by Bryan Weimer (BWeimer@arapahoegov.com)
On or before, December 31, 2026, the county would need to conduct and publish a local housing needs assessment using methodology published by DOLA (methodology will be published by December 31, 2024; DOLA’s statewide HNA would be published by November 30, 2027). We would also have to publish the HNA every six years. Using the HNA, local governments are required to adopt a housing action plan by January 1, 2028 (and no less than every six years thereafter). The local government must also report progress on the HAP to DOLA three years after adopting the plan. It requires the Board of County Commissioners to approve master plans, not just the Planning Commission. It requires the county to consider plans adopted by the state (state HNA, water supply study, natural land and agricultural priorities report, and the Colorado Water Plan). Does HUD have a definition of “middle income”? if not delete Page 9, Line 9.

Q2: Describe the impacts of the bill on the County’s operations and the provision of public services.
Amend: Sat, March 16, 2024, by Bryan Weimer (BWeimer@arapahoegov.com)
On or before, December 31, 2026, the county would need to conduct and publish a local housing needs assessment using methodology published by DOLA (methodology will be published by December 31, 2024; DOLA’s statewide HNA would be published by November 30, 2027). We would also have to publish the HNA every six years. Using the HNA, local governments are required to adopt a housing action plan by January 1, 2028 (and no less than every six years thereafter). The local government must also report progress on the HAP to DOLA three years after adopting the plan. It requires the Board of County Commissioners to approve master plans, not just the Planning Commission. It requires the county to consider plans adopted by the state (state HNA, water supply study, natural land and agricultural priorities report, and the Colorado Water Plan). Does HUD have a definition of “middle income”? if not delete Page 9, Line 9.

Q3: In as much specificity as possible, please estimate the fiscal impacts of the bill on the County. Does the bill adequately fund the demands it places on the County?
Amend: Sat, March 16, 2024, by Bryan Weimer (BWeimer@arapahoegov.com)
The bill prioritizes grant program funding (including those from CDOT) to communities that have a housing needs assessment, a housing action plan, completed reports to the state, and has a master plan including water and strategic growth. So if we don’t do the things required by the bill, we’ll be a lower priority for grants. It places the HNA and HAP unfunded mandates on us. On the plus side, it does require the Division of Local Government to provide technical assistance on matters related to HNA/HAP to local governments (and provides some funding for that assistance). There appears to be not enough resources to go around ($15M), especially regarding housing needs assessments, and probably enough consultant capacity already.

Q4: If you selected amend, what specific changes would be needed to make the legislation better for the County?
Amend: Sat, March 16, 2024, by Bryan Weimer (BWeimer@arapahoegov.com)
This bill has an ongoing fiscal impact by requiring ongoing updating on plans and report, if those requirements could be reduced or minimized would be preferred. Wherever the bill requires reports “every 6 years thereafter” should be changed so that it’s no more than six years of gap between reports (we should be able to do one in five years if that works for us). The bill allows a regional entity like DRCOG to produce a regional housing needs assessment; if they do, each local government can comment on the regional HNA after holding a public hearing and the regional entity would share those comments with the state. Recommended change would be an option to allow local governments to opt-in/support the regional HNA and allow it to serve as their HNA (this may save us time/money – we could chip in for DRCOG’s study rather than paying our own separate consultant), if it meets the intent of HUD. Delete “Middle Income” if not a HUD definition - Page 9, Line 9.

 

Fiscal Note 

Wednesday, May 8 2024
THIRD READING OF BILLS - FINAL PASSAGE
(17) in house calendar.  
SB24-200Equity, Diversity, & Inclusion in Child Welfare D. Michaelson Jenet (D) | J. Coleman (D) / J. Bacon (D) | J. Joseph (D) Human Services Support The act creates multiple ways to promote equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) in Colorado's child welfare system. The state department of human services (department) is directed to work with county departments of human or social services to: Update the existing annual departmental EDI report using state data sources and national child welfare data clearinghouses; Identify necessary demographic or other data that is not currently collected in Colorado's child welfare case management system (management system) and determine recommendations for improving data collection statewide; Identify additional necessary demographic or other data about children, families, and people working in the child welfare that is not currently collected in the management system, the child welfare worker training system, or other components and data systems of the child welfare system, and, in collaboration with counties, determine internal or external processes and make recommendations for improving data collection and reporting statewide; Provide a report on the state's progress in addressing data collection and data entry challenges in the management system; Provide a report on the state's progress in training child welfare staff on demographic data collection; Report on the state's progress in training the child welfare workforce in reducing bias and in promoting EDI, and on progress in the training's alignment with current research and best practices in promoting EDI. The department shall strengthen EDI training for child welfare staff and management. The act requires the department to provide recommendations for training requirements for other child welfare agencies and to offer specific EDI training for mandatory reporters to address disparities in reporting in Colorado's child welfare system. APPROVED by Governor June 6, 2024 EFFECTIVE August 7, 2024(Note: This summary applies to this bill as enacted.)  6/6/2024 Governor Signed
  Support  Q1: Describe the general impacts of the bill on Arapahoe County (Please do not summarize the bill language).
Support: Tue, April 09, 2024, by Cheryl Ternes (Cternes@arapahoegov.com)
This bill will allow for transparency to county residents, by ensuring county human services/child welfare programs ability to collect, document and report out on the extent of child welfare system involvement by demographics of our clients. This will ensure that disproportionality and inequities can be properly be identified and addressed. It will also ensure the Division of Child Welfare at the Colorado Department of Human Services and the Child Welfare Training System, do their part to ensure that child welfare staff/agencies are properly trained to inquire, identify, document and provide services that are consistent with DEI best practices. This bill will also ensure that mandated reporters receive proper training to reduce implicit bias and the over-reporting of children and families of color, disability, and LGBTQ+.

Q2: Describe the impacts of the bill on the County’s operations and the provision of public services.
Support: Tue, April 09, 2024, by Cheryl Ternes (Cternes@arapahoegov.com)
This bill will positively impact county operations by giving child welfare staff the tools they need to properly collect and document all demographics on the clients we serve, receive the necessary training to reduce implicit bias, and to ensure all cases decisions are made with a lens of diversity, equity and inclusion. This will reduce implicit bias and therefore the over-representation of children and their families by race, disability, non-English speaking, and sexual orientation/gender identity and expression. This will reduce disproportionality and inequity. This bill will also ensure counties receive evaluations of our policies, procedures, and practices so that we can continue our efforts to ensure we provide diverse, equitable and inclusive services, resources, and engage in such, regarding our child welfare practice.

Q3: In as much specificity as possible, please estimate the fiscal impacts of the bill on the County. Does the bill adequately fund the demands it places on the County?
Support: Tue, April 09, 2024, by Cheryl Ternes (Cternes@arapahoegov.com)
No fiscal impact. We are able to accommodate the training requirements within our existing budget if the State were not to be able to pay for training. There is no cost to counties in the changes necessary to our Statewide Automated Child Welfare Information System.

Q4: If you selected amend, what specific changes would be needed to make the legislation better for the County?
Support: Tue, April 09, 2024, by Cheryl Ternes (Cternes@arapahoegov.com)


Q1: Describe the general impacts of the bill on Arapahoe County (Please do not summarize the bill language).
Support: Wed, April 10, 2024, by Cheryl Ternes (Cternes@arapahoegov.com)
This bill will allow for transparency to county residents, by ensuring county human services/child welfare programs ability to collect, document and report out on the extent of child welfare system involvement by demographics of our clients. This will ensure that disproportionality and inequities can be properly be identified and addressed. It will also ensure the Division of Child Welfare at the Colorado Department of Human Services and the Child Welfare Training System, do their part to ensure that child welfare staff/agencies are properly trained to inquire, identify, document and provide services that are consistent with DEI best practices. This bill will also ensure that mandated reporters receive proper training to reduce implicit bias and the over-reporting of children and families of color, disability, and LGBTQ+.

Q2: Describe the impacts of the bill on the County’s operations and the provision of public services.
Support: Wed, April 10, 2024, by Cheryl Ternes (Cternes@arapahoegov.com)
This bill will positively impact county operations by giving child welfare staff the tools they need to properly collect and document all demographics on the clients we serve, receive the necessary training to reduce implicit bias, and to ensure all cases decisions are made with a lens of diversity, equity and inclusion. This will reduce implicit bias and therefore the over-representation of children and their families by race, disability, non-English speaking, and sexual orientation/gender identity and expression. This will reduce disproportionality and inequity. This bill will also ensure counties receive evaluations of our policies, procedures, and practices so that we can continue our efforts to ensure we provide diverse, equitable and inclusive services, resources, and engage in such, regarding our child welfare practice.

Q3: In as much specificity as possible, please estimate the fiscal impacts of the bill on the County. Does the bill adequately fund the demands it places on the County?
Support: Wed, April 10, 2024, by Cheryl Ternes (Cternes@arapahoegov.com)
No fiscal impact. We are able to accommodate the training requirements within our existing budget if the State were not to be able to pay for training. There is no cost to counties in the changes necessary to our Statewide Automated Child Welfare Information System.

Q4: If you selected amend, what specific changes would be needed to make the legislation better for the County?
Support: Wed, April 10, 2024, by Cheryl Ternes (Cternes@arapahoegov.com)


 

Fiscal Note 

NOT ON CALENDAR
SB24-210Modifications to Laws Regarding Elections S. Fenberg | B. Pelton (R) / E. Sirota (D) General Government Monitor The act modifies the "Uniform Election Code of 1992", (code) the law regarding initiatives and referendums, the "Fair Campaign Practices Act", the public official disclosure requirements of the "Colorado Sunshine Act of 1972", and other laws regarding elections. The act modifies the code as follows: Regarding elections generally, specifies that the county clerk and recorder, as the chief election official for the county, sets the operational hours of the clerk and recorder's office and specifies that the governing board of a county or city and county is not authorized to supervise the conduct of regular and special elections or to consult with election officials in regard to conducting elections and rendering decisions and interpretations under the code; Regarding the qualification and registration of electors, beginning January 1, 2025, changes the age at which an individual may preregister to vote from 16 to 15 years old; Regarding political party organization, specifies that when a state senatorial district or state representative district is comprised of one or more whole counties or of a part of one county and all or a part of one or more other counties, a state senatorial central committee or a state representative central committee consists of the elected precinct committee persons, as well as the chairpersons, vice-chairpersons, and secretary of the several party county central committees, who reside within the state senatorial district or the state representative district; Regarding access to the ballot by candidates, specifies that the law prohibiting a candidate who was defeated in a primary election from participating in a general election does not apply to a candidate for president of the United States; allows the governor to designate a location other than the office of the governor for the presidential electors to convene if the governor determines that it is not feasible to meet in the office of the governor; makes the deadlines for a candidate to file a petition in a congressional vacancy election consistent with other deadlines; makes the general timeline for circulating petitions to get on the ballot applicable to presidential electors for unaffiliated presidential candidates; beginning January 1, 2025, aligns the minor political party candidate petition calendar with the major political party candidate petition calendar; clarifies that an unaffiliated candidate for president of the United States is exempt from the requirement that a candidate be registered as unaffiliated with a political party in the statewide voter registration system prior to the general election; beginning January 1, 2025, requires a candidate or candidate committee, recall committee, or representative of a minority party petition to submit a paid circulator report, if applicable, to the secretary of state (secretary); and modifies the timing for a candidate to cure a nominating petition signature deficiency; Regarding notice and preparation of elections, requires the secretary to administer a pilot program that allows the county clerk and recorder or designated election official (clerk) of a county with at least 10,000 but fewer than 37,500 active electors and with at least 3 cities or towns where the second and third largest cities or towns that are located entirely within the county both have less than 3% of the active electors in the county, to request a waiver of the requirement to designate 3 voter service and polling centers (VSPC) on election day and instead designate at least 2 VSPCs on election day; repeals an obsolete provision specifying data to be used to determine the number of students enrolled at an institution of higher education during the COVID-19 pandemic; specifies that for a general election, a county shall establish a drop box on each campus of an institution of higher education located within the county that has 1,000, rather than 2,000, or more enrolled students; clarifies that each clerk is required to ensure that primary election ballots are printed in accordance with existing law; repeals obsolete language regarding voting equipment; updates several provisions regarding the use of voting systems to align with current practice; requires the secretary to approve or deny an application from a political subdivision to purchase a new electromechanical voting system within 30 days of receiving the application; modifies the standards for accessible voting systems to align with federal standards; and repeals obsolete language regarding direct recording electronic voting systems; Regarding election judges, changes the deadline by which the county chairperson of each major political party in a county is required to certify to the clerk the names and addresses of registered electors recommended to serve as election judges in the county and implements an appeal process for an election judge who is preemptively removed as an election judge by the county chairperson or authorized official; Regarding the conduct of elections, allows a registered elector who will not have been a Colorado resident for at least 22 days immediately before a presidential general election to cast a provisional ballot, which includes only a vote for president and vice president, in that election; extends the deadline for the secretary to adopt rules concerning the tabulation, reporting, and canvassing of results for a coordinated election using instant runoff voting conducted by multiple counties from January 1, 2025, to January 1, 2026; updates provisions regarding voting machines and the inspection of voting machines by election judges; repeals obsolete provisions regarding sample ballots, the seal on voting machines, the manner of voting by eligible electors, the counting of write-in ballots, and how voting system software is installed; clarifies that the secretary will conduct a random audit of voting devices only if a risk-limiting audit is not possible after an election; and extends the deadlines for the secretary to promulgate rules necessary to conduct risk limiting audits in an election using instant runoff voting and for a county to audit an election using instant runoff voting conducted as part of a coordinated election from January 1, 2025, to January 1, 2026; Regarding mail ballot elections, allows a clerk to request a waiver from the secretary of state exempting the county from the remote location drop box ballot collection requirements and specifies alternative collection requirements if a waiver is granted; specifies the conditions under which an elector may request a replacement ballot from the clerk; modifies the time by which an elector must request a replacement ballot from the clerk; and repeals obsolete provisions that direct clerks how to count ballots that are cast on electronic or electromechanical vote tabulating equipment; Regarding recounts, repeals obsolete provisions regarding recounts in nonpartisan local elections and clarifies who has standing to request a recount challenge; Regarding certificates of election and election contests, repeals obsolete language regarding the election of precinct officers and duplicative language regarding the resolution of tie votes and specifies that a contest concerning a presidential elector must be filed with the supreme court no later than 24 days after the general election and specifies the deadline for the supreme court to rule on such a contest; and Regarding recall elections, modifies the deadline for filing a nomination petition for a candidate to succeed an officer who is sought to be recalled. The act further modifies the code to specify that regarding the use of an all-candidate primary election or a ranked voting method in a primary or general election, it is the general assembly's intent that a general statutory provision with a later effective date prevails over a specific statutory provision with an earlier effective date. In addition, the act specifies that before a designated election official may conduct an all-candidate primary election using an all-candidate primary ballot and before a primary or general election can use a ranked voting method for federal or state offices, the secretary must certify that: Multiple municipalities in counties of specified sizes with active electors that satisfy certain demographic criteria have conducted an election with a ranked voting method; Each municipality that has conduced an election with a ranked voting method has completed a risk-limiting audit that demonstrates that the certified outcomes in each race were accurate; and The secretary has submitted a report to the general assembly regarding the impact of ranked choice voting methods as compared to elections conducted through other voting methods. The provisions of the act regarding an all-candidate primary election and the use of ranked voting methods take effect March 1, 2026. The act modifies the law regarding initiatives and referendums by repealing an obsolete provision regarding filing a paid circulator report with the secretary and by repealing obsolete language regarding the effective date of the bills enacted during the 2020 legislative session that included an act subject to petition clause. The act modifies the "Fair Campaign Practices Act" as follows: Prohibits a natural person who is not a citizen of the United States, a foreign government, or a foreign corporation from making a direct ballot issue or ballot question expenditure in connection with an election on a ballot issue or ballot question in the state; Specifies that a candidate seeking reelection does not have to file an additional disclosure statement filed pursuant to current law if the incumbent has filed the annual report required by law within the last 30 days from which the incumbent becomes a candidate for reelection; Clarifies that any person may file a complaint with the secretary of state about a candidate not complying with the disclosure statement requirements; and Requires a candidate for specified offices to amend the disclosure statement when there is a substantial change of interests as to which the disclosure is required. The act modifies the public official disclosure requirements specified in the "Colorado Sunshine Act of 1972" as follows: Requires that specified public officials file an annual disclosure statement with the secretary and amend the disclosure statement when there is a substantial change of interests as to which the disclosure is required; Requires specified public officials who are serving in office in the 2024 calendar year, but who have not filed an annual disclosure statement in the 2024 calendar year, to file a disclosure statement within a specified amount of time and requires the disclosure statements to be available on the secretary's website; Repeals a provision that allows a public official to file an income tax return with the secretary in lieu of filing certain information required in the disclosure statement; Allows any person who believes that a member of the general assembly is not complying with the public official's disclosure requirements to file a complaint with specified individuals, requires the secretary to notify the appropriate individuals if a member of the general assembly does not timely file the required annual disclosure statement, and requires an individual who receives a complaint to investigate the complaint using existing procedures. The act amends the "Colorado Open Records Act" to specify that if a clerk receives a request for election-related records that are in active use, in storage, or otherwise not readily available, and the request is made during an election for which the clerk is the designated election official, the clerk may take additional time to fulfill the request under certain circumstances; except that the allowance for additional time does not apply if the requester of the public records is a mass medium organization or a newsperson. The act adds clerk and recorders to the law specifying the office hours and required availability of county officials. The act amends Senate Bill 24-230, concerning support for statewide remediation services that positively impact the environment, to repeal the definition of "fee" applicable to section 20 of article X of the state constitution. These provisions of the act are contingent upon Senate Bill 24-230 being enacted and becoming law. The act modifies the county commissioner redistricting process to specify that staff working with the redistricting commission or the advisory committee assigned to assist the redistricting commission regarding the mapping of county commissioner districts may make a completed proposed redistricting plan that staff has prepared as a result of a request made in a public hearing available to the public on the commission's website. In addition, the act specifies that such staff may communicate with a member of the commission or advisory committee to clarify directions that were given to staff during a public meeting regarding the creation of a proposed plan, so long as staff makes a record of the communication available on the commission's website. The act makes the following appropriations for the 2024-25 state fiscal year: $10,444 to the department of revenue from the Colorado DRIVES vehicle services account in the highway users tax fund to implement the act; $1,888 to the office of the governor from reappropriated funds for use by the office of information technology to provide services to the department of revenue to implement the act; and $3,654 to the department of state from the department of state cash fund for use by the elections division to implement the act. APPROVED by Governor June 6, 2024 PORTIONS EFFECTIVE June 6, 2024 PORTIONS EFFECTIVE January 1, 2025 PORTIONS EFFECTIVE March 1, 2026(Note: This summary applies to this bill as enacted.)  6/6/2024 Governor Signed
    

Fiscal Note 

NOT ON CALENDAR
SB24-218Modernize Energy Distribution Systems C. Hansen (D) | S. Fenberg / M. Duran (D) | K. Brown (D) Energy/Environment Monitor The act requires the office of future of work to create a grant program, in coordination with the Colorado energy office, for lineworker apprenticeship programs (grant program). In connection with the grant program, the office of future of work must create a competitive application process and select apprenticeship programs that meet certain training and matching requirements. On July 1, 2024, the state treasurer must transfer $800,000 from the general fund to the Colorado lineworker apprenticeship grant program cash fund, which is created in the act, for the purposes of the grant program. The act also requires an investor-owned electric utility that serves 500,000 customers or more in the state (qualifying retail utility) to upgrade the qualifying retail utility's distribution systems as necessary to support the: Achievement of the state's beneficial and transportation electrification and decarbonization goals; and Implementation of federal, state, regional, and local air quality and decarbonization targets, standards, plans, and regulations (decarbonization targets and standards). In connection with these goals and decarbonization targets and standards, a qualifying retail utility is required to: Commence a data collection process to inform future energization timelines; Adopt certain cost caps; Propose to the public utilities commission (commission) the use of an optional flexible interconnection or energization tariff or phased interconnection or energization agreement by a customer as an alternative to system upgrades that would otherwise be required for interconnection or energization; and Establish a procedure for customers with a hybrid facility to complete the interconnection and energization process through a single application. A qualifying retail utility is required to identify interconnection and load hosting capacity for distributed energy resources for disproportionately impacted communities within its service territory. Prior to the establishment of a grid modernization adjustment clause, a qualifying retail utility shall recover forecasted investments placed into service and costs incurred for certain capital investment and operations and maintenance expenses (distribution activities) for a period of time ending on December 31, 2025. Recovery of the costs associated with the distribution activities must occur through the transmission cost adjustment clause or another existing adjustment clause, subject to certain conditions. Current law requires certain utilities to file a distribution system plan (plan) with the commission. The act also requires the plans of a qualifying retail utility to create sufficient hosting capacity across the qualifying retail utility's electrical distribution system to support the implementation of the decarbonization targets and standards and certain other laws, rules, plans, and policies. In developing a plan, a qualifying retail utility must consult with and provide opportunities to engage disproportionately impacted communities. As part of a plan proceeding, a qualifying retail utility is required to present at least 2 future planning scenarios with corresponding investments to show future different states of the distribution system. In evaluating a qualifying retail utility's plans, the commission must evaluate whether the plan satisfies certain criteria. In addition, the plan must include a performance-based framework, which must consist of certain specified components. A qualifying retail utility must include in the qualifying retail utility's plan an analysis of current and future qualified staffing levels necessary to comply with state laws regarding distribution system planning (adequate staffing levels). The commission must review whether each qualifying retail utility's plan has adequate staffing levels before the qualifying retail utility's plan may proceed. A qualifying retail utility must ensure that, in any projects undertaken to implement a plan, all labor is performed by the employees of the qualifying retail utility or by a contractor that meets certain labor requirements. The commission must open a rule-making, for a qualifying retail utility, to consider and establish rules regarding energization timelines; interconnection; interconnection, energization, and electrification of end uses; and maximum individual customer cost caps or fees. Subject to commission review and approval, a qualifying retail utility is required to recover certain projected costs related to distribution activities as part of the qualifying retail utility's plans. If the commission finds that the distribution activities benefit or advance the decarbonization targets and standards or state energy policy goals, recovery of the costs must occur through the grid modernization adjustment clause. For distribution system activities that do not benefit or advance the decarbonization targets and standards or state energy policy goals, recovery of the costs may occur through the grid modernization adjustment clause if the qualifying retail utility meets the criteria established in the performance-based framework in the qualifying retail utility's approved plan. A qualifying retail utility is required to make an annual grid modernization adjustment clause advice letter filing with the commission no later than November 1 of each year with an effective date of January 1 of the subsequent year. No later than February 1, 2025, a qualifying retail utility is required to create and file with the commission an application to implement a virtual power plant program, including a tariff for performance-based compensation for a qualified virtual power plant. The virtual power plant program and tariff must include and implement certain requirements. A qualifying retail utility may apply to recover certain business costs to facilitate a virtual power plant program through the grid modernization adjustment clause. By January 1, 2025, a qualifying retail utility is required to file a plan with the commission to implement programs for the undergrounding of utility distribution infrastructure (undergrounding) in nonfranchised areas of the qualifying retail utility in the state using 1% of the area's gross electric revenues from the prior year. A qualifying retail utility must also consider the public benefit of undergrounding and other community benefit investments in its plans. For the 2024-25 state fiscal year, $420,500 is appropriated from the public utilities commission fixed utility fund to the department of regulatory agencies for use by the commission as follows: $382,670 for personal services; and $37,830 for operating expenses. APPROVED by Governor May 22, 2024 EFFECTIVE May 22, 2024(Note: This summary applies to this bill as enacted.)  5/22/2024 Governor Signed
    Q1: Describe the general impacts of the bill on Arapahoe County (Please do not summarize the bill language).
No Effect: Sat, April 27, 2024, by Ron Carl (rcarl@arapahoegov.com)


Q2: Describe the impacts of the bill on the County’s operations and the provision of public services.
No Effect: Sat, April 27, 2024, by Ron Carl (rcarl@arapahoegov.com)


Q3: In as much specificity as possible, please estimate the fiscal impacts of the bill on the County. Does the bill adequately fund the demands it places on the County?
No Effect: Sat, April 27, 2024, by Ron Carl (rcarl@arapahoegov.com)


Q4: If you selected amend, what specific changes would be needed to make the legislation better for the County?
No Effect: Sat, April 27, 2024, by Ron Carl (rcarl@arapahoegov.com)


Q1: Describe the general impacts of the bill on Arapahoe County (Please do not summarize the bill language).
Amend: Tue, April 30, 2024, by Bryan Weimer (bweimer@arapahoegov.com)
This bill limits the provisions to a for profit investor owned electrical utility to address the demands being placed on the electrical grid with enacted electrification (transportation, decarbonization, etc.). I would think that COOP utilities would be impacted by the same legislation as well. It seems that many of the provisions allowing for the utility to recoup their capital costs for transmission expansion can be handled through existing statutes through transmission adjustment clauses and rate adjustment (CRS 40-5-101 4(a) & 4(b)). I looks like there may be an additional adjustment to this provisions to a higher amount, but unsure (see page 18 line 25-27). Without have a fact sheet and not totally being familiar with the process I was unable to determine if additional costs above current statutes would be passed onto the rate payer. Nonetheless, the additional demands on the grid and expansion of such created by state statutes will be passed onto the rate payers/consumers. The proposed apprentice lineman program could help fill needed positions, but I am unsure of the actual need or challenges with filling such positions.

Q2: Describe the impacts of the bill on the County’s operations and the provision of public services.
Amend: Tue, April 30, 2024, by Bryan Weimer (bweimer@arapahoegov.com)
Section 9, page 37, requires an undergrounding program for non-franchised areas (like unincorporated Arapahoe County). If adopted, the bill could encourage the development of a lot of small utility installations – virual power plants (for example, a small battery system or fuel cell arrays) in areas that might not be zoned for utility uses. Long-term, we’ll likely need to update the zoning regulations to accommodate these types of uses (regs could potentially allow battery storage or fuel cells up to a certain capacity as an accessory use or without a site plan). The undergrounding provision may allow more lines in the unincorporated area to be placed underground. This would improve reliability for county residents, reduce visual impacts, and reduce a chance of fires. The 1% undergrounding fund currently applies in Cities w/franchise agreements as cities pay for street lights. In counties, street lighting is paid for by another entity. It is unclear if the 1% would require an increase in the rates to cover this cost or if rates would state the same. The 1% in cities is 1% of the annual revenue. It pays for undergrounding of overhead electrical lines but connection to individual businesses and homes become that of the owner, which could run upward of $10K.

Q3: In as much specificity as possible, please estimate the fiscal impacts of the bill on the County. Does the bill adequately fund the demands it places on the County?
Amend: Tue, April 30, 2024, by Bryan Weimer (bweimer@arapahoegov.com)
There does not appear to be a direct impact to the County other than if there is an increased tariff Transmission Costs Adjustment Clause, etc.) placed on rate payers (county) for power used to cover the cost of capital expansion

Q4: If you selected amend, what specific changes would be needed to make the legislation better for the County?
Amend: Tue, April 30, 2024, by Bryan Weimer (bweimer@arapahoegov.com)
In 40-2-132.5(9) on page 37, it might be nice to have some language involving the local jurisdiction in the undergrounding planning process. As drafted, the utility just files their plans with the state; in franchise communities, the local jurisdiction sometimes identifies lines they’d like to see undergrounded. It may be good to have some type of an agreement on how this undergrounding fee would be implemented and utilized. I would suggest that be included in the legislation as opposed to leaving it to rule making.

 

Fiscal Note 

NOT ON CALENDAR
SB24-233Property Tax C. Hansen (D) | B. Kirkmeyer (R) / C. deGruy Kennedy | L. Frizell (R) Tax & Finance Monitor Property tax revenue limit. Beginning with the 2025 property tax year, section 1 of the act establishes a limit on qualified property tax revenue, as defined by the act, for local governments (limit). This limit does not apply to local governments that are home rule municipalities, school districts, have not received voter approval to exceed the statutory 5.5% property tax revenue limitation, or have not received voter approval to collect, retain, and spend the majority of their property tax revenue without regard to the limitations in section 20 of article X of the state constitution. The limit is equal to the local governmental entity's base year qualified property tax revenue increased by 5.5% for each year since the base year including the relevant property tax year. A local government may seek voter approval to waive the limit. A local governmental entity's base year qualified property tax revenue is: For a local governmental entity that had qualified property tax revenue for the 2023 property tax year, the local governmental entity's qualified property tax revenue for the 2023 property tax year, plus any money the local governmental entity received from the state to compensate the local governmental entity for reduced property tax revenue in the 2023 property tax year; For a local governmental entity that did not have qualified property tax revenue for the 2023 property tax year, the local governmental entity's qualified property tax revenue for the first year that the local governmental entity has property tax revenue; or If applicable, the local governmental entity's qualified property tax revenue for the most recent property tax year for which the local governmental entity's voters approved temporarily waiving the limit. If a local government's qualified property tax revenue would otherwise exceed the limit, the local government shall either establish a temporary property tax credit equal to the number of mills necessary to prevent the local government's qualified property tax revenue from exceeding the limit or temporarily reduce its mill levy. Nonresidential real property valuation reductions. Under current law, for nonresidential property, the valuation for assessment (valuation) is 29% of the actual value of the property. However, certain categories of nonresidential property had temporarily reduced valuations for property tax 2023. Section 2 extends these temporarily reduced valuations to property tax year 2024. Section 2 also permanently reduces the valuations for commercial and agricultural property as follows: For property tax year 2025, the valuation is 27% of the actual value of the property; and For property tax years commencing on or after January 1, 2026, the valuation is 25% of the actual value of the property. Residential real property valuation reductions. For the 2024 property tax year, section 4 makes 2 reductions to residential real property valuation by continuing the 2023 property tax year reductions to residential real property valuation: For multi-family residential real property, section 4 reduces the valuation from 6.8% of the actual value of the property to 6.7% of the amount equal to the actual value of the property minus the lesser of $55,000 or the amount that causes the valuation for assessment of the property to be $1,000 (alternate amount); and For all other residential real property, section 4 reduces the valuation from an estimated 7.06% of the actual value of the property to 6.7% of the amount equal to the actual value of the property minus the lesser of $55,000 or the alternate amount. For the 2025 property tax year, section 4 modifies residential real property valuation so that the valuation for all residential real property is: For the purpose of a levy imposed by a school district, 7.15% of the actual value of the property; and For the purpose of a levy imposed by a local governmental entity that is not a school district, 6.4% of the actual value of the property. For the 2026 property tax year and all future property tax years, section 4 also reduces the valuation for all residential real property from 7.15% of the actual value of the property. For all residential real property, the valuation is: For the purpose of a levy imposed by a school district, the lesser of 7.15% of the actual value of the property or a percentage of the actual value of the property determined by the property tax administrator pursuant to section 7; and For the purpose of a levy imposed by a local governmental entity that is not a school district, 6.95% of the amount equal to the actual value of the property minus the lesser of 10% of the actual value of the property or $70,000 as adjusted for inflation in the first year of each subsequent reassessment cycle. Qualified-senior primary residence residential real property. Senate Bill 24-111 created a new residential real property subclass: qualified-senior primary residence residential real property. In addition to the other reductions for resdiential real property made in section 4, section 4 makes the following valuation reductions for qualified-senior primary residence residential real property: For property tax year 2025, for the purpose of a levy imposed by a local governmental entity that is not a school district, 6.4% of the amount equal to the actual value of the property minus either 50% of the first $200,000 of that actual value plus the lesser of 10% of the actual value of the property or $70,000 or the alternate amount; For property tax year 2026, for the purpose of a levy imposed by a local governmental entity, 6.95% of the amount equal to the actual value of the property minus either 50% of the first $200,000 of that actual value plus the lesser of 10% of the actual value of the property or $70,000 or the alternate amount; and For property tax year 2025, for the purpose of a levy imposed by a school district, 7.15% of the amount equal to the actual value of the property minus either 50% of the first $200,000 of that actual value or the alternate amount. Adjustable residential real property valuation. Section 7 requires legislative council staff to notify the state board of equalization of the first year after 2026 in which the local share of total program is equal to or greater than 60% of the total program determined pursuant to the "Public School Finance Act". For every property tax year after that year, the valuation for assessment for all residential real property, for the purpose of a levy imposed by a school district, is equal to the lesser of: 7.15% of the actual value of the property; or The percentage of the actual value of the property necessary for statewide school district property tax revenue divided by weighted total program to equal 0.6. Reimbursement of local governments. The state reimbursed local governmental entities for property tax revenue lost as a result of the reductions in valuation enacted in Senate Bill 22-238 and Senate Bill 23B-001. Section 9 establishes a reimbursement mechanism for certain local governmental entities other than school districts to account for property tax revenue lost as a result of the reductions in valuation in the act for the 2024 property tax year. The reimbursement mechanism requires the state to reimburse local governments in an amount equal to the decrease, if any, in assessed value between the 2022 and 2024 property tax years multiplied by the local governments' mill levy rate from the 2022 property tax year. Section 9 creates a fund out of which the state makes the reimbursements and requires the state treasurer to transfer to the fund $10,311,233 from the sustainable rebuilding program fund. Property tax deferral program. The existing property tax deferral program allows any person to defer the payment of the portion of real property taxes on the person's homestead that exceeds the tax-growth cap, which is an amount equal to the average of the person's real property taxes paid for the preceding 2 property tax years for the same homestead, increased by 4%. Beginning with the 2025 property tax year, section 10 removes the 4% tax-growth cap. Accordingly, beginning with the 2025 property tax year, a person may defer the payment of the portion of real property taxes on the person's homestead that exceeds the average of the person's real property taxes paid for the preceding 2 property tax years for the same homestead. Appropriation for state share of districts' total program funding. Beyond the appropriations in the act necessary for the administration of this act as outlined in sections 12 and 13, section 11 appropriates $378,861,731 to the department of education from the state education fund to cover the increases in the state share of districts' total program funding resulting from the assessed value reductions set forth in the act. APPROVED by Governor May 14, 2024 EFFECTIVE upon the date of the official declaration by the governor NOTE: This act does not take effect if either or both of the following occur at the next general election: An initiative that reduces valuations for assessment is approved by the people; An initiative that requires voter approval for retaining property tax revenue that exceeds a limit is approved by the people. If this act takes effect then this act takes effect upon the date of the official declaration of the vote for the general election held on November 5, 2024; except that section 3 of this act takes effect only if Senate Bill 24-111 does not become law, sections 4 and 8 of this act take effect only if Senate Bill 24-111 becomes law, section 6 of this act takes effect only if House Bill 24-1448 does not become law, and section 7 of this act takes effect only if House Bill 24-1448 becomes law. Senate Bill 24-111 was signed by the governor May 14, 2024. House Bill 24-1448 was signed by the governor May 23, 2024.(Note: This summary applies to this bill as enacted.)  5/14/2024 Governor Signed
    

Fiscal Note 

Wednesday, May 8 2024
THIRD READING OF BILLS - FINAL PASSAGE
(14) in house calendar.