These are all of the Business and Economic Development bills proposed in the 2019 session. Each bill has its own bill number, please use your browser search feature to find the bill you are interested in. Return to the Colorado home page to pick a different bill category.

None of the text is the opinion of Engage. Each bill's description, arguments for, and arguments against are our best effort at describing what each bill does, arguments for, and arguments against the bill. The long description is hidden by design, you can click on it to expand it if you want to read more detail about the bill.  If you believe we are missing something, please contact us with your suggestion. Some of these bills have the notation that they have been sent to the chamber's "kill" committee. This means that the leadership has decided to send the bill to the State committee even though it does not belong there based on its subject matter. This committee, in both chambers, is stacked with members from "safe" districts and the idea is to kill the bill without forcing any less safe members to take a hard vote. It is possible for a bill to survive the kill committee, but it is very rare.

Prime sponsors are given after each bill, with Senate sponsors in () and House sponsors in []. They are color-coded by party.

Some bills will have text highlighted in pink or highlighted in orange. Pink highlights mean House amendments to the original bill; orange mean Senate amendments. The bill will say under the header if it has been amended.

Each bill has been given a "magnitude" category: Major, Medium, Minor, and Technical. This is a combination of the change the bill would create and the "controversy" level of the bill. Some minor bills that are extending current programs would be major changes if they were introducing something new, but the entire goal here is to allow you to better curate your time. Something uncontroversial likely to pass nearly unanimously that continues a past program may not be worth your time (and please remember, you can still read all of the minor bills!). Technical bills are here to round out the list. They are non-substantive changes.

HB19-1014 Retail Food Establishments Inspection and Suspension (Ginal) [Singer, Bird]

AMENDED: Technical

SIGNED INTO LAW

Short Description:

Alters the fine structure for food inspection violations and clarifies some of the language and procedures around the food inspection review process.

Long Description:

Alters the fine structure for food inspection violations by removing the minimum of $250 for non-compliance. Also clarifies some of the language and procedures around the food inspection review process, including removing the distinction between critical and non-critical violations, and clarifying that it is unlawful to continue to operate a retail food establishment that has had its license or certificate suspended.

Arguments For: The current fine system is slightly too punitive, there may be some cases where we want to go below $250 but the department is unable to do so because of this law. It’s also nice to get a little better clarity in the process.

*Fiscal note addition* This bill is also the result of a stakeholder group created by the legislature to study retail food establishments, retail food establishment license fees, and retail food inspection programs.

Arguments Against: The current fine system is fine.

How Should Your Representatives Vote on HB19-1014

HB19-1035 Remove Fee Cap Electrical Inspection Local Government Higher Education (Woodward, Ginal) [Rich, Roberts]

AMENDED: Major

SIGNED INTO LAW

Short Description:

Removes the current restriction on local government and institutes of higher education from charging more than 15% more than the state charges to perform an inspection of electrical work. Changes the current restriction on local government and institutes of higher education from charging more than 15% more than the state charges to perform an inspection of electrical work by tying the 15% number to the amount they were on January 1, 2014 changing it to a maximum of $120, adjusted annually for Denver's consumer price index.

Long Description: n/a

Arguments For:

Costs vary greatly around the state and the 15% cap just doesn’t work for some rural areas. This lets these places charge an appropriate amount. This fixes the problem the bill was looking to address by tying the fee to the 2014 date without removing the exception entirely and letting the entire state run wild.At this point there has been so much back and forth that surely all of the associated interests for this bill are on board.

Arguments Against:

We have a cap for a reason, to prevent abuse. If the cap needs to be lifted, then lift it, but don’t eliminate it. Tying the fee amount to a set number in 2014 may cause future problems as the state fee rises. The 15% would then be tied to an obsolete number and we'll be back in the same boat again. The fact that this bill has now massively changed twice (so three total iterations) shows that it just needs to be shelved. Come back when you have a better idea of how to solve this problem.

How Should Your Representatives Vote on HB19-1035

HB19-1040 Professional Land Surveyors Continuing Education (Donovan, Coram) [D. Valdez]

KILLED IN HOUSE COMMITTEE

Short Description:

Requires state board of licensure for architects, engineers, and land surveyors to adopt rules establishing continuing education requirements to prove maintained competency of land surveyors.

Long Description: n/a

Arguments For:

This is a requirement common in other states because a)this is a licensed profession and continuing education is a common requirement for maintaining licensure, and b)this field has evolving standards and laws.

Arguments Against:

Not all licensed professions have continuing education and there isn’t enough new in land surveying to warrant the added work for the state or for land surveyors.

How Should Your Representatives Vote on HB19-1040

HB19-1084 Notice to Property Owners Whether Area Blighted (Zenzinger) [Gray]

AMENDED: Minor

SIGNED INTO LAW

Short Description:

Requires urban renewal authority to notify private property owners within an area being examined for a determination of slum or blight with a notice of the authority’s determination within 5 7 days. Currently the authority has 30 days and only has to inform property owners if the area is not determined to be a slum or blighted.

Long Description: n/a

Arguments For:

Property owners deserve to know what the determination is, in either direction not just if they don’t own property in a slum or blighted area. These authorities are required to make this determination before undertaking an urban renewal project. If a property owner is located in an area where urban renewal is going to occur they should know about it.

Arguments Against: n/a

How Should Your Representatives Vote on HB19-1084

HB19-1086 Plumbing Inspections Ensure Compliance (Pettersen) [Duran]

AMENDED: Significant

SIGNED INTO LAW

Short Description:

Currently plumbing inspectors employed by state institutions of higher learning are required to have the same qualifications as state plumbing inspectors. This bill extends that requirement to inspectors employed by towns and cities and counties. It also requires all of these plumbing inspectors (including state) to conduct a contemporaneous review of each plumbing project to ensure compliance with the law, specifically looking for licensure and apprentice requirements. Demonstration of competency for plumbers with lapsed licenses requires continuing education.

Long Description:

Currently plumbers employed by state institutions of higher learning are required to have the same qualifications as state plumbing inspectors. This bill extends that requirement to inspectors employed by towns and cities and counties. It also requires all of these plumbing inspectors (including state) to conduct a contemporaneous review of each plumbing project to ensure compliance with the law, specifically looking for licensure and apprentice requirements. This needs to be done only once, not for each inspection of a project. Each entity (town, state, etc.) must develop its own procedures for inspectors and post these on its public website. Demonstration of competency for plumbers with lapsed licenses requires continuing education.


Arguments For:

Plumbing inspection is an important part of all of these entities’ role, not just the state, and we should have the best qualified people possible because of the potential damage done by improperly done plumbing. In addition, inspectors are ideally placed to make sure that only is the plumbing being done properly, but that the project is meeting state law requirements, particularly when it comes to licensure and apprenticeship, two critical areas in the plumbing industry given the requirements of becoming a licensed plumber, which at the lowest level requires at least 2 years or 3400 hours of practical experience.

Arguments Against:

This is overly restrictive and dictatorial. Local entities should have the right to decide for themselves what standards they require in their plumbing inspectors. And they certainly should not have to promulgate rules and procedures to turn their inspectors into a form of a police officer asking for papers.

How Should Your Representatives Vote on HB19-1086

HB19-1107 Employment Support Job Retention Services Program (Fields, Priola) [Coleman]

AMENDED: Minor

SIGNED INTO LAW

Short Description:

Creates a program for emergency employment support services to low-income individuals trying to get employment or improve their employment status. Administered by an outside non-profit, this program can reimburse up to $400 annually for eligible expenses. To be eligible, individuals must have an income at or below the poverty line, be at least 16 and eligible to work in the U.S., and be actively pursuing employment or job training with the assistance of a public agency or private nonprofit organization.

Long Description:

Creates a program for emergency employment support services to low-income individuals trying to get employment or improve their employment status. Administered by an outside non-profit, this program can reimburse up to $400 annually for transportation, emergency childcare, emergency housing, job training or education fees, work tools and equipment, food, utility bills, prepaid cell phones, license or certification fees, legal services related to employment, interpretation expenses, and medical expenses that directly pertain to someone’s ability to get or keep employment. To be eligible, individuals must have an income at or below the poverty line, be at least 16 and eligible to work in the U.S., and be actively pursuing employment or job training with the assistance of a public agency or private nonprofit organization. $1 million $750,000 is appropriated annually through 2022, when the program sunsets. The fund is allowed to accept gifts, grants, and donations.


Arguments For:

Sometimes people need a hand up to escape from a spiraling situation. They want to work, they are trying to get the training they need to work, but they cannot afford the steps in-between to get the jobs that are available in their area, even including something as basic as having no one to care for a child during an interview. No one is going to be abusing this process with a limit per individual of $400. This is potentially a money-saving proposition in the long-run: helping people transition into jobs can help get them off government assistance and provide more tax income for the government.

Arguments Against:

This sets up another system of dependency for those who cannot get their lives together. Why should we expect people to try to pull themselves up out of their situation if we are giving them money because they are in their situation. This bill’s broad definitions of what qualifies as employment support encompasses most of what is need to get by, so as long as someone seems to be looking for a job, they can stay on the government dole. $400 may not be much, but when you add it to all of the other stuff people can qualify for when unemployed it fits into a larger pattern of free money.

How Should Your Representatives Vote on HB19-1107

HB19-1117 Regulation of Professions and Occupations Reform [Sandridge]

KILLED IN HOUSE COMMITTEE

Short Description:

Requires department of regulatory agencies to assume that consumers and sufficiently protected by market competition and only institute regulations if they find credible evidence of a present, significant, and substantiated harm to consumers and then recommend the least restrictive regulation that addresses the harm. The bill then lays out guidelines for remedies depending on the issue and lays out restrictions from least (market competition) to most (occupational license) restrictive.

Long Description:

Requires department of regulatory agencies to assume that consumers and sufficiently protected by market competition and only institute regulations if they find credible evidence of a present, significant, and substantiated harm to consumers and then recommend the least restrictive regulation that addresses the harm.

The bill then lays out guidelines for remedies depending on the issue. These include courts for contractual disputes, disclosure requirement or increased power for the state’s deceptive trade practices law for fraud, registration and periodic inspection for unclean facilities, registration and bonding for failure to complete a contract, registration and insurance for protecting 3rd parties not part of a contract, registration for providers not in the state, voluntary private or government certification for areas where the consumer lacks knowledge of the good or service, and finally licensure for cases where a systematic information shortfall where the consumer’s inability to gain knowledge of the good or service meets the harm definition in the bill.

The bill then lays out restrictions from least to most restrictive. This is, in order from least to most: market competition, 3rd party or consumer-created ratings and reviews, private certification, voluntary bonding or insurance, specific private civil action to remedy harm, deceptive trade practices, mandatory disclosure, and then finally regulations. Within regulations, the order from least to most restrictive is inspection, bonding, insurance, registration, government certification, occupational license, and then finally a combination of regulations or a prohibition.


Arguments For:

Licensing and other restrictive regulations opt as enormous barriers in the marketplace, protecting current players and making it difficult to break in. Cutting hair, doing nails, driving a taxi, the list goes on and on (and there seem to be fresh attempts to add to it all the time). In our zeal to protect ourselves, we have gone too far in the other direction, making far too many professions bow and scrape to the government in order to function at all. This bill set the balance right, by making sure that the least restrictive regulation possible is being used so that we remain safe but business is able to function.

Arguments Against:

This bill goes far beyond simply promoting least restrictive regulation. It spells out precisely what is to be done in a variety of different situations including contractual disputes, fraud, unclean facilities, breaking contracts, and so on. Occupational licenses are only permitted in situations where consumers have literally no way of knowing the quality of providers. This is an approach that says: sure, some people may get hurt but then the market will take care of it and the damage will be small. That is not the approach we want for Colorado.

How Should Your Representatives Vote on HB19-1117

HB19-1163 Reduce Regulatory Burden Rules on Businesses (Smallwood, Tate) [Carver]

KILLED IN HOUSE COMMITTEE

Short Description:

Requires state agencies to perform a regulatory flexibility analysis for small businesses (defined as 100 or fewer employees) to consider how to minimize the impact on these businesses while still accomplishing the regulatory objectives. Agencies must also justify the regulation in writing as part of this analysis and identify and adopt the least costly regulatory alternative, unless they provide written justification for the more costly option. These reports are to be public and a small business may request a hearing on the matter before an administrative law judge if they believe an agency has not complied with the flexibility requirements to the business’ detriment.

Long Description:

Requires state agencies to perform a regulatory flexibility analysis for small businesses (defined as 100 or fewer employees) to consider how to minimize the impact on these businesses while still accomplishing the regulatory objectives. Agencies must consider the following methods to reduce impacts: establishing less stringent compliance or reporting requirements, less stringent schedules or deadlines, consolidating or simplifying compliance or reporting requirements, establishing different performance standards, and exempting small businesses from the compliance requirements.

Agencies must also justify the regulation in writing as part of this analysis and identify and adopt the least costly regulatory alternative, unless they provide written justification for the more costly option. These reports are to be public and a small business may request a hearing on the matter before an administrative law judge if they believe an agency has not complied with the flexibility requirements to the business’ detriment. They can also file a request with the executive director of the agency.


Arguments For:

Small businesses are frequently just not equipped to deal with the avalanche of regulations that can be thrown their way, and the cost of keeping in compliance can become higher than a business with not many employees can bear. Regulations are obviously a necessary part of ensuring the safety and well-being of our citizens but we have to both balance that need against the need for businesses to be able to profitably operate and maintain appropriate flexibility in our regulations when it comes to differing business sizes. This is extremely common in both state and federal regulations, but there is no formal structure to force agencies to go through a process that puts serious consideration into the impact of these regulations, not just on small businesses but on all businesses. Nothing in the bill precludes agencies from making their own decisions, they just need to justify them.

Arguments Against:

This bill goes out if its way to make difficulties for state agencies. First, after going through an arduous process to create regulations, the agencies then have to go through another enormous process to describe all of the ways they could have done this, but decided not to. To top this off, the agency has to use least cost as its lodestar, which throws entirely out of whack the balance we usually try to strike between cost and consumer rights and safety. Because the least costly option is almost always going to be less safe than what might be the best option. Finally, the bill opens the door to endless lawsuits from small businesses who are not satisfied with the end results.

How Should Your Representatives Vote on HB19-1163

HB19-1246 Local Government Regulation of Food Trucks (Cooke, Moreno) [Van Winkle, Kraft-Tharp]

AMENDED: Very Significant

SIGNED INTO LAW

Goal: To make it easier for food trucks to operate in multiple local jurisdictions.

Description:

Requires local governments to grant business licenses to food truck operators that can show satisfactory documentation that it is licensed in good standing with another local government and prohibits local government from imposing additional licensing requirements (except for city and county of Denver which may require a Denver retail food license). Also prohibits local governments from requiring separate licenses or fees for food trucks operating in more than one spot or more than one day in year or from requiring a fee for each food truck employee. Local governments may enforce other sales tax, zoning, and land use regulations related to food truck operation.

Additional Information:

Also prohibits local governments from limiting number of days food trucks may operate on private property (if they have permission from the property owner) or require site plans or written authorizations on file. Local governments may charge a licensing fee for food trucks that are looking for licensing reciprocity but only for the amount it actually costs to regulate the food truck.


Arguments For:

Food trucks are mobile by design and intended to operate in various locations. Too much local red tape imposes inordinate burdens on these businesses. If they can obtain licensure in one jurisdiction, they should not have to jump through additional hoops in another jurisdiction. None of this prevents a jurisdiction from enforcing their general food truck rules or collecting their sales taxes.

Arguments Against:

This makes it impossible for local governments to completely control the regulations they have for food trucks and sets up a situation where the lowest common denominator in terms licensing requirements rules for the entire state, since other local jurisdictions cannot enforce their own requirements.

How Should Your Representatives Vote on HB19-1246

HB19-1283 Disclosure of Insurance Liability Coverage (Rodriguez) [Roberts]

AMENDED: Minor

SIGNED INTO LAW

Goal: To provide greater transparency for insured individuals to understand how they may or may not be able to use their insurance in liability cases.

Description:

Requires all insurers to provide via mail, fax, or e-mail, a statement under oath within 30 days of a request from the insured individual. This statement must include the following for each policy, including umbrella or excess insurance: name of insurer, name of each insured party, limits of liability coverage, statement of any policy or coverage defense the insurer reasonably believes is available, and a copy of the policy. Attorneys for the insured may also request this information and the same 30 day timetable applies. Failure to provide this results in damages of $100 per day to the insured party. Insurer is also responsible for any legal fees required to obtain information if they miss the deadline.

Additional Information: n/a

Arguments For:

Full transparency in insurance can encourage settlements and prevent unnecessary litigation when claimants and injured parties fully understand the coverage available to them. This is particularly crucial for uninsured and underinsured motorists issues.

Arguments Against:

Basically this bill is asking insurance companies to provide information they are already providing to their clients every year: what the policy is and what it does. If people cannot keep a copy of their insurance policies handy, that should not be the insurer’s problem.

How Should Your Representatives Vote on HB19-1283

HB19-1286 Motor Vehicle Wholesaler Authorized Individuals (Todd) [Kraft-Tharp, Liston]

SIGNED INTO LAW

Goal: To close a loophole that allows wholesale motor vehicle sellers to have unlimited number of people using their license to sell cars to dealers.

Description:

Limits those with a motor vehicle wholesale license (to sell to dealers) to two named individuals who must be owners or part-owners of the business of the licensee to perform wholesale activities.

Additional Information: n/a

Arguments For:

Allowing multiple people to operate under the same license can cause problems with damaged vehicles getting into the retail market. In Indiana, one wholesale license was being offered to hundreds of people nationwide for usage for a monthly fee, and this practice has spread to other states. This bill copies the restriction that motor vehicle retail dealers already face (only two people allowed under one license and must be owners or part-owners) to fix it before it happens here in Colorado.

Arguments Against: n/a

How Should Your Representatives Vote on HB19-1286

HB19-1290 Examination Applicant Barber and Cosmetologist Act (Priola) [Arndt]

SIGNED INTO LAW

Goal: To allow people applying for a barber, cosmetologist, esthetician, nail technician, or hairstylist exam to substitute foreign experience for the required contact hours.

Description:

Allows people applying for a barber, cosmetologist, esthetician, nail technician, or hairstylist exam to substitute foreign experience for the required contact hours at a ratio of three months of experience for every 100 hours. Applicants cannot substitute work experience for any of the hours required for disinfection, cleaning, safe work practices, or review of law and rules. Department of regulatory agencies to determine how an applicant will provide proof of work experience.

Additional Information: n/a

Arguments For:

Actual experience substitutes well for the contact requirements here, except of course for the specific law and safety hours we want to make sure all licensed people in this field have.

Arguments Against:

We have no real control over these fields in other countries and the bill does not delineate any countries where we would not accept experience, so every single country in the world is fair game. That’s too wide a standard.

How Should Your Representatives Vote on HB19-1290

HB19-1291 Insurance Disclosures and Supervision (Williams, Tate) [Arndt]

AMENDED: Minor

SIGNED INTO LAW

Goal: To align state laws with the National Association of Insurance Commissioners to keep our state accreditation with this national association.

Description:

Establishes, with state specific amendments, some of the model laws of the National Association of Insurance Commissioners concerning annual corporate governance disclosures (CGADs) by insurers and insurance groups. Each year these entities must submit sufficient information to the commissioner of insurance to provide a clear understanding of the insurer’s corporate governance structure, policies, and practices. This information is strictly confidential and not subject to the state open records act. Failure to file results in a $200 a day fine, with maximum penalty of $25,000.

Additional Information:

CGAD must include:

  • Level at which risk appetite is determined
  • Level at which earnings, capital, liquidity, operations, and reputation are overseen
  • Level at which legal liability for failure of corporate governance duties would be placed
  • Any additional information through procedures defined by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners handbook

The commissioner of insurance can designate another regulatory official for an international insurance group that either doesn’t have substantial operations in the US, Colorado, or would be more appropriate for someone else to regulate as deemed by commissioner of insurance.


Arguments For:

We need to do this to stay accredited with the National Association of Insurance Commissioners. There are protections for confidentiality.

Arguments Against: n/a

How Should Your Representatives Vote on HB19-1291

HB19-1306 Monitoring Colorado Call Center Job Losses (Rodriguez) [Esgar, Galindo]

AMENDED: Very Significant

SIGNED INTO LAW

Goal: To force disclosure from companies who outsource call center jobs outside the United States.

Description:

Requires a business to notify the state if it has plans to terminate customer service employee positions and positions of employees who work for a call center in Colorado and move the jobs outside the United States. Requires the state to maintain and make public a list of businesses that have moved these positions outside the US. Requires state to report to assembly call center job losses that it already has data on.

Additional Information:

Call center must have at least 50 employees to qualify. Notice must be given at least 120 days prior to job loss. Businesses can be removed from the list if they bring back into the state as many jobs as they sent out.


Arguments For:

Outsourcing call centers hurts both Colorado workers and Colorado residents, who frequently have to deal with customer service representatives for whom English is not a native language. The bill doesn’t stop anyone from doing anything, all it does is make sure that we all know who is cutting corners on call centers and give the community an opportunity to weigh in before the jobs are moved.

Arguments Against:

The requirement to inform that state at least 120 days prior to moving jobs out of state is a potentially extreme burden on businesses. It is very much within the realm of possibility that a decision like this does not take 120 days to execute so we are in essence meddling with a business’ internal operations in order to try to demagogue the public into some form of public action.

How Should Your Representatives Vote on HB19-1306

HB19-1330 Exempt Hair Drying Services from Department of Regulatory Agencies Regulation (Priola, Bridges) [Arndt]

KILLED ON SENATE CALENDAR

Goal: To exempt hair drying and styling services from licensing requirements.

Description:

Exempts hair drying services, which includes drying, styling, arranging, curling, hot ironing, or cleansing hair, from licensure requirements under barbers, cosmetologists, hairstylists, estheticians, and nail technicians.

Additional Information: n/a

Arguments For:

We don’t need to regulate those who provide hair drying and styling services only. There is no danger to the consumer the way there is with scissors, razors, clippers, and hair dyes. In general our goal should be the least regulations required to effectively protect the public and in this case, we are currently overboard.

Arguments Against:

Hot irons can cause burns if not used properly. This is a safety issue and should remain regulated.

How Should Your Representatives Vote on HB19-1330

SB19-046 Appraisal Management Company Definition (Tate) [Arndt] TECHNICAL BILL

SIGNED INTO LAW

Short Description:

Aligns the description of appraisal management companies with federal law.

Long Description: n/a

SB19-067 Rural Development Grant Program Creation (Coram) [McLachlan, Arndt]

AMENDED: Minor

KILLED ON SENATE CALENDAR

Short Description:

Creates a rural development grant program available for businesses in rural parts of the state that are in their early stages, employ people in the area, have the potential to export goods or services outside the area, and can provide non-state matching funding of at least 1/3 of the grant.

Long Description:

Creates a rural development grant program available for businesses in rural parts of the state that are in their early stages (raised less than $500,000 of third-party capital, employ people in the area, have the potential to export goods or services outside the area, and can provide non-state matching funding of at least 1/3 of the grant. Grants are limited to no more than $150,000 per business per year, funded by general fund, $2.5 million in 2019-20.


Arguments For:

There are still rural parts of this state that are struggling. They’ve experienced increased economic difficulties fueled by lower population, employment, wages, and property values. The way out is through new successful businesses in these regions and this bill provides some kick-start to help get these businesses off the ground. The strict guidelines ensure that we will only be targeting exactly what we want: a business that isn’t dependent on the rural region to stay alive but will spur economic vitality in the region. Requiring matching funds also ensures that we will be supporting legitimate business opportunities and will stimulate private sector investment in these regions.

Arguments Against:

This is enough money for 16 businesses at the full grant amount, which in a state with as many rural areas as Colorado may not be enough for all of them. While it is true that we need a viable business first, so not all areas may even qualify, if we are serious about the idea behind this program we need to have more funds available.

This is an unacceptable intrusion into the free market. A business that employs people in a rural area of the state should be treated no differently than a business that employs people in an urban one. People are people, and struggles may look slightly different in different places but be no less real.

How Should Your Representatives Vote on SB19-067

SB19-086 Update Business Entity Laws (Lee) [Bird]

AMENDED: Technical

SIGNED INTO LAW

Short Description:

Makes numerous changes to the Colorado Business Corporation Act and conforming changes to the Colorado Corporations and Associations Act. These include deleting obsolete definitions, updating the act to clarify conversions and mergers of entities and exchanges of owners’ interest in entities, updating foreign entity requirements, updating court proceedings provisions for dissolved entities, updating definitions, reorganizing optional articles of incorporation provisions, adding sections from the Model Business Corporation Act on optional forum selection and ratification of defective corporate actions, updating proxy vote provisions, updating conflict of interest provisions, updating indemnification provisions, updating dissenters rights provisions dealing with appraisals, updating judicial disillusionment provisions, and making a different section of statutes consistent with these changes.

Long Description:

Makes numerous changes to the Colorado Business Corporation Act and conforming changes to the Colorado Corporations and Associations Act. These include deleting obsolete definitions, updating the act to clarify conversions and mergers of entities and exchanges of owners’ interest in entities, updating foreign entity requirements, updating court proceedings provisions for dissolved entities, updating definitions, reorganizing optional articles of incorporation provisions, adding sections from the Model Business Corporation Act on optional forum selection and ratification of defective corporate actions, updating proxy vote provisions, updating conflict of interest provisions, updating indemnification provisions, updating dissenters rights provisions dealing with appraisals, updating judicial disillusionment provisions, and making a different section of statutes consistent with these changes.

Areas of significant change include: The updated court proceedings for dissolved entities, where the procedure for court filing and dealing with payment of claims are described. Definitions added for beneficial owner (person who owns the beneficial interest in shares), and related person (in addition to actual relations, individual living in same home and other entity controlled by same individual). Definitions of the methods of giving notice to shareholders, including timing. The optional judicial forum selection for claims, which describes how this must be done and what happens if the selection is improper. The ratification of defective actions, which lays out the precise steps required to do this, including notification and voting requirements, filing requirements, and judicial claims. The rights of shareholders to appeal valuations in the case of mergers or acquisitions or disposal of significant assets, the procedure for invoking them, and the judicial process if an agreement cannot be reached. The procedure for shareholders wishing to purchase all shares if a corporation is to be dissolved.


Arguments For:

This is mostly clean-up work. While there are a lot of changes here, in general the bill is cleaning up statutes and adding best practices for corporate laws from around the country.

Arguments Against: n/a

How Should Your Representatives Vote on SB19-086

SB19-099 Revised Uniform Athlete Agents Act 2015 (Todd) [Tipper]

From the Colorado Commission on Uniform State Laws

AMENDED: Minor

VETOED

Short Description:

Enacts the Revised Uniform Athlete Agents Act, drafted by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws. The revised act establishes new provisions for registration and renewal of registration for athlete agents, to be administered by the secretary of state. The revised act is subject to sunset review in 2026.

Long Description:

Enacts the Revised Uniform Athlete Agents Act, drafted by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws. The revised act establishes new provisions for registration and renewal of registration for athlete agents, to be administered by the secretary of state. The revised act is subject to sunset review in 2026. The act requires detailed information from the agent, including their social media accounts, training, educational background, criminal history, bankruptcy history, NCAA sanction history, all students they have represented in the past five years, and detailed information about their employer. Those who are already registered in another state which uses this law can simply submit a copy of their application and registration from the other state. The bill also specifies what is required in agent-player contracts, including notice that signing the contract may result in the player losing their NCAA eligibility and how the secretary of state should evaluate registrations. It also contains a list of prohibited acts by agents (such as providing anything of value before the student enters into a contract) and penalties. Violating the act is a class 2 misdemeanor for the first offense and a class 6 felony for subsequent penalties.


Arguments For:

Colorado currently has no registration requirement for agents in the state, anyone can approach any student-athlete and become his or her agent with no guidelines on the contract, inappropriate contact, or disclosures the agent must make. It is truly the Wild West and it should not continue. Past failures in this area should not discourage us from proceeding forward: this revised act fixes some of the problems with the previous nationwide model (including making it easy for agents to register in multiple states). We owe it to our student-athletes to protect them from being taken advantage of by unscrupulous agents.

Arguments Against:

Colorado was part of a previous version of this nationwide template and repealed it after just two years, in 2010. Only 4 agents had registered. At that time more than half of the 42 states with this law had yet to revoke or suspend a single license. The whole thing was a colossal waste of time and resources the secretary of state’s office. We don’t have much evidence so far that the new act is anything different.

How Should Your Representatives Vote on SB19-099

SB19-103 Legalizing Minors' Businesses (Williams, Tate) [Coleman, Carver]

AMENDED: Moderate

SIGNED INTO LAW

Short Description:

Bans any local government entity from requiring a license or permit for a business that is operated on an occasional basis (84 days or less in a year) by a minor and located a sufficient distance away from a potential commercial competitor so as to prevent the minor’s business from becoming a direct competitor. Local governments may still enforce local laws on minors conducting a business so long as there is no registration requirement.

Long Description: n/a

Arguments For:

These permitting laws may be used to ensnare minors who want to operate small-scale businesses on a limited basis and impose inordinate and heavy-handed regulations on minors who aren’t looking to compete with other businesses. The effect can be to thwart entrepreneurial activity minors can undertake to learn about business and economic principles and to make some money as well as divert law enforcement from more important matters. This bill exists because a lemonade stand operated by three children under the age of 7 was shut down last summer because of course the family did not have a permit (why should they?) That particular case may still not be protected by this bill (because of the economic competition clause) but there are numerous other examples from around the country of neighbors calling the cops on lemonade stands (Jerry Seinfeld’s family in New York and a family in Texas, both named in a New York Times article on the subject). We sadly know that the world we live includes people who call the cops on kids because they don’t want to be “annoyed” or “hassled” in their neighborhood.

Arguments Against:

Anyone selling something to the public, minor or no and limited time of the year or no, should be subject to the regulations that protect us from faulty or even dangerous products. Part of learning about business and economic principles is to learn about regulations and operating within them so as to create a safer society.

In the case of the family this bill is modeled on they were operating a lemonade stand in close proximity to a lemonade vendor in the Denver Arts Festival (which is why the police got called in by the lemonade vendor). So by the terms of this bill, they would have still required a permit. Some of the other nationwide examples cited by advocates in Oregon (stand was setup in middle of arts festival) and California (kid is only allowed to operate stand in residential neighborhoods and private property) are further examples of situations this bill will (rightly) not touch.

How Should Your Representatives Vote on SB19-103

SB19-138 Bond Requirements for Public Projects Using Private Financing (Winter, Priola) [Bird]

AMENDED: Minor

SIGNED INTO LAW

Goal: To close loopholes in the bonding requirements for public projects using private financing.

Short Description:

Specifies that the performance and payment bond requirements for contractors contracting with public entities apply all construction contract awards to private entities for work on public property, regardless of public or private money or financing.

Long Description: n/a

Arguments For:

Previously the law could be read that if the private contractor was being paid with public funds, the bonding requirements did not apply. This is clearly not a state of affairs we want, these bonding requirements are in place to ensure that these projects are satisfactorily completed or if not, that the public is not cheated out of its money. It doesn’t matter if the money is private, the public property that could be left in an unacceptable state is not.

Arguments Against:

This system is set-up to protect public funds. Privately funded projects by definition do not involve public funds, so there is no need for bonding structures to protect money the public cannot lose.

How Should Your Representatives Vote on SB19-138

SB19-155 Sunset Accountancy Board (Williams, Priola) [Kraft-Tharp, Snyder]

AMENDED: Minor

SIGNED INTO LAW AMENDED

Goal: To continue regulation of accountants and CPAs and implement recommendations of state department of regulatory agencies’ sunset review report.

Description:

Extends regulation of accountants and CPAs through 2030. Expands disciplinary grounds to include use of fraudulent, coercive, or dishonest practices and demonstration of incompetence, untrustworthiness, or financial irresponsibility. Authorizes accountancy board to take action against uncertified or unregistered people if they provide services that require certification or registration. Clarifies that limited liability partnerships and foreign corporations operating a Colorado office must register with the board. Allows people to request inactive status via a board-approved method instead of requiring first-class mail. Makes some other technical changes.

Additional Information: n/a

Arguments For:

From the state department of regulatory agencies’ sunset review report: “Only a CPA may opine, as an independent auditor, on the financial position of a business or the reliability of its financial records. This takes considerable subject matter expertise. The Board requires CPAs to meet rigorous experience and education standards and pass a four-part examination to qualify for a CPA license. These requirements assure CPAs possess the knowledge and skills to practice competently… With all of these activities, the Board serves to protect the public interest. Therefore, regulation is justified.” The board also currently has limited recourse to take action against CPAs with a demonstrated history of dishonesty or untrustworthiness (must be linked to criminal cases). Given the delicate nature of and far-reaching access of CPAs into their client’s information, it makes sense to give the board broader authority to go after bad apples.

Arguments Against:

Financial irresponsibility is a rather large brush to paint with, and while of course we want CPAs who can manage their own money, the fact that they have been irresponsible with their own finances should not mean they cannot effectively manage others. The law makes no distinction between personal and professional activities in this area.

How Should Your Representatives Vote on SB19-155

SB19-156 Sunset State Electrical Board (Rodriguez) [Sullivan]

AMENDED: Minor

SIGNED INTO LAW

Goal: To continue the regulation of electricians and implement the recommendations of the state department of regulatory agencies’ sunset review report.

Description:

Extends licensing of electricians through 2032. Repeals limits on fees local jurisdictions may charge for electrical inspection. Clarifies some terms and definitions. Directs governor to consider a residential electrician for one of the 4 slots on the board that must be a master or journeyman electrician. Clarifies that traffic signals are exempt from regulation. Repeals obsolete language.

Arguments For:

From the state department of regulatory agencies’ sunset review report: “People can, and do, die from both electrocution and fire. There is extreme danger to the public when unqualified people install electrical wiring and some appliances. The Act is a critical and fundamental piece of public protection because it empowers regulators to ensure that only qualified people install and modify electrical systems.” As for the fee limit, local jurisdictions do not set their budgets based on state formulas and should not have to monitor state revenues when setting local fees for services. Things cost different amounts in different parts of the state as well.

Arguments Against:

We just went down this road with HB19-1035 which would have removed this same cap until it was altered to just set the rates back to the amount they were in 2014. We have a cap for a reason, to prevent abuse. The House has already decided this year that leaving the cap in place is appropriate.

How Should Your Representatives Vote on SB19-156

SB19-157 Sunset Fire Suppression Registration and Inspection (Winter) [Cutter]

SIGNED INTO LAW

Goal: To continue the regulation of fire suppression units.

Description:

Extends the regulation of fire suppression units through 2026.

Additional Information: n/a

Arguments For:

From the state department of regulatory agencies’ sunset review report: “Fire suppression systems are potentially life-saving systems. Notwithstanding the advantages, the National Fire Protection Association found that up to 12 percent of installed systems operated ineffectively or they failed to operate when activated. A system can only protect lives if it is the right system and is installed correctly. The Program was established to certify that fire suppression systems installed in buildings are installed correctly and maintained properly and therefore it should be continued by the General Assembly.”

Arguments Against: n/a

How Should Your Representatives Vote on SB19-157

SB19-158 Sunset Pet Animal Care and Facilities Act (Ginal) [Froelich]

AMENDED: Minor

SIGNED INTO LAW

Goal: To continue the regulation of pet animal facilities and implement the recommendations of the state department of regulatory agencies’ sunset review report.

Description:

Extends regulation of pet animal facilities through 2026. Also does the following:

  • Adds as ground for discipline by the state board: violation of any statute, rule, or regulation pertaining to animal health and fitness; a conviction for the theft, importation, capture, neglect, or abuse of an animal.
  • Extends the two year waiting period required for a licensee who has had their license revoked must wait before applying for a new license to prevent individuals from simply creating a new entity for licensure.
  • Extends the state’s ability to discipline a licensee or deny a license for crimes involving animal cruelty where a licensee or applicant pleaded no contest.
  • Requires all fines to be deposited in the general fund.
  • Appropriates just under $150,000 to increase inspections and investigations.

Additional Information: n/a

Arguments For:

From the state department of regulatory agencies sunset review report: “The protections that PACFA presents Colorado’s pet animals and their adoptive families are clear: when the animals are attended to in licensed facilities, owners can be reasonably confident they were in a healthy environment. Without PACFA, animal welfare would principally fall under the jurisdiction of local law enforcement and animal cruelty laws, which is a far different, lesser, threshold of protection.” Regarding the numerous changes, most of these are self-evident: the current law is not strong enough when it comes to protecting animals from abuse. For the increase in inspections, the sunset review found that more than half of the licensed facilities were not inspected in one fiscal year due to lack of resources.

Arguments Against: n/a

How Should Your Representatives Vote on SB19-158

SB19-159 Sunset Passenger Tramway Safety Board (Bridges, Donovan) [McCluskie]

SIGNED INTO LAW

Goal: To continue regulation of mountain ski lifts/trams and implement some of the recommendations of the state department of regulatory agencies’ sunset review report.

Description:

Continues the regulation of passenger tramways through 2030. Removes the requirement that letters of admonition be sent by certified mail. Makes some technical changes.

Arguments For:

From the state department of regulatory agencies’ sunset review report: “The absence of regulating passenger tramways could potentially harm the public. The State of Colorado requires all passenger tramways to be licensed, except those specifically exempted by law…Without requiring a license to operate, a passenger tramway potentially presents a safety hazard and leaves the public vulnerable to harm. Also, the Board has demonstrated a commitment to ensuring that passenger tramways are effectively regulated in Colorado.”

Arguments Against:

This bill does not implement one of the key recommendations from the state department of regulatory agencies: to remove “willfull or wanton” conduct as a prerequisite for disciplining a licensee. From the report: “Repealing the “willful and wanton” requirement in the statute will enable the Board to take disciplinary action, when necessary, if a licensee is negligent in the operation or maintenance of a passenger tramway, regardless of whether the act was “willful or wanton,” which will serve to strengthen the statute and enhance consumer protection.”

How Should Your Representatives Vote on SB19-159

SB19-160 Sunset River Outfitters Licensing (Winter) [McCluskie]

AMENDED: Minor

SIGNED INTO LAW

Goal: To continue regulating river rafting services and tweak some of the regulations.

Description:

Continues the regulation of river rafting services through 2028. Exempts training of guides, trip leaders, and guide instructors from authority of private occupational schools division of department of higher education. Requires state to create rules to establish insurance requirements for vehicles used by river outfitters.

Additional Information: n/a

Arguments For:

An average of people die each year on Colorado’s rivers. From the department of regulatory agencies’ sunset review report: “…given the inherent danger in participating in an adventurous, thrill-seeking event such as whitewater rafting, it is reasonable to infer that requiring safety equipment to be present on commercial trips and that guides have met certain qualifications, has a positive effect…The Program protects the public health, safety, and welfare. Therefore, the General Assembly should continue the program.”

Arguments Against:

The report also recommended that the regulation of fishing trip leaders be separated out from white-water rafting as the two types of trips are very different and should have different rules around operation.

How Should Your Representatives Vote on SB19-160

SB19-162 Sunset River Outfitter Advisory Committee (Coram) [McCluskie]

SIGNED INTO LAW

Goal: To continue the river outfitter advisory committee.

Description:

Continues the river outfitter advisory committee indefinitely.

Arguments For:

From the state department of regulatory agencies’ sunset review report: “Because the river outfitter advisory committee, as a body comprising representatives of the regulated community, provides valuable input to the [river outfitter licensing program], the General Assembly should continue the river outfitter advisory committee.”

Arguments Against:

Continuing the advisory committee indefinitely is a stretch too far. Keep it within the sunset review process.

How Should Your Representatives Vote on SB19-162

SB19-249 License Business Selling Its Used Motor Vehicles (Gonzales, Scott) [Benavidez, Bockenfeld]

AMENDED: Significant

SIGNED INTO LAW

Goal: To create an alternative to the full-blown used car license for businesses looking to sell off its used vehicles that are not designed for passengers.

Description:

Creates a license for businesses to sell its used vehicles if the sales do not exceed 20% of its gross revenue. These must not be designed or used primarily to carry passengers, have been used exclusively for business purposes, have been owned for more than one year, be titled in the name of the business, and be up-to-date on taxes. Motor vehicle board can discipline license owners for misleading or fraudulent activities.

Additional Information:

Full list of activities the board can discipline for include:

  • Material misstatement in application
  • Violating laws dealing with motor vehicles and commerce
  • Having been convicted of certain related crimes
  • Fraud, including illegal sales, transactions, or repossessions
  • Intentional or negligent failure to perform a written agreement
  • Willful misrepresentation or concealment or failure to disclose material information
  • False advertising
  • Trafficking in stolen motor vehicles
  • Representing or selling a used vehicle as a new vehicle
  • Messing with odometers
  • Selling a car not fit for the road
  • Failure to notify perspective buyer in a timely manner when working on finance or consignment sale


Arguments For:

It doesn’t make sense that a business that isn’t about selling vehicles but does have rental vehicles it wants to dispose of, has to get a full-blown used car license in order to sell off older vehicles the business no longer needs (or do what most of these companies are doing: ship the vehicles out of Colorado and sell them in another state). Right now the used car license is required if you sell more than 20 used cars within 2 years, which is a tiny amount of activity. This bill provides a more tailored approach for businesses while keeping in place consumer protections.

Arguments Against:

Perhaps this should be widened to include cars. With appropriate protections in place it would be consumer friendly if you could purchase a used rental car from a company like Hertz. Used car dealerships wouldn’t like it, but it would create more competition in the industry.

How Should Your Representatives Vote on HB19-1330