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.

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]

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.

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) [Rich, Roberts]

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.

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.

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.

How Should Your Representatives Vote on HB19-1035

HB19-1040 Professional Land Surveyors Continuing Education [Valdez]

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

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

Short Description:

Aligns the description of appraisal management companies with federal law.

Long Description: n/a

SB19-067 Rural Development Grant Program Creation (Coram)

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