These are all of the Housing bills proposed in the 2020 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 or highlighted in yellow. Pink highlights mean House amendments to the original bill; orange mean Senate amendments; yellow highlights mean conference committee amendments. The bill will say under the header if it has been amended.

Each bill has been given a "magnitude" category: Mega, Major, Medium, Minor+, 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.

HB20-1009 Suppressing Court Records Of Eviction Proceedings (Winter (D)) [Jackson (D)]

AMENDED: Minor

PASSED

Appropriation: None
Fiscal Impact: None

Goal: Keep mobile home park eviction or termination actions suppressed unless the plaintiff wins.

Description:

Requires the court to suppress court records related to an eviction proceeding or action for termination of a mobile park tenancy so they are not publicly available. If the plaintiff wins, the court must lift the suppression order unless both parties agree they should remain suppressed.

Additional Information: n/a

Auto-Repeal: None

Arguments For:

Landlords often use private screening companies to collect background information on potential tenants and these companies often look for criminal and civil case information. People who have had proceedings begin against them but won should not have to worry that future landlords are going to hold this against them.

Arguments Against:

This is a good idea but we shouldn’t leave out tenants in rental properties. The rationale behind protecting them is the same.

While we do live in an innocent before proven guilty society, we do not suppress court proceedings involving adults. The public has a vested interest in having this information available publicly, sometimes in order to ferret out abuses by people bringing charges or proceedings. The logic that is being applied here, that just being having proceedings initiated against you can bias people against you, applies to all sorts of judicial proceedings. But we rightly don’t shut out the public on those and shouldn’t here as well.

How Should Your Representatives Vote on HB20-1009

HB20-1035 Programs To Develop Housing Support Services (Fields (D)) [Singer (D)]

From the Legislative Oversight Committee Concerning the Treatment of Persons with Mental Health Disorders in the Criminal and Juvenile Justice Systems

AMENDED: Minor

PASSED A HOUSE COMMITTEE

Appropriation: None
Fiscal Impact: $500,000 (up to legislature to decide how much to budget for program)

Goal: Increase support for programs designed to help people with mental health needs and interactions with the justice system obtain and keep housing.

Description:

Creates two grant programs to support development of housing support services and prevention programs for individuals with behavioral, mental health, or substance use disorders who are homeless or at risk of becoming homeless and who have contact with the criminal or juvenile justice system. One grant program is designed to create more supportive housing programs combing affordable housing with access to supportive services. The other is designed to cover the costs of providing supportive housing services not eligible for reimbursement from Medicaid. Also requires the state to expand its technical assistance to assist communities in developing these programs.

Supportive services can include things like in-reach and outreach, housing search and counseling support, engagement, vocational or occupational training, clinical services, support with daily living activities, and temporary financial assistance to cover housing costs.

Additional Information:

The grant program to create more supportive housing programs must prioritize applications from entities in rural or frontier counties. To be eligible applicants must:

  • Be an agency of local government, special district, or tribal agency, faith-based organization, or non-profit
  • Demonstrate proficiency in this area
  • Satisfy any additional criteria the state determines

Application must show:

  • Community need for assistance in overcoming barriers to accessing existing funds for these programs
  • Community population of people with behavioral, mental health, or substance use disorders who have had contact with the criminal and juvenile justice system in the past 12 months and are either homeless, in unstable housing, or in transition from institutions
  • Any additional criteria the state determines

This grant program repeals with sunset review in September 2024 2025.

For the grant program providing funds to programs that cannot get reimbursed from Medicaid, grantees may use funds for:

  • Develop and implement evidence-based programs intended to prevent homelessness among this population
  • Cover the costs of providing these services if they cannot be billed to Medicaid

Bill directs state to look on an on-going basis for additional ways to qualify costs for Medicaid reimbursement. To be eligible, grantees must be:

  • Be an agency of local government, special district, or tribal agency, faith-based organization, or non-profit
  • Demonstrate proficiency in this area
  • Demonstrate plan for collaboration with a regional accountable entity
  • Satisfy any additional criteria the state determines

Grant application must contain same information as other grant and state again must prioritize rural and frontier counties.

Grantees must agree to:

  • Participate in trainings, technical assistance, and reporting requirements
  • Use or participate in the state homeless management information system and the coordinated entry system developed by continuums of care or any successor systems, the state medical assistance program, and existing housing voucher programs

Second grant program repeals with sunset review in September 2027.

State must also evaluate how to increase participation in the state homeless management information system and the coordinated entry system, including identifying technical needs and associated costs around the state, providing technical assistance and training to local communities, and working with local communities to identify ways to increase data program effectiveness.


Auto-Repeal: September 2024 2025 for 1st grant program, September 2027 for 2nd. Both sunset review.

Arguments For:

We have a homeless crisis in the state and the bulk of it tracks with mental and behavioral health issues and interactions with the justice system. Over 10,000 people experience homelessness in the state and even more residents are at high-risk of losing their housing. And when we examine who these people are, over 60% of those experiencing homelessness reported needing mental health treatment. And 80% of people in state prisons reported experiencing some homelessness in the previous year and 40% reported they will be homeless upon release from jail. This becomes a self-perpetuating cycle, where people with mental health needs have trouble, lose housing, and then their mental health needs become worse as they are forced to fend for themselves on the street. They are much more likely to end up in the criminal justice system, and then upon release, they have trouble getting housing and end up on the street again, and the cycle continues. This costs communities tremendous amounts of money and contributes to recidivism. Supportive services are a way to step in and stabilize housing for this population in an attempt to break the cycle. Unfortunately there are many communities that simply don’t have the infrastructure to access funding that is available for this exact purpose and different communities have different needs, so we need a broad scope of how to assist them. The funding process is extremely complex: having housing voucher management in place, knowing how to bill Medicaid, knowing how to navigate the housing process, including billing landlords and tenants, etc. We can save money by implementing a program to keep people out of the mental health facilities of the department of corrections and out of jail period by helping local communities figure out how to access funds that are available for this exact purpose. Then hopefully once the grant program is finished, these communities can stand on their own.

Arguments Against:

We have limited state resources and a massive housing problem. Putting resources not toward housing but to create programs to help access housing is not the appropriate way to spend our funds to attack homelessness. The grant programs are quite vague in terms of what grantees can do with the funds, we really should not be spending state money on helping organizations buy office space, for instance. The state already also has multiple housing grant funds it could direct toward some of this work without the need for new legislation and new grant funds. Part of the everyday job of the department of housing should be to do outreach work like this to help people navigate the system, we should not need to spend extra state money via grants to make that occur.


This program is too narrowly defined. Supportive housing services should be based on risk, as homelessness is expensive for communities even if the people experiencing it do not have interactions with the justice system. In addition no money is specifically appropriated for the grants, so they will be subject to the difficulties of the full budgeting process where every dollar is precious.

How Should Your Representatives Vote on HB20-1035

HB20-1049 Reauthorize Habitat For Humanity Tax Check-Off (Coram (R), Bridges (D)) [Bird (D), McKean (R)]

AMENDED: Significant

PASSED HOUSE

Appropriation: None
Fiscal Impact: None

Goal: Reauthorize the Habitat for Humanity of Colorado check-off box for voluntary contributions of income tax refunds on state income tax return forms.

Description:

Permanently Reauthorizes Habitat for Humanity of Colorado to appear as on option on the list of groups for voluntary contributions of income tax refunds on state income tax return forms through 2024.

Additional Information: n/a

Auto-Repeal: 2025 for appearing on form, 2026 for language in statute

Arguments For:

This first in the nation but now widely copied program is a great way for deserving Colorado non-profits to raise money. People frequently end up with small amounts of income tax refunds that they do not mind donating. The list of companies provides them with an easy outlet to do so. Habitat for Humanity has been one of the higher performing organizations on the list, averaging nearly $100,000 a year in donations based on over 7,500 contributions, and deserves to keep its spot for another 5 years.

Arguments Against:

This entire program is far too unregulated and needs to change. There is no state oversight or reporting required for how the money raised is spent and it has turned into a political popularity contest at the legislature, with the best connected groups able to get on the form since there is no formal application process (it just requires a bill like this one) and then sometimes stay on even when they fail to meet the minimum number of contributions (the legislature just rewrites the rules). We need something with stronger oversight and should not reauthorize organizations until we have it. And we certainly should not make this program worse by permanently reauthorizing any of the non-profits.

How Should Your Representatives Vote on HB20-1049

HB20-1134 Interlocutory Appeals In Forcible Entry And Detainer [Sandridge]

KILLED BY BILL SPONSORS

Appropriation: None
Fiscal Impact: None

Goal: Clarify that restitution of premises appeals can be heard by an appellate court.

Description:

Clarifies that an appellate court can hear an interlocutory appeal (appeal on one part of a judge’s decision before the case is decided) on just an order of restitution of premises (giving them back to the landlord) in an eviction cases and that as is the case with other appeals related to eviction law, if the tenant is the one appealing the decision, they must continue to pay rent during the appeal. An interlocutory appeal does not stay further proceedings in the trial court that are not related to issue of restitution of premises.

Additional Information: n/a

Auto-Repeal: None

Arguments For:

There was some confusion about this as appellate courts frequently do have the ability to hear interlocutory appeals but the law is silent about this in these cases. This bill merely ends the silence in favor of allowing appeals on the extremely important issue of someone’s housing.

Arguments Against:

We don’t allow interlocutory appeals in all cases and appellate courts are usually not keen on overturning lower court decisions. Given that eviction proceedings are not generally lengthy, we can rely on the lower court decision in this case until the entire case is decided.

How Should Your Representatives Vote on HB20-1134

HB20-1141 Fees Charged To Tenants By Landlords (Gonzales (D)) [Caraveo (D), Gonzales-Gutierrez (D)]

AMENDED: Significant

KILLED IN HOUSE COMMITTEE

Appropriation: None
Fiscal Impact: None

Goal: Set in place multiple prohibitions around late fees and flat fees from landlords, including requiring at least 14 days prior to issuing a late fee and setting the maximum price for a late fee.

Description:

Prohibits landlords in residential premises or mobile home parks from:

    • Charging late fees from rent unless rent is more than 14 8 days late
    • Imposing a late fee of more than $20 $25 or 3% 5% of the rent that has not been paid, whichever is greater
    • Charging interest on late fees or more than one late fee for payment
    • Charging the tenant a late fee if the part of the rent that is unpaid comes from a rent subsidy provider than the tenant (like a housing authority)
    • Recouping a late fee from any rental payments
    • Recouping a late fee from the security deposit if more than 180 days have passed. Requires written notification for under 180 days
    • Tenants can take civil action against landlords who violate the late fee provisions and are entitled to three times amount late fee exceeds allowed amount, if applicable, as well as attorney fees, and twice actual economic damages, and if it is found the landlord imposed a late fee in bad faith, at least $2,000 in damages Landlords must be given seven days to cure a violation.
  • Charging any flat fees or charges other than rent. May charge use-based fees for services or facilities in common areas. This must Requires any other fees to be based on actual cost, be optional, and be in rental agreementand can only be increased to cover costs
  • If utility services that are not individually metered are provided, landlord must include utility cost in the rent and charge a flat amount to cover costs of all tenants who receive non-metered utility

Additional Information: n/a

Auto-Repeal: None

Arguments For: This is about preventing landlords from abusing the fee process. No multiple late fees or interest for the same rental payment, no charging fees for services or facilities the tenant doesn’t use, no docking rent payments to cover late fees (and thus making those rent payments inadequate), no going back more than six months to pull money out of a security deposit, and no using the failure of a third-party to pay as an excuse to charge a fee to the tenant. The bill also ensures that landlords aren’t gauging tenants in their fees (3% 5% is perfectly reasonable and will be missed by anyone who has to pay it) and are providing tenants ample time to make their rent. This helps tenants who may have a particularly bad month for whatever reason avoid piling on through additional fees while ensuring the landlord still gets paid. Landlords are of course free to decide they no longer want to rent to tenants who are habitually late once their lease is up.

Arguments Against:

What this law is really telling tenants is that although rent may be “due” by the first of the month, it really isn’t due until the middle 8th of the month because that is when a late fee can actually be assessed. And landlords in mobile park homes in particular really have their hands tied when it comes to evicting residents, so someone who is habitually late but still pays will be nearly impossible to get rid of. Landlords should also be able to ask for more than a few dollars in a late fee, for it to be a real deterrence people have to fear needing to pay it, not be annoyed by it. The use-based fee structure may also be extremely hard for landlords to parse in some circumstances, particularly if they do not have any sort of infrastructure to track it. So long as the flat fee is disclosed in the rental agreement, there shouldn’t be an issue with the tenant paying it. No one is forcing them to live there.

How Should Your Representatives Vote on HB20-1141

HB20-1155 Higher Efficiency New Construction Residence [A. Valdez (D), Weissman (D)]

AMENDED: Minor

CONFERENCE COMMITTEE

Appropriation: None
Fiscal Impact: None

Goal: Require new home builders to offer solar panel systems in all new homes as an option, offer some form of preparation for electric vehicle charging as an option, and electric heat as an option.

Description:

It is currently required for new home builders to offer one of the following: solar panel system or solar thermal system, to prewire or preplumb for these systems, or a chase or conduit to wire or plumb the house in the future. This bill changes this to require home builders to offer all three options. It also adds the requirement that a new home builder offer one of the following: electric vehicle charging system, upgrades of wiring to accommodate a future installation of a charging system, or a 208 to 240 volt AC plug-in located in a place accessible to a car parking area. Builders can subject car charging upgrades to additional charges to the homeowner, deposits, and can select their own contractors to install. Builders must also offer electric heating, including the furnace or water heater or heat-pump system. State must develop basic consumer education or guidance about leased solar installation and purchased solar installation options.

Additional Information:

Builders can stipulate in the sales agreement that the charging system is based on technology available at the time and may not work with all electric vehicle models or future models and that the builder is not liable for any additional upgrades, retrofits, or other alterations to accommodate any other electric vehicle charging system in the future. Builders must also offer pricing, energy efficiency, and utility bill information for each natural gas, electric, or other option available from the Federal Energy Star program. Heating provisions of the bill do not apply to homes where the heating system has been substantially installed prior to the buyer going under contract.


Auto-Repeal: None

Arguments For:

We are staring in face of climate catastrophe and need to drastically alter our emissions outputs in a short period of time. A key part of that is making these alternative and cleaner technologies available on a mass-scale. First of all, solar panels and solar energy has become quite cheap to install, so we no longer should offer builders the out of just the bare minimum of preparation for the house in the future. They are still free to charge for their costs in installation. Second, one of the biggest barriers to adoption of electric vehicles is the in-home charging technology required. These are one of the biggest levers we have in fighting climate change and cleaning up the smog in our state and while there is only so much we can do for homes that are already built, we absolutely must ensure that future homes are capable of accommodating these vehicles. Again, the home builder can pass on costs to the buyer. And when it comes to heating, again electricity is the cleanest option we have. And this is all optional. If the buyer doesn’t want it, they don’t have to get it.

Arguments Against:

This is an unreasonable burden on home builders, who have to choose between charging more and potentially losing some customers and eating the extra costs involved. Some builders of course already offer these things and that is a great way for them to differentiate themselves in a competitive market for anyone for whom this is important. But we should not be ramming our thumbs on the scale for solar and electric vehicles to this extent. Even as an option, this is a drastic tipping of the scales away from one of the key industries in Colorado: oil and gas extraction and production. Those jobs are here, now, and pushing people away from oil and gas energy is pushing them away from a lot of Colorado jobs.

How Should Your Representatives Vote on HB20-1155

HB20-1196 Mobile Home Park Act Updates (Fenberg (D), Lee (D)) [Hooton (D), McCluskie (D)]

AMENDED: Minor

PASSED HOUSE

Appropriation: None
Fiscal Impact: None

Goal: Change the Mobile Home Park Act to provide more protection for tenants against rule changes, retaliation, and eviction. Also require landlords to provide more extensive upkeep to park grounds and greater transparency around water bills.

Description:

Makes multiple changes to the Mobile Home Park Act:

  • Allows homeowners to cure non-compliance before being evicted and removes ability for landlords to evict homeowners for annoying other homeowners or interfering with park management, instead must threaten safety of others
  • Prohibits landlords from retaliating against a homeowner for exercising their rights or becoming part of a tenant’s association. Management can rebut a charge of retaliation with their own evidence
  • Requires park rules and regulations to be a part of the tenant agreement and can only be amended with consent of homeowner or after 60 days notice without their consent. Homeowners can file a complaint on proposed rule change to the state, in which case management cannot enforce it until the complaint is resolved. Any increase in cost to the homeowner of 10% of more is considered unreasonable and unenforceable. Management has the burden of proof in a complaint. None of this applies to reasonable changes to recreational facility rules
  • Makes landlords responsible for providing potable water and toilets during water failures that are the landlord’s fault. Requires landlord to keep common areas in clean condition and good repair and in compliance with relevant health and safety laws, keep them generally accessible to the public and people with disabilities. Requires them to maintain roads and pavement in safe condition, including providing snow removal and ensuring adequate drainage. Requires them to maintain lot grades and take reasonable efforts to maintain integrity of house foundations. Requires them to maintain trees in manner that protects safety of residents, including reasonable preservation of trees that existed when owners signed their leases. Failure to uphold these responsibilities can be subject of complaint to state, which can issue penalties, cease and desist orders, require rent reduction or per diems if the owner has to vacate their own for a period of time.
  • Establishes that management does not have the right to enter a home without the written consent of the homeowner (which can be withdrawn at any time) unless it is to fulfill its maintenance duties or to ensure compliance with park rules and regulations or in an emergency. In non-emergency situations management must make reasonable effort to give 48 hours notice and not interfere with homeowner’s peaceful enjoyment of their home
  • Removes ability for landlord to evict anyone without 60 day notice (previously could do 30 days under some circumstances). Requires landlords to give one year notice, rather than 6 months, if they are going to convert the park into something else that would require eviction
  • If landlord charges for water use, must post the total water bill each January and provide it to each homeowner. If it charges homeowners separately based on their usage, this must also include methodology by which landlord calculates everyone’s part of the bill (including common area usage). Requires use of a method that is reasonable, equitable, and consistent.
  • Prohibits inclusion in a rental agreement of terms that require a homeowner to agree to a possessory lien, that bind a homeowner to arbitration instead of a civil trial, or that authorizes a third party to judge a claim arising from the rental agreement

Additional Information:

Also:

  • Adds definition of resident to cover people who live in the park but do not own a home. Adds definition of retaliatory action, which includes increasing rent or fees or decreasing services in selective, non-uniform or excessive manner; issuing warnings, fines, or citations that are not lawful; serving unjustified threats or notices of eviction; billing for items previously not billed for in a selective, non-uniform, or excessive manner; creating or modifying rules and regulations of the park that are not related to a reasonable purpose; selectively enforcing rules or requirements of the park; conducting management visits that are selective, non-uniform, or excessive; altering or refusing to renew an existing rental agreement; surveilling a home owner who submits a complaint to the state; reporting or publicizing damaging information about a home owner who submits a complaint to the state. Action must occur within 6 months of a complaint to be considered retaliation. Retaliation is not considered when management addressing non-payment of rent in an administrative hearing or became aware the home was operating as an illegal drug laboratory
  • Landlords must post emergency contact number in common areas of the park and communicate it to all park residents. Contacting this number is deemed notification of an issue.
  • Cannot bill for water usage caused by a leak in the line. Must notify homeowners of a leak within 24 hours.
  • Requires termination notices to include information about ability to submit a complaint to the state
  • Prohibits landlords from charging two months rent for security deposits for multiwide units (must be one month) and requires landlord to keep security deposits separate from other funds, though they are allowed to earn interest on it


Auto-Repeal: None

Arguments For:

Mobile home parks are unique, in that you have different owners of the home and the land. It is also extremely difficult for the home owner to move at times, because it can be hard to find a vacancy in another park. This makes traditional rental management difficult, because the two parties are on such unequal footing. Unfortunately, this had led to abuses of the system by park owners, who can also take advantage of the fact that it can be very difficult for home owners to pursue costly and time-consuming legal action. Last year the department of regulatory agencies found that the regulation of mobile park homes was “relatively loose”. More than 100,000 Coloradans live in manufactured homes. This bill provides much more solid footing when it comes to rules and regulations, the rights of homeowners to enjoy the privacy of their home, the ability to cure violations before being evicted, and assurance that the park is kept in reasonable condition by management. It also protects homeowners from retaliation.

Arguments Against:

This takes supposedly loose restrictions and goes too far in the other direction. Park home managers have to balance the rights of individual homeowners against the rights of everyone else in the park. This opens up management to easy complaints from residents over potentially trivial rule changes, over rule changes that the majority of the park may support, into potential cycles of accused retaliation by unhappy park owners, and into very loose definitions of upkeep when it comes to something like trees. Management may have to prove itself over and over and over again, all for the same homeowner, and the state is powerless to adjust the balance when it is clearly being abused. Even more troubling is management may then be hauled again in front of the state for refusing to renew the lease with the clear troublemaker. In all it is a difficult balance to strike when someone owns the land and someone else owns the house sitting on it, but it should be a balance. This tips the scales too far in one direction.

How Should Your Representatives Vote on HB20-1196

HB20-1200 Sunset Homeowners' Association Information And Resource Center [Titone (D), Weissman (D)]

Appropriation: None
Fiscal Impact: Potential slight increase in revenue from fines

Goal: Continue the HOA information and resource center through 2025 and follow the recommendation of the department of regulatory agencies’ sunset review report to create a dispute resolution and enforcement program.

Description:

Continues HOA information and resource center through September 2025. Also creates a dispute resolution and enforcement program. State can receive complaints and perform dispute resolution activities related to the program, including investigations (with subpoena power), negotiations, determinations of violations, and imposition of penalties. This begins in May 2021. State must first attempt to resolve complaints with negotiations between the parties. If that fails, following an investigation, state will make determination of fact on the complaint. It must then send written notification of its decision including how it was determined. If it finds a violation has occurred, notice must include what remedial action is required to avoid penalties. If the respondent does not act or request an administrative hearing, the state may fine up to $5,000 per day while the violation remains uncorrected. May also order cease-and-desist. Either party can request a hearing before an administrative law judge if it doesn’t like the ruling. Must be filed within 14 days of receiving determination. Judge has 63 days to issue ruling after hearing. This may also be appealed. HOAs and their management may not recover any reimbursement required by the state from property owners. Also may not retaliate against complainant, violator can be fined up to $10,000. None of these excludes ability for legal action in court.

State must create educational materials for this program in both English and Spanish and post on website. Must also create a database of associations and managers who have had complaints filed against them and their outcomes. State must also annually report on complaints received.

SPONSOR HAS INDICATED DISPUTE RESOLUTION PORTION OF BILL WILL BE SIGNIFICANTLY AMENDED

Additional Information:

State must develop toll-free number that the public can use to seek additional information and communicate complaints. This number must be included in educational information. State must send information packet to all HOAs with registration notification, fee information, and forms, toll-free number information, and a description of protection afforded to homeowners under the law. This must be sent every year. HOAs must notify state of any change in their board within 30 days and must provide contact information for each board member individually. President of the board must be identified, as well as manager of the HOA if there is one. Number of units in HOA and if they are residential or commercial, as well as number of units under control of the HOA must also be submitted. Missing registration deadlines subjects HOAs to late fees of up to $5,000.

Database must contain number of complaints received and their nature and extent, violation of law, and outcome.

State can require HOAs to: refund fines, assessments, or any other fees, file documents to correct a violation, or take necessary action to correct a violation. State can dismiss penalty for non-response if the HOA can demonstrate a good-faith reason for lack of response. Administrative law judges must hear and receive pertinent information and testimony and decide whether the preponderance of the evidence supports the state’s conclusion.

Management does not mean performance of a clerical, ministerial, accounting, or maintenance function. Managers does not include:

  • People working under management performing clerical, ministerial, accounting, or maintenance work
  • Public officials performing official duties
  • Receiver, trustee, administrator, conservator, executor, or guardian acting under proper authorization
  • Someone acquiring or negotiation to acquire real estate
  • Attorney in connection with their practice
  • Corporation with respect to acts incidental and necessary to ordinary course of the corporation’s business activities that do not affect the property
  • Independent contractors who perform clerical, ministerial, accounting, or maintenance functions or are not otherwise engaged with management
  • Apprentice working under manager


Auto-Repeal: September 2025

Arguments For:

From the department of regulatory agencies’ sunset review report: “The Center is charged with two duties: serve as the central repository for complaints related to HOAs and report the complaints in an annual report, and serve as an information resource related to HOAs. The Center receives an average of approximately 1,543 complaints per calendar year. However, it lacks the authority to act on those complaints. It also receives numerous requests for information. For example, in calendar year 2017, the Center received 5,161 requests for information. All of this illustrates that the Center serves as a useful resource for consumers. Therefore, the General Assembly should continue the Center for five years.” With 1,500 complaints per year, it is also clearly time to give this center some teeth in actually mediating complaints and making decisions. We give similar abilities to mobile park homeowners, so there is precedent.

Arguments Against:

We can provide more sunshine for HOA members without creating a full-blown dispute board. Most HOAs have voluntary leadership and their ability to act or not act depends greatly on the underlying legal construction of the HOA. Dragging them in front of the state may have a chilling effect on people’s willingness to do these volunteer roles and that in turn may hinder HOA function.

How Should Your Representatives Vote on HB20-1200

HB20-1201 Mobile Home Park Residents Opportunity To Purchase (Moreno (D), Ginal (D)) [Hooton (D), Gonzales-Gutierrez (D)]

AMENDED: Minor

PASSED HOUSE

Appropriation: None
Fiscal Impact: None

Goal: Allow homeowners in mobile home parks the ability to buy the land if the landlord is considering either selling the park or changing its usage.

Description:

If the landlord of a mobile home park anticipates selling the park or changing the use of the land it must give notice to the homeowners in the park, the applicable municipality or county, the state division of housing, and each homeowners’ association, residents’ association, or similar body that represents park residents. This must be done within 14 days of the triggering event. Homeowners then have 90 days to make an offer. Any association that represents at least 51% of homeowners can make a purchase. Homeowners may assign their right to purchase to a government or non-profit for the purpose of continuing the use of the park. Landlord must sent an affidavit of compliance with these regulations to the municipality or county and state if the homeowners do not purchase. This does not apply to proposed sales to family members, co-tenants, or transfers due to inheritance or eminent domain.

Additional Information:

If it is for a sale, notice must include purchase price, description of the property, and terms and conditions landlord has either received or intends to offer. If it is a foreclosure that is less than 90 days, purchase opportunity for homeowners ends when the foreclosure sale occurs. Landlords cannot unreasonably refuse requests for documents, data, or other information that would enable someone to make an offer on the park, negotiate in good faith, or schedule a closing date. Information must be kept confidential on landlord's request. 90 day time frames can be extended by written agreement. Landlords cannot solicit, request, or try to coerce an offer from mobile park home owners.


Auto-Repeal: None

Arguments For:

More than 100,000 Coloradans live in manufactured homes and most are in the unique situation where they own their home but not the land upon which the home sits. This puts them at extreme risk of homelessness if a park is sold out from underneath them to a redeveloper who does not intend to keep it as a mobile home park. This is because it is extremely difficult and expensive to relocate a mobile home. And while we already require mobile home park landlords to notify homeowners if there is a pending sale, there is no mechanism to allow the homeowners time to attempt to buy the park themselves. This bill doesn’t force the landlord to sell to the homeowners, it merely gives them a chance to get into the game and potentially band together to make the purchase or assign their right to another entity that won’t care about making a profit off the land. This is behavior we certainly want to encourage because it helps solve the house/land ownership conundrum and put more Coloradans in stable housing situations.

Arguments Against:

Three months is a long time for a landowner to sit on an offer and wait. It may be long enough that the offer might disappear and the landowner would be left still owning the park it no longer wants to own if the homeowners cannot come up with their own offer. The bill might also just flatly discourage any offer at all, if someone looking to buy the property knows they are not guaranteed anything for 90 days and may ultimately just be a stalking horse for the government or a non-profit or the homeowners themselves to buy the land.

How Should Your Representatives Vote on HB20-1201

HB20-1332 Prohibit Housing Discrimination Source Of Income (Fields (D)) [Herod (D), Jackson (D)]

Appropriation: None
Fiscal Impact: Not yet released

Goal: Prohibit landlords from discriminating on the basis of source of income, including government vouchers, for leases or rentals.

Description:

Adds discrimination on the basis of source of income as a type of unfair housing practice for leases or rentals (only lawful professions qualify). Also prevents discriminating against source of income in the terms or conditions of a rental agreement. This applies to government income in the form of assisted housing as well. The bill makes it illegal to advertise any rental or lease of housing that indicates any limitation or discrimination based upon sources of income, to represent to anyone that housing is not available when it actually is so as to discriminate against source of income, and to try to get people to rent housing by representations of the type of people who can or can’t get housing in the neighborhood based on source of income. Does not apply to a landlord with three or fewer tenants.

Additional Information: n/a

Auto-Repeal: None

Arguments For:

Money is money, as long as it is being lawfully earned it is not the business of landlords what profession someone is in or if they are getting housing assistance from the government. This is a particular problem with those getting public assistance. People who use federal vouchers to help pay for their rent are denied at disturbing rates. A 2018 study of several large cities in the US (not Denver) found people were denied around 75% of the time in LA and Fort Worth. This same study found a 15% rate denial in Washington DC and 31% of the time in Newark, both cities with similar laws as this bill. About 63,000 households in the state get housing assistance. This bill also allows someone who works in professions that are less socially acceptable to obtain housing the same as the rest of us.

Arguments Against:

Landlords have the right to screen tenants and part of that is what kind of people they want living on their property. This can go beyond simply not wanting strippers or people who work at marijuana dispensaries. Some sources of income are also highly volatile, and a landlord may not want to take a risk on someone’s income stream drying up suddenly and leaving them unable to pay rent. Or take a chance on someone with in essence two very different sources of income: government vouchers and personal income.

How Should Your Representatives Vote on HB20-1332

HB20-1333 Homeowners' Association Transparency Responsibility Competency [Titone (D)]

Appropriation: None
Fiscal Impact: Not yet released

Goal: Make numerous disclosure and operating requirement changes to HOAs, including more detailed and frequent scrutiny of finances, more robust bidding for goods or services, making it harder to have a written or secret ballot at meetings, allowing meetings to be recorded, shortening the time a developer can control an HOA board, requiring board members to complete free state education course, and increasing HOA disclosure requirements.

Description:

  • Requires the HOA’s executive board to commission a reserve study every five years for upkeep of common elements. The HOA board must have a third party audit their finances against the reserve study at least annually and make any adjustments the board deems necessary to provide at least ½ of the amount identified in the study
  • Prohibits taking of any action at an HOA meeting by written or secret ballot unless 20% of the unit owners in attendance request it. Previously could also be done by discretion of the board. Allows unit owners to bring a professional election inspector to observe any contested board election
  • Requires all contracts for goods or services over $10,000 or 5% of the HOA’s annual budget to get at least three bids from independent vendors, with existing contracts excluded from this requirement.
  • Changes the period of time the developer can control the HOA. From two years to one year after last sale of a unit or two years after the first sale of a unit by the developer, whichever comes first. For large planned communities, changes from six years to two years after last sale of a unit or change from twenty to five years after the first sale of a unit, whichever comes first
  • Allows all HOA meetings, except for executive sessions, to be recorded by a unit owner or their designee, so long as it is not distracting. Boards may adopt rules to require advanced notice of recording or a prohibition on people moving around the meeting place to make recordings
  • Requires HOA to keep a list of the current amounts of all fees and expenses charged in connection with purchase or sale of a unit. This must be given to the state HOA information and resource center. HOA must allow inspection or copying of records it is required to keep (including these fees) within 30 days of written request or face penalties of $50 a day up to a maximum of $500 or unit owner’s actual damages, whichever is greater
  • Requires the state to create an online basic knowledge course. All HOA board members must then complete it within 60 days after joining a board

Additional Information:

Requires HOA to post on a website its governing documents and any amendments, as well as provide them, along with a list of current fees, to the state HOA information and resource center. Requires posting of HOA contact info and management company info on a website and annual distribution of that web address to unit owners (website used be one option among several).

Funding the reserves by less than half requires a majority vote of all unit owners in the HOA. Vetoing a budget that would adequately fund the reserves also qualifies.

Requires HOAs to certify their governing documents when a seller is providing them to a buyer. Allows for failure of a seller to obtain this certification to create a claim for relief from the court system for the buyer against the seller for actual damages plus court costs.


Auto-Repeal: None

Arguments For:

HOAs often manage budgets in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. They also can have large amounts of power in some communities to dictate to all the unit owners what they can and cannot do with their own property. This bill brings transparency and responsibility to these boards in several key ways. First, on finances, the bill ensures that boards are being responsible stewards of resources by ensuring that there are enough funds to maintain common areas and that contractors are being selected responsibly. Second, the bill removes the ability for the board to use a secret ballot at will and ensures that any meeting can be recorded. Third, the bill dramatically limits the number of years a developer can control the HOA before it is turned over to the actual residents. It also ensures that board members have basic knowledge of their rights and responsibilities and that HOAs are providing prompt and full disclosure to unit owners and perspective buyers when necessary. None of these provisions should be burdensome to a well-functioning HOA.

Arguments Against:

This bill goes too far in making what is in essence a volunteer job a burdensome duty that many may want to avoid. Mandatory state education course, extensive contracting requirements, inability to quickly resolve votes by written vote at meetings, and the requirement to maintain a website (which used to be optional) with all of this information on it. Audits used to only be required if the HOA had revenue or expenditures of over $250,000 and it was requested by 1/3 of the unit owners. This change is another example of going overboard in the other direction, by requiring every single HOA, no matter how small, to do a third-party audit every single year. The bottom line is this is a one-size fits all mandate to a situation where you have a wide variety of different types and sizes of HOAs. Some of the more professional outfits with big budgets will likely have no issues complying and indeed may already be mostly complying with the bill. Smaller shoestring HOAs may find this crippling in their ability to operate and attract volunteer board members.

How Should Your Representatives Vote on HB1333

HB20-1351 Local Government Authority Promote Affordable Housing Units (Gonzales (D), Rodriguez (D)) [Lontine (D), Gonzales-Gutierrez (D)]

Appropriation: None
Fiscal Impact: None

Goal: Allow local governments to force developers to build affordable housing through restricted rent on new or reconstructed developments so long as there is a choice of options for the developer, including one or more alternatives to the construction of new affordable units.

Description:

Allows local governments to apply land use restrictions that restrict rent to new or reconstructed developments as long as the regulation provides a choice of options to the property owner or land developer and creates one or more alternatives to the construction of new affordable housing units on the building site.

Additional Information: n/a

Auto-Repeal: None

Arguments For:

In 2000 the state supreme court ruled that local ordinances that force developers to include low-cost housing units in new developments is rent control, which is illegal under state laws. This ties the hands of cities that are desperately trying to force developers to build more affordable housing by requiring a certain amount be set aside for affordable housing. And we desperately need more affordable options. 50% of Colorado rentals statewide are cost-burdened, spending more than 30% of income on housing. Independent analysis shows that we are facing a deficit of over 20,000 housing units until at least 2025. This explosion is of course somewhat situational, which is why we need to give local communities the ability, through their own elected officials, to enact affordable construction requirements. The inability to do so has displaced renters from Denver and other large communities into surrounding smaller communities, which are ill-equipped to deal with the influx, which of course makes their housing costs rise as well. In addition, too many renters in the state cannot live near their work, which adds to our punishing traffic and contributes to our brown cloud. These sorts of agreements, called inclusionary zoning, are not novel. Neither is rent control, which has been around for nearly 100 years in New York. Ironically it is also New York that demonstrates the flaw in the supply and demand argument (that our only problem is we don’t have enough housing, so build more housing of any type). New York now has a glut of empty high-end units because these were overbuilt. That of course has not solved the housing problem because people are not living in them and they were not constructed to support lower rents. So instead of the promised supply lowering prices, we just have empty units taking up space. In this bill developers still must get some options, including at least one alternative of no affordable unit construction, so this will not be full-blown rent control and construction mandates pushed down developer’s throats. It will be flexible enough to allow cities to make their own determinations about what is best for their community.

Arguments Against:

This bill will allow rent control in some circumstances (the way to guarantee that housing stays affordable) so it is worth discussing how effective rent control is. Rent controls fly in the face of our capitalist system. Apartments that are rent controlled may incentivize owners to not maintain their property and there is a vast collection of literature from economists of all stripes, 93% of a 1992 poll of the American Economic Association, and in later times, including noted liberal Paul Krugman, that rent control does not work and in fact leads to less housing being created (that’s what happens when you remove the profit motive), in fact can raise prices in non-rent controlled areas, and can increase urban blight. Look at New York and San Francisco, how is rent control working out for them? They remain the two most expensive housing areas in the country. Rent controls also make it extremely difficult for the population to be mobile: if you live in a rent controlled apartment you may not be able to give it up to move elsewhere in the city because you cannot get into another rent controlled apartment. So the long-range commute solutions may not last very long. Finally rent controlled apartments encourage unsavory factors being used to determine who gets the rental. Rather than pure money, landlords may rely on factors such as appearance, children, and other potentially more insidious factors such as race or sexual orientation. What we have in our housing market is a simple supply and demand problem. There are far too few housing options in many parts of the state and far too many people who want to live there. Fix the supply, in part by building more multi-unit complexes vertically into the available space in the sky rather than one-family homes, and you will fix the pricing problem. It may not happen instantly, as the market does need to sort itself out at times, so for instance in New York no developer is going to sit on vast numbers of vacant units without doing something to fix the problem, but over time it will improve our housing market. There is also a way to force developers to build housing units at a certain value point as part of a project but not restrict the rent they can charge. This avoids the potential future problems of rent control while also avoiding the problem of developers building too many luxury units.


The menu of options portion of this bill may in fact end up being the “out” for developers to avoid building affordable housing at all. Because of the tenuous current legal situation, the few cities that are attempting some form of inclusionary zoning have tended to make it voluntary with options developers can meet instead of building affordable housing (like paying a fee). The result has been developers overwhelmingly paying the fee instead of building the housing. So whatever the alternative is, and the bill does not really define what cities are allowed to do here, if it includes build what you want anyway but pay some sort of fee, that is what developers are going to do. The state supreme court made it clear that the legislature has the power to change this section and allow full-blown forced affordable housing as part of construction. We should do that and ditch the menu.

How Should Your Representatives Vote on HB1351

SB20-108 Landlord Prohibitions Tenant Citizenship Status (Gonzales (D))

AMENDED: Minor

PASSED SENATE

Appropriation: None
Fiscal Impact: None

Goal: Protect tenants from inquiries about their citizenship status and from any actions based on their immigration status from landlords.

Description:

Creates the Immigrant Tenant Protection Act. Landlords are prohibited from asking for immigration or citizenship status of a prospective tenant; disclosing or threatening to disclose information regarding immigration or citizenship of a prospective tenant to anyone, including law enforcement; harassing, intimidating, or retaliating against a tenant for exercising their rights under this bill or opposing any conduct prohibited by this bill; attempting to influence a tenant to surrender possession of unit or to not seek to occupy a unit based on immigration or citizenship; refusing to enter into a lease or sublease based on immigration or citizenship status; bring an action to recover possession of a unit based on citizenship status. Landlords must still comply with any legal obligation, including under federal law and request any documentation to verify financial qualifications of tenant. Remedy for violations is civil action, with compensatory damages, a penalty and attorney fees.

Additional Information:

Civil fine not to exceed $2,000 for each violation. Tenant’s immigration or citizenship status of a tenant is not admissible in a civil action involving a tenant’s housing rights unless the claims or defenses raised by the tenant place the tenant’s immigration or citizenship status directly in contention or the person seeking to make the inquiry demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence the inquiry is necessary in order to comply with federal law.


Auto-Repeal: None

Arguments For:

Safely housing everyone who is in our state and can afford to pay for it is a public safety matter. If people cannot secure safe housing they have to resort to other means, whether it is overpopulating another dwelling or being forced onto the street. This is a negative for all us, and of course for the human beings directly affected. Landlords are not federal immigration agents and we do not need them trying to enforce immigration laws. And that is the nice part of things this bill takes care of. The more insidious actions are landlords looking to leverage threats over tenants in order to secure lower rents. The bottom line is that all humans deserve safe housing and this bill ensures we provide to it to those who can pay for it.

Arguments Against:

This interferes with the rights of landlords to decide who they want to allow in their buildings. Someone who is in this country illegally is breaking federal law and is thus a fugitive from federal authorities. While we don’t need landlords doing the job of federal agents, we also don’t them to providing sanctuary, in some cases possibly against the will of the landlords, to those who are in this country illegally. In addition, this may put landlords in some legal jeopardy. If they know an individual is in this country illegally and do not report this to federal agents and then proceed to house them. A man in Kentucky was charged with federal crimes along these lines and was acquitted in part because the man could plead ignorance, that he had no intention to conceal illegal immigrants but just didn’t know. Ignorance would not be available in this instance.

How Should Your Representatives Vote on SB20-108

SB20-109 Short-term Rentals Property Tax (Gardner (R))

KILLED BY BILL SPONSORS

Appropriation: None
Fiscal Impact: $1.4 billion in higher property taxes around the state, decrease in state revenue of about $20 million

Goal: Treat short-term rentals that are not occupied by the owner for more than one month in a year like commercial property for property tax purposes.

Description: If a building or unit that is primarily used to dwell in is available for rent for less than 30 consecutive days and it is occupied by the owner for less than 30 days in a year, then the bill defines it as non-residential property for property tax purposes. This increases the tax rate from 7% to 29%.

Additional Information: n/a

Auto-Repeal: None

Arguments For:

Short-term rental properties have adverse effects on their communities, particularly in resort communities. They increase property values and especially drive out long-term rentals, which crowds out people who live in the area. They generally end up with inconsistent maintenance and up-keep standards and a steady flow of different people staying in them, which can downgrade the living experience for people in the community. So yes, this has a huge potential price tag. But let’s be honest here, anyone who is really using this as a way to offset owning a second home could easily stretch to fit the 30 day occupancy requirement and so avoid the tax increase. And the fiscal analysis used properties available to rent for more than 9 months a year, but the reality is that you can rent out the home for 11 months a year and still avoid the tax increase. So the actual likely impact will be smaller as people adjust. And quite frankly, anyone who spends less than one month out of the year at their second home and rents it out the rest of the time has a business, not a mountain home. And they should be treated as such, not given special treatment. In particular this bill will hit the businesses that buy properties for the sole purpose of renting them out short-term. Will some of them sell the properties instead of paying the higher taxes? Absolutely yes. Will this perhaps decrease property values? Yes. Those are both good things. Real 2nd home owners will still be advantaged by the tax code and can still rent out their homes. The economic impact on the community from tourism should be therefore mostly unaffected. People are still going to go to the mountains and people are still going to travel here from out-of-state. They somehow managed before AirBnB even existed and they’ll easily manage with a slightly reduced inventory of short-term rentals.

Arguments Against:

This could be devastating to the economies of these communities. Summit County alone would see a whopping $419 million a year increase in taxes as part of $1.4 billion increase state-wide, according to the fiscal note. The short-term rental industry is a major part of the tourism industry in this state, especially in resort areas. This bill will certainly cause some short-term rental owners to sell their homes instead and anyone who can say they know exactly how many is kidding themselves. A large sell-off, as those who can’t really afford a 2nd home without renting it out more than 11 months a year and those businesses that decide it is no longer worth it, is possible. This reduction in inventory comes along with a reduction in sales tax revenue, as people can’t pay sales tax if they aren’t renting a property, which is really the fiscal backbone of resort communities. The world has fundamentally changed since short-term rentals became popular and there is no going back. People who want to use them rather than hotels are likely to just go somewhere else, like Utah, if they cannot get a short-term rental here in Colorado. As for the housing issue, a huge part of the housing crisis in these communities actually relates to second homes that are just sitting empty most of the year, generating no economic activity and of course taking up space. Because space is a prime constraint. There are other ways to mitigate the impacts of short-term rentals, through licensing for instance and enforcement of ordinances, and other ways to boost affordable housing. A change this drastic should not be undertaken.

How Should Your Representatives Vote on SB20-109

SB20-138 Consumer Protection Construction Defect Time Period (Rodriguez (D))

PASSED SENATE COMMITTEE

Appropriation: None
Fiscal Impact: None

Goal: Increase the statute of limitations on construction defect lawsuits, start one of the clocks running from when the claimant finds the actual cause of the defect, and allow stops (or tolls) in the statute based on reasonableness for the claimant and delaying tactics from the developer.

Description:

Increases the overall statute of limitations for actions based on construction defects from 6 years to 10 years. Keeps the provision that you have two years if the cause of action is found in last two years of limitations, so now years 9 and 10. Requires claimants to discover both the physical defect and the cause of the defect and starts the two-year statute of limitations clock for that defect at the point that a reasonable person should have identified both of these (used to just be the physical defect). Allows for the statute of limitations clock to temporarily stop (or toll) if a reasonable person could not have been expected to find the defect within the statute of limitations or if the developer engaged in delay tactics to stall a lawsuit until after the statute of limitations expires (this is called equitable tolling).

Additional Information: n/a

Auto-Repeal: None

Arguments For:

Colorado courts have ruled pretty narrowly on the 2 year clock starting with the physical defect issue and the problem is that it can take some time to figure out what is causing the defect in some cases. If, for instance, you found a small crack in your wall and just painted it over but then discovered two years later that this was actually due a structural defect after other cracks appeared, it would be too late under the old law to take action. Colorado courts have also found that equitable tolling is not permissible as a reason to bring action outside the statute of limitations, that is you have the ten years (under this bill) to find the defect and its cause or you are out of luck even if a reasonable person would not have found the defect for much longer. The current repair laws are a problem too, because they require someone to follow the legal procedure for filing a claim and the vast majority of us are not lawyers versed in construction defect law. This actually was not the case until 2010, when the construction defects laws were overhauled. So we all somehow got along OK when courts did allow for judicial discretion in determining if either the defendant stalled (by stringing repair promises along for instance) or that the plaintiff couldn’t be expected to know about the defect. The increase in the statute of limitations is just to ensure that deep problems which do not manifest for some time can still be properly claimed.

Arguments Against:

This would effectively open construction professionals up to extended exposure to liability for errors and omissions in the design and construction of a property for potentially limitless periods of time in some cases. Considering that a court would have to decide if equitable tolling was warranted, it certainly opens up developers to limitless lawsuits, even if some do not make it past a judge. Three years ago the legislature came together across party lines to reform construction defect laws because we recognized that they were a hindrance to the development of the affordable housing we desperately need. This is of course not as lucrative to developers, and if their lawsuit risk is much higher, they may not bother with this sort of development. Six years is plenty of time to find any defect in the construction of a home or apartment and we already have provisions to handle repairs. Finding the physical defect is in fact the whole game here, it is not the developer’s fault if a homeowner doesn’t do their due diligence in taking a more in-depth look at something like a crack in the wall. Some personal responsibility needs to be in order.

How Should Your Representatives Vote on SB20-138