These are all of the transportation 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.

House

Click on the House bill title to jump to its section:

MEGA

HB20-1151 Expand Authority For Regional Transportation Improvements KILLED ON HOUSE CALENDAR

MAJOR

MEDIUM

HB20-1325 Low-emission Vehicle Managed Lane Access KILLED BY BILL SPONSORS

MINOR+

HB20-1170 Military And Surplus Military Vehicles On Roadways KILLED BY BILL SPONSORS
HB20-1192 Petroleum Redevelopment Fund Electric Vehicle KILLED ON HOUSE CALENDAR
HB20-1227 Network-level Distracted Driving Technology KILLED BY BILL SPONSORS
HB20-1279 Drunk Driving Enforcement Funding KILLED ON HOUSE CALENDAR
HB20-1310 Snow Removal Operations On State Highways KILLED IN HOUSE COMMITTEE
HB20-1315 Carpooling Service Internet Application Register Colorado Department Of Transportation KILLED ON HOUSE CALENDAR
HB20-1339 Motor Vehicle Dealer Demonstration Plates KILLED BY BILL SPONSORS

MINOR

HB20-1030 Commercial Vehicle Annual Fleet Overweight Permits SIGNED INTO LAW
HB20-1145 Move Over Or Slow Down For Official Vehicle SIGNED INTO LAW AMENDED
HB20-1173 811 Locate Exemption For County Road Maintenance KILLED BY BILL SPONSORS
HB20-1178 Increase Speed Limit On Certain Rural Highways SIGNED INTO LAW VERY SIGNIFICANTLY AMENDED (category change)
HB20-1285 Sunset Motorcycle Operator Safety Training Program PASSED AMENDED
HB20-1320 Off-highway Vehicle Certificates Of Title KILLED BY BILL SPONSORS
HB20-1352 Colorado Air And Space Port License Plate KILLED BY BILL SPONSORS

TECHNICAL

HB20-1167 Move Alternative Fuel Definition SIGNED INTO LAW
HB20-1190 Disabled Veteran Registration Fees And Ownership Tax KILLED ON HOUSE CALENDAR

Senate

Click on the Senate bill title to jump to its section:

MEGA

SB20-044 Sales And Use Tax Revenue For Transportation KILLED IN SENATE COMMITTEE
SB20-065 Limit Mobile Electronic Devices While Driving KILLED BY BILL SPONSORS

MAJOR

SB20-038 Statewide Biodiesel Blend Requirement Diesel Fuel Sales KILLED BY BILL SPONSORS
SB20-151 Administration Of The RTD Regional Transportation District KILLED BY BILL SPONSORS

MEDIUM

SB20-070 Traffic Offense Classification And Penalties KILLED BY BILL SPONSORS
SB20-092 Robotic Device Deliver Cargo KILLED BY BILL SPONSORS
SB20-094 Plug-in Electric Motor Vehicle Registration Fees KILLED BY BILL SPONSORS

MINOR

SB20-011 Commercial Vehicle VIN Vehicle Identification Number Verification Inspections SIGNED INTO LAW
SB20-017 Transportation Public-Private Partnership Reporting SIGNED INTO LAW AMENDED
SB20-035 Kiosk Program Provider Vehicle And Identity Services PASSED
SB20-036 Emissions Inspection Check Engine Light KILLED BY BILL SPONSORS
SB20-051 License Plate Expiration On Change Of Ownership PASSED SIGNIFICANTLY AMENDED
SB20-061 Yield To Bicycles In Bicycle Lanes SIGNED INTO LAW AMENDED
SB20-116 Penalties For Driving Under Restraint KILLED BY BILL SPONSORS
SB20-118 Hazardous Materials Transportation Permit Issuance PASSED AMENDED
SB20-167 Electric Motor Vehicle Manufacturer And Dealer SIGNED INTO LAW AMENDED
SB20-178 Woman Veteran Disability License Plate KILLED BY BILL SPONSORS
SB20-196 Hospice And Palliative Care License Plate KILLED BY BILL SPONSORS
SB20-199 Professional Fire Fighters License Plate Entity KILLED BY BILL SPONSORS

TECHNICAL

SB20-152 Correct Senate Bill 19-263 Effective Date Error SIGNED INTO LAW

HB20-1030 Commercial Vehicle Annual Fleet Overweight Permits (Scott (R), Hisey (R)) [D. Valdez (D), Gray (D)]

From the Transportation Legislative Review Committee

SIGNED INTO LAW

Appropriation: None
Fiscal Impact: Negligible

Goal: Allow commercial fleet owners to do their annual registration for vehicles with a quad axle grouping and vehicles that have 2 or 3 axles together rather than separately.

Description:

Currently commercial fleet owners have to register vehicles with a quad axle grouping and vehicles with 2 or 3 axles separately. This bill allows them to apply for a single annual permit.

Additional Information:

Fee is $2,000 plus $35 per vehicle.


Auto-Repeal: None

Arguments For:

This makes things a little easier for our commercial fleets and streamlines the entire process. There is no reason to have separate permitting, it can be done together.

Arguments Against:

While the amount of money is small ($20,000 a year) this will cost the state highway fund money every year while we are desperately trying to find it funds.

How Should Your Representatives Vote on HB20-1030

HB20-1145 Move Over Or Slow Down For Official Vehicle (Holbert (R), Garcia (D)) [McKean (R)]

AMENDED: Minor

SIGNED INTO LAW

Appropriation: None
Fiscal Impact: None

Goal: Define what a “safe speed” is for passing emergency vehicles, tow vehicles, or public utility vehicles parked on the side of the road.

Description:

Defines the safe speed people are supposed to slow down to in order to pass an emergency vehicle, tow vehicle, or public utility vehicle parked on the side of the road as 25 miles per hour if the speed limit is less than 45 miles per hour or 20 miles per hour less than the speed limit if it is over 45. Creates a public awareness campaign around the dangers of stationary emergency and service vehicles that are on the road or the side of the road.

Additional Information: n/a

Auto-Repeal: None

Arguments For:

We have the safe speed requirement in law but it is not defined. This is a recipe for potential trouble as people could dispute exactly what a safe speed is. This bill fixes this with a workable definition.

Arguments Against:

Should just keep the 20 miles per hour below for all speeds. Going 25 in a 30 mile per hour zone is not exactly much slower than usual.

How Should Your Representatives Vote on HB20-1145

HB20-1151 Expand Authority For Regional Transportation Improvements (Winter (D)) [Gray (D)]

AMENDED: Minor

KILLED ON HOUSE CALENDAR

Appropriation: None
Fiscal Impact: Impossible to say, depends on what these areas do with their powers

Goal: Allow cities and rural regions to raise transportation revenue on their own to use inside their boundaries, without needing approval from other parts of the state and without losing any state transportation funding.

Description:

Allows cities and rural regions within transportation planning organizations to exercise the powers of a regional transportation authorities, which includes the power to impose charges, fees, and with voter approval, visitor benefit, sales, and use taxes to generate transportation funding. The state is prohibited from considering these authorities and any revenue they are raising when it determines the amount of state transportation funding to be allocated to the areas inside these transportation planning organizations. Doing this requires at least two public hearings prior to adopting a resolution authorizing these enhanced powers.

Additional Information:

Adopting resolution must specify the regional transportation systems to be provided and the boundaries of the territory where the transportation planning organization can use their enhanced revenue generation power. This cannot include territory that is not in the transportation planning organization. Cities and counties can opt-into these boundaries if they are excluded.


Auto-Repeal: None

Arguments For:

We all know we have enormous transportation funding problems in Colorado, with billions of dollars in shortfalls just to maintain our current transportation infrastructure. The voters have rejected tax increases and they have rejected bonding on a state-wide level. The solution in this bill may not be ideal, in terms of a level transportation infrastructure base across the state, but it is one of the few avenues we have left. It lets individual pockets of the state have their own say. If, for instance, the Denver metro area wants to increase sales taxes to fund transportation projects in the Denver metro area, they should be able to do so without being vetoed by citizens who don’t live there. This bill enables this to happen through use of regional transportation authority. These can be created without this bill of course, but they are difficult to form and operate. Every single local government within the authority has to agree on everything. This bill takes existing (and possibly new) transportation planning organizations and gives them that same authority. It also prevents the department of transportation from using the existence of these revenues to cut-off state funds to the area. That would be counter-productive and actually incentivize other regions not to fund their own transportation improvements. If citizens in Denver, to use the same example, are paying more in sales tax to fund their transportation needs and then the state pulls funding so that Denver ends up about the same but some other part of the state gets more money, that is not fair to Denver and advantages the people who refused to pay out of their own pockets.

Arguments Against:

Some things just need statewide solutions and our transportation network is one of them. If parts of the state boost their transportation revenue, then those parts are less likely to support statewide initiatives to do the same. That could leave parts of the state out entirely, where the infrastructure there deteriorates while other parts thrive. Future efforts to boost revenue could be torpedoed by the regions of the state who have already boosted their own revenues. Smaller and less prosperous parts could be left in a no-win situation where they cannot raise enough funds on their own to address transportation and cannot convince the rest of the state to help them. The structure of the bill leaves the department of transportation unable to siphon off at least some funds from the thriving areas to help other parts of the state. We all have to be in this together.

How Should Your Representatives Vote on HB20-1151

HB20-1167 Move Alternative Fuel Definition (Moreno (D)) [Arndt (D)] TECHNICAL BILL

SIGNED INTO LAW

Description:

Moves the definition of alternative fuel in statutes.

HB20-1170 Military And Surplus Military Vehicles On Roadways (Marble (R)) [Humphrey (R)]

AMENDED: Moderate

KILLED BY BILL SPONSORS

Appropriation: None
Fiscal Impact: None

Goal: Allow both surplus military vehicles and under certain circumstances historical military vehicles to be driven on the road.

Description: Allows both surplus military vehicles and under certain circumstances historical military vehicles to be driven on the road. Historical military vehicles are only allowed on highways to go to and from meetings where the vehicles are a primary interest, and for special occassions like parades, to and from and during tours held for primary purpose of displaying the vehicles. Operation of the vehicle cannot create a traffic hazard. Must be a model year 1980 or older to qualify and must be maintained in historical condition. State can provide registration and license plates to these vehicles.

Additional Information: n/a

Auto-Repeal: None

Arguments For:

Army vehicles can be bought more cheaply than the commercial version. There is even an online auction marketplace. There are also heavy duty trucks available that can be very useful. A bill last year made these vehicles officially an off-highway vehicle and they cannot be registered for on-road use because they lack VIN numbers and other safety features. They also may struggle to pass emissions tests. There are not many of these vehicles in the state (the military vehicles are those that are kept for historical interest in the same condition as they were in the army) and it is not going to make a difference to the environment to let these vehicles onto the road. If we don’t, they are basically useless.

Arguments Against:

First, we have multiple other bills this session carving out exceptions to this rule for emergency responders and farmers. Second, we cannot be assured to be safe (we have no ability to tie any history to the vehicle). There is nothing magic about the fact that they were military vehicles. There are plenty of viable commercial vehicles that are available to perform the same functions. Even in this limited form we should not let these military vehicles on the road.

How Should Your Representatives Vote on HB20-1170

HB20-1173 811 Locate Exemption For County Road Maintenance (Smallwood (R), Winter (D)) [Saine (R), Baisley (R)]

AMENDED: Minor

KILLED BY BILL SPONSORS

Appropriation: None
Fiscal Impact: None

Goal: Exempt counties from calling 811 for road maintenance that will not go deep enough to threaten underground pipes or cables.

Description:

Exempts counties from calling 811 for underground facility marking when they are engaging in maintenance on gravel or dirt roads that does not lower the existing grade or elevation of the road, shoulder, or ditches and will not go deeper than six inches underground.

Additional Information: n/a

Auto-Repeal: None

Arguments For:

Currently almost anyone who is intending to dig underground must call 811 so that any underground pipes or wires can be marked for safety. These items are usually at a depth of at least 18 inches when they are under county gravel and dirt roads. Most county road maintenance of the type in this bill will not get anywhere close to these underground pipes or cables and it is a waste of time and resources to require 811 services in these cases.

Arguments Against:

Better safe than sorry, we’d rather spend a little extra time and money marking this stuff than accidentally encounter something not buried as deep as we would have thought while a worker goes a little deeper than intended and causes a break.

How Should Your Representatives Vote on HB20-1173

HB20-1178 Increase Speed Limit On Certain Rural Highways (Sonneberg (R)) [Holtorf (R)]

AMENDED: Very Significant

SIGNED INTO LAW

Appropriation: None
Fiscal Impact: None

Goal: Increase Study increasing speed limits to 70 miles per hour on rural highways where the state says it is safe.

Description:

Requires the department of transportation to conduct a study of state highways in rural areas to where the speed limit can be raised to 70 miles an hour without endangering public safety. State is to increase speeds in areas it identifies. No local governments can subsequently lower them. Must consider: if the road is predominantly straight, quality of the highway surface, presence or absence of adequate safe space on the sides of the road to allow vehicles to safely pull over, safety of vulnerable road users, and any other safety concerns. Must give priority to roads that connect rural towns and are relatively heavily traveled. This must done this year and then every five years. Report must be submitted to legislature.

Additional Information: n/a

Auto-Repeal: None

Arguments For:

Current law restricts maximum speed on rural highways to 65 miles per hour but on interstates it can be up to 75 miles per hour. This is an arbitrary distinction that instead should be based on the actual road itself and if it is capable of handling the speed. If I-70 west of Avon can handle 75 than there are places in the state that can handle 70 safely. That five miles per hour may not seem like a big difference, but if you are traveling a lot of miles in-between rural locations in this state, it can mean double digit difference in minutes of travel time. This is just a study, no speed limits will be increased by the bill.

Arguments Against:

There is an enormous amount of evidence that higher speed limits cause more deaths due to traffic accidents. Increased speeding also increases wear on the road and burns more fuel. So if anything we probably should be looking at lowering speed limits in many places, including on I-70. Getting somewhere 10 minutes faster is not worth anyone dying.

How Should Your Representatives Vote on HB20-1178

HB20-1279 Drunk Driving Enforcement Funding (Zenzinger (D), Scott (R)) [McKean (R), Roberts (D)]

AMENDED: Minor

KILLED ON HOUSE CALENDAR

Appropriation: $2 million annually
Fiscal Impact: None beyond appropriation

Goal: Change the funding to local governments for high-visibility enforcement and impaired driving education from two current funds to a straight appropriation of $2 million annually from the general fund.

Description:

Changes the funding to local governments for high-visibility enforcement and impaired driving education from the law enforcement assistance fund and the first time drunk driving offender account to a straight appropriation of $2 million annually from the general fund. Department of transportation must come up with rules to administer the money including minimum qualifications for programs to qualify.

Additional Information:

The allowed allocation of funds to counties and municipalities (30-50% to counties and 50-75% to municipalities) is retained.


Auto-Repeal: None

Arguments For:

The problem with the current funding streams is that there are other programs that have first dibs on the money and as a result it is rapidly vanishing for this purpose. Last year the state was forced to use $1 million in marijuana funds to keep this program going. This is important funding that helps us keep the public safe, particularly at times where larger amounts of drinking and driving can be anticipated. These high-visibility enforcements resulted in more than 9,000 arrests for impaired driving last year. We are also required to provide funding by federal law. So this bill just bites the bullet and acknowledges that the old funding streams are not sufficient anymore (there are still going in-part to relevant stuff, like toxicology services and interlock devices) and we need to just put money into this directly.

Arguments Against:

If we aren’t getting enough funds out of fines for driving under the influence and driver’s license restoration fees for drunk driving, then just raise those fees. It makes sense to fund these programs on the backs of the people so dangerously violating our traffic laws.

How Should Your Representatives Vote on HB20-1279

HB20-1190 Disabled Veteran Registration Fees And Ownership Tax (Fields (D)) [D. Valdez (D), Landgraf (R)] TECHNICAL BILL

AMENDED: Minor

KILLED ON HOUSE CALENDAR

Description:

Clarifies that a veteran does not need a disabled veteran license plate to qualify for a an exemption from paying vehicle ownership tax and registration fees that does not require one of these plates.

HB20-1285 Sunset Motorcycle Operator Safety Training Program (Zenzinger (D)) [Sullivan (D)]

AMENDED: Minor

PASSED

Appropriation: None
Fiscal Impact: None

Goal: Extend the repeal date for the motorcycle operator safety training program through 2025 and implement the recommendations of the department of regulatory agencies’ sunset review report.

Description:

Extend the repeal date for the motorcycle operator safety training program through September 2025. Repeals requirement that an applicant for a motorcycle operator safety training program certificate have a license to drive a motorcycle that was issued in Colorado.

Additional Information: n/a

Auto-Repeal: September 2025

Arguments For:

We basically don’t know yet about this program because it has been in so much turmoil, with board changes, lawsuits, and transfers from one department to another. But it is voluntary and early reports seem encouraging from all of the changes. From the department of regulatory agencies’ sunset review report: “The program needs stability and CSP needs to continue to grow into its role as regulator. Therefore, the General Assembly should continue the MOST program for five years, until 2025. Five years will provide the stability needed and time enough for the CSP to collect the necessary data to perform a more suitable sunset review.” For the license requirement, it is hard for this program to find qualified instructors at busier times in the year and a solution may be to allow those from other states to come here and teach a class. What is most important here is that the instructor is qualified to teach motorcycle safety, not which state their license is from.

Arguments Against: n/a

How Should Your Representatives Vote on HB20-1285

HB20-1192 Petroleum Redevelopment Fund Electric Vehicle (Foote (D)) [Jackson (D), Will (R)]

AMENDED: Moderate

KILLED ON HOUSE CALENDAR

Appropriation: None
Fiscal Impact: Up to $2 million

Goal: Allow state to use up to $2 million from a petroleum clean-up fund to develop public-private partnerships that incorporate hydrogen fuel-cell electric vehicle fueling infrastructure.

Description:

Allows the state to use up to $2 million of the money in the petroleum clean-up and redevelopment fund to leverage the development of public-private partnerships that incorporate fuel-cell electric vehicle fueling infrastructure if the state determines the action would enhance environmental protection and benefit air quality. Must get approval from either state energy office or department of public health and environment to spend money on any project. Any money not spent in the next fiscal year can be spent in the year after next five years.

Additional Information: n/a

Auto-Repeal: July 2023 2026

Arguments For:

This fund is designed for corrective actions for gas releases into our environment not covered by other programs. It is supposed to fund things that benefit our environmental protection and air quality. One of the larger barriers to adoption of electric vehicles, which of course benefit our environment and air quality by not requiring and burning gasoline, is the lack of charging infrastructure and the charging time required. Vehicles that use hydrogen as a fuel for the electric battery can not only achieve higher performance but also refill the gas much more quickly. But the refueling infrastructure for these vehicles is basically non-existent. This is another emerging alternative fuel system and the extent to which we can position Colorado as a leader will also help the state’s economy.

Arguments Against:

It’s just too early for this. There are only three models of these types of cars available to people to buy and hydrogen gas is not a naturally occurring element, which means it must be created. We’d be better of spending $2 million on electric car recharging infrastructure at this point in time.


The state should not be putting its thumb on the scales in private industry. Let the market sort out if hydrogen fuel cell cars are something the public wants.

How Should Your Representatives Vote on HB20-1192

HB20-1227 Network-level Distracted Driving Technology (Foote (D)) [Melton (D)]

KILLED BY BILL SPONSORS

Appropriation: None
Fiscal Impact: None

Goal: Require cell phone service providers to make network level distraction control technology available at the customer’s request, so that the provider can limit distracting content on a user’s mobile device while they are driving without need for an app.

Description:

Requires providers of commercial mobile radio service (cell phone services providers) to make network level distraction control technology available at the customer’s request, so that the provider can limit distracting content on a user’s mobile device while they are driving without need for an app. Must include a way to override the blocking in the case of an emergency and comply with all emergency service and alert legal requirements. Must provide reasonable and simple means to disable content that can be blocked. Does not allow providers to keep or disseminate any data collected through the technology except for billing purposes or as an opt-in program. Customers must be provided reasonable notice this option exists and it may be sold as an added option. Providers are not liable for any act resulting from a failure of the technology.

Additional Information: n/a

Auto-Repeal: None

Arguments For:

This allows parents and employers to prevent distracted driving, which will save lives. Right now they are all at the whim of app developers and handset manufacturers, who have varying levels of features. If any of the apps that do what this bill requires (which is shut-off features while still complying with emergency regulations) were to vanish, customers would lose their ability to block distracted driving content.

Arguments Against:

This is not necessary. Any parent or employer who wants to limit mobile devices while driving has a bunch of options in the market, including free apps from the major providers. The market is already providing a solution, we don’t need the government to step in and mandate one.

How Should Your Representatives Vote on HB20-1227

HB20-1310 Snow Removal Operations On State Highways [Holtorf (R)]

KILLED IN HOUSE COMMITTEE

Appropriation: None
Fiscal Impact: About $1.6 million per year

Goal: Require state department of transportation to conduct snow removal operations on all state highways at various times based on the severity of the weather.

Description:

Requires the state department of transportation (CDOT) to conduct snow removal operations on all state highways between 4 AM and 10 PM where a winter storm watch issued by the national weather service is in effect and at any time of the day where a winter storm warning is in effect. Bill clarifies CDOT can go beyond these requirements if it wants to.

Additional Information: n/a

Auto-Repeal: None

Arguments For:

There currently is no law about when CDOT must conduct snow removal operations, current practice is to do state highways that have average daily traffic of less than 1,000 vehicles per day only between hours of 5 AM and 7 PM. This can make morning commutes on these roads treacherous or nearly impossible when we have larger storms since they have not been touched for nearly 12 hours and then only get started upon at 5 AM. CDOT is responsible for all state highways and in a state with our winter weather, they must be ready to work on our roads all over the state, not just in the heavy traffic areas.

Arguments Against:

This is of course about resources, like just about everything. We have a lot of state highways that are not heavily traveled and forcing CDOT to focus more on those roads is going to pull resources away from our more heavily traveled roads (the bill does not provide CDOT with any funding to increase its snow removal capacity). The fiscal note basically assumes that CDOT will continue to do everything it is now and then add $1.6 million more effort to fulfill the bill requirements. That could happen, in which case we have $1.6 million less to spend on infrastructure. Our current setup is fine.

How Should Your Representatives Vote on HB20-1310

HB20-1315 Carpooling Service Internet Application Register Colorado Department Of Transportation (Donovan (D), Hisey (R)) [McCluskie (D), Will (R)]

AMENDED: Minor

KILLED ON HOUSE CALENDAR

Appropriation: None
Fiscal Impact: None

Goal: Require registration by non-profit carpooling internet service owners and operators who agree to not charge more than IRS standards for fuel reimbursement, on a limit to number of passengers in a vehicle, and a limit of two trips per driver per day.

Description:

Requires all non-profit carpooling internet service owners and operators to register each year with the state. The form to do this must be publicly posted on the state website. By registering both agree that users will not be charged any amount greater than the prevailing IRS mileage reimbursement rate for business use multiplied by miles traveled, that no more than six additional passengers may be transported at one time, and that a driver cannot make more than two trips per day. The owner must display on their website in a conspicuous manner that the drivers and vehicles do not meet state transportation network standards. State is not liable for any act or omission by anyone associated with these services.

Additional Information:

Bill explicitly excludes transportation arrangements made with: political subdivisions, taxis, common or contract carriers (like Uber), towing carriers, charter or children’s activity buses, fire crew transport, luxury limousine service, Medicaid client transport, or off-road scenic charters.


Auto-Repeal: None

Arguments For:

We want people to carpool and these sharing websites like Waze are great for doing so. Non-profits doing this service correctly won’t be affected too much by this, but we can ensure that no entity actually looking to make money in some way off these services (like the driver’s overcharging or doing lots of trips in one day) are not doing so. That would of course be more like Uber or Lyft. Registering gives the state a mechanism to enforce these rules.

Arguments Against:

Registration may just provide some hassle for the good operators while the bad ones pay lip service. There is no investigation mechanism in the bill and no registration fee to support such activity.

How Should Your Representatives Vote on HB20-1315

HB20-1320 Off-highway Vehicle Certificates Of Title [Van Winkle (R), Snyder (D)]

KILLED BY BILL SPONSORS

Appropriation: None
Fiscal Impact: Negligible increase in revenue each year

Goal: Remove an exemption from requirement to title an off-highway vehicle if it was last transferred prior to July 2014 and remove some barriers to selling these vehicles to dealers.

Description:

Removes an exemption for off-highway vehicles lacking certificate of title if it was last transferred prior to July 2014. Now these vehicles must have one by July 2021 but they are exempt from sales tax if the transaction occurs prior to July 2021. Dealers are allowed to purchase these vehicles even though they lack title. Dealer must obtain an affidavit from the owner in order to obtain a title after purchase. Authorizes off-highway vehicle dealerships to access department of revenue records to verify vehicle title ownership (same access already allowed to those dealing with on-highway vehicles).

Additional Information: n/a

Auto-Repeal: None

Arguments For: We created a way to title these vehicles last year but it made it basically impossible to do so if it did not pass through a dealer, so it is time for every off-road vehicle to be able to and to obtain a title. For owners who would rather sell the vehicle, the bill provides a mechanism for them to do so even though the vehicle lacks title.

Arguments Against:

Let’s give this a bit more time before we bring the hammer down on these older untitled vehicles, to ensure that the new system is absolutely working properly (and to give more time for folks who don’t want to title their vehicle to sell it).

How Should Your Representatives Vote on HB20-1320

HB20-1325 Low-emission Vehicle Managed Lane Access [A. Valdez (D)]

KILLED BY BILL SPONSORS

Appropriation: None
Fiscal Impact: Not yet released

Goal: Require the state to develop a new program to allow low-emission vehicles access to HOV/toll lanes regardless of the number of occupants in the car to replace a similar program that is expiring at end of May due to a change in federal law.

Description:

Requires the state to develop rules for a program that allows low-emission vehicles access to HOV/toll lanes regardless of the number of occupants in the car. Rules may require an annual fee to enter program, limit number of vehicles in the program, limit the number of years a new vehicle can stay in the program, treat different types of low-emission vehicles differently, allow access to all HOV/toll lanes or just some, and allow either free or reduced fee access to toll lanes. Rules must be finished by end of 2021. Low-emission vehicles are defined as less than 26,000 pound vehicles that either produce zero emissions or are hybrids powered predominantly by a zero-emission device that can power the vehicle for more than 75 miles. Repeals the current program that allows 2,000 low-emission vehicles into a similar program as it is now expiring at the end of May due to a change in federal law.

Additional Information: n/a

Auto-Repeal: None

Arguments For:

The faster we can get drivers into zero emission and hybrid vehicles the better for our air quality and our efforts to combat climate change. The current program is ending (and was too small anyway). We need a bigger incentive and what better one than the ability to zip along in an express or HOV lane in high traffic conditions. This of course has to be balanced against the need for these lanes to still operate as high-speed lanes and against the need for the state to fund its highway projects through the tolls and fees, so the state is authorized to set rules for caps and fees.

Arguments Against:

The guidance for the rules does not explicitly require the state to maintain any need for the lanes to operate as high-speed lanes or for the need to keep the level of tolls and fees high enough for the state to meet its debt obligations, which these lanes are paying. It seems to hint at the idea that the state will just do the right thing, but if something is important it should be placed into the law as an explicit balancing act for the state to consider when writing these rules. There is also no requirement for the state to consult with any stakeholders or hold any public meetings.


We need to stop putting our thumb on the scale for alternative fuel vehicles. It is long past time for them to stand on their feet in the marketplace against traditional gasoline powered vehicles.

How Should Your Representatives Vote on HB20-1325

HB20-1339 Motor Vehicle Dealer Demonstration Plates (Todd (D)) [Melton (D), Van Winkle (R)]

AMENDED: Minor

KILLED BY BILL SPONSORS

Appropriation: None
Fiscal Impact: About $4 million a year lost revenue

Goal: Allow vehicle dealer demonstration plates to be used instead of dealer plates on test-drives under most circumstances and by employees for legitimate business purposes but prohibit their use on vehicles that are not going to be sold to the public.

Description:

Creates some additional specific circumstances and times when vehicle dealer demonstration plates may be used on a vehicle instead of dealer plates. These include when the vehicle is: offered for sale on dealer’s property, on a test-drive with a potential buyer during normal business hours and outside normal business hours if the buyer has a letter detailing their information and the vehicles information from the dealer, or if it is driven by a dealer employee during normal business hours to conduct legitimate business. This does not include tow vehicles, parts pickup or delivery vehicles, courtesy shuttle vehicles, rental vehicles, haulers, or vehicles with large advertising on them.

Additional Information: n/a

Auto-Repeal: None

Arguments For:

Dealer demonstration plates are a way for dealers to use a motor vehicle without registering its title with the state. This is really not necessary for vehicles that are there to be sold to customers (at which point they will be titled of course), so the bill allows for the demonstration plates instead. We want to allow dealers to use these vehicles on the road for legitimate business purposes but we also need to ensure dealers are not abusing this process by in essence side-stepping the registration fee for vehicles that are not going to be sold to the public.

Arguments Against:

This is an unnecessary loss of revenue ($4 million a year) for an industry (car dealerships) that doesn't really need the help.

How Should Your Representatives Vote on HB20-1339

HB20-1352 Colorado Air And Space Port License Plate [Bird (D)]

KILLED BY BILL SPONSORS

Appropriation: None
Fiscal Impact: Negligible

Goal: Create an Air and Space Port special license plate which will help fund an Air and Space scholarship fund.

Description:

Creates the Colorado Air and Space Port special license plate. To qualify, people must pay an annual $15 fee to the Air and Space Scholarship cash fund (also created by the bill) as well as the usual $50 special license plate fee, with $25 covering the cost of the plate and $25 going to the state highway fund. The scholarship fund may be used for grants to provide scholarships to students enrolled in aerospace engineering, design, or maintenance programs.

Additional Information: n/a

Auto-Repeal: n/a

Arguments For:

These special license plates are a nice way to raise funds for both the state highway fund and a deserving cause. In this case, students in aerospace programs, as this industry is a key part of Colorado’s economy and encouraging more students to enter it will help keep it that way.

Arguments Against:

We already have too many of these plates and should not be adding more. The scholarship program is also ill-defined and not likely to draw in much revenue from just this source (about $17,000 annually is the estimate).

How Should Your Representatives Vote on HB20-1352

SB20-011 Commercial Vehicle VIN Vehicle Identification Number Verification Inspections (Hisey (R), Winter (D)) [Catlin (R), D. Valdez (D)]

From the Transportation Legislation Review Committee

SIGNED INTO LAW

Appropriation: None
Fiscal Impact: None

Goal: Make permanent a pilot program that allowed approved 3rd party entities to perform vehicle identification number inspections for commercial vehicles.

Description:

A pilot program just expired at the beginning of this year that allowed 3rd party entities authorized by the chief of the state highway patrol to perform vehicle identification number (VIN) inspections for commercial vehicles. This bill recreates that program and makes it permanent. Organizations must get their employees cleared individually to perform inspections and must hold either a minimum of $10,000 in a secure account or a surety bond for at least $10,000. 3rd party entities cannot charge more than $25 per inspection.

Additional Information:

  • Permits may be denied or canceled if the 3rd party entity fails to adhere to the eligibility rules or is found to be incompetent.
  • The name, background, experience, location of operation, contact information, and any other information required by the chief must be submitted for each individual verifier.
  • Verifiers must not have been convicted of a property crime within the last 10 years.


Auto-Repeal: None

Arguments For:

This program was designed to take some of the burden of VIN verification off of the state highway patrol, who have duties more related to public safety that we would rather have them focusing on, and onto individuals the highway patrol can vouch for. People are certified individually and must provide a lot of personal information and the highway patrol has the ability to revoke approval if necessary. This program ran for three years, worked as intended, and should be made permanent.

Arguments Against:

VIN verification in this circumstance involves more than just looking at the number we can all see on our dashboards. There are discreet areas that are provided to law enforcement by the vehicle’s manufacturer. While the program does require law enforcement approval for others to learn this information and use it, it does not have direct oversight and leaves us too open to the possibility of fraudulent activity. Only 11 VINs were processed by the third-parties in the pilot program, perhaps that is an indication that this is not necessary.

How Should Your Representatives Vote on SB20-011

SB20-017 Transportation Public-Private Partnership Reporting (Winter (D)) [Gray (D)]

From the Transportation Legislation Review Committee

AMENDED: Minor

SIGNED INTO LAW

Appropriations: None
Fiscal Impact: None

Goal: Add more detail to the annual report the public-private transportation partnerships must submit to the legislature.

Description:

Require the high-performance transportation enterprise, which manages the state’s public-private transportation partnerships (most prominent example of this is the express lanes on our highways), to include a summary of processes the enterprise used and will use for creating partnerships and getting public comment, and summary of actual and anticipated finances, performance, and long-term provisions of the partnership.

Additional Information: n/a

Auto-Repeal: None

Arguments For:

The current report just doesn’t contain enough detail, it is just a summary of activities in the previous year, status of current projects, statement of revenue and expenses, and recommendations for statutory changes. The express lines are a somewhat unpopular way for the state to really stretch its dollars for expanding highways and we must ensure that everything about this process is above board and transparent. The added requirements are very simple and not at all onerous.

Arguments Against:

The express lanes have been extremely successful, allowing the state to do 8 projects at once instead of 1 or 2 due to federal funding and incoming revenue from tolls. We shouldn’t mess with success in order to placate people who don’t like them.

How Should Your Representatives Vote on SB20-017

SB20-035 Kiosk Program Provider Vehicle And Identity Services (Scott (R), Ginal (D)) [Gray (D), Carver (R)]

PASSED

Appropriation: $112,500
Fiscal Impact: None beyond appropriation.

Goal: Make kiosk DMV pilot program permanent, expand the services people can get at kiosks, and add data and security requirements.

Description:

Makes the kiosk DMV pilot program permanent and expands the services people can get at a kiosk. Under the pilot it was get a driver’s license, register a motor vehicle, or issue a certificate of title. This bill adds requests for a duplicate title, requests for a duplicate registration card, replacement of tabs, add or modify a vehicle address, check a title status, and renew a driver’s license or ID card. It also eliminates the existing $3.00 cap on convenience fees and adds data security and accessibility requirements. Finally it allows counties to permit use of their kiosks by residents of other counties.

Additional Information:

Data and security requirements are: hold a certification as a level 1 merchant or service provider, or any successor certification from the Payment Card Industry Security Standards Council; hold a certification for the service organization control 2, type 2, standard or any successor certification issued by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants; the services are offered in compliance with US data security laws.


Auto-Repeal: None

Arguments For:

These kiosks have been successful in the pilot phase, with 13 counties operating a total of 41 kiosks. There have been about 222,000 transactions performed each year thus far. These kiosks are a great substitute for folks having to go to the DMV for transactions that do not require a person on the other end. We have many such transactions, and the ones that do require a person or an eye exam or driver’s test can still be done at a DMV. Counties ultimately have control over what they do at these kiosks (if anything at all). The bill also shores up the data security of these kiosks.

Arguments Against:

Currently the kiosks only perform vehicle registration renewals, just about the lowest level of function we could expect. Before we go full hog on the program, let’s pilot some other, more complex, transactions first. Right now we are crawling, let’s walk before we run.

How Should Your Representatives Vote on SB20-035

SB20-036 Emissions Inspection Check Engine Light (Zenzinger (D), Cooke (R)) [Liston (R), Melton (D)]

AMENDED: Minor

KILLED BY BILL SPONSORS

Appropriation: None
Fiscal Impact: None

Goal: Not auto fail a car because a check engine light is illuminated

Description: Currently if a car’s check engine light is illuminated it automatically fails an emissions inspection. Bill directs the state to ask the federal EPA to allow the state to instead conduct a tailpipe emissions test.

Additional Information: n/a

Auto-Repeal: None

Arguments For:

Check engine lights are notorious for coming on for obscure reasons that have nothing to do with emissions, if a vehicle can pass the test it should not matter if the light is on. This does require a federal waiver so that is what the bill does.

Arguments Against:

The light may be an indicator of a deeper problem in the vehicle that the inspection would not find.

How Should Your Representatives Vote on SB20-036

SB20-038 Statewide Biodiesel Blend Requirement Diesel Fuel Sales (Fenberg (D)) [Jaquez Lewis (D), Young (D)]

From the Energy Legislation Review Interim Study Committee

AMENDED: Moderate

KILLED BY BILL SPONSORS

Appropriations: None
Fiscal Impact: Negligible

Goal: Increase the use of blended diesel and bio-diesel fuel in Colorado.

Description:

Requires all diesel sold between June 1 and September 15 to contain at least 5% biodiesel beginning in June 2021 and at least 10% biodiesel in June 2023. Waivers are possible through the air quality control commission for good cause, such as extreme disruption in the supply of biodiesel or extreme weather conditions, or for engine incompatability. Air quality commission may also accelerate the timeline for the blending standard or further increase the standard. Requirement does not apply to diesel used in off-road mining equipment or locomotives.

Additional Information:

Air quality commission must create rules to enact these standards, including labeling requirements.


Auto-Repeal: None

Arguments For:

We must do everything we can to lower carbon emissions from driving vehicles around, as we are obviously not going to significantly reduce the amount of driving people do. This includes not only using alternative zero emission fuels and methods but also decreasing emissions from the gas we get at the pump. We of course already have a similar, federal, mandate for ethanol in regular gasoline. Biodiesel fuels on the whole produce less carbon emissions when burned, significantly less in the case of most greenhouse gases and the data here is more clear-cut than it is for ethanol, which has more disputed emissions results. It is also true that as technology in the field as advanced, biofuels in general and biodiesel as well have gotten better and better in terms of carbon impact in their use, while traditional fossil fuels have not kept pace. The extraction of biofuels also does not contain within it the potential for disastrous spills and leaks as with oil and natural gas. Modern vehicles can handle blended biodiesel at these levels and most will not void a warranty for using it. The mandate here recognizes that biodiesel can freeze at a higher temperature than regular diesel and so only mandates its use during warmer months. This is an area than can be revisited if the technology improves. The land use part of this is more complicated, but this is another area where technology is improving the carbon case for biofuels every year as we get higher yields, smarter farming, and new materials that do not have as high a land use impact into the mix. As for what is happening in places like Indonesia with deforestation, it is undeniably tragic and a problem. But Colorado itself cannot hope to dictate what gets used to create the biodiesel specifically, that is at a minimum a national problem if not a global one, and any such dictums may cause prices to get too high as our state is too small to influence the market enough to make a difference. The die is to some degree already cast and not implementing these standards in Colorado will do nothing to help reverse the situation in Indonesia while simultaneously preventing our state from reaping the emissions benefits of biodiesel, which should also help the troubles the Denver metro area in particular has with smog.

Arguments Against:

Biofuels have become less and less preferred by many environmental groups for a simple reason: they can have devastating impacts on forests and other land which can actually cause massive carbon emissions that vastly outweigh the savings through actual usage. We already eat most of the plant-based materials used in biofuels (especially the cheaper ones) so in order to create more to fill the demand for biofuel mandates, we have to move into environmentally sensitive areas to grow more crops. This has had tragic consequences for the environment in places like Brazil, rapidly destroying critical rainforests for sugarcane, and Indonesia, ditto for palm oil and even more critically, ditto for its peatlands. Peatlands are particularly destructive when exposed, spewing its held carbon into the atmosphere for decades, even centuries, after it is first disturbed. We need more forests and jungles to act as carbon sinks, pulling it out of the atmosphere and holding. Instead we end up with less, not to mention all of the carbon released by the actual act of deforestation itself, frequently slashing and burning. As of the end of 2018 deforestation contributed 15% of the planet’s total emissions, the same percentage as cars and trucks and trains. By the end of 2018 Indonesia’s peatland destruction was the equivalent of opening 70 new coal-fired power plants and these peatlands alone now emit more carbon emissions a year than the entire state of California. NASA has found the accelerated destruction of its forests contributed to the single largest one year jump in carbon emissions in 2,000 years, a jump that also vaulted Indonesia into the world’s 4th largest source of carbon emissions. And if anything activity there is only accelerating.  Six of the world’s leading carbon-modeling groups, including our own EPA have concluded that biodiesel made from Indonesian palm oil makes the global carbon problem worse, not better. Yet this bill does not exclude palm oil as a source of biodiesel. It may or may not be too late to salvage what is happening in Indonesia (like with the US and corn-based ethanol, they are creating their own massive domestic market) but we certainly should not be contributing to it.


The government should not be in the business of picking winners and losers in our energy market. Particularly as our own nonpartisan legislative council staff believes that because blended diesel is more expensive in the Rocky Mountain region, $0.25 per gallon higher, it will likely stay that way with this mandate, even though it is less expensive per gallon nationwide. There are also some studies that have shown accelerated corrosion in uncoated steel tanks used for storage, which may cause the need for replacements for some state agencies, in particular the Department of Corrections. If blended biodiesel is superior to regular diesel, let the market work that out.

How Should Your Representatives Vote on SB20-038

SB20-044 Sales And Use Tax Revenue For Transportation (Lundeen (R)) [Carver (R)]

KILLED IN SENATE COMMITTEE

Appropriation: None
Fiscal Impact: About $365 million to transportation out of the general fund

Goal: Create a dedicated funding stream for transportation out of motor vehicle sales and use tax revenue.

Description:

Transfers sales and use tax revenue due to motor vehicles (about 10% of all sales and use tax revenue each year) to transportation funding, with 60% going to the state highway fund, 22% to counties, and 18% to municipalities. This is money that would have gone to the general fund.

Additional Information: n/a

Auto-Repeal: None

Arguments For:

This is exactly what we used to do in the state, from 1997 to 2009, when we used this mechanism to spend $1.43 billion on transportation. We need to rectify the mistake of ending this dedicated funding stream for transportation so we can start to hack away at our $7 billion backlog of transportation needs. The failure of the sales tax increase bill for transportation funds in the 2018 election shows that voters want our state to take care of this need through existing money, not through tax increases. And it only makes sense to do so by using the revenue motor vehicles are bringing into the state. This will provide an estimated $365 million in much needed funding next year (of course it will fluctuate somewhat as sales tax revenue fluctuates) and similar amounts every year in the future. No last minute arguing about how much “extra” money to set aside for transportation in each year’s budget. As for the impact on the rest of the budget, the state is flush with cash, so much so that an automatic temporary tax decrease was triggered by TABOR this year. We can afford it.

Arguments Against:

$365 million does not appear out of thin air. That is money spent on one thing that we do not spend on another. Proponents of measures like this tend to find a few million here and there they can specifically say they don’t want the state spending but fail to reckon with the hard choices that must be made with amounts this size. The state still owes our school districts over $500 million, this is money that the schools are constitutionally required to have, but the state was unable to pay due to the last recession. Half of our districts are on 4 day weeks and 1 in 5 teachers work a second job to make ends meet. . By keeping the amount of general funds we set aside for transportation up to the legislature each year, we are able to adjust to the economic climate and budget of the day. We will have another recession. It is inevitable. What happens to our schools then if we haven’t made up the negative factor but must siphon this money off for transportation needs? We need to pay our schools the money they are owed, then worry about our other priorities.

How Should Your Representatives Vote on SB20-044

SB20-051 License Plate Expiration On Change Of Ownership (Priola (R)) [A. Valdez (D)]

From the Transportation Review Committee

AMENDED: Significant

PASSED

Appropriation: $9,000
Fiscal Impact: Minimal

Goal: Increase the number of properly registered license plates and the newness of plates on cars in Colorado.

Description: Requires new license plates for passenger cars, non-commercial light trucks, and motorcycles when the vehicle’s title or interest in the motor vehicle is transferred. Requires standard Colorado plates (so not specialty plates) to revert to the old scheme of white letters and numbers on a background of dark green mountains and a white sky beginning in 2023.

Additional Information:

People with customize plates can get the same customization on new plates


Auto-Repeal: None

Arguments For:

Studies show an unacceptably high number of vehicles on the road in our state are not properly registered, including lacking insurance coverage and emissions testing. In addition to contributing to revenue shortfalls from associated registration fees, law enforcement and public safety officials rely on readable and reflective plates for safety and plates are often the only highly reflective element on vehicles, an important safety feature for stalled vehicles at night. On average, plates lose 50% of their reflectivity within 5 to 10 years of use. We can also now go back to the classic Colorado plate design thanks to new technology. This program will phase-in new plates over time, improving registration compliance and all of the problems already mentioned here, without large amounts of money spent or inconvenience for drivers.

Arguments Against:

People who are already violating the law with improperly registered plates and all the rest may just ignore this law too by keeping their old plates in violation of the requirement to get new ones when they purchase a vehicle. And while the cost is very small, $3.78 for a regular plate and $25 to renew personalized plates or special plates, it is still a cost that must be borne by Coloradans.

How Should Your Representatives Vote on SB20-051

SB20-061 Yield To Bicycles In Bicycle Lanes (Foote (D)) [Becker (D)]

AMENDED: Minor

SIGNED INTO LAW

Appropriation: None
Fiscal Impact: Negligible

Goal: Create traffic offense for failure to yield to a bicycle in a bicycle lane.

Description:

Requires drivers of cars to yield to bicycles in clearly defined bicycle lanes. This includes intersections if the lane is marked on both sides of the intersection in the same manner as the car lanes. Violations are a class A traffic infraction. This would be 4 points on a license and a penalty of $70 with a $10 surcharge. Violations that cause crashes or injuries subject the driver to the state’s careless driving laws.

Additional Information: n/a

Auto-Repeal: None

Arguments For:

In Oregon a bicyclist using a bike lane proceeding through a green light and was struck and killed by a truck turning right. It was found that the driver had done nothing wrong legally, because there was no law that the driver had to yield to the bicyclist. If we are going to spend the time and money building bike lanes for cyclists and encouraging people to use them (which makes sense to get them off sidewalks and have them on streets safely), we have to have appropriate rules of the road. A bike lane is a lane just like any other traffic lane and if one exists, cars must yield to it. If they don’t, we have to have a way of punishing them.

Arguments Against:

Roads are for cars. Bicyclists don’t want to hear it, but the traffic complications caused by bicyclists, who are much slower than cars, not only slow things down but can cause accidents as other drivers anticipate behavior of the cars in front of them. Making cars yield at intersections to bicycles could cause some of this to occur.

How Should Your Representatives Vote on SB20-061

SB20-065 Limit Mobile Electronic Devices While Driving (Hansen (D)) [Roberts (D)]

AMENDED: Minor

KILLED BY BILL SPONSORS

Appropriation: $9,000
Fiscal Impact: Negligible

Goal: Make it illegal to use a mobile electronic device while driving unless it is hands-free (with some exceptions).

Description:

Current law prohibits use of wireless telephones while driving for those under 18. This bill extends the prohibition to drivers of all ages and increases the definition to all mobile electronic devices. It creates an exemption for hands-free usage for those over 18 and for using navigation, keeps the emergency exemption, and sets penalties starting at $50 and two points on a license, $100 and two points for second offense and $200 and four points for third and subsequent offenses. Texting while driving is already a class 2 misdemeanor traffic offense with a penalty of $300. This adds four points to their license as well. Also adds exemption for mobile device usage that is required by an employer to fulfill job duties and using a mobile device to communicate with a medical device. Clarifies that mobile devices can be used while a car is parked or at rest on a shoulder.

Additional Information: n/a

Auto-Repeal: None

Arguments For:

Driving while using a mobile device has been shown to be as dangerous as driving drunk and yet 53% of respondents to a recent state survey admitting to holding their phone while driving their cars in the preceding week. And now almost everyone has a smart phone. Traffic fatalities actually increased by 24% in the state between 2017 and 2018. We already ban those 18 for very good reason; there is no reason adults should be allowed to engage in this activity either. Hands-free usage exemptions allow us to still make use of our phones, almost all of which now feature digital assistants like Siri that can take dictation. The exemptions for emergencies and requirements of a job allow for situations where this is a necessity. There is no proof in the statistics of adults cited for texting and driving or those under 18 for using a mobile device and driving (both existing laws) of racial bias in those charged. Otherwise slight inconvenience is well worth savings lives.

Arguments Against:

Mobile phones are an integral part of our lives and the government should not be nanny stating them out during specified times or activities. Drivers are more than capable of using them properly without becoming distracted and those who do should not be punished because there are some people who cannot. In addition, there are numerous activities people do in cars that are distracting, from eating to fiddling with the radio to putting on makeup. We should not criminalize any of these activities. The bill also opens up more potential avenues for racial profiling by giving another excuse to pull someone over. In general racial profiling occurs most with minor traffic infractions that are not universally enforced, like driving over a solid white line or having a broken taillight. It is hard to imagine the police universally enforcing an activity that over half of the state’s drivers do routinely.

How Should Your Representatives Vote on SB20-065

SB20-070 Traffic Offense Classification And Penalties (Coram (R), Lee (D)) [Catlin (R), Gray (D)]

AMENDED: Significant

KILLED BY BILL SPONSORS

Appropriation: None
Fiscal Impact: Need new fiscal note

Goal: Send significant portions of the money collected from traffic infractions and misdemeanors to counties while tripling the fines involved for them, double most traffic and vehicle related violations, and lower penalty for driving without a license or without proper insurance.

Description:

Requires 25% 50% of the money collected from a traffic misdemeanor fine, penalty or forfeiture that is $30 or less and 50% 20% of the money collected from a traffic infraction fine, penalty, or forefeiture that is between $30 and $100 go to the county where the violation occurred. This used to go the state highway fund. Counties may use this money only for traffic safety improvements, traffic enforcement, prosecution of traffic violations, and any other purposes consistent with the state constitution.

Reclassifies driving without a license or an improper license from a class 2 traffic misdemeanor to a class A traffic infraction (smaller fine and no chance of imprisonment, can be up to 10 days for class 2) for first offense. Subsequent offense within five years stays a class 2 traffic misdemeanor. Changes the violation for driving without proper insurance in same way for the first violation only. Requires Allows the court to halve suspend the fine (which is $500) if the person demonstrates they now have proper insurance (used to be optional). Ends the ability to halve the fine for second or subsequent offenses (again was optional) Allows the court to suspend the fine if the violator is indigent and the court finds no reasonable likelihood of ability to pay within 180 days.

Triples Doubles the fines for class A and B traffic infractions (from $15 to $100 range to $45-$300 $200), and Class 1 and 2 traffic misdemeanors (from $150-$300 to $450-$900 for class 1; $300-$1,000 to $900-$3,000 for class 2). Also doubles the surcharge from $4 to $8. Doubles almost all traffic and vehicle related violations that were $15, while increasing others that were under $100 by 30%, both penalty and surcharge (surcharges go to judicial districts with ½ going to Victim and Witness Assistance and Law Enforcement Fun and ½ to Crime Victim Compensation fund).

Additional Information:

Traffic and vehicle related charges that were doubled affected are: driver’s license violations, registration and taxation violations, traffic regulation violations, equipment violations, emissions inspections, size, weight and load violations, signals, signs, and marking violations, (both penalty and surcharge), right-of-way violations, pedestrian violations, turning and stopping violations, driving, overtaking, and passing violations, speeding violations, parking violations, motorcycle violations, offenses by persons controlling vehicles, and other violations. Some more pricey size, weight, and load violations and other offenses were not changed. These fees used to range roughly between $15 and $100 with $6 or $10 surcharges.


Auto-Repeal: None

Arguments For:

All of these fines and fees have just not kept up with our population growth and we therefore are putting counties in a position where it is hard from them to enforce traffic laws and provide appropriate traffic-related services. We of course also have enormous shortfalls in transportation infrastructure funding. So this bill increases almost all of these fines and fees but diverts a portion to counties, so they can do more for their communities. It does this carefully, by allowing only the smaller amounts to go to counties, and only larger percentages for the very smallest fines. That should tamp down any incentives for counties to increase enforcement so as to increase funds. The net effect is still an increase in money to the state highway fund, so more money where it is desperately needed. We also recognize that driving is a necessity for most people living in Colorado to work. No one should be put in jail just for driving on the wrong license or with improper insurance. And for insurance, if the driver gets the proper insurance, good, that is the entire point. So we should incentivize that behavior by guaranteeing their fine will get cut in half by allowing their fine to be removed entirely.

Arguments Against:

It is dangerous to provide counties with incentives to boost their coffers through greater traffic enforcement, even at lower amounts. It puts pressure on the police officers to come up with the revenue and in some jurisdictions that involves poor people who cannot afford to pay the fines we’ve now doubled and tripled. increased. This leads to uncollected debt that must be pursued and a vicious cycle of trouble for the poor person, who might lose their license and is subject to increasing penalties and possibly even worse. This entire concept runs counter to what we have learned post-Ferguson from numerous nationwide studies of the issue. The Commission on Civil Rights found that in some jurisdictions as much as ¼ of the local prison population for nonpayment of fines and fees. A report in 2019 found seven jurisdictions in Colorado where fines and fees of some sort made up at least 10% of their budget or exceeded $100 per actual resident, including a whopping 45% in Morrison. So if we turn around and tell these counties the more people they cite the more money they are going to get, we should expect them to try to get as many traffic violations as possible. This still holds true under the revised version of the bill, they may just focus on the lower level infractions that will bring in revenue. If they need money, distribute it in a flat manner out of the state highway fund based on variables like population size and/or amount of traffic.

The fine amounts and sharing with counties are now too low to help enough with keeping up with our massive population increases. Counties are only going to see $15-$25 out of any of these penalties, as opposed to the $15-$750 that was possible before.

How Should Your Representatives Vote on SB20-070

SB20-092 Robotic Device Deliver Cargo (Bridges (D))

KILLED BY BILL SPONSORS

Appropriation: None
Fiscal Impact: None

Goal: Regulate the use of robotic delivery devices in public areas.

Description:

Defines robotic delivery devices as follows: a mobile carrying device is a self-propelled robot that is used in a pedestrian area while remaining within 25 feet of a human operator. A personal delivery device is a self-propelled robot that is used either in pedestrian areas or on a highway with the remote support and supervision of a human. Bill allows robotic delivery devices to be used in pedestrian areas and personal delivery devices on highways. To use a device in a pedestrian area it must comply with pedestrian traffic laws and local regulations, not transport hazardous material, and be monitored and controlled. To use a personal delivery device on a highway it must be equipped with the name and contact information of the owner and a unique ID number and have lights if it operates at night. Personal delivery devices must have a working brake system. Devices can go no faster than 12 miles per hour in pedestrian areas and 20 miles per hour on highways. Owners must maintain at least 100,000 in insurance for damages. Robotic devices are not vehicles for the purposes of traffic code. Local authorities may regulate these devices but cannot conflict with this bill, limit the hours of operation or zones of operation, or prohibit usage altogether.

Additional Information: n/a

Auto-Repeal: None

Arguments For:

This is mostly about so-called “last mile” delivery, the route from the local supply depot to the destination. Right now this is done by humans in cars or vans and increases congestion on our streets and pollution from the vehicles in our air. The popular Internet service Postmates is already experimenting with these in multiple cities, as has Yelp in San Francisco. FedEx triumphantly announced these robots during the 2019 Super Bowl and is experimenting with them in multiple cities. And Amazon is experimenting in Seattle and California. So this is coming and we need to put some regulations in place here in Colorado. The pedestrian part is fairly straight-forward. As for the roads, Dominoes and Krogers (King Soopers here in Colorado) are experimenting with delivery vehicles. This bill ensures that these devices can operate in these areas while adhering to pedestrian and traffic rules and requiring that a human monitor and control them.

Arguments Against:

We cannot treat this like a mature industry where just a few guidelines are necessary and everyone needs to allow it to operate. We need to either go much more detailed or shelve this until the technology matures more. Because the regulations required to allow one of these devices onto the roads should be much more stringent, with some sort of safety standards required and limitations on just what roads they can be on. Traveling at slow speeds on roads built (and operated) for cars going 40 or 50 miles per hour is a recipe for accidents. The bill has no license or even registration requirements so anyone can operate one of these devices on any street or in any pedestrian area without any sort of vetting from anyone. And the bill does not allow local communities who do not want these robots to opt-out.


Delivery vehicles may cause congestion but they bring employment to thousands of Coloradans. We should not be helping to push them into unemployment by encouraging the use of robots.

How Should Your Representatives Vote on SB20-092

SB20-094 Plug-in Electric Motor Vehicle Registration Fees (Priola (R))

KILLED BY BILL SPONSORS

Appropriation: None
Fiscal Impact: About $2.4 million now, increases as we get more electric vehicles

Goal: Create fees for plug-in electric vehicles to help replace the lost gas tax revenue that goes to transportation projects.

Description:

Creates a surface transportation infrastructure fee and a longevity fee for plug-in electric vehicles with the proceeds going to the state transportation enterprise special revenue fund for use by the high-performance transportation enterprise in funding transportation projects. This is exempt from TABOR. Fee is $120 for the infrastructure fee, which adjusts with inflation, and starts at $2 for the second year of service of the vehicle for the longevity fee. This then goes up by $0.50 each year until the 18th year of service, where it stops at $10.

Additional Information: n/a

Auto-Repeal: None

Arguments For:

One of the core pieces of revenue that funds our transportation projects is the gas tax. But of course plug-in cars do not use gas and that is going to be an increasingly large problem as we get more and more of them on the road and fewer cars that use gasoline. Drivers of electric cars pay a $50 fee but not all of that goes to roads and it also not enough to make up the difference. We have to find a way to charge people who are using our roads to help maintain them (as the gas tax does). Paying on a per-mile driven basis involves an unreasonable intrusion into the privacy of citizens. This flat fee is a better way.

Arguments Against:

This flies in the face of the multiple incentives we offer folks to purchase electric cars because we rightly recognize that we are facing climate catastrophe and need to switch away from gasoline power to electric power as fast as possible. Adding additional cost barriers may hinder that switch. We need to find a completely different way to fund our transportation needs.

A per-mile driven based fee is a much better solution. First, it approximates the gas tax, because how much gas you use is based on how much you drive. This properly charges the people who use the roads more than the people who use them less. As for the privacy concerns, no system is going to care where people are going. It is going to be simple odometer that just ticks off total miles driven. Frankly, we are all carrying a device that is a million times more intrusive than this at all times. If we are fine with our cell phones, the government knowing how many miles you drove is not a big deal at all.

How Should Your Representatives Vote on SB20-094

SB20-116 Penalties For Driving Under Restraint (Woodward (R)) [Herod (D)]

KILLED BY BILL SPONSORS

Appropriation: None
Fiscal Impact: Note not out yet

Goal: Except for alcohol-related offenses, end the current practice of adding time to a suspension of a driver’s license if someone is caught driving on a suspended license.

Description:

Under current law if an individual is caught driving with a suspended license for the 2nd time within five years they lose their driving privileges for three years. This is in addition to the original suspension and any other punishments. This bill removes this provision entirely. Also under current law the state is required to examine the license for anyone deemed to have caused an accident, and if they were driving with a suspended license they lose their driving privileges for three years. This bill modifies this so it applies only if the driver in question had their license suspended for an alcohol related offense. Finally, under current law those who have three violations of driving with a suspended license within 7 years have their license revoked. The bill again alters this to only apply if none of the convictions involved alcohol.

Additional Information: n/a

Auto-Repeal: None

Arguments For:

Driving is a necessity for most people living in Colorado to work. And right now we suspend driver’s licenses for reasons far beyond bad driving. We suspend licenses over court debt, in essence, a poor tax. So if you have your license suspended, for whatever reason, and you must drive in order to get to work and earn a living, what are you supposed to do? What if you have court-mandated appearances? There were 457,000 people who had their license suspended in Colorado last year. Many of these folks will be shot into a downward spiral of poverty and who knows what else if they cannot drive. So they cheat and drive anyway. If they get caught, they can and do get penalized. What we don’t need to do is exacerbate the situation by increasing the amount of time they cannot legally drive. Unless of course they have had their license suspended due to alcohol violations. Then we know this person should not be on the road until their sentence is complete and violating that provision warrants the further punishment.

Arguments Against:

There is another bill coming in this session that will likely address people who have had their license suspended for non-driving reasons, so let’s toss that aside and just deal with people driving on a license that they are no longer allowed to use. What is the point of suspending a license in the first place if we just going to shrug if someone drives on the suspended license? Yes there are other punishments in place the person will receive, but the key here really is the ability to drive. We took away your license because you could not be trusted behind the wheel (again, ignoring the folks who lose it for other reasons) and then you went out and exhibited that we still cannot trust your judgment because you did it again. That is a very good reason for extending the core punishment of losing your privilege (and it is a privilege) to drive. There are alternative transport options in many parts of the state for those that need to commute for work.

How Should Your Representatives Vote on SB20-116

SB20-118 Hazardous Materials Transportation Permit Issuance (Hisey (R)) [Gray (D), D. Valdez (D)]

AMENDED: Minor

PASSED

Appropriation: $20,918
Fiscal Impact: Negligible each year

Goal: Transfer the function of issuing permits for the transportation of hazardous materials by motor vehicles from the public utilities commission to the department of transportation.

Description:

Transfers the function of issuing permits for the transportation of hazardous materials by motor vehicles from the public utilities commission to the department of transportation.

Additional Information: n/a

Auto-Repeal: None

Arguments For:

This is pretty basic. The department of transportation covers motor vehicles. The public utilities commission is concerned with basic utilities like electricity. The one that should handle permits for transporting hazardous materials in motor vehicles is pretty obvious and the department is already in charge of issuing permits to transport hazardous materials through the Eisenhower tunnel.

Arguments Against:

We don’t need to spend $100,000 a year as the fiscal note indicates in order to house this in the department of transportation. The public utilities commission registers hazardous materials carriers and ensures they meet proper requirements. So they will still have to do that, even with this change, creating two departments doing similar work.

How Should Your Representatives Vote on SB20-118

SB20-151 Administration Of The RTD Regional Transportation District (Tate (R), Rodriguez (D)) [Jackson (D), Larson (R)]

AMENDED: Significant

KILLED BY BILL SPONSORS

Appropriation: None
Fiscal Impact: About $500,000 just next year

Goal: Increase state oversight over RTD, including banning discrimination on basis of race or disability, increasing state representation on RTD’s board, and requiring audits of RTD. Also eliminate requirement RTD cover 30% of its operating costs from fares and allow it provide commercial and retail services at its facilities.

Description:

Make numerous changes to laws governing RTD:

  • Creates criteria for RTD to use when making decisions about services, routes, and rates. These include existing measurable goals and objectives to offer safe, accessible, convenient and reliable transport; impact on ridership numbers; existing access within geographic area affected and demonstrated need or desire for public transportation in that area; equitable distribution of resources and tax dollars; potential for negative impacts on any community; impact on riders with disabilities; economic and social benefits of access to transit for disadvantaged communities; if decision will improve value of existing service; impact on air pollution; and impact on long-term financial health of RTD. If a decision will result in permanent reduction or elimination of service for paratransit individuals, it requires a full board vote
  • Bans discrimination against people with disabilities and on the basis of race, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the provision of transportation services. Authorizes civil suits for those subject to a violation. Requires RTD to comply with requests for information from the legislature and for legislature hear public testimony concerning its compliance with this regulation. These two requirements repeal in 2025. Board must report to legislature by end of year how it will ensure compliance
  • Eliminates requirement that RTD cover 30% of its operating costs from fares but requires district to make available in a downloadable CSV format all public accounts payable for the last three years, including the payee, date, check number or ETF, invoice number, purchase order number, cost center account code, object code, and description of purpose of expenditure. RTD must ensure data contains only information that is in the public record
  • Allows RTD to establish commercial and retail services at its facilities. Must get permission of department of transportation before providing any services.
  • Requires state auditor to audit RTD’s pension plans, its organizational structure and compensation, and the cost-efficiency and effectiveness of its competitive vehicular services policies
  • Creates a blue ribbon panel to review RTD. This includes comparing to similar transit agencies in US, a performance review, review of RTD's core functions and how the district is or isn't meeting them, review of the district's practices and procedures related to asset management, expansion, and maintenance, a review of the district's finances and financial management, a review of the district's system of governance and capital planning processes, a review of the district's efforts to address state climate goals, and a review of the district's ADA compliance and ability to meet needs of transit-dependant populations. RTD must allow complete access to files, facilities, and employees. Report due by September. RTD must not hire a permanent general manager until after the report is done. Panel is disolved in October.
  • Creates the Regional Transportation District Accountability Committee, which is to examine RTD for: compliance with ADA and paratransit requirements, equity in services provided, particularly needs of transit dependent populations, staff management, retention, and hiring, use and relationship with contractors, adequacy, accessiblity, and reliability of service provided by RTD, RTD partnerships with local governments, financial health of RTD including spending on non-transit related items, plans for reductions or expansions in service and how those decisions are made, any strategic planning training recommended for board and management personnel, review of efforts to address state climate goals, strategies for increasing ridership, pensions offered, and any need for additional state audits. Committe may contract with third-party to assist. RTD must cooperate with committee. RTD must reply in writing within 30 days of final report for any recommendations of the committee it is not going to accept. Report due by July 2023 and committee dissolves at same time
  • Adds two voting members to the board of directors, one to represent constituents with disabilities and one with experience in equitable transportation planning. Both appointed by governor. Adds state treasurer and executive director of department of transportation as non-voting members of the board. This brings total board composition to 19.
  • Provides whistle-blower protection to employees of RTD and entities that contract with it. Make directors and key employees subject to ethics requirements and clarifies district is subject to codes of conduct for public employees
  • Establishes contribution limits for candidates for the RTD board of $1,250 for individuals, $6,750 for small donor committees, and $5,000 for political parties.
  • Requires board to meet monthly instead of quarterly and live broadcast its meetings whenever possible. Requires board members to be physically present to vote, except for a documented medical condition, and allows board to establish procedures for removing an elected or appointed board member. Requires votes of at least two-thirds 60% of board to remove. Also allows board to create procedures to reduce compensation of a member who is absent from their duties

Additional Information:

Specific banned actions against those with disabilities includes: denying someone with a disability access to services if they are capable of using it, requiring them to use designated priority seats if they don’t want to, and requiring they be accompanied by an attendant. Exceptions for failures to make modifications running afoul of discrimination ban include: granting modification would fundamentally alter nature of service or activity, create a direct threat to safety, and individuals can use the service without the modification.

Specific banned actions against races, colors, ethnicity, or national origin include: planning and provisioning services that disproportionately adversely impact any group based on these factors, denying service, providing service in a different manner than it is provided to others, segregating or otherwise giving separate treatment, restricting in any way enjoyment of the service, and denying opportunity to participate in planning, advising, or other capacity available to others.

Damages for either violation include actual monetary damages, limited to $350,000 for a single incident and $900,000 for one involving two or more people, a statutory fine of $3,500, compensatory damages for other losses and emotional pain and suffering, and reasonable attorney fees.

Clarifies that every board member has the right to full access to RTD’s documents and records at no cost. Requires RTD officers to notify board at least 30 days prior to entering into any agreement to borrow money and at least 15 days prior to a board meeting of any request for supplemental state funds or other modifications of the budget.

Blue-ribbon panel is composed of:

  • One member associated with an academic institution with expertise in mass transit and regional transit authorities, appointed by president of senate
  • One member with expertise in urban planning and development and one with expertise in transportation policy, appointed by governor
  • Elected official from a local government inside RTD's coverage area, appointed by house minority leader
  • One member with expertise in fiscal policy, appointed by speaker of house
  • One member with expertise in ADA compliance and equity, appointed by senate minority leader

Accountability committee members get $1,000 a month compensation. It consists of seven members:

  • One member of a local government within RTD service area appointed by house minority leader
  • One member with expertise on issues facing riders with disabilities and one member with expertise in human resources, appointed by president of senate
  • One member with expertise in transit services and planning, one with expertise in financial planning and management, and one with expertise in urban planning and related environmental issues, appointed by governor
  • One member with expertise in equity, appointed by speaker of house</span

Creates the Americans with Disabilites Act Advisory Council to the Senate judiciary committee to evaluate and make recommendations on RTD's compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Coucil consists of Senate judiciary chair, representative of the Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition, representative of the Colorado Developmental Disabilities Council, representative of the National Federation of the Blind of Colorado, an attorney with expertise in this area appointed by House judicary chair, and two members of the transportation legislation review committee (one lawyer and one paratransit rider). Non-legislative members get a $400 a month stipend. Council must meet at least twice a month and deliver an initial report in October to the legislature and RTD, a response to any concerns from RTD by end of November, and then a final report by end of year. RTD must cooperate fully with council. Council is repealed September 2021.


Auto-Repeal: September 2025 for legislative oversight of anti-discrimination policies

Arguments For:

It has become clear that RTD needs more accountability and oversight. It has seen its overall ridership drop over the past five years despite opening four new rail lines and one corridor extension. These openings have been marred by ugly delays and cancelations. And while we would expect to subsidize mass transit to some degree, RTD is only covering 23% of its costs right now and is staring at multi-million dollar annual budget shortfalls, so a thorough x-ray by the state auditor and other committees set up for specific purposes seems in order. RTD’s actions around disability, including abrupt reversals on the Access-a-Ride program last December, indicate a problem with heeding the needs of the disabled, regardless of whatever working groups it has operating. State courts are cheaper and faster than federal courts, so allowing for civil lawsuits should speed up the process of accountability. The construction of the board itself is slanted toward suburban and rural areas, so adding a member to represent equitable planning should help urban areas get more of a voice. The program’s consistently high fares are somewhat mandated by current law, removing that restriction should provide more flexibility for RTD to lower fares and hopefully make up some of the difference through offering direct services at its facilities. And it is just good government practice to put limits on campaign contributions for any elected office of this magnitude.

Arguments Against:

We seem to be asking RTD to simultaneously lower fares, provide better and more extensive service, and fix its financial shortfalls. These are contradictory impulses and the legislature would be better served by coming up with alternative revenue streams than by attempting to meddle more deeply in the running of RTD. RTD must already comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and has two working committees with members of the disabilities community. The Access-a-Ride program is the most expensive parts of providing RTD service. Anyone who believes RTD is violating that requirement or the federal Civil Rights act can go to federal court for remedies. Opening up additional state lawsuits could lead to more lawsuits in general and increased costs for RTD. Adding members to the board to represent specific communities is a bad precedent and may lead to other constituencies requesting board membership.


This is a near comic level of separate investigations, with overlapping responsibliites and time-frames. It is recipe for confusion. Pick one group and task them with the entire thing. They can create sub-committees if necessary.

How Should Your Representatives Vote on SB20-151

SB20-152 Correct Senate Bill 19-263 Effective Date Error (Zenzinger (D), Woodward (R)) [D. Valdez (D)] TECHNICAL BILL

From the Statutory Revision Committee

SIGNED INTO LAW

Description:

Fixes an implementation error in SB19-263 that would force the state to still execute lease-purchase agreements for transportation funding even if the TRANs ballot issue passes in 2020.

SB20-167 Electric Motor Vehicle Manufacturer And Dealer (Hansen (D), Priola (R)) [Becker (D)]

AMENDED: Minor

SIGNED INTO LAW

Appropriation: None
Fiscal Impact: None

Goal: Allow electric vehicle manufacturers to operate dealerships.

Description: Allows any electric motor vehicle manufacturer to operate a motor vehicle dealership in the state to sell their own cars. Manufacturers must not have a franchise agreement with another motor vehicle dealership that is not owned by the manufacturer.

Additional Information: n/a

Auto-Repeal: None

Arguments For:

Right now electric motor vehicle manufacturers cannot sell their cars directly to consumers at a physical location, with one exception: Tesla. Thanks to the way the law is currently constructed Tesla has a bit of a loophole and can sell directly out of its showrooms. With the majority of car-makers now dipping into electric vehicles and more pure electric vehicle start-ups, we need to level the playing field. Traditional dealerships are generally not as interested in selling electric vehicles. This is anti-consumer and overly protectionist for traditional car manufacturers and dealers. Given our stark need to get more zero-emissions vehicles on the road, it also hurts our ability to have clean air and fight climate change.

Arguments Against:

Other car manufacturers do not sell directly to you, they work through dealerships. Tesla and other electric vehicle companies just doesn’t want to have a 3rd party in-between, that is their choice. If anything we should remove the loophole that is allowing Tesla to exist outside the traditional dealership model.


We should remove the prohibition on manufacturers operating their own dealerships entirely. Why do we have a protected middleman that has long since served its purpose for car manufacturers? All the dealers do is skim some money off the sale, raising the prices of cars for everyone.

How Should Your Representatives Vote on SB20-167

SB20-178 Woman Veteran Disability License Plate (Zenzinger (D), Danielson (D)) [Carver (R), Michaelson Jenet (D)]

AMENDED: Minor

KILLED BY BILL SPONSORS

Appropriation: $9,675
Fiscal Impact: None

Goal: Create special female disabled veteran with disabilities license plate which is free for the first vehicle.

Description:

Certain special license plates must be given free of charge for one vehicle (the usual $50 total fees apply for any additional vehicles). This adds a special license plate for female veterans with disabilities. Applicants must have been honorably discharged and must submit either a DD214 form from the federal government or other evidence to demonstrate their honorable discharge. License plates will bear inscription “W.D.V” and have their own number series. Must be available by end of year.

Additional Information: n/a

Auto-Repeal: None

Arguments For:

Disabled veterans can get their special plates without a fee, this is a way to specially honor our female disabled veterans so it is clear that not only is this car a disabled veteran’s car, but a disabled female veteran’s car.

Arguments Against:

There is no reason to single out female disabled veterans in this manner separate from male veterans. We already have too many special license plates anyway, we should just stick with the one disabled veteran plate.

How Should Your Representatives Vote on SB20-178

SB20-196 Hospice And Palliative Care License Plate (Todd (D)) [Michaelson Jenet (D)]

KILLED BY BILL SPONSORS

Appropriation: None
Fiscal Impact: None

Goal: Create a special hospice and palliative care license plate for those who donate to the Home Care and Hospice Association of Colorado.

Description:

Creates a hospice and palliative care special license plate. To qualify, people must submit a donation to the Home Care and Hospice Association of Colorado (technically there is a list of qualifications for the non-profit chosen to receive donations but they are written so that no other non-profit could qualify). The Home Care and Hospice Association may establish a minimum donation amount to qualify. It also requires two one-time $25 fees, one for the cost of the plate and one to state highway fund.

Additional Information: n/a

Auto-Repeal: None

Arguments For:

These special plates are a nice way to raise funds for both the state highway fund and a deserving cause. In this case, the Home Care and Hospice Association of Colorado works to promote the needs of both those who require home care or hospice and the dedicated professionals who provide it. This includes putting on an annual conference and providing education and educational resources about hospice and palliative care to providers and the general public.

Arguments Against:

We already have too many of these plates and should not be adding more. In addition, this organization lobbies the state legislature. It is therefore not appropriate to encourage donations to them through an official special license plate.

How Should Your Representatives Vote on SB196

SB20-199 Professional Fire Fighters License Plate Entity (Danielson (D), Garcia (D))

KILLED BY BILL SPONSORS

Appropriation: None
Fiscal Impact: None

Goal: Tweak requirements around the non-profit to which a donation is required in order to qualify for the special professional fire fighters license plate.

Description:

Tweaks the special license plate created last year for professional fire fighters which requires a donation to an entity chosen by the state in addition to being a current or former professional fire fighter. This bill changes the requirements for that non-profit from being in existence for 20 years down to 15 years and requires the non-profit to provide the state with an affidavit that the organization has at least 3,000 members in Colorado.

Additional Information: n/a

Auto-Repeal: None

Arguments For:

The way these license plate bills are written they cannot pick a specific non-profit for donations but usually there is one in mind (thus the extremely specific requirements). This just tweaks the requirements to ensure that we are getting the correct non-profit and that they are in fact meeting the 3,000 member requirement.

Arguments Against:

We already have too many of these plates (and there already is one for fire fighters). We shouldn’t have created this one in the first place.

How Should Your Representatives Vote on SB199