Current state park law excludes seaplanes from the definition of a 'vessel', and applicable park rules essentially prohibit seaplanes from landing in or taking off from state park water bodies. The bill: Directs the division of parks and wildlife in the department of natural resources to: Establish proposed procedures for the mandatory inspection and decontamination of seaplanes landing on water bodies in the state for the purposes of aquatic nuisance species prevention and containment and report on the procedures to the general assembly by September 1, 2019; and Establish a stakeholder process to evaluate seaplane access to 2 lakes located at state parks identified by the division and report the results of the stakeholder process to the general assembly by September 1, 2019; and Specifies that the prohibition on the landing of seaplanes in state parks does not apply in the event of an emergency, including for seaplanes engaged in firefighting operations.(Note: This summary applies to the reengrossed version of this bill as introduced in the second house.) Read More
For income tax years commencing on or after January 1, 2019, but prior to January 1, 2023, the bill creates a state income tax credit for a donation of cash or securities a taxpayer makes to an eligible developer to be used solely for the costs associated with an eligible project. The bill defines 'eligible developer' to mean, in part, a nonprofit community-based home ownership development organization that satisfies specified requirements relating to its background in the field of housing development and is developing or plans to develop the eligible project that is or will be receiving the donations for which the tax credits may be claimed. The bill defines 'eligible project' to mean the development of new residential housing for home ownership consisting of one or more residential units constructed for sale to a buyer whose median income is 120% or less of the area median income and for which each unit sold is to be preserved as affordable housing for a minimum of 15 years by means of a specified deed restriction or long-term land use. In order to be designated as an eligible developer authorized to accept donations, a nonprofit community-based home ownership development organization must satisfy certain criteria as created and evaluated and as may be amended by the Colorado housing and finance authority (authority). The amount of the credit allowed by the bill is 50% of the amount of the money or the value of the securities donated to the eligible developer as documented in a form and manner acceptable to the department of revenue (department); except that the aggregate amount of the credit awarded to any one taxpayer under the bill is limited to $250,000 in any one income tax year. The aggregate amount of tax credits certified is limited to $1.5 million for each tax year beginning January 1, 2019, but prior to the tax year beginning January 1, 2023. If the amount of the credit allowed exceeds the amount of the taxpayer's income tax liability in the income tax year for which the credit is being claimed, the amount of the credit not used as an offset against income taxes in such income tax year is not allowed as a refund but may be carried forward and applied against the income tax due in each of the 5 succeeding income tax years, but must first be applied against the income tax due for the earliest of the income tax years possible. A tax credit allowed by the bill is neither transferable nor assignable to any other taxpayer. In order to claim the credit, the donation the taxpayer provides to obtain the credit must be accepted by the eligible developer to whom it has been given and certified by the authority. The authority is required to certify each donation. The authority completes certification by providing a certificate to the taxpayer in a format acceptable to the department evidencing that the certification requirements of the bill have been met. The authority is permitted to charge and collect an administrative fee from each applicant to recover program administration costs and expenses. A taxpayer claiming the credit must submit, maintain, and record any information that the department may require by rule regarding the taxpayer's donation to the eligible developer, including the certificate received from the authority. A taxpayer is required to electronically file with the department the certificate the taxpayer receives from the authority. Not later than January 15 of each year immediately following the year in which the authority certifies a tax credit, the authority is required to provide the department with an electronic report on the taxpayers who have received a credit for the calendar year that conforms to the income tax year for which the credit is allowed. The bill specifies information the report must contain. The tax credit is repealed, effective July 1, 2030. (Note: This summary applies to the reengrossed version of this bill as introduced in the second house.) , Read More
Read More
The bill establishes a private school tuition income tax credit commencing on or after January 1, 2019, that allows any taxpayer to claim a credit when the taxpayer enrolls a qualified child in a private school or the taxpayer provides a scholarship to a qualified child for enrollment in a private school. The private school issues the taxpayer a credit certificate and the amount of the credit is: For full-time attendance, an amount equal to either the tuition paid or the scholarship provided to a qualified child, as applicable, or 50% of the previous year's state average per pupil revenues, whichever is less; and For half-time attendance, an amount equal to either the tuition paid or the scholarship provided to a qualified child, as applicable, or 25% of the previous year's state average per pupil revenues, whichever is less. The bill also establishes an income tax credit commencing on or after January 1, 2019, that allows any taxpayer who uses home-based education for a qualified child to claim an income tax credit in an amount equal to: $1,000 for a taxpayer who uses home-based education for a qualified child who was enrolled on a full-time basis in a public school in the state prior to being taught at home; and $500 for a taxpayer who uses home-based education for a qualified child who was enrolled on a half-time basis in a public school in the state prior to being taught at home. Both credits may be carried forward for 3 years but may not be refunded. In addition, the credits may be transferred, subject to certain limitations. (Note: This summary applies to this bill as introduced.) Read More
The bill increases the penalty level for a second degree on a peace officer or firefighter by one class. (Note: This summary applies to this bill as introduced.) , Read More
The bill exempts the transmission of virtual currency from regulation under the Colorado 'Money Transmitters Act'. (Note: This summary applies to this bill as introduced.) Read More
The bill prohibits an owner from displaying a sign stating that the owner or driver is not liable for any damage or injury caused by an item falling out of or escaping from the vehicle. The violation is a class B traffic offense subject to a fine of $100 and a surcharge of $30. (Note: This summary applies to this bill as introduced.) , Read More
Sunset Process - House Agriculture, Livestock, and Natural Resources Committee. The bill implements the recommendations of the department of regulatory agencies in its sunset review and report on the 'Custom Processing of Meat Animals Act' (act) by: Extending the act for 5 years; and Authorizing custom meat processors licensed under the act to sell poultry to retail food establishments.(Note: This summary applies to the reengrossed version of this bill as introduced in the second house.) , Read More
Under current law a records custodian may deny access to records of investigations conducted by or of intelligence information or security procedures of any sheriff, district attorney, or police department or any criminal justice investigatory files compiled for any other law enforcement purpose on the ground that disclosure would be contrary to the public interest. The bill states that prior to determining whether disclosure would be contrary to the public interest, the custodian shall perform an individualized analysis of each of the specific records requested by balancing: The privacy interests of the individual who may be impacted by a decision to allow inspection; The agency's interest in keeping confidential information confidential; The agency's interest in pursuing ongoing investigations without compromising them; The public purpose to be served in allowing inspection; and Other pertinent considerations relevant to the particular request. The bill further applies the following provisions to records regarding an internal investigation related to the on-duty or in-uniform conduct of a peace officer involving a member of the public: When the custodian is performing the balancing test described above, the custodian shall adhere to the following principles: There is a compelling public interest in public inspection of completed internal investigation files related to a peace officer's on-duty or in-uniform conduct involving a member of the public; public access to internal investigation files enhances the effectiveness of internal investigations, rather than impairing them; and transparency enhances public confidence in the agency. Peace officers do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in on-duty or in-uniform conduct involving a member of the public. If, after performing the balancing test described above, the custodian makes a preliminary determination that the factors weigh against release, the custodian shall consider whether redaction of the records would satisfy the objective of disclosure while also addressing privacy concerns. The custodian shall redact sparingly in order to maximize the amount of information available to the public. If, after performing the required balancing test and considering redaction, the custodian determines that the factors weigh against release, the custodian may deny disclosure of the records or any portion thereof. If the custodian denies disclosure of the records, the custodian shall upon request provide a written explanation of the basis for the denial, including articulation of the custodian's balancing of the public and private interests. Any local policy, local rule, or ordinance that prohibits custodians from disclosing records of closed internal investigations related to on-duty or in-uniform conduct of a peace officer involving a member of the public is unenforceable; except that the custodian of an internal investigation may deny inspection if the inspection is prohibited by rules promulgated by the supreme court or by a court order and the custodian may deny inspection pursuant to application of the bill.(Note: This summary applies to the reengrossed version of this bill as introduced in the second house.) , Read More
Under current law, a warranty of habitability (warranty) is implied into every rental agreement for a residential premises. The bill makes the following changes related to the warranty: Current law requires written notice before a landlord can be held liable for a breach of the warranty (breach). The bill expands the acceptable notice to also include electronic notice, defines electronic notice, and specifies the time within which the landlord is required to commence remedial action ( sections 3 and 4 of the bill). Jurisdiction to provide injunctive relief related to a breach is expanded to include a county court, including a small claims court ( sections 1, 2, and 6 ). The absence of mold is added to the basic requirements for a habitable residence ( section 5 ). As long as certain conditions are met, a tenant is authorized to deduct the cost of repair from subsequent rent ( section 6 ). The requirement that a tenant notify a local government before seeking an injunction is repealed ( section 7 ). The prohibition on retaliation for a tenant's alleging a breach is modified to specify damages and to eliminate presumptions ( section 8 ).(Note: This summary applies to the reengrossed version of this bill as introduced in the second house.) , Read More
The bill establishes procedures to govern the recall of a director of a special district. Section 4 of the bill requires the court as defined for the special district to appoint a designated election official (DEO) to oversee the recall election. The director and the director's spouse or civil union partner cannot serve as the DEO. The bill requires that recall petitions must be approved as to form by the DEO before being circulated. To be approved, a petition must designate a committee to represent the signers, must name only one director, and must include a brief statement of the grounds for the recall. It must also provide certain warnings to electors concerning their eligibility to sign. Section 5 requires that signed petitions be filed with the DEO within 60 days after their form has been approved. Signed petitions must include a signed and notarized affidavit from the circulator attesting to the circulator's compliance with the requirements of the law. Once a signed petition is filed, the DEO is required to review the petition and issue a written determination that the petition is sufficient or not sufficient within 5 business days, unless a protest is filed before that date. An eligible elector may file a protest of a recall petition within 15 days after a petition is filed. In the case of a protest, a hearing is required and the DEO is the hearing officer. The hearing officer is required to issue a determination that the petition is sufficient or not sufficient within 15 days after the conclusion of the hearing. If a petition is determined not sufficient, the committee representing the electors may withdraw, amend, and refile it within 15 days. A petition can only be withdrawn and refiled once. A determination that a petition is sufficient or not sufficient is subject to judicial review on request by the director, the director's representative, or a majority of the committee representing the electors, but judicial review cannot include the statement of the grounds on which the recall is sought. If a petition is determined sufficient, the board of the special district must set a date for the recall election, and determine whether the election will take place at the polling place or by mail ballot. If a regular special district election is to be held within 180 days after the date on which the board orders the recall election, the recall election must be held as part of the regular election. If the director is seeking reelection at that regular election, only the question of his or her reelection appears on the ballot. If the director's successor is to be chosen at that regular election, and the director is not seeking reelection, only the selection of the successor appears on the ballot. The recall election may also be held as part of a coordinated election if the information required for the ballot is determined within the deadline, and the county clerk and recorder agrees. Section 6 provides that if the director resigns in writing prior to the election, the recall proceedings are terminated and the office is filled as a vacancy. The ballot for a recall election must include the statement of grounds for the recall that was included in the petition. The director may file a statement in support of his or her retention, which must also be included on the ballot if it is timely filed. The ballot must also include the names of candidates nominated to fill the office if the director is recalled. If an incumbent is not recalled, or if a recall petition is deemed not sufficient, section 7 authorizes the special district to reimburse the director for reasonable expenses. Under section 10 , the special district must pay the costs of the county clerk and recorder and the DEO for the recall election. Section 8 provides that after one recall election that does not recall the director, any subsequent recall petition must be signed by more than 50% of the eligible electors to be sufficient. Section 11 makes a conforming amendment to the 'Uniform Election Code of 1992'.(Note: This summary applies to the reengrossed version of this bill as introduced in the second house.) , Read More
The bill adds discrimination based on source of income as a type of unfair housing practice. 'Source of income' is defined to include any source of money paid directly, indirectly, or on behalf of a person, including income from any lawful profession or from any government or private assistance, grant, or loan program. A person is prohibited from refusing to show, rent, lease, or transmit an offer to rent or lease housing based on a person's source of income. In addition, a person cannot discriminate in the terms or conditions of a rental agreement against another person based on source of income, or based upon the person's participation in a third-party contract required as a condition of receiving public housing assistance. A person cannot include in any advertisement for the rent or lease of housing any limitation or preference based on source of income, or use representations related to a person's source of income to induce another person to rent or lease property. (Note: This summary applies to the reengrossed version of this bill as introduced in the second house.) , Read More
