Under current law, a retail liquor store licensee that was licensed on or before January 1, 2016, and is a Colorado resident is permitted to obtain one additional retail liquor store license on or after January 1, 2017; 2 additional retail liquor store licenses on or after January 1, 2022; and 3 additional retail liquor store licenses on or after January 1, 2027. With regard to additional retail liquor store licenses, the premises cannot be located within 1,500 feet of any other licensed retail liquor store in the same licensing jurisdiction or, if within a municipality with a population of not more than 10,000 people, the premises cannot be located within 3,000 feet of any other licensed retail liquor store in the same licensing jurisdiction. The bill retains the ability for a retail liquor store licensee that is a Colorado resident to obtain one additional retail liquor store license through July 1, 2017, if the new premises satisfies the distance requirements, and starting July 1, 2017, retains the distance requirements and replaces the current time periods and additional license provisions with a structure that mirrors the tiered structure for liquor-licensed drugstores to obtain additional licenses, as follows: For a retail liquor store licensee licensed as of January 1, 2017, that has been a Colorado resident for at least 2 years, in order to obtain an additional retail liquor store license on or after July 1, 2017, the applicant must apply to transfer ownership of 2 licensed retail liquor store licenses within the same local licensing jurisdiction as the premises for which a new license is sought and merge the 2 licenses into a single retail liquor store license; A retail liquor store that qualifies for additional retail liquor store licenses is eligible to obtain: 4 additional licenses, for a total of 5 retail liquor store licenses, on or after July 1, 2017; 7 additional licenses, for a total of 8 retail liquor store licenses, on or after January 1, 2022; 12 additional licenses, for a total of 13 retail liquor store licenses, on or after January 1, 2027; 19 additional licenses, for a total of 20 retail liquor store licenses, on or after January 1, 2032; and an unlimited number of additional retail liquor store licenses, on or after January 1, 2037. A retail liquor store is prohibited from allowing customers to use a self-checkout to complete an alcohol beverage purchase. A retail liquor store is required to: Verify the age of a customer attempting to purchase an alcohol beverage by examining the customer's valid identification; and Maintain certification as a responsible alcohol beverage vendor. An employee of a retail liquor store who is under 21 years of age cannot deliver or otherwise have contact with alcohol beverages offered for sale on, or sold and removed from, the licensed premises. (Note: This summary applies to this bill as introduced.)
The bill allows qualified, per school district policy, employees to dispense over-the-counter medications to a student if the student's parent or legal guardian provided the school district with written general authorization to dispense such over-the-counter medications during a specified academic year. The bill grants criminal and civil immunity to such school employees if they acted with written authorization from the student's parent or legal guardian. The same authority and immunity is granted to child care providers, including employees or relatives in nonlicensed facilities, provided the person dispensing the over-the-counter medication has written general authority for a specific time period from the child's parent or legal guardian. The bill allows a parent or legal guardian to opt out of the collection and storage by a local education provider of any type of data related to his or her child. (Note: This summary applies to this bill as introduced.)
The bill requires the sex offender management board, in collaboration with the department of corrections, the judicial department, and the parole board, and in consultation with sex offender research experts, to establish evidence-based criteria for the release of low-risk offenders. The bill requires the department of corrections to allow a low-risk sex offender to complete his or her required treatment in a community-based program if the department does not have sufficient prison-based treatment for the offender. The bill prohibits the parole board from denying parole to a low-risk sex offender because the offender did not complete treatment if the offender is seeking release to complete treatment in a community-based program. (Note: This summary applies to this bill as introduced.)
The bill enacts the 'Asbestos Bankruptcy Trust Claims Transparency Act'. Federal bankruptcy law provides companies with asbestos-related liabilities the opportunity to reorganize and emerge from bankruptcy with protection from lawsuits. Asbestos trusts established as part of the bankruptcy process assume the debtor company's asbestos-related liabilities. The trusts then pay present and future asbestos-related claims, thus relieving the reorganized company of all present and future asbestos-related liabilities. Plaintiffs may also file asbestos-related personal injury actions against companies that are still solvent and subject to suit in the civil system. The bill addresses this dual compensation system to give defendants access to information regarding all of a plaintiff's trust-related exposures and give fact finders information they need to properly assign fault. The bill requires that a plaintiff must: File and disclose all asbestos trust claims before proceeding to trial in any asbestos action; Provide all parties with all trust claim materials connected to the plaintiff's exposure to asbestos; and If the plaintiff's asbestos trust claim is based on exposure to asbestos through another individual, produce all trust claims materials submitted by that individual to any asbestos trusts. The bill allows a defendant to file a motion requesting a stay of the proceedings if the defendant has information that could support the filing of additional trust claims by the plaintiff. If the court determines that there is sufficient basis, the court shall stay the asbestos action until the plaintiff files the asbestos trust claim and produces all related trust claims materials. The bill addresses discovery and access to materials relating to trust claims materials or trust governance documents by defendants. Prior to trial in an asbestos action, the court shall enter into the record a document that identifies every asbestos trust claim made by the plaintiff or on the plaintiff's behalf. If a plaintiff proceeds to trial in an asbestos action before an asbestos trust claim is resolved, there is a rebuttable presumption that the plaintiff is entitled to and will receive compensation specified in the trust governance document applicable to the claim. The court may impose sanctions, including vacating a judgment rendered in an asbestos action, against a plaintiff for failure to comply with the disclosure requirements of this bill. If the plaintiff or a person on the plaintiff's behalf files an asbestos trust claim after the plaintiff obtains a judgment in an asbestos action, and that asbestos trust was in existence at the time the plaintiff obtained the judgment, the trial court, on motion by a defendant or a judgment debtor, has jurisdiction to reopen the judgement in the asbestos action and adjust the judgment or order other appropriate relief. The bill also establishes procedures for the prioritization of asbestos-related claims. An asbestos action involving a nonmalignant condition shall not be brought or maintained in the absence of prima facie evidence that the exposed person has an asbestos-related physical impairment based on objective criteria developed by the medical community. When filing an asbestos-related claim, the plaintiff must submit signed medical reports from qualified physicians who have a doctor-patient relationship with the plaintiff. If the plaintiff has not established that he or she is sick as a result of the asbestos exposure, the court shall dismiss the action. The bill prevents the filing of class action lawsuits for asbestos-related exposures. The bill sets forth the elements of proof for asbestos-related actions and the evidence needed to establish evidence of physical impairment. Until a court enters an order establishing that the exposed person has established prima facie evidence of impairment, an asbestos action is not subject to discovery, except for discovery relating to establishing or challenging the prima facie evidence or by order of the trial court, upon motion of one of the parties and for good cause. A defendant in an asbestos action is not liable for exposures from a product or component part made or sold by a third party, even if the third party is insolvent or otherwise not amenable to suit. The bill provides that an exposed person's cause of action shall not accrue and the statute of limitations does not begin running for a person who has been exposed to asbestos prior to the earlier of the date: The exposed person receives a medical diagnosis of asbestos-related impairment; or The exposed person discovers facts that would have led a reasonable person to obtain a medical diagnosis with respect to the asbestos-related impairment; or Of the death of the exposed person having an asbestos-related impairment. The bill states that an asbestos action arising out of a nonmalignant condition is a distinct cause of action from an action for an asbestos-related cancer. Damages shall not be awarded in an asbestos action based upon the plaintiff's fear of or increased risk for future disease. (Note: This summary applies to this bill as introduced.)
The bill makes it illegal for a person who is a federal employee acting under color of law to take any action: That deprives a range allotment owner of any property right appurtenant, inherent, or related to the range allotment, including the right to possess, use, dispose of, exclude other from, or defend the range allotment; and For which the deprivation offends due process or is a physical or regulatory taking without the payment of just compensation. A violation is an unclassified felony punishable by a fine of up to $500,000 and imprisonment of up to 5 years, or both. An owner who suffers a loss as a result of the person's actions also has a civil right of action to recover damages. (Note: This summary applies to this bill as introduced.)
The bill specifies that a local government that bans hydraulic fracturing of an oil and gas well is liable to the mineral interest owner for the value of the mineral interest and that a local government that enacts a moratorium on oil and gas activities shall compensate oil and gas operators, mineral lessees, and royalty owners for all costs, damages, and losses of fair market value associated with the moratorium. (Note: This summary applies to this bill as introduced.)
The bill is known as the 'Colorado Politician Accountability Act'. The bill includes a legislative declaration that states that addressing sanctuary jurisdictions is a matter of statewide concern and that makes findings about how sanctuary policies are contrary to federal law and state interests. The bill creates a civil remedy against the state or a political subdivision of the state (jurisdiction) and against its elected officials for creating sanctuary policies. The bill also creates a crime of rendering assistance to an illegal alien that can be brought against an elected official for creating a sanctuary jurisdiction. An elected official is responsible for the creation of a sanctuary jurisdiction if the elected official votes in favor of imposing or creating a law, ordinance, or policy that allows the jurisdiction to operate as a sanctuary jurisdiction, fails to take steps to try to change a law, ordinance, or policy that allows the jurisdiction to operate as a sanctuary jurisdiction, or is a county sheriff who imposes or enforces a policy that allows the jurisdiction to operate as a sanctuary jurisdiction in a county in which the elected officials have not voted to impose or create a sanctuary jurisdiction. The bill allows any person who claims that he or she is a victim of any crime committed by an illegal alien who established residency in a sanctuary jurisdiction to file a civil action for compensatory damages against a jurisdiction and against the elected officials of the jurisdiction who were responsible for creating the policy to operate as a sanctuary jurisdiction. Notwithstanding the protections of the 'Colorado Governmental Immunity Act', the jurisdiction and its officials who are responsible for creating a sanctuary jurisdiction are civilly liable for damages if the person who engaged in the criminal activity: Is determined to be an illegal alien; Had established residency in the sanctuary jurisdiction; and Is convicted of the crime that is a proximate cause of the injury to a person or property. The maximum amount of compensatory damages for injury to persons is $700,000 per person or $1,980,000 for injury to 2 or more persons; except that no person may recover in excess of $700,000. The maximum amount of compensatory damages for injury to property is set at $350,000 per person or $990,000 for injury to multiple persons; except that no person may recover in excess of $350,000. The bill defines a 'sanctuary jurisdiction' as a jurisdiction that adopts a law, ordinance, or policy on or after the effective date of this bill that prohibits or in any way restricts an official or employee of the jurisdiction from: Cooperating and complying with federal immigration officials or enforcing federal immigration law; Sending to or receiving from or requesting from federal immigration officials information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of an individual; Maintaining or exchanging information about an individual's immigration status, lawful or unlawful, with other federal agencies, state agencies, or municipalities; Inquiring about an individual's name, date and place of birth, and immigration status while enforcing or conducting an official investigation into a violation of any law of this state; Continuing to detain an individual, regardless of the individual's ability to be released on bail, who has been identified as an illegal alien while in custody for violating any state law; or Verifying the lawful presence and eligibility of a person applying for a state or local public benefit as required by state and federal law. The bill sets forth the requirements for determining when an illegal alien has established residency in a sanctuary jurisdiction. An 'illegal alien' is defined as a person who is not lawfully present within the United States, as determined by federal immigration law. The governing body of any jurisdiction is prohibited from adopting a law, ordinance, rule, policy, or plan or taking any action that limits or prohibits an elected official, employee, or law enforcement officer from communicating or cooperating with an appropriate public official, employee, or law enforcement officer of the federal government concerning the immigration status of an individual residing in the state. The governing body of a jurisdiction is required to provide written notice to each elected official, employee, and law enforcement officer of the jurisdiction of his or her duty to communicate and cooperate with the federal government concerning enforcement of any federal or state immigration law. The governing body of any jurisdiction in this state is required to annually submit a written report to the department of public safety (department) that the jurisdiction is in compliance with the cooperation and communication requirements. If the department does not receive those written reports, the department is required to provide the name of that jurisdiction to the state controller. A law enforcement officer of a jurisdiction who has reasonable cause to believe that an individual under arrest is not lawfully present in the United States shall immediately report the individual to the appropriate U.S. immigration and customs enforcement office (ICE) within the department of homeland security. The governing body of any jurisdiction is required to report annually to the department on the number of individuals who were reported to ICE by law enforcement officers from that jurisdiction. The department is directed to compile and submit annual reports on compliance to the general assembly and to the state controller. The state controller is required to withhold the payment of any state funds to any jurisdiction that is found by the department to have failed to comply with these reporting requirements. The state controller shall withhold funds until the department notifies the state controller that the jurisdiction is in compliance. The bill creates the crime of rendering assistance to an illegal alien through a sanctuary jurisdiction, which is a class 4 felony. A person who is an elected official of a jurisdiction commits rendering assistance to an illegal alien through a sanctuary jurisdiction if, with intent to hinder, delay, or prevent the discovery, detection, apprehension, prosecution, conviction, or punishment of illegal aliens within the jurisdiction: He or she was responsible for creating a sanctuary jurisdiction in the jurisdiction to which the official is elected; and When, as a result of the protection afforded by a sanctuary jurisdiction, a third person engages in criminal activity and the third person: Is an illegal alien as legally defined by federal immigration law; Had established residency in the sanctuary jurisdiction that was created by the official; and Has been convicted of a crime that caused injury to a person or to property. A person who has knowledge of a crime committed by an illegal alien as a result of the creation of a sanctuary jurisdiction may file an affidavit with the attorney general or with a district attorney outlining the crime and requesting that charges be brought or that a grand jury be impaneled. The attorney general or district attorney shall investigate and respond in writing with his or her decision to the person filing the affidavit within 49 days. If the attorney general or district attorney declines to bring charges or impanel a grand jury, the person may file a second affidavit directly with the applicable court. The bill includes a severability clause and a provision that states that the bill is not subject to judicial review. The bill takes effect upon passage and applies to acts or omissions occurring on or after said date. (Note: This summary applies to this bill as introduced.)
Section 1 of the bill updates the definition of a broadband network for purposes of telecommunications regulation and deregulation. Section 2 updates how the public utilities commission (commission) makes an effective competition determination for high cost support mechanism (HCSM) funding, which is financial assistance provided to telecommunications companies that provide basic telephone service or broadband service in areas that lack effective competition. Section 3 establishes that HCSM funding cannot be used to support more than one wireline and one wireless line per individual household or individual business. (Note: This summary applies to this bill as introduced.)
The bill adds public convenience and the provision of reasonable access to and from public highways and adjoining businesses to the existing purposes for which the department of transportation (CDOT) and local governments are authorized to regulate access to public highways and specifically requires the provision of reasonable access to and from public highways and adjoining businesses to be considered in the development by CDOT of a state highway access code (code). The bill also specifies that if failure to grant a variance from the code would deny reasonable access to or from a business adjoining a divided state highway and the far side of the divided state highway, the denial may amount to a taking that requires just compensation under constitutional and statutory provisions pertaining to eminent domain. (Note: This summary applies to this bill as introduced.)
Currently, a court is required to sentence certain sex offenders to an indeterminate sentence that is a maximum of the sex offender's life. The bill allows the court to choose either the indeterminate sentence or a determinate sentence in those cases. The bill addresses the factors related to punishment and treatment that a court must consider when deciding between an indeterminate or a determinate sentence. The court must specify its reasons on the record for choosing either a determinate or an indeterminate sentence. (Note: This summary applies to this bill as introduced.)
A business improvement district (district) is a type of special district created within a municipality to fund certain types of improvements that will, among other things, promote the continued vitality of existing business areas within the municipality. The law currently allows a municipality to include areas in a district that do not have any existing businesses. The bill requires these areas to have existing businesses. (Note: This summary applies to this bill as introduced.)
The bill provides that a governmental entity may only require an electronic communication service or remote computing service provider to disclose the contents of an electronic or wire communication pursuant to a valid search warrant or court order for production of documents. The warrant or order must include a finding of probable cause to search and seize or produce the electronic or wire communication. An exception to the search warrant or order requirement is established if the time required to obtain the warrant or order would result in a risk of death or substantial bodily injury to a person or if certain persons consent to the release of the contents. The bill also excludes from its provisions situations when a peace officer may lawfully obtain the information from an electronic device in the officer's lawful possession or when only location information is sought pursuant to another statute. The bill also requires the governmental entity to give the customer notice of the search warrant and the disclosure unless the court orders that the notice need not be given due to specified circumstances. The bill prohibits any evidence obtained in violation of the bill from being introduced as evidence or used to obtain a search warrant or court order and provides immunity to an electronic communication service or remote computing service for complying with or objecting to a search warrant. (Note: This summary applies to this bill as introduced.)
