Rep. Lorena García

A kei vehicle is the smallest road-legal, 4-wheeled vehicle in Japan and is imported into the United States as a used vehicle. The act defines a kei vehicle as a motor vehicle for the purposes of the "Uniform Motor Vehicle Law" and the "Certificate of Title Act". These acts govern issuing a certificate of title, registering a motor vehicle, and the rules of the road for motor vehicles. The act authorizes a kei vehicle to operate on the roads and requires a kei vehicle to be issued a certificate of title, be registered, and obey motor vehicle traffic laws. Driving a kei vehicle on a roadway that has a speed limit greater than 55 miles per hour or on a limited-access highway is prohibited. For emissions testing, a kei vehicle is tested not using a dynamometer but using a 2-speed idle test. The vehicle must pass the emissions standards for the year it was manufactured. The department of revenue, the Colorado state patrol, and the agents or contractors of these agencies may not require a vehicle to have an inspection because it is a kei vehicle or has the design or manufacturing parameters of a kei vehicle. And a kei vehicle may not be declared not roadworthy because of its design or manufacturing parameters. Kei vehicles are included in the motor vehicle dealer and powersports vehicle dealer statutes, and this requires a person to be licensed as a dealer to sell kei vehicles at retail. (Note: This summary applies to this bill as enacted.)

Under current law, a person engages in an unfair and unconscionable act or practice in violation of consumer protection laws if the person engages in price gouging during a declared disaster emergency. The act provides that a person engages in price gouging in the sale or offer for sale of certain goods or services if, after the governor declares a disaster emergency, which declaration may be based on a market disruption, the price of the good or service is increased by 10% or more above the price at which a similar good or service was sold or offered for sale before the disaster began. The act also establishes that seasonal pricing is not considered unreasonably excessive pricing and therefore is not price gouging. (Note: This summary applies to this bill as enacted.)

Under current law, the independent ethics commission created in article XXIX of the state constitution does not have jurisdiction over officials or employees of special districts or school districts. The bill gives the independent ethics commission jurisdiction to hear complaints, issue findings, assess penalties, and issue advisory opinions on ethics issues concerning a special district official or employee or school district official or employee. However: "Officials" include only members of a school district or special district board; "School district employee" includes only the superintendent or head administrative officer designated by a school board to execute its policy decisions who is appointed or hired by, directly reports to, and is subject to the direction of the school district board; and "Special district employee" includes only an employee of a special district who is appointed or hired by, directly reports to, and is subject to the direction of the special district's board. Existing law establishes ethical standards for a special district official or employee or school district official or employee. The bill incorporates those standards under the independent ethics commission's jurisdiction and expands the standards to include those described in article XXIX of the state constitution. The bill appropriates $120,856 in general fund to the judicial department for use by the independent ethics commission for the 2025-26 state fiscal year. To implement the bill, the commission may use $96,917 for program costs and $23,939 for the purchase of legal services. The bill also appropriates $23,939 to the department of law for the 2025-26 state fiscal year. This appropriation is from reappropriated funds received from the bill's appropriation to the judicial department. To implement the bill, the department of law may use this appropriation to provide legal services for the independent ethics commission. (Note: Italicized words indicate new material added to the original summary; dashes through words indicate deletions from the original summary.) (Note: This summary applies to the reengrossed version of this bill as introduced in the second house.)

The bill requires nonprofit hospitals (hospitals) to use 340B profits to decrease out-of-pocket costs for low-income patients. details prohibited uses of 340B profits for nonprofit hospitals. The bill requires entities covered under the federal 340B drug pricing program that are hospitals licensed by the state to report information related to their participation in the 340B program, their use of 340B program profits, their provision of charity care, their payments to third parties for 340B program-related services and compliance, and their use of contract pharmacies. The bill grants sole community hospitals and critical access hospitals unrestricted access to, and delivery of, 340B drugs. The bill requires the joint budget committee to annually issue a request for information to the department of health care policy and financing and to the department of personnel and administration for information related to the losses and costs to the state medical assistance program that arise from a nonprofit hospital's participation in the 340B drug program. (Note: Italicized words indicate new material added to the original summary; dashes through words indicate deletions from the original summary.) (Note: This summary applies to the reengrossed version of this bill as introduced in the second house.)

Maddy summaryHouse Joint Resolution 25-1027 designates a specific portion of Colorado State Highway 1 in Larimer County, from East County Road 60 to Interstate 25, as the "Commissioner Lew Gaiter III Memorial Highway." It authorizes the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) to accept donations for the initial placement of signs and to explore a cooperative agreement with Larimer County for sign maintenance.

Maddy summaryHouse Joint Resolution 25-1030 expresses the State of Colorado's strong opposition to the use of forced labor in the production of goods. The resolution states that Colorado will use its purchasing power to support businesses that ethically source or manufacture products without forced labor. It also encourages state and local economic development offices to attract businesses that avoid these labor practices. This joint resolution aims to influence state and local government purchasing decisions and promote ethical business standards.

Maddy summaryHJR 25-1026 designates Colorado State Highway 402, from United States Highway 287 to Interstate 25, as the "Rep. Hugh McKean Memorial Highway." It also authorizes the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) to accept donations for the initial placement of signs and to explore agreements with Larimer County for sign maintenance.

The bill sets the reimbursement rates that a health insurance carrier (carrier) may reimburse a health-care provider (provider) for covered services for the state employee group benefit plans (state group benefit plans) and for small employer group benefit plans (small group plans). The bill prohibits a provider that is subject to the reimbursement limitations from billing or collecting payment from a person covered under a state group benefit plan or small group plan for any outstanding balance for covered services that is not reimbursed by the carrier, except for the applicable in-network coinsurance, copayment, or deductible amounts. The bill requires a carrier to provide cost and quality of care information to the commissioner of insurance (commissioner) in the case of small group plans and to the director of the department of personnel (director) in the case of state group benefit plans, at the request of the commissioner or director, as applicable, and prohibits a carrier from entering into an agreement with a provider or third party that would restrict the carrier from providing the information. By September 1, 2027, and by September 1 each year thereafter, the director is required to provide a report to the governor's office, the state treasurer's office, and the joint budget committee that states the amount of calculated savings in general fund expenditures (calculated savings), if any, for health plan reimbursement for the prior fiscal year as a result of the reimbursement limits for state group benefit plans. The director is also required to include in the report the cost to the department in determining the calculated savings. By September 15, 2027, and by September 15 each year thereafter, of the money from the calculated savings, the state treasurer is required to transfer an amount equal to the department's costs in determining the calculated savings to the group benefit plans expenditure savings cash fund (expenditure savings cash fund), which is created in the bill, and specified percentages of the calculated savings from the general fund to the primary care fund and to the expenditure savings cash fund. The bill also requires the executive director of the department of health care policy and financing (state department) to conduct a study, in collaboration with specified state agencies, to determine the feasibility of establishing a similar reimbursement limit for group benefit plans offered to school district, higher education, and local government employees. The executive director is required to complete the study and report the findings to the general assembly on or before January 1, 2028. The bill allocates $500,000 from the calculated savings to a health care reimbursement feasibility study cash fund created in the bill and authorizes the state department to use the money to conduct the study. (Note: This summary applies to this bill as introduced.)

The bill requires a subject jurisdiction, on or after December 31, 2026, to allow a residential development to be constructed on a qualifying property that does not contain an exempt parcel, subject to an administrative approval process. A subject jurisdiction shall not allow a residential development to be constructed on a qualifying property unless the residential development complies with certain affordability requirements. The bill specifies that a subject jurisdiction shall not: Disallow construction of a residential development on the basis of height if the tallest structure in the residential development is no more than 3 stories or 45 feet tall; Disallow construction of a residential development on the basis of height if the tallest structure in the residential development complies with the height-related standards for the zoning district in which the residential development will be built or any zoning district parcel that is contiguous to the qualifying property on which the residential development will be built; Disallow construction of a residential development based on the number of dwelling units that the residential development will contain, except in accordance with standards listed in the bill; or Apply standards to a residential development on a qualifying property that are more restrictive than the standards the subject jurisdiction applies to similar housing constructed within the subject jurisdiction, including standards related to structure setbacks from property lines; lot coverage or open space; on-site parking requirements; numbers of bedrooms in a multifamily residential development; or on-site landscaping, screening, and buffering requirements; or minimum dwelling units per acre. A subject jurisdiction shall allow the following uses in a residential development on a qualifying property: Childcare; and The provision of recreational, social, or educational services provided by community organizations for use by the residents of the residential development and the surrounding community. A subject jurisdiction may condition additional uses in a residential development on the uses being allowed only on the ground floor of the residential development and the uses occupying no more than 15% of the ground floor area of the residential development. The bill requires a faith-based organization, school district, or state college or university to notify the county assessor that a subject jurisdiction has allowed the construction of a residential development on a qualifying property within the county. (Note: Italicized words indicate new material added to the original summary; dashes through words indicate deletions from the original summary.) (Note: This summary applies to the reengrossed version of this bill as introduced in the second house.)

The bill affords a plaintiff and defendant the right to trial by jury to decide all issues of fact in any action brought for unlawful detention of real property; except that, an action brought against a defendant who is a tenant of public housing that is owned or operated by a public housing agency must be tried by the court. The bill requires at least one attempt on 3 2 separate days of personal service on the defendant in an action for unlawful detention of real property. The bill requires an affidavit of service to be filed with the court. The bill requires a defendant who demands a trial by jury to make the demand in accordance with the Colorado rules of civil procedure or file a separate jury demand with the defendant's answer. The bill requires the court to set the date for trial no sooner than 10 days after the answer is filed. The bill authorizes the court to continue the trial if a party demands a trial by jury. The bill authorizes the court, upon its own motion or the motion of either party, to strike a jury demand and set the action for a trial by the court if the court determines that the defendant's answer only asserts equitable defenses and there is no dispute as to any material fact regarding the plaintiff's claim for possession of the premises or damages. The bill authorizes the court to allow either party, counsel for either party, and any witness to appear remotely by phone or video at a jury trial as an accommodation for a person with a disability or upon adequate assurances that the remote participation will not cause unreasonable delay. If either party requests a delay in a trial longer than 14 days, the bill authorizes the court, in the court's discretion upon a showing of a party's substantial likelihood of suffering serious economic harm, to require either party to give bond or other security to the opposite party for the sum that the party may be harmed due to the delay. The party required to make payment to the court must be given at least 7 days after the court's order to make the payment. If the party fails to make payment within the time required, the bill authorizes the court to extend the time for compliance or reset the hearing or trial for the next available date, but the court is prohibited from entering a default against the party. Upon a showing of indigency by the party required to make payment, the bill requires the court to waive or reduce the bond or other security, provide additional time to make payment, and permit the party to make multiple partial payments. Current law prohibits a written rental agreement from including a waiver of the right to a jury trial, except when the parties agree to a waiver of a jury in a hearing to determine possession of a dwelling unit. The bill removes this exemption. (Note: Italicized words indicate new material added to the original summary; dashes through words indicate deletions from the original summary.) (Note: This summary applies to the reengrossed version of this bill as introduced in the second house.)