Rep. Lori Garcia Sander

Under current law, if a defendant is found incompetent to proceed and the defendant will not be restored to competency in the foreseeable future, the court is required to dismiss charges against the defendant and the defendant, in limited circumstances, may be referred for certification for short-term treatment through a civil court process. The act maintains the requirement for the court to dismiss the charges against a defendant if the defendant's highest charged offense is among certain misdemeanor offenses, and the act maintains certification for short-term treatment as an option for the defendant. However, if the defendant is unrestorable or the defendant has reached the statutory maximum time permitted to be restored, the act authorizes the district attorney or county attorney (prosecution) to notify the court that the prosecution seeks civil commitment or an enhanced protective placement of a defendant if the prosecution can prove by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant:Has a mental disability or developmental disability;Committed an act that, in the absence of any mental disability or developmental disability, would constitute homicide, a crime of violence, or a felony that constitutes unlawful sexual behavior, and the act is or was charged in a criminal case in Colorado in which competency was raised; and Poses a substantial risk of serious harm to others.     If the prosecution seeks civil commitment or an enhanced protective placement, the court is required to stay the order dismissing the defendant's case, set a trial within 91 days after the date the written notice was filed, and order the department of human services (CDHS) to identify an appropriate provider and placement for the defendant in the event a civil commitment or enhanced protective placement is granted. The defendant may stipulate that the court order a civil commitment or enhanced protective placement.     If the court finds the prosecution has not met its burden, the court is required to deny the prosecution's request to civilly commit the defendant or order an enhanced protective placement of the defendant; except that the court may consider whether to order other civil proceedings. If the court finds the prosecution has met its burden, the court is required to order the civil commitment or enhanced protective placement of the defendant, place the defendant and issue any related orders, transfer jurisdiction of the civil commitment or enhanced protective placement to an appropriate civil court with jurisdiction, and dismiss the defendant's criminal case. When the court orders the civil commitment or enhanced protective placement, the court shall make a finding of the defendant's primary diagnosis that constitutes the mental disability or developmental disability. The court shall order the defendant civilly committed to the legal custody of CDHS unless the defendant's primary diagnosis is an intellectual and developmental disability (IDD) or a neurocognitive disorder, in which case, the court shall order an enhanced protective placement and legal custody of the defendant to the department of health care policy and financing (HCPF). If CDHS proposes placing the defendant into inpatient care, the court shall order, without further court review, that the defendant be placed into inpatient care at the discretion of CDHS if the court ordered a civil commitment or that the defendant be placed into inpatient care at the discretion of HCPF if the court ordered an enhanced protective placement. If CDHS has not identified an appropriate provider that is willing to accept placement of the defendant, the court shall set a review hearing within 35 days after the order for civil commitment or enhanced protective placement and order CDHS, in consultation with the behavioral health administration (BHA), to identify at least one appropriate provider.     Upon receiving jurisdiction of a civil commitment or enhanced protective placement, the act requires the civil court to supervise the civil commitment or enhanced protective placement by notifying the county attorney, appointing an attorney to represent the respondent, and setting a review hearing. At the hearing, the respondent has the right to request modification of the terms of the civil commitment or enhanced protective placement and the right to periodic review, including whether the respondent qualifies for termination of the civil commitment or enhanced protective placement. The court is required to ensure the respondent is placed in the least-restrictive setting adequate to protect the victims and community. If the respondent is not placed into inpatient care at the discretion of CDHS, or if CDHS proposes to move the respondent into or out of inpatient care, the court shall, prior to modifying the civil commitment or enhanced protective placement to change the respondent's provider or placement, review the appropriateness of the proposed provider or placement. The provider charged with the physical care and custody of the respondent is required to submit a report to the court and the parties annually by the date the respondent was civilly committed or ordered into enhanced protective placement unless a substantially similar examination was ordered by the court within the previous 12 months.     The act requires the court to terminate the respondent's civil commitment or enhanced protective placement if the respondent no longer poses a substantial risk of serious harm to others or the respondent does not have the applicable disorder or disability that is likely to cause the respondent to be a danger to the respondent's self or a danger to others and the respondent has demonstrated sufficient capacity and willingness to conform their conduct to the requirements of the law. If the respondent does not meet the criteria for termination, the respondent is not entitled to another termination trial within one year after the conclusion of the previous trial.     The court shall convert a civil commitment to an enhanced protective placement if the respondent does not meet the criteria for termination but the respondent has a mental health disorder that is an IDD or a neurocognitive disorder, without having any other mental health disorder that is not an IDD or a neurocognitive disorder and that substantially contributes to whether the respondent is a danger to the respondent's self or a danger to others, or is gravely disabled. If the defendant does not meet the criteria for termination and has co-occurring mental health disorders that include an IDD or a neurocognitive disorder, the court may, upon the recommendation of CDHS, convert the civil commitment to an enhanced protective placement.     The court shall convert an enhanced protective placement to a civil commitment if the respondent does not meet the criteria for termination and the respondent no longer has an IDD or a neurocognitive disorder that substantially contributes to whether the respondent is a danger to the respondent's self or a danger to others, or is gravely disabled. If the defendant does not meet the criteria for termination and has co-occurring mental health disorders that do not include an IDD or a neurocognitive disorder, the court may, upon the recommendation of CDHS, convert the enhanced protective placement to a civil commitment.     Under current law, an emergency mental health hold (M1 hold) may be initiated against a person for not more than 72 hours if the person appears to have a mental health disorder and, as a result of the mental health disorder, appears to be a danger to the person's self or others, or appears to be gravely disabled. A person detained for an M1 hold and transported to an emergency medical services facility or facility designated by the commissioner (facility) of the BHA is required to receive an evaluation as soon as possible after the person presents to the facility. The act authorizes a person who has an M1 hold initiated against them while in confinement to receive an evaluation at the person's place of confinement rather than being transported to a facility. If the person is released from confinement while under an M1 hold, the person responsible for the confinement is required to coordinate with the BHA to transfer the person to a facility.     Under current law, if a person under an M1 hold meets the criteria for certification for short-term treatment, the person may be certified for not more than 3 months. Rather than requiring an M1 hold as a prerequisite to short-term certification or certification for long-term care and treatment, the act authorizes a person to be certified if the person:Has been advised of the availability of, but has not accepted, voluntary treatment or with consideration of all reasonably available information, is believed will not remain in voluntary treatment; and By clear and convincing evidence, has a mental health disorder and, as a result of the mental health disorder, the person is a danger to the person's self, a danger to others, or gravely disabled.     A person may not be certified for short-term treatment or long-term care and treatment if the person has an IDD or neurocognitive disorder without any other mental health disorder that is not an IDD or neurocognitive disorder and that substantially contributes to whether the respondent is a danger to the respondent's self or a danger to others, or is gravely disabled. If a respondent is certified, the court shall order CDHS to provide care coordination and make diligent efforts to find a provider for the respondent that is willing to hold the certification. The respondent may be certified for long-term care and treatment if the respondent continues to meet the criteria and standards for certification for short-term treatment. The certification terminates when the professional person in charge of the respondent's treatment and the BHA determine the respondent no longer meets the criteria for certification. To terminate a short-term treatment certification less than 30 days after the initial certification, two professional persons are required to individually consult and review the respondent's case and agree that the respondent no longer meets the criteria for certification.     A court may order the short-term or long-term protective placement of a person:Who, by clear and convincing evidence, has a neurocognitive disorder;When reasonable grounds exist to believe that the person will not remain in a voluntary treatment program; andWho, by clear and convincing evidence, is a danger to the person's self, a danger to others.     The act aligns the provisions for short-term and long-term protective placement with certifications for short-term treatment and long-term care and treatment.     No later than October 1, 2027, the act requires CDHS to construct and operate an outpatient treatment facility for adults with behavioral health needs, including adults who are found incompetent to proceed and unlikely to be restored to competency.     To implement the act, for the 2025-26 state fiscal year, the act appropriates to CDHS $535,934 from the general fund and $4,777,898 from the capital construction fund.     To implement the act, the act makes the following appropriations for state fiscal year 2026-27:$17,802,360 to CDHS from the general fund, of which $242,323 is reappropriated to the department of law and $52,644 to the office of information technology;To the judicial department, $26,296 from the judicial department information technology cash fund and $5,401,437 from the general fund, of which $1,719,409 is for use by the office of state public defender and specified independent agencies;$842,808 to HCPF from the general fund; and$150,000 to the department of law from the general fund.(Note: This summary applies to this bill as enacted.)

Real property or buildings used to provide dwelling accommodations that substantially benefit persons with low income (project property) that is owned, leased, or under construction by a local housing authority, or an entity that is partially or wholly owned by a local housing authority, is exempt from property taxation. Section 1 of the bill clarifies that a "senior cooperative housing project" may qualify for such property tax exemption as a "project" of a local housing authority. A "senior cooperative housing project" is defined as a multi-unit residential building or complex occupied by qualifying seniors that is owned by a cooperative or cooperative housing corporation. A "qualifying senior" is an individual who is at least 65 years old and of low income.The affordable rental housing component of property in a public-private partnership between the middle-income housing authority and one or more public or private entities or persons is exempt from property taxation. Section 2 clarifies that a "senior cooperative housing project" that otherwise meets the qualifications and is selected by the authority may qualify for such property tax exemption as an "affordable rental housing project". "Senior cooperative housing project" has the same meaning as in section 1. A "qualifying senior" also has the same meaning as in section 1 and includes an individual who is of middle income. (Note: This summary applies to this bill as introduced.)

Maddy summaryThis bill is a Senate Joint Resolution that formally recognizes the Colorado Mining Association for its 150th anniversary in 2026. It highlights the organization's historical significance and its role in supporting Colorado's mining industry, which contributes billions to the state's economy and supports tens of thousands of jobs. The resolution acknowledges the association's partnerships with state and federal agencies in promoting safety, environmental stewardship, and responsible mineral development. This measure does not change any laws or policies but serves as an official acknowledgment of the association's contributions to Colorado's history and economy.

The act makes a technical revision to language from Senate Bill 25-070, enacted in 2025, to clarify an online marketplace's obligation to alert law enforcement if the online marketplace knows or should have known that a third-party seller is selling or attempting to sell stolen goods to a consumer in Colorado.(Note: This summary applies to this bill as enacted.)

Maddy summaryHB 1217 amends Colorado Revised Statutes to fix incorrect cross-references in the state's child support guidelines. The bill updates specific subsections that calculate basic child support obligations, adjustments for shared parenting time, and provisions for work-related expenses. These corrections ensure that the legal formulas used by courts and child support agencies accurately reference the relevant sections when determining payment amounts. The changes directly affect parents, child support agencies, and legal professionals who apply these guidelines in family law cases.

The act repeals reporting requirements that have already been fulfilled and do not contain a future repeal date. The act repeals duties related to repealed reports and repeals task forces, working groups, and review counsels created to make outdated reports.(Note: This summary applies to this bill as enacted.)

The act declares emergency medical services as an essential service in the state and an integral part of the state's health-care infrastructure.      The act also declares that emergency medical service providers, whether responding on duty or as a volunteer and regardless of location, provide essential services when providing emergency ambulance services and nonemergency ambulance services.      The act also updates certain definitions related to emergency medical services, including the addition of a definition of 'out-of-hospital services', which term is defined to mean the furnishing of necessary health-care goods and services outside of a hospital setting but does not include prehospital setting transports.     The act clarifies that an off-duty emergency medical service provider is not obligated to respond to the scene of a medical emergency or provide emergency medical services.(Note: This summary applies to this bill as enacted.)

The bill requires the department of education to:Ensure that standardized summative assessments are administered to students to the minimum extent possible; andApply for a federal waiver for federal assessment requirements, if necessary.(Note: This summary applies to this bill as introduced.)

Beginning January 1, 2027, the act requires an agricultural employer to pay certain agricultural employees overtime pay for time worked in excess of 56 hours in a workweek. The act also increases penalties for an agricultural employer who commits wage theft and repeals the authority of the director of the division of labor standards and statistics to adopt rules concerning overtime pay for agricultural employees.(Note: This summary applies to this bill as enacted.)

Current law defines illicit massage businesses as businesses that engage in massage but also engage in human-trafficking-related offenses. The act expands the definition of 'illicit massage business' to include a massage business that engages in crimes other than human-trafficking-related offenses.     Current law states that if a local government adopts a resolution or ordinance to establish business licensure requirements or to prohibit unlawful activities relating to illicit massage businesses, the resolution or ordinance must not be more restrictive than the requirements set forth in state law. The act removes this limitation. The act clarifies that a local government may adopt a resolution or ordinance for the purposes of deterring illicit massage businesses; preventing human trafficking; protecting legitimate massage therapy businesses; and safeguarding public health, safety, and welfare. The act also allows a local government to impose local licensing requirements in addition to those requirements prescribed in state law.     Current law allows a local government to impose an administrative fee not to exceed $150 for issuing or renewing a license. The act removes the $150 cap on such fees. If a local government imposes an administrative fee, the amount of the fee must be reasonably related to the costs of the local government in administering the resolution or ordinance and the licensing of massage facilities. The fee must not exceed $500 unless necessary to cover the local government's costs of administering the resolution or ordinance and licensing the massage facilities in its jurisdiction. The fee may be adjusted yearly for inflation or deflation. Current law exempts businesses that held licenses before August 10, 2022, from the administrative fees. The act removes this exemption.     The act allows a local government to establish additional grounds to deny, revoke, or suspend a license. The act provides that, if a local government establishes business licensure requirements for massage facilities, the resolution or ordinance adopted by the local government must prohibit ownership of massage facilities by the types of persons that are prohibited from ownership in current law.     Current law states that preventing the operation of illicit massage businesses is a matter of statewide concern, and licensing and regulation of massage facilities is a matter of mixed statewide and local concern. The act states that preventing the operation of illicit massage businesses is a matter of mixed statewide and local concern.     The act requires a local government that adopts a resolution or ordinance related to the local regulation of massage facilities on or after August 13, 2026, to consider the impacts of the resolution or ordinance on legitimate massage therapy businesses and conduct outreach to massage therapists and massage therapy businesses in the local government's jurisdiction and statewide organizations of massage therapists.(Note: This summary applies to this bill as enacted.)