[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_25":26},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_27":28,"_29":30},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[31,75],{"_32":33,"_34":35,"_36":37,"_38":39,"_40":41,"_42":43,"_44":45,"_46":47,"_48":49,"_50":51,"_52":53,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":59,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":65,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":71,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6634886,"mediaKeyId","2657747-b3d0408a59e82d5c20d564ddcce2e8e9","parentId",2657747,"title","House Finance Committee advances Senate Bill 3 after heated fiscal debate over CPW funding and permit-to-purchase plan","audioSeconds",16627,"startMs",3243000,"endMs",19870000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2657747-b3d0408a59e82d5c20d564ddcce2e8e9&start=3243&end=19870","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2657747-b3d0408a59e82d5c20d564ddcce2e8e9/thumbnail_3243000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6634886/Colorado/House-Finance-Committee-advances-Senate-Bill-3-after-heated-fiscal-debate-over-CPW-funding-and-permit-to-purchase-plan","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6634886-4ba73391a7c8691e87b314ded6e581e4/orig.mp4?Expires=1769827491&Signature=njbwZVagbpt8rm0ONdOkMwAuIBtMJCVrRKDQqNs7lDLPLQ1wm46P1Fh3hvr8gLUfzDVqvFkf02Ql0MOVJtEDNWJP2KN~wo~ZplaH141oDdi4fyBV9RPi2A1nupnn6aiORedu8~oYfw2CMs5~SWwQijyU6ra6GcT4yVsIEkFeJwGePpA~Pl5rzyqGPLGbqE6OhoWMB1g-tPFKwRIvwrpd4RVUq07E4tN-MsL6WtiOdT0TQ7gJhn6bSHVlT2MZm51FwuNsz0JN-pWNKFlzYzQIuvodPnwUgwkrfXfnNkdojn-U1v3cOEkJBKBz7oM2355EbIQenPGKHmGHk8Up1KVnDw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Colorado Legislature","date","2025-03-14T00:00:00Z","article","The House Finance Committee voted 8-5 to send Senate Bill 3—creating a permit‑to‑purchase pathway for certain semiautomatic firearms—to the Appropriations Committee on March 14, 2025, after more than four hours of testimony and questioning centered on fiscal costs, conservation funding and administrative capacity.

Senate Bill 3 requires additional safety training and a permit to acquire specified semi‑automatic firearms with detachable magazines, while providing a carve‑out permitting pathway for legally eligible purchasers. Sponsor Representative Froelich summarized the committee’s finance focus at the outset: “This bill prohibits the manufacture distribution transfer sale purchase of certain semiautomatic firearms with exceptions and including a path to purchase after emerging from the senate,” and said the bill’s fiscal pieces were the subject of the Finance Committee hearing.

The most contentious fiscal issue was the bill’s administration plan: sponsors proposed that Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) would stand up the required firearms training and safety‑course cash fund and front‑load startup costs (roughly $2.0 million in the revised fiscal note) out of an enterprise cash fund; CPW would then be reimbursed from fees charged for the training and permits. At the hearing, sponsors and CPW representatives said the program is designed to be self‑sustaining once fee revenue begins to flow and that sheriffs may set fees to cover local implementation costs.

Opponents and several witnesses—including hunting and outdoor‑recreation groups, firearms dealers, sheriffs and gun‑rights organizations—warned the finance approach risks violating federal restrictions on wildlife funding and could imperil federal grants under the Pittman‑Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act. Witnesses repeatedly said the wildlife cash fund and the parks cash fund have statutorily restricted uses and that diverting those funds for a permit program could prompt federal review or loss of historically significant federal conservation dollars. One business witness told the committee, “The state's misuse of these funds jeopardizes $30,000,000 a year in critical federal wildlife conservation funding under the Pittman Robertson Act.”

CPW staff and the sponsors responded that the amendment adopted in Finance narrows the implicated cash fund to the Parks Cash Fund (not the wildlife fund) and that the sponsors had worked with fiscal staff to clarify the loan and repayment structure. CPW’s representative described a mix of user fees—park passes, camping reservations and other receipts—as the primary revenue source for the parks cash fund and said the agency currently maintains a balance that could be used short‑term. CPW officials said, under sponsor amendments, the startup loan would be repaid from collected permit and course fees and that sheriffs would be able to set fees to cover local processing costs.

Committee members and multiple witnesses also pressed the technical and operational feasibility of the plan. IT and database experts warned that building a secure, interoperable statewide system to manage course completion, permit issuance and background checks would take many months and substantial funding; one IT witness said a production‑quality system is typically a year‑plus effort and warned of security and supply‑chain issues for cards and authentication. Sheriffs emphasized that local law enforcement would need staffing and IT connectors to process background checks and noted some counties could face hundreds of thousands in start‑up costs to create an entitlement‑processing pipeline.

Fiscal assumptions were a consistent flashpoint. The revised fiscal note models scenarios in which a modest number of applicants (50,000) could repay start‑up costs quickly at a nominal $40 CPW fee; critics said the applicant estimate was unrealistically low given statewide firearm ownership and could force fees upward or leave taxpayers carrying the cost. Supporters argued the sponsors had negotiated amendments to limit state outlays, that sheriffs had statutory authority to set fees for their actual costs and that other states operate permit programs that are self‑financing.

After hearing, the committee adopted an amendment that narrowed the implicated CPW cash fund to the parks cash fund and then approved moving SB 3 to Appropriations on an 8‑5 vote. Sponsors said they view the conference with CPW, sheriffs, legislative fiscal analysts and stakeholders as ongoing and said they expect additional technical fixes as the bill proceeds.

Why it matters: SB 3 would change the process for purchasing a defined class of semi‑automatic firearms in Colorado and create a new, state‑administered permit and training requirement. The fiscal design—relying on CPW enterprise funds and a fee structure to backfill startup costs— prompted a broader policy argument about whether funds generated by hunters, anglers and park users should be used to stand up law‑enforcement and regulatory functions.

What to watch next: The Appropriations Committee will review SB 3’s estimated costs and the proposed repayment and fee structure; litigation challenges are widely expected by opponents who contend the proposal may be unconstitutional or otherwise unlawful. Sponsors and CPW have indicated they will continue stakeholder conversations and refine technical and operational elements of administration and fee setting.

Sources and transcript evidence: Sponsors and CPW staff provided the hearing’s fiscal overview. Multiple witnesses — from Colorado Ceasefire and Moms Demand Action to firearm dealers, sheriffs and organized gun rights groups — gave opposing testimony on the financial implications and the risk to federal conservation funding under the Pittman‑Robertson Act.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","House Finance [Mar 14, 2025 - Upon Adjournment]","oneSentenceSummary","The House Finance Committee voted 8-5 to send Senate Bill 3 to Appropriations after a long hearing on whether Colorado Parks and Wildlife should administer a permit‑to‑purchase program using an enterprise fund and repay startup costs with permit and training fees.","taxTitle","2025 Legislature CO, Colorado","taxId",77676,"location","Colorado","headline","","shortSummary",{"_32":76,"_34":35,"_36":37,"_38":77,"_40":78,"_42":79,"_44":80,"_46":81,"_48":82,"_50":83,"_52":84,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":85,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":86,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":71,"_72":73,"_74":73},6634890,"House Finance Committee advances amended bill to cap and phase tipped wage offsets",237,260000,22772,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2657747-b3d0408a59e82d5c20d564ddcce2e8e9&start=260&end=22","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2657747-b3d0408a59e82d5c20d564ddcce2e8e9/thumbnail_260000.jpg","/articles/6634890/Colorado/House-Finance-Committee-advances-amended-bill-to-cap-and-phase-tipped-wage-offsets","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6634890-fa26e14ad5fc0e259cd3cc739643ae72/orig.mp4?Expires=1769827491&Signature=degGhXW2CAiUPG3dT4FkELI5QLUlAF9vbMJSJfntQqGWxorgaMC5qpELbnGiaDJ0HFsrDRn1iWLr7ACsbPX434WvZWkz773c7wnluPYgvzVrQg81EH2VQwSpdLJ~C-N7OOpt7Z0A1o9BPDlK-MJGAbxhOj1ShuOfVxXQ88sgPddMGUMZf1K3parkeEsEz5BvDs1NYTGAMBcS9rlnU5SbPhh8s8rIolfUCqajxO8zDWkwZsnHioW6AQnCt-IxUzPKNoSu8GlFuZb2-dhwzhCovmHn9kSxL~XtQXhZdXNU7tUFDwnYTS8PqxWgPgam6v63nlahEHcQO~cZla30MCGEew__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Representatives on the House Finance Committee voted 11-2 to send an amended version of House Bill 1208 to the Committee of the Whole after hours of debate on March 14, 2025.

The bill, presented by Representative Valdez and co-prime Representative Woodrow, includes an amendment (L-018) that preserves the current $3.02 tip offset as a statutory floor, adjusts the offset for inflation beginning in 2026, and requires localities that set a higher overall minimum wage to bring their tipped minimum wage to 75% of the local minimum over a multiyear phase-in. Sponsors described the package as a compromise intended to protect restaurant operations while restoring some of the purchasing power of tipped workers.

Supporters said the amendment balances competing pressures: rising local minimum wages in cities such as Denver and Boulder have outpaced the static tip offset the Legislature set in 2019, creating a widening gap that restaurants say makes operations financially unsustainable. Representative Valdez told the committee, “we have L‑018, and it does 3 things,” listing the amendment’s inflation adjustment for the tip offset, the 75% target for local tipped minimums over four years, and the requirement that future local wage increases include a 75% tipped-minimum rule.

Committee backers stressed the change is intended to be gradual. Representative Woodrow said the amendment aims to “right size the tipped wage” and to give municipalities flexibility on how they reach the 75% target. Sponsors also emphasized a delayed local-control element: some language holds changes in place until 2029 to allow jurisdictions and employers to align their wage structures without abrupt increases.

Opponents continued to press statutory and constitutional concerns. Multiple members — notably Representative Zocai — pressed sponsors on the bill’s plain language and potential for ambiguity, especially lines referencing what a tipped worker “earns” and whether referencing the state minimum rather than local minimum in parts of the amendment could lower protections for workers in higher-wage cities. Zocai repeatedly told the committee that the “plain text” of the amendment could be read to allow lower effective pay for tipped workers and asked sponsors to return with clarifying language; sponsors said they would consider technical fixes.

Other members of the committee also raised fiscal and practical concerns. Representative Hartsock and others asked whether the amendment could produce complex payroll and enforcement questions and whether state agencies would need new resources; sponsors said their drafting team worked to limit fiscal impacts and that the amendment was designed to reduce the state fiscal exposure by delaying some dates and phasing in increases.

The committee’s vote followed about an hour of final comments and several floor amendments; the committee adopted L‑018 on an 11‑2 vote and then moved the bill to the Committee of the Whole with an 11‑2 recommendation.

Why it matters: HB 1208 and its L‑018 amendment attempt to reconcile two politically salient objectives — protections for tipped workers and relief for restaurant operators facing steep local wage increases. The bill does not eliminate local control; rather it sets a statutory mechanism and timetable for how tipped minimums must relate to local minimum wages going forward. Several members and stakeholder groups signaled they want additional technical clarifications before the bill reaches the House floor.

What to watch next: The bill will be considered by the Committee of the Whole, where further amendments and debate are likely. Sponsors said they will review drafting concerns raised during committee (particularly the use of the word “earn” and references to the state minimum wage), and they indicated they would consider technical language to reduce misinterpretation.

Sources and transcript evidence: Representative Valdez and Representative Woodrow presented the amendment and explained its three-part structure; multiple members questioned lines 18–20 that reference the statutory floor and the interaction with local wages. The committee adopted the amendment and advanced the bill 11‑2.

Ending note: The amendment represents a compromise that some members called necessary to keep restaurants operating while moving toward a more predictable, CPI‑adjusted approach for the tipped offset. Its fate now depends on additional technical drafting and floor debate in the Committee of the Whole.
","Representatives on the House Finance Committee voted 11-2 to send an amended version of House Bill 1208 to the Committee of the Whole after hours of debate on March 14, 2025.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

House Finance Committee advances Senate Bill 3 after heated fiscal debate over CPW funding and permit-to-purchase plan

House Finance Committee advances amended bill to cap and phase tipped wage offsets