[{"_1":2,"_111":-5,"_112":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"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","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88,99],{"_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,"_75":74},"mediaId",6110559,"mediaKeyId","2757599-15be07df5aa4b8a3092479ddb98e96f7","parentId",2757599,"title","Committee backs coerced‑debt bill aimed at protecting domestic‑violence survivors; moves it to appropriations","audioSeconds",2072,"startMs",1528000,"endMs",3600000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2757599-15be07df5aa4b8a3092479ddb98e96f7&start=1528&end=3600","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2757599-15be07df5aa4b8a3092479ddb98e96f7/thumbnail_1528000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6110559/Colorado/Committee-backs-coerceddebt-bill-aimed-at-protecting-domesticviolence-survivors-moves-it-to-appropriations","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6110559-59131491fecdb2c6d05f144f4e06b580/orig.mp4?Expires=1771142286&Signature=S5lVzuJ3cV4nf45xHx5cyKwkGcr70iVk7Q5n7uZDQBgkgj3S43UsUij5SucwLhtD0Zvxbxo~Iz8ptnH7c2f0lDZ7X5hsMK3PtxKlJrkICc8qxo3Acq61RV0SFnX5WFBDglDVFlGwNhou~6Rq8ruC52sElDmW7WmOYc0r9zGh8Bki8Gr6FDwn-aQRSN7qE--MHSOAr7RdAliODBY0RI9C6T8iPpip614-XsQ2-EyCEnRgObVzOEfkiBCvMx9lxD~zPVEb10kGcgCGZG8GjYfVX8LOhHrybs43QYN~3PWoINiqFNM6sNKVPNVTHv9jQYG6kRECcvfzgXhgb~PlFdvcKg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Colorado State Legislature","date","2025-03-20T00:00:00Z","article","The House Finance Committee voted to send House Bill 11 94 to the Committee on Appropriations with a favorable recommendation after extended testimony from survivors, advocates and fiscal staff about the scope and budgetary implications of the proposed remedy for coerced debt.

What the bill would do: Sponsors described HB 11 94 as legislation to recognize coerced debt as a form of economic abuse and to establish a civil process allowing survivors to assert that debts were incurred through coercion, fraud or identity theft. Representative Armacost, a sponsor, called coerced debt “a form of economic abuse” and said the bill removes one of the biggest mechanisms abusers use to control victims—money.

How the process would work (sponsors’ description): A survivor would submit a written statement of coerced debt and supporting documentation (police report, court order, or a qualified third-party statement). The creditor or debt collector would suspend collection while the claim is in process; if the creditor challenges the claim, the dispute would be resolved in court, with the creditor bearing the burden to prove the debt was not coerced. Sponsors acknowledged details about evidentiary standards would be resolved in subsequent drafting or at later stages.

Fiscal concerns and venue questions: Committee members and the fiscal analyst pressed sponsors on the bill’s fiscal note. The fiscal analyst explained the fiscal note assumes an increase in filings and used a 15% estimate for the increase; county‑court filing fees (cited in testimony as $115) were a key input. Members queried whether higher debt levels (for example vehicle loans or mortgages that exceed the county‑court jurisdictional cap of $25,000) would shift cases to district court and change fiscal assumptions; sponsors and advocates said they are continuing technical conversations with analysts to refine those projections.

Witness testimony: The record included multiple survivor testimonies and advocacy organizations (Violence Free Colorado, Colorado Organization for Victim Assistance, Colorado Poverty Law Project) that described the real‑world harms of coerced debt, including long‑term credit damage, wage garnishment, eviction risk and barriers to housing and employment. Several witnesses asked the committee to prioritize survivors’ economic safety and urged passage.

Outcome: Vice Chair Titone moved that HB 11 94 be referred to the Committee on Appropriations with a favorable recommendation; the motion carried with the committee reporting the final vote as 11 to 2. Committee remarks noted the strong policy rationale while acknowledging outstanding fiscal questions to be resolved in the next committee.

What’s next: The bill will receive additional fiscal review in Appropriations; sponsors and stakeholders signaled willingness to continue technical negotiations on filing‑venue assumptions and other fiscal inputs.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","House Finance [Mar 20, 2025]","oneSentenceSummary","The House Finance Committee voted to send House Bill 11 94 to the Committee on Appropriations with a favorable recommendation after extensive testimony from survivors, advocates and fiscal staff about the costs and court‑process implications of a civil remedy for coerced debt.","taxTitle","Finance, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Committees, Legislative, Colorado","taxId",43286,"location","Colorado","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6110564,"Committee advances bill to tighten review of property-tax exemptions for metro‑district leases",493,848000,1341000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2757599-15be07df5aa4b8a3092479ddb98e96f7&start=848&end=1341","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2757599-15be07df5aa4b8a3092479ddb98e96f7/thumbnail_848000.jpg","/articles/6110564/Colorado/Committee-advances-bill-to-tighten-review-of-property-tax-exemptions-for-metrodistrict-leases","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6110564-c923e74e8cd2f98db6737148ae4794a2/orig.mp4?Expires=1771142286&Signature=N3GVCLsSnfEeQ3P-Pxz-GmURe4z~FXaFTxp8okF1zdn626HgPeqdTHAcU9RznZZaarnk~7J3r7pcBah5ng16qkgPPJ9I-oUiv8pmAulCyCIBNLWnU9ITnhqLA3SyEY36EDblu~~8nMQQGOvKmBdjMXIb-k4T1gEsFiMUW07CM4rdGWjf0z9pkD6ifC9pwsJfz8vENr1evDYiS2JTHUvGpUmoLQMzQN0RMut~oVp4a2hcK-DJ7aUHyxqP6~d3GE4Dg24KiIMilGgpXQkvOfOlU622ivpcYOcmGBwzj-LuYB0WkqnxT64G4tpHRAw-2tfXwH6bD9vOWr97JNISoeJ~-w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The House Finance Committee advanced House Bill 12 89 as amended, a measure that would increase reporting and local review when real property is leased to a public entity—such as a metropolitan district—for public use. Sponsors and county assessors argued the bill is intended to protect property-tax bases by ensuring exemptions are used only for legitimate public purposes.

Denver County Assessor Keith Erthmeier, testifying for the Colorado Assessors Association, described the issue as an “unintended consequence” of existing law, saying it can occur when landowners also control a metro district’s board and lease parcels to that district. “Because Metro districts are political subdivisions of the state, this creates a situation where the land owner can execute a lease to themselves as the board of directors, exempting that entire property,” Erthmeier said.

Weld County Assessor Brenda Domas gave local examples involving golf courses where the ownership and governance relationships led her office to treat similar leases differently after reviewing facts about private gain. She said the bill addresses two concerns: (1) ensuring leases contain disclosure that allows a governing body — typically a county board of commissioners — to determine whether the use qualifies for exemption, and (2) enabling assessors to value privately used portions of leased property when appropriate.

Amendments: The committee approved amendment L1 (adopted without objection), which removed an earlier “look‑back” period the sponsors had proposed and adjusted stakeholder timelines. Sponsors said they negotiated the change after metro‑district stakeholders expressed concerns about retroactive review. Representative Zukai (sponsor) and Representative Richardson (co‑sponsor) both summarized that the bill aims to improve transparency and keep decisionmaking about exemptions at the local level.

Outcome: Representative Zukai moved HB 12 89, as amended, to the Committee of the Whole; the motion carried unanimously. Committee members and assessors said the measure is intended to standardize reporting and preserve local control over exemption determinations.

What the committee did not do: The bill does not itself set valuation methodology or a specific enforcement mechanism; sponsors said assessors would implement whatever local governing bodies decide.

Ending note: Sponsors urged a yes vote on grounds of fairness and local accountability; assessors said the change is aimed at closing loopholes that shift tax burdens to other property owners.","The committee unanimously sent House Bill 12 89 to the Committee of the Whole after sponsors and county assessors said the bill would require additional disclosure and local review when property is leased to a metro district, closing what assessors described as an unintended loophole that can allow private gain.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6110569,"House Finance advances local tax-relief tool for cell carriers after amendment makes bill cost-neutral",0,3775000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2757599-15be07df5aa4b8a3092479ddb98e96f7&start=3775&end=3775","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2757599-15be07df5aa4b8a3092479ddb98e96f7/thumbnail_3775000.jpg","/articles/6110569/Colorado/House-Finance-advances-local-tax-relief-tool-for-cell-carriers-after-amendment-makes-bill-cost-neutral","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6110569-10fb87b26948df87572ab67ced526de5/orig.mp4?Expires=1771142286&Signature=i14Fvs233EY0PgFaLBfhFks-rUUfHzdGxdAz~I3ei3uwb1jPneleyCUMWQna7YNCy2~~OvQXfzvqpcT9rQrJkt-W~jey7BDOqfZl2B37x5JCduaMcsOPYHTJ45yzkH1KwksADS56YT41X2BpcIR935-oRgqtsEXVJVbWo87YCakTlNOqeDsdHWF4CRN7q1xBN96rWIu5nAXepTiK~anZ7x2OPkg5mcICyX-uj8llYd5JFV8KtRBTC~jwi5H7uLTx311MO4Fee~aTWPhJ01WRmt5J7qiQCemkhAyyXaRiGONjhd6M6tjOY9uGqg03vv5bdEbKM~5Ykq-EsDo4DTDKfQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The House Finance Committee on Tuesday advanced House Bill 10 80 after sponsors adopted Amendment L005, which sponsors said eliminates the bill’s net fiscal cost.

The bill, sponsored in the committee by Representative Lukens and co-prime sponsor Representative Soper, would authorize local governments to offer property-tax relief to communication service providers in areas that are underserved or unserved by cell phone coverage. Representative Lukens said the amendment “makes the bill cost no money,” and added that it clarifies local property tax relief, expands the list of eligible underserved areas and removes a sales-tax refund that had been in an earlier draft.

Why it matters: Sponsors described HB 10 80 as a tool local governments can use to incentivize mobile carriers to invest in coverage in high‑cost or sparsely populated parts of the state. Representative Soper said it is “a tool in the toolbox” for local governments wanting to incentivize coverage expansion and emphasized the bill was shaped through an interim cell‑phone connectivity committee.

What changed: Amendment L005 (adopted by voice vote) struck the sales tax refund for rural broadband providers from the bill and revised language about local property‑tax relief so the measure would not create a net cost to the state. Sponsors said the amendment was circulated with a fiscal memo showing the change and that, if the amendment passed, the bill would not require an appropriation to proceed.

Procedural outcome: Representative Soper moved the amended bill to the Committee of the Whole with a favorable recommendation; the motion carried unanimously. Ms. Shipley called the roll and the clerk recorded the affirmative votes of members present; the chair announced the bill was passing unanimously to the Committee of the Whole.

What the committee did not decide: The committee did not adopt any additional amendments after L005 and heard no extended debate. The committee’s action was procedural—moving the bill forward for full chamber consideration rather than adopting a final enacted policy.

Ending note: Sponsors said they expect the bill to remain a local option—an incentive local governments may use if they choose—and that additional technical work was completed through the amendment to address fiscal concerns.","The House Finance Committee advanced House Bill 10 80 as amended, a bill that would let local governments offer property-tax relief to cell providers in underserved areas; sponsors adopted Amendment L005 to remove a sales-tax refund and make the measure fiscally neutral before sending it to the Committee of the Whole.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6110554,"House Finance pauses instant‑permit requirement, advances amended solar‑permitting bill after broad testimony",6487,3615000,10102000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2757599-15be07df5aa4b8a3092479ddb98e96f7&start=3615&end=10102","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2757599-15be07df5aa4b8a3092479ddb98e96f7/thumbnail_3615000.jpg","/articles/6110554/Colorado/House-Finance-pauses-instantpermit-requirement-advances-amended-solarpermitting-bill-after-broad-testimony","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6110554-6ffcdf998034cdaa7b5fffd36abd2332/orig.mp4?Expires=1771142286&Signature=V6VscK06qDViFg8uJs8~uOMVVm~GIc2IHccTCRM-MdCOw6Ly~wtAHiMnTJIw3jE4W0kvNsalD9h~bi9d278MLF5CN~VO31TRlfuadmcsQUj~gIw21PmSCcECBggkQWN~PB9cVFRbQCkUqQE1sa-~YNtHKsn9GG2Fh5ovnlPgBtgyjl1R5WLwlgC93DdHA~clvpNeSh71pV5PNSRaMQpb6qb6Z1JrNzEyAFNAqCxdbZ8Y0Kwis9OmN~yojRR~zWF2CApjrk10q8AWJ39NSJvYGOs9oXFVWzvYmZMi8XPjQxtFWDdI5mNIq2OdpO69J9D9meDHjnEep2Q9zyRBD2u5CQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The House Finance Committee heard a lengthy, often technical hearing on House Bill 10 96, a bill designed to streamline residential solar permitting. Testimony ran from county commissioners and building officials describing operational and fiscal burdens to solar advocates and installers urging automation to reduce soft costs and project cancellations.

Major themes from testimony: Local governments and building officials testified in opposition or in an \"amend\" position, citing concerns that mandated instant permitting or a single mandated vendor would (1) impose unfunded IT and integration costs on local governments, (2) fail to account for local zoning, wind‑ and snow‑load variations, and wildfire safety considerations, and (3) create inspection‑quality and liability concerns if virtual inspections supplanted in‑person inspections. Multiple counties noted they had already streamlined permitting and that a one‑size‑fits‑all software mandate would be a poor fit for smaller or rural jurisdictions. Several witnesses pointed to integration costs that could reach tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars for municipal IT platforms.

Proponents and installers: Solar industry representatives and clean‑energy advocates urged streamlined, consistent permitting to reduce delays and cancellations. Proponents cited research and examples (NREL / SolarAPP plus pilots, and jurisdictions that have adopted automated permits) that showed instant or automated permitting can reduce soft costs, speed deployment and increase adoption. Several proponents said existing tools (SolarAPP plus and similar platforms) can be adapted to meet local code requirements and that pilot jurisdictions had favorable experiences.

Amendment and outcome: During the hearing sponsors asked for additional time to continue stakeholder negotiations. Representative Smith and Representative Brown proposed amendment L006 — a strike‑below that removes the bill’s instant permit/fee appropriation requirement and instead makes technical changes to the existing grant program created previously. Committee members adopted L006 by voice and, after a brief fiscal‑note check with legislative staff, advanced the amended bill to the Committee of the Whole with a favorable recommendation (recorded vote 9–4). Legislative Council staff reported that adopting L006 removed the appropriation in the fiscal note and permitted the bill to be routed to the Committee of the Whole rather than Appropriations.

Why it matters: Reforming permitting processes is a frequently cited lever to accelerate residential solar deployment and reduce costs for homeowners and businesses. Opponents argued the current bill and the software options discussed would not yet meet the needs of many jurisdictions; sponsors said they will continue negotiations in the interim and bring solutions back in the future.

Ending note: Sponsors said they will continue stakeholder work over the summer; the committee’s adoption of L006 narrowed the bill’s scope and removed the immediate fiscal request so the chamber may consider a more limited, grant‑oriented approach in the near term.","After hours of testimony from counties, municipalities, utilities and solar advocates, the committee adopted a strike‑below amendment (L006) that removes the instant‑permit mandate and adjusts the existing grant program; House Bill 10 96 as amended was sent to the Committee of the Whole with a favorable recommendation.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Committee backs coerced‑debt bill aimed at protecting domestic‑violence survivors; moves it to appropriations

Committee advances bill to tighten review of property-tax exemptions for metro‑district leases

House Finance advances local tax-relief tool for cell carriers after amendment makes bill cost-neutral

House Finance pauses instant‑permit requirement, advances amended solar‑permitting bill after broad testimony