Proponent seeks repeal of Colorado retail delivery fees in hearing on Initiative 51

A public hearing on proposed Initiative Measure 51, which would repeal retail delivery fees, was held at 10 a.m. April 1, 2025, in House Committee Room 0109. Legislative council and Office of Legislative Legal Services staff reviewed the draft language with the initiative’s proponent and raised technical questions about constitutional single-subject requirements, effective dates, and the fiscal effects on funds that currently depend on fee revenue.

The proponent told staff the initiative’s single subject is “To repeal the retail delivery fees.” Amanda Little of Legislative Council staff read questions from a March 27, 2025 memorandum and asked whether the draft’s language about timing and a safety clause was necessary given constitutional rules on initiative effective dates. Little asked, “What is the single subject of the proposed initiative?” and staff later noted that, under the Colorado Constitution’s Article V, section 1, an approved initiative generally takes effect upon proclamation following the official canvass, within 30 days.

Staff also asked how programs funded largely by the retail delivery fee would be supported if the fee were removed. The proponent said revenue for such funds would need to come from other sources listed in the draft — “monetary gifts, grants, donations, and other payments received by the enterprise and any federal money that may be credited to the fund and any other money that the general assembly may appropriate or transfer to that fund,” as stated by the proponent during the hearing. The proponent confirmed the intention to repeal the portion of statute that designates retail-delivery-fee revenue (identified in the draft as subparagraph 6.8(b)) while preserving or amending other statutory language as needed.

Staff and the proponent discussed draft language in section enumerations that staff identified as leftover bill-style safety clauses. The proponent said those could be removed for the final draft and that the constitutional default timing made an added safety clause unnecessary. The proponent explained why some statutory findings language remained in the draft, saying it described “the gross deficiency of this legislation, which is that things that are, you know, lower in value, like something that costs $1 would cost you something like, you know, 40% in taxes or fees,” and that language was intended to describe disproportionate fee effects on low-priced items.

Legal staff advised the proponent that, as a statutory change, the initiative’s text could be amended by subsequent legislation enacted by the General Assembly after passage, and that the General Assembly could alter fee-related statutory language in the future. Staff also walked the proponent through next procedural steps: submitting the draft to the Title Board with the version sent to staff, a clean final version, and a tracked-changes version showing any edits. Staff directed the proponent to Title Board rules and noted online resources maintained by the Secretary of State and the General Assembly for the petition and titling process.

No formal vote or committee action occurred during the hearing; staff framed the session as a review of draft language and technical comments. The hearing concluded when staff announced, “The hearing for initiative 51 is adjourned.”