Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Administrative Procedure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee lays over bill to let local licensing authorities send decisions by email or regular mail
Summary
The Statutory Revision Committee discussed a draft that would allow local licensing authorities to send licensing decisions by electronic mail or first‑class mail in addition to certified mail, and laid the draft over for broader review at the committee’s request.
Kristen Forrestal, Office of Legislative Legal Services, presented a draft that would authorize local licensing authorities to deliver a copy of a licensing decision by certified mail, electronic mail to a provided email address, or by regular mail if the applicant opts in.
Forrestal said the change would “update” statutes that currently require certified mail, and that Denver has been sending both certified mail and email in practice. Erica Rogers, policy director for Denver’s Excise and Licenses department, told the committee Denver supports the change and said certified mailing is costly and often returned.
Rogers provided figures for Denver’s office: certified mailings take about 10 minutes of staff time and cost $9.92 each; returned certified mailings add roughly 5 minutes of staff time plus storage costs under records retention schedules. She said, “We send around anywhere between 305 certified mailings a year just out of our office. Which costs about $6,500. Over the course of 5 years, we will spend about $17,000 almost $18,000 on returned mail, which is about $35,000 over 10 years.”
Committee members pressed drafting questions about whether certified mail would remain an option, who decides the delivery method (licensing authority or applicant), and how to document email delivery. Members asked the drafter to clarify whether the change is within the statutory revision committee’s charge or constitutes a substantive change; Forrestal said the committee could view it as modernizing statutes but left the decision to the committee.
Members discussed whether the single draft should instead be broadened to capture other sections of the code that require certified mail for licensing decisions (Denver cited a parallel provision in the marijuana code) and whether the bill’s language should require an affirmative opt‑in for email delivery. Committee members expressed a preference to pursue a more holistic bill covering all affected licensing statutes rather than a piecemeal change.
By unanimous consent, the committee laid the draft over and directed drafters to identify and, where appropriate, consolidate other statutory provisions that require certified mail so the committee can consider a broader, more complete modernization in a subsequent meeting.
