[{"_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",[32,76,88,100],{"_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",6323179,"mediaKeyId","2342974-88271e5746762fe443136b23cffea94a","parentId",2342974,"title","Committee approves narrow paratransit emergency‑planning measure after stakeholder negotiations","audioSeconds",413,"startMs",10392000,"endMs",10805000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2342974-88271e5746762fe443136b23cffea94a&start=10392&end=10805","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2342974-88271e5746762fe443136b23cffea94a/thumbnail_10392000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6323179/Colorado/Committee-approves-narrow-paratransit-emergencyplanning-measure-after-stakeholder-negotiations","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6323179-0ef20f3c5bf357cfc9a2c20ffa61628a/orig.mp4?Expires=1770507012&Signature=MNl~Fv7sPoRbwBmQHVKYPbAME7VZCHjbfExa-UwYOmMpqL-keL3GyC9Zxhp13mFSc4ACBOjaKVxGxMFMwxvqp80ezD5~LqvqCNqk79wcy~F9xlRgkTeN19DIoUC3R~MN4JYADQqz9676UGhTydbugARY~6rSp5jqx~0Yic4IW6AFGji2ie5a~22VnwVieg518NpE~8t6WJ01Dh8jSelg~MhpDCzEOLoGpVDk6nYMZEXMw--8JvtW50QU6neWPlXwZgXbz4X8H8QgBRZYO-Y5sW83Nxo3CFUecPSBsYta-ojnj68MLHE5a8lFY5eV5xwPqZPxCtUwj1hWfHMprDQtLQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Colorado Legislature","date","2025-02-18T00:00:00Z","article","The committee unanimously advanced a narrowed version of House Bill 10‑07 requiring paratransit agencies to coordinate with local emergency management entities on evacuation and disaster plans for people who rely on paratransit services.

Chair Rep. Froelich said the bill was a scaled‑back product of an interim Transportation Legislative Review Committee effort and reflects agreement with disability advocates and emergency managers to avoid a fiscal note this year while still improving planning. “We were approached by the disability community to really try to do some statewide standardization of paratransit,” Froelich said. Sponsors said the adopted amendment focuses on information sharing about provider capacity, vehicles and drivers so local emergency plans can account for paratransit needs.

Witnesses supported the narrow bill. Carson Covey of Family Voices Colorado said a task force and improved coordination are vital because some users must schedule accessible rides far in advance and have been left waiting. Michael Neal of the Colorado Cross‑Disability Coalition described how reductions in service frequency and geographic coverage make contingency planning more urgent. Nathan Whittington, president of the Colorado Emergency Management Association, told the committee that integrating paratransit into emergency plans helps avoid situations in which people cannot evacuate during disasters.

Sponsors said the strike‑below amendment adopted in committee zeroed out the fiscal note and limited the bill to non‑budgetary coordination tasks and a task force to study broader standardization. Committee members voted to report the bill to the Committee of the Whole with a favorable recommendation.

Supporters called the measure a modest but necessary step to make disaster plans more inclusive; sponsors indicated further work on statewide paratransit standards will continue in subsequent sessions.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","House Transportation, Housing & Local Government [Feb 18, 2025]","oneSentenceSummary","Lawmakers unanimously advanced a pared‑down paratransit bill that requires better coordination between paratransit providers and local emergency management — a step sponsors said will help protect people who rely on accessible transport during disasters.","taxTitle","Transportation, Housing & Local Government, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Committees, Legislative, Colorado","taxId",43545,"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},6323183,"Committee advances bill to regulate vehicle immobilization after split testimony from property managers, parking firms and tenants",1573,4717000,6290000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2342974-88271e5746762fe443136b23cffea94a&start=4717&end=6290","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2342974-88271e5746762fe443136b23cffea94a/thumbnail_4717000.jpg","/articles/6323183/Colorado/Committee-advances-bill-to-regulate-vehicle-immobilization-after-split-testimony-from-property-managers-parking-firms-and-tenants","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6323183-80d1d238319276b4e8e28bae4235d16c/orig.mp4?Expires=1770507012&Signature=ZaLZGefH2ESctvGIiIJVE61VwkKwxIdJ6BgxQJ5TE~EPUObl0WXGBshI3Hms2O2bWgoThogzp78xpS64FUJHDQRypnsusyPY0FzFhvY9~xPM2ZnZBqrD6w5IfiWtv3PbmemZ26R5ZZY~k85tN6RODgWcUasszrThkmmB~EyMdIGvkM6Tzv6526jMxHGFHfGE6LGyoCC9BmRBsxyWieAB5P4sdu5158k8OI2ZdvXIHkDy3uhKMiC6yVR4-7e0YOZzVFhjlU6hKxOBdvUNzaxGsYcJO8vEMn~F4jFO5RMbNmxC7pqQbkrRXLcyQtjYc9BYTwZ1qpSYzycxO0ogoMztSQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The House Transportation, Housing & Local Government Committee voted to advance a bill to regulate the vehicle immobilization (booting) industry and to add consumer protections for people whose cars are immobilized on private property.

Representatives Brett Basenacker and Gabe Joseph brought the bill. Sponsors said it mirrors reforms earlier enacted to curb predatory towing, and extended similar consumer protections — including photo evidence, bilingual signage and fee transparency — to booting companies. The sponsors also added protections such as a notification period in some cases and a requirement that property owners authorize boots rather than leaving decisions solely to contractors.

Property managers and parking enforcement companies told the committee that immediate immobilization is often the only practical enforcement tool in tight parking environments such as mountain resort lots, downtown properties, and multifamily complexes. Chris Rutter of Colorado Parking Pros and Ryan Harman of Colorado Parking Services said immediate boots deter repeat violators in lots where towing is logistically difficult or unavailable. “Only the thought of getting booted immediately has had any effect in keeping parking lots clear and orderly for paying residents,” Harman said.

Several witnesses from mountain and resort areas, where parking supply is constrained, said a 24‑hour warning requirement would make enforcement ineffective and leave residents without guaranteed spaces. A manager for a Vail‑area property, Michelle Looney, told the committee the complexes she represents have limited parking and rely on immobilization to ensure leaseholders have promised spaces.

Tenant advocates and mobile‑home park residents described different patterns of harm. Witnesses including Nancy Flores and Martha Manriquez said they experienced unexpected late‑night boots and were forced to pay $160 immediately to retrieve vehicles, a burden for low‑income households. Community advocates asked the committee to protect residents by requiring property owner authorization for boots, itemized billing, the option to pay a $60 initial payment with a payment plan for the remainder, and stronger PUC enforcement powers for bad actors.

Stakeholders reached partial agreement during the hearing: the committee adopted several sponsor amendments, including a delayed signage compliance date and a requirement that immobilization companies provide an itemized invoice automatically. Sponsors also amended the bill to set $60 as an initial required payment for vehicle release (removing an earlier 15%‑of‑fee formula). That $60 is the initial payment to secure release; additional charges may still apply consistent with PUC rules and the bill's itemization requirement.

After amendment and discussion, the committee voted to advance the bill with a favorable recommendation to the Committee of the Whole by a recorded vote of 8–5.

Supporters called the measure a needed guardrail for tenants and mobile‑home residents; industry representatives said they would work with sponsors on technical fixes and sought language protecting mountain resort operations and HOA enforcement. The bill allows municipalities and certain business parking to be exempted as provided in the amendments adopted during the hearing.","House Bill 25‑117, a package of consumer protections and permit requirements for vehicle immobilization operators, advanced to the Committee of the Whole after extensive testimony from parking management companies, apartment and ski‑area managers, tenant advocates and residents.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6323188,"Committee hears hours of testimony on retail delivery fee repeal; motion to advance fails and bill later postponed",2663,1461000,4124000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2342974-88271e5746762fe443136b23cffea94a&start=1461&end=4124","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2342974-88271e5746762fe443136b23cffea94a/thumbnail_1461000.jpg","/articles/6323188/Colorado/Committee-hears-hours-of-testimony-on-retail-delivery-fee-repeal-motion-to-advance-fails-and-bill-later-postponed","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6323188-89104521011c82cc7c7d09d789920210/orig.mp4?Expires=1770507012&Signature=l8peuvI7BD5nuGI~eokPEO5NoT6rkIJ~NgDNh26YNGBefzt762xAyb0RyJWrAqwcv6FK2oOn6qHf6funZGHX9b7G5XrZL4ASfK-UVVf3wGVFmLPJp5owctzOmxIH5kwq5vH1Fg4FJfgjjftuJlbVYqQZq2iLGhZ9A9-pZm4Aq6QPSDEhoJvsoxex1z7VGQHBq323KHAExuF~leSAaYH2vNhB-29LsXlqk-0s8lRkBv6BXtQq9j4DAB3ErU7XBtFVgSFQtNqlP6d-lqlea9EJaue0I04RpZM2d2DfQMT3IazaoBQ-r2MkQduyHWbcmbpCOLrZyJakQowV8woW3ngCJA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The House Transportation, Housing & Local Government Committee held an extended hearing on House Bill 25‑1144, which would repeal Colorado's retail delivery fee. After lengthy testimony from state agencies, environmental and municipal groups, business owners and residents, an effort to move the bill to the Committee on Appropriations failed and the committee later approved a motion to postpone the bill indefinitely.

Representative Wood, the bill sponsor, framed the measure as relief for households facing rising costs. “This bill will focus on simply a repeal of retail delivery fees,” the sponsor said, arguing the charge disproportionately affects rural residents, seniors and people with mobility issues and that the fee functions like a tax imposed without voter approval.

Opponents described the fee as a modest but critical revenue stream created to support multiple transportation enterprises. Emily Hadaway, legislative liaison for the Colorado Department of Transportation, told the committee repealing the fee would reduce state transportation funding by $53.8 million in FY 2026–27 and eliminate $12.9 million dedicated to bridge and tunnel repairs. “Maintenance is ineligible for federal funding, so eliminating this fee will reduce the amount of funding each CDOT region is allocated for critical maintenance activities,” Hadaway said.

Will Toor of the Colorado Energy Office and representatives of conservation and clean‑energy groups said delivery fee revenue supports electric‑vehicle charging, transit electrification, and air‑quality programs. Toor said the retail delivery fee makes up about 85% of funding for state electric vehicle charging programs and that repealing it would jeopardize a planned statewide charging network and equity programs for low‑income households.

Municipal and local government representatives including Elizabeth Haskell of the Colorado Municipal League warned cities and towns would lose multimodal and highway user funding used for local roads, sidewalks and multimodal projects. “Eliminating the collection of the retail delivery fee will reduce the available funding for municipalities to maintain and improve their transportation networks,” Haskell said.

Proponents of repeal included small online sellers and residents who said the fee is a visible and recurring surcharge that deters purchases and hits working households. “Instead of encouraging and thanking shoppers for spending their money with Colorado sellers, the state insults them and us with a penalty fee,” said Kristen Hartman, who described herself as a top‑rated online seller.

After witness testimony and an amendment that would fully repeal the delivery fee, the sponsor moved the bill to Appropriations; that motion was defeated on a recorded vote, 9–4. Later, Vice Chair Stewart moved to postpone the bill indefinitely; that motion was seconded and passed. The committee did not adopt the repeal.

Because the fee supports multiple cash funds and enterprises (including the State Highway Fund, Bridge and Tunnel Enterprise, Clean Transit Enterprise and the Community Access Enterprise), opponents warned an immediate repeal would leave programs without replacement revenue. Supporters said the state should find alternative priorities and revenue sources rather than impose fees they consider regressive.

Votes at a glance: Motion to move HB 25‑1144 to Committee on Appropriations — failed 9–4. Motion to postpone indefinitely — passed (committee agreement).","Lawmakers heard competing testimony on House Bill 25‑1144 to repeal Colorado's retail delivery fee. Supporters called the fee a regressive \"junk\" charge that burdens consumers and small sellers; opponents including CDOT, environmental groups and municipal associations warned of large funding losses to transportation, transit and electrification.",{"_33":101,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":102,"_41":103,"_43":104,"_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},6323193,"Committee advances bill to clarify who pays for railroad crossing maintenance",0,4374000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2342974-88271e5746762fe443136b23cffea94a&start=4374&end=4374","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2342974-88271e5746762fe443136b23cffea94a/thumbnail_4374000.jpg","/articles/6323193/Colorado/Committee-advances-bill-to-clarify-who-pays-for-railroad-crossing-maintenance","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6323193-7cc5894cb93ddc9726e87508a1b571f5/orig.mp4?Expires=1770507012&Signature=a2pEqFvJxQv~xn64eyLzS91ioyPzqSfPcEvJZ31HZ1~SGLmfyHO2wwg5pYZe4aDpwwvTnENRgG77OxRPCgItlMuG-MQ0ZESfbuHZ0AN48jJDQXaEmFm-q44l3DqkEzFDBYXIbPFRIBraCYGOILCcDDc7UTjqCdMBZaZ4ZkBD5OwEpu6qXnZ~8Th9RlnTkB-ioCSUoRiKN6i5DwLXKV2cmuSIzJOkyKb7GaXBKYWi7ChXnikagkmenCjkP9o8ME7VOhl7inGDOhpM2jN9C5BtBC60~26BCDd9KtRtIWrVKIUh-YzljEPDVnPaNaudnK-JXh8iy4fdioE1HhE~klfxpA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","House Transportation, Housing & Local Government Committee members voted to advance House Bill 11‑10, a measure that clarifies how maintenance costs for railroad crossings are allocated between railroads and road authorities.

The bill’s sponsors said the measure narrows ambiguity in Colorado Public Utilities Commission rules and defines what counts as “maintenance,” with different cost‑sharing rules depending on whether a road authority is a local government. “If the road authority is not a local government, the maintenance cost for railroad crossings are shared equally between the railroad and the road authority. If the road authority is a local government, the railroad is responsible for maintaining the area between the railroad ties, while the local government maintains the area outside of the ties,” said Assistant Minority Leader Dylan Winter, one of the bill sponsors.

The bill drew proponents describing specific local budget impacts and opponents warning about unintended consequences. Logan County Commissioner Jerry Sonnenberg told the committee his county was billed about $135,000 for work that local officials considered reconstruction rather than maintenance and said smaller counties can be overwhelmed by such bills. “For a county like Logan County that has a population of 20,000, that is a huge impact on our road and bridge budget,” Sonnenberg said.

Railroad representatives acknowledged the safety need for well‑maintained crossings but urged caution. Nathan Anderson of Union Pacific said railroads already invest heavily in infrastructure — Union Pacific expects to spend about $3.4 billion nationally in 2025 and has spent more than $265 million in Colorado over five years — and argued that the PUC’s existing process for resolving disputes should be the first step. “Our understanding is that Colorado's PUC has a process to address problems and disputes,” Anderson said. BNSF representative Andy Williams said the existing PUC process is working and warned that the bill, as introduced, creates two sets of rules and unclear definitions that could generate more confusion.

Labor representatives supported the bill’s clarity on maintenance responsibilities. Carl Smith, legislative director for SMART‑TD, said clearer cost apportionment helps safety and maintenance planning and urged the committee to advance the measure.

After questions and a brief amendments phase with no changes, committee members moved the bill to the Committee of the Whole. The committee reported the motion passed with 12 ayes and 0 nays.

If enacted, the bill would give Colorado agencies and local governments a single, enumerated definition of maintenance and direct how cost burdens are split; it does not itself appropriate funds. Supporters said it will reduce disputes and unexpected local budget hits; railroad carriers urged stakeholder process at the PUC to refine definitions and implementation.

Votes at a glance: Motion to report HB 11‑10 to the Committee of the Whole — passed 12–0.","The House Transportation, Housing & Local Government Committee advanced House Bill 11‑10 to the Committee of the Whole after testimony from county officials, rail labor and rail carriers about confusion over who pays for maintenance versus reconstruction at grade crossings.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Committee approves narrow paratransit emergency‑planning measure after stakeholder negotiations

Committee advances bill to regulate vehicle immobilization after split testimony from property managers, parking firms and tenants

Committee hears hours of testimony on retail delivery fee repeal; motion to advance fails and bill later postponed

Committee advances bill to clarify who pays for railroad crossing maintenance