Skip to main content
Colorado General AssemblyToggle Main Menu
Agency NameToggle Agency Menu

J_LS_2022A 12/13/2022 09:06:28 AM Committee Summary

PUBLIC
STAFF SUMMARY OF MEETING
JOINT COMMITTEE COMMITTEE ON LEGAL SERVICES
Date 12/13/2022
Attendance
Bacon X
Buckner X
Carver X
Cooke X
Lee X
Pico X
Rodriguez X
Snyder X
Gardner X
Weissman X
Time 09:06:28 AM to 01:05:00 PM
Place Old State Library
This Meeting was called to order by Weissman
This Report was prepared by Courtney Dunaway
Hearing Items Action Taken
Review of new rules Committee Discussion Only
Approval and sponsorship of committee bills Committee Discussion Only
Social media guidelines Committee Discussion Only
Update on litigation Committee Discussion Only
Comp time policy recommendations Committee Discussion Only
Update on hiring Committee Discussion Only
Other business Committee Discussion Only

Review of new rules - Committee Discussion Only


09:09:01 AM  
Megan McCall, Office
of Legislative Legal Services, introduced the Office and the Office's rule
review process then reviewed her recommendations for rule 39-30-105.1 concerning
Enterprise Zone Business Facility Employee Credits to not be extended
09:10:00 AM  
Ms. McCall stated
that the statute the rule is promulgated under is section 39-30-105.1 CRS
and that the rule's definition of "business facility" conflicts
with the statutory definition
09:12:22 AM  
Ms. McCall explained
that in her legal interpretation the definition the Department of Revenue
uses in their rule differs from the statutory definition because their
rule exempts "temporary structures" from the definition
,
which results in the rule being more narrow and limited than the statute
requires
09:14:19 AM  
Representative Snyder
asked for more clarification on what is being contested and by who
m
09:14:30 AM  
Ms. McCall explained
that the Department of Revenue is contesting the Office's recommendation
to not extend the rule by asking the committee to extend the rule

09:14:52 AM  
Representative Weissman,
chair, expressed his thoughts on the two definitions and that the statutory
definition does not require permanency of a business facility as the rule
definition does
09:16:56 AM  
Ms. McCall responded
clarifying that the way the terms are defined in the statute is broad and
that some of the structures listed could be temporary, such as warehouses
09:18:12 AM  
Senator Lee asked
if tents or canvas structures set up by businesses qualify under the definition
for the tax credit
09:18:46 AM  
Ms. McCall explained
that if the tent falls within the definition of facility in one of the
enumerated categories then it's possible it could qualify for the tax credit
but that it would need to also comport with all other requirements and
components of the statute
09:19:26 AM  
Senator Lee asked
for clarity on the purpose of the tax credit and if it was created to incentivize
businesses to set up more permanent types of facilities in a community
that won't be removed
09:20:02 AM  
Ms. McCall explained
the tax credit is an enterprise zone tax credit and that the legislative
intent for the enterprise zone tax credits is as Senator Lee described
and that the tax credit is particularly for employees

09:21:57 AM  
Esther van Mourik,
Department of Revenue, provided comments on the Department's rule making
authority, describing it as broad. She explained that the reason it is
broad is because a statute simply cannot cover all possible situations
that will apply to it. Ms. van Mourik explained that in order to promulgate
the rule, the Department needs to be able to apply it to any situation
that comes up and fill in any gaps when a statute is silent for smooth
administration
09:25:29 AM  
Anne Mangiardi, senior
assistant attorney general representing the Department of Revenue, discussed
the Department's interpretation of the language of the statute and that
the definition needs to be read in the context of the whole statute, which
would not allow for "building" to be read as something temporary
09:28:23 AM  
Ms. Mangiardi expressed
the opinion of the Department that the statute is a silent statute on permanence
or non-permanence and that it is the role of the Department to fill in
the gaps when a statute is silent

09:29:47 AM  
Ms. Mangiardi discussed
the legislative intent behind the enterprise zone tax credits set out in
the legislative declaration in section 39-30-102 CRS and how a temporary
job doesn't carry out those intents as well as a more permanent job does
09:33:14 AM  
Representative Pico
explained what he has seen in his own experience with businesses building
temporary facilities before building a permanent one while they're getting
started in a new community
09:34:16 AM  
Ms. Mangiardi responded
by saying that the legislative intent of the statute seems to exclude those
situations from the credit but that if a business started up in a tent
then moved to a permanent facility they would start receiving the tax credit
then
09:35:09 AM  
Representative Pico
explained that in his experience the tax credit is an incentive for a business
to get started
09:35:44 AM  
Representative Weissman,
chair, asked that, in the absence of the rule, what would happen when a
tax-payer tried to claim the credit

09:36:53 AM  
Ms. van Mourik explained
that the tax-payer can reach out to a representative to get information
on the tax credit or call their call center

09:37:57 AM  
Representative Weissman,
chair, brought up a similar court case in the past regarding Title 39 that
relates and asked if there are other Colorado cases that may be helpful
in interpretation
09:39:49 AM  
Ms. Mangiardi discussed
"chevron deference" and explained that the rules that have gone
through the formal rule making process get deference
09:40:38 AM  
Representative Weissman,
chair, asked if the committee should find more judicial deference for the
rules in the tax space
09:41:36 AM  
Ms. Mangiardi explained
that for cases that have gone to the supreme court level the court seemed
to see agency rule-making as valuable in the complex tax arena

09:42:33 AM  
Senator Gardner,
vice chair, expressed that he agrees with the Office's recommendation and
that the Department has engaged in a policy argument rather than a discussion
on if the rule should be extended based on what the general assembly authorized
in statute
09:44:36 AM  
Ms. McCall noted
that the case law discussed is specific to judicial review and that case
law does not require the committee to give deference
09:45:38 AM  
Ms. van Mourik explained
that a broad interpretation would decrease revenue and not be in line with
the original fiscal note
09:46:37 AM  
Representative Carver
brought up the example of a warehouse and her concern that the proposed
rule by the Department would be too narrow because she believes warehouses
can be prefab and could be impermanent
09:49:01 AM  
Ms. van Mourik explained
that there is a lot of nuance in the language they use when writing a rule
and that the way the rule is written accounts for impermanent structures
to be included in the definition if they are used in association with more
permanent structures
09:51:16 AM  
Representative Carver
expressed concern of the use of the phrase "more permanent" as
it is not clear and that the rule seems to differ from the statute
09:53:14 AM  
Representative Weissman,
chair, brought up modular housing and how sometimes factory built structures
can be permanent and asked how evolving technology like the creation of
modular housing would be handled under the rule
09:54:27 AM  
Ms. van Mourik explained
that since technology changes and building codes change that's exactly
the reason why the Department needs rule making authority so that they
don't have to ask the general assembly for permission to interpret new
situations on a weekly basis
09:56:08 AM  
Senator Lee asked
which sorts of temporary facilities would not qualify for the credit under
the rule
and asked if a specific facility
under section 39-30-104 CRS would or wouldn't
09:57:34 AM  
Ms. van Mourik explained
that section 39-30-104 CRS concerns a different credit than the one the
Department promulgated a rule for that is being discussed today
09:58:09 AM  
Senator Lee asked
again what sort of temporary facility would not qualify under the actual
rule
09:58:29 AM  
Ms. van Mourik explained
that, given the definition in the rule, something like a tent not used
in association with permanent structures would not qualify for the credit
09:59:48 AM  
Representative Bacon
asked more about the legislative intent previously discussed and asked
if the temporary nature of a structure is linked to the temporary nature
of a business and if that is why the distinction is important
10:01:43 AM  
Ms. van Mourik explained
that enterprise zone credits are unique because they are administered by
the Department but in conjunction with the Office of Economic Development
and that the Office of Economic Development questioned whether a temporary
structure would meet the qualification of the credit, which is why the
rule was written the way it was
10:04:06 AM  
Ms. Mangiardi explained
that the reason why the Department believes the statute would require a
structure at all, based on their interpretation of the legislative intent,
is because the general assembly wanted to give a credit to businesses that
had a permanent presence in a community rather than temporary

10:05:47 AM  
Ms. McCall discussed
the legislative history of the statute and that the section broadened the
scope to allow "any" business facility to qualify, not just new
business facilities, and that the tax credit is specific to employees including
seasonal employees, not just permanent employees, and that the credit also
covers businesses that operate for less than a full year
10:08:39 AM  
Representative Weissman,
chair, expressed his belief that the rule should be extended based on the
committee discussion
and the Department's
reasoning
10:11:05 AM  
Committee recessed
for discussion
10:28:10 AM  
The committee returned
from recess


10:28:23 AM
Motion I move to extend Rule 39-30-105.1 (1) of the rules of the Executive Director of the Department of Revenue
Moved Snyder
Seconded Lee
Bacon Yes
Buckner Yes
Carver No
Cooke No
Lee Yes
Pico No
Rodriguez Yes
Snyder Yes
Gardner No
Weissman Yes
YES: 6   NO: 4   EXC: 0   ABS:  0   FINAL ACTION:  PASS
10:30:24 AM  
Sarah Lozano, Office
of Legislative Legal Services, introduced Regulation Number 19 Part A II.B.13
a (iii) concerning the control of lead hazards and the Office's recommendation
to not extend the rule
as it conflicts
with statute
10:33:44 AM  
Michael Ogletree,
Department of Public Health and Environment, introduced the role of the
Department in limiting the risk of lead exposure for children and recommended
aligning the relevant state statute with federal law
10:35:48 AM  
Laura Manyak, Department
of Public Health and Environment, introduced herself and indicated she
was present for any technical questions

10:36:17 AM  
Representative Bacon
echoed the concern of lead exposure for children and clarified that the
committee is not addressing lead dangers but instead whether the rule conflicts
with statute
10:37:06 AM  
Representative Weissman
discussed the importance of the Department and legislation to address the
conflict between the rule and statute


10:38:28 AM
Motion I move to extend Regulation Number 19 Part A II.B.13.a.(iii) of the rules of the Air Quality Control Commission
Moved Snyder
Seconded Lee
Bacon No
Buckner No
Carver No
Cooke No
Lee No
Pico No
Rodriguez No
Snyder No
Gardner No
Weissman No
YES: 0   NO: 10   EXC: 0   ABS:  0   FINAL ACTION:  FAIL
10:40:29 AM  
Brita Darling, Office
of Legislative Legal Services, introduced rule 5.A. concerning the Colorado
Student Loan Equity Act and the Office's recommendation to not extend the
rule as the rule's requirements for a private education lender differ from
statute
10:44:18 AM  
Ms. Darling explained
that statute does not allow the administrator authority to grant private
education lenders an exemption from reporting requirements
10:47:01 AM  
Senator Gardner,
vice chair, requested a 17c prior to the motion


10:47:35 AM
Motion I move to extend Rule 5.A. of the rules of the Administrator for the Uniform Consumer Credit Code and Commission on Consumer Credit
Moved Snyder
Seconded Lee
Bacon No
Buckner No
Carver No
Cooke No
Lee No
Pico No
Rodriguez No
Snyder No
Gardner Excused
Weissman No
YES: 0   NO: 9   EXC: 1   ABS:  0   FINAL ACTION:  FAIL



Approval and sponsorship of committee bills - Committee Discussion Only


10:49:16 AM  
Jennifer Berman,
Office of Legislative Legal Services, introduced the 2023 rule review bill
for rules that would automatically expire unless extended by bill and discussed
that the rule review bill will be a Senate bill and that the committee
will serve as the committee of reference in both the Senate and House for
the bill. Ms. Berman asked for permission to start drafting the rule review
bill
10:51:09 AM  
Senator Lee commended
the Office for their work in reviewing rules


10:52:24 AM
Motion I move to grant the Office of Legislative Legal Services permission to draft the 2023 rule review bill
Moved Weissman
Seconded Lee
Bacon Yes
Buckner Yes
Carver Yes
Cooke Yes
Lee Yes
Pico Yes
Rodriguez Yes
Snyder Yes
Gardner Yes
Weissman Yes
YES: 10   NO: 0   EXC: 0   ABS:  0   FINAL ACTION:  PASS
10:53:21 AM  
The committee agreed
that Representatives Weissman and Soper will sponsor the rule review bill
for the House, and Senators Gardner and Rodriguez will sponsor for the
Senate
10:54:40 AM  
The committee agreed
that Representative Snyder and Senator Buckner will be cosponsors for the
rule review bill
10:55:10 AM  
Jennifer Gilroy,
Office of Legislative Legal Services, introduced the 2023 bill to enact
the CRS 2022, including the voter approved changes supplement, and asked
for permission to draft the bill


10:56:42 AM
Motion I move to grant the Office of Legislative Legal Services permission to draft the 2023 bill to enact the CRS 2022
Moved Snyder
Seconded Bacon
Bacon Yes
Buckner Yes
Carver Yes
Cooke Yes
Lee Yes
Pico Yes
Rodriguez Yes
Snyder Yes
Gardner Yes
Weissman Yes
YES: 10   NO: 0   EXC: 0   ABS:  0   FINAL ACTION:  PASS
10:57:43 AM  
The committee agreed
that Representatives Bacon and Soper will sponsor the bill to enact for
the House, and Senators Gardner and Rodriguez will sponsor for the Senate
10:58:10 AM  
The committee agreed
that Representatives Snyder and Weissman and Senator Buckner will copsonsor
the bill to enact
10:58:31 AM  
Ms. Gilroy asked
if the bill to enact will be a Senate or House bill
10:58:54 AM  
Representative Weissman,
chair, stated the bill to enact will be a House bill
10:58:58 AM  
Ms. Gilroy introduced
the 2023 revisor's bill with a brief description of the bill's purpose
of fixing nonsubstantive statutory errors and asked for permission to draft
the bill


11:00:18 AM
Motion I move to grant the Office of Legislative Legal Services permission to draft the 2023 revisor's bill
Moved Snyder
Seconded Lee
Bacon Yes
Buckner Yes
Carver Yes
Cooke Yes
Lee Yes
Pico Yes
Rodriguez Yes
Snyder Yes
Gardner Yes
Weissman Yes
YES: 10   NO: 0   EXC: 0   ABS:  0   FINAL ACTION:  PASS
11:01:03 AM  
The committee agreed
that Representatives Snyder and Soper will sponsor the revisor's bill for
the House, and Senators Gardner and Rodriguez will sponsor for the Senate
11:01:21 AM  
The committee agreed
that Representative Weissman and Senator Buckner will cosponsor the revisor's
bill
11:01:38 AM  
Ms. Gilroy discussed
that LIS is changing the state employee email domain and that the revisor's
office will correct all instances of the email domain in statute by revision
rather than by revisor's bill
11:02:24 AM  
Ms. Gilroy discussed
the different cover stock used for the 2022 CRS as compared to previous
CRS books and that the new covers are recyclable
11:03:32 AM  
Senator Gardner,
vice chair, expressed thanks for the explanation of the change in cover
stock
11:04:00 AM  
Ms. Gilroy asked
which chamber the revisor's bill will start in
11:04:14 AM  
Representative Weissman,
chair, stated that the revisor's bill will be a House bill



Social media guidelines - Committee Discussion Only


11:05:13 AM  
Ed DeCecco, Office
of Legislative Legal Services, introduced the social media guidelines and
asked if the committee would like to release a letter regarding the social
media guidelines
11:06:19 AM  
Mr. DeCecco discussed
the first amendment and how when a public official blocks a member of the
public on social media it can result in a lawsuit
11:11:09 AM  
Mr. DeCecco walked
through certain recommendations in the social media guidelines with the
committee
11:13:38 AM  
Mr. DeCecco explained
that the social media guidelines were given to new members during new member
orientation but have not been given to current members yet

11:14:55 AM  
Mr. DeCecco detailed
cases in which a first amendment social media issue has come up and how
those cases have guided the Office in recommending social media guidelines
11:24:16 AM  
Senator Lee asked
if the Colorado case took into account the fact that the congress woman
was using a private account rather than a public one
11:24:34 AM  
Mr. DeCecco explained
that, yes, it was a factor in the case and that since it was a private
account it was not considered state action

11:26:02 AM  
Representative Weissman,
chair, discussed one of the cases and asked Mr. DeCecco to expound on it
11:26:55 AM  
Mr. DeCecco explained
that in that case the plaintiff failed to meet their burden of proof and
the damages claim was dismissed
11:27:56 AM  
Mr. DeCecco outlined
the takeaways from the cases and explained how courts might interpret certain
cases regarding the use of campaign social media accounts versus other
types of accounts
11:29:32 AM  
Mr. DeCecco explained
that because the circuits are split at this point, the social media guidelines
take that into account in their recommendations

11:30:50 AM  
Mr. DeCecco explained
that the Office recommends sending out a letter advising members of the
social media guidelines similar to the letter sent in a previous year
11:32:36 AM  
Representative Weissman,
chair, expressed that any sort of litigation would be unwelcome and that
caution is warranted when it comes to social media and expressed his being
in favor of releasing the letter and suggested adding stronger language
to the end of the letter explaining the consequences of not following the
guidelines
11:35:34 AM  
Senator Buckner concurred
with sending the letter to existing members so that they can have the reminder
11:36:02 AM  
Representative Snyder
agreed with the chair in suggesting including some of the social media
guidelines in the letter so that members can have a step-by-step guide
on how to handle social media
11:37:16 AM  
Mr. DeCecco explained
that the guidelines are more general because of all the different types
of social media that exist
11:38:34 AM  
Mr. DeCecco asked
if the committee would like the social media guidelines to be attached
to the letter
11:39:07 AM  
Representative Snyder
asked what determines whether a campaign account is actually a campaign
account since legislators still campaign after becoming legislators for
reelection
11:39:52 AM  
Mr. DeCecco stated
that the recommended guideline is to not block anyone on a campaign account
because it is difficult to prove what a campaign account is
11:41:08 AM  
Senator Buckner asked
if the responsibility of following the guidelines would fall on a member
and not their aide
11:41:32 AM  
Mr. DeCecco explained
that the responsibility is on the member but that the social media guidelines
are for aides as well so that they have the information and training on
it too
11:42:11 AM  
Representative Weissman,
chair, asked for Mr. DeCecco and the Office to update the letter, put the
major points from the guidelines into the body of the letter, show the
chair and vice chair the letter in draft form to finalize it, and then
send it out to all legislators
11:44:24 AM  
The committee agreed
with the chair



Update on litigation - Committee Discussion Only


11:45:08 AM  
Sharon Eubanks, Director
of the Office of Legislative Legal Services, gave an update on the litigation
going on involving a lawsuit brought against members of state patrol, the
secretary of the Senate, the office of the Senate president, and chamber
sergeants in which individuals were denied access to the chambers due to
the COVID-19 pandemic and alleged it imposed on their constitutional rights

11:48:00 AM  
Ms. Eubanks explained
that the Committee previously agreed to retain counsel for Cindi Markwell,
Senate secretary, and that the Office is awaiting rulings on the pending
litigation and asked if the committee has any questions

11:49:18 AM  
Senator Lee asked
if there have been any opinions on any of the motions

11:49:29 AM  
Ms. Eubanks stated
there have not been, they are still pending



Comp time policy recommendations - Committee Discussion Only


11:50:24 AM  
Ed DeCecco, Office
of Legislative Legal Services, discussed what the Office's comp time policy
currently is and when the last time the committee approved that policy
was
11:55:04 AM  
Mr. DeCecco explained
the reason behind the comp time policy as attracting and retaining quality
employees
11:55:21 AM  
Mr. DeCecco explained
that the Office formed a committee to review the Office's comp time policy
and what the Office's committee's findings were
11:55:52 AM  
Mr. DeCecco mentioned
that comp time is standard for other Offices in the state capitol
11:56:40 AM  
Mr. DeCecco explained
that comp time helps the Office compete with private attorney firms who
offer bonuses to attorneys
11:58:51 AM  
Mr. DeCecco addressed
possible concerns of comp time and what the potential costs are for the
Office for having a comp time policy
12:01:09 PM  
Jennifer Berman,
Office of Legislative Legal Services, explained why the Office is recommending
for the committee to continue the comp time policy as it allows employees
a proper work-life balance equilibrium
12:03:28 PM  
Ms. Berman explained
how comp time can supplement other types of leave, such as parental leave,
and provide an important safety net for employees
12:04:15 PM  
Ms. Berman shared
a personal story of how comp time supplemented her own personal leave during
a family medical emergency in the past
12:05:10 PM  
Ms. Berman discussed
that when the Office's committee asked employees, employees expressed that
comp time was very important to them and an important factor for them in
deciding to stay with the Office
12:06:34 PM  
Ms. Berman explained
that, per NCSL, comp time is a standard among other comparable legislative
bill drafting offices across the United States
12:08:12 PM  
Senator Cooke expressed
his belief that professionals of any sort, particularly attorneys, should
not receive comp time, but that his belief does not reflect on his gratitude
for the work of the Office
12:10:08 PM  
Senator Cooke asked
if employees punch a clock when they come in
12:10:16 PM  
Mr. DeCecco explained
that employees don't physically punch a clock but that they account for
every minute of time worked or not worked
12:10:54 PM  
Senator Cooke asked
how the 15-minute increments of comp time round up
12:11:48 PM  
Mr. DeCecco explained
that the 15-minute increments are typically rounded down
12:12:50 PM  
Mr. DeCecco explained
what the comparable states that provide comp time's policies specifically
include
12:15:56 PM  
Ms. Berman followed
up explaining the federal law, the Federal Labor Standards Act, concerning
which employees should receive overtime pay and which employees are considered
"professionals"
12:16:51 PM  
Senator Cooke went
over the federal law and which employees are included in the term "professionals"
who should be exempt from overtime pay
12:18:20 PM  
Ms. Berman responded
by explaining that the Office's comp time is not paid overtime as outlined
in the Federal Labor Standards Act and that the act does not prohibit overtime
for professionals in any way
12:20:00 PM  
Senator Cooke asked
if there is a cap on comp time
12:20:55 PM  
Mr. DeCecco responded
by explaining there is no cap but that all comp time is subject to a supervisor's
approval and that historically a supervisor has never allowed a departing
employee to use a bunch of comp time before leaving
12:23:49 PM  
Ms. Berman discussed
measures the Office has implemented in order to prevent employees from
accruing a lot of overtime, which include a skeleton crew policy and hiring
more employees for increasing workloads
12:26:01 PM  
Senator Gardner asked
Sharon Eubanks to come to the table, stated his respect for the Office's
work, and asked Ms. Eubanks what the most comp time an employee has ever
earned has been
12:27:54 PM  
Sharon Eubanks, Office
of Legislative Legal Services, explained that comp time data is not compiled
for individual employees but office-wide and that data for an individual
employee would need to be taken from each one of their time records
12:28:20 PM  
Senator Gardner asked
if the Office can get him data on individual employees
12:28:44 PM  
Ms. Eubanks stated
they can see if that data can be collected
12:29:30 PM  
Senator Gardner asked
what the differences in comp time policies between the agencies in the
capitol are
12:30:00 PM  
Mr. DeCecco explained
that legislative council caps comp time for employees combined with a cap
for their vacation time and also pays out comp time for departing employees
and that their comp time is earned after the first four qualifying hours
of each month with a weekly accrual cap. Joint Budget Committee staff receive
comp time as a whole office at the discretion of their director, it can
carry forward up to a capped amount, and it's payable upon departure. Audit
staff get comp time for each hour after 45 hours and after working a certain
number of consecutive weeks with an accrual cap at 10 hours a week

12:34:08 PM  
Senator Gardner expressed
the need to ask all agencies to come up with a common comp time policy
among the agencies
12:37:01 PM  
Representative Carver
stated that, given the nature of the legislative staff and the requirements
for them to work long hours during session, she believes that a comp time
policy is warranted but that it concerns her there is no restriction other
than discretion of the supervisor
12:40:10 PM  
Senator Cooke expressed
concerns on the Office having, potentially, the most lax comp time policy
among the agencies
12:41:04 PM  
Ms. Berman explained
that the other agencies offer payouts while the Office doesn't, so the
Office policy may not be the most lax of the policies and also that while
there are similarities among the agencies, each agency does perform different
functions and operates differently so the differing comp time policies
fit the nature of each agency
12:43:20 PM  
Mr. DeCecco mentioned
that all the agencies also have differing leave time policies, not just
comp time, as the agencies are all different

12:44:25 PM  
Representative Weissman,
chair, explained that staff should not be pushed to work long overtime
hours without pay in the way that members might push themselves to work
long hours by choice of being in their role and that he believes the Office
deserves a robust comp time policy to be able to perform their work without
burning out. He also stated that looking at other agencies' policies is
not a conversation for today but a valid conversation for the future



Update on hiring - Committee Discussion Only


12:49:24 PM  
Sharon Eubanks, Office
of Legislative Legal Services, gave an update on the hiring that took place
in the Office in the last year as permitted by the committee
12:52:57 PM  
Ms. Eubanks described
how hiring so many new employees has caused a spacing issue in the Office,
so the Office has created a swing space to solve the issue

12:54:37 PM  
Senator Lee echoed
Senator Gardner's comments on being appreciative of the level of competence
among the staff in the Office and also added that if comp time motivates
the employees then he is in favor of it



Other business - Committee Discussion Only


12:58:00 PM  
Senator Gardner stated
that he received a memo from the Office regarding limitations of liquor
licenses and wants to bring it to the committee's attention for discussion
at a future date
01:01:37 PM  
Senator Buckner gave
her thanks and goodbyes for her last day on the committee


01:05:00 PM   The committee adjourned.






Colorado legislature email addresses ending in @state.co.us are no longer active. Please replace @state.co.us with @coleg.gov for Colorado legislature email addresses.  Details