Colorado SB 34 (2024 Regular Session)Official

Title: Increase Access to School-Based Health Care
Effective: August 7, 2024 (Colorado General Assembly)
Primary Sponsors: Senator Janice Marchman, Senator Chris Kolker; Representatives Lorena García and Mandy Lindsay (Colorado General Assembly)
Source: Colorado General Assembly bill summary & text (Colorado General Assembly)

• What it does:
  Expands what counts as a “school-based health center” and allows new “school-linked” health-care services (like telehealth, mobile units, referrals) for students. Also creates a way to identify service locations for claims when these services are used. (Colorado General Assembly)

• Cost to taxpayers:
  Depends on appropriations; grants under this law are only available “subject to available appropriations.” Means state budget will decide how much is spent. Some cost for setting up tracking/claims systems. (Colorado General Assembly)

• Who it helps/affects:
  Students, especially in underserved or low-income communities who may lack easy access to primary care, behavioral health, oral care. Schools & school districts that partner or want to expand health services. Health providers who deliver school-linked or mobile services. (Colorado General Assembly)

• Who sponsored it:
  Senator Janice Marchman, Senator Chris Kolker; Representatives Lorena García, Mandy Lindsay. (Colorado General Assembly)

• Who opposed it:
  No major opposition listed in summary; seems to have passed without significant public resistance. (No strong objection noted in sources.) (Colorado General Assembly)

✅ Pros & ❌ Cons

✅ Pros:

• Improves access to health services for kids in schools.

• Helps catch issues early (behavioral, preventive, dental).

• Flexible models (telehealth, mobile units) reduce logistical barriers.

• Better coordination & billing clarity via service-location identifiers.

❌ Cons:

• Depends on budget — if funding is low, grant programs may be limited.

• Administrative burden for schools/providers to meet grant requirements.

• Rural or remote schools might struggle to qualify or set up linked services.

• Potential delays in implementation (hiring, equipment, telehealth setup).

🗳️ The Ballot Beacon TakeawaySB 34 expands school-based and school-linked health care services in Colorado—boosting student access to health, behavioral, and dental care, but depending heavily on state funding and administrative capacity.

Colorado HB24-1055 (2024 Regular Session)Official Title: Child Passenger Safety & Education

Effective: January 1, 2025 (Colorado General Assembly)
Primary Sponsors: Representative Meg Froelich, Representative Rose Pugliese; also Senator Faith Winter, Senator Kevin Priola (Colorado General Assembly)
Source: Colorado General Assembly bill summary & text (Colorado General Assembly)

• What it does:
  Modernizes Colorado’s child restraint system law. Includes: raising the age requirement from under 8 to under 9 years for restraint systems; increasing rear-facing ages and weight thresholds (from under 1 yr & <20 lbs to under 2 yrs & <40 lbs); new rules for booster seats, seatbelt age requirements (from under 16 to under 18 years), etc. Also requires public education & info campaigns using existing federal grant funds. (Colorado General Assembly)

• Cost to taxpayers:
  No direct new state spending earmarked for the law itself except education/public info components. Most costs fall on caregivers/vehicle owners (car seat purchases) and possibly health/public safety outreach. The grant funds are existing NHTSA/occupant protection funds. (Colorado General Assembly)

• Who it helps/affects:
  Children (safer restraints), parents and caregivers (need to follow new rules, possibly more expensive seats), vehicle seat belt / restraint system sellers. Law enforcement / highway safety agencies (education and enforcement roles). (Colorado General Assembly)

• Who sponsored it:
  Reps Froelich & Pugliese; Sens Winter F. & Priola among others. (Colorado General Assembly)

• Who opposed it:
  I didn’t find major organized opposition in summaries. Some concerns might exist in public (cost of new car seats, awareness), but nothing strongly noted. (Colorado General Assembly)

✅ Pros & ❌ Cons

✅ Pros:

• Aligns child safety laws with newer safety research; likely reduces injury risk.

• Uniform laws reduce confusion for families.

• Educational campaigns help raise awareness.

❌ Cons:

• Families will need to invest in newer/more expensive car seats or boosters.

• Potential enforcement issues and cost of compliance.

🗳️ The Ballot Beacon Takeaway: HB24-1055 updates Colorado’s child passenger safety law to stronger age/weight requirements and rear-facing rules—these changes boost safety, but also shift more cost and responsibility onto families to stay compliant.

Bill: Colorado Senate Bill 34 (2025 Regular Session) – Voluntary Do-Not-Sell Firearms Waiver (LegiScan)

Effective: Governor signed on ~June 2, 2025; some provisions depend on funding or gifts/grants. (LegiScan)
Sponsor(s): Senator Cathy Kipp, Representative Andrew Boesenecker, Representative Jamie Jackson (Colorado General Assembly)

• What it does:
  This law allows a person to voluntarily waive their right to purchase a firearm. They can put themselves on a “do-not-sell” registry so that while the waiver is active, firearm purchases to them are denied. The waiver can be revoked, but there’s a waiting period (30 days after revocation) before a purchase is allowed. Comes with low-cost civil infractions for violations. (LegiScan)

  What it does:
  This law allows a person to voluntarily waive their right to purchase a firearm. They can put themselves on a “do-not-sell” registry so that while the waiver is active, firearm purchases to them are denied. The waiver can be revoked, but there’s a waiting period (30 days after revocation) before a purchase is allowed. Comes with low-cost civil infractions for violations. (LegiScan)

• Cost to taxpayers / budget impact:
  Mainly administrative: building and maintaining the portal, verifying identity, handling revocations, integrating into background check systems. Some costs are contingent on receiving gifts/grants/donations. No large-scale new spending from the state general fund reported (unless budgets are appropriated later). (Colorado General Assembly)

• Who it helps/affects:

  • People who want to proactively stop themselves from buying guns (self-control tools) (Colorado General Assembly)

  • Firearms sellers/dealers & background check agencies will have to check the waiver registry when processing sales. (Colorado General Assembly)

  • State agencies responsible for managing the registry and verifying waivers.

• Who opposed it:
  I didn’t find major recorded opposition in the sources I checked. Some general concerns likely from gun rights / civil liberties perspectives (but not well-documented in the summaries). (Colorado General Assembly)

✅ Pros & ❌ Cons

✅ Pros:

• Gives individuals a tool to prevent themselves from purchasing firearms if they believe they might be at risk.

• Could reduce impulsive gun purchases (suicide prevention etc.).

• Optional → preserves choice.

• Low-penalty enforcement (civil infraction rather than harsh criminal penalties).

❌ Cons:

• Depends heavily on whether people use it; could have low uptake.

• Registry & verification systems need to be reliably secure and private.

• Delays and administrative burden for sellers/processors.

• Revocation delay (30 days) might frustrate users.

🗳️ The Ballot Beacon Takeaway: SB 34 gives Coloradans a voluntary “do-not-sell” registry to block themselves from buying firearms—an option to protect those at risk, but effectiveness depends on how many people use it and how well the system is built.

Law / Bill: Colorado HB 24-1311 – Family Affordability Tax Credit

Effective: For tax years starting January 1, 2024 through January 1, 2034 unless changed earlier. (Colorado General Assembly)
Primary Sponsor: Representative Jenny Willford, Senator Faith Winter; signed into law by Governor Jared Polis. (CO House Democrats)
Source(s): Colorado General Assembly—HB24-1311 summary; Colorado Department of Revenue guidance; news coverage (e.g. KOAA, Chalkbeat). (Colorado General Assembly)

• What it does:
  Gives refundable state tax credits to families in Colorado with children under age 17. Amount depends on child’s age: up to $3,200 per child aged 5 or under, and up to $2,400 per child aged 6-16. Credit phases out based on income and state economic growth metrics. (Colorado General Assembly)

• Cost to taxpayers / Budget & Conditions:

  • It’s a refundable credit: families can receive money even if they owe little or no state income tax. (Colorado General Assembly)

  • Eligibility: AGI up to $85,000 for single filers; $95,000 for joint filers. (Colorado General Assembly)

  • The credit phases out as income rises, and its availability in some years depends on economic growth and surplus revenue. (Colorado General Assembly)

  • Estimated budget cost is substantial; in FY 2025-26, hundreds of millions are expected in payouts. (coloradohealthinstitute.org)

• Who it helps/affects:

  • Families with children under 17 (especially younger children, for the bigger credit amounts). (Colorado General Assembly)

  • Lower- and moderate-income families (because of AGI limits and phase-out). (Colorado General Assembly)

  • Parents/caregivers with any filing status (single, joint, etc.). (Colorado General Assembly)

  • Colorado Department of Revenue (for administration) and state budget (for funding). (KOAA News 5)

• Who opposed it / Concerns raised:

  • Some concerns about cost and sustainability (how payouts will affect state fiscal budgets). (coloradohealthinstitute.org)

  • Whether the state will always have enough surplus or economic growth to fully fund the credit. (Colorado General Assembly)

✅ Pros & ❌ Cons


✅ Pros:

• Puts money into the hands of families, especially with younger or multiple children.

• Helps lower child poverty; described in reports as having strong potential impact. (coloradohealthinstitute.org)

• Refundable means even families who don’t owe much (or any) state tax benefit.

• Broad eligibility compared to older child credit laws (covers up to age 16).

❌ Cons:

• Big budget impact; strains on state finances if revenue/labor-market/economic growth slow.

• Phase-outs mean not all families see full benefit; could complicate tax filings.

• Dependent on conditions (surplus, economic growth), which might reduce the credit in bad years.

🗳️ The Ballot Beacon Takeaway: Colorado’s FATC gives families with children under 17 a refundable credit of up to $3,200 (for younger kids) or $2,400 (older kids), helping with costs—but it phases out by income and depends on economic conditions, so not every family gets the same benefit.

Statute / Amendment: Colorado Amendment 70 (2016) + Colorado Wage Act (C.R.S. § 8-4-101 et seq.)

Statute / Amendment: Colorado Amendment 70 (2016) + Colorado Wage Act (C.R.S. § 8-4-101 et seq.)
Effective: Minimum wage increased annually every Jan 1; current rate effective Jan 1, 2025
Primary Sources: Colorado Department of Labor & Employment; Colorado Wage & Hour Statutes. (Colorado Labor & Employment)

• What it does:
  Colorado sets a statewide minimum wage that automatically adjusts every year (on Jan 1) based on inflation (CPI). It also allows local jurisdictions (cities/counties) to set higher minimum wages than the state floor. (Colorado Labor & Employment)

• Current Rate (2025):

  • Statewide (non-tipped employees): $14.81/hr (Colorado Labor & Employment)

  • Tipped employees statewide: $11.79/hr (i.e. employer must ensure tips + base wage meet full wage) (Colorado Labor & Employment)

• Cost to taxpayers / employers:
  Not a taxpayer program, so direct state government cost is minimal. Main impact is on businesses (higher payroll costs) and possibly consumer prices. Employers must budget the annual increases. (Employer Pass)

• Who it helps/affects:

  • Workers, especially low-wage workers whose pay keeps up with inflation; tipped workers too.

  • Employers who need to comply, adjust wages.

  • Local governments in places with higher local minimum wages.

• Who sponsored / initiated it:
  The change comes from Amendment 70 (a voter-approved amendment) plus legislative statutes that implement the law. (Mosey Compliance Services)

• Who opposed / concerns raised:
  Business groups sometimes raise concerns that annual increases make budgeting hard. Some small business owners say wage hikes may force them to raise prices, reduce hours, or cut staff. There’s also tension in areas with lower cost of living vs. more expensive areas. (Mosey Compliance Services)

✅ Pros & ❌ Cons


✅ Pros:

• Wages keep pace with inflation → protects workers from “losing ground” as costs rise.

• State law + automatic increases = predictable change instead of big surprises.

• Gives local areas option to set higher wages if needed.

❌ Cons:

• Employers have less predictability in payroll costs, especially small businesses.

• Could lead to increased consumer prices or reduced hours in some sectors.

• Tipped workers rely on tips to hit full rate; fluctuations in tips create income instability.

🗳️ The Ballot Beacon Takeaway: Colorado ensures its minimum wage rises each Jan 1 based on inflation, setting a living standard while balancing business costs—workers earn more, but employers must keep up.