Exclude Value Mineral Resources Tax Increment Financing Division
Do you support it?
Want to know if it passes?
We'll email you when HB 17-1016 moves — a committee vote, a floor vote, or a signature. Nothing else.
Free forever · unsubscribe in one click.
Your answer was recorded either way.
Which district are you in?
Your ZIP is all we need to match you to your own representatives — so we can tell you how they voted on HB 17-1016.
You're tracking HB 17-1016
We'll email you the moment it moves.
HB 17-1016 — Exclude Value Mineral Resources Tax Increment Financing Division
Last action — Governor Signed
No card. One bill, free forever — alerts when it moves.
-
✓Introduced
-
✓In Committee
-
✓Passed House
-
✓Passed Senate
-
✓To Executive
-
6Enacted
This bill has been enacted into law. Introduced January 11, 2017. Enacted.
Prognosis
Where this bill stands today.
Odds of enactment
HighHow often bills like it became law.
-
Enacted
Current position in the legislative process.
-
4 sponsors
4 primary, 0 co-sponsors signed on.
-
Cleared a recorded vote
Passed 4 recorded votes so far.
Prognosis reads this bill's own signals — stage, sponsorship breadth, committee status, recorded votes and cross-state momentum. Odds come from a model trained on which bills have become law.
Summary
The bill permits the governing body of a municipality, as applicable, to provide in an urban renewal plan that the valuation attributable to the extraction of mineral resources located within the urban renewal area is not subject to the division of taxes between base and incremental revenues that accompanies the tax increment financing of urban renewal projects. In such circumstances, the taxes levied on the valuation will be distributed to the public bodies as if the urban renewal plan was not in effect. The bill defines the terms 'mineral resources' and 'valuation attributable to the extraction of mineral resources.' (Note: This summary applies to the reengrossed version of this bill as introduced in the second house.)
Bill Text
What changed in the latest version
16 added · 22 removedPlain-language change summary
The recent amendments to Bill HB 17-1016 clarify definitions related to the governance of municipalities, specifically addressing how local governments can manage taxes associated with mineral resources. The term "mineral resources" now aligns with an existing definition in another statute, ensuring consistency. This standardization matters because it provides clearer guidelines for municipalities, helping them navigate tax levies more effectively and avoid confusion in the implementation of these laws.
First Regular Session Seventy-first General Assembly STATE OF COLORADO REENGROSSEDENGROSSED This Version Includes All Amendments Adopted on Second Reading in the House of Introduction LLS NO.
17-0205.01 Bob Lackner x4350 HOUSE BILL 17-1016 HOUSE SPONSORSHIP Saine and Gray, SENATE SPONSORSHIP Martinez Humenik and Zenzinger, House Committees Senate Committees Local Government Finance A BILL FOR AN ACT CCONCERNING ONCERNING THE ABILITY OF AN URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY TO EXCLUDETHEVALUATIONATTRIBUTABLETOTHEEXTRACTION OFMINERALRESOURCESLOCATEDWITHINANURBANRENEWAL AREA FROM THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF TAXABLE PROPERTY SUBJECT TO DIVISION FOR THE PURPOSE OF FINANCING URBAN e RENEWAL PROJECTS .
n 7 m 0 E n , Bill Summary U U y O i a H a b (Note:
This summary applies to this bill as introduced and does R e notreflectanyamendmentsthatmaybesubsequentlyadopted.Ifthisbill r F passes third reading in the house of introduction, a bill summary that applies to the reengrossed version of this bill will be available at http://leg.colorado.gov.) g i 171 a 2 The bill permits the governing body of a municipality, as ES eR ,66 U d r O 2n ua Shading denotes HOUSE amendment.
H d br Capital letters indicate new material to be added to existing statute.
d Fe Dashes through the words indicate deletions from existing statute.
e F m A applicable, to provide in an urban renewal plan that the valuation attributabletotheextractionofmineralresourceslocatedwithintheurban renewal area is not subject to the division of taxes between base and incremental revenues that accompanies the tax increment financing of urban renewal projects.
View plain text versions (8)
- Engrossed Engrossed (02/06/2017) pdf
- Engrossed Reengrossed (02/07/2017) Current pdf
- PA1 (01/20/2017) View text pdf
- Revised (02/24/2017) View text pdf
- Rerevised (02/27/2017) View text pdf
- Final Act (03/03/2017) View text pdf
- Signed Act (03/08/2017) View text pdf
- Introduced Introduced (01/11/2017) pdf
Amendments
1 amendmentClick Show changes on an amendment above to see how it modifies the bill.
Action History
-
Governor Signed
-
Signed by the President of the Senate
-
Sent to the Governor
-
Signed by the Speaker of the House
-
Senate Third Reading Passed - No Amendments
-
Senate Second Reading Passed - No Amendments
-
Senate Committee on Local Government Refer Unamended - Consent Calendar to Senate Committee of the Whole
-
Introduced In Senate - Assigned to Local Government
-
House Third Reading Passed - No Amendments
-
House Second Reading Passed with Amendments - Committee
-
House Committee on Finance Refer Unamended to House Committee of the Whole
-
House Committee on Local Government Refer Amended to Finance
-
Introduced In House - Assigned to Local Government + Finance
Sponsors
- Matt Gray · Primary
- Rachel Zenzinger · Primary
- Lori Saine · Primary
- Martinez Humenik · Primary
Sponsorship breakdown
Export CSV (upgrade) →4 sponsors · 0 co-sponsors · 98 not signed on · 1 voted No
Sponsors (4)
- Matt Gray
- Rachel Zenzinger
- Lori Saine
- Martinez Humenik
Co-sponsors (0)
None.
Not signed on (98)
98 members have not signed on to this bill.
Show all 98 →"Not signed on" means a member has not sponsored or co-sponsored this bill — it does not imply opposition. Members flagged Voted No have a recorded No vote on this bill.
Votes
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Democrat | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Republican | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Unaffiliated | 6 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| Total | 11 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| % of votes cast | 85% | 0% | 0% | 15% |
How each member voted (13)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Gray | — | Yea |
| Lebsock | — | Yea |
| McKean | — | Yea |
| Navarro | — | Not Voting |
| Ransom | — | Yea |
| Rosenthal | — | Yea |
| Singer | — | Not Voting |
| Thurlow | — | Yea |
| Alex Valdez | Democrat | Yea |
| James Coleman | Democrat | Yea |
| Tony Exum | Democrat | Yea |
| Larry Liston | Republican | Yea |
| Lynda Zamora Wilson | Republican | Yea |
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unaffiliated | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| % of votes cast | 100% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
How each member voted (5)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Gardner | — | Yea |
| Crowder | — | Yea |
| Donovan | — | Yea |
| Kefalas | — | Yea |
| Martinez Humenik | — | Yea |
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unaffiliated | 12 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Republican | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 12 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| % of votes cast | 92% | 8% | 0% | 0% |
How each member voted (13)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Beckman | — | Yea |
| Covarrubias | — | Yea |
| Foote | — | Yea |
| Gray | — | Yea |
| Herod | — | Yea |
| Lawrence | — | Yea |
| Pabon | — | Yea |
| Thurlow | — | Yea |
| Adrienne Benavidez | — | Yea |
| Michaelson Jenet | — | Yea |
| Van Winkle | — | Yea |
| deGruy Kennedy | — | Yea |
| Marc Catlin | Republican | Nay |
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Democrat | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Republican | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Unaffiliated | 6 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| Total | 11 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| % of votes cast | 85% | 0% | 0% | 15% |
How each member voted (13)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Gray | — | Yea |
| Lebsock | — | Yea |
| McKean | — | Yea |
| Navarro | — | Not Voting |
| Ransom | — | Yea |
| Rosenthal | — | Yea |
| Singer | — | Not Voting |
| Thurlow | — | Yea |
| Alex Valdez | Democrat | Yea |
| James Coleman | Democrat | Yea |
| Tony Exum | Democrat | Yea |
| Larry Liston | Republican | Yea |
| Lynda Zamora Wilson | Republican | Yea |
Subjects
Frequently asked questions
- What does HB 17-1016 do?
- The bill permits the governing body of a municipality, as applicable, to provide in an urban renewal plan that the valuation attributable to the extraction of mineral resources located within the urban renewal area is not subject to the division of taxes between base and incremental revenues that accompanies the tax increment financing of urban renewal projects. In such circumstances, the taxes levied on the valuation will be distributed to the public bodies as if the urban renewal plan was not in effect. The bill defines the terms 'mineral resources' and 'valuation attributable to the extraction of mineral resources.' (Note: This summary applies to the reengrossed version of this bill as introduced in the second house.)
- Who sponsors HB 17-1016?
- HB 17-1016 is sponsored by Matt Gray, Rachel Zenzinger, Lori Saine, and Martinez Humenik.
- What is the current status of HB 17-1016?
- This bill has been enacted into law. Introduced January 11, 2017. Enacted.
- Where can I track HB 17-1016?
- Track HB 17-1016 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.
Make your voice heard on HB 17-1016
Find the representatives who decide this bill and tell them where you stand — for yourself, or mobilize your whole list in one click with One Click Politics advocacy software.
Stay ahead of HB 17-1016
Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously
One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.
Track this bill →