Earlier this month I wrote about a proposed bill that would increase the threshold amount in C.R.S. § 13-1-127(2) (the statute that allows non-attorneys to represent closely held companies in court) from $10,000 to $15,000. HB-13-1052 has passed and was signed into law by the Governor on March 15, 2013.
Colorado law currently gives local governments (including counties, municipalities and special districts) the power to negotiate business incentive agreements with new or expanding businesses, giving local governments a valuable tool to attract and keep businesses and stimulate economic growth and job creation within their respective jurisdiction. These incentive agreements may provide for a rebate of up to 100% of the business personal property tax for a new or expanding business for a period not to exceed 10 years. C.R.S. §§ 30-11-123 (counties), 31-115-903 (municipalities) and 32-1-1702 (special districts).
HB 13-1206, introduced in the Colorado House of Representatives this session, seeks to expand the power of local governments to negotiate such business incentive agreements with businesses that are considering relocating to another state. The bill requires that the local government has “verifiable documentation” that there is a substantial risk that the business will relocate out of the state. “Verifiable documentation” must include information that the business could “reasonably and efficiently relocate” out of the state and that at least one other state is being considered by the business.
This bill fits squarely within the goals of current law to stimulate economic growth and job creation and gives local governments another valuable tool to keep jobs in Colorado. The bill recently passed the Colorado House of Representatives.
An interesting transit bill is pending in the Colorado legislature that could have a significant impact on transit oriented developments in the Denver area. Senate Bill 13-027 provides that a public or private entity may lease, own or operate a public parking lot or structure at or near a mass transit station, and that any such parking lot or structure is not considered an RTD “district parking facility” unless that third party and RTD have a contractual agreement regarding the operation of the parking facility that provides RTD shares in the revenues from that facility. Section 32-9-119.9, C.R.S., currently restricts RTD’s ability to charge for parking at “district parking facilities” to those circumstances when someone parks for more than 24 hours, when someone who resides outside the RTD boundaries parks in a district parking facility, or for reserved parking spaces. To carve out these third-party leased, owned or operated parking facilities from the definition of “district parking facility” would effectively allow these third parties to charge for parking in their facilities without restriction. For TOD developers who are faced with building structured parking as part of their projects to support light rail expansion, the ability to charge for parking in these structures would greatly assist in financing the cost of construction. This bill passed on third reading in the Senate and has been assigned to the House Committee on Transportation & Energy.
It is a general rule that corporate entities cannot represent themselves in court, but must hire an attorney. Colorado has a limited exception to this rule (C.R.S. § 13-1-127(2)) that allows non-attorney officers of closely held entities to represent their company, in court, for matters that do not exceed $10,000. This allows small companies to handle relatively small disputes for which it often does not make economic sense to have an attorney enter an appearance. These can include minor disputes between a landlord and a tenant, breach of contract claims, failure to pay for goods, and other similar matters. Given the amounts at issue, in many cases, it can cost more for an attorney to deal with the problem than to simply accept the loss. Even $10,000 is a small amount considering that attorneys’ fees and costs can quickly rise into the tens of thousands of dollars as a case begins to go through discovery and motions practice.
To address this problem, the Colorado House of Representatives recently passed a bi-partisan bill (HB-13-1052) that would increase the threshold amount in C.R.S. § 13-1-127(2), for the first time since 1991, from $10,000 to $15,000. This would be a positive, albeit small, change that would recognize how the increased costs of litigation make it difficult for small companies to protect their interests within the court system. The bill is currently before the Colorado Senate and was recently approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee to be placed on the Senate calendar for a vote.
Photo: Josh May (flickr)
HB 13-1134, which was recently introduced in the Colorado House of Representatives, proposes some interesting changes to the laws creating the HOA Information & Resource Center. As reported here earlier, the HOA Information & Resource Center was created in 2010 to track complaints related to property owners associations for purposes of reporting those complaints to the Division of Real Estate. Interestingly, there are currently no laws or regulations giving the HOA Information & Resource Center or the Division of Real Estate any enforcement power over property owners associations.
There are two types of changes proposed in this bill—those that are more administrative in nature, and those that are true substantive changes. On the administrative front, this bill attempts to clarify certain things related to the manner in which homeowners associations register annually and how the annual registration fee is calculated. The bill also clarifies that the requirement to register annually applies to common interest communities formed prior to the adoption of the Colorado Common Interest Ownership Act (“CCIOA”).
The substantive changes are more interesting. The bill, if adopted, would require the HOA Information Officer to report any suspected violations of CCIOA or any rules promulgated under CCIOA to the Division of Real Estate. It is not clear from the bill what the Division of Real Estate would do with these reports of suspected violations. Related to this, the bill would allow the HOA Information & Resource Officer to “request certain information from associations.” “Certain information” is not defined. The bill also allows the HOA Information and Resource Officer to “recommend rule changes concerning the filing, investigation and resolution of complaints.” Beyond these generic, yet broad changes, election misconduct is a specific focus of this bill. Under this bill, the HOA Information & Resource Officer may review HOA election procedures, appoint an actual election monitor for board elections under certain circumstances, and may review any election-related disputes that may arise. Further, this bill empowers the HOA Information & Resource Officer to “recommend enforcement actions” when it believes election misconduct has occurred.
In sum, HB 13-1134 appears to be another step toward more regulation of common interest communities in Colorado. While there are currently no laws or regulations giving the HOA Information & Resource Center any enforcement power over property owners associations, this bill is a continuation of the theme that Colorado is moving in that direction.