House panel advances bill letting local housing authorities seek voter‑approved funding and issue bonds

Representative Yadira Joseph, co‑sponsor of House Bill 12‑06, told the House Finance Committee the bill is “about giving housing authorities the tools they need to meet the scale of Colorado’s housing crisis.” The bill would allow traditional (city and county) housing authorities — with voter approval — to establish limited local funding sources such as modest sales taxes and, subject to voter approval, to issue bonds backed by those revenues.

Sponsors framed the bill as a parity and local‑control measure, saying regional multi‑jurisdiction authorities already use similar tools. “This is a technical, disciplined correction to statute, not an expansion of authority,” Peter LaFarre, CEO of Maker Housing Partners (Adams County public housing authority), told the committee in support.

Why it matters: Sponsors said Colorado faces a housing shortfall (sponsors referenced a deficit “over 100,000 homes”) and that local housing authorities need stable, flexible, locally controlled revenue to develop and preserve deeply affordable units. Supporters, including housing‑authority executives and the Colorado chapter of the National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials, said the approach preserves voter approval and does not compel new taxes.

Opponents and questions: The Colorado Association of Realtors and some committee members pressed on language that, as drafted, referenced a possible property‑tax mill levy. Jason Hopper (Colorado Association of Realtors) said his group opposed provisions that would allow increases in property‑tax mill levies — noting an original draft that referenced “up to 5 mills.” Elizabeth Haskell of the Colorado Municipal League warned a separate provision could create a new “super‑priority lien” on urban renewal projects, which she said risked complicating existing financing and slowing projects.

Amendments and outcome: Committee sponsors offered and the panel adopted multiple amendments to add notice and coordination requirements with county assessors and governing boards (L001), to make technical and conforming edits (L002), to refine the proposed urban‑renewal financing and lien language (L004), and to add guardrails on how taxes may be levied and used (L006). One contested amendment (L007), which members debated because of drafting that could leave property‑tax language in other places, failed on a roll call after an objection. After closing remarks, the committee routed HB 12‑06 as amended to the Committee on Appropriations with a favorable recommendation (recorded vote: 7 yes, 3 no, 1 excused).

What’s next: The bill moves to the Appropriations Committee; sponsors said they will continue technical cleanup and stakeholder work on property‑tax drafting before floor consideration.