Summary#

SB 26-169, the Revisor’s Bill, amends and repeals parts of the Colorado Revised Statutes; it does not create a new agency or program. Its stated goal is to correct obsolete, imperfect, and inoperative law while preserving legislative intent, effect, and meaning. Most changes are wording, cross-reference, or cleanup edits, but some change deadlines, extend a sunset, or remove a fee-waiver ground.

• It extends the repeal date for a part of the law on district judicial-performance commissions from July 1, 2028, to July 1, 2030.
• It removes one stated ground for waiving a $65 court processing fee for sealing criminal records: filing a motion under a specified provision.
• It resets the start and reporting timetable for a work-based learning consortium to run from the bill’s effective date, if sufficient funds are available.
• It corrects a deadline for some local zoning-code updates from the impossible date June 31, 2028, to June 30, 2028.
• It updates or removes many outdated definitions, cross-references, reporting recipients, and expired provisions. Existing agencies and committees remain responsible for the duties assigned to them; the bill creates no new independent body.

What it means for you#

• People seeking to seal criminal records: The bill removes one listed reason a court could waive the $65 processing fee. It does not remove the fee itself. The supplied text does not show whether other grounds for waiving the fee remain.
• Local governments and people affected by development rules: The bill corrects a date for jurisdictions already updating zoning or development codes under a separate law. It does not set a new development-approval process.
• Students, educators, and higher-education institutions: If sufficient funds are available, the work-based learning consortium’s three-year period and report deadline run from this bill’s effective date, rather than August 6, 2025.
• General public: The bill does not create a new public service, benefit, tax, or general prohibition. Many edits update statutory wording or references rather than create a new process.
• The bill says it takes effect 90 days after final adjournment; it gives August 12, 2026, if adjournment was May 13, 2026. A referendum petition could affect that date.

Money#

No cost information is in the available material.

• The bill gives no estimate of public spending, savings, or revenue.
• Removing one fee-waiver ground could mean some people pay the $65 fee when they otherwise might not have; the number of people affected and any revenue change are not stated.
• The consortium’s work depends on sufficient funds, but the bill gives no funding amount or staffing estimate.

What is unclear#

• The parent statutes and fiscal material were not supplied, so the current-law baseline and the full effect of each amendment could not be independently checked.
• The bill does not say how many people would lose access to the specified fee waiver, or how other waiver grounds may apply.
• The source gives a conditional effective date; it does not establish whether a referendum petition was filed.
• The bill makes many small changes across state law. The supplied material does not explain the practical effect of every changed cross-reference or reporting recipient.

Case for#

• The bill appears intended to keep the statutes accurate by removing expired provisions and correcting references, wording, and dates.
• Correct references and reporting destinations can help agencies and courts apply the law as intended.
• Resetting the consortium’s schedule to begin from the effective date avoids measuring its work period from a date that had already passed.
• Extending the judicial-performance provision to 2030 preserves it for two more years rather than allowing it to expire in 2028.

Case against#

• One concern is that a bill described as nonsubstantive also changes practical rules, including a court-fee waiver and a repeal date.
• Removing a fee-waiver ground could make sealing records more costly for some people; the bill gives no information about who would be affected.
• Resetting the consortium timetable may delay its work and report compared with the earlier dates.
• The bill’s breadth makes it harder to judge the effects of every change, and the supplied material does not give a cost estimate or a full comparison with current law.