The House Agriculture, Water & Natural Resources Committee advanced a draft bill to continue the Pet Animal Carter and Facilities Act (PACFA) for 15 years, passing 9 to 4, over objections from members who favored a shorter continuation period and stakeholders who cited enforcement failures and called for a performance audit before any long-term extension.
Vivian Belmont and Joe Stafford supported a 15-year continuation to 2041, with Belmont stating the review found no wrongdoing. Rep. Ty Winter voted no, arguing that with approximately 30% expected legislator turnover a 15-year extension spans 'almost two full terms for people 16 years' and that future legislators 'should be able to delve into this.' Nick Fisher stated 7 to 11 years 'would be fine with us,' and Dustin Hayworth said a 7 to 8 year extension 'would be more appropriate.' Elizabeth Colson stated 'I strongly oppose that extension because when oversight fails, animals pay the price' and called for a performance audit before any long-term renewal.
+ 4 more controversies
“This wasn't sudden and it wasn't hidden. It happened over 10 years under PACVA's watch. In 2015, inspectors documented severely matted dogs. Violations were issued. No reinspection. Case closed. In 2020, the same thing happened closed again. In 2022. 54 dogs were found in the same condition. A delayed re inspection 42 days later. Then silence. No fines, no enforcement, no urgency.”
+ 3 more quotes
Subscribe to see all key actions, controversies, quotes, and what's next.
Sign in to subscribeNatural Resources Committee will come to order. Mr. Becker, please call the roll. Representatives Garcia. Sander. Goldstein. Here. Johnson. Excused. Lindsey. Here. Lukens. Excused. Here. Oops. Here. Sorry, I'm not even looking. Martinez. Excused. Smith. Here. Stuart K. Here. Story. Here. Sukhla. Here. Winter. Here. Morrow. Here. Madam Chair. Here. All right. Thanks for joining us today. Today we have another sunset review we will be hearing from about the Pet Animal Care and Facilities act, otherwise known as pacfa. And this sunset hearing concerning continuation of PACFA is held in accordance with Colorado Revised Statute section 24 to 34, 104, subsection 6. The purpose of this hearing is to determine whether there is a public need for the continued existence of PACFA and if its regulation is the least restrictive regulation consistent with the public interest. This determination is based on the factors specified in section 2434, 104, subsection 6B, Colorado Revised Statute. And with that, I'll move on to introduce our Dora analyst. We have an analyst from the Department of Regulatory Agencies here today to walk us through this sunset report, and I believe it is Vivian Belmont. Welcome. When you get settled and ready and get…
Subscribe to unlock the full transcript, summary, and search across all Colorado committee hearings.
Sign in to subscribe