HB1028 makes a series of changes to Colorado’s Address Confidentiality Program, which is designed to help protect the location information of relocated victims of domestic violence, sexual offenses, human trafficking, stalking, and certain protected health-care workers. The bill broadens how substitute addresses are used, including requiring private entities to honor a participant’s substitute address upon request, and clarifies that an “actual address” is limited to a residential address rather than including work or school addresses. It also allows participants to provide either a telephone number or an email address on their application, updates notice and cancellation procedures, and expands the kinds of documentation that can support eligibility, including proof of prior enrollment in another confidential address program and documentation from reproductive health-care providers engaged in legally protected health-care activity.
The bill also creates a new process for shielding real property records associated with program participants who acquire property while enrolled in the program. Under this process, participants may request that land and tax records be removed from public inspection and stored in a secure area, with limited disclosure allowed for title examinations and other authorized purposes. In addition, the bill increases the surcharge funding the program from $28 to $33 beginning July 1, 2025, and expands the surcharge to apply to convictions for sexual assault and certain municipal ordinance violations involving domestic violence, stalking, human trafficking, and sexual assault. It also permits limited sharing of a participant’s actual address with another law enforcement agency for welfare checks when disclosure is requested through the expedited process.
The bill’s impact on state law is to expand confidentiality protections, broaden the entities that must honor substitute addresses, and add a new statutory mechanism for protecting property-related records from public access. It amends multiple sections of the Colorado Revised Statutes governing the program, public records treatment, disclosure restrictions, court surcharges, and driver’s license notification procedures. It also creates new definitions and procedures related to real property ACP notices, unique location information, and shielding of records, while making technical and conforming changes throughout the program statutes.
The general sentiment reflected in the available voting history appears supportive of the bill’s core protections, at least in the House Judiciary Committee, where amendments were adopted and the bill was advanced to Finance with a 7-4 vote. However, the bill was later postponed indefinitely in House Finance by a 12-0 vote, indicating that while the policy may have had support in Judiciary, it did not ultimately move forward in the fiscal committee. No committee transcript is available, so the record does not show detailed debate, but the vote pattern suggests broad agreement on the need for confidentiality protections and program updates, paired with enough concern in Finance to stop the bill.
The main points of contention appear to be the bill’s fiscal and administrative implications, especially because it increases the surcharge and expands the program’s scope to private entities and real property records. Potential concerns likely include the burden on recordkeeping systems, the complexity of shielding land records, and the broader confidentiality obligations imposed on agencies and private parties. At the same time, the bill’s supporters appear to have focused on strengthening safety for survivors and protected health-care workers by reducing the risk that public records could reveal their location or property ownership.
HB1028 amends Colorado’s Address Confidentiality Program statutes to expand confidentiality protections, require substitute-address use by private entities upon request, narrow the definition of actual address to residential address information, add email as an alternative contact method, and create a new process for shielding real property records from public inspection. It also increases and expands the program surcharge funding mechanism, adds limited welfare-check disclosure authority, and makes conforming changes to related public records, disclosure, and driver’s license notification provisions.
The available record suggests generally favorable sentiment toward strengthening the Address Confidentiality Program, with the House Judiciary Committee advancing the bill and adopting amendments. The bill then stalled in House Finance, where it was postponed indefinitely on a unanimous vote, suggesting that fiscal or implementation concerns outweighed policy support at that stage. No transcript is available, so the broader discussion cannot be characterized in detail beyond the voting pattern.
The likely areas of contention are the bill’s cost, administrative complexity, and the extent to which it extends confidentiality obligations beyond government agencies to private entities and property records. The surcharge increase and broader surcharge applicability may have raised fiscal concerns, while the new real-property shielding process and limited disclosure rules may have prompted questions about record access, title work, and agency workload. Supporters appear to have prioritized survivor and worker safety, while opponents or fiscal skeptics likely focused on implementation burdens and program costs.