Laserfiche WebLink
those of the General Assembly. E.g. Concerned Parents of <br />Pueblo, Inc. v. Gilmore 47 P.3d 311, 313 (2002). <br />There are a variety of recognized sources of the General <br />Assembly's intent within a statute's legislative history — <br />namely, "the object the legislature sought to obtain by the <br />enactment, the circumstances under which it was adopted, and the <br />consequences of a particular construction." Anderson v. <br />Longmont Toyota, Inc. 102 P.3d 323, 327 (Colo. 2004) (citing § <br />2- 4- 203(1), C.R.S. (2004); Weld County Sch. Dist. RE -12 v. <br />Bymer 955 P.2d 550, 554 (Colo. 1998)). The circumstances of a <br />statute's enactment more specifically include "the state of the <br />law prior to the legislative enactment," "the problem addressed <br />by the legislation," Bill Boom 961 P.2d at 470 (citing cases), <br />and the chosen statutory remedy, People v. Murphy 919 P.2d 191, <br />194 (Colo. 1996) (citing People v. Davis 794 P.2d 159 180 <br />(Colo. 1990)). Since the undefined phrase "reasonable <br />recreation experience in and on the water" has no plain meaning <br />and is reasonably susceptible to multiple meanings, it is <br />ambiguous; therefore, in accordance with the foregoing rules, we <br />must explore extrinsic aids such as SB 216's legislative history <br />in order to determine the General Assembly's intent. <br />The legislative history establishes that SB 216 was <br />enacted, at least in part, in response to fears that under Fort <br />34 <br />