Unlike last year, the end of the Colorado legislative session Wednesday came with no fireworks — no protest walkouts, no intracaucus tensions boiling over into public, no last-minute implosions of keystone policy bills.

The final day of lawmakers’ nearly four-month session instead was dominated by noticeably brighter spirits as the General Assembly put the finishing touches on a slew of legislation that had dominated the final weeks. Notable bills touched on tax credits, property tax reform, gun restrictions and major land use changes that will shape the state for years and, supporters hope, decades to come.

Contentious housing bills that died or were vetoed last year were brought back, in varying forms, and passed. Lawmakers and the governor struck grand bargains to defuse ballot measures. And Democrats have settled into a now-familiar — if not consistently united — seat at the head of the legislative table.

Some of the last proposals to cross the finish line on the final day — which ended with the Senate’s adjournment just before 8 p.m., before dark — included an income tax credit for Colorado families with household incomes under $90,000, to cover up to two years of tuition and fees at in-state public universities, colleges and technical schools; a bipartisan bill to remake the public school finance system; a series of tax reforms that include a tax credit of up to $3,200 for dependent children, scaling down as family income increases, as children age and if state revenue growth slows down; and an income tax reduction of $450 million this year.

When the legislature convened in January, it was with a palpable sense of dread. Lawmakers, lobbyists and observers feared the session would reflect the angst and tension that marred last year’s regular and special meetings of the General Assembly.

Instead, the session unfolded largely as a casual observer would’ve expected.

Where tensions did rise, they did so mostly within standard — though at times still pointed — etiquette under the Gold Dome, even if public exchanges between lawmakers outside the building’s marble halls sometimes descended into personal attacks.

Sen. Dylan Roberts, speaking Wednesday about a compromise on a bill penalizing gun owners who don’t secure handguns left in vehicles, lamented “disrespectful” comments made in the House about an amendment from his chamber. But the Frisco Democrat ended on a simple request to “disagree better.”

Flare-ups still emerged. The House’s Democratic leadership implemented new protocols to limit what they considered offensive speech on the floor. Some House Republicans repeatedly castigated their Democratic colleagues on social media as supporting pedophiles and criminals, based on votes opposing various GOP-backed bills.

Those comments contributed to a tense meeting between Democratic lawmakers and their leadership last week, with legislators demanding that leaders do more to address attacks online.

But by the last day of the session on Wednesday, most of the session-defining measures had already been resolved — with largely perfunctory agreements and votes remaining.

The Senate and House had already hammered out differences on a bill supported by Gov. Jared Polis that, once signed, will promote denser development along transit corridors. They avoided the last-day drama of last year, when an omnibus land use bill died at the 11th hour because of irreconcilable differences between the chambers, both led by large Democratic majorities.

A proposal to ban the sale and transfer of certain high-powered, semiautomatic firearms — which had hung heavy over the final weeks amid Democratic division over how much to embrace the policy — was tabled peacefully on the penultimate day. Backers pledged to continue that fight in future years.

Meanwhile, a slew of other gun bills, some intended to improve enforcement of existing laws, passed against strong Republican opposition, but without extraordinary incidents.

Most of Wednesday was dominated by tributes to departing members, a steak cook-off in the House and the Capitol’s version of spring cleaning. A Colorado Politics reporter played the harp on the House floor. Lawmakers showed parody videos on the projector screens on the House’s walls.

Perhaps the highest point of drama wasn’t focused inside the Capitol at all.

A bipartisan bill to reshape state property tax policy was subject to months of wrangling before being introduced the Monday before the session’s end — this week. Shortly after the bill was unveiled, lawmakers were taken by surprise when a prominent business group, Colorado Concern, announced its opposition and refused to pull back from its support for two tax-related ballot initiatives that Republicans and Democrats alike warn would devastate the state budget if voters approve them this fall.

Sponsors of the proposal, Senate Bill 233, said they had been trying to find a middle ground with Colorado Concern, in exchange for the group dropping its support for the ballot initiatives. The bill, now heading to Polis for his signature, would make adjustments in property tax calculations to save homeowners potentially a few hundred dollars compared to projected increases under current law, while also reducing tax rates for commercial properties. But the ballot measures are aimed at more drastic changes.

By mid-afternoon Wednesday, sponsors said those negotiations had broken down. It also didn’t escape notice that representatives of Colorado Concern had not shown up to testify publicly on the measure.

“I will note there are some organizations conspicuously absent today who did not choose to come to testify and share their opinion about the bill — and what they would like to see or not see changed,” said Rep. Emily Sirota, a Denver Democrat, as a public hearing on the bill wrapped up Tuesday. “That, to me, is pretty disappointing, because that is how the work is done. It is done in the light of day, in front of everyone.”

Senate President Steve Fenberg, a Boulder Democrat, said to reporters Tuesday morning, about Colorado Concern: “To me, they are not taking actions that would increase their relevance in this building.”

The ballot measures, one of which has been approved for the ballot already, still threaten to complicate state lawmakers’ work in coming months.

But as the session wound down on its final day, geniality underscored the often-contentious atmosphere inside the building. The House had finished with the bulk of its work, and, as the Senate entered its seventh hour of tributes for departing members, a pack of restless representatives wandered over with handwritten signs to send their colleagues a final message:

Get back to work.

Sen. Rachel Zenzinger, herself a term-limited Democrat, and Sen. Barbara Kirkmeyer, a Republican, waved them off so that the goodbyes could continue at their own pace.

Stay up-to-date with Colorado Politics by signing up for our weekly newsletter, The Spot.

But CB 120775, a proposal introduced last month by Seattle City Council President Sara Nelson, would lower the minimum pay for drivers and roll back protections for workers, according to a draft of the legislation.

Under the proposal, gig workers would be paid an hourly rate of $19.97 for their time spent retrieving and delivering orders. While that seems consistent with Seattle’s minimum wage for employees, the gig workers covered by the PayUp law are only paid for “active time” spent working on orders — meaning that time spent trying to claim an order is uncompensated. They’re also responsible for their own costs, such as gas.

Those aspects of the job had led Seattle’s city council to create a system that pays workers based on the miles they drive and the minutes they spend on the job. PayUp also demands that no offer pays less than $5.

The latest proposal would do away with that $5 minimum and the per-minute payment. Instead, gig workers would get paid 35 cents per mile — down from the current 74 cents.

It would also eliminate or cut back other protections for gig workers in the city. For example, a PayUp rule giving workers two minutes to review an order before accepting it would shrink to 45 seconds.

The bill is scheduled for a committee vote on Thursday. If it passes, the proposal could face a vote by the full Council on May 21.

‘That makes a difference’

If that vote passes, the bill will result in a significant pay cut for gig workers, according to estimates released Monday by Working Washington, a group that advocated for PayUp. For example, a gig worker who spent five hours of active time and drove 32 miles would make $15.81 an hour — below the city’s minimum wage — after accounting for expenses, they calculated.

Hourly pay would be even lower — $13.17 — after accounting for the time that a gig worker would likely spend on the apps just to find and claim orders, according to the study.

Justin Taylor, who has delivered and driven for multiple apps in Seattle over the last four years, said his pay has increased by $100 a week on average since PayUp went into effect — even though he’s delivering fewer orders than he did before the law.

“That makes a difference,” he told BI. “It allowed me to do things like install new front brakes on my car.”

If the proposal before Seattle’s City Council becomes law, Taylor said, he’ll once again be reliant on customers’ tips to cover his expenses and make money working for services like DoorDash.

The delivery companies have made it clear that they oppose the changes that took effect in January. In emails and calls to action sent to gig workers, DoorDash, Instacart, Uber, and others have claimed that there are fewer orders for gig workers to claim.

Some shoppers for Instacart have also had to drive miles out of their way to deliver orders in Seattle’s suburbs as the company routed them to stores outside city limits.

Seattle City Council President Nelson did not respond to a request for an interview from Business Insider. In a hearing on the bill on April 25, Nelson said that she had worked with some of the delivery companies as well as Drive Forward, a group whose leadership includes multiple current and former employees for Uber and DoorDash, to draft the bill.

“I want to make sure that people realize this was an agreement that was forged between Drive Forward and the network companies,” she told the Council.

A DoorDash spokesperson told BI: “Predictably, Working Washington’s opposition to this proposal is not rooted in reality. The proposed law guarantees Dashers will earn nearly $20 per hour on delivery in addition to mileage and tips. We’re grateful that Council President Nelson and Drive Forward were able to reconvene stakeholders and reach a compromise that better serves Dashers, local businesses, and consumers in Seattle.”

A spokesperson for Instacart said the company “supports the pragmatic approach being taken by the new Seattle City Council as they balance the needs of workers, customers, and businesses across the city and reform the current version of PayUp legislation.”

“Uber supports the complete package, and believes it will go a long way to ease the operational burdens and costs experienced by customers throughout Seattle and reduce delivery times,” a spokesperson told BI.

But gig worker Taylor said he was dismayed that the delivery companies have had such a direct role in developing the bill that would replace PayUp.

“To me, it’s basically saying we’re allowing lobbyists to write our laws,” Taylor said.

Do you deliver food, groceries, or other items as a gig worker and have a story idea to share? Reach out to this reporter at abitter@businessinsider.com