House Business Affairs & Labor [Apr 22, 2026 - Upon Adjournment]

Good morning. Good morning.

Madam Speaker. Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee. A delight to be before you today. I am here with Minority Leader Caldwell to talk about good governance. We are presenting Senate Bill 137, a bill that helps address our review, evaluation, assessment of current regulation and rules that the state has created, and making sure that we are doing the best that we can to deliver on the goals and expected outcomes of the rules and regulations that we have passed, all with the goal of creating a more efficient government and certainly supporting our economy, supporting our business and industry partners in being sure they can deliver, both on behalf of consumers as well as on behalf of public safety, health and safety. Currently, through the Colorado Administrative Procedure Act, we do have a mandated rule review process in place. What our bill will do is ensure that those rules are reviewed every five years. Several departments do not require a five-year review. It is longer in some cases. And we have strengthened the considerations that will be evaluated through that review process, specifically criteria that says, are these rules redundant? Are they outdated or obsolete? Has the agency evaluated all costs for the program and the impacts on the state, consumers, and businesses? Does the funding support the programs appropriately? And are there opportunities to improve the effectiveness of a rule or a regulation in meeting our desired purpose or goals for a program? These evaluations will now come before the legislature through the SMART Act hearings, which is an important venue for us to be able to talk about rules that may have been in place and not had the opportunity for members of the General Assembly to weigh in on their effectiveness. And it will establish an ongoing process to make those reviews public, public, creating more transparency and opportunities for accountability. I am very grateful to be here with my Senate, my House co-prime, and certainly our senators who sponsored this bill as well. But I want to extend particular thanks to the Colorado Chamber of Commerce who has helped us in a conversation about this issue now for a couple of years. How can we do this in a way that is responsible and right for our business and industry partners while protecting consumers and our goals in government. With that, I ask for your support.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, members of the committee. The phrase that you're probably going to hear multiple times today that the speaker used in her opening was good governance, and that's how I view this legislation here. Something I talked about in my opening day speech was about the more burdensome regulations. 45 of the 200 plus regulations in Colorado have been considered either excessive or duplicative And so that why it was important for me to be a part of this legislation because it is something I talk about a lot And I know it's something that many members in this room talk about. I don't have much to add to the summary of it, of what it does, because I think the speaker did a great job on that. I will point out that it was unanimous in the Senate. So you would love a unanimous vote today,

Thank you. Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the House Business Affairs Committee. My name is Patty Salazar, and I serve as the Executive Director of the Department of Regulatory Agencies. As the state's umbrella regulatory authority, we have been nationally recognized for regulatory excellence, and we strive to create more government efficiency, reduce regulatory burden, and improve the economic climate in the state while staying centered in our mission of consumer protection. We are proud to have worked with Speaker McCluskey and Minority Leader Caldwell, the business community, and our sister agencies to develop Senate Bill 137. This builds upon existing government rulemaking processes to enhance transparency and relevancy in current mandatory rule review by requiring that agencies set a floor for review of no less than every five years and updates rule review criteria. Currently, state agencies highlight our hard work and performance goals during the annual SMART Act presentations. We also share a regulatory agenda, which essentially is a roadmap of rules which will be revised to ensure relevancy and impact based upon existing statutory criteria with our committees of reference and file it with the Secretary of State annually to be made publicly available. This bill further directs agencies to send the regulatory agenda directly to the Audit Committee to increase transparency. By leveraging the SMART Act, current legislative committees, and a well-developed sunset process, we are using existing government resources to ensure Colorado remains on the forefront of state regulatory reform. We appreciate your time and hope that you can support Senate Bill 137. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the committee. I'm Lauren Furman, President and CEO of the Colorado Chamber of Commerce. The chamber represents several thousand businesses of all sizes, shapes, colors, industries across the state, as well as 49 trade associations and 80 local chambers of commerce here in strong support of Senate Bill 137. Just to give you a little bit of background, over the last four years, the Colorado Chamber has been surveying its members, asking what are the biggest challenges they've been facing. Number one issue every single year has been the Colorado regulatory environment and quite simply the complexity and layers of those regulations over the years. But we know that we need a balanced and effective regulatory system to have a healthy economy here in Colorado So this bill is about taking a very thoughtful approach to regularly reviewing existing rules making sure that they are working as they are intended and are not overly burdensome So we reached out to Patty and Matt and the team at DORA last summer to work proactively on this issue, be responsive to business concerns, but also be pragmatic in our approach. We agreed there are ways to improve this current process, but not recreate the wheel. So you'll see that there are several efficiencies throughout the bill. I won't enumerate them, but essentially we want to make sure that these rules are doing what they are intended to do. We are not here advocating for the elimination of programs, divisions, or agencies. Again, we want to make sure the rules are doing what they are intended to do for employers, for workers, for consumers. Strongly believe this is a good governance bill. It demonstrates a recognition and a willingness by our state leaders to improve current processes that have been in place for many years and that were established by state government. We also believe that by modernizing this process, we can make Colorado even more competitive. So I just want to send my thanks to the sponsors, to Patty and the entire DORA team for working with this and being in partnership on this effort. Really strongly would recommend your support for this great bill.

Thank you. Oh, thank you. Good afternoon or morning, Chair and members of the committee. My name is Phoebe Blessing, and I'm here on behalf of the Colorado Hospital Association in support of Senate Bill 26-137. Hospitals across Colorado have a commitment to delivering high-quality, safe, and accessible care, As part of a highly regulated industry, health care providers also experience firsthand how duplicative or misaligned regulations can unnecessarily divert time, staff, and resources away from patient care and into administrative compliance, despite best intentions. Senate Bill 26-137 takes a thoughtful, systematic approach to addressing that challenge by requiring departments to review rules at least every five years and to specifically evaluate duplication, obsolescence, funding alignment, and administrative burden. This bill creates a structured pathway to ensure Colorado's regulatory framework can evolve. We commend the bill's sponsors and the Colorado Chamber for their creativity to find potential opportunities to reduce administrative costs in a tenuous budget landscape, as well as their commitment to good governance. We urge you to vote yes on Senate Bill 26, 137. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee. My name is Cara Van Stralen, and I'm testifying today on behalf of Debbie Brown, the president of the Colorado Business Roundtable. COBURT is an organization representing CEOs and senior-level executives from across Colorado committed to advancing a strong competitive economy. Economic growth is maximized and sustained by achieving a business-friendly regulatory balance and by supporting policies that incentivize innovation, job attraction, and retention. Colorado competes for jobs nationally and globally, so we must be mindful of our position in the wider marketplace. Regulatory balance is important, and we are pleased to support Senate Bill 137, measures to reduce administrative burdens. Senate Bill 137 creates a thoughtful process to identify outdated, unnecessary, or duplicative regulations and streamline requirements while protecting the public interest. This bill helps Colorado regulatory system become more efficient modern and more supportive of a strong business climate A well regulatory system is essential to both protecting the public and enabling economic growth Over time however regulations can become outdated or unnecessarily burdensome, creating challenges for businesses, slowing innovation, and stalling job creation for our communities. Senate Bill 137 offers a practical, balanced solution by establishing a regular review process for state agency rules. This approach helps ensure regulations remain relevant, effective, and aligned with today's economic and technological realities while continuing to safeguard the public interest. We appreciate the thoughtful approach behind this bill, and its focus on maintaining a regulatory environment that works for both businesses and communities. We respectfully urge your support for Senate Bill 137. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Kevin McFadridge. Good morning, Chair and members of the committee. My name is Kevin McFadridge. On behalf of the Colorado Association of Health Plans, I am here today in support of Senate Bill 137. At its core, this bill is about something we talk about often in this building, ensuring that regulation keeps pace with reality. Over time, even well-intentioned rules can become outdated, duplicative, or unnecessarily burdensome. Senate Bill 137 creates a structured, thoughtful process to periodically review those rules and ask a simple but important question. Are they still delivering value? From a health plan perspective, our members operate in one of the most highly regulated environments in the state. We support strong consumer protections, but we also see firsthand how overlapping or outdated requirements can drive administrative costs without improving outcomes. Those costs ultimately show up in premiums. This bill does not eliminate protections. Instead, it strengthens accountability by requiring agencies to evaluate whether rules are effective, coordinated, and aligned with their intended purpose. It also better integrates that review into existing SMART Act processes, which promote transparency and legislative oversight. We also appreciate the bill's focus on identifying redundancies and reducing unnecessary administrative burden, particularly where there is no public benefit. That is common sense approach that benefits agencies, regulated entities, and consumers alike. In a year where affordability continues to be a top concern, this type of regulatory discipline is an important step ensuring we are not adding cost without value. For those reasons, CAP respectfully urges your support of Senate Bill 137. Thank you.

I'm here. I'm sorry. Hello. It finally worked.

Chair members of the committee, thank you very much for the opportunity to testify. My name is Jeff Thormanskard, representing the Colorado Springs Chamber and EDC, and I'm here in support of Senate Bill 137. At its core, the bill is about predictability and functionality in our economic environment, two things business rely on, to make decisions about hiring, investment, and growth. Right now, one of the biggest challenges we hear from employers across the sector is whether it's construction, healthcare, or advanced manufacturing, it's uncertainty. When policies are unclear, inconsistent, or difficult to navigate, it slows down projects, increases costs, and in some cases, causes business to look elsewhere. Senate Bill 137 helps to address that, provides clearer rules on the road more stable framework that businesses can actually plan around. And that is not just for large employers, but especially for small and mid-sized businesses that don't have teams of lawyers or compliance staff to figure things out. From our perspective down here in Colorado Springs, we are competing every day for jobs, for capital, for talent, not just with other regions in Colorado, but other states. When we can point to a regulatory environment that is fair, understandable and consistent. That's a competitive advantage. The bill also sends an important signal that Colorado is serious about being a place where business can operate with confidence while still meeting the state's policy goals. These two things are not mutually exclusive. The bill strikes that balance well. At the chamber, our role is to advocate for strong business climate and supports job creation, wage growth, and long-term economic vitality. We respectfully ask for your support on the bill. Thank you. Thank you so much. Before we go into questions, I just want to note that

yes, Rep. Morrow? Thank you, Madam Chair. I don't know who this is for, whoever feels they can answer it. So what's the process then if you do the review and you think, okay, well, here's some redundant rules or is there legislation going to be required? What's the process after that?

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Representative, for that question. So the current process now which this is building upon requires agencies to do a periodic review of all existing rules in which a schedule is set, a report is developed, which is called our regulatory agenda, which is shared publicly with the Secretary of State and also shared with our committees of reference. This creates a floor so that all agencies are doing it no less than five years because right now it's essentially contingent upon each agency to set their own schedule. So we're creating a level of consistencies across all state agencies. We are also changing the criteria, rather updating the criteria upon which these rules will be reviewed upon to make it more relevant for the current date and time. And also it provides an opportunity for that said regulatory agenda to be directly transmitted to the legislative audit committee. This is something that all agencies are expected to already present to their committees of reference during our annual SMART Act hearing. but this is hoping that we can engage in a more productive dialogue with our committees as they review a regulatory agenda and have more thoughtful conversations as to the relevancy and to your question as to whether or not legislation should be pursued under the regular course of the legislative process.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I think my question is again for Ms. Salazar. So with this, can you tell me every five years, regulations around here change almost daily. So I just want to understand why it was five years, not three. You know, something a little more probably useful in my mind. You know, I'd like to see it more often so businesses can know sooner what is and what's not working and the regulations and stuff like that. And then also my other question is, do you know how many hours is it projected or expected to take for each department to accomplish these reviews?

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Representative. So to your first question related to why five years is the current number that's in this bill. So as you know, whenever legislation is enacted that changes our regulatory authority, each agency does have to promulgate rules. and so some programs see their rules being promulgated more frequently, in which these same questions should be asked as to whether or not there redundancy if rules are obsolete the relevancy of the rule in the legislation So again some portions of our statutes or rather some portions of our rules see activity more often, others do not. And so we thought that five was a good year for those programs that probably don't see as much activity in their respective statutes, so that there's a more regular cadence of review, while also being very mindful of resources as well. As you will note, we were mindful with the zero fiscal impact across all state agencies, which was a contributing factor to establishing a five-year calendar. And your question related to ours, while I can't speak for all agencies, we are comfortable at DORA knowing that this will not have an adverse impact in our resources, as most of our programs are already conducted under five years.

Follow-up. Thank you for that. What does that mean, though? I needed like a quantitative, like what, you know, like where I work, you know, they give me a project and I have to, before the project starts to be able to understand how many, because time is money and that kind of stuff. So has it been thought of, or can you at least give some sort of guesstimation, I guess you could say professional guesstimation of, okay, these are the reports we have to do, this is stuff we have to gather, you know, that kind of stuff, how many employees it's going to take. Like, how many hours is it, in a guesstimation way, would it take, do you believe it would take each department?

Thank you, Madam Chair. So if you're familiar with the regulatory agenda of any agency, you will recognize that they vary in length. Ours, I don't want to misspeak, but ours is, I would want to say, close to 50 pages. And all of that work is spread across the department. So each respective regulatory program is pulling together their own information, and we're essentially collating that together to be a singular department regulatory agenda. So the work is spread across the departments. Again, I can't speak for other agencies, but I would assume they're structured very similarly, where they're asking the staff that's actually conducting this work to pull together that information to have minimal burden on staff while still being able to pull together a very comprehensive report. Again, these are all filed with the Secretary of State's website. I'm happy to circulate the link so that folks can see them. But they are very robust in the amount of information that is there. but again we chose the timeline that we did to not cause undue burden on any of the agencies with respect to their resources.

Thank you Madam Chair. My question is for Dora from Ms. Furman. So right now how does the process work when we're even deciding these rules with the private sector? Because my concern is when I go back home, private businesses, they say well these are the regulations, the rules, processes that we have concerns with and we take it. They specifically mentioned DORA. They said we take it with DORA and then, you know, they're supposed to bob with us. They never do. You know, we voice our concerns. And so there's a concern that maybe they're not being heard. There's also the concerns currently that these rules are decided by people who don't know the industries. So there's also that concern that I hear from the private districts that this is our industry. There's people who don't even know they come in here and they decide these rules and we catch them and we call them out and there's like a disconnect. So can you tell me how the process works now and how this bill will help kind of strengthen and alleviate some of those concerns with the private sector.

So with any rulemaking, agencies develop rules that are within their existing statutory authority. And so when rules are promulgated, we have to administer the APA. We have to make all rules administered in the APA in which we have an extensive stakeholder process. They filed with the Secretary of State We notify impacted stakeholders including the business community and local governments and others that have signed up to our sunshine list And we essentially begin a rather long process in accordance under the APA that involves multiple conversations, not only with stakeholders, but review with the Attorney General's office to make sure that we're not overstepping our statutory authority to make sure that we are in alignment with what you all provide to us as our legislative authority, or rather our statutory authority. so I recognize that in many instances individuals may not necessarily just like the general policy that we're promulgating, it's not necessarily the rule itself, so there is always opportunity to improve the communication along those lines as to why a rule is being promulgated and it's usually under the direction that the General Assembly is giving us versus us exercising authority that we do not have, so I appreciate that comment because again I think that is where what we're trying to address is the level of transparency and access and information sharing so that all consumers and businesses alike that are impacted have a better understanding as to why we're promulgating specific rules.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And then just like as my final question is, do you think that the policies that this body pushes for extensive rules, regulations, could maybe continue to have an impact when we're trying to maybe sunset some of these or review them? Because I think that we're putting too many rules in place on funding mandates for businesses and stakeholders, private sector, like I said. And I think that that also drives the cost. So do you think that what we do here can also have a denture? Like how does it look like with DORA? You know, turnaround time, complexity, workload, all that stuff. Like can you kind of share with me what the policies that we push for rules kind of like affect the department and maybe speak to the business aspect of it because we continue to do that here. So that's my concern, but I just kind of want to hear from you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So the intention with this rule is to have a more transparent, accessible conversation with the General Assembly. Again, we're doing all of this work already with respect to compiling this information. We've been doing this since 2018, pulling these reports together, sharing them with the public, presenting them at our smart acts. And I can just share from my own experience in the past eight years that I've been here, the conversation around our regulatory agenda has been fairly minimal. And that's why we're trying to pull this together so that we can have a more productive dialogue with you all to ask those very questions, whether or not this is relevant, how this is impacting the 50-plus industries that our agency regulates and all of the stakeholders that are impacted by those said industries. And so this really is an attempt to push forward a conversation, to have that dialogue more proactively and more transparently in the public realm.

Thank you, Madam Chair. With everything that was going on, for me it is important to understand. Sorry about that. I think she meant last question for me. But with everything that's going on and that this is kind of new that we're doing this, would it be possible to request that as you're going through the process of doing this, just to kind of notate how long it's taking you, how many hours matter to me. So for each department, how many hours does it take to actually do this new report report that you're going to be doing every so often. Would that be possible to bring to the SMART meetings? Director Salazar. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm happy

being very mindful of the fiscal note on this, so I'm happy to take that back and have a conversation related to it. Absolutely.

Madam Chair, and I want to address some of the comments or questions Representative Gonzalez raised But first let me just compliment Director Salazar because she spent quite a few months getting the feedback from all of the agencies on this process and revising this process and making sure that they could comply with the enhanced steps that we putting into this piece of legislation So it's really important to recognize the work she's done and her team has done to make sure those agencies comply with these new steps that they're going to be following. I would also address Representative Gonzalez. we make sure that we get out any kind of rulemaking hearings or updates or proposed rules, all of those things we get out to our members statewide. Now, they may not always respond or participate in the stakeholder process, but we do try to make sure we get as much out there publicly as we can so people are fully aware of what these proposed rules are going to look like so that they have the opportunity to testify and share their voice or their concerns on those proposed rules. It doesn't always happen that way, right? But we're certainly trying to be as public as possible, and the director has reached out to us and said, look, how can we get the message out even further? That's why the SMART Act hearing language is in here too, because we want to make this as transparent as possible. And I will say, you know, Director Salazar and her team, they do a lot of work in the Sunset Review reports. They present them to committees, and there sometimes isn't agreement by the legislature to approve the recommendations that have been made by DORA on sunsetting a program or a rule or a regulation. So there's sometimes a stopgap here in this building. So that's why the Smart Act hearing is so important, so that we make this even more transparent of the work they're doing.

I hope that helps.

Yes, thank you. One was the APA itself. Do you think there is room to be looking at how we do reviews and promulgations and improve that and kind of who is the owner of the APA?

Thank you, Madam Chair. I think there is always opportunity for improvement with the APA. Again, one of the intentions with this bill is to provide consistency across all states, at least with respect to the mandatory rule review. but I do think there's opportunity for us to create more consistencies across state agencies with how we promulgate our rules.

Yeah, and just quickly, I know that you don't cover all rulemaking bodies, so carbon capture, air quality control, there's quite a few other very substantial sets of regulations out there. Do you see this applying equally across all?

But the intention of this bill is for that level of consistency across all regulatory programs.

Madam Chair, committee members, Ted Lighty on behalf of the Colorado Association of Home Builders here in support of 137. Regulations imposed by all levels of government amount to about $93,870 for the price of a single-family home. It translates to about 25% of the cost for a single-family detached home, and that number is about 40% for a multifamily home. Our economic competitiveness depends on predictable regulations in an environment that allows housing and commercial projects to move from concept to completion without necessary escalation in cost or complexity. Over the past several years, the General Assembly has enacted a growing number of regulatory mandates affecting housing, construction standards, labor requirements, environmental compliance, and energy performance. While each policy was well-intentioned, the cumulative effect has been a significantly more complex statutory and regulatory framework that is increasing compliance costs. It's lengthening our permitting timelines and just introducing greater uncertainty into the market. This is led to increases in risk, cost, and unpredictability for housing projects across Colorado. As this happens, the capital and investment are reduced, which not only impacts job creation, but of course Colorado's ability to meet its housing needs. We need to be smarter about how we regulate. We think this bill helps us do that. We need to strike the right balance between cost, predictability, and certainty and regulatory escalation. 137 does all these things. Thank you to all the stakeholders and all the sponsors.

Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee. My name is Amy Berenbaum Goodman with the Colorado Bioscience Association, and I'm here today to voice support for SB 137. Colorado's life sciences ecosystem is an innovation engine employing more than 41,000 Coloradans with an economic impact exceeding $52 billion. dollars. Our ecosystem is developing life-saving and life-changing innovations, including rapid diagnostics that identify aggressive forms of cancer earlier, needle-free injection systems delivering critical vaccines to children in the developing world, and surgical technologies that reduce patient recovery times. CBSA champions the health and growth of this community, which has raised more than 10 billion dollars over the past five years. Yet, we are also at an inflection point. States across the country are making aggressive coordinated investments and making concerted efforts to attract innovation companies and advanced manufacturing. This is an especially critical time for life sciences growth because of national and global forces driving companies to look for pharmaceutical onshoring opportunities. But Colorado has not yet been chosen for any of these opportunities. Our recent analysis of competitive life sciences site selection processes shows that Colorado has lost major life sciences investment opportunities to other states, including Ohio, Maryland, and Texas. These missed opportunities represented more than half a billion dollars in capital investment and more than 1,000 high-paying jobs. Site selectors tell us clearly, Colorado cannot compete on great weather and mountains alone. Companies evaluating locations for research and manufacturing facilities will look elsewhere if Colorado state regulations needlessly decrease speed to market, increase cost, or conflict with or duplicate federal regulations. As a highly regulated industry with a long capital-intensive development cycle, before any revenue is generated overly burdensome state regulations are especially damaging To keep unnecessary ineffective unduly burdensome and sometimes harmful overregulation from getting in the way we ask for a yes vote on SB 37 today

No problem. Good morning, Madam Chair, and thank you to members of the committee. My name is Tim Griesmer. I'm an Associate Director at the American Petroleum Institute in Colorado, and I'm here on behalf of API to testify in support of Senate Bill 137. We recognize that strong, well-crafted regulations are essential to protecting public health and the environment and to ensuring responsible development. Colorado has been a leader in this space, and that progress reflects a shared commitment to developing effective policy. At the same time, the pace and volume of regulatory activity in recent years has been significant across sectors. Senate Belt 137 offers a thoughtful approach to ensuring that the state periodically takes stock of existing rules, evaluating whether they are working as intended and whether they remain necessary. This is not about rolling back protections. It's about making sure that the regulatory framework remains clear, effective, and workable over time. As the state continues to move forward, it is important to evaluate what is already in place before determining what comes next. For our industry specifically, that type of review is especially important. Since 2020, the oil and natural gas industry has been engaged in more than 50 rulemakings and is currently participating in over a dozen additional regulatory processes. That level of activity underscores the importance of ensuring that regulations are well-coordinated, clearly implemented, and aligned with their intended outcomes. For those reasons, API Colorado supports Senate Bill 137.

Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee. My name is Nick Hoover. I'm the Government Affairs Director for the Colorado Restaurant Association. CRA members make up more than 5,000 restaurants across the state of Colorado, many of them your local independent favorites, and all of whom face the challenge of growing administrative and regulatory burdens in the state of Colorado. I'd like to thank the sponsors for bringing this legislation forward as we support Senate Bill 137. Restaurants are a highly regulated business. Operators have to comply with health department codes, labor regulations, liquor licensing, local permitting, environmental regulations, and many, many more. Most restaurants struggle to even keep their doors open and do not have the resources to hire a dedicated compliance department or legal team. When a regulation becomes outdated, duplicative, or complex, it takes away vital time and resources from their ability to run their restaurant, employ staff, and serve customers in the very districts that you represent. Senate Bill 137 helps address this by requiring state agencies to regularly review their rules and determine whether or not they're still necessary, cost-effective. Without this type of structure review process, businesses may end up complying with rules that no longer serve their original purpose. Reducing unnecessary administrative work for these businesses would make a meaningful difference for our members. The Colorado Restaurant Association supports Senate Bill 137 and asks that you please vote yes.

Great Thank you Chair and members of the committee I appreciate the opportunity to testify today Again I Candace Kernahan I the President and CEO at the Grand Junction Area Chamber of Commerce which represents nearly 800 businesses here in western Colorado And I am here in support of Senate Bill 137. As you're aware, conversations around Colorado's competitiveness continues to surface throughout the state. And the recent report from our partners at the Colorado Chamber highlighting businesses that have left the state or chosen to grow elsewhere is an important signal. In western Colorado, we do not always see large relocations making headlines. Instead, we see small to medium-sized businesses delay expansion, reconsider capital investment, and quietly scale back. In many of our communities, industries are fewer and supply chains are tighter, making each business decision carry more weight than just for that single operation. It affects workforce stability, local services, and overall resilience within our community. And the challenge is not just a single policy. It's the cumulative environment that we're facing. It's the pace of change, the layering of requirements, and the uncertainty that comes with that. We ask our members every year what is the number one thing keeping them up at night, and continuously we hear regulation at the state level being a barrier to their continued success. SB 137 offers a practical way to respond to that reality. We know that the difference between intent and outcome is where businesses feel the real impact and over time even well-intended policies can create unintended friction. In Western Colorado, when businesses often operate within those tighter margins and less industry redundancies, that friction shows up quickly and carries broad consequences. SB 137 introduces a level of discipline into this process that ensures that we're not only passing policy, but we're really taking the time to understand how it performs once implemented. Because when the system is working as intended, businesses have the confidence to invest, hire, and grow, which is important for their success. On behalf of the Grand Junction Chamber of Commerce and our business community here on the Western Slope, we respectfully ask you to support SB 137 and appreciate your time

Thank you, Madam Chair, and to the members of the committee. I'm Alethea Gomez, Colorado Executive Director for EPIC, or Executives Partnering to Invest in Children, and I'm here today to speak in support of Senate Bill 137. EPIC's members are business leaders from across Colorado who believe investing in children is a critical pillar of Colorado's economy and future. One of our policy priorities is to align and simplify the regulatory environment for child care to support providers and families without compromising the health and safety of children. We support Senate Bill 137 because we know that there are opportunities to make it easier for child care providers, families, and child care donors to navigate the government systems they interact with. Regular review of rules is already a part of departmental protocols, and this bill will improve how this is done by creating consistent timelines and clear standards for all departments to identify duplication and efficiency opportunities while proactively addressing rules that are no longer needed. The Colorado Chamber, as you know and has been mentioned by others, conducted research finding that nearly half of all of the state's regulations are excessive or duplicative, and some of these regulations are those that impact our state's child care providers and their ability to emerge and thrive in our communities. In addition the Common Sense Institute released a report in February of this year that found numerous regulatory requirements and processes that lead to mounting an untenable cost for our operators often passed down to the families that access their care calculating a 40% increase in center-based cost care of infants from 2017 to 2024. Childcare is a highly regulated industry and with good reason because many of these regulations exist to protect the health and safety of children. However, childcare businesses, amongst others operate on such thin margins that any opportunity to decrease their regulatory burden means more operational sustainability, improved affordability for all families, and more supply available to support the workforce of Colorado. Child care is just one of the many industries in Colorado that will be helped by this legislation, and that's why I'm here asking

Thank you, Madam Chair. My question is for CRA. So thank you for your testimony. I have heard a lot from the restaurants, especially around labor rules and environmental rules. So I guess with this pause specifically, what are you hoping to get out of to help bring relief for restaurants because I think it's just very disheartening to see that we're seeing restaurants close down massively, especially in recent months. And it's just, especially in my district, like Roma's was a big, big restaurant. Those who know my district, Roma's just across from UNC shut down. We got it open again. But it's stories like that that just really break my heart because these people, especially during the pandemic, I'm never going to forget that. And so hearing especially restaurants who got the short end of the stick, what do you think that this will help bring the relief that maybe restaurants need? Mr. Hoover. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you,

Senator Richardson.

state at the local level? Thank you, Madam Chair. Thanks for the question. Interesting question. I mean, we're local control states. Disproportionately, the impact we feel on regulations comes from local governments and in the land use policies and codes and other standards. But we're seeing now, to your point, more of those codes being pushed down from the statewide that are requiring local governments to enforce greater codes than they're already doing on the normal standard building codes that we've faced for decades and we've dealt with. So yes, I'm hopeful that this bill will play a part in some of the state regulation that has been pushed down that's required for us to continue to have a growing compliance with. Because I can tell you, when you talk to our design professionals especially, they spend a majority of their time on compliance than on what they were trained to do, which is creative design.

Representative Brooks.

Mr. Easter.

And I have a question. I don't know if it's for you, Mr. Reister, but if an agency concludes that its funding is insufficient to properly enforce a rule, what is the expected next step? And Furthermore, the bill defines appropriate, quote unquote, as sufficient within existing appropriations. So does that render the funding review purely academic?

I would have to defer to an agency on that one. We're not as familiar with the rest of the policy.

All right. Thank you. Any other questions from the committee? Seeing none, I think, you know, we thank you guys for coming today. Appreciate all your, you know, weighing in on this very important matter. We're going to call the bill sponsors back up. And at this point, the testimony phase is closed. Bill sponsors, do you have any amendments?

Any amendments from the committee? Seeing none, amendment space is closed. Wrap up.

Thank you. Madam Speaker.

Thank you. Are there any closing comments for these bill sponsors? Okay. I see a couple of hands. Rep. Kelty first and then Rep. Brooks.

Greg Brooks.

Greg Gonzalez.

Thank you, Madam Chair,

Any other closing comments?

With that, Ms. Haroja, please. Oh, we need to move the bill. Vice Chair, please move the bill.

The bill has been moved and seconded by Rep. Gonzalez. Ms. Haroja, please call the roll.

Yes.

Absolutely yes

Leader Yes

Marshall Yes

Richardson Yes

Sukla Yes

Madam Chair Yes It passes 12-0 One excuse Thank you Thank you And we are adjourned Thank you.