March 26, 2026 · Local Government & Housing · 24,478 words · 21 speakers · 274 segments
The Senate and Local Government Housing Committee will come to order. Ms. Alanzara, please call the roll.
Senators Baisley.
Present.
Ball.
Lindstedt.
Present.
Liston.
Here.
Rich.
Here.
Snyder.
Here.
Mr. Chair. Good afternoon. Thank you. We have a busy afternoon, and we will start with some confirmation hearings for the Energy Impact Assistant Advisory Committee, Mr. Laycock Briggs, Scrooge, Jillian Laycock, please put the dice, and Gerard Briggs and Jeffrey Scrooge. And if you'll pull those two up, the last two up online. Thank you very much. And Mr. Bergman, welcome back. There we go. How soon we forget. I forget everything.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members of the committee, and thank you so much for having us today. I'm Eric Bergman, Director of the Division of Local Government in the Colorado Department of Local Affairs. It is my distinct pleasure to appear before you today and present three esteemed local government professionals who have been appointed by the Governor to serve on the Advisory Committee for the Energy and Mineral Impact Assistance Fund Program, or EIF for short. The purpose of the EIF program is to assist political subdivisions that are socially and or economically impacted by the development, processing, or energy conversion of minerals and mineral fuels. This program is hands down one of the most important infrastructure grant programs in the state. The EIF advisory committee is responsible for reviewing applications, attending the grant application hearings around the state, and making funding recommendations to the executive director of DOLA. The advisory committee has 12 members, five of whom are state agency representatives. The other seven are gubernatorial appointments from around the state and are traditionally representatives from local governments. the appointments i bring before you today include one reappointment and two new appointments so let's meet our contestants the first is a reappointment to the committee to serve a second four-year term jillian laycock serves as the town manager for the town of akron located in northeast colorado miss laycock is a municipal leader with more than 23 years of diverse cross-sector leadership experience including eight years in executive locomotives roles she oversees all municipal operations from multi-million dollar fiscal management to utilities, infrastructure, public services, and community and economic development. And she is here in person today. Alongside Ms. Laycock's reappointment, we have two new appointments to serve four-year terms on the committee. They're both attending remotely. You can see them on the screen there. Jared Biggs is the deputy county manager for San Miguel County, where he leads a team in community development, HR, communications, and other special projects. at the direction of the Board of County Commissioners. Having previously worked for 20 years with and for counties, municipalities, and with the State of Colorado, Mr. Biggs has a depth of experience in local governance with a Colorado perspective. And then finally, Jeff Schroll, dedicated public servant and Colorado native with 35 years of experience in local government. Currently serving as the County Manager for Eagle County the past eight years Mr Schroll previously spent 25 years as a city manager in Gypsum And Mr Chair with your permission I was going to give each of them a few minutes just to kind of tell you why they're excited about serving on the committee, if that's okay.
Absolutely. We'll start with Manager Laycock. Thanks for joining us.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. As a reappointment, I've had the privilege of serving our state in hearing grant applications and voting to support and award financial grants to support many, many of our communities across the state. I've been able, and traveling to grant hearings, stopping in along the way on many communities that I've been able to actually go see the projects that have come before the grant committee over the years and go meet with staff or residents and actually see the impacts of those projects. I believe very strongly in what this funding does. I've seen it firsthand both in the communities that I support as well as, like I say, around the state. It's an incredibly important part of Colorado in supporting all of our communities and keeping people in their homes and supporting major investments, whether it's community development or infrastructure. So it's been one of my favorite life experiences to serve on this board and an absolute honor to serve the state in this way. And I'm very humbled and feel very privileged to be sitting here today being considered reappointed. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Manager Biggs, thanks for joining us.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. My name is Jared Biggs, and I am fortunate to have had both the personal and the professional privilege of working with these kind of dollars, with these programs, for two decades. You know, I started my interaction with this money back when I was a best and brightest intern. And that was before I even knew what I wanted to do. And that was a program through the Department of Local Affairs to lead people into leadership and experience in local government. And I've been fortunate over my time to work in programs, with programs, with communities to use these resources to do many of the things that Ms. Laycock mentioned. Community infrastructure is important. I was fortunate that after a time, I went and I managed a wastewater project that had, it was a $62 million wastewater project that I managed. And the funding gap was filled with these dollars at the recommendation of the advisory board. And now in my role as deputy county manager of San Miguel County, we are always looking for water resources, wastewater resources, other infrastructure needs, housing needs, which are one of the most pressing things on our horizon in our county. And we know that these resources and this advisory committee is integral to a lot of the communities, most of the communities in the state of Colorado, and filling the funding gap. Sometimes it's the first dollar. Sometimes it's the last dollar. And I'm excited to continue my relationship with this program and with the people, great people who work on it throughout the state of Colorado.
Thank you, manager.
Manager Schroll Am I saying that right sir My name is Jeff Schroll Yes thank you Chairman Mr Chairman and the rest of the senators there I Jeff Schroll the county manager here in Eagle Colorado And it's my privilege to be able to have the opportunity to serve on this board. Much like my counterparts in San Miguel County, I started in the I was one of the very first graduating classes, the best and brightest. And my first responsibility as an intern in Mount Crested Butte way back when was to write an energy impact grant for the bike trail that now connects Crested Butte and Mount Crested Butte. So that dates back almost three and a half decades. But since then, I've had the opportunity to receive several of these EIF grants over the years. I've also not been successful in several of them over the years. But, you know, I think for me, this point in my career, when this opportunity came up, I just want to get back to the great state of Colorado. I've never not lived here in Colorado. Same thing that Manager Big said, you know, these funds really mean a lot to small communities. And in many cases, it's the difference between getting a little hump or not in some really important projects that might be coming up all over rural Colorado. And so I'm excited just to be able to be on a committee that has the opportunity to to look at those grants and and see that money distributed where it's most in need. And so having been the recipient of it, I know it's much appreciated. And now I just like to be on maybe the other side of the fence and and do what I can to help them get distributed to the right folks at the right time. And thank you for the opportunity to speak today. Thank you, sir.
committee questions for these appointees yes vice chair Snyder thank you mr.
chair and mr. Bergman I know the chair welcomed you back I wasn't aware you ever left but and thank you to mr. Biggs and Schroll for stepping up and volunteering to be on the board as mr. Schroll said I'm gonna ask a question for miss Laycock who's a reappointment I know like so many of our funds we've We've taken a hit trying to balance our budget. And I know, like Mr. Schroll said, local governments heavily rely on this funding to get things done, projects, whether it's mitigating the effects of old mining or other projects. I'm wondering, just off the top of your head, do you know how much of a hit we're taking and how your folks are going to address that on the board?
Manager Leca. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Can you clarify when you say folks taking the hit, do you mean from a statewide aspect on the committee or are you talking about at local level? More about the overall funding that goes into that. I think the state or the governor's budget proposal seeks to take some of that money. Oh, I'm well aware of that. I just mean which perspective do you want from a donor energy impact committee perspective or from a municipal local level perspective. and I can certainly try and address both briefly. I think everyone is well aware we're watching and holding our breath across the state to understand how this financial deficit and the reduction in available funding will impact all of us, not only from what is available from a grant standpoint, but also from a severance tax receipt standpoint. I know myself for Akron, it's far smaller in an amount than some other communities, but even if it that an enormous hit to a million budget And when you have a million budget 14 employees and you serving 2 people or less or more makes a very big difference From a grant funding standpoint, from an applicant perspective, again, we're looking at a reduction on an available applicant pool. Previously, we've seen $45 million, $50 million available in grant funds. We're now looking at $15 million and possibly less. So $15 million and upwards of $50 million, $60 million in applications. A wastewater treatment plant is approximately $40 million to serve a community of 2,000 people. if you're looking at a mechanical treatment plant. So we have enormous challenges. So how are we looking at this? We're all holding our breath, and we're very concerned about how we're going to flush toilets. We rely on these funds. We are desperate for them across the entire rural donut of Colorado. Everyone's infrastructure is failing, and the reality is how are we going to do it because the funds aren't going to be there. Thank you. I can keep going if you like, but I won't.
No, I just wanted to hear some of the... It's very... Boots on the ground. Yeah, it's very bad. Impacts. Thank you, Manager. Mr. Bergman.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. And just to piggyback on Ms. Laycock's answer, I think we tentatively have a $10 million transfer that is scheduled that will be appearing in the long bill of severance tax dollars to help balance the budget. that the Middle East conflict or whatever we're calling it right now has driven up the price of oil obviously which one of the very few benefits is that we see increased production and drilling. So just this last Friday when the revenue projections came out they did, we did get a bump in kind of the expected severance tax for the rest of the fiscal year through the end of June which is great news. Now I'm still nervous because we still We still have, you know, we've got additional money we have to find now it looks like. And so there's a lot of things in motion right now. But I think at least we are being told that we can expect probably a little more than we were expecting, you know, two months ago to finish out the year. So fingers crossed there as well. But we're watching very diligently and we appreciate the question. Thank you.
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Perkman. Seeing no further questions, Vice Chair Snyder.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move to the full Senate with a favorable recommendation. the appointments of Jared Briggs and Jeffrey Schroll, and the reappointment of Gillian Laycock to the Energy Impact Assistance Advisory Committee.
That's a proper motion. Ms. Alvarez, please call the vote. Hold on just a second. Okay, thank you. Senators Baisley?
Aye.
Ball? excused linstead aye listen I'm rich excuse Snyder aye mr. chair hi that pass on a vote of five to zero vice chair Snyder mr. chair I recommend this be put on the consent calendar see no objection it would be added to consent consent counter congratulations thank you very much for your time today it's great seeing all of you. Good luck the rest of the way through. Thank you, Mr. Biggs and Mr. Schroll. Thanks for your time. Okay. Peter Lafari, please come up. And Bruce, you want to join us here or no? Okay. All righty. Okay, and then we'll call up Timothy Hoppin, Darren Everett, Patrick Myers, Dominic Asin.
Acevedo.
Acevedo. And Carl Cobo. Okay, who are we missing?
Mr. Chair, I believe we're missing Mr. Hoppin and Mr. Coble.
And Director Hilary Cooper should be joining us online. Okay. Thank you, Mr. LaFari. Please proceed.
Thank you, Chair Exum and Committee members. My name is Peter LaFari and it is my honor and privilege to serve as Chair of the Middle income housing authority. I also believe Director Cooper from the Office of Economic and Development and International Trade and Miha's administrator is online. I'm honored to introduce board appointees for your confirmation. The Miha board consists of 14 voting members. 12 are appointed by the governor. Two are appointed by Oedit's executive director and DOLA's division of housing director. Two additional non-voting members are state lawmakers appointed by your respective Senate and House leadership. We appreciate the participation of Senator Bridges and Representative Taggart as the state lawmaker representation. The MIHA board has been working diligently to build the first statewide housing authority in the United States focused on middle-income housing. We are proud to report that in July of 2025, MIA closed its first tax-exempt bond for a middle-income project in Frisco. And just this week, MIA closed its first special limited partnership, which will provide a state sales tax and local property tax exemption to help the West Holden Place middle-income project in Denver keep their annual expenses affordable and more units in the lower AMI range. We have several potential bond and SLP deals in progress, and MIHA's board and staff continue to explore new ways to attract potential middle-income deals across the state. Most of the five board members before you today have been at the table since day one, and we require their knowledge and dedication to continue the hard and important work that is building new housing for our great state and this new housing authority. In addition, we welcome Mr. Hoppin, who brings a wealth of national lender experience to the table and is a welcomed member of the board. On behalf of the board, I ask for your confirmation for these diligent and hardworking public servants. Our appointees for you and your consideration today, as aforementioned, is Mr. Hoppin of Steamboat Springs to serve as a public member, appointed, and the rest are going to be reappointed with your approval. Mr. Darren Everett, who is to my right an accomplished and seasoned affordable housing developer and administrator from Denver to serve as a public member. To my left, the esteemed Mr. Patrick Myers of Denver, who is an expert in policy and administration and serves on many public and private boards to serve as a public member, reappointed. AND TO MY RIGHT, MY DEAR FRIEND AND COLLEAGUE, DOMINIQUE ASAVEDO, WHO IS ALSO ONE OF THE BEST DEVELOPERS IN THE STATE HERE IN DENVER TO SERVE AS A REPRESENTATIVE OF A NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION THAT HAS EXPERIENCE DEVELOPING MIDDLE INCOME HOUSING FOR REAPPOINTMENT AND FINALLY MR CARL COBLE OF DENVER TO SERVE AS A MEMBER WITH EXPERIENCE IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF RENTAL HOUSING FOR REAPPOINTMENT that has experienced developing middle housing for reappointment And finally Mr Carl Koble of Denver to serve as a member with experience in the development of rental housing for reappointment
Okay. Thank you very much. We'll start with Mr. Everett.
Yes. Thanks for joining us. It's there on the table there. There you go.
And this would be a new appointment for you?
Reappointment.
Reappointment, okay. Tell us why you want to be reappointed to this board.
Look, I've spent most of my last 20 years thinking about ways, spending most of my waking hours thinking about ways to improve housing solutions for the state of Colorado, and my role on the MIHA board continues that passion.
Okay, thank you. Mr. Myers.
Thank you, Chair, and nice to see you all again. I was here two weeks ago for CHFA, so I won't bore you with my life's history. I was the original chair of the Middle Income Housing Authority in my role as the executive director for OOEdit when the original bill passed. So that did not require Senate confirmation. I then left the board when I left OEDA, but then the governor asked me to come back on, so I did. But that was to serve just the remaining term of a member who was no longer on the board. And so that's why I'm up for reconfirmation now and happy to answer any questions.
Thank you, Mr. Myers, of your tiring work. We appreciate it. Ms. Abancito, am I saying that right? Acevedo, thank you.
Acevedo, thanks for joining us. This is a reappointment for me. I've been with MIHA since the beginning. I really believe in the mission of MIHA, and as a nonprofit affordable housing developer, leading a nonprofit affordable housing developer, I think it's just really important that we focus on serving all the underserved. And really that's at every AMI level. And I think we need so many more tools in the toolkit in being able to do that. And I see this as another way to do that. And I'm truly passionate about crafting this so that it really does serve as a good tool for all AMIs in the middle income. So thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Acevedo. We'll go online now to Mr. Hoppin. Thanks for joining us.
Well, thank you for having me. My name is Tim Hoppin. I'm a Colorado native, so I've seen the growth here in Colorado. I work for Lumint, which is a national lender. I've spent over 20 years in the low-income housing finance business. In the last five years, I've done some middle-income housing finance as well. So I was very humbled when Hillary asked me to be on this board because I think it provides some great opportunities to add additional housing to the state of Colorado. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Hoppin. Mr. Coble.
Thanks for joining us. Thanks. Thanks for having me. This is a reappointment for me. My day job, part of it, is developing affordable housing. We've done a lot with the low-income housing tax credit. I'm actually going to start construction here in the next week or so on our 12th project in the last 15 years. So it something we really excited about We also do a lot of municipal bonds through metropolitan districts And so I really passionate about what MIHA is able to do It's another tool in the toolkit and opens up a variety of interesting and I think intriguing and important financial avenues to get this stuff built. And I'm excited and thrilled about the opportunity to continue to see and grow the number of units that MIHA is able to deliver.
Thank you, Mr. Corbo. Ms. Cooper, we didn't know if you were going to make it or not, but do you have any comments you want to share with us?
No, thank you, Mr. Chair. Thanks so much for hearing these appointments, and I'll let you all ask questions. I'm mainly here for questions if you have any.
Okay, we appreciate it. Committee questions for these appointees. Vice Chair Snyder.
Thank you, Mr. I don't necessarily have a question. I just wanted to point out that since I've been on the Chaffa board, I've gotten to see these folks in action and see how effective it's been. And I think back when it was 22, I was lucky to be part of the middle income access program expansion, which I think really was a recognition that we can't just target one segment of the housing market, whether it's low income through LIHTC. we really need to address all of them in a comprehensive way. And this is an integral part of that work. I know that Senator Linstead carried a bill back in 24, as a matter of fact, that furthered some of the tax credit opportunities there. So I just wanted to thank you all for your great work.
Thank you. Thank you. Seeing no further questions, Vice Chair Snyder.
Mr. Chair, I move to the full Senate with a favorable recommendation, recommendation the appointment of Timothy Hoppen and the reappointments of Darren Everett, Patrick Meyer, Dominique Acevedo, and Carl Coble to the Middle Income Housing Authority Board of Directors. That's the proper motion. Ms. Alvarez, please
call the vote. Senators Baisley? Aye.
Ball excused. Lindstedt? Aye. Liston? Aye.
Rich? Aye. Snyder? Aye. Mr. Chair? Aye. I pass on a vote of 6-0.
Vice Chair Snyder. Mr. Chair, I recommend that this go to the consent calendar.
Seeing no objection, be added to the consent calendar. Congratulations and thank you for your work. We appreciate it. Okay. We'll move right into our first bill for the afternoon, House Bill 1253, with Senator Kirkmeyer. I know you have a busy afternoon, so thanks for making it over. Oh, she can't be that busy. On the table there. There it is. Different spot. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. I'm ready to go. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
It's great to be back in your local government committee. I'm here on House Bill 26-1253. And this is what I call just a good neighbor bill. This came up in Weld County in the town of Meade. And they had a person who had bought a bunch of agricultural land, or actually it was a farmer, had a bunch of their own agricultural land. And they had annexed into the town. And an urban renewal authority was created. and then a few years later they decided they didn really want to be annexed in the town anymore so they disconnected but everybody wasn informed in advance So that why I mean it just a good neighbor bill It's like, let's just communicate what we're trying to do here so that everybody knows and where they can talk through issues prior to them just happening. So all this bill does is right now it's required that notice is given to county commissioners if a tract of land wants to disconnect from the municipality, so de-annex essentially. And they would have to give notice to the county commissioners. This bill says that if that would all still stay in place, they would still give to the board of directors of any special district would also be notified, but then the board or the commissioners, it would be the commissioners of any affected urban renewal authority would also be notified of the disconnect. And then those boards, so already in place, county commissioners, board of directors for the special districts, but now we would add in the commissioners of an affected urban renewal authority. They would have 30 days, not more than 30 days, so they don't give forever, but again, already in law that commissioners and special district people are already getting this notice. But then they would have not more than 30 days after receiving the notice that the board of commissioners, the Board of Directors for the Special Districts, which are both already in law, but then the commissioners of any affected urban renewal authority may request a meeting. There aren't any shells. There aren't any. You have to do this. It's just give some notice and give them the opportunity to request a meeting from you and just have a discussion about why you want to disconnect, especially in the case of an urban renewal authority that's already been created. So that's it. and it's not, nothing in this bill is retroactive. They're not, the town of Mead, when they brought this issue to myself and Representative Slogg, they didn't say they wanted to go back. They weren't having arguments or any fights or anything with the developer. They understand people have private property rights and they can disconnect and there's the law that allows for that. But they just would like to have gotten notice with regard to the Urban Renewal Authority so they could fix any issues in advance of the disconnection. So I would ask for an aye vote.
I vote off the bill.
Thank you.
Thank you. Committee, questions on this Good Neighbor bill?
Yes, Vice Chair Snider. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you, Senator Kirkmeyer, for bringing this bill. We'll set aside the question of whether agricultural property is really eligible for urban renewal funding, as it's really designed mainly for blighted properties. But nevertheless, I think I have an understanding of how these folks are part of the city, made part of the URA. Then they look to DNX from the city, and the question becomes, what, if anything, do they owe to the URA? Because improvements could have been made to this property, and I'm just guessing on the fly, but I doubt if they contributed much in the incremental increase to property taxes, given the way we tax agricultural property. And the same with sales tax, unless they had a vegetable stand on there or something, I don't really see it. So I just am a little concerned that maybe they were not paying in very much, but may have received quite a bit of benefit. So I'm wondering how would this bill address maybe that inequitable situation?
Senator Kirkmeyer. Thank you. So in this case, it was actually a green field, and they were able to create the urban renewal, but there hasn't been any development that occurred. And I think the farmer who thought he was going to develop now thinks maybe he wants to develop in the unincorporated part of the county. That's what it is. And so, again, it was just something that came up. It's like we just would have, you know, from the town of Mead, they would have just liked to have gotten notice. But that was it. So I don't think there was any other real considerations in this case. But, you know, they had done some plan for the Urban Renewal Authority and for future development, as municipalities do. And so, again, they were just kind of taken by surprise, and it was just like we just wanted the opportunity to maybe talk with them and see if we couldn't work through stuff with them. And, again, that's all this bill does. Gives that notice, and then it's a May. They may request the meeting. That's it.
Vice Chair Snyder. I appreciate that answer. I guess I'm just concerned. It's just a notice requirement, but there's no approval requirement from either the city or the county or the special district, and I realize in this situation that's probably a de minimis of any impact at all, but I worry about setting a future precedent where there could be quite different circumstances, where a similar situation and a de-annexing property, because I realize
once you leave the city, you can no longer be part of the URA, because I think you can't have a URA that crosses boundaries. I'm a little fuzzy on that. Senator Kurt Meyer. Thank you. To be quite frank, I don't know for sure, but I think that's part of the question why they're asking, like, the URA to be noticed, the same as the commissioners and the special district, so that if there are those types of issues, they can work it out. But typically now, as you know, with urban renewal authorities, in fact, between Weld County and the town of Meade, the board commissioner from the board of county commissioners sits on the URA board. But, again, it's just a notice. They are ready to disconnect from the municipality. The owner may apply to the governing body, which is a municipality, for the enactment of an ordinance. And it pretty much has to happen. Or they can go directly to court and get disconnected, too, I guess, in some way. And so that is – I'm not from a municipality, so I don't know exactly, but I think that is what I remember them telling me. So again, it's just, you know, now that they're, if they are disconnected, does the URA exist there now or doesn't it? Does it exist because of the intergovernmental agreement with the county? You know, so there are all those questions. And that's why, again, they're like, wow, if they would have just given us a heads up, we could have had all these discussions and gotten this taken care of. And now they're trying to kind of figure it out after the fact. And so hence why the municipality said, look, again, they don't have anything against the property owner. It's their property. They understand that. They get to do what they want to do kind of thing. They just would have liked notice because, you know, of the URA situation.
One final question, and I appreciate it. I know we have some other folks who signed up to testify. But so I understand the notice. But if there were, say, in that disconnecting property that had received improvements from the Urban Renewal Authority and now they're disconnecting. I'm just wondering if there's an opportunity in that notice for them to negotiate. Maybe there was some amount of money or calculable efforts put into improving that property. I realize I have the district court, but that's not always my first preference, resolving these kinds of possible conflicts. So I was wondering if you be amenable to including down the road an amendment or something that would just make it clear that the approving authorities that get the notice would have that 30 days or something to negotiate Say, hey, we expended this amount of money on your property, and I don't say they have to pay it to get out to de-annex, but down the road, they would have that financial obligations run with the property. So if it is developed in the county, some of that would be included in that process.
Senator Kirkmeyer. Sure. I'd be open to looking at if there needs to be an amendment of that sort. I'm not going to say I'm an expert on URAs and de-annexations and then the impacts and how that all would work. I mean, because, as you know, the urban renewal authority law is a little bit different. And so I think let's have the discussion with CML and see if they think there's something there that we could work out. I mean, again, nobody's trying to infringe on anyone's private property rights or their ability to develop either in the municipality or the county kind of thing. So, but I'm open to have a talk with CML and see if there's something there that we can work out with regard to notice. I just don't want to put a shell in law where there hasn't been one before. Sure. Because right now, the way the law works right now is the property owner who is disconnected does notice the Board of County Commissioners already, and they do notice the special district. And so that notice already takes place. Then we didn't change the part about the 30 days that the county commissioners or the special district would have to request a meeting with the property owner who's de-annexing. That all still stays the same. And the property owner would still have the opportunity to have that meeting with the county commissioners. So you would hope that within that 30-day time frame they get it out, they get a meeting set, everybody sits down and kind of negotiates it out or talks it through and says, how does this actually really work? I'm not sure that this has happened anywhere else in the state where a property owner has annexed into the municipality. They've created an urban renewal authority. And then a few years later, and I don't even know how many years, so don't ask me, but I know it wasn't like immediately. But then a few years later, the property owner says, well, I think maybe I want to go with the county now instead of the municipality. And then what do we do about the URA? And I don't think anybody knew. Hence why I think the town contacted myself and said, you know, if we could just get notice, that would be helpful.
Vice Chair Snyder. Thank you. And one final comment. I've been involved in annexation agreements, and if there are any outstanding financial issues, that's all negotiated as part of that annexation. So I think it would be fair to have a similar opportunity on the back end and a de-annexation, and I appreciate your willingness to keep an open mind. If there's an amendment that I think we could clear that up, I would appreciate that.
Yeah, if I may, Mr. Chair. Yes.
Just as a former county commissioner, I don't want to get crosswise with CML when it comes to urban renewal authorities and tax increment financing. I've been there, done that a few times, and that's not what this is about. So just saying. Thank you.
Senator Basley.
Go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Senator. I have a question about is there a consequence if folks do not cooperate, if they don't notify the Urban Renewal Authority?
Is there a consequence for that, for not complying with this if it would become law?
Senator Kirkmeyer.
I don't believe so. I mean, again, that's why I called it a good neighbor policy. I don't know. I haven't really read through the whole law on it. Again usually you know if you don comply I guess it might extend the time period by which like the Board of County Commissioners the URA or the Special District could have said hey you didn give us notice and you still need to do that But the reality is the property owner can still petition the court. If the municipality won't give them an ordinance to disconnect, the property owner can still petition the court and still disconnect. I mean, I think it's just a good faith. Yeah. But I don't know of any. And maybe the CML person who's going to speak maybe can speak to that a little bit better than I. But I don't know of any consequence or any penalty. Okay. Thank you.
Committee, do we have any other questions for our bill sponsor?
You did. No, mine was more of a snarky comment, and I decided not to make it. Thank you.
Well, all right. It was my own county commissioner at the time, the wonderful Sally Clark, that brought the bill that included the commissioners onto the URA board. I'd love to have a discussion about the efficacy of that. Okay. Down the road, though, another time. Any other questions for our bill sponsor? Seeing and hearing none, we will go to the witness testimony phase. And Senator Kirkmar, if you want to stay, we have two people in person and one remote. So with that, we'll call up Bev Stables. Oh. Oh, we just have the one person. Never mind. And there she is. Welcome, Ms. Stables.
I am.
You will introduce yourself and who you represent. We'd love to hear your testimony.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and good afternoon, members of the committee. My name is Bev Stables. I'm here on behalf of the Colorado Municipal League and our 271 member municipalities in support of House Bill 1253. This bill really addresses a practical but important issue in how we manage land, infrastructure, and taxpayer investments in our state. When a local government designates an urban renewal area, it does so after careful planning and significant public investment. Communities often spend years creating redevelopment plans, extending infrastructure, and committing public resources to revitalize areas for economic growth. However, under current law, agricultural properties located inside of these urban renewal areas can disconnect without the approval of the local government, even after the community has invested time, planning, and taxpayer dollars into the area's redevelopment. House Bill 1253 simply creates a reasonable safeguard by requiring that when ag land within the URA seeks to disconnect, the local government that has already invested in that area must approve the disconnection rather than having the property owner use the judicial decree process without local government input. This is not about preventing landowners from making decisions about their property. Instead, it's about ensuring fairness and accountability when public investments have already been made. Local governments should have a voice when a property located inside that redevelopment area or metro district seeks to leave the jurisdiction after public resources have been committed. Urban renewal projects frequently rely on coordinated planning, infrastructure improvements, and long-term financial tools like tax increment financing. And these investments are based on the expectation that the properties within the renewal area will remain part of the jurisdiction helping support those improvements. When properties disconnect after those investments are made, it can undermine the financial assumptions that made the project possible in the first place. HB 1253 protects taxpayers by ensuring that communities that have made these commitments are not left holding the bill when property boundaries suddenly change. It also protects the integrity of local planning efforts and supports reasonable, predictable redevelopment. and I thank you so much for your time I hope you support House Bill 1253 Happy to answer any questions Thank you Ms Stables I ask at this time do we have anybody else in the room who would like to testify on House Bill 1253 Anybody in the waiting room Okay Do we have any questions for
our lone witness? I'll just follow up with some of the questioning I had with Senator Kirkmeyer. So you're satisfied that there is an avenue for redress should the municipality invest infrastructure improvements, whatever the case may be, onto this now disconnecting property for them to negotiate some kind of exit agreement, for lack of a better term? Ms. Stables?
Yes. Thank you for the question. Yes, we are confident that would be the case. Specifically, allowing the local government to play a role in the disconnection process rather than simply using the judicial decree process allows for that type of communication to happen and dealmaking to be worked out. Whether the local government decides that they would like to have some sort of financial redress, maybe they don't. But it would be specific to that situation that that local government and property owner are dealing with.
I see. So this gives them at least that notice and that opportunity to work with the de-annexing property owner to come to some agreement. Great. Thank you. Any other questions? Senator Rich, no? Thank you, Ms. Stables. Appreciate it. And seeing no one else wishing to testify, we will close the witness testimony phase and open the amendment phase. Bill Sponsor, do you have any amendments today?
I do not. Thank you.
Thank you. committee, do anybody have an amendment for 1253? Not seeing or hearing any. We will close the amendment phase. That brings us to wrap up. Senator?
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Again, just a communication bill, basically. We're adding in, we didn't change much other than we added in the Urban Renewal Authority that they would have the opportunity to get notice and then have the opportunity to meet with the landowner who wishes to disconnect. I'm thinking from when I first heard about this and talking to the mayor of Mead that it would probably be a really good idea for the landowner to have those discussions prior to disconnecting especially if there's an urban renewal authority involved now already in law if the county commissioners or the special district and in this case should this bill pass hopefully if the urban renewal authority is there if they don't respond to the notice and don't request a meeting within the 30 days, then it's safe to assume that there is no adverse problems, nothing to work through, and it's almost like everybody's saying, yep, it's good, and everybody moves on. If there is, though, I mean, if the Urban Renewal Authority has done some substantial improvements or put some investments into the property, then whether they're disconnected or not, at some point they're going to have to get back with the municipality and probably the county, but in all likelihood just the municipality and figure out what they should have tried to do prior to disconnecting. And I think they would probably be personally, just from what I know about this kind of stuff, I would think the landowner personally would be better off working out those things prior to disconnecting rather than being kind of held over the barrel, if you will, after they've disconnected. And I think it's better for them. So, again, from my perspective, that's why I call it a good neighbor policy. People communicating, working in good faith is always a good thing. and I think it helps alleviate problems down the road. So that's why I brought the bill forward and was happy to work with the town of Mead. And I think, like I said, I don't know that this has happened anywhere else, but it could. And that's why I was willing to still bring the bill forward. So with I would ask for an aye vote.
Are you saying only in Weld County could this happen?
Well, you know, there are 31 municipalities in Weld County, so.
Thank you.
Committee, any closing comments?
Senator Baisley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So this all seems like really good practice, common practice, good common sense, and so on. I'm afraid it doesn't rise to the level of law for me. So I always ask that what one of my five questions is. Should this be law? It should be good practice. It should be a good idea. But maybe I can change my mind when we get on the floor. But right now I'm thinking this is just one more requirement on property owners that I don't feel motivated to put it in law. But at any rate, that's my reasoning for a very polite no vote.
Any other committee closing comments, observations, anything? Let's vote. Not seeing any vote. That's a great, great suggestion, Senator Liston. And with that, Senator Ball.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move House Bill 26, I'm sorry, House Bill 26-1253 to the Committee of the Whole with a favorable recommendation.
That's a good motion. Would you take a poll of the committee, please? Senators Baisley?
Respectfully, no.
Ball?
Aye. Lindstedt?
Aye. Liston?
Aye. Rich?
Aye. Exum?
Excuse. Mr. Chair? Aye. That's a five to one vote, and you're on your way to the Committee of the Whole. Thank you. Thank you, Committee. Appreciate it. Committee of the Cow. Okay. Okay, our next bill that we'll call up will be House Bill 26-1339. I see we have Senators Cutter and Danielson, our bill sponsors in the House. We'll give them a little time to get settled up here at the witness table. And to remind the committee, I believe, was this a late addition to our agenda? So feel free to ask questions if you haven't had a chance to fully digest what's contained in 1339. Welcome, Bill's sponsors. And whenever you're ready, who would like to start things off? Okay.
Okay.
Senator Danielson, please.
Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. Thank you, members of the committee. It's been a while since I was in front of the local government committee. You serve on here. We're friendly. I really appreciate your time. And yes, this was a late addition, and I'll explain a little bit. We, in the last couple of weeks, have had some news break nationwide about a beloved leader of a very important movement Cesar Chavez And sorry that was very distracting Very.
Please continue. Okay. Sorry. I lost my train of thought. That was just extremely distracting.
Like I said, this is kind of last minute for all of us, so if you want to start over afresh, that would be wonderful. Okay, so we needed to respond in a rapid manner. What happened was that the news broke that this leader of this important movement had been found to have perpetrated some pretty heinous crimes, physical and sexual assault and violence on women and girls over the course of many years, which was heartbreaking news. As many of the people that I've worked with along the way, as you know, I've carried farmworker bills. It's been a real privilege of mine to work alongside a community and make these really big strides toward the goals of the farmworker movement and people like Dolores Huerta and Cesar Chavez back to the 1960s. Finally, here in the state of Colorado, we achieved a lot of that back in 2021. A number of my friends were friends with him. A number of my friends and leaders in the movement and fellow legislators even spent time and worked in the movement to achieve these goals alongside him. So, you know, this was devastating news. But the truth is it is a devastating experience. And so coming from the community, and I would say the broader community across Colorado and nationwide, it was rapidly acknowledged that we should not honor this man with holidays, parks, et cetera. And so given that the planned holiday bearing his name is coming up on the 31st of March, The leadership in the House took action quickly to respond to the demands of our communities across Colorado and, like I said, what you've been seeing in the news across the country. And I'll note, too, that even in his home state, the birthplace of the farmworker movement, the United Farm Workers Union that he and Dolores built, there was a rapid response to address the naming of days, holidays, and correct the history there. So we are in keeping with a very timely demand to address the issue before the state of Colorado continues to acknowledge this name. We want to state very clearly that we know that this is really the only holiday in the state of Colorado that honors the Latino culture. So we want to preserve that. We know that as my House colleague, Representative Garcia, quoted one of the survivors in the paper the other day, the movement is the hero. It is something that I really believe, as you all know, given my legislative efforts here. So we're trying to honor that, honor the movement, honor the struggle, but don ignore the struggle of victims and survivors all across the country which have now become very public So the solution that we have before you today and it is rapid because if we do this right we can address it before the holiday in a formal manner to rename it to Farm Worker Day And so that's the policy that you have in front of you with House Bill 1339. It is very, very simple. It drives no fiscal note. It addresses everything that I just briefly laid out and will simply change the day, which is a floating state holiday, but technically observed on March 31st, as we have together many times with resolutions and ceremony on the floor of the House and Senate here in the state capitol. If we do it right, we can change it so that it's addressed before the holiday, and it will be acknowledged as Farmworker Day this year. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Senator Cutter?
Thank you. First of all, thank you all for hearing this on short notice. We know that it was all quick, but my colleague here explained why. I wish that I could say that she talked about being shocked when we heard the news, you know, momentarily. But really, how often do we hear these kinds of things in the news? it's becoming more and more frequent. I am very honored to join Senator Danielson, who has been a fierce champion for workers, to forward this important legislation. Dolores Huerta was sexually assaulted by her partner in the farm worker movement, Cesar Chavez, yet she remained quiet because she thought the movement she devoted her life to might suffer. The New York Times article that brought this and other allegations to light wrote that many of the women stayed silent for decades, both out of shame and for fear of tarnishing the image of a man who had become the face of the Latino civil rights movement. Often, women do not speak out after an assault for fear of being ridiculed, ignored, or ostracized. According to the information published by the CDC in December of 2025, so very recent, Nearly half of women have experienced some form of contact sexual violence in their lifetimes, and more than one in five women have experienced completed or attempted rapes in their lifetimes. One in three women have experienced verbal sexual harassment in their lifetime, whether in their workplace or their community. It's difficult to speak out. What will the repercussions be? will you be ostracized, believed, ignored, embarrassed? Dolores Huerta, Ana Marguerite, and Deborah Rojas, and all of the others who came forward were incredibly brave to speak out. This bill reminds us that the United Farm Workers Movement was not defined by Cesar Chavez or any other one person. As with most lasting and impactful change, it was a collective effort to stand up for the rights of migrant farm workers. The impacts of this movement are relevant in the workplace today. While I want to acknowledge that the effects of Chavez's actions are most acutely felt in the Latinx community, I am honored to co-sponsor this legislation because women so often go unheard. We hear you, Dolores Huerta, Ana Marguez, and Deborah Rojas. House Majority Leader Duran and I founded together the Democratic Women's Caucus to ensure that women legislators are heard and supported in their work in a space that was created for men Fittingly Majority Leader Duran is the House sponsor of this legislation along with the most recent co of the caucus Representative Lorena Garcia We all recognize the unique challenges women face in our society, and I want to thank my colleagues for their swift action in bringing this legislation forward. Chavez helped accomplish good things, and that is a fact. But because of the harm he caused to women and young girls, he does not deserve to be uplifted over the women who worked and suffered by his side. No holiday should be named after him. Thank you.
Committee, do we have any questions for our bill sponsors and any comments? I personally just want to thank you for carrying this bill and bringing it to us today. I think we all are very aware that we are in an age of reckoning. with a lot of past egregious behaviors. I would also submit that's a long overdue period of reckoning. I think it's so important, though, that we bring sunlight into this area and really state the case. Now, admittedly, Mr. Chavez, we can only allege criminal activity because that's the way the law works, But it's only by bringing these things to the light of day and to the public consciousness and having these public discussions on how we deal with, you know, past egregious activity. And I just really wanted to thank you for bringing this bill today. And it looks like we only have one witness signed up in person. So if you all wish to stay at the table, you should be able to. With that, we will open up the witness testimony phase, and we'll call up our witness, Richard Garcia, who's registered in four and in person. Welcome, Mr. Garcia. Take your time. Come on up, and I'm sure our capable sponsors will help you get your microphone up and running. Can you switch his microphone, please? If you'll introduce yourself, we'd love to hear your testimony.
Thank you, and good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. My name is Richard Garcia, and I reside in Erie, Colorado. And in full disclosure, I must say that I am also the proud father of Rep. Garcia, and I love her very much. I come from the beautiful valley of the San Luis, in San Luis. I was born and raised in Montevista, Colorado, a farming community that grows the great red McClure potatoes that all of you enjoy, periodically, I hope. My family, my mother, my father, and their parents were interstate migrants, farm workers that traveled throughout the state of Colorado, harvesting the fruits from the western slope and on to Fort Lupton, Platteville, Gilchrist, to harvest cucumbers, tomatoes, and we also thinned the sugar beets, of Well County. We did this alongside many other farm workers, and I came to know many other farm workers that travel from state to state to follow the crops. In 1970, the opportunity to attend the University of Colorado through the Educational Opportunity Program's Migrant Action Program, along with many friends that I grew up with and students that come from other states, provided me the opportunity to get my four-year degree. The Migrant Action Program was a program specifically for migrant farm workers. This program allowed us to complete our higher education and move on to other professional careers. I chose education. I was the executive director of the Colorado Migrant Education Resource Center, where our task was to provide training and technical assistance to schools that had migrant children enrolled in their system. It was during these five years of my work that I learned a lot of history of our farm workers in the U.S. The farm workers traveled through three migrant streams, the western stream, the central stream, and the eastern stream. The children of our farm workers changed schools five, six times during the school year. The children never had the opportunity to complete a full year of school. The migrant farm worker of education program was implemented throughout the U.S. Department, through the U.S. Department of Education, to ease the transitions of the children from one school to the other. There is much involved in this process. The farm workers and their children sacrificed a lot so that we could eat the wonderful food at the tables. I support the change to honor the millions of farm workers that continue to put food on our tables. please support the permanent change of March 31st to Migrant Farmworker Day. I also want to say that there are roughly 2.4 million farmworkers nationally. So for 2.4 million reasons, I hope that you support this particular bill. In Colorado, the vast majority of farmworkers are located in four regions. The Northeast Adams, Well County, Larimer, Boulder Counties, the Arkansas Valley, Avondale, Manzanola, Rocky IV, Granada, and Lamar, and the San Luis Valley, Center, Montevideo, and Alamosa, and the Western Slope, Delta, Olathe, Palisades, Hotchkiss, Paonia, and Sitteridge. Many farm workers who herd sheep and cattle are also located in the Northeast. Farm workers in Colorado deal with many, many work-related issues, including low wages, underpaid or unpaid wages, lack of job security, work-related injuries, occupational hazards, e.g. pesticides, heat stroke, sexual harassment, and discrimination. These problems are often compounded by the culture of fear that exists among farm workers. They fear retaliation by employers being fired or not hired back for the following season if they try to assert their rights. As such, the promise of stable employment, however degrading, is more immediate value to many workers than asserting their legal rights. Those are reasons why I think we ought to really honor the millions of foreign workers in our nation and in Colorado. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Garcia. Is there anybody else in the room who would wish to testify on House Bill 1339? Anybody in the waiting room online? Well, then we'll open up to questions. Anybody on the committee have a question for Mr. Garcia?
I just have one, sir. You mentioned the wonderful potatoes, and from down in the San Luis Valley, I have in-laws down in Monta Vista. That's about the only time I can get them because they are so highly prized. They are sold in New York and European markets, San Francisco, and oftentimes we're left with potatoes from someplace up north I think called Idaho. So yes sir. Well as you know in the 50s 60s and even close to the 70s those potatoes were harvested by hand We have harvesters now, you know. And I worked those fields, and I don't know if you did or not, but I worked those fields. Man, it's hard, hard work to do. Thank you for that.
Any other questions before we close the witness testimony? Not seeing any, thank you again. and the witness testimony phase is closed. We have our sponsors at the table. We'll open the amendment phase. Any amendments today? Not from the sponsors committee. Any amendments to 1339? Not seeing any. We will close the amendment phase, and that brings us to wrap up. We'd like to start. Oh, sorry.
Senator Cutter, please.
I was believing.
I just want to say thank you again for hearing this and helping us move this so rapidly because you've heard why it's critical. So I hope we can count on your support today.
Senator Danielson. Thank you all so much for your time. And, yes, if we had more time to weigh it out and consider, we wouldn't be coming to you like this in a rapid fashion. But this is a pretty fierce and strong demand from folks all across the country, and we have the ability to take action, and so we should. And I really hope that you'll vote with us today on this bill. Thank you.
Thank you. Committee, any comments?
I'll just say that I don't think anybody is happy about what's going on right now. You know, it's really sad. I think the revelations from Dolores Huerta really drove it home here to Colorado in many ways.
I know that there's some folks that are thinking there may be amendments if you get through committee. But again, I just want to thank you for bringing this bill to our committee. And with that, Senator Ball.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move House Bill 26-1339 to the Committee of the Whole with a favorable recommendation.
That's a good motion. Would you poll the committee, please? Senators Baisley?
Aye.
Ball?
Aye.
Lindstedt?
Aye.
Liston?
Aye.
Rich?
Aye.
Exum?
Aye.
Mr. Chair? Aye. That's a 7-0 vote. Senator Danielson?
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to note that there are folks who are considering amendments, and out of courtesy to that, I would not like this on the consent calendar.
My thoughts exactly. Thank you. And with that, you are on your way to the Committee of the Whole to be heard tomorrow, probably, on second reading. Thank you for coming in today. Thank you again, Committee. Have a good evening.
Thank you.
We've got one more bill. 1145. Okay. Okay, moving right along. Our next bill to hear in the Local Government Housing Committee is House Bill 26-1145, Mobile Home Park Water Quality. And we're looking for Rep. Velasco. I'm sorry, Rep. Cutter, or Senator Cutter. We'll take a brief sanitary 05.
Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you.
Government and Housing Committee, we'll come back to order. And we've already called up House Bill 26-1145. Welcome to Senator Cutter and the esteemed Senator from North Glen.
No. No. It's Thornton. Thornton. My apologies. I'm not esteemed. You are. I switched direction in mid-sentence there. I had something more snarky to say, and I decided it was inappropriate.
And with that, who would like to kick us off on 1145? Senator Cutter.
Thank you. Members, I'm very excited to be here today to present House Bill 26-1145. This bill makes technical fixes to a bill we passed in 2023, House Bill 23-1257, to address issues that CDPHE and the Attorney General's Office identified through implementation of the law. Prior to our bill in 2023, which I was a prime sponsor on that bill, drinking water in mobile home parks was regulated under the state's drinking water rules. But the rules only applied to mobile home parks that met the definition of a public water system, which means they supplied water to a certain number of residents and provided the infrastructure for storing, treating, and distributing the water. But not all parks do this, so our bill in 2023 extended drinking water testing to all mobile home parks in Colorado, and it allowed CDPHE to test for additional contaminants and to identify problems with the taste, odor, and color of the water. We hear from residents of mobile home parks where their drinking water meets the actual regulatory standards for health and safety, but the water tastes and smells badly. This is because it has high levels of other contaminants like sulfate, iron, and manganese, and the water stains their clothes after washing them in the washing machine. This happens when the water has a lot of hardness and leaves mineral deposits on clothes. Home appliances like bathtubs and sinks are also left with dark stains. Many of the residents have tried flushing their systems but it doesn help All of these impacts cause serious financial strains on residents Or they may just not replace the damaged appliances because it is only a matter of time until the appliances become damaged again So far, CDPHE has tested 364 mobile home parks in the state, which is about half of the parks in Colorado. Already we know there are problems like these at approximately 13% of the parks that have been tested so far. And there are even more serious risks to health being identified in some of these parks. In its testing so far, CDPHE has also found bacteria in the water, PFAS, forever chemicals, which we particularly loathe, and even arsenic. So horrible things in people's, what is supposed to be their drinking water. Although the testing program has been successful, certain changes to the law are necessary to fully realize its underlying goals and to promote program efficiency. None of the changes will result in new obligations. I want you to be clear on that. There's no new obligations for mobile home park owners, and it won't create any additional costs for the department. Perhaps the most important change is in the definitions section of the statute. The law intended for CDPHE to work with the parks to fix all water quality issues, including the situations I just described where the water may be safe to drink, but it's unusable due to poor odor, taste, and color. Currently, the law allows CDPHE to identify these concerns because they are included in the definition of a water quality issue, but CDPHE cannot require remediation of them, and only because the definition of remediation fails to include risks to welfare. So this is a semantics issue with the original structure of the bill, and we just want to clarify this to strengthen it. Before I pass this along to my co-sponsor, Senator Mullica, to summarize the bill's other provisions, I really want to thank you all for hearing this bill today, and I ask for a yes vote. I hope you can support us.
Thank you, Senator. Senator Mullica.
Thank you, Mr. Chair and Senator Exum. Long time no see. Really, before I get started, I just want to take this opportunity first to thank my co-sponsor for allowing me on this bill with her. Senator Cutter's put a lot of work into this issue, and when I came to her and asked her to be on it with her, she didn't hesitate. I grew up in a mobile home park in the southern part of the district that I represent. Representative Phillips, who represents that district in the House, has been a strong proponent along with several of our city councilmen who, and one of them's here today, and Councilman Martinez, who have been strong proponents of really trying to protect our mobile home park residents and ensuring that they have clean drinking water. And I think it's really admirable. And I just wanted to make sure I had that on the record before I got to my opening comments. Members, this is really about clean drinking water. On the surface, the changes to this bill appear to be technical and somewhat mundane, but they will have a significant impact on our ability to ensure park residents have good water to drink. This bill will align the law with its intent, which is to ensure that park residents can rely on safe water to drink and to use for everyday essential activities, such as washing clothes. The 2023 law entitled residents to be made aware of the results of their water testing. Under the law, if the park owner doesn't provide the notice, residents have to file a complaint with DOLA. But we've heard that residents don't know about the complaint process or are frustrated about having to file a complaint. Our bill will allow CDPHE to enforce the notice requirement and work directly with park owners through their existing compliance oversight process without a resident having to file a complaint first. This is important. In Adams County, there are 13 mobile home parks that have failed to notify residents of test results. This creates distrust. Residents become wary of drinking their water and they don't know if they can rely on the testing program to keep them safe. It's important that the department can work directly with park owners to enforce the resident notice requirement instead of relying on the resident complaints to DOLA. There's another important part of the bill. There's a technical defect in the drafting of the 2023 legislation regarding how monetary penalties against park owners are calculated. The law intended to allow CDPHE to collect additional penalties for ongoing months of non-compliance, but the language inadvertently allows the park owner a free first month of non-compliance. This needs to be fixed to give park owners some regulatory certainty, and it is unfair to those park owners who do address water quality issues in a timely manner. The bill fixes this issue by allowing monthly penalties to be imposed for the first month of non-compliance. Finally, the original legislation prohibited mobile home park owners from shifting the cost to comply onto park residents. But what if the park residents is also the owner? This is a catch 22. So we are going to make it clear that park owners who are residents must still pay for the cost to comply. I'll wrap up by saying that this bill reinforces the underlying objectives of the 2023 legislation by ensuring that mobile home park residents have water that is safe to drink and safe for household uses, and it also gives park owners better regulatory certainty. I ask for a yes vote on this bill to help secure this basic human need for these residents of our state.
Thank you, bill sponsors. Committee, do we have any questions for bill sponsors?
Cinder Rich. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the sponsors for bringing this bill. I kind of have a comment and then maybe a question, but I was looking at page four on the civil penalties of up to $10,000 for each violation the division may impose and then up to $5,000 for each 30-day period thereafter. Do you think with these ongoing fines that it could potentially force the owners to settle, even if they believe that WQCD acted unfairly? And what does that mean if, you know, they stop manufacturing these houses in these communities? And that might make it a lot harder for low-income households. I guess I'm getting to the point of these fees can be, you know, so high that maybe it's going to discourage mobile home parks or these locations. Senator Cutter.
Thank you. And thank you for the question, Senator Rich. I think that's a false dichotomy. I feel that by, that's putting residents in the place to have to accept inferior quality of water and things that could be harmful to them. But I will say the most important thing that I want you to know is that the CDPHE works hard with the park owner. They don't go straight to fining them. They work hard with them to create a remediation plan. There's several steps in this process. The ultimate goal for CDPHE and for all of us, I think, is to help the mobile home park owner come into line with providing safe and what are the water quality that we need to that all citizens deserve So it doesn they don get fined immediately There quite a process So by that time they already been deeply out of compliance Senator Rich, please.
Just to follow up, and don't think I dispute about the water quality. Of course that's important. I'm just worried that it might discourage park owners to discontinue having a place for low-income individuals to live if this gets too punitive. Senator Mullica.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Senator Rich. And we've worked together a number of years now, and I tend to even differ from my co-sponsors sometimes on maybe being a little more sympathetic to landlords and property owners. you know and I think I think in this case though you know I think with how important clean drinking water is and really no other option for these residents we do want to have the ability to to enforce this and to to really make sure that they are providing that I understand that I think that you know on the surface that looks you know maybe heavily punitive and and and respect that but I think when you talk to CDPHE, there is a working relationship that they have with these park owners to really try to fix this because I think everyone's goal is that clean drinking water. But if there's a park owner that doesn't want to do that, I think that there needs to be some sort of way to try to force that to happen. Understand the argument and don't want to discount your argument but I do think that the level of importance of what clean drinking water is to these folks who sometimes are already vulnerable, you know, in other ways, I think rises to that level, in my opinion.
Senator Rich, you have another follow-up?
Senator Liston. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm one of the sponsors. So I'm trying to understand this, at least in my community, and I have several mobile home parks in my district. I can think exactly where they are and so forth. So maybe you can answer this question or there will be witnesses. So there's a central, I would assume, isn't there a central piping system that comes into the mobile home park? That at least in my community, we have the Colorado Springs utilities, which the wastewater and the water division, that the water is clean as it comes through the system. So where does it get – where's the problem if it's clean as it comes into the mobile home park and then it's through other piping systems? What's the problem? How does it become not clean?
Senator Cutter. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Senator Liston. So it really – and I'm not the expert. The experts may be able to tell you a little bit more. But from what I understand, sometimes the pipes aren't buried deeply enough, and just the quality sometimes of the piping, you know, the infrastructure in the mobile home park causes it to allow, you know, chemicals and different things to leak into the water. I mean, I think that's a basic answer, and someone else might be able to delve in a little bit better, but that's essentially what I understand. And so it deeply impacts the quality of the water.
Senator Liston?
Okay very good So what I trying to understand so if the water isn clean from the city shouldn the city potentially or the water provider bear some of this cost Because it clean when it leaves the treatment facility all the way to the pipes I know when we turn on the water at our homes, it's clean. So if there's a problem of not clean water, is it fully the responsibility of the mobile? Senator Mulligan.
Yeah, so I grew up in a mobile home park centerless, and these are large areas with hundreds of mobile homes with each mobile home having their independent water tap. And so you can imagine all the pipes running under the ground within the mobile home. And so obviously you have the water coming into the property, but once you're onto the property, there is significant piping that's going on within the property. So your thought process is if it's not on the property, then maybe that's a city. What I'm trying to talk about, though, is that there's a lot of piping and a lot of things that happen within the property. I mean, if you've ever, I'm sure you've knocked doors and walked those communities, they're oftentimes pretty large. Okay. All right.
Follow up.
Senator Basley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So this bill is specifically directed, as I'm understanding it, to mobile home parks. Are there any others? Is this a broader housing provider issue, or why specifically just mobile home parks? What about all the other homes in the state?
Senator Cutter. So, again, I'm going to try, and if you have anything to add, please do, and we have experts testifying. But mobile home parks are unique. The way they're created is unique. And I think most other housing developments have a different infrastructure, if that makes sense. And so this has been a problem, specifically a problem in mobile home parks identified. So, again, that's the high-level answer. And if you want to drill down a little bit more, I'm sure someone from CDPHE could be more specific about that. Senator Mullica. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Senator Baisley. And this is the problem we're hearing about. This is the problem that's being reported to us. I'm a landlord myself. My wife and I have several properties. And we take pride in it. And we know that we need to provide a habitable unit. The tenant pays their rent. Our job is to provide a habitable unit. If the furnace goes out and it's wintertime, I need to make sure that the tenant has access to heat. And I think when you look at a habitable unit, I think that the same thing applies to clean drinking water. If something goes wrong at my unit and the tenant doesn't have access to clean drinking water, I'm not living up to my end of the bargain. And I believe that the tenant needs to live up to their end of the bargain. but I also think that we need to make sure that tenants have the ability to have a habitable unit, and I think clean drinking water is one of those. And why we're focused on this is I think it's because this is what we're hearing. This is an issue we're hearing and not necessarily in other areas.
Senator Baisley, did you have a follow-up? Committee, any additional questions for our bill sponsors? I did want to ask a question following up on Senator Liston's questions, And I think mobile home parks would be happy to have a wonderful municipal water supply like Colorado Springs. But it my understanding many of them are in more less accessible less serviced areas and so oftentimes they have a well a cistern type of system And Senator Cutter, you mentioned PFAS and some of those others, which are almost exclusively contributed into the groundwater and percolate back up. So I just wanted to ask you, is that your understanding that a lot of these are on separate well and systems? And, yes, please, Senator Cutter.
Yes, thank you, Senator Snyder. Yeah, that is absolutely my understanding. I think I alluded to that a little bit but didn't specifically say that. So thank you for the question. Great. Thank you.
Any further questions for our bill sponsors? Not seeing and hearing any. We have quite a few witnesses signed up. So let's go ahead and open the witness testimony phase and call up our first panel, Ron Falco, Stephanie Hosey, Andrew Steffen and of course Mr. Jeff Reister. And Mr. Falco, if you're ready to go, turn on your microphone, introduce yourself, and we'll start your three-minute clock for testimony.
Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. My name is Ron Falco, and I am the Safe Drinking Water Program Manager in the Water Quality Control Division at the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. We strongly support House Bill 26-1145, thanks to the bill sponsors for their leadership. Under House Bill 23-1257, CDPHE is halfway to our goal of testing the tap water in every mobile home park in Colorado. We have tested 395 parks, actually. As a result of our testing, park owners are addressing public health risks like E. coli at 38 parks. Additionally, there are parks where the water is safe to drink but unsuitable for household use. The bill does not expand the requirements of the 2023 legislation. Instead, this technical cleanup will ensure that the law is implemented as originally intended. While the 2023 legislation authorized testing for welfare-related issues, it did not provide clear authority to require remediation of those issues. This bill resolves the inconsistency by aligning the definitions of remediation and water quality issue. The law already requires that remediation be based on objective drinking water test results. This bill also streamlines the process for notifying residents of test results by allowing CDPHE to oversee that requirement. It was always the legislative intent that CDPHE would work directly with park owners on compliance. House Bill 1145 provides technical fixes to fulfill the original legislation's intent at no cost to park owners. I urge a yes vote.
Thank you, Mr. Falco. If you'll stand by, we'll hear from all the witnesses and open it up for questions. So, Ms. Hosey, if you're ready, we're ready to hear your testimony.
I'm just here for questions, and I'll be answering any questions about the testing program.
And maybe you could introduce yourself and who you represent.
Yes, I'm Stephanie Hosey. I am the mobile home parking. manager within the water quality control division. Great thank you and Mr. Stefan I believe you're also here for questions only? Yes that's correct Vice Chair. Good afternoon committee members my name is Andrew Stefan and I'm an assistant attorney general in the Colorado Attorney General's office and I'm here to answer questions in a representative capacity for the division. Thank you and Mr. Reister.
Thank you Senator Snyder, members of the committee my name is Jeffrey Reister I'm here on behalf of the Department of Law to speak in support of this important legislation. Our office obviously is the attorney's, as noted by my colleague next to me, for this division, this program, but we also have a separate role at the Attorney General's office as it relates to environmental water impacts and other immediate harms that could occur at a mobile home park. What we appreciate about this bill is, as was said earlier, these are technical fixes to ensure the underlying program that is and should be that first line of defense is able to do what is ultimately being asked of them by the General Assembly to enforce those laws and to ensure that our mobile home park residents have the safe drinking water that we all deserve. Our office can and would act as a backup when there's an immediate harm risk. This bill does not change that standard, but like I said, it ensures that CDPHE as that first line of defense, as the experts in this space are set up for success and hopefully get in front of any challenges and avoid that immediate impact. And so for us, this is a policy that can work upstream, add value for the agency, clarity for the mobile home park residents, but also the park owners, and hopefully keep our office out of this space because we are focused on working upstream to ensure the quality at these mobile home parks and not something that is more harmful to those residents. Happy to answer any questions, but I would also likely defer many of these to my colleague next to me. But if there's anything I can speak to related to our department, I'm happy to speak to that. Thank you so much.
Thank you, witnesses. Committee, do we have any questions? Chair Exum and then Senator Liston. Very good. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Falco, I'll ask you, can you kind of take us through the process of what happens if there is water quality issues at a mobile home park? How much time are they given before this $5,000 a month penalty kicks in? I know I imagine it kind of goes back and forth and so forth. Can you kind of give us a little bit of a, not in detail, but a step here, step here, a timeline before, or to Ms. Hosey? Ms. Hosey? Mr. Falco? Who wants to answer that?
Yeah, we'll have Ms. Hosey answer this question. Ms. Hosey, thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Senator, for the question. So it takes quite a while. So I will say the first thing that happens is we have our contractor go out and collect samples, and then we at the department receive those sample results, and then we notify the park owner. We have 10 days to notify the park owner that there's been a water quality issue identified. Now, the first step of remediation is typically going to be additional testing, and depending upon whether the contaminant that was identified is acute or chronic, it's either going to be a shorter time frame or a quicker time frame. If it's chronic contaminant, that could be up to a year of additional testing we'll ask. And typically it's about every quarter. So we'll have them go grab three more samples over the course of the next nine months. At that point once we had additional sampling showing more information about the levels of the water quality issue then we have them in our remediation steps And the way we've been implementing that is first we have them do a two-phase step. The first step is asking them if they've already identified a solution or if they would like to do some sort of engineering evaluation. And then if they decide that they already have a solution, then we have them go ahead and implement that. It does take quite a bit of time before we are getting to penalties. And all of the steps that I've addressed right now are just typical orders. If a park owner does not comply with an order, then we can go to a cease and desist order. So there's quite a few steps in place before we would go to penalties. And so far, we've only issued penalties to one park.
Senator Liston.
Thank you. Thank you. I appreciate that. So I think the good senator from Thornton was talking about, you know, some of these mobile home parks are pretty large. So if it were to come back that there was a problem, you know, I imagine it could be somewhat expensive to fix this. What if it came back, I'm just throwing out a number, it was a half a million dollars or so, and the mobile home park goes, gosh, I don't have a half a million dollars. I've got to get financing and all of that. That might take 90 days or several months. I don't know. So do you work with them in that regard? What about if the mobile home park says, look, I might want to do it, but I don't have the money right now?
Mr. Falco, would you like to respond?
So I would say, yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. So we do work with small communities across the state and work on this kind of thing where we're working on a water quality issue. And it does take time, hard work, and money to solve water quality problems. And so we recognize that. We're experienced with that. And when we have park owners that are facing this issue, that's the process, is we try to work with them to let them propose a plan to us and we'll help them try to develop that plan. And part of that can involve exploring funding sources and funding opportunities that could help them address this issue.
Thank you, Senator Lissinger. Do you have a follow-up?
No, except that I'll ask to be excused per my, I have to take care of something at 3.30.
Very good. I will be back, I think. Thank you. Thank you. Committee, any other questions for this first panel of witnesses? Senator Exum.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Falco, the penalty, the amount of penalties, is that consistent with penalties in other communities?
Mr. Falco.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. So this loss is specific for the penalties that are being incurred. Under the Colorado primary drinking water regulations, the maximum penalty is $1,000 per day. So this is a little bit different. And I also want to mention that the penalty that's listed is the maximum amount. So we don't go to the maximum like right away. there's kind of a process that we would use to try to calculate a penalty that we feel is appropriate for the circumstances. And as Ms. Hosey mentioned, we so far out of the 395 parks that we tested only gone to a penalty situation one time so far Okay Thank you
No follow-up?
Senator Exum.
Okay. Committee, any other questions for these witnesses? I do have one for our folks from the Attorney General's office. So I'm looking at the re-engrossed version here on page 3, subsection B2. It says, a reasonable likelihood that the finished water or water supply is not of sufficient quality to be suitable for household uses, such as drinking, cooking, bathing, washing, clothes, using with home appliances. That seems rather vague to me. Do you think it's a problem that should that be more clarified? Should we be using more measurable CDPHE metrics or something? I just worry that that seemed awfully vague to me. Mr. Stephan.
Thank you, Vice Chair. Thank you for the question. I think an important point to note is that the Division's declaration of a water quality issue is always going to be based on objective, measurable characteristics in the water. It's going to start with test results, testing the water for measurable characteristics. So this language and the definition you're looking at really is coming after that. That first, you're going to look at those objective characteristics, then you're going to turn that into a determination about whether it's a sufficient quality to be suitable for those household uses. And then as to your question about whether this definition is potentially broad, this, the number and types of welfare issues is very, very broad. And so this definition has to kind of run the gamut of every type of issue to give the division the discretion in individual circumstances to make reasonable determinations. Thank you.
Did either of you want to respond? Mr. Falco, Ms. Hozie, Mr. Reister? Any other questions for this first panel? Well, thank you all for spending some of your Thursday afternoon with the committee. And we will now call up our next panel of witnesses. In person, we have Tawny Payton. Remotely, we have Amy Bove. In person, Rachel Lehman. Also in person, Tom Haberfield. And while we're hopefully pulling up our remote witness here, we'll go ahead and jump right in with Tammy Payton. If you're ready to go, introduce yourself, and we'll start your three-minute clock.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. My name is Tani Payton. I'm the Executive Director for the Rocky Mountain Home Association. We represent the manufactured and modular home industry in Colorado, which includes the factories and the sellers, but also the mobile home parks. Is that better? Yes, that's better. Thank you. I am here to testify today in an amend position. I would like to acknowledge CDPHE's efforts to really conduct multiple stakeholder meetings and to work with the industry. They've presented at my annual conference the last couple of years, and I just really appreciate all of their outreach and willingness to work with our industry. A couple of things that I would like to mention is we are working on potential amendment language and I hope that we can continue to discuss that with the bill sponsors and the proponents The welfare language highlights the discriminatory nature of the bill and the law Mobile home parks are being mandated to provide higher quality water than any other housing provider, hospital, school, jail, etc. That comes at a great expense. And it is not only discriminatory, but it also has an impact on affordable housing. I am not negating the importance of clean water or quality water. That is important, and we all value that. The creation of the new rules associated with welfare that only apply to mobile home parks are not consistent with the EPA's Safe Drinking Water Act and Colorado's primary drinking water regulations that regulate all public water systems. So I just want, it's important to me that I point out that we really are being singled out with these regulations. And I am happy to answer any questions.
Great. Thank you. If you'll stand by, we'll hear from our other witnesses on this panel. And I see, it looks like online we have Amy Bove. If you turn on your microphone and introduce yourself, we'll start your three-minute clock.
Good morning. My name or good afternoon. My name is Amy Bove and I'm a board member with the Colorado Manufactured Housing Coalition. And I'm here today to state that we are also in an amend position. We would like to also thank CDPHE for meeting with us. They met with us this week as well, discussing an amendment to just help clarify and to seek clarity on this statute. so that the mobile home owners can continue to comply and provide wonderful water. And specifically, what we are working to resolve is this very broad language of a reasonable likelihood that the finished water or water supply. That language there, that reasonable likelihood, and I did hear some great testimony clarifying on that, that water testing is done with objective measurements. That is wonderful. However, what I would like just to tighten that up to get that true clarity there so that not only can we comply, but just like other people testified, we can get ahead of that compliance to make sure we meet those objective requirements when it comes to welfare is to add the language to that section. keep reasonable likelihood that the finished water will be suitable for household uses, but then to add at the end, based on measurable characteristics established in the division's mobile home park water quality policies. CDPHE has a wonderful policy. It is a point system. However, as we know, policies can change or they can even go away. But by tying this specifically into that policy, which can be amended over time, I'm not citing a specific policy, but that is somewhere where whether it is, you know, the water person hired by the park knows exactly what those elements need to be met for welfare. Because welfare is like smell, taste, color, hardness. All of those that say hardness could have an impact onto like a washing machine, right? It would be incredibly catastrophic for many families to lose an appliance and need to replace that. We want to get ahead of that. And one of the ways, because this is being an amendment to strengthen a law, that is, to clarify, to clean up, let's make sure our new amendments have that clarity as well. So please, let's keep working on this amendment just to make sure that clarity ensures that the mobile home communities can provide this water at the level it should be for our Colorado people. Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Boven. If you'll stand by, we have two more witnesses on this panel. Ms. Rachel Lehman.
Hi, all. I'm Rachel Lehman, and I'm with the Black and Brown Parents United Foundation, and we serve the disproportionately impacted communities of North Denver, Aurora, and Commerce City. There are a lot of mobile homes in our area, and we really would like to thank the sponsors for bringing forth this bill, and we are strongly for this bill at this time. Mobile homes are often the last affordable option for families struggling to get by. Yet even here, basic stability is never guaranteed. When families finally settle in, they can find themselves facing rashes, unexplained illnesses, and constant uncertainty. Without safe water, shelter, and food, people simply cannot thrive. How demoralizing is it if you are a parent with limited means and can't afford to live in a safe place? That's why HB 261145, the mobile home park quality bill, matters. It builds on HB 231257, which began the push for clean water in mobile home parks and strengthens the tools agencies have to hold park owners accountable and protection for families who need it the most. I appreciate the consideration of the bill writers not putting the cost of fixing water quality on the residents. In our work, we work with lots of families in mobile homes. We have heard from community members that they are not even allowed to talk to us as outsiders. So we want to ensure that the onus of the responsibility is not on the resident to report, but owners to actually provide safe water. If lot owners cannot provide safe homes and safe water, we should question if they should operate at all. Cutting corners certainly helps with profit margins and shareholders, but enough is enough. This bill is a critical step to ensure that mobile home residents aren't left behind when it comes to something as basic as clean, safe water. Thank you.
Thank you. And now we'd like to hear from Tom Haberfield.
Good afternoon, Chair Axum, committee members. I'm Tom Haberfield, professional engineer with Pinyon Environmental, and I'm here representing the American Council of Engineering Companies. ACEC Colorado is a trade association of 250 small, medium, and large-sized consulting engineering firms, such as mine, that collectively employ more than 13,500 Coloradans. ACEC Colorado supports House Bill 1145. Clean, safe, and reliable water systems are foundational to healthy communities, and House Bill 1145 takes meaningful steps to address persistent water quality challenges in mobile home parks across the state. Consulting engineering firms such as mine work directly in the environmental and water sectors of the industry and understand the critical role that testing, remediation, planning, and ongoing system oversight plan ensuring water is safe and usable for everyday household needs. This bill appropriately recognizes that water issues affecting residents welfare deserve timely attention We strongly believe that the clear authority and enforcement mechanisms provided in this bill are essential to achieving effective and lasting solutions By strengthening compliance, notification, and remediation requirements, House Bill 1145 helps ensure that water quality problems are addressed proactively and professionally rather than after extended delays, repeated failures, or legal battles. My first job after college was with an environmental remediation firm. I worked on several projects myself involving contaminated groundwater in rural areas, where many residents rely on well water in their homes. The shock, fear, confusion, and often anger as well are all common and perfectly valid reactions when a person finds out the water they've been relying on for years is or may be contaminated through no fault of their own. Reliable water infrastructure is not optional. It is essential to dignity, health, and quality of life. Thank you for your time and I'm happy to answer any questions.
Thank you. Committee, do we have any questions for these witnesses? I do have a question for the first two witnesses that were in an amend position. So we heard from the Attorney General's representative that this builds on the 23 law and on an existing water quality act. he felt there was sufficient guidance and objective measures in there. But I think the same section you're concerned with was the one I brought up, which is the reasonable likelihood language. So would you be looking for more specified language on what objective measures would be used, recaptured into this bill, or I just want to hear exactly what your amend would be asking for. Online, Ms. Booth.
Thank you, Senator. Yes, that is the same provision that you brought to the panel's attention earlier. So what is unique about this bill, sir, is that this is also regulating welfare. Now, I have heard some people argue that since the typical testing, with the exception of welfare, which is what all the other water providers are being tested on, that health standard that has had long, objectable measures, you know, that often mirror the federal ones or state can be even stricter. Excuse my dog. What we're talking about here is welfare. And that is new. That is new for the state. That is new for manufactured housing communities. And so there, what I am stating is, is we need to make sure we tie that welfare into an objective measurement. Now, CDPHE has written a policy directly to welfare, and it just came out a few weeks ago. At least that's when I got it. Now, that does have some objective identifiers, like let's say on hardness. There are some minerals there that they say that this amount is where it becomes problematic. What I would like to do for us who are actually practitioners and providing this housing is to take the unknown, the wide breadth, the lack of clarity that is currently in the language I read and you identified by specifically adding, and this is my language or actually Mr. Goldberg's language, my associate attorney, is to add on to that based on measurable characteristics established in the division's mobile home. park water quality policies. You'll notice there we're talking about, we're tying it to welfare, which is unique to us. We are then tying it to a policy created for mobile home communities, because we all heard great testimony on how mobile home parks are unique with their infrastructure at the bottom And then this ties in also if we in front of a judge who doesn understand water altogether he clearly or she can clearly say, oh, did your metals reach to X? Did it reach to now? Right now there's just a policy, which is guidance. But we would like the statute to say the policy has teeth and you can rely on it, whether you are a tenant or whether you are the landlord. But we know what the expectation is. It's not moving, and we can do it, and people can have the water they deserve. Thank you.
Thank you. Yes, Ms. Payton.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes, and I just wanted to add the comment that was shared with me was the request to have an explanation of our subjectivity so that we really understand what we're being tested for. Great.
Thank you. Senator Baisley.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and specifically for Ms. Bowe, but anyone else as well. So the couple things that made me kind of trip up in the language of the bill, one of those specifically is here is the risk to welfare, and then it defines the welfare, negatively affecting the ability of the individuals to meet basic material needs, risk to welfare includes this part makes sense to everyone I would think a reasonable likelihood that the finished water or water supply is not a sufficient quality to be suitable for household uses such as drinking, cooking, bathing, washing clothes and using home appliances. Okay. But the one right before it says and it includes negatively affecting the finances of a household. Is that do y'all have any comment on that of how CDPHE ought to be looking at water or at least risk to welfare that includes negatively affecting the finances of a household? I can share with that one.
Ms. Lehman, for the thousands of people listening online, we want to make sure they know who's speaking. So Ms. Lehman, please.
Thank you. My bad. So if you're a parent, for instance, let's just give you a real world scenario here. And your child gets rashes or some kind of skin disorder or something like that, you might have to take off work. You might have to, the child may not be able to go to school because of discomfort, etc. You might have to wash clothes, linens, everything else, which also costs money at the laundromat. You might also have to do some things in your home as well to manage this. You might have to purchase water from Walmart or something, those big blue five-gallon things. there's a lot of things that go into just ensuring that you're going to have clean water and also making sure that you clean up the mess that the bad water basically caused in your household. Thank you.
Follow-up? No. Any other questions for this panel? Ms. Bove has a response.
Ms. Bove, yes. Yes. Thank you very much. Also in response to that Senator that ties in with that idea of if a tenant is being negatively impacted due to the welfare right their welfare is being impacted is this idea of say there is a child with rashes Why it is so important then to have that additional language is so that based on measurable characteristics in the policy is the policy lists certain chemicals that have been known, say, to cause rashes or to cause buildup in appliances. So that's why the first idea or the first testing, guys, as it was explained to me through, as I understood it, through the CDPHE, is if we use their policy, we look at those hard objective standards. And then their second is to then look at complaints and say, oh my goodness, this mobile home community has five complaints about children with rashes. And now we're looking up and we can see that there is an objective amount of X that has then been scientifically proven to be related. Now let's get a remediation plan together. But if we just have rashes, it becomes amorphous. It becomes because there are many causations for rashes. That's why a lot of this can just be so tightened up, clarified to the benefit of every single tenant in a mobile home community and to the landlords themselves to prove it by creating that additional language, tying the objective standards in CDPHE's current policy. Thank you.
Thank you. Follow-up? Not seeing any more questions. Thank you all very much for spending some of your Thursday afternoon with us. And while they're clearing the table, we'll call up our next panel of witnesses, Sonia Sarabia, Dave Dinovelis, Justin Martinez, and Tykee James, first three being in person and the last remote. So, great. And we'll just go right in order and Miss Sarabia, if I might be saying that wrong, but if you'd like to introduce yourself, we'll start your clock for testimony. The little button on the table, you push that itself and it turns green. And folks, before you get started, for some reason, it might be me, but I'm not hearing everybody as well as I could, so if you could get closer to the microphone, we can... Okay, can you hear me now? Yes.
Okay, thank you, Chairman and members of the committee for hearing our testimony. My name is Sonia Saravia, and I'm a community organizer with 925 Colorado. Thank you for the opportunity to speak in support of House Bill 26-1145 today. 925 is a member-based organization that works with economic justice with a focus on gender and racial equality. We have been organizing with residents of mobile home parks since 2015. Our members have helped pass important protections including mobile home park water quality testing program created by House Bill 23-1257. First, I want to thank the bill sponsors and CDPHE for bringing this bill forward. This bill responds directly to what we're hearing from our members and strengthening the water quality program. As an organizer, I regularly talk to families who live in mobile home parks. Residents constantly raise concerns about their water. Some families describe water that smells metallic or like chemicals. Some have seen changes in color. Others avoid drinking water from the tap and instead buy bottled water or water filters because they don't feel safe consuming the tap water. on their mobile home park community. For families already living in tight budgets, especially seniors on fixed incomes and parents of young children, this creates stress and additional financial burden. House Bill 1145 fixes the important gap in current law. Right now the state can identify water quality issue that affects residents' well-being, but because of how remediation is defined, the state may not be able to require the park to fix the problem. This bill aligns those definitions so that when there's a problem, the state can require action. The bill also improves how residents are notified. Many residents tell us they did not know when their testing is happening. They do not know when the park is being tested by the park management. They are not clearly told the results and often left wondering, is this water safe to drink? Is it safe to cook with? To bait the children? To give to their pets? When testing happens but residents are not informed, it creates a confusion and fear. Families should not have to rely on rumors or search for answers. They deserve clear, direct information. This bill strengthens the notification requirements. It makes enforcement simpler. It allows CDPHE to respond more quickly if park owners fail to notify residents. It also allows residents to contact CDPHE directly about notice problems instead of navigating additional complaint processes. At the end of the day, residents want transparency. They want clear information, and they want confidence that their water is safe. 925 Colorado urges you to vote yes on House Bill 26-1145.
Thank you. Your timing is impeccable. And now we'd like to hear from Mr. Dave DeNovellis.
I say it different ways. It always works, Senator Snyder. My name is Dave DeNovellis, and I'm here today on behalf of Alex Sanchez, president and CEO of Vosa Zunitas, a nonprofit organization based on the Western Slope. Vosa Zunitas is here in strong support of HB 26-1145. In March 2022, residents of the Apple Tree Mobile Home Park in Newcastle took rust-colored water from their homes to a meeting with the Garfield County Commissioners. They told their officials their water tasted bad and made their kids sick, stained their clothes, caused rashes, and destroyed plumbing and appliances, and nothing happened. I grew up in a mobile home park, Alex being that, and the Roaring Fork Valley, too. He knows that smell, that taste, and that color all too well. After years of stories like these, Vosa Sunitas partnered with residents from more than 90 mobile home parks on the western slope and joined forces with organizations and communities on the front range to help pass the original mobile home park quality testing program. We are very grateful to Senator Cutter, Senator Mullica, Rep. Velasco, Rep. Phillips, and all the other sponsors for their leadership on this issue. We appreciate CDPHE for being a real valued partner as this program has rolled out. We knew in 2023 we would need to come back to the legislature once testing data and results started to come in so we could learn what was working, what wasn't, and how to address the root cause of our water issues. HB 26-1145 is one of these improvement bills. It makes sure the program responds to what residents actually experience with their water, taste, smell, and color, and it adds accountability so residents aren't left living with bad water and getting brushed off when they ask for answers. Thank you for supporting safe and clean water for all, including families and mobile home parks,
and please vote yes on HB 26 Thank you AND NOW JUSTIN MARTINEZ JUSTIN you Mr Chair and members of the committee My name is Justin Martinez and I serve as a council member for the city of Thornton. I'm here today to speak in strong support of HB 26-1145 on behalf of my constituents and the city of Thornton. First, though, I'd like to thank my representative, Representative Jackie Phillips and Senator Mullica for sponsoring this bill. I'd also like to thank the other sponsors, Representative Velasco and Senator Cutter. The city of Thornton is the sixth largest city in Colorado and home to the largest concentration of mobile home residents in the state, with over 3,500 individual mobile homes across our community. These are more than just housing units. They represent the backbone of our workforce, our seniors on fixed incomes, and families who are striving for their piece of the American dream. However, for too many of these residents, that dream is currently being compromised by the very infrastructure they rely on. In my time walking these parks and speaking directly with residents, a clear and troubling pattern has emerged. While many of park owners are responsible, we are seeing an increasing number of out-of-state and negligent landlords who treat these communities as nothing more than line items on a balance sheet. They are skimping on essential park maintenance, and the results are not just unsightly, they are dangerous. And even worse, many of these residents are afraid to report violations in fear of retaliation. The most critical point of failure is often the private water and wastewater systems. Unlike residents in traditional neighborhoods who rely on municipal utilities, these residents are at the mercy of private systems maintained by the park owner. I heard the stories firsthand. For example, families are afraid to bathe their children because of the brown metallic water coming from their taps. There's a literal stench of sewage spills that go unaddressed for days, creating biohazard in the yards and playgrounds where children play. And overall, there's a persistent anxiety that the basic health and safety of their home is being sacrificed to meet the bottom line. Water quality is not a luxury. It is a fundamental human right. Sewage management is not an optional item. It's a public health necessity. HB 26-1145 provides the necessary accountability. By strengthening the standards for these private systems and ensuring there are meaningful consequences for neglect, this bill gives our residents the protection they deserve. It ensures that private does not mean unregulated or substandard. My residents are asking for water that is clear, air that is clean, and peace of mind that their landlord is held to the same basic standards of human decency and infrastructure safety as anyone else. On behalf of the 3,500 mobile home households in Thornton and the thousands more across Colorado living in these communities, I urge you to pass HB 261145. Let's ensure that affordable housing remains safe housing. Thank you for your time and your service to our state.
Thank you, Counselor. And we have one more witness on this panel online. Mr. James, if you'll unmute yourself and introduce yourself, we'll start your three-minute clock.
Absolutely. Thank you so much. Good afternoon, Committee. My name is Tykee James and I'm here on behalf of Conservation Colorado, our state's largest environmental advocacy organization. I testify in strong support of HB 26 1145, which will deliver meaningful water quality improvements for mobile home park residents, including for many Latino communities, seniors, veterans, and people with disabilities. Conservation Colorado was among one of the organizations that helped establish the Mobile Home Park Water Quality Act in 2023, because we also heard residents of mobile home parks had been voicing concerns over their water quality issues for quite some time and those concerns were largely going unheard Mobile home park residents deserve the same water quality protections as all Coloradans. The idea of this bill emerged directly from CDPHE's first year of implementing the Water Quality Act. While the language is very technical, the intended outcomes are very simple. If passed, this bill would ensure all water quality issues can be remediated through clearer administrative processes, guarantee residents receive timely notifications when issues are found, and clarifies that the department's direct enforcement authority to compel compliance. Special thanks to our champs and sponsors. We've heard their names a lot, Rep. Velasco and Phillips and Senator Cutter and Mullica, who ensured community feedback shaped the legislative language. this bill means you're supporting what it means to get it right, that knowing better and this is our opportunity to do better. I urge your yes vote to do better by mobile home park residents. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. James. Committee, do we have any questions for these four witnesses? I'm not seeing any. Thank you all very much for giving us your time. And thank you, Councillor. Okay, we've got one panel. I think three people left to testify, all remotely. So we'll ask to bring up Sam Stegner, Nicole Manriquez, and Manuel Marquez. You have all three? Great. So, Mr. Stegner, if you're ready to testify, if you can turn on your camera, please. unmute yourself and introduce yourself and we'll start your testimony clock.
Yes, hello. My name is Sam Stegner and I'm here in support of House Bill 26-1145. I'm a 14-year resident in Harmony Village, which is an RHP community with a $7 billion valuation, 31 communities in Colorado alone and 373 parks across the nation. I currently live here raising my three kids with my husband. I'm a Colorado native and a lifelong mobile home resident having grown up in Collins Air in a unit that my dad still lives in today. Growing up that mobile home was mine and so many others. Stability, my grounding, my refuge, and my home all thanks to my grandma. I know firsthand the vital role these communities play in providing affordable and affordable living situations. Across Colorado, I hear concerns from residents regarding the taste, odor, smell, color of the water in our mobile home parks. I've heard of anything from owners not sharing water testing results, smells of chemicals, pink or cloudy water, and concerns that come from a worry of cross-contamination from sewage issues as well. This issue is exasperated by the severe lack of communication from park management. Residents are kept in the dark. We continue to not know when our park's water is going to be shut off for repairs, which can cause loss of appliances. And we also do not know when we're being tested for water quality or of the testing results when they do occur. This creates a fundamental cycle of mistrust. Management at Harmony Village specifically is one of our biggest barriers. We currently face a manager who cuts corners on various issues. Retaliation is also a very daily reality, ranging from improper for proper lease removals to constant eviction threats and even threats of restraining orders to ban us residents from the office in the clubhouse While we fight for systematic change we need intern solutions and we deserve proper education unit checks and safe drinking water This bill is a step forward to protect my family my neighbors and the other 740 mobile communities across Colorado So thank you all for your time and your support to this.
Thank you. If you'll stand by, we'll go ahead and call up Nicole Monriquez.
Thank you, Chair and members of the committee. My name is Nicole Manriquez, and I'm an affirmative homeowner litigation attorney at CED Law, the legal arm of the Community Economic Defense Project. I'm here to testify in support of Bill 1145. In 2023, Colorado enacted the Mobile Home Park Water Quality Act. As a result, the state has taken important steps to test water quality in mobile home parks and begin remediation efforts. This bill has strengthened and clarified the existing law, ensuring that the state has the authority and tools needed to effectively enforce standards and fully remediate water quality issues. The bill makes a simple but important fix. It requires mobile home park owners to address not just unsafe drinking water, but also serious water quality issues that affect daily life like bad taste, discoloration, hardness, and odor. While these may not all violate federal health standards, they still force many families to spend limited income on bottled water and deal with damaged appliances. Across Colorado, especially in rural communities, residents are living with water they can't comfortably drink, cook with, or even bathe in. In the course of my work, I have visited communities where the water is so hard and odorous that residents don't use it for cooking and bathing, much less drinking. Some residents have obtained gym memberships just to shower in water that doesn't cause itchiness, dryness, or discomfort. Others purchase bottled water weekly from local stores or collect water from nearby rivers. In some communities, the water quality is so poor that it rapidly corrodes household appliances, including washing machines, boilers, and even sink fixtures, forcing residents to replace them on a yearly basis and sometimes more often. By requiring these welfare issues to be fixed, the bill closes a gap in current law and ensures water is not only safe, but also usable and reliable. This bill also streamlines enforcement to make sure that residents are actually notified about their water test results. Right now, enforcement is split between agencies and in many cases depends on residents filing a complaint, something that many residents are not aware of or able to do. As a result, notification often falls through the cracks. This bill gives CDPHE clear authority to enforce notification requirements in all cases, making the process simpler and more consistent. It reduces the burdens on residents and helps hold park owners accountable without requiring families to navigate a complicated complaint system. This bill is practical, common sense update that ensures the law works in a way that it was intended. It closes critical gaps, strengthens enforcement, and makes sure our communities and our families are not left in the dark or forced to shoulder the burden of poor water quality on their own. I ask you to vote yes on Bill 1145. Thank you.
Thank you. And our next witness will be Manuel Marquez. If you're ready, we'll start your clock. You want to introduce yourself and give us your testimony.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the committee. My name is Manuel Marquez. I had signed up on behalf of myself, but I'm also representing Cultivando, a local grassroots community-led organization that advocates for the health of communities. So I live in a mobile home park. within the last year I received a notification application via a paper on the door. It read that some leak in the water might have contaminated it, that it was not safe to drink, to cook, to brush teeth, to wash dishes, to shower, and that it could lead to infections, diseases, or even parasites. So that was very alarming. And I don't know how long the paper was sitting there before I read it, how much of that water had already been consumed, because in my opinion, there wasn't proper notice of the issue. And I imagine that was the case for the other 700 families that live in my specific mobile home park. And my organization has heard from community reports of people's hair falling out, skin irritation, bumps after showering. And this is only happening in impacted communities like mine. So this was all a very humbling experience, members of the committee. It made me feel very unsafe and uneasy. I was worried for the well-being of my mom, my little brother, my cat, as well as my own. And so to emphasize Senator Molica's point, yeah, I don't know if I can count on the testing. There wasn't a lot of clarity on what was going on, what the process was to fix it. All I was given was an estimate of a time frame of how long and when to definitely not drink the water. So that didn't mean that I felt comfortable going back to using my water as usual. And that is a huge burden on one's quality of life. It all felt very icky and there really wasn't any clarity on whether something could be done on my end. What was the follow up? So even as a college educated, English speaking, technologically fluent individual, this was still very hard for me to grasp. So imagine how hard it might be for someone's grandmother, parent or a person with accessibility needs. And I never knew anything since. So when I became aware of a mobile home park water quality program and that this bill sought to strengthen and fix the gaps, I knew that it was fundamental for so many communities, namely immigrant and working class, that this bill passed. So I believe a goodwilled and functional government would pass it, and I ask for a yes vote.
Thank you, sir. Committee, do we have any questions for these three witnesses? Not seeing any. Thank you all for sticking with us past four o'clock and for your testimony. And, folks, that's all the people we have signed up to testify. Is there anybody in the room who didn't sign up and still wish to testify? Is there anybody waiting in online? No? Well, then we will close the testimony phase. And we'll take our time getting the bill sponsors back up to the table. . . She's on her way back. Okay. . Ask him where his blue ox and axe are. Thank you Your timing is impeccable, Senator. Okay, we will open up the amendment phase. Senator Bunyan, I'm Melka. Do you have any amendments today? We don't have any amendments, Mr. Chair. Committee, any amendments? Not seeing any, we will close the amendment phase. And that brings us to wrap up. Who would like to kick it off? Senator Cutter. Thank you, committee.
So I just want to clarify a few things about this legislation. I am so happy to sponsor this again. I think clean, healthy water is such a basic human right. And I want you all to know that risk to welfare, the specific framing, was in the 2023 bill that I sponsored. No remediation will ever occur without testing. When it comes to risk to welfare, we also look at the impacts to the residents. So CDPHE has a really robust screening tool where they interview residents and score answers in a measurable way based on their experiences. Can you hand me my phone? I have a copy of it, actually, because it's got some good – is it there? Oh, I don't know what I did. Okay, never mind. No worries. No, it's on my phone. I took a picture of it. Because I want you to understand, this is a really robust tool. Oh, thank you. So they have, there's many, many things that they, metrics that they use to score. So they look at things like, you know, visible tint in the water gets 10 points. If there's a metallic taste or blue-green staining, that's 10 points. Something like hardness, deposits, colored water, staining, safety tests, they get, you know, five points. So they use all, and if anyone is interested, I can make sure that y'all get copies of the screening tools so you understand this. So they do all these things, testing actual minerals and things in the water, and then the effects. It's very robust. And then they will, so that's part of the follow-up testing. And you heard from park owners that they liked CDPHE's policy. So it's not necessary to codify it. It's working well. That is our belief. We heard from park owners they don't like reasonable likelihood. That language is critical because without it, CDPHE can only act when there's actual harm. That means after someone is sick. This is a preventable, you know, this is a preventative measure. It's a preventative program. It's not designed to help people after they're sick. That should not, we should never be in a place that you're sick because of your water and then, oh, okay, we're going to go in and make them fix it. If there ways to address this up front we believe very strongly that it needs to occur Things like people have reported things like their dogs won drink the water Their dogs will walk away from the water That's pretty serious. Their washing machines. Can you imagine you live in a mobile home park? And so, you know, likely you're lower income and your washing machine is so stained that it's ruining your clothes. Your clothes are getting, picking up these colors and, you know, different stains. that's huge. That would be an inconvenience for me. That's debilitating for somebody to have to look at thousands of dollars in replacing these things. So these are preventable issues. CDPHE has moved in good faith to try to work them through and partner with park owners to make it better. But people deserve to have healthy, safe water. And I hope you agree and can support this legislation.
Thank you, Senator Cutter. And the assist goes to Ms. Ellis. And now Senator Mullica.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, the committee, for giving this bill the attention I think that it deserves. At the end of the day, it's simple. This bill is about clean drinking water no matter where you live, whether it's, you know, and if you live in a mobile home park, you deserve that clean drinking water. And one of my mobile home parks that is just down the street from where I grew up, they actually found salmonella seeping out of the ground. from leaks within the park and that stuff does find a way into drinking water and so when you're doing that we need to have ways to fix that we need to make sure that folks have a healthy place to live and healthy water to drink and bathe and and and cook and do their dishes and everything and that's why I'm on this bill and I want to again extend my gratitude to Senator Cutter for for letting me on this bill because this is a big issue in my community. We do have a significant number of mobile home parks in Thornton and Federal Heights that, and they deserve representation. They deserve safe drinking water. I will say though, I listened to testimony and I spoke to Senator Cutter. I've spoken to CDPHE. And if this bill gets out of this committee today, I think there's a willingness to continue conversations to try to, to see if we can address some concerns that we heard. And Senator Cutter and I both agree that we're always willing to have those conversations to see what we can do and how we can address that. And so that's our commitment to you today. You know, if the bill does get out, that we're willing to continue having those conversations. CDPHE is willing to continue having those conversations. But at the end of the day, what we're trying to achieve here is a real thing. And it's a real issue for people that live in our state and specifically live in my district. And that's why I'm on this bill, and I would ask for a yes vote.
Thank you. Committee, any closing comments?
Senator Rich. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And Senator Mullica, thank you for what you just said, because I was going to ask, considering there were some testimony about possible amendments, if you were going to take that into consideration before or during second reading, if you make it to the floor.
Senator Mullica, do you want to respond? I'll just reiterate, yes, thank you, Senator Rich. More than willing to have those conversations. I think there's been conversations previously and maybe some different pieces of information, but we're more than willing to try to figure it out and see if we can address it and work with some of the folks that we heard from today in testimony to see if we can find those solutions So yeah you have 100 percent of my commitment to do that Senator Bazley
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
So, yeah, I'm with you on clean water. I mean, you've lived around the world like I have. You realize, you know, the civilized world has clean water. You know, the U.S. is not unique, but it's certainly known for. Or anywhere that you turn on a water fountain or a faucet, you ought to be able to trust that that water is good for you to drink across the country. So the two issues I have with it, one is that it includes this weird part that says risk to welfare includes negatively affecting the finances of a household. That's, it just seems like that's a door open that a lot of issues could run through it. So that's something I want to talk with you about, a potential amendment that could get me there. The other one just wouldn't fit under the title, but this should not be something specific to one area of household. It should be to the whole state, even the nation. So I'm concerned about that. I think it ought to be a standard. But anyway, we'll talk. I'm going to be a friendly no for now and ready to move over to a yes if we can make a couple adjustments.
Thank you. Thank you. Any other – Senator Ball?
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just wanted to thank the sponsors first for your willingness to keep engaging on some of what we heard in committee today. But also for bringing this bill, you know, to Senator Baisley's point, I'm in a part of Denver where we still have the lead pipes. and so everybody, like my kids have actually, they've grown up where they can't drink the water. We have to keep filtering it. It's not the biggest deal. We can do it, but it is a little weird because I grew up where wherever there was a faucet, you could turn it on, school, home, and you knew you could drink the water and it wasn't until I traveled until I saw that there were lots of places where that wasn't true. But I couldn't agree more. I mean, clean water is just a, that's table stakes. Everybody has to have it And I appreciate you sticking up for communities where it's harder to get that, and there's real issues with getting that. And I think it is a place where we do need to take a pretty uncompromising stance. So thank you.
Senator Liston.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and committee members. My apologies. Once again, I had something that I could not get out of at 3.30ish. but once again as I mentioned I do have a number of mobile home parks in my district. In fact I think I recall that when I was in the house my former house district has more mobile home parks than any other district I think. Something like that but anyways I know where they are. Believe me they're prevalent and they're good people. They really are and as I think about this that it's a lifestyle that they want and that our society needs. Not everybody can afford a condo or an apartment. And I understand the ramifications. I'm sorry I was not here for the testimony of whatever went on, but I trust you. I really do. And you're a good man to work with. and so I'm going to be a yes for today that we will be able to work on other issues so I'll be a yes for today because of you Okay, any other
Posing comments? Seeing none, Senator Ball.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move House Bill 26-1145 to the Committee of the Whole with a favorable recommendation.
That's a good motion. Would you poll the committee, please? Senators Baisley?
A reluctant no. Ball?
Aye. Lindstedt?
Aye. Liston?
Aye. Rich?
Aye. Exum?
Aye. Mr. Chair?
Aye. That's six to one on the way to the committee of the whole. Thank you, Senator Mullica and Cutter. With that, we have one bill left today, and we are going to hand the chair over to Senator Rich while the bill sponsors get in position. Thank you.
All right, we're back in the Senate local government and housing, and we're happy to have the chair of this committee and the vice chair of this committee, Senator Exum, and Senator Snyder to present House Bill 26-1187. Who would like to proceed?
Senator Exum. Thank you, Madam Chair. Shall the Division of Fire Prevention and Control be allowed to continue its fire suppression registration and inspection program, which allows the Division to make sure that the life safety systems, like fire sprinklers, are installed and maintained according to the nationally recognized standards? That's the question before us today, and I say yes. The program has been around since 1991 and renewed several times since then. the program allows the Division of Fire Prevention to register fire suppression system contractors, verify the conformity of installations to establish the standards, and clarifies or certifies inspectors for fire suppression systems. Division can also conduct inspections in public schools, hospitals, and areas that do not have a local authority to do so. According to the National Fire Protection Association, a fire department is responding to a fire every 23 seconds in 2023. Wherever located, fire suppression systems are also always the first line of defense in fighting a fire. One sprinkler is typically enough to control a fire. From 2017 to 2021, fire sprinklers were effective in controlling a fire in 97% of incidents in which they were triggered. Given the deadliness of fires and the effectiveness of fire suppression systems, there is a clear necessity that fire suppression systems be properly installed by qualified individuals. A system can only protect lives if it is the appropriate system and is installed correctly Faulty design or workmanship could lead to sprinklers not being triggered which could lead to increased chance of fire injury or worse death In 2023, one home-related fire injury occurred every 52 minutes. A home-fire-related death occurred every three hours. The Colorado Fire Suppression Registration and Inspection Program ensures fire suppression systems can work properly in the event of sudden fire. However, current law, this vital life-saving program is set to expire September 1, 2026. But the bill before you now, House Bill 26-1187, adopts the recommendation of Sunset Review Report done by DORA to continue this fire suppression program for another 11 years. The bill also makes changes to replace gender-specific terminology with gender-neutral terminology. This is a good bill and vital bill. I encourage the committee to vote yes and I welcome any questions. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you. Senator Schneider. Thank you, Madam Chair. Seldom, as I felt, have felt less qualified to present a bill than I have sitting next to my esteemed colleague here, I believe, was a 40-year plus. Well. 36. 36-year and retired as a battalion chief or? Yes. So with that, I'm just going to give you a little tidbit of history here. So the first modern version of fire suppression system was installed in the London Theatre Royal in 1812. It involved an airtight reservoir containing 100 tons of water that would feed into small pipes pierced with holes, thus creating the sprinkler effect. The first commercial sprinkler system was invented in 1874 by Henry S. Parmalee in Connecticut to protect his piano shop. If a fire broke out, the heat would shatter the bulb and place each individual sprinkler head and release water. So from those humble beginnings, we have now such a robust system. As Mike Coprine described, it has really been just transformational in protecting lives. And this is a sunset. We are looking to renew it for another 11 years, and I would humbly ask for your support. Thank you.
Thank you, Senator Schneider. Are there questions from the committee? Okay. Seeing none, we'll go to testimony. I understand that there were two, but now there's one that will testify remotely, and that is Chris Brunette. So you can stay right where you are. Thank you. Go from there. For Chris Brunette, we're ready for your testimony. Please go ahead.
Thank you. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members of the committee. It's an honor to be speaking with you here today in support of House Bill 26-1187. My name is Chris Brunette. I serve as the Chief of the Fire and Life Safety Section with the Colorado Division of Fire Prevention and Control. I'd like to take this opportunity to pass on from Director Mike Morgan his regrets for not being able to attend today. I'd like to begin by thanking the sponsors for bringing this bill forward as suppression systems serve a critical role in keeping our citizens safe. I also like to thank both of the sponsors here today for their expert testimony as well as Senator Exum for his service to the fire service This bill continues the fire suppression program within the division which we have been administering for over 35 years As the administrator, we oversee and manage the design and installation of the fire suppression systems that are installed throughout the state. Additionally, we register all individuals and companies installing these systems, ensuring they have the experience and knowledge necessary to install these critical life safety systems. We also certified the individuals inspecting the work conducted by registered installers, culminating in the assurance that these systems can be depended on to protect life and property in the unfortunate event of a fire. These systems not only protect life, but also protect the structures by keeping fires small until the arrival of firefighting resources. Again, I want to thank the sponsors for bringing this bill forward, and I urge a yes vote today. I'm happy to answer any questions, and thank you again.
Thank you, Mr. Burnett. Are there any questions from the committee? Okay. Senator Liston?
Yeah, I won. It might be a silly question, but why 11 years or not 10 or 5 or something? How did 11 come up?
To maybe the gentleman. Mr. Burnett, did you hear the question? Why was it?
I did. Okay. Yeah. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'll be happy to answer that question. Under the review of this program that was done by DORA, they felt like it rose to the significance of making sure that it was extended for a good period of time. I think they can do up to 15 years. And the last one they did, I believe, was for seven years. And so they kind of found the midpoint between the two at 11, if I remember correctly. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Burnett. That was going to be my question as well. Are there any further questions for this? Okay. Thank you so much for being here with us this evening, and we'll let you get on with your evening.
Thank you.
Are there any further members that wish to testify in the room or online? Wait, I'm looking. Don't see anyone. There will be no further wishing to testify. The testimony is closed. Okay. Sponsors, are there any amendments?
No amendments, Madam Chair.
All right. Any amendments from the committee? No amendments. The amendment is closed. Second reading. Second reading. Okay. All right. Now we're to the bill. Would one of you like to move the bill to appropriations? Senator Exum.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I move House Bill 261187 to the Committee on Appropriations with a favorable recommendation.
That is an appropriate motion. Would you like to have a closing?
Sure, Madam Chair. Thank you for that. Just a quick story about how important this is. I was the bill sponsor on the last time this program was sunsetted when I was in the house And in the early 80s from 1981 to 84 I was a fire inspector with the Colorado Springs Fire Department. That wasn't working on the line. That was working 8 to 5. And my job was to look over plans, fire suppression plans. I had no previous experience, so I was on the job training. So we looked over the plans, and then we went out and did a final inspection to make sure the plan, what was installed was what they said they were going on the plans. And then when you're out there doing the inspection, you have to do what's called a load test, and the system has to be loaded and hold 250 psi pounds for like an hour and a half to make sure that the system is loaded and that it's going to hold that pressure for a while in case of a fire. On one inspection, they loaded the system. Everything worked okay. And then I was on my way back to the office, and a guy from the water division that knew me, he said, I think that was a dummy gauge. you need to check to make sure they're tied in to the line from the street. So I did some checking and found out that it was a dummy gauge, and they didn't tie the system into the line, the water line coming in from the street. So I disapprove that system. But it's things like that that's very, very important because I learned working in fire prevention for those three years and doing the final inspection before someone's allowed to occupy that building, I had nightmares thinking that if something happens in that building in the next few months or so, a fire or whatever, the first question they're going to ask is that who did the last inspection? Because you have to sign your name. So that's why it's very important for something like this. It may seem minute to some of you, but it's very, very important. Fire protection systems do save lives, and they do work when they're installed properly. So thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Senator Exum. Senator Schneider, do you have a closing?
I do, thank you. I'm just so humble and grateful to have people like Senator Exum looking out for us. Thank you.
You bet. Any further questions for our sponsors? Any further comments? The bill vote yes. Okay. All right. We do have a motion on the floor. Would you like to take the roll? Senator Baisley?
Respectful no.
Ball?
Aye.
Lindstedt?
Aye.
Liston?
Aye.
Snyder?
Aye.
Exum?
Aye.
Aye. Madam Chair. Aye. That bill passes 6 to 1. You're on your way to appropriations. Good luck there. Thank you. Thank you, committee. And thank you, Senator Rich, Madam Chair, for filling in for us. Did a great job. I mean to do that. And there being no further business to come before this committee. This committee is adjourned.