House Transportation, Housing & Local Government [Apr 07, 2026]

Welcome to the Transportation, Housing, and Local Government Committee. As mentioned before, we'll hear two bills today, House Bill 1334 and then Senate Bill 98.

Excuse.

Excuse. Jackson. Present.

Excuse. No, walking in.

When? Happily here.

Pascal. Here.

Excuse.

Here. Sucla.

Here.

Present.

Good afternoon.

Madam Chair. Present. We have one of our bill sponsors. You can go ahead and pass them out. But we will wait for our other bill sponsor. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. We are here for 1334, Modify Standards

Representative Flanell. Thank you, Ms. Chair, and I apologize for making you guys wait on me. I had a check-in in judiciary, and I actually have to leave right after this to vote on another bill, but I appreciate everybody being here today. A few years ago, this body took an important step to address wildfire risk by creating the wildfire resiliency code board and directing it to develop a statewide minimum building code. That was a meaningful and necessary step to better protect Colorado communities. But as we've moved into implementation, it becomes clear that the timeline was set simply, that the timeline we set simply hasn't worked for everyone. Under current law, local governments were given a very short window to adopt codes that meet or exceed the state standard. Even after After a small extension last year, many communities are still struggling to meet the deadline. And a big part of that comes down to timing. Key tools that local governments needed to comply, like the updated mapping tool and the petition process, were not made available until just weeks before the deadline. In some cases communities had barely a month to work through complex requirements that had real impacts on housing permitting and local planning This bill is a practical fix HB 26 1334 simply gives local governments additional time to meet that mandate mandate by extending the deadline to 2027 It also requires an earlier review of the code and allows impacts individual, not just local governments to petition for. I'm sorry, we took that out. This is not about rolling anything back and it's not about weakening wildfire protections. In fact, many local governments have already adopted the code and others are actively working toward it. This bill is about making sure the remaining communities can comply in a thoughtful and realistic way rather than being forced into rush decisions or falling out of compliance entirely. Because there are real consequences if they don't. Local governments risk losing access to funding and grants. Builders are left in difficult positions facing uncertainty around inspections and liability, and ultimately that uncertainty can slow down housing increased costs. This bill is about getting implementation right. It reflects what we've heard directly from the local governments, stakeholders, and even members of the Code Board who they themselves express support for giving communities more time. At the end of the day, we all share the same goal, stronger, safer, and more resilient communities in the face of wildfire risk. This bill helps us get there in a way that is practical, workable, and fair. I respectfully ask for your support.

Thank you, Madam Chair. This bill is not intended to slow down the wildfire hardening across Colorado. We all know fire is a huge risk here. It's very dry right now. I, myself, live on the WUI, and I have lived through two big fires in Colorado Springs, had to evac for one of them. So I think that's something, you know, rest assured, There is no goal of trying to minimize the importance of this Wildfire Resiliency Code Board. As you've heard from my co-sponsor, some well-resourced and prepared local governments have already adopted the code. So what happened last July, the Wildfire Resiliency Code Board put out a state-level code. This is a minimum code that localities have to meet. They had nine months from then to adopt a local code, should they choose to not use the state level one. Also to ask for a different WUI map if they didn't feel like the one provided from the state was accurate reflection of the area. And those were to happen by April 1st. What they did encounter was that the petition process, they didn't have their first petition hearing until March 6th and the mapping tools really weren't available for them to be able to make their own maps until about February 15th. Also the Resiliency Code Board had, they were able to obtain a couple of people to help educate the local governments on how to use the tools, those folks came on board about February 15th. So the April 1st deadline was looming very near. Some areas have been able to adopt their code, get their maps updated, get their folks trained and ready to do inspections, but not all areas have been able to. Let's see. So what does the bill do? You do have some amendments, and so you would have seen, if you've read the bill, there was a request for a review of the code coming this July. That was removed. There was also a provision in there for individuals to be able to petition the state level resiliency board directly. That was also taken out. So the parts that are still in here are a request for an extension on the deadline for local communities to be able to get their code and their maps up and running. One of the amendments does reduce the period of time that we're asking for the extension. And lastly, there is reporting that is required from the Resiliency Code Board and it was to go to a committee that doesn't exist anymore. So we have changed that so that reporting goes to smart hearings at the beginning of next legislative session. Let's see. And I just want to reemphasize that I've kind of gone over the amendments a little bit. I just want to reemphasize that while there are some municipalities and some counties that have been able to get this ready and going, others just have had challenges. There have been challenges at the Resiliency Code Board in terms of staffing and just resources because, you know, we could have funded it better like most things. So they struggled to get things spun up a little bit. So all this bill really does is ask for a little bit more time for the localities that don't have as many resources that are trying their best to get this code and map and get their inspectors ready a little bit more time until December 1st of 2026 to get that done. And I think this is a good bill, and we would really appreciate your support.

Representative Paschal. Thank you, Madam Chair. I think for the example of my own municipality, so Colorado Springs, they did not meet the deadline, but they are close, so they're doing pretty well. But we have a fire marshal. They're well resourced. We have experience dealing with wildfires. We've had two big fires. We have our own WUI map that we were able to look at the one that the state put together and make changes to So Colorado Springs has successfully used the tool or maybe they used their own tool I don know But they made their own map adjusted to what we already knew about our area. They were the first ones to get a hearing, a position for getting this customized map accepted. So they've got that. They were the first hearing, which was on March 6th. So they got that accepted. They've put together their code, and now they're going through the process of having to get it approved by the city. So they have to get a couple of hearings at city council, you know, get on that schedule, et cetera, and so on. And then they will need to train up their inspectors on that code. And so they're sort of, they're not done yet, but they're relatively far ahead, I think, because we are, you know, pretty well resourced. I think for especially the rural areas where there's not a fire marshal and it's more there's a lot of different fire districts and they somehow have to, I'm not sure what process they use to figure out exactly how to work together to put this together. I think it's a little bit more challenging. And some of those folks have needed some of that training and help from the resiliency board to figure it out.

Currently there's not a penalty. There's no explicit penalty. But I, you know, this has come up quite a bit. Why bother extending the deadline because there's no penalty? I feel like we need to reflect what is really going on here. and understand that some of the folks haven't made it yet and the ramifications of that situation. So one of the things that will come up here in testimony, I believe, is trying to figure out how to do inspections. So for instance, the locality hasn't adopted a new code yet. So then you've built in this locality and the, you know, you need to get it inspected. They're going to have to go up to the state level to get it inspected. And there will be, while we do have, as you maybe saw this morning in the budget, they allocated five FTE for inspectors at the state board level. But that's not spun up yet. So there may be delays in terms of being able to get buildings inspected. There may also be, there is some question about if it impacts liability. And this is something that we have raised to the Attorney General's office. We're hoping for some kind of an opinion on that before this committee meeting, but we don't have it in hand yet.

Velasco, Representative. Thank you so much, Madam Chair, and thank you to the sponsors. Could you share more about the process of this board being stood up and, you know, did they have any community meetings? Were they open to the public who were part of the board?

Representative Velasco. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you so much. And could you also tell us, Has there been a delay in the implementation of this board already, this fire code?

Representative Velasco. Thank you, Madam Chair. And so this would be the third delay in the implementation of the board. And do you have a list of those communities that have not been able to comply or are having issues complying?

Representative Flannell I apologize I have to go back to judiciary and vote so I just wanted to excuse myself if that's okay

Representative Phillips Decline

Representative Paschal. I'm not sure what I meant.

I don't have a full list in hand, but I think we have witnesses that can answer to that.

Brandon Wilson, Alison Emma Donohue. I can't hear, sorry.

is Emma Donahue and I'm here on behalf of the Colorado Municipal League and our 271 municipal members. I'm here today in strong support of House Bill 1334 because municipalities need more time to properly adopt the Colorado Wildfire Resiliency Code and this bill gives those municipalities the time they need and the proper tools to actually develop their own map and code that works for their communities. There has been multiple challenges around this entire process and municipalities have been reaching out to the Department of Public Safety, the Colorado Wildfire Resiliency Code Board, and the Department of Fire Prevention and Control asking for support and resources throughout this entire process. They have not been able to get them until very recently. Many of these early requests for support went unanswered or were severely delayed. It wasn't until late February that a process mapping tool was even put out to municipalities in order for them to develop their own map if needed, if the state map did not accurately represent their community. and it the petition process to be able to get other codes adopted was not also set up until that time as well this gave everybody less than a month to be able to get a map and code approved and through their local process that was not enough time for what they needed we have heard from municipalities across the state from small communities to major cities who have all been struggling with how to implement this new code you're going to hear from several of them today. Along with having concerns about the state map and how to adopt the code, many municipalities are also greatly concerned about what this code will do to the price of housing and additional costs to them to build more affordable housing in their communities. At the February meeting of the Colorado Wildfire Resiliency Code Board, a majority of the board members encouraged and voted to send a letter to state legislators urging for more time for the adoption of this code. Unfortunately, with that board, they need a two thirds majority to move forward. But there is a majority of board members who feel like this time frame is not enough, and that they would like to give communities the time they need to adequately adopt codes that will help protect everyone from wildfire risks. Thank you so much for your time today. And I urge you to vote yes to give municipalities the time they need to adopt this very important code well, and in the way that works for their communities. Thank you so much. And I'm here for questions. Mr. Wilson, please proceed. Thank you so much, Chair, members of the committee. My name is Brandon Wilson. I work on the El Paso County Government Affairs Team. I'm here to speak and support of House Bill 1334 on behalf of the Board of County Commissioners. I want to thank Representative Flannell and Pascal for bringing this bill forward. We appreciate your leadership and focus on making this policy workable for communities like El Paso County. So this bill is important for our county and for residents who live within the wildland urban interface. Local governments are being asked to adopt and enforce a complaint. statewide code with significant implications for construction and repairs. However, many were asked to do so without the necessary tools or sufficient stakeholder engagement. Critical components like the mapping tool and the petition process were not available until March of this year, with the petition process only beginning to hear cases at the beginning of that time. So for many jurisdictions, it made the timeline just simply unattainable. Rushing implementation under those conditions creates a real risk of unintended consequences for communities. While wildfire risk is real, it's not the only risk that our residents face. Hail, wind, and snowstorms also cause damage, especially to roofs. Under the current framework, a homeowner in the WUI making repairs may be required to use more expensive, code-compliant materials, significantly increasing the cost of what would otherwise be a routine repair. This matters at a time when affordability is already a major challenge. Housing costs remain high. The cost of living continues to rise. and more people are being priced out of Colorado or forced to reconsider whether they can afford to stay at all. House Bill 1334 allows us to take the time to do this right, to better understand impacts, work with stakeholders and avoid placing additional burdens on residents in the WUI. This extension is not about avoiding implementation, which I think you're going to hear that from multiple people today that are in support of this bill. While El Paso County supports policies that keep residents safe, we also need to ensure those policies are implemented thoughtfully and with a full understanding of their impacts. The time provided by this bill allows us to work with stakeholders, evaluate real-world costs, and ensure we are not unintentionally placing additional burdens on the communities we serve. For those reasons, El Paso County respectfully urges your support. Thank you for your time.

Mr. Ripple.

My name is Michael Ripple. I'm a resident. There we go. Mic check. My name is Michael Ripple. I'm a resident of Littleton, Colorado. I am with Westlake Royal Building Products. I support builders, architects, and contractors here in Colorado in the mountain area. On behalf of the Polymeric Exterior Products Association in Westlake, I'M HERE TO TESTIFY IN SUPPORT OF HOUSE BILL 26-13-34. WE AT WEST LAKE ARE A NATIONAL MANUFACTURE OF EXTERIOR BUILDING PRODUCTS THAT INCLUDE PRODUCTS LIKE VINYL, COMPOSITES, AND PBC. AND THE POLYMERIC EXTERIOR PRODUCTS ASSOCIATION IS A TRADE ASSOCIATION FOR MANUFACTURERS OF VINYL AND OTHER PRODUCTS, EXTERIOR BUILDING PRODUCTS. AS COLORADO WORKS TO ENHANCE ITS WILDFIRE RESILIENCE, IT IS CRITICAL THAT BUILDING CODES REMAIN TECHNICALLY SOUND, performance-based, transparent, and economically balanced. HB 261334 provides necessary statutory clarification to ensure that wildfire resiliency codes work continues to be reflected in these principles. So we are in support of the bill because it introduces several important improvements, some of which I think we have discussed have come out of the bill, but I think most importantly that we're hearing here is that it also extends the adoption time LINES FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, RECOGNIZING COMPLEXITY OF THE NEW CODES AND ALLOWING FOR MORE THOROUGH LOCALLY DEFENSIBLE REVIEW. I THINK WE FIND FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE THAT WORKING WITH THE FOLKS DESIGNING AND BUILDING THE PROJECTS THAT THERE IS SOME CONCERN ABOUT, YOU KNOW, CLARITY OF THE CODE, PRODUCTS THAT ARE ACCEPTABLE AND, YOU KNOW, HOW THEY DESIGN MOVING FORWARD. ALSO, HOPING THAT IT WOULD PROVIDE A PATH FOR MORE PERFORMANCE CODE THAT PROTECTS MATERIAL CHOICE HELPING PREVENT UNINTENDED ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES OR THE EFFECTIVE EXCLUSION OF AFFORDABLE HIGH That it would provide a path for more performance code that protects material choice helping prevent unintended economic consequences or the effective exclusion of affordable high materials and assemblies without appropriate review. So together, these provisions support wildfire construction without undermining housing affordability or consumer choices. HB 261334 ensures that resiliency efforts are implemented responsibly and with full consideration of technical performance and economic impact. So the Polymeric Exterior Products Association in Westlake respectfully ask that you pass HB 261334. And thank you for your consideration and your time.

Good afternoon, members of the House Transportation, Housing, and Local Government Committee. My name is Jason Hickox, and I live in Aurora, Colorado. You're going to hear a little bit similar to what Mr. Gible just said as we came from the same party. On behalf of Polymeric Exterior Products Association and Tando Composite, I am here to testify in support of House Bill 26-13-34. We at Tando Composite manufacture composite stone, brick, and cedar shake materials, and PIPA is the trade association manufacturers of vinyl and other polymeric exterior building materials. My role with Tano Composite as regional manager is to connect with home remodelers, new construction contractors, and building material dealers around the state of Colorado to provide a smarter, cost-efficient siding product for homeowners looking to modernize their home remodel or for a new construction build here in Colorado. As Colorado works to enhance wildlife resilience, it is critical that building codes remain technically sound, performance-based, transparent, and economically balanced. HB 261334 provides necessary statutory clarification to ensure that Wildlife Resiliency Code Board's work continues to reflect these principles. We support this bill because it introduces several important improvements, including extended adoption timelines for local governments, recognizing the complexity of new codes, and allowing for a more thorough, locally defensible review. improved oversight and reporting, including scheduled code reviews and annual reporting to the General Assembly on cost impacts and property owners and potential insurance implications. It also provides a path to more performance-based codes that protects material choice, helping to prevent the unintended economic consequences and affordability of the effective exclusion of affordable, high-performing materials and assemblies without appropriate review. Together, these provisions support wildlife-resistant construction without undermining housing affordability and consumer choice. HB 261334 ensures that resiliency efforts are implemented responsibly and with full consideration of technical performance and economic impact. People in my company, Tando Composites, respectfully ask that you pass HB 261334. Thank you for the consideration you may choose to extend to this request.

Unmute yourself.

Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee for giving me the opportunity to provide testimony in support of House Bill. 1334. My name is Gracie Weil and I'm an affordable housing developer in Colorado and a policy researcher for the University of Denver Burns School of Real Estate and Construction Management I here today not to oppose the Colorado Wildfire Resiliency Code but to ask for you to give us the time to do this right The adoption deadline has arrived before many local jurisdictions have been able to complete the mapping, public engagement, permit systems, and staff training that meaningful implementation actually requires. Adopting a code on paper without the infrastructure to enforce it does not make a single home safer. At the same time, Colorado is in the middle of a housing affordability crisis. The CWRC is currently written removes over a third of siding products from the market, constricting supply and driving up material costs on homes that families in our communities are trying to build and buy. This is just one example of a real consequence that falls hardest on working Coloradans. As an almost 30-year-old Denver resident, I can personally speak to well-intentioned but poorly executed policy that has affected my ability to buy my first home. I want to reiterate, this bill does not undermine the original policy. The extension gives the Wildfire Resiliency Code Board time to align the code with the national standards, correct inconsistencies, restore performance-based compliance pathways, and ensure that the materials market can actually supply what builders need. A code that the industry cannot implement is not a stronger wildfire code. I'm asking this committee not to delay wildfire protection, but to ensure that when it arrives, it works. Colorado's families deserve both safe homes and homes they can afford. We can achieve both, but only if we take the time to get the code right. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. My question is for CML. And can you just clarify, because I'm not sure if I heard you correctly. You said you were talking about a letter that was sent and it needed a two-thirds majority. Can you just clarify what that was?

Representative Velasco. Thank you so much, Madam Chair. And I have a couple questions. The first one is for the gentleman from El Paso County. I know that El Paso County was opposed to the original bill when this came forward. So could you share where is El Paso County in the process of implementing the code and what is your risk number according to the map? Mr. Wilson.

Representative Velasco. Thank you, Madam Chair. And my next question is for the person from CML. We also know that CML was opposed also to the original bill. and I'm just wondering do you have a list of those communities that need more time and what are the issues that the communities are experiencing to be able to implement and also do you believe that some of them just won't comply?

Representative Bezenegger. Thank you, Madam Chair. I think perhaps a question for CML and then a follow-up question for some of our builder friends as well. I'm just wondering in your estimation, I mean, you know, some counties have been able to comply in advance, Larimer County being one of them. We're no stranger to wildfire in Larimer County, as I'm sure is familiar to folks here. So where is the delta for a county? I mean, El Paso County is certainly well resourced. why have you not been able to comply when another county with similar resources has been able to

done correctly and that it's understood by everyone that it's going to impact that there are no parts of adopting a code that are going to put more burden onto our residents especially as it relates to cost We have folks probably similar to Larimer County There folks that live close to mountains There folks that live out on the plains that are also theoretically within the WUI that there's arguments around, you know, does this really need to apply in this section? So there's a lot of moving parts that have caused us to really slow down and say, we're going to do this. We want to do it right. And we would like some extra time. Okay. We're beyond time on the panel, but we'll go one last question representative basin anchor and one more for thank you and and i hear you and i appreciate that and i also you know think at the same time i mean larimer county extends into areas where for example the high park fire burned like we are uniquely familiar with the devastation that wildfire can bring to our communities and also are able to have those stakeholder conversations in a way that moves this forward i think there's generally a concern that there are simply some counties who don't want to do it. And what you're doing is buying time, like drinks on the table, buying time to be able to then affect further changes in the code that ultimately dismantle it. And I think that's something just to be cognizant of. For our builder community, I think one of my questions would be, like we talk a lot about the cost and the affordability, and that is a shared concern. But to a certain extent, I have a hard time hearing the argument outside of market share inside of that same space. And so I'm curious from your perspective, if driving cost is a concern about code adoption, are you looking for further changes inside of the implemented code, or are you simply looking for more time to comply? Because those are two very different questions. Mr. Ripple or Mr. Wilcox?

Representative Velasco.

We do think that Ms. Donoghue. Sorry. I do think that capacity could be dealt with with delay. It would give municipalities either time to hire more staff in order to be able to do it, to train up people, to be more skilled and to be able to handle it better. So giving them the time would help with the capacity problems.

Yes, thank you. I would like to speak to the cost perspective. As a nonprofit modular developer, it's all about aggregating demand. And some of our orders have to take place a year ahead of when they're going to be put on the ground. And so that factory needs the ability to reach the required code limits. And it's conversations we already been having with DOH of do we just start building everything to level three and have those costs also affect the residents and maybe level one or two and how exactly that works because again as a non we don really have margin so any cost that we face is then directly put on home buyers. Thank you that's all the time we have for

Chief White.

Great. Thank you, Madam Chair. Again, I'm Brad White. I'm here representing Colorado State Fire Chiefs Association and actually Special District Association asked me to speak on their behalf as well. Since 2022, Colorado legislature has passed 24 pieces of legislation related to wildland fire, investing over $66 million to minimize the impacts of wildfire in our communities. Many of those bills are in the name of fuels reduction, wildland fire mitigation. Some increased our outreach effort. Some incentivized homeowners to take action. And others have tried to tame the cost of insurance. And several brought new suppression resources and personnel to the state. The original Senate Bill 23166, the Resiliency Code Bill, called for the adoption of statewide code to create a statewide resiliency code. And was the only bill requiring change to how we build homes and buildings in the wild and urban interface. Arguably, it's the only bill that will get us to a place of sustainability and an even playing field to live with wildfire. Since the bill is passing, an estimated 75,000 new home units, housing units, have been permitted in Colorado. Of those, we believe nearly 25,000 housing units have been built in areas defined as moderate or high under the resiliency code that was enacted to protect them. By the time we get to a year from now, there could be another 8,000 to 10,000 homes permitted. We certainly understand the complications of weaving in a new code set across the state. We also understand the complexities of adapting supply chain needs. We do believe this has been going on for three years, and it was not hard to predict where the code board might end up and to prepare for that. It will take many decades to achieve the general fire-resistive state in our communities, but the clock only starts once the code adoption is complete. As fire chiefs, we really appreciate the $66 million investment the legislature has made in the last few years, and at a local level, we've easily matched that investment. But collectively we need to make those investments repeatedly to handle future fire seasons as they are modeled today. We will continue to throw millions of dollars at fires and forests trying to keep home safe until we require that homes be built to live within the wildfire And built ignition resistant and until we create a fire adapted community We both need to continue to make those investments million or more until that time So it's for those reasons we are opposed to this bill. Thank you.

Chair Froelich and members of the committee, good afternoon. And thank you, Chair and committee members. My name is Eric Freed, and I'm here on behalf of the Colorado Chapter of the International Code Council, otherwise known as CCICC. I completely appreciate the intent behind this legislation and the continued support for wildfire resiliency, which is an issue of critical importance to our communities. However, CCICC is in opposition to 1334. As building code officials, we are on the front lines of implementing the wildfire resiliency code. We understand both the necessity of these codes and the challenges that come with applying them consistently, effectively, and in a way that serves both public safety and development. There is no question that wildfire mitigation is and will remain a priority. We recently surveyed our members, and the results showed strong support for the overall goals of the Wildfire Resiliency Code, as well as logistical barriers that have been mentioned. 1334 attempts to address implementation concerns by extending the timeline. While well intentioned, this approach assumes that time is the primary barrier to successful implementation. And from our perspective, that assumption is not accurate. Extending the timeline does not resolve the underlying challenges we face in the field. We strongly believe in the value of collaboration and remain committed to working with the Wildfire Resiliency Code Board. We especially want to thank the Division of Fire Prevention and Control for their continued work with us on this issue. In closing, I respectfully urge the committee to vote no on 1334. We know we all share the same goals of safer, more resilient communities, but we do not believe this bill is the right tool to achieve that objective. Thank you for your time and consideration, and I am available for any questions you might have.

I'm Gunnison County Commissioner Laura Puckett-Daniels. I have a handout. Can I hand that out? Okay.

Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee. My name is Laura Puckett-Daniels, and I am Chair of the Gunnison County Board of County Commissioners. I'm testifying today on behalf of CCAT and Gunnison County in opposition to House Bill 1334. The State Wildfire Resiliency Code Board and many local governments, such as Gunnison County, have done monumental work to try to make our communities safer by adopting the WUI code. Gunnison County has 17,000 residents and covers over 3,200 square miles, all of which are in high wildfire danger. We adopted the WUI code when I was chair of the County Planning Commission several years ago, and I've had the opportunity to update our WUI code twice as a county commissioner. The WUI code doesn't stop wildfire, but it helps communities survive and recover more quickly. Please take a look at the photos in the article from NPR that I've distributed. The houses that survived the high-intensity wildfire in Maui were ones that were built to the principles of the WUI code. I encourage you to read the whole article so you get a sense of how home hardening and defensive space significantly contribute to the home survival. Prevention is 11 times cheaper than replacement. I understand and share concerns about the tension between affordability and safety, but in my rural high alpine community, the threat of catastrophic wildfire is very real, And the cost of replacing homes and businesses and trying to rebuild our destroyed economy is wildly more expensive than building them to WUICO. the first time. There are ways to build to WUI code that are less expensive. Gunnison County is building its own affordable housing units to WUI code and we have found some materials that are less expensive than traditional building materials and we've even built modular homes that comply with the WUI code. Wildfire impacts don't stop at property lines or jurisdictional boundaries. They affect entire regions through economic losses, impacts to agriculture and tourism, and declining property values. The longer we delay, the more homes get built that aren't compliant, the more fuels for wildfire we are adding to the landscape. If some communities are struggling to meet deadlines, the solution is targeted support and technical assistance, not more time to build without mitigation. We're in a historic drought. The code is highly vetted and useful. There are no penalties if communities don't adopt on time. I encourage you to oppose this bill. Thank you for your consideration today.

Great. Thank you, Chair and committee. I'm Jeffco Commissioner Andy Kerr speaking on behalf of the Board of County Commissioners and CCAT in opposition to 1334. Jeffco is one of the highest wildfire risk counties in the country. That risk is growing and it demands decisive, timely action, not delay. The hot, dry winter we just experienced and a forecasted hot and dry spring only heightened the urgency. To meet this challenge, Jeffco adopted a wildfire resiliency code in effect July 1st. Our code meets and exceeds the Colorado wildfire resiliency code. We added stronger structural hardening and defensible space requirements because we know what it takes to protect homes in high-risk areas. We didn't develop this in isolation. We work closely with fire protection districts, our sheriff's office, the community wildfire planning center, residents, product manufacturers, and the insurance industry. We asked one question, what will actually save lives and save homes? These standards will improve public safety, strengthen insurability, and protect our watersheds and environment. They also provide clarity at a time when insurance markets are increasingly strained in wildfire-prone areas. The state's WUI code was created through extensive stakeholder engagement and a transparent statewide process. reopening that process now introduces confusion and undermines confidence, especially for the communities and counties that have taken steps towards adoption. Expanding who can petition for code changes will overwhelm the board, create administrative backlog and slow implementation. It risks piecemeal changes that weaken the consistency Colorado needs. Counties have had three years to prepare. Many have adopted the code or are actively doing so. We have the tools, the science and the framework to move forward. What we don't have is time to spare. Wildfire does not respect county lines or wait for timelines to be renegotiated. The WUI code provides a balanced science-based path that protects all Coloradans while respecting local authority. For these reasons, we respectfully urge you to reject 1334 and keep implementation on track.

Yes, thank you.

Eight more months here. Good afternoon, Chair Froehlich and members of the committee. My name is George Marlin. I am a Clear Creek County Commissioner, speaking on behalf of my board and CCAT in opposition to House Bill 26-1334. for. Clear Creek County supported Senate Bill 23166 with the hope that it would give communities insurance companies housing developers and individuals confidence to invest in Colorado without having to examine the codes of every local government within the radius of a fire like the East Troublesome Fire. That fire in particular traumatized my community. It did not burn in Clear Creek, but we watched it do something we never thought a fire could do, cross the continental divide. That moment made us aware that fire risk is not just a cross-jurisdictional matter. It is a cross-regional matter. It made us fear the actions or the lack thereof of faraway jurisdictions. 2026 has already been warmer, drier, and windier than in 2020, when the two largest wildfires in Colorado's history burned in near succession. We cannot afford to forget lessons learned from these moments. And this bill does that. This bill says, and asking the WUI code board to again revisit its code, that we value perfection over action. It says that clarity for those who have not met the deadline in statute, something for which there is no penalty, is more important than avoiding duplication of work for those who did, a duplication that is not acknowledged in the fiscal note. Clear Creek County got it done with a building department of four, and my building official, David Danielson, is here. We are not well resourced. It was not easy. It was a priority. If this bill passes, every community will experience a delay in the most important benefits of this policy, cross-regional safety improvements and statewide insurability and investability. The longer we wait, the more we delay, the more we indicate to the business community and our own communities that we are not taking the risk of wildfire seriously. Please vote no on this bill. Thank you for your time, and I welcome any questions.

Yes, Madam Chair and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak today. My name is David Danielson. I am the chief building official representing Clear Creek County. I am also here to oppose House Bill 1334. I do not have a lot to add that's not already been said, so I will be respective of your time. I am willing to answer questions about our experience in this adoption process. Thank you.

Thank you so much, Madam Chair, and thank you to everyone that's here with us today sharing more about how they're implementing the WUI code. My first question is for Chief White. Could you tell us the importance of home hardening and what does that entail? Chief White.

Commissioner Pluckett-Daniels, and perhaps Commissioner Kerr as well, we're hearing some concerns about affordability. affordability can you speak to the interplay between affordability and resiliency and and the long implications and insurance costs and rebuilding costs and those sorts of economic factors I can certainly speak to my wrestling with it and how I made the policy decision to move forward with the WUI code I am not an insurance expert, nor am I a contractor.

Commissioner Kerr or Marlin?

Commissioner Marlin and then Representative Velasco.

oh I was not prepared with the numbers from our we'll go to Rep Velasco and then come back to you

that we are actually saving money by implementing the WUI code.

Thank you. Thank you for the question. You know, I can give you some examples on the cost of fire suppression. You know, I think the East Troublesome Fire was already mentioned here today. That was the fire that hit our community pretty hard. That was a relatively cheap fire. It only went for about two weeks before we had snow, and while we lost 565 structures, it was only about a $25 million fire. And one of the reasons is we weren't even able to fly aircraft in the winds. Conversely, we had a fire on the south side of the county that same year in 2020, the Williams Fork Fire, that cost over $150 million to fight and didn't burn a single home. It just took that much to keep it in its box from August till October. So certainly some expense to fighting fire each year, and I think we'll see that again this year. You know, is the cost worth it? I think that the cost that we're asking homeowners to put into their home is relatively minor compared to all the other costs that we're spending in, you know, healthy forest and fire suppression and, you know, all the millions of dollars we're spending. And we'll have to continue making those investments for quite some time. But until we've got homes that can withstand, then, you know, firefighters have a little bit more luxury on how we work in the subdivisions and protect homes.

Yes, I have prepared numbers related to fire suppression systems, not specifically for the structure hardening in that last meeting. So I do not have the numbers. No worries.

Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the committee. My name is Dallas Schroeder. I'm a commissioner in Elbert County. Representing Elbert County today, Elbert County is in support of House Bill 1334. As a medium-sized county with limited resources and staffing, this has presented a challenge to us to implement the code. We have 13 different fire districts that either wholly or overlap within Elbert County. We like to be collaborative with our different districts and to be able to communicate with these districts, to coordinate with them on how to implement this code is important to us. Most of these fire districts are volunteer staffed, and just the timing of what we've had to do once we saw the map drop has made it impossible for us to coordinate with all these districts. And so we are in support of the extension. It will definitely help us do the coordination that we need to do with the fire districts, and that is our position. We ask for support for this bill.

Good afternoon. My name is William Frazier. I'm with UFP Industries. Myself and my team, basically our customers are small, medium, independent-sized lumberyards, Many of these are family-owned across the state of Colorado. UFP Industries supports FB 1334. Really, for this six-month extension, what this is going to allow us to do is better educate our lumberyard partners, allow from a manufacturing perspective to catch up in order to put products in the field that meet this code, and also provide additional training to contractors and builders to ensure they're using the right products to meet this code. So in working with these lumberyards, I wanted to share a couple themes that have come up over the past six to 12 months. The first one being there is a lot of confusion in that space. A lot of lumberyards specifically don't exactly know how to proceed forward. These products aren't things that you can necessarily go buy off of a shelf. It takes some time to move through the supply chain. So here we are at the building season, and many of these lumber yards don't have on the ground what they need to meet code. The second one would be training and cost. Again, some of these items that are specified in the code are more expensive. I know we've heard some things as far as some alternatives, But in some spaces, these do cost anywhere between four and six times. Over the course of a project, just on one item, that could blow that project out of the water. It will also take contractors time to get educated as far as how to use those products, too. The final one here is supply chain catch-up. Like I said, UFP Industries is committed to finding solutions to work within the code, but this takes time. product development, testing. You can't really rush these things through. We want to make sure we're putting products out in the field that are safe and are code compliant. So with that policy, for it to be effective, we will need some more time. And again, this isn't to try to derail anything here, but again, we want to ensure that we're putting the best products out there for our independent lumber yards, contractors and homeowners ultimately to be safe. Thank you.

And I'm here today in support of HB 261334 in strong alignment with the Colorado Municipal League. This bill provides a practical and necessary adjustment to the implementation timeline for Colorado Wildfire Resiliency Code, extending the deadline to 2027. And for rural municipalities like Norwood and communities across the West End, this extension isn't about delaying action. It's about ensuring that we have the opportunity to get it right. We fully recognize the urgency of addressing wildfire risk. In fact, rural communities like ours are at the forefront of those lines of reality. We're actively working to align land use, infrastructure and emergency response systems with increasing wildfire threats, especially with our lack of water. But we are doing so with limited staff, limited financial capacity, and often with nowhere near the same level of technical support as the larger jurisdictions. Please remember, we're a town of 550 people. The current timeline has created real challenges, and the code was released in July of 2025, but the tools that we needed to implement weren't made available to us until February of this year. That's left communities like ours with an extremely compressed window to evaluate our complex requirements, engage our stakeholders, and thoughtfully integrate these land use codes into ours. without additional time we have a ton of unintended consequences such as disrupting constrained housing development, increasing the cost for the residents and the local builders and creating confusion and permitting and building and basically undermining the resilience outcome the code is intended to have. tended to have. We want to take a deliberate and collaborative approach on this, but we need to engage meaningfully with our communities. We need to work with regional partners and stakeholders, and we need to have the opportunity to integrate the code into our existing planning and developmental framework. The implement of these standards, we want to do this so it's effective and sustainable. For the West End and similar rural regions, this really matters. Our communities are small, but the stakes are really high, and we're already balancing enormous risks, not with just wildfire or water, housing affordability, infrastructure limitations, and economic sustainability, but we want to make sure that we are recognizing all those realities while providing a path forward that supports both resilience and responsible governance from ourselves. Please wrap up. I respectfully urge you to support House Bill 26-13-34. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Mr. Jourdain. Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify here today. I'm here to speak in favor of HB 261334. My name is Charlie Jordan. I'm the manager of business development for the Mendocino companies. The Mendocino companies are a manufacturer and distributor of building materials throughout our distribution center located in Loveland, Colorado. We are a significant stakeholder in the development of wild land urban interface building codes and have been such for over 20 years I also serve as chairman of the American Wood Council wild land urban interface task group Throughout the development of the Colorado wild land resiliency code and acting through the American Wood Council, we've made efforts on more than one occasion to have the Colorado wildfire resiliency code board consider well-established effective performance-based provisions. Current prescriptive provisions would discriminate against widely used building materials that are compliant with existing WUBI codes in other states. This while inexplicably allowing the use of materials which may have poorer fire resistance than performance-rated building materials. For instance, composite decking would be prescriptively allowed under the Colorado wildfire resiliency code. Several composite products have a class C flame spread rating. Decking materials possessing a class B flame spread rating and accepted in other WUI codes would be eliminated. This makes no sense. We believe that HB 261334 will provide the necessary time for a thorough review by important stakeholders, including Colorado residents and businesses, particularly the building materials sector. The result should be the most comprehensive code developed through the most transparent and inclusive process. On behalf of our Colorado based employees and customers, we again speak in favor of HB 261334. Thank you for this opportunity to testify today. I'll be glad to entertain any questions you may have. Thank you.

Sorry, I should have given more notice, Mr. Gravy.

Thank you very much. Can you hear me okay?

Very good. Thank you very much. I'm here today on behalf of the city of Greenwood Village. I'm the city's community development director. And when we saw the wildfire resiliency code and the associated map, we were a little surprised to find that the city had a little over three dozen properties that were shown as being at an increased risk for wildfire compared to surrounding properties on the state map So we began a process to review the code and review the map to make sure that it would be something we could administer What we found after working for a number of months with our staff as well as South Metro Fire Rescue and performing site visits in person is that first the code itself does not seem to be insurmountable. I believe that the hardening requirements are, I think, very achievable. They will add cost, but as Greenwood Village is primarily built out, it would be redevelopment or addition, so I do think that's achievable. The issue that the city has, and I believe that there are other cities that will want to verify this, is that the map appears to have a number of errors that are adding properties that are not at an increased risk compared to those properties around it. Of the city of Greenwood Village's 41 properties that were identified, we have found all 41 were included in some form of error, possibly because of the methodology used to add them. And what we have sort of gathered or heard is that it was using AI and an algorithm looking at aerial imagery for possible colors for vegetative fuels. If that's true, I could understand how this happened. But the city of Greenwood Village is electing not to adopt this code until such time as the state can verify that the map is indeed accurate because our in-person observations of all properties have shown there is no difference between these properties and adjacent properties not on the map and in many cases the vegetative fuels are actually in other locations not identified on the map so we would urge the state to take its time in forcing cities to adopt a map that may not be accurate for them in their jurisdiction.

Currently, we did not adopt the code. We had a hearing last Thursday to consider such an action, but given that this committee was postponed until this week and other considerations, as I mentioned earlier, with coordination with the fire department, the lateness in getting particularly our map, we were not ready to move forward. we would prefer to fully investigate and look at our current code versus the wildlife code, wildfire code, to see where they overlap, where there may not be overlap. We know this is important. We want to make sure that it is done correctly and accurately and so that both of our citizens and our developers have a clear picture going forward.

Yes, ma'am. We are looking probably at an 18-month time frame as we have a two-person administrative staff, but we do have planners working on this with the town, and we have significant fiscal constraints. Currently, we are going through a full renovation of our land use code, which we went to multiple granting factors to achieve. for rural communities like mine, it's going to take a little longer. And we are willing to adopt this, of course. But we want to just make sure that we are dotting our I's and crossing our T's and doing it to the capacity that we have.

Yes, ma'am. With respect, you're talking about a community that is just now starting to catch up. Our housekeeping was dated, and we are working fervently to make sure that we are not only just catching up, but that we're setting the example for our surrounding communities that are like us here in southwest Colorado.

Our goal would be to be in compliance.

If it's in December, we will do our best to get there. I'm not going to make a promise that we can't keep, but know that it will be first and foremost on our project list and working with everybody to get there. Our concern, as long as the time frame is concerned, we're not in the habit of adopting something without fully understanding its impacts. And so with us not receiving the map until late in the game, we do have concerns about the map. Virtually the entire county is in the Wauwi, and we think that there's some errors there, which we'd like to discuss with our fire districts and be able to make proposals to adjust those levels.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And this is for the great mayor of Norwood. Candy, how are you? So you said that you didn't get the map until February.

Yes, sir.

So that's why there's a delay, because you didn't get the tools you needed as you made in your statement until February, correct?

And just to clarify, Mayor, there is no penalty for non-adoption, correct?

Thank you. That is all the time we have for this panel. Thank you very much for joining us We will move back over to opposed Steven Parker Mark Novak I'm not sure if Commissioner Dahl-Kumper is coming or not. Commissioner Pogue. Commissioner Woodruff. And Mr. Parker, what is your proper title?

Okay. Are you chief or?

Okay. That sounds like a Jim Carrey character. So we will go with Fire Marshal Parker, please. We're doing two minutes this afternoon. Please introduce yourself.

Thank you and is that just want to check who Novak. Oh yeah, perfect. Okay. And let's see if Eric Lovegren is online and can join us. And otherwise we'll go to Mr. Novak. Are you a chief? Is it chief Novak or just Mr. Novak? Okay. Chief Novak, please proceed.

Chief, we might have you turn off your camera. We're having some connectivity issues, and sometimes that helps. Chief, we can't hear you. We're going to come back to you. um commissioner pogue we're doing two minutes today please proceed is that better

Thank you. Okay, Chief Novak, let's try our connection with you again. Please proceed.

Yes, question mark?

Thank you. And Mr. Lovgren.

Thank you. Commissioner Woodruff, we've heard from some communities who feel under-resourced and stressed to meet the deadline. With your experience on the code board and with the Department of Public Safety, what is the commitment from the department and from the code board to help folks in those situations, if any?

Additional questions? Representative Velasco.

Commissioner Pogue. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Representative, for the question. Certainly, the Buffalo Mountain Fire was a fire in Summit County, I believe, in 2018. What was interesting about that fire is that it spanned an area in between two very large HOA with lots of condominiums in them. The properties were among some of the early adopters of both hardening and creating defensible space And so when the fire was over the burn scar literally burned up to the walls and then stopped And it credited those two strategies, the combination of home hardening and the mitigation of the space is credited with actually saving about a billion dollars in property damages. And I think that not only did it actually save from that much property damage. But when I think of the thousands of people that lived in those two HOAs that would have been displaced from their homes, largely lower income, largely renters, the impacts to communities like mine if we don't do this work are simply devastating. It's not just about the insurance. It's not just about the likelihood of having a fire or not having a fire. It's really in communities like mine about the sustainability of the entire county. Ultimately, wildfires don't respect county boundaries. I need my neighbors to make the same commitment that my community has made to keep all of my neighbors safe.

thank you for your service. Appreciate you being here, sir. And I guess in your testimony, you mentioned that 9% of communities have adopted the wildfire resilience right now. And really, we're trying to narrow down the last 10% of those communities that are just not able to reach those goals for a reason. And I guess my question to you, sir, is how can we get those communities to reach that Wildfire Resilience Code and be in compliance? Because as we both heard today, there is no enforcement mechanism. There is no, I guess, penalties, it sounds like.

Thank you, Chair Froelich and Representative Gwynn. It's a good question. And in our survey results, we received six fire departments, which was the remaining percentage that weren't ready or have already adopted, needing additional time or assistance. And we've already reached out to them and put them into contact with the Division of Fire Prevention and Control to help assist in that process and dig deeper into what those specific issues are and why they weren't ready to help them be successful with that.

My question is for Commissioner Woodruff. SPECIFICALLY IN RELATION TO YOUR SERVICE ON THE CODE BOARD, I'M JUST CURIOUS IF YOU CAN HELP THE COMMITTEE UNDERSTAND TWO THINGS IN PARTICULAR IF YOU'RE ABLE TO SPEAK TO THEM. THE FIRST BEING JUST THE TYPE OF OUTREACH THAT WAS CONDUCTED TO LOCAL GOVERNMENTS ABOUT THE RESOURCES THAT WERE AVAILABLE TO THEM TO BE ABLE TO IMPLEMENT THE CODE. AND THEN THE SECOND IN PARTICULAR IS WHEN THE PETITION COMMITTEE WAS PREPARED TO ACCEPT AND REVIEW PROPOSED MAP CHANGES FROM LOCAL GOVERNMENTS. AND WHATEVER YOU CAN SPEAK TO INSIDE OF THAT, I'D BE grateful for your thoughts. Commissioner Woodruff. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Rep. Eisnicker. So we conducted, from an outreach standpoint, the monthly meetings, the monthly board meetings were in various locations throughout the state, both Front Range and Mountain West. The committee meetings, subcommittee meetings, which were around structure and site hardening and governance were all online and all available to the public. So from a public outreach standpoint we met on every in every corner of the state we took public comments before each meeting and at the end of every meeting from staff available to train up I'll give you my own individual experience as a Pitkin County Commissioner separate from serving on the board Pitkin Eagle Carbondale Roaring Fork Rural Aspen Fire Snowmass Aspen and Basalt all came together and met with DFPC in the valley So we as a valley took charge of our own destiny invited DFPC up for a day and went through individual questions both in terms of mapping and applicability of the code So from an outreach standpoint and availability standpoint, from a Pitkin standpoint, we had incredible response from DFPC.

Sure. Good afternoon, Chair and members of the committee. My name is Troy Wilson. I'm the Director of Central Region Sales for Alt Weatherwood based out of our facility here in Melbourne, Colorado. Thank you for allowing me the time to speak today in favor of House Bill 1334. Alt Weatherwood manufactures and distributes multiple product lines to retail lumber yards throughout the state, who in turn provide those materials to general contractors, construction companies and consumers that need to achieve code compliance for projects in the zone. There's multiple ongoing concerns regarding the Colorado Wildfire Resiliency Code raised by all parties involved from us down through that supply chain to the end users. Some of those concerns are it would eliminate the ability to use natural class B rated wood products in certain applications that are compliant in WUI codes in other states based on performance-based provisions. It also takes time for supply chains to develop with the uncertainty of what products will be required and or enforced for applications throughout Colorado WUI zones. Our retail partners are hesitant to invest in those product lines and get prepared for the upcoming demand. And this puts strain on preparation for projects as they may incur or extended lead times to source the products needed to be compliant with the Colorado Wildfire Resiliency Code, causing potentially expensive delays. And there is also a high demand and necessity for access to affordable housing and repairs and modifications in Colorado And this will drive up the cost of building material inputs into those into those projects thank you very much for your time and consideration and on behalf of all with wood and our retail partners we again speak in favor of house bill 1334 and urge you to vote yes

yes thank you thank you madam chair members of the committee thank you all for the opportunity to speak in support of this bill today my name is jason smart and i'm with the american wood council we represent almost 90 percent of the structural wood products industry and nearly half a million men and women working family wage jobs across the country that includes in colorado so from dimension lumber to engineered wood products we champion the development of data technology and standards to ensure the safe use of wood products in construction i ask for your support on this bill because it provides a much needed remedy for jurisdictions throughout colorado to realistically comply with the wildland urban interface code provisions that are being proposed over the past decade i've been involved in the development of numerous WUI codes and standards. I'm on several committees. I'm very familiar with the provisions that are used throughout the U.S., especially those dealing with the structure hardening and how they relate to different exposure levels. And I can tell you that as currently written, the Colorado Wildfire Resiliency Code would prevent the use of tested exterior wall assemblies and decking systems that are approved for use under WUI codes and standards used throughout the rest of the U.S. because it doesn't provide certain options. So limited options and unintended consequences resulting from rushed adoption of the Colorado wildfire resiliency code provisions as currently proposed would create significant challenges for homeowners and for code officials as they try to navigate these new requirements as we've heard today. But with some modifications to include performance-based options, we do think that Colorado can continue to progress towards protecting homes without running into the nearly impossible compliance hurdles for certain jurisdictions that we've heard about. So I thank you for hearing this important measure, and I humbly request your support for HB 26-1334.

Good afternoon.

Can you hear me now?

Hello?

I'm in support of this bill. I've been involved with this before. It was adopted by the state. I testified both at the Capitol and then at the different code councils. And I'd have to say during the council period when they were taking public comment, I never felt heard or listened to. They may have checked off the box for the amount of time that they had taken public comment, but I don't feel they ever took it seriously. I'm a contractor here in Teller County and a homeowner, business owner. And I got to say the penalty for this is not to the municipalities or the county. The penalty is to the homeowners, it's to your constituents. If this is adopted this summer, this July, if the insurance companies choose to take this map and use this map as a gospel for where wildfire is going to be most effective, it is going to jeopardize homeowners' insurances to your constituents around the state. We already struggle with getting homeowners' insurance. This adoption is going to double, triple cost on homeowner insurance or just cancellation. And then on the construction side of it, I hear from my customers all the time, the concern with this adoption, the cost of construction that's going to happen, and them not having the time to do the mitigation they need to adopt this code or to come in compliance with this code. If they have to hire people out, it's very expensive. There's not enough time for that to happen if the insurance companies decide to push this forward. So I strongly support more time for this. I expressed that during public comment at the councils, and it fell on deaf ears. They had two years that they took to come up with their form of this code and adoption. They expected two months for municipalities and counties to come into compliance and less than six months for homeowners to come into compliance. It's just fast. It's rushed. Please support this timeline. Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Shannon Anderson and I also work for a rural area construction company. I'm here today to ask you to vote yes on HB 261334. This bill will help alleviate some overall challenging procedures that are upcoming with the Senate bill 23166, the WUE. A key requirement for that bill was for counties and municipalities across Colorado to map wildfire risk from low to high and develop a community wildfire protection plan. The reality is most jurisdictions have not yet completed this work. Moving forward with additional requirements before these foundational steps are finished puts counties, builders, and homeowners in a very difficult position. HB 261334 proposes important changes including extending the timeline by a year but those only matter if we give communities the time to catch up and implement them properly. Right now material costs and delivery costs are rising. Supply chains remain strained. This is not the time to layer on new regulations that will further increase the cost of building or remodeling a home. Those costs don't just stay on paper. We forward those costs on directly to the consumer, to families, and to homeowners, to people already struggling with affordability. Colorado is already struggling with affordable housing. Implemation of the WUI code only makes the concept of affordable housing more difficult. Delaying this bill allows counties and complete critical wildfire planning, gives local building departments time to prepare and help suppliers meet demand without driving prices even higher. Let's take the time to get this right without putting additional financial strain on the very people we are trying to protect. I respectfully urge you to vote yes on HB 26-1334. Thank you for

opportunity to testify today. My name is Kevin Archer. I represent Viance LLC, a supplier of pressure and vacuum impregnated fire retardant wood treatments that are used in residential and commercial construction We appreciate the committee leadership on wildfire resilience and I here to provide testimony today in support of HB 261334 We strongly agree with the goal of reducing wildfire risk in Colorado's communities. Fire resilient construction is a shared priority across industry, local governments, and homeowners. But the question before us today should not be whether or not to improve resilience, but how to do it in a way that is effective and practical and sustainable. Innovation in fire-resistant materials is advancing, which is a positive situation, but wildfire resilience policy cannot rely solely on products that are still under development. Builders and local governments must be able to comply with new standards using materials that are commercially available, technically validated and affordable when those standards take effect. When implementation timelines move faster than material readiness, compliance options narrow, competition date decreases, and real-world adoption in the marketplace can be delayed rather than accelerated. Developing new fire-resilient materials, particularly wood-based solutions made from renewable resources, is inherently a multi-year process. It requires formulation, rigorous testing, third-party evaluation, certification, and and eventual integration into building codes. These steps cannot be responsibly compressed into months and overly aggressive timelines often force reliance on existing options simply because they're the only ones available. Material choice matters, renewable wood based fire resilient products offer important benefits related to carbon footprint, environmental impact and sustainability. Without sufficient time for these options to mature, we risk favoring less sustainable more carbon intensive alternatives. For these reasons, I respectively request

Galeotto. Please proceed. Thank you, Chair Froelich and members of the committee. My name is Jenny Galeotto and I am representing LP Building Solutions. We manufacture engineered wood building products for residential construction. Thank you for the opportunity today to speak in support of HB 261334. This bill provides necessary practical extension for local government adoption of the new Colorado Wildfire Resiliency Code. The Colorado Wildfire Resiliency requirements are a significant deviation from international WUI standards and there is real confusion in the field about the maps and what products are allowed where? A rush timeline increases the risk of inconsistent interpretations across jurisdictions and delays in permitting and construction. This additional time is necessary for code officials to provide greater clarity to local jurisdictions and to ensure there is consistency in code interpretation. One of our biggest concerns with the code has been that it is material prescriptive rather than performance based. When code prescribes a specific material that can be used in a setting instead of setting a clear performance outcomes it creates unintended consequences especially when it removes proven products from the market. Some products that may be limited by material prescriptive approach are superior in durability particularly in hail resistance which currently has a greater cost implication to Colorado than wildfire If those products are pushed out of the market homeowners can face higher life cycle costs from more frequent repairs and replacements which ultimately leads to higher insurance premiums The implementation extension is important because it gives product manufacturers time to innovate solutions that meet Colorado's wildfire resilience code, but also durability for all of Colorado's seasons. Additionally, more time allows the supply chain to catch up on the code. Capacity, distribution, and local availability are all at risk. Without this, there could be significant product shortages and price spikes due to a narrow set of permitted materials. In summary, HB 261334 keeps Colorado moving forward on wildfire resilience while ensuring implementation is workable, transparent, and based on real-world conditions. Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today. I respectfully urge you to vote yes on HB 261334.

Ms. Cagliato. Thank you for the question, Representative. Probably not by December, but it at least helps us get closer to that.

Ms. Gagliotto.

As you heard from other manufacturers, developing products takes time. There has to be testing to ensure the quality and durability. We don't want to rush that process. So could we try to meet December? Absolutely. I can't commit that we would meet that timeline because it is still a very compressed timeline for product development. And I appreciate that, Madam Chair.

Thank you for your question. I think it's something that we can continue to work towards and try and expedite, but again we want to make sure we do things the right way.

And so that's where we would love to see that, but we know that that has passed with the code that has been adopted. What we would like to be able to do is try and collaborate and work together to get those solutions into the market that meet not only wildfire resilience, but also durability and hail resistance. So thank you for that.

but I respect where the Colorado Wildfire Board has decided on their code for the state.

Ms. Galeotto. Yes, log home construction does comply.

okay Mr. Gravy says I'm being ambitious in saying we only have a few more panels

patience and and just know that we will get to every last person who wants to speak on this topic And then we'll get to the big show following. So we'll have a very robust evening. So we are back to opponents. Let's see. Matt Salka, Jake Neese, nice. Randy Black. Jody Brady. Commissioner Shatak McNally. I got all excited and thought people were coming forward. Everyone is online? Is there anyone in the room opposed to the bill who has not had an opportunity to testify? Okay, great. We're getting there on that end. And... We can bring a couple of amends up.

Mike Morgan, Chris Brunette. And we see Commissioner Shatok McNally ready for us. And so if you could unmute yourself, we're doing two minutes this afternoon.

Thank you. Thank you. And Mr. Black, are you a chief or what is your proper title?

Fire chief Black, would you like to proceed?

Please wrap up.

Thank you. Commissioner Salka.

vote on HB 1334. Thank you. Thank you. And for the gentleman here, proper title, Chief?

We are out of time on your testimony, but there will be time for questions. You want to just have a sentence of wrap-up?

Chief Brunette.

Okay, perfect. Thank you. And let me just get your name correct. Chief Brunette, you were saying that there's sort of a deadline in September, and so if folks make that deadline, they will be reflected in a report. Can you explain that?

Representative Velasco.

Chief Burnett. Thank you Madam Chair. Thank you Representative for the question. As of yesterday we've had three submit petitions for mapping.

And could you tell us about the mutual aid and how the fire response works across the state?

Chief Morgan.

Representative Wynn.

Do you have something to add, Director Morgan?

Does that answer your question, Representative? Okay, thank you.

Yes, Madam Chair, if I could.

Okay, last question because we're over time on this panel. Thank you Rep. Eisenach.

Chief Morgan.

thank you very much for being with us appreciate your service to our state okay we should be wrapping we should have only proponents left so we will We'll just make our way through what we think will be two more panels of proponents. Rhett Osco, Merit Link, Michelle Gray, Josh Peterson, Scott Smith. Is there? and we could put in some amends. Eric, oh no, he's supposed to be last. Jillian Laycock and TJ Carvis. How about Daniela Gosalova? And anybody I see come up, I will call upon. So, Mr. Smith, we are doing two minutes this afternoon. If you could introduce yourselves, say who you represent, if anyone, and please proceed.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you, Mr. Peterson.

for hearing my concerns. Thank you. Ms. Laycock. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members of the

Please wrap up.

and resilience of our communities. Thank you for your testimony. Mr. Carvis.

Thank you. And before we complete, is Katie first in the room or online? If you want to join us. And also, is Danielle Gostalova here online?

Oh, okay. Is that? Commissioner? Thank you. We just have a couple people who were designated last testifiers so that maybe they haven't been called yet. So we'll get them on this next round. Ms. First, do you want to proceed?

Thank you, Madam Chair.

So thank you. And finally, Ms. Kosovella, if you want to unmute. And we're doing two minutes.

Thank you. Thank you. Committee, we have five people online and one neutral person in person for questions. Representative Bezenacker. Thank you, Madam Chair. My question is for Mr. Peterson online.

Additional questions, Representative Sucla.

This question is for the witness from Akron.

Sure.

So hopefully that addresses your question. Thank you.

Thank you for being with us. So we will attempt a batting cleanup proponent panel. Ted Lady, Eric Duthi, anyone in the room who wishes to testify as proponents. Jody Brady Heidi Henkel anyone hanging out online still Mr. Linkey Merit Linkey Link oh okay I don't have that on my sorry I'm sorry Commissioner Coons I'm sorry about that. Thank you. We're seeing those old folks up there. We've already heard. Mr. Lady, we see you here and we know you well in this committee.

If we can get them up, I don't mean to belabor it, but thank you. That's a very significant place in the lineup that we will hold off on your testimony. Okay, I see Mr. Linky, and what is your proper title?

Commissioner Linky, we're doing two minutes this afternoon.

And Mayor Clark, we're doing two minutes this afternoon.

thank you and mr commissioner kuhns

Thank you. And Mr. Osco, if you can hear us, please join us. And we'll go to you next after Mr. Duthie.

Thank you. And Mr. Osco.

Yes, we can. Please proceed.

Thank you. And is there a Crystal Lambert, and did you want to testify on the wildfire code? Ms. Lambert, are you able to join us? Okay, please unmute yourself. We're doing two minutes.

Thank you. And Mr. Leyte.

Thank you, committee. We have five people online and one person in person for testimony. I mean questions. Representative Baisenecker. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Mr. Leidy, for being here today. I think I have serious concerns about, I think, how the bill has been categorized in testimony versus, I think, what the actual issue that we're trying to solve for is, which I think you're articulating well here. And that's my shared concern that this represents an unforced or unenforceable action that our builders are going to be caught in the middle of at the end of the day. Could you talk some about that liability piece? And I guess further to the point, the numbers that you gave for permits that are sort of in flux, are those in the actual areas that the new code would apply?

And not just specific to the jurisdiction overall? Mr. Leidy.

Thank you very much for being with us Thank you Last call for any witnesses on this bill in any way or flavor Seeing none the witness portion is complete Bill sponsors. Thanks again, everyone. We have previously received three amendments from you, and as a member of the committee, we'll have you move them and talk about each one, one by one.

Second.

Second. And questions about Amendment No. 1? Objections to Amendment No. 1? Seeing none, Amendment No. 1 is passed. Amendment No. 2?

I'm going to run Amendment No. 4 next.

Moved in. Seconded. Tell us about the amendment.

Any objection to amendment number four? Seeing none, amendment number four is adopted. Amendment number three.

Moved and seconded. Tell us about amendment number three.

I have questions about Amendment No. 3. Objection to Amendment No. 3? Seeing none, the Amendment No. 3 passes. Additional amendments, bill sponsors? No. Additional amendments committee Seeing none the amendment phase is complete Wrap up bill sponsors And you could also move your bill as amended to appropriations Oh no I sorry According to your fiscal note you moved to the power Oh yeah forgot to point that out Yes L001 removes the fiscal note so it zero So move your bill to the Committee of the Whole. Okay. Sure, yeah, go ahead. Thank you.

Representative Paschal. Thank you, Madam Chair. We all know that wildfire is a severe threat in Colorado. All of Colorado. We all know the huge human and property cost of wildfire damage, and we all know the importance of building fire-resistant homes. I don't think anybody is disputing that here, although I know there is concerns that that's what's happening, but that's not. That is agreed. This bill, the contents of this bill, does not reject or question the building code put forth by the Wildfire Resiliency Code Board. This bill simply asks for a little more time for the localities that aren't as well resourced to get their job done. The tools and the training from the department were not available on day one of their nine months. In fact, they were available in month eight of their nine months. The deadline for the local implementation has already passed. It was April 1. That doesn't mean that magically all the codes, the maps, and the training for the inspectors is suddenly in place because the deadline went past. This bill acknowledges the reality that there are some folks that need a little bit more time to get their job done. And to be able to get their work complete and to complete it properly. we heard one of the factors is the maps and we have heard testimony that spoke to the fact that there were issues with the state level map that got produced a bunch of the locality struggled with it I've talked to other people more extensively and heard a lot about polygons not being right and etc and so on and I think it is really important that we get these maps right. The tools weren't out until February to be able to work with them. We heard that three localities have submitted a petition to change the map. I want to ask you, do you seriously believe that's the total sum of localities that need help with their maps? I don't think so. And I think we should give them the time to figure out how to use the tools, get their map right, and adapt it. because I afraid we going to have people that just give up and just adopt the map even though it not the right map because they want to be in compliance I don think that serves Colorado well Also, as is, you know, a few weeks I've been on this bill, I have come to realize that the Wildfire Resiliency Code Board, I think they have a great mission. They have good people working on them. It's really important. but they're under-resourced. They didn't have everything they needed to get all these tools out. They weren't late because they were just being jerks. They were late because they got it out as fast as they could. They were doing the best that they could. They didn't have any trainers coming on until mid-February. Again, they did the best that they could. We heard that the board is going to be getting five FTE to be inspectors. that is in the current budget that we are working on this week so it won't happen until July and those people of course have to be trained up in speaking with folks from the Department of Fire Prevention they told me they needed about four times that many so still not enough we are getting better we are getting it spun up it's a good project but it's just not that well resourced And I humbly ask you to look at what is actually in the bill and to understand the actual circumstances on the ground when deciding whether or not to vote on this bill. And I ask for your support. Committee.

Oh. I move HB 1334. Second.

Representative Richardson. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, sponsors, and thank you to all the witnesses that came out today for this. What I heard today was a lot of small counties and municipalities that are really working hard to get this done and are just asking for more time. We even heard those opposed saying that in their estimation, 90% had already moved forward on this, and nobody said they're trying not to comply. That's the nature of local governments. And it's not like we haven't levied a lot on them. I was just looking back over the two years I've been here, you know, House Bill 1030, 1093, 1113, 1269, 1273, Senate Bill 2. This year, 1001, 1114, 1268, 1308, Senate Bills 82, 109 coming. Those all require code or land use changes. And the ICC updates every three years as well. So we have no stability. We're pushing a lot of stuff from the outside. And it's really no wonder that costs are going up because there isn't a stable planning or enforcement environment out there. I think it's very important that we give some folks breathing room. It also bothers me that a lot of folks kept asking, well, there's no penalties attached. We're making law. We shouldn't be encouraging people to ignore it just because there's no penalties. That's kind of a slapping ourselves in the face to what we do here. So I am an absolute yes today. I truly hope everybody else is. Representative Wynn.

I'm chair. I come from a local municipality, local government background. I was a Brookfield City Council member until January 12th. And I understand that this is a one time extension. And I recognize that the wildfire season is going to be brutal this year. And I don't think this bill is going to cause disruptions in our firefighting capabilities. It's actually going to help and allow for flexibility and for capacity building. Because communities who are, you know, the 10% that's left, they're just trying to reach the goals of the Wildfire Prevention Board. And for that, I think I recognize that for a one-time exception, this is it. I'll be a yes for today. Thank you very much.

Representative Velasco. Thank you so much, Madam Chair. And thank you to the sponsors. Thank you, everyone, that came to testify. I was the prime sponsor of the original fire code bill and of the delay that we passed last year. So this is not the first delay. And this process was definitely not rushed. We have been working on this issue for at least three years with multiple opportunities for engagement and representation from local governments, insurance, and industry.

Thank you Madam Chair and thank you representatives for bringing the bill I think you made some really good arguments I support home building but I am persuaded today by all the testimony from the fire people and some of the commissioners We just had a fire in Thornton. Some people in my neighborhood were evacuated. And so I know that now my constituents are really going to be focusing on fire safety and not in 18 months. So I will be a no for today.

I agree with many of the comments that were just made. I believe that there was a lot of the testimony that still did speak to some of the issue. And I wonder, you know, would we be in as much of a position right now to feel like we have to act if it was a monsoon season, right? if we're having torrential downpours right now. So I don't know how much of the seasonality, which we cannot control, is putting us into a near panic mode. And I understand that. I understand that there is a real fire danger coming now, but I don't know that necessarily saying we've waited too long and we have to push this down right now is going to necessarily solve that, especially when we've got local governments that are saying, And look, we are acting, I think tying the 123 funds are great. I think there's other mechanisms we can enact. You know, there are a couple of things that kind of stand out to me. One that we heard here where it was a bill not too long ago, and it's funny, some of the testimony, you know, was for it then, but then now, you know, that the lane direction has changed. It kind of changed a little bit that we talk about should we give people more time to access funding? Should we rewrite, should we recode the way we're looking at Proposition 123 funding to allow for some of those that haven't been able to participate to be able to opt in? I understand that this is a public safety mechanism that we're talking about, and so it's not exactly apples to apples, but the intent of that, I believe, should be considered. That we're saying, we're hearing local governments say, hey, give us some time, please, just like we did on another bill very recently. But we're going to say, no, we have to do this now and press down. there was a navigation campus that was opened up recently for homeless right tiers one two and three douglas county my county was was part of that we have some beds there and there are terrible issues right now with mold and with water pipes and there is an admission that we rushed it that it was too soon we wanted to be able to get to the point to where it was open forced it down so got to open now because we have to be able to get to this policy. At that time, I don't know that I disagreed because there was a real need there. We're trying to solve the need, but yet we got out over the tips of our skis on the timeline and now we're paying for it. I think this is reasonable and I'd like to be able to listen to what the local governments are saying when they say that there are some real issues with the compliance timeline. And so I'll be in support of this today. Thank you.

Mr. Gravy, please call the roll.

No.

Yes.

No.

No.

Yes.

Yes.

No.

Yes.

Yes.

No.

Yes.

No.

No. That fails seven to six. Vice Chair Stewart.

Second.

. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, committee. And thank you to everyone who has waited. I know the schedule is just so unpredictable. So I appreciate everybody who's been waiting to testify on this bill this evening. We'll make sure we get through everybody. Okay. So me and my co-prime here, Representative Brooks, we are here to present Senate Bill 98, noise abatement. and thank you all for being here to listen. We're excited to bring this bill before you. This is a measure grounded in a simple but powerful principle. When it comes to noise regulation, local communities know best how to balance the needs of their residents, businesses, and cultural life. Across our state, we are blessed with many vibrant towns and cities that host concerts, festivals, and community gatherings that bring people together. These events are not just entertainment, they are economic drivers, cultural touchstones, and opportunities for connection. At the same time, we all recognize that excessive or poorly managed noise can impact daily quality of life. And this is precisely why flexibility matters. A one-size-fits-all approach to noise regulation does not reflect the diversity of our communities. What works in a dense urban center may not make sense in a rural town. What's appropriate during a weekend music festival may differ from a quiet weekday evening. Local governments are best positioned to strike this balance because they are closest to the people they serve and have a deep understanding of the specific needs and challenges of their community. To be clear, this bill is not intended to address one specific locality's issue or cater to a certain special interest. These outdoor events broadly benefit communities, local economies and businesses, and residents alike. We are seeking a thoughtful solution to a statewide problem with this legislation. SB 98 empowers municipalities and counties to make these nuanced decisions. It ensures they have the authority to support local events while still protecting residents' peace and well This is not about lowering standards but rather it about tailoring them more appropriately Today you will hear from many people across the state who are in support of this bill and dozens more individuals have submitted written testimony voicing their support. We have a handout which we have pulled out about five, what we think is the testimony we really want you to read during the hearing today, so be sure you do that. and by passing this bill we affirm our trust in local leadership and support the continued vitality of community events that enrich our state before I close I want to mention that this bill passed out of the senate our counterpart in the senate local gov committee 5-2 and it passed on thirds out of the senate off the senate floor 30-4 and with that I urge an aye vote and I pass it over to my co-prime Representative Brooks

Yes, and we will have some amendments that we will present to you, and I think that we can go through them. I think it's important really to kind of set the scene for what we want to bring with the amendments to help kind of foster the discussion around that with testimony. So do you want to talk about that, those amendments now? Okay. Representative Lindsay.

Chair, thank you

Questions for the bill sponsors? Representative Baisenegger. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I think just because it's going to intersect with the conversation we're having today on Amendment L-9, the bill exempts certain uses of properties from the sound level set forth in the NAA, specifically property that's owned or controlled by the state, et cetera, property pursuant to a permit or license issued by the local government, property that is owned or controlled by a nonprofit entity, et cetera. Can you tell me how L9 intersects with those exemptions? I mean, is it amending the same section? I'm trying to pull the bill up on my computer. I'm just wondering if you can speak to that. Representative, who would like to answer? Lindsay.

The NAA does not specifically exempts city, county, state-owned property and properties owned by nonprofits, regardless of whether they operate as a business or operate for entertainment or whatever. So that's Red Rocks, et cetera. So of the outdoor amphitheaters in Colorado, what are we talking about in terms of ones that are not city-county-owned, state-owned? Representative Lindsay.

Representative Phillips.

Yes, I have this printed out as well. If you guys didn't know, I'm not a lawyer, so I had a lot of questions about how this would work. And so let me see. Point here as I'm. Okay. Yes. So under this bill, local residents around the state will continue to have standing to bring legal claims under Rule 106A4. Colorado appellate courts have repeatedly held that local residents and others can sue under Rule 106 when they are affected by nearby land uses that affects their own use and enjoyment. That specifically includes aesthetic interests. There's a couple of cases cited here. Nearby landowners had standing due to proposed road impacts on aesthetics and property values.

well I would hope that every community or any person in any city is engaging in their local processes with city council and being engaged in that process. And I don't know that we want to make an issue such as this legislated at the state level because of that. I think that we need to, and I think in many cases, local control is a very important issue because that is your closest touch point to the government, even more so than here at the state. And so I would argue that you have more touch at your city council perhaps than you even would at the state from like a very local perspective And I mean that why we all need to be engaging in our you know municipal elections and going to city council meetings because of course there are always interests represented business industry and then also community needs to show up and make sure that they are saying their piece about whatever happening in their local community Representative Brooks.

Representative Jackson. Thank you, Madam Chair. So what I think I hear you saying is that there are other than – so what I think I hear you saying is that there are no accountability mechanisms in the bill to ensure that local governments must weigh resident concerns equally with economic or operational interests. Is that correct?

Representative Phillips.

Representative Lindsay.

Representative Brooks.

Representative Richardson.

Representative Brooks.

Thank you. Representative Phillips.

Additional questions? Okay. We have quite a few witnesses, so let's move on to that portion. We will start with proponents. And to argument, we're going to bring up Bev Stables. Heather Stauffer. We've got Zach Tucker remotely, Holly Rogan remotely, Christy Doon remotely, Leslie Summey, and Kevin Burns. Ms. Stables, we see you ready. We are doing two minutes and a five-minute panel, so please proceed when you are ready.

Thank you so much. We'll go next in person. Please introduce yourself. You've got two minutes.

Thank you very much. Thank you very much. We go ahead and go online and in person we call up Don Strasberg if you here as well to please come join us But in the meantime we go to Mayor Rogan Introduce yourself You got two minutes

Thank you very much. We'll go next to Heather Stauffer. You've got two minutes.

in person to Mr. Strasburg. Go ahead and introduce yourself. You've got two minutes.

Thank you very much. Committee, we have three folks in person. Representative Rulick.

Ms. Stauffer.

Representative Frelick.

For example, the city of Denver doesn't have the capacity themselves to sell the tickets and make sure that the actual bones of the event, like the logistics of the event, they don't do that directly, so they contract to a third party. And our concern is that based on how the Hobbs versus City of Salida decision reads, there is room for liability, I think, and potential for these events to not move forward because they are using a third-party vendor, even though the property is a nonprofit-owned.

Thank you, but that was also contemplated in Hobbs, and it said that one of the scenarios discussed was a for-profit rock concert at the University of Colorado, and that those would be covered regardless of whether the venue acted in concert with a for-profit entity or for entertainment purposes, as long as it was owned by a nonprofit, the property was owned by a nonprofit, or the city or the government.

Sure, and so I think that that's exactly what we're trying to clarify here, because I think to Ms. Stauffer's point, if you had an event where maybe some of Sundance Film Festival is going to be held on private property, some of it's going to be held on public property, some of it's going to be using a private third-party vendor, Some of it's not. You get into a situation where we're not sure that we are operating under what the Hobbs versus City of Salida decision has told us we can do, even though for the last 50 years under the NAA, local governments have been operating under a very different understanding of our authority compared to what this recent Supreme Court case determined.

Yeah. At the center of the facility where people are listening to the talent, between 95 and 105 decibels.

That's hard to say because I'm reading it from the center of the venue. As the sound moves outside the venue, it can be impacted. That's why it's hard for me to answer. 75 is certainly a whole lot more manageable than 65. When you have gone through the concession areas and you've gone through the walls and you've gone through all the structures that are built at these places and just distance, best way to explain Sound is like a water hose, and if you're spraying it, it just kind of, at some point, the power falls. And if you're close to it, it's very powerful, but as you get farther away, it dissipates.

Yes, we book concerts at Ford Amphitheater, correct,

I mean, we work tirelessly with every community that we do concerts in. We do everything and follow every rule to live within the limits that they set, or we don't do the shows there if it doesn't work. In the case of Ford Amphitheater, we in the venue especially, we're not as involved, but the venue has worked tirelessly to try to adjust there, how the sound exits the building. And we advise with all of our skills to help them manage that as well.

We believe that the local community should be working with the local community to dictate the rules in their situation. And I know that a tremendous amount of work is being done at that specific venue to work with the local community. I really am deeply concerned that that issue can impact things from Red Rocks to Sundance to Telluride to Lions to Dillon or to any other private enterprise who has the idea or thought to try to create a new music experience in our state but is limited by state rules that have no bearing on local rules. And that's really the rub, you know, is you're in Walsenburg and they have a perspective on something that may be totally different than Colorado Springs or somewhere else. But that enterprise can't even go through because of a one-size-fits-all state bill.

in person on this side. Go ahead and introduce yourself. You've got two minutes. Madam Chair, good afternoon. My name is John Denniston. I'm a native Coloradan born in El Paso County, just outside the Colorado Springs city limit in a home my father built with his own hands. He still lives there today where he cares full time for my mother who's dependent on a wheelchair. After years away in the military and beyond four years ago, I came back to raise my children in that Colorado and poured my life savings into a home one mile away from the Ford Amphitheater. I knew the amphitheater was being constructed, and I was frankly excited about someplace walkable for my home that I could take my music-loving wife. I did my research. I learned that there is a city ordinance and a state law that should protect my home and that of my parents. The opposite turned out to be true. Like thousands of others, my home is invaded by noise pollution. I can't sleep in my own bed even with windows closed and air conditioning on. My parents and childhood home are also under siege. If my mom can't sleep, she can't heal. Real people are experiencing real harm, which will only worsen if this bill is passed. This bill, as we pointed out, has one purpose, to allow for-profit noise polluters, like the one harming my family, to forever bypass the state noise limits that have protected us for generations. Only a few people need this. Red Rocks and Fiddler's Green are already fully exempt, as we have highlighted under the current law, and do not need this. The bill has zero guardrails on the types of harmful noise that localities can permit. Noise is pollution that is harmful to human health. It crosses municipal boundaries, like in the case of my parents, who have no vote and no voice in the city permit that is harming them. This is why minimum state protections are essential, like those that guard our air and water. You will hear today examples about how local control repeatedly fails across our state and across our country. We should remember that real immediate solution is available at no cost to these for-profit polluters. Just turn it down. Instead, however, they bring amendments that don't actually solve the harm or offer us real protection. And so we are forced to continue to oppose this bill and ask you to do the same. Please vote no to protect property rights, public health, and the Colorado we are giving to our children.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair. and committee members. I'm Colorado Springs City Councilman, Iraq War veteran, and Green Beret, Dave Donaldson. I've served on council for five years. Thank you for listening to my testimony today, asking you to vote no on this bill and to continue to ensure state-level protection for all Coloradans from noise pollution, such as that from Ford Amphitheater in Colorado Springs. I was on council when the development plan for Ford Amphitheater was approved, And I've been there for all the subsequent excess of noise, frustration, disappointment, and unwanted home sales suffered by citizens, homeowners, and neighborhoods up to five miles from the amphitheater. I'm sure all of you on this committee have been in your car, stopped at a light when another vehicle with very loud booming bass pulls up somewhere around you and you can feel it in your car. How did you like that? how would you like that in your home for four or five hours several nights a week throughout the summer That is what you are telling all Coloradans that you are willing to subject them to if you vote yes on this Why would you do that? Home rule? I'm a champion of home rule. I'm a city councilman. However, I have learned that in the case of noise pollution, home rule isn't enough. Noise pollution doesn't respect the boundary of the home rule entity. In the case of Ford Amphitheater, it leaks out into the county where thousands of citizens are harmed but have no municipal representation. Their quality of life is degraded by the decisions of a mayor that they don't get to vote on. These county citizens are told by their county commissioner there is nothing the commissioners can do because the amphitheater is in the city, not the county. A statewide standard such as currently exists in the Noise Abatement Act provides them a pathway to address this. I implore you to not weaken the protections. Do not allow local governments to exempt for-profit businesses. Please maintain statewide noise pollution standards and vote no on this bill. This is not one size fits all. It is a minimum standard.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, members of the committee. Terry Carver, former state representative. I am here in opposition to Senate Bill 98 for two main reasons. First, I must respectfully disagree with the statement that was made by the sponsor that this bill will not result in less protective noise standards. Of course it will. Colorado set good policy in 1971 when it recognized the importance of noise pollution and how a statewide standard needed to be in place to protect those citizens from noise pollution, and it was a baseline standard. They set up that law so that local communities could be more protective, but not less protective. And just like other types of pollution, this state standard provides the same protection for every Coloradan, regardless of where they live in our beautiful state. And so this bill would undo that. It would allow an expanded exemption to basically swallow the guts of the 1971 law by allowing local communities to set their own local standards based on their own values, the politics of the moment, other considerations. And what is being traded off here? What's being traded off is a less protective noise standard and more imposition and harmful noise that their residents are being subjected to. The other aspect of the 1971 law, which I so appreciate as a strong supporter of private property rights, is how it provides a defense for those homeowners to seek redress when those standards are violated. and so I urge a no vote this is bad policy for Colorado

last witness here in person introduce yourself you got two minutes Dave Osley our resident of Northgate Highlands since 2015 in Colorado Springs speaking on behalf of my family and myself I oppose this bill and urge you to do the same as it's a Trojan horse disguised as bolstering municipalities' rights. We already have the Noise Abatement Act already mentioned, which has worked for over 55 years, and it was upheld by the Colorado Supreme Court. Additionally, our local leadership is failing us, our city government has ignored our civil requests just for simply enforcing the existing noise ordinances for two full seasons. I'm a 100% disabled veteran with diagnosed anxiety and sleep issues. I'd like to briefly describe what I've been experiencing, not for sympathy, but for your awareness. and as a reminder that like all of my friends and neighbors here, I am a real person experiencing real harm from unchecked local power, which supposedly knows best. On show nights, my house is often subjected to levels, noise levels at 60s and 70 decibels. I can hear and feel the concerts inside my house, AC running, windows closed, TV on. and it doesn't matter. My daughter unable to concentrate to be able to do her homework. Explicit language raining through the neighborhoods late at night, unchecked. Driving home from work, wondering if, okay, is tonight a show night? Will I have to leave my home to get refuge? Leave my home to get refuge. This bill is not about local control. This is a codifying corporate control and those who are connected to power against the residents.

You've got two minutes. Thanks. Just to clarify, I had signed up not to oppose or support the legislation, but with a neutral comment.

Okay, thanks. So good evening, Madam Chair and members of the committee, and I really thank you for the opportunity to make a statement. My name is Steve Sorensen. I'm speaking here today as a representative of the Institute of Noise Control Engineering of the USA, which we typically refer to by its initials INCE or INCE USA, where I currently serve as president. INCE USA is a nonprofit professional society engaged in the study and practice of all areas of noise control. The Institute is made up of a group of about 1,000 noise control professionals who work in a variety of organizations in consulting, academia, government, and industry. SB 98 has been brought to our attention as it may affect noise limits in communities within the state of Colorado. INS USA acknowledges that noise regulations can and do evolve at county and municipal levels across the U.S. It is in the best interest of community, government, and business enterprises that state and local noise regs are written in a way to clearly and effectively address community noise concerns and reduce community annoyance while balancing economic and other factors. NCCUSA represents a population of independent resources, including many here within the state of Colorado, which can help inform stakeholders and decision makers. The goal is to provide regulatory outcomes which are most likely to appropriately address noise concerns amongst the many other factors and considerations. NCUSA encourages government officials and the larger community to reach out to noise control subject matter experts for help in drafting local noise-related regulations and for guidance in developing effective noise mitigation approaches so that those limits can be met and are likely to result in community compatibility and acceptance. To view a list of our members, which is searchable by state and area of focus, I would recommend please visit our website at inceusa.org. Thank you.

minutes. Yes, thank you to the chair and to the committee. I appreciate the opportunity to submit this testimony regarding SB 26098. My name is Jamie Banks. I'm a health and environmental scientist and founder and president of Quiet Communities, a national nonprofit organization working to help reduce harm from noise. I oppose this bill because it puts private interests ahead of public welfare, threatening the health of the public and fragile ecosystems. Local authorities do not have the knowledge or resources to effectively regulate noise and protect public safety. Details are in my written testimony. Extensive scientific evidence accumulated over decades shows that chronic noise, even at low levels, can disrupt sleep and contribute not only to hearing damage, but to heart disease, diabetes and obesity, anxiety, depression, dementia, and even premature mortality. Noise interferes with cognition and learning, contributes to behavior problems, and reduces achievement and productivity. Low-frequency components allow many sources of environmental noise, including amplified music, to travel long distances and go right through walls and windows, robbing people of peace and quiet and their ability to control the acoustic environment in their own homes. This type of noise is notoriously hard to mitigate. The health of more than 100 million Americans is at risk, with children among the most vulnerable. People across the country are being harmed by noise and getting no relief from local authorities, sometimes having to move from their homes or being forced to resort to the justice system to find relief. It is well known that local ordinances are highly variable, are not framed to consider health impacts, are largely deficient in metrics and enforcement, and lack consistency across communities. The state constitution grants citizens the inalienable rights to enjoy and defend their lives and liberties, acquire, possess, and protect property, and seek and obtain their safety and happiness. This bill flies in the face of those rights. Weakening state laws in favor of localities is not good for anyone, including the public, the environment, local governments, and I want to be in private interests. I urge you to vote against Bill 98. Thank you for your consideration.

Thank you, Madam Chair. First of all, thank you for your service for those that served. My question is, the gentleman from AEG said that a tremendous amount of work has been done. And I know my understanding is there have been over 1,700 complaints. And so I'm just wondering if anyone, if any of the, because you're the neighbors, if any of the neighbors could respond and just share some of the tremendous amount of work

Mr. Ellsley.

Representative Paschal.

Yeah, it's a long story. You know, you can't cover it in two minutes. I'll give you like a couple of pieces. When this was first approved by city council X number of years ago, I was there. I listened to the citizens and wound up voting no on that day. We were told by, you know, the developer, the gentleman who was going to build this, that they would have sound monitors right outside the stadium, outside of the amphitheater. If 47 decibels hit these sound monitors, they would turn things down, right? Okay, it sounds foolproof, right? If they told you that, you would say, okay, it's going to work. What they didn't tell us is that's over a five-minute average, okay? So the sound, I can scream right now, but over a five-minute average, it'll be okay. The other thing which we didn't realize is that where those things were placed, the sound went right over them, didn't really impact them, but it goes into the neighborhoods on the hillsides, which is where many of these complaints have come from and it travels for miles So it is something of a David and Goliath situation when a company who this is what they do and they've done this across the country, they build these amphitheaters, they're the experts in sound. City council certainly isn't, just like I heard some questions about decibel levels, because we aren't experts in this. We need a state standard or at least a way for citizens to seek a fair trial, truly a fair trial, where they've gathered a lot of evidence. Some of them may tell you about it. They've bought their own monitors. They've hired noise experts to monitor this, and their results are not what we are told by the amphitheater.

Thank you. Madam, former state representative and JAG attorney. We are hearing implications from Hobbs v. Salida. It's my understanding that this bill would not implicate that decision because the bill is not retroactive on a decision already made. Can you talk a little bit about the interplay between the legal decisions? It's my understanding this also would not implicate the pending lawsuit from residents against Colorado Springs. From a rep Carver. Correct. Thank you, Madam Chair. As to your second question, I may need to leave that to other lawyers who have looked at that aspect. But when I read the Salida decision, first of all, completely agree with the points you made earlier, that this decision does not impact music venues hosted by a town or city, regardless of who they contract with to help them put that on. It doesn't impact the nonprofits, including whether they lease private land or other type of things. That's how I read Salida. So that this is really only dealing with the for-profit commercial ventures that have activities that generate noise, including entertainment venues. And let me say, it's a great addition to the community. It truly is. But where it is located and the impacts to the residents is the ongoing concern. I've talked to countless people who have said, I love the concerts, but my peace and quiet at home has been destroyed. Right? I mean, that's where we're at. And to my way of thinking, Madam Chair, the importance of the 1971 structure is not that it just set a statewide standard for noise pollution that is protective, or at least they thought it was protective on that year, right? And it was set with, if you read the legislative history, with an understanding of the impacts of noise on health. But they tied it to one of our most basic private property rights in Colorado law. when you own a home your two fundamental rights that go with that ownership is the quiet use and enjoyment of your home And in common law they created and this goes way back to English common law that we received We might have kicked King George out, but we kept good old English common law. And that law provided a civil lawsuit in nuisance to defend your core private property right for quiet use and enjoyment in your home. Period. And, of course, the other component, not relevant for this discussion, is the right to exclusive use. So if somebody comes in and trespasses on your property, you have a civil law for trespass. So what the 1971 law wisely did, not just in setting a statewide protective noise standard, but it tied it to this fundamental property right to quiet use and enjoyment. And it said, if you violate these standards, you have a lawsuit, almost like a per se, for public nuisance. So now that homeowner of modest means does not have to go forward and get the methodology, do all of this. It is set up in state law as an enforceable mechanism to defend their most basic private property right. I do not see, and I don't think the amendment fixes this, I do not see how allowing varying local standards to now be the protective standard, how that does not utterly undercut the property right of quiet use enjoyment and negate any meaningful enforcement mechanism for a lawsuit in public nuisance. so as to how this if this bill were to pass how it would impact a current lawsuit I'll allow others to speak to that it is not crystal clear to me that this bill if passed would not end up having an impact on that lawsuit. But I am not an expert on that point and I'm hoping other witnesses can answer that more concisely. Thank you very much. Representative

minutes over on this panel. Thank you, Madam Chair. I am always brief. I have a follow-up question for Council Member Donaldson. So does the Colorado Springs City Council have any ability to shut down or control the noise with the Ford Amphitheater? And if they do, is there just not the will to do it? Could you elaborate on that?

Thank you, Madam Chair. The way the current ordinances in Colorado Springs are, the way our charter is, it's the mayor's privilege to issue a noise hardship permit. and that is his domain, and he has chosen to do that the last two seasons. Perhaps there are discussions on what council can do to change that, but But what is before you today, I see as a protection for all citizens of Colorado. And local politics can be heavily influenced by a large organization in that city. And as elected officials know, there are ways to influence elected officials. And I think that has happened to the harm of the citizens that live in these neighborhoods. And they have fallen back to their next line, which is protection at the state level. Thank you very much to this panel.

My name is Danielle Fry, and I'm speaking in opposition of Senate Bill 98. Supporters of this bill claim that it is needed because the Hobbs v. Salida case disrupted local permitting practices. But the truth is the Hobbs decision did not change the law. It only clarified what the law always intended. The Colorado Supreme Court made clear these permits are for situations where events are tied to government or nonprofit use. It's a balanced approach that respects both local control and the rights of residents. Recently, that balance has been lost. In both Salida and Colorado Springs, permits have been used in ways that are, in my opinion, unreasonable and abusive, letting for-profit businesses hold events that violate statewide noise limits and negatively impact the environment, public health, and the quality of life. In Salida, Matthew Hobbs complained about excessive noise from a bar with permits for outdoor concerts. The next year, instead of addressing the impact, Salida tripled the allowable permits per location, from 18 to 60. In Colorado Springs Ford Amphitheater was approved to be built in an established residential area based on its commitments to comply with already existing noise limits including a sound study that indicated 47 decibels would be the impact to nearby homes In reality, my home is just under a mile away, and I have measured levels as high as 71 decibels on my property. Our community has begged our officials to intervene, but instead of enforcing the original limits, the city's response has been to issue permits allowing the venue to exceed what was promised. In both cases, permits have been misused, not for public benefit, but to legitimize ongoing unreasonable noise. The Hobbs decision reaffirmed the guardrails of the Noise Abatement Act. This bill would eliminate them and cement the misinterpretations that have led to these disputes. Therefore, I ask you to vote no on Senate Bill 98. Lastly, while I am unable to present recordings during testimony, I have videos that demonstrate the excessive noise levels and audible profanity experienced at homes approximately a mile away from Ford Amphitheater. And I will be available in the hallway after testifying for any member of the committee who would like to review them. Thank you.

Madam Chair and committee members, my name is Eddie Lopez. I'm a downtown resident of Pueblo. I'm asking you to vote no on this bill. To be clear, I support live music, the Pueblo and Chihuly Festival, which we live in every year. We love it. and a healthy downtown. But as a property owner and resident, we also have a right to peace and privacy in our home. Noise pollution has been a real issue for downtown Pueblo. Last year, over a seven-month period, more than 50 residents on a single block were exposed to live music from a bar's outdoor patio that at times exceeded 100 decibels continuously and often continued past 10 p.m. if there was an encore presentation. Some apartment windows are within 30 feet of this music. After hitting a dead end with the bar owner and police, we organized and we convinced code enforcement to issue the bar violation under statewide protections. This bill would leave residents without protection from local governments if they decide to permit excessive noise. And most importantly for this committee, Colorado has already seen the results of this. It's Salida. Salida allowed music up to 85 decibels 60 times a year as late as 10 p.m. What do these numbers actually mean? Because decimals are logarithmic, 85 decibels is 1,000 times more intense than the legal standard. And for our situation, 100 decibels is over 31,000 times more intense. These are not minor differences. These are intrusive noise levels that we as residents cannot escape inside of our home. We experience stress and sleep disturbances as a result, which is exactly why statewide protections matter. Large venues have resources to monitor and mitigate sound levels, but what about the smaller four private bars and restaurants. They might not. And worse, some may just have no desire whatsoever to mitigate the noise. Without statewide protections, residents will face real hardship with no recourse.

Please do not force some residents to rely only on local political discretion. Please remember Salida. Thank you.

It has seriously impacted my family and community. We're bombarded with constant extreme noise from pounding music and profanities such as F the Police, F this S, not going to say it, while inside our home, doors and windows closed for hours each concert and on school nights. My wife, an elementary teacher, can't sleep with concerts until 11. It disrupts our children's studies, our jobs, and impacts the children she teaches. Our child suffers from anxiety and depression. We had to move them to the basement to escape the constant intrusive noise. We've now faced being forced from our home of 24 years. What you hear versus the truth. Forward noise is at a conversation level. A car alarm outside your house is at a conversation level. Imagine that for hours every day at your home. Ford noise averages are 50 decibels. Averages use silence between songs hiding excessive noise and are not industry standard. Ford has no violations. No violations are ensured by zero monitoring at higher elevation neighborhoods above their walls, consistently reading up to 70 decibels and above. Local control gives residents more influence. Thousands are over the county line harming us and have zero voting influence. Citizens cannot overcome local special interest financial influence without state law. Rule 106 is an option. We've heard about that, and it absolutely is insurmountable by the people. Ford proves local control doesn't work because the city continues to allow harm despite massive citizen effort. My family is being harmed, and this removes our protections and rights as property owners. Please help us and vote no on this.

Good afternoon, Chair Ferellick and Committee. I'm Dr. Elth, speaking for myself, and I oppose Bill 98 as well as the amendments. Noise is not just an annoyance. It is a significant public health hazard known to cause physiological and psychological harm. Bill 98 ends the uniform state protections of the Noise Abatement Act, which have protected the public since 1971. It is inherently discriminatory and unethical to impose an inferior public health noise standard on a community just to appease a for-profit noise polluter. The Supreme Court Hobbs case set precedent to protect the public from harmful for-profit noise polluters. This bill intentionally seeks to overturn the Supreme Court ruling and end this protection for Coloradans. Simultaneously, it gives complete legal immunity to the for-profit offender. Colorado Springs is the poster child for how local control can fail. Despite over 1,700 complaints, the city has done nothing. because cities typically do not understand sound engineering, an attitude of permissiveness develops. Local permissiveness becomes corporate control. Our attorney advises us that this bill completely eliminates a citizen from having his day in court, and indeed adoption of this bill will terminate the present suit against venue. City permits simultaneously authorize a public nuisance and void state law such that both public and private nuisance suits are excluded. Rule 106 is also a dead end It is misguided to give cities unlimited authority and remove all accountability Please protect all Coloradans from harm by voting no on this bill

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and committee members. My name is Mariana Bailey, and I'm here to strongly oppose SB 2697. We moved to Colorado in 2006, to Glen Eagle, outside by the city limits of Colorado Springs, because it was a great, quiet, peaceful community. We wanted a safe place where our son could feel calm and protected. My son was diagnosed with level 3 autism, severe sensory disorders, and other medical conditions. Our home became his safe place. We built him a swing and sensory room, a swing on the deck, and hung a swing under the deck, so he could feel secure and have some independence. About two years ago, our peace and quiet suddenly disappeared. One night, it was suddenly very loud in our house. When I checked the camera in my son's swing room, I was shocked. He had his ears covered and was shaking. I realized the noise was coming from outside, more than two miles away from the amphitheater. Now there are times we have to give him strong anxiety medication in his own home. Medication that was only meant for medical appointments and procedures. A normal conversation is about 50 to 60 decibels. That's not that. This is the noise from miles away that shakes our windows. That shakes my bed while I have to go to bed early because I do my son's night shift. I can't fall asleep because of this amphitheater. I have granddaughters that don't go to school that during the week have the prom because it stays up so late. The law is not about local control. Noise does not stop at the city line. Communities outside city limits do not have a voice or a vote. I can't go to city. Sure, I can go to city council and tell them my story, but they don't care because I can't vote. It doesn't count. This will affect thousands of Coloradans that don't live in the city. This also will make sure that a city can put an amphitheater right at the line of a county and the people outside the county just don't have a voice. please do not take away my son's only safe place, his home. Please vote no for this $2,998. Sorry.

So good afternoon, Chairwomen and the committee. I'm sorry. I'm Steve Shahnis, the legislature. The director and past state commander for the Veterans of Foreign Wars Colorado, and on behalf of the 20,000 men and women of the VFW Colorado and our auxiliary, thank you for the opportunity to provide our position on SB 98. The VFW supports sensible protections to improve quality of life for military veterans or families and their survivors. However, we oppose SB 98. SP-98. High, repeated noise can cause real harm, particularly for people living with traumatic brain injury and other service-connected conditions. Long-term, repeated exposure is what builds symptoms over time. Symptoms may include headaches, dizziness, balance problems, depression, anxiety, irritability, mood swings, memory loss, difficulty concentrating, sensitivity to light noise, vision concerns. Some symptoms occur alone while others appear in clusters. And did you know that about 67% of the United States veterans have experienced at least one traumatic brain injury? And then in El Paso County, for example, in Congressional District 5 is among the most populated, is one of the most populated congressional districts in the country. Normally it's about the third most populated. So SB 98 does not fix outdated policy primarily, it just addresses noncompliance. Unfortunately, some high volume commercial operators have worked around existing rules by using municipal exemptions and short term leases. So we're just asking please vote know on SB 98, the communities deserve consistent enforceable limits for the health and homes of the families and our shared environment. So I do got one other thing, is that while I was sitting back there, I would entertain a question that talks about the decibel level of people who are testifying. As a matter of fact, the people who are first presenting the bill. I would love to tell you about the DV level and the average DV level. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So I'll take the soft pitch. My question is what is the spike? Like how high does it go in decibel levels? and also is – I'm trying to think of solutions already. Would a noise wall be helpful? Would a noise wall? Meaning if they – like I live by I-25. It's very loud, but we have some of it, and we always want a noise wall, but some of it has a noise wall. Right. Okay. So the highest DV level that –

Sorry. So the highest DV level that I recorded as they were presenting the bill was 72. And that's a spike. And that's fine. That's a spike. However, the average was 58 throughout their entire conversation. Now, at houses, as you heard described, that the DV level is much higher on average. And if you listen to, I don't know who you're, I don know who presenting the noise in testimony or anything like that Is there anybody that you know about Okay And the walls probably I know about the walls but the only thing I tell you is that they don work But he's much better to explain it. But that, anyway, 58 dB and that, no, the walls don't work in my personal opinion.

So noise walls. So noise walls, you can Google this. This isn't just me making this up. Noise walls work for local noise. Noise walls work about 500 feet. Beyond 500 feet, the sound goes right over it. It goes over it in several ways. The first is called straight line sound. It just, you could draw like with a ruler, just go straight over the wall. Once the sound gets over the wall, then it starts to diffract down.

The low frequencies, the bass, begin to diffract down instantly. High frequencies tend to be more absorbed by the wall. But the reason why people have troubles with bass is because the bass is able to pass over the walls and travel great distances. The other way that sound gets over sound walls is temperature and wind inversions, which basically is that sound likes cool air. And particularly like in Colorado at night, you have this hot stadium down below with all these people and lights. It's cool up here. The sound rises up way up over the wall, and then the wind just pushes it all over. It can be pushed for miles away. And this is in engineering reports. This is common in engineering literature. This is why people get these tremendous sound levels miles away is from straight line sound with diffraction and from temperature and wind inversions. and this is actually in the venue sound reports from their LSTN that they submitted to the city for the PUD. They actually quote in there that they said that temperature and wind inversions could significantly change the levels that residents would experience. But then that was all that was said and nothing was ever done about it. But typically, temperature and wind inversions can change sound. Ten decibels is fairly common. Ten decibels is twice as loud. So sound walls, in other words, only work like at an interstate for a house row behind the wall, they work. A mile away, they don't work. And you can find this, just Google it, do sound walls work a mile away at distances? And the answer is no.

Yes, just to add, I'm not a doctor, but I can give you the simple residence view. I live in an area of thousands of residents just over the county line. We're at an elevation up to 250 feet above the Fort Amphitheater. They don't have 250-foot walls, even if the walls would work. And we are a mile and a quarter away. We get up to and over 70 decibels constantly. There's nothing between us and thousands of people to the north of the venue.

Rafe. So the Colorado statute as well as the Colorado Springs ordinance are the same 45 decibels. for periodic, impulsive, and shrill noise. Concert noise is periodic and impulsive noise. Our engineer has that in writing. It was a mistake for it ever to be approved to be 50 decibels as a limit. 50 decibels is for regular noise like traffic noise, this kind of thing, a delivery truck going by. Four, five, six hours worth of regular repetitive rock and roll music with bass and drums is periodic impulsive, so the permissible limit should be 45. However, it's been kind of just said, oh, well, it's going to be 50.

Okay. Really, the limit should be 45, 45 decibels. And then what this gets into is what was brought up about average versus instantaneous. If you walk around with your little handheld meter that you typically see, those levels are called instantaneous. They're basically one-second averages. When you get into sound engineering, like with what the theater is doing, they have meters that record and they measure over a five-minute span, and then they make an average over five minutes. So basically the question then comes into is what metric are you going to use? My impression is, and from the people that I've spoken with, is that the law uses the word maximum permissible limit. Maximum permissible limit references the instantaneous or the one-second data. It's precisely why, if you look at the venue data, which they just released, their first graph, they have to prove that they have not exceeded the maximum limits set for the theater, which is 110 decibels, okay? And they have to use the one-second metric for that. They can't use a five-minute average because that's not the maximum. So the theater has to use a one-second metric inside their theater to prove to the city that they haven't exceeded the maximum permissible level. So that's why I would argue that in the residential communities that we should have the same standard. Did that answer your question?

this afternoon, so this is all good. Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee. My name is Christy Dune, and I'm the city administrator for the city of Salida. Today, I'd like to briefly speak in support of Colorado Bill 26098, which clarifies the ability of local governments to reasonably regulate noise in ways that reflect community and needs and culture. This legislation responds directly to a recent ruling from the Colorado Supreme Court in Hobbs versus City of Salida, which limited the authority of municipalities to regulate amplified sound when events occur on private property. That decision created uncertainty for cities and towns across Colorado, including Salida, regarding how we manage noise from events, venues, and businesses. Local governments have traditionally been responsible for balancing community quality of life with economic and cultural activity. Cities often regulate noise through permitting programs, special event approvals, and sound limits that are tailored to local conditions. These tools allow communities to support festivals and community celebrations, music venues and cultural events, outdoor dining and entertainment districts, patriotic gatherings, etc. Without clear authority, municipalities will struggle to support the very activities that make our downtowns vibrant and our communities economically strong. Many Colorado communities rely on music venues, restaurants, breweries, festivals, and outdoor events as key parts of our local economies. These activities help drive tourism, support small business, create vibrant downtowns, and build community identity. In Salida, the arts are a core part of our identity. Salida was one of the first certified creative districts in the state, recognizing our community's long-standing commitment to arts, music and cultural experiences. SB 26098 is about restoring local control and common sense governance. It ensures that municipalities can continue to support cultural and economic activity while also protecting neighborhood livability. For these reasons, I encourage support for SB 26098 so communities across Colorado can responsibly manage noise in ways that work best for their

Thank you, Madam Chairman and committee. My name is Bobby Rogers. I'm a Denver-based talent buyer, former musician, community leader, and vice president of the NAACP Denver branch. My work sits at the intersection of culture, community, and economic opportunity. As a Denver resident, I have my ears to the ground with the people, the community, and the event spaces. With that in mind, I would like to share a real moment with you. We were producing an outdoor show in Denver at a local venue with a few hundred people in attendance. The room was full, the energy was right, and everything was running smoothly. The headline artist was on stage, and the crowd was fully engaged. Then we hit 9.58 p.m., two minutes before the 10 p.m. cutoff. The artist had two songs left, the moment everyone had been waiting for, and we were told that if the music did not stop exactly at 10, the show could be shut down mid-song and we could face fines. So I had to ask, how do you tell a headline artist they cannot perform their final song to a room full of people whose energy is at its peak. That moment highlighted a bigger issue, a disconnect between statewide rules and real community experiences. This is where you, can help us impact change that builds a bridge between community and culture. Senate Bill 98 helps close that gap. This bill is about local control. It allows communities to make decisions that reflect the realities, not just a one-size-fits-all standard. And from an NAACP perspective, equitable access to cultural expression and economic opportunity is essential. We know that communities of color have always been policed with policies that do not always align with our cultures nor our community practices. Policies like this help ensure that all communities, not just a select few, have the ability to participate in and benefit from that. Because when events are overly restricted, it does not just impact promoters, it impacts local vendors, small businesses, independent artists, and communities that rely on these spaces to gather and be seen. In Colorado, the arts, culture, and creative economy generate billions of dollars annually and support tens and thousands of jobs. I was also a musician during a time when Denver had a vibrant music scene. Now as a promoter and talent buyer, I see the difference. I see fewer opportunities for artists to perform, grow, and connect. This bill is a step in the right direction.

I'm sorry. I missed my place. Because what works in one part of the city may not work in another. This bill gives communities the ability to find that balance. Because this is not just about noise. It's about opportunity, it's about community, and it's about trusting local leaders to get it right. Trust the people closest to the community to make the right decisions. Pass this bill and let Colorado lead with intention, not limitation. I respectfully ask for your support for Senate Bill 98. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you so much, committee. My name is Bianca Emerson, and I am a Denver resident, and I'm the president of Colorado Black Women for Political Action, an organization founded nearly 50 years ago to advance political participation and equity for black communities across Colorado. In diverse black community, we have watched venues close, festivals struggle, and cultural spaces go dark, not because of a lack of talent, as my colleague just said here, our community support, but because of legal and regulatory barriers that make it harder to operate. Festivals like the Black Arts Festival, which highlights black artists from many genres, and Juneteenth Festival that recognizes the end of slavery in this country. These festivals are historical and contribute to cultural significance and appreciation. The Colorado Supreme Court's ruling in Hobbs v. City of Salida added a significant barrier. By creating uncertainty around noise permits, it puts the very events and venues that anchor our neighborhoods and reflect our identity at risk. Senate Bill 098 restores local authority. It gives communities the ability to shape decisions that affect them directly. And that is precisely the kind of equitable, locally driven policy that CBWPA has championed for nearly 50 years. When communities have control over their own public life, their own stages, their own gatherings, their own celebrations, they are stronger and more self-determined, not just for themselves but for the greater good. And so with that, I urge you to vote yes. Thank you.

and I was asked to pass on that the chamber does support this legislation. However, I am here really speaking from my own perspective. I am a disabled veteran. I live three-quarters of a mile from Ford Amphitheater. My house was built in that neighborhood before there was hardly any commercial businesses nearby. the entire entertainment and retail district that Ford Amphitheatre sits in did not exist. I can tell you that when things have been built there, for example, Topgolf and Bass Pro Shops, some neighbors opposed those because of light pollution, some neighbors supported it. When the apartment buildings went up that are now closer to the amphitheatre than even our house, some neighbors opposed it because of traffic, some neighbors supported it. That is the true case here. You have heard from some neighbors who oppose the amphitheater. There are neighbors who support the amphitheater. And my experience is very different from what's been described to you here today. My experience, yeah, the first year we heard a lot of concert noise from a number of concerts, a majority probably. After that first year, based on neighbor complaints, the city worked with the amphitheater and produced a mitigation strategy, which they briefed to our community in a public briefing. They implemented that strategy, and I can tell you in last year, the second year of the amphitheater, the noise dropped dramatically. I can only think of two specific concerts that I heard inside my house, and it was at an extremely low level. One, we closed the windows and we no longer heard the music. So I've had a very different experience than what's been described to you here today. What I will tell you is that is an example that local control works. when they engage with the local government. Is everything necessarily resolved? Maybe not. They can keep working at it, and there are more improvements coming that will hopefully have a positive impact. Last thing I will say is sound is a complex thing to regulate, and that's why I think local control is the right place for it to be. I can, over five miles from my house, sits the Air Force Academy football stadium. Based on certain conditions, on certain weekends, I can hear the football games. I can hear the announcers clearly at my house sitting on my porch in my backyard. Sound is complex to regulate. And so let it be regulated locally where they can work through all those unique complexities. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair and committee. My name is Jimmy Nigg. I'm here on behalf of SEVA, Colorado Independent Venues Association. And I'm here in support of Bill SB 98. Our board is made up of venue owners and managers from all corners of the great state of Colorado. We all deal with our own municipalities and local governments on a regular basis. For example, Siva's president, Dave Weingarten, works up in Boulder with the Fox Theater. He's currently working with organizers on the Sundance Film Festival. Courtney McCleary handles all aspects of the Telluride Blues and Brews Festival every year. Andy Thomas books for the outdoor venue in Denver, Levitt Pavilion. I own a venue here in Denver and also Talent Buyer in Arvada. A lot of the opposition testimony I'm hearing today seems to be directed specifically at how Colorado Springs is handling everything regarding Ford Amphitheater. And I just want to go on record to say that every municipality and every local government is going to handle things differently. And not everybody is going to handle things the way that the city of Colorado Springs is handling things or the way the city of Castle Rock is handling things. I've been working with Denver for 13 years. I've been booking live music for 13 years. My location in Denver is located in the suburbs in a residential area and I dealt with complaints about music I dealt with complaints about noise and I worked with the neighborhood I worked with the city I have a neighborhood agreement that prevents us from doing outdoor shows on a regular basis and prohibits us from doing live music multiple times, past four times a week or past certain hours of the night. If I want to go outside and do a concert in the neighborhood, I have to apply for a special event cabaret permit. And this is, again, leading into why local municipalities and local governments should be in charge of these rules and leave it up to every local government. I have to apply every single time for an outdoor music permit to have a show or to have a concert outside. And it's up to the city at that time to say yes or no. And I do that 10 times a year, and I've been doing that for 10 times a year for the last 10 to 13 years. If I was not living good through my neighbor's eyes or being a good business owner or respecting the neighborhood, the city probably would have turned those licenses down multiple times, and it's always a right to do that. I'm so sorry.

Okay, sorry. Anyway, although the venues or shows are all different, the challenges are facing our industry right now are all the same. And that is the music industry is struggling. We're not all owned by big corporations. We're not all millionaires. A lot of these local venues are going to be affected if this bill is not passed. Decibel levels affect small venues, not just big venues. And if musicians can't come to Colorado and play shows, they're going to go to other venues where they can play shows, hopefully in the state of Colorado. But if they don't stay in the state of Colorado, they're going to go to another state where they can. And that's going to affect every local economy. And that's going to be a lot of money lost and a lot of jobs lost as well. Thank you so much.

Yes, I'm here.

Again, I thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee. My name is Carrie Lopez. I'm Eddie Lopez's wife who spoke earlier. I live in downtown Pueblo, and I am asking you to vote no on this Senate Bill 98. I, too, enjoy and support live music, festivals, living in a healthy and happy downtown area. But as a downtown resident, I also have the right to have peace and privacy in my home. I work in the medical field, and I am at work by 4 a.m. That's including weekends, which means that I'm typically up by 2.30 a.m. and I shouldn't have to redo my nighttime routine to be able to be in bed by 9 o'clock or earlier to be able to do my job safely and responsibly the next day. So, but these repeated late night live music and the loud crowds that come with it make it very difficult to be able to have a quiet bedtime routine. This issue doesn't just affect me. We have my soon-to-be 89-year-old mother-in-law that lives with us in her own apartment in our building, who has numerous medical conditions and questions much of the time, when is the noise going to stop? When is it going to stop being so loud? This disturbs her peace, her rest, and her sleep in her own home. And it's not too much to ask that the volumes just be turned down. These issues are about real residents, not just about policies. Noise pollution impacts sleep, our health, our daily life, and the immediate concerns for families like mine and others in the community and the surrounding homes around us. So please don't solely rely on local discretion, which can vary widely and leave the residents unprotected. Excuse me. So I do urge that you vote no on Senate Bill 98. And thank you for your time.

Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the House. My name is Cheryl Hobbs. I'm here to oppose Senate Bill 98 and to speak to the damage local control has already caused with the public health issue of noise. It was thoughtless local control that first permitted the drop of an open-air venue into the middle of hundreds of existing homes in northwest Colorado Springs. Using a variance, local control dismissed legal upper limits to noise in place for the past 55 years, forcing the unwanted type, timing, and volume of music into homes sometimes three-plus days a week for sometimes half a year. Noise over many miles though is not music It is pounding repetitive bass Minus enjoyable melody And garbled sometimes profane lyrics I wanted to share some examples Of the impact of local control With specific people But I think others have already done that So I'm going to go on to say The venue itself understands the dangers of high volumes As they give their ushers handfuls of earplugs for their use and for the use of concert attendees. Local control has had other costs as well. The installation of soundproof windows, forever homes sold before their time, the recall of a city council member and reputational damage that thwarted the appointment of another, both led by a fed-up community. Not hypothetical or hyperbole, this is reality in the Colorado Springs experience and experiment with corporate control masquerading as local control as it relates to noise pollution. I urge this committee to carefully consider why you're being asked, why the imperative for Senate Bill 98 even exists. There are 472 cities in Colorado, 200 towns with fewer than 3,000 people, where current state laws are working. Planet Bluegrass, I keep hearing that as used as an example, has been in the business 50 years. The Lions Folk Festival has been going on for 35 or 36 years. We heard from an earlier proponent that Colorado is number one in outdoor music venue in the world. This didn't just start. So why the imperative now to change the law? I think that's something worth your consideration.

I think I'm done. I'll just say that I'm asking you to vote no on the Senate bill. Thank you.

Thank you.

Madam Chair and committee, thank you for hearing me out here. My name is Rose Johnston. I'm a 37-year homeowner. I work from home, and I'm a taxpayer. I live two miles, 250 feet above the amphitheater. That is 24 stories. The bill significantly, and I'm here to oppose the bill and its amendments. The bill significantly favors entertainment corporations and disfavors citizens by replacing statewide noise protections with a patchwork of local decisions. We're told the government should decide acceptable noise levels, but decisions made, as you now know, in Colorado Springs allowed noise to bleed across a 10 by 4 and a half mile area, because you have to take into consideration the southern points and the northern points and the east and west and beyond. namely from the city into the county and even into parts of monument. Something similar happened in Salida with disruptive noise routinely bleeding into homes. In both cases, it was locally permitted noise without meaningful accountability. We can all reasonably expect that the SB 2698 would lead to more, not fewer, situations like Colorado Springs and Salida. In short, we can permit holders to maximize noise and residents to bear the physical, mental, and financial cost of uneven and unaccountable decisions. Sadly, we can also expect that at both the state and the local level, the legal remedies for all citizens will be inaccessible, ineffective, and illusory. The illusory is important because there is no real-time protection. It's just delay, delay, delay. If local control worked, we wouldn't be here. For two years, city and county residents have attended council meetings and town halls, reported noise at the city website, and by sending comments to the mayor, recorded real-time data with monitors attached to homes, cell phones, and heat maps, spent money on professional engineering reports, and yes, towards a lawsuit. And more than a few have also sold or have their homes for sale. I submit to you that two years of lived quantitative and qualitative experience of the citizens who have suffered real consequences should far outweigh a one survey that was paid for by a prominent for business You haven heard about it yet but I sure that you will Please vote no on SB 2698 and its amendments.

Yes, ma'am.

Good evening, Madam Chairman. My name is Luke Pisano. I'm a resident and the president of Morning View Metro District. and thank you for allowing me to share some thoughts on why SB 98 is not good lawmaking for residential Colorado. As a veteran of the submarine service, I believe I have a good background in noise propagation as it often affected the life of myself or my crew. In 1971, Colorado set noise restrictions in residential areas to protect neighborhood health and environments. Senate Bill 98 would allow local governments to override these limits and set much higher ones, leaving neighborhoods without legal protection for excessive noise. State limits protect Colorado residents from the hazard of local politics succumbing to private enterprise. If private enterprise can leverage state legislature to allow new noise pollutions in established neighborhoods, what's next? Unlimited air, land, and water pollution limits allowed by local governments for private enterprise profit? Some things need to be controlled by the state and not at a local level where their decisions may affect those outside their jurisdiction. I heard the word hope being used as a way to manage local noise complaints. I think you're better than that. Morning View residents often hear loud music or vulgar language above 70 decibels at their homes. Would you appreciate your local government permitting such noise from a new private enterprise? And now, because of Senate Bill 98, you have no legal recourse. Please, for all Colorado neighborhoods, vote no on Senate Bill 98 as amended. Thank you, Madam Chairman.

Thank you. Hi, my name is Robin Connor. I'm a resident of Colorado Springs. I oppose the amendment. I'm going to focus solely on clarifying some public misstatements made on one point by proponents of this amendment. And that is that even if this bill passes, citizens will somehow still have an equivalent legal remedy under Rule 1064 against abusive sound levels, even should local government permits allow them. This is simply not true. this falsity of view is supported fully by a written analysis I know you have all received by Julian Ellis, a partner of a major Colorado law firm in writing and on letterhead. I suggest you receive equivalent, that is a writing by a partner on letterhead of a major firm before accepting any contrary view. I do not have time to quote rule 106, but it's very simple. There is no reference to any decibel levels or any substantive restrictions on what a city could allow if this amendment passes. A permit, such as in Colorado Springs, that allows 75 DBA at a residential house at midnight is in no way prohibited. If a city issues such a permit, 106 has nothing to say. There is no abuse of discretion in that ruling. At that point it cannot examine the contents of the permit only the process under which it was issued it is essentially procedural and not substantive Julian has summarized this nicely saying when addressing the statement that rule 106 can somehow provide an essentially equivalent remedy the argument is wrong in every material respect it confuses the existence of a procedural vehicle i.e was a permit issued pursuant to city procedure with the availability of substantive protection please do not remove the last remaining outer guardrail to abusive noise available to residents currently under the statute. However expensive and difficult to implement for ordinary citizens, the current law at least provides a potential remedy that this amendment by design completely destroys. I urge you to vote no. Thank you

Okay, online.

My name is Steve Wasco. I'm, I guess, SB098. I was going to represent myself, but I was asked by a friend of mine with Noise Pollution Solution to present a letter from Stephanie Knudsen, MD, of Littleton, an internal medicine doctor and psychiatric physician who's affiliated with Rocky Mountain Regional VA Medical Center. She says, and I quote, As a medical doctor, I see firsthand how environmental stressors affect the human health. Noise describes sleep, induces stress, impairs coordination, and over time contributes to physical and mental health impacts. That's why, for more than 55 years, Colorado has maintained statewide minimum noise protections. In my own life, Stephanie's life, I've experienced what happens when those protections fail. When those protections fail. There have been periods where intrusive repetitive noise has permeated every room in my house for hours on end. It affects my ability to do my job safely And after one particularly difficult stretch without rest I found myself exhausted and distracted at work That experience was a wake call Noise pollution was real and has real consequences And importantly local responses have not always provided meaningful protection Local responses have not always provided meaningful protection. When residents are outnumbered or when competing enterprises are in play, individuals can be left without recourse. That's exactly why statewide minimum standards matter. This bill will allow for private enterprises to bypass long-standing protections entirely through local permits with no meaningful limits. It is a fundamental shift away from treating noise as a public health issue. I ask you as a physician, as a Colorado resident to preserve these common sense safeguards.

Thank you, Madam Chair and ladies and gentlemen. My name is Matthew Gravesick. I'm representing my family, grandkids, two dogs, a couple outdoor cats. We've lived in El Paso, county for 25 years, 1.8 miles as the crow flies from the Fort Amphitheater. Amphitheater and neighborhood should not be in the same sentence, but that is the reality in northern Colorado Springs. We, the people, spoke against this and our concerns about noise pollution and the proximity of an amphitheater of existing family neighborhoods was not taken into consideration. Instead, the developers false narrative was, and that is what we are dealing with today, more false narratives. Our voices did not matter when the Fort Amphitheater was going through the development process. It is in Colorado's best interest that our voices are heard today. Noise pollution caused by the Fort Amphitheater has divided our community, as you can see. communities across Colorado will probably be dealing with the same division as we are in northern Colorado Springs if this bill passes the city of Colorado Springs in El Paso County has done nothing for two years to stop the noise pollution thousands of complaints recordings noise maps our own sound study and nothing's been done there is no accountability with local municipality control. You know, it was kind of, when we were talking about wildfires, that's similar to what we're experiencing now in our neighborhood, what we have for two years. This noise pollution is spreading like a wildfire throughout the north end of Colorado Springs. It really is, and I think you understand that. I ask you to vote no against this because it is wrong and the Hobbs and Salida decision and Colorado statute 2512-103 is the law. Thank you.

MY NAME IS MARY BRUNING. I'M A RESIDENT OF NORTHERN EL PASO COUNTY. FROM MY OWN EXPERIENCE, I PROMISE YOU THAT NORTHERN Noise is not an issue that should be locally regulated. Noise is a pollutant with proven harmful effects. When local governments disregard that reality, ordinary citizens suffer. The Hobbs v. Salida State, I'm going to read a couple of things from the Arkansas Valley Reporter. Hobbs says he spent years attempting to work with the city to address concert noise in his living room. His neighbors also told the city they were deeply concerned about the noise, but their voices were ignored. This was a community problem that City Hall refused to take seriously. The city administrator suggested capping concerts at 18 events per summer. Hobbs said if council had accepted that recommendation, he never would have filed this case, but instead they raised the cap to 60 nights per year. One of the sponsors of this bill paints kind of a fairytale picture of city governments or local municipalities, tra-la, tra-la, working with citizens for a happy ending. And I am here to tell you that in the case of Salida and in the case of Colorado Springs, that has absolutely not happened. And when citizens, ordinary citizens, are ignored, they suffer. You have already heard, but I'll speak to this again. understand I use the word suffering purposefully exposure to unwanted loud noise increases cardiovascular risk stress anxiety and sleep disruption noise destroys the sense of one's own home as a safe haven I have experienced each of these impacts the noise abatement act is a final overarching umbrella that gives Colorado citizens some protections while continuing to set reasonable noise limits for revenue generating businesses. Those objectives should not be at odds. This bill gives unfair advantage to for-profit entities that do not have public health protections as their priority. Please vote no.

Thank you. I'm Madam Chair and each of you for being here tonight. This is my very first event, so I'm just going to say I am totally impressed with all of you. I thought, you know, well, I never thought I'd be here at 7 o'clock at night, but the fact that you have not taken more than a five-minute break, you're amazing, every one of you. So thank you. It means a lot. It was not what I expected, so that was a plus for me. Yes, so much of what I've written has been said. And so I just, yes, am opposing the SB 98 as well. I did write some statistics down as I was kind of going over things. I have lived in Colorado for over, I'm going to do my aging here, 45 years. And I've lived in our neighborhood for over 35 years. so we live in more of a rural area on five acre lots and um so this is just shocking to us when we come out of our doors and and we're having dinner in the dining room and it's just this blaring noise coming in and we're shutting doors and shutting windows and and this is the summer and and i think that was where the big concern is but i wanted to say um there's over five million people in Colorado And there over 25 of them are the most populated 25 cities are the most populated in our area in Colorado And there also 64 counties in Colorado And the counties do not get to vote for their city governments. And you've heard that before. So I'm not going to continue on that. But it's a big deal because our hands are tied. And we've tried and we've tried and tried. And it's just been on deaf ears. There was even a meeting with our mayor. And on that, we were told, you know, he would continue to want to give the hardship of extended noise and extended sound. We live in a world where there's just state-of-the-art sound systems. This venue at Ford is gorgeous. It's beautiful. It houses 8,000 people or more. fireplaces and beauty. And I just need to say that in that, it's not that we're opposed to it, but we just need our lifestyle back. So I do ask you to please oppose SB 26098 and honor Coloradans, because before we know it, if we don't, it could be in your backyards and all the other counties in Colorado. Thank you.

Yes, Madam Chair, committee members, my name is Scott Felt. I am the Department Commander of Disabled American Veterans Colorado, or DAV Colorado. And on behalf of 19,000 DAV members I represent, we come to you today opposing Senate Bill 98. If we look at this Senate bill, it is easy to see how Senate Bill 98 would negatively impact the 400,000 veterans in the state of Colorado. If you understand the population and numbers we're looking at, veterans make up our 400,000 veterans in the state of Colorado make up 7.2% of the population in the state. And to add on to my VFW brethren, if we look at the numbers wise, 25 percent, about 100,000 veterans are in Congressional District 5. So if we really want to look at the numbers and the impact that we had and within the past four years, how much is really has the state of Colorado done, especially when it comes to behavioral health awareness and the focal point that they have done in the Congressional District 5 area? It has been tremendously, millions and millions of dollars because of this issue. When we look at this aspect of the veteran within themselves and we come to them on there, a lot of veterans that you see do not go to open amphitheaters or go to concerts or anything like that because they can't sustain it more than a few minutes. It's not really going to happen on there. I can understand that people have that, but what about the veteran that sacrificed everything, that shed their blood and everything on that part in support of this state and this country, they will not be able to do that. And we've heard tonight many of the veterans that actually produce up there that live in Colorado Springs. In closing, I would like to bring to you this bill will only hurt Colorado. It will not support them. DAV believes this is a very negative option to offer our veterans and strongly oppose Senate Bill 98.

and I represent myself and my family. I live in Colorado Springs, one mile north of the Ford Amphitheater. I'm asking you to please oppose this bill or at the very least consider meaningful amendments. This bill will eliminate the minimum environmental protections on noise pollution that have been state law for 55 years. Such laws are the last line of defense to harm individual residents, property rights, and the environment. Noise hardship permits issued to the Ford Amphitheater by the City of Colorado Springs are a perfect example of what could happen to this bill become law where new outdoor concert halls and data centers are allowed to be built next to pre-existing residential neighborhoods and other environmentally sensitive areas. First, First, the bill really lacks, creates a lack of accountability. People like me who live outside city limits and been harmed by noise can't vote in city elections for council members or the mayor. In addition, noise hardship permits that have been issued were done with no public process and makes one wonder who actually wrote the permit conditions. Lastly, the noise hardship permits were issued by an unelected official. The noise permits that have been issued favor the amphitheater. At the Ford Amphitheater, a maximum sound level of 50 decibels is average over five minutes. Current state law specifies noise levels at those measured instantaneously, as are detected by the human ear. The maximum noise level should be averaged over two to five seconds, not 300 seconds in five minutes. Lastly, the maximum fine that would be imposed is a mere $500. In contrast, permits, fines that can reach up to $10,000 up at Red Rocks Amphitheater. We have to focus exclusively on outdoor concert noise. And it seems to me that this bill would also allow for noise exemptions from data centers, which are planned in our state. And that could also be placed next to existing residential areas, environmentally sensitive areas. These data centers require mechanical equipment that run 24-7. residents next to data centers across the u.s. have complained about vibrations and constant unwanted noise the city of Aurora Illinois just adopted noise ordinances that specified the maximum permissible levels be dropped from 50 festivals to 46 decibels and it makes no sense to me why we are proposing to increase these common maximum decibel list thank you for your consideration

Thank you very much. My name is Linda Austin. I'm sorry, I'm shaking a little because I've been here for seven hours. So I'm kind of like, ah! So I am a former restaurant owner and operator for 16 years in Denver. I was very lucky to work with local authorities, all the committees, all of the... sorry this is I'm shaking all of the I can't think of that one okay yes all the neighborhood associations especially shun was very helpful for me in getting noise permits working with excise and licensing I have so many friends in the communities all over Colorado that own and rely on live music we it's our livelihood. I'm a musician myself. I play a lot in Golden. It's very important for us to understand that local authorities then can work with the communities and the individual owners to have that relationship rather than relying on the state to take it to that level and then, you know, not make it about just a local place that people care about. You know, they're the residents that go to those places and need to take their children. Also, live music is super important, and I don't think it's just about Colorado Springs. I think it's really about the entire state of Colorado, and we really need to think about that. It's my passion. I worry that if things don't change, many of the venues that I play at and go to with my friends will not be able to survive, and they will not be able to continue on with live music. I hope you'll be able to look at this and really vote yes on this SB 98 and support local government, local communities, and all the residents in all those little areas. Thank you so much.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and then the members of the community. My name is Samuel Garo Michael. I have lived here in Colorado for the last 20 years. I served as a president for the Colorado European Community based in Aurora. I came to United States from Ethiopia in 2006. Like many immigrants, my early experience was shaped by the challenge of finding resources and just as importantly finding a voice. Over time, I was fortunate to find both. Since then, I have dedicated myself to helping others in our community do the same. One of the most powerful ways we build that, you build us to share our stories, traditions, musics, and identity with the broader Colorado community. This event creates meaningful connections and foster understanding among people of all backgrounds. Aurora is the most diverse city in Colorado, with residents speaking over 160 languages. What unites us is not just where we live, but the experience we share. Cultural festivals, live musics, and community celebrations are essential to the connections. They bring our city's identity as a welcoming and inclusive place to life. However, the recent ruling has created uncertainty around local noise regulations. This uncertainty puts community events at risk by making it more difficult for venue and organizers to confident plan and host gatherings. For immigrants, communities like mine, this is deeply significant. These events are not just celebrations. They are how we preserve our culture, build a community, and tell our own stories. I respectfully urge you to vote yes on SCP-26098 to restore clear authority to local governments and ensure that communities like ours can continue to gather, celebrate, and contribute to the vibrant fabrics of Colorado. Thank you so much.

Thank you, Madam Chair and committee members. Kelly Sloan on behalf of the Westminster Chamber of Commerce, representing local businesses that make up our community with a goal to continuously improve the business climate and build opportunities for growth in Westminster and surrounding areas. We come before you in support of Senate Bill 26098. Our support for this bill is rooted in its restoration of local control over noise ordinances. It grants local jurisdictions the flexibility to tailor such ordinances to the needs of the community and provide businesses such as restaurants and live music venues a degree of certainty and predictability that was suspended in the wake of the Hobbs v. Slida decision. This bill enables local officials who are most directly accountable to the residents and business owners in their jurisdictions to negotiate and craft rules that best serve the interests of their communities in aggregate. We believe that businesses and community mutually thrive when economic decisions are made at the lowest feasible level. For issues such as zoning and the types of noise ordinances being contemplated here this is clearly at the county and municipal level these are inherently local issues and to the extent to which they may exceed local impact we believe that the amendments being offered provide sufficient mechanisms to address that in closing we urge you to support to support this bill as a way to extend local control over where it is most

Hi, my name is Bob Mudd, and I am with the Venue Holding Corporation. Thank you, Madam Chairman and members of the committee. I'm here to express, having said and listened to all the testimony, that the process has been anything but a laissez-faire process in regards to Colorado Springs and share some specific examples of such. There was extensive assessment, collaboration, and controls put into place. From our initial filing to get the amphitheater approved, there was a one-year period of time where there were extensive changes, reviews, audits, and ongoing processes with the Planning Commission. There was a non-compulsory engagement that we held as a company on multiple occasions, with one having over 500 people, and there were extensive changes made as a result of the public feedback that we received. The planning commission was an 11-hour planning commission. We went into great detail on the science, on the traffic, on all elements of this amphitheater, and then through the approval of the city council. At each stage, there was extensive changes. There was a complete redesign of parking.

Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee for the opportunity to speak with you today. My name is Peter Siegel, and I'm the Executive Director of the Copper Mountain Resort Association here to support SB 98. Look, we know that noise regulations are tricky. And a one size fits all doesn't work due to the differences between communities that really demand different solutions. What works for residential areas probably won't work for commercial areas and vice versa. Mixed use areas with both residential and commercial together in the same space. Again, as we've heard today is a whole nother challenge. challenge. Really what I want to focus on today is resort areas where the high ambient noise levels are norm and expected. So here's an example. So I work at Copper. Just a busload of people walking through the village in the same time in ski boots is about 55 to 70 dBs We like to not have a silent resort like it have high energy it fun you want to have music in the background so with people walking at 55 to 70 db that means the music needs to be 5 to 10 db higher than that. It's it's tough when you take a look at this and a noise regulations and you don't start taking into account high ambient noise levels, it's what you're trying to do totally gets lost. So that's just another component. How does this set of challenges fit into a one solution fits all? It really doesn't. And again, that's the beauty of this bill is it gives the local authority a chance to evaluate each different situation like this one and make appropriate adjustments as needed. You know, resorts are so different, maybe they should be added in the exempt list, but still the example of the resort really applies from community to community and you need to take in all of the different components and we do the best we can as legislatures, is coming up with rules and regs to protect the communities and so the communities can thrive, so the people that want to come to the resorts or the communities can also enjoy their stay. So that's really, I'm going to keep it short. Thank you, Madam Chair and the committee for letting me talk today, and I will stick around for questions.

go ahead and introduce yourself. You've got two minutes. Hey, thank you, everybody. I know it's been a really long day and you've heard a lot of testimony and I do know what that's like. So I appreciate your attention for my two minutes. My name is Nancy Hingham and I serve on the Colorado Springs City Council serving District 5. I've lived in Colorado Springs for 35 years. My husband and I raised a family here and now we're watching our daughter and son-in-law raise their family here too. I've watched the city grow and change and face many challenges. I've been proud to be a part of that every step of the way. Five years ago, I ran for city council because I wanted to be a genuine voice for my constituents and the residents of Colorado Springs, and that's what drives me every single day. Part of honoring that commitment means being a part of local government that actually has the tools to meet the needs of the people it serves. So noise is not a new issue in Colorado Springs. We're home to the Air Force Academy, and we consider it a point of pride when the jets fly overhead or at Widener Field where we're cheering for the switchbacks. Sounds are woven into the fabric of our community, and so is our ability to manage it thoughtfully in context with the people who actually live here. As an elected official, I firmly believe that noise oversight should rest with the local government. We should have control over it, and we should be accountable. I can tell you we are. When it comes to the Ford Amphitheater specifically, I was one of the eight council members who voted to approve it, but that vote did not come easily or quickly. It came after a very long process and genuine process, one that included voices from across our community. And after it started, I've personally met with neighbors who have raised concerns. I've talked with them. They've come to city council. I've listened to them. I worked directly with Bob Mudd, who you just heard, with the other leaders at the amphitheater to address the concerns of constituents, talking with our mayor, with our chief of staff, who were impacted, people and people who were impacted by the sound And that is how government local government is supposed to work So I would say also I listened to the people before I believe the complaints have gone down from where I sit. From the beginning, I've been there from the beginning, and they are not as many as they have been. But I'm here today to support this legislation. Decisions about noise in Colorado Springs should be made by the people of Colorado Springs. We are close to the issue. We are accountable to our residents, and we're doing the work. This is about local control. So my request for you is certainly to support this, but it really is to please pass this out of committee to the House floor so that every Colorado resident has the opportunity to be represented and heard. And I will stay around

Representative Phillips. Thank you, Madam Chair. This question is for Mr. Mudd. So I've been I've been following the case a lot. And so my understanding is that, so Venue was originally sued in 2024. That was a case that was brought by the Northside Neighbors Association. I think some of them are here tonight. And an attorney named Mike Kuhn. And in that case, isn't it true that the for-profit corporation did seek sanctions against, for challenges to the noise issue? And I guess my question is, because I started off today by asking about, you know, can we have an amendment regarding, you know, the private nuisance claim and, you know, private right to sue. But when I was tracking it, it's like, okay, I think that already happened. So my question is, on one hand, I hear, oh, you're engaging with citizens. But then as I'm watching these cases, I'm seeing that, in fact, you were seeking attorney fees against the citizens when they did sue under the current statute. So if you can just walk us through that, that'd be great.

Thank you. I don't represent the company legally. I operate the entitlement process. I engage directly with the public. I'm very in tune with those elements of it. Excuse me. We do have our legal counsel here. that question might be best posed for them. What I do know is that case was dismissed, and I don't recall the specific grounds of that. But, again, that's not an area of my focus.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, panel, for being with us today. You know, I love culture and concerts, and this bill primarily would impact three amphitheaters across the state three and one of whom is one of whom has been a you know noise nuisance for the past two years where residents have gone to city council who they've gone to their local government for help and have tried to get some sort of resolution about the noise and so my question for you is and to no avail they have gotten no resolution my question is do you feel do you think people should be able to sleep peacefully in their homes and what recourse should these residents have when local government fails to act?

Sure. Thank you very much. I appreciate the question. And I would say that, you know, this is a process that takes time. And the venue has poured additional millions of dollars into working on this sound mitigation and they continue to work on it. I heard at a town hall in the amphitheater itself, Mr. Roth say he won't be satisfied until people hear the concerts inside the venue, not outside the venue. And I think we have to, I heard people in earlier testimony referring to Red Rocks or other places that have been working for the last 35 years. We have to give this time to work and to continue to address the concerns that people have. Absolutely. I don't want I don't think it's appropriate for people in their homes to be hearing a loud rock concert. I don't believe that venue believes that that's appropriate either. And they continue to work on solutions and continue to work with the city. Countless, countless hours spent working with city administration on continuing to develop solutions. And so, yeah, that would be my answer.

member for that answer. So we're talking about 1,700 complaints over the past two years. How much more time do you think would be sufficient in resolving these issues so that people can sleep peacefully in their homes? Well, I would like to know those complaints, have they decreased over time? From where I sit, and I'm not looking at a chart of the complaints, they have decreased over time and I think they will continue to decrease.

questions for the council member. Thank you for being here this evening. I have concerns with the statement that complaints have decreased given what's happened in District 2 and that you're about to appoint a new council member for that district after the previous council member resigned, I think facing recall over this, as I understand it, this very issue, and then also the support for affordable housing in that same district. You've got me on 50% of those issues, but I think my concern is it doesn't look like the situation is resolved. In fact, it looks like it has come to the head to the head to the point of a counselor resigning. So how are you able to assess that concern is lower when it seems like it's actually come to a point of intense disagreement in your community.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I think bringing up the counselor who was just recalled, which was primarily over an affordable housing situation more than it was the board amphitheater, that was the group that proposed this. Yes. Has the noise issue been a reality in District 2? Absolutely. And should the council representative for that council be working with the neighbors? They should. And I would say that the mayor and the former council member who did not run, I'm not talking about the one who just resigned, Randy Helms continued to work with the residents on that issue. and I think the council member that was just resigned that was a very complex situation and now we chosen somebody new just yesterday So we will see how that council member responds Thank you for that response I think the other just I mean I think it just helpful geography wise to contemplate that your district is not adjacent to the district that the Fort Amphitheater is. And it's actually looks like a bit south of there with two districts that perhaps are much closer to that district where are your fellow council members on this issue and then just a point of clarification colorado public radio states that the former councilors fire pit season tickets at the controversial fort amphitheater as well as his support for an affordable housing apartment complex in this district were the catalyst for his recall efforts why are we not hearing from folks who are closer to the issue than perhaps your district might be

I can't speak to that. I don't know why they are not present. I can't answer that question.

Why not? Thank you, Madam Chair. So this is to the city councilman. I keep hearing about local control. Well, you have 60 of your citizens that are actually local. Your government control is what you're trying to say. And it sounds to me like you made the wrong vote when you did what you did. So you've got 1,400 complaints. You've got all of your citizens that are sitting here and you're trying to defend what you're talking about, local control. They are local. So what are you going to do about their complaints?

the for the residents i genuinely do and i have spent time um especially in those initial concerts with people on the phone at night who were very upset i have a genuine concern for their experience And that's why I went and met with J.W. Roth and Robert Mudd and continue to and actually encourage them. And they now have a complaint line that they didn't have before. So I think that's what working this out looks like. I'm committed to doing that. And you'd have to reach out to each of my fellow elected officials to understand where they stand. But I'm here today because this is also, again, it's about the state versus local control. And it is about the bigger issues of economic development and all the things that the amphitheater is bringing and all the people who are very satisfied as well. So we have to remember all of those things. This is a very tough challenge to manage.

Okie dokie.

Catherine Romito?

Catherine Kent.

if anyone, and please proceed. Good evening, Madam Chair and members of the committee. My name is Catherine Bullock, and I am representing most of the 148 homes in Sun Hills, a beautiful neighborhood just north of Colorado Springs. I am here to oppose Senate Bill 98. For you Star Trek fans, there is an episode of Star Trek where the crew was suddenly contentious, aggressive, and randomly fighting amongst themselves. The crew finally, after much research, discovered that there was an invisible ship that was putting off sound waves that was disrupting the crew's ability to sleep and thus making them all crazy. Every summer I feel like I'm living in this episode of Star Trek as our previously peaceful nights are disrupted by the awful sounds coming from the Ford Amphitheater in Colorado Springs. I was shocked at how loud it was as we are three and a half miles away from this outdoor amphitheater through trees over hills from the venue. We don't hear pleasant sounds of music, but rather something like boom, boom, boom, ba-boom. There are 148 homes in my neighborhood and 80% are detrimentally impacted by the noise. One night we heard drum beats for five and a half hours. I was going crazy. My neighbor's animals were going crazy. Their kids couldn't sleep and heard every profanity from the singers. The duty of government is to protect its citizens. Noise affects mental health. Soft music can calm a crying baby. Intense music can invoke fear and anxiety Sound has been used for coercion and torture You can close your eyes but you can close your ears Loud repetitive or unpredictable sound can prevent sleep keep the nervous system in a constant state of alertness Inescapable noise causes a sense of losing control and elevated cortisol. The brain cannot tune out noise. The lobbyist will tell you this is about local control, but sound, like wildfire, doesn't understand city or county boundaries. Overturning the Noise Abatement Act would open a can of worms. Imagine if the city of Littleton built an outdoor amphitheater and assumed that the sound would magically not affect Cherry Hill, Centennial, or Highlands Ranch in another county. This is what happened in Colorado Springs when an outdoor amphitheater was built on the city boundaries, affecting thousands of Colorado citizens who have no representation at the city. This is why there must be a statewide ordinance to mitigate sound, to protect the mental health of all Colorado citizens. Please don't turn our state into a contentious Star Trek episode. I plead with you to vote no on SB 98.

Good evening, Madam Chair and members of the committee. Thank you for being here and staying late to hear our testimonies. I'm Dr. Sally Barron, a retired college professor representing myself and my husband, a veteran, and we oppose Senate Bill 98. The Noise Abatement Act of 1971 is a well-researched, thoughtful law that addresses specific types of sound at defined times of day. It is not a one-size-fits-all. It is a baseline standard. It recognizes noise as a dangerous environmental pollutant, and Colorado was ahead of her time in enacting parameters and applying them fairly and appropriately to the entire state to protect her citizens and wildlife and the natural environment. Like most pollutants, noise does not recognize city or county borders as such cannot be controlled locally. Some control, sorry, state control has worked well for over a half a century and must remain intact. Our family has lived on the unincorporated north side of Colorado Springs for 26 years, and we have wonderful neighbors who work hard and raise families. They're engineers, professors, teachers, active duty military, veterans, doctors, nurses, firefighters, police, chefs, waiters, even astronauts, pilots, and CEOs. Many are shift workers. Some of us might even be performing your next surgery or flying your next commercial flight. We need our sleep, as well as our peace and quiet. Noise hurts people physically and mentally. Noise also hurts businesses. Last fall, I toured the Flying Horse Club seeking a wedding site for our daughter. The club was lovely, but when I asked the host if weddings had been interrupted by the noise from Ford Amphitheater, She replied yes and said that they could not guarantee our wedding wouldn't be affected either. We opted out and they lost $30,000 in income. Noise hurts businesses. Members of the House Committee, fellow Coloradans, we all love this state. But this is not just a little noise. This is huge. There are enormous 30-foot speakers jamming vile and vulgar sounds into our private property and hurting our families to the core. in our homes during dinner and homework time. We have had to lean on the state laws as our locals have failed. Now the for-profit noisemakers want to take that away.

Sorry. Local control. has not and will not work, it is unavailable to those of us in unincorporated neighborhoods and has failed those in city limits. It also tends to create conflicts of interest as local governments see tax benefits of local businesses. Sadly, this short-sightedness fails to see that quality of life plummets and home values follow. Please help save Colorado. Thank you.

My name is Shirley Dale. I am providing oral testimony from Michael Osborne, MD, in opposition of SB 26098. His name is Michael Osborne. He is a cardiologist and a researcher at MassGen in Boston and assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School. Is this better? The research by me and my colleagues on the effects of noise on cardiovascular and metabolic health is published in peer-reviewed scientific literature. Chronic exposure to noise has repeatedly been associated with cardiovascular and metabolic disease. Two of the primary mechanisms that occur involve activation of the response mechanism in the brain and sleep disruptions. Importantly, these affect noise that are considered annoying or a sleep disruptor. Further, there is evidence that it's possible to simply acclimate to noise exposure. In fact, repeated noise exposure clearly causes a primary effect which extenuates repeated future exposures. Our research has shown that chronic noise exposure associates with alterations in brain reason and activating the fight and fight response and the release of stress hormones. These effects lead to greater inflammation in the body, specifically in arteries, which contribute to artery disease and increased risk for cardiovascular events like heart attack. Brain changes also worsen the body's ability to metabolize sugar and the development of obesity, which can lead to diabetes and other cardiovascular risk factors. Notably, certain individuals may be more acceptable to adverse impacts of noise exposure, including those preexisting cardiovascular or psychiatric disease, or those with co-exposure to other stressors, such as low socioeconomic status and high levels of air pollution. furthermore noise must be considered a universal stressor and a public health concern is vital for the health and well-being of citizens in your state to maintain uniform regulation over noise to minimize the impact I was torn between my testimony there were some things I wanted to address so I talked really fast and I could do the oath so the noise abatement act does actually stratify different levels. I think someone mentioned that it was not one size fit all. The Oasis Rate Act is not one size fit all. And as far as addressing local control, it is not always foolproof. The former mayor does have a placard on the concourse of the Fort Amphitheater, which suggests he was friends with people. That is all

proceed. Okay, my name is Janine Sleds, and I'm opposed to this bill as we have experienced two years of local control on noise in Colorado Springs, specifically with the Ford Amphitheater. On October 5th, 2024, after the first concert season, Roth, the owner of the venue, held a gathering for people in the surrounding neighborhoods negatively impacted by the noise. Referring to the 2025 concert season, he said, you will, quote, you will need to buy a ticket to hear the concert. We still heard him. As with the initial concert season the mayor granted yet another noise variance Exactly when he issued it it wasn clear This process certainly was not transparent to the public I had tried numerous times to get answers from the mayor's office as to why the sound variance was granted. No response. In December, our mayor had a meeting to get a pulse on how we felt about concerns in our district. I, and over 100 people, attended as we wanted answers. Well, the mayor was ill and did not attend. However, we were assured that our questions would be answered. Despite numerous attempts with our appointed liaison, the mayor didn't respond. No answers. Nothing. We are not against concerts, but Roth needs to do effective noise mitigation, like maybe putting a roof on it for starters and turning the volume down. in order to meet his promise 50 decibels when he pitched this project to the city. As our key local elected officials choose to ignore us while favoring the demands of businesses, we clearly need a safety net of a state law to protect our basic right to peace and quiet in our own homes. Craft a state law which can accommodate the noise exceptions of short-term summer festivals and events, not what 98 is talking about. The concert season at the amphitheater lasts six months, seven days a week, with concerts ending on weeknights at 11 p.m. and weekends at 11.30 p.m. Would you and your family be happy with this arrangement? If this bill passes, we have no recourse. Please do the right thing and torpedo this bill.

members my name is Miriam Schombach and I'm representing myself in my family noise is noise it is not something that stops at city or county lines it disturbs our peace and with our windows closed or open the noise that the 40 ample theater generates infiltrates infiltrates our homes and disturbs our lives. Turn it down. Before the Ample Theater was built, my husband and I attended one of the community information sessions attended by many locals that live in the area surrounding its location. We were told by the venue owner that they would be good neighbors and that the noise levels would not go over those allowed by law. This did not happen. In addition, loud bass levels as mentioned earlier allow a beating thumping noise throughout our neighborhoods shaking windows and keeping children from sleeping. We hear retreat broadcasted from the Air Force Academy every weekday. We do not consider this noise but an appreciated reminder of the Academy's presence and its commitment to training our future military leaders. We chose to move into this neighborhood knowing that this and other activities carried on at the Academy would be something which we would be exposed. However, this is not true of the Ford Ample Theater, which was forced upon on those of us that were already living in our much loved community. Regarding the argument that this bill would allow local community members to influence local noise ordinances, this is just not true. Many of my neighbors and I, as mentioned earlier, who are negatively impacted by the noise that the Ample Theater produces will never get to participate in these types of elections as we live outside the city boundaries thank you for voting no on this bill It is wrong for the entire state of Colorado Our current noise abatement law is well researched and makes sense. This bill is wrong for every person that has chosen to live here. We do not want noise to be a part of our lovely Colorado warm weather months, a time we cherish and why we live in this lovely state. Please don't be influenced by these people that say they're speaking for us. Thank you. Thank you. We're going online to Ms. Jacobs. Thank you, Madam Chair and

Connecticut, in Westport, Connecticut. I'm here today to speak against this bill. Other people have spoken about the many health problems associated with noise, and I hope that you'll listen to that testimony carefully. I'd like to spend my time tonight talking about what it's like to live in a state that has already turned over noise regulations to local municipalities. And I'm here to tell you that letting local officials set the rules just doesn't work. Why? First, local officials are typically not schooled in public health. They do not understand or appreciate the science of noise. And second, they're often more focused on economic development and keeping local businesses happy than on protecting residents from unwanted noise. I'd like to tell you a quick story of something that happened here. Some years ago, Westport decided to build an outdoor concert venue. At the time, neighbors like myself were concerned about potential noise because neither the state nor the town had a strong noise ordinance. We were, however, assured that the town would monitor the situation carefully and adopt regulations if appropriate. Of course, it was built, and of course, there were multiple complaints, but nothing ever happened. Why? Because the powerful merchants, developers, and restaurateurs who helped to get our local officials elected, the same people who were benefiting financially from the influx of concertgoers, did not want to do anything that might reduce ticket sales. In the end, our officials bowed to that pressure. This means that every weekend during the summer, we are assaulted by the sound of loud music. And we have a similar problem at another site in town, which is leased to a for-profit entity, the very type of company that will suddenly become exempt from Colorado's noise ordinance if this bill passes. We are basically trapped in our houses while the windows rattle and the music blares. We don't have a state law. We have no legal recourse. And that is exactly what will continue to happen in Colorado if this law, if this bill becomes law. I respectfully ask that you vote no, as it violates one of the fundamental functions of government, which is to protect public health. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Good evening, Madam Chair. and committee. My name is Kathleen Romita. I'm a physician and a noise researcher, and I'm speaking on behalf of Quiet Communities, a national nonprofit that studies the relationship between noise and health. I encourage you to oppose Senate Bill 98. I'm not opposed to recreation, culture, music, but sounds, noises, they should not be heard in homes because of the potential And because of these potential health issues we do not have the luxury of unraveling protection and then waiting years to figure out solutions As so many have said noise pollution is not just an annoyance. It is a well-established public health issue. A large body of research shows that chronic noise exposure is associated with sleep disturbance, heart effects, cardiovascular effects, mental health issues, and severe stress, which contributes to poor health. And while I can rattle those off, these are not minor health issues. It's important to remember when it comes to how noise affects our bodies, noise is much more than a decibel level measured by a microphone. Public health research shows that non-decibel factors also impact how humans are affected by noise. Noise that is heard at one's home, especially when it cannot be controlled, has a much greater impact on health and well-being. Nighttime noise is particularly harmful as it disrupts sleep, which is foundational to both physical and mental health. And surprisingly, noise continues to damage our bodies, even when we think we're being resilient and toughing it out, saying it's not so bad. And it does this because it activates our unconscious fight or flight response, which over time sets off this harmful cascade of events in our bodies. Other environmental health risks are not addressed at the local level. For example, Colorado regulates the harms of radon and lead at state levels because they represent public health risks. Those policies recognize that individuals and smaller communities are not always well-equipped to protect themselves from these harmful exposures created by noise or other toxins.

Statewide standards are critical to ensure the consistent protection for all citizens. Please vote no on Senate Bill 98. Thank you.

Sorry, everyone. It's been a long day over here as well. Good evening, Madam Chair and committee members. My name is Kate Kent. Thank you for hearing me today. after a very long day. I'm just confirming you guys can hear me. Excellent. So I'm here on behalf of myself, my husband, two young children, and some of my neighbors. In addition to concerns already mentioned by my fellow Colorado Springs residents today, I'm also very concerned that SB 26-098 does not account for the noise and 24 operations of data centers, which are becoming increasingly common across the country. In 2018, a company bought a facility across from my house to operate a Bitcoin mining farm. Neighbors described the noise as constant overflight by B-52 bombers combined with an interest bound that basically shook the walls. It was a torment that was never resolved by the company or the city at the time. Noise above the acceptable level for a residential neighborhood constantly for four years. What stopped the noise was the fall of the price of Bitcoin in 2022 and the loss of company profits. When we were talking about the consistent and unending noise that comes from 24-7 operations, Data centers, I think we need to think about it a little differently than just a nuisance. As data centers move into Colorado, we're not talking about intermittent or nine-to-five noise. It is a constant, unending, unrelenting noise. I think it's possible for companies to be good neighbors, but stricter regulations on noise allow residents to live with the bad neighbors when a local government does not take action. If passed, this bill would mean neighborhoods like mine would have absolutely no recourse. While I support local government rights, noise abatement is an area where state-level regulation airing on the side of quieters will protect the health and well-being of the people of Colorado. I actually do not pass this bill, which would so easily and quickly be abused at the city level. And if anything, I hope that instead efforts are directed towards upholding Colorado Supreme Court's ruling that local governments cannot override state law to allow noise in excess of the state noise pollution standards and then also further strengthen the protections afforded by the existing 1971 noise abatement act. Thank you for your time today.

I'd be delighted. I'm Catherine Gales. I was driven to leave underneath my rock by the Ford Amphitheater. I have since become the chief legal counsel for Integrity Matters and West Side Watch when after we testified until one o in the morning we were ignored and the amphitheater was foist upon us We are all here this evening because local control doesn work We are here because our city council let us down and Salida's city council let the people of Salida down. That's how Hobbs got a unanimous Supreme Court decision. I stand before you also as an attorney. and the person who led the community effort against the amphitheater, and contrary to Nancy Hengem's pronouncement, the recall against Tom Bailey, who said anybody who was against the amphitheater was like a little old man saying keep off the lawn. I want to be very clear. Local control did not fail because citizens didn't show up. It failed because the city council chose to ignore expert testimony and scientific evidence. We had engineers from the Space Force and the Air Force, sound engineers, acoustic engineers, health professionals and technical specialists. They presented scientific evidence to the city council. We purchased a noise machine, set it for 60 decibels, and every member of city council and JW Ross amphitheater team covered their ears. This is not a theoretical harm. this is the human cost of their decision we would never tolerate a system where criminal laws or public safety rules are enforced only when it's convenient or enforced by the biggest checkbook sb 26098 moves us in the wrong direction it assumes local control is functioning as attended it is not i have a number of anecdotes from neighbors, including a disabled veteran who was blown up in the Kovar Towers bombing. She moved to Northgate in order to be in a quiet place. She has a dog that is there to detect seizures. The dog is so triggered by the screeches in the base, she has to sedate the dog on concert nights. I'm sorry, but your time has expired. Does not do its job. I have hundreds of anecdotes, and I'd also like to contradict Nancy Hengem, whose son is now employed by J.W. Roth, even though originally she claimed to be on the citizen's side. Thank you.

I'm James Knight. I'm a resident homeowner at Northern Colorado Springs, representing myself. I'm here today concerning the bill which would raise the noise level allowed during the evening hours in residential areas above the current state law limit of 50 decibels. I'm appalled this is being considered. Passing this bill would allow the noisemakers to step on the rights of residents who deserve peace in our homes, which would disrupt being able to sleep, relax, even converse normally during the carnival atmosphere imposed upon us. The noise I've experienced in the last two years from the amphitheater exceeds rational levels since the city gave the exception to the amphitheater. which should never have been allowed. It is a carnival atmosphere I did not expect when I bought the house 15 years ago I used to love my house Now I kind of hate it in the summer Passing this bill would be a total lack of respect for homeowners and residents I'm certain our property values are affected since the amphitheater noise at a level above these 50 decibels prevents children from studying, reading, and sleeping. As a father, previously, I would never have wanted to live in a home where it was loud enough to penetrate the walls of my home where the bass drums and even the lyrics can be heard through the walls clearly and through double-paned windows. It should be noted the amphitheater business can continue to operate within the current noise limits, but they would only have to keep the performances' volume level down. I'll also say not every concert is a bad one. Instead, they wish to have the loudest and most obtrusive acts create the carnival atmosphere any day of the week at the expense of the local residents. Please do not allow this bill to become law, which would completely disregard respect for the residents and the quiet we expect in the evening hours in our homes. Thank you.

Good evening, Madam Chair and committee members. My name is Sarah Follis, and I oppose SB2698. I'm a resident in Colorado Springs. I live one mile from the amphitheater. Two years ago, the venue was plopped into the midst of our preexisting neighborhoods. The zip code that they're in has 25,000 residents. The noise pollution from it has created serious physical and mental stress to people, pets, and most likely the wildlife in the preserve nearby. My husband has a heart condition, and his cardiologist tells him to avoid stress. This is very stressful to him. These concerts have flooded the interior and exterior of our home with distorted music. We're 300 feet above the amphitheaters, so it doesn't come out sounding like a concert. We have upwards of 70 decibels. The bass is the worst. It has been loud enough to bow our windows and thuds through our mattress. One word that is distinguishable is the F-bomb, And I had a neighbor who moved away because of that. He had a four-year-old daughter playing out front of his house, and it just drove him from our neighborhood. We've lost quite a few neighbors. Another house went on the market just this week. The stress and anxiety have caused our families and also to move, as I said, and many have started taking anxiety medicine who never did before. It has adversely affected those with PTSD and sensory disabilities. Do you want to subject the people in your district to this? We have tried to work with our local government, but the power lies in one person, our mayor, and he has issued a hardship permit that, and he's pretty callous to our flight. Matter of fact, slapped in the face today when I found out that our city actually has hired some lobbyists against us. Is that how it is to work with a local government? This Colorado Springs example should be a red flag, be a red flag warning to how this can affect Colorado City. This bill is being proposed prior priorities specific to corporate interest. We don't have the deep pockets and funds lawyers and lobbyists do or give massive contributions to election efforts and other perks. Deep pockets taint this idealistic concept of working with the local government. As Colorado policymakers, please vote no on this bill to strengthen Colorado communities and not uproot splinter or harm the residents there We need the state standards to give us baseline protection against the harmful noise pollution for the health and welfare of the Colorado citizens. In theory, local government sounds like it would work, but we're proof that it has failed. I respectfully ask you to vote no on SB 2698.

Good afternoon. Members of the committee. I am Melanie Verse, and I am here representing myself, my family, and many neighbors, and I am here to oppose Senate Bill 98. My story with this began several years ago, before construction on the venue even began. We kept hearing over and over that the venue was going to be a good neighbor. We tried to stop them from building an outdoor concert venue to begin with, but the city said they couldn't stop them based on potential future sound. So construction began and was completed. I like the venue. I love live music. I love even having it close to me. But does it have to be so loud that it hurts us? They are not being good neighbors. The sound reverberates through closed windows many miles away. They were allowed to provide data on the sound measurements by sound engineers that the venue hired to prove that they were in compliance. We all know that this makes no sense and cannot be fair. The law cannot be changed to suit commercial needs when it was written to protect people. The money cannot be allowed to overrule the protections of the people. This is not only about Colorado Springs venue. It is about keeping protections in place that have been there for over a half century. Imagine having hugely noisy neighbors, and there is no noise abatement laws to keep them in check. It could be chaos in your own neighborhoods. with no recourse. There might be some laws on the books that would be better off deleted. This one is not one of them. Thank you for voting with integrity.

Thank you, Madam Chair and committee. I am Todd Huddle and I'm of Colorado Springs. I'm representing four generations of Colorado Springs citizens, and I oppose Bill 98. I'm reading a letter here also in opposition from expert witness Rick Reipstein. My name is Rick Reipstein. I'm an environmental lawyer with experience at the state and federal levels and currently a senior lecturer in environmental law at Boston University. This statement opposes Bill 98. The motivation for this bill is removal of obstacles for private interests, which fails to respect the high cost to human health and environment. It is beyond dispute that noise is a serious public health problem, causing mental and physical harm. Chronic noise adversely affects health, sleep, and children's ability to learn. In addition, it robs citizens of their right to enjoy their properties. Music events contain strong, low-frequency yellow. that travel into people's homes, offering them no safe refuge from harm. It is as if their homes have been taken away from them. Most communities do not have the resources or will to fight noise locally, and many sources of environmental noise do not respect local boundaries. Local authorities do not know how to help. Local or regional authorities say that they are not able to help, or it is another agency's responsibility, or they simply don't know what to do. It is critical that help comes from the state. The state of Colorado's responsibility to protect health and well-being is deeply woven into the fabric of its constitution through the preamble, such as its general welfare clause alone or the Bill of Rights, which is self-executing. The principle that the government exists for the good of the whole. Passage of this bill directly contradicts those principles. I strongly urge the House to oppose this bill that would abandon those principles. Please vote no on Bill 98. Thank you.

Yes, hello. Hi, everybody. My name is Carrie Dawn Solner. I am not from Colorado Springs. I am from Dillon, Colorado. I live 100 feet away from the Dillon Amphitheater. Thank you so much for your service to the state. I know it can be thankless work. I've been going to every council meeting in Dillon for the past year. You can find me on the videos. Thank you for truly listening to families like mine, watching our videos. I sent you all videos. And considering what local control really means in Dillon. Of course, the CML and others support local control, but I want to remind this body that federal law and state law has often been the backbone of truly protecting rights. I feel I will run out of time, so I really just want to ask you all to ask me some questions about the differences of a town-run amphitheater and what our legal recourse is since it's government-owned. I'm a lifelong Coloradan and a former music venue manager and a senior event producer. I'm a music lover and a music professional. I'm here representing my family, my home, and the 30 neighbors of the Dillon Amphitheater. What we are dealing with there is 100 to 1,000 times worse than Ford Amphitheater. We regularly have 85 in our homes and 96 on our porches. Yes, every town is different, but sound affects the human body and homes the exact same way. That does not vary. Modern sound code often always measures the impact at surrounding homes and includes mitigation. mitigation that includes frequency and breaks. That's an industry standard if you've worked with professionals that do this around the country for towns. An acoustic expert from Sound Music Cities, Don Pitts, whose letter I sent you all yesterday, clearly states this bill risks removing the only constant baseline that protects residents without replacing it with a standard that reflects how sound is actually experienced. He reduced complaints in the live music capital in Austin by 75%. Let me show you what that means. The Dillon Amphitheater is a town-run venue with a capacity of 3,400 for a town of 1,000, less than 100 feet from our homes, which were there first, and a $770,000 sound system. We love music, but please picture this. Close all the doors and windows in your homes. You have no AC because you live in Summit County. Now imagine a motorcycle or a chainsaw or a subway on your patio for seven to eight hours a day Inside I sorry seven to eight hours a day because sound checks are three to four hours. People often forget that. It's 77 to 85 decibels in our home like a vacuum you can't turn off. You can't talk over it at dinner. You can't watch TV anywhere in your home. And then there's the vibration. Your time has expired.

Yes. Now imagine this, eight days out of 10 in August, 16 days out of 23, not counting 25 more shows, mostly for profit for a town-owned venue. Thank you.

Yeah, good afternoon. Good evening. Thank you very much for spending so much time. I think you can tell there's a lot of passion here for everyone who's spent seven or eight hours here. I don't have a whole lot more to add than what's already been added. I think that the people in Colorado Springs represented us quite well. I live in Colorado Springs, about two miles away from Fort Amphitheater, and I've worked quite closely or I've tried to work quite closely with the city council. And I've tried to contact the mayor as well without much success on any kind of results. It's disappointing to hear the council members say, well, the complaints have gone down. The numbers have decreased. the fact is in our current situation the local government has failed in this aspect the the bill that's being passed i would like you to ask and i think you are asking some very important questions number one who stands to benefit who's the primary driver behind this i would suggest that it's jw roth and the ford amphitheater and that's that's their main goal is to get this passed so that they can have exceptions. The law that was put in place in 1971 obviously has a fundamental purpose and it provides a legal protection that protects all the individuals in Colorado, not just Colorado Springs, but everyone in Colorado for some recourse to be able to say, look, this isn't right and to make a change. So I plead with you. I ask you to vote no on this Bill 98 and allow this peace or allow us some legal recourse in our lives on these noise issues. Thank you for your time.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I know it's late, and it's not cool to ask questions this late at night, but I'm wondering about, like, is there anything beyond shut it down? Like, is there any solution? And we started off by hearing from AEG that, you know, that they've worked tirelessly. And so, you know, I'm wondering about, and I asked about the wall, but that doesn't work because the wind blows the music over the wall. But I'm wondering about things like, you know, is there a certain kind of music? Because I heard you say that a comedian was okay. So it's like, okay, more Trevor Noah and less Metallica. I don't know. Or is there a school night? And I heard that. I heard, like, we don't want this on a school night. So, like, could there be a school night schedule? But, like, I'm just wondering, is there, do you have in mind some solutions? Shut it down is not viable. And I'm especially concerned because I Googled it, and you guys, Yo-Yo Ma is coming on June 5th. That sounds pretty cool. So, like, is that going to violate the noise for you guys? I love Vampire Weekend, too.

But the number one thing that you can make a law about is mitigating impact and doing testing in nearby residents. And once you can decide what those A-levels and C-levels are and then maybe a reduced frequency, in Boulder, they only allow like five big shows a year at Folsom because all the students like John Summit. It's like super heavy base. Neighbors go wild, but it's only like four permits a year. In Dillon, they're allowing 45, and they've exempted themselves from any maximum limit in their own sound code. This is local control, guys. Like, they refuse to make any moves because they're trusting their venue manager that has a lot of ego in the bright, shiny, amazing thing that we all love, too. And they're just like, well, we'll defer to her. And she's like, we won't be competitive if we do this stuff. And they've made no changes for 2026. And I want to say one more thing. Because it's town run, we don't get the benefits of it being a for profit private business. We have to go through the Colorado Government Immunity Act. They get immunity because it's government run. It's extremely difficult. 106A doesn't really work for us. Just so you know what the remedy is for us, it's a minimum of $50,000 to start a lawsuit. Minimum. So all these people that are pressuring you to pass this, don't worry, because unless anybody here has at least 50K, they're not going to do anything, and it's been this way since 1971. Okay. Sorry. I would like to say too about the question of is there something that can be done. Just turn it down. Even when I'm at the venue, I don't want it that loud. It doesn't need to be that loud to be enjoyed. We wish we could extend the discussion but that not how it works But we understand that there lots of input that can be made It much harder to go backwards And I want to encourage folks as well We accept written testimony. So if there's things you want to say as we go forward, that can be entered into the record. So we thank you very much. The time for this panel has expired, and we're getting on to the witching hour here. So we do one support, one opposed, one support. We will move on to proponents for one more panel, a final opponent, and then a final proponent. So we're three panels away. This is the penultimate support panel, folks. Jim Vachik, Sherman Terry, Sarah Almeri, Akilah Graham, if we could call up Kurt Fristrup online and Hallie Whittington online. and I just want to make sure Jan Rodine and Jason Pickerel are no longer online. Correct? Great. Okie dokie. We will go ahead and start down here. Go ahead and introduce yourself. You've got two minutes.

Thank you so much. We'll go on to our next witness. Go ahead and introduce yourself. You've got two minutes.

All right. Next witness, go ahead and introduce yourself. if you've got two minutes. Okay.

and introduce yourself. You've got two minutes. Good evening. My name is Jim Basic and I'm in

can be represented and it's voted up or down thank you thank you very much we'll go ahead and go online to Hallie Whittington. Go ahead and introduce yourself. You've got two minutes.

Thank you so much. Last we'll go on to Kurt Fristrup, and I just want to make a note that he has signed up in a neutral position, but everybody else on this panel is support, just to be clear. Go ahead. You've got two minutes.

I see not, oh, I see Rep. Jackson. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you all for being here. I don't want to, you know, date myself, but I do remember Pierre's Supper Club and their delicious catfish. But my question for you all is when local government and municipalities fail their residents who have been coming to them for two years, what is the solution?

Representative.

Mr. Vazic.

Go ahead and turn your microphone on, sir.

Follow-up for up Jackson? No follow-up. Any other questions from the committee? all right seeing sure absolutely mr terry go for it yeah i would say when you said that it's failing

All right, I see no other questions for this panel. So thank you all so much for being here. And I believe we are going to call up our final opposition panel and then our final support panel. Dale, Jeniston, Joel Miller, Royce Bervig, Rob Fry. Is there anyone in the room who is opposed to the bill who has not had an opportunity to speak? Is there anyone online that we can find Mr. Gravy who is opposed who has not had an opportunity to speak? and we will begin uh here if uh if you would please sir uh two minutes please state who you are

Keep going.

Please wrap up, sir.

Thank you. You have two minutes, sir. Please proceed.

Thank you And before we go to our next witness Susan Adams if you still online I believe you the last person left online and we go to Mr Miller

we'll go to you Ms Adams I believe you're in a neutral position or amend Okay, scratch that. Mr. Bervig, sorry, correct my pronunciation. If you could join us for two minutes, please introduce yourself.

Yes, we can. Please proceed.

Rather than comply with the longstanding law of the Ford Amphitheater and the City of Colorado Springs, our proponents to change the law, gut the noise level protections. The venue in the city have been ignoring thousands of voices and formal complaints from the inception of the zoning process of this amphitheater. This is an example of, again, intentional local control failure. Colorado citizens need you to vote no on this bill. Thank you.

Madam Chair, I think Mr. Merritt already went.

Good evening, representatives. My name is Tobin Kern. I'm outside legal counsel to Venue Holding Corp. I want to cover three things quickly. You've heard a lot of opinion tonight about sound levels, particularly at the Ford Amphitheater. This is an issue for which there is objective, empirical evidence. You can Google it now if you would like. City of Colorado Springs, Ford Amphitheater, we're required to report all of our readings. The city requires six sound monitors throughout the neighborhoods. We cover all the neighborhoods. What those readings show, which is evidence, not opinion, is that the sound levels hover at ambient noise or below, which is very important because all of these residents live right next to I-25, right next to very busy thoroughfares. Every sound expert will tell you traffic just from streets like that hovers around 55 to 70 decibels. So that is actual evidence. The second thing I want to mention is there's been a lot of talk about what remedies do residents have if this bill passes, and they have many. They have a private right of a private nuisance action at common law. One of the witnesses talked about King George and so forth. That right has never been removed. That can be brought today. Another remedy is under Rule 106 that's been sort of criticized tonight. But if a permit is issued by the city of Colorado Springs, every person here, regardless of their residency, whose property is affected has the right to bring that action. By the way, a private nuisance action does not require living in the city limits. Lastly, on the remedies, the Noise Abatement Act will continue to be the default remedy because if there's any concert or other activity outside of a local permit, the private right of action of the noise abatement act will continue. Thank you.

Thank you, Chair Ferelik and members of the committee. I might just pick up where Mr. Kern left off, and that's really talking about the amendments, L-8. We've heard a lot about how county residents don't have a voice in city politics. I think an amendment in L.A. where a county can force the muni to a table is a meaningful amendment. You have two sovereign jurisdictions where one essentially can say we need to come to the table and see if we should have joint regulation of this activity. Then to L.9, to Mr. Kern's point about the private right of action, we've heard a lot about how the private right of action under the bill is extinguished. If you look at the bill, the private right of action lives within 24-12-104. No part of the bill touches 2512-104 except for the amendment that we're adding in L-9 saying, reinforcing that the private right of action is a remedy available to these citizens if there's violations of the local permit issued. However, I think the big issue that I want to address, Chair Froehlich, you brought up the Hobbs case and mentioned the Folsom example. that was the court reviewing the procedural legislative history of the noise abatement act. That was not an example that the court said is completely allowed under the noise abatement act. The substantive holding of the case suggests that a local government or a nonprofit cannot extend its privileges to a lessee, licensee, or permittee, which is why you have organizations from the YMCA to AEG coming to say that even if we're operating at a local government venue or a nonprofit venue, we're not sure if we can continue to operate under the Hobbs decision. The last thing that I'll mention, we've heard a lot about how the Noise Abatement Act is perfect. It doesn't need to be changed. I'll direct you, and I'm actually borrowing a copy of your statute book right now. I direct you to 2512 This is an exception to the State Noise Abatement Act This article is not applicable to the use of property for purposes of conducting speed or endurance events involving motor or other vehicles but such exception is effective only during the specified period of time within such use of the property as authorized by the political subdivision or government agency having lawful jurisdiction to authorize such action. And Chair Froelich, I will wrap up very quickly. What that says is that local governments can permit racing, motor vehicle activity, but we are not going to extend the privilege of permitting live events, which is a cornerstone of our really economic and workforce ecosystem. So I just leave you with that question, and I, too, am open to questions. Thank you.

Rep Phillips and then Rep Jackson. Thank you, Madam Chair. And my question is the same that I asked Mr. Mudd. And it is, my understanding is that, let me ask it like this. Did you seek fees and sanctions against citizens that petitioned for redress of noise at the same time that you're saying that there's a legal path for citizens? So just help me understand how that works.

We did ask for sanctions against the attorney, not the citizens. The reason we asked for sanctions is because suit was filed before the venue was even built. We've talked a lot tonight about decibels. That lawsuit was filed when there were zero decibels. We hadn't even built the seats, and we were sued. So, yes, in a case where the statute requires actual noise over an actual limit and we're sued before that, yes, we did ask for fees.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And then were those fees granted?

Representative Jackson. Thank you, Madam Chair. This question is for Mr. Kern. what is the average range of decibels for the AEG events?

Right, and I apologize.

Okay, and so if you're saying it's between 55 and 58, right, what is the existing, like, state decibel limit right now?

Mr. Meeks.

I do not see any other additional questions. Thank you. Thank you for being with us. Oh, and just for those folks listening at home, that was a conversation between Mr. Kern and Rep. Jackson. Didn't properly identify ourselves on that one. I'll bring up one last call for witnesses, and seeing none, the witness phase is complete. I'll bring up the bill's sponsors. I want to assure the folks in the audience and I want to express appreciation for everyone who some folks traveled distances and certainly people waited. We gaveled in at 1.30 today. We heard a whole other bill that had also had a large number of witnesses. And so I really want to thank you for your patience. I want to commend committee. those of us who've been in the building a lot and presented a lot of bills know that a lot of times you're presenting to an empty dais and our committee really hung in there it is it is common in our workplace that we honor the wishes of our bill sponsors in terms of when they make a request to hold on action for a bill because they feel there is an amendment or a compromise that is in the offing And I will let the bill sponsors speak to that but I believe that is in the situation in which we find ourselves I want people to know that your testimony has been, on both sides, has been recorded tonight. It is available online. It was heard by our committee in addition to the written testimony that we've received. I do not want you to feel like the fact that we will likely be taking action on this at a later date mean that you have not been heard. Representative Lindsay.

Can you hone your remarks in on why you would like to have a little bit more time?

Representative Brooks.

And that concludes the long day of committee. Again, I commend my colleagues, and we will see you back in one week upon adjournment. Thank you.