House Business Affairs & Labor [May 06, 2026 - Upon Adjournment]

Representative Brooks. Present. English. English. Representative English. Rep. English. Oh, I'm here. Representative Gonzalez. Kelty. Leader. Excused. Leader. Here. Mabry. Here. Marshall. Here. Morrow. Here. Richardson. Here. Ryden. Excused. Sucla. Excused. Camacho. Here.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to committee members. I have very fond memories of serving on the Business and Labor Committee and I miss some of those discussions. Not all of them, but some of those discussions. I come to this bill from very much a business perspective. As many of you know, I spent my career building organizations and creating environments where people can succeed. One thing I've learned is simple. When the structure of an organization fits what we're trying to accomplish, we are much better off. And in this particular case, we do not have a structure to support our creative industries. In Grand Junction and across the western slope, we have a growing creative economy. We have a downtown creative district, which is a great example that could use a bill of this nature. We've got galleries, studios, performance spaces, public art, projection projects, et cetera, et cetera. And now on campus, we have a world-class theater that was designed by individuals in London. These individuals that are involved in the creative arts are not hobbyists. This is their professional career. And they need to be able to build a business and contribute to the local economy and help drive community development as well. But the structure we have today is not a structure, and we ask them to match up a structure, whether it be a C corporation or some other form of a business entity, a partnership, we ask them to match it up to something that doesn't really fit. And one of the reasons it doesn't fit is that creative work is oftentimes collaborative. Just think about a documentary or think about visual arts as a whole. It's built around that shared contributions and intellectual property that generates value over time. Add to that, that value changes over time. The value can go up very significantly. Traditional business structures weren designed for that and it creates unnecessary and complexity for people to get started This bill is a practical fix It creates an optional and I stress optional we are not by any means asking the creative people to do this only but it creates an optional structure within our existing LLC framework that better aligns with how these business would potentially operate. It gives artists a way to organize, share the ownership of their work with individuals within the LLC, and set clear expectations around control and how they're to be compensated. From a business standpoint, what I appreciate is that it builds on the framework that already exists. We are not reinventing the wheel here. It doesn't require the state to stand up something totally new, just rather an adjustment of our LLC structure. But most importantly, it makes the system work better. In communities like mine, supporting small business and entrepreneurship is key to long-term economic success. This bill helps to do that in a very targeted and practical way. And I hope you will support me in House Bill 133.

Excuse me, Senate Bill. I'm sorry, I referred to it as House Bill. It's Senate Bill. I'm sorry.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Business Committee members. For those that don't know, I represent the San Luis Valley, in case you didn't know that. And so it's one of the most beautiful parts of the state, but it's also one of the hardest places to make a living. People there work hard, but incomes are lower and opportunities can be limited. What we are seeing, though, is something really interesting. Artists and creatives are moving into the valley, and they are choosing communities like Monta Vista, Alamosa, and Sohach because the cost of living is lower. There's space to create, and there's a strong sense of community. There are people starting businesses, restoring buildings, creating gathering spaces, and contributing to the local economy in real ways. But when they go to set up a business, these options don't really fit how they work. A lot of what they are building is collaborative. It's based on shared creative work, intellectual property, and values that develop over time. And what we hear from folks is that they either have to spend money they don't have to try to piece together a structure that works, or they give up too much control and they can't get it started. That's what this bill is trying to fix. Senate Bill 133 creates a simple, optional business structure that allows artists to come together, share ownership of their work, and set clear rules on how that works is used and how income from it is shared. It gives them a way to build something that reflects how they actually operate while still keeping in control in the hands of the artists. And from a policy standpoint, it's a pretty light lift. It works within our existing LLC framework. It doesn't create a new program. It doesn't expand government. It just removes a friction point for people who are already trying to build something. In a place like the San Luis Valley, that matters. When someone turns an old church into an art space, like in my hometown, or starts a creative business that brings people together, that has ripple effects across the whole community. This bill gives those folks a better tool to do that, and I respectfully ask for your support.

Let the record reflect that Rep Raiden and Rep Kelty have joined the committee Do we have questions I see Vice Chair Camacho Thank you Madam Chair and thank you sponsors I really appreciate what you trying to do but I have to admit I have some skepticism The current LLC laws that we have in Colorado accomplishes all of this. I mean, I think what I heard in testimony was that there could be an artistic purpose to an artistic LLC. Under current Colorado law, LLCs could be formed for any lawful purpose. It's much a broader standard. help me connect the dots of why this is necessary and our current laws are not sufficient.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Representative Camacho. I think the key thing is that we don't see in traditional LLCs, and I've had several of them, is we're not in a situation where we have assets that are shared values. There was input from different creative individuals that built that value. We have an asset in our normal LLC. It could be a building. It could be production equipment. It could be a variety of things. But in this particular case, we have to identify the fact that each individual, each creative in this particular situation has a distinct value to it. And that creates, obviously, that intellectual property, which at that point can be rolled into the company as a whole as capital, which is, again, unusual that you would roll it in as capital and in-kind, an in-kind donation that ends up being capital. and then there are royalties potentially that are exclusive to that organization and the members of that organization. We don't see that in a traditional LLC, not that I've ever been involved in. Thank you, Madam Chair.

No. So, go ahead. Rep Taggart. Thank you, Madam Chair. You know, if somebody chose to build it around one documentary, I suppose you could. But I would more envision that these artists come together and they bring a documentary to the LLC to begin with, and then as a group they continue to develop documentaries that then can create additional royalties for the LLC. Rip Martinez.

Vice Chair? Another issue that I'm having trouble squaring up is that I've been told that this bill will reduce the legal requirements or you may not need an attorney to do a contract for this or a contract for that compared to a traditional LLC. But as I'm hearing some of the examples, take for example a piece of art, and you still want to maintain either the goodwill or the intellectual property of it, that's going to require a contractual document or some legal filing. So it doesn't really seem like this structure reduces the burden or need to engage legal assistance to protect your rights. Are we just calling us and are we just renaming an LLC specifically for artists, but essentially it does everything we currently can do? I'm just still struggling. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Follow-up, Vice Chair? Any other questions?

Sure, thank you. Unless I'm mistaken, I believe that there isn't an analog that you can point to. Is that correct? There's no analog that you can point to. This is being done somewhere else. I don't believe there's anything that you can point to. Is that accurate?

Greg Martinez, did you want to add something? No? Okay. Good. Greg Kelty.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Representative Kelty. So for the first question, you know, we have some witnesses that can go more into depth on, like, how that process would look like with it. But to answer your second question, I would say that how our current structure is set up is kind of like a pre-made cake, right? I mean, in the cookie-cutter legislation that we all kind of talk about and hear about, right? And so what we have found is that doesn't necessarily work for all of these cases. And so this, again, creates an easier, customizable LLC that really does benefit these different businesses that allows them to function and operate in the way that they want to. Whereas right now, they may fit in the box, but then you have to do all these different customizations of the LLC in order to get them to fit into this kind of mold. And what we have found in this state is that it just hasn't been working. And that's why we're bringing it.

Rev. Kelty? Oh, I'm sorry. Rev. Taggart.

Rep. Kelty? So just so I understand, so you're saying that this allows them to have some sort of like a prenup?

Rep. Martinez. That's a good term. And thank you, Madam Chair. And also, Rep. Kelty, what we have seen is like, so taking for music as an example, is that what we see now under current LLC practices is that typically only one band member is holding the entire catalog, the ownership of the catalog. And then again, this allows for all of the band members to really have buying and not intellectual property under what our proposal is. And because I think that, again, we've heard from musicians is that they're saying, like if they all contributed into the song or the album, but they're not getting the same ownership of it as well too. And then I would also agree with my co-prime on how the dissolution process works, too.

Red Marshall. Thank you, Madam Chair. So, you know, the Colorado Bar Association is against this, and I still, to be blunt, haven't heard one thing where you couldn't structure a current LLC in the manner that you desire. So you're saying you want to make an off-the-shelf template, but is what I'm hearing because there's nothing we need to do in the law to change the LLC law to allow this artistic LLC to exist, except we're just putting forward a template. You could do everything, unless you can point me to something, you can do everything you want or saying in the law today. So I guess the question is why can't people just Google artistic LLC because even your template is going to have to be customized based on and the operating agreement put together depending on the interests of all the members. I mean, so I guess the question is redundant. Can you point to anything that you could not do right now in the law to do this? Because otherwise you're kind of introducing more complexity into our system by having this off the template.

Rep Taggart. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Representative Marshall. I think we're doing just the opposite. I don't believe for a second we're making it more complicated. What we're doing is recognizing that the assets associated with this type of an LLC, Almost everything else, if you read through the bill, is almost verbatim what we're used to in LLCs. It just gives an approach, a foundation that artists can look at from the standpoint of how to go about the complexity of intellectual property when it comes to creative. and beyond that you know having read this bill a couple of different times the structure of the LLC and how you go about it disillusionment etc. etc. is almost exactly the same but we're giving people a roadmap of how they can look at this valuation when it comes to assets that are collaborative

You're good.

Thank you. Just real quick this is for Rep Martinez Did you get a hold of IATSE Were you able to contact him Rep Martinez Thank you Rep Leader

Okay.

Are you remote, Mr. Liston?

Okay. Thank you so much. Thank you so much. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members of the committee. My name is Sarah Darlene, and I am a Denver-based artist, educator, and grant writer, and I am here in strong support of Senate Bill 133. For the past 14 years, I have worked as a professional artist in Colorado. My practice spans painting, fiber, and large-scale installation and is rooted in the belief that art is medicine, that it can support healing and connection and community. Alongside my studio practice, I teach a meditative painting course at the Denver Art Museum, and I serve as the grants manager for the Denver Center for the Performing Arts. I've also spent several years supporting arts and wellness nonprofits across Colorado as a grant writer and consultant. Through all of these roles, I've experienced firsthand how difficult it can be for artists to build sustainable and protected careers within our current systems. Many artists, myself included, operate businesses that are both economically active and community oriented. We partner with institutions and create experiences that directly serve our communities. But our current business structures do not fully support or protect that kind of work. They often make it harder for artists to grow responsibly, pursue investment, protect ourselves legally, or build long-term stability while remaining committed to public impact. Senate Bill 133 addresses that gap. The Artist Corporation model creates a structure that allows artists to grow sustainable businesses while continuing to serve the public good. For artists like me, it offers stronger protections and a framework that better reflects the reality of our work. I am actively developing programs that bridge the arts and wellness sectors through public engagement and institutional partnerships, and this bill would directly support my ability to build that work sustainably here in Colorado. I strongly encourage you to support Senate Bill 133. Thank you so much for your time.

Thank you Chair members of the committee for giving us this time My name is Yancey Strickler I grew up on a farm in southwest Virginia the son of a musician who never quite made a living at it and a mom who taught me how to use a computer And it's because of them that I co-founded Kickstarter, and I spent the last 20-plus years working to make economic infrastructure for creative people. And I'm here as the executive director of the Artist Corporations Foundation, speaking in support of this bill. The questions that have been raised today are great ones about what is it that this does and what is the problem that this is solving. And this started with problems I myself faced and my peers faced. As creative people, we are rounding errors in a larger economic system to create protection for our work. We're as good as our counsel. And we're finding ourselves paying lawyers a lot of money to make custom structures over and over. But that is an ad hoc system that creates no shared benefit. What happens by us creating a model that's based on a couple years of research and really taking forward the best practices that exist for creative people as well as new capabilities that we think are important to them, is you create collective benefits. In particular, you create a new form of security, the A-corp share, a way that ownership and creative enterprises can be fractionalized, distributed to collaborators, sold to investors. By artists convening into the same form, it creates the potential for collective benefits like access to health care. And this also manifests, also requires that intellectual property contributed to an A-corp counts as a capital contribution, so it has a valuation that allows the artist to realize the value of that work. Now, these are things you can do individually with an individual lawyer, but they do not bring that, bring that shared benefit. And so this is trying to make that form accessible to all.

Good evening, Madam Chair and members of the committee. My name is Josh Blanchard. I serve as Director of Colorado Creative Industries, or CCI, within the Office of Economic Development and International Trade, or OEDIT. And I'm here to testify in support of Senate Bill 133. CCI's sector represents $19.7 billion of the state's GDP with more than 121,000 jobs throughout the entire state. CCI at OEDIT exists to promote, support, and expand the creative sector as a driver of economic growth, job creation, and overall quality of life across the state. The creative economy is not just cultural. It is an economic infrastructure, especially in rural and place-based communities. Through programs like the Creative District Program, we have seen firsthand how intentional investment in the arts and culture communities, as well as in individual artists and creative entrepreneurs, activates downtowns, supports small businesses, and strengthens local identity. This bill aligns with CCI's mission by creating a formal business structure that reflects how artists actually work and collaborate. The creation of the artist company provides a legal and artistic economic framework that recognizes artistic production and the market valuation of creative assets as both creative and entrepreneurial. Many artists already operate informally as collectives, studios, or collaborative entities without this type of structure that formally supports their needs. This legislation provides legitimacy and clarity for artist-led businesses, creates pathways for investment, capital formation, and supports long-term sustainability for creative careers by requiring that artists maintain at least 51% ownership, ensuring the creative control and economic benefit within the creators themselves. CCI anticipates that artists and artistic organizations within creative districts, and more broadly across Colorado, would be strong candidates to utilize or pilot this model. This bill is forward-thinking in its approach, as it recognizes the evolving nature of creative work in the creative economy. And for these reasons, we're proud to support. I'm available to answer questions. Thank you.

Good evening, Madam Chair and members of the committee. My name is Lauren Click, and I manage the Office of Arts and Culture for the City of Boulder. I'm here today on behalf of the city, which has taken a support position on the Bill 26133. Boulder just launched the Boulder Arts Blueprint, a 10-year cultural plan built on extensive research and with input from more than 2,000 community members. One of its central findings is that sustaining a creative career in Boulder is harder than it should be. Rising costs, complex business structures, and limited access to capital are pushing artists out. Our arts blueprint identifies entrepreneurship and workforce development as a core goal and calls for policies that treat the creative economy with the same intentionality that we bring to other sectors like biotechnology or aerospace. The Artist Company Act does just that. It creates a legal structure designed for how artists actually work, protecting intellectual property, preserving creative control and enabling access to investment without surrendering artistic mission. This applies and matters statewide. Colorado ranks fourth in the nation for cultural activity as a share of GDP. As you just heard from Josh, about the $19 billion to the state economy and 121,000 workers employed. And yet the artists and creatives that are driving that economy still lack a legal infrastructure to help them thrive. What the A Corp offers is technically achievable today if you can afford the right lawyers, which artists famously struggle with. And timing here also matters. Boulder is preparing to welcome the Sundance Film Festival in 2027. If Colorado wants to continue to attract and retain world-class creative talent, we need to signal through law that this is a place where artists are seen and protected and supported and encouraged. the City of Boulder, and I respectfully ask the committee to move this forward. Thank you so much.

Yes, thank you, Madam Chair and committee members. My name is John Clark, and I'm the mayor of Ridgeway. I'll keep my comments brief. I urge you to support SB 26133, making Colorado the first state in the country to create an artist corporation, LLC. I believe the creative economy has likely done more for the state of Colorado than the vast majority of other sectors over the last decade or so. I won't rattle off stats that I'm sure you're aware of, but suffice it to say that it provides more to the state GDP than either mining or transportation. Indeed, I'm proud to say that Ridgeway has seen the single biggest transformation in its history into that of an arts community through efforts like CCI Creative District Program and we have become a shining example of the economic power of the arts in the 21st century This bill gives artists and creative professionals a tool to be able to sustain and grow their businesses in a way that protects their interests without having to pay a lawyer to help structure a custom LLC Creating the Artist Corporation makes it possible for artists throughout the country to make the value of their work become an actual asset of their LLC, protect their intellectual property indefinitely and issue ownership units, including fractional units, letting artists build equity and share ownership with collaborators. The Artist Corporation combines the best of existing forms, liability protection, pass-through taxation, and equity sharing, with protections that no other form provides by default. A legally protected artistic mission, 51% artist voting control, IP reversion rights, and separation of economic and creative rights, all built into the form itself, no expensive lawyers required. In short, this bill opens up a whole new set of economic opportunities for artists everywhere. I urge you to pass it out of committee today, and thank you again for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you. Thank you, members of the committee. It is my honor to be able to testify in support of Senate Bill 26-133, the Colorado Artist Company Act. I'm Meredith Badler. I serve as the Deputy Director at the Colorado Business Committee for the Arts. The CBCA is a non-profit organization that advances Colorado's creative economy by connecting arts and business. We believe strongly in this bill and are here to encourage your yes vote. Senate Bill 133 is a small business bill. This is an entrepreneurial bill. It's not just about artists and our cultural economy, though that is critical. It is about supporting the future of small businesses in Colorado. And this is also a trailblazing bill. Creative work is work, and it is an industry that deserves to be treated, valued, supported as such. What Senate Bill 133, what the Colorado Artist Company Act would do is create a blueprint for arts-favorable businesses. It would provide a new industry standard, streamline and simplify a way for artists to create businesses that allow them to have greater control of their work, to have greater access to capital, easier to collaborate. And what's most important is this today is a start of a movement for artists around Colorado and more broadly that will learn from what we do today that can all form these artists businesses and collectively have greater power and agency as a movement. This is an exciting time for Colorado. It is an exciting time for our vital creative industries. And I urge your yes vote on Senate Bill 133, the Colorado Artist Company Act. Thank you for your time. Thank you so much. Stand

any questions for them I see Rep Kelty Go ahead Thank you Madam Chair I think my question is for Mr Blanchard I think or whoever wants to answer honestly So I'm trying to weigh this. There are LLCs. I've been in business, but I'm not an artist. So if this bill passes, what is it that you couldn't do before that you'll then now be able to do? Yeah, that's my question.

Follow up, Rep. L.T.

Okay, so I want to go back to the music reference I had made earlier. So you've got a band of five members, and, you know, members come and go. We've seen that happen. How does it work then over, let's say, a span of ten years? I have a band of five, you know, number four or five decide to part ways, and they bring in new band members and they add band members and it goes up and down. How does that work within the structure as far as the intellectual property, the rights, you know, royalties? I mean, how is that going to work?

Mrs. Strickler. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for the great question. so what you'd be able to do as soon as starting an A-corp versus say starting an LLC is that you would be asked through website forms we created that someone could use but you could also do it through your operating agreement but you would be asked what intellectual property do you want to assign to be owned by the artist corporation So what existing works as a band do you have and what agreements exist for them? So that could be recorded in the actual structure of what the entity owns. You're also invited to say when starting the A Corp what should happen in the event of a breakup. up. And the assumptions we have is something like what happens in a company where there is an amount of equity that's vested over time. If you leave, you may give up some equity or maybe you own only the parts that you are actually a part of. But it's trying to remove that, make that emotional conversation more black and white and more clear rather than the sort of friend agreements that tend to dictate things today.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Yeah, we define artist and artistic mission in a 21st century way and not a 19th century way.

Madam Chair, I move Amendment L-004 to Senate Bill 133.

Thank you, Madam Chair. This amendment just cleans up the bill by clarifying that an existing LLC can elect to become an artist company. the artist company is short for LLC, by amending its articles rather than going through a very elongated conversion process. So they can just take a vote and change their documents, their articles of incorporation, and their operating agreement to, in fact, flow into this, so long as it's the 51% ownership of the artist.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Committee. So, Amendment L5 is an amendment that makes sure the bill works smoothly with federal tax law, especially for artist companies that are taxed as partnerships. It clarifies that when artistic work reverts back to artist, the company's operating agreement must be included standard tax and accounting provisions to handle allocations, distributions, and ongoing economic rights correctly. In short, it preserves the policy of the bill while making sure that it can be implemented without unintended tax consequences. And we request an aye vote.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, committee members. Again, I think that this is just, you know, the real reason why I got on this is that, again, we're seeing just this really big boom of artists and creative nature in the San Luis Valley, and we're starting to see a lot of problems within the current structure And it becoming a hindrance for them And it again I think I done this pretty well since I been here is that you know I don like cookie legislation and this really makes sure that it's tailored for, you know, the individuals and making sure that these artists, these musicians, all have the same opportunities that everybody else does. And so I think that this clears an easier path. This makes sure that we are having unique legislation that is going to be beneficial for this group and making sure that they can thrive and be able to start their own business, contribute back into their economies and being able to, you know, really, really make it without having to go through all this undue burden. And so I think that this is a good bill. There's only three no votes in the Senate with this. And, you know, we request an aye vote. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Okay. Committee members, closing comments for our bill sponsors. Rev. Ryden.

Other comments? Can you move the bill, Vice Chair?

Second. Okay, the bill has been moved and amended. I will say, though, thank you for bringing the bill. I think it's an opt-in type bill, and it does kind of give like a blueprint for artists. They typically are artistic and not thinking business. So I think by having something structured that they can think about and the questions on that page, it will make a difference for them. So I do support this bill. With that, Ms. Gerrard, please call the roll. Representative Brooks.

Oh, did you say yes or pass? Oh, I thought she said yes. You can't keep passing. No, I said no. Did you say yes or no? OK.

Madam Chair. Yes. It passes 10 to 3. You're on your way to appropriations. I thought she said pass. She said pass the first time. We're going to recess just briefly. OK. Thank you. . Right. Do you have this? I have . I was just going to try to do like this and you could do this and I'll do this or whatever. . SB 175 will be done and then we'll go back to the regular schedule. Okay. The committee will come back to order. We have before us the sponsors for SB175. And who would like to go rep Merle?

Would there be that impact?

Thank you, Reverend Richardson. Committee members, are there questions for our bill sponsors? I see none. We're going to call our witnesses. We have three witnesses signed up, and this will be the only call we'll make for witnesses. So if you are in the room, please come up to the dais. I'm going to call Michael Gifford, Sandra Gunther, Chad Mathis.

Please introduce yourself. You have two minutes to give us your testimony.

and I'll be glad to answer any questions. I do see a couple more witnesses have joined us. We'll go online now to Chad Mathis. you're muted Mr. Mathis if you're trying to speak you have two minutes to give us your testimony please tell us who you're representing can you hear us Mr. Mathis we'll come back to you we're going to go on to Sonia Gunther Ms. Gunther, you have two minutes to give us your testimony.

Can you guys hear us? Can you maybe give me a thumbs up, something, if you can hear me? I guess not.

I can hear you.

Thank you so much. Please stand by for questions. Mr. Mathis, can you hear us now?

Wonderful.

Thank you so much. Are there any other witnesses in the room who wants to testify on this bill. This will be our last call for witnesses. Okay, committee members, what questions do you have for our witnesses? I don't see a lot, but I do have a couple questions. So is there any recourse for an employer if the rating company does not issue the premium credit or, you know, on time? Is there a complaint process? How do you guys envision this working?

And then one last question. Will the Division of Workers' Comp be the one doing the audits on this to track whether or not these credits are being issued consistently across the board, across carriers? how will we know if there's issues? Any kind of compliance reviews in this bill? We currently don't have anything.

I'm not aware that the Division of Work Comp would be involved in this, but please chime in.

So then the division of insurance is the one who would be the entity monitoring these processes or these credits?

Thank you.

Are there any other questions from the committee? Seeing none, thank you so much, witnesses, for coming in. And we've made the last call for witnesses. I will say last call again. And with that witness testimony is closed, we're going to have our bill sponsors come back up. Are there amendments on your bill?

Rep. Morrow?

Okay. Any amendments from the committee? Seeing none, amendment phase is closed. Wrap up? Rep. Morrow.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, colleagues. It is a simple bill. It took longer to talk about than it does to read it, but it is very targeted. It doesn't rewrite workers' comp, the system in any way. It doesn't require any constant recalculation. It only applies when an open claim was reported higher than the final closed amount, and that difference is actually material to the effects on the employer's EMOD. So the purpose is really straightforward. Just do not make employers, especially small employers, pay inflated workers' comp premiums or risk losing bidding eligibility because of an outdated reserve estimate that no longer reflects their actual claim costs. I would ask for a yes vote. Okay. Which one of you would like to move your bill? Rep Richardson.

Yes.

Second. The bill has been moved and seconded by Rep. Murrow. Committee members, are there closing comments for our bill sponsors? Seeing none, we are going to ask for the roll. Representatives Brooks.

It goes 13-0. All right. Next bill. 13-41. I see our bill sponsors are here. I'm sorry. 14-31. Oh, 14-31. House Bill 1431. Okay. Who would like to begin? Emeril Bacon.

And some boards consult with third parties. What 1431 does now is it effectively says that given the DPO program, that we can now allow international or foreign trained candidates to apply to the program. And so what that means for us in regards to wanting to sponsor the bill is now we want to be able to say we should be able to provide pathways and opportunities for those from other countries who have commiserate experience to be able to work here with us under a license as determined by their boards or their regulatory authority. And so we're here in business and labor today because both myself and my co-prime were excited to talk about workforce. I'm sure many of us have been aware of people who may have licenses to do some other things that were issued in other countries, and they're not living up to their workforce potential because they're doing different jobs or jobs that may not need as much qualifications as they have earned. And so when we were approached to talk about is there a pathway for foreign trained or foreign licensees to be able to find an opportunity to even apply to these boards we kind of jumped at the chance because we believe that one our boards are able to either consult with or determine themselves who has the equivalency of the qualifications needed for the licenses that we issue here. also that people should have a chance to apply and make a case. And so I will stop there. Happy to answer any questions. And I'll hand it over to my co-prime. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you to my co-prime sponsor. That was an excellent description. I'm going to talk to the bill with the amendment because the amendment does make a significant change. So everything on page three of the bill goes away. And so you might be asking, well, what does the bill do now? That's a very good question. So if you turn to page two of the bill, it only adds three words or another country to the occupational portability program. And the reason why this is important right now, for example, if a person were to, say, go to nursing school in Canada, They would then become licensed in the United States through the credentialing of, say, Nebraska, and then they would use the portability program to come to Colorado. My sister-in-law is a good example. She immigrated from Mexico. She was a nurse. She became credentialed in Connecticut and then used that credential to come to Colorado. By adding or another country, this would allow that individual, if the current practice act allows and the board allows and credentialing is all deemed to be equivalent, to apply directly within Colorado. So none of the current law changes. So that's why you saw all of the groups that were in amend have now gone to neutral, monitor, or in support of the bill. We have a robust list of those who are in support. For example, the Acupuncture Association, the Radiological Society, the Rural Health Centers of Colorado, the Colorado Society of Anesthesiologists, the Colorado Society of Oral Surgeons, the Boulder Chamber, Boulder County, the Office of New Americans, SEIU, and the Colorado Nursing Association. so this is a significant change it's not as far as we would have liked to have gone as you can tell by page three we would have liked to have had some requirements on each one of the practice acts we're not touching that at all so that's now out of the bill and it's a much more scaled back so that that is the bill thank you rep so for committee members are there questions for our bill sponsors. Yep, Kelty. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I think we kind of touched this a little earlier in discussion, but I just want to make sure that the licensing or the credentialing here in Colorado for them, will it be as stringent as like other states? Like you mentioned Nebraska and stuff like that. I just want to make sure that we have a credentialing plan for them because if they from another country it could be language you know all the other stuff So is the credentialing the same or just as stringent as for Reps so far Thank you Madam Chair and thank you Representative Kelty Excellent question. So where Colorado is part of a compact, there's portability within the compact. The compacts will require certain standards that have to be met, certain credentials that have to be included. So each state within the compact is going to recognize that. It just so happens Colorado doesn't recognize a foreign degree, which means that someone would have to go to another state first, enter the compact, and then using the portability program, come to Colorado. Yet Colorado is already part of the program, so we're obviously saying that we see the same standards and credentials and requirements being laid out as our sister states. under current law we're saying that we want our sister states to be the first ones to vet and that we're not competent to vetting an individual, but yet we are competent to be part of the compact. So being part of the compact means that we have to follow all the regulations that are laid out there. So follow up, Rep. Culte. Okay. Rep. Richardson. Thank you, Madam Chair, and for the sponsors. Since you intend through amendment to strike the language on three, when somebody does make application from another nation, is there any risk that the standards could differ, that this is now kind of a one-off for each person that applies? How do we ensure consistency? Yep, so far. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Representative Richardson. So because we're striking out everything on page three, which is where we would have had the boards actually look at setting up a structure for foreign equivalents coming into Colorado, now that part is silent and so relies on each of the individual practice acts of the professions and occupations. So if, for example, like nursing, that's one that is a little bit more willing to engage here. They already have a well-vetted, well-tested standard for equivalency. Someone like dentistry, for example, they're under CODA, and so I think Canada might be the only option. So that would be just a good example. You'd have to go into each one of the practice acts. Represition, follow-up. Thank you. So just if I'm hearing correctly, this would strike perhaps an overarching methodology, but there is a methodology that exists for each one of these areas of practice. Rep, begin. Sorry. Yes. Thank you. I think an interesting thing about page three, even though we're striking it, if you look at the lower cases, right? That's what exists in law. So we're undoing that. And what this law really means is that people should be allowed to apply. And then the different occupations have to determine, and it says, may specify by rule. So they would go through notice and comment to say what it is that would create a substantial equivalency. And so different boards right now, have different ways that they do it. Some boards by themselves come up with the rule. They put it through rulemaking and it approved And some of the boards in their practices acts refer to other entities that must be a part of a qualification rubric So the short answer is to my colleagues' answer is if the different professions have articulated in their statutes what to do, that would still stand. Originally, the bill kind of superseded that, and that was the concern. Okay. Thank you very much. Other questions from the committee? I was just going to ask, what consumer protections or guide rails are present now if there was, you have this rule that's substantially equivalent. Is that still applicable? So if there was an issue, what type of appeals or reviews process for the license? What's the recourse there under this bill? Sorry, I've worked on other bills when it comes to being able to get an occupational license. We worked on a look-back period. You know, if someone had particular felonies after X amount of years, they could apply for a license. And what I do believe, I do know Dora's here, so they could probably better answer it, but I do think there is an appeal process. It may differ given the different occupations, but since a license is something that the state is responsible for issuing, I do believe they have clarity and expectations in response to process if someone wants to know why they were denied or if someone wants to question if they could apply again. Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair. and that brought something to mind. How would, because they're from a foreign country, how would then it be found that they had some sort of legal or felony or, you know, someone who did something really bad to someone in that profession? How would we know that? And is that part of the discovery? Rep Bacon or Rep Soap. Sorry. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Representative Kelty. that would all be very specific to each individual practice act for what you're talking about. So, I mean, that's pretty nuanced, and I would have, like, Dora weigh into the details. I would just say one thing, that it's kind of a presumption that a person who has a foreign degree is not an American. We have a number of Americans who are going to places like the Caribbean. It's a famous place to go to medical school, for example. And, I mean, those who remember history remember what the U.S. went to to protect Americans abroad. There is certainly much more portability as, for example, American universities have either acquired or gone into a joint partnership with foreign universities for specific degree programs. So the world has become a much smaller place. and we have certainly a number of Coloradans who are doing their degree outside of the United States. And, I mean, this just opens a door, but you then have to get to the Practice Act, the board, the regulations, and many of them don't even allow that right now. And so that's why it's kind of hard to answer that question. But for the ones that do, and they do have a robust background check, I mean, they would have to disclose any sort of arrest records that they may have. And for those particular professions where it's at a heightened concern, they may not even want to allow anyone that has even ever lived outside the United States, particularly if they're just very concerned. Any other questions for our appeal sponsors? Seeing none, we're going to go into our witness space. Did you guys have an order? We don't have anybody that's against, so it's mostly for an amend. Do you just want to alternate? Four. Okay. We'll do that. We're going to start calling up our witnesses. Sam Delp. Paula Schiffer. Sniffer. I don't know. You can pronounce it when you come up. And Karen Gonzalez. D. Scriven. Daniel Scriven. Patricia Alvarez Harrow Mark Longshore Yes Okay, I'm going to call one more witness up Joshua Stallins from Juntos, are you here? And Matt Gurins, you're already up. Okay, let's go with the witnesses before us. Mr. Delp. Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the committee. I'm Sam Delp, and I'm honored to be the Division Director for the Division of Professions and Occupations at DORA. I'm here today in favor of HB 1431, and I'm pleased to have worked with the sponsors on this bill. I'd like to highlight some of the things this bill does, as well as a few of the specific things the bill does not do. First and foremost, this is a workforce bill. It provides qualified professionals who are trained outside the United States the opportunity to pursue licensure in Colorado through their respective regulatory boards without needing to first obtain a license to practice in another state, which the current Occupational Portability Program requires. Specifically, the bill does not require a regulatory board to change the way education equivalency is determined today. If the board has a system they believe works well, they need not change it. It does not require a board to issue a license to anyone that does not meet the licensing requirements, and it does not allow for the director, me, or any DORA staff member to override a decision of the board. It does not lower the standard or change the requirements for a license, and it does not prevent participation in any interstate licensure compact. Finally, it does not compromise public safety or consumer protection. There is nothing inherently unsafe about an applicant simply because they were trained outside the United States. You may hear testimony that regulatory boards do not have the ability to make an education equivalency determination. This is simply not true. Our state regulatory boards make these types of decisions and others that are far more complicated on a regular basis. They do this through rulemaking, the review of specific applications and documents, and with the help of third-party agencies that work with the professions. Once again, thank you to the sponsors and the committee for your attention to this bill, and I ask for your yes vote. Thank you, Ms. Adel. We're going to go next. Sorry about that Hello Madam Chair and members of the committee My name is Gating Gonzalez and I am the Graduate Policy Intern at the Colorado Fiscal Institute where we work to make Colorado a state where fiscal and economic policies promote equity and widespread economic prosperity. Today, I'd like to speak in support of increasing opportunities for licensure across different professions. Licensing procedures create barriers that limit foreign-educated professionals from fully participating in Colorado's workforce. This impacts the state's overall wealth and its ability to meet workforce demands. Due to current licensing barriers, many highly educated workers are in lower skilled jobs, resulting in lost productivity and tax income. This is called brain waste. Research estimates that occupational licenses cost Colorado around 57,000 jobs per year and about $375 million in lost output. By allowing foreign educated workers to show similar competencies, states tap into underused skills and grow their labor force. This is valuable to increasing overall earnings, consumer spending, and total state collections. Immigrant workers are a major driver in health care, social assistance, and education services in Colorado, totaling 19% of the labor force and contributing around $6.8 billion in gross domestic services and goods. Despite these contributions, brain waste remains significant and is reflected in Colorado's growing demands in the health care and mental health workforce. Research data stresses that there is a severe underuse of immigrant labor in the health care and social services. This workforce gap has been highlighted in recent local research showing that Colorado will likely face a shortage of over 4,400 behavioral health specialists in 2026 and 1,700 primary care physicians by 2030. Additionally, 54 out of Colorado's 64 counties are designated health professional shortage areas, with many rural communities lacking sufficient providers. Shortages in our workforce continue to supply longer wait times, higher service costs, and reduce access to care. In modernizing licenses for foreign trained professionals, Colorado can responsibly increase its workforce, improving access to care, and helping stabilize the cost for families and employers across the state. Therefore, I urge you to vote yes in support, please. Thank you. Mr. Gorenz. Thank you, Madam Chair and committee members. My name is Matt Gorenz, and I am the Director of Legislative Affairs for the Department of Regulatory Agencies. I am here today on behalf of our executive director, Patty Salazar. We are here in strong support of this bill because it bolsters workforce and expands the occupational portability program. I'll begin by acknowledging that there's an amendment being offered later during this hearing that we wrote to bring all parties along with us as we develop innovative ways to ensure internationally educated professionals are given their fair opportunity to obtain a license for which they're qualified. DORA has been very proactive and committed to supporting economic development and promoting workforce mobility while still staying centered in our mission of consumer protection. Over the course of the years, we have reduced barriers for military members and their spouses who seek licensure as they serve our country. We've expanded the number of compacts in which Colorado participates, making our state a leader in this space. We have found pathways for those who have been previously incarcerated to reenter the workforce to find stability. and we have removed regulatory roadblocks for immigrants, refugees, and new Americans. Colorado has been globally and nationally recognized for our thoughtful regulatory approaches to occupational licensure and enforcement, and I'm honored here, excuse me, I'm honored to be here today in support of this bill, which expands our occupational licensure portability program. Director Salazar wanted to convey that when she started this role in 2019, Our agency priority bill was House Bill 1290 which actually originally established the occupational licensure portability program that we all talking about today House Bill 1431 this bill in front of us today is a bookend as we wrap up this administration I deeply proud of the work that we done around regulatory reform and our thoughtful approach to breaking down barriers to entry in licensure for those who are deserving of a license and who qualify We want to extend our sincere appreciation to Assistant Majority Leader Bacon and Representative Soper for their commitment to this and their partnership. I don't think we could have had better sponsors. We appreciate your yes vote today. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Gurrenz. Please stand by for questions. We're going to go online to Ms. Paula Schreifer. Schreifer. Please pronounce your name. Thank you. You can correct me. Hi there. Can you hear me? Yes. Great. Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the committee. My name is Paula Schreifer, President of Spring Institute for Intercultural Learning, and I am testifying in support of HB 261431. A Spring Institute has served its mission of creating a thriving intercultural community through learning, language access, and advocacy since 1979, and has long been a proponent of improving opportunities for skilled, internationally trained professionals to regain credentials here in Colorado. Since 2010, Spring Institute has run the Colorado Welcome Back program, part of a national welcome back network that helps internationally train doctors, nurses, pharmacists, and other healthcare professionals navigate the pathways back to their careers. In many cases, skilled healthcare providers either give up entirely or accept much lower level healthcare positions due to overly burdensome, expensive, and sometimes nearly impossible pathways to relicensure. This not only deprives them of utilizing their skills and greatly diminishes their earning potential, but also deprives Coloradans of the healthcare they need. In 2022, Spring Institute was proud to work together with Representative Ricks and Senator Buckner to pass HB 221050, facilitating the integration of international medical graduates into the Colorado healthcare workforce. That bill specifically focused on physicians and paved the way for the Colorado Works for International Physicians program run by Denver Health in partnership with Spring Institute. That program now in its third and final year has had a 100% success rate in preparing and helping internationally trained physicians match to residencies throughout our state with seven of eight participants attaining residencies in underserved communities. We are very happy to support this bill that will create easier pathways for a range of professions in demand in our state, both in healthcare and other sectors. We think this approach is long overdue. One of our participants from Afghanistan recently shared some thoughts with us that I'll share with you, which is Spring Institute has helped me build a plan for rebuilding my career. My journey to dental licensure involves passing multiple high stakes exams, preparing a competitive university application and returning to dental school after for two more years. The process is difficult, long and financially burdensome. I hope this bill will make it easier for him and others in his situation to get back to work and fill our workforce gaps. Thank you. I'm going to go next to Joshua Stallings from Juntos. Madam Chair Ricks, members of the committee, thank you for your time. My name is Joshua Stallings and I represent Juntos Community and testifying in support of House Bill 1431. Three years ago, I married my beautiful wife, Daniela, who is a licensed physical therapist in Mexico. She is deeply passionate about helping people heal regain mobility and reclaim autonomy over their lives When Daniela moved to Colorado in the last couple of years we began researching how she could continue her profession here At first, I didn't think it was possible, but we learned that internationally trained professionals must go through complex credential evaluation processes. and for physical therapists that meant paying $1,200, spending more than a year gathering lots of documentation and biting tooth and nail to get that documentation from the entities in Mexico. We even submitted 600 pages of course syllabi and an additional 600 pages of translations just to have her education reviewed. Even now after completing that process she still has to passed her physical therapy license exam, passed her English TOEFL exam, and hoped that the licensing board determines that her five years of studies in Mexico are equivalent to a three-year physical therapy program here in the U.S. My wife's experience is not unique. In 2024, as a part of my work with Humpus Community, we surveyed 177 immigrants and refugees around the state about barriers to professional licensure in Colorado. Among respondents with professional training outside the U.S., only 14% were still working in the same profession here, even though 83% of those not in the same profession wanted to be in the same profession. 46% of those people said that the reason was because of licensing or education barriers. Right now, internationally trained professionals face confusing, inconsistent, and burdensome systems to prove their competency and transfer their credentials. House Bill 1431 is an important first step to address these barriers, allowing licensing boards to consider internationally trained professionals for licensure by endorsement, helping qualified professionals contribute their skills while addressing our state's vast workforce shortages. I respectfully ask for your yes vote on House Bill 1431. Thank you for your time and consideration. Thank you. Please stand by for questions. Ms. D. Daniel Schreiben. Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the committee, and thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Dee Daniel Scriven, and I'm the director of Colorado's Office of New Americans, housed in the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment, and I'm here in support of House Bill 1431. Colorado has approximately 480,000 immigrant workers who generate $29 billion in income and pay $9.5 billion in taxes annually. Immigrants represent 14% of our workforce, and they help drive Colorado's economy. However, there are over 37,000 college-educated New Americans who work in jobs that are unrelated to their training, like you just heard from Josh. For example, we know of a respiratory therapist not working but caring for her child and a dentist driving for Ubers. This brain waste is devastating not only to those new Americans and their families, but also to Colorado. This bill takes Colorado one step closer to ensuring new Americans can use their training and expertise. Full authority for determining licensure remains with the licensure boards for each profession. This bill does not change the standards for licensure in any profession. It maintains public safety and ensures that only qualified professionals become licensed. With the amendment, I know that just is being considered. If we were to give regulators the authority, the permission to allow an applicant with international credentials the opportunity to demonstrate their competency in a specific profession, it would only be a win for Colorado. Not only would it bill critical workforce shortages, but it would also help address brain waste, grow our economy, all while maintaining occupational competency standards and public safety. Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the committee for your time and attention to this matter. Please vote yes on House Bill 1431. Thank you so much. We're going to go on to Mark Longshore. Thank you, Madam Chair. I am Dr. Mark Longshore, a registered nurse and the Executive Director of the Colorado Nurses Association, asking for your yes vote on House Bill 26-14-31. Nursing licensure is subject to the rules in the individual's respective country, as well as, in the United States, the state boards of nursing. In Colorado, the Board of Nursing is staffed with individuals knowledgeable in various aspects of nursing, for example, nursing education, advanced practice nursing, administration, staff nurses, etc. This broad representation ensures that the board has the expertise to establish equivalencies for licensure. If nurses or others felt that the board was unable to provide for safe licensure, the makeup of the board could be changed through modification of the Practice Act. There are two primary ways of getting licensed as a nurse in Colorado, endorsement or exam. The intention of the License Portability Program is to streamline the process of licensure, allowing the regulator, the board, to identify what constitutes substantially equivalent experiences or credentials. In the case of nursing, licensure requires passing the NCLEX, which limits endorsement to the United States, other states in the U.S., Canada, and Australia. For other countries, many of which have their own licensure exams, getting licensed in Colorado would include an evaluation of transcripts by a third party with follow-through by the board, which may include a requirement for the applicant to take additional coursework, And then again, passing the NCLEX. The Board of Nursing determines these requirements and publishes them to the board website. This represents the proper action by the regulator to identify the substantial equivalence of the applicant's experience and credentials, in this case, passing the exam. With licensure regulated primarily by each state's Board of Nursing, these variances demonstrate the ability of states, including Colorado, to identify equivalents for licensure while focusing on consumer safety. Please vote yes for House Bill 26-1431. Thank you. Thank you. Next, we have Patricia Alvarez-Harrell. Hi, good evening, and Madam Chair and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I am the Executive Director of Alianza Norco. We provide legal immigration services as well as health navigation throughout Colorado. I wanted to bring up two different perspectives, since a lot of my peers here have already mentioned information that I was going to bring up. So I wanted to give the opportunity to share what we see coming in through our immigration side. We have a large amount of very talented, skilled professionals that are coming into our country that have committed to becoming residents of not just the United States, but Colorado, and want to do everything they can, not just to provide stability for their families, but also to help provide services to our neighbors, to us. And so I've seen everything from physicians to nurses to engineers, mechanical, electrical, educators kindergarten through university professionals dentists the whole gamut And so this is great for us Unfortunately a lot of the times because of the limitations they have to take jobs as, you know, in the industries of like washing dishes and gardening and all that, which is nothing wrong with that. But it's a brain drain, as it's mentioned. And so this would offer the opportunity for us to be able to meet the capacity that we're dealing, which we do not have in our healthcare system, behavioral health. On the other side, we also do health navigation. Speaking as a professional translator at the age of five, I remember translating for my parents, and this continues to happen in the healthcare system. And there's a lot that a child or a teen or even adult right now is a caregiver of my mother that I might miss an interpretation when I'm trying to help get the right information to the community, to my family. Ms. Alvarez, I'm going to have to stop you. Thank you, but please stand by for questions, okay? We do have a lot of witnesses to get to. Committee members, are there any questions for our witnesses? Ms. Kelty. Thank you, Chair. I think my question may be for Mr. Delp. and this is kind of going where I was asking the sponsors earlier as far as the DORA I guess it's through DORA I'm not sure but what is the process to verify or vet someone from outside the country that comes in like whether they have a felony or crime in that country like anything against children or medical malpractice or for those as examples How do we know when they're coming from another country what they've done if they've had issues over there versus over here? Where is that done at? Where is that taken care of? Mr. Delft. Thank you, Madam Chair. Rep Kelty, so this pool of applicants would go through that same process that any applicant goes through, even domestically trained applicants. So there's not a direct, like this is the way it works for every single profession, because for example, some professions require background checks. Other professions require applicants to submit different kinds of documents, right? So that's true regardless of whether the applicant is somebody that is a U.S.-trained applicant or whether that person is currently a foreign-trained applicant. The only difference that this bill makes with the amendment is currently the way occupational portability works is for the professions that participate in occupational portability. The person foreign trained has to be licensed in another U.S. state and has to practice in that state for two years. Then they can apply to Colorado and they go through all of the licensure requirements for that profession the same way everybody else does. The only thing this bill does with the amendment is say that person doesn't have to go to Nebraska first. They can come directly to Colorado and still go through all of the rigor of the application process that any other applicant, domestic or foreign trained, would have to go through. Was there a follow-up or are you good? Yes, ma'am. Okay. So through the other states, like you mentioned, they have to work within the other state for two years, so they have to be in good standing and before they allowed to come to Colorado Which to me that tells me that if I don know what the other states process as far as vetting someone if they have a criminal record in another country, that that's the part that worries me just slightly. Because, I mean, if they've been working in another state and they come here, we know at least for the two years they haven't done anything wrong. Otherwise, we would find that out. My worry is if we take them immediately here to Colorado, do we have a process to make sure that they're not nefarious or they haven't done anything in previous countries? For example, like I said, like against children or like a medical malpractice. I mean, I guess I'm just trying to understand where that gets done. I don't know how other states do it, but I want to know how we're going to do it. Ms. Adele. Thank you, Madam Chair. So again, it depends on the individual profession. I mean, so let me give nursing as an example, right? So Colorado is a member of the nurse licensure compact. And when we, whether the applicant is foreign trained or not, as Dr. Longshore mentioned, they have to pass the NCLEX. So that's the NCLEX exam. So they meet the education requirement and the licensure requirement. But every nurse that's licensed in Colorado is licensed against compact requirements. So every nurse goes through a criminal background check. Now, that is an FBI background check. So anything that would appear on an FBI background check, we would know about that nurse that comes into Colorado. Okay. I do have a couple questions. First of all, I want to shout out Ms. Paula Schrieffer. I keep mispronouncing your name, but I think I got it closer, from Spring Institute. And I'm excited to hear that there were at least seven to eight people that came through that program that was successful. So that's amazing. Can you tell us how, you know, can you estimate maybe what you think could happen with this law passing, what the impact to Colorado could be? I mean, I know that we have a shortage in medical fields and there's, you know, many places where you have a desert for these types of professionals. But kind of tell us what you think the overall impact could be over time. Thank you so much. The impact could be really enormous. I can tell you that when we ran the bill specifically just looking at physicians, we knew that we have entire counties in the state of Colorado that don't have a single physician providing service in those counties. We know that each physician touches thousands of patients a year, but also produces an enormous amount of impact on the economy through their own taxes, through the hospital where they're working, etc. That's just a handful of physicians. So just the eight physicians that we were able to get matched to residencies in the past couple of years through that particular program are having huge impacts already in the cities and hospitals where they were matched. So in Pueblo and Grand Junction, Alamosa, our first one ever here actually at Denver Health. So if you add all of these other couple of dozen professions to the mix, we know that it going to have a huge impact not only on the patients in the communities that they are serving but also on the economies Since we started running the Welcome Back program in 2010 we have been successful in getting literally hundreds of internationally trained medical professionals re-licensed, credentialed, and working in our state. And not only do they produce, of course, huge economic impact for themselves and their communities and provide great health care, you know, they also provide culturally competent care. And so Colorado's population is becoming increasingly diverse. We need health care professionals, clinical professionals who are also diverse because we know that outcomes are better in those situations. Thank you. Any other questions from our committee? Seeing none, thank you so much for coming. And we're going to move on to the next group of witnesses. We're going to call up Jeff Call, Kevin Patterson, Karina Rugo, Alyssa Alberly, Emily Zatbomi, Lisa Westhoff, Jeff Lodd, John Conklin, and Dr. Chris. Tika Baskrin. Okay. Okay. Thank you so much. So the rest of you, if you're here or online. Anybody else online? Is there anybody else in-house that wanted to testify on this bill? This is your chance. Last call. Anybody in-house to testify on this bill or online? Seeing none? witness testimony is closed. We're going to call the bill sponsors back up. Okay. So far, I see you're back. Do you guys have amendments? We do. Okay. Do you want to start off with your first amendment? Which one is that? Thank you, Madam Chair. We actually only have one amendment. Okay. The reason why you received a second amendment is because my Yeah, very, yes, second amendment, yes. Everyone is going to get a chance to vote on the second amendment. My esteemed colleague from Arapahoe County, Elbert County, spotted a typo. So we forgot to put the line in this. So that's why we have amendment two. So this will be the only amendment we will be considering. Vice Chair, can you move that amendment? Madam Chair, I move Amendment L002 to House Bill 1431. It's been moved and seconded by Rep Brooks. Okay, can you explain that amendment? I think you already did. Is there any objection to the amendment? Any questions to this amendment? Any objections? Say none. The amendment is adopted. Any other amendments? Rep Soper. No, Madam Chair. Any amendments from the committee? Seeing none, amendment phase is closed. Wrap up. Rep Soper. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm hoping Rep Bacon can also join us. As you heard from the witnesses and also from the witnesses who weren't here from either moving to neutral or monitor or to support all of the licensed occupations and professions that are regulated by Title 12 that's caught up by the portability program are good with where we are here. And that's because we removed the overarching piece. No one wants to have a one-size-fits-all, and that is out of the bill with the amendment. Instead, what is in current law remains in current law. What is specific to certain practice acts still remains specific to certain practice acts. All we've added is the ability for an individual to apply to Colorado rather than having to apply, for example, to Nebraska or Utah or Connecticut and then transfer using portability or a compact program into Colorado. Colorado is fully competent because we are part of these compacts to do the same that our other states do. We don't need to rely on other states to be gatekeepers for Colorado. I believe our state is fully competent in that realm. Many areas are not going to change. I mean, you're not going to see the floodgates open necessarily for foreign trained individuals just because certain practice acts are not going to change. And that's okay. It should be up to each individual board to decide what is best for their profession. And that's what our bill respects. And we would certainly ask for a yes vote. And I don't know if my co-prime is going to make it back or not. I know she was presenting another bill. So any closing comments for our bill sponsors? Okay. I'm just going to say thank you for bringing the bill. I did participate with Spring Institute three years ago on a similar bill, and it has had impacts to Colorado, impacts as far as filling gaps in our medical system. Also, you know, more tax revenue. You know, you have people who are diverse, you know, that can serve many parts of Colorado. And I think the outcomes from your care, if you can relate to your doctor, sometimes is also better. And then the rural communities have also benefited because people are going to remote areas where you can't find doctors to go through. So and that's just for doctors. There's so many other benefits from nurses and CNA and all these other professions. So I think this is going to be a good thing. Thank you for bringing the bill. With this, we're going to ask you to move the bill. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move House Bill 1431 as amended to Committee of the Hall. Committee of the Hall, favorable recommendation. Okay. Do we get a second? Second. Okay it been moved and seconded by Rep Groots Okay with that Ms Girard please call the roll Representative Brooks English Yes Gonzalez Kelsey. Yes. Leader. Yes. Mabry. Yes. Marshall. Yes. Morrow. Yes. Richardson. Yes. Bryden. Yes. Sucla. Yep. Camacho. Yes. Madam Chair. Absolutely yes. Oh, 13-0. We're on a roll, guys. you're on your way to the committee of the whole. All right, next bill up. Cine Bill 91, Rep Soper. Cine Bill 91, Rep Soper, don't move. Today is your day. Yes. Cine Bill 91. I thought we've got him every week. Yeah. He's had so many bills. Yeah. Yeah. Rep. Soapro, you're becoming a regular in business. You sure you don't want to join the business committee again? I don't know that I ever was on the business committee. Oh, you weren't? I thought you were. Oh, you only subbed? I've subbed on. I guess you're here so much. Maybe we thought you were part of the committee. I'm a pro-business guy. Okay. Please present your bill. Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, members of the committee. Before today, or before you today, I should say, Senate Bill 91, a newspaper delivers as employees. For at least a decade, it has been a well-understood practice, backed by statute and CDLE action, that newspaper delivery can be handled by individuals who act as independent contractors. The newspaper does not direct how the individual spends their time. They do not need to, for example, clock in for work, and there are no specific requirements beyond hours of delivery. Recent action by CDLE in two cases, which are currently upon appeal, threatens to upend existing practice. This is what brought the need for Senate Bill 91, as we want to ensure consistency. The introduced version of Senate Bill 91 sought to address discrepancies in employment statutes related to newspaper carriers by clarifying that newspaper carriers who meet specified statutory criteria were classified as independent contractors. Senate amendments work to address the opponent's concerns, which brings us to the current version of the bill before you today. The amended version does the following. It eliminates current exemption language for newspaper delivery personnel in the Unemployment Insurance Act. It also exempts workers' compensation and FMLI statutes from this bill, so that now we are only clarifying this status to the Unemployment Insurance Act and Wage Claim Act. Finally, it establishes delivery practices that do not alone classify an individual as an employee. Those are designation of a pickup location, assignment of a geographic route, requirements to meet customer delivery of distribution deadlines. And I will remind you that these do not alone classify a person as an employee. So the bill does not do the following, and I think it's important to talk about what the bill does not do. The bill does not define a newspaper delivery person as a de facto independent contractor or employee The bill does not create an exemption for newspapers The bill does not change the underlying law related to basic distinctions between an independent contractor and an employee To be consistent, an independent contractor, an individual must still perform services pursuant to a written contract, have substantial control over their work, and be able to perform work for other businesses. Importance of local newspapers, news, and the status of the industry. For those papers that currently classify individuals who deliver papers as independent contractors, forcing them to change their business model and classify carriers as employees will dramatically increase costs. The concern is that we will lose local newspapers who are barely operating on a margin. or the costs will be passed on to customers that will be so high that people will choose not to take the news and be deprived of important local news content. Residents of small and rural Colorado towns, as well as those in suburban and metro areas, need to have reliable access to timely local news and public information. We need to ensure that local papers keep their doors open. They are an integral part of our communities, and it is important to protect their independence and longstanding role in our democracy. And I would ask for your support of Senate Bill 91. I would add just on a personal note that I delivered newspapers all throughout high school, or at least after I got my driver's license. And for me, it was definitely an independent contractor status. It was a great way to be able to earn some gas money, some money that I'm sure I turned around and spent at McDonald's. But it was just a great opportunity for me, and I certainly see the industry as not being in good shape. Thank you, Rep. So for questions, Rep. Mabry. Thank you, Madam Chair. Now that you have me and Rep Soper in the business committee, we're about to turn it into the judiciary committee. Let's go. Let's go. I agree with you, Rep Soper, that this industry is in trouble for a variety of reasons. and I'm a strong supporter of our press, especially our local press, but I do have some concerns with this bill. In particular, and I want to walk through a few of them, but in particular one thing that I want to point out is, so if we pass this bill, what's to stop a rideshare company's lawyer from going into a courtroom in a misclassification case and saying, Your Honor, the Colorado General Assembly has now declared that operational requirements like assigned pickup, geographic routes, deadlines, quality standards, and things that look like delivery work do not constitute control for making a determination if someone is an employee. What is your response to that? because I feel like these things do traditionally when we're talking about if somebody is an employee or an independent contractor, the ability to control your own schedule, the ability to set your own tasks are really important. What do you think about us enumerating specific tasks and saying these tasks shouldn be considered by a court in terms of how it might impact somebody classification Okay, Rep. Soper. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Representative Mabry. I guess the first and short answer, if we are before a court, I think the court would easily say that 8-70-115.5 specifically relates to newspaper delivery. So the analysis would stop there. Ben Mabry. That's true. I appreciate that. But is there anywhere else in the law that you can think of where we have specifically enumerated work and said a court should not consider this in making a determination if somebody is an employee or an independent contractor. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Representative Mayberry. I have to admit I don't know this area of law well enough to be able to say one way or the other. I suspect we have a witness who might be able to elaborate a bit more on that. But we have, as a General Assembly, including this year and in most of the years that I've served, run legislation to address cases that are within the courts. And those might be before the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court. And that may be to preserve longstanding custom and practice, as this bill does, or it may be because we see, for example, municipalities not following the law when it comes to transparency within the courts. Well, on the first point there, maybe we should revisit our conversation earlier about legislators having access to Westlaw. I also am curious. So if I'm a newspaper delivery driver working today and I am classified as an employee, what sort of protections do I have today under the law that if this bill were to become law that I would no longer have? Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Representative Mamrie. Well, first of all, the bill does not create a de facto standard for independent contractors or employees. So if you're currently an employee today, you're still an employee after the bill is passed. That doesn't change. It just makes the distinction more from the analysis of if someone is an independent contractor, what factors would be used. And we're just saying that specific factors that are tied directly to the newspaper delivery industry, that certain ones of those factors in and of themselves do not cast the balance one way or the other. You have to look at the totality of the circumstances. Is there a follow-up? Rep. Sober, how many workers would be directly impacted by this change in the law? Thank you, Madam Chair. That's an excellent question. I don't know the exact number of workers that would be impacted by this. And what kind of economic impact could it have on these workers? Thank you, Madam Chair. That's also a very good question. The economic impacts would vary as well, because if someone is an independent contractor and then they're classified as an employee, they're likely to see their take-home income go down because now they're going to have taxes deducted from their wages, they're going to have benefits deducted from their wages, possibly insurance deducted from their wages. It's certainly likely that they may not even have a job because if they now need to use a company vehicle and not their own vehicle, most of our small newspapers, I know the one from my hometown, would not be able to afford to have carriers if they had to provide transportation. so at that moment in time, I mean, the workers would lose out on their job, and so they would be probably looking for another job, I mean, just to be brutally honest with a lot of our small-town newspapers. So then what is prompting this? Why are you bringing this bill now? Thank you, Madam Chair. As I just described, there's two cases before the Colorado Court of Appeals that wants to, it's the fear that it's going to upend the longstanding custom and practice of how the newspaper industry has operated. And so we would like to be able to codify within statute the custom and practice that we've had within the newspaper industry. So this bill, is it going to change the test for independent workers in law? Thank you, Madam Chair. No. So the test for what constitutes an independent contractor versus an employee still remains the same within statute. So that analysis would still have to be done. What we're saying is that certain aspects of the newspaper delivery function that not in and of themselves are taken one way or the other to mean that a person is an employee. Any other questions for our witnesses? Rep Keltie. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to clarify what you mentioned earlier. So under this bill, just to understand, They are 100% independent contractors, and they wouldn't be able to get unemployment or any of that kind of stuff. They're their own contractor. 1099. Rep Silper? Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Representative Kelty. I don't think you necessarily can make that blanket of a statement because you'd have to do the analysis on the current individual. So if the individual currently is an employee and we're looking at the totality of the circumstances and what's around that, I mean, if the employer is saying you can't work for anyone else, you're driving the company vehicle, I'm going to tell you what you do throughout the day and guide you. The fact that we have these other elements that are unique to the newspaper industry, you would look at the full analysis, and if those other elements were there, notwithstanding the three that we have in the bill, the analysis probably would be they're an employee. But if the analysis goes that I have multiple side jobs, yes, I have to pick up at a location where the bundle of newspapers are, I have my route, I have customers on the route that I throw a newspaper into their front yard, that those elements taken individually do not mean that I'm an employee, that the analysis would be that I'm an independent contractor because I still get to dictate how performance is effectuated. And I have multiple jobs. Aside from these functions, everything else I can do my own way. Any other questions from the committee Seeing none we going to go into witness testimony And do you want for and against or how do you want it How many witnesses do we have, Madam Chair? We have at least 12, 10. Then maybe we'll have opposition go first and support wrap up. Okay, thank you. So we're going to call these people who are against the bill and registered, and if there's anyone in the room who's against it and you are not on the list, please come up also. Scott Moss, Claire Poundstone, Jesus Loaza, Valerie Collins, Ms. Karen Sawadogo, Ms. Kirsten Forsyth. Okay, there is a green button, green light that you should press. Yeah, right there. Is it green? Yes. Perfect. Please introduce yourself. You have two minutes to give us your testimony. Thank you. Scott Moss, University of Colorado professor in labor and employment law, also former director until this past August of the CDE Division of Labor Standards and Statistics in this area, but I'm here just on my own behalf. SB 91 is an unprecedented carve-out from wage and other rights. Some jobs have partial exemptions, like farm overtime, but this is the first carve-out of a specific job from the entire employee coverage in the Wage Act. It's not a no-change bill as claimed. It expressly discounts, this is the whole point, key factors in the traditional test of who's an employee or contractor. And the text doesn't say it flat out excludes these folks as employees, but that's literally the title of the bill. So we know that's the purpose. Otherwise, why would it be run if it did nothing? Now, many laws use the Wage Act definition that has changed. So 91 strips a wide range of protections. It cuts out these workers from the core ban on wage theft and on illegal deductions. It does cut paid sick leave because that tracks the Wage Act definition. It cuts them out from union and other concerted activity rights. And it even eliminates retaliation protections because that's in the Wage Act. Now, the sponsor indicated that if they're employees, that means taxes will be deducted. Well, independent contractors do, or better, pay taxes. They just don't have it deducted. So it doesn't actually cut taxes newly from these folks. more importantly I think 91 interferes with pending litigation which is in my view not proper purpose of legislation now some deliverers do work independently enough that they're independent contractors CDLE ruled that way for Grand Junction delivery folks in 2016 we have no quarrel with that the fact that the post has a pending appeal means that this bill is not a right way to resolve that dispute it also is premature because if the post wins, that'll eliminate the whole point of this bill. And I think if this passes, we will see, I guarantee you, other industries saying, give us the same exemption. We are a special industry too. We are struggling. Labor law is for those other industries that aren't as lobbytastic. I think that's bad law and it's bad use of legislative time. I'll finally just add that what's useful about independent contractor employee law is that it's the same test for all jobs. This changes that, and it makes it, therefore, quite confusing and difficult to follow. Thank you. Thank you so much, Mr. Moss. Please stand by for questions. We going to go to Claire Palmstone Yes can you guys hear me Yes Okay Thank you Madam Chair and members of the committee My name is Claire Poundstone, and I'm Associate General Counsel at UFCW Local 7, and I urge a no vote on this bill. This bill is dressed up as a clarification of Colorado's independent contractor test, but it is not. Colorado law already has a well-established test for determining whether a worker is an employee or an independent contractor. That test set out in Section 870.115 is fact-specific and balanced. What this bill does is not clarify that test. It rigs it. It instructs decision makers to treat the most basic hallmarks of an employment relationship, assigned routes, customer deadlines, pickup locations, quality standards set by the employer as legally insufficient on their own to establish control. That's not neutral clarification. That is a thumb on the scale, and it is placed squarely on the side of the employer. This bill goes even further with a provision saying that the absence of business address, registration, or formal business entity by itself cannot block a finding of an independent contractor status. In plain English, a worker who has none of the real-world attributes of an independent business can still be classified as one. That's not independence. That is misclassification by legislative fiat. The committee should be deeply skeptical of any bill that removes a category of workers or places it's thumbed so heavily on the scale to remove a category of workers from the definition of employee. Misclassification is not a victimless crime. It removes protections for wage theft, ability to avail themselves to benefits and other protections. And once the legislature creates one industry carve out, it invites the next. I have seen this firsthand as I have had family members who have delivered papers for the Denver Post, and there was nothing about that work that was anything but an employer-employee relationships in terms of the type of control. So the appeals have been mentioned, and I will say this bill reeks of sour grapes by the Denver Post because it didn't like the findings of CDLE. And passing this bill would signal to powerful employers that with an ongoing labor dispute that the legislature will rewrite the law to circumvent and preempt the outcome of that process. I urge a no vote. Okay, we're going to go next to Valerie Collins. You have two minutes to give us your testimony. Good evening. My name is Valerie Collins, and I'm an attorney at Towards Justice, which is a Colorado-based nonprofit law firm that's dedicated to economic justice and particularly for working people. So this bill is being described as clarification. It's not, but it's also its impact is anything but. So the introduced version at least kind of told us what it was doing. It was trying to carve out newspaper delivery workers altogether. But what we have here is more subtle, but equally concerning. Instead of being upfront about stripping protections, the bill kind of rewrites the rules so that people who look like, I'm sorry, so that these workers look like independent contractors, but even when they're functionally employees. It does that by saying core features of the job don't count as employer control, such as assigned routes and delivery deadlines But those are exactly the kinds of facts that courts rely on This bill doesn clarify that test It just tilts the analysis And I want to be clear about justification because what we being told is that this is all about you know saving small local newspapers But small papers are struggling because advertising revenue has shifted, not because delivery workers have too many rights. This bill doesn't fix kind of the business model problem. It just shifts the costs onto the workers by cutting them off from wage protections. And honestly, I always cringe making a slippery slope argument, but it's so pertinent here. This will not stop. with newspapers. By weakening this test, it creates a roadmap for other industries to

I'm going to have to stop you there, Ms. Collins, just hold for questions. We're going to go to Jesus Loza. Loza. Loza. Thank you, Ms. Loza.

thank you please stand by for questions um how about mr karim um salvadago

Mr. Sawadogo, I'm going to have to stop you there. Please stand by for questions.

Ms. Kirsten Forsyth? Are you online?

Thank you, Ms. Kirsten. Foresight, I'm sorry. Please hold on for questions. Committee members, are there any questions for our witnesses? Thank you.

Mr. Moss.

Yeah, thank you. It does. Mr. Rep. Nabry. Thank you. Next question is about how this would impact the rights of those workers in particular I'm curious about how this would impact the ability of a worker to potentially make a claim about wage theft illegal deductions things of that nature.

Thank you, Madam Chair. My next question is for Ms. Poundstone. So I asked the bill sponsor a little bit about if they knew other areas of the law where we singled out tasks that should be considered by a court in making a determination on the classification of an employee. Are you, as a labor rights attorney, somebody who works in this space, aware of any other area in law where we've said, oh, if your boss is directing you in this way, a court should not consider that evidence one way or the other that they are an employee or should consider it evidence in the direction against them being considered an employee?

Thank you for the question. No, this would be a very unique kind of carve out in the industry specific that I have not seen. And the test that I will just add that the test for determining whether someone's an independent contractor, it's not just for wages, but also if you're trying to see if someone's in the course and scope of their employment. If there's an insurance claim, there's lots of other claims that will go with that. And those the test that's in statute applies to everyone equally and it can be done. I've never heard of a carve out such as this.

Ms. Foresight.

May I follow up on that?

Representative Mayweather, Chair. We dealt a lot with this question of how contractor law impacts Uber drivers, gig workers, other deliverers. I can reassure that there is no one principle that all gig workers are or aren't employees, all deliveries are or aren't. These are not the old paper boys. The facts of this case show that under the Denver Post contracts, quote, the carriers, the delivers, are prohibited from contacting the subscribers. Contacts had to all go through the Denver Post. Tips had to all go through the Denver Post. Complaints all go through the Denver Post. This is way more control than the paper boys on bicycles and more than the Grand Junction folks who were held to be contractors. And we have no quarrel with that. Just as for gig workers on your question, you know, there's a lot less control over Uber drivers than there is over Instacart workers, for example. I do not have a strong opinion about those. We never issued a ruling. But this is fact-specific. So to say this industry needs separate rules because one employer lost a ruling where they tried to exert significant control, and they have no quarrel with them asserting control. it was not a wrong thing to do. They just wanted more quality control. But you can't have it both ways as a business. If you exert enough quality control that the worker can't talk to the customers and all tips and pay go through the employer, I'm sorry, you're an employer. You're not a contractor.

Madam Chair, thank you. Apologies, I don't know. Because at CD Lee, we did not launch a systemic investigation. We got five complaints, and they were ruled upon in my time there. I didn't write them. I was just a bureaucrat, and I'm no longer there, so I have no say or role in that, but we don't know how many there are. It really wasn't our business. We just ruled on the complaints as they came to us, and the Denver Post, if it keeps those facts the same, where it prohibits all contact, then that would apply to all of its workers in that field, but the other reason it's hard to know, Madam Chair, is that, again, in Grand Junction, there was a ruling years earlier from CDLE that they were more traditional paper boys, I think it was. And there was not that control where they banned the workers from talking to the customers all went through the employer. So you can't say in this field that all people in this job are employees or contractors. I think that's a misperception that led to this bill that it's just about when you have a choice of business model, when you choose to control it this much, then I'm sorry, you became an employer if you want that kind of quality control. So we can't say how many of the deliverers in the land are.

All right. Thanks, Madam Chairman. Thanks, committee, for allowing me to speak to this measure. I'd like to, first of all, just clarify what's really happening out in the community with our carriers. And one thing that I'm concerned about is I can guarantee you that these are truly gig workers and that this is a market economy. And if they weren't being paid for the time that they put into delivering our product, they wouldn't stay. And that's often the case right now here in the metro area is we have to compete with these gig workers because one publication might pay better than another. The other is that it's so important that we have stability in this business right now. And everyone here has talked about how unstable this is. We're not a large for-profit company. We're a 501c3 owned by the community. And we provide a service that a lot of people depend on. In Aurora, there is a very large immigrant community and the immigrants in our community are especially fond of reading our product in print. If we don't have the ability to to provide that to them, that's a major way that they have news that they're not going to be able to get it anymore. But most important is these carriers that we've had, and many of them are for years, stay with us because they have second jobs or real jobs and they can't have second jobs. Their employers have told them you can only work for us and no one else, but you can't have a gig. And we're the gig. And they would lose that opportunity if we had to become employers for these. Not only could we not afford it and it would jeopardize everything that, you know, that what stability we do have as a company, but we would also they would no longer be able to work for us and lose that that opportunity. Thanks for allowing me to to speak. And I would be happy to answer any questions of the committee.

Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee. I just want to give you a flavor for the nature of newspapers in the real world. You know, my family owns small town newspapers throughout the Midwest. We own the Daily Sentinel and Grand Junction and just recently the Montrose Daily Press in Montrose and the Delta County Independent. And, you know, we are news people that value the importance of this medium. And, you know, the carriers are the front line for us in a real way. They're independent contractors that show up. I mean, these are industrious people. These are unique people. It's hard to find them. They show up at the building at 2 a.m., pick up the newspapers or whenever they need to get them so they can hit a deadline around 530 a.m. But all of them pick up the newspapers and make their deliveries. And then they go to their real jobs 100 percent of them And they all have regular jobs This is this is in addition to what they do It a side hustle But they unique people because they you know they most of us would not be willing to get up at two and go do this work all of them also are you know this is a family gig they they do it as a family so you know the mom can't do this work tonight and so hands it off to the daughter who will do the routes and you know or some other family member that that happens all the time um the other thing that i think might be important in this conversation is the compensation is not hourly. It's not done by. Thank you, Mr.

Hi, chair members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify, especially at this hour. My name is Megan Tackett, and I'm the associate publisher of the Aspen Daily News, serving Colorado's Roaring Fork Valley, and I am here on behalf of the Colorado Press Association. I want to be direct. Worker misclassification is real. It can cause genuine harm, and the people most affected are often those with the least power to push back. I do not dismiss that concern. But policies that eliminate the distinction between employees and legitimate independent businesses don't solve that problem, and in some cases, they create new ones. For years, the Aspen Daily News has contracted with the Perez family to manage our print circulation and delivery. They're a multi-generational Latino family rooted in this valley. They're not our employees, and that distinction matters deeply to them and to us. The Perez family operates their own business. They set their own schedule, run their own operations, and have built something to be proud of. The independence this arrangement affords them isn't a loophole, it's the point. Forcing that relationship into an employment classification doesn't protect them. It dismantles the very thing they've built and robs them the dignity of entrepreneurship. And for a small community newsroom like ours, the administrative burden of reclassification is daunting. Tracking delivery hours, managing payroll compliance, these are real costs that come directly at the expense of the journalism itself. The independent contractor test exists precisely to distinguish genuine business relationships from exploitative ones. This bill applies that test thoughtfully and is a common sense recognition that a delivery deadline or an assigned route is not evidence of control. We urge this committee to pass it. And one quick note regarding the gentleman's strange call out of the Aspen Daily News and Hoffman. In every acquisition his group has made, not a single journalist has been laid off, not one. You may be thinking of the vampiric hedge funds that have actually devastated newsrooms across this country, and I share your outrage about that model, but that is not what we have experienced, and it is not who we are. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee. I am Tim McEnporter representing the Press Association, and I'm going to throw out my prepared testimony and try to respond to some things. I've heard a lot of assumptions that aren't quite correct, and I welcome additional questions because I've done even some research while we've been on the phone in terms of numbers. This is not about shifting anything onto the delivery drivers. I am not aware of a single delivery driver in the state who's a full-time worker. These are not unionized employees. These are not full-time workers. These are all gig workers in the old school sense of the word. It might not be as many kids on bicycles, but it is still very much that model of someone with a second job getting it done early in the morning to earn a little extra gas money, basically. And they paid piecework and it operated that way for 100 years And what changed is we had a ruling that may have been correct on some of the factors but what brought in some of these factors that we addressing that are just unrealistic. And there are places in employment law, we have some carve outs, maybe not exactly like this, but there's a whole list of them that we can talk about. So this doesn't affect workers' comp or family. We're not saying delivery drivers are part of the problem. We're saying this puts delivery driver's jobs at risk if employers don't know if they can be contractors because they can't afford to have someone as a full-time employee or even a part-time W-2 if they're working two or three hours and they need that kind of flexibility that you've heard about. This is not Uber and Lyft. This is not that type of algorithmic take-up work and have a company kind of manipulate you and kind of give you some blue strings. This is operating pretty much the same way it has for decades. And what's changed is some interpretation. And we're just trying to get some clarity on that. Originally, unemployment insurance currently has a complete carve out for newspaper delivery. We removed that in consultation with some of the labor groups we talked to because we were just trying to get consistency. So we just expanded that. And so in consultation, we said, well, let's apply the independent contractor test. What we're worried about is this recent ruling where we said things like you have to pick up the newspaper at a location by a certain time and deliver it by a certain time. That's the nature of the business, and that's all that's been independent contractor work. And I see that I'm out of time, so I will

Rep. Ryden. Thank you, Madam Chair. I think my question's for Mr. Seaton, but maybe some of you can weigh in as well. How much is the compensation? You said everybody's compensated really well. What

Is there a follow-up, Red Riding? Yeah. Thanks, Madam Chair. So how much for, in that example, those thousand papers in Grand Junction?

Okay. This question is for Mr. Porter. Do you have any idea how many workers would be directly impacted by the bill and the economic impact if this bill was to pass?

You have a question? Thank you, Madam Chair. We kind of touched on everything that I can sort of things that I wanted to ask, but can you – oh, I'm sorry. Mr. Reagan-Porter or even Ms. Tackett, And can you expound on, like, this is a very unique business model. This is not a standard 9-5 job. And, you know, I've been a contractor myself. Can you expound on how the model works with the papers versus, you know, typical industry jobs? And how it's, you know, basically how it's more unique than the norm. And as a contractor, I know I enjoyed the freedom that it provided. do you believe or know that your workers feel the same way? And who wants to take this, Mr. Porter or Mr. Perry? Who wants to jump in? Okay, I see your hand, Ms. Tackett.

Mr. Porter? Okay, Mr. Seeding, I see you coming off mute.

Okay, follow up, Kelty, and that will be the last question so we can. Thank you, Madam Chair. And so what I'm hearing is basically in your business model and the type of contract that they do, if, for example, like you said, the Perez family, let's say Maria, let's give her a name, Maria Perez, it's her job to deliver the papers, but if Maria's got a doctorate appointment or she's got to do something for the kids something like that. She can then tag in, you know, someone else in the family or neighbor, best friend, whatever it is, and they can come and they can actually do the job or finish their job. And so it's not really a employee-employer relationship. It's more of a, hey, this is a job that I've decided to take on as an independent individual and how that job gets done is up to me. That's the freedom that they have to be able to do. Is that correct?

Okay. All right. Thank you, Ms. Rev. Kelty.

Thank you, Madam Chair. This will be for, let's see, Mr. Porter. Just real quick, who owns the Denver Post these days? Mr. Porter.

Rev. Leader. Thank you, Madam Chair. A media news group comprised of who?

Okay. Thank you. That is a national chain. Their predominant owner is Alden, which is a hedge fund. So they are what people usually refer to as hedge fund owned. And I'll just say, like I said, the Denver Cokes Post case prompted this. It's one case, not two. That was actually a misunderstanding. And it was a filing of over $350 in wages that a contract that a company didn't pay the delivery driver. So that's the that's the root of this that had some weird rulings. And just say how much this isn't just about them. Like if someone wanted to talk about a size-based exemption, we would consider that because I really am concerned about the impact on all of these smaller papers. Rebecca, did you have a follow-up? No, thank you. I just needed to know. I was just curious to who still owned it. It's changed hands quite a bit. Thank you. Rep. Ryden, last question. Thank you, Madam Chair. Do we have any sense of what the scope is of how many drivers or deliverers that this affects in Colorado? Was it 1,000? How many people do we know? The supporter or who wants to answer that? I can answer that. Our largest newspaper by far, under 280. And so statewide, I would estimate well under 1,000 because most of these smaller communities, a very small number of people do these. The Grand Junction Daily Sentinel is 17. 17 people, 1,000. Okay. Well, thank you so much, witnesses. Is there anybody else online or in the room who came to testify on the newspaper bill Seeing none the witness testimony is closed We're going to go back to our sponsors. Witnesses, thank you for coming today. Rep Soper, do you have any amendments? No amendments, madam. Sure. Okay. Any amendments from the committee? Seeing none, amendment face is closed. wrap up, Rep. Sofer. Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee. I do want to highlight one thing that was said. That was by Jay Seaton who said it's a family job that you have families going out delivering newspapers. And that's my experience because it wasn't just me delivering newspapers. It was my dad, my mother, my brother, sometimes all four of us, sometimes only two of us. We learned that we got better tips when we put them, for example, in the plastic bags so that the morning dew didn't ruin a newspaper. Rural route, pretty much farm homes. We didn't have the route that some people may have had within the city. But for our family that was not wealthy, my mom was a school teacher. My dad drove semi-trucks. This was an ability for us to be able to have additional income for the family that we desperately needed. We weren't told exactly when to be at a certain location, except that the newspapers needed to be delivered by 7 a.m. and that was the only direction. Whether a rubber band was around the newspaper or a plastic bag or nothing, that was our decision. How we went about driving the route was our decision. No one told us that you had to start on a certain road and finish on a certain road. As a matter of fact, depending on the time of year, how we drove the route changed completely. Because the sun came up at different times, and that also made it kind of annoying if you were looking right into the sun. It truly was what I would consider an independent contractor experience. you've heard several things about the bill that I do want to clarify there was a comment made about how the bill controlled tips having to go through an employer if you've read the bill there's no mention of tips tips are not in the bill at all and I will say that I do not appreciate when it's one thing when you have opposition who points out something that's in the bill and you can disagree about policy It's another thing when someone's talking about something that's not even included in the bill. If a customer leaves a tip at the newspaper box, the box you drop it into, that belongs to the person regardless. That does not go through the employer at all. So I just want to be explicitly clear that that's not, I mean, it's not in the bill. So I'm not real sure how you can be having someone here making a claim like that. I also want to clarify the fact that we're not saying that someone that is an independent contractor today is reclassified as an employee tomorrow, or that someone who's an employee today is classified as an independent contractor tomorrow. All we're laying out is still the criteria. The court would still have to engage in the same analysis. We sometimes call it the ABC analysis We looking at the terms of control And that is laid out within the bill as is That analysis would still have to take place The only thing that we're saying is that certain key aspects of the newspaper delivery business, the pickup location, the geographic route, the requirements to meet the distribution deadline, like 7 a.m., because people like to have their newspaper in the morning, that those are unique enough to the newspaper industry. This has been the custom and practice. If the analysis is that there's a lot of control by the newspaper, the carriers will be considered employees. If the analysis is that you have it as a family function, the newspaper doesn't control how the newspapers get delivered or how you go about the route, the exact pickup time just that they have to be delivered by a certain time, the analysis would be that they're independent contractors. And so with that, I would ask the committee for a yes vote. Thank you. Thank you, Rep. Soper. Any closing comments for our bill sponsor, Rep. Mabry? Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for bringing the bill, Rep. Soper. I agree with a lot of what you said, and I think we both care deeply about the local press in Colorado. but what I'm not prepared to do is try to save the industries we love by putting the burden on workers. This bill says that the way we're going to help newspapers stay viable is by writing delivery workers out of the Wage Act. And now I understand that there's pending claims, and I'm not here to say let's let the claim play out because you've probably had to vote on bills that I've brought where there's pending claims. So I understand your want to step in and say the General Assembly has something to say here. But with my vote, I do not think it's okay for us to try to help an industry by writing delivery workers out of the Wage Act, out of workers' compensation, out of paid six leave, out of protections from retaliation. We will help one industry by stripping its workers of protections. I think that's the wrong direction, and it sets a precedent that will be difficult to walk back. Wage theft is one of the most underreported crimes in the state already, and this makes it harder for people to bring wage theft claims. I understand there are different business models, and for some models they might already be explicit independent contractors, but in other models right now there are full-time workers in this industry. And this bill carves out specific activities as evidence of whether or not someone was a contractor, including pickup location, assigned routes, delivery deadlines, quality standards. The bill tells the courts that when you see these things, you cannot consider them evidence of control. I do not think that's how we should be legislating in this area. The employee versus contractor question should be fact-intensive, and it has been fact-intensive across every industry applying the same factors to every worker. When we start telling the fact finder which facts to ignore, I believe we're not clarifying the law. We're tilting the scale. And I'm very worried that when we start doing this one industry at a time, it will happen towards which every industry has the votes in any given legislative session. So I'm going to be a no on this bill, respectfully, not because I do not care about the local newspaper. I do, and I'm really ready to work on bills that help them in ways that do not impact workers' rights. I also just want to double emphasize that I'm a no because the way this bill is written is... invite every other industry to come back next session and say, hey, we're really struggling here. Here's maybe a worker classification issue that could save us some money. And I just do not think that's the right direction. Thank you. Any other closing comments? Okay. Rep Brooks and then Rep Kelty. Chair, thank you. I'm less concerned about the precedent setting worry of it. I think that these all are things that we can review and discuss case by case. You know, Denver Post being owned by Alden Capital is not earth-shattering. You know what I mean? Or at least perhaps not for me. I worked there. I know that they also own the Boston Globe. They also did not testify tonight. This isn't about the Post. These are smaller newspapers that we heard from. and the tacit implication that, oh, this is a monster media conglomeration that's just stripping the rights right out of people, I think that's a real reach. Yeah, I could give you a tour of the Denver Post facility at 59th and Washington, which you're going to find is a shell of a company. You know, when I was there, it was because I can't support the workers. You know what else? You know what we're not fussing about? We're not fussing about what the status of the delivery drivers of the Rocky Mountain News is. Because guess what? The paper's not around anymore. Nothing to fuss about. The industry is challenged. And the more that we impose our righteousness and how we think things should be and not listen to the owner's operators, especially the smaller ones, we're going to continue to push some of these employers out of business. When those employers go out of business so we go to the jobs. And guess what? They're not fussing about who's delivering the paper at that point or their employee or their contractor because they have to go find another job. So when we've got small newspapers that are coming in saying that this is the way that they think that they can best be able to move forward I think it's worth listening to them. So I'll be a yes. Thank you. I'm guilty. Madam Chair, and I thank you for this bill. You know, I think what it kind of points out and what we kind of, I think, would hope that we understand is that there's so many different types of industries out there that have so many different types of business models. And to paint them all with one big brush is wrong. And I think this is actually one of them. You know, we have restaurant workers that work for, you know, $2 an hour plus tips. We have people who work, who choose to work for just commission, or they choose to work just for tips. I mean, it's up to, I think, the individual, the person of how and what they want to do for work and employment or whatever that is. And I believe that this supports that. I think the bill preserves the worker's right of freedom, of choice, of how they want to do, to have their work, to have their income. And to be, if they want to be an independent contractor and they don't want to be held by, you know, how a regular standard job is and they only want to work two hours a day or three hours a day and then go do something else, it's up to them to do. They're grown. You know, they're grown. They can do what they want. You know we heard about you know how the job works We heard about the freedom it allows someone to you know just tag someone in I mean what other job I don't know of another job that you can go and say, you know what, I don't feel like doing that today. I'm going to have my cousin do it or whatever. That takes away, I mean, if you're on a W-2, you can't do that. If you're an employee, you can't do that. You're stuck doing that job because you're the employee. But being able to have the freedom of an independent contractor like that and say, you know, I'm just going to have my kids do it today because I've got to go grocery shopping or whatever and let them do it. You know, but it gives them the absolute complete freedom of work, gives them the freedom of choice of how they do that work and when they're going to do that work. And as long as the job gets done, they get her done. And it's up to them who does it. So, I mean, if you put them under a W-2 or an employee status, that takes all that freedom of choice away. It means no more are you going to be able to do that. If you have kid issues, if you have a dog issue, whatever it is, you are now, your choice of freedom of how the job gets done is poof, gone. So I appreciate this. And I think if we had, if we talked to, you know, we heard of the Perez family, if we talked to some of these individuals, they're doing this. They've been doing it for years. years and years if they didn't like the model of that of the business model of and the freedom of choice to be able to do this they wouldn't still be doing it but they like it and so they do it that way and then i think it takes a different type of person you know different kind of egg for a different type of salad right so let them choose how they wanted to do their jobs and how they want to earn their money and i i will be a yes today thank you Thank you. always go to the side of the workers, as I'm sure you've figured that out by now. But just, I see it also as it could be president-setting, and that's really scary for just to continue on down the road, as my good colleague was saying there from Denver. So, you know, I understand where your heart is in trying to do and correct the situation, but for those reasons, I will be a no today. But thank you. Rep. Richardson. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate you bringing the bill. I was a newspaper boy a long time ago. It was a very different model, but it was probably something that would be called child labor and not correct now. But the entrepreneurial part of it, as kids we bought our routes from other kids that no longer wanted it and were getting out of their business. At my time, the going rate was like a buck for the daily paper, or 50 cents for the Sunday paper. You bought your route. We delivered our papers. I didn't drive at the time. I walked. And we collected the money from the customers. And you learned at age 14 that $1.15 was enough for some people to turn off the lights on a Friday night when you came to collect your weekly payment. And then you went to the distributor with your rolls of quarters, and you paid for the papers you purchased and delivered that week and took some profit from it You learned a lot about how to run a business I know that different Probably now much more closer to my father after he retired was just bored He delivered what was called the thrifty nickel. It was a shopping newspaper. And he did that for a year or two just to get out of the house and move around. He had retired from a white-collar job. This was not, he would never have considered himself an employee in that. I think what we're doing is codifying what works, and perhaps in the face of a court case, but we make law all the time in response to rulings from the courts. That's part and parcel of what we do here. I do think it's a good bill. one person that we did not hear from any delivery person that felt that this model was unfair to them. Generally when people are treated unfairly, we hear from them. And this bill's been floating around for a while. So this is an Uber and Lyft, and I don't think it needs to be painted with the same brush. It's a very different business model they use. And again, we talked about the differences between big and small newspapers, and I don't think this is necessarily being brought, though it's been said several times to save the small newspaper industry. We're really just codifying what works and what has worked for years, and I think it's a good bill. I will be a yes today. Was there any other comments? Vice Chair, did you have comments, or you want to move the bill? I don't have comments. Okay. I do have some comments. Rep. So I was struggling with the bill, but then as I'm thinking about it, it sounds like this is inherent in the job that you would have a route. You would have a contract, so you specify what should go in the contract. And people who have it want that flexibility. I'm going to be a yes for today. I haven't heard anything that makes me super concerned. Vice Chair, can you move this bill? Madam Chair, I move Senate Bill 91 to the Committee on Appropriations. Second. It's been moved and seconded by, was that Rep. Long? Oh, Rep. Gonzalez, somebody. Richardson. Oh, Rep. Richardson, sorry. Okay, Ms. Aurora, please call the roll. New staffer. Representative Brooks? English? No. Gonzales-R? Yes. Kelty? Yes. Leder? No. Mabry? No. Marshall? No. Morrow? No. Richardson? Yes. Bryden? No. Sucla? Yes. Camacho? No. And Madam Chair? Yes. Fails 6-7. The bill fails 6-7. Okay, yes. Madam Chair, I move to postpone indefinitely Senate Bill 91 by reverse roll call. Second. It's been moved and seconded. Are there any objections? No, they're just like, good. Seeing none, the bill is postponed indefinitely. Okay. Next bill Oh I sorry you fine I just need to call it out Okay. Senate Bill 156 is up, and we have our bill sponsor in front of us, Rep. Phillips and Rep. Gonzalez. Who wants to go first? Rep. Gonzalez. Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee. I am pleased to co-sponsor Senate Bill 156 in the House. I want to add my support to what my colleagues have shared, starting with the bottom line for taxpayers. This bill delivers $6,605 in the general fund savings by streaming how the Colorado Workforce Development Council carries its annual work. In a tight budget year that is a responsible result and it comes without cutting any services, costs, or programs, the savings come from removing outdated statutory requirements and replacing it with flexibility to focus on what actually delivers results. Weld County has a dynamic economic economy and has seen strong population growth in recent years. As we grow, it is important that we show support, that we support our young people and that students and job seekers are able to build careers right here in our community. We have strong jobs across the state and the energy industry, advanced manufacturing, healthcare and more. And these industries have already been mapped for career pathways available to Coloradans on the My Colorado Journey website. With these updates in this bill, the Colorado Workforce Development Council can continue to stay agile and responsive, ensuring career pathways development remains aligned to local needs and supports our young people in building the best possible futures. The CWDC's guideline statutes have not been updated since 2015. The labor market has changed, federal policy has evolved, and the Council's own practices have matured well beyond what current law contemplates. This bill removes outdated requirements and gives the Council the flexibility to build career pathways based on current data and what employees are actually asking for. That responsiveness is what makes our workforce system generally useful to communities like ours. I want to thank Representatives Phillips and Senator Kipp for their leadership on this bill. The Department of Labor and Employment is here to answer any technical questions. I heard your yes vote on Senate Bill 156, and I will pass it on to my co-prime. Representative Phillips. Was that you? You couldn't tell by my deep voice, yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. and thank you to my co-sponsor on the bill. And so what did all of that mean? Well, first of all, it meant that this bill is a lot easier than the last one you guys just did. And so just a few specific changes. This is just updating a current bill. So it's things like we changed the word industry to in-demand occupations. You'll see on page six, we changed discuss and determine needs across key industries and occupations to updated language, analyze Colorado's labor market conditions to identify growing industries, and again, in-demand occupations. On page 9, you see we added the word may to sharing instead of required. And for my own house district, Adams 12 School District has multiple programs that connect people to a strong start in their career path. This legislation supports continued alignment of that work with current labor market needs. That's it. It's just an updated bill. Committee members, do we have any questions? Seeing no questions, we have one witness signed up. Mr. Berliner, you are either remote or in person. So if you are not in person, I assume you are remote. And one second, and we'll call you. You up. Good evening. Good evening. Thank you very much. Mr. Wheeler-Berliner, you have three minutes. Please go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair and esteemed members of the committee. I'm Wheeler-Berliner, and I get to serve as the manager director of the Colorado Workforce Development Council. I'm happy to answer any questions you all have about this bill, and I enthusiastically request your support today. I'm testifying on behalf of the council and support of Senate Bill 156. In my role, I've worked for 11 years. And in that time, I've been able to engage in a number of national conversations. The country looks to Colorado for the innovation, for the collaboration. There's numbers of stories I could tell that I won't belabor tonight. Ultimately, the reputation that we have has been driven in large part by the statutes that are being updated through this bill. and the updates as the co-prime sponsor stated are designed to ensure that we are meeting current labor market needs, that we are saving the state money and being more efficient in how we conduct business. So again, I'm happy to answer any questions and urge your yes vote. Committee members, do we have any questions for our one witness on this bill? Seeing none, the witness phase is closed. Okay. Sponsors, do you have any amendments? No. No amendments. Committee members, do we have any amendments? The amendment phase is closed. Wrap up. Representative Phillips. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good bill vote, yes. Representative Gonzalez. This is a good bill. Modernizes the thatchuary framework governing the Colorado Workforce Development Council, and I think it just needs to be updated given it's been over 10 years. Good bill, and we would encourage a yes vote. Committee members, are there any closing comments? No? Okay. Representative Marshall, would you assist me in moving the bill forward? Oh, never mind. Rep. Gonzalez, would you like to move your bill? It goes to the Cal, correct? Appropriations. Appropriations. This is your fiscal note. Oh, okay. All right. I move Senate Bill 156 to the Committee on Appropriations with a favorable recommendation. Second. It has been moved and seconded by Rep. Morrow. Ms. Hiroshima, please Oh, but Committee members, any closing comments? Seeing none, all right. Ms. Hiroshima, please call the roll. Representatives Brooks English Gonzales Heltie Leader Mabry Marshall Morrow Richardson Ryden Sukla Yes. Bricks. Excused. And Mr. Chair. Yes. It's Senate Bill 156 passes 9 to 2. You're on your way to appropriations. Good luck. All right. Since our next bill is Madam Chairs, we are going to go next to Senate Bill 93. Do we have our sponsors here? Ritmorrow. Ritmorrow if you like to begin please take it away Thank you Mr Chair In Colorado employers are already legally required to carry workers compensation insurance for their workers Advocates have found that in the construction industry, while there are many good contractors who abide by the law, there are also those who break the law in order to get an unfair advantage when bidding on contracts. You will hear from proponents on how wrought with exploitation the industry can be due to bad actors looking for a way to cut labor costs to save money. While it's already unlawful to not cover workers with workers' compensation insurance, this unlawful behavior is often not caught until after someone gets hurt on the job. Construction is a dangerous industry, and we want to ensure workers are properly insured. There are a number of local governments who require applicants of building and construction permits or licenses to provide workers' compensation insurance. And I'm going to kind of stop there because I do have an amendment that's going to minimize the role of the local government, although they will be taking a part in making sure that workers' compensation insurance is held by not only the general contractor but all subcontractors below. the amendment will lessen the responsibility of the local municipalities or counties. But we do believe that it's important that, particularly at the bidding process, all contractors enter at the same foundation, that you have to have workman's comp insurance for the general contractor and all subcontractors below, and then we will have testimony, and then I'll have an amendment that I can explain at the end of witness testimony. Are there any questions for our bill sponsor? I see none. Okay, we're going to jump into witnesses. Okay. Okay, we're going to call our witnesses, Mr. Gifford, Michael Gifford, Ted Lighty, Ryan Talmadge, Elizabeth Haskell, Mark Ruzin, Mr. Frank Smith, and Ruben Osneros, and Boris Grizzly. Sorry, I printed it out. Okay. Let's start in the room. Mr. Gifford, you have two minutes to give us your testimony. Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee. Once again, Michael Gifford with Associated General Contractors. and um you know we currently are in an opposition uh stance on this bill however we appreciate the open conversation that we've had with the proponents about their concerns um and i just want to talk about a couple things and then where we think that we've ended up uh this evening we've had a long history of working especially with the carpenters union on things like independent contractor which you've talked about that a lot tonight already and how to report that unemployment insurance work comp insurance wage theft and in all those cases we supported trying to enhance the ability of CDLE to be able to do its job effectively and protect Colorado workers And so in the spirit of that, we've talked with the proponents and believe they have amendments that will remove the contractor licensing piece because a license is issued to an individual, not a company, for a period of time and not for a specific project and keeps the building permit as the controlling piece in this bill. The second thing, complaints, while they may administratively be received by the local government, they would come back to CDLE to investigate and adjudicate. and the contractor is still going to have to say, hey, we're going to make sure that everyone has work comp on the project. So if the committee sees fit to add the amendments that have been negotiated between the two sides, we would move to a monitor position from opposition. And now I once again want to thank the proponents for having it. It was one of the best stakeholder processes, really did listen on both sides, and I think we got to a compromise. Thank you. I don't know if I didn't answer any questions. Okay, thank you. We're going to go next in the room. Are you Mr. Lighty? I am. Okay, Mr. Lighty. Thank you, Madam Chair, committee members. At this late hour, I can't say anything much different than Mr. Gifford just did. So just to thank you, the sponsors and the proponents. We also had some pretty grave concerns with the bill, but I think the amendment that the sponsor alluded to tonight will also get us to a monitor from opposed. So I just want to thank Rep. Morrow as well as all the proponents that were able to work through this. Thank you so much. Thank you very much. We're going to move on next to please introduce yourself. You have two minutes to give us your testimony. Good evening, Madam Chair. My name is committee members. My name is Frank Smith. I'm a business rep with the Western States Regional Council of Carpenters. My grandfather was a carpenter. My father was a carpenter. My son's actually here in the city of Denver as a fourth-generation carpenter as well. I spent a lot of time around the construction industry on job sites, inside of job sites, touring job sites, and working with people who build our communities. There are hardworking men and women, people with families, mortgages, responsibilities that show up every day to do a tough and sometimes dangerous job. And I've seen what happens when things go wrong. When someone gets hurt on the job side, we want to make sure that workers are properly insured. And when they're not, it's a worker who can't provide for his family. It's a family that suddenly doesn't know how they're paying their bills, and far too often not knowing what the next step is. It's something that could have been prevented if all the rules have already been in place, and simply being followed. Truth is, most contractors are doing the right thing. They carry insurance, they take care of their people, and they play by the rules, but there's still the bad actors out there that cut corners, save money, win bids, and that puts workers at risk, and it punishes the good contractors who are trying to do things the right way. So SB 93 is about making sure that before work even begins, we're verifying the basic protections that are in place. It's about additional safeguards before someone gets hurt. Not after, but also about creating a level playing field where doing the right thing isn about being a competitive disadvantage but a bad actor who saves percentages on bids At the end of the day it about people fair contracting It about making sure that when someone goes to work on a construction site they can go home safely And that if something does happen, they're projected. So I respectfully ask for your support on SB 26092. Thank you so much. We're going to go next. Good evening, Madam Chair and members of the committee. My name is Ruben Arneros. I am a proud second-generation carpenter here in the state. Colorado have been so for over a decade. I'm currently a representative of the Western States Regional Council Carpenters. In Colorado employers are already legally required to carry workers compensation insurance for their workers. Advocates found that the construction industry while they are many good contractors who abide by the law there are also those who break the law in order to gain an unfair advantage when bidding contracts. You will hear from proponents on how wrought with exploitation the industry can be due to bad actors looking for any way to cut labor costs to save money. While it is already unlawful not to cover workers with workers' compensation insurance, this unlawful behavior is often not caught until someone gets hurt on the job. Construction is a dangerous industry and we want to ensure that workers are properly insured and there are no a number of local governments will require applicants of building and construction permits or licenses to provide workers compensation insurance SB 26093 standardizes this requirement across the state by requiring all local governments to verify workers compensation coverage before providing a contractor license or permit. If a complaint is filed to the local permitting or licensing body, then that agency will have the authority to investigate the claims and revoke the billing permit or license. CDLE has a website available to local government's staff where they They could simply put in the policy number and confirm coverage. I urge a yes vote on SB 26093 to keep bad actors from using these tactics to undermine contracts. Thank you, Mr. Osmeros. Please hold for questions. We're going to go online to Boris Gressley. can you hear me mr yes yes chair good evening chair and committee members my name is mrs gressley i'm the government affairs director for the western state regional council of barfers i know we're leading the agenda um but uh fortunately sb 93 is actually pretty straightforward. The main goal is to essentially stop dishonest contractors from getting an unfair competitive advantage by failing to provide workers' compensation for their workers. Studies have shown that when contractors engage in this type of fraudulent activity, they end up with a 30% cost savings, unlike responsible contractors who provide the legally required coverage. SB 93 was originally modeled after a similar law in another state and incorporated concepts from the Pikes Peak Regional Building Department, However, after much discussion with multiple stakeholders, we have agreed to narrow SB 93 by simply requiring that prior to the issuance of a building permit, a signed declaration on the penalty of perjury is submitted by the applicant that will ensure that all contractors have a valid workers' comp insurance during the duration of their work. We believe that this is a reasonable and balanced approach that promotes accountability while addressing stakeholder concerns, and we respectfully ask for your support. Thank you. Thank you so much. Next witness is Ryan Talmage. Thank you, Madam Chair, and good evening, committee members. I'm Ryan Talmadge. I'm the risk manager for the city of Colorado Springs, and I came to testify in opposition to Senate Bill 93. However, having heard just a few details so far, I think the city could be in a position to move to a monitoring or a neutral position, depending on what the amendment says and how it reduces the unnecessary burden to the permitting agencies as written. So with that, I think I will turn this back to the chair and wait to hear what the amendment has to say. Thank you so much. Thank you, Mr. Talmash. Please stand by for questions. We're going to go to Mark Rezin. Good evening, Madam Chair and committee members. I'm just going to say ditto to Mr. Talmage's testimony. County. Boulder County was here to testify this evening and impose to Senate Bill 93, but have been previous conversations around the amendment that you'll consider this evening and believe that that amendment will solve our concerns. And as others have stated, I would recommend our county commissioners move to monitor upon adoption of the amendment. I would like to thank Rep Morrow and the proponents for working hard with stakeholders to get to the amendment that you'll consider and would respectfully urge you to adopt the amendment. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Rosen. Is there anybody else here in the room who is here to testify on this bill tonight? Seeing none, the witness testimony will be closed after this, unless there's someone. Oh, okay. And then, Rep. Kelty does have questions, so Rep. Kelty. Thank you, Madam Chair. I think my question is for Mr. Rezin or Mr. Tilemudge. So the amendment that we're looking at, just so you know, sir, guts a lot of the bill, and I don't know if you have the bill in front of you, but it takes out on page 3 the lines 2 through 4 and then 10 through 27, and then it takes away the entire page of page 4, and it pretty much takes away the entire page of page 5 except for the last two lines. So, sir, with that, because I'm, Mr. Talmadge, you're from my town, you're from my district, so I just want to know sir that with that information you are against will that bring you to a monitor Mr Talmadge Yes thank you I believe it will take us to the monitor position The bill as it was written imposed costly burdens upon the city that like the state we're not in a position to take on with the budget crisis that we're facing. And I'm sure coming from the springs, you can understand that. Great. Any other questions for these witnesses? Rep. Marshall. Thank you, Madam Chair. So I just had, and I think the amendment takes care of my concerns, but I'm just thinking on the mechanics of this. If the GC signs the declaration under perjury and they're starting like a three-year project and they're going to bring on subs later that they may not have identified yet, that goes for the entire time period. Am I not mistaken that they're under penalty of perjury? Anyone, they're going to check. And then I'm just curious why this has become such an issue if there's up the chain liability and the GC would be on the hook anyway, how it's become such an issue in the industry. Mr. Gifford, did you want to try that? Madam Chair and Rep. Marshall, I would like to try, but if I miss any of the marks, if someone has another answer. Two separate things, and I'm glad you asked this question because I forgot this in my testimony. The current work comp law and the director of the division of work comp in the first committee in the Senate testified to this, that in work comp law, if a lower tier subcontractor contractor would not have work comp coverage when an industry occurs, it goes up to the next level. So the worker is ultimately going to have coverage. It might ultimately get up to the general contractor, but if it's a second tier specialty contractor, it might come up to the first tier. So the supervising contractor is already responsible to make sure that anyone they're contracting with has comp. And if they miss that, they're going to own the claim, if that makes sense. What the proponents have been talking about and what I've been listening very intently is that doesn't deal with the fact that that tier of specialty contractor was able to bid at a lower price because they hadn't factored work comp into their overall cost structure. So two different things. There's still going to be coverage up the chain, but it's still giving a bidding advantage. So I think that's why, and that's what you heard the sponsor lead with, was the bidding disadvantage versus the coverage. So that's the best answer I can give to that question, Madam Chair and Representative Marshall. Representative Marshall, is there a follow-up? No, I think I'm pretty good. Thank you. Any other questions for the witnesses? Okay, I think there's one more witness rep. I'm sorry, Ms. Haskell. Elizabeth Haskell, were we able to get her online? Yeah. Ms. Haskell, you have two minutes to give us your testimony. Thank you, Madam Chair and Committee. I'm Elizabeth Haskell, representing the Colorado Municipal League and our 271 members. I am testifying tonight and opposed because that is the position our board had initially taken on Senate Bill 93. The reason for our opposition initially is because this bill transfers the responsibility of verification investigation and enforcement of workers compensation laws from the experts in the Department of Labor and Employment to the building departments of Colorado 273 municipalities CML strongly opposes enlisting local building departments as frontline enforcement agents of the state's workers' comp laws. As previous witnesses have stated, though, we have been working over the last day or so on an amendment that takes away most of that responsibility from the local building departments. And so I would encourage you to adopt that amendment today. And once that amendment, CML will be able to move to a neutral position on this bill. Thank you for your time and the opportunity to testify. Thank you so much. Is there any questions, other questions on this? Okay. I was just wondering about the million dollars project cost threshold. Was there any thought to making it lower to incorporate mid-sized projects? I don't know who can take that one. Mr. Boris? the the reasoning for the manager the reason for the the threshold was because initially the concern was that from the local municipalities that if they had to do the verification of every single permit you have permits that are very small and so therefore they were worried about having to do that type of verification. Since a lot of the bill has been amended and we're just now focusing on signing the declaration, we are open to lowering the threshold at that point. But again, we don't want the stakeholders to all of a sudden be upset with amending it. So we're fine as it is with the proposed amendment, but we're open to lowering if that's the will of the committee. Okay. And then one last question. The division already has the authority to revoke licenses, or not revoke, but to penalize employers if they're operating without coverage. Why isn't the existing enforcement enough? so what we were trying to i'm sorry madam chair boris here what we were trying to do as as mr gifford had mentioned is we're trying to tackle the issue of premium product in the construction industry what we're seeing is that a lot of responsible contractors are at a disadvantage when they're trying to bid on jobs because again when you're looking at a bid a contractor's costs such as material is pretty static it's it's it's the labor costs that you're able to maneuver around and also your premium costs for workers comp. So if you're able to go in and have a ghost policy, serial coverage policy, and make it seem like you actually are covering workers when you're not, then all of a sudden you're getting a competitive advantage. And so we're trying to essentially stop that from happening. And we talked to the workers comp Division, they actually were the ones who said, you know, I think you guys need to look at what's going on at the local level, at the permitting stage, and see if you can enlist the local municipalities to help. And that was the goal here was just to enlist the local municipalities to just help So obviously in conversations with them it seems like this is very burdensome It seems like it going to add costs So we cognizant of that So the best I think we all came up with was, let's do a declaration under penalty of perjury that essentially forces the contractors or the applicant of the permit to be responsible for verifying that every sub or anyone that's working on that permit has a valid workers' comp. And if there is an issue, then that can be made aware to the divisional workers' comp. Thank you. Any other questions for our witnesses? Okay, seeing none, thank you so much for coming tonight and staying also. Is there anybody else? I don't see anybody else. Witness testimony is closed. Rep Morrow and Rep Gonzalez or just Rep Morrow on this one? Okay. Alright. Do you have any amendments? Yes, I have. I move L006 to Senate Bill 93. It's been moved and seconded by Rep Leader. Can you please explain your amendment? Yes, I certainly can. You'll notice if you look through the amendment, there's some definitions to make sure that, you know, what declaration means, what the permitting permit means. And to like Representative Kelty was explaining, it does strike through those municipality and local responsibilities. So where we're really focusing is prior to commencing any work under permit, an applicant shall file a signed declaration under penalty of perjury with the permitting agency ensuring that any persons, including any subcontractors working under that permit maintains workers' compensation. And then you'll notice also below that a person may file a complaint with the division alleging a person's workers' compensation insurance coverage is not in compliance to the division. So the main goal of this obviously is to take the burden off of the local municipalities where this is not a burden to them and to make sure that we have a mechanism that will keep the bidding process at an even footing. Everybody should go into the permitting process with workers' compensation. And I ask for an aye vote. Are there any questions on the amendment? Any objections to the amendment? seeing none. The amendment is passed. Any other amendments? No. Any amendments from the committee? Amendment phase is closed. Wrap up. Rep. Morrow. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, committee members. It's been a long day, so I won't belabor this. I just really think it is an important bill, and the goal of it is to make sure that everybody in the state is covered by work. It's particularly in construction. that's a dangerous job has a valid workers' comp insurance, and that is taken in consideration at the bidding process. Obviously, it's easy to win a bid if you're not doing things correctly. And there's not, you know, I don't want to say there's a ton of that going on, but when it does happen, it's, you know, obviously not a good thing, and I think this bill will be a good prevention of that and also, you know, not be a burden to the local agencies. And I ask for an aye vote. Thank you, Rip Monroe. Can you please move the bill? Oh. You can move your bill, yes. Sure. I move Senate Bill 93 as amended to the Committee of the Whole. Second. It's been moved and seconded by Vice Chair Camacho. Any closing comments for Rep Morrow? Rep Brooks? Rep Kelty? Chair, thank you. I appreciate bringing the amendment. It seems like that's going to leave you a lot of the heartburn from folks that had originally listed in a post position. And I'll be a no for today until I have an opportunity to be able to check back in with my town and my county just to make sure that it alleviates concerns they had. I imagine it will. But I just want to touch base back with them because they had all on the county or municipal level had been registered and imposed originally. Rep. Dilty. Thank you, Chair. Being a carpenter's daughter, I understand this industry very well and the dangers that can happen with it. and having workers comp and being able to protect the employees from any type of fraudulent claims of people saying they have it and they don't. I completely understand that. And plus my district says it's okay, so I'll be a yes. Rep. Biden. Thanks, Madam Chair. I will also be a yes. I was looking at this last week and had some concerns, especially not only from my cities, but also just from the construction industry in general. And I was deeply concerned about it slowing down development, since that is contrary to what we're trying to do. So I really appreciate you working so thoughtfully with everybody and just thinking through all that. So thank you. Greg Richardson Thank you I appreciate you working with the stakeholders I comfortable where it at but I sent out some notes I will be a note tonight, but we'll be hearing back, I'm sure, in the morning. Thanks. Okay. Red Moro, thanks for bringing the bill. Thank you for working with the stakeholders. It's important that workers' comp is present when people get these permits, and especially with all that is happening with contracts in Colorado. So thank you very much. Rep. Haroja? No, Rep. Haroja. Promotion for you. Okay, I'm speaking prophetically. Okay, okay.

Madam Chair. Yes. It passes 10 to 3. You're on your way to the committee of the whole. Okay. All right. All right. I see that we have our sponsor here for our last bill of the night. We'll be hearing House Bill 1415.

Okay.

Thank you Madam Chair. That is a proper motion seconded by Rep Morrow. Any closing comments from the committee?

Representative Brooks. English. Yes. Gonzalez. Kelty. Jurispective of the sponsor, yes. Leader. Yes. Mabry. Yes. Marshall. Yes. Morrow. Yes. Richardson. Yes. Ryden. Yes. Zucla. Yep. Ricks. Yes. Mr. Chair.