March 12, 2026 · Finance · 14,524 words · 13 speakers · 126 segments
The committee will come to order. Please call the roll. Representative Brooks.
President.
DeGraff.
Excuse.
Garcia.
Gonzalez.
Good afternoon.
Hartzok.
Marshall
Here
Wrighton
Here
Stewart
Zokai
Tatone Here Mr. Chair Here Representative Zokai is also here Okay folks Two bills up today Let's see if we can be efficient We have the sponsors here for SB 39 Mr. Speaker Pro Temp Representative Taggart who'd like to kick us off. Representative Taggart.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Let me start by giving a little bit of background about the Fire and Police Pension Association, which SB 2639 is all about. The FPPA has been in existence since 1978, and it has provided a safety net that's invaluable for our first responders across the state, and so too for their families. Offering fully funded comprehensive retirement benefits and critically important death and disability benefits in the event of a first responder's serious injury or death. FPPA benefits are funded by members and their employers, And that's critical to understand. They are not funded by any state funds. It is strictly done by the employees of FPPA and their employers. These benefits cover over 16,000 of our first responders in Colorado and an additional 1,500 retirees from our public safety individuals. They represent more than 250 Colorado Fire Departments and local law enforcement agencies across the state. This bill just strictly modernizes and makes more efficient FPPA's Death and Disability Plan, which protects these responders and their families should the unthinkable happen through 24-7 coverage. And it's also important to note that this protects them whether they're on or off duty. The death and disability plan is a critical recruitment and retention tool for all of our employers across the state. And they protect our first responders and their families who dedicate their service to protecting the health and safety of all of us. The bill makes no changes to benefit levels, and I stress that. There are no changes to the benefit levels, eligibility periods, or other major components of the plan, and it has no fiscal note. It simply streamlines outdated requirements that cause administrative burdens both for the employers as well as the employees. and FPPA personnel makes it easier on FPPA personnel while improving the flexibility and accessibility of this statute Thank you, and I would ask your support on this bill.
Mr. Speaker-Porten. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Committee, and thank you to Representative Taggart as well. Just a little more context on the legislation we're bringing before you today. In developing this bill, FPPA engaged in extensive fact-finding and a robust stakeholder process. In addition to obtaining an independent expert review of the plan by a highly qualified national firm well-versed in similar plans and benefits, FPPA also set up a task force that included representation from labor unions representing first responders, fire police chiefs, and cities and counties. It was an 18-month process that really resulted in the bill you see before you today. And this bill builds upon FPPA's existing thorough multi-step process for administering death and disability benefits and continues to balance FPPA's dual obligations to first responders in delivering the critical benefits they and their families rely on, while also ensuring the highest level of integrity and fiduciary duty to those first responders and employers who contribute to the plan. There is no expense to the state or additional expense to first responders or their employers under this bill. Rather, the changes will result in cost savings for the plan. Today, you will hear from some of the many stakeholders who engaged in the development of this bill, as well as FPPA experts, and they welcome your questions and join me in asking for your support of this bill. We please ask for your support on Senate Bill 39, which furthers our commitment to protecting those who protect us. Any questions for the bill sponsors? Seeing none, thank you so much. We'll move into the witness testimony phase. We will start with the proponents. We can get Chip Will. I apologize if I mispronounced that, sir. Adam Franklin, Ken Watkins, and Michael Dedan. We can start with our witnesses in the room. We're going to go with this end of the table and work our way across. Sir, please unmute yourself. It's the little button right on the tiny button. Perfect. Floor is yours for three minutes.
Thank you, Chair and committee members, for your time. Is the button red or green?
Oh, it's red.
Oh, it's green.
Oh, sorry. Perfect.
Thank you, Chair and committee members. My name is Michael Dedon. I am the state president for the Colorado Fraternal Order of Police, representing 10,000 members across the state of Colorado. We are testifying in support of the bill, and we'd like to thank FPPA for their collaboration and their collaborative work of putting together a stakeholder meeting. The bill in front of you comes after a lengthy, well thought out stakeholder process that incorporated both the police and fire components and other stakeholders in the plan. Through that refinements were created to streamline the process for the benefits that our members are entitled to when they come to the time of need. We also looked at enhancing the support to reenter the workforce and clarifying the statute with this piece of legislation. The FPPA statewide death and disability plan covers 271 police and fire departments across the state of Colorado with thousands of active members. With covering so many members the plan must stay funded and diligently administered The stakeholder input and process that was put in place supports the idea of maintaining the plan As a strong disability plan design it establishes by a fund to benefit the members that are paid for by the members. We take it very seriously in the process that we were doing and are in full support of the changes that were put forth to further establish the funding nature of the FBPA Death and Disability
Thank you. Please hold for questions. Next witness.
Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. My name is Chip Wiley, and I am FPPA's Chief Benefits Officer. You've heard a lot about the plan, so I'll not overview too much of that. But what I do want to say is this is the plan that our members and their families rely on in the event that they get injured and can no longer do the duties of being a police officer or firefighter. This is also the plan that pays the families of those members who die while they're active. Our death and disability plan covers the 271 departments across the state of Colorado, as well as 16,000 members. Our plan has three levels of disability. First, we have our temporary occupational disability. This place pays 40% of a member's base salary in the event that they get injured. However, there's a good prognosis that they'll be able to return to work. We also have a permanent occupational disability. This pays 50% of a member's base salary. And this is for members who are injured such that they can no longer perform the duties of being a police officer or firefighter, but they can go work in another occupation. And finally, we have a total disability. Total disability pays 70% of a member's base salary. And those are granted to individuals who are injured such that they can no longer do any meaningful, gainful activity. and the injury may also result in a shortened life expectancy. This plan was written in 1980 so as you can imagine there's some opportunities for us to modernize and enhance the plan. You're going to hear more about that from my colleague Mr. Franklin here but I do want to say we did hire a D&D consultant who specializes in analyzing death and disability plan benefits. They benchmarked our plan against other organizations who offer similar benefits and then to make sure that we weren't inadvertently negatively impacting our members or employers. The FPPA board convened a task force. Task force was comprised of firefighters, police officers, employer representatives, members of CPFF, FOP, Colorado State Fire Chiefs, CML, and SDA. And finally I'll hit on the last note as well. This benefit does not, I'm sorry, this bill does not change any of the benefit levels, does not change eligibility, and nor are we asking for any money from our members, our employers, or from the state. Thank you.
Thank you. Please hold for questions. Next witness, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. Sorry I'm a little under the weather today, so my voice is like extra deep, but thanks for bearing with me. You sound great. Great. My name is Adam Franklin. I'm the Deputy Executive Director at the Fire and Police Pension Association. I want to thank our sponsors in the committee for hearing this bill. It's really nice to have sponsors who say exactly what you want to say yourself, so they did a really nice job of describing the bill, so we don't need to go into too much detail. But I wanted to highlight a couple of the items in the bill. One has been discussed. We are doing a lot of clarification and simplifying of our statutes. It been 45 years since this statute was first adopted What do we mean by clarifying For example putting it in one section who covered and what makes them eligible to apply Splitting into separate sections the different levels of disability All of that just needed to be cleaned up. And then we wanted to talk, I wanted to talk about two more substantive pieces of the bill that we think are really important to highlight. One is our rehab and retraining benefit that this bill authorizes us to provide to our members. When a member is on permanent occupational disability, that means they can no longer perform the job duties of a police officer or firefighter. That doesn't necessarily mean they can't do other work. But our members have said to us, we don't have the skills to do other work. We'd like to gain those skills. We'd like to be able to go work in the workforce and how do we do that? And we believe we can provide a service, a program for these members to retrain them, to do some vocational work to help them get back into the workforce and continue to receive that permanent occupational disability benefit. We think it's really beneficial to our members, but also beneficial to the plan because we'll have fewer people transitioning to our total disability, which is a 70% benefit. And then the last one I'll highlight and then turn it over back to you, Mr. Chair, for any questions, and that is the authority in this bill to administer mental health claims. And what we've seen over the last several years is that behavioral health, mental health claims have been on a rise as to the percentage of claims being made under our disability plan. We're currently in the process right now of working with our consultant to figure out how best to administer those claims. What's best in class? How do we help our members prove their claim? How do we make sure we are making the right decision when somebody has a mental health condition? We've developed a significant questionnaire to send to doctors and administrators so we can really understand how to best administer mental health claims. We will be socializing this with our stakeholder groups again once we develop our plan on that. So I wanted to highlight that that's something that we'll be doing in the future. And, Mr. Chair, thank you for the time. Thank you for the time, committee. Thank you so much. We'll go online to Chief Watkins. Good to see you, sir. You're going to meet yourself. Floor is yours for three minutes. Thank you very much. Chairman Woodrow, members of the House Finance Committee, thank you for the opportunity to present to you today. My name is Ken Watkins, and I am the Executive Director of the Colorado State Fire Chiefs. Previously, I was the Grand Junction Fire Chief for nearly 18 years. I do have to say a shout-out to Representative Taggart, who was my mayor for many years. The Colorado State Fire Chiefs represents the leadership of more than 375 fire departments across Colorado. That includes thousands of career and volunteer firefighters to protect our state citizens and state's economy. We are the boots on the ground in Colorado for all emergencies. I'm here to encourage your support of Senate Bill 2639 concerning the administration of FPPA disability and survivor benefits. Over the last few years, I've been honored to serve on several FPPA task forces, and these processes have shown me that FPPA is one of the best managed public safety pension and disability benefit programs in the nation. Most recently, I represented the Colorado State Fire Chiefs on the FPPA Death and Disability Task Force, which created this legislation. And for firefighters, firefighting is always hard work. It can be dangerous work. One of the difficult things I experienced as a fire chief was when one of my firefighters was injured and had to move through and come to grips with being injured and possibly disabled. Physically and mentally, this is a difficult road for many firefighters who envision a long career followed by a healthy retirement. When a firefighter or police officer receives a career-ending injury or death, certainly all this changes. The FPPA Death and Disability Plans provide the support needed to the firefighters, police officers, and their survivors. This bill, as we've heard, streamlines and enhances the FPPA Death and Disability Plan and in turn helps these first responders and their families work through some of the stress and challenges of this difficult time. Those of us on the task force worked diligently to create a bill that would do just that. And Mr. Franklin touched on a couple of the points I was going to with the bill, but I just wanted to say just a quick thing about some of the things that stood out to me. It does change the requirement of three independent medical exams. and instead authorizes the board to appoint a medical advisor to assess the needs of the applicant that is applying for disability benefits. I can tell you as fire chief, this sometimes is very difficult for firefighters to connect with the three independent exams, especially if you're not in the Denver area, as I was in Grand Junction. Streamlining the appeal process, I think, is important because during this time, the firefighters' life is on hold waiting to see where this is going to turn out. And Mr. Franklin touched already on the rehabilitation and training program, which I think is critical and important for our members. The FPPA board of directors, staff, and task force continue to work to make the FPPA pension and disability plans efficient and effective. I urge your support of Senate Bill 2639 for first responders across Colorado, and I'm pleased to answer your questions. Thank you very much. Thank you so much. Committee, any questions for this panel? We'll go with Representative Hartsook, then Representative DeGrac.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, gentlemen. Thank you for your service and representing everybody that's with you. That's a tough road to hoe out there. A couple questions. I mean, so I've read through the sheets. You've done a lot of, I guess, as you said, updating hasn't happened in over 45 years. when it comes to the i guess the process of going through the appeals and everything else in there is there anything else that i'm missing i mean i'm looking at where you've improved things put salaries aside benefits disability etc in the actual process itself is there something that is not on here because i mean it's great that there's no cost of state loving that part That's good. Seems how this is the Finance Committee. But what about to members or to your organizations? Are there other costs in there that are not represented?
Representative Hartzik, who would you like to add?
I guess whoever adds to the panel. I'm not sure who's got that area of expertise.
Mr. Franklin. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Representative Hartzik, for the question. There's no hidden costs. We'll tell you if there's costs here for anything. The cost really would for the rehab and retraining plan would be borne by our trust fund, our disability trust fund. Any additional work that we do for mental health claims would be borne by our trust fund so there's no money to additional cost to our members or to the state or to our employers. Maybe touch on our appeals process a little bit so you can understand how a member can appeal a decision that not favorable for them We an administrative entity and so what we do is we make an initial decision We have a death and disability review committee that makes a decision. That decision can then be appealed to a hearing, and that's handled by a hearing officer. And without getting too legal, it's a de novo review, meaning that it's not a deferential review. we're not deferring to the death and disability review committee. It's actually a hearing, a trial in front of a hearing officer where the member is entitled to bring all of their evidence and have a decision made by the hearing officer. From there, currently it goes to our full board. And then from there, if there's still a negative decision to the individual or it didn't go the way the individual wanted or member, then they could go to district court. In the bill, we're certainly looking at how to improve some of that process and specifically to allow the member to go directly from the hearing to district court rather than having to go through our board appeal so that it would streamline their ability to go directly to court. So maybe that answers your question, Representative. Happy to answer any further questions. Any follow-up, Representative Hartzell? We'll go Representative DeGraff and Representative Garcia.
All right. I think I'll direct this at Mr. Watkins. It's interesting that you're here. I'm working with a firefighter who had three exams. Two were, I think it was two were for disability for a firefighter who was hit off duty by a vehicle. And they were all for, found disability. And then six months later or several months later anyways, it came back and then that was reversed. And then they was referred to three more. so it was referred to how difficult it is to get that. Three more, and they found disability, and yet somehow he's still being rejected, the disability, and then finding out that there's a couple others that feel like they're in the same status where the FPPA is seemingly more intent on not extending their benefits or not authorizing their benefits when I'm looking at, I think it was at least five out of six found disability. So what would be the best way for me to get some resolution on this firefighter's claim so we can get to the bottom of it because he feels like he's been
stiff-armed by the FPPA? Executive Director Watkins. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. Question boy, that's a, It's tough for me to answer that. It's reluctant to answer that in my role. I appreciate you laying out the information that you know of with this member, but it's hard for me to answer that without the detail, which I wouldn't expect to receive that. I would say that the FPPA has a strong appeals process in progress now or in place now. And if the person is working through that, that's the process to go through to see if they can find the resolution to the disability one way or another. I know through the process there you know there would there are probably at the end of the appeals process maybe there's other avenues that the person could go with but without knowing all the detail it be difficult for me to answer thank you for the question follow representative I ask the question and I sound like it looked like you had some more on there But this and maybe the timeline I know the date of injury goes back to the 20th of December of 2024
So it seems like, you know, this should have been resolved earlier. So it's just, I mean, it just happens to be that you're here. So is that a normal time frame for the appeals process? I can certainly get you more detail, and I'll get your contact information, and I'll certainly send it to you. And if you can give me some resolution on it, that would be fantastic. But is that a normal appeal time frame?
Mr. Franklin? Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Representative DeGraff. Let me see if I can address a little bit of some of the earlier comments that you made. We have a 98% approval rate of our disability since the inception of this plan. I can give you the stats in the last 2023. We had 73 applications receive 71 approved. In 2024, 58 applications received 55 approved. So we're talking a total of five in those two years. I think all of them were based on pre-existing conditions, which is part of our plan, but the ones that were denied. We take all of our applications very seriously. We look at all the evidence that we have. Our death and disability review committee is an internal committee and supported by medical advisors who are specialists in the area of looking at disability claims. and every decision is made thoroughly. We communicate thoroughly with our members. In any situation, the individual has the right to appeal the initial decision. And that's where we are. We don't need to talk about any specifics related to any individual. In fact, by law, I'm not allowed to do so. But that's where we're at. There's not been a final denial. Again, the hearing process will happen here soon, and then we'll go from there. But that's how our appeals work. That's how our process works. We move as quickly as possible. We have to, number one, get all the information in from the member. We have to review it. Then any appeal, we have to schedule it, which includes scheduling it with the member, attorneys, the hearing officer. But I would say we move as quickly and efficiently as possible. And I've never heard anybody claim that we did not move quickly as we could through the process. Hopefully that answers your question. Representative Garcia.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have two specific questions just in the implementation of this. So in the bill, it is explicitly stating that if an employer who is supposed to enroll a member into your plan fails to do so, there is no liability on that employer. So my question is then what is the actual recourse for the employee if they are not actually then enrolled into the plan? Mr. Franklin.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for the question. Representative Garcia. Actually if the employer does not enroll the member in the plan that would create potential liability for that employer What this bill is one of the provisions that we doing is we require all of our members who are hired to fill out what called a health history form That health history form sets forth any history of medical conditions that they have to determine whether they have a pre-existing condition if they later apply for disability. It used to say that if that member didn't file the health history form and the employer didn't get it to us, then the employer could be liable. But now we've transitioned all of that to an online process, so we're removing the employer's liability from the health history form requirement. That's all we're doing in this bill. But if the employer just flat out fails to enroll one of their employees in our plan, then the employer would potentially have liability for not enrolling them.
Representative Garcia. Thank you. Well, actually, on page 6, Section 3, it is explicitly saying that the association nor the Death and Disability Trust Fund is obligated,
neither is the fire and police pension, is obligated or liable for any purpose to any person or employer arising from such failure. So you are actually removing that liability that currently exists. Mr. Frank. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for the question, Representative Garcia. That's actually referencing us, not the employer. So we're saying we're not liable for your failure to enroll, the employer's failure to enroll.
So going back to my original question, so what then you're saying is here, if the employer fails to do so into the plan and they come back and they say, hey, I should have been enrolled, then you guys are saying, okay, but we have nothing to do with it. Good luck with your employer. Well, not in that way, but that's essentially like not so like in more respectful terms. Certainly more respectful way. Yes. Okay. And then I think going back to the second part that you mentioned, Is there no concern about having to disclose any, what's the term? Pre-existing medical conditions. Yeah, is there no concern against, like, I know that there is a lot of, my understanding, I don't actually know, but I imagine there's a lot of concern in a field like firefighters or police officers that if you have a pre-existing condition, it could potentially keep you out of the possibility of promotions, of opportunities. And so isn't that a concern that exists within membership of, like, why would we have to predisclose? Mr. Franklin.
Do you want to take the pre-existing conditions, Chip?
Yeah, let me see if I can answer the first part. we're not the police of whether the pardon the pun we're not the police of the employer enrolling their members they're required to do so if they don't they could have liability I'll simply say that they could have liability if they don't enroll their members into the plan when they're required to be in the plan because all of the members all the employees are required to be in our plan I would say with regard to pre-existing condition, it's been a long-standing part of our plan that if you have a pre-existing condition, that this only related to our disability plan, not related to their employment. employment or their promotion ability or anything of that nature. But if they're, and we have a policy, a specific policy that we use at FPPA about this issue, but if they have a pre-existing condition that they should not be able to get a disability benefit from our plan if their disability is based on that pre-existing condition. So that's how it works for us. Chip, I don't know if you have anything else to add on that.
Mr. Wall? Thank you.
add that the purpose of the pre-existing condition is to prevent individuals from being hired as a police officer or firefighter with a known condition so they immediately or very soon after being hired apply for a disability benefit that helps protect the plan for all members.
I actually want to hear from the president of the FOP on this.
We are four minutes over. Rep. Marshall has a question, and I have several questions. So final question, Representative Garcia.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm curious from your perspective from the FOP around, like, if it's already been happening that the coverage of preexisting conditions isn't necessary to actually explicitly state and write into statute, you have to disclose. Is there no discomfort amongst membership of the FOP for something like that? Mr. Dedon?
No, for the fluidity of the plan and for the coverage from there. What we look at as an employment side is there's reasonable accommodations that are made by the employer for pre-existing conditions, or if those conditions arise prior to a promotion or prior to another job function within the police department, those accommodations are made by the employer and that's what we look at or guide upon through our Labor Council. Mr. Franklin I have just a couple quick
questions you gave us the statistics on the number of people who are denied I think you said five or six in the last three or four years of those how many end up appealing? Do you know their average, the value of their claim? I get that it's de novo review. Do they generally hire counsel? Thank you, Mr. Chair, for those questions. In each case of the five in 2023 and 2024, they did appeal. My recall is maybe half had counsel. Would you by chance know the average value of their claims? I don't know the answer to that. That's specific member information and value of your claim, meaning what their disability benefit would have been had they been awarded. I don't know the answer to that. I'd have to get more detail about that. We wouldn't be able to disclose the member information on that. So I don't know exactly the answer to that. Final question for the panel, Representative Marshall. Yeah, one compound, one real quick.
So your discussion on the pre-existing conditions has prompted my own curiosity. So in the military and the Veterans Administration issues, if it's a pre-existing condition that's aggravated by the service, are they then covered? and is there any, you bought it at some point because in the military system, not the VA, but the military disability once you served eight years or more they botch you no matter what it is Mr Wiley Wiley Mr Wiley
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for the question. The purpose of the preexisting condition is to, again, prevent individuals from having that condition or have that condition to apply for a disability right away. To your question, we have a policy that states if that individual is able to do their duties as a police officer or firefighter for at least five years, we set that aside. And within that five years, if they have an intervening incident that aggravates or causes a disability, even if it is a preexisting, so I'll use an example. A member has a previously disclosed knee injury and is a firefighter or a police officer, and injures that knee doing a specific on call or in the line of duty, we will set that aside as well, and we will consider that for their claim. Great. Thank you so much. Appreciate you sticking around a little longer than we normally have witnesses, so thank you very much. We will go to our next panel. We have two witnesses signed up remotely, Mr. Jake Savala and our longtime friend Jeannie Rush. Miss Rush, nice to see you. If you want to unmute yourself, the floor is yours for three minutes. You can also go on camera if you want. I got it. How are you kids doing? we're great so nice to see you let us have it oh i got it for you read it um so let's just say oops i got the wrong bill excuse me don't clock me yet here we go um i am for the bill with some amendments but i have concerns and i looked up stuff and i was going to say a bunch of stuff to You know, and I've got songs I've been singing to everybody on different bills, but I was typing the letter that everybody's going to get with a picture of me doing this. So you're going to love this letter you get today. I got outraged again. So all 100 almost gets it. Listen, the gentleman, I don't know if you talked about him that had three strokes inside the fire station and then got denied benefits. Three strokes and he didn't get disability, you know, or there are problems. And I read the human thing. And I know Jake's story. Do you know I called D.A. Michael Allen's office and I talked to his new investigator who used to be a police officer, Jeff. And he said that the person that ran over Jake and the dog and permanently disabled them for whatever people believe in it, got out on nothing but probation. He'd have to pay anything and do anything. That's like the guy that ran over Tick Tigan and was Antifa and got away with murder because we have judicial systems that don't protect the innocent. So when we have these organizations, and by the way, if you're police, if you're fire, you should have ultimate protection. We shouldn't have to do the give, say, and go protect everybody in their family. There should be automatic protection for these guys, period. All this penny nickel and diamond and all we got to do to protect them The people that only get 40 because the guy died you know maybe in a burning house or somebody shot the police officer Can that kid eat 40 less food while they get that disability money till it's all figured out? I think you've all lost your minds. I'm for the police. I'm for the fire. And I'm for ice, ice, baby, because we're enabling 40, 50,000 invaders illegals to get money that our police deserve and our emergency first responders. I took five years of training with Tig Tigon on the range and first aid and EMCRT, CPR. I mean, and all these other things. Stop the bleed. I know these guys go through hell to protect us. And I think you shouldn't have the organization be the only one to decide about the guy's case in the bill. you know, the amendment, it should be at least one or two neutral outsiders assessing that person. You need to clean up the amendment stuff on it. But it is a good thing to do this. I just think everybody needs to grow up and start taking care of our people better. Don't put them through a maze of all this bullcrap. Just get it done, protect them and stop funding wolves, dogs and cats while you let women die on abortion tables. This body has lost its ever-loving mind. And I'm sorry if I insult some of you because some of you are good guys. Let's don't stop fighting for the police and for the fire guys and the EMTs. Make it easier and quit nickel and diming them. Give them their due. I got to say it. I'm sorry. It sounds so crazy. But when I found out that a guy got out on probation for running over Jake and the dog and ran away and got a hit. All these people are being attacked. Our ICE people killed. Our soldiers being killed. Miss Rush, if you could wrap up, that would be great. You're 30 minutes over your time. 30 seconds. Thank you. I want you to do it. Go through it. Clean it up and protect our people. Thank you, guys. Thank you so much. Are there any questions for Ms. Rausch? All right. Seeing none, thank you for your time this afternoon, Ms. Rausch. Always a pleasure to hear from you. Okay. Any further witnesses on SB 39? Seeing none, the witness testimony phase is closed. Amendment phase, bill sponsors. You want to follow that act? Mr. Speaker, pro temp.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and we always appreciate your commitment to letting folks exercise their First Amendment rights. We would ask the committee to move and adopt L-001 to Senate Bill 39. Second. Representative Stewart.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I move L1 to remind me of our bill number. 39. Senate Bill 39.
There's been a motion by Representative Stewart, a second by Representative Gonzalez. It would have gone to Rep. Marshall, but he seconded before the motion.
Mr. Speaker Proton. Thank you Mr Chair This amendment just fixes a citation error in the bill It a technical amendment We would ask for your yes vote Committee any discussion on L Is there any objection to L
Seeing none, L-001 is a doubt. Bill Sponsors, any further amendments? No, Mr. Chair. Committee, any other amendments? Okay. I actually have an amendment. I move L-002. So it's been a motion by myself, a second by Representative Zokai. So, committee, real quick, we heard that there are very few people who are ever denied, which I think is great. I commend the pension fund administrators for seeing that that is apparently going several years back, the overriding case of things. I also appreciate that of those, almost all of them appeal, and we heard from the witness about half end up having counsel for what's known as de novo review. And de novo review for the non-lawyers in the room is when the body overseeing the appeal looks at things fresh. They don't have to defer at all to the initial findings, which provides the appellant sort of a brand new opportunity to present his or her case. They don't just have to explain why the first body of review got it wrong. They get to say, hey, look at this with a fresh set of eyes. What Amendment L-002 would do, it would state that an applicant who successfully appeals a decision, if they do have counsel, they would get their reasonable attorney's fees and costs paid associated with the appeal. If they don't prove successful in the end, they would not get their attorney's fees or costs paid. I think that this would help alleviate some of the costs that someone appealing would have to bear in order to get competent counsel to represent them through this process. I mean, we heard that it could be appealed administratively to a hearing officer and even to a district court. As someone who goes into court professionally myself, I can tell you that it's daunting. Doing it without counsel is highly inadvisable. So that is the genesis of L-002. Just looking to make the appeals process a little easier, I would ask for an aye vote. Your take, Bill, sponsors.
Mr. Speaker Protep. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, committee. I think it's really a difficult situation when the committee finds itself in the midst of something that's either currently under appeal or certainly being, I think, discussed more broadly. I appreciate FPPA's sensitivity to a particular member's appeal. I have met with that individual as well, as has Representative Taggart, as has a number of our colleagues, as has your federal delegation, as has the executive branch, as has FPPA on numerous occasions. I am certainly sympathetic to that situation, and I want you to hear my remarks with that framing, first of all. I would say this as well. I think we should be cautious when we insert the legislature into something that is currently being decided elsewhere. And I think that is a difficult place for us to be in as much as this amendment as well. I have a couple other thoughts about this as well. the suggested amendment language will be contrary to the general rule of law in Colorado which requires that each side pay their own attorney's fees An FPPA, as we've discussed it with them, is unaware of any circumstance that would suggest a need to deviate from this widely accepted and expected practice, particularly in this context. Second, FPPA is unaware of any instance where only one prevailing party is entitled to attorney's fees while the other party, if they prevail, is not. Third, requiring a non-prevailing party to pay the attorney's fees of the prevailing party in a non-frivolous legitimate dispute between reasonable legal positions would chill the pursuit of litigation in legitimate cases to the detriment of the public's interest and equitable access to the courts as an exercise of the right to the fair administration of dispute resolution. Additionally, FPPA has not made a final administrative determination in the matter of this issue, as you noted today. FPPA is unaware of any instance in Colorado law where these attorney fees are awarded in a governmental administrative action. But I think this is the most critical part. any award of attorney's fees, no matter how well supported by the legal position of the institution in a given matter, would be paid with other members' contributed assets. That's where these dollars come from. They come from other firefighters. They come from other law enforcement officers. That is to say, from the assets of the thousands of firefighters and peace officers and their families who contribute to this plan, this is contrary to their interests, which is why they are not asking for this. And FPPA's fiduciary duties with respect to their assets, which they uphold to the highest degree of integrity and ethics, is borne out by the broad support for this bill and FPPA itself by the representatives of directly impacted stakeholders. FPPA is well supported by labor and management organizations for both fire and police with a high degree of participation. The board and staff also have significant representation from those with expertise in these complex and intersecting areas of federal and state law and regulation. to underscore the point this would be unprecedented it places in jeopardy the very values and i think the very funds that often these same folks would benefit from i am sympathetic to the case at hand i will remain so i hope to find a solution for this individual that also respects the fact that this process is something that works and sometimes unfortunately it doesn't work as we intended it to or as an individual would expect it to but when you look at the numbers overall This case in particular is one and the only case that was denied in 2025 and is currently under appeal. Previous years, two cases the previous year, three I think the year before that. These are situations that FPPA takes seriously, and to insert ourselves as a matter of law into this situation, I think is, I would say, not a place where the legislature should dabble. I would ask for a no vote.
Committee, any further discussion on L002?
Representative Zocchi. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for the bill sponsors for the engagement on this point. I will be voting yes on this amendment. I think it's highly important that individuals who are going through an appeal process be able to have the means to do so, and I don't think this necessarily fixes that problem, but allowing them to recover reasonable attorney fees after successfully appealing, I think, is a common sense measure that, in my experience, practicing law does not run a face of the rule of law. We have many situations where we allow attorneys' fees for certain prevailing parties only. I want us to note that I think very few people are denied, we've heard, even less appeal and even less successfully appeal. So I don view this as putting the funds in jeopardy of other members because I think this would be a very narrow time that it would apply but would be very significant when it does So I want to thank our Chair for bringing this forward and urge you to vote
Alexander Marshall. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I could be very sympathetic to this amendment, but it just came to my attention today, and the sponsor explained the issues they have with it. even EJA requires that the government's position isn't substantially justified and this is allowing counsel even in administrative processes, not even court processes if we could work to something that has a little more guidelines and guideposts on it but this is pretty open-ended and I understand where it's coming from but again I think it would need to be prospective and we probably should do it in the context of an overall systematic approach like EJA does rather than just pick and choose different items that we want to allow attorney fees. So for that reason, I'm going to be a no at this hearing.
All right. Representative, Madam Vice Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yeah, I mean, I think I, for the most part, agree with Representative Zocchi in this case where there's very, very few happening, and it is only when the prevailing side happens. And I would assume that most people who are seeking appeal do not have a lot of funds to even hire an attorney to begin with. So if they have to do it and they do prevail, this could help alleviate some of that. And maybe it will help the negotiation on the denial anyway because of the knowing that the attorney fees might be on the hook. So maybe it will keep that process a little bit more transparent. So for those reasons, I will be a yes on this amendment.
Representative Graff. Thank you, Mr. Chair. There's a lot of like about that because I think with the individual going up against a firm in this case, I'd like to see this fleshed out according to the other concerns and according to that there so we're not making broad legal decisions inside. But I think the concept is certainly reasonable because to discourage any just using the might of a larger organization against an individual. So, and this is not really looking at it in the terms of, well, a specific individual, but just in terms of the legal power disparity between somebody filing an appeal against an organization that's trying to stop it. So I'm for this in concept. I would just like to have it to make sure that it addresses the concerns that were brought forward. So I'm hoping that maybe this can be fleshed out so we can have a better representation if this gets out of committee, which I assume it will.
Any further discussion on L002? Okay, just real quickly, I really appreciate your comments, Mr. Speaker Pro Temp. I would just note that the Colorado Consumer Protection Act and many other consumer statutes provide for reasonable attorney's fees and costs to be awarded to prevailing plaintiffs. Both sides bilateral attorney fees actually would discourage legitimate appeals and make things off even worse than they are now for someone appealing because right now they appeal with zero risk If they would face the prospect of having to pay attorney's fees in the case of an unsuccessful appeal, that would actually disincentivize them from appealing even if they have legitimate claims. I want to be clear that no one is saying, and certainly not me, that this would apply retroactively or even apply to current pending appeals. And my understanding is that the individual who's contacted many of us already has counsel because the size of his claim is large enough to justify a contingency arrangement on that. I was looking at this more prospectively. And finally, I'll just say that all claims are paid by the fund. if that were to be the sort of yardstick we go by hey other members money is going to be used to end up paying attorney's fees if we took that view then we would be encouraged be encouraging more denials because every denial means more you know less money paid out by every member right every claim that's paid is technically paid by the membership and so you know the fewer claims that get paid out the more money the members get to save on premiums and what they're paying in. So I do appreciate the comments from the bill's sponsors. I'll let you have the last word. Okay, then please poll the committee.
Representative Brooks. Excuse. DeGraff. No for today.
Garcia. Yes. Gonzalez. No. Artsuk.
No. Marshall.
No. Brighton.
No. Stewart.
No. Zokai.
Yes. Stichel.
Yes. Mr. Chair.
Yes, that fails on a vote of four to six with one excused. Any further amendments from the committee? Seeing none, the amendment phase is closed. Wrap up.
Bill sponsors.
Representative Taggart. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would just say and reinforce how important this fund is for men and women that put their lives on the line every day for us. And I would ask you all to think about the fact that the FPPA threads a very, very small needle when it comes to funding. On one hand, they want to do the absolute best for their employees. But at the same time, they have to be fiscally responsible. So the process that takes place in terms of looking at this claim has to be very, very well executed. And it has to be implemented, probably is a better term in this sense. to make absolutely certain that the employees enjoy a benefit in spite of the fact that they have been either hurt or worse, but at the same time they have to keep a fund and its balance in a fiscally responsible manner, and that is a very difficult needle to thread. and I hope you all take that into account Thank you Thank you Mr Speaker Brota Thank you Mr Chair Thank you committee Excuse me Thank you for the folks who came out to testify and certainly appreciate the good discussion here in committee I just close
with this. You know, FPPA exists because when it matters, it really matters for folks who are really serving our communities in some ways that we know are very dangerous, can be very dangerous, and certainly are very tough on your mind and body. And so we would ask for this common sense sense update to be approved by the committee. Certainly appreciate the good discussion related to the amendment and the outreach that that individual has done and committed to that stakeholder process and conversation wherever it's helpful. But for today and for this bill and for the members that really rely on a system that works, that is efficient, that is cost effective, but also protects them when they most need support, we would ask for your yes vote.
Thank you. Committee, any closing comments? Representative Gonzales.
Thank you, Mr. Chair and sponsors. I want to commend your work on this. I can imagine how much work and time and effort you put into this. I do want to reiterate kind of what the Speaker Pro Temp said about a system that's fair, that's work, that's streamlined, that's processed, especially for our first responders and people of that nature. So I'm enthusiastic yes for today. I'm happy to support on the floor and be a co-sponsor.
Great. Representative Garcia, then Zocay.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for bringing this bill. I think I do have concerns specifically around this new requirement of disclosure. I think that seeing the entities that are bringing this forward, seeing a representative from FOP but no members here also brings me a little bit of pause on why these changes are actually needed and who they're needed for. There's certain language in here that I am concerned with. I think I will connect with you both just to figure out if there's ways that we can tighten this for seconds. But with that, I will be a yes for today, and I do hope that there is a willingness to talk through some of the concerns mentioned.
Representative Zokai. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, sponsors, for your work on this bill. I understand how important and crucial this policy is. I do want to also note two issues of concern I have. One is around that liability provision that the association has no liability for failure to enroll members. And then the second piece around this pre-existing condition and the disclosure of pre-existing conditions. I can understand the longstanding policy that's been in play here, but the language here is new and is pretty broadly written and says that if it's a proximate consequence of the preexisting condition, the member is ineligible. And I think that that is potentially bringing in far more than is intended. So I hope that we can continue having a conversation around those two pieces and we'll vote yes for today with that intent.
Any further discussion on Senate Bill 39? Seeing none, a proper motion routes Senate Bill 39 as amended to the Committee of the Whole.
Madam Vice Chair. I move Senate Bill 39 as amended to the Committee of the Whole with a favorable recommendation.
Motion by the Vice Chair, second by Representative Gonzalez. Please pull.
Committee. Representatives Brooks.
Excuse. DeGraff. Yes, for today.
Garcia. Gonzalez.
Yes. Art Sook.
Yes. Marshall.
Yes. Raiden.
Yes. Stewart.
Yes. It's okay. Yes, for today. Toton.
Yes. Mr. Chair. Yes. Doing our best impression of the Judiciary Committee, we passed that 10 to 0. with one excused. See you on the cow. Thanks.
Rep. Raiden.
Nice to see you. Tell us about your bill.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's a pleasure to be with all of you. You are my second committee for this bill. We already worked through our committee of reference, which was the Business and Labor Committee. It came out unanimously. So I've asked that we really focus on truly the fiscal impacts of this bill. At the request of some of you, I would provide a high-level summary, though, of what the policy was. So the problem that we were seeing was that folks in the, specifically in the blind community, when they were accessing rides through ride share companies, they would get the ride and then it would be canceled. And this is happening over and over again and leading to some challenges. There was the 2025 Department of Justice lawsuit that actually said essentially that TNC companies, they do have some responsibility for preventing this. and some liability in terms of how this is happening. It's not just happening in Colorado. It's happening around the country. The Public Utilities Commission, of course, has been looking at this. We know that they're up for sunset this year. And actually in one of their recommendations was really addressing this specific problem, which is how do we ensure that the companies are doing their due diligence, the drivers are educated on ADA law, and that these folks are not getting their rides denied, which again is against the law. And these are folks who maybe have their service animals with them, and that's what we're thinking is the reason why some of these denials are happening. So what the bill attempted to do, and this is something I started working on last summer, so that was before the PUC recommendations actually came out, and kind of the hint I got when we were talking to the Public Utilities Commission was, slow your roll, we're actually already looking at this, but of course that information wasn't public until October. So what we looked at doing was broaden the ability for the Public Utilities Commission to actually investigate and levy fines on the company. Currently, they felt like they were really limited in their ability to do that. We also, per law, the companies were already collecting this data on their app in terms of when someone with a disability would actually go through the app and say, hey, this was denied. I don't think this is okay. And then the TNC company was reporting those to the Public Utilities Commission, or at least they were supposed to be doing that annually. So we want to make sure that that reporting actually is publicly available. It's been really hard to write and craft policy around what's actually happening in our state when I have people from my community saying, hey, these rides are being denied, but we can't actually look at the data and see that. Because again per statute it wasn allowed So we want to make sure that it reported It reported more timely so that we can make sure that it tracking with what we hearing from our community And then in negotiation with the driver's union, as well as with the companies, we kind of came in a good compromise of having some education requirements in there around what anti-discrimination laws are and making sure that the companies post their anti-discrimination policies so that if drivers are removed from an app appropriately, if it's found that they're denying these rides. And just naturally wanting to make those more transparency. So that's where we landed with the legislation. I will draw your attention to the fiscal note. You have a slightly revised one. It actually decreased just a little bit. There is a TNC fund that per statute, any real policy that creates more work has to come out of the TNC fund, and the TNC companies pay into that fund. So it's kind of a revenue neutral bill in that there's a .3 FTE requested that they think they might need to have like an administrative law judge. But again, it's going to pay for itself with the fee that is imposed with how the PUC sets those for the rideshare companies. With that, I will happily answer any questions.
The folks I'm bringing as witnesses today, just a few. I did bring somebody from the blind community just to talk about their experience and at high level why they would need these, they would want that FTE available to investigate these claims. And then per our business and labor committee, some of the folks who were here had some questions and the PUC was not there in that committee but they are here today to answer any of the questions. And then disability law is here to answer more technical and lawyery questions, and then of course the TNC company said they'd be here for questions as well. Committee, any questions for the bill sponsor?
Madam Vice Chair. Thank you, Mr. Chair. You say it does have revenue and expenditures, but it does have a table refund impact. So is that your understanding, that this will displace some money that the general fund would normally be able to use for something else? Representative Ryden.
Thank you. Yes, per how it's calculated with the funds. It's not an enterprise. Any further questions of the bill's sponsor?
Seeing none, we're going to go to the – oh, sorry, Representative Hartzell.
No, sorry, Mr. Chair. I was busy reading and didn't get my hand up quick enough, but thank you. So looking at the fiscal note, I mean, you had the strike below, brought that through, they brought it down. But am I following everything correctly where A, number one, civil penalties are not on the table that just goes straight in? Is that correct? Right.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Correct. And the fiscal note really can't take into account what those civil penalties, I mean, we've put in the legislation what they could impose in terms of fines, but those weren't taken into consideration. So theoretically, the civil penalties, which are taper exempt, could be enacted, which then could, you know, pay for itself as well. They just couldn't estimate what those are. Representative Hartzell.
So then the numbers that we have in here, this is strictly from a regulatory perspective of what we're looking at, and that's going to be recovered in the fees. Is that correct? Representative Ryden.
Yes, that is correct. Any further questions for the bill sponsor Seeing none thank you We going to go into the witness testimony phase We go with the folks in person who are in support of the bill
Brendan Markham, Dan Burke, Molly Kirkham, and Jack Johnson. Is Brendan Markham here? We'll start with Ms. Kirkham. If you can introduce yourself, the floor is yours for three minutes. Hello. My name is Molly Kirkham and I'm part of the AHRQ, Lads and Policy Advocate. So basically testifying those, in case you don't know what the ARC does, it's the statewide chapter that supports people with disabilities, family, provides support, and advocates. I'm also part of Speaking for Ourselves, which is a statewide self-advocacy group. And I think one thing that, and I want to stop by saying, taking an Uber should be simple, just like everyone else. But for people with disabilities, it can be frightening, unsafe, dangerous, and dehumanizing. to unify it. Again, thank you. We are to cover this bill. I do want to acknowledge that Uber and Lyft are very important and it's good. I think most Uber drivers are good, but there is issues that I think we need to address. I do want to make sure that people just do appreciate it, but we do need to fix it. For me, they face many challenges when using using ride chairs. That could be service admiral refusals. So they're denied service admiral which is their lifeline. Even though it's not packed, they get denied, they leave rider standard or they charge us the money for a cleaning fee just because they need it to make it there. Again, another issue is the refusal due to actual time. A lot of times you only have five minutes to get in the car for people with wheelchairs. So where we're palsy, handicapped, they need more time and support. And that's an accommodation. But when the driver just drives away, they don't have any other option. And it can be dangerous. Difficultly communicating with drivers. This could be due to nonverbal communication or the fact that the driver might not know how to interact. Challenges dying out of the vehicles due to scooters, wheelchairs, accessibility. That can be dangerous. Being dropped off at the wrong locations. And this can be on this person with disability, but a lot of times it's dangerous because they don't know where they are. They might not be able to communicate. And I think we just need a little extra grace. Being put off in a dangerous situation. For example, this has actually happened to me. I live in Golden, but they dropped me off in a random park in Aurora on a snowy day and did not want to keep driving because of the snow. Fear of wearing homes safely. It's about dignity. I think that's what it's about. It's about making sure that there's accountability, and if something happens, people of the disability get home safe, just like everyone else. And I urge you to support YES, to be that voice. Make sure they get home. Just because you have a disability does not mean you should get treated like burden or dehumanizing. Everyone else gets around. That all we asking for is accountability and we let your support Happy to answer questions and thank you for your time Thank you Mr Johnson Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. My name is Jack Johnson. I'm here testifying in support of House Bill 1040. I'll keep it pretty quick because I think a lot of the policy things have been discussed, but I did want to talk a little bit about the fee structure. Right now, transportation network companies are licensed fees, and so they are licensed to operate and through those fees there are certain fees that are set on them to be that to operate in the state of colorado that fee structure is allows the public utilities commission to float that fee up and down depending on the needs in order to meet the licensing requirements and authority this bill sets out certain mandates some of which we would argue are already funded regulatorily because a lot of this is supposed to be happening already But it does allow the PUC to float that fee up and down, which is already in statute, to meet these needs. And the fiscal note does a really excellent job of estimating what could be the maximum float. But I want to make clear that this is not actually the way the fee will be set. That will be set administratively. And so through these conversations, you will continue to see that evolve as other PUC bills come out, other PUC funding mechanisms change. the fiscal note reflects what is likely a potential fee float, but is not actually the way they're going to float the fee. I'm happy to answer questions about the fiscal note or about the policy, and thank you for your time. Thank you. Mr. Burke. Thank you, Chairman Windrow, members of the committee. My name is Dan Burke. I am representing the National Federation of the blind Colorado I live in Centennial work at the Colorado Center for the Blind transportation network companies really were a game changer have been a game changer as far as you know point-to-point transportation for blind people in particular but they've also opened up a whole new world of discrimination one of our members that published a study last year 300 people across the nation, 25% of people who carry a white cane reported being denied rides with Uber or Lyft. And when you introduce a guide dog, that number goes up to 79%. So what we've really been looking for, the NFP has recognized this has been an issue since these companies came around and so we tried to negotiate with the companies. That didn't work so we took them to court, then they decided to negotiate. We had legal settlements. They've since expired. This goes back to 2016, by the way. You know, we got a lot more hurry up than we got giddy up for all of that. So, you know, we started looking at what we could do locally, and we have had conversations with the PUC, attended committee, you know, public hearings, etc. The answer is, we believe, bring more accountability to the TNCs regarding discrimination against people with disabilities. It's real simple. It's at the regulatory level here in this state. So the fines need to go up to make them think harder about it. They need to train their drivers better and eliminate the potential confusion between a pet and a service dog and their responsibility to provide reasonable accommodations under the ADA to folks that have service dogs including guide dogs. You know we had at our previous hearing a mom talked about being told she was a horrible person and trying to take away the driver's job right after he told her. And this is in front of her kid. Right after he told her that she couldn't put her hairy dog in his $100,000 vehicle. So this is, most drivers are not the problem. But there needs to be training, and we need to have sanctions for those drivers who continuously violate the rights of people with disabilities. So we support this bill because we think it brings greater accountability to the TNCs, and we just want to go to work. we want to take our kids to childcare to go to church or visit our aging parents that's all we're asking for and we want to do that without the anxiety that we're going to be left standing at the curb so please we urge you to vote yes HB 261043 thank you Thank you. Any questions for this panel of witnesses from the committee? Representative Stewart and Representative Gonzalez.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. This question is for Mr. Johnson. This is a phenomenal policy. I was very delighted to get to vote yes on this policy already once. we're talking here about the fiscal note which is obviously not large and because it is $50,000 I'm inclined to let the appropriations committee decide that this is something that we can forward I am always concerned when something has an impact on general fund and Tabor refunds so I'm deeply hoping that we can we can get there, but it just sounds like from your testimony that you think that there is a possibility. Say more. Mr. Johnson.
Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you for the question, Representative Stewart. There's kind of two mechanisms that could potentially reduce this. The first is that, as I mentioned, the fee that pays for this, so it's actually revenue neutral because a fee is raised and then the expenditure equals that fee is a fee that's floatable. So if the PUC feels like they don't need as much money or as the work gets started, they don't really need as much FTE, they float that fee back down to keep it revenue neutral. And so it doesn't always have to have this taper hit. The second thing that's not reflected in the fiscal note, which obviously can't be reflected yet, is that all the fines that are as a result of rideshare denials or go to the general fund. And so if we're talking about the maximum fine being $1,300, that means that if you were to have 100 fines a year, which given what we heard from NFB is not out of the question, you would generate $100,000 in general fund revenue. That would go directly to the general fund. So there's a good possibility that either one or both good things happen, which is that everyone's in compliance and we're not denying rides, which is a great outcome for $50,000, dollars or we're generating revenue for the general fund which is also a way to offset this kind of compliance mandate.
President Gonzales. Thank you Mr. Chair and no more so specific question but just for the first testimony I was really moved by your story so I appreciate you spending some time here with us taking time out of your day I sure you had better things to do but it wasn important to you So I just want to commend you and thank you for sharing your story
Representative Hartzell, then Madam Vice Chair. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I'm curious, for Mr. Johnson, we were talking about floating fees. We're talking about, from a regulatory perspective, I guess maybe I'm missing something, but it almost sounds like we would be assessing varying fees for violations of the same kind of violation. And A, how would that be legal? And then B, why would not the AG already have jurisdiction over discrimination? Mr. Johnson.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for the question, Representative Hartzik. I apologize if I was not clear. There's two different revenue sources in this bill. The first is a fee that is on the license for these companies. So to be a TNC, you pay a fee to get your license, and that goes to the PUC, and then they use that money to regulate you. And so the fee is what's in the fiscal note as generating the revenue. And the PUC has the authority to flex that fee in order to collect the revenue necessary to regulate this market. So that is fully legal because it's a set fee for your licensing revenue that's across. Then there is a fine for noncompliance. So if the PUC finds that you did not or you did deny a ride and you didn't do the things necessary to remedy that and they issue you a fine of $1,000 that you would have to pay, that is what goes to the general fund as revenue because it's just a fine that pays directly to the state of Colorado for your noncompliance with discrimination. To your question about whether the AG has authority to enforce the anti-discrimination laws, the reality is that there are structures within our law that allow us to hold corporations accountable for discrimination, such as CATA, which at the state level, I or someone with a disability who felt they were discriminated against could sue whatever entity it is and recover, or the ADA. but this is a really unique situation because these drivers are not employees of these companies they're uh contractors and so you would have to sue the individual driver every time you face discrimination and you get into the problems of you know these individuals are judgment proof or they're hard to locate or you know it's not as easy as like going into walmart and suing walmart because something was inaccessible these are having to go after the individual drivers which becomes an impossible scheme. Mr. Burke would have to have someone on staff full-time as his attorney all the time if he wanted to do that. And so this allows the company to be held accountable for the driver's actions in a legal way and in a way that also incentivizes good behavior. Because the bill outlines if you do things like training your drivers and doing all these other things, that mitigates the potential of you having a fee and mitigates the impact of, or fine and mitigates the impact of that fine on you. So it's a way to both incentivize good behavior and hold the entities accountable for the people that are working under them, even if they're not their employees. Madam Vice Chair? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Not a question, but I just wanted to thank the two witnesses who came and told your personal stories because this is really important to make sure we have awareness of what going on And there not a lot of people in the legislature who have disabilities We had Representative Ortiz here and he taught us a lot but we didn't get everything done while he was here. So there's still a lot of things, and I appreciate Rep. Ryden being Rep. Ortiz's predecessor to take up the mantle, so I appreciate you being here. Any further questions or comments from the committee? Seeing none, thank you all for your time this afternoon. If we could get Taylor Newsome and Nathan Riley online, who has signed up for questions only. Mr. Newsome, are you here? None. And do we have Nathan Riley online? Mr. Riley is with the Public Utilities Commission. Are there any questions from the committee for the PUC? I'll just ask Mr. Riley, just real quick, this is Stephen Woodrow. Does the levying of fines against a TNC or a specific driver foreclose anyone who's been discriminated against from bringing a civil action? And does that civil action need to be brought first before the PUC? Thank you, Representative, for the question. Again, I am Nathan Riley. I'm the Section Chief for Transportation at the Colorado PUC. To your question, I don't know that our fine structure and the way we pursue any kind of regulatory civil penalties factors in any other types of external relief that people might pursue. I think we kind of try to be aware of anything that's going on in the background when we're making our determinations. But in general, we pursue the regulatory codes we are responsible for and focus more on those. Any other questions? Representative Hartzell.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I guess a question from a regulatory perspective. If in these ride shares, the reason I guess a lot of people do the ride shares is that they're independent contractors, so they have the flexibility. It would seem from a regulatory perspective we are shifting that category and somehow holding, and I get they have to follow the laws, but it seems like we're changing both that structural employee relationship, contracting relationship, number one, and then number two, now holding the companies responsible for independent contractors, yet the company has to do all the training, and they're still an independent contractor. So how is that, from a regulatory perspective, going to cover all of those venues? That seems, I guess, just fraught with issues that can pop up that we haven't gone through yet.
Mr. Riley. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Representative, for the question. In general, and this is something the PUC has dealt with for a long time with a lot of our different transportation carriers. A lot of them do utilize the independent contractor relationship with their drivers. Um, ultimately we end up holding the companies accountable for, uh, any potential violations of our regulations. Um, it's not very usual for us to pursue individual drivers for their behavior. Uh, instead we typically will go after the companies that they are working for, whether it a taxi company a TNC a moving company a towing company whatever it is we hold the actual regulated party so the permit holder to be responsible for those behaviors It can be a little tricky at times with certain types of behaviors but in general that just the way that our regulatory model works, is to hold the carriers, the licensee, the permit holder accountable. Any further questions? Seeing none, thank you for your time. Final call for witnesses on House Bill 1043. Seeing none, the witness testimony phase is closed. Amendment phase, bill sponsor. No amendments from the bill sponsor. Committee, any amendments? Seeing none, the amendment phase is closed. Wrap up, Representative Ryden. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and just thank you for letting me be here. And, yeah, with David Ortiz, it kind of was an unstated agreement that we would make sure to keep Shepard on since I replaced him, really looking at inequity in our state and some of the disability issues. So I was really pleased to take this on and to work with them since last year. I've known the folks at the Center of the Blind for several years now. It really was a pleasure to get to see something we could actually solve, or at least something to do to really change and solve a problem that they really are experiencing in real time. Any closing comments from the committee?
Representative DeGrant. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is an area I've been looking at for a long time, and just some of the questions that I had is why is the PUC in charge of ride share, and it's because they're in charge of taxis. This was a whole new thing. So what makes rideshares work is that they are independent contractors, and that opens up a whole new world. And then we also had the sponsors said, hey, this is a great thing, or the witnesses said that this is a great thing, that rideshare comes in and opens up this whole world. But we also had this other area of transportation that's like we have Medshare, we have the state provides the buses. I think that's a horrible waste of money. I think it would be better to put towards something like this that actually serves people where they need to go. But instead of revamping the program like the RTD, which has about 3% ridership, $2.50 over that per passenger mile that we're spending, plus another $24 million per year, instead of incentivizing things like MedShare. MedShare. I mean, I see all these medical ride shares that we could take state money that we're already putting towards transportation that people don't use, and we could put that money towards transportation that people do need, and we say that this is a priority for us. Well, the priority for us here is that we are spending, again, $2.50 per passenger mile, most of those miles going in places that you don't want to go. And obviously somebody that actually needs that transportation service can't do that is a bus having to walk, drive, roll half a mile to get to a bus stop. So then we say this is a priority that we want to do this. And then we roll in and say, well, the way we're going to make this work is we're going to take independent contractors and we're going to we're going to fee them in order to find them in order to give money to the General Assembly to accomplish something. And so, you know, we just have this and, you know, this is the email exchange that we've had. And, you know, we have this punitive model where we're taking individuals who are trying to be an independent. of kind of, and I don't know what the, you know, and we're assuming that, you know, their reasoning for, you know, say rejecting a ride, you know, hairy dog was a, was an example. I don't know the, I I think we can better create a program where we incentivize, and if the state is going to say this is a priority for us, then the state needs to figure out how to incentivize it instead of just punishing the people into compliance. Because I think what you're ultimately going to get is you're going to get these independent contractors that leave. Now, nobody has access to them. That doesn't take that off. That puts us back into the taxi, which we still have it's still and it's you know that's regulated under the PUC and so they fall I think they you know they fall more with uh that you know these these you know require so you have taxi med share we have lots of we have lots of different things but instead of uh so I guess bottom line my my issue with this bill I like the idea I want to figure out a way to make sure that our individuals with disabilities have rides, you know, a ride like MedShare, or that's just one I've seen, would probably be more appropriate. How do we expand their operation so that you have people that are trained, that understand, that have the equipment that, you know, for a wheelchair, like a battery-operated wheelchair, they can be pretty heavy, right? So somebody shows up and that's there and now are they in a discriminatory position because they're not familiar with how to handle this machine. So I like the intent of this bill. I really like to work I just think we need to have our priorities straight We decide to spend money on transportation that nobody really wants to use When we ignore problems like this that I think with the government our role in securing the ability for people to participate in society fully but we've got to figure out a way to do it other than just punishing people into non-existence. And my fear is that just the way I'm hearing this is we have fees. We're going to punish people for their behavior if they don't have the proper behavior. And that is outside the scope of government. It's outside solid business practice. If you want to actually encourage people to do this, I think this program right now, I think you're just going to lose more than you gain. And so I like the intent because we want to make sure that people can do that. But I think you could do that by taking – I think you could a lot better do that by taking money from RTD and incentivizing drivers and incentivizing the network instead of trying to punish it into behavior. Thanks, Mr. Chair.
I'll try to be short. Thank you for bringing this. I supported and actually sponsored many similar and disability bills previously The one major concern I have here is from a regulatory perspective if people are doing this for an extra income maybe their vehicle can accommodate And if it's in here, then I apologize for missing it. But if they or their vehicle are not able to accommodate a person with a disability they're picking up, and therefore they either don't – I mean, we don't do this in anything else. If you don't feel safe in doing something, then you normally don't do it. If in this perspective we're going to make a regulatory perspective that says, nope, if you don't accept because you either don't feel comfortable, and granted, we're talking a fine line here, if you're discriminating against, by all means, you should be prosecuted for discrimination. If, however, you genuinely don't have the ability, your vehicle can't accommodate it, and you say no, but then you're subject to or the company is subject to, and then what happens to you? I mean, the liability perspective, I think we get into a rabbit hole, and I'm not sure. At least I didn't see it in here how that is clarified and specified. So for that today, I'm going to be a no. I would like to know more about it. It doesn't mean I can't go to a yes. but that's where my concern lies is i don't see where everybody's being protected i think we're we're swinging the pendulum heavily one direction which is just a concern for both the companies the rider or the drivers and then we have to make sure that we take care of the riders and all of all
entities need to be covered and addressed thank you any further closing comments from the committee Representative Marshall I apologize for jumping in at the last second but again we the finance committee and it would be good to focus just on the financing parts
because I did hear the bill in the Business and Labor Committee and our colleague brought in 50 plus witnesses and it was overwhelming, the testimony, and that's why I do believe it got out unanimously. So I'm going to be a strong yes vote Because, again, I think if she had brought the full team here, I don't think any of us could really be able to vote no. But thanks.
Any further closing comments? Seeing none, a proper motion. Routes 1043 to the Committee on Appropriations. Madam Vice Chair. Oh, sorry. Representative Ryden. Oh. I move House Bill 1043 to the Appropriations Committee with a favorable recommendation. Motion by Representative Ryden, second by the Vice Chair. Please poll the committee. Representatives Brooks.
Excused. DeGraff.
No. Garcia. Yes.
Gonzalez. Yes.
Hartsook. No.
Marshall. Yes.
Ryden. Yes.
Stewart. Yes.
It's okay. Yes.
To town. Yes.
Mr. Chair. Yes, that passes 8-2 with one excused. Folks, this concludes our business and finance. Keep an eye on your calendars for Monday's calendar. Until then, we stand adjourned.