Senate Local Government & Housing [Mar 12, 2026]

Good afternoon. The Senate Local Government Housing Committee will come to order. Ms. Alanzaro, please call the roll.

Ball. Excuse.

Liston. Excuse.

Snyder. Here.

Good afternoon. Good afternoon, everybody. We're going to start with some Senate confirmations for the State Housing Board. Tyler Jackal, are you here? Come on up.

Thank you. Did I pronounce your last name right?

Okay, Dr. Jekyll.

I love it. Okay. All right, Mr. Jekyll. Thanks for joining us.

Thank you, Mr. Jekyll. Mr. Martinez, thanks for joining us.

housing within the state of Colorado Thank you Mr Martinez Questions for point T Yes Vice Chair Snyder Thank you Mr Chair I just want to thank Mr Martinez for your service I know how tough these can be. You serve without any compensation, and really appreciate you serving on the second most important housing board we have here in Colorado.

And, Mr. Martinez, you're vying to be on the board for the second year or like second term?

Second term. Okay. And how long are the terms?

Four years. Okay. Okay. Just one last question. And what did you learn in your first term that lessons learned that you'll take into the second term?

Excellent. Thank you, Mr. Martinez.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move to the full Senate with a favorable recommendation, the reappointment of James Martinez to the State Housing Board.

Senators Baisley? Excused.

Lindstedt? Aye.

Rich? Aye.

Mr. Chair? Aye. Aye. That passed on a vote of 5-0.

That's the proper motion. Seeing no objection, it will be added to the consent calendar. Congratulations. Thank you, Mr. Martinez.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. It an honor to be here with you and thank you members of the committee My name is Thomas Bryan I the executive director and CEO of the Colorado Housing and Finance Authority I think Senator Snyder referred to us as the leader The lead housing board in the state. All joking aside, we have a very strong working relationship with the Division of Housing and particularly the State Housing Board and appreciate the work and the collaboration with them. Today, we're bringing forward several candidates for appointment to CHAPA's Board of Directors. As a reminder, CHFA was created in 1973 by state statute to address the shortage of affordable housing in the state. It was in the early 80s when our statute was amended to allow us to invest not only in housing, but also economic development throughout the state. And so when we look for board members to serve on our board, we're looking for those individuals who bring expertise in those two areas, housing development and economic development, both of which in many cases of our state go hand in hand. So we're privileged to have this slate of candidates for you today. I'm going to let them introduce themselves, and we're happy to answer any questions

My name is Sylvia Werba. I reside in Boulder, Colorado, but I am almost a Colorado native. I was, I grew up in Cortez, Colorado. I went to Fort Lewis for my undergrad, and I'm a graduate of CU Law. And I work at a law firm where we primarily practice housing law. We work with tribes or what are known as tribally designated housing entities, and we work with public housing authorities. So I bring a different perspective to the CHFA board in that I'm looking at things from that legal angle, but I'm also thinking about the rural, you know, our coverage in rural communities, and I'm also kind of the cheerleader for any work that CHFA can do with tribes. So I, this, and this would be a reappointment for me.

It's Mr., but that's okay. It's Pat, so people get confused about it. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, committee members. I'm Pat Myers. I won't bore you with all of my history, but I was John Hickenlooper's chief of staff, and then I was the state's chief economic recovery officer under Governor Polis and the executive director of OEDIT. And in those roles, I worked quite a bit with CHFA and quite a bit on affordable housing. And so the governor asked me to think about joining the CHFA board as well as the Middle Income Housing Authority board. So I'm now on both, and I will see you all again next Thursday to get confirmed for Mia. But I'm happy to answer any questions about my involvement with CHAPHA or anything else.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. My name is Beth Klein. I am born and raised in Colorado. I have worked with First Bank as a lending officer for over 20 years now, I started out on the residential home lending side, worked quite a bit with first-time homebuyers, providing access to capital. I now oversee First Bank's community development lending programs to help kind of further drive affordable housing for our state. And thank you for the time.

Yes, Vice Chair Snyder. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you all. I have learned in my one year so far on the Chaffa board I learned a great deal from Ms Klein and certainly Mr Myers I looking forward to working with Ms Werba I have one question for Dr Bryan Do we have to notice this is a Chaffa board meeting?

You can answer. It's been properly noticed that we're going to be here today talking about appointments, But we're not conducting business, so no need to advertise a board meeting.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move to the full Senate with a favorable recommendation, the appointments of Pat Myers and Beth Klein and the reappointment of Sylvia Werba to the Colorado Housing and Finance Authority.

Ball? Aye.

Liston excused.

Snyder? Aye.

Mr. Chair, I recommend this go to the consent calendar.

Who would like to start first? Senator Liston, thanks for joining us. Very good, yes. It's been a hectic game, Mr. Chairman. I had to walk clear across the hall from the laugh bill. So anyways, Mr. Chairman and members of the local government and housing committee, thank you very much for the opportunity to present to you Senate Bill 98. Across Colorado, local officials work closely with residents, businesses, and event organizers to craft noise policies that reflect local values. These decisions involve thoughtful tradeoffs, supporting music venues, festivals, restaurants, and community events, while still protecting the peace and livability of nearby neighborhoods. Recent legal developments have created uncertainty about what role local governments have in regulating that activity. Senate Bill 98, which is my and Senator Ball's bill, is largely a restatement of current law and provides that much-needed clarity. It ensures that when a local government carefully evaluates an event or venue and issues a permit with appropriate sound conditions, that local judgment is respected. Importantly, Senate Bill 26-098 does not eliminate protections against unreasonable noise. Communities will continue to enforce their ordinances, set appropriate conditions, and respond to complaints. What it does is reaffirm that the officials closest to the people, locally elected leaders, like the city council, should have the tools and authority to manage these issues. We understand that you will hear testimony from individuals in Colorado Springs regarding the situation at the Ford Amphitheater. I represent Colorado Springs, and I understand and I empathize with these people and with that tension. but this bill preserves the ability for that conversation and the give and take to occur locally, I emphasize locally, both in Colorado Springs and the rest of the communities across the state. The alternative is an unreasonable one-size-fits-all that would diminish the ability of local governments to offer the civic and cultural events and entertainment citizens and businesses expect them to incentivize and to cultivate. We respectfully ask for a yes vote on Senate Bill 98, and now I will turn it over to my co-prime sponsor, Senator Ball.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Colleagues, in practice, the state of play in this state until two years ago was that there is a baseline state noise ordinance. That threshold is around 50 decibels, which is not too loud about the volume of a large lawnmower. But local governments could issue permits for exceptions to that ordinance. But that changed two years ago when the Colorado Supreme Court interpreted the statewide noise ordinance that was enacted over 50 years ago to say that local governments no longer had that authority. There were at least 23 of the 56 municipalities in this state over 1 people who had in practice and in statute permits that they could grant to have exceptions from that statewide noise ordinance I worked on the Denver noise ordinance when I worked for the city of Denver So I have firsthand experience with this type of thing And what I can say is that noise is really complicated I worked with the inspectors who did noise readings in Denver for places like the Levitt Pavilion. And it's a hard balance to strike between wanting to encourage arts and culture at different venues throughout a city, and also wanting to respect the fact that noise carries and it has an impact on people's daily lives. And that's what, in practice, every municipality did in the state until two years ago. And really what this bill does is it restores us back to what that practice was prior to Hobbs v. Salida to give the authority back to local governments to make these really location-specific local determinations of whether to grant exemptions above and beyond the baseline noise ordinance that we have as a state. I want to recognize, and I know we'll hear today, the residents from North Colorado Springs who I've heard from, I think everybody has heard from, who are here in the room. As someone who represents Denver, not a situation I was aware of before this bill. And my heart goes out to them. I've heard stories that frankly sound horrific. And I don't know both sides of this story. I think we'll hear from it today. but I'll just say, based on the information I know from Colorado Springs, I very much side with the residents who've had a Ford Amphitheater placed in a residential neighborhood with a sound that is way too loud. But at the end of the day, this bill isn't about any individual situation. It's not about any individual venue. It's about who has the authority to make a determination. and local government should have that authority not only because they have the expertise to deal with these really local, location-specific situations, but also because they're accountable to the people and they're accountable to local citizens who are impacted by noise. And so that's what this bill restores. We talk a lot about local control in this committee and at the end of the day, local control doesn't mean the local government will always make the right decision. What it means is that the local government will make the decision, and that is what this bill is about. So, colleagues, I encourage you to vote yes on this bill. Colorado has a really vibrant arts and culture and music scene. There are many things throughout the state. The Planet Bluegrass and Lions and Telluride is one that would not exist if it weren't for local permits that have allowed them to operate for years. And noise is not something that I think we need to regulate at the state level, or at least not beyond the baseline that we have. And I think it's important that we restore that power to local governments who can make determinations based on local situations like the ones that you'll hear about today.

Yes, Vice Chair Snyder. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, bill sponsors. If this bill were to pass, would that mean that the private right of action that's currently under the Noise Abatement Act be extinguished and no longer available to citizens?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senator Snyder. Yes, we do have a couple of good witnesses that can address your questions specifically. They'll be happy to do so and give a good clarification.

Senator Paisley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, gentlemen, senators, for bringing the bill.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Okay, I appreciate the response. How far does that extend? So when it comes to the Ford Amphitheater specifically, I'm imagining that the sound coming from there would go beyond whatever the representation is. Can you describe what that boundary might be?

Okay. Seeing no further questions, we'll move into our first panel. What we're going to do, we're going to alternate. We're going to start with those are in the support position, and then we'll alternate to opposition and back and forth. So the first panel, I'm going to call up Zach Tucker, Roland Orhalan Rogan, the mayor of Lions, and Christy Doan. And one more. No, we're going to put them in the room. Okay, we're just going to go with three. Okay. So who are we missing? I got that. I do. Okay. Thank you. Okay. We'll go with this two here. Is it Rogan, Mayor? Yes, Mr. Chair, Holly Rogan. Holly Rogan. Okay. Thanks for joining us. Oh, thank you. And before you begin, just so everybody knows, because of the number of witnesses that we have, we're going to limit the testimony to two minutes each, and so everybody has the opportunity to speak. So please, Mayor, thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today.

soon. Thank you, Mayor. Mr. Tucker, thanks for joining us. Good afternoon, Chair and members of the committee. I'm Zach Tucker. I'm the Vice President of Planet Bluegrass. We're a festival

Thank you, Mr. Tucker. Ms. Dune, thanks for joining us.

Ms. Dune, your time has expired. I need you to wrap up your comments.

Thank you very much. Committee, questions for this panel?

So, Mayor Rogan.

Mayor Rogan. Thank you for the question, Senator and former mayor. Oh. No, it doesn't change my mind, and here's why. We're very fortunate in Alliance that our citizens are extremely involved in the local government, and when we misstep, we hear about it. As Mr. Tucker mentioned, we had our chambers overflowing with people when we were discussing noise a few years ago. I am convinced that if there is a problem that the majority of our residents feel is untenable we will hear about it And no matter who the board is if it is a different board board members would be recalled if they didn address the issue I have no doubt about that. And so I really believe in local government, and I believe in our ability to make change for the benefit of our residents. Thank you.

Thank you, since I am on the committee. Mayor, thanks for being here. Could you possibly take us through your permitting process?

Do you set certain parameters and could you give us, enlighten us just a little bit about the process that you go through as the local government?

Senator Lister.

Mayor Rogan.

Thank you. Mr. Tucker, you want to weigh in on that?

Thank you. Senator Liston.

or event organizers could learn from your experience Mr Tucker Thank you I absolutely think so I think there a lot of events as a whole are so mutually beneficial to the towns and communities that they're in, and I think they need to be approached with that, you know, goal of supporting both and working together. And so I definitely think there's a lot that can be learned from how Lions is approached. I think we're a great proof point for that. Very good. Thank you.

And gentlemen, we go ladies first in this committee, so Ms. Fry, thanks for joining us. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good afternoon, members of the committee and Mr. Chair. My name is Danielle Fry, and I'm here to speak in opposition of Senate Bill 98. For more than 50 years, Colorado has recognized noise as an environmental pollutant with real impacts on public health and quality of life. Therefore, the Colorado Noise Abatement Act established objective statewide standards to protect all Coloradans. Senate Bill 98 would weaken those standards by allowing for-profit businesses to exceed statewide noise limits through local permits. But water and air quality standards don't allow local opt-outs for polluters, and noise pollution should be treated no differently. Because this bill concerns local authority, I want to share my experience with locally authorized permits. I'm a first-time homeowner living just under a mile from Ford Amphitheater in Colorado Springs. When I purchased my home, there were no plans for a large outdoor music venue to be built nearby. When the venue was proposed, my community raised concerns about noise, and we were assured the venue would operate and comply with already existing noise laws. However, after the amphitheater opened, the reality was very different. Even with doors and windows closed nearly a mile away, concert noise can be heard throughout my home's interior. The intrusive noise follows you room to room and you cannot escape it. Despite repeated pleading from residents, meaningful relief has not materialized. My community feels discouraged and betrayed by a local process that failed to uphold the commitments made to our community. What happened in my neighborhood should unfortunately be a cautionary tale. Senate Bill 98 would allow this to happen anywhere in Colorado. In conclusion, I want to address what I see as a false choice in this bill. We do not need to sacrifice basic protections for neighborhoods to make room for cultural growth. The arts and entertainment industry should not require removing protections for the very communities that it seeks to enrich. Consistent standards are not an obstacle to arts and culture. They are the framework that allows businesses and residents to coexist in a balanced way. I urge the committee to preserve the statewide noise protections in the Noise Abatement Act and vote no on Senate Bill 98. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. My name is John Dennison. I'm a Colorado Springs native, a business owner, and a veteran. I didn't live through deployment in Afghanistan with Senator Ball's unit, only to come back to my home zip code, pour my life savings into a home to raise my kids where I grew up, and my parents still reside, and then be unable to sleep in my own bed because of Corporate noise polluter is bullying my family and neighbors. You've heard one version of this bill from the army of paid lobbyists working to pass it before it is understood what it does and who it actually benefits. Today, my fellow Coloradoans and I have put our lives on hold to come tell you the truth. The truth is that this bill seeks to undo common sense, statewide environmental public health protection passed by bipartisan supermajorities that has worked for generations. The truth is that authentic local control already exists since municipal and non-profit events are fully exempt from existing noise limits. This bill is not about local control. It is about creating a for-profit loophole. The truth is that for-profits like Ford Amphitheater are currently harming residents with pollution thousands of percent above limits they promise to abide by. Rather than complying with the law, they are trying to weaken it. The truth is that the harm is real. People's lives are being invaded with harassing noise they cannot escape, and many of those are outside of city limits, and they don't get a vote. The truth is that this bill seeks to reopen a loophole closed by a unanimous Supreme Court decision months ago and pull the rug out from plaintiffs currently in court today seeking relief under that decision. The truth is that Colorado Springs and Salida prove why we don't punt basic pollution protection at localities. We wouldn't do this with our groundwater air quality, so why are we considering it here? The truth is that the harm experienced by these communities is just the beginning of what is coming, perhaps even in your district, if this bill is passed. We are the canaries in this pollution coal mine. The truth they may not want you to realize is that no-cost solution is available without this bill tomorrow to those for-profit polluters. Just turn the volume down. Regardless of the forces outside this room, I ask you today to stand for the everyday Coloradoans that are being harmed and stand up to a bill that would change Colorado forever. The truth shall set you free. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair and members of the committee. Good afternoon, Chair and members of the committee. My name is Matt Hobbs. I'm a Colorado resident and a local government attorney with about 25 years of experience throughout Colorado. I respectfully urge you to vote no on the bill. The bill does one important thing and one thing only. It weakens statewide protections to address a problem that only exists in a few communities in Colorado by allowing local governments to permit for-profit entities to exceed statewide noise limits. Under current law, local governments already have flexibility. They host concerts and nonprofit organizations hold concerts and festivals. Colorado law has always allowed those activities. Until now, however, the law has not allowed local governments to use permits to excuse private, for-profit venues from statewide residential noise limits, like the city of Salida did in my case, when it allowed a neighborhood bar to exceed statewide decibel limits by 3,000 percent, two to three times a week, from May through October. The General Assembly created statewide noise protections for a reason. When enacted the Noise Abatement Act in 1971, it recognized excessive noise threatens the serenity and quality of life of Colorado residents and cause real physiological and psychological harm. The statute established those guardrails. This bill removes them. Importantly, the existing framework has worked for decades. The Noise Abatement Act enacted in 1971 and added the non exemption in 1987 when Fiddler Green was built For nearly 40 years no one litigated this provision because most communities followed the law as written The recent cases, including mine, do not reflect a statewide problem that needs to be addressed. Most communities across Colorado have managed concerts, like you heard from Lions, and events responsibly under the existing law. My community shows why those state guardrails matter. I lived in my home for several years before the bar hosting these concerts even existed. After the city started receiving complaints from me and my neighbors, the city manager proposed limiting concerts to 18 events per year. Instead, based solely on the request of a single bar attempting to operate an outdoor live music venue in a small downtown, Salida City Council approved 60 concerts per season, roughly two to three times per week. If the city had adopted an 18 event limit, I would not be here today, nor would any of us. Some governments will exercise discretion and responsibility.

Thank you, Your Honor. I'm done.

Yeah, good afternoon, Chair Exum, Vice Chair Snyder, and committee members. I'm Colorado Springs City Councilman Dave Donaldson. I've served on City Council for five years. Thank you for listening to my comments today, asking you to continue to ensure state-level protection for all Coloradans from noise pollution, such as that from Ford Amphitheater in Colorado Springs. I was on Council when the development plan for Ford Amphitheater was approved, and we've heard about that a little bit today, and I have been there for all the subsequent frustration and disappointment suffered by citizens homeowners and neighborhoods who live up to five miles from the amphitheater. I am sure all of you on this committee have been in your car, stopped at a light when another vehicle with very loud booming bass pulls up somewhere around you and you can feel it in your car. How do you like it? How would you like that in your home for four or five hours, several days a week throughout the summer? That is what you are telling thousands of homeowners you are willing to subject them to if you vote yes on this. Why would you do that? rule? I'm a champion of home rule. I'm a city councilman. However, I have learned that in the case of noise pollution, home rule doesn't work. Noise pollution doesn't respect the boundary of the home rule entity. In the case of Ford Amphitheater, it leaks out into the county where hundreds, if not thousands of citizens have no municipal representation. Their quality of life is degraded by the decision of a mayor who they don't even get to vote on. These county citizens are told by their county commissioner there's nothing the commissioners can do because the amphitheater is in the city, not the county. A uniform standard such as currently exists in the Noise Abatement Act prevents this unfair situation. I implore you not to weaken these protections. Do not allow local governments to exempt for-profit businesses. The citizens you represent want and need these protections. Allowing local governments to exempt for-profit businesses will harm the citizens you represent. It will remove state protection for their families, their homes, and their neighborhoods.

I have a couple seconds. We all know the Colton rule. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Would you vote yes on this if it meant that you and your family would endure hours of unwanted noise in your home several nights a week?

I don't think so.

No longer active, but yes. Thank you for your service. Appreciate that greatly. Can you expand on something you said at the beginning of your talk? You mentioned something about the locals being, local municipalities, governments being exempt in some fashion. and I didn't quite catch that. Could you expand on that and help me understand that, please?

Yes. So, joined by attorneys that welcome to verify it. My understanding, Noise Abatement Act in force for 55 years. Municipal-sponsored events are exempt. If a city, a town, county wants to sponsor something, there are no noise limits. They are fully exempt under the current law today. No change is required. Same thing with the nonprofit exemption that Mr. Hobbs mentioned being added. So this is really a straw man about, hey, locals can't do events and we have to add this exemption. If the city, the municipalities want to put their name on it and take accountability for the noise, fully exempt today. Same thing with nonprofits. What we are talking about here is creating an exemption. It's cloaked. It's a cunning way of doing it. But it's an exemption for for-profits to enjoy that same immunity and keep the harm that we're experiencing at the hands of for-profit noise polluters. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to all the witnesses for being here. First, Mr. Denison, did you say you served in the same unit as Senator Ball?

So it's an interesting, it's a small world. Well, thank you both for your service. and then Ms. Fry, Mr. Dennison and Councilman Donaldson. I'm interested in hearing about the process that went for the approval that ultimately was granted by Colorado Springs. I've heard a lot of different stories, but I heard it was very well attended. Maybe hundreds of people attended those. Did there's a sense that people were listened to, that the city council took all of your concerns into consideration and fashioned a balanced result or different than that? Who would like to start?

Council Member Donaldson.

thank you councilman uh mr denison you want to weigh in adding briefly uh senator snyder the

Ms. Fry, did you want to respond?

Thank you. Senator? Got one more? Yeah. Okay. Vice Chair Snyder.

If the local government issues a permit, I would not have had the recourse that the Supreme Court afforded me in my case. And every local government is going to do it differently, like I said. Salida, they issue one permit. It's an administrative permit. There's no public input for events the entire summer long. I'm sorry.

That's okay. Thank you. One final question. So when you're dealing with these large for-profits, moneyed entities, whether it's Live Nation or Venue or some of these, two questions really. Do you think that that was, you say we were sold a bait and switch. Do you think it was always their plan all along, like once we build this and it's successful and it's a jewel in Colorado Springs crown, who's going to dare try to shut us down once we've already established there? And I have a second question.

Yeah, in the Colorado Springs example, Senator Snyder, My lived experience and honest opinion is that this was a first developer building a first amphitheater ringed by 25 pre residential population I don think these folks understood noise understood what they were doing and ultimately I think they drank their own Kool And they now living with continuing invasive harm and are being asked to change the law instead of comply with the law that was in place at the time So I think this entire situation we're living through right now is just one more cascading domino of that original malfeasance and failure to appropriately plan. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. First, Mr. Denison, it's good to see you, Committee Member of Senator Snyder. I hope the fact that we have similar backgrounds is something that you don't hold against, Mr. Denison. But thank you for coming. And Council Member Donaldson, I want to thank you also for being here and for being a good representative to your constituents. I think this is a good example of what good local representation looks like, so I appreciate you coming here. To your point about the mayor and exclusive authority in Colorado Springs. Is that something the council can take back? I mean, is there anything stopping council from passing an ordinance to remove that power from the mayor?

Yes, Senator Liston.

City Councilman Donaldson. Thank you, Senator Exum. I have brought that up. I'm ready to vote on that tomorrow. However, I'm one of nine votes, and the owners of the amphitheater, J.W. Roth, to name a name, seem to have quite a lot of support on city council. He does donate to campaigns, and he does offer his, he invited all of city council for the opening night at the amphitheater. Most went. They had a free concert there. They had a great time. I didn't attend it. So what their motivation is or why they won't do it, I don't know. What I do know is after this unanimous Supreme Court decision, the citizens, our fellow Colorado Springs citizens, three of us here are from Colorado Springs, thought they had an answer for this. They thought they had a solution. This bill, if it passes, pulls that out from under their feet.

Yes. It's just, well, and I, once again, I can fully appreciate where you're coming from, but you say you're one of nine. Well, I'm one of 35 or two of 35. You know, we have a real process here. I would strongly encourage you, because you are well-respected, to, rather than just, I won't say roll over, but, you know, that's what we have to do here is that we have to pass legislation, and we have to convince our colleagues, you can be very persuasive. I would suggest before that we allow one size fits all, I would encourage you to go back to your other eight colleagues and see what you can do. You know, as far as one size fits all, a bluegrass festival, I don't think that's going to have the same acoustic impact as a hard metal band playing at the Ford Amphitheater. I'd say there's a problem here if you say, hey, Dave, go get those other eight and plus the mayor to change the rules down there. I honestly don't think I'll be able to do that. In a city, on a city council election, a large donor can have significant influence.

Okay. Thank you all for your time. Appreciate it. Okay, we're going to go to our next panel. This panel is in support. Ms. Smith, if you'll pull up online R.W. Winston and Angela Winston. And in person, Don Strasburg and Shawnee Allison. Okay, we'll start with those in person. Ms. Adelson, am I saying that right?

Thank you, Director. Ms. Strasburg, thanks for joining us. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Ms. Strasburg. Now we'll go online to Ms. Angela Winston. Are you online? hi there can you hear me we can thank you for joining us great thank you very much for the

Thank you, Ms. Whiston. Ms. Doinsen, or did you go by TW? Yes.

Thank you, Mr. Winston. Committee questions for this panel.

Mr. Strasburg. I would, of course, like to see some revisions to the state codes. However, the individual municipalities are the arbiters of their community. You're downtown Denver in a vibrant entertainment district that's bustling at one in the morning. Their needs and their perspective is completely different than being in Telluride, Colorado. Um, so inherently I, I think it's just so nuanced, especially in our state that it's such a nuanced state. Um, my biggest concern today is that the interpretation of the law is clear that we can continue to do business. And now the Hobbs situation has put doubt into even our basic ability to operate as we have for 50 years. I believe this bill clears that up.

Senator Liston.

We would start with the authority that owns that property, which depends on each community's, in the case of Red Rocks, for instance, it's a city-owned facility, but they have a division that handles its state-of-day activity. So it depends, but it would be, I guess, a state-owned jurisdiction or a city-owned jurisdiction. So, Senator Liston.

Not each and every time. It depends on the situation. Sometimes it's a yearly agreement. These things are relatively in stone because of the volume. But, yeah, there's a discussion on whose responsibilities are what. It depends on every venue. Uh, if you're recently, we did some concerts, uh, on city of Denver property. That's under the I 70 bridge. Nobody had ever done a show there before or not right there. So we did an event, uh, at the 16th street mall when it was opening downtown. That was the first time. It took a little more work to go through all the nuances of that. Red Rocks does so many concerts. It's pretty set in stone.

Mr. Strasburg. The decibel levels we have to live within are either arranged by the preexisting exemptions that are created for that venue. The concern we have today is that's a contract between the venue. We as a third-party operator, it's not clear if we are actually protected by that. Thank you.

Thank you. I'm not an expert on that Supreme Court ruling. My understanding is that it prevents the locals from being able to make an exemption for anything above what allowable in the state statute And that my understanding of that Supreme Court ruling But again I not an expert on that So I happy Senator Baisley to get you more information on that

Senator Baisley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll just, I have it on my screen here, but I'm not an attorney either, which seems silly because we make laws, you know. I'm just going to read this one sentence here that makes it all confusing to me. The majority concludes that the plain language of Section 25, 12, 103, state statute, the majority concludes that the plain language of the state statute provides municipal entities, such as the city of Salida with the authority to issue amplified noise permits to private entities to hold cultural, entertainment, athletic, or patriotic events, including but not limited to concerts and music festivals on the permittees' property. So I'm scratching my head to understand what the impact is. So if we get any good expertise on the law subsequent to you guys, I would sure appreciate knowing.

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, my name is Dale Denniston, also a veteran. I'm here on behalf of myself, speaking in opposition to Senate Bill 98. Slide two on my handout. We have heard arguments today that elections will keep local governments accountable if we just give them this new Noise Abatement Act exemption in this bill. It ain't so, and here's why. I'm one of more than the 7,000 people who reside in the portion of unincorporated El Paso County just north of the Ford Amphitheater. We, too, continue to have our lives disrupted by amphitheater noise pollution. However, we are in a catch-22. The city will not take a complaint from a county address. The county will not take a complaint with the noise source being in the city. the county commissioners are no help because they have no jurisdiction over the amphitheater in the city we have no voice so the argument that elections will enforce the local governments, it's not happening. The only thing we do have is the protection provided by the state NAA private right of action to abate a public nuisance. If Senate Bill 98 is enacted, this makes things even worse for us. In spite of what the co-sponsors just said, the bill's new for-profit exempted class, there would be no limits to amphitheater noise pollution levels, durations, or frequencies of events that the city could permit. The actual language is, which permit or license may be more or less restrictive than this Article 12. That's page 3 of the Bill, line 1. The NAA's private right of action will be eliminated for the for-profit exempted class. We are currently using that right of action to abate the Ford Amphitheater's public nuisance in district court. Slide three. Senate Bill 98, election arguments makes no sense to us in the county. We have no access to elections that would make a difference in the amphitheater's noise regulation. The bill would also exempt the amphitheater from the NAA, thus ending our private right of action. We think this bill was introduced likely by design to remove our right to do this.

Greetings, Mr. Chairman. It's the button on your left there. There you go. Is it going now? Okay. Greetings, Mr. Chairman and committee members. I'm Dr. Murray Routh. I oppose Bill 98. As a citizen who relocated because of Colorado Springs' failure to regulate Ford Amphitheater's noise, it concerns me that this bill trivializes the public health adverse effects of noise. Noise is not just an annoyance. It is linked to sleep disturbance, stress, anxiety, and cardiovascular risk. This issue should not be regarded as a popularity contest supporting patio music at a favorite bar. This is a significant matter of public health. This bill undermines state-established public health protections by creating a permit-based opt-out scheme which waives statewide standards. It effectively authorizes creation of a public nuisance, overrides informed health-based guidelines, violates citizens' property rights to quiet enjoyment of their homes, and unconstitutionally delegates unlimited regularity for authority to cities allowing arbitrary decisions without any clear standards. Local control is not infallible. City governance often fails. When this happens, people get hurt. Local permits render segments of the population vulnerable and without recourse. Citizens depend on state law to provide accountability when local measures fail. This bill defeats the original intent of uniform statewide public health noise law. If residents lose state law protections, disputes may move into the arena of nuisance lawsuits, property damage claims, and constitutional claims,

Thank you, Mr. Fry. committee questions for this panel.

Okay. Seeing no further questions, thank you all for your time. Appreciate it. Okay, so this is the next panel? Yeah. Okay. Okay, our next panel is in support. Jeff T., I'm not going to butcher your last name there. Nathan Newborough and Bob Gunn. I think Jeff is online, okay. Jeff Thermos Guard. Thermos Guard. Thermos Guard. Okay. Thank you. That's how you pronounce it. Okay. And do we have Bob Gunn and Nathan Newborough? Okay. Okay. Are you Mr. Gunn?

Okay.

It's rather been an extensive assessment with professional acousticians on all sides of the discussion that resulted in a great deal of collaboration and ultimately controls that were placed upon the ongoing use of this facility. It was an extensive process taking over a year from the first filing until complete. We included a holding many direct engagements with concerned citizens, culminating in a 500-person non-compulsory meeting that we held at our indoor music venue based in northern Colorado Springs. The planning commission, which considered this, and under which there were pretty material changes during that process, I think at the time was the longest planning commission in the history of Colorado Springs, as it took 11 hours, that then went to city council, where city council approved with limitations with an 8-1 vote. At each stage of the process, there was extensive and expensive changes to the controls in the facility, and a full redesign after our initial engagement with the public before we submitted for our final development plan. This very defined live monitoring, which has also been progressive. As was mentioned here, we agreed initially to detection instruments at the edge of the development. After the first season, through collaboration with the local city, which we talked to on a very regular basis considering the feedback that we're getting, For this last season, we placed detection devices in the areas, the neighborhoods, where the greatest number of complaints were from origin. And we made very specific commitments as to the noise levels at those individual assessment devices. We have an annual assessment and a permitting process that is ongoing, that is fully in the control of the hands of the mayor and his staff that was given to him by the City Council of Colorado Springs. We believe this is the best way to balance public interest given the arts, given the economic impact of which this will relate to a billion dollars in Colorado Springs over the first 10 years, and of public interest, of course. And we appreciate your consideration for this bill.

You got that right, Mr. Jeff? Yes, sir. Good enough.

Absolutely. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Jeff Thorman-Skart and I represent the Colorado Springs Chamber and Economic Development Corporation. Our organization works together to strengthen the regional economy and support the employers and workers who drive it. From our perspective, Senate Bill 98 is fundamentally about economic stability, local decision making, and business certainty. Live entertainment venues are not simply cultural amenities. They are significant economic drivers for our communities across Colorado. Events bring visitors who spend money in hotels, restaurants, retail businesses, and transportation services. In Colorado Springs venues like our outdoor amphitheater attract visitors who spending support local jobs and generate important sales and lodging tax revenue for the city While many of these venues are publicly owned it is the private businesses that actually produce the events. Promoters, operators, production companies, and hospitality partners invest capital, take financial risk, and employ the workforce that makes live entertainment possible. The recent Hobbs and Slida decision introduced uncertainty in how these long-standing public private partnerships are treated under state law. That uncertainty matters. When legal framework becomes unclear, companies become hesitant to invest, plan events, or expand operations in Colorado. At its core, Senate Bill 98 helps restore clarity while preserving local control. Communities will continue to decide how venues operate and how sound is managed locally. What the bill does is ensure that legal framework for those decisions is clear and consistent statewide. For communities that rely on tourism, hospitality, and events as a part of their economic base, the clarity is important. For those reasons, the Colorado Springs Chamber and EDC respectfully supports this bill. Senate Bill 98. Thank you.

Thank you very much. My name is Nathan Newborough. I'm the CEO of the Colorado Springs Philharmonic, and I'll have some mercifully short comments for you. First of all, the Colorado Springs Philharmonic is the oldest symphony in Colorado. We employ 77 musicians. We play to an audience of 75,000 a year, and we do about 50 concerts a year, to give you a sense of our scale. On our $5 million budget, the estimated economic impact is around $12 million a year. For 50 years, over 50 years, we've performed outdoors for the 4th of July here in Colorado Springs, surrounded by neighborhoods. And that has been a successful event, and we continue to do that now. Through my experience, I've come across issues of having to do with decibel levels. And I believe there's a large misunderstanding of how decibels work. I am not a scientist, but I can tell you that the science does tell me that 50 decibels is about the equivalent of a quiet office or an electric toothbrush heard from several feet away. So not very loud at all. I will say that this issue is not really about the Ford Amphitheater, although that is a concern for many. But I think that local control is about trusting the leaders to make the right call. And we believe that's especially important here in Colorado Springs. And losing local control, especially in an issue like this, means putting our musicians and our cultural scene at risk. and that really can't be tolerated. So homeowners all the same really should have recourse, and that recourse should be with our local elected officials. So I'm grateful for your time, and I urge you to vote a clear yes on Senate Bill 98. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For anyone on the committee here, you might understand that without this bill becoming law, there's not a way for a private venue to get permit to exceed 50 decibels? Who would like to take that?

I'm not a legal expert. We do have some in the room, but that would be my understanding.

Also not an expert on permitting.

I would defer to the lawyers.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mud, yes.

Mud in my ears.

You were testifying that you have negotiations with the City Planning Committee Commission as well as the mayor. If this bill does not pass, who would you be able to negotiate? Would you have to still negotiate with local authorities? Or if there was a problem, who would you speak to up in Denver or Boulder or Littleton? Who would you have recourse to?

Yes. The assumption from where I sit would be it would have to be someone at the state level. And I think understanding the nature in which we have collaborated with the city, giving some specific examples where I know there were some claims of exceeding our commitments, but we were fully compliant in our first year to the commitments that we made. And even after our first year when we sat down with the city and collaborated, considering both the support of many tens of thousands of ticket buyers and the complaints that were received, where they were received from and the nature, then you made a commitment to a $3 million additional sound abatement strategy to continue to improve what we call being a good neighbor. That is best done when it is handled at the local level. And that is an ongoing, rigorous conversation that takes place. I would also add that 100% of our measurements, which are required to be provided by a third party and are through actuated devices and have to consider the ambient noise. If you were to sit here today, the noise at many of the neighborhoods that we're talking about is in excess of 55 dBs, which is the standard code, just from a function of traffic. So having local understanding of both the code and its application is really critical to this being a vibrant opportunity statewide.

Setting aside how we feel, that's what we've done. I've met with county commissioners. I have met extensively with city staff. We have made material changes even after our initial approval that, frankly, under the approval was not required. We deem to be a good neighbor. We are a tenant in the community that is viewed as a great value. And we would fully embrace sitting down with both commissioners and as we have done with the city of Colorado Springs.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Mudd, I'm still trying to get my arms around all of this. If the passing and signing into law of Senate Bill 98 is required to or a private venue to exceed 50 or 55 what it is decibels then how has that been happening How is it how has because that what we hearing from folks who have testified already in text messages that I receiving that it has been way beyond 55 decibels, so how could that happen if 98 has not already passed into law?

I can give an understanding, and some of this is a layman, as I am not an attorney. deciphering all of that, but the language that we relied upon had as a permittee or a licensee. We assumed ourselves as a permittee. We went through a lengthy, expensive public process that was approved by the City of Colorado Springs. The judgment that was made is that that didn't qualify for the exemptions under which we made nearly a hundred million dollars of investment from our company. And so our desire is to bring clarity to that law so that we can operate with surety.

Still scratching my head, Mr. Chairman. Okay.

Thank you.

Yes.

Okay. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. Can you pull that mic a little closer to you? Okay. Thank you. Okay. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Shirley Dale, and I'm testifying in opposition to proposed SB 26098. This bill is being framed as a local control vibrant communities tweak to the 1971 Colorado Noise Abatement Act. The NNA established limits for noise and defined excessive noise as the vitamin of pollution that harms public health. For over 50 years, this law protected all residents in all of Colorado from noise pollution and provided a legal remedy when established noise limits were exceeded. Public trust in vibrant communities depend on consistency and proportionality at all levels of government, including state and local. So when local politicians and their highly paid lobbyists wage a ferocious assault on a longstanding and effective law, especially in line of unanimous Hobbs' Colorado Supreme Court decision, skepticism about the proposed bill is not cynical. It's just plain common sense. Speaking as one who has experienced firsthand the damaging effects of unfettered noise pollution, I would say that a large dose of skepticism is warranted, especially since local government currently has the ability to stage events to maintain the cultural vibrancy of their communities Decisions about environmental protection should be based upon science not local politics and rhetoric All Coloradans have the right to know that all environmental protections are treated with the same degree of concern and that they apply to everyone. Individual for-profit amphitheaters are given special exemptions, a silly heightened skepticism and mistrust. To the average Coloradans, this looks like special interest groups that work for themselves and their cronies, not the people that they are elected to represent. You have a copy of a petition of over 400 signatures voicing opposition to the bill, and also a brief bibliography about the harms of noise pollution, broken into categories like metabolic disease, wildlife, and reduced cognition in children. Hopefully this information will be a counterpoint to information you've heard that may have minimized the health impacts of noise pollution. In closing, I respectfully ask that you oppose this bill.

That's okay. I've got to go through this anyway. It's just a little bit. All right.

Good afternoon and thank you for the opportunity to speak today. My name is Mariana Bailey and I'm here today as a mother in a strong opposition of SB26 In 2006, my family moved to Glen Eagle, just outside the city limits of Colorado Springs in El Paso County, because it was a quiet, peaceful community. We chose Colorado because of its peaceful neighborhoods and the quality of life it offers families. We were searching for a safe place where our son could feel calm, protected, and truly at home. My son has level 3 autism, a rare genetic disorder called 18p deletion, severe sensory processing disorder, and multiple other medical conditions. The world is already overwhelming for him. Everyday sounds that most of us barely notice can feel painful or distressing to him. For my son, what feels like normal noise to most people can feel like chaos inside his body. So we built his world carefully. Inside our home, we created a string and sensory room, a place where he could regulate, breathe, feel secure, and have some independence. For many years, our neighborhood supported that peace. It was predictable, stable, quiet. It was my son's safe place. But about two years ago, that suddenly changed. Concert music from more than two miles away now reaches our home. We're not even living in the city. This is not just faint music in the distance. It is heavy bass that vibrates through the walls and into our home. Sudden bursts of sounds that shake the air. unpredictable waves of noise that sent my son into distress. Our anxiety begins long before the first song ever starts because we never know how loud it will be or how it will affect our son. There are times when we leave our home for the entire weekend just to escape the noise, even when we had already other plans. That is something we simply cannot do during the week because our granddaughters have school And as SB 98 is approved we know we would not be the only family in Colorado who could face this

Okay, can I just say one small area?

what I will never forget is the night it suddenly became very loud in our house at first I thought my son turned the TV and tablet on but when I checked the camera in his swing in San's room I was shocked at what I saw my son had his ears covered and he was shaking we don't have a safe place for him anymore and even with If this law gets approved, even when we move, we might never have a safe place, because the noise can follow us wherever.

Sure, Steve. Steve.

Very good.

Chairman and members of the committee, I'm Steve Shonis, the legislative director for and past state commander for the Veterans of Foreign Wars. here in Colorado. So on behalf of the 20,000 men and women of the Veterans of Foreign Wars Colorado and its auxiliary, thank you for the opportunity to provide our position on SB 98. The Veterans of Foreign Wars history dates back to right here at the state capitol where in 1899, a group of soldiers of the Spanish-American War and the Philippine insurrection from around the country founded the VFW. While our legacy and concerns are many, they're straightforward and amid aimed at improving the quality of life of military veterans, their families, and survivors. We believe this must be the priority of the state legislature and the federal government. The Veterans of Foreign Wars opposes SB 98. So with Hobbs and the city of Salida, that the Supreme Court, of course, clarified the local governments may not permit for-profit entities. So rather than comply with that ruling, SB 98 appears designed to weaken the underlying law, and 98 does not address the outdated policy. It addresses noncompliance. So unfortunately for some high volume commercial operators have tried to work around the law by borrowing the municipal exemptions of short term leases, show nonprofits or even broad home rule agreements and arguments that the results are unfair. In some neighborhoods, people remain protected by state law, while others' residents are repeatedly subject to the high sound level that events disrupt families, hurt those with tinnitus, deepen the wounds caused by PTSD, and make those who suffer from a traumatic brain injury lead to cognitive fatigue, causing raw pain, mental exhaustion, and those harmed to domestic animals and disturbed wildlife, and reduce the quality of life for property values and property values. So please, no vote for SB98 or even PI it. Please.

Colorado.

Your time has expired. Okay, cool. I'm ready for questions.

Thank you, Chairman and Committee. I'm Chris Kane. Please vote no on 98. I'd like to start by commenting on earlier in this proceeding today, we closed that window due to a car alarm. It was disrupting our discussion. Imagine if that goes on for four to five hours, and it goes on multiple times a week, and when you close that window, you can't escape the noise. That is small in comparison, and that was quiet. The Ford Amphitheater was recently built next to us, and the impact has been substantial on my family. We are bombarded with constant excessive noise pollution up to 70 decibels, not just 50, from pounding music, profanity from lyrics, and the PA system between songs. During a Godsmack concert, we got to listen to, in my house, profanities such as Better F'n Go Away, and another concert, F the police. This is not acceptable. And all this while inside our home with doors and windows closed for four to five hours, each concert and on school nights. I also want to say we are a mile and a quarter away. Think how loud that has to be. And there is no venue monitoring in our neighborhood, suspiciously because we are at higher elevation above their walls. My wife, a teacher, needs to be asleep by 8.30 and up at 5.30. She can't sleep with concerts going on until 11. It disrupts our children's studies, our jobs, and impacts the children that she teaches. Our child suffers from anxiety and depression, and we had to move their room to the basement to help them try to escape the constant intrusive noise. Please put yourself in our shoes. We face being forced from our home of 24 years. We are not unique, evidenced by 1,700 city noise complaints, multiple petitions, city council recalls, formal HOA requests, city meetings, and countless residents pleading our mayor to enforce the state law. Hundreds of families and thousands of residents are impacted, and nothing has changed.

Thank you. This is about developers building open-air concert venues and trying to circumvent recent Hobbs' decision and avoid litigation. It is nothing more than that. Please help my family and others being harmed. Do the ethical thing.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So I think I'm finally able to articulate what's been kind of floating around bothering me here. What changes if Senate Bill 98 is signed into law? Because it sounds like the issue exists already, that you're expressing concern of something that already exists. So how would the passing of Senate Bill 98 change and make that better? I don't understand.

Our private right of action gets eliminated. So with the Hobbs ruling, we're able to lean on the state law. That's our last recourse.

In answer to your question, absolutely nothing would change. We would continue having noise. We would continue hearing drunk on a plane in our bedroom at night when we're sleeping. The following year, we would hear props of Jupiter in our bedroom after $3 million in mitigation efforts.

Continue the exact same thing just being ignored and ignored and hearing the pounding against the walls Okay Thank you I've seen enough other questions.

Okay. My name is Janine Sleds, and I have experienced local government overriding the state, county, and city rule of 50 decibels from 7 p.m. to 7 a.m. I live 1.3 miles north of the open-air Ford Amphitheater, also known as Venue, in Colorado Springs. The venue is located in a small commercial area, smack dab in the middle of many long-established neighborhoods. Our mayor granted noise variances for each concert season. Concert season lasts six months, seven days a week, with concerts ending at 11.30 p.m. on weekends and 11 p.m. on weeknights. Many have routinely experienced the inability to enjoy our backyards, to have the windows open on nice days, nice evenings, being jolted from sleep, and even sleep deprivation. We cannot escape the noise in and around our own homes. Would you like that experience? Excuse me, are you listening? At a city council meeting, the owner of the venue was asked why he could not just turn the volume down. He said, and I quote, Well, certain bands have certain requirements. His promised mitigation efforts were ineffective. Sound walls are effective only to hundreds of feet. The noise literally has been heard seven miles away, not five. A sister amphitheater currently being built in McKinney, Texas, which is a pretty flat area, will have a roof on it. The venue in Colorado Springs does not. My area is up a hill to the north of the venue. Prevailing winds in the warmer months are from the south, which carries sound waves up the hill unimpeded. This is how I was subjected to the Beach Boys as if they were right on my deck outside my kitchen at 10.30 p.m. when I'm trying to sleep. The current law establishing noise limits is very pragmatic and effective in protecting the fundamental rights of people of all ages to enjoy their homes without being subjected to highly disruptive, unwanted, inescapable noise. We want businesses to be successful for the health of our economy, but not at the expense of hijacking our evenings and disrupting our lives. We should not change the law to accommodate businesses. They need to operate within the current law like all citizens.

I need to do something. On your left there. There you go. Thank you. Sorry. My name is Mary Bruning. I am a retired Colorado public school speech pathologist and a 47-year Colorado resident. The stated goal of this bill is to return control over noise abatement issues to local municipalities What is currently happening in Colorado Springs around the Ford Amphitheater represents a colossal failure of a local municipality to protect citizens from real and measurable harm from noise. The saga of the amphitheater demonstrates without a doubt why the citizens of Colorado absolutely need the statewide protection that the Noise Abatement Act, as it is currently written, affords. Noise travels. The Colorado Springs City Council approved the amphitheater project over widespread local opposition, largely around noise concerns, after being told by the developer that sound would not go above 48 decibels. The developer then proceeded to turn around and secure from the mayor's office a noise hardship waiver that allowed him to exceed that limit on every single concert night. The vote to approve the amphitheater and the waiver came from municipal officials. However, thousands of citizens outside of these boundaries are impacted. I live in El Paso County. I am not able to vote in municipal elections, and yet I am suffering because of the decision city officials made. Please understand that I use the word suffering purposefully to describe my own experience with the amphitheater noise. Exposure to unwanted loud noise increases cardiovascular risk, stress, anxiety, and sleep disruption. Noise destroys the sense of one's own home as a safe haven. I have personally experienced each of those impacts, and I am far from alone. Hundreds of complaints about amphitheater noise routinely come from neighborhoods miles away. I am at just under four miles from the amphitheater. Noise is not respectful of municipal boundaries. Please keep current noise protections in place for the benefit of all Coloradans. Thank you for your time.

My name is Betty Weiss. I've lived in Colorado over 30 years. I live in my current home, and I've lived there for 30 years. I live in the northwest end of Black Forest. And among all the ponderosa trees, I have a little bit of acreage there, so it's very quiet. Since you're bringing up the Ford Theater, I will too. I've been affected by it, even though I live almost four miles away. And even if I close my windows, I can still hear noises coming from the theater. I just, I don't know what this bill would do. I think it would even limit more state, well, I guess it would eliminate the state statute here. I don't know. I would like that clarified for me. But the statute falls under public health and environment. And I think that some people are very affected by the noise noise pollution and other people just find it annoying And I just can see any changes made to this statute that would help improve the general public's well-being. And I concur with Mr. Donaldson completely. I'm kind of left out of the loop because I'm in the county. So that's all I have to say. I hope you vote no on this.

Mr. Chair, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak today. My name is Cheryl Hobbs, living in District 9, Northwest Colorado Springs. I'm here in opposition to Senate Bill 98, specifically to the bill's proposal that the current state standards for limits on noise are able to be voided by local government. I believe that most people are in favor of local control as a concept. Colorado's communities have different needs and expectations. I think that's a direct quote from one of you, actually. However, public health, environmental, medical, and mental health experts call out unwanted amplified noise as biological stressors. Do the adverse effects of noise belong in the same bucket of local control as school calendars, vehicle camping, bike lanes, and parking spaces? Doesn't our shared human biology call for dedicated protection, even over the loud voices of corporate interests? Voting yes for Senate Bill 98 promotes the unequal application of the very standards designed to prevent harm. For many, it will steal quality of life, sometimes multiple times a week, for five and six months of the year. Colorado has adopted many laws and guidelines to protect our general well-being. a desired quality of life and the way we want to live with one another. Senate Bill 98 does the opposite in answering the call instead, only from a few entrepreneurs. I am asking that you carefully consider what is actually creating the imperative for this bill and whether your vote will be for the well-being of Coloradans or for the interests of a few business owners who have somehow positioned themselves as providing essential services. Are the communities you represent really clamoring for a bill that permits harmful increases in ambient noise? Please do not hear my opposition as opposing the presence of the amphitheater itself. My family loves the convenience of the nearby theater, and we have attended and enjoyed several performances. We also value, though, the freedom to choose the type, the timing, and the magnitude of our musical experiences. And we believe others deserve the same freedom. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. My name is Sarah Fallis. I'm asking you to oppose SB 98. I'm a resident in Colorado Springs. I live one mile from the Ford Amphitheater. The zip code of 80921 contains 25,000 residents. Two years ago, the Ford Amphitheater built its venue in close proximity to our preexisting neighborhoods. The decibel levels from the Ford Amphitheater have been an issue since its opening. It regularly exceeds the state limits. This venue has ignored state noise limits for two years, flooding longstanding residential neighborhoods with harmful noise pollution. The Ford Amphitheater is currently being sued, as we've discussed. They want this bill to permit its noise pollution. Our case in Colorado Springs is a prime example why local governments should not have the authority to establish their own standards. A special hardship permit was given that doesn't uphold the current NAA. I have expressed my concerns of decibel readings that have spiked up to 70 on my back deck. City council members, I've been emailed. The mayor has been emailed. I have lost control of my living environment. From my home, I can hear the bass through the mattress when I lay down to sleep. I have seen my picture window bow with the music. It distorts music, pours over my deck and into my home. Friends in my neighborhood have moved due to the stress and anxiety. They also have had negative impact on their pets. It has driven others to take anxiety medicines. At the Council meeting, others have shared how their family members with PTSD and sensory disabilities have been adversely affected. We need to keep these same statewide baseline protections against harmful noise pollution. This allows statewide public health protection and standards to protect our residential communities. Please oppose State Bill 98.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. I'm Dr. Sally Barron, a retired college professor representing myself, and I'm here to oppose Senate Bill 98. Our family has lived on the unincorporated north side of Colorado Springs for 26 years, and we have wonderful neighbors. They are engineers, professors, teachers, active-duty military, retired veterans, including my husband, doctors, nurses, firefighters, police, chefs, waitresses, and so many others who work shifts in hospitals, firehouses, pharmacies, restaurants, day and night, weekends and holidays. Some are even astronauts and pilots and business people at the top of their professions. Some of us might be performing your next surgery or flying your next commercial flight. We need our sleep as well as our peace and quiet. Sound is complicated. Its waves bend, bounce and echo, traveling through matter and into our homes and our bodies. Fort Amphitheater has been emanating noise exceeding state limits, causing our windows to vibrate, disturbing our sleep, hurting our pets, and causing a gigantic nuisance. Local Colorado Springs government has not protected citizens against this illegal activity. Leaving noise control to local governments often creates a conflict of interest as cities see new businesses for tax revenue and jobs Just as with all pollution sound does not recognize city county or even state borders To eradicate a state limit shows a profound lack of understanding of the problems with noise and sound waves. Research has long established that noise harms people both mentally and physically. According to Harvard studies, noise pollution drives hearing loss, tinnitus, cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, mental health, and cognition problems, childhood learning delays, low birth weight, and dementia. It can also affect hearing in your unborn child. More complex than just volume, one study reveals the monotony of repetitive beats combined with sudden jarring interruptions induced confusion, heightened anxiety, and stress responses in the brain. Noise also adversely affects pets and wildlife. For quality of life, the health and safety of all Coloradans, the 1971 Noise Abatement Act needs to remain in place. Please vote no on Senate Bill 98. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and committee members. My name is Rose Johnston, and I oppose SB 26098. I am a self-employed person and a 37-year homeowner in Colorado Springs. My business is in my home. My workday starts in late afternoon, and my livelihood depends on intense concentration, meeting client deadlines, and basic rest. Since August 2024, I have had close to 40 firsthand experiences on why this bill should not be approved. Two miles away and 240 feet lower from my home, the noise from an amphitheater parked itself in my home. The combination of discordant instruments and vibrations are like someone incessantly thumping on your chest and on your head. People here will talk about, oh, 50 decibels, it's like our conversation, or it's like your toothbrush. Who wants their electric toothbrush following them around for a couple of hours? Not me, maybe not you. Closed windows and earplugs were useless defenses. The noise caused me anxiety, fatigue, and impacted the quality and timeliness of my work. I have also been left with the great sadness that my home is no longer my refuge. The 1971 Noise Abatement Act guaranteed a consistent level of protection for noise pollution for all residents. In 1987, an amendment increased noise caps for government and nonprofit venues, which by definition truly served the interest of emphasis all residents. The bill would significantly weaken existing law and create two classes of citizens, those with permits to impose noise and those without. The bill would also replace a fair and statewide rule with one where localities could impose noise on each other and residents would have no recourse in either locality. The situation has in fact already happened. Noise from the amphitheater hits my home in an unincorporated area where I have no council or mayor representation. It's been reported from Monument and Palmer Lake as well. We can't control the wind, terrain or weather, but event operators can control the sound they emit to comply with the noise counts. I know that I'm just about out of time here, so I'm going to wrap it up.

The quiet enjoyment of our homes is essential to our health, livelihoods, and to the well of those who rely on us Please keep our statewide noise protections in place Vote no on the bill Otherwise all in all it seems to me that the statute itself should be renamed to the Noise Propagation and Intensification Act. Thank you for your time.

Yeah, can you hear me okay? We can. Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, fellow committee members. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. I'm sharing with you first as a Colorado citizen and second as a homeowner who has been severely impacted by the noise pollution of the Ford Amphitheater here in Colorado Springs. My home is located three quarters of a mile north of the amphitheater and established 23-year-old single family residential development. And I've been living in that development since 2007. Here are my primary concerns regarding why I oppose SB 26-098. This bill is more than a policy disagreement. It is a question about whether Colorado maintains statewide standards that protect residents from environmental pollution, or whether those protections can be selectively dismantled. This bill would remove statewide pollution standards versus local carve-outs, including a rollback of statewide environmental protections currently restricted by the Noise Abatement Act of 1971. Residents will lose uniform protection under statewide law, replaced by an uneven patchwork driven by special interest, political pressure, and local influence. The Colorado Supreme Court and the Hobbs v. City of Salida decision warned against broad exemptions that would swallow the rule. SB 26-098 would create a new class of exemptions from the Noise Abatement Act of 1971. For-profit entities could receive permits from local governments that bypass Noise Abatement Act statewide noise limits, with no limits on the loudness, duration, or frequency of events. If for-profits like the Ford Amphitheater become exempt from the Noise of Bateman Act of 1971, residents would lose legal recourse against such noise polluters. The current lawsuit against Ford Amphitheater would lose the law it is based on and would be unable to proceed. I am most certain if anyone on the committee today would ask this question. If I place myself personally in any of the opposing stories that I have heard today and considered what is in the best interest of Colorado citizens, the right decision is to vote no on SB 26, 098. Thank you.

Appreciate it. Thank you.

Yes, I'm Robin Conner. I'm here.

I think I might have been on mute. Can you hear me now?

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name again is Chris Middrop, and I'm testifying today to share my wife Karen's and my recent experience with noise pollution and to respectfully urge you not to advance Senate Bill 26098. Much of what I had to say today is repetitive. The points have been made very clearly that Ford Amphitheater has violated their promise to us during the development process. It's now been through two years of examples of egregiously loud events. in the subject, or excuse me, to save time, I simply want to make a point that I live in El Paso County, 1.9 miles north of the venue, and my wife and I hear on several occasions that thudding bass guitar, it shakes the walls, we can hear the words clearly. On one occasion, significantly egregious was a female singer with a very shrill voice, singing obscenities over and over again. And it's remarkable how clearly we can hear those words two miles away. I'll leave it with that the amphitheater's noise frequently exceeds the limits promised when the venue obtained the permits and exceeds the limits under current Colorado law and Colorado Springs. Should that change, I will have no protection. and I would respectfully ask you to vote no on Senate Bill 26098. Thank you for your time.

Hello, my name is Joel Miller. I am a resident of Colorado Springs. I'm a former city council member and I'm an attorney. I live in the shadows of Fort Amphitheater also and the windows at my house shake as well. What this law is, what this proposed bill is, let's call it what it is, the law that's been in place for over 50 years and was affirmed by the unanimous decision of the Colorado Supreme Court is a cause of action for a lawsuit. And the people who are proposing this bill are trying to get out from under that lawsuit because it holds them accountable to state law. That's what it is. I've heard a lot about local control. I've also heard a lot about the 7,000 people who live in unincorporated El Paso County who have no recourse to the local government that approved this. Any more than the city of Pueblo has recourse to Colorado Springs when they were dumping filthy water into Fountain Creek. They can't control what happens in Colorado Springs. And noise doesn't follow political boundaries. And we all know that. So this is a hoax, this idea of local control. And everybody knows that it's a hoax. The proponents have also said they need certainty. They need certainty about what the law is. There's absolute certainty. They need to turn it down until they comply with the state noise level. What is uncertain about that? Make it certain. Keep the law as it is. Don't pass this law and allow lobbyists, political donations, and the collusion between big entertainment and city government, who's hungry for tax dollars undermine the property rights of citizens in Colorado Springs. I heard a lot from Senator Liston saying that he had emphatic But this conversation will continue. Conversation in Colorado Springs went something like this. They proposed the development plan based on theoretical noise limits. They didn't like one of the noise studies they got, so they did another one. Then when the noise limits exceeded the theoretical, they went to the mayor and asked for a noise waiver who gave a blanket and they say, oh, we've never exceeded the blanket waiver. Well, the blanket waiver is really no limit. As long as every five minutes, it doesn't reset. You could go 100 decibels. And then as long as there's a new song, five minutes with a little pause in between, the whole thing starts over.

Thank you, gentlemen. Welcome and good afternoon. My name is Robin Connor. I'm a resident of Colorado Springs. This amendment does nothing less than covertly attempt to destroy the uniform statewide standard for existing environmental noise pollution. As a legislative declaration to the NAA states, it is the policy of the General Assembly to establish statewide standards for noise limits. the proposed amendment is a complete reversal and abrogation of that plainly expressed intent in favor of uniformity. Instead, the proposed amendment will permit a Swiss cheese, but potentially inconsistent local rules where for-profit developers can more easily sway local politicians. As you are hearing, we have seen this in spades in Colorado Springs, where the developers get every single concession they ask for, while hundreds of residents are left unable to enjoy summer evenings protect their children's sleep or simply go to work also that's what's going to spill apparently to see these money interest work

Am I unmuted now? Yeah, you are.

Brownstein, one of the country's largest lobbyists, is apparently representing both the developer of the Ford Amphitheater and the city of Colorado Springs, continuing the cozy relationship. They have also stunningly joined as opposing legal counsel in a lawsuit brought reluctantly by the citizens of Colorado Springs. Factually, this is not a technical amendment. It's not. Not putting this into an environmental committee and pretending Hobbs was an aberration, which it's not. All smell smack of a well-lobby campaign. Please make sure the ordinary citizens of Colorado do not lose the uniform protection intended and currently provided by the NAA. And very quickly, there was a distinguished gentleman who wanted to know what's different since there's always been two years of noise violation. Why does this bill provide protection? If that's still unclear, I'm very happy to answer that concisely.

I am the Benefit Protection Team Lead for the Department of Colorado for DAV. I'm here in opposition to the SB 098. I feel this bill, obviously, as we've heard today, was written by special interest for profit businesses in mind, and it's an attempt to sidestep the state laws to allow these companies to pollute our communities with noise. This bill seems to forget about the taxpaying homeowners and their rights to live without disturbances, and in the case of veterans, possible triggers in their homes. We feel and think we can all agree that a person's home should be their safe place, yet this bill is an attempt to take that away from veterans, changing the rules of the game to fit business models to make money, completely disregarding the impacts it causes. DAV represents tens of thousands of veterans in the state of Colorado, and we've heard from several of our members regarding noise pollution issues in their communities. Veterans have stated that the noise from facilities such as the Ford Amphitheater in Colorado Springs has caused them undue stress from these types of facilities, which was built and is impacting already well-established residential neighborhoods and has resulted in over 600 complaints for breaking the sound ordinance. And as already stated here, this bill eliminates responsibilities, any penalties from these for-profit companies breaking the law, leaving those impacted without their public right of action, no options or real resolutions. Veterans have the right to live in their homes and not be triggered by loud noises, rattling windows, leading to sleepless nights, which can cause panic attacks, migraines, and obvious frustrations. Also, for-profit businesses can make money. We have heard from several smaller communities and businesses regarding special events that they hold, which is especially important to their economies. I think we all want small businesses to succeed. However, I don't know that this is what this bill was created to assist with. The more concerning question seems to be, what about the densely populated areas such as the Denver Metro and the Colorado Springs area? If this bill passes, my fear is that the Ford Amphitheater victims would only be the beginning. If these businesses win in getting this bill passed, they could and most likely would use this law to expand the business models around the state and even more densely populated areas impacting more neighbors, more homeowners with hazardous noise pollution. What we know is that this bill is about money, and if they can, they will. For these reasons, I stand in opposition to this bill. Veterans, as well as taxpaying homeowners in the state, deserve to live in peace inside their own homes. For-profit companies should not be allowed to take that.

Yes, the question I heard is if in fact for two years under the existing law we've been subjected to all this noise pollution, why would there make any difference in this bill? And the short answer to that is that in fact for two years the law has been violated, complaints have been made to the city with no result. But under the existing law, there is a private right of action to file a lawsuit. And in fact, that's what's been done. This bill is essentially a Trojan horse that is designed to take away that right to sue. And in our case, if this bill is passed, we will lose our lawsuit.

Matthew Grubasich? Yes. Thank you. Yes.

So from what I could see is this bill mirrors what the hardship waiver has done in Colorado Springs, And this is a great example. I'm against this bill. We live 1.8 miles from the venue and have had issues for the last two years, lived in El Paso County for 25 years. So the hardship waiver gave the municipality the opportunity to enforce, but there was no enforcement. There is no sound mitigation. I did send all you gentlemen yesterday the noise map, which indicates how far and how many neighborhoods have been impacted, negatively impacted by the noise venue, by the Ford Amphitheater, excuse me. And this is noise pollution. I think we've covered that. But if the local government is not going to enforce the law, this bill should not be passed. Colorado Springs is a great example. They had an opportunity to do something in regards to what we have all issued complaints about. And keep in mind, I am in the county. So when I did call the county, I was not allowed to basically give any sort of information because they wouldn't accept it. And the other thing that we're all missing here is we live on some acreage. This also affects your domesticated animals. Our dogs are outside dogs. They're great Pyrenees and Kangals to guard our livestock. That is a big issue as well It not just how it affects humans So the noise map really identifies what is going on above and beyond what you heard from the individuals that are in favor of this There is no sound mitigation if we can hear it three and a half, four miles out. And we're talking decibels of 60 to 75 DBS outside and inside people's homes.

Okay. Well, thank you, gentlemen. I was on this from the beginning. I was one of the original eight when we went into Colorado Springs and took a boom box in and said, this is what we're going to hear in our residences. They told us to shut it off. Please vote against this bill.

Yes, my name is Jimmy Schloss.

Good afternoon. I'm a resident of Colorado Springs. The U.S. EPA created the Clean Air Act in 1970 or 56 years ago and classifies noise as a form of air pollution in Title IV of this act. Similarly, Colorado has treated noise as a public health issue since 1971, excuse me, following the passage of the Clean Air Act. Under Title 25, permissible noise limits in residential zones are capped at 50 decibels after 7 o'clock p.m. This bill is not a modernization. It is an attempt to legislate away noncompliance for the benefit of for-profit entertainment entities that refuse to invest in proper mitigation. I also live one mile north of the Ford Amphitheater, directly outside of the Colorado Springs city limits. Because I am not within city limits, I cannot vote for city officials or the mayor and hold them accountable for blanket exemptions that they have permitted the past two years. I've also expressed my concerns to my local county representative, but it's fallen on deaf ears. No pun intended. Throughout 2024 and 2025, I personally collected days worth of sound level data, and my findings are clear. The venue consistently fails to meet current state standards and frequently exceeds 50 decibels after 7 o'clock. Instead of requiring these venues to follow law, the bill simply allows them to circumvent it. Fragmenting statewide standards creates a race to the bottom where local control overrides public health. We wouldn't grant a city or county the power to exempt an oil or gas operator from maximum permissible emission limits just to save them money. Air pollution doesn't stop at city limits and neither does noise pollution. Lastly, let's keep in mind that these outdoor concert venues are a luxury item and not part of critical infrastructure like highways, airports, refineries. Thank you for your consideration.

Thank you.

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair, and good afternoon, members of the committee. My name is Bev Stables. I'm here on behalf of the Colorado Municipal League and our 271 member municipalities. I'm testifying today in support of Senate Bill 98. I just want to be clear, this is CML-initiated legislation, which means that it was advanced by our member-based policy committee and member-elected executive board. Many local governments, including the city and county of Denver, have also taken formal positions of support. Colorado communities, as you've heard, and as you've heard me say many times before, are diverse in both character and needs. What works for a dense urban neighborhood may not be appropriate for a rural town, mountain community, or a growing suburb. Senate Bill 98 recognizes this reality by empowering local governments, those closest to residents and community stakeholders, to determine reasonable noise limits for cultural and community events. Local officials are best positioned to balance quality of life concerns with social and economic benefits that these events provide. Community festivals, concerts, cultural celebrations, and neighborhood gatherings play an important role in strengthening civic life. They bring together residents, celebrate our cultural diversity, and support local businesses and artists. In many communities, these events also are significant economic drivers, attracting visitors, and generating revenue for small businesses. A one-size-fits-all statewide noise mandate has created barriers for these events, even when local residents and leaders support them. By allowing local governments to set their own limits, Senate Bill 98 ensures that communities can thoughtfully manage sound levels while still allowing vibrant events to flourish. Importantly, this bill does not eliminate oversight or community input. local governments remain accountable to their residents and can design policies that include permitting processes, time restrictions, and clear guidelines to minimize disruptions. This approach maintains reasonable protections for neighborhoods while giving communities the tools they need to support cultural life. Colorado has long valued local control as a guiding principle of governance, and Senate Bill 98 reflects that tradition by trusting municipalities and counties to make decisions that reflect the priorities of their residents. By adopting a flexible framework rather than a rigid statewide mandate, we can support both community well-being and cultural vitality. Thanks for your time.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. My name is Robert Sheasley. I'm the general counsel at the Colorado Municipal League. I authored the league's brief in support of the city of Salida in the Hobbs v. City of Salida case that the Colorado Supreme Court ultimately did not agree with. but I do believe that the Supreme Court interpreted the bill in a way that is inconsistent with how municipalities and local governments have implemented the Noise Abatement Act over its history because the reality is that the piece for 50 years under the Noise Abatement Act may not have actually been due to the Noise Abatement Act but actually due to 50 years of responsible local regulation that actually works. How do I know that? because dozens of statutory municipalities and likely scores of home rule municipalities regulate noise and issue amplified noise permits that exceed the Noise Abatement Act's limits, and they have done so for decades. That might be through permits or through general noise ordinances that vary with the Noise Abatement Act's limits, frequently accounting for advances in sound science and the unique nature of their communities. I do want to note also as to the law itself I don't think it's accurate that it's a reasonable last backstop against noise violation it's actually an extremely aggressive law when it comes to these sorts of events I don't believe many other states maybe three others have strict decibel limits I think Colorado's is the most aggressive from what I've been able to see none of those that I could find are actually set in statute but set by regulation and some allow local variances like proposed in the bill that we've initiated here. Even places like California recognize that the regulation of noise is a local matter although the state provides models for that I also want to to clarify that the current exemption isn for just for city events It has to be part of the government use of property and that part of the problem with the Supreme Court's decision. It leaves how much a nonprofit who could exceed these limits or a city must be involved is very unclear at this point. So thank you, and I'm happy to answer questions.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. There have been several questions today about the private right of action under the statute, and I want to be clear about the remedies that are available to these residents that have testified. If this bill passes, there will continue to be both state remedies and local remedies. What you didn't hear today is that the City of Colorado Springs noise ordinance is identical to the state standards, the exact same decibel levels. We've had two years of permits issued by the City of Colorado Springs, one special events permit and a hardship permit, two permits per year. That's four permits that have issued. And respectfully, none of these residents have taken advantage of their remedy under existing law, Colorado Rule of Civil Procedure 106A4, which allows them to challenge a decision made by a local official. whether that be the mayor, whether it be the city council. If they felt that the Ford Amphitheater was violating the exact same decibel levels, they could have but chose not to bring an action. That right of action under Rule 106 will continue if this bill passes. In addition, residents will have the existing state private right of action if an operator of a venue exceeds the scope of the permit that was granted. So say, for example, a permit is for one event only and the operator is exceeding the limits for more than that one event, the state private right of action will continue. So the idea that there is no legal recourse if this bill passes is not correct. One final comment on that. You don't have to be a resident of the city of Colorado Springs to bring an action under Rule 106. These residents of El Paso County have an absolute right. The Colorado Courts of Appeals have said if you are a nearby property owner and your rights are affected, you absolutely have standing under the current rules to bring an action. And these residents will continue to have that right.

Thank you, Chair Exum and members of the committee. I just want to spend some time really dialing down on some of the points that were made across the panel. To the point that Mr. Sheasley made about the local government and nonprofit exemption, what Hobbs v. Salida calls into question, and it distinguishes between what are called primary entities and then lessees, permittees, and licensees of the primary entity. So to Mr. Sheasley's point, under a plain read of Hobbs v. Salida, if the local government itself, the local government, not a third-party operator, puts on the event, they might be able to avail themselves of the exception. but we've heard testimony throughout the day, these local government operators and non-profit operators go to third parties like AEG, like you heard from Mr. Strasburg, to help put on the event because local governments traditionally are not in the business of putting on the event They have the infrastructure but somebody else needs to come in and play the show That is the uncertainty that we are trying to resolve through Senate Bill 98 Secondly when it comes to for entities and Senator Baisley, I would love to expand on this later, but we heard earlier that these residents and those in opposition to the bill face an impossible choice. The choice that is presented to for-profit operators under the bill is to comply with the state noise levels of 55 decibels during the day, 50 decibels at night. As has been stated repeatedly, it is louder than 55 decibels in this room right now. And I ask you to look on your phone. If you look at the average noise level for a Red Rocks concert, it's at 92 decibels. So I ask you, what kind of live event could operate functionally and actually attract a population that wants to attend at the 55 or 50 decibel rate. And I know that there's a few other questions that were raised by the committee that we'd be happy to answer, but thank you for your time.

Yes, Vice Chair Snyder. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Tobin, I didn't catch who you are representing here today.

Thank you.

Vice Chair Snyder, go ahead. Mr. Meeks, I'll ask you a question I asked, it seems like a couple hours ago now, but wouldn't we be better revisiting the Noise Abatement Act and updating that? I mean, it was written in 71. I know there's been some changes to it, but this bill seems to supersede that. It's almost kind of a reverse preemption type of thing where the state is giving up their authority to get granted to the local governments, which I'm still pondering that with our CML representatives here. We're usually on opposite sides of that. But wouldn't that be a better solution is to update that noise ordinance than to send this out to local control, where, as I said before, you'd have a complete patchwork across the state of different regulations, different requirements, and maybe even you, Mr. Kern, I asked the fellow from Live Nation, but wouldn't you, in your capacity representing venue, wouldn't you rather have one standard that you could conform to as opposed to 100 different standards across the state?

Thank you.

Mr. Kern, or Mr. Meeks, go ahead.

Vice Chair Snider. Thank you. I certainly agree with some of what you said, Mr. Kern. certainly the breadth of the current noise abatement statute says that any resident. I agree with that. But are you telling me that somebody from Grand Junction sues Ford Amphitheater, they're going to get thrown right out of court, aren't they? What judge is going to think there's any possible nexus between whatever harm this person perceives and having it come from the Ford Amphitheater? So while you're technically correct, I think it's a stretch to think that any lawsuit such as you described is going to be not tossed out its first opportunity.

Thank you.

Yes, that is correct. And again, there have been two years now of the Ford operating. In 2024, a special events permit was granted and a hardship permit. In 2025, a special event permit and a hardship permit. Each of the residents that you've heard from today, whether they lived in El Paso County or within the city limits, had the ability to bring an action under Rule 106 to say, hey, listen, Your Honor, Judge, you need to issue an injunction because they have violated the noise limits. None of these residents have chosen to do that. But they will have that ability. They have it today, and they will have it on day one after this bill passes.

If it passes.

Vice Chair Snyder. Doesn't a 106 appeal have to be filed very timely within two weeks of the event? It's not two weeks.

Is there anyone else in the room or online that's in a support position for Senate Bill 98 that would like to testify that had not had an opportunity to do so? Seeing none, the witness testimony phase is closed. We're moving to the amendment phase. Let the Senators get settled. Sponsors, do you have any amendments? We do not. Committee, any amendments? Seeing none, bless you too. The amendment phase is closed. Final comments. Who would like to start?

Thank you.

Senator Ball or Liston, the proper motion would be to the Committee of the Whole.

That's the proper motion. Before we call the vote, is there any other comments from the members? Yes, Senator Basley.

Vice Chair Snyder. Thank you. I just want to emphasize that. Look around to everything else. Look at the Red Rocks Amphitheater. Morrison residents are so proud of that amphitheater around them. even the Air Force Academy people are so proud of the Air Force Academy you need to be that neighbor where everybody is proud of who you are and that you live with them and you make their lives better than irritate them all night with profanity that would sure upset me as well so figure that out you need to be a loved neighbor I'd give you this specific challenge If you can get the very reasoned, very high integrity Councilman Dave Donaldson to love you, then you will have pulled it off. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you to all the witnesses and to the bill sponsors. This has been a really enlightening afternoon. And Senator Liston, you said you're one of 35 or one of 100. I've always found you, sir, to be one of a kind. And I mean that in a completely positive way. If you'll indulge me just a moment, I venture to say I may have been to more outdoor concerts than all the people in this room combined. Okay. My first concert was 1973 Elton John, my first Grateful Dead show, December 17, 1978. I've been going to concerts for near on 50 years now. I've been to outdoor concerts from El Paso, Texas, to Detroit, Michigan, at Pine Knob Amphitheater, Pittsburgh, Star Lake Amphitheater, all over the Northeast. I've been down to outdoor shows in South Florida. My point is I've been to thousands and thousands of concerts and a thousand outdoor shows. And I've never experienced any of those problems. I grew up in D.C., you know, where I would go to Wolf Trap or Mary Weather Post Pavilion, outdoor venues in urban areas. They never had these problems that we heard about today. Here in Colorado, I can't tell you the number of shows I've been to at Red Rocks, at Levitt, at Fiddler's Green, Silverthorne, Vail, Breckenridge, Copper Mountain, all of those. And they all seem to be able to do this without offending their neighbors. Many of them are located in places. Red Rocks, nobody lives within a mile of that venue, and it's up on top of a hill. So, you know, that's not really a problem. We can debate the wisdom of dropping this venue of 8 seats into the middle of an established neighborhood but that not really why we here The U and I believe the Colorado Constitution both guarantee citizens the right to petition their government for redress That is what I find the NAA allows these people, that they have somewhere to go. They have an opportunity, they have a pathway into court to be heard. Mr. Hobbs did that successfully. There's currently a case, I believe it's Bailey versus Venue, may have some of the parties wrong, that's currently on the docket. And this bill would probably preempt that and have that case be dismissed. You know, I think the private right of action is worth preserving. It's these people's, many times it's people's only hope. their only chance to get somebody who is not I don't want to disparage but is unbiased and neutral and will hear both sides of an argument and make a ruling you know there's a lot of other factors I was a mayor in a small town and city councilor for years I know the pressures you get a lot of times from large interests that really want there was a proposal to put an 8,000 seat amphitheater in Manitou Springs and I told them very politely there's no way that's ever going to happen you know So as Senator Baisley said, this is not a case of somebody who moves next door to an airport and starts complaining about airplane noise. Many of these folks, if not all, were there first. I do believe there's a sovereign immunity for Colorado Springs. So we heard the attorneys tell us, oh, well, they can still sue. They can sue that. I'm not sure they can. They can't sue Colorado Springs. They would operate under sovereign immunity, in my opinion. So, you know, and the folks particularly who are residents in the county being affected up in northern El Paso County, I have particular empathy for. Noise is an extremely fickle thing. It's subject to wind, weather, atmospheric conditions, elevation, wherever you are. It's really hard. I've dealt with this on the local level, run around with decimeters or whatever the meters are for decibels. And it's not an exact science, okay? Where I live in Manitou Springs is where the jets that fly over the stadium at Air Force Academy, it's where they turn around, literally right above my, I love it, I get a free air show. My dog, not so much. He runs and hides in the basement whenever they start getting ready for that. And Senator Ball, you said, you know, any one person could shut down a venue. What I heard from the folks that testified today, they're not interested in shutting down the venue. They just want them to be good neighbors. They just want them to comply with the law, and they want them to be sensitive to the impacts they're having on their families and their houses. And, you know, I'm not seeing that, to be honest with you. I understand the problems coming from the Hobbs decision and what you're seeking to address it. I think we should focus on the NAA, improve that, and drop this idea of local control. So I will respectfully be a no today. Thank you.

Yes.

Ball?

Lindstedt?

Liston?

Rich?

No.

Oh. Thanks for summarizing. I usually get that up in the evening. No, that was good. Oh, that's stuff good. So what is their remedy this past, if it passes the... I think they're SOL. I think they're SOL. Sorry out of luck. I heard these attorneys, all 106, general nuisance. Those are much higher legal standards. Are they? Yeah, you've got to show harm. You know, I think it's irreparable harm. It might be irreparable harm for a nuisance seat. Thank you. I appreciate that. Thanks for your testimony, man. Sorry, the vote didn't come out the way you would have.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

A couple of years ago, we, the General Assembly, created a new division to inspect mortuaries and funeral homes following some of the horrific abuses that we've seen take place in Mesa County and in Fremont County. I am really grateful that we did that. It was tragically more needed than we even knew. It took a couple of years to stand up that division, to train that division, to prepare them to do inspections. When that division went in and did their very first inspection, their very first inspection as a certified trained division, they found 24 decaying bodies that were hidden in Davis Mortuary in Pueblo. Some of the bodies had been hidden and decaying there for 15 years. What has come forth since, and the investigation is still ongoing, that mortuary was partly owned by the Pueblo County Coroner. and it is alleged that the coroner used his position to refer some individuals with no next of kin to his own mortuary. They were at least some, they account for at least some of the bodies that were detained there. And that particularly important because again these were individuals with no next of kin There was no eyes on them Once they went into the system once they were referred they were essentially nobody I don't mean to be cruel. They were obviously somebody in life, but we lost them until investigators found them. Further complicating the matter is initially in the aftermath, the coroner refused to resign. There was no mechanism to remove in a speedily manner a county executive officer from office. So when I began working on this bill, I was certainly looking at the horrifying failures of what happened in this office, but I started casting a really broad net. Let's not wait until there is abuses in other offices. Let's look to see where there's potential conflicts of interest. Let's look to see what mechanisms we could use for a speedy removal for somebody problematic in office. the idea being to go broad, to go big, and under the thought process that more transparency is always a good thing, ran into complications of that that I hadn't foreseen. For instance, there is extreme risk in the clerk's office. Our county clerks are some of our most threatened elected officials in the state because of the pervasiveness of election conspiracies. they tend to be subject to increased scrutiny in ways that can complicate their safety, their privacy, the privacy of their families. There are other mechanisms already in place that address potential conflicts of interest in other offices writ large. Some of what is in the introduced bill is duplicative. So what would have helped here, so what I ended up doing is we ended up shrinking back to the specific problem we had in Pueblo, which is a lack of transparency of where a very specific conflict of interest might occur, just so that there can be a public view of that. And with extensive work with CCI, with the clerk's division, and really appreciative work from the county coroners, we've come to a much narrower version of this bill, which requires disclosures on the county coroner's website when there is that potential that might exist. when there is an ownership interest in a mortuary or funeral home that you have the ability to refer to as a coroner. I want to be very clear. The overwhelming majority of our coroners, I think all of our coroners now, hopefully, are very honest very dignified people who take their jobs very seriously They are professionals And in some cases particularly in rural areas there may be only one mortuary or funeral home within 50 miles and that person may be one of the only people qualified to be coroner, the owner of that. Ownership stake does not mean conflict of interest. Ownership stake does not mean wrongdoing. it means that the potential, the added potential for abuse is there. And I seriously, seriously doubt that most, that fewer or even any of our current coroners would do that. And yet it appears that it has happened. So what you have before you with L002 is a requirement of a public disclosure of financial interest in a regulated business, being the funeral homes or the mortuary, so that there is at least eyes on this, and so that that can be something that from time to time the public can look at, And hopefully what happened in Pueblo never happens again, first and foremost. But if it does, it's one more tool that hopefully at that point we don't have 15 years and 24 people later whose remains have been degraded and disrespected and deprived of the dignity that they deserved. So with that, I will turn it over.

We don't think we have any witnesses. So I'll turn it over to you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Senator Henriksen, for this very interesting bill. It seems to attempt to accomplish two things that I wonder how they're connected. So one is to disclose the financial interests, so possibly a conflict of interest, but for the coroners and others to disclose their financial interests. And then the second is to have something of a tracking for remains referrals and so I see the benefit of both, one disclosing what your financial interest is and then the other, make sure you're not stacking up 15 bodies over the years. I'm trying to understand why they're both in the same bill. How do they relate to each other?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So we've narrowed it. Well, when we, hopefully, adopt L002, which I'll propose in the amendment phase, it will be narrowed to just the disclosure of the financial interests and just for coroners, and not the records of the referrals. I see. Now, there are public records requests with your PII redacted that you can obtain that. And if there are concerns, the hope is that the public disclosure would enable to seek cores for that. Again, I hope this never happens again, but that becomes unnecessary.

Because where did that occur in Mesa County? Senator Henderson.

I believe I meant Montrose.

Thank you.

Vice Chair Snyder.

And thank you for bringing the bill, Senator. Just want to be clear. So what happened in Pueblo with the coroner sending indigent bodies to his own funeral home, paying himself with government funds, this actually would not prevent that activity. It would just require him to disclose his financial interest into the home. And I guess that would work for the other officers under this bill. if they have a business or a business interest, they would have to disclose that, but it wouldn't preclude them from using that business to receive government funds for services. Senator Henderson.

Thank you for the question, Senator Snyder. So as narrowed, it would only apply to the coroner's office. The coroner, as I understand it, is the only one that can have a referral to a business. And no, it does not prohibit that. There are many reasons why that happens and why that is valid, right? When we're talking in rural counties, particularly in the eastern plains, again, you may have five people in a 50-mile radius who are actually qualified to be coroner. You may have one mortuary in that 50-mile radius. there is a good chance that the owner of that mortuary is the coroner, and there's nothing nefarious about that. And even in other places, you know, it can be, you know, I heard from folks who had issues because, you know, unfortunately there were brief moments during COVID-19 where there was a, I want to say a backup, right? But there were capacity issues. And if it stands to reason, it makes total sense that a mortuary professional, mortuary owner, a funeral home owner is one of the few people that would have unique qualifications of being a coroner, could be an elected coroner. And if that's the funeral home or the mortuary in a situation like that, that has the capacity to, you know, process somebody with dignity, absolutely that's where they should go. Right. And so I really want to reiterate that there are many, many reasons why this happens that are entirely above board and honorable. Unfortunately, we've seen one where there's reason, significant reason to believe that the honorability wasn't there. Thank you.

Yes, thank you for having me. I just want to confirm that you can hear me. Yes, we can. Please proceed.

I'm going to leave my camera off because I have a very weak connection, and I don't want that to mess with the audio.

Yep. Good evening, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. My name is Rob Glassmeyer. I serve as the coroner for Garfield County. I'm here today representing the Colorado Coroners Association, which represents nearly all of Colorado's county coroners. Our association has been working with Senator Henriksen and we're thankful for the opportunity to stakeholder with him on this bill. Our understanding is that L002 will be introduced and that it would require coroners to disclose those ownerships of funeral homes or financial interest on their coroner's office website. The association is comfortable with that amendment. With that said, thank you again Senator Henriksen and committee members for the opportunity to testify and I'm available for any questions that you may have.

Thank you for joining us. Please introduce yourself and who you represent, if any,

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. My name is Dylan Rankin. I am Colorado Common Cause's democracy intern. Colorado Common Cause is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to advancing government transparency and accountability in the name of the people of our great state. I'm here today to testify on Common Cause's behalf in support of Senate Bill 105, which I understand that there might be an amendment that would narrow its scope, but currently require county clerks and recorders, assessors and coroners to disclose any financial interests in certain businesses that they are likely to regulate in their capacities as government officials and that they not participate in decisions affecting these businesses. Common Cause supports this bill to ensure the ethical integrity of decisions made by county officers. Our county clerk's assessors and coroners have enormous impact on our daily lives, and the people of Colorado deserve to rest assured that their work is done in a manner free from any inappropriate influence caused by their financial interest. And even in the vast majority of instances where no inappropriate financial interest is implicated in the works of these officials, Increased disclosure of their financial interest is a simple and easy to implement policy to increase public trust in these officials and in our county governments as a whole. Obviously Common Cause would support this bill in its current kind of broader form but even narrowed we think this is a great step in the right direction And so it a great bill Thank you to Senator Heinrichsen for bringing it forward and we would urge the committee to vote yes Thank you Thank you Mr Rankin Questions for

It's okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move L-002 to Senate Bill 105.

So again, I really want to thank everybody who's worked with me on this. I, when I went into this, I cast a big net, bigger than I needed to. And so this narrows it down to what specifically went wrong in Pueblo. Hope it never, hope it never needs to be used to uncover something before, before an investigation does. but adds a little bit of transparency so there's more eyes on and more capacity for what goes on and would ask for your support for L-002.

Not for me.

I think we've covered it in depth. What we have before you now is a pretty simple bill, and I would ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move Senate Bill 26105 as amended to the Committee of the Whole with a favorable recommendation.

Senator Spaisley?

Ball? Excused.

Liston? Aye.

Snyder? Aye.

That passes on the vote of 6-0.

Mr. Chair, I recommend that this go on to the consent calendar.

Senator Hengsten.