House Transportation, Housing & Local Government [Mar 18, 2026]

Okay, team, we routed the Division of Real Estate to the incorrect committee yesterday. So, I will move to reconsider House Bill 1287.

Okay. And that was moved and seconded. That was a proper motion and a second. So, Mr. Gravy, please pull the committee on the motion to reconsider.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

I'm going to have to be a no today.

Respectfully, yes.

No.

Yes.

Yes. And then Basinecker removes his bill. That passes 11 to 2. Okay. Representative Basinecker, would you like to remove your bill to the Committee on Appropriations?

Second.

Representatives Basenecker.

Brooks.

Jackson.

Lindsay.

Wynn.

Pascal.

Phillips.

Richardson.

Sucla.

Velasco.

Weinberg.

Vice Chair Stewart.

Madam Chair.

Yeah.

All right, sponsors, who would like to start us off today?

Representative Richardson.

Thank you both.

Representative Wynn. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the bill sponsors for bringing this bill. This is a new guy question, of course, because I was not here last year. Are there any changes of this year's bill compared to 2025's bill?

Thank you for the question. Yes, there is. Well, one, what he just described with the attenuators, we didn't believe last year's bill included the attenuators, and we asked CDOT to give us an amendment, which that never happened. So when we recrafted the bill this year, we made sure that that language was in there, that it exempted the attenuators on there because that was never our position. And then we have other amendments as well after stakeholdering with, you know, we talked to you, We've talked to state troopers. We've talked to the GOV's office. And they gave us some suggestions for what they want to see, you know, in the language, but then they want to see it laid over or whatever. We're not willing to do that. So we did take their suggestions, though, for their language, and we've put them into the bill.

Dialogue. Okay. You may dialogue.

Yeah, I just also wanted to add that, you know, mountainous terrain, loads can shift, the necessity to put on tire chains. There's some things that just need human intervention at this point to ensure safety. And then to briefly, to be brief,

Rep. Leader. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thanks for the question. That's a good question. Now, we tightened up the language when we took that's one of our amendments that we took from CSP. So they'll have to be in the vehicle.

so representative Weinberg follow-up just a final follow-up and then I'll I'll keep it brief for the day again I'm not hearing the answer how can you legislate that somebody has to be strapped in seatbelt locked in and not sleeping in the back of a truck just because somebody's in the vehicle do you need is there going to be another bill that's going to follow up to where somebody else needs to be in the vehicle to watch the person that's in the vehicle that's watching the autonomous vehicle. Representative Leader. Thank you, Madam Chair. Well, first

Representative Richardson. I would say the bill does define it as being able to intervene if necessary to avoid illegal or unsafe driving. And I know how do you legislate that, but how do you legislate somebody keep their seatbelt on, not be sitting in the driver's seat with a bottle of Jack Daniels? It is.

Representative Leader. Thank you for the question. Thank you, Madam Chair. Right now, none, because they have fleets and fleets of them right now in Texas, and they're operating all over Texas. They're coming into New Mexico. They're coming into Arizona. So we want to have – I'm a Boy Scout mom. I like to be prepared, and my son's an eagle, and so I like to have everything in place prior to putting the people at risk. I don't think we need to have them in the state and go, oh, look, that semi just took out, I don't know how many hundreds of people on I-70 coming down with no chains on, and have that happen. I wanted already preventative care, and I wanted it already passed.

Thank you. We did have the Budweiser and Anheuser-Busch trucks a while back that was completely autonomous coming through, too, into test drive. And there will probably be some people that will come up and talk in regards to that. As of right now, there is not a semi-truck that I am aware of. That doesn't mean they're not here.

and and i do think our witnesses coming up can correct me if i'm wrong but at this point most of the vehicles that are being tested start on a platform of a SMI that can be operated by a human being. But in terms of, as I said, there's 29 other states that actually have a framework in place. What we have is kind of the antithesis of that. The 2017 bill essentially says if you've got a vehicle that meets all our laws, state and federal, you can operate. But if you don't, you need a waiver from the task force. And right now, they're all in the don't. So we're kind of in this one-off waiver phase from a body that really isn't regulatory.

And then I've got Jackson, Brooks, Phillips, and Pascal in that order.

Representative leader. Thank you. I don't have that data, but I'm there to be witnesses back here that have it all I do know that in Texas when they I believe Picard was the manufacturer of the truck of the autonomous trucking company Well, they were the manufacturer of the truck themselves, and you'll hear this in testimony. And then Aurora was the company. They went in there, and they released these trucks last May, and that's part of my testimony coming up. Bless you. Last May, they released them to roll out completely autonomous, and the manufacturer came back and says, oh, absolutely not. You have to have a CDL person in that vehicle. We cannot have that. Thank you.

Representative Richardson. Yeah, thank you. I'd start by saying that we don't have large fleets of heavy cargo trucks on the highways throughout the U.S. that mostly are in developmental and testing phases that are following fairly robust pathways that have been set in place in the originating states. That's just something we do not have. But the broader answer, again, is how do we deal with any truck that rolls into our state that's breaking our state laws that doesn't have traction control devices, doesn't have chains in the winter, there's a plethora of laws out there that may be different from state to state that we enforce here that aren't enforced elsewhere.

Rep. Jackson. Well, I understand that, but what I'm saying is if we're talking about, like if you said, for example, the chain law, right, there's a driver in that truck to put the chains on, but if there is an autonomous vehicle that comes here, there is no driver, then how, where do we find, you know, how does the CDL driver, you know, where do they come from to be inside of the truck? Like that's what I'm trying to understand better.

Representative Richardson. Yeah, thank you. And I'd point to examples. There are some states that don't allow double, triple trailers to travel through them. The folks that program those routes know that when they enter that state at a port of entry, they've got to drop trailers, bring in other tractors to pull those, et cetera. So, again, it's certainly not exactly parallel, but there are other examples of differencing laws in different states that the transporters actually react to by, again, providing drivers, providing additional tractors in the case of...

for something that I'm hearing is so vitally important for the safety of Colorado. Representative Leader. Thank you. It's a referred measure because I think it was a disservice to the 55 people that you all represent in this House, and that's not speaking for all the – it almost passed by a supermajority in the Senate with the stroke of one pen, vetoed it, and voided all those voices. and I think it should be up to the people for them to decide of what they want rolling around on their highways. And it's back to the thing for the laws. It's, you know, CSP could probably answer that. I don't know if they're signed up to testify, but it's not any difference than if you're driving with a Jack Daniels bottle, they're going to pull you over, but they don't always know it. But if they see something or there's something that gives them pause, then they're going to pull you over. I think it's the same difference. Thanks.

Representative Richardson. Thank you, Madam Chair. As I said in the opening, it's really a pause and protect the opportunity to actually get a real framework in place. So this is, yes, right now I don't see, well, you know, if this winter is like the next five, maybe chains aren't going to be that necessary in a lot of places. But that being said, the opportunity to actually get a full suite of a regulatory framework that supports development that maybe refines the differences between how do we operate on the plains versus what do you allow in mountainous terrain. It isn't just we think something's going to be magic in five years. This is five years to do the things that we haven't done since 2017, frankly, in this building to allow this industry to actually have some sense of where the state is going. We have been operating on kind of an ad hoc, non-regulatory basis since 2017, and I believe that law was really passed rapidly to get the Anheuser-Busch trucks on the road. And then that ended, and we've never done anything more. So we do need to do more. The industry deserves it so they know what they should be expecting in this state and how does that parallel or not with neighboring states.

Representative Phillips. Thank you, Madam Chair. I have two questions. They're both brief. Thank you for bringing the bill. I heard you saying that the Texans are coming, and I share your concern. And my question is, when the driverless vehicle then comes into Colorado, then what's the vision for at the border? Are there people then, is it like Home Depot where there's people there waiting to be able to work? Like, are they waiting at the border and then they get picked up? or where do we get the human to go on the truck without a human? And I have a second question after that.

Okay, thank you. Representative Phillips. Thank you. The second question is somebody asked if this is the same bill as last year, and can you just confirm for me, I believe it's not the same bill as last year, that this is a referred bill. So you started off with the same bill. That bill was vetoed. And so this bill makes so that the bill from last year goes to the ballot. My first, in my mind, I was going, what is the cost? I saw the $14,000 fiscal. That's if it would pass at the ballot. That's for traffic offenses. So my question is, is there any additional cost in putting this on the ballot?

Representative Paschal. Thank you, Madam Chair. Can you tell me about the – we mentioned that laws had passed in other states. Can you tell me about what laws are out there in other states and how this compares to that?

Representative Basenacker. Thank you, Madam Chair. Last question, I promise for me. I think to that point, and understand the witnesses might be able to speak to it a little better, I think one of my questions revolves around sort of the regulatory framework that we put in place as a state and understanding I'm going to use AI as a sort of a example here you know when we passed the AI bill a couple years back we could not have foreseen just the explosion of that conversation now in our state legislature today and the process that has evolved in that space even the the short sunset that you have on the bill today I'm one of my questions for you would be is what if we're NOT LOOKING NEAR ENOUGH IN TERMS OF SOLUTIONS, ESPECIALLY IN TERMS OF IF THERE'S A WAY TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE MORE, I THINK, CONCERNING VEHICLES THAT WOULD BE ON THE ROADWAYS, YOU KNOW, HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, DANGEROUS MATERIALS, ET CETERA, THROUGH SOME SORT OF AUTHORIZATION PROCESS VERSUS THE PROHIBITION THAT THE BILL PRESENTS. I MEAN, DOES THAT NOT GET AT THE SAME SAFETY GOAL TO MAKE SURE THAT THE MOST DANGEROUS VEHICLES INDEED HAVE A DRIVER INVOLVED IN THAT PROCESS AND THE STATE CAN REGULATE THIS IN A WAY THAT IS PERHAPS MORE FLEXIBLE THAN A STRAIGHT OUT JUST PROHIBITION ON THAT SORT OF ACTIVITY REPRESENTATIVE LEADER THANK YOU I THINK ANYTHING WITH THE GROSS VEHICLE WAY is perhaps more flexible than a straight just prohibition on that sort of activity Representative Leader Thank you I think anything with a gross vehicle weigh a GVR of 26 pounds says it all

Representative Richardson. Yeah, but I think I do hear in your question, are there refinements? IN THE INTERIM THAT DO NEED TO BE MADE AND I THINK PERHAPS THEY CAN OR EVEN SHOULD. THIS AGAIN WAS KIND OF THE HITTING PAUSE SO WE CAN CONSIDER OTHER OPTIONS.

Representative Brooks. Thank you chair. I'm just I'm hearing the words pause I'm hearing the word review. I'm hearing a lot of questions from the committee I wonder you know would it not be better you know to take the pause and review

would be helpful if you would give us the highlights of what are in the amendment so we know what the bill is?

Let's get through questions from the panel first and then you can maybe just give us a high level, very brief overview before we go to witnesses. Are there other questions from the committee? Okay, I've got a couple and then you can explain your amendments. I think several of us have seen a compromise framework that's been put forward. And I know that the bill is being brought as a referred measure, given the veto from last year. But my understanding is that there is potentially a commitment from the first floor to sign legislation in this compromise framework. And I'm just wondering what conversations have happened and why that we are not amenable to that

Rep Richardson.

Representative Paschal.

I'm not sure where you see 16,000 out. 45, I'm sorry. Sorry. In statute, 42-4-235. So the bill refers to that as the definition of a commercial vehicle, and that's where I went, and I'm missing $16,000.

No. I'll let the draft where he can address that.

All right. I'm not seeing any other questions from the committee, So if you want to briefly describe your amendments so that witnesses can speak to those, that would be great.

Thank you so much, sponsors. I'm going to go ahead and bring up our witnesses, sponsors. Do you want proponents or opponents first?

Great. Fantastic. And I do want to note for everyone in the room that we are going to do two minutes of testimony instead of the usual three. We've got quite a few bills up and quite a few witnesses here today. So we are going to do a panel of opponents first. So if I could get Parker White. Let's see. Andrew Wood. Can I get Emily Hadaway? And Gabe Easton, please. And let me see if any of those folks are remote. I do not believe so. So we have a full panel. Thank you all so much. I will note for the committee that Ms. Hadaway and Mr. Easton are both here in an amend position. So we'll go ahead and start with Mr. Easton and also tell me how to address you properly, please. Two minutes. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you so much, Ms. Hathaway.

Thanks so much. Mr. Wood.

Thank you so much, Mr. White.

Thank you. Thank you all so much. And also, I don't think I've ever had a panel where almost nobody took more than a minute. That was incredible. Representative Brooks. Thank you, Chair. This will be a standing question for all of you. I just wanted to see of the amendments that you heard. I'm guessing that there are still several that are not addressing the complete amendment package that you'd like to see. But if you could speak to that, you can actually have a chance. And then I'm sorry, I can't, I didn't write it down. I can see your rank, Captain, but I can't see your last name. This question is for you, Easton, Captain Easton.

This is just a quick little one too. Are tinted windows on vehicles over 26,000 pounds allowed? I understand that limo tint is not legal, but is regular. I forget what the grade is. I forget the numbers, but there's one that's pretty dark. Are those allowed on commercial vehicles?

Okay. No, that's okay. Representative Brooks.

Captain Eastman.

Thank you so much, Madam Chair. No, with the bill specifically. With being able to enforce somebody that is in a passenger seat that is able to intervene in case the vehicle gets weird, right? And if they're not in that place, you know, what the enforcement of this looks like from a law enforcement standpoint. Captain Easton.

Representative Wynn.

on behalf of CDOT? Ms. Hadaway. Thank you Madam Chair and thank you Representative. Yes so we had our initial conversation on Monday so I know that both of the sponsors have been reviewing that. I think that there was some fruitful conversation there. You'd have to ask the sponsors you know their willingness to consider a compromise but on our side we absolutely see that there would be a reasonable strategy here that we could pursue and the governor has indicated that he would sign legislation along the lines of what I outlined in my testimony.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And at the risk of asking a similar question, but it's to everybody, my understanding is there is a compromise proposal on the table. And so I'm curious if everybody would, with the compromise, does everybody support?

Representative Bezenicker. Oh, I'm sorry, Mr. Wood.

Mr. White.

Representative Basinecker.

Captain Easton. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Representative. Again, I apologize. I want to make sure that I'm understanding your question clearly. So if an autonomous vehicle were to come into the state of Colorado, from my understanding, especially through going through the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance's proposed regulations for anything autonomous, they would have a pre-planned trip ahead. So by entering the state, they would already have, using communication similar to like DriveWise or a pre-pass, they would already speak to the port. that would already give them the full information of that enhanced pre-check trip that the autonomous vehicle would have had from the start. And it's going to speak to destination points, what's working, and it's going to continue that constant check of the vehicle's systems. Does that answer your question?

enforcement from state patrol's perspective captain easton thank you madam chair and thank you representative without further discussion. I don't want to speak. Uh, I think as it stands right now, uh, that's not only an, an industry in industry issue of speaking to our industry partners and figuring out how are they actually equipping these trucks? And then that would be continued conversations with probably our port of entry partners and how we're going to, um, enforce that moving forward.

I think my last question is for maybe CDOT, who has looked at other states or some of our other witnesses. Understanding that different laws impact safety in different ways, and that what you get out of reporting from those states obviously could be different based on that regulation, how have we seen the safety data play out in other states that have different regulations in terms of autonomous vehicles? Is it a disproportionate number of crashes, incidents, as compared with a traditional situation with a driver in place, or how does that look?

Representative Jackson.

Ms. Hathaway. Thank you for the question. So I understand based on our conversations on Monday, the sponsors accepted some of the technical recommendations that, you came up and just kind of we had a dialogue around how would the policy work in practice and I think some of those elements have been added but I think the more substantive problems that we've presented have not been addressed and so the amendments as is would not get us to a comfortable

Hathaway. So I'll give you an example. I know a guy has a combine and he has a grain truck. He works by himself and what he does, and he has an electric bike. So what he does is he runs the combine until the bin's full, rides the electric bike, goes, gets a grain truck, fills up the grain truck, unloads the grain, and then he parks it and then takes off with the combine. So my question is would CDOT be willing if there was an amendment that ag would be exempt without having a driver because I can see how this could really help farming if there wasn't a driver in the grain truck.

Absolutely. Representative Paschal, you get the last question for this panel.

Mr. Wood? Madam Chair and Representative Paschal, not to my knowledge.

Okay. And then my other question was maybe I'll take another run at my question earlier, which is what are the laws in other states? Do you know what other states? I know there's some that permit autonomous, but I'm guessing there's some that don't. I don't know. Are there other states that don't permit this?

Mr. Wood. I can take a stab at that. I know that Texas, Arizona, and Georgia have affirmatively authorized autonomous for commercial trucking. I don't have first hand knowledge of those bills precisely or the after effects, but I know that we do have some company representatives that operate nationally that might have better information on that.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. My name is Hope Ledford, and I serve as Director of Civic Innovation Policy at Chamber of Progress. We're a tech industry association that supports public policy so that everyone can benefit from innovation. Our partners include transportation innovators such as Aurora but they do not have a vote or veto on our positions I here today in opposition to HB 1286 which would send to the ballot a measure that in effect bans autonomous trucking in Colorado by requiring a human to be physically present in any autonomous commercial vehicle. By creating a driver-in rule, the measures in this bill would prevent this technology from delivering its biggest safety and efficiency gains. Committee, we share the goal of safer roads. The question is, how do we get there? Transportation safety policy works best when it's built through the legislature's process and the ability to adjust rules as we learn what works and what doesn't. A ballot measure is the opposite of that. It's a blunt yes or no tool that tends to lock in rigid mandates and makes it harder to respond to new data, federal guidance, or real-world implementation lessons. Autonomous trucking can make Colorado roads safer. They don't drive distracted, fatigued, or impaired. These systems also use redundant sensors, such as radar and cameras, so they're not just relying on one set of eyes. I'll wrap it up and reiterate some of the points that some people made before me. If Colorado chooses a rigid ballot box mandate that effectively blocks deployment, it won't stop the technology, it'll just push it around the state. We believe that Colorado can set strong safety standards through the legislative process with stakeholder input based on real world safety results without locking in a rigid ballot box mandate that would make the state a regional outlier. For these reasons, we respectfully ask you to oppose this bill and work with the relevant agencies on a compromise with industry that promotes safety while not stifling life-saving innovation. Thank you so much.

Thank you, Madam Chair. My name is Sam Lesh. I'm the head of policy and public affairs for Wabi. Wabi is one of the developers actually building the technology that we're discussing here today. We are focused on automating Class 8 tractor trailers, and we have recently announced that we're actually going to expand that portfolio as well into beyond just trucking. Very proud to be here. I know we have a number of witnesses, so I'll aim to even keep it shorter than you'd identified before. Our company right now has offices and facilities across both Pittsburgh, Texas, as was mentioned many times before, Arizona, San Francisco, and Toronto, Canada. We have all of our on-the-ground operations in Texas, and in no small part because of the type of issues that we're discussing here today. Texas has been not only welcoming us with open arms, they have been at our side for any back and turn that we've had, whether it's local issues with understanding roadway construction as it may come up or other sorts of issues, and we really believe that they're seeing all the benefits on their roads of our technology, as well as some of our competitors technologies to going and improving the safety and lives of Texans in the coming years. My company has been public that we are actually going to attempt to pull the driver by the end of this year, early next year. So to the point of human operators and vehicles, currently we operate all of our Class A trucks with a human operator behind the wheel until we are convinced as well as in working with regulatory partners that they are also convinced that our safety case, as we call it, and it's how we evaluate whether the system is safe to launch or not is up to snuff and can actually handle all the scenarios that we expect to handle on the roadways. I will leave it with this that we would never, for many reasons, launch that system before it is ready for prime time. Least but not last is the fact that we understand that trust building in this space comes very slowly but is eroded very quickly. you know in our views we have one shot at the apple to really prove our efficacy and value for both the state and the country and we take that responsibility incredibly seriously so thank you for the opportunity thank you very much all right last year in person go ahead and state your name who you represent You got two minutes Good morning Thank you Good afternoon My apologies My name is Liz Fishback I represent Stack AV We are a Pittsburgh-based autonomous trucking company that focuses on the developing, testing, and deploying of SAE Level 4 capable trucks. Right now, we are testing in vehicles and conducting commercial pilots on public roads in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio, Georgia, Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, East, South, North, West, Blue, Red. Like other autonomous vehicle developers, we choose to test and deploy in those states because they have clear, legal, and regulatory paths to driverless commercial deployment. As you know, HB1286 would require that a human be present in a truck when the ADS, the automated driving system, is engaged. Put very simply, that entirely defeats the point of an autonomous vehicle. Members of this industry proudly work closely with lawmakers and regulators across the country with respect to 50 individual unique constituencies to put in place robust frameworks that bring this technology safely to public roads working hand in hand with DOTs and DMVs not against them and we look forward to doing that here in Colorado. STAC strongly believes AV trucks have the potential to increase roadway safety and make freight delivery more efficient. Our view is that trucks AV trucks will augment human driven fleets but not replace them and also create new jobs related to servicing and overseeing AV trucks. In our view AVs are a win-win for consumers, freight carriers, and drivers alike. In closing, STAC stands ready to work with this committee, the General Assembly, the governor, and other stakeholders on common sense, legal, and regulatory measures related to autonomous vehicles. In the meantime, STAC respectfully requests that this committee either vote in opposition of HB 1286 as written or lay the bill over to allow further discussion on the compromise language that has been mentioned several times today. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Good afternoon. My name is Renee Gibson, and I'm the Vice President of Government Affairs for the Autonomous Vehicle Industry Association, which represents the world's leading autonomous vehicle companies deploying AVs across the country. Our members share a common goal of improving safety on our roads and bringing the economic and mobility benefits of AVs to communities across the country, including here in Colorado. We are concerned about this bill's approach of referring a complex policy question with no constitutional revenue implications to the statewide ballot. Circumventing the normal legislative process would set a concerning precedent. Colorado has already established a thoughtful framework for regulating AVs. Any changes to that framework should be addressed through normal legislative and regulatory processes where policymakers can rely on expert and constituent input, agency oversight, and ensure flexibility to adapt as technology evolves. This bill would undermine Colorado's existing framework for AVs that was established nearly a decade ago, which supports AV deployment with robust guardrails for AV operations. Autonomous trucks have not been involved in a single crash, injury, or fatality on Colorado roadways. Nationwide, AVs, including autonomous trucks, have built a significant safety record and have driven more than 145 million autonomous miles on U.S. public roads alone. This bill would foreclose opportunities for Coloradans to reap the many safety, economic, environmental, and workforce benefits of autonomous trucks. The bill would also make Colorado a national outlier as no state has banned driverless operations If adopted this bill would isolate Colorado and foreclose a safer future with autonomous trucks For these reasons we respectfully urge the committee to vote no

Madam Chair, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Nabil Mai. I'm the Specialist in Technology Policy and State Legislative Affairs at the Consumer Technology Association, or CTA. testifying in opposition to House Bill 1286. CTA represents the 505 billion U.S. consumer technology industry, supporting more than 17 million American jobs across 1,200 companies pioneering autonomous and connected vehicles technologies. This bill would prohibit the use of an automated driving system in a commercial motor vehicle unless the CDL holder is physically present. This is substantially the same proposal the legislator passed last session is HB 1122, which Governor Polis vetoed. The governor concluded that the bill would effectively create a first-in-nation prohibition on autonomous commercial vehicles, testing, and operations. CTA agreed with that assessment, and our position has not changed. I also wanted to flag a process concern. Unlike last session's bill, HB 1286 would only require a simple majority to be referred to the November ballot. This sets a trebling precedent and risks crowding out other priorities voters need to weigh in on. Colorado has been a national leader on this issue. Right now, Waymo is actively testing autonomous vehicles on Denver streets and plans to open robo-taxi service to Colorado riders later this year. Autonomous trucking companies have logged millions of miles on public roads without a single fatality caused by the technology. This bill would undermine the very framework that's attracted that investment to Colorado. The safety case for autonomous vehicles is also strong. Human error is the root cause of 94% of traffic accidents. These systems are engineered to eliminate the risk of fatigue, distraction, and impairment. They don't drive, they don't text, and they don't drive impaired. CTA urges the committee to preserve Colorado's momentum and oppose HB 1286. Thank you. Thank you so much. All right, committee, we've got five

Madam Chair. My question is to any member of the panel here. I think some concerns I've received from folks, and I think you are the experts on this industry, is just the roads compared to other states, you know? One thing that I've been raised is that Colorado is not the same as Texas or Arizona. We are mountainous. We are not like, you know, plains. I would love to hear your feedback on that? Anyone on the panel? All right. Who wants to take it? Mr. Lesh. Jump into the fire.

Representative Bayzenicker Thank you madam chair. Thank you for being here today. I think my question revolves primarily around economic impact of this policy, but also I think it's impossible to force that from the economic impact workers who rely on these jobs to be able to provide for their families. And I'm wondering if you could talk to me a little bit about that delta between what the economic impact is for a company that utilizes this technology versus a traditional driver situation, and then what that means in terms of job loss or other impact on states where this has been deployed. Okay, Ms. Fishback.

Last question for this panel goes to Representative Pascal. Thank you, Madam Chair. So I'm curious about when a police officer pulls over an autonomous truck.

I apologize. I forgot Rep. Phillips, so I'm going to let her take a question.

Okay, Rep. Paschal, last one.

I would actually defer since neither of them are my companies. There are two companies I'm aware of. I'll defer to Renee Gibson, who represents us for our association. Great. Miss Gibson. Thank you for the question. Yes, the answer is yes. There are a couple of companies that are currently deployed in states like Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona that are operating and carrying commercial loads without a driver. They have what we often call first responder interaction plans and do a lot of work to train first responders and law enforcement as to how to pull vehicles over should they need to be pulled over. And they do respond to lights and sirens.

Hello, committee. My name is Deep Singh Badesha, and I am testifying today in my personal capacity. So again, taking some vacation time to testify in my personal capacity as an organizer of the Sikh Punjabi community here in Colorado and nationally in support of this bill. Sikh Americans make up 20% of all the truck drivers in America. One out of five truck drivers is Sikh Punjabi. They look like me. For my community, this is not abstract policy. It is personal. My relatives have been in the United States of America since 1929. And for many of them, trucking has been the path to building a life, supporting families, and contributing to this country. Trucking offers dignity, independence, and the ability to practice our faith. Sikh truckers today are not just drivers. They are small business owners and the backbone of our supply chain. My father was a taxi driver as well, so I have seen what happens when new technology is introduced without safeguards. Uber and Lyft promised cheaper rides, but instead bankrupted drivers like my father. And today, riders are often paid much less. Riders pay much more. Drivers earn much less. And money is pulled out of our local community and sent elsewhere. We cannot repeat that mistake in trucking. As this industry evolves we must ensure that workers who built it are protected Seeking Pajabi truck drivers already face long hours safety risks and discrimination They should not also bear the cost of unchecked change This bill is about fairness, accountability, and making sure innovation works for workers, not against them. I urge you to support this bill. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to speak My name is Tammy Munoz and I'm here on behalf of Teamsters Local 455, representing more than 12,000 members, many whom are drivers. HB 1286 is not an either or bill, it's an and bill, and one that addresses both public safety, a fully autonomous semis and operating Colorado highways, and the economic consequences of displaying trained, certified CDL drivers. You will hear extensive testimony today regarding the safety concerns of driverless 80,000-pound vehicles on our roads. So I wanted to focus on some economic impact on worker families and the communities that rely on middle class tracking jobs. Across the country, especially in Texas, autonomous semis are no longer experimental. They are already running on major freight corridors like Dallas to Houston. Companies such as Aurora Innovation have logged many miles. Companies such as Aurora Innovation have logged significant autonomous mileage and are rapidly scaling. Industry production show hundreds of driverless trucks expected on the roads this year and potentially thousands by 2027. But while technology races forward, working families are left behind. Long-haul trucking remains one of the last blue-collar professions that provides a stable middle-class living without requiring a college degree. Research and reporting show that automation threatens to eliminate many of these good jobs, jobs that fuel the consumer spending and tax revenue, keeping small-town economies alive. Truck drivers support diners, motels, repair shops, and countless small businesses along America's rural corridors. When these drivers disappear, entire communities feel the impact. But if efficiency at the top cannot come at the expense of the middle class, Colorado families and businesses deserve a say in whether big tech companies should be allowed to replace certified trained professional drivers while shifting risk onto the public and profits to shareholders. For these reasons, I respectfully urge a U.S. vote on SB 261286.

Good evening, Madam Chair. My name is Robert Harris, committee members. I'm a UPS driver, feeder driver for 20 years. Thank you for this opportunity to testify. It's on, it's just not close enough. Okay, how about now? I'm here to express my concerns about a line fully autonomous commercial vehicles that operate on Colorado roads and without a human driver present. Colorado has some of the most challenging roads in the country. Drivers regularly face high wind speeds reaching 70 miles per hour, steep mountain grades, chain laws, certain snowstorms, black ice, and wildlife crossings. Rolls like I-70 through the Rockies require a consistent human judgment and experience when a commercial vehicle is weighing tens of thousands of pounds is involved in even a smaller system failure. It could have serious consequence. Another concern is cyber security. security. Fully autonomous commercial vehicles rely on complex software, sensors, and remote connectivity. If these systems were to be hacked or compromised, the public could be at a significant risk. A bad actor gaining control of a large commercial vehicle could create a dangerous situation on our highways. This is another reason why maintaining a trained human driver in the vehicle provides an important layer of safety and accountability. There are also concerns about the economic impact of Colorado workers. Commercial driving supports thousands of families across our states, and these jobs remain an important part of our economy. Technology should improve safety, not create new risk, and not displace experienced, qualified drivers. I respectfully ask the committee to ensure that a trained human driver remains part of commercial vehicle operation on Colorado's roads until this technology has been proven safe for our state's unique driving condition.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and panel. My name is Ron Baird. I am a representative for Teamsters Local 455. I'm a business agent. Previous to that, I was a truck driver just in the union for 29 years. So I started driving trucks in 1984. I've driven approximately 4 million miles, which is about 8.3 trips to the moon and back. Anyone in this room that's ever driven a newer car with interactive cruise control, you know you've probably experienced some very scary situations. When the car did something unexpected. things like hard braking or loss of the lane control. So if you weren't in the car to keep it from crashing, it could be catastrophic for anyone around the car. Now compare the weight of an average SUV, which is approximately 2.4 tons, to a fully loaded semi-truck, which is 40 tons or 80,000 pounds. The loss of control could be catastrophic, especially if it were to involve other vehicles. This is one reason fully autonomous semi-trucks are the most dangerous things that we can put on our roads. I have had blown out steering tires while driving a truck. It took all my experience to maintain control and get safely out of traffic to the side of the road. What will an autonomous truck do in this situation? It uses the painted lines to stay in its lane. Will it stop in traffic and possibly get rear-ended? If it won't cross the lines into the breakdown lane on the right side of the road. Even if it can't do this, federal motor carrier laws require three reflective triangles to be in the cab of the truck at all times. And placed at the rear of the truck, went on the side of the roadway, one placed approximately 200 feet behind the truck, one at 100 feet, one at 10 feet. So how can a truck without a human accomplish this simple task? I am asking you to support this bill to keep us all safe while driving on our roadways. I have four children, four boys, and 13 grandchildren. I would like to make sure that a computer-driven robot does not kill them. Thank you.

Thank you so much Madam Chair And I would love to ask from one of the drivers that just testified if you could share with us you know what it is to drive under extreme weather like snowstorms what are some of those things that you find on the road that are not in the maps you know that might not be planned like road closures or emergency you know traffic control and all of those things that would definitely need an expert driver here in the roads of Colorado.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Representative. So I have driven lots of miles, and most of them were here in Colorado. I've driven out of state. I've been in every state in sleeper trucks and stuff like that. but Colorado is one of the most treacherous and hard places to drive in the country as far as I'm concerned. I like to say that you've never lived until you've been up on US 6 at 3 o'clock in the morning going over the tunnels with a set of trailers, two trailers that have hazmat on them in the middle of a whiteout blizzard. So the way you handle that is just by making the right decisions. If you can't do it properly and safely, then you don't do it. When it comes down to other issues like road closures and things like that, we have to obey the state laws and the federal laws. So did I answer your question or do you have anything else?

Yeah, thank you so much for sharing and thank you everyone for coming to testify. Also, could you talk about some of the chain laws? I mean, I wonder how is an autonomous vehicle going to put on chains when it just snows out of nowhere in July?

I'm sorry. Madam Chair, I apologize. They're not going to be able to do it. Now, if anybody has followed a school bus in Colorado, you'll notice that there are chains hanging down off the rear tires. You know what I'm talking about? Those are called auto chains. Okay? Auto chains work great when the vehicle's moving, but once you stop, those chains just lay there on the ground, and you try to start going again. They don't work. So what you're going to do is you're going to completely stop. Lots of times when you're going up in the mountains, passenger vehicles that have inadequate tires, safety tires, or snow tires or chains are the main reasons why our roadways get clogged in the wintertime during snowstorms. Because if you take 80,000 pounds and you stop it and the road is icy or snowy and you haven't yet had a chance to get to a secure chain-up station to actually put your chains on, you're not going anywhere. You're dead in the water. So it actually, I don't know how else to explain it, but it's pretty tough to start moving 80,000 pounds. It's just going to sit there and spin. So I do not have the answer of how an autonomous vehicle can possibly do that. The other thing I'd like to say is if it actually does make it to the chain-up area, which we do have them in Colorado. I was part of pushing the state to get safe chain-up areas after I saw a gentleman lose his life when he was rear-ended by another semi-truck when he was laying down chaining on the side of the road Ran him right over killed him So we do have safe areas to chain if you can get to that point All right Even if it gets to the chain up area, what's it going to do? I have no clue.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for speaking. I really appreciate you sharing your stories and your communities. As we both know, the governor did veto this last year. And so we just heard from CDOT and some organizations, including the state patrol, that they're still in an amended position and they're willing to compromise. And so I guess the question for me to y'all is that is there room for compromise? Is that gone? And is this the only path we have left or sorry, you have left on the ballot measure?

I would like to say to a compromise, a counteroffer, I don't think it's a compromise. A compromise is something that two parties come together and they agree upon. Getting information late, you know, early this week is not something that is feasible. It still does not address the potential job loss. It only addresses hazmat, and there's other things that we can do. So I appreciate the counter offer that the governor has submitted to us. But as far as a compromise, I think that there would have to still be more discussion on that part.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for being here today. I really appreciate the perspective coming from the Sikh community and what it means in terms of economic impact there. And I want to ask you the same question that I asked the folks in the previous panel. just in terms of economic impact job loss etc I know I mean in my district obviously with a certain beverage manufacturer to the north side of town that's deeply important for folks can you talk to me what this looks like from the driver perspective to have this technology sort of be sort of the next front of what might be coming and and how that impacts jobs and good paying jobs at that in our communities.

I'd like to start, but I think that other people would like to weigh in on this as well. So, yes, there are a lot of different companies that would be affected by this. You heard that this is that there's a net job gain on this. There are still drivers in the driver's seat right as this is going testing. Once that testing gets done, there's no need for those drivers, right? So they're not going to lose that. These are drivers with a livable wage, a pension, health care, and people who really love their job. And when you say that they're no longer needed, you are losing not only the financial security for that entire family that can go to the doctor whenever they need to, that can pay their bills when they want to, but also the other industries, like I mentioned before, the hotels and the diners and all of those other places on the way that, you know, rural company or rural areas, they need that income to survive. So I will let somebody else answer that. Who wants to take this? Just from the perspective of the Sikh community. So again, out of all the truck drivers, it's like 3.5 million truck drivers. About 150,000 of them are Sikh Punjabi Americans. It much more on the west coast and on the side of the Mississippi than is the east coast When we polled and looked at our community in particular there about 35 or 40 Sikhs in Colorado And about 15% to 20% of Sikh households are supported by either trucking directly or the truck driving industry. So we will be looking at a massive hit to our community. And it's something – it's like an age-old thing that we see is immigrants are pushed into jobs that are very, very tough. like taxi driving, owning small convenience stores, truck driving like this example. And there's a reason why large billionaire companies come in and go for those jobs first because those are communities that you can more easily exploit. So this would be very devastating for my community.

Madam Chair, my question is for Deep. I do a lot of work at my office with the Sikh community, And so thank you for saying those numbers because, once again, we have similar questions. But so what I heard the opposition say was that the job transfer would be from drivers into mapping, that they need help with the mapping. And so is that something that you think would be viable or do you have a rebuttal to that? When I spoke to Mike, more of my community will be at the press conference. When I asked a lot of the truck drivers, like, hey, can you show up in an afternoon on Wednesday? They're like, I'm driving, so I can't. That's why I'm here to represent them. As far as I can tell, the community wants these jobs because they're good jobs. They take pride in the work they do here. There's an entire national network of, like, seat gas stations and hotels and stuff. So it's really stood up more than just the truck drivers itself but a whole industry to support it. But as far as what jobs they would get afterwards, again, I would echo is we saw in the South Asian diaspora, many of us were taxi drivers like my father. And when those jobs were exploited by Uber and Lyft, many of those good-paying jobs disappeared for gig work, which paid much less. And a truck driver right now could be making a very comfortable salary, and their family could live off of that. It's a hard job, but they can. and there's no way they're going to get a comparable salary by doing this type of gig work, I think.

My name is Chris Sanchez. I'm a 27-year UPS driver. I appreciate your time. there's many reasons why I would have a person in a vehicle at all times. And I guess the first thing that I go with is people are distracted. We haven't discussed the distracted people out there. They have their nose in their cell phones on the road, the people that are walking around the streets that, you know, aren't paying attention to the road. We are, as package car drivers and semi-drivers, We are trained in defensive driving. We deal with things like communicating in traffic, make sure they see you, adjust to changing conditions, and expect the unexpected. So we're constantly focusing and anticipating bad moves out there on the road. I'm not comfortable with an automated vehicle being able to do this. you'll have people disappear in parking lots and all of a sudden appear. It's actually pretty alarming at times. So having a person in a vehicle to make that adjustment is huge to me. For all the years I've seen some really bad things happen. So it is very, very important that we pass this bill. and I appreciate your time.

Good afternoon. My name is Nate McCarty. I've been a professional truck driver for 33 years. I have 3.5 million accident-free miles, which would be 140 times around the world. I've also served as an ambassador for the trucking industry and my company for the last 16 years. I can imagine that everybody in this room today past a truck on the way here. Probably quite a few given that we are the second largest industry in this country behind agriculture with 3.6 million drivers. One in seven jobs in this country is a professional truck driver or somebody that supports the industry. If you take a truck driver from behind the wheel, you're taking away a provider for a family as many are moms and dads, husbands, wives, grandparents, and veterans like myself. Think about the lost revenue for truck stops, restaurants, hotels in the state of Colorado alone. We already have some of the same safety technologies on our trucks that these autonomous trucks will be using. Roll stability systems, side collision avoidance systems, lane departure systems, camera monitoring systems that could replace the mirrors that we use, and adaptive cruise control. I can tell you that these systems do not do well in bad weather. Radars and cameras get covered up in snow, fog, and freezing conditions. We have false triggers frequently where the truck picks up on an overpass and applies the brakes. And I can tell you that it's not gentle. The lane departure system cannot tell the difference between a crack seal on the road and a line. The camera will pick up on a 45-mile-per-hour sign off a frontage road off a 75-mile-per-hour interstate. The GPS and camera will have the truck running 20 miles per hour in a school zone at midnight. If having someone in the cab ready to take control of the truck in an emergency is the answer, I can tell you that the average person's reaction time when they're well rested and paying attention is three quarters of a second, which is 60 feet at 55 miles per hour. In my humble opinion, it could take many years for safety technologies to be flawless, if ever and to handle every factor involved in operating a commercial vehicle Nothing can replace a well and experienced professional truck driver Thank you Thank you so much All right on to our last panelist

My name is Stephen Lussig. I'm an Uber Lyft driver, and I'm an organizer with Colorado Independent Drivers United, the Uber and Lyft Drivers Union. We do fully support this bill and preventing AI from taking over the roadways here in Colorado. They're very dangerous, particularly considering Colorado's terrain, our climate, and even coverage out in the mountains. Do you really trust these autonomous vehicles to navigate terrain, say, during a blizzard up in Steamboat or over in Aspen and the narrow mountain roadways? So it was mentioned earlier, and I know that this is a bill concerning vehicles that are 26,000 pounds and more and not under that. It does not include Waymos. Well, the only reason that we're in an amend position is that we believe that it should include all autonomous vehicles, including the Waymos. That's really our only quibble with the bill. robo-taxis will automate Uber, Lyft, and taxi drivers out of jobs just like the robo-trucks are going to automate truck drivers out of work. And Colorado infrastructure can't really handle these autonomous vehicles either. Imagine being stuck in traffic on 25 or 70, looking around, and most of the vehicles being empty, not even having human beings in them. That is the future that we're coming across. Remember when a bunch of people moved here a few years ago and the roadways couldn't handle it? Well, we're in for something similar. Big Tech says that these vehicles are safer when, in fact, Waymos go through school bus stops all the time. The stop signs, how long until a child dies from this? Big Tech says a lot about safety, but they really don't care about safety or reducing roadway deaths. All they care about is making profit at the expense of workers, motorists, pedestrians, and even schoolchildren. In conclusion, we fully support passage of this bill, but believe it ought to include commercial autonomous vehicles of any weight so that roadways are not clogged with empty robo vehicles to line the pockets of big tech and to protect the job safety and lives of all Coloradans. Thank you for your time.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And I appreciate the CIDU representative from CWA for the Uber and Lyft, but it doesn't fit under the bill title for 26,001 pounds, but I completely understand where he's coming from and so agree with that. You've heard all the testimony. I understand people some people want to compromise We tried to compromise last year We met several times trying to get a compromise and it just wasn happening I think the fact that it's being known that it'll pass if the public has their say in their safety, they want to be safe. I will continue to work with the Gov's office when I've sent like, you know, they knew this was coming. I told them weeks in advance and they come again as, you know, the last minute to talk with us just like last time and even though we tried and tried to get them to a compromise. And I'm still willing to meet with them, but I'm not willing to lay the bill over. We need to move forward with this. There's still time to continue to work. It still goes through another chamber. I do have amendments. I took the amendments that they suggested in our meeting. I took the amendments suggested from the state troopers. I worked with a lot of people. And we could continue to keep working. We don't need to lay the bill over to continue to work. The majority of you who are already on here are co-crime sponsors prior to introduction. introduction. I would hope that you would continue to stick with the people and the safety that this represents by all the amendments we've already compromised on and taken. So I would certainly hope that I could count on you. We can continue

phase or do you want us to keep talking? I think you probably want amendment phase.

Yeah. Oh, you know what, we don't have them.

No. I'm looking at them right here. I was going to give them to you earlier. We were just waiting on the last one because he just changed a technical change in the last one is why. Thank you.

Yes, I move L... Amendment L001 to HB 1286. Second. Go ahead and tell us about L1.

Yeah, so L1, essentially, it repeals the bill effective September. first 2031 and then in the fall prior direct CSP to provide a report on the impacts of the bill. It had moved the penalties into the bill so they can be repealed along with it. So that's why this is a little bit lengthier, but essentially this is the five-year repeal.

Why not two? Why not three? Why did you decide on five? Because I would think that the advancements in autonomous driving would be considerably different in even two years from now.

Representative Richardson. Again, we've come almost 10 years on the current lack of a framework. Five was, I mean, this was initially written with no repeal. It certainly do not want to go back to the voters or override a voter signal five years from now.

Okay. Thank you, Chair. Fair enough. I don't see in the bill language, actually, that you're specifying to the voters that are informing the voters of five years. The bill language was written without specificity to five. So is that with the amendment, then it gets put in specific to the voters? And that is something we can frame the question more specifically on seconds.

Rep Leader?

Okay, great. Any other questions about L1, Rep Beysnecker?

They told – Thank you. It's a referred measure, and they said there would be no cost on it. That's why it goes to – I'm sorry, it's the cash fund. That's what we were told from the fiscal analysts.

Is the cash fund going to cover that? Yes.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So just to be specific, on your amendment page, line 16, it says, the chief of the Colorado State Patrol shall analyze the section's effects on commercial vehicle safety on highways. By November 1, 2030, the chief of the Colorado State Patrol shall, based on the review, issue a report to the House of Representatives, THLG, et cetera, or their successor committees. Their report must make recommendations as to whether to continue this section, if the recommendation is to continue this section, any recommended legislation to improve this section. And my question is, for State Patrol, is that a revenue-neutral proposition that can happen with existing resources, or does this incur a cost?

Thank you. We were told by the fiscal drafter that it would not have an additional cost.

Yes, and if I could frame this a little. I think we've been using the term sunset too loosely. It really, this is an auto repeal on September 30th of 31. The directive prior to that November prior to get a report from CSP is, it's akin to the report, the annual report that comes to the Transportation Legislative Review Committee annually currently. So I don't see it as really an additional burden on what we're currently doing, other than we won't have a TLRG for them to report to this year and potentially never again. But more technically, it's an auto-repeat.

Thank you.

Okay. I would move L-005 to 1286. Tell us about L-5. Oh, I need a second.

Okay. And this amendment specifically ensures that the bill pertains to those vehicles that are 26,000 pounds or more or over that, not any commercial vehicle, which could be a broader and much smaller set of vehicle. Rep leader.

We were clarifying that because we also was clarifying this way on the ballot language. So people don't think it's a school bus. We wanted them to understand.

Representative Richardson. Okay, I would move L003 to 12. Second. L006, sorry.

Yes, I would move L006 to 1286. Second.

Thank you. So this is required that the CDL holder in the vehicle have the right kind of CDL for that specific truck, including any required endorsement. So, for example, like I said earlier, a bus driver could not be hauling hazmat materials. That's what it did. It clarified it and made it real clear.

Thank you. I'd move L004 to 1286.

Okay. And this bill, I think, or this amendment gets to some of the questions we had earlier. It specifies that a CDL holder had to be present in the cab and available to intervene in an emergency if necessary. So it kind of ensures the correct placement of the human within the cab.

And these were also more things that we took out of the stakeholder meeting with state troopers in the governor's office.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So when Aurora Innovation launched the country's first fully driverless commercial vehicles, not all companies are going to police themselves like you heard the gentleman up here. It's like the Wild West. So the manufacturer of that truck, within three weeks, asked for a human back in the driver's seat. And like I said, this happened just last May. I'm not a regulator. We're not a union. It's not my bill. The manufacturer, I should say it is my bill, the manufacturer asked for the driver back in the seat. Because even then, they knew what the companies launching this technology did not want to admit. That the road is not a controlled environment. The road is real life with real people. There a group of people in this country who have decided that the future is theirs to build on their terms and on their timeline as you heard here This ballot measure will allow the drivers of Colorado roads to make the decisions that the voters and the taxpayers and the working families deserve to have a say in whether driverless cars are driving, I should say driverless trucks, are driving next to their 13-year-old child, next to your children on the interstate, on the highways. Carrying hazardous material. They cannot have this hazardous material are allowed on their roads or not. So in whether driverless trucks carrying hazardous material are allowed on their roads, not big tech, I ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Right now we're operating in this state with what is described by the body, this Autonomous Mobility Task Force, as an informal, non-policy-making body. That is truly a gap when we look at 29 other states in this nation having an actual framework that can take you on the path to the future of autonomous trucking. This bill gives us some time to develop that roadmap. It was discussed earlier. Absolutely open to continue to discuss. We took several amendments from one relatively brief meeting. I think this bill can, and every bill can always be made better. And I'm committed to making it the best it can be prior to getting it on for full vote to the floor.

I was just going to say, like he said, we'll continue to work with the governor's office. And their language didn't fit into this bill. We can roll that bill for next year. This is a good bill. We've worked. Like I said, we met with him a couple times. Some of them he wasn't in the meeting. So this bill is ready to go to the voters. I would appreciate your aye vote. And we can continue to work with some of their different ideas that they had that doesn't fit under this bill title. Thank you.

Can I ask a question? I know it's a chair's thing, but we were told finance because it goes to the cash fund.

Rep. Richardson. All righty Then thank you Madam Chair I move House Bill 26 as amended to the Appropriations Committee

Thank you, Madam Chair. you know I grappled with this one for a minute but representative leader you are a fierce advocate and a passionate individual for people in the state and the public comment won me over today so I appreciate what you're trying to do I don't agree with all of it but I will stand by you today and I will be a yes vote

appreciate the willingness to compromise even in the face of someone who has vetoed your bill. And so I appreciate you being honest, and it means a lot. So I'll be a yes. So thank you so much for

came to testify. And it was a pleasure to meet also with industry and hear about the advancements that are happening in other states, and I'm an enthusiastic yes on this bill. And road safety is one of the most important issues in my community. We have the Glenwood Canyon, an area along I-70 with the most accidents in the nation. We also have mudslides, rockslides, and fires along the roads, And I definitely worry about the ability of autonomous vehicles to react to changing situations. And we also have a national forest next to the road, railroads, and the Colorado River. So for me, having an expert driver is a good thing to protect our natural resources and safety for all on the road. So I'll be a yes. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, sponsors, for the bill. Thank you, all the people who testified. This bill came before this committee last year, and so from the worker perspective, I care about this issue. I also think I said last year I'm a child of the 80s. I watched way too many sci-fi movies. So I have concerns about these things that we need to be addressing these issues. I also think the future is coming, and so we need to wrestle with these things. Process-wise, I was very disappointed of how we got here from last year with this going through the legislative process. I'll tell you I'm not absolutely in love with the idea of this being on the ballot I really wish we could handle this stuff in our legislature I wish we had a governor that supported the bills that passed through this legislature with really high majority support and so I just disappointed that we here again But this is an issue that needs to be tackled And so I will be a yes. I just, I hope our governor is listening to the will of the legislators who represent many, many people across the state. So thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, bill sponsors. I think a couple thoughts. I'm a co-sponsor on your bill, and I'm a yes on your bill, and I'm also lacking what I need in terms of just basic safety data. Like, where are there problems happening inside of this space? Where is the crash data? What has other regulatory schemes in other states meant for that safety data? Where are there outliers in terms of what currently happens with traditionally piloted vehicles? Like, I think we have to answer those questions. Because if you're asking us to regulate an industry solely based on a safety concern, then I need data to be able to back that up. And if I don't have that, I don't know if the safety argument is as salient as he would like it to be. I mean, and jobs as well. I mean, it is a key concern to me from everything from automated checkouts in our grocery markets to this space, that we are replacing people who have relied on these jobs to provide for their families. And at the same time, I need data. You got to bring it to us. Like, I need to see where the impact is. What is the potential liability for Fort Collins and for Colorado if we enact this policy versus we don't? And I'm not able to get those answers today. And I think that's a really important part. If we're saying that the governor's compromise is not viable because it doesn't speak to jobs, but you're not speaking to jobs either, what decision am I to make? It's important to have that information. I do think actually that compromise fits under the bill title. I think it's your choice whether or not you want to take it. That is your right as a bill sponsor. And I will be a co-sponsor of your legislation and I will support you in that. But I think it fits under the title. I don't think this is a next year issue because I think when we look at what happened with AI and other spaces, we see what happens when this legislature punts to the next year. I would encourage us to solve this issue where compromise is possible this year. And I would encourage that to happen before it comes to me in appropriations. Because I think it's an opportunity that we have to solve this in a way that makes sense. Not everybody gets everything they want, rep leader. You said that yourself. It's not a Christmas tree, right? And at the same time, there's an opportunity for compromise here, which I think needs to be taken. I'm not suggesting that bill get laid over because I will be a yes today. but I do think there is an opportunity for more engagement so I encourage you in that I also have concerns about this being a ballot measure especially in a year where some folks are trying to really speak to some of the revenue issues that our current tax structure in the state of Colorado faces for all of these decisions workers included and then to have a statutorily referred ballot measure at the top of the ballot presents a question for me about what that means for roll off on down ballot measures so I I'm supportive and I want you to hear that but i think there's an opportunity for compromise and deeper engagement here which hasn't been fully realized and i want to support you in that you'll have my support to vote this bill through because it needs to happen is as a shame it was vetoed i have four vetoes to my credit as well, it means you're probably doing something right. And at the same time, the choice is before you how you want to engage in the 2.0 version of whatever you're trying to get done. And that's what I would like to see for what it's worth. So thank you for bringing the bill.

Sure, thank you. I'll take the spoiler out. I'm a no. And I'm a no for many of the reasons, actually, that my good representative over here just talked about. I find it very hollow, if not outright disingenuous, to say, hey, look, we're going to continue to work on something. We really want to work on something, and we promise we're going to work on something. But, my gosh, you know what? We're not willing to lay it over and work on it now. And I find it also disingenuous to say that you're willing to work on something when the referred measure is clearly a way of working around the governor's office. You know, those things just, they ring hollow. You can't present that to me. call it something and then sell me on the fact that it is something that I believe that it is not. Process, I'm a process guy and process, honestly, there's a bit of a mess here. The voters aren't going to be able to sit down and have the benefit of the two or three hours that we just had to be able to ask the questions and be able to understand this or the implications of it. If this is truly a public safety bill, well, then let's make it about public safety. I don't believe that, to be perfectly honest, that some of the route that the testimony took was applicable to the bill. So I'm the, look, I've had to lay over bills, and I don't have a veto. I can't ever get that far. But I've had to lay over bills before, and it stinks. You know, it stinks to have to go back and dig back into it and really work through the process. But, you know, there's something to it, you know, that's honorable to know that you were really working through the policy. And I'm concerned that we're trying to push this through. I would rather take the time to make sure that we're getting it right here in committee before we kick it to the next phase, because there are only so many phases before it disappears out of our sight. For those reasons, I don't know.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I will be supporting today, but I share some of the concerns of my colleagues. I do like compromise. I also have gaps regarding the economic impacts. and I hope that you are true to your word and that your work does continue before it comes to the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So yeah, I'll give the spoiler. I'm going to be a yes for today but I do agree with the Representative Baisnecker who I hope to be one day when I grow up and be that articulate and I also agree with Rep Brooks as well. I think that, you know, I'm not sure I believe this is going to continue to be worked on, honestly. And so I hope it is. I hope it is. I hope that, you know, we can find compromise. I really don't want this to be a ballot measure either or a ballot referral either. I feel like that's a failure on our part as a legislature and as, you know, the executive branch. I know it's a, you know, a team effort. But I would like to see us be able to resolve it. That would be my ideal solution.

With that, Mr. Gravey, please poll the committee.

Yes.

No.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes. Pascal. Yes. Phillips. Yes. Richardson. Yes. Sucla. Yes. Velasco. Yes. Weinberg. Yes. Froelich. Yes. Madam Chair. Yes. That passes 12 to 1. Congratulations. You are on your way to appropriations.

Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee. It's great to be here before the Housing and Transportation Committee. We're bringing you this bill, which we're very excited about. It's about transit access. Our current transportation system often prioritizes a park and ride model, which does not meet the needs of all Coloradans. Many people rely on the transit for daily mobility, yet still face real barriers to accessing a dependable system that gets them where they need to go. Cost, lack of clear information, and limited amenities continue to make transit less accessible, especially for marginalized and low-income individuals, people with disabilities, and those experiencing homelessness. This bill requires covered transit agencies to take clear, actionable steps to improve access. And basically, we are looking at transit riders. They must ensure, large transit agencies must ensure clear, up-to-date, and user-friendly transit maps that are displayed at all real stations, bus stations, and bus rapid transit stops to make transit routes, connections, and schedules easier to understand and navigate. They also must ensure that information on fare rates and structure is available both online and displayed in all transit vehicles at all road stations, bus stations, and transit stops with a covered shelter. An agency can meet these requirements by displaying this information and a link or QR code to the website with detailed information. Second language access initiatives cover transit agencies of any size must ensure that all publicly available information that is shared regarding accessing transit services fare structures transit maps service schedules and the rights and responsibilities of transit riders is translated into languages that are widely spoken in any county that the agency operates in. And those are the requirements of this bill. I'm going to pass it off to my co-prime, Rep. Joseph.

Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, members of the committee. It's a pleasure to present House Bill 1269 with Representative Ricks this year. Well, I want to say since my first day in office, one of my top priorities has been making our system more accessible, reliable, and responsive so that everyone, regardless of their backgrounds, can more easily get to work, school, and the opportunity they depend on every day to be able to get access to medical care if they need to go to the hospital. As the Denver metro area expands, it is critical that our transportation system grows with it. This bill takes a thoughtful, targeted approach to improving transit access by focusing on practical, achievable solutions for the agency's best position to implement them. And building on that approach, 261269 focuses on the real barriers people face when trying to use transit and work to remove them in practical ways. It starts with affordability requiring large transit agencies to offer meaningful low-income fare options so cost is not the reasons someone can't get to work or to a doctor's appointment. It also creates a partnership with community organizations to provide no-cost transit passes to individuals experiencing homelessness and those receiving housing assistance, helping connect people to stability and opportunity. This bill improves the riders' experience by ensuring clear transit maps, transparent, fair information, and language access so people can actually navigate the system. And it addresses basic dignity like access to restrooms on long routes because transit should work for real people. At its core, this bill is about making our transit system more accessible, equitable, and responsive to the people who rely on it every single day. As you've heard from RepRix about some of the problems, these barriers are real. And they are unacceptable. Public transportation should work for everyone, all Coloradans, especially those who have been continuously overlooked and underrepresented. They deserve access to safe, reliable, and easy-to-navigate transportation options. I will stop right there and wait for any questions that you may have.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you representatives for bringing the bill. Obviously, I assume there's going to be a lot of questions about the cost and especially on, I see it's a zero fiscal, but then I also see on page four, it will reduce revenue to RTD around 4.7 million, but I'm sure you're going to talk about that. I think the two questions I have, first of all, for access with people with disabilities and in my house district, the primary barrier for us that we've talked about for almost 10 years is on the end line, the ADA compliant ramp is too steep, especially in the winter, because there's too much snow and ice. So when we talk about access to people with disabilities, that's just a separate issue in my house district. And then also a question about, I hear you say QR code, and that's another thing that people with disabilities, and especially seniors in my house district, they're going to be like, you know, oh, my God, I'm not going to do a QR code. So I'm wondering if the assumption is that homeless people have a phone and that people with disabilities know how to use the QR code, that it kind of doesn't seem accessible. That's it.

Rep. Joseph? Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for the question, Representative. I wanted to note to your questions around the fiscal note, we had been working. I failed to mention that we do have amendments. I'm happy to give them to you in a minute. And these amendments were also sent to the committee, I believe. And we are removing, there is a $4.5 million subsidization on the revenue from RTD, even though the bill has a zero fiscal note. We have taken care of that. We've removed that at present based on the amendments that we will make today, and the fiscal analysts will be able to speak to that. It should be zero cost to RTD. and we removed the partner pass out of the bill and we also removed the low income fare discount program out of the bill as well. Yes.

Thank you, Madam Chair. That was basically my question is like what is still in the bill, what's not in the bill? And it sounds like there's still stuff in there maybe that might cost money, so I guess that's what I'm looking to find out. Rep. Joseph.

Do you want to answer or do you want me to answer?

Thank you, Madam Chair. Yes, we did remove the cost, the items that have cost on the bill, and the fiscal note will be able to speak to that. What's left in this bill at this point is the information for transit riders through and also the language access initiative and also the reporting requirements all these days in the bill and the reasons why they don't cost money because these things are things that RTD already doing representative one thank you madam chair thank you for bringing this bill

Representative Joseph. Okay. I think as written, the bill would have certainly increased ridership, and Representative Ricks can speak to that more because or unhoused communities members are still using the bus But however we don have data on that Had the bill remain the bill without any amendment I would say that RTD would know those numbers, right? And not only that, because also of the income fare discount, there are community members who probably can't buy a bus pass. it would be able to help them, right? Do I buy a bus pass? Do I feed my family? I know it sounds so little money, but there are community members who do not have a lot of money, right? So I do believe that with this particular bill, it would increase ridership because of the discounts program in the bill. But I do believe there is still, the bill is still a good bill, even though we removed the $4.5 million fiscal note upward. Even then, the bill is still a good bill because of the language access that is required in the bill and the reporting mechanism and the mapping as well. All these things are important. Imagine, I have been on the bus before. If you're waiting on your bus, you don't know the routes, you can't see them, and you are trying to get to somewhere. It's important to have these things available. The QR code, I understand that, listen, it's a matter of perspective, right? Someone may say hey this is not accessible enough maybe there should be Braille you know instead of QR code or in addition to QR code yes that's certainly a perspective but I think having the QR code so that people can access information is extremely important because most of the time this information is on the RTD website but most people can't find them

Yeah, and thank you, Rep Nguyen, for the question. So as far as why would it increase ridership and why would it not cost additional money, the truth is that the trains are running anyways, right? Homeless people are riding these trains every day. What we're not doing, though, is capturing that data as to who's riding it. They jump on. There's also costs to law enforcement because we're trying to persecute homeless people for riding the train when they don't have money. So that's sunk cost. In accounting, it's opportunity cost. It's sunk cost. They're going to ride anyways. We might as well capture that data as they're on the train. And so that is what we're attempting to do, is to do reporting so that we have good data as lawmakers and we're able now to make good bills, new determination, make decisions as we're looking at transit. I think the, you know, everyone in Colorado shares that we want to increase ridership because it makes sense if there's a lot of people riding. What we don't have, though, is adequate data to determine what stops are they getting off in our district, what stops are the most popular, you know, and those are information that we need. And this bill hopefully will help to fix that.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, bill sponsors. and i especially wanted to say thank you for the pre-amend version you sent out it was incredibly helpful just to be able to digest it so i really appreciate that um i've checked now with the city of fort collins the one question i had was in relation to the 300 mile end-to-end trip for the requirement for a restroom on the bus it sounds like we don't have any routes that are impacted inside of that so appreciate just the time to be able to check into that a little bit I guess my one question for you would be and I think the data is very helpful just in terms of being able to understand the narrative that currently playing out And I can ask the same of RTD as well Is some of this data that they already pulling forward and you just kind of trying to look at condensing that down into a format that a select committee in the House can see Or what are you feeling is missing from current RTD data reporting that you're really trying to capture inside of your bill?

Thank you. And thank you, Rip Basenacker, for the question. I think there is a lot of data that RTD has, whether or not we are getting access to that or if it's easily available on their website. I don't know where to go and find this data, but what if they were sharing that information and there were reports that could come to us where we can make timely decisions about transportation and how, you know, who's using it, where do we want to increase ridership? I think there's more that they can do, and I think that the RTD representative here will speak to that and answer that question more clearly.

Thank you, Madam Chair. If you can help me understand on page 15 regarding the language requirement. And the reason I'm asking is because I know my house district, and this is going by county according to the census for what languages we're going to use. In my house district, the third most spoken language, English, Spanish, and then Vietnamese. But we have a large population from Afghanistan, and they speak five different languages. So on line 14, it says required to provide translation for 5% of the most recent census. But then on line 24, it says any language spoken by at least 20%. So I'm just wondering if it's, maybe I'm misreading it, or is it 5% or is it 20%?

Thank you. I do not have the answer to this question, but I can follow up. Thank you.

oh sorry representative paschal go for it thank you ma'am madam chair um so i'm sorry i got a little lost i guess i didn't i didn't get the pre-amend version um so i'm sorry i'm i don't know if it's just i haven't read my email or what the deal is but um so can you i'm a little bit lost as to what additional data you're going to collect that you're not collecting now, or is it just that it comes to us, or how does that work?

Thank you. So currently, some of the data that we're requesting in this bill is information around how RTD is meeting their service requirement requirement as far as ensuring more ridership when it comes to low-income community members and also how they are ensuring that unhoused community members are serviced as well. And how are they trying to meet the goal of providing accessible transportation services that are commiserate for those who are living with disabilities.

And they're collecting this data, and where is it going? Is they just going to put it on their website, or are they sending it to a particular body, or what?

Yes. So they already have this information, so it would be submitting it to the legislature. Did that answer your question?

thank you representative my name is Ian Thomas Tafoya and I'm speaking here in support of this bill on behalf of Green Latinos, a national and state-based environmental justice and climate justice organization. We're here today because we have been consistently participating in these conversations that relate to public transit. The communities that we organize with raise this on a regular basis. And one of the things that I think is really important as a former environmental justice action task force member is recognizing the importance of information and the dual responsibility of governments to deliver information in a way that is accessible to a broad spectrum of individuals. I can tell you that on average the people that I talk to are often moms who are sitting in the dark waiting for a bus to come without a bus bench, without access to restrooms, without access to maps, without access to lighting, without access to security. All things that we see in dignity in particular for the fast tracks developed projects where people though their train may be late, they're notified that it's late. Their train might be able to be transferred to other lines. they're able to look at that on a map. These are the kinds of things that regular individuals just simply don't necessarily have the ability to use. We know that, of course, this comes with climate action. It's about air quality and the importance of protecting those communities that are exposed to the largest amounts of small particulate pollution adjacent to roadways. These are the communities that Green Latinos organizes in a regular fashion. And lastly, I want to say that these partner programs, though I know that they're not necessarily make it through this amendment process or something I think that are incredibly valuable and important. As a person whom my mother actually worked with representative leader when she lost her job at Mountain Bell and we went and had our car repossessed. We ended up on tokens back then where we had to put tokens and my mom had to regularly go get tokens. I think these passes and the ease for people to qualify for these programs makes it easier for us to gather data but also enables people to seek prosperity through opportunity on transit

who you represent. You've got three minutes. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members of the committee. My name is Summer Nettles, and I am a DPS Bond Committee member. Thank you for giving me an opportunity to testify on behalf of HB 2612. 69. I'm not here to point out the obvious that on a national level market instability and war has driven up the price of oil to as high as $119 a barrel and my family feels that at the pump and now pays almost nearly double at Costco when we go to get gas and you may already know that there are 300,628 black people that make up the African-American community in Colorado and more than half of us do not own a vehicle. That's far fewer than our white counterparts. I'm sure you know public transportation provides crucial access to things like community, libraries, doctor's appointments, and economic mobility. So, of course, you know that working class immigrants and black folks travel to wealthy communities like Aspen and Telluride to work in retail, restaurants, and recreation via public transportation. And those same workers may soon face loss of access to after-school and before-school programs, which will make mobility that much more important to them. I will say that my 12-year-old son takes the 15 from Denver School of the Arts to home every day. He takes the bus with kids from low-income families and immigrant families and Spanish-speaking families and Somali families. He took the bus with his dad the first few times because there was no way for him to really figure it out on his own, And he knows everything. When I took the bus with him, he was very happy to show me the way that he had learned with his father. Because my son can ride the bus, I'm here today to testify. And I'm sure if you ask him about it, if he likes the bus, he'll say, 6-7. But for our family and hundreds of black families throughout the state of Colorado, transit is a necessary part of life. So please, please pass this bill and make transit more accessible.

Good afternoon, everyone. Madam Chair and members of the committee. My name is Akana Dwing, and I'm here on behalf of myself in support of Bill 26-1269. So as a former student living in Denver and attending school in Aurora, public transit was not optional for me. It was essential. I relied on the bus every single day to get to class, to get to work, to play sports. And like so many students and young people, I didn't have the luxury of owning a car. And transit was my lifeline. But I also experienced firsthand the barriers the bill is trying to address. There were days when even the bus fare felt like a tough choice when I had to think about whether I could afford to go to school or whether I'd have to, you know, get some dimes from my mom's little coin pouch. This bill recognizes that reality by creating meaningful income-based fare discounts so that it's no longer a barrier to opportunity. And there were also times when navigating the system felt confusing with unclear routes, limited information, and not enough support for riders trying to understand how to get to where they needed. I'll never forget the one morning my sister and I were waiting at the bus stop before school, and this is like 5.30-ish a.m. It was early, and we had to transfer buses because we're going through cities. so punctuality was crucial. However, we stood there watching the road, expecting the bus to come any minute, but it never did. Eventually, my sister called one of her classmates who got on a bus stop later, and she told us everything is delayed. And until that moment, we truly had nothing, we had no idea what was going on. There were no updates, no alerts, and we ended up waiting for almost an hour. Confused and frustrated and in the end we missed our chance to go to school on time so we just decided to go home and this experiences like this show how a lack of real communication and public transport can impact students and families and for many in our community experiencing those housing instability transportation is the bill to stability this bill creates partnerships to provide free transit passes to those who need it helping connect people with jobs housing and services at this core this

good afternoon Madam Chair and members of the committee thank you for allowing me the opportunity to speak in support of House Bill 1269 this afternoon my name is Jack Rosenthal I am here representing myself as somebody who depends upon transit every day to get everywhere I need to go and about a year ago actually last August I was riding the bus into work and a woman got on the bus and she did not have enough change to pay for it she had two dollars and fifty cents and the three-hour pass fare is two dollars and seventy-five cents and the bus operator haggled her and didn't let us go until she paid and I dug through my pockets and I found a quarter and we got to go But I asked myself, here I am, I have the benefit of having an Ecopass. I can tap on every single bus I want whenever I want, and I never have to worry about paying for it, and it's all because I have a nice office job. But not everybody has that same benefit, and in particular, the people who do not have that benefit need public transit the most of anyone. And later that afternoon, I would actually sit down with Rep. Joseph and chat about what would become this bill. We wrote down a list of seven different ideal things. If we could make transit better, these are all the things we want to solve. And while we don't have the partner pass in today's version of the bill, we do have a very good set of improvements, which are feasible without a fiscal note, without impact to RTD when they have a $215 million hole in the budget next year. I think that's extremely important. and so it would be grateful if you could pass what we've got today and make some impact with what we can without it costing anything and that we could come back down the road and look at the

for HB 26-1269. I believe this bill represents a meaningful step towards strengthening Colorado transportation housing and local governance systems in ways that benefits residents communities and long statewide planning HB 261269 addresses challenges that many Coloradans experience daily, whether it's the need for a safer and more reliable transportation options, more attainable housing, or improved coordination between state and local entities. By advancing this legislation, the state can better align resources, modernize infrastructure, and support policies that improve quality of life. I urge the committee to pass HB 26-1269 and help move Colorado toward a more connected, equitable, and sustainable future.

Chair, thank you. This really could be to pretty much anybody on the panel, but two folks at the end here, I know that you specifically talked about the, you know, scrounging for change piece. It's been a minute, been a hot minute, admittedly since I rode the 15, but I used to ride the 15 a bit myself when I lived in Capitol Hill. So I have some notes here, and so I don't typically do this. I don't like to read a whole lot, you know, but there are some notes here that I wouldn't have known otherwise. I just want to ask you if any of these programs, you know, if they benefit kind of the situation that I heard, that RTD apparently already operates several subsidy programs. I'm just going to list a couple that I have here. I'm just wondering if these were available to you and, you know, would these assist? Because I believe they're already existing. LIV, which is acronym with the little I, 50% income-based discount for adults, zero fare for youth free ride program for those under 20 years of age, Zero Fair for Better Air, state-funded summer zero-fair initiative, and the Transit Assistance Grant Program, which distributes free passes through nonprofits to riders with urgent needs. So I'm just curious, like, how impactful are those programs? Obviously, you're saying that they're not impactful enough, but I would like to know what your experience is with those programs and how they've been able to help fill the gap when you're, you know, trying to find that quarter in your pocket.

Thank you. Yeah, so RTD provides a number of programs already today, as you mentioned. These are not available statewide. Not all agencies in the state have a low-income discount program, for example. And there are varying requirements as to your eligibility for those programs or ability to provide proof of that eligibility. For example, if you could show a proof of benefits using a Medicaid card or a SNAP card to show that you are receiving these benefits, you meet the income clause already, or do you need to contact the agency to apply for the program? And there's a big difference there in terms of how available the program is. For example, this woman I spoke of in my testimony just a moment ago had to pay the standard fare at RTD because she did not go through the process of applying for the live discount. And while the bill as it is today does not provide a low discount program I think it worth mentioning especially if it comes up again down the road Any other questions for this panel from the committee All right Seeing none thank you all

Thank you, Madam Chair. Good afternoon, committee members. My name is Bev Stables. I'm here on behalf of the Colorado Municipal League and our 271 municipalities. I'm here today testifying to amend House Bill 1269. Transit access continues to be a priority for local governments. We invest in transit agencies, projects and infrastructure, plan for development near transit and so much more. We are committed to ensuring that residents have safe and reliable access to transit. Therefore, we absolutely support the good intentions behind House Bill 1269. However, we are concerned about the cost to transit agencies contained in this legislation and how these financial burdens may impact service. As you all know, transit agencies and local governments operate on extremely tight budgets and any additional unfunded mandates can put service at risk. We sincerely appreciate the sponsors' work on this bill and the amendments we expect to be brought before the committee to reduce those impacts. While we do believe that the remaining provisions of the bill, if amendments are adopted, would still impose some costs on transit agencies, we feel that these amendments do reduce the financial burden as compared to the introduced version of the bill. We urge the committee to support L-002, L-004, and L-007 to narrow the scope of the bill and help to ensure that agencies can continue to provide service to Coloradans. Thank you.

Yes. Great. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair and members of the committee. My name is Anne Rajewski. I'm the Executive Director of CASTA, the Colorado Association of Transit Agencies. CASTA represents more than 60 transit agencies around the state, ranging from Transport in Fort Collins to All Points Transit in Montrose. Transit agencies around the state strive to serve the parts of their communities, in particular, that need mobility the most, like seniors, people with disabilities, people with lower income and those who are currently in the house most transit agencies have some fair discounts programs and partnerships with organizations in their community that serve these populations we all as transit agencies continue to work to serve all our parts of our community better but we did we have been watching this bill carefully primarily because the cost of implementation. Many communities in our state have seen tax revenue decreases and as a result have cut staff and budgets. Implementing new fare discounts and programs on top of the cuts without new funding would unfortunately result in decreased transit service. Some of our smaller agencies calculate a cost of $36,000 a year to implement this program which doesn't sound like much but results in cutting half of a full-time employee which could be a driver larger agencies are looking at annual cost of a million dollars or more. With all this in mind, CAST fully supports the amendments brought forward today and hope they are adopted to make this bill work for transit agencies around the

Thanks so much and thanks for your time. I'm Ashley Badish and I'm here on behalf of the Roaring Fork Transit Transportation Authority known to our communities as RAFTA. RAFTA opposes the bill as introduced because it will increase the operating costs, reduce fare revenue, and risk reductions to core transit services. The proposed amendments resolve these issues for our agency. RAFTA is the largest rural transit system in the U.S. and the second largest transit agency in the state of Colorado after RTD. The agency provides approximately 5 million trips each year and primarily serves the regional workforce. As drafted, the bill will impose unfunded requirements that could cost RAFTA hundreds of thousands of dollars annually in administrative expenses and lost fair revenue. RAFTA is already managing significant financial constraints, including the loss of state faster funding and other revenue reductions that have limited the agency's ability to sustain existing service levels. During peak periods, buses operate at capacity and the agency has limited ability to expand service. Along the 35-mile I-70 corridor between Glenwood Springs and Rifle, RAFTA is likely to reduce service this year. The proposed amendment will remove the most burdensome unfunded mandates for RAFTA. Thanks very much for your time.

Okay, thank you. We also oppose the bill. My name is Charity Marcus. I serve as a regional mobility manager for our six county region as a director for C-TRAN and provider for Southeast Colorado. I collaborate with 10 different transit agencies. Road communities are already significant under financial strain. Many local businesses are are struggling in a position to provide additional transit. At the same time, several hospitals in Colorado have been faced with closer consolidation, which is increasing the distance for residents travel. Because of these pressures, rural transit agencies are simply not in a position to absorb new financial requirements by this bill. Even in just the first phase of this proposal, the unfunded mandate would likely to require agency hired additional employees, which is a significant cost for our very small agencies down here. It's not even possible. It would force agencies to shift additional workload onto existing staff, and most rural transit agencies are already operating unlimited staff, or even might even just shut down. For small rural transit agencies in Colorado, this requirement does not make practical or financial sense. It would create a substantial financial strain on transit providers across southeast Colorado and would deviate, divert limited resources away from essential transportation in our communities to rely on. I support the amendments but we oppose this bill And I would thank you for your consideration Thank you so much Lastly we go to Ms Rao who I just want to note of the panelists is in an active opposed position as opposed to amend

Good afternoon. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Lan Rao, and I'm the transit manager for the City of Colorado Springs-Mount Metro Transit. I'm here today to respectfully oppose House Bill 1269 in its current form because of the financial impact it would have on local transit agencies, including ours, as a medium-sized agency. MMT provides more than 3 million passenger trips in the Pikes Peak region, and fair revenue remains an important funding source that supports our ability to operate. First, the current bill shifts significant responsibilities and costs for homelessness and affordable housing onto transit agencies. We already work very closely with our local partners to ensure individuals experiencing homelessness have access to transportation during cold weather and other programs. The local agencies plan and budget for these transportation needs as part of their program costs and reimburse transit for the foregone fare revenue. More critically, this bill introduces an unfunded mandate exceeding $3 million annually for our agency. For a system of our size, there is no viable path to take on this obligation without reducing services. Those reductions would harm the riders who depend on us the most, especially individuals with disabilities who rely on ADA paratransit service. Second, the bill removes the ability of local transit agencies to set fare structures. Preserving the ability to implement local fare structure is important because transit systems across Colorado operate in very different environments with diverse service models and funding structures. We deeply value the intention behind this bill and truly share the commitment to expanding access for those who depend on transit the most. However, the current bill could unintentionally limit rather than strengthen the services our riders rely on every day.

Thank you. I respectfully ask the committee to oppose the bill in its current form, and thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you, Madam Chair. This question is for Ms. Rao. I'm wondering if you have seen the amendments and how you feel about the bill with the amendments.

THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. THIS IS ALSO FOR MS. RAU. SPECIFICALLY ON THE SECTIONS OF THE BILL RELATED TO INFORMATION FOR TRANSIT RIDERS AND LANGUAGE ACCESS, COULD YOU DESCRIBE WHAT YOU'RE already doing in those areas i'm assuming you do provide some language access and you do provide routing and fair information so is this something that's in the bill that's new or different than

chair um this is a question for ms badditch um you had said in your testimony if i heard it correctly that the amendments had removed most of the unfunded mandates. So that implies there's still some in there. So if you could elaborate more on what unfunded mandates are still in there that concern you. Ms. Badish?

Yes, thank you.

Happy to. Are we doing two minutes? Okay, then I'm going to have to cut some of this down. So I've worked on this bill with the sponsors since last year. With the amendments on the desk, all this bill does is provide better access to information for policymakers and the public. There are no more social programs. There's no more giving people things for free. And that's fine because sometimes the first step to solving a problem is helping others understand it. The thesis of this bill is that it's a real problem that poor people cannot legally access transit. And it benefits every single one of us to fix it because you can't get out of poverty if you can't go anywhere. But nobody wants to lock up homeless people because they can't pay for the bus. And we're not fixing that today because fixing it would mean an unfunded mandate and the state exercising control over local transit agencies. The next best thing is to give policymakers the information necessary so that you and your future colleagues as well as members of city councils and counties across the region can hold Colorado transit agencies accountable for their inability to provide a thoughtful solution to this problem at present. The bill requires transit agencies to turn over important utilization data to policymakers across the state. It's an important step toward ensuring that the solutions to public transit access are good. The city council members in Thornton should have easy access to how many people are using a bus stop that's at risk of being removed without having to ask for it. The county commissioners in El Paso and Adams should have a comprehensive view of how taxpayer-funded transit services are being used without having to ask. and legislators across the state should be able to understand the impact of service changes to their communities. Every transit agency has this information. They just don't give it to you by default. They should. This bill started out trying to solve a problem. It has ended up giving people the information they need to solve it in their local communities and in the future. I welcome any questions like, for example, the 5%, 20% language access question from earlier. Thank you.

Madam Chair, members of the committee, my name is Jenna Fleiner, and I am testifying on behalf of the Office of Respondent Parents Council in a support position on HB 1269. Our agency provides legal representation to indigent parents involved in the child welfare system. Every day we support our contractors in keeping families safely together whenever possible. On a personal note, I myself am a regular RTD writer. Families involved in the child welfare system usually find themselves traveling a lot to attend parenting classes, to engage with therapy, or to have family time with their children. A parent's ability to get to all of these different appointments and engage with services impacts whether they will be able to reunite with their kids. But in every one of Colorado's 64 counties, attending all of these necessary appointments can be traveling between many different service providers across the county or even across the state. The parents and families we serve are by definition already under-resourced. Many do not own their own vehicles and rely on public transportation. To address this need, county departments of human services have often provided bus passes. But in this time of budget cuts, 80% of our contractors report that bus passes have become hard for their clients to obtain. We hope that HB 1269 empowers the indigent parents we serve by allowing them to secure their own transportation at a price they can afford, without having to petition an already under-resourced Department of Human Services for further assistance. This improves parent attendance and engagement with their treatment plan. When RTD provided free rides for everyone in July and August, of 2023, our attorneys in Denver saw a marked increase in the number of parents who consistently attended their essential appointments and services, which in turn had a positive impact on the ability of these families to safely and quickly reunify. Enabling all Coloradans, regardless of income, to ride covered transit agencies is an excellent investment for the whole state. For the parents and families we serve, it will remove a barrier from the road to reunification. For all of these reasons, I urge you to vote yes on HB 1269. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Chris, you had me at Thornton, of course. And, yes, of course, we know about the big problem with we're losing our bus route to Denver. It's a disaster for us. But my question for you is you also said you had information to answer my question about line 14, 5%, and line 24, 20% on page 15.

Happily, yes. Yeah, the language can be a little complex. I had to look back at my notes. The 5% requirement is basically you have to put either a URL or ideally a QR code up there with a link to information that most transit agencies already have on their website. But if you're at Union Station and you don't speak English, you may not be able to get to said website. That's a lot of where this sort of provision came from was when we had a bunch of new people coming to Union Station. And they literally couldn't figure out how to use the system despite the fact that we had the information because there weren't any QR codes. There was no way to get to that reference. The 20% requirement, this is for counties that have significant presence of individuals who do not speak English and rely on another language. and that requires what the language is substantially similar formats. So essentially, if you're putting it up there in English, you have to put it up there in Spanish as well. And that's typically the language where we do hit that 20% is the only. So that's the difference there is in one case, you can just have a QR code. In the other case, you actually have to use that language if it's widely spoken. Representative Phillips.

get you that information. But yeah, the idea would be that, you know, on, you know, I think it says, I forget the exact language that says essentially if it's information about how to board, they would have to put a QR code that basically said, and then you could go to that page and it could have multiple languages translation options on it, which we already do have the ability to translate, I think, into Vietnamese as well as English, Spanish, etc. on the RTD website through technology services that we have Again it just you can find it you can use it Brett Phillips Thank you Madam Chair It super fast As an RTD representative is it your belief that people with disabilities are able

So, I mean, the short, pithy answer is certainly better than not having any access at all. And yeah, there are going to be some individuals with disabilities, some individuals who are not technologically savvy, who won't be able to understand it. But there are design guidelines that make it easy to make it clear to people that like, this is how you get the information in your language. and I think that for all the people who will be able to get to it as a result of adding that, it's, yeah, exactly, with a phone. Most people experiencing homelessness, for example, most low-income people have smartphones. The federal government provides them through what's colloquially been known as the Obama phone program. So, yes, I do think that for a substantial percentage of individuals, when I would go to Union Station, because I live not too far away from there, I would have people come up to me with their phone out who were new immigrants and trying to talk to me over a translator because they could not figure out where to go in Union Station. They couldn't figure out how to get to the train. And we didn't have any QR codes. We didn't have anything that made it clear how they could find out. And that really was, to some degree, the genesis of this provision was, wow, we should make it as straightforward as we can for as little money as we can. for people to find information in their language when they go to a transit station, when they go to a bus station, you know. So.

Mr. Nicholson.

Rev Wen. Thank you for the answer. My second question I touched on a little bit when I brought it to the sponsors I gave an incorrect number It actually I mentioned it was million I was wrong and I realize that now it actually close to million that RTD is in the deficit And so I recognize that. We're not here to talk about RTD's finances. We're not. But the question I ask the sponsors, I won't ask you, is will this bill financially impact RTD's expenditures and its looming deficits?

I sure as heck wouldn't be here supporting it if I thought it would. We have some major obligations, not just to provide service in the communities we operate in, but also our partnership on things like joint service and front range passenger rail. And so we have to be making thoughtful decisions about how we spend our money in order to make sure that we're keeping our commitments to taxpayers, to riders, and to the state. And to Rep. Joseph's credit, she – I don't want to say carved up this bill like a turkey – but removed the things that cost money in order to make sure that the things that we could do without it being expensive to the taxpayers – there's no fiscal note without it being expensive to RTD, there's no cost to RTD, according to the fiscal analyst, that will at least do those things. And that's good enough.

Mr. Nicholson.

Any further questions for Rep. Richardson? Just a quick one, Mr. Nicholson. With what's been amended, there's really no costs in the bill. you're agreeing that what's in the bill are good things to do. Why not just do them? As a best practice, do you really need legislative direction to do what's right?

as a result of the work of my predecessors, then that would be great, but you don't. Transit agencies are notoriously protective of trying to tell stakeholders at the state and local level exactly what we're doing because, God forbid, someone asks a hard question. And the bill basically says, no, that's a good thing. And look, I can probably – there's a chance that I could convince my colleagues to do every single thing in this bill. There's no protection that someone two years later would say, no, no, no, government secrecy is a good thing. We are not going to be providing you that information anymore. I think that basic provisions allow – the provisions in this bill allow for better accountability. And maybe that puts me at odds with my agency or my colleagues to think that that's a good thing, but it is. Taxpayers deserve to know how we are running service, where we are running service. some of you both Democrats and Republicans represent districts in the RTD how many of you can tell me how many people are getting on the bus or getting off the bus in your districts you know how many but you can tell me which stops and whatever that useful information and you should have it thank you so much to this panel with that since we did a last call we will close witness testimony Sponsors come on back up We got a few amendments

I would like to discuss AL-002. I am pulling up my notes, Madam Chair, just to make sure.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I move L002 to House Bill 1269. Second.

Thank you, Madam Chair. The first, this amendment clarifies RTAs that solely funds transit services but that don't provide them or not covered transit agencies. And the second and third instructions add in reporting requirements for cover transit agencies. I wanted to know this amendment came from Pike's Peak Transportation Authority. Yes.

Thank you, Madam Chair. We move, I can't move it, sorry.

Rep. Pascal. I move L004 to HB 1269.

I second this motion.

Go ahead, Rep. Rex. Thank you, Madam Chair. What L004 does is it's removing the small transit agencies from the bill. Any questions?

Could you please let go?

I'm losing my protocol. I know there were definitions of these things in the bill somewhere, but could you remind me what that means?

Thank you, Madam Chair. It's based on the number of rides. So I guess, of course, the first thing in my mind is, does Mountain Metro Transit fall under small, medium, or large? Do you happen to know? Correct.

Okay, because I don't know where I am.

Thank you, Madam Chair. L007, what this amendment does is it fully removes the past program and the discount program that we proposed in the initial bill. Brett Paschal.

That's a proper motion and a second. Any questions for the sponsors about this amendment? Okay. Any objection to this amendment? Seeing none, L7 is also adopted. Any other amendments from the sponsors? Any amendments? From the committee. Okay, seeing none, the amendments phase is closed. Wrap up, Bill sponsors. Representative Ricks. Sure.

Representative Joseph.

Thank you.

A proper motion would send House Bill 1269 to the Committee of the Whole. Representative Paschal, would you move that?

I second this motion.

Thank you, Chair. And I did hear the very brief part, and I will endeavor to meet that demand. I'm already passed. Thank you. I really enjoy hearing the personal connection to the bill and understanding where it came from, the origin. I'm going to be a no for today because I do have some concerns about impact to other transit agencies, although I really do, I just wanted to say that I appreciate the carve out with RTD because I know they're having some substantial, you know, difficulties. So being able to provide some relief or not further compound their problems, you know, I appreciate that piece of it. However, it doesn't exclude some of the downstream

do you need me for old people?

Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the Housing, Transportation, and Local Government Committee. Today we're presenting HB 26-1204, a straightforward, narrowly targeted bill that simply provides property tax relief to seniors living in senior housing cooperatives. This bill came directly to me from a constituent in northern Colorado. She's lived in her senior co-op for more than 10 years, paid her share of taxes through her co dues and hoped like every other senior homeowner in Colorado that she might qualify for the senior homestead property tax exemption that she earned after a lifetime of work and more than 10 years of property ownership But because of the law, I'm sorry, but because the law currently excludes co-ops, she and others living in senior co-ops aren't eligible to take advantage of the senior homestead property tax exemption. So we did some homework. We sat down with our local housing authority, our county assessor, the governor's office, and a number of seniors who live in these co-ops, and every conversation reinforced the same point. This bill will be a small common sense fix. Colorado law already allows property tax exemptions for housing authority projects that substantially benefit low-income residents, yet senior cooperative housing developments don't currently qualify under current definitions. What this bill does is simple and narrow. It clarifies that senior cooperative housing projects can qualify as projects of a local housing authority for purposes of receiving an existing property tax exemption for low and middle income housing developments. In other words, qualifying projects, those owned, leased, or under construction by a housing authority or related entity, will be able to receive property tax exemptions identical to those already granted to other low-income housing developments and ensures senior housing cooperatives receive the same tax treatment. In discussing this with our assessor, who actually administers these exemptions, the financial impact to both the state and our counties should be very minimal. This is due in part to the small number of qualifying units and the fact that some seniors who sell their homes and move into a co-op will no longer claim the larger senior homestead exemption on their former residents. A real benefit of this bill is that some seniors may find a senior housing co-op unit with this tax relief appealing enough to downsize, freeing up their larger home for a family to buy and pay full property taxes. Regarding the fiscal note, when we spoke with our fiscal analyst, she confirmed the current fiscal note does not reflect the probable reality on the ground. And Mr. Sobetsky will actually walk you through those numbers in just a little bit if you'd like him to. I know that some of my fiscally conservative colleagues are already reaching for their figurative red pens. I get it. This seems like another tax exemption. But this is not a new spending program, not an entitlement, and not a blank check. It simply provides fair consideration for seniors who already own their housing, already pay taxes, and already meet every other requirement for the exemption. In doing so, it corrects an arbitrary exclusion that affects a small number of Colorado seniors who chose cooperative living precisely because it offers affordability, stability, and a sense of community. These seniors are not asking for a handout. they're asking for the same treatment we have already given to seniors in single-family homes, condos, and mobile home parks. They have lived responsibly, contributed to their communities, and now in retirement, they simply want a bit of tax relief that so many other seniors in Colorado receive. Seniors on fixed incomes face rising housing costs across Colorado, and cooperative housing models offer the stable, community-based living they need. Clarifying eligibility will also help local housing authorities expand senior housing options without new appropriations. This bill is good policy, good for Colorado seniors, and it fixes a clear inequity. I respectfully ask my colleagues, especially those who share my commitment to fiscal discipline and limited government, to listen to the testimonies and fiscal analysts and consider how this will support Colorado seniors and perhaps even you and me in a number of years. With that, I'll pass it along to my co-prime.

Committee, any questions for our sponsors? We're at Pascal.

not for senior homestead thank you for the question So no, this would allow a co-op to apply to the local housing authority or the middle income housing authority with the state to, it's separate from the senior property homestead tax. Because our seniors who live in the cooperative housing cannot claim the senior property homestead tax exemption, this would be a way that is their co-op could apply, work through the local housing authority or the middle income housing authority with the state to apply for the, to apply to be an affordable housing project which would allow them a tax exemption that already exists for those types of homes.

Thank you, Madam Chair. In the bill, that is page 3, line 16. We simply add a definition to some of the ways that those to include these project or these housing situations inside of that authority.

Thank you. I've kept my red pen down. I guess my question was similar to the last, and I guess I came into this thinking that this was allowing somebody who had qualified for a senior homestead exemption to be able to claim that. So I guess if you're living in one of these cooperatives, you're not responsible for the individual property taxes for your unit. So it's just a different model than I had in my head when I came into this.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for that point, Rep Richardson. We actually have a couple of people here who live in one of these particular homesteads. Not homesteads. I keep calling them hive homes. In my head, I see seniors living a little beehive. So in these village cooperatives, in these cooperatives, they're here to testify. And so they can describe to you, you know, what that looks like and how, you know, they actually own their property. They own their unit, but they cannot apply for the property tax exemption through the senior homestead exemption.

Rep Weinberg. Thank you, Madam Chair. At a time of budget constraints, why are we expanding tax exemptions instead of prioritizing core services?

Sure. That's a good question. And, you know, I don't know if this is prioritizing it necessarily, but this is an issue that came to me from somebody, you know, in an adjacent district, not in my specific district, but Greeley is next to Eaton. And so it came up as a concern. And again, these seniors, they can never qualify for the senior property tax exemption, the homestead tax exemption. That will never be the case. And so they're already, you know, they can sell their larger house and want to downsize, move into one of these senior co-ops for the age-in-place, you know, housing arrangement. they're giving up their senior property tax exemption that they had in their larger home. They're moving into this new home, but they will never, ever be able to realize. It's not like if they were to move into a smaller patio home where they could stay there for 10 years and then claim the senior property tax exemption. This is a situation where they'll never get a break, even if they stay in that property for longer than 10 years. And so, again, this is just a way to support our seniors. Housing, you know, is getting more and more expensive. A lot of people are having to give up their homes and leave the state because they can't afford the property taxes. And so this is a small way that we think, like I said in my opening remarks, hopefully it's more of a wash. That's kind of when I was talking to our county assessor in Weld. She said, you're going to be having seniors who are selling their homes and that if they move into one of these cooperatives and another family buys that home or a senior buys that home the clock starts and they paying full property taxes on that home And so the senior that was in that larger home had an exemption wasn paying property taxes Now that home is going to have the property taxes So you know eventually hopefully it more of a wash or even perhaps a revenue plus with a new family taking on that home and paying increased property taxes

Thank you, Madam Chair. I think the only thing I would add to that would be to say that the fiscal note assumes that all 10 of the senior co-ops at the fiscal analyst identified actually complete this project in the next tax year and this process in the next tax year. The other point that I would simply maybe offer is that while incomes are fixed, costs are not. And so what this means for folks who are increasingly cost burdened in our state is that folks will then receive services through other things that also cost the state. And so there is a way to I think right-size that situation so that folks are able to use the money that they would otherwise be paying in property taxes for some of the services that the state would otherwise be forced to subsidize as a result. Now to put a dollar point on that, I can't do that for you. But I think there is a reality to that situation. And I would suggest that the fiscal note is in reality is probably relatively de minimis in terms of impact to the state versus perhaps the benefit that older adults can realize through the policy.

Max Brooks hashtag where I'm trying to get to a good place on this one is for a city like Lovin the mill levy stability is not there in any city all 65 of the representatives and all 35 of the senators a mill levy stability will not be there with this bill period and just trying to understand when I hear answers like things are becoming more expensive and so on and so forth, when we're sitting in a building right now where, I mean, what are we at, 15 fees increases to the state of Colorado right now to every single citizen? We're making the state more expensive. And that's what I grapple with is the reason our seniors are hurting and the reason they can't do what they need to do and they have to move out of state is literally because we as a legislative body are doing that to them. And then we try to band-aid these little bills to help them and come here and sit before us as a body and say, oh, well, this is to help seniors. And I just don't like the – I have two parents that are living in that are over 65 years old, that this bill would benefit them. But as a representative of 88,000 people, I have to look at everybody as a whole. So my question to you is, can you quantify the total property tax revenue loss to local governments, including schools, counties, fire districts? I mean, we're going to take hits here to everything else that matters to everybody else in the community and the society. So if you could.

Thank you, and thank you to my colleague in another neighboring district for the points made. And while I agree with you on so many of those I also was thinking as you were speaking whether we were in an almost billion deficit year or not whether we were passing these fees or not the fact is that we still have the senior property, homestead property tax exemption that seniors would and do qualify for, and a small group of people who don't qualify for that, even though they own their property, have been in their property for 10 years or more and have been contributing members of society, just like the other seniors who do receive that. So right now there are 10 of these co-ops in the state, and as my co-prime said, it's highly unlikely that all 10 of them are going to jump on this because they have to actually work with their local housing authority or go to the state's middle-income housing authority and request and work with them with their guidelines around age requirements, income requirements, and those kinds of things to see if they qualify for this. So it's not like all 10 of them are going to qualify for this right away. It's not like all of them are going to even apply all, you know. And so I think those are good questions for the fiscal analyst to address when if you'd like him to come up but there are some some what-ifs here

in our communities. Representative Paschal. Thank you, Madam Chair. In the fiscal note, I think it said that there were 10 of these types of cooperatives, and I'm wondering where are they in the state. I'm going to also just bring our fiscal analyst up so you can be here and flag me if you'd like to answer any of these questions. Yes, go for it. Mr. Sabetsky. Thank you so much,

Rep. Pascal.

Rep. Garcia Sander.

Representative Brooks, did you have a question? Representative Weinberg. You have brief permission to dialogue.

4350 Araba Avenue. 43...

It's a village cooperative of Loveland, 4350 Araba Avenue. About 52 units.

I don't think that's downtown. Of what I know, the street's downtown. 4350 Ariba, A-R-R-I-B-A, Colorado Springs.

Thank you, Mike. He's doing whatever he's doing.

And so I know I'm going to ask this a really stupid question. So you have 52 units that some developer built, and each resident is paying the taxes in those units. Is that correct? Rep. Garcia-Sander.

Rep. Suggler.

Rep. Garcia Sander. Correct. These units currently do not qualify under the senior property homestead tax exemption. These units don't qualify for that. So you could live in a mobile home community. You could live in a patio home community. You could live in a condo. You could have your own house, and you qualify for the senior property homestead tax exemption. But in these specific cooperative housing units, you can't, and you never will, even if you're 85.

Any further questions for our bill sponsors? Rep Sucla.

Representative Basinecker.

I'm seeing quizzical looks, but no additional questions. Rep. Richardson.

Rep. Garcia-Sander.

Representative Richardson.

GETTING IF THEY WERE GETTING A HOMESETT EXEMPTION AND IN AN ELIGIBLE HOME MR. SUBETSKY THANKS Madam Chair. Thank you Representative Richardson for the question. So I think a couple things to keep in mind here. One just for the record I understand that members are mostly clear on this but I want to put it on the mic in case anyone's listening or listening back later. The bill doesn't offer a homestead exemption. It offers the ability for the cooperative to go to their local housing FINANCE AUTHORITY, THEIR LOW INCOME OR MIDDLE INCOME HOUSING FINANCE AUTHORITY AT THAT LOCAL LEVEL FILL OUT FORMS GO THROUGH A PROCESS AS WAS EXPLAINED BY THE BILL SPONSORS IN ORDER FOR THAT PROPERTY THE COOPERATIVE TO BE EXEMPT FROM out forms go through a process as was explained by the bill sponsors in order for that property the cooperative to be exempt from taxation so that different from the homestead exemption in the sense that the homestead exemption is never an exemption of more than 50 percent of a property's value the homestead exemption also is limited to two hundred thousand dollars in actual value as i know that you know these are units they're going to be worth individually less than that in most cases. That said, their taxation is conducted at the level of the entire cooperative as a parcel. And so that parcel would become exempt from taxation. As, again, this committee is well aware, these are property taxes. They're not collected by the state. The fiscal impact that accrues to the state is just for the total program funding for school finance that arises when a property anywhere in the state becomes exempt from taxation. And so that's what's identified in the fiscal note. At the local level, there are impacts to other property taxing entities. In terms of value, since we were talking about that, just to, I don't know that I can do that on a per unit basis, but for the purposes of the fiscal note, we had identified, again, under the assumptions that the sponsors credibly relayed to all of you, but I want to make sure that I put them on the record as your nonpartisan analyst. The fiscal note assumes all 10 cooperatives that we identified for which we were able to find property tax records would receive the exemption. That is an upper bound assumption. I think that there's an additional process that we hadn't accounted for between when this bill becomes law and when the actual property tax benefit is achieved because you have to go through the application process. And there's a risk that not everyone would do that, though I think the bill creates a good incentive for them to do that. We had identified a fiscal impact of roughly $800,000 in terms of all of the property taxes to all of the local governments. So if you share that out to 10 co-ops, you're looking at about $80,000 for each. And that's going to vary according to both the mills in the jurisdictions and how valuable the property is, which is different according to how big it is, et cetera.

I'm going to hold you to that.

Rep. Weinberg. I just want to hear that again because I think you did actually answer my question. And thank you, Madam Chair. but there is an impact to local government and home rule cities with this bill.

Madam Chair, Representative Weinberg, there is, yes.

Thank you, Madam Chair. My – sorry, you can say whatever you want on my question because it's related. So I'm noticing CCI is notably absent. So I'm wondering how the counties are weighing in on this. No?

Thank you, Madam Chair. I will defer to my co-prime on if CCI has engaged on the bill.

Representative Garcia-Sander. CCI has not weighed in. And I also little tiny answer for Rep Weinberg there could be an impact if the co in Loveland decides that they want to work with the local housing authority or middle-income housing authority to apply for the exemption. This doesn't say that they all automatically do apply.

Continue, Rep Garcia-Sander. So it was just a supposition that it's not an automatic fiscal note if they don't apply. You're correct that telepathically you said why wouldn't they apply. They might and probably could and should, but that's why this fiscal note is, you know, they have to actually make the effort to apply for the exemption. Thank you so much, sponsors.

Madam Chair, I just want to thank everyone as a former legislator. I do appreciate your service to the state of Colorado. I know it's a tough job, so I just want to thank you. And, yes, Madam Chair and committee members, thank you for allowing me to testify in support of 1204. I'm going to start by asking you all about your parents. Where do they live now? Because my parents were about 78 to 80 years old, and they had a large house, and they wanted to downsize. They could have moved into a patio home, but they weren't sure of a new neighborhood. What they really wanted to do was get into a senior community. We have a rapidly increasing number of elderly who need a place to live. Many elderly who I've talked to want to be a part of a senior community and avoid assisted living at all costs because of the expense, and honestly, they're not ready for that. They could try to find a rental, but that's hard, and again, who will be their neighbors? Even if you could find a smaller house, they could be more isolated, and they're stuck again. Co-ops right now are the best alternative to anything that's out on the market. We have 27 on our waiting list right now. I couldn't imagine how many are in Loveland's. A share or unit can cost from about $95,000 to $200,000. From the sale of their home with their Social Security, and we have a lot of teachers with para, they can afford the monthly carrying charges. These units can be a single bedroom with a kitchen, a pantry, or two bedrooms, two baths with a den and a kitchen. I have spoken to the governor and he agrees. Cooperative is a great concept to get away from the landlord and the tenant concept. With cooperative, each are buying a share and everyone is a family basically and they take care of their homes. I call it a big frat house. It is wonderful. And when you do move into a cooperative, many of the seniors will lose their senior tax exemption. So if they lived in their house for anything less than 10 years they lose that when they move into a cooperative So I do think that offsets the fiscal note I support this bill because we are trying to keep our monthly costs down When you buy a co everyone is responsible for everything The mortgage, the insurance, landscaping, carpet, roofs.

So we're trying to keep all of our costs down. So please, please make these seniors, the co-ops, affordable. Thank you.

My name is Jean Lippman.

And I live in the Greeley Cooperative. I'm here to speak in favor of this bill and because it provides a unique opportunity for seniors. I might mention that our co-op has only been in existence for five years, so in any event, None of us would qualify for any exemptions at this point in time. I was able to enjoy the benefits of home ownership, and I'm here to speak in favor of the bill. My husband and I qualified for the Colorado Senior Property Tax Exemption. After he passed away and I no longer wanted to take care of that big home, I decided to make the move to a new housing concept, cooperative living. There are numerous arguments. it took me almost two years of living there before I understood what a cooperative was. So I'm going to give you some of the things that are important to those of us who live there. Colorado has a housing crisis, and there are not enough housing choices for seniors who no longer want to maintain a home. Traditional senior living, nursing, assisted living, memory care facilities, these are not really an option for active seniors. The co-op properties currently accommodate active individuals that are 62 years of age and older. They are designed for completely independent living, providing a real alternative to homeownership. Cooperative living is affordable for retired seniors. Nearly all of us are on fixed incomes, and the goal is not to make money on this property. We buy a share. We receive benefits. We pay the mortgage. We pay the taxes. We pay the insurance. And we pay our carrying charges to maintain the building. We are all part of this building, and we all maintain it. And this bill, excuse me, will help us with our trying to get the housing authority to come with us. I really encourage you to ask questions. I can answer the questions a lot easier than I can speak about them. And thank you.

Thanks, Madam Chair, members of the committee. My name is Thomas Davidson. I'm the Executive Director of Counties and Commissioners Acting Together, better known as CCAT. I want to thank the sponsors for bringing this bill. we we do think that this closes a loophole that's very very unfair for the seniors that are in this type of housing we also think that it's very limited truly appreciate your questions about what it's going to do to our budgets at the local level because really and truly that is becoming a bigger and bigger issue for us. I represent an organization that in its 10 years of existence has shown up here a lot of times and supported me measures that have come without funding, but we have taken on at the local level because there are things that are important to us. That is becoming much harder to do given the property tax haircut that we had to take last year in special session. And so you guys, I very much appreciate the questions that you ask. Um, it's a real issue for us, but we do continue to look at these things and say, Hey, is this one fair? And is it the right thing to do? And are we going to have to figure out how to make this work with our budgets? Um, we still do that. And this is the case with this bill. Um, and many of these are located within our, uh, member counties. Uh, and so, I JUST WANT TO SAY I REALLY TRULY APPRECIATE THE QUESTIONS THAT YOU'RE ASKING. AND I'M ALSO GOING TO TELL YOU THAT THIS IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO. IT IS PART OF A HOUSING SOLUTION, I BELIEVE, AND THE MEMBERS DO, TOO. AND SO WITH THAT, I'M HAPPY TO HAVE MORE CONVERSATION, BUT I WANT TO EMPHASIZE THAT YOU'RE GOING TO CONTINUE TO HEAR FROM MY ORGANIZATION THAT THIS IS A BIGGER AND BIGGER ISSUE WITH REGARDS TO HOW WE FUND all of the different measures come before us. Thank you, and we encourage you to vote yes on the bill.

Thank you, Madam Chairman and committee members. My name is Jean Davier, and I live in the Village Cooperative of Chatfield, which is located in Littleton in Jefferson County. For over 30 years, I lived with my husband in Greeley in Weld County and qualified for the Homestead Act for many of those years. in moving into the co-op i gained a lot uh a book club uh wonderful potlucks uh a buddy everybody's assigned a buddy because we don't want anybody to become isolated last week i had a little spill and all i had to do was call my downstairs neighbor who's a retired nurse and she patched me up but I did lose the tax exemption I worked with my budget we've um within the carrying costs we cover the things like the mortgage payment the uh taxes the property insurance, and trying to keep those expenditures down keeps the carrying charge down for our members. I would by the way and I say this because I told I don look it I am 84 so it would take me a long time to get well I not sure I make it another 10 years but right now I feel energetic enough to try But it would be wonderful if this committee would consider this bill, which in my opinion is very fair. Thank you so very much.

Call me anything but not late for dinner.

It is a personal.

And I would say our annual assessment, tax assessment, is about $57,000. So we're not asking a lot.

But I think the reason why we don't get the senior tax exemption is because we're not a Section 38 housing. And I did not know what a co-op was at all when my parents signed the dotted line until now.

Thank you, Madam Chair, to the Honorable Perry Buck. Madam Perry Buck, local control has the authority to offer these exemptions. Why would we blanket the whole state with one size fits all type of exemption? Why wouldn't we let our local cities make, for instance, what you pointed out, or a good representative from Weld County pointed out was there's a 58 unit in Loveland out of an 88,000 to 92,000 people that live there. so the incurring of the cost will go to the majority of the people in the city and most people can say 80,000 100,000 as a fiscal analyst presented that's not a big cost but we just passed no tax on food and we just took a huge budget hit so even an 80 to 120,000 dollar cost to the citizens just in my city, how can I justify that to my voters? And I think –

Thank you, Madam Chair. I wish Meg was here. I served with her. So, again, this is a small ask. This is a tool in that toolbox. They don't – the housing authority can say no. but when you think of the amount of elderly seniors that are going to be descending on all of us, this, like I said, is a one tool, and I would say it's one of the best tools. Where else can a senior go for $100,000? Where else? What options do they have? They refuse to go on assisted living. My dad about killed me. They just, they don't want to go there, but you don't have those alternatives. And like I said, this is one tool, and it's a small ask. And so I would just love to answer any more questions.

All right, I move L1 to House Bill 1204.

And the second, while we get that passed up, why don't you tell us about L1, Representative Basinecker? I will actually let my co-prime do that if that's all right with you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. L-001 simply amends the printed bill, page 3, line 13. It changes the age, and line 24 on page 3, line 24, changes the age from 65 to 62. And this is after conversations with the Housing Authority. It aligns the age with HUD requirements and local Housing Authority project requirements. So we just thought that would be good to align those. So ask for your yes vote.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I move L2 to House Bill 1204.

Thank you, Madam Chair. L002, in talking with the bill drafter and local housing authorities, the phrase and of low income isn't really necessary because local housing authorities already have clear guidelines and standards for qualifications on housing developments. And leaving this out gives a little bit of flexibility to the local housing authority as they work with their different co-op projects in determining eligibility. So it's just not necessary.

Representatives Basenecker.

Yes.

excused

yes

yes

yes

yes

yes

no

excused

no

excused

yes

2 is adopted. Any other amendments bill sponsors?

Representative Basinecker.

Is there a second? Second. That is a proper motion and a second. Are there any closing comments from anyone on the committee? Rep Brooks.

any other closing comments rep richardson thank you and just start by saying to make a long story

And thank you guys So when I was the county commissioner I was part of the housing authority They put one commissioner on each year and be a part of the housing authority And in Montezuma County we got million worth of property that is tax exempt

Alright, seeing no other closing comments Mr. Gravey, please poll the committee

Yes

Yes

Lindsay

Wynn

Pascal

Phillips

Richardson

Zucla

Velasco is excused

No

Madam Chair.

Congratulations. You're on your way to appropriations. Okie dokie. We've got one last quick bill. So Rep. Pascal and Jax and Phillip. Let's do it. It's nice. It's individualism. Representative Phillips. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, committee. We're here today for HB 1284, and we're going to move to...

Listen, we're almost out of here.

This is the fastest one of the whole night, you guys. Nope, I'm holding the ground. I'm going to go on the net. Okay.

And so for that reason, we can now PI the bill. Rep. Paschal.

I'm going to let Rep. Phillips move her own bill. Rep. Phillips.

Wynn. Yes. Paschal. Yes. Phillips. Yes. Richardson. Excused. Sucla. Yes. Velasco is excused. Weinberg. Yes. Ferlich is excused. Madam Chair. Yes. That passes nine to zero. You are postponed indefinitely. Congratulations. and with that the Transportation Housing Local Government Committee stands adjourned