House Health & Human Services [Mar 18, 2026]

Representatives of our own.

Bradfield.

Which button? I'm just kidding. Here.

Frey. Here.

Johnson. Here. McCormick. Here.

Stewart. Here.

Leader. Excuse.

Thank you, everyone, for joining today. We have many bills on our docket today. We're going to start with House... This isn't the right... It's going to be fun. Okay. We are going to start with the Sunset Medical Practice Act 1307, and then 1241, 1301, and then Senate Bill 110, and then 1272. So that is the plan for today. We'll have two-minute witness testimony and ten-minute panels. And with that, I'll turn it over to Rep McCormick to chair while I go over there. Thanks, everyone.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, committee members. I'm proud to present House Bill 1307 today, and I want to thank my co-crime for her work on this as well and for her provider experience that she brings to this issue. The bill continues the Colorado Medical Board, which is set to repeal on September 1, 2026. The Colorado Medical Board oversees the licensure and regulation of physicians, physician assistants, anesthesiologist assistants, and assesses licensing fees to cover the cost of this work. The bill continues the board and the Medical Practice Act for nine years until September 1, 2035. This is consistent with the last sunset. Sections 1 and 6 of the bill continue the board for nine years, as I mentioned. And then Section 2 exempts from the practice of medicine for which a license is required an individual who is facilitating natural medicine services within the scope of a natural medicine facilitator license. Exciting stuff. Section 3 changes the license renewal period for a distinguished foreign teaching physician from annual renewal to a renewal period determined by the board. And Section 4 authorizes the president of the board to serve as a full member of the board's licensing panel for licensing panel meetings. And then five, authorizes the board on or after January 1st, 2027, to issue an administrative license to a physician who provides certain services that are purely administrative in nature, such as research, design analysis, and other rules that require medical licenses. We are going to have Dora here after us to talk in depth about the sunset. And I know my co will talk more specifically about a few of the sections but we asked for a yes vote today Representative Bradley Thank you Madam Chair and she did a great job

Thank you both. Do we have any questions from the committee for our bill sponsors? All right, not seeing any. Representative Gilchrist.

Thank you for that preview. All right, we'll move on to the witness testimony phase. I have four folks signed up, and I will call Dr. Sean Pozowski, who is testifying remotely. And then I have three people for questions only that can come forward if you're in the room or will pull you up remotely. Sarah Werner from the Division of Professions and Occupations. Jennifer Lockwood from Dora and Copper, and John Coughlin from the Colorado Medical Society. And if there was anyone else in the room that wanted to testify on House Bill 1307 and didn't sign up, now's your opportunity to come forward. All right, so we have Dr. Pazowski online. You have signed up in support, and when you're ready, go ahead and unmute your microphone. You'll have two minutes.

Thank you. Thank you for your testimony, and I'll have the others introduce themselves and tell us what agency you represent, and then we'll see if there are questions from the committee. Go ahead, Ms. Werner.

All right. And online, we have, looks like we have John Cochran. If you could introduce yourself and tell us who you represent.

And then we have Jennifer Lockwood, if you could tell us who you represent.

Thank you all very much. I'll have a question, and then I'll see if the committee has any. Regarding the administrative license, I'll ask Ms. Warner, is that something that we see in other professions as well? And could you speak just for the benefit of the committee and those who are listening, if you were to hold an administrative license and wanted to go back to a practicing license, give us a little idea what that process would look like, Ms. Warner.

Thank you. Any other questions from the committee for any of these witnesses? All right. You all are off the hook. Thank you for showing up and for your testimony today. We appreciate you. And seeing no other folks wanting to testify that ends the witness phase of our testimony and we call our bill sponsors back All right We know that there an amendment Representative Gilchrist Thank you, Madam Chair.

Second.

As I stated before, we have been working closely with Dora to make sure that we incorporate their feedback. So this is a small change to the administrative license qualification. So recommending adding the requirement for administrative license type to have professional liability insurance. This requirement is consistent with other license types under the Medical Practice Act and consistent with the definition of the practice of medicine in statute. So Anne would ask for a yes vote.

No other amendments.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you to the committee today for hearing this bill. And thank you, again, for the folks that testified, both on the introduction and today. Really appreciate the medical community engaging with us. This is obviously a critically important bill to ensure the safety of physicians and patients in the state. This is an issue near and dear to my heart, as my spouse is an ER doc. So it's been fun to work on and really appreciate my co-prime and, like I said, her perspective on this issue as a provider. So we hope that you vote yes today.

All right, would you like to go ahead and move the bill before we see if anyone else wants to make a comment? It's going to the Committee on Appropriations.

Second.

I'm a big fan. Thank you.

Both.

Representative Verone.

Redfield.

Bradley. Yes.

Frey. Yes.

Johnson. Respectfully, yes.

Ryden is excused.

Wook. Yes.

Yes.

Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. So this is a very simple provider notice bill. I had a constituent doctor bring to me an issue, and I passed out last time his statement with regards to what happened. And it's a broader issue where the notice of very material changes aren't just given and affirmatively saw that they're given. So in our doctor's case, insurance company slammed down the reimbursement rates, and he figured it out much, much, much later to his detriment. When he pulled the thread to find out, well, what the hell is happening, they're like, oh, well, we gave you notice. Well, when did you give me notice? Oh, I gave it, you know, we got a certified letter. Well, where's the certified letter? Well, it went to your place of business. Well, the place of business he owns was shut down that day at noon, and yet someone signed for it at 4. No one can decipher who signed for it, but supposedly that was the notice. This is a bigger and broader issue, where the insurance companies will send letters by first-class mail to a provider's place of business, maybe to someone who was the business manager, addressed to them like five years earlier, goes into junk mail, or they'll They'll just send an email that comes into the spam. There's so many different ways where things could go wrong. And we need to just make sure that things do not go wrong when we're dealing with this amount of money. So again, we hope at the end we got an amendment. I think we hopefully make everybody happy where we will just ask the insurers and the carriers to send two emails back and get an affirmative response back And if they don then they have to send registered letter or basically personal service which the provider will pay for. So there is no cost on the insurance companies whatsoever. So I hope we can get to a yes today. Thank you.

Thank you, sponsors. Questions from the committee? I think we should go ahead. Let's wait until, yeah. Unless, yeah. Oh, would that be helpful to the committee? Okay, yeah. Would you like to explain the amendment? And we can move it later, but let's, yeah.

Questions from the committee? Okay, seeing none, we'll move to witness testimony. We have, it looks like, okay, we only have one person signed up. So, sir, I think you might not be signed up, but we can get you signed up afterwards. And then can I also call up Mr. Kevin McFatridge? And then if there's anybody online. No? Okay. Okay, sir, if you'd like to introduce yourself, the organization you represent, and you have two minutes. Oh, it's right there. Perfect. Thank you. Thanks so much, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Dr. Verley. Mr. McFatridge.

Thank you for your testimony. Any questions from the committee? I have a question.

help you, what that would look like for your practice. Dr. Burbley. Absolutely. Thank you so much. So what we wanted to do, so Washington and Texas already do this. So it's, you know, this has already been established of how to do this. The reason we wanted to do the amendment was it came to my attention that bigger groups, the snail mail thing may be a bad idea. Like they're fighting it because that's not what their process is. And so we came up and we wanted to get people, they were kind of stuck on this opt-in or opt-out. Opt-in was like, hey, maybe they'll bury it. Maybe they'll put it in a place where you can't get a hold of your rep, and the rep is the one that has to change it. I had a rep changeover, and it took seven months to get a new rep. So even though the language might have been really simple, hey, if you want to opt-in, just talk to your rep, and they'll opt you in. Well, that's not always simple. Seven months to find a rep's name, and I had to get a legal person to do it for me. So there's little things that happen that make it inconvenient. So we thought just escalations may make much more sense. Start off easy. If it's easy, you send the email and you make sure that you're emailing the person that signed the contract. They've got some time to get back to you. Yes, I agree with this. No, I don't. You can make that on a link to a portal, whatever. The next one was like, hey, send a mail and say, hey, this got to your office. I can prove that it got to your office. And if that doesn't work, even a process server. And if the provider is not working in earnest and they're trying to duck this change or they don't want to answer it, yeah, we should have the provider have to pay for that service. I have no problem with that. The sole goal of this is to make sure the person signing the contract is aware of changes. Nothing else. It's really that clear. No other contract can you just go change unilaterally and somebody can just, if they don't answer it, it just changes. It's not a thing. This law was created in 2012. It was sold as, hey, this is beneficial. But then because the language was not particularly clear, it kind of got abused. I've had my two biggest payers, Ampham and United. Both this has happened to me. One took me over five years and $400,000 worth of legal fees. It almost put me down. And I've been a private practice here for 20 years. So that's all we're trying to prevent. I want young docs coming in here to be able to open their own practice. I want independent practices to be able to continue. This is just asking for regular contractual stuff. Hey, if you try to change something, I've got to know about it. That's all we're asking.

So Blue Cross Blue Shield, I have 50 different Blue Cross plans. It's simply because there's 50 different states. United, thank you so much. We have a lot of different plans. Most of us have at least 13 plans that we keep track of. They all have slightly different schedules. Those schedules are paid by different amounts. Like I said, you've got a deductible, a coinsurance now, and you've got a payer, you've got a patient, and you've got maybe secondary insurance. So managing all this together, figuring out actually what you've been paid is actually really difficult So it took me nine months to do that once I did that I brought it up and I said hey I want my money. Here was my contract. This is what you paid me. This is the difference. They said, no. We did this. We gave you a notification. The problem was, even in my contract, it says they have to take 90 days to make that change. Well, they did it in less than 90 days. But now I have to bring legal in to make that, because they're just going to ignore me and drag this on. So now I'm stuck in the arbitration process. I don't know how many of you guys are familiar with AAA, but it's not fun. AAA is pretty expensive. And once you get over certain dollar amounts, they bring in two or three judges on the panel, which gets very expensive very fast. So they dragged it out through five years of AAA. And what we ended up doing, how we solved the problem was we didn't prosecute them on this. We said, look, we think we're right. You think you're right. Let's move forward. Give me a better contract. And I'll move this forward and I will let this go. I never got paid. I lost over $400,000 in payments because of that and never got paid on it. But I got a better contract, and I'm trying to work hard enough or work fast enough to, like, start making that money up. But that was just a situation with United. I had a whole different one with Anthem.

Representative Stewart. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm just curious why the opt-in does not work for you, if you could elaborate on that. Thank you.

Carillon doesn't work. I've spent eight weeks, and because my facility was not in their system, the mere fact of putting the facility in manual, it was kicking me out of network. I spent 80 hours in the past four weeks of my staff's process because we moved to Carillon for prior authorizations. And literally this week, they started working. Again, I had to go to my reps. I had to threaten legal action. I had to say you had to fix this because Avality is saying it's Avality's issue. Carillon is saying it's Anthem's issue. It's basically a bunch of finger pointing, and we're stuck in the middle, and the patients aren't getting service. I still have 15 patients that are waiting for surgery, right now, currently. Because on January 26 Carillon opened up and Avality was no longer the place where you could do the Anthem prior auths So those kind of things scare the heck out of me when I have to go through a process of opting in where it not the natural because they even may be so well intentioned, but they don't tend to work.

Thank you.

Representative Bradley. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move Amendment L-007 to House Bill 1241.

Seconded by Rep. Foray.

Thank you. Again, this is a material change to a contract is authorized only if the person or entity provides notice of the material change in writing. And so we're asking two separate times via email. And if that has not been affirmatively responded a third time by registered mail, just like the good doctor was talking about. So we felt like with the opt-in language, people weren't excited about it. With the opt-out language, people weren't excited about it. So the good doctor came up with this plan for an escalation type of process.

If I'm reading this correctly, you have to give notice of material change by an email, and then if they don't hear back in an affirmative, two separate times they have to attempt again. The third time would then be registered mail or personal service, and if none of that warrants or gives a response back from the doctor, then it goes into effect. Is that how I'm interpreting that?

Yeah, that's how it should work, but I mean, when you get personal service or registered mail, if you can't get registered mail or personal service, the doctor or the provider is likely no longer in practice. Yeah, because if you can't find them, then you can't find them at all.

So it's my understanding that DOI has taken an imposed position because of the cost. Can you explain a little bit more about what your understanding of that is? I would have asked you if you were here, but just since you all are here and given your amendment.

Yeah, I'm a little perplexed because I just heard about it 30 minutes ago, so I'm just guessing that they're saying the certified mail, because it's what the insurance companies were saying, was the certified mail is just way too expensive. It's not the way we operate in the modern world. But that's even when we said, you know, and our doctor constituent was more than happy to say, those costs can be borne by the provider. The providers just need notice. But I think the escalation works a lot better. And we can massage, again, we got this amendment this morning, and there may be a few logistical things that we're more than happy to amend going forward with terms of normal, not just email, but whatever the normal electronic way is, they notify and making sure that the service is charged back to the provider if they're not responding by the electronic means. But at the end of the day, as our doctor said, they need to get affirmative notice. So saying the costs are high when the providers are willing to bear those costs I think is appropriate.

No, Madam Chair.

Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. I don't want to get down in the weeds, But we do have basically a fight between the little guy and the big guys, and we're just trying to level set. But the little guy at least ought to know if he's going to be squashed, that he at least gets noticed before he gets squashed. So I hope you can all support this. Thanks.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I think the doctor brought up some really valid points. I mean, large corporations, maybe this is good for them to have mail, and for the smaller guy, that they just want confirmation. So I appreciate the testimony, and good bill vote yes.

It's to the Committee of the Whole. As amended. I move House Bill 1241 to the Committee of the Whole as amended for a favorable recommendation.

Okay, closing comments from the committee. okay i have just a few comments so um really appreciate both of you trying to solve a problem i do think it is um refreshing when a constituent comes with an issue and you try to solve it and i've really appreciated how you both have worked really hard to try to do that and in the midst of it then becoming more complicated with carriers and additional folks um wanting to be involved in notification. So I know it sounds like there is more work to be done, especially with DOI. And I think it sounds like from both of you that you're both committed to that work. So I'll be a yes today and appreciate your continued engagement during what could have, what seemed like a simple solution and ended up more complicated. So really appreciate it. And with that, oh, I'm sorry. Yeah, of course. Representative Bradfield. No, I'm finished. You go right ahead.

Additional comments? Okay. With that, Mr. Shadun, could you please call the roll?

No.

No.

Ryden is excused. Stewart. Yes. For today. Boog. Respectfully, no. Leader is excused, Madam Chair.

Okay we are on to House Bill 1301 which is its Representative Marshall show today

Representative Marshall.

Thank you, Rep. Marshall. Questions from the committee? Representative McCormick.

so we were looking at a 50 to 70 bed facility it would be in Aurora and it's right next to a substance abuse facility that had just been built I mean literally right next to each other in Anschutz so we got a lot of synergy going on anywhere where we're putting the lot or planning on putting it so the contractor that actually did the substance abuse facility right next to it we asked them to give us a quick estimate in the back of the envelope, and he came in and gave about a $90 million estimate. The state people then came in. We went over to the lot, walked it, went over the whole thing, and they came in at about $92 million. We also had a group out of Texas that literally the moment the bill dropped and was introduced, they called us because they build these facilities, so they were like, oh, good, maybe we can get in on this action. And they called us and we talked through and gave them the numbers And they also said yeah that sounds really spot on for what the cost is So that the construction cost The second part was the O and I was given from the state basically a cost of per room I was told in Mesa County it would be about $1,100 because we have that Mesa component I can talk some more about if you want. But we ultimately, in the estimates that are being used, we're at $1,300. So we're actually leaving a lot of slop. So we came up with we probably need about $42 million, $40 to $42 million, to build it over three to four years with that revenue coming in. And a lot of the contractors said, yeah, they usually can spot about 30% to 40% of the construction costs until the end anyway. So that revenue would come in, and at $42 million a year, we should have more than enough in two and a half years. But if we need to go three years because for some reason costs massively escalate 20%, And trying to predict for 50 or 70, that's just not something that we really should do. It would be kind of wasteful. But that's how we got the construction cost. And then the O&M, operational and maintenance, the operational cost, like I said, came in. We used a $1,300 one, even though 11 on the western slope and 1,200 per room is what Aurora is certainly going at right now. And then for maintenance, we took a 3% to 5% of construction cost. We actually used about 4% because if it's a brand new building, the first 8 to 10 years, the maintenance costs aren't going to be as much as a 30-year building you're rehabbing. So that's where we came up with about the $22 to $24 million a year of operational maintenance funds for that facility. That would leave some excess, and I'm always thinking of other areas. I think it's a good practice that we always have people involved. It just makes it a better system. So I know the Western Slope was in dire need of help. They just had a major facility shut down in Mesa. So the excess would be dedicated to Mesa County to take care of long-term civil commitment needs on the Western Slope. So that's about where we're at on it. Trying to think if there was another point that you needed.

Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. Yes, I was just curious about the land acquisition and the state's role in that.

Yeah.

So we can put in there a specific authorization. I mean, we got the money. The land, from my understanding, we have a witness here who can testify to it, is already owned or slash controlled by the more mental health people. So when we were writing it and they were writing it by us, that kind of just skipped our mind because it was like, well, we have that parcel and the people who want it built have the parcel. but it has a $1.9 million fair market value on it right now. We probably can get it for $1.5 million and again the people who want it are the ones who own it so we expect that to come in there and it would be very easily absorbed in the current revenue that we expect to get.

I just want to do a point of clarification. It says Aurora Mental Health and Recovery has purchased the 7.3 acre property at this property parcel in your document. That's correct?

Oh, sorry, I'm going to interrupt.

Representative Stewart.

Representative Marshall.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Representative Hamrick. Additional questions on the committee? I just thought one could – oh, sorry, Representative Bradley.

Shoot.

Representative Marshall.

Representative Bradfield. And you are planning to finance this through money from the state and also a fee on alcohol products and marijuana. Is that correct?

Yeah, not a fee. This isn't an enterprise. This is an above-board TABOR-compliant tax, as TABOR allows for us to go to the voters and say, we have this need and we would like money, and this is where we're going to try and get the money and let the voters decide that. We looked at multiple revenue sources that we could use, And again, I was expecting to talk revenue sources and finance, not H&HS. But the multiple revenue sources we were looking at as a possibility. I came down on the excise tax for alcohol because last year I was a killing vote in the finance committee on the enterprise alcohol fee to fund those items. And the arguments that the liquor people kept giving was this is a tax. You need to send it to the voters and do it TABOR compliant. If you do these fees, you're going to be able to just keep increasing the fees and we can't stop you. If you send it to the voters, like Tabor says, and they vote on it and it's a good project, we won't oppose it. And to their credit, the two liquor industry reps that said that are in a neutral position because they're like, you are right. I called them up and said, you remember last year what you said? So that's why I kind of looked at alcohol because we have about the 49th lowest alcohol excise taxes in the nation. and they haven't been raised, I think, from 1982. I was more than willing to look at anything, and in hindsight, maybe a sales tax might have been better, but it's in the title now, Tax on Harmful Substances. And we put marijuana in there at the suggestion of a couple of the sheriffs just to share the pain, so to speak. But for a six-pack of beer, it's about three cents what it comes down to if they pass the entire excise tax all the way through to the consumer.

Representative Marshall. Yeah. I mean, as I set out for Rep McCormick, this will be more than enough. That's why once the project's done, the excess, because we will have ongoing excess unless we ramp down the tax, but the excess will go to the western slope, Mesa, to take care of their long-term civil commitment needs. Over time, obviously, as inflation will start eating away more at, we're talking 10, 20, 30 years, start eating away at Mesa's share, but the hospital should be in very good shape. And I guess that brings me to one other point is the capital committee voted to not recommend this. But if you look at the reason for their recommendation, they wanted a tax that would just go into the general construction fund. And then they would set the priorities of what construction to do for the state. That wasn't a good idea. It actually bolsters, I think, the tax for this project because these people that we're talking about, they're likely to go in there for long term, some for life, and to have a dedicated funding stream that no future legislature or administration can start whittling away at the maintenance cost, at the operational cost, or make it a project to shut it down. because that's how we got in the problems we got today. They just kept shutting down mental health facilities and now they're on the streets or they're in the jails. So having a dedicated funding stream for this facility, I think, is a huge plus, even though some people in the capital committee were like, well, we've never really done this before and we don't like it. It's like, well, again, for this project, I think it is appropriate to have a dedicated funding stream to make sure it is in perpetuity that it can be maintained.

Thank you. Will this building be owned by the state? Representative Marshall.

Representative McCormick. Thank you, Madam Chair. I do agree that our ability to serve the mental health needs of the state are severely underfunded and under-resourced as far as beds go. I think we're short like 470 or 500 beds for what we really need. And with this project looking to add 50 to 70, yes, that is a move in the right direction. My concern is also having this specific language in the bill for this one project. we may not get multiple opportunities to ask the voters on the ability to fund mental health projects. And if this is our one shot, I'm curious to know, like, is there any polling to have us know what would the voters actually be more likely to support? Would they be inclined to say, yes, here's one project that's going to help? or would they be more inclined to really know the full extent of the problem that we're trying to solve? And do we go bigger and say we need to fund mental health treatment and beds in our state? So I'm torn because I recognize the need, and I know we're in dire straits, and I understand that we haven't raised the tax on alcohol in a long time, even though the tax on marijuana is already pretty high. So that's also another conflicting issue. So that is part of my concern that I wanted you to hear and also have you speak to. Has there been polling on this particular approach and are there groups ready to fund a major campaign initiative to educate the voters Because you know when we do referred measures or ballot initiatives through signatures it takes a lot of money to get it across to the voters to support or not support. And we realize you're going to be, this particular measure is going to be up against a lot of money if it gets through. So polling, how big is the problem? Is this just a drop in the bucket? If you could help me with that.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So, I mean, those are all good points. Again, this was a specific project because of the duality of it in terms of not just being more mental health beds, but the logistics for the sheriffs in the metro area. And I don't know if Sheriff Brown is going to be here today, but he can walk you through and maybe even yell you through the issues of having to deal with the competency stuff of taking them down there. And in fact, the psychiatry association, I got a call from them on a Saturday night when I was home in Evergreen and listening. They were quite upset, and they said they were in the amend position, and they were going to oppose it. And the reason why was they wanted 500 beds. And I was like, that's nice, but we're talking a billion dollars then probably. And that's probably not going to happen. Certainly it's not going to happen on the backs of alcohol. So that's another issue was we couldn't go big on just one area. I saw even with this tax we put in, Colorado will still be way below the median alcohol excise tax for the nation. So again, would it be great to have more? Is there polling? No. Because another issue was the people who brought this to me, we've known we've needed this for years. I mean, it's no question. We've known we've needed this for years. And they were trying to get an interim committee last year to study it. Fell through. Couldn't get it. So no interim committees this year either. So again, at the end of the day, when I was looking at it, and we kept coming up with a million reasons not to do it, I finally pulled the trigger and said, everyone keeps saying it's needed. let's do it. And I think we can make that argument to the voters. I feel confident making the argument to the voters. In fact, I was on one of the more conservative right-wing media shows in the fall, and we had a good discussion and brought up the Darth of mental health beds in the state. And they were very supportive of saying and understanding that is a core state function. Public safety, public order, that is a core state function. And they're like, that's something we can understand that you need to pay money for because most conservatives are like, yeah, we can pay for law enforcement, pay for the jails. We all understand that. And this is along those lines. So I think there might be more support out there than we think. Everyone likes to scream, no new tax. And I've had some people push back and say, well, you ought to just prioritize better there in the legislature. But finding $40 million a year right now in our budget, and we need this, and we're not going to get this now. This is like a three to four year build project. But again, Can we wait a year? We're waiting another year.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Representative Marshall, what did you mean by they couldn't get an interim committee? Who is they?

Yeah, it was my understanding, and again, this was from discussions in January, so hopefully the Royal Mental Health people will correct me if I get it wrong was Senator Amobley and the mental health community was trying to get an interim committee for last year and couldn't get one, you know, budget reasons, whatever. And this year, as you all know, we're having no interim committees. So when everyone keeps saying, well, you ought to study the problem first, I was in the finance committee with Rep Hartzik on one bill, and he got very annoyed on, we were spending $300,000 for a study on an issue we all knew we needed to do anyway. So they're like, well, DOR wanted the study to have evidence of why they were doing it. And it's like, well, we know we need to do it. I mean, I kind of put that in this category too. So they've been trying to get a study to do it. And I'm going to have to defer to the Aurora Mental Health people for the history of that. That's been one little issue I've had is I know this is a big issue. This isn't the area. It's the first time I've ever been here at Health and Human Services in the four years I've been here, and twice today. So this is not my normal area, but I know it's a huge need.

May I ask a question? Billy Bowman is my sister. I'm Joseph Bowman, and Billy has requested that her time to get in to me.

So is it already my go first thing? Sure.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members of the committee. My name is Joseph Bowman. I'm a victim of a devastating crime that occurred four years, three months, and one day ago. The resulting criminal case was dismissed due to HB 24-1034, the state statute overseeing competency of adult defendants in criminal proceedings. I'm here today to speak in favor of SB 26-1301 because I believe that it is one of several necessary steps that we must take collectively as advocates and legislators in order to protect the Colorado community from facing the same level of injustice that my family struggles to come to terms with This proposed hospital is a good and necessary thing to address criminal competency but it is only a building housing a system. And I know that I don't have to explain to members of the legislative body that a system is only as good as the people who comprise it. Unfortunately, the current system in place where evaluations and restorations of competency are concerned is a part of a larger problem. While our case was active in Jefferson County, I observed blatant negligence by the state hospital in Pueblo, which placed me in the sickening position of having to advocate for the man who left me permanently disabled and murdered my mother. The Pueblo Hospital did not treat him or our case like a priority. He was overlooked, misdiagnosed without evidence, and frequently shuffled from one disinterested doctor to another, leading to severe inconsistencies. the director of the office of civil and forensic mental health leora joseph lied during a media inquiry into why patients like this defendant were not being treated with greater urgency or consideration given the extreme nature of the crimes they were accused of director joseph claimed that the patients like this patients with criminal backgrounds who tend toward repeat offenses were being treated as outpatient because they posed no threat of harm to themselves or others however in the years that our case dragged on the defendant guillermo ramirez would be arrested three additional times for criminal cases including assault and battery, violation of a restraining order, and possession of alcohol behind the wheel of a car, all while Director Joseph was publicly claiming he posed no threat of harm to himself or others. The Jeffco DA's office ultimately proved Ramirez was competent and merely gaming a system of negligent doctors and legislative mistakes that I had been working for the past year to actively address and resolve, but the hospital was not interested in arriving.

Thank you.

Thank you. Amy Padden, I am the district attorney for the 18th Judicial District, which serves Arapahoe County. I am here to testify in strong support of this bill. I appreciate Representative Marshall sponsoring this bill. This was an idea that I spoke with Debbie Stafford about repeatedly over the course of the past year. As district attorney, we see cycles in cases like this. We see cycles of an individual with a serious mental illness committing a crime. Then they are found incompetent by the court. then those charges are dismissed because we cannot proceed against someone who is incompetent. And then they are often released because there is no place to house them. There are no civil commitment beds available. And then they commit another crime. The criminal justice system is not designed to house mentally ill individuals. And we need to stop this cycle. And in order to stop this cycle, we need beds for individuals to be civilly committed after their cases are dismissed. This is a community safety issue, as Representative Hamrick referenced. When these individuals re-offend, they could harm themselves, they could harm other individuals in our community. We had a case in my district where an individual chased some children on a school grounds. It was a very terrifying incident that happened in Arapahoe County. That person had been in and out of the criminal justice system repeatedly and was released released once he was found incompetent, only to then re-offend. And there were no civil commitment beds available when he was prosecuted, and then those charges were eventually dismissed. In our case in Arapahoe County, at this point in time, we were able to find a civil commitment bed for him. But that didn't happen previously. Had there been civil commitment beds, for example, when he had a case in Denver that was dismissed because of his incompetency, the incident in Arapahoe County may have not occurred. And I would also like to just comment the location that is proposed I think is wonderful because the proxy the proximity to the medical school and the health care providers at Anschutz will really help the staffing. There's a proposal. My time is up.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. My name is Veronica Bell, and I represent Colorado Behavioral Health Care Council, the statewide membership association for community-based mental health and substance use disorder safety net providers. I'm here in support of House Bill 1301. This bill addresses the critical bottleneck in Colorado's behavioral health system, the lack of state hospital beds, and long-term civil commitment capacity. Right now, that shortage is backing up emergency departments and delaying competency restoration in jails. At the same time, it limits the availability of civil commitment beds, which are essential to appropriately serve individuals who need that level of care. Without sufficient civil capacity, individuals are often held in higher acuity or justice system settings longer than clinically appropriate. slowing system flow and contributing to ongoing competency backlogs. Expanding state hospital beds and long-term civil capacity is a necessary step to right-size the system, ensuring individuals are treated in their appropriate setting and allowing both the civil and forensic systems to function more effectively. House Bill 1301 is important because it creates a sustainable funding solution. It moves beyond one-time fixes and establishes dedicated revenue to support both the construction of new capacity and the ongoing operations needed to make that capacity usable over time. This approach also aligns with what Colorado voters have supported in the past, using substance-related revenue to address system impacts. Alcohol remains under tax relative to the burden it places on our health care and public safety systems. By expanding capacity, this bill will improve system flow and public safety, reducing jail wait times, speeding competency restoration, and easing pressure on emergency departments. It also improves access across the state, with investments in both the metro area and western slope helping reduce long transport times and regional gaps in care. And importantly, this is a referred measure, meaning that voters will have the final say. Finally, I wanted to address concerns about regressivity. We are already paying for the impacts of alcohol through Medicaid, jails, and emergency care. The question is whether those costs remain hidden and diffused, or whether we will align a portion of them with the source in a more transparent way. For these reasons, I respectfully urge your support, and thank you for your time.

Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the committee. It's nice to be here and 25 years ago in 2001 I was vice chair of this committee and the first bill I brought forward was mental health parity. And I was told back then that if I wanted to keep talking about mental health that I could not win another election. And I will tell you that here we are 25 years later and the state of Colorado has shut down almost 2,000 beds. Almost 2,000 beds. So what is before you? This building, I have been at a war on mental health and recovery. I was hired there while I was in the legislature. This building was built, it took five years, it opened January 31st of this year. 50,000 square foot building on the land that was the former Jefferson Center Mental Health Facility for Youth and Substance Use Treatment. We, next to us, when we had this land assessed, they said, you have so much land you can make a behavioral health campus. So, we have broken it into three parcels of land. We have finished our first parcel. This is acute care withdrawal management. Next to it right now is being built 43 supportive housing units for people with mental health issues. So the third parcel of land can be a state hospital. And that is a perfect comprehensive behavioral health care campus where what will help us in southern Colorado and other parts of the state you can do step down treatment So those in civil beds who could do a step opportunity can be managed right there on that campus in that supportive housing to still get the required behavioral health services so they're not turned back on the streets, committing more crimes than sitting in our jails. Will it solve it all? Absolutely not. Will it solve something and help us move it forward in a critical fiscal time? Yes. and I will have to tell you, every one of us sees impacts of substance use and nobody wants that and I get it. A lot of our members here are being pressured by your business owners but at the end of the day, we have to do the right thing and let's let the voters decide on this. And yes, actually we have a very strong funder who would actually fund this campaign. And so we're really thinking down the road and I will just tell you real quickly, it was Representative Hamrick and Senator Michael Simjene who brought the interim committee last year but the legislature only funded one and they did not select that. Thank you.

My name is Kristen Hartman. Can you hear me?

Can you hear me? Okay. My name is Kristen Hartman, and I represent myself as an independent health equity and drug policy researcher living in Mesa County. As you can see, none of our reps have signed on to sponsor this bill. So the burden is on those of us affected citizens to find a way through the dominant alcohol-dependent political narratives in order to be heard and try to get the help so many of our families need. Alcohol deaths have been rising steadily for the past 20 years, so we are left to assume that if they have not recognized and taken action after 20 years, none of us will live long enough to see results if we continue to wait on them to untangle their alcohol industry dependency. Women with mental disorders are incarcerated at more than twice the rate of men with mental disorders in Colorado, and that's according to DOC reports. How many of these are mothers in need of health care? Half of children in Colorado live in homes with an alcohol drug-using parent, and a quarter of those parents have alcohol use disorder. What impact is that having on our children, and why is no one talking about it? Our state's ongoing openly proud dependency on the exploitation of vulnerable populations for profit and economic development, whether drugs or gambling is exasperating for the families being targeted families that trusted you to represent and protect our well-being with as much devotion as you represent and protect the alcohol industry the results of that trust has been mockery dismissiveness and devaluing there is a commonly used tool in economics called valuing life that is used when deciding whether to issue a product safety recall they literally calculate the cost to save each life lost by the defect and then decide whether they want to pay for that cost. Every time you pass an alcohol bill that grants more privileges to the alcohol industry in the face of rising alcohol deaths and impacts on children, you are putting a price, a value on our individual lives. Those who drink, who purchase alcohol drugs from Colorado drug dealers have higher values than those who do not. Those who drink responsibly and repeatedly have even higher value. It is this ranking and valuing of drug users and people with mental illness that determines who gets festivals and who gets locked in cages and who gets hospitals. Our children are taught this rank and value system at home, friends' homes, media, restaurants, gas stations, public policy, and on and on. Value drug use over health coping skills. Invest in alcohol drugs over health care. And children know not to ask their parents to explain their drug use because they are the answer and they know not to challenge.

Hi, my name is Debbie Kinder and I'm a member of Colorado Mad Moms. I urge you to support HB 26 1301 I am grateful to be alive In 2020 my 23 son while in a psychotic state strangled me until I lost consciousness He left me when he heard my husband coming up the stairs Our journey began through the mental health care system when our son was six years old. His psychiatrist diagnosed him with bipolar disorder and Asperger's disorder, and he had weekly therapy sessions and medication management. He attempted suicide at 16. He had a psychotic break. He had, through the years, he had at least 15 M1 holds, 12 hospitalizations, three drug rehab programs, two group homes, two felony arrests, and three and a half months in jail. Every psychiatric hospital he stayed at discharged him long before he was stable. The longest he ever stayed was three weeks. Most admissions lasted only a few days. One hospital told me that what your son needs doesn't exist. The same hospital refused to take him for a third admission because, as I was told, he needs a higher level of care. So I tried to get him placed on Fort Logan wait list. As soon as he's discharged from one hospital, you're removed from the wait list. After my son assaulted me, he spent three and a half months in county jail. He was placed on the medical unit and can leave the cell for only one hour out of the day. A deputy reported to the mental health peer specialist that she observed my son to have a black eye and talking to himself in the mirror. In the three months, it took three and a half months before he was evaluated at the state psychiatric hospital in Pueblo, where he currently resides. I'm eternally grateful to the staff who continue to take care of my son's needs. And I can't help but wonder, had he been able to have access to an inpatient bed for longer-term care, and before his condition worsened, he might have had a better outcome. Beds allocated through the civil system focus on longer-term stability and recovery. I implore you to support this bill and let the voters decide. Thank you so much.

Representative Frey. Thank you, Madam Chair. Ms. Debbie, thank you for your service in the legislature and continued. That is a true definition of public servant, especially in this space. Sir, in the end, you were finishing up your statement, and I'm wondering if you could just finish that last part that you were speaking to in your testimony. Mr. Bowman.

Representative Hamrick. Thank you. Madam Chair, I just want to point out, and there was a question at the end of this. As of June of this, of 2025, hundreds of inmates are awaiting court mandated competency restoration with no additional beds It costing our state millions of dollars each year Inpatient competency evaluation orders have increased by 600 percent over the last 25 years Restoration service orders have increased by 1,200 percent. Following the 2019 resolution of a federal lawsuit regarding excessive wait times for court-ordered competency services, the Colorado Department of Human Services was ordered under a consent decree to expand its community-based services, speed up inpatient admissions, and provide treatment for people in jail awaiting competency services. DHS can be fined up to $12 million each year due to failure to meet court-ordered services and deadlines. And according to the Colorado Common Sense Institute, Colorado, we don't have enough money even pay the fine. We're just paying interest right now on the incompetency problem without ever touching the principle. And instead of reducing wait times, our state is releasing dangerous offenders into the community and spending millions on fines that don't fix the problems. My question for the panelists is, how will this bill save Colorado millions of dollars every year, help those accused with mental health supports, and support our law enforcement? I would like to answer Ms. Tuckert.

Yes, of course. Thank you.

Representative McCormick. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for that follow-up. So are you saying that it is in a budgetary request right now that could be targeted for this particular project?

Representative McCormick.

Additional questions from the committee? Okay, seeing then, thank you all so much, especially those that brought their lived experience. We really appreciate your perspective and appreciate you bringing that to the committee today. Okay, we'll move on to our next support panel. Okay, Karen Schwayes, Billy, you did want to testify, ma'am?

Do not. Okay. And then we'll, um, John, uh, Fayan who is here. Perfect. Thank you. And then, um, Cynthia Abel and Brittany Visage were both remote. And then if there's anybody else in the room or online that is in a support position, please come forward. Okay. We'll start from my left to my right. If you can introduce yourself and the organization you represent. And you have two minutes. It's that tiny little gray button by the plug. Thank you. this little gray, but perfect. Okay.

Thank you so much. Please proceed.

Thank you so much for your testimony. We'll move online to Cynthia Abel. On Cynthia's phone, it looks like. You're on mute if you're speaking. You can come off mute and introduce yourself and your organization and you have two minutes Okay, we'll move on to our other witness and come back if we can hopefully get you back on. We'll go to Brittany Visage. If you could come off mute and introduce yourself and you have two minutes.

your story. We'll move on to Ms. Abel. It looks like you might have gotten off mute if you'd like

Thank you so much for your testimony. Questions for this panel? Okay, seeing none, thank you all so much for your testimony. We really appreciate it, especially to those who brought their lived experience, and we're so sorry for your loss. Okay, with that, we will move on to our opposed folks. Can we bring up Ainsley Gilglarano? Should have learned from yesterday. I apologize. Matthew Estrin, Andrew Quam, and Tom Parrick. And then we'll bring on a few remote folks, Cassidy Schull, Brian Crawford, Dan Pabon. Okay. Welcome back. I will start from my left to my right. If you can introduce yourself, the organization you represent, and you have two minutes. Okay, thank you, Madam Chair and members.

your testimony. Please proceed. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members of this committee. Thank

Thank you for your testimony. Please proceed.

Thank you. Please proceed.

Thank you so much for your testimony. And we'll move online to Mr. Crawford. If you could come off mute, introduce yourself, the organization you represent. You have two minutes.

Thank you. We'll move on to Ms. Scholl.

Thank you so much for testimony. We'll move on to Mr. Pabon.

Thank you so much for your testimony. Questions for this panel? Representative Bradley.

Who would like to answer that?

Representative Bradley. Thank you, and thank you for that. and the 40 employees that you take care of and then they pay for housing and they pay their rent and they pay for food, then they're without a job, correct? Yes.

Representative Fug. Thank you, Madam Chair. I believe it's Mr. Quorum with Breckham Ridge Distillery. I just wondered, I didn't quite catch what you said at the end, and what I want to know is, and maybe this is what you're saying, what would this do to your product cost? Were you giving a specific on the actual cost of the product that gets passed along to the customers?

Thank you. And we'll move online. Ms. Schull, I think you wanted to answer that question as well.

Thank you. Mr. Pavon.

Thank you for that. Additional questions from the committee? Okay. Seeing none, thank you so much for joining us today. We appreciate your participation. Okay. We'll move on to some more folks. Patrick Stern. Lee Wood. Carrie Shanks. Ryan Thompson. And Kevin Culhane. Melissa Koza, Chris Coran, and Michael, sorry, David Michael. and then I think at this point if there's anyone else in the room or online that would like to testify in a pose um since you already testified we we can't have you testify again I apologize okay um wonderful we'll start with the individual in person if you can introduce yourself your organization, and you have two minutes.

Michael. OK, great. You're on for two minutes.

Appreciate your testimony. Thank you so much. We'll move on to Chris.

Thank you for your testimony. We'll move on to Melissa Koza. Welcome back. If you want to Introduce yourself, your organization, and you have two minutes.

Thank you so much for your testimony. Questions from the committee? Representative Bradley.

Yes. What we have seen under the Healthy Kids for Colorado survey is that during the time that the adult use market has been in place, every time that this survey is done, we have seen a reduction in the amount of use that our youth are stating that they are engaging with marijuana. I don't have the exact statistics, but I'm happy to provide them at a later date to this committee. But each time that they have done, they do this every two years. And this is whether teams are admitting to their use or not admitting to their use. But the numbers of people that are admitting to the use is going down. And that is as a result of the unavailability of it. The black market does not compete well with our current market and our adult market. use market, but if we tax it, as California has a thriving black market, so does Washington, so does Michigan. Their taxes, this particular bill would bring our taxes in line with those, increase our rates, and people will go back to growing this and selling this in the black market. When that happens, not only is that now available because people who are dealing drugs in the black market do not check for IDs nor care whether they're excelling to youth or adults, but the products that then are in the market are unregulated, untested, and could be harmful to people in far greater ways if they're consuming products that contain fertilizers or pesticides and then combusting that into their lungs. So for our youth, we really need to keep a strong adult use market. And the problem is, is our market is collapsing. I've seen a 53% reduction in workforce in my own company, and that is very illustrative. And many companies have shut down as we have seen a 40% reduction in revenue. So harming, well, I understand that the liquor industry will be harmed by this. We are already in collapse because we built up a market that was outside of Colorado. People did come here and tourists, 13% of tourists claim that they came here to buy products. That's gone now. And we are an industry that is at best in recovery and in decline. And if we have more problems, we will have, I think, an increase in the black market in terms of the price point that people are willing to pay for the product. So while I support this endeavor, it's not appropriate to tax our industry further. We are already suffering too much. Additional questions

Yes, Madam Chair, we have four.

All right, I move. Amendment L-001 to House Bill 1301, seconded by Representative Frey.

Yeah, L-001, it's a tax cut. So the original number that was put in was going to bring in more money than we needed for the project. So we're cutting the rate. So when you hear all these comments about 100%, well, this cuts it about 30% from what it was. So we're not asking for any more than we need for the project. Any questions on this amendment?

All right. I move Amendment L-002 to House Bill 1301. Seconded by Representative Foray.

Yeah, Amendment 2 is to set up the continuous appropriations for the revenue and make sure it's dedicated without Capital Development Committee review. Of course, that's why the Capital Development Committee does not like the bill, but I think it is an important part of the bill. So, again, it's to set up the continuous appropriations so that the taxpayers know what they're getting for their money when they hopefully approve this. Any questions on this amendment?

I move amendment L-003 to House Bill 1301. Second. Seconded by Representative Foray.

Yeah, this responds to advice from the Attorney General's office on the ballot title. So we were just blindly following the Attorney General's advice to make sure we have legal compliance. Okay. Any questions on this amendment?

I move Amendment L004 to House Bill 1301. Second.

Representative Marshall, could you describe the amendment?

No. Any objections on this amendment? No. Seeing none, L004 passes. Okay. Any additional amendments from the sponsor? No ma Okay Any additional amendments from the committee Seeing none the amendment phase is closed Representative Marshall would you like to wrap up

Thank you, Representative Marshall. I'll go ahead and move your bill, and then we'll have closing comments from the committee. So I move House Bill 26-1301 as amended to the Committee on Finance with a favorable recommendation. Second.

Oh, okay, great. And then closing comments from the committee, Representative McCormick.

Representative Hammett.

Representative Stewart.

and you're not wrong. Representative Bradley. Thank you, Madam Chair. And there's definitely,

Thank you, Madam Chair. Sorry I wasn't here earlier. I was across the street presenting another bill, and that went on forever. I understand this bill. I didn't get to hear the testimony. However, unfortunately, well, let me back up here. I know how badly we need this hospital. exactly how we need this hospital. But for the comments already made about the small businesses being not carved out and being part of this, as well as we all know when big corporations even make cuts, it trickles down to the employees. And for the same reasons, I was a no on the other increasing of tax on the excise tax on the alcohols bill yesterday. As I've told you, I will be a no on this one as well because for the same reasons. As I spoke with you and gave you other ideas as to reach out to different people in regards to partnering with them in getting this hospital built, I would love to see that happen, and I will work with you any way I can in reaching out and getting this hospital built with the other programs. And I talk to them, and they are very interested as well. Thank you.

Representatives of Barron.

Bradfield.

Bradley.

English.

Gray.

Emmerich.

Johnson.

McCormick.

Ryden.

Stewart.

Wook.

Leader?

Madam Chair?

Second.

Any objections to that motion? Seeing none, the bill is postponed indefinitely. Okay, with that, we're going to move on to Senate Bill 110, Representative Barone.

welcome representative Brown would you like to tell us about your bill

madam chair members of the committee

Thank you, Representative Brown. Questions from the committee? No questions? Oh, Representative Byron.

Thank you, Representative Chair.

Representative Byron. Okay. Okay, we did it. Okay, any other questions? No. Okay. Thank you so much for your presentation, Representative Byron. We'll move on to the witness testimony. We have Mr. Will Fenton and Ms. Jill Colavolpe. Do you want to come forward? And do we have... Yeah, just two. It looks like the other individuals online. Okay, great. Why don't we start with Mr. Fenton. If you want to state your name, the organization you represent, you have two minutes. It's right by the plug.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you for your testimony. We'll move on to Ms. Kolovope.

Thank you so much for your testimony. Questions from the committee? Okay, seeing none, thank you so much for your participation. We appreciate you being here. Any additional folks in the audience or online that would like to testify? Seeing none, the witness phase is closed. Representative Barone.

Okay. No additional amendments from the sponsor. Additional amendments from the committee. Seeing none, the amendment phase is closed. Representative Barone, wrap up.

Amazing. Amazing. Vice Chair Leader, would you like to

Oh, I'm sorry Excuse me, Representative Barone Would you like to move your own bill

Go ahead

Second

Second Okay

Okay, with that, Mr. Shadun, could you please call the roll?

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Great hair.

Stewart.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Thank you, Madam Chair and the Health and Human Services Committee for the opportunity to present 1272, Protecting Workers in Extreme Temps. The title really should be protecting the health of workers in extreme temps, so it's appropriate that we are in this committee. This bill is timely and necessary because, first of all, climate change, we are experiencing more and more over 100-degree days, even in Colorado, even in the mountains, and really weird weather patterns in the winter where we have polar vortexes coming out of nowhere. and because essentially the federal OSHA is gone. Under the Biden administration, they undertook significant work in terms of what work during extreme temperatures look like, and that was halted with the new administration. And fundamentally because for a few years now, we've been hearing from workers about their real experiences of what it's like to work in extreme cold and extreme heat. Last year's bill addressing this same problem faced heavy opposition from industry, and we tabled it. We went back to our coalition and began to engage with industry to carve out a vision for a future where we have a different budget scenario, a different, potentially, a federal OSHA back into play, Maybe a state OSHA, a different governor, so a different future. And so as introduced, the bill is really a blueprint for that path to the future where we feel workers would be protected in extreme temperatures. At phase one is data collection and education. Phase two is rulemaking, if needed, from CDLE. And we see a phase three four years plus down the road where everybody has in place a plan to address extreme temperatures and what that looks like for workers Enter the reality this year of our budget. And so what we have is an amendment, and we will give it out to you any minute now. Do we have? Did we get it? I have it right here. Oh, yes. We'll give out both of these if you want to. Thank you.

Anyway, so what L2 does is just absolutely shrink this down into that beginning phase, and it becomes just data collection and the creation of a model TRIP, what we're calling a TRIP in a box, sometimes during negotiation. TRIP stands for Temperature Related Injury and Illness Prevention Plans. And we didn't come up with that. It's sort of an idea that is in worker protections. This model TRIP was asked for by industry because they wanted an option that lessened their administrative burden. We heard that last year's bill was too prescriptive and we adjusted accordingly. We heard that this isn't really a problem, and so we're suggesting we collect data. We ask you to let us begin this journey to listen to workers, to consider workers when we think about our increasingly hot summers, our crazy cold days that seem to come from nowhere. Prevention is one of the P's in the trip. And if we can plan ahead, we can keep workers healthy, we keep Colorado going, we ask for a yes on our amendments and on the bill.

Thank you, sponsors. Questions from the committee.

Representative Velasco thank you so much Madam Chair and thank you so much Representative Barron so I do want to share with you that we had 92 workplace fatalities and that is 92 too many and Colorado workers die on the job and we are gathering that data. Data shows that 92 lives were lost at work in our state, a significant increase from 83 workers that were killed in 2023, and 89 fatalities were recorded in 2022. And these are husbands, fathers, sisters, neighbors who lost their life simply trying to in a living. We also saw the death of six workers at Colorado's Prospect Ranch Theory. And I'm really glad that you mentioned OSHA because these guidelines around extreme temperatures were released by OSHA under the previous administration. So we believe that they're not going to be implemented under this administration. We're also seeing OSHA be defunded. We're seeing workers protections be rolled back. So what we're seeing is that there's different states where workers have less rights. And for us in Colorado, it's important that we are standing up for our workers and making sure that they have water. We're asking for water at work, for shade to be alive. And also, Also I do want to share that I hear your concern around not making it expensive for industry to implement Because we have heard of many good practices like everything that you mentioned Protective gear, water, training. And all of those is why we're gathering the data, to make sure that we have the best practices. And we want industry to tell us what are those guidelines that you have in place to keep your workers safe and make sure that we are holding bad actors accountable. Representative Follett. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for the question, Rep. Barone. I'll just echo, you know, we have an Ag Workers Bill of Rights, so this bill does not implicate the ag sector, although we feel like there are a lot of good things in that that we want to replicate. There are no implications in this bill. There's no paperwork. There's no industry obligation after the amendment. There's literally nothing that industry has to do to implement Phase 1. And as Rep. Velasco mentioned, there's no OSHA. We wish there was, but there isn't. So it may be a shell, but there's no enforcement and the Extreme Temperatures Task Force recommendations are not being implemented. Representative LeBron. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I hate to disagree with you, but there is an OSHA. I've dealt with him directly plenty of times. Plenty of times. So let me go back into a little bit more of an explanation of how OSHA really does exist in the state. In my company, we have an internal safety guy. This guy. When I'm not there, my brother takes over. Now, we take over for the safety of our employees. And we deal with our contracted company, like Occidental, Chevron. They have an internal safety guide who deals directly with OSHA. So if there's ever an incident, even a paper cut, we have to report it. Because that paper cut can in the future become something bigger, an infection, and then it wasn't reported when it originally happened. So that becomes a problem with OSHA. When OSHA gets involved, they get involved with the big company that we work for, Chevron or Occidental, and then they get a hold of me, which is why didn't you report it to us so we can report it to OSHA. So there is a step process of how this happens, and it's checks and balances. This is the way it should be. So ultimately it comes back down to me, the safety of my employees. And do you think I'm going to risk my company, my dad's company, and the safety of my employees over a paper cut? No. So there is an OSHA, and this is already being implemented. And extreme weather, and I agree with you, Rep Velasco, that 93 deaths is 93 way too many. It's hard to believe 93 deaths due to extreme temperature, though. And then at the same time, OSHA regulations that are really, really hard here in the state of Colorado, or at least that I know of in the construction and in the oil and gas industry, we must provide shade. We must provide breaks due to extreme weather. And we must provide water and sufficient water for all employees. Now, don't get me wrong. There might be some bad actors out there, but now you're implementing this overregulation to the majority of industry over one or two bad actors. when those bad actors should be reported and shut down Was the okay I think there was a question in there Representative Velasco Thank you so much. And thank you, Representative Varun. I think that we do agree in a lot of those points. And, you know, really we want, as you are someone that's making sure that there's safety in the workplace, we believe that, as you said, making sure that there's water and shade and breaks is going to prevent accidents and is going to prevent deaths. And these deaths are recorded by the Department of Public Health, and I think that they are here for questions. If you want to ask how do they track the incidents, and they also have a public-facing link where you can look at the information year to year. so please do ask your questions to the department. Representative Wook. Thank you, Madam Chair. Just a couple questions here. First one is have you done a small business impact study? Representative Felk. Thank you, Representative Wook. As contemplated before you today, there is no implication for industry. There's no ask of industry. It is a data collection and a creation by the Department of Labor of a model trip in a box, period, the end. Representative Fulick. I'm going to move on to my second one. So, and this is a two-part question. How will extreme hot or cold temperatures and affected workers be officially defined? How will enforcement stay consistent across Colorado's climates without arbitrary penalties? Representative Fulick. In this bill, as contemplated before you, there are no penalties. There's no enforcement. There are no definitions of that. That would be in later days, in later budget years, in conjunction with a federal OSHA, with a potentially state OSHA, with a different governor, different president.

Representative Velasco. Thank you so much Madam Chair and thank you so much Representative Stewart and we have had many conversations with different industries from the ski industry to oil and gas, to construction, utilities. Yeah, so we have had a lot of conversation. And I do believe that this proposal today is much different than the one from last year. You know, last year we were very prescriptive. We had added a lot of definitions. We had, we were, we wanted this to be implemented. But what we heard from industry is that we need a frame that is flexible, that many of them do things differently. You know, for example, from Sunlight Mountain, that's my local ski resort in Glingwood Springs, they told us, you know, our snowmobile guide tours, they last more than an hour. so that worker might be outside for more than an hour in cold weather that under 30 degrees but they have their protective gear they have their uniforms And they also in charge of keeping guests safe So you know that why we just gathering data You know, after the amendment is just gathering data and having the department create this plan. So really what we heard from the conversations is that we need a flexible framework and that we need these guidelines that can be implemented across industries and that we're definitely not ready to implement. Representative Fulak. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for the question, Rep. Stewart. Just to this concept of a model trip, it was an interesting conversation this afternoon that this is somehow going to be some imposed plan upon any industry. the concept was brought to us by industry who sort of said what a pain that we have to now come up with this prevention plan. And so we proposed and in extensive stakeholding and you're going to hear some opposition and I think you're going to hear a lot of opposition say they're actually fine post amendment. But in general, last year we had six pages of opposition to this bill. This year we have, I think, six people showing up to committee, so a reduction of about one in 100 of the opposition that we had last year. And so the model trip is not meant to be a one-size-fits-all, but rather something that can be come up with to help industry with a potential framework. But it would not be you have to use this thing that is on the website, but industry asked for something on the website that would give them essentially a very basic checklist of what needs to be included. and we originally in the text of the long bill or the spelled out future bill contemplated that, of course, if you meet all these criteria, because we heard a lot of, as Rep Velasco said, that we're doing this, we do a really good job. Actually, I'd love to work for Rep Barrett. It sounds pretty great to be taken care of by an employer. But we also, in that original bill, that completely came from workers, really, really under some very difficult circumstances. And so we're trying to strike that balance with this. Trip is intended to be exactly that, a trip in a box. You can pull it out, use it if it works for your company. But if you already have existing prevention plans, good for you. And if you're like the ski industry and you've been doing it for 50 years, employing people out in the open. And I was just very surprised to hear from those folks that they felt that this trip was somehow an oppressive aspect to the bill when it is meant to be a tool for industry to use or not use.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Rep. Ryden. The bill as it exists post-amendment is only Phase 1. So Phase 2 and 3 are dreams we hope will happen. And we actually wanted to pencil out what the cost would be. So we know what it would be to implement in another future where we actually had a budget. But this year we do still have a fiscal note because there is still some work at CDLE. I think we have a fiscal note memorandum. Have you guys received that? Yeah. So the cost is not nothing, but as imagined in this phase one, it would be $100,000. And then we hope to go to appropriations and continue to work with the department. And they'll be here to talk about the ways that we've tried really hard to bring that number down. Representative Bradley.

Representative Alaska. Thank you so much, Madam Chair. And we do have those numbers. I don't have it handy, but we can give them to you to share. And I do want to share that for extreme heat, we do have other states that have protections. the extreme cold is something that would be new in in the nation which we are very proud to start gathering data around that especially as we're seeing um or climate change but um it you know i remember around three years ago i was at a conference an emergency response conference where they were talking about adding extreme heat as a natural disaster, where they were allowed to ask for FEMA funding to respond. So the issue around extreme heat, you are correct, that it affects states across the nation. Representative McColl, do you have a follow-up?

Representative Frelick. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for the question, Rep. Bradley. Again, as the bill exists, there isn't any of those prescriptions. We began that process and we quickly decided that we don't even know the scope of the problem. And so we'd like to find that out. And some of the industry objections last year were that there isn't a problem. and so let's find that out.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Rep. Bradley. I guess our feeling is that every worker and some of these workers are really marginalized. So they are folks taking two and three jobs. If you can imagine what it's like to live in a mountain town on a minimum wage job that you have to work 75 hours, I think, to pay rent for your one-bedroom apartment. So we feel like that it is important to protect workers across the board. We have minimum wage. We have minimum standards. And there's no reason why just because you work outside on a roofing project, you should have to have your health at risk. Representative Velasco. Thank you so much, Madam Chair, and thank you, Representative Bradley. And what we want to do in the future, you know, because after the amendments, this bill is just around data gathering. But in our dreams, if we had the magic wand, it would be to create a floor, you know, where we say workers need to have these conditions to be able to have a safe workplace. and those are those provisions like access to water and access to shade and education around how to identify if they're being negatively affected by extreme heat. But at this point, we are just gathering the data. Representative Froll. Thank you, Madam Chair. And to follow up on what Rep. Velasco says, we see this in worker protections and you can see obvious examples when we go after things like pregnancy discrimination. So if you have a workplace in which one of our roofing contractors said, my guys like to work extra, they want to work a 14-hour day, and as long as you have conditions in which the employer is offering a 14-hour day to a guy who's willing to work on a roof in 100-degree temperature and works 14 hours without a water break because they're not mandated or a shade break, that worker is, any other worker is competing against that standard. And so if you're not the guy willing to work 14 hours, you don't get to be on that job site. And heaven forbid you're not as able to do the work as that person. So it sets an artificially high standard. We want to set a basement standard. Okay. Thank you.

And then there will be the bill also, it's not just about the data. It's the second step of that is that the division shall develop this model trip. And I noticed that a lot of the language under that part of the bill, on page 9 is permissive telling that the division may include and then you have a list of things is in between the data collection of the various industries involved and the development of this model trip is there an opportunity for rulemaking stakeholder input in that phase to help guide what may or may not end up in that model trip? I'm just wondering, will there be another opportunity to hear some response to all that data that you are collecting. I would never forget about you. Representative Rolick. Forgettable. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Rep McCormick. The rulemaking is really contemplated post the data and post-model trip because CDLE, and they'll be here to testify, has enough work across the country. And remember, OSHA was on the cusp of doing some pretty intense work in this space when that part of OSHA was disbanded. And OSHA in general, it exists, but it's been colossally downscaled. So in phase two, we would like to see some investigations into what would be best practices. But that's not contemplated until phase two.

Representative Froehlich. Thank you very much. We have a coalition of folks. You'll hear from them today, Green Latinos, Vos. United, Color, predominantly organizations of folks who work at lower wage jobs, a lot of immigrant rights organizations. And then in terms of our industry stakeholder list, we also have people who will testify to that. But it's about 150 folks that we've been talking to in the course of trying to craft this bill. Representative Velasco. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Representative Johnson, for your question. And I can read a list of some of the organizations that are in our coalition, but I do want to say that we wanted to get people out of their silos. You know, as we're seeing climate change, the ones that are most affected are the essential workers, the people that have to work in person. So this coalition really has a lot of environmental organizations, social justice, and labor organizations because we have seen a lot of workers die on the job. So we have Healthy Air and Water Colorado, Towards Justice, Conservation Colorado, United Food and Commercial Union, Colorado Coalition for Living Conditions, Green Latinos, Colorado Color, which is a reproductive rights organization, Smart Local 9 CERC SCIU People and Pollinators Action ACLU Colorado Fiscal Institute Soul to Soul Sisters 9 to 5 Moms for Clean Air CFI Colorado People Alliance Project to Protect Food Systems Communication Workers of America NRDC and 350 Colorado Representative Felt And I would just say we have really made an effort and I think I'm really proud to partner with Rep. Velasco on this, to really elevate the voices of folks who, particularly last year, were poised to come tell their stories and faced incredible opposition on this bill and we had to table it. And so we made a promise to them that we would do everything we could to elevate their voices and bring this bill back and make progress on this issue. And so I'm most proud of those aspects of the coalition that we're hearing from folks who don't feel like they have a voice in this building.

Representative Fulick. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Representative Johnson. No. Okay.

Ty Key James Jessica Herrera and Patricia Garcia Nelson and Christina Reset with CDLE who is for questions only everybody online great Are all those folks on? Okay, great. Why don't we start while folks are being brought up?

Thank you so much, Madam Chair and members of the committee. My name is Nicole Cervera-Lor. And I'm here on behalf of COLOR, the Colorado Organization for Latina Opportunity and Reproductive Rights, to urge a yes vote on House Bill 26-1272. This bill is about protecting the health and safety of our Colorado's essential workers, who also happen to be those put in some of the most vulnerable situations due to extreme temperatures. Bill 7-2 strengthens the system for Colorado's tracking for temperature-related injuries and offers additional supports to employers and workers so that they are able to prevent harm in the future and able to respond faster when there is temperature-related injury or illness. By collecting data on temperature-related injuries and developing model prevention plans and training standards, this bill seeks to move us towards practical worker-informed solutions. This bill takes an important first step in equipping both workers and employers with the information and tools needed to prevent further community harm. We also know that due to federal changes and state budgetary restrictions, more than 280,000 Coloradans will be losing health coverage by the end of this year, making any injury or illness at work even more devastating. We are urging you today to please support Colorado's essential workers because they need this bill now more than ever. We urge you to vote yes on HB 1272. Thank you so much.

Sorry, y'all. It's spring break at my house. My name is Patricia Garcia Nelson, and I am here to speak in support of House Bill 26-1262. My connection to this bill spans four generations. My great-grandfather, Pascual Vergara, and my grandfather, Antonio Ramirez, came to the United States as braceros under the Bracero Program, a federal guest worker program that brought hundreds of thousands of Mexican men into labor in American fields, often under harsh and unprotected conditions. My parents continued the work in the 1970s and 80s and 90s through today, and I, too, work the fields here in northern Colorado. Across four generations, my family has continued to contribute their bodies and their labor to this country's food supply. Across four generations, we have faced the same dangerous conditions that this bill is trying to fix. I personally experienced working in the field without adequate shade, limited breaks, and no bathroom access, forcing myself and other workers to relieve ourselves in the cornfields, possibly risking exposure to harmful pesticides and chemicals. I also remember the day that it started raining hard while we were working in the fields. And when we tried to go to our cars to seek shelter from the rain, we were told by our supervisor that anyone that left would be fired. And so we stayed because we had no other choice. This is the reality of what unenforceable standards look like for workers who work in the fields and cannot afford to lose a day's pain. This bill requires employers to have written enforceable plans for protecting workers from extreme heat and cold. It ensures access to drinking water, shade, and rest. These protections matter for farm workers, construction workers, and so many other people that are working outdoors all day, every day in Colorado. My great-grandfather came here with almost nothing and worked without protection. And that should not be the story of Colorado workers in 2026 Please pass this bill Thank you for your testimony We move on to Jessica Herrera

My name is Jessica Herrera, and I serve as Council for Green Latinos, a national nonprofit organization that works to advance environmental justice and public health protections for Latino communities across Colorado. I'm here today in strong support of House Bill 1272 to establish protections for workers facing extreme temperatures. For many of the communities we serve, extreme heat and cold are not abstract risk. They are daily lived realities. Latino workers are disproportionately represented in outdoors and high exposure industries, including construction, landscaping and agriculture. These are the very sectors where workers are most vulnerable to heat, exhaustion, hypothermia and long term health impacts. And these risks are only increasing. As climate change intensifies, Colorado is experiencing more frequent and severe temperature extremes. From an environmental justice perspective, this is not just a workplace issue. It is a health equity issue. Workers who are exposed to extreme temperatures often lack access to basic protections like shade, rest, water and adequate warming breaks. Many feel they cannot speak up due to the fear of retaliation or job loss. As a result, preventable harm continues to occur. This bill is about setting a clear baseline that no worker in Colorado should have to choose between their health and a paycheck. Access to water, rest, shade, and clear emergency response measures shouldn't be an unreasonable ask. At Green Latinos, we strongly believe that environmental justice includes the right to safe working conditions in the face of a changing climate. We respectfully urge your support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Thank you, Chair and members of the committee. My name is Tykee James. I serve as the Senior Environmental Justice Campaign Manager at Conservation Colorado, the state's largest environmental advocacy organization, and I urge a yes vote on HB 26-1272. Colorado workers – oh, I am really quiet. Is that right? I can fix that by increasing the volume of my microphone. Can I say reclaiming my time? No, that's not a thing here, is it? Okay. I'm just going to pick up where I left off. Colorado workers, such as construction workers, landscapers, warehouse workers, truck drivers, and roofers, are increasingly exposed to extreme heat and cold temperatures, exacerbated by climate change. As climate change worsens, extreme weather events like intense heat waves and cold snaps become more frequent. Extreme temperatures create serious health problems, heat stroke, frostbite, dehydration, hypothermia, and even death. This hurts families, communities, and the state's economy. As we see the dismantling of federal labor laws and worker rights, Colorado must take on the mantle of protecting our workers. This is a thoughtful update to last year's bill because it focuses on what works. measuring the problem so we can fix it. HB 22-1274 ensures an additional pathway for workers to have a say in their work conditions. As amended, the bill directs the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment to collect and organize reliable data on temperature-related illnesses, injuries, emergencies, drawing from worker reports, Colorado Department of Public Health and the Environment, and the Center for Improving Value in Healthcare. All of that would then inform a rulemaking process to publish our state first model temperature injury illness prevention plan a trip Do not trip on your word saying it That employers can use that to help keep workers safe It's another tool in the toolbox. It's a plan that can describe the covered activities, the temperature monitoring. And this bill is designed to respect consistency without reinventing the wheel. If your business is doing the right stuff, keep it up. Let's set an example for more workers to protect. let's set up better examples for more workplaces to protect their workers. Good work needs a good workplace, and I urge yes.

Representative Braun. Thank you, Madam Chair. This is for anybody on the panel. Do you know what the OSHA regulations for the general duty clause, Section 5A1, states for cold weather temperatures, and this is the same thing for heat weather temperatures?

Oh, who would like to answer that question? Take you, James.

Representative Brown. Thank you, Madam Chair. Just to be clear, the OSHA Regulation General Duty Clause, Section 5A1, to protect workers from recognized hazards causing death or serious harm, including cold stress, hypothermia, and frostbite, employers must provide appropriate protective clothing, training, and warm break areas. in the oil and gas industry for bathrooms when we're on location for more than one day we we are required to provide portalettes on location for the employees to use during their work breaks and these newer portalettes in the past two years actually have a solar and battery powered misters that mist inside the portalette to keep people cool in warm in extreme warm weather and in cold weather, we have portable heaters. Now those portable heaters must go through a red zone checklist because we are on site of flammable materials just to make sure that portable heater is at least 75 feet away from any flammable material. So a portal is never more than 75 feet away from your work area. I just wanted to clear that out.

Yeah, you want to push the button right next to the plug. Other, right there.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members of the committee. My name is Michael Cox. I am an attorney with Squire Patent Boggs, along with my colleague Cole Wiss. We represent the Colorado Chamber of Commerce. We appreciate the recent amendments to House Bill 26-1272. However, several core issues with the bill remain unresolved. First, this bill duplicates work that has already been done at the federal and state level regarding temperature-related injury and illness in the workplace. Agencies like the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention the National Institutes of Health have already collected and analyzed extensive data sets on this issue using sophisticated and well methodologies OSHA has resources online You can look at heat and their winter weather page for resources on science systems preparedness for employers on these issues. Simply put, requiring the CDLE to conduct another broad data collection, an analysis effort would be an unnecessary use of state resources in an already tight budget year. It also raises questions about the sources of the data, their evaluation, impartiality, reliability. Second, the federal government already regulates this area. Colorado is under the jurisdiction of OSHA, which provides protections to Colorado workers through the OSHA Act's general duty clause. This is statutory, and precedent clearly establishes that OSHA considers that temperature-related injury and illness are generally recognized hazards. Moreover, there's currently no legislation before Congress to rescind or weaken the general duty clause, nor is there any indication that OSHA plans to withdraw from enforcement or weaken protections for workers exposed to extreme temperatures. Lastly, this bill mandates state rulemaking on this subject and therefore raises preemption issues. Again, Colorado is a federal OSHA jurisdiction, not a state-planned state. Colorado may not change, undermine, or contradict federal law in this area. The rulemaking that this bill mandates, however, would conflict or otherwise undermine the enforcement of the general duty clause. This state action would therefore be impliedly preempted under federal law. If Colorado seeks to regulate workplace safety more strangely than federal law, the OSHA state plan approval process is the proper pathway. While we understand that process is expensive and takes time, HB 1272 risks creating confusion for employers about which standards apply and could ultimately lead to unnecessary litigation over the bill's constitutionality. We understand the motivation to protect workers from extreme temperatures, but for these reasons, we respectfully urge in opposition to 1272.

Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee. Michael Gifford, Associated General Contractors, Advocacy Director here in opposition to 1272. But we first want to say that we are proud in commercial construction that the building trades unions were not listed in the coalition. The plumbers, the pipe fitters, the carpenters, the electricians. met with them last week and said is this bill something that you're working on they said no we do not think that we're being put into harm's way because of heat or cold because of any of the work we're doing with you the general contractors in Colorado so we're very proud of that and we work very hard on safety as Representative Brown mentioned under OSHA they are hard on us on that general duty clause we have one of only 28 OSHA education training centers for construction in the country. OSHA does not give those out lightly. One of only 28. It's very hard to get that designation and we have a written contract with OSHA that governs everything we do and it's very similar again to what Representative Barone described. So in doing this work to protect our employees, we give them water and shade areas. We give them warming tents from the cold, we do not benefit if they get hurt and have to go to the emergency room. Then we're losing productivity. And we have work comp rules that say if we have too many work comp claims, we can't bid on work anymore with many owners. That's called a mod rate. It may be similar in oil and gas. You've got to keep that below 1.0 in our industry. So we have every economic and moral incentive to work hard to keep our employees safe. Now, we do read in... the bill that there may be amendments that would remove some employer obligations. We would still have a concern if that rulemaking is in. We've kind of heard two versions that it's in and it's not. A rulemaking could get us in the situation that was just described with the OSHA preemption. We just want one regulator to work for, either Fed, OSHA, or the state, but not both.

My name is Chris Aestreich. I'm with Colorado Stone Sand and Gravel Association. Just for a scheduling thing, Todd, Ohlheiser and I were going to switch, if that's okay?

My name is Chris Aestreich. I represent the Colorado Stone Sand and Gravel Association to voice our opposition to HB 1272 as introduced. We oppose the bill because it does not fill a legitimate regulatory gap, instead is duplicative of existing federal regulations. In our world under MSHA, MSHA requires all miners to be trained on all hazards at their worksite, which includes extreme temperatures and hydration. MSHA also requires us to provide potable drinking water to all employees. OSHA, as discussed, requires all employers under their general duty clause to provide a workplace free from recognized hazards. And I just want to note that to the note about OSHA being gutted, their funding went down 0.5% year over year. Just want to explain that. So there's not a shell of a husk of OSHA. It's still very robust and very effective. All that to say, these are robust, effective federal regulations that we have been complying with for decades and will continue to comply with going forward. If they were to be rolled back as responsible operators and employers, we would continue to follow the common sense practice of providing water and temperature protections for workers. We take care of our employees primarily because it's the right thing to do, not because the government tells us we must. When burdensome and unnecessarily regulations drive our costs up, the financial impact on all of society is amplified. Fewer roads are paved, fewer potholes are filled, and fewer investments are made in green building material technologies. I applaud the well-intentioned nature of this measure, and I share the bill's sponsor's passion for protecting workers. As a general manager of an aggregates business on the Front Range, I practice that passion every day. Proud to say my organization has gone over three and a half years with no lost time injuries. Very proud of that. Our association shares that pride in our safety record. So why oppose this bill if safety is our top priority? Because it does not meaningfully move the needle on worker safety. These regulations exist at the federal level, and yet this program would impose a very real cost as proposed. I understand amendments are coming. would impose a very real cost of compliance. We cherish our workforce and our people and we protect them every day and we will do so regardless of what the government requires us to do. Please consider voting against this bill as our industry cannot sustain more duplicative, burdensome and financially harmful regulations. We are already dying from a thousand cuts and we cannot afford to add any more.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm Tony Milo, President of the Colorado Contractors Association. Our members perform the vast majority of public works infrastructure projects across the state. And I would just agree with all of the comments made by the panelists. You know, heat and cold exposure is already regulated. It's already tracked. Injuries and illnesses are tracked on construction sites. Our members are very proud that they are good employers. They treat their employees well. And I think one of the representatives on the panel on the committee made the point earlier that, you know, in this job market, if you don't treat your employees well, they're going to go someplace else. It's just that simple. So the successful contractors treat their employees well, make sure they have plenty of water, plenty of shade, you know, all the protections needed from extreme temperatures. and this bill is just duplicative and would cost the taxpayers money especially in the case of our members who do public works projects because this would be a cost to employers And it's not that is something that's not noted on the fiscal note at all. But in the end of the day, at the end of the day, it would cost more to build roads, which costs taxpayers money. Thank you. And we urge a no vote on the bill today.

Thank you, Madam Chair. This question is for Mr. Michael Cox. So you represent employers on OSHA matters or when there is a violation. Can you tell the committee the status of the federal OSHA? Is it really being dismantled and enforcement lessening?

Sorry, Mr. Cox.

Go ahead. I just have to announce you. Thank you for the question.

Mr. Gifford?

I also wanted to add that we got a notice this week from our National Association that OSHA is actually considering promulgating another heat rule. So, but the last one didn't make it through because OSHA didn't follow all the steps, all the rulemaking steps, and there are many at the federal level. But they are starting the long and slow process of starting over. So the opposite of dismantling, but moving forward.

Thank you, Madam Chair. This is just a follow-up on Representative Johnson's question on OSHA. To gut OSHA or to change regulation, it has to be passed through Congress. Is that correct?

Representative Brown.

Mr. Giffords. Madam Chair and Representative, I would say that that is exactly the case, and we have a written contract with Pinnacle to do a group work comp safety program, so we also meet with them monthly, and it's a two-fold. The one is if you go over 1 on your mod rate you going to get increased insurance costs But second we have hanging over here owners saying we going to use that mod rate as a surrogate measure of safety And if you're over 1.0, you can't even bid on our work. So we're going to pay more for insurance and we're going to have less markets to go bid work. So we couldn't be any more focused on safety than for that reason in addition to the productivity of our teams.

Who would like to answer that? Mr. Giffords? I would be glad to unless I know we have other panelists. but Madam Chair and Representative, I'm just going to be very direct. It takes our eye off the ball. Now we're saying I don't know if I'm doing this or I'm doing this. Right now we know we're doing this. It's working well. It's safe. That's why I said earlier we would either like to have a Fed OSHA or a State OSHA, but not some blending between the two, one or the other.

Thank you.

Mr. Gibbons? I would actually toss this over to our general manager of the business. Sir, I'm sorry. What was your name again? I apologize. Chris A. Strike. Mr. A. Strike.

Just for reference, this fiscal year alone on personal protective equipment, for my team of about 53 employees under my organization, we spent about $150,000 on personal protective equipment. We do $275 boot vouchers once a year. That's for your standard duty boots. For those who work outside, we provide muck boots. We also spent about $30,000 to $40,000 this fiscal year alone on El Dorado Springs bottled water because we want them to have drinking water. Our gloves, the PPE we provide, the gloves are $50 to $75 a pair because they're the top of the line. They're impact resistant, cut resistant, water resistant. The cost of compliance is there, but it's well worth it. It's baked into the business. Now, when we talk about the cost of PPE and water and things like that, it's well worth it because it provides a return. It keeps my employees safe and wanting to wear their PPE and enjoying where they work. Where the cost of compliance with a needless reporting system that, again, I maintain doesn't move the needle, the return's not there. I think everyone here at this table, we're happy to invest in safety, and we do every single day. We spend dollars, thousands of dollars for the safety of our employees when there's a real return. That's the thrust of the argument.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Two-part question. Have you seen the amendments?

Representative Redd.

So, Madam Chair and Representative Ryden, we do not have a problem with CDLE analyzing that data. We're okay with that. we're saying the next step to go on a rule making as part of this phase one versus bringing all the data back on us all looking at it together that's the part then could get us into having a fed OSHA and a little bit of a state OSHA when they promulgate rules that tell us what we have to do and if that's different than the general duty clause that Representative Brown quoted that's when we get our eye off the ball and we could be potentially answering to two different regulations on the same topic.

Thank you, Madam Chair. This is for Mr. Gifford. You had mentioned that all the labor unions had not been stakeholder to talk to in regards to this bill.

Vice Chair Leader. Thank you. And do you believe that the reason he told you that is because they're all union contractors

Mr. Gilbert.

Representative Wook.

I apologize. Mr. A-Strike. A-Strike. A-Strike, sorry. You're not listed in my thing, so I apologize.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for your question. Just to touch on that a little bit, MSHA is a different beast from OSHA entirely. It's OSHA on steroids, as we call it. We do 24 hours of new minor training for every single new employee. We site-specific train every person who sets foot on any single mine site. We have eight hours of annual refresher training once a year. We task training employ on every single task. Even doing a workplace exam to identify hazards, you have to be trained on that task to identify hazards. We have to provide first aid training to every interested minor on staff. We have to staff at least one first aid CPR trained person on every single shift. And that training does include obviously dehydration and extreme weather and things like that and temperature. We have to provide potable water. We cannot do shared cups. And I really want to touch on this is very critical because I think the workers that are underrepresented or maybe feel they can't speak up. Under the Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, every miner in America has the statutory right to stop any work in which there is any potential for them to be injured. And that is protected by the federal government. So they can not only report, say, hey, boss, this will get me hurt. I'm not going to do it. And they have complete immunity and protection for their job. Additionally, we get inspected twice a year, unannounced, random inspections. They're called EO1s by MSHA every single year at every single mine site, four times if it's underground, but twice a year for surface. And then finally, every single miner in America has the right to call anonymously. They can call MSHA, and MSHA will be on site within 24 hours to address any hazard complaint. So again, just want to reinforce the robust nature of the federal regulations that we already have. Thank you.

chair and members of the committee thank you for the opportunity to testify in the support of the bill. I'm Anna Gray Anderson. I think Gary was a typo. No that It's my bad. The Community Engagement Manager for People and Pollinators Action Network, or P-PAN for short. P-PAN is a state-based nonprofit that works at the intersection of healthy ecosystems and healthy communities. We care about pollinators and ecosystems that sustain our food and environment. But we know the same climate crisis threatening pollinators is threatening the people who work alongside them every day Outdoor laborers work in the green spaces where our pollinators are struggling As temperatures become more extreme these workers face heat exhaustion heat stroke and cold illness dangers that are growing more severe with every passing season. Climate change isn't a future threat. It's a present tense emergency for the people and pollinators doing the everyday work of sustaining Colorado. This bill adopts a careful phased approach, starting with education and data collection. Healthy ecosystems need healthy workers, and you cannot protect the land without protecting the people who tend to it. We urge the committee to support this bill. Thank you for your time.

Yes, Madam Chair. My name is John Michael Guevara and I am the managing policy advisor for the division of labor standards and statistics. And I'm here on behalf of our director who is currently unavailable for now. So I'm here to answer those questions. Thank you so much.

I'm Shana Oliver, Indigenous Peoples Rights Advocate, field organizer from Moms Clean Air Force Colorado and Equi-Modres, a national organization of parents united in fighting for our children's health against harmful air pollution with over 44,000 Colorado members. We urge you to support House Bill 1272 to collect data on the impact of extreme temperatures on workers accumulated during working hours. Labor workers are placed in unpredictable circumstances when it comes to extreme weather events caused by climate change. Outdoor workers like farmers, construction workers, utility workers, first responders, caregivers and parents that take on these demanding jobs that make our communities function. In my earlier work in retail, I carried three of my children to term. During my last pregnancy, I was forced to work less hours due to extreme work conditions impact on my baby. Recent studies have found that extreme temperatures have extreme health effects on maternal health outcomes. Extreme heat can put an unborn baby's health and well-being at risk of adverse birth outcomes, including preterm labor, low birth weight, and pregnancy loss. Retail workers also face extreme heat during non-operational hours. For example, during the hot summers, businesses run cooling systems only during operating hours, shutting them off as soon as those doors shut. Hispanic, Latino, Black, Native American, American Indian, and low-wealth health workers, men and women alike, are most vulnerable and make up the vast majority of the workforce that keeps our communities operatable and livable. This bill allows workers to report and track occurrences of heat-related injury or illnesses or heat-related emergencies through trusted sources. Monitoring this data can provide solutions for industries and businesses to implement preventable measures that better equip workers to stay safe and productive. Working parents and spouses are counting on our leadership to protect them. Moms Colorado and Echo Madres urge you to support House Bill 1272.

Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee. My name is Alex Sanchez. I'm the President and CEO of Voces Unidas based in Glenwood Springs I also here representing the Coalition to Protect Workers from Extreme Temperatures a coalition of 30 organizations We support HB 26 For two years, we have worked on this issue in good faith. We have worked closely with the first floor. We have met with stakeholders. We have listened carefully, worked through concerns, and kept pushing to move this bill forward in a serious and practical way. We're not trying to regulate normal working conditions. This bill is about preventing death and serious injury when workers are still expected to stay on the job in dangerous heat and extreme cold. We know the workers and the families with this reality. The landscaper who suffers heat stroke after working long hours in high temperatures. The snow removal worker who spent 12 hours in extreme cold during a major storm and lost a finger to frostbite. And I've met with families whose loved ones died due to exposed temperatures. This is why we need better data collection on these injuries, especially directly from workers, because too many of these cases go unreported because of fear of retaliation. This issue is personal to the Latino community in Colorado because we're overrepresented in the jobs that are most exposed to extreme temperatures. The nonpartisan Colorado Latino policy agenda report shows that this issue has broad support across the state, regardless of party affiliation. In 2024 and again in 2025, more than 85 percent of Latino voters supported basic protections for workers required to work when temperatures are dangerously hot or cold. Across these two years, more than 3,300 Latinos in Colorado were surveyed. And just this Monday, 300 Latinas and Latinos attended Latino Advocacy Day, and many of them met with you. And then last year, 300 more Latinas and Latinos also met with many lawmakers in the capital because this is an issue so important to us. Workers are not disposable. Either we invest in prevention or we pay the consequences in emergency care and lost productivity and shared families and avoidable suffering. Thank you.

Good evening. Thank you, Madam Chair. I am Nick Torres with the American Lung Association and also a grandson of migrant farm workers here, proudly in support of House Bill 1272. Extreme heat is no longer an occasional inconvenience. It's a serious and growing safety concern, and it directly affects lung health, especially for workers exposed to outdoor conditions, dust, fumes, and poor air quality. When temperatures rise, our bodies work harder to cool themselves. Breathing becomes faster and deeper, which means the lungs take in more air, and with it more pollutants, dust, smoke, and chemical particles. During extreme heat events, air quality may also be worse due to ozone and wildfire smoke, increasing the strain on their respiratory system. Heat also causes dehydration, which dries out the airways and reduces the lungs' ability to clear irritants. This can lead to coughing, chest tightness, shortness of breath, and increased risk of asthma attacks, bronchitis, and many other respiratory complications. These effects may not always be immediate, but repeated exposure can have long-term consequences. From a safety perspective heat respiratory stress also impacts decision reaction time and overall job performance raising the risk of accidents and injuries Preventing these outcomes requires proactive measures The American Lung Association supports efforts to improve surveillance and reporting of heat injury and illness as well as the development of protection and response plans contained in HB 1272. Protecting lung health during extreme heat prevents cumulative harm, preserves workforce capacity and reduces avoidable long-term disease. Proactive regulation protects workers and strengthens public health resilience. The American Lung Association encourages your support

Hi, great. Thank you so much, Madam Chair and members of the committee. I'm sorry I couldn't be there in person today. My name is Nina DeSalvo, and I'm an attorney and the policy director with Towards Justice. We are a nonprofit law firm dedicated to ensuring economic equity, and we are here to encourage you to support House Bill 1272. Despite rising global temperatures and increasingly erratic weather patterns, there are no federal protections for workers exposed to extreme temperatures. And while California thoughtfully implemented workplace standards for heat stress in 2006, Oregon and Washington were forced to implement such rules in 2021 when the Pacific Northwest was hit with an extraordinary heat wave. There is no need for Colorado to wait for an environmental emergency to be thoughtful about these issues. And I'm so glad that our legislative sponsors are advancing proactive legislation to gather information and guide employers on how to plan for extreme temperatures. Even as narrow, this bill would have an important impact on workplace health and safety immediately. Sorry. That is because so many temperature-related injuries and illnesses are preventable with breaks, water, proper acclimatization and information about danger signs. That means that increasing awareness of these issues can alone ensure workers and employers alike can identify and prevent these dangers. I also want to address some of the misinformation that I've heard here today. First, the state-level data collection proposed here would not be preempted by OSHA. Indeed, even if Colorado adopted actual temperature safety requirements, that would not be preempted. Preemption under OSHA arises only where there is a specific OSHA standard addressing the hazard, and there is not one here. Instead, although OSHA in the past has used the general duty clause to protect workers from heat, from extreme heat, the gendered courts have found repeatedly and consistently that the general duty clause is not a specific standard capable of preempting state-level rules. Also, OSHA's enforcement of workplace health and safety protections has decreased measurably during the first nine months of the second Trump administration.

By 35 percent and the penalty is decreasing by 47 percent in those first nine months.

I got you, got you. Hi, my name is Ian Thomas Tafoya. I'm the Vice President of State Programs for National Green Latinos and work here and reside in Colorado. I know you heard from a couple of my colleagues earlier about how important these protections for extreme temperatures are, both for heat and cold. This is something that is being raised by our members all across the United States and therefore has become part of our national Latino climate justice framework, which is a leading policy guidance document signed by hundreds of Latino organizations across the state. But beyond hearing all the things you heard today about why water and shade and breaks and cooling are all super important, I want to say that long before I had a job where I put on a suit every day, I grew up doing construction work, just like my family. Painters, plumbers, roofers, landscapers. I was an apprentice, Sparky, who built many government projects. And I can tell you that in those jobs that were larger in these industries, I often did have a lot of these things. But then I went on to work in the political sphere, where I was a petitioner. I knocked doors. I was a gig worker doing large festivals and events. I worked for the National Western Stock Show, and I was put into a hut, and on the coldest day probably I've ever experienced in my life, I thought I was going to lose my toes. And I felt like this is a company, National Western Stock Show, who literally doesn't have to pay overtime. They have an exemption for overtime for these gig workers. And these are the jobs that are available to local people like me who grew up in North Denver who just want to have a regular job. My mother was in CWA. I come from a labor family. But yet, I've worked in jobs where even with OSHA, I didn't feel protected. I worked in jobs where they said, even though you're not supposed to stop on the top along of the ladder, there's only three of us and we don't have a bigger ladder and we've got to hit our deadline. So I really have a hard time believing the government's going to come save me, that some inspector is going to come save me. And I do know that when you speak out on a job, you do face retaliation. We cannot pretend that doesn't happen. And when you work in gig work and you speak up, then they're not going to hire you the next time. They're not going to hire you the next time. And you get blacklisted into that work. That's not even bringing into the fact that there are people who obviously struggle with all sorts of things with their families that get held over them, status, among other things. And so to sit here and pretend that collecting data is the end-all, be-all, it's not for me and my community. Goddamn worker rights, there should be a yes, are. Thank you.

So, Madam Chair, thank you. The rulemaking itself is mandated by the statute itself, like the actual statutory language. It says it shall begin rulemaking proceeding in accordance with date 14.4108 and in response to data collected pursuant to subsection 2A of this section. So even if the date is being moved or the date might be considered to be moved right now, the effective date I'm seeing in the bill before me, we haven't had a chance to analyze the amendments yet, but it's January 15th, 2027. So if there is going to be a requirement of, you know, potentially like how we track this potential information or how if we have to do this response plan and we are creating like a best practices for maybe how this information gets out. Whatever it is, we're required to implement this particular section and we need to be able to look at that and adopt rules necessary to implement this section. And so if the division is going to be enforcing this particular mandate by the legislature, and I just reading the statute right now that where my eyes are directed we gonna have to consider that and look at that and figure out what will need to be rule and what will need to be clarified or if there any ambiguity in any of the terms used in the statute. And we're getting feedback from stakeholders about that. Rule-making is a perfect place to define those ambiguities and to actually provide meaning to certain terms that are used in case there's not clarity on the types of plans being, you know, circulated here and there. So that's why this is mandatory. And I'll start there or I'll stop there.

Thank you so much, Madam Chair. Yeah, thank you, Representative Hamrick, for the question. I think the only last points I wanted to make were that there has been a study by Good Jobs First that was published in December of 2025, just looking at the first nine months of OSHA enforcement under the second Trump administration, and found a reduction in pieces of 37% and a reduction in penalties collected compared to similar periods of the previous four years of 47%. So that's a really substantial drop in enforcement activity at the federal OSHA. And even in that situation, the federal government can only enforce OSHA standards and rules that are in effect. And as we know, the OSHA rules related specifically to heat safety have not been adopted by OSHA. So OSHA is constrained to holding employers accountable for like really obvious hazards only pursuant to OSHA's general authority and division. Thanks so much.

My name is Diana Orff. I'm here in dual capacity today. First of all, I'm representing the Colorado Mining Association, and I'm also representing the Associated Governments of Northwest Colorado in opposing this bill. First, we wonder why the bill title uses climate change as justification for the legislation because we frankly don't see the connection. People have always worked in extreme temperatures. I think there a lot of experience among some government agencies with the military and the National Guard who trains in Death Valley California USGS and scientists they live on the ice in Antarctica at 20 or 30 below So this is not a new situation I think there are some formats out there that we could follow if we really wanted to get into this. We question why there is a bill needed to collect information because as we see or as we understand the amendments, the government will simply be collecting information. Does this require that we pass a law to tell them to collect it? We believe the bill is unnecessary. While the mining industry is covered by mine health and safety regulations, we believe that we do have people on site sometimes that are with suppliers and vendors, consultants that would be caught up in this type of regulation at the point at which it occurs. we believe that the collection of the data and the way it's written with potential rulemaking presupposes that there is going to be a full-blown program at some point and we just believe that this is going to be an expensive proposition even the data collection itself is going to cost something we believe the bill is unnecessary when the state is so stressed for money so we ask you to please vote no. And with the associated governments, the local government angle, I'm going to support the comments that Ms. Haskell is going to provide.

I'm Elizabeth Haskell, representing the Colorado Municipal League and our 271 municipal members. CML is in an opposed position of the introduced bill of 1272. I'd like to thank the sponsors for all the work they've been doing on this bill and have really come up with somewhat of a different bill. But like Diane said, we see this as something that is going to develop over the next few years. So I want to make sure that you all understand CML's opposition today. Our opposition is based on the inclusion of municipalities and other governmental entities in the definition of principle. The legislative declaration framing this bill focuses on workers in construction, agriculture, oil and gas, and industrial settings, industries where temperature-related protections may be needed and workers face risks. There is no evidence that municipalities are failing to protect their employees from temperature-related injury or illness, and including local governments in the bill's sweep conflates very different employment contexts. It is worth noting that municipalities are not subject to OSHA regulations. Had the federal government proposed heat-related workplace standards advanced, municipalities would not have been covered. It is inconsistent to now impose on local governments a state framework that goes beyond what federal law would have required without any showing that municipal workers face the same unaddressed risks that motivate this legislation. Further, municipal employees, including police officers, firefighters, emergency medical personnel, and public works crews whose duties cannot be paused or rescheduled based simply on temperature conditions. This bill makes no accommodation for public safety needs or emergency response applications, requiring municipalities to adhere to cool down and warm-up break schedules or to follow trip protocols during active emergencies is incompatible with the nature of public service. This gap is not an oversight. It reflects the bill was designed with private sector industry work in mind, not municipal operations. CML urges the committee to amend the bill to remove municipalities local governments and political subdivisions from the definition of principle Thank you Thank you so much for your testimony

Madam Chair, my name is Todd Olheiser, and I was the one that switched with Chris A-Strike as he had to leave, and he was also representing two associations. He's a member of mine, Colorado Stone, Sand, and Gravel Association, Colorado Ready Mix Concrete Association, We work hand-in-hand with the Colorado Mining Association, the difference being they're typically the big mines, the coal, the gold, and so forth. And my members are the construction aggregate companies along with and align very well with the concrete as well so that it's downstream in that. And I just want to echo that the OSHA and MSHA, you heard about some of the MSHA guidelines are very, very real. And my concern after hearing all this, and I want to echo again what Mr. Gifford brought up a while ago with the AGC, is that this doesn't look a whole lot different to me than a year ago. Yeah, it had prescriptive guidelines a year ago, and everyone was against that. Now it's a study. and then it's we shall or may i don't know how the current amendment is make do rule making if we feel it's necessary not not if and so who is judging that data it's uh it seems to me throwing the keys to someone and doing a i think we heard a phased in approach to this to where it's now a four-year plan versus hey here's the deal we don't like it now we're going to clearly phase this in over the next four years based on our interpretation of this study. And again, I question, is that study even necessary, as was brought up by Ms. Orff? And those are the comments I would make. I would urge voting in opposition of this bill.

Thank you guys for bearing with me as I had dual testimony this afternoon. My name is Parker White. I'm the director of the Colorado Competitive Council, and we are here in opposition to House Bill 26-1272, even as amended. We appreciate the sponsor's efforts to scale this bill back, but there are two core issues that remain to keep us in an opposed position. The first concern is the creation of the TRIP model itself and how the bill mandates that that happens. This bill directs the state to build a one-size-fits-all temperature safety plan without first identifying where the specific problems are. Colorado's economy is incredibly diverse, and as a result, so is the workforce and the jobs that our individual workers are doing on a daily basis. The risks faced by a construction worker on the eastern plains in August are not the same as though it's faced by a utility worker in the mountains in January. The right approach is to gather occupation-specific data, make it public, and from there determine whether a problem exists, and then have a discussion about the solutions. This bill skips those steps entirely or mandates a trip plan before the data has been collected. So it makes an assumption of what the data will say and then mandates an outcome. The second is the broad grant of rulemaking authority in Section 3A. If the goal, as the sponsors have stated, is truly intended to be voluntary guidance, then rulemaking as a function is unnecessary. The legislature is already directing the division to create it. Rulemaking exists to impose binding obligations on employers. So the question that we have is if this bill is truly about data gathering, plan building, and coming back to the legislature later to implement solutions, what is the purpose for this rulemaking authority? Our concern is that this creates a pathway for a future administration to impose mandates, temperature thresholds, break requirements, penalties, without further legislative approval. This would take the discussion out of the hands of employers, workers, and elected members of this body and place that decision making in the hands of unelected bureaucrats. That is a concern that we have from C3 specific to that rulemaking authority. In short, the TRIP, we believe, is premature without the data and the order that the bill mandates, but the larger issue is that the rulemaking authority is unnecessary if it's truly voluntary. Thank you, and I'll be available for questions.

Government Affairs at Colorado Ski Country USA and we're Colorado's trade association for ski areas since 1963. We represent 20 ski areas across the state. We're here today in an opposed position on the bill and we're strongly opposed to the model standard that is in the bill and also we believe in L-002 because of the current and future regulation that will likely arise from it. Thank you for the opportunity to detail why. In our industry, our workforce since the 1960s has operated outdoors on the snow and in the winter, and our ski areas aren't reporting a pattern of worker cold injuries or emergencies. As an example, Aspen Ski Company, which is in Rep. Velasco's district, has about 2,300 outdoor workers during a typical season, and they've had zero cold weather emergencies among staff in the past four years. Our ski areas are both big and small. They don't have overarching written plans for cold temperatures because they're operating in cold all the time. This approach doesn't make sense, and the industry wouldn't feel assisted by a model plan. Instead, ski areas are using a variety of common-sense approaches and practices that are deeply embedded in different work units to protect employees and guests from cold-related injuries. This bill presupposes that in every industry, all employees need sweeping regulatory protections without objective data yet that indicates that, one, there's a widespread problem with hot and cold related injuries that need medical attention, and two, which industries are presenting the problem. What we don't need in Colorado is another regulatory scheme that applies to all Colorado employers without objective data supporting a need for intervention. If this committee is concerned that there's meaningful problems with hot and cold related injuries, it should prioritize the collection of the objective data over two to three years in summer and winter and collect that data by industry SIC code to understand if there are sectors for which legislative and regulatory action is needed. A rulemaking or the adoption of model standards included in L002 is an unnecessary expense of undertaking at this time, one we don't want to be wrapped up into.

Madam Chair, members of the committee, my name is Michael Smith, State Director for NFIB, the National Federation of Independent Business, representing approximately 6,000 small businesses across the state in all types of industries. Most of our 6,000 members have less than 10 employees. I'm here today in opposition to the introduced version of House Bill 1272. I will add that I look forward to reviewing the amendments that the sponsors referenced earlier My brief remarks will focus on the introduced version Today small businesses take steps to promote worker safety in all types of conditions They understand a healthy and safe workplace is good for their employees and good business. Our members were surveyed on the issue of regulations for when temperatures exceed 80 degrees. Nearly 90% of our members opposed such regulations and stated that they take steps to protect their employees. Red tape and unreasonable government regulations are consistently among the top concerns for our members. The unnecessary requirements in this bill create a barrier to growth, increase difficulty in hiring, and result in lost productivity for small businesses. Excessive paperwork and compliance costs hit small businesses particularly hard. As I mentioned, our members typically have less than 10 employees. Additional compliance costs have a real impact on small business, which do not have dedicated legal teams and compliance departments. In closing, the vast majority of businesses in Colorado are small businesses, and nearly half of all employees in the state work for a small business. I firmly believe when small businesses succeed, Colorado succeeds. Unfortunately, proposals like this will hurt Colorado small business and the Colorado employees who work for them. I respectfully ask you to vote no on House Bill 1272. Thank you for allowing me to testify.

My name is Kathleen Curry, and I'm here today on behalf of the Ute Water Conservancy District in opposition to House Bill 26-12-72. Ute Water is a potable water provider located in Mesa County, and their mission is to protect public health by ensuring safe, reliable drinking water for the communities that they serve. Ute Water takes worker safety very seriously. Their employees work in challenging environments, from treatment plants to distribution systems to emergency main breaks in the middle of the night. HB 261272, as introduced, would have imposed a one-size-fits-all mandate that doesn't reflect the realities of water system operations. Rigid state-mandated protocols, especially those requiring prescriptive rest cycles, shelter access, or administrative approvals, could delay emergency response, increase service outages, and actually jeopardize public health. Ute Water's existing safety procedures already account for heat and cold exposure and were developed based on operational realities and decades of field experience. This bill would duplicate protections that are already required under existing safety standards. Even if amended, and I do appreciate the opportunity to have looked at Amendment L-002 before the hearing, Utewater has several concerns. Language in the legislative declaration, and I know that's not binding law, however, the language states that current law is inadequate, that principles should be required to adopt measures, and that establishing statewide enforceable protections for workers is necessary. This ultimately lays the foundation for your legislative intent. In addition, I had similar concerns. We have similar concerns regarding NL002 It did not take out the rulemaking requirements so we love to hear clarification on what the sponsor intent is there And then just lastly you want to respectfully request a no vote on House Bill 261272

Ms. Haskell. Thank you for the question. So as far as public safety goes if there's a law that is mandated for all workers and all employers, right, and we've got police officers and firefighters who are taking care of an emergency and they have to stop, you know, every hour to sit down and take a break because the fire is creating a situation where it's very hot. That could be a problem because they could be in the middle of something and then, you know, saving a life. And how do they take that break at that time? and so I think there's just this feeling that with these broad inclusions that it could interfere with safety for the public when we're included in these as well and I'm sure that there's already regulations about when you're fighting a fire when you can take a break and when you know that are reasonable but when it comes from somewhere higher up than people involved it's a problem.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for addressing that. Working a lot with first responders, having been one myself, understanding you can't stop on the time mark. Same question to Mr. White, if you can expand kind of what I was wondering on when we start to saying what's essential, what's not, when we start putting regulations and how it could harm outcomes, if you could maybe expand on some of that.

Representative English.

Mr. Ohlheiser?

Representative Bradley.

Thank you for the question, Representative. Thank you, Madam Chair. Yeah, the statistic I was providing was from Aspen Ski Company, which operates four ski areas. And we asked them to go back four years and tell us if there were cold-related injuries that required medical attention among their workers. And they had zero of those. I think that answers your question. Thank you.

The sponsors gave us a sheet here of seven states that's specifically designed to protect workers from extreme heat. every single one of them, California, Maryland, Minnesota, all of these states have a temperature trigger of 80 degrees outdoors, 82 degrees indoors, when OSHA already has that regulation under, let's see here, I'm sorry. the general duty clause at 80 degrees. Do you think this is just phase one to be able to make a notion like State Department? Who would like to answer that?

Thank you. I'll take that since you looked at me when you said that. That appears to be the intent and when we heard the discussion by the sponsors, they outlined a three- to four-year program with three phases. So we can only assume that that's where it's going, that the data would be used to develop a full OSHA-type program, at least specifically toward temperature. I don't know what else to say.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I forgot the person's name that was with the ski patrollers. Ms. Van Hoeven, this question is for you. Can you talk about the ski patroller strike across the state? Ms. Van Hoeven. I'm just kind of curious if it ties into any of this.

Representative McCourick.

Ms. Van Heel. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Representative English.

Okay. Mr. Smith.

Okay. Thank you so much. The time frame for this panel has gone past. We really appreciate you participating today. Thanks for joining. Okay. We will, I think, move to our last panel. Let's see if we have folks still here. So we'll do Hunter Knapp, Jamie Valdez, Ellen Buckley, Stephen Araza, Nate Bernstein, Maddie Goring. Maddie Goring. And Tammy Munoz. Is there anybody else online waiting? Okay. Wonderful. Thank you all so much for your patience in this very long hearing. We'll start today going from my left to my right. If you could introduce yourself, the organization you represent, and you have two minutes. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair, Committee.

Thank you for your testimony. If you don't mind, I think we missed your name and the organization you represent for the record.

Thank you so much. Please proceed.

on behalf of Project Protect Food Systems workers, an organization dedicated to supporting Colorado's agricultural workers, and I respectfully urge a yes vote on HB 1272. In 2021, we were part of the effort to create protections against heat stress that are specific for agricultural workers, and they are now codified as a part of state agricultural labor conditions rules. The rules require employers to provide access to water and shade when temperatures reach 80 degrees, plus additional rest breaks when there are increased risk conditions like poor air quality or temperatures over 95 degrees. The rules also require employers to provide training to recognize the signs of heat stress and establish safety procedures to respond to symptoms of heat illness in injury. We've heard from workers and large agricultural employers alike that the protections are effective and deeply appreciated because explicit regulations ensure that good employers are not put at a disadvantage compared to businesses that do not protect their workers. HB 1272 is just a starting point to implement an evidence-based stakeholder-informed approach. The amended bill begins with data collection and education to ensure that eventual rules are backed by evidence, and supporting the adoption of targeted standards and a model prevention plan will allow employers to take proactive steps to protect their workers. Agricultural workers are some of the most vulnerable to heat stress, but similar conditions impact construction workers, landscapers, and anyone who works outdoors. As the impacts of climate change continue to increase, these protections will become increasingly important. It is only mid-March, and many parts of the state are already experiencing temperatures exceeding 80 degrees. Thankfully, Colorado's farm workers currently benefit from these important protections, and HB 1272 would be an important first step to protecting every worker facing dangerous temperatures in the state. Thank you for your time, and I urge a yes vote on 1272.

You are still on mute. I'm so sorry. No problem. We can hear you just fine now. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and committee members. My name is Ellen Buckley, and today I'm representing both the Women's Lobby of Colorado and the Colorado Plaintiff Employment Lawyers Association. We are in strong support of 1272. I'm the chair of the Women's Lobby, which is a coalition of individual and organizational members advocating for gender equity and policies that positively impact women and families. One of our core areas of concern is workers' rights, and PILA works to advance workers' rights and increase public awareness of those rights. It's not news to anyone in Colorado that we're in a climate crisis. We've had one of the warmest winters on record, and now we're in a stretch of four record-breaking 80-plus degree days in March. As our temperatures become more extreme more often, workers need and deserve protection for the risks those temperatures pose to their health and safety. This bill isn't requiring employers to eliminate risks. It's just collecting information on incidents and developing a plan to mitigate those risks. Colorado cannot rely on OSHA enforcement to protect workers. OSHA inspections have drastically decreased 20% in a six-month period in 2023. OSHA and MSHA are currently proposing to roll back dozens of protective regulations as published in the July 1, 2025 Federal Register. So that process has already started. Every bill that helps workers faces extreme opposition in Colorado. You, of course, are not hearing from employers who would tell you that they don't protect workers, but they exist. Collecting information may cost some small amount of money, but injured or ill workers cost employers in lost productivity and workers' comp, and the cost to the workers' health and lives is of the greatest concern. The time to address the threat to workers posed by extreme temperatures is now because things are likely to get more extreme and workers can't wait. We thank the sponsors and we urge a yes vote on 1272.

we'll move on to Madison Goring. Thank you so much, Madam Chair and members of the committee. My name is Madison Goring, and I'm a public health social worker at an occupational health research center, and I strongly support House Bill 1272. As a public health professional in Colorado, my job is to study and recommend how to create safe and healthy workplaces. And for the last three years, I've had the privilege of working directly with workers in exposed to extreme heat conditions. Through clinical monitoring, we have documented an increased risk in chronic kidney disease for those working in high heat conditions. We primarily focused on chronic kidney disease, but there is evidence linked to other long-term chronic diseases for long-term exposure to heat conditions over a long period of time. So that can include cardiovascular disease or respiratory diseases. So just because Coloradans work outside in hot and arid climates doesn't mean they have to have an increased risk for chronic disease development. We work with the operation of a hierarchy of control when talking about worker health and safety. And we can't eliminate the sun and the heat or the freezing cold in some scenarios, but we can support businesses to have a plan in place to protect their workers. And I support House Bill 1272 because it's going to give employers who may not have the resources to create their own health and safety plan to have a model off of which to work. And this bill also increases our knowledge, gives us more information about where Coloradans are exposed to high heat and extreme temperatures. And so maybe we're not talking about, you know, extreme cases of death or dismemberment, but perhaps we're talking about chronic disease and we just don't have the information at hand. We don't have the ability to check in on that. And so I would strongly encourage that a yes vote on this bill to prevent long-term chronic disease development in Coloradans' workforce, but also to support employers who might not have the ability to create a health and safety plan as a rigorous of level. And it's so appreciative to hear of employers who are present today who do have safety checks and balances. However, that's not the story

on to Stephen Arauzah. Good evening, Madam Chair and members of the committee. My name is Stephen Arauzah. I live in Rifle, and I'm here as a community member, a union member, and a working parent to urge you to support House Bill 26-1272. For 10 years, I worked as an environmental protection specialist for the state of Colorado responding to spills at oil and gas facilities across the state no matter the weather I work in an identified regulatory gap Public sector workers in Colorado are not covered by OSHA protections I've experienced my share of symptoms related to extreme temperatures in my time, from heat exhaustion to loss of sensation in extremities due to cold. I've also noticed, as we all should, that temperature extremes are increasing in frequency every year. I want to thank the sponsors of this bill for acknowledging this harsh reality and for using their offices to advocate for these necessary and reasonable protections. I'm fortunate to have the time and resources to be able to testify today on behalf of workers who often do not have the luxury to be here. Frankly, the conversation of our protection is often dominated exclusively by our employers. Workers run our economy. Construction workers build our homes. Workers and energy heat them. agricultural workers feed our families. Too often, those of us in the workforce are expected to simply work through the pain of chronic exposure to extreme temperatures. In the middle of an ongoing affordability and housing crisis, time lost due to extreme temperature illnesses has dire consequences for working families across the state. Colorado's economy and workforce cannot afford for our government to ignore and outsource this problem to a hostile federal government. HB 261272 will give the state the ability to track this problem. It will inform employers to plan for it and to provide potentially life-saving information, empowering workers to protect themselves. Please vote yes to support House Bill 261272 and thank you for your time.

Good morning, committee members. Can you hear me? Yes, we can. My name is Jamie Valdez, and I am a resident of Pueblo, Colorado, and the Colorado Transportation and Energy Advocate for Green Latinos. I'm speaking today in strong support of the 2026 Extreme Temperature Protections Bill. I know what these conditions look like firsthand because I used to spend my days working on a pipe laying crew in various areas along the front range. I have laid pipe in the sweltering heat where the sun is reflecting off metal and dirt and in the freezing cold. I have personally worked in groundwater up to my knees in December. I have felt my body go numb from cold while soaking wet, and I have felt the dizziness of heat and exhaustion. and misters and shade can only do so much and are largely dependent on ambient conditions. When you are in a trench, you can't always just stop, but we need to know that we can pause without penalty. Too often, production goals are prioritized over human safety. When you are wet to the knees in cold groundwater, a quick break for a hot drink is a safety requirement, not a luxury. When the heat hits 95 degrees, it's not a joke. It's a medical risk. This bill isn't about stopping work. It's about making sure we come home in one piece and in good health. By formalizing and enforcing protocols for hydration, shade, warming and rest breaks, you are acknowledging that the jobs that build this state are becoming more hazardous due to changing weather patterns and that you care about the workers doing those jobs. I urge the committee to protect outdoor workers and any others subject to extreme temperatures by supporting this bill. Thank you.

Thank you Madam Chair I was going to ask Ms. Buckley Where did you get the OSHA stats of rolling back visits and inspections? I worked for a healthcare company for the last 25 years And they certainly have not been rolling back any inspections on our clinics Ms Buckley

Additional questions from the committee Representative Bradley

Anyone interested in answering that question? Seeing none. Okay, any additional questions from the committee? Okay, seeing none, thank you so much for your participation today. We really appreciate it. Okay, I think we have gotten through almost everybody, but we're going to do one final call for anyone in the room or online that would like to testify for or against this bill today. We have two people online. Great. Go ahead and bring them up. okay why don't we go ahead to nina waters please thank you for sticking with us um late into the

Thank you so much for your testimony. We'll move on to Ali Spray.

Thank you so much for your testimony. We'll turn it over to the committee. Any questions from the committee? Okay, seeing none, thank you so much for your testimony. We really appreciate you participating and sticking with us this late into the evening. Okay. Seeing no additional witnesses, the witness phase is now closed. Sponsors, please rejoin us. I hear you have amendments.

Awesome. Vice Chair Leader.

Oh, I'm sorry. I'm just getting you on over.

Second.

Any questions? You explained it already. Any questions? Any objections on this amendment? Any objections on this amendment? Seeing none, L0 or 2 passes. Okay, additional amendment.

Okay.

Do I have a second?

Representative Stewart seconds.

Representative Bradfield.

I believe you have, it's coming out. This is, I'd like to move amendment L-003 to House Bill 1272.

Representative for eight seconds.

Okay, I would. The first part of the amendment is just a lot of little technical changes, And I think the big part of it will start with number 11 on page 9, where it starts striking lines 9 through 27, then all of 10, all of 11, and all of 12. And this is, oh, and also we go back to page 5, and we strike lines 6 through 18. And all of this section has to do with TRIPP, the TRIP that you've talked about, and takes it out of the bill entirely. So what is left is data collection, not any rulemaking.

Thank you. Any questions on this amendment?

Representative Frey. Sure. Sure. This amendment eliminates the trip and the rulemaking necessary for the creation of the trip. We anticipate as we go into further negotiations with CDLE that there will be further trimming of the bill necessitating a smaller fiscal note in order for us to live another day. But at the moment, the bill we presented to you is pretty much already a carcass, and this is just further picking at the bones. and we ask you to not subject our coalition to that.

Representative Follick. Thank you. If you have anticipation of it being cut further on this topic and she's offering an amendment to trim that small carcass, what am I missing?

Mr. Shadoon, could you please call the roll?

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

No.

Pass.

No.

Yes.

No.

No.

Leader. No. Madam Chair. No.

Seeing none, the amendment phase is closed. Sponsors, would you like to wrap up? Representative Froehlich. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Thank you, committee. We really appreciate your attention this evening. I think we heard what we traditionally hear from industry, a combination of, we don't need this, we're doing a great job, and also this isn't a problem, and also it's burdensome. And that was on this amended version, although we heard a lot of testimony that they hadn't had a chance to read the amendment that we sent out March 3rd. But, you know, I think in order to really want to advance this policy, you fundamentally have to believe that climate change is real and that we are seeing extreme temperatures. We have to believe that there's a combination of workers, of employers who do terrific jobs with their workers and honor their labor, and that there are instances where there is employers who do not. you also have to really feel like there isn't an avenue for redress for these workers and I think our workers spoke about that and fundamentally you have to believe that we have a role to play as legislators to look out for folks and I understand that that combination of things doesn't reach everyone but we certainly feel like we made a case for all of those four things and I think we heard great testimony from folks who are experiencing this and they deserve to have the information about what's really happening collected and I think it's appropriate for industry to also have a model to go by on the trip and should we be able to pursue this policy further, which we do hope to be able to do, as we sort of said in a future administration, a future budget year, I think having these first steps in place will be incredibly important. And so we ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, sponsors.

This is take two.

Second.

Closing comments from the committee.

Additional closing comments.

Representative Bradley. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for bringing the bill forward. You know, I struggle with now we're going to have, if this bill were to go through, a federal OSHA, a state OSHA, what are employers going to look to, what circumvents the other. We heard there's no legislation in front of Congress to take funds from OSHA. I mean, those are just the simple facts. I don't care what president's in office and what's not. There's just simply no legislation in front of Congress. And if there was, we'd hear about it, and maybe we would be different about it. We have five employees. Increased administrative burden means that we don't have a compliance office that's going to take this. we can't hire lawyers. That takes away from the increased wages we get to pay our employees that we do treat like family. And sometimes we go without. We have skipped paychecks and skipped things so that we can pay our employees because that's how much they mean to us. I don't understand what this bill is going to do for the bad actors. I think they're just going to lie on the data collection. And what's going to circumvent them from lying on the data collection? The small businesses are going to pay the price for some bad actors. And again, six most regulated state, 45% of them are duplicative or repetitive. We just keep strangling the necks of the small

call out to Mother Jones with her quote. Representative Johnson. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, sponsors. Thank you to everyone who showed up to testify. It's getting late tonight, so thank you for that time. I just want to clear the error because under President Donald Trump these aren going away I looking at a U federal site right now about heat on how we help our workers with high heat how we look at this to make sure that we promoting safe working practices it wasn mentioned I want to know what is going away because from the research I been doing this whole time things coming into me still it has not gone away under our good president, Donald Trump. And so I want to make sure we have the facts based here that we're talking about. I want to level set as well, and just urge the committee, having been a first responder, having been a lifeguard, understanding some of these things actually hurt people. When I was a lifeguard, when we had too many regulations on heat and we have to go and take breaks so many times, there were times I legally, without losing my job or getting sued, could not go and help and assist when we had somebody on a spinal in the water because they said I had to go and take this break. Literally is what the city manager had to come and call me to because I tried to go out there and they pulled me back. When we have this excess burden and we're looking at essential workers in the field, in our municipalities, with our first responders, and I don't see the carve-out for them, So I'd love that point out off the line. When we're working with cattle, especially in things in heat, what happens when they say, where are the abilities that they can go and help, and we're not putting extra government that is going to trap them and actually cause more harm than good? And so looking at this and putting all these things, you know, level setting the playing ground, and if this is for the data for level one, then why do we have the other things that our good colleague brought the Third Amendment for? You say it's going to come down the road. Why can't it come now? Because we're over halfway done with session. We're on day 64. We're moving fast. Why can't we move these together as stakeholders? Why are we shutting out folks? Why aren't we bringing them to the table? There's just so many concerns on this, and I will be a no today.

Vice Chair Leader. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for bringing the bill. This is an excellent bill. You know, I heard a lot about OSHA, how strong they were. I would say the key word would be were. I'm looking here at the Department of Government Efficiency, DOGE, has targeted OSHA by initiating the cancellation of at least 17 area offices leases and proposing a budget reduction to million from fiscal year of 2026 down from million These measures aim to cut costs but have driven criticism over potential impacts on safety inspections with some reports indicating a potential 13% cut to enforcement. So the key details are office closures. At least 17 OSHA area offices were canceled. Budget reductions. Proposals for the fiscal year 2026 budget included reducing OSHA's funding by 582.4 million, with a 4.8 million cut to state plan grants. Enforcement impacts. Proposed cuts included reducing job safety inspections by nearly 10,000, According to the Labor Tribune, program eliminations, the Susan Harwood Training Grant Program was slated for elimination. Related cuts, DOGE, was targeted. The National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health was reports of over 85% of their staff was being fired. And that's from the New York State Nurses Association. While some reports highlighted specific leaving savings such as $368, $100 over five years for a local office, the broader impacts focused on reduction enforcement capacity by the Herald.

Thank you so much to everyone who stayed with us for this late. I felt like it was a really robust policy discussion and really appreciated the business industry coming and testifying as well and appreciate how much you've worked with them to get to this point. I would reiterate what so many folks said that I think having the data will inform the rulemaking and that's incredibly important. and appreciate that you have not only provided that pathway, but also provided an option for industry to take off the shelf and utilize as a plan. So I think I'm looking forward to what comes of this. So thank you so much again for bringing this bill today. And with that, Mr. Chadoon, can you please call the roll?

No.

No.

No.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

No.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

No.

Yes.

Yes. Passes 8 to 5. You are on your way to the Committee on Appropriations. With that, the Health and Human Services Committee is adjourned. Thank you.