March 31, 2026 · Business, Labor, & Technology · 4,783 words · 12 speakers · 79 segments
The Senate Business, Labor, and Technology Committee will come to order. Ms. Chapman, please call the roll.
Senator Judah. Excused.
Liston. Here.
Pelton. Here. McRexon. Here.
Madam Chair. Here. Okay, welcome, folks. First on the list, we have House Bill 1135. Welcome, Senators Benavidez and Marchman. Please tell us about your measure.
Senator Marchman. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Committee. House Bill 1135 is a pretty simple and narrow bill. All it's going to do is add a warning label on hair products that already contain known carcinogens or reproductive toxicants. So the science has been building for more than a decade. women who used chemical hair straightening products frequently were 2.5 times more likely to develop uterine cancer. So now there are more than 11,000 plaintiffs in an active multi-district lawsuit in Illinois against some of these manufacturers. The federal government has had years to act on banning formaldehyde and some of these other dangerous chemicals, but they have not done it. And so all this bill will do is require a warning label saying that something causes cancer or causes reproductive harm. I'd ask for your aye vote.
Senator Benavidez. Trying to figure out how to do this. Thank you all for listening to us today about this bill. As my colleague mentioned, this really is just about making it clear on these products by putting warnings if they're known, carcinogens, and that's really a problem. It's not anything that is more than that. Anybody would want that. If you're going to buy these kinds of products that you want to be, you know, up front that this can be a problem for you. It also makes it, by doing that, it makes it a deceptive trade practice that would be enforced by the Attorney General's Office. And so I think it's pretty straightforward. word. There are, surprisingly, and you'll get an amendment, that there is some federal guidance on this, but there's also several organizations that do research in this area that provide the information. And we do state in the ledge deck that those are some that they could look to in order to, if there is to be rules down the road, you will see this doesn't really come about until after July 1, 2028. It gives people time to do this. And, you know, this is something we need to do. So I would urge any questions from you all for us?
Okay. Committee members, are there questions for the sponsors on House Bill 1135? Okay. Seeing none, we'll go to the witness testimony phase. There's no one signed up. Is there anyone online or in person who would like to testify on House Bill 1135? Okay, we'll close the witness testimony phase. Sponsors, do you have amendments? Would you like us to move amendments L-003 and 004?
Please. Madam Chair, I move L-003 to House Bill 1135.
Senator Marchman.
Thank you, Madam Chair. L-003 is just making sure that we are including hair pieces that are both synthetic and natural hair pieces. So that's what that amendment does. It just takes out the synthetic part to include the natural products as well.
Members, are there questions on L-003? Is there objection to L-3? See, none. L3 is adopted.
Madam Chair, I move L004 to House Bill 1135.
Senator Benavidez.
This bill, as I explained earlier, it makes a couple of changes in the ledge deck to include these other organizations that do research on it. It's in Part B of that. The other thing it does is clarifies that the Attorney General may, if necessary, adopt rules, but those warnings, as it says, are going to be consistent with the applicable federal law on those. And then it does not cover products for commercial entities solely for them. Some of maybe the women here are familiar with Sally's, those kinds of stores that they sell to professionals and they also sell to individuals. So they would be covered under here. It's only those that only sell to commercial entities would not be covered under this. Thank you.
Are there questions on L004? Seeing none, is there objection to L4? Clearly, Senator Liston is the expert on this topic. Seeing no objection, L4 is adopted. Are there any more amendments from the sponsors? Committee members, any amendments? Okay, we'll close the amendment phase. Any wrap-up comments from the sponsors?
Senator Merchman. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Committee, for hearing this bill. Pretty straightforward bill. It just requires a warning label, gives a year of a runway for manufacturers to abide, and then July 28th, the AG could start updating. So I would ask for your aye vote.
Senator Benavidez. Thank you. I think we've covered everything, so good bill vote yes.
Okay. Thank you both for your efforts on increasing safety for these products, and I will be a yes vote.
Senator Henrickson. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move House Bill 1135 to the Committee of the Whole with a favorable recommendation.
That's a proper motion. Ms. Chapman, please poll the committee.
Senator Judah. Aye.
Liston. Yes. Pelton. Aye, I suppose. Henrickson. Aye. You might need them someday, Madam Chair.
Yes. Congratulations, your bill passes unanimously. Senator Henrickson.
Madam Chair, if there is no objection, I would request consent counter.
Okay, seeing no objection, House Bill 1135 will be placed on the consent calendar. Congratulations. We'll see you on the floor. Great job.
Thank you. Was that a hint, Madam Chair? Was that a hint? You'll know what's safe. You'll know what's safe when you need it.
Okay. Welcome back, Senator Marchman. Please tell us about House Bill 1181.
Thank you, Madam Chair. House Bill 1181 is a sunset. So this is the Barber and Cosmetologist Act. The sunset bill that came from the House will continue this act through 2033, and it follows all of what the DORA recommendations were. And so it clarifies common sense exemptions so that everyday activities are not unintentionally regulated. And it recognizes the important role barbering and cosmetology play in workforce development and rehabilitation, especially in our correctional facilities. um so this bill strikes a really good balance uh continuing the program exempting out a number of um of components that don need to have a license and then expanding access to opportunity for a good workforce so i ask for your aye vote Thank you Senator Marchman Are there questions from the committee for the sponsor
Okay, seeing none, we'll go ahead and go into witness testimony. Just bear with me for one moment. Thank you. Thank you. We only have two witnesses signed up to testify, so if we could please welcome Sarah Werner and Laura Kelly. And I suppose if there's anyone else in the room who wishes to testify in favor of this measure, you can come forward or we can bring them up online. We have the department available for questions if you've got them at the end. Okay. Okay. Welcome, everyone. We'll go ahead and start with our in-person only witness in the table. Thank you for being here. Please begin, Ms. Werner, with your testimony and remind the committee who you represent today.
Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members of the committee. I appreciate the opportunity to testify before the committee today. My name is Sarah Warner. I'm the Deputy Division Director for Policy and Communications for the Division of Professions and Occupations at DORA. I am here to urge your support on this continuation of the Barber and Cosmetology Practice Act. The bill makes a number of updates to the Barber and Cosmetology Practice Act, which implements the recommendations from the Colorado Office of Policy, Research, and Regulatory Reform's 2025 Sunset Report. These include repealing the barber and cosmetology advisory committee, making some updates to definitions and terminology, adding exemptions for specific services and providers, and replacing gender-neutral language. The Division of Professions and Occupations supports the recommended changes that this bill makes in accordance with the recommendations in the Sunset Report. I specifically want to provide more information on the exemptions that this bill adds to the Barber and Cosmetology Practice Act. The Division's role is to regulate practices that can potentially cause consumer harm. There have been no complaints of harm for any of these services, which are exempted in several other states. The only complaints the Division has received regarding any of these services are for people who perform them on license. These exemptions do not prohibit licensees from continuing to perform these services as they do today. They simply remove the requirement for licensure, thereby removing unlicensed practice penalties for individuals who perform these services. The Division believes this bill makes changes to accomplish our goal of consumer protection, while also ensuring that regulation is not unnecessarily burdensome. Thank you to Senator Marchman for bringing this common-sense piece of legislation forward. We hope you join us in supporting House Bill 26-1181, and I'm available for questions.
Thank you so much. Next we'll go to Laura Kelly.
Good afternoon, Madam Chair Danielson and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Laura Kelly, and I'm here on behalf of the Institute for Justice, a nonprofit that has worked alongside beauty professionals for over 35 years to make it easier to work. I'm here today to support the makeup exemption in House Bill 1181. which would improve the lives of current and aspiring makeup artists who I've spoken with across Colorado. Colorado should exempt makeup application from licensure requirements, aligning with the growing number of states that recognize full cosmetology or esthetician training doesn't match the realities of work as a makeup artist. 17 states, including most that border Colorado, already exempt makeup artistry, and several more are considering similar legislation this session. Exempting makeup artistry allows beauty professionals to build successful careers and contribute to their state's economy without taking on unnecessary and significant debt. Most makeup artists enter the field with years of informal experience, often developed through practicing on themselves or on others. Requiring them to obtain a full esthetician license means they must spend significant time and money learning services they'll never use, such as facials, body treatments, waxing, chemical peels. That training and esthetician license remains available for those who want it with this exemption. But what this exemption does is it creates a pathway for makeup artists who want to work without facing those high and unnecessary barriers. To just put a little bit of numbers to it, in Colorado, the average cost of cosmetology school is about $17,500 and fewer than 15% of students graduate on time. The cost for esthetician school is comparable. And this is burdensome for many, but it's especially burdensome for low to middle income Coloradans, single mothers, immigrants with pre-existing skill sets, and any other group who are less likely to have the socioeconomic advantages of flexible time and money to spend meeting these requirements. Dozens of the beauty professionals who I spoke with across the state echoed these burdens. Just to speak a little bit to the safety in agreement with that, our evidence suggests that makeup application is incredibly safe. Like the Department of Regulatory Authority said, there have been no complaints associated with makeup application except for the unlicensed practice of it. And our research on licensing in the barbering and cosmetology industries found no substantive difference in health and safety outcomes between businesses in licensed versus unlicensed states. and a study comparing consumer reviews on Yelp for makeup businesses showed no difference in service quality or in consumer satisfaction between those states as well so the evidence suggests that exempting makeup artists from licensure doesn't compromise any health or safety standard or diminish consumer satisfaction and service quality what you do get are professionals who are able to expand their businesses train others and build stable careers for this reason please support the makeup exemption in House Bill 1181. Thank you.
Thank you so much. Okay, I think the rest of our witnesses are for questions only. Members of the committee, do you have questions for our experts? Okay, I want to thank you all for being here today, and thank you for clarifying the exemption. Very helpful, Ms. Kelly. All right, last call for witnesses on the Sunset Bill, House Bill 1181. And no one online? All right, thanks so much. We will close the witness testimony phase. Welcome back, Senator Marchman. Any amendments today?
No amendments.
Any amendments today? Okay, seeing that, we'll close the amendment phase. Any wrap-up comments, Senator Marchman?
Thank you for hearing the bill today. I wanted to note that the exemption that was being spoken of is exemption H of all of the different exemptions that we put in the bill. That is the one related to makeup. So with that, I appreciate you guys hearing from our witnesses. Thank you for hearing the bill. And I'd ask for an aye vote. Senator Henriksen. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move House Bill 1181 to the Committee of Appropriations with a favorable recommendation.
That is a proper motion. Ms. Chapman, please poll the committee.
Senator Judah.
Aye.
Liston.
Aye.
Pelton.
Aye.
Ben Rickson.
Aye.
Madam Chair.
Yes. Congratulations. Your bill passes unanimously. You're headed to Approps. All right. I saw Senator Roberts in the back, and now he's in the front. Welcome back, Senator Roberts. Welcome, Senator Pelton, to the other side of the dais. Please tell us about House Bill 1258 Who would like to begin Senator Roberts.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you to the Business, Labor, and Technology Committee for hearing House Bill 1258 and Senator Pelton for his co-sponsorship. this committee has heard other bills that I've been the sponsor of related to the funeral and death space in our state unfortunately over the last many years we've had a lot of incidents and criminal activity to be honest and a lot of tragedy for families across our state with regards to a lack of oversight and supervision for the mortuary industry two years ago So the industry came together with us here at the legislature and the Department of Regulatory Agencies to pass a very comprehensive bill that put in place a licensing structure for funeral professionals. We were the only state in the country that didn't license funeral professionals before that bill. And as that big bill and a few other pieces of legislation have been implemented over the years, there has been some changes and clean up that's been needed. And so that's essentially what this bill in front of you today is, is an update, modifying some of the things we did in the licensing bill, as well as changing some of the criminal statutes regarding abuse of a corpse and some of the other things or problems and crimes that people commit with regards to the mortuary science code violations. So I don't need to go, you know, unless the committee wants us to, we could go through the specific details. But there's a very good summary on the page two of the fiscal note of kind of the catch-all nature of this bill and cleaning up some of the things that we have done over the years in this space. So with that, I'll turn it over to Senator Pelton.
Senator Pelton. Thank you, Madam Chair. And first off, I'd like to thank my co-prime for being on this bill. I had a funeral home director out in my district that actually had some issues with a bill that passed two years ago. It brought in, he has four separate funeral homes, and the bill had to have a licensed designee in each location. And in rural Colorado, they were like 60, 70, 80 miles apart, which became problematic to where he would have to hire more high-dollar professionals to be in those locations. So what this bill does is it cleans that up and makes it to where him and his wife, they're each licensed designees, and they can cover all four of their funeral homes. So that's the main reason I'm on this bill. and it also in the licensing brings, and I'm going to mess up this pronunciation, criminisiness in with funeral directors under all the same kind of license. So they're all the same sort of people, so that's kind of the main parts, and that's all I got.
Okay, very good. Members, questions for the sponsors? Okay. We will go ahead and go to witness testimony. There are just a few signed up. One in favor, one opposed. Who would you like to bring up first? Okay. Anybody who is online or in the room who wishes to testify in opposition to 1258, opposed position, please come forward at this point or online. Okay, looks like our only witness in opposition to the measure is our online witness. Welcome to the committee, sir, and no, you're not opposed. So there's nobody in opposition to the measure. Okay, now is the time to come forward, sir. And anyone else who wishes to testify against the bill will have you on the same panel. Okay. Welcome. Please remind the committee who you represent today and begin with your testimony.
Thank you, Madam Chair and Danielson and members of the committee.
Just one moment. Your microphone is not on. There you go.
Thank you, Madam Chair Danielson and members of the committee. My name is Mark Garber, and I oppose 1258. I've been a funeral director in Colorado since 2020 and working in another state for many years. I am also an ordained minister. Let me say that for the record, I support oversight. My concern is that this bill moves beyond those reforms without clearly defining what it requires or demonstrating a clear benefit. At the center of the bill are two key phrases, directly provide an inspectable location. Neither is defined in statute, rule, or guidance. Despite months of questioning from people in the industry, the Division has not provided a clear answer as to what either one requires in practice. If this bill passes as written, the ambiguity does not go away. It simply shifts to the regulators to define later. This matter, because under current law, funeral services already include supervision, memorial services, The core work funeral homes do every day thereby is defined as providing funeral services. The question then becomes, is that enough to meet the requirements or does directly provide mean owning and operating physical equipment? And what does a location inspectable under, what does it mean for a location to be inspectable under this bill? The statute does not say. The uncertainty has real consequences. Funeral homes are being asked to evaluate whether they need to invest significant capital without knowing whether it is actually required. Larger corporate-owned funeral homes are generally better positioned to absorb that kind of risk and restructure internally. Smaller, independent operators and especially new entrants are not. The competitive impact of this bill risks creating a system where established firms with centralized facilities can continue operating through their existing structures. while smaller providers or new businesses are effectively required to duplicate that infrastructure at each location. The result is a higher barrier to entry and fewer viable paths for independent operators. When competition narrows, pricing increases. Small, low-cost funeral homes often rely on subcontracted, already inspected facilities to keep overhead down, allowing them simpler services at lower prices. If every location is required to maintain its own equipment, those models become much harder to sustain. The like result, fewer affordable options and more uniform pricing at the higher end of the range. The primary function of a funeral home is to arrange and conduct services. The physical components are often centralized or subcontracted. This approach is consistent with how other states regulate the industry and aligns with the federal framework under the FTC funeral rule, as well as the current statute 12-135-104. That is why funeral directors, embalmers, and cremations are licensed separately. So from an operational standpoint, from a statutory standpoint, and a consumer protection standpoint, it is not clear that requiring on-site equipment improves outcome. What it does do is reshape how businesses are restructured. For those reasons, I would ask the committee to pause and clarify. Define the terms in statute. evaluate the cost and the competitive impacts, and allow funeral homes and directors a meaningful opportunity to review this bill and give input, and ensure that the new requirements are tied to a clear, demonstrated public benefit. Thank you for your time.
Thank you for coming here today. Members, do you have questions for the witness? Okay, seeing none, thank you again for your time. And I think, folks, you may have seen his handout earlier today or if it was emailed to your office for your reference. Thank you again. Okay. We'll move on to proponents of the measure. Let welcome anyone in the room who wishes to testify in favor of this measure Or amend We just welcome you and our next person just kind of make it clear your position as you speak. And we'll have us, because the person online is in favor, yes? We'll welcome him and then we'll go to your support amend position. Okay, sir, welcome to the committee.
please begin your testimony and remind the committee who you represent today. Excellent. Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today. My name is Javen Jones, and I'm here on behalf of the Colorado Federal Directors Association, where I serve on the legislative committee. Our association represents professionals who work with Colorado families during some of the most difficult time and moments in their lives. Because of that responsibility, we take seriously any legislation that affects the standards, oversight, and integrity of our profession. The Colorado Federal Directors Association supports this bill. Over the past month, we have worked collaboratively with representative senators and the Department of Regulatory Agencies to ensure that the language of this bill reflects both the needs of our industry and the expectations of families we serve. Our goal has been simple, to help craft legislation that strengthens public trust, promotes accountability and ensures that every Colorado family deserves the dignity and professionalism that they deserve. We believe that this bill moves us in that direction. With that, I respectfully yield my remainder of my time and welcome any questions the committee has.
Thank you. Thank you so much. Are there any questions for this witness? We also have the department available. available again Ms. Werner if she's still here to answer any questions after Mr. Moore. Okay, welcome Mr. Moore.
Please remind the committee who you represent today and begin with your testimony. Thank you Chairwoman Danielson. My name is Brett Moore and I'll be reading testimony on behalf of my client Nick Hodgson. I told him to be here at 2.30 and you guys are so efficient you've gotten through your first two bills so we'll just go ahead and read it for him. Well, I'll just read it in his voice. These changes will also help lift the shadow unfairly cast over our industry, an industry that does well and right 99.9% of the time. However, I am officially in an amend position today because I would like to see credible funeral brokers brought into the new regime. The current language excludes many brokers that have been good operators for many years, and including them in this bill by allowing a broker's place of business to be included in the list of allowable criteria would benefit the industry as a whole. Let me be clear, this change will not benefit my companies financially. In fact, if the bill were to pass as is the current bill, it would actually make my business more valuable due to the substantial infrastructure investments I've made in my business over the last 20 years. Though the amendment won't be ready for committee today, I will continue working on plain language with Representative Soper and the Senate sponsors that will achieve the goal of allowing reputable brokers that have been in the business for the long term to continue to play a role in this industry and hope you will support that amendment on the Senate floor if we can come to agreement with the various stakeholders while voting yes on the bill today. I think another, just ad-libbing here, I think another concern is a potential shortage of these type of professionals. And if you cut out all the folks that are currently kind of in that broker space, it could add to that challenge, that pressure. So with that, I thank you for your time.
Senator Henrickson. Thank you, Madam Chair. So, Mr. Moore, it sounds like your concerns might mirror a little bit of the gentleman that preceded you, at least as it pertains to we don't want to create something that fosters monopolization of this space. Is that an accurate assessment?
Mr. Moore. I honestly can't speak to that, Senator Henrickson. I think our main concern is that my client's been in business for 20-plus years. There's been brokers that he's worked with. They interface with the families, and he does the work in his facilities to prepare those decedents for the next steps. And these are not fly-by-night. These are people that office in the same place. And if the amendment that we're contemplating were to go through, we'd be talking about they would apply for licensure, they would pay the fee, they would have a permanent place where their records are kept and be open to inspection by DORA, et cetera, et cetera. They would be joining the club. They just don't necessarily have a cooler or a chapel or a crematorium or some of these really capital-intensive facilities. So apologies, I can't answer your question, but that's more the point we were getting at.
Senator Henrickson. Thank you, Chair. Well, I certainly appreciate that and would love to just follow up. It sounds like those are good faith conversations, and I would love to catch up with you as this moves through the process.
Really appreciate that. Okay, other questions for the witness? Okay, seeing none, thanks again for being here today. Thanks to our online witness for your time today. Last call for witnesses. Okay, the witness phase is closed. Welcome back. Sponsors, do you have amendments for House Bill 1258? Hopefully not like House Bill L004.
Senator Pelton. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I move Amendment L009. Could you please tell us about L9?
Thank you, Madam Chair. L-9 is a definitional amendment that we received from the Attorney General's office who thought it was best to define the terms arrangement, arrangements, or funeral arrangements in order to make it very clear in statute what we're talking about.
Are there questions for the sponsors on L-009? Seeing none, is there objection to L-9? See, none L9 is adopted. Senator, any further amendments? From the committee members, any amendments? Okay, the amendment phase is closed. Any wrap-up comments, sponsors?
Senator Roberts. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to thank the folks who testified. I've talked to Mr. Moore about his client's concern, as well as the stakeholders on this bill. We'll continue to have those conversations if and when this bill moves to the floor. make sure we're encompassing all of the needed changes before we get to the final step in the process.
Senator Pelton. Thank you, Madam Chair. And this bill, again, I thank everybody for testifying to this bill. It was brought to me from a constituent that is in this world and thinks this cleanup needs made. So with that, I would urge support for this bill, and I would move House Bill 1258 as amended to the committee the whole. Appropriations, I'm sorry.
Okay. That is a proper motion. Ms. Chapman, please poll the committee.
Senator Judo.
Aye.
Liston.
Yes.
Pelton.
Aye.
Henriksen.
Aye.
Madam Chair.
Yes. Congratulations. Your bill passes unanimously. unanimously you are headed to the Committee on Appropriations. Thank you. And seeing... Oh. We wouldn't have anything but a big enough. They don't have... All right. Thank you both very much. Thanks to everybody in the room. I hope you have an excellent afternoon. This concludes the business of our committee and the Senate Business, Labor, and Technology Committee is adjourned. Take care.