House Transportation, Housing & Local Government [Mar 11, 2026]

We have a presentation from the CEO and then a couple bills, so we look forward to hearing about that.

Excuse.

Frozen.

Oh, there's Basenecker.

Excuse.

Here.

Here.

Here.

Yes.

We thank you very much, CEO, for your patience. We're going to hear a presentation on electric vehicle plan, on our electric vehicle plan. This is a required presentation to our committee. And we appreciate the fact that CEO is going to speed talk their whole way through their presentation. Please proceed whenever you are ready. Thank you. We're working on it. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. We have 50 display I think we can begin Let welcome Mr Salisbury and Ms Shoup who would like to go first Mr. Salisbury, take us away.

Mr. Salisbury.

THANK YOU. AGAIN, MY NAME IS STEPHANIE SHAUP. I AM THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR REGULATORY AFFAIRS WITH THE AIR POLUTION CONTROL DIVISION FOR THE STATE OF COLORADO. I AM REALLY GOING TO TALK MORE ABOUT THE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS INVENTORY AND WANT TO FOCUS A LITTLE BIT ON THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR EMISSIONS IN PARTICULAR. THE AIR DIVISION HAS JUST PUT OUT THE 2025 inventory report or greenhouse gas emissions inventory that inventory goes through 2005 through to 2023 calendar year 2023 and then also includes projections out further into the future and this information as we are going to be talking about it I'm focused on on transportation but this information is being published currently and some of this is already available on our websites All right a little bit about the transportation sector in particular you can see on this graph that there has been a significant increase in population in Colorado since 2005 and we have seen a corresponding increase in vehicle miles traveled which is the metric we use to measure vehicle usage and yet we have also seen that that has not gone up proportionally with the population increase to the state of Colorado so we actually are seeing a decrease in the the amount of vehicle miles traveled by the population or per capita you also see that little bit of us a drop there in 2020 which quickly rebounded back into kind of the normal levels and then across the transportation sector in this in this slide you can see the difference between the different fuel types and where the emissions are largely coming from in Colorado WE see most of our emissions are coming from gasoline fired vehicles, then diesel, jet fuel and natural gas. We've seen a slight decrease in emissions from natural gas fired vehicles as well as gasoline fired vehicles but we've seen a slight increase in jet fuel and diesel you also see that same drop in 2020 based on the covid pandemic that has since rebounded and and we are happy to take any questions if you have them was that sufficiently fast committee questions about this presentation representative velasco Thank you so much, Madam Chair. I did have a question. I know that there's a tax credit for jet fuel. Could you talk a little bit about what that, like, if that's being utilized?

Yeah, sounds great. Other questions? Representative Sucla. Thank you Madam Chair. Can you tell us where that picture is? It's not even in Colorado. I'm just . I apologize. I did not know where that picture is. I'm not quite sure. I should know that. Maybe you could phone a friend before you. I can follow up with you as well to let you know where that picture is for sure. I think that was one of two questions that we got in the Senate as well. So thank you for that. Yeah, you're 0 for 2, CEO. What's happening? Additional questions, committee? Can you just show the slide on heavier vehicles, the overweight, medium and, yes, medium and heavy duty vehicles. Is that the toughest category or sector and are new technologies emerging? Thank you for your question, Madam Chair. It's a great question. It is a very challenging sector. You were talking about, you know, these vehicles have much, much larger batteries, which makes them much more expensive and then much heavier as well. So there's like a lot of kind of challenges with getting these really heavy-duty vehicles on the road at a price that is competitive. They also require, you know, often very different and higher-powered level of charging infrastructure, then they can't pull up to the same charging infrastructure maybe that a light-duty vehicle would use because it would just take forever and a day for them to fill up and it wouldn't be worth their time. So lots of challenges in this space. We are working on kind of doing some research and studies right now around how to support that heavy-duty charging kind of across the state of Colorado. So we're hoping that we can do more in that space. But it is a very challenging space. I think, you know, battery technology continues to get better. We see lots of different types of battery chemistries that I think are going to help eventually get there to, like, help making these vehicles more viable for especially this long-haul trucking. But it is a very challenging space. I'll be honest with you. It's, you know, we're doing – making much more progress in the light-duty space, but I think there's still challenges in the heavy-duty space. Additional questions? Being none we do welcome we are grateful that you came and thanks for being with us we gonna go right into our first bill which is 1242 from Pascal and Jackson Are you sad, Jackson? What's your tissue for? Who would like to start us off? Representative Paschal.

Rep. Jackson. Thank you, Madam Chair, and good afternoon, committee. The third thing that this bill aims to do is not have the cost associated with having an interlock device be a barrier to people actually using it. What the bill does is it raises the income eligibility from 130% to 150% of the federal poverty level. It also requires these interlock manufacturers to provide free installation and free removal and also a 50% reduction in the monthly amount that people are charged. And so it also requires that manufacturers notify each customer of the program and at like scheduling that they do have this more affordable way to pay for the program. But we know that this program is really a preventative measure to continued driving under the influence. Interlock is an effective tool in making sure that we reduce the likelihood that someone is driving under the influence again. So it's a 70% reduction versus just having their license suspended. This is something that really makes there be a level of accountability as well as, you know, taking that away that someone would be driving without a car. And the average number of times that a drunk driver drives impaired before their first arrest is about 80 times. And so this is really happening a lot more frequently than we have realized. But the interlock devices have really been successful in blocking drunk driving attempts to the tune of, you know, over 180,000. and since 2006, and we got that information from our partners at MADD, and this is something that we have broadly stake-holded. We have a huge coalition of partners from Mothers Against Drunk Driving to AAA, Bicycle Colorado, the Organization of Victims Assistance, the White Line. we have really wanted to make sure that this was a collaborative process because we know that this is not a partisan issue this is an issue that has probably impacted each one of us in some kind of way either we know someone who may have gotten a deal UI or, you know, a family member or colleague or something. And so this is something that is really an attempt to prevent future harm to our communities via drunk driving. This is an attempt to really prevent future loss of life as a result of drunk driving. And so we would urge a yes vote today. And I just want to give a shout out to my co-prime. I'm really happy to be partnering with her on this. So thank you.

Representative Paschal. Marijuana only works for alcohol. It doesn't work for, I'm sorry, the interlock. All right.

The interlock only works for alcohol.

You have to do a blood test for marijuana. There is a really high incidence of having used both at the same time. So you are getting a lot of people through this device as well.

Representative Jackson. Well, they would be mandated to be on the interlock. And you'd have a restricted license, and that license would include the mandatory interlock. And what this bill is really aiming to do is to make sure that we don't have that two-month waiting period so that people who may have jobs and they need to drive their car to get to work, they can have that interlock installed on their cars so that they can still go to work during that two-month time period. but this is a requirement of being a first-time offender, and we want to move the time frame up and enhance accessibility for people.

That is – Senator Jackson. Thank you, Madam Chair. And that is correct. So this would be mandated, and if someone wants to persist in their criminal behavior, no one is going to be holding their hand like with them every second of the day to force them to do it. But this would be a requirement of law for them to do it, and if they persist in their delinquency, then – Thank you.

Representative Brooks. Thank you, Chair. So a mechanism in here is talking about how it requires private vendors to provide a free service. what though I mean we're talking about the potential to now shift costs to the private sector right so this could end up costing the companies that are providing the service it shifts that that burden to them correct representative pascal or jackson yes it does

Representative Jackson? And also it's not totally free. I mean it's at a reduced cost, so people still have to pay for this. And I would say income qualified to get that reduced rate.

Representative Brooks Sure thank you I apologize if the question was asked or this answer has been given and I just missed it I'm curious, what kind of data does, I guess, we're assuming what kind of data would we have for how many drivers would be projected to fall under the new interlock requirements that we're talking about here. And this question would be for anybody. So I'm just kind of curious. I've seen several expansions of the interlock system since it was originally adopted as a pilot program of WAVE in 1995. And I think that those expansions have been because they work. I would just like to know what the projection is of how this next piece would potentially impact. Is that Ms. Green or Mr. McKinley or? That's going to be a Crystal question. Pardon? Crystal, please. Oh, Department of Revenue. Ms. Sonderman.

Does that answer the question, Representative Brooks? Chair, no, but I think perhaps that it might be just too speculative and perhaps it just can't be answered. So thank you. We can clarify by how many interlock devices were given out last year. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Chair, thank you. Actually, I thought of another one, most likely for the public defenders. I know that you're going to hear a number of, I'm trying to avoid the word excuses, but just, you know, explanations, perhaps, of why perhaps the person that is being faced with an interlock device might say, yeah, but you know what, and it might be related to work. Without being able to poll employers and knowing what potential negative impacts there might be on somebody's employment, is that something that you frequently hear? Do you find that argument to be authentic? Because convincing doesn't work necessarily, but do you find it to be a legitimate argument are there barriers that can be presented to somebody's employment when trying to work with a device like this mr. Karbach thank you madam chair I think I understand your question

And thank you, and thank you for the testimony from the panel. I'm supportive of what this bill is trying to get done. I just had one kind of an outlier question, but can these be applied if you have a tradesman who has a work truck and it's not owned by him, but the owner of the company that he has this truck from and takes to work, can those interlocks be applied or is there a system to work with a private company that owns that truck? and online we're talking to Ms. Sonderman? Okay. Ms. Sonderman.

That answers my question very well.

I move L-001 to House Bill 1242.

Okay. Amendment number one was brought to us by working with the DMV and in clarifying the language of a first-time offense requirement to the point where they were satisfied they could execute it.

I move Amendment L-002 to House Bill 1242.

So Amendment No. 2, there is language about the financial aid that you can get, and for installation it's free except it's 50% for a high-end vehicle, and there really wasn't a definition of a high-end vehicle. So this is language to explain that the vendor is the one that gets to decide what a high-end vehicle is.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So, committee, we have a narrow but meaningful and effective opportunity here. The tool exists for us to reduce alcohol-related deaths, alcohol-related tragedies, And this bill now as amended is the step in the right direction for us to prevent future harm to our communities. And we respectfully ask for a yes vote.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I also want to add, I want to thank so much all the victims that came forward and spoke about their loss of a family member. Um, I also want to highlight that, um, the other aspect of this is many people are hurt. And um aside from from causing a death um you can um impart um much emotional financial and physical harm to people that can stay with them for the rest of their lives One of the things that happened in my life that brought me on the path towards running for office is that my husband and I were hit by a car when we were crossing the street in a crosswalk, and it was a hit and run. We don't know exactly if that person was drunk. We don't know if they were texting. They clearly were. They swerved around a car that was stopped at the crosswalk, flew through, and hit us. My husband, they gave him a 50-50 chance of making it through the first night. So I almost lost him. And I was thrown across the street. So disadvantages to being small. We were lucky that this was a very small car that hit us. Had it been like a Hummer or something, we probably would both be dead. so I very much empathize with the victims of crashes and understand how much impact it has on your life and as several people spoke here it's years and years of your life impacted by these crashes that can be prevented and I think this is a very specific tool that shows high effectivity and we are with these changes to the law we are closing all the gaps where people don't have access to an interlock device. So there always could be a way. You know, there's always someone that can come up with a way to get around the device, but this closes the gaps where the device, people don't have access to it. So now they have the tool that they can use to prevent those crashes. And I hope that you choose to help us provide these tools to them and ask for an aye vote.

Mr. Gravy, please call the roll. They did.

Would you please move your bill? A proper motion was sent it to the cow.

Mr. Gravy, please call the roll. Representatives Basenecker.

Yes. Jackson.

Yes, that is unanimous, 13 to 0, and you're on your way to the Committee of the Whole. Thank you. Thank you. Let's get right into 1196, which is tenant data information by representatives English and Joseph. We'll just give them a minute. I believe they're just outside. Thank you. Thank you. We going to call back representatives Jackson and Pascal We need to redo the motion and send the bill unfortunately to appropriations. We misread the fiscal note. So just a quick vote. Joseph and English can also take the dais when they get here. So we're going to repeat the motion or? So first we need a motion for reconsideration, which I think I can do. I move to reconsider House Bill 1242 in order to send it to the proper committee. Second. Second. Moved and seconded, and then that has to be approved by committee. So, Mr. Gravy, please call the roll.

Is this the motion to reconsider?

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes. Now we will have you remove your bill again, unfortunately, to appropriations. I move House Bill 1242 as amended to appropriations with a favorable recommendation. Seconded by Rep. Paschal.

Yes.

Yes.

understanding that that goes to appropriations representative joseph do you have your co-sponsor Representative Joseph, do you have your co-sponsor? Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Committee will come back to order and we will do Bill 1196, tenant data information with reps English and Joseph. Who would like to begin? English. Thank you, Madam Chair. Today with my co-prime representative Joseph, we are bringing forward House Bill 26-1196, tenant data information. Housing is more than shelter. It is one of the most important economic foundations for families in Colorado. Yet millions of renters participate in the housing market every day without receiving the same financial recognition for their responsible behaviors that homeowners receive. House Bill 26-1196 is about transparency, fairness, and economic mobility for tenants. It ensures that renters understand how their personal data is used during screening, and it creates a pathway for renters to build credit simply by paying their rent on time. At its core, this bill recognizes the simple truth. if a person consistently pays their largest monthly expense that responsibility should help them move forward financially Why this bill is necessary Rent is often a person largest monthly expense. For most renters, housing is the single largest financial obligation they have every month. Yet, historically, on-time rent payments rarely count toward building credit, even though mortgages payments do. Positive rent reporting changes that dynamic by allowing renters to build credit history based on responsible behavior. Research shows that when rent payments are reported to credit bureaus, many renters are able to establish a credit score for the first time to improve existing scores. This matters because a credit score determines whether people can access loans, housing, or even affordable interest rates. Millions of Americans are credit invisible. Across the country, roughly 49 million Americans have little or no credit history, often referred to as being credit invisible. These individuals may be financially responsible, but the system simply does not recognize their payment history. Positive rent reporting helps change that. Studies show that when rent payments are reported, many renters are able to establish a credit score for the first time. Credit scores can improve significantly for those with low credit histories. More people move into the near-prime credit category, opening access to better financial opportunities. This bill helps renters participate more fully in the economy. Rent reporting can improve financial stability when rent payments are included in credit reports. The results are measurable. In programs where rent reporting has been implemented, 64% of participating renters saw that their credit scores increased. Over 51,000 renters established a credit score for the first time. Improved credit scores can mean lower interest rates, access to safer financial products, increased ability to qualify for homeownership. That is how families build generational wealth. This bill protects tenants from hidden screening practices. This legislation is about transparency and tenant screening. and today renters often apply for housing without knowing what data will be collected about them, what criteria will disqualify them, and how screening decisions are made. House Bill 261196 requires landlords to clearly disclose what information they will access during screening, the criteria that could lead to denial of an application. That transparency helps prevent arbitrary decision-making and hidden barriers in the rental market. It gives renters the ability to make informed decisions and ensures greater accountability in the housing system. This bill also protects tenants from additional costs. Another key feature of this legislation is that it prevents landlords from charging tenants for rent reporting services or raising rent to offset the cost. Many renters across the country currently pay monthly fees to third-party companies just to have their rent reported. House Bill 261196 ensures that credit building opportunities are not turned into another financial burden on working families. While this matters from a progressive lens, housing policy and economic justice are deeply connected. For decades, structural inequities in housing and lending have contributed to major racial and economic disparities in credit access and wealth building. Research shows that renters who lack credit scores are more likely to be young, low income, or from black and Latino communities. When responsible renters cannot bill credit from their rent payment, it reinforces those disparities. Positive rent reporting helps address this by ensuring that responsible financial behavior is recognized regardless of whether someone owns a home or rents one. This bill helps level the playing field. And before I turn it over to my co-farm, Representative Joseph. Lastly, I will just say positive rent reporting benefits housing stability, and research shows that when rent reporting is available, many renters are more motivated to pay rent on time. Landlords may see reduced delinquencies and improved tenant retention. That means this bill supports both tenants and responsible property owners. The key policy strengths of House Bill 261196 is thoughtful and balanced. It ensures transparency in tenant screening, voluntary participation for tenants, protection from additional fees, opportunities for renters to bill credit, consumer protection through enforcement under deceptive trade practice laws. It also allows tenants to opt out at any time, ensuring full consumer choice. And I will turn it over to my co-part, Rep. Joseph. Thank you. Representative Joseph. Chair, members of the community, today I present House Bill 2611-96, a bill that offers something very basic, fairness and transparency for renters. For millions of Americans, rent is the largest bill they pay every single month. In Colorado, that's true for hundreds of thousands of families. Yet despite paying rent faithfully month after month, year after year, many renters receive no credit benefit at all for those payments. Think about, again, as was noted by Representative English, at Colorado and can pay $1,500, $2,000, sometimes even $3,000 and rent every month for years, and it does nothing to help them build credit. But they missed a payment that negative information can follow them immediately. That system is fundamentally one-sided. House Bill 26-1196 begins to correct that imbalance. It creates transparency and tenant screening and give renters the opportunity to build credit through positive reporting without increasing rent or creating new costs for tenants. The bill has three main components, and I'll walk through each of them. I'm going over the bill as drafted. Some of these parts of the bill has been stricken. for instance in section one, the section around enforcement and accountability. The first section of the bill ensures that the requirements in legislation actually means something by establishing enforcement House Bill 26 states that if a covered landlord fails to comply with positive rent reporting requirements that failure constitute unfair and deceptive trades practiced under Colorado state law. We have removed this section out of the bill based on stakeholding. Second, transparency and tenant screening. The second section addresses a problem many renters experience but rarely talk about opaque tenant screening practices. Today, many tenants submit application, pay a fee, and undergo screening without fully understanding what information is being accessed or how decisions are being made. House Bill 261196 requires a very simple step. Before conducting a tenant screening, a landlord must provide clear written notice explaining what data and information will be accessed and what criteria could lead to a denial. That's it. This is about basic transparency. Imagine applying for a job where the employer secretly pulls reports about you but never tells you what factors they are using to decide whether you'll get hired. Most of us would find that unacceptable. Yet renters often face exactly that situation when applying for housing. Application fees are paid. Background checks are run. Credit reports are pooled. but the criteria for denial may remain completely unclear. By requiring this disclosure, we give prospective tenants something credibly valuable, information. With that information, renters can better understand their application, avoid unnecessary fees if they know they may not qualify and take steps to strengthen their application in the future. This section also helps create consistency and fairness across the rental market. Transparent criteria reduce arbitrary decisions and promote clearer expectations for both landlords and tenants. Housing is not just a commodity. It is the foundation of stability for families. Transparency in that process is the least we can provide. Section 3, positive rent reporting. The heart of this bill is positive rent reporting. Under House Bill 26, 1196 covered landlord must offer tenants the option to have their on-time payment reported to at least one consumer reporting agency. This provision recognizes a simple reality. Rent is often the largest recurring payment a person makes. Yet historically those payments have rarely been included in traditional credit score systems. That means responsible renters, people who pay faithfully every month, may still struggle to qualify for a car loan, a mortgage, lower interest rates, or even another apartment. Positive rent reporting allows renters to bill credit using the payment they are already making. The bill also includes important protections. First, participation is optional. Tenant can choose whether they want their payment reported. Second, tenant may opt out at any time. Third, and critically, landlord cannot charge, well, as written in the bill, tenant cannot charge tenants for this service or raise to cover the cost. We have an amendment where if you already provide the rent reporting for free, then tenant can opt out, and if you're not providing it for free, there has to be consent between the parties because you don't want to charge people automatically for something. or for anything. This ensures that participation to build credit does not become another financial burden Research shows that rent reporting can significantly improve credit outcome for people with limited or thin credit histories especially younger renters, immigrants, and working families who may not have access to traditional credit products. For many people, this policy could be the difference between remaining locked out of financial opportunity and finally having a path forward toward home ownership and economic mobility. When renters do the right thing month after month, the system should recognize that. Positive rent reporting does exactly that. Members, House Bill 26-1196 is a practical balance bill. It improves transparency and tenant screening. It creates accountability for implementation, and it gives renters the chance to bill credit through responsible behaviors they are already demonstrating. This bill does not punish landlords. It does not raise rent. It does not create complicated new systems. Instead, it creates fairness, transparency, and opportunity in the Colorado rental market. And for the many Coloradans who work hard, pay their rents on time, and are trying to build a better financial future, this bill says something very simple. Your responsibilities should count. I respectfully ask for yes vote for 1196. Thank you very much. Committee, questions for bill sponsors. Representative Wug. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I appreciate, you know, wanting people to have opportunity to build credit, absolutely, so they can move up. I do have a question. There are currently companies that have options for tenants to report their own credit, and I just wonder, and some are even free, and I just wanted if you're aware, and a few Boom, Self, Experian Boost, Rent Reporters, Pinata, and I just wondered if you were aware of that, that some company, that renters actually have this opportunity to do this already. Representative Joseph. Thank you, Madam Chair. Oh, okay. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm going to try to explain it based on how I understand it, your question. So, yes, currently there are landlords who already offer free rent reporting at this time. In my understanding as well, sometimes they automatically sign their renters into rent reporting as part of renting in the area. Representative Wug. Thank you for that. In my understanding, there's actually the tenants or renters, they can go to use these companies without any landlord involvement. Representative Joseph. Yes, Madam Chair, thank you. Yes, there are companies that offer these services directly to tenants, and tenants can take advantage of these opportunities, and sometimes the price can range between $25 to $75. And I've also learned that there are landlords that receive bulk pricing on these rent reporting mechanisms or systems, and it's much cheaper for a tenant. Representative Wu. And just last comment, and I appreciate that. I mean, there are some that are free now, but we can move on. Thank you. Additional questions for the bill sponsors? Representative Wynn. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you so much for bringing the bill here, sponsors. My question is, any precedents of this happening in other states? Are there any other states that have legalized or done this work before? Representative Joseph. Thank you Madam Chair Yes in New York they also do rent reporting Representative Brooks Chair thank you

I'm sorry, English. Thank you, Madam Chair. So where that number came from in this bill is that initially it was at 100, but when we go down to 5, it's more encompassing, so it's really not excluding. So if there is a mom and pop, which would probably be considered that 5 number, this is something that they can opt into if they're already not providing it. But, again, there are people that are providing this service, and some are providing it for free and some are not. Additional questions? Okay. We'll move on to witness testimony. Do you have a preference? Yes, Representative Joseph. Yes, we would like one, amend, oppose, and support that way, and then keep going that way. Begin, amend, then go. Begin with oppose, amend, and then support. Okay. And then OAS. Yes. Okay, we will do that. So we will bring up an amend panel of which we think we can fit everybody in one panel. Amend positions are Gerilyn Francis from Chaffa, Kinsey Hastat from Enterprise, Karen Santee, Samantha Santee, and that is it. Samantha Santee is remote. is there anyone in the room who wishes to testify on house bill 1196 in an amend position who has not been called okay we'll begin with miss has that we're doing two minutes due to the volume of folks on the bill um please proceed thank you madam chair and members of the committee

Please proceed, Ms. Francis.

Thank you Ms Santee It Santee

My name is Samantha Santee. I am here representing the Colorado Housing Coalition. I am the legislative committee chair for the CHC. We represent exactly the type of small landlords who will be impacted by this bill. Self-managing owners, property managers whose clients are owners without one to five units of management companies just like Karen's. We are seeking to have this bill to amend the bill as introduced. I do want to thank the bill sponsors and specifically Representative Joseph for her work on this bill and her communication with our team. She has been listening to our concerns and has been providing us with amendments. Our last remaining issue with the bill after the amendments that we have seen is the low unit minimum to be considered a covered landlord. We are respectfully requesting an exemption of 50 or fewer units, not five or fewer units, applying equally to those receiving a housing voucher. The CHC is not opposed to positive credit reporting, but the way this bill puts the burden on small operators in the industry is unsustainable for small landlords. The definition of covered landlord in the bill is anyone who manages five or more units or receives housing funds. This means even if someone has one unit, Not one unit has a housing choice voucher. The landlord is now required to provide positive credit reporting. The issue here is that small operators just don't have the same resources and connections as larger operators do. Karen gave you an example of one startup cost It just unsustainable Other companies won work with or many companies just won work with company management companies or housing providers below a certain unit count or you have to use their entire software, like property management software, in order to access this credit reporting. It just doesn't make any sense. Please raise the minimum unit cap to remove this burden. Additionally, this bill is a solution in need of a problem. Residents can already self-report directly to the credit bureaus for free. Their apps capture more than just rent payments. Positive credit reporting is already widely offered by management companies, including the one that I personally work for, and a resident who wants the service can find a management company that offers it or a solution outside their landlord. Thank you for your time

Thank you, Madam Chair. Question for Ms. Santee. Just wondered, how is the Colorado Housing Coalition different than the Apartment Association?

Thank you, Madam Chair. And I believe you have the same last name, which was throwing me off for just a second there, and I wanted to make sure I was correct. Ms. Santi, is that correct? Yes, that is correct. Could you tell me just in sort of your analysis of sort of the breaking point being 150 units or 50 units, like where does the price vary for you as a landlord inside of those things in terms of these services? I understand you said that certain companies don't want to work with you given a limited number of units, but I'm just curious, like, what does that look like in terms of price to access those services? And then I understand that the amendments will address some of the concerns related to those costs being passed on to tenants, but it is still of cost and I'm just kind of curious on your analysis of that.

Representative Baisnicker. Thank you, Madam Chair. And maybe one other question that Chatham. might be able to speak to as well i just don't know because i just don't have experience here i'm sure there's an administrative component of that reporting and i'm just wondering from a staffing standpoint certainly for our smaller operators but even at chaffa's scale like what does that look like to be able to fulfill that obligation for that positive credit reporting staffing man hours required etc miss santi thank you i can answer that

Thank you madam chair. Mr. Hamrick could you finish please if you had more. No we just the way we roll in our committee just form it as a question but we don't allow for extended testimony otherwise two minutes doesn't mean two minutes.

Do you have additional concerns?

Representative Wook. Thank you, Madam Chair. And forgive me for not completely understanding the process here. I think this is a question for probably Mr. Hamrick as well. Either of you could answer this. As the bill's written, it's designed to only include reports of actual payments made, correct?

we just don't want someone to say, finish what you were saying, but we allow wide latitude in a question that accomplishes the same thing.

brooks chair thank you this question is for the gentleman with a cool last name with the significantly cooler first name you mr lord you were saying that you felt the at least my my understanding is that you felt like the credit reporting piece was of an ancillary benefit to you, but that wasn't necessarily the crux of your support for the bill. I'm curious to know what that is.

Representative Sucla.

Representative Bazenecker. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Committee. Really appreciate the opportunity to present House Bill 1224 alongside my co-prime sponsor, Rep. Velasco. Over the last several years, Colorado has done real work to modernize the Mobile Home Park Act, and this bill is the next step in that effort. We created the opportunity to purchase. We've improved enforcement and timelines and with this bill we are seeking to make sure that these opportunities to purchase and these Enforcement and timeline mechanisms are real for residents across the state I've had the privilege of running several bills in this space working alongside residents who are deeply impacted by these issues and really have appreciated partnering with Rep Velasco on these issues because what you find pretty quickly is that no matter where you go in the state of Colorado folks recognize that mobile home parks represent our state's largest source of unsubsidized affordable housing meaning that there isn't a dollar that subsidizes that affordability it happens because of the type of housing it is and so it is critical for the folks that live in those homes that we protect this housing and when work well with others who have the same interest this bill is about a simple principle if residents are going to be told that they have a chance to compete to buy their community that that chance should be real and not theoretical. Too often residents are trying to organize, inspect a property, understand the finances and line up financing while competing against a sophisticated buyer or buyers who do this every day. And I use this example as a way to explain the situation. Imagine if I told you today that you have 120 days to buy your entire neighborhood and by the way you need to organize that transaction with all of your neighbors Now go You can see how THAT CAN BE A DAUNTING SITUATION ESPECIALLY FOR FOLKS WHO PERHAPS NEED TO access credit that they never had to utilize before in this space and capital that is often very difficult to find HB 1224 builds on the framework we already enacted by requiring a more transparent sales process and by making clear that these transactions must be conducted at arm's length and in good faith. It strengthens disclosure so residents can actually evaluate what they're being asked to match, including key financial and maintenance information tied to the park and the buyer's offer. It also protects the due diligence process so that residents are not punished simply for doing what any responsible buyer would do, inspections, contingencies, and financing review. It also addresses a major practical problem in the market, and this isn't something that's done to be deceptive or otherwise impugn the ability or limit the ability of residents to purchase parks, but a lot of times nowadays parks are sold through bundled or portfolio transactions. And residents should not be structurally disadvantaged from the outset when that happens. They should be able to find a clear line to the purchase price of their park and utilize their rights under the law in the state of Colorado. It also makes clear that anti-competitive conduct that artificially distorts the sales process has no place in Colorado. Residents should be competing in a fair market, not a manipulated one. Just as important, this bill does not stop an owner from selling their park, and it does not deny fair market value. It simply says that the process has to be fair, transparent, and workable for all of the parties, including the people who already live here and risk losing their homes in these transactions. We have already seen the resident ownership model work in Colorado in multiple communities, mine included, helping stabilize housing and preserve affordability. This bill is about giving more residents a fair shot to get there. We ask for your support. I will go over just an amendment that we are bringing today after remarks, but I want to turn it over to Rep Velasco for her remarks as well.

Representative Bazenecker. Thank you, Madam Chair. I think it might be helpful just to briefly explain the amendment since it is multi-page and it will probably factor into the conversation. So if you'll indulge me in that, it might be just informative for the committee. Please be indulged. Well, thank you. And I will say a thank you to the folks that are going to testify today in an amendment position or otherwise because this has always been a really collaborative conversation, even when we disagree and those conversations continue here. BECAUSE I WILL SAY THAT THE FOLKS WHO, YOU KNOW, HAVE OFTENTIMES BEEN ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THIS ISSUE OR TODAY ARE IN AMENDED POSITION ALSO RECOGNIZE THE VALUE OF MOBILE HOME PARK COMMUNITIES IN OUR STATE. SO I WILL JUST SAY THANK YOU AND THE CONVERSATIONS WILL CONTINUE ON. L-001 DOES A COUPLE OF THINGS. WE'RE TRYING TO EASE SOME OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE BURDEN ON THE PARK CELLARS WHILE ENSURING THAT RESIDENTS STILL HAVE ACCESS TO THAT INFORMATION AS NEEDED. SO A COUPLE BULLET POINTS TO HIGHLIGHT FROM L-001. IT ALLOWS PARK RESIDENTS TO OBTAY MORE information about a park sale but upon their request so we're not burdening the seller with having to provide a ton of documentation upfront that if you've ever been to a closing even for your own home you recognize that after a while you just sort of glaze over in the eyes and you just start signing your initials wherever they ask you to do that so we want to make sure that that meaningful information is available but upon request it also removes a definition of personal property because there are some sales where personal property could include like tractors and other equipment we don't want to limit the ability to include those things in the transaction as necessary. It clarifies that a seller is provided is to provide homeowners with a copy of purchase and sales agreements upon the request, not automatically, again, trying to ease some of that administrative burden. And I think the biggest piece that we are sensitive to and have tried to be responsive to, it limits some of the disclosures concerning the legal relationships and financing structures of the proposed sale so that the information is only made available upon request to the ATTORNEY GENERAL TO THE DIVISION OF HOUSING OR IN THE CASE THAT RESIDENTS HAVE ORGANIZED AND THEY HAVE AN ATTORNEY TO THE ATTORNEY REPRESENTING THOSE RESIDENTS. SO WE UNDERSTAND THAT SOME OF THAT INFORMATION CAN BE RATHER SENSITIVE WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IT IS ONLY AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST TO THOSE APPROPRIATE PARTIES WHO WILL TREAT IT WITH THE CARE IT DESERVES SO THAT L THAT WE INTEND TO OFFER TODAY THANK YOU only available upon request to those appropriate parties who will treat it with the care it deserves So that L that we intend to offer today Terrific Folks questions for our bill sponsors

As I was going through this, I appreciate the amendment surrounding the provision of disclosures only upon request, but it still seems a little different than most real estate transactions where you're in at least an initial buy-sell contract before those disclosures come out. This kind of feels like it puts a lot of information out on the, just way out in the open a little bit too early. Can you kind of walk through why we're choosing to do this? Representative Bezenacker.

Representative Richardson.

Representative Velasco

Bill sponsors, have there been success stories in Colorado of the residents buying the parks in which they reside?

Representative Bazinecker.

Regardless of how we feel about this particular, I'll just offer this. There's not many times in this work where you have that direct line to say that I think we did something that helped somebody. And like that is deeply meaningful inside of this job when you're able to connect the work we do here to something that can change a life. For so many of the folks in these mobile home parks, and I've got folks in my community, Nueva Vida is a great example of a now resident-owned community. that's actually owned by a nonprofit, but the residents finally have ownership of that structure. You know, I have folks who have said, you know, this is the first home I've ever been able to purchase. And I didn't ever think that this would be something I'd be able to do. And it changes their life. You know, we all recognize homeownership as that opportunity, I think. And so when you have those moments where you're able to say that, like, now this community long-term can chart their own future, and of course it's up to them and sometimes it doesn't make sense, It is incredibly meaningful. I mean all across our state, Western Slope, my community, all along the front range. You know, it is always a challenge to find capital and for the stars to align to make these things happen. Understand that fully. There's a lot of instances where residents just don't want to take that burden on, support them in their right to say no thank you. But across the state we see more and more parks being able to be acquired by the residents. And I would say the seller of that park getting every dollar that they're asking for in that transaction, right? But it happens because we make the process something that they can actually gain access to. Part of it, Rep. Richardson, is a due diligence period, right? Like you hate to see a park go bankrupt, but you also hate to see a situation where the residents are taking on a liability that they had no idea was underneath their feet, right? You want to make sure that you're going in eyes wide open. So there have been an uptick in these park sales. I think that's been a place of immense pride for me as a legislator. And, you know, you all have those moments where it's like if you walk away from this place and you think that you've done something that mattered, then you'll understand your time here to be worth something. And so for me, this is that issue.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And I just wanted to share some of the communities that were able to organize and have their co-ops and have been working with TESOL and the Housing and Rock program. And one of them is Animas View in Durango with 120 homes, Aspen Basalt Colorado Co-op in Basalt, Cooperativa Nueva Union, Dumont Community Cooperative in Dumont for 25 homes, Evergreen Community Park Co-op, Glen Valley Co-op, Golden Hills Community Cooperative in Golden with 40 homes, La Luna Community Cooperative in Lafayette, Montevista Comunidad in formerly Capital City, Denver, Mountain Valley Mobile Home Park in Carbondale with 64 homes, Paradise Village Cooperative in Johnstown, Rocky Mountain Homeowners Co-op in Canyon City. with 55 homes. So we have seen many success stories here in the state of Colorado. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and good afternoon. Good evening, members of the committee. My name is Lauren Rafter, and I am a managing attorney at the Colorado Poverty Law Project. I represent residents who live in mobile home parks across Colorado. I'm here in support of House Bill 26-12-24 which takes a practical step towards fairness and transparency. This bill requires clear notice and disclosure when a park is being sold, including financial and operational information that residents need to understand what's happening in their community. That step is critical because in recent years we have seen mobile home parks sold at prices that dramatically exceed their appraised value, often through complex and opaque transaction structures. structures. In my practice, I regularly see how the absence of transparency harms residents. They may receive a notice that their community is being sold, but they lack basic information about how price was determined, who the buyer is, or what financial assumptions are driving the deal. Without that information, they cannot realistically evaluate the transaction, organize a competitive offer, or protect the homes they have invested their life savings into. This bill does not prevent sales and it does not punish responsible park owners. Given the time I'll address one other equally important piece here today. The bill clarifies that many practice what many practitioners already understand about evictions based on alleged violations of state or local law. When a park seeks to evict a resident for violating a law the appropriate governmental authority must first determine that a violation occurred. This provision was never intended to incentivize park owners to report or invent suspected violations as a pathway to eviction. Instead, it recognizes a narrow circumstance. If the government has already found a violation, that determination may serve as a basis for eviction. This bill simply requires that evictions based on alleged legal violations be supported by an official government finding, not unverified claims. For those reasons on behalf of the residents I represent I respectfully urge the committee to support House Bill 26-1224. Thank you.

Good evening Madam Chair and members of the committee. Thank you for your time today. My name is Julia Scanlon. I'm the Associate Director of CCAT and I'm I'm actually here today to read Commissioner Angelica Salinas' comments into the record as she is unable to join. My name is Angelica Salinas. I'm a Route County Commissioner, a member of CCAT, and a board member of the Yampa Valley Housing Authority here today in support of this bill. Mobile home parks are some of the only deeply affordable housing stock in rural mountain communities like ours. Since 2022, four parks in Route County have gone up for sale. each one represents families who could permanently lose their homes if a sale goes wrong one of the biggest barriers to residents and housing authorities purchasing a park is not having all the information needed to make a competitive offer or to secure the financing to do so. Infrastructure knowledge is one clear challenge. Many of Colorado's mobile home parks were built more than 50 years ago, often originally designed as seasonal RV parks. As a result, many water lines, sewer systems, and electrical infrastructure problems frequently occur or do not meet current standards. These issues represent massive liability and currently get passed to the next buyer without any disclosure. For example, the Yampa Valley Housing Authority purchased Whitehaven Mobile Home Park for $3.1 million. After closing, they learned that the water and sewer infrastructure replacement would cost nearly $4 million, more than the purchase price itself. Disclosure of known infrastructure issues directly impacts the value of the property, what buyers, whether a resident cooperative or a housing authority can reasonably finance. Additionally, these homes are not truly mobile. Many are too old to move and relocation can be very expensive. When a park is lost to redevelopment, those residents don't find a new spot. They lose their homes entirely. The Yampa Valley Housing Authority, Routt County, and CCAP would love to continue working with you all to ensure mobile home park residents across Colorado have a real chance to purchase and preserve their communities. We appreciate the efforts of the sponsors, and we strongly urge your support today. Thank you for the time.

I am ready to go. Thank you. Good evening, members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. My name is Annie Martinez. I'm an attorney and I hold a doctorate in public policy and administration. and I'm here on behalf of the Colorado Center on Law and Policy, an anti-poverty organization advancing the rights of every Coloradan, and we strongly support HB 1224, protections for mobile home park residents. As someone who has advocated for the rights and well-being of Coloradans who are mobile home park residents for many years and various case types across the state, I can attest to the unique vulnerabilities and challenges faced by this often overlooked community and can most assuredly say that HB 1224 provides crucial protections for Coloradans in mobile homes and contributes to the health and stability of our state of Colorado. For many years, I practiced as a court-appointed indigent defense attorney, meaning I represented Coloradans determined indigent in cases that impacted one of their fundamental liberties, whether it be in criminal defense cases, guardianship, and dependency and neglect cases. Many of my clients resided in mobile home parks across Adams County, in Fort Morgan, as well as El Paso County. Since 2024, I've been part of CCLP as our litigation director, and there my work has included advocacy for residents in mobile home parks, including Know Your Rights trainings, as well as in active litigation. The individuals and families that I've been representing since 2014 are among the most economically disadvantaged in our state and their living situations are inherently precarious. This proposed legislation is a critical step in addressing the imbalance of power and lack of protections that many mobile home park residents routinely encounter. The bill's provisions would provide a much-needed safeguard for this vulnerable population. I witnessed firsthand the devastating impact that sudden rent hikes, unfair evictions, and the loss of their home can have on residents. I've seen residents struggle to organize due to the lack of information around a park and the ability to access it to exercise their opportunity to purchase and some park owners have not considered offers in good faith in so many ways the rights of residents are in theory but not in practice and so on behalf of cclp we urge you to pass this

yonky thank you thank you madam chair um i'm the deputy director at the dola division of housing and and I'm here today to represent the division on House Bill 1224. Thank you to the sponsors of the bill for bringing this important bill for consideration. Prior past laws have enabled residents to purchase more than two dozen mobile home parks across 17 counties, preserving more than 1,600 affordable units and preventing displacement for more than 3,000 vulnerable residents. Many of these transactions were facilitated by scarce public funding and technical assistance. however mobile home park sales in colorado are surging and more complex from an average of 33 sales from the 2020 legislation to approximately 90 listed today representing 11 of the total 760 parks park sales have been increasing also with an aggregate proposed price for offered parks currently of 1.26 billion dollars most proposed prices significantly exceed appraised values making resident purchase extremely difficult and demanding substantial levels of public grant funding just to maintain essential affordability post sale. This bill empowers the MPOP program to overcome current legal limitations and provide stronger protections for low income and vulnerable homeowners during these sales. The division supports the following key provisions to promote fairness. First, existing laws prohibit mobile home park owners from raising rent if that park is noncompliant with the MPOP program or other government orders. Approximately 80 parks are likely, 11% of the total, likely fall under this restriction, but many residents may be unaware. The division supports the requirement in the bill for landlords to notify residents when rent increases are prohibited. Second, the bill prohibits anti-competitive practices that artificially inflate prices. Third, we support Amendment L-001 requiring sellers to provide unredacted purchase and sale agreements upon request to homeowners, local government, and the division, which ensures residents have the necessary information to make informed competitive bids. Fourth, and I realize I'm running short on time, requires landlords to provide essential due diligence items. Fifth, we support the language in the bill that requires disclosure of information to promote bona fide sales and to limit disbursement of the confidential business information. Thank you for supporting this bill.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I believe it was Ms. Rafter. If you can give me some more background on the eviction policy that's in this bill and why it's in here, what problem is it trying to address? And I'm sorry, that was for. Oh, OK. Sorry.

Representative Nguyen.

Thank you.

okie dokes we thank you very much for being with us thank you for joining us online we will go to folks with a either amend or opposed position ken dale tawny payton and amy bove is there anyone in the room who wishes to testify in an amend or against position um who has not had an up who would like to, then they should come forward. And Mr. Dale should be joining us online. We'll go ahead with Ms. Payton and then go to Ms. Bo.

Sure. Mr. Gravy would like to be approached with those handouts. Mr. Gravy lives to be approached with handouts. Ms. Payton, if you want to proceed, we're doing two minutes,

We can go to Ms. Bove, and we'll just give you a moment. That would be great. Thank you. Okay, no worries. Ms. Bove, would you like to proceed?

How are we feeling?

Thank you so much.

Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee. My name is Tani Payton. I'm the Executive Director of the Rocky Mountain Home Association, and I'm testifying today in an amend position on House Bill 1224. I would like to recognize the bill sponsors and the proponents for working with the industry to try to understand the goals and for them to understand our positions. Unfortunately with the presented amendment we are still in an amend position and i hoping that they will continue to meet with us to discuss different opportunities to allow for the residents to purchase their communities unfortunately many of the items in this bill really violates some confidentiality and requires disclosure of payment you know proceed disbursements etc and that's quite complicated. Also, the portfolio discounts are a benefit because there's only one transactional fee for transactions versus separating various transactions for title work, appraisals, et cetera. So there are benefits to liquidating an entire portfolio. As Ms. Yonke mentioned, there are a significant number of parks for sale in Colorado. ever since 2019 there including this session there are 14 bills specific to mobile homes in mobile home parks protections for mobile home park residents and I am NOT saying that they do not deserve them because they do and it's wonderful when they can they don't have to worry about their tax bill being due because their home isn't worth a certain amount of money and they are not going to lose their home in a tax lien sale but as a result of all those bills we are losing owners. We are losing investors in our state. And when I drove into the Capitol today, I noticed that there are a lot of cranes missing in the skyline because we're losing housing developers. And so I just really urge you all to really just consider the impact of all of this legislation on our housing providers. Thank you.

represent the house district that has the most mobile homes in the state of Colorado which is over 3500 and yes some of them are for sale and I'm actually proud of the legislation that we've run I'm also an attorney I don't get this so this looks like my neighbor I don't what was the point of this like I just

We will go to our next panel. Thank you very much for being with us. This should be our final panel. So anyone in the room who has not had an opportunity or who would like to testify, Mr. Roganboggan, I'm looking at you. In addition to Ms. Hestet. And then online we have Susan Gibson, Hannah Abalo, Christina Postoloski, who was mentioned before, is here for questions from DOLA. And if I'm missing anyone in the room, please come forward. Great. And then online again, Ms. Postoloski, Ms. Ablo, and Ms. Gibson. I think that should be everyone. We can begin at this end for a change. We're doing two minutes. Just say who you are and who you represent, if anyone.

Great. And then Ms. Hastad.

vote. I thank you for your consideration. Thank you. Mr. Roganbogan. Thank you, Madam

of reasons why people can be evicted. It's in CRS 3812-203. It's a longer list than most other renters have. For example, in the Mobile Home Park Act, you can be evicted for violating any local code or state law. There's no comparable analog in landlord-tenant law. There's no statute that says renters can be evicted for violating any type of law. The Mobile Home Park Act also allows evictions for violating rules and regulations of the park for nonpayment of rents. In serious cases, there can be fast-track evictions when there's dangerous behavior threatening health and safety. This bill addresses one particular type of eviction, the type under 2031A. and this is a very narrow type of eviction that was meant to protect park owners from liability. So, for example, if a park owner says, hey, I'm about to get fined because of the trash on your yard. They say you have 14 days to clean it up or I'm going to get fined. That 203-1A is meant to allow them to evict and give 14 days notice. Otherwise, there's 90 days to cure. absent that type of threat this is not meant to allow landlords the opportunity to be judge jury and executioner and make up a code violation when the county or the city says none has occurred and this is precisely what we've seen in some of our cases we've even seen letterhead with graphics that are meant to look like a city or county logo and when we call the county and say hey has a code violation occurred they have no idea what we're talking about and so this clarifying language is just meant to say that if an eviction is filed on these narrow grounds, it should be predicated by an official determination from that government authority that a violation has occurred. Otherwise, there are still ample ways to address the situation that you may have seen in that picture around clutter or other quality of life issues. Eviction is still on the table with the requisite 90 days notice. The other issue that was mentioned was around disclosures in this bill. And I think the amendment goes a long way to addressing concerns about sensitive information leaking into the wrong hands. The way that this amendment, if I may speak to that, the way that it would restructure the bill is that certain information about the park itself would be made available to the residents upon request. Information about appraisals or rent projections that would justify a price for the park. Information about the operating expenses and the bills. This is information they need in order to evaluate whether it's reasonable to put forward an offer. The other information about the investment structure of other buyers, that information is being moved to a different section of law, and it would only be made available to the enforcement entities. So the attorney general's office, the division of housing, local government, or an attorney acting on behalf of a homeowner association. So that wouldn be information provided in most cases I know I out of time so I stop here but I happy to answer any other questions if I can Thank you Thank you so much We go ahead and go online to Hannah Abelow You can go ahead and introduce yourself who you represent You got two minutes Thank you, Chair and members of the committee. My name is Hannah Abelow and I'm the supervising attorney for affirmative homeowner litigation at CED Law, which is the legal arm of the Community Economic Defense Project. I'm here today to testify in support of HB 1224, which makes targeted improvements to Colorado's Mobile Home Park Act by closing gaps that we repeatedly see harming residents in practice. In my work, I regularly meet with low-income residents of mobile home parks all across the state, and I hear from them about issues that persist. Despite the important protections this legislature has already enacted, residents still face serious structural disadvantages when dealing with park management. This bill addresses several of the most common problems that we see in our practice. One issue that this bill would squarely address and that we've been talking about here all night is evictions for municipal code violations. I want to echo what Jack said before. Over and over again at my organization, we receive client intakes from folks who are being evicted from their mobile home because of a management alleged violation of a municipal code. In many of these cases, no government agency has actually determined that a violation occurred. Instead, the landlord's allegation alone is used as the basis for eviction. It can also be left up to individual judges with varying degrees of familiarity with the statute and what the goals are at hand. HB 1224 clarifies that a tenancy can only be terminated for these violations after the relevant government authority has issued a final order confirming that the violation exists. This ensures that evictions are based on actual findings of law, not simply on a landlord's claim. The bill also strengthens transparency and fairness during mobile home park sales. The provisions of the act that provide residents with the opportunity to purchase their park when it goes up for sale have already been put to excellent use by resident groups across the state, but many others that we work with struggle because they lack access to financial information that's necessary to evaluate that purchase. I'm so sorry your time is expired yeah thank you. We'll go ahead and go on to Susan Gibson you can introduce yourself who you represent you've got two minutes. Hi everyone my name is Susan Gibson I have lived in a mobile home park in unincorporated Boulder County since 1996. I'm the president of our HOA and a community organizer with Together Colorado. I'm here today asking you to vote yes on HB 26-12-24. As the president of my HOA, I hear about all the ways our landlord tries to get around the laws, but I have a hard time convincing my neighbors to submit complaints to DOLA. They're afraid of retaliation. They don't know what the benefits of these complaints can be. I tell them the landlord cannot raise our rent if there's an open investigation into a complaint but they never believe me when a landlord is temporarily prohibited from raising rent because of an active complaint HB 1224 will require them to notify residents within 14 days requiring landlords to provide that notice will help my fellow mobile home residents understand our rights and make the law work the way it was intended The other problem that this bill addresses that has affected me personally will be this huge improvement in transparency around when the parks go up for sale. When my park was for sale in 2020, soon after the opportunity to purchase law went into effect, we believed that this might be our only chance to protect our community. However, the landlord refused to put a price on the park no matter how much we offered. The landlord just turned us down and never found a buyer. That's why we needed an opportunity purchase law in the first place. Now landlords have started putting unrealistically high prices on parks and the end result is the same. Nobody has an opportunity to purchase. HB 26-12-24 improves this process by requiring landlords to explain the basis for the purchase price, the sale price and to provide key financial information within seven days if the HOA requests it. That is the only way residents will ever have an opportunity to purchase at all and is the only way many mobile home park residents will be able to stay in their homes. Again, I ask you to please vote yes on HB 26-12-24. Thank you. Thank you so much, committee. We have one last panel here for questions? All right. Seeing none, thank you all so much. Have we done a last call? Representative Wynne, did you want to ask the question you originally asked? Representative Wynne. Thank you so much, Madam Chair. As you heard earlier, I spoke with Ms. Yonke about the the landlords and the repercussions, you know, the idea is, of course, what would happen if they did not follow through. And I just, if you love to hear your thoughts. Ms. Posoloski. Thank you. Thank you for the question, Representative. So, thanks to past legislation in this area, there are some potentially pretty steep repercussions if landlords don't comply with the notice and opportunity to purchase law. So if a complaint is received by the Division of Housing and a violation is found, we can assess a fine of up to 30% of the sale price on the seller. There is also language in current law that would create a title defect and gives homeowners a property right in the opportunity to purchase. Now, of course, for any of these potential repercussions to take place, there has to be evidence of a violation in investigation enforcement action. And the part of the bill and the amendment that would require certain disclosures upon request, I know will really help our agency to investigate complaints in this area and determine whether any remedies are appropriate. Representative Wendt. One thing I always ask panelists is the idea that an option for lawmakers is that we don't do anything. And so in theory, to put in that little shift paradigm, is we don't pass anything. There are no enforced mechanisms. Is the work going to be more difficult, and how would this affect your continuing work without this bill? Ms. Postoloski. Thank you. I think it will be more challenging for the division to investigate potential violations particularly where issues with highly inflated sales prices potentially multiple shell companies a lack of transparency about who involved in these transactions And I think this bill really will clarify the type of information that has to be provided if an investigation is appropriate. Any other questions from our committee for this panel? Okay, are there any other folks who are wishing to testify on this bill? Seeing none, the witness phase is closed. Sponsors, you can come on back up. Which one of you? Amendment.

Second. That is a proper motion. Go ahead and tell us about your amendment.

Any questions about the amendment? Any objection to the amendment? Seeing none, amendment L-001 is passed. Any additional amendments from the committee? Okay, seeing none, the amendment's phase is closed. Wrap up bill sponsors. Representative Velasco. Thank you so much, Madam Chair. I just wanted to share a little bit more about what it means to live in a mobile home park and what it is to be an owner of your mobile home. And, you know, these homes, they cannot be moved after a certain time. So because of this, our homeowners are a captive audience, and they are vulnerable to be displaced or to lose their equity and their investment that they made for them and their families. And we have seen this happen in other situations. So I think that as we're looking for housing solutions, you know, it's important that we also protect existing affordable housing. And in many of our communities, this is one of the only options that is affordable for working families. So I urge you as well.

Thank you both. A proper motion would send this bill to the Committee on Finance. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move House Bill 1224 as amended to the Committee in Finance with a favorable recommendation. Second. That is a proper motion. In a second, are there any closing comments from the committee?

All right. Seeing no more closing comments, Mr. Gravey, please call the roll.

Yes.

That passes with a vote of 9-4. Congratulations. You're on your way to finance. Great. And the night is late, so we're going to go straight on to 12-11. We may have to wait a moment for a bill sponsor to finish up in judiciary, which is the never-ending story over there. They're on the first one. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. . Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. . . Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Yay. Next we have House Bill 1211, Regulation of Broadband Services by Reps Story and Mabry. Who would like to go first? Representative Story. Thank you, Madam Chair. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members. Good evening, Madam Chair and members of the committee. Thanks so much for the opportunity to speak today in support of House Bill 26-1211, the Broadband Services Bill. In today's modern world, high-speed broadband is essential for our economy, education, and civic life. Families and businesses across Colorado depend on high-speed Internet for daily necessities, including telehealth appointments, real-time emergency alerts, remote work, job applications, school research projects, and essential business operations. For decades, the state regulated copper wire phone services to ensure they were reliable and safe. However, those consumer protections did not keep up as the world transitioned to the Internet. Colorado now has access to historic federal subsidies nearly a billion dollars through the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and the BEAD program representing a once investment in our state's broadband build-out. While the Colorado Broadband Office manages the deployment of these funds, they lack the regulatory authority to oversee service quality once those networks are built. Consequently, many modern voice over IP and broadband services operate with little oversight. This leaves Coloradans without recourse during major outages and leaves the state with few tools to hold providers accountable. This bill closes the gap by authorizing the Public Utilities Commission to oversee broadband and voice over IP services to ensure they meet basic standards for reliability and safety under this legislation the PUC may require detailed outage reporting to identify patterns of failure set emergency preparedness standards to keep people connected during disasters and establish a public clearinghouse for transparent pricing and service data the bill also provides the enforcement authority to audit infrastructure and issue fines for inadequate service, giving the state a meaningful tool to hold providers accountable for the quality of the networks they operate. We have also engaged with a wide range of stakeholders, including the Attorney General's Office, to address concerns regarding federal preemption and BED funding. You may hear testimony indicating that under the NTIA award document guidance, states may not regulate broadband without risking their funding. It's a statement that's actually made in that guidance document. However, as we discussed with AG's office, a statement in a guidance document is not federal law, nor is it formal rulemaking. Furthermore, the law is on our side. In January of last year, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled unanimously in Ohio Telecom Association versus FCC to reclassify broadband as an information service, effectively stripping the FCC of its authority to regulate it as a telecommunication service. because the federal government has vacated this regulatory space Colorado is free to set its own standards for reliability and public safety there is no reason to believe this bill will threaten bead funding no reason what's more the bill is intentionally drafted with permissive language giving the PUC the flexibility to regulate as they see fit to meet the unique needs of our state Our amendment includes a safety clause stipulating that the PUC may regulate to the extent permitted by federal law, ensuring the PUC has the authority to act without posing any risk to our funding. This amendment also exempts tower companies and municipal providers while authorizing the PUC to adjust standards for small and rural providers to prevent any unfair regulatory burdens. please ask our expert witnesses including the Colorado mean the communication workers of America any technical questions about the bill and why it's important This bill is vital for ensuring that as we expand access through these historic investments, we also guarantee the reliable and resilient network that Colorado families and businesses deserve. Thank you, and I urge your yes vote. Representative Mabry. Thank you, Madam Chair. I do just want to emphasize one real key point here, And that is that broadband is a public utility at this point. You cannot participate in modern daily life without access to broadband, which is why we believe that state law should recognize this and it should be regulated as such. Now I'm going to turn this into the Judiciary Committee and explain the preemption and bead funding piece. I apologize in advance. So we've heard arguments that states cannot exercise oversight over broadband because federal law supposedly occupies the field. But the law does not support that claim. Under the Communications Act of 1934, the Federal Communications Commission regulates telecommunications service under Title II. But broadband internet service is currently not classified as a telecommunications service, but an information service under Title I of the Communications Act. And that distinction as a matter of law matters. When broadband is regulated under Title I, the FCC does not have the broad authority to preempt state regulation that it would have if it were regulated under Title II. And federal courts have repeatedly confirmed this. The D.C. Circuit, the Second Circuit, the Ninth Circuit have all recognized that Title I does not grant the FCC sweeping authority to block states from regulating broadband services. And we see this. California, Maryland, New York, there are states with extensive broadband regulations. In fact, courts have made something very clear. If the FCC lacks authority to regulate something, it generally lacks the authority to preempt states from acting. That means when broadband is classified as an information services, states retain significant authority to adopt laws addressing reliability, consumer protection, and network reliance. Courts have upheld this principle. The Second Circuit confirmed that because broadband is currently treated as Title I information service, the FCC does not possess congressional authority to impose or preempt regulation for broadband providers. The Sixth Circuit reaffirmed this. I think you get the point. I don't have to read all the case law. I do want to talk a little bit about the bead funding issue. So I know we're hearing talking points about this could impact our ability to access bead funding. Well, the first thing I'd say to that is that New York, California, and Maryland have far more extensive regulations in broadband than we do. They have not repealed their regulations. They're also seeking bead funding. Congress created the BEAD program in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act to provide states with funding to deploy broadband infrastructure to underserved and underdeveloped communities with funds awarded through federal grants administered by the Department of Commerce. FOLKS MAY HAVE HEARD ABOUT A NOTICE OF AWARD ISSUED TO COLORADO THAT MAKES CLEAR THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS PROVIDING FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE UNDER STATUTORY AUTHORITY AND THAT THE STATE GRANT IS GOVERNED BY THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE WARD AND THE GOVERNMENT that the federal government is providing financial assistance under statutory authority and that the state grant is governed by the terms and conditions of the ward and the governing statute not by ad hoc policy recommendations The Trump administration has, in the notice of a ward, in guidance in notice of the ward, has said that states cannot regulate broadband, and if they're regulating broadband, that that would impact their ability to receive awards. But Congress never delegated to the Department of Congress the power to rewrite statutory criteria for awarding these funds outside of the rulemaking process required by the Administrative Procedure Act. The Supreme Court recently reaffirmed this principle, holding that courts, not federal agencies, are responsible for interpreting ambiguous statutes in determining the scope of an agency's authority. I actually didn't like that ruling. It got rid of a whole bunch of case law that was good called Chevron deference. But what that makes clear is that the federal government cannot unilaterally make a change to a program without express authorization from Congress. That creates other problems in other areas of law like the Environmental Protection Act. But if we're following the current Supreme Court's interpretation of the Administrative Procedure Act, the process by which the Trump administration is threatening the bead funding is not legal. And so I do not think those concerns should concern us because nor have they concerned California, New York, or Maryland. And I'll leave it at that. We agree. Yes, Phil. questions for bill sponsors

Well, we'll do that one and then I'll call on you again. Okay, great. Satellites, who wants to talk about that? RepresentativeStory. Just briefly, I am not an expert, but we have witnesses that will come before you that you can, you know, really ask them. But the indication is that, well, the bead funding initially was, when it came out under the Biden administration, the push for the bead funding was as much as possible use fiber. And it has been proven over time, I believe, that the fiber is more resilient, more reliable, and will last longer, partly because, well, just because of what it is, but also it's underground, so it's not susceptible to weather impacts. And, but the current federal administration nixed that and is pushing towards satellite, And satellite is known to be less effective and efficient and reliable than fiber is So that all on that But you should ask our representative Avery Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to address the first part of your question, Rep Phillips, and I suspect you agree with my response. But I think in this environment where our president is acting illegally, the state of Colorado should act within its own authority, and we shouldn't cower away from making changes to our laws because we're worried about the president dragging us into court. Our attorney general has had a remarkable success rate bringing lawsuits against the Trump administration for illegal actions like this one would be and making sure that we're re-securing our funding. And if they want to do that, I say, as the state of Colorado, we should say bring it on.

Okay. Representative Wynn. Thank you, Madam Chair. To follow up Representative Phillips' question about broadband, these are new technologies. I think one thing I've noticed is that the Trump administration has pushed forward satellites, has pushed forward other technologies when the Biden era rules was predominantly going to be optic fiber. And that change happened immediately after he took it into office. And so my question would be, under this bill with the PUC to regulate broadband services, what technologies would it be regulating? I think that is an interpretation that I think most of us wanted to hear for technologies. Representative Story. Thank you, Madam Chair. I think the reality is that the bill is providing an opportunity for the PUC to have authority. We're asking that in the bill. But otherwise, the rulemaking, et cetera, is permissive, but VOIP and also broadband is what's included, if that's what you're asking. Representative Wynn. I guess my follow-up question is that, and maybe this is a question I'll ask the panel as well, is these are very broad strokes of technologies. I think most of us here and most of us will be understanding of, you know, what is broadband? What is the, you know, is it satellite Starlink? Is it going to be optic fiber? Is it going to be Comcast Xfinity? And I appreciate your answer, and I'll hold my questions for the panels. Thank you. Representative Richardson.

Representative Mabry Thank you Madam Chair I think part of the problem that we're facing in Colorado notwithstanding the PUC is that our electric service is provided basically by one big corporate monopoly and we don't have choice or competition here and it's a tough thing for the PUC to regulate and there is more competition in the broadband market it's also a small market not as much of a monopoly as our electric service but just because the PUC might need improvement in other areas doesn mean that we shouldn try to regulate broadband Representative Richards. I'm glad we agree on a few things in that statement, but if they can't take care of just one monolithic utility, having oversight of dozens if not scores of providers i just don't see how we have a comfort level there i mean their core mission they are failing at throwing them more is not right for our citizens or i guess that's not a question i guess you feel that's right for our citizens representative mayberry we should perhaps have better appointees on the puc but that doesn't mean we shouldn't give the entity the ability to regulate. And I also don't necessarily agree with the premise that the issues that we're facing with our power and the prices that we're paying are because of the PUC. Additional questions? Have you – oh, that's right. Sorry, Rep. Pascal. I had it written down and everything. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Representative Mabry. At least from my perspective is because the PUC sunset bill is becoming a Christmas tree, and I don't want any part of that action. But I know there's a better policy response from our advocates, but it's just true. I was hearing about the PUC sunset in June, and bill sponsors wanting to be on the PUC sunset because they had this or that PEP project that they thought could be the vehicle for it. And I think that conversation has already gotten complicated. Representative Paschal.

Representative Mabry. Thank you, Madam Chair. We share the concern on the fiscal note, which is why we are trying to work on amendments to solve that piece. We wanted to bring some for committee today. We've been engaging stakeholders on, you know, different fees that are out there that we could potentially use. You know, a concern there is the general fund offset. But I will say we are working the funding piece of the bill and intend to continue working the funding piece of the bill as this heads to the Appropriations Committee. Representative Wook. Finance Committee. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm just wondering what kind of violations could lead to fines and how large could those fines be in practice for repeated or serious noncompliance? Representative Story. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for the question. Representative Wug, you know, that is yet to be determined. As we stated earlier, how the PUC would go about rulemaking is permissive at this point. to give them an opportunity to sort of put this together and figure that out, but there is always opportunity the legislature to come back and, you know, indicate through policy that, you know, the fines are too high, the fines aren't high enough, the fines aren't applied to the right, you know, problems, all of those things. So there's all kinds of room in the future for interaction. Any additional questions for the bill sponsors? Okay, let's get into our panels. We're going to with opposed and Brandi Ryder is remote Jeremy Crandall in person and Parker White I believe is here in person so we'll try and do some combos in person and remote Brian Shepherd John Sanders and Ms. Ryder I understand you're in a different time zone so we will start with you although we ask you to remain on for questions afterwards we're doing two minutes this evening please say who you are who you represent if anyone and please proceed um thank you well good Good evening, Madam Chair and Committee members. I'm Brandy Reiter, the Executive Director of the Colorado Broadband Office, and just thank you for this opportunity to speak with you this evening. There are currently 161 locations in Colorado without reliable high-speed internet. The CBO has taken comprehensive steps to ensure that all of our broadband programs are in compliance with both federal and state laws, and we have succeeded in gaining the NTI's approval of our BEAD final proposal, securing $826.5 million in funding to deploy broadband in Colorado. It is for this protection and this investment that the CBO opposes House Bill 26-1211. House Bill 26-1211 expands the regulatory scope of the PUC to include broadband. Specifically, this bill allows the PUC to enforce regulations concerning ISPs, pricing, affordability, including actions and remedies and civil fines. To receive the $826.5 million, Colorado must contractually commit that it will not implement these utility-style regulations against any subgrantee, and we made this commitment on March 2nd when we signed our Notice of Funding Award. We are required to certify that we will not enforce these rules for the duration of the federal interest period, which is 14 years. If the state attempts to enforce these rules against feeds of grantees, ISPs can assert their contractual rights under this subgrantee agreement to block enforcement. So failing to secure the $826.5 million would mean 118,000 locations in Colorado would be left without reliable broadband internet. The CBO recommends that the committee opposes House Bill 24-12-11. We can't jeopardize $826.5 million in federal funding and the future of broadband access for the citizens of Colorado. And I'd be happy to take any questions you may have. And thank you for your time and consideration this evening. And I will hang around for questions if you have any Thank you very much We go to I just can decide whether to mix it up or keep we just going to stay online Mr Shepard Madam Chair and members of the community thank you for the opportunity to testify today in opposition of House Bill 1211. My name is Brian Shepard and I'm the Vice President of Network Expansion for Visionary Broadband. Visionary is an internet service provider whose past, present, and future lies in serving rural Colorado and the rest of the Rocky Mountain region. Our service towns include Marble, Kremling, Walden, Lake City, and Ophir. We also employ people in these areas, including Gunnison, Salida, Pontus Springs, Westcliff, Pagosa Springs, and Eagle. I highlight these locations for two reasons. To emphasize that we are not afraid of a challenge and that we believe in employing people in the areas we serve. In addition to our existing footprint, Visionary is a leading recipient of BEAT awards with 11 projects slated to expand broadband through the most difficult places to reach in the state. The broadband industry has seen a massive evolution in technologies over the past decade. The advancement of fixed wireless combined with the introduction of lower satellite and the increased access to fiber-based services has created a competitive landscape that wasn't present 15 years ago. In almost every community we are in, we are seeing increased competition from providers that didn't exist even a few years ago. As this competition increases, Visionary is forced to evaluate not just the capital cost of the market, but the foundational operational business models that are already barely profitable. Placing the additional restrictions, regulations, and associated costs that are inherent with House Bill 1211 will negatively impact the business case for the communities that are in the greatest need of broadband investment. This in turn will decrease the competition in these areas, leaving them with little to no choice when it comes to broadband service. The strict monopoly-based regulation imposed in this bill is the very reason for the digital divide we are working so hard to close. Modern broadband networks are a complex combination of technologies, disparate networks, and relationships. The days of a single company providing end-to-end services are long gone. Enforcing the regulation of yesterday will only accomplish one thing, returning us to the limitations of yesterday. If this bill passes, you will see a decrease in investment in the rural parts of the state at the most critical time. The passage will force many companies to reevaluate their bead projects and will likely see some of them rejected, decreasing the impact of the already mentioned once-in-a-generation opportunity. To state this in a simple way, the passage of this bill will kill private investment in rural Colorado. Please wrap up. And make communities stuck with antiquated technology and limited choice. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Saunders. Well, good evening, and thank you, Madam Chair and committee members. I'm John Saunders with CECOM, and I'm here in an opposed position. So, CECOM is a fiber-based broadband provider that started in 1998 and geographically serves about 20% of very rural Colorado, pretty much everything south and east of Colorado Springs. Now, we agree that reliable broadband is critically important, though, to begin, this will limit competition, and second, this would be in contradiction to federal statutes and related case law. So regarding competition, CECOM currently sells both retail and wholesale to five small ISPs in southeast Colorado. These are small operations. They wouldn't have the resources to comply with the regulation and force them either out of business or to sell to someone larger, thus reducing competition. This regulation would also create a barrier to entry for anyone that wanted to start as an ISP and thus anti-competitive. In the 1996 federal telecom act it's about competition and to that point Colorado Supreme Court ruled in 2001 in the quest versus Denver case Stating that creating a barrier to entry is anti and thus a violation of the 96 Telecom Act And to my second point broadband and VoIP are considered interstate traffic. Both the 1934 and the 1996 Telecom Acts have repeatedly made it explicitly clear that jurisdiction over interstate traffic lies exclusively with the FCC and thus the states don't have any authority over that portion of it. This distinction has further been upheld in the 1986 U.S. Supreme Court decision on Louisiana versus the FCC. So in reality, the PUC wouldn't have legal jurisdiction or for regular authority over this. I apologize. In light of these points, I respectfully request a no vote on this, and I'll stick around if anybody has any questions. And again, thank you. Thank you. We'll go to Mr. Crandall. Good evening. My name is Jeremy Crandall. I'm here today on behalf of CTIA. We are the Wireless Industry Trade Association. What I would say is respectful opposition to House Bill 1211. My opposition tonight is really focused on one key question. What does the current environment look like right now for wireless consumers here in Colorado? I want to focus on prices for a minute. If you look at over a 10-year period, wireless prices are down 44%. Just the last five years, they're down 24%. And in just the last 18 months, they're down 5%. What else can we say that about right now? Now, there's been a lot of talk about competition, so I want to focus on that for a moment. If you are a wireless consumer, you could not be better positioned right now than ever before. because if you are dissatisfied with your service or its affordability, you have a better ability now than ever before to go to a competing provider. This is a consumer-friendly environment, and it is driven by the fact that our industry, Wireless, is governed primarily and regulated primarily at the federal level. We are proud of our record, and it is why we have some serious concerns with the bill, but I do want to touch on a couple of items on the legal front that were shared earlier in the hearing. Specific to wireless, the Federal Communications Act, and I have to emphasize this, very clearly preempt state regulation of wireless. And I'd be happy to expand upon that. But I know there was a lot of discussion about the risk of Colorado losing access to its bead funding as well. I would respectfully disagree with the perspective of some of the earlier witnesses, but I will also share this. There was a bill in California was mentioned earlier. There was a bill that was slightly different than this, but was introduced related to broadband regulation in California. That sponsor withdrew her bill within approximately two to three weeks of learning that California's approximately $2 billion in need funding would be at risk. And so I'm happy to go beyond that. I know my time is up, but we do respectfully oppose this bill for a number of reasons. Thank you. And Mr. White. Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the committee. My name is Parker White. I am the director of the Colorado Competitive Council. We represent businesses and chambers of commerce across the state, many of whom operate in and serve rural communities. We are here in opposition to House Bill 26-1211 because it places the $826 million in federal rural broadband funding at serious risk. Through the BEAD Act excuse me the BEAD program Colorado is set to receive million to expand broadband access and connect roughly 96 currently unserved Coloradans That plan has already been approved by the federal government and put bluntly this bill would see those resources put at risk For rural Colorado the funding would be transformative Reliable internet access increasingly determines whether a community can fully participate in a modern economy, whether someone can run a business, work remotely, access telehealth, or complete schoolwork. That makes broadband access more than an economic growth issue. It makes it an equity issue. When rural companies lack the same connectivity as urban areas, the gap in economic opportunity widens. The BEAD program is designed specifically to close that gap and bring parity to rural communities. Colorado's award comes with conditions. As part of the notice of award, the state committed that it would not impose utility-style regulation on broadband providers. House Bill 26-1211 breaches that commitment. If enacted, it would lead to a potential loss in $826 million already allocated to connect rural Coloradans. This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to close the rural connectivity gap. Losing those funds would not only delay broadband expansion, it would perpetuate the inequity between rural and urban Colorado. For those reasons, we respectfully urge the committee to oppose House Bill 26-1211. Thank you. Thank you very much. Folks, three people online, two folks in front of us for questions. Vice Chair Stewart. Thank you, Madam Chair. This question is for Ms. Ryder at the Broadband Office. Can you just really briefly talk about whether or not the notice of award was non-binding guidance, or does that act more like an actual binding grant agreement and contract? Ms. Ryder. Yes, thank you for that question. So the Notice of Award is a binding contractual commitment and obligation that the Colorado Broadband Office executed with the NTIA on March 2nd. So everything in that agreement would specify that any sort of utility style regulations of broadband services, whether those ISPs are receiving BED funding or not, we can't impose any additional utility-style regulations. And if we do, we will run the risk of losing not only the funding that we recently allocated, which was about $420 million for deployment, We would also lose the remaining BED dollars for non-deployment, which includes pull attachments, permitting, digital equity, digital access, workforce, and upskilling. So it is the full entire amount of our BED funding. And they didn't mention clawbacks, but I think this administration would even consider clawbacks, even if we pass anything like this. So it is binding. Representative Vice Chair Stewart. Thank you, Madam Chair. just one follow-up question. So is it your understanding that were we to implement this bill, that would be a breach of contract and therefore different than some other loss of funding that we've experienced at the state that have just kind of been because of a political whim? Ms. Ryder. Thank you, Madam Chair. Yes, this would be a breach of contract. So we signed off on our contract our notice of award on march 2nd which um we had uh 90 days to do when we had our final proposal approved earlier this year so this would be a breach of contract and we would lose our funding representative when thank you madam chair and i appreciate the panel's uh views uh this question to go to any of the panel members i guess right now we understand from my understanding is that other states have implemented similar processes, and this was before the Trump administration. I just want to ask, I know you mentioned, Mr. Crandall, that there was a similar bill that was introduced and that was withdrawn in California, and I guess, has there been any instance of Bede funds being withdrawn from any state thus far? Mr. Crandall. Yes, Madam Chair, Representative. So first, I want to clarify in California. I want to be super clear. I'm not trying. I want to be super clear what we're talking about. So the bill in California specifically relates to rate regulation. It was a, it, the bill was an artificial price mandate. The reason that I share that is there's a lot of dialogue going on right now about what this, these notices and this guidance that is before all of us, what does it mean? And the reason I wanted to share California is that that is to your question, the only real world example we have of where there was a bill that related to broadband regulation. And as far as we understand, there was communication between the NTIA, which is the federal agency that administered bead in the state of California. And the outcome was that bill being withdrawn. Now, I will not presume to speak for either of the bill sponsors. I heard them reference California, Illinois, and New York. If I had to guess the examples they are talking about predate all of this conversation that we are having and they are not the same exactly as the bill before us. And so I'd be happy to follow up with you representative about that after this. But again would have a different interpretation if I'm guessing what he may have been referring to. And sorry and I didn't answer your question about the bead funding. This is all happening in real time. That's why I shared that California example is that you know these guidances have only come out over the last nine months and many of these bills that our industry is addressing have only been introduced in the last two months. Representative Richardson.

in fact providing a better customer experience was that for Ms. Ryder yes Ms. Ryder thank you Madam Chair and that's a great question and thank you for your service on the Broadband Deployment Board it was definitely the the model that set us up for success that we are seeing in our programs today so I appreciate you yeah so the answer to your question is that all of our sub-grantee agreements, it's very similar to when you were on the board, they have to agree to a robust compliance and monitoring program. And even in the federal programs, it takes those monitoring compliance requirements a step further. So a lot of the ISPs that are receiving grants already have to report on performance outages labor requirements labor certifications And we go and we inspect all of their builds And so you know and we do it early Like we set construction milestones before there any sort of trouble with our broadband providers. So we're able to mitigate some of the issues that are being brought up today within our compliance and monitoring program. And we do that as part of our grant programs. And so we don't necessarily need to look at it as being part of state statute. They are required contractually to do what they say they're going to do, build what they say they're going to build. And because of the federal interest period being up to 14 years, it is a long runway for the state to ensure and to come back and make sure that providers are doing what they say they're going to do. So we took what we did on the broadband and Deployment Board and took it several steps forward to make sure ISPs are doing right by the taxpayers and taxpayers as well. Rep Sucla. Thank you, Madam Chair. So this is to anybody on the panel that can answer this. So down where I live in Cortez, Colorado, they've tied Denver to Albuquerque. So we're surrounded by three cities, which they're six hours apart. There's 20 feet or 20 miles, some miles that is left to tie Salt Lake City into the line that would connect then to Denver and Albuquerque. At the same time, you have what they call the – it's a tribe down there, the Southern Ute tribe and the Ute Mountain tribe, and they're wanting to put a data center. There's talks about putting the data center. What I'm trying to figure out here is how critical is the broadband for the data center, and if they lost the funding, could that jeopardize the project? Should we try Mr. Shepard or Mr. Saunders or – yes, Mr. Saunders. Sorry, and then Mr. Shepard. Okay, Madam Chair and Representative Stukla. So, yes, that would impact it. Now, data centers do use broadband for monitoring and what's going on within the data center so they have something externally to monitor it. They do use other types of circuits that are called waves, basically just big, huge, empty pipes that they fill to go from data center to data center. But yes, to your point, this would impact that because they do use broadband to monitor those. They buy fairly large pipes. We've responded to several RFPs for that for different data centers in our area, and they do require a fair amount of broadband. We'll go to Mr. Shepard and then Ms. Ryder. Madam Chair, I'll pass off to Ms. Ryder. John basically said exactly what I would say. No worries. Thank you. Ms. Ryder. Thank you, Madam Chair. So I just want to let the committee know that part of our remaining BED dollars, at least the non-deployment side of the House of the BED program, because we had a lot of savings in the benefit of the bargain round, There is a push by this administration and several broadband offices across the country to request of the NTIA to allow leftover dollars to fund data centers and the auxiliary infrastructure that would support data centers because it aligns with the administration and aligns also with a lot of our emerging technology initiatives in the state So any legislation that regulates broadband whether people receive funding or not would put those types of projects at jeopardy So I just want to say that and I know we talked a little bit about New York and California. I did have a chance to talk to New York recently about the legislation that they have on the books or statutes regarding regulation of broadband because it is at odds with the Bede Notice of Award. And what they've said to me And really is, you know, they've had this rule on the books for years. And so, you know, they're not looking at litigation, but it could be tied up in litigation if they pursued it. And that litigation would take years with the administration. So I just want to paint that picture for you. If we do pass this new legislation, it could tie us up in litigation for a very long time. Okay, thank you very much. We will move on to the next panel of opposed. Carrie Hackenberger, Daryl Branson, Matt Salka, Richard Corbetta. Let's see how we're doing with folks joining us online. Yes, you're a different person. Thank you, Madam Chair. Indeed I am. Would you like me to go? Yes, yes, please. So thank you, Madam Chair. Indeed I am not Kerry Hackenberger. My name is Kevin Neiman, but I'm here tonight representing the Colorado Telecommunications Association. CTA is a trade association, to give a little bit of background to members that may not know, that's comprised of more than two dozen rural broadband providers throughout Colorado and many other related companies and vendors. CTA member companies, of which you heard earlier from Mr. Shepard and Mr. Saunders, who are two members, have invested decades to build and maintain broadband networks across nearly one-third of Colorado's landmass, connecting homes, farms, schools, health facilities and emergency services. You're going to hear a lot of testimony and you already have today and you've already asked a lot of questions about this bill from a why regulate standpoint. You've heard the federal issues raised. You've heard about this bill potentially diverting scarce resources away from broadband deployment. There's folks that are much more suited than myself to go into those pieces. But here's one of the things that I want to ask when you're thinking about ask of you as you're contemplating voting on this bill regardless of which side of this issue you're on i think we can all acknowledge that what's proposed in this bill is a generational shift in state policy as it relates to broadband so what i would ask you when you're thinking about voting is at this moment in time when we know how important federal funds are to spreading broadband into really hard to reach areas. What is the problem that requires this solution today? So I'm happy to take any questions you may have. Thank you. And before we go to our next witness, can we have Commissioner Shaddock McNally join us online if you able to Mr Corbetta Thank you Madam Chair My name is Richard Corbett I legal counsel to Colorado Telecommunications Association and I here to join Mr Neiman testimony and answer any questions Thank you Okay, we'll go online to Mr. Branson. sorry for the difficulty getting unmuted uh good late evening uh madam chair and committee members my name is daryl branson telecom program section chief for the colorado public utilities commission i am here to represent the puc in respectful opposition to house bill 1211. we have several concerns about this bill due to time constraints i'll restrict it to the top two The first, this bill authorizes the commission to regulate voice over internet protocol and wireless providers. In addition to the federal preemption concerns that other witnesses have talked about, there's also the concern that this bill creates an unfair regulatory environment in that it does not restore any of the commission's previous authority regarding traditional landline service. So those two things together put newer telecommunications technologies at a regulatory disadvantage to traditional landline service. Second, and more significantly, the committee should understand that this bill extends the commission's authority over all Internet service providers, which is a class of entities that we have never regulated before. This in itself may not be an issue except for the fact that it does so without providing any funding to the commission to pay for that regulation. Currently, the telecom utility fee, which funds telecom activity at the commission, is paid by telecommunications providers that are considered public utilities, which is only a subset of the providers that telecom staff at the commission engage with already. The fiscal note assumes that the newly regulated entities would also be required to pay into the telecom utility fund, but the bill does not actually make the changes to those sections of statute to make that happen. This isn't to say that there isn't an issue to be addressed. The deregulation of most telecommunication services in the state prevents the commission from addressing many critical needs, such as ensuring that communication services have sufficient battery backup and network reliability during commercial power outages. but without the funding to pay for the regulatory activity necessary to address this, this bill does not solve that problem. For these reasons, I respectfully ask for a no vote on House Bill 1211. Thank you for your time, and I look forward to answering any questions that you may have. Thank you, and Commissioner Shattuck-Magnally. Good evening, Madam Chair, members of the committee. Thank you for your service, and thank you for this opportunity to testify. I am Lamar County Commissioner Jody Shad McNeil. I am here today representing my county, but also representing CCI Colorado counties and Colorado counties incorporated. And I appear today in front of you in opposition to House Bill 261211. As a county commissioner lives in rural parts of unincorporated parts of my county, I still do not have broadband to my house. and I think a lot of you know that, that I have talked to, but I have been working in this space, bringing rural broadband to lots of parts of our county for the last five years. Our county supports reliable, affordable broadband for all Coloradoans, and we are active partners, as I stated, delivering it. This is why precisely I'm concerned about this bill. As written, it creates serious legal and financial risks that undermine Colorado's ability to deploy over the 800 million dollars of federal bead broadband funding which we are some recipients of some of that funding it's especially in rural and underserved communities across our county and state. Point one I want to make is this really, I've said this before, I've heard this before, but I want to state, I do think this bill conflicts with federal Bede programming requirements. And I think that has been stated before. Counties are on the front lines of Bede and at risk. We are not passive observers in broadband deployment. We are active partners and project sponsors and co-applicants with private ISPs and owners of the infrastructure like conduit towers and rights away and middle mile partners and regional broadband coordinators. This bill recreates a regulatory uncertainty and the ISP may withdraw from big partnerships across Colorado. We really think also point three, the timing is especially dangerous. We're currently in the middle of this implementation and our state plans are under federal review. This is really a tenuous time to create ambiguity whether Colorado intends to impose utility-style oversight on this very important, I agree with the sponsors, a very important necessary utility. Backup power and also resiliency mandates could increase capital and operating costs, which are likely to be passed on consumers. And resiliency may be prohibitively expensive in rural areas. It may not be reasonable to have a redundant link of backup power in some of the rural areas.

Can you wrap up, please?

Thank you. It's time to testify.

All right, Commissioner Salka, you only have a minute and a half now. No, I'm kidding. I'm kidding. Madam Chair and members of the committee, thank you for your opportunity to testify today. My name is Matt Salka, La Plata County Commissioner. I'm here to respectfully ask you to oppose HB 1211. Colorado entered into a binding agreement with NTIA. In the notice of award, NTIA clearly determined that certain types of state regulations targeting broadband internet service, including utility-style regulations of rates, terms, and conditions. NTI further made clear that these prohibitions apply statewide, not just in bead-funded service areas. The federal award requires Colorado to include enforceable language in every subgrant agreement committing that the state will not impose these types of regulations on bead subgrantees anywhere they operate in Colorado. Sponsors of the bill have suggested broadband should be treated as utility. However, the legislator debated this issue previously. I worked on Senate Bill 24-91 that that bill ultimately did not move forward. If broadband is now considered a utility and falls under PUC regulations, that raises broader policy implications. Passing this bill would put Colorado in direct tension with the commitments it has already made to the federal government. At a minimum, it creates legal uncertainty. At worst, it jeopardizes the roughly $420 million already approved. It's also important to note that Colorado Counties, Inc., which represents counties across our state, is opposed to this bill. In part because of the potential risk it creates for BED funding and rural broadband deployment. For rural communities like mine in La Plata County, BED is not theoretical funding. We have spent years coordinating with providers, neighboring counties, and the Southern New Indian Tribe to build redundancy, expand fiber infrastructure, and prepare for deployment. These projects are designed to connect unserved and underserved residents who still lack reliable broadband access. This is a once in a generation opportunity to close the digital divide in rural Colorado We should not take legislative action that risks destabilizing that investment or triggering federal noncompliance concerns For those reasons, I respectfully urge a no vote on HB 26-1211. Thank you. Thank you. Committee, three folks online, two folks in front of us for questions. Oh, that just means you did a great job. Thank you for being with us. One more panel of opposed. Jeff Wiest, Missy Espinosa, Andrew Wood, and we will include Aidan Downey in an amend position. Is there anyone else in the room who is opposed, who has not had an opportunity to come forward? Okay, we'll lead off with you, Mr. Wiest, if you're ready. Thank you. Jeff Weist here on behalf of the Colorado Cable Telecommunications Association. Our members build and operate broadband networks throughout Colorado, and we are here in opposition to House Bill 1211. You've heard a lot today about how the bill, by imposing utility-style regulation on broadband networks, will cause Colorado to lose hundreds of millions of dollars in federal broadband funding. What I've handed out is the actual letter of award document that we've been talking about. I thought maybe it would be good for you to actually read it yourselves and you can make up your own mind about whether or not it's guidance or it's contractually obligating. I've been working on, with a lot of other people in this room, the BEAD program and BEAD grants, getting our members ready to apply for these funds when they're coming up for years now, it seems. And it's something we've been very, very involved in. You've already heard that B came out of the IIJA that we're all familiar with. If you look at that notice of award, you can see on the cover page that while we've been talking about $826 million, that's actually not all of it. There's another cost share of $217 million. That is $166 million that private providers like my members and others in this room have put up in matching dollars to get the federal dollars. And then the state of Colorado itself put in $51 million into the project. So it's really literally over a billion dollars that we're talking about that is at risk. If you turn the page, then you can see highlighted the most relevant language from this document that says the grantee, which is the state of Colorado, shall commit that it will not enforce any laws, regulations, orders, contracting requirements, et cetera. You can read for yourselves. I won't read all of it. But you can see that then on the second page, it has the actual language that has to go into the contracts with the ISPs, the subcontractors grantees who are receiving the money and building it out. I thought that would be helpful. I hope it is. Thank you. And Ms. O'Keefe, did you want to testify? Yes. Thank you, Chair Furlick. I think Megan Dollar maybe signed up for the Colorado Chamber of Commerce. I was just going to read her testimony real quick Okay Thank you Please proceed Thanks for the opportunity to testify this evening regarding 1211 which authorizes the PUC to regulate broadband services and voiceover Internet protocol service in the state. The Chamber works to improve the business climate for all sizes of business from a statewide multi-industry perspective. What the Colorado Chamber accomplishes is good for all businesses, and that's good for the state's economy. Through the Chamber's Technology Alliance, we have heard from our industry members about the challenges they face in deploying the broadband infrastructure Colorado needs in both rural and urban areas. Additional regulatory burdens slow down the deployment of technology and infrastructure. Therefore, we respectfully oppose 12-11. We have seen significant investment in Colorado's broadband networks and our communities by our members to help keep Colorado competitive and attractive for investment. Our member companies contribute by providing the infrastructure to keep Colorado's businesses, families, and communities connected and moving forward. Additional regulatory burden for broadband services through 12-11 is not the way to maintain the momentum. It hampers the investment and slows innovation. Colorado has the opportunity to invest additional broadband equity access and deployment funding to help expand broadband across the state. However, the investment is now at risk. Governor Polis has identified broadband expansion as one of his priorities. We're concerned we're putting that funding in jeopardy at a time when the state has seen severe impacts by decreases in federal funding. According to the broadband office, Colorado is pleased to announce the acquisition of $826 million in federal B funding. These funds are earmarked for infrastructure expansion in rural and underserved regions, targeting high-speed access for over 96,000 currently underserved Coloradans. Thank you for your time this evening. Andrew Wood, if you would. Yes, there we go. Madam Chair, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify in opposition to House Bill 1211. My name is Andrew Wood, and I'm the Executive Director for TechNet Central Region. TechNet is the national bipartisan network of technology CEOs and senior executives that promotes the growth of the innovation economy. TechNet shares the goal of ensuring every Coloradan has access to high-quality, reliable broadband. But House Bill 1211 would undermine that goal, not advance it. The bill would grant the PUC sweeping authority to regulate broadband services that federal law currently classifies as information services, exempt from utility-style oversight. Colorado's own statute already reflects this settled framework. By overriding those exemptions, the bill creates substantial legal uncertainty and risk protracted preemption litigation, and notably no other state has enacted this type of legislation. Beyond the legal concerns, the practical consequences fall hardest on the communities this bill is meant to help. Providers serving rural and underserved areas already operate on thin margins and adding utility style regulation makes those markets less attractive, not more. And as it regards to bead funding, you've heard a lot from that on prior witnesses, so I won't belabor the point. Finally, the problem this bill seeks to address are already covered. The FCC has comprehensive OUTTAGE REPORTING REQUIREMENTS COLORADO CONSUMER PROTECTION STATUTES PROVIDE REMEDIES FOR SERVICE FAILURES AND DUPLICATIVE STATE REGULATORY LAYER ADDS COST WITHOUT DELIVERING COMMENSURATE CONSUMER BENEFIT FOR THESE REASONS I RESPECTFULLY URGE THE COMMITTEE TO OPPOSE remedies for service failures and duplicative state regulatory layer adds cost without delivering commensurate consumer benefit For these reasons I respectfully urge the committee to oppose House Bill 1211 Thank you Thank you And is Missy Espinosa online or Mr Downey I'm here. Ah, please proceed. Okay, so the opposition has been so reasonable and so professional. The sector is beautiful. I love it. This committee is in some TDS shit, though. I intend to make sure Presidente Trompas sees this. Broadband is a very competitive sector, and it improves within the free market without utility-style regulation. There is zero need for this bill. And looking at the fiscal note, you're just expanding PUC control and raising costs for customers, the poors like me. Providers are going to be charged fees for the general fund, I noticed. This legislative body is really good at that, charging fees. That's what this is about. and uh while we're at it we are one nation under god hashtag not elected okie dokes thank you um and mr downey in an amend position uh good evening chair members of the committee my name is aiden downey representing the computer and communications industry association um while we share the goal of ensuring reliable internet for all Coloradans, we must be in a mend position on House Bill 26-1211 because it creates a direct conflict with federal law and ignores the technical realities of satellite technology. Under federal law, the FCC maintains exclusive jurisdiction over satellite-based services and spectrum. By explicitly including low-earth orbit internet satellites in its definition of broadband service, this bill attempts to regulate interstate services that Colorado simply does not have the authority to oversee. Furthermore, the bill imposes one-size-fits-all requirements that are technically unworkable for space-based providers. For example, infrastructure audits, the bill authorizes the commission to conduct evaluations and audits of broadband facilities. It's physically impossible for the state to audit and for the provider to repair infrastructure moving at 17,000 miles per hour in space. We have some concerns about the backup power. The bill seeks to establish minimum power backup requirements, unlike terrestrial wireline networks. Satellite services rely entirely on the customer's own terminal and power source. Mandating the provider ensure backup power for a space-based signal is a fundamental mismatch of technology and law. And then we also have concerns about the remedial orders. The bill allows the commission to order providers to build, improve, or repair infrastructure. State-level mandates to alter global satellite constellations would create a regulatory patchwork that hinders rather than helps real connectivity. We urge the the committee to amend House Bill 1211 to exclude satellite-based services to avoid these legal and technical conflicts. Thank you. Thank you. So we have two people online and two people in person for questions. Do not see any. Thank you very much for joining us. Thank you for joining us online. Last call for anyone in an opposed or amend position in the room. Okay, we'll move on to our support panels. Remotely, Jeff Reister for questions only. Fernando Roman, Jr. Oh, I'm sorry. Scratch that. Did you send it? Oh, okay. I'm sorry about that. let's begin again. In our first panel, Lamone Knowles, Richard Caudill, which is actually Steve Lustig, Stephen Schwartz, and Andrew Brandt. And I'm going to add all right, let's just see. One, two, three. And then I'm going to add Chris Alvarado to that, if you're available. Mr. Schwartz, you want to lead us off? We're doing two minutes this evening. Please say who you are and who you represent, if anyone. Thank you everyone panel. My name is Stephen Schwartz and I represent AARP Colorado and our 670,000 members statewide. We're asking you to support House Bill 1211. Broadband, I don't think anybody disputes the importance and essential nature of broadband today. Our members depend on these services to live independently. to request transportation, speak with doctors, do their banking, file their taxes. We all know how important it is. Our reason for supporting 12-11, I understand there are lots of complexities, but the bottom line is, we understand it, is there really is no clear path for any individual to address the problems and personal costs caused by internet failure. Every one of us has to self-advocate for promised levels of service, somehow advocate for service resiliency. I don't know how we do this individually, but we all are depending on infrastructure, maintenance standards, all the things that can go wrong that represent problems that government is really solely able to oversee. A lot can go wrong with broadband when it fails, and older adults and all consumers need a real place to turn. Some kind of compliance process whether it's PUC or another agency does provide a clear path for consumers in a line of sight to identify problems requiring corrective actions. Otherwise individuals have to do it on their own Thank you for your time and support of this Great Do we have either Steve Lustig or Richard Caudill online or Mr Knowles online If you could join us, that would be great. And we'll go Andrew Brandt online, please. Hello, committee members. I'm Andrew Brandt, executive director of Electmore Hackers. I'm a cybersecurity expert who advises policymakers on tech policy, and I'm here to speak in support of this bill. Colorado needs this. We've been in a phone and Internet reliability crisis for a while now, but most people just don't know how bad it is yet. For most of the history of the telephone, we could just depend on phones to work, even in power outages, but we can't anymore. In Boulder, we've had to endure several public safety power shutoffs in recent months because Excel Energy won't do what's needed to ensure their lines don't burn down large swaths of the city. So because our utility monopoly can't deliver safe and reliable power, I've had to do the following to ensure the reliability of VoIP phone service at my home in Boulder. I've installed multiple uninterruptible power supplies throughout my house at my own cost of a few hundred dollars each. They typically last about three years. The UPSs power the VoIP adapter, cordless phone base, internet gateway, DNS server, firewall, and the network switches that connect the internet gateway to the VoIP adapter. I've had to put in lightning protection because the only terrestrial ISP that isn't CenturyLink or Comcast makes me have a 12-foot mast mounted on my roof. And while it provides objectively terrible service, at least it's locally owned and not one of those awful companies. I've also spent more than $60,000 on solar panels with battery backup for my home, which Excel has dragged their feet commissioning for months. All of this just to ensure that not if, but when Excel cuts power the next time the wind blows, I can use the phone for a time. And all of that depends on whether the Internet provider I use doesn't themselves lose power. So it's costly and challenging for each home to ensure a fraction of the reliability in VoIP systems that we used to take for granted when Mountain State's Bell still installed copper lines. My less well-off neighbors have it much worse than I do. And this problem will just become more apparent than next major flood, fire, tornado, hailstorm, alien invasion, or any other kind of regional emergency that we experience. Please pass this bill. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Alvarado. Thank you, Madam Chair and the committee. My name is Christopher Alvarado. I represent myself along with Communication Workers of America, and I'm here to urge a yes vote on House Bill 26-1211. For too long, we have treated broadband and VOIP as an extra service rather than an essential utility. That they are decades of deregulation at both the state and federal level, have created a landscape where consumers are left unprotected and providers face almost no accountability. We see the results of this every day from frequent outages, unreliable services, and technician visits that are canceled without notice. In many cases, industry lobbyists have succeeded in removing carrier of last resort obligations, allowing providers to abandon customers with zero recourse. This leads to digital redlining, where our most vulnerable, OUR RURAL COMMUNITIES ARE SIMPLY LEFT BEHIND. HOUSE BILL 26-12-11 IS A NECESSARY STEP IN RECLAIMING STATE OVERSIGHT. WHILE WE WAIT FOR FEDERAL SHIFTS, THIS STATE CAN LEAD BY SENDING A FLOOR. FOR PUBLIC INTEREST THIS BILL FOCUSES ON THREE CRITICAL PILLARS FIRST ONE WHICH IS PROBABLY THE MOST IMPORTANT ESPECIALLY HERE IN COLORADO WITH OUR YOU KNOW CHANCE AT WATCHING This bill focuses on three critical pillars First one which is probably the most important especially here in Colorado with our you know chance at wildfire any given day with the dry climate that we been having it ensures that when the power goes out, the dial tone stays on by requiring backup batteries and generators for VOIP services. We ensure residents can still reach 911 during disasters. Infrastructure reliance. It requires ISPs to rebuild stronger, more resilient networks after disasters and strictly bans the thawing of public safety providers. And the third one, consumer accountability. It demands transparency. If a service fails, customers shouldn't just be told to wait. They should be entitled to disclosures, refunds, and meaningful penalties for the provider. Broadband has matured and is now the dominant form of communication in our lives. It's time for our regulations that caught up to the reality. We must ensure that no resident is left without a connection due to the corporate abatement. Therefore, I urge you a yes vote on House Bill 1211. For last call online for Mr. Lustig, Caudell, or Knowles. Okay. Committee, we have one person online and two folks in front of us for questions. Representative Velasco. Thank you so much, Madam Chair. And this is for anyone that would like to answer, but we heard from industry, and I want to ask you why having accountability helps users. I can repeat the question. May I speak about that? Yep. Is that okay? Mr. Brandt? Thank you, Rep. Velasco. It's a great question, and I'm really glad that you asked. So I will give you an anecdote about my experience. Okay. And our system does – oh, we had a moment of accidental proponent use of props, which is not allowed. Mr. Brandt, please continue. Sorry, I'm not sure what happened there. Um, so I, I was a customer of CenturyLink for 12 years and the service that, that level that they provided even here in urban Boulder was pretty God awful. They, they only provide 10 megabit per, you know, per second service, uh, on a single DSL line. So for a while they offered as a service, um, this thing called pair bonded DSL, which allowed me to have two connections coming into my house and a special modem that allowed them to sort of work together to give me twice the bandwidth. And that worked for a while. But when I called them to ask them to fix something that was wrong with my modem, and I was required to return my modem back to them, the modem that they sent me didn't use the pair bonded service. And when I called to complain about that, all they told me was, oh, sorry, we don't offer that service anymore. You can't have that anymore. Oh, and by the way, you know, thank you for being a 12-year customer, we are raising your rate by 30%. So I was then paying more for half the bandwidth. There is no accountability to an ISP that's doing that. And they are my phone provider, my internet provider, my TV provider. They're basically everything that I do as part of my job. I need to have internet And this enables me to work remotely which I done for 14 years We need to have some accountability to services that just cut you off at the knees at their whim It's not acceptable for companies to do that. And I understand that the telecommunications services that are trying to provide service out to rural broadband users have a lot of difficulty. But I'm talking about right here in the middle of the urban corridor of the front range that we can't get anything better than essentially double dial-up speed is just ludicrous in 2026. Thank you. Representative Phillips.

Mr. Alvarado. I can't speak on why Adams County would be against it. I myself live in Northland, so I'm an Adams County resident myself. I work from home since COVID. I'm really reliant on Internet. It's a requirement by my job. So when somebody sits up here and says that it's just used for information, you know, it's not. It's used for multiple things. But the redlining is, you know, it boils down to these companies that don't have regulations that can walk away from these smaller communications without any consequences. So that's what it's deeming to sort of prevent is companies being able to walk away from the lower, poorer communities that are not, you know, able to support, I guess, financially what they're looking for. But, you know, honestly, it's probably a little bit above my head. I'm sorry. Mr. Brandt, last word. I just wanted to point out that the city of Longmont has its own municipal broadband provider that provides very reasonably cost fiber to every home in the city and I don't understand why more municipalities don't just choose to run their own ISP and offer that as a service there is a severe lack competition in the broadband services in this area, and I don't understand why Adams County would be opposed to having better regulation over that. Representative Wynn. Thank you, Madam Chair. We recognize, and as you've heard from testimony from the opposition, that there is serious money. We're talking millions of dollars here. And I guess what I'm asking for the panel to provide their position of would we truly see the Trump administration – and we've seen him – we see the president already cancel grants, vetoed water. Would he truly – and is that a concern that we should be concerned? Are you concerned about the – yes. You know what I'm trying to say. Thank you. Yes. Mr. Schwartz. One of the things that's been going through my mind as I've been hearing the discussion tonight is there seems to be an idea about regulation that isn't very flushed out. I mean, as I understand the bill, it's permissive, and it's creating a, you know, it's specific and it's describing the PUC, but the entire bill is permissive and is a start of a process to try to understand what beneficial guidance should be from the government. representing the point of view that only a government can represent. So, you know, I think that implementation of this, that there's the opportunity to be sensitive to all of these issues that have been brought up tonight, but you have to start somewhere and that the fact remains that we've got this essential service that we all depend on with no place to, we have no advocate. And that's what I, that's why we support it.

Okay. That's it for this panel. We thank you very much for joining us. We have one more panel for the evening and one that is a panel of proponents. So if you're in the room and are for this bill, please come forward. Rose Alvarado, Sandra Parker-Murray, and online Fernando Roman Jr., Human Hedaiati, and Jeffrey Reister for questions only. And Ms. Parker-Murray, I see you poised and ready to go. And as the evening gets late, we'll just have you go as soon as you're ready. We're doing two minutes this evening. please say who you are and who you represent. Okay, Ms. Alvarado, there's a tiny button. There we go. Hi, my name is Rose Alvarado with the CWA and I'm actually reading on behalf of Naldea. She's a former broadband technician. She said, during the devastating 2017 and 2019 California wildfires sparked and responsible for widespread destruction and loss of life and the 2021 Marshall fires when infrastructure was damaged by the wind and fire CWA technicians reported widespread wireless system failures power outages fire damage and network congestion disrupted communications overnight while many residents were asleep. Traditional copper landline customers often continued receiving alerts due to centralized backup power while many VOIP and wireless customers lost service. In many areas, Internet access was unavailable when it was needed most. In Colorado, Grand Junction, Boulder County, Eagle County, and other regions have experienced outages of three days or more. Residents of Western Boulder County landline service was down for approximately 14 days. Sow towers became overloaded, backup batteries are not replaced as they should be, and mostly no alternatives are offered from providers. Some rural consumers will be undoubtedly left out even with federal and state funding due to profits or lack of profits for providers. Competition has not solved these problems or closed the digital divide. Decades of state and federal has left policymakers and the public with limited tools to hold broadband and wireless providers accountable for outages. Unreliable service and poorly maintained infracture. When internet or phone service fails, does not deliver advertised speeds or otherwise fall short, consumers have little meaningful recourse. For those reasons, the legislature should establish public utility commission oversight of broadband providers to restore accountability and ensure a watchdog over network, public safety, and consumer protection. Thank you. We'll go online to Mr. Roman. If you want to come off mute and please proceed. Yes, thank you, Madam Chair and members of the Transportation, Housing, and Local Government Committee. Thank you to the bill sponsors, Rep. Storri and Mabry, for your opening statement. My name is Fernando Romano. I'm a campaign lead for the Communication Workers of America. I've been a member of CWA for 29 years, with 24 of them working as an installation and repair technician with a national telecommunications provider. CWA is in support of HB 26-1211. Today, broadband is an essential telecommunications service, similar to water and electricity. During the COVID-19 pandemic, when the country shut down, work-from-home jobs became a priority, and reliable internet bandwidth became essential. People were upgrading their upload and download speeds to communicate through voice over IP, Zoom, Google Meet, Microsoft Teams, and other platforms. Technicians like myself, along with my sisters and brothers in call centers, worked tirelessly to perform upgrades and repairs to keep people connected. That experience showed our country that our broadband infrastructure needed significant investment. Congress responded by investing $42.5 billion through the BEAT program. Unfortunately, several years later, we are still discussing these investments with much of the work to build and install broadband infrastructure yet to be done. Many of the existing copper networks that serve parts of Colorado have been neglected for years. When that plant is not properly maintained, lines become exposed and unsupported, which leads to interference and service disruptions, especially in rural areas, because broadband service is largely unregulated. outages are not working outages are not always responded to within a timely manner when service goes down working people are the ones who bear the burden repeat that when service goes down working people are the ones that bear the burden many coloradoans rely on the internet connection to do their jobs attend schools access essential services When outages occur workers can lose income miss work be forced to use sick leave or vacation time simply because their Internet connection is unavailable With investments from B program, Coloradans can expect to see an increase in the number of broadband subscribers in the coming years. House Bill 26-1211 does not impede progress. It simply provides a pathway for public utilities commissions to oversee quality of service issues if they choose to do so. Taxpayers deserve reliable, high-quality Internet service. When public dollars are invested in broadband infrastructure, the public should expect quality service in return. I want to thank you guys for your time. Please wrap up. Thank you. Thank you. We'll just go to Mr. Hadiyati. Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee. My name is Humaen Hedayati and on behalf of CWA, I respectfully urge a favorable report on this bill. CWA is the nation's largest union representing telecommunications workers, including many here in Colorado. Because of the deregulation at both state and federal levels and failure of competition, often lack meaningful protections. And Internet service providers face limited accountability to their subscribers and communities they serve. The representative from CTIA mentioned wireless crisis. I'd like to emphasize that this bill does not intend to do rate regulation, but establish state oversight over broadband and void. to the Colorado PUC. Right now, there are about 322,000 PUC-regulated switched access lines. This is compared to about 900,000 unregulated interconnected VoIP connections. In addition, 5.6 million mobile wireless subscriptions in Colorado fall outside of PUC jurisdiction. So this is a big regulatory void that needs to be answered. And as telecommunications providers accelerate retirement of their regulated legacy copper network, this problem becomes even more important. So what does this mean? In simple terms, this means that there's no estate agency to investigate when 9-1-1 outages happen. No estate agency to investigate issues when technician appointments gets repeatedly canceled with no recourse and so on. Broadband office does not establish, the broadband office does not establish service quality standards, and even then it is limited only to overseeing locations that are awarded funding to be subsidies. So that means the majority of Colorado consumers fall outside of the broadband office jurisdiction. Please wrap up. Yes, I urge a favorable vote and I'll be happy to answer any Questions? Ms. Sandra Parker-Murray. I'd like to request to read a testimony, which I feel like is very important, from Rich Cardale. He had to go. He waited a long time and was not able to stay. Okay. So he says, my name is Rich Caudill and I currently serve as Fire Chief of the Gold Hill Fire Department west of Boulder. I am here to testify in favor of House Bill 26 because I have experienced several complete outages of emergency communications My most recent experience was a public safety power shutoff due to fire danger conditions The power was shut off to our entire district to minimize the possibility of wildfire due to power line damage. The power remained off for four days. All residents of the area were unable to access emergency communications like 911 due to landline outage and lack of any cellular coverage for backup. Additionally, they were unable to access Internet communications from emergency organizations like the Office of Disaster Management and the Sheriff's Office for Evacuation Orders and other important information. This resulted when the routing terminals in the field lost grid power. These systems are already designed and installed to have backup power from batteries and a connection to allow a generator to be hooked up to provide power. The problem is batteries haven't been inspected or maintained at all, resulting in their complete failure to provide any backup power. Additionally, the communications company refuses to provide generator or allow permission for fire district personnel to connect a generator to restore emergency communications. We have engaged the communications company in good faith meetings for several years, resulting in many promises for actions, but no tangible progress to date. having the PUC provide regulations to direct the owners of these terminals to provide emergency backup power sources or to direct them to allow the jurisdictions have emergency authority to provide backup power to these terminals to restore communications to the citizens whose lives depend on it. I urge a yes vote for House Bill 261211 for broadband oversight under the PUC. Thank you for allowing me to speak. Thank you. And committee, we also have Mr. Reister from the Attorney General's office who is online to answer questions.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I know that there have been some arguments that the language in this bill is permissive, But I am curious, even with the permissive nature of the language in this bill, whether or not you perceive a risk to our bead funding. Mr. Reister. Thank you, Representative Froehlich and Rep. Stewart. Thank you for the question. I apologize for not being on camera. I'm a little under the weather. But to address your question, I think there's probably inherent risk to this no matter what. I think in largely just based on our previous experience over the last 12 months or so with the federal government and their desires to roll back or cancel various grants. So as you said, it is permissive. And there are even portions of the bill that based on my read, which is not the most technical and expertise, but aren't necessarily rising to the level of ultimate regulation. And so I do think there is some flexibility for the PUC if they were to use this authority, but also can choose to not. And as people have said, the guidance has talked about the need or the inability to have regulations of these broadband services. A permissive authority does not necessarily create that. It enables and empowers the PUC to do that at the right time when perhaps that risk is lower. but again I think it's likely to see a challenge no matter what based on our past experience but I think what's going to really depend is how the PUC has if they've even used the authority in terms of defending it. Representative Bazinecker.

Ms. Parker Murray, just going to follow up. Okay. Additional questions for these folks. I don't see any. Thank you very much for joining us. Last call for anyone who wishes to testify on House Bill 1211. Yes. Okay, go for it. Two minutes. I'm a 25-year telecom worker and union member. If broadband was regulated 10 years ago, would we have the gap in inequities we have now that led to the Bede funding? Before Bede, there was Capital Project Fund and the Connect America Fund. Yet, here we are. The state has been allotted nearly $1 billion in grants from the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. There is currently little to no regulations in the state. The IIJA was intended to build a broadband system that is reliable, resilient, and accessible. Accountability for these technologies should be placed on the providers. Broadband should be regulated as a utility in all states and territories. It is the way the world connects and becoming more of a vital service for schools, healthcare workers, facilities, businesses, people working from home, entertainment, transportation, and et cetera. Like California, Colorado has outages in most areas of the state. It is essential that consumers have an alternative to connect when there is an outage in those areas that do not have a quality and stable cell phone and broadband system, especially if there is a medical crisis. States should have the authority to have the most minimal oversight to track outages, backup alternatives, and reports, incidents that may happen during those outages. Just collecting complaints is not enough. The PUC could do more. It is the state's regulatory agency and should set standards of oversight. The extent to which the federal government threatens to prevent states from exercising their own police powers is legally questionable and potentially unconstitutional. raising serious concerns under the spending clause and coercion. New York has an affordable broadband act, and California already has a net neutrality law. And utility commission regulations... Please wrap up. ...serviency and service quality for broadband and voice over IP and wireless. Thank you for allowing me to speak again. Of course. Questions for Ms Parker We don see any Thank you so much for staying with us Thank you everyone in the room for being so patient this evening Last call for witnesses. I think we did that. So witness testimony is complete. Bill sponsors amendments. We have Amendment 1, I believe. Yes, Amendment 1 in front of us. I'll have Vice Chair Stewart move the amendment.

I second this.

Vice Chair Stewart.

I move House Bill 1211 as amended to the Committee on Finance with a favorable recommendation.

Moved and seconded comments before voting. Brief comments before voting at 9.45 p.m.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Representative Richardson. Thank you, Madam Chair. It's been a fascinating evening. I really appreciate everybody that testified because it really highlighted a lot of issues with this bill. We just heard the sponsor claim it's merely permissive and then indicate that the situation is horrible and something has to be done. So I really feel like the expectation is the permission this would grant the PUC would be used. So it may be written permissively, but there's a clear intent that that permission be used. I absolutely recognize we have lots of talented attorneys in the state, and I'm not one. but I've dealt with a lot of contracts, and when there's a risk that the federal government says this bill would violate the contract and the office that signed the contract that has attorneys says they feel this would violate the contract, I think it's just way too risky to think that somehow we can assert that it does not and win and risk $826 million for our rural citizens and their businesses. And add to that, the fiscal notice was discussed, and the fact that the PUC that you want to grant this permission to doesn't believe they should have it and isn't prepared to take it on. This just isn't the time for this bill, and I will be a no. Representative Velasco. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I want to thank the sponsors and thank you to everyone that came to testify today. I do believe that this is a very important issue. You know, I have worked in emergency response for a long time, and we know that communication is the number one thing that saves lives. So it's so, so important that we continue addressing this issue. I'm supportive of the bill, and I think that just having this conversation was very, very important So thank you for bringing the bill and I will continue to support you because I think you know the PUC does regulate parts of 911 They have a fund where they able to support communications for different counties And now they're able to use those funds for language access. So emergency response really is allocated in multiple agencies, you know, in the Department of Public Safety in the State Forest Service, DNR, and also the PUC. So I do believe that the PUC will be the agency that will be best positioned to regulate. So thank you for bringing this bill, and thank you everyone that came to testify. Representative Nguyen. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you to the sponsors. Thanks for those who came to testify for and against or to amend positions. This is something I care about. I mean, we understand and we can all agree that broadband access, internet access is not equitable. If you live in rural parts of our state, you will not get the same quality of internet services as folks in urban areas. And so for me, I mean, I have concerns, of course, with the presidential administration, but I will support the bill today. And I want to emphasize that the reason why is because we already have seen the federal administration essentially force down Internet services from – again, this was passed during the Biden administration. The idea was optic fiber cable. And now we're trying to basically force you to use Starlink and SpaceX and et cetera. And I think that states should have a say in what services we should be given and received for the consumer. And so I believe that this is a consumer protection bill, and I think it should continue on forward. Thank you. Representative Paschal. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you to the sponsors for bringing this bill and everyone that testified. It is a very complex topic, and absolutely 100% agree that broadband is a utility and that everyone needs access to broadband. A couple of points that have come up in the discussion. The fact that I just wanted to speak to, the fact that the BEAD funding used to be fiber and is contracted back to satellite has nothing to do with this bill. That is how BEAD is. That's what we're getting. It has to do with the federal government. So regardless of whether or not it's a good decision, we're stuck with it. I don't like it either. The other thing that concerns me is we've had a lot of discussion about failures of the system. And most of the failure examples that we have been given was Excel which is regulated by the PUC So I not sure how things are going to get better by putting it under the PUC And you could argue the PUC doesn't have the capacity to do what they're supposed to be doing. So I have a lot of concerns about throwing this under the PUC. I don't know if it's going to be an improvement. And I also have concerns, as Rep. Stewart said, about the bead funding. There seems to be conflicting information about, or opinions. We're talking about opinions as to whether or not we could fight that. And I feel like it's quite a risk to take that, you know, take a risk that we won't get funding for rural broadband, which is so important. So I, well, I think there's some ideas here. and I think that we should perhaps pursue it in the future. I'm not sure this is the year to do this. Any additional comments? Okay. I think we all are agreeing on the importance of broadband. I think the broadband office has actually done quite a good job, but I do think there is a vacuum in terms of regulation, And I think the fiscal note will either be what it'll be in finance or in approves. And I'm going to see how it goes on the vote. So, Mr. Gravey, please call the roll.

Respectfully, no. Brooks, no.

Lindsay. Yes.

Phillips. Yes, for today. Richardson. No. Sucla. No. Velasco. Yes.

Madam Chair. Yes. That fails on a vote of six to seven. I'll entertain a motion from Vice Chair Velasquez, Vice Chair Stewart. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Any objection to the reverse roll call?