Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Construction Defects 1261 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Denver committee reviews consumer-focused construction-defect bill ("12 61")
Summary
City staff and legal advisers briefed the Finance and Governance Committee on a proposed consumer construction-defect bill known in the briefing as "12 61," which would expand claimant remedies, require disclosure of contractor information and insurance, and raise questions about conflicts with Denver code and administrative processes.
Denver’s Finance and Governance Committee heard a briefing March 18 on a state bill described in the meeting as “12 61,” a proposed consumer construction-defect law that would change how homeowners and other claimants pursue defects, city staff and the city attorney’s office said.
Jill Jennings Gohlek, deputy director for Community Planning and Development, summarized the bill to the committee and said it “requires construction professionals to provide the claimant or the claimant's legal representative the whole host of things, including copies of any plans, information, contact information for construction professionals that perform worker services, copies of insurance policies held” and would “require a court to award a pre judgment interest of 8% to any prevailing claimant who alleges defects in a residential property.”
Why it matters: Committee members said the bills could affect Denver’s housing market and the local code. Jonathan Griffin, deputy legislative counsel, told the committee the city attorney’s office is reviewing potential conflicts between the bill and Denver’s existing construction-defect code and dispute-resolution language. Griffin said adoption of the bill would “likely result in us needing to do more work to align our current construction defect” code with the state statute.
Committee discussion and positions: Committee Chair Amanda Sawyer and several council members questioned how the bill’s changes would interact with local permitting and inspections. Jill Jennings Gohlek said CPD did not take a position because the bill primarily raises legal questions. Adam Paul, government affairs with the mayor’s office, explained the mayor’s office’s view that the bills address long‑running problems in the condominium market but did not state a unified council position on 12 61 during the briefing.
What the bill would change (as described to the committee): the briefing listed expanded disclosure duties for construction professionals; an 8% pre-judgment interest award for prevailing claimants; language voiding contract provisions that bar group lawsuits or impose additional requirements beyond statute; and a change to when a claim arises to include discovery of a physical manifestation and the cause of the defect.
Remaining questions: City staff questioned whether the bill would limit alternative dispute resolution procedures, how it would interact with certificates of occupancy in litigation, and whether changes would force the city to revise its local codes. Council members said they remain concerned about insurer withdrawal from the condominium market and how litigation timelines and remedies affect development costs.
The briefing concluded with staff and council members agreeing to continue reviewing amendments and to circulate draft language when available; no committee vote was taken because this was a briefing.
