Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Accessibility Building Codes topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee advances bill to align local building codes with modern accessibility standards
Summary
House Bill 25‑10‑30 would require jurisdictions that use building codes to adopt accessibility standards that meet or exceed recent international building code accessibility provisions; sponsors say it will reduce retrofits and litigation.
House Bill 25‑10‑30, sponsored by Senators Winter and Cutter, would require local governments that adopt building codes to adopt accessibility provisions that meet or exceed the latest relevant standards in the International Building Code (IBC) and related accessibility publications. The bill also directs state agencies to adopt comparable accessibility codes for public schools, health facilities, manufactured housing and other specified building types where jurisdictions lack local codes.
Sponsors and advocates framed the bill as an effort to reduce the persistent accessibility gaps in both new construction and renovation projects. Senator Cutter said modern growth and higher density make it more important to build accessible residential and commercial spaces. Supporters — including disability advocates, AARP, the Alzheimer’s Association and architects — told the committee the change would make buildings more usable for people with mobility limits, dementia, and older Coloradans and could reduce expensive post‑construction remediation and ADA litigation.
Testimony cited numbers and examples: the Alzheimer’s Association said about 90,800 Coloradans are living with Alzheimer’s and related dementias; AARP noted it represents roughly 670,000 members in Colorado. Architects and developers urged clarity and coordinated transitions between code editions; a representative from the Colorado chapter of the American Institute of Architects said the bill’s targeted chapter‑level approach is workable and that sponsors accepted technical amendments to smooth chapter adoption.
Committee members asked about cost and scope. Senator Reich raised concerns that adopting newer code chapters can affect permit fees and construction costs; witness Jack Johnson of Disability Law Colorado said the bill focuses on a discrete set of accessibility provisions (primarily IBC chapter 11) rather than entire ICC code packages and that many jurisdictions already use IBC standards, so the bill is largely a conformity and modernization measure. Witnesses also said the approach offers cost savings in the long run by avoiding litigation and retrofit expenses.
Two technical amendments offered by sponsors were adopted (L005 to add regional building departments; L006 to fix grammar/consistency). Senator Winter moved to advance the bill to the Committee of the Whole with a favorable recommendation as amended. The committee recorded a 5‑2 vote in favor (Senators Bazely and Liston voted no); the motion passed and the bill will move forward.
Witnesses urged the committee to view the bill as a floor, not a ceiling: several said the ADA remains enforceable and that uniform local codes would enable plan review and occupancy inspections to catch accessibility problems earlier in the process. Sponsors noted the bill also directs the Department of Public Safety and the Department of Local Affairs to adopt model codes for certain state‑administered building types where jurisdictions lack codes.
The Committee of the Whole is the next stop for the bill.
