Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Assistance Animals Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House committee advances bill to enshrine assistance‑animal housing protections after amendments
Summary
House sponsors said HB 26‑1045 restates federal guidance in Colorado law to protect people with disabilities who rely on service or emotional‑support animals; committee adopted two sponsor amendments, rejected an amendment on animal‑free spaces, and sent the bill to the Committee of the Whole on a 9–3 vote.
The House committee advanced House Bill 26‑1045, which sponsors described as codifying established protections for assistance animals (service animals and emotional support/assistance animals) in Colorado housing law following recent federal guidance withdrawals.
Representatives Clifford and Zocai, the bill’s co‑prime sponsors, told the committee the bill does not create a new right but clarifies existing law to reduce litigation and confusion after HUD and DOJ guidance documents were rescinded. Clifford said the measure aligns Colorado law with settled standards for legitimate disability‑related assistance animals and adds limited landlord protections for verification and remedies where claims lack foundation.
Disability advocates and housing stakeholders testified in support. Molly Kirkham, a self‑advocate, urged the committee to vote for the bill, saying the measure protects independence for people who rely on assistance animals. Jack Johnson of Disability Law Colorado said the bill translates settled federal guidance into statute and provides a clearer, more accessible framework for housing providers and tenants.
Andrew Hamrick, general counsel to the Colorado Apartment Association, said intensive stakeholdering addressed many concerns and that, with Amendment L002, the association’s major issues were largely resolved.
The committee adopted two sponsor amendments. Amendment L001 adds a petition clause; Amendment L002 replaces the term “housing” with “dwelling,” clarifies the interactive accommodation process, and gives landlords limited ability to verify a legitimate disability and document good‑faith processes for handling accommodation requests.
Representative Soukla offered an amendment (L004) to explicitly allow housing providers to predesignate animal‑free common areas to address “dueling disabilities” (for example, severe allergies vs a resident’s assistance animal). Members debated whether existing law and the interactive accommodation process already provide tools for such conflicts; the amendment failed on a roll call (11–1).
After debate, Representative Stewart moved to send HB 26‑1045 as amended to the Committee of the Whole with a favorable recommendation. The committee recorded a final vote of 9 to 3 in favor. Sponsors and advocates said they will continue stakeholder outreach as the bill moves forward.
What the bill does not change: speakers repeatedly emphasized that the measure is intended to clarify and codify prior practice rather than expand or create novel obligations beyond existing disability law; service animals (e.g., guide dogs) remain treated distinctly from emotional support animals, with differing documentation requirements.
