Advocacy

Summary: This bill adjusts how covered entities report “challenges” to achieving the 2030 greenhouse-gas reduction target in their clean energy plans, including extending a reporting deadline. It also establishes guardrails for certain utilities so reliability standards are maintained and average annual electric rates are not pushed above a stated threshold when updating the earliest achievable target year.

Pros:

• Reduces the risk of reliability-driven service disruptions that can ripple through building operations (especially critical environments).

• Creates a clearer pathway for utilities to communicate constraints, which can support more predictable energy planning for large property portfolios.

• Explicitly recognizes that reliability and rate impacts matter, which aligns with FM’s duty to maintain safe, continuous building performance.

Cons:

• Increases policy uncertainty for organizations planning electrification and building system upgrades tied to 2030 timelines.

• May slow the pace of grid decarbonization in some service territories, complicating tenant and investor expectations for emissions performance.

• Could create “two-speed” market conditions where some regions progress faster than others, complicating portfolio-wide energy strategies.

Position: IFMA Denver could reasonably take a “support with guardrails” posture, emphasizing that reliability and affordability are non-negotiable for building safety, while encouraging transparent planning and measurable progress toward emissions reductions.

Talking Points:

• Reliable power is a life-safety and continuity requirement for buildings; policy should not trade reliability for schedule.

• Request that any timeline flexibility be paired with clear interim milestones, public reporting, and a credible path to the target.

• Encourage explicit consideration of impacts on commercial building operating costs and on mission-critical facilities.

Summary: This bill removes wind energy from eligibility under Colorado’s renewable energy standard and from consideration for state clean energy targets. The practical effect is to narrow the set of resources that can count toward meeting energy goals.

Pros:

• If the bill is intended to address grid integration concerns, it could prompt a more explicit discussion of firm capacity and reliability planning.

• Could accelerate scrutiny of resource adequacy planning and transmission constraints.

Cons:

• Reduces qualifying renewable supply options that utilities can use, which may increase energy costs and complicate corporate renewable procurement.

• Risks slowing progress on cleaner electricity, which affects building electrification strategies and occupant expectations.

• Creates market uncertainty for CRE owners pursuing renewable energy goals, power purchase agreements, or carbon reporting programs.

Position: IFMA Denver could reasonably take an “oppose as drafted” or “seek major amendments” posture, focusing on the operational and cost impacts to buildings and the need for technology policy that improves reliability without arbitrarily excluding major resource categories.

Talking Points:

• Buildings need affordable, reliable electricity and a stable policy environment to plan long-life equipment upgrades.

• If reliability is the concern, policy should address grid planning and performance criteria, not remove a resource class outright.

• Request analysis of rate impacts for commercial customers and critical facilities before changing eligibility definitions.

Summary: This bill creates a state framework for unmanned aircraft systems by clarifying lawful recreational and commercial operation and limiting state and local registration or operational requirements beyond state and federal law. It also defines what local governments may regulate, mainly focused on drones launching from or landing on government property and general nuisance-type ordinances.

Pros:

• Supports safer, faster facility inspections (roofing, façades, storm damage, construction progress) by clarifying lawful commercial use.

• Reduces “patchwork” local rules that make multi-site FM work difficult, especially for regional service providers.

• Helps emergency assessment and documentation, which can shorten downtime after severe weather events.

Cons:

• Could heighten privacy and tenant-relations concerns if drone use is perceived as surveillance.

• Leaves owners/operators needing clear internal governance on where and how drones are used, stored, and insured.

• May increase conflict in dense urban areas where local sensitivities are high even if local regulation authority is limited.

Position: IFMA Denver could reasonably take a “support with practical safeguards” posture, encouraging clear operational standards (training, privacy practices, documentation, and incident protocols) so drone use becomes a tool for safety and maintenance, not controversy.

Talking Points:

• Drones can be the “ladder truck you don’t need” for routine inspections, reducing fall risk and improving documentation.

• Encourage explicit recognition of facility-inspection and emergency-use cases, plus guidance on privacy and complaint handling.

• Promote minimum practice standards for commercial operators used by property owners: licensing, flight planning, data handling, and insurance.

Summary: This bill expands Colorado’s Battery Stewardship Act to cover electric and hybrid vehicle propulsion batteries, creating stewardship plan, labeling, reporting, and recycler qualification requirements on defined timelines. The objective is to ensure safe collection, transportation, reuse, repurposing, and recycling, and to reduce improper storage or disposal.

Pros:

• Improves safety by setting clearer pathways for handling damaged or end-of-life batteries, reducing fire and hazardous material risk.

• Supports facility operations where EV fleets and charging are increasing, by improving take-back and recycling infrastructure.

• Helps standardize labeling and informational resources, which supports staff training and emergency response.

Cons:

• Costs may be passed through to fleets, EV owners, or service contracts, increasing operating budgets.

• Facilities may need new protocols for temporary storage, incident isolation, and coordination with waste vendors.

• Mixed-use properties may face tenant confusion about responsibilities unless guidance is clear.

Position: IFMA Denver could reasonably take a “support” posture with emphasis on facility safety guidance: ensuring building operators are not left with unclear responsibilities for battery incidents, storage, or disposal.

Talking Points:

• EV adoption is changing building operations; safety and disposal pathways must keep pace.

• Ask for practical implementation guidance aimed at property owners and parking operators on incident handling and short-term storage.

• Encourage alignment with fire codes, emergency response protocols, and clear vendor accountability.

Summary: This bill authorizes a local government, with voter approval, to impose excise and/or property taxes on vacant residential properties and restricts revenue use to affordable, attainable, or workforce housing. It also creates a mechanism for multiple local governments to form a joint housing tax authority to levy, collect, and enforce these taxes.

Pros:

• Could encourage units to return to the market, which can improve local workforce stability, including for essential building service roles.

• Dedicated revenue for housing can reduce community-level pressures that affect staffing, retention, and commuting reliability.

• Creates an explicit linkage between housing policy and workforce outcomes.

Cons:

• Adds compliance and documentation burdens for property managers to demonstrate occupancy status and exemptions.

• Risks unintended impacts on properties with legitimate vacancy reasons (renovation, insurance claims, probate, seasonal use).

• Could create enforcement disputes that draw resources away from operations and maintenance priorities.

Position: IFMA Denver could reasonably take a “monitor and seek clarity” posture, focusing on definitions, administrative burden, enforcement mechanics, and how compliance will interact with real-world property operations.

Talking Points:

• Definitions matter: vacancy thresholds, exemptions for active rehabilitation, casualty loss, and permitted construction should be explicit.

• Administrative processes should be simple, auditable, and not impose disproportionate reporting burdens on property operations teams.

• Workforce housing outcomes should be tracked, with transparency on how revenues are used and what results occur.

Summary: This bill facilitates data center development by creating a statewide program and authority, establishing certification criteria, and offering a state sales and use tax exemption for qualifying data center infrastructure over a defined period. It also enables regulated utilities to file targeted resource acquisition applications to meet emerging large-load needs and clarifies financing approaches for infrastructure tied to those loads.

Pros:

• Addresses the “megawatt reality” of data centers by linking development to utility planning, helping reduce surprise impacts on the grid.

• Workforce provisions can expand training pathways for high-skill FM roles (mission critical, electrical, controls, reliability).

• If implemented well, grid modernization and resource planning can improve overall reliability for commercial customers.

Cons:

• Data centers can intensify local infrastructure demands (power, water, emergency response), which can stress municipal services.

• Risk of cost shifting: other ratepayers could absorb infrastructure costs unless allocation is transparent and fair.

• Rapid build-out can amplify permitting, inspection, and commissioning capacity constraints.

Position: IFMA Denver could reasonably take a “support with strong operational guardrails” posture, advocating for reliability, fair cost allocation, water stewardship, and robust safety and resilience requirements.

Talking Points:

• Data centers are not “just another tenant”; they are like adding a small power plant worth of load to a service territory.

• Require transparent cost allocation so general commercial customers are not subsidizing large-load interconnection upgrades.

• Encourage minimum resilience practices: commissioning rigor, emergency power standards, water stewardship, and incident planning.

• Support workforce development provisions that grow the pipeline for mission-critical FM talent.

Summary: This bill allows counties to use certain property tax revenues and other specified funds to support housing authorities and workforce housing. It also makes the middle-income housing tax credit usable by certain transferees even if they do not own an interest in the qualifying development.

Pros:

• Strong potential to improve local workforce availability and stability, including for skilled trades and FM operations roles.

• Can reduce chronic staffing stress in high-cost markets where building operations depend on nearby labor.

• May support redevelopment and infill projects that shorten commutes and improve operational response times.

Cons:

• Could create fiscal tradeoffs for counties, with downstream effects on local services relied upon by building operations.

• Credit transfer mechanics may add complexity and require strong transparency to avoid unintended benefit capture.

Position: IFMA Denver could reasonably take a “support” posture that centers on workforce stability and community functioning, while urging transparent program administration and measurable outcomes.

Talking Points:

• Buildings do not operate without people; workforce housing is an operational resilience issue, not only a social policy issue.

• Encourage prioritization of housing near employment centers and transit to reduce response time and improve service continuity.

• Ask for clear reporting on how funds are used and what housing outcomes are achieved.