Summary#

HB 26-1415, Optional Residential Construction Contractor Certification, would have created a new certification program within Colorado’s Department of Law; it does not amend a named existing Act. Its stated goal is to reduce harm from abandoned or poorly performed residential construction and encourage contractors to meet their agreements. The bill failed and did not become law.

• A government-owned business inside the Department of Law would run the program. A 13-member board appointed by the attorney general would set certification criteria and review applications.
• Certification would be optional. A contractor who applies would pay a fee of up to $100. The program covers paid work on residential structures, including building, repair, remodeling, demolition, and listed trades such as electrical, plumbing, HVAC, roofing, and carpentry.
• The board’s criteria must address financial security; compliance with licensing requirements and building codes; skill and experience; work quality; timely completion and contractual performance; and construction disputes and their resolution.
• The enterprise could issue revenue bonds payable only from the program fund. It must report annually to legislative committees, and the new law would be repealed on January 1, 2037.

What it means for you#

• Residential construction contractors: Under the bill, applying for certification would be optional, but applicants would have to pay the fee. The bill does not itself require every contractor to obtain a surety bond or liability insurance; it makes financial security a factor in certification criteria.
• Homeowners: Certification was intended to encourage reliable, competent work and reduce harm from unfinished projects. The bill does not guarantee compensation, require homeowners to hire certified contractors, or create a process for homeowners to file complaints or seek repayment.
• Taxpayers: The bill would require a $10,000 General Fund loan to start the enterprise. It would have to be repaid, with interest, by December 31, 2027.

Money#

The bill would use applicant fees and other fund revenue to pay program costs; no total cost estimate is provided.

• The fee would be set by the enterprise, up to $100 per application. Fee revenue over the first five fiscal years could not exceed $100 million; the enterprise would have to lower the fee if needed to stay under that cap.
• The bill requires the $10,000 General Fund loan and repayment with interest. The fund would also pay board members $50 for each day spent at official meetings.
• The enterprise could issue revenue bonds, but repayment could come only from money in the program fund. The bill does not estimate bond proceeds or staffing and operating costs.
• The bill summary says annual fee revenue would not exceed program costs. The operative bill text supplied here does not state that limit; it sets the $100 fee limit and the $100 million five-year cap.

What is unclear#

• The bill does not set application deadlines, decision timelines, renewal periods, appeal rights, or specific approval thresholds. It allows the board to set application, review, approval, and other requirements.
• It does not say how a homeowner’s complaints or dispute records would be gathered or checked, or how “adequate” financial security would be measured in individual cases.
• The bill does not specify whether the fee is charged again for renewals or repeat applications.
• The materials do not include current licensing laws, so the existing requirements for each construction trade—and how the new program would overlap with them—could not be verified.
• The bill uses “residential structure” but does not define it in the text provided.

Case for#

• The bill appears intended to address unfinished projects, poor work, and disputes between homeowners and contractors.
• A possible argument for voluntary certification is that it gives consumers a way to distinguish contractors who meet stated standards without making certification mandatory for all contractors.
• Evaluating financial security, code compliance, experience, work quality, and dispute history could make the certification criteria relevant to the risks the bill identifies.
• Fees and a dedicated fund could support the program rather than relying only on annual General Fund spending.

Case against#

• The bill does not guarantee that certification would prevent abandoned work, poor performance, or homeowner losses.
• The board would have broad room to set application and approval rules, while the bill does not specify timelines, appeals, or detailed standards.
• Because certification is optional, contractors whose conduct the program aims to address would not necessarily apply.
• The bill requires public start-up lending and authorizes fees, spending, and revenue bonds, but provides no estimate of ongoing costs or likely revenue.