Wednesday, February 18, 2015
Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC, a boutique firm located in Cherry Creek, has an immediate opening for a litigation associate with 1 – 3 years of experience in construction litigation or the defense of general casualty claims. To be a successful candidate, you must be an optimist, be well spoken, have exceptional research and writing skills, and be able to think on your feet. Given that our files are document-intensive, you must be very organized and detail-oriented. Experience with deposing witnesses and some trial experience a plus.
We offer a competitive salary, which is commensurate with experience, and excellent benefits.
PLEASE, NO CALLS OR AGENCIES
Posted by David M. McLain at 10:46 AM
Tuesday, February 17, 2015
On February 10, 2015, Senators Scheffel and Ulibarri introduced Senate Bill 15-177, which is sponsored in the House by Representatives DelGrosso and Singer. SB 15-177 amends the prerequisites, found in the Colorado Common Interest Ownership Act (“CCIOA”), for an association to file a construction defect action. The bill has been assigned to the Senate Committee on Business, Labor, and Technology but not yet scheduled for hearing.
The major points of the bill include: 1) enforcement of a mediation or arbitration provision contained in the original governing documents of a common interest community, even if subsequently amended or removed; 2) the addition of a requirement that mediation take place before a construction defect action can be filed; 3) heightened requirements that an association board provide advanced notice to all unit owners, together with a disclosure of projected costs, duration, and financial impact of the construction defect claim; 4) the addition of a requirement that the board obtain the written consent of a majority of the owners of units, and; 5) a requirement that prior to the purchase and sale of a property in a common interest community, the purchaser receive notice that binding arbitration may be required for certain disputes.
One of the most significant aspects of Senate Bill 15-177 is the addition of section (1)(a)(III) to Colorado Revised Statute § 38-33.3-124. The proposed language for section (1)(a)(III), states:
The General Assembly further finds and declares that when the governing documents of a common interest community contain a requirement that construction defect claims be submitted to mediation or arbitration, that requirement represents a commitment on the part of the unit owners and the association on which development parties are entitled to rely. Therefore, a later amendment to the governing documents that removes or amends the mediation or arbitration requirement should not apply to claims that are described in the mediation or arbitration requirements of the governing documents.
The addition of this language would have a effect on the forum in which construction defect actions are litigated. Currently, associations are free to amend any provision contained in their governing documents, including any mediation or arbitration provision inserted by the developer. Associations routinely amend their governing documents just prior to filing a construction defect action in district court in order to avoid submitting their case to binding arbitration. If Senate Bill 15-177 is passed in its current form, the majority of construction defect actions would likely be subject to binding arbitration. I anticipate this provision of the bill will receive strong opposition from association representatives and construction defect plaintiffs’ attorneys who wish to litigate their cases in district court.
The second major addition contained in SB 15-177 is the addition of section (1.5) to Colorado Revised Statute § 38-33.3-303.5. The proposed language requires that a construction defect claim be submitted to mediation prior to the filing of an action. The proposed language in its entirety states:
(1.5) As a condition precedent to any construction defect claim, the parties must submit the matter to mediation before a neutral third party mutually selected by the parties to the construction defect claim. If the parties are not able to agree upon a mediator, they may use an alternative selection method specified in the governing documents or, if no alternative selection method is specified, may petition the district court in the jurisdiction in which the common interest community is located to appoint a mediator for the construction defect claim.
Senate Bill 15-177 also expands upon the required disclosures contained in the C.R.S. § 38.33.3-303.5. Colorado Revised Statute § 38.33.3-303.5 in its current form only requires the disclosure of: (I) The nature of the action and relief sought; and (II) The expenses and fees that the executive board anticipates will be incurred in prosecuting the action. Senate Bill 15-177 seeks to add more specific disclosure requirements to C.R.S. § 38.33.3-303(II) including the disclosure of: (A) Attorneys’ fees, consultant fees, expert witness fees, and court costs; (B) The impact on the value of units subject to the construction defect claim; (C) The impact on the marketability of units subject to the construction defect action; (D) The impact on the marketability of units not containing any design or construction defects; (E) The manner in which the association is planning on funding the construction defect action; and (F) The anticipated duration and likelihood of success of the construction defect action.
Additionally, the bill requires the association board to obtain the informed consent of a majority of unit owners prior to pursuing a construction defect action and seeks to add the following language to Colorado Revised Statute § 38-33.3-303.5:
(II) The construction defect claim is not authorized unless the executive board obtains the written consent of the owners, other than the declarant, of units to which at least a majority of the total votes, excluding votes allocated to units owned by declarant, in the association are allocated, after giving notice in accordance with this subsection (2). The consent must be obtained directly and not as a result of proxy voting.
Finally, Senate Bill 15-177 seeks to add to the disclosures required prior to the purchase and sale of property in a common interest community to provide notice that construction defect actions may be subject to binding arbitration. The proposed language to be added to C.R.S. § 38-35.7-102 is as follows:
THE BYLAWS OR RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE ASSOCIATION MAY REQUIRE THAT CERTAIN DISPUTES BE RESOLVED BY MANDATORY, BINDING ARBITRATION.
Senate Bill 15-177, once passed, will represent a significant change to the current state of construction defect litigation in Colorado. While the proposals in Senate Bill 15-177 would have a beneficial impact on Colorado construction professionals, the bill will likely be met with strong opposition. We will continue to watch the legislature for bills impacting construction law in Colorado and will monitor the progress of such bills, including Senate Bill 15-177.
If you have any questions regarding construction law or the litigation of construction defect claims in Colorado, you can reach Zach McLeroy by e-mail at McLeroy@hhmrlaw.com or by telephone at (303) 987-9816.
Monday, February 9, 2015
In Colorado it is well recognized that an insurer has a broad duty to defend its policyholder against pending claims. An insurer’s duty to defend is triggered when the underlying complaint against the insured alleges any set of facts that might fall within the coverage policy. Greystone Construction, Inc. v. National Fire & Marine Insurance, Co., 661 F.3d 1272, 1284 (10th Cir. 2011). Even if the insurer’s duty to defend is not clear from the pleadings filed against the insured, the insurer’s duty to defend is triggered if the claim is potentially or arguably within the policy coverage. Id. If there is any doubt as to whether a theory of recovery falls within the policy coverage, such doubt is decided in favor of the insured and the insurer’s duty to defend is triggered. Id. In order to avoid this duty to defend, an insurer must show that an exemption to the policy applies and that no other basis exists for coverage under the policy.
In Cornella Brothers, Inc. v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company, 2014 WL 321335 (D. Colo. Jan. 29, 2015), the Court was to determine whether Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company (“Liberty Mutual”) had a duty to defend a lawsuit filed against its insured, Cornella Brothers, Inc. (“Cornella”). The underlying lawsuit alleged construction defects at a recharging facility. Upon being named a party to the underlying litigation, Cornella provided notice to Liberty Mutual and demanded that Liberty Mutual defend Cornella.
The Court first considered how the “your work” exclusion in the CGL policy might affect Liberty Mutual’s duty to defend. The exclusion applied to property damage to “your work” arising out of it or any part of it. The Court reasoned, even if the principal claims fall within the “your work” policy exclusion, it does not necessary follow that Liberty Mutual has no duty to defend. As stated in Greystone, if the allegations of the underlying complaint state any claim that “is potentially or arguably within the policy coverage” or that otherwise raise some doubt as to whether a theory of recovery within the policy coverage has been pleaded, the insurer has a duty to defend. Greystone, 661 F.3d at 1284.
Cornella’s argument for coverage by Liberty Mutual was based on two damage allegations in the underlying complaint. Cornella first argued that Liberty Mutual’s duty to defend was triggered by the language in the complaint that the alleged defects will result in the loss of access to additional water rights. The Court determined that the complaint alleged a loss of a chance at greater access to water rights and not the loss of water rights itself. The Court was not persuaded that the loss of a chance at greater water rights triggered insurance coverage. The Court recognized that while the loss of actual water rights might trigger coverage, the loss of a chance does not trigger the same obligation.
Cornella also relied on the language in the complaint, “damage to property of other,” to trigger a duty to defend. However, it is clear under Colorado law that vague and conclusory allegations alone do not trigger coverage. See Land v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 551 Fed.Appex. 795, 800, (10th Cir. 2013); TCD, Inc. v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., 296 P.3d 255, 259 (Colo.Ct.App. 2012). To trigger coverage, more is needed from the insured, including a plausible theory explaining what the phrase is referencing and how the alleged damage triggers the duty to defend. Cornella’s mere reliance on the “damage to property of other” language alone was insufficient to trigger coverage.
While an insurer’s duty to defend is broadly construed, it is not triggered in every case. As in Cornella Brothers, Inc. v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company, an insurer’s duty to defend will not be triggered when the alleged damage is the loss of a chance at a future benefit or by vague and conclusory language.
Monday, January 19, 2015
The Great Fallacy: If Builders Would Just Build It Right There Would Be No Construction Defect Litigation
As the 2015 Colorado legislative session gets into full swing, there is a lot of anticipation and discussion regarding this year’s construction defect reform bill. It seems like every time a reporter broaches this issue in an article, there is a quote from a plaintiffs’ attorney stating that if builders would just build homes right, there would be no need for construction defect litigation. This is the sentiment expressed in the site www.BuildOurHomesRight.com.
The problem with this argument is that it assumes that the “construction defects” for which associations sue are those only that affect the performance of the homes, or are likely to affect the performance of the homes during the useful life of the component at issue. Unfortunately, this is simply not the case. Over the years, the plaintiffs’ bar has stacked the deck, so to speak, making actionable every technical building code violation, regardless of whether it has any impact, or will ever likely have any impact, on the performance of the homes involved.
In Colorado, when a builder builds and sells a home, it impliedly warrants that the home is built in a good and workmanlike manner, that it is fit for its intended purpose, and that it complies with the applicable building codes. See, e.g., Carpenter v. Donohoe, 388 P.2d 399 (Colo. 1964). Other Colorado courts have likened the breach of implied warranty claim to strict liability for construction defects. See, e.g., Hildebrand v. New Vista Homes II, LLC, 252 P.3d 1159, 1169 (Colo. App. 2010). In short, it does not matter whether the builder acted in a non-negligent manner or whether the alleged defect impacts the performance of the home, or ever will, if it violates the applicable code, the association will call it defective and include it in its construction defect claims.
The problem with this standard is that it is impractically high. New homes built in Colorado are the only things constructed using hundreds of thousands of parts, most of which are made of natural and imperfect materials, designed and built by human hands, in the elements, over a period of months, where the standard applied is that of perfection. Even the plaintiffs’ attorneys’ favorite experts have testified that this is an impossibly high standard, and one that cannot be achieved. It is for this reason that most builders in Colorado provide their homeowners with express written warranties, assuring the homeowners that when a problem is discovered after construction, it will be repaired.
Until recently, Colorado’s builders could, and often did, disclaim these implied warranties in favor of their own express written warranties. To thwart these efforts, the plaintiffs’ attorneys supported the passage of the Homeowner Protection Act of 2007 (“HPA”). Once enacted, and codified at C.R.S. § 13-20-806(7), this piece of legislation made void as against public policy any restriction on a homeowner’s construction defect claim beyond those found in the Colorado Construction Defect Action Reform Act, C.R.S. § 13-20-801, et seq., or the Colorado Consumer Protection Act, C.R.S. 6-1-101, et seq. This codified, at least as of April 20, 2007, when the HPA went into effect, the strict liability standard for new home construction in Colorado.
During the 2001 and 2003 legislative sessions, during the passage of Construction Defect Action Reform Act I and II (“CDARA I and II”), the Colorado legislature restricted negligence claims to only those which actually effect homeowners or would be likely to do so in the future. In this regard, C.R.S. § 13-20-804 states:
(1) No negligence claim seeking damages for a construction defect may be asserted in an action if such claim arises from the failure to construct an improvement to real property in substantial compliance with an applicable building code or industry standard; except that such claim may be asserted if such failure results in one or more of the following:
(a) Actual damage to real or personal property;
(b) Actual loss of the use of real or personal property;
(c) Bodily injury or wrongful death; or
(d) A risk of bodily injury or death to, or a threat to the life, health, or safety of, the occupants of the residential real property.
While this section is good as far as it goes, the problem is that it doesn’t go far enough. When it was included within CDARA, the legislature had not yet passed the HPA and, when it did, it did not go back and broaden the section to apply to all claims brought in a construction defect action, to include claims for breach of implied warranty.
So what’s the problem with a strict liability, perfection standard in the construction of new homes? In addition to being an impossibly high standard, as discussed above, it also creates an incentive for plaintiffs’ litigation experts to go on fishing expeditions. Rarely do owners in construction defect cases claim only as defective those things that impact the performance of their homes, or those things that are likely to do so in the future. I have seen time and time again letters from plaintiffs’ attorneys to homeowners in multi-family communities indicating that they intend to spend between $3,000 and $5,000 per unit to perform destructive testing to go looking for defects that, until they are found, were unknown to the owners and would likely have remained unknown to the homeowners for the entire time they owned their homes. This is the fishing expedition. I can all but guarantee that if you were to spend $5,000 to have a plaintiffs’ litigation “forensic engineer” go hunting through any home built in Colorado, he or she could come up with pages and pages of technical building code violations that would never impact the performance of the home, but are none the less actionable under today’s construction defect laws in Colorado. This is the investment made by the plaintiffs’ attorneys, purportedly for the good of the owners, but which in reality just drives up the costs of litigation, the alleged damages in the actions, and, at the end of the day, the plaintiffs’ attorneys’ contingent fees. I have never had a plaintiffs’ attorney tell me what type of return they get on this investment, but I assume that it must be pretty good if they are willing to invest up to $5,000 per unit in a multi-family community.
No one knows what the 2015 Colorado legislative session has in store for the construction community. Whatever happens, I hope that the argument made that if builders would just "build it right" there would be no construction defect litigation falls on deaf ears under the dome at the State Capitol. Unless and until the test for "building it right" becomes something other than absolute perfection, this remains simply a fallacy.
Thursday, January 15, 2015
Senator Ray Scott Introduced a Bill to Reduce Colorado’s Statute of Repose for Construction Defect Actions to Four Years
For those of you reading this blog who are familiar with Colorado’s law as it pertains to construction defect actions, which I assume to be anyone reading this blog as it does not seem to get much random traffic, you are probably aware that the statute of repose applicable to construction defect actions in Colorado is generally thought of as being six plus two years. Specifically, C.R.S. § 13-80-104 states, in pertinent part:
(1)(a) Notwithstanding any statutory provision to the contrary, all actions against any architect, contractor, builder or builder vendor, engineer, or inspector performing or furnishing the design, planning, supervision, inspection, construction, or observation of construction of any improvement to real property shall be brought within the time provided in section 13-80-102 after the claim for relief arises, and not thereafter, but in no case shall such an action be brought more than six years after the substantial completion of the improvement to the real property, except as provided in subsection (2) of this section.
* * *
(2) In case any such cause of action arises during the fifth or sixth year after substantial completion of the improvement to real property, said action shall be brought within two years after the date upon which said cause of action arises.
Senate Bill 15-091, introduced on January 14th and assigned to the State, Veterans, and Military Affairs Committee, would change these provisions to read:
(1)(a) Notwithstanding any statutory provision to the contrary, all actions against any architect, contractor, builder or builder vendor, engineer, or inspector performing or furnishing the design, planning, supervision, inspection, construction, or observation of construction of any improvement to real property shall be brought within the time provided in section 13-80-102 after the claim for relief arises, and not thereafter, but in no case shall such an action be brought more than
after the substantial completion of the improvement to the real property,
except as provided in subsection (2) of this section.
* * *
In case any such IF A cause of action SUBJECT TO THIS
during the fifth SECOND
after substantial completion of the improvement to real property, said THE action shall
brought within two years ONE YEAR after the date upon which said
of action arises.
While I have not seen yet the reaction to this bill from the construction defect plaintiffs’ attorneys, other than Heidi Storz’s quotes in the recent Denver Business Journal article by Ed Sealover, I imagine that it will receive a strong and determined opposition. I assume that one of the arguments we will hear will refer to a paper published years ago by the Colorado Association of Geotechnical Engineers, according to which, damage to homes suffering from the effects of expansive soils typically manifests somewhere between the fourth and seventh years after substantial completion. The argument I assume to be coming will be that builders are trying to insulate themselves from these types of cases by cutting off owners’ rights to seek redress before they even know they have problems.
We will continue to watch the legislature for bills impacting construction law in Colorado and will monitor the progress of such bills, including Senate Bill 91. I am not sure how far this bill will make it, but I hope that it does not cause too much distraction or confusion of issues if and when Senator Ulibarri introduces his attainable housing bill, thought to be coming soon and to be similar to last year’s effort, Senate Bill 14-220.
If you have any questions regarding construction law or the litigation of construction defect claims in Colorado, you can reach David M. McLain by e-mail at McLain@hhmrlaw.com or by telephone at (303) 987-9813.
Thursday, January 8, 2015
Coloradoans Deserve More Than Hyperbole and Rhetoric From Plaintiffs’ Attorneys; We Deserve Attainable Housing
As the 2015 Colorado legislative session gets underway, the media attention and discussion regarding the lack of attainable housing, skyrocketing rental rates, and the ongoing state and local efforts to reverse these trends have risen to a dull roar. The hyperbole and rhetoric from those who would oppose any reforms has risen to cacophonous levels.
Among the most often quoted talking points from the opposition are that any changes to Colorado’s existing laws would strip homeowners of their right to seek redress for construction defects and that they would virtually insulate construction professionals from such claims. The long and the short of it is that if this year’s legislation looks anything like SB 220 from last year, nothing could be further from the truth. The two main provisions from SB 220 were: 1) protection of a construction professional’s ability to resolve construction defect claims through arbitration; and 2) requirement of informed consent of more than 50% of the owners within a common interest community before a construction defect action could begin. Neither of these changes would strip homeowners of any rights and they certainly would not insulate construction professionals from construction defect actions.
There is No Right to a Jury Trial in Civil Actions
One of the opposition’s favorite arguments is that requiring arbitration of construction defect claims unfairly infringes upon homeowners’ “rights” to have their cases tried to a jury of their peers. The problem with this argument is that it is simply not true. There is no constitutional right in Colorado to have your civil action tried to a jury. See Colorado Constitution, Article II, § 23 (“The right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate in criminal cases…”); see also Garhart ex rel. Tinsman v. Columbia/Healthone, LLC, 95 P.3d 571, 580 (Colo. 2010) (“[T]he Colorado constitutional right to a jury applies to criminal cases, not civil cases…”).
Despite the opposition’s view of arbitration, the simple fact is that in Colorado, arbitration is a favored method of dispute resolution. Peterman v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 961 P.2d 487, 493 (Colo. 1998). The Colorado Constitution, statutes, and case law all support agreements to arbitrate disputes. See Lane v. Urgitus, 145 P.3d 672 (Colo. 2006). Colorado public policy strongly favors the resolution of disputes through arbitration. See Huizar v. Allstate Ins. Co., 952 P.2d 342 (Colo. 1998); Byerly v. Kirkpatrick Pettis Smith Polian, Inc., 996 P.2d 771 (Colo. App. 2000).
In fact, the Colorado Common Interest Act, the law giving rise to common interest communities and empowering the very homeowners associations which bring construction defect actions, states:
The General Assembly hereby specifically endorses and encourages associations, unit owners, managers, declarants, and all other parties to disputes arising under this article to agree to make use of all available public or private resources for alternative dispute resolution, including, without limitation, the resources offered by the office of dispute resolution within the Colorado judicial branch through its website.
C.R.S. § 38-33.3-124(1)(a)(II).
This same section concludes with the following subsection:
The declaration, bylaws, or rules of the association may specify situations in which disputes shall be resolved by binding arbitration under the uniform arbitration act, part 2 of article 22 of title 13, C.R.S., or by other means of alternative dispute resolution under the “Dispute Resolution Act,” part 3 of article 22 of title 13, C.R.S.
The most hypocritical part of this argument, from the opposition’s perspective, is that some of the very plaintiffs’ attorneys now championing the “right” to jury trials have arbitration clauses in their own engagement letters, signed by homeowners associations when the associations hire the attorneys to represent them in construction defect actions. Perhaps the “right” to a jury trial only applies when the associations sue construction professionals for construction defects, not when they sue plaintiffs’ attorneys for malpractice.
Requiring Informed Consent Does Not Insulate Construction Professionals From Construction Defect Claims
One of the most often repeated arguments against requiring informed consent from a majority of owners in a development before a construction defect action can be initiated is that developers/declarants typically own a number of homes within a community while they remain unsold and that the declarant could frustrate the consent requirement by voting against the construction defect action. To the extent that the legislature views this to be a legitimate concern, one way to deal with it would be to make clear that a declarant cannot vote in the election regarding whether to proceed with a construction defect action. I have seen this written into several declarations for homeowners associations, and it would seem to eliminate the problem highlighted by the opposition. Once that concern is ameliorated, would the opposition continue to argue against a homeowner’s right to have a say as to whether his or her community should engage in a construction defect action?
At the end of the day, homes are one of the largest investments people may make in their lives and it seems only right that they should have a say as to whether their association will proceed with a construction defect action on their behalf, after being fully informed as to the consequences of taking that action.
Rents Soar and Condo Construction Stalls, creating “Housing Squeeze”
Colorado’s economy is dependent on a strong housing market that includes diverse and attainable options. Despite strong demand, communities across Colorado face a growing shortage of one of the most critical options—owner-occupied, multi-family housing. Condo and townhome construction has effectively ground to a halt due in part to concerns among builders about the growing number of lawsuits over construction issues.
Today, condos represent just 3.1 percent of new housing starts, compared to nearly 23 percent in 2007. Because of this, would-be first-time homebuyers have significantly fewer options and are increasingly being forced into the skyrocketing rental market. The lack of owner-occupied, multi-family options also leaves behind seniors who are looking to downsize from single-family homes.
Colorado Heading Into a “Housing Squeeze”
A recent Sunday Denver Post front-page article focused on the “Housing Squeeze” and raised concerns over how “rising costs could move from a personal crisis to an economic drag” for families—and the state’s economy. Another Post story noted that renters “need to make $35 per hour, or almost 4½ times Colorado’s minimum wage” to afford the median metro Denver rental rate.
Legislature Can No Longer Wait to Address this Problem
The General Assembly needs to enact bipartisan common-sense reforms that reduce the threat of
expensive, time-consuming litigation; increase the supply of attainable housing; and protect the rights of all homeowners in a community. The Homeownership Opportunity Alliance is working with the General Assembly to enact legislation that will:
- Create a quick resolution process that is fair to homeowners who need repairs while protecting the rights of all owners in a community;
- Allow construction of more diverse and affordable housing options, closer to downtown and work, so that young workers can own rather than rent and seniors can make housing choices;
- Encourage new developments near light rail and transit stations that provide easy access to commuting, shopping and urban-living options, and promote density and sustainable housing options that consumers want but cannot access currently; and
- Foster conditions that will encourage builders to construct more affordable housing and thereby provide increased home ownership opportunities.
Homeownership Opportunity Alliance Coalition
- American Council of Engineering Companies of Colorado
- American Subcontractors Association
- Apartment Association of Metro Denver
- Associated Builders and Contractors
- Associated General Contractors
- Building Jobs 4 Colorado
- Colorado Association of Commerce & Industry
- Colorado Association of Home Builders
- CO Association of Mechanical & Plumbing Contractors
- CO Association of Plumbing-Heating-Cooling Contractors
- Colorado Association of REALTORS®
- Colorado BUILDS
- Colorado Business Roundtable
- Colorado Civil Justice League
- Colorado Competitive Council
- Colorado Concern
- Colorado Contractors Association
- Colorado Hotel & Lodging Association
- Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce
- Denver South Economic Development Partnership
- Douglas County Commissioners
- Downtown Denver Partnership
- Heating, Air-Conditioning, Refrigeration Professionals
- Hispanic Contractors of Colorado
- Hope Communities
- Housing Colorado
- Independent Electrical Contractors
- Metro Denver Economic Development Corp.
- Metro Mayors Caucus
- NAIOP Colorado
- National Electrical Contractors
- Sheet Metal & Air Conditioning Contractor
- Transit Alliance
- Marc Williams, Arvada
- Steve Hogan, Aurora
- Sue Horn, Bennet
- Dick McLean, Brighton
- Rick Pilgrim, Bow Mar
- Randy Ahrens, Broomfield
- Jeffrey Huff, Castle Pines
- Cathy Noon, Centennial
- Doug Tisdale, Cherry Hills Village
- Gale Christy, Columbine Valley
- Sean Ford, Commerce City
- Michael Hancock, Denver
- Randy Penn, Englewood
- Tony Carey, Frederick
- Marjorie Sloan, Golden
- Ron Rakowsky, Greenwood Village
- Bob Murphy, Lakewood
- Phil Cernanec, Littleton
- Jim Gunning, Lone Tree
- Joe Gerlach, Nederland
- Joyce Thomas, Northglenn
- Mike Waid, Parker
- Dallas Hall, Sheridan
- Herb Atchison, Westminster
- Joyce Jay, Wheat Ridge