First and Last Name

Agency or Organization

What kind of agency or organization do you represent, if any?

What is your local government's position on the proposed technology accessibility rules?

Will the proposed technology accessibility rules create a mandate on your local government?

If the rules create a mandate, which of the following three categories most accurately describes the mandate in your opinion?

Will the proposed technology accessibility rules increase costs for your local government? If so, what are those new costs?

Will the proposed technology accessibility rules require your local government to hire new personnel? If so, how many new full-time equivalent positions will be required?

Rank the value of these potential topics that could be addressed in the technology accessibility rules. [Guidance on how to handle digital products that you use, but don't control (e.g., federal forms)]

Rank the value of these potential topics that could be addressed in the technology accessibility rules. [Guidance on how to handle third party content, either external content that you link to or that is posted on your platforms by third parties, like community members or students]

Rank the value of these potential topics that could be addressed in the technology accessibility rules. [Defining undue financial and administrative burden]

Rank the value of these potential topics that could be addressed in the technology accessibility rules. [Procedures for evaluating undue burden]

Rank the value of these potential topics that could be addressed in the technology accessibility rules. [Guidance on prioritizing digital products for remediation]

Rank the value of these potential topics that could be addressed in the technology accessibility rules. [Procurement standards and processes for vetting technology for accessibility]

Rank the value of these potential topics that could be addressed in the technology accessibility rules. [Defining cure periods for remediating an accessibility issue found as part of a complaint]

Rank the value of these potential topics that could be addressed in the technology accessibility rules. [Defining the requirements and process for exceptions and exemptions]

Rank the value of these potential topics that could be addressed in the technology accessibility rules. [Defining expectations for preexisting electronic documents and archived content]

Rank the value of these potential topics that could be addressed in the technology accessibility rules. [Identifying circumstances when an accommodation is appropriate]

Rank the value of these potential topics that could be addressed in the technology accessibility rules. [Defining grace periods for meeting updates to the standards when the standards change]

Rank the value of these potential topics that could be addressed in the technology accessibility rules. [Refining the definition of "digital product" for a violation, as referenced in SB23-244: "The violation must be considered a single incident and not as separate violations if the violation occurred on a single digital product, including a website or an application."]

Rank the value of these potential topics that could be addressed in the technology accessibility rules. [Clarifying what applies to state agencies and what applies to local governments]

Rank the value of these potential topics that could be addressed in the technology accessibility rules. [Identifying feasible expectations for organizations of different sizes]

OIT is considering establishing a framework for determining when a public entity has complied with the technology accessibility rules. Please rank your support for possible compliance approaches. [Percentage approach, for example digital content conforms to at least a certain simple or weighted percent of the WCAG success criteria]

OIT is considering establishing a framework for determining when a public entity has complied with the technology accessibility rules. Please rank your support for possible compliance approaches. [Meaningful access approach, for example an instance of nonconformance with WCAG success criteria would not necessarily equate to noncompliance with the rules if the instance did not prevent a person with a disability from engaging in the same activities with substantially equivalent ease as people without disabilities]

OIT is considering establishing a framework for determining when a public entity has complied with the technology accessibility rules. Please rank your support for possible compliance approaches. [Policy and process approach, for example establishing and following robust policies and practices for accessibility feedback, testing, and remediation]

OIT is considering establishing a framework for determining when a public entity has complied with the technology accessibility rules. Please rank your support for possible compliance approaches. [Accessibility integration into all areas of the organization, for example governance, purchasing, training, policies]

OIT is considering establishing a framework for determining when a public entity has complied with the technology accessibility rules. Please rank your support for possible compliance approaches. [Other (please describe in the comments)]

What comments do you have about the topics above?

What other topics would you like to see addressed in rules?

What other comments would you like to share?

Colorado Department of Labor and Employment

State government

Very Low Support

Very High Support

When determining a framework for measuring compliance, essentially, HB21-1110 has identified that the disabled community of Colorado will determine if there is insufficient access by reporting a violation according to the WCAG 2.2 AA (most recent WCAG) guidelines. It does not say that the access barrier needs to apply to this individual's access needs, provide them alternative meaningful access, or reach a certain percentage of access to reach immunity from these violations. This leads me to think that the intent of the law is to provide as universally accessible content as possible from design to reduce the need for remediation and lag time for access to essential state resources. It's not "kind of" meeting the WCAG guidelines, but where they actually do or do not meet the guidelines, and if there's a gray area, this is down to the guideline itself that is not met. This provides a language, a set of criteria, and principles for design.

For those of us already working in the accessibility and disability accommodation realm, it is expected that fundamental alteration and undue burden will apply similarly in to digital products as it does to physical plant and educational or employment access. I'd like to see less time spent on these already defined terms that have already been fought in courts and thru OCR. Instead, I want to know:
a) who can submit a violation to OIT to for remedy (does this have to be a person with a disability or can this be literally anyone in/out of state?). If the remedies are restricted to people with disabilities, who determines that they have disabilities? Is this a least burdensome process? How long does that process take?
b) how many times can someone submit a violation and within what time period will they be considered different violations for the same item (e.g. a person who is blind is viewing a video without necessary audio descriptions and a Deaf person is viewing the same video without captions - would this be 1 instance or 2 instances? Does it matter if it is 6 months apart? What if the Deaf person goes back 6 months later to try to view the video again after the video has been flagged for access and STILL there's no captioning?)
c) does removing the content satisfy the requirement to make it accessible? This is often the solution many take because they don't have the committed time/resources to make it happen. But, if something is found to be inaccessible, truly the MOST inaccessible thing to do is to fully remove it from use altogether once published instead of making the product accessible once flagged, right? Or is this only going to be solved via litigation?
d) When it comes to internal vs. external documents, there's a confluence of internal employee accommodation procedures (and possibly academic accommodation procedures for K-12 and higher education institutions). What takes precedent - the accommodation process occurring or digital access when the inaccessible content makes it impossible for the disabled individual to engage in their civil rights?
e) What happens if an agency claims that they cannot make something accessible due to the undue financial burden because they have millions of dollars of fines that will likely shut down their agency that they cannot reallocate any funds to remediating content? Is this a sufficient argument? Is there a line to how far this can go?
f) What is the required/expected response time for providing accommodations/accessible formats of documents/content? Will this vary based on the type of content and need for it?

Is there a group of disabled Coloradoans leading some discussions or providing feedback on any of these rules? Since this law is mostly to benefit them (us, since I am one), it would be helpful to make state agencies aware of how these efforts and rulemaking are being informed by the varied voices of this community, as it is not a monolith and not every disabled person who needs digital access works in digital accessibility.

Also, what discussion, oversight, and requirements are being provided to executive directors and offices? I have been in my role for 4 months now and have heard nothing about digital accessibility from anyone in the leadership team at my place of work, which seems problematic for this type of epic transition. In talking with others who have been around closer to 15+ years, their experience mirrors mine.

State government

Very High Support

Very High Support

There are four issues that I believe would make this law sustainable and achievable:

* Defining undue burden and codifying the undue burden provision (I believe we can even develop a tool to help agencies work through this using ADA framework, and maybe we should, perhaps tie it to an agency or local gov's citation of the rule)

* Allowing agencies/local government a curing period for contracts that cannot be modified and have no existing provisions for remedial action

* Defining what qualifies as an excluded document (I think we can use 1.1.1 for this, but if not, we could always go back to the ADA as a guide - there is a framework for this)

* Addressing audio descriptions and text alternatives (all of 1.2) - yes, we need them, but I think we need to clearly state the lack of available auxiliary aids and services in Colorado and provide resources to help local government find them - this particularly impacts live captions and audio descriptions, and again, agree we need them, but I think we need to dive deeper into the impact of these requirements to develop a plan that is sustainable for stakeholders in Colorado

* Creating a robust accommodation process that effectively removes any barriers that may exist due to the constraints mentioned above

Other than what is above, I would only submit two suggested approaches to this process:

1) Walk through every requirement and identify where exceptions should be created based on available resources in the State, or

2) Take an ADA-centric approach to interpreting the government's obligation to adhering to these rules as they are written

In regards to #2 (ADA), I'm not suggesting we take a "maybe they follow maybe they don't approach," this has been one of the main problems with the ADA across the country.

However, if we engage the community and use the intended ADA framework (rarely followed properly) to implement, I believe that we can develop a set of rules that achieves the primary objectives of this law and create a path in which agencies and local government can succeed.

PS: In response to one question that asks to rank importance above - honestly, I don't think we need to take a "functionally accessible" approach because it creates complacency. The standards exist for a reason and I believe most should stand as they are. But I think it's important to address the bottle necks so that we give agencies and local gov space to succeed.

I don't represent an agency or organization

Very High Support

Clear and easy-to-find feedback forms, both digital and physical, are a great way to determine if covered organizations are meeting their requirements. Complaint-based enforcement has its drawbacks, but it can help direct enforcement resources where they are most needed.

If possible, the OIT should provide examples of conforming content. If the rules require images to be laid out a certain way on a website, provide a website page with images that adhere to the rules.

If possible, the OIT should provide instructions on how to follow the rules. In addition to providing a website with conforming images, explain how the website was constructed to get the images formatted properly.

Provide some kind of help center where covered organizations can direct their questions.

I would like the rules to recognize that different disabilities often require competing accommodations. For example, a document format made to facilitate text-to-speech readers might hinder someone with dyslexia. In some cases, accommodating all potential accessibility requirements will be impracticable or impossible. In others, however, solutions will be cheap and easy.

Consider the Assessors Reference Library. Embedded text in a web page may be better for text-to-speech technology, so the ARL is currently just text on the ARL website. However, this layout can create other challenges--the large walls of text can run together and make reading more difficult for some. This situation is easily remedied: provide the ARL as text on the website, as is currently the case, AND provide the ARL as a downloadable PDF or similar document file. This would facilitate text-to-speech technology while also allowing people to resize, highlight, and draw on the PDF version as needed.

In many cases, individuals are best situated to implement the accommodations that they need. Providing different options and allowing users to select the option they prefer is a great practice and should be incorporated wherever practicable. In addition to the text format example above, I encourage the OIT to consider the following multi-option accommodations:
--providing light mode and dark mode for digital content
--offering document formats that allow the 'search' function
--providing 'clickable' as well as 'hover-over' options for things like website menus
--allowing links to open in new pages as well as redirecting the current page to the link
--when possible (and when legally advisable), providing text-based content in downloadable formats that allow people control over things like text size and color

These kinds of accommodations allow a person to pick options that best suit them without impacting the way that other people access digital content, facilitating greater accessibility for a greater number of people.

State government

I have questions as opposed to comments. How would this ranking of compliance be used? To signal an accessible website? As a measuring stick for organizations to know if they've done "enough"? Does this mean that once an organization meets the compliance criteria, they don't need to go further? And how would something like the "meaningful approach" criteria be used to evaluate an extremely large website with thousands of webpages and tens of thousands of files?

I think many state agencies are seeking clarification on when a complaint may be filed, how it's investigated, if there is financial penalty and how much/how often, if penalty may be avoided if the issue is fixed, who is "liable" (the organization? a web content coordinator?) etc. Currently this entire process is very unclear.

State agencies not under the OIT umbrella, for example CDE, receive much less support but are held to the same standard. I would like to see how support could be extended to all agencies.

Allenspark Fire Protection District

Local government (city, county, special district, school district)

We plan to follow the rules, providing they are clear and easy to follow.

The mandate is imposed by the sole discretion of OIT

Possibly. We get many sales solicitations indicating (in a somewhat threatening manner) that we need their services in order to comply with accessibility on our website.

Hopefully not, we are a volunteer fire department and our income is already stretched trying to abide to all National Fire Prevention Association rules and regulations.

Much of this seems over-reaching. If people have trouble with accessibility, it should be addressed. However, what if a website is not completely compliant, but it doesn't impact anyone?

Some of these questions are difficult to interpret. It would be helpful to have a link to more clarification and examples.

Icenogle, Seaver, Pogue, PC

Local government (city, county, special district, school district)

Local government (city, county, special district, school district)

Yes, but not unreasonable costs

Very High Support

Very High Support

Very Low Support

Metro and water districts (local government) often have dozens or hundreds of PDFs linked on their websites. Often these are signed, digitally-protected PDFs, such as resolutions and contracts. A requirement to make PDFs accessible would present a large burden on local governments and would be costly.

Local government (city, county, special district, school district)

Need clearer guidance, extension of timelines, resources to local government,

The mandate is caused by the State's participation in an optional federal program

Yes, staff resources

The need will be there, but the budget will not. This will greatly impact current staff resources

All of them are on the high list. It is unreasonable to expect local government agencies to have compliance in this short of a timeline without these rule topics clearly defined.

Funding, training, additional resources

Apex Park and Recreation District

Local government (city, county, special district, school district)

Local government (city, county, special district, school district)

A wish to comply but with an understanding that the process is complicated and will require resources to achieve. We would appreciate a cushion from the state during the implementation process and timeline.

The mandate is necessitated by federal or state law or a court order

Yes - Website audit, ADA compliance across multiple website, possible PDF remediation

Very Low Support

Very Low Support

Thompson School District

How might these rules differ or are there any exceptions for school districts?

Clarify rules by different type of organization, not just by size.

State government

Very High Support

Very High Support

Clarification in that regard could be very helpful. Clarification on what constiutes compliance would also be helpful. Each compliance approach seems to have it's benefits and downfalls. A combination of the compliance approaches could also be an option.

Local government (city, county, special district, school district)

This is an odd question to ask. OIT hasn't provided us with the proposed technology accessibility rules. They are asking for input.

The mandate is necessitated by federal or state law or a court order

It entirely depends on what the proposed technology accessibility rules are, once defined by OIT.

It entirely depends on what the proposed technology accessibility rules are, once defined by OIT.

Very Low Support

Very Low Support

Very Low Support

Very Low Support

Very Low Support

The City of Aurora, like other jurisdictions, has spent tens of thousands of dollars testing their applications against the WCAG 2.1 AA standard set by OIT in 2022. We’ve created one FTE position and have a part-time team of 15 volunteer technologists, attorneys, purchasing agents, and managers to oversee the efforts associated with supporting the Web Accessibility efforts. Additionally, we have approximately 100 product owners and content owners who are responsible for testing and meeting the new WCAG standards. This support will need to be ongoing and won’t end on 7/1/2024. Adopting any tighter standards such as WCAG 2.2 AA or WCAG 2.1 AAA will result in potentially double the city spend on retesting each and every application against the higher standard as the compliance deadline nears. Vendors who have been recently engaged to clean up issues found the WCAG 2.1 AA standard will need to be re-engaged if a tighter standard is adopted. We strongly recommend that the State of Colorado not be a testbed for the use of a higher standard and continue to require a WCAG 2.1 AA (or lower) standard in the rulemaking process.

The City of Aurora, like other jurisdictions, has spent tens of millions of dollars investing in technology prior to the introduction of these new laws. Aurora has 450 business applications, and an annual technology budget of over $30 M to support these applications. Roughly 90% of those applications are vendor owned, vendor supported applications. While the city often controls the content of those application we do not control the source code that will need to be changed to accommodate the HB and SB. What provisions can be made to deal with very real situations facing local governments:
1) Legacy systems that are the backbone of local government operations that due to the technology they were built on simply cannot be upgraded to meet WCAG standards. The only real option is to replace these legacy enterprise applications at a significant cost to the city for no other reason than to meet the IT Accessibility requirements.
2) Modern COTS applications or vendor-supported SaaS applications where the vendor simply refuses to resolve WCAG issues identified by the local government. It’s typically not worth their time to support a state specific requirement, it wasn’t a technical requirement at the time the software was purchased, or they understand they aren’t the entity subject to litigation if there is an issue. Vendors for the City of Aurora include Microsoft, Facebook, X, Workday, Accela, Motorola etc...
3) Modern COTS applications or vendor-supported SaaS applications where they are the only vendor that provides the business solution needed by the city at an affordable price, AND they refuse to certify, or make their application WCAG compliant.
4) Systems, particularly mobile apps, that are provided as an alternative option to filling out paper forms or appearing in person that are not WCAG compliant. City governments may be dis-incentivized from providing new, cutting-edge technology options to constituents due to the fear of lawsuits if an individual or group were to exploit a known issue with the technology. This could have a serious impact on local government innovation and return cities to phone calls, in person appointments and pen and paper processing.

The rulemaking needs to discourage ADA Trolls from flocking to Colorado to exploit weaknesses in these new rules. The risk of troll lawsuits, particularly class action lawsuits filed by a common group of individuals against multiple municipalities in the State of Colorado, need to mitigated through the rulemaking process. Clear guidelines need to be established to prevent frivolous lawsuits. It’s well know that ADA Trolls pick institutions with higher budgets and a propensity to simply pay the fines than fight the issue in court. A clear definition of the harm inflicted on the disabled user should be developed. A clear definition of suitable accommodation(s) by the city should also be developed to eliminate any grey areas.

Has OIT looked at how other states have implemented legislation related to Web Accessibility? Or are we the first state? What rulemaking has been done in other states with similar laws? Can we learn anything from the Federal government’s implementation of the ADA Section 508 standards that would strike a balance between investing in improving the technology versus simply investing in a litigation defense fund?

Local government (city, county, special district, school district)

We are trying to adhere, but we have limited resources.

The mandate is imposed by the sole discretion of OIT

Yes. Hiring a vendor for converting old documents into accessible formats, recreating all external forms, redoing parts of our website, changing to new vendors that have applications that are accessible, creating new processes to include accessibility checks, additional adobe licenses, and review of all applications and their accessibility.

We are not sure yet. We are trying to absorb the work into departments; however, most of our departments are short staffed.

Very High Support

Very High Support

I'm looking forward to hearing more.

How to manage the additional work burden on the staff and costs associated with with compliance.

Could compliance be phased in over a few years?

Jennifer Simmons

Colorado State Archives

State government

Very High Support

Very High Support

Definitely interested in exemptions/exceptions or other guidance for historical records - scans of cursive writing, older papers, etc.

If any specific software will be required for agency use, funding opportunities or direction for agencies to acquire software.

I'm guessing most agencies will not have staff able to spend full-time hours on accessibility and most will not have any additional funding to support accessibility initiatives in a quick and decisive way. So an understanding of grace periods, good faith efforts, forward momentum, and at-request remediation would be appreciated.

Local government (city, county, special district, school district)

Ensuring accessibility to disabled persons is always a good thing. Using WCAG is reasonable, although there is still a lot of interpretation to meet those requirements. More clarity would be useful.

The mandate is imposed by the sole discretion of OIT

Yes. Website development costs, closed captioning costs for video vendors, additional time for existing employees to provide content to the public.

TBD - existing employees will need to spend time on this, though, so their productivity will decrease

Very Low Support

Colorado State Library

State government

Very High Support

I work with many smaller libraries in Colorado, as the State Library provides them with website hosting and administration services. I welcome the proposed clarifications to HB21-1110. In particular, rules better defining what organizations of varying size can be reasonably expected to do in regard to meeting accessibility requirements for their own websites and any older content available there, and for vendors they contract with for critical services such as integrated library services (ILS), cataloging, and discovery systems.

Several libraries in Colorado have contacted me about their worries in this regard. It would be great if the proposed rules would help ease their concerns about their responsibilities. It is worrying that HB21-1110 relies for on the courts for its enforcement mechanism. Without rules clarifying due diligence on the part of organizations, there will be a lot of concern among libraries about lawsuits. It should not be left to the courts to define libraries' responsibilities.

City of Aurora, Colorado

Local government (city, county, special district, school district)

No position yet. Rules still in proposal period.

The mandate is necessitated by federal or state law or a court order

Yes. Difficult to estimate costs until rules are finalized.

Yes. Thus far, one FTE and one PTE position added. We predict more in the future.

Very Low Support

Courtney Johnson

Weld RE-4 School District

Local government (city, county, special district, school district)

We agree with the need for wider digital accessibility, but we are concerned with the scope and unintended ramifications of HB21-1110 on school districts.

The mandate is necessitated by federal or state law or a court order

- Auditing tools
- Time spent on researching, vetting, and approving vendors
- Extended time developing renewal contracts with existing vendors
- Procurement and replacement of systems, possibly including premature termination of existing contracts
- Billable hours with legal counsel to ensure compliance
- Training hours
- Additional personnel (1-3), may include a web content specialist, a digital accessibility training specialist and auditor

Very High Support

Very High Support

Very High Support

You mentioned students above. Student-made content is separate from school and school district-created content and involves Freedom of Speech rights. They should be identified separately from government-created content. For example, if Canvas is our platform and a student uses our platform to make a post to their classmates that does not meet the standards of HB21-1110, are we liable? What happens if a student submits non-compliant work to a teacher with a disability?

- What, if any, is our responsibility of linking to external content, or external content creator interacting with our digital content? For example, if we link to a school resource, are we then liable for that website’s adherence to HB21-1110? Or, if a person comments on our social media post with a photo without alt text, would we be liable?
- What are the implications for social media beyond captioned videos and alt text for photos?
- We have yet to find a VPAT of any school district-oriented tool that meets every single one of the WCAG 2.1 AA standards. Does this mean that all tools are unacceptable for use? Or is there a deficiency ratio that is acceptable?

I have additional concerns regarding HB21-1110:
- The absence of a cure period does not provide us with an opportunity to remediate the problem once it has been brought to our attention
- A lack of state-provided funding and support/training leaves us to divide our already-strained resources to accommodate a massive technology and staff training undertaking
- Unclear rulemaking not only creates a sense of panic and confusion regarding what the standards we are being held to are, but also delays comprehensive planning and training initiatives as we are currently awaiting further information
- Applies the same rules to teachers and paraprofessionals as it does to state-level departments made up of more highly trained groups at the state level

Local government (city, county, special district, school district)

The City views the rules as an opportunity for the State to mitigate the impractical and retroactive effects of the law in order to maximize the accessibility of digital content. As the law currently stands without any rules, the law is so broad that full compliance is nearly impossible. OIT has echoed this very sentiment in some of its presentations. Without the realistic opportunity for full compliance, non-state entities, such as the City, are set up to fail because the compliance requirement applies retroactively (e.g. all existing digital content must be compliant regardless of when the content was created) and non-state entities have not been provided adequate resources, financial or otherwise, to put such entities in a position where full or substantial compliance is within the realm of possibility. Thus non-state entities are starting from a disadvantaged position meaning the risk of legal challenges is much greater. If non-state entities have to spend additional money and resources defending against new legal claims, then there is less money and resources available for increasing accessibility. If an entity is constantly subjected to claims and has no resources to dedicate to improving accessibility because of such claims, the entity will continue to lag behind in accessibility and perpetuate a cycle of inefficiencies in which no one is benefitted.

These rules are an opportunity for the State to prevent this cycle by directing non-state entities on how to most effectively use limited resources in order to maximize accessibility. The rules should balance the common goal of accessibility with any practical challenges associated with an entity being a smaller, local government as opposed to a state agency. Perhaps this means establishing a set of rules specific only to local governments, allowing local governments additional time to comply, and/or providing the same resources afforded to the state to local governments.

Even though the rules provide the State with an opportunity to mitigate the impractical and retroactive effects of the law, the City’s position on the law itself is that the law constitutes an unfunded mandate. Despite the broad effects of the law, OIT has made it clear that no reimbursement will be provided for local governments to cover the costs of the new compliance requirements. Instead, OIT has only provided local governments with a website, FAQ document, and referrals to already free accessibility assessment tools. As the law is a new state mandate not required by any sort of federal requirement, the law and related rules constitute an unfunded mandate.

The mandate is imposed by the sole discretion of OIT

Yes. The law currently does not distinguish between historical or existing digital content and future content. Thus the law has a retroactive effect meaning that all of the City’s digital content must comply with any accessibility standards established by OIT. The City estimates it has nearly 90 business systems, which means the City has millions of files, including millions of pages of PDF files, that comprise its total digital content. As the law currently stands, all of these files will need to be brought into compliance. In terms of cost, it is difficult to assign a per system or per file cost because systems and files can be so different and stand at current levels of compliance. However, at a high level and speaking from a systems perspective, the City estimates that the cost of replacing each non-compliant system would average $500,000 per system and require several months of staff time to implement per system. Prices to bring PDF’s into compliance have averaged $5-8 per page. With millions of pages of PDF’s, this cost is astronomical. These estimated costs do not take into account the additional resources the City will need to have employees review and verify compliance and the additional costs for training current employees to create compliant content.

Not at this time. Despite the large volume of material required to be compliant, the City is attempting to handle compliance efforts on its own. The City will use new software licensing to help make newly created PDF’s accessible and will be replacing non-compliant systems whenever feasible. Even though the City is not adding new personnel, the City’s estimated 115 content creators will be required to complete additional workload.

Very High Support

Very Low Support

Very High Support

The City’s preference is the percentage approach because, as OIT has admitted in some of its presentations, full compliance is impossible. This especially true given the fact that both digital content and accessibility standards are constantly changing and evolving. A percentage approach must therefore contain some element of flexibility to account for this constant change. This could look like a lower overall percentage number that would be deemed acceptable for full compliance or perhaps instituting different percentages for full compliance for specific intervals. A few examples are below:

-Between July 1, 2024 and July 1, 2025, Content will be deemed fully compliant if it is 50% compliant with the WCAG success criteria. Between July 1, 2025 and July 1, 2026, Content will be deemed fully compliant if it is 60% compliant with the WCAG success criteria.
-If there is an update to the WCAG success criteria, the acceptable percentage for full compliance should start over at the lowest percentage for a period of one year or longer.
-Establishing different percentages for different types of content based on the difficulty of achieving compliance (e.g. a PDF must be 60% compliant where a native format document must be 30% compliant).
-Content created after July 1, 2024 should be 60% compliant and content created prior to that should be made as compliant as much as technically feasible upon request.
-An entity has a set period of time (e.g. 120 days) to ensure a newly acquired system or application is compliant.

The City would also see the following topics addressed in the rules:

1. Accessibility requirements for existing third-party applications and systems. The City has been requiring accessibility compliance in its contract for newly acquired vendors. However, such requirements do not exist for many existing applications and systems and the City must wait until renewal or termination of the existing agreement before such accessibility requirements can be considered.

2. Accessibility requirements or exemptions for historical digital content. The City has a large amount of historical documents that have been scanned into digital content. The majority of the content is PDF and includes building plans, handwritten documents, maps, and other similar historical records. These documents are not frequently used by the public or employees and are merely kept for recordkeeping purposes. Expending resources on making such documents compliant would do little to advance the City’s overall accessibility and may interfere with a document’s historic quality.

3. Define and narrow the assignment of liability for third-party content under C.R.S. §24-34-802(1)(c). As currently written, the City is liable for all content on a platform, regardless of whether the City has posted the content or not. Some platforms allow the public to post content, such as posting comments or asking questions. The City cannot realistically ensure that content it has not posted is compliant and therefore limitations or exceptions should be provided by the rules similar to what is provided in the proposed federal rule. (See Federal Register: Volume 88, No. 149, p. 51968 (2023)). Likewise, while the City has some control over the content it posts, it does not have control over the overall layout, function, and format of its social media sites. This control lies with the social media platform itself and the rules should accurately reflect this control.

4. Establish accessibility requirements for digital screens used as signage. The City uses several screens to provide visitors to its facilities with information (e.g. an electronic directory). It would be helpful to consider the WCAG requirements specifically from this perspective.

The City would like to see the rules provide exceptions to the general rule that all digital content must comply with the WCAG similar to what the federal government recently published in its proposed rule entitled “Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability; Accessibility of Web Information and Service of State and Local Government Entities” (see Federal Register: Volume 88, No. 149 (2023)). The proposed federal regulations exempt seven types of digital content, including pre existing conventional documents and third-party content linked to the entity’s website. These exemptions provide an approach that is more practical than a blanket compliance requirement because they allow entities to focus on ensuring that current and readily used content is accessible as opposed to ensuring that historical and rarely-used content is accessible. As applied to the City, should such exemptions be promulgated, the City could focus on ensuring current content is accessible as opposed to examining and editing historical documents that may never be needed. For example, the City has thousands of PDF scan of handwritten pages for City records that date back to the early 1900’s. Not only is it next to impossible to bring these PDFs into full compliance, the likelihood someone will need to review such PDF is extremely low and efforts to make such documents compliant could alter the document’s historical integrity. A reasonable accommodation could be made should a person with a disability need to review such document. If the City is required to make all such documents compliant, then the City will be putting money towards compliance efforts that have no practical effect on accessibility because of the low likelihood the documents will be needed.

The City would also like to expand more on why adding a definition to the term “digital product” as it is used in C.R.S. §24-34-802(2)(b) would be beneficial. Without a definition, it is unclear if “digital product” means generic classes of applications (e.g. PDF readers, plain text editors, web browsers, etc) or means a single application produced by a specific vendor (e.g. Adobe Acrobat, Apple’s preview, Google’s Drive, Microsoft Word, etc). If the definition of “digital product” means the latter, then under C.R.S. §24-34-802(2)(b), a person could bring multiple claims for each application displaying a non-compliant document or file. For example, if a PDF file was noncompliant in both Acrobat, Acrobat Pro, Apple’s preview, and FoxIt, each noncompliant application would constitute an incident and give rise to four separate claims. This result is at odds with the first portion of C.R.S. §24-34-802(2)(b), which states that the violation must be considered a single incident. Adding a definition would resolve this ambiguity.

City of Englewood

Local government (city, county, special district, school district)

The City of Englewood has created an exclusions list that closely aligns with the proposed rule changes. The city's exclusions appear to be aligned with these potential rules, allowing for flexibility while ensuring accessibility is maintained for essential content and services.

We are especially concerned with the undue burden of archived documents and extremely large documents (i.e.: The city's budget book - approx. 300 pgs with detailed charts and graphs) that are accessed by the community with less than 5 clicks per year, some of those being internal staff clicks to verify the link works. To remediate that document would cause an undue burden on staff time and finances as it would be approx. $1300 to have it remediated when it is not frequently utilized by any members of the community as is.

No - the proposed rules align with our current exclusions list and we already have a plan to become fully accessible by the July 1 deadline so long as we are able to maintain our exclusions list. Our list and complete accessibility plan can be located here: https://www.englewoodco.gov/our-city/policies/accessibility

No, the new rules make it so we can manage all accessibility standards in house.

We seek guidance on the appropriateness of our exclusion list in alignment with the bill's requirements.

Currently, our grievance procedure allows a 14-day response time to complaints. We are committed to ensuring that our grievance procedure aligns with your prescribed cure time.

Additionally, we propose that documents created and archived prior to 2020 be remediated only upon specific request. The remediation of historical documents, dating back to the early 1900s, which were not originally in digital format, presents an unrealistic and undue burden for the city.

Regarding substantial documents like budget books, we suggest that remediation be carried out only upon request, focusing on specific sections based on user needs. Analytics indicate that these documents are rarely used, and preemptive remediation poses an undue burden and cost to the city while offering little added value to the city's services.

Finally, we kindly request confirmation that our current exclusions list, as presented below, aligns with the bill's requirements:

Upon request, the city is committed to providing reasonable accommodations for alternative access to the following documents:

Blueprints
Architectural drawings
Diagrams duplicating information available in narrative text
Complex or atypical images and diagrams
Scanned historical publications
Handwritten correspondence
Technical drawings
Site plans, development plans, and maps
Complex and comprehensive tables and charts
Documents or document types identified by the Accessibility Prioritization Committee as having no-to-low impact on users of assistive technology or documents that contain information available in an alternative and accessible format
Any image for which creating an alternative description that is understandable to assistive technology is logically unfeasible.
Your guidance on these matters is greatly appreciated to ensure full compliance with the bill's requirements.

We appreciate your thoughtful consideration of these rules. We are committed to achieving full compliance to ensure equitable access to our digital services. The flexibility provided through document exclusions allows us to prioritize and enhance the accessibility of our most frequently utilized services and documents.

City of Lakewood

Local government (city, county, special district, school district)

Rules proposed have addressed our concerns. Speciffically to fines and single occurance vs single product. Reasonable accomodation. Cure period.

The mandate is necessitated by federal or state law or a court order

Remediation, training, procurement and maintenance

Very High Support

Very High Support

Very High Support

Very High Support

Funding for training, remediation for local government coming from the state

Define/recommend web accessibility standards that need to be implemented for compliance.

---

Based on the change to the Bill (added "but not limited to"):

(2.5) - requires the OIT CIO to promulgate rules that establish accessibility standards based on and including, but not limited to, the most recent web content accessibility guidelines (WCAG) promulgated and published by the World Wide Web Consortium Web Accessibility Initiative or the International Accessibility Guidelines Working Group, or successor groups or guidelines, when establishing the accessibility standards for individuals with a disability.

Concern: Not having a finite list of standards makes it harder to achieve compliance and easier to challenge it.

Please provide detailed rulemaking regarding: Reasonable accomodation, grace period for any digital accessibility grievances presented

Perry Park Metropolitan District

Local government (city, county, special district, school district)

1. The cure period should be required before any liability can proceed.
2. Grandfathered rules should apply, with perhaps some exceptions with current priority records. We have a lot of records back to 1971 that would be too cumbersome to try and review and convert into ADA compliance.
3. Perhaps small enough districts should be excluded, or limited to what records must comply?

The mandate is necessitated by federal or state law or a court order

Yes, we will likely need to higher a 3rd party to review and convert records. We do not have budget for this, nor any dedicated staff to go through many old records back to 1971.

Yes, likely we would need to hire a 3rd party to review and modify records. We do not have budget for this. Likely 1-3 FTEs through the conversion.

1. Exemption / Grandfathering of archived or historical records. We have records back to 1971 that would be unreasonable to have to convert, except on a per-request basis.

Size of entity, undue burden, exemption of previously created records, cure period being sufficient. We don't want this topic to be used as a harassment mechanism by groups or lawyers. It should be reasonable for a request to be made with sufficient time for a response, on a limited document basis.

Thompson School District R2-J

Local government (city, county, special district, school district)

As a school district, one of our values is providing a learning environment where everyone, regardless of any disability, can learn and grow. As such, the proposed rules help to put these values in the focus of our operations, specifically within the technology department.

The mandate is necessitated by federal or state law or a court order

Very High Support

I desire to see clarification on how to handle updates to the WCAG standards when they occur. On October 5th, WCAG version 2.2 was published. As such, most software vendors/providers do not yet have documentation that they meet these new standards, but as HB21-1110 states, we are to use "THE MOST RECENT WEB CONTENT
ACCESSIBILITY GUIDELINES PROMULGATED AND PUBLISHED BY" the W3C. I would like to see clarification on the process of handling these updates; i.e. a period of time (a year, for instance) given to communicate changes and update software to meet compliance both internal and third-party, prioritization of specific software or content required to meet the latest standards, and etc.

Weld RE-4 School District

Local government (city, county, special district, school district)

Rules are welcome to provide clarity and understanding around HB21-1110. However, the fact that the law takes effect in only 8 months and we do not yet know the rules makes it extremely difficult to plan and budget for any potential impacts.

The mandate is necessitated by federal or state law or a court order

Yes, costs will increase. Costs include:
• training for staff to achieve and maintain compliance
• audit tools to monitor and correct deficiencies
• potential for the need to replace certain systems (including termination of existing contracts, startup/setup time and expenses, and training)

Yes - we may need to add 2 additional positions

Very High Support

Very High Support

Rule promulgation and application by entity type would be helpful. Digital content created in school districts by nearly all employees for the use of their students and parents may be significantly different than digital content created by a state-level department for a controlled purpose.

It is difficult to find an education-sector product that is fully compliant with WCAG 2.1 AA standards according to their VPAT. In some cases, these are enterprise-level systems that could take years to transition from if required to do so. Given that 100% compliance with the standards appears to all but impossible, guidance on which portions of a VPAT are most critical, and realistic expectations for compliance would be greatly appreciated.

Icenogle Seaver Pogue, PC

I am an attorney for a firm which represents multiple Special Districts throughout Colorado.

Very High Support

Very High Support

Defining expectations for preexisting electronic documents and archived content- Many Districts have documents spanning back years prior to modern technology. A greater clarity on expectations for these types of older documents with respect to remediation would be appreciated.
Guidance on how to handle third party content, either external content that you link to or that is posted on your platforms by third parties - Greater clarity with respect to the liability for Districts including links to third party content (i.e. YouTube or external sites outside the control of the Districts) which may otherwise be noncompliant and outside the control of the Districts.
Defining cure periods for remediating an accessibility issue found as part of a complaint - This is of the biggest concern as it is unclear what the current remediation period is as afforded by law. A timeline of when the remediation must be performed would be most beneficial.
Defining grace periods for meeting updates to the standards when the standards change - This is also of high importance. It would be beneficial if the statute stated a timeline Districts have to bring their website and applicable documents into compliance with new standards. As this would likely be a lengthier process, particularly from a document standpoint, a longer grace period would be preferable.

Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG)

Local government (city, county, special district, school district)

The Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG) supports all the rule topics proposed in October 2023. DRCOG considers the violation definition, exemptions and exceptions, and undue burden as the top priorities, as rules under these topics will allow us to more accurately assess risk and allocate our resources wisely. We consider grace periods and cure periods as a secondary priority. Procurement standards and prioritization are a tertiary priority because we already have an idea of how to proceed in these areas.

The mandate is necessitated by federal or state law or a court order

The accessibility law increases costs for DRCOG in several ways. For example, DRCOG estimates that staff developing a new PDF will need additional time (15 to 45 minutes per page) to ensure the document is accessible. Considering a 25-page document, remediation adds about 20 hours of work and over $1000 to the project cost. DRCOG estimates needing approximately $500,000 to address just the documents on our external web properties. (This estimate was developed after a thorough analysis that resulted in 56% of our external documents being slated for removal). Even if DRCOG had the funding for this endeavor, DRCOG does not have enough in-house staff to meet the July 1 deadline. Additionally, using in-house resources for remediation of existing documents will reduce DRCOG’s ability to deliver future products. Therefore, DRCOG leadership have decided to explore consultant services to help with remediation by the deadline, but the cost of that endeavor is currently unknown. In addition to the cost of this new work, DRCOG must consider the cost of financial risk. Although we do not fully understand what constitutes a violation, DRCOG has made some assumptions to enable estimation. The results indicate that DRCOG’s external documents equate to $1.7 million in risk, third-party software equates to $400,000 in risk, and internal documents equate to $20 million in risk. At present, DRCOG’s insurance carriers are not offering coverage for this risk, and we are uncertain how much it will cost when and if it becomes available.

DRCOG does not have enough resources to reach full compliance by the deadline. However, we don’t know how short we are until the rules give us more information on what constitutes undue burden, a violation, and exemptions/exceptions. At this point, DRCOG is exploring temporary consultant services to help with urgent remediation needs.

Very High Support

While DRCOG believes the “meaningful access approach” speaks to the spirit of the law and aligns with our organizational commitment to the end user, we find it hard to objectively measure. We support an evaluation that looks at our policies and procedures.

DRCOG would like to see the rules address the legitimacy of violation claims. Predatory claims put DRCOG at financial risk and incentivize us to communicate less. For example, we will pull valuable information from our website on July 1, 2024, if there are no rules to protect us from illegitimate claims in which no harm is truly being done.
DRCOG would like to see exemptions for 1) specialized, internal software that has no alternative, 2) documents that we do not own but are required to post publicly, 3) archived or historical information, and 4) internal documents in a draft, interim or working form that reach a limited audience. DRCOG would also like to see an extended deadline for full compliance, especially since rules will not be out until March 2024.

Based on DROCG’s inventory analysis, the cost and effort to remediate all products subject to the new Colorado accessibility law far exceeds available resources. Products that are assessed as a lower priority may never be remediated.
Additionally, DRCOG is concerned that inconsistency between State and federal mandates could put DRCOG at risk. For example, DRCOG is federally mandated to post certain documents publicly or keep historical records internally, which may contain content that is difficult or impossible to fully remediate to State standards.
DRCOG is concerned that the inability to achieve full compliance exposes the organization to perpetual risk of financial penalties.
DRCOG’s risk exposure could be exploited through predatory lawsuits, which seek profit instead of legitimate solutions for those in need. This risk puts DRCOG in a defensive position that could incentivize using resources unwisely, such as using limited funding or staff time to remediate outdated documents.
DRCOG is concerned that at least in some cases the only viable solution to reduce risk of financial penalties will be to remove and/or destroy content. This outcome does a disservice to DRCOG’s partners, residents, and employees, who currently benefit from DRCOG’s historical content.

Icenogle Seaver Pogue, P.C.

I am an associate attorney with a firm which represents many Special Districts throughout Colorado

Very High Support

Very High Support

Defining expectations for preexisting electronic documents and archived content - Many Special District have document spanning back years. We would like to see greater clarity on expectations for these types of older documents with respect to remediation.
Guidance on how to handle third party content, either external content that you link to or that is posted on your platforms by third parties - We would like to see greater clarity with respect to the liability for Special Districts which include links to third party content (i.e. YouTube or external sites outside the control of the Districts) which may otherwise be noncompliant and outside the control of the Districts.
Defining grace periods for meeting updates to the standards when the standards change - This is of high importance. We would like to see a deadline or timeline of when Special Districts must comply with bringing the website platform and all associated documents into compliance with the new standards. As bringing the documents into compliance would be a lengthier process, a longer grace period would be preferable.

Cure periods - We would like to see a defined timeline in which a Special District must cure a noncompliant document. As there is no defined timeline for a cure period, this ambiguity causes confusion with respect to when a District could be fined for failure to comply after receiving a complaint.
Accessibility Plan - The OIT Guidance states that Special Districts must have an accessibility plan, but does not state or otherwise define what must be included in these plans. Additional guidance on what must be included in these accessibility plans is a high priority and something we would like to see addressed as these accessibility plans will guide the measures the Special Districts implement in carrying out the new technology accessibility rules.

City of Lone Tree

Local government (city, county, special district, school district)

The City of Lone Tree wants to provide transparent governance and a thorough archive of relevant City documents, including development proposals, site Improvement plans, City budgets, founding documents, and anything else to which Lone Tree residents might want access. As a smaller public agency with small staff and budget, we are concerned about the budget and man hour constraints a demand for remediation of older documents will create. The City of Lone Tree supports the initiative to make local government more accessible but would like to see some protections for historical documents (a date which would serve to grandfather older documents from remediation requirements), proposed tools for remediation, training and resources for those involved in maintaining digital assets, and specific rules for complex documents (such as those being submitted by developers, including site plans and images).

The mandate is imposed by the sole discretion of OIT

Yes, the City will look to add a vendor to help remediate website issues and potentially bring in vendors for historical document remediation, which has been quoted at between $5-$15 per page.

Not sure at this time.

Very High Support

Very High Support

These topics seem structured around many common concerns I've seen from other municipalities, so I am grateful the feedback seems to be falling on receptive ears.

Rules for accepting documents from third parties (developer documents)

Nicolle Rosecrans

Arapahoe County Government

Local government (city, county, special district, school district)

Arapahoe County Government is the second largest county within the North Central Region and serves a population of approximately 600, 000 residents. We're committed to providing access to our digital assets for all people with disabilities including visual, hearing, motor, and cognitive impairments as part of our broader diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives (DEI). However, we understand that digital accessibility will never be complete, and it is an ongoing effort each time a new digital product is created or procured. It is also ongoing as accessibility needs evolve; regulations, standards, and best practices are modified; and technology changes.

The mandate is necessitated by federal or state law or a court order

Yes. Hundreds of thousands of dollars. Those costs cannot be calculated at this time.

Yes. Currently, we have resources to fund 1 new FTE, and have dedicated another employed FTE. Additionally, this will require existing FTEs to address mitigation efforts.

Very High Support

Very High Support

Very High Support

Very High Support

Very High Support

Rule Type: Prioritization: Will the State of Colorado, OIT, develop a standard which all counties can follow that is realistic in how we approach HB21-1110?

Violation definition: Litigation Language: Will there be litigation around the rule and how it applies to the public that limits the number of people coming out of the woodwork to sue government entities once the rules go into effect?

Undue Burden: Funding: The State of Colorado has over $48 million dollars to address accessibility within State agencies. Will there be funding (grant, contract, etc.) that will be
allocated for local counties? Will accessibility be included in future grants funded by the Federal government (DHS, UASI)?

Grace Periods: Timelines and funding for changes to the WCAG guidelines: Grace periods should be aligned to the significance of the change to the most recent web content guidelines and the amount of funding allocated to local jurisdictions to implement the changes.

Cure periods: Funding: Cure periods should be reasonable based on the significance of the change and the funding available to the local jurisdiction.

Cure periods: Right to cure when new software and peripheral devices are introduced, which
render past accessible functionality as no longer accessible: 24-85-104.3. Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (2) of this section, the applications, programs, and underlying operating systems, including the format of the data, used for the manipulation and presentation of information MUST permit the installation and effective use of and BE COMPATIBLE with nonvisual access software and peripheral devices THAT PROVIDE ACCESSIBILITY TO AN INDIVIDUAL WITH A DISABILITY.

Prioritization: Key Principles of Web Accessibility: Will the State outline key principles of web accessibility, as defined by the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG)? And will the State provide direction on how web applications benefit from following WCAG guidelines in terms of user experience and compliance with legal requirements?

New Idea: Assistive Technologies: Will the State give recommendations and guidance on assistive technologies commonly used by individuals with disabilities to access web applications, and how developers can ensure compatibility with such technologies? Will there be direction for developers to test web applications for accessibility and ensure
they meet WCAG guidelines?

Exceptions and exemptions: Historical, two-dimensional drawing, and Other: Are there exemptions to legacy ICT Components dating back before July 2018? What about other exemptions such as for blueprints, architectural drawings, diagrams displaying information that is also provided in narrative text, complex and/or atypical images and diagrams, etc.

Aurora Public Schools

Local government (city, county, special district, school district)

Aurora Public Schools supports the goal of the proposed technology accessibility rules to ensure everyone has equitable accessibility to technology. However, they also emphasize the importance of being provided with appropriate resources and funding to achieve this goal. The school district believes that while technology accessibility is crucial, it should be accompanied by a sustainable and well-funded strategy to make it a reality.

The mandate is necessitated by federal or state law or a court order

Infrastructure Upgrades: This could involve updating or replacing outdated technology infrastructure to ensure accessibility, including hardware, software, and networking equipment. 500K

Training and Education: Costs for training government employees on accessibility standards, as well as raising awareness about accessibility requirements. 250K

Website and Software Accessibility: Expenses related to making websites, apps, and software accessible to individuals with disabilities. This may include redesigning websites and software, hiring accessibility consultants, or purchasing accessibility software. 500k

Assistive Technology: Providing assistive technology devices and services to individuals with disabilities who use government services. 500K

Compliance Monitoring and Auditing: Costs associated with ensuring that the local government remains in compliance with accessibility regulations, including regular audits and monitoring. 100K

Legal and Regulatory Compliance: Expenses related to legal consultation and potential legal costs in case of non-compliance. 120K

Accessibility Testing: Budget for ongoing accessibility testing to identify and rectify issues. 100K

Public Outreach and Awareness Campaigns: Costs for public awareness campaigns to inform citizens about accessibility services and resources. 100K

Accessibility Consultants: Fees for hiring accessibility experts or consultants to assess and guide compliance efforts. 10K

Procurement of Accessible Technology: Costs associated with purchasing accessible technology or ensuring that technology purchased is compliant with accessibility requirements. 90K

Total Roughly: 2.3 Million/Year

5 New FTE will be needed year round to ensure compliance.

Very High Support

Very High Support

Periodic Reviews: Establish processes for periodic reviews and updates of accessibility rules to stay current with technological advancements and changing needs.

Incentives and Recognition: Offer incentives or recognition for local governments and organizations that excel in technology accessibility compliance.

Private Sector Collaboration: Encourage collaboration between the public and private sectors to improve technology accessibility.

Baseline models of what all staff must learn from the state

Grants and other funding sources for this initiative would be very helpful

Michelle Bourgeois

St. Vrain Valley Schools

Local government (city, county, special district, school district)

While the intent of 21-1110 is appreciated, the level of ambiguity in terms of what content is included (student content published and posted?) is a concern. Also, the high number of digital resources used in support of education make the process of ensuring 100% compliance a challenge.

The mandate is imposed by the sole discretion of OIT

Staff time and effort for promulgating guidelines and creating/delivering training. Staff time to review all existing digital content.

Very High Support

Very High Support

Very Low Support

The lack of clarity on these items makes it difficult for school districts to prioritize their efforts in advance of July 2024.

Content created by users that is not intended for the general public (differentiating between an accommodations approach and 100% compliance for all content)

Expectations and penalties for active non-compliance by vendors.

The timeline between rulemaking and the rules going into effect is much too short for any meaningful action.

The sheer volume of digital content generated by public school districts makes the effort daunting, especially considering the immense number of digital resources that were published and procured as a result of COVID and online learning.

City of Centennial

Local government (city, county, special district, school district)

The City is committed to meeting the needs of all people with disabilities and making its digital content accessible; notwithstanding, compliance with WCAG 2.1 is impractical for two primary reasons: (1) vendors (not local governments) develop and control the web applications utilized to provide services; and (2) the required manual WCAG testing imposes an undue burden that significantly outweighs any potential benefit.

The City would like an approach that meets the needs of people with disabilities in accessing the programs and services of the City even if the technologies supporting those programs and services does not fully meet WCAG 2.1 A/AA. To analogize to the field of cyber-security, where a requirement cannot be fully met by a system, compensating controls can be used to meet the intent. OIT’s rules should likewise incorporate the same degree of flexibility.

The mandate is imposed by the sole discretion of OIT

The City has budgeted and anticipates spending prior to the State's deadline an excess of $800,000 simply on evaluation, consulting, and some limited one-time remediation. Depending on the details of the final rules established by OIT, the City anticipates there being potentially several million in additional costs for replacement of enterprise softwares, remediating thousands of already existing documents, and for additional labor resources.

Depending on the nature of the rules implemented, it is likely the City would be forced to hire multiple FTEs in order to ensure compliance with the standards. For a City that currently only has 80 FTE, this represents a significant burden.

Very High Support

Very High Support

The City of Centennial has diligently tested the web applications that are essential to our services. The City is also generally cognizant of accessibility requirements and has taken steps to ensure that the content we create in these applications is accessible. These applications are created by vendors who focus on state and local governments like the City and these solutions are used by a large number (perhaps even the majority) of city and county governments in Colorado. Our research (using accessibility experts) indicates that there are a number of barriers created by these vendors. At the same time, it would be extremely costly and disruptive to the City to change vendors. The City would like OIT to provide guidance for public entities facing the situation where a foundational technology includes barriers to people with disabilities.

The City would like an approach that meets the needs of people with disabilities in accessing the programs and services of the City even if the technologies supporting those programs and services does not fully meet WCAG 2.1 A/AA. To analogize to the field of cyber-security, where a requirement cannot be fully met by a system, compensating controls can be used to meet the intent. OIT’s rules should likewise incorporate the same degree of flexibility.

Exempt Internal Digital Technology.

The City requests that OIT provide an exception to internal only digital technology. Employees already have remedies available under the ADA and state law. Employers and employees are required to engage in the interactive process related to requesting an accommodation. The interactive process allows the employee to receive the accommodation that meets the employee’s specific need – rather than a one-size fits all approach. The City requests that OIT explicitly state that employees should not be permitted to bring a claim against a local government employer for violation of 24-34-802(2)(b).

Require Substantial Compliance and not Strict Compliance.
Making and maintaining a website compliant with WCAG 2.1 A/AA (or other WCAG version) is impractical for state and local governments because WCAG requires manual testing of EVERY web page. In our experience, competent manual testing costs between $200 and $300 per page and the moment that any change is made to that website, they cannot claim WCAG compliance until that page is tested again. Because state and local government web pages are changing constantly, strict WCAG compliance is not a realistic goal. In our experience, few government websites (including federal government sites) are strictly compliant. Nonetheless, these sites are generally easily navigable and usable by people with disabilities because they substantially conform to WCAG and the needs of users with disabilities. The City would like OIT to provide guidance on what “substantial conformance” would look like for public entities in Colorado. For instance, could “substantial conformance” mean that an organization identifies and publicizes important use cases and thoroughly tests them with assistive technology? Alternatively, “substantial conformance” could mean developing processes to regularly test content and remediate content that is found to be non-compliant or that is reported by users to be non-compliant? If OIT defines what “substantial conformance” means, the City would like that definition to be easily interpreted, objectively measured, and not requiring the City to hire expensive consultants.

Allow for Measured Approach for Remediation.
Public entities in Colorado have existing hundreds or thousands of inaccessible documents (e.g. PDFs). One option for resolving the inaccessibility issue is to remove these documents from the City’s website and public access. However, instead of removing these existing inaccessible, rarely-accessed documents from its website, an alternate solution is to make these documents accessible “on demand.” Using this solution, when a person with a disability accesses a historical document for the first time, the document will automatically be made accessible within a short time period (e.g. 48 hours to several days). Once the document is made accessible, an organization can provide the accessible version to the person requesting the document and replace the inaccessible version on its website. We believe that this approach would help make important historical documents accessible, reduce immediate costs to state and local governments trying to meet HB 21-1110, and provide effective communications to users with disabilities. The City would like OIT to provide guidance if this kind of solution meets the requirements of HB 21-1110.

Require Conferral with Local Government Before Filing Claim.
The City recommends a process in which individual with disabilities are required to contact the local government to resolve (or access) the information that is claimed to be not accessible. This process would allow the City an opportunity to cure any accessibility issue and this conferral process would be the most efficient way to resolve a potential issue and provides the services and information to the individual. The City requests that OIT provide a rule that prior to bringing a claim the individual is required to contact the local government to work to resolve the accessibility issue.

In the City’s experience, vendors who provide solutions to state and local governments have not focused on accessibility. For instance, one of our vendors (a multi-billion dollar software company specializing in solutions for state and local governments) provided a VPAT indicating that their product was fully compliant with WCAG 2.1 A/AA. When we reviewed the product, however, it included fundamental barriers that would make it impossible or extremely difficult to be used by blind users. The City would like OIT to provide guidance on how to address this kind of situation. For instance, should public entities ensure that the programs and services supported by such inaccessible technologies are accessible and available while we are given a specific timeframe in which to replace the inaccessible technology?

Colorado State University (on behalf of the System)

Higher education

Very Low Support

Very High Support

Very Low Support

- The Cure period could be very helpful or harmful depending on what the period is set at, and it should correspond with federal law expectations if possible.
- For the WCAG compliance, it would be helpful to have the level desired within the standard, i.e., A or AA. and to have a grace period for most recent published version implementation. That grace period should be three to five years for large scale websites, which is standard in web development.

Clarification of application for digital material behind a password and/or authentication.

Eagle River Water & Sanitation District

Local government (city, county, special district, school district)

Eagle River Water & Sanitation District has been committed to ensuring its website is accessible for all constituents. As a small utility, we are concerned that the new rules may place overly stringent requirements on technical aspects of our external and internal communications. Our ratepayers are already seeing increased expenses to comply with other pressing state and federal regulations; investing more public funds to prioritize compliance with these rules without a clear understanding of the direct benefit to accessibility will place additional burdens on ratepayers. We are also unclear on our responsibility for the accessibility of third party applications like our billing software. We are further concerned about the potential risks for predatory lawsuits as utilities are already vulnerable to technology-related attacks.

Yes. We may need to hire an additional staff member solely dedicated to content compliance. There will also be direct expenses on our technology. The increased costs would be over $100,000 each year.

Yes, at least one new FTE.

We hope the rules take into account the practical applications of public utilities having to manage WCGAG standards of every aspect of their communications and balance that with the burden on public funds.

Clear standards to avoid litigation.

City and County of Broomfield

Local government (city, county, special district, school district)

The City and County of Broomfield supports the concentrated effort towards increasing technology accessibility. Equity of access is a core part of our mission. We also would support a nuanced application of the rules that accommodates specialized, mission-critical technologies, such as those used in public safety (police patrol and dispatch). As we work towards sustainable improvements in technology accessibility, we hope to have the ability to prioritize what will give the most equitable impact to impacted communities.

The mandate is necessitated by federal or state law or a court order

Yes, the remediation of archived records, the nuanced audit of 300 (+) software programs, website pages, training and management of new protocols supporting this work were already a priority for our organization and community; however, the July 1, 2024 deadline has put a significant resource and staffing cost on the work.

Yes - at least one full-time position on staff, and at least one additional vendor position

Very High Support

Very High Support

We respectfully request a nuanced approach to the rules so that we can give equitable access to those most impacted.

A grace period/consideration for archived documents, especially those that we are required to maintain but are not in high use.

We need as much guidance as possible for documents that are not easily remediable (such as maps) and technology solutions specific to job role or application. If there exists no other reasonable solution on the market for the purpose of an application, and none reasonably meet the accessibility requirements, we would appreciate guidance on how to proceed.

We would also appreciate guidance around mission critical software where the technology layout and accessibility decisions are owned entirely by the vendor - if solutions are not compliant but the solution would take significant time and effort to replace - what are the recommended next steps?

Federal rules in technology accessibility will not take effect for another at least two years. Ensuring uniformity with federal rules would ensure better responses from vendors working in across the country.

Krista Kliebenstein

Emily Griffith Technical College

Technical College

Town of Gypsum

Local government (city, county, special district, school district)

While we are happy to make reasonable accommodations to make the main content on our website accessible, there is a point at which it becomes an enormous burden to make absolutely ALL content on our website accessible. Particularly for PDFs, large ones, especially such as Master Plan documents from years ago, etc.. We do not even create some PDFs on our website but rather they are given to us (i.e. developer plans & drawings or complicated forms with charts, etc.) and may not be on our website for more than a few months/while the project is in the review/approval process. The requirements of HB21-1110 are also a huge burden when it comes to the video and audio recordings of our public meetings and corresponding documents/agendas/minutes from past years. We feel that if the main pages and content of the site are accessible and we include a statement like "please contact us about accessible content as needed," that will allow us to choose to keep more information on our website for our citizens rather than remove it for fear of violation.

The mandate is necessitated by federal or state law or a court order

Yes. $10,000 for an ADA audit of our website plus staff time to correct any inaccessible content. We can't even venture a guess on the staff time/dollar amount until the audit is complete.

We will not be hiring a staff person but rather hiring an outside firm to conduct an ADA website audit. Current IT and Communications Town staff will then need to make the corrections found in the audit in addition to their everyday job responsibilities.

Very High Support

Very High Support

The percentage approach paired with the size of the government organization (or even possibly the population size that the town/city serves) seems fair. And perhaps the exclusion of archived content or content that is more than a year or two old would be beneficial. Knowing that that content can be provided in an accessible format by request.

Does this include social media digital content too? And clarity in how or if this applies to language/translation of content as well?

Ann Marie Haywood

Colorado Department of Labor and Employment

State government

Very High Support

Very High Support

Section 2 (2.5) WCAG - Requesting a 30 day period after the web content accessibility guidelines (WCAG) are promulgated which would permit staff to evaluate non-compliance and remediate content. Financial and Administrative burden - Few, if any, documents previously received from vendors, municipalities, and federal agencies were accessible when received. Our Division has at least 30,000 files and documents in the official records that are under review. In an effort to protect the official documents yet make them readily available to Department Staff, copies of the official documents were saved in various systems.The majority of these documents are expired documents that can be purged within the next 6 years. The likelihood that these documents will be needed for reference is limited.
Requests: Permit remediation of expired documents upon request, within a time period established by the State. Permit documents generated prior to July 1, 2024 be remediated upon request.

City of Commerce City

Local government (city, county, special district, school district)

In Favor of the rules

The mandate is necessitated by federal or state law or a court order

Yes, ongoing costs to remediate

Yes, one FTE is requested in 2024.

Colorado Municipal League

Local government (city, county, special district, school district)

The statute as currently written is overly broad which creates a situation in which 100% compliance will be nearly impossible for municipalities leaving them vulnerable to lawsuits. These effects will be especially felt by small or disadvantaged communities who lack resources or technical expertise. Some smaller municipalities have indicated that they would have to reassess whether they could continue to offer online services or documents if the law remains the way it was written.

CML is very supportive of the proposed OIT rulemaking to allow for reasonable accommodations, defining what an undue burden is, prioritization of accessible technology, defining exceptions and exemptions, allowing cure periods, and defining a digital product, will help municipalities get into compliance and provide accessible services while also giving them the ability to reasonably work towards 100% compliance. Allowing for cure periods and reasonable accommodation in particular is a priority for municipalities.

The mandate is necessitated by federal or state law or a court order

With few exceptions, accessibility rules for digital products will increase costs for municipalities. Munis will have costs associated with an increase in staff time and updates to current programs, remediation of existing non-compliant documents, and applications. In some cases, they may need to hire additional staff, third-party consultants, or change the third-party services they are currently using. Increases in liability may increase costs for insurance, and legal fees if a municipality were to be sued for violating the law.

Proposed rules from OIT may ease some costs for municipalities by providing additional clarity and prioritization for work to be completed. Allowing for reasonable accommodation will also allow communities to properly budget for work to be done in the future while also staying in compliance. Allowing for cure periods which restrict damages and penalties when there was no actual damage, and a violation was cured is responsible and protects public funds while ensuring compliance.

CML has heard from many municipalities that they will need to hire more staff or contract with outside entities to complete the work required in HB21-1110. This will vary depending upon each jurisdiction and their resources and prospective workload.

Value of potential topics:
It will be important when considering undue burden standards to take into consideration the individual circumstances for each local government, on a case-by-case basis. An undue burden for Nucla, Colorado looks much different than one for Denver.

Defining cure periods for remediating an accessibility claim is extremely important to ensure compliance and protect public funds from unnecessary and costly litigation.

It would be helpful to know what refining of the definition of “digital product” means. We would support more clarity being added to the definition of digital product in this space but would want the language from SB23-244 which limits violations to a single incident per digital product and not separate violations to stay in place.

Frameworks:
We believe the meaningful access approach framework provides the most appropriate lens for which to view compliance in this space as it requires a local government to provide access to community members with disabilities while taking into account the fact that compliance with HB21-1110 may not be achieved at the same time for a multitude of reasons.

CML has heard from many municipalities that the July 1, 2024, deadline is not enough time to get into compliance after rulemaking is finalized. We would ask that this deadline be extended to allow for communities to get into meaningful compliance, or that there be tiered compliance dates established possibly related to the prioritization criteria established by OIT.
We would also suggest designating exemptions to categories of records, such as archived material to ensure that local governments are aligning their efforts with.

State government

Very High Support

I think they cover a lot of the main points and concerns with accessibility. I think a higher emphasis on the process and teaching people how to follow these standards in a consistently and auditing their and others work is how we ultimately get to 100%.

Heavy process emphasis

Jefferson County

Local government (city, county, special district, school district)

I will supply through email next week.

The mandate is necessitated by federal or state law or a court order

Yes. Remediation for all digital assets is a massive project requiring training, consultants, project management, and staff augmentation. The remediation workload is too big for our current employees to complete in addition to their full time jobs. The deadline of July, 2024 is undoable given the scope of the legislation and the details of the clarification and rules not coming from OIT until 2024.

Yes. We are hoping we can limit to one FTE. We received funding for an accessibility coordinator. This position will help with remediation and then maintain, audit, and improve digital accessibility.

Very High Support

Does third party content include social media? Are we responsible for the administration side of a third party digital tool or software used by employees? How will violations be handled for a process that covers multiple websites and content types (PDF, word, etc.) for example paying your taxes vs. a single web page or a single document or PDF?

What other sets of standards may apply to non web content?
Draft Rule Input - Prioritization: What does the prioritization look like? Prioritization should be tied into a concrete defense against a claim under the statute or other time-based exemption.
Draft Rule Input - Procurement Standards: What if no vendor in the space meets the State standards?
Draft Rule Input - Exceptions and Exemptions: What is the expectation for hand written historical documents? What are the requirements for historical written documents? Please include the scope of accommodations that will satisfy compliance.
Draft Rule Input - Violation Definition: Does it apply to a section or a module?

Can you please address how the Department of Justice ongoing iniative to require WCAG 2.1 compliance for all private and public agencies will impact the state OIT's guidance and rules?

Local government (city, county, special district, school district)

The mandate is necessitated by federal or state law or a court order

Yes - significant unless the rules allow for a cure period, phasing in, and exceptions.

Yes-2 or more full time positions plus assistance from several third party vendors.

Boulder County appreciates the opportunity to submit the following comments to the Governor’s Office of Information Technology (OIT) related to OIT’s promulgation of rules as authorized by §24-37.5-106(4), C.R.S. and §24-85-103, C.R.S., necessary to establish the accessibility standards for individuals with a disability for information technology systems consistent with HB 21-1110 and SB 23-244.

Boulder County joins with other local governments in acknowledging the importance of accessibility, but requesting that the rules promulgated by OIT contemplate and account for the unintended burden, practical implementation problems, and vagueness and inconsistency that the legislative language implies.

Undue Burden
As a larger county with a dedicated Information Department (IT), Boulder County has had the opportunity (unlike smaller, less-resourced counties) to begin analyzing the potential impacts of the HB 21-110. Boulder County is committed to transparency, and as a result has approximately 13,500 PDFs uploaded to our public website and thousands more housed in our various systems, including Acella, FileNet (scanned historical documents), SharePoint/Teams, and on our internal file systems. The County’s IT Department estimates that at least 80% of these documents will fail accessibility compliance and require remediation. In initial conversations with vendors who could perform the work to convert the County’s pdfs into a format that would meet the accessibility requirements, their initial proposed price was $5 per page, and would be subject to negotiation and would depend on the total number of pdf pages included in their scope of work. Regardless, though, and even accounting for the $5/page cost to be negotiated down, the cost to bring all of the county’s pdfs into compliance would be significant.
This per-pdf conversion cost is on top of the approximately $800,000 the county expects to spend in 2024 to pay for staff, vendors, and products to come into compliance with the requirements of HB 21-110. The county is currently testing all of our website design elements to ensure accessibility. This ends up being an iterative process involving county and vendor staff, and is proving to be time-intensive. County IT is dedicating significant staff time to this, and our vendor’s hourly staff-time rate is $169/hour.
Consistent with the ADA, the County does and will provide any pdf subject to CORA to a requesting member of the public. The rules should include the ability for a county to convert any requested pdf at the time of request (that is, allow pdfs to be converted on an as-needed/requested basis). This would allow counties to spread out over time the significant costs of converting the pdfs.

Prioritization
Boulder County supports OIT’s proposal to include a clear prioritization schedule in its promulgated rules. The County is currently prioritizing its compliance efforts as follows: the public website, then our partnership sites, then our in-house developed applications, then our intranet, then our third-party vendors. As explained above, the rules should include the ability for a county to convert any requested pdf at the time of request (that is, allow pdfs to be converted on an as-needed/requested basis). This would allow counties to spread out over time the significant costs of converting the pdfs.

Procurement standards
We are utilizing procurement guidelines from State OIT and our County Attorney’s Office for all new contracts. However, the County has thousands of existing contracts that will need to be brought into compliance. The County requests that the rules focus on new contracts or contracts that are expected to continue to be in effect beyond a certain threshold of years, such as 3-5 years. It will be unduly burdensome with little benefit for counties to have to amend contracts with vendors (and thereby require vendors not previously subject to the requirements to immediately come into compliance) where the contracts are set to expire within a couple of years. The rules should focus on forward-looking procurements to allow counties the opportunity to solicit for vendors with the capability of compliance.

Exceptions and exemptions
Boulder County requests that OIT adopt rules that are substantially similar or the same as the rules eventually adopted by the U.S. Justice Department as part of their rulemaking regarding Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability; Accessibility of Web Information and Services of State and Local Government Entities, RIN 1190–AA79 (or Docket ID No. 144). Consistency across federal and state standards will prevent confusion and ensure that local governments are clear on the standards they must meet. Of particular note is that the federal rulemaking proposes seven exceptions with some limitations: (1) archived web content; (2) preexisting conventional electronic documents; (3) web content posted by third parties on a public entity's website; (4) third-party web content linked from a public entity's website; (5) course content on a public entity's password-protected or otherwise secured website for admitted students enrolled in a specific course offered by a public postsecondary institution; (6) class or course content on a public entity's password-protected or otherwise secured website for students enrolled, or parents of students enrolled, in a specific class or course at a public elementary or secondary school; and (7) conventional electronic documents that are about a specific individual, their property, or their account and that are password-protected or otherwise secured. Incorporating these same exceptions into OIT’s rulemaking would go a long way to addressing Boulder County’s concerns, particularly about our historical/archived web-accessible content.

Cure periods
The backlog of compliance issues are likely to take months to years to fully bring into compliance. We have not fully cataloged all of our outstanding issues, even though our IT Department has flagged this issue since the legislation was being developed.
The County strongly requests OIT include a cure period. This should be a rule that allows a county to meet compliance requirements by having an adopted a plan to implement compliant accessibility and tracking its demonstrated milestones to implementation. This approach would be consistent with how ADA compliance more broadly is handled for counties.
The ADA Reasonable Accommodation iterative process should also be incorporated into this compliance regime. For example, where a requester makes a request for a pdf that is not currently compliant, the rules could specify the timeline for a county to provide a compliant version or an equivalent alternative. The timeline could be similar to CORA timelines, which counties are already accustomed to complying with. And the iterative process could allow the county to enter into the iterative process with a requester to determine whether a compliant version could be provided within the timeline, or whether there is a reasonable alternative, such as an in-person meeting or virtual meeting in which the document could be presented in an accessible way.

Grace periods for meeting updates to standards
WCAG 2.2 was recently passed, as a result, our tools/services (Siteimprove, UserWay) are not up-to-date with these standards and local governments need a reasonable amount of time to engage with our vendors to work toward compliance. The definition of “most recent web content guidelines” should be consistent with the federal rules.

Violation definition
At a minimum, the rules should define that a digital product is the whole of an allegedly non-compliant pdf. It is unduly burdensome and will have negative unintended consequences if each alleged violation within a pdf is considered a “digital product,” such that multiple redundant claims could be brought based on one allegedly non-compliant pdf. Defining violations in such a way as to allow multiple claims per pdf could incentivize the filing of lawsuits over achieving the intended purpose of the legislation; that is, ensuring local governments are providing equitable web access.

Foothills Park & Recreation District

Local government (city, county, special district, school district)

Foothills Park & Recreation District (“District”) generally supports the overall proposed technology accessibility rules; however, we do have many significant concerns.

We find the July 1, 2024, deadline extremely challenging. While HB 21-1110 was passed nearly 3 years ago, there was not very much information available for most of that time. This has left us with what we believe to be a very difficult timeline to achieve compliance.

Further, the District uses 100+ unique applications/websites in our daily operating activities. We are actively working to communicate with the providers of the applications/websites to ask them if they currently comply with the rules, and if they do not, we ask them if they can comply with the rules by the 7/1/2024 deadline.

We are receiving discouraging feedback from many of our providers. Some of them do not comply with WCAG 2.2AA and have no plans to comply in the near future. Some of them do not currently comply, but they are willing to work toward compliance by the 7/1/2024 deadline. In some of those cases, the providers have asked the District to fund a portion of the project cost to bring their product into compliance by the deadline.

In the cases where our providers are not willing to comply at all, we are going through the process of identifying potential replacement providers/applications that meet the current WCAG standards. In some cases, we are finding that it is difficult to find any replacement products that meet the standard, and when we do find adequate replacements, there are often significant implementation costs. Additionally, the cost of the replacement applications will be much higher on annual basis moving forward.

In addition to the various applications that we use, the District will incur significant ongoing cost to train staff to create digital documents that meet the standards using standard work tools such as Word and Adobe Acrobat.

As a result of all the described complications and despite our efforts to meet the standards, we now believe that we need to create a new full-time Digital Accessibility role within our organization to help our effort to comply by the 7/1/2024 date and to help ensure compliance on a continuing basis with the requirements moving forward.

As a Special District, we have received no funding to help us with these efforts or the increased costs of providers. This leaves us very concerned that the incremental costs will be significant, both initially and on an annual basis going forward.

The mandate is necessitated by federal or state law or a court order

We do not have an accurate estimate yet, however we will be adding at least one new full-time employee, and we expect to incur much higher costs to pay for our current applications to improve their applications to meet the standards and/or we will incur significant costs to acquire new applications that do meet the standards. We anticipate that the annual incremental costs will be between $100,000 and $350,000, but the upper end of that range is unpredictable and could be much higher.

At this time, we are planning to hire one new full-time employee, but this number could increase depending on what we face as we move through the process.

Very High Support

Very High Support

Our District has concerns about the timeline for required compliance and the potential high cost of compliance.

We also have concerns about digital tools that are used for internal purposes only.

For example, our accounting software is an internally hosted, non-web-facing software application. Since the application is not in any way “web” content, and if it is also not compliant with WCAG 2.1AA, can we provide reasonable accommodations to employees using the system if they have a disability that interferes with their use of the software?

We believe that full compliance by 7/1/2024 will be extremely difficult and that we may not be successful by that date due to the large number of systems that we need to address. We believe that many local government entities will be faced with similar challenges with limited funding and resources to meet the deadline. We would suggest that the deadline be moved by at least a year to 7/1/2025 to give smaller local governments like ours more time to comply.

In addition to our concerns stated above, we believe the fact that the OIT will not be ready to issue rules until the first quarter of 2024 makes it close to impossible for smaller local government entities with limited resources and no funding available for this purpose to comply.

Additionally, OIT’s website directs special districts to contact the Special Districts Association for additional guidance. The SDA’s ability to answer questions and provide guidance has been quite limited. If it is OIT’s intent that the SDA remain our primary resource, they should be given more information, training, etc. in order to do so.

City and County of Denver

Local government (city, county, special district, school district)

The City and County of Denver acknowledges the well-intentioned ultimate objectives encapsulated in the legislation and commend the government’s commitment to fostering an inclusive environment for all individuals, regardless of their abilities. It is imperative that we strive towards these commendable goals to ensure equitable access and participation in all facets of society.

However, upon careful review of the OIT’s interpretation of the law, I have identified certain areas of concern that warrant attention. Specifically, the language utilized in reference to ‘hardware’ appears to be excessively expansive, which may inadvertently result in unforeseen and potentially detrimental outcomes. It is crucial that the interpretation of the legislation is precise and tailored to address the unique needs and challenges faced by individuals with disabilities.

The mandate is necessitated by federal or state law or a court order

Yes. Our current tools support manual document remediation as the document is being created or reviewed. Denver has millions of records across public multiple systems, which is not practical to manually remediate. To remediate all records, we'll need to acquire tooling that can sufficiently and accurately process batches of documents. We are currently reviewing 3 tools. We've received one estimate so far, which was around $600k.

Yes. Even with batch tooling, records will still require some manual remediation and checks. We do not currently have an FTE estimate as tooling is still being evaluated. FTE costs will be weighted with the community impact, expected usage and other risk factors for the given category of documents.

Very High Support

Very Low Support

My name is Micah Stump, I serve as the Senior IT Web Accessibility Administrator for the City and County of Denver. I am writing to provide feedback on the implementation of HB21-1110, aiming to enhance its effectiveness and practicality. I also hope to provide insights into how the city has interpreted the OIT interpretation provided here: https://oit.colorado.gov/hb21-1110-faq.

1. Clarification on the Applicability of WCAG to Hardware:

Understanding the Language:
There is ambiguity in how WCAG standards should extend to hardware. The OIT FAQ states WCAG applies to all technology, including hardware. However, most WCAG Success Criteria cannot be applied to hardware, only software elements of that hardware. This requirement needs clarification.

Practical Implications:
Our city has invested significant resources in auditing all hardware, requiring diverse stakeholders and various SMEs. However, the majority of hardware items do not interface with WCAG standards, primarily designed for software and GUIs.

Suggested Amendment:
Clarify that the law applies to hardware with physically connected digital interfaces (ex: printer with digital display) or a custom GUI component. This precise definition will streamline compliance efforts, focusing on the most relevant equipment and interfaces.

2. Addressing the Challenge of Remediation for Complex or Legacy Documents:

Anticipating Unintended Consequences:
The requirement for all documents to be accessible, particularly within the established timeframe, may lead to unintended challenges. Our archives contain at least 25 million legacy documents. Some of which have been digitized from original sources, are handwritten, and date back to the 1800s. These older handwritten documents are nearly impossible to remediate with current technology. Given that no OCR is 100% accurate, this will either require manual review of millions of processed documents or an acceptable accuracy level. An acceptable accuracy level may introduce risk. For example, an OCR error on the address of a property deed.

Rationalizing Resources and Prioritizing Accessibility:
While we are committed to ensuring accessibility, the scale of documents and the complexity of their content demand a pragmatic approach. We recommend focusing on documents of current relevance and utility, while extending the remediation timeline for legacy documents and providing remediation upon request for less accessed materials. Another consideration is that compensating controls may already be in place to provide an alternatively accessible approach, though those approaches may not utilize WCAG methodology.

Mitigating Risks by Re-evaluating Online Availability:
To avoid the mass removal of historical documents from public access due to accessibility challenges, we propose extending the timeline for remediation, or writing an exclusion that allows for these documents to remain available to the public, but limits the city’s risk during this period, until technology or resources for manual remediation are available. If that is unreasonable, manual remediation may be possible with a significantly extended timeline. The remediation of complex, handwritten documents requires a significant amount of time. The alternative of re-evaluating the necessity of keeping these documents online is undesirable. However, the removal of these documents may be necessary to adhere to the current version of HB 21-1110.

3. Managing User-Generated and Vendor-Provided Content:

The Challenge:
We often receive content provided by the public or vendors, which is subsequently made available through our systems. In situations where these systems are hosted by third parties, our ability to remediate content to ensure accessibility is limited.

The Dilemma:
While we are obligated to provide hosting solutions for this content, it is not always feasible to ensure all content is accessible, particularly when the hosting solutions themselves offer no remediation tools, or limit integrations. Moreover, imposing accessibility knowledge requirements on all potential vendors and public users is impractical.

The Solution:
Clarification that it is not the responsibility of city agencies to remediate all user generated content such as vendor created documents and proposals. Nor is it a requirement of submission for all potential vendors and the public to have their document be accessible.

4. Challenges in Balancing Accessibility with Safety and Security:

Limited Availability of Compliant Applications:
Our extensive search for applications that fulfill both accessibility standards and the stringent safety and security requirements of the Denver Sheriff's Department has not yet yielded satisfactory results. The unavailability of such applications presents a significant challenge.

Transitioning Away from Non-Compliant Applications:
Recognizing the importance of adhering to accessibility laws, we acknowledge that transitioning away from non-compliant applications is a complex process and time consuming, particularly when there are no accessible alternatives that meet our specific safety and security needs.

5. Addressing the Adoption of New WCAG Versions:

Immediate Compliance Challenge:
The current phrasing, which mandates adherence to the “Latest version of WCAG,” poses a significant challenge as it implies an immediate requirement for compliance upon the release of new guidelines. This leaves no room for the necessary time to understand, incorporate, and test the new rules, potentially resulting in inadvertent non-compliance.

Introduction of a Grace Period:
To address this concern, we propose introducing a grace period into the policy language. This period would commence from the release date of a new WCAG version, providing ample time for organizations to adapt to and implement the new guidelines effectively.

Closing Comments:
Our goal is to help ensure that the implementation of HB21-1110 is both effective and practical. By clarifying the law’s applicability to hardware and adopting a pragmatic approach to document remediation, we believe we can achieve a balanced and inclusive digital environment for all. Thank you for considering our feedback. We are committed to working collaboratively to enhance accessibility across the City and County of Denver.

Micah Stump, Senior IT Web Accessibility Administrator
City and County of Denver

City of Fort Collins

Local government (city, county, special district, school district)

The City celebrates the positive intentions behind the proposed technology accessibility rules, aimed at enhancing digital inclusivity for all members of our community. We recognize the importance of making digital content accessible ,well beyond website content, and are committed to contributing to these efforts. However, we also believe there is room for improvement in the implementation of these rules to ensure they are practical and achievable, particularly for non-state entities like ours.
The current breadth of the law poses significant challenges, as it requires retroactive compliance for all existing digital content, a feat that is nearly impossible without additional resources and support. The Office of Information Technology (OIT) has also recognized these difficulties in its presentations, emphasizing the need for a more pragmatic approach.
To address these challenges, we propose that the State offers clear guidance and additional resources to local governments, helping us navigate these requirements more effectively. This could involve creating a set of rules specifically tailored for local governments, providing additional time for compliance, legacy exceptions, and ensuring access to necessary resources, similar to what is provided to state agencies.
We appreciate the resources that have been made available so far, including the website, FAQ document, and accessibility assessment tools. However, we believe more can be done to support local governments in this transition, considering this law introduces new compliance requirements without corresponding federal mandates or funding.
By working collaboratively, we hope to find a balanced solution that maintains the law’s integrity and purpose while addressing the practical challenges faced by local governments. We are committed to enhancing digital accessibility in our community and believe that with the right support and resources, we can achieve the goals set forth by the proposed rules.

The mandate is necessitated by federal or state law or a court order

Indeed, the law imposes retroactive obligations, necessitating that all of the City’s digital content, dispersed across more than 100 business systems, adheres to the accessibility standards outlined by the Office of Information Technology (OIT). This directive encompasses the adaptation of tens of millions of historical and archived published files and pages, with projected compliance expenses ranging from $200,000 to $500,000 per system and an additional charge of $5 to $8 per PDF page. These estimates do not account for the costs of verification, review processes, and the training of employees. Given the diverse levels of compliance exhibited by existing systems and files, the sheer scale of this undertaking, in terms of both time and financial resources, presents a formidable challenge.

The current accessibility rules, as formulated, are expected to drive up costs for the vast majority of new projects, work assignments, and services that necessitate compliance. Notably, this cost escalation is likely to affect various aspects of our operations. Moreover, numerous consultants and contractors from outside the state remain unfamiliar with these rules, thereby expressing significant concerns about the potential liabilities and risks.

This is expected to be the case, contingent upon the ongoing governance requirements necessary to sustain compliance, which may involve an initial surge of efforts to align our environment with the required standards. We will also need to determine appropriate staffing levels based on the project's timeline and the scope of work involved, with an initial estimate of 2-3 additional personnel. Furthermore, it is crucial to anticipate the potential requirement for engaging third-party consultants and potentially outsourcing certain tasks, even though these expenses have not been included in the current budget.

Very High Support

Very High Support

Very High Support

Very High Support

The City advocates for the establishment of exceptions in the digital content compliance rules, aligning with the recent federal proposal 'Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability; Accessibility of Web Information and Services of State and Local Government Entities' (Federal Register: Volume 88, No. 149 (2023)). The federal regulations propose practical exemptions, such as those for pre-existing documents and third-party content, enabling entities to prioritize current, frequently used content over historical, infrequently accessed information. For example, the City possesses thousands of PDF scans of handwritten records dating back to the 1900s, making full compliance nearly impossible without significantly altering their historical integrity. Considering their limited usage, ensuring accessibility for these documents would yield minimal practical impact. By focusing on current content, resources can be effectively utilized to enhance accessibility where it is most needed.

a. Third-Party Applications: We need guidance on existing and new third-party systems and applications, as current contracts include accessibility requirements only for new acquisitions, leaving a gap for existing tools until their renewal or termination.
b. Historical Digital Content: Addressing accessibility for vast archives of rarely-used, scanned historical documents, such as maps and handwritten records, is crucial. Compliance efforts here may not significantly enhance overall accessibility and could risk altering historical integrity.
c. Liability for Third-Party Content: Clarify the City's liability under C.R.S. §24-34-802(1)(c) for content posted by the public on platforms, especially when the City has no control over the content's compliance or the platform's layout and functions.
d. Digital Signage: Establish specific accessibility requirements for digital screens used for information and directories within City facilities, considering the unique nature of these tools.

The City requests clarification on the term “digital product” in C.R.S. §24-34-802(2)(b). Currently, it is ambiguous whether this term refers to generic types of software (e.g., PDF readers) or specific applications from particular vendors (e.g., Adobe Acrobat, Microsoft Word). If it’s interpreted as the latter, a single non-compliant document could lead to multiple claims across different applications, contradicting the section’s intent for a violation to be treated as a single incident. It would be helpful to include a statute with language that governmental entities must include certain language in agreements with vendors that implicate technology accessibility issues. That way, when a vendor pushes back on our accessibility language, we could just point to the statute and say that language is a requirement of state law.

City of Cañon City

Local government (city, county, special district, school district)

We have identified a number of products to help us meet the website accessibility rules but are waiting to hear on the final ruling before implementation to make sure that the product we choose meets all of the state law requirements.

The mandate is necessitated by federal or state law or a court order

Yes. $4,900 year for website . Additional cost for kiosks, sign language interpreter, braille added to signs, etc.

The rules still seem unclear - we are looking forward to clarification on exactly what we need to be meeting for compliance and how we can go about doing that. Are there multiple ways to meet these requirements? Do we need to be able to meet all accessibility issues at 100% in every instance? For example, do we need to have a sign-language interpreter available for all council meetings or events even if there is no one in the audience just in case someone is watching the video live or watches it later on? Do past pdf's that currently on our website but are not accessible need to be taken down and then re-uploaded as accessible pdfs? Or will it only be moving forward as of July 2024? Same with video - do we need to go back and make sure all videos have closed caption added?

Local government (city, county, special district, school district)

We view the rules as a critical opportunity to clarify and define elements within the state legislation, particularly with regard to the "reasonable" standard and the broad requirement to "comply with accessibility standards." Aside from the possibility of some future legislative action at the state level, the rules established by the OIT appear to be the only remaining opportunity to provide local governments with a reasonable and achievable pathway toward meeting the requirements imposed by state statue and providing a reasonable level of accessibility for the public while also avoiding unmanageable financial burdens and abandonment of existing digital services by government agencies.

The mandate is necessitated by federal or state law or a court order

The cost of implementing digital accessibility measures results from the state legislation, not from the rules. It is hoped that the rules will help our agency set priorities in areas of digital services that are most valuable to those with disabilities. In the end, the impact of implementing technology accessibility requirements is more likely to be measured by the scaling back of digital services and products that the city provides rather than by cost.

Additional personnel resources for accessibility compliance are not possible at this time. Responsibilities for implementing accessibility requirements are being absorbed by existing personnel.

Regarding the topic, "Defining cure periods for remediating an accessibility issue found as part of a complaint": We would strongly call for an administrative rule calling for an exhaustion of administrative remedies to achieve the stated goal of ADA compliance as a pre-requisite to the filing of the lawsuit against a covered entity in court. We would also recommend that the entity would be able to cure any alleged violation without penalty and without liability.
Regarding the "grace period" topic: State statute obligates the OIT to establish accessibility standards according to the latest WCAG, however, it does not establish a timeline for translating updates into state standards promulgated by the OIT. Along with, or in lieu of, a "grace" period, it would be appropriate to set a timeline for periodic updates of OIT accessibility standards, perhaps on an annual or biennial basis, that would create a reasonable gap between the issuance of a new WCAG standard and the updating of OIT standards.

Along with the "undue burden" topic already proposed, it would likewise be essential to further define the meaning of "fundamental alteration in the nature of the programs, services, or activities being offered." For example, if an agency has a website archive of past meeting materials that cannot reasonably be made accessibility compliant, would removing non-compliant materials constitute a fundamental alteration of a service? While a portion of the answer to this question bears on the "undue burden" question, part of it also relates to setting parameters for how far an agency is required to go to gain compliance, even if it is technically feasible.

We strongly recommend that the Office of Information Technology’s rulemaking process incorporate or adapt core elements of the federal Department of Justice’s proposed rulemaking for Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability; Accessibility of Web Information and Services of State and Local Government Entities (July 2023). The fundamental considerations at work in the OIT’s rulemaking process pursuant to HB21-1110 and SB23-244 are essentially identical to those already extensively pondered by the DOJ. Consequently, proposed rules under the federal process are a qualified and relevant guide to the development of rules at the state level, with the exception of additional or adjusted parameters imposed under state statute.

Local government (city, county, special district, school district)

El Paso County is supportive of the intent of HB21-1110 and strives to ensure that accessibility of services, whether physical or digital, is uniform for all the residents of the county. The county has been extremely proactive with ADA accessibility and is fully committed to improving accessibility across the county. With that said, we do have concerns around the implementation timeframe as well as what we feel are unclear parameters that are supposed to be addressed during the upcoming rulemaking process.

The mandate is imposed by the sole discretion of OIT

Yes, the proposed technology accessibility rules will increases costs. While we don't know the full amount of all associated costs it will impact future software selection, the procurement process, and required multi-department and staff time through process/procedure creation and training.

Yes. Will will be required to hire additional staff, but we are unsure on how many FTE's would be needed.

Very High Support

Very High Support

Very High Support

Very High Support

There needs to be clarification on what third-party content/software consists of, how it is seen within the law, who governs it, how it is to be incorporated within procurement processes, and where liabilities fall, if the information is from a state agency or federal agency.

There needs to be clear and defined terminology for what constitutes an undue burden. Undue burden needs to be defined as it relates to digital accessibility products, services, and documents. Also, what levels of undue burden/hardship will be allowed when applied to digital accessibility?

There needs to be a very detailed process for businesses that want to do business with any state or local government entities. See Minnesota IT Services for an example of a thought-out process providing a very detailed process for agencies to use. https://mn.gov/mnit/about-mnit/accessibility/it-procurement.jsp

There needs to be clarity on what makes something a priority regarding software and documents. Are there certain criteria that need to be met to become a priority? There needs to be a clear definition of what “digital product” is and all that it encompasses.

Defining the cure timeline and stating how many days an entity has to cure or find a reasonable accommodation is critical. Clarification on what happens if something needs to be outsourced for remediation and it takes longer than the time stated.

The definition of what is an exemption and what is an exception needs to be thoroughly written out. There also needs to be clear limits to when exceptions can be applied. The “Federal Proposed Rulemaking on Accessibility of Web Information and Services of State and Local Government Entities” shows what they will be proposing https://www.ada.gov/resources/2023-07-20-web-nprm/#1-archived-web-content. It is highly recommended by many cities and counties around Colorado that the state model what the federal guidelines will be.

The federal proposed rulemaking has charts that break down how long it should take different-sized entities to make everything compliant. While this is great, it is also not realistic because most entities cannot afford the staff, let alone there are not enough subject matter experts so then price gouging from accessibility companies happens due to the time crunch creating a financial burden.

Everything within the section for “OIT is considering establishing a framework for determining when a public entity has complied with the technology accessibility rules. Please rank your support for possible compliance approaches.”, should be placed in a matrix. The City of Colorado Springs uses a maturity model, and the State of Maine uses a goal and level matrix. There are many examples of already established and working solutions that could be implemented.

Local government (city, county, special district, school district)

El Paso County is supportive of the intent of HB21-1110 and strives to ensure that accessibility of services, whether physical or digital, is uniform for all the residents of the county. The county has been extremely proactive with ADA accessibility and is fully committed to improving accessibility across the county. With that said, we do have concerns around the implementation timeframe as well as what we feel are unclear parameters that are supposed to be addressed during the upcoming rulemaking process.

The mandate is imposed by the sole discretion of OIT

Yes. This accessibility rule will increase costs for El Paso County. There will be staff costs, technology costs, process and procedure development costs, training costs, and costs associated with ensuring the compliance work is completed.

We will most likely need to hire new/additional personnel, but do not know how much full-time equivalent positions will be required.

Very High Support

Very High Support

Very High Support

Very High Support

Very High Support

The below list includes areas we feel have not been adequately addressed or defined and need to be take into consideration during rulemaking.

o There needs to be clarification on what third-party content/software consists of, how it is seen within the law, who governs it, how it is to be incorporated within procurement processes, and where liabilities fall, if the information is from a state agency or federal agency.

o There needs to be clear and defined terminology for what constitutes an undue burden. Undue burden needs to be defined as it relates to digital accessibility products, services, and documents. Also, what levels of undue burden/hardship will be allowed when applied to digital accessibility?

o There needs to be a very detailed process for businesses that want to do business with any state or local government entities. See Minnesota IT Services for an example of a thought-out process providing a very detailed process for agencies to use. https://mn.gov/mnit/about-mnit/accessibility/it-procurement.jsp

o There needs to be clarity on what makes something a priority regarding software and documents. Are there certain criteria that need to be met to become a priority? There needs to be a clear definition of what “digital product” is and all that it encompasses.

o Defining the cure timeline and stating how many days an entity has to cure or find a reasonable accommodation is critical. Clarification on what happens if something needs to be outsourced for remediation and it takes longer than the time stated.

o The definition of what is an exemption and what is an exception needs to be thoroughly written out. There also needs to be clear limits to when exceptions can be applied. The “Federal Proposed Rulemaking on Accessibility of Web Information and Services of State and Local Government Entities” shows what they will be proposing https://www.ada.gov/resources/2023-07-20-web-nprm/#1-archived-web-content. It is highly recommended by many cities and counties around Colorado that the state model what the federal guidelines will be.

o The federal proposed rulemaking has charts that break down how long it should take different-sized entities to make everything compliant. While this is great, it is also not realistic because most entities cannot afford the staff, let alone there are not enough subject matter experts so then price gouging from accessibility companies happens due to the time crunch creating a financial burden.

o Everything within the section for “OIT is considering establishing a framework for determining when a public entity has complied with the technology accessibility rules. Please rank your support for possible compliance approaches.”, should be placed in a matrix. The City of Colorado Springs uses a maturity model, and the State of Maine uses a goal and level matrix. There are many examples of already established and working solutions that could be implemented.

Jackson Trappett

City of Grand Junction

Local government (city, county, special district, school district)

We feel that accessibility is important and that the mandate is unfunded, complex and difficult to meet. It requires excessive resources in both staff time and budget, and is impossible to meet completely by the deadline.

The mandate is necessitated by federal or state law or a court order

Yes. The costs are not totally known at this point. We have looked into costs to make documents accessible, which we estimate will run into the hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars. We have started to look into the costs of making all of our applications accessible, which is currently unknown, but if our third-party vendors do not cooperate and we need to switch vendors and software packages, that will result in a potentially multi-year and multi-million dollar effort.

Unknown at this time, but it has already required a large amount of existing staff time.

Very High Support

Very High Support

- The rulemaking should include a provision that allows state and local governments to request assistance from the state's Office of Information Technology in negotiating with third-party vendors to make their software accessible.

- The rulemaking should establish a process for mediating disputes between local governments and third-party vendors over the accessibility of software.

- The rulemaking should create a fund to provide financial assistance to state and local governments for the costs of procuring accessible software and mitigating documents for accessibility.

- Clarify the extent to which state and local governments are responsible for ensuring the accessibility of third-party software.

- Clarify the types of measures that state and local governments can take to encourage third-party vendors to make their software accessible.

- Clarify the types of evidence that state and local governments can use to demonstrate that they have made reasonable efforts to ensure the accessibility of third-party software.

We agree that accessibility is important and we also think that the requirements create significant burdens for city governments. Below are a few examples of those burdens:

- The amount of web content, documents, videos, and other materials a city government produces is substantial. Making all this content accessible to individuals with disabilities (text alternatives for visuals, captions for audio, etc.) will require extensive staff time and budget. Many cities lack expertise in accessibility best practices.

- Cities often link to or embed third-party sites and content they don't own or control. Requiring cities to ensure these third-party sites are accessible creates an unreasonable burden as they may not have the ability to make changes to external sites, and may lack cooperation from third-party software vendors.

- The threat of lawsuits and substantial per-violation fines for non-compliance could strain city budgets and resources. Even with best efforts, achieving full accessibility across a complex city digital presence by 2024 may not be feasible.

Given the challenges outlined above, we request the requirements for city government web accessibility be relaxed as follows:

- Extend the compliance deadline to July 2026, or at least two years after the final rulemaking is complete, to allow sufficient time for cities to achieve accessibility. The July 2024 deadline of the original bill gave us time to start, but with the rulemaking of the clean-up bill still incomplete, compliance is a moving target that is still undefined as we approach 6 months to the effective date.

- Clarify that cities will not be penalized for third-party site inaccessibility when linking to and using external sites and software that they don't control.

- Institute a grace period during which cities may correct accessibility issues without incurring fines, provided they are making a good faith effort toward compliance.

- Provide state assistance to cities for accessibility consulting and training needed to realistically achieve these goals.

We believe these measures would ease the burden on cities while still upholding expanded access for persons with disabilities.

Local government (city, county, special district, school district)

Communications Director & Manager

The mandate is necessitated by federal or state law or a court order

Software costs, staff time, consultants, training, equipment, legal, etc.

The size of our city will not allow us to hire new personnel, and existing staff will have to assume more responsibilities

o It is presumptuous to assume that local governments have the resources/staff available to implement these changes in the allotted time.
o Please provide more resources and training to local governments, not only state agencies
o Third-party websites and documents that live on our website should also be held accountable, especially if they are not willing to comply with these standards.
o If a third party doesn’t comply, can agencies request 3-5 years for a vendor to come into compliance or time to procure a new vendor – we need time due to contract guidelines
o Specific guidance on what to prioritize for remediation ex: dates, type of docs, downloads, etc.
o What items/docs can follow under exemptions?
o Define the cure period and whether it will always be allowed if a complaint is filed
o Provide additional definitions on what a violation consists of/digital product (ex: no alt text) -can we be fined again if we don’t have a remediated PDF?
o Please make the rules in plain language. Each new document and guidance seem to get more confusing.
o Set date, moving from July 2024 will meet accessibility standards, case by case basis to remediate past digital products. What will the exceptions be?
o Will there be a grandfather clause if before a specific date?
o We do not feel it is responsible to use taxpayer money to remediate all documents on the website, especially archived documents and ones that are not utilized.
o Can you publish a list or resource document of the average costs for website standards, remediation of PDFs, auditors, and agencies in order to determine how much we need to budget for these costs.
o Please provide specific examples of reasonable accommodations
o What are retention guidelines for documents on the website that aren’t accessible (drawings, financial documents, etc.)

All of the topics are covered.

Please see above.

Poudre School Distrixt

Local government (city, county, special district, school district)

The mandate is imposed by the sole discretion of OIT

Very High Support