State's $17.6B budget passes House

All but one GOP representative votes against fiscal measure

March 28, 2008

By Joe Hanel | Herald Denver Bureau

DENVER - Representatives approved the state's $17.6 billion budget after partisan debate about the size of state government.

Every Republican but one voted against the budget Thursday morning.

Rep. Douglas Bruce, R-Colorado Springs, led the GOP charge, calling the budget "a railroad of socialistic spending," "budgetary blasphemy" and "fiscal child abuse."

The budget amounts to more than $3,500 per Colorado resident, Bruce said.

But that's a bargain, said Rep. Jack Pommer, D-Boulder.

"I'm happy to take that out and sell it. $3,500 a person. I bet your health-insurance company has a hard time providing your grandma health insurance for $3,500," Pommer said.

The state runs an insurance program for the poor and elderly, and also provides primary education and colleges for young people; law enforcement and prisons to deal with lawbreakers; and a transportation network for everyone, Pommer said.

Republicans focused their attacks on the 1,335 new state employees in the 2008-09 budget.

But the budget reflects the growth of the state, Democrats said.

An estimated 1.01 percent of Colorado's population will be on the state payroll next year, up just 0.01 percent from last year and down more than a quarter of a percent since the early 1990s, according to the Legislature's nonpartisan researchers.

"We operate one of the leanest budgets in America, and we are still trying to serve one of the fastest-growing populations in America," said Speaker of the House Andrew Romanoff, D-Denver.

The House passed the budget on a 40-24 vote, with every Republican except Al White of Hayden voting against it. White serves on the committee that wrote the budget.

The Senate will debate the budget next week.

Representatives succeeded in making only four changes after a nine-hour debate that ended late Wednesday night.

The biggest change repeals a $900,000 tax on energy companies to fund new employees at the Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. The 21 new employees still will be hired, but they'll have to be paid with existing money available to the commission, not an increased tax on companies.

House panel OKs budget proposal

BY ED SEALOVER
THE GAZETTE
March 25, 2008 - 8:00PMDENVER - After almost 30 minutes of discussion Tuesday, the House Appropriations Committee passed the proposed $17.6 billion state budget for 2008-09.

Put differently, the members "considered" roughly $10 million every second that they met.

There will be far more discussion today when the fiscal plan for the year beginning July 1 reaches the full House. But the drive-by budgeting that the 13-person committee undertook exemplifies an increasingly common beef among legislators: the lack of time they have to consider what annually could be considered the most important bill they will pass.

House members received the 616-page budget proposal at 8 a.m. Monday, debated it Monday and Tuesday in party caucuses and will be expected to begin casting votes on it this morning. After final tallies Thursday or Friday, the document will move to the Senate, which will repeat the process next week.

"It's hard to know about everything that goes on in the budget. The (Joint) Budget Committee takes months and months to get it together, and the Legislature has to act on it in a few days," said Senate Minority Leader Andy McElhany, a Colorado Springs Republican in his 14th year at the state Capital.

Most of McElhany's 14 years were spent in the majority, and I don't remember him complaining about the process when the Republicans controlled it. And I can't remember seeing him at a JBC hearing in my 6 years in the legislature.

"Those of us who have been around here long enough are cynical enough to believe that's by design, that the budget committee doesn't want their product to be tinkered with."

The General Assembly established the six-member JBC in 1959 to deal exclusively with the budget, and the three senators and three House members typically begin meeting in October - several months before the legislative session starts. Then it tells the rest of the legislators to approve it within two weeks.

Tuesday, committee Vice Chairman Jack Pommer, D-Boulder, spent almost as much time trying to hurry the meeting along as he did discussing the bill.

The Appropriations Committee hearing on the Long Bill is a formality. We have to hold it -- a committee meeting is required -- then get on to the real work of briefing the caucuses, collecting amendments from legislators and debating those amendments along with the bill itself on 2nd reading. In fact, we scheduled it for 8:30, meaning we had to hear the bill, wrap up the hearing and get over to the Capitol for roll-call by 9:00.

Unfortunately, one Republican members decided to make the Approps meeting into a soapbox for rehearsing his Dick Wadhams-written speeches about the budget.

Nobody cared. The press doesn't come to the Approps Long Bill hearing (Ed must have listened to in over the Internet) and even lobbyists tend to skip it.

It unfair to silence a legislator who wants to speak during a hearing, but even the other Republicans were getting fed up with one guy's endless ranting. In fact, it was a Republican who eventually cut him off by making the motion to send the bill to the floor.

Sen. John Morse, a Colorado Springs Democrat serving his first year on the JBC, said the speed is necessary to ensure that the Legislature has time to consider reversing any line item vetoes that Gov. Bill Ritter makes. Because of all the prep work the JBC must do and because of the 120-day limit on the session, the timing is locked in, he said.

McElhany and Rep. Paul Weissmann, a Louisville Democrat who is considered one of the Legislature's procedural experts, think that the budget should be parsed out and sent to each of the Legislature's committees so that members could examine their area of specialty. Then the transportation committee could give a closer look to the transportation budget or the education committee could ask more pointed questions about school-related funding.

"There's got to be a better way to broaden this out beyond 6 percent of the legislators controlling the game," Weissmann argued.

Every legislator is welcome to come to any JBC briefing or hearing. I did it regularly during my first four years in the House when I wasn't on the JBC. When I missed a meeting I'd pick up the briefing document, read it and ask JBC analysts if I had questions. They were eager to help. It's not the same as being on the committee, but it's great preparation for debating the budget when it comes to the floor.

Other legislators do the same thing.

Colorado Springs GOP Rep. Douglas Bruce, who calculated the $10 million per minute figure, said representatives and senators should get more time to study the budget outside committees or caucuses.

I don't remember Bruce showing up at a single JBC meeting. One day he wandered over after we were finished for the day, asked a bunch of questions about how to get information, rejected every answer as unworkable and left in a huff.

One questions was "How can I get a briefing booklet from a previous hearing?

We told him they're on-line. He said he doesn't like reading on a computer. We suggested he print it out and he said he didn't want to do that. We told him the staff would be glad to print out a copy for him. That's when he stomped off. Strange guy.

We told him Morse contended, however, that the system by which one committee hears the needs of every department and then prioritizes them is better than letting legislators who sympathize with road or agricultural interests try to prop up their favorite departments. He and others predicted that despite rising complaints, little will be done to change the process.

When people try to change the budget and can't, it's not usually because the JBC blocks it. It's usually because they have to get the money for what they want by taking it from something else and other legislators defend the something else. The same thing we deal with in coming up with a budget recommendation.

"I don't see the benefit of that," Morse said. "The state of Colorado has had a lot of fiscal discipline and control (because of the JBC)."

CONTACT THE WRITER: (303) 837-0613 or ed.sealover@gazette.com

Civil rights group spokesman starting Colorado energy group

By COLLEEN SLEVIN Associated Press Writer

Article Last Updated: 03/04/2008 07:07:50 PM MST

DENVER—A spokesman for a national civil rights group said Tuesday he was organizing a Colorado group to oppose policies that could restrict energy supplies, saying the resulting higher prices especially hurt low-income people by raising heating bills.

It would be more accurate to describe CORE as a paid shill for oil and gas interests.

Niger Innis, spokesman for the Congress of Racial Equality, said the new group, Colorado Consumers for Affordable Energy, would be led by Bishop Phillip H. Porter Jr. Innis said the debate between environmentalists and industry over regulations leaves out consumers.

"When the industry gets a cold because of taxes or regulation, my community gets a flu. That's not easy to recover from," Innis said at a news conference with two state lawmakers concerned about new regulations being drafted for the oil and gas industry in Colorado.

The news conference was organized with the help of Golden-based Americans for American Energy, which supports more domestic energy production, a day before the joint House and Senate agriculture committee was set to discuss the energy regulations. Industry representatives say their expertise and experience were ignored in drafting the new regulations, which aren't expected to be released until later this month or April.

Rep. Terrance Carroll, D-Denver, said CORE has a strong history of supporting civil rights but in this case he said the group was wrongly trying to protect the oil and gas industry from a "modicum of regulation".

"It's a little sad to see them as a shill for the oil and gas industry at this moment," Carroll said.

Innis acknowledged that CORE has received funding from Exxon but said it was because of its work to distribute sleeping nets in Africa to prevent the spread of malaria. He said he paid his own way to Colorado and Greg Schnacke, former executive vice president of a state oil and gas group and the head of Americans for American Energy, said the group hasn't made a donation to the Colorado Consumers group. Tax laws don't require the group to disclose its donors.

Exxon says it gave the money to CORE for "Climate Change Regulation/Legislation" and "Global Climate Change Issues."

Former state representative Rob Fairbank, a political consultant, filed the incorporation papers for the group with the secretary of state's office.

Rep. Wes McKinley and Sen. Bill Cadman, R-Colorado Springs, said they were drafting a resolution asking for the industry to review the new rules to find out how much they could impact energy prices if they decrease production.

Economic slowdown could cost state $700 million over next 5 years

By MICHAEL DAVIDSON

THE GAZETTE

DENVER - A slowdown in the economy could cost the state nearly $700 million over the next five years and force cutbacks in next year's budget.

The Legislature's financial analysts told lawmakers Thursday that between now and 2012 state revenues will be $693.8 million less than expected. They attributed the decline to a decrease in state income tax revenue caused by the recent downturn.

The state now estimates it will have $8.14 billion to spend in the 2008-09 fiscal year and $8.59 billion for 2009-10. The budget for the current fiscal year will not be affected. Officials expect to collect $7.97 billion this fiscal year.

The analysts informed the Joint Budget Committee of the change during its final meeting before sending the 2008-09 budget to the Legislature for debate.

As a result, several building and maintenance projects across the state will receive no tax dollars in the coming years. Hit hard will be small universities and community colleges planning on expanding or renovating their facilities.

The Capital Development Committee spent the afternoon cutting projects. Maintenance projects for most state facilities were not cut, and the Department of Corrections will have money to expand the Fort Lyon Correctional Facility. Major projects under way at the University of Colorado and Colorado State University will get what they had planned on. The same with the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs, which will receive $7 million from the state to finish expanding science and engineering buildings.

The Colorado School for the Deaf and the Blind wasn't as lucky. It won't be getting any of the $9.49 million it had been in line for in the next two years for construction projects.

The planned renovation of the Capitol dome was also cut.

Members of the committee made it clear that projects that were not cut could not expect more money for overruns, and that there would be no new money for capital construction projects for the next few years.

"This is probably it unless there's a windfall for the state," said committee chairman Sen. Bob Bacon, D-Fort Collins.

There will also be less money for transportation projects, although no specific projects were cut Thursday. Over the next five years, a fund dedicated to transportation will receive $123.4 million less than the maximum amount, and $11 million was taken out of the Department of Transportation's budget for next year to pay for other building projects.

With the nation's economy slipping into a recession, members of the Joint Budget Committee were not optimistic that revenue would rebound soon.

"We're acting like we're going to win the lottery next year," Rep. Jack Pommer, D-Boulder, said when warning his colleagues they were already allocating too much to building projects in 2009-10.

The budget will be introduced Monday in the House.