Talk Back

2009-10-20T14:35:00.003-06:00

A part-private plan, in which students pay more for costlier degrees, would offset cuts.

By Jessica Fender
The Denver Post

As state funding cuts loom in 2011, leaders of the Colorado State University system have started considering an option unheard of in all but a handful of states: converting to a part-public, part-private structure in which students pay more for costlier degrees.

If implemented, the change could mean CSU's $4,800 annual in-state tuition jumps to about $13,500 for liberal-arts programs and as much as $20,000 for engineering degrees at the Fort Collins campus.

The university system also includes a campus in Pueblo, an online program and agricultural outreach offices in most Colorado counties.

CSU executives earlier this month raised partial privatization as a possible answer to the state's defunding or severely reducing its support for higher-education institutions. Also under CSU's consideration are plans to cap the number of Coloradans who can receive reduced, in-state tuition rates.

CSU chief financial officer Rich Schweigert cautioned that the suggestions are the start of a last-resort contingency plan, and their implementation depends on how the state handles higher-education funding. All of the suggestions would require legislative approval.
"If the sky does fall, we're going to have to do something different," Schweigert said.

Colorado institutions are scrambling to cut costs and find new revenue ahead of a funding crunch that will leave them a collective $230 million-plus short in 2011, when federal stimulus money runs dry.

That shortfall represents more than a third of the state's support for colleges and universities, and the shortfall is only expected to worsen with the state's budget crisis.

CSU's share of the cuts now in place represents about 4 percent of its budget. Officials declined to say how much more the system would have to lose to trigger privatization plans.

Privatization, eschewed by University of Colorado System president Bruce Benson earlier this month, could be problematic since campus buildings were paid for by taxpayers, said Sen. Moe Keller, D-Wheat Ridge, who heads the legislature's budgeting committee.

"I don't blame them for bringing them forward," Keller said of the CSU ideas. "I think it's a really bad idea. (Privatization) will change the nature of higher education and make it unaffordable for a large portion of our middle class."
The hybrid public-private model is extremely rare, according to Vincent Badolato, an education-policy specialist at the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Only Virginia, Pennsylvania and New York have versions of it.

CSU looked to Cornell University in New York as its model, where three colleges and a graduate program are public and seven colleges are funded through endowments and other sources.

The setup results in a $21,000 difference for New York undergraduates between the more costly private programs and the cheaper public degrees.

The latter, says vice provost for Land Grant Affairs Ron Seeber, attract many of the school's less-affluent students.

Schweigert said the CSU programs most ripe for privatization are those that cost the most to provide, such as veterinary medicine.
At the same time, CSU could limit the number of students admitted at lower, in-state rates to the amount that state funding will pay for.

Both scenarios would mean tuition hikes for many students.

And both will be met with resistance from the legislature in 2010, when lawmakers expect CSU and other colleges to start pushing backup plans such as these.

Rep. Jack Pommer, incoming chair of the budgeting committee, said higher education's funding crisis has been a long time in the making as lawmakers for years have shied away from politically inexpedient proposals to allow tuition increases and other fixes.

"I'm very glad CSU is looking at these options. They really don't have a choice," said Pommer, D-Boulder. "If we're not going to plan ahead, at least the schools are."

Actually, the three research universities have been looking into options like this for some time. Even back in 2004, when Betsy Hoffman was president of CU, she was talking about partial privatization.

What we've talked about is usually a "high tuition, high aid" model, which lets schools charge much higher tuition, but also requires them to offer a substantial amount of financial aid to students who can't afford the tuition.

This idea, having some schools privatized, is interesting. One problem with the way we limit tuition increases the the cost differences between different majors. This could help with that.

Jessica Fender: 303-954-1244 or jfender@denverpost.com

Colorado casinos' next quest may be 24-hour alcohol

2009-10-20T14:12:00.005-06:00

By Andy Vuong
The Denver Post

BLACK HAWK — Now that they can stay open 24 hours, Colorado's mountain casinos are eyeing a legislative push to allow them to serve alcohol around the clock.

Operators have found that, for the most part, the slot machines stop ringing and the dice stop rolling once the beer stops flowing.

State law doesn't let businesses serve alcoholic beverages between 2 a.m. and 7 a.m. Gambling-industry officials say discussions to eliminate or amend that statute — or to create an exemption for casinos — are preliminary, and a proposal may not come until 2011. B

ut they have already raised the issue with some state legislators, and the Colorado Gaming Association is researching liquor laws in other states thathave casinos.

"It's something we're very interested in, but we also know it's a very complicated topic," said Troy Stremming, a senior vice president with Ameristar Casinos, which operates one of the largest casinos in the state and recently opened a $235 million, 33-story hotel in Black Hawk.

On a recent Friday night at the Lodge Casino in Black Hawk, Boulder resident Johnny Archibald sipped on a gin and tonic as he waited to play roulette at a jam-packed table.

"Gambling and alcohol go together," said the 22-year-old. About three hours later, roughly 30 minutes after last call, the same table was almost bare, with just one player. Across the street at the Ameristar casino, the crowd also promptly died down.

"It's so lame," said Sarah Clemmens, 29, while waiting with her friends at the valet at about 2:15 a.m. "I would stay longer if the serving time was extended."

Operators say they want to serve alcohol 24 hours to be on par with gambling destinations such as Las Vegas and Atlantic City, which have round-the-clock gambling and liquor service.

Remember when this was supposed to be "limited gaming," tailored to Colorado?

"Our interest is strictly to be able to provide our patrons something that they expect," said John Bohannon, general manager at the Isle Casino in Black Hawk. "Most jurisdictions where you have 24-hour gaming, you're going to have 24-hour liquor service as well."

Opponents say extending the hours could create more problems with public intoxication.

"I'd have to look into it more, but, off the bat, it doesn't seem like a very good idea," said Rep. Jack Pommer, D-Boulder, co-sponsor of a failed 2008 liquor bill that would have allowed convenience stores and supermarkets to sell wine and full-strength beer. "I would be especially concerned about all-night drinking at casinos."

The grocery store bill was really about competition and fairness -- I don't see why we grant liquor stores a monopoly on selling alcohol when it increases prices and reduces convenience for consumers.
I wasn't trying to increase the availability of liquor. In fact, I assume the liquor stores' vehement opposition came from their belief that adding retailers wouldn't increase overall sales much, it would mostly divide up existing sales over more retailers.

I assume the current 2 am closing time is more to protect neighborhoods from intoxicated patrons and to give legislators and other people a few hours to sober up before heading back to work.

I would be especially concerned about all-night drinking at casinos. The casinos already cause a considerable amount of trouble.

It's an issue right now because of the Governor's decision to balance the current year's budget partially by diverting money from the Local Government Limited Gaming Impact Program. We've been getting stiff opposition including a town that says it will fold if it's forced to handle the impacts of gambling without the state help. A lot of the problems are alcohol related.

Most nightclubs and bars have last call at about 1:30 a.m., and patrons stream out shortly thereafter.

It's not much different at the casinos, and that doesn't bode well for them because they no longer close at 2 a.m. The industry recently spent more than $7 million on a ballot initiative to allow them to stay open 24 hours. The measure, approved by voters in November, also allowed casinos in Black Hawk, Cripple Creek and Central City to raise the maximum bet from $5 to $100 and to offer craps and roulette.

The changes took effect in July. Operators haven't decided whether to seek an exemption or to work with other businesses to eliminate the no-alcohol-service window altogether.

"The key difference is the gaming industry is offering 24-hour entertainment where the stand-alone hotel or restaurant really doesn't do that," said Lois Rice, executive director of the Colorado Gaming Association.

Casinos won an exemption from the statewide smoking ban in 2006, but it was short-lived. Lawmakers killed the exemption in 2007, and the smoking ban took effect at casinos in 2008. Another option under consideration is to extend the service hours, perhaps to 3 or 4 a.m., said Ameristar's Stremming.

"We've heard some legislators say, 'I think that that law is ridiculous, and we ought to get rid of it anyway,' " Stremming said. "But we've also heard others say, 'It's been there, it's always been there and it should stay.' "

In St. Charles, Mo., where Ameristar operates a casino, the company won approval a couple of years ago to extend the end of liquor service from 1:30 a.m. to 3 a.m. in nongaming areas, such as its restaurants.

The casino already was allowed to serve alcohol until 3 a.m. on the gaming floor.

Andy Vuong: 303-954-1209 or avuong@denverpost.com

Colorado Supreme Court gives go-ahead to schools funding trial

2009-10-20T13:16:00.006-06:00

The justices rule, 4-3, that courts can decide whether state funding is sufficient.
By Tim Hoover
The Denver Post

In an opinion that could eventually have profound implications for the state budget, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled Monday that a challenge to whether the state spends enough on public schools can go forward.

In a 4-3 decision, the state's high court overturned the ruling of two lower courts that said the question of how much school funding is enough is one for lawmakers to decide, not the courts.

The ruling Monday means the plaintiffs, who include parents from eight school districts across the state and 14 school districts from the San Luis Valley, can now go to Denver District Court and try to prove the state does not provide enough money for education.

"The state has never figured out how much it costs to provide an education that meets the constitution," said Alex Halpern, an attorney for the plaintiffs.

This is one of the key points in the lawsuit and education in Colorado. The Constitution says "thorough," but we've never looked at what it would take to give every student in Colorado a thorough education.

Halpern said he expected a trial on the question of funding adequacy could go to court in about a year.

Attorney General John Suthers, who defended the state in the case, said the decision is not good news for Colorado taxpayers.

"The majority opinion suggests the plaintiffs, who are seeking additional tax funding that could potentially involve billions of dollars, might find relief from the courts even though the legislature and the voters have determined current educational funding is adequate," Suthers, a Republican, said in a statement.

This isn't quite true. The voters haven't ever said whether or not we put enough money into education. The last time they were asked, in 2000, the passed Amendment 23 which required the legislature to increase the amount of money that's going to schools. And they were pretty specific that Amendment 23 set a minimum amount of money, not necessarily a sufficient amount.

Legislators have varying views on how well we fund schools. I don't think are funding is adequate and I know there are a lot of legislators who agree. Just because we vote for the School Finance Act, or for the budget, doesn't mean we believe it's spending enough on education -- we make do with what we have and what we can get.

Potential impact is huge Rep. Jack Pommer, D-Boulder, a member of the legislature's Joint Budget Committee and a key lawmaker involved in school finance issues, also said the ultimate impact of the ruling could be huge.

"I think it's good for education but bad for the budget," Pommer said. "If they find that our education funding is not thorough, it puts the onus on us to fix that, and I don't see how we could fix it without more money."

We've taken the view that without enough tests, enough commissions, enough requirements on schools and enough talk, education in Colorado will improve. It hasn't worked and it won't in the future. A lot of legislators say more money won't help. Oddly, they never apply that view to highway construction and maintenance.

Sen. Keith King, R-Colorado Springs, another lawmaker involved in school finance issues, said any challenge to school-funding adequacy would take years to resolve. He doubted a challenge would be successful.

"I think the judiciary would have a very challenging row to hoe to say what we are funding in Colorado is not adequate," King said, "but I've been surprised by courts in Colorado before."

Plaintiffs originally filed the case in 2005, arguing that the state was not spending enough to meet the requirement in the state constitution to provide a "thorough and uniform" system of school funding.

The group of parents and school districts argued that the school-funding system did not adequately provide for disabled, poor or minority students and those who don't speak English and come from low property-value districts.

But Denver District Judge Michael Martinez in 2006 threw out the case, ruling that because the current funding system complied with Amendment 23, the voter-approved measure that requires education funding to increase every year by at least the rate of inflation, the system complied with the constitution and the courts had no say in the matter.

Requiring school funding to go up with inflation just means it stays the same from year to year after you figure in costs. It's hardly a definition of a thorough education. Or uniform, for that matter.

A Colorado Court of Appeals panel upheld the decision in 2008.

But the state's high court Monday overturned both lower courts, declaring that Amendment 23 "neither relates to nor concerns the 'thorough and uniform' mandate" in the state constitution.

Ruling that courts could not decide what is a proper level of education funding "would give the legislative branch unchecked power, potentially allowing it to ignore its constitutional responsibility to fashion and to fund a 'thorough and uniform' system of public education," the Supreme Court said in its opinion.

Dissent: "Thorough" not defined
In a dissent, Justice Nancy Rice said the constitution places the issue "squarely and solely in the legislative ambit."

Sure, but what if the legislature doesn't obey the constitution?

She was joined in the dissent by Justices Nathan Coats and Allison Eid.

"There is no national standard from which this court could adopt a definition of 'thorough,' and more importantly, the varying definitions other states ascribe to the term illustrate no consensus on what 'thorough' means," Rice wrote. "As such, any definition we might construe would necessarily constitute a policy determination. "

Odd how some people who believe in states rights suddenly need a national standard when it's convenient. The Colorado Constitution doesn't call for meeting national standards, it sets its own standard.

It's not hard to construe a definition; the legislature has put plenty of them into law already. Just defer to the legislature, pick a legislatively-approved definition, and apply it. Of course, the we put education standards in law assuming only other people will have to measure up to them, like teaches and school boards, but laws sometimes boomerang on the people who write them.

And, of course, once courts begin to make policy, it is difficult to stop."

The state is facing its worst budget crisis since the Great Depression and has already filled a $1.8 billion shortfall over the past two budget cycles. In September, lawmakers learned revenues likely would be another $240 million short in the current 2009-10 budget year that ends in June.

Gov. Bill Ritter, a Democrat, is considering a cut to public-school funding for the next fiscal year that would result in at least a $170 million net reduction over the current year. Some education groups say that cut could violate Amendment 23.

And this decision won't make "reinterpreting" Amendment 23 any easier."

Tim Hoover: 303-954-1626 or thoover@denverpost.com

Loophole costing Colorado millions in payments to legal immigrants

2009-10-10T21:03:00.001-06:00

By Tim Hoover
The Denver Post

A loophole in state law allows elderly legal immigrants to receive the same pension poor, older Colorado residents get, regardless of whether the immigrants' families can provide for them.

Lawmakers this year resisted eliminating the loophole in the state's Old Age Pension program because doing so would have prevented the state from receiving hundreds of millions of dollars in federal stimulus funds for Medicaid programs.

But with the state set to be free of the federal stimulus requirements in 2011, there is talk of reviving legislation next year to tighten requirements for the pension program and cut off what could be thousands of elderly legal immigrants who have relatives that sponsored their immigration and agreed to care for them.

"It's just kind of odd the way it's in law right now," said Rep. Jack Pommer, D-Boulder, who co-sponsored a bill last year that would have closed the loophole.

The pension program made headlines last week after it was announced that a Lakewood man bilked the state out of $1 million by signing up elderly Vietnamese immigrants for the program and keeping most of the pension benefits for himself.

But state officials, lawmakers and a former Denver caseworker say the program has a bigger problem than occasional fraud. The way state law is written, thousands of legal immigrants whose families said they would take care of them are instead receiving help from Colorado taxpayers.

Under federal law, family members who sponsor relatives as immigrants must agree to be financially responsible for them until they become a citizen, have worked for 10 years or have become self-sufficient. The immigrants cannot receive federal benefits for at least five years or until they have received citizenship.

Pension program created in 1936

However, Colorado law, which allows legal immigrants to receive the Old Age Pension, also says that a relative's income can't be counted against the eligibility of someone applying for the pension. Taken together, this means that the income of a legal immigrant's family sponsor isn't counted in getting the state pension, state officials said.

It's especially odd because the standard is stricter for sponsors who aren't relatives; they income can be counted against eligibility.

Voters added the Old Age Pension program to the state constitution in 1936. Originally, recipients had to have lived in Colorado for 35 years before getting the pension, but courts struck down the requirement.

Today, the program provides nearly 24,000 low-income Colorado residents who are at least 60 with cash benefits of up to $699 per month, and in some cases, medical benefits. In a majority of cases, people who qualify for the pension also automatically qualify for Medicaid benefits.

The cash-assistance portion of the pension program alone costs the state just over $80 million, of which about $53 million goes to nearly 8,700 legal permanent residents, which includes family-sponsored immigrants and those sponsored by churches and nonprofits, refugees and people granted asylum.

Department of Human Services officials say elderly immigrants typically qualify for larger cash benefits because they have no demonstrable income.

The department last year pushed the legislation to tighten eligibility, and the bill essentially would have aligned state rules with federal law.

The bill would have saved an estimated $31 million per year when fully phased in by fiscal year 2012, human-services officials said, eliminating the benefit for an estimated 4,000 legal immigrants whose families sponsored their immigration.

Shifting burden to taxpayers

Michael Whalen, a former Spanish-speaking caseworker for the Denver Department of Human Services, said that while a number of legal immigrants are legitimately in need of the benefit, it's clear the sponsoring relatives of others are shifting their responsibility to taxpayers.

Whalen said that during his three years as a caseworker, it was not uncommon to see elderly immigrants who had arrived in the country only weeks earlier applying for the pension despite having sponsoring relatives who had agreed to care for them.

Whalen said he and other Denver caseworkers observed a high concentration of applicants all from the same region in the north-central Mexican state of Zacatecas.

"Clearly, the message has gotten out," he said. "People know that you can do this. And who can blame them? No one's minding the store."

Loophole not a big issue, group says

Chandra Russo, spokeswoman for the Colorado Immigrant Rights Coalition, said the loophole was not a "big issue" because it likely applies to so few legal immigrants.

"I guess I'm not so concerned about a small group of people who have played by the rules and who have waited to get in the country getting some help if they need some help," Russo said.

Well, they're not really playing by the rules. They came here on the condition that the relative who sponsored them would support them if they needed help. Now their relatives have enough money to help them, but prefer to push the cost onto the state. That cost is significant and we're cutting other parts of the budget to get the money.

Pommer and Sen. Abel Tapia, D-Pueblo, sponsored the legislation to close the loophole. They quickly found out they would have to scuttle the bill.

Under state law, Old Age Pension eligibility is also a category of eligibility for Medicaid, the state and federally funded program that provides health care to the poor and disabled.

Colorado, like many states, was set to receive hundreds of millions of dollars in federal stimulus funds to help shore up its Medicaid program. But any reduction to existing Medicaid eligibility levels would have disqualified the state from receiving stimulus funds to help with its Medicaid costs.

"We needed to do it last year, but we ran into a conflict with federal law," Pommer said. "I think we should do it again. It's outrageous. We should have tougher regulations on this."

Tim Hoover: 303-954-1626 or thoover@denverpost.com

Re-Bruce, Part II

2009-04-02T11:47:00.002-06:00

By The Daily Sentinel
Wednesday, April 01, 2009

The Mesa County commissioners apparently spooked Democrats in the Legislature when they talked of school districts “re-Brucing” to make up for the mill-levy freeze.

The Mesa County commissioners alerted us to the fact that they had a plan to get taxpayers in the rest of the state to subsidize their schools. We're not spooked, in fact we expect politicians from Mesa County to look for new ways of getting the rest of the state to subsidize them.

The School Finance Act, introduced in the Legislature this week, includes a provision to penalize school districts that re-Bruce in an attempt to reduce their property taxes. The legislation also includes new student-monitoring requirements for school districts that approve changes related to the mill-levy freeze.

It doesn't penalize the school districts, it just says we won't make everybody else in the state pay more to make up the difference. If people in Grand Junction want to pay less for their schools why should everyone else in the state have to pay more for their schools? If we reward that kind of thing, they'll decide not to pay anything for their schools and we'll have to pay all of it.

It was Colorado Attorney General John Suthers who noticed the measures, buried within the lengthy school finance bill, and alerted the public and GOP lawmakers to them.

Interesting. Colorado's Attorney General sees his jobs as supporting Republican legislators rather than upholding the laws of the state.

Now, Senate Minority Leader Josh Penry is hoping he can strike a compromise with Democrats about the provision.

We hope he’s successful. Voters in school districts around the state should have the option — without penalizing their school districts — of making it clear they never intended to raise property taxes when they approved overrides to TABOR revenue limits.

And there's nothing in the school finance act that would increase their property taxes. This is about what happens when they lower their property taxes. If people in the school district lower the property taxes they pay for their schools, does everyone else in the state have to pay more to make up the difference.

That was the case for years, until the Legislature passed the mill-levy freeze in 2007. It prevented school districts’ mill levies from dropping as their assessed valuations increased. That effectively raised taxes in 174 school districts statewide. The Supreme Court ruled last month that the mill-levy freeze didn’t violate TABOR.

The reasoning here is that not letting people in Grand Junction lower their property tax rates is actually a property tax increase. They say it's an increase because if the value of a person's home goes up, the amount of tax they pay goes up.

Oddly, the Mesa County Commissioners think that's just fine when it comes to paying property taxes to support their county. They just don't like it when it applies to paying property taxes to support their schools. What's the difference? A subsidy. If the Mesa County Commissioners cut their own property taxes, they lose money.

But they were hoping that if they cut their property taxes for schools, we'd force taxpayers in the rest of the state to increase their subsidy of the Grand Junction schools to make up the difference.

In response, the Mesa County commissioners suggested School District 51 should “re-Bruce” — reinstate the provisions that allow the mill levy to drop as the district’s assessed valuation increases.

We argued last week that putting such a question to voters should be a decision of the District 51 School Board, not the county commissioners. And, even though members of the School Board don’t seem inclined to push such an approach, we believe they ought to have the option.

But with language included in the School Finance Act, they would be penalized for doing so.

School funding comes from both local property taxes and the state general fund. The school-finace language says if school districts vote to re-Bruce, they won’t get any additional state funding. Whatever money they cut in local property taxes will be deducted from the school district’s budget.

Is that a radical concept. You cut the taxes you pay so your school district has less money to spend?

Additionally, any school district that votes to re-Bruce would face new requirements for reporting to the state and for boosting student achievement, mandates that other school districts wouldn’t have to meet.

This is something the Senate put into the bill and it does seem unfair. We might take it out in the House.

We’re all for doing things to improve student achievement, but these requirements are clearly punitive, designed to treat school districts differently if they try to overcome the mill-levy freeze.

We don’t think many school districts will try to do that in the current economic crisis. But, with the School Finance Act, the Legislature is telling voters in 174 school districts, “We raised your property taxes without your permission, and we’re going to do everything we can to prevent you from reducing them.”

Not really. The provision they're talking about said that if the voters in a school district voted to let the district keep the money it gets from the existing property tax rate, the district can keep it.

The provision in this year's bill just says that if you lower your property taxes we won't force everyone else in the state to pay more to make up the difference.

That’s not exactly the way to promote trust in government.

Actually, it's exactly the way to promote trust in government.

Bill would keep extra state money from re-Bruced districts

2009-04-02T11:30:00.003-06:00

By GARY HARMON/The Grand Junction Daily Sentinel
Tuesday, March 31, 2009

A new school-finance measure before the Legislature would prevent school districts from getting more state dollars by reinstating revenue limits.

Mesa County commissioners discussed the idea of reinstating revenue limits for School District 51 in the wake of a court decision upholding the so-called mill-levy freeze, a legislative device intended to put more weight on local taxpayers in most school districts and freeing up state general-fund money for other purposes.

Since when to county commissioners set revenue limits for school districts. In most places school boards run school districts and county commissioners run counties.

“It’s disappointing that this provision got snuck in,” said state Sen. Josh Penry, R-Grand Junction.

"Snuck in?" The provision was in the bill when it was introduced. How does that quality as sneaking it in?

It’s possible, though, disagreements about the provision can be resolved, Penry said.

The school-finance measure, S.B. 256, includes provisions that will reward schools for improving the test performance of at-risk children and would discourage dropouts by requiring every ninth grader in the state to establish an account with College in Colorado to help them plan for education after high school.

Attorney General John Suthers said he was troubled by the punitive nature of the provision.

“Now that the voters have a chance to cast an informed vote about whether they want to see their property taxes increase, the Legislature wants to punish them if they vote in favor of lower taxes,” Suthers said.

Suthers' legal opinions are truly bizarre -- and get rejected regularly by both the Colorado Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court. His comments on the budget are equally strange.

Here he's saying that if people in Mesa County decide to pay less for their schools, everyone else in the state has to pay more to make up the difference for the schools in Mesa. If we don't, the legislature is "punishing" the people in Mesa for just wanting to reduce their own taxes.

A severance tax retreat

2009-03-30T12:48:00.000-06:00

Editorial

By The Daily Sentinel

Monday, March 30, 2009

It seems like only yesterday that state and local elected officials of both parties were trying to determine how best to divide up the embarrassment of riches that was coming from the state’s severance tax which was projected to grow enormously over the coming decade.

That game, too, has changed.

According to financial analysts for the state Legislature, severance taxes on oil and gas production will plummet 80 percent in the fiscal year that begins July 1. Instead of the $250 million collected this year, only $40 million is predicted for next year.

A significant reduction in severance taxes was anticipated, given the dramatic decrease in gas prices nationwide. But few people expected such a precipitous decline.

And, because the severance tax is shared with local governments that are effected by energy development, it won’t be just the state budget that feels the brunt of the tax drop. Communities in Mesa, Garfield and Rio Blanco counties will see a significant drop in revenue from the tax.

Additionally, half of the revenue from severance taxes goes to the Colorado Department of Natural Resources for water conservation and wildlife programs. They, also, will be hurt by the steep drop in revenue.

Severance taxes are paid as oil and gas are produced from wells, so a reduction in the number of drill rigs operating isn’t responsible for an immediate drop in severance taxes. But as fewer wells are drilled, it means less production for the future. That, combined with the steep drop in oil and gas prices, spell long-term problems for Colorado’s severance tax revenues.

There has been considerable debate about the reasons for the drop in drilling in Colorado. We won’t reiterate those arguments here.

But the substantial drop in revenue, the communities and state programs that will be affected by it, show how important the oil and gas industry have become to Colorado.

Hospital fee draws some GOP support

2009-03-29T14:20:00.004-06:00

But one Republican calls it "immoral," saying if Dems want it, they must raise taxes.

By Lynn Bartels
The Denver Post

State Rep. Spencer Swalm hammered a bill Wednesday that expands health coverage by imposing a fee on hospitals, calling it "irresponsible and immoral" and a "house of cards."

"We're shifting the costs of our health care problems onto our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren because we're not willing to man up and raise the taxes that are required to do a pay-as-you-go kind of system," Swalm, R-Centennial, said.

OK, so I know it's wimpy to oppose war. Last year we learned from the Senate that real men cut school funding to pay for more highways (that's when I first heard the term "man up", but this is new: tough guys, and gals I guess, raise taxes?

Several Democrats looked at one another, stunned. Did a Republican just say the "t" word?

"He didn't just say 'taxes'; he said 'man up and raise taxes,' " said Rep. Jack Pommer, D-Boulder.

"I vowed to spend the weekend pumping iron and come in on Monday with a tax increase."

Both Pommer and Rep. Mark Ferrandino, D-Denver, said they were shocked to hear Swalm mention taxes.

"I'm not advocating increased taxes. But if we want a program, we need to pay for it now instead of doing deficit spending," Swalm said afterward, noting that the bill relies on matching funds from the federal government, which is running a deficit.

Apparently there's a distinction here. It's manly to borrow money and run a deficit to pay for war, but girly-manish to use federal deficit spending to pay for health care.

House Bill 1293 would generate an estimated $600 million from hospital fees. The money would draw an equal amount in federal matching funds, and the $1.2 billion total could be used to expand the reach of Medicaid, the Child Health Plan Plus, or CHP+, and indigent-care programs to at least 100,000 more Coloradans.

Not exactly. $600 million of the total goes back to the hospitals to reimburse them for the fee. (You didn't think they were doing this out of compassion, di you?). Another $200 million goes back to hospitals by increasing the amount Medicaid pays them for treating people. The last $300 million will expand the number of people eligible for Medicaid.

The bill passed on a 40-23 vote, with three Republicans — Laura Bradford of Collbran, Don Marostica of Loveland and Tom Massey of Pagosa Springs — joining with Democrats in passing the measure.

The bill now goes to the Senate.

2009-03-27T14:30:00.002-06:00

Sometimes the comments are better than the article. These are some of the comments from an article in the Camera about a new robotic device that helps perform surgery at Boulder Community Hospital.

Posted by Jesus_was_a_socialist on March 21, 2009 at 11:04 p.m.

I, for one, welcome our new robotic doctor overlords.

Posted by meatpieandtatters on March 22, 2009 at 7:31 a.m.

The robotic doctor is also well-versed in over-prescribing pharmaceuticals and ordering needless billable procedures.

Over-billing Medicare is an optional program.

Posted by dludler on March 22, 2009 at 9:36 a.m.

Finally, they've been able to create a surgeon with personality!

Posted by boulderpersonage1 on March 22, 2009 at 11:21 a.m.

Gosh, if the CEO of Boulder Community Hospital would forgo a piece of his $1.2 million dollar salary, the hospital could buy all sorts of new technology and charge less for it.

Posted by ThatCertainWoman on March 22, 2009 at 7:42 p.m.

What's the robot doing in that first picture? Smurf liposuction?

One budget hole closed; next is bigger

2009-03-26T14:43:00.001-06:00

By Tim Hoover
The Denver Post

Posted: 03/26/2009 12:30:00 AM MDT

Lawmakers on Wednesday finished filling a nearly $160 million hole in the current year's spending plan, relying heavily on cash funds to close the gap.

The accomplishment for the Joint Budget Committee, the six-member panel that annually crafts the state's budget, was relatively easy compared with the task it will face starting today: filling a $766.4 million hole in the next budget year, which begins in July.

Rep. Jack Pommer, D-Boulder, said lawmakers won't be able to rely much on cash funds to deal with next year's budget problems.

"I really think when the new revenue forecast came out (last week), it was a reality slap in the face that we need to start making some cuts," he said.

Some of the cuts JBC members approved to close the final gap in the current year's budget include reclaiming $2.3 million in funds that school districts had not yet used to expand full-day kindergarten programs. The panel also cut $1.8 million in funding that goes primarily to Colorado Springs-area schools to help accommodate enrollment of children in military families.

The panel eliminated any increase in construction funding for charter schools and cut $1.1 million in payments to private hospitals to compensate for care to the uninsured.

Also cut was $1.7 million in grant funding for innovative health care programs.

Colorado House roll call on oil, gas rules

2009-03-13T14:52:00.004-06:00

Here's a misleading story from the Associated Press. This version is from KJCT8 in Grand Junction.

The 50-13 roll call by which the Colorado House adopted a measure (House Bill 1292) to regulate the oil and gas industry on Friday.

Voting yes were 36 Democrats and 14 Republicans.

Voting no were 1 Democrat and 12 Republicans.

Democrats voting yes: Dennis Apuan, Colorado Springs; Debbie Benefield, Arvada; Terrance Carroll, Denver; Edward Casso, Thornton; Lois Court, Denver; Kathleen Curry, Gunnison; Mark Ferrandino, Denver; Randy Fischer, Fort Collins; Jerry Frangas, Denver; Sara Gagliardi, Arvada; Gwyn Green, Golden; Dicky Lee Hullinghorst, Longmont; Joel Judd, Denver; John Kefalas, Fort Collins; Andrew Kerr, Lakewood; Jeanne Labuda, Denver; Claire Levy, Boulder; Elizabeth McCann, Denver; Buffie McFadyen, Pueblo West; Anne McGihon, Denver; Michael Merrifield, Manitou Springs; Karen Middleton, Aurora; Joe Miklosi, Denver; Sal Pace, Pueblo; Cherylin Peniston, Westminster; Jack Pommer, Boulder; Dianne Primavera, Broomfield; Joe Rice, Littleton; James Riesberg, Greeley; Sue Ryden, Aurora; Christine Scanlan, Silverthorne; Sue Schafer, Wheat Ridge; John Soper, Thornton; Nancy Todd, Aurora; Edward Vigil, Fort Garland; Paul Weissmann, Louisville.

Democrats voting no: Wes McKinley, Walsh.

Republicans voting yes: David Balmer, Centennial; Bob Gardner, Colorado Springs; Cheri Gerou, Evergreen; Jim Kerr, Littleton; Marsha Looper, Calhan; Don Marostica, Loveland; Mike May, Parker; Frank McNulty, Highlands Ranch; Kevin Priola, Henderson; Ellen Roberts, Durango; Amy Stephens, Monument; Ken Summers, Lakewood; Spencer Swalm, Centennial; Glenn Vaad, Mead.

Republicans voting no: Cindy Acree, Aurora; Randy Baumgardner, Hot Sulphur Springs; Laura Bradford, Collbran; Cory Gardner, Yuma; Steve King, Grand Junction; Kent Lambert, Colorado Springs; Larry Liston, Colorado Springs; Carole Murray, Castle Rock; B.J. Nikkel, Loveland; Jerry Sonnenberg, Sterling; Scott Tipton, Cortez; Mark Waller, Colorado Springs.

The story is of interest in Grand Junction because some people there, and the local newspaper, erroneously blame the rules for the loss of oil and gas jobs.

The story is misleading because HB09-1292 isn't a bill about regulating the oil and gas industry. It's the annual Rule Review bill.

The legislature passes laws, then the state departments write more detailed rules to implement the laws. The rules have to be both constitutional and within the scope of the authority the legislature gave to the agency to make rules.

Each year we run a bill that's essentially our review of all of the rules that changed during the previous year. We can add or delete a rule if we believe it goes beyond what we intended in the law.

The Rule Review bill is rarely controversial. This year it is because, among the new rules, are those that implement a couple of bills we passed to protect people, property, wildlife and the environment from oil and gas operations. The oil and gas industry hates the rules and wants us to wipe out some of them.

Among those listed as voting for the bill are Reps. Bob Gardner and Ellen Roberts, who led the thoughtful, intelligent and reasonable effort to eliminate a few of the rules. Ellen is from the West Slope.

They made a specific point of saying that most of the rules in the Rule Review bill are appropriate and that many are necessary. Although they disagree with a few of the oil and gas rules, they didn't let that keep them from supporting the the bill and all of the other rules.

Words can't bury budget woes Senate, house meet on fiscal plan

2009-02-25T23:08:00.001-07:00

By Tim Hoover
The Denver Post
Posted: 02/16/2009 12:30:00 AM MST
Updated: 02/16/2009 12:36:05 AM MST

An oxymoron has been in wide use this year at the Capitol: "negative supplemental."

That's the term budget officials use when they make a midyear cut to a program. In a good year, there are mostly "supplementals," meaning upward, but usually small, adjustments to programs based on unexpected costs.

But in the current budget year, which ends in June, the state's revenue is expected to be more than $600 million below original projections. The "negative supplementals" have been plentiful and deep.

Lawmakers on the Joint Budget Committee last week finished their plan to balance the current year's budget. Their staff will make a presentation of the plan today to the full legislature in a rare joint session of the House and Senate.

Rep. Jack Pommer, a member of the JBC, said the joint session is meant to bring other lawmakers up to speed on what has happened to the current year's budget.

"This year we have an extraordinary number of bills and supplementals cutting a huge amount of money," Pommer, D-Boulder, said. "In some ways, it's like redoing the budget."

The Joint Budget Committee followed, or came close to, many of the recommendations Gov. Bill Ritter, a Democrat, made last month to balance the budget in the current year.

For example, the six-member panel agreed that colleges and universities should be cut $30 million in appropriations from the state's general fund and Ritter's office should take a $2.6 million cut.

Meanwhile, the panel rejected the governor's supplemental request for $26 million in additional funding for schools.

The JBC's balancing plan rests on the assumption, also used by Ritter's office, that the state would get an estimated $107 million in federal stimulus package funding just to help offset the costs of Medicaid in the current year.

Pommer said that with changes to the stimulus package last week, the state could get an additional $100 million for Medicaid in the current year.

While the governor's office called for using $207 million in cash funds — pots of money financed from fees in exchange for goods and services — the JBC recommended using $230.9 million.

The panel approved a recommendation to limit the amount of sales tax revenue that businesses can keep as compensation for collecting the tax for the state. That change would save the state $12.8 million in the current year.

But the panel nixed a proposed $250,000 cut to veterans' programs.

The panel also reversed a recommendation that would have cut $2 million from a senior assistance program that funds services like Meals on Wheels.

"We got a surge of lobbying from senior citizens' groups," Pommer said.

House OKs vehicle fee-hikes

2009-02-25T20:25:00.001-07:00

By John Ingold The Denver Post
Posted: 02/24/2009 07:48:32 PM MST

I think we were hoping for a headline more along the lines of "Disaster Averted! House Rescues Failing Bridges." Oh, well.

A major bill to raise annual vehicle registration fees to pay for road and bridge improvements squeaked through another vote today at the state Capitol.

Senate Bill 108, known as FASTER, won initial approval in the House, over the objections of every House Republican and four Democrats, including the House majority leader. It must still receive another vote in the House.

The bill's sponsor, Rep. Joe Rice, D-Littleton, urged his colleagues to pass the bill, saying it is critical the state invest money to repair its aging infrastructure. He said the work generated by the bill would preserve as many as 8,000 jobs in Colorado and generate new ones.

"The cost to doing nothing is much greater than the cost of this bill," Rice said. " Things wear out. The infrastructure wears out. This is an important part of the solution. It's something we can do now."

Republicans, meanwhile, continued to blast at the bill's registration fee increases and complained that their suggestions to fix the bill went unheard.

Unheard? We listened to them ranting about the bill for hours. Personally I think it's an awful bill, but not for the reason most Republicans opposed it. They seem to think we can maintain the transportation system for free. We can't. But we should do a better job of managing it before we impose a regressive fee to repair it.

"We have a fundamental difference that this is a fee bill instead of a broader bill," House Minority Leader Mike May, R-Parker, said. " We don't have a solution together for Colorado. We have a bill that we feel like we have had minimal input on the process."

They wanted to spend General Fund money on transportation. That would mean cutting higher ed, K-12, Judiciary, or some other service. And they would oppose those cuts, I assume, since they opposed a lot of the cuts this year.

State representatives Tuesday argued into the evening over the bill, and the vote on the bill followed a by now familiar pattern for FASTER, which sponsors once hoped would be a bi-partisan effort but has seen a string of largely party-line votes since it was introduced.

Lawmakers from the two parties squabbled over registration fees, rental car fees, mass transit funding, eminent domain, tolling and just about any other issue the bill potentially touches in an exhaustive debate that lasted several hours.

Things got so contentious that Rep. Jack Pommer, D-Boulder, offered an amendment out of frustration that "no one shall have any power to charge anybody anything to support the transportation system."

"Let's vote yes and go home," Pommer joked.

I don't like the bill and initially wanted to vote against it. Not because we don't need the money, but because I think we should be doing more to manage the demand for transportation.

During the debate, reps from both parties ran amendments to take away options that could pay for transportation. They opposed a fee based on the amount you drive, tolls and, of course, the registration fee that's the point of the bill. Most legislators oppose a tax increase. Yet everybody agrees the transportation system is falling apart.

FASTER would ultimately raise vehicle registration fees by $41 for the average car — an amendment Tuesday phases in the fee increase over three years instead of two — generating more than $250 million a year for road and bridge fixes. The bill would also charge a $2-a-day fee on rental cars and would give local governments the authority to put tolls on existing roads if the governments get the buy-in of all communities that would be impacted by the tolls.

In one of the more bi-partisan moments of the debate, a group of Democrats and Republicans fought unsuccessfully to take the tolling provision out of the bill. Rep. Edward Casso, D-Thornton, said Colorado residents shouldn't have to pay to use roads they've already paid for with taxes.

But Rep. Claire Levy, D-Boulder, said the debate over FASTER shows the state has not adequately paid for its existing roads and bridges.

"We've got to be creative with how we fund our transportation system," she said.

Democratic dozen desert Ritter's tax credit bill

2009-02-25T20:15:00.001-07:00

By: Tim Hoover
2/25/2009

They called it bad policy and said it was a government giveaway to businesses.

The way a group of House Democrats angrily talked about House Bill 1001 on Wednesday, you would have thought it was a Republican bill instead of the top economic development effort being pushed by their own governor.

What the bill does makes it seem more like a Republican bill -- a special interest tax break that will cut state revenue at the same time we're slashing budgets. If we were the federal government and we could borrow money we'd be cutting taxes and increasing the deficit. Sound familiar?

The bill, sponsored by Rep. Joe Rice, D-Littleton, would award tax credits to companies that create 20 or more jobs and to companies in rural areas that create at least 10 positions.

The tax credit is for up to 50 percent of the amount the employer pays in federal Social Security and Medicare taxes on the new jobs. An employer could claim the tax credit for up to five years.

Ritter, a Democrat, had touted the proposal in December as one his key efforts to create jobs in Colorado.

Critics said studies have shown such incentives only reward companies for doing what they'd already planned to do anyway. Opponents said it would further strain the state's budget in a year when pennies are hard to find.

"How big should this deficit get?" asked Rep. Jack Pommer, D-Boulder. "This makes no economic sense. Vote no on this bill. Do not dig our deficit hole deeper."

Estimates say the bill would cost the state nearly $3 million next year.

Rep. Bob Gardner, R-Colorado Springs, supported the bill and was amused by the Democratic defections.

"This is the governor's No. 1 economic proposal this year," Gardner said. "I challenge you to join with us and your governor, the governor of all of Colorado, and support House Bill 1001."

The House approved the bill on a 52-13 vote, with 12 Democrats and one Republican voting against it. It now goes to the Senate.

Those 52 votes came from the same people who have been complaining about the budget cuts and the cash fund transfers we're using to prop up revenue. Imagine spending three days listening to people complain about your recommendations for balancing the budget (without offering any suggestions), then listening to them talk about how great it is to cut taxes.

A spokesman for Ritter was unfazed by the Democratic opposition, instead focusing on the yes votes from both sides of the aisle.

"The bipartisan nature of this bill is a testament to the fact that creating jobs is not a Democratic issue or a Republican issue – it's a Colorado issue," said Evan Dreyer, Ritter's top spokesman.

The bill doesn't create jobs, it cuts taxes for a few businesses. The bipartisan nature of the bill is a testament to the fact that members of both parties get a kick out of giving away money to special interests.

Governor recommends deep cuts to Colorado budget

2009-01-27T19:31:00.001-07:00

By STEVEN K. PAULSON, AP

DENVER (Map, News) - Warning that Colorado faces a $1 billion budget shortfall through next year, Gov. Bill Ritter recommended that the state close two prisons, cut education funding, impose an unpaid furlough for most state workers and slash more than 540 state jobs.

Todd Saliman, Ritter's budget director, told lawmakers Tuesday that Colorado cannot rely on a federal stimulus package.

"It's a dramatic situation we're faced with, and this package proposes some dramatic action. There will be pain and it will be felt by many citizens of the state who rely on state services. There is just no way to avoid that," Saliman told the Joint Budget Committee, which sets state spending priorities.

Ritter recommended that the state close the Colorado Women's Correctional Facility in Canon City and the Rifle Correctional Center in Rifle and move the 400 inmates to other prisons.
This story continues below
Advertisement

Ritter wants to close a mental health clinic affiliated with the state mental hospital in Pueblo, but not the main hospital itself. He also wants to close a small child-care residence hospital at Fort Logan.

Ritter proposed keeping vacant or eliminating more than 540 full-time state jobs, imposing unpaid furlough days for most state workers and withholding salary increases for 26,000 state employees.

Other major cuts include a three-year suspension of the homestead exemption for seniors and deep reductions in higher education and public education.

Saliman said the state no longer has large cash funds that helped it get through the last recession. Many programs that were cut seven years ago have never been restored, he said.

According to budget projections, the state will be forced to cut $696 million from the general fund and find another $127 million in reduced obligations - a 10 percent cut from Ritter's original estimated general fund budget of $8.2 billion in November.

The state also is counting on $259 million from the federal government for health care services.

Department of Corrections Executive Director Ari Zavaras said the prison closures won't compromise public safety. He said the women's prison had lower than expected growth and staff can be reassigned to other prisons. He said the Rifle facility is on valuable property that can be sold.

Rep. Jack Pommer, a Democrat from Boulder, said lawmakers may ask voters for another time-out from the state's tough tax limits - something similar to Referendum C, in which voters gave up their tax surplus refunds to help the state recover from the last recession.

Not true. Didn't say it. I said it was wrong to call these cuts temporary, for instance saying the Homestead Exemption is only going away for three years, because the state won't have the money in three years to restore the funding. I pointed out that during the last recession a lot of the cuts were called temporary, but the state would never have been able to undo them if Ref C hadn't passed.

Ref C, however, didn't reverse all of the cuts. It just allowed us to avoid the most serious ones, like shutting down colleges and universities. We've never dealt with the rest of them. They've become kind of a permanent deficit.

If we pass another Ref C, it won't fix the continuing problems from the last recession or the new ones from this one. We either have to cut out a huge part of state government so we can do the rest properly, or we have to raise taxes.

He said many cuts this time could be permanent.

"This is not something where we tighten our belt and relax it two years from now," Pommer said.

Sen. Abel Tapia, D-Pueblo, said it's only prudent for the state not to count on federal help.

"I'm going to wait until the check comes before I get too excited," he said.

Senate Minority Leader Josh Penry, R-Fruita, said Ritter had a chance to cut spending last year and didn't.

"The budget news from the governor was sobering, but it was not a surprise," Penry said. "The dark clouds of recession have been gathering for more than a year, and the leaders of this state have done very little to position us to weather the storm.

Colorado colleges must slash $30 million

2009-01-18T02:29:00.001-07:00

We've been working for a while on a way to save higher education in Colorado. It's a complicated process and it's hard to explain in a news story. That's apparent by the comments after the article.

Presidents want say on setting tuition
By Berny Morson, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)
Published January 16, 2009 at 9:12 p.m.

College students could see deep changes in the way tuition is formulated as a result of the looming budget cuts announced Friday, some key lawmakers believe.

A new strategy would mean higher tuition for some students to offset the budget cuts. But some of the additional money would go to financial aid to keep college affordable for disadvantaged students.

Trying to keep tuition down while repeatedly chopping state aid to the schools can only erode the quality of education, Rep. Jack Pommer, D- Boulder, vice chairman of the Joint Budget Committee, said Friday.

"We're essentially consuming these universities," Pommer said of the state's four research institutions.

He added: "We can probably get another 20 years out of them before they're essentially worthless."

Higher education must cut $30 million from the budget for the current school year, with more proposed cuts to be released next Friday.

Higher education was slashed during the last recession, at the beginning of this decade. Funding still has not climbed back to 2002 levels when amounts are adjusted for inflation, according to the governor's budget office.

For years, Colorado's college presidents have been seeking more management flexibility, including more leeway in setting tuition, which is capped annually in the state spending bill. Lawmakers, including budget committee members such as Pommer, have been saying for several weeks that they're open to more flexibility for the colleges.

University of Colorado President Bruce Benson said Friday, "Give us some freedom. We will be responsible. We will be accountable, and we will damn sure keep it affordable for our citizens."

CU will absorb nearly $8 million of the $30 million cut to higher education, under the proposal that went from the governor's office to the budget committee Friday.

Benson said CU started looking at savings last March, when businesses began reporting financial problems. Some CU jobs have gone unfilled since last summer.

Gov. Bill Ritter said he's not ready to endorse a flexibility plan until he sees details.

Even the $30 million cut protects most of the gains that have been made in higher education funding over the last two years, Ritter said.

College tuition increased 9 percent this year at the state's four research schools - CU, Colorado State University, University of Northern Colorado and the Colorado School of Mines. Other four-year schools and community colleges saw lesser increases.

Budget committee members, who draft the annual state spending bill, had been looking at similar increases for next year.

      windbourne writes:

      If you dems ARE going to cut their budget, then give them freedom to figure things out.

      farsidefan writes:

      Windbourne,
      Why should the Dems do that when the Repubs never did it when they slashed Higher Ed budgets the last 15 years ?

      SL10 writes:

      Voting NO to the amendments hurt Colorado.

      Hey, the people of Colorado had a chance to vote for a change to improve school funding.

      But, now this is the price of stupidity at the polls.

      Enjoy higher price schools all.

      freefall writes:

      I moved here for the great affordable schools and would love to stay here. But the rate hikes are above and beyond other states so I am looking at transferring. Hell, there's even a couple of schools I could go to that out of state (tuition) would be lower than Colorado's in- state and get the same respect.

This is just plain wrong. The in-state tuition at CU and CSU are about average for similar schools around the country. We've had some significant increases in tuition, but so have a lot of other state Universities. Out-of-state tuition is certainly high, but we can't subsidize students who aren't from Colorado.

      Sundog writes:

      Yep, just keep jacking up the tuition to close the shortfall. Surely $30k isn't too much for one semester. After graduation they can quickly jump to assistant manager at Sonic...if anyone can still afford a hamburger by then.

      Mile_Hi_Dave writes:

      Hmmmmmmmmmm...didn't all the casino towns just vote to raise the limts and stay open longer? Doesn't that mean more revenue for those towns? Even if it increases the taxes only by 50%, I am sure, with a 2000% increase in the limits, I am being conservative using 50% as the value for the increase in tax revenue generated up there. Back to my point...why not use this money to increase, not decrease educational spending? Obviously, these towns of less than 200 people can't use all that revenue, at least not for the purposes they are supposed to....Heck, in a town of 110 people, the board is running out of ways to spend those tax dollars, so they are fixing up their own homes, LOL, and illegally moving money for services that are not provided for by their agreement for the use of these tax $$. I see no reason to be buying doggie doors when a student can't go to school because of a lack of funds! Just my 2 cents...

This is a good idea. Unfortunately, the casino can do pretty much anything they want. They authorized themselves by sponsoring an amendment to the state constitution. Last November, they ran another amendment to increase the amounts people can bet and to increase the hours that they're open. The proposal went right to the voters who approved it.

The legislature can't change the constitution, so we don't have much control over the tax revenue the casinos generate. Their latest change to the constitution directs some of the tax revenue to community colleges. That's good for them, but it doesn't help the rest of higher education. And it's not going to make the community colleges rich. Since casinos in Colorado write their own laws, they keep a lot of the money for themselves.

classiccoupe writes:

Where are our values? Certainly not in education! Like everything else, one has to wonder where all the money involved is really going. Could there be greed and special interests involved? No wonder America is losing its academic standing in the world. As in the past, the nations with the most knowledge and wisdom will ultimately come out on top. It appears as though this nation is now on a losing path.

You don't have to wonder, you can just look through the budget.

mytwosense writes:

This is one reason why I voted against the amendment that, in theory, was supposed to raise gambling funds so that part of them could be diverted to education. I knew it was just going to remain a theory!

The casinos wrote the amendment and the money will go exactly where they wanted it to go.

      farmboy writes:

      Remember Referendum C? Money from that was supposed to fund colleges and universities.

      What happened to it?

Even some college presidents have asked this question. Those of us who campaigned for Referendum C said it would raise enough revenue to keep the state from having to close the colleges and universities in 2006. It did. We tried to be clear about that. Referendum C kept us from having to make even more cuts to the budget, it didn't restore all of the money lost during the 1999 and 2000 tax cuts and the recession that followed.

      Salchak_Toka writes:

      Desperate times call for desperate measures, and if Colorado won't support higher education (and yes, when all is said and onde, it WILL NOT support higher education), then it could at least craft an orderly dissolution of several state institutions in order to strengthen the rest.

      One four-year campus on the Western Slopes is plenty; one campus south of Denver; one campus in Denver; CU-Boulder, CSU, and Mines. That's it; even that's probably too many.

      Mesa State and Western State? Get rid of one, and merge its resources (and as much of its personnel as feasible) into the other. The result is one possibly viable campus instead of two on life support. Get rid of UNC; move its portable assets and best personnel to CSU. You get the idea. Some consolidation of the community colleges might be worthwhile too, but since they're funded differently, this probably can't be accomplished by some kind of statewide plan.

      Some folks will be hurt, but if we just wait for all the universities to wither and collapse, everyone will be hurt.

      Only problem with this scenario is that it requires some courage on the part of our "leaders." These are the last people to demonstrate courage. Too many legislators sitting in districts with colleges in them, and nobody wants to be the guy who sacrificed his college for the greater good. As a result, most of the colleges will fail.

Touche

Zap! State to take $632 million hit

2009-01-18T01:57:00.001-07:00

Gov. Ritter announces across-the-board cuts, warns others may be on the way.
By CHARLES ASHBY
CHIEFTAIN DENVER BUREAU

DENVER - Gov. Bill Ritter's budget experts Friday proposed nearly $632 million in program cuts, cash fund transfers and dipping into the state's reserve account to balance this year's budget.

Virtually no part of the state's government was left uncut.

From K-12 education to transportation to public health programs, the governor's budget director, Todd Saliman, said that because of cuts made during the last recession earlier this decade, there's not much with which to play.

"What we focused on were efforts to ensure that we protected life, safety and public health," Saliman said. "The governor's plan on this entire thing was to try to fairly distribute the pain across the entire state government. The challenge here is that the shortfall is so dramatic that it's really going to be difficult to leave any part of state services unscathed." The cuts and fund transfers include about $43.4 million in capital construction projects, including several in Southern Colorado; $10 million, or half of the money the state spends on tourism promotion; $4.9 million from charter school capital construction projects; $45.8 million from all public schools from a reduction in the per pupil increase they received this year and $11.3 million in maintaining the governor's hiring freeze. A big chunk of the budget-balancing plan is coming from three funds designed to compensate workers for injuries. Saliman's office is projecting that taking $111 million out of the funds - major medical, subsequent injury and workers' compensation - won't have any long-term impacts because they will replenish themselves by the 2010-11 fiscal year.

The money his office is proposing to take doesn't deplete them entirely, but leaves enough for them to operate for the rest of this fiscal year, and next, Saliman wrote in his report to the Joint Budget Committee, which came in a 3-inch-thick loose leaf binder.

Saliman projects that the major medical fund, for example, will have rebuilt itself to have about $131 million in it by 2010.

While state lawmakers bemoaned the cuts as necessary, at least two of them questioned whether the state shouldn't rethink everything it does.

Rep. Jack Pommer, D-Boulder, and vice chairman of the JBC, said that because of budget constraints the state is facing - the revenue limits under the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights and other constitutional provisions that require increased spending - Colorado's annual spending plan never recovers fully each time there is an economic downturn.

As a result, Pommer suggested the Legislature consider revamping everything the state pays for from the ground up.

"I believe we have at least an ongoing billion-dollar deficit, and it seems like we either can cut everything or as much as we can, to the point where we're doing a lousy job on everything, or we can say that Colorado no longer can afford the government that it has," Pommer said.

"This is a rare occasion when I am in agreement with Representative Pommer," added House Minority Leader Mike May, R-Parker.

Actually we agree more than rarely. We even passed a bill together, the Colorado Indoor Clean Air Act, which banned smoking in most restaurants and offices. Before that we carried a bill opening up Colorado's phone system to more competition, but we got clobbered by both of our parties.

"As we're looking at where we're spending our money, we ought to evaluate what it is we can do very well, and what we can't do at all instead of, ‘Let's do everything mediocre, leaving a dollar here and a dollar there.’ ”

Regardless of that conservation, individual lawmakers and special interest groups already have started circling the wagons on their pet programs.

Rep. Al White, R-Hayden and another JBC member, is a longtime proponent of tourism promotion, saying it's an economic stimulus program that's proven to work.

White immediately criticized the governor's plan to cut $10 million out of that $19 million program.

"The governor's talked a lot about doing everything we can to enhance our economy and create jobs," White said. "When I look at our tourism program in the state of Colorado . . . I'm not sure I understand how the governor's consideration of economic enhancement and job creation really fit with this $10 million cut. I know that the governor is considering other programs, (but) this is one that we know works."

Sen. Abel Tapia, D-Pueblo, who also sits on the six-member JBC, said White has a point, and expects the Legislature will reach a compromise on that part of the cuts.

Still, Tapia said he's girding himself to dealing with others who equally have good reasons not to see their programs get trimmed.

"When you make cuts, there's always fallout," Tapia said. "I know I'm going to get inundated by every special interest group that there is that they're going to be hurt by this. I'll sit and listen, but at the end of the day we've got to balance the budget. We don't have the money."

CUTTING THE BUDGET

DENVER - Here's a breakdown on the governor's proposed budget cuts and cash transfers:

- Reduce executive branch departments and programs, $166.3 million.

- Delay payment to Fire & Police Association pension, $34.8 million.

- Cash fund transfers, $207.1 million.

- Higher Education Maintenance and Reserve Fund transfer, $47.2 million.

- Vendor fee change, $12.8 million.

- Gaming revenue diversion, $11.9 million.

- Other revenue diversions, $10.7 million.

- Dip into Emergency Reserve Fund, $134.1 million.

- Unallocated, but authorized expenditures, $7 million.

TOTAL: $631.9 million

ON CHOPPING BLOCK

DENVER - Here's a list of capital construction projects in Southern Colorado that may get the budget ax:

- Suicide prevention programs at Colorado Mental Health Institutes at Pueblo and in Fort Logan, $3.3 million.

- Colorado State Fair infrastructure improvements, $2.3 million.

- Colorado State Penitentiary II expansion, $2 million.

- Homelake Veterans Nursing Home domicile renovation: $1.3 million.

- Buena Vista Correctional Facility repairs/replacements, $1.3 million.

- Alamosa State Patrol Troop office, $1.2 million.

- Lamar Community College upgrades, $677,467.

- Colorado State University-Pueblo upgrades, $669,689.

- Fort Lyon Correctional Facility wastewater work, $540,486.

- Colorado Women's Correctional Facility lock/door replacements, $466,167.

- Pueblo Community College electrical replacement, $370,000.

Governor proposes cutting $632 million from budget

2009-01-18T01:49:00.001-07:00

DENVER (Map, News) - Gov. Bill Ritter recommended Friday that lawmakers cut $632 million from the current state budget, with major reductions for higher education, public education and health care. He also warned that more cuts are coming.

Ritter said his top priorities are public safety and public health, and despite his proposed cuts, he said he wants to protect higher education as much as he can.

Todd Saliman, Ritter's budget director, told lawmakers the state faces a $632 million shortfall in this year's $18.6 billion operating budget - and that that figure could soar to more than $1 billion over the next two years.

I guess this is technically accurate, but it doesn't describe the problem very well. The $18.6 billion is Colorado's total budget. The general fund is part of it, but is only about $7.5 billion. The $632 million shortfall is in the general fund and $632 billion is a much bigger part of $7.5 billion than it is of $18.6 billion.

"The governor's plan is to try to fairly distribute the pain across the entire state government," Saliman told the Joint Budget Committee, which will have to vote on final cuts in coming weeks before working on more cuts for next year's budget.

Ritter recommended eliminating $20 million from state contributions to public schools, $5 million for charter school construction and $1.2 million set aside for teacher recruiting.

He called for cutting $30 million from higher education and $3.1 million from the children's basic health plan. Another $13 million could be saved by putting a cap of $5,000 for businesses that are allowed to keep sales taxes to cover expenses.

Ritter also wants to freeze 64 construction projects on top of 12 already frozen, saving $95 million.

Jane Urschel, deputy director of the Colorado Association of School Boards, said school boards don't want to get into a fight with higher education over which branch of education bears the brunt of the crisis. She said eliminating programs for early childhood education may just be the beginning.

"Promises can't be kept. There's no money," she said.

University of Colorado President Bruce Benson said the state needs to loosen the reins on colleges and universities to give them greater freedom. He said higher education never fully recovered from the last recession that began in 2002 and that it's again on the chopping block.

Benson said state laws that bar universities from entering multiyear contracts, for example, make it almost impossible to work with other schools on research grants. He said new construction has been put on hold, and only critical positions are being filled.

Rep. Jack Pommer, a member of the Joint Budget Committee, said it could take 10 years for higher education to recover under the budget proposal. He noted that many services, including prison guards and child welfare, are in jeopardy.

Actually, I was pointing out that some parts of state government still haven't recovered from our last round of budget cutting that lasted from 2001 through 2003. The state contribution to higher ed would have gotten back up to it's 2001 level this year if we weren't cutting it again.

We still have fewer correctional officers than we did in 2001.

Child welfare is a particularly horrible example. Over the last few years a number of children have died in foster care in Colorado. An investigation determined that a key reason for the deaths was our lack of training for child welfare case workers. We cut the training during the last recession. We're planning to reinstate it, but it's going to mean cutting some other critical area of the budget.

"It seems like we can either cut everything, or as much as we can, to a point where we're doing a lousy job on everything, or we can say that Colorado can no longer afford the government that it had before the tax cuts and the recession and all of that, get rid of some big things, and then do a good job on all of the rest," Pommer said.

Lawmakers expect education to take biggest budget hit

2009-01-15T20:46:00.002-07:00

JOHN SCHROYER

THE GAZETTE

DENVER - Will it be higher education? What about the Department of Public Safety? Or K-12 programs? What if two dozen agencies will have their funding cut completely?

That's pretty extreme. No agency is going to get it's funding completely cut. And if "agencies" means departments, we don't even have two dozen of them.

Those were just some of the possibilities buzzing around the Capitol this past week as lawmakers debated where hundreds of millions of dollars in budget cuts will have to be made. The questions could be answered as soon as Friday morning, when Gov. Bill Ritter's director of the office of state planning will deliver a series of proposed rollbacks to the Joint Budget Committee.

Ritter, a Democrat, said in his State of the State address last week that he'll seek an across-the-board 10 percent budget cut from each state department, which would total roughly $800 million in cuts. The LegislaAs part of that process, the governor asked each state department to come up with cuts equal to 10% of their budgets. That gives him -- and us -- a range to pick from.ture is facing an estimated $631 million shortfall for the current fiscal year due to the economic downturn, but many lawmakers fear that the actual number will be much greater.

Not really. We've said over and over that there won't be across-the-board cuts. Those never work out well. It's a lot better to look at what can be cut, then pick the cuts that do the least damage to state services.

As part of that process, the governor asked each state department to come up with cuts equal to 10% of their budgets. That gives him -- and us -- a range to pick from.

Colorado's constitutional funding restrictions, however, have left many legislators pointing to a single target - higher education.

"We are completely boxed in. Higher education will be where the cuts will have to come," said Sen. John Morse, D-Colorado Springs, a former member of the JBC. "The people of this state have dictated where we have to go, (because of) TABOR. People say, well, we have limited options. That's not true. We have no options."

Morse pointed out that the top half-dozen departments funded by the state eat up 94 percent of the state's $18.6 billion budget, but all of those except for higher education are protected either by state or federal law.

The Taxpayers Bill of Rights, authored by Colorado Springs anti-tax crusader Douglas Bruce, prohibits the Legislature from raising taxes without a vote of the people, and a separate constitutional provision precludes state expenditures from growing by more than 6 percent each year.

JBC Vice Chairman Rep. Jack Pommer, D-Boulder, agreed with Morse that the state's colleges and universities are in the cross hairs.

"We're going to lose another generation of kids. Literally, we're going to cause dropouts over the next few years," he said.

Pommer estimated that in this fiscal year and the next one, the Legislature will have to figure out how to cut the budget by perhaps $1 billion, adding, "Literally everything we can think of is on the table."

Legislators said they aren't certain what the governor has in mind, and no one in his office would let loose any hints. Speculation was rife, though, that gains made last year in education could be rolled back.

Rep. Michael Merrifield, D-Colorado Springs, said there's more than $100 million in K-12 education programs that are not shielded by Amendment 23, which safeguards most of public school funding.

Merrifield said the Legislature could decide to remove a portion of the $34.5 million it appropriated in last year's budget for full-day kindergarten.

Any school funding above the requirements of Amendment 23 could be on the table for cuts, said Glenn Gustafson, deputy superintendent and chief financial officer for Colorado Springs School District 11.

Every school district in the state received about $20 extra per pupil, in two payments, that could be cut, he said. For D-11, that would be about $600,000, he said.

Other at risk areas include the extra money provided to districts that receive the lowest per pupil allotment; extra money provided under a formula for districts with declining enrollment, and capital construction money for charter schools, he said.

"If they take it back right now, we would have to find those cuts," he said. "We would be in kind of pickle but they could retroactively take that away.

"While we're concerned about any reduction, we understand that the state has a problem and we do have reserves that can help us with some cuts Merrifield, who chairs the House Education Committee, said, "I'm going to try to protect as much as I can, but... I can see the writing on wall. We are just in deep, deep doo-doo."

Those cuts could also wind up hurting charter schools around the Colorado Springs area, said Rep. Amy Stephens, R-Monument.
She said she's heard rumors that a $10 million appropriation for charter school capital construction could be sliced in half.

"We have a lot of students affected by that," Stephens said.

She's another one who's also worried about higher education funding, especially for the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs, which she said "took a harder hit than some of our other universities" when a recession hit the state earlier this decade.

Stephens said she hopes the governor won't protect any sacred cows, but will demonstrate a willingness to withdraw many of the new state programs begun under his watch.

As long as we protect her sacred cows, like the additional $5 million earmarked just for charter schools last year, we can cut money for children in special education, preschool and anything else.

Sen. Dave Schultheis, R-Colorado Springs, linked much of the budget shortfall to illegal immigration. He referred to a recent
report by the Federation for American Immigration Reform, or FAIR, which found that illegal immigrants cost Colorado roughly $1 billion in taxpayer dollars each year.

"Part of the solution to this budget problem is to deal with the illegal immigration problem, so that the people who are losing jobs have jobs to get," Schultheis said.

The bottom line for the JBC, however, is simple, said Rep. Don Marostica, R-Loveland.

"Anybody's ox could get gored. They have to just be prepared."

Gazette writer Sue McMillin contributed to this report

Tuition Caps May Go Away

2009-01-15T19:59:00.002-07:00

Lawmakers Look For Higher Ed Alternatives

Steve Saunders, 7NEWS Anchor

DENVER -- Some Colorado lawmakers say it's time to scrap the formula for funding higher education and get rid of the caps on tuition. As an alternative, the state would provide more financial aid to needy students.

Members of the Joint Budget Committee briefed members of the Education Committee Thursday on how budget cuts are impacting higher education. The state is facing a $600 million shortfall. "The question becomes, do we hang on to them (colleges) and choke them until they are dead or do we look for an alternative?" asked Rep. Jack Pommer of Boulder.

He added, "We don't have any money." Currently, the state caps tuition increases at the major universities at 9 percent.

It would be a drastic change and some say a mistake.

Rep. Karen Middleton of Arapahoe County told lawmakers, "I wouldn't throw the whole thing out. I would be very cautious."

Throw what whole thing out? What we're suggesting is a funding system used in other states that lets tuition rise, but uses financial aid to make it affordable for everyone.

Under the plan, the state's three research universities -- CU, CSU and Mines, would accept every Colorado student who met the academic standards, regardless of ability to pay. The state and the universities would guarantee that every student accepted could go with some state contribution, financial aid and reasonable amounts of family contribution and/or debt.

The alternative is continuing the current trajectory of slowly eroding the quality of the schools while making them unaffordable for lots of Coloradans.

CU, as an example, was just about to get back to it's 2001 level of state support. It would have reached it this year, but instead of increasing the school's funding, we're cutting it.

Ritter outlines tough road ahead for state

2009-01-11T19:41:00.001-07:00

By Michael Davidson (Contact)
Saturday, January 10, 2009

DENVER -- Colorado is facing tough times that will try residents and require painful cuts to the state budget, Gov. Bill Ritter told lawmakers Thursday in his annual State of the State address.

That means creating new jobs and making up a budget shortfall that could reach $630 million must be the state's top priorities, Ritter said.

"Over the next 120 days, our collective focus must be on protecting business, creating jobs and managing the budget. I will look at everything we work on this session through the lens of the economy -- of what's responsible and what's best for the long run," he said.

Broomfield's legislators had mixed reviews of the governor's speech, as could be expected by their party affiliations.

Ritter touted plans to create tax credits for businesses that hire new employees, extend loans to small businesses and nurture companies working on advances in renewable energy technology as ways to sustain the economy and keep the unemployment rate -- currently at 5.8 percent in Colorado -- from climbing.

Sen. Shawn Mitchell, R-Broomfield, said Ritter's vision is flawed.

"Gov. Ritter is a decent guy with good intentions, but he's got the wrong idea about weathering a downturn if he thinks raising taxes on hard-working families is the ticket out of our problems," Mitchell said.

Ritter didn't propose a tax increases per se, but did criticize the Taxpayers' Bill of Rights, which requires voter approval for tax increases and limits government spending.

Ritter blasted the law, part of the state Constitution, as a "straitjacket that makes modern, sensible and value-based budgeting an impossibility."

Republicans ardently defend the amendment, while Democrats criticize it, in part, because whenever the Legislature has to cut the budget during a recession it cannot later increase the budget without taxpayers' approval. That's a continuing problem, said Rep. Dianne Primavera, D-Broomfield.

"We're elected to do this job, but we're hamstrung sometimes because of the budgetary process," Primavera said.

Mitchell viewed Ritter's comment as irrelevant to the current budget shortfall.

"He made the tired attack on the Taxpayers' Bill of Rights, which has nothing to do with our current crunch. The budget is down because the economy is down. When the economy comes back, state revenues will rise without a tax increase."

Actually it has everything to do with our current crunch. And state revenues will not rise enough without a tax increase. Just like they didn't rise enough last time.

We're still dealing with a legacy deficit from tax cuts and lost revenues that happened between 1999 and 2005. TABOR partially caused the deficit and partially compounded some bad decisions from the legislature.

If we pretend TABOR doesn't cause a problem, we'll repeat the same mistakes we made last time. During 2001-02 the state lost a billion dollars in revenue. The legislature cut $15 million in spending. That's the kind of absurd budget management you get when you ignore reality, and TABOR is part of our reality.

The governor also didn't go into detail about from where the budget cuts would come. Primavera said the heads of major state departments should be given time to figure it out.

One area sure to be hit hard is the budget for higher education, said Rep. Jack Pommer, D-Boulder. Pommer is a member of the budget committee and chairs the House Appropriations Committee.

"Higher education is going to get killed," Pommer said. Among the possible cuts is $210 million for the University of Colorado system.

This caused a bit of concern at CU. If you read it carefully, you'll see that it doesn't really say that I suggested the possible $210 million cut for CU. The line about the cuts just follows a quote from me. The juxtaposition combined with my injudicious use of the word "killed" caused some people to think I said we might cut $210 million from CU. I think that's the total amount of money CU gets from the state, so cutting it would come pretty close to shutting down the entire CU system.

So far we've only discussed cutting the new money CU, and all of higher education, would get next year. That pretty certain. Higher ed won't be getting any increase next year. As for cutting money they already get, we've only talked about it in general terms. It's certainly a possibility. We could cut some in the current year and we could cut some for next year -- it all depends on the economy and what other cuts we can make. It won't be $210 million from CU.

The fate of 160 transportation projects with a price tag of $1.4 billion also wasn't clear on Thursday. Mitchell criticized the governor's hope that the incoming Obama administration would pass an economic stimulus plan that could be used to pay for the work.

"He seems to be leaning pretty heavily on a federal bailout check that may or may not come," Mitchell said.

But it may come. And if it does come it won't make much difference for our state budget. The money will put some people to work, and it will help us patch up the deteriorating transportation system, but it won't patch up our deteriorating finances.

Our economists calculate that if we were to get $1 billion from the federal government for transportation it would generate $33 million in state tax revenues.

That $33 million, of course, would be spread over the entire time we're spending the billion dollars, which is unlikely to be in a single year, let alone this one, or what's left of it. (Our fiscal year ends in June).

And once we spend the billion dollars, it's gone. The people who got jobs lose them, the parts of the transportation system that didn't get fixed stay broken and the tax revenue stops flowing into the state budget.

Don't get me wrong, I'll take the billion dollars. It's just not going to solve our problems.

The Republican did praise Ritter's support for a measure that would put the state budget online and make it easier for residents to access. He called that a step forward for more transparent government.

Oh boy. I don't mean to be Johnny rain cloud here, but I spend every day accessing the state budget and it's not as exciting as you might think.

Thursday's speech reordered some priorities Ritter emphasized when campaigning for office in 2006 and through his first two years in office. The governor still pushes "the New Energy Economy" -- one proposal this year will require all new single-family homes to have the capability to install solar panels -- but issues such as improving education and expanding health care coverage moved farther down the list of priorities.

Just last year, those two areas were the subjects of high profile special committees charged with completely overhauling teaching standards and curriculums and providing medical care to more than 700,000 uninsured Coloradans.

Primavera said the speech stayed true to Ritter's commitments to promoting renewable energy research and expanding access to health insurance. She also liked Ritter's comments about lawmakers' "sacred trust with the people who elect us."

"It gave me pause for thought again about the level of faith people put in you when they elect you to do this job," Primavera said.

She was unhappy with what she viewed as tepid Republican support.

"It was disappointing not to see the entire room erupt in applause when he talked about how important it would be to work in a bipartisan fashion," she said.

Ritter: Cut $800M from Colorado budget

2009-01-11T18:54:00.001-07:00

Governor unveils infrastructure plan in State of the State address

Associated Press
Friday, January 9, 2009

DENVER -- With Colorado's recession deepening, Gov. Bill Ritter announced Thursday he is seeking a cut of about $800 million in the state budget, and he unveiled a plan that he says will fix crumbling roads and bridges while creating much-needed jobs.

In his annual state of the state address, Ritter told lawmakers, who began their 120-day session on Wednesday, that he has asked state agencies to prepare plans to cut nearly $800 million from the state's current $18.6 billion operating budget. He said covering that budget deficit can be achieved in part by using emergency funds set aside for reserves.

"Families and businesses throughout Colorado are facing challenges they haven't seen in generations," he said. "Families are making different decisions, setting different priorities and sacrificing. Just like every family in Colorado, we'll need to make tough choices here in the Capitol as well."

Legislative economists have warned the state faces a $600 million shortfall in this year's budget because of a drop in tax revenue. The governor's office estimates the figure is closer to $230 million. However, Ritter's spokesman Evan Dreyer said the governor, who must work with state lawmakers to make cuts, has proposed a bigger cut to be on the safe side.

Ritter said the transportation plan, which he calls FASTER, will require Colorado to raise fees and issue bonds. It has not been introduced as a bill because lawmakers say they are still working on a compromise.

This is a very odd proposal. It would raise the fee for registering a vehicle and use the additional money to repair roads and bridges. The reason for raising the fee is because the legislature can do it without a public vote.

Of course the public does get a chance to vote -- it's just later when legislators are up for reelection. Some people will oppose it simply because it seems like a way to get around TABOR's requirement that the public has to approve tax increases.

What makes it odd, is two things. First, any reasonable fee increase won't raise enough money to pay for a significant amount of our transportation costs. They run into the billions. Getting just a bit of money through a means that's bound to be controversial will compound the conservatives accusation that the state is always asking for more money and no amount will ever be enough.

In truth, there is an amount that would be enough, but it's around a billion dollars a year. Trying to nickel and dime our way up to that is frustrating for everyone.

It's also odd because it's a regressive way of raising money for what a lot of us don't see as the state's top priority. We're destroying higher ed, for instance, and not talking about ways to save it.

But FASTER -- or Funding Advancements for Surface Transportation and Economic Recovery -- will only provide short-term solutions, Ritter warned. He said Colorado needs a more sustainable funding plan that is fair and affordable.

Sure, but when do we work on that? Next year? How do we explain that a big hike in registration fees was just a warm up for a bigger proposal?

House Minority Leader Mike May, R-Parker, said it will be tough to sell taxpayers on a proposal to raise vehicle registration fees for bridge repairs. He said voters also won't like a proposal to study ways to track motorists and force them to pay for the miles they travel in their vehicles, rather than relying on declining gas tax revenues.

"That just seems to be a bizarre invasion of privacy," May said.

Ritter got a stony reception from Republicans and even some Democrats when he proposed changes to the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights, which limits the ability of lawmakers to raise taxes without voter approval and would require voter approval to change it.

Rep. Jack Pommel, D-Boulder, said voters passed Referendum C, giving up their tax surplus refunds for five years, and the state is still in a budget hole.

That's Pommer, with an "r" at the end. But more important, this is a bunch of separate comments all pushed together. The governor was very specific about a TABOR fix being a change to all of it (it's a big, complicated law) except the provision that the legislature can't raise taxes without a public vote.

For the most part, that's what we have right now while Referendum C is still in effect. It means the state can use the money it collects from the existing tax rates. When C ends and TABOR goes back into full effect, the state will have to refund some of the money it gets from existing taxes. That will be a problem, but not the biggest problem.

Right now we're spending all of the money that comes in from existing taxes (because Ref. C allows it) and we're cutting some pretty important state services. The problem is that our existing taxes are too low to cover the cost of running the state.

Why? Because in 1999 and 2000 the legislature cut taxes 23 times. Then, a year later, the recession compounded the effect of the tax cuts and pushed our revenue down to what amounts to about a billion dollars today. TABOR locked in those losses. The legislature never fully cut that amount of state services and Ref. C didn't make up the money.

That leaves us with a legacy deficit of about a billion dollars. We can cut a billion dollars from the budget, or raise a billion dollars through taxes. By that I mean raise taxes. It's confusing because conservatives call raising or eliminating the TABOR revenue limit a tax hike. It's really not, it just lets the state spend all of the money it gets from the existing tax rates. I'm talking about actually raising those tax rates, like increasing the income tax rate or the sales tax rate.

Talking about TABOR reform misses the real point.

"I don't think raising fees on car registrations would even make a dent," he said.

The governor said a bill to establish a tax credit for companies that create more than 20 jobs and revive the Colorado Credit Reserve Program to help businesses get credit will help Coloradans through rough economic times.

He also promised to continue promoting companies that provide renewable energy.

Sen. Greg Trophy, R-Wray, said Republicans could work with the governor on his transportation proposal, which Brophy said was based on Republican principles of pay-as-you-go and could possibly include toll roads. But he rejected Ritter's call to bring 100,000 people onto the Medicaid rolls, taking hospital fees and leveraging them to get matching federal dollars.

"It's a Madoff-style scheme balanced on the backs of our children and grandchildren," Brophy said.

Not really. It's not going to cost anyone in Colorado any more money, it just increases the amount of Medicaid money we get from the federal government. A lot of other states already do it, and more are sure to start.

To the extent it affects the long-term federal budget deficit, it will put some burden on our children and grandchildren (and us too, if you hadn't noticed), but I don't think it's significant.

For one thing, we'll (and they'll) already have to pay it for the other states, why not get some of the benefit in Colorado? For another, while we're running up trillion-dollar-deficits to pay for wars, rebuilding countries we've destroyed and bailing out big banks and insurance companies, why not use a tiny fraction of the money to help our health care system?

Legislators are expected to focus on the deficit, jobs and the economy this session.

On Wednesday, Senate President Peter Groff said 43,000 Coloradans received $48 million in unemployment benefits in November -- and the numbers are rising. He noted there were 30,000 foreclosure filings in Colorado the first three quarters of 2007 and that half a million people now rely on food banks.

Democrats say they will look at increased taxes and fees to balance the budget, while Republicans suggest Colorado sell bonds to investors, using state buildings as collateral.

Associated Press writer Colleen Slevin contributed to this report.

Technorati Tags: Colorado, Budget

CSU budget wishes dashed

2008-12-14T13:27:00.001-07:00

DENVER - The CSU System could see millions less than suggested by the Colorado Commission on Higher Education if the state's budget committee decides to adopt Gov. Bill Ritter's higher education budget proposal.

Ritter has proposed more than $34 million of higher education's general fund to be allocated to CSU's different institutions throughout the state.

The Colorado Commission on Higher Education more than doubled that, with a request of $71.8 million.

A Colorado State University spokeswoman said the CCHE requests the same budget submitted by CSU.

This year, CSU requested an additional $27 million in funding for mandated costs such as salaries, benefits and facilities management and an additional $37 million to help reach the university's stretch goals, including adding more faculty and increasing access for low-income and minority students.

"This proposed budget is based on reaching those goals and does not take into account unforeseen economic challenges," said Michele McKinney, CSU's Denver-based spokeswoman.

"We outline the budget in order for the Legislature to make informed decisions about what the university will fund with an increase in state support and tuition revenue."

The Colorado Community College System, which includes Front Range Community College, will see a $7.7 million difference if the budget goes toward Ritter's proposal.

"It seems that there is a huge disconnect between what the governor requested and the commission requested," Boulder Rep. Jack Pommer said at Thursday's Joint Budget Committee briefing on higher education funding.

Ritter proposes spending $2.89 billion on all higher education in Colorado, up from $2.77 billion last year. While that represents an increase, it's much smaller than the one higher education got in the previous year.

Legislators and higher education officials have been bracing for a negative forecast for many months. CSU interim President Tony Frank recently eliminated three administrative positions, planning to tuck the $500,000 saved in salaries into a savings fund to "weather bad times."

With the upcoming expiration of Referendum C in 2010, a pause of the Taxpayers' Bill of Rights, higher education will likely take a hit in state funding.

Taxpayer dollars are one of many funding sources for CSU, but they represent a significant portion of the university's approximately $750 million annual budget.

But for now, administrators will have to wait for the final decision from state legislators to see how grim, or good, the outlook for higher education will be next year.

"CSU expects this ebb and flow to occur while budgets are being planned. It's part of the natural course," McKinney said.

School tax hikes OK for now, court says

2008-12-06T14:26:00.002-07:00

Well this story's off to a good start. "School tax hikes OK." What tax hikes? Nobody's taxes are going up. In school districts where voters decided the district should keep the revenue it gets from its existing tax rate, district will keep the revenue. In fact, while no one's tax rate is going up, in some districts the tax rate is going down.

The headline is more like a political sound bite than the start of a news story.

By Berny Morson, Rocky Mountain News, Ed Sealover, Rocky Mountain News

A law that funnels more tax money to schools is still in force for now, allowing local school districts to raise taxes in 2009, the state Supreme Court said Friday.

What district is raising taxes? In a lot of districts taxes won't to down, but not cutting taxes isn't the same as raising them. And in each case the voters in the district voted to let the district keep the money.

But the court refused to say whether the law is constitutional, and it gave no hint when that decision will come.

The 2007 law would raise an estimated $1.7 billion for schools over 11 years by blocking a scheduled decline in property taxes.

Opponents filed suit, saying it's an unconstitutional tax increase because it wasn't approved by voters under Colorado's Taxpayer's Bill of Rights.

Except that it was approved by voters under Colorado's Taxpayer's Bill of Rights. And it only applies to districts where voters approved it. If the Rocky really doesn't understand this, I with it would explain why it doesn't apply to districts where voters didn't approve a TABOR exemption.

In a two-page order, the judges lifted an injunction by Denver District Judge Christina Habas, who held the law unconstitutional. The unsigned Supreme Court order allows the 178 school districts to set tax rates, which are due at the state education department by Dec. 15.

The education department earlier this week asked the court to rule in the case by Friday so the school districts could meet the deadline. The court heard oral arguments in September.

The law is backed by Gov. Bill Ritter and most Democrats in the legislature.

Most Republican lawmakers oppose it.

Both sides warned against viewing the Friday order as hinting at which way the court will rule.

Evan Dreyer, Ritter's spokesman, said, "This is a very specific, very narrow order.

"We're not reading the tea leaves at all," said Education Department spokesman Mark Stevens.

Richard Westfall, the attorney for groups and individuals who brought the suit, said that if the judges had wanted to rule on the constitutional issue, they would have done so.

"It seems to me they have not yet decided it," Westfall said.

This is possible. I misunderstood where the Court was in the process. I thought the Court was very close to issuing its opinion, but just hadn't finished the formal document. In that case, it would make sense to let the districts certify their mill levies one way or the other - either using the formula under the new rule (if the law is constitutional) or under the old rule (if it's unconstitutional).

If the court is actually a long way from handing down its opinion, then I guess it could let the school districts certify their mill levies either way and sort everything out later.

The order itself says the court, in lifting the lower court injunction, intended to "preserve the status quo as it existed under (the 2007 law) until this court issues its final decision in this matter."

But several lawmakers read the order as upholding the law.

Rep. Jack Pommer, D-Boulder, said the court wouldn't tell school districts to set tax rates one way, then tell them to do something different in a few weeks.

I didn't say they wouldn't do that, I said I didn't think they would do that. Notwithstanding my last comment, it does seem like there would be better alternatives than having districts certify a mill levy that's not going to stand. Maybe the court could have pushed back the certification date.

"It just seems like an odd thing to do," he said. Pommer was the main House sponsor of the 2007 law.

Pommer, the vice chairman of the Joint Budget Committee, said the order makes it likely the Legislature will have more money to work with next year.

When districts get less money from local taxes, the state has to give them more money from state coffers. If the Court rules the law unconstitutional, the state will probably have to give more money to schools. That means less money for other state services. I guess the like is accurate, but it's sort of the reverse of what I said.
The reporter asked me if we were cutting money out of the budget so we could give it to districts if the Court ruled against the 2007 law. I said "no," because we almost always work according to current law. The 2007 law is current, since the Court hasn't ruled it unconstitutional.
We work according to current law because it's the the most practical thing to do. A lot of people sue the state for a lot of reasons. We would have a hard time doing anything if we acted as though all of those people were doing to win in court.

But, he added, "It's not like it's a total relief. It could be a cruel joke."

Sen. Josh Penry, R-Fruita, a vocal opponent of the 2007 law, said the order demonstrates the court's partisan bias.

"I've always assumed that this court would place its loyalty to the Democratic governor ahead of its fidelity to the constitution," Penry said. "This Supreme Court is the most partisan branch of government in Colorado."

Or maybe the Court hasn't decided. Or maybe the law is just constitutional. Keep in mind, conservatives spend most of their time calling courts "activist." They usually say that when courts overturn something the legislative branch has approved. Or approve something the legislative branch has denied. Conservatives call that "activist" because the court is putting its opinion in place of the "will of the people" as expressed by representatives they elected to the legislature (or Congress).
In this case, if the Court rules the law is constitutional, it will be letting the will of the people, as expressed by their elected representatives, stand. If the Court rules the law unconstitutional, it will be "activist" by "legislating from the bench" and replacing a duly passed law with its own opinion.
That puts conservatives in an awkward spot. If they win this case, they'll have to applaud the court for being activist. It they lose, they'll have to attack the court for failing to be activist.

If you had a job, we'd tell you where to buy your holiday gifts

2008-11-18T20:54:00.001-07:00

These two stories are from the Colorado Springs Gazette.

Focus on the Family eliminating 202 jobs

BILL REED
THE GAZETTE

Because of a weak economy and cash-strapped donors, Focus on the Familysaid it is eliminating 202 jobs, the deepest cuts in the 32-yearhistory of the Colorado Springs-based Christian nonprofit.

Focus expects this holiday season - normally the most lucrative time ofthe year for nonprofits - to be even more painful to the bottom line.

But for those who still have a job and will be buying holiday presents, the Dobson gang is going to tell you where to spend your money.

Focus puts retailers on a naughty and nice list for Christmas

MARK BARNA
THE GAZETTE

Focus on the Family wants shoppers to know which retailers arenaughty and which ones are nice - at least when it comes to holidaylingo.

On Thursday the Colorado Springs-based ministry's political actionarm launched its second-annual holiday campaign by posting an onlineshoppers guide with three categories: "Christmas-friendly" retailers,"Christmas-negligent" retailers and "Christmas-offensive" retailers.

The "friendly" retailers are so designated because they prominentlyuse "Merry Christmas" and other Christmas-specific references in theircatalogs and in-store promotions. Those on the Christmas-offensive listuse secular phrases such as "happy holidays" and have "apparentlyabandoned" the use of the word "Christmas," Focus said.Christmas-negligent companies "marginalize" their message by using"Christmas" in some cases and "holidays" in others.

The Focus shopping guide is another weapon in the growing battleagainst what social conservatives several years ago labeled the "War onChristmas" - the notion that Christmas is being secularized, in part byretailers trying not to offend non-Christians by using terms like"holiday season," "winter season," "shopping season" and "holidaytrees."

A group that considers the holiday season "the most lucrative time ofthe year" would, of course, assume that retailers define Christmas.

Some of the tactics have paid off.

In 2005, Sears, Kmart, Walmart and Target received threats of aboycott from Christian groups for their "holiday season" advertising.The companies soon adopted the Christmas-friendly language.

Governor's small-biz initiative questioned

2008-11-18T13:19:00.001-07:00

By Tim Hoover
The Denver Post

Gov. Bill Ritter on Thursday announced initiatives intended to help Colorado businesses weather hard times, but one proposal left lawmakers scratching their heads.

Addressing the legislature's Joint Budget Committee, Ritter said he wanted to spend $12 million on economic-development proposals, though $7 million of that would not be available until July 2010 — and only if the governor's revenue projections are accurate.

Ritter said the recession has taken a toll on states across the country, with 24 reporting budget shortfalls in the current fiscal year. Colorado is facing a $100 million shortfall in the current budget year, which ends in June.

"States are cutting their budgets, laying off employees and reducing public services," Ritter said. "Fortunately, Colorado seems to be weathering the storm better than many other states."

Ritter's proposed budget, while not giving state employees performance increases, still requests $42.9 million for cost-of-living pay increases, representing a 2.5 percent average pay hike. It also calls for hiring 900 new employees, the bulk of whom are needed for growth in prisons and social services, according to Ritter's staff.

Of the nearly $5 million available for economic development before 2010, Ritter proposed using about $2.5 million for an "access to capital" program for small businesses. He said the money might be put into a loan program.

That explanation brought questions from skeptical members of the Joint Budget Committee.

Sen. Abel Tapia, D-Pueblo, said the money would not be of much help to businesses and questioned whether it could be better spent elsewhere.

"For $2.5 million, that's like one company, possibly," said Tapia, who owns an engineering business. "We have bridges that are falling apart, we have roads that need to be repaired, people on the disability waiting lists.

"There's a lot of things we need in our state that we're not getting to."

Rep. Jack Pommer, D-Boulder, agreed, saying, "I just find it incredulous that $2.5 million is going to solve anything."

"Incredulous" is a little harsh, but I really can't see how $2.5 million is going to guarantee a significant number of bank loans or otherwise free up credit. I wouldn't care, except that the state government has an important role in maintaining the state's economy -- by doing things like supporting education and building and maintaining the infrastructure -- and proposals like this district us from what we should be doing.

Don Elliman, executive director of the Colorado Office of Economic Development, admitted officials didn't have specific details
on how the money might be spent. He said administration officials needed several weeks to come up with more information but were looking at a program to educate small businesses on how to access more capital, such as via government programs.

Despite Ritter's remarks, Elliman said the money would not be going "to a loan pool somewhere."

"We're not talking about trying to bail out a bunch of banks," Elliman said. "If we can't touch a far greater universe than 150 or 200 companies, then we shouldn't spend a dime of that money in that behalf."

Tony Gagliardi, Colorado director of the National Federation of Independent Business, said the organization welcomed the Ritter plan.

"Our feeling is the governor is recognizing that small business is the economic engine (of the state)," he said.

But House Republicans said the state would be better served by Ritter easing regulations on the oil and gas industry. House Minority Leader Mike May, R-Parker, mocked Ritter's small-business proposal.

"I think they (Ritter's office) are just trying to make it look like they're doing something," he said. "It's $2.5 million in PR for the governor. It's not going to do a single thing to create a new job."

State's economic decline creates roadblock for lawmakers pushing to pass Jessica's Law

2008-11-15T18:25:00.000-07:00

By MIKE SACCONE
Saturday, November 15, 2008

Low revenue forecasts and the state’s economic decline could hamstring a push by Western Slope Republican politicians to institute tougher minimum sentences and more oversight of sex offenders.

Lawmakers on the Joint Budget Committee said legislation supported by incoming Senate Minority Leader Josh Penry, R-Grand Junction, and other Republican lawmakers to implement mandatory minimum sentences for child molesters from Jessica’s Law probably will command a steep price tag.

Sen.-elect Al White, R-Hayden, said the merits of implementing Jessica’s Law aside, the measure’s sponsors can expect a “hugely expensive” price tag to accompany their legislation.

White said any bill that increases mandatory prison sentences is sure to drive a multimillion-dollar price tag for the costs of building new prison beds as well as the ongoing expenses of housing and guarding inmates.

Under state law, anyone convicted of sexually assaulting a child could face anywhere from two years up to life in prison.

Under Jessica’s Law, someone convicted of sexually assaulting a child 16 years old or younger would have a mandatory minimum 25-year prison term, according to the Colorado Legislative Council.

Penry and Rep. Frank McNulty, R-Highlands Ranch, pushed during the 2007 legislative session to implement mandatory 15-year minimum sentences for sex offenders, but the bill failed to clear the House Judiciary Committee.

McNulty said the bill’s price tag of more than $13 million in its first year contributed to the bill’s defeat.

Rep. Jack Pommer, D-Boulder, said he likes the idea of cracking down on sex offenders, but the lawmakers behind bringing Jessica’s Law to Colorado need to figure out a way to fund their proposal.

“A lot of people have great ideas for spending money, but they don’t come up with ideas for what you cut,” said Pommer, who sits on the budget panel. “I hope if somebody is going to pitch this, they come and say, ‘This is what we want to cut.’ ”

He said lawmakers finding a funding stream is especially important with the economic downturn sapping the state’s tax revenue.

Colorado is one of eight states, including Wyoming, that have not implemented some form of Jessica’s Law.

Penry said if he and his colleagues encounter a fiscal stumbling block, they plan to push to implement Jessica’s Law, even if it takes more than one session.

“The fight to enact Jessica’s Law will be a marathon and not a sprint. … I don’t have any illusion that it will happen quickly or immediately,” Penry said. “It will probably be a multiyear fight to get it enacted, but it’s an issue we have to keep pushing because it’s the right thing to do.”

Penry said having public sentiment on the side of enacting tougher sanctions for sex offenders will help.

Rep.-elect Laura Bradford, R-Collbran, who made bringing Jessica’s Law to Colorado an issue during her campaign this year, said she plans to support the coalition in any way she can.

State budget constrained by the faltering economy

2008-11-13T18:25:00.000-07:00

editorial

The governor's proposed economic stimulus package is a mere $12 million, but we're glad to see more focus on a green economy.

By The Denver Post

Article Last Updated: 11/13/2008 07:26:14 PM MST

Colorado's upcoming budget is sure to be lean, and even Gov. Bill Ritter's efforts to stimulate the state economy underscore how few options the state really has.

Ritter presented his budget request for the fiscal year that begins July 1 to the legislature's Joint Budget Committee on Thursday. He showcased a $12 million economic stimulus package that totaled a mere 0.15 percent of the $7.9 billion in proposed general fund
spending.

We commented on Ritter's overall budget last Sunday. In focusing today on the economic stimulus portion, we're happy to see $2.5 million targeted to "establishing New Energy Economy job-training programs that would be run by community colleges and private
businesses."

Such efforts focus on Colorado's strength in attracting new energy jobs, based on both its abundance of wind and sunshine as well
as the fertile minds of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden. As a current example, the governor cited Vestas working closely with the community college in Pueblo to train skilled workers for its advanced wind power manufacturing.

Ritter's second high-priority program — $2.5 million to "create an 'access to capital' initiative to enhance the availability of credit for small businesses" encountered more skepticism from the budget panel. Both Rep. Jack Pommer, D-Boulder, and Sen.-elect Al White, R-Winter Park, questioned whether so modest a sum would add anything to the $700 billion federal bailout designed to revitalize the
nation's credit markets.

For his part, Ritter noted that the proposal was still being drafted and promised much more detail before the legislature would actually be asked to authorize such funds. We share the skepticism voiced by White and Pommer but note that federal programs are often surrounded by a blizzard of paperwork. If the targeted $2.5 million can seed community college programs to help small businesses navigate that bureaucratic maze, it would be well spent.

Meanwhile, we're happy to see the job creation efforts. That includes a round of seven regional job fairs, an open house Thursday at
the state's 63 Colorado Workforce Centers and a Ritter-led trade mission that will depart for China and Japan Saturday.

Beyond such ongoing efforts, it's clear that any hopes for a major job-creation effort depend on Congress' willingness to finance an
expansion of transportation projects, water supplies, sewage treatment and other infrastructure needs, as we discussed in an Oct. 25
editorial. Ritter noted the state has identified a number of projects that already have passed environmental reviews and can go to bid if and when extra federal funds arrive. Given Colorado's tight revenue picture and constitutional requirement for a balanced budget, being poised to capitalize on any new federal grants is a wise move.

Free up cash for disabled in need

2008-11-12T18:25:00.000-07:00

When state lawmakers convene in January, they must find a better way to fund services for a neglected part of our society.

The Denver Post

It's a curiosity that while Colorado voters have transformed the state's political power structure from Republican to Democratic in the last four years, they neglected last week to dismantle the Taxpayers Bill of Rights that has so bedeviled basic government services.

It's possible that the ballot was so long people just started voting "no" to get it over with. But it's a stretch to suggest that Amendment 59 gave voters a chance to dismantle TABOR.
For one thing, backers nicknamed Amendment 59 "SAFE:" Savings Account for Education. That doesn't jump out as a plan for dismantling TABOR. Most of the campaign for 59 emphasized education, not dismantling TABOR.
Even the message on education was mixed. It set up a savings account for education, but eliminated the constitutional requirement that the legislature increase education spending by at least the rate of inflation each year.
The plan was mind-numbingly complicated and I doubt many people even took the time to read through the ballot question, let alone do enough research to really understand it..

An unfortunate reality of that move is that Colorado children and adults with disabilities remain tragically underserved.

Voters actually rejected two ballot initiatives that could have helped. Amendment 51 would have raised the state sales tax from 2.9
percent to 3.1 percent to pay for services that should be available now to 10,000 children and adults on a years-long waiting list for help.

Amendment 59 would have gutted provisions in TABOR that now prevent our elected state lawmakers from crafting a budget that also
could have helped double the disability budget of $185 million. Had voters approved 59, many of the restrictions on Colorado's budget would have been lifted.

We did not endorse Amendment 51, largely because we think the general budget should serve the disabled and not a special, earmarked tax raised during uncertain and difficult economic times.

This is just strange. And irritating. If the Post really wants to make sure the state serves people with disabilities, what better way could there be than to have a "special, earmarked tax" to pay for it? The state would be able to pay for the services, and they wouldn't be competing with everything else in the General Fund -- things like other health care, education, courts and public safety.
It wouldn't be the first earmarked tax. We've earmarked tax revenue for all kinds of things, like water projects, schools, highways, services for senior citizens, and construction projects. Sure it limits our fiscal flexibility, but all of the other earmarks limit our flexibility to pay for disability services. I don't see the moral argument for holding the line on earmarking revenue just before reserving some for developmentally disabled people.

So, now is the time to start fighting for that money.

We hope when state lawmakers convene in January, they can find a solution. Thousands of families have been waiting for help for their
children with disabilities. In some families, one parent has to stay home to care for adult children with disabilities. With the state's
help, those citizens will get the services they need to become more self-sufficient.

The Post was bold enough to tell voters to vote against funding for disability services, but now it's too timid to suggest what existing state service we should cut to pay for the services. It's easy to suggest spending more on something, but it's hard to suggest spending less on something else to free up the money.
Should we cut financial aid for college students? Amendment 58 would have eliminated a tax loophole that lets oil and gas companies avoid paying millions of dollars in taxes. The money would have helped more Coloradans afford college. The Post told people to vote against that issue too. Why? Aren't the oil companies profitable enough? Do Coloradans have a duty to subsidize the production of oil and gas for people in California and Illinois? Or do colleges students just use financial aid to buy beer?
I served on a developmental disabilities interim committee two years ago. One of the real horrors of those hearings was the naivete of parents who were so sure a small increase in the sales tax would get them the services they need. One mother told us how hard it was to become a prisoner in her own home, constantly caring for a child who, if left alone, would use his teeth to rip off his own skin. Another described her fear of dying before finding care for her 40-year-old disabled son. They were absolutely convinced that people who heard their stories would vote for a 2/10ths of a cent sales tax increase to offer them help.
Having been on the Referendum C speakers bureau I had doubts. Debating that issue around the Front Range I heard all kinds of excuses for opposing taxes. Shortly after Katrina, one man said taxes just pay for things like disaster relief in places like New Orleans, which just "enables helplessness." Helplessness in facing a hurricane?
That's extreme. Most radical tax-cutters couch their comments in sensible-sounding blather. "We should eliminate government waste and inefficiency first." "It would be better to re-prioritize our current spending." "Surely in a $7 billion budget we can find money for this, without raising taxes." Or, like the Post, "it's not the money we oppose, it's the method."

Gov. Bill Ritter is to be applauded for his effort to free up some money. His proposed budget allots nearly $6 million to assist 295
people now on the waiting list. But that effort, as well-intentioned as it is, would serve less than 3 percent of the disabled who qualify for
services and who continue to wait in line.

As we said in advance of Election Day, it is a disgrace that our budget for the developmentally disabled and their families excludes
nearly half the disabled population.

So in advance of election day the Post said that Colorado's lack of funding for the developmentally disabled is as "disgrace," while telling people to vote against a tiny tax increase to pay for the services.

We embraced 59, because it would have allowed the state to keep tax revenue surpluses instead of rebating them to taxpayers,
allowing the state to create a rainy day fund and address the kinds of shameful shortfalls in basic services that we see lacking for the
disabled.

The developmentally disabled include children and adults with autism, Down syndrome, cerebral palsy and mental retardation. The
services in question include residential care; physical therapy; medical equipment and treatment; help with personal hygiene; day care;
job training in those cases it is appropriate; transportation; counseling and more.

The problem of not caring for those in our society who cannot care for themselves is a moral one. The problem our state's lawmakers
face is a fiscal one. TABOR's formulas restrict state spending beyond what has proven reasonable.

And I suspect the problem the Post is facing is an embarrassing one. They told people to vote against the tiny tax increase to help people with disabilities, the proposal failed, and families of people with disabilities are asking the Post "what now?"

Ritter's budget already is hamstrung on badly needed services, such as roads and bridges and funding for high education.

We hope lawmakers can at least adopt the little extra he seeks for the disabled, and find a better way to serve them.

So after all of that talk about a "moral" problem and the "disgrace" of our "shameful shortfall" in spending,the Post is only asking for enough money to serve 295 people? Out of the 10,000 people it says need services? We've added a lot more than $6 million to the DD budget over the past few years and I'm sure we'll pass the Governor's request.

Wind-power industry expects record year

2008-10-23T17:47:00.000-06:00

Denver Business Journal
Wednesday, October 22, 2008

The wind power industry installed nearly 1,400 megawatts worth of turbines in the United States during the third quarter of 2008, and the year-end total is expected to be the fourth consecutive annual record for installations.

But work in 2009 is expected to slow due to the nation’s economic climate.

That’s according to the third-quarter report issued Wednesday from the American Wind Energy Association, based in Washington, D.C.

Still, the wind power manufacturing sector is growing in the United States — led by Danish company Vestas and its plans to expand its blade factor in Windsor as well as build new plants in Brighton and Pueblo. Vestas is spending more than $600 million and is expected to create about 2,500 jobs in the state.

In 2007, the industry installed 5,249 megawatts of power. It installed 1,389 megawatts in the third quarter of 2008. The year-end total is expected to be about 7,500 megawatts, enough electricity to power about 2.2 million homes, the association said.

AWEA’s report said eight new manufacturing facilities opened this year for turbine components. Nine existing plants are expanding, and it’s been announced that 19 new plants will be built. With the new plants, AWEA said the share of “Made in the U.S.A” parts in wind turbines has risen from about 30 percent in 2005 to 50 percent today.

The new facilities will create an estimated 9,000 jobs, the association said.

Because of the late extension of the wind production tax credit by one year, part of the federal bailout package, and the evolving financial crisis, new construction starts for wind farms are expected to slow in 2009, the association said.

Hopefuls eye size of government, budgets

2008-10-06T11:57:00.001-06:00

By Rachel Carter
Longmont Times-Call LONGMONT — Catherine Jarrett wants smaller government, while Jack Pommer says he will work to make sure government does more with less.

Jarrett, a Republican, is challenging incumbent Democrat Pommer for the Colorado House District 11 seat, which covers portions of west and north Longmont.

Pommer first won the seat in 2002, then ran unopposed in 2004. Jarrett decided to challenge him in 2006 and again this year because she wanted to give voters a choice and not allow Pommer to run unopposed.

During the Times-Call election forum Wednesday night, Jarrett looked back at recent legislation she claims has caused big government to get bigger and infringe on individuals’ rights and responsibilities.

“The main purpose of government is to keep an orderly society so people can take responsibility for their own lives,” she said. “I’m concerned that government is taking over responsibilities that are rightfully ours.” Jarrett pointed to recent laws that, she argued, increased local property taxes by freezing mill levies and will increase costs for patients because health-care companies now have more reporting requirements. She said another bill abolished the St. Vrain Valley School District’s abstinence-based sex education program.

“You have a choice: either bigger government or people like me for smaller government,” Jarrett said.

Pommer said that during his time in the state House, he helped make preschool available to thousands more Colorado children and helped lay the groundwork for full-day kindergarten.

He also touted a bill that requires public utilities to get 20 percent of their energy from renewable resources, a move that not only helps the state with energy sustainability but has brought green manufacturing to the state and created jobs in rural parts of Colorado.

Pommer said he now wants to find better ways to provide state services. Rather than throwing more money at health care and prisons, he said, state lawmakers should focus on creating preventive programs that keep people out of hospitals and prisons, or keep people from returning. “I want Colorado to do more with less,” he said.

Business taxes, computer spam top new Colo. laws

2008-08-12T11:50:00.003-06:00

By Steven K. Paulson
The Associated Press
DENVER — About 30,000 small businesses will be off the hook for business personal property taxes as an exemption is increased from $2,500 to $7,000 over the next five years, under a new state law taking effect Tuesday.

Insurance brokers will be required to tell their customers how much commission they make on each policy they sell, under a measure from Broomfield Democratic Rep. Dianne Primavera that’s another new law going into effect today.

Those new laws are among 175 passed this year by lawmakers that have a provision that allows 90 days for voters to challenge them, an option never exercised.

House Speaker Andrew Romanoff, D-Denver, said many of the new laws are aimed at helping families. “We’re making energy more renewable, child care more affordable and the insurance industry more accountable,” Romanoff said.

Among the new laws:

A measure that increases the odds of catching e-mail spammers by providing state enforcement authority similar to federal authority against unwanted e-mails. Colorado consumers will now be able to take complaints to local authorities.
A new law that allows 900,000 more Coloradans to participate in the burgeoning renewable energy market by allowing them to generate homegrown energy from wind turbines and rooftop solar panels and still stay on the grid. That measure, carried in the Senate by Longmont Democrat Brandon Shaffer, also gives customers credit when their meter runs backward from their production of wind and solar power.
A bill from Boulder Democratic Sen. Ron Tupa that’s designed to lower the cost of textbooks, helping students and parents save hundreds of dollars each year, requiring publishers to list updates.
Lawmakers also passed a bill that requires insurance companies to pay double damages if they don’t pay what they owe when they owe it.

Republicans also claimed credit for their new laws, including one that requires the state to determine whether it is in the best interest of taxpayers to bid on a toll highway when it is offered for sale or for lease.

Another GOP measure, from Berthoud Rep. Kevin Lundberg, establishes a pine beetle-mitigation fund within the Colorado State Forest Service to remove the bark beetle and start to clear infested wood, using only voluntary contributions from the public.

“In these tough economic times, the people of Colorado need real solutions to challenges, not expensive proposals that burden taxpayers’ budgets,” said House Minority Leader Mike May, R-Parker. “Our economy can’t take more taxes and fees or strict mandates that hurt our business climate.”

Legislators representing parts of Boulder, southwest Weld and southern Larimer counties sponsored more than 30 of the 175 new laws taking effect today, including:

Silverthorne Democratic Sen. Dan Gibbs’ measure requiring the State Board of Education and the State Charter School Institute to enact rules making sure beverages sold or dispensed in schools meet minimum health and nutrition standards.
A measure from Boulder Democratic Rep. Claire Levy and Broomfield Republican Sen. Shawn Mitchell allowing the Regional Transportation District to issue tax-exempt private activity bonds to finance transportation facilities that’ll be owned or used by private entities.
Larimer County Republican Sen. Steve Johnson’s measure to make a special state license plate available to vehicle owners who invest in energy-efficiency home improvements. Levy carried the bill in the House.
Boulder Democratic Rep. Jack Pommer’s measure creating an experimental “navigator” program to assist individuals and families on waiting lists for government developmental disabilities programs.
Louisville Democratic Rep. Paul Weissmann’s measure requiring certification and background checks of substitute workers providing temporary care in state-licensed family child-care homes.
Boulder Democratic Rep. Alice Madden’s measure to eliminate charges for an estimated 13,665 kindergarten-through-secondnd grade students whose families now pay reduced prices for those children’s lunches under the federal National School Lunch Act program’s family eligibility guidelines.
Mead Republican Rep. Glenn Vaad’s measure repealing a previous state law requiring the governor to consider appointing an applicant with expertise in aviation or mass transportation to the 11-member Colorado Transportation Commission.
Berthoud Republican Rep. Kevin Lundberg’s measure requiring the state Department of Labor and Employment, in DOLA’s quarterly electronic news publication, to notify employers of federal laws against hiring or continuing to employ illegal aliens. That notice also is to include information about the federal Electronic Verification Program.
Longmont Democratic Sen. Brandon Shaffer’s measure making Colorado National Guard members eligible for in-state college tuition assistance even if they haven’t lived here the full 12 months that previously was necessary to qualify for that stipend.
Boulder Democratic Sen. Ron Tupa’s measure reducing the blood-alcohol-content level, from 0.10 to 0.08, at which someone can be charged with “boating under the influence.”
Broomfield Democratic Rep. Dianne Primavera’s measure repealing a previous state law that had required the Department of Revenue to establish fees for parking placards for persons with disabilities. The courts had held that earlier law violated the federal Americans with Disabilities Act.

Times-Call staff writer John Fryar contributed to this report.

House Democrats take on CSAP tests

2008-05-01T09:26:00.005-06:00

Bill would drop some writing, math and science sections
May 1, 2008By Joe Hanel | Herald Denver Bureau
DENVER - Democrats pushed through a major rollback of standardized testing Wednesday, voting for a bill to eliminate all writing tests from the Colorado Student Assessment Program as well as some reading, math and science tests.

The Federal NCLB law requires a lot of tests -- the bill eliminates that tests that aren't required by federal law. That will save us $10 million a year and the bill puts that money back into real education two ways:preventing high school students from dropping out ongoing education for teachers

Rep. Judy Solano, D-Brighton, advanced two bills to cut back the CSAP. House Bill 1357, which the House gave its initial approval, pares back the CSAP to the minimum standard required by the federal No Child Left Behind law. That means eliminating all writing tests, the reading and math tests in grades nine and 10, and the 10th-grade science test.

Solano's other bill, HB 1186, prohibits schools from punishing students who skip the CSAP test. The House gave it final approval Wednesday, sending it to Gov. Bill Ritter for his signature.

But Solano's first bill has put her at odds with the sponsors of Ritter's major education-reform plan, which he calls the Colorado Achievement Plan for Kids, or CAP4K.
Which is odd because one of the two key arguments for CAP4K is that are current standards are wrong and have to be rewritten. The CSAPs test how well kids have learned the state standards. If the state standards are wrong, why not (at least) eliminate the CSAPs that aren't required by federal law.
(The second arguement for CAP4K is weird. It's that when kids in Colorado aren't learning, it's because we don't test them enough).

"CAP4K will rebuild the entire house. House Bill 1357 repaints the front door," said Rep. Rob Witwer, R-Genesee, one of the sponsors of the CAP4K bill, Senate Bill 212.

"CAP4K will end CSAP as we know it, but in its place will put relevant, timely assessments," Witwer said.

So we've been slavishly following state standards that turn out to be irrelevant and untimely. How many students, parents, teachers, schools and communities have been harassed, threatened and insulted over their CSAP results? Now we're admitting the CSAPs test the wrong things.

Officials from Ritter's Department of Education testified against Solano's bill at a hearing several weeks ago.

"The governor will have to decide if these two bills can mesh," Solano said.

CSAP's critics say the results aren't useful because grades come in too late to help individual students. The CAP4K bill will tie the new tests to new curriculum standards that will focus on college preparation.

But they'll be developed by the same people who came up with the CSAPs.

But Solano found many allies among fellow Democrats who dislike standardized tests in general when she pushed ahead with HB 1357 on Wednesday.

Rep. Mike Merrifield, D-Colorado Springs, sang an anti-CSAP song to the tune of "On Top of Old Smoky."

"Don't think about thinking - it's not on the test," Merrifield sang.

Colorado's obsession with testing has robbed the passion from teaching and the love of learning from students, said Merrifield, a retired teacher.Rep. Ray Rose, R-Montrose, led the defense of CSAPs for Republicans.

Critics are wrong when they say schools "teach to the test," Rose said."We teach to children the knowledge they need, and then we test them to see if they've absorbed that information," he said.

Well, not really. The Dept. of Education, which wrote the standards, now says those standards are bad.

Earlier in the morning, the House gave final approval to Solano's other bill, HB 1186.

It prevents schools from punishing students who skip the CSAP. Solano said schools have withheld credits or permission to join school activities.

But schools still will be penalized when students skip, a fact that irritated Rep. Jack Pommer, D-Boulder.

"What this preserves is the true idiocy of the school-accountability system," Pommer said. "The teacher gets penalized, the school gets penalized, but there's no penalty for the individual student."

We would never pass a law saying if you get caught speeding we fine someone else. But our so-called "school accountability" law says students don't have to take the CSAP but, if they don't, we subtract points from the results of the students who did take the test. What sense does that make?

Without the penalty, three Southwest Colorado schools would have had higher scores on last year's School Accountability Reports. Florida Mesa Elementary in Durango and Dolores Middle School would have gone from average to high, and Pleasant View Elementary north of Cortez would have gone from low to average.

Think about that. Under stand a federal law a school can get shut down if it doesn't do well on the CSAPs. There are schools all across the state that have lost points because students, with their parents permission, chose not take the test.

Additional votes on both the CAP4K bill and Solano's CSAP bill are scheduled for today.

New rules blamed for cuts in oil, gas drilling

2008-04-19T09:38:00.006-06:00

Gargi Chakrabarty
Friday, April 18, 2008

As much as $1 billion in oil and gas investment is bypassing Colorado because of what the industry perceives as interference from Gov. Bill Ritter's administration, state legislators told the Rocky Mountain News this week.

Sen. Josh Penry, R-Grand Junction, said several energy companies have told him they are cutting back on new investment that amounts to up to $1 billion. Sen. Chris Romer, D-Denver, said he has heard similar complaints from energy lobbyists, but he puts the amount at $500 million.

Oil & Gas lobbyists tell Josh Penry they're broke and starving, Penry tells the newspapers and they print it. Since the oil & gas industry started complaining about having to follow some rules, they've consistently increased the number of wells they're drilling here.

The companies say the Ritter administration's overhaul of drilling rules is not only turning Colorado into an uncertain regulatory climate but also increasing the cost of doing business.

"It's clear that the energy sector is significantly scaling back new investment in Colorado," Penry said. "There's tremendous uncertainty regarding where the new rules are headed, or what they mean. The sooner the certainty can be established, the better it is for Colorado."

Clear? What's clear is that they're drilling here more and more. It would be nice if the reporter would ask for some evidence rather than just assuming it's "clear."

The proposed rules were prompted by mounting complaints from residents living near rigs about noise, odor and adverse impacts on health, environment and wildlife. Some rules are scheduled to go into effect July 1.

"We'd be disappointed to see a company reducing their investment in Colorado," said Dave Neslin, acting director of the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission - the state agency writing the rules.

State officials and environmental groups supporting the proposed rules were skeptical that investment was being cut down because of regulatory reasons. Rather, Colorado's weak gas prices - the result of pipeline constraints - is the probable reason, they said.

With the oil and gas companies pleading poverty and complaining about how unfairly they're treated, when all they really want to do is offer us low-priced energy, it's easy to forget that they're actually for-profit corporations. If prices are low, they'd rather not sell us energy.

EnCana Oil and Gas has said the new regulatory hurdles caused them to bypass Colorado while deciding where to spend $500 million in additional investment. The money went to Texas and Wyoming, they told the Rocky.

But on its Web site, EnCana touts the Piceance Basin in Garfield County as its "fastest- growing and highest potential resource play in the U.S."

Also, in a 2007 report, EnCana said: "Natural gas per unit production and mineral taxes in the U.S. decreased $0.15 per Mcf - or 31 percent in 2007 compared to 2006 - mainly as a result of lower natural gas prices in the U.S. Rockies and a reduction in the severance and ad valorem effective tax rate for Colorado properties."

EnCana spokesman Doug Hock said the company hedges production; hence, lower prices don't impact investment strategy. Moreover, the newly built Rockies pipeline is pushing up prices.

"Regulatory climate is part of business. You can't separate those two," Hock said. "We looked at this jurisdiction versus others and chose to allocate the majority of investment elsewhere."

Pioneer Natural Resources says its budget this year is $100 million less than last year because of additional (proposed) rules and related costs.

But Neslin took issue. "In an investor presentation dated April 2008, Pioneer said profits are going to increase due to operations in the Raton basin," he said. "It's hard to reconcile that with a statement that they are reducing operations in Colorado."

EnCana and Pioneer are among 600 companies operating in Colorado. Their decision comes as the energy industry continues its boom, with requests for drilling permits already more than 400 ahead of last year and on track to break the 2007 record of nearly 6,400 drilling applications.

"I can guarantee the oil and gas is not going anywhere," said Mike Chiropolos with Boulder- based Western Resource Advocates. "Somebody will come along and be willing and excited about developing that oil and gas in compliance with new rules, and who can turn a profit."

Romer said he believed companies were changing their investment strategy, but it was a temporary phenomenon.

New pipelines, coupled with appropriate changes in the proposed rules, will return Colorado among the top oil and gas investment destinations - as ranked by the Fraser Institute in December, Romer said.

chakrabartyg@RockyMountainNews.com or 303-954-2976

Some rethink budget rules

2008-04-14T11:40:00.005-06:00

Larger joint committee, more input and more time among the ideas

By John Ingold
The Denver Post

Article Last Updated: 04/14/2008 12:00:49 AM MDT

Bills may propose changes this year, but JBC members say lawmakers will get plenty of chances to have their say.

The annual roller derby that is the state budget's trip through the legislature is over for the year.

Both chambers late last week gave final approval to the budget, sending it to Gov. Bill Ritter for his signature.

And after three weeks of party strategy meetings, lengthy and combustible floor fights over 151 proposed amendments, pounding-on- the-lectern rhetoric and general partisan fisticuffs, here is what the legislature has to show for it: $2.4 million shuffled around in the budget from where it had been originally.

In a $17.6 billion budget, that shuffled money is a mere .014 percent. A number of lawmakers wonder whether there is a better way.

"I think it's time we upgrade the budget, Colorado budget 2.0," said Rep. Cory Gardner, R-Yuma. ". . . When you're talking about spending $18 billion, there is no reason 100 legislators shouldn't be able to amend, vote and debate the budget in a more open manner."

Gardner is among a handful of legislators who say they intend to introduce before the end of the session proposed rule changes to how Colorado crafts its budget. A number of lawmakers plan to meet over the summer to talk about bigger changes.

"Every year when we get to this point, we hear these things where some of the other 94 members seem to think it's an easy process," said Sen. John Morse, a Colorado Springs Democrat who is one of the six members of the legislature's Joint Budget Committee. ". . . It's not as easy as you think."

The Joint Budget Committee, or JBC, spends months putting together the budget, which then hits the floor of either the House or Senate in March. Within two weeks, both chambers need to have argued, amended and passed the budget.

Because the House and the Senate have to pass the same version of the bill, a conference committee — made up of the JBC members — is appointed to resolve differences. In conference committee, the JBC members often take off amendments, then send it back for final approval.

This year, the House passed four amendments, and the Senate added 12 more, though some of those took off House amendments. By the time the budget emerged from the conference committee, only six of the amendments remained.

Gardner suggests expanding the JBC to 10 members, as well as switching to biennial budgeting. Rep. Kathleen Curry, D-Gunnison, said she intends to introduce a rule change that would give the legislature more time to review and debate the budget.

Curry is also looking at allowing other legislative committees to review portions of the budget and make advisory votes on it. Gardner and Senate Majority Leader Ken Gordon, D-Denver, are considering similar ideas.

"I don't think the process is set up to allow for up-front engagement that is more meaningful than trying to put amendments on after decisions have been made," Curry said.

JBC members, though, said lawmakers have the opportunity to attend any of their meetings, all of which are public, and make suggestions.

JBC member Sen. Steve Johnson, R-Larimer County, said some tension around the process will likely always exist.

"It is the one bill we have to pass," he said. "No one gets everything they like."

John Ingold: 303-954-1068 or jingold@denverpost.com

Every member of the legislature is welcome to join every JBC budget briefing and hearing, ask questions, and participate in the debate. Every member of the legislature can amend the budget.

When the JBC holds hearings on departments, members of the committees that oversee those departments can get paid a per diem for attending.

After the briefings and hearings, the JBC visits every committee to brief the members on the budget.

When the JBC wants to adjust the budget in a way that requires a change in law, the members have to carry a bill that goes through the usual committees. That, by the way, can be agonizing. A committee that's concerned with just one portion of the budget can fight to prevent budget cuts without worrying about balancing the overall budget.

Colorado's budget is limited. There are a lot of good ideas that can't get money. It's always disappointing when something you think is important can't get funded. It happens at least as much to members of the JBC as it does to any other legislator. They hear about every item that needs money and hear a lot of good arguments in favor of them.

Some members choose not to participate in the budget process, and some argue for cutting the budget without knowing what's in it. Then when something they want doesn't get funded, or gets cut, they howl and demand changes to the process. But changing the process won't make any more money available and it won't guarantee that every legislator will get the money he or she wants for his or her district.

Lawmakers boost early childhood education

2008-04-12T18:04:00.001-06:00

By CHARLES ASHBY
CHIEFTAIN DENVER BUREAU

DENVER - Changes lawmakers made last year in school financing allowed this year's Legislature to increase funding for preschool and daylong kindergarten programs, according to the state lawmakers who annually carry the bill.

Rep. Jack Pommer, D-Boulder and a member of the Joint Budget Committee, said last year's freeze on property tax mill levies is allowing the Legislature to do something it's never been able to do before in a large way - fund early childhood dev- elopment.

"I think we're actually making a significant change that will help students learn better," Pommer said. "Over the years, we've done all this stuff that was supposed to help reduce the (achievement) gap to try to help students learn better, and most of it has been a bunch of nonsense."

As a result, the annual School Finance Act not only includes a $216 million increase in the aid the state sends directly to schools next year, from $3.1 billion in this year's budget, but it also will be able to add another $49 million to pay for more preschool and all-day kindergarten programs, Pommer said.

"The one thing that everybody involved in education knows is that some kids don't show up for first grade ready to learn," he said. "The way you get around that is by making sure that kids who need it have access to high-quality preschool and full-day kindergarten."

The bill, which cleared the House Education Committee on Thursday and heads to the House Appropriations Committee next week, also includes:

Increasing the statewide base per-pupil funding by 2.2 percent to match inflation, plus 1 percent as required by Amendment 23 approved by voters in 2000.

Provides additional funding for kindergarten, holding harmless those school districts that don't choose to implement all-day programs, to add 22,000 more students. Creates a grant program to build or renovate school buildings that want to add full-day kindergarten classroom space.

Adds $2 million in grants to special education programs.

Increases the number of preschool slots statewide by 300, bringing the total to 20,160.

Pommer said that while the increase in kindergarten money isn't enough to offer the class to all children, it does help school districts increase the number of at-risk students in the program.

"We're letting districts decide how they want to use it," he said. "Some districts are going to offer it in schools where they feel like there's a particular need, some are going to use it to reduce the tuition in their existing programs, and others will probably come up with ideas we haven't thought of."

Pommer said the long-term goal is to increase funding to early education programs by $100 million over the next six years.

Sen. Sue Windels, D-Arvada and a retired kindergarten teacher, said focusing on early childhood education is the best way to address the state's high dropout rate, close the so-called achievement gap between white students and minorities and get more students into college .

She said the facts are clear that teaching children early in life helps them learn more as they get older.

"The solution is in preschool and in full-day kindergarten," said Windels, chairwoman of the Senate Education Committee. "I've tried every year to add a few more preschool slots for at-risk kids . . . and it is an exciting day, an exciting year that we are finally going to be able to offer preschool (and kindergarten) to every at-risk child who wants to go."

Philosophical split obvious in partisan budget feud

2008-04-04T09:02:00.007-06:00

By Alan Gathright, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Friday, April 4, 2008

The debate that led up to Senate approval of the $17.6 billion state budget Thursday revolved around a philosophical split between Republicans and Democrats on government spending.

A philosophical split? Or petty Dick Wadhams politics? I'm sitting in the Appropriations Committee right now where Republicans have sponsored bills spending more than $3 million. Just one morning. The fact is they've been voting to spend money all year, just as always. I've supported some of the bills and opposed others, just as always.
When the Republicans were in charge, they spent up to the 6% limit. There's no philosophical split, just politics.

Republicans called it "reckless" excess to add 1,334 state workers while the economy is tanking.

They were still fuming at the governor's office and majority Democrats for killing a "meager" $30 million "rainy day" fund proposal.

Of course they knew we were already working, with them, to build a rainy day fund with far more money in it -- more than $150 million.

"It's like adding 1,300 new state workers to the deck of the Titanic and we're heading for an iceberg and we're telling them to hold on as we turn up the steam," said Sen. Bill Cadman, R-Colorado Springs.

"But maybe we can offer them slushies after we hit," he added.

Democrats called it a frugal, smart budget that "invested" in vital programs - top-notch universities to crank out world- class workers and solar-power subsidies to spur the "new energy economy." Such spending, they said, will help Colorado power through choppy economic waters.

Democrats said the state still has a $283 million emergency reserve - four percent of the general fund, which both parties have tried to increase for years.

Republicans questioned why Democrats could not simply "reduce" the growth of spending below the maximum 6 percent limit.

We could have killed all if the bills they're sponsoring that spend money, but they would have complained about that too.

GOP lawmakers said Dems want to take the easy way out - tapping billions from the anticipated windfall from the state's oil-and-gas boom.

The Republicans have been working with us on that without complaining. And they've been insisting that some of the windfall get spent in their districts rather than go into the rainy day fund. Even if the Republicans didn't bring that up, the reporter could have mentioned it.

Senators voted 21-14, with only one Republican joining majority Democrats, to pass the spending plan.

When Democrats were in the minority, we voted for the budget even when he hated some of the things in it. Those budgets have a lot of cuts to important services because the Republicans had recklessly cut taxes. We could have all voted "no" and let the Republicans take all of the criticism for those cuts, but we chose to work with them and share the responsibility.

A conference committee will iron out differences between House and Senate versions before the bill goes to the governor.

Budget needs a solid reserve

2008-04-03T00:23:00.009-06:00

The Denver Post
Article Last Updated: 04/03/2008 10:18:34 PM MDT
The term "tempest in a teapot" well describes the partisan spat in the Colorado Senate on Thursday about whether to divert a mere $30 million in a $17.6 billion state budget to strengthen reserve funds that guard against a future economic downturn.

Unfortunately, the Post only pays attention to the tempests in teapots. That keeps people who read the paper from knowing what really happens in the legislature. It apparently keeps the editorial writers from knowing too, or they would realize that $17.6 billion is the total state budget, including federal money and cash funds. We can't use the federal money or fees for a rainy day fund, so it's misleading to use that number here.

After enough fulsome rhetoric to fill Folsom Field, the Senate voted 21-14 to reject the proposed spending cuts. Majority Democrats, some of whom initially supported the cuts, closed ranks after Gov. Bill Ritter said an upcoming bill earmarking federal mineral leasing revenues would provide a more substantial reserve.

In our view, that mineral leasing bill is a fine idea — but no substitute for a responsible fiscal reserve. Here's why:

• The budget passed for the fiscal year that begins July 1 is the fourth prepared under the five-year timeout from the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights that voters approved in 2005. By law, that budget now contains just a 4 percent reserve, $300.8 million. That's woefully inadequate to guard against the kind of severe budget cuts triggered by the 2001-03 recession. The state urgently needs to at least double its reserve to the 8 percent level that would have been phased in by a bill that passed the House 64-1 last year only to die in the Senate.

So we should cut $300 million out of the budget this year to avoid possibly having to cut $300 million out of the budget in some future year? It's good to have money in reserve, but hard cut our already-bare-bones budget and watch people suffer for it.

And the severe budget cuts in 2003 and 2004 were more the result of the permanent tax cuts the state made in 1999 and 2000 than from the recession.

• Against those budgetary goals, the proposed $30 million in additional reserves was more useful for its symbolism than its effect. That sum is a piffling 0.4 percent of the current general fund obligations facing the state, which total $7.8 billion. Far from protecting citizens from a "rainy day," such a Lilliputian reserve would dissolve with the morning dew.

So they do understand the difference between the $17.6 billion total budget and the $7.8 billion general fund. I guess the accurate number wasn't dramatic enough for the lead paragraph.

I didn't like the Senate's $30 million plan, but notice how the editorialists play with the numbers here. Their "piffling 0.4%" is Lilliputian compared to the general fund, but they don't mention that it would have been added to the existing $300 million reserve which is 4% of the GF by itself.

Then there's the state education fund. It's solvent today because we fixed a law last year that had been bankrupting it. That means during the next recession the increases in school spending required by Amendment 23 won't have the same devastating affect on the general fund that they did during the last recession.

Back then, the ed fund was broke because the Republicans running the legislature spent it dry, despite opposing Amendment 23 when it was on the ballot.

• The Post has editorialized repeatedly in favor of the bill by Rep. Bernie Buescher, D-Grand Junction, Sen. Gail Schwartz, D-Snowmass Village, Sen. Josh Penry, R-Grand Junction, and Rep. David Balmer, R-Centennial, to create a permanent endowment fund for higher education from an upcoming windfall from federal mineral leases. But that endowment fund won't generate much in earnings in its early years — and raiding the principal to support highways, health care or other needs would defeat the purpose of an endowment for higher education.

If the fund does rise to, say, $500 million by 2020, it may be possible to borrow from it to cushion against future recessions. But to avoid raiding the fund for pork-barrel spending, it should require a 60 percent legislative majority to tap the permanent fund — and all money borrowed should be repaid with interest within no more than five years.

While we will continue to campaign for a more responsible budget reserve for future years, we also understand that the six-member Joint Budget Committee that crafted the upcoming budget must work within the existing laws.

On balance, Sens. Moe Keller, Steve Johnson and John Morse and Reps. Bernie Buescher, Jack Pommer and Al White worked hard and wisely to write a responsible blueprint for Colorado's future.

OK, so it's a nice complement. Should I take back everything I set about the editorial? No. The last sentence or two doesn't make up for the rest. They admitted they were reacting to a "tempest in a teapot." They know the whole tempest was nothing more than a Dick Wadhams-written script to make Democrats look bad and set the stage for his scorched-earth campaign against us in the fall.

If the Post really wanted to write something sensible about the budget and a reserve, they could have asked us what our plan is. We could have debated the realistic scenarios for a drop in revenue. We could have discussed what parts of the budget really need protecting. We could have explained what we would cut and where we would fund money in a downturn.

They didn't do that. They never do. It's much easier for them to take the script Dick Wadhams writes for them, add some of their own words to it, and put it in print.

Charter schools likely to get more for renovation, construction

2008-04-01T23:50:00.002-06:00

April 1, 2008 - 7:29PM
The annual battle over charter school funding began anew Tuesday with the release of a report by the Colorado League of Charter Schools saying that students in those institutions receive less funding than kids in traditional public schools.

Their annually-recycled dishonest lobbying campaign to get even more money than they already get. It would be nice if a newspaper would add up the amount of money charter schools get compared to public schools, rather than just reporting this nonsense every year.

Charter school opponents countered that those schools can take advantage of more grant funding than other schools but often don't. Still, they conceded that charters are likely to get twice their usual funding for facility renovations and construction this year.

The report said charter schools spend $480 out of the $6,369 they receive in per-pupil funding on operating expenses for facilities because, unlike traditional public schools, they must buy or fix up buildings not owned by the school districts where they operate. With operational costs subtracted, their per-pupil funding falls below the state minimum, the report said.

What about the charter schools that get free facilities from school districts? They never mention that, as a powerful special interest, they forced through a state law requiring school districts to give them any space the district has available.

They, and the newspapers, also leave out the fact that public schools don't get state money for buildings either. They have to go to the voters and, if the voters say no, the public schools have to live without the money.
(There is one exception. We settled a lawsuit filed by Colorado's poorest districts a decade or so ago, and the settlement requires us to pay a minimal amount of money to them so they can eliminate conditions that are dangerous to their students. Charter schools can apply for that money just like any public school. The private payoff to charter schools, on the other hand, is only for charter schools; no public school can ask for it).
When districts ask voters for building an maintenance money, the charter schools get it too. That's another requirement the charter lobbyists got the legislature to ram down the throats of school districts. Of course charter schools could ask the voters for money too, but they've never been willing to live by democratic rules. It's easier for them to lobby the legislature until it overrules local voters and takes away their ability to determine where their tax money goes.

As far as them having to "spend $480 out of the $6,369 they receive in per-pupil funding" on their buildings, that's misleading too. Every district along the Front Range has to spend $500 from each public school student's per pupil revenue on special education. Charter schools have weaseled their way out of that. A lot of charter schools also, by state law, get a share of the district's at-risk money even though they refuse to accept at-risk students.
Then, of course, there's the original lie that got charter schools responsibility-free, taxpayer money in the first place. They promised their schools would be better and less expensive than public schools and, specifically, that they would never need capital construction and maintenance money.
That promise lasted just long enough to dupe the legislature. They've never been better, or even as good, as public schools. But immediately after getting themselves written into state law, the demanded -- and got -- the same funding public schools get. Even that wasn't, and isn't, enough. Today they get more. And it's still not enough, which is why this article is in the paper. It's part of their relentless demands for more and more money.

The need to find affordable facilities also means charter schools can be illequipped to serve all students' needs. A full 39 percent of them don't have access to a gym, and only 28 percent of charters have kitchen facilities that meet federal standards, the report said.

Less than 1 percent of Colorado Department of Education facilities grants have gone to charter schools since 2000, though those schools serve roughly 7 percent of Colorado's public school students. Some school districts have included charters in bond issues on ballots, while others have not, league president Jim Griffin said.

What the charter school lobbyists, and the newspaper, is leaving out here -- knowingly -- is that those grants don't go to 99% of our public schools either. The state makes those grants because we were forced to by a lawsuit, and the grants only go to the poorest schools that are the most dangerous to students.
Most public schools in the state aren't greedy enough to even apply for the grants. They realize that the money only goes to schools that desperately need it. It's a good indication of how avaricious the charter lobby is that they would even try to take money away from those students.

The solution is to dedicate more funding to charter schools' capital needs, Griffin argued. He expects a provision in the 2008 School Finance Act to provide $10 million for that, rather than the usual $5 million, he said.

"We have to do what it takes to bring our charter schools up to the standards we expect in Colorado," said Yuma Republican Rep. Cory Gardner, noting one charter school in Granby serves lunch in a tent.

Update: During the debate over the school finance bill I offered an amendment that would have actually helped get a lunchroom for the charter school in Granby. I say "helped" because we can't tell charter schools how to spend their money. The Republicans the pro-charter Democrats supported the amendment and it was put into the bill. The charter school lobby was furious. They don't like to see a great unfairness poster issue like that go away. They also don't like distributing funds on a need basis.
Charter lobbyists got the Senate to strip the amendment out. They kept the money in the budget, exclusively for charter schools, but distributed across the board so it won't help any individual, low-income school fix anything.
When the bill came back to the House the charter lobby has gotten its legislators back in line. They said the Granby lunch-in-a-ten situation wasn't an issue anymore. And it won't me, until next year's school finance act when it will be ressurected as a glaring example of unfairness toward charter schools.
On a broader note, what do you think would be the response if a school district told people it could afford to open a new school, then opened it without a lunchroom and complained about students having to eat in a tent?

But House Education Committee Chairman Mike Merrifield, D-Colorado Springs, said the report twists the funding numbers.

All schools factor facility costs as a percentage of their per-pupil funding, and because some charter schools don't have a gym or cafeteria, they have less of a facility to maintain with that money, he said.

The School Finance Act does not contain any special allocation for the schools that house 93 percent of Colorado's public school students, nor do those schools have access to federal or private grant programs specified for charters, he said.

State's $17.6B budget passes House

2008-03-28T09:41:00.002-06:00

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

2008-03-26T01:18:00.006-06:00

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

2008-03-24T22:09:00.004-06:00

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

2008-03-24T02:47:00.001-06:00

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.

College tuition may increase 9.5 percent in Colorado

2008-03-17T23:07:00.000-06:00

Berny Morson, Rocky Mountain News
Monday, March 17, 2008

Colorado residents attending state colleges and universities couldbe socked with tuition increases of up to 9½ percent next fall.

The legislature's Joint Budget Committee included that recommendation Friday in the draft of the annual state spending bill.

Students at the four research schools -- the University of Colorado,Colorado State University, the University of Northern Colorado and theColorado School of Mines -- would see increases of up to 9½ percent.

Other four-year schools -- such as Metropolitan State College --would see increases of up to 7½ percent, while the increases at thecommunity colleges would be capped at 5½ percent.

But the budget committee recommendation also would cap increases forthe neediest students at 5 percent and would add $9 million ofadditional funds for financial aid and work-study grants.

Increases for graduate students and non-resident undergraduates would not be capped under the proposal.

The six-member JBC could still revise the draft before it is introduced in the House of Representatives on March 24.

The House or the Senate also could make changes.

The increases still would have to be adopted by each school's governing boards, which could raise tuition by lesser amounts.

Rep. Jack Pommer, D-Boulder, said the tuition increase is neededbecause the state can't afford to raise direct support for highereducation.

Without more money, schools will have to cut programs.

"There's a lot of talk about keeping tuition down," said Pommer, whomade the motion to raise tuition. "The question is, keeping tuition forwhat down?

"If you destroy the university so you're not charging much tuition ... you're not getting much of an education, either."

Colorado tuition will still fall below the average of comparable institutions in other states, Pommer said.

Gov. Bill Ritter and the Colorado Commission on Higher Education had sought increases that topped out at 9 percent.

Blake Gibson, a leader of Associated Students of Colorado, said he understands the financial bind Colorado universities are in.

But, he warned, students are being priced out of higher education.

Students at many Colorado schools saw double digit tuition increases last year, said Gibson, a CSU sophomore.

"Like anything else, there's kind of a point where it just becomestoo much," Gibson said. The increases add to the heavy debt burden manystudents carry, he said.

Along with the higher tuition, the JBC voted to increase highereducation funding by more than $60 million, including the additions tofinancial aid.

State college tuition could rise 9.5%

2008-03-16T01:48:00.016-06:00

Budget bill orders biggest hikes at research schools

By Berny Morson

Rocky Mountain News

Saturday, March 15, 2008

Colorado residents attending state colleges and universities could be socked with tuition increases of up to 9 1/2 percent next fall.

"Colorado universities still a bargain"
How about that for a more accurate headline. Here's how CU's tuition, for instance, compares to similar schools across the country:

The pattern is the same when you compare or other state universities and colleges to their peers in other states.

Our tuition is relatively low despite that fact that Colorado contributes far less funding to its universities than the other states.

And our low tuition buys a better-than-average education. In the U.S. News rankings, CU looks pretty good compared to its peers:

Rank

44 University of Texas -- Austin

75 Indiana University -- Bloomington

79 University of Colorado -- Boulder

85 University of Kansas

85 Iowa State University

91 University of Missouri -- Columbia

91 University of Nebraska -- Lincoln

96 University of Massachusetts -- Amherst

112 Florida State University

The legislature's Joint Budget Committee included that recommendation Friday in the draft of the annual state spending bill.

Students at the four research schools - the University of Colorado, Colorado State University, the University of Northern Colorado and the Colorado School of Mines - would see increases of up to 9 1/2 percent.

Other four-year schools - such as Metropolitan State College - would see increases of up to 71/2 percent, while the increases at the community colleges would be capped at 5 1/2 percent.

But the budget committee recommendation also would cap increases for the neediest students at 5 percent and would add $9 million of additional funds for financial aid and work- study grants.

Increases for graduate students and non-resident undergraduates would not be capped under the proposal.

The six-member JBC could still revise the draft before it is introduced in the House of Representatives on March 24.

The House or the Senate also could make changes.

The increases still would have to be adopted by each school's governing boards, which could raise tuition by lesser amounts.

Rep. Jack Pommer, D-Boulder, said the tuition increase is needed because the state can't afford to raise direct support for higher education.

Without more money, schools will have to cut programs.

"There's a lot of talk about keeping tuition down," said Pommer, who made the motion to raise tuition. "The question is, keeping tuition for what down?

"If you destroy the university so you're not charging much tuition . . . you're not getting much of an education, either."

Colorado tuition will still fall below the average of comparable institutions in other states, Pommer said.

Gov. Bill Ritter and the Colorado Commission on Higher Education had sought increases that topped out at 9 percent.

Blake Gibson, a leader of Associated Students of Colorado, said he understands the financial bind Colorado universities are in.

But, he warned, students are being priced out of higher education.

Students at many Colorado schools saw double digit tuition increases last year, said Gibson, a CSU sophomore.

"Like anything else, there's kind of a point where it just becomes too much," Gibson said. The increases add to the heavy debt burden many students carry, he said.

Along with the higher tuition, the JBC voted to increase higher education funding by more than $60 million, including the additions to financial aid.

Education costs may go up Here are some sample resident undergraduate tuitions for next year, assuming higher education governing boards take advantage of the full increases allowed under the draft state budget bill:

INSTITUTION THIS YEAR* NEXT YEAR**

* CU Arts & Sciences $5,418 $5,933

* CU Business School $8,632 $9,452

* CU Engineering $7,498 $8,210

* Metro State $2,432 $2,614

* Community Colleges $2,315 $2,442

Group: 'Extreme environmentalists' are harming the poor and minorities

2008-03-08T01:41:00.000-07:00

By Patty Henetz
The Salt Lake Tribune

Article Last Updated: 03/08/2008 01:51:12 AM MST

The Congress of Racial Equality is rolling out a new environmental justice campaign that focuses on "extreme environmentalists" such as wilderness advocates, charging them with harming poor people and minority groups.
Niger Innis, CORE's national spokesman, attended a news conference this week at the Utah Capitol to announce the consumers' campaign, which he is taking across the nation.
Innis, son of civil rights leader Roy Innis, said environmental organizations intimidate governments and have a trickle-down effect on minorities.

We're a few paragraphs into this article now, and there's been no mention of that fact that this nothing but an industry-funded front group or that's it's been denounced as "shakedown" gang and fraud by the real founder of CORE.

"You can't have economic development in my community when my community is worrying about paying their gas bill," Innis said.
Innis has a growing reputation as a conservative who questions environmentalists' "pseudoscience" and condemns what he calls the global green movement's oppression of poor people in the Third World.
Earlier in the week, Innis spoke to members of the Colorado Legislature during a news conference held to oppose efforts to restrict energy development there. Colorado news organizations reported the media event was organized with the help of Colorado-based Americans for American Energy.

Americans for American Energy is an oil and gas industry front group that pretends to be "grassroots." It's led by Greg Schnacke, the former head of the Colorado Oil and Gas Association. In Colorado its disinformation campaign has been denounced by West Slope mayors and others.

AAE associate Jim Sims accompanied Innis at the news conference in Utah, held on the last day of the legislative session. There, Innis was surrounded by state lawmakers who congratulated the CORE effort.
"I remember his father, Roy Innis, who marched with Martin Luther King [Jr.]," said Rep. Mike Noel, R-Kanab.
AAE in January circulated a missive linking wilderness supporters with terrorists.
CORE will sue the Bush administration if the polar bear is designated an endangered species, Innis said later.
Innis said CORE receives donations from a wide variety of sources, including energy companies. "Quite frankly, we should be getting more, given our position," he said.

Innis has a point. Given the groups shameless shilling for oil and chemical companies, and its ability to get press, it probably deserves higher pay from the corporations it serves.

Tougher drilling regulations will hurt poor, group says

2008-03-06T01:54:00.000-07:00

March 6, 2008

By Joe Hanel | Herald Denver Bureau

DENVER - Gas industry proponents have enlisted a civil-rights group in their fight over Colorado's proposed oil and gas rules, claiming the rules will hurt the poor and minorities.

"We feel that the economic environment that's created by regulations in fact creates a de facto regressive tax on poor consumers," said Niger Innis, spokes-man for the New York-based Congress on Racial Equality. CORE was founded in 1942 and played a part in the struggle against racism and Jim Crow laws in the South. Since then, it has embraced conservative causes.

Innis visited Denver on Tuesday to join Sen. Bill Cadman, R-Colorado Springs, and Rep. Wes McKinley, D-Walsh, in announcing a resolution questioning the cost of proposed rules by the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission.

Innis' group has received steady funding from ExxonMobil, according to Exxon's annual Worldwide Giving Reports. Greenpeace has archived the reports, which show the country's largest oil company has given CORE $275,000 since 1998.

Great reporting! It's refreshing to read a reporter who digs a little to find out what's really going on.

Innis said the true sum is "a fraction" of that amount.

"ExxonMobil has not given us a quarter of a million dollars. That is absolutely not the case," he said. Innis said he'd open his books "when you guys in the press demand that Greenpeace open up their books."

You can read Exxon's giving reports for 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006.

Innis also announced the formation of a new local group called Colorado Consumers for Affordable Energy.

"When the energy industry gets a cold from extreme regulation or taxes, my people get the flu," he said.

More pay for RTD board?

2008-03-02T11:46:00.004-07:00

Despite FasTracks complaints, bill quadrupling salaries progresses

By Tim Hoover
The Denver Post

Article Last Updated: 03/01/2008 11:05:56 PM MST

Some lawmakers complained about cost overruns, and others fumed about the taking of land for private development, but a bill giving raises to Regional Transportation District board members still won initial House approval Friday.

Senate Bill 46 would increase the salaries for RTD's 15 board members from $3,000 a year to $12,000 a year. But the pay hikes would apply only to those elected in November 2008 and afterward.

Supporters of the pay raises, like Rep. Buffie McFadyen, D-Pueblo West, noted that the salaries of board members hadn't been increased in 26 years.

But some lawmakers said they were peeved about project cost overruns and the agency's use of eminent domain. RTD is considering building commercial space above one planned parking garage, and the agency used the eminent domain process to acquire land for the site, angering some residents whose homes were in the way.

"I am very concerned that by approving these raises, we are rewarding bad behavior," said Rep. Gwyn Green, D-Golden.

Rep. Jack Pommer, D-Boulder, said increasing the salaries for board members might attract better candidates to the elected positions.

Well, to be completely accurate, I said if someone is concerned about the quality of the board, it's worth considering that higher pay could attract better candidates.
It's odd how a quote that's not even much out of context can seem so different in print.
During the floor debate reps were saying that higher pay would just lead to more of what they consider to be bad behavior. I just wanted to mention that being on boards, like the RTD, takes a lot of time and effort and low pay could be a factor when people decide whether to run or not. By any measure, 26 years is a long time to go without a raise. And The RTD is a lot bigger and more complicated that it was a quarter-century ago.

Even though the quote is accurate, by itself, it could suggest that I think the board isn't good. Actually, I think it's a pretty good board. I finished the comment by asking my colleagues to look at what low pay had done to the quality of the legislature. (It was a joke).

The House gave preliminary approval to the measure on a voice vote, and it must approve it once more before it can go to Gov. Bill Ritter.

Plan busts school mold

2008-02-26T17:22:00.000-07:00

An overhaul addresses how kids learn, not what courses they take.
By Jennifer Brown
The Denver Post
Article Last Updated: 02/24/2008

Shayn Herndon, 16, a Loveland High sophomore, adjusts outlet boxes in a house students build to learn geometry. (Joe Amon, The Denver Post )

Loveland High School used to offer watered-down math for students flunking geometry and algebra.

Then the geometry and construction teachers created a course that's all the rage at Loveland High — a house-building class where students learn the slope of a line by determining the pitch of a roof.

The school started with two classes last year and now has six. Enrolled students have outperformed their classmates on state tests. And now Thompson School District is creating an algebra course where students will convert a gas-guzzling car to an electric one.

That creative course design is an illustration of what Gov. Bill Ritter envisions under his new education initiative — a revamping of curricula from preschool to college to produce courses focused more on content than titles.

Details of the governor's initiative are still sketchy, though a 28-page draft of the legislation is likely to become official this week.

The three-year initiative will specify, grade by grade, which skills a student must master, from counting to 25 in preschool to nailing down quadratic equations in high school.

Colorado would overhaul the Colorado Student Assessment Program tests or create new tests to assess a student's skill level, and college admissions staff would use those scores to determine admittance.

The draft calls for an 11-member panel of curriculum and testing experts to recommend new curriculum standards to the state school board, modernize exams to test for those standards and create a tiered diploma system for high school graduates.

The point is to shift the focus from course titles and the number of years a student spent in math or science class to what he or she actually learned.

"Right now, time is the constant and learning is the variable," said Roger Sampson, president of the Education Commission of the States, based in Denver. "Students sit for 180 days every year. Some of them learn a lot of skills, and some of them learn a minimal amount of skills."

A school with no dropouts

A real-life example of Ritter's plan played out in Chugach School District in Alaska, where Sampson was once superintendent.

Chugach students move on when they pass tests on course content — some kids graduate at 15, and others are still in school at 21. The dropout rate is near zero, Sampson said.

"A district with no students" would be a better heading. Try to find out how well students are learning in this district and you get some interesting results. For instance 2008 11th grade test scores:
Reading * (1 student tested)
Writing * (3 students tested)
Math * (2 students tested)

* Results cannot be published without releasing personally identifiable information.

It turns out that the Chugach School District has 214 students -- in the entire district. And those students are spread out over 22,000 square miles, including areas so remote you can only get to them by airplane. One-on-one teaching is a great idea. Advancing each child individually and on his or her own schedule is wonderful. But try doing it in a school district with 30.000 students.

I applaud what the Chugach District has achieved (even though I can't see the results), but using it as an example for Colorado is a real stretch. This is a constant problem with so-called education reform: it's often based on "miracle schools" where something amazing happens but it can't be reproduced or, in some cases, measured objectively.

Ritter's initiative assumes every kid is headed to college.

"What we're doing is what every state aspires to do," said Sen. Chris Romer, the Denver Democrat bringing Ritter's plan to the legislature.

All students would have to learn a core curriculum, including English competency, to graduate. Beyond that, they could select courses leading toward job readiness, community college or guaranteed admission to any university in the state.

Students earning the state's top-tier diploma — an "honors diploma" — would have to take an "extremely rigorous" college track that includes advanced math and science, said Sen. Josh Penry, a Grand Junction Republican co-sponsoring the legislation.

"This will be a gold standard," he said. "It's central for me."

Penry and Rep. Rob Witwer, R-Genesee, failed to pass legislation last year that would have required every student to take four years of math and three years of science. They introduced the bill again this year but put it on hold while waiting to see whether Ritter's plan is tough enough.

The political notion that every kid is going to college irritates Gerald Keefe, superintendent of the 100-student Kit Carson School District.

Keefe has been an outspoken adversary of the state Department of Higher Education's college entrance requirements, which call for four years of math for the class of 2010. But he supports Ritter's initiative.

"Even if you want to go into welding, you need to know calculus? That may be true, but you don't need a whole calculus course," he said, noting that kids can learn calculus in a shop class. "It doesn't have to be the same environment we're used to."

Local boards retain role

Colorado, with a history of local control in education, is one of only five states without comprehensive graduation requirements. The governor's plan preserves at least some control for local school boards because it will not mandate what courses schools must teach, only curriculum standards.

Colorado first created content standards in 1993 but has not updated them since. Plus the standards cover only third through 10th grade, meaning there are none spelling out what a preschooler should learn or what a 12th-grader must know to graduate.

"There is no overarching vision of what the education system should produce," said Matt Gianneschi, Ritter's education policy adviser. "The state has been silent and left it up to local boards to decide what college readiness is."

The result: About one-third of students have to take remedial, noncredit courses when they get to college, prolonging their graduation and leading to a higher dropout rate.

"We don't want to get them all ready for college to see them drop out," said Ken Turner, deputy education commissioner. "Engaging students in things they find meaningful — that's what it's about. We need to expect more of ourselves and our young people."

Colorado policies now are too "inexact or clumsy" in determining a student's college readiness, said David Skaggs, director of the Higher Education Department. "We need to be more fair early on to alert high school students and families what is expected," he said.

Ritter's goals include cutting the 26 percent high school dropout rate in half and doubling the number of college degrees and certificates by 2017.

Ritter's initiative — called the "Colorado Achievement Plan for Kids" — takes some cues from a national report that had lawmakers buzzing last year.

"Tough Choices, Tough Times" from the National Center on Education and the Economy calls for letting students test out of high school after 10th grade to attend community or technical colleges. Students headed for top universities would study college-track courses through 12th grade.

Similar efforts are happening across the country. But Colorado can move "to the frontier" by allowing more flexibility in how schools teach skills, said Michael Cohen, president of Achieve, a Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit helping states set education standards.

While some educators have been frustrated by a lack of details on the initiative the governor announced in early January, they are excited about the prospects.

"The governor's idea is right on the mark," said Thompson Valley Superintendent Dan Johnson. "There are various ways in which a student can show competence besides just a number of hours in a seat."

Jennifer Brown: 303-954-1593 or jenbrown@denverpost.com

Liquor stores plan spirited attack

2008-02-14T00:31:00.002-07:00

Owners oppose wine, beer sales by grocers
By MIKE SACCONE
The Daily Sentinel

Tuesday, February 12, 2008

For years, Crossroads Wine and Spirits has enjoyed its proximity to the Rimrock Avenue Wal-Mart.

Monty Haltiner, manager of the store at 2546 Rimrock Ave., said many of his customers shop at the nearby chain store before stopping into his shop for a six-pack of beer or a bottle of wine.

But Haltiner said legislation moving through the state Capitol to allow Wal-Mart and other stores to sell full-strength beer and wine could threaten this relationship and ultimately harm his business.

Senate Bill 149, which is scheduled to go before a Senate committee this afternoon, would allow stores that sell food products to set aside 5 percent of their floor space for alcohol sales.

Grocery stores are limited under law to selling 3.2-percent alcohol drinks or beers.

“Pretty much every liquor store in Colorado opened a business based on current law that says grocery stores can’t (sell full-strength beer and wine),” Haltiner said, “and, in some cases, invested millions of dollars and, in some cases, hundreds of thousands of dollars in a business and a business plan based on that.”

Wayne Fisher, owner of Fisher’s Liquor Barn, 2438 F Road, said the legislation also could endanger the financial well-being of owners whose stores are their retirement investments.

“A lot of these liquor stores are going to be worth nothing when this opens up,” Fisher said.

Diane Roth, a lobbyist for the Colorado Licensed Beverage Association, said Haltiner and Fisher are not alone in voicing their concerns.

Roth said owners of the state’s nearly 1,700 independently owned liquor stores have told her they make up to 70 percent of their profits from beer and wine sales.

She said if Senate Bill 149 causes those businesses to lose even half of their beer and wine sales, most will go out of business.

But one of the bill’s sponsors, Rep. Jack Pommer, D-Boulder, said liquor store owners have overstated their case.

“It might force them to lower their prices or emphasize different things, but I don’t think it drives them out of business,” he said.

Pommer said plenty of other states have weakened or abolished their “blue laws” to help consumers. He said his bill is intended to offer “convenience to consumers” who might want to buy a bottle of wine or a six-pack of beer while shopping for dinner.

Susan Bradford, who was shopping Thursday afternoon at the Safeway on Horizon Drive, said the bill would make shopping trips shorter for herself and others.

“A lot of people would find it more convenient,” Bradford said. “A lot of people have wine or beer with their dinner.”

Ernie Walthers, who stopped at the 12th Street Albertsons while passing through Grand Junction, said he loves being able to shop for wine or beer at the grocery store near his home in Battle Mountain, Nev.

Nonetheless, Walthers said he still frequents liquor stores that often have discounted prices on beer and wine.

Pommer said it is unfortunate the liquor store lobby has refused to work out a compromise on the matter to help both consumers and the stores.

“I guess the frustrating thing is they absolutely don’t want to talk about anything,” Pommer said. “Their attitude is the bill has to die, and that’s it.”

E-mail Mike Saccone at msaccone@gjds.com.

By Lisa

Feb 13, 2008 10:28 PM | Link to this

I don't believe that liquor stores will take that big of a hit in sales. In Texas, beer and wine is sold in grocery stores. There is also liquor stores all over the place too. I bought 99% of the alcohol that I purchased from liquor stores. There are people out there that just does not want to deal with grocery store lines and go to the liquor store. Also, liquor stores have more of a selection than grocery stores.

By Rick from Junction but now Durango

Feb 13, 2008 9:10 PM | Link to this

Everyone:

I moved here 11 years ago from SW Arkansas. Do ya'll know what a "bootlegger" is??? It's someone who sells beer and liquor in a "dry" county. There apparently are no dry counties in Colorado. And, there is no "fake beer, in the State of Arkanss, and New Mexico. All I want to see happen is that "ALL" 3.2 beer is eliminated in Colorado. If ya'll want FAKE BEER to remain have the distributors lower the price of Near Beer by the same ratio as the alcohol content. I don't mind paying $6.00 dollars for a six pack of Real Beer, but I do have a problem paying the same amount of money for FAKE Beer.

One question: At one time in CO did 18 year olds have the right to purchase beer, wine, and hard liqour??? This would explain this ridiculous rule and why 3.2 beer (near beer) is sold in this stste There has never been 3.2 beverages sold in ARK because 18 years olds were never allowed to purchase alcoholic beverages in Arkansas. Texas and many other states allowed 18 year olds to purchase (near) beer that contained 3.2 or less percent alcohol by volume, but 18-20 year olds were not allowed to purchase any beer or liquor products.

Remember everyone: Technology (bar codes) will allow "ALL" store owners to monitor the age of the person who is purchasing beer, liquor, wine, spray paint, tobacco, etc. You get the point.

I should not have to schedule the "Liquor Stores" into my plans because I am shopping in a grocery store or convience store. If beer is in these buisness's I will not have to cross state lines to purchase these products.

Real BEER should be available 7 days a week no matter where you purchase alcohol related productsd.

By drunk

Feb 13, 2008 7:26 PM | Link to this

The law that keeps walmart and grocery stores from selling wine and spirits is like a subsidy for local liquor stores. The law subsidises the liquor store by not allowing other legitimate businesses to compete. But is it not in our capatalistic model to provide product at the lowest prices possible? If walmart undercuts the local liquor stores, blame the capitalistic model, cry unfair and close down.

Dem lawmakers skeptical over Benson

2008-02-12T23:07:00.000-07:00

A dozen Democratic state legislators said in a letter released Monday that they're "deeply concerned" about the nomination of Republican Party activist Bruce Benson to be president of the University of Colorado.

The lawmakers -- including Boulder-area Reps. Alice Madden, Claire Levy, Jack Pommer and Paul Weissmann as well as Sens. Brandon Schaffer and Ron Tupa -- said they're not worried about Benson being a Republican.

"The legislature has worked well with past presidents of CU regardless of their political affiliation and we will continue to do so in the future. Our concern is about the particular circumstances that surround Mr. Benson," the lawmakers wrote. "Mr. Benson has never been an educator, has not run any college or university, and does not hold an advanced degree. Even the strong academic credentials of CU's chancellors cannot make up for that."

Technorati Tags: University of Colorado

Comments for "Liquor-store bill set for fight"

2008-02-08T11:49:00.000-07:00

Joined: Aug 13
Points: 3602 Posted by D. B. (aka dbrown7733)
at 5:09 AM on Friday Feb 8 Report Abuse | Report Good Comment

Small store owners limit consumer's options for their own co The idea that this bill would kill small family-owned businesses is absurd. In other states where there is no 3.2 law (like Wisconsin, where I'm from) there are small liquer stores all over the place even though grocery stores can sell full-strength beer and wine. It's really too bad that kind of information doesn't seem to be looked at by news writers or lawmakers. Let's face it, the reason we can't run out and grab a six-pack before a Bronco's game, is because the small store owners don't want to have to be open on Sundays. Who says we're a consumer driven economy?
Kurt

Joined: Jul 3
Points: 330 Posted by Kurt (aka whiteice)
at 6:19 AM on Friday Feb 8 Report Abuse | Report Good Comment

I agree with Kurt. I'm originally from NY and there were PLENTY of liquor stores that did incredible business. Everyone's gotta "wine" about something. hardee har har
rob
Joined: Jun 15
Points: 830 Posted by rob (aka italiaboy9)
at 6:24 AM on Friday Feb 8 Report Abuse | Report Good Comment
Vote up | Vote down (must be logged in to vote)
# I don't think there is anything in the law that would REQUIRE liquor stores to be open - its their choice...if they don't want to be open, great, I'll spend my money at ones that are.
Sinjin Eberle

Joined: May 21
Points: 1459 Posted by Sinjin Eberle (aka Sinjin4131)
at 6:27 AM on Friday Feb 8 Report Abuse | Report Good Comment

Backward state still with Blue laws It's time our Legislators wake up and abolish our Blue Laws, like existing liquor licensing, restriction on Sunday sales. Also our ridiculous restriction on when auto/motorcycle dealers may be open. Let's compete with some neighboring states!

That's why most people in southwest Colorado stock up on booze (and even some cars and trucks) whenever across the border in New Mexico.

The overriding reason why local alcohol dealers don't want the law changed is because they might have to lower their prices (a lot) to compete with the likes of King Soopers and Albertsons.

Liquor dealers have a tremendous lobby effort which gets in the way of reason when your legislator is thirsty.

And, if we really get lucky, maybe deregulation will entice Trader Joe's to come to Denver!
hank

Joined: Aug 29
Points: 636 Posted by jerry garcia (aka jgarcia)
at 6:52 AM on Friday Feb 8 Report Abuse | Report Good Comment

PASS THIS LEGISLATION! WHY SHOULD THE REST OF COLORADO SUFFER THIS INCONVENIENCE SIMPLY TO HELP A FEW BUSINESS OWNERS? IF THE INDEPENDENT LIQUOR STORES CANNOT MAKE IT IN THE REAL WORKD, PERHAPS THEY SHOULDN'T BE IN BUSINESS. BESIDES THE "WE'LL GO OUT OF BUSINESS" ARGUMENT IS A BUNCH OF BS.

OUR LEGISLATURE NEEDS TO STOP PANDERING TO THE NAROW SPECIAL INTERESTS N THIS BILL AND GET RID OF THIS OUTDATED LAW.
vanwillie

Joined: Jun 14
Points: 525 Posted by vanwillie (aka vanwillie)
at 7:07 AM on Friday Feb 8 Report Abuse | Report Good Comment

In the Capitol Hill neighborhood of Denver, where I live, we have plenty of liquor stores; why do we need to be able to buy beer/wine at convenience stores? So that the drunks don't have to stagger as far?

Opening on Sunday seems a reasonable change; the blue law doesn't really make sense. But I don't see that we, as a society, are suffering from a lack of alcohol availability. As someone who enjoys the occasional drink, I am not upset that I need to go to a liquor store.

I don't smoke (tobacco, marijuana, or anything else). But, if it were up to me, I'd restrict the sales of cigarettes and allow the sale of marijuana in the same manner as alcohol. One-stop shopping for cigs, booze, and pot.
Greg InDenver

Joined: May 25
Points: 267 Posted by Greg InDenver (aka GeoGreg)
at 7:24 AM on Friday Feb 8 Report Abuse | Report Good Comment

Being from Wisconsin also (where there is more brandy consumed per capita than the rest of the world combined) I saw two liquor stores go out of business in my small state-line town whant a supermarket was built and started to sell booze. It depends on your location. If your an independant in a strip mall with Safeway next door, you're probably going to have to move to a location where lack of competeition will make you convenient.
Scott Braukhoff

Joined: Dec 12
Points: 261 Posted by K Mat (aka Big Crazy Wayne)
at 7:36 AM on Friday Feb 8 Report Abuse | Report Good Comment

Beer, Wine in all stores, liquor in liquor stores In all the other states I have lived and visited with family (California, Washington State, Virginia, Florida, Arizona), I could buy full-strength beer and wine in almost any grocery store. These grocery stores usually would carry the popular wines and beers, and if I wanted something different like hard liquor, a special wine or beer, I would go to a full-fledged "liquor store". Just keep the hard liquor out of the grocery stores and let the Mom and Pops have that market and everyone should ok. It works elsewhere, so if Colorado can't do it, then there is something wrong with Colorado, not the concept.
ScreamOfReason

Joined: Jul 9
Points: 573 Posted by ScreamOfReason (aka ScreamOfReason)
at 7:58 AM on Friday Feb 8 Report Abuse | Report Good Comment

I don't agree with selling at grocery stores personally but I do agree with selling on sundays.

Selling at grocery stores may not put people out of business but it will hurt business and I like my local liquor stores. Well those of them that don't charge 12 bucks for a 6er of Easy Street.

BTW a really good Small Liquor Store is on 17th and Race Near Downtown
Dude Man

Joined: May 14
Points: 5862 Posted by Dude Man (aka acsguitar)
at 7:58 AM on Friday Feb 8 Report Abuse | Report Good Comment

Enough Government Meddling - Pass This I completely agree that they should pass this legislation. Where is the sense in allowing one type of store to sell one type of product, but tell another store that they can only sell less premium products or none at all � even if they are willing to go through all the same licensing requirements as the other store? And then compound this senselessness by saying that they can sell full blast, everything they want, six days a week but can�t sell on Sunday. This is archaic and amounts to little more than government meddling. Plenty of states allow grocers to sell liquor and these states seem to have plenty of liquor stores too. Additionally, it seems many Colorado liquor stores like to crank the prices a bit. Bringing powerful retailers such as King Soopers, Safeway, and Albertsons into this market will encourage stores to price fairly. I�ve seen prices on a six-pack fluctuate by as much as $2.50 from store to store.
Sean S

Liquor-store bill set for fight

2008-02-08T11:39:00.000-07:00

By Jessica Fender
The Denver Post
Article Last Updated: 02/08/2008 09:11:26 AM MST

Colorado shoppers could have more options to buy full-strength beer and wine following the introduction Thursday of a bill that would overhaul the state's liquor industry by extending retailers' ability to sell alcohol.

Impassioned debate over the proposal in recent weeks has led to a series of deals between brewers and vintners as well as convenience stores, which also would be able to sell liquor if the proposal passes. An original version extended sales only to large grocery stores.

None of the new provisions makes the bill palatable to liquor stores, which argue the measure will put them out of business.

House sponsor Jack Pommer, D-Boulder, said that while the bill is finding more friends at the Capitol, passage remains a longshot. He added that the recent tweaks make it more fair and defensible.

"I wouldn't bet the farm" on it passing, Pommer said. "But I'd bet a bottle of cheap scotch."

The new bill, likely to be heard next week in the Senate Judiciary Committee, would:

• Allow liquor-store owners to operate up to three shops, up from the current one-store limit.

• Allow liquor stores to set aside 5 percent of their floor space for selling nonperishable food items.

• Introduce a new class of liquor license that would allow retailers to sell wine and full-strength beer.

• Limit beer and wine displays in supermarkets and convenience stores to 5 percent of floor space.

• Require 20 percent of those displays to contain craft beers and another 20 percent to contain boutique wines.

Senate sponsor Brandon Shaffer, D-Longmont, said that Colorado's craft breweries — including New Belgium Brewery and smaller operations — would be guaranteed space in supermarkets and convenience stores.

Current laws dating back to Prohibition say only independently owned liquor stores can sell wine, spirits and beer that have higher than 3.2 percent alcohol by weight.

Those are the rules under which many of the mom-and-pop liquor shops started their businesses, signing long-term leases and taking out hefty bank loans, said liquor-store lobbyist Scott Chase.

"This bill would have a devastating impact on those family-owned businesses," said Chase, who estimated that 70 percent of liquor-store revenues comes from wine and full-strength beer. "That's the last thing the Colorado economy needs right now."

Shaffer said he expects a fight on Senate Bill 149. He's already heard that some lobbyists are considering blasting supporters with robo-calls bashing the bill.

"The real challenge I see is to be able to have just an intellectual conversation on the policy as opposed to an emotional conversation driven by lobbyists down at the Capitol," Shaffer said.

Jessica Fender: 303-954-1244 or jfender@denverpost.com

More Comments

2008-02-08T11:37:00.000-07:00

Comments

Posted by JB on February 8, 2008 at 8:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Good work Sen. Shaffer!

I'm glad you modified the bill to make it more fair for everyone! It's about time that we make our current laws more consumer friendly and not just protect a small segment of the population.

If the legislature fails to pass this, perhaps I will start a petition and get this as a ballot issue in November!

Posted by Darwin on February 8, 2008 at 9:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I will sign it JB

Posted by JB on February 8, 2008 at 10:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Then it's a plan! If they don't pass it... we'll do a ballot issue! Seriously... anyone have a link to the info on how to start a ballot issue in Colorado?

Comments

2008-02-08T11:33:00.000-07:00

Posted by jgd on February 7, 2008 at 12:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Allen,

When was the last time our legislators where concerned about the private business owner? If you are not a big contributor to their campaigns then you are meaningless. Ask the small bar and restaurant owners, or should I say previous owners. Good Luck!

Posted by glowrock on February 7, 2008 at 7:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If a small liquor store chooses to stay closed on Sunday, more power to them. I personally don't care if they close on Sunday or not. At the same time, I'm sick and freaking tired of the "woe is me!" attitude of the liquor store owners. Big freaking deal, liquor will be able to be sold on Sundays. Whoa, it's going to force store owners to forgo their one day off. Waaahhhhh!!!!

Oh brother. If a fast-food place like Chick-fil-a can stay closed on Sunday, so can private liquor stores...

Posted by peterpi on February 7, 2008 at 10:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Thank you glowrock! No one would force liquor stores to open on Sundays. They could stay closed. But right now, they are forced to close on Sunday whether they want to or not.
Ever notice business owners fight for "freedom", then when someone comes along and loosens the rules, they fight like crazy to keep them the way they are?
Some liquor stores are crying in their beer that they may have to compete on Sundays. My gosh! The horrors! Imagine business owners having to compete!
Add Hobby Lobby to Chick-Fil-A as a store that (ahem) voluntarily closes on Sundays, and still makes money.

Posted by titancain on February 8, 2008 at 12:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The local liquor store is a ripoff. It charges 20 percent more than others. Screw them.

Posted by Mike_In_Hartsel on February 8, 2008 at 6:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Wyatt complains about the special interest groups influencing the legislators. The liquor store owners are a special interest group trying to influence the legislators. Hmmm. Conflict here.

Included in the bill is allowing stores to sell regular beer. 2.3 beer is a joke and a rip-off. It is a throw-back to the old days of blue laws. Get rid of 3.2 beer everywhere.

Posted by glowrock on February 8, 2008 at 7:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Yeah, I forgot about Hobby Lobby... Add them to the stores that are closed on Sunday and still make money. :)

Blue laws are terrible, period. They need to disappear.

Bills to relax liquor laws would hurt family businesses

2008-02-08T11:32:00.001-07:00

This Web only Speakout has not been edited.

Allan Wyatt

Thursday, February 7, 2008

$2.8 millon divided by 1600 equals $1750. $1750 divided by 52 equals $33.65.

These numbers represent the tax revenue that might be generated by having liquor stores open on Sunday. This is a false premise. Sales figures and tax revenue will show a minor uptick for the first year or so on the novelty of being able to buy on Sundays, but will then flatten out to spread the same amount of sales over seven days instead of six.

State Sen. Brandon Shaffer(D) Longmont and Rep. Jack Pommer(D) Boulder have put a proposal to let major chain stores like Safeway and King Soopers sell alcohol.

State Sen. Jennifer Viega(D) Denver has put forth a proposal to let (force) independent liquor stores to be open on Sundays.

Both proposals have been wrapped in the guise of “convenience” for the customers. This they are not. They are nothing more than a cynical way of collecting tax revenue at the expense of the private liquor store owners.

By giving us these proposals they are putting store owners on the horns of a dilemma. Let the big guys have their way and put us out of business, or let the legislature have its’ way and take away their one guaranteed day a week off.

These three are playing both ends against the middle on this one. They get what they want, supposedly more tax revenue by holding store owners hostage. Either store owners stay open on Sundays, or they unleash the big dogs on them.

Being Democrats, they are supposed to be the champions of the little guy against the corporate behemoths. Unless the siren song of taxes gets in the way, then hang to your hats ‘cause it appears that these three will throw you under the bus to get to the money.

All one has to do is look at the mega-corps that have put the monies up for these proposals, Safeway, Kroger, Diageo. Huge money. No matter how the pie is sliced, they get what they want and the left side of the aisle gets what it wants, store owners be damned.

For the sake of convenience, I would like to be able to get in touch with, or go see my representatives or senators at MY convenience. Say, Saturday or Sunday. Maybe until midnight during the week. After all, these are the hours that liquor stores are open. So why shouldn’t I be given the same “convenience"? If you can’t plan ahead far enough to buy beer or liquor for Sunday, why should I be inconvenienced to be a convenience to you?

Please give the unpaid tax-collectors of Colorado a break by letting them have one day off a week without the threat of mega-corps putting them out of business, or forcing them to be open against their will. Please call or e-mail your Reps and Sens to vote against both of these proposals.

Allan Wyatt is a resident of Longmont

Bill would expand beer, wine sale sites

2008-02-08T11:30:00.000-07:00

Liquor stores fear competition from grocery giants

By Roger Fillion, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Friday, February 8, 2008

Grocery stores, convenience stores and big retailers could sell full-strength beer and wine under a bill introduced Thursday in the state legislature.

Sen. Brandon Shaffer, D-Longmont, the sponsor of SB 149, said he made several changes to an initial draft that would have allowed only large grocers such as Safeway and King Soopers to sell regular beer and wine.

The changes also are aimed at overcoming objections from liquor store owners who fear they would be forced out of business.

Liquor store owners, however, signaled their continued opposition. They've thrown their support behind a separate bill that would permit liquor stores to open on Sunday.

SB 149, co-sponsored by Rep. Jack Pommer, D-Boulder, would:

* Permit grocers and convenience stores to sell regular beer and wine six days a week. Big retailers that operate grocery departments, such as Wal-Mart and Target, could do the same.

* Allow liquor stores to sell nonperishable foods such as chips, pretzels and dips.

* Allow liquor store owners to own up to three liquor stores, instead of one.

State law has barred grocers from selling regular beer and wine since Prohibition ended in 1933. Currently, they can sell only beer containing 3.2 percent alcohol. Full-strength beer contains 6 percent alcohol.

"This has been one of the most heavily lobbied bills down at the Capitol," Shaffer said.

He said he has met with individual liquor store owners and others such as craft brewers, while liquor store lobbyists have said no to a deal.

"There has been no interest on their part to negotiate with me," Shaffer said.

Draft language of the legislation had limited wine and beer sales to grocers that have a pharmacy and get at least 51 percent of their revenue from food sales.

Opponents charged that such restrictions would have barred big retailers, rural grocers and convenience stores from the sales.

The draft legislation also didn't contain provisions to permit liquor stores to sell food and liquor store owners to own more than one store.

But Scott Chase, spokesman for two dozen large liquor stores, said: "This bill has gone from bad to dangerous."

Citing underage-drinking worries, he added: "Colorado does not want or need 2,000 gas stations and grocery stores selling alcohol."

fillionr@RockyMountainNews.com or 303-954-2467

New provisions in SB 149

* Grocers and retailers could devote up to 5 percent of their floor space to regular beer and wine.

* To spur sales of Colorado craft beer and wine, a certain percentage of the space set aside for beer and wine would have to be devoted to craft beers and "boutique" wines.

* Liquor stores could devote up to 5 percent of their floor space to nonperishable food.

Talbott: Energy, money saved

2008-02-08T11:26:00.000-07:00

What's not to like?

By Clint Talbott (Contact)
Thursday, February 7, 2008

The cheapest energy is that which is never used. Conservation saves money, resources and the environment. We shouldn't need a law to ratify that bit of common sense. But apparently, we do. It's good to see that legislators seem up to the job.

On Tuesday, a state House committee approved a bill mandating sound energy-efficiency programs. House Bill 1107, sponsored by Boulder Democrat Claire Levy, would require smaller utility companies to launch energy-efficiency initiatives.

A similar bill that covered investor-owned utilities like Xcel Energy became law last year. In response, Xcel has boosted its rebate, technical-assistance and other efficiency programs. These programs will save customers $1.3 billion and eliminate the need for one large power plant, Xcel says.

Levy's bill, which is also sponsored by Boulder Democrat Jack Pommer, applies to rural-electric associations and municipal utilities, which generate about 40 percent of the state's electricity. The measure would direct the smaller utilities to spend at least 2 percent of their revenue on energy-efficiency programs for customers beginning in 2010.

The utilities would offer programs such as low-cost energy audits, rebates on high-efficiency appliances and cut-rate compact-fluorescent light bulbs. The affected utilities would spend about $32 million annually, according to the Colorado Public Interest Research Group.

But the savings would be impressive. By making that modest investment, the utilities would save about 420 megawatts of peak electric power demand, and about 1.5 billion killowatt-hours per year by 2020. The latter figure is about what it takes to power 170,000 households, CoPIRG says.

Levy's bill would yield consumers and businesses $600 million in economic benefits over the next dozen years, according to the Southwest Energy Efficiency Project, a nonprofit group. It would also, obviously, improve carbon dioxide emissions. By 2020, the bill would prevent the emission of 1.4 million metric tons of CO2 annually.

While acknowledging the efficacy of "demand-side management" programs, some observers wonder if the smaller utilities will be able to reap benefits as large as those projected. That's a fair question. But even if the economic benefits are smaller than anticipated, it's worth noting that the environmental benefits are more than worthy.

The world's leading climate scientists say that averting dangerous levels of warming, global CO2 emissions must peak and decline in the next 10 to 15 years. They say global greenhouse-gas emissions must be at least 50 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.

Modest measures like Levy's bill won't move us substantially closer to such daunting goals. But even small steps in the right direction are worth taking. And the fact that Levy's bill would save energy, emissions and money should make it a slam dunk.

Clint Talbott, for the editorial board

Water bills abound at Capitol

2008-02-06T08:10:00.000-07:00

By K.C. Mason
Journal-Advocate Capitol correspondent

Tuesday, February 5, 2008

DENVER — Water bills, including several focused specifically on usage of the South Platte River, are beginning to get the attention of Colorado lawmakers, as they end the first month of their fourth-month legislative session.

The House on Monday debated two bills sponsored by Rep. Mary Hodge, D-Brighton, in her attempt to get some relief to mostly hay and vegetable growers in Weld, Adams and Morgan counties whose wells have been shut down for lack of augmentation plans.

One bill passed; the other didn’t. Opponents had the same arguments on both — they upset Colorado’s 130-year-old doctrine of prior appropriation. The forbidden practice of “water speculation” even was mentioned a couple of times.

Hodge’s House Bill 1030, which forgives irrigators of depletions made before 1974 when the augmentation rules were put into place, won preliminary approval on a stand-up vote with more than the 33 votes required for final passage.

Her HB 1044, however, was declared lost in another stand-up vote, called a division. It would have allowed ditch companies and others to loan excess augmentation credits to other users on the same stream and in the same year without going to water court.

“The second one was harder to explain so it could not be as easily understood,” Hodge said. “The first was an issue of fairness. There was no requirement for augmentation prior to 1974, and it only takes away about 700 acre feet of water per year.”

Hodge said both measures grew out of last summer’s South Platte River task force, which Gov. Bill Ritter appointed after about 400 wells were curtailed.

Rep. Cory Gardner, R-Yuma, supported both bills, but Rep. Jerry Sonnenberg, R-Sterling, was among those who split their votes on the two bills.

“The first one was a small minnow in the pond and was consistent with what we have done when we exempted the gravel pits,” Sonnenberg said.

“But with the other bill, I worry about the transparency of what people are doing with their water,” he explained. “If we can trade those (excess augmentation credits), the people don’t know if they have been damaged until the damage is already done.

Boulder Democratic Reps. Alice Madden and Jack Pommer, and Rep. Frank McNulty, R-Highlands Ranch, led the charge against both measures. Sterling, Boulder and Highlands Ranch were among the objectors in allowing the wells to continue pumping.

Every ounce of water in the South Platte ought to be accounted for,” McNulty said. “Depletions that are caused by pumping ought to be augmented so that senior rights are not hurt.”

Pommer and Madden chastised the well owners for now following the law.

“Here we are doing something to protect that small group of people, who despite warnings starting in 1960s, have absolutely refused to follow the law and do the right thing,” Pommer said of HB 1030.

Said Madden: “This is helping people who for the last several years decided not to negotiate and decided not to change and not to work within the system. We shouldn’t be rewarding people who frankly haven’t been very responsible.”

Pommer also argued Hodge’s second bill “opens the door to speculation.”

“It’s a way to get water you don’t need, but you hang onto it,” Pommer said. “This bill does not provide people with adequate notice to go in and make a claim that these (credits) should not be leant out.”

Similar arguments are expected on pending Senate bills from District 1 Sen. Greg Brophy, R-Wray, and Sen. Brandon Shaffer, D-Longmont.

Brophy’s SB 53, scheduled for its first committee hearing on Thursday, would change the definition of “designated ground water,” which does not require augmentation, to include water that takes more than 100 years for depletions to affect the nearest surface water.

Shaffer’s SB 136, which has yet to be scheduled for a hearing, would give the state engineer’s office the ability to allow well users to pump out of priority during the non-irrigation season without required augmentation, if they could prove the water would be available to downstream users when needed.

Shaffer said he is looking at the bigger picture of how water courts operate.

“Water is a resource in our state than needs to be managed, and by definition that means we need to have flexibility in the way we apportion our resource resources,” Shaffer said. “The statutory scheme that we have right now does not provide for that flexibility. I think we have an unwieldy system that needs to be reformed. The water court system is not working in our state.”

Sen. Chris Romer, D-Denver, also has introduced a bill that would allow the use of cisterns or other catchment systems to collect and store rainwater from residential homes of up to 3,000 square feet of roof space. The captured water then could be used for household purposes, fire protection, watering livestock and irrigating up to one acre of lawns and gardens.

“This is my first water bill, so wish me luck,” Romer said. “Many in the rural community already are doing it, but need to do it legally. This is a good bill that will be friendly to the environment, and in the long term create appropriate water storage without building a lot of new projects.”

Sporting groups, recreationists and environmentalists have banded together to support a package of three bills that they say will help protect Colorado rivers by keeping more water in the streams.

House Bill 1280, sponsored by Rep. Randy Fischer, D-Fort Collins, and Sen. Gail Schwartz, D-Snowmass Village, would allow long-term loans of water rights to the Colorado Water Conservation Board for in-stream flow without risking abandonment of the right.

Other bills in the package that have not yet been introduced, would create a tax incentive for water-right owners who choose to leave their water in rivers and streams permanently; and create a $1 million fund within the CWCB to assist in acquiring more in-stream flow water rights.

More money for early childhood education proposed

2008-02-02T03:47:00.000-07:00

Andy Koen

Colorado Springs

State lawmakers want to spend more money on early childhood education. Under the proposed school finance act, more children would qualify for state funded preschool and school districts would get more money to offer full day kindergarten.

The extra money would mean a boost in enrollment at the Community Partnership for Child Development, who oversees the Head Start program in Colorado Springs. Noreen Landis-Tyson, CEO of the partnership says they have long waiting lists of people in need of financial assistance.

"Families who cannot afford to purchase early care and education programs but whose children need those programs to be successful will definitely benefit from the increased number of slots," Landis-Tyson said.

The proposals are just a couple of the goals established by Governor Bill Ritter's blue-ribbon education panel, which meets in Colorado Springs on Monday. The panel’s recommendations seem to reflect the idea that the best time to improve a child's education is at the beginning.

"I think the research shows that things like preschool and kindergarten, the earlier you get kids into a learning environment they better off they're going to be," said Mike Stahl, president of the Peaks Peak Education Association

The school finance act has not been yet been introduced in the house. The sponsor of the bill, Representative Jack Pommer (D) Boulder, says the money for the programs would come from excess revenue generated by a property tax freeze initiated last year.

Thank you, come again!

2008-02-02T03:44:00.000-07:00

New bill would allow sale of liquor on Sundays
Emily Burrows-Poretsky

Issue date: 2/2/08 Section: News

Wild Turkey Whiskey lines a shelf of Liquor Mart. If a new bill amending the current law restricting alcohol sales is passed, Colorado liquor stores will be allowed to stay open on Sundays. (CP Photo/Matt Wessels)

Colorado liquor stores will be allowed to stay open on Sundays starting in November if the state Senate passes a bill amending the current law restricting alcohol sales.

Sen. Jennifer Veiga introduced the bill, SB-082, in January. It is currently in the Senate waiting for a vote. The House Sponsor Rep. Cheri Jahn, a (D-Jefferson County), said she feels confident the bill will pass.

The bill states that it aims to eliminate "prohibition against the retail sale, service or distribution of malt, vinous, and spirituous liquors in sealed containers on Sundays."

"Liquor owners and consumers should have the option to open on Sundays," Jahn said.

Jahn and the co-sponsor Rep. Joel Judd (D-Denver) both said the law is antiquated and it is time for a change. The law has been around since the early 1930s.

"I don't know many folks today that want to have their lives governed by the habits and mores of the early 1930s," Judd said.

The Majority Leader in the Colorado Senate, Sen. Ken Gordon, feels differently. He said he has been receiving phone calls from a few liquor stores saying they will not make any more profits from being open on Sundays.

Katey Weiland, 30, the general manager of Harvest Wine & Spirits, also said having an extra day of sales would not benefit liquor stores. She said that opening the store on Sundays would mean there would be more expenses to pay, such as electricity and hiring more employees.

Raphael Oh, 32, the manager of Broadway Wine & Spirits, said he was opposed to the bill and voiced his concern that if this bill passes, it may increase the possibility for the grocery bill to pass.

The grocery bill will be sponsored by Sen. Brandon Shaffer (D-Boulder) and Rep. Jack Pommer (D-Boulder). It would enable grocery stores to sell wine and regular beer, which has a higher alcohol content than what they are currently allowed to sell, but not liquor.

The bill has yet to be introduced, but Shaffer's outside deadline for doing so is February 8.

Although both bills concern the sale of alcohol, they are in fact not related.

Jahn said the liquor store bill is "not to be confused with the grocery store bill."

Both Oh and Nathan Zink, the manager of Baseline Liquor, said they are aware the two bills are separate and are still opposed to them. Oh said that bigger companies, such as Safeway, could hurt his business if the grocery bill passes.

"I can't compete with (big companies') buying power," Oh said.

Weiland said that one of her concerns with the grocery bill was the possibility that grocery stores would take most of her sales and could force her to downsize or shut her doors completely.

Pommer said the grocery bill would be a convenience for consumers in part by allowing to buy beer or wine while shopping for groceries. He said there are other states in the country that have grocery stores selling beer and wine, and the liquor stores in those states seem to be doing fine with the competition.

"Under my bill grocery stores are able to sell wine and beer, but will not be allowed to sell hard liquor" Pommer said. He thinks that because of this, liquor stores could benefit.

Lindsay Weber, 21, a fifth-year senior majoring in French, said she is indifferent to liquor stores being open on Sundays.

"It is not devastating if liquor stores are closed on Sundays" she said.

Douglas Mortenson, 26, a non-degree student at CU, said he was in favor of buying beer from liquor stores on Sundays in case he had forgotten to the night before. He said that way he could drink beer and watch football on Sundays.

Contact Campus Presss Staff Writer Emily Burrows-Poretsky at emily.burrows-poretsky@colorado.edu

Liquor bills shake up debate

2008-01-28T03:57:00.001-07:00

Possible grocery-store sales cause stir; Sunday selling is gaining favor

By Jessica Fender
The Denver Post

01/28/2008

Colorado's liquor stores soon expect to open on Sundays, as owners agree to forgo the state-protected day off — a break from their prior position.

The about-face comes as the store owners attempt to stave off another change many consumers have clamored for: wine and full-strength beer on grocery-store shelves.

Lawmakers will consider both plans to loosen Colorado's blue laws during the legislative session, though supermarket sales face stiff opposition from liquor stores worried the competition will kill them.

Both sides — supermarket chains and the liquor industry — say a fight is brewing, and they are lining up powerful offenses.

Sen. Brandon Shaffer, D-Longmont, committed to carrying the yet-to-be-introduced supermarket bill this year, but he said he's looking for ways to lessen the blow to mom-and-pop liquor stores.

"There is a huge disconnect between what we're hearing down here from lobbyists opposing this . . . and what constituents feel is reasonable," Shaffer said.

Colorado is one of 16 states that still abide by the Prohibition-era law banning Sunday sales at liquor stores, according to the Distilled Spirits Council of the United States.

State law also limits supermarkets to selling beer that is no more than 3.2 percent alcohol by weight, or about half the potency of the regular beer sold at liquor stores.

Shaffer's proposal — carried by Rep. Jack Pommer in the House — would lift the limitation for grocers that collect at least 51 percent of their revenue from food sales and also have a pharmacy, according to lobbyists from both sides.

The criteria would shut out big-box stores like Target and corner grocers alike, critics say.

"This is the worst type of special-interest legislation that only benefits out-of-state grocery monopolies," said Scott Chase, a lobbyist for larger liquor stores.

At stake for consumers could be variety on one hand and convenience on the other.

The liquor industry reps warn that chains like Safeway and King Soopers will dominate the booze market, gravitating toward high-volume brands and neglecting local breweries and producers popular in smaller shops.

Grocery-store advocates say shoppers would rather choose their wine with their dinners and point to major cities like Miami that have allowed alcohol in supermarkets without hurting liquor stores.

"Grocers are in the business of responding to consumer demand," said Sean Duffy, spokesman for the Rocky Mountain Food Industry Association, which represents 400 chains, independent stores and wholesalers in Colorado and Wyoming. "While they're buying their dinner, they want to be able to pair up a bottle of wine right there, without another stop."

The proposal has had a sobering effect on Colorado's liquor-store owners, many of whom opened near large grocers.

Just a block from the dome under which lawmakers will decide, the manager of Denver Drug and Liquor says a sudden change in the rules will drive his store out of business.

"It will be a big disaster," said Tekle Hailu, whose small store opened three years ago.

Hailu's is a common complaint, according to Jeff Lim, chairman of the Korean Liquor Retail Association, which played a key role in blocking a Sunday-sales bill in 2005.

His organization is one of many liquor-industry groups — also including craft brewers and wholesalers — lined up against the grocery bill.

Also looming on the horizon is a potential ballot measure to allow supermarket sales — a tack large chains tried unsuccessfully in Massachusetts in 2006.

Shaffer — who's been inundated with calls and e-mails from concerned business people — said the fate of the grocery bill is uncertain.

If nothing else, "it's the start of a conversation," he said.

Program for victims defended

2008-01-24T00:32:00.001-07:00

By ED SEALOVER
THE GAZETTE
January 23, 2008

DENVER - Secretary of State Mike Coffman slashed his supplemental funding request for the Address Confidentiality Program on Tuesday, but not enough to hold off a lengthy tongue-lashing by one member of the Joint Budget Committee.

The program has come under fire because the Secretary of State’s Office spent freely to set it up even though indications are that the revenue is coming in at less than half the expected rate. After State Department officials requested $65,000 to keep it afloat until the program’s July launch, JBC members demanded Coffman explain himself.

Coffman said Tuesday that preparation for the program, in which his office can remove the addresses of victims of stalking and domestic violence from public records and redirect their mail to their real home, has come in under the budget they were expecting. But he cut the funding request by two-thirds, down to $20,881, by clearing up a miscommunication over the rent for the program office and by reducing spending in other areas.

The budget committee could decide as early as today whether to grant the extra money.

Rep. Jack Pommer, D-Boulder, said he was pleased by the startup efforts, though frustrated that the new numbers were so different from the original ones.

Departments have budgets for every program they run. When they need a supplemental, they present the budget for the program and a justification for the change.

Generally the justifications are pretty good. The Secretary of State's supplemental request for this program was weak.

The department specifically said it had no budget for the program. It was spending $2,000 a month on office space for a program that had one employee, no customers, and isn't scheduled to officially start until July.

That one employee has been flying around the country to personally look at similar programs in other states -- programs that mostly amount to a person sorting some mail. The sole justification the department offered for needing more money was that it had asked for the money when the bill passed the legislature.

Sen. John Morse, D-Colorado Springs, vowed to vote against the funding request, however, because he thinks that program overseers spent too liberally. The hiring of a full-time employee 11 months before anyone could sign up for the program, a 2,900-square-foot office for that worker and travel to Washington and Oklahoma to learn about similar programs bothered him, he said.

“I have trusted you in the past, and I’m willing to do my part to continue to trust you . . . but I am extremely disappointed in the management of this program,” Morse told him. “We’re talking here about keeping addresses confidential and forwarding mail. We’re not talking about developing a treatment to a new virus.”

Coffman, a Republican, called Morse’s statement “goofy,” and reiterated that he thinks the problem is not how he’s spent the loan he received from the state Treasurer’s Office but the unstable source of revenue the Legislature assigned to the program — court fees on domestic-violence offenders.

Sen. Morse was pretty hard on Coffman, but his comments weren't "goofy." We asked the department to come in for a hearing because it was making a very strange request and wasn't cooperating with our analyst.

We have just a few analysts examining a lot of departments with thousands of employees. We can't let department get away with pushing our staff around; that was the point we were making.I didn't want to get into the details of the program because I didn't want to muddy the point about our need for clear, complete and accurate information.

But overspending a budget for a program that isn't serving a single person is hard to justify. And the department admitted it's supplemental request was incomplete and inaccurate.

Coffman added that if the JBC does not grant the supplemental request, he will have to suspend the program, which he has projected could serve 300 people in its first full year.

“We’re quibbling about incredibly small amounts of money,” Coffman said after the hearing. “This is pretty incredible for them to spend this amount of time on the program. For what this program does, I think it’s very important.”

House Proceedings Available Live On Both TV, Web

2008-01-22T00:07:00.000-07:00

DENVER (AP) ― Coloradans can keep tabs on debates on the floor of the state House of Representatives, even if they are not in Denver.

Live broadcasts are available on cable television and the Internet at
coloradochannel.net. They were first offered Monday afternoon.

The show broadcast on Comcast is called "Colorado Open House."

"We're all excited that the public will now have an opportunity to watch us in action, and I think that we'll all be on our best behavior," Rep. Claire Levy said.

Sessions will be archived.

House Speaker Andrew Romanoff said plans are in the works to eventually add the Senate and committee hearings.

Some lawmakers were already playing to the new camera, but Romanoff said that is to be expected when politicians are involved.

"People were playing to the galleries even when there was nobody watching," Romanoff said. "I think decorum will improve. The transparency of the process will make us more accountable and maybe more respectful of one another."

"If I were working with the networks, I'd be terrified right now," Rep. Jack Pommer joked. "First the writer's strike, now they have the Colorado General Assembly on TV. I'd say prime-time is finished."

Previously, audio broadcasts of the House and Senate were offered.

Panel approves bill to repay veterans fund, with interest

2008-01-17T02:00:00.000-07:00

Legislature borrowed about $2.3M from fund during 2002 budget crisis; $636,103 tacked on

By ED SEALOVER

THE GAZETTE

January 17, 2008 - 12:46AM

DENVER - State legislators took a big step Wednesday toward paying back nearly $3 million that the Joint Budget Committee chairman said they stole from state veterans six years ago.

Although a number of retired military members expressed their gratitude, several members of the General Assembly insisted it is a first move among many that could include asking voters for a tax increase for the state’s veterans.

The House Finance Committee unanimously passed a bill to repay $2,280,900 taken from the Veterans Trust Fund during the budget crunch of 2002.

Members also tacked on an amendment adding an additional $636,103 to represent the interest the 6-year-old “loan” would have accrued.

Created in 2000 with money from the landmark settlement with big tobacco companies, the fund subsidizes veterans’ needs not covered by the state or federal governments.

Grants have helped about 25,000 people by paying for things such as transportation to medical sites for rural residents, help for homeless veterans and improvements to Colorado’s five state-run veterans nursing homes.

The fund receives 1 percent of the annual settlement payments, or a maximum of $1 million from the settlement fund, each year.

The goal is to generate a $20 million principle balance so that the Department of Military and Veterans Affairs board can hand out $1.2 million in annual grants using only the interest.

Without the $2.3 million, though, the fund has generated less interest and fewer grants — $537,525 was given out last year — for a half-decade, officials said. If the measure passes the House and Senate, the transfer will be made Aug. 15.

“You’re helping veterans is what you’re doing,” said Marvin Meyers, legislative chairman for the United Veterans Committee of Colorado. “For every dollar we have, we are able to provide greater assistance.”

The bill’s sponsor, JBC Chairman and Grand Junction Democrat Bernie Buescher, called the 2002 action and subsequently unkept promise to pay back the fund a theft and “an injustice.”

He had requested the $2.3 million principle repayment but was happy to accept an amendment by Rep. Douglas Bruce, R-Colorado Springs, that added the interest.

Demand is up for veteran services: 1,200 claims for government benefits were submitted in Colorado in 2000 and 4,500 were submitted in 2005, said Rep. Jack Pommer, a Boulder Democrat and JBC member.

Also, Vietnam veterans who have not previously sought help are seeking mental and physical assistance, said Rep. Kent Lambert, a Colorado Springs Republican and Air Force veteran.

With more troops returning from the Iraq war with traumatic brain injuries, that number will increase in coming years, said Sen. Chris Romer, D-Denver.

“We are so underfunded in this area that it’s almost malfeasance.”

Earlier in the day, Romer said the Legislature has a “moral obligation” to ask voters for a tax increase to increase the funding given to veterans tenfold or twentyfold.

Although no members of the Joint State, Veterans and Military Affairs Committee immediately backed his proposal, Sen. John Morse, D-Colorado Springs, said he’s working on a bill to create a statewide military council to help with issues such as these.

Prison firm threatens to stop taking Colo. felons

2008-01-15T04:08:00.001-07:00

By MIKE SACCONE
The Daily Sentinel

Tuesday, January 15, 2008

A private prison company is threatening to stop housing additional Colorado inmates unless it receives more state funds, an act one state lawmaker called “extortion.”

Rep. Bernie Buescher, D-Grand Junction, said Corrections Corporation of America has demanded a substantial increase in the daily rate the state pays private prisons to hold inmates.

“They said that if we don’t essentially do a 5 percent increase over each of the next five years, they will work at closing at least one of their prisons to Colorado prisoners and start bringing in out-of-state prisoners,” Buescher said.

Corrections Corporation of America prisons in Burlington, Las Animas, Olney Springs, Walsenburg and Sayre, Okla., house 4,048 Colorado inmates, according to Katherine Sanguinetti, spokeswoman for the Department of Corrections.

Those prisoners account for more than 20 percent of the state’s more than 19,000 prison inmates, according to agency statistics.

Steve Owen, spokesman for the Tennessee-based company, said Corrections Corporation of America requested the rate increase to keep its Colorado prisons operating at cost.

“We’re trying to keep our operations in Colorado financially viable looking to the long term,” Owen said. “It’s been a very good partnership.”

Owen declined to comment on the company’s dealings with state lawmakers. He said Corrections Corporation of America is merely trying to negotiate a reimbursement rate in line with prison companies’ pre-recession funding levels.

Following Colorado’s 2002 and 2003 recession, the state dropped its per-inmate, per-day private prison reimbursement rate from a high of $54.66 in fiscal year 2001-2002 to $49.56 in fiscal year 2004-2005.

Since then, the reimbursement rate has grown incrementally to $52.69.

Ari Zavaras, director of the Colorado Department of Corrections, was unavailable for comment Tuesday.

Rep. Al White, R-Hayden, said he understands the Corrections Corporation of America’s financial situation, but its threat to start “winnowing” Colorado inmates out of its facilities in favor of more lucrative out-of-state prisoners is insidious.

“I do feel there is some level of extortion involved here,” White said.

Buescher, who heads the state’s Joint Budget Committee, said Corrections Corporation of America’s responsibility for such a high percentage of the state’s inmates gives it a troubling level of influence over the state.

“When you use private prisons, you become hostage to their setting the rate,” Buescher said. “And we always knew that this issue was out there.”

White said if Corrections Corporation of America moves ahead with its plans, the state could find itself scrambling to either cram more inmates into its already overstuffed 22 public prisons, send prisoners outside Colorado or build a new public prison.

“We need to find beds for our prisoners,” White said, “and if we lose all of the (Corrections Corporation of America) beds, we’re in trouble.”

According to a Joint Budget Committee staff report, Colorado will need 5,100 new prison beds over the next five years.

White said building thousands of new public prison beds, without private prisons to help bridge the bedding gap, could run a tab of nearly $1 billion.

Rep. Jack Pommer, D-Boulder, said another short-term solution could be to encourage more community-based sentences for nonviolent felons. Community corrections programs, he said, are more cost-effective than prisons.

Pommer suggested during a Tuesday hearing the state could condemn and take over one of Corrections Corporation of America’s facilities, but said it would not be preferable.

He said for the time being, Colorado will have to rely on private-prison beds.

“We should have never let this situation get to the way it is,” Pommer said.

Health care tops agenda as state legislators to reconvene on Wednesday

2008-01-06T23:04:00.000-07:00

By Laura Snider (Contact)
Sunday, January 6, 2008
On Wednesday, 100 elected officials -- including nine peoplerepresenting at least part of Boulder and Broomfield counties -- willfile into the golden-domed state Capitol in Denver to gavel in the 2008legislative session.

This spring, both the Democrats and the Republicans have the same issue at the top of their agendas.

"The No. 1 issue is certainly going to be health care," said House Majority Leader Alice Madden, D-Boulder. "We're working on affordability and access."

The state's Blue Ribbon Commission on Health Care Reform, created in 2006, will give its final report to the General Assembly on Jan. 31, thrusting the costly issue into the forefront of the Republican's agenda as well. But the two parties will be dueling it out about the best way to move forward.

Madden said the Democrats' long-term focus is making sure all Coloradans are insured. First, though, she said the majority will try to get universal access for the state's 180,000 uninsured children.

Sen. Shawn Mitchell, R-Broomfield, agreed that health care is a big-ticket item this session, but he said he wants to reduce the rules governing the system to fix the problem.

"I think that we've gone too far down the path of government control and regulation," Mitchell said. "Reforms need to do an about face and use a freer market rather than pressure it with more government micromanagement."

Both parties also will take a hard look at education, with Rep. Jack Pommer, D-Boulder, leading the charge for expanded preschool and full-day kindergarten programs.

"Almost all the experts agree, especially for the kids that are already lagging, that preschool and full-day kindergarten, if it's good quality, is really important," Pommer said.

The Republicans are trying to institute statewide graduation standards, including a push by Mitchell to require English proficiency before students can earn high school diplomas.

"We have been committing educational fraud for too long," Mitchell said. "It dis-serves the students and fails the purpose of education."

Mitchell also is wading into another hot-button topic: Gov. Bill Ritter's decision to let state workers form bargaining groups. Mitchell will introduce a bill attempting to repeal Ritter's executive order.

"He acted in the dark of night when the Legislature was out of session with his executive order," he said. "It'll probably be part of the early discussion this session."

Now entering his final session, term-limited Sen. Ron Tupa, D-Boulder, will sponsor bills close to many Boulderite's hearts with legislation designed to reduce the price of textbooks and create rebates for solar power. He also plans to co-sponsor a bill to amend Colorado's adverse possession law, which is at the heart of a headline-making land dispute in south Boulder.

Another Democratic Boulder legislator, Rep. Claire Levy, is backing bills that would boost energy efficiency and make it more difficult to try 14- and 15-year-olds as adults in the court system.

And, of course, if the 11 senators and 56 representatives hoping to retain their seats this fall want the November election to happen at all, legislators will have to deal with the recent decertification of many of the state's voting machines, including some used in Boulder County.

Contact Camera Staff Writer Laura Snider at 303-473-1327 or sniderl@dailycamera.com.

Don’t spend transit money on social engineering

2007-12-22T22:11:00.004-07:00

December 21, 2007 - 11:06PM

Trivial pursuits

Tax hikes are never an easy sell in Colorado, even when they’re going to fund legitimate government functions such as building and maintaining roads, bridges and freeways. But anger the voters by diverting these grudgingly surrendered dollars to pet projects or trivial pursuits — to lower priority transportation “needs” such as bike paths or pedestrian-friendly communities, for instance — and you’re just begging for rejection.

Bad news for the good old boys at the Gazette: people who pass taxes get to decide why they pass, not people who don't pass them. The Gazette, and its readers, may think that building highways is the only legitimate use of tax dollars and they may think that bike and pedestrian paths are trivial pursuits, but their opinions don't count.

Harsh? No, just reality. Back when Referenda C & D were on the ballot, asphalt junkies like the Gazette editorialists and Gov. Owens decided that the money from D, the transportation issue, should go only to highway building. D failed. Why? Because when it comes to tax hikes, right-wing, anti-tax zealots don't decide what passes.

People in Boulder County liked Ref. C and gave it enough "yes" votes to overcome all of the "no" votes from El Paso County. We didn't like Ref. D and we didn't give it the boost it would have needed to pass.

It’ll be tough enough to sell the state’s “blue ribbon” transportation commission proposal to more than double what Colorado spends annually on transportation — a $1.5 billion annual increase that will have to be paid for with tax hikes or higher “fees.” But if the plan is hijacked by two Boulder liberals, who want to divert these transportation funds for social engineering experiments, the entire effort is in danger of coming apart completely.

Exactly backwards. If the anti-common sense conservatives hijack the proposal it will die like D.

That’s why we were dismayed to read in Sunday’s Gazette that a number of key legislators want to divert would-be road funds to discourage people from driving, as part of some anti car crusade. According to the story, a growing number of Statehouse Democrats, led by Reps. Jack Pommer and Claire Levy, feel that “transportation funding and environmental and growth concerns should be linked.” Instead of upgrading basic infrastructure, they want to use the money to advance a so called smart growth agenda.

And smart tax agenda.

How “smart” any agenda is that flies in the face of consumer preferences isn’t a question we’ll settle today. Whether such approaches really reduce congestion, or merely redistribute it, is also open to debate. But on the practical political level, we think it would be a mistake to divert money in these directions.

Like it or not, most Americans still cherish the mobility, freedom and flexibility personal transport provides. Some Coloradans, either by choice or necessity, use buses, light rail and other forms of public transport. A number can walk or ride their bicycles to work or school. And that’s OK (except that many of these people are being heavily subsidized by other people). But these people are, and likely will remain, in the minority.

But a necessary majority when it comes to raising taxes. And an absent majority if the taxes are going to subsidize highway expansion. And does the Gazette really think pedestrians and cyclists need heavy subsidies?

That’s the reality we’re handed and the situation we have to address. Seizing this as an opportunity to try to remake society along different lines, in order to fit some naïve Utopian notions about the way the rest of us should (but don’t) choose to live, is not a wise expenditure of precious resources or the legitimate business of the state. Diverting money from the concrete goal of improving battered roadways to the nebulous goal of getting people to abandon their cars will convince voters that politicians can’t be trusted with more of their money.

If people want to live in more pedestrian-friendly communities, they can seek them out. If people like to commute to work on a bicycle, they can do so. And if these folks want to smugly pat themselves on the back for being “smarter” than the rest of us, so be it.

But using public money and state power to coerce or entice people into making politically correct lifestyle choices is inappropriate. It’s generally a minority of professional planners and smart-growth activists who are pushing these we-know-best schemes.

They seem to have forgotten that I was against the tax increase, they're the ones who want to tax people and divert the money to their agenda.

These sorts of ideas may go over big in Boulder, where Pommer and Levy are from. But there’s a reason Boulder is the butt of so many jokes elsewhere in Colorado. Government’s job isn’t to tell people how to live, but to serve a limited set of needs that the private sector can’t provide. Straying too far from these fundamentals when setting the state’s transportation priorities will lead to a car crash at the ballot box.

That's OK.

It gets better. The initial report to the JBC only mentioned raising taxes (or fees) to pay for highway expansions. When the Blue Ribbon Panel's final report came out in January, it included the kind of sensible planning and demand management Claire and I suggested.

Live, from the Capitol!

2007-07-06T23:01:00.000-06:00

Your lawmakers in action

Clint Talbott, for the editorial board
Friday, July 6, 2007

If Statehouse proceedings had been televised in 2003, the RepublicanParty would probably still have gerrymandered Colorado's congressionaldistricts to its advantage. But more citizens could have had afront-row seat.

That would have been a good thing, and it illustrates the wisdom inHouse Speaker Andrew Romanoff's proposal to televise Housedeliberations.

"The idea is to bring the House of Representatives to living rooms,"Romanoff told The Denver Post last month. "A lot of folks have no ideawhat we do here, and we would make better decisions if they did."

Romanoff, a Denver Democrat, said live television coverage "mightimprove the decorum of the chamber." His optimism is refreshing, if notaltogether convincing.

As he noted, 34 states already have their own version of C-SPAN,which televises Congress. Colorado's Sunshine Law requires that theformation of public policy be done in public. Televised proceedings(which would be available in indexed form on the internet) are asignificant improvement over the audio-only internet "streaming" ofStatehouse debates.

Beginning in January 2008, Romanoff says, the House may come intoyour home. The state Senate, meanwhile, hasn't mustered equalenthusiasm. Senate President Joan Fitz-Gerald reportedly is concernedabout a potential conflict of interest. Comcast is donating in-kindservices to televise House proceedings.

Fitz-Gerald wonders if that's appropriate, given that Comcast has aninterest in some legislation. That potential conflict seems manageable.

Meanwhile, some wonder if the presence of TV cameras would transformlawmakers into (even bigger) hams. It might. But it would boost thetransparency, and that's the critical factor.

Consider the waning days of the session in 2002, when the GOPrailroaded a gerrymandered congressional district plan through theLegislature. The Legislature is supposed to redraw the districts once adecade, after each census. Because lawmakers couldn't agree on a plan,a court picked a plan that gave the Republicans solid majorities infour districts, the Democrats dominion over two districts, and onedistrict fairly even-Steven.

So the Republicans imposed a new map in which the GOP had theadvantage in five of seven districts. Similar strong-armed gerrymanderplans were imposed in Georgia and Texas. Ultimately, the Coloradoscheme failed when challenged in court.

But if cameras had been in the House then, citizens could havewatched as former Rep. Tom Plant, a Nederland Democrat, tried toexplain why he wouldn't vote on the redistricting bill. The chairinterrupted, informing Plant that his point was moot. As Plantobjected, the chair silenced Plant, literally, by turning off hismicrophone.

Boulder Rep. Alice Madden tried to make the same point and wassimilarly gagged. So was Boulder Rep. Jack Pommer and others. It was anauseating spectacle — an illustration of how partisan zeal can trumpdemocratic ideals. The newspapers covered it. But reading the storieswas nothing like watching the actual train wreck.

Such machinations are offensive no matter which party isresponsible. In the future, when partisans launch a similar stunt,perhaps they will stop to consider that people are (or could be)watching. In politics, that kind of scrutiny can be positivelytransformative.

Kernels of Truth: Joan, CD-2 and the Next Speaker

2007-05-05T11:35:00.000-06:00

by: Jason Bane

Thu May 03, 2007 at 10:20 AM MDT

It’s time for another bowl of "Kernels of Truth." Here’s what’s popping this week:

Will Senate President Joan Fitz-Gerald Step Down?

Senate Chief of Staff Leaving

Who’s the Next House Speaker?

The Lamborn Effect

The news begins after the jump…

Jason Bane :: Kernels of Truth: Joan, CD-2 and the Next Speaker

FITZ-GERALD STILL PRESIDENT
The State Capitol has been abuzz in the last few weeks with rumors that Senate President Joan Fitz-Gerald will step down from her leadership role in order to concentrate on her 2008 bid for congress in CD-2. As the rumors go, Sen. Peter Groff would be poised to take over as the new Senate president.

"I’ve heard it from a couple of different people," says a Democratic legislator who asked to remain anonymous speaking about potential leadership changes. "That’s the way I’ve heard it – that she’s going to step down as president to focus on the congressional campaign."

"There are rumors about that, but I haven’t heard it from Joan," says Sen. Chris Romer (D-Denver). "I suspect that it would be very difficult for her to run for congress as President of the Senate."

Citing her pending congressional campaign, Fitz-Gerald announced earlier this year that she was stepping down as head of the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee, so it wouldn’t be a surprise if she gave up her leadership duties in the state Senate. But reached by phone last night at the State Capitol, Fitz-Gerald said she has no plans to step aside.

"No, I’m not stepping down after the session," says Fitz-Gerald. "Right now I’m thinking that I have the summer ahead of me, and the leadership role doesn’t take as much time during the summer."

Fitz-Gerald says that she will be focusing on raising money for her congressional run once the legislative session ends next week, and she will also sit down and discuss the Senate with Groff. But she says that she has no plans to give up her role as Senate President, even though the rigors of a congressional race might make it tough to juggle both roles.

"I really don’t know [if I’ll have to step down as senate president]. I haven’t given that a lot of thought," she says. "It depends on the intensity of the congressional campaign. I’m going to judge things as they come up, but I don’t fully know what’s ahead of me right now."

Even so, there are some Democratic legislators who don’t expect Fitz-Gerald to remain at the helm for too long.

"Between now and August of 2008 I would expect that she would step down," says Romer. And if Fitz-Gerald does step down, he says, "I think Peter [Groff] would make a great Senate President, and I would support him."

As President Pro Tem and a close supporter of Fitz-Gerald, Groff may be ideally placed to take over. But as one Democratic legislator says, "Peter seems like a good idea to me, but he might not be unopposed."

In the meantime, Fitz-Gerald says there are no plans in place to formally kickoff her bid for congress, either.

"That can wait," she says of a kickoff announcement. "There’s too much work to be done between now and then. I imagine we will get to that perhaps in June."

MARY ALICE MOVING ON
Fitz-Gerald may not be giving up her leadership role in the state Senate, but longtime advisor Mary Alice Mandarich told me yesterday that she would indeed be leaving after the current legislative session. Mandarich currently serves as the chief of staff for the Senate Democrats, and her last day - after five legislative sessions – will come on the final day of the 2007 legislative session.

Mandarich won’t be out of work for long, however. She’ll be taking an active role in Fitz-Gerald’s congressional campaign, though she says it’s too soon to assign her any sort of title.

"We haven’t gotten that far yet," she says of defining her role in the congressional campaign. "I’ll be doing something on the campaign."

Mandarich directed the gubernatorial campaign of Gail Schoettler in 1998 (which Republican Bill Owens won in a close race), so she’s no stranger to the rigors of a high-profile campaign. While she was coy about her official role, most observers assume that Mandarich will take on a significant leadership position in the campaign.

"She’s going to be very active," says Fitz-Gerald, echoing Mandarich’s statement about her future with the campaign. "She’s really done a yeoman’s job down at the state legislature, and right now she’s going to take some time to relax."

"SPEAKING" OF LEADERS…
If Fitz-Gerald steps down as Senate President it will create a new top dog in the state Senate, but it won’t be the only chamber where new leaders could soon emerge. If Democrats are able to maintain control of the state House in 2008, they’ll have to elect an entire new slate of officials to lead the way.

House Speaker Andrew Romanoff, Speaker Pro Tempore Cheri Jahn, Majority Leader Alice Madden and Assistant Majority Leader Michael Garcia are all term-limited, so the top job of Speaker will be up for grabs.

One Democratic legislator, who asked to remain anonymous speaking about potential leadership changes, would handicap the potential field in this order:

1. Rep. Bernie Buescher
2. Rep. Jack Pommer
3. Rep. Mike Cerbo
4. Rep. Dorothy Butcher (the current House Majority Whip)

As chair of the Joint Budget Committee and a well-liked member of the legislature, Buescher would seem to be an obvious choice as the next House Speaker. But that’s only if he wins his own bid for re-election in 2008.

"Bernie’s challenge, quite frankly, is that he will always have an incredibly hard time keeping that seat,’ says the source. "In a sense, it means electing a speaker who has a built-in handicap, although you could make the case that being Speaker helps him when he’s running for re-election."

Leadership positions are often filled by legislators from "safe" districts. None of the current slate of officials – Romanoff, Madden, Jahn or Garcia – have been at risk of losing their bid for re-election for several cycles. Buescher is always a top target of Republicans because of his conservative Grand Junction district, while Cerbo’s seat in Denver will likely never see a serious Republican challenger.

THE LAMBORN EFFECT
Fitz-Gerald will likely face a tough primary in her bid for congress in CD-2, with Democrats Jared Polis and Will Shafroth representing at least two of her possible opponents. The seat is currently held by Rep. Mark Udall, who is leaving to run for U.S. Senate, and for the last several years it has been an easy seat for Democrats to hold. Whoever wins the Democratic primary should be able to fend off a Republican challenger, but that may depend on the situation.

Republicans haven’t traditionally put up a tough candidate in CD-2 because Udall was a shoo-in for re-election, but I’m told they could try to field a strong candidate in 2008 in hopes that the Democratic primary will get as nasty as the 2006 Republican primary in CD-5. Doug Lamborn emerged from a bitter six-way primary last summer as a damaged candidate, which created an opening for Democrat Jay Fawcett to draw more votes than any Democrat in years in that Colorado Springs district.

If the same scenario repeats itself in 2008, albeit from a Democratic perspective, a tough Republican candidate could be in position to steal the seat.

That’s it for now. For tips, rumors, gossip or just to chat, drop me a line at jbane@coloradoconfidential.com.

Tags: Joan Fitz-Gerald, mary alice mandarich, Bernie Buescher, mike cerbo, dorothy butcher, jack pommer, campaigns, (All Tags)

Print Friendly View Send As Email

Caveat homeowner: Lawmakers support fair balance in home transactions

2007-03-30T13:59:00.000-06:00

Clint Talbott, for the editorial board
Friday, March 30, 2007

Four years ago, the home-building industry bought some incomeprotection from the state Legislature. This year, lawmakers are tryingto nudge the scales back toward a balance between seller and buyer.

Not surprisingly, home builders are displeased. But the industry's financial interests are no longer the Legislature's driving concern.

In 2003, the state Legislature approved a law limiting the abilityof home buyers to sue for negligent construction, and sharply limitingthe damages the buyers could collect. Under that law — which thehome-building interests spent $355,000 lobbying for — home buyers wererequired to try to cajole home builders into fixing shoddy constructionbefore filing suit.

Apparently to some home builders, those barriers to consumerprotection weren't high enough. Rep. Jack Pommer, a Boulder Democrat,says major home builders have been including warranty escape clauses,leaving some home buyers with little or no recourse for faultyconstruction.

A press release issued Wednesday by state Democrats contrasted homebuilders' promises in 2003 with their actions in 2007. "With this(2003) law, builders still end up being responsible to fix a problem,and good builders will always do that," Amber Homes President JimHarmon told Colorado Builder magazine then.

Today, the Dems note, Amber Homes contracts include this clause: "Tothe fullest extent permitted by law, all other warranties, expressed orimplied, including warranties of merchantability, fitness for aparticular purpose, workmanship and habitability are disclaimed,excluded and waived."

That inconsistency explains the genesis of House Bill 1138, which issponsored by Pommer and which cleared the state House on Thursday. Thebill would, rather modestly, prevent home buyers from being forced toforfeit their right to seek redress for faulty construction.

On Wednesday, Harmon of Amber Homes told the Rocky Mountain Newsthat the central issue (fair warranties) was a ruse. He lambasted thetrial lawyers, who he said are behind HB 1138 and are tilting against a"problem that doesn't exist."

If there's no problem, why are some home builders unwilling towarranty their work on basic measures of quality — such as"habitability"?

Rep. Debbie Stafford, an Aurora Republican, was among thosesupporting the Pommer bill. She did so even though, she alleges, afellow legislator warned her that she'd be targeted in future electionsby the home-building barons.

As Pommer explained this week, HB 1138 is neither anti-builder noranti-business. "This gives homeowners a fighting chance if they findout that their new home has serious problems," Pommer said. "We'releaving in place the limits on liability that the home builders saythey need, but restoring the legal rights homeowners need to protectthe huge investment they make in their house."

No "good builder" would object to that. For most people, thepurchase of a home is the most significant investment in life. Buyersdeserve more than a contractually enshrined caveat emptor.

Clint Talbott, for the editorial board

	Rank
	44	University of Texas -- Austin
	75	Indiana University -- Bloomington
	79	University of Colorado -- Boulder
	85	University of Kansas
	85	Iowa State University
	91	University of Missouri -- Columbia
	91	University of Nebraska -- Lincoln
	96	University of Massachusetts -- Amherst
	112	Florida State University

Talk Back

Colorado casinos' next quest may be 24-hour alcohol

Colorado Supreme Court gives go-ahead to schools funding trial

Loophole costing Colorado millions in payments to legal immigrants

Re-Bruce, Part II

Bill would keep extra state money from re-Bruced districts

A severance tax retreat

Hospital fee draws some GOP support

One budget hole closed; next is bigger

Colorado House roll call on oil, gas rules

Words can't bury budget woes Senate, house meet on fiscal plan

House OKs vehicle fee-hikes

Democratic dozen desert Ritter's tax credit bill

Governor recommends deep cuts to Colorado budget

Colorado colleges must slash $30 million

Zap! State to take $632 million hit

Governor proposes cutting $632 million from budget

Lawmakers expect education to take biggest budget hit

Tuition Caps May Go Away

Lawmakers Look For Higher Ed Alternatives

Steve Saunders, 7NEWS Anchor

Ritter outlines tough road ahead for state

Ritter: Cut $800M from Colorado budget

CSU budget wishes dashed

School tax hikes OK for now, court says

If you had a job, we'd tell you where to buy your holiday gifts

Focus on the Family eliminating 202 jobs

Focus puts retailers on a naughty and nice list for Christmas

Governor's small-biz initiative questioned

State's economic decline creates roadblock for lawmakers pushing to pass Jessica's Law

State budget constrained by the faltering economy

Free up cash for disabled in need

Wind-power industry expects record year

Hopefuls eye size of government, budgets

Business taxes, computer spam top new Colo. laws

House Democrats take on CSAP tests

New rules blamed for cuts in oil, gas drilling

Some rethink budget rules

Lawmakers boost early childhood education

By CHARLES ASHBYCHIEFTAIN DENVER BUREAU

Philosophical split obvious in partisan budget feud

Friday, April 4, 2008

Budget needs a solid reserve

Charter schools likely to get more for renovation, construction

State's $17.6B budget passes House

House panel OKs budget proposal

Civil rights group spokesman starting Colorado energy group

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

College tuition may increase 9.5 percent in Colorado

State college tuition could rise 9.5%

Budget bill orders biggest hikes at research schools

By Berny Morson

Rocky Mountain News

Saturday, March 15, 2008

Group: 'Extreme environmentalists' are harming the poor and minorities

Tougher drilling regulations will hurt poor, group says

More pay for RTD board?

Plan busts school mold

Liquor stores plan spirited attack

Dem lawmakers skeptical over Benson

Comments for "Liquor-store bill set for fight"

Liquor-store bill set for fight

More Comments

Comments

Posted by JB on February 8, 2008 at 8:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Posted by Darwin on February 8, 2008 at 9:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Posted by JB on February 8, 2008 at 10:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Comments

Posted by jgd on February 7, 2008 at 12:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Posted by glowrock on February 7, 2008 at 7:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Posted by peterpi on February 7, 2008 at 10:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Posted by titancain on February 8, 2008 at 12:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Posted by Mike_In_Hartsel on February 8, 2008 at 6:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Posted by glowrock on February 8, 2008 at 7:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Bills to relax liquor laws would hurt family businesses

This Web only Speakout has not been edited.

Allan Wyatt

Thursday, February 7, 2008

Bill would expand beer, wine sale sites

Liquor stores fear competition from grocery giants

By CHARLES ASHBY
CHIEFTAIN DENVER BUREAU