Colorado casinos' next quest may be 24-hour alcohol

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 House roll call on oil, gas rules

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.

Hopefuls eye size of government, budgets

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

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.

Liquor stores plan spirited attack

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.

Comments for "Liquor-store bill set for fight"

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Liquor bills shake up debate

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.

Live, from the Capitol!

Your lawmakers in action

Clint Talbott, for the editorial board
Friday, July 6, 2007

If Statehouse proceedings had been televised in 2003, the Republican Party would probably still have gerrymandered Colorado's congressional districts to its advantage. But more citizens could have had a front-row seat.

That would have been a good thing, and it illustrates the wisdom in House Speaker Andrew Romanoff's proposal to televise House deliberations.

"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 idea what we do here, and we would make better decisions if they did."

Romanoff, a Denver Democrat, said live television coverage "might improve the decorum of the chamber." His optimism is refreshing, if not altogether convincing.

As he noted, 34 states already have their own version of C-SPAN, which televises Congress. Colorado's Sunshine Law requires that the formation of public policy be done in public. Televised proceedings (which would be available in indexed form on the internet) are a significant improvement over the audio-only internet "streaming" of Statehouse debates.

Beginning in January 2008, Romanoff says, the House may come into your home. The state Senate, meanwhile, hasn't mustered equal enthusiasm. Senate President Joan Fitz-Gerald reportedly is concerned about a potential conflict of interest. Comcast is donating in-kind services to televise House proceedings.

Fitz-Gerald wonders if that's appropriate, given that Comcast has an interest in some legislation. That potential conflict seems manageable.

Meanwhile, some wonder if the presence of TV cameras would transform lawmakers into (even bigger) hams. It might. But it would boost the transparency, and that's the critical factor.

Consider the waning days of the session in 2002, when the GOP railroaded a gerrymandered congressional district plan through the Legislature. The Legislature is supposed to redraw the districts once a decade, after each census. Because lawmakers couldn't agree on a plan, a court picked a plan that gave the Republicans solid majorities in four districts, the Democrats dominion over two districts, and one district fairly even-Steven.

So the Republicans imposed a new map in which the GOP had the advantage in five of seven districts. Similar strong-armed gerrymander plans were imposed in Georgia and Texas. Ultimately, the Colorado scheme failed when challenged in court.

But if cameras had been in the House then, citizens could have watched as former Rep. Tom Plant, a Nederland Democrat, tried to explain why he wouldn't vote on the redistricting bill. The chair interrupted, informing Plant that his point was moot. As Plant objected, the chair silenced Plant, literally, by turning off his microphone.

Boulder Rep. Alice Madden tried to make the same point and was similarly gagged. So was Boulder Rep. Jack Pommer and others. It was a nauseating spectacle — an illustration of how partisan zeal can trump democratic ideals. The newspapers covered it. But reading the stories was nothing like watching the actual train wreck.

Such machinations are offensive no matter which party is responsible. 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 positively transformative.

Caveat homeowner: Lawmakers support fair balance in home transactions

Clint Talbott, for the editorial board
Friday, March 30, 2007

Four years ago, the home-building industry bought some income protection from the state Legislature. This year, lawmakers are trying to 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 ability of home buyers to sue for negligent construction, and sharply limiting the damages the buyers could collect. Under that law — which the home-building interests spent $355,000 lobbying for — home buyers were required to try to cajole home builders into fixing shoddy construction before filing suit.

Apparently to some home builders, those barriers to consumer protection 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 faulty construction.

A press release issued Wednesday by state Democrats contrasted home builders' 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 Jim Harmon told Colorado Builder magazine then.

Today, the Dems note, Amber Homes contracts include this clause: "To the fullest extent permitted by law, all other warranties, expressed or implied, including warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, workmanship and habitability are disclaimed, excluded and waived."

That inconsistency explains the genesis of House Bill 1138, which is sponsored by Pommer and which cleared the state House on Thursday. The bill would, rather modestly, prevent home buyers from being forced to forfeit their right to seek redress for faulty construction.

On Wednesday, Harmon of Amber Homes told the Rocky Mountain News that the central issue (fair warranties) was a ruse. He lambasted the trial 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 to warranty their work on basic measures of quality — such as "habitability"?

Rep. Debbie Stafford, an Aurora Republican, was among those supporting the Pommer bill. She did so even though, she alleges, a fellow legislator warned her that she'd be targeted in future elections by the home-building barons.

As Pommer explained this week, HB 1138 is neither anti-builder nor anti-business. "This gives homeowners a fighting chance if they find out that their new home has serious problems," Pommer said. "We're leaving in place the limits on liability that the home builders say they need, but restoring the legal rights homeowners need to protect the huge investment they make in their house."

No "good builder" would object to that. For most people, the purchase of a home is the most significant investment in life. Buyers deserve more than a contractually enshrined caveat emptor.

Clint Talbott, for the editorial board

Report: More renewable energy helps jobs, wages

The Denver Business Journal - 12:33 PM MST Thursday, February 22, 2007

Boosting the amount of power Colorado's utilities would get from renewable resources from 10 percent to 20 percent would lead to more jobs, higher wages and an increase in the state's gross domestic product, according to a report issued Thursday by the Environment Colorado Research and Policy Center.

HB 1281, sponsored by Rep. Jack Pommer, D-Boulder, and Sen. Gail Schwartz, D-Snowmass Village, would raise the state mandate for using renewable resources to generate electricity to 20 percent by 2020 for large utilities.

The bill, to be considered by the House on Feb. 23, caps the cost of complying with the mandate that utilities can pass along to customers at 2 percent of their electric bills. The report compared the overall effect of the existing mandate on the state's economy -- that utilities get 10 percent of their power from renewable resources by 2015, a mandate voters approved in 2004 -- to the effect of raising the mandate to 20 percent by 2020. The comparison focused on how each policy affects overall spending, water use and air pollution.

The report found that under the higher 20 percent renewable standard, job creation would be 4.3 times higher, wages paid would be 2.2 times higher, and an increase in gross domestic product would be 1.9 times higher than under Amendment 37's lower requirement of 10 percent.

In an statement about the report, Gov. Bill Ritter -- who has backed renewable energy efforts in the state -- said increasing the requirement to 20 percent would raise Colorado's domestic product by $1.9 million, "bring over 4,000 high-paying, high-skilled jobs and over $570 million in wages paid to our state."

The report also said the 20 percent renewable energy goal also would lead to significant reductions of soot, smog, and mercury pollution, as well as 18 billion gallons of water savings by 2020 because wind and solar power uses less water than power generated using fossil fuels.

The rural economy also would benefit, the report said, via payments to farmers for renting land for wind turbines and increasing the property tax base in rural counties.

Boulder lawmaker to target high prescription drug costs

By TOM McAVOY
THE PUEBLO CHIEFTAIN

DENVER - A Boulder legislator plans to introduce a bill next year to use the state's buying power to negotiate reduced prescription drug prices for Colorado's working poor.

Rep. Jack Pommer's proposal would cover people who don't qualify for Medicaid's federally controlled prescription rates and who aren't on any managed health insurance plan.

"It's an unfair twist in the market," Pommer said Thursday. "It forces people who are working but can't afford insurance and people on Medicare to pay the absolute highest prices for prescriptions."

Pommer relied on a Colorado Public Interest Research Group survey that found Colorado's uninsured pay 64 percent more than the federal supply price for 10 commonly prescribed drugs.
According to the survey of 19 states, filling prescriptions for the 10 common drugs costs $52.59 if purchased through Medicaid, but for the uninsured, $86.12 in Colorado and $90.21 nationally.

Colorado buys millions of dollars worth of prescription drugs for Medicaid recipients, giving the state the buying power used by private insurers to negotiate discounts, Pommer said.
Similar bills were introduced by Pommer and Rep. John Salazar, D-Manassa, in the last legislative session, but they died.

Salazar's HB1162 would have established a Colorado Council on Pharmaceutical Bulk Purchasing to negotiate discount prices on behalf of government agencies and other organizations wanting to participate in a pool insurance program.

Two other area legislators - Reps. Dorothy Butcher, D-Pueblo, and Buffie McFadyen, D-Pueblo West - sponsored bills intended to make prescription drugs more affordable. Their bills also died in the House Health, Environment, Welfare and Institutions Committee.

State drug discount proposed for uninsured

By Julia C. Martinez, Denver Post Capitol Bureau
July 18, 2003

A Democratic lawmaker on Thursday proposed to protect uninsured Coloradans from high costs of prescription medication by having the state negotiate lower prices on their behalf.
Rep. Jack Pommer, D-Longmont, said he will sponsor legislation again next year to create a program similar to one in Maine, which enables uninsured citizens to get a discount on retail pharmaceutical prices.

"We don't want to wait for the federal government. We can solve the problem in Colorado," Pommer said at a news conference at the state Capitol to discuss a survey released earlier this week.

Pommer estimated that 100,000 Coloradans lack prescription drug coverage, including thousands of seniors.

The national survey by the U.S. Public Interest Research Group found that uninsured Americans pay an average of 72 percent more than the federal government for 10 common prescription drugs. Uninsured Coloradans are paying an average of 64 percent more for prescription medications, the report said.

While the federal government is able to use its buying power to negotiate lower prices for its employees, veterans and retirees, uninsured citizens have no one to negotiate on their behalf, said Rex Wilmouth of CoPIRG, the local arm of the national consumer advocacy group.
"They are at the whim of the pharmaceutical industry," Wilmouth said.

In dollars and cents, for example, the average price charged to uninsured Coloradans for a 30-day supply of the cholesterol-lowering drug Zocor is $131.82. That is 94 percent more than the price charged the federal government, $67.81, the survey found.

For Celebrex, a medication for people with arthritis, the average monthly price for Colorado's uninsured is $166.54, 29 percent more than the federal supply price.

Denverite Martha Everett, 54, said that her eight prescription medicines cost $300 a month before she got help from the state's Indigent Care Program. She sometimes did not bother to get them refilled.

"It wasn't right for me to go without medication, but often I couldn't afford them," said Everett, a part-time employee of a Denver nonprofit agency.

The survey found that Denver ranks as one of the least expensive cities for uninsured consumers, yet prices also averaged 64 percent more than the federal price, roughly the same as statewide average prices.

Pommer proposed that the state use its buying power to obtain medicine for underinsured or uninsured Coloradans whose income is at or below 250 percent of the federal poverty level. A similar measure he introduced in this year's legislative session was killed in committee.

Last month, the U.S. House and Senate passed differing versions of legislation to add drug coverage beginning in 2006 under Medicare. A conference committee will try to reach a compromise.

Democratic lawmaker proposes Maine-like prescription plan

Friday July 18, 2003

DENVER (AP) Uninsured Coloradans could gain some protection from high medication costs if the state negotiated lower prices on their behalf, a Democratic lawmaker says.
Rep. Jack Pommer, D-Boulder, said he plans to try again next year on legislation to create a program similar to one in Maine, which gives uninsured residents a discount on retail pharmaceutical prices.
``We don't want to wait for the federal government,'' Pommer said.
He estimated that 100,000 state residents, many of them seniors, lack prescription drug coverage.
A national survey by the U.S. Public Interest Research Group reported that uninsured Americans pay an average of 72 percent more than the federal government does for 10 common prescription drugs. Uninsured Coloradans pay an average of 64 percent more for the medications, the report said.
The federal government can negotiate lower prices for its employees, veterans and retirees, but uninsured Americans have no one to negotiate on their behalf, said Rex Wilmouth of the Colorado Public Interest Research Group.
``They are at the whim of the pharmaceutical industry,'' he said.
Martha Everett, 54, of Denver, said her eight prescription medicines cost $300 per month before she got help from the state Indigent Care Program. She sometimes could not afford to refill her prescriptions, she said.
``It wasn't right for me to go without medication,'' said Everett, a part-time employee of a Denver nonprofit agency.
Pommer proposed that the state negotiate for prescription-drug discounts for underinsured or uninsured Coloradans whose income is at or below 250 percent of the federal poverty level. A similar measure he introduced this year was killed in committee.

THEY GROWLED IT

March 14, 2003

"HJR 1022 shows a wanton disregard for both my natural urges and my now nonexistent future offspring."

Buckley, chief of morale (and Golden retriever)in State Treasurer Mike Coffman's office, in a letter to Rep. Jack Pommer, D-Boulder, regarding Pommer's proposed resolution 1022, proposing Spay and Neuter Your Pet Day

Status report

By Denver Post Capitol Bureau

Thursday, March 13, 2003 -

Committee kills bill for renewable energy
The Senate Business Affairs Committee voted 4-3 Wednesday to kill a bill mandating use of renewable energy for power generated by Xcel Energy and Aquila Inc.

House Bill 1295 would have required Colorado's investor-owned utilities to acquire about 8 percent of their electricity from wind and other renewable sources by 2010.

Opposition came from the rural electric associations, which feared that the measure would have increased costs. Supporters said the measure would have created nearly $100 million in rural economic development.

Spay-neuter day gets legislative resolution
It's a day that conscientious pet owners will mark on their calendars - and cats and dogs will come to dread.

House Joint Resolution 1022 - the Spay and Neuter Your Pet Day measure - makes its legislative debut in the House Agriculture Committee today.

Sponsored by Rep. Jack Pommer, D-Boulder, the nonbinding resolution designates Feb. 25 of every year as Spay and Neuter Your Pet Day and encourages pet owners to get animals fixed.