School tax hikes OK for now, court says

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.

New rules blamed for cuts in oil, gas drilling

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

House Proceedings Available Live On Both TV, Web

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.

Health care tops agenda as state legislators to reconvene on Wednesday

By Laura Snider (Contact)
Sunday, January 6, 2008
On Wednesday, 100 elected officials -- including nine people representing at least part of Boulder and Broomfield counties -- will file into the golden-domed state Capitol in Denver to gavel in the 2008 legislative 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.

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.

Area Democrats prepare for new leadership posts

By John Fryar
The Daily Times-Call

DENVER — Longmont’s Brandon Shaffer will take over the chairmanship of the Senate Judiciary Committee when the Legislature convenes its 2007 session next month.
The Democrat has spent the past two years as vice chairman of that panel, which typically considers such measures as bills proposing changes in the state’s criminal-justice laws.
Shaffer also will remain on the Senate Health and Human Services Committee.
In the House, Louisville Democratic Rep. Paul Weissmann will resume chairmanship of that chamber’s State, Veterans and Military Affairs Committee.
That panel sometimes is handed some of the Legislature’s more controversial measures. Last year, for example, House State Affairs was the first stop for many of the bills proposing tougher laws on illegal immigration.
Weissmann also will continue to serve on the House Appropriations Committee.
Boulder Democratic Rep. Jack Pommer stepped down as chairman of the House Transportation and Energy Committee last spring after being named to the Joint Budget Committee.
Besides serving on the Legislature’s panel of budget writers, Pommer is now vice chairman of the House Appropriations Committee.
Boulder Democratic Sen. Ron Tupa will no longer head or be a member of the Senate State Affairs Committee when the 2007 session gets under way. But he will be vice chairman of the Senate Education Committee and serve on the Senate Local Government Committee.
Those are among the assignments that legislative leaders unveiled recently.
One new lawmaker, Mead Rep.-elect Glenn Vaad, was designated by House GOP leaders to be the “ranking Republican” among the minority-party members on the House Transportation and Energy Committee.
Vaad, a former Colorado Department of Transportation employee, also was named to the House Appropriations Committee.
Other appointments for area lawmakers:
Rep. Kevin Lundberg, R-Berthoud, will serve on the House Finance Committee and the House State, Veterans and Military Affairs Committee.
Rep.-elect Claire Levy, D-Boulder, will be on the House Judiciary Committee and the House Transportation and Energy Committee.
Rep.-elect Dianne Primavera, D-Broomfield, will serve on the House Health and Human Services Committee and the House Transportation and Energy Committee.
Sen. Shawn Mitchell, R-Broomfield, will be a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee and the Senate Health and Human Services Committee.
Sen. Steve Johnson, R-Larimer County, is the newest member of the Legislature’s Joint Budget Committee and also will be on the Senate Appropriations Committee.
John Fryar can be reached by e-mail at jfryar@times-call.com.

Owens: Do not regress

Gov. urges lawmakers not to retreat from past years’ reforms in Colo.
By John Fryar
The Daily Times-Call

DENVER — Gov. Bill Owens urged lawmakers Thursday not to retreat from seven years of progress toward reforming education, reducing taxes and improving highways.
In the Republican governor’s eighth and final State of the State address, Owens said he’s been able to work well with leaders of both parties, including Demo- crats now in their second year of majority control of the Legislature.
There will be policy differences this year, Owens said, just as there have been in the past, such as when he vetoed a record 47 bills that lawmakers approved during last year’s session.
The governor predicted, though, that he’ll once again be able to work out most disagreements with lawmakers and sign into law most of the bills they send him.
Owens warned, however, that he’ll wield his veto pen again “if you send me a bill that in my opinion weakens Colorado families, puts our jobs- friendly climate at risk or reverses any of the great progress we’ve made in education.”
Longmont Democratic Sen. Brandon Shaffer said after the speech that while he doesn’t always agree with the governor, Owens is “a classy guy.”
Shaffer said Owens demonstrated that quality Thursday by taking time to recognize Coloradans’ efforts in aiding Hurricane Katrina victims and by applauding the work of this state’s military reservists and National Guard members, both in Iraq and in post-Katrina duties in the Gulf Coast.
Owens outlined an “ambitious” agenda for his last year as governor. That includes includes several state spending recommendations as well as calls for reforming a public pension system, reining in medical malpractice lawsuits, protecting Coloradans from violent sexual predators, and reducing the costs of government health-care programs for the poor.
“Anyone who came here today expecting a farewell address will be sorely disappointed,” Owens said.
Owens campaigned alongside Democratic leaders and some legislative Republicans last year to convince enough Coloradans to adopt Referendum C, which allows the state to keep and spend nearly $4 billion over the next five years.
Owens said Thursday that passage of Referendum C will allow Colorado “to recover from years of recession while keeping our taxes among the lowest in the country, and I want to thank the bipartisan team that helped make this possible.”
Owens and Democratic leaders have had unresolved disagreements over how much Referendum C money should spent on transportation, and he used his speech to restate his case for highway funding.
But the governor also told lawmakers he looked forward to working with them on several “critical budget items.”
“And I have a message today for my many friends who could not support Referendum C,” Owens added. “I want to benefit from your views as well as we shape this budget.”
After the governor’s speech, House Speaker Andrew Romanoff, D-Denver, said in an interview, “We heard a lot less saber-rattling than last year,” when Owens pointedly itemized a list of “basic principles” that the governor said he would not compromise.
Rep. Jack Pommer, D-Boulder, said, “I think it was a kinder, gentler Gov. Owens” this year.
Pommer also contrasted the compromising themes that Owens expressed with a sharply partisan opening-day speech delivered Wednesday by House Minority Leader Joe Stengel, R-Littleton.
Senate President Joan Fitz-Gerald, D-Jefferson County, said in a statement that Owens made “several points upon which we can agree,” including the use of “telemedicine” to lower health-care costs, streamlining services for Medicaid-eligible children and providing additional funding to help needy families pay home heating costs.
But Romanoff said he still disagrees with the governor’s request for a supplemental $80 million highway appropriation from this year’s budget. And Fitz-Gerald expressed disappointment that Owens did not talk about the need for more accountability for state government computer contracts.
Owens, meanwhile, told lawmakers that after voters “gave us the revenue we need so that Colorado can recover from recession,” it’s “now our duty to use these funds wisely.”
“That’s going to be the biggest challenge of this legislative session,” the governor said.
The governor’s agenda
In Thursday’s State of the State address, Gov. Bill Owens outlined his legislative agenda for his final year as governor. Items on his agenda include:
• Allowing biotechnology companies to generate capital for labs and employees by allowing them to sell portions of net operating losses from their startup years.
• Allowing the state Economic Development Commission to award financial incentives to companies that create high-quality, high-paying jobs, especially in rural Colorado.
• Exempting high-speed Internet voice communications from Colorado taxes charged on conventional telephone service.
• Discouraging repeat drunken driving by making first-time offenders help clean up highway rights of way as part of their sentences.
• Requiring voters to prove their identities and verifying their U.S. citizenship when they’re added to voter rolls.
• Requiring public colleges and universities to commit to supporting and retaining underserved students, especially minorities.
• Terminating the emissions-testing requirement for motor vehicles in the metro area.
• Creating dedicated state funding to help pay for fighting wildfires.
• Working with the Colorado Commission on Higher Education to establish a basic statewide threshold and standard for awarding academic tenure at public colleges and universities.
• Retaining Colorado students’ eligibility for in-state college tuition when their parents are posted to out-of-state military assignments.
• Addressing Colorado’s nursing shortage through a student loan-forgiveness program and by allowing nurses to move to Colorado and work here without having to obtain a new license.
• Adding $10 million to this year’s tourism promotion budget by using part of the severance-tax money the state collects on oil, gas and mineral production.
• Adding $20 million, also from severance tax revenues, to the Low-Income Energy Assistance Program that helps needy families pay winter utility bills.
• Requiring the automatic notification of communities when convicted sexual predators move into neighborhoods, and subjecting predators to mandatory arrest when they fail to register.
• Reforming the Colorado Public Employees’ Retirement Association to reduce current and future unfunded liabilities, possibly including a changing of benefit levels for current employees when they retire.
• Clarifying the out-of-pocket expenses to which plaintiffs would be entitled when they win medical malpractice lawsuits, and requiring experts to sign off on such cases before they can move forward in court.
John Fryar can be reached by e-mail at jfryar@ times-call.com.