WESTERN SKIES - May 28, 2005

[Music Intro: Western Skies theme, "Hang Hang," from Short Trip Home, by Joshua Bell and Edgar Meyer, with Sam Bush and Mike Marshall]

ERIC WHITNEY: Howdy, and welcome to Western Skies, KRCC's weekly regional news magazine. I'm Eric Whitney.

This week, we take a look back at this year's Colorado legislative session. Since January, we've been bringing you regular weekly coverage of the state house, provided by David Wilson, a reporter working for a consortium of public radio stations, known as the High Country Community Radio Coalition.

This week, David reviews the bills that passed and failed, and gives us an update on pending legislation that's still awaiting the signature of, or veto by, Governor Bill Owens.

FMR. HOUSE SPEAKER LOLA SPRADLEY: With sixty-five "ayes," zero "noes," zero excused and zero absent, Representative Andrew Romanoff has been elected Speaker of the Colorado House of Representatives for the Sixty-Fifth General Assembly.

[clapping and cheering]

DAVID WILSON: The Colorado state legislature opened its sixty-fifth General Assembly with Democrats taking control of both the Senate and the House for the first time in over forty years. Their majorities, however, were slim: one in the Senate, five in the House.

Over six hundred bills were introduced this session; with around two-thirds passing the legislature. The role of Republican Governor Bill Owens now becomes pivotal as he has until June sixth to wield his veto pen. Throughout the session, Republicans consistently sided with the governor when he vetoed a bill, a precedent that will continue to play an important role affecting next year's legislation.

SEN. JOAN FITZ-GERALD: Ladies and gentlemen, we have an opportunity to unleash our tremendous potential and to be a better state than we are.

WILSON: Jefferson County Democrat Joan Fitz-Gerald became the first female to take the president's seat in the Senate. On opening day at the legislature, she spoke to the budget problems that would loom over the entire session.

FITZ-GERALD: The only way to awaken our economic vitality is to allow us to rebound from a devastating recession. We have been meeting with leaders from around the state and have heard that they expect us to fix the state budget problems now.

WILSON: With the down turn in the economy over the past four years, the legislature has had to make over one billion dollars in cuts to its primary programs. But now as the economy has started to rebound, the legislature ran into spending restrictions as a result of the Tax Payer Bill of Rights, or TABOR. This limits the annual grow of the state budget to inflation plus population growth. With the huge cuts in the budget over the past few years, it made it impossible for the legislature to dig itself out of its hole. So what were they to do?

SEN. MARK HILLMAN: In passing TABOR, the voters told us, "always limit spending." In passing Amendment 23, they said "always increase spending."

WILSON: Burlington's Mark Hillman is the Senate Republican Minority Leader

HILLMAN: Rather than frustrate the will of the voters by taking shortcuts around either, we now ought to ask them what to do when we can't do both.

WILSON: While the legislature and governor tried to start addressing this problem last session, it took much of this year to find a compromise everyone could live with. What they came up with are two referenda that voters will face in November.

Referendum C will ask voters if the state can keep refunds taxpayers might otherwise get because of TABOR for the next five years. With present economic projections, this will help the state dig itself out of about two-thirds of the hole it finds itself in.

SEN. PETER GROFF: This is probably the most important vote of our legislative careers.

WILSON: Denver Democrat Peter Groff is Senate President Pro Tem.

GROFF: Now with this very moderate compromise, this bipartisan compromise, it's time to invest in Colorado again.

WILSON: Referendum C had wide-spread support from all the Democrats, many Senate Republicans, and the governor. Speaker of the House, Denver Democrat Andrew Romanoff wants to make clear what the money will be used for if voters approve Referendum C in November.

HOUSE SPEAKER ANDREW ROMANOFF: We'd like to reduce the cost of health insurance for individuals and small businesses. We'd like to make good on the demands of Amendment 23 by funding K-twelve education. We'd like to replenish the state education fund, which we've raided. And we'd like to make sure that kids have an opportunity to go to college by appropriating funds for the College Opportunity Fund and financial aid. Finally, we'd like to complete the seventh pot[?], the CDOT list of strategic transportation projects. We can do that under the revenues that we're proposing.

WILSON: Republican Governor Bill Owens backing of Referendum C was essential to it making it through the legislature this year.

GOV. BILL OWENS: Let me be clear about what this plan does not do. It doesn't eliminate spending caps. It doesn't eliminate the right to vote for tax increases. It doesn't erase the accountability to our taxpayers. And it doesn't gut TABOR, it preserves TABOR as a protection for Colorado taxpayers.

WILSON: Many Republican legislators, however, feel these measures are in effect tax increases, though individual income tax rates won't change as a result of this measures. Lakewood Republican Norma Anderson, a Referendum C co-sponsor, responded to these critics on the Senate floor this session.

SEN. NORMA ANDERSON: And is this a tax on people? It's the tax they're already paying. Now, it's whether they want a portion of it back or not, in a refund. It doesn't effect their tax status, not at all. And I am tired of hearing that it's a tax increase because it is not.

WILSON: The associated measure, Referendum D, will allow the state to issue bonds to help pay for everything from road repairs, to school building constructions, along with helping pay for police and firefighter pension program.

Legislators, the governor, and many groups, from business to education, will be going door to door as we head towards the November election in an effort to see that these measures are passed. They will have to fight against people like Douglas Bruce, the man who brought us the Tax Payer Bill of Rights in 1992.

DOUGLAS BRUCE: Referendum C, proposed by Representative Romanoff (I coined the phrase "the Romanoff rip-off"), that's what it is. It's an attempt to lie, cheat, steal, and get an unlimited amound of money in the next five years.

WILSON: Until the legislature knows that it will have more money to spend based on the results of Referenda C and D, they have to keep a tight rein on spending. Many bills failed to move forward this session when they ended up with a hefty price tag associated with them.

The legislature was able to restore some funding this year, to the tune of half a billion dollars.

High on the Democrats' agenda was to restore funding to many of the state's Medicaid programs that have been cut over the past few years. One of the first bills to pass into law restored Medicaid funding to legal immigrants. Nederland Democrat Tom Plant who chairs the House Appropriations Committee pushed the bill quickly through the legislature into law.

REP. TOM PLANT: The reason it's been fast-tracked is so that we don't go through a process of dropping off of coverage and then trying to go back and get them back on again.

WILSON: A bill that would presumed pregnant women are eligible for Medicaid also passed. The legislature also expanded its Medicaid coverage to include drug and alcohol treatment for those already in the Medicaid system, a bill sponsored by Speaker of the House Romanoff.

ROMANOFF: Because I think we're making a mistake by waiting until this problem reaches the criminal justice system. I think that's just about the worst place you could think, and the most expensive, and the least humane, to treat drug abuse. I'd like to try treating drug abuse and alcohol abuse up-front, which I think will ultimately save the state a lot of money and a lot of lives.

WILSON: But with the budget still extremely tight, legislators turned to a new source of funding to help the state's health and human services programs, including these restored and expanded Medicaid programs: tobacco taxes. Last November, voters approved a tax increase on tobacco that is projected to bring in around one hundred seventy million dollars each year. Lakewood Democrat Betty Boyd chairs the House Health and Human Services Committee and sponsored the main bill determining how the tobacco tax dollars would be spent.

REP. BETTY BOYD: House Bill 1262 is the only comprehensive proposal to implement Amendment 35 in its entirety, as it was approved by the voters. House Bill 1262 will have an immediate and significant impact on the state's current healthcare crisis, while also ensuring the long-term stability of the programs funding.

WILSON: This money was earmarked for many programs to expand eligibility for the state's Medicaid programs, especially for children and pregnant women through the CHIPS program. Lorenz Meinhold, Executive Director of the Colorado Consumer Health Initiative, one of the main groups that pushed the tobacco tax.

LORENZ MEINHOLD: We estimate that these expansions will provide health insurance to more than a hundred thousand families. And that's important. And that's families right now without access to healthcare. And that's why we're supporting House Bill 1262.

WILSON: While many legislators rejoiced when they could use tobacco tax dollars to help restore Medicaid funding, many Republicans warned that these dollars will likely decline as people smoke less or turn to the internet to buy tobacco. The bill that distributes these tobacco tax dollars did change to include a larger reserve fund to help deal with those potential declines.

At the same time that the state's Medicaid programs are relying more and more on tobacco purchases to fund their needs, the legislature also tried to restrict smoking in work places.

SEN. DAN GROSSMAN: We can do it Marlboro country, we can do it in Colorado.

WILSON: Denver Democrat Dan Grossman's original bill would have eliminated smoking in all work places with more than four or more employees, with a few minor exceptions. But it had a hard time making it through the Senate, where it was watered down to get enough Democrats on board. All the Senate Republicans opposed the bill as it was introduced.

The measure found greater support in the House, where the bill was restored to initial form with a few exceptions, like casinos and bingo halls. That brought the Colorado Restaurant Associations' Pete Meersman back on board as a supporter, as the present patchwork of local smoking bans causes confusion for his member restaurants.

PETE MEERSMAN: You can literally smoking on one side of the street and non-smoking on the other side of the street. Two restaurants across from each other. That's why we're in support of this bill. Passage of this bill means we will not lose our smoking customers to the other side of the street. And, in fact, we don't believe that we'll lose them at all, when their only choice to find a smoking establishment is to go to Kansas, Nebraska, Wyoming, Oklahoma, Utah, Arizona, or New Mexico. [responding to comment] Not Utah?

WILSON: But when the Senate considered House changes to the smoking ban bill on the last day of the session, two Democrats couldn't stomach the bill and effectively killed it for this session. It is likely to return next year, or possibly seen on the ballot as a result of citizen initiative.

Another bill that didn't find enough Democratic support to pass would have tried to help save Medicaid dollars through creating a preferred drug list for doctors to prescribe from for patients. The bill did have some bipartisan support, including the Senate sponsor, Republican Steve Johnson of Fort Collins.

SEN. STEVE JOHNSON: The savings that have been realized in other states, and the savings we hope to realize in Colorado, have been realized from taking the broad groups of medications that are in a certain class and incentivizing physicians to prescribe the most cost-effective and effective ones.

WILSON: While this preferred drug list bill might have saved the state millions of dollars each year, many Medicaid patients and the pharmaceutical industry opposed the bill over fear that it would hinder access to some vital drugs. The bill died on the House floor, though a related bill, allowing the state to go in on multi-state drug purchasing agreements, which contains a preferred drug list, did pass the legislature. It awaits action from the governor.

Republican Governor Bill Owens played the key roll in another bill that died this year at the legislature. He vetoed a measure that would require hospitals to provide rape victims information about emergency contraceptives. Aurora Democrat Morgan Carroll argued for representatives to override the governor's veto.

REP. MORGAN CARROLL: In any other area, as a woman, I can go forward and know I have right to get some information to make key decisions about my health. But not here. Not if I'm a woman. And not if I am raped. Institutions do not have souls, but rape victims do.

WILSON: Although nine House Republicans initially voted for this emergency contraceptives bill, they made it clear they would side with the governor when they all opposed the veto override. The bill's sponsor has said she will re-try again next year.

While the state's health and human services looked to tobacco tax dollars to increase their funding, education turned to Amendment 23. In the year 2000, Colorado voters approved this measure to help funding K through twelve education. It requires increases in spending of inflation plus one percent. With almost negligible inflation this year, the legislature approved their School Finance Act with a boost in school funding of around fifty million dollars.

There was an effort to find an additional nine million dollars for K through twelve education, yet the head of the House Appropriations Committee, Nederland Democrat Tom Plant, felt compelled to cut that increase because of the state's continued financial woes.

PLANT: I think that we're grossly under-funding education needs this year, but until we know what our fiscal situation is vis-a-vi a vote in November, I think that this might be a premature move to make.

WILSON: Maybe more importantly, the legislature was able to put away around sixty million dollars for the state education fund, a savings account for public schools which has seen its account size plummet over the past three years, as legislators have turned to this account to help pay for many of its programs

With the Democrats taking control of the legislature, it was expected that they would take on some of the controversial education initiatives that Republicans have implemented over the past few sessions. Though Republican Governor Bill Owens announced early in the session he would have nothing of that.

OWENS: This accountability system works. That's what we're seeing in the numbers, that's what teachers and parents are telling us. While some may believe that 2005 is the year to slow down our testing program, weaken our accountability system, they would be wrong. I will oppose any effort to weaken our reforms, take tools out of the hands of our parents and teachers. We will not turn back.

WILSON: The Democrats tried to return some authority to local school districts with respect to charter schools. This followed a bill from last year that created a state authority that could help get charter schools approved despite the objections of a local district. Some communities, like Boulder, had implemented moratoriums of charter schools as they began to close doors at some of their schools that saw declining enrollment, as charter schools started to boom. Mike Altenburn represents teachers in the Boulder Valley School District.

MIKE ALTENBURN: This bill restores local control and allows local school boards to make decisions that are in the best interest of all children that they serve.

WILSON: Charter school advocates like Glenn Miller, however, got their point across more strongly to legislators.

GLENN MILLER: Senate Bill 71 rolls back key provisions, it eviscerates a charter school's fundamental standing, it places road-blocks in the way of innovation. It takes away opportunities.

WILSON: The charter school bill was completely watered down so it in effect became more of a study group looking into how to make charter schools and local school districts work more together.

Another bill attempted to partially eliminate the standards-based test that is used to assess how students and schools are meeting education goals set by the state. The controversial CSAP test is administered from the third through tenth grade. Fort Collins Democrat Angie Paccione wanted to eliminate the tenth grade version of this test and replace it with an exam that helps high school students prepare for college entrance exams like the ACT or SAT.

REP. ANGIE PACCIONE: More of our tenth graders miss the tenth grade CSAP than any other test, third grade through tenth grade. They have the highest rate of absenteeism, because it doesn't--it's meaningless to the student. Meaningful to educational research, I'm an educational researcher and that's what we do, but for tenth graders, for the students, the parents, the counselors, the CSAP doesn't provide the kind of information that is helpful. The PLAN test does.

WILSON: These testing changes could have saved the state around two million dollars a year. Several bill sponsors relied on that potential savings to help fund the provisions of their bill. While the tenth grade testing bill made it through the House, it lost when it went to the Senate.

The legislature did change some of their provisions regarding school accountability based on the CSAP test scores. But most of that bill just unified all the different measures used to grade schools, along with changing how they refer to the school's performance, so that rather than talking about "failing schools," they will now be considered "high priority schools."

***

WHITNEY: You're listening to a special review of this year's Colorado legislative session on Western Skies, on KRCC. You can read a transcript of this program online, or listen to it again, at our website: krcc.org. That's also the place to go to leave comments about what you're hearing, our legislative coverage in general, or your opinion of Western Skies, at krcc.org.

***

WILSON: Providing greater legal protection for gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgendered people was on the agenda for the Democrats. Two bills were passed along party line votes, though they still face a potential veto from the governor.

One measure would extended the state's hate crimes statute to include sexual orientation. Many Republicans denounced the effort as the change in the law was an amendment to a generally non-controversial updating of the state's criminal laws. Republicans felt that a crime is a crime and suggested a roll-back to eliminate hate crime provisions in general, while Democrats felt it was an important addition to the law.

The Democrats also backed a bill early on that would help GLBT community fight against discrimination in the work place. Some Republicans like Grand Junction Republican Ron Teck argued against these employment non-discrimination protections on religious grounds.

SEN. RON TECK: The bible does not indicate that it's wrong to be black. The bible does not indicate that it is wrong to be ill, Christ healed lepers. But the bible is pretty clear on the issue of homosexuality in the eyes of God. Now, I'm not about to stand up here and judge anybody in this building or anywhere else on their beliefs or what they want to do or whatever. But I am very uncomfortable when the law is now going to dictate that I and my family may have to accept things that are abomination in God's eyes, from the text that I study.

WILSON: In one of the most powerful moments this session on the Senate floor, Pueblo Democrat Abel Tapia countered Senator Teck's comments when he quietly stood up to talk about his son, who is gay.

SEN. ABEL TAPIA: Until you have actually experienced it in your family. Senator Teck, I know you're proud of your sons, and I'm proud of my sons. Until you have that in your family, and it effects you directly, don't be talking about an abomination. Because I don't believe that's true. Thank you.

WILSON: Both of these efforts to provide more legal protections to the homosexuals still face a serious veto threat from the governor.

Numerous water bills percolated through this legislative session, and almost all of them were drowned. A measure that is likely to return next session regards water rights for recreational purposes. In 2001, the legislature passed a bill that for the first time allowed for recreational water rights for things like kayak courses. Many communities, from the mountains to the Front Range, have pursed these rights which concerned many legislators that it would limit future water development for other purposes, like agriculture, industry, and municipal uses. Attorney Glenn Porzak represents numerous municipalities with recreational water rights.

GLENN PORZAK: We believe a one-size-fits-all aspect to this, to recreation water rights, again is contrary to other limitations with respect to other water rights. We don't have a one-size-fits-all for the agricultural industry or industrial or hydro-power plants and the like.

WILSON: This year, the measure before the legislature would have severely restrict how much water could be obtained for a kayak course. While the bill made it through the Senate and then the House Natural Resource Committee, it failed on the House floor. It's likely to be an active area of discussion this summer when legislators begin to work on next year's bills.

Another bill that died would have helped protect communities when water is bought up and diverted to other parts of the state. The bill was similar to a measure that now-congressman John Salazar tried to pass last year. Early in the session, Governor Owens reminded legislators of this history of water mitigation bills.

OWENS: Since 1988, the legislature has introduced twenty-three out-of-basin water transfer proposals. All twenty-three failed. Yet the need for real solutions remains. This year, I believe we have a chance to enact lasting solutions to benefit all of Colorado when it comes to water.

WILSON: The water mitigation bill before the legislature would require water purchasers to compensate the basins from where the water is taken. The bill faced criticism as it would allow the future uses of water use in the area of origin be considered when mitigation is decided. Opponents like Republican from Sterling Diane Hoppe were concerned that this would tie up water transfers.

REP. DIANE HOPPE: Frankly, mitigation needs to be negotiated on a case-by-case basis. And my fear with this bill altogether is that we're going to tie down language in the statutes and not have the flexibility that we need for proper mitigation and to move water from basin to basin or from area to area.

WILSON: The idea of mitigation, however, may find life in a water bill that did pass this year. The inter-basin compact bill creates round tables amongst all the state's different river basins so that communities could come together to talk about the future of our state's waters and come up with compact agreements. Governor Bill Owens backed the bill.

OWENS: These would be long-lasing consensus agreements, similar to the Colorado River Compact between Colorado and neighboring western states.

WILSON: One thing these compacts could do is establish specific requirements when, say, water is transferred from the West Slope to the Front Range. Grand Junction Josh Penry sponsored the bill in the House.

REP. JOSH PENRY: For too long, in our state, farmers have been pitted against cities, the Western Slope has been pitted against the Front Range, environmentalists have been pitted against developers, and on-and-on the conflict has raged. This is an opportunity to sort of rise above those regional tensions that have come to define our water discourse. And hopefully this bill, as it makes its way through the process, and hopefully ultimately to the governor, this is a mechanism for us to overcome those and do something right.

WILSON: Some legislators and environmental lawyers wonder what will come of these measures. Gunnison Democrat Kathleen Curry heads the House Natural Resource Committee.

REP. KATHLEEN CURRY: They're trying to move us beyond the stalemate or the deadlock we're in right now. It's really hard to move forward on water issues because it's so emotional and there's so much at stake. The future of the Western Slope depends on it continuing to have its water supplies, so people are real concerned about losing that. So I think, you know, what they're trying to do is find a way to minimize litigation and maximize discussion, which is a positive thing.

WILSON: Bart Miller is an attorney with Western Resource Advocates.

BART MILLER: The problem is it may just end up being a gab-fest for a decade. And it may not ever reach a solution. It may be that five or ten years is spent and millions of dollars of resources, without a real outcome.

WILSON: The issue that made the biggest splash at the capitol this session was a proposed private toll road.

Twenty years ago, the Front Range Toll Road Company began thinking about creating a private toll road paralleling I-25, but further out east into the plains. The company finally found financial backers, but needed to have the state's private toll road statutes from the nineteenth century updated to get the road rolling.

Initially, a bill that would do just that, flew through the House with almost unanimous support. Boulder Democrat Jack Pommer, however, drew attention to what would become a key concern for the residents who live within the twelve mile wide corridor through which the proposed road would go.

REP. JACK POMMER: Makes feasible the eminent domain provision that's in the original bill, which allows a private company to condemn private land for its toll road. The company has staked out a twelve-mile-wide claim. Now, the road itself, and everything in between it, is only supposed to be about six hundred sixty feet, but they have staked out a twelve mile claim, and giving a private company the right to condemn land over that amount of space, I think, is problematic.

WILSON: By the time the toll road bill made it to the Senate, potentially affected property owners had organized widespread opposition to helping this private toll road move forward.

[sound of crowd chanting "Land of the free, not free land"]

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER AT RALLY: We say no to "Super Slab." We say no to a super land grab, and its going to include a minimum of seventeen thousand acres, up to one-point-six million acres, depending upon how the developer chooses to interpret his laws. We don't want that.

WILSON: The Senate Transportation Committee killed the bill. But the issue wasn't over yet. Late in the session, two new bills were introduced. The first would eliminate the power a private toll road company presently has to condemn land along its route. This power of eminent domain was the biggest bone of contention for many who live in the twelve-mile-wide corridor where the road would run. That bill passed the House and Senate. It still must get past the governor, who is considering a veto as he believes private toll roads could play an important roll in the future of transportation in Colorado.

Another bill affecting private toll roads would not eliminate the power of condemnation, but would provide a whole slew of regulation on any future private toll road in the state. The measure requires environmental impact statements, along with many other basic provisions that the state Department of Transportation is required to do in order to build roads in Colorado.

This summer, while not in session, Colorado legislators will still have plenty of work on their hands. Numerous interim committees will meet to talk about bills for next year. Many will also be out pushing Referenda C and D to help the state get out of its budget problems. Boulder Democrat Tom Plant believes voters will come understand the importance of these referenda to help the state.

PLANT: You know, honestly, people will easily understand the concept that we don't want to lock ourselves into this recessionary level that we're in right now. Families as well as states will go through hard times, and when you go through hard times you recognize that you have to cut back and maybe you don't fix things that need fixing, and you put things off until the times get better. But, I think that it's an easy concept to understand that once times do get better, then you try and fix those things that broke during that downtime, whether you're talking about your family or you're talking about the state.

WILSON: Numerous bills still sit on Governor Bill Owens' desk waiting to become law. He's considering several possible vetoes before his June sixth deadline.

Next session, with Democrats still in control and more experienced now, may find better luck getting some of their measures passed. And many failed bills from this session are likely to be reintroduced in 2006 for a second round. But with the representatives facing reelection, and the state voting for a new governor in November 2006, it should be interesting to see how the legislature moves forward through the sixty-fifth meeting of the Colorado General Assembly.

At the capitol, I'm David Wilson.

FUNDING CREDIT: Coverage of the Colorado legislature is supported by the Gay and Lesbian Fund for Colorado, partnering with nonprofits to build a future for all Coloradans, regardless of sexual orientation. At GayAndLesbianFund.org.