Senate Bill 12, sponsored by Sen. Steve King, R-Grand Junction, and Rep. Joe Miklosi, D-Denver, changes the frequency of the audits from every 90 days to twice a year.  Additionally, it allows for more frequent covert, undercover, inspections to be done at the discretion of the Department of Revenue, which oversees the program.

Federal law requires the auditing to be done on a twice-annual basis, and King says it’s redundant to conduct the audits more frequently.

“Doing this above and beyond federal requirements is redundant and ineffective,” said King.

Yet, Weld County Republican Sen. Scott Renfroe, of Greeley, says he voted against the measure because he believes the entire program is redundant in light of evidence Renfroe says shows consistent air quality above and beyond Environmental Protection Agency standards.

“I don’t like the program at all,” said Renfroe. “When there’s not a problem that needs fixing—I have a problem.”

Committee chair Sen. Evie Hudak, D-Arvada, said the reduction in audits shows good governance.

“This is good-government bill that allows us to focus on areas that need improvements and not over-inspecting areas that don’t,” said Hudak.

The measure now heads to the full Senate for consideration.

You may use part or all of this article in Web or print publications, as well as in radio and TV broadcasts, at no charge and without further permission. Please credit the Colorado News Agency.

“This program is wasting people’s time and money,” said Renfroe. He said Weld and Larimer counties should be exempt unless there is reliable data pointing toward a need for the program.

“The air is clean, and audits are showing that the program is not living up to its intended results,”  said Renfroe.

The pending measure will resemble Renfroe’s and Vaad’s House Bill 11-1082, which failed to pass in the 2011 session. It would have repealed legislation passed in 2010 expanding the Denver metro area’s long-standing and often-criticized auto emissions-testing program into Weld and Larimer counties.

The program requires each vehicle over four years old to undergo a tailpipe-and-treadmill test at state-designated garages operated by a contractor, sometimes requiring hours-long waits by motorists during peak periods.

Opposition to the program is far from unanimous, however, with Democrats even in Larimer and Weld counties typically supporting it.

Rep. John Kefalas, D-Fort Collin, said earlier this year that erring on the side of caution when health issues come into play is the more prudent path despite any inconveniences or costs to motorists.

“We want to make sure that we run the program so that it’s not over-burdensome—especially in these hard economic times—but also look at public health issues,” said Kefalas.

The emissions program also employs random, drive-by tests, conducted by roadside monitors, as a backup to the mandatory tailpipe tests. However, the state auditor recently determined that the roadside monitors can yield false positives for dirty emissions. The Legislative Audit Committee decided earlier this week to advance legislation that would limit the roadside testing to identifying clean vehicles only. That way, motorists whose vehicles fail the random tests still can go to one of the program’s regular testing stations and get a fresh test. Under current law, owners of vehicles that happen to drive by one of the monitors and get a clean bill of health may renew their vehicle registration without having to take a regular tailpipe test.

You may use part or all of this article in Web or print publications, as well as in radio and TV broadcasts, at no charge and without further permission. Please credit the Colorado News Agency.

Rep. Cheri Gerou, a House Republican from Evergreen, told members of the legislature’s Capital Development Committee Monday that she will be introducing legislation in January at the urging of Democratic Gov. John Hickenlooper that would adjust a trigger in the funding formulas for the state’s infrastructure needs.

Lawmakers set those formulas in 2009, under Senate Bill-09-228. The measure—which also roused Republican ire at ruling Democrats at the time for removing  a 6-percent limit on year-to-year spending increases in the state’s operating budget—put funding for capital projects on autopilot. Under the formula, spending on capital projects begins automatically,  for the next five years, as soon as Coloradans’ personal income grows by at least 5 percent in a given year. The five-year period isn’t triggered  until the 5-percent threshold in income growth is met.

Gerou’s pending proposal would lower the threshold to 4 percent. That likely would trigger infrastructure funding because current projections by state economists say personal income growth for this year likely will be just shy of 5 percent.

Gerou said that waiting is not an attractive option when structures are crumbling.

“We know that we (the state) have buildings that are in disrepair,” she said. “Having buildings that are in disrepair does not bode well for the state.”

Sen. Gail Schwartz, D-Snowmass Village, said she would have to examine the effect of lowering the 5 percent trigger before endorsing the bill but that the time is ripe to broach the subject.

“This is an important conversation and certainly one we really struggle with,” said Schwartz.

You may use part or all of this article in Web or print publications, as well as in radio and TV broadcasts, at no charge and without further permission. Please credit the Colorado News Agency.

The department broached the subject at a recent brainstorming session identifying possible items to bring to state lawmakers for consideration.

CDOT said the current limit of $10,000 is too low in some cases, and capping the relocation costs at $50,000 may be more realistic, but any change will require legislation.

As noted in the transportation department’s written summary of the meeting, department officials believe the proposed change would be pro-business, improving  ”the efficiency and effectiveness of government (and would) increase customer service and responsiveness of state government; and quickly reduces red tape barriers by protecting Colorado jobs and businesses.”

By conservative estimates, the department says 10 relocations would cost the state up to an additional $400,000 a year under the proposal.

Yet, Tony Gagliardi, state director for the National Federation of Independent Business, says the boost in relocation dollars may not be enough to sweeten the pot sufficiently to take the sting out of a small businesses being forced to move—and may not protect jobs as much as the department says it will.

“When a business is forced to relocate it can be very expensive and often more than $50,000,” said Gagliardi. “Relocation can also mean adding to the ranks of the unemployed when small business workers, who typically live within five miles, cannot make the move along with the business.”

You may use part or all of this article in Web or print publications, as well as in radio and TV broadcasts, at no charge and without further permission. Please credit the Colorado News Agency.

That trend now has the department  mulling how to wean Colorado off of a tax on gasoline altogether and steer the state instead toward a tax based on miles driven.

Department spokeswoman Stacey Stegman says talks right now are strictly preliminary and are geared toward possible legislation to create   the framework of a revenue-collection system—the blanks would be filled in later—and putting together a legislative task force to study the concept.

“We keep tabs on this issue and watch what other states are doing, but there is no plan at the moment—it’s just something to explore and consider,” said Stegman. ”

The advent of alternative-fuel vehicles like electric cars is just the latest development adding impetus to the department’s concerns; more efficient gasoline-burning cars have been the cause of a years-long, steady drop in gas-tax revenue.

Boulder’s Democratic Rep. Claire Levy, who drives a hybrid gas-electric car, says she is keen on the concept.  Times are ripe for the conversation to begin, says Levy. Pointing to a three-year downward trend in revenue collected at the pump, Levy contends that the department won’t be able to keep up with road maintenance.

“It’s definitely time to start looking at alternative ways to pay for our roads,” said Levy. “We can’t keep going with business as usual.”

House Transportation Committee Chair Glenn Vaad, R-Mead, also says the time may be ripe to look at alternative ways, based on miles traveled rather than gallons purchased, to fund roads—but taxpayers would need to warm up to the idea.

“It would take an evolutionary period,” said Vaad. “But in the meantime  these vehicles are not paying their fair share.”

Fair share is important, say both Vaad and Levy, since all vehicles contribute to the wear and tear of roadways regardless of what makes them run.  Vaad says traditional pay-at-the-pump revenue collection has evolved into inequalities.

Levy notes that owners of electric cars and hybrids, who generally pay more for their vehicles in exchange for zero-to-greatly-reduced gas costs and consumption,  need to realize the effect that paradigm shifts in gas consumption have had on the state’s ability to fund transportation needs.

“They must understand that their vehicles cause wear and tear on the roads too,” said Levy. “Gas consumption doesn’t mirror road usage anymore.”

You may use part or all of this article in Web or print publications, as well as in radio and TV broadcasts, at no charge and without further permission. Please credit the Colorado News Agency.

The familiar blue LOGO signs, which provide information to motorists about business establishments offering services such as food, gas and lodging, are currently restricted by law to  non-urban areas—those with populations under 200,000. Transportation officials floated the idea of seeking expansion into urban areas at an August meeting.

The department estimates that the state is foregoing  up to $200,000  in highway revenue by barring the signs in urban areas. Legislation is needed to to expand the program.

One likely sponsor is Sen. Mark Scheffel, R-Parker, who approached the transportation department about  the possibility last spring after talking with a constituent about the issue.

“The heart and soul of this issue is exposure for businesses,” said Scheffel. “I’ve been told these signs really work, and I’m drawn to any idea that helps out businesses.”

Larry Barrett, a member of Scenic Colorado, a Colorado group dedicated to advocating less billboard clutter, said the signs would be welcome as long as corresponding local laws were adjusted to limit billboards  in the areas where the LOGO signs would appear.

“We’re all about visual quality in life through less billboards,” said Barrett. “If this would help reduce clutter, and logically it would if they reduced the need for billboards, then we would support the signs.”

Additionally, Scheffel notes  the signs would not only  reduce billboard saturation, but could produce duel revenue streams–for the state and for businesses.

“Too much signage can be a bad thing and maybe this idea would help find the right balance,” said Scheffel. “The revenue for the state would certainly be an added benefit while businesses are benefiting as well.”

You may use part or all of this article in Web or print publications, as well as in radio and TV broadcasts, at no charge and without further permission. Please credit the Colorado News Agency.

Rep. Glenn Vaad, R-Mead, who sponsored similar legislation last spring, is having his proposal to suspend the testing drafted by legislative staffers for introduction in the 2012 legislative session.

“It made sense (during the spring 2011 session), and it makes even more sense now,” said Vaad.

Vaad says another year of data has yielded little to suggest the program should continue although controversy over the numbers themselves,  and the need for the testing, suggest the bill will again meet with considerable opposition.

“It certainly looks like it was a revenue issue, not a clean-air issue, since the county is already in compliance with EPA standards,” said Vaad. “Why continue the program when  the monitoring shows that there is not a problem?.

House Bill 1082, sponsored in the 2011 session by Vaad and Sen. Scott Renfroe, R-Greeley, would have repealed legislation passed only a year earlier by a Democratic-led legislature  expanding the Denver metro area’s long-standing and often-criticized auto emissions-testing program into Weld and Larimer counties.

That program requires each vehicle over four years old to undergo a tailpipe-and-treadmill test at state-designated garages operated by a contractor, sometimes requiring hours-long waits by motorists during peak periods.

Vaad’s new proposed measure, like last year’s, will allow for the program to be reinstated should air-quality numbers breach the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s acceptable threshold in ground level ozone.

The threshold for emissions is currently .075 by EPA standards, with measurements in the Greeley and Fort Collins areas from 3 monitors averaging out to .071 on up to .072 on a 3-year rolling average—the method by which the levels are calculated.

Weld County Commissioner Sean Conway says the testing, which he estimates costs motorists in Weld County $5 million annually, is spinning the wheels  of citizens needlessly and producing negligible results given that newer vehicles rarely fail the test and older vehicles are being phased out by sheer age.

“Why are we making our citizens go through this?” asks Conway. “This program doesn’t do anything to reduce ozone. We’re already in compliance, and it is costing people valuable time and money.”

Yet, Rep. John Kefalas, D-Fort Collins, of Larimer County, who voted against suspending the program last year, says he has not changed his mind.  Kefalas says he disagrees with an interpretation of the numbers that suggests the vehicle testing isn’t warranted and that health concerns should take precedence.

“It’ a matter of how you look at the data,” says Kefalas. “There’s still legitimate public health concerns, particularly for those who are most vulnerable to air quality such as those with asthma.”

According to Lucinda Smith, Senior Environmental Planner with the City of Fort Collins, the numbers have  measured up to .080 in the west Fort Collins area.

The EPA, which takes a look at the standards every five years, is due to review the thresholds in 2013. There was talk of lowering the threshold to .070, earlier than 2013, but the agency recently decided to put off the decision until the next five-year meeting.

As a way to address some of the cost issues of continuing the program, Kefalas says he is considering legislation seeking to clarify and to expand on what he says is a little-known provision in the program that provides need-based funding for repairs to vehicles failing the test.  Balance is key says Kefalas.

“We want to make sure that we run the program so that it’s not over-burdensome—especially in these hard economic times—but also look at public health issues,” he said.

You may use part or all of this article in Web or print publications, as well as in radio and TV broadcasts, at no charge and without further permission. Please credit the Colorado News Agency.

State law exempts the materials used in transportation projects from state-imposed sales and use taxes, but cities and counties are free to assess their own sales taxes and sometimes do.  The tax can add up when applied to building materials like asphalt for paving a new roadway.

The department maintains that the added cost decreases money available for yet other needed projects, exacerbating already meager transportation funds.

Department spokeswoman Stacey Stegman said the department, which discussed the idea at an August meeting, is interested in pursuing the issue legislatively.

“Adding a tax onto public projects when public funds are scarce just doesn’t make any sense,” said Stegman. “When a government agency is working in an area making improvements, local governments are charging us for the privilege.”

Republican Rep. Glenn Vaad, of Mead, says he would be happy to consider sponsoring a bill exempting CDOT from local taxes.  Taxpayer dollars shouldn’t be used to pay more taxes, says Vaad.

“It’s counter-intuitive to be using tax revenues to pay additional taxes,” said Vaad. “People in Colorado are suffering, the state is lacking funds, and further taxation is not part of the solution.”

However, Sen. Jeanne Nicholson, D-Black Hawk, vice chair of the Senate Local Government and Energy Committee, says if such legislation were introduced, it likely would encounter considerable push-back from local governments.

“Exempting CDOT from these taxes could create significant problems for some communities, and they wouldn’t like it one bit,” said Nicholson. “Some places could absorb the tax exemption, and it wouldn’t be significant, but poorer areas wouldn’t be able to absorb it at all.”

Yet, Sen. Lois Tochtrop, D-Thornton, who sits on the Senate Transportation Committee, notes that  the state is facing even tougher challenges than some local governments, and the idea may be worth considering.

“The state is hurting, everybody’s hurting, but the cities aren’t hurting as much as the state,” said Tochtrop. “The bottom line is that people need jobs, and if the money saved by CDOT in taxes produces more jobs, then it’s an idea worth looking at.”

You may use part or all of this article in Web or print publications, as well as in radio and TV broadcasts, at no charge and without further permission. Please credit the Colorado News Agency.

Impact fees are typically paid into an account, held by a city or county, by developers to cover current and future infrastructure costs, such as roadways, sewage systems, and public structures. Rep. Chris Holbert, R-Parker, who sponsored the transparency measure–House bill 11-1113– with Sen. Joyce Foster, D-Denver, said it’s about having the books readily available for anyone to see.

“The intent is to dispel any concerns about the money that has been deposited for infrastructure needs. The industry, along with the cities and counties said, ‘Let’s get some basic accounting on the internet,’ ” said Holbert. “This allows developers and property owners to know that the money is still there and what the balance is.”

On a larger scale, House Bill 11-1002, sponsored by Rep. B.J. Nikkel, R-Loveland, and Republican Senate Minority Leader Mike Kopp, of Littleton, ensures that state transportation dollars–what’s collected and how the money is spent–are transparent as well.

The Colorado Department of Transportation is singled out because its accounting is not subject to the state’s transparency on-line project; that’s because the department is largely funded through its own revenue derived from excise taxes and fees.

Rep. Mark Ferrandino, D-Denver, a co-sponsor of the bill and one of six lawmakers responsible for writing the state’s annual budget, said transparency in government is crucial.

“It’s important that we get as much information as we can out to the taxpayers with a better and more transparent government,” said Ferrandino. “As people expect more online, they expect more from their government. People want to know how those dollars are being spent.”

You may use part or all of this article in Web or print publications, as well as in radio and TV broadcasts, at no charge and without further permission. Please credit the Colorado News Agency.

In a presentation to the Transportation Legislative Review Committee, the Colorado Department of Transportation got quickly to the point, delivered by CDOT’s Chief Financial Officer Ben Stein.

“I will venture to surmise that the gravy train has come to an end,” said Stein. “They’ve been passing out more money than they’ve been collecting through gas taxes,” said Stein. “We are going to be more reliant on state funds than ever. Relying on federal revenues to sustain the system going forward, given what we’re all seeing in Washington today, and their history, is not something that I would bet on. ”

Department Director Don Hunt said Colorado needs to look inward.

“We aren’t going to get bailed out here by the federal government,” said Hunt. “There’s no way.  It’s up to us as a state to be the state that we want to be.”

One possible way for the state to wean itself off federal dollars is to begin looking at alternatives to the gas tax, Hunt said. Approximately 18 cents per gallon of gas sold goes to the federal government and 22 cents  goes to the state, he said. Colorado may want to consider more pay-for-use scenarios such as tolling, he said.

“We don’t have the policy yet, but one of the things we’re thinking about is wherever we are able to add capacity to a state highway, should it be free? We’re at that point,” said Hunt.

Hunt told the panel that tolling, which is already in use on some roadways, helps pave the way for expansions such as on U.S. 36, where the goal is to have dedicated lanes in both direction for car-poolers or toll-paying vehicles. Hunt said a tolling revenue will cover about a third of the project’s cost.

Meanwhile, with just over 50 percent of the state’s roadways deemed by the Transportation Department to be in poor condition, committee chair Glenn Vaad, a Republican state representative from Mead, said Colorado drivers are looking to the department for answers. Vaad noted the state’s motorists already are paying gas taxes and added vehicle registration fees.

“I hear from colleagues and constituents about the conditions of roadways. They want to know–does the department recognize what’s happening to the roadway system?” said Vaad.

Rep. Randy Fischer, D-Fort Collins, asked about money that had been set aside by the provisions of a measure, Referendum C, passed by the voters in 2005 allocating revenue to K-12 education, higher education, health care and transportation.

“It was kind of a windfall to transportation,” said Fischer. “A lot more money went into the general fund for transportation than backers anticipated.  I’m wondering how much of Referendum C money, percentage-wise, went to transportation as opposed to some of the other things it was intended for.”

Legislative Council staffer Kate Watkins responded that it’s difficult to calculate how much of that revenue stream has actually gone into transportation.

“There is some difficulty in really identifying what revenue from Referendum C went where, and a lot of it has to do with the fungibility of money,” said Watkins. “Basically we don’t know exactly where the Referendum C dollars go.”

You may use part or all of this article in Web or print publications, as well as in radio and TV broadcasts, at no charge and without further permission. Please credit the Colorado News Agency.