“I’m sick of the dog-and-pony show. … We sit there and listen to every school come in front of us and tell us how great they are. I think it’s a waste of our time,” said the committee’s Rep. Mark Ferrandino, D-Denver.  ”Instead, we should actually have conversations. ”

The conversation Ferrandino says he wants to have is one centered on  issues and challenges colleges and universities are facing and the long-term prognosis for higher education in Colorado—rather than the usual litany delivered by school presidents of student numbers and great programs offered.  An annual presentation to the budget committee is given by all state departments, including the Department of Higher Education.

The hearing, scheduled later in the month, allots 20 minutes or so for school presidents to talk about their schools. Ferrandino said he would prefer a frank discussion over the future of higher education.

“I know that higher education  presidents are very reluctant in public forums to talk about all the problems that are going on because at the end of the day they’re salespeople for their institutions,” said Ferrandino.  “But, I think that does a disservice to both this committee and the people of Colorado. We need to figure out a way to make those conversations happen even if it’s a little uncomfortable for them. ”

Sen. Kent Lambert, R-Colorado Springs concurred.

“Hearing the same thing from the same people, I think, has diminishing returns, and I think that we need to get down to the formula and real management (for higher ed),” said Lambert.

Meanwhile, Sen. Pat Steadman, D- Denver, said more emphasis on problems higher education is facing would be appreciated.

“I do wish there was a way to condense this and get a little less sunshine blown in our faces.” said Steadman.  “A little bit more honest conversation about what needs to change. ”

Added Ferrandino, “There’s a huge elephant in the room–about long-term funding and what are we going to do as a state with higher education.  We hear about all the great things they’re doing but we never hear about what happens if the funding dries up and what happens if there’s zero state dollars.”

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.

Aurora Democratic Rep. Nancy Todd said the adjustment from being in the House majority last year to being in the minority this year is not  a minor one—especially in terms of the ability to see legislation through to a desired outcome—but ultimately decorum  prevailed.

“This was a new role for all of us,” said Todd. “It was an adjustment across the board, but I think we all handled it with dignity. Every committee chair treated others with dignity and respect. They recognized that the tables were now turned and that we were now where they sat last year.”

Despite limitations inherent in being in the minority, Todd says she is pleased she was able to push through a bipartisan bill she says is just good policy—trumping partisan politics. The measure, Senate bill 40, addresses head injuries to children in school athletics.

“This bill is significant because it is a preventative measure for both kids and coaches for concussion injuries,” said Todd. “I am thrilled to have been a part of making that happen.”

From the Senate side, Sen. Kevin Grantham, R-Canon City, said being in the minority is all he’s ever known—this session being his first term. The Senate Republicans have not enjoyed the perks of being in the majority since 2002. However, Grantham said successes for his constituents and the state of Colorado were still achieved with help from his side of the aisle.

In particular, Grantham cites House Bill 1083, a bill that he sponsored allowing the Public Utilities Commission to consider hydroelectricity for generating electrical power.

“The passage of HB 1083 is a positive step for Colorado with its potential for jobs and for a viable source of energy,” said Grantham.

His biggest regret, said Grantham, was his inability to prevent the closure of the Fort Lyons prison, a casualty of statewide budget cuts.

“It’s hard not to be gloomy, but it’s the reality of the state budget right now,” said Grantham.

Still, Todd maintains that perhaps the silver lining of the divided legislature is that it provided a forum for fostering better relations between the parties, at least from her perspective as a House member.

“I saw a real growth in relationships from across the aisle this year,” said Todd. “Good government prevailed as we learned to work together. In most cases, compromise took precedence over partisan politics.”

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 defeated measure, Senate Bill 23 by Republican Sen. Kent Lambert, of Colorado Springs, was considered today in the Senate Transportation Committee.  With his bill, Lambert wanted state employees to reimburse the state for miles driven to and from work in a state owned vehicle—miles that are already taxed by the IRS as a fringe benefit.

“Very few people get to have a company car to drive back and forth to work,’ said Lambert. “Free rides on the taxpayer’s dime shouldn’t be happening and we need more accountability for this practice.”

The measure identified what constitutes commuting to and from work and specifies that the state employee must compensate the state for those commuting miles.  Defining what a commute is became the focus of discussion especially in the case of first responders, particularly those in rural areas who are on call 24/7, many of whom do not have an office they commute to on a daily basis.

Sen. Nancy Spence, R-Centennial, said she couldn’t support the bill because of the adverse impact it may have had on law enforcement who must have their work-equipped vehicles at home in order to respond quickly to emergency situations.

“I can’t turn my back on law enforcement who will be hurt by this bill,” said Spence.  “ It’s not fair to ask them to pay for a tool that they are required to use.”

Lambert remained steadfast that in his belief that abuses could be weeded out without creating hardships of those who legitimately used the vehicles for work purposes.

“There is a pattern of behavior that shows use of these vehicles as a fringe benefit,” said Lambert, citing recent audits that point to a potential $900 thousand in savings to the state if it were reimbursed.  “In these budgetary times something needs to be done about this benefit that is not part of their total compensation.”

Sen. Lois Tochtrop, D-Thornton, said searching for extra dollars in the pockets of state workers was something she could not support especially in light of possible proposals of cuts in pay.

‘I’m tired of hearing about state employees bearing the brunt of our budget problems,” Tochtrop 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.

Addressing the revenue side of the ledger, House Bill 1052 has been dubbed the “pay as you go” bill by its sponsors.

If approved, the measure would require any bill that needs a budget appropriation to show evidence of sufficient revenue—or show where cuts can be made elsewhere to afford the proposal.

Rep. Dickey Lee Hullinghorst, D-Boulder, the sponsor of HB 1052, says it will “ensure the state never spends more money than it has.”

“These are tough economic times and there is nothing more important that we can do as legislators,” Hullinghorst said. She added that lawmakers must, “make it very clear to taxpayers how their hard-earned tax dollars are being spent and how the core services they count on are being impacted.”

House Minority Leader Sal Pace, D-Pueblo, says it’s a matter of necessity.

“We’re asking for straight talk on our money, not arbitrary action, but a real conversation about how the budget gets balanced.  New programs cost money—money we don’t have,” said Pace. “We should be honest about how we’re going to pay for these.”

Specified in the bill are tax credits and exemptions; the elimination of some, 12 in all, were at the center of a firestorm last year over objections by Republican lawmakers and the business community. If any credits or exemptions were to be restored, or offered anew, HB 10952 would require the sponsor of such legislation to identify “which programs will be directly cut to pay for the new handout,” according to the Democratic sponsors of the measure.

GOP House Finance Committee Chair Rep. Brian DelGrosso, of Loveland, said today that the money the sponsors are referring to belongs to the taxpayers first and foremost, and for the sponsors to cast a loss of revenue as an expenditure for the state just doesn’t make sense.

“Allowing a business or an individual to keep its own money and calling it a revenue expenditure is upside-down thinking,” said Delgrosso. “They’ve had several years to run a bill like this—and now they’re choosing to run it?  This bill is just a gimmick to appear fiscally responsible.”

HB 1052 will be in the House Finance Committee Thursday upon adjournment.

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.

Just one day before the 2011 legislative session begins, the Joint Budget Committee began approving numerous measures to be considered by the full General Assembly—among which is a clone of last year’s Senate Bill 10-146 that decreased the state’s contribution into PERA by 2.5 percent and increased the employee’s contribution by 2.5 percent for one year.

JBC staffers who run and know the budget numbers intimately recommended that last year’s bill be renewed, but for a two-year period rather than just one year.

Sen. Pat Steadman, D-Denver, said he reluctantly agreed with the recommendation, adding, “I think we should bite the bullet and do it for two years.”

Rep. Mark Ferrandino, D-Denver, agreed the extension is necessary but said that extending the increase for two years rather than one would cause a stir among state employees who successfully lobbied last year to keep it at one year.

The panel voted to move forward with the legislation—with a one-year timetable.

Part-time state employees may face an even greater reduction in state contributions to benefits through another measure considered by the panel.  Under current policy, part-time employees receive 100 percent of the health, dental, and life insurance benefits that full-time employees receive.  The state contributes fixed amounts toward employees and their families regardless of position, time served and the number of hours worked.

The staff-recommended measure would prorate the insurance benefits by hours worked.

Rep. Kent Lambert, R-Colorado Springs, brought up issues that were recently raised in the Legislative Audit Committee when it learned the state’s benefit package for part-time employees seemed to exceed that of the private sector. Lambert, who also serves on the Legislative Audit Committee, questioned the wisdom of giving state employees benefits that eclipse those in the private sector.

“It seems to me that people working 20 hours a week in the private sector are not getting 100 percent of health, life and dental, in this economy especially,” said Lambert.  “Why are we not comparing this to the private sector? “

Ferrandino had a different concern, asking if reducing benefits for part-time employees would align with future requirements under federal health-care provisions, and he said he wasn’t quite ready to cut back on benefits for part-time employees.

The panel decided to give the proposal another round of scrutiny after the details are fleshed out in draft form before making a decision to move forward with legislation.

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.

At issue is what’s called “Enhanced FMAP” dollars, meaning federal stimulus funding parceled out to the states for funding low-income health care atop the traditional 50-50 federal-state split in Medicaid funding.  The state will receive the extra money for the first half of the 2010-2011 fiscal year, but the money for 2011 has not yet been authorized by Congress, and some say federal lawmakers are now dragging their feet on the enhanced FMAP authorization.  Without the payout from the feds, Colorado will be liable for $245 million in Medicaid spending in 2011.  However, the money has already been spent, in a budgetary sense, in the 2010-2011 fiscal year for other programs.

Fiscal analyst Melodie Beck quickly boiled it down for lawmakers  at today’s Joint Budget Committee meeting. The state’s latest quarterly economic forecast, she said, while incrementally better, shows that the state’s economy has not yet fully recovered indicating that a $245 million shortfall is indeed significant.

“We’ve budgeted money from Congress that we may not get,” said Beck.

Lawmakers, along with Gov. Bill Ritter, during the 2010 legislative session, balanced the 2010-2011 budget on the assumption that Congress would reauthorize the enhanced FMAP dollars.  Not all lawmakers were comfortable with spending money in Colorado that was not guaranteed and that was part of the federal bailout of the economy.

The GOP’s Rep. Kent Lambert of Colorado Springs, a member of the budget committee while the 2010-2011 budget was being crafted, said that the state probably should not have relied on the federal dollars in the first place although he said he understands why the committee moved forward with the budget, propped up in part by the federal money.

“The assumption was made, understandably so, that Congress would pass the extension of the enhanced FMAP dollars.  That hasn’t happened yet and it looks like it might not happen,” said Lambert.  “Bottom line though is that it was not appropriated money by the federal government and we shouldn’t be developing a budget on money that is not appropriated.”

The governor has the authority to reduce spending during the fiscal year, and the legislature could introduce legislation when it convenes in January to address the $245 million shortfall if it so chooses, according to legislative council staff.

Lambert says that although it’s not apparent in current revenue trends, there is a slight possibility that the money will be there when needed from more homegrown sources than the federal government—an increase of revenue in Colorado.

“Even though we budgeted to the FMAP money we don’t even know what the revenue will be when the time comes,” said Lambert

The measure proposed by Democratic House Majority Leader, Paul Weismann  of Lousiville,  would direct the General Assembly’s Legislative Council to prepare a report that reviews each tax exemption and credit at prescribed intervals.  The reports would then be provided to the legislature for their consideration.

“Dynamic analysis” is at the heart of the measure, which is a process that takes into account the effect of the exemption or credit on the budget and the economy.  Rep. Kent Lambert, R-Colorado Springs, said dynamic analysis has been bandied about over the years, but he questions the notion of singling out tax credits and exemptions as the sole barometer of decisions regarding tax policy.

“To say we’re going to apply this concept just to tax credits and exemptions — the only action that can possibly be taken is we’re going to eliminate the tax credit or exemption,” said Lambert.  “That’s the only actionable thing.”

Lambert further asserts that the impetus for the measure may be just a political maneuver.

“It’s only going after tax credits and exemptions that were put there for a particular reason,” said Lambert. “I think it’s become a political analysis and not an objective economic analysis.”

Weismann was not immediately available for comment.

While there is not yet a determination on the cost of the proposal, Lambert speculates that to develop this new capability would probably require increases in staff and budget.  However, he believes that regardless of the cost the proposal may not pass constitutional muster.

“This whole thing is built on what we think is an illegal notion, and a faulty notion that denies the clear text of the constitution,” said Lambert.

“I have had the privilege of serving as the governor of Colorado for three years now. And what a privilege it is,” Ritter said in his opening remarks.

He spoke of strides that have been made toward education reform, fiscal reform and a new energy economy.

In reference to the federal “Race to the Top” grant money that the state is seeking for K-12 education, Ritter said that Colorado is well positioned to win some of the funding, that the state has been racing to the top for years and is ready to implement reform.

“We’re tackling the drop-out rate, and CSAPs are going the way of the dinosaurs,” declared Ritter, getting generous applause from the Democratic members in the audience. The state’s use of Colorado Student Assessment Program tests in public schools has been hotly debated for years and has many critics among Democrats.

On fiscal reform the governor talked of efforts made to stabilize the economy but acknowledged the state isn’t out of the woods yet.

“While an economic recovery is indeed underway, a revenue recovery is a year away. That means more tough, unpopular but necessary decisions,”  Ritter warned, followed by a veiled jab at the GOP, which has called on the governor to cut the size of the bureaucracy.

“It will not be enough to stay on the sidelines, to constantly criticize, to offer nothing but $10 solutions to billion-dollar problems,” he said.

The governor touted his signature, New Energy Economy, contending  it has created thousands of new jobs, new markets and new revenue.

“In these uncertain times, the New Energy Economy, which did not exist three years ago, continues to be our beacon to a brighter future,”  Ritter said.

Republican lawmakers responded to the governor’s remarks with their own prescription for Colorado.

“As lawmakers we should have one thing in mind—implementing policies that set the stage for a return to economic prosperity,” said Assistant Senate Minority Leader Greg Brophy, R-Wray.  “Republicans have one resounding message for our Democrat counterparts: Don’t raise taxes and fees during a recession.”

Ritter’s decsion last week not to seek re-election opened the door for Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper to step into the 2010 governor’s race. Hickenlooper announced on Tuesday that he would seek the Democratic nomination against leading Republican contender Scott McInnis.

Some 347 inmates already approved for placement in community-corrections programs–comprising 1.5 percent of the state’s total inmate population–are still awaiting placement. State budget analysts say allowing accelerated placement could relieve the backlog and ease pressure on the state’s strapped budget because inmates placed outside of prisons cost less than those in a prison.

In testimony before the Joint Budget Committee, budget staffer Patrick Brodhead said speeding up placement would involve changing the current system of locally governed, community-corrections boards, but he acknowledged the idea could hit resistance from the communities themselves.

“It’s not going to be popular, I can tell you that,” Brodhead said.

Community corrections facilities provide an alternative to incarceration in prison for individuals convicted of less severe offenses and individuals in transition between prison and parole  in order to aid reintegration of offenders back into the community.

Under current policy, inmates must meet the criteria set forth by the community board in the locale where the inmates will be paroled—assuming beds are available in that jurisdiction. Local community-corrections boards currently have the authority to accept or reject any offender referred for placement, giving them the ability to determine which inmates they believe are acceptable for their community.

Three changes were suggested by Brodhead in order to increase the utilization of available beds.

• Standardizing criteria for placement across community board jurisdictions; the criteria now rest with each community board.
• Creating regional governance—central, northeast, southern, and western—rather than by judicial districts
• Transfering administration funding for the community-corrections program to the Departments of Corrections and Judiciary.

Rep. Jack Pommer, D-Boulder, who chairs the budget committee, said curbing statutorily recognized local control over the boards may be problematic.

“We’ve created a pretty powerful voice for community control,” Pommer said, adding that the proposal would “take away their control and essentially usurp their authority over their communities.”

Rep. Claire Levy, D-Boulder, recommended that further investigation be done to look into the individual components driving the issue to see if there are compelling reasons to override local control.

“I wouldn’t want to take that step without understanding all the dynamics of it,” said Levy.

No action was taken by the Joint Budget Committee and no potential legislation emerged today as a result of the discussion.