In a signing ceremony at Aero Applicators, a crop-spraying service in Sterling , Reps. Jerry Sonnenberg, R-Sterling, and Jon Becker, R-Fort Morgan, joined the governor for the bill signing.

House Bill 1005, sponsored by Sonnenberg and Sen. Greg Brophy, R-Wray, repeals the provisions of last year’s House Bill 10-1195, which suspended tax exemptions on products used in agricultural goods such as pharmaceuticals for animals, pesticides and bull semen.

Sonnenberg says the repeal affords farmers and ranchers an opportunity to get back on their feet.

“With the economic hardships that many rural Coloradans face, the repeal of the ag tax will give ranchers and farmers the opportunity to grow their agribusinesses without burdening them with tax increases,” said Sonnenberg.

Yet, restoring exemptions from taxes may come at too high a cost, says Rep. Dickie Hullinghorst, D-Niwot, who opposed the measure when it was considered by the House.

“Everybody needs to take a little bit of a cut in these hard times,” said Hullinghorst.  “The agriculture market is doing pretty well right now, so, the question is—what is the trade-off here? There may be some other priorities for that revenue.”

The restoration of the tax exemption was a key component of budget negotiations that took place during the recently adjourned legislative session.  Majority House Republicans and minority Senate Republicans  sought to reinstate the exemptions, saying the ag community had been harmed after the exemptions were taken away.

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.

Republicans in both chambers overwhelmingly supported the proposal in the legislature, casting it as a necessary step in budget balancing. However, it has divided Democrats, who are hearing vocal opposition from key constituent groups.

The measure, Senate Bill 213, sponsored by Sens. Mary Hodge, D-Brighton, Pat Steadman, D-Denver, and Kent Lambert, R-Colorado Springs; and Reps. Cheri Gerou, R-Evergreen, Jon Becker, R-Fort Morgan, and Mark Ferrandino, D-Denver—all serving on the Joint Budget Committee—makes changes to the Colorado Children’s Health Plan, or CHP. The JBC members said they brought the bill forward as a reasonable cost-saving measure to help balance a beleaguered budget.

The $25 annual enrollment fee will continue to apply to families between 150 percent to 205 percent of the federal poverty level, but families with 205-250 percent of the poverty level—the maximum allowed for the program—will now pay a monthly fee. The proposed fee would be $20 for the first child and an additional $10 per month for each additional child up to a maximum of $50 per month. Annual income for an affected family of four is approximately $40-56 thousand.

The Colorado Children’s Campaign has been publicly asking for the governor to veto the measure, stating in a press release, “….fiscal analysis shows this policy will cost, not save, the state money.  Furthermore, we know cost sharing of this kind causes kids who need coverage to drop out of the program and will add to the administrative burden for the state.”

During Senate debate on the bill, Steadman told his Democratic colleagues—13 of 21 Democrats wound up voting against the bill—that the imposition of a fee would have minimal effect on those families participating in the program.

“This is not the entire universe of CHP enrollees,” said Steadman. “It’s families that are on the higher end of income thresholds.”

Sen. Irene Aguilar, D-Denver, argued that the fee increase would not bring the promised savings because of projections that an estimated 20 percent of families would drop out of the program given the added cost.

“We’ll end up with more children that are uninsured in our state. That means more children in emergency rooms,” said Aguilar. “This will end up costing us more than we would save.”

Similar arguments carried over to the House when the measure was considered there.

“I fear that it will not bring the returns that we would hope, and it could really harm a lot of our families who cannot afford to pay these premiums,” said Rep. Su Ryden, D-Aurora.

Rep. Daniel Pabon, D-Denver, said the bill’s added strain on household budgets could hurt children, whose health care needs are not only a priority in Colorado but nationally as well.

“As a public policy in the United States of America, we have decided that there are those amongst us who deserve protections….in this case it’s our children,” said Pabon. “This puts the onus of coverage for health care on them (the children) because their parents don’t have the ability to pay the premiums.”

The measure garnered the full support of Senate and House Republicans, who all voted in favor of the proposal. Sen. Greg Brophy, R-Wray, said supporting the bipartisan budget committee’s proposal was not difficult for him.

“This isn’t a hard decision to make,” said Brophy. “It’s time to move forward with the tough choices that we need to make to balance the budget.”

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.

Senate Bill 32, by Sen. Mike Johnston, D-Denver, would create a loan program for homeowners wanting to install energy-efficient improvements like new windows, doors and insulation. The loans would be facilitated by public utilities like Xcel Energy as well as  banks and would benefit from eased borrowing criteria that would extend credit to those who may not otherwise qualify.

For homeowners to be eligible, an energy audit first would be performed on their homes to identify inefficiencies. Payments for the low-interest loans would be made alongside a borrower’s utility bill—a bill that Johnson projects will be lower thanks to the enhanced energy efficiency from the improvements.

Committee action on the legislation was postponed to a later date, pending amendments.

“This is one of the few bills that actually reduces dollar amounts that people pay on their utility bills,” said Johnston.

Johnson says the concept is motivated by environmental concerns but also produces economic benefits for homeowners who invest in improvements for their home.

“This is not just a cute thing because there’ll be more trees in Colorado. This is about more jobs, less paid out in bills, and it reduces energy uses,” said Johnston.

Critics of the proposal raised concerns over repayment of the loans, which would remain with the borrower even if the property were sold.

“They’d be paying for something they no longer use,” said Sen. Lucia Guzman, D-Denver.

Sen. Greg Brophy, R-Wray, questioned the wisdom of granting the loans without the leverage of prudent risk-assessment tools.

“The only people you can really help with this are the ones that couldn’t get these loans on their own. So, effectively, this is just another give-away program,” said Brophy.

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.

House Bill 1005, sponsored by Sen. Greg Brophy, R-Wray, in the Senate and introduced by Rep. Jerry Sonnenberg, R-Sterling, repeals the provisions of last year’s House Bill 10-1195, which suspended tax exemptions on products used in agricultural goods such as pharmaceuticals for animals, pesticides and bull semen.

Brophy told the Senate Finance Committee hearing the bill that the agricultural community responded to last year’s discontinuation of the exemption by buying  what they needed across state lines, where the items are not taxed.

“These folks are simply doing what they have to keep their farms and ranches afloat,” said Brophy. “When they buy out of state, they are hurtng Colorado businesses.”

Sen. Michael Johnston, D-Denver said he welcomed the chance to restore the exemption. Recalling his visits to farms and ranches last summer, Johnston said he repeatedly heard from farmers and ranchers that the tax was burdensome to their bottom lines.

“I’m glad to have the opportunity to reinstate this for them,” said Johnston.

However, the unanimity in the bill’s passage is due, in part, to a negotiated agreement made between Democratic and Republican lawmakers over the 2011 budget.

Critics of the agreement say that the cost of restoring the exemption is too high.

“Every dollar counts when we’re balancing the budget, and now is not the time to reduce revenue,” said Ali Mickelson, a tax policy analyst with the Colorado Fiscal Policy Institute.

Yet, Sen. Lucia Guzman, D-Denver, said that she wouldn’t have voted for taking away the exemption in the first place even though her party supported the suspension last year.

“I know what it’s like living in a rural community from growing up in Texas,” said Guzman. “I may have been unpopular with my party but I would not have voted with them on this.”

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.

House Bill 1146,  which was approved by the Senate Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee, requires that up to two acres of ag property that a home sits on can be taxed at the higher residential rate—if the home’s not “integral” to agricultural production.

HB 1146 Senate sponsor Pat Steadman, D-Denver, says it’s about fairness and necessity.

“It’s about school finance and the budget,” said Steadman. “If we have residential property not paying their fair share, it has an impact on the funding of our schools. It’s about fairness.”

Voting against the measure in on the committee was Sen. Greg Brophy, R-Wray, who said there is an unanswered question about the proposed tax increase.

“It’s a tough call,’” said Brophy. “We should have equal taxation for equal property—however, it’s still an open question about whether or not this is just another tax increase that is subject to TABOR.”

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.

House Bill 1116, sponsored by Rep. Libby Szabo, R-Arvada, and Sen. Greg Brophy, R-Wray, would have exempted local governments that are already handling trash service.

Brophy told the Senate Local Government Committee hearing the bill that the fees cities charge for trash collection might not align with what individuals are willing to spend on the service.  Consumers should have the final say, not the city, says Brophy.

“We shouldn’t be tacking on a brand new fee that people may or may not want,” said Brophy. “All this is saying is, ‘Please ask us first.’ If we’re going to switch from a private service to a public service, it should be up to the people of that community to decide.”

Opposition to the bill centered on concerns about local control and the ability of local government to determine what’s best for a community.

Among those opposing HB 1116 was Scott Hutchings of publicly traded garbage conglomerate Waste Management Inc. Hutchings said decisions about local trash collection shouldn’t be dictated by the state government but by local government.

“Waste services shouldn’t be singled out from other services,” said Hutchings. “The state shouldn’t be telling cities what to do and how they should govern.”

Sen. Jeanne Nicholson, D- Black Hawk, before voting against the bill, related to the committee her experience as a local elected official.

“There was never a topic more passionately debated than trash,” said Nicholson. “It’s important to let local government make these decisions and let the process be played out at the local level.”

The vote against the measure was unanimous.

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.

“It got a life of its own and people blew it out of proportion,” said Boyd.

The measure, Senate Bill 200, creates a framework for health-benefit exchanges, to be formed as prescribed by the federal Health Care Reform Act.

Much of the outcry over the introduction of the measure came from constituents of its Republican House sponsor, Majority Leader Amy Stephens, of Monument.  Stephens stands by her sponsorship, saying the exchanges are not only a Republican-inspired concept but that they also should be designed by Coloradans.

“If you look at how the Post Office is running, I’m not sure we want the exchanges left up to the federal government,” said Stephens. “The exchanges are a free-market idea that, absent some of the provisions of the federal law, are a good idea.”

Boyd said that despite the firestorm that accompanied SB 200’s introduction, the measure has so far enjoyed considerable bipartisan cooperation.

“We have had incredible agreement and support for this bill,” said Boyd. “Not every provision is loved by everybody, but it was put together in a bipartisan way.”

Stephens concurs with Boyd and said that she is confident that with Coloradans at the helm, the federally required arrangement will ultimately reflect Colorado values.

“We have good health care minds here in Colorado,” said Stephens.

Stephens adds that the  exchanges are something that the business community, which is often the portal through which people get their health insurance, embraces and has been asking for.

“I did it for small businesses who have been asking for a way to provide coverage for their employees,” said Stephens. “Business pays for health insurance and wanted oversight, and they got it with the crafting of this bill.”

Prominent groups representing the business community issued a  prepared statement today addressing the Senate Health and Human Services Committee and the House Health and Environment Committee, expressing satisfaction with the measure.

“The business coalition worked with sponsors to create a bill that provides great access to affordable care while promoting a competitive marketplace that protects private industry jobs, and provides employers with additional affordable choices when considering health benefits for employers,” said the Colorado Association of Commerce and Industry, the Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce, the Colorado Competitive Council, Colorado Concern and the National Federation of Independent Business.

Also supportive of the exchanges is Sen. Irene Aguilar, D- Denver, a physician. Aguilar has a bill of her own, Senate Bill 168, that would create a Colorado health care cooperative, essentially creating a single Colorado health care group that self-administers.  Aguilar says her goal is to see all Coloradans insured.

“The exchanges have the potential to help make things easier for insurance reform,” said Aguilar. “Someone needs to pay for people who get sick, and we need to ask ourselves how we can do that. The exchange gives the small-group markets the same power as large group-markets, making it more affordable.”

Sen. Greg Brophy, R-Wray, says he understands the rhetoric swirling around the measure.

“I can sum it up in four words,” said Brophy. “Good policy, toxic 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.

Senate Bill 131, by Sen. Suzanne Williams, D-Aurora, would have required three state agencies, the Department of Labor, the Governor’s Energy Office, and a new division to be formed in the Office of Economic Development, to study ways to move the smart grid concept forward for implementation.

A smart grid is an emerging technological concept in energy that encompasses consumption, production and distribution.  Under a smart grid, consumers would send and receive information about their energy usage—from large appliances down to a single light bulb.  The information would be transmitted to a utility provider who could then respond accordingly using the real-time, aggregated, energy-usage data.

In 2008 the Colorado Public Utility Commission authorized Xcel Energy to implement a scaled-down version in Boulder.  The costs have since escalated beyond the original $15 million estimate to nearly $30 million. The PUC gave permission to Xcel to pass on the cost to all of its customers, not just those in the Boulder area.

Although SB131 only would have looked at the feasibility of, and paths to, implementation, Williams told the Senate Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee, where the bill was heard, that her proposal represented an important step.

“Colorado is well-positioned to be an intellectual leader in smart grids,” said Williams. “It brings environmental benefits, but it also gives the consumer more control over their energy usage.”

Sen. Greg Brophy, R-Wray, said the technology is intriguing and that many small utility providers have already implemented aspects of the concept.  However, said Brophy,  government should not second-guess the marketplace, where advances in technology intersect with cost efficiencies in the right time and place.

“It’s dangerous (for the state government) to get ahead of the technological curve when so many (in the private sector) are doing this without an additional level of bureaucracy,” said Brophy.

The measure failed in the Democratic-controlled committee after Democratic Sen. Lucia Guzman, of Denver, voted with minority Republicans in opposition.

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.

Right now, government contracts with the private sector are theoretically subject to public scrutiny but, says Aurora Democratic Sen. Morgan Carroll, not always accessible in practice. Carroll wants to ensure that the public receives the information undeterred by roadblocks along the way.

Senate Bill 25, sponsored by Carroll and Rep. Mark Ferrandino, D-Denver, in the House has been dubbed by its sponsors “the Colorado Taxpayers Empowerment Act of 2011.”  Under current law, contracts that the state enters into for procurement—acquiring goods or services from vendors—are subject to open-record requests under the “Colorado Open Records Act” or CORA.  SB 25 would explicitly include the CORA requirement in the signed contract language between the state and the vendor.

Carroll says the measure is needed because the open-records process is often challenged in terms of what information is subject to public scrutiny.

“It’s been hit and miss,” said Carroll. “In this day and age no state contract should be out there without transparency.”

The bill passed the Senate Finance Committee with an approving nod from all but one panel member, Sen. Greg Brophy, R-Wray, although not without a revision by Carroll.

The measure originally would have required vendors to supply state departments, and members of the legislative body, access to vendor records relating to the costs or performance measures of their contracts with the state.  Carroll agreed to scale back the measure to just the statement about CORA in the contract to smooth over objections by some in the business community.

Brophy said the amended version of the bill differed little from the status quo although he said he was not too keen on the bill anyway because it pried too deeply into the affairs of private business.  Transparency, said Brophy should reside with government, not private business.

“It (the amended bill) no longer does anything. It puts in a boilerplate clause in a contract saying that the law has to be followed,” said Brophy. “We don’t need to be opening up the books on private businesses, looking at profit margins. We need to be looking at the contracts that the government enters into with an eye toward efficiency.”

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.

House Bill 1092 by Rep. Andy Kerr, D-Lakewood, and Sen. Greg Brophy, R-Wray, says that cities and counties cannot ban bicyclists from public roads. Members of Bicycle Colorado joined Kerr speaking in favor of the measure at a press event before its scheduled vote Wednesday in the House.

“Coloradans are avid cyclists, and this bill ensures that residents and tourists are able to travel to every corner of our beautiful state,” said Kerr. “This bill ensures that this healthy way to commute, exercise and enjoy Colorado’s scenery is available to all.”

Allowing bike traffic became more of an issue for bicycle enthusiasts when the city of Blackhawk banned bikes from rolling through town last year.  The ban forced riders to follow a 55-mile detour when touring a nationally promoted bike route featuring national parks in Colorado.

Rep. Laura Bradford, R-Collbran, said she’s not yet inclined one way or the other on the bill but has some concerns about prohibiting communities from exerting local control over their roadways.

“Each community should be able to make that choice (about bikes),” said Bradford. “I’m concerned that imposing such a ban could curtail a community from acting in their own best interests.”

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.