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.

Sen. Scott Renfroe, R-Greeley, sponsor of Senate Bill 50, said he wanted to get people’s views on the issue, and he said the response now has gone viral.  Renfroe said he is getting emails at least every 15 minutes from folks saying they support his bill.

“I can’t tell you how many people come up to me and tell their stories about the cameras,” said Renfroe.  “The e-mails I am getting in droves are all in favor of doing away with the cameras.”

City governments are saying it’s about safety, says Renfroe,  but the Weld County lawmaker begs to differ. He says it’s really about generating revenue for local coffers.

“It’s not about safety,” said Renfroe. “It’s just ridiculous to go with cameras and ‘Big Brother’ looking for money.”

Yet, Rep. Randy Fischer, D-Fort Collins, says the proposal interferes with decisions best left to local communities.

“We don’t need state government micromanaging local traffic laws,” said Fischer. “Colorado has a long tradition of local control. Community policing belongs in the community.”

Renfroe’s legislation comes as controversy has erupted again in Denver over the use of red-light cameras, which an audit found were routinely issuing citations to motorists merely for stopping past the white line at intersections.

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.

“The overpayments should be of concern to every Coloradan,” Pace wrote in his letter to the Legislative Audit Committee.

Pace said it was recent reports of overpayments as well as a move by Democratic Gov. John Hickenlooper—directing the department on Wednesday to work with the federal Department of Labor on adopting new strategies to detect, eliminate and recover overpayments—that prompted him to make the request.

Pace is asking for a review of how the overpayments happened, a look at  accounting procedures within the department’s Unemployment Insurance Division, and for recommendations to prevent any of it from happening again.

“We have an obligation to make sure we fully understand the extent of the problem,” said Pace.

Sen. Scott Renfroe, R-Greeley, who sits on the audit committee says he supports Pace’s request.

“It’s appropriate to ask for this,” said Renfroe. “Government needs to be efficient with taxpayer dollars. Clearly, shining a light on an area that may need correcting is the right thing to do.”

The Legislative Audit Committee must first approve the request before the state auditor can delve into the issues Pace raises.

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.

House  Bill 11-1145, sponsored by Rep. Beth McCann, D-Denver, and Sen. Lois Tochtrop, D-Thornton, requires all child-care workers hired after Aug. 10, 2011 to have a criminal history check through both the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Colorado Bureau of Investigation. Previously, only the CBI check was done, with the FBI check occurring only if the worker had lived in Colorado less than two years.

Inclusion of the federal background check for all applicants, says Tochtrop, ensures that the applicant doesn’t have a record that might not be flagged on a state background check.

“It’s important that we do this because we need to protect the most vulnerable—young children. The added background check ensures their safety,” said Tochtrop.

Sen. Scott Renfroe, R-Greeley, in support of the proposal while it was being considered by lawmakers, said that the added scrutiny could benefit providers as well as the children.

“The kids will be more protected with the more thorough background check, but it will also help protect providers from liability,” said Renfroe.

House Bill 11-1278, sponsored by Rep. Bob Gardner, R-Colorado Springs, and Democratic Senate Majority Leader John Morse, also of Colorado Springs, clarifies responsibilities regarding sex-offender registration, including when the offender moves from one jurisdiction to another.

Morse said the clarifications, now in place, will make it more likely that sexual offenders who are required to register don’t slip under the radar due to any gaps in the law governing registration.

“From the police’s standpoint, this makes it easier for them to do what they have to do and also makes it easier for the offenders to do what they need to do to comply,” said Morse.

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 taxpayer-watchdog group annually assesses the taxpayer-friendliness of the General Assembly’s 100 members and the governor.

“The Colorado Legislature once again fails the Colorado taxpayers,” concludes the group in its 2011 report. “The Legislature passed the largest budget EVER, $19.8 Billion, while Colorado citizens are out of work and the economy is in disarray. ”

As has been the case almost every year since the group, known as CUT, was founded in 1976, Republican lawmakers fared better in this year’s report card than did Democratic lawmakers, with a handful of GOP star students at the head of the class and another handful below the 50-percent mark. As usual, the lauded lawmakers welcomed their high ratings while those who got low marks waved them off.

Twenty-seven  bills were used as criteria to rank lawmakers based on their votes on spending and issues involving the overall scope of government.

Democrat Hickenlooper was given extra credit for being  “there for taxpayers” with his support for restoring some business tax breaks that had been suspended or repealed last year. The freshman governor also was criticized by the group, however, for “walking in lock step with the legislature in its health-care entitlement expansion, attacks on citizens’ right to petition, and increased government spending.”

Hailed as “champions” among lawmakers were Sens. Kevin Lundberg, R-Berthoud, and Scott Renfroe, R-Greeley.  At the other end of the spectrum were former Rep. Jim Riesberg, D-Greeley, and Rep. John Soper, D-Thornton, who received the lowest scores.

Soper said he considers his low ranking on the survey to be a badge of honor.

“I’m honored to be at the bottom of the list. I think that’s great,” quipped Soper. “I get fed up with people who say they shouldn’t have to pay taxes. Businesses need to pay their fair share—we all need to pay our fair share. Why should Amazon get a tax break and the bookstore down the street doesn’t?”

Renfroe was pleased with his high ranking.

“It is an honor to serve and stand firm against the progressive vision of growing government and controlling our lives with tax increases,” said Renfroe.

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.

Only if the agency is pursuing worthy goals.  If it’s not, the audit might lead simply to making bad policies more efficient. Auditors, after all, do not trouble themselves with the political philosophy behind the agency. That’s determined by the regime.

The first-ever performance audit of the Public Utilities Commission ordered by the Legislative Audit Committee this week isn’t going to solve the PUC’s main flaws.  They’re political, and an audit won’t fix them.

It is possible some good may come of the audit, which will take six months or more.  State Auditor Dianne Ray said her office would examine the PUC’s policies and procedures to make sure they are “transparent,” and comply with state laws and regulations.

Specifically, auditors will try to evaluate whether the three commissioners have spent too much money, indulged in private communications with officials in industries they regulate and maintained conflicts of interest.

This audit was prompted primarily by the unusual behavior of the commissioners during the drafting and implementation of 2010’s House Bill 1365.  That was a collaborative effort by Gov. Bill Ritter, the “green” community, the natural gas industry, Xcel Energy—and the commission itself—to reduce or eliminate the use of low-cost coal at Xcel power plants in favor of natural gas.  Since coal is still the most economical fuel for providing base-load power, the measure is driving up electricity prices.

The bill was rushed through the legislature, primarily by Democrats but with the help of some Republican leaders. It was the first time lawmakers had dived into the fuel-selection business.

With any luck, auditors might also check to see whether the PUC has helped Xcel juggle its books and spent more on its solar subsidy program than it is allowed by law to do.

But the audit, promoted primarily by two of the eight audit committee members—Sens. Steve King, R-Grand Junction, and Scott Renfroe, R-Greeley—amounts to nibbling at the edges. It won’t touch on the more serious problems.

The first of these is the PUC’s mission, which was modified by the legislature a few years ago.  The PUC was once charged with making sure that Coloradans got reliable power at the lowest possible cost.  But that purpose was then made subservient to soft environmental goals, such as meeting nonexistent federal air standards.

The legislature also raised to 30 percent the power that must be generated by “renewable” fuels by 2020—an impossible goal that will require heavy subsidies from ratepayers. It’s no wonder commissioners don’t mind raising rates.

The PUC was ostensibly set up to protect consumers from the exorbitant rates that utilities might charge if given a monopoly in a designated area.  But in some areas of the nation, power providers no longer have a monopoly and consumers get to choose from two or more.  The law should be adjusted so that could happen here, reducing the need for the PUC.

Then there’s the law that gives the PUC the authority to determine in advance who is allowed to get into the taxi business, hardly a natural monopoly. Efforts to change that have failed through the decades, but there’s always next year.

Changing these policies is more important than determining whether a commissioner is on the take or not.

The PUC performance audit may end up resembling the one done on the auto emissions program last September.

The program, run by Envirotest, was born in 1980 of the hope that it would greatly improve the air.  But catalytic converters have already done that and almost every car passes the test, which costs $25 every two years and requires a wait in line.  The obvious solution is to have all automotive testing done by Rapid Screen, a division of Envirotest.  Its vans test your vehicle as it drives by.  That would eventually catch most polluters.  Why make anyone wait in line?

But the performance audit didn’t, and couldn’t, offer that alternative.  All it did was criticize Envirotest’s own internal audits. The permanent facilities, instead of going away, were expanded into Larimer and Weld counties.

Envirotest, like the federal ethanol program, has become an economic interest and political force that government insists on maintaining long after the need for it has expired. An audit didn’t help.

Veteran Colorado political columnist Peter Blake now writes Thursdays for the Colorado News Agency. Contact him at pblake0705@comcast.net You may re-publish his work at no charge and without further permission; please give full credit to Peter Blake and www.ColoradoNewsAgency.com

The quasi-judicial state agency, whose three commissioners are appointed by the governor, has drawn fire in recent years from Republicans and some industries over a range of issues—from PUC support for renewable-energy mandates to ethics allegations involving some commissioners’ travel reimbursements. The PUC’s duties include regulating and setting rates for the state’s investor-owned public utilities.

A formal request made earlier this year and submitted by Republican Sens. Scott Renfroe, of Greeley, and Steve King, of Grand Junction, asked the state auditor to conduct preliminary research into the activities of the PUC.  The findings of the state auditor will be used for the committee to make a determination as to whether a full audit is merited.

The letter outlines areas for evaluation including transparency, accountability to ratepayers, expenditures, the conduct of PUC members, and whether the commission is indeed living up to its role and mission as a watchdog for consumers.

Renfroe says the state auditor is best suited to take an objective look at the PUC.

“Lots of issues and questions have been raised recently in the media and in the legislature about the policies and practices of the PUC,” said Renfroe. “The auditor has the ability to look at these issues within a non-political framework, making it the appropriate place to seek answers.”

According to the PUC’s website, its  purpose is to “serve the public interest by effectively regulating utilities and facilities so that the people of Colorado receive safe, reliable, and reasonably-priced services consistent with the economic, environmental and social values of our state.”

If the legislative panel approves the full audit, the state auditor will begin its work and report their findings later this year.

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 1, sponsored by Sen. Bob Bacon, D-Fort Collins, creates a “knowledge-based economy fund” by scooping up any cash that exceeds revenue forecasts for the state budget through a prescribed formula and funneling those dollars to the knowledge fund.

Democratic Senate President Brandon Shaffer, of Longmont, touted SB 1 in his opening speech on the first day of the 2011 legislative session in January.

The single vote against the measure today when it was heard in the Senate Education Committee came from  Sen. Scott Renfroe, R-Greeley, who said the conditions under which the transfer of funds would occur—a projection of anticipated revenue—is not the right approach. The transfer should occur after the forecast has been realized, said Renfroe.

“We’d be spending money that might not actually be there,” said Renfroe. “We should wait until we know what the actual number is and then make the transfer.”

The second bill of the two bills considered by the education committee, Senate Bill 109, sponsored by Shaffer, takes a different approach, appealing directly to taxpayers. It would add an additional check-off box on tax forms, allowing taxpayers an opportunity to donate a portion of their refund to early-childhood education.

Shaffer said the checked box on a taxpayer’s return would represent an early investment for the future.

“We need to find innovative ways to support the education of our kids,” said Shaffer.  “If we invest in kids’ education in their early years, we expand their future opportunity. Right now funding is limited, and giving Coloradans this opportunity to support schools is a smart way to do more for Colorado kids.”

The check-off would join a list of current tax-checkoffs on state income tax forms but would, under SB109, get top billing, a spot currently obtained on a first-come-first-served basis.

“We need to begin to make the statement that early education is important,” said Bacon.

Sen. Nancy Spence said she agrees with Bacon but has reservations about picking winners and losers for the check-off list.

“Certainly, we all have our favorites, and preschool would be an important item, but not necessarily more important than any other item on the list,” said Spence.

Both measures are now on their way to the Senate Finance Committee 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.