Not long ago the CDOT regional director personally called up Peggy a second time and told her that they had found the money to re-pave I-25 through Pueblo immediately.  You may have already noticed the work being conducted.

The paving project on I 25 is taking place between Stem Beach to Highway 50, and work will be taking place at night to minimize any delays on the road.  Work will be halted twice – for the Little Britches Rodeo and the State Fair – to avoid traffic congestion.

Northbound and/or southbound I-25 will be reduced to a single lane at various locations during the following hours:

• South of Indiana Avenue: Sunday through Thursday, 6 p.m. to 6:30 a.m.; Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. (daytime work planned during latter stage of project)

• North of Indiana Avenue: Sundays, 10 p.m. to 6:30 a.m.; Monday through Thursday, 9 p.m. to 6:30 a.m.

The speed limit will be reduced to 45 mph and vehicles wider than 12 feet will be prohibited from traveling through the work zone during project hours

I got the idea for his bill after touring the Therapeutic Community (TC) Program at Crossroads Turning Point in Pueblo.

I learned that the recidivism rate for an offender who completes a therapeutic community program is 8%.  That’s a lot lower than the typical 50% recidivism rate in a DOC facility.  Then I learned that therapeutic community costs about $14,000 less per year than full incarceration.  So, I started to wonder whether we could be smarter about what we do with those technical parole violators who haven’t committed any new crimes.

The bill saves $15 million annually from the Department of Corrections by opening up Community Return to Custody beds to more parolees and by using a graduated risk-based assessment to determine the number of days that a technical parole violator will spend re-incarcerated.  Most of the savings go into several recidivism reduction programs – like therapeutic communities, intensive residential treatment, mental health beds, and drug and alcohol treatment programs.

I’m proud of the work we accomplished in a collaborative fashion on house bill 1360.  Law enforcement officials, including the Department of Corrections and the DA’s Council, supported the bill.  The bill saves the state millions of dollars by providing more intermediate sanctions for technical parole violators, like community return to custody beds, mental health and addiction treatment. These programs not only save the state money vis a vis incarceration, but more importantly they are proven though research to reduce recidivism rates. That means fewer crimes, fewer victims and greater cost savings in the future.

Thank you Governor Ritter for signing it into law today!

The complete text of Executive Order D  2010-009:

D 2010-009

EXECUTIVE ORDER

Directing the Colorado Economic Development Commission to Report Certain Job Creation Activities and to Prepare a Plan for Tracking the Success of Grants, Loans, and Tax Credits Intended to Generate Jobs

Pursuant to the authority vested in the Office of the Governor of the State of Colorado, I, Bill Ritter, Jr., Governor of the State of Colorado, hereby issue this Executive Order directing the Colorado Economic Development Commission to report certain job creation activities and to prepare a plan for tracking the success of grants, loans, and tax credits intended to generate jobs.

I.                   Background and Purpose

Pursuant to C.R.S. § 24-46-104(2), on February 1st of each year the Colorado Economic Development Commission prepares and submits a report  to the General Assembly detailing the work of the Commission over the course of the previous year.  In order to assist assessing the effectiveness of job creation projects, the report should also include information regarding the number of people employed as a result of any project identified in the report and the average and median salaries of any people employed as a result of any such project.  Moreover, the State lacks an effective tool for measuring the number of jobs created as a result of the grants, loans, and tax credits it provides.

Therefore, I am directing the Colorado Economic Development Commission to include additional information in its annual report and to develop a plan for identifying the number of jobs created as a result of each grant, loan, or tax credit intended to generate jobs.

II.                Directives

A.                The Colorado Economic Development Commission’s report submitted pursuant to C.R.S. § 24-46-104(2) shall also include the number of people employed as a result of any project identified in the report, along with the average and median salaries of any people employed as a result of any such project.

B.                 The Colorado Economic Development Commission shall prepare a comprehensive plan detailing how the State can implement a program for tracking the success of every grant, loan, or tax credit program intended to generate jobs.  The plan shall include a means of determining a method for identifying on an annual basis the number of jobs created as a result of each grant, loan, or tax credit.  The plan shall be prepared and submitted to the Governor and the members of the finance committees of both chambers of the General Assembly by December 31, 2010.

III.             Duration

This Executive Order shall remain in force until further modification or rescission by the Governor.

GIVEN under my hand and the Executive Seal of the State of Colorado, this twelfth day of May, 2010.

Bill Ritter, Jr.

Governor

One of my concerns about Senate Bill 191 is that it eliminates due process for teachers.  The current due process system has worked sufficiently.  But, if we’re going to make a change then it should be done with all parties at the table talking collaboratively.  It does not always make practicable sense measuring teachers by growth on standardized tests.  Children have vastly different levels of support networks at home.  Some students have parents at home who demand that they complete their homework nightly; other students have less than perfect family networks.  The success of these students on standardized tests are often vastly different from one another.  Yet, under SB 191, teachers could place their job on the line when they teach higher risk students.  Teachers will feel induced to move to schools where students perform better on their tests for better job security.  This will discourage teachers from teaching at some of higher risk schools.  Similarly, there are several other variables that could affect the success of students on standardized test, like whether students take several sick days during the year.  However, the teacher will be held responsible when those students do poorly on their tests and could lose their job.  Teachers will have to pray that they have a classroom of students who are healthier.  I also have concerns that if this bill passes, that students will have the power to fire their teachers because they are “too tough.”  Students will realize that when a teacher assigns too much homework or makes them work too hard that they can get the teacher fired by intentionally bombing their standardized tests; and students have no personal benefit or risk in doing well or poorly on the standardized test.

The vote on 191 will take place sometime tonight on second reading.  I will be a no vote, and will be presenting amendments to try to make some improvements to the bill.  But, with this bill being pushed through in the final two weeks of session, and without proper vetting and negotiations, I cannot vote for it tonight.

Dear Inter-Basin Compact Committee:

As you know, I recently sponsored House Bill 10-1159. The purpose of HB1159 was to require agreements for the mitigation of economic and ecological impacts associated with the removal of water from one water division for use in another. The parties to the agreements would have been the applicants seeking to transport the water and the conservation or conservancy districts serving the area from which the water would be removed.  If the parties could not reach an agreement then the water judge would apply mitigation based on standards from the 1937 Water Conservancy District Act.

Virtually all parties, including those opposed to HB1159, agreed that mitigation should occur when water is transferred.  However, during the debate, opponents of the bill consistently made one argument; they stated that the bill was unnecessary because the Inter-Basin Compact Committee (IBCC) was charged with and, in fact, was already dealing with the issue.  During the Agriculture Committee hearing, several witnesses from, both, metro water providers and rural communities testified that my water mitigation bill was duplicative of the work that the IBCC is conducting.  Some people making this argument were members of the IBCC.  When the bill reached the House floor, several legislators continued this line of argument.

I believe that the IBCC is doing great work and is creating trust between parties that have historically been rather adversarial. However, I am unaware of specific proposals from the IBCC regarding proposed statutory changes to ensure mitigation of impacts resulting from the movement of water.  After the debate on HB1159, it is safe to now say that most legislators believe this work is being conducted by the IBCC.  I would appreciate any information you could provide as to the IBCC’s discussions regarding appropriate mitigation when moving water between water divisions.  If the IBCC is not working on any such plan, I would suggest that the IBCC start these discussions, if for no other reason than that is what most legislators believe you are working on.  Finally, if you could make every effort to conclude these discussions prior to the next legislative session, I would be happy to sponsor any legislation needed to implement your recommendations.

Thank you for your consideration,

It’s true that we at the Colorado General Assembly have had to make some tough decisions in the last two years to balance our state budget.  None of them have been easy. Cuts have been made to schools, universities, health care, and seniors. In recent weeks I supported a majority of the tax exemption bills – like eliminating the tax exemption on sales tax for soda, candy, and junk mail.  When I voted for the elimination of the exemption for candy and sodas I felt confident that I would not put the candy & soda industry out of business.  During the course of my life I’ve purchased a lot of candy and soda, and my decision about buying soda and candy was never affected by whether I had the pay the regular 2.9% sales tax for the sweets (I actually never knew that candy and soda was exempted from sales taxes until I was in the legislature).  I supported eliminating most of the tax exemptions, with the exception of HB 1190, which imposed a sales tax on energy consumption.

I felt compelled to oppose House Bill 1190 because of its negative affect on the Rocky Mountain Steel Mill in Pueblo.  While I opposed the bill, I worked with stakeholders, and was successful placing an amendment to prevent a double tax affecting the mill – so that an additional 2.9% sales tax would not be passed onto the mill from Xcel energy for the coal they purchase.  This amendment cut the cost of this bill to the Rocky Mountain Steel Mill in half.  Ultimately, though, I could not support the bill, especially with the volatility of the US steel industry.  Drive through Pennsylvania or Ohio and you will see the old steel mill towns that have closed down in recent decades.  The Chinese do not have labor or environmental standards and have been flooding the American steel market with poorly made product for years.  As members of United Steelworkers 2102 can attest, furloughs have hit them hard over the past year.  The steel industry is a volatile market, and that is why I opposed HB 1190.

This is a difficult time for Coloradans as well as the State of Colorado.  We are tightening our belt at the State of Colorado, just like the citizens of Colorado.  As a legislator I try to work in the best interest of the citizens of this state. I am committed to passing a balanced budget, while protecting our most vulnerable citizens.  It is important that we do not balance the budget on the backs of our schools, kids, seniors and our safety-net programs any more than we already have.  I do realize that more cuts have to be made to our state budget, which is why I’m doing more than just opposing this budget measure.  I’m coming up with real alternatives.  Here are some of my ideas for proposed budget cuts to our state budget:

• I’m running a bill to cut back on the amount of time that technical parole violators spend incarcerated after breaking rules of their parole.  These are circumstances where a new crime was not committed.  We spend roughly $50 million to re-incarcerate these offenders.  My bill would use some of that savings for mental health and addiction counseling, while sending most of the savings back to the state.
• I support a higher tax on the sale of medical marijuana.  This would have to be referred to the voters.  I do not believe the 2.9% regular sales tax is sufficient.  The state should generate at least $50 million annually with a tax of 10% on medical marijuana sales.
• I support a sentencing reform bill being introduced by Representative Mark Waller (Republican-Colorado Springs) that would utilize evidence based research to cut back on the amount of time drug offenders spend incarcerated.  Research shows that treatment is more important to preventing recidivism than the length of their stay in prison.  When introduced, this bill will save the state tens of millions of dollars.
• I support HB 1263 which would limit how much money corporations could deduct off their taxes for a CEO’s salary and bonuses to no more than $250,000 annually.  Currently, corporations can deduct the salary & bonuses of their top 4 highest earners up to $1 million annually.  This bill would generate $25 million annually.
• I support transferring money from the Colorado Division of Wildlife.  DOW is virtually the only division or agency in state government that has been held harmless in budget cuts in recent years.  The state, to date, has transferred hundreds of millions of dollars from cash accounts to the general fund, but none of that has come from Wildlife.  DOW has been held harmless because the state would not qualify for future Federal wildlife grants without paying back our Federal wildlife matching money.  However, of DOW’s $115 million budget, only $18 million has come from the Federal government.  I think it’s time to transfer some of that money to the state to help with schools and senior services.  I love our habitat programs.  But, right now I think we have to focus on kids and seniors first.
• Finally, I would support a Constitutional Amendment to divert some of the money that goes to parks and open space from the Colorado Lottery to schools and seniors’ programs in tough budgetary times.  Again, I love parks, but I want to see fully funded classrooms ahead of fully funded parks.

In the end, I voted against the proposal because I don’t believe that the problems with PERA need an immediate fix and the solutions proposed unduly placed a burden on our seniors.

A closer look at solvency:

PERA lost a lot of money during 2008 and into 2009.  Most of the losses to the PERA savings were related to the global financial crisis and devalued assets.  However, the models projecting PERA’s future solvency do not take into account the likelihood of an economic rebound.  The markets ebb and flow.  Ultimately, we should see them rebound.  Also, under the worst-case projections, just one of PERA’s divisions will be insolvent in twenty-seven years.  That’s just one division that would have to pay as it goes if this Great Recession never ends.  We have time before twenty-seven years from now to reassess the solvency of PERA.  Why rush now, when we can reevaluate in a couple years?  In fact, since the PERA board has come up with the projections that are being used to support SB 001, the PERA fund has recovered roughly $4 billion.  Finally, I think SB 001 goes too far demanding that PERA have no unfounded liability in 30 years.  A target date of 50 or 60 years would be less onerous and more fair.

Retirees’ unfair burden:

Under SB 001, retirees bare the brunt of the cost savings measures.  The bill eliminates the annual 3.5% benefit increase to our retirees.  These are the Coloradans who typically can’t return to work.  A vast majority of the cost saving measures for PERA come from the cut to the retiree benefit.  Retirees tend to be older and tend to have some of the smaller payouts from the retirement fund.  I do not believe that retirees should have to bare the brunt of the burden, especially if they’re living on a fixed income. I am committed to making sure PERA remains healthy for the long run so current, past and future public employees can continue to count on it when they retire.  However, at the end of the day, I could not support a plan to balance PERA on the back of our seniors without being certain that a fix is eminently needed.

I was proud to serve as the vice-chair of the Pinnacol Interim Committee, which met over the summer.  The committee examined issues related to Colorado’s quasi-government workers’ compensation insurance company.  The committee met six times and discovered several problem areas with Pinnacol, including: small businesses are paying workers comp insurance rates 10% higher than they should, Pinnacol has a bonus incentive system to deny claims, and Pinnacol spent $4.7 million to spy on thousands of injured workers even though only 11 were convicted of fraud.

We passed seven bills to address those specific concerns among others.  I passed a bill through the interim committee to limit spying by workers’ comp insurance companies of injured workers to only cases where the insurer has a reasonable basis to suspect fraud.  Currently, Pinnacol initiates spying even if there is no suspicion of a worker conducting fraud.  We heard testimony from several injured workers who believe that Pinnacol has been abusing its ability to spy, perhaps even using it as an intimidation technique to help secure a settlement.  Many injured workers felt treated like criminals after being spied on by Pinnacol. We should remember that these are injured workers; and a videotape of someone does not compensate for a medical care.  While Pinnacol spent $4.7 million in surveillance on thousands of workers, only 10 (out of 50,000+ claims) were actually convicted of fraud in 2008 (0.02%).   The bill would:

• Require that surveillance may only occur in cases where the insurer or employer has a reasonable basis to suspect fraud or the worker made a material misstatement concerning the claim
• If surveillance is taking place that the injured worker may request an expedited hearing before a pre-administrative law judge where the insurer must provide the injured worker with copies of materials collected
• In the expedited hearing, the Pre-ALJ may put an injunction against the surveillance if there’s no reasonable basis shown or if the worker didn’t make a material misstatement or if the insurer didn’t have a reasonable basis to initiate surveillance
• If surveillance material is collected without a reasonable basis, a $1000 fine would be charged for unauthorized surveillance
• Finally, the bill provides for protecting the identity for a witness of whistleblower who provides evidence used to prove fraud.

]]> http://www.salpace.com/2010/02/title/feed/ 12 http://www.salpace.com/2010/01/hello-world/ http://www.salpace.com/2010/01/hello-world/#comments Tue, 05 Jan 2010 23:54:02 +0000 admin http://174.121.8.162/~salpacec/?p=1 Water’s Role in Rural Economic Development

Water is essential to economic development.  In 1891, what was then called the Colorado Canal began delivering water to nearby Crowley County.  Prosperity followed.  Cantaloupes grown there were shipped on rail lines that were built to Crowley County. The National Sugar Company built a factory in Sugar City.

Water brought success.

However, by the 1970s, most of the water shares in Crowley County were sold to large municipalities. Of the original 50,000 shares of water in the Twin Lakes Canal, only a couple thousand remain in the county today.  Sadly, today Crowley County has the highest poverty rate in the state and the lowest per capita income.

When water leaves a community so does the opportunity to attract companies, build homes, draw business or grow crops.  When water leaves a community, so does a community’s future opportunity for prosperity.  We’re facing tough economic times, but we need to ensure that when we rebound, that we rebound together as an entire state – urban and rural.

That is why I am running House Bill 1159 at the General Assembly to require that mitigation plans must be a part of any large transfer of water from one part of the state to another.

When a farm shuts down operations, the tractor repairman or the fertilizer salesperson will soon close their doors.  Under current Colorado water law, there is no legal consideration for the permanent loss to the economy that is felt when water is transferred permanently out of a community.  However, a bill passed by Rep. Buffie McFadyen (D-Pueblo West) to allow the water judge to consider water quality, set precedent that other factors beyond just injury to senior water rights owners should be considered in a transfer.

My bill, also sponsored by Sen. Dan Gibbs (D-Summit County), uses a carrot and stick approach.  The Carrot: the bill would give applicants in water court an opportunity to work in a collaborative fashion with the water Conservancy and Conservation districts from where the water was moved from to craft a mitigation agreement to address the economic and ecological effects of the water transfer.  The stick: if the parties cannot reach a consensus then the water judge would apply the mitigation unilaterally.

Both parties – the purchasing entity (metro areas) and the area of origin (rural communities) – would have an incentive to sit down and work collaboratively together.  If either party refuses to negotiate in good faith, then the other could pull out of discussions, and roll the dice with the water judge, losing all control over what is included in the mitigation plan.

House Bill 1159 also allows for public meetings and comment on the mitigation agreements, which would be the first time in water law that citizens would have any legal standing to express their opinions about prospective water transfers.  The special interest opponents of my bill don’t think that the citizens of Colorado are smart enough to be able to provide public comment and testimony.  However, I know that statewide water decisions affect every citizen; so every citizen deserves a voice.

A half decade ago the Interbasin Compact Committee (IBCC) was created to encourage different basins of the state to work collaboratively.  My water bill has the same mission – to encourage cooperation between communities and encourage the basins to reach consensus on mitigation agreements.  The Arkansas Basin Roundtable worked hard on a blueprint for mitigating Ag to urban water transfers, which could serve as an ideal starting point for future mitigation negotiations if my bill is passed.  So, the IBCC process should run parallel to my water bill.

I am proud that the Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District, the Colorado River Water Conservation District, Trout Unlimited and the Colorado Environmental Coalition support HB 1159.  However, not surprisingly, my bill is facing stiff opposition from metro water providers – even those who have secured enough water rights for any potential future growth.  Over twenty former legislators, including Congressmen John Salazar and Scott McInnis have proposed similar bills in Colorado’s history.

So, I’m well aware of what I’m up against.  Metropolitan area water providers argue that this policy will make their life more difficult and add to their costs.  The reality is that those metro leaders aren’t listening to their constituents.  According to a Ciruli & Associates poll, Coloradans in every county agree that they don’t want to see future sprawl at the expense of rural communities. In this matter I think that the citizens of Colorado are correct and the special-interest metro-area developers are dead wrong!