State Bill Photo: Jamie Cotten
Bob Roper, chief courts technology officer, and State Court Administrator Jerry Marroney were photographed speaking to people after a recent meeting about the proposed takeover of two computer systems.

STATE BILL COLORADO

The Colorado House tonight bucked a bipartisan attempt to delay a proposed state takeover of two Judicial Department computer systems operated currently under contract by information giant LexisNexis.

The effort failed by the narrowest of margins: 33 voting no, 32 voting yes.

The House, as part of the annual budget approval process, rejected an amendment proposed by Rep. Joe Rice, D-Littleton, that would have allowed the Lexis and state systems to operate simultaneously during a transition period.

Rice said that the operating plan for the two systems hadn’t been fully vetted by the state’s technology office. The transition period, he said, would allow legislators to be sure that the systems are fully operational at the time the Lexis systems are shut down.

Under the plan, the first system to be taken over provides electronic access to dockets and other records. It’s primarily used by background-screening companies to determine whether applicants have clean records.

The second system allows attorneys to file lawsuits and pleadings electronically.

The State Court Administrator’s Office has argued that Lexis won’t modify the systems to make enhancements in some areas that are regarded as less profitable or not profitable. Court officials insist they have the expertise to provide both systems, and they asked for 19 additional employees to operate them.

Democratic State Reps. Beth McCann and Claire Levy, both lawyers, joined Reps. Max Tyler and Dickey Lee Hullinghorst in arguing for the state takeover, which is expected to generate millions in additional income to the budget-strapped courts through search and filing fees now received by LexisNexis and subvendors, including BIS and Axciom Risk Management. The Joint Budget Committee initially requested the takeover, noting, in part, the severity of the cash crunch.

Joining Rice in arguing for the transition period were Rep. Bob Gardner, also a lawyer, and Rep. Jim Kerr. Both are Republicans. Kerr complained that the state has a poor track record when it comes to launching and running computer systems, and he urged the state to build in a fail-safe period through the transition.

In the end, the amendment failed by a non-recorded vote of legislators standing and sitting. An attempt to revive the amendment produced the recorded 32-33 vote. The full House later gave preliminary passage to the state’s budget, HB10-1376. A final vote is expected tomorrow. The bill moves to the Senate next week. If the two bodies disagree about how to handle the court computer systems, a conference committee will iron out the two versions for another round of approvals before the full budget package goes to Gov. Bill Ritter.

The takeover of the court systems has been heavily lobbied for the past two years. Joining the state in arguing for the takeover were lobbyists for Pasadena, Calif.-based Courthouse News Service, which advocates for reducing or dropping fees the state charges for access to court records on the day that they are filed. CNS makes money by selling new filings to law firms nationwide.

Either fighting for the takeover or advocating a transitional period were LexisNexis and BIS. Both also retained lobbyists.

Stay ahead by signing up for State Bill E-News! >

Some Democrats cheered when they heard Face the State had shut down so you can imagine the look on their faces when learned the conservative blog is coming back. Expect a new, improved version of Face the State to debut in a few weeks, managing editor Brad Jones tells The Denver Post.

The site has hired John Schroyer as a reporter. Schroyer worked for the Colorado Springs Gazette during the 2009 General Assembly. He also was a reporter for the Colorado Statesman, and he served fora time as a spokesman for U.S. Senate candidate Andrew Romanoff.

Stay ahead by signing up for State Bill E-News! >

STATE BILL COLORADO

Editor’s Note: This is a large audio file and it may take up to five minutes to begin playing.

State Bill readers can listen to audio of the Senate May 30, 2010, consideration of HB10-1365 by clicking below.

Stay ahead by signing up for State Bill E-News! >

Gary Sherman and Darlene Kobobel wanted state lawmakers to approve new specialty license plates for their pet causes, the Grand Junction Daily Sentinel reports. Along the way, both learned that even something as seemingly innocuous as a license plate can have a tough time under the golden dome.

Related story: The most popular specialty plate by far is the columbine, which was created after the 1999 shootings at Columbine High School in Littleton. Nearly 119,000 motorists have that one.

Stay ahead by signing up for State Bill E-News! >

Gil Romero

The Las Animas County commissioners have hired a former state representative to lobby on behalf of the Trinidad State Nursing Home, The Pueblo Chieftain reports. Gil Romero was chosen Monday to represent Las Animas County and the staff and residents at the nursing home by lobbying to keep it a state-run facility. Romero served in the House of Representatives from 1984 to 1998 and he served on the Joint Budget Committee.

Stay ahead by signing up for State Bill E-News! >

Colorado lawmakers say they’re tired of going from crisis to crisis in the budget debate and they’re offering a package of reforms they say will serve as a roadmap for future lawmakers, the Associated Press reports. House Majority Leader Paul Weissmann and Minority Leader Mike May, both term-limited, say they plan to offer bills to fix transportation funding, corrections and higher education before their terms end in a month and a half.

Stay ahead by signing up for State Bill E-News! >

Cal Marsella

Editor’s Note: State Bill premium subscribers may listen to this entire hearing by clicking on the player below.

By Kristin Pazulski, DENVER DAILY NEWS

Lawmakers were appalled at the salary of former Regional Transportation District General Manager Cal Marsella, who received an annual salary of $295,300 in addition to $2.9 million in pensions over 14 years, while taxpayers voted to pay for the FasTracks program with an increased transit sales tax.

The total of Marsella’s compensation was confirmed by an audit released by the Colorado General Assembly’s Legislative Audit Committee Tuesday.

“I was aware of some of the elements of his compensation but was really surprised at the total,” said Holman Carter, president of the Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 1001 (ATU 1001), which represents RTD transit workers.

Noel Busck, RTD board member and chair of the General Manager Oversight & Performance Management Committee, said the board has “corrected” the practices it used with Marsella. The board hired new General Manager Phil Washington at 57 percent of the former general manager’s 2009 annual compensation, including a benefits package that “complies with every salaried employee at RTD,” he added.

“Whatever the criteria was at that time doesn’t seem appropriate today,” Busck said, referring to when Marsella was given the compensation increases that spurred the audit last May.

Compounding concerns over Marsella’s compensation was that while his pension and salary were increasing, commuters were asked to pay for a multi-billion transit expansion program and transit workers have faced a two-year salary freeze.

FasTracks, the RTD transit expansion plan, will be partially funded by a .4 percent sales tax increase that voters approved in 2004.

And they might be asked to give more.

There is still a $2.4 billion gap in long-term costs versus projected revenue through 2017, according to Scott Reed, RTD spokesperson. Reed said the board has not determined how that gap will be filled, but are looking to get the maximum amount of federal funding and are exploring public/private partnerships and additional sales tax increases.

In addition, drivers and other RTD workers have been operating on a salary freeze since 2009, and it is unknown if they will see it lifted in 2011, Reed said.

Marsella’s clean-up

Marsella, who resigned in July 2009, made a base salary of about $295,300 in 2009, with compensation and benefits that were “significantly more generous than those available to the District’s other salaried employees,” according to the audit.

Marsella’s base salary and “generous” benefits amounted to a total compensation of $725,612 in 2009, read the state auditor’s press release.

The board’s research when hiring Washington revealed how much more Marsella was paid compared to general managers at 18 other transit agencies in 2009.

The 2009 base salary paid to these general managers ranged from $135,000 to $310,000, with a median base salary of about $245,500 per year, according to the audit. Marsala’s base salary was about $50,000 more than the median base salary.

The audit criticized the board for not conducting a similar comparison when it increased Marsella’s compensation. The board only looked at five other agencies when determining Marsella’s compensation, the report read, and the board could not explain the choice of these five agencies.

“The board cannot demonstrate to taxpayers that the terms of the employment agreements [entered into with Marsella] were reasonable or appropriate,” read the auditor’s office press release.

Marsella’s benefits package was another concern.

His benefits included an accelerated pension plan that provided Marsella with two-and-a-half years worth of service for each year he was at RTD, beginning in 2001. If the former general manager had stayed at RTD until February 2010, he would have received about $1.7 million more in retirement money because of this accelerated plan, the audit noted.

But Marsella was not hurt by leaving in July.

Over the entire 14 years of his work with RTD, Marsella earned $2.9 million in pension benefits, which he chose at his departure in July 2009 to accept in a lump sum. Reed confirmed that all this money has been given to Marsella.

“Marsella’s package was exuberant,” said Jon Caldara, a former RTD board member (he left in 1998) and president of the Golden-based libertarian think tank The Independence Institute. “If it was called the Cadillac of packages, that would be an understatement.”

The board also failed to accurately calculate the full cost of the accelerated pension plan, the audit also noted. At the time the pension was approved, the board had not yet received the cost estimate. And when they did a few months after the approval, the estimate had been calculated using “outdated and incomplete salary information,” according to the audit.

The report also noted that Marsella was not given a comprehensive performance review since 2000, despite receiving raises and bonuses after 2000.

Turning a new leaf?

In 2010, the board’s compensation practices with Marsella seem to have changed.

According to Reed, the board agreed upon a more reasonable compensation package for the new general manager.

Washington, whose package was agreed upon earlier this month, will receive a base salary of $275,000 for 2010.

His benefits align with all RTD employee’ benefit packages, meaning he receives vacation and sick days according to his years of service and his pension will be between 7 and 9 percent of his salary, which, according to the contract, are the same as salaried RTD employees.

His base salary combined with his benefits package add up to a total annual compensation of $306,449 in 2010. He is allowed a 5 percent performance-based raise each year, which, if received, will lead to a maximum of $346,816 in compensation in 2012. Reed said the raise is not guaranteed, but he could not confirm if Washington would not be given a raise, even if current salary freezes continued into 2011.

In a comparison, Washington will receive $90,000 less in pension funds this year than Marsella would have received in 2009, according to a comparison made by Bondi & Co. certified public accountants and provided by RTD.

Sen. Lois Tochtrop, D-Thornton, who requested the audit in May 2009, said the board increased Marsella’s compensation to keep him at RTD, a decision that she said was misguided.

“Nobody is indispensable,” said Tochtrop. “If he had done such a great job, we would not be underfunded for FasTracks.”

Stay ahead by signing up for State Bill E-News! >

By Debi Brazzale, COLORADO NEWS AGENCY

A panel of lawmakers split their vote along party lines today over whether to regulate the collection and disposal of grease—the kind found in restaurants and other facilities that use cooking oil.  The Senate Transportation and Energy panel voted 4-3 in favor of the measure despite some objections from the “no” votes that the measure didn’t go far enough in addressing the issue.

Yellow grease is the end result of oil that has been used in cooking that is still relatively pure.  Brown grease, or trap grease, is oil that has been contaminated with food waste, detergents, or any other non-food product.  It is currently illegal to dump grease of substantial quantities.

Senate-sponsor Gail Schwartz, D-Snowmass Village, is primarily interested in creating the new regulatory structure under the Department of Health because yellow grease is becoming a newly sought-after commodity in the production of biofuels.  Environmental concerns are also a motivating factor for Schwartz, especially with brown grease, which is costly to collect and dispose of, but has little monetary value.   Yellow grease is often collected for free.

“We are realizing the value of this commodity—the yellow grease—and want to make sure that it receives the proper oversight,” said Schwartz.  “I think Colorado should take some leadership in creating a greater percentage of biodiesel fuel,” said Schwartz.

House Bill 1125 would, for the first time, regulate the businesses that collect and process any kind of grease for disposal by requiring them to register with the state and pay a registration fee, keep records of the quantities handled, and display a permit decal.

A few other states have regulatory frameworks in place for grease collection, disposal, and treatment. Some in the industry would welcome if Colorado followed suit, such as Aaron Perry, the CEO of Rocky Mountain Sustainable Enterprises.

“Colorado is really in the dark ages right now in respect to these two streams,” said Perry.

Sen. Kevin Lundberg, R-Berthoud, questioned the purpose of the regulation that he said lacks any real oversight or incentives to collect and dispose of the grease properly.

“Quite frankly this just looks like a way for us to get our fingers in the middle of a transaction between private parties,” said Lundberg.

Brown-grease hauler Rich Kowalis agrees that the industry needs to be regulated but does not support the bill because it treats yellow and brown grease the same.

The fees paid to the facilities to dispose of the brown grease can run into the tens of thousands of dollars, and without regulation that tracks how much grease is collected and subsequently disposed of, Kowalis argues the temptation is too great for some haulers to not play by the rules.

“I pick up the bad stuff (brown grease) and then I have to find somebody who wants it,” said Kowalis. “ They (the legislatiors) don’t understand my industry and what I am trying to compete against, which is the haulers who don’t want to pay the dump fee.”

Republican Senator Bill Cadman of Colorado Springs agrees with Kowalis.

There’s nothing in this regulation—under it’s current form in the bill—that would prevent illegal dumping,” said Cadman.

Approximately 7-10 million gallons of  yellow grease are collected every year in Colorado and a dozen or so companies will treat it.

The bill will now make one more stop in the Senate  Appropriations Committee before it reaches the Senate floor for debate.

Stay ahead by signing up for State Bill E-News! >

By Debi Brazzale, COLORADO NEWS AGENCY

With debate over next year’s budget soon to unfold, two southeastern Colorado lawmakers say they are prepared to dig in their heels if more money is taken away from water projects affecting their region.

Early indications are that the funding will be left largely in tact in the coming budget year after having been diverted last year to help cover the state’s budget deficit. Neverthess, Rep. Wes Mckinley, a Democrat from Walsh, and Republican Sen. Ken Kester, of Las Animas, say they are on guard and that the Colorado Water Conservation Board’s funds need to be protected to keep water projects going in their districts.

Of special concern is the Arkansas Conduit Project, which took a temporary hit last year when more than $100 million was diverted from the water conservation board to help the state through its fiscal straits and balance the state budget. Some $35 million of that total came out of the conduit project’s funding, putting federal matching dollars at risk as well. The project provides treated water to southeastern Colorado.

That money since has been recouped through higher-than-anticipated revenue from the state’s severance tax, according to Colorado Water Conservation Board Direction Jennifer Gimbel. Gimbel also said that, so far, next’s year’s pending budget takes $11 million from the board’s funds but that the diversion won’t affect the conduit or any other current projects.

McKinley acknowledged the budget process is far from over.

“I wouldn’t be surprised if they did take some more,” said McKinley. “It seems like if there’s money out there, there’s several hands grabbing for it.”

Recommendations from the staff of the legislative Joint Budget Committee, which drafts the state’s budget,  indicate there won’t be any diversions imperiling the water projects in the coming year. If so, Mckinley said, he might try to get the budget amended to include even more funding.

Kester echoed McKinleys assessment.

“We have to have that money … and we can’t just take it down to nothing and continue to operate the water programs,” Kester said.

Mckinley said he is not just concerned about the water fund but also about the state’s Branding Board cash fund, which has about $500,000 in savings that he says the Department of Agriculture would like to have. McKinley said that he was successful in keeping the fund in tact last year despite attempts by the department to tap into that money.

“It’s a savings fund, a users fund. The Brand Board has managed to save up a pretty good chunk of money, and there’s people trying to get it,” said McKinley.

Stay ahead by signing up for State Bill E-News! >

STATE BILL COLORADO
Colorado’s Senate on Tuesday preliminarily approved legislation requiring Xcel Energy to convert two coal-fired power plants to natural gas. The measure, which has bipartisan support, is being challenged by the coal industry. Here’s how news organizations covered the bill’s passage.

The Denver Post: Xcel Energy got a green light from the state legislature Tuesday to start a comprehensive plan to cut air pollution at aging coal-fired power plants — with “primary consideration” to switching to natural gas. On a voice vote, the state Senate approved a bill that requires Xcel Energy to cut emissions of nitrogen oxides by 70 to 80 percent by 2017 at aging Front Range coal plants. Nitrogen oxides contribute to Colorado’s regional haze and ozone pollution problems.

The Denver Business Journal: House Bill 1365 had sailed through the House with bipartisan support but ran into a cauldron of anger among Senate Republicans who said it would run the coal industry out of business in Colorado. After its expected final approval on Wednesday and concurrence vote by the House on Thursday, however, the bill is likely to be signed into law fairly quickly by Gov. Bill Ritter.

Pueblo Chieftain: Born just last week, HB1365 has grown up quickly. It already has passed the house and faces a final vote of the Senate soon, possibly as early as today.

The Durango Herald: Opposition hardened to Sen. Bruce Whitehead’s bill on coal-fired power plants Tuesday, although a bipartisan coalition held together well enough that the bill could pass the Senate as early as today. The debate caused a family feud between the top two Republicans in the Senate and the other 12. Meanwhile, three Democrats voted against the bill by Whitehead, a fellow Democrat from Hesperus.

Associated Press: Legislation aimed at using natural gas to reduce Front Range emissions from coal-fired power plants and heading off federal clean air restrictions won initial approval Tuesday in the state Senate. The Senate voted 20-13 to back the bill, setting up a final vote on Wednesday. The measure has already been approved by the House.

The Grand Junction Daily Sentinel: It isn’t right to promote one industry at the expense of another, according to state senators who oppose a measure to convert Front Range, coal-fired, power plants to burn natural gas. Sen. Al White, R-Hayden, and other senators argued Tuesday to no avail that while the idea likely would boost drilling jobs on the Western Slope and elsewhere in the state, there could be a corresponding decrease in the number of mining and railroad positions.

Stay ahead by signing up for State Bill E-News! >