Watch legislators debate HB10-1195 here. Source: State Bill Colorado

By Debi Brazzale, COLORADO NEWS AGENCY

A sales-tax break that was suspended earlier this year–prompting some Coloradans to cross state lines to buy farming and ranching products–will be given a second look by lawmakers when they convene in January.

The sales-tax exemption on agricultural compounds, pesticides and bull semen was scotched by lawmakers last spring at the prompting of Gov. Bill Ritter as part of a package of bills nixing tax breaks on a range of business activities. The legislation was intended to help bridge budget gaps amid slumping state revenue, but it was dubbed “the Dirty Dozen” by an angry business community and dissenting GOP lawmakers.

The ag sales-tax exemption had buoyed an array of products used by farmers and ranchers across Colorado, and its removal under House Bill 10-1195, was vigorously opposed by the agricultural community as well as most GOP lawmakers before it was passed by majority Democrats and signed into law by the governor.

Sterling farmer and GOP state Rep. Jerry Sonnenberg said today he will be sponsoring legislation to repeal HB 1195 as a matter of first priority.

“That’ll be my focus right off the bat,” said Sonnenberg.

The issues came up in a discussion at the Capitol at a hearing for the state Department of Agriculture before the budget-writing Joint Budget Committee. Rep. Cheri Gerou, a Republican from Evergreen who serves as Vice Chair of the committee, asked Commissioner of Agriculture John Stulp if he had heard any complaints from the agriculture community about the end of the sales-tax exemption. Stulp said he had, but he defended the move to curtail the exemption.

“It’s part of the governor’s message of a shared sacrifice,” said Stulp. The sales tax, while I might not like it, is a part of being a citizen of Colorado and contributing to the cause because I like to have good roads and I like to have good school systems.”

Sonnenberg said that the agriculture industry is the only industry in Colorado that is being taxed on products used for production.

“IBM doesn’t pay sales tax on motherboards or hard drives when they put a computer together, but now agriculture is being told that, ‘As you produce food, we’re going to tax part of your areas where you have a cost of production,’ ” said Sonnenberg.

Yet, the sales tax may have produced less-than-anticipated revenue, says Sonnenberg, who says he has observed a trend among farmers and ranchers of avoiding the tax altogether.

“The fact of the matter is many of them are going out of state to buy their chemicals and their feed additives,” said Sonnenberg. “What we did with that tax is hurt Colorado businesses, local co-ops, and chemical dealers–because they lost the sale.”

Stulp, a farmer and rancher himself, said he understands the dynamics at play.

“Farmers and ranchers are always concerned about their bottom line,” said Stulp. “We are the one industry that does not have the ability to pass the cost on. It’s one of the dilemmas in agriculture.”

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

By Todd Engdahl, EDUCATION NEWS COLORADO

A 50 percent cut in state aid to higher education wouldn’t force closure of any colleges, but it would require some tough choices, the Joint Budget Committee was told Wednesday.

A recent report from the Colorado Commission on Higher Education warned of dramatic tuition increases, reduced access for minority and low-income students, a financial squeeze on middle-income students, reduced course offerings and bare-bones student services if state support were halved.

Colleges were required to file that report with the JBC by a 2010 state law (Senate Bill 10-003) that also gave institutions greater control over tuition rates and over some other financial operations. (Read article about the report and see full document.)

In a briefing paper presented to the committee at a Wednesday morning meeting, JBC analyst Carl Kurtz didn’t necessarily disagree with the report’s conclusions but he did take a more nuanced view.

Among other things, his report noted because direct state support provides only part of college revenues, “From the total funds, including tuition, this is a 9.2 percent reduction. It is a 10.9 percent reduction per students in constant 2010 dollars. If funding were reduced according to the SB 10-003 scenario, the [fiscal year] 2011-12 funding would be higher than in FY 2001-02 through FT 2004-05.” (That scenario assumes resident undergraduate tuition would increase 9 percent and non-resident tuition would rise 5 percent.)

The briefing report also said, “Staff believes the higher education institutions have options for reducing expenditures and increasing revenues to absorb a 50 percent reduction in state support without closing colleges.”

The CCHE “doomsday” report doesn’t raise the possibility of closing campuses, although that’s a subject regularly batted around in higher ed circles and by some legislators when the subject of possible future budget cuts comes up.

“There are options available and the institutions are capable of absorbing a 50 percent cut,” Kurtz told committee members. “You might not like the consequences, [but] it wouldn’t be Armageddon.”

The consequences Kurtz referred to include higher tuition, cuts in staffing (and, therefore, cuts in academic programs) and the ticklish question of shifting state aid among institutions.

“A 50 percent cut in state funds for a small rural community college is very different from a 50 percent cut for CU-Boulder,” he noted.

For example, a chart in the briefing paper details that community colleges receive about 39 percent of their budgets from state support while CU-Boulder depends on state aid for only 15.5 percent of its budget. Two of the smaller four-year colleges, Western State in Gunnison and Adams State in Alamosa, receive more than half their funding from the state.

“The impact by institution varies widely,” the briefing paper says, “creating challenges around how to allocate a reduction of this magnitude. To keep the total funds reduction for all institutions the same would require a significant reallocation of General Fund [state tax dollars] from some institutions with large amounts of tuition revenue to other institutions with small amounts of tuition revenue, and/or uneven tuition rate increases around the state.”

Such shifts “would be very controversial politically,” Kurtz told the committee. That’s an understatement. The question of institutional fund shifts came up repeatedly during the deliberations of the Higher Education Strategic Planning Steering Committee, and it was an issue that always raised the hackles of some institution leaders, particularly those at CU.

The college-by-college funding allocation in Gov. Bill Ritter’s proposed 2011-10 higher ed budget includes a slight funding shift, a plan some colleges weren’t wild about when the CCHE approved the formula.

Staff briefing papers such as the one Kurtz presented Wednesday sometimes contain “briefing issues” that aren’t formal staff recommendations but are meant to give committee members background and food for thought on particular budget issues.

Committee members had a few questions about the 50 percent scenario but didn’t get into a lengthy discussion.

The document also contained briefings on the broader issue of balancing state support and tuition, and on the recently proposed higher ed strategic plan. (See story on the strategic plan.)

Members of the CCHE and college presidents will get to make their budget case to the JBC – and be quizzed by committee members – during an all-day hearing on Nov. 30. Kurtz won’t make his higher ed budget proposal to the committee until well after the 2011 legislature convenes in January.

In the current budget year, the higher ed system has funding of about $2.15 billion, including $535.3 million in state tax support and $85.6 billion in federal stimulus funds. According to Kurtz’ analysis, the Ritter administration’s proposed 2011-12 budget totals about $2.16 billion, including $534.2 million in state funds and no stimulus money. The budget assumes a 9 percent increase in resident undergraduate tuition and a 5 percent hike for non-residents.

The Ritter budget would seem to allay fears of drastic higher ed cuts in 2011-12. But incoming Gov. John Hickelooper and the legislature will have the final say on next year’s state budget, including whether to use the transfers of cash funds into the general fund that Ritter proposed as part of his balancing plan.

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

Democrat Roger Wilson this afternoon claimed victory in the race for the five-county House District 61 race against incumbent Rep. Kathleen Curry, The Denver Post reports.

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

STATE BILL COLORADO

The American Independent News Network, citing the poor economy, today shuttered two of its news websites in Washington, D.C., and New Mexico. A Colorado site, The Colorado Independent, will continue to operate, its publisher says.

“The crisis in the world of journalism today isn’t really about journalism — it’s about the bottom line,” Editor Aaron Wiener wrote about the shutdown of The Washington Independent. “Reporters and editors everywhere are trying to find a way to keep their very good work alive. We thought our model had a chance. It put up a good fight.”

New Mexico Independent Editor Gwyneth Doland tweeted the news that staffers were losing their jobs. The site will continue to remain live, with a half-time blogger possibly being assigned to it.

Hanaa Rifaey, the news network’s publisher, said the Colorado site as well as other state news sites in the network are “secure as long as funding continues. … The programs will reflect the funding they receive. The other programs are safe at this time.”

The Independent network of news sites was financed largely through foundations and wealthy progressives. Rifaey notes that the sites emphasize investigative reports and “impact journalism.”

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

STATE BILL COLORADO

It’s not too late to join State Bill Colorado, the Colorado Automobile Dealers Association, the Colorado Farm Bureau, Capitol Corps, the Colorado News Agency and dozens of Colorado’s legislators for the legislative event of the season: Capitol Rock.

Tickets, which cost $30, are no longer on sale, but you can still register and pay at the door. The party will start at 5:30 p.m. today at the Colorado Automobile Dealers Association, 290 E. Speer Blvd., Denver.

A portion of the proceeds will benefit the “Share in the Care” capitol-dome restoration project.

For more details, call or e-mail Meg Satrom at 303-292-1212 ormeg@circuitmedia.com.

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

By Nancy Mitchell, EDUCATION NEWS COLORADO

It was a civil, if feisty, crowd.

More than 40 speakers and others packed a school board meeting room in Castle Rock on Tuesday for the public’s first chance to comment on Douglas County’s voucher proposal.

Go straight to meeting video.

Most of the speakers – 26 of the 42 – spoke against the draft plan, citing concerns about public dollars flowing to private schools and the potential exodus of district students. Some criticized the board’s decision to spend more than $13,000 on the attorney who wrote the proposal.

“We do not have a failing school system,” said a passionate Daniel Galloway, the father of four students in district schools. “Let’s call this what it is. You call it choice, I call it a bailout or a subsidy.”

But there was also emotion among the supporters who spoke. One mom talked about the problems her autistic son is having in his neighborhood school. Others said the proposal could reduce overcrowding and bring more money into the district.

“I will be happy for my taxpayer money to be provided towards parents to choose which school fits their needs,” said Karin Piper, whose children have been in traditional, charter, online, private and home schools. “I don’t feel like I have the business to tell parents that.”

Under the current proposal, a student enrolled in Douglas County could receive a voucher equal to a private school’s tuition or 75 percent of per-pupil funding, whichever is less. The other 25 percent would stay in the district.

Private and religious schools in Douglas County could apply to participate in the program and, under the current plan, those schools could continue admissions policies requiring students be of a certain faith.

But Douglas County school board members said the final version of the plan will be shaped by community input. A second public hearing is scheduled Dec. 7 and board President John Carson said a time line for a vote on the proposal should be ready by the board’s Dec. 21 meeting.

For more information about the proposal and a legal history of vouchers in Colorado, see this EdNews’ story.

Click in the video below to view highlights from Tuesday’s meeting. In some shots, you can see the clock ticking down the single minute each speaker was given. And you’ll hear, in some cases, audience members shouting out “Time” to ensure the limit was enforced – causing some speakers to stop mid-sentence.

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

By Peter Marcus, DENVER DAILY NEWS

“Smash capitalism.”

That’s what “Ask a Mexican” columnist Gustavo Arellano suggested conservative Tom Tancredo was saying last night when the outspoken anti-illegal immigration former congressman said business owners need to be held responsible for cracking down on the problem.

“Tough crap,” said Tancredo. “Who cares about the American businessmen? I don’t care … if the American businessmen have to raise rates in order to hire people who are legally present, that is OK with me, and if I have to pay more for the head of lettuce, or for whatever else that I am a beneficiary of as a result of legal labor, it’s OK with me.”

Arellano and Tancredo faced off last night in a spirited debate, a debate that felt more civil than some of the gubernatorial debates Tancredo recently participated in during his run for governor as a third-party candidate.

The debate between Arellano and Tancredo was a long time coming, organized by Westword, in which Arellano’s “Ask a Mexican” weekly column runs. Arellano is currently the managing editor of Westword’s partner paper, the OC Weekly.

The debate last night could take off as a road show of sorts. Audience members walked away from the Latino-minded Su Teatro feeling both entertained and educated. It was a chance for the two sides of the immigration debate to get to the heart of the issue.

The mostly Latino audience was on its best behavior, occasionally vocally disagreeing with Tancredo through quips and jabs amongst one another, but for the most part allowing the debate to go on uninterrupted.

Most of the debate focused on assimilation, with Arellano asking Tancredo why he is so adamant that the majority of Latino immigrants — especially their children — do not care about assimilation or acculturation.

“My dad came to this country illegally in the trunk of a Chevy, my mom dropped out of school in ninth grade, they lived their lives in the United States 40-something years, 90 percent of their lives they’d speak in Spanish … I basically grew up in Mexico,” said Arellano, his brand new black and white Converse Chuck Taylor sneakers presenting a glaring contradiction to Tancredo’s leather boots. “So, how is it that I’m talking to you in English if we can’t assimilate …?”

Tancredo calls it the “cult of multiculturalism,” arguing that while diversity is a nice concept, it is not practical when applied to immigration.

“We are indeed a nation of great diversity, and diversity can be a very healthy thing, it can also, when driven to a certain point, be unhealthy,” said Tancredo. “You cannot have a nation that is focused on the idea of diversity as being the central theme. It’s oxymoronic to think of a homogenous society made up of completely different people who accentuate the differences.”

At times, the two “contestants” were visibly frustrated with each other, especially over issues about how to enforce immigration laws.

Tancredo pushed for his usual enforcement strategies, including requiring employers to use the federal E-Verify system and requiring people to provide proof of citizenship in order to receive social service benefits.

But the two also agreed on a couple of issues, including a need to legalize drugs in an effort to stop violent drug cartels along the border.

Arellano, however, kept coming back to the topic of assimilation, arguing that there is just as much of a desire today for immigrants to assimilate, as there was when Tancredo’s grandparents immigrated from Italy.

“This illegal immigrant dad, this illegal alien, this menace invading society, he created three children who have college degrees … he goes to every election, and he’s even against illegal immigration,” Arellano said of his family. “In this family of Mexicans, who still basically live in Mexico in the United States … you have some of the best Americans you’ll ever meet, and our family is not the exception, we are the rule.”

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

By Peter Marcus, DENVER DAILY NEWS

As Denver Water officials today will take public comment and vote on whether to increase rates by more than 10 percent next year, a Denver Daily News investigation revealed that at least 82 of the agency’s more than 1,000 employees are being paid more than $100,000.

The high-earners make up about 7 percent of the agency’s workforce.

Denver Water officials are considering an average increase for next year of $41 per year for Denver customers, or an increase of about $3.40 per month.

The increase would be more than 10 percent for next year and comes as Denver Water officials warn that consumers may see an increase of 31 percent over the next three years.

Suburban residential customers would see an average increase of about $2.66 per month, or about $32 per year.

If approved, the increased water rates would take effect in March 2011.

Consumers have already raised concerns over a rate increase in the midst of an economic downturn. Some Denver City Council members have also raised concerns over the rate increase, calling for a list of Denver Water salaries and increases to justify the rate increase.

There were no increases for salaries between 2009 and 2010. But between 2007 and 2008, salaries increased by about 2-3 percent, according to a review of Denver Water salaries by the Denver Daily News. The last time there was a significant pay increase for Denver Water employees was between 2007 and 2008.

At least 82 of the agency’s more than 1,000 employees are receiving annual salaries of more than $100,000.

The top 10 earners include:

» Patricia Wells, general counsel, $211,944;

» Robert Mahoney, director of engineering, $184,884;

» Christopher Dermody, director of IT, $173,328;

» David Little, director of planning, $162,120;

» Michael Walker, attorney, $159,252;

» Carla Elam-Floyd, director of human resources, $157,224;

» John Bambei, Jr., chief of engineering, $152,844;

» Marie Bassett, director of public affairs, $149,664;

» Casey Funk, attorney, $137,892; and

» Angela Bricmont, director of finance, $135,480.

Denver Water explains the need for the rate increase as being about keeping up with increased demand and maintaining and building infrastructure to keep up with demand.

Water officials say they need to rehabilitate or replace more than 3,000 miles of distribution pipe, as well as 12 raw water reservoirs, 22 pump stations and four treatment plants.

Denver Water also plans to expand its system capacity over the next decade to accommodate future needs, according to a news release issued last month. The plan calls for enlarging Gross Reservoir by 18,000 acre-feet, finishing the development of gravel pits that store reusable water, and exploring ways to work with other water providers.

The Board of Water Commissioners will meet today at 1600 West 12th Ave. and hold a public comment session at 9 a.m. before voting on the proposed rate increase.

Comments may also be submitted to dbwc@denverwater.org.

For more information on the proposed rate adjustment, call 303-628-6320.

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

By Peter Marcus, DENVER DAILY NEWS

Immigrations enforcement officers in Nebraska stopped a busload of Denver-area Spanish-speaking U.S. citizens and legal residents last April, rounding up the residents, arresting two of them and searching most of them before realizing they had stopped legal residents, according to a complaint filed by the ACLU of Colorado.

The administrative complaint was filed yesterday with U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement, filed under the Federal Tort Claims Act. The complaint claims false arrest, false imprisonment and battery. If the complaint is not answered and resolved within six months, plaintiffs can file a lawsuit in federal court.

The complaint was filed by the ACLU on behalf of U.S. citizens and Denver residents Arquimides Bautista and Rosalba Artimas. The incident took place last April when the two Amway distributors were on a bus that was chartered to drive their group to an Amway convention in Omaha, Neb. Amway is a distributor and manufacturer of a variety of products.

Once in Omaha, early the next morning the bus stopped at a local restaurant so that the passengers could get breakfast. An ICE officer happened to be at the restaurant when she overheard the group speaking Spanish, according to the complaint and an official ICE report.

Suspicious that the bus was carrying undocumented immigrants, or as she put it “a smuggling load,” the ICE officer called for backup, according to the complaint.

ICE officers waited for the bus to fill with the passengers, then boarded the bus and ordered the uniformed driver out for questioning. After showing his credentials and pointing out that he was in uniform, the driver explained that Amway had hired his company, Global Transportation, Inc., to take the passengers from Denver to Omaha for the Amway convention, adding that he makes similar trips for Amway every three months, according to the complaint.

Despite the explanation, ICE officers continued their investigation, ordering passengers to show their papers and questioning them on their immigration status. Passengers were ordered to shut off their cell phones, and ICE officers proceeded to check the identifications of a handful of passengers, according to the complaint.

Shortly thereafter, the ICE officers “commandeered” the bus and took all of the passengers into custody, according to the ACLU.

The passengers were ordered off the bus in groups of five, and were ordered to empty their pockets, put their hands up against a wall, and submit to body searches, according to the complaint. The passengers were detained in cells where they awaited further questioning, according to the complaint.

Mr. Bautista and Ms. Artimas were released after ICE officers realized they were citizens, but not before they were arrested, fingerprinted and ordered to take mug shots, according to the complaint.

“This is a case of racial profiling and ethnic stereotyping at its very worst,” said Mark Silverstein, ACLU legal director in Colorado. “An ICE agent targeted our clients for speaking Spanish in an Omaha fast food restaurant. Speaking Spanish is not a crime, nor does it provide any basis for immigration officers to start demanding papers or otherwise launch any investigation.”

A call by the Denver Daily News to the ICE Office of Public Affairs in Washington, D.C., was never returned yesterday. A similar call by the Denver Daily News to an ICE office in Denver was also never returned.

Silverstein said if ICE does not appropriately address the complaint, the agency could be facing claims for violations of Fourth Amendment rights.

“The Fourth Amendment applies to ICE officers just as it applies to any other law enforcement agency,” Silverstein said. “ICE officers cannot forcibly detain persons and demand their papers unless there is a reasonable suspicion of an immigration violation. Speaking Spanish and traveling a long way does not amount to reasonable suspicion.”

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

By Peter Marcus, DENVER DAILY NEWS

Conservative firebrand Tom Tancredo blasted bipartisanship in an op-ed that appeared over the weekend.

In the opinion piece that ran on World Net Daily— a conservative blog — Tancredo slammed former-Gov. Bill Owens for joining Gov.-elect John Hickenlooper’s transition team. Tancredo believes Owens, a Republican, has been “co-opted” by the Democrats and will end up hurting the Republican cause.

“Selling out your party’s platform and policy agenda before the first shot is fired is a form of pre-emptive compromise that ought to be called by its right name: surrender,” he wrote. “It is not bipartisanship in search of genuine solutions; it is gamesmanship in search of favorable press clippings. Such behavior may be acceptable to ‘party elders’ who are accountable to no one, but it is not acceptable for elected representatives sent to the capitol to tackle tough problems and seek real solutions based on constitutional principles.”

Owens was one of several Republicans named to Hickenlooper’s transition team. Not all prominent GOP figures argued that it was a bad idea for Owens to join forces with Hickenlooper.

“We applaud Governor-elect Hickenlooper for naming Governor Owens as a co-chair of his transition team,” said a statement from Sen. Mike Kopp, R-Littleton, earlier this month. “We hope the governor-elect will continue to surround himself with individuals with a proven track record of finding efficiencies, eliminating government waste and streamlining regulatory policies to encourage business growth in Colorado.”

Tancredo wrote that bipartisanship is practical when lawmakers must slightly alter ongoing programs that most of the public supports. However, Tancredo believes the type of bipartisanship in which Republicans like Owens join Hickenlooper’s transition team is a political ploy that is falling into Democrats’ hands. He wrote that having it seem like Hickenlooper is coming from a bipartisan place makes it easy for Democrats to brand Republicans who don’t support Hickenlooper’s agenda as being “partisan obstructionists.”

Tancredo added in the op-ed that Republicans should make good on their promise to roll back “Obamacare and other expansions of government” instead of agreeing with Democrats on issues that would expand government.

“The clock is running out for the Republican Party,” he wrote in the op-ed. “If they do not begin delivering on their promises, the grass-roots citizens’ rebellion that swept them into office will find another vehicle for restoring constitutional liberties.”

Tancredo, who ran as an American Constitution Party candidate, lost to Hickenlooper this month in the general election for governor.

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