Monica Marquez

By Matt Masich, STATE BILL COLORADO

DENVER — Monica Marquez will be announced as the 101st justice of the Colorado Supreme Court, two sources have independently told State Bill Colorado.

No other details are available.

Gov. Bill Ritter is to announce the selection at 2:30 p.m. today in his office.

Marquez will be the first Latina and first openly gay person to serve on the state’s high court. She is the second Latina appointed to the state appellate courts this month; Ritter appointed Terry Fox to the Court of Appeals on Sept. 1.

She is Ritter’s first appointment to the state’s seven-member Supreme Court.

Marquez got her law degree from Yale Law School in 1997, and clerked for 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge David Ebel and U.S. District Judge Michael Ponsor in Massachusetts. After several years as an associate at Holme Roberts & Owen, she joined the Attorney General’s office in 2002, where she represents the offices of the governor, secretary of state, treasurer and other state officials.

Beside being female, Marquez has a lot in common with Mullarkey, the justice she will replace on the bench. Both came from the Attorney General’s office and have extensive background in the type of government law that generates some of the most controversial cases that come before the Supreme Court.

Marquez has often represented the state in Taxpayer Bill of Rights, or TABOR, cases. For instance, she was lead counsel for the governor in Barber v. Ritter, the case in which the state Supreme Court agreed with her argument that fees are not taxes and are not subject to voter approval under TABOR.

Marquez is a past-president of the Colorado Gay Lesbian Bisexual and Transgender Bar Association and a board member of the Colorado Hispanic Bar Association. She is also the daughter of former Colorado Court of Appeals Judge Jose D.L. Marquez, the first Latino to serve on that court.

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

By Christine Vestal, Stateline Staff Writer

Washington Post/Getty Images More than 240,000 water pipes break every year in the United States — about one every two minutes. Although states offer local governments low-interest loans to help pay for upgrades, localities are mostly on their own to pay billions of dollars in repair bills. When a cold snap hit the Southeast last January, water pipes broke all over Jackson, Mississippi, including those that fed the state capitol and the governor’s mansion. Like everything else in the city of 140,000, state government ground to a halt for three days. To prevent a repeat occurrence, Jackson’s Democratic Mayor Harvey Johnson Jr. asked the state to underwrite a no-interest bond for $6 million to upgrade the pipes that supply drinking water to state buildings. Lawmakers agreed, but Republican Governor Haley Barbour and other top officials declined to approve the proposal, saying the water system in Jackson is Jackson’s problem. Barbour’s office suggested the city seek the needed money from a state revolving fund that loans localities money for water repairs. Over the past 12 years, Jackson has borrowed more than $14 million from the fund. This time, the mayor wanted to lighten the burden on ratepayers by seeking an interest-free loan. “Although $6 million is a drop in the bucket,” says a city aide, “it would have helped us leverage borrowing in the capital market, leaving less that future ratepayers will have to pay.” Technically, Jackson’s problem is, in fact, Jackson’s problem. Like most other cities, Jackson owns and operates its water utility and is responsible for maintaining it. States step in only when there’s an emergency, or to help disadvantaged communities that cannot afford to pay for safe drinking water systems. But states have a lot to lose if repairs to local water systems are delayed for too long. Businesses suffer, diseases can spread and emergency repairs can be costly. As a result, some states started taking a more active role in repairing crumbling municipal water works — at least until the recession began in December 2007. “States have been feeling pressure from localities in terms of more demand for funding,” says Rick Farrell, executive director of the Council of Infrastructure Financing Authorities. “Unfortunately, they’re not in a position to fill the void.”  Instead, some states are looking at creative ways to maximize the federal money they themselves get for water facilities. How big is the problem? According to the U.S. Geological Survey, water main breaks result in the loss of up to 1.7 trillion gallons of clean water each year, at a cost of $2.6 billion. That loss is an issue of increasing concern as regional water shortages become more common. In addition to breakdowns in delivery, the failure of antiquated sewerage systems results in as much as 10 billion gallons of untreated wastewater flowing into the nation’s drinking water sources each year. Although states primarily play the role of regulator — guarding watersheds against pollution — they also are charged with deciding which cities and communities should get low-interest loans for water infrastructure repairs. States distribute about $6 billion per year through state revolving funds, which include federal grants plus a 20 percent state match. States manage the programs by recycling principal and interest payments from the localities that borrow the money and combining them with annual federal grants and state matching funds. Created by the Clean Water Act of 1977 and expanded by the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1996, the money is intended to help localities — which own about 84 percent of the nation’s water utilities — bridge the gap between the rates they collect for water and sewerage and the cost of maintaining safe water systems. In many cases, states supplement the fund with further borrowing and, to a lesser degree, tax revenues. Mississippi makes $2.9 million in general revenues available to localities for emergency wastewater repairs that cannot wait for a loan processed from the revolving fund. Other states have been more aggressive in supplementing local sewerage relief. California lawmakers this year approved $11 billion in bonds for water infrastructure, because of the devastating economic effects created by water shortages in farming regions. Similarly, Pennsylvania has invested more than $1 billion in water infrastructure through general obligation bonds. “Infrastructure surely is not the sexiest word in the English language,” Pennsylvania Governor Edward Rendell wrote in a recent article, “nor does it command the attention of the media or the average person on a daily basis. That is until a bridge collapses, the water is contaminated, a levee breaks or a school is shuttered in your own backyard.” Neighboring Maryland has a special fund to clean up its major water resource, the Chesapeake Bay. Levying a so-called “flush tax” on users of public sewerage systems and owners of private septic systems, the state created a wastewater cleanup fund that last year came to $203 million. In addition to using it for environmental restoration of the state’s watersheds, the money went for repairs to local wastewater systems, including those in the state’s largest city, Baltimore. A growing gap Although the state revolving funds and supplemental funding streams are important sources of capital, they don’t come close to covering the widening gap between the cost of maintaining the nation’s aging water infrastructure and the fees charged to the business and residential customers who use the systems. At the heart of the problem is the fact that most cities and communities do not charge their customers rates high enough to cover the true cost of providing clean drinking water and removing wastewater. Among developed countries, the United States and Canada have by far the lowest rates for clean drinking water and sewerage.Yet despite a growing awareness that most U.S. water rates do not cover the costs of maintaining the infrastructure, most mayors are loathe to support unpopular water fee increases. Clean water is assumed to be a permanent benefit, and guaranteeing it is not at the top of the average citizen’s list of public priorities. “Out of sight, out of mind,” says Steven Brown, executive director of the Environmental Council of the States, whose members oversee the state revolving funds. “Every state has multiple pots of funds they can use to assist local governments, but those are among the first budget cuts that get made,” Brown says. This year, however, the most sought-after source of local water maintenance funding was the federal stimulus law. States distributed $6 billion in federal stimulus money to localities in the form of grants and low-interest loans. The money — which had to be fully committed by March 2010, according to stimulus rules — was quickly soaked up by local water authorities that had a long list of critical projects waiting for funding. More than 240,000 water pipes break every year in the United States — about one every two minutes, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Without adequate funding to replace aging pipes, the number can be expected to grow. A patchwork of concrete, iron, steel, and even terra cotta and wood makes up the nation’s 54,000 separate water utilities. With some sections more than 200 years old, the hidden network is decaying, cracking and springing leaks beneath city streets at a rapidly increasing rate. As it turned out, Mississippi wasn’t entirely unconcerned about the Jackson water problem hampering state government. The state Department of Transportation decided to use its own money to drill a well right outside its main office near the Capitol building in downtown Jackson. That well will prevent future city water breakdowns from paralyzing the DOT. But it won’t help solve the rest of Jackson’s water problems. —Contact Christine Vestal at cvestal@stateline.org

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

By David Harrison, Stateline Staff Writer
It sounded at first like the best of news for South Carolina. The $26 billion jobs bill passed by Congress earlier this month would send $143.7 million to the state, which has lost between 2,800 and 3,900 teaching jobs over the past two years.Instead, after taking a look at the bill’s fine print, state education officials found a flaw that could deprive them of that money. A set of provisions in the bill requires states to have kept up their level of higher education spending this year, something South Carolina did not do. The bill, which offers money only for K-12 schools, included the higher education funding requirement as a holdover from previous drafts of the legislation. “It appears to us that the only fix is going to be possible through Congress,” says Jim Foster, of the South Carolina Department of Education. U.S. Representative Rep. James Clyburn has promised to help once Congress reconvenes in September. Three weeks after the bill’s passage, several states are – like South Carolina – grappling with its ramifications. Sparking the confusion is language wedged into the U.S. Department of Education’s rules for allocating the money. While the provisions that could harm South Carolina were also present – and stricter – in the 2009 Recovery Act, the stimulus bill made it possible for states to ask Washington to waive those requirements. Thirteen states and Puerto Rico applied for waivers. But this month’s jobs bill does not offer waivers, which means that those states that have made drastic cuts to higher education could miss out on the windfall. The U.S. Department of Education has not identified precisely which states could run into a non-compliance problem. “We’re probably talking five to six states that will run into any problem,” says Mike Griffith, of the Education Commission of the States. “I would worry about California, I would worry about Pennsylvania, I wonder a little bit about Rhode Island and some of the New England states and other than that, maybe Michigan.” Despite the uncertainty, money has already started to flow. Given the general budget emergency at the state level, the Obama administration has been willing to send the funds out now and wait for administrators to prove their eligibility later. To speed up the process, the application form only asks a state’s governor to check one box and sign. This is a marked change from other grant programs, which ask states to send in all their paperwork before they get any money. It remains to be seen, however, if states that are found to fail the requirements, such as South Carolina, will have to return the money. The jobs bill offered the promise of extending the 2009 federal stimulus, which is set to expire this year, thus keeping state and local governments from laying off hundreds of thousands of teachers. About $10 billion of the funding in the bill was devoted to education, the rest to Medicaid. States can either use the money this year or hold onto it until next fiscal year if they’re anticipating further budget difficulties. With the school year already under way in many districts, some administrators have said they would rather use the money to preserve jobs next year. THE EDUCATION JOBS FUND State Projected funding Estimated postions created or saved Alabama 149,539,554 2,700 Alaska 23,540,399 400 Arizona 211,824,489 4,000 Arkansas 91,311,898 1,800 California 1,201,534,585 16,500 Colorado 159,521,991 2,600 Connecticut 110,486,654 1,500 Delaware 27,425,111 400 District of Columbia 18,072,658 200 Florida 554,821,008 9,200 Georgia 322,313,830 5,700 Hawaii 39,311,983 700 Idaho 51,641,026 900 Illinois 415,397,841 5,700 Indiana 207,058,122 3,600 Iowa 96,490,048 1,800 Kansas 92,457,070 1,800 Kentucky 134,945,560 2,300 Louisiana 147,031,839 2,800 Maine 39,068,602 700 Maryland 178,929,680 2,500 Massachusetts 204,016,907 2,900 Michigan 318,132,952 4,700 Minnesota 166,717,087 2,800 Mississippi 97,823,122 2,000 Missouri 189,727,725 3,300 Montana 30,737,469 700 Nebraska 58,890,974 1,100 Nevada 83,113,178 1,400 New Hampshire 40,988,015 700 New Jersey 268,104,738 3,900 New Mexico 64,869,642 1,100 New York 607,591,394 8,200 North Carolina 298,458,355 5,700 North Dakota 21,517,716 400 Ohio 361,179,690 5,500 Oklahoma 119,380,027 2,400 Oregon 117,949,095 2,000 Pennsylvania 387,815,661 5,900 Puerto Rico 129,371,097 3,100 Rhode Island 32,929,312 500 South Carolina 143,700,517 2,600 South Dakota 26,292,261 500 Tennessee 195,881,328 3,700 Texas 830,820,460 14,500 Utah 101,303,951 1,800 Vermont 19,304,177 300 Virginia 249,482,375 3,800 Washington 208,335,375 3,300 West Virginia 54,657,667 1,100 Wisconsin 179,650,099 3,000 Wyoming 17,533,686 300 Source: The U.S. Department of Education It’s almost impossible to estimate how many teachers have been laid off so far around the country but experts put the number somewhere between 100,000 and 300,000. U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan has said the new legislation would protect 161,000 jobs.The bill means school districts “won’t need to make those tough calls,” he said in a conversation with reporters the day the bill passed. “It is providing a financial lifeline for schools that are facing what might be the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression,” he said. Although South Carolina has not filled out its application yet, fearing it will be turned down, 11 states and American Samoa have already received money. They will now have 60 days to prove that they meet the maintenance of effort requirement. State education officials may face another obstacle just as serious as the higher education spending requirement. It is the likelihood that some fiscally troubled governors and legislatures will use the new money to patch holes in their general fund rather than distributing it to school districts. In Congress, Rep. Lloyd Doggett, an Austin Democrat, inserted a stringent Texas-specific provision into the bill that calls on the governor of the state to guarantee that it will maintain the same level of funding for K-12 schools for three years. Doggett has said his amendment was intended to make it impossible for the state to use federal education money to plug other budget holes. Earlier this summer, several education groups wrote a letter to Washington charging the state with misallocating stimulus funds. In some states, arguments are already taking place over how the money can be spent. Rhode Island Gov. Don Carcieri wants to use his state’s $32.9 million in education money to help plug a $38 million gap that opened up when the state banked on receiving more Medicaid money from Washington than was allocated. School advocates, led by Education Commissioner Deborah Gist, have asked him to send the money to school districts as intended. In New Hampshire, Gov. John Lynch has also said he would use the money for general budget purposes, rather than sending it to schools. Education advocates say that would not be allowed under the law. And in California, which is still struggling to pass a budget two months after the legal deadline, it’s impossible to say whether money from the bill will be used to supplant other state funding, says Rick Pratt, of the California School Boards Association. “There’s no debate,” he says, “in terms of what the federal expectation is. You can’t use it to plug holes in the budget or to restore state level reserves but measuring the extent that that happens is going to be problematic in California and the reason is we don’t have a budget.” Outgoing California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has proposed allocating $48.9 billion to K-12 education. Democrats in the state Assembly, in their budget proposal, upped that to $54.4 billion. A conference committee budget, still under debate, later set the figure at $52 billion. The state was the first to apply for the federal funds and has been awarded $1.2 billion, but how it will spend the money remains to be seen. California has lost about 20,000 school personnel in layoffs this year. Federal officials estimate the grant money would fund about 16,500 jobs. Contact David Harrison at dharrison@pewtrusts.org See related stories: Congress weighs stimulus for schools (April 20, 2010) States and schools: A race against time (June 9, 2010) U.S. House returns to approve aid for states (Aug. 10, 2010)

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

By Peter Marcus, DENVER DAILY NEWS
The treasurer of the Colorado Republican Party has filed a lawsuit on behalf of two well established Republicans in an attempt to remove third-party conservative gubernatorial candidate Tom Tancredo’s name from the November ballot.
Richard Westfall, who is no stranger to elections law issues, filed the complaint in Denver District Court on behalf of Highlands Ranch resident Joseph Harrington and Golden resident Marian Olson. Both plaintiffs have contributed to Republican candidate Dan Maes’ campaign, and both have a strong affiliation to and history with the Republican Party.
Many Republicans are infuriated with Tancredo for leaving the Republican Party in July and running as a third-party American Constitution Party candidate, a move that has essentially split the Republican vote, likely handing victory to Democratic challenger John Hickenlooper.
The lawsuit alleges that Tancredo violated Colorado elections laws when he entered the gubernatorial race as a third-party American Constitution Party candidate. The lawsuit points to Colorado Revised Statute 1-4-1304, which states that minor political party candidates must be registered as affiliated with the minor party no later than the first business day of the January immediately preceding the general election. Tancredo would have needed to be registered with the American Constitution Party on Jan. 1, 2010; he did not switch his party affiliation until July.
The Colorado elections law also states that minor party candidates must not have been registered as a member of a major political party at any time following the first business day of the January immediately preceding the general election for which the candidate was nominated. Tancredo was registered with the Republican Party as late as July.
Olson, a member of the Jefferson County Citizens Budget Review Panel and organizer of the Golden Government Watch Meetup Group, told the Denver Daily News yesterday that the lawsuit is not about politics, but about the law.
“I’ve known Tom Tancredo for a long time, I don’t know Dan Maes. Individuals had nothing to do with it as far as I was concerned,” said Olson, who added that she has not yet decided who she is voting for in the gubernatorial race. “People have a passion, and my passion is the rule of law.”
The Colorado elections law, however, does make exceptions for the constitution or bylaws of the minor political party. But the lawsuit argues that the American Constitution Party’s bylaws defer to state elections laws “to the extent they apply to the external requirements and deadlines of the election process.” Westfall takes that to mean that there are no exceptions in the American Constitution Party’s bylaws for party affiliation deadlines.
“The law is very clear that Tom Tancredo was not eligible to be a candidate for office for a minor political party so long as he was affiliated with a major political party on the first business day of January of this year under state law,” said Westfall.
Westfall said his position as the treasurer of the Colorado Republican Party is not a conflict of interest because he is simply acting as an attorney with experience in elections law.
“I have no personal preference at this point,” said Westfall. “I have an ethical obligation to my clients to pursue their interests, and their interests are to have the American Constitution Party follow the rules.”
Plaintiffs first attempted to have the lawsuit filed on Friday in Jefferson County District Court, but a judge ruled that the case be moved to Denver District Court because the proper venue for the Secretary of State’s office is Denver District Court.
Bay Buchanan, Tancredo’s campaign manager, pointed out that the Secretary of State’s Office has already certified the general election ballot.
“Last Friday, after reviewing all the pertinent documentation, Colorado’s Secretary of State certified Tom Tancredo as a candidate for governor on the November ballot,” Buchanan said in a statement e-mailed to the Denver Daily News. “Our attorneys have reviewed the recent complaint by a disgruntled Maes voter related to this certification and are confident that the courts will find no grounds on which to overturn the decision by the one individual with authority to make such decisions.”
A spokesman for Secretary of State Bernie Buescher acknowledged the legal question being raised by the lawsuit and said attorneys have just begun to go over the case. Spokesman Richard Coolidge said the Secretary of State’s Office continues to print ballots with Tancredo’s name on it.
Meanwhile, Hickenlooper and Maes issued a surprising joint news release yesterday committing to only comment on issues.
Maes was forced to defend his character and credibility last week after reports surfaced that he may have been less than truthful when addressing his role with the Kansas Bureau of Investigation 25 years ago. Maes had originally suggested that he was dismissed from his position with the department because he got “too close” to the case. But law enforcement in Kansas disputed the claim.
Hickenlooper has also been asked recently to answer questions about possible charitable contributions to ultra-liberal organizations with ties to radical domestic protest groups.
The two candidates announced nine future debates, adding that any decision on involving Tancredo and other third-party candidates is up to the individual event sponsors.
Dick Wadhams, chairman of the Colorado Republican Party, said yesterday that he does not believe Tancredo’s name will be removed from the ballot because of the lawsuit. He agreed that because Westfall is acting independently, his involvement does not pose as a conflict of interest for his party.
That being said, Wadhams said he will “watch with interest.”

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

By Gene Davis, DENVER DAILY NEWS
The Colorado Department of Transportation yesterday announced that Mark Imhoff has been named as the director for the state’s new Division of Transit and Rail.
But critics of high-speed rail have one piece of advice for Imhoff — stay away from a transportation system that they believe is neither cost efficient nor financially efficient.
The Division of Transit and Rail was created by legislation last year to oversee a statewide transit program. The program has the authority to promote, plan, design, finance, operate, maintain and contract for transit services such as passenger rail, buses and advanced guideway systems. An initial goal of the program is to explore new transit and rail services, including high-speed rail, through Colorado.
Meanwhile, Randal O;Toole, a research fellow at the Independence Institute, a Golden-based libertarian think tank, is hoping that Imhoff will stay away from promoting or implementing high-speed rail. O’Toole argued that rail lines are expensive and limit where people can go. He favors building more highways that can “go far more places and for a cheaper cost.”
“If you look at the history of transportation you see that we adapt new technologies when they are faster, cheaper and more efficient than old ones,” he said. “But rail technology is slow, expensive and inconvenient. There’s no reason why anyone would adopt rail technology in today’s transportation world.”

Criticisms of, support for high-speed rail
Historically, American transportation builders build roads at about 8 percent over the original projected cost. Rail lines on average run about 40 percent over the original projected cost, according to O’Toole.
Additionally, the U.S. state with the one existing high-speed rail project in the works — California — has been marred by complaints that the passenger trains could be noisy and that ridership numbers would be significantly lower than originally predicted. One councilmember in Palo Alto, Calif., offered a proposal this month to state that the city has no confidence in the High Speed Rail Authority Board and to ask all government officials to stop funding the rail project. The councilmember said the taxpayers and community would have to pick up much of the cost for high-speed rail because the authority plans on building the train system “on the cheap.”
O’Toole worries that taxpayers in Colorado would also end up paying for high-speed rail since the federal government has said that at least 20 percent of the funding for the high-speed rail projects must come from local taxpayers, who also must pay for the operating costs.
But Danny Katz, state director for the Colorado Public Interest Research Group, said it makes sense for the state to look at all possible transportation options that could move the people who will be “flooding into the state” within the next 30 years. He doesn’t believe the state can build enough roads to properly accommodate the influx of people. Katz pointed to a study conducted by the Rocky Mountain Rail Authority issued this year that found high-speed rail routes would be economically and technologically feasible throughout the state.
“It seems premature to write high-speed rail off when it hasn’t been built anywhere in the country,” he said.

Provision of controversial FASTER program
The new Division of Transit and Rail was created by a provision of FASTER, a controversial transportation plan that raised vehicle registration fees to help fix the state’s transportation infrastructure. A provision of FASTER provides that $5 million of FASTER funds be allocated to the State Transit and Rail Fund.
The federal government is covering more than 75 percent of the $24.7-million budget for the 2011 fiscal year for the grant funding that will be administered by the new division. The remaining budget provides for initial staffing, including Imhoff’s salary of $114,948 per year, and funds for developing the State Rail Plan and High-Speed Rail Connectivity Study.
Prior to coming to CDOT, Imhoff was managing principal at a firm and oversaw a contract for RTD’s FasTracks program. Imhoff also served as a senior manager at RTD. His initial goal when he starts his new job today is to figure out everything that’s going on, bring more visibility to CDOT and look for creative solutions to the future of transportation for Colorado.
“It’s been 50 years since the interstate system was introduced, and if you look at every aspect of our society we do things differently than we did 50 years ago,” he said. “The same thing needs to happen with transportation.”

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

By Peter Marcus, DENVER DAILY NEWS
Congresswoman Diana DeGette joined U.S. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer yesterday at Denver Health to highlight the impacts of federal health care reform legislation.
The visit to Denver Health comes as Colorado voters must decide this November whether to repeal portions of the legislation. Libertarian leader Jon Caldara is sponsoring a ballot initiative that would exempt Coloradans from being “forced” to carry health insurance or pay a penalty.
But DeGette, D-Denver, and Hoyer, D-Md., said health reform is helping, particularly when it comes to safety-net hospitals and community health centers. Denver Health is considered Colorado’s primary safety-net hospital.
“The Affordable Care Act dramatically decreases the number of uninsured Americans, meaning that no longer will a significant portion of our population use the ER as their primary care physicians,” said DeGette. “This will allow emergency rooms, such as the one at Denver Health, to more quickly provide their outstanding care to the individuals that need it most, while those with less pressing concerns can seek refuge in our burgeoning community health centers.”
Supporters of the reform effort point out that Denver Health alone is expected to spend more than $350 million this year to treat the uninsured.
Community health centers are expected to receive increased funding under the health care overhaul, and are expected to double their capacity within the next five years.
But Caldara believes Coloradans will reject what he and other opponents of the legislation call “ObamaCare,” named because President Obama so passionately pushed for the overhaul of the nation’s health care system.
Caldara says the majority of Coloradans agree that people shouldn’t be “forced” into buying health care. He submitted more than 130,000 signatures to the Secretary of State’s office earlier this month to get the measure on the ballot.
“We’re going to make Colorado a sanctuary state for quality health care,” Caldara said recently. :How they can argue that Coloradans should not have choice in their health care, in that somehow it’s good to force people into health care plans they do not want, is mystifying to me.”
But Dr. Patricia A. Gabow, chief executive of Denver Health, said yesterday that the federal legislation will help her hospital to bring better care to all of its patients, especially indigent patients.
“Once uninsured families receive coverage, they will be able to see actual primary care physicians for their ongoing well-being and their periodic illnesses like colds and sore throats,” said Gabow. “This will help the entire Denver Health system care for all our patients, by ensuring they always receive the right care, at the right place, at the right cost.”

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

Source: BoulderOSteens via YouTube

STATE BILL COLORADO

Gov. Bill Ritter on Tuesday issued an emergency disaster declaration for the Fourmile Fire in Boulder County, authorizing $5 million in state aid to pay firefighting costs and directing the state to seek additional funds from the federal government if necessary.

The governor signed the executive order and declared a state of emergency after touring the fire area this afternoon. The fire has now burned more than 7,100 acres, the governor’s office said. It has destroyed dozens of structures, threatened 500 others and forced the evacuation of 1,000 homes and 3,500 residents.

“This is an extremely volatile and dangerous fire,” Ritter said in a statement. “It’s very important for homeowners who have been evacuated to be patient as firefighters work to get the blaze under control. On behalf of the people of Colorado, I want to commend the emergency crews, including those who have lost their own homes, for doing all they can on the fire lines to protect life and property. While it is encouraging that the evacuations have been successful and there have been no serious physical injuries, there will be many struggles ahead as we begin to assess property damage and losses. My thoughts and prayers go out to all residents harmed by this devastating fire.”

Jeff Jahnke, state forester and director of the Colorado State Forest Service, said, “The Fourmile fire is a harsh reminder about the importance of being prepared for wildland fire, particularly for those who live, work and recreate in the wildland-urban interface.”

The full text of the Governor’s order is below.

D 2010-012

EXECUTIVE ORDER

Declaring a Disaster Emergency Due to Fourmile Fire in Boulder County

Pursuant to the authority vested in the Governor of the State of Colorado and, in particular, pursuant to relevant portions of the Colorado Disaster Emergency Act of 1992, C.R.S. § 24-32-2100, et seq., I, Bill Ritter, Jr., Governor of the State of Colorado, hereby issue this Executive Order declaring a state of disaster emergency due to the wildfire in Boulder County, Colorado.

I. Background and Purpose

On Monday, September 6, 2010, a wildfire (“Fourmile Fire”) broke out in Fourmile Canyon, approximately 12 miles northwest of Boulder, Colorado. As of the morning of September 7th, the fire has forced the evacuation of approximately 1,000 homes and 3,500 residents. Multiple homes have been destroyed, and more than 500 structures are currently threatened. In addition, gusty winds and dry weather threaten to exacerbate the fire. Because of the fire’s proximity to state and federal lands, the city of Boulder, and residences in Fourmile Canyon, an aggressive response is essential. Approximately thirty agencies, including the Colorado State Forest Service, the U.S. Forest Service and local emergency teams, have responded to the wildfire by deploying a variety of resources, including one hundred firefighters, thirty-five engines, seven air tankers and three helicopters.

Additionally, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Federal Emergency Management Agency (“FEMA”) has authorized the use of federal funds to help with firefighting costs. FEMA’s authorization makes federal funding available to reimburse seventy-five percent of the state’s eligible firefighting costs under an approved grant for responding to and controlling designated fires.

As Governor, I am responsible for meeting the dangers to the state and people presented by disasters. The Colorado Disaster Emergency Act of 1992, defines a disaster as “the occurrence or imminent threat of widespread or severe damages, injury or loss of life or property resulting from any natural cause or cause of human origin, including but not limited to . . . fire.” C.R.S. § 24-32-2103(1.5). The Fourmile Fire’s proximity to state and federal lands, the city of Boulder, and residences in Fourmile Canyon posed an imminent danger to life and property and, therefore, constituted a disaster for the purposes of the Act.

II. Declaration and Directives

A. I hereby declare that Fourmile Fire constitutes a disaster emergency for purposes of C.R.S. § 24-32-2103.

B. The State Emergency Operations Plan (“Plan”) is hereby activated. All State departments and agencies shall take whatever actions may be required and requested by the Director of the Division of Emergency Management or the Colorado State Forest Service, including provision of appropriate staff and equipment as necessary.

C. I order the encumbrance of $5,000,000 from the Disaster Emergency Fund to pay for the response effort related to this disaster. These funds shall be used to pay for resources to fight the Fourmile Fire. The Colorado State Forester is hereby authorized and directed to allocate the funding to the appropriate resources. These funds shall remain available for this purpose for one year from the date of this Executive Order.

D. The Director of the Colorado Division of Emergency Management and the Colorado State Forest Service are authorized and directed to coordinate application to the federal government for funds available for reimbursement and to coordinate application for any other funds available related to this disaster emergency.

III. Duration

This Executive Order shall expire thirty days from its date of signature unless extended further by Executive Order, except that the funds described in paragraph II(C) above shall remain available for the described purposes for one year from the date of this Executive Order.

Given under my hand and the Executive Seal of the State of Colorado this seventh day of September, 2010.

Bill Ritter, Jr.

Governor

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

A logo for the effort was included in a draft proposal.

STATE BILL COLORADO

The legislature’s Capital Development Committee will give final approvals Wednesday for plans to raise $8 million to pay for required improvements to Colorado’s gold-covered capitol dome.

The effort is dubbed “Share In The Care.”

The legislative committee is to consider a fund-raising contract for “Share in the Care” with nonprofit Colorado Preservation Inc., consider an emergency supplemental budget request for the project from State Architect Larry Friedberg, and appoint members to a “cause-marketing” review task force.

The meeting is at 9 a.m. but the dome-related items all are scheduled to be heard in the 10 a.m. hour.

The cast iron superstructure of Colorado’s capitol is said to be rusting to the point that an architectural inspection team declared that “the potential loss of strength as a result of deterioration is a significant hazard to the building and it occupants.”

A draft copy of the contract with Colorado Preservation Inc. is published below. Under the contract, 15 percent of most of the money raised will go to Colorado Preservation as an administrative fee. The nonprofit has, in turn, hired Colorado-based Creative Strategies Group to help it formulate a cause-marketing fund-raising plan.

Share in the Care Colorado 2

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

STATE BILL COLORADO

Dan Maes and John Hickenlooper, the Republican and Democratic nominees for governor, today agreed to a fall debate schedule. They also agreed to run a debate “on the issues.”

The two agreed to 10 debates, including the Colorado Decides 2010 “Gubernatorial General Election Debate” that aired last week.

“Coloradans are sick and tired of the personal attacks that tend to typify election season,” Maes said in a statement. “John and I will engage each other on the issues on these 10 occasions and at numerous other forums and smaller events to let Colorado voters decide whose vision for the state they prefer.”

Hickenlooper said, “Dan and I have had healthy disagreements on various issues throughout the campaign so far, but I respect the way he has campaigned with class and respect. I’m confident our joint commitment to discuss the issues facing our state will mean the rest of the country takes note of Colorado as a place that does things the right way.”

The debate schedule was based on invitations the campaigns received and joint availability of the candidates. The Maes and Hickenlooper campaigns have formally agreed to the following debates:

Sept. 2: Colorado Decides 2010 “Gubernatorial General Election Debate;” Denver

Sept. 11: Club 20; Grand Junction

Sept. 17: Progressive 15; Loveland

Sept. 25: Action 22; Colorado Springs

Oct. 5: Channel 7; Denver

Oct. 12 Pueblo Chieftain; Pueblo

Oct. 13: The Denver Post/ 9news; Denver

Oct. 14 Colorado Association of Commerce and Industry; Denver

Oct. 22 Fox 31; Denver

Oct. 29 CBS 4; Denver

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

Members of a legislative panel briefly locked horns last week over proposed language in a ballot initiative defining the word “person”– constitutionally speaking–as it applies to the unborn. In dispute was wording prepared by legislative staff in drafting the proposal’s pros and cons as they will appear in this year’s “Blue Book,” to be mailed to voters in advance of the November election.

The arguments for and against Amendment 62, dubbed the “personhood amendment,” were reviewed by the 18-member Legislative Council Committee, chaired by Senate President Brandon Shaffer, D-Longmont, and vice-chaired by Speaker of the House Terrance Carroll, D-Denver, after public testimony and input from staffers. The proposal, placed on the ballot by a citizens group after it gathered sufficient signatures, seeks to expand the constitutional definition of “person” as a human being to include “from the beginning of biological development.” The draft may be amended by the legislative committee if a two-thirds majority agrees.

At issue was the use of the term “human life” versus “human being.”  The term that will appear on the ballot and in the constitution should the amendment be approved by voters, is “human being.”  The use of the term “human life” was chosen by council staff in articulating the arguments supporting the measure.  Proponents of the measure told the panel that the terms are not interchangeable in this instance. Opponents said they prefer the term “human life” be left in.

Minority Republicans on the committee were vocal about their concern that the proponents’ arguments may have been compromised in the publication, but the GOP members were unsuccessful in amending the language, with the vote counts falling primarily along party and ideological lines.

Rep. Amy Stephens, R-Monument, challenged the committee to consider amending the draft language to preserve the integrity of the proponents’ argument in favor of the amendment.

“If the ballot, the thing they got signatures for, and people signed onto, says ‘being,’ then the language should reflect ‘being,’ ” said Stephens. She said currently the constitution says, “the term ‘person’ shall apply to every human being.”

House Minority Leader Mike May, R-Parker, concurred.

“These are the proponents and they brought forth the proposed amendment, and then we change their words in the arguments ‘for.’  Why not include their exact words as opposed to somebody else’s words?” asked May.

Legislative staff said that the term human life was used because they borrowed analysis language from a similar initiative in 2008 and because they felt that using the term human life is more inclusive.  It was also stated that as they prepared the drafts, they didn’t know the weight that proponents gave to the term since it was not brought up earlier by the proponents.

Before voting the modified language down, Sen. Betty Boyd, D-Lakewood, offered her take on the issue.

“I think that the legislative council staff did a fair job of representing arguments.  I didn’t see the same kind of urgency to change the language,” Boyd.

In other business the committee looked at the eight other measures on this November’s ballot and made only minor changes. Those proposals are:

1. Amendment P – Regulation of Games of Chance

2. Amendment Q – Temporary Location for the State Seat of Government

3. Amendment R – Exempt Possessory Interests in Real Property

4. Initiative 92 – Criteria for Release to Pretrial Services Programs

5. Proposition 101 – Income, Vehicle, and Telecommunication Taxes and Fees

6. Amendment 60 – Property Taxes

7. Amendment 61 – Limits on State and Local Government Borrowing

8. Amendment 62 – Application of the Term Person

9. Amendment 63 – Health Care Choice

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