Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - Full - Legislative Review Committee - 02/11/1994 -THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS LEGISLATIVE REVIEW COMMITTEE February 11,1994 CIC ROOM 12:00 P.M. 1.School Finance 2.Finance SB 68 -Debt Repayment Plans NB 1112 -Regulation of Practices Related to Consumer Debt HB 1296 -Sales and Use Tax Forms SB 167 -Personal Property Tax Exemptions NB 1286 -Tabor,Elections Clarifications Bill 3.Risk Management NB 1280 -Governmental Immunity 4.Police Concealed Weapons Bills (JIB 1025,1076,SB 90,27) S.Transportation SB 105 -Denver Regional Transportation Thoroughfares. 6.Natural Resources SB 89 -Trash Haulers’Bill NB 1168 -Pesticide Regulation 7.Poudre Fire Authority NB 1240 -Pension Investment Limits 8.Consumer Protection Ballot Initiative 9.Water Issues - 10.Other Business THE LEGISLATIVE REVIEW COMMITI’EE MEETING WILL BE HELD IN THE CIC ROOM.CITY CABLE 27 WILL BE CABLECASTING MEETINGS OF THE LEGISLATIVE REVIEW COMMITrEE.THE MEETINGS WILL BE CABLECAST UVE ON CHANNEL 27 FROM 12:00 -1:30 P.M.AND REPLAYED ON FRIDAY AT 8:00 P.M. SB 068 CONCERNING DEBT REPAYMENT PLANS WITH LICENSED DEBT ADJUSTORS,AND,IN CONNECTION THEREWITH,PROVIDING FOR AN EXEMPTION FROM ANY GARNISHMENT OF PERSONAL EARNINGS OR MONEYS IN ANY DANK,SAVINGS AND LOAN,OR CREDIT UNION ACCOUNT IF A DEBT IS THE SUBJECT OF SUCH PLAN RB 1fl2 CONCERNING THE REGULATION OF PRACTICES RELATED TO CONSUMER DEBT ***************************************************************** CML has not identified these bills as having municipal impact. However,Utility Billing credit and collections staff believe both will significantly affect the way the City currently collects unpaid utility bills and other bad debts.To put this in perspective,the City attempts to collect about $150,000 per year in bad debts most of which are unpaid utility bills. SB 68 This bill allows a judgment debtor to pay a minimum amount (3%)of debt while enrolled in a debt management plan with a licensed debt adjuster.It makes no provision to enable a judgment creditor to protect its interests from the debtor who may use the debt management plan until an opportunity arises to “skip out.” Creditors,such as the City,would then be left without resources to recover the remaining debt and invested costs of collection. Since the bill applies to insufficient funds checks as well,the ramifications are more widespread.Allowing payment for goods and services by check has not historically been considered as extending credit.Under this bill,if payment by check is permitted,there may be an implied granting of credit over an extended period of time.This is not the intent or desire of the City. HB1112 There is a section in this bill which makes the fair debt collection provisions of the Colorado Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“CFDCPA”)apply to all creditors collecting their own debts regardless of whether such creditors are required to be licensed under the Act.The City is not now required to be so licensed.If it were regulated by the CFDCPA,chances are that the City’s credit/collection staff would need additional training to be in compliance.So far the City has been successful in using its own staff as the first line for collection and then relying on collection agencies. Maybe an amendment could be proposed which would exempt municipalities from both bills.Increases in the collection costs associated with bad debt recovery must eventually be passed on to all taxpayers in the form of rate hikes or higher taxes and decreasing the effectiveness of collection techniques is contrary to the public interest.It is unproductive to enact these provisions to protect the debtors if responsible taxpayers ultimately pay for it. 0 cc:Counci(” Andrea ..~eger FYI Stale Representative 76 Member: DREW CLARK Education Committee 276 Dearborn Place Transportation and Energy Boulder,Colorado 80303 Committee Business:494-1251 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Capitol:866-2938 STATE CAPITOL DENVER 90203 RECEIVED February 4,1994 FEB 8 1994 CITY MANAGER Mayor Ann Azari P.O.Box 580 300 LaPorte Avenue Fort Collins,CO 80522-0580 Dear Mayor Azari: Thank you for your letter regarding H.B.1025.I appreciate your input,although you can rest assured you do not speak for all of your residents.I have received many calls from residents of Fort Collins who support the reforms in H.B.1025. In response to your specific criticisms: Training:A training requirement i2~been added to the bill requiring not only proficiency with a firearm,but also knowledge of the appropriate and inappropriate use of deadly force. Age:Permits will be allowed only for ages 21 and older. Disqualifier period:The disqualifier period is 10 years,and may even be moved higher. In my view,there are several reasons to support this bill.Some of these reasons are: 1.)Public safety -The experience of many other states which have already enacted such a law showed clearly that such laws do 1121 lead to an increase in violence,and may in fact cause a decrease in violence. 2.)Abuse of power -The total power to issue or deny is a policy fraught with abuse,as testimony clearly established.Clear and objective standards are needed if we are to prevent this abuse from continuing. 0 3.)Self defense -The right of self-defense is basic.The right of law abiding citizens to defend themselves should at least be equal to the criminal’s capacity to offend. Thank you for your letter. Sincerely, / Drew Clark State Representative DC/In Comr.nity Planning and Environmenr Services Transportation Division Ci of Fort Collins MEMORAM)UM DATE:February 3,1994 TO:Andrea Rieger,Legislative Review Committee FROM:Erie L.Bracke,Transportation Planner SUBJECT:SB 94-105 TRANSPORTATION THOROUGHFARE I have had an opportunity to review the above-stated Bill and in “general”terms,can support the action. This Bill gives the power to the Colorado Department of Transportation to construct and maintain a Denver Regional Beltway (a.k.a.E-470).The Bill would also dissolve the current E-470 Authority and allows the CDOT to go to the voters and issue bonds,incur debt,and charge tolls for the facility. There are several questions that need to be answered before a position on the Legislation is formulated. The Bill defines a “Regional Transportation Authority Area”that includes the City and County of Denver,and the counties of Adams,Arapahoe,Boulder,Douglas,El Paso,Jefferson,Larimer,and Weld.Section 43-4-603 imposes a ten-dollar registration fee for each motor vehicle registered with the County Clerk and Recorder within this area.The proceeds from this fee would go into a special sinking find to pay for the project.All pledges and proceeds needs to be approved by a referendum. How does the fee get used in support the city’s position of looking at alternative modes of transporttion to the DIA? The City Council has passed a Resolution (I could not find a copy in the office)that stated that the City of Fort Collins was in favor of supporting alternative modes to the new DIA.I beleive it did not state that the City was in favor of building E-470 or helping to pay for the highway.I’ll keep trying to find the Resolution to confirm. Section 43-4-6 18 also addresses the air quality responsibilities and powers.The CDOT will need to coordinate the air quality conformity issues with the local Lead Planning Agencies (that’s the NFRT &AQPC).There is some discussion in the Bill that addresses the implementation of Transportation Control Measures in th~Authority Area.I would strongly recommend that Brian Woodruff have an opportunity to comment on this aspect of the Bill. The bill requires the CDOT to assist in the implementation of measures to promote alternatives to the single-occupant vehicle.Building a new highway is somewhat inconsistent with this requirement. Please feel free to call me at x6608 if you have any questions concerning this transmittal. 235 Mathews •P.O.Box 580 •Fort Collins,CO 80522-0580 .(303)221-6608 0 0 FEB—10—1994 09:54 FROM POUDRE FIRE aJTH.TO 6329 P.02 A U Phone 303-221-6581 ~~Authonzy~ February 7,1994 Representative Lewis EfltZ,Chair Local Government Committee Honorable Representative EntZt problem statement The present limitation on police and fire pension plan investments is an outmoded law that may have some relevance to defined benefit pension plans,but it is unfair and inappropriate when applied to (I except alternative pension plans.The law provides that no greaterthanSotofplanassetscanbeinvestedincorporatestocks.The Boards of Trustees that represent Poudre Fire Authority employees believe U115 lL~.Itation sheul&ba inorozcod to 75*for the following reasons. ii Ill 2..fle FPPA’s Forthcoming #lan Allows 75%The Fire and Police Pension Association’s forthcoming money 1?purchase pension plan,which is governed under the laws of the TI State of Colorado,will allow 75%of plan assets to be invested incorporatestock.This is a reasonable provision that should be extended to eli.exempt alternative fire and police pension plans. 2.No Federal Limitations There are no stock percentage restrictions by the Federal Department of Labor,Internal Revenue Service or any other federal agency. 3.investment Professionals Would Aqree The vast preponderance of investment professionals would agree that the 50%investment limitation is far too restrictive to achieve adequate investment returns for retirement programs. 4.wise use of Taxpayer Dollars An increase to a 75%cap on corporate stocks would allow present plans to operate as they should and would encourage the creation of more such plans.This would eliminate future unfunded liability problems that have plagued many defined benefit plans. PROTECTING LIVES &PROPERTY FEB 10 ‘94 8:53 303 221 S635 PAGE.002 FES—10—1994 0955 FROM POUDRE FIRE c1JTH.6329 P.03 S.KB 1249 Contains Xnvestntent Standards flat Must Be Met Many exempt alternative plans provide for participant~djrected individual accounts.The participant usually creates a personal portfolio by selecting from a flnu of stock,bonds cash,and balanced accounts based on the individual’s age,time to retirement,and risk tolerance. Under KB 1249,the employer,or other fiduciary appointed under the program,must provid~at least three diversified accounts that offer a meaningful tango of risk and return.The Poudre Fire Authority’s plan provides ten diversified,professionally managed accounts tram which participants can choose.Additionally,the employer,or other fiduciary appointed under the program,must provide sufficient intonation to enable the participants to make informed investment decisions. Thank you. Poudre Fire Authority Boards of Trustees: District Old Hires Citv~1d_flires City Netr Hires Guy floyd Guy Boyd Guy Boyd Chuck Willis Alan Krcn*arik Alan lCrcmarjk Larry Dinkelman Dick Mcclellan John Vancorder Marty Gonan Rob Weber Tim England Tom Hatfield TOTAL P.03FEB10‘94 9:54 303 221 8635 PAGE.003 Ballot Initiative —Addition of Article XXVIII to the Constitution The 1994 consumer Protection Act Legislative Legal Services is working on the draft of the text of the proposed initiative and will propose petition language. Proponents must then circulate and obtain the 49,279 signatures needed to place the item on the November statewide ballot. Summary This Constitutional Amendment would apply to all governments and impacts all “governmental business activity”which is defined as “...a function of a government which offers any goods or services to the public for which there are reasonable substitutes provided by nongovernmental entities.”It prohibits public funding (including in-kind expenditures)for any lobbying activities (as defined in the State Statutes).Liability as currently limited by the doctrine of governmental immunity would not apply to “governmental business activity.”Those same activities would now be subject to any tax currently applied to a similar private sector business activity.Exemptions would be made only for K—12 public school education,law enforcement,judicial, public health and any activities directly related to the preservation of public safety.If provided by the General Assembly,local governments could declare existing or proposed business activities as essential to its citizens and waive some of the provisions of this amendment.However,the waiver may be granted “...only for compelling public purposes which must be specified with clear and convincing documentation at a public meeting...”and must be renewed annually. Issues/Impacts Section 3.Definitions.“Governmental business”or “governmental business activity”uses the term ‘reasonable’which is language that has always been subjective and disputable.Without guidelines or specifics to help governments define the term,the advantage clearly lies with those who would challenge a governmental decision not to privatize.For example,is a karate class offered by the private sector at a higher fee than the same Parks &Recreation class a “reasonable substitute?”There is nothing in the initiative language that ties “reasonable substitute”to cost to the consumer. Section 4.Public funding of lobbying is prohibited.“Lobbying” is defined in the statutes as “communicating directly,or soliciting others to communicate,with a covered official (governor,lieutenant governor,or a member of the general assembly)for the purpose of aiding in or influencing: (I)The drafting,introduction,sponsorship,consideration, debate,amendment,passage,defeat,approval,or veto by any covered official on: 0 (A)Any bill,resolution,amendment,nomination, appointment,or report,whether or not in writing, pending or proposed for consideration by either house of the general assembly or committee thereof, whether or not the general assembly is in session (B)Any other matter pending or proposed in writing by any covered official for consideration by either house of the general assembly or a committee thereof..•. This would mean the City could not belong to the Colorado Municipal League,the Colorado Parks and Recreation Association,the Colorado Water Congress,etc.Nor could city employees lobby or communicate with legislators. Section 5.Stipulates that “No governmental business activity shall be exempt from any laws imposed upon nongovernmental entities or citizens.”Under this provision governments would have to pay sales/use taxes and property taxes and have to obtain applicable licenses.This is likely to raise fees and charges to the public. However,those fees and charges are subject to the Article X, section 20 limitations so it is likely that governments could not afford to pay the taxes or collect enough in fees without getting into a refund situation.Thus,services and facilities that were not self—supporting would have to be eliminated.There is an exemption for public health,safety and judicial activities. Section 6.In order for a municipality to declare certain business activities as essential to its citizens and exempt from Section 5, the governing body must,by a two-thirds majority,find “.. compelling public purpose which must be specified with clear and convincing documentation at a public meeting...“This must be reaffinied annually.This provision imposes the burden of proof on the municipality.The language “compelling public purpose”is debatable and subjective. Possible Actions Statutory restrictions regarding campaign activities apply to this ballot initiative,city employees acting in an official capacity can spend $50 of public money in providing responses to specific public questions.Elected officials can express any opinion,can pass a resolutThn or take a position of advocacy.The City can dispense a factual summary which does not make any conclusions about the initiative.These activities can begin now. Utili Services C Water &Wastewater MEMORANDUM DATE:February 9,1994 TO:Legislative Review Committee ci —“FROM:Tom Gallier,Water &Wastewater Utility /.V CC:Water Board Legislative &Finance Committee Mike Smith,Water &Wastewater Utility Director RE:Legislative Issues Status Report Several new bills were released on Monday,but the weather prevented me from reaching the meeting where copies were distributed.I have included information I have received so far,and will provide more detail at the next LRC meeting.Please note that HB 1006 has been Pl’d,and that SB 95 has apparently been pulled off the Senate Ag Committee agenda for this week. STATE LEGISLATIVE ISSUES: SJR 4-Endangered Species Act Description:This resolution was produced by the Interim Committee on Water and State School Lands Issues,and was reviewed at the January 14 LRC.It recommends several changes to the existing federal E.S.A.that would reduce “adverse social and economic impacts,”require federal compensation for “taking”of private property rights,and reinforce the primacy of existing state water laws. Status:Approved by Senate,but unlikely to have any impact on the issue. Staff Recommendation:No further action necessary SJR 6-Colorado Water and Power Authority SRF Loan List Description:Establishes state revolving loan fund authorizations. Status:Should be considered by full Senate this week.No controversy. Staff Recommendation:Support since we are still on the priority list,and may request additional SRF funds to cover part of our metering program costs. SB 29 (Bishop)-Colorado Water Conservation Board Construction Fund Description:Establishes spending priorities for CWCB projects. Status:Should be heard by Senate Ag Committee this week.No controversy. Staff Recommendation:Neutral ,~t.~:ix?: I •,~‘c& P.O.Box 580 •Fort CoHiiis,CO 80522-0580 -(303)221.66S1 2 SB 45 (Gallagher and Wham)-Elimination of Sunset Provisions Description:This bill eliminates built in automatic sunset provisions from a number of public health related licensing boards and commissions,including water and wastewater plant operator licensing. Status:Should be heard by Senate Ag Committee this week.No controversy. Staff Recommendation:Support SB 54 (Ament)-Changing Conditional Rights Description:Prevents recognition of the original priority date on a conditional decree unless the appropriation is completed consistent with the original appropriation.Colorado Water Congress has some structural concerns with this bill and has a subcommittee working with Sen.Ament on some amending language. Status:Still being worked on and amended by Sen.Ament.Probably won’t make the first deadline for reporting out of committee (Feb.11). Staff Recommendation:Monitor.No problem at present. SB 94 (Bishop)Colorado Water Quality Control Division Iniunction Authority Description:Gov.Romer requested this bill as a result of difficulties the WQCD had taking action against the Summitville Mine last year.They were unable to take effective action until the pollution had already occurred.This bill amends the Cob.Clean Water Act to expand the authority of the WQCD to seek injunctions to prevent “imminent threats of pollution to public health or the environment.”Several water industry groups are concerned that this expansion of authority could be abused in the future if too loosely interpreted by the state,but staff feels it may be worthy of support with a few language changes. Status:Still being worked on by Sen.Bishop,the WQCD,and the Cob.Water Congress. May not make the first deadline for reporting out of committee (Feb.11). Staff Recommendation:Monitor SB 95 (Cassidy)-Basin of Origin Description:This is very similar to bills introduced in the last several years.As drafted,the bill requires a nearly impossible burden of proof that the applicant has analyzed every conceivable alternative to the project.It would tie up any transbasin water project for years,and could essentially prohibit them.The bill would apply to Fort Collins’conditional rights for the Michigan Ditch enlargement,and to any of the City’s other transbasin diversions (CBT,Windy Gap).The LRC was prepared to oppose this bill last year,but it died in committee before we could take action. Status:Scheduled for consideration before Senate Ag Committee this week,but appears to have been pulled aflhe last minute.Staff may testify against it,unless it is killed earlier. Staff Recommendation:Oppose SB 97 (Blickensderfer)-Annual Allocation of Non-Tributary Groundwater Description:This bill would redefine the rules used to calculate annual yields for several non-tributary groundwater aquifers.It has no affect on Fort Collins,but concerns the State Engineer and may represent poor water policy. Status:Not yet scheduled before Senate Ag Committee.Probably won’t make first deadline for reporting out of committee.State Engineer opposes. Staff Recommendation:Neutral r r 3 NEW BILL! SB 121 (sponsor?)-Post-Pumping Depletions for SB 5 Wells Description:This bill exempts certain non-tributary groundwater aquifers in the Denver area from post-pumping replacement requirements,and has no apparent effect on Fort Collins. Status:On-going discussions about amendments to the bill,but I have not yet received a copy. Staff Recommendation:Neutral NEW BILL! SB 138 (sponsor?)-Interface of Well Permits with Conditional Water Rights Description:This bill corrects a potential conflict between two groundwater regulations by clarifying that the expiration of a well permit does not invalidate a conditional water right. No discernable impact on Fort Collins. Status:Unknown Staff Recommendation:Neutral NEW BILL! SB 159 (sponsor?)-Incorporation of Federal Materials by Reference in State Rulemaking Description:This is another procedural bill which clarifies the requirements for incorporating published material by reference whenever state agencies want to adopt federal material.No apparent impact on Fort Collins as written. Status:Unknown Staff Recommendation:Monitor HB 1006 (Jerke)-Administration of Interstate Diversions Descriptions:This bill came out of the Interim Committee on Water and State School Lands Issues and was Rep.Jerke’s attempt to resolve a potential legal problem with the water export statutes.The bill would allow water developments that propose to store and release water for downstream states to avoid having to charge those rights against the receiving state’s interstate compact entitlement.The bill was stron~Iy opposed by the NCWCD and the Windy Gap Participants Committee,due to its potential impact on west slope water rights (especially Windy Gap). Status:Staff was present when this bill was considered by the House Ag Committee last week.All major water industry groups opposed the bill strenuously.In spite of several last minute amendments by Rep.Jerke,the committee voted to Postpone Indefinitely (P.1.)by a vote of 11 to 2. Staff Recommendation:No further action necessary unless the bill is resurrected later in the session. HB 1027 (Romero)-Expansion of Conservation District Powers Description:This bill has been amended slightly,but the Pueblo district responsible wishes to retain provisions that grant authority to deal with water pollution projects.Given the existing structure of water quality programs and agencies,this kind of proliferation is opposed by most of the water industry. Status:Heavily amended,but still being negotiated.Unlikely to be considered before deadline to report out of committee. Staff Recommendation:Monitor revisions:Staff may recommend opposition later 0 4 HB 1075 (Acquafresca)-Denial of Water Rights for Salinity Control Act Improvements Description:This is a complex and confusing bill related to efforts by the Bureau of Reclamation to reduce salinity impacts to the Colorado Riyer by its west slope irrigation customers.It preyents the Bureau or their customers from claiming water rights for any saved or conserved water as a result of their salinity reduction efforts.Several amendments and rewrites are expected,and no impacts on Fort Collins have been discerned as yet. Status:Approved by committee. Staff Recommendation:Neutral NEW BILL! HG 1242 (sponsor?)-Relocation of Exempt Wells Outside Designated Basins Description:This bill has just been released,and I have not received a copy.It appears that the bill allows groundwater wells to be relocated up to 100 yards,with a presumption of no change in use.The State Engineer has some concerns,and none of the water industry groups have taken a stand yet.It probably has little if any impact on Fort Collins. Status:Unknown Staff Recommendation:Monitor NEW BILL! HB 1268 (sponsor?)-Special District Forced Connection Outside District Boundaries Description:This bill amends the Special District Act,and would prohibit districts from forcing connection to their system,unless the property to be served lies within the boundary of the district.Impact on Fort Collins uncertain until the bill is received and reviewed. Status:Unknown Staff Recommendation:Monitor NEW BILL! HR 1289 (sponsor?)-Amendments to the 1965 Groundwater Management Act Description:This bill was introduced at the request of the Groundwater Commission. Mostly it involves technical changes,and increases fees somewhat for some administrative actions.It does not appear to have any impact on Fort Collins but will be reviewed when received. Status:Unknown Staff Recommendation:Monitor NEW BILL! HB 1302 (sponsor?)-Election of Water Conservancy District Directors Description:This bill was mentioned at the last LRC meeting as possibly coming from Sen. Roberts.I have not yet received a copy,and do not know who the sponsor is on the House side.I will have more information available in a few days. Status:Unknown Staff Recommendation:Monitor and support if consistent with the Council’s adopted 1994 Legislative Agenda. r r 5 FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE ISSUES: Endangered Species Act Reauthorization Rumors continue that there is little likelihood the ESA will be reauthorized in 1994.The environmental community seems to think that the current congressional mood and election year politics could result in more losses than gains if they reopen the Act at this time. Status:Still in committee. Staff Recommendation:Monitor Clean Water Act Reauthorization The subcommittee markup of HR 1114 is out,and I have a copy en route.It runs over 300 pages in length,and may take a few days to analyze.Things are moving quickly,however, and a full committee markup is due by February 23.Also,there is a rumor that the National Governor’s Association has prepared its own full alternative markup,and will have a committee member present it on the same day.I have also heard that the Clinton Administration has presented its proposals,but that’s not confirmed.I’ve been told that Colorado’s interests are being represented in Washington,D.C.during this process by Paul Frohardt,the Administrator of the Colorado Water Quality Control Commission.More information will be provided at the next LRC meeting. Status:Still in committee. Staff Recommendation:Monitor Safe Drinking Water Act Reauthorization The Slattery-Blilley bill (HR 3392)has over 90 cosponsors,but still falls far short of the number needed to force this bill out of committee.There is a report out of Washington, D.C.that EPA,Congress,and the states have agreed to convene a broad-based meeting on the SDWA reauthorization in an attempt to break the deadlock that appears to be developing.The parties appear to agree that a consensus will have to be reached if there is to be any chance of reauthorization this year. Status:Still in committee. Staff Recommendation:Monitor OTHER ISSUES: Water Ill Proposed Constitutional Initiative This is the amendment that prohibits transbasin water diversions without an affirmative vote of a majority of all “eligible electors”within the basin.The amendment’s language has been revised again,and another hearing before the Legislative Counsel was held on January 31.No word yet,other than that it has been scheduled for title setting at the Secretary of State’s office later this month. Status:After title setting is approved,petitions can be printed and signatures gathered.If enough signatures are gathered by the deadline,it will appear on the general election ballot in November. Staff Recommendation:Monitor