Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - Full - Legislative Review Committee - 10/08/1993 - Regular Meetingr 1.Update on Interim Committees: Tax Policy -Tax Increment Financing School Finance Water and State School Land 2.Update on worker’s compensation ballot initiative. 3.Update on CML’s Public/Private Cooperation meeting. 4.Update on enhanced emission testing. 5.Potential legislation restricting impact fees. 6.Comments on the reauthorization of the Clean Water Act. 7.1994 Legislative Agenda: Issues and policy statements. Guidelines for use. Presentation to Council. 8.Other Business KDVR tower on state land. THE LEGISLATIVE REVIEW COMMITrEE MEETING WILL BE HELD IN THE CIC ROOM.CITY CABLE 27 WILL BE CABLECASflNG MEETINGS OF THE LEGISLATIVE REVIEW COMMITI’EE.THE MEETINGS WILL BE CABLECAST LWE ON CHANNEL 27 FROM 12:30 TO 1:30 P.M.AND REPLAYED ON FRJDAY AT 8:00 P.M. 0 TAX INCREMENT FINANCING CML Colorado Municipal League 1660 Lincoln Street,Suite 2100 MEMORANDUM Denver,Colorado 80264-2101Phone(303)831-6411 FAX (303)880-8175 City Managers in Selected Cities / Fromi Samuel D.Mamet,Associate Director —‘ Re:CCI Urban County Caucus,Urban Renewal,And r..~Iel~tJowjPC ~.t.5 ‘A,,,—Date:September 14,1993 •-- ~~FP ii ~ Introduction C~T”MAN ~ The purpose of this brief memorandum is to enlist your aid on an upcoming problem that may have negative consequences for your city.What follows is a more detailed discussion of the problem and suggestion for assistance. Problem Description Colorado Counties,Inc.(CCI)has a policy group within it called the “urban county caucus”consisting of all the Front Range Counties (Larimer through Pueblo),plus Mesa County on the West Slope.They have a staff person assigned directly to this group to research and lobby on issues of concern to the group. One of the counties (Boulder,one of whose Commissioners serves as Chair of this group)has elevated the issue of municipal “misuse”of urban renewal and tax increment financing as a legislative issue for CCI to pursue in the form of additional legislative restrictions (see attachment,which is self-explanatory and fairly dramatic in rendering urban renewal and tax increment financing useless). This popped up initially as an issue in HB 1080 of 1993,a bill dealing with county powers.However,through a series of negotiations between CML and CCI representatives the dispute was resolved (see enclosed language accepted as an amendment to the bill which we helped write). On September 13,CCI testified before the Interim Tax Policy Committee of the legislature.I also testified and countered the CCI assertions.The CCI representative stated that county officials would like to have a veto over TIF projects.CCI also stated that the definition of blight should be tightened to delete the use of TIF on open or raw land.Finally,CCI indicated that because of the “negative”fiscal impacts to counties and school districts through TIF,the state had a role to play in overseeing the use of TIF by municipalities. 0 0 The CCI representative was met with a generally lukewarm reception,except for Sen. Jane Mendez (D,Boulder),who was arguing for the counties.Whether the interim committee pursues any legislation remains an open question. I am also enclosing material prepared by Boulder County on TIF that is being circulated by CCI,and I would like to know if the material contained in it about your city is accurate. Here is where I need your help. Help Request Described This group next meets on October 8 at the CCI Offices in Denver.I am sending you this memorandum because your city may be affected by this effort (yes,even if you have a DDA and not a URA,the issue is still the same in terms of attacking tax increment financing),and you are in one of the affected counties. Here is what I would like to have you do,if you feel so inclined. Either on your own,or through your Mayor or other elected official,place a call to your Commissioners and ask them:(1)do they have a problem with any of your urban renewal efforts;(2)if not (and I suspect that in most cases this is the response you will get),would they please not have CCI through this urban county group push additional legislative restrictions upon urban renewal (we compromised out our concerns via 1080,what more is really necessary?)and make their view known oh this at this October 8 meeting through their representative to the group;(3)explain to them that the last thing we need is a very divisive issue emerging between counties and cities in the legislature post-Amendment 1 (especially when there is little evidence that a problem really exists). You may want to consider coordinating your lobbying contact with neighboring cities. Talk to your colleague city managers in the area about this.Please let your URA and DDA know about all of this. Conclusion I hope you can help me,and please call with any questions or with the results of your lobbying.I do want to hear from you on this matter. Attachments HPDesk Local Print for Andrea RIEG~R Start of Item 26. Message.Dated:09/20/93 at 1059. Subject:CML COMMITTEE MEETING -PUBLIC/PRIVATE COOPERATION Sender:Andrea RIEGER /CFC/O1 Contents:2. Part 1. FROM:Andrea RIEGER /CFC/01 TO:Ann AZARI /CFC/01 Pete DAIJLOW /CFC/01 Susanne EDMINSTER /CFC/01 Tom GALLIER /CFC52/O1 Bob NASTAN /CFCS2/0l Part 2. I attended the meeting of the CML Public-Private Cooperation Committee in Denver last Monday (Sept.13).Jan Gerstenberger explained that she had attended two small business conferences at the beginning of the month.At the second conference,the Statehouse Conference on Small Business,the issue of unfair competition and privatization came up. At the CML meeting on Monday,the committee decided to approach CACI,to see if CACI is interested in working together on the privatization issue in a pro-active,productive way.As a basis for conversations with CACI,the ‘DMTj committee proposed that we draft a informational pamphlet,designed to help the business community communicate with government,and also designed to give governments some privatization ‘guidelines’.The desired end product would be a collaborative information package on the communications process the business community can use to communicate with government,a list of generic criteria for privatization,some information on how to cost out services and a model philosophy for privatization. Jan is working on the first draft of this pamphlet,and is also talking to CACI,to see if they are interested in such a project. Jan will also propose this idea to the CML Executive Committee. The statewide meeting of all the regional statehouse conferences is scheduled for Sept.27,at which time all of the issues identified at the individual regional conferences will be ranked by the delegates.Jan thinks that privatization will be a key issue. (The first privatization bill was a product of this conference two years ago.)Jan will attend the Sept.27 statehouse conference. If you would like to attend,please let me know.The fee is $45. Call with questions or concerns. Thanks,Andrea ext.6796 End of Item 26. August 27-September 2.1993 The Denver Business Jouri Legislature may be site of battle over impact fees By CHRISTOPHER WOOD Denver-area home builders are taking aim at impact fees,with a trio of legisla tive initiatives that may be proposed dur ing the 1994 or 1995 legislative session. Steve Wilson,director of governmental and technical affairs for the Home Build ers Association of Metropolitan Denver, said his group is “strongly considering” seeking support from the state Legislature for three bills restricting impact fees. On the other side of the issue is state Rep.Ruth Wright,D-Boulder,who in the past has proposed legislation specifically authorizing impact fees.Wright said she Pleaseturn to page 17,1 Conhinuedfrom page IA hasn’t determined yet whether to renew her efforts next year. Legislative initiatives being considered by the home builders would: •Prohibit one unit of government from imposing fees on behalf of another gov ernment that doesn’t have that assess ment power itself. •Clarify the ability of cities and coun ties to impose impact fees and specify the types of improvements for which fees could be imposed. •Require governments to determine and consider the costs of new regulations and their effects on housing availability and affordability. But a legislative push is not certain this year. Wilson said the public perception that metro Denver is enjoying a home-build ing boom might make it advantageous to wait another year before introducing leg islation. Additionally,he said,state legislators might be averse to eliminating a funding source for local governments in the wake of Amendment l’s tax and spending limi tations and the financial problems of school districts,Impact fees have already been imposed across the state for the ben efit of schools,although open space, administrative buildings and other improvements have been beneficiaries as well, The HBA has filed suit in Douglas and Boulder counties over impact fees,but Wilson said the issue is best settled in the Legislature. “I think impact fees present very inter esting public policy choices,and they should be made by the Legislature rather than the courts,”he said,adding,“We think these bills are ones that really need to be done.” But Diane Reimer,executive director of the Colorado Association of Home Build ers,said it would be “appropriate to wait until there is some settlement.” “1 would hope it will be settled in the courts,”she said. The HBA is expecting district cour’rul ings by the end of the year on its lawsuits in Douglas and Boulder counties.The association challenged Douglas County’s imposition of an impact fee averaging $2,000 per new home to benefit the school district. It later filed suit challenging Boulder County’s imposition of a $3,000 impact fee benefiting the St.Vram Valley School District. If tEe courts favor those impact fees, the odds of legislation being introduced will increase sharply. Wilson said the Colorado Association of Home Builders has primary responsi bility for legislative efforts on behalf of the home-building industry and that the HBA would not introduce legislation on its own. ‘‘We’ve always been able to reach agreement on these issues,”he said. Impact fees have been of greater con cern along the Front Range than in the rest of the state,with some home builders from other parts of Colorado content to “let sleeping dogs lie,”Wilson said. However,impact fees are being consid ered by an increasing number of outlying towns and counties.And home builders from the Front Range account for about 60 percent of the membership of the Col orado Association of Home Builders,and thus carry a lot of weight,Wilson said. The HBA,the Colorado Association of Home Builders and Wright said they’ll likely decide by October or November whether to proceed with any legislative initiatives. Legislaturewill debate impact fees 0 r _____STATE OF COLOPADQ EXEC%JTIVE CHAMBERS 1 36 State Capitol Denver,Colorado 80203-1 792 phone (303)866-2471 September 24,1993 Dear Interested Citizen:- The U.S.Congress is now considering legislation (5.1114)to reauthorize the federal Clean Water Act (CWA).It is important for the State to provide input on this legislation.The final legislation will have significant implications for water quality,land use and water resource management in Colorado.We also need to consider the impact of the legislation on the operation and management of state and local programs in water quality,water resources,agriculture and local government.Consequently,we asked our staff to propose a unified state position which we could provide to the Congressional negotiators for consideration as they address CWA reauthorization issues.We are sending the enclosed draft for your review and comment.- The CWA has been amended several times since its passage in 1972.It was last reauthorized in 1987.In S.1114,Congress is considering the introduction of new,expansive initiatives,such as watershed management,nonpoint source pollution regulation and stronger protection of high quality water resources.Since wetland issues are not addressed in the current draft of S.1114,we have not addressed them in the enclosed draft.However, because several bills addressing wetland issues have been introduced or are anticipated,we would be very interested in your suggestions regarding the need for a state position on wetland issues. Please take -a moment and look over the enclosed draft and send any comments you have by October 14,1993 to Doug Young at Governor Romer’s office (do State Capitol Bldg, Denver,CO 80203).Please limit your comments to four single-spaced pages,and it will be most helpful if you can prioritize your concerns. Taking your comments into account,we hope to finalize this draft by November 1 and provide our recommendation to Governor Romer and the General Assembly regarding appropriate input to Congress. Roy Rome, Governor Interested Citizen September 24,1993 Page two 0 If you receive multiple copies of this draft,it is because we have•each used our own mailir~g lists to assure quick delivery to a large group of our constituents.Please excuse any duplication,and pass the extra copies along to others who may want to review and comment on this draft.We appreciate any attention you can give this important issue,especially in light of the short timeframe available to present our views and concerns to Congress. Sincerely, Ken Salazar,Executive Director Department of Natural Resources ~ Steven W.Horn,Ph.D. Commissioner of Agriculture I Th-iu,,L14 ~wA41 Patricia A.Nolan,MD,MPH,Executive Director Department of Health Dep~of Local Affairs r DRAFT COLORADO EXECUTIVE BRANCH STATEMENT REGARDING CLEAN WATER ACT REAUTHORIZATION September 24,1993 The current session of Congress will likely take action on reauthorization of the federal Clean Water Act.Because of the importance of any amendments to this Act to the protection and management of Colorado’s water resources,the Colorado Department of Heafth,Department of Natural Resources,Department of Agricufture,and Department of Local Affairs have jointly prepared this draft position statement regarding Clean Water Act reauthorization at the request of the Governor’s Office. Protecting the quality of Colorado’s water resources Is a matter of foremost Importance to the future of our State.An appropriately framed federal Clean Water Act can support Colorado’s efforts In this area by provIding the State adequate flexibility,guidance and support to protect and manage our unique natural environment. First,we believe that it is important that Clean Water Act reauthorization be guided by the following four basic principles: *Congress’priority should be Improving the Implementation of existing Clean Water Act programs and mandates,rather than establishing new requirements.The water quality management philosophy and strategy established in the existing Clean Water Act is fundamentally sound.Additional progress in water quality protection is desirable and achievable.However,at this time more progress will resuft from strengthened follow-through on existing programs and mandates than from the establishment of major new requirements.A greater reliance on risk-based analyses,with flexibility regarding the means of achieving desired goals,would better focus limited resources in making further progress toward water quality protection.Such an approach would encourage innovative and lower cost solutions from the local level,thereby encouraging local governments to work in partnership with the State in soMng water quality problems. *State primacy In the Implementation of water quality control programs should be strengthened substantially.It has long been the policy of Congress that states should have the primary responsibility for water quality management.Commitment to this principle needs to be strengthened by providing meaningful flexibility to states in tailoring the specifics of their water quality management programs,and by reaffirming the primacy of states in water resoyrces management.Additionally,there should be specific direction to EPA to focus its attention on enhancing overall state capacity to carryout the water quality programs. *All Clean Water Act programs and mandates must be based on realistic deadlines and be designed as part of a coordinated,consistent overall water quality management strategy.All programs and mandates that are established by Congress must be Implementable by EPA and states in a manner that enhances,rather than detracts from,existing efforts.Overly ambitious deadlines for the implementation of new requirements inevitably divert limited resources away from ongoing efforts to Implement earlier mandates.In addition,it Is Important that new requirements contribute to a unified overali approach to water quality management.For example,mandating an expedited, comprehensive statewide assessment of waters impaired by nonpoint sources is inconsistent with a watershed management focus and would result in an inefficient diffusion of program focus and effort. *All Clean Water Act programs and mandates should be based on an identified,adequate funding source.Substantial water quafity management infrastructure needs are currently unmet and should be addressed by reauthorization.In addition,state program resources are generally inadequate to thoroughly implement existing Clean Water Act programs and mandates.It is essential that no new unfunded mandates be established.Rather,specific and adequate funding mechanisms should be established for any new requirements adopted by Congress. Fundamentally,we believe that at this time greater progress in water quality protection can be achIeved by empowering states to better Implement existing programs and mandates,than by establishing new requirements that would unfocus and further strain limited resources. Attaàhment I to this statement sets forth a set of detailed,title by title recommendations with respect to S.1114,the Baucus/Chafee reauthorization bill.A rationale for dach recommendation is also included in Attachment 1.From that more comprehensive list,we wish to emphasize the following most important recommendations: 1.The Act should not mandate the desIgnation of all waters within specified federal iands or which support threatened or endangered species as “outstanding national resource waters,”because this would effectively preclude all human activities that may have any impact on the quality of these waters,even where such impact would not adversely affect the protected values associated with the water. 2 Prohibiting a~change in water quality Is not always essential to maintaining the values protected by the various federal land use designations.Moreover,an automatic outstanding national resource waters designation for all such federal lands may discourage further federal designations of lands that warrant protection. 2.Colorado supports efforts in the bill to assure the preservation of state authority to allocate quantities of water and the protection of established water rights.Language to provide this assurance should be moved to a more general section of the Act,such as ~51O.This Is important to avoid an implication that these provisions apply to some portions of the Act (e.g.watershed management and nonpoint pollution control)but not others,and to reinforce this important principle of state sovereignty.Any effective long-range integration of water quality and water quantity management must be developed at the state and local levels,not imposed by the federal government 3.No arbitrary deadlines for the development of nationally applicable sediment quality criterIa by EPA should be established,and states should not be required to develop sediment quality standards until EPA develops the scientific basis for such standards.Specifically,standards should not be mandated until EPA (1)develops guidance regarding the designation of sediment uses,(2)develops a scientific basis for sediment quality criteria,(3)develops guidance regarding sampling and analysis procedures,and (4)field-tests proposed criteria in representative areas. Moreover,a specific,adequate funding source must be identified for any new requirements relating to sediment quality assessment and control. 4.Colorado supports a voluntary program to encourage Implementation of the watershed management philosophy by providing flexIbIlity with respect to otherwise applicable requirements.The Act should focus on such flexibility (e.g.by providing for 10-year discharge permits;water quality standards compliance flexibility for point sources,provided that overall standards are mat;authorization of pollutant trading;five-year or six-year cycles for mandated reviews of water quality standards)if comprehensive watershed management plans are developed,rather than establishing new prescriptive requirements (e.g.,overly restrictive and ambitious requirements regarding the development process and contents of watershed management plans). 5.Colorado supports substantial additional resources for the current §319 nonpolnt source control program to give a targeted voluntary,bottom-up approach a real chance to succeed before new top-down federal mandates for nonpolnt source controls are Imposed.Considering the complexity and variability of nonpoint source problems,significant progress has been made in establishing a framework under §319 to address nonpoint source impacts through a cooperative, bottom-up approach.Given the site-specific nature of nonpoint source problems,the possibilities of this approach should be fully explored by providing more adequate funding for these efforts.If more mandatory nonpoint source controls prove 3 necessary in the future,such requirements will be more efficiently and effectively focussed if .a realistically funded voluntary program has been implemented first. 6.Colorado supports Increased federal financial assIstance for water quality protection efforts.Funding for water quality management infrastructure through the state revoMng loan fund program should be authorized at a level of $5 bililon annually.Funding for state water quality management programs should be authorized at a level of $150 million per year,but without new set-asides for innovative programs or planning efforts.Funding for nonpoint sources should be increased to a level of $500 million annually,with a specific percentage allowance for program administration.Moreover,congressional appropriations should match these authorized levels. r DRAFT A1TACHMENT I COLORADO EXECUTIVE BRANCH RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING 5.1114 September 24,1993 TITLE I —WATER PROGRAM FUNDING 1.Colorado supports the proposal to Increase funding to meet water. quality management Infrastructure needs.we urge that theseneeds be addressed by authorizing $5 billion annually for capitalization of the State Revolving Loan Fund (SRF). Rationale:The 1987 Act’s goal was to create an SRF adequate to revolve in perpetuity.With more than $200 billion in remaining point source infrastructure needs to meet existing Clean Water Act mandates,including over $450 million of unmet needs in Colorado,significant additional capitalization is needed to meet this goal.Provision of new eligible programs and activities for SRF funding will only increase the pressure on that already over-committed fund. 2.Colorado supports the effort to recognize the special needs of disadvantaged communities with respect to water quality management infrastructure.States should be given broad authority to define disadvantaged communities and provide financial assistance In a manner that recognizes hardships but does not jeopardize the solvency of the SRF. Rationale:The establishment of authority to provide extra financial assistance to small,economically disadvantaged communities is a positive change,so long as enough flexibility is provided to states in implementation that the viability of the revoMng loan fund concept will not be threatened.A uniform,federal definition of “disadvantaged community”is inappropriate.The current definition in S.1 114 would apply to many Colorado communities and would seriously threaten the solvency of the State SRF. 3.Colorado supports the proposal to Increase the authorization level for ~106 grants to $150 million annually.This level of authorization should be established without new set-asIdes for narrowly identified purposes. Rationale:Colorado fully supports the proposal to increase the authorization for §106 grants to $150 million annually.This increase is needed to cover unfunded mandates from the 1987 Amendments (e.g.,stormwater permitting, sludge management,expanded toxics controls).However;the current proposal for set-asides for certain narrowly Identified purposes would limit state flexibility and divert resources away from states’efforts to implement the established Clean Water Act requirements. 4.All federal Clean Water Act mandates should be based upon specifically Identified equitable and adequate funding sources. Rationale:Colorado shares Congress’interest in making continued progress in our nation’s water quality protection efforts.In the past,however,this interest has led to the creation of ambitious new federal mandates for state programs, without any federal funding source identified to meet these needs.In an era of increasingly limited resources for all levels of government,this problem is more acute now than ever.Congress must not adopt major new programs or initiatives unless additional funding for such efforts is also identified.For example,the ambitious new provisions for the adoption of sediment quality criteria and standards in the current version of S.1114 would necessitate substantial new resources or would divert existing resources away from previously established programs.Congress should assure that such specifically identified funding sources are equitable and appropriate for the particular water quality objective.There is a critical need for Congress to be fiscally responsible and realistic in determining the scope and level of effort expected in our nation’s water quality protection programs. TITLE Ii—TOXIC POLLUTION PREVENTION AND CONTROL 5.Colorado supports provisions establishing a proactIve initiatIve to update technology-based effluent limitations for new and existing,direct and indirect dlsct,argers,taking Into account pollution prevention goals,with the establishment of an Identified funding mechanism for this effort. Rationale:Current technology-based effluent limitations guidelines (for best available technology (BAT)limits,new source performance standards,and pretreatment standards)are seriously out of date for many industrial categories. Colorado supports a focussed,proactive effort to update these limitations as an efficient,effective,and equitable means of making further progress with respect to point source discharge controls.As discussed above,it is important that this effort be consciously funded. r 6.Colorado supports the proposal to require EPA to prepare a criteria deveiopmQnt plan,to help prioritize the backlog of needs in this area.States should be directly Included in this prioritizatlon process. Rationale:Given the broad and expanding array of water quality criteria required to be developed under the Clean Water Act,ft is important that there be a conscious,prioritized plan for such criteria development.Moreover,in view of the lead responsibility of states in adopting water quality standards,it is appropriate and important that states be directly involved in this priority-setting process. 7.No arbitrary deadlines for the development of nationally applicable sediment quality criteria by EPA should be established,and states should not be required to develop sedIment quality standards until EPA develops the scientific basis for such standards.Specifically,standards should not be mandated until EPA (1)develops guidance regarding the designation of sediment uses,(2) develops a scientific basis for sediment quality criteria,(3)develops guidance regarding sampling and analysis procedures,and (4)field-tests proposed criteria in representative areas. Rationale:The recognition that sediment quality impairment can limit the uses of aquatic resources intended to be protected by the Clean Water Act is appropriate.However,the ambitious schedule currently included in Si 114 for EPA to develop an arbitrary number of sediment quality criteria is totally unrealistic.Moreover,the requirement for states to develop sediment quality standards would divert limited resources away from efforts that should have a higher priority in many portions of the country.in short,the state of the science wIth respect to sediment quality has not yet advanced to the point that a full- blown standard-setting,monitoring and implementation program for sediments would be cost-effective.Congress should provide resources and flexibility for areas with substantial sediment problems,e.g.coastal bays and estuaries,to address this concern,without mandating overly ambitious,uniform national effort&to address sediment quality. 8.Stites should continue to have the lead in the important efforts to address toxic water pollutants.Specifically,a new provision should not be adopted making new toxic pollutant criteria adopted by EPA presumptively applicable in all states that do not object within 120 days. Rationale:5.1114 currently includes a proposed provision that would make new toxic pollutant criteria adopted by EPA presumptively applicable in all states,unless a state objects within 120 days.The Clean Water Act to date has recognized the appropriateness of states taking the lead in developing water 3 quality standards.The current S.1114 proposal moves in the wrong direction. This provision would inappropriately limit states’flexibility and responsibility for determining appropriate levels of protection that take into account the diversity of natural environments.This concern is particularly great with respect to naturally occurring constituents.Moreover,the limited timeframe provided would in most instances force states to routinely object to the application of proposed criteria in order to preserve their options until a full review could be~ completed.Finally,the proposal is inappropriate due to the lack of public input Into the federal criteria development process. 9.Protection of sediment quality should not be incorporated Into the antidegradatlon program until sediment quality standards have been developed, taking Into account the scientific and technical considerationsIdentlfied above. Rationale:Our general concerns with prematurely mandating a major new emphasis on sediment quality are enumerated above.In particular,adding sediment quality issues into the antidegradation review process at this time — before a workable sediment standards system has been developed —would generate substantial new opportunities for controversy,without an adequate factual or scientific basis for resolving such issues efficiently. 10.The imposition of enforceable best management practices on all nonpoint sources should not be a prerequisite to allowing any degradation of “Tier 2”waters (I.e.,waters with quality better than necessary to support fishable, swimmable uses),unless and until such requirements apply everywhere. Rationale:Antideöradation review requirements apply to waters whose quality is better than necessary to support the ffishable’and ‘swimmable”uses established as goals in the Clean Water Act.Although in general ft is true that nonpoint source water pollution is the largest remaining water quality problem, the streams subject to antidegradation review requirements are those that are least impacted by such pollution.Therefore,it Is illogical and an inefficient allocation of resources to mandate enforceable best management practices for all nonpoint sources on such a stream prior to the time that such requirements are comprehensively implemented in areas more seriously impacted by nonpoint sources. r 11.The Act should not mandate the designation of all waters within specified federal lands or which support threatened or endangered species as ‘outstanding national resource waters,’because this would effectively preclude all human activities that may have any Impact on the quality of these waters, even where such Impact would not adversely affect the protected values associated with the water. Rationale:It is important to recognize that this designation effectively prohibits ~new adverse water quality impact,and therefore can essentially preclude any additional development in areas where it is applied.The broad presumptive extension of this concept to many categories of federal lands (jncluding national forests)and to all waters which support threatened or endangered species would severely and inappropriately limit states’ability to develop their lawful allocation of interstate water supplies and determine the best overall approach to economic development and management and protection of their natural resources.Prohibiting ~change in water quality is not always essential to maintaining the values protected by the various federal land use designations. Moreover,an automatic outstanding national resource waters (ONRW) designation for all such federal lands may discourage further federal designations of lands that warrant protection. The congressional policies set forth in *101(b)and §101 (g)of the Clean Water Act recognize the “primary responsibilities and rights of states to plan the development and use Qncluding restoration,preservation,and enhancement)of land and water resources”and direct federal agencies to work cooperatively with the states to develop comprehensive solutions for the protection of water quality within the framework of state laws for water resource management. While we recognize that the designation of outstanding national resource waters can be a useful water quality management tool in circumstances where very stringent controls are appropriate,the presumptive application of this requirement in Colorado could result in the designation of well over half of the stream miles in Colorado as ONRW —a totally unrealistic and unworkable resuft.At a minimum,substantial state resources would have to be devoted to proposing that specific waters not be designated ONRW. 12.Mandated routine reviews of state-adopted water quality standards should be on a five-year or six-year cycie,rather than a three-year cycle,to conserve scarce administrative resources. Rationale:The current triennial review requirement for water quality standards resutts in an inefficient allocation of state monitoring and administrative resources in states like Colorado,which have developed an extensive system of site-specific standards.Adoption of a five-year or six-year cycle would allow 5 S both the fact-gathering and policy-setting aspects of such reviews to be done in a mqre thorough manner.This longer cycle would also facilitate the development of a watershed management approach,by allowing a greater proportion of monitoring and assessment resources to be focussed on individual basins on a rotating basis.Moreover,the need for more frequent reviews is substantially less now that the water quality standards system mandated by the 1972 Amendments has been in place for over 20 years. TITLE III —WATERSHED PLANNING AND NONPOINT POLLUTION CONTROL 13.Additional water quality monitoring efforts should be supported by adequate funding sources.Mandating national sediment quality monitoring requirements is premature. Rationale:States such as Colorado are currently implementing water quality monitoring programs to the extent feasible with existing resources.If more extensive monitoring efforts are to be required,then an adequate funding mechanism needs to identified.With adequate funding,Colorado agrees that more extensive water quality monitoring is highly desirable.However,nationally uniform minimum requirements for water quality monitoring programs are unlikely to resuft in the most efficient allocation of resources in indMdual states. Therefore,states need to have the flexibility to design their own monitoring programs.Finally,new national minimum requirements are particularly inappropriate for sediment quality monitoring,given the lack of an established technical basis for such efforts,as discussed above. 14.Colorado supports a voluntary program to encourage Implementation of the watershed management philosophy by providing flexibility with respect to otherwise applicable requirements.The Act should focus on such flexibility If comprehensive watershed management plans are developed,rather than establishlnu new prescriptive requirements. Rationale:Mandating too narrow a vision of what constitutes an acceptable watershed management approach is likely to stifle,rather than encourage,the many grassroots efforts of this type that are currently evoMng across the country.The funding sources identified for watershed plan development are totally Inadequate to support widespread local efforts,especially given the requirements for plan contents and EPA approval.The watershed management approach should be encouraged even where it may not be possible to Identify a specific list of projects and activities that will achieve compliance with water and 6 r sediment quality standards within a 10 year period.Examples of flexibility that could be provided where watershed management plans have been developed include providing for 10-year discharge permits;water quality standards compliance flexibility for point sources,provided that overall standards are met; authorization of pollutant trading;and five-yew or six-year cycles for mandated reviews of water quality standards. 15.Watershed management provisions should not establish a new regulatory layer by mandating or encouraging the designation of local or regional management entities with authority for Implementation of watershed management plans. Rationale:The requirement for the designation of management entities responsible for the development and implementation of watershed management plans would encourage the proliferation of additional regulatory layers in the water quality management system.This provision is unnecessary.The watershed management approach is likely to be most effective,particularly in its formative stages,if states are provided maximum flexibility in pursuing such approaches,without the imposition of a formal administrative overlay subject to federal approval. 16.The amendments should not mandate a new,comprehensive nonpoint source assessment of Impaired waters within two years of enactment; rather,Congress should accommodate a cyclIcal focus on individual watersheds over a sIx year period. Rationale:Four major river basins,with important subbasins,originate in Colorado.Mandating an expedited,statewide assessment of these waters assures that the State will not be able to take a focussed,basin-specific approach to such assessment.The longer time period suggested above would facilitate Colorado’s efforts to shift to a conscious,coordinated watershed orientation,by allowing more thorough basin-by-basin monitoring and assessment efforts. 17.Colorado supports substantial additional resources for the current ~319 nonpoint source control program to give a targeted voluntary,bottom-up approach a real chance to succeed before new top-down federal mandates for nonpoint source controls are imposed.Funding levels should be increased to at ieast $500 million annually and funding for program administration should be explicitly authorized. 7 0 Rationale:It is now widely accepted that the majority of the nation’s remaining water quality problems result from rionpoint sources of pollution.To date, Congress has appropriated tens of billions of dollars for construction of point source control facilities.Funding for nonpoint source control was late In coming and at relatively low levels given the huge magnitude of the problem.Moreover, for the §319 program to be successful,it is important that program administration be explicitly funded,in a manner similar to administration of the SRF program. Considering the complexity and variability of nonpoint source problems, significant progress has been made in establishing a framework under §319 to address nonpoint source impacts through a cooperative,bottom-up approach. Given the site-specific nature of nonpoint source problems,the possibilities of this approach should be fully explored by providing more adequate funding for these efforts.If more mandatory nonpoint source controls prove necessary in the future,such requirements will be more efficiently and effectively focussed if a realistically funded voluntary program has been implemented first. 18.Colorado supports efforts In the bill to assure the preservation of state authority to allocate quantities of water and the protectIon of established water rights.Language to provide this assurance should be moved to a more general section of the Act,such as 5510.ThIs Is Important to avoid an implication that these provisions apply to some portions of the Act (e.g. watershed management and nonpoint pollution control)but not others,and to reinforce this Important princIple of state sovereignty. Rationale:The Clean Water Act already recognizes the primacy of states in allocating water resources,and the importance of recognizing established water rights,in §101(g).Similar language is proposed in the sections of S.1 114 addressing watershed management and nonpoint source programs.While such language is appropriate,it should be included in a section of the Act,such as §510,that does not relate solely to specific programs.My effective long- range integration of water quality and water quantity management must be developed at the state and local levels,not imposed by the federal government TITLE IV —MUNICIPAL POLLUTION CONTROL 19.The amendments to the Act should not mandate that municipal stormwater dischargers be subject to requirements beyond management measures that control pollution to the maximum extent practical until there has 8 •been a full opportunity to Implement and determine the effectiveness of such measures.. Rationale:It is important that further progress in controlling pollution in stormwater discharges be made by a concerted effort toward the identification and implementation of appropriate management measures.However,until further experience is gained regarding the feasibility and success of such efforts,it is unrealistic to mandate that permits include ‘management measures that ensure the attainment and maintenance of water quality standards”.States should be left with adequate flexibility to determine appropriate levels of control. For now,more progress will generally be made by a focus on what is technologically achievable,without complicating such efforts with a debate regarding the appropriate application of existing water quality standards to infrequent,wet weather discharges. 20.Water conservation efforts should be left principally to state and local governments,with financial and technical support from federal agencies. Prescriptive federal policy should not be established in this area. Rationale:Water conservation is an important resource management goal,and it is appropriate for the federal government to assure that its efforts support this goal.Substantial progress regarding water conservation has occurred in recent years at the state and,more importantly,local levels.S.1114 currently proposes that EPA be ‘the primary coordinator for all policies of the Federal Government”regarding water conservation.We are uncertain what role is envisioned by this provision.Congress should address this area cautiously,to assure that EPA does not,in the name of consistency,impose policies that will stifle local initiative. TITLE V —PERMIT PROGRAM AND ENFORCEMENT 21.EPA should not be authorized to Issue a federal discharge permit merely because a state falls to reissue a permit within 180 days following expiration. Rationale:The arbitrary 180-day deadline for reissuance of state discharge permits that is currently proposed in 5.1114 is inappropriate.While it is appropriate to encourage timely issuance of permits,such arbitrary deadlines will encourage EPA “overfihing”on permits and generate unnecessary and unproductive conflict between states,dischargers and EPA.Before imposing such a deadline on states,Congress should examine the performance of EPA 9 0 in issuances of discharge permits for federal facilities,where delays of several years are common. 22.The Act should be modified to clarify that a citizen suit Is barred If a state or EPA has commenced and Is diligently prosecuting an administrative enforcement action with respect to the alleged violation. Rationale:The Clean Water Act should strike an appropriate balance between supporting the viability and predictability of federal and state agency enforcement efforts,and encouraging citizen oversight of the enforcement process.Where a state or EPA has commenced and Is diligently prosecuting an enforcement action,agencies should not be required to devote additional resources to judicial second-guessing regarding the resufts of these efforts. This should be true whether the government’s enforcement occurs through a court action or an administrative process.This is particularly important now that the Act has been revised to encourage administrative enforcement actions. 23.Colorado supports the provisions authorizing compliance orders and civil penalties for violations by federal facilities. Rationale:In Colorado and elsewhere over the last several years,increasing information regarding environmental problems created by various federal facilities has understandably led to great citizen concern.In order to assure that these problems can be addressed effectively by states,and to help restore public confidence in the even-handed application of environmental requirements,S.1 114’s proposed provisions regarding compliance orders and civil penalties for violations by federal facilities should be adopted. TITLE VI—PROGRAM MANAGEMENT No recommendations. AdmhCrative Services r Ci of Fort Collins MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: RE: October 7,1993 Alan Apt,Council Member Ann Azari,Mayor Chris Kneeland,LRC Chaliperson Legislative Review Committee Staff Foit Collins 1994 Legislative Agenda -Preliminary Format Attached is a draft of the 1994 Legislative Agenda and the proposed guidelines for using the Legislative Agenda.At the October 8th Legislative Review Committee meeting we would like to discuss: 1.The issues identified in the Legislative Agenda,and the associated policy statements. 2.The proposed use of the Agenda. 3.How to best present the Legislative Agenda to the full Council. This Legislative Agenda was included in your Council packet on Tuesday. Andrea Rieger at ext.6796 with questions or concerns. Please contact 300 LaPorte Avenue •P.O.Box 580 •Fort Collins,CO 80522-0580 (303)221-6790 DRAFT USE OF THE LEGISLATIVE AGENDA The 1994 Legislative Agenda is intended to facilitate Council and staff reaction to legislation in these instances: Responses to questions on City policy or position on pending legislation: Council members or LRC staff members may respond to questions fmm legislators and from committees about the City’s policy position.Staff would carefully adhere to the stated policy in the Legislative Agenda in such cases. Reactions to legislation: Council members or LRC.staff members would be able to react to legislation which is clearly supportive of or opposed to City policy as stated in the Legislative Agenda. Staff would update the Legislative Review Committee via electronic mail as soon as possible about any action taken.Staff would also brief the Legislative Review Committee at the next scheduled LRC meeting. Inform state and federal legislators: The Legislative Agenda will also enable state and federal legislators to reference the City’s policy at their convenience. This Agenda is intended only to enhance the established legislative process by providing policy statements that both Council and staff may reference when analyzing and responding to legislation. DRFT 0 DRAFT CITY OF FORT COLLINS LEGISLATIVE AGENDA TABLE OF CONTENTS CityofFortCollinsCoundil pg.1 Introduction pg.2 Fort Collins’Legislative Process pg.2 Legislative Review Committee Members pg.3 1.Air Quality pg.4 2.Education pg.4 3.FIre Protection pg.4 4.Bazardous 1~{ateriaIs pg.5 5.fla~ard~ns ‘VVaste pg.5 6.home Rule pg.5 7.Investments pg.6 8.Municipal Utifity Service Territory pg.6 9.l~rivatization pg.7 10.Public Safety and Violence Prevention pg.7 11.Public Safety Pensions pg.8 12.Recycling and Solid ‘VVaste pg.8 13.Sales and Use Tax pg.8 14.Sovereign and Governmental Immunity pg.9 15.Special Improvement Districts pg.9 16.Water and Wastewater Utility Services pg.10-11 17.~Vorker’s Compensation pg.11 C DRFT CITY OF FORT CoLLINs Foil Collins is located next to the Rocky Mountains in northern Colorado,60 miles north of Denver.The population of the City is approximately 90,000 with a land area of 33 square miles.The town of Fort Collins was incorporated by an order of the Board of County Commissioners of Larimer County,Colorado on February 3,1873.The present Charter of the City of Fort Collins,establishing the Council-Manager form of government,was adopted by the electors of the city on October 5,1954. COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS -1994 Mayor Ann Azari At-Large Mayor Pro Tern Gerry Honk District 6 Council Member Alan Apt District 5 Council Member Gina Janett District 1 Council Member Chris Kneeland District 4 Council Member Bob McCluskey District 3 Council Member Bob Winokur District 2 DRAFT INTRODUCTION 1994 LEGISLATIVE AGENDA The City of Fort Collins’1994 Legislative Agenda identifies issues of importance to the City of Foil Collins.The Agenda expresses policies and positions on issues which affect the quality of life and the governance of our community.This Agenda has been adopted by the full Council,and we offer this Agenda to our Legislators as a guideline when considering legislation which impacts Foil Collins. The issues identified have historically been addressed by the General Assembly and may also apply to some federal legislation.The policy statements in the 1994 Agenda were developed in advance of the 1994 General Assembly,and are necessarily very broad and are not all- inclusive. The City will continue to contact Legislators regarding City positions on specific bills throughout the 1994 legislative session.We encourage Legislators to contact Foil Collins City Council Members and staff should they have any questions on our policy positions. FORT COLLINS LEGISLATIVE PROCESS Legislation which impacts the City will be reviewed by the City’s Legislative Review Committee,and compared with the City’s Legislative Agenda.The Legislative Review Committee is a small,representative group of Council members that analyze proposed legislation and express City policy in reaction to the legislation.Legislation which cannot be compared to previous City policy is referred back to the full Council for consideration before any position is taken. The Council members presently serving on the Legislative Review Subcommittee are Council Member Chris Kneeland,Chair of the Legislative Review Committee,Mayor Ann Azari and Council Member Alan Apt.The Committee is supported by City staff with expertise in various technical areas.The City works closely with the Colorado Municipal League on all legislative items. DRAFT LEGISLATIVE REVIEW COMMITTEE MEMBERS Council Members Chris Kneeland LRC Chairperson (303)221-6505 Alan Apt Council Member 221-6505 Ann Azari Mayor 221-6505 Staff Members Eric Bracke Transportation Planner II 221-6606 Jerry P.Brown Assistant to the Director of Cultural,Library 221-6350 and Recreational Services Pete Dallow Director of Administrative Services 221-6797 Molly Davis Deputy City Clerk 221-6516 Susanne Edminster Financial Policy Analyst 221-6784 Stewart Ellenberg Risk Manager 221-6774 David Feldman Division Commander (Police)221-6556 Tom Gallier Technical Projects Manager (Water/Wastewater)221-6286 Warren Jones Fire Marshal 221-6570 Alan Krcmarik Finance Director 221-6788 Bob Nastan Constnzction &Services Manager (Light &Power)221-6724 Tom Peterson Planning Director 221-6751 Andrea Rieger Assistant to the Dir,of Administrative Services 221-6796 Steve Roy City Attorney 221-6520 Jon Ruiz Streets Supervisor 221-6754 Tom Shoemaker Natural Resources Director 221-6263 Michael Smith Water/Wastewater Utilities Director 221-6681 Brian Woodruff Environmental Planner 221-6604 DRAFT AIR QUALITY (Information on this issue will be forthcoming.) EDUCATION The Fort Collins City Council recognized that a well maintained and funded educational system is critical to economic vitality and the continued health of the community. Therefore,the Fort Collins City Council supports the following policy statements. -Support legislation for additional educational funding for K-12 and higher education. -Support the development of reliable and fair funding mechanisms that are real additional dollars and are not regressive;such as,graduated income taxes or impact fees,etc. -Support the consideration of other viable funding options. FIRE PROTECTION The Fort Collins City Council recognizes the critical importance of maintaining a safe environment and protecting the lives and property of the citizens of Fort Collins from fire. Therefore the Fort Collins City Council supports the following policy statements: -Support legislation adopting a State fire code,the code of choice being the Uniform Fire Code,which establishes a State minimum standard for fire code enfoxtement in existipg and newly-constructed structures.Permit local option for municipalities to impose more restrictive standards. -Support legislation that allows the City to continue prohibiting the use and sales of all fiitworb and support legislation that allows counties and fire districts to prohibit and/or otherwise control fireworks. DRAFT HAZARDOUS MATERLAIS The Fort Collins City Council recognizes the critical importance of protecting the environment and the lives and property of the citizens of the City of Fort Collins from emergencies involving hazardous materials or the unauthorized release of such materials. Therefore the Fort Coffins City Council supports the following policy statements: -Support legislation that allows the City to control the risk of hazardous materials use and storage through the adopted editions of the Uniform Fire and Building Codes and related amendments and ordinances. -Oppose legislation that restricts the City’s ability to review and approve the location of hazardous materials facilities. -Oppose legislation that restricts the City’s ability to control the storage and quantity of hazardous wastes generated in the City. HAZARDOUS WASTE (Information on this issue will be forthcoming.) HOME RULE The City of Fort Collins is a home rule municipality.We strongly believe in the importance of Article XX of the Colorado Constitution which grants home rule municipalities “full right of self-government in local and municipal matters.”Home nile is of utmost importance to the City of Fort Collins,and is a concept that the City generally fights strongly to protect. The Fort Collins City Council believes that the principle of home nile authority affords the citizens of Fort Collins greater access to local government and greater opportunity for participation in and contribution to the decision making process,thereby enhancing the quality of life in the community and the ability of local government to respond to the needs of its citizens. Therefore,the Fort Collins City Council supports the following policy statements: Support legislative efforts to strengthen home nile authority of local municipal governments. Oppose legislation that mandates State or federal intercession in matters of local concern and which unnecessarily or adversely affects the City’s ability to manage pursuant to its home nile authority. 5 DRAFT INVESTMENTS The Fort Collins City Council adopted investment policies to be used by the City of Fort Collins.Those policies are reviewed and updated periodically to ensure the City is able to maintain the quality of its portfolio,control liquidity,and maximize earnings. Therefore,the Fort Collins City Council supports the following policy statements: Support legislation designed to protect the investments of government entities. Oppose any legislation that would require municipalities to participate in pooled mists. Oppose restrictions on the City’s ability to determine its own investment policies. MUNICIPAL UTILiTY SERVICE TERRITORY Cities and towns provide a number of services to their citizens as directed by the local electorate.These services can include the provision of electricity through a municipally owned and operated utility.As new areas are annexed,the citizens should have the right to the same services as provided to other citizens.Through local elections,those citizens have the ability to determine how and what type of service they receive.Federal or state preemption of this right deprives citizens of their ability to choose. In Colorado,existing law provides compensation to a utility that may lose electric load through annexation.Additionally,the citizens of a city may determine that competing electric utilities are acceptable,or the citizens may have an election to grant a franchise to another utility. Therefore,the Fort Coffins City Council supports the following policy statements: -Support efforts that allow citizens to determine the level and extent of municipal services they will receive thus preserving the home rule authority of local municipal governments. -Oppose efforts that limit either a municipal rights to annexation or to provide municipal utility services to any of its citizens. r DRAFT PR1VATIZATION The City of Fort Coffins spends approximately fifty-eight percent of its budget on outside contracts for goods and services.This level of privatization has given the citizens of Fort Coffins good quality and cost efficiency for many years. The Fort Coffins City Council supports the following policy statements: -Support provision of services through private enterprise when in the public good. -Support local control of the awarding of contracts and the accountability of local officials for those actions. -Oppose mandates that increase the complexity and cost of service without improving those services. PUBLIC SAFETY AND VIOLENCE PREVENTION The Foil Coffins City Council recognizes the critical importance of maintaining public order, providing a safe environment,and protecting the lives and property of the citizens of Fort Coffins.The City Council is particularly concerned with the issue of violence,particularly youth violence,in the community and has adopted this matter as one of its policy agenda items. Therefore,the Fort Collins City Council supports the following policy statements: -Support legislation which has the potential of reducing incidents of violence in the community,with special attention to legislation directed towards escalating youth violence. -Support legislation which impacts youth violence problems through the development of treatment and intervention programs. DRAFT PUBLIC SAFETY PENSIONS The Fort Collins City Council recognizes police officer and firefighter pension,death and disability benefits are unique and are jointly funded by the state and local governments. Changes in state funding levels for these benefits may affect the City’s ability to provide public safety services and place new fmancial burdens on the City. Therefore,the Fort Collins City Council supports the following policy statements: -Oppose legislation that reduces current state funding of these benefits or shifts funding to local governments beyond current proportions. RECYCLING AN])SOLID WASTE (Infonnagion on this issue will be forthcoming.) SALES AND USE TAX The City of Fort Collins levies,administers,and collects its own sales and use taxes under its home nile authority.Sales and use taxes comprise 57%of General Fund revenues and these revenues would decrease dramatically if the City were forced to adopt the much narrower State sales tax base and revert to central,State collection of revenues.In addition, the State would pass revenues to the City forty-five days in arrears of collection which would mean further lost revenue from investment earnings. Therefore,the Council of the City of Fort Collins supports the following policy statements: -Support legislation that maintains local control over base,rates,collection and administration of sales and use taxes. -Support cooperative efforts of State,business,and municipal entities to simplify sales and use tax collection. -Support cooperative audits by governmental agencies of major taxpayers to provide better customer service and minimize disniption to business. r DRAFT SOVEREIGN AND GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY The Fort Collins City Council recognizes that the complexity and diversity of City operations and services required to meet the needs of the citizens of Fort Collins may expose the City and its officers and employees to liabifity for damage and injury.The Council further recognizes that City officers and employees must be confident that they have the City’s support in the lawful and proper performance of their assigned duties and responsibilities. Therefore,the Fort Collins City Council supports the following policy statements: -Support legislation that protects the interests of municipalities and their officers and employees in the lawfUl and proper performance of their duties and responsibilities. -Support legislation that discourages baseless and frivolous claims and demands that can be made against municipalities and their officers and employees. -Oppose legislation that expands or increases municipal liability,or,conversely, further limits municipal immunity. SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS The City of Fort Collins intends to maintain special improvement districts as a viable financial tool for needed infrastnzcture improvements.It provides adequate and accurate disclosure to investors purchasing special assessment bonds. The Council of the City of Fort Collins supports the following policy statements: -Support the ability of local government to create special improvement districts. -Support legislation that facilitates the collection of delinquent assessments and strengthens or maintains the lien position of those assessments. -Support legislation that enables lienholders to foreclose special assessment liens quickly and reduce carrying costs. -Support any reduction in the complexities of obtaining clear title to properties acquired through the Treasurer’s Deed process. DRAFT WATER AND WAS TEWATER UTILITY SERVICES The Fort Collins City Council recognizes the critical importance of maintaining water and wastewater utility services in a financially sound,reliable,safe,and enviromnentally acceptable manner.The City supports legislative measures to further this goal.Since Fort Coffins’Water and Wastewater Utility is governed by City Council,an elected board,it is important to maintain the greatest degree of local control over planning and operation.To that end,it is important to minimize legislative and regulatory impacts on the operations of the utility,thereby allowing local government to act in its own best interests.As a business, it is necessary to maintain and enhance the utility’s competitive advantage.Furthermore,it is also important to balance economic growth with quality of life,including protection of the environment. Therefore,the Fort Collins City Council supports the following policy statements: General -Support legislation that reasonably limits liabilities of the Water and Wastewater operations. -Support legislation that maintains state primacy over federally mandated water and wastewater environmental regulatory programs. -Support water quality legislation that results in reasonable water quality control regulations that are cost effective and can show identifiable benefits. Water Support water conservation legislation that maximizes local control and takes into consideration local plans in place and water conservation activities which reflect local conditions. Support legislation which limits the federal government’s ability to affect water fights other than through procedures established under Colorado’s appropriation doctrine. Support adequate state and federal funding of mandated programs under the Safe Drinking Water Act. Oppose any drinking water legislation or regulations that are not founded on sound and comprehensive scientific reseaxvh. Oppose any drinking water legislation or regulations which do not consider the potential impact of the proposed legislation or regulation on other contaminants and contaminant removal processes. 10 C DRAFT Wastewater -Support adequate state and federal funding of mandated programs under the Clean Water Act. -Support water quality legislation which provides states with more flexibility to tailor federal legislation and regulations to local conditions. WORKERS’COMPENSATION The City of Fort Collins City Council recognizes the dual purpose of the workers’ compensation system -providing benefits promptly to injured employees in a cost effective manner,and minimizing costly litigation.Council also recognizes that the City’s self- insurance program is a cost efficient method to insure workers’compensation and that government intervention or taxation can negatively impact the City. Therefore,City Council supports the following policy: -Support legislation that improves administrative efficiency of the Division of Workers’ Compensation. Oppose legislation that increases insurance premium costs to employers. Oppose legislation that would add administrative burdens or taxes to self insurance programs. Oppose legislation that would promote litigation. 0 ‘I, ~I here will be astatewide referendumonNoi~.2 regarding reinstatement of the re cendy expired state tourism tax. It is known as Referendum“A,”and support of it was appmvcd by theLeague’s ExecuLive Board on Aug.19. The tax expired on June30 and,under the requirements of TABOR,can’t be reinstated without a statewide voLe. The legislature referred the measure for a vote via fiB 93-1330.enacted during dip regu lar session of the legislature earlier this year. The tax is a state sales tax of two-tenths of one percent levied on hotel rooms,restaurant food,ski lift tickets,private tourist attraction admission tickets,car rentals,and tour bus tick ets.Exempt from the tax are aLtractions oper ated by a government,and attractions operated on an 0911 basis by anonprofit charity1; The revenue generated by the special sales (ax is remitted to the Colorado Tourism Board for tourism promotion generally.In FY 1992,the tax generated $10.1 million, with the lion’s share of the revenue accruing from restaurant food. The League supports Referendum“A”and the reinstatement of the tax for several reasons: •Economic impacts—In 1991,about $6 bil lion was spent for tourism in the state.This rep resents 10 percent of the state’s gross annual revenue.It is one of the state’s leading eco nomic sectors. To the extent that the revenue from this tax helps support this activity,the state’s economy becomes amajor beneficiary. •Competition—Competition among the states for the tourist dollar is intense. Continued on the next page j~Page2 CMLNe~letter—Octther I.199~ Referendum “A”, Continued Almost half of the states derive all of their tourist funding from their general funds,ancljn many cases they have budg ets far larger than Colorado’s tourismpro motion budget The tax continuation is —necessary to keep Colorado competitive with other states. •Local government—A number of lo cal governments have separate tourist pro grams,funded by local taxes and fees. For example,in 1992 there were 18 coun ties and 27 home nile municipalities with a lodger’s tax.The state tourism program activitiesare frequently leveraged against local tourismpromotion activity to stretch these local dollars even further,especially in thó á~vertising arena.There are six Welcome Centers throughout Colorado. These centers are,supported largely by sl~ate;tourist tax revenue with local govern ment assistance, •Adverüsing—The Tourism Board al locates half of its revenue to advertising, spending $4.6 million last year.This ranks the slate in the top 10 nationally for tourism advertising.For the state tore- main strong in tourism advertising,the tax needs to bereinstated. The League has always supported the state tourism tax and the efforts of the Colorado Tourism Board because of the residual benefits to local governments, employment growth,and to the state’s economic vitality. For all of these reasons,the League urgessupport of Referendum“A”on the Nov.2 statewide ballot - For more information on the ballot measure,please ?o~tac~the League.0 •.~~..by SamMamet ~‘.Associate Director Leagu~.supporrs Tourism TCX reinsTaTemenT— Referendum “A”on November ballot L