Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Legislative Review Committee - 09/16/1994 -r 0 •.‘I -I I •A lii I •:I I I A •I I ‘I III ‘I ~A~A A 1 •I A •IA A I •••A •Al •1111 A IA A II A I I’1 .•.I A cuituC~,Library,and Recreational Ser(’es of Fo rt C cu ins DATE:September 2,1994 TO:Legislative Review Committee FROM:Jerry P.Brown,Assistant to the Director/CLRS Frank Bruno,Director of Economic Affairs~fi’(~ RE:Analysis of Amendment 13 Amendment 13 on the November 8,1994 ballot is the issue of Gambling in Manitou Springs and Public Airports.It authorizes limited gaming without a local option vote within the City of Manitou Springs,and authorizes slot machines in public airports at the discretion of the public airport’s governing body. Rec ommenda t ion Staff recommends that the Legislative Review Committee not take a formal position to either support or oppose Amendment 13 at this time.If the City decides to take a position,staff recommends opposition to Amendment 13. Background Amendment 13,also known as Limited Gaming II,is an Amendment to the Colorado Constitution giving certain governmental entities (including municipalities)the option to place slot machines in public airports without a local option vote;it legalizes limited gaming activity in certain areas within the City of Manitou Springs without a local option vote and assigns distribution rights and limits the maximum gaming tax and number of gaming devices within Manitou Springs;and allocates the proceeds of such gaming revenues generally to school finance;and exempts such revenues from TABOR (Amendment 1 of 1992);and allows the legislature to special license qualifying nonprofit charitable organizations desiring to host periodic charitable gaming activities in licensed gaming establishments. The City of Manitou Springs,which is clearly directly impacted by Amendment 13,unanimously passed a City Council resolution expressing strong opposition to the passage of Amendment 13. Voters of Manitou Springs,in two separate elections, overwhelmingly expressed their unwillingness to have gambling in their City.88 percent opposed the idea of any limited gaming in Manitou Springs in November of 1993.In addition,the Colorado Municipal League opposes Amendment 13 because it exempts itself from a 1992 constitutional amendment requiring a local option vote on gaming activity within a municipality or county before it can 281 North College Avenue •Fort Collins,CO 80524 .(303)221-6610 UHIlt ‘erv~ces (I— City of Fort Collins Light and Power MEMORANDUM DT:September 6,1994 TO:Legislative Resolution Committee FM:Bob Nastan RE:Tobacco Tax Ballot Initiative The tobacco tax initiative which will be on the ballot in November would raise the tax on cigarettes from 20 cents per pack currently to 50 cents per pack.It would also tax other tobacco products at 50%of the wholesale cost and would repeal the exemption that cigarettes now have from sales tax. The revenue from the new taxes are to go as follows:50%to health care programs for those who can not afford such care with a specific provision that 1/2 of that amount go to care for women and children.30%for educational programs to reduce tobacco sue. 10%to research on tobacco related illnesses.4%to municipal and county governments in proportion to the sales tax distribution.5%for economic development in the health care industry. The initiative allows cites and counties to charge sales tax on cigarettes and to specifically tax tobacco prnducts and the businesses which deal in tobacco products if desired by the city or county. It appears that the framers of the initiative attempted to keep the cities and counties revenue neutral since 27%of the existing 20 cents per pack tax is allocated to the local governments.The initiative specifically details how the revenue from the tax is to be spent at the state level,thus meeting the requirements of Amendment 1 as to source and use of new taxes to be voted upon the by the citizens.It did not address how the local governments are to spend any additional revenue that may come in as a result of the tax. In my quick and nonscientific analysis,tax revenue to Fort ASSUMING that the additional taxes of 30 cents per pack and NOT reduce the sale of tobacco products.This additional reven with Amendment 1 limitations for the City.I believe the intent of tobacco use.CML analysis for the effect to be revenue neutral. the price elasticity of tobacco products.In any event,yop should potential for additional tax revenue and its attendent Amendment Collins would increase 6%on sale cost DOES ue may cause problems the initiative is to reduce I do not have a feel for be aware that there is 1 issues. 700 Wood Street P.O Adn(strative Services C. Risk Management Division City of Fort Collins MEMORA2~DUM TO:City Council FROM:Stewart J.Ellenberg,ARM5D Risk Manager THROUGH:James B.O’Neill II,CPPOQ~~~J Director of Purchasing &~is anagement DATE:9-1-94 RE:’•Workers’Choice of Care -Amendment 11 EXECUTIVE SUNMARY:This amendment is on the November 8th ballot. If passed,it will allow employees to select who will provide treatment for on-the-job injuries.The most likely result will be an increase in claim costs,increased lost time from work,and increased administrative costs. ISSUE:This amendment was sponsored by the Colorado AFL-CIO in response to continued disagreement between the business and labor communities about W.C.benefits.The brief amendment states: “Benefits to an injured worker under the Workers’Compensation Act shall include all reasonable and necessary treatment for work related injuries by health care providers selected by the injured worker.” The amendment does not define “health care provider”or “reasonable and necessary treatment”. Current W.C.law allows the City to select a designated provider. Utilizing the Request For Proposal process,occupational Health Services at Poudre Valley Hospital (PVH)was selected as our designated provider.This amendment will prevent the City from requiring employees to go to PVH for treatment. 212 N.Howes •P.O.Box 580 •Fort Collins,Co 80522-0580 (303)221.6708 •FAX (303)221-6296 r 2.Permanent Partial Disability.Disability awards for permanent partial impairments may increase.It is a well known fact that certain doctors will grant high disability ratings.The higher the rating,the greater the award -up to $120,000 per injury. Example:In 1991,a part time school crossing guard earning minimum wage,allegedly fell on the ice injuring her knee.She had been employed by the City for about 30 days.An Administrative Law Judge allowed her to seek treatment away from PVH.She went to a doctor known to be very liberal,who gave her a high disability rating even though she only had arthroscopic surgery and no problem was found with the knee.In the end she was awarded $37,560. 3.Permanent Total Disability.If an employee cannot ever return to any gainful employment,he/she is entitled to disability payments up to age 65,up to $432.50/week. c.Legal Costs -As claims costs escalate,the City will have to take a strong stand against an increase in the questionable claims that are sure to occur.We will have to hire outside legal council to present our cases at legal hearings. Increased Lost Time from Work.As mentioned earlier,injured employees may not be returned to work in a timely manner.The previously mentioned Tillinghast study supports this. Employers with a designated provider return 85%of injured employees to work in the first year,compared with a rate of 61%for employers without a designated provider. Increased Administrative Workload.It will be extremely difficult to perform any case management with multiple care providers.Prior to establishing a working relationship with a designated physician,we could not get doctors to provide written work restrictions or develop case management plans. cc:Alan Krcmarik Pete Dallow RESOLUTION 94-144 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS STATING THE CITY’S OPPOSITION TO AMENDMENT 12, THE ELECTION REFORM AMENDMENT WHEREAS,Amendment 12,known as the “Election Reform Amendment,”is a proposed amendment to the Colorado Constitution that the voters will consider at the November 8 general election;and WHEREAS,this amendment would alter the form of representative democracy by shifting decisions from elected officials to the populace;and WHEREAS,Amendment 12 is exceedingly complex and difficult to explain in a ballot submission clause summary,as required by the Uniform Election Code,and the voters deserve to better understand the implications of this amendment before voting on the same;and WHEREAS,this amendment would delay local ordinances from taking effect until 91 days after publication,except for up to six emergency ordinances per year;and WHEREAS,any non-emergency ordinances could be subject to the referendum process during the 91 day waiting period,resulting in delays up to a year and three months before such ordinances could become effective. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, that the Council of the City of Fort Collins opposes Amendment 12 and urges voters to become informed about the effects of this measure on their local government and representative democracy in Colorado. Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the ,Council held this 6th day of September,A.D.1994. Mayor ATTEST: City%~~t~ rMayo Cit of Fort Collins September 12,1994 Honorable Hank Brown United States Senator Senate hart Building Washington,D.C.20510 Dear Senator Brown, The consequences of the Senate Telecommunications reform bills,as currently written, could be disastrous to local governments.This bill limits the authority of local governments over the use of public rights of way,establishes a regulatory framework for video dial tone that does not ensure local needs and interests are met,and limits the right of local governments to collect fees or compensation from telecommunications providers. Both loss of revenue and loss of local control over the use of public rights of way would adversely affect the delivery of government services,including local and governmental programming.Local governments have effectively been ignored in both the House and Senate Telecommunications bills,even though local governments are in the best position to know whether providers of telecommunications services are contributing public benefits to the schools,hospitals and libraries in a community. The City of Fort Collins has adopted a Public Access Policy which encourages the use technology to increase public access to City and community services that will improve availability,accountability,and accessibility of government.It will certainly be difficult to implement this policy if this bill becomes law. As mayor of the City of Fort Collins,I urge you to introduce or support amendments that will restore these important features to any bill that goes to the White House for the President’s signature.Some suggested language to amend this bill is attached. Sincerely, Ann Azari,Mayor 300 LaPorte Avenue •P.O.Box 580 •Fort Collins,CO 80522-0580 (303)221-6505 •FAX (303)221-6329 DEADLINE ScHEDf~E FOR THE 1995 COLORADIGENERAL ASSEMBLY December 1,1994 Initial deadline for returning members to request bills.In accordance with Joint Rule No.24 (b)(1)(A) (Thursday)members may not introduce more than five bills.Of the five bills,excluding appropriations and interim bills described iii Joint Rule No.24 (b)(l)(D),not more than two bills may be requested after December 1. D~ember 15,1994 Initial deadline for newly elected members to request bills.In accordance with Joint Rule No.24 (b)(1)(A) (Thursday)members may not introduce more than five bills.Of the five bills not more than two bills may be requested after December 15. January 4,1995 Deadline for filing one of each member’s three bills requested prior to December 1 or December 15 pursuant (Wednesday)to Joint Rule 23 (a)(2)and Joint Rule 24 (b)(I)(A)with the house of introduction for printing,distribution to Legislative Council for preparation of fiscal notes,and introduction on 1st day. January 9,1995 General Assembly convene. (Monday)Deadline for the introduction of the bills required to be flIed 5 days prior to the 1st thy. January 11,1995 3rd Day Deadline for introduction of the two remaining bills requested prior to December 1. (Wednesday) January 13,1994 5th Day Deadline for bill draft requests to the Office of Legislative Legal Services. (Friday) January 25,1995 17th Day Deadline for introduction of Senate bills,except the Long Bill..~y Senate Bill designated as a “ednesday)Major Policy Bill must also be introduced by this date. January 30,1995 22nd Day Deadline for introduction of House bills,except the Long Bill.Any House Bill designated as a ~Monday)Major Policy Bill must also be introduced by this date. February 1,1995 Deadline for General Assembly to certify,by joint resolution,the revenue estimate for the next (Wednesday)fiscal year pursuant to 24-75-201.3. February 10,1995 33rd Day Deadline for Senate committees to report Senate Bills.* (Friday) February 17,1995 40th Day Deadline for House committees to report House Bills.* (Friday) February 20,1995 43rd Day Deadline for final passage of Senate bills in the Senate.* (Monday) February 24,1995 47th Day Deadline for Senate committees to report Senate Bills designated as Major Policy Bills. (Friday) February 27.1995 50th Day Deadline for final passage of House bills in the House of Representatives.* (Monday) March 3,1995 54th Day Deadline for final passage in Senate of Senate Bills designated as Major Policy Bills. nday)Deadline for House committees to report House Bills designated as Major Policy Bills. All bills in the AppropriaLions Committee in eitltcr house on the day or the asterisked deadline are excluded from these deadlines.May 16,1994 r CML colorado Municipal League 1660 Lincoln Street,Suite 2100 •Denver,Colorado 80264-2101 •Phone (303)831-6411,FAX (303)860-8175 TO:Mayors and Managers (or Clerks in Municipalities Which Have no Manager) of Member Municipalities FROM:Ken Bueche,Executive Director SUBJECT:Appointment to CML Policy Committee DATE:August 17,1994 It is again time to make appointments to the League Policy Committee.Each member municipality of the League is entitled to designate a representative,and all cities over 100,000 are entitled to designate two representatives.In addition,all Section Chairs and District Presidents are automatically appointed as members of the Committee.Appointments to the Policy Committee are made each fall,and members serve for a one year period. The Policy Committee is responsible for reviewing legislative proposals and recommending to the League Executive Board positions of support,opposition,no position,or amendment to a wide variety of legislation affecting cities and towns.The Policy Committee also proposes to the membership at each annual conference in June revisions to the League’s policies which guide League positions on public policy issues affecting municipalities. The Committee normally meets three times a year before and during the legislative session as well as in May prior to the annual conference.Meetings are held in Denver,usually from about 10:00 a.m.to 3:00 p.m.The first meeting this year will be held at the Radisson Hotel, 1550 Court Place,in Denver,on Thursday,November 10.The meeting held during the legislative session will be February 3. If your municipality desires representation in 1994-95 on this Committee,please appoint an official elected,appointed,or an employee who will be willing to take the time and effort to serve.Please return the postcard (enclosed with the memo being mailed to the manager or clerk)by September 30.We will then notify Committee members of their appointment and send them background information and a notice of the first meeting. r 1123 LONGwORTH BUILDINGGARYA.CONDIT WASHINGTON,DC 20515-0518 18TH DISTRICT CALIFORNIA (202)225—6131 cc:Council FYI DISTRICTOFFICES: COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE Pete Dali ow FEDERAL BUILDING SUBCOMMITTEE ON ~•4 1 5 WEST 1 8TH STREET GENERAL FARM COMMODITIES tinurearsl eger MERCED,CA 95340 sue ~I~E~<EON Qtongre~of the ‘~1niteb ~‘tate~920 I6THSTIIEEtSUITIC MODESTO,CA 95354 SPECLALTY CROPS AND ~OU~t of flepre~entatibtS (209)527-1914 NATURAL RESOURCES 18TH DISTRICTTOLLFREE: COMMITTEE ON ~0QL 20515—0518 1-800-356-6424 GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS CHAIRMAN A +1 1 4 SUBCOMMITTEE ON nUgusE A 4., INFORMATION,JUSTICE. TRANSPORTATION AND AGRICULTURE 41k:22 ~994 The Honorable Ann Azari Mayor of Fort Collins “~‘ P.O.Box 580 Fort Collins,Colorado 80522-0580 Dear The Honorable Azari: I am writing to update you on congressional efforts to enact meaningful and strong mandate relief legislation and to ask for your assistance in this effort.Enclosed,please find a copy of an editorial on this subject that appeared in the Wall Street Journal. First of all,I want you to know that I firmly believe that you have taken the correct and meritorious course of action by calling,pushing,and fighting for EEno money,no mandate0 Anything short of “no money,no mandate”will not solve the problems that federal mandates pose for local and state governments.It is that simple.Inside the beltway, associations,groups,and federal elected officials will call on you to compromise your principles:They will offer procedural gimmicks and empty promises.I urge you to stay on your course and continue the fight until meaningful EEn0 money,no II legislation is enacted. As you may know,the Senate worked out a compromise on unfunded federal mandates,S.993,also known as the Glenn-Kempthorne compromise.This legislation would allow lawmakers to raise a parliamentary point of order against legislation that places over $50 million in unfunded mandates on state and local governments. Representative Ed Towns (D-NY),Chair of the Subcommittee on Human Resources and Intergovernmental Relations and Chairman John Conyers,Jr.(D-MI)of the full Committee on Government Operations introduced H.R.4771,the House companion to the Glenn-Kempthorne bill.It is unclear at this point whether or not Chairman Conyers will take action on this legislation in the full Conunittee on Government Operations. However,I do not believe that H.R.4771 provides meaningful mandate relief to local and state governments.For example,the enforcement mechanism in H.R.4771 remains the point of order requirement.In the House of Representatives,this requirement would not be effective because the House Committee on Rules routinely waives points of orders.By doing so,the legislation becomes meaningless.In addition,H.R.4771,if passed by the Committee on Government Operations,would be referred and considered by the House Committee on THIS STATIONERY PRINTED ON PAPER MADE OF RECYCLED FIBERS r THE WALL STREET JOURNAL MONDAY,AUGUST S.1994 The Regulatory Rumba There’s a new dance craze in Washington.It’s called the Regulatory Rumba,and it consists of a lot of gy rating and weaving that enchants spectators but ultimately goes nowhere.The masters of this difficult dance may be found on Capitol Hill and in the White House.These politi cos launch into the Rumba whenever anyone points out that federal regula tions are exacting a crushing toll on the economy.Now a handful of con gressmen,Republicans and Democ rats alike,are trying to turn off the music and get the rulcrs of Washing ton to deliver some real relief. At the forefront Gary Condit (D, Calif.).The Cali fornia Democrat has watched with dismay as Sen. Dirk Kempthorne (R.,Idahoj has bargained away everything but the title of “no money, no mandate”legis lation they intro-Car!!Corn!:! duced together.The bill is now so hol low that Rep.John Conyers (Ii, Michi,one of the most mandate-lov ing Members of Congress,has agreed to co-sponsor it in the House.though not to offer a vote on it in his Govern ment Operations Committee. So Rep.Condit has struck out on his own,circulating a discharge petition to bring his original mandate-relief bill to a floor vote.More than 100 Mem bers have already signed on.Rep, Condit may have a tough time gather’ ing more signatures,not only because of the implacable opposition of the leadership but because of a sell-out by his natural allies. The Big Seven groups representing the non-federal layers of govern ment—governors,mayors and so forth—have made a lot of loud noise about the harm caused by unfunded mandates.But at the first opportu nity,the Big Seven’s Washington rep resentatives jumped at the weak com promise offered by the Democratic pooh-bahs to Sen.Kempthorne. They’re not doing anything to aid Rep.Condirs efforts. of change is Rep. Another warrior on the regulatory front line is Rep.Thomas Ewing (R. Uk).He’s been struggling to put some teeth into the 1980 Regulatory Flexi bility Act,The law requires federal agencies to report on the impact their regulations will have on small busi nesses and to minimize those effects. It’s been largely ignored for a decade because it didn’t offer businesses the option to sue the government for non compliance.So Rep.Ewing introduced a bill to allow “judicial review.”Al though it quickly won 251 co-sponsors, the Democratic leadeiship wouldn’t dare offer a vote on the measure. Like other reformers,Rep.Ewing was forced to circulate a discharge pe tition.In the meanwhile,the con gressman asked House Members to in struct conferees to push for a judicial review provision in the National Com petitiveness Act. The “new”Democrat White House’s reaction?You guessed it— more Rumba.Judicial review was ac tually endorsed by Vice President Gore’s reinventing government report last year.So the White House couldn’t just come out and oppose it.Instead, the administration has proposed six “modifications”of judicial review. One of these amendments would give businesses only 60 days after a rule is issued to sue the government. Of course many businesses don’t even know about a rule 60 days after it’s issued.So the effect of this modifi cation would be to make the Regula tory Flexibility Act as hollow as it is now,while letting the administration claim it’s doing Thomas Living something about the crippling burden of federal rules. Unlike Senator Kempthorne and other paper tigers,judicial review’s advocates aren’t willing to settle for an empty “compromise:’They’re in sisting that conferees,who are to meet today,adopt the pure version of judi cial review.Along with Rep.Condit’s efforts,their struggle seems to offer the best chance to cut off the Rumba.