HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Legislative Review Committee - 12/11/1997 -AdmCstrative Services
Cit of Fort Collins
•r
A
~-.1 ••-•.
I I I~I I I
••••-I --•--
-I -I~-
-••-~I I-I -
-I --•II
-:1 -II •S S
‘,,~‘‘-‘0 0 ‘‘••
300 LaPorte Avenue •PD.Box 580 •Fort Collins,CO 80522-0580
(970)221-6790 •FAX (970)221-6329
0
LEGISLATIVE REVIEW COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Council Members
Ann Azari Mayor (970)221-6505
Scoff Mason Councilmember 221-6505
Will Smith Mayor Pro Tern 221-6505
Staff Mernbers
John Fischbach City Manager
Guy Boyd Poudre Fire Authority,
Director of Adrninistrative Services 221-6570
Stewart Ellenberg Risk Manager 221-6774
Marty Heffernan Assistant to the Director of Cultural,Library
and Recreational Services 221-6064
Randy Hensley Transportation Services 221-6608
Diane Jones Deputy City Manager 221-6505
Alan Krcrnarik Finance Director 221-6788
Blair Leist Assistant to the Director of Administrative Services 221-6796
Legislative Affairs Coordinator
Gale McGaha Miller Water Quality Technical Manager 221-6231
Rita Davis Senior Project Manager,Police Services 221-6628
Rondall Phillips Director of Transportation Services 221-6615
Steve Roy City Attorney 221-6520
Torn Shoemaker Natural Resources Director 221-6263
Michael Smith Water/Wastewater Utilities Director 221-6681
Liz Stroh Integrated Resources Manager 221-6522
Bill Switzer Utility Econornist,Light and Power 221-6713
Torn Vosberg Cornrnunity Planning and Environmental Services
Policy Analyst 221-6224
Kevin Wilson Fire Marshall,Poudre Fire Authority 221-6570
Brian Woodruff Environmental Planner 221-6604
r
Legislative Review Committee
Council Member-Staff Meeting
Meeting Minutes for December 11,1997
Council Attendance:Scott Mason,Will Smith
Staff Attendance:Rita Davis,Stewart Ellenberg,Alan Krcmarik,Gale McGaha-Miller,
Ron Phillips,Liz Stroh,Bill Switzer,Tom Vosburg,Blair D.Leist
(Recorder)
Endangered Species Act Reauthorization (ESAR)
Water Utilities and Natural Resources are progressing on a joint analysis of the ESAR.
The suggested approach,now approved by the LRC,is to:
1.Recommend an overall position that the City support reauthorization of the ESA,
with amendments that strengthen protection efforts and make the act more
effective.
2.Develop a list of items that we believe would improve the ESA and its
implementation.
3.Provide our Congressional representatives with a position letter that will help set
the direction for legislative proposals,rather than comment on each of the specific
legislative proposals that are likely to emerge during the legislative session
4.Draft a resolution to bring to Council that will identi&the issues listed in item 3.
II.H.R.1534,The Private Property Rights Implementation Act of 1997
The bill was approved by the House of Representatives on October 22 by a vote of 248-
178.The bill would impose new federal mandates and far-reaching federal preemption
of local government land use and zoning authority and expand litigation and taxpayer’s
liability against cities and town in federal court.Negative consequences of the bill
include:1)massive intrusion into local issues,2)increased volume of costly and
destructive litigation,and 3)transfer of authority to federal courts.The National League
of Cities opposes federal preemption of local zoning and land use authority and has
opposed this bill.
Action to be taken:
1 Tom Vosburg will draft a letter of opposition for the Mayor’s signature.The LRC
does not require a review of the letter.
III.5.442:Internet Tax Freedom Act
To establish a national policy against State and local government interference with
interstate commerce on the Internet or interactive computer services,and to exercise
congressional jurisdiction over interstate commerce by establishing a moratorium on the
imposition of exactions that would interfere with the flow of commerce via the Internet,
and for other purposes.
Action to be taken:
Alan K.rcmarik will discuss the bill with the Finance Committee on Dec.18th.He
will then bring the bill,and an analysis to the LRC on January 8th.
0 0
IV.S.1483:Amending the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for the treatment of
tax-exempt bond financing of certain electrical output facilities.
This bill would preempt cities authority to issue municipal bonds and requires public
power cities to call all of their existing outstanding tax-exempt bonds if they opened up
their electric transmission lines to other utilities.The proposal shuts off the authority
and ability of any public power city to issue new debt for electric related purposes as of
November 8th.The City of Fort Collins doesn’t have any active municipal bonds for
Light and Power.
Action to be taken:
Monitor.According to Bill Switzer (L&P)Platte River Power Authority is taking
the lead on this issue.PRPA,in fact,will be traveling to Washington D.C.to
discuss this bill with the Colorado Congressional delegation.
V.Other Business
1.Annexation Bill
CML has targeted an annexation bill as one that the City will want to watch
closely this year.The bill will give unincorporated residents the ability to 1)veto
an annexation outright by petition,2)force an annexation election,and 3)sue the
municipality and landowner in court.The legislation would also change the basic
criteria that define when property is eligible for annexation.
Action to be taken:
City staff will gather more information on this bill and report back to the
LRC.
2.Tax Policy
Apparently,the Colorado Senate and House leadership is asking large business
firms what they would like to have happen in regards to tax reform policy (i.e.tax
breaks needed).Nothing definite,but information will be brought forward as it
becomes available.
3.Ron Phillips handed out a one-page briefing on Transportation Funding (included in
this packet).
Respectfl.illy Submitted,
Blair D.Leist
December11,1997
ComCunity Planning and EnvironmenC Services paper
Natural Resources Department
MEMORANDUM
DATE:December 10,1997
TO:Blair Leist,Legislative Committee Staff Liaison
FROM:Gale McGaha--Miller
Tom Shoemaker
RE:Update on Endangered Species Act Analysis
At the last Legislative Review Committee meeting,we were directed to develop a joint
recommendation to the City Council regarding a position on the reauthorization of the federal
Endangered Species Act.Our deadline for this assignment is January 8,1998.This is a brief update
on our progress.
Progress.We independently reviewed information on the Endangered Species Act and the nature of
revisions that are being considered in Congress.We met to review issues and points of agreement and
to develop a proposed strategy for completing the analysis and recommendation to the LRC.We do
not anticipate any difficulty meeting the January 8 deadline.
Direction.If the LRC concurs,we plan on the following approach.
•Recommend an overall position that the City support reauthorization of the Endangered
Species Act,with amendments that strengthen protection efforts and make the act more
effective.
•Develop a list of items that we believe would improve the Endangered Species Act and its
implementation.
•Provide our Congressional representatives with a position letter that will help set the direction
for legislative proposals,rather than comment on each of the specific legislative proposals that
are likely to emerge during the legislative session.
Sticking Points.We do not anticipate any major sticking points.After our initial meeting,we are in
agreement on the key points of our recommendation.We still need to refine the language of our
recommendation.We expect to be able to do that with one additional meeting and to be able to
present the analysis and draft position letter to the LRC at their January meeting.
LRC Direction Needed.Are we on the right track?
City of Fort Collins
281 N.College Ave.•P0.Box 580 •Fort Collins,CO 80522-0580 .(970)221-6600 •FAX (970)224-6177
0 0
Summary Analysis of H.R.1534 -the Private Property Rights Implementation Act of 1997
Legislative Review Committee
December 11,1997
H.R.1534,“takings”legislation,was approved by the House of Representatives on October22 by
vote of 248-178.The bill would impose new federal mandates and far-reaching federal preemption
of local government land use and zoning authority and expand litigation and taxpayers’liability
against cities and towns in federal court.Representative Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY)led the House
effort to defeat H.R.1534 by offering a substitute amendment that would have deleted the sections
of the bill dealing with actions by local governments.
The White House issued vetoed threats immediately after the vote,saying the proposed legislation
would “seriously impair the ability of state and local agencies to protect public health,safety and the
environment.”On October 7 ,the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on S.1256,introduced
by Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT),a measure substantially similar to the House passed bill.Although
there had been discussions of a Senate Judiciary Committee mark-up of 5.1256 by the end of
October,Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT),the committee’s ranking minority member and a chief
opponent of the bill,said he did not intend “to let the bill be rammed down the Senate.”Senator
Leahy opposes the legislation because it would take away power from local governments and limit
the ability of homeowners to protect the value of their property.To date,the Senator has managed
to stall any mark-up of the legislation.
Both bills would impose a one-size-fits-all federal limitation on local decision-making in land use
cases by changing standards for ripeness.Under current law,developers are first required to pursue
all local remedies,including negotiating with local zoning boards to try to reach a compromise that
would satis1~’both developers and community residents,before proceeding to state court.H.R.1534
and 5.1256 would drastically alter this process.Developers would be able to proceed to federal
court to challenge a local land use or zoning determination without first having to exhaust their local
administrative remedies or having to pursue a state court appeal.
The proposed legislation would have a number of negative consequences for cities and towns
including:
Massive Federal Intrusion into Local Issues.These bills represent an unprecedented effort to
mandate a national standard for local government handling of local land use issues and to preempt
any local variations inconsistent with the national standard.They would dictate whether,for example,
the local planning board or the zoning board of appeal can even hear a particular case.They would
define what procedures a community can implement for considering land use questions and would
provide a wide opportunity for litigants to bypass local procedures altogether.Moreover,the House
approved this legislation without holding hearings on local land use regulation or investigating the
issues facing local government officials dealing with land use problems.
Increased Volume of Costly and Destructive Litigation.These bills would foster a larger volume
of wastefi.il and burdensome litigation against cities and towns Because developers would not have
to exhaust their local administrative remedies,there would be less incentive to work out disputes with
local governments,resulting in earlier and more frequent litigation against cities and towns.
Moreover,a provision in the Senate bill would require local governments to pay the attorneys’fees
of developers successful in their litigation against municipalities,but would not impose similar
requirements on developers to pay the attorneys’fees of municipalities when litigation determines that
a local ordinance should be upheld.The litigation generated by such legislation would impose
significantly higher litigation costs on local governments
Transfer of Authority to Federal Courts.These bills would result in a substantial transfer of
authority over local land use issues to the federal courts.A large volume of litigation now resolved
in state courts could be filed in the first instance in the federal courts.This would interfere with the
resolution of essentially state and local issues within the state court systems.In addition,if federal
courts became more involved in addressing local land use issues,it would be more difficult for the
state courts to enforce a consistent,uniform approach to local land use issues
NLC Position.NLC opposes federal regulations,statutes,or amendments which place
restrictions on state and local government actions regulating private property or requiring additional
compensation beyond the continually evolving judicial interpretations of the Fifth Amendment of the
United States Constitution.NLC also opposes federal preemption of local zoning and land use
authority.
r
APPA WASHINGTON REPORT
Time to Get Serious
by Robert Varela
Editor,Public Power Weekly
The debate in Congress over deregulating the electric utility industry is getting serious.
Although nothing much may lwppen this year or next,now is the time for all public
power systems to let members of Congress know your concerns are.
Any public power officials who think they can leave everything to APPA,that their
help isn’t needed,that what happens in Washington won’t have that much effect on their
operations ——take a hard look at what Senator Frank Murkowski,the chairman of the
Energy and Natural Resources Committee is saying.In what passes for irony only in
Washington,Murkowski represents a state whose citizens are almost entirely served by public
power and rural electric cooperatives.Investor-owned utilities serve less than 10%of the
population.Yet his views on restructuring seem quite hostile to the interests of publicly and
cooperatively owned utilities and the millions of consumers served by them.
Murkowski seems to have taken on the issue of tax-exempt financing as a personal
crusade,arguing that it would provide an unfair cost advantage in a deregulated market.He
has written three letters to Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin urging the Internal Revenue
Service to withhold issuing regulations on application of the tax code’s private use restrictions
on public power facilities financed with tax-exempt bonds.
In an Oct.20 letter,Murkowski seized on a report by the congressional Joint
Committee on Taxation,which said that if public power utilities “were permitted to retain
their ability to receive tax-exempt financing,they might have a considerable cost advantage
over other generators in a deregulated market for generated power.”He told Rubin that the
IR~should “withhold issuing regulations that might allow publicly owned utilities to use
tax-exempt financed facilities to compete against privately owned utilities.”Leave the issue
to Congress,he told Rubin,for the third time.
But Murkowski’s position on public power and tax-exempt financing isn’t entirely
clear.Public power utilities “and certain investor-owned utilities”that have used tax-exempt
financing to build power plants should not be allowed to sell electricity from these plants
outside their current service areas,the Alaska Republican said in a 10-page memo to members
of the energy committee.He is silent on whether competitors should be allowed to sell power
within the service territories of public power systems.His silence on that point suggests that
perhaps he would recommend a one-way street.
The question is,who are those “certain investor-owned utilities.”One possibility is the
handfi.zl of IOUs who qualifr for tax-exempt financing under the “two-county”rule.But a
0
second possibility is the more than 100 private utilities that have taken advantage of tax-code
provisions allowing them to issue at least $3Otillion in tax-exempt bonds to finance pollution
control equipment for generating plants.Duke Power Company,for example,has issued more
than $3.4 billion in tax-free pollution control bonds.
That clearly would qualiI~’as using tax-exempt financing to build power plants.
If Murkowski’s stance on tax-exempt financing is based on principle,then most
existing electric utilities would be walled into their current service territories.If his true
concern is cost advantages that are not available to others,low-cost loans from the Rural
Utilities Service would also seem to meet his criteria.That would rule out retail competition.
Murkowski doesn’t stop with tax-exempt financing.The federal power marketed by
the power marketing adminisfrations should be sold “on an open,competitive basis”once the
PMAs’existing wholesale power contracts expire,Murkowski proposed.As an alternative,
the preference laws could be amended “Co redirect lost-cost (sic)federal preference power to
those who most need it.”(However,he proposes leaving Bonneville Power Administration
issues to members of Congress from the Northwest,saying BPA “is more than just a power
marketing administration.”)
Private power companies must be licking their chops over another Murkowski
“solution”—deregulate wholesale electric rates now so they will be “subjected to the fill
discipline of market forces.”According to Murkowski,FERC already “has created a
competitive wholesal6masket for electricity through Order No.888.”When you consider that
Consumers Energy Co.raised its transmission rates --still supposedly regulated by FERC --
for public power utilities by 1,200%,the mind boggles at what they would do if given free
rein with wholesale power rates.At the same time,Murkowski calls for eliminating FERC’s
authority to review and approve utility mergers.
Murkowski also singled out public power in a proposal to allow the use of federal
eminent domain to facilitate the construction of new transmission lines “for the purpose of
addressing market power and where it will help assure that new supplies of wholesale power
caii access the market.”However,that eminent domain authority “should not be available to
federally owned utilities,or to those who will u~e it to competitively market power produced
by generation financed with tax-exempt bonds,”Murkowski said in his memo.
Murkowski’s proposed “solution”to the cost advantages of tax-exempt financing
would leave public power utilities with a Hobson’s choice of unpalatable options:(a)the sure
death of staying in your existing service territory while others pick off your best customers;
or Q)raise rates considerably--perhaps by hundreds of millions —by virtue of being forced
by the tax code to refinance with taxable debt or leave productive facilities idle.
It’s time for all public power officials to get serious.If you need to know how to
contact your representatives or senators or would like assistance in formulating what to tell
them,contact APPA’s Legislative Department.
Transportation C Page 1 of 2
Transportation funding:A local shareback works for Colorado
Municipal officials recognize that transportation is a statewide problem demanding a statewide
solution.Only through cooperation at all levels--state,county,and municipal--can Coloradans
address the transportation needs of a growing population.With the debate centering on how best to
use unforeseen excess state revenues to fund transportation,now is the time to work together and
develop a fair way to make transportation improvements for the benefit of everyone who travels on
Colorado’s roadway system.
The need
A blue-ribbon panel of business and government leaders identified more than $13 billion in
unfbnded transportation needs over the next 20 years--$8 billion at the state level and $5 billion at
the local level.
The surplus
A strong economy has presented Coloradans with the opportunity to address these needs through a
comprehensive funding plan using state surplus revenues.
The local network
Local governments are responsible for over 82 percent (69,500 miles)of the public roads in
Colorado,over 4,300 local bridges,and 32 public transportation services.
The shareback mechanism
Colorado has a strong tradition of relying on user fees to pay for maintenance and construction of
state and local highways,streets,and roads.Recognizing the interdependency of this system,state
lawmakers have long shared Highway User Tax Fund revenues with local governments.Since the
late 1 970s,the state has allocated highway user revenues according to a formula providing the 60
percent to the state,22 percent to counties,and 18 percent to municipalities.
A closer look at the surplus
The large state surplus has been created in part because not all of the revenue collected from those
who use the transportation system goes for maintenance of and improvements to the system.More
than $60 million a year in HUTF revenues fund the state patrol and ports of entry,and more than
$136 million a year in revenues from specific ownership taxes on motor vehicles fund Colorado
schools.If an equivalent amount of revenue was distributed from the state general fund surplus for
transportation purposes,critically needed state and local transportation projects could be addressed.
Further,a portion of the surplus is from a significant tax base not available to local governments,
most notably the income tax,which generates 60 percent of the state’s general fund revenues.A
shareback of this surplus with local governments is a way to address transportation projects
benefiting citizens statewide who have contributed to the excess.
http://www.capcon.comlcml/pp2.html 12/9/97
0
Transportation Page 2 of 2
The time to act is now
Since 1995,the General Assembly has provided for more than $1 billion in general fund revenue to
be allocated through FY 2001 for CDOT’s state transportation projects.
It’s time to address the local transportation needs in the transportation funding discussion.Municipal
officials,citizens,and businesses should contact legislators to help ensure the development of a 1998
transportation funding program that addresses the interrelated needs of the state,municipalities,and
counties.
CML Contact:Jan Gerstenberger,intergovernmental affairs specialist (303)831-6411.
Prepared by CML 1 1/2 4/97
~-
PublicationsProducts About Issues MeetingsCalendarHome
1660 Lincoln St.,Suite 2100
Denver,CO 80264-2101
(303)831-6411
Fax:(303)860-8175
http:www.capcon.com/cmlIpp2.html 12/9/97