City Council Agenda and Packet 1997 01 14

Home Browse Search

appointed by the governor to the task force that wrote this report. How will the General Assembly respond? We know that at a minimum Sen. Ray Powers, R- Colorado Springs, will be reintroducing legislation to earmark a portion of state sales tax revenue from auto related purchases for the Highway Users Tax Fund (HUTF). The revenue would be shared on the 60 -22 -18 for- mula basis. Can the funds be used flexibly for a variety of transportation purposes, like mass transit? That will be an issue open to debate in the Legislature next session. CML will advocate not only the local shareback, but also the issue of flexi- bility. Colorado Counties, Inc. (CCI) will join the League in that push. Will the governor change his position on the reinstatement of the "Noble bill" or continue his strong opposition to it, as he did last session when he announced in his opening State of the State mes- sage hat he would veto the bill. We also anticipate legislation allowing local governments outside the Denver metro Regional Transportation District (RTD) service area to establish rural transportation authorities. This was sup- ported by CML last session. There is great interest in this measure among many of the ski communities. We're not sure yet who the sponsors might be, as well as what any bill might look like. And, there could be more than one bill on the subject. To the extent there is a budget surplus, many candidates for the Legislature pledged support for using a portion of it for highways. Whether that means only state highways managed by the Col- orado Department of Transportation (CDOT) or sharing the revenue with counties and municipalities is unclear. In the past two legislative sessions, the sur- plus has gone only to CDOT, not to local governments. Another issue affecting the HUTF will be additional officers for the Colorado State Patrol. The patrol wants another 100 officers. That's 'a $5 million increase phased in over the next three years. As part of its budget this current fiscal year, the patrol gets nearly $47 million from the HUTF. How much of the proposed funding increase will come directly from the HUTF, and possibly reduce the shareback to counties and municipalities, is an open question. While CML is neutral on the request to fund more troopers, the League will oppose any patrol funding increase in the currently allowed growth (6 percent) of off the -top HUTF funding. Of additional municipal interest is a pro- posal that Sen. MaryAnne Tebedo, R- Colorado Springs, may introduce in the upcoming session which would prevent the use of the HUTF to be spent on any- thing other than highway construction. Money for the patrol would have to come out of the state's general fund budget. Her legislation would be in the form of a constitutional amendment, so it would require a two- thirds legislative vote to get on the statewide ballot. Welfare reform This federal "devolution" item is a big issue, especially for state -county rela- tionships. It may take all session to sort out how much of the state budget will be tied up in this debate. A major point of discussion will be between the gov- ernor and the Legislature on the unifor- mity of welfare rules county -to- county. Land use Will this be a battleground of activity pitting state and local interests against each other, particularly in the arena of takings? CML reached a compromise on the last major takings bill, SB 96 -69, and dropped opposition to it. Romer vetoed it after the session. Despite CML neu- trality, nearly 20 mayors signed a letter to the governor asking for his veto. Whether Norton or Anderson reintro- duce some version of SB 96 -69 is not known at this time. Important Phone Numbers General Bill Information: (303) 866 -2340 House Democrats and Republicans: (303) 866 -2904 Senate Democrats: (303) 866 -4865 Senate Republicans: (303) 866 -4866 December 6, 1996 CML Statehouse Report 3