Laserfiche WebLink
interest) and to all applicable (municipal <br />or county in which the land is located) <br />laws, ordinances and regulations <br />including zoning ordinances and plan- <br />ning regulations. This joint development <br />authority for RTD would specifically <br />supersede the current prohibition on <br />retail and commercial activity of CDOT <br />property found in CDOT's statutes, but <br />as drafted, leaves the CDOT prohibition <br />with this specific exception in the RTD <br />statutes, in place. No position <br />State Patrol funding <br />(Jan Gerstenberger) —The Colorado <br />State Patrol has been making the case <br />that it needs extra troopers on the road <br />since they have fewer troopers now than <br />in 1980 even though there are 500,000 <br />more motorists and higher speed limits <br />The patrol is currently receiving $46.6 <br />million of its $49.8 million from HUTF. <br />No position on the request to fund more <br />troopers but oppose any increase in the <br />currently allowed growth of off -the -top <br />funding (6 percent) from HUTF monies <br />to pay for them. <br />Lottery/GOCO <br />(Sam Mamet) —A proposed constitu- <br />tional amendment would earmark a por- <br />tion of GOCO and Conservation Trust <br />Fund lottery proceeds for school capital <br />construction needs. <br />The proposal would redirect $32 million <br />from GOCO to a new grant -in -aid pro- <br />gram for school districts. The program <br />would be administered by the State <br />Board of Education and appropriated by <br />the General Assembly. The way the <br />amendment is written (to be carried by <br />Rep. Norma Anderson, R- Lakewood, <br />and Sen. Joan Johnson, D- Thornton) it <br />would also cut into net proceeds <br />accruing to state parks and to local gov- <br />ernments. The funding measure would <br />be placed on next year's fall ballot, <br />which would require a two- thirds leg- <br />islative vote for referral. Finally, the <br />amendment would exempt the proceeds <br />from this new grant program from cer- <br />tain TABOR related state spending <br />restrictions. Oppose <br />December 6, 1996 <br />Recreational trails' <br />(Geoff Wilson) —Last year CML's <br />Recreational Trails Committee recom- <br />mended a variety of changes to the state <br />Recreational Use Statute (33 -41 -101 <br />C.R.S. et seq: hereafter "RUS These <br />changes, which were proposed in HB <br />96 -1315, were intended to relieve some <br />of the liability concerns of ditch compa- <br />nies that are considering opening their <br />ditch banks for public use as recre- <br />ational trails. The RUS provides liability <br />protection to private landowners who <br />permit their property to be used, without <br />charge, for public recreational purposes. <br />Among its other provisions, HB 96- <br />1315 clarified that the RUS applies to <br />property opened for public recreational <br />purposes in other than "rural" areas, <br />provided additional protection for ditch <br />companies from "attractive nuisance" <br />liability when children come upon the <br />property and provided for award of <br />attorneys' fees and costs to the pre- <br />vailing party in any action by a recre- <br />ational user against a private property <br />owner. <br />CML had a "sponsor" position with <br />respect to HB 96 -1315. The legislation <br />was supported by the state Division of <br />Parks, the Colorado Farm Bureau, recre- <br />ation districts, and numerous ditch com- <br />panies. The provisions of the bill con- <br />cerning attractive nuisance and <br />attorneys' fees were opposed by the <br />Colorado Trial Lawyers. Unfortunately, <br />an amendment prohibiting municipali- <br />ties from obtaining recreational ease- <br />ments through condemnation or the sub- <br />division approval process was added, <br />and as a result, CML requested that the <br />bill be killed. <br />Sponsor (Rep. Jeannie Reeser, D- <br />Thornton, will be the bill's prime <br />sponsor) <br />Electric deregulation <br />(Ken Bueche, Sam Mamet )—Both Con- <br />gress and the state Legislature will be <br />considering bills next year on the sub- <br />ject of electric deregulation. It is antici- <br />pated that Rep. Paul Schauer, R -Lit- <br />CML Statehouse Report <br />9 <br />