[bouldercouncilhotline] Hotline: CML meetings

[kohls at bouldercolorado.gov]

Sender: Appelbaum, Matt

Colleagues,

Last week I attended the full-day legislative workshop and the Policy Committee meeting of the Colorado Muncipal League (CML).  The workshop provided updates on the many bills of interest now making their way through the state legislature.  There was a showing of CML's latest video -- in which our city manager had something of a starring role!  There were panels on a variety of issues, including the Initiative Reform bill (requiring 60% support to amend the constitution, something CML strongly supports), an update on the legislature from the various senate and house leaders, a discussion of federal issues of concern, and an interesting discussion on state issues from members of the governor's cabinet.  Governor Hickenlooper also gave a relatively short talk, focused largely on budget issues.

As with most such gatherings, the schmoozing was at least as important as the formal meeting.  I did some lobbying on issues of concern to us, and had fairly long chats with key members of CML staff as well as Senators Nicholson and Heath.  I also had a rather fascination conversation with two councilmembers regarding the Jefferson Parkway, which I'll describe in my next email, which is on that specific topic.

At the Policy Committee meeting, there were several bills that were of significant concern to us, particularly since CML staff had recommended positions we didn't agree with.

The most important of these bills is HB 1220, "Transportation Project Infill Zones" (apparently now called "Accelerated Transportation Projects for Economic Development).  This would allow communities, under certain circumstances, to build transportation projects on state highways, create an "infill zone" around the improvements, and then keep 50% of the increment in state sales taxes generated within that zone.  This is Broomfield's bill, and one of their staff spoke at considerable length.  Macon had already opposed this bill at DRCOG, which took a neutral position on it.  CML staff, somewhat amazingly, proposed that CML support it (presumably under heavy pressure from Broomfield).  The problems are numerous.  Although the title loudly proclaims "infill," nothing in the bill speaks to that, and it clearly allows "infill" in outlying greenfields.  Only roadway projects may apply, not transit.  But most critically, and despite Broomfield's claims, it is clear that these projects will, at best, increase state sales taxes by only a tiny amount overall (since retails gains in one place almost always come at the expense of retail sales in nearby locations), while the community will get half of the local increment.  I made these points to the committee, using Boulder as an example of a city that actually might benefit from this bill but at the great expense to the state and, thus, to most cities.  Our unexpected bedfellow in this fight was Tom Norton, past CDOT director and now mayor of Greeley (and with whom we almost never agree).  Rather to our surprise, there was almost no support for Broomfield, and in fact considerable opposition.  A motion to completely oppose the bill failed, but closely (and probably due to staff's support), and CML ended up with a neutral position.  I had a long conversation with Sen. Heath on this bill, and urged him to oppose it (it will be in his senate committee); I also talked to Sen. Nicholson about it and she had already decided to oppose it for the same reasons we had.

HB 1255, "Alternative Energy Parks," also seems like a bill we might support, but it clearly is intended to allow urban renewal areas in greenfields (as with 1220, this seems to be something of a clever attempt to get around the restrictions put on URAs last year, in a bill heavily supported by Boulder).  And it almost certainly would only apply to one specific project.  CML staff didn't make a recommendation, but were savvier about the problems with the bill, which got panned by the committee.

HB 1243, "Keno for jobs and education," seemed to me to be a clever attempt to create new gambling choices that could circumvent the current rules regarding how lottery revenues need to be distributed (to GOCO and the Conservation Trust Fund).  The policy committee very quickly figured that out, and voted to oppose the bill -- which has since been killed in a state house committee.

No other bills were particularly controversial, and in all cases I believe that CML's positions aligned with ours.  All recommendations from the Policy Committee must go to CML's Board for final action.

--Matt