House Committee on Economic and Business Development (03/08/2012)

Final
STAFF SUMMARY OF MEETING

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT

Date:	03/08/2012	ATTENDANCE

Time:	01:40 PM to 03:47 PM	Balmer	X
		Holbert	X
Place:	HCR 0112	Miklosi	E
		Priola	X
This Meeting was called to order by		Singer	X
	Representative Liston	Soper	X
		Swerdfeger	X
This Report was prepared by		Szabo	X
	Christie Lee	Tyler	X
		Williams A.	X
		Wilson	X
		Swalm	X
		Liston	X
		X = Present, E = Excused, A = Absent, * = Present after roll call

Bills Addressed:		Action Taken:
SB12-096 HB12-1119		Referred to the Committee of the Whole Amended, Referred to Finance

01:40 PM -- Senate Bill 12-096

Representative Levy, prime sponsor, presented Senate Bill 12-096. Recommended by the Joint Budget Committee, this bill extends by two years the authority of the Governor's Office of Information Technology (OIT) to review existing information technology contracts and negotiate contract amendments. Under the bill, the authority is extended through June 30, 2014. Contract amendments can be made by OIT if:

all contractors agree to the amendment;
the original contract was awarded in compliance with procurement code, and not as a sole source or emergency procurement;
federal or other sources of funding are not jeopardized; and
the amendment establishes a standard for the specific information technology resource to which all state agencies will adhere, unless OIT grants a waiver.

Amendments to existing contracts are exempted from the requirements of the procurement code.


BILL:	SB12-096
TIME:	01:42:05 PM
MOVED:	Balmer
MOTION:	Moved to refer Senate Bill 12-096 to the Committee of the Whole. The motion passed on a vote of 12-0.
SECONDED:	Szabo
		VOTE
	Balmer	Yes
	Holbert	Yes
	Miklosi	Excused
	Priola	Yes
	Singer	Yes
	Soper	Yes
	Swerdfeger	Yes
	Szabo	Yes
	Tyler	Yes
	Williams A.	Yes
	Wilson	Yes
	Swalm	Yes
	Liston	Yes

YES: 12 NO: 0 EXC: 1 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: PASS

01:43 PM -- House Bill 12-1119

Representative Coram, prime sponsor, presented House Bill 12-1119. The bill limits the ability of a state agency to impose fines for inspection-related or paperwork violations that do not harm or threaten public health or safety. Specifically, a state agency may not issue fines for an inspection-related violation if the violator makes a reasonable attempt to comply with state rule or law, unless written notice was provided within 20 business days of the inspection and the violator has not cured the violation within 20 business days of the notice. Inspection-related violations are those discovered through inspection of a facility or work performed.

Fines for paperwork violations may not be made, unless written notice was provided within 90 business days of the violation and the violator has not cured the violation within 90 business days of the notice. Paperwork violations are defined as those that involve a failure to meet a filing deadline or a good-faith technical error made on a required form. Representative Coram distributed Amendment L.004, a strike below to the bill, that he explained limits the scope to only the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) and an e-mail (Attachment A and B, respectively).

01:52 PM

Jason Gelender, Office of Legislative Legal Services, and drafter of the bill, came to the table to respond to technical questions about the bill. Representative Liston clarified that Amendment L.004 streamlines and narrows the scope of the original strike below. The sponsor responded to questions from the committee regarding the inspections discussed in the strike below, the 20 day provision, and what constitutes a minor violation. Representative Swerdfeger directed the committee to the e-mail that was distributed earlier as an example of what constitutes a minor violation (Attachment B).

02:19 PM -- Jeff Parsons, representing himself, an attorney with the Western Mining Action Project, testified against the bill. He believes the bill will cause unintended consequences between state and federal pollution laws. Mr. Parsons expressed his concerns with the terms "fine" and "late fee" in the bill. Mr. Parsons believes the bill will lead to less stringent enforcement of the Clean Water Act. Mr. Parsons responded to questions from the committee regarding violations of the Clean Water Act.

02:43 PM -- Bruce Eisenhauer, representing the Department of Labor and Employment, stated that the department was against the bill as introduced, but is neutral with the strike below.

02:43 PM -- Scott Meiklejohn, representing the Workers' Compensation Education Association, stated that the strike below has made their concerns moot.

02:44 PM -- Joe Schieffelin, representing the CDPHE, testified against the bill. Mr. Schieffelin explained that the bill will remove the deterrent effect of current law and cause many people to ignore regulations until they are inspected. Mr. Schieffelin responded to questions from the committee regarding penalty assessments. Mr. Schieffelin stated that the bill will cause the federal government to review the department's program for the penalties they do not assess.

02:56 PM -- Tony Milo, Colorado Contractors' Association, testified in support of the bill. He gave some examples of situations the bill will alleviate. Mr. Milo responded to questions from the committee regarding violations.

03:05 PM -- Joe O'Dea, representing Concrete Express, Inc., testified in support of the bill. He stated that the bill will clean up minor violations and gave an example of a minor violation his company received while working at the airport and how a cure period would have helped his business. Mr. O'Dea responded to questions from the committee.

03:10 PM -- Jeff Keller, President of Asphalt Paving Construction Company, LLC, testified in support of the bill. He gave an example of a violation his company erroneously received. Mr. Keller responded to questions from the committee.

03:18 PM -- Richard Ledezma, representing Jalisco International, testified in support of the bill. He discussed the ground and storm water discharge permits his business has used. He gave an example of a violation his company received from CDPHE after an unannounced inspection the company did not know about until they received the violation. Mr. Ledezma talked about how a cure period would have benefited his situation.

03:25 PM -- Mark Latimer, representing Associated Building and Contractors-Rocky Mountain, testified in support of the bill. He talked about violations that come through even after the job is completed which does not allow the business to prove whether they were or were not in violation.

03:27 PM -- Michael Gifford representing American General Contractors of Colorado, testified in support of the bill.

03:31 PM -- Patrick Boyle, representing the Colorado Competitive Council (C3), testified in support of the bill.

03:32 PM -- Marc Reece, representing Colorado Association of Health Plans, testified in support of the bill.

03:35 PM


BILL:	HB12-1119
TIME:	03:35:40 PM
MOVED:	Liston
MOTION:	Moved to adopt amendment L.004 (Attachment A). The motion passed without objection.
SECONDED:	Holbert
		VOTE
	Balmer
	Holbert
	Miklosi	Excused
	Priola
	Singer
	Soper
	Swerdfeger
	Szabo
	Tyler
	Williams A.
	Wilson
	Swalm
	Liston

YES: 0 NO: 0 EXC: 1 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: Pass Without Objection


BILL:	HB12-1119
TIME:	03:46:11 PM
MOVED:	Szabo
MOTION:	Moved to refer House Bill 12-1119, as amended, to the Committee on Finance. The motion passed on a vote of 7-5.
SECONDED:	Swerdfeger
		VOTE
	Balmer	Yes
	Holbert	Yes
	Miklosi	Excused
	Priola	Yes
	Singer	No
	Soper	No
	Swerdfeger	Yes
	Szabo	Yes
	Tyler	No
	Williams A.	No
	Wilson	No
	Swalm	Yes
	Liston	Yes

YES: 7 NO: 5 EXC: 1 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: PASS

03:47 PM

The committee adjourned.