House Committee on Local Government (05/02/2006)

Final
STAFF SUMMARY OF MEETING

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Date:	05/02/2006	ATTENDANCE

Time:	01:36 PM to 05:23 PM	Berens	X
		Cerbo	*
Place:	HCR 0112	Curry	X
		Decker	X
This Meeting was called to order by		Massey	*
	Representative Hodge	Merrifield	X
		Soper	X
This Report was prepared by		Stafford	X
	Carl Jarrett	Stengel	*
		Lindstrom	X
		Hodge	X
		X = Present, E = Excused, A = Absent, * = Present after roll call

Bills Addressed:		Action Taken:
SB06-228 SB06-237 SB06-236		Referred to the Committee of the Whole Referred to the Committee of the Whole Referred to the Committee of the Whole

01:36 PM -- Senate Bill 06-228

Representative May, bill sponsor, explained the provisions of SB 06-228 and the purposes of the Scientific and Cultural Facilities District (SCFD). The bill addresses the cost of elections and specifies the amount the SCFD will pay to participate in coordinated elections.

01:43 PM

Mary Ellen Williams, SCFD, spoke in support of the bill. She provided a history of the SCFD and spoke to the statutory limitation on the amount the district can spend on district election costs. She explained how counties currently provide information to the SCFD on the costs of elections and how the district's share of the costs of those elections is calculated. She further provided information on how the agreement in the bill was reached between the SCFD and the counties in the district.

In response to a committee question, Representative May further explained current law that places a cap on the amount the SCFD can spend on administrative costs.

02:01 PM

David Broadwell, City and County of Denver, spoke in support of the bill. He advocated the formula in the bill so that each county pays its own fair apportioned share of the costs of a coordinated election.

02:04 PM

Jim Windholz, SCFD, spoke in support of the bill concurring with the testimony of Mr. Broadwell.

02:06 PM

Nancy Doty, Arapahoe County Clerk's Office, spoke in opposition to the bill. She indicated the bill is bad for counties and spoke to the need for SCFD to hold elections in conjunction with general elections. She also questioned the SCFD's budget-preparedness for elections and noted that while the SCFD is limited on the amount it can spend on administrative costs, the SCFD could have asked the legislature for an exemption from that limitation. She also disputed other testimony and noted that if the bill is passed, SCFD's portion of election reimbursement costs will be halved. She further explained how counties bill out for the costs of coordinated elections and noted that there is a contractual agreement between Arapahoe County and the SCFD that cannot be violated. She noted there will not be another SCFD election for another 8 years and asked for more time to discuss the issue.

02:12 PM

Peg Ackerman, Colorado County Clerks, spoke in opposition to the bill and provided further detail on how the agreement between the SCFD and county clerks for paying the share of coordinated election costs was reached.

In response to a committee question, Ms. Doty explained how Arapahoe County determines its election costs. Ms. Doty further explained the differences in election costs from county-to-county.

Representative May and Ms. Doty responded to committee questions regarding the degree to which the formula in the bill addresses money owed the counties by SCFD. She also responded to committee questions regarding the number of questions on each ballot in Arapahoe County and the cost of each question per voter. In response to an additional question Ms. Doty indicted that should the bill pass, SCFD would, in effect, be allowed to skip out on the amount it currently owes Arapahoe County from the 2004 election.

02:33 PM

Ms. Williams responded to committee questions regarding the amount SCFD owes Arapahoe County and the amount it has already paid, and when the balance will be paid. She indicated that an earlier draft of the bill provided that the formula would be applied to the past debt (thereby reducing the amount currently owed Arapahoe County) but that while this bill allows for a deduction of election costs, the SCFD it plans to pay the full balance of costs owed at the end of the year.

Representative May clarified that the reason that SCFD has not paid all of its election bill is because of the statutory cap on the amount that can be paid in administrative costs. He further responded to a committee question regarding payment for SCFD campaigns. Ms. Williams noted that as a government entity, SCFD is prohibited from paying for campaigns.


BILL:	SB06-228
TIME:	02:41:55 PM
MOVED:	Merrifield
MOTION:	Refer the bill to the Committee of the Whole. The motion carried on a 7-4 roll call vote.
SECONDED:	Berens
		VOTE
	Berens	Yes
	Cerbo	Yes
	Curry	Yes
	Decker	Yes
	Massey	Yes
	Merrifield	Yes
	Soper	No
	Stafford	No
	Stengel	No
	Lindstrom	No
	Hodge	Yes
Final YES: 7 NO: 4 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: PASS

Representative May provided closing comments on the bill.

02:43 PM

The committee recessed.

04:57 PM -- Senate Bill 06-237

Representative Balmer, bill sponsor, explained the provisions of SB 06-237 regarding the interoperability of communications between public safety agencies and radio systems. He explained that the bill requires the state's nine all-hazards regions to submit a plan for interoperable communications (Attachment A).

05:00 PM

Barbara Kirkmeyer, Department of Local Affairs, spoke in support of the bill.

05:01 PM

Peg Ackerman, County Sheriffs of Colorado, spoke in support of the bill.

Representative Balmer responded to committee questions.

05:08 PM

Representative Balmer provided closing comments.


BILL:	SB06-237
TIME:	05:08:51 PM
MOVED:	Stafford
MOTION:	Refer the bill to the Committee of the Whole. The motion carried on an 11-0 roll call vote.
SECONDED:	Stengel
		VOTE
	Berens	Yes
	Cerbo	Yes
	Curry	Yes
	Decker	Yes
	Massey	Yes
	Merrifield	Yes
	Soper	Yes
	Stafford	Yes
	Stengel	Yes
	Lindstrom	Yes
	Hodge	Yes
Final YES: 11 NO: 0 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: PASS

05:09 PM -- Senate Bill 06-236

Representative Curry, bill sponsor, explained the provisions of SB 06-236 to specify the kinds of activity that constitutes "exploration" for the purposes of searching for construction materials (minerals).

05:12 PM

Ron Cattany, Colorado Division of Minerals and Geology, spoke in support of the bill and explained that this provision already exists in the "hard rock" statute and needs to match the construction materials statute. He responded to a committee question regarding the need for a permit and permission to conduct exploration activities.

05:15 PM

Paul Schauer, Colorado Rock Products, spoke in support of the bill. He explained how the provision will be used to determine whether minerals exist underground and indicated that the exploration generally involves post-hole-sized diggings to determine whether rock exists underground.

05:16 PM

Tony Milo, Colorado Contractors Association, spoke in support of the bill. He explained how contractors would use the provision to determine where to get aggregates for a particular project, particularly when the turnaround time is quick.

Mr. Cattany responded to a committee question regarding the impact the bill would have on mining projects such as one that exists in Colorado Springs that has created an unsightly scar on the mountain view. If the resource is found, a permit is necessary to mine the minerals.

05:21 PM

Representative Curry provided closing comments on the bill.


BILL:	SB06-236
TIME:	05:22:32 PM
MOVED:	Decker
MOTION:	Refer the bill to the Committee of the Whole. The motion carried on a 10-0-1 roll call vote.
SECONDED:	Lindstrom
		VOTE
	Berens	Yes
	Cerbo	Yes
	Curry	Yes
	Decker	Yes
	Massey	Yes
	Merrifield	Yes
	Soper	Yes
	Stafford	Excused
	Stengel	Yes
	Lindstrom	Yes
	Hodge	Yes
Final YES: 10 NO: 0 EXC: 1 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: PASS

05:23 PM

The meeting adjourned.