1999
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION 99-021
BY SENATORS Powers, Anderson, Andrews, Arnold, Blickensderfer, Chlouber, Congrove, Dyer, Epps, Evans, Lacy, Lamborn, Musgrave, Sullivant, Tebedo, and Teck;
also REPRESENTATIVES George, Alexander, Allen, Berry,
Chavez, Clarke, Coleman, Dean, Gordon, Gotlieb, Hoppe, Johnson,
Kaufman, Keller, Larson, Lawrence, Mace, May, Miller, Nunez, Paschall,
Pfiffner, Ragsdale, Scott, Sinclair, Smith, Spence, Stengel, Swenson,
Webster, S. Williams, T. Williams, and Witwer.
CONCERNING A REQUEST TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE
STATE OF COLORADO TO RENDER ITS OPINION UPON QUESTIONS REGARDING
HOUSE BILL 991325.
WHEREAS, Population and economic growth in Colorado
increasingly burden existing public highways and other transportation
infrastructure in the state, and this burden grows progressively
greater each year; and
WHEREAS, The state's transportation infrastructure
must be significantly improved in the near future to maintain
the quality of life for the citizens of the state and to allow
the state's economy to continue to grow and prosper; and
WHEREAS, House Bill 991325 was introduced in
the House of Representatives of the Sixtysecond General
Assembly to enable the state to effectively and economically provide
for the state's transportation infrastructure needs through the
issuance of transportation revenue anticipation notes to finance
federal aid transportation projects; and
WHEREAS, House Bill 991325 was passed by the
House of Representatives, was passed by the Senate on Second Reading,
and now awaits final action by the Senate; and
WHEREAS, Substantial questions have been raised about
the constitutionality of House Bill 991325 under section
20 of article X and section 3 of article XI of the state constitution;
and
WHEREAS, If the state must delay issuance of transportation
revenue anticipation notes due to prolonged legal proceedings
to determine whether the provisions of House Bill 991325
are constitutional, the state's ability to adequately address
the longterm transportation infrastructure needs of the
state will be seriously impaired for the following reasons:
1. The state would not be able to realize
significant cost savings from financing federal aid transportation
projects with transportation revenue anticipation notes because
such transportation projects would not be completed at presentday
costs and at an accelerated pace; and
2. The state must immediately begin negotiations
with the federal government in order to be eligible to receive
federal transportation funds recently made available by the United
States Congress but not yet awarded; however, the federal government
will not enter into such negotiations with the state until House
Bill 991325 becomes law and is determined to be constitutional;
and
3. Any delay in these negotiations with
the federal government will place the state at a significant disadvantage
with respect to other states already competing for these federal
transportation funds, and such delay may result in the state being
unable to obtain any of these federal funds; and
4. The state may be unable to issue transportation
revenue anticipation notes or may be able to issue such notes
only at inordinate cost until questions regarding the constitutionality
of House Bill 991325 are resolved by a decision of the Supreme
Court of the State of Colorado; and
WHEREAS, If proceeds from the sale of transportation
revenue anticipation notes are not treated the same as bonded
debt proceeds and excluded from fiscal year spending for purposes
of section 20 of article X of the state constitution, this manner
of financing state transportation projects would only increase
the amount of revenues in excess of the state's constitutional
spending limitation that would be refunded using state general
fund revenues at the expense of other state programs; and
WHEREAS, Resolving the constitutional questions in
the context of an interrogatory proceeding will avoid:
1. Incurring the costs associated with
the issuance of such notes, if such notes are later declared unconstitutional;
and
2. Jeopardizing the funding for other
important state programs and incurring penalties for noncompliance
with section 20 of article X of the state constitution, if the
proceeds from transportation revenue anticipation notes are later
determined to be included in state fiscal year spending; and
WHEREAS, The issues raised by House Bill 991325
are strictly legal issues involving the interpretation and construction
of various provisions of the state constitution, and no factual
issues are likely to arise in the context of a private suit that
would enhance the Supreme Court's ability to adjudicate these
issues; and
WHEREAS, If, prior to the adjournment sine die of
the Sixtysecond General Assembly on May 5, 1999, the Supreme
Court determines that the provisions of House Bill 991325
do not violate the state constitution, House Bill 991325
will probably pass the Senate on Third Reading and be signed into
law by the Governor; and
WHEREAS, The General Assembly has elected to submit
these interrogatories by joint resolution of the two houses signed
by the Governor in order to demonstrate to the Supreme Court that
both houses and the Governor concur in the importance of the issues
set forth below and the urgency of the situation described herein;
and
WHEREAS, The submittal of these interrogatories in
this manner in no way limits or modifies the authority of either
house to submit interrogatories by a House or Senate resolution;
now, therefore,
Be It Resolved by the Senate of the Sixtysecond
General Assembly of the State of Colorado, the House of Representatives
concurring herein:
That, in view of the premises, there is an important
question as to the constitutionality of House Bill 991325,
and it is the judgment of the Senate and the House of Representatives
that the question of the constitutionality of House Bill 991325
is a matter of extreme importance and public interest; that it
is essential that an immediate determination be secured; and that
a solemn occasion within the meaning and intent of section 3 of
article VI of the state constitution has arisen; and the Senate
and the House of Representatives accordingly request the Supreme
Court of the state of Colorado to render its opinion upon the
following questions:
1. Would transportation revenue anticipation
notes issued in accordance with the provisions of House Bill 991325
constitute a "debt by loan in any form" that is prohibited
by section 3 of article XI of the state constitution?
2. Would transportation revenue anticipation
notes issued in accordance with the provisions of House Bill 991325
constitute a "multiplefiscal year direct or indirect
district debt or other financial obligation whatsoever" that
requires prior voter approval under section 20 (4) (b) of article
X of the state constitution?
3. Would the proceeds from the issuance
of transportation revenue anticipation notes issued in accordance
with the provisions of House Bill 991325 be subject to the
constitutional limitation on state fiscal year spending imposed
by section 20 (7) (a) of article X of the state constitution?
Be It Further Resolved,
That the President of the Senate, immediately upon passage of
this Resolution and approval by the Governor, shall transmit to
the Clerk of the Supreme Court a certified copy thereof and certified
copies of Revised House Bill 991325, and that the Committee
on Legal Services shall be directed to furnish said Court with
an adequate number of copies of this Resolution and said bill
and shall submit to said Court such further documents and briefs
as the Court may require to expedite its procedure in the premises.
_________________________ _________________________
Ray Powers Russell George
PRESIDENT OF SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
THE SENATE OF REPRESENTATIVES
_________________________ _________________________
Patricia K. Dicks Judith M. Rodrigue
SECRETARY OF CHIEF CLERK OF THE HOUSE
THE SENATE OF REPRESENTATIVES
APPROVED________________________________________
_________________________________________
Bill Owens
GOVERNOR OF THE STATE
OF COLORADO