Session Will Include Sniping, Grandstanding, Maybe Results

Trying To Be An Optimist, In Challenging Times

By Penfield W. Tate III

Special to the GPHN

The holiday season is behind us, with its community celebrations, office parties, holiday gatherings, and time with the family. Now comes the prelude to the legislative session, which kicks off on Jan. 13. This is where the challenges in our community will be debated and hopefully, to some extent, improved.

This promises to be an interesting legislative year, full of hyperbole, sniping, and grandstanding.

My fondest hope is that it will also result in serious policy debate and resolution of important issues. Although I am typically an optimist, I am pessimistic about this season. It is after all, a presidential election year with all the partisan fervor that generates. It is also an election year for the entire state House of Representatives, and nearly one third of the State Senate. Some lawmakers will be term limited, some will be looking to move from the House to the Senate, and the question of who will end up in control of both chambers – Democrats, or Republicans – will be in play.

The session will be long on speech and debate on the issues and potentially short on results. It is not uncommon that the second regular session of a General Assembly is more difficult due to reelection pressures. Presidential election pressures simply add to an already dangerous mix.

Where will everyone live?

Development continues to be a topic of major discussion and concern in the community. Many talk about the explosive population growth in our state, which shows no signs of abating in the near future. With all of the people moving to Colorado, the obvious question becomes, where do they live?

Two measures from the last legislative session spoke of these issues in seemingly conflicting ways. Efforts to amend Colorado’s construction defects laws were ultimately unsuccessful. However, since a number of local communities are beginning to adopt their own construction defects ordinances, many believe the General Assembly will take this question up again in an effort to preempt local ordinances and establish a statewide playing field for the handling of these matters.

Developers and homebuilders will argue that current laws restrict and impede their ability to build affordable housing, which the state, and many local communities so desperately need. Opponents to amend existing law will argue that weakening a homeowner’s ability to take action when their home is poorly constructed and does not directly ensure that developers will build affordable housing. Indeed, opponents believe if the law is weakened, developers will simply continue to build the housing that makes them the most money–high-end apartments and condos, as well as upscale for sale units.

Expect this to be a particularly heated conversation, especially if the governor becomes involved early.

Related to construction defects is the question of overall development. Last session, the legislature passed HB15-1348 regarding urban renewal authorities. This modified the composition of the boards of urban renewal authorities and created an environment likely to slow the activities of urban renewal authorities, particularly when subsidies and incentives such as tax increment financing are being considered.

Conversation in the business community is focused on a common belief that last year’s measure may have been too extreme and that some tinkering to the statute is further warranted. Whether the competing sides can come together to strike that perfect balance remains to be seen. We have watched this statewide political conversation played out in Denver’s last cycle of city council and mayoral races.

Gun control = more inaction

The proliferation of terrorist activities and other mass shootings has Coloradans, indeed, the entire country, talking about gun control and mental illness.

Whether the two should be linked philosophically and practically is a separate issue. Practically, addressing mental health change requires the investment of resources – which the state does not have – while modifying laws regarding gun ownership, registration, and sales is not directly a fiscal concern.

Although I believe we will see a number of bills introduced on this topic, don’t expect any action. Proponents of gun control will introduce the measures in the Democratic-controlled House that will surely die in the Republican-controlled Senate. Likewise, proponents of weakening existing gun control laws will introduce measures in the Senate that will surely die in the House.

Although Gov. John Hickenlooper has not tipped his hand in for the session, it is commonly believed that, illustrated by his past track record including his much publicized conversations with the state’s sheriff’s association, the governor is not a fan of less gun regulation.

Would we change the Constitution?

Many are talking about the difficulty in the State’s budget. Due to the effects of the constitutional amendment known as the Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR), Colorado will be in a situation where revenues will exceed the arbitrary TABOR spending limit requiring sales tax and other refunds to Coloradans.

The refunds will occur while budget cuts further weaken several core programs, like higher ed and K-12 education because the revenues available under the TABOR limit are not adequate to fund all of the State’s needs.

There are efforts underway through groups like Building a Better Colorado, to explore ballot proposals to amend TABOR.

Nothing has been finalized as yet, but Building a Better Colorado is conducting listening tours around the state to see what changes Coloradans may be receptive to considering.

Healthcare, ethics, and booze

Finally, there are a number of ballot proposals that have already been submitted to, and cleared through, the title setting process for next November’s statewide ballot. Whether their proponents determine to let them remain up for voter consideration may depend on legislative action, or inaction, this session.

Proposed Initiative #20 would raise state taxes by $25 billion annually in the first fiscal year to pass a constitutional amendment establishing a healthcare payment system to fund healthcare for all individuals whose primary residence is in Colorado.

Essentially, the “single payer” proposal that we have seen in the past has returned. It has been certified and will be on the ballot. The pricetag will surely stun a number of voters, and we can expect a lot of conversation about the Affordable Care Act (“ACA” or “Obamacare”) in the debate around the single payer. I think the General Assembly will stay away from this issue, but expect a number of resolutions and other legislation criticizing the ACA and single payer.

Proposed Initiative #53 would create a constitutional amendment to allow citizens to file written complaints with the Independent Ethics Commission asserting whether a judge or justice has failed to comply with the Code Judicial Conduct or should be retired for disability. The proponents of this initiative are a couple from Wheat Ridge.

Proposed Initiatives #51 and #52 seek a change in Colorado’s statutes to allow grocery stores to sell full strength beer and wine. These initiatives set the stage for the ongoing battle between liquor stores and grocery stores.

It would not be surprising to see the General Assembly weigh in to attempt compromise legislation rather than constantly dealing with competing initiatives on the subject.

One way or another, as with most election years in the state of Colorado, 2016 promises to provide an interesting, intriguing, and suspenseful legislative session.

Penfield W. Tate III is an attorney with Kutak Rock and serves on a number of nonprofit boards. He represented Park Hill in the Colorado House of Representatives from 1997 to 2000, and in the State Senate from 2001 to February 2013, when he resigned from the Senate to run for Mayor of Denver. Penfield’s adult daughter was born and raised in Park Hill, and he and his wife Paulette remain in the neighborhood.