DENVER—The state Senate gave initial approval to repealing spending rules in the state budget early Tuesday over the objections of Republicans, who staged a 10-hour filibuster to protest the move. All Democrats in the chamber backed the bill, which must still pass another vote.
The measure (Senate Bill 228) would get rid of automatic transfers to highway construction when tax revenues are up and allow lawmakers to decide each year how much should go to such projects and how much should go to services like higher education and Medicaid.
Currently, state law allows the total general fund budget—which covers items like public schools, prisons and higher education—to grow by 6 percent a year. Any leftover revenue must be spent first on highway construction and then other building projects. That generally happens only when tax revenue is up in good economic times. No money is expected to be transferred to transportation until at least July 2010.
Backers say lawmakers should have the flexibility to spend tax dollars based on what’s happening in the state at the time. They also say getting rid of the 6 percent limit will make sure the state budget doesn’t shrink following the recession. If the state budget can’t grow up to the maximum 6 percent because tax revenues are down, then the following year the budget will only be able to grow up to 6 percent above that reduced amount.
But Republican opponents fear transportation funding will get short shrift without automatic transfers. They also say the limits are protected by the Taxpayers Bill of Rights and can’t be abolished with voter approval.
GOP senators offered a slew of amendments to slow down debate. Some asked for the repeal of the rules to be delayed until construction on specific highways and at state universities was complete.
Majority Democrats stopped the first round of debate after a combined seven hours of debate and then Republicans revisited some of the failed amendments during the customary second round of debate.
Senate Minority Leader Josh Penry, R-Grand Junction, criticized Democrats for limiting debate, a move that is allowed under the rules with an hour’s notice but isn’t believed to have been used in the last 20 years.
“It may be an inconvenience for the majority party and that was the point,” Penry said.
He also criticized Democrats for trying to change the formula after backing fee increases to pay for road and highway construction. That measure was signed into law Monday by Gov. Bill Ritter.
The current system has funneled $1.3 billion to road and highway projects over the past five years and another $300 million for building construction and repairs.
Bill sponsor Sen. John Morse, D-Colorado Springs, said that money came from taxpayers, and elected representatives have a right to decide how to spend it.
“They have no right to this money,” Morse said of transportation interests, “except for this arbitrary, tyrannical formula.”
The bill is technically bipartisan since it’s co-sponsored by Rep. Don Marostica, R-Loveland, but members of Marostica’s party have criticized him for supporting it.
Marostica said if inflation kicks in and operating expenses can grow by only 6 percent, the state will have trouble paying for basic services like higher education and prisons. He said funding for public education could also squeeze out other services from being funded since the state constitution protects school funding, requiring it to grow by inflation plus 1 percent through 2010. After that it must grow by inflation every year.
Republicans and Democrats can’t agree on whether the 6 percent statute is a true limit, and the issue could end up in court.
The 6 percent rule was passed by the Legislature in 1991 and is known as the Arveschoug (AR’-ve-scow)-Bird limit, after the lawmakers who sponsored the change. Nearly two decades ago, legislative legal advisers told lawmakers that TABOR, passed by voters in 1992, protected the 6 percent statute from being changed. But bill backers, including former state Supreme Court member Jean Dubofsky, say that was a mistake.
Backers say it only tells lawmakers where to spend money but doesn’t set a limit on the overall amount of money the state can spend. They also say the bill wouldn’t cost taxpayers any extra money because TABOR would still limit the amount of tax dollars the state can keep and spend.
But opponents say lawmakers could impose more fees to pay for transportation if they end up spending more tax dollars on programs besides transportation.
