Ritter trying to raise taxes again and again and again

[Garcia Bronco]

denver and the west
Ritter to push plan for road, bridge funding
The proposal will be part of an omnibus bill that could increase vehicle fees.
By John Ingold and Jeffrey Leib
The Denver Post
Posted: 01/06/2009 12:30:00 AM MST


Gov. Bill Ritter on Monday broadly laid out a three pronged proposal for putting more money into Colorado's road and bridge network. He said the proposal would be part of a comprehensive bill he would put forth in the coming legislative session.

Ritter said the planned "omnibus" transportation bill will look at ways to generate money for near-term infrastructure repairs while also moving toward fundamentally changing how transportation projects are paid for in Colorado. In a meeting with The Denver Post's editorial board, Ritter said he and lawmakers must reach a solution this year to fix the state's increasingly fragile roads and bridges, something they gridlocked on last year.

"We're going to do everything we can to make it happen this session," he said.

Under Ritter's vision, the state would look to a possible federal infrastructure stimulus package to kick-start road and bridge repairs this year, while also looking to increase a number of vehicle-related fees to provide transportation money over the next several years.

Ritter declined to say how much money he hopes the proposal would raise or what fees in particular would be targeted, saying those details are still being negotiated among lawmakers of both parties.

"It's a fairly delicate conversation," he said.

Meanwhile, Ritter said he hopes the bill also will look at a long-term change to the state's transportation funding mechanism. The state's current primary system — through a per-gallon gasoline tax that hasn't been raised in more than a decade — has lost ground because of inflation and the use of more fuel-efficient vehicles.

State leaders have floated a number of ideas this winter for generating more transportation dollars, but it is still unclear which plan will emerge.

On Monday, members of the Metro Mayors Caucus, which is weighing options for local communities trying to cope with the $2 billion shortfall of the FasTracks transit expansion, got a look at an early outline of one possible bill. The proposal, which Ritter has not endorsed, suggests raising money through an annual "bridge and safety surcharge," as well as an increased rental-car fee.

It also proposes a pilot project to study charging annual registration fees based on the number of miles a specific vehicle drives in a year, rather than vehicle age.

Lee Kemp, current chairman of the Regional Transportation District's board of directors, attended the meeting and expressed disappointment that the transit agency had not yet been consulted on the bill.

John Ingold: 303-954-1068 or jingold@denverpost.com

[Garcia Bronco]

Any opinion Leo or other Colorado residents?

[Meck77]

Ritter is a POS. I personally watched the 2009 budget debate last year at the capital. The dems made sure they spent every dime we had while the republicans tried to save some cash anticipating a downturn in revenues. Now the idiots want to raise our taxes because they don't have enough money.

One way they will get our money is via fees instead of taxes. You see the dems don't like to bring important issues to a vote. Here is a perfect example of this. This is only the beginning.


Road plan would boost vehicle fees
By Tillie Fong, Rocky Mountain News (Contact), Ed Sealover, Rocky Mountain News
Published January 15, 2009 at 12:05 a.m.

Chris Bassett says proposed hikes in car registration fees are bad, but Colorado's dangerous bridges and highways are worse.

"In these economic times, of course, we don't want to spend any more money, but our streets need it - no question," Bassett said.

Bassett, 55, who lives in unincorporated Jefferson County and works for IBM, was at the Department of Motor Vehicles office at 1865 W. Mississippi Ave. in Denver on Wednesday afternoon, helping his 16-year-old daughter Kaitlyn pick up her first driver's license.

Asked what he thought of the governor's new plan to increase car registration fees to fund road and bridge repairs, Bassett said safe roads are worth the price.

"It's hard to drive east on I-70, east of I-25, without worrying about the (overpass) collapsing. I-25 north of Denver is horrible. I-70 is a mess. It's amazing anyone wants to ski anymore," Bassett said. "It was bad enough 30 years ago."

It's just the kind of endorsement Gov. Bill Ritter, who formally unveiled the $250 million plan at a news conference Wednesday, would probably want to hear.

But the Colorado FASTER (Funding Advancement for Surface Transportation & Economic Recovery) plan is controversial, in part because it would cost Colorado vehicle owners an extra $20 to $50 or more in vehicle-registration fees next year, based on vehicle weight.

Job losses, job gains cited

The typical passenger vehicle weighs between 2,000 and 5,000 pounds, according to state officials. Any vehicle in that range would cost $41 more per year.

"We're still trying to calculate the full cost on this," said Greg Fulton, president of the Colorado Motor Carriers Association.

"It could be fairly significant on some vehicles. Many of our companies are small businesses who are struggling. We have lost about 13,000 jobs in the state since 2000."

Plan co-sponsor Rep. Joe Rice, D-Littleton, said Colorado currently has some of the lowest vehicle-registration fees in the country, and Federal Highway Administration figures support him.

The typical Colorado driver paid a base registration fee of $26.60 in 2008, less than roughly 30 other states, according the the FHA. Even with the new fees, Colorado's fees would not be out of line with rest of the nation, Rice said.

The Colorado Contractors Association supports the plan because it would create an estimated 10,000 jobs, with a potential for 30,000 additional jobs, according to CCA studies.

Ritter, Rice and the other sponsor, Democratic Sen. Dan Gibbs of Silverthorne, called the plan a product of months of negotiations with transportation experts and business leaders.

Ritter also emphasized how much work went into assuring the plan could receive bipartisan support.

That, he said, was why he couldn't just proceed with recommendations made by his Blue Ribbon Transportation Panel to raise taxes or fees last year without Republican buy-in.

GOP proposal differs

But no Republican legislators stood with him at the news conference, and several said later that the state must look to redirect more of its own revenues to transportation before asking residents for more of their money.

Rep. Frank McNulty, R-Highlands Ranch, specifically said that Ritter should look to eliminate the Governor's Energy Office and scale back expansions he made last year to public insurance programs.

House Minority Leader Mike May, R-Parker, also questioned the need for three new committees or commissions that the bill sets up to look at operational efficiencies, tolling and a possible vehicle- miles-traveled fee.

A plan proposed earlier by the GOP suggests leveraging the value of state buildings to sell bonds and fix roads.

"The Republican plan is: Building roads, not bureaucracies," May said.

Even some people typically inclined to agree with the Democratic governor expressed doubts about the plan Wednesday.

Rep. Ed Casso, D-Thornton, said that he thinks discussions are moving a little quickly and the fee increases might be better put to the public as a ballot initiative.

Rice and Gibbs said they will entertain any suggested changes, including the notion that the fees should be phased in until the recession ends.

"If this was easy, it would have been done already," Rice said. "This conversation is still open, and this conversation is still continuing with people in this building."

Staff writer Julie Poppen contributed to this report.

What proposed fees will cost drivers

Motorcycle: Bridge fee, $16; Road maintenance fee, $13; Total fee, $29

Less than 2,000 lbs: Bridge fee, $13, Road maintenance fee, $16; Total fee, $29

2,000-5,000 lbs: Bridge fee, $18; Road maintenance fee, $23; Total fee, $41

5,001-10,000 lbs: Bridge fee, $23; Road maintenance fee, $28; Total fee, $51

10,001-16,000 lbs. (includes buses): Bridge fee, $29; Road maintenance fee, $37; Total fee, $66

16,000+ lbs.: Bridge fee, $32; Road maintenance fee, $39; Total fee, $71

Bridge-road funding plan

* Includes new fees on vehicle registrations: One would raise about $100 million a year to fix deficient bridges, the other would raise roughly $150 million for roadway safety projects.

* Fees would be based on vehicle weight. The average increase in registration fees on a majority of passenger vehicles would be about $41 yearly.

* Car renters would be charged a $2 daily fee.

* By using future fee revenues as leverage, the state could sell bonds and fix 125 of the state's 126 structurally deficient bridges within four years.

* The road safety funding would be parceled out 60 percent to the state, 22 percent to counties, 18 percent to cities.

* Late registration fines would increase $25 monthly.

* Permit fees would double for oversize, overweight vehicles.
Subscribe to the Rocky Mountain News

[spdirty]

well meck, garcia, the ****ing morons who moved here and started voting these ****ing clowns in since 2004 deserve what theyre getting. Just too bad the rest of us have to suffer through their idiocy right along with em.

[Spider]

16,000+ lbs.: Bridge fee, $32; Road maintenance fee, $39; Total fee, $71
if this is a once per trip fee , then it is pretty damn cheap ..... try paying fees in Oregon , Montana , Nebraska , Arkansas , Tenn and Kentucky ..... Damn near have to take out a mortgage

[Spider]

i dont even want to talk about oregon , I got abused like a 16 year old virgin in a Mississippi trailer park ......... from one end of that state to the other .... I guess when I got into it with guy over my over size sign , i was labeled a trouble maker ...... I gave back as good as I got though . my most defiant act was pissing on the leaving Oregon sign come back soon sign ..........

[Bronco Bob]

i dont even want to talk about oregon , I got abused like a 16 year old virgin in a Mississippi trailer park ......... from one end of that state to the other .... I guess when I got into it with guy over my over size sign , i was labeled a trouble maker ...... I gave back as good as I got though . my most defiant act was pissing on the leaving Oregon sign come back soon sign ..........

When I was in the Naval Reserves, one year I drove down to New Orleans for
my 2 weeks training. Drove through Texas to get there. So I made sure
I stopped and got out to take a piss along the way.

[TailgateNut]

Drove through Texas to get there. So I made sure
I stopped and got out to take a piss along the way.
:thumbs:

RE: original thread.

If these "fees" will be put to good use (repairing roads, brides, etc) then I'm all for it. Colorado roads suck ass. I don't even know if my truk has a suspension system left due to I-270 and I-70. Money well spent, especially if the "bonus" is job creation.

[Spider]

you guys want to complain about Taxes , Hell this can even go to TJ boss letter thread ........
I am waiting on Permits , oversized , over weight ...... they charge by the mile and pound

[TailgateNut]

Just take a look who's "whining" about the meager fees.

Meck- who seems to hate anything associated with Co. goverment.:thanku:
Spdirty- who make a living digging holes for his poles.:wiggle:
GB- our "constitutional scholar".:spit:

[Bronco Bob]

The trick to paying taxes is to get a job that pays well enough that
you have plenty of money left over after the taxes to buy the things
you want. I never really worry about taxes myself. I never see the
money, so I don't miss it. There isn't really anything I want that the
few extra hundred a month would buy that I can't afford already.

[Meck77]

Nut I favor a vote of the people. They are trying to side step the process.

[TailgateNut]

Nut I favor a vote of the people. They are trying to side step the process.



As long as it's an "informed" vote. FYI: our reps in goverment have already received a "vote" of competence which has placed them into office. As with Bush, I guess you just have to live with their decisions.
Sucks, doesn't it?

[Meck77]

Nut I know it's hard to take the time off but you really should pop over to the capital from time to time to listen to our "informed representatives". They often vote on bills without even understanding them.

The blind faith we have in government is exactly why we've gotten in such a mess.

The ONLY thing that keeps them in check is when citizens fill those hearing rooms and let their voices be heard. Sadly though very few people ever show up other than PAID LOBBYSISTS. That is who shapes Colorado policy. $$$$$$$$$$

[Spider]

Nut I know it's hard to take the time off but you really should pop over to the capital from time to time to listen to our "informed representatives". They often vote on bills without even understanding them.

The blind faith we have in government is exactly why we've gotten in such a mess.

The ONLY thing that keeps them in check is when citizens fill those hearing rooms and let their voices be heard. Sadly though very few people ever show up other than PAID LOBBYSISTS. That is who shapes Colorado policy. $$$$$$$$$$
I left Colorado because alot of their policies , moved right smack dab into the heart of Wyoming , even though Wyoming is a red state , their enforcement of alot of things was very lax , now that Gov dave has been running things , Wyoming is alot better off , and will survive this next oil bust coming , some things I dont like , but I can live with it ....... All politics are on a local level .

[Garcia Bronco]

:thumbs:

RE: original thread.

If these "fees" will be put to good use (repairing roads, brides, etc) then I'm all for it. Colorado roads suck ass. I don't even know if my truk has a suspension system left due to I-270 and I-70. Money well spent, especially if the "bonus" is job creation.

I can agree with that

Here's my thing...how do we know the localities will spend the money of what it's intended for? They are already getting this money in the form of fuel tax and they are NOT spending that money on roads.

[Garcia Bronco]

Nut I favor a vote of the people. They are trying to side step the process.

We already voted on this in November and it got defeated.

[Meck77]

:thumbs:

RE: original thread.

If these "fees" will be put to good use (repairing roads, brides, etc) then I'm all for it. Colorado roads suck ass. I don't even know if my truk has a suspension system left due to I-270 and I-70. Money well spent, especially if the "bonus" is job creation.

Sure bud...

Look at this. Now they want to TAX on on toll roads we've already paid for. You trust them eh? I don't. Also RTD/FasTracks came out the other day saying the people favor another tax increase. Get ready NUT. Your legislators believe you want it.

Senate panel backs road-funds bill

The 4-3 vote supports a hike in auto fees, more tolls and a test of
mileage-based charges.
*By Jeffrey Leib*
/ The Denver Post/
<mailto:jleib@denverpost.com?subject=The%20Denver%2 0Post:%20Senate%20panel%20backs%20road-funds%20bill>
Posted: 01/28/2009 12:30:00 AM MST

Proponents of a transportation funding bill passed by a Senate panel
Tuesday painted it as a way to create jobs and revive the flagging economy.

Opponents looking at the same measure said that as it is currently
written, it could hurt some key Colorado industries and drive more
workers onto unemployment rolls.

Senate Bill 108 would raise vehicle registration fees to fund bridge and
highway repairs, establish mechanisms to promote more toll roads and
public-private partnerships in the state, allow tolling of existing
lanes, and experiment with a program that would charge motorists for
each mile they drive.

At a Senate Transportation Committee hearing, bill co-sponsor Sen. Dan
Gibbs, D-Silverthorne, said the measure would stimulate the economy,
bring new jobs and generate about $250 million from higher fees to fix
roads and repair or reconstruct structurally deficient bridges.

The average motorist in Colorado would pay about $32 more a year in
registration fees for the highway and bridge repair funds, Gibbs said.

The registration surcharges would be based on the weight of the vehicle.

The bill also calls for a $2 daily surcharge on all rental-car
transactions in the state.

Enterprise Rent-A-Car vice president Jane Hylen said such a fee hike
would take the total amount of taxes and fees paid by those renting cars
to 20 percent of the cost of the daily rental rate. She noted that 60
percent of Enterprise's customers in the state have Colorado driver's
licenses.

For the same reason, a representative of the Colorado Automobile Dealers
Association also opposed the additional rental-car fee in the bill.

The average auto dealer in the state rents about 100 cars a month,
typically to customers who have their vehicles in the shop for repairs,
dealers association official Melissa Kuipers told panel members, and the
troubled industry cannot afford to saddle customers with higher fees.

The Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce is one organization strongly in
favor of SB 108.

"We need to get Colorado back to work" and the bill would generate "a
stable and sustainable source of funding" to fix the state's broken
bridges and highways, chamber president Joe Blake told senators.

Construction activity generated by the measure is expected to create
5,000 to 10,000 jobs, Gibbs said.

But Greg Fulton, president of the Colorado Motor Carriers Association,
said the bill's provisions would hurt his group's members and impede
commerce in Colorado.

"This will increase costs for all motorists and all goods and services
in the state," Fulton said.

Committee member Sen. Nancy Spence, R-Centennial, said the current down
economy means now "is not the time to add fees" on motorists.

"I have to come down on the side of taxpayers, citizens struggling with
the family budget," Spence said.

She was joined by two Republican colleagues in opposing SB 108 at
Tuesday's hearing, but the measure passed out of the Democratic-led
committee by a 4-3 vote.

Republicans are offering an alternate plan for transportation funding
that includes smaller increases in registration fees, the diversion of
general fund money to transportation, no tolling of existing lanes and
no pilot program on a mileage-based fee.

/Staff writer John Ingold contributed to this report./

[Meck77]

:thumbs:

RE: original thread.

If these "fees" will be put to good use (repairing roads, brides, etc) then I'm all for it. Colorado roads suck ass. I don't even know if my truk has a suspension system left due to I-270 and I-70. Money well spent, especially if the "bonus" is job creation.

Sure bud...

Look at this. Now they want to TAX on on toll roads we've already paid for. You trust them eh? I don't. Also RTD/FasTracks came out the other day saying the people favor another tax increase. Get ready NUT. Your legislators believe you want it. Meanwhile Obama is spending a trillion dollars and some of that was suppose to go to our roads to help us?





Senate panel backs road-funds bill

The 4-3 vote supports a hike in auto fees, more tolls and a test of
mileage-based charges.
*By Jeffrey Leib*
/ The Denver Post/
<mailto:jleib@denverpost.com?subject=The%20Denver%2 0Post:%20Senate%20panel%20backs%20road-funds%20bill>
Posted: 01/28/2009 12:30:00 AM MST

Proponents of a transportation funding bill passed by a Senate panel
Tuesday painted it as a way to create jobs and revive the flagging economy.

Opponents looking at the same measure said that as it is currently
written, it could hurt some key Colorado industries and drive more
workers onto unemployment rolls.

Senate Bill 108 would raise vehicle registration fees to fund bridge and
highway repairs, establish mechanisms to promote more toll roads and
public-private partnerships in the state, allow tolling of existing
lanes, and experiment with a program that would charge motorists for
each mile they drive.

At a Senate Transportation Committee hearing, bill co-sponsor Sen. Dan
Gibbs, D-Silverthorne, said the measure would stimulate the economy,
bring new jobs and generate about $250 million from higher fees to fix
roads and repair or reconstruct structurally deficient bridges.

The average motorist in Colorado would pay about $32 more a year in
registration fees for the highway and bridge repair funds, Gibbs said.

The registration surcharges would be based on the weight of the vehicle.

The bill also calls for a $2 daily surcharge on all rental-car
transactions in the state.

Enterprise Rent-A-Car vice president Jane Hylen said such a fee hike
would take the total amount of taxes and fees paid by those renting cars
to 20 percent of the cost of the daily rental rate. She noted that 60
percent of Enterprise's customers in the state have Colorado driver's
licenses.

For the same reason, a representative of the Colorado Automobile Dealers
Association also opposed the additional rental-car fee in the bill.

The average auto dealer in the state rents about 100 cars a month,
typically to customers who have their vehicles in the shop for repairs,
dealers association official Melissa Kuipers told panel members, and the
troubled industry cannot afford to saddle customers with higher fees.

The Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce is one organization strongly in
favor of SB 108.

"We need to get Colorado back to work" and the bill would generate "a
stable and sustainable source of funding" to fix the state's broken
bridges and highways, chamber president Joe Blake told senators.

Construction activity generated by the measure is expected to create
5,000 to 10,000 jobs, Gibbs said.

But Greg Fulton, president of the Colorado Motor Carriers Association,
said the bill's provisions would hurt his group's members and impede
commerce in Colorado.

"This will increase costs for all motorists and all goods and services
in the state," Fulton said.

Committee member Sen. Nancy Spence, R-Centennial, said the current down
economy means now "is not the time to add fees" on motorists.

"I have to come down on the side of taxpayers, citizens struggling with
the family budget," Spence said.

She was joined by two Republican colleagues in opposing SB 108 at
Tuesday's hearing, but the measure passed out of the Democratic-led
committee by a 4-3 vote.

Republicans are offering an alternate plan for transportation funding
that includes smaller increases in registration fees, the diversion of
general fund money to transportation, no tolling of existing lanes and
no pilot program on a mileage-based fee.

/Staff writer John Ingold contributed to this report./

[theAPAOps5]

Dont' get me started on the FasTracks folks. Ugh! And I work with them on a professional level.

[Garcia Bronco]

It looks as though the Democrats are going to lose in the next election cycle if this keeps up. I don't find the roads in Colorado all that bad, but I don't drive extensively.

[TailgateNut]

Dont' get me started on the FasTracks folks. Ugh! And I work with them on a professional level.

Currently doing a FastTrax project. They have some of the worst design engineers. I believe they get them from bottomrungengineers.com.;)

[Meck77]

While Obama is getting ready to print off more money for roads across America the dirty democrats in Colorado are trying to steam roll a transportation tax without the vote of the people.

Call your legislators. I'll be damned if I pay a toll for a road we the tax payers already paid for once.

They are going after your property taxes to pay for FasTracks AGAIN! The key word AGAIN as we've already been paying a tax increase since 2004. Why bother with the stimulus package if these bastards are going to sneak in fees and toll roads anyway? Colorado is a mess.

http://blogs.rockymountainnews.com/live_from_the_colorado_legislature/archives/2009/02/faster_bill_off.html

ruary 5, 2009 9:46 AM
Faster bill officially through Senate

Following a long day of debate Wednesday, the Senate voted 19-16 Thursday morning to give final approval to the most far-reaching transportation-funding bill the legislature has considered in years.

Two Democrats who had opposed a provision that allows for increased tolling - Sen. Morgan Carroll of Aurora and Lois Tochtrop of Thornton - joined with Republicans in voting against Senate Bill 108, known as the "Faster" bill.

The measure, if passed through the House and signed by Gov. Bill Ritter, would increase vehicle-registration fees for most drivers $41 a year by 2011 to raise some $265 million for road and bridge repairs. It also would study the possibility of tolling existing roads.

Sen. Shawn Mitchell, R-Broomfield, warned that he expects the fees to be challenged in court as an unconstitutional tax hike, much like a 2007 bill that froze falling property-tax rates was.

"This bill represents yet another step in the majority's march through (the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights) to knock down its fiscal restraints," Mitchell said. "This bill will be challenged, and if the Supreme Court upholds its oath, it will be stricken."

The latter line drew laughs from several Republicans, who have complained that the court has made a slew of recent decisions based on its left-leaning political bent rather than on legal precedent.

Sponsoring Sen. Dan Gibbs, D-Silverthorne, tried to emphasized the positive qualities of the bill and the areas of agreement between the two parties. He noted a bipartisan move Wednesday to strip a pilot study on a vehicle-miles-travelled fee from the bill and said that both Republicans and Democrats want to fix bridges and grow jobs.

"Forty-seven thousand jobs were lost last year. We have over a 6 percent unemployment rate," Gibbs said, emphasizing that the bill could create some 10,000 jobs. "We have a great opportunity to do something good for all Coloradans today."

[Garcia Bronco]

I would not have a problem with it provided the counties that are already getting money for this were spending it on infrastructure.

[Dukes]

"It's hard to drive east on I-70, east of I-25, without worrying about the (overpass) collapsing. I-25 north of Denver is horrible. I-70 is a mess. It's amazing anyone wants to ski anymore," Bassett said. "It was bad enough 30 years ago."


Talk about being dramatic. I drive all over town every day and the only really bad spot is the elevated portion of I-70, and 270 but not to the point of it actually collapsing. Give me a break.

[Spider]

Talk about being dramatic. I drive all over town every day and the only really bad spot is the elevated portion of I-70, and 270 but not to the point of it actually collapsing. Give me a break.

From Speer on down to 6 th scare the **** out of me ....... the one underpass looks bad , but the it looked like **** when I was a kid