‘It would break the county’

A bill requiring counties to allow employees to engage in collective bargaining was the subject of a press conference April 22, and the counties aren’t happy.

Originally, the collective bargaining bill, which hasn’t been introduced in the Colorado Legislature yet, was intended to allow all public sector employees — K-12 personnel, employees at the state’s public colleges and universities, those who work for special districts and municipalities — to enter into collective bargaining agreements.

But strong opposition has led the bill’s sponsors, House Majority Leader Rep. Daneya Esgar, D-Pueblo, and Senate President Steve Fenberg, D-Boulder, to whittle down the list to just counties.

Phillips County Commissioner Terry Hofmeister was among county leaders who spoke against the bill, many pointing to its unfunded mandate that could result in either tax hikes or cuts in services.

Hofmeister told this reporter Phillips County can’t afford the bill. “We’ll have to cut some very loyal employees or cut services,” he said. “We owe it to our [human services] and mental health” employees and those who staff other facilities that help county residents, he added.

Among the costs, according to Hofmeister: They would have to hire a human resources person and attorney to help with negotiations. “It would break the county,” he said.

Nothing in state law prohibits unions by county employees; in fact, four counties, including Las Animas, have those agreements. But the bill is a mandate, and it’s bad for rural taxpayers, according to Scott James of Weld County.

Sprague represents Republican River conservation district

The bill to help with compact compliance in the Republican and Rio Grande River basins cleared its first House hearing on April 21.

Senate Bill 28 now has $60 million in one-time federal American Rescue Plan Act money attached to it to finance the retiring wells in the two river basins, tied to compact compliance issues. However, it’s far less than was hoped for; Sonnenberg had asked for $150 million back in February; the governor was in favor of $100 million, and other lawmakers suggested $80 million.

The groundwater issue on the Republican is compact compliance with Nebraska and Kansas. Colorado agreed to withdraw 25,000 acres by 2029 under a three-state resolution signed in 2016.

Both face imminent threats of involuntary and uncompensated curtailment of groundwater pumping, said sponsor Rep. Marc Catlin, R-Montrose. Both conservation districts have already invested significant dollars to address the problems, he told the House Agriculture, Livestock & Water Committee. “They recognize the problem and have been dealing with it on their own,” but the state now has an opportunity to step up and help, he said.

Co-sponsor Rep. Dylan Roberts, D-Eagle, said those dollars must be obligated by Dec. 31, 2024. An amendment that includes the funding said if the dollars aren’t spent by then, what’s left would go to the Colorado Water Plan for statewide use. The intention is to split those dollars evenly between the two basins, although that isn’t spelled out in the amendment.

Rep. Rod Pelton, R-Cheyenne Wells, asked if dollars left in one basin could be spent in another, were there enough time prior to the 2024 deadline.

Kelly Romero-Heaney from Colorado Water Conservation Board said the Republican water conservation district has already invested $142 million on groundwater conservation and compact compliance. Most of the funding came from the water users themselves, she said. “Hard-earned progress from both districts” shows progress toward the targets, she told the committee.

“We won’t have any trouble spending the money,” said Aaron Sprague of Holyoke, representing the Republican River conservation district. “We’ve got a lot of headwinds right now; an additional $30 million will help out moving forward,” and added that the Republican River district intends to enter into an intergovernmental agreement with the Rio Grande district for a 50/50 split but said that agreement will allow leeway for one basin to spend more, should those dollars be available.

Senate Bill 28 won unanimous approval and now heads to the House Appropriations Committee.

Bill is third attempt to find solution for students with behavioral issues

A bill to help students with severe behavioral issues and other needs shows just how caught in the middle kids are — on one side, parents who are frustrated with the lack of available medically necessary services for their children with disabilities who need those services during the school day, and school districts that after two years of COVID-19 face staff shortages and burnout among teachers.

House Bill 1260 faced a tough test: a four-hour hearing earlier this month and a complete rewrite of the bill, as adopted by the House Education Committee on April 21.

The 2022 bill is the third attempt to find a solution, one that remains elusive.

Rep. Meg Froelich, D-Greenwood Village, the bill’s sponsor, told the education committee in early April what the bill intends to address is services for children, often those on the autism spectrum, who have been prescribed treatment, such as feeding therapy, assisted communications or pediatric behavior therapies, including applied behavioral analysis.

“These are not extras or unneeded treatments,” Froelich said. The treatments are prescribed by health care providers and paid for either by insurance or Medicaid, she said.

Parents hit roadblocks when their children go into school, and Froelich said schools often refuse to provide the treatments or allow a private provider to provide them. “The absence of these appropriate behaviors leads to disruption and disciplinary actions against these students,” and that was confirmed by parents who testified their children were repeatedly suspended for outbursts.

HB 1260 as introduced prohibited schools from blocking health care specialists from providing those medically necessary treatments. In situations where the school doesn’t have someone who can provide those services, HB 1260 would require the school to allow a community-based specialist to provide the medically necessary services in the school setting.

One of those advocating for the bill is Susan Armstrong of Yuma, whose two grandsons are on the spectrum. One has been receiving ABA therapy since he was 3. He’s now in kindergarten, she said, but can only go a half day because the therapy takes 30 to 40 hours per week. His school won’t follow his individualized education program, she said (that’s a requirement of the American with Disabilities Act).

Children receiving ABA and other behavioral therapies do best when they receive those treatments consistently, according to several witnesses, but the kindergartner’s behavior has gotten worse, given the constant change of people involved, Armstrong said. The family must drive 70 miles for those therapy appointments, she added.

Sarah Day, the curriculum coordinator at the Yuma Children’s Academy, shared the story of a child, “Jay,” who struggled to see his educational needs met. Jay’s behavior made him a danger to himself and others, and despite her best efforts, including behavior modification for children with special needs, without ABA help he had to leave the academy.

That therapy transformed his behavior, she said, and he’s now well-loved by his peers and teachers. “The common factor has been the consistent therapy from the ABA therapist, as well as the little boy that is pretty special and now is expected to live his normal life because of early intervention and a supportive family community,” Day told the committee.

But the bill is universally opposed by school districts, the state’s school superintendents organization, the state’s largest teachers’ unions, organizations representing school psychologists and speech/language therapists, and the Colorado Rural Schools Alliance.

Michelle Murphy, representing the latter, said the alliance is sympathetic to the experiences and concerns raised by parents and other proponents of the bill. But HB 1260 raises significant legal problems, and it could trump the ADA entirely, she claimed. “You’re forced to implement a blanket mandate that [schools] allow access to these medically necessary services,” some which she said could conflict with a student’s IEP.

If a child’s educational benefit is contingent on these services, the time spent on the medically necessary services required by HB 1260 are likely to either interfere with or supplement the services required under the IEP, Murphy told the committee.

The bill also raises student privacy and liability concerns, which Murphy said could not be fully mitigated by background checks, insurance provisions or other agreements.

Froelich, in an effort to keep the bill alive, offered a rewrite during the April 21 hearing, with its major provision requiring schools to adopt a policy that addresses how a student who has a prescription from a qualified health care provider for medically necessary treatment will receive that treatment in the school setting.

The policy would be required to address the process in which a private health care specialist could provide that treatment as well as collaborate with school personnel.

HB 1260 won unanimous support from the education committee and is now awaiting action from the full House.

Sonnenberg in last ag committee hearing

April 21 marked the last Senate Agriculture & Natural Resources Committee hearing for its three most senior members: Chair Sen. Kerry Donovan, D-Vail, and Sens. Don Coram, R-Montrose, and Jerry Sonnenberg, R-Sterling.

Sonnenberg took the helm of the committee, a nod to his final hearing after 16 years in the General Assembly.

And the day marked something of another accomplishment: a slew of appointments to boards and commissions that in the past riled rural lawmakers for its lack of inclusion of rural voices.

There were no fireworks in the hearing, and Sonnenberg said he believes that’s because Gov. Jared Polis has gotten the message that rural voices matter, at least on boards and commissions.

The confirmation hearings dealt with the Colorado state fair board and three water boards: the groundwater commission, the Colorado Water Conservation Board and the Water Quality Control Commission.

Most notably, the three appointments to the groundwater commission were all from northeastern Colorado: Marc Arnusch of Keenesburg, representing the Lost Creek Basin, and Scott Tietmeyer of Grover, representing the Upper Big Sandy Basin, both reappointed, and new appointee David Keeler of Wray, representing the Northern High Plains Basin. All were confirmed unanimously.