By Janelle Holden
Journal staff writer

Managing Colorado’s wave of growth was the subject of a town meeting at Cortez City Hall on Saturday.

Colorado Sen. Jim Dyer (D-Durango), President of the Senate Stan Matsunaka (D-Loveland), and Rep. Mark Larson (R-Cortez), hosted the event, and took questions from the approximately 15 people who showed up to voice their opinions about growth and the proposed legislation currently being considered.

Matsunaka explained that the town meeting was part of a series of meetings held across the state to "hear citizens’ concerns outside of Denver" instead of just the special-interest groups.

"The goal is, ‘Let’s find out what people want in terms of growth, and let’s develop some principles on how to guide them.’ Because we’re fooling ourselves if we think the doors are closed. The doors to Colorado are still open, and we better get realistic and serious about how we’re gonna guide it," said Matsunaka.

Local resident Darlene Denison told the legislators that Montezuma County has had a history of low-paying jobs with no benefits, part of which is due to the lack of high-speed telecommunications in the region. "We really need the jobs down here," she explained. "Growth is jobs."

Yellow Jacket farmer Wade Wilson disagreed. "I don’t believe that growth is totally necessary to economic prosperity," said Wilson. "I think we need to have a moratorium on growth in the state of Colorado. It’s not just our land — we have to preserve it for future generations." Wilson pointed out that critical farm land will be preserved if agriculture can be brought "back to prosperity level."

Marjane Ambler, a Mancos resident, told the legislators that area communities need more incentives to stem growth and assistance through planning. Other members of the audience expressed concern over preserving property rights, and managing growth through local control.

Currently, the primary bills on growth being considered are HB 1225 and SB 148, sponsored respectively by Rep. Joe Stengel (R-Littleton) and Sen. Ed Perlmutter (D-Golden), and otherwise known as the "Colorado Growth Management Act."

Though the bills are similar, Stengel’s legislation requires growth plans for counties with 10,000 or more people and a growth rate of at least 10 percent over the past five years; counties or cities with a population of 100,000 or more; and municipalities with 20,000 people or more in an applicable county.

Stengel’s bill exempts 38 of the state's most rural, least populated counties — including Montezuma.

In contrast, Perlmutter’s bill would require plans for all cities and counties. Both bills stipulate that growth plans will contain an "urban services area" to direct future growth to areas with adequate infrastructure.

The key differences between the two bills center on how plans will be constructed and what type of development is allowed outside of the urban services boundary.

The bills are currently in committee and Matsunaka estimated that it would take a couple of weeks for SB 148 to come to the Senate floor. "This is a project in work; it will continue to evolve," Matsunaka told the crowd.

The Senate bill was heavily amended on Feb. 14 in the Senate Public Policy and Planning Committee. Perlmutter offered the amendments in response to citizens’ requests during the town meetings.

The bill now includes creating a conservation fund with severance-tax monies to preserve land in oil and gas corridors, requires smaller counties and cities to prepare their growth plans together, and gives "density bonuses" to developers who extend the existing transfer of development rights.

SB 148 was drafted by a group called the Colorado Forum, described by the Denver Post as a "team of 50 environmentalists, business leaders and government officials."

In December, the Senate Majority Caucus put out a set of principles to guide the legislative process on growth. "The Caucus’ growth principles recognize the need to strike a balance between managing growth and protecting economic vitality. Past efforts to solve growth failed to achieve this balance, and also suffered from a lack of political will on the part of Colorado’s elected officials," the Caucus wrote in a press release.

Matsunaka said that after every town meeting, changes have been made to the bills — 25 amendments have been made so far, and "they’re still not done."

"If everybody doesn’t like this bill then I know we did a pretty good job," said Matsunaka.

According to Larson’s web site on growth, Stengel’s HB 1225 is backed by the Colorado Coalition for Growth Management, which was formed to oppose Amendment 24, the growth initiative that failed in November.

The Colorado Association of Commerce and Industry, the Colorado Livestock Association, Colorado Counties, the Colorado Association of Realtors and the Colorado Association of Homebuilders, have also voiced their support.