Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-10-10 Support Documentation Town Council Work Sessionw. VAIL TOWN COUNCIL WORK SESSION TUESDAY, OCTOBER 10, 1989 Z:00 p.m. AGENDA 1. Budget Wrap-Up 2. Discussion of No Smoking Ordinance 3. Discussion of Point of Sale Sales Tax 4. Planning and Environmental Commission Report 5. Design Review Board Report 6. Information Update 7. Other VAIL TOWN COUNCIL_ WORK SESSION TUESDAY, OCTOBER 10, 1989 2:00 p.m. EXPANDED AGENDA 2:00 1. Budget Wrap-Up 3:00 2. Discussion of No Smoking Ordinance Susan Scanlan Action Requested of Council: Determine the scope of modification of the existing smoking ordinance. Background Rationale: In August, the FAC came to Council requesting our smoking ordinance be modified to encompass most public places to include, but not be limited to, restaurants, grocery stores, and the workplace. 3:45 3. Discussion of Point of Sale Sales Tax Steve Barwick Charlie Wick Action Requested of Council: Review material presented and provide direction to staff. Background Rationale: Per Council request, staff has investigated the possibility of adding "point of sale" collections to Vail's sales tax ordinance. Staff's findings ,and recommendations will be presented. Staff Recommendation: Do not enact "point of sale" legislation. 4:15 4. Planning and Environmental Commission Report Kristan Pritz 4:25 5. Design Review Board Report Kristan Pritz 4:35 6. Information Update Ron Phillips 4:45 7. Other a e TOo Vail Town Council FROMe Community Development Department DATEe October 6, 1989 SUBJECTo Smoking Ordinance Research As directed by Council, I have been researching the smoking ordinances of various communities in Colorado. I have specifically been researching those of Aspen and Telluride as they relate to the issue of smoking in restaurants. I have obtained copies of the ordinances from both communities and have enclosed them for your review. Although both ordinances are fairly long and involved, they can be concisely summarized. Telluride does not permit smoking in any public place except outside. The ordinance as it applies to the restaurant community is very restrictive in the respect that smoking is not allowed in either the dining areas or in the bar unless they are physically separate and separately ventilated. It also requires a smoke free entrance into any dining area be maintained. This means that if you must enter a bar area in order to enter the dining area, even if the bar is physically separate and separately ventilated, it must be a no smoking area. The only exemptions from this are those establishments holding tavern licenses who must serve food to satisfy liquor requirements but have 60% of their income generated from alcohol. Aspen has very similar provisions in their ordinance for public places, but their ordinance differs in the manner in which it addresses smoking in restaurants. Smoking is not permitted in the dining area of any restaurants unless they are physically separate and separately ventilated. Aspen however does allow smoking in the bar areas of restaurants to a distance of 15 feet from the permanent counter. This may be extended to encompass bar rooms or cocktail lounges provided dining is not occurring in the same room. In Aspen as in Telluride, those establishments licensed as taverns are exempt from the provisions of their respective ordinances. The ordinances of both communities also address the issue of smoke in the workplace. As directed by Council, I have contacted various restaurant establishments in each of the two specific communities to gather opinions about their respective ordinances, comments on the economic impacts (real or perceived) of the ordinance and possible suggestions for our ordinance. These comments are included on the following pages with the name of the establishment, phone number and the first name of the individual to whom I spoke. E I am also attaching copies of memos from 3/88 and 5/88 which reflect the initial research done for the development of our existing ordinance. This is by no means an all inclusive list, but it is fairly representative. FLORADORA SALOON 728-3888 ~ Suzanne Telluride's ordinance does not allow smoking in any public place. Most places are no smoking because they are not separately ventilated. No smoking is allowed at the bar unless it is completely separate and separately ventilated. We have not experienced too many problems because most people are for the ordinance. No loss of business. No smoking at this establishment, even at the bar. POWDER HOUSE DINING & SPIRITS 728-3622 Tony No smoking is permitted in any public places, but this affects mainly the restaurants. There are three establish- ments in town with tavern licenses and you can smoke in them. This is a touchy subject because they must serve food and yet restaurants can't do the same thing. All the restaurants have bars, but you are not able to smoke in those areas unless they are separately ventilated and physically separate. Must maintain separate no smoking entrances into dining areas. The fine dining establish- ments in Telluride picked up the ordinance and are abiding by it. I feel we do lose a little of the local business because of the ordinance, but not many tourists. No tour- ists have come in and left because they can't smoke. They may not come back, but they haven't left. The law is a bit too strict. The restaurant community was not involved in drafting the ordinance, it was drafted by the environmental commission. The ordinance was then passed overwhelmingly by public election. A good option to the existing ordinance would be to allow the dining area to remain no smoking, but to allow smoking in the bar. If smoking is allowed in the bar, smoke-eaters, etc. should be required to help prevent smoke build-up. EXCELSIOR CAFE 728-4250 Sharon Personally in favor of the ordinance as she is a non-smoker For every complaint received we have four or five people who comment in support of the ordinance. It has not affect- ed my business in any large way - no down turn in business. If the clients or patrons must smoke they go outside. The response has been very positive with only about 5 very neg- ative comments in the past year. My establishment is totally non-smoking and my business may not have been affected much because we don't serve dinner. She feels the development of the ordinance takes the onus off the business owners because they simply say it is town law. She recommends it for Vail. NEW ROMA BAR & CAFE 728-3669 John My bar is in the center of the dining room and it is diffi- cult to tell people they can't smoke and as a result he let°s them. I don't think the ordinance is being enforced very strictly in Telluride. Most of the restaurants are following the ordinance and I think it's a good thing. I am personally a non-smoker and in favor of the ordinance. I have asked people not to smoke at the bar when people are dining. There should be a provision for dining rooms to have a non-smoking section as people still like to smoke. O'BANNON'S IRISH PUB 728-6139 Janice We are not affected by the ordinance since we fall into the tavern license category. Some tourists have been very offended, very put out and may not come back. Personally am a non-smoker and would suggest passing and ordinance which prohibits smoking in the dining areas, but not in the bar. " The ordinance is not effectively enforced. People smoke in the bar every day, seven days a week. The law was passed one year ago and people are breaking the law every day." The only way to smoke in Telluride is if the bar is completely separate. T-RIDE COUNTRY CLUB 728-6344 Will Kennedy Our ordinance is tougher than Aspen's, but I don't feel it has hurt business. I haven't experienced a loss of revenue but we have had many complaints. Our ordinance is not effective because it is not being enforced. It is a ridic- ulous ordinance in that no business or patron has been busted by the police. Now you must file a written complaint if you want enforcement. The ordinance is being enforced in the dining rooms, but not in the bars. I ques- tion the loss of potential income when people are informed they can't smoke and possibly leave very quickly after dinner. MOUNTAIN FLIGHT CENTER/ALFIE'S BAR 728-3161 John We are located outside Town limits and are not really affected because of our location. We do ask people not to smoke in the main concourse, but they are permitted to smoke in the upstairs bar. EDDIE'S 728-5335 Dan In Telluride people don't seem to mind the ordinance, those that are aware of it. The locals are in favor of the ordinance. We have an outdoor dining area in the summer time where people are allowed to smoke while dining. We have not experienced any loss of revenue because of the ordinance. ATHENIAN SENATE 728-3019 Michelle We allow smoking in the bar area, but not in the dining area. We have a completely separate bar area. We have not experienced any loss of revenue. Some people have been offended by the ordinance, mostly it's the tourists who complain. In Telluride, all dining areas are non-smoking and as a result nobody is experiencing any loss of revenue. These are comments made by Mary Jo Schillaci, Telluride's Town Clerk, about the smoking ordinance. The ordinance has been in effect for one year and prohibits smoking in any place where the public might be. In restaurant/hotel liquor license establishments there must be physically separate rooms with separate ventilation systems or smoking is prohibited in both. Taverns are excluded from these requirements and smoking is allowed in these establishments. There are exterior ashtrays currently going up on all the buildings because of the accumulation of butts that was experienced. Guests to Telluride after the first season of the smoking ban have written suggesting that Telluride publicize the existence of their ordinance. This issue will be addressed by the marketing committee for this season. Many guests were offended during the first season of the ordinance because they didn't know about the ordinance before arriving in Telluride. There was one very vocal opponent to the smoking ordinance in the restaurant community but they have since left town and now operate an establishment in Santa Fe. ANDRE'S 295-6200 Our establishment is exempt from the ordinance, but we feel _the regulation is a good deal overall. The reaction to the ordinance was very tough in the beginning, but people have gotten used to it. ASPEN MINE CO. 925-7766 Paul There is no smoking in the restaurant area, but most people will go to the bar if they feel the need to smoke during dinner. People are generally pretty receptive to the ord- inance. We have not experienced any loss of business because there is no place else they can smoke in Aspen while dining - the ordinance is uniform. I would suggest you make sure you advertise and get public input when developing the ordinance so people know what's going on. The ordinance developed in Snowmass Village provides for designated smoking areas. I feel I have experienced a net operational cost savings because I don't have to clean windows, drapes, etc. as frequently as well as no need to purchase ashtrays. I have not really experienced people getting upset when told they can't smoke. BARRINGTON'S 925-1500 Steve Seifert I personally love the ordinance being a non-smoker. I feel it would be very difficult to find anyone who has been negatively affected from an economic impact. The ordinance has been very well received by the tourists. Here at the Inn at Aspen we are not forced to comply because we are located outside of city limits. We are however, conscious of people's desires. Those customers who are told they can't smoke in the dining areas are happy to go to the bar to smoke. CHARLEMAGNE RESTAURANT 925-5200 Michael Steinhart The ordinance has had a very minor effect on business. The loss of revenue and number of angry customers are very slight. Some patrons leave when they find out we don't have a smoking section. When the Aspen ordinance was in the developmental stages they could have had more restaurant community input. I don't feel the restaurant owner should have to tell patrons what they can do. In retrospect I am happy with the ordinance and there is a much greater degree of public acceptance now. The ordinance has led to reduced cleaning bills and the estab- lishment smells better overall. You must allow smoking in the bar or you would have outright rebellion. In order to establish a smoking section at Charlemagne's would have cost $7,000-$8,000.00 for the separation of the ventilation systems and as a result Charlemagne's dining area is completely non-smoking. Not only are the required changes to ventilation systems very costly, but they are also extremely difficult in buildings constructed during the 1880's. TAKAH SUSHI 925-8588 Casey I am a member of the Aspen Restaurant Association and was originally opposed to the ordinance. I have not experienced any adverse economic impact. There is possibly one group of customers per winter who choose not to eat in this establishment and I receive possibly 5-10 complaints per year based on 20,000-30,000 patrons. Very few people even try to light up any more. There is no smoking allowed at the sushi bar, but it is allowed in the liquor bar which is located next to the sushi bar. The ordinance was developed with no sensitivity to the restaurant owners or association concerns. We were not communicated with during the development of the ordinance and yet we have to enforce it. Initially the ordinance allowed for smoking and non-smoking areas, but in the current phase the areas must be completely separate or they must be non-smoking. I feel the fines imposed for not posting signs are unfair and punitive. I was personally cited and fined $350 not for failing to post signs, but rather to post what the town felt was an adequate number of signs. Even if the ordin- ance were to be removed tomorrow, I would probably not allow smoking in my establishment because I feel it is the right thing to do. RED ONION 925-9043 Jim Yokum People are real happy with the ordinance. We have a front bar with three booths where we allow smoking, but there is no smoking in the dining area. You must provide some area where people can smoke, such as the bar for those who feel the need for a cigarette after they've finished dinner. People have accepted the ordinance real well. There are no cigars or pipes allowed even in the bar areas. I don't feel we have lost any business because of the ordinance. Make sure signs are posted to notify people of the no smoking status of your establishment because people think it's rude to be told to put out their cigarette after they have lit up if there are no signs posted. LITTLE ANNIE'S EATING HOUSE 925-1098 Tom There have not been many problems in our establishment or that I have heard of in town. There was a great deal of trepidation about he ordinance at first, but it has worked out really well. You can smoke in the bar or in a separately ventilated room. We have not experienced any loss of business as a result. In developing an ordinance you must be sensitive to the needs of the business community and communicate with the business owners. Aspen did not do this initially and it caused some bad press and bad feelings in the community. You may lose a little business at first, .but not in the long run. PEPI'S RESTAURANT & BAR 925-8845 Steve There has been no economic impact on business and we haven't experienced any problems with our patrons. He was initially opposed to the ordinance, but currently thinks it's a good thing. Signage in establishments is important because it takes the burden of enforcement off the wait staff. There is no smoking in our dining area, but it is allowed at the bar and it seems to be a workable compromise. There are a few places like Andre's and Cooper Street Pier where you are allowed to smoke and eat at the tables and some people go there to eat because they know they can smoke with their meal. MOTHER LODE 925-7700 Randall No problems, but it is a pain in the butt. It is getting to be quite the thing and people can be trained to do anything. The ordinance is a bit of a surprise to people who don't know about it. SILVER QUEEN (HOTEL JEROME) 920-1000 Bob There has not been any economic effect either positive or negative. People are mostly used to the ordinance. This past summer the tourists in the 50-60 age range found it a bit obnoxious and I know I lost business once or twice because we don't have a smoking section. Smoking is not a pleasant experience while dining. I would suggest you don't try to ban smoking in a restaurant, but do a manda- tory no smoking section as a first step. If there is no area of separation between the bar and the dining area it is absurd to allow smoking at the bar but not at the tables. There are no enforcement problems that I'm aware of, but I don't think it's heavily enforced in Aspen. I do know of one instance where a couple was fined for smoking in the dining room of an establishment. A city council person was dining in the same establishment and the couple in question didn't care if they were fined. They were going to smoke and they could afford the fine. EASTERN WINDS 925-5160 Make sure there is a smoking and non-smoking section provided if possible. I have two completely different dining rooms 20 feet apart, but I can't allow smoking in the back room because they aren't completely separate or independently ventilated. Many of our customers like the no smoking. If there are no separate rooms, make the dining all non-smoking and allow smoking at the bar. She suggests some type of divider if going with smoking and non-smoking in the same room. She can't really say she's lost business because of the ordinance. Approximately 100 people turn around .and don't enter her establishment because they think it's just her business which doesn't allow smoking, but once they realize it isn't things even out. UTE CITY BANQUE RESTAURANT & BAR 925-4373 John Walla There are many varying opinions in Aspen about the ordin- ance. The ordinance is written in a very mean spirited style with a very anti-smoking slant. We are able in this establishment to have separate ventilation, but many places are not able to achieve this and as a result cannot allow smoking in any part of their dining areas. The winter skiing population has a higher percentage of smokers and he estimates approximately 30,000 guests may be offended per season by the ordinance who might not be coming back. He doesn't feel it is the duty of the restaurants to cram this down people's throats. He feels the effects of secondhand smoke are being exaggerated. Should require a nominal no smoking area with a buffer between smoking areas. If an ordinance is developed and smaller places who are unable to accommodate a smoking and non-smoking area, given the choice many will become non-smoking. It is not the job of a resort to harass people who are on vacation. The City of Aspen can no longer accommodate the smoker and for the most part smokers are very conscientious when asked by a non-smoker to put out their cigarette. In his opinion there are 5% adamant non-smokers and 5% adamant smokers and the rest fall somewhere in the middle and don't have strong feelings one way or the other. *****John has done considerable research on different ventilation systems which are viable alternatives to com- pletely separate systems and would be willing to share that knowledge if asked. (- N °I°®wn ®f Z'ellaride ~~i~~C~ ~~, azo AN ORDINANCE STRENGTHENING THE CLEAN INDOOR AIR ACT WHEREAS, on November 17, 1987 the Telluride Town Council adopted Ordinance 812, '°An Ordinance Amending the Clean Indoor Air Act to Allow Certain Businesses to Designate Smoking and Non-Smoking AreasO° ; and WHEREAS, such ordinance effectively weakened the health protections from passive smoking in restaurants and places of employment which were contained in earlier versions of the Clean Indoor Air Act as sponsored by the Telluride-Environmental Commission; and WHEREAS, concerned citizens now feel it necessary to strengthen the Clean Indoor Air Act through the initiative process and vote of the electorate. NOW, THEREFORE, BE ZT ORDAINED by the people of Telluride, Colorado that: Ordinance 802, Series 1987 and Chapter 8.03 of the Telluride Municipal Code, "The Clean Indoor Air ActD°, are hereby partially amended to read as follows: Section One Definitions Added Section 8.03.020, 1°Definitions°', is amended by addition of the following subsections: J. 1'Dining area" means any enclosed area containing a counter or tables upon which ffieals are served, excluding the bar area. K. t1Bar area" means an area that includes a permanent counter which is predominantly devoted to serving alcoholic beverages and within which the service of food is only incidental to the consumption of such beverages. L. "Restaurant" means an eating establishment not licensed as a bar and which contains a dining area and possibly a bar area. Section Two Smoking Regulated in Smaller Places of Employment Section 8.03.050, an exemption pertaining to "Regulation of Smoking in Places of Employment", is hereby amended by deletion in its entirety of subsection (3)0 (3) Places of employment which privately employ six (6) employees or less are exempted from the provisions of this Chapter, except the employee desk no-smoking provision of subsection 8.03.050.A.3 shall remain applicable to such places of employment. Section Three Designated Smoking Areas Limited Subsection B of Section 8.03.070, "Exceptions and Variances" to the general prohibition against smoking in public places, is hereby amended to read as followse P~~e 1 ®f 2 . T. Town of Tellnr~de Ordinance Nambrr 8 2 U B. In any restaurant or eating establishment, the proprietor or person in charge may designate up to fifty percent (50~) of the square footage of the dining area as a smoking area, provided that the designated smoking area is posted as a "smoking permitted" area and is independently ventilated and physically separated from the non-smoking areas. For purposes of this Chapter, "independently ventilated" shall mean that the ventilation system for any area in which smoking is permitted and the ventilation system for any non-smoking area do not have a connection which allows the mixing of air into the smoking and non-smoking areas. Physical separation shall include physical, barriers such as walls and doors, extending from floor to ceiling, that prohibit smoke from entering a non-smoking area. The designated smoking area shall not include a waiting area. Section Four Repealer All provisions of Ordinance 802 and Chapter 8.03 of the Telluride Municipal Code which are inconsistent with the provisions of this initiative ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of any such inconsistency. Section Five Effective Date This Ordinance shall become effective upon publication of notice of passage by the voters. IT IS SO ORDAINED THIS 5th day of April, 1988. CERTIFICATION OF ADOPTION: ~. ~--- . \ ~~ , Leslie Sherlock, Town Clerk Pale ~_ of ~_. I AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CLEAN INDOOR AIR ACT TO ALLOW CERTAIN BUSINESSES TO DESIGNATE SMOKING AND NON~SMORING AREAS WHEREAS, on June 2nd, 1987 the Town Council passed Ordinance 781, known as The Clean Indoor Air Act, as codified in Chapter 8.03 of the Telluride Municipal Code, and subsequently extended the effective dated so that the Act is not yet in effect; and WHEREAS, Telluride restaurant, bar and business owners have petitioned the Town Council to amend the Clean Indoor Air Act in order to address concerns over fairness, practicality, and economic impacts of the Act as originally enacted; and WHEREAS, the Town Council deems it to be in the best interest of the community and smokers to control and limit smoking in public places or places of employment consistent with the following amendments. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Town Council of the Town of Telluride thate Section One Revision and Reenactment Chapter 8.0 Indoor Air Act10 , by reference, is set forth in the 785, and 793 are °T®wn ® °I°ellaride ~~ ~~ 8 0 2 3 of the Telluride Municipal Code, "The Clean which is attached hereto and incorporated herein hereby revised and reenacted in its entirety as attached Act. All provisions of Ordinances 781, hereby superseded and repealed. Section Two Effective Date This Ordinance and The Clean Indoor Air Act shall become effective on December 2, 1987. INTRODUCED AND READ by the Town Council of the Town of Telluride, Colorado on the 6th day of October, 1987. READ AND PASSED by the Town Council of the Town of Telluride, Colorado on the 17th day of November, 1987. MAYOR ATTEST /~' ~/ B. J. Lenihan, Mayor Les a Sherlock, Town Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY Steph n B. John n, Town Attorney Pale ~ ®f 1 0 Chapter 8.03 CLEAN INDOOR AIR ACT Table of Contents 8.03.010 8.03.020 8.03.030 8.03.040 8.03.050 8.03.060 8.03.070 8.03.080 Legislative Intent and Purpose Definitions Smoking Prohibited Structural Modification Not Required Regulation of Smoking in Places of Employment Posting of Signs Exceptions Enforcement 8.03.010 I~gislative Intent and Purpose A. The smoking of tobacco, or any other weed or plant, creates air pollution which constitutes a material annoyance, discomfort, and an actual health hazard to persons who are present in confined spaces. The purpose of this Chapter is to protect the public health, safety, and welfare by controlling and limiting the smoking of tobacco, or any weed or plant, in public places or places of employment as hereinafter set forth. Bo The restrictions and limitations of this Chapter shall be viewed as minimum standards, and should not be construed as limiting in any way the authority of persons in control of a public place from prohibiting smoking within their establishment altogether. 8.03.020 Definitions A. ~;nclosea area means an area within a building closed in by a roof and walls with appropriate openings for ingress and egress. B. Bar shall mean a "tavern", or a facility licensed to operate as a °°tavernP°, as set forth in the Colorado Liquor Code, C.R.S. 12-47-103(27.5), defined as an establishment serving malt, vinous and spiritous liquors in which the principal business is the sale of such beverages at retail for consumption on the premises and where sandwiches and light snacks are available for consumption on the premises. C. Child care center means a facility, by whatever name known, which is maintained for the whole or part of a day for the care of five or more children under the age of sixteen years and not related to the owner, operator, or manager thereof, whether such facility is operated with or without compensation for such care and with or without stated educational purposes. The term includes facilities commonly known as day care centers, day nurseries, nursery schools, kindergartens, preschools, play groups, day camps, summer camps, and centers for mentally retarded children and those facilities which give twenty-four-hour care for dependent and neglected children and includes those facilities for children under the age of six years with stated educational purposes operated in conjunction with a public, private, or parochial college or a private or parochial school; except that the term shall not apply to any kindergarten maintained in connection with a public, private, or parochial elementary school system of at least six grades. The term shall not include any facility licensed as a family care home under the provisions of C.R.S. 26-6-101 et seq. D. Public place means any enclosed area to which the public is invited or which serves as a place of work, or in which the public is permitted, including but not limited to: bank lobbies, education facilities, government offices, health facilities, reception areas, restaurants, retail stores, auditoriums, arenas, theaters, waiting rooms, hotel and motel lobbies, retail service establishments, libraries, meeting rooms, recreational facilities, terminals or public conveyances. A private residence is not a public place. The term "public place" also includes all areas identified in Telluride Municipal Code Section 8.03.030 as areas where smoking is prohibited. E. Smokinct means the combustion in any cigar, cigarette, pipe, or similar article of any form of tobacco or any other combustible substance in any form. F. Theater and auditorium means any enclosed area devoted to exhibiting motion pictures or presenting theatrical performances, lectures or like entertainment. G. Employee means any person who provides services to an employer for monetary consideration or profit. -2- H. Employer means any person, partnership or corporation, including public or municipal corporations, who employs the services of any person(s). I. Place of employment means any enclosed area under the control of a public or private employer which employees normally frequent during the course of employment, including but not limited to, work areas, employee lounges, conference rooms, or employee cafeterias. A private residence is not a place of employment. 8.03.030 smoking Prohibited Smoking is prohibited in any public place unless specifically excepted by this Section or by Section 8.03.070 of this Chapter. These public places where smoking is prohibited include: A. Elevators. Smoking is prohibited, and is unlawful within elevators in buildings generally used by and open to the public, including elevators in offices, hotels, and multi-family buildings. B. Child care facilities. Smoking is prohibited, and is unlawful within child care centers. C. Hospitals and health care facilities. Smoking is prohibited and is unlawful in public areas of health care facilities and hospitals, as described in C.R.S. 25-3-101 as it may be amended, including community clinics waiting rooms, public hallways and lobbies. D. Public meeting rooms. Smoking is prohibited and is unlawful in hearing rooms, conference rooms, chambers, places of public assembly in which public business is conducted, which requires or provides direct participation or observation of the general public. E. Public restrooms. Smoking is prohibited and is unlawful in public restrooms. -3- F. Indoor services lines. Smoking is prohibited and is unlawful in indoor services lines in which more than one person is giving or receiving services of any kind, whether or not such services involves the exchange of money. G. Eating establishments. Smoking is prohibited and is unlawful in every publicly or privately-owned coffee shop, cafeteria, short-order cafe, luncheonette, sandwich shop, soda fountain, restaurant, or other eating establishment serving food, except that smoking may be permitted at the option of the owner of the establishment in: 1. Any enclosed or physically separated room or area in which a ventilation system is in operation and is complying with all current Building Code and Mechanical Code ventilation requirements applicable to new structures, additions, or alterations, and which room is used for private functions. 2. Any designated smoking area as provided for in Section 8.03.070.B. H. Retail stores. Smoking is prohibited and is unlawful in all public areas of retail stores, including grocery stores, retail services establishments, retail food production establishments and drug stores. I. Public conveyances or terminals. Smoking is prohibited and is unlawful in any public conveyance or terminal. J. Sporting arenas. Smoking is prohibited and is unlawful in sporting arenas. K. Public schools and libraries. Smoking is prohibited and is unlawful in public schools and libraries. L. Common enclosed areas of hotel or motel lobbies. Smoking is prohibited and is unlawful in common enclosed areas of hotel and motel lobbies. -4- 8.03.040 Structural Podification Not Required A. Nothing in this Chapter shall require the owner, operator, or manager of any existing theater, auditorium, health care facility, or any existing building, facility, structure, or business, to incur any expense to make structural or any physical modification to any area, provided, however, that existing restaurants and eating establishments which remodel more than 50~ of valuation as determined by the Building Department within a 12-month period shall be required to comply with all current Building Code and Ffechanical Code requirements applicable to new structures, additions, alterations or repairse B. Nothing in this section shall relieve any person from the duty to post signs or adopt policies as required by this Chapter. 8.03.050 Regulation of Sffioking in Places of Employment The places subject to regulation pursuant to section 8.03.030 shall not be deemed places of employment for the purposes of this subsection. The following regulations apply to places of employments A. Within sixty (60) days after the effective date of this Chapter, each employer shall adopt, implement, and maintain a smoking policy which shall contain, at a minimum the following elementse 1. Prohibition of smoking in employee conference and meeting rooms, classrooms, auditoriums, restrooms, medical facilities, hallways, elevators, cafeterias and lunchrooms. 2. Provision and maintenance of no-smoking areas in employee lounges that effectively provide a smoke-free environment for non-smoking employees. 3. Any employee in a place of employment shall be given the right to designate his or her work area as a non-smoking area and to post it with appropriate signs. The policy adopted by the employer shall include a definition of the term immediate work area which gives preferential con- sideration to non-smokers. -5- 4. In any dispute arising in the work place under the smoking policy, the health concerns of the non-smoker shall be given precedence. 5. Except where other signs are required, whenever smoking is prohibited, conspicuous signs shall be posted so stating. B. The employee smoking policy shall be communicated to all employees within three (3) weeks of its adoption. C. Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection A. of this Section, every employer shall have the right to designate any place of employment as a non-smoking area. D. No person or employer shall discharge, refuse to hire, or in any manner retaliate against any employee or applicant for employment because such an employee or applicant exercises any rights afforded by this Chapter. E. This section is not intended to regulate smoking in the following places under the following conditions: (1) A private home which serves as a place of employment, except when used as a child-care or day-care facility. (2) A private enclosed place of employment occupied exclusively by smokers, even though such a place of employment may be visited by non-smokers, ex- cepting places in which smoking is prohibited by fire marshal or by other law, ordinance or regulation. 3) Places of employment which privately employ six (6) employees or less are exempted from the provisions of this Chapter, except the employee desk no-smoking provisions of subsection 8.03.050A.3. shall reffiain applicable to such places of employment. F. An employer shall post "?to Smoking" signs in any area designated as a non-smoking area and a "Smoking Allowed" sign in any area designated as a smoking area. -6- 8.03.060 Posting of signs To advise persons of the existence of °°No Smoking or Smoking Permitted" areas, signs shall be sized and posted as follows: A< 1_~inimum Size Requirements, Signs using the words ''No Smoking1° or '°No Smoking Except in Designated Areas" shall be written with letters not less than three (3) inches in size. The international no smoking symbol or an equivalent creative symbol shall be not less than five (5) inches in diameter. E. %n public places where smoking is prohibited pursuant to this Chapter, a sign using the words '°No Smoking10 and/or a no smoking symbol shall be conspicuously posted at every public entrance, or in a position clearly visible on entry into the establishment. Co In public places where certain areas are designated as smoking areas pursuant to this ordinance, the statement "No Smoking Except in Designated Areas1° shall be conspicuously posted in all public entrances, or in a position clearly visible on entry into the establishment. In addition, the person having the authority to manage and control any area designated as a nonsmoking area shall post or shall cause to be posted and prominently displayed, and shall maintain "No Smoking" signs in conspicuous locations within said areas. All such signs shall clearly and conspicuously recite the phrase "No Smoking" and/or use the international no smoking symbol or an equivalent creative symbol< The signs shall be posted not less than five (5) feet nor more than eight (8) feet above floor level and shall be of sufficient number and locations to cause at least one of the signs to be clearly visible, legible and readable from any location within the enclosed areao 8003.070 Exceptions and Variances A. Smoking is not prohibited, although no-smoking areas are encouraged, in private areas and rooms while in use for private social functions, in the facilities of a private or members-only organization, private hospital rooms, psychiatric or psychological counseling facilities, jails, bars, or stores that deal exclusively in tobacco products and accessories. e7- B. In any restaurant or eating establishment, the proprietor or person in charge may designate a variable smoking area of sufficiently limited size to accommodate, without unreasonable delay, patrons who request to be seated in the remaining non-smoking area. The proprietor is encouraged to separate said smoking area by physical barriers wherever possible. A physical barrier may include, by way of example, separate rooms, aisles, or split floor levels. Delay shall be deemed reasonable if it is equal for smokers and non-smokers. If. a waiting area or bar service area is located in the eating establishment, such areas ffiay be designated as smoking areas. Patrons must be advised by the host or hostess (if any) and by signs (formatted to comply with section 8.03.060) that designated non-smoking areas are available in specific locations. Smoking will be permitted in areas designated hereunder as smoking areas. C. Any owner or manager of a business or other establishment subject to this Chapter may apply to the Board of Adjustment/Appeals for a variance from the provisions of this Chapter due to unique or unusual circumstances or conditions. The burden will be on the applicant to show that the provisions of this Chapter cannot be complied with without incurring unduly burdensome expenses for structural or other physical modifications, other than posting signs, resulting in unnecessary hardship and that the provision for which the variance is requested will not result in a danger to the health of the public, including the business clientele. 8.03.080 Enforcement A. The town manager or the town manager's designee shall be responsible for compliance with this Chapter with regard to facilities which are owned, operated or leased by the Town of Telluride. B. The owner, operator, person in control or manager of any facility, business, agency or other place of employment shall post, or cause to be posted all "No Smoking" signs required by this Chapter. Owners, operators, managers or employees of same shall be required to notify persons in violation of this Chapter of the provisions of this Chapter. The duty to so notify a violator shall arise when such person becomes aware of such violation, and such duty shall be the sole enforcement obligation of such person. -8- Co Violation of any of the provisions of this Chapter is hereby declared to be a public nuisance, which may be abated pursuant to the provisions of Telluride Municipal Code Chapter 800, °ONuisances1°a Any citizen may register a written complaint for violation of this Chapter with the town manager or town manager°s designeeo In addition, any such citizen may commence an action in Municipal Court by summons and complaint to enforce the provisions of this Chapter pursuant to the procedures set forth in Chapter 8v0~, "Nuisances1°o De Any citizen who desires to initiate enforcement under this Chapter register a complaint with the town manager or town manager°s designeeo Ee The town manager or the town manager°s designee may enforce the provisions of this Chapter by either one of the following actionso to Serve notice requiring correction of any violation of this Chaptero 20 Requesting the town attorney to initiate appropriate enforcement proceedings, including without limitation, the initiation of a complaint in municipal court or the institution of injunctive, declaratory, or other appropriate action to prevent, enjoin, abate or remove such violations Ro Any person convicted of any provision of this Chapter shall be subject to a fine not to exceed three hundred dollars ($300000) for each separate offense, and may be enjoined from any further offense or continued violation thereofo Each day any violation of this Chapter shall continue shall constitute a separate offenseo Go Any remedies provided for herein shall be cumulative and not exclusive and shall be in addition to any other remedies provided by laws (Ordo Noe 802, 1987) -9- A, ~ ~~ ~O '~I FiECUftU OF f'I~OCI=L"UI~~GS 100 Lr.~vc;S .,~e.. ~ ............ . . .... oR~IrJANCr rlO. 35 • (Series of 19235) AN ORDI:rANCE ENT-CTIIIG /~ N[;'rl ARTICT,E IV TO CEJAPTER 11 OF 'fHE MUNI- CIPAL CUUE OF THE CI'i'_' U'r ASPF;N, COT.~ORADO, TO [3E KNO~~lN AS "T11E ' CITY OC' ASPEN CLET~;~ I'.~iJ70R AIR ACT" , 7'0 CON'T'ROL ACID LIF1I'f Tf~E Sl•10Y,Ir1G OF 'I'Of3A000 OR I•.:lY O'fllL•'R .•7[:Cn OR PLAN'(' IN INDOOR PUBLIC PLACf:S AND PLACES 0? S:;!'hOYMENT. AS SET FORTH THERCIN; PEZESCRI(~ING PEtdALTT[:S AND REi•i= ~IcSr'Ort 'fEEE VInLA'1'ION TIlEREOF; A?1L•'NDIrJG T11J; GF.NE;RAT, PE;1/~I,TY ?~RO'Ji; ION CURRt:r•1'fLY NUD11.3[:1tCn S(;CTIOr•7 1 1 -4 , 1 SO AS TO ftENUi1r',ER ST,ID Sc;CTIJ:~ TO 11-5.1 AND RGFLI;C'f THA'I' T11E PENALTY ~ FOR A VIOLATION 0,: T::? CITY OF ASPE1~ CLE11N INDOOR AIR ACT SHALL r~OT INCLUDE I:•iPRIS~:::!I::T i.3UT S!lALL C1 f;LIi•1I'I'L'D TO A FIr][; OF NO'f F10RE TEIAN T;lR%F. HU:;~P.~J DOLLAP,S; A*1D DITtl'.CTIieG 'THAT Cr1.4PTER 11 ,OF TErE r•tUIdICIPAL CODE :;S '<E::URGAt•lI?.IsD 'T'0 RGFLGC;'1' THE DIVISION OF SAID CEEAPTE:R INTO VARIGT;S :•.~TICL[:S S~ElEsitEAS, tt~e City Council finds ghat L•he smoking ot- tobacco, or any other weed or rlactt, i.s a form of air pollution, a positive ' danger to health a^d a material annoyance, inconven'ienc~, nui- s~~nce, discomfort and a health hazard to those who are present, in confined sc~aces; and cJ11EREAS, tt~e City Council ot• the City of Aspen deems it to be • .in the best interest o~ the City, and its residents and risitors, • to control and lim:~ the smo;cing of tobacco, or any weed or plant, in public places and ;laces of employment, and to enact- a new Article Iv to Chapter 11 of the t;unicipal Code of the City of Aspen to be known cc.;,:^only~ as the "City of Aspen Clean Indoor Air Act" , N01~, THEREFORE, 3~ IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF 'THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLCRaDO, Section 1 That Chapte>_• ~l1 of the t•tunicipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, is herby a.;,ended by renumbering Section "11-4,1 Penal- ties and Relief" thereof to "11-5,1 Penalties and Relief", and adding a new Article IV, to .read as follow: ~•` fiECUf3D OF Pf~OCFEDINGS 1OO LCnYCS "ARTICLE? IV 5:~:0(IP1G IN PUt3LIC PLACES Sec. 11-4.1. Short 'I'i.tle. . This article shall be known a: and it may be cited as the "Cite of Aspen C1:•an Indoor Air Act". Sec. 11.42. L~.islative Intent and Pur~oses_ The City Couricil finds that the smoking of tobacco, or any other weed or plant, is a form of air pollution, a positive ~ danger to heal::~ and a material annoyance, inconvenience, nuisance, dis::o::fart and a h~alr.h hazard to those ~~ho are present in ~onfi:-,:d• si~aces, and in order to serve puhlic Health, safety ar,~ welfare the declared purpose oL• this arti- cle is to control and limit the smoking oL- tobacco, ~r any weed or plant , in oubl. is places and places o f employment as hereinafter sit ~^rth. The City Council intends that the restrictions or::l '_imitations of this article be viewed as minimum standar:'~, and should not be construed as limiting in any 4,ay tl'ie a:: '.?:~:~i`.y of parsons in control of a public place from prohibiti;.:' ~:poking within their establishment alto- • gether. Sec. 11-4.3. Definitions. (a) "Bar area" -.cans an area comprising fifteen feet or less from the ~~:meter oL• a permanent counter which is pri- ' marily de•~ote•~ to serving alcoholic beverages and within which t!~e s::vice of food is only incidental to the cc~n- sumptior; o Bach beverages. Although a restaurant may contain a bar, the term "bar area" shall not include the re~tauran:./~:nine area. The City Council (or its desig- nee) may ex~~nd tl~e L-ifteen-foot limitation to encompass a larger arcs upon a d::nonstration by the o~Jner of an establishr:er.: that such area is primarily devoted to the serving of a;co'nolic beverages (such as a bar room, coc}:tail lo~.:;,ge o.r similar facility) and the service of Eood is o~l;.~ incidental to the cons~imption of such beverages. (b) "Dining area" deans any enclosed area containing a coun- ter or to:pies ~~pon ~•:Bich meals are served, excluding the bar area. (c) "Enclosed" :°~ans closed in by a roof and four walls with appropriate .~per~ii~gs f.or ingress and egress and is not intended to ..°:ean areas commonly described as public lob- bies. (d) "Public plate" means any enclosed area to which the pub- lic is invited or in which the public is permil•ted, includ'in:~, brit not limited to: banks, education facili- ties, healt',~ facilities, public transportation Facili- ties, rec~~:i~~n ,Zreas, re ~taurants, retail stores, retail sa!•vicc establi::t~mE~nts,• waiL•in~7 rooms. A private residency i~ not a public p1~~ce. 2. a - •,~, E3ECC)I3D OF !'ROCEEDINC~S 100 Lc,lves IMO 4 / / •'•1'•I. • • • , rl (c) "Smoking" -•:.~ns the combustion of any ci~~ar, ci~~ar:r.ttc, pipe, 'or i-.i.lar article, u~sin~~ any form of tol~crcco or other cornb•~~tihle autJ;tanc~ in any form. (f) "Tl~eat~ r ar.I? nud itoriurn" Teams any enclosed area dev~~ted to exhibiting motion pictures or presenting theatrical perforr;,ancc•s; lectures or like entertainment. (g) "Employe" -sans•any person who is employed by any empioy~r i. r. considerat..ion for monetary compensation or profit. . ti (h) "Emplo}per" :~~ans any Person, partnership or corporation, including ;-.~~nicipal corporation, who employs the ser- vices of a;,•~ person(s) . (i) "Ind~p-:nJer::.ly ventilated" means that 'the ventilation system for any •area in which smoking is permitted and tl~e venti?:=ion system for any nonsmoking area do not have a crn::ction ~~hich allo~as for the mixing of air from the J-.J\ing and nonsmoking areas. (j) "Place o` •=-:oloyment" means any enclosed area under the control .oE a public or private employAr c•,hich employees normally f:_quent during the course of. employment, including, but not limited to, ~vork arelz, employee lounges, cc::ference rooms, and employee cafeterias. A private residence is not• a p~.ace of employment. Sec. 11-4.9• S.~-:okinc~Pro.liibited. (a) Elevatcrs. Smoking is nrohibitec] and is unlawful within elevates i:: building:. generally used by and open to the public, inc_~.:ding elevators in office, hotel, and multi- family huii;;ings. (b) Hospitals a::d Health Care Facilities. Smoking is pro- hibited and is unlawful in public areas of health care facilities :.nd hospitals, as det•i.ned in Section 25-3- 10 1, C.R.S. , as it may be amended from time to time, includina•~:siting rooms, public hallways and lobbies, except in s:~ecially designated smoking areas that are physicrlJ.ly. separated and independently ventilated. (c) Public "teeting Rooms. Smoking is prohibitied and is unlawful in hearing rooms, conference rooms, chambers, places of ~~.:blic assemhly in which public business is conducted, ;:hick requires or provides direct participa- tion or observation by the general public. (d) Public Restrooms. Smoking is prohibited and unlawful in public rest:•ooms• (e) Indoor Se:•~~ice Lines. Smoking is prohil~i.ted and is unlawful i~ indoor service li.r~~s 'in w}~ich more than one parson is eivinc~ or• receiving services of any kind, whet}per o.• r,ot such service involves the exch~~nge of money. (f) Lal•ii~~~ Es t;~lis}~mcr~t,. Smolciny is prohibited and is unl,~wf:ul i;~ every publ icl}~ or pr. ivately owned cof. fee 3• ti 1 RECOf?0 OF P130CECDINGS 100 Lewes shop, caf~lt~ria, trort-order cafe, luncheonette, s.nnrl- with shop, ~~:a fountain, restaurant, or other eating establish~~n~ serving food, except under the fallowing circumstance; where sinokin~ may be permitted at the option of the owner of the establishment:. (1) Any area exterior to .the. building in a,hich the establi:.h;~ent is located. (2) The smo%ing of cigarettes in any_ bar area as defined in Section 11-4.3(a) . The smoking of pipes ~ and cigars shall r-ot be permitted in 'such area. ~ (3) Any enclosed rooms which are being used'for private functions. (4) Until- Ju-re• 1, 1986, the smoking of cigarettes in any inter for area limited .to not more than fifty percent (50%) of contiguous floor space of- the dining a. ea and which is specifically designated and sig-::d as a smoking area. The smoking of pipes and cigars shall be prohibited in suct-~ area. (5) • After J~:-:~ 1 , 1 986, in a secondary, physically • separatL~ and independently ventilated interior area tha= is specifically designated and signed as ' a "S:no{i-g Permitted" dining area, provided ti~at 'such secondary dining area shall not exceed in • ~ square•footage an area equal to fifty percent (50~) .of the s~uure footage of the primary dining area. . The s;~o:<ing of pipes and cigars shall be prohibited in such area. ~ • (g) Retail Stores. Smoking is prohibited and is unla~rful in all public a:~as of• retail stores, including grocery • stores, reta:'_ service establishments, retail food pro- duction esta~'_ishments, and drug stores. Sec. 11-4.5. Structural_T`lodifications_Not_Reguired. (a) Nothing in t~:is article shall require the owner, opera- tor, or mangy:.=r of any existing theater, auditorium, • health care. _acility, or any existi~zg building, facil- ity, structu;~, or business, to incur-any expense to ma};e structu:sl or other physical modifications to any area. • (b) Nothin.3 in tt:is section shall relieve any person from ' the duty to :~st signs or adopt: policies as required by this article. • Sec. i1-4.6. Re«ulation_of Smoking in Pl~zces_of_EmploYment_ '. • The places subje:.t to regulation pursuant to subsection 11.4 shall not be .~ee:nc.l places of employment for purposes ot:• this subsection. The' follo~~ling' regulations api~ly to places of emplo~~ment . • (a) • l~ithin riinet~~ days oL• the effective date oL• this ordin- ance, each ~,:plo~~er shall aclo}?t, implcinent, and maintain ,• q fiECOf~U OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves ~,..,,. .a writt~•n sm-,ring policy 4,t~ich stall contain at a mini- mum tho fo l ls~~~ i nc~ (1) l~rohir~ition of • smoking in employer conference and meeting rooms, classroom:;, auditoriums, restrooms, medical Facilities, hallways, and elevators. (2) l~rovisior~ and maintenance of no smokinc) areas in cafeterias, lunchrooms and employee lounges that eft~cti~~ely provide a smoke-free environment for nonsmoking employees: (3) Any e:nployne in the place. of employment shall be given the right to designate his or her immediate area as a• nonsmoking area and to post it with appron:•iate signs or sign. The pol icy zdopted by • the ~:°~loyer. shall include a definition of the term immediate ~,or}: area which gives. preferential con- sider?lion to nonsmokers. (4) 7n any dispute arising in the ~aork place under t}~e smo:;in;• policy, the rights of the nonsmoker shall be given precedence. • . (5) ~x•c~~pt •~here other signs are required, t~henever smoking is. prohibited, conspicuous signs shall be • posted so stating.' (b) TtSe smoking policy shall be communicated to all Fmplo}~e~a ••~~i~hin three weeks oL- its adoption. (c) hotwithstan::ing the provisions oL- subsection '(a) of this sectio:~, evsry employer shall have the right to desig- nate any place o[ employment as a nonsmoking area. (d) This section is not intended to regulate smoking in the following ;laces and under the following con~3itions: (1) A private home. iahich may serve as a place of ' emplo}^•ent. (2) An}~ prcper.ty owned or leased by other governmental agenc.i~s. (3) A pri'~• to enclosed place of emplo}~ment occupied exclusi~~ely by smo}:ers, even though suc}~ place of emplo~•-ant may tie visitAd by nonsmokers, excepting places in ~al~ich smoking is prohibited by Lire mar- shal or by oL•her law, ordinance or regulation. 5 ~ECOf~D OF I'ROCEEUINGS 100 Lc~vc~s (e) nn ernployer t~nll t~o::t "No Sm~kinr" signs in any ar.oa designat~:~J as a nonsmoking ar.c:a ari~~ "Smoking 1111owed" signs in any area designated as a smoking area. Sec. 11-4.7. Posti.nq_of._Si ns. To advise persons of the ex ist,ence of "No Smoking" or "Smok- ing Permitted" areas, signs shall be posted as follows: (a) In public places where no smoking is- permitted pursuant to this article, a sign using the words "No Smoking" and/or the international no-smoking symbo'1 shall be con- ` spicuously posted either on all public entrances or in a position clnzrly visible on entry into the establish- ment. (b) In public places where certain areas are designated as 'smoking areas pursuant to this ordinance, the statement "No Smokin Exoept in Designated l~reas" shall be con- spicuously osted on all }~ut~lic etrances or in a posi- tion clearly visii~le on entry iriL-o the establishment. In addition, the person having the authority to manage and control any area designated as a nonsmoking area pursuant to this article, s1~a11 post or causo to be posted any prominently displayed, and shall maintain "t•Io Smoking" sicns in conspicuous locations within said areas. All such signs shall clearly and conspi cuously- recite tie chrase "No Smoking" and/or use the interna- tional no-s-:oking symbol. The signs shall ba posted not less than 5 feet nor more than 8 feet above floor .level and shall ~e of sufficient number and location to cause the mess~~ge of at least one of the signs +:.o be clearly visible, legible, and readable. Sec. 11-4. 8. Exceptions. (a) "No Smoking" areas are not required, although they are encouraged, in private areas; hotol, motel, and lodge meeting and assembly rooms rented to guests; t•rotel and motel lobbies; areas and rooms while in use For private social functions, the facilities of a private or members only orga~~ization, private hospital rooms, psychiatric or psycholo7ical counseling L•acilities, jails, bars, or stores that deal exclusively in tobacco pro6ucts anti accessories'. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein, tl~e smoY.ing oL• pipes ar~d cigars shall not be allo~:ed in hotel and motel lobbies. (b) nny o~~~r~er or manager of a business or other establ ish- ment subject to triis article may apply to the City Coun- cil (or such board or comrni~sion of the City •zuthori.zed by the City Council to grant the s.3me) for an exception or. modification of the provisions of this article due to unique or unusual circumstances or. cone it ions , prov ided ti~at it twill be tl~e burden of ttlc applicant to show either tlx: t the provisions of• this article cannot be complied t;ith without incurring expenses Eor structural or other .~,:~'s ical mod i f ical- ions, , other. L•han po:,t in~3 signs, or' t:1at; due to unidur: or. unu~;ual ~;ircu,nst;:ncts, the f~~ilu~•~~ to com~~l.y with the tarovi~ion f~~r whi.ch the 6 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS l0U Lclvcs .o Qr •.. ~'~. exemption i reclucstc~d wil]. not result in .n dander r_o health or annoyance; inconvenience or di.scomtort. Sec. 11-4.9. Enforcement. (a) The City ~4an~,yer or the City ~1~-n~i~~cr'.s desiynon shall be . responsibly for compliance with this article with regarc: to faci.Tities which are owned, operated, or leased by the City of r.spen. (b) The owner, operator, or manager of any facility, busi- 4 ness or agency shall post. or cause to be posted all "No Smoking" signs required by this ai:ticle. Owners, opera- tors, manager or employees of same shall be required to orally inform persons violating this article of the pro- visions t'neruof. The duty to inform such violator shall arise when such owner, operator, manager or' e~tplOV~e of same bec:~mes aware. of such violation, and shall be their sole enforce;-ient obligation hereunder. (c)~ Any citizen ~~ho desires to register a complaint under this article ~^ay ini.tiate enforcement with ttie Ci.".y tian- ager or City :tanager's designee. (d) The City h;aneger or the City i,lanager's designoe may enforce the ~rovisio~is of this article by either of the following actions: . (1) Serving notice requiring correction of. any viola- tion of this article. (2) Requesting the City Attorney to initiate appropri- ate enforcement proceedings, including, without limitation, the initiation of a complaint in muni- cipal court or the institution of injunctive, abatement, or .other appropriate action to prevent, enjoin, abate or remove such violation. (e) Any person convicted of violating any provision of. this article shall, upon conviction, be punished by a fine of not more tl~<-:~ three hundred dollars ($300.00) , for each separate of__`znsr~, and may be enjoined from any further or continued violation thereof. Each day any violation' of this article shall continue shall constitute a separ- ate offense. (f) Any remedies provided for herein sr~all be cumulative and not exclusi~•~ and shall be in addition to any other remedies ;~ro~• ided by law. " Section 2 That Section 11-4.1 of the t`~unicipal Code of the C'_ty of Aspen be amended by :renumbering said ,ectiori to 11-5. 1 and amend- ing subsection (1) to read as follows: ' . ~ FiECOf~D OF PROCECDINGS 100 Leaves "Sec. 11-5.1. Pen~~lties ~~n~] Relief. (a) Any person, upon conviction of a violation of any prov i- sion of Articlo I, II or III of this chapter, shall .be subject to a fine not to exceed three hun~jred dollars ($300.00) or imprisonment,in the county jail for a pcri~d of no= more than ninety (90) days, or both, at the discretion of the court, for each sep•nrare offense, and may be enjoined from any fur. then or continue~~ v iola- Lion hereof. A violation of Article IV shall be punish- able by a fine only. Each day any violation of this chapter shall continue, shall constitute•a separate ~. offense her :under." _ Section 3 The City Cler'~ is hereby directed to effect the recodifica- tion of Chapter 11 of the l•tunicipal Code of the City of Aspen as follows: 1. The title o` Chapter 11 shall be amended to read as fol- lows: "Elealth-Plater G~~~ality, Air Quality, Control of Rubbish, Deeds and Brush, and S-~oking in Public Places". ?.. Section 11-1.1 through 11-1.8 shall be des i7nated as Article I and entitle "Plater Quality" . 3. Section 11-2.1 through 11-2.9 sha].1 'be designated as Article II and entitled "Air Quality". 4. Section 11-3.1 through 11-3.3 shall be designated as Article III and entitled "Control of Rubbish, G~Teeds arzd Brush" . Section 4 The regulations and amendments set forth in this ordinance shall become eL•fectire thirty (30) days afL-er the dare of publica- tion after L•inal passage, specifically October 19, 1985. It is the present intention of this Council t~rat this ordin- ance shall be reviek•ed by the City Council regarding it effective- nes:~ in addressing problems associated with. smoking in public places on the City Council agenda.' Section 5 If any section, subs~~ction, sentence, cl~iu~;e, phrase or portion of this ordi,~anc~. i:~ Lor- any rc~-~con hclcl i nv~~l id or. E3 ~. o~ RECOf~D OE PROCEEDINGS 100 Lclves unconstitutional ir. a curt of co-npetent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deened a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof.. . Section 6 A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held, on the ~~.~-~J ----- / -~ day of ___C~ iii ~l •c12~ _ 1985, in tY:e City Counci]. Chambers As en City Hall As~ en Colo d p y , p , ra o. INTRODUCE U, READ F:::D~ ORDERED published as provided by ~la~~ of the City Council of the City of Aspen on the _~~~_ day of --•-•----- ~~1i9~-~~ ------ ~ 1 9 8 S . ---- - -- G~~~_ ._------- William+L. Stirling U ATTEST: • Kathryn S. ~och, City C1er'r. FILIALLY adopted, passed and «~~~~Y approved this _ ~~~~___ day o f __, 1985, _ ___G~__~_~c~~_../_ S~illiam L Stirling ATT1 ~ / /~ Kathryn S, I~h, City Clerk 58 gowo v 75 south frontage road vail, Colorado 81657 (303) 476-7000 MEMORANDUM TOe Ron Phillips FROM: Susan Scanlan DATEe March 1, 1988 SUBJECTe No Smoking Ordinance ofilce otl community deaelopmen4 You will find attached a chart which lists elements of No Smoking Ordinances for 18 different municipalities in the state of Colorado> Elements which are contained in any particular ordinance are indicated by an Xo If there is no mark in an area that item was not addressed by the ordinanceo Also included with this chart is an earlier memo which addresses in more detail some of the common aspects of the ordinanceso Copies of the ordinances and information pamphlets are available in my office for perusals pppNpppppp SMOKING ORDI NRNCES ~CONNON ELEMENTS pppppppppp RRERS SNOKING PROHIBITED „ RRERS SNOKING RLIONED ;; RESTRURRNT 5ERTING ;. 4IORK PLRCE ;; ~_r« , p1BFORnR1lON ~~ PNIPHLET PROV[OED;;--------_ ______'_ ___ _____ ;; CONNON _________ PUOLIC _'___°____- GROCERY ;; --- --- ERRS ---------- ENCLOSED ---------- TODRCCO ---------- DESIGNRTED - RESTRURRNTS - RESTFIURRNTS ;; 50% OR OuNER ;; PETITION REQUEST ;; SIGNRGE ;; ' ; ;; FINES ; CALCIA.RTION OSR TONN ;; PURPOSE OFFINITION ;; RRERS RRERS STORES ;; CLU05 OFFICES SIIOPS RRERS --- 30 OR LESS 50 OF' LESS ;; LESS DESIGNRTED ;; SOU. ;; REO 0. ; ~ ~--- ---- -- -------- ------ ------- ------ --------- ------- X ---------- X ------ X X SEP. RRERS POLICY RDOPTED X 86-8300 ' ; RSPEN X X X X X CRRBOiIDRLE ;; ;; X X X X X X X ~' X X X X X X X X SO-8300 %T LOUISVILLE X X X X X X X X X X X X x X 825-8300 THQRNTON " X X x X X X EHPLOYER OESIGNRTEO X 825-8300 IS ' GOLDEN ;; X X X X X X X X X X ENPLOYER OES1GtIRTEO X 935-4300 LOIIGNONTp X X FORT COllINSp ~~ X X X X X X X X X % x X X X BOULDERS X X X X X X X X x X X ~~ X X X X ENPLO'fER DESIGNRTEO X 925-8500 '~ RRVRDRp X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 825-9100 X LOVELRND X X X X X COLORRDO SPRINGSp ;; X X X X % X X X X PUEBLO X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X x X X X 825-9300 NESTNINSTERp X % x X X X t~ X X X X X X 825-8100 ,( ' GREELEYp ;; X X X X X X X ~' X X X X X X 825-8300 X LRKEN006p X X X X X X X ~ ~ X X X X ~ X X X .825-8500 ~T NIIERT RIDGE ' X X X X X X CRIION CITY ;; X X IS X X X X ;~ x x x x so-91~ :c GRIWD JUNCTION ;; X X X X X X X X X X X X x so-s3oo 0-90 pIYS ,c TOo Ron Phillips & Peter Patten FROM: Susan Scanlan DATEo May 29, 1987 SUBJECTo No Smoking Ordinance I. INTRODUCTIONe Over the past several months I have accumulated and reviewed no smoking ordinances from various communities around the State of Colorado. These ordinances range from very general no smoking provisions to very specific regulations and substantial penalties for violations. Most of the cities whose ordinances I reviewed implemented them by a vote of the City Councils. However, in the case of Fort Collins and Colorado Springs, the ordinance was put to a public vote in a special referendum election and was approved in both cases. II. BACKGROUNDo As a general overview of the ordinances, they all contain essentially the same provisions. These includee (1) LEGISLATIVE INTENT: A Statement of legislative intent or purpose which explains the reasons for adopting the ordinance, range from protecting the public health, safety and general welfare to preventing the general discomfort of being exposed to smoke in public places. (2) DEFINITIONSe A definitions section which defines common areas, public places, smoke and in some cases work areas. (3) SMOKING PROHIBITEDo Smoking is generally prohibited in common areas and public places. This includes but is not limited to hallways, elevators, lobbies, waiting areas, public restrooms, public meeting rooms, grocery stores, retail stores, theatres, educational facilities, libraries, recreational facilities, public transportation facilities and other enclosed areas to which the public is invited or where the public is permitted. (4) SMOKING PERMITTED: In most cases smoking is permitted in several areas which include: A Taverns, bars or nightclubs where the service of food is not the principle source of income. B Fully enclosed offices occupied exclusively by smokers, even if they may be visited by non- smokers. C Retail tobacco shops. D Meeting rooms or halls where the general public is not invited and the control of seating arrangements is the responsibility of the function sponsor. E Designated smoking areas as determined by proprietors. F Most of the ordinances contain the provision to allow smoking throughout restaurant establishments with seating capacities of 30 or less, some go as high as 50 or less. The City of Aspen has been much more restrictive in their provisions and does not allow more than 50% of any restaurant to be designated as a smoking area. In addition, smoking areas must be completely separate and have individual ventilation systems. (5) DESIGNATED SMOKING AREAS: Smoking may be allowed in designated smoking areas of public places. These could include: A__ _ Restaurants with seating capacities of 30 or more _.. may designate an area comprising up to 50% of the seating capacity as a smoking area. An area could also be designated such that smokers and non-smokers can be accommodated without an unreasonable delay. B A portion of lobbies or hallways based on size restraints provided that the designation of such an area does not require non-smokers to pass through a smoking area to get from one place to another. (6) GENERAL PROHIBITIONS: Smoking is prohibited in any area where it is prohibited by the Fire Marshall or applicable fire codes. (7) WORK PLACEo Several of the ordinances include provisions for the prohibition of smoking in places of employment. This is provided for if: (A) A petition is received by the employer containing signatures of over 50% of the permanent employees requesting a smoke-free work place. (B) No physical barriers need to be installed to accomplish this separation. The ordinances which contain this provision for a smoke free work place also contain a clause which prohibits discrimination against any employee who requests such a designation. Employers may also establish and adopt a written smoking policy relating to their places of employment which may contain minimum guidelines as reflected in Aspen's ordinance. (8) SIGNAGE REQUIREMENTSe Every building affected by the smoking ordinance, must have signs posted and maintained by the proprietor of the establishment. These signs must be posted on all doors providing public access to the establishment or conspicuously posted so that they can be seen upon entering the building. The signs may be of specified sizes and may be printed with lettering or appropriate international symbols. The signs may be one of threee A No smoking - this would state that smoking is not permitted in any portion of the building. B Smoking - this would indicate that smoking is permitted throughout the establishment. C No smoking except in designated areas - this would generally prohibit smoking throughout the establishment except in those areas which are posted as smoking areas. It would also be the responsibility of the proprietor in this case, not only to sign all points of access, but also to clearly sign the areas where smoking is allowed. (9) UNLAWFUL ACTSo Several of the ordinances contain sections which define an unlawful act which would constitute a violation of the ordinance. These include, but are not limited toe A Smoking in designated and signed no smoking areas. B Failure to post required signage or to maintain posted signage. C Allow people to smoke in no smoking areas. (10) FINES: The fines for violation of any provision of the ordinance range from $0-$500 per day that the offense exists. The average fine appears to be $25- $300 per day. One ordinance contains a provision for a second conviction in 12 months that the minimum fine be $50 with $10 of the fine going to the city to purchase materials promoting no-smoking (City of Longmont). The City of Wheatridge also prohibits the sale of cigarettes to minors and sets forth fines for the misdemeanor offense. (11) ENFORCEMENT: The responsibility for enforcement of the ordinance ranges from police officers, code enforcement personnel, public safety officers to environmental health officers/sanitarians. III. RECOMMENDATION: Review of these ordinances has provided a little insight into the manner in which they were arrived at and in some cases the input involved. At least in the cities of Aspen and Fort Collins there was considerable input from citizens both for and against the ordinances. In order for the issue of a no smoking ordinance to gain the type of support required for it to be successful, I believe it would be advantageous to solicit the input of the general public and the restaurant association. If the issue of smoking in restaurants is to be addressed it would be crucial to seek the support of the restaurant association. It would be beneficial to have the support of the restaurant association as it ,is a large contingent and their opposition could make compliance difficult. The city_of Aspen has experienced considerable difficulties in dealing with their restaurant compliance and the ordinance itself has come under fire. Most communities report that the ordinance has been well received and compliance is generally not a problem. Informational pamphlets have been produced in several communities which explain the ordinance and answer some commonly asked questions. a I believe that such an ordinance would be generally well received in Vail where a large percentage of the population are health conscious people. I would recommend an ordinance which encompasses the points as outlined in the background area of this memo. It should also be noted that the ordinance does not prevent anyone from declaring their business a no smoking area entirely even if they are permitted by the ordinance to have smoking areas. I think it is also important to include the provision for a smoke-free work place as individuals spend more time at work than they do in any other pursuit during the average day. It is important that their rights are also respected. Information can be obtained from the Aspen G.A.S.P. group as to the facts and statistics concerning smoking and the effects of secondhand smoke. They have been instrumental in getting Aspen's ordinance passed and providing support to other communities interested in passing ordinances. Copies of ordinances from the 18 communities are available in my office. lows o 75 south frontage road vail, Colorado 81657 (303) 476-7000 TO: Ron Phillips FROM: Susan Scanlar~ DATE: May 2, 1988 ' SUBJECT: No Smoking Survey Results office of community development Several months ago Larry Eskwith was directed by the Town Council to draft a no smoking ordinance. Before this ordinance would apply to any public buildings other than those which are Town owned, the Council requested input from the Restaurant Association on this topic. I drafted a brief survey to all businesses which hold a license to operate a food service establishment. The survey was dated March 22, 1988 and was mailed out to 102 licensed establishments. The survey consisted of the following brief questions: (1) Name of establishment (2) Do you currently permit smoking in your establishment? Yes or No (3) Do you currently have a no smoking section? Yes or No (4) Would you support some type of ordinance limiting smoking in restaurants? Yes or No (5) Comments: Of the 102 surveys, 75 were completed and returned. Currently 65 of the 75 responding establishments permit smoking while 10 do not. Of the 65 restaurants which permit smoking, only 8 provide a no smoking section for their non-smoking patrons while 56 do not. The support for or against some type of ordinance limiting smoking in restaurants was pretty evenly divided. There were 37 responses which supported some type of an ordinance and 36 which were opposed to any type of regulation. One individual responding would be in favor of or opposed to an ordinance depending on how it was written. Attached you will find the comments which were included on the completed surveys. The following were comments included on surveys from those who were opposed to the idea of an ordinance. "We°re fortunate to have high ceilings and good ventilation. Let's NOT legislate this!!" 1°Meghan's only seats 10 people and the amount of smokers coming in and out are few." "We would only support a total ban on smoking. Providing smoking areas would be an impossibility in a small area like ours." 1°Public service cannot be prejudiced to public - one comes to a public environment one should expect public normal behavior." "With all the cancellations and no-shows we experience, it would be almost impossible to determine how many seats we would allocate for this non-smoking section nightly. Potential disaster with unpredictable business forecasting and staffing requirements. Current volume of requests for non-smoking areas also does not support this idea." "I believe restaurant operators can resolve the smoker/non- smoker problem themselves. We do not need an ordinance to accomplish this." "Our restaurant is too small to have a no smoking section so therefore it would have to be all or nothing. I have a hard time supporting something that could drive away any customer." °1This decision should be left to the individual businesses." °'I am not smoking myself and I rather see anyone else not smoking, but I see a restaurant as a public place for every- one with no restrictions." "I would support a no smoking section. Most of our hotel and restaurant patrons are from 35 up and a good percent smoke." 11I think that should be left up to each business." "I think it should be up to the ,good judgement of the individual restaurant owner. In some cases it might not be feasible. I would hope that we could handle this without making more laws." "With a non-smoking section we have had no complaints this year. Start an ordinance to stop nuclear waste trucks on I-70.t° "We have been a non-smoking restaurant in the past. It caused dining situation for 1 1/2 - 2 hours. We now offer a smoking section and take a waiting list for both. Those who don't care we will seat in the first available table regardless of the section. The system is more work for us, but offers the customer the freedom of choice. We are happy at this time having the choice as to smoking or non. I feel each business should decide for itself and let the customers have a choice. "It would be nice if people did not smoke, but let this be a free market decision. Let the restaurants deal with it as the situation warrants." "Pipes and cigars should be banned." "I feel this is just another attempt of government interven- tion into private enterprise." "Makes me sick (I don't smoke) Prohibition next?" "We try to, as cordially as possible, put smokers in the part of the restaurant that is better ventilated. We have not in 2 1/2 years had a problem. Stay out of it!! Let them decide for themselves." "A larger percentage of travelers off the interstate seem to be smokers, than local business. I would not want to turn off the Interstate traveler." "We have only been operating since January 1988, but have never had a problem. Why create one? 1989 will bring many Europeans to Vail. They and the Latins still smoke." "Restaurants should make their own rules and regulations - nothing should be enforced. (We find that there are less and less smokers anyway). Some people really do object to cigars of which, there are very few." One response came back: "It will be a more healthy community and cleaner environmental area to live." but there was no response to the question of whether or not they would support the ordinance. Copies of all survey responses are available in my office. The following comments were taken from responses which were in favor of the ordinance. 11Only if there is no smoking in all the restaurants, including the hotel restaurants. Smoking only in separate lounges or, lobbies or restrooms. I do not support a no smoking section in the restaurant because it limits seating and creates reservation problems during peak times." "It would be very difficult to cut out all smoking, but we would definitely support a law requiring some form of non- smoking areas." 1°For all restaurants only!" 1tI don't believe that an ordinance would cause any sort of problem with guests." °'If they want to smoke they can go outside on my deck!" "It has to happen eventually." °'A non-smoking area is absolute in respect to the majority non-smoker and good health people." 11We are take-out only so it doesn't affect us as much." "Maybe per square foot?" "We do not encourage smoking. We have no barrel ash trays in the store." °1We wish to pursue an ordinance that would prohibit smoking entirely in our store." "I would love to see Vail implement a total smoking ban in all public areas." °°Yeah! We encourage the ordinance." 1°Personally I would fully support no smoking, however I feel it may be difficult to enforce as well as alienating too many guests." 1°I would love to see a no smoking ordinance. I am sick of people who don't smoke having to put up with people smoking all over their food and smelling up my restaurant." "Possibly support no smoking area in larger restaurants only. Smaller restaurants and bars exempt." "My area is small, I do try to keep smokers by doors." "Restaurant area yes. Bar would be difficult to enforce and we also serve food in the bar." "We run a very health oriented menu with fitness in mind. We discourage smoking, you need to enforce no smoking areas." "Not in ballroom - should be up to groups." "It's way overdue - only by doing it as a town/community can we make it work. As a frequent diner outer, I'm personally livid over smokers in restaurants. Aspen is way ahead of us as is Colorado Springs." Also enclosed is a separate support letter which I received. Overall, the establishments which are supportive of some type of no smoking ordinance are those which are service oriented; grocery stores and convenience stores, or they are relatively small establishments which have little or no seating. March 29, 1988 Vail Town Council 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Co 81657 Dear Council Members: After carefully considering the pro's and con's regarding a non- smoking ordinance in Vail restaurants, I would support the ordinance with the following stipulations: 1) That restaurant owners have the option to designate 20% or less of their seating capacity as a smoking area without physically dividing it. (Airplanes have no dividers.) 2) Bar stools or areas where no food is being served should stay exempt. This would put a non-smoking ordinance in effect supporting the large majority of non-smokers without running the risk of loosing any of our existing or new Vail clients by being too restrictive. Sincerely, Pepi Langegger The Tyrolean Inn Vail Town Council Members: Kent Rose John Slevin Eric Affeldt Merv Lapin Gail Wahrlich-Lowenthal Michael Cacioppo Thomas Steinberg Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 October 5, 1989 Dear Town Council Members, Attached are a few more letters/articles that deal with the economic impact of smoking restrictions in other cities. They also cite the health hazard of secondary smoke on non-smokers. My apologies for the incompleteness of the NYC paper, but due to its length, only specific areas that regarded financial impact were included. I am sure that you feel inundated with reading material regarding the proposed ordinance. I just hope that the council and the community can come to terms on an ordinance that works for everyone concerned. Thank you and I look forward to the working session on October 10th. Sincerely, ~`~ Regg'e Brien Fres it Committee - AsPE~~P~T~cm~ EtV~lIF3®Ii9MENTAL. 9-~EA~'Ti-g ®EPA9~T~i/IEti1T December 6, 1988 Linda Jourgensen, Mayor City of Boulder P.O. Box 791 Boulder, CO 80306 Dear Ms. Jourgensen° I am writing about the proposed changes in the City of Boulder°s smoking regulations. I would like to offer a few observations of how Aspen°s Clean Indoor Air Act has worked. The Aspen ordinance prohibits smoking in all restaurant dining areasa smoking is allowed in bar areas only, where meals are not served. (Smoking is allowed in small dining rooms which have been found to be physically separated and independently ventilated, of which there are only two out of Aspen°s 98 restaurants.) The law in Aspen is working very well. When the law was enacted, a small number of Aspen restaurant owners and the local restaurant association took the position that Aspen°s having such a strict law would cause tourists from Spain to go to Vail, and that Aspen°s tourist economy would otherwise be hurt. The Aspen City Council asked us to do a survey of Aspen ° s restaurants and retail establishments to determine whether the law was hurting business, as some claimed it would. Restaurants and retailers in Aspen overwhelmingly indicated that the law had had no impact on their business whatsoever. Despite our Department°s initial apprehension, enforcement (which this Department is in charge of) has turned out to be virtually no problem to us. We check for signs during routine restaurant inspections, but get. very few complaini.:s. In fact, restaurant workers report to u., that they believe the law is working very, very well, and that at the rare times when they have to ask someone who is smoking to go to the bar to smoke, they are almost always very cooperative, and their table-mates often thank the waitress. The City of Aspen's position has been that three things make our law work without enforcement being a burden: 1) extensive sign requirements so everyone is aware of the law, 2) requirement that management notify smokers of the law, and 3) peer pressure and the desire to comply with laws. In summary, our regulation has been very successful. We believe compliance has been very high, and the community and the vast majority of guests are supportive of the law. In fact, the law has been so successful that our Board of County Commissioners just asked us to come back to them with a law to apply in the entire county, that would be identical to the City of Aspen's law. 930 Sough C3alana Sir®®~ s4apan, Colorado B'961'9 303/925-2020 If you have any questions about our law as you discuss changes to Boulder°s law, please feel free to call me. Sincerely, ~' Lee E. Cassin Environmental Health Officer v cce Peter Bialek, Colorado GASP - ~S,®in is siour motion suici~ie° ~~~ ~ ~ e must not set sec®nd°and smoking become slow motion xnurderm" This is the conclusion of the R• sport of the Mayor°s .Committee on Smokin and Health of New York City. This excellent eighty-page book helped convince the New Yoa'Et City council to pass a strong no-smoking ordinance this year by a 29 to 1 vote o. GASP gill be re-printing portions of the book in the next few issues of The Nonsmokerffi° Voice. PART i Summary of Committee Findings lte The Committee finds that second- hand tobacco smo a poses a sagni scant ealth Nazar Testimony from the current Surgeon General of the United States, four former U.S. Surgeons General and other medical experts established this central face beyond doubt. Rt the request of the New York City Health Department, an expert from the U.S. Center for Disease Control conducted a review of the relevant litera- ture. That review also concluded that second-hand tobacco smoke poses a signifi- cant health haaard to those fo(•ced to breathe it. None of th® testimony re- ceived by the Committee challenged this conclusion except that off two witnesses -- neither off whom were physicians -- appear- ing at the request of the Tobacco Insti- tute. Today ae can make the following statement without qualification: the beS.t {pedical and scientific thinking available it ahe United States and the world has determined that involuntary smoking is associated with lung cancer, heart dis- ease, bronchitis, pneumonia, and asthma. %nfants and children are especially vul- nerable. Eighty-five percent of the smoke found in a room with cigarette smokers is sidestream smoke which contains the same i1.000 constituents and the same c~rcino- ens found in smoke directly Whaled, o ten in much higher concentrations. The tobacco-smoke-caused lung cancer risk to the non-smoking office docker appears to be 250 to 1,000 times the level of accept- able risk using standard federal guide- lines for carcinogens in air or cater or food. %n the words of Surgeon General Koop, °there is all the medical evidence neces- sary to support reasonable and sensible protection for the nonsmoker against the irritation and potential harm that comes from other people's smoke.° 2. The Committee finds that because second-Nan tobacco smo a as a c ea t czar a is an on is r uared to minimize t e pu is s e:posure to The need for legislation to protect the health of nonsmokers rests on one undeniable fact: while it is possible $o read a1Qne or eat alone. in a room when someone else is present, it is not_Posai-.~ ~~Prg cannot__ore- ~le tQ gmpke.. along. ~~ vent thei r tobacco. smoke _, f rom~eryad i ng_.~ ' room and nonsmokers can't stop breathingg. Every nonsmoker who shares indoor air with a smoker inescapably becomes an involun- tac~ smoker. Failing to provide smoke tree space in an enclosed area forces those who have chosen to avoid the danger of premature death and diseases caused by smoking tobacco i,o smoke against their w_,~„~,~ Moreover, in considering the need to protect the health of workers in the workc- place, the City must recognize that most people must work as a matter of economic necessity. One can choose to eat at home instead of going to a restaurant or stay at home and watch television instead off going to a theater. Because wo~kina i$. n~gptional, workplace protecttQns from_ sec n~h.dn~ smoke are vital. %n view of the health dangers in- volved, the Coaunittee believes that enact- ment of legislation is essential to pco- tect the health of nonsmokers. Mayor , Koch's efforts to promote voluntary re- ' strictions on smoking in the workplace grid . restaurants have not proved successful in the New York City. This experience mir- rors the lack of effectiveness of volun-'` tart' efforts elsewhere. Further, the ' Committee does not believe that voluntary measures are appropriate to protect the health of nonsmokers any more than volun- tary outdoor air pollution controls or voluntary occupational health and safety standards are appropriate to protect thQ general public and dockers. ~®~,~n fls ~~®w ~n®ti®n suicideo ~~~ ~~s~ . n®~ lei se~onci®h~and smoking bec®e .. sio~ motion gn~rdero" This is the conclusion of the Re ort of the Ma or's Committee on Heelth•of Neb York City. This excellent eighty-page book helped convince City council to pass a strong no-smoking ordinance this year by a 29 to dill be re-printing portions of the book in the next fey issues of The doice. REVENUES PAR'S' I B In an effort to determine whether businesses in cities and states with lim- its on smoking have experienced revenue gains or losses, Committee staff reviewed the literature on the effects of laws imposing smoking restrictions and also contacted a wide range of business, gov- ernment and trade association officials in Nassau and Suffolk counties, Minnesota, San Francisco, San Diego, and Sacramento. Not one of the officials contacted by the Committee's staff reported that an individual business had lost revenues as a result of smoking regulation or knew of any adverse impact on the local economy as a dhole. The staff's review of the avail- able literature on the economic impact of such laws similarly found no instances of lost revenue. To the contrary, there is evidence that smoking causes lost revenues, and ehat non-smoking restrictions increase revenues. A Gallup Poll has found that 47 percent of those surveyed reported not eating out more often because of smoking in restaurants.~= Palo Alto, California, reports that, after mandating non-smoking sections in restaurant, restaurants there experienced increased patronage from out- of-town diners seeking smoke-free space.>> Restaurants, theaters and other places of public entertainment may find many New Yorkers who have been staying home to avoid smoke becoming more frequent custom- ers. A Vice President of the San Diego Chamber of Commerce told Committee staff that if any industry group or large or medium business had objections to the San Diego •ordinance, they would call the Cham- ber. 'In fact, according to the official, no one has called to complain. The Minne- sota Restaurant Association now favors the Minnesota law which has required restau- rants to set aside smoke-free space for nonsmokers since 1980: According to the Association, although restaurants origi- nally opposed the law, it is now a °non- issue.° The Association reports that implementation costs have been minimal. ~hambers of Commerce in Suffolk and Nassau Smokinsl end the Nev York vote. GASP Nonsmokers° counties reported no negative comments about the laws in their areas. The San Francisco Chamber of Commerce reported no information on any loss of revenues. ' The Hotel Association of New York City and the New York Chamber of Commerce and Industry expressed concern that jobs and revenues might be lost as a result of the proposed legislation; but provided the Committee with no .evidence to substantiate their concern, A Tobacco Institute wit- ness submitted testimony estimating that restaurants, retail stores and other busi- nesses would lose S106.6 million in reve- nues if customers shifted their purchases to locations outside New York City.~b The witness, however, offered absolutely no evidence to support this estimate. --The Committee does not find plausible the assumption underlying predictions of revenue loss. To the contrary, based on the Gallup poll and Palo Alto experience discussed above, the Committee believes that an inc~ rease of at. least .5 percent in revenues is a more reasonable assumption -- one which would produce a revenue gain of at least $100 million. The Committee has been unable to find any evidence of revenue loss to businesses stemming from smoking regulation. Given the fact that most of the business groups contacted in other jurisdictions had orig- inally opposed legislation regulating smoking (and a number still do, in princi- ple), they could be expected to be aware of and protest any revenue losses. None, however, was aware of any such losses. Ellen Hart-Sturm, owner of Ellen's Restau- rant in New York City, testified that the division of her restaurant into smoking and non-smoking sections had no adverse economic impact -- °None whatsoever,° said Ms. Hart-Sturm. The early experience of Maxwell's Plum restaurant is an increase in business, with more families coming, and 60 percent of the patrons requesting smoke-free space. a For the purpose of making estimates, the witness simply assumed that restaurants and other businesses would have a .5 percent drop in revenues in the first year. '"his assumption in turn rested on an an assumption that some significant portion of the 30 per- cent of New Yorkers who smoke will travel outside the city in order to avoid the pos- sibility that they might have to wait longer for a seat in a smoking section of a restau- rant or so that they can smoke while standing =•"• ~ =•^•° 3t a bank. '~~yf~: ;;::: .Y~;~ ~.3rl~'. ~; '!: il~..._-.-- d: salt a JOSEPH A. CALIFANO, Jr. Chairman \IICTOR BOTNICK CHARLES HUGHES STEPHEN JOSEPH, M.D. GLAIR TOWNSEND ~':4'~i: :::l:",~': ~,. ~~:. :, '.: REPORT OF THE MAYOR'S COMMITTEE ON SMOKING AND HEALTH I, Introduction and Summary A. I I Establishment of the Committee On March 21, 1986, Mayor Edward I. Koch announced the Smoking Pollution Con- trol Act of 1986, a draft bill to provide smoke-free space in New York City°s en- closed public places and businesses. Mayor Koch asked New Yorkers to review the proposal and send him their comments. At the same time, Mayor Koch estab- lished this Committee on Smoking and Health to actively solicit comments on the draft bill, review the comments received, hold public hearings, and recommend im- provements so as "to give New York the best smoking pollution control law in the nation." {Appendix C) The Mayor appointed five members to the Committee: former Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, a senior partner at Dewey, Ballantine, Bushby, Palmer & Wood, and author Joseph A. Cali- fano, Jr., (Chairman); Victor Botnick, Health Services Administratoro Charles Hughes, President, Local 372, Board of Education Employees, AFSCME; Stephen Jo- seph, Health Commissioners and Alair Townsend, Deputy Mayor for Finance and Economic Development. B. Committee Process The Committee actively sought the views of New Yorkers, medical and public health experts, economists, business representatives, the tobacco industry, and officials from other cities and states with laws protecting nonsmokers from the effects of involuntary smoking. In April 1986, Committee Chairman Joseph A. Califano, Jr., wrote to some 5,000 elected officials, civic groups, unions, hospitals, businesses (including cigarette companies), universities, busi- ness and trade associations, and health groups enclosing a copy of the proposed legislation and seeking their views. {Ap- pendix D) In response to this request and the Mayor's original invitation, the Com- mittee received comments from almost 1,200 New Yorkers, 80 percent of whom supported the proposal, In addition, 812 New York- ers submitted a petition vigorously sup- porting the measure, On May 19, 1986, the Committee held a public hearing on the proposed legislation in the Board of Estimate Chamber at City Hall. The Committee heard testimony from 39 witnesses, including the current Sur- geon General of the United States, Dr, C. Everett Koop, four former U.S. Surgeons General, representatives of New York citi- zens committees and community organiza- tions, representatives of business and trade groups, individual citizens and business operators, the Nassau County Deputy Commissioner of Health, the Minne- sota Commissioner of Health, medical and 2 scientific experts, and all witnesses whose appearances were requested by the Tobacco Institute. (Complete list at Appendix E) The hearing which was held from 10 a.m. to 7 p.m., produced more than 400 pages of testimony. The Committee is indebted to many who contributed to its work, and is particu- larly grateful to Basil Henderson, Staff Director, Rick Cotton, Counsel, and staff members, Robert Gage, Crystal Harris and Mary Giraldi for their efforts in organiz- ing the Committee hearings and preparing this report. C. Summary of Committee Findings 1, The Committee finds that second- hand tobacco smoke poses a significant health hazard. Testimony from the current Surgeon General of the United States, four former U.S. Surgeons General and other medical experts established this central fact beyond doubt. At the request of the New York City Health Department, an expert from the U.S. Center for Disease. Control conducted a review of the relevant litera- ture. That review also concluded that second-hand tobacco smoke poses a signifi- cant health hazard to those forced to breathe it. None of the testimony re- ceived by the Committee challenged this conclusion except that of two witnesses -- neither of whom were physicians -- appear- ing at the request of the Tobacco Insti- tute. Today we can make the following statement without qualification: the best medical and scientific thinking available in the United States and the world has determined that involuntary smoking is associated with lung cancer, heart dis- ease, bronchitis, pneumonia, and asthma. Infants and children are especially vul- nerable. Eighty-five percent of the smoke found in a room with cigarette smokers is sidestream smoke which contains the same 4,000 constituents and the same carcino- gens found in smoke directly inhaled, often in much higher concentrations. The tobacco-smoke-caused lung cancer risk to the non-smoking office worker appears to be 250 to 1,000 times the level of accept- able risk using standard federal guide- lines for carcinogens in air or water or food. In the words of Surgeon General Koop, "there is all the medical evidence neces- sary to support reasonable and sensible protection for the nonsmoker against the irritation and potential harm that comes from other people's smoke." 2. The Committee finds that, because second-hand tobacco smoke is a public health hazard, legislation is required to minimize the public's exposure to it. The need for legislation to protect the health of nonsmokers rests on one undeniable fact: while it is possible to read alone or eat alone in a room when someone else is present, it is not possi- 3 4 evidence of the health hazards of second- t' hand smoke, the Committee believes that S non-smoking bowlers are entitled to the s same protections as other nonsmokers, s s 2. Economic Effects of Imple- mentation L a. Overview and Summar t The testimony of many witnesses, including Sister Mary Madonna Ashton, the Health Commissioner of Minnesota; Stanton Glantz, President, Americans for Nonsmok- ers' Rights; Robert Niebling, Deputy Health Commissioner of Nassau County; and Marvin Kristein, Professor of Economics, indicated that the direct costs of imple- menting the bill were likely to be negli- gible and that the legislation could pro- duce significant economic benefits to government and business, A number of other witnesses and commenters, including the Business Council of New York State, the Committee for Common Courtesy (which testified at the request of the Tobacco Institute) and a consultant (who also testified at the request of the Tobacco Institute) suggested that the proposed legislation would have a negative economic impact. The Committee finds that there is evidence that substantial savings could occur from the adoption of smoking pollu- tion legislation. Based on Professor Kristein's estimates, the effects of sec- ond-hand smoke on nonsmokers in the work- place costs New York City employers hun- dreds of millions of dollars a year. This includes productivity losses and increased absenteeism, worker's compensation and accidents. The Committee concludes that the protection of nonsmokers from second- hand smoke could result in savings of at least $100 million per year. Additional savings will be realized to the extent that smokers smoke less, Professor Kristein testified that the average smoker costs the average business $900 a year more than the average non- smoker, because of increased health care costs, greater absenteeism, excess fire losses, more accidents, lower productiv- ity, increased cleaning costs and prema- ture disability and death. Johnson & Johnson's employee health promotion plan, which includes a large smoking cessation component, has reduced health care costs by one-third and absenteeism by 20 per- cent. To the extent that smokers are encouraged to quit or that their smoking is reduced, employers can expect reduced costs of doing business. There are further potential economic gains from increased patronage of restau- rants, theaters and other public places by nonsmokers who previously stayed home because of the lack of smoke-free space. Although a number of claims were made that passage of the legislation would result in increased costs and decreased productiv- ity, the Committee found the arguments unpersuasive and found no evidence that any other city had experienced economic losses as a result of adopting smoking restrictions. 51 52 In summary, the Committee finds that, at a minimum, the proposed legislation will have no impact on the economy, and that there are good reasons to expect that New York City's economy will benefit sig- nificantly, The various potential factors affect- ing costs and savings are described in more detail below, b. Revenues In an effort to determine whether businesses in cities and states with lim- its on smoking have experienced revenue gains or losses, Committee staff reviewed the literature on the effects of laws imposing smoking restrictions and also contacted a wide range of business, gov- ernment and trade association officials in Nassau and Suffolk counties, Minnesota, San Francisco, San Diego, and Sacramento. Not one of the officials contacted by the Committee's staff reported that an individual business had lost revenues as a result of smoking regulation or knew of any adverse impact on the local economy as a wholee The staff's review of the avail- able literature on the economic impact of such laws similarly found no instances of lost revenue. To the contrary, there is evidence that smoking causes lost revenues, and that non-smoking restrictions increase revenuesa A Gallup Poll has found that 47 percent of those surveyed reported not eating out more often because of smoking 53 in restaurants.32 Palo Alto, California, reports that, after mandating non-smoking sections in restaurant, restaurants there experienced increased patronage from out- of-town diners seeking smoke-free space.. 33 Restaurants, theaters and other places of public entertainment may find many New Yorkers who have been staying home to avoid smoke becoming more frequent custom- ers, A Vice President of the San Diego Chamber of Commerce told Committee staff that if any industry group or large or medium business had objections to the San Diego ordinance, they would call the Cham- ber, In fact, according to the official, no one has called.to complain. The Minne- sota Restaurant Association now favors the Minnesota law which has required restau- rants to set aside smoke-free space for nonsmokers since 1980. According to the Association, although restaurants origi- nally opposed the law, it is now a "non- issue," The Association reports that implementation costs have been minimal. Chambers of Commerce in Suffolk and Nassau counties reported no negative comments about the laws in their areas. The San Francisco Chamber of Commerce reported no information on any loss of revenues. The Hotel Association of New York City and the New York Chamber of Commerce and Industry expressed concern that jobs and revenues might be lost as a result of the proposed legislation, but provided the Committee with no evidence to substantiate their concern. A Tobacco Institute wit- ness submitted testimony estimating that 54 3o The Committee finds that measures to reduce exposure to second-hand smoke have been successfully adopted in cities and states around the countrye One hundred and fifty cities and 36 states, including New York, have laws that in some way limit smoking in public places. Ten states now restrict smoking in the workplace.6 The Health Commissioner of Minnesota and the Deputy Health Commissioner of Nassau County--where laws similar to that proposed by Mayor Koch are in effect--testified that laws limiting smok- ing to designated areas have been imple- mented in businesses, restaurants, sports arenas and other public areas without substantial problems and with broad public acceptance. Testimony and other informa- tion received by the Committee regarding the experience of major cities such as San Francisco, Los Angeles and San Diego indi- cates that restrictions on smoking in the workplace and other areas have gone into effect easily and with no adverse economic impact. The cost of direct smoking in New York City is $2.5 billion per year. The economic costs of second-hand smoking have been estimated to be 20 percent of the costs of direct smoking; if they are only half of that, passage of the proposed legislation could save S250 million a year. "fie e ~. eb ~owo of uai 75 south Frontage road vail, Colorado 81657 (303) 479-2116 MEMORANDUM TOo Ron Phillips _~~~ FROM: Steve Barwick DATE: October 4, 1989 RE: "Point of Sale" Sales Tax The purpose of this memo is to summarize Town staff°s investigation into the possibility of adding "point of sale" collections to Vail's sales tax ordinance. The potential for additional sales tax collections occurs due to the fact that Colorado is a "point of delivery" sales tax state. That is, sales tax on retail goods is charged in the locality where the "ultimate consumer1° takes possession of the item. Therefore, Vail sales tax is not collected on retail items shipped out of town or out of state. In Vail, the categories of retail operations which largest dollar amount of goods are jewelry stores galleries, ski and sport shops, and retail clothing estimated annual dollar sales tax loss from each of areas is as follows: Galleries $250,000 Jewelry Stores 156,000 Fur Shops 134,000 Ski and Sport Shops 44,000 Retail Clothing _16,000 ship out the fur shops, stores. The these retail TOTAL $600,000 SALES TAX MEMO OCTOBER 4, 1989 PAGE 2 Two different methods for increasing Vail sales tax receipts through "point of sale" legislation are possible: Method 1) enact a "point of sale" section in Vail's sales tax ordinance; or Method 2) wait for federal legislation which will address any interstate sales. METHOD 1 To date, the only Colorado municipality which has adopted a "point of sale" ordinance is Montrose. Montrose quickly repealed their charge due to local opposition. To our knowledge, there has never been a court ruling in Colorado on the legality of a "point of sales" sales tax. However, logic dictates that a community's sales tax must be based either upon "point of sale" or "point of delivery". An attempt to collect on both types of sales would inevitably lead to cases of double taxation for the consumer. For this reason, it is the opinion of Town staff that a change in the Town's sales tax ordinance to "point of sale" would also mean a change away from our current "point of delivery" status. Since the Town currently collects approximately $850,000 from deliveries into Vail (mostly from utility companies) and only $600,000 would be generated by "point of sale" legislation, the net result would be a $250,000 loss for the Town. The advantages and disadvantages of this type of legislation are as follows: ADVANTAGES - None DISADVANTAGES o Would result in a decrease in sales tax receipts of approximately $250,000 per year. o May decrease sales due to higher cost to consumer. o May contribute to the desire by some state legislators to remove Home Rule tax prerogatives. o Will probably be in conflict with future federal legislation (see Method 2). d SALES TAX MEMO OCTOBER 4, 1989 PAGE 3 o May lead to similar actions by other Colorado municipalities. This would cause a major reallocation of sales tax receipts among jurisdictions. o Would create additional tax collection complications for regional businesses. o Creates incentive for businesses to relocate outside of Vail. METHOD 2 Federal legislation (H.R. 1242) which deals with sales tax collections on interstate retail sales was introduced and discussed in 1988 and again in 1989. This legislation would: 1. require sales tax to be collected on all interstate retail sales 2. base all such collections upon the averacte retail sales tax rate in the destination state 3. have a formula for distribution of resulting receipts to local governments 4. raise an estimated $50,000-$100,000 of additional revenue for Vail ADVANTAGES o Vail remains consistent with Colorado's "point of delivery" policies. DISADVANTAGES o Must wait for enaction of federal legislation. 1 .. + SALES TAX MEMO OCTOBER 4, 1989 PAGE 4 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Colorado's current "point of delivery" sales tax system is less than perfect. The opportunity for consumers to avoid local sales tax by shipping retail goods out of town limits is a serious flaw. The monetary effect of this flaw is quite significant in towns such as Vail in which a large percentage of retail sales are made to non-locals. Despite this problem, staff recommends that the Town of Vail not enact "point of sale" legislation. The probable lawsuits and loss of revenue from such legislation will create a case where the cure is more troublesome than the original problem. Staff does recommend that a letter supporting federal legislation which deals with interstate sales tax collections be drafted and sent to all of Colorado's congressional delegation. SHB/ds Planning and Environmental Commission October 9, 1989 2:15 Site visits 3:00 Public Hearing 1. Approval of June 12, 1989 and July 24, 1989 minutes. 1 2. A request for a height variance in the Commercial Service Center zone district in order to add a dormer to the Crossroads Building, Parcel B, Portion of Lot P, Block 5-D and Tract C, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: JRC Partners, Ltd. Tabled to 3. A request for an amendment to the Doubletree October 23 Special Development District #14, Lot 2, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Second Filing, in order to allow amendments in density and common area allocations. Applicant: Vail Holdings 2 4. Slifer Building - Worksession only: Exterior alteration and site coverage variance, Lot B, Block 5, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Slifer Designs 5. A discussion of ingress/egress and a joint access proposal, Vail Professional Building and Cascade Crossing, 1031 South Frontage Road West. 6. Vail Village Inn amendment to SDD/BSC Inc.: review of previous PEC recommendation on Sept. 25 7. Worksession on amendments to SDD #14, Doubletree Hotel. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD AGENDA OCTOBER 4, 1989 2030 P.M. SITE VISITS 12°30 P.M. 8 1. Riva Ridge South, New Entry, Elevator Tower Lot 7, Block 6, Vail Village 1st Filling KP MOTIONo Jamie M. SECONDo Kathy W. VOTE: 3-0 Consent approval. 13 2. Pinos del Norte - Remodel 9 Units in Building C Northwoods Condominiums Kp MOTION: Jamie M. SECONDe Kathy W. VOTE: 3-0 Consent approval. 11 3. Club Majiks - New Dinner Theatre Kp Crossroads at Vail Lot P, Block 5-2, Tract C, Vail Village 1st MOTION: Kathy W, SECOND: Jamie M. VOTE: 3-0 Approved with conditions. 5 4. Enzian Sky Lights Rp 705 West Lionshead Circle MOTIONt Jamie M. SECOND: Kathy W. VOTEe 3-0 Consent approval. F ~~ 7 5. Lion's Square Lodge Signage RP 660 Lionshead Place MOTION: Jamie M. SECOND: Kathy W. VOTE: 3-0 Consent approval. 10 6. American Angler RP Wall Street Building MOTION: Jamie M. SECOND: Kathy W. VOTE: 3-0 Approved without awning and Signage. Ceiling tiles must be repainted. 3 7. West Vail Mall Sign Variance RP MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: TABLED TO OCTOBER 18TH MEETING. 6 8. Banner Sports Awning RP Lift House Lodge - 561 Lionshead Mall MOTION: Jamie M. SECOND: Kathy W. VOTE: 3-0 Consent approval. 2 9. Jackalope Sign RP West Vail Mall MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: TABLED TO OCTOBER 18TH MEETING. A 1 10. Safeway - Color Change BR 2131 North Frontage Road West MOTION: Kathy W. SECOND: Jamie M. VOTE: 3-0 Approved with change in color of spaces between roof and beams. 15 11. Racquet Club Trash Dumpster BR East Vail MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: 4 12. 7-Eleven Paint Change BR MOTION: Jamie M. SECOND: Kathy W. VOTE: 3-0 Consent approval. 12 13. Sonnenalp Hotel - Replacement of Tool Shed BR Tract C, V.V. 1st, 242 E. Meadow Drive (Final) MOTION: Kathy W. SECOND: Jamie M. VOTE: 3-0 Approved. 14 14. Messenbaugh Addition to Residence BR Lot 5, Vail Village 10th Filing MOTION: Jamie M. SECOND: Kathy W. VOTE: 3-0 Consent approval. x- .._ '4 9 15. Slifer Building Exterior Alteration (100 s.f.) Lot B, Block 5, V.V. 1st (Conceptual Only) BR MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: NO VOTE 16. Mouw Residence color change Lot 6, Vail Meadows lst MOTION: Jamie M. SECOND: Kathy Warren abstained. submitted. MEMBERS PRESENT: Ned Gwathmey Jamie McCluskie Kathy Warren (PEC) STAFF APPROVALS: KP Ned G. VOTE: 2-0-1 Color change approval as MEMBERS ABSENT' Roy Sante Pat Herrington Diones Re-paint / 1624 Vail Valley Drive #26 Rechter Driveway Amendments / L5, B4, Bighorn 5th Lapin Color Change / L7, Vail Village 2nd Hill Deck Repair / 4205 Columbine Drive Hicks Wall Replacement / L25, B7, Vail Village 1st Schweinsberg Re-Roof / 2754 South Frontage Road Mountain Haus Re-paint Balconies Osborn Resid. Split Rail Fence / L13, B1, Vail Village 1st WORK SESSION FOLLOW-UP r. UESTIONS FOLLOW-UP SOLUTIO 10/06/89 Page 1 8/1 BANNERS IN THE VILLAGE (request: Slevin) 8/1 STREET ENTERTAINMENT 8/8 TIVOLI LANDSCAPING 8/8 UTILITIES UNDERGROUNDING FOR ARTERIAL BUSINESS DISTRICT 8/8 WEST INTERMOUNTAIN ANNEXATION (request: Lapin) 8/8 POST OFFICE BUILDING REMODEL/ACCESS 8/15 UVCWD/TOV LAND CONTRACT 8/15 POINT OF SALES TAX COLLECTION (request: Lapin) 8/15 NO SMOKING ORDINANCE/RESTAURANTS PETER: Arrange location and placement of permanent banner poles at any location other than Pepi's. PAM: No more rock 'n roll. Perhaps no more jazz? PETER: What is the status? KRISTAN: Provide costs to individuals to convert to underground. Provide firm number for TOV's portion by budget time. Inventory all above- ground wiring. LARRY: Provide more enforcement power to Holy Cross to require undergrounding. LARRY: Proceeding w/legal requirements for annexation. STAN: Redesign access w/CDOH as relates to remodel. IRON: Contract in final stages of negotiation. 'iCHARLIE/STEVE B.: Schedule discussion. RON/SUSAN: Schedule for WS. Compile stats on success/compliance/problems with towns currently under such an ordinance. 8/7 Have asked Ampersand for design for Lionshead east entry. Will explore with Ampersand alternative banner pole locations in Village. Review meeting held September 20. Business survey being developed. Will be ready 10/31 for distribution. CD will continue to push issue. Betsy is working with Bob Lazier. He is inching along. Received letter from New Electric detailing costs for each property. Community Development will write letters to property owners for their response. Council will discuss an Oct. 17. Prepared memo for Town Council on utility wire under- grounding. Holy Cross has provided additional information. Annexation map is being produced. Annexation should be completed by Jan. 1st so Intermountain can be included in our census count. When space needs are determined, access redesign will be done. Larry and Jim Collins are working on contract. Will be addressed on Oct. 10. ,Research underway. A synopsis of what other municipalities have done is being prepared. Susan has contacted Aspen & i, Telluride, and has their ordinances. She will be contact- ing businesses in these communities to find out pros and cons. The No Smoking Group is responsible for developing their request to Council. Susan plans to make her report to Council on Oct. 10th. TOPIC 8/25 CASCADE VILLAGE LIGHT 8/25 UAIL VILLAGE INN TRIANGLE 8/29 UTRC HANDRAILS (request: Slevin) 8/29 SIGN NEAR SKI MUSEUM (request: Lapin and Cathy Douglas) 8/29 HIGHWAY RESEEDING OF FILL AREAS (request: Steinberg) 8/29 WILLOW CIRCLE LANDSCAPING (request: Steinberg) 9/5 GATEWAY PROJECT SIGNAGE 9/5 DOG CONTROL (request: Steinberg) 9/5 AVON STOLPORT (request: Lapin) WORK SESSION FOLLOW-UP IONS 10/06/89 Page 2 FOLLOW-UP SOLUTIONS STAN: Light missing at the intersection of West- haven and South Frontage Road. PETER: Landscaping inappropriate. STAN: John and Ron feel they are in terrible shape. Handrails are going to be treated or in some way fixed before winter. STAN: Some type of dead end indication sign needs to be placed on Uail Road as you are approaching the Ski Museum from the north indicating that a that a right turn is a dead end. STAN: Could wildflower seed be mixed with grass seed and the reseeding program for all the fill areas along the Interstate. STAN: Please contact Joan Whittenburg concerning improvements in Willow Circle. PETER: Developer wishes to place explanatory sign, although he does not have a building permit. ICK/PETER/STAN: Better signage required. N/CHARLIE: Consider long-range impact on Vail. Peter has sent Andy a letter asking if he'll pay us to put one in. Rick will follow up. IJoe Staufer has agreed to concrete triangle this fall. (Cost estimates received. Replacements ordered. Will be installed before winter. ii Sign ordered to say "No Through Traffic" with arrow to the right. Installation approximately 10/15/89. Contacted CDOH landscaper in Grand Junction, and revege- tation plan was requested. Presented Council's request to him.. CDOH has all information on wildflower seeding under consideration. .Stan tried to call Joan three times. Letter sent to Joan in Kentucky. AMOCO has been contacted re: placement of sign stating some- thing similar to "Pardon my dust." CD will follow up. Ampersand to design amore aesthetic sign and placement at entrance of Ford Park Lower Bench, as well as parks/paths/ I etc. Committee appointed to continue talking to Continental Express (Merv, Mike, and Ron). 9/5 RUDER-REINEKE BUSINESS LICENSE PETER/DANI: Are they operating illegally in East Community Development investigation of zoning matters in (request: Cacioppo) Vail? process. Letter sent to Ruder, and he has responded. Being reviewed by Larry and CD. P WORK SESSION FOLLOW-UP 10/06/89 Page 3 TOPIC UESTIONS FOLLOW-UP SOLUTIONS 9/5 CALL UP PROCEDURE FOR PEC AND LARRY/PETER: Work out wording to disallow the call Resolution is being developed. DRB DECISIONS (request: Steinberg) up procedure for PEC and DRB decisions to be allowed without consensus. 9/12 MARK SPEED DIPS (request: Cacioppo) 9/19 TREE CUTTING ON STREAMTRACT (request: Steinberg) KEN/STAN: Should more warning signs and some sort of yellow lines be used to alert drivers? PETER/KEN: Sonnenalp and Village Center cutting down trees on streamtract adjacent to their property. All speed dips are signed appropriately. Interdepartmental will discuss striping. Pete Burnett and Matt Hecker (PD) took pictures, and Matt is doing a police report. PD, CD, and Larry will decide appropriate action. RETT Revised: 10/ 3/1989 TOWN OF VAIL REAL ESTATE TRANSFER TAX History and Budget 1989 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 ; 1989 1989 BUDGET MONTH ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL ; BUDGET ACTUAL - VARIANCE -------- --------- January -------- 63,999 ----------- 98,089 ---------- 106,981 ----------- 119,972 ----------- 78,053 ----------- 80,733 ----------- 101,374 ---------- 131,916 ------------- 96,119 ; ---------- 84,193 ------------ 309,233 ~ 225,040 February 40,595 69,018 105,024 132,220 86,289 170,052 64,906 44,040 109,873 75,549 140,192 64,643 March 69,886 126,935 109,533 137,820 62,693 63,831 92,557 38,791 68,104 73,345 145,957 72,612 April 76,855 94,653 65,900 103,526 173,321 90,396 182,743 95,554 179,671 100,585 151,070 50,485 May 42,738 84,324 54,663 90,599 96,006 228,673 98,651 120,984 99,736 79,700 220,299 140,599 June 62,239 125,433 54,488 140,638 76,467 49,513 79,915 73,509 101>364 ; 70,858 122,466 51,608 July 49,367 186,110 104,262 68,539 157,598 88,528 70,441 47,949 126,537 82,209 125,675 43,466 August 79,859 115,499 71,282 97,806 58,937 32,860 100,182 61,137 109,315 71,489 86,466 14,977 Septembr -------- 59,800 ------ 113,992 - 49,332 96,746 64,671 48,516 108,167 78,819 116,557 ; 70,625 -- ---- 143,306 ------------ 72,681 --------- - Subtotal --------- -- 545,338 -------- - --------- 1,014,053 ----------- ---------- 721,465 ----- - ----------- 987,866 - ----------- 854,035 ----------- 853,102 ----------- 898,936 ---------- 692,699 ------------- 1,007,276 ; - -------- --- - 708,553 ---------- 1,444,664 ------------ 736,111 --------- C>ctober 108,510 154,000 --- - 42,498 --- ------- 122,546 ----------- 88,732 ----------- 109,633 ----------- 93,860 ---------- 124,291 - --- 177,360 99,052 November 102,623 107,768 81,698 91,385 105,109 74,909 89,047 114,839 241,888 ; 85,570 December 142,662 133,867 110,911 56,533 81,890 333,139 106,695 95,495 192,947 106,824 TOTAL 899,133 1,409,688 956,572 1,258,330 1,129,766 1,370,783 1,188,538 1,027,324 1,619,471 1,000,000 1,444,664 736,111 Includes $133,000 of delinquent taxes, penalty, and interest. DISTRIBUTION LIST - PUBLIC WORKS PRIORITY LIST BRIAN ANDERSON STEVE WARWICK PETE BURNETT DICK DURAN CAROLINE FISHER ANNIE FOX JOHN GALLEGOS PETER PATTEN FILE ERNST GLATZLE SKIP GORDON GREG HALL SUSIE HERVERT JIM HOZA KEN HUGHEY JOE KOCHERA HANK LOVATO CINDY VAN HOOSE- SORENSEN TOWN COUNCIL GARY MURRAIN JOE NORRIS MIKE ROSE TODD SCHOLL LEO VASQUEZ CHARLIE WICK PAT DODSON MEMORANDUM TO: RON PHILLIPS, TOWN MANAGER FROM: STAN BERRYMAN, DIRECTOR, PUBLIC WORKS/TRANSPORTATION~~ DATE: OCTOBER 2, 1989 RE: PUBLIC WORKS PRIORITY LIST FOR THE WEEK OF OCTOBER 2 - 6, 1989 TOWN COUNCIL 1. Install °°No Thru Traffic°° sign before the Ski Museum to indicate no thru traffic. STREETS AND ROADS A. B. 1. Order new signs for Ford Park Snow Dump. 2. Install the following signage: a. 00Caution°° sign on Cascade Village bike path before path crosses Westhaven Drive. 3. Install large rocks to block Donovan Park access. 4. Cleanup shop complex. 5. Construct East Vail Bike Path shoulders. 6. Fill planters with dirt at following locations: a. Antlers Planter b. Vorlaufer Planter c. Mountain Haus Planter 7. Conrad to install heating system in new bus wash and fueling facility (PW shop area). 8. Construct bus pull-off area at West Vail Mall. 1. Repair brick pavers at Checkpoint Charlie. 2. Perform patching repair at LHTRC. 3. Install grease reel at PW Bay. 4. Install curb & gutter at E. Lionshead Circle west of LTRC. 5. Implement bus stop improvements at the following locations: a. Circle K (south side)' b. Ford Park 6. Construct sidewalk from Gold Peak to Ford Park. PUBLIC WORKS PRIORITY LIST PAGE 2 STREET AND ROADS (Cont°d) B. 7. Relocate planter at Ford Park tennis courts for VMRD. 8. Utilize loader to straighten trees on berm at Shop. 9. Remove benches and other furniture from Lionshead Mall. 10. Remove bike path curb stops. 11. Perform grading and landscaping at Lower Bench Bighorn Park and sod around restrooms. 12. Install gasline trench at EV Fire Station for radiant heating system. 13. Install BONovember°P parking signs at various locationse a. Sunburst Turnaround b. Aspen Lane 14. Install 01Hidden Driveway°f signs on bike path (east and west) at Glen Lyon Office Building. C. 1. Dismantle Golden Peak volleyball courts. PARKING STRUCTURE A. 1. Install fresh air supply to PD Dispatch Room. 2. Install vestibule at LTRC Auxiliary Building 3. Demo Hertz°s office.- 3rd floor VTRC. 4. Install replacement wooden handrails for VTRC when they arrive. B. 1. Install weatherstrip around Recreation Department office. CARPENTERS A. 1. Design new bus shelter as replacement for old ones. 2. Repair bus shelter at Vail Mountain School. 3. Construct playground equipment for Bighorn Park. B. 1. Construct bus stop posts and recreational path signs pending DRB approval. 2. Construct cover for Sandstone Park slide. 3. Build shelf at Library. 4. Build plant stand for Library. 5. Sandblast signs ,for VTRC. 6. Install glass in the west side of the Inn at Vail bus stop shelter (behind Inn at Vail). PUBLIC WORKS PRIORITY LIST PAGE 3 ELECTRICIANS A. 1. Add new meters & disconnects at various locationse a. Bald Mountain Road 2. Correct fire alarm violatins in Gymnastics Center. 3. Install new 3 phase panel with 100 amp main and 24 circuits at Seibert Circle. 4. Relocate west gate at Ice Arena (move farther west). 5. Run wire for Bighorn Park. 6. Relocate pedestrian crossing light at Municipal Building. 7. Repair street light on Bald Mountain Road. 8. Repair lights at Teen Center. 9. Order disconnects for new bus wash facility hotsy. 10. Obtain line locations for Ford Park tennis courts. 11. Install underground conduit for Ford Park. 12. Clean up electrical shop. 13. Repair light in PW Admin. Building. B. 1. Install additional lighting at lst level entrance ski storage. 2. Install new hotsy in PW shop. 3. Perform various electrical work at Ice Arenae a. Install new wire moulding and switch in managers office. b. Move low voltage light switches from office to zamboni room. c. Move welding plug to new location and add plug-in strip. d. Research information on plug-in strip (sockets) for special event power. e. Add flourescent light fixture in boiler area. f. Replace 2 ballasts in locker rooms. g. Change EM light ballasts. h. Add outlets in Dennis°s new office. 4. Repair outlet near little copier at Municipal Building - see Tracy. 5. Install electrical outlet for printer at Rec Department. 6. Install power for Mountain Haus trees. 7. Perform maintenance jobs at Librarye a. Unhook stove in Community Room b. Change several ballasts 8. Contact Annie at Library for various electrical repairs. (see memo) 9. Add lights at LH Charter Bus Lot. 10. Install power supply for Bus Wash Facility. 11. Check exhaust fans at both structures. 12. Shut down fountains as weather dictates. .5 PUBLIC WORKS PRIORITY LIST PAGE 4 IRRIGATION A. 1. Spray East Vail Bike Path. 2. Drain all irrigation systems, drinking fountains as weather dictates. 3, Install loops at LHTRC entrances and exits. SB/slh r s aD OAT e ~ UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT FRAR]K DEFALCO, Plaintiff-Appellant/ Cross-Appellee ve TOWN OF ~7AIL, et al o , Defendant-Appellees/ Cross-Appellantso Lla~ited Scates Court of Appeals Tench Cir~,~- 0 CT 2 1989 ~~BERZ° L. HOEC~~ Clerk Noe 88-1295 88-1381 (Deco Noe 86-K-903) (Disto of Colorado) ORDER AND JUDGAIENT* Before SEYAIOUR and HARRETT, Circuit Judges, and WEST*, District Judged *Honorable Lee Ro West, United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, sitting by designationo After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeals See Fedo Re App. Pe 34(a); 10th Cire Re 34,1°9° The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral arguments *This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppelo 10th Ciro Ro 36o3e i Appellant Frank DeFalco brought suit against the town of Vail and various officials of the Vail Police Department alleging he was dismissed from his position as a police officer without due process of law. The district court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment, but denied their motion for attorney fees. We affirm. We also deny defendants' motion for fees on this appeal. We have reviewed the record and the briefs in this case, and we substantially agree with the trial court's memorandum opinion of February 5, 1988. Although DeFalco did not receive a full scale hearing until after his termination became effective, he was informed of the grounds for his dismissal by his superiors and was given an opportunity to respond. Indeed, DeFalco was permitted to and did respond to each of the series of negative employment evaluations which ultimately resulted in his dismissal. Subsequent to his termination, DeFalco had a six-day hearing in which he was represented by counsel, and permitted to present evidence and cross-examine witnesses. 62;~.~re a rJblic employer provides a full post-termination hearing, the due process clause does not mandate a full scale pre-termination hearing. It merely entitles the employee to "oral or written notice of the charges against him, an explanation of the employer's evidence, and an opportunity to present his side of the story." Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 770 U.S. 532, 546 (1985); see also Seibert v. State, 867 F.2d 591 (10th Cir. -2- 0 ' 1981). °°Federal courts do not sit to second guess state decisions on the merits of a discharge decision, but only to ensure that employees are provided due process when the decision is made." Pitts v. Bd. of Educ., U.S.D. 305, 869 F.2d 555, 557 (10th Cir. 1989). Such process was provided here. We also conclude that the district court was correct in dismissing DeFalco's claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) because of the lack of any class-based animus. See Pitts, 869 F.2d at 557. Finally, we affirm the trial court's decision to deny attorneys fees, and we deny defendants' request for fees for the successful defense of this appeal. We are not persuaded that this case falls within that category of frivolous or vexatious cases in which attorneys fees are awarded to the prevailing party under 42 U.S.C. ~ 1988 and Fed. R. App. P. 38 and 39. The judgment of the district court is therefore AFFIRMED. _ Entered for the Court Stephanie K. Seymour Circuit Judge -3- MEP~ORAAT DUM TOo Ron Phillip FROl~e Ken Hughey, e DATEe October 6, SUBzTECTo Budget Clar anon Sergeants Office Furniture Per the request of Mike Cacioppo relating to a breakdown of the furniture for the Sergeants Office, I am providing the following informations The $2,500 will be spent as followse (1) Work station for two people $ 1,450 (2) °°Infills°° and additional panels 450 (3) Small conference table 250 (4) Bookshelf/cabinets 350 TOTAL $ 2,500 It should be noted that this office is shared by three sergeants and often has two or more people in it at the same time; i.e. it is a high use space. The furniture, therefore, is high quality relating to high use and is of the same type, color, etc. purchased for clerks, detectives, and crime prevention use. This was intentionally planned so as to accommodate future uses within the police department to mix and match various pieces from different offices for different uses. s, M ager C Polic 89 Should this issue require additional clarification, please advise me. .. `b VOL. 4, ti9O. 5 A PUBLICATION OF CLUB 20 SEPTEiiABER/OCTOBER 1989 o 0 o Talk ate~° Denver Mayor Federico Pena and members of the Denver Water Board got the annual CLUB 20 Fall Meeting off to a lively start on Saturday morning. Stressing the need for east/west communications and cooperation, Denver's mayor warned water inter- ests throughout the state they could face the same frustration as Denver if EPA is allowed to make water deci- sions that override local jurisdictions. Referring to the recent decision by the Environmental Protection Agency to proceed with the process to veto the Two Forks Project, Pena cautioned, whether you supported or opposed Two Forks, you should be worried about the federal veto pro- cess and how it is applied. Mayor Pena pledged his deter- mination to give personal attention to any east/west issues that arise. He expressed some frustration, however, at having to deal with multiple organizations when discuss- ing water matters. He urged Western Colorado to find one entity that could speak for all. Later reaction was that it was easier said than done since several water organizations carried statutory authority to represent a particular part of Western Colorado. Hubert Farbes, the articulate president of the Denver Water Board, followed up on the mayor's remarks about the Two Forks Pro- ject. Farbes, an attorney, was particularly distressed by the EPA's evaluation of the $40 million Environ- mental Impact Statement on Two Forks Project. Some of the EPA facts used to support the proposed veto were simply wrong, said Farbes. And the suggestion that ground- water and agriculture are viable .~_~_~ _ _ _ __ _ o- _ _ - .._~ r `~ _ i h_ ,, j ,. ~, ~~ ~ ~ ~.;. w ~- ~, ~-~ "-'e , .,_, ~ ~ :~,. _ ,,. ,,. ;.~ ~' .~~ ~ r ~`~ ~ ~ ' ~ .} S' ~ Y ~ . ~ .~ ~ ~ t :. ~ ~ ti, _ ~, r ~ ~ ti,~ alternative sources of domestic water should concern farmers and urban dwellers alike. The water panel, representing the four corners of Colorado, carried on the theme of the need for statewide cooperation in water matters. Tommy Thomson of Pueblo, Executive Director of the SE Colo- rado Water Conservancy District, pointed to southern California as an example of an area that has cooper- ating water agencies. He cited the Alliance for Colorado that existed in our state several years ago and was co-chaired by former Governor John Vanderhoof. We need something like that, said Thomson, to bring all the water interests of Colorado together. Bill Needham of Granby, Vice Chairman of the Colorado River Water Conservation District, made the point that continued growth in Denver was good for the economy of Western Colorado as well as the whole state. By the same token, he said, it is important to Denver to keep our Western Colorado streams wet. Needham took his turn in blasting the agencies that changed collective minds on the question of mitigation requirements for the pro- posed Muddy Creek Dam and reser- voir in Grand County. They cannot be trusted, said Needham. Larry Simpson of Loveland, Man- ager of the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District, returned to the issue that fall-out is to be expected if the Two Forks veto stands up. The multitude of water providers in the metropolitan area are starting to scramble in the searh for other sources of water and that is not good, according to Simpson. In too many cases, he told the crowd, the water interests simply do not know what they need nor how to get it. This could bring about confusion and even chaos in the water resource development field. Fred Kroeger of Durango, long- time board member of the SW Water Conservation District, reviewed the status of the principal water projects in the Four Corners area of the state: continued on page 3 .! . , CLUB 20 MEMRERS~IIP M®RE iMPORT~4fVT THAN EVER ~'°- ,. (, ~ .3 by Joe Prinster a~;Y Club 20 Chairman ~.~. ~~-, ~~ - ` '~; CLUB 20 has chalked up several impor- tant victories in recent months. After the Legislature reduced funding for the Gov- ernor's Economic Development Office, his closing of• the Western Slope office was a major setback for our members. We were able to convince the State that our small rural communities need this kind of assistance much more than the larger towns of the Front Range, and that the program simply can't work without a presence here on the Western Slope. By offering to help with the partner- shiparrangement needed to make it happen, CLUB 20 succeeded in getting this impor- tant office re-opened. When the Denver Convention and Visitors Bureau, operating the tourist information booth at the Colorado State Capitol, refused to distribute the literature of Western Slope communities unless they paid dues to the Denver group ... we moved quickly. Our Board's resolution insisting that all Colo- radans be allowed to use OUR building equally got a tremendous play in the news media, and has become one of the most talked-about CLUB 20 issues in recent years. The result: the Denver Convention and Visitors Bureau is now saying that the policy is different at the State Capitol, because it is State property. Our point exactly. biped comprise only 10% of our State's population), it is sometimes difficult for them to get the attention of decision makers. And therein lies the genius of the founders of CLUB 20. If we could all get together and agree on what to support, oppose, and ask for, there would be no stopping us, they reasoned. It's just as true today. During the last 37 years, I have often heard calls for unity between the East and West Slopes, from governors, mayors, senators, and other leaders. We support unity whenever possible, but let's face it ...there will always be issues on which our interests are not the same. On highways, agriculture, wilderness, water, and others, it is absolutely imperative that we stick together if we want our point of view to be heard. That doesn't mean our own communities always agree on everything. Quite the con- trary, our base is probably more varied (even divided) today than ever before. We try to stick to issues upon which we do agree, and let our individual counties fight their own battles on other issues. But there will never be a time when we don't have an occasional "us-against-them" issue, and we don't have much chance of winning on those, except by sticking together. That's why, if you are within reach of this column, your membership in CLUB 20 is so important. It's not just important to CLUB 20, and to all your fellows on the Western Slope ... it is potentially vital to you. CONGRESS9VIEN SPEAK Two U.S. Congressmen spoke at the Fall Meeting September 9. Joel Hefley, of the 5th Congressional District, addressed the luncheon and covered a wide range of topics. His talk ran the gamut from Two Forks to drugs to economic development to state tax policy. He talked about the savings and loan bailout, the President's new drug abuse initiatives, and a host of other current subjects. Congressman Hank Brown, of the 4th District, updated members on several current federal legislative matters and put in a special plug for his own legisla- tion to apply various laws to Congress ... laws from which Congress has exempted itself. He said lawmakers should never ask others to live under laws they aren't willing to obey themselves. Both Congressmen also addressed the pending wilderness proposals and expressed the view that Colorado's Senators must resolve their differences before legislation should be expected. These and other issues on which we are working are terrific testimonials to the power of sticking together. We now represent 22 counties, 133 incorporated towns, hundreds of businesses and individuals. And believe me: when a group of that size speaks with ONE unified voice, people pay attention. There is no other organization anywhere quite like CLUB 20 in that respect ... our members include governments, businesses and individuals. Since they are the govern- ments of small rural communities (all com- j ~, P Food & Pharmacy 37 friendly stores to serve you throughout Western Colorado, Utah, Wyoming and New Mexico. ZUe `ae ~rnoud ta- Pe a.~ ABC coc~x~rauy! everyday yl/e give you the newsy in Clut~ 20'territory. ~~.~ ~, ~~IidD/~ d'~$~d 8~~' *s .~ ~, f.. , 4 ~;r~ ~, `. ,..._... ~~} s~ , - ~ . _ - ~ ' ' . . , ' h o u { ~ ~ M ~ is ' ~~ .~--_. ~ _~ .: `,-`-tea \ ~ ~ ~ '~ - Bill Needham Fred Kroeger Tommy Thomson continued from page 1 the Animas-LaPlata and the Dolores. Fred made reference to the Indian Rights Settlement Act that cleared the way for initial funding of the Animas-LaPlata project approved by the current Congress. The Dolores Project is fully subscribed, said Kroeger, and the future benefits of that water supply are eagerly awaited. On the general subject of wilderness designation, Kroeger admitted to being a multiple use advocate and wondered how. much wilderness is enough. Larry Simpson The water session was concluded by Harold Miskel of Colorado Springs, representing the Colorado Water Congress. He gave his perspective on the wilderness pro- posals pending in Congress, and strongly opposed Senator Wirth's bill. Miskel said, once an area has been released by Congress for multiple use, it should never have to be renegotiated again. He advo- cates atough multiple-use stand and thinks protecting Colorado's 100-year old system of water rights should take priority over any further ., e. ~ ~ ,' ~ ~, ~L~~a ~ ~\ j Harold Miskel wilderness designations. Returning to the Denver visitors, it was a sign of the growing need for cooperation when two members of the Denver Water Board, Hubert Farbes and Romaine Pacheco, stayed for the entire day's program. Also on hand were four staff members from the Denver Water Department: General Manager Bill Miller and Executive Asistant Charlie Jordan; also Ed Pokorney and Betsy Clark. The new Director of the Colorado Tourism Board, Rich Meredith, traveled to Grand Junction September 9 to address the Fall Meeting of CLUB 20. He was named Executive Director earlier this year and many CLUB 20 members met him for the first time at the meeting. Meredith brought with him a thorough slide presentation outlining the budget, projects, and priorities of the State Tourism Board. He gave members an update on the astonishing success of the Welcome Centers the Board has created at Burlington, Trinidad, Fruita and Cortez. The number of visitors, he said, has far exceeded expectations, ~~ - ~~ ~_ ~ ,n~ ~: ~ ~ L "T~y d ,~?~~ j ~; .~'~ , ~ ~ ~d ~ n 5^j ~~~` ~ ~ ~ ~ W.., ~~ ~ ,.~ ~, ~ ~ ~ ~ K #~: € ,~ ~ E ,~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ` ~ ~ ' ~ h . Rich Meredi4h and can be hailed as a great success already. He was especially impressed with the large number of volunteers who are active at the centers. The Fruita Center alone, he pointed out, has over 70 volunteers who regularly give their time to answering the questions of drop- in tourists. The various projects of the Tourism Board, he said, have gone through a series of changes designed to achieve a uniform appearance. He showed photos of the Visitors Guide, the Tour Planning Guide, the State Map, and Events Calendar, all of which have the same logos and cover designs. He believes, and there seemed to be strong ,._ ~,~ ~~~ ~; ,~ ~~ .: ` ~~ ~~l1A k c 'i~ Susan Anderson agreement among CLUB 20 members, that uniformity in design helps accom- plish agreater awareness of Colorado and its materials among tourists who have seen these documents. He recog- nized that the Board still has changes to make in order to satisfy all the local areas concerned about certain aspects of the Travel Guide when it was first published, and said those changes are being made. But he strongly maintains that it is the best document of its kind published anywhere in the United States, even though most states spend far more money than Colorado on tourism promotion. ~ ~ ~' '~~ ~ *t, ~ - `' : ~~ .'~ t ~~~ F ~' ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~ ~ ~, ;a (~ ~~ ,~ ~ ~,. i s :~~~ "'~,v ai ~ . Gary Hickox i f- ~` f• ~`..- -T -~ f ~' ~ ~l _~~T~, ..r, l~ I ~~ ~ ~~,~ ~~ p~ _~ _ . ~, ~ ~ ~~~-~~ Joe Prinster l~'~ ~,:t, ~~ :~:_; 1 '~ ~, r"" ; (~ ';,,~ - ~ - ~~~~.~ __~; David Anderson G` - _ ~ = ,'1" s ~; , ~ F . t; t a ~ ~ i ~J 7, i ~~ ~ ,"'' t t ~~' Bill Cleary ~ ~-;~- - ~~ ~- t~, %'~ ^'~. ~ ,~ ~~ .~ ~~ ~ t '! ''{~ ~ ~ ;~ Max Krey r ~~ ,~ ~ ~ 'r, ~ t ' T ~ ~. ,~~~. . '~` John Hess '~,~'~N M r. ,~- Y. ~: t l ~q:~-l. ,rj ~ 6 ~,~ ~ 1 - f .a - r, ~,. ~~. Jasper Welch Greg Watcher The CLUB 20 Board of Directors had its semi- annual meeting Friday, September 8 at Grand Junc- tion, and covered a lot of ground. In addition to the standard fare of committee reports (which were anything but standard) and old business, the Board also passed three resolutions on current topics. Stan Broome and John Hess updated the Board on the activities of the Economic Development Com- mittee, which is serving as the advisory panel for the Governor's new Western Slope Economic Develop- ment Specialist, Neil Shurts. The Committee had held its first meeting earlier that day and developed criteria for helping monitor the progress of the new program. In addition, the group -which represents a broad cross section of the Western Slope -will stay in con- stant contact with Shurts and act as his contacts in the various communities in CLUB 20's territory. David Anderson reported from the newly formed Tourism Committee. He told of the initial meeting of the group August 3 in Redstone, and made it clear that the committee`s charge is to try to eliminate the duplication which currently plagues West Slope tourism efforts. Now that there are two travel regions, CLUB 20, three regional COGs and dozens of chambers all promoting tourism, it is more important than ever to make sure we're getting the most for the money, he said. Thus, the committee plans to have a proposal in about six months under which all entities can agree on whose role should be what in the tourism field. Bill Cleary gave the Natural Resources Committee report, with help from long-time member Max Krey. Bob Beverly and Ival Goslin, Chairman and Vice Chair- man of the group, were both called out of town on last minute business, but Cleary filled the bill ably, as he has done often before. He gave a thorough update on a number of areas, and described the process by which this committee is being re-organized. He believes there should be representatives from each of the different industry groups, as has been the case in the past, and feels that an active panel will be in full swing by the end of this year. Thus, CLUB 20 can stay in the forefront of leadership on issues of critical importance to our members. Stan Dodson reported on the Transportation Com- mittee's meeting in Glenwood Springs July 19, in which the importance of continued funding for critical Western Slope road problems was made clear to several legislators. He also brought along Assistant i _ ~M ~~ ti'~~~~=, ~~ ~ ~ ~; z ~ ~~ Stan Dodson ~;~.. w~ / `. . ~~,. District Engineer Lew Sturm, who gave a report on Highway Department plans, including a Glenwood Canyon update. The Board's day continued with unanimous adop- tion of three resolutions. The first endorsed President Gerald R. Ford's suggestion to President George Bush that the 1990 World Economic Summit be held in Vail/Beaver Creek. The second called upon the Colo- rado Public Utilities Commission to work closely with US West to provide some means of upgrading out- dated rural telephone switching equipment. The final resolution took issue with the Denver Convention and Visitors Bureau, which operates the tourist informa- tion booth at the Colorado State Capitol, for refusing to distribute literature from communities outside Denver. The latter resolution has already generated an enor- mous amount of attention in the news media, and it is an issue on which many State Legislators have already voiced agreement with CLUB 20. The Capitol building belongs to all Coloradans, and other facilities such as the new Denver Convention Center are often mentioned as items benefitting everyone (especially at bill time). So the resolution makes it clear that Western Slopers expect to receive those benefits, and CLUB 20 will continue to push for equal treatment in these areas. Finally, the Board heard presentations on several items of interest. Jerry Mallet, of Adventures Inter- national, explained his company's tourism promotion program which could be of interest to several com- munities. Cort Smith, of Penco, outlined a potential liability insurance program Western Slope counties could go together to purchase. He explained that the main advantage would be that premiums would be able to be kept in the local communities, rather than such funds leaving town. CLUB 20 will be following up with the member counties to determine the level of interest. Ron Williams, of Gary-Williams Oil Company, gave a report on the re-opening of the Western Slope Refin- ing Company's Fruita refinery, which uses crude pro- duced by Unocal at Parachute. And David Reed spoke briefly about the latest progress of Colorado Ute Elec- tric Company, a matter of great interest to nearly all members. In all, it was a busy day for the Board, and a productive one. ti ,~ ;~~ ,- ~-;.~ ~z , ~, ~, Attendees at the Fall Meeting of CLUB 20 heard a report on the new partnership arrangement under which the Governor's Western Slope Economic Development office has been re- opened. Fred Niehaus, Special Assistant to the Governor for Economic Development, came to Grand Junction to meet the Board of Directors and members of CLUB 20, and to outline the new program as it is shaping up. Niehaus explained. that the Western Slope Specialist would act as a liaison between smaller communities (which need help far worse than our larger towns with their own paid staff) and the Denver-based office. Dan Fitz- gerald will continue to serve the Wesern Slope on a full-time basis, he said, and Niehaus will continue to visit often, as will the Governor himself. But the pres- ence of a Western Slope office will provide communities with constant access which might be missing otherwise. Niehaus especially compli- mented CLUB 20 for its role in forging the partnership we now have. CLUB 20 provides office space for Neil Shurts, the new Western Slope Specialist, and perhaps most importantly pro- vides the Advisory Committee which will keep Shurts in touch with the communities in CLUB 20's territory, and offer a gauge of his success. Niehaus said, "This program allows us to effec- tively replace an individual with a network." He believes the pro- gram will work out better than ever. CLUB 20 also heard directly from Shurts, the former owner of KUBC Radio in Montrose. Shurts said he is excited about the task ahead and anxious to work with every community on their indi- vidual priorities. Committee Co-Chairman Stan Broome finished the economic development segment of the Fall Meeting with an update on the panel's initial meeting, which took place the day before in Grand Junction. He mentioned the top priorities of the group, which includes representatives from a wide range of professions and a strong cross-section of the Western Slope geographically. The panel does not plan regular extended meetings, Broome pointed out, but rather sees its members as individuals who will act as local advisors to Shurts during his trips around the area. Broome also said he believes that, by working together, we can ensure the success of this effort, and thereby make it easier for the Legislature to justify full-time funding of the West Slope posi- tion next time around. -J ~ T ~'w ~ _ .~_. ~, ~~ ~, ' ~ a r•~~ ~ ~ t }tip: -~~~ ~,~~ f ~ Y ~ ~ t ~,~ SI'~ . . l t = .~.. I ~- ~ ~ --- ..._ . ~ ~ F. i ~' ~,A-, 1...._~_ L.~;~_....,~, Dan Fitzgerald iVeil Shurts .- ,;~, rw ~~~.~'~ -~ -~ ~"~ ~ ~ t ~ -~ -- _.._ ~ ~;. ~'~,, ~ F L, ~'` ; 1 '~' ~: ~ +' ,~ ~',;. ,• fi'~ +~y~..~ `'~3 Stan Broome ~~~~ ~°® ~s~~r~ ~oope Sig~a~s ISSUE XVII Small business entrepreneurial activity has become the driving force of the economy in the western United States. That was the primary fact found during a two year survey of 800,000 businesses in a 14 state region (excluding Cali- fornia) by U S West Communications. Small businesses (defined as those having under 100 employees) comprise 93~/o of all business estab- lishments in the western states. Small businesses are creating jobs at two and a half times the rate of large businesses. Excluding start-ups and closures, existing small businesses created 70% of all jobs from December of 1987 to December of 1988. This issue of Western Slope Signals looks at a few of the surprising number of apparel manufacturers on the Western Slope. They are certainly examples of the vital part small busi- nesses are playing in western Colorado's economy. The rest of the issue looks at some developments in the two largest businesses on the Western Slope, tourism and agriculture. H.O.-In 1988, SPORT OBERMEYER, LTD., head- quartered in ASPEN, recorded $32.8 million in sales worldwide. The ski apparel manufacturer was founded in 1947 in Aspen by Austrian immi- grant Klaus Obermeyer. Obermeyer began design- ing ski wear in response to complaints of getting cold from his ski school students. The quilted parka, down vest, mirrored sun glasses and dual construction ski boots (insulated on the inside and rigid on the outside) were all developments attrib- uted to Obermeyer. The company still produces only ski wear and is the U. S. distributor for San- marco ski boots from Italy. None o/ the Obermeyer clothing is produced in Aspen. Public relations manager, Barbara Owen says, "Our garments are made all over the world, with the bulk of production in Hong Kong. "The company headquarters in Aspen employ 60 people primarily engaged in design, sales, marketing and support functions. "We are finding there is a need for more children's ski wear and will probably expand our line next year in response, "predicts Owen. Employee turnover is minimal. "Mr. Obermeyer has strived to created a noncorporate environment, where employees work hard because of personal. dedication rather than a manufactured sense of obligation, "says Owen. The Aspen offices include an indoor track and solar heated swimming pool which employees are encouraged to use. Season ski passes are another job benefit. Obermeyer's son, Wally is producing electrici- ty, though not with the charged up colors of the Obermeyer line. He recently installed two turbines at the Uallecito Lake Dam outside Bayfield. The site produces enough hydroelectricity for 5, D00 homes. The dam is owned by Ptarmigan Resources and Energy of Colorado Springs. LALLA -WESTERN SLOPE APPAREL will register S2 million in sales worldwide this year, predicts co-owner of the DOLORES business, Nena Lalla. The company, which produces "We l~c~lieve tlrctl ~~on dcr 1wt tvcrit urtlil ~~un ,i,~ct behiucl to pool- effort cutrl fiutcLs iluu c~cunotrric clevc~lopntcru. -~.T. Guumis Director, Ex};le Countp N:conomic Development Corporation garments worn by astronauts, among other things, expanded to 60 employees this year. Garments which had been sewn elsewhere are now being designed, cut and assembled in Dolores. Western Slope Apparel, formerly known as Tecnigard, was refinanced in the last year. Lalla said, "There are no advance payments on orders, but we still have to buy materials and pay employees. We sold a portion of our business to some East Coast investors. Local financiers do not understand the cash flow problems of a garment manufacturer." The Lallas have been in the clothing business together for more than 20 years in New Mexico and southwest Colorado. Ozzie Lalla does the designing, in keeping with a family tradition. His grandfather and father were also involved in clothing manufacturing. The majority of Lalla's designs are snapped up by corporations. Mr. Goodwrench jackets for General Motors, Budweiser jackets and team jackets for the likes of Richard Petty and his race team and basket- ball's Charlotte Hornets have been among past products. Western Slope Apparel has an exper- tise in protective outerwear for industry. As an example, the protective suits worn by workers at Three Mile Island nuclear power plant were designed by the Lallas. "We are thinking of adding a men's consumer line," said Ms. Lalla. The company has an adequate number of seamstresses. "We have found in the past that locating near an Indian reservation provides us with an excellent pool of skilled workers," said Nena. "But we have a dire need now for middle managers." BULA, BULA-FIJI WEAR, INC. in DURANGO now adds about $700, 000 a year to the local economy in salaries paid to 80 fulltime and part- time employees. Thai amount will increase to almost $1 million next year. "We are moving into a new 16,000 squre foot building that will allow us to double our production and increase our work force to 100 employees by December, `'states Chip White, chairman of the company board. "We are best known for our headbands and eyeglass retainers we call 'Bola', "continues White. "We make over 50 different products including jewelry and 'active wear' like shorts and embellished shirts. "The new building was the result of many com- munity entities coming together to help us, "says White. "The Durango Industrial Development Foundation allowed us to swap our old building for a site in Bodo Industrial Park. The First National Bank wens out on a limb and provided long term financing. The city, county, and state helped with utilities, coordination and access, " he continues. "We all live here and did not want to leave in order for our business to grow, "explains White. Fiji Wear was founded in 1984 by White and a few friends, Greg Bardin, John Goldsberg and Dick Andrews. None of the group had experience in apparel manufacturing, but thought that produc- ing shorts and accessories was a viable business idea. Finding skilled workers is an ongoing problem. The state will be providing $35,000 in training funds as part of the expansion. Fiji Wear products are marketed through ads in 17 magazines, in special company fliers and in numerous Colorado retail outlets. SOMETHING TO DO-"It costs us about $3,400 to train a person to adequately sew our garments," states Lorraine Vogel, president of the OSM Company in CORTEZ. ''That is why we hate to see a lot of turnover. Keeping workers is the biggest problem we have, although we are find- ing now that some workres who quit come back to work again when their personal situations change," she continues. QSM's 110 employees Jnake 1,500 to 2,000 outerwear garments a week. Included are parkas, vests and sweatsuits. The garments are made on a contract basis for many large catalogue companies like Eddie Bauer, Woolrich and Kelly Hansen. The only hint that the clothing was made in Cortez is a cut number on the garment's care label. Vogel notes it can get confusing to supply so many different customers. Two different companies shipped the same fleece to be used in a jacket. "We had to be careful to keep the materials separate," says Vogel. About three years ago, Vogel and a nephew were looking for something to do. "We got into the clothing business even though we had no experience because we felt it did not matter where you are located to do well and unemploy- ment is high in the Cortez area, which assured us a labor pool," states Vogel. Two employees with extensive backgrounds in clothing manufac- turing were hired. They provided the expertise and contacts needed to get OSM into the market- place. OSM is located in what was once an empty building on Main Street. The equipment was pur- chased with a Small Business Administration loan. The company began production two and a half years ago with 40 seamstresses. "Our sales have gone up 30% in the last year," says Vogel. "We want to try and specialize in certain garments in the future. All the design work and materials come from the companies we contract with, but the money we pay in salaries stays in this area. That amounts to $30,000 every two weeks," Vogel reports. ~lo~~ ~~t~~~ 0®~ ina~~ WIGGIE'S-"If we continue to grow at the present rate, we will be the largest manufacturer of sleep- ing bags retailing for more than $100 apiece in the free world, " states Jerry Wigutow, owner of WIGGIE'S, INC. in GRAND JUNCTION. In the last fiscal year, Wiggle's employees produced 35, 000 sleeping bags. The plant employs 17 workers now and plans to add five or six more seamstresses by the end of the year. "We are the most efficient factory in the United States making the finest sleep- ing bags in the world," Wigutow said. "We use an engineered insulation trademarked 'Lamilite' that we have patented for use in sleeping bags. Lamilite never loses its loft, "continues Wigutow. The company a/so produces insulated pants, booties, snowboots and other outer wear. Wiggle's items are sold to 500 retail operations, some with 100 or more stores all over the world. "We just got an order for 1, 000 bags from Israel, " comments Wigutow. Grand Junction was picked as a relocation site after a year's search. "I escaped from Columbia, South Carolina, "laughs Wigutow. He describes the labor force at his Grand Junction plant as hard working and dedicated, unlike the work force at his South Carolina operation. He has had no trouble attracting experienced workers. The Mesa County Economic Development Council paid for the move to Grand Junction. The plant was opened in what had been an empty building on September 1, 1988. Wigutow continues to get raw materials lrom the East Coast, where he feels the quality is best. Shipping charges to his major West Coast market have decreased with the move. "I would like to produce the insulation here too, " muses Wigutow, "but I do not have the cash for the machines. " WHO VISITS?-The COLORADO TOURISM BOARD currently spends in excess of $200,000 on marketing research, according to the Board's executive director, Rich Meredith. About $50,000 went for information about Colorado gathered by the Longwoods Research Group of Toronto, Canada. In the fall of 1985, the group conducted 9,000 in-depth interviews all over the United States in an effort to capsulize the U.S. pleasure travel market for the Canadian government. The information specific to Colorado has been used to shape the state's current advertising cam- paigns and marketing strategies. Vail has also used the information to great advantage. The Longwoods study contains some interesting figures. The most popular type of vacation is visiting friends and relatives. In the United States, 42% of the traveling public took trips for visitation. In Colorado, that number is 36%. Meredith feels a concerted effort must be made to entice these visitors to see and do more while they are in the state. "The best way is to educate Colorado residents about what is going on and available. We also hope to increase the number of visitor centers to eight," states Meredith. Colorado ranks as the 5th most popular tour- ing and outdoor recreation destination in the United States. Visitors who like to tour want to see many different sights, visit historical places and experience different ways of life as well as viewing spectacular scenery. Thirty percent of the touring public in the U.S. is over the age of 55. Touring visitors to the Mountain states are more likely to travel with children. Touring visitors com- prise 25% of Colorado's visitors, but they account for 40% of all the nights visitors spend in Colo- rado. Awhopping 90% of them come from June through September. Colorado suffers a weak image as a touring destination. The general public perceives Colorado as being primarily scenic mountains and lacking in variety, amenities and local culture. As a result, the primary emphasis of the Tourism Board's marketing is on the theme "much more than mountains." Outdoor enthusiasts make up 14% of the state's visitors. The study found that an ideal out- door destination offers four critical items: beauti- ful, unspoiled scenery; opportunity for real adven- ture; user friendly in that things are not too wild, undeveloped or hard to get to; and the destina- tion should provide the opportunity to relax in seclusion and privacy. While Colorado is per- ceived as a superb outdoor destination, Colorado is not seen as a good place for water sports, swimming and as having affordable accommodations. Colorado, according to the 1985 study, is the single most popular ski resort destination in the country and the second overall winter resort destination (Florida is first). However, Colorado ranked only 14th in the U.S. as a resort destina- tion from April to November. The study indicates Colorado's summer resort market is vastly underdeveloped. EAGLE SOARS-/n 1988, retail sales collections fell 22% in Colorado compared to 1987. However, in EAGLE COUNTY, sales tax revenues rose 24%. Those numbers should be much higher by the end of 1989, due primarily to the marketing of Vail, Avon and Beaver Creek as summer travel destinations. "Last year, we decided to improve the summer visitation, "says K. T. Guzunis, the Eagle County Economic Development Corporation Director. "We conducted focus groups on the Front Range and in Kansas City and Dallas to see how Vail is perceived. Using that and other information like figures from the Longwoods study, we came up with a marketing and advertising campaign that is hugely successful. "Guzunis comments further, "We wanted to be ab/e to measure our impact, so we were very selective about where we placed our ads. We are using sales tax revenues as a measure of our success. To make the results more indicative of the activity, we did not count the first 12% of any increase to take into account inflation and normal increases. " An enthusiastic Guzunis recited these figures, noting that all the percent increases are in com- parison to 1988, "Since we started our advertis- ing campaign, retail sales tax collections were up in Vail by 13.4% in June and 5.3% in July. Sales tax collections from lodging increased 41 % in June, 17.8% in July. "The figures for Avon are not available yet, but Guzunis says that the attendance at special events like the balloon festival and Fourth of July activities were the highest ever. The Vail Resort Association books rooms for the area with the aid of two toll free numbers. In July, the average number of calls a day had increased 66%, the number of bookings by 45%. In August, the numbers increased again: the average number of calls were up 68%, the bookings, 50%. Guzunis notes that the booking rate per phone inquiry is much higher than the average. The tremendous increase was prompted by a number of hotels in Vail and Beaver Creek lowering their room rate to $49 a night. "We were seen by focus groups as being aworld-class resort, but they also felt our prices were world-class, too. The use of phrases in our advertising such as 'the price of gold just went down' along with the lower room rate allowed us to successfully market our rooms and still retain an image of class, "believes Guzunis. In August, $184,130 was collected in lodging sales tax. That amount for 1988 was $131,653. "Even though the rooms were cheaper, we rented so many more that the overall return to the area was much greater than it would have been without the discounts, " reports Guzunis. Guzunis says they /ound that calls from the Front Range for information were steady after any special advertising, but only the first ads run in out- of-state markets got a good response. "We will probably do just one ad next year in many cities as a result of those findings, "says Guzunis. The 2.5 million potential customers on the Front Range were the primary market target this year. "We were only getting •weekend visitors from that area before, "observes Guzunis. "We have succeeded in turning many of them into overnight guests. " The Vail Resort Association has a budget of $555,500. Business licensing fees in Vail and Beaver Creek bring in $320,000; the bulk of the reamining funds are derived from lodging taxes. "A lot of people ask why a place like Vail is in need of economic development lunds when they are doing so well, "comments Guzunis. "We believe that you do not wait until you get behind to pour effort and funds into economic development. We will work to get what we can while things are going well. " BULL DURUM-Farmers in the GRAND VALLEY between Grand Junction and Fruita have found a good cash crop, DURUM WHEAT. The wheat is high in protein and semolina and is used for making pasta. Most of the crop has been shipped to Italy. "We have found there is a unique situa- tion here in the valley," says Colorado State Uni- versity agronomist Calivn Pearson. "Durum wheat is traditionally planted in the spring. At the lower elevations around Grand Junction, durum can be planted in the fall and harvested when no other durum is ripe in the country, commanding a better price." The western Colorado wheat is available on the market after the wheat from California and Arizona and before the wheat is ready in North Dakota. The semi-dwarf desert durum is being grown in Olathe and other test sites, says Pear- son. Experimentation is continuing to learn the best watering and fertilization methods. "The price in 1988 was phenomenal," says Pearson. "This year it was good, but not great. The price will be the kicker in determining the future of the crop. It may be Italian lire which is being paid, but it is all money coming back into the com- munity," commented Pearson. VITAL COANMUNICATIONS-Long distance calling bills for businesses and residents on the Western Slope should be less expensive by mid-1990 because o/ a Colorado Public Utilities Commission order which was finalized July 19. Local calling areas have been in rural areas which will allow many U S West customers to call many more loca- tions without a long distance charge. The PUC determined that the residential rate increase to expand local calling areas would be $2.79 a month more than the current rate for rural areas. Customers in Grand Junction with residential ser- vice wll be paying $.53 a month more to call Delta, Collbran, Mesa, DeBeque and Parachute toll free. The calling areas were determined by identifying "communities of interest" based on customers' primary communication needs. For information on what communities are included in your calling area, contact your local business office: 244-4100 for residences - 244-4800 for businesses. On September 30, 1989, TELLURIDE will have a new, state-of-the-art digital central office. The $1.3 million in improvements by U S West will allow the 5, 500 residents and visitors to have more efli- cientcalling services and the ability to use any long distance company for calls outside the area code region. New equipment does not necessarily mean less work. Users will have to dial a seven digit number now instead of the four numbers that worked previously. U S West has an annual payroll of $186,700 in San Miguel County and pays $28,242 taxes annually in the county. Written by Linda Skinner NEW VISIT®RS CENTER T® ®PEN IN CRAIG After 42 years, the Greater Craig Area Chamber of Com- merce and the Sportsman's Information Center are btaild- ing anew home, called the Moffat County Visitors Center, located at 360 East Victory Way in Craig. After a year and a half of fund raisers and community donations, the Chamber raised $55,000 and started construction this summer. The building is 1900 square feet and will be open in time for the fall hunting season. The pro- ject has been an entire com- munity effort and Western Slopers can all be proud of the dedication of those who call themselves CRAIG PROUD! WESTERN SL®PER W®RKS ®N ®RGANIC LEGISLATI®N Bill Russell of Apple Hill-Mountain Sun in Dolores was among the most influential forces behind the passage of the Colorado Organic Certification Act, recently adopted by the Colorado Legislature. As a result of the landmark law, the Colorado Department of Agriculture has developed a seal which will identify pro- ducts grown on farms certified by the State as using organic production prac- tices. Mr. Russell's work has been rewarded not only in the satisfaction that comes from knowing you have accom- plished something great ... he has also been appointed to the Organic Certifica- tion Advisory Board by Agriculture Com- missioner Steve Horn. Thus, he can help ensure that the legislation he worked so hard on will be implemented as envisioned. Congratulations are due to Mr. Russell from everyone interested in organic farming practices. ACI® RAIN GAI~GE INVENTED AT F®RT LEWIS C®LLEGE A Fort Lewis College professor named Doreen Mehs, working with former student Brenda Simons, has developed a computerized instru- ment which will provide faster and more accurate readings on acid levels in high mountain lakes. The machine, called an automatic titrator, was developed during a project at Fort Lewis in 1986, and has been used recently to measure lakes in the Weminuche Wilderness Area. Thus far, Professor Mehs says she has found little acidity in the lakes she has tested, but perhaps the device will prove useful in other areas. In any case, CLUB 20 is delighted that the invention was developed in Western Colorado, where we must be watchful for the earliest sign of acid rain. Mehs says high mountain lakes have rio natural resistance to acid rain. EAG~E ~.r®~.JNT~ iY1~SE~IV7 T® ®~EN A restored old barn on the banks of the Eagle River near the town of Eagle is taking shape with the help of the Eagle County Historical Society and a graduate student of museum design, Karie Darrow. The building is scheduled to open to the public by next summer as the new Eagle County Historical Socie- ty Museum. It promises exhibits il- lustrating the fascinating and varied history of the area. Located at Chambers Park, it will become part of a regional information center and should be attractive to Interstate 70 travelers and others interested in historic sites. One of the items CLUB 20 has been most interested in promoting in recent months is exactly this .. . historic attractions. The recent Long- woods Study, commissioned by the Colorado Tourism Board, shows that driving tourists are especially inter- ested in history and historic sites, yet far too little emphasis is placed on history by many tourism promoters. The Eagle County Historical Society's museum will present varied attractions, ranging from antique momentos to oral histories from "otd-timers." This has been an ongoing project, with the barn restoration itself underway for almost two years now. The Eagle community will have every reason to feel proud of this major effort, which has involved nearly the entire community for many months. It will be on the same property with the new chamber building, a restored antique log home from the Gypsum area. ~. `,y' 1 `,,: ~~, ~;ji ~~ ~~/ % ~~~ ~ (J _ ~l `i ~ i /' ~ - ~ -_ f~ ` ` ~r~ ~~ v ; ' ~~ Y,' I ~ p ' i ~ . ~ 1 ..~§ ~_ i ~ ~ ~ / L ~~. 7 /~ lS \ \ Sen. Tillie Bishop Sen. Sally Hopper ~~ _ _ _ ~~ _i11 ~K ~ ~ i,` ~ ., ~ ~ ~~.~ ,. . ( ~~~ 1 _ ~ ~,~ ~ ~ . ~ ~~ ~ ~ ,.., _, x z-- ~ ~ Rep. Tim Fos4er Rep. Jim Dyer -_ C®~®R~®® R®~C~DIE~ .~ s6a®e~M'S ~d9~ 9-B~.D~Tf'DU~IcCa Ift~~C9-~ 5 Day Trophy Deer & Elk Hunts ~ Private Pheasant Over 5500 Acres of Private Land o Drop Camps Licensed ~ Bonded Guides & Outf tters Great Facilities ~ Excellent Food SUPER HUNTING! P.O. Box 659 (303) 328-2326 ~~~~ ~® ~E~~~~ 0©0 ® p~~ of Grand Junction 243-6790 755 HORIZION DRIVE i ,~ t ` ~~, a.. 1 ~ _. ~ i . ~4 *. . ~^ r ~" . ~' _~• Rep. Dan Williams ' r'- ~-----^--o.... r lr~. ~, ~ i, u. _ L ~ ' ` ~' ,~- ~J ~~ ~~ r''1 T o `' / i~ ~~~_~ ~~; '~ :~ -~ Wit: K' 1 ~ ) - ~ i \\ J '~ ~ t 4 ,, Sen. Tillie Bishop & Bill Cleary CLUB 20 has moved to new offices. We're now located at 634 Main Street, Suite 6, in Grand Junction. Same number - 242-3264 FAX - 245-8300. Stop in and see our new digs. ~~~ ~~~~~o®~~ Call or write Bray ~ Co. Realtors fora 4r+ee Real Estate Guide or an area street map. j ~ ~~~m~6~~ 1015 North 7th Street Grand Junction, Colorado 81501 Nh.\I.I~iN~. ~ ~~Ikyt~~r ~~I i\.~i,iK~. Rep. Dan Prins4er 1V~~/V ~~V~~~~ V~®~~ ~~~~~~~~~~ Since the last column on this subject two issues back, numerous new busi- nesses have opened their doors in Western Colorado, and things are mov- ing along very well. Of course, no such list can hope to be complete, but, clearly, new things are happening throughout CLUB 20-land: • The Dolores River Line Camp opened this summer for the second year. It offers ranch-style meals and a Western Show along the Dolores River 9 miles northeast of Dolores. It includes many historic exhibits, live entertain- ment, and a meal second to none. • Aspen Hardware, after losing its historic downtown building, found a new home this summer at the Aspen Airport Business Center. The 50-year-old business is bigger and better than ever and provides a traditional hardware store to residents of Pitkin County, under the ownership of John Beatty. • Accomplished potter Karyn Gabaldon openned Gallery Ultima at 1018 Main Avenue in Durango. She features her own contemporary Southwest pottery, along with the works of numerous other artists. • The Thunder River Trading Post expanded its operation in Parachute this summer, moving into a new section and adding atee-shirt shop. This business has grown several times and is well worth the stop off I-70. Look for the now-famous tepee on the roof. • Randy and Loretta Small have opened The Carpet Store in Delta, featuring a full line of carpet and vinyl floor coverings for residential or com- mercial use. The store is managed by Roy Davis at 1630 South Main in Delta. • Gart Brothers of Denver announced the opening of a new store in West Vail this fall. The sporting goods store will be located in the West Vail Mall, and managed by "Barge" Brown, well- known locally from his many years with Vail Associates. • The Nu-Weigh Body Toning Salon has opened its doors to help men and women "shape up" in Delta. It offers a series of exercise treatments, a "figure analysis" and even a tanning booth. Its manager is Roxanne Leroux and its location is 721 Main Street, Suite 7, in Delta. • Steve Peer has begun a new ven- ture as a musical entertainment broker, "Peer Group, Inc.," at 300 Puppy Smith Street in Aspen. He is already well- known in the field, having been in the music business for 21 years and having just successfully put together a winning combination for Aspen's Club Andiamo, including the popular band, "Second Wind." • Bart and Andrew Cuomo and Doug Bitetto have opened Vail Realty and Management's office in Vail Village, specializing in short-term rental property in the Vail Valley. • Wilderness Forge has emerged as the knife company in Dolores, operated by Bob Hatting and marketing a unique pocket knife Hatting developed; evi- dently orders are already pouring in. Information - (303) 882-2206. • Larry and Patricia Jakubiak, former owners of Natural Valley Restaurant have moved to a new location, formerly the Rainbow Cafe in Hotchkiss and re- opened as the North Fork Valley Restaurant. They feature steaks, ham- burgers, and a wide variety of choices ... a great menu! Try them, on Bridge Street in Hotchkiss. • The famous 1893 Rio Grande Southern Hotel in Dolores just re- opened as a bed and breakfast. Listed on the National Register of Historic Places, it offers French and Mexican food and terrific rooms. • Steve Campbell, who started his small insurance business in his home a year ago, has already grown into a new office on Railroad Avenue in Rifle, offer- ing auto, home, life, health, disability, farm and ranch insurance. • The famed Riviera Supper Club in Glenwood Springs is under new man- agement, and offers a great selection of prime rib, steaks and seafood. Harry and Shirley Beres are in charge now, at 702 Grand Avenue in downtown Glenwood. • Jerry Hauner's new "High Tech Insulation" has brought the Ark-Seal patented "blow-in blanket" insulation system to the Roaring Fork Valley. He is operating out of Basalt and, by all accounts, doing well. • Brian Geist and Jamie Thompson have opened a new custom wood- working business on County Road 320 in Rifle. They specialize in custom millwork and cabinet making and are doing some very impressive work. • Texaco Express Lube, a gas station-convenience store combination, has been in business since mid-summer at 600 East 4th Avenue in Durango. • Rick Roberts, a Grand Lake builder, has just moved to Durango and begun Sun Juan Log Homes. He builds homes or sells prepared logs, and does a lot of work with glass and stone. He also has Southwestern designs which incor- porate stucco. • Colorado West Brokers have opened a real estate office in Basalt, under the ownership of Glenn Ault and Donald Donze. They are located in the Town Centre building on Midland Avenue. • Mettje Swift has recently opened "Banner Day," an interesting business dealing in design, sales, and manufac- ture of promotional flags and banners. She is located at 128-A West 14th in Durango. • Mountain Market Stores plans to open a grocery store in Ridgway by Thanksgiving of this year. It will be at Sherman and Lena Streets. • Kevan Willson and Barbara Davis have opened "Thin Natural Nails and Hair Design," offering total hair care and other services for men and women in Executive Plaza, 1512 Grand Avenue in Glenwood Springs. • A new and already popular Mexican restaurant has opened in West Vail. Robert Martinez is the proud manager of EI Sombrero Loco, next to the Inn at Vail. His family also owns The Grill, one of CLUB 20-land's most popular Mexican restaurants, in Leadville. • Two husband-and-wife teams have jointly opened the Spring Valley Greenhouse a mile east of Gypsum. Thom Girard and his wife, Cherrie Paller, are teamed up with Bill and Louisa King in the wholesale plant business, off to a great start since their opening in May. CLUB 20 offers all these new busi- nesses best wishes for many years of success, and will feature more in the next issue of Colorado West. ~. r ti ~ :,t 1 ~,_..,~ / ~. ~ ~ '+~ ~'L ~ `. ~~ ' . fi ~ i '~~ }; r ~ ~~ ti: x -; \` r 1~ ~~ 1 ~~ ~ Y~l ~ a-. ~ ~, 1 t ,' ,~ _ 1 _ ~_ ~- ,. . t ~' ~~ ~_1. ~ t. ~ ~, ~,~ y. ,_ _ ! ..e. ~ ~ ~ ~ ` ~ i ~ 1. ~i ~ ~~~_J /r ~ . ~: i cj~.~1 (_ j~'_' {/ 1 ~ k' ° ~7 ,~'I~ ~'_ `' ,y ,~2 F - f 6 r _S'~ h1 T __ .~- ~ ~i ~i~4~,,~ ~ 1 ~ /` _ f t-~ ~ ,. ~; .~ ~ _ ~, .t ~, \ ~ ~ t ~~.- ~ ~ ~ ~, ~ ~9 ~ f {y, ~''' `. ~~ A f ~ i fi~ ~' E J~ ~ If ~~k r~1 p~"~'r-' ., ~ ~ - - ~~ , ter--: .~. ~ _ F t ~ ~~~~~ ' " _ ~ ~ n ~. S } ~ ~', ~ ~ _ ~ _r ~~. f~ ~i . r ~ ~ 1. ~ ~~ ,~~« 'rG i a ~ ~ ".. z~ '' ~. 4 t _ ~"1~ ~ ~~ I -.r.. ~[ if" S ~ 1;/~ h~ 1 Via.` .~ t ~ ~, w `, ~ A ~r k ~ ~~ ~~ ~;~ _ ~-~'~ ~'~ ~~ CSl 'oN 1!w~ad 00 ''i~f Pue~0 altld a6elsod ~S~fl 31vd ~~ne 0550-ZOSL8 'oloC b9ZE-ZbZ-£0£ `uo!tounp pue~~ 055 xo8 'O'd OZ qnl~ By Greg Welcher Club 20 President =,-n ~x; Since our last newsletter, a lot has happened but one thing has not happened ... boredom! We have just completed what I think was a very successful Fall Meeting, with some interesting and controversial speakers, a terrific turnout, and gener- ally a good time. Denver Mayor Federico Pena and the new Denver Water Board President, Hubert Farbes, were the hit of the meeting. They delivered a strong message about the importance of Colorado pulling together to make sure these important water decisions are made by Coloradans, rather than outsiders. It's an important message which we must all give more thought to. We're settling into our new offices, expanded space for the increased activities we're involved in, and look for- ward to a grand opening as soon as the boxes are unpacked. We've just come off a couple of major victories, as detailed in Chairman Joe Prinster's col- umn in this issue, which leave us more convinced than ever of the value of sticking together to be heard. I have now visited all the 22 counties in CLUB 20 territory and have con- cluded that I've barely scratched the surface, since there are so many people I still haven't met. So look for the con- tinued presence of CLUB 20 at com- munity events throughout the Western Slope. Most exciting, though, is the chal- lenge ahead on the wilderness issue. CLUB 20 is hosting a series of public meetings designed to help forge a com- promise among our divided Congres- sional Delegation. The meetings will be co-chaired by Congressman Ray Kogovsek and Governor John Vander- hoof, both of whom have many years of credibility on these issues. If we can get everyone with an interest - on either side - to truly offer our delegation the very best thinking on the Western Slope, from all the people who have to live with the decisions which are made, we might well be the instruments of compromise. If it works, and we're able to get a bill passed which everyone is comfortable with, we can be the heroes to genera- tions of Coloradans. If compromise is not possible, I hope at least we can say we tried. And that is really the point of CLUB 20, now in our 37th year. We have never claimed that by working together and speaking with one voice we can accom- plish everything. We claim simply that, without doing so, we have no chance at all. Join us in this effort, as we are con- stantly on the lookout for new members and are anxious to spread the word about our activities. Call me at 242-3264 and we'll talk more about it. ses~ ~ - to o a~3~ October 5, 1989 Vail Town Council Town of Vail 75 S. Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Dear Town Council Members: As a merchant in Vail Village I would like to take this opportu- nity to let you know how I feel about the new proposals concern- ing the Village Parking Structure. Elimination of free parking for the first g0 minutes in the Village structure will discourage much of the shoppers in the Village. No longer will will it be convenient to stop any pick up those "quick" last minute souvenirs on your way out of town. The merchants in the Village will certainly suffer, as well as thier sales tax payments. The Town may make it up in~increased parking revenue, however'this is no consolation to the merchant who's income is affected. Eliminating the west entrance and exit will eliminate a steady flow of customers to Crossroads, the Village Center Shops, and the Village Inn Plaza, an entire area of the Village will be cut off. Maintaining the west auto entrance only and creating a pedestrian entrance and exit will keep this part of the Village open. Installation of street level public restrooms near the west end of the parking structure would be more convenient for our guests than the maze of the transportation center. To encourage local residents to park at Ford Park, better lighting, more police protection, and frequent shuttle van service to and from the area will eliminate the big reasons I keep hearing ~~r not parking there. Thank you /for your attention and consideration in this matter. Sincere y, ~ f ~.. Dan Telleen DT/kb boo ~®~ ~7~g ~ 2~ ~0 9YDeadow ®r~vo9 Vans CoYorado 81 ~5~ ~3®3~ 476-476® ~ '.~ ~1N F R~ ~L~FF RE® ~~VGE, C®LOR~a®® R~649 Mayor Kent Rose R~C~ OCT 1 01989 Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road West Vail, Colorado 81657 October 9, 1989 Dear Kent: The Town of Red Cliff would appreciate your consideration of an intergovernmental agreement that would encourage joint comprehensive planning between our communities. In the last session of Colorado legislature the enclosed bill was adopted. The bill provides for intergovernmental agreements between local governments to accomplish comprehensive planning. It also provides for revenue-sharing in order to fund the planning effort. Any plan which is mutually adopted by local governments is enforceable through the courts. The law appears to offer some interesting possibilities to deal with some major planning issues on a regional basis, particularly housing, transportation, and environmental quality. The Town of Red Cliff is requesting matching funds from the Town of Vail to partially fund our planner position so that Red Cliff can actively participate in a joint planning effort. It appears that the revenue-sharing provision of the legislation allows for such an approach. The Town of Red Cliff shares many of the same planning concerns with the Town of Vail, particularly as it relates to the future development of Vail Mountain. Eve would appreciate your consideration of our request as part of your budget deliberations for the coming year. Sincerely, W ~- Mayor Walter Fox 4 =s ~~ ~. b' .) ~4b ~ ~ i HOUSE BILL~`NOo 13420 _ BY REPRESENTATIVES Fishs.Piersone and Taylor-Littlefl also SENATORS MeiRle~ohn and Schroedero CONCERNING INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENTSs ANDS IN: CONNECTION THEREWITHs PERMITTING LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO PROVIDE FOR MUTUALLY ENFORCEABLE COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT PLANSo Be it enacted ~ the General Assembly of the State of Coloradoo SECTION l0 29-20-105s Colorado Revised Statutess 1986 Replo Volos is amended to reado 29-20-105 0 Yntergovernmental cooperationo (1~ W#tbedt $lmlting-e~--s~persedlAg--aA,y--power--e~--adthe~#ty--p~eseptly exe~Eised---®~---p~evleds~,~--graated~ Local governments are authorised and encouraged to cooperate or contract with other units of government pursuant to part 2 of article 1 of this title for the purposes of ~ planning or regulating 'the development of land includings but not limited to® the point exercise of plannings aonings subdivisions buildings and related regulationso (2) (a) WITHOUT LIMITING THE ABILITY OF LOCAL ~~ GOVERNMENTS TO COOPERATE OR CONTRACT WITH EACH OTHER PURSiiANT~ T0. THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ARTICLE OR ANY OTHER PROVISION OF .~~ ~ ~ LAWS LOCAL GOVERNMENTS MAY PROVIDE THROUGH INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENTS FOR THE JOiMT ADOPTION BY THE GOVERNING BODIES9 AFTER NOTICE AND HEARINGS OF MUTUALLY BINDING AND ENFORCEABLE . COMPREHENSIVE .DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR AREAS WITHIN THEIR ~. JURISOICTIONSa -THIS SECTION SHALL NOT AFFECT THE VALIDITY OF ANY INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT ENTERED 'INTO PRIOR TO THE ' EFFECTIVE. DATE OF THIS SECTION AS AMENDEDo (bD A COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT PLAN MAY. CONTAIN MASTER PLANSo .ZONING PLANSs SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS® ANO BUILDING . COOEs PERMIT ANO OTHER LAND USE STANDARDSs WHICHs IF~. SET OUT ~® ~ Capital letters indicate new material added to existing statutes® dashes through words indicate deletions from existing statutes and such material not part of acto ~ I ~~ • y'~ IN• SPECIFIC ~OETAILs MAY I3E IN LIEU OF SUCH REGULATIONS OR. ~OROINANCES OF. THE LOCAL GOVERNMENTSo •Qc)~ NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER STATUTORY PROVISIONS` OF. ARTICLg 28 OF~ TITLE 30fl CoRoSo~ REVIEW OF COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT PLANS 8Y THE PLANNING COMMISSIONS OF THE LOCAL : GOVERNMENTS SHALL 8E DISCRETIONARY UNLESS OTHERWISE REQUIRED •6Y LOCAL ORDINANCEo THIS SUBSECTION Q2) SHALL. NOT APPLY TO THE .REQUIREMENTS OF SECTIONS 30-28-110 AND 30-28-12~o CoR,So Qd)~ AN %NTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT PROVIOIN.G FOR A , COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT PLAN MAY CONTAIN A PROVISION THAT • .THE PLAN MAY 8E AMENDED ONLY 8Y THE MUTUAL AGREEMENT OF' THE GOVERNING. 60DIES OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENTS WHO ARE PARTIES TO THE PLANo. - • Qe) IN THE EVENT THAT A PLAN IS SILENT AS TO A SPECIFIC LAND USE MATTERD EXISTING LOCAL LAND USE REGULATIONS SHALL CONTROLo Qf) AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT . MAY CONTAIN A PROVISION THAT A COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT PLAN SHALL CONTINUE TO CONTROL A PARTICULAR LANG AREA EVEN THOUGH THE LAND AREA IS ANNEXED OR JURISDICTION OVER THE LAND AREA IS OTHERWISE TRANSFERRED PURSUANT TO LAW BETWEEN THE LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES WHO ARE PARTIES TO THE AGREEMENTo - - .: Qg) EACH GOVERNING BOGY THAT IS A PARTY TO AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT ADOPTING A COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT PLAN SHALL HAVE STANDING IN DISTRICT COURT TO ENFORCE THE TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT AND THE PLAN® INCLUDING SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE ANO INJUNCTIVE RELIEFo 7HE DISTRICT COURT SHALL SCHEDULE ALL ACTIONS TO ENFORCE ~ AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT ANO COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR EXPEDITED HEARINGo t~ .'F:: :.~;. ~:. :`6~:. • Qh) LOCAL GOVERNMENTS MAYS PURSUANT ~TO.~.. AN .. INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENTfl PROVIDE FOR REVENUE-SHARINGo .~ Qi) LOCAL GOVERNMENTS SHALL NOT BE REQUIRED TO :ENTER •-.~INTO INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENTS OR COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT ....~ • • PLANS PURSUANT TO .THIS .SECTIONo ~ ~. •.~ SECTION 20. 29-20-107a Colorado Revised .Statuteso~~~1986 -~ .~epl o Vol o fl . i s' amended to .reed o •...:_ .. . ..•~~. ~29-20-1070 Com fiance s~ith~other re uirementse.EXCEPT •.~AS;~•PROVIDED IN SECTION 29-20~ 05 2 s where other procedural •~ .~or substantive requirements 'for the planning for or regulation ~• ~ of the use of 1 and are 'provided .: by 1 awfl such .., requirements. , ... 'shall .control o . '~ ~ • . ': ~~ PAGE 2-HOUSE RILL NOe 132 .. ~ ~ .: ~:', :'' 9~ 1, ., P. . ~ ~ SECTION 3; .:30-11-4109 Colorado Revised Statutesfl.198b. Replo Volofl is amended to reado ~ . . ~ 30-11-410,~~: Power to contract for rovision of law enforcement~~ serviceso ~ The governing body of. a' municipality and .thee board of county commissioners ~may~' contract~~'~.for the purpose of providing law enforcements.~. .~ including enforcement of municipal ordinances9 by the~.sherif'f~ within. the boundaries of ..the municipalityo . y ' (2) THE ~W ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY ANO THE SHERIFF MAY CONTRACT•~WITH OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES OR WITH. MUNICIPALITIES FOR THE PROVISION OF LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES WITHIN THE UNINCORPORATED AREAS OF THE COUNTYo SECTION 4o Safety clauses The general assembly hereby findsa deter~mines~ and declares that this act is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peaces healthy and safetyo . ~~~~ Ctrl Bo Bledsoe SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES e Co Bahrych CHIEF CLERK OF THE HO SE OF REPRESENTATIVES Q .~ Ted Lo Str kland PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE Gl~~ . Joan Mo Albi SECRETARY OF THE SENATE APPROVED ~°~~`~ 1 R OF THE STATE OF.COLORADO~ .. PAGE 3-HOUSE BILL NOo 1342 i~2 ~ .. October 9, 1989 Mr. Kent Rose Mayor/Town of Vail P.0. Box 2101 Vail, CO 81658 Good Morning, Kent... Naturally, I was distressed to read the account of the Council°s conversation relative to the bus system in East Vail and the Racquet Club's refusal to accept our responsibility as good citizens to participate in finding solutions to the overcrowding. As you are undoubtedly aware, East Vail in general is a densely populated area, with a large number of condominium developments. Many of these condominium. units are occupied by long term renters (mainly employees who ride the bus regularly), short term renters (most of whom in actuality bring cars into the area), weekend owners, and fulltime resident owners. The Racquet Club is no exception to this mix. The ~Ra~et Club Rental Operation contributes the largest volume of sales tax of any business entity in East Vail, and in so doing financially supports the town bus system to a substantially larger extent than any other single business in East Vail. In fact this contribution over the last three years has grown by $10,000 while our actual short term guest count (many of whom do not utilize the bus) has only risen by 5300 persons over the winter. In addition there are a vast number of short term rental units in East Vail represented by East Vail Rentals, Bighorn Rentals, Rendezvous West, Arthur Bishop & Co., and other property management companies that also contribute to the crowding of the East Vail system. They .are not, however, as "visible", and hence are not being singled out as a contributor to the problem. Nor are the complexes that are dedicated or partially dedicated, to employee housing being asked to provide bus service for their tenants, many of whom depend on the bus to get into town. While the Racquet Club Owners Association has looked at providing shuttle service as a guest amenity on several occasions over the past few years, in actual fact, the number of people we would move in a shuttle during peak times would hardly alleviate what we all know is a long term problem needing a "big picture" solution. 4690 Vail Racquet.Club Drive ® Vail, Colorado 81657 ® Phone 303/476-4840 :, l Page 2 In a letter to Stan Berryman on September 27, I stated that the Owners Association was very willing to participate, including financial participation, in a long term solution to this situation. However, we feel that our contrib- ution to the problem is vastly overstated and we are not willing to be singled out to provide a solution to what is a multi-dimensional challenge. I hope that the "solutions" outlined in the Vail Trail article aimed at "punishing" us into submission were proposed in jest, and can only reiterate the desire of the Owners Association to actively participate with the other major developments in East Vail in providing better transportation service for our owners, employees, and short term rental guests. Please let me know how we can participate. Siut~erely, drank W. JoYinso General Manager cc: Ron Phillips. Town Council Members / Editor - Vail Daily Editor - Vail Trail a