Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
1992-02-25 Support Documentation Town Council Work Session
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL WORK SESSION TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 1992 10:00 A.M. IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS r AGENDA 1. PEC Report. 2. DRB Report. 3. Presentation on 5-Year Financial Projection and Options for Funding Land Purchases and Housing. 4. Pofice Building Presentation. 5. Review of Final Draft of Ordinance No. 13, Series of 1991, Concerning Village View Corridors. 6. Discussion of Parking(t'ransportation Plan Alternatives for Village Loading. 7. Library Department Report. 8. Information Update. 9. Council Reports. 10. Other. 11. Adjournment. C:IAGENDA.WS VAIL TOWN COUNCIL WORK SESSION TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 1992 10:00 A.M. IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS EXPANDED AGENDA 10:00 a.m. 1. PEC Report. 10:10 a.m. 2. DRB Report. 10:15 a.m. 3. Presentation on 5-Year Financial Projection and Options for Steve Barwick Funding Land Purchases and Housing. Action Reauested of Council: Staff will present the findings of the updated 5-year financial projections as a beginning of discussions on the Town of Vail's financial future. Backaround Rationale: Staff prepares an update to the 5-year financial projection each year at this time. 11:00 a.m. 4. Police Building Discussion. Ken Hughey Action Reauested of Council: Provide direction to architects and Town staff on which option to develop final design. Backaround Rationale: At the last discussion with Council, Town staff and the architects were directed to do additional analysis on various scenarios relating to Police space needs. This presentation will allow Council to review the final scenario. Staff Recommendation: Select scenario desired, and authorize final design and construction. 12:30 a.m. 5. Review of final draft of Ordinance No. 13, Series of 1991, Andy Knudtsen concerning village View Corridors. Action Reauested of Council: Discuss proposed ordinance and provide feedback to staff. Staff is planning to bring this ordinance to the March 3, 1992, evening meeting for second reading and final approval. Backaround Rationale: The view corridor ordinance, as it is currently proposed, will: - Create a new chapter of the zoning code regulating view corridors. - Update the legal descriptions for the view corridors based on new monumentation in the field. - Add a fifth view corridor. A summary of the ordinance, as well as the ordinance itself, is provided for the Council's information. 1 • 1:30 p.m. 6. Discussion of Parking/Transportation Plan Alternatives for Ken Hughey Village loading. Action Reauested of Council: Decide on Village loading recommendation to include in Master Transportation Study. Background Rationale: The Council requested, after the January 15, 1992, public input session, that options on Village loading be brought back to them so the Council could discuss which direction is appropriate to include in the Master Transportation Plan as recommendations. The Master Transportation Plan adoption by the Council is dependent upon the Council being able to support the plan's recommendations on Village loading. Staff Recommendation: Make a decision on recommendations the Council can support when the plan is presented for formal adoption. 2:00 p.m. 7. Library Department Report. Annie Fox 2:25 p.m. 8. Information Update. 9. Council Reports. 10. Other. 11. Adjournment. C:WGENDA.WSE 2 •1t ~ PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION February 24, 1992 AGENDA 12:30PM Site Visits 1:30PM Worksession 2:OOPM Public Hearing Site Visits Worksession 1. A request to review the proposed Eagle County Backcountry Zone District. Applicant: Tom Allender, Eagle County Planner Planner: Mike Mollica Public Hearlnq 1. 1. A request for a conditional use permit for a bed and breakfast at 5197 Black Gore Drive/Heather of Vail Condos, according to the plat recorded in Book 238 at Page 678. Applicant: Linda Dula Staff: Mike Mollica 3. 2. A request for an exterior alteration at Blu's Restaurant, Gore Creek Plaza Building, 193 Gore Creek Drive/Part of Block 5B, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Charles. Rosenquist Planner: 'Shelly Mello 3. A request for wall height and road grade variances for the Spraddle Creek Subdivision, an approximately 40 acre parcel located north and east of the Main Vail/I-70 interchange and east of the Spraddle Creek Livery. Commencing at the NE corner of the SE ~/a of the SW ~/a of Section 5, Township 5 S, Range 80 W of the 6th P.M., being an Eagle County Brass Cap properly marked and set, with all bearings contained herein being relative to a Bering of S00°11'00" E between the NE corner of said SE ~/a of the'SW ~/4, and the SE corner of said SE'/a of the SW'/a being an Eagle County Brass cap properly marked and set; said NE corner of the SE'/a of the SW'/a being the Point of Beginning; thence S00°11'00" E along the east line of said SE'/a of the SW'/a of Section 5 a distance of 1320.14 feet to the SE corner the said SE ~/a of the SW Ya of Section 5; thence S89°47'48" W along the south line of said SE Ya of the SW ~/a of Section 5 a distance of 901.00 feet; thence N73°48'32" W along I-70 ROW line a distance of 214.12 feet; thence N66°52'12" W along said ROW line a distance of 241.10 feet to a point on the west line of said SE 1/a of the SW ~/a of Section 5; thence N00°20'31" W along the west line of said SE Ya of the SW'/a of Section 5 a distance of 1161.66 feet to the NW corner of the SE ~/a of the SW ~/a of Section 5 being an Eagle County brass cap properly marked and set; thence N89°41'12" E along the north line of said ~E ~/a of the SW Ya of Section 5 a distance of 1331.07 feet to the Point of Beginning. Said real property containing 39.55 acres, more or less. . Applicant: George N. Gillett, Jr. Planner: Mike Mollica 2. 4. A request for an exterior alteration and a site coverage variance in Commercial Core I for the Slifer Building, 230 Bridge Street/Part of Lots B and C, Lot 5, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Rod and Beth Slifer Planner: Jill Kammerer 4. 5. Discussion regarding staff decision concerning the conditions of approval for the previously approved parking, common area and height variances for the Sonnenalp Hotel, 20 Vail Road/Lots I and K, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Johannes Faessler Planner: Andy Knudtsen 6. A request to renew and amend a conditional use permit for Lionshead Miniature Golf, Tract D, Vail Lionshead First Filing. Applicants: Vail Associates/Charlie Alexander Planner: Shelly Mello 7. A request to amend Chapter 18.24 -Commercial Core I and Chapter 18.26 -Commercial Core II, of the Town of Vail zoning code relating to exterior alterations or modifications, and the Vail Village Design Considerations (I) -Sun-Shade. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Jill Kammerer TABLED TO MARCH 9, 1992 8. A request for the establishment of a Special Development District at the Christiania at Vail, 356 Hanson Ranch Road/Lot D, Block 2, Vail Village First Filing, and Lot P-3, Block 5-A, Vail Village Fifth Filing. Applicant: Paul Johnston Planner: Mike Mollica TABLED TO MARCH 9, .1992 9. Approval of February 10, 1992 meeting minutes. 10. -Reminder of Council Worksession on loading and delivery plan for Vail Village, Tuesday, February 25, 1992. r DESIGN REVIEW BOARD AGENDA FEBROARY 19, 1992 3:00 P.M. SITE VISITS 1:45 p.m. 1 Schmidt Residence - 1410 Buffehr Creek Road 2 Alpine Toivnhomes #11 - 1269 Westhaven Circle 3 Russell's Restaurant - 228 Bridge Street • 4 Boldon Residence - 4253 Spruce Way ..:::::..::.:,Y:::r .:.rr,Nn-:Nr.,~,w.,.,.r,.,r:N:,,:,.,..,.~. „:.;.,:„<r,::::,::.,..,,,:r..:. ~•:;;;:;:•>:;.>;;i:•:i::;•i::<•isr;<•>:ri;:;rr;.,.:;:::::....::.::r...,...r...t..:....:.x:.rr.: ..,....:,f:.:::: ::::::::::::::::.~:::::•.:....::::::..•:::::::::........:.............::r:,:::::.::. :o,.~~•~.~.~.~.::::'.`•......,..~:3>r:::is:::::::::::<:::r;;;<i::::'oiif::f`::~:;:.:,:':'`.`:::':;.i•:ir-:'-?:::y~isi:::i::'is:`::irr:.:f3~;:~ii'''::`:r::::_ ~.':.:::r::•:'•~i;:.:':_t:%:ri}>;'.::~...'.`'':<'':..":°c<f:r•::.::':Y:% iG'iui~'.wrrW ~.4:r..HriW.• H.v"I« ~ n..:.. .:rriiK rrv ~ ixmvx:li'irx.w.'G.N..v+.iGi6'i4rfr. i::v»:::: ii:::: ri:::::r: r. AGENDA 1. Lionshead Auxiliary Building - Directory signs. BR 395 East Lionshead Circle. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: TABLED INDEFINITELY. 2. The Club - New Door. BR 304 Bridge Street/Red Lion Building MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: TABLED TO MP,RCH 4TH MEETING. 3. Vail Village Transportation Center - Confirmation KP/TO of .selection of benches and planting containers. 241 South Frontage Road. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: TABLED TO MARCH 18TH MEETING. 4. The Cascades (Millrace IV/Cosgriff Parcel) - Final SM review of development plan. Unplatted parcel located between the Westin Hotel and Millrace Development in Cascade Village.. MOTION: George Lamb SECOND: Pat Herrington VOTE: 5-0 Approved with conditions. 5. Tynan Residence - Interior 250 addition. SM Vail Point Townhomes Unit #1. 1881 Lionsridge Loop/Lot 1, Block 3, Lionsridge 3rd Filing. MOTION: Pat Herrington SECOND: George Lamb VOTE: 5-0 Approved. 6. Schmidt - Request to separate new Primary/Secondary SM r Residence. 1410 Buffehr Creek Road/Lot G-1, Lions Ridge Subdivision Filing #1. - - MOTION: George Lamb SECOND: Pat Herrington VOTE: 5-0 Denied. 7. Lionshead Miniature Golf - Permanent structure. SM Tract D, Vail Lionshead 1st Filing. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Conceptual. 8. Russell's Restaurant - Outdoor dining deck at the MM Gallery Building. 228 Bridge Street/A part of Lot A, Block 5, Vail Village 1st Filing. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Conceptual. 9. Gerald R. Ford Amphitheater - Seating expansion and MM weatherproofing. (new roof structure). 530 Frontage Road East/Ford Park. MOTION: George Lamb SECOND: Pat Herrington VOTE: 4-1 Approval with recommendations. Diana Donovan opposed. 10. Boldon - New Duplex. AK 4253 Spruce Way/Lot 15, Block 9, Bighorn Subdivision 3rd Filing. MOTION: George Lamb SECOND: Pat Herrington VOTE: 5-0 Approved with conditions. 11. Erickson Residence - New Primary/Secondary. AK 1385 Westhaven Circle/Lot 51, Glen Lyon Subdivision.F~ MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: TABLED TO MARCH 4TH MEETING. 12. Field Residence - Landscape plan. JK 586 W. Forest Road/Lot 3, Block 1, Vail Village 6th Filing. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Staff approved with conditions: 1. Exterior lights be removed or exterior lighting plan be submitted to DRB for review. 2. Revocable Right-of-way must be obtained prior to the installation of any plant material. 13. Alpine Townhomes #11 - New Primary/Secondary JK Residence. 1269 Westhaven Circle/Lot 33, .Glen Lyon Subdivision. MOTION: Pat Herrington SECOND: Diana Donovan VOTE: 4-1 Ned Gwathmey opposed: Approved with strong recommendation to applicant to work on the south and east elevations to add interest though the use of vegetation and construction material. Approved subject to the following conditions: 1. Landscaping plan be revised to add 12-3" caliper Aspens along the western property line and conifers adjacent to the eastern facade of the building to screen the bank wall. Revised landscape plan must be approved by staff. 2. Driveway grades be revised to meet Town Engineer requirements. MEMBERS PRESENT: ~ MEMBERS ABSENT: George Lamb Sherry Dorward , Ned Gwathmey Pat Herrington Diana Donovan (PEC) STAFF APPROVALS: Paulson Residence - expand deck. 5128 Grouse Lane/Lot 8, Block 1, Gore Creek Subdivision. Johnson Residence - "Interior 250" combine units 101 & 102 with the addition of a 39 sq. ft. entry vestibule. Vail Village Inn Plaza Phase III. Lodge at Lionshead II - paint, stucco repair. 380 East Lionshead Circle. The Valley, Phase II - landscape plan. Sterio Residence - deck extension. 2733 Kinnickinnick Road/Meadow Creek Condo. Unit E-1'. Tupy Residence - change siding from vertical to horizontal. 1901 Chamonix Lane/Lot 33,.Buffehr Creek Subdivision. Rothbart Residence - window & deck support column changes. 2349 Chamonix Drive/Lot 12, Block A, Vail Das Schone 1st Filing. (~S a as ti ~ 3 Table 13. Miscellaneous Taxes j; City/Town Rate and Imposition Exemptions/Earmarking ~:I Real Estate Traaafer Aspen 1X (for employee housing) purchase price minus the first 5100,000 i' ' assessed on all purchases of property within city, except for deed-restricted employee housing; earmarked for ' affordable employee housing 0.5X (for wheeler Opera House) assessed on all purchases of property within city; earmarked for construction, i remodeling, renovation, operation, and maintenance of Nheeler Opera House i Avon 2X exemptions: per ordinance (on file in the League office); earmarked for capital improvements Breckenridge 1X earmarked for excise tax revenue bonds Crested Butte ~ 3,0 ~0 no exemptions or earmarking I Cripple Creek 3X - only applicable to business and commer- ciel zones Frisco 1X exemptions: less than 5500; government sales; earmarked for capital projects {;i Glendale 1X (exemptions per ordinance) earmarked for capital items including ~ debt payoff 6 i~ I':~ I~~ Gypsum 1X exemption: non-profit organizations; N earmarked for street improvements, etc. ! Snowmass Village 1X (with exemptions) transportation-related structures, im- ! provements and facilities; land acquisi- Lions, capital expenditures of transp. system and dept.; landscaping parking iota, repair and maint. of roads/trails a' Telluride 3X exemption: quit claim; earmarked for capital improvement fund li Vail 1X exemptions: gifts, inheritance, business jI reorganization; earmarked for purchase and recreational development of open space 'i winter Park 1X exemptions: public sector grantee, t ' gifts, divorce, death, foreclosures, low income housin etc. earmarked for debt ~ e, ; i service on bonds - ---~i ~1s ~~a5~~~ o '~ru~~ TOWN OF VAIL POLICE DEPARTMENT Roth + Sheppard Architects Snowdon and Hopkins Architects ' February 25, 1992 i • Vail Police Department February 25, 1991 SCHEME A Scheme A consists of a remodeled Police Department and Council Chamber within the existing Municipal Building, totaling 7,270 s.f. of remodeled area. Storage area will be added in a new ~ attic space above the Council Chamber for 1,850 s.f. of storage capacity. Anew 2,495 s.f. addition will be constructed on grade adjacent to the existing building, consisting of Records storage space, a holding and booking area and a 550 s.f. Sallyport. The existing surface parking spaces lost due to the addition will be replaced by new surface parking constructed on the eastern edge of the existing lot. Area Summary Remodel Area Main Level Police Area 3,054 SF Council Chamber 1,850 SF Subtotal Main Level 4,904 SF Lower Level 2,366 SF Total 7,270 SF ~ New Area Main Level 2,495 SF Mezzanine Storage 1,850 SF Total 4,345 SF Cost Estimate AREA COST TOTAL Remodel PD Main Level 3,054 $50 $152,700 Remodel PD Lower Level 2,366 $50 $118,300 Remodel Council Chamber 1,700 $50 $85,000 Add HC Toilets in CC 150 $100 $15,000 New Construction 2,495 $130 $324,350 New Storage 1,850 $50 $92,500 Building Construction Total $787,850 Furniture $62,300 Site Work 10,000 $8 $80,000 Construction Total $930,150 Contingency 15% $139,523 Subtotal $1,069,673 Design Fees ~ $100,000 TOTAL PROJECT COST $1,169,673 2 ` t Vail Police Department February 25, 1992 SCHEME B ' Scheme B consists of a new one-story, 9,221 s.f. Police Facility addition constructed over two levels of enclosed parking. Located. in the upper parking level are a new 1,450 s.f. Holding and Booking area and 550 s.f. Sallyport, with additional area for a circulation core, service and storage spaces. Additionally, 5,420 s.f. of the existing Police Department in the current Municipal Building will be remodeled to hold Patrol and other sections. Area Summary Remodeled Area Main Level 3,054 SF Lower Level ~ 2,366 SF Total 5,420 SF New Area Main Level 9,221 SF lower Level /Garage Level 1 Sallyport /Booking /Holding 2,000 SF Service Areas / Circ / Stor 1,080 SF Garage Use 14,142 SF Subtotal 17,222 SF Garage Level 2 ~ 16,788 SF Total New Construction 43,231 SF Cost Estimate AREA COST TOTAL Remodel Area -Existing PD ~ 5,420 $50 $271,000 New PD Office Construction 9,221 $120 $1,106,520 New Parking Garage New Book/Hold & Basemt. areas 3,080 $160 $492,800 Entry Level Minus BooWHold 14,142 Lower Level 16,788 i Total Garage Construction 30,930 $60 $1,855,800 Building Construction Total $3,726,120 Furniture /Furnishings $77,852 Site Work 15,000 $8 $120,000 Construction Total $3,924,072 Contingency 1 5% $588,611 Subtotal $4,512,683 Design Fees $190,000 TOTAL PROJECT COST $4,702,683 3 Vail Police Department February 25, 1992 SCHEME C Scheme C represents a new two-story, 17,958 s.f. Police Facility located over two levels of enclosed parking garage. The 1,450 s.f. Holding and Booking area and 550 s.f. Sallyport are located in the upper parking level with additional area for A circulation core, service and storage spaces. The existing Police area in the Municipal Building will be vacated and available for expansion by other departments. Area Summary Remodel Area 0 SF New Area Main Level 11,571 SF Upper Level 6,387 SF Subtotal 1 17,958 SF Lower Level /Garage Level 1 Sallyport /Booking /Holding 2,000 SF Service Areas /Stairs / Stor. 1,080 SF Garage Use 14,142 SF Subtotal Lower Level 17,222 SF Garage Level 2 16,788 SF Total New Construction 51,968 SF Cost Estimate AREA COST TOTAL Remodel Area 0 $0 $0 ' New PD Office Construction 17,958 $120 $2,154,960 New Parking Garage New BooWHold & Basemt. areas 3,080 $160 $492,800 Entry Level Minus Book/Hold 14,142 Lower Level 16,788 Total Garage Construction 30,930 $60 $1,855,800 Building Construction Total $4,503,560 Furniture /Furnishings $93,884 Site Work 15,000 $8 $120,000 Construction Total $4,717,444 i Contingency 1 5% $707,617 Subtotal $5,425,061 Design Fees $235,000 TOTAL PROJECT COST ~ $5,660,061 I 4 i.. ~ Vail Police Department february 25, 1992 SCHEMED Scheme D is a phased version of Scheme B or Scheme C. It consists of a remodeled Police Department and Council Chamber within the existing Municipal Building, totaling 7,270 s.f. of remodeled area. Storage area will be added in a new attic space above the Council Chamber for 1,850 s.f. of storage capacity. Two levels of parking garage will be built, with the sallyport, , booking and holding areas in the top parking level (the same as the existing lower level of the P. D.) ' Area Summary Remodel Area Main Level Police Area 3,054 SF Council Chamber 1,850 SF Subtotal Main Level 4,904 SF Lower Level 2,366 SF Total 7,270 SF New Area Lower Level /Garage Level 1 , Sallyport /Booking /Holding 2,000 SF Service Areas /Stairs / Stor. 1,080 SF , Garage Use 14,142 SF Subtotal Lower Level 17,222 SF Garage Level 2 16,788 SF Total New Construction 34,010 5F Cost Estimate AREA COST TOTAL Remodel PD Main Level 3,054 $50 $152,700 Remodel PD Lower Level 2,366 $50 $118,300 Remodel Council Chamber 1,700 $50 $85,000 ' Add HC Toilets in CC 150 $100 $15,000 New Mezz. Storage 1,850 $50 $92,500 Subtotal Remodel Construction ~ $463,500 New Parking Garage New Book/Hold & Basemt. areas 3,080 $160 $492,800 Entry Level Minus Book/Hold 14,142 Lower Level 16,788 Total Garage Construction 30,930 $60 $1,855,800 Subtotal Parking Structure $2,348,600 Building Construction Total $2,812,100 Furniture /Furnishings $62,300 Site Work 15,000 $ 8 $120,000 Construction Total ' $2,994,400 Contingency 1 5% $449,160 Subtotal $3,443,560 Design Fees $150,000 TOTAL PROJECT COST $3,593,560 5 MEMORAN®UM ' TO: 'I`ovvn Council FROM: Community Development Department DATE: February 25, 1992 , SUBJECT: Worksession Discussion of Proposed View Corridor Ordinance ..i..t.... ~f~(Ali+~i+dMwvW~GWiuIFJA"•• •~wMG})G]ii. - •r•••••~•.••.. r~.vu........... r... v.iwewv.ww. iil iii ' I. PURPOSE The purpose of the view corridor ordinance under discussion is to: 1. Create a new chapter in the zoning code which will regulate view corridors 2. Update the photographs and legal descriptions based on improved physical monumentation 3. Add a fifth view corridor to the four already adopted A summary of the ordinance is provided below, and the full ordinance. is attached for the Council's information. During the worksession on February 25, 1992, staff will be presenting the photographs for Council review. These will include both the original photographs taken in the early 1980s, as well as ones taken recently which reflect the new monumentation completed by Dan Corcoran. Though the legal description for each corridor has been updated, the location of the boundary locations are intended to stay the same. II. SUMMARY Section 1 Revises the Urban Design Considerations which currently regulate the view corridors. Section 2 18.73.010 Explains the purpose for having view corridors. 18.73.020 Adopts the new legal descriptions. The legals will actually be codified within the Municipal Code under the current proposal. 18.73.030 Prohibits construction above the view corridor boundaries. ±f~' x.73:040 j D`is~ss,s ~e details of mass and bulk controls. This section prohibits any construction above the view corridor boundary, and specifically discusses existing encroachments. For example, ,a proposal for a building expansion directly behind the Clock Tower would not be allowed. This section also discusses existing encroachments, such as chimneys, balconies, as well as buildings. These are not required to be removed as part of any major building remodel, but staff will encourage the removal of them. This section also identifies focal points, .such as the Clock Tower and, Rucksack Tower, and states that they are intended to remain in the view corridor. - , 18.73.050 Provides the criteria for amending view corridor boundaries or proposing new view corridors. 18.73.060 Establishes the review arocess for view corridor changes, and specifically identifies two types of amendments: changes to the boundary locations and allowances for buildings to encroach above a boundary. No variances will be allowed regarding view corridor boundaries. Changes must be approved by ordinance, which requires PEC review and two readings in front of Council. 18.73.070 Allows for exemptions for two situations: structures which are destroyed by natural causes, and development proposals which have been approved by the Town of Vail, but not built as of the effective date of the view corridor ordinance. The Christiania is an example of this situation. The goal is to have any approval valid for up to, but no longer than, three years. Given the way the code is written, the DRB, PEC and Town Council approvals have different expiration dates. The ordinance has been written in such a way that each type of approval will be valid for a maximum of three years. III. CLARIFICATION OF ISSUES During previous worksessions, some specific questions about the ordinance were raised. These are listed below: A. Can someone rebuild a structure which presently encroaches into a view corridor? 1. If the building were torn down, the new building would have to conform to the ordinance. No portion of the structure could encroach above the view corridor boundary, unless the Town Council approved an amendment to the boundary. See 18.73.040 C. 2. If a portion of a building is remodeled, and an existing part of the building encroaches above the boundary, staff will encourage the applicant to remove the encroachment. However, there is no requirement that an entire building be brought irito conformance with this ordinance if only a portion is remodeled. In the case of the Gold Peak 2 ~ ~ . i House, ts-e remod~.:IF~~ i;~;ilding would be allowed to encroach above the bGUridar~ as m~a~~l~ as it does today. Additional encroachment would not be allowed unle~.~ the Town Council A~~t?roved a=f amendment to the boundary. See 18.73.040 C. 3. If a building, like the Clock Tower or the Rucksack Tower, were completely removed, it could not be rebuilt without an amendment to the view corridor ordinance. Because these two structures are recognized as focal points in this ordinance, staff believes there would be a basis for approving amendments to the ordinance to allow for these redevelopments. 4. If a structure is destroyed by natural causes, an owner has the right to rebuild the building to the same degree of encroachment as existed prior to the destruction, as long as construction begins within one year. See Section y 8.73.040 C. ' B. Could the ordinance be written in such a way to be less restrictive on the taller buildings located farthest from the origin of the view corridor? Staff acknowledges that the boundary set for the view from the Transportation Center staircase is based on the high peaks of the buildings in the Village. We understand this does give the opportunity for two-story buildings to expand up to three stories in some situations, as long as the height requirement and Urban Design Guide Plan are met. Staff believes this is inevitable in any view corridor, in that the higher buildings naturally `set the location for the boundary. C. Could the light post on the Transportation Center staircase be shifted to the west so it does not encroach into the view corridor? Staff has discussed this, and it appears that by installing new light poles proposed with the AIPP project or by relocating the existing pole, the light can be removed or relocated. The cost to relocate the pole has not been budgeted for the view corridor project, so staff may be requesting those funds at a later date, or address the issue through the AIPP project or landscaping fund for the VTRC. 3 ~'i ~~.~-<s~ _ t~4 'be made to a b~~iiding that is located immediately behind the CIocK To:v~cr ~^d a~Jve the view corridor boundary? The ~~agrarro behw shows how a proposed dormer might fall into this category: ~ ~ ~ ~ : - . • ~ \ ~or- The dormer would not be allowed without an amendment to the view corridor ordinance. There appears to be precedence for allowing remodels which do not exceed the height of surrounding ridge lines. For this situation, the Town would have to evaluate the ordinance amendment request using the criteria in Section 18.73.050 when it was made. It is also important to understand the affect the ordinance would have on building modifications completely below the ridge line. The sketch above is drawn looking south. Hypothetically, someone could request to add a small addition to the south elevation, keeping it completely below the ridge line. This type of change would not be visible from the view point, since it is behind the Clock Tower, and on the south elevation of the building. For these situations, staff believes the full amendment process may be too much review. Possibly allowing the PEC to approve this kind of addition or categorizing it as an exemption are better ways to handle this. Staff would like to discuss this with the Council more during the work session. 4 ORDINANCE NO. 13 Series of 1991 AN ORD{NANCE AMENDING SECTfON G OF THE VAIL VILLAGE URSA€t DESIGN CCI~ISt!~~F.RATIC~~S RELATfNG TO THE ~~ry ~1 ~^-.,^e ^~.gpywe `a!G.4nrg:- ~ .R.,~. .~,,,et`s .q ~+t~,'~ s~ "l ~~Ti:.c_: S S~,f 6~~ VFF b' ~:.-~4+~: J 1t~lF a a~E a ~.t i~W r~ 07- `I ~ :~H.. ~&'QD CI'kEATING NEW GH~~I"'~'~~R C~~. HE fx~~N4CIPA~, ~~'^DE OF THE TOWN OF VAIL TO PROVlI~E FOR THE PRG'r ECTION OF CERTAIN VIEWS WITHIN THE TOWI~I AND SETTING FORTH THE DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO WHEREAS, it is the opinion of the Town Council that the preservation of certain existing view corridors is essential to the character of Vail as a mountain resort community; and WHEREAS the preservation of views will protect and enhance the Town's attraction to tourists and visitors; and WHEREAS the preservation of views will stabilize and enhance the aesthetic and economic vitality of the Town of Vail; and WHEREAS the amendment will more clearly identify existing view corridors and development procedures for the public's benefit; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO AS FOLLOWS: Section 1 Section G of the Urban Design Considerations is hereby modified to read as follows: ParaaraAh G Vail's mountainNalley setting is a fundamental part of its identity. Views of the mountains, ski slopes, creeks and other natural features are constant reminders of the mountain environment and, by repeated visibility, are orientation reference points. Certain building features also provide important orientation references and visual focal points. The most significant view corridors have been adopted as part of Chapter 18.73 of the Vail Municipal Code. The view corridors adopted should not be considered exhaustive. When evaluating a development proposal, priority should be given to an analysis of the impact of the project on views. Views that should be preserved originate from either major pedestrian areas or public plazas, and include views of the ski mountain, the Gore Range, the Clock Tower or the Rucksack Tower. The views of the ski slopes and of the Clock Tower, which have been adopted by ordinance, were chosen due to their significance, not only from an aesthetic standpoint, but also as orientation reference points for pedestrians. 1 s ~evelopmEr?'t'ii~ ~~e Vail Village shall not encroach into any adopted view corridor. Adopted corridors ,are ilisted in Chapter 18.73 of the Vail Municipal Code. Whether affecting .:adotit~.d view &r,:n~~a4:y4'S or nOt, tt~e impact of proposed development on views from pedestrian wa<~~y~:ust.lrre,-icter€iie+;~:ar~ ;~?~~ated where r:~;eded. ection `2 Title 18 of the f~lunicipal Code of the Town of Vail is hereby amended by the addition of Chapter 18.73 to :read as follows: Chapter 18.73 -View Corridors 18.73.010 - Purpose The Town of Vail believes that preserving certain vistas is in the interest of the Town's residents and guests. Specifically, the Town believes that: A. The protection and perpetuation of certain panoramic mountain views from various pedestrian/public ways within the Town will foster civic pride and the general welfare of the people of the Town of Vail, and is in the public interest; B. It is desirable to designate, preserve and perpetuate certain existing panoramic mountain views for the enjoyment and environmental enrichment of the residents and guests of the Town; C. The preservation of such views will strengthen and preserve the Town's unique environmental heritage and attributes; D. The preservation of such views will enhance the aesthetic and economic vitality and values of the Town; E. The preservation of such views will protect and enhance the Town's attraction to tourists and visitors; F. The preservation of such views will promote good design and will provide for natural light in the buildings and public spaces in the vicinity of the view corridors. 18.73.020 -Adoption of View Corridor Leaal Descriptions and Photoara~hs The photographs on record with the Community Development Department and the following legal descriptions are hereby approved and adopted as official view corridors protecting views within the Town. A. A view from the south side of the Vail Transportation Center from the main pedestrian stairway looking toward the ski slopes; 2 ~ ~~olm ~1 'Ynstrurr~ni - ~Uiew Paint #1 - a 2" diameter brass disc, marked V.P. 1 on stair landing between te~ls..?.~and 3..of Vai! Ville^e Parking structure. a~ack~~-_~~~ - ~;dg~ `1/~ ~ corr~r of section 8 Helght~'tilnstrumenf above View Point #1 - 5.4 feet Lens used In photograph - 35 mm Horizontal Anale Zenith Ana1e Foresiaht Point on Photo 348°51'10" 77°21'30" A -intersection of the horizon with a vertical line defined by the southwest corner of the sixth floor deck enclosure on the Mountain Haus 348°30'10" 87°11'30" B1 -uppermost railing of the southwest corner of the balcony on the fourth floor of the Mountain Haus 355°23'00" 87°37'40" B2 -east end of the Red Lion roof ridge 357°39'04" 87°40'43" 63 -intersection of the Red Lion roof ridge with the southeast corner of the Rucksack Tower 357°57'59" 88°27'22" 64 -northeast corner of the base of the Rucksack Tower 004°05'19" 89°16'02" C1 -intersection of the Gallery Building with the northeast corner of the Clock Tower, immediately below the balcony 004°39'58" 89°16'33" C2 -western end of facia board on Gallery Building 004°47'18" 89°41'44" C3 -intersection of the sloping roof of the Gallery Building with the ridge line of the Clock Tower Building, which extends west 006°59'11" 89°42'12" D -intersection of the Clock Tower Building roof and the northwest corner of the Clock Tower Oil°25'56" 87°38'01" E -peak of the Plaza Lodge vent chase 027°08'54" 87°28'43" F -intersection of the north side of Pepi's roof with the east side of two large trees 031 °53'27" 76°26'35" G -intersection of the horizon line on Vail Mountain with the vertical line defined by the top of the western, very large pine tree west of Point F . B. A view from upper Bridge Street looking toward the ski slopes between 228 Bridge street, the Golden Peak Building, and 311 Bridge Street, the Hill Building; View Point #2 Instrument -View Point #2 - a #6 rebar with a 2'/i" diameter aluminum cap marked V.P. 2 (PLS 16827) set in an aluminum monument box in Bridge Street in front of the Red Lion Building 3 f Backslght -View Point #4 - a #6 rebar with a 2~/2" diameter aluminum cap marked V.P. 4 (PLS 16827) set in an aluminum monument tiox, 'in the brick pavers, approximately. 8 feet from the entrance 'to Frivolous -Says Rei~'~ht cal t~nst ~rnent bov~''~~,r `:mot ~~`2 - _5.4 feet Lens used in photograph - 35 mm Horizontal Angle .Zenith .Angle Foresight Point on Photo 289°25'48" 74°28'18" A -northwest corner of third floor balcony roof 290°58'11" 89°58'00" B - PK nail in top of retaining wall on west side of Golden Peak House, 1 foot east from west edge of planter wall 300°32'46" 92°05'34" C1 -top of south end of ski lockers, which are on railing 301 °35'24" 83°31'08" C2 -southeast comer of top deck rail on Hill Building 303°32'24" 73°38'55" D -southeast corner of brick chimney on Hill Building C. The northeast corner of 244 Wall Street, the One Vail Place Building, looking over the roofs of 304 Bridge Street, the Red Lion, and 356 Hanson Ranch Road, the Christiania, toward the Gore Range. View Point #4 Instrument -View Point #4 - a #6 rebar with a 2~h" diameter aluminum cap marked V.P. 4 (PLS 16827) set in an aluminum monument box, in the brick pavers, approximately 8 feet from the entrance to Frivolous Sal's Backslght -View Point #2 - a #6 rebar with a 2~/z" diameter aluminum cap marked V.P. 2 (PLS 16827) set in an aluminum monument box in Bridge Street in front of the Red Lion Building Helght of Instrument Above View Point #2 - 5.4 feet Lens used In photograph - 50 mm 4 Horizontal Angle Zenith Angle Foresight; Point on Photo 343°56'53" 62°24'10" A -south facia board of third floor roof of Plaza Lodge Building 3-^;-3°37'05" 73°G5'43" - intersection of upper and .~cond floor rc>u `line ~f Fi~u:a L©dge Building 352°55'25" 73°34'26" C -south end of peak of second floor gable of Plaza Lodge Building 352°31'05" 79°24'44" D -eastern edge of second floor gable roof of Plaza Lodge Building 352°13'16" 79°24'55" E -intersection of second floor roof facia and southeast comer of Plaza Lodge Building 352°13'14" 84°44'25" F -intersection of southeast corner of building and top edge of first floor facia of Plaza Lodge Building 354°30'20" 86°13'30" G -top of southeasterly corner of first floor facia of Plaza Lodge Building 354°47'22" 86°07'58" H -intersection of south edge of Red Lion chimney and upper Red Lion roof line 358°21'46" 85°17'48" I -peak of upper Red Lion roof line 359°04'31" 85°30'36" J -intersection of upper Red Lion roof line and northerly roof line of the Christiania 000°16'55" 84°36'56" K -peak of northerly roof line of the Christiania 001 °59'47" 84°36'56" L -intersection of northerly roof peak and southerly roof line of the Christiania 003°05'44" 83°32'42" M -northwesterly comer of second floor balcony on Hill Building 006°23'31" 83°33'52" N -intersection of top of second floor balcony rail and brick wall on Hill Building 005°32'14" 67°54'58" O -northwest corner of top of facia on third floor roof of Hill Building D. View of the Gore Range from Hanson Ranch Road just east of the Mill Creek Bridge and south of 302 Gore Creek Drive, the Mill Creek Court Building; View Point #5 Instrument -View Point #5 - a #6 rebar with 2~/2" diameter aluminum cap marked V.P. 5 (PLS 16827) set in an aluminum monument box in Hanson Ranch Road in front of the Mill Creek Court Building Backslght - #4 rebar with aluminum cap (LS 2568) in iron "Landmark" monument box marking centerline of Hanson Ranch Road -box is just west of Mill Creek in front of Cyrano's Height of Instrument Above View Point #5 - 5.4 feet 5 :L~etas.~sed ln;phc~gr - 3"5 mm r ~~Horizo~al An.ale ~e~i~ An~ole Foresight Point on Photo ~IaCX~"~8" ~81~~3'4 " A - intersection of southerly utility pole with ridge line '204ci~6;~43" -.65°'10'40" 61 -intersection of northerly extension of Garden of the Gods Building roofline with hillside ridge line 206°00'02" 85°! 0'40" B2 -northern end of roofline of the Garden of the Gods Building :208'12'53" $5~'1~0'40" C1 -intersection of southerly extension of the Garden of the Gods building roofline and the Villa Valhalla roofline 208°33'36" 84°55'50" C2 -northwest corner of the Villa Valhalla at roof facia 210°41'41" 84°01'47" D -intersection of top of the Villa Valhalla roof facia and the upward extension of the north edge of the trim on the window column 210°4i'41" 82°01'51" E -the upward extension of the north edge of the trim on the window column on the Villa Valhalla to a point above the horizon E. Looking east to the Gore Range from Gore Creek Drive between retail shops at 174 Gore Creek Drive, the Lodge at Vail, and 193 Gore Creek Drive, the Gore Creek Plaza Building. View Polnt #6 Instrument -View Point #6 - a #6 rebar with 2~/z" diameter aluminum cap marked V.P. 6 (PLS 16827) set in an aluminum monument box in Gore Creek Drive in front of the Gore Creek Plaza Building Backsight - a #6 rebar with 2'/z" diameter aluminum cap marked V.P. 6 B.S. (PLS 16827) set in an aluminum monument box in Gore Creek Drive near the southwest corner of Pepi's deck Height of Instrument Above View Polnt #6 - 5.4 feet Lens used in photograph - 35 mm 6 ~lorizorttal Aruale Zenith Anale Foresight Point on Photo .356°b;~~" 81°02'17" A -point on horizon left of the chimney on Pepi's rccf `~."~~"Y',~: B4~° >~2'06" cs - intc;-rsectiL,~~~. so~t':I-~east e~~e of c;,i~nncy and epi s = t4:j;iine 000°31'..38" 82°54'27" C - souizern end of gable on Pepi's roof 001 °48'10" 85°17'34" D1 -intersection of northerly extension of Gorsuch's roof ling and Pepi's roof X003°14'42" 85°17'40" D2 -north end of Gorsuch's roof 007°56'03" 85°11'32" D3 -south end of Gorsuch's roof 013°30'31" 85°11'32" a E -intersection of southerly extension of gorsuch's roof line and brick pillar on Lazier Arcade Building / Wall Street Building 013°38'14" 78°48'35" F -intersection of face of stucco and eve line on Lazier Arcade Building /Wall Street Building 012°55'17" 78°14'51" G -top of facia on northeast corner of roof on Lazier Arcade Building /Wall Street Building 014°44'21" 73°13'39" H -top of roof on Lazier Arcade Building /Wall Street Building 18.73.030 -Limitations on Construction No structure shall be permitted to encroach above the view corridor boundary identified with the legal descriptions in Section 18.73.020 which are graphically represented by the dashed tape on each of the adopted photographs. Copies of the photographs and legal descriptions are on file with the Community Development Department. For the purposes of this Chapter, the term structure shall include, but not be limited to, new buildings, building expansions, decks, remodels, mechanical equipment, vents, ducts, satellite dishes, fences, stoplights, light poles, utility poles, skylights or any similar object. 18.73.040 -Mass and Bulk Controls A. Proposed Building EXDanslonS in the Vicinity of Existing Encroachments When any proposed structure would infringe upon a Town of Vail view corridor, but is located in front of or behind another structure which already encroaches into the same view corridor, the new structure shall not be permitted. B. Height Control Within an Adopted View Corridor if the maximum height allowed by the zoning code exceeds the resulting height limitation defined by the view corridor, the more restrictive height regulation shall apply. 7 C. t'roQOSed Remodels of Buiidinas with Existina Encroachments L/ ire-existing ~encroa~hmerrts in view corridors shall not be expanded or enlarged to create further encroachment. ,Arab/ existing encroachments will be encouraged to be removed as part :ofi :aJra.YF mfr ~buildi~ag ~~odeto e~r::t {o;r identified focal points, s~:ch as the Clack Tower and Ruc~.:a: i<'Tower. t 8,.3.050 -Submittal Requirements for Additional View Corridors or Amendments to Existina 'View Corridors The following information shall be provided by the applicant with any proposed view corridor or with a Design Review Board application, exterior alteration application, variance application, or any other application that may result in an amendment to an existing view corridor, so that the Community Development Department can properly evaluate the impacts of a proposed view corridor or proposed structure within an existing view corridor: A. A written statement addressing the criteria shown below. Specifically, the applicant must show how the proposed view corridor or the amendment to an existing view corridor: 1. Protects and perpetuates certain panoramic mountain views from various pedestrian/public ways within the Town, and that this protection is in the public interest and will foster civic pride and the general welfare of the people of the Town of Vail; 2. Preserves the Town's unique environmental heritage and attributes; 3. Enhances the aesthetic and economic vitality and values of the Town; 4. Protects and enhances the Town's attraction to tourists and visitors; 5. Promotes good design and will provide for natural light in the buildings and public spaces in the vicinity of the view corridor; 6. Protects a view which is commonly recognized and has inherent qualities which make it more valuable to the Town than other more common views. 7. For an amendment to an existing view corridor, the applicant must show: a. That the proposed changes will not dramatically diminish the view which is protected; and b. That the public w111 benefit from the modifications. 8 d B. Names and addresses of all property owners affected by the proposed view corridor or the amendment to an existing view corridor. C. For a proposed view corridor proposal, photographs of the view to be established . _ The pl^^i:„-:~ ~aphs mus: lie marked to ~c~v the bcu<<<d:~ry of the proposed vievr corridor. The point used as the origin of the corridor must be identified, as well as the lens size and the height of the camera above pavement. D. For an amendment to an existing view corridor, photographs must be submitted which have been taken from the adopted view point which show a graphic representation of the proposed improvements in relation to existing improvements and view corridor boundaries. Proposed view corridor boundaries must also be shown, if requested. Photographs to be submitted must be taken from the same point used to define the corridor, with the same lens size, and with the camera set at the same height above the pavement. E. If necessary, the Community Development Department may require models, overlays, sketches, or other submittal materials which show: 1. For a proposed view corridor, the potential impact the new view corridor could have on the development potential of the surrounding properties. 2. For an amendment to an existing view corridor, the potential impact the changes could have upon the protected view corridor, either if it is changed to accommodate new construction or if it is changed to become more restrictive. F. Once the Town gives preliminary approval for either a new view corridor or an amendment to an existing view corridor, legal descriptions written in the same format as those in Section 18.73.020 and any other necessary survey information must be provided by the applicant. G. Proposals deemed by the Community Development Department to have significant implications on the community may require review by professionals outside the Town staff. In this event, the applicant shall reimburse the Town for expenses incurred by this review. Any outside consultant selected to review a proposed view corridor or an amendment to an existing view corridor shall be selected and utilized by the Town staff. The Community Development Department shall determine the amount of monies estimated to cover the cost of outside consulting 9 ser~ice~:, 2i'~ : amount shall be provided to the Town by the applicant prior to of ;artyl~ arin~ on .the proposal. Any unused portions of these funds shall be i1~t~nree~ ~ :tom applicant #ollowing the review of the proposed view corridor or ~~r~~."~ti ;~sa exs~~ng view corridoo. ~;;per~ses incurred 5y the Town in ex;.ce~ :t~ ~;~w w.s*>:~a~ed amount shall be reimbursed to the Town by the applicant. 1:8.73.060 - Aen,e.rnd:~r~er~ts. Appeals and Additional View Corridor Proposals A. Amendr~nSts -The provisions of th''rs chapter, including the legal descriptions and photographs of the designated view corridors, shall only be amended in accordance with the provisions of Sections 18.66.110 through 18.66.170 of this code. Two types of amendments may be requested. These include relocating a view corridor boundary and allowing a structure to extend above a boundary line defined by the legal descriptions in Section 18.73.020. No variance shall be permitted to any provision of this chapter 18.73. B. Appeals if a determination is made by staff that a proposed structure would encroach into an adopted view corridor, the applicant may appeal the determination to the Planning and Environmental Commission, according to Section 18.66.030. C. Additional View Corridors The Town Council, the Planning and Environmental Commission, Town staff or a member of the public may propose additional view corridors. Any proposal shall be accompanied with the information required in Section 18.73.050. Proposals for new view corridors shall be reviewed by the Town according to Sections 18.66.110 through 18.66.170. 18.73.070 -Exemptions A. Destruction Due to Natural Causes A structure which is presently located in an adopted view corridor may remain and, if destroyed by natural causes, may be replaced to its current size and height, provided such reconstruction takes place within one year following destruction. However, no structures which are located within a designated view corridor on the effective date of this ordinance shall be permitted to expand or enlarge the area of the structure which is located within the view corridor unless an amendment to the existing view corridor is approved. B. Approved Development Proposals Which Encroach Into View Corridors For development proposals which have received approval from the Town of Vail, but have 10 G V not.r~ece7v$d an .approved building: permit,'as of the effective date of this ordinance, and~,which - ,encroach ,into an adopted view corridor, the applicantshall. be able to renew the approval, not ~viths~~~~'i?~~ ~e ~,,Myr~'isiorts of this ordin~~r,re. For Planning and Environmental Commission ;c;~~eisicr~s,.~e ~~~;,'~aval can be renewer .c~~:~. Fcr Design F~+;~vie~~ Board decisions, the aph~rcval can be renewed t~~vo times. For Town Counts"I decisions, such as a Special Development District, the approval shall not be extended. If, for one project, the length of time resulting from the ,.extension of PEG or DRB approvals differs, the shorter length of time shall be the maximum allowed. If an approval lapses, the right to construct the development shall become void. Renewals can be made, notwithstanding the provisions of this ordinance, providing there is no substantial change to the structure, and provided there is no increase in the portion of the structure which encroaches into the view corridor. Section 3 If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not effect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. Section 4 The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety and welfare of the Town of Vail and the inhabitants thereof. Section 5 The repeal or the repeal and reenactment of any provision of the Vail Municipal Code as provided in this ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceeding as commenced under of by virtue of the provision repealed or repealed and reenacted. The repeal of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein. Section 6 All bylaws, orders, resolutions and ordinances, or parts thereof, inconsistent herewith are repealed to the extent only of such inconsistency. This repealer shall not be construed to revise any bylaw, order, resolution or ordinance, or part thereof, theretofore repealed. 1i . fNTROD1JCi=iC9,,~i~EAD'`ON`F(RST READING, APPROVED AND ORDERED PUBLISHED ~,~s ONCE tiV FULL,~his -d~a~v~of , 1991. A public hearing shall be held hereon on the day Hof , 1991., at the regular meeting of the Town Council of the Tc}~ o* 'L~~ 'C,+o!~rat~::,,, .on ,~h~.~ ~u~i f~.ri :B=.~iicing of the Town. Kent R. Rose, Mayor ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED this day of , 1991. , Kent R. Rose, Mayor ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk 92 ~~yr ' ~7 TOWN OF VAIL ~ 75 South Frontage Road Department of Public Works/Transportation Yail, Colorado 81657 303-479-2158/FAX 303-479-2166 MEMORANDIIM T0: Ron Phillips FROM: Greg Hall Ken Hughey DATE: February 24, 1992 RE: Village Loading Issues to be Recommended in the Master Transportation Plan At the January 14 public meeting on the Master Transportation Plan, it was decided that Town of Vail staff would bring Village loading options back to the Council. The options available are varied and diverse, with any part/mix of options available for consideration. It is, however, important to first establish the desired goals regarding vehicular traffic and truck delivery in the Village. The options discussed below are based on a varied range and degree of vehicle restrictions. Staff has attempted to select a recommended degree of restriction based upon the input at the public meeting and input gained through the Parking and Transportation Advisory Committee's work. To develop an adequate foundation of the base issue, it is valuable to review statistics gathered by the Police Department at Checkpoint Charlie. This information can then be used as a benchmark by which to measure the degree of success after changes in restrictions are made. The information covers the 44,000 vehicles through Checkpoint Charlie during the period from September 5 to December 31, 1991, and is as follows: 1. Cars: (Total = 13,089/30%) Request to enter the Core for tasks such as, small deliveries, people, etc. Memorandum Regarding Village Delivery Issues February 24, 1992 Page 2 2. Delivery Cars: (Total = 3,747/8.50) These are cars actually delivering or picking up sizable amounts of goods. '3. Delivery Trucks: (Total = 5,261/12%) These are trucks servicing restaurants, lodges, retail stores, etc. and include UPS, Federal Express and the US Post Office. 4. Construction Vehicles: (Total = 4,255/9.7%) These are vehicles associated with construction projects and service vehicles (plumbers, electricians, etc.). 5. Town of Vail: (Total = 1,790/4.1%) These are Town of Vail vehicles, including police and fire vehicles. 6. Taxis: (Total = 1,109/2.5%) This includes taxis," van services and limo's. 7. "Lost" Vehicles: (Total = 14,642/33.4$) These are vehicles whose occupants are lost, seeking directions, or are merely "driving around". It should be noted other .vehicles enter the Core area by coming in the wrong way via Gore Creek Drive and Hanson Ranch Road. Below is the Average Daily Summary for December Total Volume = 475 vehicles/day, which consists of: Cars 126/Day Lost Cars 159/Day Delivery Cars 45/Day Delivery Trucks 55/Day TOTAL DELIVERY 100/Day Construction Vehicles 40/Day Town of Vail, 25/day Taxis 25/Day l Memorandum Regarding Village Delivery Issues February 24, 1992 Page 3 Options and Staff Recommendations 1. Modify Policies at Checkpoint Charlie. a. Eliminate 30% of the traffic (cars) through use of the 1~2 hours of free parking in the Vail Parking Structure for this type of need. Designate a desirable area of the Vail Parking Structure .for short term parking. o Enforcement of this issue would be key to its success. Educate the users that the Town is providing convenient short term spots in the Vail Parking Structure, however, abuse of these spots will result in strict enforcement. b. Develop written policies concerning others requiring access to the Village such as: o Cars without large amounts of goods to be delivered will not be allowed in the Village or in the loading zones. Use of the parking structure would be required for these trips. • Trucks and cars that are making deliveries of large quantities of goods will be allowed access to the Village load zones and will be given priority for these zones. Time will be limited to only what is needed to load or unload these goods. In addition, a permitting process could be established to access these zones. o The towing of vehicles for excessive time in these load zones will be strictly enforced. o Construction work requiring parking will need to be planned and approved in advance by the Town of Vail Building Department and Police Department. o Service vehicles will be allowed limited access to some loading zones for emergency work only. Non- emergency service work should be scheduled for non-peak traffic hours in the Village. All service vehicles will need to contact the Police Department for a parking permit for both the emergency and non-emergency work. J Memorandum Regarding Village Delivery Issues _ February 24, 1992 Page 4 • All loading zone restrictions will be lifted after 6:00 p.m., except that the zones in the Core (Gore Creek Drive, Bridge Street, Hanson Ranch Road from Bridge Street to Hanson Ranch Chute) will be a "No Parking Area" after 6:00 p.m. c. Investigate the possibility of locating "drop boxes" in designated places for overnight couriers. 2. Select choices from the following menu as desired by Council. a. Adopt the short term recommendations of the transportation plan or some variation. b. Eliminate loading zones on Bridge Street only. c. Eliminate loading zones on Bridge Street and Hanson Ranch Road near Mill Creek only. d. Allow only morning use of the Gore Creek Drive loading (Lodge Promenade). e. Allow 15 minute parking below the Christiania lot (Gore Creek Drive) to remain "as is". f. Convert the 15 minute parking areas on the north side of the Christiania lot and adjacent to Riva Ridge North to delivery and service vehicles only. g. Install "One Way/Do Not Enter" signs further north on Willow Bridge Road. h. Convert the 15 minute parking north of Willow Bridge to truck only. 3. Authorize capital improvements in an attempt to reduce the 33% "lost guest" number and those who enter the Village the wrong way. a. Move Checkpoint Charlie as recommended by . Transportation Plan and Streetscape Plan. b. Construct the landscaped medians south down Vail Road from the Frontage Road. c. Look into informational and directional signing clarifications and modify as needed. Memorandum Regarding Village Delivery Issues February 24, 1992 Page 5 d. Construct entry feature monument signs at all entry points to pedestrian areas. e. Prior to construction of monument signs provide and install a standard sign which warns motorists with the wording "Auto Restricted Zone Ahead" at all pedestrian zone entry points. f. Install additional gates. g. Install additional check points. 4. Review the information signs and traffic control procedures at I-70 off ramps at 4-way. a. Test closing the Main Vail Ramps. b. Install portable variable message signs at the 4-way (Vail Road median) and the I-70 off ramps providing clear messages to drivers based on demand. c. Develop action policies for the following groups; (1) • CSO's in Village, (2) 4-way traffic controllers, (3) checkpoint personnel, (4) parking structure operations and other Town employees regarding (1) enforcement, (2) who is allowed to access the Village and (3) when to tow. Evaluate disallowing certain traffic movements during peak demand periods based on traffic demands and circumstances. 5. Work with Vail Associates in designating allowed skier drop off areas. This would be in an attempt to recognize the problem versus banning all skier drop offs. The Town staff recommends that Council adopt the following •options from the list above: Short Term: 1 (a) , (b) , (c) , 2 (c) , (d) , (e) , (f) , (g) , 5. Long Term: 3 (a) , (b) , (c) , (d) , (e) and ~4 (b) , (c) . Long Term Solutions 1. Christiania lot a. Resolve the ownership issues. a b. Evaluate in greater detail: Memorandum Regarding Village Delivery Issues February 24, 1992 Page 6 • Technological options of hand cart deliveries and small vehicle for deliveries and storage lockers. o Operational characteristics and regulations for hand carts and small vehicles along with liability issues, storage problems and financing option. o Can the site be aesthetically compatible with the neighborhood and still operational for the truck delivery functions? 2. Other sites: a. South of Lodge at Vail s Resolve ownership and legal issues. • Compatibility with International Wing development plans. ® Vail Associates Concerns. • United States Forest Service concerns. b. Gold Peak • Ownership issues. • Vail Associates concerns. c. Other sites The staff recommends a strong commitment on the part of the Town Council to pursue a long term solution to the loading and deliver issue. GH/dsr . RPTC.DEL WORK SESSION FOLLOW-UP February 21, 1992 Page 1 of 3 TOPIC QUESTIONS FOLLOW-UP SOLUTIONS 1991 7127 UNDERGROUND UTILITIES IN LARRY/GREG: Work with Holy Cross Electric to New options for allocation of costs will be presented EAST VAIL establish special improvement district(s) for to Council in a timely manner to be included in the underground utilities in East Vail. required notification of the affected property owners ' in the proposed special district. Notices were mailed the week of February 3rd. Public meeting is set for 313192. 05107 SALES TAX COLLECTION LARRY/STEVE: Research remedies to change this to Draft ordinance forwarded to Forest Service and VA for (request: Gibson/Lapin) a mandatory TOV tax collection. review. Forest Service response unclear. More follow- up required. 07/09 SNOW REMOVAL ON PRIVATE LARRY: Research ordinance. Second reading of proposed ordinance is scheduled for SIDEWALKS 3/3/92. 09117 STREET LIGHTS PETE BURNETT: The LionsHead Merchants Public Works will present analyzed data by spring of (request: Levine) Association would like to see a couple changes, '92. which might include some of the lighting by Montaneros, which is too bright, and placing it in front of Gallery Row in the Treetops Building. 11/19 NEWSPAPER VENDING LARRY: What can be done to make these uniform and Scheduled for discussion at work session on 3/3192. MACHINES locations less prolific? 12117 LIONSHEAD MERCHANTS MTG. KRISTAN: We have scheduled for 3/10/92. (Merv, Kristan has spoken with new leader, Packy Walker. Peggy, Rob, Jim G., Ron, Kristan, Diana Donovan, Ned Gwathmey) WORK SESSION FOLLOW-UP February 21, 1992 PAge 2 of 3 TOPIC QUESTIONS FOLLOW-UP SOLUTIONS 1992 01107 VILLAGE LOADING AND EVERYONE: A community meeting with Arnie Ullevig Staff is organizing a report for discussion by Council. DELIVERY ISSUES was held on Wednesday, 1/15/92. Scheduled for 2125/92 work session. 01/21 EVENING PARKING MIKE ROSE/STEVE B.: Evaluate financial STRUCTURE FEES ramifications of eliminating parking structure fees (request: Lapin) after 6:00 p.m. each night. Further review summer free parking, generating numbers to show revenue and expenses if some nominal fee were to be charged. 01121 BEAVER POND KRISTAN: Check with FEMA experts and Interfleuve One report has been received from Interfleuve. The REVITALIZATION to see what solution might be appropriate to Community Development Department is awaiting revitalize this pond (i.e., dredging or other means). receipt of two others. Report will be made to Council upon receipt. 02/04 HERITAGE CABLEVISION RON: Prepare new letter of protest for Mayor's Will do. FRANCHISE NEGOTIATIONS signature. XC: Newspapers, Dillon, Minturn, etc. (request: Lapin) 02111 GLASS ORDINANCE IN ALL LARRY/KEN/STEVE FOSTER: Staff discussion and Will do. ATHLETIC PARK FACILITIES draft ordinance to be prepared. 02/11 HORSEDRAWN CARRIAGE KEN/LARRY: Prepare extension to agreement, Staff preparing recommendations for work session AGREEMENT including possible provisions for hobbling, dragging Scheduled for 313192 work session. weights, and other options. WORK SESSION FOLLOW-UP February 21, 1992 Page 3 of 3 TOPIC QUESTIONS FOLLOW-UP SOLUTIONS 02/11 WEST VAIL INTERCHANGE KEN: Gather projected cost figures, impact on Ken will have recommendations by 3/3/92. TRAFFIC CONTROL resources, and when this can be implemented. (request: Osterfoss) 02/11 SCHEDULE TOURS OF PUBLIC COREY/KEN: Bob Buckley is the remaining Council Will schedule. WORKS AND POLICE DEPT. member who has not seen firsthand the facilities for both departments. 02/17 EXTERIOR LIGHTING KRISTAN/ANDY: Draft ordinance. To DRB 3118/92. SENT SY:EAGLE COUNTY ; 2-21-92 9:46 ; 3033287207 3034792157;# 1/ 3 _ RECCE FEB 2 1 1992 . i ~ ~r=." ' ~ , FAGIf tQUNTY BUILDING ~ ~ 551 6ROAplr/AY OFFICE OF THE ^ P.O. BO% 850 &1ARD OF tQMM165lONF3LS FAGL[; tGf,4RAD0 81 SS ! (303) 326-B605 : FAR: (30d} 326.7207 . ~ .t EAGLE ~C~UNTY, CC~LORADO~ A~~NDA ~aA~D o~ cooNTY Cc~~MisstoNE~S R~CrLTLAR METING DAY Mt"1NT31iY, ~~~RUARY 2A, 199Z 09:OD -09:30 ]~OA1tD of S~DCIAL. ~r~,nVICFS savr~ c~uNrpROad Kathleen Farmash, Director of Social Seririces 09:30 - 09:4 AR~.ai tEC'Y IJa'~AL SFRVIC]FS SELEC air.tN FOIL 'I~IiE WEST SIDE COU~tT' HOUSE ENTRANCE ~orJS ~uNrpxao~a Mike Bradley, Building and Grounds Supervisor ACTLtaN: Consider, reject all bids. 09:45 -10:45 WORK S$SSIUN -WEEKLY UPDATE naz ~ p~~ aoLx c~ccxss Rvo~ James R. Fritrc, County lvlanager 10:45 -11:34 - ~;~,~ING LITIGATION oar. aJ~ AoLr catnss xoo~lt Kevin I indahl, County Attorney 11:3Q - 01:3U WORK SESSION - RE: FAIItGROiJND LEASES arToj,~ Hnl.Yaeo~sROOaa Mike $radley, Building and Grounds Supervistn 01:34 - 01:45 CONSEI~IT CALENDAR &lCIE C~DUNIYROOIU IIE~MS OFd RDFI7ZI~? A1VA NON-GIPNTRI?V~tSGlL 1rGl7TIRE ARE PLe1CF.D aN7H8 COl~SnJV7' Crlr,P~L?AR IYJ.lLL01V TIiH B[blRD OF CdUMY CObfJNISSIONERS 9Y1 SPB11~ IY~ 77M8 AND B'Nl~l{GY ON MDRI# IMFURIAN!'1?Hd~fS ON a iPJ4c~, a i AQENDd. ANY CO~fISSfOABIt li1dY REQUPYI' THATANln£da BE "RFJ4fUYED' FR'011~ iHg [S71Y5'r'SM1?P ?~•nmaR .lllm GYIIVSIOrF.KED S6PdltA7ELY. ANYMHAi2x8R t7F ?Utz PUBIICMAY RE~UffiT"ANYJ~ha' aE REhfOi+Bb" AROM YFLIr GYINSZNIACs~Id. 1. B]Q.1., PAYING Linda. Pan~vch, Accounting Larry Clever, Contrl~ller A4 r.ON: Approve subject w revi~? by the County Manager. SENT BY~EAGLE COUNTY ; 2-21-92 ; 9:46 ; 3033287207-' 3034792157;# 2/ 3 Mt~TOR POOL - PURCHASE QF SIEA~+Y EQUIPMENT Don Fessler. Road and Bridge Supervisor Bill Smith, Motor Fool Supervisor ACTION: Consider ~ gal. 3. COLORADO DIEPARTMIEEs,NT OF HEALTH, L~ ~ rn OF AGrRT+sEMD1T'r' ~ ~ 1, Wb11iIII1T, INFANTS AND kr~.a~,DREN PROGRAM CONTRACT Margie Gates, Duecror of Nursing ACTION: Confider ter. av~1.. 4. AGRit;IIVIF~V'T BE,. r~r,~.i~T COUNTY 4F EAGLE, x~ STATE OF CQl.0It1!?DO AND HEALY~~' BEGINNIlYGS (P1t~TATAL CARE TO LOW INCOME PERSUNS) Margie Gates, birectvr of Nursing Allen Barrie, Accounting Director ACTION: Consider a~,rY..~~ral. 5. CONTRACT ~+a~~ P`URCIiASE, INSTALLATION AND MAI>w Yr~~IANCE OF A?XJ'i'OMA Y r~ r ~r:~ SYSTEM AND GA7~IAub,~+iG SYSTEM Bill Smith, IVlatar Pawl Supervisor A~;~Y~JN: Consider a~.~~.~~~ral. 01:45 - 0:00 199i< ROAD CERY~~GATION ~r~ caunarxoo~ Dan Fessler, Road and Bridge Supervisor At., s iON: Consider approval. 02:00 -05:00 ABA ~ ~~rIENT HEARIlVGS Fermi cormrPaao~a Cherlyn llaber? County Assessor 1. NgSREBCiR, INC. Saltedule nuauber 0033831 ACTI0IY: Consider approval. MARY S. AND ROOT ENGET,MAN Schedule numbsc 4008U30 ACTION: Consider appcaval. 3. MARY S. AND IZO~x~nT ENGELIUTAN Schedule number 001000 ACTIQN: Gansider approval. 4. L~~~~.?.~Y G..?r.~~.F.R, JR. sdv~daie number 0008774 ACTIQN: Cn:ysider approve]. rage z SENT BY~EAGLE COUNTY 2-21-92 947 3033287207-' 3034792157;# 3( 3 w S. OTIS DEVFd.OPMENT Schedule number 0032427 ACTION: Consider approval. 6. TUWN OF BASALT Schedule member 0426147 ACTION: Ccrosider eppmvat. 7. PLAZA ARY CLEAt~RS Schedule member x u'aut~14 ACTION: Gos?sider aw~„.~. ~~fa1. 8. MARC AND JANICE PATTON Schedule number 0002274 ACTION: Co~ider a~,~, w~!al. 9. BACK EI,LIQ?1' Schedule number 0629109, 0629111, 0629112 ACTION: Consider approval. I.O. HARRIS TRUST ANri SAVINGS BANK, TRG~r~,~ OF Y~ LOUIS CATHERIlVE GrORDON TRUST Schedule autuber 0014255 ACTION: Consider approval. 11. DARYL R. BURNS Schedule numf>er 0Q93b~2 ACTION: Consider ~ ~ gal. 1Z. FRANK Sa„!,..~t6ERG Schedule aumt:ar 0027381 ACTId11T: Cnnsidara~Y,~.~~al. I.3. MARK xa,:y..~,~~ Schedule nambar POU1657 A(°I'ION: Copsid~et appcmral• 14. KAISER MORCUS aka ~Al3ER E. MARCUS AND +(R.pRIA B. 1iR~S Schedule nu.,~ y 0009459, 0009461, 0009462, 0009463, 0009464, 00094d`~, 0009468, 00094b9, 00094?1;0009473,00094?4,000947b, 0007388, 0007384. ACTIONz Consider at,~.. ~ ~ gal. TH1S AaucarirA 6ri PROS ~r. FOR II'7FORb1AT[ONAL PURPOST3S Ol'1j.Y' - l1L1.1'IINB9 ARS APFRU?Ln4iATB. THE &]AxI? WH1LB IN 9B&410N MAY CQN9DxlR OR't.rd 1T13MS THAT' ANB BSgF4HT ~F01CE rr. PAG18 3 4 TOWN OF VAIL MEMORANDUM TO:. Ron Phillips Council Members FROM: Steve Thompson DATE: February 20, 1992 RE: Investment Report Enclosed is the investment report with balances as of January 31, 1992. In January we purchased two. securities: Security, Date Yield Price Value T-bill 07/09/92 3.927 $490,605.56 $500,000 U.S. Strips 08/15/92 4.0200 $498,872.30 $510,000 Both securities were purchased with pooled funds. Please let me know if you have any questions. Torn of Yail, Colorado Inrestsent Report Suaaarr of Accounts and Inrestsents For the Month Ending January 31, 1991 Funds For Reserve Balances Percentage Percentage Opereting Funds 01~31~42 of Total Alloyed Money Market Rccounta (see page 1) Cossercial Banks 1131,890 f3B8,562 =523,452 /.OOi SOt Money Market funds 13,886,093 13,886,093 29.682 1001 Colorado Inrestaent Pools 11,991,941 11,991,941 11.262 1001 _ Total 11,132,831 14,211,6SS 16,401,492 48.911 Coasercial Savings b Banks loans Certificates of Deposit (see page 2) Eagle County Institutions ~ 0.002 Other Colorado Institutions 'O.OOi Nationallnstitutions 199,000 199,000 199,000 O.l6i 1ota1 199,000 199,000 f99,000 0.161 1001 Percentage of Portfolio in Savings 6 loans O.l6i 2S2 U.S. 6orernaent Securities (see page 3) Repurchase Agreesents 12,130,869 12,430,869 18.561 1St Treasury Notes b Bills 1984,118 f1,00S,009 (1,994,/81 1S.ili 1001 6NMR's 1148,319 1118,344 1.132 IOOi U.S. Savings Bonds 122,816 122,816 0.111 1001 Federal Agency Discount Notes ~ Bonds f1,991,b12 11,991,612 IS.211 1001 Total 13,152,315 13,135,818 16,588,193 50.302 Total Portfolio 15,285,151 11,809,533 113,091,685 !00.002 Maturiaq lithia 12 Months ~ 1/,215,152 11,215,850 111,511,001 18.361 Maturing Bithin 24 Months 1500,000 10 1500,000 3.821 Maturing After 24 Months 1500,000 1513,683 11,013,683 1.811 1S,28S,1S2 11,809,533 113,094,685 100.001 Breakdorn of Reserve Funds ; 8.0. Bond Reserve 15,230,SS9 , Capital Projects Bond Funds ~ 12,190,412 Chuck Anderson Mesorial f10,991 Health insurance Funds 1311,511 (1,809,533 2~19~92j1p inrsa0l Money Market Accounts as of January 31, 1992 --for the Month of January-- ' institution Balances Type of Accounts High . log Rrerage 01~31r92 C0MMERC1Rl BRMI ACCOUNTS First Bank of Yail -Operating interest 4.8601 3.5001 3.9802 Balance 51,166,199 f249,411 5469,SS4 193,031 first Bank of Yail -Insurance interest 4.86Di 3.5001 3.9801 1311,511 Balance Central Bank of Denver Interest 4.1101 General Operating Account Balance ~ 552,8N Total Coaaercial Bank Accounts SS23,452 " LOCRI 60YERNMENT iNYESTMENT POOL Colorado Trust (inrestaent Pool) Interest 3.9801 • Balance - 11,991,941 MONEY MARKET MUTUAI FUNDS Federated Securities Corp. U. S. treasury crust Reserve Account Interest /.3081 Balance 1383,143 Fidelity Inrestaent Gorernaent Money Harket Accounts ]nterest 4.2401 Bond Issue Reserve Account Balance 51,312,538 Capital Projects Bond Account Balance - 51,190,412 Total Money Market Mutual fund 53,886,093 Total all accounts 56,401,492 =iAccount Subject to Arbitrage Rebate 2~19r92j1p inraa0l Page 1 1 ' Certificates of Deposit as of 3anuary 31, 1991 Bank Rase, location Days to Rates Purchase .Maturity Maturity Maturity Ins Coupon Yield Date Date et Purchase Yalue lyndonrille Sayings Bank i Trust, lyndonrille, YT, Reserved Funds FDIC 9.2501 9.OSOi 26•Jul-89 01-Jun-91 1011 599,000 Arg Yield 9.0301 (99,000 Days to Maturity 122 2/19/92j1p inrcd0l Page 2 l 8orernaent Securities t' • as of January 31, 1991 .D ~==)reasury Notes L Billss?: Days • to Gays interest Rate Purchase Maturity Maturity to Book Par Type Fund Coupon Yield Date Oate at Purchase' Maturity Yalue Yalue faro Debt Serrice ).8101 21-Jun-91 1S-Nor-95 1608 1381 :523,683 1)00,000 Strip Pooled 1.0201 13-Jan-91 1S-Auq-91 20S 191 2498,812 SS10,000 8211 Pooled 3.91]2 10-Jan-92 09-Ju1-91 121 160 2190,606 2500,000 Dill Debt Serrice 1.9002 1.9002 09-Oct-91 td-Sep-91 353 139 2181,326 2500,000 Arerage Years To Maturity 0.54 11,991,]81 21,510,000 Arerage field 3.1St =ssRepurchase Agreeaentsirr ' Purchase Maturity Book Institution Yield Date Oate Yalue Morgan Stanley j 1.8502 Ol-Oec-91 Ol-Jun-9.1 f2,430,869 s Sinking fund Inrestaent to Retire 6.0. Bonds cs:6NMA~S~is ' Years to Estiaated Interest Rate Purchase Maturity Maturity Yearn to Principal Pool Coupon Yield Date Date at Purchase Maturity Outstanding 5803 B.000i 8.4802 1/-Mor-86 15-Oct-05 14.10 16.00 238,1)0 13003 B.000i 9.5002 24-Oct-86 15-Oct-06 20.20 11.00 (48,319 14659 8.0002 9.20Di 14-Oct-Bd 15-Jan-01 21.20 18.00 261,560 Arg Yield 9.1112 2148,344 ===U.S. Borings Bondsjrr • Yean to issue Maturity Maturity Years to Book Maturity Series Yield Date Date at Purchase Maturity Yelue Yalue EE 1.1101 Ol-Oct-86 01-Oct-96 10.00 4.61 211,816 230,000 ' ==+Federal Agency Discount Notes i Donds~ja Days to Interest Rate Purchase Maturity Maturity Days to Book Maturity ' Agency Fund Coupon Yield Oate Oate at Purchase Maturity Yalue Yalue FNlB Pooled 4.3601 09-Dec-91 11-Mar-91 - • 94.00 11.00 • f991,611r f1,000,000- FHLB Pooled 7.0801 1.0801 15-Jun-91 25-Jun-93 ]31.00 511.00 2500,060 2500,000 fNMA Pooled 1.1301 1.1302 15-Sep-91 14-Sep-98 2556.00 1118.00 2500,000 2500,000 21,991,611 22,000,000 Arerage yield S.89i Arerage Oays to Maturity 993 Total Sd,588,193 2~L9J92j1p inrtr0l Page 3 OUTLINE Gr ;PROVISIONS OF ~ ti0i3SE CONCURREt~€ RESOLUTION 92-1002 as amended by House Finance Committee February 6, 1992 (major amendments underscored) State Appropriations Limitation 1. For fiscal year.1993-94 and fiscal years thereafter, requires the level of state general fund appropriations and state cash fund appropriations to be limited to the state general fund and cash fund appropriations for the previous fiscal year multiplied by the average annual growth in personal income for Colorado for the three most recent fiscal years. 2. Exceptions to state appropriations limitation: ? Appropriations of voter-approved revenue increases; ? Appropriations of federal funds and of private grants, gifts, donations, and contributions; ? Appropriations which, as a result of federal law, are made for new programs/services or increases in the level of service of existing programs/services; ? Appropriations which, as a result of a final federal or state court order, are made for new programs/services or increases in the level of service of existing programs/services; and ? Cash funds of institutions of higher education, except . resident tuition, which is to be regulated by statute. 3. State appropriations limitation may be exceeded upon: ? Approval of voters of state at general election; or ? Passage of joint resolution declaring fiscal emergency by 2/3rds vote of members of both houses of General Assembly and approval by the Governor. Specifies that appropriations made due to declaration of fiscal emergency which exceed the state appropriations limitation are not included in calculation of state general and cash fund appropriations for previous fiscal years. State Mandates . No new or expanded state mandates maX be imposed on local governments unless the new or expanded mandates are accompanied by ' ,'"3F i ' ~mo~r~e~~~~ s~u~'~`i~.ci~~~t; 'ter ~:fr~ci ~hc:sn rnanda±es,. ~ManduY.es are defined as '~an~ +'~8qui~"ement which regulates or directs activities or services. of anv local government; or the operations or administra-tion of anv iocal~aovernment, including, but not limited to, reporting. fiscal,. compensation, nerson~~nel, planning, evaluation, and recordkeepinct requirements." Local Government Appropriations Limitation for budget years commencing on and after January 1, 1994, requires the level of spending by units of local government. (not including school districts) to be limited to. the total spending for the previous budget year multiplied by the average annual growth rate in state personal income for the three most recent budget years. 2. Exceptions to the local government appropriations limitation: ? Appropriation of voter-approved revenue increases, including revenue increases for the payment of bond principal and interest; ? Appropriation of federal funds, whether those funds are appropriated by the federal, state, or another local, government; ? Appropriation of private grants, gifts, donations, and contributions; ? Appropriations which, as a result of federal law, is made for new programs/services or increases in the level of service of existing programs/services; ? Appropriations which, as a result of any final federal or state court order, is made for new programs/services or increases in the level of service of existing programs/services; ? Proceeds from bonds, certificates of participation. notes, and similar borrowing; ? Required repayments of state equalization payments made to school districts as a result of the undervaluation of taxable property; and ? Local government enterprise funds. 3. Local government appropriations limitation may be exceeded upon: 2 J Apprf.~al of voters of local government at general or spec?M1 election: or ? Passage of resolution declaring fiscal .emergency by unanimous vote of governing body of local government at a public hearing. Declaration of fiscal emergency effective only until next general election of local government at which such declaration is presented to voters for approval or disapproval. .Spending due to declaration of fiscal emergency which exceeds local government spending limitation is included in calculation of total spending by local government for previous budget years only upon voter approval of declaration. 4. Upon voter approval, authorizes the adoption of an in-lieu-of appropriations limitation for any unit of local government. Provides for such an in-lieu .limitation to be proposed by initiative of the registered electors of a local government or by referral of the governing body of a local government. ? Provides that the local government spending limitation set forth in this provision shall not apply to any unit of .local government which has a voter-approved spending limitation in effect on the effective date of the constitutional amendment. However,. if such local government spending limitation is subsequently repealed, the local government spending limitation set forth in this provision shall apply. 5. The General Assembly is charged with establishing the appropriations limitations for newly created local governments as well as for those local governments formed, in whole or in part, through consolidation. School District Spending Limitation 1. for fiscal year 1993-94 and fiscal years thereafter, requires that the total aggregate spending by all school districts of district and state public school funds to be limited to: All school district All state general Average annual The annual change revenues fund and cash funds growth rate in .state in total public appropriated for personal income school pupil - public schools during the three enrollment during most recent fiscal the preceding years fiscal near. plus times plus 3 ~2. 3Excepti~cn~ ~~o s:hool district spending limitation: ? Spending of federal funds or of private grants, gifts, donations, and contributions; ? Spending of moneys resulting from voter-approved property tax increases as allowed by law; ? Spending which, as a result of federal law, is made for new programs/services or for increases in the level of service for existing programs/services; Spending which, as a result of a final federal or state court order, is made for new programs/services or for increases in the level of service of existing - programs/services; and ? Exaenditure of the oroceeds from bonds. certificates of particieation. notes. and similar borrowing issued by school districts. 3. School district spending limitation may be exceeded upon: ? Approval of voters of state at general election. ? Passage of joint resolution declaring fiscal emergency adopted by 2/3rds of both houses of General Assembly and approval by Governor. Specifies that spending due to declaration of fiscal emergency which exceeds school district spending limitation is not included in calculation of aggregate school district spending for previous fiscal years. 4. Requires the General Assembly to enact laws to implement said spending ]imitations. 5. Extends the power of initiative to the registered electors of counties and special districts for the purpose of establishing an in lieu of spending limitation for such county or special district. 4 R i3riority Amonq Constitutional Proposals Should more than one proposal limiting government taxes or expenditures be presented to and approved by voters at the 1992 general election, the provisions of the proposal receiving the most votes are to prevail and all provisions of other measures are, without effect. Prepared by Office of Legislative Legal Services and Legislative Council staff. 5 UNOFFtC4Rt. ENGROSSED HOUSE CONCURRENT . RESOLUTION 1002 - BY REPRESENTATIVE Arveschoug; also SENATOR Trujillo. HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 92-1002 1 SUBMITTING TO THE REGISTERED ELECTORS OF THE STATE OF COLORADO 2 AN AMENDMENT 70 THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF 3 COLORADO, IMPOSING A LIMIT ON STATE GENERAL FUND AND CASH 4 FUND APPROPRIATIONS; IMPOSING A-SREPIEIPI'~ ETA9~-~+1 A LIMIT 5 ON APPROPRIATIONS OF UNITS OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT; IMPOSING 6 A LIMIT ON THE SPENDING OF SCHOOL DISTRICTS OF SCHOOL 7 DISTRICT REVENUES AND STATE GENERAL FUND AND CASH FUND 8 APPROPRIATIONS FOR PUBLIC SCHOOLS; PROVIDING EXCEPTIONS 9 TO SAID LIMITS; SPECIFYING THAT, IF MORE THAN ONE MEASURE 10 TO LIMIT GOVERNMENTAL TAXES OR SPENDING IS SUBMITTED TO 11 THE VOTERS AND RECEIVES A MAJORITY OF VOTES, THE MEASURE 12 RECEIVING THE GREATER NUMBER OF VOTES WILL PREVAIL; 13 RESERVING TO THE REGISTERED ELECTORS OF EVERY COUNTY AND 14 SPECIAL DISTRICT THE INITIATIVE POWER WITH RESPECT TO 15 ADOPTION OF AN ALTERNATIVE S~R€P18I#C '_TP!?T.~84I-" 16 APPROPRIATIONS LIMITATION; PROHIBITING CERTAIN STATE 11 MANDATES ON ANY LOCAL GOVERNMENT. NEW LANGUAGE UNDERSCORED I~O~~~C~~. E~~C~~~ ~C~ OZ-1002 Resolution Summary (Note: This summary aoolies to this resolution as introduced and does not necessarily reflect a,_y amendments which may be subsequently adopted.) Requires that the level of state general fund appropriations and state cash fund appropriations for fiscal year 1993-94 and each fiscal year thereafter shall be limited to the state general fund and cash fund appropriations for the previous fiscal year multiplied by the average anr~.tal growth in personal income for Colorado during certain fiscal years. Makes certain exceptions to said limitation and allows such limitation to be exceeded upon the occurrence of certain events. Requires that the level of spending by units of local government for budget .years commencing on or after January 1, 1993, and each budget year thereafter, be limited to the total spending for the previous budget year multiplied by the average annual growth rate of total personal income in Colorado during certain calendar years. Makes certain exceptions to said limitation and allows such limitation to be exceeded upon the occurrence of certain events. Authorizes the adoption of an in lieu of spending limitation for any unit of local government upon voter approval and sets forth procedures therefor. Allows for the retention of voter-approved spending limitations for units of local government in effect upon a specified date. Requires the level of spending by all school districts of school district revenues and state general fund and cash fund appropriations for public schools for fiscal year 1993-94 and each fiscal year thereafter to be the total of spending by all school districts of school district revenues and state general fund and cash fund appropriations for public schools for the previous fiscal year multiplied by the average annual growth rate of total personal income in Colorado during certain fiscal years. Makes certain exceptions to said limitation and allows such limitation to be exceeded upon the occurrence of certain events. Amends section 1 of article V of the state constitution to reserve the initiative power to the registered electors of each county and special district with respect to the adoption of an in lieu of spending limitation. Allows the general assembly to establish by law the manner for exercising such initiative power. NE6B' LANGUAGE UNDERSCORED 2 Ur~O~~iC1~L ENGROSSED HCR 92.1002 1 Be It Resolved ~ the House of Representatives of the 2 Fifty-ei4hth General Assembly of the State of Colorado. the 3 Senate concurring herein: 4 SECTION 1. At the next general election for members of 5 the general assembly, there shall be submitted to the registered 6 electors of the state of Colorado; for their approval or 7 rejection, the following amendment to the constitution of the 8 state of Colorado, to wit: 9 The constitution of the state of Colorado is amended BY 10 THE ADDITION OF A NEW ARTICLE to read: 11 ARTICLE XXVII 12 Spending Limitations 13 Section 1. State appropriations - limitations - 14 exceptions. (1) EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED IN SUBSECTIONS 15 (2) AND (3) OF THIS SECTION, FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1993-94 AND 15 EACH FISCAL YEAR THEREAFTER, THE INCREASE IN TOTAL STATE GENERAL 17 FUND APPROPRIATIONS AND STATE CASH FUND APPROPRIATIONS SHALL BE 18 LIMITED TO THE TOTAL STATE GENERAL FUND APPROPRIATIONS AND STATE 19 CASH FUND APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE PREVIOUS FISCAL YEAR MULTIPLIED 20 BY THE AVERAGE OF THE ANNUAL GROWTH RATE OF THE TOTAL PERSONAL 21 INCOME FOR COLORADO FOR THE MOST RECENTLY ENDING FISCAL YEAR AND 22 THE TWO FISCAL YEARS IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE MOST RECENTLY 23 ENDING FISCAL YEAR. NEW LANGUAGE UNDERSCORED 3 1~~~0F~1~~L ~G~~~D ~~0 92.1002 1 (2) THE LIMITATION IMPOSED BY SUBSECTION (1) OF THIS 2 SECTION SHALL NOT APPLY,TO ANY STATE GENERAL FUND APPROPRIATION . 3 OR STATE CASH FUND APPROPRIATION: 4 (a) OF ANY MONEYS WHICH ARE THE RESULT OF ANY INCREASE 5 IN REVENUES WHICH ARE APPROVED BY A MAJORITY OF THE REGISTERED 6 ELECTORS OF THE STATE VOTING THEREON AT ANY GENERAL ELECTION; 7 (b) OF ANY MONEYS WHICH ARE FUNDS FROM THE FEDERAL 8 GOVERNMENT OR ARE THE RESULT OF GRANTS, GIFTS, DONATIONS, OR 9 OTHER CONTRIBUTIONS FROM ANY PRIVATE SOURCE; 10 (c) WHICH, AS A RESULT OF FEDERAL LAW, IS MADE FOR ANY 11 NEW PROGRAM OR SERVICE OR FOR ANY INCREASE IN THE LEVEL OF 12 SERVICE FOR AN EXISTING PROGRAM OR SERVICE BEYOND THE EXISTING 13 LEVEL OF SERVICE; 8f~ 14 ~ (d) WHICH, AS A RESULT OF ANY REQUIREMENT OF A FINAL 15 STATE OR FEDERAL COURT ORDER, IS MADE FOR ANY NEW PROGRAM OR lb SERVICE OR FOR ANY INCREASE IN THE LEVEL OF SERVICE FOR AN 17 ~'~T ~~n Tu€ CYTCTTIdC i ni€! '~F £€?~!~6€,- EXISTING 18 PROGRAM OR SERVICE BEYOND THE EXISTING LEVEL OF SERVICE; OR 1g (e) OF ANY MONEYS WHICH ARE CASH FUNDS OF INSTITUTIONS, 20 OF HIGHER EDUCATION; HOWEVER.' RESIDENT TUITION SHALL BE 21 REGULATED BY STATUTE. 22 (3) THE LIMITATION IMPOSED BY SUBSECTION (1) .OF THIS 23 SECTION MAY BE EXCEEDED UPON: NEW LANGUAGE UNDERSCORED 4 UNO~~~Cf~4L .~RUSS~D HER 92.1002 (a)' APPROVAL 8Y A MAJORITY OF THE REGISTERED ELECTORS OF 2 THE STATE VOTING THEREON AT ANY GENERAL ELECTION; OR 3 (b) (I) PASSAGE OF A JOINT RESOLUTION DECLARING A FISCAL 4 EMERGENCY FOR ANY GIVEN FISCAL YEAR BY A TWO-THIRDS MAJORITY OF 5 THE MEMBERS OF BOTH HOUSES OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY AND THE 6 APPROVAL OF THE GOVERNOR. 7 (II) ANY MONEYS APPROPRIATED IN A GIVEN FISCAL YEAR WHICH 8 EXCEED THE LIMITATION ON STATE GENERAL FUND APPROPRIATIONS AND 9 STATE CASH FUND APPROPRIATIONS ESTABLISHED BY SUBSECTION (1) OF 10 THIS SECTION PURSUANT TO A DECLARATION OF A STATE FISCAL 11 EMERGENCY BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY PURSUANT TO SUBPARAGRAPH (~I) 12 OF THIS PARAGRAPH (b) SHALL NOT BE INCLUDED IN THE CALCULATION 13 OF THE MAXIMUM LEVEL OF STATE GENERAL FUND APPROPRIATIONS AND 14 STATE CASH FUND APPROPRIATIONS PURSUANT TO SUBSECTION (1) OF 15 THIS SECTION FOR SUBSEQUENT FISCAL YEARS. 16 Section 2. local government APPROPRIATIONS 17 limitation - exceations. (1) NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER 18 PROVISIONS OF THIS CONSTITUTION TO THE CONTRARY, AND EXCEPT AS 19 OTHERWISE. PROVIDED IN SUBSECTIONS (2) TO (5) OF THIS SECTION, 20 FOR BUDGET YEARS COMMENCING ON AND AFTER JANUARY 1, 1994, THE 21 INCREASE IN TOTAL ~~C APPROPRIATIONS BY ANY UNIT OF .LOCAL 22 GOVERNMENT SHALL BE LIMITED TO THE TOTAL S~R€#~~lG APPROPRIATIONS 23 OF SUCH UNIT OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT FOR THE PREVIOUS BUDGET YEAR NEW LANGUAGE UNDERSCORED 5 ~~~~~C~~~. ~CRC~S~ HCR 92-~ 002 1 MULTIPLIED BY THE AVERAGE OF 7HE ANNUAL GROWTH RATE OF THE TOTAL 2 PERSONAL INCOME FOR COLORADO FOR THE MOST RECENTLY ENDING BUDGET 3 .YEAR AND THE TWO BUDGET YEARS IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE MOST . 4 RECENTLY ENDING BUDGET YEAR. NO MONEYS SHALL BE SPENT UNLESS, 5 APPROPRIATED. 6 (2} THE LIMITATION IMPOSED BY SUBSECTION (1) OF THIS 7 SECTION SHALL NOT APPLY TO ANY INCREASE IN s~€N~P~G 8 APPROPRIATIONS BY A UNIT OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT: 9 (a) OF MONEYS WHICH ARE THE RESULT OF ANY INCREASE IN 10 REVENUES WHICH ARE APPROVED BY A MAJORITY OF THE REGISTERED 11 ELECTORS OF THE UNIT OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT A~-AN~F-~€PI€('..~ VOTING 12 THEREON AT ANY REGULAR OR SPECIAL ELECTION, INCLUDING, BUT NOT 13 LIMITED T0, ANY INCREASE IN REVENUES FOR THE PAYMENT OF 14 PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST ON BONDS OR OTHER PUBLIC INDEBTEDNESS; 15 (b) OF MONEYS WHICH ARE FUNDS FROM THE FEDERAL "'~,"",~;T 16 GOVERNMENT, ARE APPROPRIATED BY THE STATE OR BY ANOTHER UNIT OF, 17 LOCAL GOVERNMENT, OR ARE THE RESULT OF GRANTS, GIFTS, DONATIONS, 18 OR OTHER CONTRIBUTIONS FROM ANY PRIVATE SOURCE; 19 (c) WHICH, AS A RESULT OF FEDERAL LAW, IS MADE FOR ANY 20 NEW PROGRAM OR SERVICE OR FOR ANY INCREASE IN THE LEYEL OF 21 SERVICE FOR AN EXISTING PROGRAM OR SERVICE BEYOND THE EXISTING 22 LEVEL OF SERVICE; Ati 23 (d) WHICH, AS A RESULT .OF ANY REQUIREMENT OF ~A FINAL NEW LANGUAGE UNDEILSCORED 6 ~~QFFtCtAL ~t~GR®S~D NCR 92.002 1 STATE OR FEDERAL COURT ORDER, IS MADE FOR ANY NEW PROGRAM OR 2 SERVICE OR fOR ANY INCREASE IN THE LEVEL OF SERVICE fOR AN 3 E;!T£TIPI" " Ty€ E`~5~~{&-L~kE! ~F EER~6~~ EXISTING 4 PROGRAM OR SERVICE BEYOND THE EXISTING LEVEL OF SERVICE; 5 te) OF ANY MONEYS WHICH ARE PROCEEDS OF ANY BONDS, NOTES. 6 CERTIFICATES OF PARTICIPATION. OR .OTHER EVIDENCE OF BORROWING . 7 OR CONTRACTUAL UNDERTAKING OF OR BY ANY UNIT OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT 8 ISSUED OR INCURRED AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED FOR IN THIS STATE 9 CONSTITUTION OR IN ANY APPLICABLE HOME RULE CHARTER PROVISION 10 OR ANY LAW ENACTED THERETO; 11 !f1 OF ANY MONEYS WHICH ARE NECESSARY FOR THE PAYMENT TO 12 THE STATE OF EXCESS STATE EQUALIZATION PAYMENTS TO SCHOOL 13 DISTRICTS WHICH RESULTED FROM THE UNDERVALUATION OF TAXABLE 14 PROPERTY. AS PROVIDED BY STATUTE; OR 15 (al OF MONEYS WHICH CONSTITUTE ENTERPRISE FUNDS. 16 (3) THE LIMITATION IMPOSED BY SUB5ECTION (1) OF THIS 17 SECTION MAY BE EXCEEDED. UPON: . 18 (a) APPROVAL BY A MAJORITY OF THE REGISTERED ELECTORS OF 19 THE UNIT OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT ~T n r_ruroni VOTING THEREON AT A 20 REGULAR OR SPECIAL ELECTION HELD AS PROVIDED 8Y LAW; OR 21 (b) (I) PASSAGE OF A RESOLUTION DECLARING A fISCAL 22 EMERGENCY FOR ANY GIVEN BUDGET YEAR ADOPTED BY A UNANIMOUS VOTE 23 OF THE MEMBERS OF THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE UNIT OF LOCAL NEW LANGUAGE UNDERSCORED 7 u~~~~c~~~ HC~ 92.1 Q02 1 GOVERNMENT ;VOTING THEREON AT A HEARING OPEN TO THE PUBLIC. 2 :(II) ANY DECLARATION OF A FISCAL EMERGENCY MADE PURSUANT . 3 TO .SUBPARAGRAPH (I) OF THIS PARAGRAPH (b) SHALL BE EFFECTIVE 4 ONLY UNTIL THE NEXT &€#E-RAIr REGULAR ELECTION OF SUCH UNIT OF 5 LOCAL GOVERNMENT. AT SUCH rr REGULAR ELECTION, THE 6 QUESTION OF APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL OF THE 7 APPROPRIATIONS OF MONEYS BY SUCH UNIT OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT WHICH 8 EXCEEDS THE LIMITATION IMPOSED BY SUBSECTION (1) OF THIS SECTION 9 PURSUANT TO SUCH DECLARATION OF A FISCAL EMERGENCY SHALL BE 10 SUBMITTED TO A VOTE OF THE REGISTERED ELECTORS OF THE UNIT OF 11 LOCAL GOVERNMENT. ONLY UPON THE APPROVAL BY A MAJORITY OF THE 12 REGISTERED ELECTORS OF ~ki€ '~N~~--~'F ~ nre~ r_nvGONMryT £a~ 13 ~cv~ cQcFIT W#I.6# THE UNIT OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT VOTING THEREON 14 SHALL ANY MONEYS APPROPRIATED WHICH EXCEED THE LIMITATION 15 ESTABLISHED BY SUBSECTION (1) OF THIS SECTION PURSUANT TO SUCH 16 DECLARATION OF A FISCAL EMERGENCY BE INCLUDED IN THE CALCULATION 17 DF THE MAXIMUM LEVEL OF TOTAL £f'€~I-PI& APPROPRIATIONS BY SUCH 18 UNIT OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT FOR SUBSEQUENT BUDGET YEARS. 19 (4) UPON AN AFFIRMATIVE MAJORITY VOTE OF THE REGISTERED 20 ELECTORS OF ANY UNIT OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT VOTING THEREON, A 21 LIMITATION ON THE TOTAL S~#8T#& APPROPRIATIONS OF SUCH UNIT OF 22 LOCAL GOVERNMENT MAY BE ESTABLISHED IN LIEU OF THE LIMITATION ~ 23 SET FORTH IN SUBSECTION (1) OF THIS SECTION. EXERCISING THE NEW LANGUAGE UNDERSCORED 8 U~OF~1CtAl E~~GD~SED HCR 92.10®2 1 INITIATIVE POWER RESERVED PURSUANT TO SUB5ECTION (9) OF SECTION 2 1 OF ARTICLE V OF THIS CONSTITUTION, THE REGISTERED ELECTORS OF 3 ANY UNIT OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT MAY PROPOSE SUCH AN ALTERNATIVE 4 SR€~tD~PI& APPROPRIATIONS LIMITATION; EXCEPT THAT NOT MORE THAN 5 FIVE PERCENT OF THE REGISTERED ELECTORS WHO VOTED IN THE MOST 6 RECENT CE"I€~ REGULAR ELECTION HELD IN THE UNIT OF LOCAL 7 GOVERNMENT SHALL BE REQUIRED TO PROPOSE SUCH ALTERNATIVE 8 ~AENDT"16 APPROPRIATIONS LIMITATION: THE .GOVERNING BODY OF ANY 9 UNIT OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT MAY REFER SUCH AN ALTERNATIVE,SR€~~G 10 APPROPRIATIONS LIMITATION TO THE REGISTERED ELECTORS OF SUCH 11 UNIT OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT A5 PROVIDED BY LAW. 12 (5) EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED IN THIS SUBSECTION (5), 13 THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION SHALL NOT APPLY TO ANY UNIT OF ]4 LOCAL GOVERNMENT WHICH HAS IN EFFECT A (IMITATION ON THE TOTAL 15 ~~€t~8~P1& APPROPRIATIONS OF SUCH UNIT OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT WHICH 16 WAS APPROVED BY A MAJORITY OF THE REGISTERED ELECTORS OF SUCH 11 UNIT OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT VOTING THEREON PRIOR TO THE EFFECTIVE 18 DATE OF THIS SECTION. UPON SUCH VOTER-APPROVED ~~E~B~AI& 19 APPROPRIATIONS LIMITATION BEING REPEALED SUBSEQUENT TO THE 20 EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS SECTION, THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION 21 SHALL APPLY. 22 ~ (6) THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY SHALL ENACT LAWS ESTABLISHING, 23 SPENDING LIMITATIONS FOR THE FIRST BUDGET YEAR OF ANY NEWLY, NEW LANGUAGE UNDERSCORED '9 ~~~FF~C~~L ~~~CRC~~ HC 9Z-1002 1 CREATED UNIT OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND FOR THE FIRST BUDGET YEAR 2 OF ANY UNIT OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT WHICH IS FORMED DUE TO THE ' 3 CONSOLIDATION OR MERGER. IN WHOLE OR IN PART, OF llNITS OF LOCAL 4 GOVERNMENT. 5 Section 3. Public schools - school district spendin4 - 6 limitation - exceptions. (1) FOR FISCAL YEAR 1993-94 AND EVERY 7 FISCAL YEAR THEREAFTER, THE INCREASE IN THE TOTAL AGGREGATE 8 SPENDING BY ALL SCHOOL DISTRICTS. OF SCHOOL DISTRICT REVENUES, 9 STATE GENERAL FUND APPROPRIATIONS, AND STATE CASH FUND 10 APPROPRIATIONS FOR PUBLIC SCHOOLS SHALL BE LIMITED TO THE TOTAL 11 AGGREGATE SPENDING BY ALL SCHOOL DISTRICTS OF SCHOOL DISTRICT 12 REVENUES, STATE GENERAL FUND APPROPRIATIONS, AND STATE CASH FUND 13 APPROPRIATIONS FOR PUBLIC SCHOOLS FOR THE PREVIOUS FISCAL YEAR 14 MULTIPLIED BY THE AVERAGE OF THE ANNUAL GROWTH RATE OF THE TOTAL 15 PERSONAL INCOME FOR COLORADO FOR THE MOST RECENTLY ENDING FISCAL 16 YEAR AND THE TWO FISCAL YEARS IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE MOST 17 RECENTLY ENDING FISCAL ~€AR-~ 18 YEAR PLUS THE ANNUAL CHANGE IN TOTAL PUPIL ENROLLMENT IN PUBLIC 19 SCHOOLS FOR THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING FISCAL YEAR.' 20 (2) THE LIMITATION IMPOSED BY SUBSECTION (1) OF THIS 21 SECTION SHALL NOT APPLY 70 ANY INCREASE IN SPENDING BY SCHOOL 22 DISTRICTS OF SCHOOL DISTRICT REVENUES, STATE GENERAL FUND 23- APPROPRIATIONS, OR STATE CASH FUND APPROPRIATIONS FOR PUBLIC NEW LANGUAGE UNDERSCORED 10 . O~~iCI~L E~ ~~~~ED HC X2.1002 ;1 SCHOOLS: 2 (a) OF MONEYS WHICH ARE FUNDS FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT 3 OR ARE THE RESULT OF GRANTS, GIFTS, DONATIONS, OR OTHER 4 CONTRIBUTIONS FROM ANY PRIVATE SOURCE; 5 ~ (b) OF MONEYS WHICH ARE THE RESULT OF ANY INCREASE IN 5 PROPERTY TAX REVENUES AS MAY BE ALLOWED BY LAW WHICH ARE 7 APPROVED BY A MAJORITY OF THE REGISTERED ELECTORS OF SUCH SCHOOL 8 DISTRICT VOTING THEREON AT ANY ELECTION PROVIDED BY LAW; 9 (c) WHICH, AS A RESULT OF FEDERAL LAW, IS MADE FOR ANY 10 NEW PROGRAM OR SERVICE OR FOR ANY INCREASE IN THE LEVEL OF 11 SERVICE FOR AN EXISTING PROGRAM OR SERVICE BEYOND THE EXISTING 12 LEVEL OF SERVICE; A~ 13 (d) WHICH, AS A RESULT OF ANY REQUIREMENT OF A FINAL 14 STATE OR FEDERAL COURT ORDER, IS MADE FOR ANY NEW PROGRAM OR 15 SERVICE OR FOR ANY INCREASE IN THE LEVEL OF SERVICE FOR AN 16 Pp. ~~n Tur ryrcTTNC ! E1'E! '~F c€R1~€-~ EXISTING 17 PROGRAM OR SERVICE BEYOND THE EXISTING LEVEL OF SERVICE: OR 18 (e) OF ANY MONEYS WHICH ARE PROCEEDS OF ANY BONDS. NOTES, 19 CERTIFICATES OF PARTICIPATION, OR OTHER EVIDENCE OF BORROWING 20 OR CONTRACTUAL UNDERTAKING OF OR BY ANY SCHOOL DISTRICT ISSUED 21 OR INCURRED AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED FOR IN THIS STATE CONSTITUTION 22 OR IN ANY LAW ENACTED THERETO. 23 (3) THE LIMITATION IMPOSED BY SUBSECTION (1) OF THIS NEW LANGUAGE UNDERSCORED 11 ~ h f~~~ ~®2 1 SECTION MAY BE EXCEEDED UPON: 2 (a) APPROVAL BY A MAJORITY OF THE REGISTERED ELECTORS OF 3 THE .STATE VOTING THEREON AT ANY GENERAL ELECTION; OR 4 (b) (I) PASSAGE OF A JOINT RESOLUTION DECLARING A FISCAL 3 EMERGENCY FOR ANY GIVEN FISCAL YEAR ADOPTED BY ATWO-THIRDS VOTE 6 OF THE MEMBERS OF BOTH HOUSES OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY AND THE 7 APPROVAL OF THE GOVERNOR. 8 (II) ANY MONEYS SPENT IN A GIVEN FISCAL YEAR WHICH EXCEED 9 THE LIMITATION ON THE TOTAL AGGREGATE SPENDING BY ALL SCHOOL 10 DISTRICTS OF SCHOOL DISTRICT REVENUES, STATE GENERAL FUND 11 APPROPRIATIONS, AND STATE CASH FUND APPROPRIATIONS ESTABLISHED I2 BY SUBSECTION (1) OF THIS SECTION BECAUSE OF THE DECLARATION OF 13 A FISCAL EMERGENCY BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY PURSUANT TO 14 SUBPARAGRAPH (I) OF THIS PARAGRAPH (b) SHALL NOT BE INCLUDED IN 15 THE CALCULATION OF THE MAXIMUM LEVEL OF TOTAL AGGREGATE SPENDING 16 BY ALL SCHOOL DISTRICTS OF SCHOOL DISTRICT REVENUES, STATE 17 GENERAL FUND APPROPRIATIONS, AND STATE CASH FUND APPROPRIATIONS I8 PURSUANT TO SUBSECTION (1) OF THIS SECTION FOR SUBSEQUENT FISCAL 19 YEARS. 20 Section 4. Definitions. FOR PURPOSES OF THIS ARTICLE, 21 UNLESS THE CONTEXT OTHERWISE REQUIRES: 22 (1) "INCREASE IN THE LEVEL OF SERVICE FOR AN EXISTING 23 PROGRAM OR SERVICE" DOES NOT INCLUDE ANY INCREASE IN SPENDING ' NEW LANGUAGE UNDERSCORED 12 ONOF~~C4AL ENGROSSED NCR 92.1002 1 NECESSARY TO OFFSET AN INCREASE IN COSTS TO PROVIDE SUCH PROGRAM 2 OR SERVICE DUE TO INFLATION OR TO ANY INCREASE IN THE NUMBER OF 3 RECIPIENTS OF SUCH PROGRAM OR SERVICE UNLESS SUCH INCREASE 4 RESULTS FROM ANY REQUIREMENT OF FEDERAL lAW WHICH EITHER 5 ENLARGES AN EXISTING CLASS OF RECIPIENTS OR ADDS A NEW CLASS OF b RECIPIENTS. 7 (2) "REQUIREMENT OF FEDERAL LAW" MEANS ANY FEDERAL LAW, 8 RULE, REGULATION, EXECUTIVE ORDER, GUIDELINE, STANDARD, OR OTHER 9 FEDERAL ACTION WHICH HAS THE FORCE AND EFFECT OF LAW AND WHICH 10 EITHER REQUIR-ES ACTION TO BE TAKEN OR DOES NOT DIRECTLY REQUIRE 11 ACTION TO BE TAKEN SUT WILL, ACCORDING TO FEDERAL LAW, RESULT 12 IN THE LOSS OF FEDERAL FUNOS IF ACTION IS NOT TAKEN TO COMPLY 13 WITH SUCH FEDERAL ACTION. 14 (3) "TOTAL PERSONAL INCOME" MEANS: 15 (a) FOR PURPOSES OF SECTIONS 1 AND 3 OF THIS ARTICLE, THE 16 AVERAGE OF THE QUARTERLY FIGURES RELEASED BY SUCH SOURCE OR 17 SOURCES OF INFORMATION AS, IN THE JUDGMENT OF THE GENERAL 18 ASSEMBLY, PRESENT THE MOST TIMELY AND ACCURATE .INFORMATION 19 THEREON FOR THE TOTAL PERSONAL INCOME FOR COLORADO FOR THE 20 QUARTERS OCCURRING DURING SUCH FISCAL YEAR, SUCH QUARTERS BEING 21 THE THIRD QUARTER OF THE FIRST CALENDAR YEAR OF SUCH FISCAL YEAR 22 THROUGH THE SECOND QUARTER OF THE FOLLOWING CALENDAR YEAR; AND 23 (b) FOR PURPOSES OF SECTION 2 OF THIS ARTICLE, THE TOTAL NEW LANGUAGE UNDERSCORED 13 UCH=FIC~~~ ~~~~~~SS~D HCR 92.1®®Z 1 .PERSONAL INCOME FOR COLORADO, AS DEFINED AND OFFICIALLY REPORTED 2 BY SUCH SOURCE OR SOURCES OF INFORMATION AS, IN THE JUDGMENT OF 3" THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY, PRESENT THE MOST TIMELY AND ACCURATE 4 INFORMATION THEREON FOR THE CALENDAR YEAR PRECEDING THE CALENDAR 5 YEAR IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING A GIVEN BUDGET YEAR. 6 (4) "UNIT OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTW MEANS ANY COUNTY, CITY AND 7 COUNTY, CITY, TOWN, WHETHER HOME RULE OR STATUTORY, OR ANY 8 SERVICE AUTHORITY, LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT, LAW ENFORCEMENT 9 AUTHORITY, WATER, SANITATION, FIRE PROTECTION, METROPOLITAN, 10 IRRIGATION, DRAINAGE, OR OTHER, SPECIAL DISTRICT, OR ANY OTHER 11 KIND OF MUNICIPAL, QUASI-MUNICIPAL, OR PUBLIC CORPORATION 12 ORGANIZED PURSUANT TO LAW. 13 Section 5. Enablin4 legislation. THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY 14 SHALL ENACT LAWS TO IMPLEMENT THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ARTICLE. 15 Section 6. Alternative limitation measures - counting of 16 votes. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER PROVISION OF THIS STATE 17 CONSTITUTION TO THE CONTRARY, IN THE EVENT THAT MORE THAN ONE 18 MEASURE LIMITING GOVERNMENTAL TAXES OR EXPENDITURES IS SUBMITTED 19 TO THE PEOPLE AT THE 1992 GENERAL ELECTION AND MORE THAN ONE 20 SUCH MEASURE SO SUBMITTED RECEIVES A MAJORITY OF THE VOTES CAST 21 THEREON. THE ONE WHICH RECEIVES THE GREATER NUMBER OF 22 AFFIRMATIVE VOTES SHALL PREVAIL IN ALL RESPECTS AND ANY OTHER 23 MEASURES SHALL BE DEEMED NULL AND VOID. NEd~' LANGUAGE UNDERSCORED 14 U~aFFiC~~. ECOSSED HCR 02.002 1 Section 1 (9) of article V of the constitution of the 2 state of Colorado is amended to read: 3 Section 1. General assembly - initiative and referendum. 4 (9) (a) The initiative and referendum powers reserved to the 5 people by this section are hereby further reserved to the 6 registered electors of every city, town, and municipality as to 7 all local, special, and municipal legislation of every character 8 in or for .their respective municipalities. The manner of 9 exercising said powers shall be prescribed by general laws; 10 except that cities, towns, and municipalities may provide for 11 the manner of exercising the initiative and referendum powers 12 as to their municipal legislation. Not more than ten percent 13 of the registered electors may be required to order .the 14 referendum, nor more than fifteen per cent to propose any 15 measure by the initiative in any city, town, or municipality. 16 {b) THE INITIATIVE POWERS RESERVED TO THE PEOPLE BY THIS 17 SECTION ARE HEREBY FURTHER RESERVED TO THE REGISTERED ELECTORS 18 OF EVERY COUNTY AND SPECIAL DISTRICT AS TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF 19 AN ALTERNATIVE SR€P19l:P~G APPROPRIATIONS LIMITATION FOR SUCH 20 COUNTY OR SPECIAL DISTRICT PURSUANT TO SUBSECTION (4) OF SECTION 21 2 OF ARTICLE XXVII OF THIS CONSTITUTION. THE MANNER OF 22 EXERCISING SAID POWER SHALL BE PRESCRIBED BY THE .GENERAL 23 ASSEMBLY BY GENERAL LAWS. NOT MORE THAN FIVE PERCENT OF THE NEW LANGUAGE UNDERSCORED 15 DDFF~CiAL E~~D~~ED D~ 92-1®02 1 REGISTERED EtfCTORS WHO YOTEO IN THE MOST RECENT GENERAL 2 ELECTION HELD IN SUCH COUNTY OR SPECIAL DISTRICT, AS APPLICABLE, 3 MAY _ 8E REQUIRED TO PROPOSE AN ALTERNATIVE . S~R€~9-~A4& . 4 APPROPRIATIONS LIMITATION FOR SUCH COUNTY OR SPECIAL DISTRICT. 5 Article X of the constitution of the state of Colorado 6 is amended BY THE ADDITION OF A NEW SECTION to read: 7 Section 21. State mandates - aoorooriation. ll) NO NEW 8 OR INCREASED STATE MANDATE SHALL BE IMPOSED BY THE GENERAL 9 ASSEMBLY OR ANY STATE OFFICE OR AGENCY ON ANY LOCAL GOVERNMENT, 10 UNLESS THE STATE PROVIDES ADDITIONAL MONEYS TO REIMBURSE FULLY, 11 THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT FOR THE COSTS OF THE NEW OR INCREASED 12 MANDATE. IF SUCH ADDITIONAL MONEYS ARE NOT PROVIDED, THE NEW, 13 OR INCREASED STATE MANDATE SHALL BE OPTIONAL WITH THE LOCAL 14 GOVERNMENT. 15 (2) FOR PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, "STATE MANDATE" 16 INCLUDES, BUT SHALL NOT BE LIMITED T0, ANY REQUIREMENT WHICH 17 REGULATES OR DIRECTS: 16 (a) ACTIVITIES OR SERVICES OF ANY LOCAL GOVERNMENT; OR 19 (b) THE OPERATION OR ADMINISTRATION OF ANY LOCAL 20 GOVERNMENT, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED T0, REPORTING, FISCAL,, 21 COMPENSATION. PERSONNEL, PLANNING, EVALUATION, AND RECORD-, 22 KEEPING REQUIREMENTS. ~ 23 SECTION 2. Each elector voting at said election and NEW LANGUAGE UNDERSCORED 16 s ~ ~ < ~-1 t __1 desirous er w,~iir~g for or against said amendment shall casw 2 vote as provided by law either "Yes" or "No" on the proposition: 3 "An amendment to the constitution of the state of Colorado, 4 imposing a limit on state general fund and cash fund - 5 appropriations; imposing = =F~9 lir~i~-s~ A LIMIT ON 6 APPROPRIATIONS OF units of local government; imposing a limit 7 on the spending of school districts of school district revenues 8 and state general fund and cash fund appropriations for public 9 schools; providing exceptions to said limits; SPECIFYING THAT, 10 IF MORE THAN ONE MEASURE TO LIMIT GOVERNMENTAL TAXES OR SPENDING, 11 IS SUBMITTED TO THE VOTERS AND RECEIVES A MAJORITY OF VOTES, THE, 12 MEASURE RECEIVING THE GREATER NUMBER OF VOTES WILL PREVAIL;, 13 reserving to the registered electors of every county and special 14 district the initiative power with respect toyadoption of an 15 alternative ~~~5 li~itatia~ APPROPRIATIONS LIMITATION; 16 PROHIBITING CERTAIN STATE MANDATES ON ANY LOCAL GOVERNMENT.", 17 SECTION 3. The votes cast for the adoption or rejection 18 of said amendment shall be canvassed and the result determined 19 in the manner provided by law for the canvassing of votes for 20 representatives in Congress, and if a majority of the electors 21 voting on the question shall have voted "Yes", the said 22 amendment shall become a part of the state constitution. 23 NEW LANGUAGE UNDERSCORED 17 S'repared by CML Draft ;fi~inuary ~9, 1992 ANALYSIS OF IICR 1002, CAC[ IMTIATIVE, AND BRUCE IMTIATIVE (TABOR III) ISSUE I HCR 1002 I COi1~p1iENT I CACI I COMMENT I BRUCE I i",i)~~1:P4ENT General Flexibility Limited Specific limits are placed in the constitution. Limited Specific limits are placed in the constitution. Very Detailed tax. and :x; t.nditure limits are placed limited in the cons~ituti4s^:. Statewide Limited While increased expenditures are allowed to the extent of Limited While increased expenditures are allowed to the extent of Very While incru~srd expenditures are allowed to growth growth in statewide personal income, expenditure limits tend to statewide per capita growth in personal income, expenditure .limited the extent of n;~,vth in CPI and statewide component have a negative impact on growth. Expenditure limits are not limits tend to have a negative impact on growth. Expenditure population grey:`.:; the state and CPI plus . as responsive as tax Whits to local economies. Also, authority limits are not as responsive as tax limits to local economies, assessed ~~ai.t;.tior. ~mro:=.~4h for local to spend lags actual growth. Also, authority to spend lags actual growth. governments ethc rr.:: schools, expenditure Whits tend to have. c ;;egative impact on growth and exper,~-i ~ ~r authority lags actual growth. in addi',r , ;.,,wand increased taxes are prul;ibited sv; ' ~ voter a~aroval. Combin;it:oa of tax a.nd c,penditure limits will further redusc ilcxibility. Priority Issues Exemption for None Business like enteryrise operations are rrot exempted from Yea Business like enterprise funds are exempted. ~ Ycs '8usir-:s:< ; ; cnt,sprise hands are exempted enterprise ar,,..,Y.;ation Whits but not emergarcy and reaerveprovisions. if ku~.i;;~~-:. °.'.o issue own revenue bonds and funds if mxiv; t:cair.; ~ of annual revenue in grants fror;a ali s~,:te and local governments combined. Local growth None Limited (with some specific exemptions) to previous year's Limited Limited (with some specific exceptions) to prior year's Yea Limited (w;i.~ some specific exceptions) to component spending plus the previous 3 year average growth of statewide err ~r•~tion plus prior year's increase in statewide personal prior years sl~cnding adjusted for CPI and personal income. Only allowance is for statewide growth in income plus local population increase. Allowance is assessed vatuatian in~~zases for new personal income so Meal governments exceeding statewide insufficient and unresponsive to the extent that growth r. ~„~,:ea property. Aiiowance. ,s unresponsive to the growth cannot spend r..,, ~ rtionately to accommodate and the indexes end to the extent that demand for service isn't tied extent that growth precedes the indexes. service growth. to local population of income change and to the extent that ~ ' ' commercial or business growth not tied to population growth. Limits local No Local spending Whit is impractical bocause of wide fluctuations Ya Measure Whits appropriations rather than spending and thus No Local spending lir,it is impractical because appropriations in spending from year to year, even though tax rates remain provides some flexibility for variations from year to year of wide fStact~r~;;.~• ~ i;^ spending from year to rather than constant. Spending Whits force premature and unnecessary without forcing unnaxssary and ~...ature expenditures, year, even the;., : ; ;-.rtes remain constant. local spending spending to protect the base for subsequent years. Spending limits force premature snd _ ~ ~ unnecessary spending to protect the base for r, subsequent years. 1 . ANALYSIS OF HCR 1002, CACI IMTIATIVE, AM) BRUCE IMT[ATIVE (TABOR llI) i ISSUE I HCR !Q)i)? I COMMENT I CAC[ I COMMENT I BRUCE COMMENT E t Priority Issues (eont.l ' Protection None State costs and objectives can be shifted to local governments Yes Protection i9 adequate except that a clause should be added to Very Local government may reduce or and ifs against state and local taxpayers. clarify that local governments are not required to carry out limited subsidy to any program dedicated to it for ' mandates unfunded state mandates. administration without state funding. Protection is limited baause only program administration is covered and then only on a phased in basis. Provisions None Confusion, litigation, and excessive limitations could result if None Confusion, litigation, and excessive limitations could resuh if None General provisions indicate an intention for applicable if two or more measures pass in November. two or more measures pass in November. limits to be cumulative to restrain moat the alternative tax growth of government, or expenditure limits pass Exemption for Narrow Only exemption is for principal and interest payments on voter Narrow No exemption for principal and interest on bonds which an Narrow Only exemption for voter approved debtor bonds and approved bonds or other indebtedness. No exemption for bond typically not voted on. other fund obligation. indebtedness proceeds or for bonds typically not voted on. Saondarv Issues Local authority Yea Flexible and grandfathers in existing local limits in lieu of Yea Authority provided for local taxpayers to adopt alternate limits None Limits in measure apply statewide except to to elect statewide limit. but reserve requirements would apparently still be controlled limited right of local voters to approve a alternative by the statewide limits. delay if up to tour years in voting on ballot limits ~ issues. Exemption of None Should be parallel exemption to one for federal funds and None Should be parallel exemption to one for federal funds and Partial Exempts state funds received by a local state funds and a•;andates. Also, unclear ae to trrxtrrtatt of state mandates mandates. Also, unclear u to treatment of slat mandates government from local limits. stau mandatog lwaeed on by virtue of federal mandates. passed on by virtue of federal mandates. from, local limits __a:,:~. Flexibility of Yea Accomplished by 113 vote of G~...»I Assembly and Limrtod Aaomplished by 113 vote of General Assembly and No Requirra statewide elation to exceed. state to ezcad GgVCrnot'a flw r , . 'al. Governor's approval, but suspended If votes don't approve a< limits next election. Emergency Yes Requires unanimous a,,,,. ~ !ai of governing body. A Yea Requires 113 vote of the governing body and consent by the Unclear Appears to allow anergency taxes and ettceptioq~ fQt' subsequent local clodion is toquir+ed to include the emergency Governor. The increase must be approved at the next local resulting revenues upon 113 vote of local tapcgditurc in the base. elation or is discontinued. Approval by the Governor governing body but subject to litigation if not governments interjects state control. approved by voter at next election. Timing of Flesj~j~ A4ay be done at gcnetal Ar special elation. Limited Limited to regular biennial local government election or a state Limited May be held at biennial board election, at a local elections ~ s elation held on the fast Tuesday in November as provided by state general elation, or on the first Tuesday , to exceed General Assembly. in November in even numbered years. J limits I ANALYSIS OF HCR 1002, CACI 1NITfATIVE, AND BRUCE INITIATIVE (TABOR II[) _ _ ISSUE I HCR 1002 I COMMENT I CACI ~ COMMENT I BRUCE ~ ` ~A_~~?°• t'~IsNT Secondary issues (eont.i ....,..V,~,, Computation Unclear Applicable years for computing limit are unclar. Unclar Applicable yar for wmputing limit is unclear. Unclear Applicaf,le ycat I~'~ war,puting limit is of the limits unclar. Exemption for None Reduces flexibility For good internal controls and management. None Reduces flexibility for good internal controls and management. None Reduces flexit+ili!;,~ tot good internal controls prior and managemnr' appropriations and internal service funds Exemption for None Owasional big expenditure wuld present problem, but could be None Occasional big expenditure could present problems, specially Ya Exempts damage awards from fiscal yar judgments and handled as an emergency expenditure. by requiring an election and suspension of increased spending lmit. settlements expenditures if voters reject. Exemption for None Perhaps acceptable if appropriate enterprise fund and bond None Perhaps acceptable if appropriate bond exemption and adequate None However, enterprise fund and local growth capital exemptions are provided and adequate growth factors are growth factors are included. factors arc provided for. improvements included. Reserve No None spxified. Ys To be stablished by General Assembly. Ys Emergency reserves required after phase in requirements period of 3?6 of fiscal yar spending excluding :.~nrd;d deaf service. AppGadon of OK Appliation acceptable W the extent of enumerated exemptions. Limited The exemptions do not apply to the emergency and reserve enumerated provisions in Suctions 4 and S. The exemptions should also exemptions extend to the emergency and reserve provisions. Appliation of OK Application nceeptabk for local option alteemativa. Limited Local option ahemative applies to the basic limits (Soctioro 1, local ~n 2 and 3) but not to the emergency and reserve provisions in for ahemative Suctions 4 and S. The local option should also ..,,~...1 to local limits em...~~.cy and reserve requirements. Additional Issue in Bruce Initiative not Covered in Other Masures Tax Ya No new or incrai.s~x! faze without statewide or local election. Income tax Ya Must be uniform raft and apply change prospectively. Real state Ya New or incteasr<~ t~.xea prohibited. transfer taxes State property Ys Prohibited. faze ~ - 1 ANALYSIS OF HCR 1002, CACI IMT[ATIVE, AND BRUCE IMT[AT[VE (TABOR 1[[) ISSUE I HCR iUli2 I COMMENT I CACI ~ COMMENT ~ BRUCE I COMMENT Additional issues in Bruce Initiative not Covered in Other Measures (cont.) Assessed yes Prohibited unless approved at an elation. valuation ratio increases Business Yc Governments may reduce or repeal without personal voter approval. property taxes Election notice Yes Detailed mailed notice required to all voters. requirements Existing limits Yes All existing state and local limits not in grandfathered conflict remain unless subsequently appealed by voters. Enforcement Yes Preferred interpretation is that which most and restrains government growth allows class interpretation action law suits and successful plaintiffs vests and attorney fees. Refunds required with 1096 interest. Valuation Yc Provides for annual valuation notiers and prom, appeals. Eliminates presumption in favor of requirements governments valuation. Specific criteria for determining asscscd valuation. .r a.... - 4. S' BUSINESS NOTES I WALLSTREET ~ sion. Now the reorganized ~ ~ Give Back company is suing the recipients o ~ E of its largesse to recover the The Loot! loot. ~;t~ The suits reveal who made , i' I' No event on Wall Street in the off with the most. Topping the ~ j y a '80s was more artfully avari- list is Leon Black, former head r. cious than the payout of over of mergers and acquisitions. ~ ~ i ~1 r $250 million in employee bo- His take, less than two months ~ u nuses shortly before the col- before the February 1990 bank- ~ lapse of Drexel Burnham Lam- ruptcy filing: $16.6 million. But • bert. The bonus bonanza- more than 50 others received ° << which totaled more than twice over $1 million apiece. The the amount of the debt on firm's rationale: it was merely which Drexel defaulted- honoring promises it had made c , _ ; i 1 l; ~4 helped push the firm over the earlier to employees. , _ s,,~;;~ ~ 4 . ; edge, as it struggled with Drexel.won't find it easy to ' " mounting lawsuits over the recoup the money. Last Octo- - dealings of its junk-bond divi- ber, the sEC criticized the pay- ~ ' menu as excessive but ! K ~ ~ ~ i not illegal. However, Hasbro's Monster Face (about $30): the grosser the better ' ` q ~ ' under the bankruptcy , . ~ ~ code, companies can RETAILING ters that come in four-packs g ~ sue for the return of so- Santa Might With names like Puke Shoot- ~ 4 Q x: called preference pay- ers and Chunk Blowers. While . °n 1. menu dating back one Get Sick ERTL, a respectable die-cast = ~ T„s„ year before the firms model-car company, is offer- ~ ;I i= collapsed. "Drexel will Don't look to this year's crop of ing Blurp Balls-hideous soft- ¢ ! ii • also argue that the bo- new toys if you're seeking some ball-size spheres, with names ' ; ' ' x ~ nuses were a fraudulent good, clean fun. Virtually every like Retch-A-Rat Tomcat, `:,r;, conveyance," says bank- major manufacturer showing that shoot out revolting ob- ~ i ruptcy lawyer Leon its wares at last week's 89th Toy jects from their mouths when ; e A Marcus. "My guess is Fair in Manhattan was accentu- squeezed. that some of the em- ating the nauseating. The dolls aren't much bet- 1 j= ployees will settle, while Hasbro is offering Monster ter. The big trend is potty- the guys with the deep- Face, alife-size plastic skull training accessories, including " k~~ l ~ . - est pockets are going to that comes complete with "blis- Hasbro's Cabbage Patch-size Leon Black's take was $16.6 million fight it forever." ¦ tering boil," "nose slime drip" toilet with tinkling and flush- and "quivering bugs and ing sound effects. As for action ~ ii i worms." Kids can style it to be figures, check out Tyco's In- AUTOMOBILES i; pressure from Washington, to as repugnant as possible. Ken- credible Crash Dummies with i ' Sticker Shock limit the number of Japanese ner is betting that kids will want detachable limbs. What better i cars exported to the U.S. to gross out Mom and Dad with way to teach your child auto i °i ' Illlade in Japan Raising prices would be one Savage Mondo Blitzer charac- safety. ¦ way of maintaining profits Car buyers may soon be pay- while curtailing sales. i ing a price for the bitter A jolt of sticker shock ENVIRONMENT The change won't faze ma- ~ { ` trade tensions between the from the Japanese could be a OZOne jor manufacturers of chloro- i U.S. and Japan. Several Jap- boon for Detroit. If the Big fluorocarbons, the main chem- " ~ ~ ' anese auto manufacturers, Three U.S. caretakers can Deadline ical culprits in the ozone- including Honda and Nissan, hold the line on their own destruction scenario. Such said last week they were con- prices, they would offer con- Faced with the most alarming firms have already developed F,, templating price hikes on sumers an incentive to buy report yet on the state of the ozone-friendlier substances, ~ some models sold in the American. ¦ earth's ozone layer, President and can take the new deadline ~f U.S. Toyota has al- s ~ Bush declared last week that in stride. The real burden, , ~ ready raised the price y ~ ~•ax _q~ the U.S. will halt production both technical and financial, of its redesigned 1992 , ~ of ozone-destroying chemicals will fall on makers of cFC-reli- f F; Camry sedan by nearly -w ,.p,~ly by the end of 199. That's ant appliances like refrigera- z, 18%, to $14,368. ~ four years sooner than an in- tors and air-conditioning sys- Nissan and Toyota y_ f; ternational treaty dictates, terns. They will be under 1 cite the rising value of ~ w-.~y:.; but not as fast as znviron- pressure to quickly modify ' the yen. But several an- mentalists would like. "It's a their products to accommo- alysts say the Japanese . ~ modest improvement but by date the substitute chemi- ' firms are antici atin a ~ ~ p g • i ~ _ no means aggressive,` says cals-a process destined to move by Tokyo trade ~,z Liz Cook ofyFriends of the make such appliances more is ~ officials, responding to Gamry DLX: an 18% price`hike Earth in Washington. costly to consumers, ¦ f TIME, FEBRUARY 24. 1992 43 ' ' t- We're taking television into tomorrow. REC'T FEB 2 0 1992 HERITA GE sM A 4C1 COfM PAMY Ms. Margaret Osterfoss, Mayor Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road west Vail, CO 81657 Dear Mayor Osterfoss, Per the town council's request, a copy of TCI's most recent financial statements is attached. Thank you for your help and I am looking forward to working closer with the town in community effort and franchise renewal. I will be on vacation until march 5th but if you have any cable concerns in.my absense,, please call our office manager, Roxanne at 949-5530. Sincerely, Stanley f. mcKinzie General Manager U fi ' tF ..g' LL0.1 r~~~5 i ~r k P.O Box 439 y 0140 Metcalf Road p F Avon, Colorado 81 620 (303) 949-5530 FAX(303)949 9138 An Equal Opportunity Employer TELE-COMMUNICATIONS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES Consolidated Statements of Operations (unaudited) - Three months Nine months ended ended September 30, September 30, 1991 1990 1991 1990 amounts in millions, except per where amounts Revenue $ 975 942 2,860 2,693 Operating costa and expenses: Operating 374 401 1,130 1,113 Selling, general end administrative 217 184 584 552 Depreciation 131 123 394 365 Amortization 42 42 127 133 764 750 2,235 2,163 Operating income 211 192 625 530 Other income (expense): Interest expense (216) (239) (667) (700) Share of earnings (losses) of affiliates, net 1 (11) (4) (40) Gain (loss) on disposition of assets, net (2) (12) (4) 19 Compensation relating to stock epprecintion rights (12) (23) Minority interests in losses (earnings) of consolidated subsidiaries, net (10) 14 (18) 16 Other, net 10 18 39 49 (2.17) (242) (654) (679) Loss before income taxes (6) (50) (29) (149) Income tax expense (20) (2) (47) (14) Net loss S (26) (52) (76) (163) Loss per common share $(.07) (.15) (.21) (.46) TELE-COMMUNICATIONS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES Consolidated Statements of Operations (unaudited) Three months Nine months ended ended September 30, September 30, 1991 1990 1991 1990 amounts in millions, except per share amounts Revenue S 975 942 2,860 2,693 Operating costs and expenses: Operating 374 401 1,130 1,113 Selling, general and administrative 217 184 584 552 Depreciation 131 123 394 365 Amortization 42 42 127 133 764 750 2,235 2,163 Operating income 211 192 625 530 Other income (expense): Interest expense (216) (239) (667) (700) Share of earnings (losses) of affiliates, net 1 (11) (4) (40) Gain (loss) on disposition of assets, net (2) (12) (4) 19 Compensation relating to stock appreciation rights (12) (23) Minority interests in losses (earnings) of consolidated subsidiaries, net (10) 14 (18) 16 Other, net 10 18 39 49 (217) (242) (654) (679) Loss before income taxes (6) (50) (29) (149) Income tax expense (20) (2) (47) (14) Net loss S (26) ~ (52) (76) (163) Loss per common share $(.07) (.15) (.21) (.46) P.O, Box 439 0140 Metcalf Road 29 USA Avon, Colorado 81620 -r~.lti = _ ~ 3' _ _ ~.7 .y. H Ew Rw I T An G E , . . _ sM~~ A YCI C06N~APAY ` Town of Vail Mayor Margaret Osterfoss 75 South Frontage Road west Vail, CO 81657 J REC'n FEB 1 9 1992 C'C, ~rn~. CML Colorado Municipal League 1660 Lincoln Street, Suite 2100 Denver, Colorado 80264 (303) 831-641 1 MEMO T0: Ron Phillips, Vail Harvey Rose, Steamboat Springs Virginia Hamilton, Mt. Crested Butte FROM: Jan Gerstenberger Staff Asse_i ate RE: S.B. 101 - Condo/Hotel Assessed Valuation DATE: February 1?, 1992 You will be glad to know that the provisions having to do with how condominium units are assessed have been deleted from the bill Cpage 2, lines 2-16, pages 3-8, and line 1 on page 9 have been deleted). The bill has been calendared for second reading in the Senate which may happen sometime this week. r . any TOWN OF PAIL 75 South Frontage Road Office of the Town Attorney Yail, Colorado 81657 303-479-2107/ FAX 303-479-2157 February 17, 1992 Mr. Bill Wood U.S. Forest Service Box 190 Minturn, CO 81645 RE: Spraddle Creek/Vail Golf Course Maintenance Parcel Appraisals Dear Bill, I am writing to give you the Town of Vail's comments relating to the Nash Johnson Associates, Inc. appraisals of the two parcels of land commonly called the Spraddle Creek Parcel and the Golf Course Maintenance Parcel. As you are aware, the Town has previously expressed its desire to purchase both parcels fi,,,u the Forest Service. The Town has requested to purchase the Spraddle Creek Parcel in accordance with the Townsite Act, and the Golf Course Maintenance Parcel in accordance with the Sisk Act. The United States Forest Service made a decision to sell both parcels of land to the Town of Vail, and in furtherance of the sale, requested that the Town obtain an appraisal of both parcels to determine the appropriate value to be placed on the land. The Forest Service then submitted a list to the Town suggesting several appraisers who had been approved by the Forest Service to conduct the necessary appraisals. The Town received a list containing numerous names of appraisers, and from the list chose Robert Maddox, an MAI appraiser from Steamboat Springs to do the appraisals. On September 12,1990, the Town received appraisals for both parcels from Mr. Maddox. The value placed on the Spraddle Creek Parcel was $345,000. The value placed on the Golf Course maintenance parcel was $20,700. Notably, the value which Mr. Maddox arrived at for the Spraddle Creek Parcel was substantially similar to the value that was arrived at by two other appraisers, one employed by the Forest Service and one employed by the Town of Vail, who had done previous appraisals of the Spraddle Creek Parcel. For reasons which are not entirely clear to me, the Forest Service review appraiser refused to accept Mr. Maddox's appraisals and hired the firm of Nash Johnson Associates, Inc. to do a new appraisal of the property. The Town was told that Nash Johnson was hired because Maddox could not make ' Mr. Bill Wood U.S. Forest Service February 17, 1992 Page 2 certain changes in the appraisals expeditiously. When the Nash Johnson appraisal was received by the Town of Vail (not very expeditiously, but more than a month after Nash Johnson was hired), it discovered that the value of the Spraddle Creek Parcel was found to be $500,000 and the value of the Golf Course Maintenance Parcel was found to be $187,500. Obviously, these are significantly higher values than were found by Maddox. The Town of Vail has reviewed the appraisal done by Nash Johnson Associates, Inc., and in addition, had Robert Maddox review the appraisal and make appropriate comments. Both the Town and Mr. Maddox were shocked by both the methodology and the conclusions reached by Nash Johnson. The errors in the Nash Johnson appraisal are major and serve to skew dramatically the ultimate values derived by Nash Johnson for each parcel. I have , attached as Exhibit A to this letter Mr. Maddox' comments relating to the Nash Johnson appraisal, which are completely concurred in by the Town of Vail. The Town looks forward to discussing the valuation of both parcels with the Forest Service at the earliest convenient date. It is the Town's opinion that we should go forward with the purchase and sale of the two parcels based on the values arrived at in the Maddox appraisals. Very truly yours, ~ Lawrence A. Eskwith Town Attorney LAE/dd xc: Vail Town Council P. r~2 Valuation Con~ultanta ~ V.ALUATYt~N ~ONSLtLTANT~, INS • . EXHIBIT A ' Appraigel Service ' 002 OAK 9TAEBY, P.O. OOX 77716 t3EtvC?MAA11rc Pta2d. P.O. BOx 381 $T6AM9bAT SPRINGS, CO 8(}477 AVON, 4:O tJ+4i2d 49Q91879•xlit 6 I303J paA•aBgJl Febx'uary 6 ~ 14 9 2 Mx I,arty ~skovtth, Town Attorney T~~~.. of veil 75 S• frontage Road Yail~ Colorado 8].657 l~s SQxaddly Cre®k/V$il Golf CouXSO Appraisals Doar L~t~ery ~ Thanks fOt your patience in wa3.ting for my ret~ponse to the Nash/Condo appraisal of the captioned properties. t moat say thgt in anticipation of their reportr I had $saumad that the erialy$ia would reflect the complexity o! the ase~.Qnm®nt and could certainly reach a different opa.nion tha» 1 did. xt i$ only now. after I havra confirmed thoir data and carefully reed the r6~port, that I find mys®lf Hom~what Bhoclced by the concluBiaria. _ ovil7 i~.luatxate by euampl.e: ' Spraddi® Creek Part:431. t Tn d®terminl.nq the u6$2tile area of the a~.te, Nash r®lied on ari Environments]. Assessment +~f the access road to Gillet' a ad jaCeAt tract. This doaumant reiterates th4a 'town of Vail hazard tnnpping, and apgar®ntly states that come 47a of the site is so imp4s4:ted. X agree] however, Naa~h e~ppl.ies this to the total site of 4q.12 aGree, which inc~,ude~a the 13.52 scree wholly coAsumed by the 3~7Q ROW. The actual, affected aroa is about 47$ of thy, 26.E ecr4s remainder, or approximateJ.y 12•.5 acre>~, snot 19 ear®s . This Zsaves almost 7 a4;re>~ completely unaff4s4~ted by any hnzsrdcu43 condition, including steep s~.apse. This aer~,ausly affects the Nash Conclusion related to the potential density Qf the subject, and ~takea the balariCe of the report inCors4act; the Hri zone aauid allo~o? up to 13 homesites ari the actuax usable portion of the liter not 3 ae they conclude. Witihin th® ee2es eeation of the Naah report, rdmny ex'rora were not6d~ irtc3.udiriq th® ldentificatiori of "$oninc~" whl.oh either-s~.mply doeo not exist or was net in p18ce at the time of the sale, Y find it haxd to be~.iave that. the sale~c were actually Confirmed, and weren't ~uat pulled from the D43ta ft43Jsearch reports (which I ht~ve, too). ~'or example, the "star" comparable shown ss ~1 (Zniecaer e~ale~ was coned "ReaidentiallC3ueter" and had exa.stS.ng valid approvals for the aonstructian of 42 units . Thos report alter 13 lots, which was the result of a replotting cgmgleted after th® $ale. Zniemer a nt SI.50,000 on road impxovementa~ but a1.1 13 lots fronted a paveraad, w~,th utilities adjacent to each lot. The appra.iaere should have bn4~n awaxe of the aa3e of two lots in a Valuation Consultants P,.@3 p rtion of the new subdivision, which g~.ve alt easy ~©cauian a justmer~t for the locata.on of the property. Instead, they said t at i,t was "fnt~-Ie" (pg ~7) to try to do go. The resulting a ,~ly~gig is so flawed that it really give+a no help to the valuation p oblem. T e inclusion of the single family sales in Woloott have r~o e gnificanoA on this appraisal,. and the "100$" ~.vcation~tl ju$tmdnt is not only completely unsupport®dy but almost silly. e use of these sales is eimi.lar to using the current cost o~ Hansa to estimat® the value of a Ford; its ju~at a mattex of justment. e ma$t amazing slaw is in the application of the concluded dioated rralue~ pegs 68 reif~.~acts a conclusion of 513,000 per acre, t it was applied to the whole parcel, ~ludirtcr t e 13.52 acr,ree der tie Tnterstt~te., whether by error or by dea.ign, this is solutely wrong; appl~,ed tv the actual ~c~.te axes of 26.6 acres, heir own analysis results i» an indicated value a! $345,800 or 0 mare than T reported in 1590. lmoat as an efteraight, a developmental analysis was included. ash states that the utilities are adjacent to the west; in fact, he neaxest sewer line fa under the interstate, near the ranaportAt3.on center. x showed an estimated $100,000 cost just t4 et this Iine to the subjQCt site. The summary of this approach hs.s subatantia2 error which, once more, iriflateR? the indicated value. he costs of generating the three 1.ot sale~? ahduld have been dduct®d, ea BhouZd the receipt of the cash from the salsa been iscounted Eor.the length of time during planning and conatructian afore they would have been reoQa~ved. This is basic stu:Ef = once ga~.n, e~.thex by error or design, this infiatiod their cnnclua,ion. Hoe again, just using their figures and readjusting fortpxoper pprai.sal technique, an indicated value of $342,105 ie derived, nQt 540,000. lf'Course Parcels he directed h~.ghest t~rfd best use of this tract was su it is now sing used. Thin was the instruction qiv®n to me, and it was stated everal times in the Nash report. flow their decided that it would be roper to assume ~.t as a separate txoct availab~.e !or sale as Qpen pace is a leap in ,logic that I can't fallow. i think that the Sisk ct very c~,early states the intentions of the valuation; it is to Blue the paxce~. as it i$ being used, with no Ganeideration g~.ven o tenant installed impxovementa. ThiB site is an integral part a:E he golf course, and has vd~.ue lriedaur®d as it contributes to the alf course, not a separate parcel. It is not now open space, and as not been used as open apace since the golf cqur8® was built. he valuation of the tract is admittedly difficult, but an MAX hauld have the quali#,~eatipns dnd education to recagnise~ths~ ppraisal problem and the m+~thoda required to appraise the site. z eel that thin d~.gresaion is fundamental.. - VALUATION CONSULTANTS, I N ~ . valuation Consultants P.04 • he appraisial cites "op®n space" sal®a as comparable data. Sale 7 as offered for sale as a duplex Bite, waa sold on that basic, and he current owners st~,11 have the opportunity to so use the site unless restricted by some prfvete agreement appli8d by the uyera). The site i~ Anfl acs zvnec~ for a duplex, and has nut been esoned. It is not stoned "Dad~.cated Open Space°, as was stated. here i$ no such •$one" its Eagle Vail. ale 9 w~?s ( and is sti~.i } ion®d aoramara ial , and a11,,.~.~d more ondo~mini~ua unite to be built. The adjacent cvndomi»ivm awnexs urcha®ed the tract ftcmct a lender wha ncquiz®d it through a arec],asu>:e to proxdct theTt?sel~rea from the poas~.bility an ncroaching commerofsl use. Thies wait not "open space", and never ae. The Breckenridge sale h8i~ no bearing on th1.s valuation at all. ash furth®r cites purchase8 by Av'a11 and Val}. of lands used 80 esrka; I em unAware of ariy sales wh~.eh trartspxl'ed at a value lase hen what the highest and best use diCtatied~ and none Of the sales h~.ch are ob].a.quely referred to were sv restricted. Although I ant tell from the report, it appears that, the appxaiser'i~ wquxd eve us consider lands boughx through cvndemnatxon for the grade ross~.»g prod®ct ~Ln Avvn as market "pp6n space" buys. Reamembea" the anana? have mere details of the gales wh~,oh were used and other g®nera]. ammelnts regarding the VS~'S apprax$$lf none turthez th® intent of his ,fetter, but Z wi7,l be happy to meet with you at your Onv6nience to d~,scuss the matter furthez, it you would like. espeatfully Submitted, ALA 0 T , INC. ~ ' vbe H. ox, 1~lA ' V A T T I A TTC~N r''t"11~TCT iT T E 1~t'rC T RtI~ M" ~y TOWN OF VAIL ~ 7S South Frontage Road Office of the Town Manager Vail, Colorado 81657 303-479-2105/FAX 303-479-2157 February 12, 1992 Mrs. Johnnette Phillips Eagle County Clerk and Recorder P.O. Box 537 Eagle, Colorado 81631 Dear Johnnette: Having received the county polling place assignments for the Presidential Primary to be held on March 3, 1992, I would like to make you aware of some Town of Vail concerns. While we understand and appreciate the .need to combine precinct polling places in an effort to conserve funds, the polling sites chosen may cause confusion and hardship for the.Vail voters as follows: Voters from Precincts 13 and 14 have become accustomed to voting at the Vail Golf Course Clubhouse. Changing that voting location to the Vail Municipal Building could potentially cause a great deal of confusion. Lack of on-site parking will limit access to the Vail Library for Precincts 2 and 12. While parking is available at the Lionshead Transportation Center, we ar.e concerned that voters will perceive this as an added hardship to reach the polls. We would suggest you consider using the Vail Golf Course Clubhouse for Precincts 13 and 14, and use ,the Vail Municipal Building for Precincts 2 and 12. Town of Vail staff members will be available on March 3rd to assist in conducting this election, and we would like to see the process completed as smoothly as possible. Pam Brandmeyer or Martha Raecker would appreciate a call from you regarding these polling place assignments. February 12, 1992 . page 2 Sin e ly, Rondall V. Phillips Town Manager cc: Vail Town Council Pam Brandmeyer Martha Raecker REC'C FEB 2 4 19~- • ,ti ' l~o~°~p~~rick, PettfS9 One United Bank Center, Suite 2200 meth Poli~n Inc ® 1700 Lincoln Street 9 a Denver, CO 80203 Investment Bankers 303/764-5777 A Mutual of Omaha Company 1-800-942-7557 February 20, 1992 Dear Government Official: As you well know, i.t appears two different tax limitation measures probably will be on the November ballot in Colorado. Since this popular but contentious issue affects all of us so profoundly, we believe that being fully informed is essential to analyzing the impacts of such initiatives on state and local governments. Kirkpatrick Pettis has organized a discussion forum, wherein both perspectives of the tax limitation question will be presented. Without political or emotional bias, key participants espousing all sides of the issue will rationally and thoroughly explore the proposals and their perceived consequences. We would like to invite you to attend this forum scheduled for Wednesday, March 4, 1992 from 8:30 to 11:00 a.m. We hope you can join us. Yours very truly, Way G. Nielsen First Vice President and Manager C~'t.tlL I WGN/vc C~1a~~ ~7 c Home Office: 10250 Regency Circle, Suite 200 • Omaha, NE 68114 • 402/397-5777 Kirkp~t~i, ; . his, . ~Ila+r~~~~sent ~~~e~~~r~ A ~11a~nial bf OmJha Cuir?pang Cordial/y invites you to attend a Forum on "CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS FOR TAX AND SPENDING LIMITS FOR COLORADO STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS" featuring Moderator Wayne G. Nielsen, First Vice President Kirkpatrick, Pettis, Smith, Polian Inc. Understanding the Amendments .Local Government's Viewpoint Greg Johnson, Partner Sam Mamet, Associate Director Kutak, Rock & Campbell Colorado .Municipal League Finanr_iaf~Cnmmursity .Viewpoint /ndustry's Viewpoint Chris Johns, Portfolio Manager Pat Boyle, Vice President, Tax Free Fund of Colorado Governmental Affairs Colorado Association of Commerce and Industry Tax Limitation Advocate's Viewpoint Taxpayer's Watchdog Viewpoint Fred Holden, Economist Jim Jacobs, Director of Research Independence Institute Colorado Public Expenditure Council JOHN D. HERSHNER ROOM, ONE UNITED BANK CENTER 1700 L/NCOLN March 4, 1992, 8:30 to 11:00 a. m. Coffee wi/l be availab/e Seating /invited; p/ease RSVP to Virginia at 764-5757 by March 2, 1992