Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-05-26 Support Documentation Town Council Work Session ~AU~~ - ~I~ ~ ! ~ . VAIL TOWN COUNCIL - WORK SESSION TUESDAY, MAY 26, 1992 2:00 P.M. 1N COUNCIL CHAMBERS ~ . AGENDA 1. Local. Licensing Authority Applicant Interviews. .2. DRB Report. 3. Joint Work Session with the Vail Recreation District. Re: Par 3, 9-Hole Golf Course. 4. 1st Quarter Financial Report. 5. Discussion Re: Draft Resolution No. 10, Series of 1992, a Resolution Opposing a Statewide Initiative to Raise the Colorado Sales Tax from 3% to 4%. 6. Discussion Re: Pitkin Creek Bond Refunding. 7. Information Update. 8. Council Reports. 9. Other. 10. Executive Session: Personnel Matters. 11. Adjournment. THE NEXT VAIL TOWN COUNCIL OVERVIEW WORK SESSION AND EVENING MEETING WILL BE ON TUESDAY, 612/92, BEGINNING AT 6:30 P.M. C:WGENDA. WS PAIL TOWN COUNCIL WORK SESSION TUESDAY, MAY 26, 1992 2:00 P.M. IN COUNCIL CFIAMBERS EXPANDED AGENDA 2:00 P.M. 1. Local Licensing Authority Applicant Interviews. Martha Raecker Action Requested of Council: There are two Authority positions available. Interview Mitzi Thomas and Don White. Davey Wilson, a third applicant, is unable to attend this session. Backaround Rationale: Two-year appointments to the Authority for Mitri Thomas and Davey Wilson expire this month. Applicants appointed to these two vacant positions will serve until June, 1994. Letters of application as well as an attendance record for Thomas and Wilson are enclosed in this packet. 2:15 P.M. 2. DRB Report. 2:25 P.M. 3. Joint work session with the Vail Recreation District re: Par 3, 9 Hole Peggy Osterfoss Golf Course. 2:55 P.M. 4. 1st Quarter Financial Report. Steve Thompson Action Requested of Council: Review and approve roll forward for supplemental appropriation. Backaround Rationale: Finance provides a quarterly estimate on the Town's financial condition. 3:15 P.M. 5. Discussion re: Draft Resolution No. 10, Series of 1992, a resolution Ron Phillips opposing a statewide initiative to raise the Colorado Sales Tax from 3% to 4%. 3:30 P.M. 6. Discussion re: Pitkin Creek Bond refunding. Steve Jeffers Backaround Rationale: Steve Jeffers will present Town Council with , updated numbers for refunding. 3:45 P.M. 7. Information Update. 8. Council Reports. 9. Other. 10. Executive Session: Personnel matters. 11. Adjournment. C:VIGENDA.WSE _ M E M O R ~A N 'D II M TO: Town Council FROM: Martha Raecker,. Town Clerk-'W~/ DATE: 21 May 92 SUBJECT: Appointments to the Local Licensing Authority Terms for Mitzi Thomas and Davey Wilson on the Local Licensing Authority expire this month, and they are both reapplying. Mitzi was first appointed in May of 1990, and Davey in January of 1991. Their attendance records are as follows: Mitzi Thomas: 28 meetings during last term present 24, absent 4 Davev Wilson: 19 meetings during last term present 16 absent 3 I~~d. S•?2.9z Mitzi J. Thomas POST OFFICE BOX 222 • VAIL, COLORADO 81858 May 8, 1992 us Members of the Town Council ""C Town of Vail _ Attention; Martha Raecker 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 ~ Dear Council Members: I would like to be considered to serve a second two-year term on the Board of the Local Licensing Authority. My first two-year term expires at the end of this month. I have enjoyed my association with the . Authority and believe that I have carried out the duties in a responsible manner. A wide variety of issues have come before the Authority in the past two years, and I have learned a great deal about the sale and service of liquor in the State of Colorado. It is very interesting, and I would like to continue in my current capacity on the Board. My qualifications remain essentially the .same: I have been a permanent resident of Vail for 13 years, and I hold no financial interest in a Vail business with a liquor license. I have been employed by the Vail Valley Foundation as Director of Membership from November 1988 to present. I also hold a part-time position as Community Counselor for Au Pair in America, a program of the American Institute for Foreign Study. C.>~ Thank you for the opportunity to re-apply for ~ this position. I look forward to meeting with you _ at the Town Council.Work Session on May 26, 1992. C ~ Sincerely yours, Mitzi T mas ~ic`d. s-aa•9a- ' ~H~OLAT~ ~ TELEPHONE: (303) 476-7623 304 BRIDGE ST. • VAIL, cO g~6s7 ~FACTORY® ~ . 22 May 1992 Tom: Va-~1 Town Courcll Re: Liquor Board I am interested in being consiCered for one of the vacant liauor board positions. I ha~~e lived in Vail far the past 5 years and as a business owner feel that I would like to become more in`olved in our local government. I spent almost 2) years in law enforcement where~~~I has extens-~.ve tr~aininc in alcohol related offenses an_d acted as direct liaisor. between the CaliforniR Highway Pa~ro1 and tl~e District Attor~ ney' s office for the purposes of filing criminal c:,mplaints. I believF that this ~experien~e would allow r;ie some insight into d~aline with the pr~~blems presented~to the liquor boars. ? would be happ;~ to prc~~~ide further information as necessary, Sincere,y, Dori White _ May 22, 1992 Note to Council: As of Friday afternoon, I have not received any written notification from Davey Wilson that I can share with you regarding his intent to reapply for the Liquor Authority, although he has expressed interest. According to the public notice, applications may be accepted until Monday, May 25th, at 5:00 P.M. If I receive anything from Davey, I will make it available to you at Tuesday's Work Session. Thanks, . . s,~,. ~N01~~ . Ka~~ ~Af~ d- GREENHOUSE BAR P.O. Box 1234 . Vail, Colorado 81658 3031476-1818 c1X.`t' C ~JEj4 c `r~.~G~'~ ~ k' t ~1~-? ~(~jr (.4 l-~ ~ ~ i u of ! I L-~I~~ I I' c '1 , 7 ~ ~l L .~<<-zy-~ (/1/'t,~vVt ~ 6T t~~',~ cam-. ? J C.r~ 1 r ~ ,I ~~.d- S ~ ~1-e s P ~ G U t c~'-z- r-E, ~ c:~'c S 3 ~ F'1 S r.,2.:1~~.~~ - y ~ .~a r ! ~ . J~e S c L S' i/~-S/L L ~/Vt~-?i!n'l J_~£~i/ 1 L r' ~ " ~ ! 1/- r ~ l i U CJ Y f 1`,~~~ ~ C'' l.)s ~ y y ~~''L C V f?~22~i. C 1 (1 I r ~ s c ~5 ~S 6~,rZv~ ~ ~,tvc.dw~ . > ~ a~~ L -5 ?~2 ve_ , / 45 1 ~c/ 6'~ a 1 -~c.= 7 I ['~.12~5 ~ v~-!t t~..E c ~ i a ~ ~ c2S C.~ ~ i c~S i~l " ~ .,2. Uc~ • ~ 1 u 5 ~ G + n_ ~ o -C -Z ~ ~ ~ ~ • . a ~1 ~CAo ~ . GREENHOUSE BAR P.O. Box 1234 Vaif, Colorado 8fb58 3031476-1818 • 6 t'l ~ ~ ~ 55.x- • S ~ V ire- ! D l ~ r c.~ cam/ G ( (:..~''tiS i a C U , ~ l ~ r~tG° X L ~J~L ~ r C~~ ~ ~ •a " DESIGN REVIEW BOARD AGENDA MAY 20, 1992 3:00 P.M. SITE VISITS 12:30 P.M. 1 Solar Vail/US West - 501 N. Frontage Road West. 2 Sandstone Creek Club - 1020 Vail View Drive. 3 Grand Traverse - 1450 Lionsridge Loop. 4 Aspen Grove Homes - 1456 Buffehr Creek Road. 5 Hettinga - 1575 Aspen Ridge Road. 6 Spruce Creek Phase III, #3 - 1750 S. Frontage Road W. 7 Spruce Creek Phase III, #2 - 1750 S. Frontage Road W. 8 Alderette - 1784 S. Frontage Road W. 9 Wilkins - 1390 Greenhill Court. 10 Vail Team Tennis - South of the Lionshead skier bridge and north of West Forest Road. 11 Glazov - 454 Forest Road. 12 Bag and Pack - 122 East Meadow Drive. 13 Osborne - 335 Mill Creek Circle. 14 Village on Bighorn Phase II - 4222 / 4252 Spruce Way. 15 Mueller - 3130 Booth Falls Court.. AGENDA: 1. Vail Team Tennis - Stadium tennis facility. MM Generally .located to the south of the Lionshead skier bridge and north of West Forest Road. MOTION: Patricia Herrington SECOND: Sherry Dorward VOTE: 3-0-1 Approved as submitted. George Lamb abstained, was not on the site visit. 2. Cambria - Carport and heated drive. MM 1655 Aspen Ridge Road/Lot 5, Block 4, Lion's Ridge. _ MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: TABLED TO JUNE 3RD MEETING. 3. Vail Recreation District - Review of sign program SM/MM at the Lionshead Parking Structure Auxiliary Building. MOTION: Sherry Dorward SECOND: Patricia Herrington VOTE: 4 - 0 DRB determination that the "Youth Services" branch of the VRD be classified under the public information sign category. 4. Aspen Grove Homes - Four dwelling units. AK 1456 Buffehr Creek Road/Lot 2, The Ridge. MOTION: George Lamb SECOND: Patricia Herrington VOTE: 4 - 0 TABLED TO v uivr: 3RD MEETING 5. Sonnenalp (Bavaria House) lighting plan. AK 20 Vail Road/Lot I, Block 5'-E, Vail Village 1st. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: TABLED TO JUNE 3RD MEETING. 6. Village at Bighorn Phase II - 4 single family homes. MM 4222 - 4252 Spruce Way/Lot 1, Block 7, Bighorn 3rd. MOTION: George Lamb SECOND: Pat Herrington VOTE:- 4 - 0 Approved as submitted 7. Hettinga - New single family residence. MM/SM 1575 Aspen Ridge Road/Lot 4, Block 4, Lion's Ridge Filing #3. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Conceptual - no vote taken 8. Hymers Duplex - Review of modified north elevation. JK 1495 Greenhill Court/Lot 6, Glen Lyon Subdivision. MOTION: George Lamb SECOND: Pat Herrington VOTE: 4 - 0 Approved. Applicant to install two additional 15' tall evergreens along North elevation. Revised landscape plan was also presented and approved. 9. Glazov - 250 Addition. JK 454 Forest Road/Lot 5-A, Block 2, Vail Village 3rd.' MOTION: Pat Herrington SECOND: George Lamb VOTE: 4 - 0 ' Approved. Evergreens to be removed during construction in order to lower grade and will be re-installed following construction. 10. Forbes Residence -.Demo/rebuild primary/secondary JK residence with restricted secondary unit and 250. 362 Mill Creek Circle/Lot 9, Block 1, Vail Village 1st Filing. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: TABLED TO JUNE 17TH MEETING. ° 11. Grand Traverse - Entry landscaping. SM/JK 1450 Lionsridge Loop/SDD #22, Lionsridge Filing #3. MOTION: George Lamb SECOND: Pat Herrington . VOTE : 3 - 0 - 1 Approved as submitted. Sherry abstained as she represented applicant. 12. Bag & Pack Retail Shop - New front door. JK 122 East Meadow Drive/Village Center Building #D, Block 5-E, Vail Village 1st. MOTION: Patricia Herrington SECOND: George Lamb VOTE: 4 - 0 CONSENT APPROVED 13. Solar Vail/US West - New Vector. AK 501 N. Frontage Road West/A part of Lot 8, Vail Potato Patch. MOTION: Patricia Herrington SECOND: George Lamb VOTE: 4 - 0 CONSENT - Approved with Conditions. 14. Spruce Creek Phase III, #3 - New single .family AK residence. 1750 S. Frontage Road West. MOTION: George Lamb SECOND: Pat Herrington VOTE: 4 - 0 Approved. 15. Spruce Creek Phase III, #2 - New single family AK residence. 1750 S. Frontage Road West. MOTION: George Lamb SECOND: Pat Herrington VOTE: 4 - 0 Approved. 16. Vail Point Buildings 2,4 & 5, Clubhouse and JK recreational amenity package. 1881 Lionsridge Loop/Lot 1, Block 3, Lion's Ridge Filing #3. A resubdivision of Parcels B,C,E & part of D, Lion's Ridge Filing #2. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: TABLED TO JUNE 17TH MEETING. 17. Mueller - Regrading•of lot. JK 3130 Booth Falls Court/Lot 6,. Block 2, Vail Village 12th. MOTION: Patricia Herrington ~ SECOND: George Lamb VOTE: 4 - 0 CONSENT APPROVED 18. Alderette - Demo/rebuild of primary/secondary JK residence with two 250's. 1784 S. Frontage Road West/ Lot 3, Vail Village West Filing #2. MOTION: Pat Herrington SECOND: George Lamb VOTE: 4 - 0 TABLED IYdDEFIATITELY 19. Osborne - Addition. AK 335 Mill Creek Circle/Lot 13, Block 1, Vail Village 1st. MOTION: Pat Herrington SECOND: George Lamb . VOTE: 4 - 0 Approved with conditions. 20. Wilkins - New primary/secondary residence. AK Conceptual Review. 1390 Greenhill Court/Lot 12, Glen Lyon Subdivision. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Conceptual review - no vote taken. 21. Sandstone Creek Club - Site improvements. SM/AK 1020 Vail View Drive/Lot B-4 & B-5, Block B, Lion`s Ridge Filing #1. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: TABLED TO JUNE 3RD I~lEETING 22. Dowd Junction - Recreation path bridge. Conceptual GH Review. Conceptual - no vote taken. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: George Lamb Gena Whitten (PEC Patricia Herrington Representative) Sherry Dorward Ned Gwathmey STAFF APPROVALS: Bighorn Terrace D-1 - Repaint. 4200 Columbine Way/Lot 1, Bighorn Terrace. Tupy Residence - Minor window changes. 1901 Buffehr Creek Road/Lot 33, Buffehr Creek. Owen Residence - Color change and window/door changes. 2695 Davos Trail/Lot 17, Block B, Vail Ridge. Kelton Residence - Add window & remove existing balcony & door. 1034 Homestake Circle/Lot 4, Block 6, Vail Village 7th. r Stephens/Worthy - Color change on deck floor. 2547-A Arosa Drive/Lot 7, Block E, Vail Das Schone #1. Grasis Residence - Minor changes to DRB approved plans. 2807 Aspen Court/Lot 12, Resub. Tract E, Vail Village 11th Filing. Elk Creek Townhomes.#3 - Changes to previously approved elevations. 767 Potato Patch Drive/Lot 34, Block 1, Vail Potato Patch. Gorsuch Residence - Awning on rear patio, temporary. 1193 Cabin Circle/Lot 4, Block 2, Vail Valley lst Filing.. Westin Hotel - Temporary structure, south deck. 1300 Westhaven Drive/SDD #4, Cascade Village. Zneimer Lot 1 - Modification to entrance stair & grade at entrance. Lot 1, Lia Zneimer Subdivision (The Valley VI). Hutchinson Residence - Entry Gate. 2049 Sunburst Drive/Lot 1, Vail Valley 4th. TOWN OF VAIL MEMORANDUM TO: Ron Phillips Town Council FROM: Steve Thompson DATE: May 20, 1992 _ RE: First Quarter Financial Report Please find attached the first quarter financial report. REVENUES Sales tax, lift tax and interest income are all projected to be under budget for 1992 by $390,500, $59,000, and $100,000 respectively. However this Shortfall is offset by Construction Fees and RETT tax collections being over budget by approximately $427,000 and $300,000 respectively. We are projecting a 2% increase in sales tax revenue over last year versus the 4.5% budgeted. In short, we must collect our budgeted revenue for. the rest of the year to achieve the 2% increase. ERPENDITURES ' The budgeted expenditures for the General, Capital Projects, RETT and Police Confiscation funds include the original budgeted amounts ' plus: $2,068,504 in unspent 1991 appropriations for unfinished projects, $544,661 in previously approved additional dollars needed to finish 1991 projects, $333,475 in previously approved additional 1992~expenditures requested by the. Town Council and staff and $100,000 for the Dowd Junction bike path which has been moved from RETT to the Capital Projects Fund. Please see page 6 for details. The Capital Projects Fund expenditures have been increased by $267,808, which includes $139,522 for the purchase of the West Vail land from the RETT fund, $100,000 for Dowd Junction bike path design, and $28,286 in unspent 1991 RETT expenditures for sidewalks and the Dowd Junction bike path design. The $34,722 in projected savings in the General Fund is primarily due to salary savings from positions not filled. At this time we are projecting all projects will be .on budget. Estimated expenditures for projects on page 3 have been left the same as budget. . This report will be presented for discussion at the May 26th work session. r. :,::~::::::::.::~:::::::.~::.::~.~:::::::::::::.~::.,..................,.......:.:,...:.r 1:ff{{YY~,,~~ : fir' ~ .......:::.:::i::;::i:::::i::i:::::i:::i:::::::r.:....~ ~ . :::....1;992 .::1992 , ,VARIANCE > GENERAL'FUND 13EVENUE ; , ;;BUDGET:::::::; ESTIMATE OVER/(UNDER) Taxes Pro e w r ' one shi & T axes 2 08 2 0 8 9 2 2 080 8 9 P rtY P =0: , , Retail Sales Tax 6,954 000 6 726 000 `<~<`<'>.>>'228'000 Ski lift Tax 974,500 945,000 <(29500) Franchise Fees 489,000 309;-000 '>«20;OgQ Penalty & Interest 35,300 42,000 '><`;<;670Q< Subtotal Taxes 10,533,629 10,302,829 : (230;800; Construction Fees 233 631 573 600 ~ ' , ......339;969: Licenses & Permits 43,600 45,300 ::;;1';700 Charges for Services 238,737 201,705 '~'~~_i ~>':'(37,032j Transportation Centers 1,560,518 1,570,760 ':>10,24~2; Intergovernmental revenue 897,977 900,727: >``>~<;<~:.>;2750' Fines & Forfeitures 228,125 226,817 _:':>::°(1:;308) Other 270,015 313,405 `^»:;<<`.: <'`43;390.' ~:TOTAL'GF REVENUE - . ;1:4`,006,232.`:':;':`:14,135;143 ..:.....:1'28;911 . 1992.: »:::1 2;...... 99 ,VARIANCE ~~::GENERAL FUND'EXPENSES;' BUDGET ESTIMATE :AVER/(UNDER] Town Officials 801,249 801,249 ` ;0 Administrative Services ~ 1,045,610 1,036,610 `>;>>~>`(9;OOOj Community Relations 204,646 204,646 ><<<<::<;<:<>~>0 Community Development 865,233 865,233 ;;0 . Police ~ 2,705,317 _ 2,654,787 ;:;:<;;(50;530) Fire 966,866 967,616:><'>':<;><750': Public Works 2,161,125 2,171,126 ~::";;:;:1`0;001:' Transit 1,921,048 1,876,917 ::::.(44;;131) Transportation Centers ~ 993,634 1,047,122 ;:::;::::;:`x:::;;;::::;53;488: VMRD Contract 547,043 547,043 <`~'`:'><'<>:?Q Library 590,156 594,856`«<<~4l700_ Insurance 508,475 508,475 ::0 Contin enc 36,431 36,431 >€<'>~>:>':::<><Q 9 Y Contributions & Events 771 21 771 21 Employee Benefits 60,350 60,350 ` >>~~«<>'<< ~<>0 TOTAL~GF EXPENDITURES°?`'' .„...;.14,178;401:: 1:4;143;679.....':. (34,722) H 1 ~ ~ '~SU US/(S O . ) ( 2, 69)?::`:::>>::(8,536)::;:>`~<< >>_1~63,633 1 QTR2FIN -2- 19-May-92 TOWN OF VAIL STATEMENT OF PROJECTED CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE 1 /1 /91 - 12/31 /92 SPECIAL CAPITAL REAL ESTATE PARKING HEAVY VAIL DEBT POLICE TOTAL GENERAL PROJECTS TRANSFER ASSESSMENT EQUIPMENT MARKETING SERVICE CONFISCATION ' FUND FUND TAX FUND FUND FUND FUND FUND FUND , Fund Balance 1/1/91 506,217 1,389,205 2,192,343 22,965 381,052 27,349 3,553,114 679,097 8,751,342 Actual 1991 Revenue 12,964,884 9,612,018 1,941,007 292,411 1,352,685 670,723 4,688,496 39,237 31,561,461 Actual 1991 Expenditures 12,813,801 7,254,871 1,414,634 311,336 1,342,470 675,719 2,976,235 206,696 26,995,762 Gain/(loss) 151,083 2,357,147 526,373 (18,925) 10,215 (4,996) 1,712,261 (167,459) 4,565,699 Actual Fund Balance 12/31/91 657,300 3.746,352 2L718,716 4.040 3911267 22353 5,265,375 511,638 13,317.041 1992 Revenue Estimate 14,135,143 7,038,155 1,764,510 274,600 1,474,908 650,500 5,249,0.37 21,200 30,608,053 1992 Expenditures Estimate 14,143,679 8,249,920 2,560,422 274,000 1,479,193 672,853 4,951,932 111,723 32,443,722 Gain/(loss) (8,536) (1,211,765) (T95,912) 600 (4,285) (22,353) 297,105 (90,523) (1,835,669) Equity Transfer ~ 1,700,000 (1,700,000) Projected Fund Balance 12/31/'92_ 2348,764 834,587 1,922,804 4,640 386.982 0 _5 562,480 421,115 11L481,372 r fdbal492 -1- : ; 992.. 1992 VARIANCE .CAPITAL. PROJECTS REVENUE _ .....:;.BUDGET ESTIMATE .OVER/(UNDER)! Retail Sales Tax 4,946,500 4,784,000 : ;(162;5Q0.) Coun Sales Tax . tY 195, 000 195, 000 >>`<:><<~ '<< 0` Ski Lift Tax 974,500 945,000 >(29500) Recreation Amenities Fees 30,000 117,000 ~>'=~<:87;000;: Earnings on Investments 173,000 142,500 30;500 ( Other Income 44, 000 68, 000 ::::::::::::::::::::2.4; 000;: RETT Loan Repa ment 506 Y ,655 506 655 <>>`<`><'> =<><'' Intern i atonal Brid a Grant 2 9 80 000 2 8 0 00 >:::TOTAL REVENUE.:.<`` ..,.7,149;655.:.:...,7;038;155.::; :(11150Q~ . 9992 1992 VARIANCE CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND: EXP ' .........BUDGET. ESTIMATE.,; OVER~(UNDER) Town Snow Dump (R)=Rollforwards 313,500 313,500 International Brid a Re lacement R 450 000 4 9 5 0 0.. Police De artment S ace Ex ansi on R 121 P 000 121 P 00 Misc Sidewalks & W Ped Connection (R) ~ 22,523 22 523 ~>><>~>>«`:<:>~~~>0' VTC Community Improvements (R) 115,384 115 384 ;><`>><<°:;:::<>'0> Street Maint & Improvements (R) $53,500 653,500 653,500 .Q` Snow Dump Road /Overlay Shop Complex (R) 209,500 209,500 ~.~:~>D` Comm Sys Maint. & Replace (R) $32,066 52,066 52,066 .:..:.:;;Q: Dawd Junction Bike Path Design (R) $5,763 105,763 105,763 _ 0, Municipal Annex Remodel (R) 156,195 156,195 0;' Streetscape Design (R) 6,167 6,167 ; „;:;;0 Computer Project (R) 3,000 3,000 _>;_;<>i_'<';:<:;<;`:'°;>0 Parking Structure Settlement (R) $163,348 275,000 275,000 :`<<~<><<<<><<.<>'<0` Parking Structure Capital Maintenance 55,000 ~ 55 000 <<>>`> : ~ 0.: Recreation Paths Maintenance 85,000 85 000 <»>~':<~`>>'><>` 0;. Misc Building Maintenance 50,000 50,000 ;:'>>~~=>0:> Street Li ht Im rovement Pro ram 30 000 9 P 9 30 000 :><><~ ~ Chapel Bridge Design 10 000 10 000 .<< , 0. Fire Truck Replacement 250 000 250 000 » <'«<»>><` ~..<>>'< 0.. Parkin Structure Landsca e Contin enc 30 000 9 P 9 Y 30,000 <p? Bus Replacement 600 000 600 000 :'`;<<'°=`'<>```_` Q Town Shop Ventilation System 46,200 46,200 ><:;:'<'Q Vail Fire Station Storm Sewer 24,450 24,450 :.::::::::::::0:` Slifer Fountain Repair 30,000 30,000 ;>;>;::;;;;::;::;;;:;>:;.;:;::;;;0 Bus Shelter Imp & Replace 40,000 40,000 `..:0 Drainage Improvements 30,000 30,000 ~>:>»':'<'.0 Street Furniture Re lacemenf 20 000 2 0 P 0 Town Sho & Bus Barn Maint 26 70 0 26 700 :<><' _'_<'>>>>1`<><:.., Remodel Bus Terminal 35 000 35 000 ` , 0. 00 << PW Office Remodel 50 000 Pedestrian ver W O ass alkwa 50 0 0 000 ~>»<_>>>`><>'<` 00 P Y 5 , _ 0: BI ac k ore Bri G d e 1 1 122 ><>'~`<<<<' 1 5 22 9 5, ;:0. Transfer to RETT - Prch West Vail Land 72 086 72 086 , 0. Transfer to Debt Service 4,216,764 4,216,764 ' > ~ <::::`'~<0` ~ TOTAL EXPENDITURES 7,342;897: 8;249;920 0.~ .~~;:4~~: ;:.::::.:::...;1.: ~~:<#..:7:..6~ ;;>«<;::>:<:>:::.>::::: >1::<~:::~::~ 500. .............................I~..........,..........~" -3- ; 1992 T992..; VARIANCE '.LOTTERY FUND ,;..;BUDGET:.,; .:ESTIMATE .OUER%(UNDER)' REVENUE . 8,200 12,000 <`~':>:3,~800 EXPENDITURES 8,200 16, 000 > ' <>`':T 800: . ~ . - _ :...........................................:.:.........:::::.....:.:.......::::::::.~::.:::.::.::.:_::.:::.::::::.::.::.:~~~~~:::.:::.::::::::::::::::::::::::~~-,a. . 9 .:....................:...:.1992 ...............VARIA ~_REAL ESTATE TRANSFER TAX _._,.,..;BUDGET:: :ESTIMATE OVER/~UNDER~ R EV EN UE RETT es 1, 200, 000 1 500 000 <><>> ~ >:>:;::;<<; Tax 300, 000. Ski Museum Reimbursement 27,500 >~>>'>``>27500:: Golf Course LeaseNRD 80,924 80,924 ~>:.;<><:<;~~`:``>~Q Earnings on Investments 122,000 84,000 ;..;-:.(38,:000) Transfer From CPF -Sale West Vail Land 72 086 .;;>:::;:~:;::::;72,086.: ~ TOTAL REVENUE... ;."1:,402;924: .....:1;764,51.0. . :;361.;586 EXPENDIT R U ES Purch ase of 0 en a S ce P P 340 432 4 , 3 0 432 0; Transfer to Debt Service Fund ~ 361,434 293,998 <><<~~'(67436 Loan Repayment 506,655 506,655 ><;><:>:;<>:<`~<>;:>;::>>~0:. Open Space Projects 1,418,837 1,418 837 ...:..............0.; Miscellaneous 500 500 >':<:»:<: <:'_><:0 . T TA 0 LR ETT EXP N E DI T R . . _ S .:::..:.::::::::::::.::::::.::.::.::::::.,..:..2 627 . _ . ..,858.::,.:::::>:::?;560;422;<<;:<>`'(67;436)~ . . 1992_ ~ 1:992 ~ 1ARIANCE HEAVY EQUIPMENT'FUND, BUDGET ,:.;ESTIMATE .OVER/(UNDER) REVENUE • 1,480,408 1,474,908 <'< '><```<''~5`500 EXPEND T I URES 1,463,993 1,479,193 _'>`>15;200` ;RPM > <~'<>::: `«»'><><<><>;<>>;>;>»~;`~><>> _:<«:::<«<><><:>>:;::>:::; : ::<:<: -4- ;:.1992 ::::::`>'::<1992:.::`: `:>:::'.:VARIANCE'>:;~ ; SPECIAL.PARKING ASSESSMENT FUND,.; ,,,...:.:;BUDGET:» ESTIMATE OVER/(UNDER). REVENUE - Parkin Assessments 30 9 , 000 30, 000 > <>~<:><~:;'?<:.:::`'`~>>«0 Daily Parking Revenue 237,000 240,100::;;;:;;;:;;;`':>':: 3;.1:00:; Earnings on Investments - 7,000 4,500 ~;;;>::;:;(2500) ~>:TOTAL SPAF REVENUE 274,000 .:.274;600....:: 600: EXPEN IT R D ES U Tran f s er to Debt ervice F n S u d 274 000 274 0 » 'TOTAL' ~SPAF.'.EXPENDITU:RES: >,,..274,000::..:::...274;000 o l :;1992 :1992:; UARIQRICE~~: MARKETING: FUND :;;BUDGET ESTIMATE .``:OUEA%(UNDER} REVENUE . Business Licenses 330 000 330 000 :~'>:''`!_=~':~'<~~~~»><'>0 TOV Marketing Fund ~ 160,500 160,500 > ,><~`>'~;«`<0~. Other Marketing Contributions 154,000 154,000 0 Miscellaneous 0 0 >»:>:<~::::<~> Q; Earnings on Investments 9,000 6,000 '''<<>~`::~`"°(3;000) ~TOTAL.MARKETING REVENUE.- ; . ; . 653;500 650;500::;: , :{3;000)1 ~ ~ END T RE :;~:::::`<':::~<:<<~<_>~': <<><:< :<;`:<::;;::.:;;;'::::::: ~EXP U S , .:::::..:...659,1.01:::::>::~:> :::.672,853 ::;:~`'>`<:;::~::.1.3;752?'~ 1992 1`992: ;VARIANCE 'POLICE CONFISCATION::FUND ;:BUDGET ;;:,.;ESTIMATE OVER~~U.NDER) REVEN E _ U C 000 10 000 _<'<>>°_'' <''0' i - 1 onfiscat on Proceeds 0 Earnings on Investments 16,500 11,200 '>>>°>>~~<>(5300) . . ::TOTAL PCF REVENUE::>» 26,50'0><.:::;:;:>;'::21:200 .(5,300) 111 72 - EXP NDIT RE 111 723 ~ :::'<0< E U S 3 , ~ TOTAL PCF EXPENDITURES '.1.11,.723..:....:...:.. `::;1:.11;723 : ::::0: :RRL <>:RTFA~1: ~.::»:<:::::.;»:::<;::<::;:>>:>:>::>:>:»»><:::>'>:»>.;;<`::::>:.: ;:>:<<««>::. 3 >?<':`:~`:<':<'>` 5`::: Q:. -5- ' 22-May-92 ' TOWN OF VAIL SCHEDULE OF 1991 APPROPRIATIONS TO BE ROLLED INTO 1992 AND ADDffIONAL IXPENCI(TURES TO FINISH PROJECTS UNSPENT ESTIMATED ADDfI"IONAL (OVERSPENT) ESTIMATED ADD EXPENSE & RECLASSED 1991 1991 APPROPRIATION TO FINISH 1992 PROJECT APPROPR1ATiON ROLLED~O 1992 IN 1992 EXPEIJDITURES TOTAL GENERAL FUND: Code Revisions -Employee Housing 1,410 962 962 Repairs to Lionshead Fountain 2,969 2,969 2,969 Capital Outlay -Parks . 960 960 960 Master Transportation Study & Bridge Inspect 20,555 20,200 20,200 • Cemetery 7,000 7,000 7,000 Village Views (53) 0 1,200 1,200 AIPP Project 2,148 2,148 20,OW 22,148 AIPP Guide 815 815 815 Professional Fees -Housing Authority (1,498) (1,498) (1,496) Bicycle Map 9,~ 9,~ 9,000 Pink Link Shuttle 47,131 47,131 Conference Center 100,000 100,000 Workers Comp 31,700 31,700 SUBTOTAL• GENERAL FUND 43,306 42,556 21,200 178,831 242,587 CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND: Village Parking Structure Landscaping & Community Improvements 41,056 41,056 74,328 115,384 Street Maintenance 53,500 53,500 53,500 International Bridge Replacement 297,831 297,832 152,168 450,000 Communication Equi{xnent 32,06& 32,066 32,066 Streetscape 6,167 6,167 6,167 Town Snow Dump 158,739 158,739 154,761 313,500 Snow Dump Road/Overlay Shop Complex 178,948 178,948 30,552 209,500 Police Department Space Expansion 180,848 121,000 _ 121,000 Settlement on Parking Structure Construction 163,348 163,348 111,652 275,000 Computer Project 3,000 3,000 3,000 Municipal Annex Remode{ 156,195 156,195 156,195 Black Gore Bridge 15,122 15,122 Purchase West Vail Land 139,522 139,522 • 0 Projects Moved From RETT Fund: 0 0 Dowd Junction Rec Path Design 100,000 100,000 Misc Sidewalks 23,013 6,000 6,000 Vail Valley Drive Pedestrian Connection 16,523 16,523 16,523 Dowd Junction Rec Path Design 5,763 5,763 5,763 SUBTOTAL- CAPITAL PROJECT FUND 1.,316,997 1,240,137 523,461 254,644 2,018,242 REAL ESTATE TRANSFER TAX FUND: Ski Museum Site Retrofit 7,212 7,212 7,212 Vail Trail Safety 2,200 e2,200 2,200 Gore Cr Promenade 65,969 65,969 65,969 Intermountain Pool Site 7,405 7,405 7,405 Stevens Park Construction 58,409 58,409 58,409 East Vail Interchange Landscaping 84,521 84,521 84,521 Master Open Spacef Rec Trail Update Plan 60,000 60,000 60,000 Athletic Field Restrooms 47,490 47,490 47,490 Spraddle Creek Parcel Purchase 350,000 350,000 350,000 Golf Maintenance Parcel Purchase 75,000 75,000 75,000 SUBTOTAL• RETT FUND 758,206 758,206 758.206 POLICE CONFISCATION FUND 27,605 27,605 27,605 GRAND TOTAL 2.068.504 544 661 433.475 3 046.640 rolfwd92 6 19-May-92 TOWN OF VAIL COUNCIL CONTINGENCY 1992 Original Budget Amount $50,000 Uses: Whistler B.C. Trip 1,600 . Deming Training 1,100 Resurface Tennis Court Lionshead 3,800 Arne Hansen Memorial Contribution 1,000 Goal Setting & Consensus Building Meetings 3,569 Employee Opinion Survey 2,500 Total Amount Used 13,569 Total Amount Left ~ $36,,431 . coucon92 7 u°a~'u RESOLUTION NO. 10 SERIES 1992 A RESOLUTION OPPOSING A STATEWIDE INITIATIVE TO RAISE THE COLORADO SALES TAX FROM 3% to 4%. WHEREAS, a statewide initiative petition is being circulated which would increase the Colorado sales tax rate from 3% to 4% to raise $320 million in new revenue for elementary and secondary education; and to make massive reforms in the Colorado education system; and WHEREAS, the combined state-local sales tax rate in Colorado is among the highest in the nation; and WHEREAS, increasing the state sales tax rate will be economically harmful to municipalities, counties, and other local governments which rely primarily on local sales tax revenue; and WHEREAS, the tourism industry is very important to Colorado's economy as the second largest industry in the state, and an additional one cent sales tax will increase visitor.~and guest resistance to travel to Colorado to recreate and vacation by increasing the cost of retail purchases, lodging, and food thereby discouraging sales within Colorado and harming the Colorado economy; and WHEREAS, an additional one cent sales tax will particularly cause financial hardship on low and moderate income residents because of its inherent regressive tendencies; and WHEREAS, state and local sales taxes are not deductible for purposes of computing federal income tax. I NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Vail Town Council opposes the statewide initiative to increase the state sales tax rate from 3% to 4% because of the myriad problems and unanswered questions it raises; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that, if, indeed, new state revenues are necessary for 1 ~ . education, other avenues of enhanced revenue be explored and considered such as removing most or all the present state sales tax exemptions or increasing the state income tax, or other approaches, which avoid the problems raised herein. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its passage. INTRODUCED, READ, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this _ day of . Margaret A. Osterfoss, Mayor ATTEST: Martha S. Raecker, Town Clerk i . , i C:W ESOLU92.10 . I 2 r ~ ' Romer's sales tax increase is not `for .the kids' it's for the birds ` ~ had made a coa• Remember, rhos has been no organized been badly battered even as K•12 budgets from Io<wme tales rather than a higher . mOM BIS OFFICE, Gw. Roy Romer ~ J N! _ can ~ ~ west ~ o[ ~ servative predic• opposition to the taz bite pet. And this. were growing steadilpl Romer wants to sales taz One reason IS became the leper Capitol -Colorado's traditional tio4 the headline plan is so untatr and regressive that iterce pour every cent of the additional E320 al government allows you to deduct state spawning grotmds for poUtical demoastra• would read: "Ro- opposition is bound to erupt million a year in lases into the relaUvefy inrnme lases (and local propertp fazes) tiom - by looking northwest From The mer reaches ballot 1've covered many school bu~get and well•tunded R•12 -leaving the starve tram your federal taxable mcome -bat Past, I can see them by looting southeast. with record•breat• hood election over three decades When ling college campuses staring torlornlp at does not allow you to deduct sales tales. By the compass, that mesas roy visual ~ ing drive." But such election are won, they arecwos by the K•12 feast That leaves college stu• Yau -tike me -may take the stao- yt..,Y~.tlve differs by 180 degrees from ~ ~ since the guv set the education lobby working m close part- dents, their parents, (acuity and staff ask- lord deduction intend of Ltertdzing. Ila Romer's Right now, our political N;.,.;,,~ public especta• ' nership with business, government and ing: "What are we, chopped Uver enough Colaradam itemize so that m~ lion seem 190 degrees apart as well. ~ tiom at a haU•mU• rnmmumty Leaders. Romer's tax plan ? Jobs. Colorado's tax climate has guesstimate is that simply raising Ro The governor gazes northwest and be BOB lion, 110K would alienates key el~eats at all four sectors. been tilting against business !or years. mer's desired E320 million by the inrnme Ueves be sees half a million Coloradan now produce the ? Local government Ia.dividing Colo Romer's plan would worsen en existing taz instead of the sales tax would return thronging that plan, angrily demanding; WEGEN headline: "Romer rado's public finance pie, school districts drain of dollars tram local retail bull- at least E50 million a year fA Colorado is "Raise our tares! Raise orn• fazes'" mates ballot, but have long taken the Uon's share the oesses to taz•evading mail-0rder sales. II lower federal inrnme rases That's an ex- 1 took santheast and suspect that his es• falls taz short of goal" property tax. The stale relies bout Romer bas his way, the combined sales tra f50 million spent and invested here,: penally harsh and regressive tax propas• Worse, Romer's decision to boost the equally on the sales tax and themcomr ta: in Denver will rise to 8.3 percent I'm creating jobs and opportunity io Colorado` al has set himself and the education rnm• state's regressive and job•kliUng sales taz tax. But Colorado cities can't croUett lo- a computer nut, so let's say 1 need a wpp intend of sulking into the Potormc. mnnlty up for a very hard tall intend of the much fairer income taz has rnme lases, mating the sates taz rice ca• of WordPerfeM 5.1.1 can buy it focally or Romer is the governor and I'm just e For openers, old-pro Ramer made a aUenated fey elements of the coalitloo he rood artery o[ municipal finance. bfang by mail order for about E300. But if I buy tazpayer with kids soldiering throaat rookie mistate in the ezpectatiam game would need for viMory is November.;, municipal officials would have supported it locally, I71 also pap E29.90 Ln ta:es.II I Morey Middle 5cheol and Bast High l3u when he told ,~r~.,ers he wanted to garb- Sure, the governor's backers are waving an increase in the state fnceme ut dial an 800 somber and order it out of we indeed see different vision when ,s~ er hall a mtllion signatures to pui his pro- a poll showing that voters, bya few points, they view Romer's sales tax driv a state, Ill pay just S6 for semod•day air stare from our . Wr~,.:ive offices out c posed one-third Increase in the state sales prefer the sales tar to the Income tat. But direct raid on their critical sales tax ~ delivery -leaving me E19.90 ahead of that Capitol plaza.. tax on the ballot Secretary of State Nata• those polls assume voters must approve ? The chopped•liver (actor. Romer the game. Higher sales fazes will export He says his tax plan - illtratted, Ue.Meyer says the mast she has ever re one or the other -kind of like the choice map get support from the preschool . still more Colorado jobs out of state. shared with higher education regressive ceived on an issue is about 100,000 names. Utah gives a rnademned criminal, be through high school public education lob- ? DeductlDUlty. II a taz increase is and troo-dedoctible - is "tor the kids.", Lets assume that Romer's tax-bite pe• tween a gallows and a firing squad. In No- by, muallp called K•12 for sport, But needed, it would be less burdensome far I say it's for the buds. • tition garners 110,000 signatures. If he vember, voters can just say "oo." . what about highereducation - which ~ business and taxpayers alike to rnUect it son ee~ens ..,.,,,..c. ~ OpeeAardnr Pas .i 6 Winter Park Manifest, 7lwrsdny, Apol 30, 1992 ~ ~ ' ~ State sales tax hike won't help local education It is ironic that in the complex and confusing formula for Colorado achewls funding, East Grand County's relative prosperity is what's hurting it. Decease of the way things are set up, the East Grnrid County School I District is classified umkr a resort or recreation category and is there- fore not entiduJ to more than a pittance of state funding for local schools. Recrutse assessed valuations are supptrsedly higher Ikre than In other pans of the state, local property texts are the sole memta of fund- ing local schools. 7bat's supposed to be enottglt. Aut those who have been fallowing tfie schrxrl budget debate know that it's not. The school diltrlct could ' face Income cuts of up to S3W,OOO.11tat'a about Spercent of a S6 mil- Ilon annual budget. And Ciov. Romer'a proposed I percent etatewlde sales 1nK figure! to be no help at all. It could come beRxa veleta on the November bailee In ' the form of a referendum. if enacted It would push Winter Park's sales i tax above 10 percent and possibly hurt development end retail setae ea visitors are chilled by the thought of paying 10 cents on the dollar in , talc! taxes. On the ether hand, would the proposed sale! tax help out locally with K• 12 school funding? The answer {s yes end no. {t might help out other needy school districts around the state. Rut East Grand stands to get little of lire estimated x320 million the added Inx will raise. The problem lies In the equalization formula mandated by the state. Even though we don't get money from the state, we aren't allowed to fund local schools et a level higher then the rest of the state's school districts. 71tat means that focal funding could drop through the lower- ing of the mill levy because the rest of the state's school districts are not funded. So the Fraser Valley and Winter Park in particular might be caught in a no-win situation regarding school funding in 1992. Another per- cent In sales tax is hardly what a community needs to spur develop• meat and sales. but because of the state rules governing school fund- ing, we could be punished even though we deli t receive landing from i the slate. Resides the fact that East Grand will he getting none of the money and the fact that it might hamper development and retell soles in the Prnser Valley, setae texu me rcgrtsslve. The people who can least a4 ford to pay are the ones who end up spending pmportionnlly mare of their income for the tax. Any way you cut it, it's not Lair but local voters might be forced to support it. The consequences might be too grave. Aut that still doesn't solve the local problem of school funding. And the clock is ticking quickly fur the adoption deadline of Jana 30. i The simple fact is chat the school district is going to have to do whet millions of Americans have Itad to do the lest couple of years -make do with Less. I 1Lere's nn doubt drat (here is fat that can be trimmed from the local I school budget. A citizens group dominated by parents front the Fraser Valley Is working herd with the school board to get it to leek hard at what can be bone. I It's been mentioned Ih,tt the governor's proposal might be a tactic to ~ get the Legislature moving on other methods of school fending. Other sources of income have Imen proposed such es increasing the cigarette ' • tax, bt3asting the state income tax and closing loupholea in existing tax regulations. Rut it's dismaying that the legislature has been in session for •mondrs without tuldressing the problem. It seems unlikely that they will ncl now. Dut let's hope that Romer'a push In bypassing lawmakers becomes the one thing That finally Beta them moving. We can't afford the sales tax or the funding deep, .r4/. .a i ChIL April 28, 1992 REASONS FOR NOT INCREASING STATE SALES TAXES • The combined state-local sales tax rate in Colorado is among the highest in the nation. (Based on data compiled by the U.S. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations as of hloveml~er 1990, if Colorado raised its state sales tax by one percent, Denver's combined state/local general sales tax rate would rank 5th highest among major cities in the 50 states and the District of Columbia.) • Increasing the state sales tax rate will hurt municipalities, counties, and other local governments which rely primarily on local sales tax revenue. (Unlike the income tax which is levied only by the state, the sales tax is also levied by hundreds of local governments in Colorado.) • An additional one cent sales tax will hurt Colorado businesses by increasing the cost of purchases and by di scouraging;,sales within Colorado. (Increasing state sales taxes will encourage taxpayers to shop by mail order or in adjacent states to avoid Colorado's high sales taxes.) • A high state-local sales tax rate coupled with existiny lodgers taxes will discourage convention anct tourist business. • An additional one cent sales tax will particularly hurt lo~~i and moderate income residents. (The inccme tax is a fairer revenue source than the sales tax which tends to be regressive. ) • State and local sales taxes are not deductible for purposes of computing federal income taxes. (In Eontrast, state income taxes are fully deductible. By increasing state sales taxes Colorado taxpayers will pay more federal income taxes than if the state passed an equivalent state income tax hike.) Prepared by Colorado Municipal League April 28, 1992 Combined State-Local General Sales Tax Rates As of November 1990, Denver's combined state/local general sales tax rate ranked 11th highest among major cities in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. Based on data compiled by the U.S. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations as of November 1990, if Colorado raised its state sales tax by 1 percent, Denver's combined state/local general sales tax rate would rank 6th highest among major cities in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. Prepared by Colorado Municipal League, April 27, 1992 Combined State-Local General Sales Tax Rates in Major Cities _ in 50 States and the District of Columbia, November 1990 State City State/Local Rate 1 Alabama Mobile 9.50 2 Louisiana New Orleans 9.00 3 New York New York City $.25 4 Texas Dallas 8.25 5 Washington Seattle g,20 6 Connecticut No local genl sales tax 8.00 _ ~ Illinois Chicago 8.00 8 Oklahoma Okmulgee 8.00 9 Tennessee Nashville 7,75 10 California San Diego 7.25 11 Colorado Denver 7.10 12 Arizona Tucson 7.00 13 Florida Jackson County 7.00 14 Minnesota Duluth ~ 7.00 15 New Jersey No local genl sales tax 7.00 16 Ohio Cleveland 7.00 17 Rhode Island No local genl sales tax 7.00 ' 18 Nebraska Omaha 6.50 ' 19 Missouri Kansas City 6.48 20 Kansas Kansas City 6.25 21 Utah Salt Lake City 6.25 22 Arkansas Little Rock 6.00 23 Dist. of Colum. Washington, D.C. 6.00 24 Georgia Atlanta 6.00 25 Kentucky No local genl sales tax 6.00 25 Mississippi No local genl sales tax 6.00 27 Nevada Las Vegas 6.00 28 North Dakota Bismarck 6.00 29 Pennsylvania No local genl sales tax 6.00 30 South Dakota Sioux Falls 6.00 • 31 West Virginia No local genl sales tax 6.00 32 New Mexico Santa Fe 5.88 33 Wisconsin Barron 5.50 34 Idaho No local genl sales tax 5.00 35 Indiana No local genl sales tax 5.00 36 Iowa 5.00 37 Maine No local genl sales tax 5.00 38 Maryland No local genl sales tax 5.00 39 Massachusetts No local genl sales tax 5.00 40-North Carolina Raleigh 5.00 41 South Carolina Pto local genl sales to;t 5.00 42 Virginia Richmond 4.50 43 Alaska Juneau 4.00 44 Hawaii No local genl sales tax 4.00 45 Michigan No local genl sales tax 4.00 46 Vermont No local genl sales tax 4.00 47 Wyoming Cheyenne 4.00 48 Delaware No state or local s.t. 0.00 49 Montana No state or local s.t. 0.00 50 New Hampshire No state or local s.t. 0.00 51 Oregon No local genl sales tax 0.00 Source: Advisory Ccmmission on Intergovernmental Re1a~*_'ions, Significant Features of r^iscal Federalism, Vol. 1, February 1991, Table 33, page 96 Prepared by Colorado Municipal League, April 27, 1992 Combined State-Local General Sales Tax Rates in Major Cities in 50 States and the District of Columbia, November 1990 If Colorado raises its state sales tax from 3$ to 4~: State City State/Local Rata 1 Alabama Mobile 9.50 2 Louisiana New Orleans 9.00 3 New York New York City 8.25 4 Texas Dallas 8.25 5 Washington Seattle 8.20 6 Colorado Denver 8.10 7 Connecticut No local genl sales tax 8.00 8 Illinois Chicago 8.00 9 Oklahoma Okmulgee 8.00 10 Tennessee Nashville 7.75 11 California San Diego 7.25 2 Arizo^.4 T~_cscn 7.00 13 Florida Jackson County 7.00 14 Minnesota Duluth 7.00 15 New Jersey No local genl sales tax 7.00 • 16 Ohio Cleveland 7.00 17 Rhode Island No local genl sales tax 7.00 18 Nebraska Omaha 6.50 19 Missouri Kansas City 6.48 20 Kansas Kansas City 6.25 21 Utah Salt Lake City 6.25 22 Arkansas Little Rock 6.00 23 Dist. of Colum. Washington, D.C. 6.00 24 Georgia Atlanta 6.00 25 Kentucky No local genl sales tax 6.00 26 Mississippi No local genl sales tax 6.00 27 Nevada Las Vegas 6.00 28 North Dakota Bismarck 6.00 29 Pennsylvania No local genl sales tax 6.00 30 South Dakota Sioux Fa11s 6.00 31 West Virginia No local genl sales tax 6.00 32 New•Mexico Santa Fe •5.88 33 Wisconsin Barron 5.50 34 Idaho No local gent sales tax 5.00 35 Indiana No local genl sales tax 5.00 36 Iowa 5.00 37 Maine No local genl sales tax 5.G0 38-Maryland No local genl sales tax 5.00 39 Massachusetts No local genl sales tax 5.00 40 North Carolina Raleigh 5.00 41 South Carolina No local genl sales tax 5.00 42 Virginia Richmond 4.50 43 Alaska Juneau 4.00 44 Hawaii No local genl sales tax 4.00 45 Michigan No local genl sales tax 4.00 46 Vermont No local genl sales tax 4.00 47 Wyoming Cheyenne 4.00 48 Delaware No state or local s.t. 0.00 49 Montana No state or local s.t. 0.00 50 New Hampshire No state or local s.t. 0.00 51 Oregon No local genl sales tax 0.00 Source: Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, Significant Features of Fiscal Federalism, Vol. 1, February 1991, Table 33, page 96 Cathy Reynolds At Large CITY COUNCIL Qavid M. 'Dave' Doering District 7 Timothy 'Tim' Sandos At Large _ ^ Hiawatha Davis, Jr. District 8 w+Niam A. •8iH' Scheitler District t t f~ / ~ ~ v~~~ Deb Y ah L. Ortega ; . District 9 T. J. 'Ted' Hackworth District 2 ~ v Z CG~~C`~ ('Q'~~n ~2 C/jam _.j1 B'yL2 ~t~~ ~,ath Aonohue . . . . . . Oistfict 10 ?among Martinez.. District 3 Aflegra -Happy' Haynes District t 1 Stephanie A. Foote District 4 ~ ~~~:v?~ l Jackie Limon Secretary ?Qtly S. Ffobeck District 5 .f;^r`~ Mary OeGroot District o i_= = =„^,I ~ ~~"j,zi' ROOM 451 ® CITY 8 COUNT' BUILDING k "r DENVER COLORADO 0 80202 Meetings: Monday Evenings at o:30 City and County Building AREA CODE 1303) 640-30t 2 FAX: 040.2636 To: The Honorable Cathy Reynolds councilwoman-at-large From: Jon R. Zaman, Council Staff~~ Date: April 28, 1992 • Subject: Denver's Sales Tax Rate. Denver's Sales Tax rates are as follows: General Sales Tax 3.5% .Sales Tax on Prepared Food 4.0% Beverages Auto Rental 5.5% Other items included in the Sales Tax are as follows; State Sales Tax 3.0% RTD Sales Tax 0.6% Cultural Facilities 0.1% Sales Tax Baseball District 0.1% Sales Tax Subtotal 3.80 So, the aggregate Sales Tax in Denver is 3.5% + 3.8% = 7.3% for most purchases. For purchases of Prepared Food and Beverages, the` Sales Tax rate is 7 . 8 % plus an extra State Tourism tax of 0. 2%, for a total of 8.0%. For auto rentals, there are extra charges levied as well. The base City rate of 5.5% includes a 2% Convention Center Bond repayment levy in addition to the general 3.5% rate. Additionally, auto rentals are charged, in addition to the State rate, the RTD rate, the Cultural rate, and the Baseball rate, a 0.2% State Tourism charge. This makes the Sales Tax rate for Auto Rentals 9.5%. There is an extra charge that the State has allowed rental car companies to levy which equals 2.0% of the total rental charge. This charge is called the "Auto ownership" charge. If this charge is included, the total tax that a customer would pay for a car rental would be I1.5%. Technically, however, the "Auto Ownership" charge is not a sales tax. rf the State were to raise its Sales Tax Rate from 3% to 4s, Denver's Sales Tax rates would be 8.3%, 9.0%, and 10.50 far General, Prepared Food and Beverages, and Auto Rental rates respectively. Assuming the Sales Tax data in the attached fax is correct (and they appear to have overlooked Denver's Cultural and Baseball Taxes), Denver currently has the tenth highest combined state and local general Sales Tax rate. If the State were to increase its rate to 4%, Denver would have the third highest combined general Sales Tax rate. I hope this answers your question regarding the Sales Tax rate. If you have any other questions, or if you need additional information, please feel free to call me at 640-2435 at your convenience. Source: Dept. of Revenue. ~ y C1_' h4? ~s' • BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER & STRICKLAND, P. C.~rGwh ~ ~e~-i S~4T'~ve Cr~r ATTORNEYS AT LAW ~ JZ~ /(~Z LZ~' ~`0~~~~ NORMAN BAOWNSTCIN CHARLES B. WN1Tf TWENTY-SECOND FLOOR oc couNSEL STEVEN W. FAABER WAYNC M. NYMAN 410 SEVENTEENTH STREET JACK N. NYATr MARK F. Lf ONAAD STANLEY L. GAANETi ~ KENNETH M. ROBINS JAMES S. NANDEL ROBERT W. NICNOLS DENVER, COLORADO 8 02 02-4437 ANN B. RILEY EDwARO N. BAR AD L. LOUISE RONERO•ATwOOD DOUGLAS N. TISDALE MIC NAEL J. STER NICM1 T E LE PHO N E 1303 ) 5 3 4 - 633 5 SPECIAL COUNSEL JOHN R, CALL GARY N. REIFF MESA E. MASSAN EINA STEVEN N, 50MNEP5 MICHAEL A. NcGIN NI$ TELECO PIER ( 303 162 3 19 5 6 JOEL KONN TNONA$I. STRIC KLANO LISA NOGAN TELECO PIER 13031893-6607 •ADMITTED IN NEw YORK ONLY RONALD B. NERRILL WATNE F. FORMAN LTNOA A. NcN EIVE BRUCE A. JAMES LISA NOLSTEIN WILLIAM D. MULCANY LAURA JEAN CNRiSTMAN ROBERT MAUFMANN RONALD A. NIL2ER BRENT SLOSKY ANDREW W. LOEWI ANNE M. MURPHY April 29, 1992 VIA HAND DELIVERY VIA HAND DELIVERY Mr. Charles Brown Douglas G. Brown, Esq. Director Director Office of Legislative Office of Legislative Legal Council Services State Capitol State Capital Denver, CO 80203 Denver, CO 80203 RE: The Colorado Children First Act of 1992 Gentlemen: As counsel for Governor Roy Romer and Donna Gardner, and pursuant to Article V, section 1(5), of the Colorado Constitution, and section 1-40-101(1), 1B C.R.S. (1991), I am enclosing a revised formal submittal of the original draft of the text of the proposed initiated law to be known as "The Colorado Children First Act of 1992." It is my understanding that the enclosed revised formal submittal will not necessitate a change in the date of the public hearing on this proposed initiative, which is scheduled for May 5, 1992, at 11:00 a.m. It also is my understanding that you will publish the requisite revised notice of public hearing on this matter. If you have any questions, please call me. Sincerely, s^ry'~ Gary M `Reiff GMR:psw Enclosures cc: Governor Roy Romer Ms. Donna Gardner 22-54-101. Short Title. This Article shall be known and may be cited ae the "Colorado Children First Act of 1992." 22-54-102. i,egislative Declaration - Statutory Construction - Statewide A~nlicability, Be it enacted by the People of the State of Colorado, we hereby find and declare that, when given challenging material and a fair opportunity, all children can learn more and at higher levels. It is the obligation of all Coloradans working with local school districts, to provide children with schools that reflect high expectations and create conditions where these expectations can be met. We further find and declare that the best educational decisions are made by those who know the students best and who are responsible for implementing the decisions. Therefore, educators, citizens and their communities have a right and responsibility to participate in the education institutions which serve them. We further find that young children who participate in quality early -childhood education programs are more likely to be successful in school and are less likely to need special education or welfare services or take part in delinquent behaviors. 22-54-103. $tandarda - Assessments - C~~rriculum Frameworks. (1) In developing a system of standards and assessments, it is the intent of the People to: (a) Provide students with improved instruction and an opportunity to achieve world-class knowledge and skills; (b) Provide students and their parents with clear expectations of performance and a way to measure the progress of individual students against these expectations; and (c) Provide an accountability profile for each public school in the state. (2) The Colorado Commission for Achievement in Education, as defined in the Colorado Revised Statutes , shall establish a plan to develop model state content and performance standards and state performance assessments, which plan also shall include provisions for the local school districts to develop local content and performance standards and local performance assessments. (a) The Plan shall be completed by March 1, 1993. (b) The Plan shall provide for the development of standards in mathematics, science, reading and writing no later than July 1, 1994; geography and history no later than July 1, 1995; and .additional subject areas of a comprehensive curriculum to include 1 the arts, physical education, health education, vocational education and computer literacy no later than July 1, 1996. Additional subjects may be added at the discretion of the Commission. The plan shall provide for local standards to be developed by school districts in the subject matter noted herein within six (6) months after the timelines described for state standards. (c) The Plan shall be developed and implemented with broad public, professional, and local school district participation. (d) The Plan shall require final adoption of the model state content and performance standards by the State Board of Education of Colorado. (e) School districts shall adopt and implement high content and performance standards. The local standards must meet or exceed the model state standards. Local districts may add to these standards at their discretion. The failure of a school di"strict to adopt and implement content and performance standards that meet or exceed the model state standards will result in the State Board of Education withholding accreditation. (f) Beginning in 1996, each school district shall provide a certified diploma which shall signify that the graduate has met certain described content and performance standards of the district. In the event that a student does not achieve such standards, the district shall offer remedial instruction to such a student until the student has achieved such content and performance standards or reached twenty-one (21) years of age, whichever event comes first. (3) (a) The Colorado Department of Education shall administer a statewide writing performance assessment in 1992 and a statewide math performance assessment in 1993. These tests shall be given in grades four, seven and ten, unless otherwise determined by the Colorado State Board of Education. The Plan will identify a schedule for further statewide performance assessments. (b} Beginning in 1993, the Colorado Department of Education shall establish for the benefit of schools and school districts an assessment bank containing the descriptions and samples of the best performance assessment methods and models being developed and used within Colorado and in other states and which can fairly and accurately measure the progress of students in achieving the new high standards. These new forms of assessments must include alternatives to paper and pencil tests and to multiple choice tests. (4) (a) The Colorado State Board of Education, working with the Colorado Department of Education and local school districts, shall develop model curriculum frameworks that are linked to the new high 2 standards. The development of the curriculum frameworks shall solicit extensive professional input and build on the best practice in Colorado and in the nation. (b) Curriculum frameworks shall define the broad themes and topics for instruction that will enable students to demonstrate achievement of the standards. {c) The frameworks shall be developed on a timeline that corresponds to the development of the standards. (d) The curriculum frameworks will be reviewed and updated on a regular basis. (e) Decisions regarding the choice of textbooks .and other curricular materials and the specific curriculum actual.ly~taught in the classrooms shall be reserved for local boards of education. 22-54-104 . ~.~v Ghil hQOd Edu,g,atian. _ (1) Beginning July 1, 1994, each school district shall provide early childhood education to all at-risk four-year-olds, through a system that incorporates private programs, Head Start Programs and public school programs as defined in Section 22-28-106, C.R.S. The District shall extend the program to cover all four-year-olds as resources allow. 22-54-105. pistrict $~~egic gOtion Plane, (1) Beginning January 1, 1993, each school district shall develop a strategic action plan that addresses how the district will provide learning environments where all students have a fair opportunity to learn and to achieve the new high standards. These plans must be developed with the meaningful participation of those who will be responsible for implementation and with broad public input. The initial strategic action plan must include the matters and timelines for implementation as set forth below and must be in place no later than July 1, 1994. (a) Beginning in 1993, each district shall design and implement a plan for shared decision making at the school building. In each district' s sole discretion, it also may include a work site as a "school building" for purposes of this Article. The decision- making group will include teachers, administrators, parents, members of the community, and where appropriate, students. The school-based decision-making teams will share with the district the responsibility for key educational decisions, including, but not limited to, instruction, school schedule and organization, personnel and budget. The specific form of shared decision-making shall be developed district by district. 3 (1) Consistent with concerns of equity and accountability, districts are encouraged to leave broad discretion to school sites to determine the form and composition of their shared decision-making structure. (b} No later than July 1, 1994, provisions shall be made to serve all at-risk four-year-olds, as that term is defined in Section 22-28-106, C.R.S., by July 1, 1994, through a system that incorporates private programs, Head Start programs and public school programs. The strategic action plan will be extended to cover all four-year-olds as resources allow. (c) Beginning in 1993, a plan for compensating teachers, administrators and other employees will be developed by each district which recognizes: (i) excellent or innovative performance by teachers, administrators and other employees, or teams of such teachers, administrators or other employees to be recommended by the shared decision-making team and awarded at the school with the consent of the shared decision-making team. (ii) payment for differentiated responsibilities and assignments; (iii) educational attainment; and (iv) longevity. (d) Concurrent with implementation of the new high standards set forth in Section 22-54-103, provisions shall be made to provide training to teachers so that they will be able to teach to the new high standards. (e) Provisions shall be made for reducing class size in pre- kindergarten through third grades: _ (f) Provisions shall be made for the acquisition and ~~tilization of computers and other technology that will enable students to achieve the new high standards. (g) Provisions shall be made to extend the school year and/or school day for those students who need additional time or instruction to achieve the new high standards. (h) Provisians shall be made for cooperating with other public and private entities to relocate family and child-related services to the local school district or school building sites. Such services will not be paid out of. school funds. 22-54- I~06 . Annual D{strict Accountah~ li t; . (1) In 1993, each school district shall be subjected to an administrative audit made by a person or entity outsi3e the district to analyze the cost, efficiency and effectiveness of its 4 administrative operations. Such audits shall be undertaken at least every four years, and the results thereof, including the conclusions and recommendations, shall be reported to the public. (2) Beginning in July 1993, each school district shall make an annual report to the public which will include, but not be limited to, the following components: (a) A financial statement that clearly discloses the costs of administration, instruction and other spending categories in a form that is understandable to the general public and that will allow comparisons of such costs to other school districts or other comparable organizations. The Colorado State Board of Education shall develop a uniform reporting format, including a definition of administration, instruction and other spending categories to be used by districts for the budget section of the annual report. Districts may report additional information than that required by the uniform reporting format. (b) An update on the progress of implementation of• the strategic plan. (c) A report of the progress toward achieving local goals and objectives that are consistent with state board goals and objectives for the improvement of the Colorado education system, pursuant to Sect.i•on 22-53-207, C.R.S. (d) As the results of the student assessments conducted at the state and local levels pursuant to Section 22-54-103 become available, including the percentage of students who meet, exceed or do not meet the new high standards, the information will be reported by race, ethnic group and gender. (2) Annual reports will be distributed to members of the .school community and filed with the Commission and the State Board of Education. 22-54-107. Deregulation. (1) No later than July 1, 1993, the State Board of Education and local boards of education shall review all of their policies and regulations and repeal or revise any such regulation or policy that is not consistent with the implementation of an performance-based system tied to the high performance standards. Local boards of education also shall ensure that existing board policies and regulations are consistent with and support shared decision-making at the school building.. (2) The State Board of Education shall undertake a review of the statutes contained in this title to determine whether they are consistent with the implementation of an'performance-based system tied to high standards and make recommendations to the General 5 Assembly regarding the repeal or revision of statutes no later than January 1, 1993. (3) The provisions of this article shall not apply to regulations governing health, safety or civil rights. (4) If, in the course of these reviews, federal rules or regulations are identified, that are inconsistent with the implementation of an performance-based "system, the Colorado State Board of Education shall pursue waivers of the federal law or regulations on behalf of Colorado school districts. 22-54-108. Teacher Education. (1) In 1993,, the Colorado Commission on Higher Education is directed to implement mechanisms to promote the restructuring of the teacher education schools within Colorado public institutions of higher education to ensure that teachers are being prepared to teach to the new high standards and to provide leadership to school-based shared decision making. (2) The Colorado Commission on Higher Education shall also identify incentives or other mechanisms that will encourage institutions of higher education, and particularly schools of education, to assist school districts in developing and implementing their strategic action plans. 22-54-109. gnnovation and Inc nti~a Fem. (1) Beginning July 1, 1993, two percent of the total annual equalization program funding for pre-kindergarten to grade 12 public education, but in no event less than $50 million adjusted for inflation after fiscal year 1993,'"shall be placed in a fund identified as the "School Innovation and°:Incentive Fund" ("Fund"). The Fund shall be used for the following purposes: (a) To assist school districts in implementing their strategic action plans as set forth in subsection (3) hereof; (b) To reward progress toward achieving the new high standards and to support new forms of compensation for teachers and administrators; and (c) To encourage creative, new practices that will provide a fair opportunity for all students to achieve the new high standards. (2) The Colorado Commission for Achievement in Education shall set the guidelines for, and administer the distribution annually of the grants to school districts and schools from the Fund. lvo school district or school may be considered to receive a grant award unless the standards mandated in Section 22-54-102, C.R.S., 6 and the strategic action plan mandated in Section 22-54-104, C.R.S., are in place at that school district or school sand are being implemented. (3) A portion of the Fund shall be used to award monetary grants to school districts in implementing their strategic action plans, including training shared-based decision making teams. (4) Beginning July 1, 1994, the Colorado Commission on Achievement on Education shall award a portion of the Fund to those public school districts and schools making the most progress toward achieving the new standards mandated by Section 22-54-102, C.R.S. (a) In determining which school districts or schools shall receive awards pursuant to this subsection (4) the Commission shall consider a school district's improvement in its performance over time from a fixed baseline. One school district's or school's performance shall not be measured against another school;.:district's or school's performance for purposes of determining award recipients. (b) The school district or shared decision making team at each school receiving an award shall determine how that award shall be used and shall report the same to the Commission. (5) Beginning July 1, 1993, the Commission may set aside a portion of the Fund to support the development of new methods of compensating teachers, administrators and other employees and to match, as the Commission determines, school district allocation of funds for excellent or innovative performance pursuant to Section 22-54-105(1)(c), C.R.S. (6) In its sole discretion, the Commission may set aside a portion of the Fund, not to exceed one percent of the Fund, to carry out the duties and responsibilities delegated to it in this Act. (a) The Commission also is authorized to accept and expend grants from any private or public sources for the purposes of accomplishing the goals and objectives set forth in this Article. (7) No later than January 1, 1995, the Commission shall deliver its recommendations to the General Assembly and the Governor as to whether a system of consequences shall be implemented for any school district which fails to make adequate progress, as determined by the Commission, toward achieving the new high standards or implementation of the strategic action plan. Consequences may include, but shall not be limited to, supportive intervention or loss of accreditation. (8) The Commission shall examine innovative and experimental institutional organizational and management forms within the public school districts that support the achievement of the new high 7 standards by all students, and make recommendations for appropriate legislation to the General Assembly. As part of its review, the Commission will examine other relevant alternatives for organizational structures and options for using choice within the public school districts to encourage educational reform. 22-54-110. Sales Tax - Applicability. (1) To prevent any deficit in funding public education and to effectuate the reforms set forth in this Article, and to fund any shortages in funding public education, the tax imposed by Section 39-26-106(1)(c), C.R.S., and .Section 39-26-202(1)(b), C.R.S., shall be applied solely for Colorado's pre-kindergarten through twelfth grade public education system. (b) The state's share appropriated for school finance will be, at least, an amount equal to the General Fund Appropriation for School Finance Equalization for fiscal year 1992-93, plus: school lands and mineral lease monies received pursuant to the provisions of Article 41 of this Title and Section 34-63-102(2), C.R.S., plus those funds generated in accordance with 39-26-106(1)(c), C.R.S., and 39-26-202(1)(b), C.R.S. . 22-54-111. Batting Categories. The Colorado Commission on Achievement in Education shall conduct a review of the setting categories for school districts established in Section 22-53-105, C.R.S. Said study shall: (a) Evaluate whether each school district is presently classified in the appropriate setting category. (b) Examine factors used in the. establishment of setting categories, and make recommendations as~to whether those factors support best practices and provide for equitable education for all children. (e) Examine the characteristics of the current setting categories and make recommendations for any modifications. (d) Be completed no later than December 31, 1993. 22-54-112. ~inersedeQ ~r Rgpeals All nth,er Lawa in Conflict. (1) The People of Colorado hereby find and declare that this Article is enacted in furtherance of the power granted to the people by Article V, Section 1 of the Colorado Constitution. Accordingly, the provisions of this Article shall apply to all school districts organized under the laws of this state and shall supersede and repeal all laws in conflict with this Article. 8 (2) This Article shall supersede any tax limitation amendment or legislation enacted on, or before, the effective date of this Act. 22-54-113. Severance Clause. In the event any provision of this Article shall be held invalid or unenforceable by any Court of competent jurisdiction, such holding shall not invalidate or render unenforceable any other provisions of this Article. 39-26-106(1). Section 39-26-106(1),. C.R.S., is amended BY THE ADDITION OF A NEW PARAGRAPH to read as follows: 39-26-106(1)(c). Notwithstanding the three percent rate provisions of paragraph (a) of this subsection (1), commencing December 1, 1992, the rate of the tax imposed pursuant to this subsection (1) shall be four percent. The proceeds of the one percent increase in the tax imposed by this paragraph (c) shall be distributed in accordance with Article 54 of Title 22, C.R.S. 39-26-202(1). Section 39-26-202(1), C.R.S., is amended by redesignating Section 39-26-202{1} as Section 39-26-202(1)(a), and BY THE ADDITION OF A NEW PARAGRAPH to read as follows: 39-26-202(1)(b). Notwithstanding the three percent rate provisions of paragraph (a) of this subsection (1), commencing December 1, 1992, the rate of the tax imposed pursuant to this subsection (1), shall be four percent. The proceeds of the one percent increase in the tax imposed pursuant to this paragraph (b) shall be distributed in accordance with Article 54 of Title 22, C.R.S. 29-2-108. Section 29-2-108, C.R.S., is amended BY THE ADDITION OF A NEW PARAGRAPH to read as follows: 29-2-108(5). The additional one percent tax imposed pursuant to Section 39-26-106(1)(c), C.R.S., and Section 39-26-202(1)(b), C.R.S., shall be exempt from the seven percent limitation imposed by subsection (1) of this Section. 9 State of Colorado • Committs• on Olnctor j Lagd Sarvlcea Douglas 0. Bmwn Reproasntative Stanley F. Johnson. Rs Visor ot•Statuto• SeMor Attemey~ Chairman ~ ChaAes W. Pike David A. Berq~n Bart W. Miller Sanetor bottle Wham, \ DepvtY Olnetor Staff Attorneys Vice-Chairman ~ Rebecca C. Lennahan Helen M. Baldwin Representative Jesnne M. Adkins ~ * Dan L. Curtin Senator Donald J. Maros X f A t s Asdaurtt Olnctors Dorothy M. Oodick Senator Jena Mendez William A. HOOD{ Ouene H. Gall Alice Kolar Ackerman Mark T. Hamby Reprosentative Oevid T. Owsn Oeens Jonas Representative Thomas J. Redder OFFICE OF LEGISLATNE LEGAL SERVICES Adminl°tmlva Julie A. Peleq«n Senator Oeve Wettenberp 091 Stele Capitol 8uildiny $anlor Attomays Shelley Rodnquez Sanetor Jettroy M. 'Nella Oanver. Colorado 80203.1782 Deborah F. Heskina Pat roe ale s•Rro 11 ReproaentaUVe $em Williams Telephone 13031 888-2046 Sharon L. Eubanks Joan Ude facsimile (3031 88B-416 Adminiatrrtlva Asabtant• Merk C. Van Nese Linde R. Bell Cheryl L. Branecn May 4, 1992 MEMORANDUM To: Governor Roy Romer and Donna Gardner From: Legislative Council Staff and Office of Legislative Legal Services Re: Proposed Initiative Measure Creating the "Colorado Children First Act of 1992". Section 1-40-101 (1), Colorado Revised Statutes, requires the directors of the Colorado Legislative Council and Office of Legislative legal Services to "review and comment" on initiative petitions for proposed laws and amendments to the Colorado constitution. We hereby submit our comments to you regarding the appended proposed initiative. The purpose of this statutory requirement of the Legislative Council and the Office of Legislative Legal Services is to aid • proponents in determining the language of their proposal and to avail the public of knowledge of the contents of the proposal. Our first objective is to understand your intent and your purpose in proposing the laws. We hope°that the statements and questions contained in this memorandum will provide a basis for discussion and understanding of the proposal. The major purposes of the proposal appear to be as follows: 1) To enact a new article of the Colorado Revised Statutes, called the "Colorado Children First Act of 1992", that would create a system of content and performance standards and assessments which create high expectations and allow attainment of such expectations pursuant to a plan established by the Colorado Commission for Achievement in Education. 2) To provide that the plan, which is subject to final approval by the State Board of Education, will provide for the development of state and local standards and assessments for subject areas within specified timeframes; that there will be public and professional participation in the process; and that school districts are to adopt the new standards and may add to them at their discretion. 3) To require districts to adopt and implement high content standards or fact loss of accreditation; to provide a certified diploma and remedial instruction; and to implement curriculum frameworks linked to the new standards. 4) To require the provision, after July 1, 1994, of early childhood education for at-risk four-year-olds. 5) To require that each school district shall develop a strategic action plan no later than September 1, 1993, key features of which include: shared decision-making at the school building level provision for serving all at-risk four-year-old s a plan for compensating teachers based on several criteria including excellence or innovative performance teacher training reducing class size in grades kindergarten through third grade acquisition and utilization of computers extension of the school year and the school day cooperative relocation of family and child support services to schools 6) To require that school districts are subject to administrative audits and that districts report annually to the public on several topics, including financial information and comparisons with other districts, the strategic plan, local goals, and student assessment results. 1) To require that the State Board of Education and local school boards review their policies and regulations and repeal or revise those that are not consistent with a performance-based system and to require that-the State Board of Education recommend to the General Assembly statutory changes consistent with the performance- based system. 8) To direct the Colorado Commission on Nigher Education to implement mechanisms to promote the restructuring of teacher education in Colorado public colleges and universities and to encourage these institutions to assist school districts with strategic planning. 9) To establish a School Innovation and Incentive Fund to be distributed by the Colorado Commission for Achievement in Education under specified criteria, which fund shall consist of two percent of the total annual appropriation for public education but not less than S50 million as adjusted for inflation, to assist school districts in achieving the purposes of the_Act. -2- 10) To require that the Colorado Commission for Achievement in Education submit recommendations to the General Assembly and to the Governor as to whether a system of consequences shall be . implemented for school districts that fail to make adequate progress in the implementation of the Act and to further require that the Commission shall make recommendations for legislation to the General Assembly concerning innovative and experimental organizational and management forms of public schools. 11) To increase the state sales tax by one percent and earmark it for public education and to determine a minimum state share of annual public school total program moneys. The form and content of the proposed laws raise the following comments and questions: ARTICLE 54 OF TITLE 22 1. Should an article heading, such as ARTICLE 54, COLORADO CHILDREN FIRST ACT, appear at the beginning of the proposed new article? 2. Since the proposed initiative would create new statutory provisions, should the provisions of this article conform to accepted statutory format standards? For example: a. The Colorado Revised Statutes are divided into sections, subsections, paragraphs, subparagraphs, and sub-subparagraphs as follows: 1-1-101. Heading. (1) Subsection. (a) Paragraph • (I) Subparagraph (A) Sub-subparagraph. b. Capitalization as provided in Rule 17 of the Joint Rules of the Senate and House of Representatives; i.e. "Colorado", "United States", and the names of acts are capitalized in the Colorado Revised Statutes. c. Numbers are expressed in words in the Colorado Revised Statutes. 22-54-102. 3. In view of the express charge to the General Assembly to establish and maintain a thorough and uniform system of public schools throughout the state as set forth in Article IX, Section 2 of the state constitution, should there be any concern about the authority of the people under Article V, Section 1 of the state constitution to enact comprehensive, substantive statutory -3- . legislation relating to public schools? If this proposed initiative is approved by the voters, what is the role contemplated for the General Assembly in terms of its ability to enact comprehensive statutory legislation which may affect this article? 4, Why are references to statutory construction and statutory applicability included in the heading far this section when the section itself does not include any provisions regarding either subject? 5. Would it be more appropriate to place the enacting clause currently included in section 22-54-102 prior to section 22-54-101 so that it would be applicable to all of the provisions of the proposed initiative? 22-54-103. 6. Is the reference in (2) to the Colorado Commission for Achievement in Education intended to refer to the Colorado Commission for Ach ievement in Education which is created and not' "defined" in section 22-53-301 (1), C.R.S.? Would reference to said section clarify the proponents' intent? 7. The Commission's current statutory charge appears to be primarily advisory. This proposed initiative, especially section 22-54-109, contemplates the exercise of powers which are quasi- legislative and quasi-judicial in nature, as well as executive. Ooes this measure provide sufficient guidelines to govern the delegation of legislative powers to the Commission? Does the six- member legislative majority of the Commission raise any issues about the Commission's authority to exercise executive powers? 8. How do the duties of the Colorado Commission for Achievement in Education, as set forth in (2), interact with the existing duties of the Commission to recommend goals, objectives, and standards for "a graduated system of educational achievement standards reflecting basic, superior, and worldwide expectations" (section 22-53-302 (1) (b), C.R.S.) and "a mechanism for the assessment of student achievement in public schools" (section 22-53- 302 (1) (d), C.R.S.)? 9. What are state and local "content and performance standards"? State and local "performance assessments"? What is the purpose of having "model" statewide content and performance standards? Are the statewide performance assessments also intended to be "model" assessments? 10. Article V, Section 1 of the state constitution states t-hat referred measures approved by the voters "shall take effect from and after the date of the official declaration of the vote thereon by proclamation of the governor, but not later than thirty days after the vote has been canvassed." Proclamations are usually -4- f ' issued by the governor in late December or early ;lanaary. Is a period of approximately two months sufficient time for development of the plan by the Commission? 11. Once the plan is completed, can it be modified? 12. Who is responsible for actually developing the standards for the subject areas by the dates. specified in (2) (b) since (Z} only requires that the Commission establish the plan for the development of such standards? Who is responsible for developing the performance assessments for such subject areas? 13. What constitutes a "comprehensive curriculum"? Are only the additional subject areas listed included in such comprehensive curriculum? If, in its discretion, the Commission adds additional subject areas, are such additional subject areas included as part of a comprehensive curriculum? If so, would the Commission be prohibited from adding additional subject areas after July 1, 1996, which is the deadline for the development of standards for.~such comprehensive curriculum? 14. Does the ability of the Commission to add additional subject areas mean that the plan may provide for the development of standards in such subject areas? Are there any timeframes for the development of standards for such subject areas which the Commission decides to include? Would school districts be required to adopt local standards for such additional subject areas within six months of the development of such standards? 15. Although the plan developed by the Commission is required to include the development of performance assessments, why are no timelines established for the development of state or local performance assessments for the subject areas specified in (2) (b)? 16. What constitutes "broad public; professional, and. local school district participation" as required. by (2) (c)? 17. Who is responsible for implementation of the plan since (2} only specifies that the Commission establish a plan to develop standards and assessments? The State Board of Education, because it may withhold accreditation? 18. Is there any deadline for final adoption of the model state standards by the State Board of Education? What if the State Board of Education rejects or wishes to modify any standards? 19. What is the procedure for approval of the mode] state content and performance standards by the State Board of Education? Would such standards be required to be promulgated as rules and regulations in compliance with the "State Administrative Procedure Act", article 4 of title 24, C.R.S.? If so, would the State Board -5- of Education need specific statutory authority to promulgate such rules and regulations? 20. Why are the performance assessments developed pursuant to the plan not required to be approved by the State Board of Education? 21. What procedures are school districts to utilize in adopting and implementing local content and performance standards? Are the same procedures to be used by school districts wishing to add to the model state standards? 22. Why are school districts not required to adopt and implement performance assessments developed in accordance with the plan? What is the purpose of developing local performance assessments when the use of local performance assessments is not mandated? 23. Are the content and performance `standard`s "for the certified diploma the same as the local content and performance standards to be adopted by school districts pursuant to (2) (e)? Does the phrase "certain described content and performance standards" imply that a school district may pick and choose standards for which the certified diploma signifies satisfaction? 24. Are state or local performance assessments developed pursuant to the plan to be used in determining if a student has achieved the content and performance standards for the certified diploma? When are such performance assessments to be administered? 25. If a student fails to achieve the standards and is not issued a certified diploma, is the student required to take such remedial instruction? If the student does not take remedial education, would the student never graduate from twelfth grade? Is there a diploma other than a "certified" diploma? 26. Are students who are taking remedial instruction pursuant to (2) (e) to be included in the pupil enrollment of the school district for purposes of the "School Finance Act of 1988", article 53 of title 22, C.R.S.? 27. Since this initiative would take effect in late December or early January, see question #10 above, would this proposed initiative take effect in time for the Department of Education to administer a statewide writing performance assessment in 1992 as required in (3) (a)? When during 1993 is the mathematics performance assessment to be administered? 28. Are the writing and mathematics performance assessments required to meet or exceed the state performance assessments in said subject areas? If so, how can performance assessments be given prior to the development of such state performance assessments _6_ pursuant to the plan? Prior to the adoption and implementation of local content and performance standards by which such assessments are to be evaluated? 29. Are the grade levels specified in (3) (a) applicable only to the mathematics and writing performance assessments or to all performance assessments? Why are performance assessments not required in twelfth grade for purposes of issuance of certified diplomas? Should remediation be required before the failure to qualify for a certified diploma? 30. If the State Board of Education determines that statewide performance assessments for mathematics and writing should be given in grade levels other than as specified in (3) (a), would such change be implemented by rule and regulation? 31. Does the requirement that the plan identify a schedule for further statewide performance assessments only include such performance assessments for writing and mathematics or also other subject areas for which content and performance standards" are established? 32. What is the purpose for establishing a~performance assessment bank since this proposed initiative does not require school districts to adopt and administer local performance standards? Is it merely informational? Is the assessment bank to be used by school districts only to establish performance assessments for certified diplomas? 33. Are state. and local performance assessments developed pursuant to the plan also required to include alternatives to paper and pencil tests and to multiple choice tests? 34. How is the State Board of Education to develop model curriculum frameworks? 6y rule and regulation? 35. Who is to represent local school districts in working with the State Board of Education on curriculum frameworks? Local school board members? Administrators? Teachers? Students? Parents? What would be the forum for development of curriculum frameworks? 36. What is "extensive professional input" and "the best practice in Colorado and in the nation"? Ooes professional input differ from the input of administrators and teachers of school districts? 3T. What is the timeframe for development of curriculum frameworks? At the same time as the content and performance standards? Wouldn't the standards need to be developed first in order to develop the curriculum frameworks to achieve the standards? -1- 38. Who is responsible for the review and updating of the curriculum frameworks? Should such review and updating involve the Department of Education and local school districts? 39. Is the intent of (4) (e) to ensure that (4) is not conflict with Article IX, Sections 15 and 16 of the state constitution, regarding local control of instruction and textbooks? Does the requirement that school districts have to adopt local content and performance standards that meet or exceed the model state standards indirectly infringe upon said school boards' right to control instruction as it will be necessary for local school boards to establish such curriculum as is necessary to achieve the local content and performance standards? 22-54-104. 40. Is the early childhood education which school districts are required to provide the same as the district preschool programs for language development currently provided pursuant to article 28 of title 22, C.R.S., or does early childhood education include other educational objectives? Do the purposes of this program need to be. described in greater detail in order to be implemented? 41. To be eligible for a district preschool program for language development, section 22-28-106 (1) (a) (I), C.R.S., requires a child to be four or five years old and eligible to enroll in kindergarten in the following academic year. If the intent is to include more children in the current district preschool programs for language development, why does such extension not include all at- risk five-year-olds since the current district preschool programs are provided to both four-year-old and five-year-old at-risk children? 42. In light of Article IX, Section 11 of the state constitution concerning compulsory education, are all at-risk four- year-olds required to participate in early childhood education or are school districts only required to provide such education to those at-risk four-year-olds wishing to participate? 43. Is the reference to section 22-28-106, C.R.S., incorrect as said section only sets forth requirements for eligibi lity of children to participate in district preschool programs and does not include any definitions of "private programs, Head Start Programs and public school programs"? Would referencing section 22-28-103, C.R.S., for the definitions of "Head start agency" and "district preschool program" be more accurate? 44. Do private programs which are to be incorporated into early childhood education programs include private programs which are pervasively sectarian? If so, do any problems exist with state aid being given to such pervasively sectarian programs? -8- 45. By extending early childhood education to "all four-year- olds as resources allow", does this provision conflict with existing statutory provisions in article 28 of title 22, C.R.S., relating to the eligibility of "at-risk" children to participate in district preschool programs? 46. How i s the pool of resources which must be devoted to early childhood education defined? Does this measure establish a priority for this program? 47. Is it appropriate to designate this provision (I} when there are no other subsections in this section? 22-54-105. 48. In light of question #10 above, should the effective date of this provision, January 1, 1993, be modified? 49. What constitutes a "learning environment"? Does a learning environment include the home environment of students? What constitutes "a fair opportunity to learn and to achieve the new high standards"? How is it to be determined if a particular learning environment provides students with such a fair opportunity? What level of participation constitutes "meaningful participation"? Who are "those who will be responsible for implementation"? Local school boards? Administrators? Teachers? Parents? Who decides these questions? 50. Does the language "(b)eginning in 1993" imply that plans for shared decision-making at school buildings must be developed and implemented no later than December 31, 1993? 51. Is a plan for shared decision-.making at school buildings ' part of a strategic action plan? Is a plan for shared decision- making required for each school building inn the school district or is one plan sufficient for all school buildings in the school district? 52. What isincluded as a "work site"? The central administrative offices of a school district? Physical plant facilities? 53. Is a decision-making group to be established at each school building? When is it appropriate to include students in the decision-making group? 54. Are "decision-making groups" the same as "school-based decision-making teams"? 55. Does a decision-making team share the decision-making responsibility for key educational decisions affecting only the particular school or affecting all schools within the school -9- ' district? Does the form of shared decision-making relate to how decision-making responsibility will be shared between the decision- making teams and the school district? For example, would team members be entitled to vote on decisions just as the local school board members? 56. Is a "school site" as used in (1) (a) (1) the same as a "school building" as used in (1) (a)? 57. Does (1) (a), which states that the specific form of shared decision-making is to be developed district by district, conflict with (1) (a) (1), which encourages school districts to give broad discretion to school sites to determine the form and composition of shared-decision making? Is one form of shared decision-making to exist throughout a school district or does the possibility exist for each school site in a district to have a different form of shared decision-making? 58. Does (1) (b) require that at-risk four-year olds be provided something in addition to the early childhood education' required to be provided pursuant to section 22-54-104 of this proposed initiative? Why does this provision not include at-risk five-year olds? 59. Is section 22-28-106., C.R.S., properly described in (1) (b) as said section does not define at-risk four-year olds but sets forth the requirements for four- and five-year-olds to participate in district preschool programs pursuant to article 28 of title 22, C.R.S.? 60. Would the plan for compensating teachers, as required in (1) (c), conflict with section 22-63-401, C.R.S., governing school district salary schedules for teachers? 61. Does "(b)eginning in 1993" mean that such compensation plan must be in place for the 1993-94 budget year or could a school district comply with the requirements of (1) (c) by developing such compensation plan in 1993 for implementation after 1993? Does the requirement of developing such compensation plan imply that school districts are also required to implement such plan? Does the order of items described in (1) (c) imply any system of priority or weight to be assigned to the listed items? 62. Are provisions as required by (1) (d), (1) (e), (1) (f), (1) (g), and (lj (h) intended to be included in the strategic plans for school districts? 63. Are school districts responsible for providing training required in (1) (d)? Are the costs of training the responsibility of the school district or the teachers being trained? -10- 64. Are all school districts required to reduce class size in pre-kindergarten through third grades, regardless of the size of the school district, the size of classes, or if the enrollment of such school district is rapidly increasing? Would any penalties be imposed for non-compliance? 65. What is the definition of "pre-kindergarten"? 66. Could the school year or the school day be extended only for certain students rather than for all students of a school district? 67. Would school districts be allowed to charge rent for the location of public and private entities in school district or school building sites pursuant to (1) (h)? 22-54-106. 68. Can the administrative audit be conducted at any time during 1993? Is the audit to be conducted for the calendar year 1992, the calendar year 1993, or the 1992-93 fiscal year? If the audit is for the calendar year 1993, how can the audit be completed prior to the end of that calendar year? 69. Are there any qualifications for persons and entities to conduct administrative audits of school districts? Does "outside the district" mean persons or entities not under the control of the district or located outside the geographical boundaries of the district? If said phrase is intended to refer to location, could a person whose residence is located within the school district but whose business is located outside the school district conduct an administrative audit of such school district? 70. Can such administrative audit be reported to the public in any manner determined by the school' district? Could such administrative audit be included as part of the annual report required by (2)? 71. Does the term "members of the school community" refer to all residents in the school district or is another meaning intended? Must the annual report required by (Z} be published? Mailed to parents? Taxpayers? Or is it sufficient if the report is simply available to the public? 72. Should the financial statement to be included in the district annual report cover the twelve months immediately preceding July of each year, so the report in July 1993 would include the last six months of the 1991 budget year and the 1992 transitional budget year? Is one month after completion of such twelve-month period sufficient time for school districts to adequately prepare such report? -11- 0 73. Should the uniform reporting format and the defined terms be promulgated as rules and regulations of the State Board of Education? 74. Why are school districts required to report to the public in July of each year regarding the districts' progress towards local goals and objectives when such information is already provided to the public in September of each year pursuant to section 22-53-207 (5), C.R.S.? 75. Are "student assessments" the same as ."performance assessments" as used in section 22-53-103? Why does (2) (d) refer to student assessments conducted at the--local levels pursuant to section 22-54-103 when said section only requires student assessments to be conducted by the state? 76. Should the last provision be identified as (3) instead of (2) since the previous subsection regarding annual reports has already been designated as (2)? 22-54-107. 71. Why are school districts required to ensure by July 1, 1993, that board policies and regulations are consistent with shared decision-making when section 22-54-105 (1) (a) only requires a plan for shared decision-making to be designed and implemented sometime in 1993? 18. How can the State Board of Education make recommendations to the General Assembly regarding statutory changes no later than January 1, 1993, when the proposed initiative, if approved by the voters, would not take effect until late 1992 or early 1993? 79. Why would it be necessary for the State Board of Education to make recommendations regarding statutory changes in light of section 22-54-112 since all statutes which conflict with this article would automatically be superseded and repealed? s 80. Prior to the phrase "performance-based system", as it appears in subsections (1), (2), and (4) of this section, should "a" appear rather than "an"? 22-54-108. 81. Since CCHE is required only to implement mechanisms to promote the restructuring of teacher education schools, can it be inferred that such restructuring is not mandated by (1)? Does the same hold true for the incentives and mechanisms identified pursuant to (2) to encourage institutions of higher education to assist school districts in developing and implementing their strategic plans? -12- e 82. Can CCHE establish mechanisms i~n 1993 "to°` promote restructuring of teacher education schools to ensure that teachers can teach at the level of the new standards when such standards are not developed as of 1993? 83. Is the identification of incentives pursuant to (2) intended to include implementation of such incentives? 22-54-109. 84. Is the school innovation and incentive fund to be created in the state treasury? 85. Is the amount to be transferred to the fund based upon the total annual equalization program funding, i.e. state and local shares, for the budget year commencing on July 1? What if there were amid-year recission? 86. Due to the transfer of moneys to the fund, how would the resulting shortfall in the moneys appropriated for equalization program funding be allocated among school districts? Would section 22-53-122, C.R.S., need to be amended to provide for the allocation of such shortfall? 87. What constitutes inflation for purposes of this section? Is inflation measured by changes in the consumer price index {CPI), as reported by the bureau of labor statistics, U.S. Department of Labor? Since changes in the CPI are not calculated for Colorado, are changes in the national CPI or in the CPI for the Denver-Boulder CSMA to be used? Because the Denver-Boulder CPI is .reported for January and July of each year, would the information available on July 1 be used (i.e. for the previous July and January)? 88. Since Article V, Section 33 of the state constitution prohibits any moneys in the state treasury from being disbursed except upon the making of appropriations, would it be necessary for the General Assembly to annually appropriate moneys in the fund to the Commission in order for grants to be made pursuant to (2)? In order to fund the Commission pursuant to (6)? 89. Are all standards required to be in place and implemented prior to a school district's being eligible to receive grants pursuant to (2) or are only standards which have been developed at that time required to be in place and implemented? 90. Are the references to sections 22-54-102 and 22-54-104 incorrect as section 22-54-103 concerns standards and section 22-54- 105 concerns strategic plans? 91. Why is (7), which appears to concern consequences for districts which fail to make adequate progress, included in a section concerning the school innovation and incentive fund? -13- e 22-54-110. ' 92. Is there any difference intended between preventing "any deficit" and funding "any shortages" in funding public education? Is more specific definition of these terms advisable? 93. (1) (a) states that "the tax imposed by Section 39-26-106 (1) (c), C.R.S., and Section 39-26-202 (1) (b), C.R.S.," is to be used "solely for Colorado's public education system. Said sections impose a state sales and use tax of four percent. Are all state sales and use tax revenues earmarked for education or did the proponents intend that only the additional one percent rate increase be so earmarked? 94. Does earmarking state sales and use tax revenues for public education conflict with Article XXIV, Section 2 of the state constitution, which requires that eighty-five percent of revenues accruing from all excise taxes levied upon sales at retail or any . other purchase transaction and levied upon the storage, use, or consumption of any commodity or product be allocated to the old age' pension fund? Could this conflict be avoided by earmarking an amount of state general fund moneys equal to the amount of revenues attributable to the additional one percent state sales tax? 95. Approximately one hundred twenty million dollars from the property tax reduction fund, created in section 22-53-121.5, C.R.S., are to be appropriated for the 1992-93 budget year for equalization program funding. Since appropriations from said fund are not expressly included in the state's share appropriated for school finance as specified in (Z), did the proponents' intend that said appropriations be excluded from the state's share for 1992-93? 96. Since all of the additional revenues attributable to the rate increase in the state sales and use tax are earmarked as part of the state's appropriation for school finance, would any moneys be available for mechanisms or incentives implemented by CCHE pursuant to section 22-54-108? For the costs of the State Board of Education and the Department of Education in developing and implementing model state content and performance standards, performance assessments, and curriculum frameworks and in administering statewide performance assessments pursuant to section 22-54-103? 91. Is the use of the term "state's share" in (1) (b) intended to mean the aggregate state share of equalization program funding for all school districts as determined pursuant to section 22-53-114, C.R.S.? Would it be more appropriate to amend section 2Z-53-114 to include this provision? 22-54-111. 98. How does the duty of the Colorado Commission for Achievement in Education to conduct a`~,setting category study -14- pursuant to this section differ from the existing duty of the Commission to study and make recommendations concerning setting categories pursuant to section 22-53-302 (4) (c), C.R.S.? 99. On what basis is the Commission to evaluate whether a school district is classified in the appropriate setting category? 100. To whom is the Commission supposed to make recommendations as required in (b) and (c)? 22-54-112. 101. Article V, Section 24 of the state constitution states that no law shall be revived, amended, or extended by reference to its title only and that any law so revived, amended, or extended shall be re-enacted and published at length. What effect does said constitutional provision have on this section which supersedes and repeals all laws in conflict with the proposed article? 102. What constitutes a "tax limitation" for purposes of (2)? Does it include the state general fund appropriation limitation in section 24-15-ZO1.1? 103. Who decides what is in conflict? 104 How can referred statutory legislation supersede a ~ constitutional tax limitation? 105. For provisions of two measures approved by the voters not in conflict, the general rule of construction gives effect to both measures. As to conflicting provisions, section 1-40-113, C.R.S., provides that the measure which received the greater number of votes would prevail as to such conflict. What is the rationale for not applying these rules of construction if a conflict exists between this proposed initiative and any tax limitation? 22-54-113. 106. Should the heading of this section read "Severability clause" rather than "Severance clause"? ARTICLE 26 OF TITLE 39. C.R.S. 107. What would occur if the proclamation of the governor is not issued until after December 1, 1992, the date upon which the additional one percent state sales tax increase is to take effect? 108. If the new state sales tax were effective on a date which is the beginning of a quarter of the calendar year, would it reduce the administrative costs of implementing a rate change to both retailers and the department of revenue? -15- ~'1 V . 0 109. shy were the references to the state sales tax rate in section 39-26-105 (1) (a), C.R.S., not amended to reflect the proposed one percent increase? 110. Since section 39-26-105 (1) (a), C.R.S., allows vendors to retain an amount equal to three and one-third percent of the amount of state sales tax to be remitted, is it the proponents' intent that vendors be allowed to retain the same percentage which would result in vendors retaining a larger amount due solely to the fact that the rate increase would result in a larger amount of tax to be remitted? s:\wvsraae\nEr+os\SE050192.001 -16- Y 6'fi ~ 0:11 S.:iT b•ita'J.~d.'. f.i !!':Ti Rockv P BEATER ®EIV~/ER • Rob Reuteman, City Editor; Burt Hubbard, Suburban Editor ~ 892-5381 • ~ . • ¦ ~ ~r~e c' yes ear Amer ax= ~ n . .p Winter P3rk's~ S31eS ~ - , , are aghast at the idea of increasing ' e levy WOIIld tOp State ~ ~ " ` . revenule sources. ne of their k y If Colorado voters approve Gov Roy Rocner's suggested>;i% _ St 1~.2%; Will tOL1r1StS mcrease,in the mote's sales tax in.November, here is the ~ "It's very difFicult for us," said brave such het htS? coined 101 ~ rates t}~arwiu`be charged Vail city manager Ron Phillips, m`communittes across thestate. ' whose community's sales tax I would jump to 94'0. ''It has implica- By John Sanko Arvada 8.3% Federal Heights 7.8% - lions that are hard to measure but News Cap;to! Bu,•eau Aspen .8:796 Fort Collins 67596 which we feel are very real. • Aurora 8.3% Glendale 8.3% .Sales tax rates in some of Colo- ~ "What is the resistance of a 'Boulder; 766% Golden 8.39'. rado's mountain towns are some of Brighton 6.55% Grand Junction 6.75% guest: to come to Colorado to ski, the highest in the country and to fish, to go river rafting, horse- :Broomfield 8;3% Lafayette.;;. 7.8% would soar higher under Gov. Roy ~ - back riding, whatever? What is the Canon City 7.5% Lakewood 7.3% Romer's plan to tolerance level when it gets too 'Cher htills•V,IIa a 8.3~ Littleton '.7:89'. AT CAPITOL raise taxes for - n' g ~ high? Is this going to have a nega- - ¦ Lawmakers schools. Colorado Springs 7.59'. .Longmont 7.55% live effect on the guest population give tentative Tourists at ~ommerceCaty., 8:3% Northglenri . ,coming to Colorado to enjoy the OK tori ht-to- Winter Park Denver 8.3% P g ueblo 8.5% amenities that are here?" diebill/Y2 next season ;Durango.' 8.OY. 1Nestmirisier r3A5% ¦ Groffvows would pay more Edgewater 8.8% Wheat Ridge 7.3% The Colorado Municipal League - hasn t taken an official position on 1993 bill than $1 to tax. 'Englewood 8.3% Winter Pali 10.296 the tax yet, but its leaders don't convolling for each $10 ` like the idea. They say Romer guns/12 purchase if the Sales tax breakdown for Denver if tax increase is approved. r should have gone to an income tax governor's plan State City RTD Baseball Cultural Total to help schools. Romer has said he to increase the state sales tax from preferred an income tax, but a ' 396 to 446 is approved by voters in 44 3.54 0.6C 0.14 0.14 ~.3C t n November. The ski resort has the ~ ~ - _ „ state sales tax had th s g st _ state's highest sales tax at 9.2%. so~r~; raun~~~~T~s ':co~aao,M~nKw~>.~~~ support among voters. a ro e Most of that is local taxes. ~ R«kY Mountain News Senate President Ted Strick- Some lower elevation towns land, R-Westminster, opposes any aren't far behind Winter Park. ~ than our counterparts around the .The average nationwide is new taxes for schools but also country." $487,'_' said Jacobs. "We can't say criticized Ramer's choice of a . .Denver, which uses sales tax for Although Colorado's local sales how this would affect Colorado's state sales tax. everything from running govern- taxes are among the nation's high- ranking overall because other "What we need to be concen- . ment's daily operations to mass est, the current 34'o state sales tax states are changing, too." trating on is what the tax burden is transit, building a baseball stadium ranks with Wyoming as the lowest. Romer's announcement Thurs- on our citizens, notwithstanding and 'Help for the arts, would see a But when the local and state day of plans to bypass the legisla- the nation's average or what the . hike in sales taxes from 7.346 to taxes are combined, Colorado lure and take a $320 million tax rest of the states do," Strickland 8.3%. ranked 15th in the nation in sales hike proposal straight to the peo- said. "In terms of the salestax genet- taxes at $506 per capita, accord- pie in the November general elec- "This would have a greater im- .ally, we have about 'maxed' out on ing to the Colorado Public Expend- lion was having a ripple effect pact upon the local governments • . ~ it in Colorado," said Sam Mamet, iture Council, across the state Friday. If ap- because we right now are at the - associate director of the Colorado Hawaii was No. 1 at $1,062 per proved, the tax would go into ef- r~eshhold for the limitation for Municipal League. ,capita, followed by the state of feet on Dec. 1. some of those communities," "We're one of the highest in the Washington at $1,045, according Municipal officials don't neces- Strickland said. "You're threaten- . country. Our cities in Colorado. to CPEC research duector Jim sarily object to the schools' need . ing their abilities to raise funds for • rely more heavily on the. sales tax .iacobs. for additional money, but generally themselves." . _ ~ t®u~h crack ~ ,y ~ .~e ~ - sentences ~ ~ - r e n to . y i ! e"; drscroinate ~ ~t~ . By Sue Lindsay 9~ µ • Rocky bfountain A'cws Stajj IPrites ~ ~ ^ ' , + ~i::. , ~ • A federal judge Friday called 1• . ~ raq . -a ...-.ate ........-aa ..-r•- ~ ....J/ ~ ~ REC~IV~® Y~~Y 2 ~ C~4w~,e-1 J F~L ~ MAY 18, 1992 NEVIN NELSON Box 1212 VAIL, COLORADO 81658 MAYOR PEGGY OSTERFOSS, THE VAIL TOWN COUNCIL, AND THE VAIL HOUSING AUTHORITY TOWN OF VAIL VAIL, COLORADO 81657 DEAR MAYOR OSTERFOSS, THE VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AND THE VAIL HOUSING AUTHORITY: THANK YOU FOR YOUR RECENT LETTER, IN WHICH.YOU~SEEM TO ASSUME THAT NONE OF US UNBERSTANDS WHAT YOU ARE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH. SEVERAL OF US HAVE TAKEN THE TIME TO READ YOUR STUDIES, ATTEND YOUR MEET- INGS, ASK APPROPRIATE QUESTIONS; AND IN FACT, HAVE BECOME VERY IN- FORMED. UNDERSTANDING WHAT'S HAPPENING DOESN'T, IN MY MIND, SEEM TO BE THE PROBLEM. THE CONCERNS I HAVE ARE AS FOLLOWS: 1. THE PROPERTY ON THE CORNER OF AROSA AND GARNISH WAS BOUGHT WITH REAL ESTATE~~TRANSFER TAXES AND WAS ORIGINALLY DESIGNATED AS OPEN SPACE, I.E.; PARK. 2. THAT PARTICULAR CORNER IS VERY CONGESTED ALREADY, WITH A CONTINUOUS FLOW OF TRAFFIC DURING VAIL'S "RUSH HOURS.." 3. I HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT THE TOWN'S BECOMING INVOLVED dN EM- PLOYEE HOUSING IN THE FIRST PLACE I ADMIT THAT I DONUT KNOW THE SUCCESSES FOR FAILURES) OF OTHER CITIES IN THIS REGARD. 4. HOPEFULLY, THE IDEA OF THE TOWN'S FINANCING THE PURCHASERS HAS BEEN SHELVED. 5. WHY CAN'T THIS PROJECT BE FINANCED THE WAY PITKIN CREEK WAS FINANCED? 6. WHY DIDN'T THE TOWN EXERCISE ITS-FIRST OPTION WITH PITKIN CREEK PROPERTIES? I UN.~ERSTAND THERE WERE ABOUT 5O THAT THE TOWN COULD HAVE CONTROLLED. 7. IF, IN FACT, THIS PROJECT IS TO BE BUILT, THE DENSITY SHOULD NOT BE CHANGED FROM ITS PRESENT~ZONING~OF PRIMARYISECONDARY. THAT IS, NO MORE THAN FOUR PRIMARY~SECONDARY STRUCTURES, DEFINITELY NOT EIGHT OR TEN SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. 8. F THE TOWN NEEDS TO BUY THIS PROPERTY WITH GENERAL FUND MONEY FOR220,000, WHY DOESN'T THE TOWN CONS~IDER~BUY~ING KONRAD OBERLOHR~S P/ROPERTY ADJACENT TO VAIL HEIGHTS-AND MUCH-CLOSER TO ALL AMENITIES? IKONRAD HAS NEV R SEEN A ROCK FALL THERE, AND HESS OWNED THE PRO- PERTY FOR YEARS . ~ MAY 18, 1992 PAGE TWO 9. ANY HOMES BUILT ON THIS PROPERTY SHOULD BE ON A PAR WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD OBVIOUSLY, IF A CHEAPER PROJECT IS BUILT AMONGST MORE EXPENSIVE HOMES, THE PROPERTY VALUES WILL DROP THE TOWN SHOULD NOT PUT ITSELF IN THE POSITION OF CAUSING DEVALUATION OF ANYONE'S PROPERTY lO. I ASKED A REALTOR TO GIVE ME A LIST OF ALL HOMES OR CONDOMINI- MS FROM EAST VAIL TO WEST VAIL, /AND~THERE WERE SEVERAL UNDER 125,999, INCLUDING ONE OF.M~I~NE \WHICH WAS ON THE~MARKET FOR THREE MONTHS WITH NO SALE). I QUESTION THE EMERGENCY SITUATION OF THIS LOW-COST HOUSING, EVEN THOUGH YOU SAY ONE EXISTS, 11, THE PEOPLE YOU INTERVIEWED MAY WANT INGLE FAMILY HOMES THAT COST X125,000, BUT VAIL ~SN'T MADE UP OF125,999 SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES PERHAPS THIS ISN T A FEASIBLE SOLUTION. I THINK THIS LOW COST HOUSING IDEA NEEDS A CONSIDERABLE-AM UNT OF THOUGHT AND INPUT FROM ALL OF US. (HAVE YOU RALLY SPENT ~2.5~,~~~ SO FAR TO STUDY THIS, OR WAS THAT JUST A RUMOR,) N(~T ONE PERSON IN WEST VAIL THAT I HAVE TALKED TO WANTS IT. DOESN T THAT TELL YOU SOMETHING? SINCERELY YOURS, NEVIN NELSON P.S. DO ANY OF YOU LIVE IN WEST VAIL? ' . y NIii11BV's strike again ie~ Vail ~ ~ To The Editor. ~ - I am surprised and somewhat : disappointed at the continuing op- position to .employee housing ,1 anywhere yin Vail. Everyone says- it's agreat idea, "but' not in my ~ j neighborhood." .Most recently = . . ~ everyone is opposed to the West Vail site. If we are to maintain a balanced . : ' social fabric in Vail, and keep this place a world class resort we have . ~ ~ no choice but to "share the wealth" . so to speak with the frontline . , . - people that deal with our guests on . ~ ~ a daily basis. We need these people to feel that satisfying our guests is worth more than just a one tune trip or a seasons job. We need people who will fill mid-management and su- ' pervisory positions on a year round basis and will genuinely be proud Letters neighbors and be willing w make vi Fro R1 p8g@ 8 some concessions if need be, but Ji don't give up. To my neighbors p~ who are ..YY~sed to this, I would the ongoing success of Vail than a urge them to consider what their rr ' six-month lease does, homes and businesses will be worth a L We must also allow these people if Vail declines to mediocrity, e; representation in the town govern- which it will without good, caring a ment, and allow them a quality ~ employees. n lifestyle in a affordable home neaz Also, let us not forget that the p where they work. owners of Timber Ridge are under n If we as a community fail at this, ~ . no obligation to• keep it employee g ~ ~ ~ don't n,call . ~ ~ - ~ then we can kiss our past successes housing forever. I' ,the goodbye. Because the good people :exact date the deed restriction runs c will move on to somewhere where out, but I believe it is less than ten ~ . " - ~ - - _ ` ~ j they can have these things. ,Years. We must address this issue v • I know several long time locals .and address it now! a ' ~ who have left for these very ~ .Sincerely, Chris Neuswanger t reasons in the last year or.so, and ' ~ Vail is faz poorer for losing them. ' As a property owner on Cortina Lane where my wife and I hope ro build our home in the next year.or I so, I would say to the Town of Vail • to go right ahead with plans for this project. Ib listen to concerns of CC : r~ RECEfVED I°tW~ 2 19~~ ®FFICE ®F STATE PLANNING AND BUDGETING ~ (~®GE~T SRI EF FY 92-3 HOVIP THE FEDERAL BUDGET IMPACTS COLORAQO . May 1992 Bound by a balanced budget law, the proposes solutions to the $400 billion Colorado General Assembly has been federal deficit (Table 1). This $400 billion struggling with Medicaid and school deficit is more than all 50-state tax and fee finance funding issues this past year, collections for FY 1990. This means that if while the federal government continues every state sent every dollar that they to borrow funds to finance their collected in 1990 to Washington, D.C., it government operations. Currently, there still would not be sufficient to wipe-out is little discussion in Washington that the federal deficit. TABLE 1 REYEMUES AND EXPENDITURES FOR THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT VARIOUS YEARS in Billions) Fiscal Surplus? Year Revenues Expenditures Deficit 1960 $ 92.5 $ 92.2 $ 0.3 1970 192.8 195.6 (2.8) 1980 517.1 590.9 (73.8) 1990 1,031.3 1,251.7 (220.4) 1991 1,054.3 1,323.0 (268.7) 1992 Estimate 1,075.7 1,475.1 (399.4) 1993 Proposed 1,164.8 1,516.7 (351.9) `Assumes a $30 billion accounting change that will lower the deficit. SOURCE: Budoet of the United States, Office of Management and Budget, FY 92 & 93. The Budoet Brief is a review of current budget issues for the State of Colorado written by Karen Benker (303-866-2327.} and Cindy Baouchi (303-866-2986). The federal deficit began to reach serious and replaced by the 1990 Budget proportions in 1983 when it almost Enforcement Act. However, with budget doubled from $128 billion to $209 billion. pressure from entitlement programs, primarily The structural imbalance between Mledicdid and Medicare, the savings and loan revenues and expenditures was bailout, and the recession's dampening effect institutionalized when the federal om revenue collections, significantly reducing government cut income tax rates by 23%, the federal deficit is not in the foreseeable reduced top tax rates from 70% to 50%, future. - . while at the same time escalated military spending. In the last days of the legislative session, the Colorado House of Representatives .Efforts to stem the flow of red ink started introduced House Joint Resolution 1026 in 1985 when the Gramm-Rudman- urging Congress to propose a balanced. Hollings (G-R-H) bill was passed to budget constitutional amendment. provide deficit targets designed to eliminate the deficit by 1991. These targets were revised several times (see Table 2), until G-R-H was scrapped TABLE 2 . ORIGINAL AND REVISED FEDERAL DEFICIT TARGETS in Billions] G•R-H G-R-H BEA BEA Fiscal Original 1987 ~ 1990 Revision In Actual Year Target Revision Revision FY 93 Bndnet Deficit 1986 $171.9 $221.2 1987 144.9 149.7 1988 108.0 $144.0 155.1 1989 .72.0 136.0 153.4 1990 36.0 100.0 220.4 1991 0.0 64.0 $327.0 268.7 1992 28.0 317:0 399.4 Est. 1993 0.0 236,0 $419.4 1994 102.0 304.9 1995 83.0' 300.5 NOTE: The new targets, unlike the targets set in 1985 and revised in 1987, do not reflect the Social Security trust fund surpluses or the Postal Service. SOURCE: Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress, "Budget Enforcement in 1992," April 7, 1992. j 2 k . .Building the FY 1993 Federal Budget accordingly. The federal government is currently BEA was passed at the end of 1990. operating under the requirements Therefore;, these spending targets that established by the Budget Enforcement were established did not reflect any Act (BEA). Under this legislation, the major U.S. policy changes as a result of federal budget was separated into three the dissolution of the Soviet Union. segments with a spending ceiling for Consequently, recent ~ debate in each category: defense, foreign aid, and Washington has been centered around domestic spending. Mandatory or the downsizing of the military, and entitlement spending, comprised of whether the savings should be applied to programs such as Medicaid, Medicare, tax breaks or expanded programs to help Food Stamps, and Aid to Families with speed the economic recovery. Thus far, Dependent Children, and interest on the the President, the U.S. House, and the debt, were exempt from the spending U.S. Senate have chosen not to break limits. The cost of mandatory programs the "firewalls" that exist between the three in FY 1993 will be just. under $1 trillion. budget categories established in the For FY 1994 and. FY 1995, there is only BEA. one spending cap for all discretionary spending. The Executive FY 1993 Budget Proposal Table 3 The executive budget request proposes Discretionary Spending Limits a FY 1993 budget that totals $1.*~ trillion. Fy 1993 However, the linchpin of the President's (S in Billions) budget proposal to spur the nation out of the recession revolves around tax policy, not spending initiatives. Original Executive BEA Budget Major proposals include increasing the personal exemption for children by $500, Defense $291.8 $281.6 cutting the capital gains tax rate from Foreign Aid 21.4 22.1 28% to 15.4°l°, creating filexible IRAs, Domestic 198.3 203.1 enacting a health insurance tax credit of $3,750, adopting an investment tax SOURCE: Budget Enforcement in 1992, allowance, and creating a $5,000 tax Congressional Research Service, April 7, credit for, first-time home buyers. These 1992. tax changes would amount to at least $25 billion in revenue foss between 1993- Part of the rationale for abandoning G-R- 1997. Since Colorado conforms to the federal H was that the law did not control income tax, these proposed federal changes spending, but only tried to control the would decrease Colorado tax revenues by S20 size of the deficit. Under BEA, the goal million each year. was to hold down spending levels, and the size of the deficit would shrink On the expenditure side, the President 3 . ~ would eliminate or reduce 330 programs government into the new fiscal year . for savings of $8.2 billion, while which begins in October: This would not increasing domestic discretionary be uncommon. spending by $13 billion. Programs proposed for elimination include: Small There are a number of congressional Business Development Centers, the proposals pending to address the Economic Development Administration, problems of the recession. Tax cuts for Community Services Block Grant, and the middle class appear, to be on the the Rural Abandoned Mine program. back burner for now after the President Programs to be reduced include: Low- vetoed the Tax Fairness and Economic Income Home Energy Assistance, HOME Growth Act of 1992. But several housing grant, Community Development spending measures, particularly for Block Grant, and transit programs. infrastructure projects that are designed to promote job creation, are still being Program expansions include: Women, considered. Infants, and Children (WIC), college Pell Grants, Head Start, HOPE housing H®w the Federal dud®et Im®~cts avolorado grants, and several NASA programs. Table 4 summarizes the proposed Funding decisions made in Washington, funding levels for major state and local D.C. are important for Colorado. Using grant programs funded by the federal figures tabulated by the U.S. Bureau of government and shows how much the Census, federal funds represent 24% Colorado would receive under the of Colorado's state budget. However, C executive budget request. measuring federal grants to state and local governments is only one way to At this time, both the House and the view the impact of federal funds. Keep in Senate have passed FY 1993 budget mind, the large federal payroll in resolutions. Congress has until May 15th Colorado, the defense expenditures to reach a compromise between the two ~ made in the state through military resolutions. If no conference committee installations or private companies like can reach agreement, the House Martin Marietta, the university research Appropriations Committee may begin to grants awarded to Colorado higher compile the 13 appropriation bills that education institutions, and the amount of comprise the federal budget. direct federal benefits to individuals such Nevertheless, differences between the as social security payments and federal two resolutions are relatively minor. The retirement payments are all federal House attempted to set funding priorities expenditures that can affect the state's under the BEA limits, while the Senate economy. generally resorted to using the same funding levels as FY 1992. Since this The remaining part of this budget brief year is an election year, there is a will examine three areas of the federal possibility that Congress will not pass all budget that have a significant impact on 13 appropriation bills and a continuing resolution will have to fund the federal 4 J . TABLE ~ SU16flNIARY OF FY 9993 FEDERAL BUDGET PROPOSALS WIADE BY THE PRESIDENT. U.S. HOUSE, AND U.S. SENATE in Hellions) Colorado's State and Local US Tote{ federal Funds fY 1993 fY 1993 FY 1993 ~ FY 1993 FY 1992 President's House Senate f1l 1992 Presidents Prooram~ Enacted Budget 9ndaet Badaet Enacted Budget Women Infants, & Children (WIC) $2,600 $2,840 $2;900 $2,600 $25.0 $27.3 Economic Devel. Assistance 227 -0- 227 227 1.7 0.0 Compensatory Education 6,707 6,828 • 7,242 6,707 55.1 71.4 Special Education Basic State Grant ~ 1,976 2,073 2,137 1,976 22.2 23.2 Preschool, Infants, & Toddlers 495 501 535 495 5.0 5.0 Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Block Grant 1,360 1,360 1,455 1,360 19.4 19.3 Community Service Block Grant 360 -0- 371 360 3.2 0.0 Head Start 2,202 2,802 2,802 2,202 19.5 23.9 Child Care and Development Block Grant 825 850 850 825 r 8.9 9.2 Community Development Block Grant 3,400 2,900 3,400 3,400 30.7 26.1 HOPE Housing Grant 361 1,010 372 361 0.0 N/A HOME Housing Grant 1,500 700 .1,545 1,500 14.9 5.9 Highway Programs 16,986 19,200 19,198 18,363 186.5` 226.6' Transit 3,580 2,686 3,639 3,580 ~ 20.4 16.6 Social Services Block Grants 2,800 2,800 2,800 2,800 37.2 36.9 Medicaid 72,503 84,401 84,401 84,401 530.2 548.3 Low Income Home Energy Grant 1,500 1.,065 1,548 1,500 17.6 4.3 NOTE: Depending on the program, some figures represent amounts that combine state and local federal shares. SOURCE: Federal Funds Information for the States, Washington, D.C. Atl federal funds reported are based on the federal fiscal year. 'These figures for the highway construction program are close to the estimated budget figures calculated by CDOT, however, the figures differ slightly due to calculations of prior year's unspent authorizations. 5 Colorado: the Medicaid program, The proposal was defeated, but many r transportation funding, and defense- state officials in Washington fear that this related programs. plan will be proposed as a bill this year in Congress. Of course, any entitlement Medicaid: The 800•®ound Gorilla costs over the federal ° limit, would become a state liability. Over the last several years, the Medicaid program has exhibited a voracious In .Colorado; there are several proposals appetite for government funds. Asa being debated that are calling for a halt health care entitlement program, the to escalating Medicaid expenditures. costs have risen exponentially, often at the expense of other programs. In FY These proposals stem from recent 1989, the federal government's share of shortfalls in the Medicaid budget. The this program totalled $34.9 billion. It is Medicaid budget for FY 1991 was over- anticipatedthat Medicaid expenditures for expended by $29 million in general fund the federal government will cost $84.4 due to unanticipated costs for Baby Care billion in FY 1993, ballooning 142% in just (35% of the over-expenditure), higher five years. Program increases can be case{oads (10%}, and higher cost of attributed to a variety of factors, such as services (44%). These same factors led increasing caseloads, new federal to a supplemental budget request of program expansions, and higher cost for $73.5 million general fund in FY 1992. medical services. The Baby Care program is a federally mandated expansion of Medicaid for These kinds of growth figures are pregnant women and their children under comparable to state government's 133% of the poverty level. About 40% of Medicaid expenditures. The Medicaid the increase in the cost of services was program in Colorado is budgeted at 51.1 billion for inpatient hospital care where payment total funds in FY 9993. Five yearn ago, the rates have increased dramatically in program totalled 50.5 billion a 120°~ recent years due to a lawsuit. To c®ver increase. The federal Medicaid this Medicaid shortfall in the FV 1992 budget, reimbursement to Colorado now equals other state government programs wren cut S36 one-third of all federal funds received by million and capital construction programs wren the state (see Table 5). reduced by 546 million. The growing Medicaid expenditures are As a backlash against these sharp frustrating both federal and Colorado increases, Senator Michael Bird budget officials. In April, during debate sponsored SB 65 this session, which on the budget resolution in the U.S. requests a waiver from the federal Senate, Senator Domenici offered a Medicaid program to allow Colorado to proposal to cap entitlement programs in devise a separate health plan for the FY 1994 to growth in entitlement poor by using federal dollars in a more population, the CPI, plus another 2% flexible .and efficient manner. If the inflation factor. federal government refuses to grant a waiver, the state would pull out of the ,t 6 J TABLE 5 FEDERAL FUNDS RECEIVED BY COIORAD0 (S in Million`s FY 1993 FY 1988 FY 1989 FY 1990 FY 1991 FY 1992 Proposed Grants to Colorado State Government $1,015.5 $1,057.1 $1,112.8 $1,303.4 $1,459.2 $1,544.5 Grants to Colorado Local Government 167.7 190.2 224.1 238.8 221.9 208.7 TOTAL 51,183.2 51,247.3 $1,336.9 51,542.2 51,681.2 51,753.3 Medicaid Federal Share $244.1 $266.5 $304.7 $421.6 $530.2 $548.3 Percent Growth 9.2% 14.3% 38.4% 25.8% 3.4% As a Share of State Federal Funds 24.0% 25.2% 27.4% 32.3% 36.3% ' ~ 35.5% NOTE: A portion of the increase in federal funds for Medicaid is attributed t9 a higher federal match rate. SOURCE: Federal Funds Information for States, Washington, D.C. ~ All federal funds reported are based on the federal fiscal year. Medicaid program in three years and Shortchenaed on Transportation Funding lose the federal fund match. Last year, one of the most important In a related measure, Senator Powers pieces of legislation passed by Congress introduced Senate Joint Memorial 3, a was the highway reathorization program request to call a constitutional convention called ~ the Intermodal Surface that would prohibit the federal government Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA). from: 1) reducing their share of This_ 6-year bill created major changes in intergovernmental federally-financed how our transportation infrastructure is programs; 2) requiring states to increase funded. Some of the changes include their funding share for federal programs; the elimination of the primary, secondary, and 3) adopting new federal mandates. and urban road system and the creation of the National Highway System. In 7 addition, federal highway funds can now year period, ~ assuming no highway , be transferred to and from transit obligation ceilings are imposed, Colorado projects, while Metropolitan Planning should receive $1.58 billion. This Organizations over 200,000 in population represents a 25% increase over the last (e.g., Denver Regional Council of five-year program. However, the average Governments and the Pikes Peak Area U.S. increase was 68%, with only four Council of Governments) gain more other states receiving smaller increases influence in how funds are spent in urban than Colorado Connecticut, Rhode areas. Island, Maryland, anti Hawaii. (NOTE: Keep in mind that the comparison is The original intent of the legislation was between a five year and six year to funnel greater dollars into our nation's program. If an adjustment is made for infrastructure system, while creating jobs the extra year for the new program, during this national recession. As Colorado's funding will be almost flat.) passed, the fSTEA legislation called for $115 billion for the six-year highway Colorado also lost-out when program, an 68°I° increase over the last demonstration highway and transit five-year program. Transit funding projects were being doled-out. While almost doubled to $31 billion. However, Congress set-aside about $6.5 billion for just months after signing ISTEA into law, almost 500 specific projects, Colorado proposed funding levels are being will only receive funding for one reduced by reinstating a highway demonstration project on the Ute obligation ceiling. For example, while Mountain Ute Indian Reservation for $3 ISTEA called for $20.8 billion to be spent ~ million. Only three other states received on highways in FY 1993, the President is less. proposing to spend only $19.2 billion, the House $19.2 billion, and the Senate The American Association of State $18.4 billion. Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) summed up the fund what this means for Colorado in Fy 9993 is distribution process between the states that Colorado would receive S20 million more this way: "In the end the Congress under the ISTEA funding level, than if the abandoned, at least in part, the decades- House funding level was adopted. old practice of allocating funds on a formula, and instead resorted to On the transit side, the loss is even parcelling out sufficient funds to insure greater. Under ISTEA, the FY 1993 that each state's delegation would not budget was to be $5.2 billion. However, fight to derail the agreement in the final the President proposed funding at $2.7 hours before adjournment." billion, the House and Senate at $3.6 billion. Did Colorado receive its fair share under ISTEA? Under the highway program, C®lorado will receive 1.27°~ of the available funds How did Colorado- fare under ISTEA nationwide. For comparison purposes, compared to other states? Over the six Colorado's population share equals 8 ~ 1.33%, total public road mileage equals highway funds will no longer receive such 2% of the U.S., and Colorado drivers are high returns. responsible for 1.31 % of the vehicle miles traveled. The relationship between Cutting. the Defense Budget: lmoact of the federal funding and need is fairly close. Peace Dividend on Colorado However, for transit projects Colorado only receives 0.69% of. the total U.S. Over the next five years, the executive budget funds. Consequently, Colorado's share of proposes to trim the DoD budget by 550.4 the ISTEA funds for both highways and transit billion in inflation•adjusted terms. The cut will total about 1.16% of the U.S. funding. If corresponds to a real average annual Colorado were to receive 1.3% of the total rate of decline in funding of 4%. funds, the state would be eligible for another 5200 million over these six years. Under the House budget resolution, the defense budget would be reduced by According to the U.S. DOT, Colorado will $14 billion in FY 1993 and in the Senate receive $1.09 in federal funds for every the reduction would amount to $7.4 $1.00 Colorado sends to Washington billion. The- executive budget proposes under ISTEA. However, when calculating cuts of $7.9 bi{lion next year. this ratio, the federal government ignores the 2.5 cents of the federal gasoline tax The executive proposal cuts strategic forces that does NOT go to the highway trust significantly. The proposed budget calls fund, but instead is diverted for defic'st fora 50°!° reduction in strategic warheads reduction. This diversion from the trust below levels established under the find was adopted when the federal START agreement. The following gasoline tax was raised five cents in systems would be terminated long before 1990. This means that if Colorado were initial targets would be met: the B-2 to receive all of the funds the state sends bomber, the Advanced Cruise Missile, to D.C., the state would receive an the Sma11 ICBM, the Trident Sub W88 additional $24 million for highways. Or, warhead, the MX Peacekeeper, and the as it now stands, for every $1 Colorado most modern versions of the ICBM. In sends to Washington, the state highway addition, the number of warheads will be fund receives 90 cents back. For reduced on other systems. A number of Colorado's transit agencies, the bombers will be converted for percentage returned to the state is much conventional use. lower. A substantial boost is requested for From 1956 to 1989, every 51 Colorado sent to Strategic .Defense Initiative (SDI). The Washington, D.C, from motor fuel related razes, budget ~s moving away from production the state highway program received 51.40, of a new generation of conventional But due to the deficit problems in military systems, and orienting more Washington, the new fund allocation toward an R&D strategy. adopted under ISTEA, and the completion of Colorado's interstate system, Colorado's share of federal 9 i a V Defense Base CBosure and cutbacks. Preliminary estimates suggest , Realignment that between 1989 and 1991 a net 6,000 employees of defense contractors have In 1990, a new process was devised for been laid-off in the State. Martin Marietta, closing and restructuring military bases. alone, has eliminated 4,0®9 positions. Prior to A Commission on Base Realignment and the release of the Bush budget proposal, Ciosure, selected by the President and an additional 1,000 were planned for approved by Congress, works with the elimination in 1992. - - Department of Defense in selecting bases for closure and reorganization. The ~ Another 500 positions at Martin Marietta President and Congress must approve are endangered due to cutbacks in key the list of closures and realignments NASA projects and changes in the Titan recommended by the Commission. IV rocket program. These positions are being phased-out now. Cuts in the However, if one military facility on the list SICBM program resulted in the loss of an is rejected, the entire list is rejected. Last additional 250 jobs earlier this year. Up . year, Lowry AFB was the only base to 1,250 jobs could be lost throughout selected for closure in Colorado. The the state, once the indirect impacts are next rounds of base closures is accounted for. scheduled for 1993 and 1995. Currently, 325 Martin Marietta Colorado Fitzsimmons Army Medical Center has employees are working on SDI-related been mentioned as a candidate for future R&D projects at Martin Marietta. Full- closure, but local officials are currently funding of the program would ensure working to head-off that possibility. continued employment for these persons. Although Fitzsimmons will have fewer Full funding would also imply increased patients from Lowry, there are many employment beginning in i 996. Full- retired military personnel residing in scale production of Brilliant .Pebbles Colorado that will keep Fitzsimmons in would require 1,500 employees in business. Denver; full-scale production of Brilliant Eyes necessitates 750 employees. At Impacts in Colorado this time, it is unknown if Martin Marietta will receive contracts for full-scale The timing of proposed military cuts is production. malapropos for Colorado. The cuts will magnify other losses anticipated in the The P$esident's requested increases in SDI state at roughly the same time. funding rn?®uld not provide any boost to Examples of other scheduled job losses Colorado's economy until '1996 and beyond. include completion of construction of the new airport, and the wrap-up of several A partial closing of Lowry Air Force base public works projects. is anticipated in the fall of 1994. The . closure of the Technical Training Center at Moreover, Colorado's defense industry is Lorry Air force base will result in the direct already suffering from Cold-War loss of 2,953 active duty military personnel; 10 i 2,000 students; and 1,584 civilians employed on response to the initial loss of 4,000. base. Another 3,950 job losses will~follow, indirectly. ~ Since Fitzsimmons Army On the positive side, Colorado Springs Medical Center serves Lowry personnel, will benefit from military realignment. It is it may be affected by Lowry's down- likely that the 10th Special Forces, sizing. However, 2,709 civilians and 461 comprised of 1,000 troops will locate to military personnel will remain at Lowry's Fort Carson. Thus far, 250 troops that Defense Finance and Accounting Service were stationed in Europe have relocated Center, the Air Reserve Personnel in Colorado Springs;' with another 450 on Center, and the 100th Space Systems the way. Also, the Pacer Frontier Squadron. Also, efforts are underway by program at Falcon AFB is expecting to Colorado officials to convince DOD to grow by 1,350 personnel in the next expand Lowry's finance center which several years. would add a substantial number of jobs. . It is important to note that under both the Proposed restructuring of the National House and Senate budget resolution for Guard will result in the loss of 150 FY 1993, $1 billion of defense savings will positions in Colorado, if the submitted be used for economic conversion plan is adopted by Congress. At this programs to help ease the transition to time, it is not known if these are full or civilian production activities. part-time positions, or if the guardsmen are also employed in the private sector. Currently, only $200 million has been earmarked for economic conversion Discontinuing production of nuclear warheads under existing federal dislocation at Rocky flats will result in the phaseout of programs headed by the Pentagon's 4,000 jobs by October 1995. An estimated Office of Economic Adjustment. 10,000 jobs will be lost in the state.in . 11 ( , ti Office of State Planning & Budgeting sul_?c Rare 111 State Capitol ~rtu_s._posTaa~, Denver, Colorado 80203 ~ - ~ - ~ J } ~ ~ ~ - , 'PAID. * _ j~ DENVEPiCOLORAW • - _ ~ # ~ a, . ~ ` PERMIT N0.738" Ronuall Phillips Gi~.y' oL 'Wail 75 F'r"Gi"I'i;ayC ROdCi ' Vail, i;,U 271b~~ SENT BY~•EAGLE COUNTY ; 5-21-92 ; 16 33 ; 3033287207-~ 3034792157;# 1/ 4 ``i,. May ~1, 1992 - 14:54 ~ " F.AGIF COUNIY BIIILDINC+ ..y. 5516ROADWAY C1fFICF OF THE = _ P.O. BOX SSU ~ • tAGIE, COLORADO 61631 ~ARh OF COMAAISSIONERS .'>''r • _ c•,.,, :'..i.;:. •;a:.' (3D3) 328-S6U5 `,six'" FAK: (303) 32B-7207 k r~r. fiYi. E~CL~ ~~l~~l~, ~~L~R~t~~ . ~OAItD ~F C~~'1'~ CC~MMI~SIt3NERS PL.AN~TIllTG 1VI~~TIN~ T)~Y T[JESI~A~, MAC 2b, 1 ~9~ . 0:00 ~ 10:00 A. FD-231-92-~ CM~R~ C~JIA~13 It~NC~ Baca.~c~vxrr Paul Clarkson, Planner ACTIf~IV: Consider finaY plat for a planned unit development t~ develop 15 lots on 143.353 Beres. ~~~4-92-N TT.1~~T Paul Clarkson, Planner AC~'IOINo Consider Apglication fr:r F.xempti~ from Eagle County Subdivision Regulations located at 15439 Highway 6. C. 512$3-92-N1~OIiT St~r+~ T~tACT Paul Clarkin, Planner . AC'I'1CIN: Consider ~?lrplicatian for Exemption from P.a~g1e County Subdivision Re~ulakioats located at 15439 Highway 6_ 1~:IIb - 11c~ l~. 2C-25i1-9Q-H.~C'fCC~L1101T1~~' ~lGdB•GY7UN7YRC~a]?9 TO~II Allender, ~I9IIef ~4+fr°1'ION: Consider ~..,~,~,sa1 !rg change zonirflg ir: certain areas of the Cvuntry• ft+~n Resource ~ Back~aountry PLAT S1Gl~i~ Torn All~der, Plataner E1CTIt~N: Cori5ldeT a~~,l~,da1. ' 11:00 - 11:15 ~~~~r?F.~il6.*** SENT BY~EAGLE COUNTY 5-21-92 ; 16 34 ; 3033287207-~ 3034792157;# 2/ 4 11:15 - 11;43 ,~TSTiCE C~ t'Jr~t C~1~tSTItUCTI4~1~T C(ab1TItACT d4~ ~ r m? C(DY~STRiJC~'I~D~ s~r~ aoulvr8~to~ Miles Bradley, wilding and Grrxuads Supervisor ~ICTI~Na Co~s~ider approval. 11:45 -11:53 C~IOTSEt~dT CAY.IA~ saw cd~~u lIHAfS DFA lYOU7IIVBAAID M011zi~PMR'PYIIitWAL NAaU1~Al1~ PL,9t~p PlW7TtE G7DlK'~Atl'CdlgAil?.!R In.dILVW ZSS BOA OF COUNTY [aLtMlt4bss(OfV~43 7101 S'P6h~ 1T3 27ML AAID EIVF1tPY ON AiQ1T~ d~[FORTAIVI' JZE!!iS 4NA 7E'A~reu. At?FlNDA. ANY 4~OA9AfI,SSdOA~RI~fAYkl~1Gf.•t7'TAdTdNilffiIlB6 •RBAlOVEa•~RC1A477i6l~O1~4E1V['CAL~N~ilRAAID CPNSdDF~fsDSBp,~A7$,CY. ANY AMBER Oll TA& FU8ldC DIdP ItE~UE<SST° AN,Y17~1~1fTBS ltFAd~7Y8'D° FR08Q ~fB dOMYSN7'8G$ND.9. ~ai~i.r ~L`,~Al~ta Linda P~tln>lch, Accc~uutiug I.atry Cleves, C~nt~ller . ACTd~1~T: Approval subject bo reviev~ by the County Manager. 2. p'A~~DLI,IHYDR Mt~~ 2S, 19912 Alm Jim Y~, 1 lames R. Fritze, County Manager ACTII~ATs Approval subject to review by the County Mgr. 3. ~lQF~,~eT wwa'a.m. ~I~T~I~ 5~~, CA1., C~g.~L,IRd~ Alm ~i6ai~ C~liT1~T~'Y ~`~B~t ]1~1~'1'[)RE I.F.AS~ ]fin Reynolds, Air~rt Nianag~ ACTI~I~Ts Consider approval. 4. it~~l,e~ ~'Ydrl~ A~~1~ ;r~~T T~ CCATS ~~~JGT F.x Y.rrTSI~~TS Y r~~e S~~7i'k~~ TO S~RY~ ~~'~x~ Ct1'1"d't~l~~ F.U.D. Sid Fox, Senior Manner AC Y.a~,1Vs Consider ~~,~,,~,.ral. S. Hi~S~D1.TJTI~Pd ~Cr~~~i1~IN~ RED~TCTId,11Y QF CDI.I.~ Y L FOlt ~TD1V P S1JBI1Ii~I~1~ 1 Kevin Lind~l, County Attaancy ACTa+~11I, Consider appa~val. 6. 1~I®IB~ri T Ct~L~~l]d1 C~iTI~TCII. ~F G~1i~IF7[1~'1a1'1`S PLY~G ~RA1~TT Keith Montag, Director, Camm~anity I~velapment . ~CT1~l~s Cc~asider appro~ral. 7. AG1bIr~:iv~I~T ~a+. E,1~i,1~ COUNTY ~'~?,.,ri IRDri ~ .oat CaRI~~I., t~1JI.I1~C, Dan Fessler, Road and Bridge Supervisor ACTIdDle1; Consider' a~.,~.. v dal. Page ~ SENT BY~EAGLE COUNTY 5-21-92 ; 16.35 ; 3033287207 3034792157;# 3/ 4 ffi. I.Il~X.1d~~ LICK G - ~ EAI'~LE T~TCH K,etrin J~nclabl., County qty ~CTI~AT: Consider approval. 9. Ldd~ITOR bI~IIiJ IICEllrT~ - lLL JFuY. L.I~UiD1~3 Kevin Lindahl, County Atborreey . t~CTI~N: C:onsidet appro. 10. LIQ~JOII LICi~~ H~ - ~TA~`~ ATE I.~1E . Kevin Lindahl, Cawnty Attorney flCTIC~1~1s Consider a4rr~,=.~dal. 11. LIQIII'~I3 LI`.:~~'~m. IIEAItII~T~ - SZOTCIW5H~D1~ I1~C. vin Lindahl, datanty Attorney . ,ACTION: Consider arr~.~~ gal. ix. LId~iTOAt LICF~SI'J ~>:±~R~yO - S M~IJI~ITAIN II~ ICevira Iniadalil, County Attorney c~CTIONw Consider arr~4 a tal. ~~a~~ - i~e00 ~1'.ri+`R1~Y/ 1'~1~'aLa\Y/1'1'Eai'!17 Jl i~~J~~A V' ~~&0.sj~ ilatlT',H.iaF'f' ~al!'idTr1~II 1 Ala.~~l~`r~ ~~I~T+ R~ +~~ir ~i~~i~~](~IQ~~ ~c~c4um~'~a~ Larry Metternick, County Bn~ineer Mara TLleinsChmidt, I?~puty County Attorney AC`I'ICDI~: Consider ~yN~~val. 12:~ ~ 62.00 ::'I:~I.Tl~TCII*** 1f~'O]E~ ~F.o ~I4F,1 ~ ~~r.~KL~ UI~??ATE, PiEP1DIN0 LITH~ATI~lY MT ra/ uu HOLY CT4~SS RQOM James R. Fritze, County Mana,~er . KeviII Lin(1~I., ~CDll[lty ~itzoroey 02:00 -02:30 WOTtTi; SI•II~AT - ~GI.~ COITI~IITY LIBRARY B6~ARD ha-rafa~truirc~oss~no~ Pam i`Iolmes-Timyd, I~'brary Tigard T'r~esident Jae Gunter, Library I]ireo~r 02:30 - 03:00 EOM OF S~DCIt~L ~~ICF~St Bay tauxtY Kathleen Farinash, DirpCtor of Social ServlCes 03:00 - F. B®AItD ~F IIEALTIi Mr of abe HOLY C805,S RddM Ray 1lyderry, Environnteintal Heath CDfficea Marie Gazes, County Health RTurse ~Vd~III~ SF~~I~DIlt • OF' C~IJRT'I'~' C~SI~bi~ RI+;QgABIIIl~~ ME~;~t~u~TO~ ~ r t I~ AI~1Ib ~[IT$IB~fiT~' ~D1~~,..r~~1VS 1~5 AG~IDA ®PR[aVIOA~ flit WFORBAATdONALP'tJ~P03S3 ONLY- ALLT~R A~ F~PF~OXII4iA?B. TNS E~JARD WBl[.E fHf B~„4$dON N3A1C CONBQxEa vaYt~rt lTBb~L$ ~'FTA? AR$ aROUCiHT H~ORB TI'. P~iGE 3 SENT BY~EAGLE COUNTY ; 5-21-92 ; 1fi~35 30332872071 3034792157;# 4/ 4 ~ ' ` ~~++q~~,~~ EAGLE COUNTY AUIIOING "~`5i, ~ , : ~ - 551 BROAL7WAY C)FFlCE OF THE F ' P,O. BCIX 850 COUNTY MANAGER ~."r! EAGLE. COI.QRA[7Q R 1631 (303) 3.28.6605 FAX: (3b3) ~29.12U7 , . _ . , _ o.._..._, _ ~ , '1'dUa All anedia and interested parties F"I~+mll~Ia lames lt. Fritz~e, Coynty Manager DATE: May 1~, 1992 ~ RE; ~VEla1~~AV, 1~Y' B7?. ].992 The l?agle Catanty Board of Comcreissioners vWill atteaed the Eaglc Oounty Regional 11~[eeting to be held in the Vaal Town council Ohambexs, ?S South Frontage Road Nest can v~ednesday, May 27 at 5:15 p.m. Should you have any questions pye~se call Frances $arela, Office Manager at ~2~- Sfi(}5. Tli$nk you! • JRFIfb 1 TOWN OF VAIL ~ _ 7S South Frontage Road Department of Community Development Yail, Colorado 81657 ' 303-479-2138/479-2139 May 19, 1992 Mr. Paul Clarkson - Planner Eagle County Community Development P.O. Box 179 Eagle, Colorado 81631 . Dear Paul, As requested, the Town of Vail has reviewed the Environmental Assessment: Avon to Vail 115 kV Transmission Line submitted by Holy Cross Electric Association, Inc. On May 18, 1992, Richard Brinkley, Bob Ballinger and Walt Dorman of Holy Cross Electric made a presentation to our Planning and Environmental Commission on the proposed line. Our commission members expressed the following concerns which we would like to refer to you. (1) It is important for Holy Cross to take whatever steps are necessary to minimize the disturbance of the natural vegetation. As many trees as possible should be saved and those areas which must be disturbed should be revegetated. (2) They expressed concern over the siting of the poles for the line which will cross Red Sandstone Road on the approach to Piney Lake. They would like to see every effort taken to utilize natural openings in the vegetation while minimizing visual impacts on the approach to Piney Lake. (3) They understand that one span and pole of the line which parallels the existing line will be visible as it enters the substation above Potato Pitch from the valley. (4) They agree with the Holy Cross recommendation to use Core 10 steel for the poles which will rust naturally and blend with the landscape to reduce the visual impacts. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposal. If you have any further questions, please contact me at 479-2138. Si cerely, ~S san Scan an Environmental Health Officer xc: US Forest Service Vail Town Council Planning & Environmental Commission Ron Phillips, Town Manager Bob Ballinger, Holy Cross Electric RE~CEIUE~ ~`,~'f C b~~~ e 1600 West 12th Avenue •Denver, Colorado 80254 Phone (303)628-6000•Telecopier No.(303)628-6199 May 18, 1992 Ron Phillips City Manager Town of Vail 75 S. Frontage Rd. . Vail, CO 81657 Dear Mr. Phillips: ' Denver Water is offering four tours of its facilities this summer and we hope you will be able to join us. These tours are good opportunities to visit reservoirs, water treatment plants, and other water facilities to see how Denver operates its system. We look forward to these tours at Denver Water because of the people we meet and the chance to discuss the issues surrounding water operations. Most visitors have found the tours are educational, and we always learn from them too. South Platte River Tour Friday, June 26, 7:15. a.m. to 5:00 p.m. This tour has been offered for the past few years. You will visit Foothills Treatment Plant, drive through Waterton Canyon, boat across Strontia Springs Reservoir, walk along the South Platte River, eat a buffet lunch at Deckers, and tour Cheesman Dam. i 1/2 Day Denver Area Tour Wednesday, July 15, 7:15 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. On this tour you will visit water facilities without leaving the Denver area and we will have you back by 1:00 p.m. You'll see the Foothills Treatment Plant, drive up Waterton Canyon to Strontia Springs Reservoir, and tour our Water Quality Lab. Box lunches will be provided. Gross Reservoir Tour Wednesday, July 31, 7:15.a.m. to 4:00 p.m. The northern metro area water operations are the focus of this tour. You will visit Gross Reservoir, the diversion dam on South Boulder Creek, Ralston Reservoir and Long Lakes, where we will show you a short riparian restoration area with a quick stop at the historic Capitol Hill Reservoir and Pump Station at Congress Park. ~ 9/ r Denver Water Tours May 18, 1992 Page Two South Platte River and ~Tater Conservation Tour Thursday, August 13, 7:15 a.m.~to 5:00 p.m. This tour offers a small change to the first South Platte River tour listed above. We will start with a visit to a water conservation demonstration home rather than visit Foothills Treatment Plant. You will then continue up through Waterton Canyon, boat across Strontia Springs, walk along the South Platte River, eat at Deckers Resort, and visit Cheesman P.eservoir . To make a reservation or for additional information, please call Bobbye Dozier (303) 628-6326 or Leslie Parker at (303) 628-6553. If you reach their phone mail recordings, leave your name and telephone number and they will call you back.. We look forward to hearing from you. S' er ly, 1 . Bar anager HJB\LP/ckd a~aiuag Oongegence';. June 199~a ~o~- Cog~ins:...:., , : ~ , (~~~~8~~® ~IP~~ ~ °9~~~~ ~uesdav 5'une 16= c ~OOa~- - Coglgndale~-- -Oo~~ ~ougeaainen~ - . , - - - - , 300°600pm H% ~~g~s~~ti$on ~ ~ ~ - , 630°~30pm ~ 6rer~ex~y ~ ~en~ag ~~~ept~oai . ~ - . ~Jednesda~_~un~_ 1~ _ ~ . SOOa°~OOp Hoggday . -R~g~a~~ora'continues ~ ~ - - . " ~30a°300p Hal~day, ' Cogg~eo ties ~n regi's. area - ~ ~ . - X30-900am : _ H%-Utah- ~io~ig~aating-:Com~?~tee.D~ealcfast- . 330°930 Hg°Ok~.aho~na ~ •.Oon~nesa Sgeakgas?~ , 930°~g~~ant H%°~'e~a~ ~et~ ®p~a~gnq::~essioa~,,; _ - b30-~OOp~ H%°~ex~s..~ Oon~argen~ :~Porksliopo ~®ciglic~ of .%ra~eres~ - X00°400pt~--~-~H%-~'exas--. -~ia~; -~~staes-~~o~a- . ~ - ~ - ~.30°~OOpm - H%~e~i~lOregon Ooncurren~ &for3ssho~a. ~C `s of Pgannirig bs. %,and Usk g30°400pm H%°OB~atio~a _ Conc~ar~~g~~: =~So~~shops ` ~abloti %ssues ~OO~~OO~att !~%°~exas _ P~ee~ ~a~ hoard/~andida~es,_ - . - 630°`~30pm HI-bong Cen$er "Spons®red so~ia~:Y~oun - . '~30m~ Jay°s ~ ~ dBaaga~~ `~u~sda~r June 18 " ~ _ - - S00°noon Rambouilget •CgerBss_ Drea2tfast/business Heating ~ _ - S00°~OOpflA -gao$~y - _ Reg~stra~on-_ - - - _ r :x . - , . S00°900a~- fast ~ O~ns~inen~ag Sgeakg~st . 900-noon -~a~boui~geti ~ ~Ae~o ~e~a~Devel®p~ent: : ; 900°~g30a~ 230 4oncugrent ~t~~apg ~etgands- ~ r - - . . 900=bg3®a~ 2~5~ Oonh`~ &9kshp4. ~~ks ~ ~,eo. (gualgty og, %~b~e appgoachj 900°g~30a~ Hoch Conoent~~F~stipo, %~eadershbp/Higher Education(S~all Cow} 900°g~30a~ ~ Ota~go~e~ '~ar~ • , -Sh®~ shd~ . ~ - . - noon~~~S~~ F7a~~a , ~R ~ ~ene~ ~u~ac~aeon • ~ _ ~ - g30°~OO~t~ ~or~a ~R ~ `a~an~aa~, ~usiraess Nl~e~axige . - . 200°~00pm. .~24°226". ~ ~ger~o ~egsonrael . , _ " . - 200~~30p~i 220222 -~~ar~oe ®~~.'o~g~ o %~i~estnien~ Sung - - . 200°~OOp~ ..203-20~ - ` ~ogi~~ ~~~4' : ~ualiey .~olicirig , ~ - ~ ~ • ' :200-~00~ ' ' X30 ~ ~4Us ~/Cow~?tua~oa~ing - 200°~OO~t~- - - ~~S . . ~ = ~~~o ~%DS ~ - ~ ' 200~~O~Op~ ; 202~~04.. ; ~rch~ing.,~~~i~iags Meeting ~ - - , X00°6®Og~a~ H%~`~ex~s. , - , Meeting 40O-~OOp~t Virginia Dale . board " h~ee~ing - i ' , . - - ; . ~'rida~r ~ri~e 19 - ~ , : . ~ . ; ~ ~ , 738~900aa~ Oh~xokee ~ar~ ~ - ti ~r~aBtgast ~eet~,aig - ' - 500°300pt~ %~x~ ~ - ~~~gis~a~~®~ _ J r - - . " 500-900a ~ ~as~ ~ ~ ,~oni~$nea~s~aA. breakfast - ~ ' : S30°g000am-• gf~°~~~ : ~ ~~~e~e ~ 3~~,;ffiapo' ~®mpiiter demo arc Harrison.~esources . 900~noon ~ ~-:230 - - ~g~gk~o~ Handtiargti:ng ~alysis. ~ ~ _ 900-no®n - ~ • ~ r . - ~~~®n~~g g~~e~} o's ~A . " . ' V - _ _ - 900°noon ' . H®~h ~ti~~~ Sectaosa. ~ - 900~g215 . - .P~aiaa: ~~=~idd~e- ~ - ~~g~o~d ®f~ioiags/a~ge~~s See~.ing ~'®ta~ `C$~yd10~.~e~s~gy 8030°noon ~ %aa. forte -~gaxan~x~ ~~~~a~~a_ P~eet~g ~ . 8200°200pm - 'Ataig~ ~°T~esr , ~~tio~e~ ~un~ka. fl.200,°200pt~ , Ch~gokee ,~ar~ ~ge~,.&~ac~a/h~4ee~~ D~k~ Zoo°~®a~~-: ~a~~~ ~o~. ~a~ a~~~/~~~~~u~ so~~~~ g3o°~3o~m -220~~ ~ ;g~~ ~ag~s~ ~~~a~~~~~y end ~~s - 20Q-~30p~ 2~0~ ~~g~c~e~ ~~~~cia~~a: ~uasi~,~udicial'/%g3s~ative proceedings 600~g000p~n' ` ~ ;~i~i~ola~ stir- ~ brand ~i~aa~~ , ` . ~ ~ - Satugda~ Jung 20. ~ - ' ' - 1 - . ' - - DO®-9,00 ~ - .Holiday, Registration. _ . 530~121gpw' , ~:~%°%da/~I~.ch ~ ',~e~ti®~e~ ,~ec~~oai : ~ • ' - , '900°noon : •H%~~lahoma ~~%P~edia` Session . . . - - . - _ , ~ . " , • ~ ~ Board F2embers: Here ° s updated 1$s~ '9f hotels• :'for the, ~conferencee, - • %f you haven't .received a confg~aiatgon fro~i Fort: Caggi.gis' Ci~B ~by - .4 the end, of• phis creek (og if -:you receive, more khan os~e- coaifirmatioaa} ~ - p~ease •let me knows AlsoP ,see<..~kef ~corgected.-"i~ini~ageaida'° :on the backe~ • Cl~%s 1992 Conference aapdated 5118/92 Hotel Rooms for Board ~ • . •ATame ~ Arr. - Depart Hotel Configm # AndersonP Lorraine. 6/16•' 6/20. k~% 6262609- . Bea~tiep Del 6/16 - :--.-•6/2~=:. ~&a~r: :~-•=8~.~~$76~-;:-.:; - - Bertaux,. F~ichael 6/•17 ~ ~ 6'/20- H% 626.21858• ~ • - ~ BrandD Annette ~~6l16 6120 62649054 Brown, Peary 6/16 6/20 `''Hg~ 626I7618~ ~ . - . ' Carpentero Pgargaret ~ - • ' 6 / 16 6/ 19 _ HI " . ..62632568. . Cleland, Barb ' ~ - 6/17 •,'6/20. • ' P4agr~ 82991844 .f~ Corsentinoo Sam 6/14 =6/20 ~HI 62660511 (62660311?} Gelwickso Jim ~ 6/16 ~ 6/20• : H% ~ 64222266 „ ~ - ~ ~ • %saac, Bob 6/16`'• • 6/18 - H% 62608990 ~ ' . Phillips Ron . 6%17 _ 6/20 ~ • H%. . -.:62654480. ~ - Reynoldso Cathy 6/16' ~ x•6/21 ~ ~ H% ~ ` ' ` • 62636247:'- .Reynolds, Dennis ~ 6/17: -:.6/20 -°H%.. - 62612951 • Sakaguchio Bob .:,6/16 - 6/20. .'H%' 64228148•• • Sears, Gary 6/16' 6/20 61681.489- . • Smart; Bill 6/85 6/20' ~%i% ; ~ ~ ~ 64225442 • F ' • Theobold; Reford 6/15 - 6120 Hg - 6896117 • Werking, David ~ 6/16 ~ 6/18 H%_.'. 650'72694 ~ , . a,.... -r tip: x ~ vED r1A9' a 2 1992 Colorado Municipal League 1660 Lincoln Street, Suite 2100 Denver, Colorado 80264 (303) 831-641 1 MEMO T0: Interested Officials ~ . FROM: Jan Gerstenberger, Staff Associate REi: Condo-Hotel Property Tax Assessments 'DATE: May 20, 1992 S.B. 92-101, Concerning Property Taxes, was adopted by the general assembly, but the bill does NOT contain any provisions that affect how rental condominiums or time-share condominiums are classified for assessment purposes. ' It is my understanding that at this point the county assessors have no specific plans to propose legislation again in 1993. There still remains, however, the fundamental concern about tax equity and tax fairness a.regarding assessment ratios of similar use properties. The issue affects taxation levels both within the county and across the state, as the assessment levels affect the residential tax rate and ultimately distributions pursuant to the school finance act. ' There has also been some discussion between the Division of Property Taxation and the county assessors about the Division developing guidelines that would provide greater uniformity in - how rental condominiums and time-share properties are assessed. This was attempted last year by the Division, but the guidelines, which were based generally on a mixed use concept, were not well received by the assessors as they were very difficult to administer, and were resisted by the industry who is trying to retain residential status. In conclusion, while there was no 1992 legislation adopted which affects the assessment of these properties, the underlying issue still remains. It is likely that any future changes will come only after further discussion with all affected parties. `fe'e TOWN OF UAIL ~ 7S South Frontage Road Department of Community Development mail, Colorado 81657 303-479-2138/479-2139 May 20, 1992 Mr. Richard R. Rider 1519 First Avenue North St. Petersburg, FL 33710 RE: Lionshead Center tdofse Concern Dear Mr. Rider: Thank you for your letter concerning the noise problem at the Lionshead Center Building. The Town of Vail is very concerned that your stay at the Lionshead Center Condominiums was negatively affected by the noise from Alfie Packer's Bar. The Town of Vail currently has a noise ordinance that limits the sound level outside of the building to 65 decibels. In the case of Cyrano's Restaurant, the noise from the bar exceeded this limit. For this reason, the owners of the establishment were required to insulate their discotheque so that sound would not exceed the allowed level beyond the property line. The Town of Vaii will investigate the possibility of amending our Uniform Building Code to require additional insulation between a residential unit and a commercial unit. Maintaining a positive, relaxing, mountain experience for our guests is very important to the community. We will do our best to look at possible options to avoid a problem like this in the future. Thank you again for letting us know about your concern. A letter such as this only helps our community to provide higher quality guest service. We hope you will come and visit us again. Sincerely, Kristan Pritz Community Development Director cc: Vail Town Council ?v J Ron Phillips 4 \ ~Y TOWN OF VEIL l , 75 South Frontage Road ~ - Office of the Mayor Vail, Colorado 81657 303-479 2100 FAX 303-479-2157 May 12, 1992 The Honorable Hank Brown United States Senate ?17 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510 Re: Purchase of Forest Service Land by the Town of Vail Dear Senator Brown: I am writing to request your assistance in the Town of Vail's efforts to acquire two parcels of U.S. Forest Service land within the limits of the Town. For several gears;~the Town has been involved in discussions with the Forest Service concerning the 40-acre Spraddle Creek parcel on the north side of Interstate 70, and the 2.39-acre golf course maintenance parcel within the Vail Golf Course. The Forest Service has recently approved arbitrary valuations of these two parcels which are highly detrimental to the Town's ability to preserve open space and recreational facilities within its municipal boundaries. On September 17, 1987, the Regional Office of the Forest Service issued a decision approving the sale of the Spraddle Creek parcel to the Town under the Town Site Ace and the golf course maintenance parcel in accordance with the Sisk Act. The Forest Service thereafter requested the Town to obtain appraisals of both parcels t® determine the appropriate value to be placed on the land. The Forest Service submitted a list of several appraisers who had been approved by the agency to conduct this type of appraisal. F...,,, this list, the Town 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, which reflected the use of the developable portion of the land for nine single-family home sites. This value was substantially similar to the value selected by two other appraisers, one employed by the Forest Service and one employed by the Town, who had done previous appraisals of this . parcel. The golf course maintenance parcel was valued at $20,700, based on Forest Service s The Honorable Hank Brown United States Senate May 12, 1992 Page 2 instructions that it be appraised solely for the present uses of a golf course green, maintenance building, parking lot, and related structures. The Regional Office of the Forest Service refused to accept the Maddox appraisals, ostensibly because Mr. Maddox was unable to expeditiously make changes to the appraisal which were required by the regional review appraiser. The Forest Service subsequently hired the firm of Nash Johnson & Associates, Inc. to do new appraisals of the property. On September 27, 1991, Nash Johnson appraised the Spraddle Creek parcel at~ $500,000, and the golf course maintenance parcel at $187,500. These appraisals were accepted by the regional review appraiser. The Forest Service has indicated that unless the Town purchases the property at these prices, it will offer the parcels to private developers under its existing land disposal authority. The Town and its appraiser, Mr. Maddox, were shocked by both the methodology and the conclusions of the Nash Johnson appraisals. While there are many errors in these appraisals which invalidate their conclusions, two major faults illustrate the biased approach which was adopted by the Forest Service: 1. Nash Johnson appraised the 40-acre Spraddle Creek parcel at approximately $13,000 per acre, based on the $13,000 per acre sale price of one comparable property which Nash Johnson believed to be most similar to the subject parcel. However, Nash Johnson ignored the fact that 13.52 acres of the Spraddle Creek parcel lies under the right-of--way for Interstate 70, while 12.5 acres is subject to geologic hazards. By contrast, the entire 28 acres of the comparable sale was developable, and was purchased for subdivision into 13 single-family lot. Even if one were to apply the $13,000 per acre figure to the entire 26.6 acres of Spraddle Creek which is not under Interstate 70, including the 12.5 acres not developable because of geologic hazards, the value of the parcel would be $345,300. That is $154,200 less than the value determined for the parcel by Nash Johnson. 2. Nash Johnson appraised the golf course maintenance parcel as open space, notwithstanding specific instructions from the Forest Service that its highest and best use must be limited by the current use for maintenance purposes integral to the Vail Golf Course. The value of this parcel as currently used is determined by its contribution to the gotf course; to value it as a stand-alone open space parcel increases the value considerably. Using the open space assumption, Nash Johnson was able to rely on high prices paid for vacant land by private land owners to protect view corridors and access and by the Breckenridge Ski Corporation for a chair lift site. The prices paid for these parcels range from $66,000 to $110,000 per acre. In contrast, Mr. Maddox relied on comparable sales of land within and adjacent to existing golf courses. Mr. Maddox's value reflects the Forest Service appraisal instructions, while the Nash Johnson appraisal attempted to capitalize on the exclusive market for a vastly different type of real estate. '1 i ~ The Honorable Hank Brown United States Senate May 12, 1992 Page 3 The Town~wishes only to maintain the existing use of the golf course maintenance parcel and to preserve the Spraddle Creek parcel as open space, free of any development. We believe that the Forest Service has manipulated the appraisal assumptions in order to create the highest possible value for these parcels, without regard to the use of the land which might be made by a private bidder. Although the Forest Service had indicated that it will conduct a further review of these appraisals, it has refused to discuss the underlying assumptions which will determine the ultimate value. We request your help in convincing the Forest Service that it must comply with the legal requirements of the Town Site Act that the Spraddle Creek parcel be appraised on the basis of fair market value, and of the Sisk Act that the golf course maintenance parcel be valued solely for the existing uses. At this point, we seek only to have the Forest Service agree to written instructions which require the new review appraiser to strictly adhere to the Uniform Appraisal Standards in valuing the Spraddle Creek parcel, recognizing that a significant portion of this parcel is undevelopable, and to value the golf course maintenance parcel as an integral part of the golf course, rather than an independent tract of open space. We would be grateful if you could ask the Chief of the Forest Service for his assistance in ensuring that the appraisal review is fair and objective. Thank you very much for your cooperation. Please feel free to give me a call if you have any questions about this request. Very truly yours, Margaret A. Osterfoss Mayor Nvr~ ~j Sin/. GJIk T/:~ ~n,j/ l'ei', c^r/rI'~zLL ~ F A~'Pi~ U f A~ . xc i .,nw ;~r~ ..>~••~~-s•r~:nsy; ~r; %'r%~ :g%>:y; ;z. <,:;~,4.'-'°' ~i .s?;: r.,:;~. r. Ali>: %~i`.<i~~3;:..~3~>~r,...>%%i~~?.;rr .,:~...,z~w:'~r< i::~-. '°3~<. ~ ~ :~s ~ ~i r C 3' 'f5l b ~'s~s .%r.% , . r...... NE 1 S US S Deborah Goeken, Business Editor ¦ 892-5157, ~ ~ ~ .....¦..5s ¦ Bond ratings, commitments on new resort proposals key concerns By Steve Caulk said Sl~eelagh M. Clanagan. long-term investment in the financial RockyMountoinNewsStajf {Vnfer The ski resort is the town's primary community is a relatively short term industry, and the town hopes to issue in a community like this. We're watching Yail's town officials expect no immedi- $7.8 million worttr of bonds this year. what the implications might be." ate fallout from the Chapter 11 bankrupt- Gillett lioldir?gs Inc., the parent-com• She said she was impressed with cy filing of its ski resort company, but pany of Vail and Beaver Creek ski areas, Black's candor and willingness to cornmu- they are watching developments.on some lras been in Chapter 11 since last tune. It nicate. key issues. recently put virtually all its subsidiaries The bonds would be issued to purchase In particular, they are concerned about into separate bankruptcy protections to land and make some capital improve- bon<i ratings and the long-term commit- ensure those subsidiaries will not become ments in such areas as streets, shuttle ment of the proposed new resort owners. vulnerable to the parent-company's obli- buses, and police headquarters. An analyst for Moody's Investors Serv- gallons. Steve Jeffers, vice president-public fi= ice says Vail's $26.5 million in municipal George Gillett, owner of Gillett Hold- nance for underwriter George K. Baum bonds are rated investment-grade ings, says the resort operations are prof- of Denver, says all three issues of Vail "Aaa," and they will remain at that level itable. bonds are trading over their par value. as long as they are insured by a strong In the proposed plan of reorganization, And he said there should be no problem insurance company. ~ Apollo Investment rund would become acquiring insurance for future issues. Tire insurance company could increase the majority stockholder of Gillett Hold- "My gut reaction is it slroulcl not its premiums on future bond issues, de- ings and Vail. Apollo chief Leon Black adversely affect the premium rate," ire pending upon its analysis of the financial visited Vail recently and rnet with com- said. strength of Vail Associates Inc., the com- munity leaders, including Mayor Peggy Flanagan of MBIA said the bankruptcy pany that runs the ski resort. But an Osterfoss, telling them Apollo is in Vai) filing would cause her company to "take a executive at Municipal Bond Investors for "the long run." closer look." Assurance Corp. said a change is unlike- "When we asked lrirn to define that "They are the driving force in the ly. he said, 'four to six years,' " she said. • economy," she said. "But to think it "Everytime we look at a new issue, we "We realise we're looking at a very would make the ski resort close and want all tl~e information we can get about different ownership situation. We're everyone move out of town seems very things like demographics and finance," watching it carefully. What may be a remote." • ' s, xc: Tc i\lew White River sup rvis r~.. - is no strap er to controvers g . Y By M. John Fayhee employee. He did dispute having a' Daffy News Stall Writer "I'Ve thought for a long chip on his shoulder regarding they Forest Service. He said his only 3. McCALL, Id. -Veto "Sonny" tll'1'le that we have At- problem was with LaSalle, specifi- LaSalle, who will take over as tiia the Hula here, and ~lY• ~ - Forest Supervisor of the 3.25-mil- I'rn lad t0 See hlnl Nonetheless, several of the lion acre White River National g „ people we contacted in Idaho,' ~ < ti Forest on June 22, denied al- gOing• whose names were provided by the legations Wednesday that he was anonymous caller, said that LaSalle overzealous in his timbering ef- - Rancher and commercial had done a temble job during his forts, ignored recreation and was timber producer Cecil Bilbao on Payette National Fores[ stint, and• closed-minded towards public input Veto LaSalle, the new super- that. the people of Colorado had . . during his six-year tenure as Forest visor of the White River National best prepare for a forest supervisor - - _ Supervisor of Idaho's Payette Na- Forest. with reckless disregard for the en- ~ ~``z,,~ - tional Forest. vironmental well-being of the ~ . - ~ These allegations first made their ~ forests he supervises. way to White River National Forest "We have a pretty good idea who "I've thought for a long time that f after a series of anonymous (and is making those calls," LaSalle we have Attila the Hun here, and ~ collect) phone calls to the Summit said. "I've received calls from I'm glad to see him going," said r ~ Daily News from a man identifying several Colorado newspapers as- rancher/commercial timber:, himself only as (and no more king these same sorts of questions. producer Cecil Bilbao, president specifically than) "a government If he is the person we think he is,_. and founder of the 2,300 members ; employee" •in Idaho who "wanted then the media up here long aga'~ Neighbors of Cuddy Mountain; of. ~ ` the people of Colorado to know stopped dealing with him, because. Cambridge, Idaho. "My group •-.that `Attila the Hun' was about to he doesn't seem very balanced. Our. represents ranchers, irrigators, take over" the supervisor's position law enforcement people have been commercial timber producers and' 3 of one of the state's larger national looking at the situation, because of private property owners. And . we forests. ~ this man's claims that he is a have had nothing but problems .Much of the area ~ the White government employee. If he is who with LaSalle, s River National Forest administers we think he is, and we have his "We feel that he takes his timber-•_ • ~ - is located in Summit and Eagle voice on tape, he is not agovern- ing mandates from Washington to a . counties. ment employee, and hasn't been for much more extensive measure than The anonymous caller gave the over eight years." necessary, and that he r,.~...otes names and phone numbers of Several people we contacted said timbering practices - such 'as several people in Idaho who would the :man ~ they suspected of calling clear-cutting, in places where clear- • . corroborate his story that LaSalle us .-was an ex-Forest Service ~ cutting should not take place: :was not the sort of Forest Super- employee with an ax to grind. that ruins our water. Those prac- . visor likely to function p.~y:,.ly in When the anonymous caller called tices cripple our annual: ,water the recreation-oriented environment a second time, he did not deny that - - of north-central Colorado: he lied about being a government t't~e s~ tds~. pBBe 14 Y ^sx ea . ~a ~ I I • Y.. . S e~ s , I .~e ~ • o - ~ • ~ s 9 ~ ~ ~ • ~ ~ ~ ~ °1 Lasalle - - - ~ speeches. I've just decided to stop believably low, and I wouldn't going to meetings. Now, I just write surprised if the Forest Service is in- ' FI'Ot'T1 Page 13 letters. And I blame most of this on tentionally getting him out of here. I production, by shifting the entire LaSalle." "I know that the positiony` of snowpack melt from May, when we Though he is not nearly as Forest Supervisor can be a'con- can use that water, to March and adamant in his observations regard- troversial one," Robertson con- • April, when we cannot. He dcest:'` ing LaSalle, Ed Robertson, of the tinued, "but, Here, it seems worse care where he cuts timber, and he Idaho Wildlife Federation, agrees here than most places, including the doesn't look at the consequences. • there have been problems in the other national forests in - Idaho. . I He's a very devious and deceptive Payette that clearly transcend the We've got a variety of problems person." level of normal public controversy. that LaSalle has had a hand in. The J Furthermore, Bilbao contends "I fight Sonny LaSalle all the ovo,~,azing situation here is LaSalle manipulates the public in- time," Robertson said. "I'm not abominable, for instance. There has put process, to the point of making saying he's a bad person. I think a been a great 'deal of controversy it ineffectual. lot of the controversies stem from regarding the -logging practices "I've attended most of the public the fact that he inherited a temble used in the Payette. LaSalle has meetings in the past four years, and forest plan that has an over-em- made life difficult for so many of • I have got [o the point of believing phasic on logging. But, there has us, it'll be difficult to resolve a lot - . - that all the Payeue's public been an inordinate amount of con- of the issues, even after he leaves. - _ ~ meetings are self-serving," he said. tnoversy, from ranchers, loggers I'm n,ally glad we're getting a new . ~ ~ - "They don't respond to public in- and environmentalists. Morale in supervisor." ~ ~ put. They use nothing but canned the Payette right now is un- .Adds Craig Gehrke, of the Boise, Idaho, office of the Wilderness Society, "The Payette is a badly S rlriQ fashions for overcut forest: In order to maintain i c~ antiquated historic timbering levels, your home... the whole west side of the forest has been hammered. There has at fabulous sa~'ings! been significant environmental _ ~ degradation here, and the water . ~ , quality of several rivers, including lr - the Middle Fork of the Salmon, has 4 ~0 ~ . • _ kp been negatively impacted. To be n, fair to Sonny; he inherited a lot of ~ p ~ the problems. But, he has carried a l.Jl_i. ' _ lot of the problems further than - ` they needed to be carried. He has ~ managed to alienate a large cross- ~ ~ section of forest users, including ir- rigators, outfitters, sportsmen-=and ' _ - - ~ ranchers." . _ . ' - LaSalle denies both the specifics and the seriousness of these al- legations. - - "First of all, I'm not being~`run - ~ ~ - ~ , out of here," .he said. "Whenever a I j ~ ' - Forest Supervisor position opens • - I ~ ' up. which, in the case of the White - River, came because the '-current Salle a pretty penny = ' ~ supervisor. decided to retire,~i[ .is, advertised, and all GM-14 and', 15 on beautiful cabinetry by Decork. grade levels :are allowed to apply. Give your home a fresh, new look this spring with surprisingly Those applications are Serrt-i tO affordable custom cabinetry by Decors. You'll love "the Decors Washing[On, where a list of th`eaop • ~ difference" -quality cabinetry created just for you, with your 15 candidates is forwarded: ~ ~ the • choice of styles, woods, finishes, convenience options, and . . Regional Supervisor s office,ici~this specialty units. See your authorized dealer now, and take Case, Denver. In Denver, the~`top advantage of spe~al springtime savings on. Decors for every candidates are determined, 1n room of your home. - _ ~ order, and that list is sent .back to - Washington, , to the Forest Service ®FFF.RED E1~CL[YSIVE,LY ~Y Chief's office. He makes the final - 'decision. ~ ~ "I have been here for six years, - CAI1~E`TS F®R Y®Ll . ~ - and I felt it was ,time for achange - . VLSI t OCII' ~t10W1'OOlyl for me. and the Payette," LaSalle ® 120 N. 3rd Wit. • Fltfise®• 668-0310 continued. "There has never. been • Please see LaSalle, page 15 . e~ 1Nh~te River sup rvis r is n® strap er t® c®ntr®vers , ~ Y By M. John Fayhee ~ employee. He did dispute having a Daily News Staff Writer "I'Ve thought for a long chip on his shoulder regarding the Foresi Service. He said his only McCALL, Id. -Veto "Sonny" tIC916 that VV@ haV@ fit- problem was with LaSalle, specifi- LaSalle, who will take over as tila the Hun her@, and catty. Forest Supervisor of the 3.25-mil- I'm glad t® See@ hirvo Nonetheless, several of the lion acre White River National „ people we contacted in Idaho, Forest on June 22, denied al- g®~ng• whose names were provided by the legations Wednesday that he was anonymous caller, said that LaSalle overzealous in his timbering ef- - Rancher and Commercial had done a terrible job during his forts, ignored recreation and was timber producer Cecil Bilbao on Payette National Forest stint, and closed-minded towards public input Veto LaSalle, the new super- that the people of Colorado had during his six-year tenure as Forest visor of the White River National best prepare for a forest supervisor Supervisor of Idaho's Payette Na- Forest. with reckless disregard Cor the en- tional Forest. ~ vironmental well-being of the These allegations first made their ~ forests he supervises. way to White River National Forest "We have a pretty good idea who "I've thought for a long time that after a series of anonymous (and is making those calls," LaSalle we have Attila the Hun here, and collect) phone calls to the Summit said. "I've received calls from I'm glad to see him going," said Daily News from a man identifying several Colorado newspapers as- rancher/commercial timber himself only as (and no more king these same sorts of questions. producer Cecil Bilbao, president specifically than) "a government If he is the person we think he is,. and founder of the 2,300 member employee" in Idaho who "wanted then the media up here long ago`` Neighbors of Cuddy Mountain, of the people of Colorado to know stopped dealing with him, because Cambridge, Idaho. "My group that `Attila the Hun' was about to he doesn't seem very balanced. Our represents ranchers, irrigators, take over" the supervisor's position law enforcement people have been c;ommercial timber producers and' of one of the state's larger national looking at the situation, because of private property owners. And we forests. this man's claims that he is a have had nothing but problems Much of the area ~ the White government employee. If he is who with LaSalle. River National Forest administers we think he is, and we have his "We feel that he takes his timber- is located in Summit and Eagle voice on tape, he is not agovern- ing mandates from Washington to a counties. ment employee, and hasn't been for much more extensive measure than The anonymous caller gave the over eight years." .necessary, and that he promotes names and phone numbers of Several people we contacted said timbering practices - such as several people 'in Idaho who would the man they suspected of calling clear-cutting, in places where clear- corroborate his story that LaSalle us was an ex-Forest Service cutting should not take place - was not the sort of Forest Super- employee with an ax to grind. that ruins our water. Those prac- visor likely to function properly in When the anonymous caller called [ices cripple our annual ~ water the recreation-oriented environment a second time, he did not deny that .~f north-central Colorado. he lied about being a government Please see LaSalle, page 14. ' i Seaso a~~~ E ~~a~ (i • s ~ ~ ® ~ v e . • ~ • s ® • ' ® ~ ~ • ~ e ¦ LaSalle, speeches. I've just decided to stop believably low, and I -wouldn't be from page 9 3 going to meetings. Now, I just write surprised if the Forest Serv: a is i;,- letters. And I blame most of this on tentionally getting him out of here. production, by shifting the entire LaS~e," "I know that the position of snowpack melt from May, when we Though he is not nearly as Forest Supervisor can be acon- can use that water, to March and adamant in his observations regard- troversial one," Robertson con- April, when we cannot. He dcesr:' ing LaSalle, Ed Robertson, of the tinued, "but, here,. it seems worse care where he cuts timber, and he Idaho Wildlife Federation; agrees here than most places,.including the doesn't look at the consequences. .there have been problems in the other national forests in Idaho. • " ~ He's a very devious and deceptive Payette that clearly transcend the We've got a variety of problems person." level of normal public controversy. that LaSalle has had a hand in. The Furthermore, Bilbao contends "I fight Sonny LaSalle all the overgrazing situation here is LaSalle manipulates the public in- time," Robertson said. "I'm not abominable, for instance. There has ' put process, to the point of making saying he's a bad person. I think a been a great deal of controversy it ineffectual. lot of the controversies stem from regarding the logging practices "I've attended most of the public the fact that he inherited a terrible used in the Payette. LaSalle has .meetings in the past four years, and forest plan that has an over-em- made life difficult for so many of I have got to the point of believing phasis on logging. But, there has us, it'll be difficult to resolve a lot that all the Payette's public been an inordinate amount of con- of the issues, even after he leaves. meetings are self-serving," he said. troversy, from ranchers, loggers I'm really glad we're getting a new "They don't respond to public in- and environmentalists. Morale in supervisor." put. They use nothing but canned the Payette right now is un- .Adds Craig Gehrke, of the Boise, Idaho, office of the Wilderness Society, "The Payette is a badly " Sprlrig faSh10I1S for overeat forest. In order to maintain antiquated historic timbering levels, your home - the whole west side of the forest has been hammered. There has at fa&~ul®us sa`rings ~ been significant environmental _ degradation here, and the water ~ , , ` , _ quality of several, rivers, including ~ I~,~JILlJf~ the Middle Fork of the Salmon, has + UD been negatively ;impacted. To be ~ n fair to Sonny, he inherited a lot of 4 I II I the problems. But, he has carved a _ lot of the problems further than they needed to be carried. He has managed to alienate a large cross- - ~ section of forest users, including ir- riga[ors, outfitters, sportsmen and - _ ~ ranchers." - _ LaSalle denies both the specifics - and the seriousness of these al- ~ ~ _ legations. "First of all, I'm not being run i ; , out of here," he said. "Whenever a Forest Supervisor position opens ~ I ' up, which, in the case of the White . - River, came because the current Save a pretty penny supervisor decided to retire, it .is advertised, and all GM-14 and 1$ on beautiful cabinetry by Decora. grade levels are allowed to apply. Give yow home a fresh, new look this spring with swpiisingly Those applications are Sen[ to affordable custom cabinetry by Decora. You'll love "the Decora Washington, where a list of the top ~ difference" -quality cabinetry created just for you, with yow 1$ CandrdateS 1S forwarded [o the ~ choice of styles, woods, finishes, com~enience options, and Regional Supervisor's office, In LhIS specialty units. See your authorized dealer now, and take Case, Denver. In Denver, the tOp advantage of spe~al springtime savings on Decora fpr every room of your home. three candidates are determined, in - order, and that list is sent ~ back to Washington, to'lhe Forest Service ®FF~~tEI) E~CCLi~~t~~F,~.Y BY Chief's office. He makes the final decision. "I have been here for six years, and I felt it was time for a change Visit our Showroom for me and the Payette," LaSalle ® 120 N. 3rd it. ~ Fri~CO m (~~-®3l0 continued. "There has never been Please see LaSa!!e, page 15 ' ~ RECEIVED e~AY 2 6 s - ~ - f n ~ . , R -m r , o e boost~n . .....g . ~ school:- tax :~:.I ....:n . Meeting starts at-7.:30~at EVHS By Cara DeGette ~ Colorado :Children First program to get a one percent sales °a'y sran cancer tax increase passed in November to - GYPSUM - In his quest for fund education. ' education reform, Gov. Roy Romer - The Colorado Parent Teacher will rally for a statewide sales tax Association has joined him to sup- increase during an appearance . at port the sales tax increase, as well Eagle Valley High School tonight as substantial educational reforms. Eagle County r~ _ To collect enough signatures for School District the petition to make the November ' officials are ex- : ~ ballot, Romer is calling for 20 sup- pected to be on porters from each of the state's .hand, joined by 1,300 schools. Those supporters school officials would in turn collect another 20 from Glenwood signatures, putting the total number Springs and ~ of petitioners at well over one-half northwestern - `ROMER million. Colorado. The If passed, the initiative would meeting is open to the public and raise approximately $320 million a will last for about an hour starting year to fund education statewide. at 7:30 p.m. at the high school But it is unclear exactly how that auditorium. .additional money would . impact . • • - . - ~ - . - . The series was launched in Eagle County, whose schools have Lamar May 9. Romer has also held undergone four budget-slashing - . sessions in Fort Collins, Grand sessions in less than two years. - ~ ~ Junction, Aurora, Denver, Pueblo . As ahold-harmless school dts- and Yuma to gain widespread sup- trict, the Schooi Finarice Act of - port for the proposal. A similar ses- 1988 renders Eagle County in- sion is scheduled in Alamosa later eligible for any state funding for this month. ~ the next 20 years. But part of the Colorado Romer, who has embroiled him- Children First initiative calls for the - - - self in the struggling education sys- School Finance Act to be reviewed, tem during this legislative year, said Colorado PTA President hopes to rally enough supporters of Donna Gardner. - - ~ ~ a t a~~Y ~~Cz.~ ~a~?~ ~ ~u~orL ~ ~ ~ ~ ~9~2 Colorado Springs Office: Denver Office: 105 East Vermijo -Suite 600 6860 S. Yosemite Ct. -Suite 200 Colorado Springs, Colorado 80903 Englewood, Colorado 80112 (719) 577-4881 (303) 721-0653 May 20, 1992 The Honorable Peg~+ Osterfoss Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Dear Mayor Osterfoss: We wanted to bring you up to date on a new development regarding our company. We are pleased to inform you that River Oaks Cable Corporation has been retained by the Town of Breckenridge to assist that community in the cable franchise renewal process. We hope that we will be liven a similar opportunity in your community. Sincerely, Robert M. Duchen Vice President RMD/pab cc: .mown Council Larry Eskwith, Esq. FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: RECEIVED MAY 2 6 1992 May 21, 1992 ~ XC ~ Tc= ~1 Media Contacts: Vail Associates, Inc. Post Office Box 7 Pat Peeples: (303) 845-5722 Vaij, Colorado 81658 Mike Shim-Konis: (303) 84S-S721 (303) 476->601-Vail (303) 949-X750-BcavcrCrcek©Rcsort (303) 949-2315-PAX DELTA AIR LINES LAUNCHES SERVICE TO VAIL AND BEAVER CREEK RESORT VAIL, Colo.--Delta Air Lines will inaugurate daily nonstop service to the Eagle County (EGE) airport for the 1992-93 ski season. Daily round-trip service from Delta's Salt Lake City (SLC) hub will link Vail and Beaver Creek Resort to destinations throughout the West. From December 15, 1992, through March. 31, 1993, Delta will operate one round- trip flight daily from Salt Lake City aboard a 148-passenger Boeing 727 aircraft. Passengers will find daily service from Salt Lake City aboard 161 Delta flights to 53 nonstop destinations. "We are very excited about beginning service to one of North America's most popular ski destinations," said Ed Gerrity, Delta's district marketing manager. "Skiers who live in the West will find easy access on Delta to some of the finest skiing in the world at Vail and Beaver Creek Resort," continued Gerrity. "Delta's new service will add to the variety of convenient access available to our guests," commented Kent Myers, vice president of marketing for Vail Associates, who initiated the "Fly Vail" direct air program in the winter of 1989. "Skiers from points west will find timely connections. through Delta's Salt Lake City hub. Convenient service will be available from major cities such as Los Angeles, San Francisco, Oakland, San Diego, Sacramento, Orange County, Las Vegas, Reno; Portland, Seattle; Boise, Calgary and Edmonton." • "With the addition of Delta Air Lines service to Eagle- County Airport, the Fly Vail program accesses virtually all major cities in North America," added Myers. Delta's flight 1920 will depart the Salt Lake City (SLC), airport at 12:18 p.m. daily . and arrive at Eagle County (EGE) airport at 1:25 p.m. The return flight 1921 departs EGE at 4 p.m. and arrives in Salt Lake City at 5:18 p.m. Delta will offer regular and discount airfares on its Vail/Beaver Creek Resort service. These will include advance purchase, round trip discounts as low as $340 for 14-day 1989 WORLD ALPINE prin(edonrery~'ledpupe•r SKICH.~iPIONSHIPS C --more-- Rcgis[crCd tr.~(Icmarls ~~f Vail AVCtiIatCS~ ins. ~ N V.~ILj BE.-AVER CREEK DELTA 2-2-2 advance purchase and $380 fora 7-day advance purchase for travel from Los Angeles. Pricing will be comparable from other points west. For fare information and reservations contact Delta Air Lines at 1-800-221-1212, Vail/Beaver Creek Reservations (VBCR) at 1-800-525-2257 or Beaver Creek Village Travel at (303) 949-1487. VBCR will book complete vacation packages including air, lodging, ground transportation, lift tickets and ski school. Ground transportation is available from Eagle County Airport to Vail and Beaver Creek Resort. Colorado Mountain Express and Vail Valley Tani offer van service to the resorts. Dollar Rent-A-Car and Hertz rental car services are also available on site. As a major world-wide airline, Delta now serves 223 cities in 34 countries around the world. Dedication to service has enabled Delta to achieve the best customer satisfaction record of any major carrier over the past twenty years. --30-- PUBLIC N®TICE VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REVISED MEETING SCHEDULE The Vail Town Council has been reviewing its meeting schedule. In an attempt to respond to scheduled meeting demands, as well as adhere to mandated ordinance and charter requirements, Council will now be meeting at the following times: EVENING MEETINGS . Evening meetings will continue to be held on the first and third Tuesday evenings of each month, starting at 7:30 P.M. These meetings will provide a forum for citizen participation and public audience for conducting regular Council business. WORK SESSIONS Work sessions, which are primarily scheduled for Council debate and understanding of issues before the Council, will now be scheduled at 2:00 P.M. on the alternative Tuesday afternoons, i.e., the second, and fourth Tuesdays of each month. . . A brief overview work session for Council will precede the evening meetings, from 6:30 P.M. - 7:30 P.M. ~t tl~ JUNE, 1992. VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING SCHEDULE IS AS FOLLOWS: ' Tuesdav, June 2, 1992 Work session ...................6:30 - 7:30 P.M. Evening meeting .............7:30 P.M. Tuesdav, June 9, 1992 Work session ...................2:00 P.M. (starting time to be determined by length of agenda) Tuesdav. June 16, 1992 Work session ...................6:30 - 7:30 P.M. Evening meeting .............7:30 P.M. Tuesdav. June 23, 1992 Work session ...................2:00 P.M. (starting time to be determined by length of agenda) TOWN OF VAIL ~4 . ~+~ua.~~ _ Pamela A. Brandmeyer Assistant to the Town Manager y~ PiJELIC NOTICE VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REVISED MEETING SCHEDULE, The Vail Town Council has been reviewing its meeting schedule. In an attempt to respond to scheduled meeting demands, as well as adhere to mandated ordinance and charter requirements, Council will now be meeting at the following times: EVENING MEETINGS Evening meetings will continue to be held on the first and third Tuesday evenings of each month, starting at 7:30 P.M. These meetings will provide a forum for citizen participation and public audience for conducting regular Council business. WORK SESSIONS Work sessions, which are primarily scheduled for Council debate and understanding of issues before the Counci],~, will now be eduled at 2:00 P.M. on the alternating Tuesday afternoons, i.e., the second, ourth, _ esdays of each month. ~ ~ ' _ A brief overview-wo k session for Council will precede the evening meetings, from 6:30 P.M. - 7:30 P.M. ,n e1 ~ ~~~ri~ MAY, 1992, VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING SCHEDULE IS AS FOLLOWS: ,~8 Tuesdav. June 2, 1992 Work session ...................6:30 - 7:30 P.M. Evening meeting .............7:30 P.M. Tuesdav, June 9, 1992 Work session ...................2:00 P.M. (starting time to be determined by length of agenda) Tuesdav. June 16. 1992 Work session ...................6:30 - 7:30 P.M. Evening meeting .............7:30 P.M. Tuesdav, June 23, 1992 Work session ..................2:00 P.M. (starting time to be determined by length of agenda) TOWN OF VAIL Pamela A. Brandmeyer Assistant to the Town Manager ~ o y~ 4 [,s1 Rn1 ~f' ~o ~ o A ~ BL~~ ,~u~ ~ i ~ Ja 1~ 5 ~ ld r C 3 ~ N ~ ~ 1 f s l P~LIC 1lTOTICE VAIL TOWN COUNCIL I~.EVISED MEETING SCHEDULE, The Vail Town Council has been reviewing its meeting schedule. In an attempt to respond to scheduled meeting demands, as well as adhere to mandated ordinance and charter requirements, Council will now be meeting at the following times: EVENING MEETINGS Evening meetings will continue to be held on the first and third Tuesday evenings of each month, starting at 7:30 P.M. These meetings will provide a forum for citizen participation and public audience for conducting regular Council business. WORD SESSIONS Work sessions, which are primarily scheduled for Council debate and understanding of issues before the Council, will now be scheduled at 2:00 P.M. on the alternating Tuesday afternoons, i.e., the second, fourth, and fifth Tuesdays of each month. A brief overview work session for Council will precede the evening meetings, from 6:30 P.M. - 7:30 P.M. 'A'xe MAY. 1992. VAII. TOBVN COUNCIL MEETING SCHEDULE IS AS FOLLOWS: Tuesday, Mav 5. 1992 Work session ...................6:30 - 7:30 P.M. .Evening meeting .............7:30, P.M. Tuesday, Mav 12, 1992 Work session ...................2:00 P.M. (starting time to be determined by length of agenda) Tuesday. Mav 19, 1992 Work session ...................6:30 - 7:30 P.M. Evening meeting 30 P.M. Tuesday. Mav 26. 1992 Work session .................:.2:00 P.M. (starting time to be determined by length of agenda) . ,~~M TOWN OF VAI ~ ~ y\w~~t, w Pamela A. Brandmeyer JUa `J Assistant to the Town Manager ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~b. WORK SESSION FOLLOW-UP May 22, 1992 Page 1 of 3 - TOPIC QUESTIONS FOLLOW-UP SOLUTIONS 1991 05/07 SKI AREA ADMISSION TAX LARRY/STEVE: Research remedies to change this to Passed on first reading 5119/92; second reading set for (request: Gibson/Lapin) a mandatory TOV tax collection. 6/2/92. 11119 NEWSPAPER VENDING LARRY/ANDY/MIKE M.: What can be done to make Discussions have begun with vendors. Voluntary MACHINES these uniform and locations less prolific? agreement still being pursued. 1992 01121 EVENING PARKING MIKE ROSE/STEVE B.: Evaluate financial Mike will prepare new analysis of data prior to the STRUCTURE FEES ramifications of eliminating parking structure fees beginning of the budget-setting process in September. (request: Lapin} after 6:00 p.m. each night. Staff to explore other options. 01/21 BEAVER POND KRISTAN: Check with FEMA experts and Interfleuve, Three reports received from Interfleuve, Hydrosphere, REVITALIZATION Hydrosphere, and Wetland Aquatics to see what solution and Wetland Aquatics will be analyzed by Community what might be appropriate to revitalize this pond Development and Todd 0. and then presented to (i.e., dredging or other means). Council at 6/9/92 work session. The beaver are back! Update to follow. 02104 HERITAGE CABLEVISION CAROLINE: Prepare new letter of protest for Mayor's Will do upon return of Merv. FRANCHISE NEGOTIATIONS signature. XC: Newspapers, Dillon, Minturn, etc. (request: Lapin) 02/11 HORSEDRAWN CARRIAGE KEN/LARRY: Prepare extension to agreement, Advisory Committee to help draft standards of AGREEMENT including possible provisions for hobbling, dragging operations and other criteria. Draft contract weights, and other options. to be presented to Council at 619192 work session. Dave Sloan, Carriage Rides, Inc., is currently not doing business. WORK SESSION FOLLOW-UP May 22, 1992 Page 2 of 3 ' TOPIC QUESTIONS FOLLOW-UP SOLUTIONS 02/17 EXTERIOR LIGHTING KRISTAN/ANDY: Draft ordinance. Input received and joint discussions will continue including all interested parties. Initial meetings held with night tour scheduled for 612192 evening meeting. 03110 AFFORDABLE HOUSING KRISTAN/LARRY: Finalize ordinance. Ord. No. 9, Series of 1992, to Council for first PROVISIONS ORDINANCE reading on 612192. 03/10 LIONSHEAD SALES TAX FIGURES STEVE B.ISTEVE T.: Packy Walker, on behalf of the Will investigate. Staff time now being spent on special (request: Osterfoss, Levine, LH Merchants Assn., is requesting an accounting of events/daily sales tax reporting program, Staff will Gibson, Steinberg) sales tax taken from a square footage basis, standard attempt to meet these other concerns after completion number (such as Dow Jones) of businesses reporting, to of the special events program. offer a comparative analysis. 03117 GOAL SHARING SESSION COUNCIL: Carl Neu will be facilitating agoal-sharing Everyone is attending. session to include the Avon Town Council, Eagle County Commissioners, and Vail Town Council. Monday, June 22,1992, from, 2;00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m., is the newly scheduled date. Please mark your calendars. 04107 REVIEW RETT LARRY: Schedule for Council review, Staff will work with parties-of-interest to further work out revisions and suggestions from 4121192 work session. Public airing to be called. 04107 USE TAX ON CONSTRUCTION LARRY: Prepare ordinance for implementation January Scheduled for 6/2/92 evening meeting as an ordinance MATERIALS 1, 1993. for first reading. e WORK SESSION FOLLOW-UP May 22, 1992 Page 3 of 3 TOPIC QUESTIONS FOLLOW-UP SOLUTIONS 04/14 SPRING VACATION COUNCIL: At your ea?liest convenience, please let Jim Gibson will be out 5/9-28/92. SCHEDULES either dd or Pam know of any vacation plans that will take you away from regularly scheduled meetings. We ask for this at this time of year to ensure a quorum for scheduled items. 04/14 CML SUMMER COUNCIL: The annual conference is scheduled for Those signed up are as follows: Tom, Rob, CONFERENCE the week of 6/16-20 in Fort Collins. Peggy, Jim S., and Ron. 04121 ADDITIONAL AMPLIFICATION LEO VASQUEZ: With new work session arrangement, Will do. IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS can we hang ceiling microphones to increase voice coverage? 05107 CONSOLIDATION OF MARTHA: Contact special districts in our area Martha will draft letters to be sent to the new POLLING PRECINCTS FOR to offer the TOV Municipal Building as an President of each special district to offer this SPECIAL DISTRICT ELECTIONS optimal, accessible polling site for future location. (request: Lapin) elections. 05119 HOLY CROSS LETTER RON: Draft letter to Dave Sage regarding installation and design of new tranformer boxes.