HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-10-06 Support Documentation Town Council Regular Session VAIL TOWN COUNCIL
REGULAR EVENING MEETING
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 6, 1992
7:30 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS
EXPANDED AGENDA
7:30 P.M. 1. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION.
7:35 P.M. 2. Approval of the September 1, 1992, and September 15, 1992,
Evening Meeting Minutes, and Approval of the September 29,1992,
Special Evening Meeting Minutes.
7:45 P. M. 3. Ordinance No. 10, Series of 1992, first reading, an ordinance
Larry Eskwith amending Section 3.48.40 and 3.48.090 of the Municipal Code of
the Town of Vail to provide that the Real Estate Transfer Tax may
be used for the acquisition and improvement of real property within
the limits of the Town or within a mile of the Town boundaries;
providing more specificity as to what the funds received by the
Town pursuant to the Real Estate Transfer Tax can be used for;
and setting forth details in regard thereto.
Action Reauested of Council: Approve/deny/modify Ordinance No.
10, Series of 1992, on first reading.
Backaround Rationale: This ordinance amends the RETT
ordinance to allow RETT funds to be used within the limits of the
Town or within a mile of the Town boundaries. It would also clarify
what purposes the funds can be expended for.
Staff Recommendation: Approve Ordinance No. 10, Series of 1992,
on first reading.
8:00 P.M. 4. Ordinance No. 28, Series of 1992, first reading, an ordinance
Larry Eskwith amending Section 5.04.140 -Termination, of the Municipal Code of
the Town of Vail, extending indefinitely Chapter 5.04 -Annual
Business License for Marketing.
Action Reauested of Council: Approve/deny/modify Ordinance No.
28, Series of 1992, on first reading.
Backaround Rationale: The business license fee will expire on
December 31, 1992, unless it is extended by the passage of this
ordinance.
Staff Recommendation: Approve Ordinance No. 28, Series of 1992,
on first reading.
8:20 P.M. 5. Resolution No. 16, Series of 1992, a resolution declaring Vail Town
Steve Barwick Council's opposition to Amendment 1, which will appear on the
November 3, 1992, General Election Ballot.
Action Reauested of Council: Approve/deny/modify Resolution No.
16, Series of 1992.
1
Backaround Rationale: The passage of Amendment 1 would prove
detrimental to the long term provision of services by the Town of
Vail.
Staff Recommendation: Pass Resolution No. 16, Series of 1992.
8:35 P.M. 6. Discussion Re: A request to amend the TOV Master Rockfall
Tim Devlin Hazard Map by removing specific properties from "Moderate
Rockfall" designation. Applicant: Irwin Bachrach.
Action Requested of Council: Remove "Moderate Rockfall"
designation currently on the following properties: Lots 10, 12, 13,
14, 15, 16, Block 9, Vail Intermountain. The Master Rockfall
Hazard Map is specifically referenced as Chapter 18.69.052 A.2 of
the Town of Vail Municipal Code.
Backaround Rationale: The Master Rockfall Hazard Map prepared
by Schmueser & Associates dated November 29, 1984, identified
portions of these properties as being located in a moderate rockfall
zone. Site verification by Dr. Nicholas Lampiris, Ph.D., confirms
that these properties are not in a rockfall zone. (Please see
attached letter.) Dr. Lampiris was a consulting geologist for
Schmueser 8~ Associates when the Master Rockfall Hazard Maps
were prepared in 1984.
Staff Recommendation: Remove "Moderate Rockfall" designation
from the official Town of Vail Rockfall Map from Lots 10, 12, 13, 14,
15, 16, Block 9, Vail Intermountain.
8:45 P.M. 7. Executive Session: Land Negotiations.
8. Adjournment.
4444444444444444444444
THE NEXT VAIL TOWN COUNCIL WORK SESSION WILL BE ON TUESDAY, 10/13/92,
BEGINNING AT 2:00 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS.
THE NEXT VAIL TOWN COUNCIL WORK SESSION/EVENING MEETINGS
WILL BE ON TUESDAY, 10/20/92, BEGINNING AT 6:30 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS.
4444444444444444444444
C:VIGENDA.TCE
2
MINUTES
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING
SEPTEMBER 1, 1992
7:30 P.M.
A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, September 1, 1992, in the
Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building. The meeting was called to order at 7:45
P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Peggy Osterfoss, Mayor
Merv Lapin, Mayor Pro-Tem
Jim Gibson
Jim Shearer
Tom Steinberg
Rob Levine
Bob Buckley
TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Ron Phillips, Town Manager
Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney
Pam Brandmeyer, Assistant to the Town Manager
Martha Raecker, Town Clerk
The first item on the agenda was Citizen Participation of which there was none.
Second on the agenda was approval of the minutes of August 4, 1992, and August 18, 1992,
Regular Evening Meetings, and August 20, 1992, Special Evening Meeting minutes. Merv
Lapin moved to approve these minutes, with a second from Jim Shearer. A vote was taken
and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0.
Item No. 3 was a request fora $1,000 contribution to victims of Hurricane Andrew in Miami
Beach, Florida. Mayor Osterfoss noted this item resulted from discussion at the Eagle
County Regional meeting on 8/26/92. Ron Phillips explained the Florida Municipal League
had been contacted for information on assistance efforts, and they assigned Miami Beach as
the proposed recipient of any assistance from Eagle County communities. Merv Lapin moved
to approve the contribution of $1,000 from Council contingency funds to Miami Beach, with
a second from Tom Steinberg. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0.
Item No. 4 was Ordinance No. 9, Series of 1992, second reading, an ordinance creating a new
Chapter 18.57 -Employee Housing and setting forth details in regard thereto; amending
Chapter 18.10, 18.12, 18.13, 18.14, 18.16, 18.18, 18.20, 18.22, 18.24, 18.27, 18.28, 18.29,
18.34, 18.36, and 18.39 to provide for the addition of employee housing units as permitted or
conditional uses within certain zone districts within the Town of Vail, and setting forth
details in regard thereto; amending Chapter 18.4, setting forth certain definitions for an
employee housing unit, a bathroom, and a kitchenette. Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full.
Andy Knudtsen reviewed seven recommended changes made to the ordinance since first
reading. He placed emphasis on the changes primarily related to EHU GRFA credits (425
sq. ft.) and the use of the 250. He noted a proposed change to allow a Type II EHU as a
conditional use with Planning and Environmental Commission approval in the Agricultural
Open Space District. Rob Levine asked for clarification regarding separate entrances. After
discussion, a suggested wording change to clarify that each EHU would have a separate
entrance and would not be connected in any way was agreed to. Mayor Osterfoss noted she
and Kristan Pritz had the opportunity to meet and exchange ideas about this ordinance
earlier with representatives of the Vail Board of Realtors including Bill Wilto, Dave Cole,
Doug Ketchum, Larry Agneberg, and John Slevin. Kristan outlined the recommendations
made by that board. There was discussion about enforcement of permanent restrictions, and
it was agreed the existing system would be adequate. After further discussion regarding
impact and parking on small lots, and the conditional use process, Jim Gibson moved to
approve Ordinance No. 9, Series of 1992, on second reading with incorporation of the
recommendations from the Vail Board of Realtors. Jim Shearer seconded the motion. Before
a vote was taken, Dave Cole encouraged Type III EHUs be offered for sale as an incentive
for long term locals who want to buy rather than rent to stay within the Town. Kristan said
those provisions were already in the ordinance for Type I EHUs, and the same wording would
1
be used for Type III EHUs. Further discussion included Tom Steinberg's concerns about
increasing density, parking problems, and pressure being put on open space owners. Jim
Gibson then called the question. A vote was taken and the motion passed, 5-2, Merv Lapin
and Tom Steinberg opposed.
Item No. 5 was Ordinance No. 22, Series of 1992, first reading, an ordinance authorizing and
directing acquisition of certain property more particularly described in Exhibit A, attached
hereto and made a part of this ordinance by reference, for bike path purposes by negotiation
if possible, and if negotiation is not successful in obtaining the property, by eminent domain
proceedings. Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full. Larry Eskwith explained this ordinance
would give authority to Town staff to negotiate for parcels of land TOV needs related to the
bike path through Dowd Junction, an ongoing cooperative effort between TOV and the State.
Larry noted time was of the essence, and if negotiations with property owners could not
produce mutually acceptable prices, it would be necessary to move forward with
condemnation proceedings. After brief discussion about negotiations vs. condemnation
proceeding, appraiser bids and selection, and whether the bike path was within the 100 year
flood plain, Merv Lapin moved to approve Ordinance No. 26, Series of 1992, on first reading,
with a second from Rob Levine. Before a vote was taken, there was short discussion about
the location of the parcels in question. A vote was then taken and the motion passed
unanimously, 7-0.
Item No. 6 was Ordinance No. 23, Series of 1992, first reading, an ordinance authorizing and
directing acquisition of drainage easements over, across, and under certain property more
particularly described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein, for public
drainage purposes by negotiation, and, if negotiation is unsuccessful, by eminent domain
proceedings. Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full. Larry Grafel explained these were
drainage easements existing between four lots on Davos Trail and Arosa Drive. Larry
advised negotiations were presently underway for these. If negotiations with property owners
could not produce mutually acceptable prices, this ordinance would need to be in place to
allow condemnation proceedings. Jim Gibson asked that reference to the fact that an
independent appraisal had been made or was part of the negotiations be made part of the
ordinance. After brief discussion, Jim Gibson moved to approve Ordinance No. 23, Series
on 1992, with the requested change, on first reading. Jim Shearer seconded the motion. A
vote was taken and the motion passed, 6-1, Merv Lapin absta~n~ng due to possible conflict
of interest.
Item No. 7 was a presentation of safety option recommendations for access to bus stops on
Bald Mountain Road in regard to the VRD Proposed Par 3 Golf Course. Larry Grafel
introduced three options, and thoroughly discussed the advantages, disadvantages, and
preliminary cost estimates for each. Safety was agreed to be the primary concern. Mike Rose
discussed some of the te~hn~cal problems with the bus turnaround at the site, and noted
there was a problem with overcrowding on that bus last year. After individual discussion of
each option, Larry Grafel said he would use Council's input to develop a specific proposal.
Rob Robinson, Colleen McCarthy, and Gail Malloy, Vail Recreation District (VRD) Board
members, participated in the discussion of the proposed options. Merv Lapin felt Bald
Mountain Rd. bus stop area residents should be kept informed of proposed changes, and
Larry Grafel was directed to initiate a PR effort to residents of the area prior to ice and snow.
Discussion turned to the proposed Par-3 Golf Course. Mayor Osterfoss noted she had been
contacted by Evie Nott, opponent of the proposed golf course. Ms. Nott informed her Mr.
Phelps, the golf course designer who withdrew from the Par-3 project, was willing to come
to Vail free of charge to discuss the safety concerns expressed in his letter dated 4/1/92. Ms.
Nott advised she had also spoken with Ken Wilson, who expressed no objection to a meeting
with Mr. Phelps. Merv Lapin asked if Mr. Phelps would discuss his allegations that it was
not safe to put a golf course there. Gail Malloy said Mr. Phelps would not comment on Mr.
Bailey's design or any other architect's development. Jim Shearer suggested obtaining a
letter from Mr. Phelps to that effect. Tom Steinberg felt there was no down side to having
Mr. Phelps speak with the VRD Board. Colleen McCarthy suggested Council sit down with
the proposed plan, and hole by hole, see how Dick Bailey had addressed each one of the
concerns expressed by Mr. Phelps' letter. Several Council members felt that was a good idea,
but agreed to leave the decision in the VRD's hands. Mayor Osterfoss felt Gail's idea was a
good one, and directed the VRD to improve their public relations situation by putting that
issue on their agenda, and inviting people still concerned with the safety issue to review the
proposed golf course plans in that same manner.
2
Item No. 8 was a discussion regarding capital projects and future debt service levels. Steve
Barwick discussed the most recent version of the Capital Projects 5 Year Plan. He noted the
only change to the plan since Council had last seen it was in the Heavy Equipment Fund,
Capital Equipment section. He said all of the broad assumptions in the plan as presented
were the same as in past TOV 5 Year Plans. As the underwriter needed to be contacted
shortly to tie up the refunding, he asked Council to finalize new projects needs. Jim Gibson
stated the debt level right now was equal to approximately 150% of anticipated annual
revenue. He felt that was a manageable debt and recommended TOV make a conscious effort
to maintain that level. Ron Phillips felt Jim Gibson's concerns were consistent with TOV's
plan to require a new revenue source for any new debt taken on. There was discussion
regarding bus depreciation and replacement, operational maintenance items, special event
funding, PW building expansion, municipal building addition, Land purchases, cutting of
safety items such as the Vail Road sidewalk, and the Simba Run Underpass was mentioned
as a high priority item. Mayor Osterfoss felt, under the scenario presented, TOV needed to
announce it was not moving toward a central loading facility. Additionally, Ron explained
TOV was proposing the cemetery be a private function and TOV would not be budgeting
expenditures for it. A brief discussion about potential impacts of the proposed Bruce
Amendment ensued. Jim Shearer suggested a presentation explaining the Bruce Amendment
be made to Council, and Steve was directed to prepare for this. Mayor Osterfoss noted an
educational process regarding the Bruce Amendment had been discussed at the Eagle County
Regional Meeting on S/26/92. Ron added a three person committee to represent the County,
Avon and Vail, was appointed at that meeting and assigned the task of preparing an
educational process of the issue to include meetings with the press.
Before adjournment:
Ron Phillips advised he had attended a public hearing held by CDOT on the new statewide
transportation planning process rules and regulations. The proposed planning process would
require a statewide transportation planning process, to be handled by region. TOV was to
be in the Summit, Eagle, Lake, Garfield, and Pitkin Counties transportation planning region.
Ron asked Council for approval to draft a letter to CDOT including questions about the
relationship of planning vs. project funding, how districts related regarding planning vs.
maintenance, a suggestion about facilitating a process to involve the state planning regions
such as NWCCOG and other councils of government in discussion about how to coordinate
the planning process, and how a past requirement for transportation development plans for
those receiving UMPTA funds ties in with the new process. Ron noted each planning region
would have a representative on the transportation advisory committee for the state. After
brief discussion, including comments on intermodal transportation, Council agreed to drafting
of this letter for Mayor Osterfoss' signature.
Mayor Osterfoss suggested a letter be sent to the Colorado Municipal League Board of
Directors to commend them for their courageous and thoughtful stand in opposing the sales
tax initiative for education. Council had no objections.
Council agreed to send CAST a copy of the~draft position paper concerning the Public School
Finance Act of 1988, for consideration as an agenda item for the October, 1992, CAST
meeting in Aspen.
There being no further business, a motion to adjourn the meeting was made and passed
unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Margaret A. Osterfoss, Mayor
ATTEST:
Martha S. Raecker, Town Clerk
Minutes taken by Dorianne S. Deto
C:VuIINSEPT1.92
3
MINUTES
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING
SEPTEMBER 15, 1992
7:30 P.M.
A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, September 15,1992, in the
Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building. The meeting was called to order at 7:50
P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Peggy Osterfoss, Mayor
Merv Lapin, Mayor Pro-Tem
Jim Gibson
Jim Shearer
Tom Steinberg
Rob Levine
Bob Buckley
TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Ken Hughey, Assistant Town Manager
Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney
Pam Brandmeyer, Assistant to the Town Manager
Martha Raecker, Town Clerk
The first item on the agenda was Citizen Participation of which there was none.
Second on the agenda was a Consent Agenda consisting of two items:
A. Ordinance No. 22, Series of 1992, second reading, an ordinance authorizing
and directing acquisition of certain property more particularly described in
Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein ("the property") for park
and recreation purposes, and authorizing and directing the acquisition of a
certain p s..anent easement more particularly described in Exhibit B
attached hereto and incorporated herein ("the easement") to be acquired by
negotiation if possible, and, if negotiation is not successful, by eminent domain
proceedings.
B. Ordinance No. 23, Series of 1992, second reading, an ordinance authorizing
and directing acquisition of a permanent easement more particularly
described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein, ("the
easement") for public drainage purposes by negotiation, and, if negotiation for
acquisition is not successful, by eminent domain proceedings.
Mayor Osterfoss read the titles in full. Larry Eskwith noted correction of a typo in Ordinance
No. 22, and stated the word "permanent" was to be added before the word "easement" in the
titles of both of these ordinances before next publication. (Note: The addition is shown in
bold above.) Jim Gibson moved to approve the Consent Agenda with the correction and
additions as noted by Larry, with a second from Tom Steinberg. A vote was taken and the
motion passed unanimously, 7-0.
Item No. 3 was Ordinance No. 24, Series of 1992, first reading, an ordinance authorizing the
issuance of the Town of Vail, Colorado, General Obligation Refunding Bonds, Series 1992A
in the total aggregate principal amount of $7,000,000 for the purpose of refunding a portion
of the Town's outstanding General Obligation Refunding Bonds, Series 1985; prescribing the
form of said bonds; providing for the levy of general ad valorem taxes to pay the principal of
and the interest on the Bonds; providing other covenants and details in connection therewith;
and repealing all ordinance in conflict therewith. Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full.
Steve Thompson explained the purpose of this ordinance and of Ordinance No. 25, Series of
1992. Larry Aubrecht, representing Hanifen Imhoff, Jack Wolfe, representing Kemper
Securities, and Steve Jeffers, representing George K. Baum, discussed the bond details, and
the rationale of splitting into two bond issues -general obligation refunding bonds and sales
tax revenue refunding bonds. After discussion concerning repo amounts, ratings, and call
periods, Merv Lapin noted these ordinances were not final until after second reading. There
was discussion concerning potential consequences should these ordinances not pass on second
1
reading. Merv then moved to approve Ordinance No. 24, Series of 1992, on first reading,
with a second from Rob Levine. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0.
Item No. 4 was Ordinance No. 25, Series of 1992, first reading, an ordinance authorizing the
issuance of Town of Vail, Colorado Sales Tax Revenue Refunding and Improvement Bonds,
Series 1992B; providing the form, terms and conditions of the Bonds, the manner and terms
of issuance, the manner of execution, the method of payment and the security therefore;
pledging sales tax and parking revenues of the Town for the payment of the bonds; providing
certain covenants and other details and making other provisions concerning the Bonds and
the sales tax and parking revenues; ratifying action previously taken and appertaining
thereto; and repealing all ordinances in conflict herewith. Mayor Osterfoss read the title in
full. Noting the purpose and particulars of this ordinance had been discussed in conjunction
with Ordinance No. 24, Series of 1992, Merv Lapin moved to approve Ordinance No. 25,
Series of 1992, on first reading, with a second from Rob Levine. A vote was taken and the
motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Second readings of Ordinance No. 24 and Ordinance No.
25, Series of 1992, were scheduled for a Vail Town Council Special Evening Meeting on
Tuesday, September 29, 1992.
Item No. 5 was Ordinance No. 26, Series of 1992, first reading, an ordinance repealing
Section 11 of Ordinance No. 14, Series of 1987, Subsection 9 concerning the Vail Village Inn
Special Development District regarding a use restriction on a dwelling unit, and setting forth
details in regard thereto. The applicant was BSC of Vail, Colorado, L.P./Frank Cicero.
Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full. Mike Mollica explained the applicant's request was
for a major amendment to Special Development District (SDD) No. 6 (Vail Village Inn) in
order to remove a rental restriction upon Unit No. 30 of the Vail Village Inn Plaza
Condominiums. Mike briefly outlined information covered in the CDD's memo dated August
24, 1992, regarding the background and history of the planning process which occurred in
1989, allowing Unit No. 30 to be converted from commercial use to residential use. He noted
the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC), at their August 24, 1992, public
hearing, had unanimously voted (7-0) to recommend denial of this applicant's request. Ken
Wilson, Branch Broker for Vail Associates Real Estate, representing the applicant,
distributed a letter dated September 15, 1992, which questioned whether or not Unit No. 30
should have ever been placed under the Condominium Conversion ordinance, and whether
or not the ordinance had been consistently applied over time. At this point, Bob Buckley
stepped down from discussion of this agenda item due to a potential conflict of interest. A
lengthy exchange followed with Mr. Wilson and applicant, Frank Cicero, alternately voicing
opinions about lack of consistency in enforcement of the Condominium Conversion ordinance,
referring to the Gateway and Vail Village Inn as adjacent properties without the rental
restrictions, and questioning the legality of the ordinance. Council and staff repeatedly
emphasized each SDD stood on its own merit, and each SDD had different restrictions and
development standards. Tom Steinberg and Rob Levine pointed out concessions other SDDs
had made as part of the creation of their SDDs. When asked if he would consider putting
in employee housing units as part of his request, Mr. Cicero said he would, but had not
previously contemplated that idea. Rob suggested Mr. Cicero return to Council with a
comprehensive plan for further discussion before asking for a major SDD amendment again.
After discussion about the option of reopening negotiation discussions with the PEC, Mr.
Cicero asked Ordinance No. 26, Series of 1992, be tabled so he could explore alternate
proposals. At this point, Jim Gibson moved to deny Ordinance No. 26, Series of 1992, on first
reading, with a second from Tom Steinberg. Before a vote was taken, Mayor Osterfoss noted
at the time the rental restrictions were placed on Mr. Cicero's unit, she was on the PEC and
she felt the current request did not meet criteria B and D of the nine SDD criteria. Mr.
Cicero again asked for a motion to table the ordinance as he did not want to start the process
for this amendment request f~,,... scratch. Jim Gibson withdrew his motion to deny
Ordinance No. 26, Series of 1992, and Tom Steinberg withdrew his second of that motion.
Jim Gibson then moved to deny tabling or postponing of Ordinance No. 26, Series of 1992,
with a second from Tom Steinberg. A vote was taken and that motion passed, 4-2, Rob
Levine and Merv Lapin opposed. Mike Mollica indicated an additional $1,000 application
fee would be required of Mr. Cicero to reapply for an SDD amendment, and there would be
a time delay of approximately five weeks. Jim Gibson moved to deny Ordinance No. 26,
Series of 1992, on first reading, as it did not conform with SDD criteria and the Vail Village
Master Plan. Tom Steinberg seconded this motion. A vote was taken, and the motion to
deny Ordinance No. 26, Series of 1992, on first reading passed, 6-0-1, Bob Buckley abstaining.
Bob Buckley then rejoined Council.
2
Item No. 6 was review of proposed Town of Vail contract with Alpine International, Inc. to
design the master plan for the Town of Vail cemetery and provide the accompanying
management report. Andy Knudtsen noted the proposed contract was before Council for
approval because it involved a fee greater than $50,000. He briefly reviewed a Community
Development Department (CDD) memo to Council and Ron Phillips dated May 12, 1992,
which included information about progress on the cemetery project. He also reviewed the
details of the RFP process and tasks, hours, and estimated fees for the project. The budget
figure arrived at was $60,000, with a contingency of $5,400 to cover possible cost overruns.
Kristan Pritz advised the budget would come from salary savings in CDD's budget. Jim
Gibson pointed out the cemetery area was originally intended to be open space, and, although
Sherry Dorward, Vice President of Alpine International, Inc., advised no definitive guidelines
had yet been set, she indicated the cemetery was being planned to be natural and
unobtrusive. There was brief discussion regarding a geologic study planned for the cemetery
site. Tom Steinberg suggested the cemetery management be consolidated with the Minturn
Cemetery District, and the private cemeteries at Intermountain and Nottingham. It was
noted that Larry Sloane, the project management consultant, would be at the October 6,
1992, Council work session, and Andy asked Council to provide direction to Mr. Sloane at
that meeting. Jim Gibson then moved to apr~~.ae the Town of VaiUContractor Agreement
with Alpine International, Inc. to design the master plan for the TOV cemetery, with a second
from Bob Buckley. Before a vote was taken, Kristan emphasized this agreement was for
$60,000 plus the $5,400 contingency. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously,
7-0.
Item No. 7 was an appeal of the Design Review Board (DRB) decision to approve landscape
changes for the Byrne Residence, Lot 1, Block 7, Vail Village 1st Filing/1 Forest Rd. The
applicant was Ron Byrne. Shelly Mello briefly explained Council had expressed concern with
existing site development encroachments onto U.S. Forest Service land. Jay Peterson
discussed the history of developments on the Byrne property, including discussions with Vail
Associates, Inc. regarding development of a plan to divert water around the property. Joe
Macy, of Vail Associates, Inc. (VA), recalled discussion of development of this lot with staff
and Ned Gwathmey, the architect for the project at the time, had taken place approximately
two years ago. The plan resulted in the installation of a water diversion system which
encroached on Forest Service property. Jay acknowledged no approval had been received
from the Forest Service before the water diversion plan was implemented. Tim Grantham,
Lands Forester with the Forest Service in Minturn, noted there had been a site visit to the
Byrne property, and most of what the Forest Service had asked to be done at that property
to correct the encroachment situation had been done. Additionally, Mr. Grantham said the
Forest Service recognized there was a water drainage problem in that area, and had agreed
to a Special Use Permit arrangement with Mr. Byrne under the condition the Forest Service
was not liable for any damage due to the change in the drainage pattern caused by Mr.
Byrne's water diversion system. There was ter~n~cal discussion about the water flow and
run-off, and further plans for re-routing the water. At this point, Larry Eskwith indicated
this agenda item concerned an appeal of a DRB approval of landscape changes, not the water
drainage issue. Larry said two separate motions would be required. Rob Levine then moved
to uphold the DRB decision to approve the landscape changes, with a second from Jim
Gibson. A vote was taken and that motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Larry suggested a
second motion regarding a written agreement between the Forest Service, Ron Byrne, and
TOV about Mr. Byrne's water diversion structures and other encroachments be required prior
to the issuance of the final Certificate of Occupancy (C.O.) After additional technical
discussion about the underground diversion pipe installed on Forest Service land by Mr.
Byrne, ground water movement tendencies, catch basins, and the culverts VA had the right
to open or close, Tom Steinberg suggested the Forest Service have their hydrologic engineer
look at the whole situation on that slope. Tom also expressed offense at Mr. Byrne's having
put in structures on Forest Service land without permission, and without having advised
TOV, thereby placing TOV at liability for what damage might occur. Tom Steinberg then
moved that staff be instructed not to issue a permanent C.O. until such time as satisfactory
results were received on a hydrologic study by a hydrologic engineer as to the effects and
safety of the engineering structures that had been built by Mr. Byrne, and until (1) a plan
for revegetation of the cut slope and other areas of impact was received, (2) satisfactory
results of a mechanical engineering study done during the next maximum run-off in the area
was received, and (3) a written agreement with the Forest Service was worked out about Mr.
Byrne's water diversion system. Jim Gibson seconded that motion. Larry suggested the
Uniform Building Code be checked to ascertain if the studies requested in this motion were
appropriate requirements. Jay stated the applicant would give TOV a letter holding TOV
3
f
harmless. A vote on that motion failed, l-6, all Council opposed except Tom Steinberg. Rob
Levine then moved to direct staff not to issue a permanent C.O. until such time as staff had
determined whether or not additional studies were necessary and appropriate, and there was
evidence of an agreement between the Forest Service and the property owner regarding the
encroachments on Forest Service property. Merv Lapin seconded this motion. A vote was
taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Staff was directed to return to Council
regarding the water diversion issue on this property.
Item Nos. 8, 9, and 10 were Information Update, Council Reports, and Other. The following
issues were raised:
* Jim Gibson and Jim Shearer had visited the Public Works Department (PW) on September
15, 1992. Jim Gibson noted Larry Grafel and Pete Burnett had asked to be included in
original plan reviews of DRB and PEC decisions affecting snow plowing and snow storage.
Jim Gibson noted PW requested assistance with development of a PW PR campaign.
* Merv Lapin asked Kristan Pritz for a list of restricted rental properties.
* Tom Steinberg advised Colorado Public Radio had installed some of their translator
equipment, and noted the FCC had turned down their request fora $40,000 federal grant.
He anticipated Colorado Public Radio would be making a contribution request to TOV.
* Merv Lapin inquired about paved parking at the soccer field. Joe Macy stated that area
was VA property, and thought there was an agreement between TOV and VA regarding the
usage of that lot. Staff was directed to research existing arrangements.
* Merv Lapin asked what became of the flag pole planned to be erected outside VRA offices
in honor of Paul Johnston.
* Jim Shearer felt appouated TOV board member terms should be limited to 8 consecutive
years. Larry Eskwith was directed to draft an ordinance for Council review.
Before adjournment, Larry Grafel spoke briefly about results of bids received for development
of the Ski Museum Park. He noted the two bids received exceeded estimated costs by 70 to
100°10, and were rejected. He said bids for the project would be resolicited in January, 1993.
There being no further business, a motion to adjourn the meeting was made and passed
unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Margaret A. Osterfoss, Mayor
A~1~`1'r:ST:
Martha S. Raecker, Town Clerk
Minutes taken by Dorianne S. Deto
C:UAINSEP15.92
4
J
MINUTES
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL SPECIAL EVENING MEETING
SEPTEMBER 29, 1992
?:30 P.M.
A special meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, September 19,1992, in the
Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building. Mayor Osterfoss, Jim Shearer, and Bob
Buckley were not present as the meeting was called to order at 7:30 P.M. by Merv Lapin.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Peggy Osterfoss, Mayor
Merv Lapin, Mayor Pro-Tem
Jim Gibson
Jim Shearer
Tom Steinberg
Rob Levine
Bob Buckley
TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Ron Phillips, Town Manager
Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney
Pam Brandmeyer, Assistant to the Town Manager
Martha Raecker, T„ ~ u Clerk
The first item on the agenda was Citizen Participation of which there was none.
Second on the agenda was Ordinance No. 24, Series of 1992, an emergency ordinance
authorizing the issuance of the Town of Vail, Colorado, General Obligation Refunding Bonds,
Series 1992A for the purpose of refunding a portion of the Town's outstanding General
Obligation Refunding Bonds, Series 1985; prescribing the form of said bonds; providing for
the levy of general ad valorem taxes to pay the principal of and the interest on the Bonds;
providing other covenants and details in connection therewith; and repealing all ordinances
in conflict therewith; and declaring an emergency. Merv Lapin read the title in full. Mayor
Osterfoss, Jim Shearer, and Bob Buckley arrived at this time. Steve Barwick briefly
explained the rationale behind this ordinance, and then introduced Larry Aubrecht,
representing Hanifen Imhoff. Mr. Aubrecht discussed marketing of the bonds, and
distributed documents showing comparisons of Colorado Municipal Issues for the week ending
September 25, 1992, and the Telerate matrixes for 9/23/92 - 9/25/92. He stated the bonds in
this ordinance and in Ordinance No. 25, Series of 1992, had been marketed on Thursday,
September 24, 1992, based on their observations of the market during that week. Input on
marketing of the bonds was also given by Steve Jeffers, representing George K. Baum, and
Jack Wolfe, representing Kemper Securities. After discussion about different strategies for
bond marketing, Jim Gibson moved for approval of Ordinance No. 24, Series of 1992, as an
emergency ordinance. Rob Levine seconded that motion. Before a vote was taken, Randy
Garman suggested there was a need for TOV to approach these issues differently in the
future. Mr. Garman commented on bond years, timing, repricing, concessions, coupon yields,
sinl~ng funds, and serial and long term bonds. Mayor Osterfoss commented that Colorado
bonds were more attractive to Colorado buyers due to double tax exempt status. At this
point, Rob Levine called the question, but two-thirds Council consensus to do so was not
achieved. Tom Steinberg felt there was a need for guidelines for Council to follow during any
future marketing of bonds. Jim Gibson then called the question again. A vote was taken and
the motion passed unanimously, 7-0.
Item No. 3 was Ordinance No. 25, Series of 1992, an emergency ordinance authorizing the
issuance of Town of Vail, Colorado Sales Tax Revenue Refunding and Improvement Bonds,
Series 1992B; providing the form, terms and conditions of the Bonds, the manner and terms
of issuance, the manner of execution, the method of payment and the security therefore;
pledging sales tax and parking revenues of the Town for the payment of the bonds; providing
certain covenants and other details and making other provisions concerning the Bonds and
the sales tax and parking revenues; ratifying action previously taken and appertaining
thereto; and repealing all ordinances in conflict herewith; and declaring an emergency.
Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full. There was Council consensus for action on Tom
Steinberg's request that staff develop future guidelines for Council to follow during any future
marketing of bonds. After brief discussion, Merv Lapin moved to approve Ordinance No. 25,
Series of 1992, as an emergency ordinance. Tom Steinberg seconded the motion. A vote was
1
and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0.
There being no further business, a motion to adjourn the meeting was made and passed
unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Margaret A. Osterfoss, Mayor
ATTEST:
Martha S. Raecker, Town Clerk
Minutes taken by Dorianne S. Deto
C:\MINSEP29.92
2
ORDINANCE NO. 10
SERIES 1992
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 3.48.040 AND 3.48.090
OF THE VAIL MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE TOWN OF VAIL
TO PROVIDE THAT THE REAL ESTATE TRANSFER TAX MAY BE USED FOR
THE ACGIUISITION, IMPROVEMENT, AND MAINTENANCE OF REAL PROPERTY
WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE TOWN OR WITHIN A MILE OF THE TOWN BOUNDARIES;
PROVIDING MORE SPECIFICITY AS TO WHAT THE FUNDS RECEIVED BY THE TOWN
PURSUANT TO THE REAL ESTATE TRANSFER TAX CAN BE USED FOR;
AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO.
WHEREAS, the Town Council wishes to amend the land transfer tax to provide that land
transfer tax funds can be utilized for the acquisition and 'improvement of real property not only
within the Town, but also within one mile of the Town boundaries; and
WHEREAS, the Town Council also wishes to provide more specific guidelines for the use
of the land transfer tax.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the Town Council of the Town of Vail, Colorado:
1. Section 3.48.040(6) of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail is hereby amended
to read as follows:
Section 3.48.040!6)
Where the consideration shall exceed $500.00 (five hundred dollars), the land transfer tax
payable shall be 1 % (one percent) of the consideration, the proceeds of which tax shall be
earmarked for the purposes set forth in Section 3.48.090(A) of this Chapter. No increase in the
1 % (one percent} tax established by this paragraph shall be levied after the passage of the
effective date of this paragraph, until such tax rate increase shall have been approved by a
majority of the registered electors voting at a regular or special election.
2. Section 3.48.090(A) of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail is hereby amended
to read as follows:
Section 3.48.0901A)
All funds received by the Town pursuant to this chapter shall be deposited in the land
transfer tax fund, which fund is hereby created. The fund shall be subject to appropriation for
only the following purposes within the Town of Vail or within one mile of the boundaries of the
1
Town of Vail:
a) Acquiring, improving, maintaining, and repairing real property, for parks, recreation,
open space and similar purposes;
b) The construction, maintenance, and repair of buildings which are incidental to park,
recreation, and open space land;
c) Landscaping parks, open space, and public rights-of-way.
d) The construction, maintenance, and repair. of recreation paths set forth in the Town
of Vail Recreation Trails plan as it may amended by the Town Council from time to time.
e) Paying incidental costs and principle of and interest on any funds borrowed for the
purposes set forth in this paragraph.
3. If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for
any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions
of this ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance, and
each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any
one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid.
4. The Town Council hereby finds, determines, and declares that this ordinance is
necessary and proper for the health, safety, and welfare of the Town of Vail and the inhabitants
thereof.
5. The repeal or the repeal and reenactment of any provision of the Municipal Code
of the Town of Vail as provided in this ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any
duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution
commenced, nor any other action or proceedings as commenced under or by virtue of the
provision repealed or repealed and reenacted. The repeal of any provision hereby shall not
revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated
herein.
6. All bylaws, orders, resolutions, and ordinances, or parts thereof, inconsistent
herewith are repealed to the extent only of such inconsistency. This repealer shall not be
construed to revise any bylaw, order, resolution, or ordinance, or part thereof, theretofore
2
repealed.
INTRODUCED, READ, APPROVED, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL ON
FIRST READING this 6th day of October, 1992, and a public hearing shall be held on this
Ordinance on the day of , 1992, at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers
of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado.
Margaret A. Osterfoss, Mayor
ATTEST:
Martha S. Raecker, Town Clerk
READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED
this day of , 1992.
Margaret A. Ostertoss, Mayor
ATTEST:
Martha S. Raecker, Town Clerk
C:10RD92.10
3
r
ORDINANCE NO. 28
SERIES 1992
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 5.04.140 -TERMINATION,
OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE TOWN OF VAIL,
EXTENDING INDEFINITELY CHAPTER 5.04 -
ANNUAL BUSINESS LICENSE FOR MARKETING.
WHEREAS, in 1988 the Town passed Chapter 5.04 establishing an annual business
license; and
WHEREAS, Section 5.04.140 provided that Chapter 5.04 shall terminate and cease to be
effective on December 31, 1992, unless extended by the Town Council on or before said date by
ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the Town Council now wishes in accordance with Section 5.04.140 to extend
Chapter 5.04 -Annual Business License under the terms and conditions set forth herein.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the Town Council of the Town of Vail, Colorado:
1) Section 5.04.140 -Termination, of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail is hereby
amended to read as follows:
Section 5.04.140 -Termination
The Town Council, having evaluated the marketing program and this Chapter, hereby
extends this Chapter indefinitely from the effective date of this ordinance.
At a regular or special Town Council meeting or Town Council work session, during the
month of August, 1996, the marketing board appointed by the Town Council shall report to the
Town Council members on the Marketing Board on the effectiveness of the marketing and
promotional program financed by funds raised pursuant to this Chapter, and shall make
recommendations to the Council in regard thereto. Subsequent to this report, the Town Council
shall evaluate the program and this Chapter.
2) If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for
any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions
of this ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance, and
each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any
one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid.
3) The Town Council hereby finds, determines, and declares that this ordinance is
necessary and proper for the health, safety, and welfare of the Town of Vail and the inhabitants
thereof.
1
4) The repeal or the repeal and reenactment of any provision of the Municipal Code
of the Town of Vail as provided in this ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any
duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution
commenced, nor any other action or proceedings as commenced under or by virtue of the
provision repealed or repealed and reenacted. The repeal of any provision hereby shall not
revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated
herein.
5) All bylaws, orders, resolutions, and ordinances, or parts thereof, inconsistent
herewith are repealed to the extent only of such inconsistency. This repealer shall not be
construed to revise any bylaw, order, resolution, or ordinance, or part thereof, theretofore
repealed.
INTRODUCED, READ, APPROVED, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED ONCE tN FULL ON
FIRST READING this 6th day of October, 1992, and a public hearing shall be held on this
Ordinance on the day of , 1992, at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Vail
Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado.
Margaret A. Osterfoss, Mayor
ATTEST:
Martha S. Raecker, Town Clerk
READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED
this day of , 1992.
Margaret A. Ostertoss, Mayor
ATTEST:
Martha S. Raecker, Town Clerk
C:\ORD92.28
2
RESOLUTION NO. 16
SERIES 1992
A RESOLUTION DECLARING VAIL TOWN COUNCIL'S
OPPOSITION TO AMENDMENT 1,
WHICH WILL APPEAR ON THE NOVEMBER 3, 1992, GENERAL ELECTION BALLOT.
WHEREAS, a proposed constitutional amendment has been placed on the November 3,
1992, general election ballot as Amendment No. 1, which would unreasonably limit state and local
government revenues, spending, and services; require numerous expensive elections on state
and local finance issues; and impose additional costly requirements, thereby diverting public
revenues from critical public services; and
WHEREAS, because the amendment addresses spending as well as revenues, it is much
more confusing, complicated, and onerous than any prior local government limitation proposed
to the Colorado electorate; and
WHEREAS, the amendment will have immediate and long term adverse effects on the
Town's operations and consequently on its ability to continue to provide services to its citizens;
and
WHEREAS, the Town's current shares of state collected, locally shared revenues in the
form of Highway User's Tax ($137,168), cigarette tax ($150,000), and lottery funds ($12,000) are
also at risk due to the amendment's restrictions on state revenue and spending; and
WHEREAS, the combination of revenue, spending, and other restrictions will impair the
community's ability to invest in economic development, job creation and infrastructure and to gain
the resulting community benefits; and
WHEREAS, even though recreational and other activities are financed primarily be fees
paid by users, the amendment will make it difficult to maintain and improve existing services or
to expand or add new services; and
WHEREAS, the amendment violates the principles of representative government in that
decisions regarding governmental programs and policies which related to the expenditure of
public funds will often require voter approval rather than be determined by members of the Town
Council who have been duly chosen by the citizens of the Town of Vail to make such decisions;
and
WHEREAS, the amendment undermines the principles of local control and home rule by
subjecting day-to-day governmental decisions to arbitrary statewide limits without consideration
for local needs and conditions of the Town and its residents; and
1
WHEREAS, the amendment imposes a constitutional straightjacket on every local
government in Colorado without regard for the complexity of local government structures and
restrictions and provides no options for citizens of a local government to adopt alternative local
limits consistent with local needs; and
WHEREAS local governments are already accountable to their constituents through
regular elections, initiative, referendum and recall procedures, and a variety of financial controls;
and
WHEREAS, if a local government experiences a revenue and spending shortfall in any
year, its revenue and spending limit and its ability to provide services are permanently reduced
even though revenues recover; and
WHEREAS, because of the cyclical nature of government revenues and spending and the
delays inherent in the amendment's revenue and spending limitation, local governments will be
unable to respond to economic conditions in a timely manner; and
WHEREAS, the effect of the amendment's requirement of voter approval of a wide variety
of finance and service issues at elections held a maximum of two times in each two year cycle
will cause a myriad of finance issues to be placed on the ballot at the same time, prevent timing
of bond elections to take advantage of favorable market conditions, substantially restrict citizen
initiative rights, and preclude timely respond to emergency conditions which are not defined as
emergencies in the amendment, and
WHEREAS, the amendment establishes costly, cumbersome, and confusing election
procedures and requirements, with legal jeopardy to the citizens if required pro and con
statements, fiscal estimates or notices are later determined by the courts to be mistaken or
inadequate; and
WHEREAS, the amendment requires additional elections to spend the proceeds of taxes
approved by the voters at previous elections; and
WHEREAS, the Town and its citizens will be forced to absorb additional election, finance,
administration, and legal costs in order to comply with the amendment's requirements; and
WHEREAS, the amendment requires local governments to divert funds from needed public
services to create special reserves available only for extremely limited purposes; and
WHEREAS, passage of the amendment will require extensive and costly litigation in order
for citizens and government officials to be confident about its meaning and to comply with its
terms; and
2
A '
WHEREAS, if a local government makes a mistake in interpreting and complying with the
amendment, the local government and its citizens are subject to paying a 10% penalty for up to
four years, plus refunding the excess and paying the costs and attorney's fees of the plaintiffs and
of the local government.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Town Council of the Town of Vail, Colorado
that:
SECTION 1.
-Amendment 1 is hereby opposed because it would be severely detrimental to the Town
of Vail and its citizens.
SECTION 2.
Citizens are encourage to become fully informed about the amendment and its effects on
them, their community, and their state before voting on November 3.
SECTION 3.
The citizens of the Town of Vail are encourage to vote no on Amendment No. 1.
SECTION 4.
This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its passage.
INTRODUCED, READ, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this _ day of , 1992.
Margaret A. Osterfoss, Mayor
ATTEST:
Martha S. Raecker, Town Clerk
C:~RESOLU92.16
3
R i~
Prepared by CML
September 22, 1992
Talking Points On Amendment 1 For Elected Officials
Amendment 1 is often incorrectly described as conditions permanently reduces the spending base on
simply requiring voter approval of new taxes. It which future spending is calculated. For example, a
goes far beyond that. one year slump in local revenues of 10 percent
Amendment 1 severely limits state and local occurring in a 4 percent inflation/growth period
government spending and services; requires would permanently reduce authorized local spending
continuous, expensive elections on state and local in future years by about 14 percent annually,
finance issues; and imposes additional costly
requirements which will divert public revenues from Economic development will be impaired.
important public services. The measure's revenue and expenditure growth
allowance, which for local governments other than
Colorado's below average state/local taxes aren't schools is based on increased property valuation, will
the problem federal taxes and spending are the prevent needed and timely spending and limit the
problem. Amendment 1 strikes the wrong target. ability of government to benefit from the additional
Even though federal taxes constitute about 70 sales tax and other revenues needed to service
percent of all taxes paid by Coloradans, Amendment growth. The ability to rely upon special improvement
1 will have no effect on federal taxes and spending, districts, tax increment financing, and other
In contrast, the Amendment imposes severe techniques for financing public improvements will
restrictions on state and local governments which levy likely be impaired because of the application of
only about 30 percent of all taxes paid by Coloradans. various tax, spending, and election requirements.
Colorado's statellocal tax burden is not excessive The limits may also hamper up-front developer
in fact, it is below average, ranking 34th among the incentives to provide for the cost of needed
50 states in state-local tax collections per $1,000 of infrastructure improvements.
personal income.. Passing Amendment 1 would
severely injure Coloradans without having any impact The emergency provisions are impractical and
on federal taxes and spending, inadequate.
While provisions are included to declare an
State and local government s~.. ~:ces will be emergency and raise revenues to pay for them, the
reduced. provisions are narrow, unworkable for some local
The combination of tax and spending limits, governments, and will adversely impact ongoing
coupled with the cyclical nature of the economy and services. The Amendment's definition of emergency
government finances, will reduce government's ability is quite narrow, and the ability to raise emergency
to fund current as well as new services unless voters revenue is limited by a prohibition on using the
continuously approve tax and spending levels above property tax the principal or exclusive tax for many
those permitted by the Amendment. For example, local governments.
, increases in sales and use taxes from robust local
economic activity which exceed the Denver-Boulder Routine growth of user-supported services will be
Consumer Price Index and the local property hampered.
valuation growth formula can't be spent, or placed in The exemption of enterprises is unclear. It may not
reserves for future spending, even though the exempt traditional municipal enterprise operations
economic activity generates the revenue and increases such as water, sewer, gas, electric, and airport
service demands. In contrast, a temporary, even one services. If not exempted by court interpretation,
year, reduction in spending due to economic or other municipal utility services to customers could be
1
severely impacted because the demand for such Local control, home rule, and representative
services and the user fees paid for the services may democracy will be undermined.
fluctuate widely from yeaz to year based upon Implicit in the measure's statewide, arbitrary, and
weather, the economy and other factors. However, multiple restrictions is the loss of local control and
the Amendment's spending limit is not responsive to the role of elected officials in the policy-making
such fluctuations. Similaz problems arise for other process. The Amendment's restrictions apply to
user fee services, such as golf, swimming, and every local government, regardless of location, size,
recreational programs, where the service level and economic conditions or desires of local residents.
user fee revenues may fluctuate from yeaz to yeaz The Denver-Boulder Consumer Price Index becomes
based upon citizen demands. the basis for increased spending throughout the state
that is written in the measure. The Amendment fails
Elections, elections, and more elections will be to recognize the existing protections of initiative,
required. referendum, recall, and the normal election process
Voting on taxes and tax rate increases is already the which provide citizens with ample safeguards without
norm in Colorado. Amendment 1 goes way beyond requiring an election on every finance issue.
a responsible approach to voting on taxes. The
number and diversity of finance issues required to be Additional government costs will be incurred.
decided at elections forces citizen to become Amendment 1 will actually increase some
micro-managers of their various local governments. governmental costs, diverting public revenues from
Elections under the Amendment will be a nightmaze needed public services to pay for costs of compliance
with voters required to cast ballots on a multitude of with the Amendment. For example, frequent and
finance questions on the same day. Election officials costly elections aze required. Costs for capital
will be required, at the publics' expense, to prepaze improvement bonds will likely increase since interest
and mail ballot information and arguments submitted rates are tied to the credit quality of the government
for and against each measure. This will apparently and local governments will lose flexibility to call
even require election officials to summarize and elections at times which coincide with favorable
distribute specious or unsupported pro and con interest and market conditions. Additional auditing,
arguments which individuals submit for accounting and legal costs will be incurred.
dissemination.
Ambiguous and complicated provisions will require
Special tax preferences will be granted. extensive litigation.
Seldom recognized provisions of this Amendment The measure's ambiguous, complicated, and
will afford tax breaks to selected taxpayers. These confusing features make it impossible to determine
provisions interject questionable tax policies and how the courts will construe its provisions. Litigation
preferences into the Colorado Constitution. For costs will escalate at taxpayer expense as the
example, new or increased real estate transfer taxes, mysteries of the Amendment are litigated.
even with a local vote, aze strictly prohibited.
Graduated state income taxes aze prohibited, The combination of tax, revenue and spending
preventing the General Assembly from ever imposing will reduce the relative level of funding and
progressive tax rates based upon one's ability to pay. public services currently available.
Presumptions in favor of the accuracy of assessor The Amendment will ratchet down current levels of
property valuations are removed, so those taxpayers taxes and services. The Amendment does not
who can afford assessment appeals will have the accommodate growth and it discourages economic .
opportunity to reduce their taxes at the expense of development. Voters should read the fine print
other taxpayers. before casting their votes on this complex and far
reaching Amendment to Colorado's Constitution.
* Remember to cite examples of municipal impact from your own city or town.
2
Amendment 1
. Amendment 1 will ratchet down
overnment services and more
g
The tax and spending limitation proposal has numerous
consequences for municipal governments. Here, CML
translates Amendment 1 into understandable te~u~s.
he most complex and far- read the text and summary careful- stitute w~r~ ~ximately 70 percent of all
reaching amendment on ly, they are unlikely to gain a clear taxes paid by Coloradans, the Amend-
the November ballot is understanding of the Amendment's ment has absolutely no effect on
Amendment 1, refer.. ~a to as the features and effects. In fact, it won't federal taxes and spending. In con-
"Bruce Amendment" for its be understood with certainty until trast, the Amendment imposes
Colorado Springs author Douglas the courts have ruled on a variety of severe restrictions on state and local
BruceandalsoreferredtoasTABOR questions which can only be governmentswhichlevyonlyabout
III (Taxpayer's Bill of Rights). It is .resolved through litigation. This ar- 30 percent of the taxes paid by
opposed by the League because of title identifies numerous practical Coloradans.
its severe, .detrimental effects on features and effects of the various ? Moreover, Colorado's ratio of
muniapalities and their citizens. provisions but is not intended as a state and local taxes to inwme has
In general, the proposed con- definitive legal int~,.r.~tation. been equal to or below the average
stitutional Amendment would limit Features and effects for all states for every year since
state and local government taxes 1970. Although Colorado is 6th
and spending; require elections on of Amendment 1 highest in local government tax ml-
routinestate and local finance prat- Colorado's below-average :,fate lections per $1,000 of personal in-
tices (in addition to elections which and local taxes are nat th4 problem rnme, state government placed 48th
already are held on tax rate in- Amendment 1 str±l~::s the wrong among the 50 states. Combined
creases); and impose numerous ac- target. Even thota~°?
L tt ~erai taxes con- state-local tax collections per $1,000
counting, budgeting, and ad- v ~ ..w_
ministrative procedures applicable The CO~t~~'ad0 Munici al Lea lle
to state and .local governments. It p g
would, of course, have no effect on opposes Amendment 1 because:
federal taxes and spending.
TABOR III (Amendment 1) is ? Colorado's below-average state/local taxes are not the problem
more wnfusing and onerous than ? State and local government services will be reduced
prior constitutional amendments ? Economic development will be impaired
proposed by Bruce because it con- ? Emergency provisions are impractical and inadequate
tams a local government spending ? Routine growth ofuser-supported services will be hampered
• limit, in addition to tax and revenue ? Elections; elections, and more elections will be required
limits included in prior amend- ? Election compliance will become a bureaucratic nightmare
ments. Its text and a detailed sum- ? Special tax pref~.~.~ces will be granted
mary have been included inthis ma- ? Local control, home rule, and representative democracy will be
gazine (pages 24-27). However, even undermined
if public officials or John Q. Citizen ? Additional government units will be formed
? Additional government costs will be incurred
This article was prepared by the ? Ambiguous and complicated provisions will require extensive
Colorado Municipal League staff. litigation at taxpayer expense
1
Tm~ ~
of personal income is well below the motions-y0tjn
national average; Colorado ranks $ ~
34th among the 50 states. In r
9uae~
arrtern ro roe Cobra Posr~pN
Colorado, local governments Ioc~1 9°vem aPpro„~ for Ce do C°rtsprotion r
deliver a higher percentage of to restrl~
pry reVenue~lna
a re and ro `~.J
public services and raise a higher and 1' ro limb the income, and
s ~ sN'~RT
percentage of state-local tax addlGo~1 ~~~e a
e~ofe ?~nc~
~ in S~
er
revenues than in most other states. std ro and ~ allow
Colorado's attitude has always been t° re9is Bred
ote~ ~ ma
I
ng
o nfo~ation~
that government decisions should
be made and services provided on ®pt'osE
the local level, closest to the people. by .a vote of
i Since 1975, Colorado's total residents, do not require an elec-
state-local tax burden has remained tion to raise the sales tax rate.) State and local •
at approximately 10 percent of Voters are afforded broad initiative, government services will be
statewide personal inrnme. referendum, and recall rights. These reduced
Coloradans have control of the citizen rights exist with respect to The combination of tax and
major decisions of state and local the state and municipalities, but not spending limits, coupled with the
government. Typically major tax with respect to the federal govern- cyclical nature of the economy and
hikes already go to the voters for ment. Voters have and can continue government finances, will reduce
approval. For example, between to assert control when warranted government's ability to fund cur-
January 1988 and July 1992, 92 per- over state and local taxes without rent as well as new services unless
cent of local sales tax rate increases the need to resort to extreme, micro- voters continuously approve tax
were approved by local votes. managed government called for by and spending levels above those
(Some home-rule charters, adopted Amendment 1. permitted by the Amendment.
Colorado's Taxes Are Not High
t.OWEST AVERAGE HIGHEST
General Revenue
Property Taxes
Individual Income Taxes
Corporate Taxes - •
• General Sales Taxes
Selective Sales Taxes
Motor Fuels Taxes
User Charges
Federal Aid
50 45 40 35 30 25 ~ 20 15 10 5 1
Colorado's Rank Order Among 50 States for Selected State/Local Revenue Items'
FY 1989 revenues as a percent of personal income
Source: Si nificant Features of Fiscal. Federalism, 1991 Edition, Volume II, Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental
Relations, Washington, DC, October 1991, pp. 246-251.
2
This will occur because: ary yr:...ding allowance for voter- tion, causing at a minimum a loss of
? Increases in sales and use tax approved taxes. Voter-approved several months' revenues for
~..~pts and other revenues in- revenue increases by definition do tourism promotion.
creased t~,..,omic activity which ex- not become part of the spending ? State grants to local govern-
oeed the Denver-Boulder Consumer base. The courts could rule that in- ments may not be spent without
Price Index and the local pr„r~.;y creased tax revenues from inflation voter arr..,val where spending the
valuation growth formula cannot be and economic growth in subsequent grant would cause total local spend-
~r~...t, or placed in reserves for future years after voters had approved a ing to exceed the spending limit.
yr~..ding, even though the ~~.,..omic rate hike may not be spent without This would particularly affect
activitygeneratesthe n:venueand in- additional voter approval. smaller local governments when,
creases demands for services. ? Any tax increase apparently for example, a state grant or loan is
i A temporary reduction in requires prior voter arr,.,val-no needed to upgrade a water or sewer
~r t..ding, for even one year, due to matter how small and even if tax system.
economic or other conditions per- rates need to be adjusted to offset ? Some grants and assistance to
. manently reduces the spending base revenue losses from a reduced tax needy communities will be reduced
onwhichfuturespendingauthorityis base. or eliminated as state government
calculated. The level of ~r~..ding and ? Any mill levy increase ap- struggles to comply with the
public services which existed before parently requires voter approval- Amendment's tax and spending
the downturn cannot be resumed even if used solely to offset an as- limits.
without a subsequent election. For ex- sensed valuation decline. It is erroneous for proponent to
ample, assuming an annual infla- ? Any tax which is scheduled to su~~,t that Amendment 1 merely
tion/growth rate of 4%, if a local gov- sunset cannot be continued without requires voter arr.., gal for increased
ernment's revenue dropped fora voter approval. For example, the taxes. The Amendment's revenue
single year by only 2%, the spending 2/lOths of one percent statewide and spending limitations will com-
authority ofthat government for each tourism sales tax which finances bine to reduce current levels of public
subsequent year would be. per- tourist promotion programs ~ru,ding and resulting services un-
manently reduced by arr..,..:mately throughout Colorado expires June less voters continuously vote tomain-
6%. If revenues dropped for a single 30,1993. If the Amendment passes, fain or exceed these levels.
year by 10%, the spending authority it can be extended only if voters at a Economic develo went
for that government would beper- statewide election approve its con- p
manently ratcheted down by ap- tinuation. The earliest voters could will be impaired
proximately 14%! approve its continuation would be Moderate, sustained economic
? There may not be aninflation- at the November 1993 general elec- development improves job oppor-
tunities, public and private services,
Since 1975 Colorado's tax burden level has been unchanged because
statewide personal Income grew at the same pace as taxes
ao
~ Taxes
~ ®Pen3orlal Income
30 .
20 ~ ~
, Colorado taxes as a v
percent of Income ~
075 80 85 90 075 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90
Data aaurce: Colorado Public Expenditure Council.
3
and the quality of life for citizens. •
Local economic development re- Colorado's "Tax Freedom Day" has increased
quires the cooperation and partner- '
ship of both the public and private since .1960 because of increasing Federal taxes
sectors. Amendment 1 will severely May ~
impair government's ability to par- _ '
ticipate in facilitating and financing May 3
economic development oppor-
tunitiesbecause: Apr. 16
? The Amendments revenue
and :.r.rt..diture growth allowance,
which for local governments other ~ ~ ~ •
than schools is based on increased
property valuation, will prevent
timely oF, ..ding and limit the ability
of government to use the additional Feb. 6
;r. fr.+•ir • i . r •;'.•i a'r$'•l
iffy
sales tax and other p•~owth revenues Fes' S " i~'•~~f~
r ~ ,
needed to service growth. ~~//'r~~.;~ a a e''% ~~'a ,g. ~ r~~'•
? The spending and tax limits .~~Jr,.:%'',r:•;f~~ ~ ~ B ® •rrj~.'~'
r V ~f~' r !
will restrict the ability of govern-
ments either directly or from 1960 1970 1980 1990
developer contributions to provide Dare eotrrce: 1992 H.~-......ic Report of the Preaideat; Colorado Public Expeadiwre Camcil.
up-front infrastructure and other in-
vestments. This will restrict the
flexibility needed by local govern- Emergency provisions aze weather as well as increases in
ments to handle annexations, in- impractical and inadequate population served. For example, a
frastructure improvements, and While provisionsare included for severe winter produces higher gas
other actions accommodating declaringanemergencyandraising and electric consumption,andadry
growth in a timely manner. revenue's to pay forit, the provisions summer produces higher water
? The cost of servicing growth are narrow, unworkable for some . consumption. Currently these in-
may be greater than the spending local governments, and will adver- creases can be paid for through in-
permitted by the Amendment. If so, sely affect ongoing services. The creased user fee revenues generated
the government must either reject the Amendments definition of emer- from the expanded use. To the ex-
growth orreduce the level of services gency is narrow because it excludes tent that Amendment 1 does not af-
available to its current residents. economic conditions and revenue ford an adequate exemption from
? The ability of local govern- shortfalls as grounds for an emer- the revenue and expenditure limits
ments to use local improvement dis- gency. The ability to raise emergen- for enter. r,:se operations, Amend-
tricts, special improvement dis- cy revenue is severely limited be- mentlnegatestheabilitytoprovide
tricts, business improvement dis- cause this measure prohibits use of expanded utility services without
tricts, tax increment financing, and Property taxes as an emergency negatively affecting other munici-
similaz techniques to finance public revenue source. For many local gov- pal services.
improvements will apparently be ernments the property tax is the ? The exemption of "enter-
impairedbecause of the application only substantial tax source which prises" from the Amendment, if
of various tax, spending, and elec- the local government is authorized literally construed by the courts,
lion requirements to these entities. to levy. Moreover, during the fol- will mean that almost no enterprise
? The Amendment apparently lowing year, revenues available to operations, such as water, sewer,
prohibits real property assessment . spend on services will be reduced in gas, electric, and airport services,
ratios from ever increasing without order to replenish the reserve. will qualify for exemption from the
a statewide election. This "freezing" Routine growth of user- revenue and spending limits. This
of the residential assessment rate supported services will be means that the increased spending
will require commercial property to hampered required to meet customer
bear permanently a dispropor- Many government services, such demands or needs, environmental
tionate share of the property tax as water, sewer, and electrical requirements, and federal man-
burdenand may further discourage utilities, are supported primarily or dates will reduce spending avail-
commercial development in exclusively by user fees. Demand able for other programs.
? Similar problems arise for
Colorado. for services may be influenced by other user-fee supported services,
4
such as golf, swimming, and . tea- matter how small beyond prior yeaz mail lengthy and detailed election
. tional programs, where the service spending, after adjustments for in- notices to every registered voter.
level fluctuates based upon citizen Elation and growth in property This will increase costs and subject
demands. valuation. elections to litigation based on al-
? Since overall spending ? Retention of any revenues or leged procedural errors associated
authority is not increased by the in- reserves that exceed the spending with these requirements.
creased user fee revenues, other limit. ? Electionofficialsarerequired,
spending must be reduced, or an ? Any fiscal at the public's expense, to
election held-the following year spending We already vote prepaze ballot informa-
November or regular election exceeding the Orl tax Increases lion and summarize the
date-in order to satisfy the par- revenueestimate azguments submitted for
titular service demand funded by provided at the For the 64 munlclpal and against each
the increased user fees. time a tax in- and County sales tax measure. This will ae-
rate Increases since
. ? When voters approve a bond crease is ap- January 1988, electlons parently require election
issue to build a new facility, such as proved by the officials to distribute, at
a recreation center, they must also voters. Were held to approve 59 thepublic'sexpense,spe-
vote to approve operating funds for ? Obviously, Of them (92 pBnCent). cious or unsupported pro
the facility, even when all of the voters will be and con arguments
..r~.ating revenues come from user burdened with the need to become which individuals submit for publi-
feesgenerated by the facility. familiaz with and vote on a multipli- cation.
Elections, elections, and more city of financial matters. Special tax preferences
elections will be required Election compliance will become will be granted
Voting on new taxes and tax rate a bureaucratic nightmaze Seldom-recognized provisions of
increases is already the norm in Amendment 1 establishes a com- Amendment 1 will afford tax breaks
Colorado. However, Amendment 1 prehensive set of election require- to selected taxpayers. These
;goes far beyond that. The number ments for all public finance issues provisionsinlr.~~rtquestionabletax
and diversity of finance issues that whichrequirevoterapproval.These policies and preferences into
will require elections forces citizens requirements will be confusing and Colorado's Constitution.
to become micro-managers of their costly for election agencies and tax- ? New or increased real estate
various governments. In addition to .payers alike. transfer taxes are prohibited (even
required elections on new taxes and ? Ballot preparation and con- with a local vote), thus depriving
tax rate increases, elections and duct of elections will become spec- resort and other communities of the
voter approval are apparently taculazly complex when the state, opportunity to help finance public
generally required for all of the fol- municipality, county, school dis- services through transfer taxes on
lowing: trict, and special districts have one real estate sales.
? Any extension of an expiring or more issues each before the ? Graduated state income taxes
tax, no matter how small, such as the voters. Distinguishing which voters are prohibited, preventing the Ge-
t /lOths of one percent tourism tax. may vote on which ballot issues will neral Assembly from ever imposing
? Any valuation for assessment be difficult since jurisdiction boon- progressive tax rates based upon
ratio increase for a property class. daries often overlap. one's ability to pay.
? Any mill levy. increase above ? Elections can only be held on ? Business ~.~...r lions and cre-
the prioryear,even wherenecessaryto the first Tuesday of each November dits in reduce or. trial personal pro-
retain prior years revenue levels be- and on the regular election date of ru;y taxes are authorized where ap-
cause ofreduced assessed valuation. the local government if its regular proved by a local govertunent.
? Any other tax policy change election date falls on a different date. ? Presumptions in favor of the
no matter how small, such as a For the state and many local govern- accuracy of assessor prom, valua-
, change in tax base or removal of a ments whose regulaz election is in lions aze removed, thus favoring
tax exemption, directly causing a November, this means a maximum those taxpayers who can afford as-
net tax revenue gain. of one election each year. This re- sessment appeals to reduce their .
? Virtually all multiple-fiscal quirement, coupled with the re- taxes.
year debt or other financial obliga- quirement of voter approval for Local control, home rule, and
lions, including pension adjust- many finance issues, means that representative democracy will be
ments, even when financed on an voters will be confronted regularly undermined
actuarially sound basis. with multiple ballot issues. Implicit in the Amendment's
? Any spending increase no ? Governments are required to statewide, multiple restrictions is
5
the loss of local control, home rule,
and representative government. In Government is a service industry-
reality, these losses actually take revenue cuts wtll cut service '
control away from the atizens. °State and IoCal governments are essentially service providers
? The Amendment's restric- and; for most, the biggest costs they Incur are for labor. Some 35
lions apply to every local govern- percent of all state expenditures, exclusive of transfer payments,
ment in the state, regardless of loca- are for employee wages and benefits. For local governments, tt's
lion, population, desires of local 52 percent, for school districts, a whopping 70 percent. Thus,
residents, economic conditions, or beyond curtailing travel, enforcing furloughs and rationing sup-
othercircumstances. piles, there Is simply no place else to make meaningful cuts.
? The Denver-Boulder con- "Overthe long haul, government workers face the same economic
Sumer price index applies to every unpleasantness that many others In the economy do: the lack of
government, no matter how dif- productivity Improvements In the service sector. There seems to
ferent its economy is from Denver's ~ no mechanical replacement for the `human touch' of the cop on
economy, and no matter how much the beat, the teacher in the classroom and the social worker in the
items purchased by the government field. Ariempts to Improve productivity by Increasing patrol areas,
differ from items purchased by in- pupils per teacher or client Caseloads brings howls about the
dividuals. decline In services:'
? Local voters are precluded From an article by John E. Petersen, president of the Government
from substituting alternative limits. Finance Group, in the August 1992 issue of Governing magazine.
? Emergency reserve require-
ments are mandated which may not
coinade with local philosophy or tually result in more government which would be imposed, as well as
needs. and Less of
ficient government! the uncertainty created by portions
? Election, tax policy, and other Additional government costs of the proposal:' In addition, the
Amendment's limitation on election
restrictions micro-manage local will be incurred dates will prevent local govern-
governmentand impede the oppor- While designed to rnntain gov- ments from timing bond elections to
tunity for rtr. tsentative, local self- ernment spending, the measure in
coincide with lower interest rates
government to function. some respects will increase costs, and favorable market conditions.
Additional government units diverting public revenues from ~ Accounting and auditing pro-
neededpublicservices topay for the
will be formed cedures needed to ensure com-
cost of compliance.
The Amendment will not curtail ? Cost savings through inter- Pliance with the Amendment will
the desire or need for additional ser- increase administrative costs.
vices. Rather, it will curtail the legal .govern- mental ar,. «...ents will be ? Requirements to refund "ex-
authority and political viability for ~P~~ because the spending in- cess revenues" will impose addi-
curred by the government provid-
existing governments to provide ing the service apparently will have tional administrative costs.
new or expanded services. Since the 1 Pay-as-you-go capital financ-
Amendment imposes no limitation to be absorbed within that govern- thg will be made more difficult by
on formation of governmental units, ment's spending limit or voted on, the inability to create reserves in ex-
new and expanded services will even though the other government cess of the ~r~..ding limit to fund
likely be accommodated through Provides the increased revenue. future projects.
formation of additional special dis- ? There will be frequent elec- ? Increasing reserves to cover
tricts and authorities. Because of the lions requiring compliance with revenue shortfalls and other contin-
revenue and spending limits on ex- costly election notices and other gencies not treated as emergencies
fisting governments, it will be more procedures. by the Amendment will be im-
feasible to form another govern- ? Costs for various capital im- p~~
ment rather than to secure the ser- Provements bonds will likely in- ? Spending annually to the
vice through an existing govern- crease since interest rates are tied to maximum amount authorized '
ment. This will lead to coordination the credit quality of the local gov- under the spending limit will be en-
and tannin roblems, increased ernment. In an Aug. 31, 1992, Mu-
costsp and other inefficiencies as- nicipal Credit Report, Moody's flexibigty forfuture years financial
sociated with more, overla in rating agency commented that
PP g "...passage could seriously erode ? When mistakes in interpreta-
governmental units. It is ironic that lion or compliance occur, govern-
Amendment 1, which is touted as a the credit quality of local govern- ments will be required to refund the
ment because of the severe financial
vehicle to achieve less government excess amounts, plus pay a 10 per-
andmore of
ficientgovernment, will ac- and debt management restrictions rent penalty for up to four years and
6
the costs and attorney fees for both ing approval at an election?
the plaintiffs and the government. ? Utilization of relevant spend- BI'uC@ iS the 0111y p@I'-
Simply stated, ~..r~,.ditures and ing limit data for the subsequent fis- son who and@rStBndS
inefficiencies caused by the amend- cal year is unclear. Apparently gov- the Amendment
mentwillreducefundswhichother- ernments must estimate what the Douglas Bruce doesn't even
wise could be used to finance public consumer price increase, growth in- think his own people can
services. crease, and current yeaz spending answer questions about the
Ambiguous and complicated will be before these data are avail- Amendment Correctly. Ina
provisions will require extensive able in order to budget for the fol- ~ letter to the med18, he wrote,
litigation at taxpayer expense lowing year. Will mid-year adjust- "All media Inquiries will be
• The Amendment's ambiguous, ments be required when estimates handled by me. Comments by
complicated, and confusing prove to be incorrect? volunteers may be Incom-
provisions make it impossible to Conclusion pieta or Inaccurate."
determine how the courts will con- Amendment 1 is comprehensive
strue its provisions. Extensive and in s..,,r;., limiting taxes, revenues,
costly litigation will be necessary spending, and multiyear financial
foritsmeaningandapplicationtobe obligations. Taken as a whole,
settled. The Amendment will be a Amendment 1 imposes radical and
nightmare for the public-and a severe restrictions on government
dream for attorneys. services and operations. Its com-
For example, it is not cleaz how plexity, level of detail, and choice of
the courts will interpret the follow- words raise innumerable questions
ing terms: of interpretation and application.
? "Local government" is not It will require extensive and ex-
defined. Are agencies such as local pensive litigation to settle its mean-
housing authorities, urban renewal ing and applications. Since it is in the
and downtown development form of a constitutional amend-
authorities, and local improvement ment; there will be no opportunity
and business improvement districts to correct its unintended consequen-
covered? Ifcovered, are they subject ces: those consequences will be cast
to separate revenue and spending in Colorado constitutional concrete.
limits or included within the limits The combination of tax, revenue,
of the municipality? and spending limits will reduce the
? 'Reserves" other than "emer- relative level of funding and servi-
gency" reserves are not defined. ces currently provided, unless vo-
How are local governments to ad- tars repeatedly vote' to exceed the
dress revenue shortfalls and other limits. Rather than merely ensuring
"non-emergency" conditions? that new taxes are voted on, the
? "Enterprise" is inadequately Amendment is written to ratchet
defined. This leaves subject to Judi- down current levels of taxes and ser-
oial interpretation application of the vices permanently. The Amend-
amendment to water, sewer, electri- ment does not accommodate
cal, gas, airport, recreational, hospi- growth and discourages economic
tai, and other local government development.
operations which typically azechar- Public officials, opinion makers,
acterized as enterprises but may not and citizens need to become fully
meet the Amendment's definition of informed on the Amendme.E~'s fea-
enter, r.:se. tares and effects before castinb :.heir
? "Other financial obligation" is votes on November 3. ?
not defined. Will the courts construe
such transactions as leases, lease-p~r-
chases, actuarially funded pension
adjustments, employment contracts,
and other multiyear contracts as
"other financial obligations" requir-
7
~ PUBLIC NOTICE
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING SCt~DULE
OCTOBER, 1992
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 alternating 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.
~l nr; OCTOBER. 1992, VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING SCHEDULE
IS AS FOLLOWS:
Thursdav. October 1, 1992
Special Work session........... 6:30 P.M. (Budget Review)
Tuesdav. October 6, 1992
Work session 6:00 - 7:30 P.M.
Evening meeting 7:30 P.M.
Tuesdav. October 13. 1992
Work session >
.00 P.M. (starting time determined by length of agenda
Tuesdav. October 20. 1992
Work session 6:30 - 7:30 P.M.
Evening meeting 7:30 P.M.
Tuesdav. October 27, 1992
Work session 2:00 P.M. (starting time determined bylength of agenda)
TOWN OF VAIL
Pamela A. Brandmeyer
Assistant to the Town Manager
y PUBLIC NOTICE
VaTr, TOWN COUNCIL MEETING SCHEDULE,
OCTOBER, 1992
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 M~r:TINGS
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 alternating 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.
~rr~ OCTOBER, 1992, VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING SCHEDULE,
IS AS FOLLOWS:
Thursdav, October 1, 1992
Special Work session........... 6:30 P.M. (Budget Review)
Tuesdav, October 6. 1992
Work session 6:30 - 7:30 P.M.
Evening meeting 7:30 P.M.
Tuesdav, October 13, 1992
Work session 2:00 P.M. (starting time detenminedbylength of agenda)
Tuesdav, October 20, 1992
Work session 6:30 - 7:30 P.M.
Evening meeting 7:30 P.M.
Tuesdav. October 27, 1992
Work session 2:OOP.M.(startingtime determined by length of agenda)
TOWN OF VAIL
~~-~~~~~d, u,LJ
Pamela A. Brandmeyer
Assistant to the Town Manager