The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2004-08-03 Support Documentation Town Council Evening Session;~ TOWN COUNCIL EVENING SESSION AGENDA 6:00 P.M. TUESDAY, AUGUST 3, 2004 VAIL TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, CO 81657 NOTE: Times of items are approximate, subject to change, and. cannot be relied upon to determine at what time Council will consider an item. 1 • ITEM/TOPIC: Citizen Input (10 min.) 2. Jerry Sibley ITEM/TOPIC: Follow up from Valley Wide Ice Users Stephen Connelly Alliance (20 min.) 3. Lorelei Donaldson ITEMITOPIC: Follow up, DRB Appointment. One Vacancy to be filled to complete the term vacated by Scott Proper, term ending 03.31.06. (5 min.) • Charles Baker • Betsy Bradley ~ • Peter Dunning • Kathy Langenwalter 4. Judy Camp ITEMITOPIC: Presentation of 2003 audit report, McMahan Michael Jenkins & Associates. (10 min.) 5. Russ Forrest ITEM/TOPIC: Conference Center Update and Committee Recommendation on Design Team. In addition, Fentress Bradburn will be available to review their qualifications and answer questions from the Town Council and Community. (30 min.) 6. Bill Gibson ITEM/TOPIC: First reading, Ordinance No. 17, Series 2004. Proposed Amendments to Special Development District #4, Cascade Village (15 min.) 7. Matt Mire ITEMITOPIC: First reading of Ordinance 19, Series 2004,.an ordinance amending section 6-3C-4 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail as it relates to possession of opened containers of vinous liquor; and setting forth details in regard thereto. (10 min.) ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL:. Approve or approve with amendments, Ordinance 19, Series 2004, on first reading. w BACKGROUND RATIONALE: Pursuant to certain amendments made to Chapter 47 of Title 12 of the Colorado Revised Statutes an establishment possessing a valid Hotel and Restaurant liquor license may permit a customer of the hotel or restaurant to reseal and remove from the licensed premises one opened container of partially consumed vinous liquor purchased on the premises so long as the original container did not contain more than 750 milliliters of vinous liquor. As such, certain text amendments are necessary to the Town of Vail Police Regulations, as they relate to the possession of opened containers of vinous liquors, in order to be consistent with state statute 8. Matt Mire ITEM/TOPIC: Second reading of Ordinance No. 18, Series 2004, an ordinance authorizing retail liquor stores or liquor-licensed drug stores in the Town of Vail to conduct on site alcoholic beverage tastings; and setting forth details in regards thereto. (10 min.) .ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Approve, approve with amendments or deny Ordinance 18, Series 2004, on second reading. BACKGROUND RATIONALE: Pursuant to certain amendments made to Chapter 47 of Title 12 of the Colorado Revised Statutes, retail liquor store licensees and liquor-licensed drug stores may be authorized to conduct alcoholic beverage tastings subject to specific limitations set forth in the aforesaid amendments. According to the new law, as well as the Town Charter, the Town must adopt an ordinance allowing for said tastings to occur. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve Ordinance 18, Series 2004, on second reading. 9. Matt Mire ITEM/TOPIC: Resolution No. 17, Series 2004, a resolution of the Town of Vail authorizing the execution and delivery on its behalf of the Lionshead reinvestment agreement, to be made otherwise between the Vail Corporation, D/B/A Vail Associates, Inc., and the Vail Reinvestment authority in furtherance of permitting the acquisition by the Vail Reinvestment Authority of certain properties in the Lionshead area of the Town by power of eminent domain. (20 min.) ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Approve or approve with amendment Resolution No. 17, Series 2004. BACKGROUND RATIONALE: The Town Council adopted the Lionshead Public Facilities Development Plan on March 16, 2004, which authorizes actions by the Vail Reinvestment Authority to redevelop the area designated as the Lionshead Reinvestment Area. .Acquisition by the Vail Reinvestment Authority of certain properties owned by the Town of Vail as described in the resolution is necessary for the completion of said redevelopment. In order to properly initiate any necessary eminent domain proceedings to acquire-the properties set out in Resolution No. 17, the Vail. Reinvestment Authority must, under the terms of the Plan, secure the consent of the Town. Said consent is given by the Town through this Resolution No. 17, Series 2004. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve Resolution 17, Series 2004. 10. George Ruher ITEMITOPIC: Resolution No. 18, Series of 2004, a resolution amending certain sections of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan clarifying and affording all types of development projects, "new or redevelopment", flexibility in the application of the Architectural Design Guidelines, as prescribed in Chapter 8 of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (30 min.) ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Approve, approve with modifications, or deny Resolution No. 18, Series of 2004. BACKGROUND RATIONALE: On July 12, 2004, the Town of Vail Community Development Department requested a work session with the Town of Vail Planning & Environmental Commission to discuss the merits of preparing a text amendment to the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan that would affect the implementation policies of the Plan. Upon discussing the possible merits of the amendment, the Commission directed staff to prepare an amendment for the Commission's and Town Council's consideration. On July 26, 2004, the Town of Vail Planning & Environmental held a public hearing to discuss a proposed text amendment to the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. The text amendment proposes to amend the implementation policies of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan regarding _ the application of the. _ Architectural Design Guidelines prescribed in Chapter 8 of the Master Plan, and further codified in Title 12, Zoning Regulations of the Vail Town Code. The purpose of the amendment is to clarify and afford all types of development projects, new or redevelopment, flexibility in the application of the Architectural Design Guidelines. The purpose of the amendment, however, is NOT to amend or otherwise alter the overall goals, objectives and policies as stated in the Master Plan. Upon consideration of the proposed text amendment, the Commission passed a motion unanimously recommending approval of the amendment to the Vail Town Council with several recommended modifications. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Community Development Department recommends that the Vail Town Council approves Resolution No. 18, Series of 2004, as amended. 11. Stan Zemler ITEM/TOPIC: Town Managers Report (10 min.). - VRD / TOV 50-50 Split Proposal, Re: ADA Mitigation VRD has unanimously approved acost-share of VRD-related corrections for ADA mitigation of up to $75,000, if the town agrees to an additional $75,000 in repairs. Although the overall estimate for ADA mitigation is estimated at close to $300,000, the VRD board will be going to the voters in November '04 to ask for financing of a new clubhouse, which if passed, would eliminate the additional $150,000 in mitigation due to costly improvements to the current clubhouse (elevator installation, bathroom improvements, etc.). Staff from both entities has reviewed the estimate for repairs, and both groups agree a 50-50 cost share makes the most sense and would be equitable from both perspectives. The Department of Justice (DOJ) has agreed to up to three years for the above-mentioned repairs (with further extensions should the need arise). Staff acknowledges some responsibility for the condition of assorted recreational facilities prior to passage of the legislation in 1992, and thus requests Council approve up to $75,000 be spent for this mitigation. Staff requests the dollars be budgeted equally (and approved annually) over the next three years at $25,000/year, allowing for some flexibility in allocation of those dollars, e.g., one project may exceed the combined $50,000 annual contributions from both the town and VRD and may therefore exceed the town's $25,000 contribution one year, while remaining smaller to offset that expenditure the following year. 12. ITEM/TOPIC: Adjournment (8:30 p.m.) NOTE UPCOMING MEETING START TIMES BELOW: (ALL TIMES ARE APPROXIMATE AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE) THE NEXT VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR EVENING MEETING WILL BEGIN AT 6 P.M. TUESDAY, AUGUST 17, 2004, IN VAIL TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS... _ - _ - - Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24-hour notification. Please call 479-2106 voice or 479-2356 TDD for information. 2 r VAIL REINVESTMENT AUTHORITY MEETING AGENDA TUESDAY, AUGUST 3, 2004 4:00 PM VAIL TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, CO 81657 NOTE: Times of items are approximate, subject to change, and cannot be relied upon to determine at what time Council will consider an item. 1. ITEM/TOPIC: Resolutions No. 4 & 5, Series 2004. (20 min.) Please see attached Memorandum. (ALL TIMES ARE APPROXIMATE AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE) :' ~owrroFVn~ MEMORANDUM Town Clerk TO: Town Council members FROM: Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk RE: Letters of Interest for the Vacancy on the Design Review Board (DRB) DATE: July 29, 2004 At the July 20, 2004 Town Council evening meeting, the Council voted and did not have a majority vote for the appointment to the DRB due to one absence and one council member who recused himself from voting on this item. Council then tabled this item to the August 3, 2004 evening meeting when all members of the council would be in attendance. The following are the interested community members who were interviewed at the July 20`h work session. Staff is requesting the Town Council appoint one member to the Design Review Board to replace the vacated position of Scott Proper. Design Review Board (lvacancy to be filled, to complete the term vacated by Scott Proper, the term ends 3/31/06) Charles Baker Betsy Bradley Peter Dunning Kathy Langenwalter 75 South Frontage Road . Yail, Colorado 81657.970-479-2136/F14X970-479-2320 . www.vailgov.com ~•RECYCLEDPAPER ,~ i i ORDINANCE 19 SERIES 2004 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 6-3C-4 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE TOWN OF VAIL AS IT RELATES TO POSSESSION OF OPENED CONTAINERS OF VINOUS LIQUOR; AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO. WHEREAS, pursuant to certain amendments made to Chapter 47 of Title 12 of the Colorado Revised Statutes, an establishment possessing a valid Hotel and restaurant liquor license may permit a customer of the hotel or restaurant to reseal and remove from the licensed premises one opened container of partially consumed vinous liquor purchased on the premises so long as the original container did not contain more than 750 milliliters of vinous liquor; and WHEREAS, certain text amendments are necessary to the Town of Vail Police Regulations, as they relate to the possession of opened containers of vinous liquors, in order to be consistent with state statute. WHEREAS, the Vail Town Council considers it in the interest of the public health, safety, and welfare to adopt this ordinance. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1. Section 6-3C-4 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail is hereby amended as follows: (additions are shown in bold) 6-3C-4: DRINKING IN PUBLIC: A. Prohibited: It is unlawful for any person to drink any malt, vinous, or spirituous liquors upon any street, alley, sidewalk, public building or public parking lot in the town or within any vehicle upon the streets, alleys, sidewalks or public parking lots in the town except by written authorization of the town council. It is unlawful for any person to possess or have in such person's possession or under his/her control in or upon any street, alley, sidewalk, public building or public parking lot in the town, any malt, vinous, or spirituous liquors in any container of any kind or description which is not sealed or upon which the seal is broken. The word "sealed" means the regular seal applied by the United States government over the cap of all malt, vinous or spirituous liquors. Notwithstanding the foregoing, it shall not be unlawful for any person to have in Ordinance 19, Series of 2004 ~~ his or her possession or under his or her control one opened container of vinous liquor removed from a licensed premise pursuant to and subject to the limitations set forth in C.R.S. § 12-47-411(3.5), as amended. B. Closed Containers Prohibited: 1. Affected Areas: No person shall possess any malt, vinous, or spirituous liquor or' fermented malt beverage in or upon any public highway, street, alley, walk, parking lot or any other public property or place or in or upon those portions of any private property upon which the public has an expressed or implied license to.enter or remain within the area bounded by: Vail transportation center/village parking structure to the north, the south edge of Seibert Circle to the south, Mill Creek to the east, the .eastern curb line of Willow Bridge Road from Gore Creek Drive through the International Bridge. The affected area is inclusive of Wall Street from Gore Creek Drive through One Vail Place and the Gore Creek Promenade from Willow Bridge Road through the Children's Fountain, between six o'clock (6:00) P.M. and six o'clock (6:00) A.M., from. June 30 through July 5, and between six o'clock (6:00) P.M. on December 31 and six o'clock (6:00) A.M. of January 1 of each year. 2. Exception: Notwithstanding the foregoing, persons shall have the right to possess malt, vinous or spirituous liquor or fermented malt beverage in said area if they are taking it to permanent or temporary residence located in said area. In addition, it shall not be unlawful for any person to have in his or her possession or under his or her control one opened container of vinous liquor removed from a licensed premise pursuant to and subject to the limitations set forth in C.R.S. § 12-47- 411(3.5), as amended. 3. Resolution By Officer: Any peace officer is authorized to seize any malt, vinous or spirituous liquor or fermented malt beverage possessed in violation of this section. If no summons or complaint is issued for the violation and if the circumstances reasonably permit, the officer may require the possessor to leave the prohibited area with the alcoholic beverage or to abandon the beverage to the officer for destruction at such person's option. Section 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 Ordinance 19, Series of 2004 would have passed this ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. Section 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. Section 4. The amendment of any provision of the Town Code as provided in this ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceeding as commenced under or by virtue of the provision amended. The amendment of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein. Section 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 ON FIRST READING, APPROVED, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL this 3~d day of August, 2004, and a public hearing for second reading of this Ordinance is set for the 17th day of August, 2004, at 6:00 pm in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado. Rodney E. Slifer, Mayor Attest: Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk Ordinance 19, Series of 2004 ~~` ORDINANCE NO. 18 Series of 2004 AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING RETAIL LIQUOR STORES OR LIQUOR-LICENSED DRUG STORES IN THE TOWN OF VAIL TO CONDUCT ON SITE ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE TASTINGS; AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO. WHEREAS, pursuant to certain amendments made to Chapter 47 of Title 12 of the Colorado Revised Statutes, retail liquor store licensees and liquor-licensed drug stores may be authorized to conduct alcoholic beverage tastings subject to specific limitations set forth in the aforesaid amendments; and WHEREAS, the Vail Town Council considers it in the interest of the public health, safety, and welfare to adopt this ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1. Pursuant to Section 12-47-301(10)(a), Colorado Revised Statutes, the Town of Vail hereby authorizes alcoholic beverage tastings for licensed retail liquor stores and liquor- licensed drug stores within the Town subject to the limitations contained in Section 12-47- ` 301(10), C.R.S., and subject to the approval by the Local Licensing Authority of a Liquor Tastings Permit Application in a form approved by the Town Clerk. Section 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 effect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. Section 3. .The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this ordinance is Ordinance No. 18, Series of 2004 necessary and proper for the health, safety and welfare of the Town of Vail and the inhabitants thereof. Section 4. This ordinance shall be effective five (5) days after publication following final passage. Section 5. The amendment of any provision of the Town Code as provided in this ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceeding as commenced under or by virtue of the provision amended. The amendment of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein. Section 6. All bylaws, orders, resolutions and ordinances, or parts thereof, inconsistent herewith are repealed to the extent only of such inconsistency. This repealer shall not be construed to revise any bylaw, order, resolution or ordinance, or part thereof, theretofore repealed. INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, APPROVED, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL ON FIRST READING this 20'h day of July, 2004 and a public hearing for second reading of this Ordinance set for the 3rd day of August, 2004, at 6:00 P.M. in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado. Rodney Slifer, Mayor ATTEST: Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk Ordinance No. 18, Series of 2004 2 READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED this 3rd day of August, 2004. Rodney E. Slifer, Mayor Attest: Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk Ordinance No. 18, Series of 2004 `3 RESOLUTION NO. 17 SERIES OF 2004 A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN OF VAIL AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY ON ITS BEHALF OF THE LIONSHEAD REINVESTMENT AGREEMENT, TO BE MADE OTHERWISE BETWEEN THE VAIL CORPORATION, D/B/A VAIL ASSOCIATES, INC., AND THE VAIL REINVESTMENT AUTHORITY IN FURTHERANCE OF PERMITTING THE ACQUISITION BY THE VAIL REINVESTMENT AUTHORITY OF CERTAIN PROPERTIES IN THE LIONSHEAD AREA OF THE TOWN OF VAIL BY POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN. WHEREAS, the Town Council of the Town of Vail adopted the Lionshead Public Facilities Development Plan on March 16, 2004; and WHEREAS, the Lionshead Public Facilities Development Plan (the "Plan") authorizes actions by the Vail Reinvestment Authority to redevelop the area designated as the Lionshead Reinvestment Area; and WHEREAS, redevelopment of the Lionshead Reinvestment Area (the "Project") is . necessary to alleviate those conditions of blight found in the Lionshead Reinvestment Study; and WHEREAS, acquisition by the Vail Reinvestment Authority of certain properties owned by the Town of Vail described in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference (hereinafter the "Properties") is necessary for the completion of said Project; and WHEREAS, in order to properly initiate any necessary eminent domain proceedings to acquire the Properties, the Vail Reinvestment Authority must, under the terms of the Plan, secure the consent of the Town; and WHEREAS, in furtherance of securing such consents, the Vail Reinvestment Authority is in the process of preparing and negotiating, with the Town and Vail Associates, Inc. (the owner of other properties that must be acquired), a form of "Lionshead Reinvestment Agreement," to be made between the Vail Reinvestment Authority and Vail Associates as the primary parties (the "Agreement"), and relating to such eminent domain proceedings, and including, among other things, the Town of Vail's joinder to give its requisite consent; and WHEREAS, the Town of Vail has determined to authorize the execution and delivery of the Agreement. on its behalf; and - WHEREAS, the Town Council of the Town of Vail finds that the adoption of this Resolution No. 17, Series of 2004, is in the best interests of the Town of Vail and its citizenry. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO: 1. The Town Council of the Town of Vail hereby authorizes the Town Manager and/or the Mayor, acting singularly, to execute, acknowledge and deliver the Agreement on behalf of and as the act of the Town of Vail, with such terms and provisions as the Town Manager and/or Mayor may deem necessary or appropriate, after consultation with the Town Attorney. 625426.1 RCFISH 2. If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Resolution is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Resolution, and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this Resolution, and each part, section,.subsection, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. 3. The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this Resolution is necessary and proper for the health, safety and welfare of the Town of Vail and the inhabitants thereof. 4. 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 ADOPTED this 3rd day of August, 2004. ATTEST: Rodney Slifer, Mayor, Town of Vail Lorelei-Donaldson, Town Clerk, Town of Vail 625426.1 RCFISH 2 r EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF TOWN PROPERTIES Those portions of Tract C, Vail/Lionshead First Filing, and Tract C, Vail/Lionshead Third Filing, according to the recorded plats thereof, conveyed to the Town of Vail by deeds recorded on August 16, 1991, at Book 560, Page 180 and on July 17, 1984, at Book 389, Page 502; and Tract A, Vail/Lionshead Third Filing, according to the recorded plat thereof. 625426.1 RCFISH A-1 DOCUMENTATION FOR RESOLUTION #18 WILL BE PROVIDED ON FRIDAY, JULY 30, 2004. iCOLORA00 MUNICIPAL LEAGUEI, 1144 Sherman Street • Denver, Colorado 80203-2207 • Phone (303) 831-6411, FAX (303) 860-8175 EMERGING ISSUES-NOVEMBER BALLOT PREVIEW ' Northwest Colorado Council of Governments Board of Directors Rural Resort Region Board of Directors July 22, 2004 Walden L Presenter: Sam Mamet, CML Associate Director, smamet(a~cml.org s 1 1 I 1 OUTLINE /How does TABOR affect local governments? /Governor Owens, his stance /The state surplus, what does it really mean ~' /Statehouse deliberations, what are the prospects for a special session? /Campaign For Colorado, initiatives # 126 and # 137 /CML's "Issues Update" e t s `. T.~,BOR Impact on Local Governments Nearly all of the public attention over the past two years has been given to the state's fiscal crisis, and most of the discussion of TABOR reform has centered on the role of TABOR in the state's fiscal and budget situation. The daily struggles of the nearly 2,000 local governmental units, including municipalities, counties, school districts and special districts, to manage their budgets and deliver vital governmental services at the local level, have been dov~mplayed and largely overlooked. This ambivalence toward local problems probably results from several things: • The extreme high visibility of state budget and fiscal problems; • The mistaken impression that local govemments have "de-Bruced," thus eliminating any local problems; • The fact that local governments have gone to great lengths to "fill the gaps," thus lessening the visibility and lost services to local citizens, which has been interpreted as indicating that there are not budget problems at the local level. • Local governments have shifted to fee based services; cut back on maintenance needs, and reduced services, usually where least noticeable by the public. Any discussion of ballot issues to amend TABOR should, however, include consideration of local TABOR issues. The four associations representing local governments (CASB, CCI, CML and SDA} submit the following reasons for including local governments in proposed state solutions to TABOR impacts: • TABOR revenue limits have proven to be unworkable for many local governments because local revenues are volatile and often spike abovez~r below the TABOR revenue limits. These spikes are caused by numerous factors, such as local growth spurts, declining local or regional economies, and receipt of or reduction in state grants. For local governments these spikes are magnified because of the small revenue base local governments have in comparison to the 1, state. In fact, the smaller the local jurisdiction, the larger the spike is likely to be. In years when local revenues are less than the TABOR limits, future revenues are permanently ratcheted. • State and local finances and services are interlinked - a solution addressing only state finances is no solution at all. • TABOR is a statewide measure whose constraints affect state and local governments similarly; therefore, state solutions should extend similarly to local governments. • Local governments are experiencing the same "ratchet down" effects as state government in recessionary periods while experiencing additional "ratchet down" effects in years when local revenues increase less than the allowable limit. • While it is true that numerous local governments have "deBruced "most jurisdictions have either not "deBruced" or the "deBrucings" have been limited in scope or duration. ~L.~a;,ppcf s 1 The biennial loss of property tax base due to the adjustment of the residential assessment rate required by the Gallagher Amendment every other year "ratchets '~ down" local goverment property tax revenues. De-Brucing is not nearly as wide-spread as generally assumed and any local de-Brucing is a very ~ limited fix. The term "de-Brucing" incorrectly implies that a local government is completely opting out of TABOR. In fact, local governments have no such option. "de-Bracing" is simply a form of voter approval to keep and spend revenue in excess of TABOR limitations, rather than refunding the excess revenue. It is relevant only when there is excess revenue, or when a new revenue stream comes on line, such as a mill increase coupled with a bond issue. Contrary to the myth, many local governments have not enacted any form of de-Bracing. Of nearly 1,400 special service districts, for instance, approximately 35 percent have any form of de- Brucing, and for the most part, the elections were for voter permission to keep and spend limited sources or amounts of "excess" revenue, usually in conjunction with a grant, a mill levy increase coupled with debt-service requirements for a bond issue, or an expiring debt-service obligation secured by a mill levy. According to CML, only about a third of municipal de-Brucings have been general, permanent de-Brucing measures. Even the most broad-form De-Bracing measures do not relax most of the provisions of TABOR, such as the requirement to keep the 3% emergency fund, vote on new taxes, and voting to issue bonds. The biennia] loss of property tax base due to the adjustment of the residential assessment rate required by the Gallagher Amendment forces a regular ratcheting down of local governmental revenues, and thus reduction in spending limits, through no fault or action of the local governments. ~, 1 rage i ui ~ June 15, 2004 Owens defends TABOR in visit to Durango r By Christina Simms and Elisabeth Leake 1 Herald Staff Writers Facing a full. crowd in the DoubleTree's ballroom on Monday, Gov. Bill. Owens blamed the strained state budget on conflicts between the Taxpayers' Bill of Rights and Amendment 23. 1 Rights and Amendment 23. In addition to touting the economy's comeback, Owens took time to clarify each constitutional amendment, and he said a change to just one would not solve budgetary 1 t 1 t 1 woes. "We've had three years of cuts, but it would be inaccurate to say they've been caused by TABOR," he said. "When you read about cuts, those cuts are not determined by TABOR, but a drop in revenue and an increase in K-12 spending." Passed in 1992, the Taxpayers' Bill of Rights is well- known for requiring voters to approve any tax increase. But it also permits the state's annual Legislature-approved spending plan to increase no more than 6 percent each year. In contrast, Amendment 23 increases funding for public schools by inflation plus 1 percent. Owens explained that fixing TABOR alone will change nothing. He told the crowd, "TABOR's had no impact for the last three years because we've had declining revenue for the past three years." With 40 percent of the state budget dedicated to K-12 education and 20 percent to Medicaid, the remaining 40 percent "is getting squeezed more and more," he said "Of $240 million of new revenue this year, 70 percent will go to K-12. That's why there are very few dollars for remaining government institutions." In an interview later Monday, press secretary Dan Hopkins said Owens made two proposals to combat TABOR and Amendment 23 during the last legislative session. "He proposed a timeout from provisions of TABOR and 23 for two yeazs," Hopkins said "He also suggested taking $200 million from each to put into the general fund over a couple of years." A two-thirds majority must be reached in order for a proposal to pass. Neither of the ideas received enough support. Owens said addressing the challenges brought on by the two amendments will. be a lengthy and challenging process because each has supporting parties that might not be ready to compromise. http://www.durangoherald.com/news/04/news040615_l.htm 6/15/2004 Cobrado Gov. Bill Owens, right, chats with new Fort Lewis College President Brad Bartel before his talk at the DoubleTree Hotel on Monday. Owens discussed the state economy and the implications of the Taxpayers' Bill of --o - - - "Each points the finger at the other and says, 'why don't you give first?"' Owens said. Owens spoke to about 140 invited guests of politically active locals and community leaders. Some audience members weren't satisfied with Owens' feedback. "He glossed over things by saying people don't understand TABOR," said Ann McCoy, chairwoman of Club 20. "We understand TABOR didn't take anything from us right now, just kept our government from rebounding in the future." On a positive note, Owens said the economy is in the final stages of a comeback. With 27,000 new jobs added in March and an unemployment rate below the national average, Owens said, "We have, in fact, everything it takes for a strong recovery." Unlike the rest of the state, Durango hasn't been harshly affected by the state's poorly performing economy in the last three years. "Durango has been unique in comparison with other parts of the state," Mayor 3oe Colgan said. "In terms of locally, our economy never really went through the downturn the rest of the state went through." Elisabeth Leake is a Heraldhigh school intern. Reach summer intern Christina Simms here . http://www.durangoherald.com/news/04/news040615_l.htm 6/15/2004 'a 1 1 1 1 1 1 Surplus won't solve state's budget squeeze AutomOtlVe Wednesday, July 07, 2004 Merchandise Page 1 of 2 There was good news from state budget forecasters last week: Colorado is ~~~ expected to see its first state budget surplus in four years in the current budget ~... ,F.:a ~--Menu ; , year, which began last Thursday. -~~y :,r :f Rr . .... ~~ News :. However, the expected surplus won't offer much of a reprieve to budget-makers in Obituaries the state Legislature who, despite the expected surplus, face the prospect of O inion having to cut upwards of $300 million from the budget in the coming two years. The Blotter And that means further significant cuts in key state programs -especially higher education. Photos ; ~; Sports The reason is the state's TABOR Amendment, which, during the economic Preps downturn of the past two and a half years, has had the effect of ratcheting down ~~~ College the spending baseline from which state revenues may grow from year to year. The j Professional impacts of TABOR's notorious ratcheting-down effect are only being felt now. ~:>r::-~ utdoo s The state has lost revenue since 2001, the result of the slowdown in the economy. ~~ ~ ~< Features ~ .. Out & About While TABOR allows state revenue to grow at 6 percent a year, it reduces the Entertainment base from which that 6 percent is calculated when revenue drops. As a result, the Games state budget can't grow from the level it occupied before the recession, only from its low point of the past few years. Thus, the prospect of further cuts in critical Food government services at the very time the state prepares to rebate a TABOR You said it! "surplus" to taxpayers. Travel Announcements According to state Sen. Dave Owen, a Greeley Republican and vice chairman of Health the Legislature's Joint Budget Committee, the state's general fund budget lost 17 percent of its projected.revenue since Sept. 11, 2001. With TABOR's 6 percent Archives growth limit, it will take nearly three years to regain those losses. Money Stocks Furthermore, with the Amendment 23 mandate demanding an ever-increasing Lottery amount of money for K-12 education, there will be less revenue remaining for other Weather items in the state budget. National All this points to the overwhelming need to modify both TABOR and Amendment Shop8~Save 23. Since the possibility of Gov. Bill Owens calling a special session of the Advertisers Legislature to draft a proposed ballot measure to make those changes is now all but dead, voters will likely have only one option this year. A citizens' initiative backed by the Bell and Bighorn policy centers, with support from Club 20, will offer modest changes to the two amendments. l~-How To all us Those changes are critical if the state is going to meet its funding needs, even Subscribe though its anticipated revenue is finally beginning to rise again. j http://www.gjsentinel.com/news/content/epaper/editions/Wednesday/7_7_surplus_edit.html 7/7/2004 rage i of ~ J ~' r~s krk ~ f 1 Deadline set for TABOR By KYLE HENLEY -THE GAZETTE DENVER - A Friday deadline has been set for cementing a legislative deaf to fix conflicting amendments within the state constitution that are causing state budget problems. The deadline set Tuesday by Republican and Democratic ' leaders ignores a request by Gov. Bill Owens to gather all 100 members of the General Assembly on Aug. 2 for a oneday discussion of the matter. Legislators hope to move faster with a proposal that, if approved by the General Assembly and Colorado voters, would cut taxes and toss out constitutional rules that limit govemment spending. "We took his suggestion and just decided on a different time than Aug. 2," said Senate Majority Leader Mark Hillman, R- Burlington. "If Aug. 2 is anything, it will be the first day of a special session." Not fixing the conflicts would leave the state facing a $215 million deficit for the 2005-06 fiscal year and a $155 million shortfall the year after that. ' State budget experts say the only way to deal wfth those defeats is making dramatic cuts to higher education and gutting health care programs for senior citizens and the needy. The budget problems are caused by the interplay between the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights, approved in 1992, and Amendment 23, passed by voters in 2000. TABOR limits the amount of money govemment can keep and spend. Amendment 23 requires the state to increase education spending each year by inflation plus 1 percent. Together, the two require the state simultaneously to spend more but keep less taxpayer money. The proposal on the table is from House Minority Leader Andrew Romanoff, D-Denver. His plan: Cut taxes, remove TABOR's spending limits and phase out Amendment 23. Cutting the income tax to 4.5 percent from 4.63 percent would return more than $700 million to Coloradans between now and ~ 2009. `.~":. Removing the TABOR limits would let lawmakers keep $1.4 billion in revenue during the same time. TABOR refunds of the late 1990s would stop. The TABOR provision that requires voter approval for tax increases would remain. Amendment 23 would be eliminated in 2011 and temporarily halted during economic downturns until then. 1 Even with the tax cuts, easing the requirements of TABOR and Amendment 23 would give lawmakers more money to spend and increased flexibility on where to spend it. The General Assembly must meet in special session to make the changes. Passing the proposal requires the support of two- thirds of all legislators. Voters would get the final say on the package in November. Speaal sessions traditionally are called by the governor. j http://www.gazette.com/popupNews.php?id=1089063 7/14/2004 --~- - --- Lawmakers, however, can call themselves into special session, at a cost of about $15,000 a day, with atwo-thirds vote. Owens has not taken a stand on the Romanoff plan. Romanoff and Senate Democratic leaders say they can deliver the support on their side of the aisle. The big question mark is with Republicans. Some GOP leaders aren't convinced that taxpayers would come out ahead on the deal. "People would be giving up some of their surplus and refund," said House Speaker Lola Spradley, R-Beulah. "When you talk to people, they expect to have that refund." Romanoff argues that his approach delivers the refund in a different way. "The question is whether you would like to see it upfront as a tax cut or on the back end as a surplus," he said. Romanoff and other Democrats are trying to sweeten the deal for Spradley and other potential GOP fence-sitters by offering to use some of the new revenue to make permanent a tax break for businesses that purchase new manufacturing equipment. Eliminating or reducing the business personal property tax has been a goal of many Republican lawmakers. Some say it might be enough to win votes. Hillman threw his support behind the idea, along with Sen. Norma Anderson, an influential Lakewood Republican. "I think there is a slim chance of getting the votes,° Anderson said. "I believe we can get them in the Senate, but it is real cose." Legislative leaders have given themselves until 3 p.m. Friday to poll legislators to find out whether there is enough support to pass the Romanoff plan. If not, both sides will abandon the negotiations. Those backing this week's plan said Owens' request to get lawmakers together Aug. 2 is too little too late. Realistically, lawmakers have until early September to put something before voters. A citizen group, however, is collecting signatures to put its proposed TABOR/Amendment 23 fix on the November ballot. That group, led by a Denver think tank, has until Aug. 2 to deliver the more than 60,000 valid signatures to the Secretary of State's Office. The backers have said they will halt their drive if the General Assembly and the governor come up with a bipartisan solution. Legislative leaders want a deal before Aug. 2 so that backers of the ballot measure won't have to go through too much time and expense. BUDGET FIX? The proposal is io cut taxes, remove TABOR's spending limits and phase out Amendment 23. - Cutting the income tax to 4.5 percent from 4.63 percent would return more than $700 million to Coloradans by 2009. - Removing the TABOR limits would let lawmakers keep $1.4 billion in revenue during the same time. TABOR refunds of the late 1990s would stop. The TABOR provision that requires voters to approve tax increases would remain. ._. ",••'~ rv1 ~ ~,7. ~.. t , y~-~ ~: y7 d-~-; /~ ;;.~ 71 ` l ~o `Y- '~. i i y.. .-~.: 1~ http: //www.gazette. com/popupNews. php?id=1089063 7/14/2004 1\VGA~' 1V1V U111Q.ll1. 1VGWJ. LG~'1J1LLll11G Rocky Mountain News To print this page, select File then Print from your browser URL: http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/legislature/article/0,1299,DRMN_37_3039855,OO.html GOP leaders reject Dems' budget proposal By Steven K. Paulson, Associated Press ]uly 15, 2004 Republican legislative leaders rejected the latest Democratic proposal to resolve the state's fiscal crisis today and issued their own list of demands for any compromise. The GOP turned down a plan by House Minority Leader Andrew Romanoff to cut taxes, modify constitutional limits on spending and impose atime-out on increases in public school funding. Advertisement ~~~~ `~- :~. „P"~ ~ f,~4,. _~:~° _ f. '_ _. ': Chart~ir'<g Iri~+e iear€tin~ iantJsc~p~.,. -- The blunt rejection angered Romanoff, D-Denver. "Somebody once said it takes 100 horses to raise a barn, but any jackass can knock it down. I'm trying to find 100 horses here," he said. Lawmakers have been battling for months over ways to solve a crisis caused by conflicting constitutional amendments. The Taxpayer's Bill of Rights, or TABOR, limits growth in state revenue and spending. Amendment 23 requires increases in spending on public education Democrats say they will not support any plan that hurts Amendment 23; Republicans say they won't support any plan that hurts TABOR. The impasse kept the Legislature from passing any solution to present to voters this year. Gov. Bill Owens has said he won't call a special session unless the Legislature shows it can get behind a plan. On Tuesday, legislative leaders balked at his request to gather all 100 lawmakers for caucuses to work out a proposal. Both sides had planned to report back Friday to see how much support Romanoff's plan had. But House Speaker Lola Spradley, R-Buelah, and Majority Leader Keith King, R-Colorado Springs, dismissed the plan Thursday, saying there was no reason to wait. "The Romanoff plan may at first appear to be a tax cut, but it will result in citizens paying more taxes and a http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/cda/article~rint/0,1983,DRMN 37 3039855_... 7/15/2004 huge increase in government spending. We are taking a firm stand against this proposal because it is not in the best interest of Colorado taxpayers," Spradley said. Spradley and King issued a list of principles for any compromise, including a guarantee not to ask taxpayers to pay more than necessary to get the state back on sound financial footing, to address funding for public education and TABOR equally, and to keep a limit on spending. "We are not closing the door on future negotiations, but it is clear that we are not being heard," King said. Owens had no immediate response. Romanoff s plan would have reduced the state income tax from 4.63 percent to 4.5 percent over two years and eliminated a provision of TABOR that limits revenue by population growth and inflation. It also would have ended Amendment 23's increases in public school funding after 2011 and would have suspended them if the economy went sour. RomanofFs plan also included a law offering businesses a credit against the business personal property tar.. Republicans have said the tax stifles business development. Spradley and King said their own proposals would provided a better balance. They blamed Democrats for the impasse. Spradley's plan would have increased the amount of money the state could spend under TABOR and cut spending for Amendment 23 for two years beginning next year, while providing a permanent business personal property tax refund. King's plan would have increased the TABOR limit by $300 million and cut public education spending by $75 million for two years. The state released figures Thursday showing state revenues exceeded forecasts by $130 million for the fiscal year which ended June 30. ~ Copyright 2004, Rocky Mountain News. All Rights Reserved. http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/cda/article~rint/0,1983,DRMN 37 3039855_... 7/15/2004 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Colorado Counties, lnc. 1700 Qroadvvay • Suilc 1510 • Denver. Colorado 80390-1501 Phone: 303.SG 1.4076 fax: 30 ~.861?818 c-mail: cci(~?ccionline.org CamnalQn For Colorado Proposal -TABOR Local Government Components • Eliminates the local fiscal year spending limit; • Replaces the existing property tax revenue limit (inflation-based) with a new property tax revenue limit based on personal income growth since 2000; • Ratifies local TABOR elections that have already occurred; and • Authorizes weakening of other limits on revenue and spending by legislative action (and specifically preserves existing home rule powers) President Dennis Everhart, Washington • Secretary Kalhay Kennels, l.arimcr • Treasurer (tick Sheehan, Jcffcison • Past President Marianna Kafftopoulos, Moffa[ Jerry l3cr~cnum, Teller • MatYtt Hcimerich, Crowley • Doug Mon~cr. Roue • (ilcnn Vaad, Weld ' Ballot Title Setting Board Proposed Initiative 2003-2004 #1261 The title as designated and fixed by the Board is as follows: An amendment to section 20 (7) of article X of the Colorado constitution concernin g limitations on government spending and revenues, and, in connection therewith, repealing current ' limitations on state and local goverlmert spending and revenue; requiring state fiscal year spending to be less, as a percentage of the overall state economy, than it was in state fiscal year 1999-2000 unless voters approve a revenue change; establishing the property tax revenue limit for each local government to be the local govemment's property tax revenue limit for the fiscal year ending in 2000 plus subsequent local growth and per-capita growth in the overall state economy, with specified adjustments; and allowing other state and local limits on revenue and spending to be strengthened'or weakened by state or local legislative action. 1 The ballot title and submission clause as designated and fixed by the Board is as follows: Shall there be an amendment to section 20 (7) of article X of the Colorado constitution concerning limitations on government spending and revenues, and, in connection therewith, repealing current limitations on state and local government spending and revenue; requiring state fiscal year spending to be less, as a percentage of the overall state economy, than it was instate fiscal yeas 1999-2000 unless voters approve a revenue change; establishing the property tax revenue limit for each local government to be the local government's property tax revenue limit for the fiscal year ending in 2000 plus subsequent local growth and per-capita growth in the overall state economy, with specified adjustments; and allowing other state and local limits on revenue and spending to be strengthened or weakened by state or local legislative action? Hearing April 2i~, 2004: Single subject approved; staff draft amended; titles set. Hearing adjourned 5:47 p.m; Hearing May S, 2004: Motion for Rehearing denied. _ Hearing adjourned 6:20 p.m. C 1 t Unofficially captioned "Government Spending Limits -Local Property Taxes" by legislative staff for traclang purposes. Such caption is not part of the titles set by the Board. Page 1 of Z Be it Enacted by the People of the State of Colorado: #126 An amendment to the constitution of the state of Colorado, repealing Article X, Section 20 (7) and replacing it with the following: (7) Spending limits (a) State fiscal year spending must be less, as a percentage of the overall state economy, than it was in fiscal year ending in 2000, unless voters approve a revenue change. (b) Each local district's property tax revenue limit is the property tax revenue limit that existed in the .fiscal year ending in 2000, plus the sum of local growth. since 2000 and per-capita growth in the overall state economy since.the fiscal year ending in 2OOO,.adjusted for revenue changes approved by voters after January 1, 2000, and (8)(b) and (9) reductions. . (c) If revenue from sources not excluded from fiscal year spending exceeds these limits in dollars for that fiscal year, the excess shall be refunded in the next fiscal year unless voters approve a revenue change as an offset. Qualification or disqualification as an enterprise shall change district bases and future year Limits. Future creation of district bonded debt shall increase, and retiring or refinancing district bonded debt shall lower, property tax revenue by the annual debt service so funded. Debt service changes, reductions, (1) and (3)(c) refunds, and voter- approved revenue changes are dollar amounts that are exceptions to, and not part of, any district base. Voter-approved _revenue changes do not require a tax rate change. (d) Other state and local limits on district revenue and spending may be strengthened or weakened by state or local legislative action. This shall not affect the powers granted to home rule municipalities or counties. (e) Nothing 'in this subsection (7) shall be constnled to weaken any of the provisions of section 20(4) of this article, including the requirement of voter approval of new taxes and ~ increases in tax rates. (f) Nothing in this subsection (7} shall be construed to invalidate any district election pursuant to Article X, section 20, held prior to the effective date of this subsection. (g) For the purposes of this subsection, "the overall state economy" means the size of the state economy as measured by the most current total state personal income data available from the federal Bureau of Economic Analysis, or its successor agency. 1 Ballot Title Setting Board Proposed Initiative 2043 2044 #1371 The title as des' igr~ated and fixed by the Board is as follows: . An amendment to the Colorado constitution concerning modifications to certain constitutionally mandated increases in funding for preschool through twelfth grade-public education, ' and, in connection therewith, making such modifications only if voters approve a constitutional amendment in 2004 that requires state fiscal year spending to be less, as a percentage of the overall state economy, than it was in state fiscal year 1999-2000; allowing the general assembly to suspend any portion of the mandated annual funding increase above the mandated increase for infl anon for each state fiscal year through state fiscal year 2010-Z I if Colorado total state personal income grows by less than four and one-half percent between the two previous calendar years; repealing the provisions of section 17 of article IX of the state constitution relating to mandated annual funding increases, effective June 30, 2011; delaying the date of repeal for each year in which the general assembly enacts such a suspension; requiring payment of a suspended funding increase in a specified ' ~ fiscal year; and specifying that moneys remaining in the state education fund upon such repeal are to be used only for currently authorized education-related purposes without .being subject to any existing spending limitation. ~- .The ballot title and submission clause as designated and fixed by the Board is as follows: Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution concerning modifications to certain constitutionaliymandatedincreases infunding for preschool through twelfth grade public education, and, in conriecfion therewith; making such modifications only if voters approve a constitutional amendment in 2004 that requires state fiscal year spending to be less, as a percentage of the overall 1 state economy, than it was in state fiscal year 1999-2000; allowing the general assembly to suspend .any portion of the mandated annual funding increase above the mandated increase for inflation for each state fiscal year through state fiscal year 2010-11 if Colorado total state personal income grows , by less than four and one-half percent between the two previous calendar years; repealing the provisions of section 17 of article IX of the state constitution relating to mandated annual funding increases, effective June 30, 2011; delaying the date of repeal for each year in which the general assembly enacts such a suspension; requiring payment of a suspended funding increase in a specified fiscal year; and specifying that moneys remaining in the state education fund upon such repeal are to be used only for currently authorized education-related purposes without being subject to any ~~ existing spending limitation? i Unofficially captioned "Education blindin - g Contingent Repeal of Amendment 23 by legislative staff for traclang purposes. Such caption is not part of the titles set by the Board. Page 1 of 2 ,;'137 , Y~, i~ z~ncrcted hti~ zhe People o~ tize State of Colaradc: S°ction]? of article I~ o' the constitution. of the state of Colorado is amended gy TIC ADDITION OF A ~~W SUBSECTION to read: Section 1.7. Education - Feanding. (6) SUNSET. (a) THIS SECTION SHALL SUNSET ON 1UIv'E 30, 201 1, ONLY 1~, PRIOR TO 3AIvZJAR1' 1, 2005, A MAJORITY OF VOTERS A_pPROVE AN AA~NDT<~TT' TO SECTION 20(7) OF ARTICLE X OF THE COLORADO CONSTITUTION THAT LIMITS STATE SPENDITG TO LESS THAN TI-1/ PERCENTAGE OF THE Otir,RALL STAiE ECONOMY Tt3AT EXISTED IN TTY FISCAL Y"EAR ENDING TI 2000, ADJUSTED FOR VOTER APPROVED REVEI`'UE CHANGES. IF THE VOIEP.S APPROVE SUCH A CONSTITUTIONAL A.A~NDME;~TT: (I) THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY MAY SUSPEND NO MORE THAN T'rIE ONE PERCENTAGE PO~T1T' INCREASE SPECIFIED II~7 SECTION 17(1) OF THIS ARTICLE IN ANY STATE FISCAL YEAR IN Vr'HICH COLORADO TOTAL STATE PERSONAL INCOME GROWS LESS THAN FOUR AND ONE HALF PERCENT BETWEEN THE TWO PREVIOUS CALENDAR YEARS; (II) THE REQUIRED FUNDING INCREASES UNDER THIS SECTION SHALL BE EXTENDED BY ONE FISCAL YEAR FOR EACH FISCAL YEAR THAT TI-IE GENERAL ASSEMBLl' SUSPENDS ANY PORTION OF T"rIE SPENDING REQUIREMENTS OF THIS SECTION; (III) THIS SECTION SHALL BE REPEALED EFFECTIVE .TUNE 30, ZO 1 1, UNLESS Tim GENERAL ASSEMBLY SUSPENDS ANY PORTION OF THE SPE'~1DING REQUIREMENTS OF T:~S SECTION. Ltit SUCH CASE, THE EFFECTIVE REPEAL DATE S.~IA.LL BE E3~'TENDED BY ONE YEAR FOR EACH ' -FISCAL YEAR FOR WHICH THE SPENDING REQUIREMENTS ARE SUSPENDID. UPON REPEAL OF THIS SECTION, ANY FUND BALANCE EXISTING IN THE STATE EDUCATION FUND SHALL BE . USED FOR THE PURPOSES DESCRIBED IN SECTION 17(4)(B) OF THIS ARTICLE AND SHALL NOT BE SUBJECT TO THE LIMITATION ON FISCAL YEAR SPENDING SET FORTrI IN~ARTICLE X, SECTION 20 OF THIS CONSTITUTION Al~'D ANY OTHER SPENDING LIMITATION EXISTING IN LAW. . (b) FOR PURPUSES OF THIS SUBSECTION, "THE OVERALL STATE ECONOMY" MEANS THE SIZE OF THE STATE ECONOMY AS MEASURED BY THE MOST CL112ItETIT TOTAL STATE PERSONAL INCOME DATA AVAII.ABLE FROM TTY FEDERAL BUREAU OF ECONOMIC ANALYSIS, OR ITS SUCCESSOR AGENCY. ~~~~~ ? s 100 LEGISLA J~E COUNCIL 1 1 fl 1 1 t a 1 Page 1 of 4 Sam Mamet From: Barb Major [bmajor@cml.org] Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2004 9:20 AM To: smamet@cml.org Subject: CML Issues: Tax & Policy Issues CML .1144 Sl~rrr~ qtr ~ t7~t~, ~~i~radc ~€12~3-22t}~' y Ph~l1~ (~13) $~'11'~. I' (~fl3) 8.~1 T0: Sam Mamet, (smamet@cml.org) CML ISSUES UPDATE July 13, 2004 What follows is a synopsis of current tax, fiscal policy conversations underway both inside and outside of the Capitol. Initiatives - - - The initiative petitions to reform TABOR (#126) and Amendment 23 (#137) are actively being circulated. August 2"d is the deadline for petitions to be turned in for them both with a minimum of 67,829 registered elector signatures. While we believe that the required number will be submitted, for interested municipal officials who would like to get more active in the campaign, we encourage you to contact the Campaign For Colorado at 303-860-0645. And, for more information about the initiative drive and issues related to the campaign go to www.thebell.ora and you will find a lot more material that may be of use. #126 Summary •Changes the maximum state spending limit from the previous year's limit (or actual revenue, whichever is less) to a simple percent of statewide personal income, rather than the current CPI plus population. This eliminates the so-called °ratchet" effect on state fiscal year spending. Personal income is a more accurate reflection of the growth in the state's economy rather than an arbitrary figure of inflation. Further, this concept was advanced by Joint Budget Committee Chair Brad Young, R-Lamar, during the recently adjourned regular session of the General Assembly. And, it is a concept that is reflected in many other state tax and spending limits around the country. ' •Eliminates the general revenue limits which apply to local governments, and substitutes a modified property tax revenue limit. This change accomplishes several beneficial things: it changes the current local government property tax limit and affords greater local flexibility in how the limit is calculated; it does away with the local ratchet effect in a manner similar to what is done for the state; and it may help to minimize some of the local effects of Gallagher. Unlike most all other TABOR reform proposals, this initiative goes the extra mile to directly address 7/13/2004 Page 2 of 4 and be of benefit to local government interests. CML had a major hand in drafting this language. -Allows the state and local governments to adjust upward or downward other existing limits on revenues and spending, such as the state's statutory 6% general fund spending limit, or the statutory 5.5% property tax revenue raising limit for local governments. By removing these state law limits from TABOR it grants to the General Assembly greater flexibility to modify them. -Maintains the current requirement that there must be voter approval for new taxes or increases in tax rates. Retaining this requirement keeps in place the most important feature of TABOR-voter control of taxes. #137 Summary -Allows the legislature to suspend mandated increases in K-12 spending above the per-pupil inflation adjusted levels when statewide personal income grows by less than 41/2%. -Repeals Amendment 23 after completion of the phase up of education spending provided for in the amendment. These changes collectively will grant to the state some spending flexibility in K-12 which currently is a problem in the way in which TABOR and Amendment 23 interact on the state's budget. In the weeks ahead, the League will be releasing to municipal officials more information about these initiatives. The League's Executive Board unanimously voted to endorse both measures at the recent CML annual conference. And, we are working closely with our counterparts from Colorado Counties, Inc., Special Districts Association of Colorado, Colorado Education Association, and Colorado School Boards Association to come up with some common material you can use locally with your own local government counterparts. Whether or not your city/town has de-Braced as a municipal leader you should be in support of these measures because: -They grant needed relief to the state budget, which has been hit hard in numerous ways that directly affect municipalities and local governments (i.e., cuts and reductions in state grant and loan programs; cash funding increases; effects upon transportation funding). -They directly benefit the interests of local government with the changes to TABOR's local govemment limits. -They address the serious ratchet effect upon state spending with a more reasoned approach using a limitation that is more geared to growth in the state's economy: And the core of TABOR is retained-voter control over taxes. Statehouse Deliberations Since session adjournment in early May, members of the legislative leadership have been meeting together and often with Gov. Owens to review tax policy and possible constitutional changes. Whether these discussions result in a special session before summer's end remains unclear. Currently, this is what leadership is considering: 7/ 13/2004 Page 3 of 4 •No changes for local government, except possibly modifying the 3% emergency reserve restrictions on the state and on local govemment. All other basic changes to TABOR of benefit to local govemment have been rejected either by individual members of the leadership or the Govemor. •A possible state level de-Brucing or other type of re-basing upwards of $400 million, with a portion perhaps earmarked for state-level transportation projects and/or higher education among other items. ' •House Minority Leader Andrew Romanoff, D-Denver, has just put together a clever proposal, with which some editorial writers appear smitten, that would reduce the state's personal income tax rate of 4.63% to 4.5% over two years, and eliminate the TABOR state revenue ' limits. Amendment 23 would be eliminated in seven years. Other earlier proposals would suspend some of the auto-pilot K-12 spending features of this measure. Rep. RomanofPs has picked up some interesting reactions in the press, and so it is worth closely watching when the leadership reconvenes tomorrow for more discussion. Major tax rate reductions have to be handled with great care as state budget writers can attest over the past three years. The state sales tax rate and income rate reductions of the past several years are part of the fiscal squeeze in which the state has found itself with no way to recover. A special session will seriously undercut the initiative efforts underway, and for that reason, 1 concerns have been expressed to certain members of the leadership about the danger in continuing these talks. These leadership talks have frankly generated no real comprehensive solutions for local government interests, although we do want to publicly acknowledge the efforts of Sen. Norma Anderson, R-Lakewood, Sen. Ken Gordon, D-Denver, and Rep. Romanoff, all of whom have pushed the local government piece as far as possible. Senate Majority Leader Mark Hillman, R-Burlington, has expressed some interest in the local govemment piece as well. Governor Owens has been fairly vocal with his general opposition to a comprehensive local government fix, because of his view that most local governments have already de-Bruced. Since most municipal de-Brucings (around 66% to be exact) have been earmarked for a specific spending purpose or set up to expire after a date certain, we would disagree that local ,' government de-Brucings have taken care of the problem at the city/town level. The Denver Post has also weighed in with consistent editorial pressure since adjournment ' about the need for the legislature to act quickly in a special session. Bruce Tax Cut (#122) This initiative would cut a variety of state and local taxes and is very similar to Amendment 21 of several years ago, which was overwhelmingly defeated. We know that petitions are being circulated, but we do not know how extensively. We are keeping a close watch on this one because of its potentially dramatic impact upon state and local government finances. State Surplus Debate You may also have seen recent reports coming from Gov. Owens' state budget office indicating that state tax and fee collections increased by over 8% during the past fiscal year, leading to a surplus of over $80 million that will have to be returned to taxpayers at a time when the state is still facing a "structural deficit of over $300 million, which will have to be cut from next year's budget. The increases coming into the state are one time increases that do 7/13/2004 Page 4 of 4 not build into the state's base, according to the General Assembly's budget forecasters. And since September, 2001, the state general fund budget has lost 17% of its projected revenue. The ratchet effect upon state spending means that the legislature can't spend this increased revenue on new programs, and with K-2 spending mandates within Amendment 23, the fiscal squeeze on the state continues. It will be quite an irony next session to see refund checks being mailed out at the same time lawmakers are making painful spending cuts and reductions, some of which will certainly affect municipal interests. League lobbyists: Ken Bueche, kbueche _.cml.org; Mike Braaten, mbraaten~a cml.org; Sam Mamet, smamet __cml.org You are receiving this a-mail bepuse you asked to be included in the CML Issues Update. If at any time you wish to be removed from this list, please call ore-mail Barb Major bmajor@cml. org and you will promptly be removed. 7/13/2004 Sam Mamet From: Barb Major [bmajor@cml.org] Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2004 2:16 PM To: smamet@cml.org Subject: CML Issues: Tax Policy Update f:1j4.~~.A:}ib AEi7Bdi C:.l6~+4i f'rA~C3J£. Yage 1 ot~ 3 11 a~# Sherman Sta~et * . n~er, O~i~rad~ ~2a3~2:~4~' s h~>1~ ~.~ $31 X11, ~ 8303 f S ~ .1 T0: Sam Mamet, (smamet@cml.org) July 14, 2004 CML ISSUES UPDATE Here is an update on tax policy conversations at the Capitol as of yesterday and today. ' Gov. Owens The Governor sent a letter yesterday to legislative leadership proposing an Aug. 2nd °budget caucus" for all 100 lawmakers to explore all of the issues involving tax and fiscal policy. Staff briefings would occur, party caucuses would huddle, and then at the end of the day there would be some conversation as to whether any consensus exists among and between lawmakers. Legislative Leadership Yesterday afternoon, various members of the leadership met (absent were House Majority Leader Keith King and Senate President John Andrews) to review the current situation. According to press accounts, the Governor's letter was not met with great enthusiasm, and ' instead discussions developed around simply calling a special session for Aug. 2nd. The state constitution allows the General Assembly to call itself in without the involvement of the Governor. The legislature has never done this before, it appears. Leadership representatives are polling lawmakers on the following proposal: !Reduce the state income tax rate over a two year period from the current 4.63% to 4.5% ($700 million reduction in revenue by 2009). This can be done by statute. !Remove the state government revenue limits in TABOR (generates an additional $1.4 billion in revenue by 2009). This is a constitutional change, and in the future would allow the state to spend up to the full 6% allowed now under state law. !Reduce or phase out the business personal property tax ($600 million, presumably as a 7/14/2004 refund or credit at the state level so as not to affect local property taxes or the Gallagher property assessment ratio). This can be done by statute. !Eliminate Amendment 23 in seven years, and temporarily halt its enforcement in times of economic downturns. This is a constitutional change. It is anticipated that the proposal would be coupled so some of the changes couldn't pass without approval of the other parts of the package. Ironically, the income tax and business personal property tax reductions were proposed by two ranking Democrats, House Minority Leader Andrew Romanoff and Senate Assistant Minority Leader Ken Gordon. It will be interesting to see whether individual interest groups which have advocated for targeted tax credits as part of the TABOR surplus giveaway the past few legislative sessions will mount any opposition efforts, since these will all go away we presume-under this scenario. If the credits don't disappear, this defeats the efforts of those advocating broad- based relief. The polling of lawmakers is underway and by Friday a decision could be made as to whether there is atwo-thirds majority to refer constitutional changes to the November ballot. If there is widespread support, then athree-day special session will likely be called Aug. 2nd. Senate Majority Leader Mark Hillman, R-Burlington, and Sen. Norma Anderson, R-Lakewood, have both indicated support for this package. Gov. Owens has not indicated his position on it. If sufficient support is lacking, then a special session is highly unlikely. It is, however, possible that interested lawmakers could come back for a briefng like the one suggested by Gov. Owens either on Aug. 2nd or some other time. Municipal impacts The current proposal contains no direct municipal benefit, like the Campaign for Colorado initiative. Economic development professionals will surely argue that the repeal of the business personal property tax will be a major economic development incentive for the state. Assuming the repeal or modification of this tax is done as a refund or credit, then the direct impact on local govemment property taxes will not occur. Only time will tell if additional economic benefits are generated for the state with any change in this tax. If the TABOR state revenue limits are removed, additional revenues (so-called SB 1 monies) will flow back to CDOT for state-level projects. None of that revenue is shared with counties and municipalities. Additional revenues will also flow to the controlled maintenance fund and to state capital construction projects that have been put on hold. The removal of the revenue limits will offer spending relief to the state (depending on how it is structured, and assuming that are a minimal number of earmarks to the revenue generated for the general fund) and this in turn will help programs that have been cut or reduced the past few years of benefit to cities and towns. And if all of this comes together, then the efforts put forward by the Campaign For Colorado initiative will have been seriously eroded. The local govemment associations will be meeting at CML tomorrow afternoon to review all of 7/14/2004 Yage j of :i ' these most recent development. Lobbyist: Sam Mamet, smamet ,~cml.org ' You are receiving this a-mail because you asked to be included in the CML Issues Update. If at any time you wish to be removed from this list, please call ore-mail Barb Major bma'o cm1•om and you will promptly be removed. 1 ~~ 1 1 1 7/ 14/2004 r arc i ut ~ ' Sam Mamet __ .... _. . From: Barb Major [bmajor@cml.org] , Sent: Friday, July 16, 2004 12:05 PM To: smamet@cml.org Subject: CML Issues: Update on Tax Policy Issues 11 ~d4 ~rt~ $~t' - Y~~ ~cl~~t~ ~Q3-2~}?~ • ~I~~t~~ (}~~ 831 X11, i"rA~ (3~; 8-1~1 ~5 TO: Sam Mamet, (smamet@cml.org) CML ISSUES UPDATE ' Jul 16 20 y 04 Here is today's update on tax policy discussions underway at the Capitol. ' Tax policy discussions As you might have read in today's press, the House Republican Leadership has rejected the proposal put forward by House Minority Leader Andrew Romanoff. As you may recall, his proposal would have cut the state income tax rate; eventually eliminated the business personal property tax; and suspended Amendment 23 in times of an economic downturn and repealed it entirely in 7 years. In turn, the House Republican Leadership put forward three major principles: ^The legislature should not consider asking the state's voters to pay more in taxes than is absolutely necessary to satisfy the structural deficit. This deficit is predicted to be $431 million in five years. They argue that the Minority Leader's plan, while cutting taxes by $746 in the ' personal income tax rate, allows increased state spending by $1.5 billion in the removal of the TABOR state revenue limit. They have remained silent on his proposal to eliminate the business personal property tax. .The le islature must addres g s Amendment 23 and TABOR equally. • The legislature can't repeal in its entirety the TABOR spending limit. Specifically, the House Republican Leadership reaffirmed two proposals put forward by their ' members. First, House Speaker Lola Spradley, R-Beulah, has a proposal that increases the TABOR limit i by $150 million and $110 million in FY `05-`06 and `06-`07 respectively. Amendment 23 ' 7/16/2004 iu~j~.c,vi~ spending would be reduced by $75 million and $50 million in those two same years. Finally, the business personal property tax refund would be made permanent. Second, House Majority Leader Keith King, R-Colorado Springs, and who is expected to be the incoming Speaker next session, increases the TABOR spending limit by $300 million over a two year period, and reduces Amendment 23 spending by $45 million next year, and an added $30 million the following. Senate President John Andrews also sent out an a mail to Republican colleagues this week highly critical of the House Minority Leader's proposal. An initial agreement within the leadership ranks earlier this week was for polling to occur by today of the rank and file to gauge legislative support for Rep. Romanoff's proposal. It appears now with the letter released by Speaker Spradley that effort is off and it is unclear if further conversations among and between members of the leadership occurs will occur. It is also not clear whether a "budget caucus" will occur on Aug. 2nd, and if there would be a sufficient number of lawmakers in attendance to make it a productive exercise. The August meeting was a suggestion made by Governor Bill Owens earlier this week. Sen. Norma Anderson, R-Lakewood, was highly critical of the House Republican Leadership letter in her public comments to the press. She has been a party to the negotiations. Gov. Owens has previously suggested some modest re-basing of TABOR state spending limits and/or a suspension of TABOR and Amendment 23 requirements for a certain time period to grant the legislature time to sort out the complexities of the problem. While a special session could still happen before the end of the summer, it is also fair to say that the chances of this happening, while never strong to begin with, are even less likely now with this recent outbreak of acrimony among and between members of the leadership. State revenue picture, In a news release issued yesterday by the Governor's Office, state revenues were more than $130 million higher than initially forecast a year ago with the ending of the fiscal year on June 30th, growing by about 5% over the previous year. Corporate and personal income tax revenues both came in above projections. FY `03-`04 ended with total state revenues of $5.7 billion; FY '02= 03 revenues ended at $5.4 billion. Initial state share-back projections for this year have HUTF proceeds accruing to municipalities pegged at $103.7 million; the cigarette tax rebate at $15.4 million; and the Conservation Trust Fun at $46.3 million. These figures come directly from the state budget bill adopted in April as HB 04-1422. Campaign For Colorado Initiative The effort to place meaningful changes to TABOR and Amendment 23 continues, and we anticipate that will be sufficient signatures to secure placement of both on the November ballot. The League is in support of both. Our friends at CCI have cogently summarized the local government benefits of the TABOR changes put forward by the Campaign, and it is why local governments should be in strong support of this effort: 7/16/2004 r a~~ ~ vi ~ r [] 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 . It eliminates the local government fiscal year spending limit. . It replaces the existing inflation-based property tax revenue limit with a new limit based upon personal income growth starting in 2000. . It authorizes the weakening of other limits on revenue and spending by legislative action. These are meaningful and beneficial changes that no Statehouse proposal has come close to matching. That is why local leaders need to rally behind the work of the Campaign, and why the four statewide local government associations, and CEA, are all working closely together at the state level. Look for some jointly produced material going out to you from all of us in the weeks ahead after the petitions qualify by the Secretary of State's Office. And, look for us to have a lot of discussion about the Campaign For Colorado initiatives during our fall outreach meetings. Call the League or the Campaign directly (303-860-0645) for more information. Lobbyists: Ken Bueche, kbueche(c~cml.org; Mike Braaten, mbraatenCc~cml.org~ Sam Mamet, smamet~a~.cml.org You are receiving this a-mail because you asked to be included in the CML Issues Update. !f at any time you wish to be removed from Phis list, please call ore-mail Barb Major bmaio cml. o and you will promptly be removed. 7/16/2004 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ~~~0 0~ ~~~~ I E ~~~ ~ R IL'J~~O c~~ ~ssties ~~aate. CML is sending selected information by e-mail, including the Statehouse RepoYt, immediate-attention notices, legislative alerts and other pertinent communications. If you want to receive these communications, fill out the form below & return it to CML, or e-mail bmajor@cml.org. For members only, please. Name Title Municipality e-mail address Return form to: CML 1144 Sherman Street Denver, CO 80203 Fax: 303-860-8175 Phone # Dear Members Please note beginning e~ ~ v /~ r v~~'~~''~\ /~~s ~ fit', // ~~ ~ ~~~~ ~ ~~ Sunday, August 1St ` \ `mil, c,~ All Aria Spa & Club parking will be only on the lower two levels (levels one & two) of the Cascade parking structure. The upper level (level 3) is not owned by the Vail Cascade Resort & Spa and beginning August 1st this will of be operated by the Resort and not part of the complimentary parking that is available to our customers. Thank you for your cooperation. MAY 2004 ;` VAIL BUSINESS REVIEW T1~WN OF YAIL ' . July 26, 2004 Overall May sales tax decreased 4.9% with Retail decreasing 6.6%, Lodging increased 9.3%, Food and Beverage decreased 13.1% and Utilities/Other (which is mainly utilities but also includes taxable services and rentals) decreased 1.4%. Town of Vail sales tax forms and the Vail Business Review are available on the Internet at www.vailgov.com. We have combined the Town of Vail and Conference Center remittance forms into one form. On www.vail og v.com the form automatically calculates. You enter your information, print the form and mail it with your check. You can download the calculating form by going to E-Services, Form Downloads, right click on Town of Vail Sales Tax Return and select Save Target As. Please remember when reading the Vail Business Review that it is produced from sales tax collections, as opposed to actual gross sales. If you have any questions or comments please feel free to call me at (970) 479-2125. Sincerely, Sally Lorton Sales Tax Administrator t May 2004 SALES TAX VAIL VILLAGE May 2003 Collections Retail 39,657 Lod in I 17 365 g g Food & Beverage Other Total May May 2004 Collections Change - - -- 36,944 -6.8%' 19,600 12.9% 49,890 41,518 -16.8% .2,509 1,921 -23.4% -- - - -- -------- 109,421 99,983 -8.6% LIONSHEAD May May May 2003 2004 Collections I Collections Chan e Retail 11,354 11,752 3.5% ~ Lodging 11,684 15,667 34.1% Food & Beverage 11,177 14, 343 28.3% Other 3,178 2,722 -14.3% Total 37,393 --- -_ 44,484 19.0% s May 2004 SALES TAX CASCADE VILLAGE/EAST VAIUSANDSTONE/WEST VAIL May May May 2003 2004 Retail Lodging Food & Beverage Other Total ~.viiections ~.oiiections ~.nange 99,618 82,180 -17.5% 13,604 11,702 -14.0% 32,213 24,927 -22.6% 6,107 3,053 -50.0% 151,542 121,862 -19.6% OUT OF TOWN May May May 2003 2004 Collections Collections Change_ Retail 20,589 29,127 41.5% Lodging I 1,397 1,188 -15.0°/a; Food & Beverage 0 238 100.0% Utilities & 109,015 111,396 2.2% Other __ ___ Total 131,001 141,949 8.4% ,~ May 2004 SALES TAX TOTAL May. May May 2003 2004 Collections Collections Chan e Retail ~~ 171,218 160,003 -6.6% I ~I Lodging 44,050 48,157 9.3% Food & Beverage 93,280 81,026 -13.1 Utilities & 120,809 119,092 -1.4°l0 Other Total 429,357 408,278 -4.9% r RETAIL SUMMARY May 2003 Collections May 2004 Collections May Change FOOD . 73,985 .60,166 -18.7% LIQUOR 11,237 11,748 4.5% APPAREL 13,084 13,946 6.6% SPORT 19,829 12,354 -37.7% JEWELRY 6,794 6,983 2.8% GIFT 3,576 3,242 -9.3% GALLERY 688 1,883 173.7% OTHER 40,929 48,825 19.3% HOME 1,096 856 -21.9% OCCUPATION TOTAL 171,218 160,003 -6.55% MEMORANDUM July 27, 2004 To: Vail Town Council Stan Zemler Pam Brandmeyer Judy Camp From: Sally Lorton Re: June Sales Tax On the reverse side, please find the latest sales tax worksheet. I estimate I'll collect another $45,000.00 in June sales tax to bring June collections to $726,552.00. If so, we will be down 2.18% or $16,203.00 from June 2003 and down 3.16% or $23,683.00 from budget. Attached please fmd two worksheets that report on the conference center tax collection. Town of Vait Sales Tax Worksheet 7/27/04 % Change % Change Month 1883 198< f985 1986 1997 1898 1889 2000 2001 2002 2003 2001 Budget Budget CoJ/ecf/ona Variance tram 2003 hom Budget t,~ ;~,' n ~ ! z ~ a January 1,855,364 1,805,707 1,894,597 1,935,782 2,052,569 2,115,359 2,066,459 2,034,529 2,210,547 2,073,481 1,997,091 2,017,203 2,225,017 207,814 11.41% 10.30% February 1,828,766 1,814,495 1,816,107 1,993,389 2,089,673 2,153,121 2,021,486 2,223,670 2,366,321 2,281,833 2,111,163 2,132,423 2,362,000 229,577 11.88% 10.77% March 1,988,090 2,250,656 2,139,298 2,240,865 2,580,992 2,368,077 2,415,202 2,545,573 2,568,871 2,699,664- 2;372,942 2,396,839 2,336,800 (60,039) -1.52% -2.50% APri~ 864,303 794,668 791,092 966,993 874,427 1,107,334 952,843 926,771 1,043,431 870,875 871,468 880,244 986,074 105,830 13.15% 12.02% May 257,248 287,315 324,681 318,920 329,783 382,718 370,864 388,121 448,234 414,248 428,919 433,238 409,217 (24,021) -4.59% -5.54% June 475,161 548,820 590,685 ` 594,907 630,366 633,400 692,811 721,774 751,439 657,707 742,755 750,235 681,552 (68,683) -8.24% -9.15% a t'e ~. ~ ~ ~~ u Total 7,268,932 7,501,661 7,556,460 8,050,856 8,557,810 8,760,009 8,519,665 8,840,438 9,388,843 8,997,808 8,524,338 8,610,182 9,000,660 390,478 5.59% 4.54% ', ~ ~ 'Y f~ ~, `~~:'~ ~ ~ ~~I A l ~ ~ ,~} ~' 3v ~` ~ ~ ,,. a . . _ ~ ~a~~ @ µ, y, ~ a 3 Fia~~ ;~! ~ F July 811,538 892,830 893,483 963,717 1,043,637 1,107,882 1,130,883 1,235,470 1,157,867 1,044,966 1,075,532 1,086,363 August 825,954 891,566 867,125 990,650 1,073,430 1,183,926 1,050,004 1,038,516 1,124,275 1,084,318 1,029,446 1,039,813 September 560,535 725,205 645,902 630,453 637,831 735,608 806,600 817,313 747,766 713,574 679,208 686,048 October 400,525 408,405 461,791 413,573 472,836 515,531 536,204 547,201 486,570 484,425 508,092 513,209 November 553,681 594,491 611,147 601,208 707,166 656,596 582,260 691,445 571,783 642,293 591,269 597,223 December 1,974,553 1,992,855 1,994,540 2,068,851 2,254,709 2,070,834 1,883,805 2,062,205 1,933,940 2,139,417 2,171,098 2,192,962 , Total 12,395,718 13,007,013 13,030,448 13,719,308 14,747,419 15,030,386 14,509,421 15,232,588 15,411,044 15,106,801 14,578,983 , 14,725,800 Onth Town of Vail Conference Center Retail-:Tax (. T/27/04 - 2004 2003 Budget Collections 5%) Worksheet Change Budget from Variance 2003 Change from Budget January 233,274 227,706 266,929 39,223 1'4.43% 17.23% February 250,236 ' 244,263 - 283,379 39,116 43.24% 16.01% March .:283,013 276,258 284,436. 8,178 0.50%, 2.96% April',- 99,694 97,315 ~ 115,269 ' 17,954 15.62% 18.45% May 46,376 . 45,269 ._ 45,713 .~. 444 -1.43% ~ 0.98% June 83,981 . 81,977 77,904 (4,073) -7.24% -4.97% Total 996,574 972,788' 1,073,630 100,842 7.73% 10.37% July 122,562 119,637 August ~ 119,843 116,983 September 78,107 76,243 October 57,330 55,962 November 67,602 65,987 December 253,449 247,400 _ Total 1,695,467 1,655,000 - _ onth Town of Vail Conference Center Lodging Tax (1.5%)Worksheet 7/27/04 Change 2004 Budget from 2003 Budget Collections Variance 2003 Change from Budget January 258,035 263,236 304,069 40,833 17.84% 15.51 February 314,645 320,987 354,088 33,101 12.54% 10.31% March 342,984 349,897 332,935 (16,962) -2:93% -4.85% April 64,246 65,541 86,967 21,426 35.37% 32.69% May 15,964 16,286 17,970 1,684 12.57% 10.34% June 54,153 55,244 50,269 (4,975) -7.17% -9.01% Total 1,050,027 1,071,191 1,146,298 ~ 75,107 9.17% 7.01 July 84,422 86,124 August 81,820 83,469 September 42,569 43,427 .~ October 25,131 25,638 November 29,089 29,675 December 260,232 265,476 Total 1,573,290 1,605,000 ~h !~ ~:.. PETER B DUNNING & LUCY F DUNNING 1461 GREENHILL COURT VAIL, COLORADO 81657 August 3, 2004 To: Vail Town Council Re: Opposition to Proposed Amendment To Glen Lyon Special; Development District #4 A family funeral in Massachusetts has prevented my appearance in front of the Council tonight and I offer this letter in substitution. My name is Peter Dunning and my wife and I have owned property in the Glen Lyon District since 1992. Five years ago we acquired a second home in the District and two years ago we moved to our home at 1461 Greenhill Court on a full time basis. V~Ie have invested heavily in the Glen Lyon District partially because of the open space that is a significant portion of the development and the :open --~ - - - space of the Donovan third-bench that abuts the development on the western side. We have relied on the Glen Lyon Protective Covenants which assure that no changes can be made to the 40.4 acres of dedicated open space within the Glen Lyon Subdivision without the express approval of 75% of the owners of the surface area of the privately-owned land included within the boundaries of Glen Lyon. Now the Town of Vail wishes to split off 7.520 acres into a Tract K and to allow development of that tract that is not consistent with dedicated open space. Since no effort has been made to present this issue to the owners of the surface area of the privately-owned land included within the boundaries of Glen Lyon, I cannot understand how the Town Council can proceed with a major amendment to,Special Development District #4 to allow for a new development area in Tract K of the Glen Lyon Subdivision. To do so would invite legal action from the aggrieved owners. If the Town of Vail can unilaterally change the status of dedicated open space to allow development of Tract K, does this mean that the remaining balance of 32.880 acres of dedicated open space in Glen Lyon is also at risk of further development according to the desires of the Vail Town Council? The owners of expensive property in Glen Lyon would certainly demand not. We request that the Vail Town Council demand that any development in Tract K follow the procedures set out in the Glen Lyon Protective Covenants and put any changes to a vote of the private owners within the District befo ons' ation of this proposal. . ,--_ `-~ ~- _ Peter B Dunning Lucy F Dunning _ ~. ,, i ~, ~w . r ~ N~~ ,„.. _W. - - .. -- .W...-_. .,. ~. ~~ %~ Matt Mire - Track K Development ~ Page 1 b.-~ _ ~..~...~ ' From: Alex Linn <axlinn@comcast.net> To: <szemler@vailgov.com>, <rtorrest@vailgov.com>, <gruther@vailgov.com>, <bgibson@vailgov.com>, <commdev@vailgov.com>, <mmire@vailgov.com>, <fhitt@vailgov.com>, <gmoffet@vailgov.com>, <klogan@vailgov.com>, <kruotolo@vailgov.com>, <ddonovan@vailgov.com>, <dcleveland@vailgov.com>, <rslifer@vailgov.com> . Date: S/2/04 9:20:41 PM Subject: Track K Development Dear Members of the Vail Town Council and Town Officials: We live at 1350 Greenhill Courtin the Glen Lyon Subdivision. We had planned to attend the Town Council meeting on Tuesday, August 3, in order to speak personally to the Council of our opposition to the snow cat access way and other major changes which are being proposed to be built by Vail Resorts on Tract K of the Glen Lyon Subdivision. We have been called away unexpectedly, and will not be able to attend the Council meeting, so we are sending you this email. We strongly oppose the snow cat access way, roads, bridges, retaining walls and the other major changes as they are currently being proposed for Tract K. We believe that these changes are gross violations of-the Protective Covenants for Glen Lyon Subdivision, which the Town of Vail signed and agreed to 25 years ago. The Protective Covenants permit ski ways, catwalks, trails and other low impact things on Tract K, but they prohibit all other development and activities which alter, deface or damage the natural condition of the vegetation or the aesthetic quality of the natural environment of Tract K, or which may cause permanent disruption or alteration to the surface, or which may be noxious or offensive.' If the Town approves the snow cat access way, roads, bridges, retaining walls and other major changes to Tract K which are being requested by Vail Resorts, the Town will not only be breaking the Protective Covenants which . is a legal document, it will be breaking all trust with the people of the Glen Lyon Subdivision. If the Town breaks the Glen Lyon Protective Covenants, how can anyone trust the Town to live up to its other agreements? The Town Council is an elected body entrusted to represent the people who _ _ _ _ -- - - - - - - - --live fiere: Breaking this-covenanf would-6e a 6~each of-thei~ duty to their --- --- constituents. The proposed changes to Tract K do not affect us directly. But we believe the Town will be breaking the law and breaking faith with its residents, if it approves the major changes requested by Vail Resorts. We urge the Council to deny Vail Resorts request to make these illegal changes to Tract K. Sincerely, Alexandra and Robert Linn Stan Zemler-Track K Development Page 1 From: Alex Linn <axlinn@comcast.net> To: <szemler@vailgov.com>, <rforrest@vailgov.com>, <gruther@vailgov.com>, <bgibson@vailgov.com>, <commdev@vailgov.com>, <mmire@vailgov.com>, <fhitt@vailgov.com>, <gmoffet@vailgov.com>, <klogan@vailgov.com>, <kruotolo@vailgov.com>, <ddonovan@vailgov.com>, <dcleveland@vailgov.com>, <rslifer@vailgov.com> Date: 8/2/2004 9:20:41 PM Subject: Track K Development Dear Members of the Vail Town Council and Town Officials: We live at 1350 Greenhill Court in the Glen Lyon Subdivision. We had planned to attend the Town Council meeting on Tuesday, August 3, in order to speak personally to the Council of our opposition to the snow cat access way and other major changes which are being proposed to be built by Vail Resorts on Tract K of the Glen Lyon Subdivision. We have been called away unexpectedly, and will not be able to attend the Council meeting, so we are sending you this email. We strongly oppose the snow cat access way, roads, bridges, retaining walls and the other major changes as they are currently being proposed for Tract K. We believe that these changes are gross violations of the Protective Covenants for Glen Lyon Subdivision, which the Town of Vail signed and agreed to 25 years ago. The Protective Covenants permit ski ways, catwalks, trails and other low impact things on Tract K, but they prohibit all other development and activities which alter, deface or damage the natural condition of the vegetation or the aesthetic quality of the natural environment of Tract K, or which may cause permanent disruption or alteration to the surface, or which may be noxious or offensive.' If the Town approves the snow cat access way, roads, bridges, retaining walls and other major changes to Tract K which are being requested by Vail Resorts, the Town will not only be breaking the Protective Covenants which is a legal document, it will be breaking all trust with the people of the Glen Lyon Subdivision. If the Town breaks the Glen Lyon Protective Covenants, how can anyone trust the Town to live up to its other agreements? The Town Council is an elected body entrusted to represent the people who live here. Breaking this covenant would be a breach of their duty to their constituents. The proposed changes to Tract K do not affect us directly. But we believe the Town will be breaking the law and breaking faith with its residents, if it approves the major changes requested by Vail Resorts. We urge the Council to deny Vail Resorts request to make these illegal changes to Tract K. Sincerely, Alexandra and Robert Linn • lq, i t. PETER B DUNNING & LUCY F DUNNING 1461 GREENHILL COURT VAIL, COLORADO 81657 August 3, 2004 To: Vail Town Council Re: Opposition to Proposed Amendment To Glen Lyon Special; Development District #4 A family funeral in Massachusetts has prevented my appearance in front of the Council tonight and I offer this letter in substitution. My name is Peter Dunning and my wife and I have owned property in the Glen Lyon District since 1992. Five years ago we acquired a second home in the District and two years ago we moved to our home at 1461 Greenhill Court on a full time basis. We have invested heavily in. the Glen .Lyon District partially because of the open space that is a significant portion of the development and the open -- - - -- - -- -space of the Donovan third- bench thaf abuts the development on the western side. We have relied on the Glen Lyon Protective Covenants which assure that no changes can be made to the 40.4 acres of dedicated open space within the Glen Lyon Subdivision without the express approval of 75% of the owners of the surface area of the privately-owned land included within the boundaries of Glen Lyon. Now the Town of Vail wishes to split off 7.520 acres into a Tract K and to allow development of that tract that is not consistent with dedicated open space. Since no effort has been made to present this issue to the owners of the surface area of the privately-owned land included within the boundaries of Glen Lyon, I cannot understand how the Town Council can proceed with a major amendment to Special Development District #4 to allow for a new development area in Tract K of the Glen Lyon Subdivision. To~do so would invite legal action from the aggrieved owners. If the Town of Vail can unilaterally change the status of dedicated open space to allow development of Tract K, does this mean that the remaining balance of 32.880 acres of dedicated open space in Glen Lyon is also at risk of further development according to the desires of the Vail Town Council? The owners of expensive property in Glen Lyon would certainly demand not. We request that the Vail Town Council demand that any development in Tract K follow the procedures set out in the Glen Lyon Protective Covenants and put any changes to a vote of the private owners within the District befo ons' ation of this proposal. ~ ~' Peter B Dunning Lucy F Dunning From: Alex Linn <axlinn@comcast.net> To: <szemler@vailgov.com>, <rforrest@vailgov.com>, <gruther@vailgov.com>, <bgibson@vailgov.com>, <commdev@vailgov.com>, <mmire@vailgov.com>, <fhitt@vailgov.com>, <gmoffet@vailgov.com>, <klogan@vailgov.com>, <kruotola@vailgov.com>, <ddonovan@vailgov.com>, <dcleveland@vailgov.com>, <rslifer@vailgov.com> Date: 8/2/04 9:20:41 PM Subject: Track K Development Dear Members of Zhe Vail Town Council and Town Officials: We live at 1350 Greenhill Court in the Glen Lyon Subdivision. We had planned to attend the Town Council meeting on Tuesday, August 3, in order to speak personally to the Council of our opposition to the snow cat access way and other major changes which are being proposed to be built by Vail Resorts on Tract K of the Glen Lyon Subdivision. We have been called away unexpectedly, and will not be able to attend the Council meeting, so we are sending you this email. We strongly oppose the snow cat access way, roads, bridges, retaining walls and the other major changes as they are currently being proposed for Tract K. We believe that these changes are gross violations of the Protective Covenants for Glen Lyon Subdivision, which the Town of Vail signed and agreed to 25 years ago. The Protective Covenants permit ski ways, catwalks, trails and other low impact things on Tract K, but they prohibit all other development and activities which alter, deface or damage the natural condition of the vegetation or the aesthetic quality of the natural environment of Tract K, or which may cause permanent disruption or alteration to the surface, or which may be noxious or offensive.' If the Town approves the snow cat access way, roads, bridges, retaining walls and other major changes to Tract K which are being requested by Vail Resorts, the Town will not only be breaking the Protective Covenants which is a legal document, it will be breaking all trust with the people of the Glen Lyon Subdivision. If the Town breaks the Glen Lyon Protective Covenants, how can anyone trust the Town to live up to its other agreements? The Town Council is an elected body entrusted to represent the people who -- - -- - -live here -Breaking -this covenant would-be a-breach of their duty to their' constituents. The proposed changes to Tract K do not affect us directly. But we believe the Town will be breaking the law and breaking faith with its residents, if it approves the major changes requested by Vail Resorts. . We urge the Council to deny Vail Resorts request to make these illegal changes to Tract K. Sincerely, Alexandra and Robert Linn