Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2006-10-03 Support Documentation Town Council Evening Session
TOWN COUNCIL EVENING SESSION AGENDA 6:00 P.M. TUESDAY, OCTOBER 3, 2006 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 Participation. (10 min.) 2. ITEM/TOPIC: Northwest Colorado Council of Governments. (NWCCOG) Water Quality Committee Update. (15 min.) 3. ITEM/TOPIC: Consent Agenda. (5 min.) a. Approval of 09.05.06 and 09.19.06 Town Council Minutes. 4. Stan Zemler ITEM/TOPIC: Town Manager's Report. (25 min.) • Revenue Update. • Construction Update. • Design Review Process Service Changes. • Discussion of State Legislation Impacting Municipalities. • Vail Tunnel Options, Provided by Joe Kracum. • Next Steps on LionsHead Request for Proposals (RFP). 5. George Ruther ITEMITOPIC: PEC/DRB Update. (10 min.) 6. George Ruther ITEM/TOPIC: A request to remove a recorded Type I Employee Housing Unit deed-restriction from the property located at 1868 West Gore Creek Drive/Lot 47, Vail Village West 1St Filing. (15 min.) ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Approve, approve with modifications, or deny the applicant's request. BACKGROUND RATIONALE: Paul Musson, the owner of the property located at 1868 West Gore Creek Drive/Lot 47, Vail Village West 1St Filing, is requesting to have the recorded Type I Employee Housing Unit deed-restriction removed from the property. In summary, adeed-restriction was recorded against the property in response to pending development and building permit applications. As a result of a change to the .approved plans, the improvements (ie. a second dwelling unit) which necessitated the deed-restriction were never constructed. The property owner is now requesting the removal of the deed- restriction. As the Town of .Vail is the beneficiary of the deed- restriction, approval to remove the deed-restriction shall be reviewed and approved by the Vail Town Council. A copy of the staff memorandum to the Vail Town Council describing the chronology of events in greater detail has been attached for reference. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Community Development Department is recommending approval of this request. 7. Matt Mire ITEMROPIC: Second reading of Ordinance No. 20, Series 2006, An Ordinance Repealing and Reenacting Title 5, Chapter 9 "Wildlife Protection," Vail Town Code; Establishing Regulations and Standards Regarding the Protection of Wildlife; and setting forth details in regard thereto. (10 min.) ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Approve, or approve with amendments second reading of Ordinance No. 20, Series of 2006. BACKGROUND RATIONALE: In August of 2002, and in response to a dramatic increase in human-bear conflicts, the Vail Town Council (the "Council") adopted Ordinance No. 19, Series 2002, which amended the Vail Town Code (the "Code") to include a Chapter regarding Wildlife Protection. The stated purpose of the Wildlife Protection chapter was to "protect and maintain wildlife in the Town of Vail and surrounding areas and to minimize the risk of dangerous interaction between humans and wildlife." On July 11, 2006, and based upon the testimony from town staff and Bill Andree of the Colorado Department of Wildlife, regarding the effectiveness of the 2002 ordinance, the Council directed staff to prepare amendments to the Wildlife Protection which would more effectively serve the purpose set forth above. On July 18, 2006, the Council passed an emergency measure which removed the warning requirement for first time offenders from the current Wildlife Protection regulations and also eliminated the maximum fine amounts set forth in the Code. Accordingly, first time offenders of the current Wildlife Protection regulations are now subject to the General Penalty provision of the Code (up to $999 in fines and incarceration of up to 180 days, or both). On August 1, August 15 and September 5, 2006, the council heard testimony and evidence from Town Staff, members of the community, licensed waste haulers and the Colorado Division of Wildlife. The Council then provided direction to amend the current regulations and requires all Town of Vail residents to obtain by April 15, 2007, at a minimum, A Wildlife-Resistant Refuse Container (sturdy plastic with lid and latching mechanism. In addition, said container when not in use must be stored in a house, garage or other enclosure. If unable to store as such, then must have Wildlife-Proof Refuse Container (metal), or an, approved enclosure. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve, or approve with amendments second reading of Ordinance No. 20, Series of 2006. 8. Matt Mire ITEM/TOPIC: ITEM/TOPIC: Second reading of Ordinance No. 24, Series of 2006. An Ordinance Concerning the Organization of a General Improvement District in the Town of Vail; Accepting the Petition for the Organization of Such General Improvement District, and Making Certain Findings and Determinations; Waiving all requirements for Notice, Publications; Waiving all Requirements for Notice, Publication and Hearing of the Formation of the General Improvement District; Establishing and Creating the Town of Vail General Improvement District No. 1; Town of Vail, Colorado; and Providing Other Details Relating Thereto. (10 min.) ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Approve second Reading of Ordinance No. 24, Series 2006 BACKGROUND RATIONALE: The Town of Vail, (the `Town") is a municipal corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of Colorado (the "State") and in particular under the provisions of Article XX of the Constitution of the State and the Town Charter (the "Charter"). A Petition in regarding the Organization of the Town of Vail General Improvement District No. 1, Town of Vail, Colorado has been filed in the office of the Clerk and Recorder (the "Clerk") of the Town. Such Petition has been reviewed by the Clerk. Such Petition has been signed by the registered electors representing one hundred percent of the taxable real property within the proposed district and contains a request, pursuant to Section 31-25-607(3.5), Colorado Revised Statutes ("C.R.S."), for waiver of all requirements for notice, publication and a hearing set forth in Sections 31-25-606 and 31- 25-607, C.R.S, and a request for waiver of the bond provided for in Section 31-25-605, C.R.S. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve second reading of Ordinance No. 24, Series 2006. 9. Matt Mire. ITEM/TOPIC: Second reading of Ordinance No. 25, Series of 2006. An Ordinance Designated by the Short Title "Election Ordinance"; Providing for an Election Concerning the Town of Vail General Improvement District No. 1, Town of Vail, Colorado for the Purpose of Submitting to the Electors of Said District the Proposition of Imposing Property Taxes for the Purpose of Paying Costs of Operating and Maintaining Certain Public Improvements and to Allow the District to Collect, Retain and Spend Non Property Tax Revenues; and Prescribing other Details in Connection with Said Election and Indebtedness; Repealing Any Action Heretofore Taken in Conflict Herewith; and Ratifying Actions Previously Taken in Connection Therewith. (10 min.) ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Approve Second Reading of Ordinance No. 25, Series 2006 BACKGROUND RATIONALE: The Town of Vail, (the `Town") is a municipal corporation duty organized and existing under the laws of the State of Colorado (the "State") and in particular under the provisions of Article XX of the Constitution of the State (the "Constitution") and the Charter of the Town (the "Charter"). By ordinance adopted of even date herewith, the Town of Vail has created the Town of Vail General Improvement District No. 1 (the "District"). Pursuant to Section 31-25-607(4)(a), C.R.S., permits the Town Council, on behalf of the organizing District, to call an election of the District's electors regarding matters required to be voted upon under Article X, Section 20 of the Constitution (`TABOR"), including questions pertaining the impositions of taxes, and for .spending certain moneys above limits established by TABOR. TABOR requires the District to submit ballot issues (as defined in TABOR) to the District's electors on limited election days before action can be taken on such ballot issues. November 7, 2006, is one of the election dates at which ballot issues may be submitted to the District's eligible electors pursuant to TABOR. The Town Council has determined to call.the election on behalf of the organizing District as permitted by Section 31-25-607(4)(a),: C.R.S., due to the need to satisfy various procedural requirements prerequisite to the holding of such election, many of which could not be undertaken directly by the District in a timely fashion following its formal organization. It is necessary to submit to the electors of the District, at the election to be held on November 7, 2006, the questions of authorizing the District to incur debt, to increase taxes for operations and maintenance purposes, and spend the revenues thereof and to collect, keep and spend all revenues it receives as a voter approved revenue change under TABOR. It is necessary to set forth certain procedures concerning the conduct of the election. The Town Council elects to utilize the provisions of the Uniform Election Code of 1992 in order to conduct a mail ballot election on November 7, 2006 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve Second Reading of Ordinance No. 25, Series 2006. 10. ITEM/TOPIC: Matters from Mayor & Council (10 min.) 11. ITEM/TOPIC: Adjournment. (8:00 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, OCTOBER 17, 2006, IN VAIL TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS Sign language interpretation available upon request with 48-hour notification. Please call 479-2106 voice or 479-2356 TDD for information. Vail Town Council Evening Meeting Minutes Tuesday, September 5, 2006 6:00 P.M. Vail Town Council Chambers The regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was called to order at approximately 6:00 P.M. by Mayor Rod Slifer. Members present: Kent Logan Rod Slifer, Mayor Kim Newbury Mark Gordon Kevin Foley Greg Moffet Farrow Hitt, Mayor Pro-Tem Staff Members: Stan Zemler, Town Manager Matt Mire, Town Attorney Pam Brandmeyer, Asst. Town Manager The first item on the agenda was Citizen Participation. Reflecting on the Labor Day holiday, Gordon thanked the workers of Vail for everything they do to help Vail maintain. its world class status. Local gallery owner Rayla Kundolf said a replica of the proposed entry feature for Meadow Drive was being displayed at Masters Gallery. She encouraged the public to stop by and view the piece and to forward feedback to the Art in Public Places board, which has proposed the artwork. Former Mayor Bob Armour asked Council to support a measured approach to a new wildlife protection ordinance. The second item on the agenda was the Consent Agenda. a. Approval of August 1, 2006, and August 15, 2006, Meeting Minutes. Moffet moved to approve the minutes without amendment with Foley seconding. The motion passed unanimously, 7-0. The third item on the agenda was a Commission on Special Events (CSE) Appointment. One vacancy existed on the Town of Vail CSE. Applicants must be residents of the Town of Vail, own real property within the Town of Vail, own a business in the Town of Vail, or be employed within the Town of Vail. Members of the CSE serve at the will of the Town Council. The CSE supports Council goals and objectives and makes decisions in alignment with the Town Council's marketing direction. The mission of the CSE is to support street entertainment and special events for vitality, year-round fun, sense of community and increased quality of experience for guests and residents. The functions and/or duties of CSE .include, but are not limited to: hiring and overseeing a director and/or staff, as well as event producers and/or promoters; creating, funding and seeking special events for the Town of Vail; evaluating event applications and event success; submitting an annual budget for operations and events; coordinating the community calendar for special events; seeking out additional funding for special events through sponsorships and donations; evaluating and executing contracts for special events; and all other functions as directed by the Town Council. The town received three applications for the vacancy. Council interviewed each applicant at the work session and then appointed one applicant to the CSE during the evening meeting. The applicants were as follows: Rayla Kundolf; Tom Neyens; and Heather Trub. Hitt moved to appoint Heather Trub to the CSE with Moffet seconding. The motion passed unanimously, 7-0. The fourth item on the agenda was the Town Manager's Report. a. Sign Code Questions On August 1, 2006 the Community Development Department reviewed several issues related to signage and outdoor displays with the request to either begin consistent enforcement of the current code or make modifications to the code. At the conclusion of the work session, Council directed staff to make several modifications to the code. Based on that Council meeting and subsequent discussions with merchants, staff would propose evaluating and updating the code as it relates to several specific issues: 1. Seasonal (summer) promotional signage. 2. Menu Special Boards. 3. Creating a lease option for outdoor displays on public property. Zemler proposed first using the Economic Council to develop policy solutions to these questions and then having 1-2 broader discussions with the merchant community to discuss proposed policy solutions. Council directed Zemler to proceed. b. I-70 Coalition Zemler stated the I-70 Coalition would be hosting a transit workshop and retreat on October 17-18 at Copper Mountain. Items to be discussed are: determine the organization's future structure; identify transit opportunities and potential partners; discuss federal requirements to qualify for transit funds as well as develop performance, land-use and operating principles for transit in the I-70 Corridor. `The coalition is rapidly expanding in the private and public sector...We are progressively adding some key private sector entities." The fifth item on the agenda was the Construction Update. Public Works Director Greg Hall reported Village Streetscape had begun on Meadow Drive. "Demolition on the rock wall at the Gore Creek Promenade pedestrian bridge to mitigate soil erosion has also started...The Front Door project is installing a gas line as well as other few minor projects in the VIIIage...The majority of work surrounding the Village parking structure will be buttoned up prior to Oktoberfest." Hall then discussed the raw water conversion process occurring at the Vail Golf Club. The sBxth item on the agenda was review and approval of recommendations of the Parking Task Force for 2006-2007 season. Hall asked Council to review recommendations of the Parking Task Force and approve parking policies for the 2006 - 2007 winter season. Council established the parking task force to provide recommendations regarding parking operation policies each year.. "The group has recommended an adjustment in rates to meet increased operating costs and lessen the previous steep increase between the one-and-a-half and two-hour time frame. They also recommend a small increase to the gold pass price to reflect the increase in the daily rate." The following recommended changes were then made. Existing Rates Fees Are Good 7 Davs A Week Less then 11h hour Free 1'/s to 2 hr. $ 4 2to4hr. $10 4to6hr. $15 6 to 24 hr. $ 16 All Day Cap Proposed Rates Fees Are Good 7 Davs A Week Less then 1'/z hour Free 1~/zto2hr. $ 4 2 to 3 hr. $ 8 3to4hr. $12 4to5hr. $16 5hr to 24 hr $ 17 All Day Cap The Gold Pass was recommended to be increased by $50 from $2,000 to $2,050. Hitt, who chairs the Parking Task Force, commented that the recent Task Force meeting was the most productive parking meeting he had ever attended. Moffet expressed concern that staff and the Task Force were developing policy without "specific Council direction." He continued, "The Parking Task Force had received direction in the past to be revenue neutral." His concerns were brought about by the Task Force's decision to raise parking rates. Foley, also a member of the Parking Task Force, said he would have preferred raising all parking rates to encourage use of public transportation. Moffet then moved to adopt the recommendations with Foley seconding. The motion passed unanimously, 7-0. For more information, contact Greg Hall at 479-2160. The seventh item on the agenda was a Discussion of LionsHead Parking Structure Request For Proposals (RFP). Due to a predetermined conflict of interest (East West Partner affiliation), Slifer recused himself from the item and left the Council Chambers. Community Development Director Russ Forrest then asked Council to review and provide direction on funding for resources to assist in the due diligence of the LionsHead Parking Structure RFP process. Forrest reminded Council that on August 1St Council directed staff to invite Open Hospitality Partners and East West Partners to prepare proposals consistent with the LionsHead Parking Structure RFP. In addition, Council asked that an appraisal be completed on the property and resources be obtained to review the financial plan and construction plans for the proposals as part of the selection process. Forrest discussed having two appraisals prepared, stipulating the value should assume the parcel would include 1,150 parking spaces. Responding to a question regarding parking and transit, Hall stated LionsHead is a better location for a parking structure rather than West LionsHead. Logan questioned the scheduling feasibility of the overall development of West LionsHead. `There has to be more of an understanding of the requirements of transportation, parking, housing...We should have some discussion about a transit center...Vail Resorts has veto power over any redevelopment of the LionsHead parking structure...To not have a net increase in parking on that parcel is irresponsible...What we have laid out here is just not practical." Zemler clarified once the conceptual proposals are received the town would take as much time as was required to evaluate needs and determine project requirements. "V1/e are not in a hurry... We are looking to get this concept stage to closure...The covenants on the property can be removed by the town...That is certainly not a threat it is simply a fact...We will take our time to evaluate all potential impacts." Hitt asked about the value of the public input received during the town's Vail 20/20 process. Newbury asked if the potential developers' individual outreach efforts had been effective. Moffet said, "We should try to align our policy directives...Pretty soon we should discuss what 1,000 additional parking spaces are desirable to us as a town, community and resort...First and foremost, let us do our job...We essentially received an unsolicited offer on our house...) feel like we are trying to find ways to say no, when we don't know what we are saying no to...We need to play this and negotiate this as hard as we can." Gordon emphasized he would work for awin-win situation. "11Ve are taking something very positive and trying to make something negative out of it...Let's work very hard to make this thing happen." Foley encouraged giving the town a respite from continuing construction. During a pause for public comment, Rick Scalpello expressed concern over the valuation methodology of the appraisal. Moffet moved to approve funding the parcel's appraisals with Hitt seconding. Representing the Vail Village Homeowners Association, Jim Lamont, clarified what information the appraisals would provide. He then encouraged Council to evaluate potential privatization for other public needs. ,Logan emphasized Council would remain as prudent as possible. Rayla Kundolf encouraged Council to increase their presence in the community to disseminate their plans and intentions. The motion passed 5-1, Foley opposed. The eighth item on the agenda was an appeal, pursuant to Section 12-3-3, Appeals, Vail Town Code, of the Town of Vail PEC's denial of floodplain modifications, pursuant to Chapter 14-6, Grading Standards, Vail Town Code, to allow for modifications to the Town of Vail White Water Park, in the Gore Creek floodplain, located at Tract I, Block 5E, Vail Village Filing 1, (generally located east of the International Bridge on Willow Bridge Road) (PEC06-0050) On August 7, 2006, the PEC denied a floodplain modification request, pursuant to Chapter 14-6, Grading Standards, Vail Town Code, to allow for modifications to the Town of Vail White Water Park, in the Gore Creek floodplain, located at Tract I, Block 5E, Vail Village Filing 1, (generally located east of the International Bridge on Willow Bridge Road). On August 15, 2006, Council "called-up" this PEC action. Staff recommended Council table the item until September 19, 2006, to address an issue related to the public hearing notice. Moffet moved to table the item with Gordon seconding. The motion passed unanimously, 7-0. The ninth item on the agenda was a Bighorn Park Playground Improvements approval. Landscape Architect Gregg Barrie provided background during the work session and requested Council choose an option for proceeding with the Bighorn Park Playground Renovation. In February of 2006, staff presented a plan for the renovation of the Bighorn Park Playground to Council. Feedback was considered generally positive and Council informally approved the design. Only one proposal for construction was received and it 4 was substantially higher than the cost estimate. Several options for proceeding with the project were then outlined. "As with our past several playground renovations, custom play structures and the inclusion of artwork are the basis for the design...The Bighorn Park design is based on the construction of wooden sculptures that would serve as play structures to which various play equipment such as slides, bridges, and ladders could be attached." The sculptures, or "Blooms", are shaped as inverted cones and constructed of lodge pole pine killed by mountain pine beetle. The design creates a unique playground that blends with Bighorn Park's natural setting, reuses some of the existing play structure and site elements, and generally follows the comments received from the neighborhood open house in 2005. Moffet moved to approve $346,000 for the project and award a construction contract to Plumb Kendall construction with Hitt seconding. The additional funds required to complete the project as originally approved will come from several projects being moved back to 2007 but previously funded for 2006. The motion passed unanimously, 6-1, Foley opposed. The tenth item on .the agenda was a Timber Ridge Affordable Housing Corporation (TRAHC) Update. The Board of Timber Ridge Affordable Housing Corporation requested $200,000 from the town's existing buy-down budget for use in remediating 24 additional units (making them available for habitation). Currently 158 units have been remediated following the discovery of mold and are being rented. An additional 18 units are in process of remediation. Cash flow with the additional 18 units is projected to turn negative in 2009 when the first principal payments become due on the Series A bonds used to finance the parcel's acquisition. At least three local employers have indicated interest in master leasing more than the 18 units in process. A sewer blockage, which was previously thought to be a more serious problem, was repaired in the two remaining buildings and a plan for remediation has been discussed with a hygienist. Remediating the final buildings will provide 24 units of housing this year and provide positive cash flow indefinitely. Moffet moved to approve a $200,000 transfer from the housing buy- down program into the Capital Projects Fund with Newbury seconding. Mire noted for the record and to be included in the motion the loan serves a public purpose as affordable housing is critical for the town's economic vitality. Gordon clarified all of Timber Ridge would now be remediated. Hitt asked that staff closely monitor the quality of remediation and renovations. The motion passed unanimously, 7-0. The eleventh item on the agenda was the second reading of Ordinance No. 21, Series of 2006, an ordinance making supplemental appropriations to the Town of Vail General Fund, Capital Projects Fund, Real Estate Transfer Tax Fund, Heavy Equipment Fund, and Dispatch Services Fund of the 2006 Budget for the Town of Vail, Colorado. Budget and Financial Reporting Manager Kathleen Halloran was available to answer questions regarding the supplemental appropriations. The town's forest health project received significant interest and discussion. Foley .clarified the forest health project was a joint effort between the town and U.S. Forest Service (USES). Fire Technician Tom Talbot explained plans and outlined safety considerations related to the removal by helicopter of lodge pole pines in the Greenhill Court area. Fire Chief John Gulick explained there would be a significant fire prevention education campaign in the near future. Zemler then clarified the Vait Fire Department did not have a dedicated wildland fire division as some larger communities do. He then. discussed the potential for increased fire department duties with the creation of an additional company in West Vail. Moffet asked to have a wildland fire discussion at an upcoming meeting. Moffet then moved to approve the supplemental appropriations with Newbury seconding. Hitt expressed concern over pedestrian bridge and trail improvements on Westhaven Drive. Slifer encouraged performing involuntary home fire safety inspections. The motion passed 6-1, Hitt opposed. The twelfth item on the agenda was the first reading of Ordinance No. 23, Series of 2006, an ordinance submitting a proposed amendment to the Town of Vaif Home Rule Charter to the voters of the Town pursuant to Colorado revised statutes, section 31-2- 210. Mire explained Section 31-2-210 of the Colorado Revised Statutes authorizes the governing body of a Colorado home rule municipality to submit proposed Home Rule Charter amendments to the voters of such municipality by ordinance. Council requested a review of proposed language amending Section 3.2 concerning terms of council members. The proposed language would have made all terms of Council Members to be four years starting in 2009. The proposed language would not have changed current term limits of eight years (or with the new language =two terms). Moffet explained the present charter language was superior to that which was proposed. Gordon said, "I don't feel this is a pressing issue warranting an emergency ordinance to get it on the ballot". Hitt moved to pass the ordinance. The motion died for lack of a second. The thirteenth item on the agenda was Resolution No. 16, Series 2006, A Resolution Directing All Members of the Town of Vail Police Department to Cooperate with the State and Federal Officials with the .Regard to Enforcement of State and Federal Laws Regarding Immigration and Further Directing all Members of the Town of Vail Police Department to Comply with the Requirements of Colorado Revised Statues (C.R.S.) § 29-29-103(2)(a). Police Chief Dwight Henninger explained the General Assembly of the State of Colorado enacted legislation designated as SB06-090, setting forth certain policies and regulations regarding immigration. A portion of SB06-090 has been incorporated into the Colorado Revised Statues (C.R.S.) as C.R.S. § 29-29-103. Colorado Revised Statues § 29-29-103(2)(a), sets out certain requirements for local peace officers to comply with concerning immigration. C.R.S. § 29-29-103 requires the local governing body of each local government to pass a resolution of this type, specifically directing its peace officers to cooperate with state and federal officials with regards to enforcement of state and federal laws regarding immigration and further directing its peace officers to comply with the provisions of C.R.S. § 29-29-103(2)(a), even though a resolution directing local police officers to comply with other duly enacted state statutes has never been required or necessary. The Colorado General Assembly has declared that any local government violating C.R.S. § 29-29-103(1) or (2)(b) shall not be eligible to receive local. government financial assistance through grants administered by the Department of Local Affairs until such time as the local government is in compliance with C.R.S. § 29-29-103(1)(2). Henninger then explained the resolution was an unfunded mandate and "won't change the way we do things." Hitt moved to approve the resolution with Moffet seconding. The motion passed unanimously, 7-0. The fourteenth item on the agenda was adjournment. Moffet moved to adjourn with Foley seconding at approximately 8:35 p.m. The motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Rod Slifer, Mayor ATTEST: Vail Town Council Meeting Minutes Tuesday, September 19, 2006 6:00 P.M. Vail Town Council Chambers Council Members present: Staff Members present: VRD Members present: (Vail Recreation District) Recreation Staff present: Rod Slifer, Mayor Farrow Hitt, Mayor Pro-Tem Kim Ruotolo Greg Moffet Kent Logan Kevin Foley Mark Gordon Stan Zemler, Town Manager Pam Brandmeyer, Asst. Town Manager Matt Mire, Town Attorney Scott Proper Ken Wilson Michelle Hall Rick Sackbauer Michelle Hall Mike Ortiz, Exec. Director The first item on the agenda was Citizen Participation. Representing Radio Free Minturn, Brian James reported the station began broadcasting June 23`d of this year and the station is operated by unpaid volunteers. Their mission is three fold: (1) to present an alternative. music source; (2) to provide educational opportunities for adults and students (they are currently partnering with Eagle County schools and have students on air on Fridays); and (3) to provide a public service. They have no commercials, only public service announcements. They will begin streaming on the web in the next two weeks. Mayor Slifer announced Vail had once again been named #1 ski resort for the 14th time in 19 years. The second item on the agenda was the Consent Agenda. No items were addressed. The third item on the agenda was the Town .Manager's Report. a. Construction Update Public Works Director Greg Hall reported crews are continuing with streetscape improvements on East Meadow Drive, including placing pavers on private property in Vail Village. Work on the pedestrian bridge over Gore Creek will take place next week and boiler work is underway in the Village parking structure. Also, Vail Plaza Hotel & Club will start public improvements on the Frontage Road pending approvals from the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). Trenching is occurring at the east and west ends of LionsHead Place. On the LionsHall Mall, pavers will be installed from Bart and Yeti's toward the gondola in the next two weeks. Also, the Bighorn Park playground renovation had begun. Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (ERWSD) was reported to be working in the Streamside area in West Vail. Zemler noted the fire pit on Wall Street was operational on. Also, a newsstand had been installed in LionsHead to be operated by Vail Resorts. Zemler advised Council the start of paid parking would coincide with the opening of ski season on Nov. 17 as recommended by the Vail Parking Task Force. Mark Gordon noted the need to increase bus service with the start of paid parking. Greg Hall stated that although full bus service would not begin until December 10, the summer-plus schedule could be offered, although it is not currently funded. Greg Moffet asked if the incremental income from the early opening of paid parking could pay for the increased bus service. Hall was directed to return to Council on October 3 with cost estimates for the added service. Update Regarding Expenditure of Vail Local Marketing District Funds Zemler reported the Vail Local Marketing District gave clear direction to the Advisory Council earlier in the day. The direction is to continue to leverage valley wide amenities through visual photography. However, those amenities would not be eligible to be listed as participating businesses in a campaign, such as the recent "8150" promotion. The fourth item on the agenda.was the Vail Parks and Recreation Master Plan. Chris Dropinski and Karen Brannon of Greenplay presented their study findings. They had completed a mapping and inventory,of recreation assets in the district and met. with the combined Town/Recreation District subcommittee. The mapping of facilities looked at who they serve and their condition. They scored the facilities on community access and found that Ford Park scored highest and indoor facilities such as Dobson ice arena scored. much lower. The map combined scoring of all components (indoor and outdoor). In addition, their findings showed: 1. In some cases fees were not as high as they could be, but neither was the experience. 2. The town needs to update their agreements with the Recreation District and they are moving forward with that. 3. Deferred maintenance of facilities needs to be taken care of and the cost needs to be determined to decide whether to renovate or rebuild. 4. Capital priorities: (1) Golf course clubhouse; (2) the Imagination Station; and (3) Ford Park Redesign to address conflicts in activities and lack of parking. 5. Facility and permitting process limits recreational programming for residents and tourists. Need to increase special events such as Lacrosse, Ride the Rockies and cultural events. 6. Need to increase partnerships and use resources efficiently. 7. No non-resident fee structure in place. Dropinsky then asked Council if they agreed with these areas of focus. Mark Gordon noted in the Vail 20/20 meetings they heard that a swimming pool was needed and that was not represented in the Greenplay report. Kent Logan said he was struck by the lack of use at Dobson arena. Vail Recreation District Director Mike Ortiz said that while they 2 are working on increasing the number of special events with concerts coming in February and March of 2007, other programming at Dobson is going well. Rick Sackbauer, Recreation District board member, said some of the areas of focus listed for the future should be moved to the present. He stated that the Board is ready to move forward. He noted the need to update the Ford Park Master Plan, which was adopted in 1997. Mayor Slifer directed staff to provide copies of the current plan to the board members and asked the recreation board to make suggestions on modifications. Greg Moffet said there is a need to balance programming between special events and ice time at Dobson. He offered support for the current areas of focus and reiterated the need to update agreements and clarify obligations since capital improvements are a high priority. Kim Newbury expressed her interest in using Dobson more frequently as a special event venue, especially since the conference center was voted down. Farrow Hitt identified capital improvements and marketing as his top priorities. He offered support to move ahead, noting the importance of the town and Recreation District working together. Kevin Foley suggested the town and recreation district should bring a combined mill levy increase before voters. Moffet agreed. Foley reiterated the need for a skate park. Zemler said design of a skate park is being recommended in the 2007 budget once a location is identified. Michelle Hall, Recreation District board member, said she has seen increased momentum during her tenure as a board member. She identified addressing the various contracts and agreements between the town and Recreation District as her No. 1 priority. Jim Lamont, representing the Vail Village Homeowners Association, asked for clarification regarding use of the term "residents," to which Zemler said the term was inclusive to include part-time residents. Lamont suggested the process needs opportunities for additional public input. He cautioned the group to be clear about "wants" versus "needs" and to prioritize and address current and future infrastructure requirements before adding wish list items. He also noted .there are two different constituencies for the town and the district. Anne Marie Mueller asked that a central location be added in Vail Village to give out information on mountaineering and hiking guides to those who wish to avail themselves of those services and cited examples of such in Jackson Hole and Estes Park. She stated that this information can only be obtained from the Forest Service in Minturn at this time. Sarah Will introduced her new non-profit organization for people with disabilities called Axsvailvalley.org. -She offered advice regarding an Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) report on the U.S. Justice Department website and expressed interest in discussing improvements in accessing parking and recreation facilities. Scott Proper advised her to check with District staff on that issue and invited everyone to come to the Recreation District Board meeting next Tuesday at 5:00 P.M. in the Council Chambers. At the conclusion of the presentation, Council and the District pledged to work together and Mike Ortiz said they will work within the subcommittee and with Greenplay and come back to Council and the Recreation Board with their recommendations. . The fifth item on the agenda was Vail 20120 Update & Next Steps Russ Forrest recapped the 20/20 process and asked the Council for direction. Council advised that staff's next steps are on track and to proceed to develop a strategic plan. The sixth item on the agenda was the Rational Nexus Study done by RRC Associates. The was tabled and a special work session was scheduled for October 10, 2006. The seventh item on the agenda was an appeal of the Town of Vail Design Review Board's denial of an application to allow for exterior changes to Lifthouse Lodge located at 555 East LionsHead Circle. Presentations were made by the applicant and the DRB. 3 Motion by Moffet, seconded by Hitt to overturn the decision of the DRB.Council voted to overturn 4-2. (No, Gordon and Newbury; Foley abstaining). The eighth item on the agenda was an appeal of the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission's denial of a request for floodplain modifications to allow for modifications to the Town of Vail White Water Park, in the Gore Creek floodplain, generally located east of the International Bridge on Willow Bridge Road. Matt Mire stated that the Town of Vail Public Works is the applicant. Motion by Moffet, seconded by Newbury to overturn the decision of the PEC subject to the following findings: 1. The proposed floodplain modification will not increase the quantity or velocity of flood waters, based upon the technical analysis prepared by River Restoration.Org, LLC dated July 13, 2006 and analysis by the Town of Vail Floodplain Coordinator. 2. The proposed floodplain modification .will not adversely affect adjacent properties, based upon the technical analysis prepared by River Restoration.Org, LLC dated July 13, 2006 and analysis by the Town of Vail Floodplain Coordinator. 3. The,. proposed floodplain modification will not have an adverse affect on the environment, based upon the technical analysis prepared by River Restoration.Org, LLC dated Juty 13, 2006 and analysis by the Town of Vail Floodplain Coordinator." Council voted 5-2 to overturn the PEC decision. (Slifer and Hitt against) The ninth item on the agenda was Phase II of The Spraddle Creek Relocation Project. Motion by Moffet, seconded by Hitt to authorize the Town Manager to enter into a contract with Western Slope Utilities, in an amount up to $265,000 to construct the Spraddle Creek Improvement Project subject to obtaining easements with Nine Vail Road and Four Seasons. Council approved 7-0. The tenth item on the agenda was a Utility Easement in favor of Qwest along Middle Creek to West Meadow Drive. Motion by Moffet, seconded by Newbury to direct the Town Manager to grant a 10' utility easement across Lot 10, Tract A and Tract C, in a form approved by the Town Attorney, with Qwest, and to require wetlands mitigation that complies with Corps of Engineers standards and to require use of construction mitigation to prevent erosion during construction. Council approved 7-0. The eleventh item on the agenda was First reading of Ordinance No. 20, Series 2006, An Ordinance Repealing and Reenacting Title 5, Chapter 9 "Wildlife Protection," Vail Town Code; Establishing Regulations and Standards Regarding the Protection of Wildlife; and setting forth details in regard thereto. Motion by Hitt, seconded by Logan to approve Ordinance 20, Series of 2006 to be amended as follows: 4 The definition of refuse is to be consistent with other definitions in the code Under 5.9.3 A. strike last sentence Under 5-9-3 B. we strike "plastic bags contained"; and That the Town shall come into compliance at the same time the rest of the Town does. Council approved as amended 7-0. The twelfth item on the agenda was Resolution No. 18, Series 2006, A Resolution Approving the Consolidated Service Plan for Solaris Metropolitan District No. 1, Solaris Metropolitan District No. 2, and Solaris Metropolitan District No. 3. Motion by Moffet, seconded by Logan to adopt Resolution No. 18, Series of 2006 as read. Council approved 7-0. The thirteenth item on the agenda was First reading of Ordinance No. 24, Series of 2006. An Ordinance Concerning the Organization of a General Improvement District in the Town of Vail; Accepting the Petition for the Organization of Such General Improvement District, and Making Certain Findings and Determinations; Waiving all requirements for Notice, Publications; Waiving all Requirements for Notice, Publication and Hearing of the Formation of the General Improvement District; Establishing and Creating the Town of Vail General Improvement District No. 1; Town of Vail, Colorado; and Providing Other Details Relating Thereto. Matt Mire noted there is an amendment to Section 8 to add Exhibit C. Section 10 of the Ordinance and Section 9 of the Petitiion will also be amended to remove Peter Noiece, Craig Cohn and Jon Boord from governance of the Advisory Board. Motion made by Moffet, seconded by Gordon. to adopt on first reading Ordinance No. 24, Series of 2006, and to strike the wording in Section 10 of the Ordinance and Section 9 of the Petition to remove Peter Noble, Craig Cohn and Jon Boord from the Advisory Board. Council approved 7-0. The fourteenth item on the agenda was First reading of Ordinance No. 25, Series of 2006. An Ordinance Designated by the Short Title "Election Ordinance"; Providing for an Election Concerning the Town of Vail General Improvement District No. 1, Town of Vail, Colorado for the Purpose of Submitting to the Electors of Said District the Proposition of Imposing Property Taxes for the Purpose of Paying Costs of Operating and Maintaining Certain Public Improvements and to Allow the District to Collect, Retain and Spend Non Property Tax Revenues; and Prescribing other Details in Connection with Said Election and Indebtedness; Repealing Any Action Heretofore Taken in Conflict Herewith; and Ratifying Actions Previously Taken in Connection Therewith. Matt Mire stated this will allow the Town of Vail to tax the General Improvement District (GID) up to 15 mils or $660,000 if the District defaults on its operating and maintenance responsibilities for the public plaza at Solaris. The Ordinance as presented had allowed taxing up to 10-mils or $440,000. Motion by Moffet, seconded by Newbury to approve on first reading Ordinance No. 25, Series of 2006, with amendments read into the record by the Town Attorney. Council approved 7-0 5 The fifteenth item on the agenda was adjournment. Moffet moved with Newbury seconding a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:45 P.M. The motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Rodney E. Slifer, Mayor ATTEST: By: Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk Minutes provided by Mary Ann Best. 6 TOWN OF VAIL REVENUE HIGHLIGHTS September 27, 2006 Sales Tax Sales .tax collections for the year-to-date through August are expected to be $12.8 million, an increase of $925,057 or 7.8% over the same period last year. Expected revenue for the month of August is $1.0 million, an increase of $48,346 or 4.9% over last year. The year-over-year increase in the consumer price index through August is 3.9%. A new chart is attached to this report which shows gross sales by month for six representative businesses located near the construction area in LionsHead. The base year for comparison is 2003, before major construction activity began. Ski season revenue over the past three years generally followed the same trends as the town overall, with the exception of Apri12005 when one of the sample stores was closed. The summer months have shown mixed results with the period May through August declining 5% in 2004 and 9% in 2005, but recovering 9% in 2006. On a year-to-date basis (January through August), the sample businesses have increased their total gross sales by 4% in 2004; 3% in 2005; and 9% in 2006. Construction Permit Fee Revenue Construction permit revenue of $1.3 million through September 27, 2006, is up 7.9% from last year. This year's revenue includes $845,614 (64% of the total) from eight large redevelopment projects -Forest Place, Front Door (The Lodge at Vail), Gore Creek Place, Lodge Tower, One Willow Bridge Road, Sonnenalp, Vail Plaza Hotel, and Westhaven Condos. Major redevelopment projects accounted for $786,379 (also 64% of total) at this time last year. Construction permit fees include building, electrical, mechanical, plumbing, and sprinkler permits. Real Estate Transfer Tax (RETT) RETT collections of $3.9 million through September 27, 2006, are down $729,065 or 16% from last year. Last year's collections included $1.1 million of tax from major transactions (over $10 million selling price) including: sale of the Chateau to the Four Seasons developer; sale of units at Crossroads to the developer; Vail Mountain Lodge timeshares; Founders' Park Garage; and the Vail Marriott. In the current year, we have collected $431,500 from one large redevelopment project, The Gore Creek Residences. 061003 Revenue Highlights - 1 - LionsHead Sample Gross Sales 1,800,000 1,600,000 1,400,000 1,200,000 1,000,000 800,000 600,000 400,000 200,000 Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr ~ 2003 ®2004 ~ 2005 8 2006 May Jun Jul Aug Town of Vail Proposed 2007 Budget Timetable Contributions Council criteria discussion 05/02/06 Completed Out of cycle funding requests (if needed) 06/06/06 .Completed Deadline for return of Contribution packets 07/28/06 Completed Budget Guidelines Council discussion of budget timetable 05/02/06 Completed Council discussion of budget philosophies 06/20/06 Completed Guidelines distributed to department heads 06/22/06 Completed Presentation of 2005 audit report to Council 06/06/06 Completed 2006/2007 parking task force meeting TBD Capital budget request for county funds submitted TBD Staff prepares departmental budgets 06/30/06 to 08/04/06 Completed Council discussion of major revenue items 08/01/06 Completed Town Manager reviews departmental budgets 08/14/06 to 09/01/06 Completed Council discussion of 15-year Capital plan 09/19/06 Council discussion of 15-year RETT. plan 09/19/06 Council discussion of 5-year Capital plan 10/17/06 Council discussion of 5-year RETT plan 10/17/06 Council review of first draft of Town Manager's budget 11/07/06 Council review of second draft of Town Manager's budget 11/21/06 Council review of Vail Reinvestment Authority 12/05/06 Budget Documentation and Reporting First reading of 2006 Supplemental Number Two 08/15/06 Completed Second reading of 2006 Supplemental Number Two 09/05/06 Completed First reading of 2007 budget ordinance 11/21!06 Second reading of 2007 budget ordinance 12/05/06 First reading of mil levy certification ordinance 11/21/06 First reading of 2006 Supplemental Number Three 11/21/05 Second reading of mil levy certification ordinance 12/05/Cl6 Second reading of 2006 Supplemental Number Three 12/05/06 Mil levy certification deadline to Eagle County 12/15/06 Budget book submission (to State) 01/31/07 9/28/2006 4 Draft- Revised Schedule for Lionshead Parking Structure RFP June 28, 2006 .Receive Phase 1 Submittals -Qualifications and Concept July 18, 2006 Review written proposals with review committee August 1, 2006 Phase 1 interviews for RFP & selection of who will be invited to submit phase 2 of the RFP August 1-Sept 29 Developer will coordinate public outreach efforts to receive feedback on uses and ideas for creating a final proposal. Those opportunities shall be coordinated with Russ Forrest and the Town of Vail Communications Department. The Town of Vail will schedule apre-proposal meeting prior to the submittal deadline with both developers (separate meetings) to provide technical feedback on issues that will affect the final proposal. This would include a meeting with each developer and the development review team which includes Community Development, Fire Department, and Public Works (Engineering and Parking;Transit Divisions). The purpose of this meeting would be to identify critical issues for the developers to address in their proposals. * August 15, 2006 Update to Council on Transportation Plan Update * Aug. 22 & 24 Community Planning Meeting on Future Vision and Values * Aug 29 West Lionshead Planning Meeting to review lift and parking in West Lionshead * August 29, 2006 Parking Task Force Meeting * By October 15 Complete Appraisal of Land & obtain technical resources to review financial information and construction/schedulingisues September 29, 2006 Phase 2 proposals due by 5:00 Mountain Time October 2- Nov. 2 Technical Review of Proposals This would include a meeting between the Town staff and representatives of each development team to review technical, Legal, financial, contructability, phasing, design, zoning, circulation, and transit issues related to the proposals in the context of the projects review criteria. This review will result in a list of considerations and issues for each team which the Town Council and public can then use their review process. Presentation to staff would occur on October 11, 2006. Also during this Time Vail Resorts will review proposals and provide their recommendation on a developer and/or their parameters for their support of a development proposal. October 3rd Update to Council on next steps at the evening Town Council meeting. November 7, 2006 Presentation to Council on Proposals during the evening meeting, November 8th Presentation to Community on Proposals at a public open house starting at 4:00 p.m. November 21st Presentation by Developers and Public Hearing at the evening Town Council meeting. December 5th 2nd Public Hearing/Decision by Council * Step does not apply to a requirement in the RFP but helps address strategic issues (housing policy, circulation study, parking etc.) or technical needs of the Town. These dates are provided as reference only for the development teams and your participation is not required. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION ~'`~ PUBLIC MEETING ,L~ September 25, 2006 T'J~~'r"~~ y~ ` 1:OOpm TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS /PUBLIC WELCOME MEMBERS PRESENT Bill Pierce Ann Gunion Chas Bernhardt Doug Cahill Rollie Kjesbo Bill Dewitt Dick Cleveland Site Visits: MEMBERS ABSENT 1. The Willows - 74 Willow Road 2. Slick Residence - 4916 and 4920 Juniper Lane Driver: Public Hearing -Town Council Chambers 45 minutes A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of a proposal to establish Special Development District No. 40, pursuant to Article 12-9(A), Special Development Districts, Vail Town Code, to allow for the redevelopment of the Willows Condominiums, located at 74 Willow Road/Lot 8 Block 6, Vail Village Filing 1St Filing, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0061) Applicant: The Willows Condominium Association, inc., represented by Triumph Development, LLC Planner: Elisabeth Reed ACTION: Tabled to October 9, 2006 MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Dewitt VOTE: 7-0-0 Elisabeth Reed presented the project according to the memorandum. Rick Pylman, the applicant's representative, presented the project further. He outlined the background of the existing Willows Condominium building, commenting that no substantial changes or upgrades had occurred within the building since its construction in the early 70's. He stated that the applicant felt that the Master Plan goals were much better served through the SDD process than through the variance process. The applicant, Steve Virostek with Triumph Development, also presented the project further, explaining that the existing owners were very passionate about Vail. Three million dollars worth of renovation would be required for the building to be livable. His goal was to preserve the oasis of Willow Park, solve the needs of the owners to stay on Vail/Willow Road, and keep the height of the building at or lower than the height at which it exists today. He commented that his goal was to finish construction by the time the Chalets were complete. Bill Dewitt asked what incentives would be planned to rent the 7 lock offs. Steve commented that condo dues would be reduced if the lock offs were rented. Bill then asked about the pedestrian walkway and paver treatments. .Rick responded that Tom asked for the same streetscape Page 1 application that was applied in the Village. Bill thought that it would be reasonable to consider some heat in that area. He asked for plans of the streetscape. Bill also said that in relation to public benefits, he thought there was room for more. He asked that the onsite EHU be moved off site.. He felt that the 600 square feet could be better sold onsite as a regular unit.. His proposal was that 25 employee beds be bought elsewhere in the Town. This would be a good opportunity to deed restrict some larger units within the Town and for the applicant to become a leader within the affordab-e housing charge. Steve asked about the program. If there was an innovative way to contribute to this problem, he was willing to study it and see what could be done. Bill commented that his last wish was for more colored drawings to be provided for study by the Commission. He wished to better be able to articulate the facades. Mike Foster, the project architect, with Resort Design Associates, presented the changes that were being considered in response to the view "corridors" from neighboring 44 Willow Road. He stated that work on the floor plans had been continuing for a year. He commented that the number of proposed parking spaces may be lessened as plans continued to evolve. The fourth floor was the floor that would continue to experience some change as consideration was paid to the neighboring units. He promised all elevations to be rendered by the final hearing. Steve detailed the conversations with neighboring owners. A forty foot opening at the east would respond to the closest corner of the RRS (Riva Ridge South) building. Seventy five feet (75') would exist between the property line and the side of the proposed building by the courtyard. He commented that RRS had expressed some concerns about the constructability of the parking garage. He commented that the existing garage wall was closer than the proposed and NO TIEBACKS WOULD BE NEEDED. The third floor of one of the units at 44 Willow Road would likely be affected. It was found that the proposal would, indeed, have a dramatic effect on the view for the unit. The fourth floor would likely change, he commented, and a flatter roof would be applied in that area. The applicant commented that he had touched base with all the neighbors and those conversations were continuing. John Alfond, a year round Vail resident, stated that his family bought the unit mentioned at 44 Willow Road. He stated that he was currently dealing, as a contractor, with a neighbor with concerns about views. He commented that the developer had been quite receptive to the needs of himself and his parents regarding view protection. He realized that views could also be affected by the Chalet project as well. Art Ablanalp, the representative of the Riva Ridge South Condo Association, commented that the Association felt that this was a positive redevelopment proposal. The main concern regarded the proximity of the proposed building, particularly at the southwest corner. The Association wanted assurance from an engineer that lateral support would not be needed in that corner. He also expressed some concern about the trees along that property line. The demolition of the property was also a concern for the RRS owners and the mitigation thereof. Views were also a concern, though the property owners were impressed with the developer's efforts in this area. The owners would like to make sure that proximity of the proposed building would not be an issue if the RRS building were ever to be redeveloped. Jim Lamont, representing the Vail Village Homeowners Association, commented that he had met several times with the applicant and at least once with RRS constituents. He asked that surrounding properties be analyzed in terms of existing GRFA, nonconformities, etc. He felt that the major issue of this proposal was setbacks. Maintainable space between buildings must continue. If bath properties redeveloped, what would be fair for both sides? Access and setbacks may eventually be an issue. His main concern was to see what the neighborhood would be like if all developments asked for the same setback deviations. He commented that the developer was quite conscientious, however: He expressed some concern about Vail Road and possible future Page 2 expansion there. Snow management must be addressed by the Commission/Town sooner rather than later. Might snow drop on others' properties? He suggested that all paver/asphalt treatment around the entryway should be heated. He felt that the park across the street was an ideal place for public art. Regarding affordable housing, he asked if the .current proposal would fall under the future EHU requirement, to be adopted soon. He suggested that the EHU be included on site as it was nice to have neighbors as a resident within the Town. A town without residents would not be a nice place to be. - Russ commented that employee housing was being .discussed now by the. Town. In the past, developers were held to the requirements that were in place at time of submittal. The hopeful result would be some guidance for the Boards to base generation rates upon. Bill Jewitt commented that Staff might consider using the PEC's recommendation to Council at the right time. Jim Lamont commented that not placing employee housing units directly in the Village was not an option. The standard must be that housing is placed in the Village. He felt that the Council would, indeed, take an aggressive stance regarding housing. The Commission proceeded to comment. Bill Pierce commented that when a view is across someone else's property, there is a problem. However, when a view lies across a setback line, and that setback line is being violated (built "upon"), circumstance like that may be avoided. Steve commented that the view would be equally impaired even if the setback was honored. Are the zoning standards reasonable regarding GRFA/FAR and density, Bill asked. He also commented that conformance with adjacent grades was important to ensure that property lines "disappear". What would the impacts be if Riva Ridge was developed to the same setback standards being asked from the Commission today? He commented that energy use for heating the street/walk here would be a waste since it was a limited use area. Perhaps truck traffic should be considered when thinking of the width of the right-of-way. Bill mentioned concern about the stairways and their exit patterns. He asked for a more creative use of EHU dollars, i.e. a bigger bang for our buck in a different location. Also, what if Vail Road widens? What are the impacts on the new development then? Anne Gunion commented that many things had been stated. Her main concern regarded setbacks. There was a reason for setbacks and this seemed to push a little far. If egress issues became more of a problem with redevelopment, there were some big issues regarding windows, doors, separation, etc. That sort of encroachment would be better allowed below grade only. Exactly what uses would be placed within the 20' line? Also, how are views affected by observing the setbacks? If Vail Road expanded, would there be enough space between the building and the right-of-way? The drive to the garage is along the property line as well. How will the swale work? Draft an easement for that, perhaps? The articulation looks good. However, the flying staircases don't work as well. Integrate the staircases into the design of the building better, please. She felt that employee housing should be a mix of a variety of options to suite tastes and needs. Chas Bernhardt agreed with his fellow Commissioners. Chas commented that this was his favorite neighborhood. He also expressed interest in the surrounding neighbors and their development standards. Put as much underground as possible without hurting the neighboring structures. He requested keeping things (design, requested deviations, etc.) in sync with the neighborhood, rather than strictly complying with the code. He was going to be most concerned with public benefit. The development looks nice and may fit in with the neighborhood, though he would like to see the analysis already requested of Staff. Dick Cleveland commented that the setbacks must be better complied with. Fire maintenance, proximity to Vail Road, snow plow issues, views (which setbacks were put in place to maintain) are all issues that can be worsened by setback deviations. He felt that impacts to other neighbors. were Page 3 not an issue for the Commission to solve. He would not be supportive of heat in the road or the sidewalk. He too, felt that the public benefits were insufficient. As for increasing hot beds, he wasn't. sure that was going to happen with this proposal. He commended the attempt to allow current owners to stay. Rollie Kjesbo was most concerned with setbacks, density, and site coverage. More public benefits might be required to make these aspects salable. When bulk and mass is doubled, views are affected. A front desk should be touted as more of a benefit. As for employee housing, he felt that was an issue the Housing Authority should deal with. As for height, he wasn't married to the 48' requirement. Doug Cahill commented that the deviations must be directly tied to public benefits. The underlying setbacks were an issue. He stated that the goals of the master plan must be better related to the setback deviation requests. What is too close in terms of code (fire, access, etc.)? He also requested info on the neighborhoods to make sure that this was in compliance. He wanted to know what the employee generation would be if this was a new development. He asked that the trees be marked if they were to be removed. The fractional fee units would need to be explained in terms of the ownership and hot bed strategies, etc. What would the program be and how would the Town be assured that the warm beds were not being depleted? He was interested in the provision of as much employee housing as possible. Russ asked that it be known that the policy was being revised as we speak. Anne commented that some setback encroachment might be okay, but should be very well thought out, particularly in relation to surrounding properties. He commented that the setback encroachments were already thought out in regard to neighbors. He asked if the Commission wanted what was best for the neighbors or what was best for the code. Dick Cleveland recognized that the project was advancing. What was presented today was not in the direction of maintaining better setbacks, he said. Bill commented that more height might be added to the north side of the building if setbacks were improved. Rollie Kjesbo commented that he worried about the precedent set for future developments. Doug Cahill asked that the model reflect the proposed building plus the surrounding neighbors building corners. He finished by commenting that the grading between property lines would be an issue. 2. A request for final review of a conditional use permit pursuant to Section 12-6H-3, Conditional Uses, allow for the construction of timeshare estate units, fractional fee units and timeshare license units, located at 74 Willow Road/Lot 8 Block 6, Vail Village Filing 1St Filing, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0062) Applicant: The Willows Condominium Association, Inc., represented by Triumph Development, LLC Planner: Elisabeth Reed ACTION: Tabled to October 9, 2006 MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Dewitt VOTE: 7-0-0 15 minutes 3. A request for a final review of an exemption plat, pursuant to Chapter 13-12, Exemption Plat Review Procedures, Vail Town Code, for a modification to a shared property boundary between Lots 3 and 4, Block 5, Bighorn Fifth Addition, located at 4916 and 4920 ,luniper Lane, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0063) Page 4 Applicant: Slick Asset Management Trust, represented by William and Sally Slick, Co-Trustees Planner: Warren Campbell ACTION: Approved MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Bernhardt VOTE: 6-0-1 (Pierce recused) Warren Campbell gave a presentation per the staff memorandum. Jackie Clark, representing the applicant, stated that the memo was very clear and that she had nothing to add. There was no public comment. The Commissioners stated that they had no further questions. 4. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of an amendment to the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, pursuant to Section 2.8, Adoption and Amendment of the Master Plan, Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, to amend the Lionshead Study Area Boundaries and Chapter 5, Detailed Plan Recommendations, to include the study "West Lionshead" area, generally located at 646, 862, 890, 923, .934, 953, 1000, and 1031 South Frontage Road West/Lot 54 and Tract K of Glen Lyon Subdivision, Tracts C and D, Vail Village Filing 2, and several unplatted parcels (a more complete legal description is available at the Community Development Department), and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0008) Applicant: Vail Resorts Development Company, Town of Vail, and Glen Lyon Office Building General Partnership Planner: Warren Campbell ACTION: Table to October 9, 2006 MOTION: Cleveland SECOND: Bernhardt VOTE: 7-0-0 5. A request for a final recommendation to the Vail Town Council, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendments, Vail Town Code, for proposed amendments to Chapters 12-21, Hazard Regulations, 14-7, Geologic/Environmental Hazards, and 14-10, Design Review Standards and Guidelines, Vail Town Code, to create Wildfire Regulations that add wildfire hazard to the Hazard Regulations and require mitigation in high and extreme wildfire hazard zones, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0029) Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Rachel Friede ACTION: Table to October 9, 2006 MOTION: Cleveland SECOND: Bernhardt VOTE: 7-0-0 6. Approval of August 14, 2006 minutes MOTION: Cleveland SECOND: Jewitt VOTE: 7-0-0 7. Information Update 8. Adjournment MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Pierce VOTE: 7-0-0 The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend the project orientation and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community Development Department. Please call (970) 479-2138 for additions( information. Page 5 Sign language interpretation is available upon request with 24-hour notification. Please call (970) 479- 2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Community Development Department Published September 22, 2006, in the Vail Daily. Page 6 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD AGENDA _ PUBLIC MEETING i ~ September 20, 2006 ~~~1~ ~.~ ~+~~~,' 3:00 P.M. PROJECT ORIENTATION /LUNCH -Town Council Chambers MEMBERS PRESENT Mike Dantas Pete Dunning Margaret Rogers SITE VISITS 1. Stephens Park 2. Meadow Creek Condominiums - 2783 Kinnikinnick Road 3. Arrabelle Bridge - 675 Lionshead Place 4. The Sitzmark Lodge - 183 Gore Creek Drive MEMBERS ABSENT Sherry Dorward Lynn Fritzlen Driver: George 12:OOpm 2:OOpm PUBLIC HEARING -TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS 3:OOpm Vail Corp. DRB06-0442 / 10 minutes George Final review of change to approved plans (color change to Arrabelle Bridge) 675 Lionshead Place/Lot 2, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Filing 3 Applicant: Vail Corp., represented by Jay Peterson ACTION:. Approved MOTION: Dunning SECOND: Dantas VOTE: 3-0-0 2. Meadow Creek Homeowners Association DRB06-0401 Bill Final review of a minor alteration (exterior windows, doors, siding) 2783 Kinnikinnick Road/Meadow Creek Condominiums Applicant: Meadow Creek Homeowners Association, represented by TRD Architects ACTION: Approved with condition(s) MOTION: Dunning SECOND: Dantas VOTE: 3-0-0 CONDITION(S): 1) The applicant shall include a minimum of three different color schemes to be varied throughout the 12 different structures. 2) The applicant shall submit to staff, for review and approval prior to installation, a new light fixture which meets the requirements of the Town of Vail. 3. The Sitzmark Lodge DR606-0407 Matt Final review of a minor alteration (exterior paint) 183 Gore Creek Drive/Lot A, Block 5B, Vail Village Filing 1 Applicant: The Sitzmark at Vail, Inc., represented by Robert Fritch ACTION: Approved with condition(s) MOTION: Dunning SECOND: Dantas VOTE: 3-0-0 CONDITION(S): Page 1 1) That the applicant uses the color samples painted on the structure. 4. Town of Vail DRB06-0414 Bill Final review of a minor alteration (re-skin park restrooms) 635 North Frontage. Road (Sandstone Park, Bighorn Park, Ford Park & Stephens Park) Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by John Gallegos ACTION: Approved .MOTION: Dunning SECOND: Dantas VOTE: 3-0-0 5. Rondeau Residence DRB06-0426 Elisabeth Final review of a residential addition (entry and garage) 1613 Matterhorn Circle/Lot 26, Matterhorn Subdivision Applicant: Paul and Nancy Rondeau, represented by John Martin, Architect LLC ACTION: Tabled to October 18, 2006 MOTION: Dunning SECOND: Dantas VOTE: 3-0-0 Staff Approvals Lange Residence DRB06-0327 Final review of a minor'alteration (exterior stucco and re-roof) 1905 West Gore Creek Drive/Lot 27, Vail Village West Filing 2 Applicant: Nadine Lange, represented by Dave Irwin Elisabeth Liftside Condominiums DRB06-0369 Warren Final review of a minor alteration (planters) 1234 Westhaven Drive/Cascade Village Subdivision Applicant: Liftside Condominium Association, represented by Tim Albrecht Deighan Residence DRB06-0375 Elisabeth Final review of a minor alteration (exterior siding, stucco, deck railings) 2572 Cortina Lane/Lot 3, Block F, Vail das Schone Filing 1 Applicant: Robin Deighan, represented by SRE Builders Regal Residence DRB06-Q383 Bill Final review of a residential addition (bedrooms) 1074 Sandstone Drive/Lot 3, Lion's Ridge Subdivision Applicant: Walter Regal Frey Residence DRB06-0391 Joe Final review of a minor alteration (roof) 2605 Davos Trail/Lot 23, Block B, Vail Ridge Applicant: George and Heidi Frey Bertolone Residence DRB06-0395 Elisabeth Final review of changes to approved plans (enclose alcove) 2055 West Gore Creek Drive, Unit 3/Casa del Sol Condominiums, unplatted Applicant: Sal Bertolone, represented by Massive Imaginations Page 2 Oberlohr Residence DRB06-0397 Bill Final review of changes to approved plans (raise driveway/house) 2199 St. Moritz Way/Lot 6 Vail Heights Applicant: Konrad Oberlohr, represented by John G. Martin, Architect, LLC Gobec Residence DRB06-0399 Matt Final review of a residential addition (garage/master bath) 1462 Aspen Grove Lane/Lot 11, Block 2, Lions Ridge Subdivision Filing 4 Applicant: Matt and Doris Gobec, represented by John M. Perkins OML lnvestments, Inc. DRB06-0405 Matt Final review of change to approved plans (entry roof materials, pool) 996 Ptarmigan Road/Lot 2, Block 4, Vail Village Filing 7 Applicant: OML Investments, Inc., represented by Aker Architects Infusion Fine Gifts DRB06-408 Elisabeth Final review of a sign 183 Gore Creek Drive/Lot A, Block 5B, Vail Village Filing 1 Applicant: The Sitzmark at Vail, represented by Jorge Navas Burch Residence DRB06-0406 Elisabeth Final review of a residential addition (loft, storage area) 680 West Lionshead Place/Lot 2, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Filing 3 Applicant: Robin Burch Interlochen Condominiums DRB06-0409 Joe Final review of a minor alteration (railing) 2958 South Frontage Road West/Lots 3 and 4, Block. 5, Vail Intermountain Subdivision Applicant: Interlochen Condominium Association, represented by Elizabeth Whitmore Kondos Residence DRB06-0410 Bill Final review of change to approved plans (addition of porch, porch roof) 1673 Matterhorn Circle/Lot 20, Matterhorn Village Filing 1 Applicant: Daniel Kondos, represented by Stuart Brummett Lipnick Residence DRB06-0411 Matt Final review of a minor alteration (patio) 1255 Westhaven Circle/Lot 45, Block, B, Glen Lyon Subdivision Applicant: Janie Lipnick, represented by Landscape Technology Group Vail Point Condominiums DRB06-0412 Warren Final review of change to approved plans (hot tub) 1881 Lion's Ridge Loop/Lot 1, Block 3, Lion's Ridge Filing 3 Applicant: Vail Point Homeowners Association, represented by Denver Pools & Spas Gregg Residence DRB06-0415 Joe Final review of a minor alteration (re-roof) 1966 West Gore Creek Drive/Lot 44, Vail Village West Filing 1 Applicant: Jim and Laurie Gregg Page 3 Becker Appointment Trust DR606-0413 Final review of change to approved plans (roof, skylight) 4026 Lupine Drive/Lot 13, Bighorn Subdivision Applicant: Becker Appointment Trust Playground Remodel Vail DRB06-0414 Final review of a minor alteration (safety improvements) Bighorn Park Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Gregg Barrie Fallridge Condominiums DRB06-417 Final review of a minor alteration (landscaping) 1650 East Vail Valley Drive/Lots 1 & 2, Sunburst Filing 3 Applicant: Fallridge Condominium Association Bramante Residence DRB06-0419 Final review of a minor alteration (replace driveway material) 1285 Westhaven Circle/Lot 47, Glen Lyon Subdivision Applicant: Gus and Eleanore Bramante Head Residence DRB06-0420 Final review of change to approved plans (exterior stair) 325 Mill Creek Circle/Lot 1, Block 1, Vail Village Filing 1 Applicant: Martha Head, represented by Fritzlen Pierce Architects Warren Bill Warren Warren Matt Forest International LLC DRB06-0422 Matt Final review of change to approved plans (equipment vault, patio, exterior stairs and landing) 45 Forest Road/Lot 33, Block 7, Vail Village Filing 1 Applicant: Forest International LLC, represented by Klenschmidt & Shamis LLC Ogden Residence DRB06-0423 Elisabeth Final review of a minor alteration (windows and doors) 2195 Chamonix Lane/Lot 2, Vail Heights Subdivision Applicant: Meg and George Ogden, represented by Ryan's Carpentry Pitkin Creek Condominiums DRB06-0424 Warren Final review of a minor alteration (re-roof) 4081 Bighorn Road/Pitkin Creek Condominiums Applicant: Pitkin Creek Homeowners Association, represented by B & M Roofing of Colorado, Inc. McGlynn Residence DRB06-0427 Final review of change to approved plans (exterior trim color) 5128 Grouse Lane/Lot 8, Block 1, Gore Creek Subdivision Applicant: Jackass Acres, represented. by Alexis McGlynn Morris Residence DRB06-0430 Final- review of a minor alteration (re-roof) 2945 Booth Creek Drive/Lot 3, Block 2, Vail Village Filing 11 Applicant: John and Joan Morris, represented by Master Sealers Warren Joe Page 4 Remy Residence DRB06-0431 Final review of a minor alteration (re-roof) 1471 Aspen Grove Lane/Lot 6, Block 2, Lion's Ridge Subdivision Applicant: Don Remy, represented by Master Sealers Joe Gillette Residence DRB06-0432 Joe Final review of a minor alteration (re-roof) 775 Potato Patch Drive/Lot 19, Block 1, Vail Potato Patch Subdivision Applicant: Foster Gillette, represented by Master Sealers Beals Residence DRB06-0435 Joe Final review of a minor alteration (re-roof) 2910 Aspen Court/Lot 11, Vail Village Filing 11 Applicant: Jack Beals Moore Residence DR606-0441 Joe Final review of a minor alteration (re-roof) 921 Red Sandstone Road/Sandstone 70 Subdivision Applicant: Kathryn Moore, represented by Adam's Roofing The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours in the project planner's office, located at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. Please call 479-2138 for information. Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479-2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Page 5 MEMORANDUM TO: Vail Town Council FROM: Community Development Department DATE: October 3, 2006 SUBJECT: A request to remove a recorded Type I Employee Housing Unit deed- restriction from the property located at 1868 West Gore Creek Drive/Lot 47, Vail Village West 1St Filing. I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST Paul Musson, the owner of the property located at 1868 West Gore Creek Drive/Lot 47, Vail Village West 1St Filing, is requesting to have the recorded Type I Employee Housing Unit deed-restriction removed from the property. A copy of a letter from Mr. Musson has been attached for reference (Attachment A). 11. BACKGROUND The following information. was obtained from the legal file maintained by .the Town of Vail Community Development Department: Zoning: Two-Family Primary/Secondary Residential. District (P/S) Lot Size: 10,890 square feet/0.25 acre Allowable Density: one dwelling or one dwelling unit plus a Type I EHU On May 30, 1995, John and Bobbi Ann Houtsma submitted a development application to the Town of Vail Community Development Department for a residential addition to their existing residence and the construction of a new two- car garage. The residential addition included the provision of a Type I Employee Housing Unit. Upon review of .the application, staff and the applicants determined that a site coverage variance approval was required to construct the requested improvements. On July 17, 1995, John and Bobbi Ann Houtsma submitted a variance application to the Town of Vail Community Development Department to allow for site coverage on Lot 47, Vail Village West Filing 1St Filing in excess of 15% to accommodate their proposed residential addition and new two-car garage. On August 14, 1995, the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission approved the applicant's request with conditions. One of the conditions of approval required that the applicant's record a Type I Employee Housing Unit deed restriction to allow for the proposed secondary unit with the Eagle County Clerk & Recorder's Office, prior to the issuance of a building permit for the project. On August 17, 1995, the Community Development Department staff approved a Design Review Board application for the proposed residential addition and new two-car garage. On August 24, 1995, a Type I Employee Housing Unit deed restriction was recorded for Lot 47, Vail Village West 1St Filing with the Eagle County Clerk & Recorder's Office. On October 12, 1995, the Town of Vail Community Development Department issued a building permit to allow for the repair of an existing deck, the replacement of a sliding patio with a new French door and the addition of a trapezoid window on the west side of the residence. Since having been granted approval for the site coverage variance and the Design Review Board application; the applicants had decided to not go forward with their original plans to construct the residential addition and new two-car garage. Instead, decks were repaired, doors replaced, windows were added, the house was repainted, and landscape improvements were completed. On August 24, 1996, the Design Review Board approval for the proposed residential addition and new two-car garage granted one year earlier expired. Pursuant to Section 12-11-12, Lapse of Design Review Approval, `Approval of the design of a project as prescribed by this chapter shall lapse and shall become void one year following the date of final approval of the project unless prior to the expiration of one year, a building permit is issued and construction is commenced and diligently pursued toward completion. However, if there have been no zoning revisions or revisions or amendments to these guidelines which would alter the conditions under which the approval was given, the community development staff may extend the period of approval." On August 17, 1997, the approval of the site coverage variance granted by the PEC two years earlier expired. Pursuant to Section 12-17-7, Permit Approval and Effect, `Approval of the variance shall lapse and become void if a building permit is not obtained and construction not commenced and diligently pursued toward completion within two (2) years from when the approval becomes final." On June 13, 2003, John and Bobbi Ann Houtsma, on behalf of Paul Musson, a potential purchaser of the property, submitted a variance application to the Town of Vail Community Development Department to allow for site coverage on Lot 47, 2 Vail Village West Filing 1St Filing in excess of 15% to accommodate a new two- cargarage. The previous request for a residential addition including a secondary unit was excluded from the new application. On July 28, 2003, the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission granted approval of the site coverage request to allow for the construction of the new two-car garage. On October 8, 2003, the Town of Vail Community Development Department staff approved a Design Review Board application to allow for the construction of a new two-car garage. On May 6, 2004, the Town of Vail Community Development Department issued a building permit for the construction. of the new two-car garage. The garage construction has since been completed. III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department is recommending that the Vail Town Council approves the applicant's request to remove the recorded Type I Employee Housing Unit deed restriction from Lot 47, Vail Village 1St Filing. Staff's recommendation of approval is based upon the chronology of events, the Town's Zoning Regulations, and the fact that the property owner never received the benefit a deed restriction is intended to provide (ie, a second unit). Additionally, since recording this deed restriction, the Community Development Department has changed the timing of recording deed restrictions. Deed restrictions are now required to be recorded prior to the issuance of a temporary certificate of occupancy rather than prior to the issuance of a building permit. Too often changes occur during the construction that may never have been previously contemplated. This change significantly lessens the likelihood of this particular circumstance from happening again. 3 ~--- ~ George Ruther -Restrictive covenant Page 1 Attachment: A From: "Paul Musson" <paul@themussons.com> To: <gruther@vailgov.com> Date: 09/17/2006 7:47:13 AM Subject: Restrictive covenant Dear George Thanks for helping with the restrictive covenant on our house. We bought the house from the Houtsmas about 3 years ago. They had previously applied for a permit to add a double garage, add a second kitchen and change the entrance. The work was never carried out, though they did get a variance for the garage. Since they didn't do the work, the variance lapsed. We bought the house and during the closing process applied to have the variance re-instated, which you did, and then got a permit to build a double garage which we have built. However, we had new plans drawn up and did not build the kitchen or modify the entrance. We are selling the house and our agent, Donna Caynowski, discovered that there is still a restrictive covenant for an employee dwelling unit on the house.. This was put in place when the Houtsmas applied to make the changes and was never removed even though neither they nor we added the second kitchen or modified the entrance. I believe there is a note on the file stating that the EHU restriction should be removed because the original remodel was not carried out. The house is configured as a single family home. So we are requesting your help to remove this covenant which we believe remains in force through an oversight. Thanks Paul Musson J ORDINANCE NO. ZO SERIES 2006 AN ORDINANCE REPEALING AND REENACTING TITLE 5, CHAPTER 9 "WILDLIFE PROTECTION," VAIL TOWN CODE; ESTABLISHING REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS. REGARDING THE PROTECTION OF WILDLIFE; AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO. WHEREAS, the Town of Vail, in the County of Eagle and State of Colorado (the "Town"), is a home rule municipal corporation duly organized and existing under laws of the State of Colorado and the Town Charter (the "Charter"); and WHEREAS, the members of the Town Council of the Town (the "Council") have been duly elected and qualified; and WHEREAS, it is the Town Council's opinion that the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the Town of Vail, and the wildlife indigenous to this valley, would be enhanced and promoted by the adoption of this ordinance; and WHEREAS, the Council finds that the feeding of wildlife within the Town of Vail constitutes a menace to property and to the health, welfare, peace and safety of the. citizens of Vail; and WHEREAS, human refuse provides an abundant yet unhealthy supply of food for wildlife, which supports artificially high populations and places an additional strain on the supply of naturally occurring foods; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO THAT: Title 5, Chapter 9 "Wildlife Protection," of the Vail Town Code is hereby repealed in its entirety and reenacted to read as follows: Ordinance No. 20, Series 2006 5-9-1: PURPOSE: The purpose of this Chapter 9 is to protect and maintain Wildlife in the Town of Vail and surrounding areas and to minimize the risk of dangerous interaction between humans and Wildlife. 5-9-2: DEFINITIONS: ATTRACTANT:. Any substance which could reasonably be expected to attract wildlife or does attract wildlife, including but not limited to food products,. pet food, feed, compost, grain or salt. REFUSE: any solid waste that could reasonably attract wildlife which includes, but is not limited to, kitchen organic waste, food, food packaging, toothpaste, deodorant, cosmetics, spices, seasonings and grease. REFUSE CONTAINER: Any trash can, dumpster, or similar device used for the collection and storage of solid waste. RESIDENT: Any person, firm, corporation or organization within the Town of Vail or on Town controlled land. SPECIAL EVENT: An outdoor gathering such as a concert, conference or festival. WILDLIFE: Any undomesticated animal, including, but not limited to, elk, deer, sheep, lynx, skunks, magpies, crows, bears, raccoons, coyotes, beavers, porcupines, mountain lions, bobcats and foxes. WILDLIFE-PROOF REFUSE CONTAINER: A fully enclosed metal container with a metal lid. The lid must have a latching mechanism, which prevents access to the contents by Wildlife. Wildlife-Proof refuse container must be certified as such by the Living with Wildlife Foundation, Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee (Fish and Wildlife Service, Forest Service, Park Service and Bureau of Land Management). A container not so certified, is considered aWildlife-Proof Refuse Container if it is certified as such by a Town of Vail designated official. WILDLIFE-RESISTANT ENCLOSURE: A fully enclosed structure consisting of four sides and a secure door or cover, which shall have a latching device of sufficient Ordinance No. 20, Series 2006 strength and design to prevent access by Wildlife. Wildlife-Resistant Enclosures are subject to all planning and zoning requirements and building codes. An enclosure of less than one hundred twenty (120) square feet shall not require a building permit. An enclosure of one hundred twenty (120) square feet or larger requires a building permit. The walls of the enclosure must extend to the ground and the door can have no more than a 3/8-inch gap along the bottom. The latching devise must be of sufficient strength and design to prevent access by Wildlife. Ventilation openings shall be kept to a minimum and must be covered with a metal mesh or other material of sufficient strength to prevent access by Wildlife. Wildlife-Resistant enclosures must be approved by a Town of Vail designated official. WILDLIFE-RESISTANT REFUSE CONTAINER: A fully enclosed plastic container, of sturdy construction, with a sturdy plastic lid which must have a latching mechanism which prevents access to the contents by Wildlife. Wildlife-Resistant Refuse Containers must be certified as such by the Living with Wildlife Foundation, Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee (Fish and Wildlife Service, Forest Service, Park Service and Bureau of Land Management). A container not so certified, is considered aWildlife-Resistant Refuse Container if it is certified as such by a Town of Vail designated official. 5-9-3: RESIDENTIAL REFUSE DISPOSAL: A. All residential Refuse Containers that receive refuse edible by Wildlife must be secured within an approved Wildlife-Resistant Refuse container or aWildlife-Proof Refuse container. When a house, garage or Wildlife-Resistant Enclosure is available the refuse container must be kept inside the structure except during the hours in Section B. B. Residents with curbside pick-up shall not place plastic bags containing refuse or any other type of Refuse Containers, other than Wildlife-Resistant or Proof Refuse Containers, at the curb, alley, or public right of way at or after six o'clock (6:00) a.m. on the morning of scheduled pick-up. After pick-up, containers must be removed from the curb, alley or public right of way by seven o'clock (7:00) p.m. on the same day. C. Other household waste that is not a wildlife attractant including, but not limited to; non-edible yard maintenance waste, household items, and cardboard do not require the Ordinance No. 20, Series 2006 use of Wildlife-Resistant Containers when not commingled with edible refuse or any other attractant. D. Multi-family housing developments and other types of clustered residential housing, utilizing centralized .Refuse Containers, must use either aWildlife-Proof Refuse Container or aWildlife-Resistant Enclosure for all refuse edible by Wildlife. The container or enclosure shall be kept closed in secure manner except when refuse is being deposited. 5-9-4: MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION OF ALL REFUSE CONTAINERS AND ENCLOSURES: A. All Refuse Containers defined in this chapter shall be kept closed and secured when refuse is not being deposited. Any container which is over filled so as to prevent latching is not aWildlife-Resistant or Wildlife-Proof Refuse Container within the meaning of this Chapter, B. If a container or enclosure is damaged, allowing access by Wildlife, repairs must be made within 24 hours after written notification by Town of Vail Police or Code Enforcement Officers. C. All Refuse Containers that are placed at the curb, alley or public right of way for collection must have the residence street address and unit number permanently affixed to the container with digits no smaller than two inches in height. 5-9-5: SPECIAL EVENT REFUSE DISPOSAL: Outdoor special event sites shall be kept free from the accumulation of refuse edible by Wildlife. Refuse must be collected from the grounds at the close of each day's activities and shall be deposited into appropriate Wildlife-Resistant or Proof containers or Wildlife-Resistant Enclosures as provided in this Chapter or be removed to an appropriate disposal site. 5-9-6: CONSTRUCTION SITE. REFUSE DISPOSAL: All construction sites must have a designated Refuse Container that receives refuse edible by Wildlife. This container shall be a Wildlife-Proof Refuse Container. Ordinance No. 2Q Series 2006 5-9-7: COMMERICAL REFUSE DISPOSAL: All Refuse Containers receiving refuse from commercial establishments and restaurants which is edible by Wildlife shall be in Wildlife-Proof Containers, or shall be secured in aWildlife-Resistant Enclosure. Notwithstanding the forgoing, this requirement shall not apply to municipal Refuse Containers which are emptied at the end of each day, or multiple times per day. 5-9-8: COMPACTORS: Trash compactors are compliant with this Chapter when no refuse is exposed. Compactor doors must be kept closed at all times, except when loading or removing refuse and the area around the compactor must be kept clean of refuse and debris. 5-9-9: FEEDING OF WILDLIFE PROHIBITED: A. Intentional or Unintentional: No person shall intentionally or unintentionally feed or provide food in any manner for Wildlife on public or private property within the Town of Vail. A person will be considered to be in violation of this Chapter if they leave or store any garbage, refuse, food product, pet food, grain or salt in a manner which. would create a lure, attractant or enticement for Wildlife. B. Bird Feeders: Bird feeders are allowed. However between the dates of April 15 and November 15, all bird feeders must be suspended on a cable or other device so that they are inaccessible to bears and the area below the feeders must be kept free from the accumulation of seed debris. 5-9-10: ENFORCEMENT: A. Town of Vail Police and Code Enforcement Officers shall have the power to issue a warning notice or a summons and complaint to any person in violation of this Chapter. B. Town of Vail Police or Code Enforcement Officers shal- have the right to inspect, during reasonable hours, any property in the Town concerning any Wildlife concern or potential Wildlife attractant. 5-9-11: PENALTY ASSESSMENT: Ordinance No. 20, Series 2006 A. Violation of any provision of this Chapter by any person shall be unlawful and subject to the General Penalty provision, Section 1-4-1, of the Vail Town Code. Either the owner or occupant of a residence or commercial establishment may be held responsible for a violation of any provision of this Chapter. B. A Resident shall be deemed to have been issued an appropriate notice of violation if it is personally served upon the Resident, placed in the U.S. mail, postage prepaid and addressed to the Resident according to the last known address given by the resident to any Town of Vail or Eagle County government department. If the identity of the resident is not known, the entity responsible for payment of the garbage removal services for the subject location wilt be held responsible for complying with this Chapter and for any penalties assessed pursuant to the same. 5-9-12: VIOLATOR'S RESPONSIBILITY: In addition to the penalties outlined in this Chapter, violators may be required to perform all necessary actions to remove or abate attractants of Wildlife. This may include, but shall not be limited to: the removal of bird feeders or pet food, cleaning or appropriate storage of barbecue grills, and/or the required use of Wildlife-Proof Containers and/or Wildlife-Resistant Enclosures. 5-9-13: COMPLIANCE REQUIRED AND TIME PERIOD: Any container required by this Chapter shall be brought into conformity with the provision of this Chapter by April 15, 2007. Any enclosure required by this Chapter shall be brought into conformity with the provision of this Chapter by August 1, 2007. Upon application to the Town Manager, and showing hardship by an owner of an enclosure or container required hereunder, the Town Manager may grant an extension, for a reasonable period of time, with which to comply with the provision of this Chapter. Town of Vail refuse containers must be in compliance with this ordinance by April 15, 2009. Ordinance No. 20, Series 2006 C INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, APPROVED, AND. ORDERED PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL ON FIRST READING this 19~' day of September, 2006, and a public hearing for second reading of this Ordinance set for the 3'" day of October, 2006, at 6:00 P.M. in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado. Rodney E. Slifer, Mayor ATTEST: Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk INTRODUCED, READ, ADOPTED AND ENACTED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED IN FULL this 3ro day of October, 2006. Rodney E. Slifer, Mayor ATTEST: Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk Ordinance No. 20, Series 2006 ORDINANCE NO. 24 SERIES OF 2006 AN ORDINANCE CONCERNING THE ORGANIZATION OF A GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT IN THE TOWN OF VAIL; ACCEPTING THE PETITION FOR THE ORGANIZATION OF SUCH GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT, AND ~ MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS AND DETERMINATIONS; WAIVING ALL REQUIREMENTS FOR NOTICE, PUBLICATION AND HEARING AS PERMITTED BY STATUTE; DECLARING THE NECESSITY OF THE FORMATION OF THE GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT; ESTABLISHING AND CREATING THE TOWN OF VAIL GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 1; TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO; AND PROVIDING OTHER DETAILS RELATING THERETO. WHEREAS, the Town of Vail, Eagle County, Colorado (the "Town") is a municipal corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of Colorado (the "State") and in particular under the provisions of Article XX of the Constitution of the State and the Town Charter (the "Charter"); and WHEREAS, a Petition In Re the Organization of the Town of Vail General Improvement District No. 1, Town of Vail, Colorado has been filed in the office of the Clerk and Recorder (the "Clerk") of the Town; and WHEREAS, such Petition has been reviewed by the Clerk; and WHEREAS, such Petition has been signed by the registered electors representing one hundred percent of the taxable real property within the proposed district and contains a request, pursuant to Section 31-25-607(3.5), Colorado Revised Statutes ("C.R.S."), for waiver. of all requirements for notice, publication and a hearing set forth in Sections 31-25-606 and 31-25- 607, C.R.S, and a request for waiver of the bond provided for in Section 31-25-605, C.R.S. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL: Section 1. Short Title. This ordinance shall be known as and may be cited by the short title "Organizational Ordinance" (the "Ordinance"). Section 2. Authoritv for this Ordinance. This ordinance is adopted by virtue of the Town's powers as a home rule municipality operating pursuant to Article XX of the State Constitution, the Charter and Part 6 of Article 25 of Title 31, Colorado Revised Statutes. Section 3. Acceptance of Petition. The Town Council of the Town (the "Council") hereby accepts the Petition In Re the Organization of the Town of Vail General Improvement District No. 1, Town of Vail, Colorado (the "Petition"}, which requests the formation of a general improvement district to be known as the "Town of Vail General.lmprovement District No. 1, Town of Vail, Colorado" (the "District"). The Council hereby finds that the signatures on the Petition are genuine, that the Petition is signed by registered electors representing one hundred __ Ordinance No. 24, Series 2006 percent of the taxable real property within the proposed District, and that the Petition contains a request for waiver of all requirements for notice, publication and a hearing set forth in Sections 31-25-606 and 31-25-607, C.R.S, and for the filing of a bond as set forth in Section 31-25-605, C.R.S. The Council hereby determines that the proposed services are those authorized to be provided by the Charter and/or .the laws of the State of Colorado. The Council hereby determines that the proposed services do not duplicate or interfere with any municipal services already provided or planned to be provided within the limits of the proposed District. The Council finds that the creation of the District and proposed services will confer a general benefit on the District and that the costs of the services will not be excessive as compared with the value of the property in the District. The Council hereby finds, determines and declares that the organization of the District will serve a public use and will promote the health, prosperity, security and general welfare of the inhabitants of the Town and the District. The Council hereby determines to grant such request for waiver and finds that the allegations of the Petition are true and that the District should be established. Section 4. Approval of District. It appears that the Petition has been duly signed and presented in conformity with Colorado law and that the allegations of the Petition are true. The Council hereby finds that it has full jurisdiction under the law to adopt this ordinance, that the District is hereby declared organized, and that the District shall be known as the "Town of Vail General Improvement District No. 1, Town of Vail, Colorado", in all subsequent proceedings. The District shall be a public, orquasi-municipal subdivision of the State of Colorado and a body corporate with the powers set forth in Part 6, Article 25, Title 31, C.R.S. The ex officio Board of Directors of the District shall be the Council (the "Board"). The District may incur obligations and liabilities only for the purposes for which the District is created, as described in this ordinance and in accordance. with law. Section 5. District Boundaries. The District is located entirely within the boundaries of the Town, and a legal description of the District boundaries is set forth as the "INITIAL DISTRICT BOUNDARIES" in the "Ordinance No. 24, Series of 2006 Supplement" on file with the Town Clerk of the Town. Section 6. Inclusion Area. Petitioner anticipates additional property will be included in the District in the future, and a legal description of the additional property to be included in the District in the future is set forth as the "INCLUSION AREA BOUNDARIES" in the "Ordinance No. 24, Series of 2006 Supplement" on file with the Town Clerk of the Town.. Petitioner consents to substitution of a metes and bounds legal description for that portion of the legal description of this Inclusion Area currently described as condominium units. The Council hereby Orders that a metes and bounds description of the said Condominium area be obtained by the Petitioner and that said metes and bounds description shall become the legal description for the boundaries of that portion of the Inclusion Area consisting of condominium units. Section 7. Services. A general description of the services to be provided within the District (the "Services") is as follows: The Services shall consist of (a) programming, regulating and generally administering all public functions conducted on the "Public Plaza" (as that term is defined in that certain "Crossroads Development Agreement," dated July 25, 2006, by and between the Town and Crossroads East One, LLC)(hereinafter the "Plaza").and (b) maintaining the Plaza in material conformance with the Operating Standard (as hereinafter defined), but only to the extent that the Solaris Metropolitan District fails to do so in accordance with the terms of the Intergovernmental Agreement described 2 in Section 9 hereof. The "Operating Standard" means the maintenance standard generally and ordinarily observed by any recognized first-class hotel operator. Section 8. Costs Estimate. An estimate of the costs of the Services is set forth as the "GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT Preliminary Annual Operating Costs" in the "Ordinance No. 24, Series of 2006 Supplement" on file with the Town Clerk of the Town. Section 9. Intergovernmental Agreement with Solaris Metropolitan District. The District's power to provide the Services shall be subject to execution of an Intergovernmental Agreement (the "Intergovernmental Agreement") between the District and the Solaris Metropolitan District Nos. 1-3 (acting by and through Solaris Metropolitan District No: 1) governing the provision of the Services by the District. The ability 'of the District to levy taxes, impose fees or exercise any of the other functions authorized herein shall be conditioned upon the execution of the Intergovernmental Agreement. Section 10. District Representatives and Board of Directors. The names of three persons who shall represent.the Petitioner, and who shall have the power to enter into binding agreements relating to the organization of the District, are Peter Knobel, Craig Cohn, and Jon Boord. The Board shall establish an advisory committee to advise the District on the operation of the Plaza, and the composition of such advisory committee shall be determined in the sound discretion of the Board (the "Advisory Committee"). The Advisory Committee shall be advisory in nature only. Overall control and supervision of District affairs shall remain vested in the Board, and nothing herein shall be construed to permit the Advisory Committee to act on behalf of the District except by and through the Board's authority. Section 11. Miscellaneous. (a) A true copy of this Ordinance shall be numbered and recorded in the official records of the Town. (b) This Ordinance shall finally and conclusively establish the regular organization of the District against all persons unless an action attacking the validity of the organization is commenced in a court of competent jurisdiction within 30 days after the adoption of this Ordinance. Thereafter, any such action shall be perpetually barred. (c) If any section, paragraph, clause or provision of this Ordinance shall for any reason be held to be invalid or unenforceable, the invalidity or unenforceability of such section, paragraph, clause or provision shall in no manner affect any remaining provisions of this Ordinance. (d) All bylaws, orders, resolutions and ordinances, or parts thereof, inconsistent herewith, are hereby repealed to the extent only of such inconsistency. This repealer shall not be construed as reviving any bylaw, order, resolution or ordinance, or part thereof. 3 INTRODUCED, READ, APPROVED AND ORDERED PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL ON FIRST READING this 19~' day of September, 2006, and a public hearing shall be held on this Ordinance on the 3`d day of October, 2006, at the regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Vail, Colorado in the Municipal Building of the Town. Rod Slifer, Mayor (SEAL) Attest: Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk INTRODUCED, READ, ADOPTED AND ENACTED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED IN FULL this 3`d day of October, 2006. Rodney E. Slifer, Mayor ATTEST: Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk 4 IN THE OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO PETITION IN RE THE ORGANIZATION OF THE TOWN OF VAIL GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 1, TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO The undersigned, being a registered elector representing the owner of one hundred percent (100%) of the taxable real property hereinafter described, presents this Petition for organization of a General Improvement District, pursuant to and in accordance with Part 6 of Article 25 of Title 31, Colorado Revised Statutes, and in support of the Petition states: 1. The name of the proposed district shall be "Town of Vail General Improvement District No. 1, Town of Vail, Colorado" (the "District"). 2. The initial boundaries of the District are described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. 3. Petitioner anticipates additional property will be included in the District in the future, which property is described in Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference (the "Inclusion Area"). Petitioner consents to substitution of a metes and bounds legal description for the legal description of .that portion of the Inclusion Area currently described as condominium units. 4. The ex officio Board of Directors of the District (the "Board") shall be the Town Council of the Town of Vail, Colorado (the "Town Council"). 5. The District shall be authorized to undertake the following public services in accordance with the Intergovernmental Agreement (as hereinafter defined) and Colorado law (the "Services"): a. Programming, regulating and generally administering all public functions conducted on the "Public Plaza" (as that term is defined in that certain "Crossroads Development Agreement," dated July 25, 2006, by and between the Town and Crossroads East One, LLC) (the "Plaza"); and b. Maintaining the Plaza in material conformance with the Operating Standard (as hereinafter defined), but only to the extent that the Solaris Metropolitan District Nos. 1-3 fail to do so as set forth in the Intergovernmental Agreement. The "Operating Standard" means the maintenance standard generally and ordinarily observed by any recognized first-class hotel operator. 6. An estimate of the annual costs of providing proposed Services is contained in Exhibit C, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. 7. In order to fond the costs of the Services, together with the administrative costs necessary to ensure that the District maintains its corporate existence, the District shall be authorized to impose and collect property taxes levied on real and personal property within the District, in accordance with and subject to the terms of the authorizing. election to be held as provided herein, and otherwise as may be established pursuant to the terms of the Intergovernmental Agreement. Additionally, the District shall be empowered to impose a system of rates, fees, tolls, penalties and charges against property within the District to generate revenue for authorized purposes. The District shall enter into an Intergovernmental Agreement with the Solaris Metropolitan District Nos. 1-3 which shall establish the terms goverriing the District's provision of the Services, (the "Intergovernmental A cement"). The ability of the District to levy taxes, impose fees or exercise any of the other functions authorized herein shall be conditioned upon the execution of the Intergovernmental Agreement. 8. The question of the levy of taxes to fund the costs of the Services, along with such other questions as may be necessary to effectuate the purposes for which the District is being organized, shall, in accordance with the Ordinance being adopted by the Town contemporaneously with the Ordinance creating the District, be submitted to the electors of the District at an election to be held November 7, 2006. The form of election questions to be submitted at the election shall be subject to the approval of the Petitioners. 9. The names of three persons who shall represent the Petitioner, and who shall have the power to enter into binding agreements relating to the organization of the District, are Peter Knobel, Craig Cohn, and Jon Boord. The Board shall establish an advisory committee to advise the District on the operation of the Plaza, and the composition of such advisory committee shall be determined in the sound discretion of the Board (the "Advisory Committee"). The Advisory. Committee shall be advisory in nature only. Overall control and supervision of District affairs shall remain vested in the Board, and nothing herein shall be construed to permit the Advisory Committee to act on behalf of the District except by and through the Board's authority. 10. Crossroads West One, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company ("Petitioner"), is not a natural person, and is therefore authorized to appoint a natural person to serve as an elector of the District pursuant to Section 31-25-602(2)(b). The person who signed the signature page of this Petition is the person designated, pursuant to Section 31-25-602(2)(b), C.R.S., to be an elector of the District for purposes of executing this Petition and voting, on behalf of the property owner, at any election held in connection with the District's organization. By the signature of its representative below, Petitioner hereby consents to the inclusion of the property described in Exhibit A within the District. Pursuant to Sections 31-25-605 and 607(3.5), C.R.S., Petitioner hereby requests a waiver of its right to a public hearing on the organization of the District, any notices or 2 publications required in connection therewith and the bond otherwise required. WHEREFORE, the undersigned Petitioner prays that the Town Council adopt an Ordinance organizing and establishing the District, in accordance with law. Further, the undersigned prays that the Town Council, acting in its capacity as the District Board, adopt an Ordinance contemporaneously with the Ordinance creating the District, calling for an election within the District authorizing the levy of taxes as proposed herein, to be conducted November 7, 2006. PETITIONER: CROSSROADS WEST ONE, LLC, a Cotorad company By: Its: e ~ a ed Elector Date: ~,/~9 706 SOLMD\GID\CLEANVIM 1249091506 0950.0002c 3 EXHIBIT A Legal Description and Map of GID Boundaries EXHIBIT A INITIAL DISTRICT BOUNDARIES LEGAL DESCRIPTION THAT CERTAIN COMMERCIAL CRV IN THE CROSSROADS OF VAIL, A CONDOMINIUM, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONDOMINIUM DECLARATION RECORDED DECEMBER 2, 1968 IN BOOK 214 AT PAGE 261 AND THE FIRST AMENDMENT THERETO RECORDED FEBRUARY 7, 1977 IN BOOK 252 AT PAGE 353 AS SHOWN ON THAT CERTAIN CONDOMINIUM MAP OF CROSSROADS OF VAIL RECORDED DECEMBER 2, 1968 iN BOOK 214, AT PAGE 262, AND THE CORRECTED CONDOMINIUM MAP OF CROSSROADS OF VAIL RECORDED ON FEBRUARY 25, 1969 IN BOOK 214, AT PAGE 686, COUNTY OF EAGLE, STATE OF COLORADO EXHIBIT B Legal Description and Map of Inclusion Area Boundaries EXHIBIT B INCLUSION AREA BOUNDARIES That certain real property in the Town of Vail, commonly known as Crossroads at Vail, which is located in Special Development District No. 39. Special Development District No. 39, Crossroads, is established for development on two parcels of land, legally described as Lot P and A Part of Tract C, Block SD, Vail Village Filing 1, which comprise a total of 115,129 square feet (2.643 acres) in the Vail Village area of the Town of Vail. Said parcels may be referred to as "SDD No. 39". Special Development District No. 39 shall be reflected as such on the Official Zoning Map of the Town of Vail. EXHIIBT C GID Cost Estimates and Description GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT Preliminary Annual Operating Costs: PLAZA Housekeeping/Ground $20,000 Maintenance $30,000 Landscaping $10,000 Water & Sewer $12,000 Gas $75,000 Electric $35,000 Insurance $ 8,000 Administration $15,000 Accounting and Audit $12,000 Security $ 5,000 Ice Rink Labor $20,000 Ice Rink Refrigeration $50,000 Capital Maintenance Reserve $15.000 Total 307 000 ORDINANCE N0.25 SERIES OF 2006 AN ORDINANCE DESIGNATED BY THE SHORT TITLE "ELECTION ORDINANCE"; PROVIDING FOR AN ELECTION CONCERNING THE TOWN OF VAIL GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 1, TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUBMITTING TO THE ELECTORS OF SAID DISTRICT THE PROPOSITION OF IMPOSING PROPERTY TAXES FOR THE PURPOSE OF PAYING COSTS OF OPERATING AND MAINTAINING CERTAIN PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS AND TO ALLOW THE DISTRICT TO COLLECT, RETAIN AND SPEND NON PROPERTY TAX REVENUES; AND PRESCRIBING OTHER DETAILS IN CONNECTION WITH SAID ELECTION AND INDEBTEDNESS; REPEALING ANY ACTION HERETOFORE TAKEN IN CONFLICT HEREWITH; AND RATIFYING ACTIONS PREVIOUSLY TAKEN IN CONNECTION THEREWITH. WHEREAS, the Town of Vail, Eagle County, Colorado (the "Town") is a municipal corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of Colorado (the "State") and in particular under the provisions of Article XX of the Constitution of the State (the "Constitution") and the Charter of the Town (the "Charter"); and WHEREAS, by ordinance adopted of even date herewith, the Town of Vail has created the Town of Vail General Improvement. District No. 1 (the "District"); and WHEREAS, Section 31-25-607(4)(a), C.R.S., permits the Town Council, on behalf of the organizing District, to call an election. of the District's electors regarding matters required to be voted upon. under Article X; Section 20 of the Constitution ("TABOR"), including questions pertaining the impositions of taxes, and for spending certain moneys above limits established by TABOR; and WHEREAS, TABOR requires the District to submit ballot issues (as defined in TABOR) to the District's electors on limited election days before action can be taken on such ballot issues; and WHEREAS, November 7, 2006, is one of the election dates at which ballot issues may be submitted to the District's eligible a-ectors pursuant to TABOR; and WHEREAS, the Town Council has determined to call the election on behalf. of the organizing District as permitted by Section 31-25-607(4)(a), C.R.S., due to the need to satisfy various procedural requirements prerequisite to the holding of such election, many of which could not be undertaken directly by the District in a timely fashion following its formal organization; and WHEREAS, it is necessary to submit to the electors of the District, at the election to be held on November 7, 2006, the questions of authorizing the District to increase taxes for operations and maintenance purposes, and spend the revenues thereof and to collect, keep and spend all revenues it receives as a voter approved revenue change under TABOR; and Ordinance No. 25, Series 2006 WHEREAS, it is necessary to set forth certain procedures concerning the conduct of the election; and WHEREAS, the Town Council elects to utilize the provisions of the Uniform Election Code of 1992 in order to conduct a mail ballot election on November 7, 2006. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL: Section 1. Short Title. This ordinance shall be known as and may be cited by the short title "Election Ordinance» (the "Ordinance"). Section 2. Authority for this Ordinance. This Ordinance is adopted by virtue of the Town's powers as a home rule municipality operating pursuant to Article XX of the State Constitution, the Charter and Part 6 of Article 25 of Title 31, C.R.S. Section 3. Election Actions. All action heretofore taken (consistent with the provisions of this resolution) by or on behalf of the District and the officers thereof, directed toward the election and the objects and purposes herein stated is hereby ratified, approved and confirmed. Section 4. Terms. Unless otherwise defined herein, all terms used herein shall have the meanings defined in Title 31, Article 10, C.R.S., Title 31, Article 25, Part 6, C.R.S., and TABOR. Section 5. Calling of Election. Pursuant to TABOR, Title 31, Article 10, C.R.S., Title 31, Article 25, Part 6, C.R.S., and the Section 1-7.5-101 et seq, C.R.S., the Town Council hereby determines to call a special election to be conducted on November 7, 2006, as a mail ballot election (the "Election"). The Town Council hereby determines that at the Election to be held on November 7, 2006, there shall be submitted to the eligible electors of the District the questions set forth in Section 6 hereof. Because the Election will be a mail ballot election, the Town Council hereby authorizes the designated election official named in Section 7 below to file a mail ballot election plan with the Secretary of State. If necessary, the officers of the District are authorized to enter into an intergovernmental agreement with the County Clerk pursuant to Section 1-7-116, C.R.S. Any such intergovernmental agreement heretofore entered into in connection with the election is hereby ratified, approved and confirmed. Section 6. Election Questions. The Town Council hereby authorizes and directs the designated election official to submit to the eligible electors of the District at the Election questions in substantially the following forms: BALLOT ISSUE A: SHALL TOWN OF VAIL GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 1 TAXES BE INCREASED $ 660,000.00 IN 2007 (THE FIRST FULL FISCAL YEAR OF THE TAX INCREASE) AND BY SUCH ADDITIONAL AMOUNTS AS MAY BE GENERATED ANNUALLY THEREAFTER THROUGH THE IMPOSITION OF A MILL LEVY OF NOT MORE THAN FIFTEEN (15) MILLS IN LEVY YEAR 2006 AND IN ANY YEAR THEREAFTER ,FOR THE PURPOSE OF FUNDING THE ADMINISTRATION, OPERATION, MAINTENANCE OF THE DISTRICT'S FACILITIES AND OPERATIONS; AND SHALL THE PROCEEDS OF SUCH TAXES AND INVESTMENT Ordinance No. 25, Series 2006 2 INCOME THEREON BE COLLECTED, RETAINED AND SPENT BY THE DISTRICT AS A VOTER-APPROVED REVENUE CHANGE IN 2007 AND IN EACH YEAR THEREAFTER, WITHOUT REGARD TO ANY SPENDING, REVENUE-RAISING OR OTHER LIMITATION CONTAINED WITHIN ARTICLE X, SECTION 20 OF THE COLORADO CONSTITUTION, THE PROPERTY TAX REVENUE LIMITATION OF SECTION 29-1-301, COLORADO REVISED STATUTES, OR ANY OTHER LAW? YES: NO: BALLOT ISSUE B: SHALL TOWN OF VAIL GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 1 BE AUTHORIZED TO COLLECT, RETAIN, AND SPEND THE AMOUNT OF ALL FEES, FACILITY FEES, RENTAL INCOME, SERVICE CHARGES, INSPECTION CHARGES, ADMINISTRATIVE CHARGES, GRANTS OR ANY OTHER FEE, RATE, TOLL, PENALTY, OR CHARGE AUTHORIZED BY LAW TO BE IMPOSED OR COLLECTED BY THE DISTRICT AND ANY OTHER REVENUES, (NCOME, OR PAYMENTS RECEIVED BY THE DISTRICT (INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, REVENUES RECEIVED BY THE DISTRICT FROM THE STATE, ANY POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE, OR ANY OTHER GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY), DURING FISCAL YEAR 2007 AND EACH YEAR THEREAFTER FOR AS LONG AS THE DISTRICT CONTINUES IN EXISTENCE WITHOUT LIMITATION BY THE REVENUE AND SPENDING LIMITS OF ARTICLE X, SECTION 20 OF THE COLORADO CONSTITUTION OR ANY OTHER LAW, AS THEY CURRENTLY EXIST OR AS THEY MAY BE AMENDED IN THE FUTURE? YES: NO: Section 7. Designated Election Official/Assistant Designated Election Official Appointment. K. Sean Allen of White, Bear & Ankele, Professional Corporation is hereby appointed as the Designated Election Official of the District for purposes of performing acts required or permitted by law in connection with the election Section 8. Authority to Lew Taxes. Any authority to levy ad valorem property taxes, if conferred by the results of the election, shall be deemed and considered a continuing authority to levy the ad valorem taxes so authorized at any one time, or from time to time, and neither the partial exercise of the authority so conferred, nor any lapse of time, shall be considered as exhausting or limiting the full authority so conferred. Section 9. Miscellaneous. (a) The officers of the Town and/or the District are hereby authorized and directed to take all action necessary or appropriate to effectuate the provisions of this Ordinance. (b) If any section, subsection, paragraph, clause, or provision of this Ordinance shall for any reason be held to be invalid or unenforceable, the invalidity or unenforceability of Ordinance No. 25, Series 2006 3 such section, subsection, paragraph, clause, or provision shall in no manner affect any remaining provisions of this Ordinance, the intent being that the same are severable. (c} Alf orders, resolutions, bylaws, ordinances or regulations of the Town, or parts thereof, inconsistent with this Ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of such inconsistency(ies). INTRODUCED, READ, APPROVED, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL ON FIRST READING this 19th day of September, 2006, and a public hearing shall be held on this Ordinance on the 3rd day of October, 2006, at the regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Vail, Colorado, in the .Municipal Building of the Town. Rod Slifer, Mayor ATTEST: Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk INTRODUCED, READ, ADOPTED AND ENACTED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED IN FULL this 3~d day of October, 2006. Rodney E. Slifer, Mayor ATTEST: Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk Ordinance No. 25, Series 2006 4 MEMORANDUM September 26, 2006 To: Vail Town Council Stan Zemler Pam Brandmeyer Judy Camp From: Sally Lorton Re: August Sales Tax On the reverse side please find the latest sales tax worksheet. I estimate I'll collect another $50,000.00 in August sales tax to bring August collections to $1,042,331.00. If so, we will be up 4.86% or $48,346.00 from August 2005 and up 4.08% or $40,870.00 from budget. ~Orltil 995 996 997 998 ~ 999 2000 Town of Vail Sales Tax Worksheet s/zs/loos 2007 2002 2003 006 005 udget 06 CO//BCf%OnS udget Ver%ance Change Irom 2005 Change from Budget January 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 .2,225,841 2,275,967 2,241,544 2,596,701 355,157 14.09% 15.84% February 1,816,107 1,993,389 2,089,673 2,153,121 2,027,486 2,223,670 2,366,321 2,281,833 2,111,763 2,362,825 2,429,377 2,379,495 2,525,908 146,413 3.97°/a 6.15% March 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 2,344,178 2,785,101 2,360,716 2,849,507 488,791 2.31% 20.71% APr~~ 791,092 966,993 874,427 1,107,334 952,843 926,771 1,043,431 870,875 871,468 992;157 915,554 999,157 1,279,465 280,308 39.75% 28.05% May 324,681 318,920 329,783 382,718 370,864 388,121 448,234 414,248 428,919 411,595 458,770 414,499 448,964 34,465 -2.14% 8.31% June 590,685 594,907 630,366 633,400 692,811 721,774 751,439 657,707 742,755 732,113 834,913 737,278 804,677 67,399 -3.62% 9.14% July 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 1,128,514 1,166,183 1,136,476 1,237,354 100,878 6.10% 8.88% August 867,125 990,650 1,073,430 1,183.926 1,050,004 1,038,516 1,124,275 1,084,318 1,029,446 994,445 993,985 1,001,461 992,331 19,130) -0.17% -0.91% Total 9,317,068 10,005,223 10,674.877 1 1 ~ 5 ? 1; ~ ~ ~,~~" 1 L I l-l 4_., ~, i ~,- ~ ~ ~ 1 ~~ ~~, ~; 1 1 1 -~ 1 i~~,~ 1 1 ~' -~~,~ ~~l i ~ _ i,; :~ 12,734,907 1,464,281 7.38% 12.99% September 645,902 630,453 637,831 735,608 806,600 817,313 747,766 713,574 679,208 757,033 795,807 762,374 October 461,791 413,573 472,836 515,531 536,204 547,201 486,570 484,425 508,092 532,537 566,173 536,294 November 611,147 601,208 707,166 656,596 582,260 697,445 571,783 642,293 591,269 623,646 713,117 628,046 December 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 2,362,095 2,549,032 2,378.760 Total 13, 030, 448 13, 719, 308 14, 747,419 15,030, 386 14, 509,421 15, 232, 588 15,41 1,044 15,106, 801 14, 578,983 15,466, 979 16, 483, 979 15, 576,100 12, 734, 907 1,464, 281 RESOLUTION NO. Series 2006 A RESOLUTION BY THE TOWN OF VAIL COUNCIL URGING VAILS VOTERS TO EDUCATE THEMSELVES AND THEN OPPOSE BALLOT ISSUE NUMBER 38 IN THE NOVEMBER 7, 2006 ELECTION. WHEREAS, the Colorado Secretary of State certified Ballot Issue Number 38 on December 6, 2005; and WHEREAS, this dramatic proposal would substantially change the historical referendum process in Colorado; and WHEREAS, among other things this amendment would expand the referendum powers towards all local governments including "all enterprise authorities and other governmental entities" and; WHEREAS, these enterprises and other governmental entities would be seriously and detrimentally impacted by such referendum; and WHEREAS, proposals similar to Amendment 38 have twice before been rejected by the Colorado voters in both 1994 and 1996 by substantial margins; and WHEREAS, the proposal is not clearly written and creates with virtually every line of the proposal numerous practical and legal interpretation questions; and WHEREAS, strictest compliance is required against hundreds of governmental districts which would create a substantial cost to the State even if only complaint based enforcement occurs; and WHEREAS, this ballot item would overrule any conflicting State constitution provision, home rule Town charter and all other state and local laws; and WHEREAS, the procedures set forth present an unfair playing field in that the Plaintiffs can recover their attorney's fees but governmental entities have practically no chance of recovering taxpayers dollars spent on frivolous compliance actions; and WHEREAS, such broad initiative and referendum right would seriously disrupt the operations of government; and WHEREAS, Council would be forced to delay local laws from going into effect before a 91 day waiting period had passed; and WHEREAS, the measure purports to prohibit any future ballot issue rejected by the voters if the future issue is wholly or mostly similar to the rejected ballot item; .and WHEREAS, Amendment 38 mandates taxpayer financed political advertising in the form of up to one thousand word statement, for petition proponents. Opponents have not such right under this ballot item. WHEREAS, resulting litigation from the numerous legal challenges caused by Ballot Item 38 will create a serious legal burden for the Colorado Supreme Court, state and local govemment; and WHEREAS, verification of signature protections would deteriorate by the new procedure proposed by Ballot Item 38; and WHEREAS, this Ballot Item would severely and negatively impact the operations of Vail. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF Vail, COLORADO as follows: Section 1. The Town Council hereby urges citizens to educate themselves on Ballot Issue Number 38. Section 2. The Town Council of the Town of Vail further urges citizens to recognize the severe and disabling effects this Amendment will have on both state and local levels of government. Section 3. The Town Council urges Vail voters to vote against Ballot Item 38 in the November 7, 2006 election. INTRODUCED, PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Vail held this 3`~ day of October, 2006. TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO By ATTEST: Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk Rod E. Slifer Mayor 2 Reso. 50-2006 RESOLUTION NO. Series 2006 A RESOLUTION IN OPPOSITION TO THE 2006 BALLOT ISSUE KNOWN AS "TERM LIMITS FOR SUPREME COURT AND COURT OF APPEALS JUDGES," AMENDMENT 40 TO THE COLORADO CONSTITUTION, THAT WOULD POLITICIZE THE APPELLATE COURTS AND ADVERSELY IMPACT THE JUDICIAL PROCESS WHEREAS, an initiated constitutional amendment, Amendment 40 to the Colorado Constitution, has been certified for consideration by the voters of the state of Colorado at the regular election to be held on November 7, 2006; and WHEREAS, Amendment 40 would cause all appellate court judges to be up for reelection at the general election in 2007 but only if those judges have not then served ten years in office; and WHEREAS, the effect of Amendment 40 would be to remove from office next year five supreme court justices and seven court of appeals judges; and WHEREAS, the effect of Amendment 40 would be to limit the independence of the judiciary and to politicize their appointment by placing a limit of ten years on the service of any appellate judge, thereby empowering the goverrior with the appointment of a majority of the appellate judges after each general election; and WHEREAS, the further effect of Amendment 40 would be to deprive this state of the wisdom and experience of our sitting appellate judges and substitute on-the-job training after each appointment; and WHEREAS, the further effect of Amendment 40 would be to discourage the most qualified trial judges and attorneys from applying for appointment to the appellate bench; and WHEREAS, the further effect of Amendment 40 would be to cause newcomers to the appellate courts to be reviewing the decisions of seasoned trial judges, for whom no term limits are proposed; and WHEREAS, no other state has placed term limits on the judiciary; and WHEREAS, the best interests of the Town of Vail and its citizens will not be served by the attack on the independence and competence of the judiciary contained in Amendment 40; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO THAT: 1. The Council opposes term limits for appellate judges and Amendment 40 on the ballot for the November 7, 2006, general election. INTRODUCED, PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Vail held this 3~d day of October, 2006. Rodney E. Slifer, Mayor of the Town of Vail, Colorado ATTEST: Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk cb. 3. c ~ '~.~c. ~ ~-~' ~~ The No~~thh~est Colorado Council of Gove~ nrnents' WATER QUALITY ~ QUANTITY COMMITTEE (QQ) PURPOSE The Water Quality and Quantity Committee (QQ) comprises towns, counties and water and sanitation districts in the Headwaters Region of Colorado. QQ's purpose is to enable its members to protect and enhance the quality of our region's waters while facilitating the responsible use of those resources for the good of all Colorado citizens and its environment. QQ monitors water development activities and legislative initiatives that affect water quality or quantity in the basin of origin. Regularly scheduled meetings of the QQ Committee operate as a forum for policy formulation and strategy decision-making by QQ Committee members. The QQ Committee staffprovides members with monitoring of legislative activities, water quality information, litigation and advocacy support, activity coordination, cooperative problem-solving assistance, transmountain diversion oversight, and technical assistance to further intergovei~nnental cooperation and increase political clout with state and federal agencies. QQ Contract Staff Bm~bara Gf~een serves as special counsel to QQ. Lane Wyatt, an engineer, serves as co-director and provides technical assistance to QQ members. Sharma Koenig, selves as co-director, lobbyist and general coordinator for QQ. CURRENT QQ PROJECTS QQ has several ongoing and completed projects in 2006 that are listed below. • QQ is working with member counties to develop an intergovernmental agreement (IGA) between counties for 1041 permitting to consider impacts created by water projects outside their jurisdictions. In August of this year, there will be a final IGA between the six counties whom are QQ members. • QQ actively participates in the Colorado River Basin Roundtable [a result of the 2005 Water for the 21St Century Act] and SWSI Technical Committee. Lane Wyatt was appointed to the Roundtable by Summit County Municipalities. Holding their interests in mind, he also considers all headwater issues including instream uses, like recreation and environment, and addressing the issues of transmountain diversions. • Shamla Koenig lobbies in the State Legislature on behalf of QQ. This coming year will be the third year QQ has had a staff lobbyist, and we are beginning to see its benefits. QQ staff and legislators work actively together on legislation pertinent to the headwaters areas. • QQ is coordinating with Grand County to ensure all impacts associated with two significant proposed transmountain diversion projects are identified and mitigated. • QQ is working with Aspen and Pitkin County on the Proposed Preferred Storage Options Plan (PSOP) federal legislation that would approve a study relating to long-term water needs for the area served by the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project. QQ is working to ensure West Slope impacts and concerns are addressed. • QQ is at the forefront of legal and technical water quality issues associated with abandoned mines in Summit County's Snake River watershed. This watershed is becoming a location where state water rights and federal clean water regulations collide. • QQ is working to create a stream flow management plan in an attempt to identify scientifically sound flow levels to protect instream values in Grand County. This would also include stream and riparian improvement projects, and could be used as a model for other counties. • QQ supports members to develop adequate instream flows and improving streams through restoration projects or recreational diversions (RICD) for kayak courses. • QQ produced a ten minute video identifying and highlighting impacts to the basins and communities of origin. QQ continues to distribute the video to Front Range local governments, entities, organizations and broadcast companies. • QQ is actively participating in the Colorado River Basin Proposal discussions. These negotiations seek to resolve longstanding legal issues and address emerging water resource issues identified in UPCO, which was also a QQ project. Significant components to these discussions include concepts like Wolcott Reservoir and the Green Mountain Pumpback. • QQ participates in Water Quality Control Commission hearings that affect QQ's region. QQ fulfills the 208 Agency responsibilities for NWCCOG. • QQ keeps members, including Water and Sanitation districts, apprised of legislation, policies and legal decisions that affect them. • QQ presents papers and lectures at meetings, workshops and conferences to advocate headwater perspectives tluoughout the State. • QQ responds to member's requests for assistance on specific projects. CiRGANIZATi®N QQ's 2006 members, associate members, and participating water and sanitation districts include: Eagle County Aspen Aspen Consolidated Grand County Avon Basalt Sanitation District Gumuson County Basalt Bellyache Ridge Metro District Pitkin County Breckenridge Breckenridge Sanitation District Summit County Carbondale Columbine Lake Water & Sanitation Park County* Crested Butte Copper Mountain Consolidated Metro Colorado River Water Dillon Dillon Valley Metro District Conservation District* Eagle Eagle River Water and Sanitation District Upper Gunnison River Water Fraser East Dillon Water District Conservancy District* Frisco Fraser Sanitation District Granby Granby Sanitation District Grand Lake Grand County Water & Sanitation District Gypsum Hamilton Creek Metro District Hot Sulphur Springs Kremmlilig Sanitation District Kremmling Mid-Valley Metro District Minturn Moraine Park Water Red Cliff North Shore Water & Sanitation District Silverthorne Silverthorne Dillon Joint Sewer Authority Vail Silver Creek Water District Winter Park Snowmass Water & Sanitation Yampa Three Lakes Sanitation District White Horse Springs Water & Sanitation Winter Park Water and Sanitation Winter Park West Water & Sanitation District * Associate members QQ POLICIES I. PROTECT AND IMPLEMENT LOCAL GOVERNMENT AUTHORITY TO PROTECT WATER RESOURCES. A. Strengthen available tools to protect water quality and quantity. Defend against attacks on 1041 and other local government regulatory authority when necessary. B. Assist local governments to strengthen and implement water quality provisions of their land use codes. C. Fund legal services to local governments for specific projects when the QQ Committee approves involvement and expenditures from the Defense Fund. II. BUILDING COALITIONS AND EDUCATION A. Advocate the headwater communities' water qualit~~ and quantity interests throughout the State. Identify and work with other groups statewide that share QQ's concerns. Develop educational tools for varied audiences. B. Identify strategies to minimize Front Range's dependency on West Slope water resources. Advocate "smart growth" to those utilizing headwater sources as water supplies, oppose the ad hoc policy of growth driving demand for imported water supplies. C. Coordinate with elected officials, private sector and other decision-makers on water quality issues. Develop working relationships with govenunental entities, the private sector and others where appropriate. D. Foster cooperative regional management of water resources. Minimize redundant systems. III. TRANSMOUNTAIN DIVERSION OVERSIGHT A. Evaluate potential future Front Range water development projects and alert QQ members of possible impacts. B. Influence operations of existing projects to minimize local impacts where possible. C. Advocate for all transmountain diversion water to be re-used to extinction by Front Range diverters. D. Provide technical assistance to QQ members to determine water quality and quantity impacts caused by new or expanded transmountain diversion. Identify measures and conditions that would help mitigate those impacts. Assist the local goverunent with 1041 permitting of water projects. E. Educate Front Range elected officials on transmountain diversion impacts in the headwaters communities. IV. WATER QUALITY A. Protect local wastewater facilities from increased operational costs caused by hydrologic modifications and transmountain diversions. B. Advocate regional interests during rulemaking hearings before the Water Quality Control Commission and the Colorado Water Conservation Board that affect the upper Colorado River Basin. C. Defend regional Water Quality Management Plan (208 Plan). D. Insure that water development in headwaters region does not adversely impact water quality. E. Limit interpretations of Section 104 of the Colorado Water Quality Control Act so that it is not used to immunize water development activities from water quality protection requirements. F. Assist local governments in adopting NWCCOG/QQ's Water Quality Protection Standards and other measures to protect local water quality. V . INFLUEN CE W ATER P OLICY A. Identify and plan for future West Slope water needs. B. Coordinate with State water planning efforts. Participate in State water policy initiatives and forums. Help formulate and implement water quality and water quantity policy. C. Educate policy makers and expand scope of state water policy to include water quality, headwater impacts and recognition of instream water uses. D. Develop strategies to improve conservation measures on the West Slope. E. Support instream flow program in this region. C:~?.006 General\QQ Policies.doc lY. JM1S{~-~y .f 3f! ~ ~ ` i v ~, `' -°~. ?, ~~ ;i `~ ' ~ ,~'. 'rt"; hF }~ H .. ^"fYl' ~ .3. +~~'" ~rr~/':... Y6 ,r~ r.,a;;' r ~ - ~' ~~~. " EAGLE COUNTY CARES FOR KIDS P.O. BOX 2013 EAGLE, CO 81631 ,. t L n ~' e ` ~ ~~° 1A is an early childhood initiative designed to ensure that Eagle County's young children enter school healthy and ready to succeed. For less than 95 cents per week for most homeowners, 1A will protect our children's future. As the County's young population grows, so does our need. State cut backs and reduced federal funding have widened the gaps between growing need and available resources. The data are clear: children who have early access to care and services are healthier, do better in school and save you, the taxpayer, money by reducing the need for long-term government services. Happy, healthy children grow up to be happier, healthier, more productive adults. Keeping Eagle County's economy strong `,~, • 1A lessens stress on working families by providing more affordable and higher quality childcare. • 1A decreases the burden on employers and families who are struggling to afford the health care required to keep their children well. ~ • 1A improves access to resources for children with special needs. W Vote YES on 1 A on Nov. 7 ~` Paid for by Eagle County Cares for Kids, Karen Simon, Treasurer For more information and research go to www.eaglecountycares.org #~ -~. I~.3.0 ~O ~'~'~ Eagle County Schools Bond Question Facts EAGLE COUNTY SCHOOLS .. u::stt~k•~;,:~:v..- ..;r.,-z~er..df~,.;cx~!a'.:.We:~,.x4i~~r»,.ti~.:c ... .,. ~. ~:~ic~t,:Wx...x::tc~- ~ ;~:.i+14 ~ovem~re~~ ~~~~ ~c~r~~ +~u+~s~io~y The Eagle County Schools Board of Education is placing a $128 million bond question on the November ballot. Bond projects include: ~ Repair & upgrade of facilities throughout the district ~ Technology enhancements in all district facilities ~ Repair & upgrade of Eagle Valley High School to meet district standards ~ New elementary school on Miller Ranch in Edwards ~ New high school to replace Battle Mountain High School with a 1,000-student facility on Miller Ranch in Edwards ~ Repair & remodel Battle Mountain High School for future educational and community uses ~ Buy land in the Eagle area for future schools What are the repair and upgrade needs? A detailed engineering study of all Eagle County Schools' facilities was completed in 2006 by Ennovate Corporation. The study assessed all heating, air conditioning, lighting and ventilation systems. The bond package will allow the district to implement the recommendations of this study, which include replacement of boilers with high efficiency boilers, installation of demand-based ventilation systems and domestic water heater upgrades. Upgrades will result in energy efficiency improvements that will reduce future operational costs. Additionally, facility repairs for roofs, parking lots, carpet and security will be addressed. What technology enhancements are proposed? Instructional technology district-wide is outdated and would be upgraded. Other improvements include the replacement of outdated fire detection and alarm systems, intercom systems and other safety-related upgrades. Why do we need to repair and upgrade Eagle Valley High? The bond package includes high-priority repairs and upgrades to Eagle Valley High School. For example, the cafeteria, which is currently at 150 percent capacity, will be expanded. Repairs and upgrades will also be made to the kitchen, parking and certain classrooms. Improvements to Eagle Valley High would, when completed, bring the facility back up to the district's facility standards. Why do we need new schools? Enrollment projections were presented by Strategic Resources West, Inc., a Denver-based consulting firm specializing in school district growth planning. Short term, our greatest crowding issues are in Battle Mountain High School, Avon Elementary and Edwards Elementary. Long term, the projections indicate an overall shift in population from the east end of the valley to the west end of the valley. Projections take into account potential new housing developments. New Elementary Schao/ The current capacity for elementary students on the east end of the valley is 1,622. By 2011, it is estimated that enrollment will be approximately 1,845. The majority of the growth at the elementary level is occurring in the Avon and Edwards areas. This fall, the district has opened a new preschool center in Edwards to ease some of the crowding in Avon and Edwards Elementary schools. Replace Battie Mountain High Battle Mountain High School was built in the early 1970's, and has been renovated and expanded multiple times, reaching a classroom capacity of 765 students. The common areas, such as the hallways and cafeteria, cannot be expanded to efficiently serve this number of students. In 2005-06 there were 709 students. When build-out on the east end of the valley has been reached, the high school population will be approximately 1,100 students. Additionally, the high school was built prior to personal computers and related technologies. The "Band- Aid" approach used to address the need for new classrooms and technology over the past three decades has resulted in an extremely inefficient campus that does not meet the needs of our students, our teachers and our community. The Miller Ranch property in Edwards is the proposed location of the high school, which provides amid- valley location, multiple access points and adjacency to Colorado Mountain College. Eagle County Schools Bond Question Facts EAGLE COUNTY SCHOOLS .y.u .,.• '. ,~ '~k.: fi:.. ;:,....1 ,. . ~.. . ~. ... ~..:~.:iW.ft.rp-vi:'..M~.<NSR"'F+^~'k>d'?~1~M ,,.. -.~:~ .t.~ V'lP~y r~~tyt~aclt?1 ,~.~•t.• P,ir~~,ntain High? The Battle Mountain High School facility is not equipped to meet the needs of a high school with over 700 students, however, with appropriate upgrades and repairs, the building can serve future educational and/or community uses. Why buy land? Student enrollment is growing more rapidly on the west end of the valley than it is on the east end. The district anticipates the need for additional facilities to meet these needs in the future. Land suitable for a school site is becoming less and less available and the district believes it is prudent to plan now for the future. What will this cast? EDUCATING EVERY STUDENT FOR SUCCESS The $128 million bond is estimated to cost homeowners $2.57 per month per $100,000 of a home's market value as determined by the County Assessor. For example, the projected tax impact for a home with a market value of $400,000 would be about $10.27 per month. Does the bond include construction inflation costs? Currently, three neighboring school districts (Aspen, Summit, Roaring Fork) are faced with reducing the scope of their new school projects because construction costs have increased beyond the original value of the bond. Eagle County Schools is building in inflation costs as recommended by the construction industry to make sure that the bond provides sufficient funds to finish what the voters approve and avoid having to cancel or down-size projects. The $128 million bond is made up of new construction, repair and upgrade costs of approximately $97 million in today's dollars. A 20 percent The Bond Issue - By The Numbers 1,845 -the estimated number of elementary students on the east end of the valley by 2011 1,622 -the current capacity for elementary students 1973 -the year Battle Mountain High School was built 1,100 -the estimated number of Battle Mountain High School students when all potential housing build-out is inflation in construction costs over the life of the project along with a 10 percent contingency brings the total cost of the bond to $128 million. How does Eagle +County's school mill levy compare with other school districts? In 2006, Eagle County taxpayers were levied 19.595 mills for school funding. The state average is 37.974 mills and school tax burdens vary from district to district. Roaring Fork taxpayers are levied 37.265 mills and Summit pays 22.910 mills. Those who oppose the bond proposal have said: • The tax increase will cost over $32 a year per $100,000 of your home's market value and business owners will see a tax impact that is about three times higher than a residential owner. • Approximately 12,000 of the 38,000 homes in the boundaries of Eagle County Schools are owned by out-of--state homeowners and it is not fair that they cannot vote on the bond proposal. • The district has other options to address its aging and overcrowded facilities that would not result in a bond issue. Kids in crowded schools can be bused to less crowded facilities in other parts of the district, or the district could reconfigure grade levels by putting a115th grades and 9th grades in middle school. Supporters of the bond proposal have said: • This is a well thought out plan produced by community input that addresses the most pressing needs of our school district. We need facilities that offer kids in all areas of Eagle County Schools safe and modern learning environments. • The renovation projects to be accomplished by this bond are long overdue and will help extend the useful life of many of the district buildings. With the cost of construction going up every year, it is very smart to upgrade our older buildings with more energy efficient lighting and air handling equipment. Bond money will also provide the latest technology for learning, an important skill for today's job market. • Growth on the west side of the District was addressed by the last bond issue in 1999. Building a new high school and elementary school in Edwards will address overcrowding there, and allow the district to concentrate on preparing for continued growth in the Eagle and Gypsum areas. Buying land now for a future school site while there is still an adequate parcel available will likely save taxpayers money. October 3, 2006 Dear Town of Vail Council Members, f The Husky Hockey Booster Club needs your help for the upcoming season. The Booster club is the sole f nancial support for the team. We are not part of the Vail Eagle Junior Hockey Association. Last year was a very successful season with the team qualifying for the Frozen Four State Finals in Colorado Springs, With all our coaches returning and losing only two seniors we are anticipating another exciting season. The Colorado High School Association has split into two leagues with the addition of six new teams. There are now 13 teams in each league for a total of 26 high school hockey teams in the state. Husky Hockey is hosting the Mountain Tournament December 1St and 2nd, there will be four teams including the Huskies playing for bragging rights for the trophy. We are requesting $5,000.00 for the 2006-2007 season. Twenty-four athletes, three coaches, one athletic director, and countless volunteers and parents make up the team. These funds will be used to pay for ice time, coaching, uniforms, and travel to CHSAA scheduled events. These students are at the pinnacle of their high school education and hockey endeavors. They represent the youth of our city, county and state as positive role models. They have played in the Colorado State Semi-finals three times, as well as the State finals twice. Several of the players received Academic Excellence awards at BMHS. The tournament and games bring many statewide visitors to Vail and our great ice facility. These visitors use the hotels, restaurants, and shops in Vail. The practices bring families from Western Eagle County to Vail three nights a week, and they are an economic plus for Vail. We look forward to your support. Please call with any questions or ideas. Sincerely, ~ ---_ ~~ ~_r.. ~,` ~ ~, ~- `~,~ Hus ock~y Booster Club '" Je ley President Brett Young President Elect Husky Hockey Booster Club PO Box 957, Minturn CO 81645 P:(970) 904-6028 t ~ ~ :' 1^. i.}a ,~ ~i ~ ~ ; .' r ~ - r .. . ti, ~ ~ : 't ~kf= ~ r, .~ - ~~ f o-'y. 0 1888 Sherman St., Suite 570 Denver, CO 80203 (303) 860-7325 www.fairequal.org fax (303) 860-7328 .~.~ l0, 3. b~ ~ 4 ot.,~i,+~we~ I Contacts Sean Duffy, Executive Director sduffy@fairequal .org 303-860-7325 office Jody Berger, Communications Director j berger@co-fairequal. org 303-800-0594 office 303-748-9657 cell April Valdez, Communications Assistant avaldez@co-fairequal.org 303-800-0541 office Coloradans for Fairness is the statewide organization formed to promote the passage of The Domestic Partnership referendum. Far different from marriage, Domestic Partnerships are legal commitments formed by same-sex couples. Regional Field Office Contact Information Campaign Headquarters 1888 Sherman Street Suite 570 Denver, CO 80203 Phone: 303-860-7325 Fax: 303-860-7328 Denver Regional Field Office 918 West 8th Avenue Denver, CO 80204 Mike Elliott Phone: 720-259-2364 Boulder Regional Field Office 1725 Walnut Street Suite A Boulder, CO 80302 Jeff Thormodsgaard Phone: 303-800-0590 Colorado Springs Regional. Field Office 16 North Spruce Street Colorado Springs, CO 80905 Melissa Horej s Phone: 719-266-202 Fort Collins Regional Field Office 212 South Mason Street Fort Collins, CO 80524 Stephanie Gausch Phone: 970-372-1009 Grand Junction Regional Field Office 102 North 4th Street Grand Junction, CO 81501 Ashley Nachtrieb Phone: 970-986-4563 1888 Sherman St., Suite 570 • Denver, CO 80203 • PO fox 1620 • Denver, CO 80201 • (303) 860-7325 • fax (303) 860-7328 • www.FairEqual.org State lawmakers who voted for HB 1344, Referendum I Senator Bob Bacon, Larimer County Senator Betty Boyd, Jefferson Senator Joan Fitz-Gerald, Boulder, Clear Creek, Gilpin, Grand, Jefferson and Summit Senator Ken Gordon, Arapahoe and Denver Senator Peter Groff, Adams and Denver Senator Dan Grossman, Denver and Jefferson Senator Bob Hagedorn, Arapahoe Senator Jim Isgar, Archuleta, Dolores, La Plata, Montezuma, Montrose, Ouray, San Juan and San Miguel Senator Maryanne Keller, Jefferson Senator Ken Kester, Baca, Bent, Crowley, Custer, Fremont, Huerfano, Las Animas, Otero and Pueblo Senator Paula Sandoval, Denver Senator Brandon Shaffer, Boulder Senator Stephanie Takis, Adams Senator Abel Tapia, Pueblo Senator Lois Tochtrop, Adams Senator Ron Tupa, Boulder Senator Jennifer Veiga, Adams and Denver Senator Suzanne Williams, Arapahoe and Denver Senator Sue Windels, Jefferson Representative Debbie Benefield, Jefferson Representative Alice Borodkin, Denver Representative Dorothy Butcher, Pueblo Representative Morgan Carroll, Arapahoe Representative Terrence Carroll, Denver Representative Mike Cerbo, Denver Representative Fran Coleman, Arapahoe, Denver, Jefferson Representative Kathleen Curry, Eagle Garfield, Gunnison, Hinsdale, Pitkin Representative Jerry Frangas, Denver Representative Rafael Gallegos, Alamosa, Conejos, Costilla, Huerfano, Mineral, Pueblo, Rio Grande, Saguache Representative Michael Garcia, Arapahoe Representative Gwyn Green, Jefferson Representative Mary Hodge, Adams Representative Cheri Jahn, Jefferson 1888 Sherman St., Suife 570 • Denver, CO 80203 • PO Box 1620 • Denver, CO 80201 ®(303) 86G7325 • fax (303) 860-7328 • www.FairEqual.org Representative Joel Judd, Denver Representative Andrew Kerr, Jefferson Representative Mark Larson, Archuleta, La Plata, Montezuma, San Juan Representative Gary Lindstrom, Eagle, Lake, Summit Representative Alice Madden, Boulder Representative Rosemary Marshall, Denver Representative Bob McCluskey, Larimer Representative Liane McFadyen, Fremont, Pueblo Representative Anne McGihon, Arapahoe, Denver Representative Wes McKinley, Baca, Bent, Huerfano, Las Animas, Otero, Prowers Representative Michael Merrifield, El Paso Representative Angela Paccione, Larimer Representative Tom Plant, Boulder Representative Jack Pommer, Boulder Representative Ann Ragsdale, Adams Representative Jim Reisberg, Weld Representative Andrew Romanoff, Arapahoe and Denver Representative Judy Solano, Adams Representative John Soper, Denver Representative Nancy Todd, Arapahoe Representative Valentin Vigil, Adams Representative Paul Weissman, Boulder Representative Al White, Garfield, Grand, Jackson, Moffat, Rio Blanco and Routt Representative Robert Witwer, Jefferson Domestic Partner Benefits Summary August 10, 2006 Definition of Domestic Partner: Same sex domestic partners, meeting the Health Insurance Provider's affidavit requirements. May vary depending on provider. Affidavits attached. Tax Issues: Federal tax law provides that the provision of health care benefits by an employer to employees does not create anyadditional income for employees. The same is true of employer provided health care benefits for spouses and dependent children of employees. However, there is no such treatment for domestic partners if they do not meet the criteria of Section 152, which defines the term "dependent". See page 3 of Domestic Partner Benefits Analysis. This means the provision of health care benefits to an employee's domestic partner will result in additional taxable income to the employee. The amount of additional taxable income will be equal to the excess of the value of the benefits provided over the amounts the employee has contributed under the plan. for the benefits. In addition, the employee's contributions for such coverage must be made on an after-tax basis. See page 4 of Domestic Partner Benefits Analysis for an example. Eligibility: Employees wanting to add domestic partners will be required to show proof of partnership by completing and meeting all of the requirements of the Health Insurance Provider's `Affidavit of Domestic Partnership'. If there is a change in the domestic partner status that makes the affidavit invalid, the employee will be required to notifyHuman Resources and submit a `Declaration of Termination of Domestic Partnership'. See Axtachment A of Domestic Partner Benefits Analysis. Cost to City: There are no additional surcharges or fees for Domestic Partnership coverage, however the city could experience plan increases at renewal, as a result of possible increased claims, as with adding anyadditional participants to the plan. Other costs would include an increased premium amount for the City's contribution. Employee only cost ($280.65) vs. Employee + spouse cost ($465.98) The difference = $185.33 (Kaiser) Other local municipalities offering some sort of benefits to same- sex couples: Boulder County City of Boulder City of Breckenridge City of Englewood City of Glendale City of Golden City of Lafayette City of Wheat Ridge City of Northglenn Domestic Partner Benefits Analysis August 9, 2006 Gallagher Benefit Services, Inc City of Northglenn Domestic Partner Beneftts Analysis 1 Introduction The City of Northglenn requested that Gallagher Benefit Services, Inc. (GBS) provide information on domestic partner benefit coverage. Included below is information regarding benchmarking data, an overview of tax and legal implications, potential costs and sample documents. The intent of this analysis is to provide you with general information regarding the status of, and/or potential concerns related to, your current employee benefits issue. It does not necessarily fully address all your specific issues. It should not be construed as, nor is it intended to provide, legal advice. The City's general counsel or an attorney who specializes in this practice area should address questions regarding specific issues. Overview GBS has seen the inclusion of domestic partners in benefit programs as a growing trend in corporate America. The main motivation behind their decision has been to remain competitive, retain employees and show their commitment to diversity in the workplace. It has also aided clients by being able to respond to lawsuits claiming discrimination on the basis of marital status or sexual orientation. Most employers providing coverage for domestic partners do require both the employee and their partner to sign affidavits confirming their eligibility. Benchmarking GBS has reviewed the prevalence of medical coverage for domestic partners by accessing the 2005 Hewitt Spec Book Summary Survey Results and the Human Rights Campaign Foundation website database. The Hewitt survey included 950 employer groups ranging in all sizes. Of the 950 groups surveyed, (415) 54.53% did not offer domestic partner coverage. While (415) 43.68% did offer coverage. Data was not provided by approximately 1.5%. The 2004 Human Rights Campaign found that 8,278 employers offer domestic partner health benefits. Gallagher Beneftt Services, Inc City of Northglenn Domestic Partner Benefits Analysis 2 Tax Issues Federal tax law generally provides that the provision of health care benefits by an employer to its employees does not create any additional income for an employee. The same is true of employer-provided health care benefits for spouses and dependent children of employees. Furthermore, federal tax law provides that employees can make pre-tax contributions to pay for benefits for themselves, their dependent children and spouses. However, there is no such treatment for domestic partners if they do not meet the criteria of Section 152. Section 152 defines the term "dependent" for purposes of subtitle A of the Code. Sections 152(a)(1) through (8) define dependent in terms of support and relationship. Those sections define a dependent as an individual who: 1 } receives more than half of his or her support from the taxpayer for the year, and 2) who has the home of the taxpayer as his or her principal abode and is a member of the taxpayer's household during the entire taxable year of the taxpayer. Section 152(b)(5) imposes an additional requirement - it provides that an individual is not considered a member of the taxpayer's household if the relationship between the individual and the taxpayer is in violation of local law. In general, the provision of health care benefits to an employee's domestic partner, will result in additional taxable income to the employee if the domestic partner doesn't qualify as a dependent under the code. The amount of the additional taxable income will be equal to the excess of the value of the benefits provided over the amounts the employee has contributed under the plan for the benefits. The employee's contributions for such dependent's coverage must be made on an after-tax basis. Reimbursements received or payments made to provide under the plans will not be taxable to the employee. The employer cost of providing benefits for domestic partners is considered ordinary income and is, therefore, subject to taxes, including FICA, FICA Medicare, federal, state and city taxes. Gallagher Benefit Services, Inc City of Northglenn Domestic Partner Benefits Analysis An example of the imputed income would be as follows: Total Cost of Employee + Spouse (Kaiser): $601.00 Employee monthly deduction for EE+Spouse; $135.00 Employee monthly deduction for EE Only: 20.00 Employee deduction attributed to Spouse: $115.00 Fair market value of single coverage to have taxes imputed on: $301.00 Minus employee contribution for coverage: - 115.00 Amount to be included in gross wages: $186.00 The example above assumes that the domestic partner is not a qualified dependent under Section 152 and therefore the value of the benefit needs to be taxed. Eligibility GBS recommends that The City of Northglenn review its internal policies, such as its mission statement, nondiscrimination/fairness policies, employee handbooks and other materials to determine the precise definition of "domestic partner" for benefits purposes. Most definitions of "domestic partner" contain some common elements including cohabitation, financial interdependence, minimum age, mental competence, and a relationship of mutual caring. Affidavit GBS recommends The City of Northglenn require employees with domestic partners to show proof of partnership by completing an affidavit. The affidavit would serve as a sworn legal statement attesting to the employee and domestic partner meeting all of the City's specific requirements for qualification as domestic partners for benefit purposes. Both of the City's health carriers require an affidavit and have provided them. GBS further recommends that The City of Northglenn require employees to notify The City of Northglenn if there is any change in the domestic partner status that makes the "Declaration of Domestic Partnership" invalid or erroneous. That notification could take the form of Attachment A titled "Declaration of Termination of Domestic Partnership." Gallagher Benefit Services, Inc City of Northglenn Domestic Partner Benefits Analysis 4 Administrative Issues GSS recommends that the City communicate the eligibility rules surrounding enrolling domestic partners. If this amendment is adopted, then an open enrollment period should be offered. After the initial enrollment period, employees wishing to add/term domestic partners should follow the same qualifying event guidelines as other employees. Ensuring Confidentiality Some employees may hesitate to come forward and cover their domestic partners in the City's health plan. As a result, The City of Northglenn should ensure that each employee's privacy will be preserved if the employee enrolls a domestic partner. For example, some employees could be concerned that their registry via signed affidavit will "out" them to coworkers, which could result in an invasion of privacy and fears of discrimination. Advantages & Disadvantages of Offering Domestic Partner Coverage Advantages Recruitment, Retention, and Employee Relations: In tight labor markets, where talented workers are at a premium, domestic partner coverage can be an effective tool for attracting and retaining employees. As more companies across a wider spectrum of industries offer domestic partner benefits, those that do not offer domestic partner coverage run the risk of placing themselves at a competitive disadvantage. Offering a benefits package that appeals to a diverse work force enables The City of Northglenn to maintain a recruitment edge and communicates that the City values a diverse work force. Employee morale is positively affected where individuals believe the employer demonstrates that it values its employees. External Image: The City of Northglenn can come to view domestic partner benefits as an important indicator of the City's commitment to fairness in the workplace. Sexual Orientation Discrimination: Domestic partner benefits are a logical extension of the City's commitment to provide a workplace free of sexual orientation discrimination. Also, a guarantee of fair treatment is essential if employees are expected to reveal their relationships in order to secure health coverage for their domestic partner. These benefits do represent a small social recognition of same-sex relationships. And instituting them can help create a dialogue on orientation and other discrimination issues in the workplace. Gallagher Beneftt Services, Inc City of Northglenn Domestic Partner Beneftts flnalysls Increased Employee Productivity: Maintaining strong policies against discrimination and providing equal benefits can alleviate personal stress that may keep employees with same-sex partners, from focusing fully on work due to their concern over employer acceptance of their lifestyle. Disadvantaaes The City of Northglenn may experience an additional 1 % to 3% increase in plan costs. Participation Rates: Potentially few people could directly benefit, usually less than one percent of the work force. Social and religious objections: A percentage of society refuses to acknowledge or accept same-sex couples. Society's reluctance to recognize the legitimacy of same-sex couples contributes to employer unwillingness to offer domestic partner benefits. The City of Northglenn can manage public or religious backlash by anticipating adverse publicity and being prepared with responses. The City of Northglenn would need to argue that their employment polices are not designed to change personal values, they are designed to foster an atmosphere of fairness and professional respect in the workplace. Further, domestic partner benefits represent equal pay for equal work, a tool for attracting arid retaining the best employees and a means for improving productivity. Portability. Coverage is not portable, and could therefore be lost by an employee changing jobs. Tax Implications: Domestic partner benefits are subject to federal and state income tax, unlike benefits for married couples. The administrative issues surrounding the taxation of these benefits should be considered. Fraud: There is the fear that employees will misrepresent their relationship to obtain benefits for individuals that are not their domestic partners. However, a significant disincentive for The City of Northglenn employees to misrepresent is the requirement to complete the domestic partner affidavit. The City of Northglenn can use the completed affidavit to exact repayment from any employee who fraudulently receives domestic partner benefits, and if necessary, file criminal and civil claims against the individual. Gallagher Benefit Services, Inc City ojNorthglenn Domestic Partner Benefits Analysis 6 Attachment A The City of Northglenn Declaration of Termination of Domestic Partnership employee, certify and declare that , former domestic partner, and I are no longer domestic partners as of date). We understand that coverage for this former domestic partner will end on the last day of the month during which the domestic partnership is terminated. I make and file this Declaration of Termination of Domestic Partnership in order to cancel the Declaration of Domestic Partnership previously filed due to no longer meeting all of the requirements of domestic partnership under the City of Northglenn benefits coverage arrangements set forth in the Declaration of Domestic Partnership. I, the employee of the City of Northglenn, understand that another Declaration of Domestic Partnership cannot be filed until 90 days after the date the relationship ended as set forth above. I affirm, under penalty of perjury, that the above statements are true and correct. Employee: Date: Printed name: Birth Date: Address: Former Domestic Partner Name: Gallagher Bene, fit Services, Inc City of Northglenn Domestic Partner Benefzts Analysis 7 COLORADO REQUEST FOR ENROLLMENT OF DOMESTIC PARTNER To be completed along with an enrollment form Print Employee's Name and PacifiCare° . > Employee's Social Security Number Print Partner's Name Partner's Social Security Number Partner's Date of Birth Date Domestic Partnership Established Declare under penalty of perjury that we are same sex domestic partners within the meaning of the following declaration: Each of us agrees to immediately notify the Human Resources department in writing if there is any change of circumstances attested to in this Affidavit. 1. We have an exclusive mutual commitment similar to that of marriage and intend to remain sole domestic partners indefinitely; and 2. We share the same principal residence; and 3. We agree to be responsible for each other's basic living expenses during our domestic partnership such as food, shelter or medical expenses; we also agree that we share financial obligations and any third party who is owed these expenses can collect from either of us; and 4. We are both 18 or older and mentally competent to consent to a contract; and 5. Neither of us is married; and 6. Neither of us would be prevented under law from marrying the other as a result of blood or marriage; and 7. Neither of us has a different domestic partner now; and 8. Neither of us has had a different domestic partner in the last six months unless a previous domestic partnership terminated by death. Each of us understands that domestic partners are eligible for enrollment only during Open Enrollment Periods. Each of us understands that the company maybe required to report imputed income to an Eligible Employee who has enrolled a domestic partner for coverage under the plan, if the partner does not qualify as a Dependent of the employee as that term is defined by Section 152(a) of the Internal Revenue Code. Each of us understands that the non-employee domestic partner will not be extended continuation of coverage through COBRA by PacifiCare. Each of us understands the rules of the plan and declares under penalty of perjury under the laws of the state of residence that the statements we have made here are true and correct. We acknowledge that any misrepresentation of the above facts is grounds for termination of coverage. We understand that completion of this affidavit in no way guarantees approval of coverage. signature -Domestic Partner Date )omestic Partner Address STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. COUNTY OF ) The above document was subscribed and sworn to before me this 20~ by and >vly Commission Expires: SEAL 6455 S. Yosemite St. Greenwood Village, CO 80111 Customer Service: ^ PacifiCare SignatureVatues" (HMOJ and PacifiCare SignaturePOSs" 1-800-877-9777 TDHI 1-800-360-1797 ^ PacifiCare Signature0ptionsSMend PacifiCare Signaturelradependences" (Indemnity) 1-866-316-9776 TDHI 1-866-816-2018 ^ PacifiCare Signature Freedoms" (SDHP) 1-866-867-0700 TDHI 1-866-867-0701 www paci$care.com day of ©2003 by PacifiCare Health Systems, Inc. ', CM-503-44615 PC07012 AFFIDAVIT OF DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIP SECTION ONE I, and are domestic partners, and we: (Name of Domestic Partner) 1) are each eighteen (18) years of age or older; 2} share a close personal relationship and are responsible for each other's common welfare; 3) have lived together continuously for six months; 4) are each other's sole domestic partner; 5} are not married to anyone nor have had another domestic partner within the prior twelve months; 6) are not related by blood closer than would bar marriage in the State of Colorado; 7) share the same regular and permanent residence, with the current intent to continue doing so indefinitely; 8) are jointly financially responsible for "basic living expenses" defined as the cost of basic food, shelter and any other expenses of a domestic partner which are paid at least in part by a program or benefit for which the partner qualified because of the domestic partnership. (Nate: domestic partners need not contribute equally or jointly to the cost of these expenses as long as they agree that both are responsible for the cost.) 9) were mentally competent to consent to contract when our domestic partnership began. SECTION TWO I understand that my domestic partner is eligible for enrollment during open enrollment periods, at the time of my hire or within 30 days of becoming a newly eligible dependent. 2. I understand that this Affidavit shall be terminated upon the death of my domestic partner or by a change in circumstance attested to in this Affidavit. 3. I agree to provide written notice to my payrolUpersonnel representative if there is any change of circumstances attested to in this Affidavit within 30 days of the change by filing a Statement of Termination of Domestic Partnership. 4. After such termination, I understand that another Affidavit of Domestic Partnership cannot be submitted until 12 months following the filing of a Statement of Termination of Domestic Partnership with my payrolUpersonnel representative. If my domestic partner dies, I may file a new Affidavit after all the criteria in Section One are met. * Domestic partner coverage is limited to same-sex partners. SECTION THREE We understand that the information contained in the Affidavit will be held confidential and will be subject to disclosure only upon express written authorization or as required by law. 2. We understand that a civil action maybe brought against us for any losses, including reasonable attorney fees and court costs, because of a willful falsification of information contained in this Affidavit of Domestic Partnership. 3. (Applicable if Group has a Section 125 Plan}. We understand that under applicable federal and state income tax law, payments for health coverage of a domestic partner may not be eligible for treatment under a Section 125 Plan and that coverage of the non-employee domestic partner could result in additional imputed taxable income to the employee, with possible withholding for payroll taxes (including income and social security taxes). 4. We understand that, in addition to the eligibility requirements of [Group Name for domestic partner coverage, there are terms and conditions of coverage set forth in the Evidence of Coverage of each health care plan offered through [Group Name ] to which we agree to be bound. 5. We understand that willful falsification of information contained in this Affidavit may result in our termination of enrollment by the health care plan that we select for coverage. 6. We also certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Colorado that the foregoing is true and accurate to the best of our knowledge. Signature of Employee/Date Signature of Domestic Partner/Date Address City, State, Zip Code County of State of Colorado SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN before me this day of 20 Notary Public My Commission Expires * Domestic partner coverage is limited to same-sex partners. STATEMENT OF TERMINATION OF AFFIDAVIT OF DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIP I request removal of my domestic partner, and his/her dependents from ~ insurance coverage effective (Please print) Name of domestic partner Name(s) of domestic partner dependents I understand that I will not be able to apply for another domestic partner coverage until twelve months have passed from the above date, unless my domestic partner is deceased. I have mailed a copy of this Statement of Ternunation to my former domestic partner. Print Name of Employee Signature County of State of Colorado SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN before me this day of . 20 Notary Public My Commission Expires Page 1 of 2 Paula ]ensen - RE: HB-1344 Related Question ~~ -~~~ From: "Nadine Smith" <Nadines@townofsuperior.com> To: "Paula Jensen" <pjensen@northglenn.org> Date: 4/11/2006 4:32 PM Subject: RE: HB-1344 Related Question Of the thirty-two entities who responded, there where eight organizations who offered benefits in some way to same- sex couples. ^ Boulder County ^ City of Boulder ^ City of Breckenridge ^ City of Englewood ^ City of Glendale . City of Golden ^ City of Lafayette ^ City of Wheat Ridge The City of Lakewood is currently looking into it also. From: Paula Jensen [mailto:pjensen@northglenn.org] Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 12:02 PM To: don_heilman@ajg.com; ann-I@arvada.org; bames@ci.arvada.co.us; chasbrouck@ci.arvada.co.us; cstauffer@ci.arvada.co.us; DROMERO@ci.arvada.co.us; jmattoon@ci.arvada.co.us; ksmiddy@ci.arvada.co.us; gomeze@ci.boulder.co.us; harrise@ci.boulder.co.us; kaplank@ci.boulder.co.us; Hoed@ci.boulder.co,us; vetterlingw@ci.boulder.co.us; wallacero@ci.boulder.co.us; afanselow@ci.broomfield.co.us; ahinton@ci.broomfleld.co.us; annette@ci.broomfield.co.us; ffox@ci.broomfield.co.us; Ishaffer@ci.broomfleld.co.us; nwilliamson@ci.broomfield.co.us; SSMITH@ci.broomfield.co.us; vmauri@ci.broomfield.co.us; cthomas@ci.commerce-city.co.us; holsen@ci.commerce- city.co.us; kriccio@ci.commerce-city.co.us; pgreer@ci.commerce-city.co.us; mdykstra@ci.federal-heights.co.us; sleonhardt@ci.federal-heights.co.us; swagner@ci.federal-heights.co.us; mbradley@ci.golden.co.us; pheimbach@ci.goiden.co.us; treilly@ci.golden.co.us; buhlerm@ci.greeiey.co.us; cannon)@ci.greeley.co.us; clarkd@ci.greeley.co.us; hempenn@ci.greeley.co.us; mccabes@ci.greeley.co.us; Dave.Miller@ci.Longmont.co.us; Janice.Kyner@ci.Longmont.co.us; Karen.Chandler@ci.Longmont.co.us; Karen.Nazarro@ci.Longmont.co.us; Patti.West@ci.Longmont.co.us; HixK@ci,louisville.co.us; perezr@ci.louisville.co.us; vandyvl@ci,louisville.co.us; chandr@ci.loveland.co.us; edenj@ci.loveland.co.us; hecocl@ci.loveland.co.us; ortonk@ci.loveland.co.us; ReesK@ci.loveland.co.us; bbishop@ci.parker.co.us; ncoughlin@ci.parker.co.us; sbedard@ci.parker.co.us; cstout@ci.westminster.co.us; ddiaz@ci.westminster.co.us; dmartin@ci.westminster.co.us; dmitchel@ci.westminster.co.us; jsyvertson@ci.westminster.co.us; jtompkins@ci,westminster.co.us; ksand@ci.westminster.co.us; Ichrisman@ci.westminster.co.us; mmartine@ci.westminster.co.us; sprobst@ci.westminster.co.us; kcroom@ci.wheatridge.co.us; rjohnson@ci.wheatridge.co.us; pamsp@cityoflafayette.com; pennyf@cityoflafayette.com; sarahh@cityoflafayette.com; carol.carrillo@cityofthornton.net; jayleen.schell@cityofthornton.net; kendra.hill@cityofthornton.net; michelle.marez@cityofthornton.net; monica.bogenschutz@cityofthornton.net; terrie.cooke@cityofthornton.net; tricia,hinton-potter@cityoftharnton.net; cduscha@co.adams.co.us; cswartz@co.adams.co.us; tcadwell@co.adams.co.us; TJachetta@co.adams.co.us; TLautt@co.adams.co.us; aharden@co.arapahoe.co.us; kpickard@co.arapahoe.co.us; Iquigley@co.arapahoe.co.us; soneill@co.arapahoe.co.us; yhiggins@co.arapahoe.co.us; aberg@co.boulder.co.us; blambden@co.boulder.co.us; jheard@co.boulder.co.us; mmyers@co.boulder.co.us; pjackson@co.boulder.co.us; suallen@co.gilpin.co.us; dbuck@co.weld.co.us; jvaughn@co.weld.co.us; mraimer@co.weld.co.us; selton@co.weld.co.us; mwamsley@comcast.net; cgeorge@crgov.com; cubben@crgov.com; smorgan@crgov.com; aatencio@douglas.co.us; ckuhn@douglas,co.us; dturner@douglas.co.us; jstigall@douglas.co.us; Ihellier@douglas.co.us; Imcclell@douglas.co.us; mchaddic@douglas.co.us; mfleming@douglas.co.us; mridpath@douglas.co.us; Sanderso@douglas.co.us; jstice@dreog.org; rronsen@dreog.org; heather.thayer@dss.co.adams.co.us; cmorris@englewoodgov.org; dparker@englewoodgov.org; jweber@englewoodgov.org; Iwargin@englewoodgov.org; Seaton@englewoodgov.org; tbuechler@englewoodgov.org; asharkey@fcgov.com; jamiller@fcgov.com; rdelacastro@fcgov.com; file://C:\Documents and Settings\pjensen\Local Settings\Temp\GW~00002.HTM 8/9/2006 Page 2 of 2 rodonnell@fcgov.com; sjordan@fcgov.com; lindaw@fhprd.org; summerm@fhprd.org; pherrera@glendale.co.us; cchapman@greenwoodvillage.com; cbuhlman@jeffco.us; fkeller@jeffco.us; jkrantz@jeffco.us; jmoore@jeffco.us; Ischink@jeffco.us; pmeredit@jeffco.us; tarry.davis@judicial.state.co.us; liz.strong@judicial.state.co.us; windy.masias@judicial.state.co.us; colham@lakewood.org; I<atLyn@lakewood.org; kenmil@lakewood.org; linhal@lakewood.org; loreher@lakewood.org; nanrho@lakewood.org; wcerciello@larimer.org; jgryniewicz@littletongov.org; kburke@littletongov.org; klanphere@littletongov.org; mlucariello@littletongov.org; nclearwater@littletongov.org; wcarlson@littietongov.org; bmarquezpropp@minesandassociates.com; jgbraun@minesandassociates.com; Icullen@minesandassociates.com; mkent@minesandassociates.com; ramines@minesandassociates.com; bwyngarden@msec.org; naggers@msec.org; kruthr4rd@msn.com; bbishop@mwrd.dst.co.us; dschaeffer@mwrd.dst.co.us; dwilson@mwrd.dst.co.us; jpadilla@mwrd.dst.co.us; Christy Lehr; Debbie Garcia; Monica Bordash; pduncan@northglenn.org; dwlawler@parkerfire.org; ncoleman@parkerfire.org; cwilliams@silverthorne.org; cathyr@townofbreckenridge.com; danal@townofbreckenridge.com; sherilyn@townofbreckenridge.com; Matt Magley; Nadine Smith; srush@westmetrofire.org; tstearns@westmetrofire.org Subject: Re: HB-1344 Related Question Northglenn does not - but I am very interested in your survey results. Thanks. Paula Jensen »> "Nadine Smith" <Nadines@townofsuperior.com> 4/6/2006 11:41 AM »> Do any of your organizations extend health and/or life insurance benefits to domestic partners between same-sex couples? Thanks, Nadine file://C:\Documents and Settings\pjensen\I,ocal Settings\Temp\GW}00002.HTM 8/9/2006 MEDICAL/DENTAL INSURANCE REGULAR FULL-~'IME EMPLOYEES Medical Insurance Monthly Rates PACIFICARE (Plan #1071) KAISER (Plan #225) City City Level of Coverage Premium Contribution EE Cost Premium Contribution EE Cost Famil $1,131.47 $848.61 $282.86 $871.85 $675.69 $196.]6 Em to ee & Child ren $741.67 $556.25 $185.42 $571.21 $442.69 $128.52 Em ]o ee & S Ouse $779.b1 $584.71 $194.90 $601.26 $465.98 $135.28 Em to ee Onl $389.80 $349.80 $40.00 $300.65 $280.65 $20.00 * There is a 5% surcharge for all Kaiser participants with dependents between the ages of 19-25 who are not full-time students. This is in addition to the Employee Cost listed above. EFFECTIVE 08/01/06 Dentallnsurance Monthly Rates SELF-FUNDED PLAN DPO PLAN PREMIER PLAN Level of Covera a Premium City Contribution EE Cost Premium City Contribution EE Cost Premium City Contribution EE Cost Famil $139.32 $53.94 $85.38 $71.92 $53.94 $17.98 $124.09 $53.95 $70.]4 Em to ee+1 Souse or Child $93.36 $34.86 $58.50 $46.48 $34.86 $11.62 $71.98 $34.86 $37.12 Em to ee Onl $46.45 $27.13 $19.32 $27.]3 $27.13 $0.00 $35.46 $27.14 $8.32 HR18enefitsbpen enrdlmenti20Wt2006 Menicel Centel Rates MEDICAL/DENTAL INSURANCE EFFECTIVE 08/01/06 REGULAR PART-TIME EMPLOYEES (32-39 hrsJ Medical Insurance Monthly Rates PACIFICARE (1078) KAISER City City Level o Covera a Premium Contribution EE Cost Premium Contribution EE Cost Famil $1,131.47 $349.81 $781.66 $871.85 $280.65 $591.20 Em to ee & Child ren $741.67 $349.81 $391.86 $571.21 $280.65 $290.56 Em to ee & S Ouse $779.61 $349.81 $429.80 $601.26 $280.65 $320.61 Em to ee Onl $389.80 $349.80 $40.00 $300.65 $280.65 $20.00 * There is a 5% surcharge for all Kaiser participants with dependents between the ages of 19-25 who are not full-time students. This is in addition to the Employee Cost listed above. Dentallnsurance Monthly Rates DPO PLAN PREMIER PLAN Level of Covera a Premium City Cost EE Cost Premium Cit Cost EE Cost Famil $71.92 $27.14 $44.78 $]24.09 $27.13 $96.96 Em to ee +I (S Ouse or Child $46.48 $27,14 $19.34 $71.98 $27.14 $44.84 Em to ee Onl $27.13 $27.13 $0.00 $35.46 $27.14 $8.32 HRIHaneRtsbpen anrdlm.nl520°8120°6 Medipl Dar~ai Retea_InC COBRA MEDICAL INSURANCE REGULAR PART-TIME EMPLOYEES (20-31 hrs. ) Medical Insurance PACIFICARE (plan #1071) KAISER (plan #225) City City Level of Coverage Premium Contribution EE Cost Premium Contribution EE Cost Em to ee Onl $389.80 $349.80 $40.00 $300.65 $280.65 $20.00 EFFECTIVE 08/01/06 HRfBenefltabpen enrollmenN2006t2006 Metlicel Dental Retee_Inc COBRA SPONSORED BY: COUNCIL MEMBERS CLYNE. GARNER, LINDSEY, MARTIN MONROE & PAIZ ~~ COUNCILMAN'S RESOLUTION ~ 1Jof~ vD~ RESOLUTION NO. No. CR-100 Series of 2006 LA RESOLUTION. IN SUPPORT OF REFERENDUM I PARTNERSHIP ACT Series of 2006 THE COLORADO DOMESTIC WHEREAS, thousands of law-abiding, taxpaying Coloradans are denied basic legal protections and responsibilities mexely because they live in committed, same-sex relationships; and WHEREAS, committed same-sex couples are not guaranteed the right to visit a partner in the hospital, direct his or her care in a nursing home, or to leave their property to whom they wish upon death; and WHEREAS, gays or lesbians who die without a will are more likely to have their property left to the government than to their partner; and WHEREAS, this November, Colorado voters will have the opportunity to approve Domestic Partnerships, a registered civil contract between committed same-sex couples; and WHEREAS, Domestic Partnerships, while not marriage, will provide many, but not all, of the protections and responsibilities that these couples deserve; and WHEREAS, the passage of Referendum I will send a strong signal throughout the country of Colorado's commitment to fairness and equality for all citizens. BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NORTHGLENN. COLORADO, THAT: Section 1. The Northglenn City Council does hereby declare its full support of, and urge a YES vote on, Referendum I: the Colorado Domestic Partnership Act at the General Election on November 7, 2006. DATED at Northglenn, Colorado, this day of , 2006. ~~ ~~y9 ~7~ ~ KATHLEEN M. NOVAK Mayor The Facts on Referendum I It's not marriage. It's basic legal rights. Colorado voters will go to the polls this November to consider Referendum I, which was sent to the ballot by a strong, bipartisan majority of Colorado lawmakers. The referendum does NOT authorize gay marriage. Rather, it fixes a hole in state law by clarifying the legal status of committed Colorado couples. Referendum I simply provides committed couples with basic legal protections and responsibilities, including the right to visit a partner in the hospital, make medical decisions for an incapacitated partner, make funeral arrangements, direct nursing home care and secure basic property and inheritance rights. It creates a binding, legal agreement between a committed couple to provide the basic responsibilities they are currently denied. • Thousands of committed Colorado couples are not guaranteed the ability or the responsibility to make decisions regarding medical treatment for one another. • Thousands of committed Colorado couples are not guaranteed the right to make funeral arrangements for a deceased partner. • Thousands of committed couples lack access to heath insurance benefits through a partner's place of business. • Referendum I would also help protect children by ensuring that the courts enforce the responsibility of same-sex partners to pay alimony and child support. 1888 Sherman St., Suife 570 • Denver, CO 80203 • PO Box 1620 • Denver, CO 80201 • (303) 860-7325 • fax (303) 860-7328 • www.FairEa,ual.org Frequently Asked Questions on Referendum I What does Referendum I do? Referendum I does NOT authorize gay marriage. It simply creates a binding, legal contract for committed couples who are currently denied the protections that other couples enjoy. Referendum I provides the most basic legal rights and responsibilities, such as hospital visitation, freedom to make end-of--life decisions and the ability to transfer and inherit property. Why is Referendum I needed? Our laws are broken. Today, thousands of committed couples lack basic legal protections and responsibilities. These couples are not guaranteed the right to see each other in the hospital, direct nursing home care or make funeral arrangements for each other. And there is no provision in the law enforcing child support payments. Referendum I would bind these couples to their commitments and hold them accountable to one another and their children. How is this different than marriage? Colorado law already defines marriage as being between one man and one woman. Referendum I simply creates a binding, legal contract that defines the responsibilities and protections for committed same-sex couples -more like a will than a marriage. More than 1,100 provisions of federal law that apply to married couples will remain unavailable to same-sex couples. Under Referendum I, same-sex couples will not receive any tax benefits or Social Security benefits and the relationship will not be recognized by other states. Does Referendum I undermine marriage? Not in the least. Referendum I is not marriage and it does not affect anyone who is married. Referendum I does not diminish the benefits granted to married couples nor does it discourage anyone from getting married. Who is eligible for the benefits and protections granted by Referendum I? Any couple in Colorado in a committed, same-sex relationship, where both partners are at least 18 years old, not related to one another and not married or in another Domestic Partnership may apply for a license at their county clerk's office. Would other states recognize the relationship created under Referendum I? No. One of the major differences between marriage and Domestic Partnership is that other states would NOT be required to recognize couples who register in Colorado. Does Referendum I respect differences of opinion among people of faith? Absolutely. Referendum I merely creates a license that will be obtained at county courthouses. The referendum expressly protects religious freedom. What if voters approve a constitutional ban on gay marriage? Because Referendum I creates only civil contracts and not gay marriage, the ban does not affect the referendum. Referendum I does not change the existing law banning gay marriage in Colorado, nor does it conflict with Amendment 43. 1888 Sherman St., Suite 570 • Denver, CO 80203 • PO Box 1620 • Denver, CO 80201 • (303) 860-7325 • fax (303) 860-7328 • www.FairEqual.org Why Referendum I does NOT authorize marriage 1. Read the Ballot Title: Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado Revised Statutes to authorize domestic partnerships, and, in connection, therewith, enacting the "Colorado Domestic Partnership Benefits and Responsibilities Act" to extend to same-sex couples in a domestic partnership the benefits, protections, and responsibilities that are granted by Colorado law to spouses, providing the conditions under which a license for a domestic partnership may be issued and the criteria under which a domestic partnership may be dissolved, making provisions for the implementation of the act, and providing that a domestic partnership is not a marriage, which consists of the union of one man and one woman? 2. Read the "Blue Book" produced by the state legislature's nonpartisan research agency: "...specifies that domestic partnerships are not marriage and do not change the public policy of the state, which defines marriage as only the union of one man and one woman." 3. The legislation that put Referendum I on the ballot, House Bill 06-1344, says: • "`Marriage' means the legally recognized union of one man and one woman." • "The provisions of this article shall not be construed to create a marriage between the parties to a domestic partnership..." 4. Differences from marriage • Only married couples can file joint tax returns; Referendum I will not change that. • Married couples have access to tax deductions; Referendum I will not change that or grant access to anyone else. Marriage licenses have no residency requirement, but Referendum I does. When a couple that resides in Colorado requests a license under Referendum I, at least one person must live in the county where they apply. 1588 Sherman St., Suite 570 • Denver, CO 80203 • PO Box 1620 • Denver, CO 80201 • (303) 860-7325 • fax (303) 860-7328 • www.FairEaual.org 5. Over 1,100 federal laws don't apply • Married couples benefit from more than 1,100 provisions in federal law; Referendum I will not change those provisions or extend them to anyone else. • Married couples have access to Social Security survivor benefits after a spouse's death; Referendum I will not change or extend that right to anyone else. • Married couples can take advantage of veterans' discounts based on a spouse's service in the armed forces; Referendum I will not change that or allow anyone else to take advantage of those discounts. • Laws protect married couples from having to sell their homes to pay for their spouse's nursing home care. Referendum I does not extend this protection to anyone else. • When a married person dies, his or her spouse automatically inherits a portion of that person's savings tax-free; Referendum I will not change or extend that right to anyone else. 6. No guarantee of portability • Marriage is portable: no matter how many state lines you cross or foreign countries you visit, you're still married. When a man and woman are married in one state it is honored in a1150 states. • Unlike marriage, Referendum I contains no guarantee of portability - it is a commitment that is only recognized in the state of Colorado. Referendum I It's not marriage. It's basic legal rights. Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado Revised Statutes to authorize Domestic Partnerships, and, in connection therewith, enacting the "Colorado Domestic Partnership Benefits and Responsibilities Act" to extend to same-sex couples in a Domestic Partnership the benefits, protections, and responsibilities that are granted by Colorado law to spouses, providing the conditions under which a license for a Domestic Partnership may be issued and the criteria under which a Domestic Partnership may be dissolved, making provisions for implementation of the act, and providing that a Domestic Partnership is not a Marriage, which consists of the union of one man and one woman? 1888 Sherman St., Suite 570 • Denver, CO 80203 • PO Box 1620 • Denver, CO 80201 • (303j 86C-7325 • fax (303) 860-7328 • www.FairEqual.orq