The URL can be used to link to this page

TC Packet 06-13-2017 TOWN OF AVON, COLORADO TOWN OF AVON MEETINGS FOR TUESDAY, JUNE 13, 2017 AVON LIQUOR AUTHORITY MEETING BEGINS AT 5:00 PM AVON TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING BEGINS AT 5:15 PM AVON TOWN HALL, ONE LAKE STREET _______________________________________________________________________________ MEETING AGENDAS & PACKETS ARE FOUND AT: HTTP://WWW.AVON.ORG AGENDAS ARE POSTED AT AVON TOWN HALL, RECREATION CENTER, & AVON PUBLIC LIBRARY IF YOU HAVE ANY SPECIAL ACCOMMODATION NEEDS, PLEASE, IN ADVANCE OF THE MEETING, CALL TOWN CLERK DEBBIE HOPPE AT 970-748-4001 OR EMAIL DHOPPE@AVON.ORG WITH ANY SPECIAL REQUESTS. Page 1 of 4 AVON LIQUOR LICENSING AUTHORITY MEETING BEGINS AT 5:00 PM (SEE SEPARATE AGENDA PAGE 3 ) AVON TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING BEGINS AT 5:15 PM (SEE A GENDA BELOW) 1. CALL TO ORDER & ROLL CALL 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 3. MEETING PROCEDURES FOR THE MEETING OF JUNE 13, 2017 3.1. ACTION ITEMS • PRESENTATION OF ITEM • PUBLIC COMMENT – THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT ALLOWED TO EACH PERSON WISHING TO SPEAK, UNLESS MAJORITY OF COUNCIL AGREES TO A LONGER TIME • COUNCIL DISCUSSION • MOTION • COUNCIL DISCUSSION • VOTE 3.2. WORK SESSION AND PRESENTATIONS • PRESENTATION OF ITEM • COUNCIL DISCUSSION • PUBLIC COMMENT – THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT ALLOWED TO EACH PERSON WISHING TO SPEAK, UNLESS MAJORITY OF COUNCIL AGREES TO A LONGER TIME • COUNCIL DIRECTION 4. PUBLIC COMMENT – COMMENTS ARE WELCOME ON ITEMS NOT LISTED ON THE FOLLOWING AGENDA* - THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT ALLOWED TO EACH PERSON WISHING TO SPEAK, UNLESS MAJORITY OF COUNCIL AGREES TO A LONGER TIME (15 MINUTES) 5. LIBRARY DISTRICT ANNUAL COMMUNICATION MEETING 5.1. EAGLE COUNTY LIBRARY DISTRICT WORK SESSION (KIM SAALFELD, LINDA TILLSON) (20 MINUTES) 6. PRESENTATIONS 6.1. FLEET MAINTENANCE DEPARTMENT PRESENTATION (FLEET DIRECTOR REGO OMERIGIC) (15 MINUTES) 6.2. IT PRESENTATION (IT ADMINISTRATOR ROBERT MCKENNER) (15 MINUTES) TOWN OF AVON, COLORADO TOWN OF AVON MEETINGS FOR TUESDAY, JUNE 13, 2017 AVON LIQUOR AUTHORITY MEETING BEGINS AT 5:00 PM AVON TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING BEGINS AT 5:15 PM AVON TOWN HALL, ONE LAKE STREET _______________________________________________________________________________ MEETING AGENDAS & PACKETS ARE FOUND AT: HTTP://WWW.AVON.ORG AGENDAS ARE POSTED AT AVON TOWN HALL, RECREATION CENTER, & AVON PUBLIC LIBRARY IF YOU HAVE ANY SPECIAL ACCOMMODATION NEEDS, PLEASE, IN ADVANCE OF THE MEETING, CALL TOWN CLERK DEBBIE HOPPE AT 970-748-4001 OR EMAIL DHOPPE@AVON.ORG WITH ANY SPECIAL REQUESTS. Page 2 of 4 7. ACTION ITEMS 7.1. PUBLIC HEARING SOUND PERMIT APPLICATION FOR A TASTE OF NATURE FUNDRAISER AT WALKING MOUNTAINS SCIENCE CENTER (WALKING M OUNTAINS REPRESENTATIVE) (5 MINUTES) 7.2. RESOLUTION 17-11 TRANSIT FUND BUDGET AMENDMENT (ASSISTANT TOWN MANAGER SCOTT WRIGHT) (5 MINUTES) 7.3. PUBLIC HEARING SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE 17-09 AMENDING CHAPTER 2.08 MUNICIPAL COURT OF THE AVON MUNICIPAL CODE TO AUTHORIZE THE USE OF A COLLECTION AGENCY FOR MUNICIPAL COURT FINES (TOWN ATTORNEY ERIC HEIL) (5 MINUTES) 7.4. CONSENT AGENDA (5 MINUTES) 7.4.1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM MAY 23, 2017 REGULAR MEETING (DEPUTY TOWN CLERK BRENDA TORRES) 7.4.2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM MAY 25, 2017 SPECIAL MEETING (ASSISTANT TO THE TOWN MANAGER PRESTON NEILL) 8. WORK SESSIONS 8.1. REVIEW OF BROADBAND OPPORTUNITIES AND REQUIREMENT FOR A BALLOT QUESTION FOR VOTER APPROVAL TO PROVIDE SERVICE TO PUBLIC OR PRIVATE SECTOR SUBSCRIBERS (TOWN MANAGER VIRGINIA EGGER) (45 MINUTES) 8.2. DIRECTION ON RETAINING HOST COMPLIANCE SOLUTIONS FOR SHORT TERM RENTALS IDENTIFICATION, BUSINESS LICENSE AND TAX COMPLIANCE (ASSISTANT TOWN M ANAGER SCOTT WRIGHT) (30 MINUTES) 8.3. HEAT RECOVERY EXPANSION STUDY (TOWN ENGINEER JUSTIN HILDRETH) (20 MINUTES) 9. MAYOR & COUNCIL COMMENTS & MEETING UPDATES (5 MINUTES) 10. EXECUTIVE SESSION EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR DISCUSSION OF A PERSONNEL MATTER UNDER C.R.S. §24-6-402(2) (F) CONCERNING THE TOWN MANAGER’S ANNUAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION 11. ADJOURNMENT _________________________________________________________________________ *Public Comments: Council agendas shall include a general item labeled “Public Comment” near the beginning of all Council meetings. Members of the public who wish to provide comments to Council greater than three minutes are encouraged to schedule time in advance on the agenda and to provide written comments and other appropriate materials to the Council in advance of the Council meeting. The Mayor shall permit public comments for any action item or work session item, and may permit public comment for any other agenda item, and may limit such public comment to three minutes per individual, which limitation may be waived or increased by a majority of the quorum present. Article VI. Public Comments, Avon Town Council Simplified Rules of Order, Adopted by Resolution No. 17-05. TOWN OF AVON MEETINGS FOR TUESDAY, JUNE 13, 2017 AVON LIQUOR AUTHORITY MEETING BEGINS AT 5:00 PM AVON TOWN HALL, ONE LAKE STREET _______________________________________________________________________________ MEETING AGENDAS & PACKETS ARE FOUND AT: HTTP://WWW.AVON.ORG AGENDAS ARE POSTED AT AVON TOWN HALL, RECREATION CENTER, & AVON PUBLIC LIBRARY IF YOU HAVE ANY SPECIAL ACCOMMODATION NEEDS, PLEASE, IN ADVANCE OF THE MEETING, CALL TOWN CLERK DEBBIE HOPPE AT 970-748-4001 OR EMAIL DHOPPE@AVON.ORG WITH ANY SPECIAL REQUESTS. Page 3 of 4 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 3. PUBLIC COMMENT – COMMENTS ARE WELCOME ON ITEMS NOT LISTED ON THE FOLLOWING AGENDA 4. PUBLIC HEARING SPECIAL EVENTS PERMIT 4.1. APPLICANT NAME: EAGLE VALLEY HUMANE SOCIETY EVENT NAME: SALUTE TO THE USA EVENT DATE: JULY 3, 2017; 4:00 P.M. UNTIL 10:30 P.M. LOCATION: PERFORMANCE PAVILION/NOTTINGHAM PARK EVENT MANAGER: CHAR GONSENICA PERMIT TYPE: MALT, VINOUS & SPIRITUOUS LIQUOR 4.2. APPLICANT NAME: BRIGHT FUTURE FOUNDATION FOR EAGLE COUNTY EVENT NAME: COVER ROCK MUSIC FESTIVAL EVENT DATES: JUNE 23 & 24, 2017; 10:00 A.M. UNTIL 11:30 P.M. LOCATION: PERFORMANCE PAVILION/NOTTINGHAM PARK EVENT MANAGER: TED WENNINGER PERMIT TYPE: MALT, VINOUS & SPIRITUOUS LIQUOR 4.3. APPLICANT NAME: BRIGHT FUTURE FOUNDATION OF EAGLE COUNTY EVENT NAME: LYLE LOVETT AND HIS LARGE BAND EVENT DATE: JULY 23, 2017; 4:00 P.M. UNTIL 11:30 P.M. LOCATION: PERFORMANCE PAVILION/NOTTINGHAM PARK EVENT MANAGER: TED WENNINGER PERMIT TYPE: MALT, VINOUS & SPIRITUOUS LIQUOR 4.4. APPLICANT NAME: BRIGHT FUTURE FOUNDATION OF EAGLE COUNTY EVENT NAME: AVON LIVE! SUMMER CONCERT SERIES EVENT DATES: AUGUST 2, 9 & 23, 2017; 2:00 P.M. UNTIL 11:30 P.M. LOCATION: PERFORMANCE PAVILION/NOTTINGHAM PARK EVENT MANAGER: TED WENNINGER PERMIT TYPE: MALT, VINOUS & SPIRITUOUS LIQUOR 4.5. APPLICANT NAME: TOWN OF AVON EVENT NAME: HAUTE ROUTE ROCKIES EVENT DATES: JUNE 26, 2017; 11:00 A.M. UNTIL 4:30 P.M. JUNE 27, 2017; 1:00 P.M. UNTIL 6:30 P.M. LOCATION: PERFORMANCE PAVILION/NOTTINGHAM PARK EVENT MANAGER: CASEY WILLIS PERMIT TYPE: MALT, VINOUS & SPIRITUOUS LIQUOR TOWN OF AVON MEETINGS FOR TUESDAY, JUNE 13, 2017 AVON LIQUOR AUTHORITY MEETING BEGINS AT 5:00 PM AVON TOWN HALL, ONE LAKE STREET _______________________________________________________________________________ MEETING AGENDAS & PACKETS ARE FOUND AT: HTTP://WWW.AVON.ORG AGENDAS ARE POSTED AT AVON TOWN HALL, RECREATION CENTER, & AVON PUBLIC LIBRARY IF YOU HAVE ANY SPECIAL ACCOMMODATION NEEDS, PLEASE, IN ADVANCE OF THE MEETING, CALL TOWN CLERK DEBBIE HOPPE AT 970-748-4001 OR EMAIL DHOPPE@AVON.ORG WITH ANY SPECIAL REQUESTS. Page 4 of 4 4.6. APPLICANT NAME: TOWN OF AVON EVENT NAME: POP UP PERFORMANCES EVENT DATES: JULY 8, 14, 21 & 28, 2017 AND AUGUST 4 & 11, 2017; 5:00 P.M. UNTIL 7:30 P.M. LOCATION: POSSIBILITY PLAZA AT THE MAIN STREET MALL EVENT MANAGER: CASEY WILLIS PERMIT TYPE: MALT, VINOUS & SPIRITUOUS LIQUOR 5. RENEWAL OF LIQUOR LICENSES 5.1. APPLICANT: BENCHMARK LIQUORS, INC. D/B/A BEAVER LIQUORS LOCATION: 110 E. BEAVER CREEK BLVD. TYPE: LIQUOR STORE MANAGER: DAVID COURTNEY 6. MINUTES FROM MAY 23, 2017 7. ADJOURNMENT Special Event Liquor Permit – Salute to the USA LIQUOR LICENSING AUTHORITY REPORT To: Avon Liquor Licensing Authority From: Debbie Hoppe, Town Clerk Meeting Date: June 13, 2017 Agenda topic: SPECIAL EVENTS PERMIT APPLICATION – PUBLIC HEARING ACTION BEFORE THE LOCAL LIQUOR LICENSING AUTHORITY A Special Event Permit Application for the upcoming Salute to the USA event is presented to the Avon Local Liquor Licensing Authority for its consideration. A public hearing is required before final action is taken. Applicant Name: Eagle Valley Humane Society Event Name: Salute to the USA Event Date: July 3, 2017; 4:00 p.m. until 10:30 p.m. Location: Performance Pavilion/Nottingham Park Event Manager: Char Gonsenica Permit Type: Malt, Vinous & Spirituous Liquor PROPOSED MOTION “I move to approve the Special Event Permit application for Eagle Valley Humane Society Salute to USA event on July 3, 2017.” NOTE: a motion to deny a special event permit must state the grounds for denial in accordance with required statutory findings. SUMMARY The Applicant is applying for malt, vinous, spirituous liquor permit to serve/sell beverages at the Salute to the USA event on July 3, 2017. The Applicant has submitted the appropriate materials required by the State of Colorado Liquor Enforcement Division and all materials are in order. The Nottingham Park premise has been posted with notice of the public hearing for this application. The event manager will be present to answer questions about the application. The Applicant has submitted the appropriate local liquor license special event permit application fees. The Applicant is a Charitable Organization in good standing with the Secretary of State, State of Colorado. The Applicant has provided adequate proof of commercial liability insurance that meets the Town’s requirements. The background check of the event manager indicated no criminal violations. These documents are on file in the Town Clerk’s office. BACKGROUND Special events permits are issued by the Local Licensing Authority to allow particular types of organizations, municipalities, and political candidates to sell, serve or distribute alcohol beverages in connection with public events. Avon has adopted the local option whereby applications are made directly to the Avon Local Licensing Authority. Special event permits may only be issued for prescribed hours on a Special Event Liquor Permit – Salute to the USA single day. A nonprofit entity and the Town of Avon may receive a maximum of 15 special event permits per calendar year. There is no required finding for the issuance of a special event permit. CRS §12-48-106 states the grounds for denial of a special event permit application as follows: “The state or local authority may deny the issuance of a special event permit upon the grounds that the issuance would be injurious to the public welfare because of the nature of the special event, its location within the community, or the failure of the applicant in a past special event to conduct the event in compliance with applicable laws.” SPECIAL EVENTS PERMIT APPLICATIONS ATTACHMENTS: The Applicant for the special event permit has submitted the following materials:  Application for a Special Event Permit (State form DR 8439)  Alcohol Management Plan  Diagram where liquor will be served Special Event Liquor Permit – Cover Rock Music Festival LIQUOR LICENSING AUTHORITY REPORT To: Avon Liquor Licensing Authority From: Debbie Hoppe, Town Clerk Meeting Date: June 13, 2017 Agenda topic: SPECIAL EVENTS PERMIT APPLICATION – PUBLIC HEARING ACTION BEFORE THE LOCAL LIQUOR LICENSING AUTHORITY A Special Event Permit Application for the upcoming Cover Rock event is presented to the Avon Local Liquor Licensing Authority for its consideration. A public hearing is required before final action is taken. Applicant Name: Bright Future Foundation for Eagle County Event Name: Cover Rock Music Festival Event Dates: Location: June 23 & 24, 2017; 10:00 a.m. until 11:30 p.m. Performance Pavilion/Nottingham Park Event Manager: Ted Wenninger Permit Type: Malt, Vinous & Spirituous Liquor PROPOSED MOTION “I move to approve the Special Event Permit application for Bright Future Foundation Cover Rock Music Festival on June 23 &24, 2017.” NOTE: a motion to deny a special event permit must state the grounds for denial in accordance with required statutory findings. SUMMARY The Applicant is applying for malt, vinous, spirituous liquor permit to serve/sell beverages at the Cover Rock Music Festival on June 23 & 24, 2017. The Applicant has submitted the appropriate materials required by the State of Colorado Liquor Enforcement Division and all materials are in order. The Nottingham Park premise has been posted with notice of the public hearing for this application. The event manager will be present to answer questions about the application. The Applicant has submitted the appropriate local liquor license special event permit application fees. The Applicant is a Charitable Organization in good standing with the Secretary of State, State of Colorado. The Applicant has provided adequate proof of commercial liability insurance that meets the Town’s requirements. The background check of the event manager indicated no criminal violations. These documents are on file in the Town Clerk’s office. BACKGROUND Special events permits are issued by the Local Licensing Authority to allow particular types of organizations, municipalities, and political candidates to sell, serve or distribute alcohol beverages in connection with public events. Avon has adopted the local option whereby applications are made directly to the Avon Local Licensing Authority. Special event permits may only be issued for prescribed hours on a single day. A nonprofit entity and the Town of Avon may receive a maximum of 15 special event permits Special Event Liquor Permit – Cover Rock Music Festival per calendar year. There is no required finding for the issuance of a special event permit. CRS §12-48-106 states the grounds for denial of a special event permit application as follows: “The state or local authority may deny the issuance of a special event permit upon the grounds that the issuance would be injurious to the public welfare because of the nature of the special event, its location within the community, or the failure of the applicant in a past special event to conduct the event in compliance with applicable laws.” SPECIAL EVENTS PERMIT APPLICATIONS ATTACHMENTS: The Applicant for the special event permit has submitted the following materials:  Application for a Special Event Permit (State form DR 8439)  Alcohol Management Plan  Diagram where liquor will be served TOWN OF AVON, COLORADO AVON LIQUOR LICENSING AUTHORITY MEETING MINUTES FOR TUESDAY, MAY 23, 2017 AVON TOWN HALL, ONE LAKE STREET Page 1 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Chairman Fancher called the meeting to order at 5:03 p.m. A roll call was taken and Board members present were Sarah Smith Hymes, Amy Phillips, Megan Burch, and Scott Prince. Jake Wolf and Matt Gennett were absent. Also present were Town Manager Virginia Egger, Town Attorney Eric Heil, Recreation Director John Curutchet, Police Chief Greg Daly, Executive Assistant to the Town Manager Preston Neill and Secretary Brenda Torres. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. 3. PUBLIC COMMENT – COMMENTS ARE WELCOME ON TOPICS NOT ON THE AGENDA No public comments were made. 4. PUBLIC HEARING SPECIAL EVENTS PERMIT Start time: 00:01:12 4.1. Applicant Name: Beaver Creek Resort Company of Colorado Event Name: Beaver Creek Rodeo Series Event Dates: June 22, 29, July 6, 13, 27, August 3 & 10, 2017; 4 pm until 10 pm Location: Traer Creek Lot 1 Event Manager: Pete Osorio Permit Type: Malt, Vinous & Spirituous Liquor The application was presented with no concerns. Elizabeth Jones from Beaver Creek Resort Company spoke regarding the upcoming annual special event. Chairman Fancher opened the public hearing and no comments were made. Vice-chairperson Sarah Smith Hymes moved to approve the special event permit application for Beaver Creek Rodeo Series. Board member Phillips seconded the motion and it passed unanimously by those present. Board members Wolf and Gennett were absent. 4.2. Applicant Name: Team Evergreen Event Name: Triple Bypass Event Date: July 8, 2017; 11 am until 8 pm Location: Nottingham Park Event Manager: Sabra Nagel Permit Type: Malt, Vinous & Spirituous Liquor The application was presented with no concerns. Char Gonsenica, in representation of the Event Manager, spoke regarding the upcoming annual special event. Chairman Fancher opened the public hearing and no comments were made. Board member Phillips moved to approve the special event permit application for the Triple Bypass event. Board member Prince seconded the motion and it passed unanimously by those present. Board members Wolf and Gennett were absent. TOWN OF AVON, COLORADO AVON LIQUOR LICENSING AUTHORITY MEETING MINUTES FOR TUESDAY, MAY 23, 2017 AVON TOWN HALL, ONE LAKE STREET Page 2 5. RENEWAL OF LIQUOR LICENSES 5.1. Applicant: Walmart Stores, Inc. d/b/a Walmart #119 Location: 171 Yoder Avenue Type: 3.2% Beer Off Premises Manager: Samuel Pothier The application was presented with no concerns. Chairman Fancher opened the public hearing and no comments were made. Vice-chairperson Smith Hymes moved to approve the renewal application for Walmart #119. Board member Burch seconded the motion and it passed unanimously by those present. Board members Wolf and Gennett were absent. 5.2. Applicant: YERF, LLC d/b/a Ticino Italian Restaurant Location: 100 W. Beaver Creek Blvd. #127 Type: Hotel & Restaurant Manager: Charles Frey The application was presented with no concerns. Chairman Fancher opened the public hearing and no comments were made. Board member Smith Hymes moved to approve the renewal application for Ticino Italian Restaurant. Board member Phillips seconded the motion and it passed unanimously by those present. Board members Wolf and Gennett were absent. 6. REPORT OF CHANGE - TRADE NAME 6.1. Applicant: 3 Dragons, LLC New Trade Name: QI Location: 100 W. Beaver Creek Blvd. Type: Hotel and Restaurant License Manager: Martin Rodosh The application was presented with no concerns. Manager Martin Rodosh commented briefly about the new menu. Chairman Fancher opened the public hearing and no comments were made. Board member Prince moved to approve the report of change application for QI. Vice-chairperson Smith Hymes seconded the motion and it passed unanimously by those present. Board members Wolf and Gennett were absent. 7. MINUTES FROM MAY 9, 2017 Start time: 00:09:40 Vice-chairperson Sarah Smith Hymes moved to approve the minutes from May 9, 2017, Liquor Authority meeting. Board member Amy Phillips seconded the motion and it passed unanimously by those present. Board members Wolf and Gennett were absent. TOWN OF AVON, COLORADO AVON LIQUOR LICENSING AUTHORITY MEETING MINUTES FOR TUESDAY, MAY 23, 2017 AVON TOWN HALL, ONE LAKE STREET Page 3 8. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Board, Chairman Fancher moved to adjourn the liquor meeting. The time was 5:13 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: ____________________________________ Brenda Torres, Secretary APPROVED: Jennie Fancher ______________________________________ Sarah Smith Hymes ______________________________________ Jake Wolf ______________________________________ Megan Burch ______________________________________ Matt Gennett ______________________________________ Scott Prince ______________________________________ Amy Phillips ______________________________________ TOWN COUNCIL REPORT To: Honorable Mayor Jennie Fancher and Avon Town Council From: Preston Neill, Executive Assistant to the Town Manager Date: June 13, 2017 Agenda Topic: Eagle Valley Library District Work Session SUMMARY: Representatives from Eagle Valley Library District (EVLD), including Kim Saalfeld, Avon Public Library Branch Manager, Linda Tillson, EVLD Director, and Tegan Davis, PR Librarian, will attend Tuesday’s work session to deliver a presentation that will touch on the following topics:  EVLD organization as a whole  How EVLD is funded  Statistics that demonstrate EVLD’s scope and reach  Programs and outreach  Services and databases  Local history  Website  Patron visits to the Avon Public Library In addition, the following items will be up for discussion with Council:  Wayfinding signage  Parking and parking signage  Communications Jerry Wetzel Fleet Forman 13 years of service Lancer Cooke Fleet Forman 11 years od service Vern Velasquez Mechanics assistant 10 years of service Craig Wilmers Mechanic II 2 years of service Tyler Wilson Mechanic II 1.5 years of service Jake Garrison Mechanic II 1.5 years of service John McDade Parts specialist 1.5 years of service Rego Omerigic Fleet Director 1 year of service Manage Town of Avon Fleet Maintenance and Repair of Town Fleet and Rolling Stock Maintenance and Repair for 14 Third Parties Agencies Welding Fabrication and Machining Monthly Billing Procurement and Disposition of Vehicles and Equipment Manage a Malty use Fueling Facility Town of Avon Fleet The Town of Avon has employs certified Emergency Vehicle Technicians and provides service and Maintenance for every Fire District in Eagle County with the exception of Vail Outside Agency 2016 $6. $0. $3,028. $358,345. $41,081. $42,239. $3,839. $165,272. $5,583. $4,348. $10,495. $3,217. $29,532. $1,622. - ECHSD - Vail Valley Salvation Army - Dial-a-Ride - B/C Transit - B/C Maintenance - S/C Maintenance (BGMD) - ECO - ERFPD - Town of Minturn - Colorado Mtn College - ECHMT - Gypsum Fire - GEFPD Peak1 $12,901. $2,409. $51,561. $9. $164,696. $15,596. $55,341. $164,129. $90,813. - General Admin & Leroys - Community Development - Police - Engineering - Streets & Roads - Town Center West - Parks & Recreation - Transportation - Fleet Maintenance The Fleet technicians face rapid growth and technology advancements that shift the work a technician performs. Todays advanced technicians will spend 30%-45% of their time on diagnostic procedures using a laptop or interface scan tool. Most new vehicles today have 40 or more microprocessors and more than 100 million lines of code, in addition to a plethora of sensors, cameras, and communications devices. This type of technology provides a host of useful new features that are boosting vehicle safety, efficiency, and usability in ways that seemed impossible only a few years ago. New technology also creates problems with ongoing parts shortages, ongoing qualified technician shortage, longer vehicle down time and higher labor rates. The Fleet Department provides training and development for its employees and is designed to: Improve productivity, effectiveness and efficiency of government service by development and better utilization of talents, abilities and potential of employees.  Help employees develop their knowledge, skills and abilities so that they might become better qualified to perform the duties of their present jobs, advance to more responsible positions and have a solid succession plan within the department.  Prepare employees to deal more effectively with growing social, scientific and economic problems faced by government by making use of advances in professional and vocational knowledge and technology. Class II Electric Charging Stations for Town and Public Vehicles Electric Vehicles for the Town No Idle Policy Enforcement Advances in Welding Technology Large Capacity Vehicle Climate Control Service Machine Photovoltaic Cells (solar) on the Fleet Building Integrating the Fuel Site with Fleet Management System A diversified Town Fleet may include some of the following: CNG, Electric, Hydrogen, Propane, Dimethyl ether, Bio fuels. Autonomous Vehicles On Vehicle Catalyst Cleaning System Used Oil Heating System Possible Body and Paint Booth TOWN COUNCIL REPORT IT Manager Robert McKenner will have a PowerPoint presentation at the meeting covering the Finance Department’s Division of Information Technology responsibilities and programs. TOWN COUNCIL REPORT To: Honorable Mayor Jennie Fancher and Avon Town Council From: Casey Willis, Special Events Manager Meeting Date: June 13, 2017 Agenda Topic: Public Hearing for Outdoor Use of Amplified Sound Application Permit ACTION BEFORE COUNCIL The Town Council is asked to consider approving an Amplified Sound Permit to extend the hours of use on Wednesday, July 12, 2017, to 10:00 p.m. as requested by Walking Mountains Science Center for the Taste of Nature fundraising event. PROPOSED MOTION I move to approve the Outdoor Amplified Sound Permit for Walking Mountains Science Center on Wednesday July 12, 2017, to extend the hours to 10:00 p.m. BACKGROUND A public hearing is required for Outdoor Use of Amplified Sound for events that will be using amplified sound systems before 9:00 a.m. or after 8:00 p.m., on Sundays through Wednesdays (Avon Municipal Code Chapter 5.24.020). The Taste of Nature start time for Wednesday, July 12, 2017 is 5:30 p.m. and proposed end time is 10:00 p.m. A PUBLIC NOTICE was published, as required in Avon Municipal Code, for the public hearing on Tuesday, June 13, 2017. The applicant has been invited to attend the meeting. Information for Issuing Outdoor Amplified Sound Permits: The Ordinance 15-07 amending AMC 5.24, Section 9.12.080 provides the framework for issuing this type of permit. The Council, in making its decision to issue the Amplified Sound Permit, may consider the following: 1.1. Comments by the public. 1.2. Necessity of the permit for the cultural, historical or social benefit of the community. 1.3. Proximity of the proposed location to residential neighborhoods. 1.4. Proposed direction of sound projection. 1.5. Screening of sound from neighboring properties. 1.6. Compatibility with other uses and activities in the vicinity. The Town Council may prescribe any conditions or requirements deemed necessary to minimize adverse effects upon the community or surrounding neighborhood. Attachments:  Application for Outdoor Use of Amplified Sound Equipment  Diagram of Event showing amplified sound projections  Page 1 TOWN COUNCIL REPORT To: Honorable Mayor Jennie Fancher and Avon Town Council From: Scott Wright, Asst. Town Manager Date: June 13, 2017 Re: 2017 Supplemental Budget Amendment Resolution No. 2017-11 Action Before Council This resolution amends the Transit Enterprise Fund. The amendment updates the estimated beginning fund balance based on the 2016 audit and recognizes other programmatic revisions that have been approved by Town Council. Proposed Motion “I move to approve Resolution 2017-11, a Resolution Summarizing Expenditures and Revenues by Fund and Amending the 2017 Budget for the Town of Avon for the Calendar Year 2017”. Summary Below is a summary of the proposed budget revisions and the estimated impacts to the fund balance. Final audited figures for 2016 in the Transit Fund reflect a positive variance over the final budget of $55,159. A summary of the other changes is listed below: • ($91,000) Additional summer bus service hours due to increased ridership. The Black Line will be replaced with the Red and Blue Line during the summer season. • ($68,000) Additional summer hours in support of the Night Rider route due to demand from 6:00 pm to 10:00 pm. • ($2,500) Pilot Town of Avon carpool program. • ($5,500) Bus shelter signage, community boards and transit supplies. • ($50,000) Pilot bike-share program. • ($5,415) Price adjustment for purchase of transit bus with FTA 5339 grant proceeds. The net result of these changes is offset by an increase of $226,000 in Transfers in from the General Fund. The final ending fund balance is $625,093 or a $58,744 increase for the original 2017 adopted budget. Attachments: 1. Resolution No. 2017-11 2. Transit Fund Supplemental Amendment No. 1 Res. No. 17-11 June 13, 2017 Page 1 of 2 TOWN OF AVON, COLORADO RESOLUTION NO. 17-11 SERIES OF 2017 A RESOLUTION TO AMEND THE 2017 TOWN OF AVON BUDGET A RESOLUTION SUMMARIZING EXPENDITURES AND REVENUES BY FUND AND AMENDING THE 2017 BUDGET FOR THE TOWN OF AVON, COLORADO, FOR THE CALENDAR YEAR BEGINNING ON THE FIRST DAY OF JANUARY, 2017 AND ENDING ON THE LAST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017 WHEREAS, the Town Council of the Town of Avon has previously adopted the 2017 budget; and WHEREAS, the Town Council reviewed the revised estimated revenues and expenditures for all operating funds for 2017; and WHEREAS, the Town Council finds it necessary to amend the 2017 budget to more accurately reflect the revenues and expenditures for 2017; and WHEREAS, whatever increases may have been made in the expenditures, like increases were added to the revenues so that the budget remains in balance as required by law. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF AVON, COLORADO: Section 1. That estimated revenues and expenditures for the following funds are revised as follows for 2017: Original or Previously Amended 2017 Budget Current Proposed Amended 2017 Budget Transit Enterprise Fund Beginning Fund Balance Revenues and Other Sources Expenditures and Other Uses $ 630,441 1,884,267 1,948,359 $ 685,600 2,110,267 1,948,359 Ending Fund Balance $ 566,349 $ 625,093 Section 2. That the budget, as submitted, amended, and hereinabove summarized by fund, hereby is approved and adopted as the budget of the Town of Avon for the year stated above. ATTACHMENT 1 Res. No. 17-11 June 13, 2017 Page 2 of 2 Section 3. That the budget hereby approved and adopted shall be signed by the Mayor and made part of the public record of the Town. ADOPTED this 13th day of June, 2017. AVON TOWN COUNCIL By:___________________________ Attest:________________________ Jennie Fancher, Mayor Debbie Hoppe, Town Clerk ATTACHMENT 1 Page 1 Fund Summary Original or Adopted Amended Difference Actual Budget Budget Increase 2016 2017 2017 (Decrease) REVENUES Taxes 40,258$ 40,397$ 40,397$ -$ Intergovernmental 100,000 328,000 328,000 - Charges for Services 227,617 239,930 239,930 - Other Revenues 92,740 93,940 93,940 - Total Operating Revenues 460,615 702,267 702,267 - Other Sources Transfers In from General Fund - Operating 1,100,000 1,100,000 1,326,000 226,000 Transfers In from General Fund - Capital 34,994 82,000 82,000 - Sales of Capital Assets - - - - Total Other Sources 1,134,994 1,182,000 1,408,000 226,000 TOTAL REVENUES 1,595,609 1,884,267 2,110,267 226,000 EXPENDITURES Administration 235,867 247,060 247,060 - Operations 1,261,623 1,571,189 1,793,604 222,415 Washbay 102,413 130,110 130,110 - TOTAL EXPENDITURES 1,599,903 1,948,359 2,170,774 222,415 NET SOURCE (USE) OF FUNDS (4,294) (64,092) (60,507) 3,585 FUND BALANCES, Beginning of Year 689,894 630,441 685,600 55,159 FUND BALANCES, End of Year 685,600$ 566,349$ 625,093$ 58,744$ Transit Enterprise Fund #52 Supplemental Amendment No. 1 ATTACHMENT 2 Page 2 Revenue Detail Adopted Amended Difference Account Actual Budget Budget Increase Number Description 2016 2017 2017 (Decrease) Taxes: Property Taxes 51101 Property Tax/ Gates GID 40,190$ 40,397$ 40,397$ -$ 51103 Current & Delinquent interest 68 - - - 51000 Total Taxes 40,258 40,397 40,397 - Intergovernmental: Federal Grants: 53104 FTA Grant - 328,000 328,000 - 53205 CDOT FASTER Grant 100,000 - - - 53000 Total Intergovernmental 100,000 328,000 328,000 - Charges for Services: Transportation: 54501 Beaver Creek 104,835 125,000 125,000 - 54507 Wash Bay Services- External 75,852 68,000 68,000 - 54902 Wash Bay Services- Internal 46,930 46,930 46,930 - 54000 Total Charges for Services 227,617 239,930 239,930 - Other Revenues: 58201 Lease of Town-owned Property 63,405 73,440 73,440 - 58205 Insurance Claim Reimbursements - - - - 58995 Bus Advertising Revenues 29,335 20,500 20,500 - 58999 Miscellaneous Nonclassified Revenues - - - - 58000 Total Other Revenues 92,740 93,940 93,940 - Other Sources: 59201 Transfers In from General Fund - Operating 1,100,000 1,100,000 1,326,000 226,000 59201 Transfers In from General Fund - Capital 34,994 82,000 82,000 - 59101 Sales of Capital Assets - - - 59000 Total Other Sources 1,134,994 1,182,000 1,408,000 226,000 50000 TOTAL REVENUES 1,595,609 1,884,267 2,110,267 226,000 Transit Enterprise Fund #52 Supplemental Amendment No. 1 ATTACHMENT 2 Line Item Detail Amendment No. 1 Page 3 Function: Transportation #430 Department/Division: Transportation #430 Program: Administration #431 Original or Adopted Amended Difference Account Actual Budget Budget Increase Number Account Description 2016 2017 2017 (Decrease) Personnel: 61101 Regular Full-time Salaries 96,267$ 96,230$ 96,230$ -$ 61106 Paid-out Leave - 923 923 - 61301 FT Pension 10,240 10,687 10,687 - 61304 Employee Assistance Program 24 24 24 - 61401 FICA/Medicare 1,345 1,409 1,409 - 61501 Group Health and Life Insurance 15,795 15,696 15,696 - 61505 Long-term Disability Insurance 497 497 497 - 61507 Dental Insurance 1,242 1,228 1,228 - 61509 Worker's Compensation 4,486 4,702 4,702 - 61510 Unemployment Insurance 279 290 290 - 61000 Total Personnel 130,175 131,686 131,686 - Commodities: 62208 Mechanical - HVAC Supplies 915 1,050 1,050 - 62801 Employee Recognition Expenses - 25 25 - 62899 Other Miscellaneous Operating Supplies 622 500 500 - 62999 Office Supplies and Materials 602 500 500 - 62000 Total Commodities 2,139 2,075 2,075 - Contract Services: 63203 Printing and Reproduction 6,008 6,720 6,720 - 63306 Security Services 1,928 2,100 2,100 - 63501 R&M - Buildings and Facilities 17,331 23,665 23,665 - 63504 R&M - Office Equipment and Computers 417 150 150 - 63599 Other Maintenance Services 806 847 847 - 63603 Rentals - Office Equipment 1,379 1,200 1,200 - 63999 Other Contract Services 165 1,200 1,200 - 63000 Total Contract Services 28,034 35,882 35,882 - Other Operating Costs: 64101 Professional Development 1,242 500 500 - 64201 Telephone 2,475 2,500 2,500 - 64202 Gas 18,283 25,356 25,356 - 64203 Electric 31,914 29,724 29,724 - 64204 Water and Sanitation 4,680 4,500 4,500 - 64301 Postage and Delivery Costs 3 75 75 - 64303 Treasurer Fees 1,208 1,186 1,186 - 64401 Fleet Maintenance 798 - - - 64901 Advertising and Legal Notices 304 - - - 64905 Insurance Premiums 13,644 13,576 13,576 - 64000 Total Other Operating Costs 74,551 77,417 77,417 - Capital Outlay 66402 Computers and Peripherals 968 - - - 66000 Total Capital Outlay 968 - - - 60000 Total Expenditures 235,867$ 247,060$ 247,060$ -$ ATTACHMENT 2 Line Item Detail Amendment No. 1 Page 4 Function: Transportation #430 Department/Division: Transportation #430 Program: Operations #432 Original or Adopted Amended Difference Account Actual Budget Budget Increase Number Account Description 2016 2017 2017 (Decrease) Personnel: 61101 Regular Full-time Salaries 244,681$ 247,460$ 247,460$ -$ 61106 Paid-out Leave 1,304 2,439 2,439 - 61121 PTS Wages 135,418 107,500 208,600 101,100 61122 PTS Bonuses 4,272 6,472 6,472 - 61151 Overtime Wages 3,125 5,510 5,510 - 61202 Ski Pass 769 - - - 61301 FT Pension 26,659 27,489 27,489 - 61302 PTS Pension 5,226 4,031 4,031 - 61304 Employee Assistance Program 116 110 110 - 61401 FICA/Medicare 5,472 5,356 5,356 - 61501 Group Health and Life Insurance 83,750 79,488 79,488 - 61505 Long-term Disability Insurance 2,167 2,180 2,180 - 61507 Dental Insurance 7,059 6,802 6,802 - 61509 Worker's Compensation 18,954 18,075 18,075 - 61510 Unemployment Insurance 1,153 1,108 1,108 - 61000 Total Personnel 540,125 514,020 615,120 101,100 Commodities: 62401 Gasoline 14,598 15,000 17,500 2,500 62402 Diesel 43,470 50,000 50,000 - 62801 Employee Recognition Expense - 180 180 - 62802 Food and Beverages 1,283 1,000 1,000 - 62805 Clothing and Uniforms 1,207 1,847 1,847 - 62899 Other Miscellaneous Operating Supplies - - 5,500 5,500 62000 Total Commodities 60,558 68,027 76,027 8,000 Contract Services: 63301 Medical Services and Examinations 2,280 2,750 2,750 - 63506 R&M - Radios and Communications Equipment 6,970 8,209 8,209 - 63999 Other Contract Services - - 157,900 157,900 63000 Total Contract Services 9,250 10,959 168,859 157,900 Other Operating Costs: 64102 Dues, Licenses and Memberships 2,306 3,392 3,392 - 64206 Cellular & Paging 851 840 840 - 64401 Fleet Maintenance Charges 163,705 129,433 129,433 - 64402 Equipment Replacement Charges 45,904 48,828 48,828 - 64403 Washbay Charges 24,102 24,102 24,102 - 64902 Financial Support, Donations, and Contributions 219,608 249,468 249,468 - 64000 Total Other Operating Costs 456,476 456,063 456,063 - ATTACHMENT 2 Line Item Detail Amendment No. 1 Page 5 Function: Transportation #430 Department/Division: Transportation #430 Program: Operations #432 Original or Adopted Amended Difference Account Actual Budget Budget Increase Number Account Description 2016 2017 2017 (Decrease) Debt Service: 65201 Capital Lease Payments 60,220 60,220 60,220 - 65000 Total Debt Service 60,220 60,220 60,220 - Capital Outlay: 66402 Computers and Peripherals - 1,900 1,900 - 66503 Buses and Transportation Related Vehicles 134,994 410,000 415,415 5,415 66000 Total Capital Outlay 134,994 411,900 417,315 5,415 Contingency 68801 Contingency - 50,000 - (50,000) 60000 Total Expenditures 1,261,623 1,571,189 1,793,604 222,415 ATTACHMENT 2 Line Item Detail Amendment No. 1 Page 6 Function: Transportation #430 Department/Division: Transportation #430 Program: Washbay #436 Original or Adopted Amended Difference Account Actual Budget Budget Increase Number Account Description 2016 2017 2017 (Decrease) Personnel: 61101 Regular Full-time Salaries 35,177$ 44,693$ 44,693$ -$ 61106 Paid-out Leave 237 444 444 - 61121 PTS Wages 4,523 6,047 6,047 - 61122 PTS Bonuses - 809 809 - 61151 Overtime Wages - 336 336 - 61301 FT Pension 3,896 4,965 4,965 - 61302 PTS Pension 170 227 227 - 61304 Employee Assistance Program 22 24 24 - 61401 FICA/Medicare 584 759 759 - 61501 Group Health and Life Insurance 3,489 181 181 - 61505 Long-term Disability Insurance 394 409 409 - 61507 Dental Insurance 256 - - - 61509 Worker's Compensation 1,916 2,507 2,507 - 61510 Unemployment Insurance 120 157 157 - 61000 Total Personnel 50,784 61,558 61,558 - Commodities: 62208 Mechanical - HVAC - 500 500 - 62899 Other Miscellaneous Operating Supplies 6,426 9,050 9,050 - 62000 Total Commodities 6,426 9,550 9,550 - Contract Services: 63501 R&M - Buildings and Facilities 8,536 12,065 12,065 - 63549 R&M - Other Specialized Equipment - 4,000 4,000 - 63999 Other Contract Services 4,250 8,500 8,500 - 63000 Total Contract Services 12,786 24,565 24,565 - Other Operating Costs: 64201 Telephone 1,513 1,500 1,500 - 64204 Water & Sanitation 8,668 9,500 9,500 - 64205 Trash Collection & Recyling - 1,200 1,200 - 64402 Equipment Replacement Charges 22,236 22,237 22,237 - 64000 Total Other Operating Costs 32,417 34,437 34,437 - 60000 Total Expenditures 102,413 130,110 130,110 - ATTACHMENT 2 Heil Law & Planning, LLC Office: 970.468.0635 1022 Summit Drive Dillon, CO 80435 E-Mail: eric@heillaw.com e-mail: ericheillaw@yahoo.com H EIL L AW TO: Honorable Mayor Fancher and Town Council members FROM: Eric J. Heil, Town Attorney RE: Ord No 17-09 Authorizing a Collection Agency for Municipal Court Fines DATE: June 8, 2017 SUMMARY: Ordinance No. 17-09 is presented to Council for second and final reading. Ord. No. 17- 09 authorizes the use of a collection agency for municipal court fines that are not paid. This practice has become more common to increase the collection of outstanding fines. Also, the Colorado legislature recently adopted HB 16-1311 which prohibits the issuance of an arrest warrant for failure to pay unless a hearing is first held to determine if the defendant has the ability to pay based on statutory criteria for evaluation. Ord. No. 17-09 allows the collection company fee to be added to the fine in the maximum amount of 25% of the fine. Judge Allen has recommended the use of a collection agency in lieu of arrest warrants. I concur with this recommendation because compliance with the new hearing requirements before issuing an arrest warrant for failure to pay will increase municipal court administrative duties and is not cost effective. A contract has been negotiated with Integral Recoveries, Inc., which is based in Englewood, CO. Integral Recoveries currently provides municipal court collection services for several municipalities in Colorado. PROPOSED MOTION: “I move to approve Ordinance No. 17-09 Amending Chapter 2.08 Municipal Court of the Avon Municipal Code.” Thank you, Eric ATTACHMENT: Ordinance No. 17-09 M EMORANDUM & PLANNING, LLC Ord 17-09 Amending Chapter 2.08 Avon Municipal Code FINAL – June 13, 2017 Page 1 of 3 TOWN OF AVON, COLORADO ORDINANCE 17-09 AMENDING CHAPTER 2.08 MUNICIPAL COURT OF THE AVON MUNICIPAL CODE WHEREAS, the Avon Town Council finds that the efficient collection of municipal court fines and fees is essential to the function of the Avon Municipal Court; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to C.R.S. §31-15-103 and §31-15-104, and pursuant to the home rule powers of the Town of Avon (the “Town”), the Town Council has the power to adopt ordinances for promotion and preservation of public health, safety, and welfare; and WHEREAS, approval of this Ordinance on First Reading is intended only to confirm that the Town Council desires to comply with the requirements of the Avon Home Rule Charter by setting a public hearing in order to provide the public an opportunity to present testimony and evidence regarding the application and that approval of this Ordinance on First Reading does not constitute a representation that the Town Council, or any member of the Town Council, supports, approves, rejects, or denies this Ordinance. NOW, THERFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF AVON, COLORADO the following: Section 1. Recitals Incorporated. The above and foregoing recitals are incorporated herein by reference and adopted as findings and determinations of the Town Council. Section 2. Amendment to Chapter 2.08 of the Avon Municipal Code. Chapter 2.08 of the Avon Municipal Code is hereby amended by enacting a new Section 2.08.130 Use of Collection Agency, to read as follows: “2.08.130 Use of collection agency. To collect on past due municipal court orders of fines or fees, the Town Manager is authorized to enter into one or more contracts with collection agencies, provided such contracts are subject to annual budget and appropriation. Any fees and costs of a collection agency shall be added to the amount due provided that such fees and costs shall not exceed twenty-five (25%) percent of the amount collected.” Section 3. Codification Amendments. The codifier of the Town’s Municipal Code, Colorado Code Publishing, is hereby authorized to make such numerical and formatting changes as may be necessary to incorporate the provisions of this Ordinance within the Avon Municipal Code. The Town Clerk is authorized to correct, or approve the correction by the codifier, of any typographical error in the enacted regulations, provided that such correction shall not Ord 17-09 Amending Chapter 2.08 Avon Municipal Code FINAL – June 13, 2017 Page 2 of 3 substantively change any provision of the regulations adopted in this Ordinance. Such corrections may include spelling, reference, citation, enumeration, and grammatical errors. Section 4. Severability. If any provision of this Ordinance, or the application of such provision to any person or circumstance, is for any reason held to be invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of this Ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this Ordinance are declared to be severable. The Town Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each provision thereof, even though any one of the provisions might be declared unconstitutional or invalid. As used in this Section, the term “provision” means and includes any part, division, subdivision, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase; the term “application” means and includes an application of an ordinance or any part thereof, whether considered or construed alone or together with another ordinance or ordinances, or part thereof, of the Town. Section 5. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after the date of final passage in accordance with Section 6.4 of the Avon Home Rule Charter. Section 6. Safety Clause. The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this Ordinance is promulgated under the general police power of the Town of Avon, that it is promulgated for the health, safety and welfare of the public, and that this Ordinance is necessary for the preservation of health and safety and for the protection of public convenience and welfare. The Town Council further determines that the Ordinance bears a rational relation to the proper legislative object sought to be obtained. Section 7. No Existing Violation Affected. Nothing in this Ordinance shall be construed to release, extinguish, alter, modify, or change in whole or in part any penalty, liability or right or affect any audit, suit, or proceeding pending in any court, or any rights acquired, or liability incurred, or any cause or causes of action acquired or existing which may have been incurred or obtained under any ordinance or provision hereby repealed or amended by this Ordinance. Any such ordinance or provision thereof so amended, repealed, or superseded by this Ordinance shall be treated and held as remaining in force for the purpose of sustaining any and all proper actions, suits, proceedings and prosecutions, for the enforcement of such penalty, liability, or right, and for the purpose of sustaining any judgment, decree or order which can or may be rendered, entered, or made in such actions, suits or proceedings, or prosecutions imposing, inflicting, or declaring such penalty or liability or enforcing such right, and shall be treated and held as remaining in force for the purpose of sustaining any and all proceedings, actions, hearings, and appeals pending before any court or administrative tribunal. Section 8. Publication. The Town Clerk is ordered to publish this Ordinance in accordance with Chapter 1.16 of the Avon Municipal Code. [SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS] Ord 17-09 Amending Chapter 2.08 Avon Municipal Code FINAL – June 13, 2017 Page 3 of 3 INTRODUCED AND ADOPTED ON FIRST READING AND REFERRED TO PUBLIC HEARING on May 23, 2017 and setting such public hearing for June 13, 2017 at the Council Chambers of the Avon Municipal Building, located at One Lake Street, Avon, Colorado. BY: ATTEST: ____________________________ ___________________________ Jennie Fancher, Mayor Debbie Hoppe, Town Clerk ADOPTED ON SECOND AND FINAL READING on June 13, 2017. BY: ATTEST: ____________________________ ____________________________ Jennie Fancher, Mayor Debbie Hoppe, Town Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: ____________________________ Eric J. Heil, Town Attorney TOWN OF AVON, COLORADO AVON REGULAR MEETING MINUTES FOR TUESDAY, MAY 23, 2017 AVON TOWN HALL, ONE LAKE STREET Page 1 1. A CALL TO ORDER & ROLL CALL Mayor Fancher called the meeting to order at 5:13 p.m. A roll call was taken and Council members present were Scott Prince, Sarah Smith Hymes, Amy Phillips, and Megan Burch. Council members Matt Gennett and Jake Wolf were absent. Also present were Town Manager Virginia Egger, Town Attorney Eric Heil, Police Chief Greg Daly, Recreation Director John Curutchet, Executive Assistant to the Town Manager Preston Neill and Deputy Town Clerk Brenda Torres. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mayor Fancher requested that item 6.1 be pushed until Markian with Walking Mountains Science Center arrives at the meeting. Council agreed to the change. 3. MEETING PROCEDURES FOR THE MEETING OF MAY 23, 2017 3.1. ACTION I TEMS • PRESENTATION OF ITEM • PUBLIC COMMENT – THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT ALLOWED TO EACH PERSON WISHING TO SPEAK, UNLESS MAJORITY OF COUNCIL AGREES TO A LONGER TIME • COUNCIL DISCUSSION • MOTION • COUNCIL DISCUSSION • VOTE 3.2. WORK SESSION AND PRESENTATIONS • PRESENTATION OF ITEM • COUNCIL DISCUSSION • PUBLIC COMMENT – THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT ALLOWED TO EACH PERSON WISHING TO SPEAK, UNLESS MAJORITY OF COUNCIL AGREES TO A LONGER TIME • COUNCIL DIRECTION 4. PUBLIC COMMENT – COMMENTS ARE WELCOME ON ITEMS NOT LISTED ON THE FOLLOWING AGENDA Start time: 11:31 Kathy Ryan made a request that the Town maintain Nottingham Lake better by not allowing buoys, other than for swimming. 5. EAGLE RIVER FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT PRESENTATION (KARL BAUER, ERFPD FIRE CHIEF) Start time: 15:09 Councilor Gennett arrived at 5:50 p.m. Representatives of ERFPD, including Fire Chief Karl Bauer, delivered a presentation that included all of the topics listed below. Also involved in the presentation was Barry Smith, Emergency management Director for Eagle County, and Greg Daly, Chief of Avon Police. TOWN OF AVON, COLORADO AVON REGULAR MEETING MINUTES FOR TUESDAY, MAY 23, 2017 AVON TOWN HALL, ONE LAKE STREET Page 2 • Current assessment of general preparedness for Wildfire in the Wildridge Subdivision • Media/ PIO processes/procedures for evacuation • Evacuation procedures for Wildridge • Declaration processes and procedures 6. ACTION ITEMS Start time: 78:00 6.2. PUBLIC HEARING SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE 17-06, APPROVING THE TOWN OF AVON COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, DATED APRIL, 2017, A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION (PLANNING DIRECTOR MATT PIELSTICKER) Councilor Gennett moved to approve second reading of Ordinance 17-06, thereby approving the Town of Avon Comprehensive Plan, dated May 2017, a Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application. Councilor Phillips seconded the motion at it passed unanimously by Council present. Council member Wolf was absent. 6.3. ACTION ON APPROPRIATING FUNDING AND ESTABLISHING THE PROCESS FOR USING FUNDS FOR A ONE-DAY AND/OR TWO-DAY MUSIC CONCERT (TOWN MANAGER VIRGINIA EGGER) Start time: 81:05 Councilor Gennett made a motion to approve all of the elements of the proposed motion. The motion received a second by Councilor Burch. Councilor Phillips proposed two amendments to the motion: 1) eliminate Labor Day weekend from consideration, and 2) add a stipulation that any request over $35,000 would require the Town Manager to poll the Town Council to seek a majority. Councilor Burch offered revisions to the motion that included the following: 1) strike #4 entirely, 2) strike "to make a recommendation to the Town Council..." under #3, and 3) amend #3 to begin with "Authorize a minimum of any three (3) members..." Councilor Burch's proposed revisions were accepted by the maker of the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 5 to 1. Councilor Prince voted no. Councilor Wolf was absent. Here's the motion that was approved: I move to approve, in support of the Ad Hoc Special Events Committee’s recommendation, made on May 3, 2017, that the Town Council: 1. Appropriate $70,000.oo from the General Fund Special Event Reserve Budget to underwrite a one day and/or two-day major music event at the Avon Pavilion, and appropriate use of the funds, as may be determined by the Town Manager, should any portion or all of the funds be required; 2. Grant use of the Avon Pavilion and Harry A. Nottingham Park premises, on any of the following dates: • August 11 – 13 • August 26 (for MLT concert only) • September 1 – 3 (Labor Day) • September 15 – 17 • September 22 -24 TOWN OF AVON, COLORADO AVON REGULAR MEETING MINUTES FOR TUESDAY, MAY 23, 2017 AVON TOWN HALL, ONE LAKE STREET Page 3 3. Authorize a minimum of any three (3) members of the Ad Hoc Special Events Committee to meet with the Town Manager, her designees, and the independent contractor, who wishes to make an offer to any band or bands, prior to an offer being tendered. 6.4. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE 17-09, AMENDING AVON MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 2.08 ALLOWING THE U SE OF A COLLECTION AGENCY TO COLLECT UNPAID FINES OR FEES IN THE MUNICIPAL COURT (TOWN ATTORNEY ERIC HEIL) Start time: 121:04 Council Phillips moved to approve the first reading of Ordinance 17-09, amending Avon Municipal Code section 2.08 allowing the use of a collection agency to collect unpaid fines or fees in the Municipal court. Mayor Pro Tem Smith Hymes seconded the motion and it passed unanimously by Council present. Councilor Wolf was absent. 6.5. CONSENT AGENDA Start time: 125:51 6.5.1. APPROVAL OF A LETTER OF SUPPORT FOR A NONBINDING FUTURE RENEWABLE ENERGY PURCHASE FROM THE 2018 COMMUNITY SOLAR PROJECT (ASSISTANT TO THE TOWN MANAGER PRESTON NEILL) 6.5.2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM THE MAY 9, 2017 MEETING (TOWN CLERK DEBBIE HOPPE) Mayor Pro Tem Smith Hymes moved to approve the Consent Agenda. Councilor Burch seconded the motion and it passed unanimously by Council present. Council Wolf was absent. 6.1. WALKING MOUNTAINS SCIENCE CENTER’S REQUEST FOR A REBATE OF REAL ESTATE TRANSFER TAX (TOWN ATTORNEY ERIC HEIL) Start time: 126:30 This item took place after the Consent Agenda. Councilor Prince made a motion to approve the request for the portion of the property that is subject to a conservation easement and preserved as undeveloped open space in perpetuity (60.3% of property is subject to conservation easement, which would equate to a proportional rebate of $22,914). Additionally, the remaining amount, $15,086, would go to the General Fund Contingency Line Item. The motion was seconded by Councilor Gennett but failed on a vote of 2 to 4. Mayor Fancher, Mayor Pro Tem Smith Hymes, Councilor Phillips and Councilor Burch voted no. Councilor Wolf was absent. Councilor Phillips made a motion to approve Resolution No. 17-10 Approving a Rebate of Real Estate Transfer Taxes, in full, to Walking Mountains Science Center. Her motion conditioned that the money would go to Walking Mountains' Capital Improvements Budget and that the Town of Avon would be given credit for the amount rebated. The motion was seconded and passed on a vote of 6 to 0. Councilor Wolf was absent. 7. WORK SESSION Start time: 146:45 7.1. PRESENTATION OF THE STRATEGY TO PURSUE A CREATIVE DISTRICT CERTIFICATION, INCLUDING DIRECTION ON INTERIM U SES FOR THE AVON FIRE STATION (COUNCILOR AMY PHILLIPS) TOWN OF AVON, COLORADO AVON REGULAR MEETING MINUTES FOR TUESDAY, MAY 23, 2017 AVON TOWN HALL, ONE LAKE STREET Page 4 A work session was held to present a strategy to pursue a Creative District Designation, added as a Tier One Priority in the Town of Avon 2017-18 Strategic Plan. Specifically, Council discussed repurposing the Avon Fire Station as an Art space. A site tour by Town staff showed promise that the facility, in whole or in part, could be transitioned into an Art space for a community of artists with live/work options, affordable housing, artist in residence programs and creative entrepreneurialism. The Avon Fire Station building will be returned to the Town by ERFPD on or before January 1, 2018. 7.2. DIRECTION ON APPROACH FOR INTERIM USES FOR THE WILDRIDGE FIRE STATION (TOWN MANAGER VIRGINIA EGGER) Council discussed future uses of the Wildridge Fire Station, which will be returned to the Town of Avon by ERFPD on or before January 1, 2018. While it is an important property being evaluated for future uses through the Town Owned Properties Study, it appears an interim use should be considered. Town staff toured the property recently, and determined the building is in good shape and the second floor, complete with two housing units, could be used for employee housing. Council felt that the first floor should be a community space of some sort. 7.3. DIRECTION FOR SOLICITATION OF INTERESTED BUSINESSES FOR OCCUPATION OF 1,100 SQUARE FEET OF AVAILABLE FINISHED SPACE ON THE SECOND FLOOR OF THE NEW TOWN HALL (TOWN MANAGER VIRGINIA EGGER) Direction was provided for staff to gather more information, to have a conversation with Vail Centre about how they have structured and manage the Basecamp facility, and to reach out to non-profit organizations to see if there is any interest in occupying the space. Staff will also find statistics on how many similar spaces are going for. 8. WRITTEN REPORT 8.1. SUMMARY OF UPPER EAGLE REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY APRIL 27, 2017, REGULAR BOARD MEETING 8.2. MONTHLY FINANCIALS REPORT (SENIOR ACCOUNTANT M ARTHA ANDERSON) 9. MAYOR & COUNCIL COMMENTS & MEETING UPDATES Start time: 194:30 Mayor Fancher mentioned Coffee with a Cop will be Monday, May 29th. Mayor Pro Tem Smith Hymes updated Council on the Climate Communities Summit and the Compact of Colorado Communities. 10. ADJOURNMENT TOWN OF AVON, COLORADO AVON REGULAR MEETING MINUTES FOR TUESDAY, MAY 23, 2017 AVON TOWN HALL, ONE LAKE STREET Page 5 There being no further business to come before the Council, Mayor Fancher moved to adjourn the regular meeting. The time was 8:29 p.m. These minutes are only a summary of the proceedings of the meeting. They are not intended to be comprehensive or to include each statement, person speaking or to portray with complete accuracy. The most accurate records of the meeting are the audio of the meeting, which is housed in the Town Clerk’s office, and the video of the meeting, which is available at www.highfivemedia.org. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: ________________________________ Brenda Torres, Deputy Town Clerk APPROVED: Jennie Fancher ________________________________ Sarah Smith Hymes ________________________________ Jake Wolf ________________________________ Megan Burch ________________________________ Matt Gennett ________________________________ Scott Prince ________________________________ Amy Phillips ________________________________ TOWN OF AVON, COLORADO AVON SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES FOR THURSDAY, MAY 25, 2017 AVON REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION FACILITY, 500 SWIFT GULCH ROAD Page 1 1. A CALL TO ORDER & ROLL CALL Mayor Fancher called the meeting to order at 5:42 p.m. A roll call was taken and Council members present were Amy Phillips, Scott Prince, Sarah Smith Hymes, Megan Burch, Matt Gennett and Jake Wolf. Also present were Town Attorney Eric Heil, CIRSA General Counsel Tami Tanoue and Executive Assistant to the Town Manager Preston Neill. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA No changes to the agenda were requested. 3. PUBLIC COMMENT No comments were made. 4. EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR DISCUSSION OF A PERSONNEL MATTER UNDER C.R.S. §24-6 -402(2)(F) AND FOR A CONFERENCE WITH THE TOWN ATTORNEY FOR THE PURPOSE OF RECEIVING LEGAL ADVICE REGARDING PERSONNEL MATTERS UNDER C.R.S. §24-6-402(2)(B) Mayor Fancher moved to convene into Executive Session for discussion of a personnel matter under C.R.S. §24-6-402(2)(F) and for a conference with the Town Attorney for the purpose of receiving legal advice regarding personnel matters under C.R.S. §24-6-402(2)(B). Mayor Pro Tem Smith Hymes seconded the motion and it passed on a vote of 6 to 1. Councilor Wolf voted no. The time was 5:44 p.m. Council convened into Executive Session at 5:45 p.m. Preston Neill, Executive Assistant to the Town Manager, left the room at 5:46 p.m. Executive Session ended at 7:50 p.m. 10. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Council, Mayor Fancher moved to adjourn the regular meeting. Mayor Pro Tem Smith Hymes seconded the motion and it passed unanimously by Council members present. The time was 7:50 p.m. TOWN OF AVON, COLORADO AVON SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES FOR THURSDAY, MAY 25, 2017 AVON REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION FACILITY, 500 SWIFT GULCH ROAD Page 2 These minutes are only a summary of the proceedings of the meeting. They are not intended to be comprehensive or to include each statement, person speaking or to portray with complete accuracy. The most accurate records of the meeting are the audio of the meeting, which is housed in the Town Clerk’s office, and the video of the meeting, which is available at www.highfivemedia.org. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: ______________________________________ Preston Neill, Assistant to the Town Manager APPROVED: Jennie Fancher ________________________________ Sarah Smith Hymes ________________________________ Jake Wolf ________________________________ Megan Burch ________________________________ Matt Gennett ________________________________ Scott Prince ________________________________ Amy Phillips ________________________________ TOWN COUNCIL REPORT To: Honorable Mayor Jennie Fancher and Avon Town Council From: Scott Wright, Assistant Town Manager Robert McKenner, IT Administrator Virginia C. Egger, Town Manager Meeting Date: June 13, 2017 Agenda Topic: REVIEW OF BROADBAND OPPORTUNITIES AND REQUIREMENT FOR A BALLOT QUESTION FOR VOTER APPROVAL TO PROVIDE SERVICE TO PUBLIC OR PRIVATE SECTOR SUBSCRIBERS ACTION BEFORE COUNCIL Council is asked to provide direction regarding whether a ballot measure should be considered for the November 7, 2017, election to seek an exemption from the prohibitions of Senate Bill (SB) 05 - 152. BACKGROUND The adopted 2017-2018 Town of Avon Strategic Plan, as a Tier 1 priority, directs Town staff to: Participate in the Mountain Connect broadband community; develop a program to ensure fiber is proactively developed in Avon as growth occurs. [PROVIDE A RESPONSIVE, CUTTING-EDGE & EFFECTIVE GOVERNMENT]. On February 21, 2017, Aspen Wireless / Vail Wireless, represented by Mr. Darrin Mylet, emailed Town Council about his interest to begin discussions with Avon about how to build a Gigabit fiber and wireless broadband infrastructure. The companies have built gigabit networks for the Town of Vail and federal agencies. On February 22nd, Town Manager Virginia Egger responded to Mr. Mylet, copying Council and stating she would begin to work immediately with Avon’s staff on the invitation. Since that time, Town staff has met with Mr. Mylet and members of his engineering and marketing team, organized as Fiber Wireless Operating Networks Inc. (FWON) dba Avon Broadband, to research a “smart city” broadband backhaul (aka middle mile) system for the Town of Avon. Council has been apprised of the progress of the work through Council Updates. Town staff working on the project includes IT Manager Robert McKenner, Assistant Town Manager Scott Wright, Planning Director Matt Pielsticker, Executive Assistant to the Town Manager Preston Neill and Town Manager Virginia Egger. Town Attorney Eric Heil has been available for legal questions. The status of the work, as of June 7, 2017, is as follows: 1. Town Council approved funding for a looped fiber system for the Town’s largest facilities: Fleet, Transit, Recreation Center, Nottingham Park and new town hall. Town data demand will be less than one gigabit, however, the fiber capacity of the Town’s system can exceed one terabyte. The fiber loop will be completed this year. 2. The excess fiber capacity is available to support a backhaul system. Broadband delivery is quickly evolving with new wireless transmissions possible from point to point line of sight components. 3. Town staff met with the Town of Vail IT staff to learn about Vail’s broadband system. Page 1 of 3 4. Town staff recommended to FWON that the following priorities for broadband development be pursued: Phase 1:  Reliable public WIFI in all public spaces, including outdoor areas, including the mall, bus shelters and Town buses  Information kiosks at the new Town Hall, park and mall  Public Works employees access to “PubWorks” applications with tablets  Access the electronic welcome sign at Town entry from Town offices for changes  Smart street lighting  Key locations for security cameras  Electric car charging stations administration of billing  Irrigation system management  Parking management technology  Provide cost estimate and include funding options with Town, public/private, and no Town contribution for broadband development Phase 2: Expansion to Avon’s business and residential properties throughout the Town’s municipal boundary would be prioritized. Provide assessment of broadband needs for autonomous vehicles as a longer term objective. 5. FWON has developed a proposal to construct the first phases of a Town of Avon – Gigabit Smart City broadband plan. This proprietary draft indicates that broadband development can meet both the Town’s needs and bring high-speed connections to residential and businesses throughout Town in multiple phases. Public and public/private funding options must be considered. SB 05-152 REGULATING MUNICIPAL BROADBAND SERVICES At the Mayor/Manager’s May 12th meeting, the topic of broadband development was on the agenda. Mayor Fancher and I learned at that time that if Avon desires to move forward with broadband development for other public and private users, the Town must first seek voter approval to exempt the Town from the provisions of SB 05-152. SB 05-152 restricts the provision of municipal broadband to any “subscribers” without voter approval. Attachment 1 summarizes important elements to pursue a SB 05-152 exemption, which have been provided by the Colorado Municipal League. The Council must make a decision to place a question on the ballot not later than July 28, 2017. The final ballot question must be certified by September 8, 2017. Integral to placing a question is the Town’s commitment to providing balanced and complete information of the reasons for the exemption question. Attachment 2 is a proposed question based upon the most recently approved questions from the cities of Central City, Colorado Springs, Arvada and Aspen. Included in the list is Colorado Springs, with revisions, recommended by Town Attorney Eric Heil. Summary Pursuing the development of a gigabit broadband backhaul for the needs of the public and, when appropriate, the private residential and commercial users of Avon should be considered as an important Page 2 of 3 priority to support economic development and the vibrancy of public spaces use in Avon. Based upon the FWON proprietary work the Town, with its investment in the looping fiber network for municipal facilities, is positioned to take advantage of new technology at relatively low cost to begin implementing phased public use priorities. The first decision, however, is determining whether the Town Council wishes to seek voter approval for a SB 05-125 exemption, by July 28th. Council will have regular meetings on July 11 and July 25th to consider that action. Continuing work on a broadband system, including development of a Request for Proposals, for project design, phasing and financing can proceed, if Council feels this is the best approach at this time. The RFP would not be issued until after approval of a ballot question. Representatives from FWON will be attending the Council work session to answer any questions. Attachment 1 SB05-152 Opt-Out Kit: A Local Government Blueprint for Improving Broadband Service in Your Community, CML, May 2017 Attachment 2 Sample Ballot Questions Page 3 of 3 SB05-152 Opt-Out Kit: A Local Government Blueprint for Improving Broadband Service in Your Community May 2017 ATTACHMENT 1 Introduction In order to compete in today’s economy, communities across the state have become increasingly dependent on Internet access – and especially high-capacity (“broadband”) access - for business development and operations. The availability of broadband has also become a necessity for quality of life and desirability of a community, providing residents access to things like online education and distance learning opportunities, telemedicine and entertainment content (movies, music, etc.). Broadband has become so critical, in fact, that many now regard it as a basic infrastructure need - on par with roads, water systems and energy grids. Unfortunately, numerous communities across Colorado still lack adequate Internet connectivity. The reasons vary, but more often than not these areas are too sparsely populated, too remote or in regions where the topography (mountainous terrain, etc.) makes expanding service difficult and expensive for telecommunication providers. These communities are “upside down” from a traditional business model standpoint, and providers are unable or unwilling to connect these areas, leaving them at an economic disadvantage from their more urbanized neighbors. While local governments often play a direct role in economic development efforts, cities and counties historically have not been directly involved in the delivery of retail telecommunication services. However, the increasing demand for broadband service – often driven by economic development concerns - has forced many local government officials to reexamine their role in the provision of broadband services. In the last few years, a growing number of local governments have started looking at investing public dollars in broadband infrastructure improvements (usually fiber optic cable lines or cell towers) in order to attract Internet providers and enhance economic development efforts in their region. The Department of Local Affairs has also heard these community concerns, and has expanded its existing broadband planning grant program to include funds for local government investments in “middle mile” broadband infrastructure. SB 152 and Statutory Prohibitions on Local Government Broadband Infrastructure One of the biggest impediments to local governments enhancing broadband infrastructure is a law passed in 2005, which has since been commonly referred to as “Senate Bill (SB) 152” (SB05-152, attached to this memorandum and codified at sections 29-27-101-304, C.R.S.). SB 152 prohibits most uses of municipal or county money for infrastructure to improve local broadband service, without first going to a vote of the people. The hurdles put in place by this statute are not insurmountable; indeed, in the past few years 68 municipalities and 28 counties have placed measures on the ballot to override the prohibitions in SB 152. These measures have passed handily in virtually every jurisdiction - with the support of citizens who are frustrated and want timely action on broadband service in their communities. Continued dissatisfaction over a lack of adequate broadband is resulting in more and more jurisdictions considering going to the ballot with SB 152 questions. During the last few years, CML and CCI have been meeting with local government officials, economic development professionals, state agency representatives and telecommunication experts from jurisdictions whose voters have approved SB 152 questions at the ballot. This opt-out kit is designed to help interested local government officials and staff to frame the issue as they consider their own ballot questions and work toward improving broadband service in their communities. 2 SB 152 Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ’s) What does a SB 152 election accomplish? SB 152 requires that an election be held before a local government may “engage or offer to engage in providing” various telecommunication services. The term “providing” is given an expansive definition in the statute, which restricts both the direct and “indirect” provision of service (“indirect”, in turn, is given its own, broadly restrictive definition). Fortunately, through a successful SB 152 election, a local community can clear away this legal impediment to a wide variety of local broadband initiatives. It is important to point out that the vast majority of local governments who have passed SB 152 questions (or are considering going to the ballot in the near future) are not interested in hooking up homes and businesses and providing actual broadband services themselves. By and large, these jurisdictions are working to enhance local broadband infrastructure in order to attract private sector service providers who would otherwise be unwilling or unable to serve their communities. The local broadband initiatives in the jurisdictions passing SB 152 questions to date usually involve some form of public-private partnerships between local governments, economic development agencies and the industry. Is referring a SB 152 question to the ballot expensive? No more so than any other referred measure. Most jurisdictions have referred their questions when the municipality or county was already having an election. Accordingly, the addition of the SB 152 issue did not significantly increase costs. In a coordinated election, a particular jurisdiction’s costs would be affected by the terms of the IGA regarding election cost allocation between the county and participating local governments. Are there any restrictions on referring SB-152 ballot measures in odd-numbered year coordinated elections? Apparently not. A wide number of locally-referred questions have been submitted to voters in coordinated elections conducted in odd-numbered years in Colorado. Local governments have regularly referred TABOR questions and home rule charter amendment ballot questions to the voters in odd-numbered years, and this practice is explicitly authorized in C.R.S. § 1-41-103. Additionally, the Attorney General issued an opinion in 1999 (No. 99-8 AG Alpha No. HE CS AGAWD) which concluded that local governments may refer ballot questions on term limits in odd- numbered years as well. Odd-year ballot questions dealing with issues outside of TABOR, charter amendments and term limits are less common, but have been referred fairly regularly by local elected 3 officials over the years without challenge. The language in SB 152 (specifically C.R.S. § 29-27- 201(1)) requires that “Before a local government may engage in providing…telecommunications service, or advanced service, an election shall be called on whether or not the local government shall provide the proposed…service." This authorizing language is broad in nature, and does not appear to limit the ballot question to the general election ballot. Again, local government officials are advised to consult with legal counsel in the development of these ballot questions. What sort of election specifics does SB 152 require? Not many. SB 152 specifies four requirements for ballot questions in a SB 152 election. (See: C.R.S. § 29-27-201(2)) The ballot: (1) Shall pose the question as a “single subject”, (2) Shall include a description of the “nature of the proposed service,” (3) Shall include a description of “the role that the local government will have in the provision of the service,” and (4) Shall include a description of the “intended subscribers of such service.” How have other jurisdictions addressed these requirements? A review of the ballot questions put forth by local governments so far (included below) shows a clear preference for broad “anything and everything” type authority. Industry representatives have complained from time to time that such local ballot language has lacked the specificity required by the statute. This notion has never been tested in court. One might also argue that a “broad authority” question that describes the nature of the service proposed, along with potential future build-outs or applications, is not fatally flawed by its inclusion of the latter. Furthermore, courts have been traditionally hesitant to reverse the will of the voters, if evident. Obviously, the development of local SB 152 ballot language should be done in close consultation with legal counsel. What about the “single subject” requirement? The term “single subject” is not defined in SB 152. Nonetheless, the ballot questions submitted by local governments thus far seem comfortably within the single subject standard applied to statewide ballot initiatives, in cases such as In the Matter of the Ballot Title and Submission Clause for 2013- 2014 #129, 333 P.3d 101 (Colo. 2014). Local government officials are urged to consult with legal counsel. 4 Are there any additional election requirements that distinguish a SB 152 question from other matters routinely referred to the ballot by a county or municipality? No (but again, please confer with your legal counsel). As always, attention should be paid to the requirements of the Fair Campaign Practices Act (Section 1-45-117, C.R.S.), which forbids use of public funds for advocacy in elections. This restriction is a prudent consideration in planning any campaign for a successful SB 152 election. Does voter approval of a county SB 152 ballot question have the effect of authorizing the provision of such services by municipalities within that county? No. SB 152 requires voter approval by each jurisdiction participating in the provision of covered services. Does opting out of SB 152 bind local taxpayers to provide local funds? No. Opting out of SB 152 simply removes the local prohibition on expending public funds to provide service and allows local jurisdictions to explore and develop plans for their communities. If any jurisdiction gets to the point where they are looking to invest public funds they must follow their own guidelines for doing so. Does a jurisdiction need to approve a SB 152 ballot question in order to qualify for broadband infrastructure grant funds from the Department of Local Affairs (DOLA)? It depends. DOLA’s broadband grant program provides funding for regional planning and “middle mile” infrastructure projects (i.e., projects that do not provide “last mile” connections to customers). The guidance in DOLA’s broadband grant policies suggests that each jurisdiction must determine whether it is in compliance with the statutory restrictions set forth in SB 152. DOLA requires any grantee to be in compliance with any applicable laws and regulations. DOLA itself will not make that determination, nor does the awarding of a grant confer any certainty or acknowledgment of compliance on DOLA’s part to the grantee. DOLA’s broadband grant policy guidelines can be found at: http://dola.colorado.gov/demog-cms/content/dola-broadband-program. 5 Sample Local Government Ballot Language for SB 152 Elections County Questions Rio Blanco County (Passed Fall 2014) “Without increasing taxes, shall the citizens of Rio Blanco County, Colorado, authorize the Board of County Commissioners of Rio Blanco County, Colorado, to provide to potential subscribers including telecommunications service providers, residential and commercial users within Rio Blanco County, all services restricted since 2005 by Title 29, article 27 of the Colorado Revised Statutes, including “telecommunication services,” “cable television services,” and “advanced services” which is defined as high speed internet access capability in excess of two hundred fifty six kilobits per second both upstream and downstream (known as “broadband”) including any new and improved bandwidth services based on future technologies, utilizing the existing community owned fiber optic network and/or developing additional infrastructure, either directly or indirectly with public or private sector partners?” San Miguel County (Passed Fall 2014) “Without increasing taxes, shall San Miguel County, Colorado, have the legal ability to provide any or all services currently restricted by Title 29, article 27, Part 1, of the Colorado Revised Statutes, specifically described as “advanced services,” “telecommunication services,” and “cable television services,” as defined by the statute, including, but not limited to, any new and improved high bandwidth services based on future technologies, utilizing community owned infrastructure including but not limited to any existing fiber optic network, either directly, or indirectly with public or private sector service providers, to potential subscribers that may include telecommunications service providers, and residential or commercial users within San Miguel County?” Yuma County (Passed Fall 2014) “Without increasing taxes, shall the citizens of Yuma County Colorado re-establish their counties’ right to provide all services and facilities restricted since 2005 by Title 29, Article 27 of the Colorado Revised Statutes, described as “Advanced Services,” “Telecommunication Services,” and “Cable Television Services,” including providing any new and improved broadband services and facilities based on future technologies, utilizing existing or new community owned infrastructure including but not limited to the existing fiber optic network, either directly or indirectly with public or private sector partners, to potential subscribers that may include telecommunications service providers, residential or commercial users within the boundaries of Yuma County?” Clear Creek County (Passed Fall 2015) Without increasing taxes by this measure, shall citizens of the County of Clear Creek, Colorado, authorize their board of county commissioners to provide any or all services currently restricted by Title 29, Article 27, Part 1, of the Colorado Revised Statutes, specifically described as high speed internet access ("advanced service"), "telecommunications service," and "cable television service," as defined by the statute, including, but not limited to, any new and improved high bandwidth services based on future technologies, either 6 directly or indirectly with public or private sector partners or providers, to potential subscribers including, without limitation, other service providers and residential, commercial and governmental users within Clear Creek County? Yes - For authorization to provide high speed internet access ("advanced") service, telecommunications service, and cable television service. No - Against authorization to provide high speed internet access ("advanced") service, telecommunications service, and cable television service. La Plata County (Passed Fall 2015) Without increasing taxes, shall La Plata County, Colorado be authorized to reestablish the right to provide high-speed services, and/or cable television services (all as defined in § 29- 27-102, Colorado Revised Statutes) to residents, businesses, schools, libraries, nonprofit entities and other users of such services, either directly or indirectly with public or private sector partners? Ouray County (Passed Fall 2015) Shall Ouray County, without increasing taxes by this measure, be authorized to provide all services and facilities as permitted by Title 29, Article 27 of the Colorado Revised Statutes, described as "advanced services", "telecommunications services" and "cable television services", including providing any new and improved broadband services and high-speed internet services and facilities, based on current or future technologies, and utilizing existing or future county owned or leased infrastructure, fiber optic connections and networks, either directly or indirectly, including use of county wireless connections in county facilities without charge to members of the public, with or without public or private partners, for the benefit and use of residents and visitors to Ouray County and to potential residential and commercial subscribers in Ouray County? Washington County (Passed Fall 2015) Pursuant to the authority granted by C.R.S. Section 29-27-101 to 304 titled "competition in utility and entertainment services" shall Washington County be authorized to provide high-speed internet services, (advanced services), telecommunications services, and/or cable television services to residents, businesses, schools, libraries, nonprofit entities and other users of such services either directly or indirectly with public or private sector partners as those terms are defined in the aforementioned statutes within the unincorporated boundaries of Washington County, Colorado? Larimer County (Passed November 2016) Without increasing taxes, shall the citizens of Larimer County Colorado re-establish Larimer County’s right to provide any and all services and facilities restricted since 2005 by Title 29, Article 27 of the Colorado Revised Statutes, described as “Advanced Services” (high-speed internet), “Telecommunication Services,” and “Cable Television Services,” including but not limited to any new and improved broadband services and facilities based on future technologies, utilizing existing or new community owned infrastructure including but not limited to the existing fiber optic network, either directly, or indirectly with public or private sector partners, to potential subscribers that may include telecommunications service providers, residential or commercial users within the boundaries of Larimer County? 7 Municipal Questions SPRING 2015 GRAND JUNCTION CITY OF GRAND JUNCTION REFERRED MEASURE 2A SHALL THE CITY OF GRAND JUNCTION, WITHOUT INCREASING TAXES BY THIS MEASURE, BE AUTHORIZED TO PROVIDE, EITHER DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY W ITH PUBLIC OR PRIVATE SECTOR PARTNER(S), HIGH-SPEED INTERNET SERVICES (ADVANCED SERVICE), TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES ANDIOR CABLE TELEVISION SERVICES AS DEFINED BY § 29-27-101 TO 304 OF THE COLORADO REVISED STATUTES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY NEW AND IMPROVED HIGH BANDWIDTH SERVICE(S) BASED ON FUTURE TECHNOLOGIES, TO RESIDENTS, BUSINESSES, SCHOOLS, LIBRARIES, NONPROFIT ENTITIES AND OTHER USERS OF SUCH SERVICES, WITHOUT LIMITING ITS HOME RULE AUTHORITY? PASS, 75%- 22% ESTES PARK WITHOUT INCREASING TAXES, SHALL THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK REESTABLISH THE TOWN'S RIGHT TO PROVIDE ALL SERVICES RESTRICTED SINCE 2005 BY TITLE 29, ARTICLE 27 OF THE COLORADO REVISED STATUTES, DESCRIBED AS "ADVANCED SERVICES," "TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES" AND "CABLE TELEVISION SERVICES," INCLUDING ANY NEW AND IMPROVED HIGH BANDWIDTH SERVICES BASED ON FUTURE TECHNOLOGIES, UTILIZING COMMUNITY OWNED INFRASTRUCTURE INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE EXISTING FIBER OPTIC NETWORK, EITHER DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY W ITH PUBLIC OR PRIVATE SECTOR PARTNERS TO POTENTIAL SUBSCRIBERS THAT MAY INCLUDE TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICE PROVIDERS, RESIDENTIAL OR COMMERCIAL USERS WITHIN THE TOWN AND THE SERVICE AREA OF THE TOWN'S LIGHT AND POWER ENTERPRISE? PASS, YES: 1652 NO: 136 FALL 2014 BOULDER SHALL THE CITY OF BOULDER BE AUTHORIZED TO PROVIDE HIGH-SPEED INTERNET SERVICES (ADVANCED SERVICES), TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES, AND/OR CABLE TELEVISION SERVICES TO RESIDENTS, BUSINESSES, SCHOOLS, LIBRARIES, NONPROFIT ENTITIES AND OTHER USERS OF SUCH SERVICES, EITHER DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY WITH PUBLIC OR PRIVATE SECTOR PARTNERS, AS EXPRESSLY PERMITTED BY §§ 29-27-101 TO 304, “COMPETITION IN UTILITY AND ENTERTAINMENT SERVICES,” OF THE COLORADO REVISED STATUTES, WITHOUT LIMITING ITS HOME RULE AUTHORITY? PASS, 17512- 3551 CHERRY HILLS VILLAGE SHALL THE CITY OF CHERRY HILLS VILLAGE, WITHOUT INCREASING TAXES BY THIS MEASURE, AND TO RESTORE LOCAL AUTHORITY THAT WAS DENIED TO LOCAL GOVERNMENTS BY THE COLORADO GENERAL ASSEMBLY AND FOSTER A MORE COMPETITIVE MARKETPLACE, BE AUTHORIZED TO PROVIDE HIGH-SPEED INTERNET, INCLUDING IMPROVED HIGH BANDWIDTH SERVICES BASED ON NEW TECHNOLOGIES, TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES, AND/OR CABLE TELEVISION SERVICES TO RESIDENTS, BUSINESSES, SCHOOLS, LIBRARIES, NON-PROFIT ENTITIES AND OTHER USERS OF SUCH SERVICES EITHER DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY WITH PUBLIC OR PRIVATE SECTOR PARTNERS, AS EXPRESSLY PERMITTED BY ARTICLE 27, TITLE 29 OF THE COLORADO REVISED STATUTES? PASS, 2362- 613 RED CLIFF SHALL THE TOWN OF RED CLIFF BE AUTHORIZED TO PROVIDE CABLE TELEVISION, TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND/OR HI-SPEED INTERNET SERVICES TO RESIDENTS, BUSINESSES, SCHOOLS, LIBRARIES, NONPROFIT ENTITIES AND OTHER USERS OF SUCH SERVICES, EITHER DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY THROUGH PUBLIC OR PRIVATE SECTOR PARTNERS? PASS, 56-24 8 WRAY WITHOUT INCREASING TAXES, SHALL TH CITIZENS OF WRAY, COLORADO RE- ESTABLISH THEIR CITY'S RIGHTS TO PROVIDE ALL SERVICES AND FACILITIES RESTRICTED SINCE 2005 BY TITLE 29, ARTICLE 27 OF THE COLORADO REVISED STATUTES, DESCRIBED AS "ADVANCED SERVICES,' TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES' AND 'CABLE TELEVISION SERVICES,' INCLUIDNG PROVIDING ANY NEW AND IMPROVED BROADBAND SERVICES AND FACILITIES BASED ON FUTURE TECHONOLOGIES, UTILIZING EXISTING OR NEW COMMUNITIY OWNED INFRASTRUCTURE INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE EXISTING FIBER OPTIC NETWORK, EITHER DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY W ITH PUBLIC OR PRIVATE SECTOR PARTNERS, TO POTENTIAL SUBSCRIBERS THAT MAY INCLUDE TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICE PROVIDERS, RESIDENTIAL OR COMMERICAL USERS WITHIN THE CITY? PASS 3167- 2461 YUMA WITHOUT INCREASING TAXES, SHALL TH CITIZENS OF YUMA, COLORADO RE- ESTABLISH THEIR CITY'S RIGHTS TO PROVIDE ALL SERVICES AND FACILITIES RESTRICTED SINCE 2005 BY TITLE 29, ARTICLE 27 OF THE COLORADO REVISED STATUTES, DESCRIBED AS "ADVANCED SERVICES,' TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES' AND 'CABLE TELEVISION SERVICES,' INCLUIDNG PROVIDING ANY NEW AND IMPROVED BROADBAND SERVICES AND FACILITIES BASED ON FUTURE TECHONOLOGIES, UTILIZING EXISTING OR NEW COMMUNITIY OWNED INFRASTRUCTURE INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE EXISTING FIBER OPTIC NETWORK, EITHER DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY W ITH PUBLIC OR PRIVATE SECTOR PARTNERS, TO POTENTIAL SUBSCRIBERS THAT MAY INCLUDE TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICE PROVIDERS, RESIDENTIAL OR COMMERICAL USERS WITHIN THE CITY'S UTILITY SERVICE AREA? PASS, 71%- 29% SPRING 2014 MONTROSE REFERRED MEASURE "A" PASS 3969- 1396 WITHOUT INCREASING TAXES, SHALL THE CITIZENS OFTHE CITY OF MONTROSE, COLORADO, RE-ESTABLISH THEIR CITY'S RIGHT TO PROVIDE ALL SERVICES RESTRICTED SINCE 2005 BY TITLE 29, ARTICLE 27 OFTHE COLORADO REVISED STATUTES, DESCRIBED AS "ADVANCED SERVICES," "TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES" AND "CABLE TELEVISION SERVICES," INCLUDING ANY NEW AND IMPROVED HIGH BANDWIDTH SERVICES BASED ON FUTURE TECHNOLOGIES, UTILIZING COMMUNITY OWNED INFRASTRUCTURE INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE EXISTING FIBER OPTIC NETWORK, EITHER DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY WITH PUBLIC OR PRIVATE SECTOR PARTNERS, TO POTENTIAL SUBSCRIBERS THAT MAY INCLUDE TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICE PROVIDERS, RESIDENTIAL OR COMMERCIAL USERS WITHIN THE CITY? FALL 2013 CENTENNIAL BALLOT QUESTION 2G PASS 9 SHALL THE CITY OF CENTENNIAL, WITHOUT INCREASING TAXES, AND TO RESTORE LOCAL AUTHORITY THAT WAS DENIED TO ALL LOCAL GOVERNMENTS BY THE STATE LEGISLATURE, AND TO FOSTER A MORE COMPETITIVE MARKETPLACE, BE AUTHORIZED TO INDIRECTLY PROVIDE HIGHSPEED INTERNET (ADVANCED SERVICES), TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES, AND/OR CABLE TELEVISION SERVICES TO RESIDENTS, BUSINESSES, SCHOOLS, LIBRARIES, NONPROFIT ENTITIES AND OTHER USERS OF SUCH SERVICES, THROUGH COMPETITIVE AND NON-EXCLUSIVE PARTNERSHIPS WITH PRIVATE BUSINESSES, AS EXPRESSLY PERMITTED BY ARTICLE 29, TITLE 27 OF THE COLORADO REVISED STATUTES? 76%- 24% FALL 2011 LONGMONT BALLOT QUESTION 2A: WITHOUT INCREASING TAXES, SHALL THE CITIZENS OF THE CITY OF LONGMONT, COLORADO, RE-ESTABLISH THEIR CITY'S RIGHT TO PROVIDE ALLSERVICES RESTRICTED SINCE 2005 BY TITLE 29, ARTICLE 27 OF THE COLORADO REVISED STATUTES, DESCRIBED AS "ADVANCES SERVICES," "TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES" AND "CABLE TELEVISION SERVICES," INCLUDING ANY NEW AND IMPROVED HIGH BANDWIDTH SERVICES BASED ON FUTURE TECHNOLOGIES, UTILIZING COMMUNITY OWNED INFRASTRUCTURE INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE EXISTING FIBER OPTIC NETWORK, EITHER DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY WITH PUBLIC OR PRIVATE SECTOR PARTNERS, TO PROTENTIAL SUBSCRIBERS THAT MAY INCLUDE TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICE PROVIDERS, RESIDENTIAL OR COMMERCIAL USERS WITHIN THE CITY AND THE SERVICE AREA OF THE CITY'S ELECTIC UTILITY ENTERPRISE? Y/N PASS: YES 60.82% (13238), NO 39.18% (8529) FALL 2009 LONGMONT BALLOT ISSUE 2C-- AUTHORIZATION TO ALLOW THE CITY TO PROVIDE TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES, ADVANCED SERVICES AND CABLE TELEVISION SERVICES TO RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL USERS WITHIN THE SERVICE AREA OF THE CITY'S ELECTRIC UTILITY ENTERPRISE FAIL, YES 44%, NO 56% Local Governments Repealing Prohibition on Public Investment in Broadband City Opted Out County Opted Out Map Revision: May 20, 2017 Map by Trent Pingenot 10 Tips for Getting Your Question on the Ballot and Passing It Passing a local ballot question on SB 152 takes planning and coordination. If done properly, it is an effective way to educate the public and build widespread support and buy-in for future broadband deployment efforts.  Start early, and find a champion in your local government agency or community. It could be an elected official, economic development director, or IT professional on staff. Get them to be the advocate for the issue and rely on them to sell the need for the change to others.  Hold work sessions with the elected officials who will ultimately refer the question to the ballot. Make sure they understand the issues, the benefits to the community and the opposition that may be voiced by incumbent and/or local commercial service providers. Attempt to identify potential opposition early on in the process.  Make sure you are coordinating with your municipal/county attorney and municipal clerk/county clerk and recorder on the timing of ballot preparation and any associated deadlines for submittal of ballot questions for inclusion on the ballot.  Get the message to the voters. SB 152 is a complicated and often confusing piece of legislation and it will take time to decode its intricacies for the voting public. Keep in mind that there will be only a limited amount of time for the local government agency to tell its story to their voters before the election.  Consider forming a citizen and/or business coalition group to carry out grass roots messaging and education about the ballot measure and the need to remove the restrictions in SB 152. This group becomes very important once the ballot issue is placed on the ballot since government resources cannot be used to promote ballot questions. Fair Campaign Practices Act (Section 1-45-117, C.R.S.)  Marketing/Promotional Materials & Outreach - Develop core messaging that is succinct and effective (example: “Take Back Our Local Choice”) - Create a website to direct voters to for more information and educational materials - Allow citizens to sign up for e-mails that provide updates on the broadband efforts - Place op-ed articles in local publications (see samples below) - Compile a list of events and meetings where elected officials can meet voters and educate them on the ballot measure.  Don’t “overpromise” on what an SB 152 opt-out question will do for your community. Opting out of the local government prohibition on providing indirect or direct service is only the first step to improving broadband service in your community. Voters residing in the Dolores County will be asked Measure 1A: Without increasing taxes, shall Dolores County, Colorado be legally authorized to provide any or all services and facilities currently restricted by Title 29, article 27 of the Colorado Revised Statutes, described as “advanced services”, “telecommunications services”, and “cable television services”, as defined by the statute, including, but not limited to any new and improved broadband services and high-speed internet services and facilities, based on current or future technologies, and utilizing existing or future county owned or leased infrastructure, including county wireless connections in county facilities and fiber optic connections and networks, either directly or indirectly, with or without public or private partners, to potential subscribers, which may include telecommunications service providers, and residential and commercial users within Dolores County?” Voters in many Colorado towns, cities, and counties have exempted themselves from SB 152, passing measures that affirm their local choice to decide how broadband services develop in these communities. Exemptions have been approved in: This information about SB 152 has been paid for by Southwest Colorado Council of Governments. It is not intended to urge a vote for or against this item. Fiber-optic broadband cable can run underground or in the air on existing poles. Pulses of light allow very reliable connections and can quickly carry large amounts of data over long distances. Fiber- optic cable is a dedicated internet connection and is not shared with cable services. Fiber-optic network speeds are typically 100 megabits to 10 gigabits per second, compared to 20 to 100 megabits per second for a typical cable internet connection, or 3 megabits per second or less for traditional copper phone service. If voters approve this ballot item, Dolores County would be exempted from a state law that otherwise purports to limit local governments from improving broadband capabilities. With this exemption, the county would be permitted to establish business partnerships with private companies to increase access to high- speed broadband internet, opt to provide this service itself, or develop a combined strategy to benefit residents and business users. Yes, Dolores County owns 5.5 miles of fiber. This ballot item would not prevent any private business, including existing broadband providers, from initiating or continuing to provide these services. Dolores County has no plans to create a public broadband utility. Passage of this measure would allow the county to explore a variety of options to make assets available to serve the broadband needs of residents, students and businesses.  Archuleta County  Bayfield  Durango  Ignacio  La Plata County  Silverton  San Juan County  Telluride  Mancos Better Access to high speed broadband services for residents and businesses alike. Intensified Innovation by local businesses and entrepreneurs. Affordable Internet Access, as Dolores partners with internet service providers and key institutions to more efficiently expand internet service. A Cleaner Environment, as high speed internet reduced commuting needs and promotes high tech green jobs. How Can I Vote? Ballot drop-off is located at: Dolores County Building 409 N. Main St. Dove Creek, CO 81324 Voters may mail ballots to: Dolores County Clerk 409 N. Main St. Dolores, CO 81324 Ballots must be received by Election Day— Tuesday, November 8, 7:00 pm. A voter-approved exemption from SB 152 would restore local independence and ability to evaluate all possibilities for next-generation broadband services in Dolores County. An exemption supports local choice and options, allowing citizens to make the best decisions based on the needs of our own community, without raising taxes. A More Connected Community, with new avenues for public engagement in local decision-making and new opportunities for connected social spaces and creative networking. Improved Quality of Life, as local residents have better access to information in work and at home, allowing more free time to enjoy all that the surrounding area has to offer. Tell me more about Colorado Senate Bill 152... Colorado Senate Bill 05-152 (SB 152) is a measure passed by the Colorado Legislature in 2005. Its intent was to limit governments from competing with the private sector. Among other provisions, it requires local governments to secure voter approval before entering into the broadband partnerships or business. Without such approval, the law limits the ability of Colorado local governments to provide a wide spectrum of services, including: free Internet service in city libraries, parks and community centers; leveraging government infrastructure and partnering with private businesses to provide affordable and high-speed Internet service throughout the entire community; direct provision of broadband services by municipal governments where needed. 11 Sample Local Elected Official Op-Ed Pieces on SB 152 Ballot Questions Gaiter: Broadband No Longer a Luxury From luxury to necessity. It’s hard to not think of using the internet to do the everyday things we do: shopping, reading the news, paying bills, watching TV or emailing a friend. With the explosion in the use of the internet, and the things it’s allowed us to do, the need for higher speed has also become more necessary than ever. High-speed internet services (broadband) are not the “luxury” they were as recently as a decade ago; today they’re as common as electricity. If you live in a highly-urbanized area, you might have some broadband services, although many lament these services are not sufficient. If you’re in a rural area, these services might not exist at all. Over the last several years, I’ve worked with internet providers and residents to explore what can be done to improve services to make internet service more dependable, faster and consistent for Larimer County residents. However, in 2005 the Colorado Senate passed a law — Colorado Senate Bill 152 — which limits what local governments may do to improve services. Under this law, Larimer County can’t let local providers use county-owned infrastructure that might be in place to enhance internet speed and service. Fortunately, the law does allow citizens of local communities to vote to exempt themselves from the constraints of this legislation. We’ve watched the Colorado communities of Wellington, Estes Park, Loveland and Fort Collins ask voters to have their communities exempted from SB 152. After those communities exempted themselves from this law, their gaps in internet services are now being addressed. However, there is still a large service gap outside of and between those communities. We’ve had excellent conversations with the aforementioned communities on how Larimer County can help with their efforts and fill in those gaps. We hope Larimer County citizens will give us permission to move forward on those efforts. This November, Larimer County will have an item on the ballot to ask citizens for permission to become exempt from SB 152 and join our local municipalities and internet providers in improving these services. If passed, we want to begin a study to understand the best way to provide these services. We would also seek to partner with the private sector, while looking for grants to help provide these service improvements. 12 These are the first steps to provide high-speed internet service county-wide, although it might be several years to fruition. The ballot language for this item asks voters to allow Larimer County to provide high-speed internet, television and telecommunication services. The wording is a function of the way the initial law was passed. However, it’s Larimer County’s goal to work with our partners to provide those services and for Larimer County to perhaps provide some infrastructure to provide those services. Many of you are most likely reading this column online, so you already know how important internet services are. We are asking for the support of all Larimer County residents — both in and out of city limits — in restoring the ability to provide high-speed broadband to all county residents. Lew Gaiter is the Larimer County commissioner representing District 1. Estes Park Board of Trustees Unanimously Request a Special Election Regarding Provision of Broadband Services On Tuesday, 11-Nov, the Estes Park Board of Trustees unanimously requested a special election regarding provision of broadband internet services. The request for a special election originated with a resolution adopted by the Estes Park Economic Development Corporation (EDC) last August. The resolution urged the Town of Estes Park to hold an election asking voters whether, without raising taxes, the Town’s right should be re-established, to directly or indirectly provide telecommunications services like broadband internet. The resolution resulted from an extensive investigation by the Competitive Broadband Committee of the Estes Park EDC into how to achieve a key goal in the Town’s 2014 Strategic Plan: “to encourage optimal use of the Platte River Power Authority and Town’s fiber infrastructure.” Why is this important? To have a strong economy, Estes Park must have access to competitive broadband service. This is true because of how important the internet has become in our economic and social lives. The availability of competitive broadband already determines where businesses locate, where travelers visit, and where people choose to live. The economic and social importance of access to competitive broadband will only increase over time. “Competitive broadband” means the level of internet service that is currently available in large US cities in terms of speed, cost, and reliability. Competitive broadband in the Estes area would help keep our schools, businesses, and homes competitive in our region and nationally. Colorado Senate Bill 152 took away our local government’s right to decide the best way for the Town to help provide competitive broadband service. Senate Bill 152 blocks local government’s involvement in directly or indirectly providing broadband service. Senate Bill -152 applies to Estes Park because, with the Platte River Power Authority, the Town already indirectly provides 13 broadband service through its involvement in the fiber optic infrastructure used for local broadband service. Given Senate Bill 152, an election is the only way to restore local authority and free local governments from the bills’ restrictions. So, to achieve the Town’s goal of “optimal use of the Platte River Power Authority and Town’s fiber infrastructure,” we must have an election to take back our Town’s right to decide the best way to help provide competitive broadband. There have been many different and successful approaches to local government involvement in providing competitive broadband service s, and many are indirect like Estes Park’s involvement currently. One purpose of the recent U.S. Department of Commerce, Economic Development Administration $300,000 grant award to the Town of Estes Park and Estes Park EDC is to develop options for a state of the art, Valley-wide, broadband service that will allow our businesses, citizens, and guests to participate in and compete in the global marketplace. Recently, there has been widespread Colorado involvement with the issues of broadband, the economic development impact of broadband, and Senate Bill-152. Estes Park is not alone in dealing with these issues. Earlier, Longmont, Centennial, and Montrose voters resoundingly approved taking back the right of local government to decide on broadband issues. In last Tuesday’s election, 5 municipalities, Boulder, Cherry Hills Village, Red Cliff, Yuma and Wray, and 3 counties: Rio Blanco, San Miguel, and Yuma voted overwhelmingly, with 70 to 80 percent voter approval, to take back the right taken away by Senate Bill 152. In summary, Estes Park must have access to competitive broadband to remain economically competitive. Senate Bill 152 took away the Town’s right to directly or indirectly provide broadband service. The proposed election is the only way to take back the right that Senate Bill 152 took away so that the Town can pursue optimal use of its fiber optic infrastructure, and so that we have access to state of the art, Valley-wide, competitive broadband service. 14 Six Broadband Questions Every Local Government Official Should Be Asking 1)What is the current average download/upload capacity in our community? The State of Colorado maintains a map showing advertised download/upload speeds around the state. The map is a useful tool, allowing the user to isolate his/her search by jurisdiction if needed. However, much of the data in the map is based on vendor reporting and may or may not be completely accurate. You can access the map at http://maps.co.gov/coloradobroadband/. This website also features an online Internet speed test with which you can test and verify the upload/download speed of the Internet connections in your county. Understanding the speed of a connection is only a part of the equation, though. It is also critically important to understand what technologies are providing that bandwidth and speed. In other words, you need to understand the underlying physical transport – is it wireless, fiber optic, copper or coaxial? If it is wireless, is it terrestrial or satellite? While the latter may have great coverage, there are simple physical characteristics that render certain technologies unsuitable for real time voice, data or telepresence. Each type of system has its strengths and weaknesses; each needs to be assessed in light of local needs, capabilities, and constraints. 2)What are the key institutions in the community and what are their service needs? It is important to identify key institutions (schools, colleges, hospitals, libraries, local governments, etc.) and determine both their existing broadband capabilities and service needs going forward. As you assess how to proceed, can you create successful public-private partnerships with local providers who have proven to be reliable community partners? Or are you in a situation where the local providers need to be encouraged to more aggressively deploy the latest technologies? 3)Who are the key telecommunication providers in the region? And what is the best way to talk to these providers? Most areas of the state have a mixture of local providers as well as larger statewide carriers (CenturyLink, Comcast, TDS, AT&T, Verizon, etc.). Understanding what services these different carriers provide (phone, video, Internet, etc.), their service areas and the costs of coverage is critical not only to gaining an understanding of the broadband potential in your community but to ensuring that your area is adequately and sustainably served. 15 4)What are the needs of business and industry in your community? Each business owner has a unique set of needs and these will drive varying Internet capacity needs (both upstream and downstream). These might include video conferencing, virtual private networks (VPNs), voice over Internet protocol (VoIP), ability to share schematics (some in 3D), and traditional online needs like credit card and payroll processing. Economic development groups have identified broadband infrastructure and services as an essential component in the Colorado Blueprint. http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite?c=Page&childpagename=OEDIT%2FOEDITLayout&cid=125 1595201237&pagename=OEDITWrapper 5)Is your network “future-proof?” Given the rapidly evolving technical advancements in the high-tech industry, it is difficult to predict what the “next big thing” is going to be. Planning for enhanced future capacity and adaptability is absolutely essential to the long-term success of your local economic development efforts. Most industry experts agree that fiber optic cable will have a life of 30-50 years. None of the experts are predicting that fiber will become obsolete during its useful life. What will be change over its useful life is the electronics that are used to “light” the fiber optic cable. We expect improving technology will increase the amount of data that can be transported across a single fiber with the new technology. These changes can be phased in as the electronics reach their end of life. 6)How can I aggregate demand among key anchor institutions and employers? A key approach for any community is to determine how much demand the anchor institutions and employers currently have. Knowing this information provides the community with leverage when working with providers and potential carriers to get what the community needs. It also allows a community to “speak with one voice” when confronting the complexities of broadband deployment and establish a better understanding of the economics of the telecommunications environment. Reprinted from CCI’s “What Every Commissioner Needs to Know About Broadband” (2011) 16 Additional Resources Colorado Department of Regulatory Agencies – Broadband Fund https://www.colorado.gov/dora-broadband-fund Rio Blanco County: Plan Your Own Project – A Broadband Blueprint http://www.rbc.us/401/Plan-Your-Project-Blueprint Colorado Department of Local Affairs – Broadband Program https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/dola/broadband-program Colorado Broadband Portal http://broadband.co.gov/ Colorado Broadband Data and Development Program http://www.oit.state.co.us/broadband Northwest Colorado Council of Governments Memorandum on Opting Out of SB 152 http://nwccog.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/SB-152-Opt-Out-MEMO-April-2017-NWCCOG- 1.pdf National Association of Counties Podcast: Innovations in Rural Broadband Delivery http://www.naco.org/resources/innovations-rural-broadband-delivery Access and Inclusion in the Digital Age: A Resource Guide for Local Governments http://nationalresourcenetwork.org/en/Document/306284/Access_and_Inclusion_in_the_Digital_Ag e_A_Resource_Guide_for_Local_Governments 17 Glossary Backhaul: The portion of a broadband network in which the local access or end user point is linked to the main Internet network. Bandwidth: bandwidth refers to how fast data flows through the path that it travels to your computer; it’s usually measured in kilobits, megabits or gigabits per second. Broadband: broadband comes from the words “broad bandwidth” and is used to describe a defined high- speed connection to the Internet. A broadband connection lets you instantly connect to the Internet or your corporate network at speeds many times faster than a dial-up connection. Cable modem: refers to the type of broadband connection that brings information to homes and businesses over ordinary television cable lines. Dark fiber: optical fiber that is not lit or not activated for use. DSL: stands for digital subscriber line; it refers to the type of broadband connection that brings information to homes and businesses over ordinary copper telephone lines. Downstream speed: refers to the speed at which data flows from the information server to your computer. ISP: Internet Service Provider. A company that offers customers access to the Internet. Last mile: refers to the connectivity to the home, business, or to a “node” where additional Internet connectivity can occur. Kbps: Stands for Kilobits per second, or thousands of bits per second. For example, most analog modems transmit at 56 Kbps or 28.8 Kbps. Mbps: Stands for Megabits per second, or millions of bits per second. This is a measurement of how much data can be transmitted through a connection. For example, 6.0 Mbps is 200 times faster than a 28.8 Kbps analog modem. Middle mile: any carrier-to-carrier wholesale communications infrastructure with a single point of demarcation that does not connect directly to end users or to end-user facilities and that may include interoffice transport, backhaul, Internet connectivity, or special access. Middle mile infrastructure can range from a few miles to a few hundred miles. They are often constructed of fiber optic lines, but microwave and satellite links can be used as well. Satellite: refers to the type of broadband connection where information is sent from and arrives at a computer through satellite dishes 18 Upstream speed: refers to the speed at which data flows from your computer to the information server Wireless: refers to the type of broadband connection where information is sent from and arrives at a computer through transmission towers (Source: Broadband 101: The Unofficial Dictionary, produced by Nevada County, California) BROADBAND: THE VOTERS HAVE SPOKEN, WHAT’S NEXT? The nation is experiencing a major evolution in communications that is pulling in municipal government as a key player. High-speed Internet connectivity is transforming from a rarity into a necessity. The demand for high-speed connections from businesses and residents is driven by the large amounts of data transfer needed to support Internet video, business transactions, health care facilities, schools, and online gaming. And we want it everywhere we go. We want it on our PCs, laptops, and phones. Are we seeing broadband Internet emerge as the new public utility? Are we experiencing the same public demand seen a century ago for universal telephone service, resulting in government action? The answers to these questions are beginning to unfold in Colorado and across the country. Broadband infrastructure is expensive to build and often the returns are not there to create a business model that will “pencil out” for a private provider. Yet, in 2005, the Colorado legislature passed a law excluding local government from entering the broadband market. SB 05-152 does provide an escape hatch for municipal residents: They can vote to exempt their municipal or county government from that restriction. To date, voters in 65 cities and towns have done just that — a list expected to continue to grow in the future. A just released 2017 study from the National League of Cities finds that municipalities establish broadband networks for a wide range of reasons, including “increased residential property values, increased commercial business activity, and to spur viable employment options in isolated communities. Broadband opens doors to education, healthcare, recreation and business growth.” Closer to home, Fort Collins Deputy City Manager Jeff Mihelich notes that universal broadband service provides a community with an economic advantage in attracting and retaining talent and providing for merchant services and cloud based businesses. As it formulates a broadband service plan, the City of Fort Collins is pursuing four objectives: network buildout reaching all residents, timely implementation, competitive market pricing, and outstanding customer service. Voters’ voices have been loud and clear in elections allowing municipal government in Colorado to provide broadband service. All 65 cities and towns that have asked have been given permission. The vote is in. Municipal government gets the green light. What happens next? This Knowledge Now provides examples from four Colorado municipalities with four different approaches to next steps after the vote. The Knowledge Now series features practical research on timely topics from the Colorado Municipal League. KNOWLEDGE NOW 1 Broadband, March 2017 Local Governments Repealing Prohibition on Public Investment in Broadband City Opted Out County Opted Out Map Revision: November 9, 2016 Map by Trent Pingenot The Voice of Colorado’s Cities and Towns THE INFORMATION YOU NEED TO SERVE YOUR MUNICIPALITY AND RESIDENTS KNOWLEDGE now 2 COLORADO MUNICIPAL LEAGUE IMPLEMENTING A FIBER MASTER PLAN By Eric Eddy, Centennial assistant to the city manager In November 2013, 76 percent of Centennial residents voted in favor of ballot question #2G, repealing certain parts of the SB 05-152 restrictions placed on all local governments in Colorado. The passing of this ballot question allows the City to indirectly provide services through competitive and nonexclusive partnerships with private businesses. Since that time, the City of Centennial has worked to implement its Fiber Master Plan, culminating in the installation of a City-wide, carrier-grade, competitively- neutral, dark fiber backbone. Centennial’s efforts began by cataloguing the existing City-owned fiber through an asset inventory. Simultaneously, the City examined potential partnership opportunities to benefit stakeholders through a series of meetings with community anchor institutions, such as fire districts, law enforcement, schools, and libraries. In addition, meetings took place with incumbent providers, private businesses, and residents. The information gathered was presented to city council as an analysis of options. Ultimately, this led to council direction to develop a Fiber Master Plan, which would guide the implementation and next steps of the installing the fiber backbone. A consultant firm was hired to conduct a strategic planning and feasibility study, focusing on the data gathered in the opportunity analysis resulting in the development of the Centennial Fiber Master Plan. Additional public outreach was conducted with anchor institutions and private businesses to discuss next steps of the plan execution. Council considered a range of alternatives, from doing nothing to implementing City-owned fiber-to-the-home. Ultimately, the council-adopted Fiber Master Plan identified the City’s goal as developing a City-wide dark fiber backbone to enable competition throughout Centennial. In late 2016, the City began construction of its dark fiber backbone, with the first phase connecting the City’s Public Works Yard with the City offices. Additional construction will be ongoing throughout 2017 and into 2018. This dark fiber will be available to the private sector and others on a competitively-neutral basis, eventually enabling competition and ensuring the City maintains control over its destiny into the future. There is no one-size-fits-all framework for Colorado municipalities when it comes to fiber and related efforts. Each municipality should consider its strengths and weaknesses and develop a defined strategy and policy to address community goals. OUR GOAL IS BECOMING A GIGABIT COMMUNITY By Glen Black, Delta community development director For several years, the City of Delta has been looking for ways to bring affordable high-speed broadband to the area. Affordable broadband was identified as the key economic development factor for Region 10 communities during a USDA Stronger Economies Together training process and report. That report just confirmed what we already knew from the many requests for better Internet service from local businesses and residents. Inadequate broadband has retarded business growth. Economic development efforts have been hampered by a lack of high-speed broadband according to several potential businesses that would not consider locating in Delta after determining lack of broadband. If there was any doubt about public demand, it was laid to rest by the results of Delta’s SB 05-152 exemption election that passed with a 71 percent “yes” vote. Citizens told the City to get involved in bringing better service to the community. One of the first steps the City took was working with Eagle-Net Alliance to try and bring fiber to Delta. Eagle-Net is an intergovernmental entity operating under a federal grant to provide broadband connections for schools, libraries, and government facilities. Unfortunately it was unable to complete its Delta project. Delta then took the bull by the horns in forming a cooperative effort through the state’s Region 10 partners, including Delta County, City of Montrose, and the Delta Montrose Electric Association (DMEA) in phase one of a regional approach with sights set on Delta becoming a gigabit community. The Region 10 partnership is building the middle-mile backbone that will spread broadband availability throughout Delta via both underground and aerial infrastructure. Work has been progressing rapidly, the infrastructure for phase one is expected to be completed by mid-year. Funding such an ambitious project requires millions of dollars and has only been possible through major grants from the Colorado Department of Local Affairs and the Economic Development Administration, along with significant contributions from DMEA, Region 10, the El Pomar Foundation, and participating local governments. Once the backbone is up and running, the final step is the last-mile connections to hook up businesses and residences. DMEA has created a for-profit company (Elevate Fiber), which is an ISP provider for fiber connections from the middle mile to the end user. This cooperative construction of broadband infrastructure has stimulated renewed interest from private Internet service providers looking to provide last mile connections. What a great result this will be for consumers — high speed broadband in a competitive environment. KNOWLEDGE NOW 3 TURNING ON THE NextLightTM By Scott Rochat, Longmont Power & Communications public relations and marketing specialist Longmont’s community-owned fiber- optic network, NextLight, is due to complete network construction this year, achieving a vision that has been more than 20 years in the making for Longmont Power & Communications. It began in 1996 with a proposed upgrade to the electric substation communications connections. In a white paper to city council, Longmont Power & Communications (LPC) noted that fiber-optics could offer the speed and reliability needed — and that with additional fibers, the resulting loop could be the core of a citywide broadband network. The 17-mile loop was built in 1997. But creating a network to provide services took longer. LPC first looked for a private partner, reaching an agreement with Adesta Communications in 2000. But in 2001, Adesta filed for bankruptcy, starting the process over. In 2005, Senate Bill 152 barred local governments from involvement in telecommunications with limited exceptions. A community could vote to exempt itself, and Longmont ultimately did so in 2011, emphasizing that the measure would re-establish a local right that had been taken away and that no tax dollars would be used to build the network. That year, opponents spent nearly $420,000, but the measure passed with about 60 percent in favor. By 2013, a business plan was ready and another vote approved up to $45.3 million in bonds for the build. The initial timeline called for a six-phase build out, with construction starting August 2014. By October, the NextLight name was unveiled, reflecting Longmont’s history of providing electric power for itself since 1912. Now, light through fiber would be the “next light.” This time, no private partner took part. When the first service areas opened in November 2014, signup requests quickly overwhelmed the call center and the installation schedules. By spring, a new schedule accelerated construction to answer the demand. One significant driver has been the Charter Member rate, which offers a $49.95-per-month symmetrical gigabit connection to residential users who sign up quickly. With that incentive, average take rates are consistently above 50 percent in areas that have been through the Charter Member process. Some of the key lessons learned have included: • Be open to changing design and procedures during construction. There will always be new factors and technologies to consider. • Start early in securing access agreements with multi-dwelling units and similar managed properties. • All municipal personnel are potential marketers. Make them excited about this! • Carefully assess the impacts on those outside the utility, including permitting agencies and locating firms. • Building a brand new utility encompasses myriad details. For Longment, that included new billing software, significant time on website updates and social media, space for a call center and other added employees, new policies and SOPs for details such as online piracy, and specialized tax and federal filing requirements. Even after the initial build out, the network will grow with Longmont, providing a powerful tool for homes and businesses alike. Even with so much accomplished, NextLight’s story has only just begun. Steamboat Springs’ efforts to improve Internet broadband service began before city council sent a SB 152 exemption ballot question to voters in 2015. Frustration with Internet speeds had been mounting among residents and the business community as existing networks had been tapped out. This was of special concern as commerce in today’s economy and future business development are dependent on reliable, high-speed Internet connections. Steamboat’s many visitors have also have come to expect the availability of high-speed Internet service. Citing the need for faster broadband, the City joined forces with the Steamboat Springs School District, the Yampa Valley Medical Center, and Yampa Valley Electric Association to form the Northwest Colorado Broadband Consortium. The voters approved the SB 152 exemption giving the City the green light to improve broadband service. The consortium set to work to better serve local government needs and bring superior bandwidth to the entire community by providing the backbone for the local system. A Wyoming company brought in the initial fiber pipeline from Denver, and efforts continue to create redundancy to the initial pipeline. The consortium is the middle-mile provider and is laying fiber optic underground and stringing wire overhead throughout the city, with 60 percent completion on the main trunk line and lateral lines. The multimillion dollar project has been financed through a combination of private funds, local government dollars, and a Colorado Department of Local Affairs grant. Project completion is expected sometime next year. The plan always has been for the City to be the middle mile and hand-off to private businesses for the actual hook-ups for end users. The public backbone network is open to all private Internet providers to tap into and provide consumer service connections. As the system is being built out, the results are dramatic — better service for lower cost. Businesses and residents will see a many-fold increase in Internet speeds available. The system provides municipal government with enough bandwidth to satisfy not only its internal demands, but to meet the needs of the city’s many visitors by offering free WiFi at several hotspots located throughout the city from which anyone can access the Internet from their phones or laptops. Through this community cooperative venture residents, businesses, and local governments will all come out ahead. MEETING TODAY’S BROADBAND EXPECTATIONS By Vince O’Connor, Steamboat Springs information services manager The Colorado Department of Local Affairs (DOLA) broadband initiative began as a result of growing demand from rural Colorado to plan for and resolve community broadband service needs. DOLA recognizes that provision of high-speed broadband services can play a critical role in enhancing local government operations and community development efforts. In 2015, DOLA kicked off its $20 million initiative within the Energy and Mineral Impact Assistance Fund (EIAF) to improve broadband in rural Colorado by working with communities and state partners. While the dollars are no longer set aside for just broadband grants, local governments still can apply for funds through primary EIAF grant program. Funding is offered for regional broadband plans, sub-plans for counties and municipalities, and middle-mile infrastructure projects. • Applications for planning grants may be submitted at any time. Such applications shall be reviewed by the EIAF Advisory Committee and approved administratively. • Applications for infrastructure (middle-mile) projects are made through the regular cycles of the Energy Mineral Impact Program, with three application deadlines per year. • Applications for both planning and infrastructure are subject to review and comment by the Office of Information Technology, Office of Economic Development and International Trade, and the relevant Council of Governments. The most successful grant applications are those that are developed and coordinated prior to submittal in consultation with local government’s respective regional manager. The scope of a successful application will define a regional or countywide/ municipal area that examines current assets, gaps in services, applicable matching funds to the grant, and a demonstrable effort to cooperate with private-sector partners on the implementation. All middle-mile grant funded projects must be included in a regional or sub-plan prior to funding. This program does not fund last mile infrastructure. Contact your DOLA regional manager for more information at dola.colorado. gov/regmanagers. STATE PLAYING A BIG ROLE SUPPORTING BROADBAND By Rachel Harlow-Schalk, Colorado Department of Local Affairs Division of Local Government deputy director 4 COLORADO MUNICIPAL LEAGUE Rio Blanco County Stays Relevant with Broadband By Masha Zager / Broadband Communities Colorado became a hotbed of community broadband activity several years ago when dozens of cities and counties began voting to override restrictive state legislation and take control of their broadband destinies. In November 2016 alone, 26 localities held broadband referenda; all 26 referenda passed, most of them by wide margins. Rio Blanco County, a rural county in northwestern Colorado with a population of less than 7,000, held an override vote in 2014 and is now connecting customers to Rio Blanco Broadband, a network that will deliver fiber or wireless broadband access to nearly all premises. However, its story began much earlier, in 1999, when the school district in Meeker, the county seat, linked its buildings with fiber. Once the school network was up and running, the town of Meeker, the local library and the county hospital all requested to use the school district’s dark fiber – and the Meeker Metropolitan Area Network (Meeker MAN) was born. “It ran for a decade and a half, and we had an abnormal amount of IT cooperation,” says Blake Mobley, who was the IT director of the school district during that period. In 2014, when the county decided to implement a modern broadband system, it recruited Mobley to be the county IT director because of his experience with the Meeker MAN. “It was the perfect storm,” Mobley says. “There was grassroots desire for broadband, the county commissioners were on board, the county had money to proceed and I had some experience with broadband.” The county set a goal of obtaining the fastest internet access it could for as many people as it could and offering it at Google-type pricing ($70 for gigabit service). Formulating the policy goal in this way – rather than setting goals in terms of economic development or return on investment – was the first unique aspect of the project. Mobley explains, “One way a project can fail is if you set a publicly stated goal, such as return on investment, the number of years it takes to get your money back or a specific take rate. As soon as you make a public statement like that, you can be held up as an example of failure. So we chose a different approach: Our goal was to build a modern infrastructure so the community would have an option. … We had to look at this as a purchase, not an investment.” The county’s website explains that broadband isn’t about “getting ahead as a community” as much as “maintaining relevancy as a community.” Getting Started The county published a broadband plan in June 2014 calling for fiber to the home in the two towns of Meeker and Rangely and wireless broadband (at least in the short term) for the remaining one- third of county residents who live far from any population centers. A referendum in November 2014 gained 82 percent approval, and the county allocated money from its general fund to start the project. The following month, the Colorado Department of Local Affairs (DOLA) set aside money for networks that would connect community anchor institutions, and Rio Blanco County was one of two counties awarded first-round funding. The county originally intended to find a single partner that could build and operate the network and deliver services to residents. This approach might have worked for a larger municipality, but as it turned out, Mobley says, “there wasn’t really a single company that could do all this in a small market.” After some rethinking, Rio Blanco County decided to split up the project and work with several private partners. Constructing the Network First, the county decided to contract directly with several construction partners. In July 2015, it hired Circle H Construction to build fiber to the curb in the towns of Meeker and Rangely. That construction project is nearly finished. The county also entered into an IRU, or long-term lease, for two strands of fiber between Meeker and Rangely, which are about 60 miles apart. The link between the two cities enables them to share a middle-mile connection. In spring 2016, the county contracted with Centerline Solutions to design and engineer the rural wireless network. With help from a second DOLA grant, construction of the wireless network began a few months later with the building of several new towers and the repurposing of several existing county towers. A final construction phase, which will include more than 20 small towers to reach the most remote parts of the county, is still pending approval by the commission and possible state support. “It’s a modular solution,” Mobley says. “We may change the implementation timeline and approach.” The towers will support fixed wireless broadband with a 25 Mbps/5 Mbps top speed offering, using Cambium equipment operating on either unlicensed or lightly licensed frequencies. In addition, the towers are already being used by private carriers to improve cellular reception, and eventually they will be used for emergency communications as well. Another task the county took on was to create data centers in Rangely and Meeker. An empty building in Rangely became the central office and network operations center; the remodeling of the courthouse in Meeker will make room for a data center in 2017. Calix equipment is being used in the central office and at customer premises. It Takes a Community To build the fiber drops, operate and maintain the network, obtain wholesale internet bandwidth and recruit and manage retail service providers, the county turned to the Colorado Fiber Community (CFC). CFC is a consortium that consists of project manager OHIvey, Blue Tail Consulting and Beehive Broadband, a Utah ISP, along with several (mostly local) design and construction partners. The county wanted to give customers a choice of retail service providers, so CFC approached the two fixed wireless broadband providers in the county, Local Access Internet and Cimarron Telecommunications, and invited them to deliver services on Rio Blanco Broadband. Both jumped at the chance. Says Paul Recanzone of CFC, “We’ll allow as many providers as the market will support, but at the moment, that’s two. … A handful of others in Colorado were interested, but we have indicated to them what the market conditions are, and they will wait.” The retail providers were trained to install optical network terminals (ONTs) at customer premises and are now adding customers in Meeker and Rangely. In part because they already had wireless customers in the two towns and had name recognition, they achieved a 67 percent take rate right out of the gate with little or no marketing. Though the two retail service providers are off to a strong start, CFC is aware that open-access networks are vulnerable to sudden exits of service providers. (For example, the Utah open-access network UTOPIA lost several service providers in its early years.) Keeping that experience in mind, Beehive Broadband, the CFC partner that serves as network operator, is prepared to step in as a backup service provider if necessary to ensure that customers won’t be stranded. CFC’s role as wholesaler of internet services transformed the economics of broadband in the county. Neither of the two retail service providers had the market power to buy backhaul or wholesale services at competitive rates. CFC (through Beehive Broadband) supplies internet backhaul to the retailers at about one-fifth the price the retailers pay as independent WISPs. Because CFC can also acquire other services at reasonable rates, the retailers should soon be able to offer such services as voice, IPTV and home security. Mobley says that CFC may not need to continue supplying wholesale services as the system matures (though it will continue to operate the network). He comments, “It’s definitely our goal to get to that more common model of open access where the network is the transport layer and the value- added resellers [retailers] can go out and secure their own services.” Sharing the Profits The county’s agreement with CFC is an unusual one based on profit sharing. According to Recanzone, CFC subtracts certain operational costs from the revenue stream each month and then keeps 40 percent of the remainder, remitting the other 60 percent to the county. To make matters more complicated, the county wants to own the drop cables and ONTs – which is important if it ever needs to replace the network operator – but CFC is responsible for incurring the $1,100 per customer cost to purchase and install this infrastructure. So, at present, the county’s revenue share is applied toward repayment of CFC’s installation expenses, which will continue until the repayment is complete. According to Recanzone, CFC did everything possible, and then some, to minimize startup costs, and it reached operational breakeven after only four months, in October 2016. It has already begun applying the county’s share of profits to accruals for the drop infrastructure, and it expects to apply its own share to debt service for the next five years or so. (No one ever said building rural broadband was easy.) Support for Anchor Institutions Because the public anchor institutions in Meeker had a long history of cooperating on the Meeker MAN, Mobley wanted to replicate that spirit of cooperation on the Rio Blanco Broadband network – not just in Meeker but countywide. Rather than run a single strand of fiber to each community anchor institution, Rio Blanco Broadband ran four strands to each and aggregated the fibers in the data center. It also reserved half the data center space for these institutions to use as they chose, rent free. “There was no way they could afford anything like this,” Mobley says, “but our added cost to implement it was a very small percentage of the total cost.” The anchor institutions have a range of options in using these resources. For example, Mobley says, they could create private networks to link multiple facilities, locate core switches in the data centers, share resources (such as firewall equipment) with other institutions or trade space with an institution in the other data center to locate backup equipment. In addition, the anchor institutions will be able to purchase engineering, maintenance or technical expertise from Rio Blanco Broadband. Mobley expects most of the public anchor institutions in the county to take advantage of these opportunities. Economic Development Even without specific economic development goals for the network, county officials are keenly aware of its potential to attract, retain and support businesses. Fiber was laid several miles beyond the town limits of Meeker and Rangely to connect businesses outside the towns, and Mobley says it could be extended farther if the county can obtain funding to do so (or if profit-sharing remittances from the current network become available). “I see the network as a negotiating tool,” says Katelin Cook, the county economic development director. “If getting fiber to the door will seal the deal, we’ll do everything in our power to do that.” Cook says the county hopes to encourage economic diversification by attracting individuals and small businesses that are location neutral and attracted by Rio Blanco County’s quality of life. Data centers and data backup facilities are also good candidates for recruitment. In partnership with the Chamber of Commerce, Cook is helping companies already located in the county explore how they can use the network to enhance their businesses. Rio Blanco County is already showing up on site selectors’ lists. Cook says that, before even starting a formal marketing program, she has fielded inquiries from about a dozen companies. “For me, that’s exciting,” she says. “We’re now being seen as a viable business option.” ### ________ Capital letters indicate new material added to existing statutes; dashes through words indicate deletions from existing statutes and such material not part of act. SENATE BILL 05-152 BY SENATOR(S) Veiga, and Mitchell; also REPRESENTATIVE(S) Jahn, Crane, Harvey, Kerr, and Sullivan. CONCERNING LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMPETITION IN THE PROVISION OF SPECIFIED COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES. Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Colorado: SECTION 1. Title 29, Colorado Revised Statutes, is amended BY THE ADDITION OF A NEW ARTICLE to read: ARTICLE 27 Competition in Utility and Entertainment Services PART 1 COMPETITION IN UTILITY AND ENTERTAINMENT SERVICES 29-27-101. Legislative declaration. (1) THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY HEREBY FINDS AND DECLARES THAT IT IS THE POLICY OF THIS STATE TO ENSURE THAT CABLE TELEVISION SERVICE, TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICE, AND HIGH SPEED INTERNET ACCESS, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS ADVANCED SERVICE, ARE EACH PROVIDED WITHIN A CONSISTENT, COMPREHENSIVE, AND NOTE: This bill has been prepared for the signature of the appropriate legislative officers and the Governor. To determine whether the Governor has signed the bill or taken other action on it, please consult the legislative status sheet, the legislative history, or the Session Laws. PAGE 2-SENATE BILL 05-152 NONDISCRIMINATORY FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT FRAMEWORK. (2) THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY FURTHER FINDS AND DECLARES THAT: (a) THERE IS A NEED FOR STATEWIDE UNIFORMITY IN THE REGULATION OF ALL PUBLIC AND PRIVATE ENTITIES THAT PROVIDE CABLE TELEVISION SERVICE, TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICE, AND ADVANCED SERVICE. (b) MUNICIPAL ORDINANCES, RULES, AND OTHER REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE PROVISION OF CABLE TELEVISION SERVICE, TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICE, AND ADVANCED SERVICE BY A LOCAL GOVERNMENT IMPACT PERSONS LIVING OUTSIDE THE MUNICIPALITY. (c) REGULATING THE PROVISION OF CABLE TELEVISION SERVICE, TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICE, AND ADVANCED SERVICE BY A LOCAL GOVERNMENT IS A MATTER OF STATEWIDE CONCERN. 29-27-102. Definitions. AS USED IN THIS ARTICLE, UNLESS THE CONTEXT OTHERWISE REQUIRES: (1) "ADVANCED SERVICE" MEANS HIGH-SPEED INTERNET ACCESS CAPABILITY IN EXCESS OF TWO HUNDRED FIFTY-SIX KILOBITS PER SECOND BOTH UPSTREAM AND DOWNSTREAM. (2) "CABLE TELEVISION SERVICE" MEANS THE ONE-WAY TRANSMISSION TO SUBSCRIBERS OF VIDEO PROGRAMMING OR OTHER PROGRAMMING SERVICE, AS WELL AS SUBSCRIBER INTERACTION, IF ANY, THAT IS REQUIRED FOR THE SELECTION OR USE OF THE VIDEO PROGRAMMING OR OTHER PROGRAMMING SERVICE. (3) "LOCAL GOVERNMENT" MEANS ANY CITY, COUNTY, CITY AND COUNTY, SPECIAL DISTRICT, OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE. (4) "PRIVATE PROVIDER" MEANS A PRIVATE ENTITY THAT PROVIDES CABLE TELEVISION SERVICE, TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICE, OR ADVANCED SERVICE. (5) "SUBSCRIBER" MEANS A PERSON THAT LAWFULLY RECEIVES PAGE 3-SENATE BILL 05-152 CABLE TELEVISION SERVICE, TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICE, OR ADVANCED SERVICE. A PERSON THAT UTILIZES CABLE TELEVISION SERVICE, TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICE, OR ADVANCED SERVICE PROVIDED BY A LOCAL GOVERNMENT FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL OR INTERGOVERNMENTAL PURPOSES AND IS USED BY PERSONS ACCESSING GOVERNMENT SERVICES IS NOT A SUBSCRIBER FOR PURPOSES OF THIS ARTICLE. (6) "TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICE" HAS THE SAME MEANING AS SET FORTH IN SECTION 40-15-102 (29), C.R.S. 29-27-103. Limitations on providing cable television, telecommunications, and advanced services. (1) EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN THIS ARTICLE, A LOCAL GOVERNMENT SHALL NOT: (a) PROVIDE TO ONE OR MORE SUBSCRIBERS CABLE TELEVISION SERVICE, TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICE, OR ADVANCED SERVICE; OR (b) PURCHASE, LEASE, CONSTRUCT, MAINTAIN, OR OPERATE ANY FACILITY FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING CABLE TELEVISION SERVICE, TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICE, OR ADVANCED SERVICE TO ONE OR MORE SUBSCRIBERS. (2) FOR PURPOSES OF THIS ARTICLE, A LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVIDES CABLE TELEVISION SERVICE, TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICE, OR ADVANCED SERVICE IF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVIDES THE CABLE TELEVISION SERVICE, TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICE, OR ADVANCED SERVICE TO ONE OR MORE SUBSCRIBERS: (a) DIRECTLY; (b) INDIRECTLY BY MEANS THAT INCLUDE BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING: (I) THROUGH AN AUTHORITY OR INSTRUMENTALITY ACTING ON BEHALF OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT OR FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BY ITSELF; (II) THROUGH A PARTNERSHIP OR JOINT VENTURE; (III) THROUGH A SALE AND LEASEBACK ARRANGEMENT; PAGE 4-SENATE BILL 05-152 (c) BY CONTRACT, INCLUDING A CONTRACT WHEREBY THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT LEASES, SELLS CAPACITY IN, OR GRANTS OTHER SIMILAR RIGHTS TO A PRIVATE PROVIDER TO USE LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL FACILITIES DESIGNED OR CONSTRUCTED TO PROVIDE CABLE TELEVISION SERVICE, TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICE, OR ADVANCED SERVICE FOR INTERNAL LOCAL GOVERNMENT PURPOSES IN CONNECTION WITH A PRIVATE PROVIDER'S OFFERING OF CABLE TELEVISION SERVICE, TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICE, OR ADVANCED SERVICE; OR (d) THROUGH SALE OR PURCHASE OF RESALE OR WHOLESALE CABLE TELEVISION SERVICE, TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICE, OR ADVANCED SERVICE FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING CABLE TELEVISION SERVICE, TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICE, OR ADVANCED SERVICE TO ONE OR MORE SUBSCRIBERS. (3) NOTHING IN THIS ARTICLE SHALL BE CONSTRUED TO LIMIT THE AUTHORITY OF A LOCAL GOVERNMENT TO LEASE TO A PRIVATE PROVIDER PHYSICAL SPACE IN OR ON ITS PROPERTY FOR THE PLACEMENT OF EQUIPMENT OR FACILITIES THE PRIVATE PROVIDER USES TO PROVIDE CABLE TELEVISION, TELECOMMUNICATIONS, OR ADVANCED SERVICES. PART 2 CONDITIONS FOR PROVIDING SERVICES 29-27-201. Vote - referendum. (1) BEFORE A LOCAL GOVERNMENT MAY ENGAGE OR OFFER TO ENGAGE IN PROVIDING CABLE TELEVISION SERVICE, TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICE, OR ADVANCED SERVICE, AN ELECTION SHALL BE CALLED ON WHETHER OR NOT THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT SHALL PROVIDE THE PROPOSED CABLE TELEVISION SERVICE, TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICE, OR ADVANCED SERVICE. (2) THE BALLOT AT AN ELECTION CONDUCTED PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION SHALL POSE THE QUESTION AS A SINGLE SUBJECT AND SHALL INCLUDE A DESCRIPTION OF THE NATURE OF THE PROPOSED SERVICE, THE ROLE THAT THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT WILL HAVE IN PROVISION OF THE SERVICE, AND THE INTENDED SUBSCRIBERS OF SUCH SERVICE. THE BALLOT PROPOSITION SHALL NOT TAKE EFFECT UNTIL SUBMITTED TO THE ELECTORS AND APPROVED BY THE MAJORITY OF THOSE VOTING ON THE BALLOT. 29-27-202. Exemption for unserved areas. (1) A LOCAL GOVERNMENT SHALL BE EXEMPT FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS PART 2 PAGE 5-SENATE BILL 05-152 AND MAY ENGAGE OR OFFER TO ENGAGE IN PROVIDING CABLE TELEVISION SERVICE, TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICE, OR ADVANCE SERVICE IF: (a) NO PRIVATE PROVIDER OF CABLE TELEVISION SERVICE, TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICE, OR ADVANCED SERVICE PROVIDES THE SERVICE ANYWHERE WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT; (b) THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT HAS SUBMITTED A WRITTEN REQUEST TO PROVIDE THE SERVICE TO ANY INCUMBENT PROVIDER OF CABLE TELEVISION SERVICE, TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICE, OR ADVANCED SERVICE WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT; AND (c) THE INCUMBENT PROVIDER HAS NOT AGREED WITHIN SIXTY DAYS OF THE RECEIPT OF A REQUEST SUBMITTED PURSUANT TO PARAGRAPH (b) OF THIS SUBSECTION (1) TO PROVIDE THE SERVICE OR, IF THE PROVIDER HAS AGREED, IT HAS NOT COMMENCED PROVIDING THE SERVICE WITHIN FOURTEEN MONTHS OF THE RECEIPT OF THE REQUEST. PART 3 COMPLIANCE WITH LOCAL, STATE, AND FEDERAL REGULATIONS 29-27-301. General operating limitations. (1) A LOCAL GOVERNMENT THAT PROVIDES CABLE TELEVISION SERVICE, TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICE, OR ADVANCED SERVICE UNDER THIS ARTICLE SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL STATE AND FEDERAL LAWS, RULES, AND REGULATIONS GOVERNING PROVISION OF SUCH SERVICE BY A PRIVATE PROVIDER; EXCEPT THAT NOTHING HEREIN SHALL BE CONSTRUED TO AFFECT THE JURISDICTION OF THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION WITH RESPECT TO MUNICIPAL UTILITIES. (2) (a) A LOCAL GOVERNMENT SHALL NOT MAKE OR GRANT ANY UNDUE OR UNREASONABLE PREFERENCE OR ADVANTAGE TO ITSELF OR TO ANY PRIVATE PROVIDER OF CABLE TELEVISION SERVICES, TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES, OR ADVANCED SERVICES. (b) A LOCAL GOVERNMENT SHALL APPLY WITHOUT DISCRIMINATION AS TO ITSELF AND TO ANY PRIVATE PROVIDER THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT'S ORDINANCES, RULES, AND POLICIES, INCLUDING THOSE RELATING TO: PAGE 6-SENATE BILL 05-152 (I) OBLIGATION TO SERVE; (II) ACCESS TO PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY; (III) PERMITTING; (IV) PERFORMANCE BONDING WHERE AN ENTITY OTHER THAN THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT IS PERFORMING THE WORK; (V) REPORTING; AND (VI) QUALITY OF SERVICE. 29-27-302. Scope of article. (1) NOTHING IN THIS ARTICLE SHALL BE CONSTRUED TO AUTHORIZE ANY LOCAL GOVERNMENT TO: (a) PROVIDE, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, CABLE TELEVISION SERVICE, TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICE, OR ADVANCED SERVICE; OR (b) PURCHASE, LEASE, CONSTRUCT, MAINTAIN, OR OPERATE A FACILITY FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, CABLE TELEVISION SERVICE, TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICE, OR ADVANCED SERVICE. (2) NOTHING IN THIS ARTICLE SHALL BE CONSTRUED TO APPLY TO A LOCAL GOVERNMENT PURCHASING, LEASING, CONSTRUCTING, MAINTAINING, OR OPERATING FACILITIES THAT ARE DESIGNED TO PROVIDE CABLE TELEVISION SERVICE, TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICE, OR ADVANCED SERVICE THAT THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT USES FOR INTERNAL OR INTERGOVERNMENTAL PURPOSES. (3) NOTHING IN THIS ARTICLE SHALL BE CONSTRUED TO APPLY TO THE SALE OR LEASE BY A LOCAL GOVERNMENT TO PRIVATE PROVIDERS OF EXCESS CAPACITY, PROVIDED: (a) SUCH EXCESS CAPACITY IS INSUBSTANTIAL IN RELATION TO THE CAPACITY UTILIZED BY THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT FOR ITS OWN PURPOSES; AND (b) THE OPPORTUNITY TO PURCHASE AND THE OPPORTUNITY TO USE SUCH EXCESS CAPACITY IS MADE AVAILABLE TO ANY PRIVATE PROVIDER IN PAGE 7-SENATE BILL 05-152 A NONDISCRIMINATORY, NONEXCLUSIVE, AND COMPETITIVELY NEUTRAL MANNER. (4) NOTHING IN THIS ARTICLE SHALL BE CONSTRUED TO LIMIT EITHER THE AUTHORITY OF THE STATEWIDE INTERNET PORTAL AUTHORITY CREATED IN SECTION 24-37.7-102, C.R.S., TO CARRY OUT ITS MISSION OR TO INTEGRATE THE ELECTRONIC INFORMATION DELIVERY SYSTEMS OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS INTO THE STATEWIDE INTERNET PORTAL AS DEFINED IN ARTICLE 37.7 OF TITLE 24, C.R.S. 29-27-303. Enforcement and appeal. (1) BEFORE AN INDIVIDUAL SUBSCRIBER OR A PRIVATE PROVIDER THAT COMPETES WITH A LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN THE GEOGRAPHIC BOUNDARIES OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT MAY FILE AN ACTION IN DISTRICT COURT FOR VIOLATION OF THIS ARTICLE, THAT PERSON SHALL FILE A WRITTEN COMPLAINT WITH THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT. THE FAILURE BY THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT TO ISSUE A FINAL DECISION REGARDING THE COMPLAINT WITHIN FORTY-FIVE DAYS SHALL BE TREATED AS AN ADVERSE DECISION FOR PURPOSES OF APPEAL. (2) AN APPEAL OF AN ADVERSE DECISION FROM THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT MAY BE TAKEN TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR A DE NOVO PROCEEDING. 29-27-304. Applicability. THIS ARTICLE SHALL APPLY TO CABLE TELEVISION SERVICE, TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICE, AND ADVANCED SERVICE AND TO THE PURCHASE, LEASE, CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE, OR OPERATION OF ANY FACILITY FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING SUCH SERVICE, FOR WHICH A LOCAL GOVERNMENT HAS NOT ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT OR OTHERWISE TAKEN ANY SUBSTANTIAL ACTION PRIOR TO MARCH 1, 2005, TO PROVIDE SUCH SERVICE OR PURCHASE, LEASE, CONSTRUCT, MAINTAIN, OR OPERATE SUCH FACILITIES. SECTION 2. Safety clause. The general assembly hereby finds, PAGE 8-SENATE BILL 05-152 determines, and declares that this act is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, and safety. ____________________________ ____________________________ Joan Fitz-Gerald Andrew Romanoff PRESIDENT OF SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE THE SENATE OF REPRESENTATIVES ____________________________ ____________________________ Karen Goldman Marilyn Eddins SECRETARY OF CHIEF CLERK OF THE HOUSE THE SENATE OF REPRESENTATIVES APPROVED________________________________________ _________________________________________ Bill Owens GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF COLORADO ATTACHMENT2 SAMPLE BALLOT QUESTIONS FALL 2016/SPRING 2017 ELECTIONS – ALL QUESTIONS WERE VOTER APPROVED CENTRAL CITY SHALL THE CITY OF CENTRAL, WITHOUT INCREASING TAXES BY THIS MEASURE, AND TO RESTORE LOCAL AUTHORITY THAT WAS DENIED TO LOCAL GOVERNMENTS BY THE COLORADO GENERAL ASSEMBLY AND FOSTER A MORE COMPETITIVE MARKETPLACE, BE AUTHORIZED TO PROVIDE HIGH-SPEED INTERNET, INCLUDING IMPROVED HIGH BANDWIDTH SERVICES BASED ON NEW TECHNOLOGIES, TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES, AND/OR CABLE TELEVISION SERVICES TO RESIDENTS, BUSINESSES, SCHOOLS, LIBRARIES, NON-PROFIT ENTITIES AND OTHER USERS OF SUCH SERVICES EITHER DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY WITH PUBLIC OR PRIVATE SECTOR PARTNERS, AS EXPRESSLY PERMITTED BY ARTICLE 27, TITLE 29 OF THE COLORADO REVISED STATUTES? COLORADO SPRINGS ISSUE 3: WITHOUT INCREASING TAXES, SHALL THE CITY OF COLORADO SPRINGS HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE OR FACILITATE OR PARTNER OR COORDINATE WITH SERVICE PROVIDERS FOR THE PROVISION OF, "ADVANCED (HIGH-SPEED INTERNET) SERVICE," "CABLE TELEVISION SERVICE," AND "TELECOMMUNICATION SERVICE," EITHER DIRECTLY, INDIRECTLY, OR BY CONTRACT, TO RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL, NONPROFIT, GOVERNMENT OR OTHER SUBSCRIBERS AND TO ACQUIRE, OPERATE AND MAINTAIN ANY FACILITY FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING SUCH SERVICES, RESTORING LOCAL AUTHORITY AND FLEXIBILITY THAT WAS TAKEN AWAY BY TITLE 29, ARTICLE 27, PART 1 OF THE COLORADO REVISED STATUTES? COLORADO SPRINGS – AS RECOMMENDED BY ATTORNEY ERIC HEIL WITHOUT INCREASING TAXES, SHALL THE CITY OF COLORADO SPRINGS HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE, [OR] FACILITATE, [OR] PARTNER OR COORDINATE WITH SERVICE PROVIDERS FOR THE PROVISION OF, "ADVANCED (HIGH-SPEED INTERNET) SERVICE," "CABLE TELEVISION SERVICE," AND "TELECOMMUNICATION SERVICE," EITHER DIRECTLY, INDIRECTLY, OR BY CONTRACT, TO RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL, NONPROFIT, GOVERNMENT OR OTHER "SUBSCRIBERS" AND TO ACQUIRE, OPERATE AND MAINTAIN ANY FACILITY FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING SUCH SERVICES, RESTORING LOCAL AUTHORITY AND FLEXIBILITY THAT WAS [TAKEN AWAY] RESTRICTED BY TITLE 29, ARTICLE 27, PART 1 OF THE COLORADO REVISED STATUTES? ARVADA BALLOT QUESTION 2H: SHALL THE CITY OF ARVADA, WITHOUT INCREASING TAXES, AND TO RESTORE LOCAL AUTHORITY THAT WAS DENIED IN 2005 TO ALL LOCAL GOVERNMENTS BY THE COLORADO LEGISLATURE, BE AUTHORIZED TO PROVIDE HIGH-SPEED INTERNET SERVICES (ADVANCED SERVICES), TELECOMMUNICATION SERVICES, AND/OR CABLE TELEVISION SERVICES AS DEFINED BY SECTION 29-27-101-304 OF THE COLORADO REVISED STATUTES INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY NEW OR IMPROVED HIGH BANDWIDTH SERVICES BASED UPON FUTURE TECHNOLOGIES, EITHER DIRECTLY, AND/OR INDIRECTLY WITH PUBLIC AND/OR PRIVATE SECTOR PARTNERS, TO RESIDENTS, BUSINESSES, SCHOOLS, LIBRARIES, NONPROFIT ENTITIES AND OTHER USERS OF SUCH SERVICES, WITHOUT LIMITING ITS HOME RULE AUTHORITY? ASPEN Ballot Question 2B: Shall the City of Aspen, without increasing taxes, be authorized to provide, either directly OR INDIRECTLY WITH PUBLIC AND/OR PRIVATE SECTOR PARTNER(S), ALL SERVICES RESTRICTED SINCE 2005 BY TITLE 29, ARTICLE 27 OF THE COLORADO REVISED STATUTES DESCRIBED AS HIGH-SPEED INTERNET SERVICES (ADVANCED SERVICE), TELECOMMUNICATION SERVICES, AND/OR CABLE TELEVISION SERVICES, TO FOSTER THE EXPANSION OF SUCH SERVICES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY NEW AND IMPROVED HIGH BANDWIDTH SERVICE(S) BASED ON FUTURE TECHNOLOGIES, TO RESIDENTS, BUSINESSES, SCHOOLS, LIBRARIES, NONPROFIT ENTITIES AND OTHER USERS OF SUCH SERVICES WITHOUT LIMITING ITS HOME RULE AUTHORITY? TOWN COUNCIL REPORT To: Honorable Mayor Jennie Fancher and Avon Town Council From: Scott Wright, Assistant Town Manager Virginia C. Egger, Town Manager Meeting Date: June 13, 2017 Agenda Topic: DIRECTION ON RETAINING HOST COMPLIANCE SOLUTIONS FOR SHORT TERM RENTALS IDENTIFICATION, BUSINESS LICENSE AND TAX COMPLIANCE ACTION BEFORE COUNCIL Council is asked to provide direction regarding monitoring and enforcement of the Town of Avon’s Short Term Rental (STR) codes, which require every person who advertises for rent an accommodation unit(s) or room(s) used for accommodation for a period of fewer than thirty (30) days to have a business license and to collect and remit accommodation and sales taxes. OVERVIEW Town Codes 1. The Town of Avon allows for rental of accommodation units or rooms in the Short Term Rental Overlay district as well as in the commercial zone districts. Attachment 1 depicts the areas included in the Short Term Rental Overlay district, as well as properties zoned Planned Unit Development (PUD) that also permit STRs. 2. Every property owner providing room(s) used for accommodation for a period fewer than thirty (30) days is required to register the property, obtain a business license and obtain a sales tax license prior to advertising the rental property. The advertisement must include the "Avon Business License Number”. 3. An 8% tax is imposed upon the price paid for leasing and rental of accommodations (STRs) in the Town of Avon (4% sales tax and 4% accommodations tax). Short Term Rental Trends 1. Vacation rental websites, such as Airbnb and VRBO have increased the convenience and viability of residential owners to rent their units as a short term accommodation unit. 2. Over 100 such websites are available to residential owners to list rental properties. 3. The Colorado Association of Ski Towns CML membership has discussed regularly the challenges of identifying STR properties because website listings often do not include a physical address. 4. Concerns among the CAST membership are: • Renting of properties is foremost a safety issue. Under Colorado laws, rental properties must have carbon monoxide monitoring and proper egress. • The issue of fairness where lodging companies have business licenses and pay taxes, but other private short term units, who are not registered or pay taxes, are provided an unfair advantage in the vacation rental market. • The conversion of rental units, which were available for long term lease, to STRs reduce the housing availability in a community, including units which could be available to the local labor force. Page 1 of 4 Enforcement of Short Term Rental Codes 1. Listing Companies: Airbnb has reached agreement with several large metropolitan areas to collect and remit taxes. A standard agreement is available to smaller municipalities. A drawback of the agreement is that the owner name and property address is not provided when the taxes are remitted, hence, the municipality cannot verify that all rental units are properly registered or paying taxes. 2. Short Term Rental State of Colorado: Airbnb and the State of Colorado have recently agreed that the listing company will collect and remit State taxes. 3. Town of Avon: • The Town’s website provides information and guidance for residential property owners who desire to rent their property as a short term accommodation unit. • The Town often includes notification in the Vail Daily that renting short term rentals requires compliance with Town codes. • Staff relies on business license records and the MuniRev sales tax reporting systems to monitor STRs, however, these systems only can track those properties which have received a business license. • To identify units which are not properly licensed, staff has reviewed Airbnb and VRBO listings periodically and subject to time available. Unit listings, however, do not include addresses which makes it difficult to identify the owner. • If a complaint is filed by any person that he or she believes a unit is being rented illegally, the Town staff investigates the complaint. 4. Other Colorado Ski Towns: In a recent survey of Colorado ski towns, of the 26 members that responded, 16 members currently track STRs in‐house but many are exploring service agreements. Nine members currently contract for STR monitoring service. One member does not track STRs at all. OPTIONS FOR SHORT TERM RENTAL ENFORCEMENT 1. Continue current process for identification and compliance • No additional expenditures are needed • Enforcement may not meet expectations as addresses must be found outside of the listing sites; and there are 100+ sites 2. Hire additional Town staff to identify properties and ensure compliance; pursue Agreement with Airbnb which now have been executed with major cities • The cost of the addition of full time or part time staff dedicated to enforcement is between $50,000 and $100,000 per year • Enforcement may not meet expectations as addresses must be found outside of the listing sites; and there are 100+ sites • Town staff is not likely to develop specialized software that can monitor many websites and identify property owners who may not be in compliance with Town regulations. 3. Retain Host Compliance LLC: In early 2017, Assistant Town Manager Scott Wright, became aware of a tracking and enforcement system developed by Host Compliance. Retained as an independent contractor, the firm would provide a cost effective solution for researching and enforcing short‐term rental regulations. • Attachment 2 presents the firms enforcement approach and initial findings, which include: i. There are 1058 listings and 782 unique properties operating in Avon ii. Town staff currently is aware of 107 unique properties operating in Avon today, which are in compliance with codes Page 2 of 4 iii. Cost of the Host Compliance services, which would benefit Avon’s enforcement program are $51,578 per year iv. Return on Investment: Estimated $39,100 of potential business license related revenue recovery and approx. $156,400 tax related revenue recovery for a total of $195,500 • Town staff including Scott Wright, Matt Pielsticker, Val Barry, Eric Heil and Virginia Egger interviewed the firm and reviewed the processes by which properties are identified and their system for enforcement. • Preston Neill, Executive Assistant to the Town Manager, received positive references from Truckee, California, and Manitou Springs. i. Truckee, one of the first town’s to retain Host Compliance and reported that Host Compliance identified approximately 400 properties that were not registered with Truckee on its first review. Truckee has collected approximately $250,000 in additional revenue to date. ii. Truckee highly rated the customer service by Host Compliance. iii. Demands on staff time was identified to be required for set up with some continuing work thereafter; but stated to be minimal and not requiring additional staff. iv. Other communities which have contracted with Host Compliance are City and County of Denver, Durango, Beaver Creek Resort Company and Estes Park. • The staff decision was unanimous that we should present a recommendation to Town Council to retain Host Compliance for STR identification and enforcement. (Other services of the firm through iCompass were also assessed but found not be cost effective.) Host Compliance offers the most comprehensive ability to identify STR units and is the most cost effective option. The identification will include a look back to the year 2010. • Town Attorney has completed the Service Agreement review and modifications, which are acceptable to Host Compliance. If Council wishes to contract with Host Compliance, a resolution would be placed on the agenda, appropriating funds and approving the Service Agreement, for a one year term. Attachment 3 provides the Scope of Work in the Services Agreement. Scott Wright will lead the discussion with Council. Paul Hetherington, Chief Revenue Officer, iCompass Technologies will be available remotely to present the tracking system. Host Compliance is an independent limited liability company of iCompass Technologies with offices in San Francisco and Canada. Attachment 1 Overlay Zone Districts – Short Term Rentals Attachment 2 Host Compliance Monitoring and Compliance Solutions Attachment 3 Host Compliance – Scope of Services & Typical Project Launch Schedule Page 3 of 4 ATTACHMENT 1 OVERLAY ZONE DISTRICTS SHORT TERM RENTALS Town of Avon Ordinance 09‐12 makes short‐term rentals legal within most of the town center area (see map below) through an overlay zone district. This overlay zone district only applies to properties zoned with a standard zone district and does not apply to any property zoned Planned Unit Development (PUD). The following properties zoned PUD permit STRs: • Brookside Park • Canyon Run • Chapel Square • Chateau St. Claire (The Ascent) • Falcon Pointe • Lakeside Terrace • Lot C (Sheraton Mountain Vista) • Riverfront Subdivision (Westin) • Stonebridge Cluster Homes For properties where short‐term rentals are allowed they must obtain a sales tax license through the Town of Avon and submit all applicable taxes to the Town of Avon. Properties found short term renting without submitting appropriate sales and accommodation taxes will be responsible to pay back taxes, penalties, interest and additional fines. In order for short‐term rentals to be allowable in the excluded areas, property owners need to apply for a PUD amendment to include short‐term rentals as an allowable use. Page 4 of 4 Cost-effective solutions to Avon’s short-term rental 1January, 2017 monitoring and compliance problems ATTACHMENT 2 Agenda •Introductions •U.S. and Avon Specific Market Context •The Host Compliance Solution •Discussion and Next Steps 2 Introductions: •Former COO of 2 VC backed companies •Prior military officer and graduate of Harvard Business School •Launched Host Compliance when asked by local town council to study possible ways to address its short-term rental compliance issues •Working with Local Government for over 20 years •Love of technology and efficiency •Focused on solutions with dramatic impact. •Dad, Triathlete and graduate of British Columbia Institute of Technology 3 •Silicon Valley based technology company •Only provider of short -term rental compliance monitoring technology for local governments •Team of seasoned local government technology executives and data-scientists •17 years of local government software expertise •Customer base of over 500 cities and public agencies across the United States and Canada. •100% focused on Local Government Ulrik Binzer Founder & CEO Paul Hetherington Chief Commercial Officer Broad set of stand-alone and integrated solutions for local governments 4 Agendas and Minutes Records Management Public Records and Permitting Video Streaming for Meetings Short-Term Rental Compliance Today’s Focus 5 Leading cities and counties are looking to Host Compliance for guidance, data and solutions to their short-term rental challenges Check https://hostcompliance.com/clients/for updates Tell us a bit about you, Avon, and where you are in terms of regulating short-term rentals? 1058 listings and 782 properties operating in Avon. Primary goals related to short-term rentals include: •ensuring building safety; minimizing STR’s negative impact on affordable housing availability; improving permit and tax compliance to increase tax revenue. On the heat matrix the STR situation in the Avon is described today as a Problem/Issue. Renting out homes on a short-term basis is currently Legal. Business license is required at an annual fee of $50.00. Regarding tax status, Avon is entitled to 8% of the gross rental revenues leaving significant tax recovery revenue available. See ROI below. Return on Investment: Estimated $39,100 of potential business license related revenue recovery and approx. $156,400 tax related revenue recovery for a total of $195,500 •Return on Address Identification service approximately 8.2 times. 6 What are Avon’s most important goals as it relates to short-term rentals? Reduce noise, parking, traffic and trash-problems Eliminate party houses Reduce STR’s impact on neighborhood character Ensure building safety Improve town’s responsiveness to neighbor complaints Stem STR’s negative impact on affordable housing availability Improve permit and tax compliance to increase tax revenue Ensure a level playing field between law abiding traditional lodging providers and illegal short-term rentals Reduce tension between short-term rental property owners and their neighbors Send a clear message to citizens that the town takes the STR problems seriously Other? 7 How big of a problem are short-term rentals in Avon? Debate TemperatureComplaintsMany Hot Few Cold Minor Concern Problem Issue 8 Crisis Agenda 9 •Introductions •U.S. and Avon Specific Market Context •The Host Compliance Solution •Discussion and Next Steps Market Context: AirBnb, VRBO and 100’s of other vacation rental websites have turned vacation rentals into a booming underground economy… Sources: AirBnB, HomeAway, VRBO and Flipkey + 100s of other web platforms 10 ….and within or near the borders of Avon we have identified 1058 listings and 782 unique short-term rental properties Sources: Host Compliance proprietary data Short-term rentals in Avon as of January, 2017 11 Increased tourist traffic from short-term renters has the potential to alter Avon’s character while introducing new safety risks, noise issues, trash and parking problems… Increased tourism can change neighborhood character Visitors don't always know (or follow) local rules Short-term renters may want to party and have less incentives to keep good neighborly relations Increased occupancy and short-term renters’ “vacation mode” can have negative side-effects 12 … resulting in disgruntled neighbors… “It is loud,and there is live music and karaoke stuff,and it’s all done outside because of the pool.They’re out in front at 4 in the afternoon waiting for their Uber to come, drunk on the front lawn.” “Sometimes, when they are outside, they’re playing beer pong just wearing their underwear” “We did not buy our house to be living next to a hotel. Would you buy a home if you knew a hotel like this was operating next door, if you wanted to set your life up and raise a family?” Jessica C. Neufeld Hazel Old, age 11 Emmy Jodoin Source: New York Times article: “New Worry for Home Buyers: A Party House Next Door”, October 10, 201513 …while negatively impacting Avon’s economy and regular citizens’ impression of the town’s ability to effectively protect their interests Avon loses out on tax revenue that could have been invested in improving the quality of life for its residents Conversion of residential units into tourist accommodations results in a tighter housing market, less affordable housing and higher rents Jobs are lost and wages are lowered in the local hospitality industry as unfair competition from unregulated vacation rentals lower demand for traditional tax-paying lodging providers Lack of proper regulation or limited or non-existing enforcement of existing ordinances, leads to tension between neighbors and the disillusionment with local government 14 Unfortunately manual compliance monitoring and enforcement is ineffective and prohibitively expensive Rental property listings are spread across 100s of different websites Manually monitoring 100s of properties is practically impossible as listings are constantly added, changed or removed Address data is hidden from listings making it time-consuming or impossible to locate the exact properties and identify owners It is practically impossible to collect taxes as there is no easy way to find out how often the properties are rented and for how much The vacation rental platforms refuse to provide the detailed data necessary for enforcing local ordinances Manual compliance monitoring and complaint-based enforcement often leads to claims of selective enforcement Limited legal basis to evict problematic short-term renters even if several ordinances are violated 15 Agenda 16 •Introductions •U.S. and Avon Specific Market Context •The Host Compliance Solution •Discussion and Next Steps 17 •Address Identification: Monthly report with complete address information and screenshots of all identifiable STRs in Avon’s jurisdiction •Compliance Monitoring: Ongoing monitoring of STRs for zoning and permit compliance coupled with systematic outreach to illegal short - term rental operators (using Avon’s form letters) •Rental Activity Monitoring: Ongoing monitoring of Avon’s STR listings for signs of rental activity. Enables data -informed tax compliance monitoring and other enforcement practices that require knowledge of STR activity level •Dedicated Hotline: 24/7 staffed telephone and email hotline for neighbors to report non -emergency STR problems •Trend Monitoring: Monthly report with aggregate statistics on the short-term rental activity in Avon Ways we can help 18 Dashboard Walk Through Dashboard Walk Through 19 20 Dashboard Walk Through 21 Dashboard Walk Through 22 Affordable pricing tailored to Avon’s needs Address Identification (PLUS all services above)$ Benefits to using Host Compliance’s services 24 Ensures fair, continuous and consistent compliance monitoring and enforcement Frees up valuable staff time that can be focused on higher-value added activities Minimizes noise, parking and trash violations Minimizes the impact on local law and code enforcement agencies as complaints are first handled by our 24/7 hotline and routed to the appropriate property owner before further enforcement actions are triggered Maximizes Avon’s tax and permit fee collections REVENUE POSITIVE –in most cases, the additional permitting fees alone pays for Host Compliance’s services several times Requires NO up-front investment or complicated IT integration -> we can be up and running in a couple of weeks 6 MONTH UNCONDITIONAL MONEY BACK GUARANTEE! Agenda 25 •Introductions •U.S. and Avon Specific Market Context •The Host Compliance Solution •Discussion and Next Steps Feedback 26 Working backwards to a solution to Avon’s STR problems 27 Next Steps Send you this presentation Schedule all team meeting? Set timeline to decide on best solution for Avon’s needs Confirm timing of possible rollout (needed to secure Avon’s place in the queue) 28 Contact info Please feel free to contact us anytime if you have any questions about short-term rental regulation and how to best address the associated monitoring and enforcement challenges. 29 Ulrik Binzer binzer@hostcompliance.com 857.928.0955 Paul Hetherington paulh@hostcompliance.com 604.763.7285 www.hostcompliance.com ATTACHMENT 3 HOST COMPLIANCE – SCOPE OF SERVICES TYPICAL PROJECT LAUNCH SCHEDULE Address Identification Monthly email-delivered report and live web-delivered dashboard with complete address information and screenshots of all identifiable STRs in Town of Avon's jurisdiction: • Up-to-date list of jurisdiction's active STR listings • High resolution screenshots of all active listings (captured weekly) • Full address and contact information for all identifiable STRs in jurisdiction • All available listing and contact information for non-identifiable STRs in jurisdiction Compliance Monitoring Ongoing monitoring of the short-term rentals operating in Town of Avon's jurisdiction for zoning and permit compliance coupled with systematic outreach to non-compliant short-term rental property owners (using Town of Avon's form letters) ● Ongoing monitoring of STRs for zoning and permit compliance ● Pro-active and systematic outreach to unpermitted and/or illegal short-term rental operators (using jurisdiction's form letters) ● Monthly staff report on jurisdiction's zoning and permit compliance: ● Up-to-date list of STRs operating illegally or without the proper permits ● Full case history for non-compliant listings Rental Activity Monitoring and Tax Collection Support Ongoing monitoring of jurisdiction's short-term rental properties for signs of rental activity and/or tax compliance: • Automatic monitoring of review activity across 15+ STR websites, which represent over 100+ sites • Weekly screenshots of reviews and calendars for each active listing • Quarterly pro-active, systematic and data-informed outreach to short-term rental operators regarding their tax remittance obligations (using jurisdiction's form letters) • Quarterly staff report on jurisdiction's STR tax compliance: • Up-to-date list of short-term rental landlords suspected of under-reporting taxes • Documentation of information that serves as the foundation for the suspicion of tax under- reporting • Custom reports and analysis to support tax audits and other STR related investigations Note: Detailed rental activity monitoring requires 6 months of data accumulation to be most effective. Total Annual Subscription Service Price $51,578 Note: Above year one pricing assumes 1058 STR listings in Town of Avon's jurisdiction. Pricing, in subsequent years, would be based upon the number of STR listings. TYPICAL LAUNCH SCHEDULE TOWN COUNCIL REPORT To: Honorable Mayor Jennie Fancher and Avon Town Council From: Justin Hildreth, Town Engineer Meeting Date: June 13, 2017 Agenda Topic: HEAT RECOVERY EXPANSION STUDY ACTION BEFORE COUNCIL Staff is seeking direction regarding proposed uses of the remaining available capacity of the Heat Recovery system. DISCUSSION The Heat Recovery system extracts waste heat from the treated effluent leaving the Eagle River Water and Sanitation District’s (ERWSD) Avon Wastewater Treatment Plant. The heat is pulled from the treated effluent and distributed to the recreation center in a closed loop circulation system. The heat provided through the Heat Recovery System is considered carbon neutral and supports the Town’s commitment to low carbon footprint development and sustainable heating solutions. The system costs approximately 21% more to operate than a conventional natural gas boiler, resulting in $17,000 in additional yearly expenses. The system uses electricity generated by wind energy thus eliminating the carbon emissions that would be generated if natural gas was still being used to heat the pools. The energy costs are small compared to the $4,500,000 cost of constructing the system. Operating the system reduces the Town’s carbon foot print by 503 tons/year, and a total carbon savings of 2,515 tons since the system became operational. The original design of the system anticipated connecting to the transit center and Main Street snowmelt systems. The Town has decided to not implement snowmelt systems because of the high energy requirements and lower cost of traditional snow removal and is looking to use the excess capacity in other more sustainable ways. The system has a total capacity of 3.2 million BTU/hour (MBH), of which 0.75 MBH is being used to heat the recreation center pools, leaving 2.45 MBH available for other uses. Potential expansion alternatives include new Town Hall and the Lot B Hotel parking lot snowmelt system. The heat demands of the alternatives examined in the report are summarized in Table 1 below.  Page 2 Table 1. Heat Recovery Expansion Heat Demands Alternative Location M Btu/Hour Heat Type Usage System Capacity 3.20 1 Recreation Center Pools 0.75 Heat 2 Town Hall 0.45 Heat 3 Lot B Hotel Snowmelt Baseline 2.0 Snowmelt Remaining 0.0 In addition, the system can also be used for the facilities being evaluated as part of the Town Owned Properties master plan including a multi-use pavilion and food & artist collective. The report did not examine the facilities being considered as part of the Town Owned Properties Master Plan because there is not enough information about the facilities to complete an evaluation at this time. The recreation center’s heating system is not compatible with the heat recovery system and was not evaluated further. Lot B Hotel The Lot B hotel is proposing to snowmelt 20,000-SF of the parking lot and the snowmelt system will require a baseline energy requirement of 100 BTU/hr/ft2 and up to 250 BTU/hr/ft2 during heavy snowmelt events. The heat recovery system can provide the energy required for the baseline energy requirement but not during snow events. In order to provide the heat required during snow events, a supplemental natural gas boiler would be required. There is a supplemental boiler in the heat recovery system and if it was used during the snow events, there would not be a back-up energy source for the heat recovery system. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the New Town Hall’s heating system be connected to the heat recovery system and the remaining capacity be used for future facilities owned by the Town in the neighborhood. Staff recommends that we do not provide heat for the Lot B hotel property for the following reasons: 1. There is not heat available in the current system to operate the hotel’s snowmelt system. 2. There would be no remaining capacity available for future Town facilities 3. Providing heat to a third party would require complicated billing of O&M expenses of the facility and require the Town to guarantee providing the heat 24-hours a day during the snow season. The Town is not currently staffed to provide that level of service.