Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.worksession.20121001 City of Aspen City Council Work Session October 01, 2012 Council Chambers 5!00 pm Work Session — Thompson Divide Coalition letter of support; Budget Overview, General Fund, Parking, Transportation, Parks, Golf September 24, 2012 The Honorable Michael Bennet United State Senator 1127 Sherman St., Suite 150 Denver, Colorado 80203 Senator Bennet, The City of Aspen supports the efforts of the Thompson Divide Coalition (TDC) to secure protections from oil and gas development on federal lands in the Thompson Divide Area.As you know, the TDC represents a broad-based group of local ranchers, farmers,hunters, anglers, recreationalists, and local governments, formed to address mutual concern's regarding existing oil and gas leases on public lands in the Thompson Divide area. The Thompson Divide Area is defined by abundant wildlife and wildlife habitat; essential watersheds, and historic grazing rights for local ranches that provide significant economic, agricultural, and social values to this small region of the state.We are concerned that the area's clean water, rural and agricultural heritage, and recreational and sporting activities could be negatively impacted by oil and gas development. Having reviewed a discussion draft of the "Thompson Divide Withdrawal and Protection Act,"we recognize that the proposed legislation does not affect existing uses or property rights, including current natural gas leases, and request that you introduce the bill during this session in order to move this effort forward. Thank you for your efforts on behalf of the people of Colorado. We look forward to working with you on this issue in the weeks and months to come. Sincerely, Michael C. Ireland, Mayor City of Aspen THOMPSON DIVIK COALITION p OUR HOME. OUR WATERSHED. OUR LIVELIHOOD. OUR MISSION: The mission of the Thompson Divide Coalition is to secure Zane.Ke-sslcr.Executiv• permanent protection from oil and gas development on federal lands in the Director Thompson Divide Area including the Thompson Creek and Four Mile Creek Board of Directors: watersheds, as well as portions of Coal Basin, and the headwaters of East Divide Creek. Chuck Ogilhy,President Avalanche Ranch To achieve this goal, the Thompson Divide Coalition is seeking federal la,on Sewell,Vice-Prey, legislation to withdraw the area from availability for future leasing. The SunFire Ranch coalition is also working with current leaseholders to purchase and retire Judy Fox-Perry,Scwretary existing leases. Water Gap Ranch fan Carnev,Treasurer BACKGROUND INFO: The Thompson Divide area includes over 221,500 acres of Two Shoes Ranch Federal land in Pitkin County (88,100 acres), Gunnison County (51,700 acres),Dorothea Farris,Colorado Garfield County (43,500 acres), Mesa County (30,500), and Delta County (7,700).Natural AreaxPro`.ram Council Member There are 61 leases in the area covering approximately 105,000 acres. Over half of Sue Anxhutr.•111o6ers, these leases are in roadless areas and do not contain surface stipulations. Crystal River Ranch Clare Bastable, AGRICULTURE: The Thompson Divide area has been ranched for more than a WesternFnergy Prol''ct century, and it remains the strongest enclave of traditional ranching culture in the lock lacuber, Roaring Fork Valley. Some 35 operations graze cattle on their own pastures and on Crystal River Meats federal grazing allotments in the surrounding hills. These ranches preserve Broul t_eyan, thousands of acres of increasingly scarce winter range for deer and elk, and thus ArftN Sustainable Scotinp Fred Lod=c,retired play an essential role in the larger ecosystem. hlorri;on>k Focr+ter,LL.P The grazing allotments in the Thompson Divide area provide crucial summer range for local ranchers with federal grazing permits. Access to nearby summer grazing lands allows ranchers to maintain their ranches as critical open space in the Office:valleys. 711 plain St PO Box 204; WATER: The Thompson Divide Area provides clean water for agricultural and Carbondale,CO 81623 domestic use. The North Fork Valley, one of the most productive organic farming970)(970)3i5-42233avethumpumdividc.or regions in the nation, is irrigated with water from the area. The Thompson Divide also provides domestic and agricultural water for operations in the Crystal, Roaring Fork, and North Fork valleys- People, fisheries, livestock, and the area's prodigious wildlife populations rely on clear water running out of the divide for their livelihood. The Thompson Divide Coalition recently commissioned the "Thompson Divide Baseline Water Quality Study". This study included intensive surface and ground water testing in the Thompson Divide area, and incorporated several major components: water quality, field data analysis, sediment and aquatic insect analysis. The study, conducted by Roaring Fork Conservancy, provides valuable baseline data for water resources in the area, serving as a"yardstick" against which future water quality changes can be measured. WILDLIFE: The Thompson Divide Area is defined by abundant wildlife and wildlife habitat, essential watersheds, and environmental, economic, agricultural, recreational and social values. The area's clean water, clean air, rural and agricultural heritage, and recreational and sporting activities would be negatively impacted by oil and gas development. Colorado River cutthroat, a species of special concern in Colorado, can be found in two forks of Thompson Creek. The area is an important migration corridor and provides key habitat for lynx, moose, bear, deer, elk, and mountain lions. The area is one of the last great swaths of undeveloped mid-elevation forest land in Colorado. RECREATION: The Thompson Divide area offers an array of recreational opportunities: Area #43 is considered one of the best hunting units in the state, along with 521, #42 and #421. Hikers, mountain bikers, dirt bikers, horseback riders, campers and anglers all enjoy the area. The Sunlight to Powderhorn snowmobile route traverses the area from east to west. The Thompson Creek Finns are a well-know sport-climbing destination. Ice climbing is a popular winter activity in the Hay Creek and Coal Basin watersheds. Spring Gulch, a public Nordic ski area just outside Carbondale, is an enormous asset to the local economy as is Ski Sunlight, an alpine resort, near Glenwood Springs. Tourism, Scenic Byway, and Aspen fall colors all support local economies. We believe that the values of these activities and the preservation of this unique area are greater than the potential value of oil and gas development in the area. ECONOMY: The Thompson Divide area and our local communities realize the valuable economic contributions of tourism, outdoor recreation and agriculture to our local economy. According to the 2011 Sonoran Institute Economic Impact Study, outdoor recreation supports 107,000 jobs and generates nearly $500 million in state tax revenues and produces $7.6 billion in retail sales and services across Colorado. Colorado's diverse agricultural industry employs approximately 43,000 farmers and ranchers, generates $16 billion annually in economic activity, and provides more than 105,000 jobs that depend on Colorado agribusiness. Many tourists visit the state to enjoy the natural environment and to participate in outdoor recreation activities that depend on healthy lands. Their contributions exceed in 10 billion in direct travel and expenditure and generate more than 143,000 jobs. For a full report, visit sonoraninstitute.org, Colorado Economic Facts. CONCLUSION: The Thompson Divide area is more valuable in its current rural state than it would be if developed by an industry such as oil and gas. The area's water resources, agricultural heritage, and recreational economy stand in the balance as oil and gas development creeps nearer. If we don't act quickly to protect this area, and all that it offers to our way of life, we stand to lose it forever. Michael Bennet-United States Senator for Colorado:Participate i... http://vwivbennet.senate.gov/thompsondivi Michael F.Bennet United States Senator for Colorado F.t.t En E x Ytal F:at!•:r jk AA © - Participate in the Discussion on Thompson Divide Lld 127 Tweet it S: t lkA t ` '- `• t. r• •.++ ` of i, ii I Photo Credit:Bruce Gordon I've had many productive conversations with local residents, ranchers, advocacy groups and leaseholders that have been focused on finding a way to move forward that works for everyone involved.The draft bill and map on the right are a result of those conversations,but it's only the beginning. I'm committed to listening to the input from all Coloradans and I'm looking forward to hearing your comments. Please review the bill and proposed map on the right and use the form below to let me know your thoughts. Thank you, Michael Bennet CEL12568 DISCUSSION DRAFT S.L.C. 112TII CONGRESS 1.9 T SEStiIOX so To pro-6de for the «ithdrnral and proteetion of certain Federal hurl in the State of Colorado, mid for other purposes. IN THE SENATE OF THE ITNITED STATES iittrodiiced the follo«-im, Dill; 11-hirli «as read tmic and referred to the Committee oil A BILL To prmide for the mflidrawal and protection of certmil Fed- eral land in the State of Colorado, and for other pur- poses. 1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa- 2 tires of the United States ofAmer•ica in Congress assembled, 3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 4 This Act may 1)e cited as the "Tllonipson DMde 5 Withdrawal and Protection Act of 2012". 6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES. 7 a) finds tlhat- 8 1) t11e Tllonipson DMde in irestern Colorado is 9 an area comprised of Federal and non-Federal land 10 that 1)rorides important watershed, scenic, rec- EL1256S DISCUSSION DRAFT 1 reational, ti-ildlife, and other benefits to the general 2 public and local communities; 3 2) the Thompson Dh ide pros ides rural char- 4 actor, a robust agriculture-based economy, and out- 5 standing recreational and sporting opportunities to 6 lllany surrounding communities; and 7 3) the Thompson Dh ide pi-m ides important 8 spring and summer grazing land for historical 9 ranching operations. 10 b) P111110SES.—The purposes of this Act are- 11 1) subject to valid existing rights, to «-ithdraw 12 eei-taiii Federal land and mineral rights in the 13 Ttionipsoil DiN ide Withdrawal and Protection Area 14 fr0111= ` 15 A) disposition under the mineral and geo- 16 thermal leasing laws of the tTllited States; 17 B) location, patent, and entry under lnill- 18 iug• laWs of the tTnited States; and 19 C) all forms of Appropriation or disposal 20 under the public land laws; and 21 2) to allow for the retirement, purchase, dona- 22 tion, voluntary exchange or other acquisition of 23 mineral and other interests in land from iN illing• sell- 24 ers Ni itllill the Thompson Di-6de Withdrawal and 25 Protection Vea. CEL1256S DISCUSSION DRAFT S.L.C. 3 f 1 SEC. 3.DEFINITIONS. 2 In this Act: 3 1) 11LkP.—The term "map" ineans the map en- 4 titled "Thompson Creek Dh ide Proposed With- 5 drawal" and dated May 31, 2012. 6 2) SECRETARY.—The term "Secretaiv" means 7 the Secretaii• of the Interior. 8 3) TIIo-mPSoN DIVIDE \VITIIIMkNVAL AIND PR()- 9 TEl'TI()\ AREA.—The terin "Thompson DiN ide With- 10 clralval aria -Proteetion Alva" -mcau5- -the Federal 11 land consisting of the appro innately 183,000 acres 12 depicted on the map as "Thom,pson Creek DiN ide 13 Proposed Withdrawal". 14 SEC. 4. THOMPSON DIVIDE WITHDRAWAL AND PROTEC- 15 TION AREA. 16 a) I\ GENERAL.—SUbjeet to valid rights, 17 the Thompsou Dix ide Withdrawal and Protection Area is 18 NN ithdra«v from all forms of- 19 1) entry, appropriation, and disposal under the 20 public land laws; 21 2) location, enti; , and patent under iiiilllng' 22 lags; and 23 3) operation of the mineral leasing, mineral 24 materials, and geothermal leasing lags. 25 b) A('QuisITION OF MINERAL RI(rIITfi.— 26 1) NOTIFICATIO\.— EL12.5GR DISCUSSION DRAFT S.L.C. 4 1 A) IN GE\EPLAL.— Tot later than 180 2 days after the date of enactment of this Aet, 3 the 'ecretal-•, 111 consultation «-ith the See- 4 retary of Agneulture, shall pro-,ide Nvrittell 110- 5 tice to holders of valid e-,dstillg mineral leases 6 or other mineral interests «<itllin the Thompson 7 Divide Withdrawal and Protection Area of the 8 potential opportullitN, for donation, voluntary 9 etcllang''e, or other relinquishment of those 10 rinlhts for 1•etil•elnent Linder this Aet. 11 B) NOTIFICATION To SECIIETaRT.—(hl 12 receipt of the notification under subparagraph 13 A), a holder of a valid mineral lease or other 14 mineral interest i6thin the Thompson Dh ide 15 Withdrawal and Protection Area lllaY sub"'it a 16 rl•ittell notice to the Sccretm. of the interest of 17 the holder in the retirement or other eollve-%- 18 ance of that riollt for m ithdrawal and protection 19 purposes. 20 C) FIST OF INTERESTED IUILDERS.—The 21 SeeretaiT shall prepare a list of interested liold- 22 ers under subparagraph (A) and make the list 23 available to- 24 i) the SeeretalT of :g1•iculture; CEL1256S DISCUSSION DRAFT 5.L•1'. ii) any non-Federal nonprofit orgalli- 2 zction described in section 170(11) of the 3 Internal Revenue Code of 1986; or 4 iii) any person interested in acquiring 5 a right for retirement under this Act. 2) WITIIDR-1RAID AND RETIREME\T.—If any 7 mineral lease or other mineral interest is relill- 8 quished, donated to, exchanged, or othem ise ac- 9 qulred by the United States wholh or partially- mith- 10 ill the Thompson Dh ide Withdrawal and Protection 11 Area under this Act or under the authorit}- of the 12 ecretal-N• or the Secretary of Ag•1-iculture, respee- 13 tively the land shall, mithout further action by the 14 Seeretary concerned, be automatically NN ithdrawn 15 from all forms of — 16 A) entry, appropriation, and disposal 17 under the public laird laws; 18 B) location, entry, and patent mider "'1'1- 19 ing• laws; and 20 C) operation of the mineral leasing, min- 21 oral Materials, and geothermal leasing- lags. 22 3) PROIIIBITIO- .—The SccretaiT and the See- 23 retary of Agi•iculture shall not use Federal funds to 24 repurchase any valid Federal mineral lease or other EL1256S DISCUSSION DRAFT S.L.C. 6 1 mineral interest «Rhin the Thompson Divide With- 2 drawal uiid Protection Area. 3 4) APPLICABILITI.- 4 A) E-.,aSTI\G RIGIITS.—Nothilig in this 5 Act expands, diminishes, impairs, or othenN-ise 6 affects ally- valid e-,dstiilg• mineral leases, mill- 7 eral interest, or other private property rights 8 wholly or partially within the Thompson Divide 9 Withdrawal and Protection Area, including ae- 10 Bess to the leases, rights, or lapel in aceordance 11 i6th applicable Federal, State, and local laws 12 including regulations),, 13 f ) PPIT01t LEASE SALES.— ?Otlllllz; ill this 14 Act prohibits the Secretary from taking ail ' ac- 15 tion necessal•t to issue, deny, remove the sus- 16 poilsioll of, or cancel a lease or any sold lease 17 parcel that leas not been issued pursuant to any 18 lease sale carried out prior to the date of enact- 19 inept of this Act, including the completion of 20 ally- requirements under the National Environ- 21 mental Polies- Act of 1969 (42 L?.S.('. 4321 et 22 seq.). Thompson Creek Divide Proposed Withdrawal May 31.2V2 IJI T`.,,map prsparai 1t'to reG est.l aera'-4Lpran 3z^rei i_ARFI EAGLE s r ii q r I t y p Z. N. 2 Colorado 22'. t _ r 7 n Legend 1 Larry Bawd— Surf—t.,na Ow—hip sir-u",r_;rawr,g-nom• i+vatz r y • : .s4 ;}. . Tho mpson- Divide Area --- t T Oil and Gas im acts cT,a c .•v n.,nfltt r 1 IED tR Qerc r •1 l j tl+ NTIi LAC i l Cw rcw. I 1sau+:F'.:.P_.r,;Cnq, ter 6 I L7L r!n X9..1.•` v a. t t t IX.LbU ttl Yt•itV c 4 - 1 xa IX<y.f•1 it t. Lr.,t,[c:Ct.+,i:4 t:t. : i• i 1 _ Head f 1»+3 t -Y .• - _- - - 1 un tl^w 4a to Fie 4 jt m" -''-_-- ' i to C.t f f•_., X . C r o.w ttR Wye /•_ . yy x ,.a2, 2 dux`n..-1_ i t ict i 1 tK i r r•« x-.:r. _.. t a:'n:' ttx'o+w:- ou&Gas impacts Legend is -w.+ c oil!a Gns WeCs Permittedt b C(x:CC F • W&G15 Chins Fadttty Permitted Uy C:CX;CC l r x I Legend QThump an Dade Area Stream kk a Ci ammuoih Count G:v:t I jountain City cl w i spring R iErktttxj i• ii i•rnCSa t t;i°` Fti#F.waq C5F'arrst5eri'icrLaud tf , i La°a!Rcwd StaL`Fand r fir ft Private[.and at Motorized 2ou4 i k ;• I+GFS tan Mctartzed trail r:, t• t - f Yi1a L'Gl Zti•l-i [ .. ni'.4k AF ltl t- R Qe-ht S: t A.! ,..MC r Ny.R!•- r t 2 niJ'f;a t•'. J \ .s vt-t.wx*y:.t.,t..rti,.y,w . i_il :C42..'. v•(_.,. . 1t r TNOMPSOM NVIDS UALIUCK U,r-u.ac tua.e.an:.. u:1>•raw i --' ..,w-" 7 Thompson Divide4 t., 1 U f Oil and Gas Leases j F+ tvstonj Glenwood Springs,_G_ Or Glenwood 4.Roca cs;a-n of Sprtngx sotnt dtc. ss A i ti e: -aws 1 ti prin Va7(YgInah t Midlat •G t )? Sybdivy,an /' Subd JA ChfitLlaRr S;a r ; 1 t .t j '• Crrh riasta R,C".. i 1(i rK ta55 t2 ';' I it3ttt(}I Suhdivismn drvWl n a,• lake Springs Ranch I-- Subdivision re••..,a°"_,. 1 Elk Spnnps i` cn.Firy ,ykcv, ws in wa1 3, Suhdivlswn I A4bs bd vieon s a ,ro 1iCOC'tt?i16 rn[ rna7A ' Sunai}' n d' _ thank Nose In.Y I(tpRk1 Vd Cpnbr t5ubtlwtsi4 ronbri ge i 1 I SubL ivis iron yh n Cattlo Creek yngndMV.r-_ r4a 1N. binSutrdly)lon 1 p l 9u d)vliiorri Oa i Meath r "k-zi Sunlight Peak d! `{JI/ gaps lei y bbd %,on L_ f 10,571 fee c coe Dacc0 Red1-Lill _' I X)c vra=a(7006Eee7 S CUM j r 11ygryell Ra w CdabsaThompson ,pi ia C ±aEni tnc- o xu f •':. .,.--` t'"- hp uD Divide -,.,E i Ii atbondale' v _ LX Ra k 6;n l i 4tK L f r j isArea r acx onean tit Legend Oil and Gas Lease Holders O I co A"MqO a-1i?tcP-%NcCOV ( tic VIA M LaaA-5. ''WeQrhomFsonDivideArea (V b-Gaa We11,(COGCC) Ct+HVZ ,y LRA INC x.71.1;tC f'- subdtvisiccu OU 3-Gas Odier ParjUty(CC)GCQ f OBfOLN6NERC Y tc y t_L`RP, sc tar Rns.vrt t ro a Cemtnnry-1 I('_Cunty Line Q BP6tv1ti G V :;'Zi i.3t Tt is I 4.t5 P QOIiCCtcav Rc O Mvunta n 4 Cik 5prb)8 US FarestSen•ite Lend A1aicr Route 61,-M Land Trudioube 5wteLand SL'r,ar.r• rw i r.{-a it vofferttua_ TIiQ?P34t1 1 •.n.4 r a: uOl7lOeCOAEfTIQNYrJA,1u: ,I ,i Stream 04.M.6 0..a.rt„n.n.0..1,as• ,v Yt. ..rz:. Thompson Divide Area '` 1 Grazing Allotments , en, naoeM„1 ARc'au M 1 t+w urd 11 CFiXzy titulc a:'•• Cart..q.ALL9CT„ N t: m i .. - 4 i4 GN•ti Sin -t:ra yYy.V CYt<rl+tD s•t af•_tf r1. 1 may, Q i.+ Jt}„y Allot c Bw:, m Gr brF,1AWm.N r1,.ptG,tr curl .:. i' r I t „ice r slr,+atcr . mi a`- y u „,,u arbaUimn .t ,. c+rS"alr6 rnc y f 8 P b to GTaLfng Legend n r•,1 b Gnzi't;,Allntn.ent 1 •i tl I 1 41"'i" ik' Legend QThornp;on Uivide Area Stream Catnmurity County line Mountrin C t; r Spring Ae Znata f y ildentc5' tligilvJ,tp t Frc3`.5crcical..nd Mafor Ron.{ F,1-M[and r1 Deal Rca:i Sr e I,a:ld 7rrm USE'iMotacuedBciut: Cxi=at.ltnd r 1JGF tun tatcr[edTn.l t '. J A': .n.. ,;z.. arx„ rj._,..•,r,tr eau hc' - d. qtr J' bn°,,;,tr:l rr.,r,•., , •n w...m-4P.A ati+c..:,ya r.,:r. .tK.as r; i fF t"..c - ,r•rJ,..7,,.f,:u-ri+:,,t.:.r;T_•s.,1.,s'.,.::,,.:w-usi:w:.. IM—i L—.r.r•+.i i-+,..r:,^,.a:r:+.c-t.rnk.u.,i:r Ft:ut 9... .'unl rtt TH0,41P50N 611iBE C4oUTICN It JSi•'1tR.OVS am CCr rrliC1t0:71tu I h,:1vJ.4u Area ,a, Thompson Divide Watersheds a '\ v y Folk 3 East l XX Ctetk ' of L'la•1C N" stow JAW f..0 Heidi Vp tj L'.4 .. F1 t fk q a;' S_. y a, i 1-- - - Watershed Legend` Q4Yetcr;hc9 , ,, f' aR, y _ A,;. r}.,,;it Fr _ ``.••` '\S_ mudcfy Legend Q'Cltomp-iuG Umcic Area Stream City I7'J,IVl71t} C{,1^t`' T..IP.2 Sprini esit;,tad 4+ildemS tay t,\%\a `a 11igto"ay L'S Fury.Sc vita`ifi d pia r Rna.l BlAl l and Lc'cal Ruad State 1 aad 1 U5F5 Moturued CL v4, LgFS Lan llrte:itctl Tre] g,.`r a•:.r^I ur,:h:.^t':-araanr.x.r-..'%r:r.'ua:r,+4.anu•+,uo•mi:-a. leer.::wn.iet'-Sro':•:r,]x]rY +n',rihJRwL•.+3.6!SC•a k•.G:xl•,tftGdril.;•: e.^n]/"-ai'1 •IJ.:o:I-..cG a.::i-.:fr•.:F;p't,I,.Y.! TRUAPSON DIVIDE GOAUTION Y1 rri C`i : LW. I`'.G'r4v`lu a 4ucla.:i Thompson Divide Area With Land Ownership X IL t J JI it Legend MThonipson Dwide Area City Community Designated Wilderness Mountain Land O-Anership L FhahwaN Private Major Road Federal (BOR.FWS.NM Local Road USFS Stream BUM Like Colorado v. County Lin. Local NGO Land Trutt 0 0755 1.5 2.23 3 3.7, Erm Miles f it e amas l @ rlao IJ ,' L i ada r THOMPSON DIVIDE COALITION REGIONAL OVERVIEW 4P A i I r it i 1 I I 9 3 l ' I i gap Eli Toin Jankovsky District 1 John Afartirz Chas. Garfield County District 2 BOARD OF COUNTY CO111A1ISSI0-,VERS Alike Samson, Chair Pro Tem District 3 September 4, 2012 Thompson Divide Coalition C/O: Dorothea Farris 711 Main Street Carbondale, CO 81623 Dear Mrs. Farris, Regarding your request to support the "Thompson Divide Withdrawal and Protection Act,"the Garfield County Board of Commissioners continues its position as stated in BOCC Resolution numbers 2009-67 and 2010-73, which are attached for your convenience. Sincerely, GARFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Jo Marti hai En • Reso n Nos. 200 - 010-73 cc: file INP.6KDIMOYC IWJI0,41r.AWlCHU"I111113, y. Reception: 775222 09/1712009 12.42:12 PM lean Rlberico 2 cf 3 Rec Fee $3.00 Doc Fee 0.03 GRP.FSELD GCJPdTY CO angling opportunities. The area has been recognized by the Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) as high priority habitat for a variety of species. It is part of a critical big game migration corridor and provides key wildlife security for species such as deer, elk, bear, and lynx. The entire area is important elk calving habitat and summer range for big game. In addition, the Colorado River cutthroat trout (recognized as a Species of Special Concern by CDOW is found in two forks of Thompson Creek. The streams also feature rare wetland shrub communities, and the old-growth forest is habitat for the boreal owl and northern goshawk; and WHEREAS, the area offers exceptional recreational opportunities and is used regularly by local bikers, climbers, hikers, snowmobilers and cross country and back country skiers. The recreational opportunities these special areas provide local residents are an essential part of the high quality of life offered in Garfield County. WHEREAS, oil and gas development in this area may have an impact upon the rural character, ranching heritage and agricultural heritage of Garfield County, and may alter the character of this area. Furthermore, energy development in this rural and largely roadless area may create public environmental, health and emergency management concerns; and WHEREAS, the Thompson Divide Coalition recognizes the need for energy development and the validity of existing leases, it believes it is imperative that energy development occur only in appropriate places and that it proceed in a responsible matter. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County, State of Colorado, as follows: 1. The Thompson Creek, Fourmile Creek, Threemile Creek, and Coal Creek Watersheds, headwaters of East Divide Creek, Muddy Basin, as well as the local community and environmental values and economy they support deserve preservation and protection; and 2 . Unless conducted in appropriate places and in a responsible manner, energy development on federal lands in the Thompson Creek, Fourmile Creek, Threemile Creek, and Coal Creek watersheds, headwaters of East Divide Creek and Muddy Basin has 2 ffl1'YY itif h U 441 t1„l l'if 4#1 llfl Reception#: 7924114 10/0412010 C4:D5:15 PM Jean Alberico 9,94gfr .tiet 'Y"S, 1 of 3 kec Fee:$O.CO Dac Fee:0.00 GARFiELD COUNTY CO a icy s r w i STATE OF COLORADO ys5. COUNTY OF GARFIELD y At a regalar r..eeting of the Board of Co-anty Co.;nissioners for Garfield County, Colorado, held at the County A&dnistra*_ion Building in Glenwood Springs on W iln4u, the [y- day or _ f r„ , 2009, there were present: Tres-_ Houpt Comissioner T J ke Samson Corrnissioner Jour. Martin Corsaissior_er Chairman Don K. De£ord County Attorney Ed Green County tanager Jean. Alberico Clerk to the Board when the following proceedings, among others we,re_.had and done, to-wit- RESOLUTION NO. 10- 73 RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY CQMMISSIONERS OF GARFIELD COUNTY, STATE OF COLORADO IN SUPPORT OF THE DIVIDE CREEK. COALITION WHEREAS, Garfield County is a legal and political subdivision of the State of Colorado for which the Board of County Commissioners ("BOCC") is authorized to act by Section. 30-11-103, C.R. S . , as amended; WHEREAS, the Thompson. Divide Coalition is a broad-based coalition of local ranchers, farmers, hunters, anglers, recreationalists, conservationists and local governments, formed to address mutual concerns regarding oil and gas development on Federal lands in the Thompson Creek, Coal Creek, Fourmile Creek, and Threemile Creek watersheds, Muddy Basin and the headwaters of East Divide Creek and the potential negative impacts on this rural area associated with oil and gas development; and WHEREAS, ranching and farming in the area prioritized for protection by the Thompson Divide Coalition not only make important contributions to the local economy, both define the rural character of the area . These watersheds provide clean water -o farms and ranches, as well as water for do,,.estic use. In addition, these federal lands host grazing allotments for summer -range for a large number of ranchers; and WHEREAS, this area is part of a 122, 000 acre largely roadless landscape which is the Largest contiguous virtually 1 IllWranM,ftm lit 14AWMV 141W Reception#: 792484 10/64/2010 04:05:15 PM Jean Alberto 3 of 3 Rec Fee:50.co Doc Fee:0.00 Go FIELD COl3*!iY CO watersheds, headwaters of East Divide Creek and Muddy Basin has the potential to be inconsistent with such preservation and protection; and 3.The Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County supports the efforts of the Thompson Divide Coalition to explore legislative initiatives and other opportunities to protect these special areas from energy development in a manner that respects existing rights of leaseholders. DATED this `ft+' day of 2010, effective the 14tr' day of September, 2009, pursuant to a motion made at a regularly scheduled BO meeting held that date. F\E•LD•C Qg•• f, 'BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF ATTEST:ARFIELD COUNT , TATE OF COLORADO SEAL . lerk to the Boar DORADO Cnai n_ upon 7.oticn duly made and seconded the fo egoing P olutior. ',.,as adopted by the following vote: Tresi Houpt Aye Mike Samson Aye John Martin Aye Corrnissioners STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. COUNTY 0: GARF:EuD ) I, Jean Albericc, County Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the Board of County Cor.:tissioners in and for the Co-inty and State aforesaid do hereby certify that the annexe9 and foregoing P.esoluticn is truly copied fror. the Records of the Proceedings of the Board of county Conn:issioners fcr said Garfield County, ncw in my office. IN V71TFESS WHER=OF, 1 have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said Coa-ity, at Glenwood Springs, this — day of A.D. 2009. Co::nty Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the Board of Ccunty Cornissioners ti; 3 t Garfield County Commissioner 108 8`h St.,Suite 213 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 November 5, 2010 Representative John Salazar 326 Cannon Building Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Congressman Salazar: This letter is to thank you for your commitment to the mission of the Thompson Divide Coalition during the past two years. As we have worked to gain the support of the many jurisdictions, agencies, and individuals,you have been there with staff to offer advice and assistance. We continue to depend on your support and the support of your office. You indicated at the meeting in Aspen, when we delivered to you the proposal and its supporting documents and the proposed legislation, that you would be moving forward with staff with direction to create appropriate legislation to carry our proposal to Congress. That exciting news is the result of two years of extensive work and dedication to the mission of the TDC, which is to retire the oil and gas leases on the federal lands in the Thompson Divide Protection Area while preserving the existing uses for recreation and agriculture and protecting the sensitive wildlife and wildlife habitat. We recognize that the accomplishments we have made thus far must be supported now as Congress moves forward with approvals and implementation. We will continue to work with our Representative- Elect Scott Tipton and with our Senators, Mark Udall and Michael Bennet,to reach our goal. Hopefully,the issues can be resolved legislatively, as protecting public interests, needs, health, safety, water and significant environmental attributes on federal lands is a responsibility of the Federal agencies. We look forward to workin wi'h all involved in the resolution of this proposal. Please let us know what we-can do to move the legislation forward and to protect not only our interests but also the special places,represented by the proposed Thompson Divide Protection Act. Regards, John Martin, Chair laAeld County Board of County Commissioners Dorothea Farri , Vice Chair,Thompson Divide Coalition; Commissioner, Colorado Division of Wildlife Cc: Ronnie Carlton, Rich Baca, Tate Rosenbusch, John Whitney, Edward Stern U.S. Representative-Elect Scott Tipton U.S. Senator Michael Bennet and U.S. Senator Mark Udall Colorado Governor Bill Ritter and Colorado Governor-Elect John Hickenlooper Representative Kathleen Curry and Representative-Elect Roger Wilson Senator Gail Schwartz TDC Board of Directors i III Yty N Reception: 775222 F (1 1 1 l'i Yt't1'l+l 1 G:4 rkGl 'j /{fll '7$222 09/17/2009 12:42:12 PM Jean Alberico1of3PecFees©,@0 DO Fee 0,00 CARFIEL.D COUPojy CO STATE OF CoLopn.DO ) Ss. COUA,iy OF GARFIEiD ) At a regular meeting of the Board of County Cormissioners for GarfieldCou_zty, Colorado, held at the County Administration Building in Glenwood Springsonjy,n {V the j da}, of 2009, there were present:j— Tresi Houot ComissionerMikeSamsonCommissionerJohnMartinCommissioner ChairmanDonK. DeFord County AttorneyEdGreenCountyManagerJean.Alberico ClQrk to the Board when the following proceedings, among others were had and done, to-wit: RESOLUTION NO. 09- 67 RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF GARFIELDCOUNTY, STATE OF COLORADO IN SUPPORT OF THE DIVIDE CREEKCOALITION WHEREAS, Garfield County is a .legal and politicalsubdivisionoftheStateofColoradoforwhichtheBoardofCountyCommissioners '("BOCC") is authorized to- act by Section 30-11-103, C.R.S. , as ' amended;- WHEREAS, the Thompson Divide Coalition is a broad-basedcoalitionoflocalranchers, farmers,recreationalists, conservationists and local governments, nglers, to address mutual concerns regarding oil and gas development oa federal lands in the Thompson Creek, Coal Creek, Fourmile Creek,and Threemile Creek-watersheds, Muddy Basin and the headwaters ofEast -Divide Creek and the potential negative impactsruralareaassociatedwithoilandgasdevelopment; and on this WHEREAS, ranching and farming in the area prioritized forprotectionbytheThompson_ Divide Coalition not only makeimportantcontributionstothelocaleconomy, both define theruralcharacterofthearea. These watersheds Providewatertofarmsandranches, as well as water for domestic clean In addition, these federal lands host grazing allotmentssummerrange- for a large number forofranchers; and WHEREAS; this area is part of a 122 000roadlesslandscapewhichisthelargestconti acre largely roadless area in the State of Colorado. guous virtually provide important habitat for wildlife, These federal lands and excellent hunting and mill Wi,KNUMV,IVI TOXIC :KL6 M4 11111 Rece 222tson#: 775 05!17/2009 12:42:12 PY Jean filberico3of3RecFee:30.00 Doc Fee:0.00 G,PFIELD COUNTY CO the potential to be inconsistent with such preservation and protection; and 3 . The Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County supports the efforts of the Thompson Divide Coalition to explore legislative initiatives and other opportunities to protect these special areas from energy development in a manner that respects existing rights of leaseholders . DATED this day of e.YY.L!L 2'0'0(9 . F CpL BOARD OF ATTEST: LINTY OMMISSIONERS OF ARFIELD OUNTY, STATE OF COLORADO SEAL By: lerk to the Boa cp ORP Ch i erso Upon motion duly made and seconded the fore ing so ution was ado ted bythefollowingvote: Tresi Hount A e Mike Samson Aye John Martin Aye Commissioners STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. COUNTY OF GARFIELD ) I, Jean Alberico, County Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the Board of CountyE * Commissioners in and for the County and state aforesaid do hereby certify that theannexedandforegoingResolutionistrulycopiedfromtheRecordsofthexProceedingsof -the--Surd Of -County Comrtissiminers for said- Garfield Countv, now inmyoffice. IN WITNESS WiEREOr I have hereunto set d Ilk y said County, at Glenwood Springs, this day of hand and affixede Q0t9e seal of County Clerk and ex=officio Clerk of 1 the Board of County Commissioners Jk. 4 s\MyFiles\RESO\Thompson Divide Coalition.cnd Y"'- 3 Pitkin County 530 E Main Street Aspen,Colorado 8161 1-1945'ti July 20, 2010 Honorable John Salazar 1531 Longworth HOB Washington, D-C. 20515 202 226 9596 Congressman Salazar. As you know,we support the efforts of the Thompson Divide Coalition.The Coalition has now drafted a bill called the Thompson Divide Withdrawal and Protection Act. We support the-aims of that bill and request that you introduce the bill during this session in order to move this effort forward. Thank you for your ongoing.commitment to the residents of Pitkin County and the protection of public lands. We look forward to working with you and your staff to ensure'that the Thompson Divide gets the permanent protection it deserves. Sincerely, PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS George'Newman, Chai CC' TUC; Laurie Stevens, Staff, infono savethompsondivide.orq Edward Stem, Staff Assistant, _E_dward.SternCc mail.house.gov John Whitney, Regional Director, John.Whitney(d)mail.house.gov Richard Baca, Regional Director, Rich ard-Baca(cDmail.house.gov Ronnie Carleton, Chief of Staff, Ron.CarletonCci)mail.house.gov Attachments: previous endorsement letter draft bill map Administration County Commissioners County Attorney Finance and Use Tax Suite 301 Suite 301 Suite 302 Suite 201 970)920-5200 (970)920-5200 970)920-5190 (970)920-5220 YY fax 920-5198 fax 920-5198• fax 920-5198 fax 920-5230 that it proceed in a responsible manner. The Bureau of Land Management has approved 80 leases on this special landscape,half of which were let in roadless areas withoutYsurface stipulations after the 2061 Roadless Area Conservation Rule was in effect. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County that: 1. The Thompson,Fourmile,Muddy and Clear Fork Creek watersheds,and the headwaters of East Divide Creek,as well as the local community,environmental and economic values these areas support deserve preservation and protection;and 2. Energy development on federal lands in these areas is inconsistent with such preservation and protection,and is indicative of a fla,,ved and irresponsible approach to energy development; and 3. Pitkin County supports the efforts of the Thompson Divide Coalition to explore legislative initiatives and other opportunities to protect these special areas from energy development. INTRODUCED,READ AND ADOPTED ON Z3 2009. ATT T:BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF KIN COUNT By: y: nette Jones Patti Kay-dapper eputy County Clerk Chair APPROVED AS TO FORM: MANAGER APPROVAL: By: By John Ely Hilary F et her rnty ttorney County anager 5 a September 28, 2010 THE C1rr or ASPEN A Honorable John Salazar 0FRaOF1KMAyp[tb 1531 Longworth HOB Washington, D.C. 20515 Congressman Sal,zar, The City of Aspen,Colorado supports the efforts of the Thompson Divide Coalition. The Coalition has now drafted a bill called the Thompson Divide Withdrawal and Protection Act. We support the aims of that bill and request that you introduce the bill.during-this session-in order to move this effort forward. Thank-you for your ongoing commitment to the residents of Colorado,and for the•protection of public lands. We look forward to working.with you and your staff to ensure that the Thompson Dig ide gets the-permanent protection it deserves. Respectfully, Michael C. Ireland,Ma or of Aspen cc: TDC, info(asavethompsondivide.org Tate Rosenbusch,Tafe,Rosenbusch @mail.house.go'v Edward Stern, Staff Assistant,Edward.Stern @mail:house.gov John Whitney, Regional Director,John.Whitney@mail.house.gov Richard Baca,Regional Director,Richard.Baca@mail.house.gov Ronnie Carleton, Chief of Staff, Ron.Carleton@mail.house.gov 130 5rnmi GALENA SiRFf7; Asnx,COLORApo 81611-1975 NONE 970.920.5199 FAX 970,9205119 P=td m RegCW Paper RESOLUTION No. 3y Series of 2009) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, PROVIDING FORMAL SUPPORT FOR THE THOMPSON DIVIDE COALITION WHEREAS,the Thompson Divide Coalition is a broad-based coalition of local landowners, ranchers, farmers,hunters, anglers,recreationalists, water users, conservationists and local governments, formed to address mutual concerns regarding the existing oil and gas leases on federal lands in the Thompson,Fourmile,Muddy and Clear Fork Creek watersheds, and the headwaters of East Divide Creek, and the potential negative impacts on this rural area associated with their development.; and r WHEREAS, outdoor recreation and environmental conservation are at the core of what makes the Roaring Fork Valley an exceptional place to live and vacation for both local residents and tourists and this area offers exceptional recreational opportunities and is regularly used by bikers, climbers,hikers, snowmobilers and cross country and back country skiers; and WHEREAS, the area of concern is part of a 122,000 acre roadless landscape,which is the largest contiguous roadless area in the state. These federal lands provide important habitat for wildlife, and excellent hunting and angling opportunities. The area has been recognized by the Colorado Division of Wildlife as high priority habitat for a variety of species. It is part of a critical big game migration corridor and provides key wildlife security for species such as deer, elk,bear, and lynx.The entire area is important elk calving habitat and summer range for big game. In addition, the Colorado River cutthroat trout(recognized as a Species of Special Concern) is found in at least one fork of Thompson Creek; and WHEREAS, energy development in this area is inconsistent with ecological preservation and would have a deleterious impact on the rural character, natural beauty and serenity of the valley and would forever ruin the wild character and exceptional habitat of this area; and WHEREAS, recent air monitoring on top of Aspen Mountain showed the highest ozone level ever recorded on the Western slope and possible sources include gas drilling and traffic. Ozone poses a significant risk to human health with its effects targeted on the respiratory system and the City of Aspen City Council desires to protect the health of its citizens; and WHEREAS, the Thompson Divide Coalition recognizes the need for energy development; however it believes it is imperative that energy development occur only in appropriate places and that it proceed in a responsible manner. The Bureau of Land Management has approved 80 leases on this special landscape, half of which were let in roadless areas without surface stipulations after the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule was in effect. NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO that: Section 1_ The Thompson,Fourmile,Muddy and Clear Fork Creek watersheds,and the headwaters of East Divide Creek,as well as the local community,environmental and economic values these areas support deserve preservation and protection; an Section 2. Energy development on federal lands in these areas is inconsistent with such pkeservation and protection,and is indicative of a flawed and irresponsible approach to energy development; and Section 3. The City of Aspen supports the efforts of the Thompson Divide Coalition to explore legislative initiatives and other opportunities to protect these special areas from energy development. Dated: Micha Ireland,Mayor I,Kathryn S.Koch, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify that the foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held A! 'W,2009. h Ci ClerkKatS. Koc , ty 1467 BASALT September 11, 2012 The Honorable Michael Bennet United State Senator 1127 Sherman St.,Suite 150 Denver,Colorado 80203 Senator Bennet, The Town of Basalt supports the efforts of the Thompson Divide Coalition (TDC) to secure protections from oil and gas development on federal lands in the Thompson Divide.Area.As YOU know,the TDC represents a broad-based group of local ranchers, farmers, hunters, anglers, recreationalists,and local governments, formed to address mutual concerns regarding existing oil and gas leases on public lands in the Thompson Divide area. The Thompson Divide Area is defined by abundant wildlife and wildlife habitat; essential watersheds,and historic grazing rights for local ranches that provide significant economic, agricultural,and social values to this small region of the state.We are concerned that the area's clean water, rural and agricultural heritage, and recreational and sporting activities could be negatively impacted by oil and gas development. Having reviewed a discussion draft of the "Thompson Divide Withdrawal and Protection Act," we recognize that the proposed legislation does not affect existing uses or property rights, including current natural gas leases, and request that you introduce the bill during this session in order to move this effort forward. Thank you for your efforts on behalf of the people of Colorado. Let us know if there is anything else the Town of Basalt can do to further this effort. SirlceTel , Jacq e Whitsitt, Mayor cc: Thompson Divide Coalition r 1941 September 14, 2010 The Honorable John Salazar 1531 Longworth HOB Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Congressman Salazar: The Town of Basalt, Colorado supports the efforts of the Thompson Divide Coalition. The Coalition has now drafted a bill called the Thompson Divide Withdrawal and Protection Act. We support the aims of that bill and request that you introduce the bill during this session in order to move this effort forward. Thank you for your ongoing commitment to the residents of Colorado and for the protection of public lands. We look forward to working with you and your staff to ensure that Thompson Divide gets the permanent protection it deserves. Respectfully, r Leroy Duroux, Mayor, Basalt William Kane, Town Manager, Basalt cc: TDC, ioifo sa'othomrisondiyidw.org Tate Rosenbusch, Tata,Ros nbusch irnailbouse gone Edward Stern, Staff Assistant, Edward S erLuAmail.house.gov John Whitney, Regional Director, i hn.Whitney.Amaii.houp.aov Richard Baca, Regional Director, Richard.Bacaamall.house,gov Ronnie Carleton, Chief of Staff, Ron.GarfqtMQ_mail.housg qpy J 101 MIDLAND A«. •BASALT,CO 81621 •970-927-4701 •FAx 970-927-4703 •%"w.basalt.na RESOLUTION NO. 15 SERIES OF 2012 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF CARBONDALE, COLORADO SUPPORTING SENATOR BENNET'S DRAFT BILL TO PROVIDE FOR THE WITHDRAWL AND PROTECTION OF CERTAIN FEDERAL LAND IN THE STATE OF COLROADO INCLUDING THE THOMPSON DIVIDE AREA. WHEREAS, The Thompson, Four Mile, Muddy and Clear Fork Creek watersheds and the headwaters of East Divide Creek as well as the local community, environmental and economic values these areas support deserve preservation and protection; and WHEREAS, Energy development of federal lands in these areas is inconsistent with such preservation and protection; and WHEREAS, Ranching and farming in this area not only make important contributions to the economy,but define our rural character with summer grazing range and clean watersheds for farms and ranches as well as domestic water use; and WHEREAS, Senator Bennet has drafted a bill that offers a middle ground solution on the future of Thompson Divide; and WHEREAS, The draft bill presents an option that would withdraw unleased public minerals in the area from future oil and gas development while also preserving existing private property rights for current leaseholders; and WHEREAS, The draft bill also creates an opportunity for existing leases to be retired should they be donated or sold by willing owners; and WHEREAS,The Carbondale Board of Trustees supports the efforts of Senator Bennet in drafting this bill. NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved that the Town of Carbondale hereby supports the draft bill to provide for the withdrawal and protection of certain federal land in the State of Colorado as drafted by Senator Bennet. INTRODUCED,READ AND PASSED this 14`h day of August, 2012. TOWN OF CARBONDALE Ry Stacey ot,Mayor ATTEST:ro SEAL Cathy Derby,Town Clerk COL 0s TOWN OF CARBONDAIE 511 COLORADO AN SNIT C:ARBONDAM CO 81623 August 17,2010 Honorable John Salazar 1531 Longworth HOB Washington, D.C. 20515 202 226 9696 Congressman Salazar, As you know,we support the efforts of the Thompson Divide Coalition. The Coalition has now drafted a bill called the Thompson Divide Withdrawal and Protection Act.We support the aims of that bill and request that you introduce the bill during this session in order to move this effort forward. Thank you for your ongoing commitment to the residents of Garfield County and the protection of public lands. We look forward to working with you and your staff to ensure that the Thompson Divide gets the permanent protection it deserves. Attached please find our Resolution in support of the legislation to protect Thompson Divide. Respectfully, OA/k J Frost Merriott Mayor Pro Tern Cc: TDC Edward Stern, Staff Assistant, Edward.Stem @mail.house.gov John Whitney, Regional Director, John.Whitney @mail.house.gov Richard Baca, Regional Director, Richard.Baca @mail.house.gov Ronnie Carleton, Chief of Staff, Ron.Carleton @mail.house.gov Attachments: Town of Carbondale Resolution No. 9, Series of 2010 K: 970) %3-2733 Fax: (970063-0140 L ri RESOLUTION NO. 9 SERIES OF 2010 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF CARBONDALE, COLORADO IN SUPPORT OF INTRODUCING LEGISLATION IN THIS CURRENT LEGISLATIVE SESSION TO SECURE PERMANENT PROTECTION FROM OIL AND GAS DEVELOPMENT ON THE FEDERAL LANDS IN THE THOMPSON DIVIDE AREA,INCLUDING THOMPSON CREEK WATERSHED,FOUR MILE WATERSHED, CLEAR FORK WATERSHED,MUDDY BASIN AND THE HEADWATERS OF EAST DIVIDE CREEK. WHEREAS, The Thompson, Four Mile, Muddy and Clear Fork Creek watersheds and the headwaters of East Divide Creek as well as the local community, environmental and economic values these areas support deserve preservation and protection; and WHEREAS, Energy development of federal lands in these areas is inconsistent with such preservation and protection; and WHEREAS, Ranching and farming in this area not only make important contributions to the economy, but define our rural character with summer grazing range and clean watersheds for farms and ranches as well as domestic water use; and WHEREAS, This area contains the largest contiguous roadless area in the state, promoting important wildlife habitat, critical big game migration corridors, important elk calving habitat, big game summer range and excellent hunting and angling opportunities; and WHEREAS, This area offers exceptional recreational opportunities and is regularly used by local bikers, climbers, hikers, snowmobilers, cross country and back country skiers; and WHEREAS,Energy development in this area would have a deleterious impact on the rural character, ranching heritage and agricultural heritage of our region and would forever ruin the wild character and exceptional wildlife habitat it now offers; and WHEREAS, The Carbondale Board of Trustees supports introduction in this current legislative session of the Thompson Divide Withdrawal and Protection Act legislation to preserve and protect the back country of Thompson Divide for ranching, beef production, hunting, hiking, biking, logging, watershed protection and a diverse range of recreational activities. NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved that the Town of Carbondale hereby supports immediate introduction of the Thompson Divide Withdrawal and Protection Act legislation to secure permanent protection of the Thompson Divide 221,500-acre area. INTRODUCED,READ AND PASSED this 17`h day of August,2010. TOWN OF CARBONDALE aft; J. Frost Merriott, Mayor Pro Tern ATTEST: hV Q atherine B. Derby,T ti erk L Jt F p .. . ORADo k RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN OF CARBONDALE IN SUPPORT OF THE THOMPSON DIVIDE COALITION RESOLUTION NO. 3 J 311 r't=`' SERIES OF 2009 RECITALS A. WHEREAS, the Thompson Divide Coalition is a broad-based coalition of local ranchers, farmers, hunters, anglers, recreation alists, conservationists and local governments, formed to address mutual concerns regarding the existing oil and gas leases on federal lands in the Thompson Creek and Fourmile Creek watersheds, Muddy Basin and the headwaters of East Divide Creek and the potential negative impacts on this rural area associated with their development. B. WHEREAS, ranching and farming in the Roaring Fork Valley not only make important contributions to the economy of the area, both define the rural character of the valley. These watersheds provide clean water to farms and ranches, as well as water for domestic use. In addition, these federal lands host grazing allotments for summer range for the majority of the areas' ranchers. C. WHEREAS, this area is part of a 122,000 acre roadless landscape, which is the largest contiguous roadless area in the state. These federal lands provide important habitat for wildlife, and excellent hunting and angling opportunities. The area has been recognized by the Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) as high priority habitat for a variety of species. It is part of a critical big game migration corridor and provides key wildlife security for species such as deer, elk, bear, and lynx. The entire area is important elk calving habitat and summer range for big game. In addition, the Colorado River cutthroat trout (recognized as a Species of Special Concern by the CDOW) is found in two forks of Thompson Creek. The streams also feature rare wetland shrub communities, and the old- growth forest is habitat for the boreal owl and northern goshawk. D. WHEREAS, the area offers exceptional recreational opportunities and are used regularly by local bikers, climbers, hikers, snowmobilers and cross country and back country skiers. The recreational opportunities these special areas provide local residents are an essential part of the high quality of life offered by the valley. E. WHEREAS, energy development in this area would have a deleterious impact on the rural character, ranching heritage and agricultural heritage of the valley and the town, and would forever ruin the wild character of this area. Furthermore, energy development in this rural and largely roadless area would create serious public environmental health and emergency management r.•.Y+f:..- .., .. s.,w.w:.FP.+'e.wt•,N 1Y!k MY p s .,r rvM..i:prv MAHM+ and potentially cause a marked increase in the need for social services:concerns, that our jurisdiction is already struggling to P rovide. F. WHEREAS, the Thompson Divide Coalition recognizes the need for energy development, it believes it is imperaediven a respo nsibleorisible mla preenThe only of Land Management (BLM} has app appropriate places and that it proceoved 80 leases on this special landscape, halfN of which were let in roadless out surface stipulations after the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule was NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Trustees of the Town of Carbondale that: 9. The Thompson Creek and Fourmile Creek Watersheds, headwaters of East Divide Creek, Muddy Basin, sthey support deserve preservation and environmental values an d Y protection-, and 2. Energy development on federal lands in the Thompson Creek, FourmileCreekwatershed, headwaters of East Divide Creek and Muddy Basin isinconsistentwithsuchpreservationandprotection, and is indicative of a flawed and irresponsible approach to energy development; and 3. The Town of Carbondale supports the efforts of the Thompson DivideCoalitionoverthenexttwoyearstoexplorelegislativeinitiativesandother opportunities to protect these special areas from energy INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED ON C J 2009. Town of Car ondale By: Michael Hassig, Mayor O GAR& o t AL 0 m -<,,*+7 s''t,'MC«kr t«; e.. c.:r AF.r+ts' F S ifE`. M`'$'!?'.`F#.adi'L'tdes.".Ate'FIRMS;` •:''!I Y't" i'5.•-;, :ts+[iC-ir:ask N i r City of Glenwood Springs Office of the M.-tyor s J J S1C August 6, ?t110 Fhe Honorable John Salazar 1531 I_ongworth HOB Washington, U.C. 2051 Congressruan Satazar: We support the eftorts of the Thompson Dl%,idQ Coalitioll. The Coalition has no« drafted a bill called the Thompson D vide Withdrawal and Protection Act. \Ve support the aims of that bill and request that you introduce the hill during this session in order to rnme this cflirrt lore,ard. 1 hank N-nu for your ongoing commitment to the residents ol-Colorrado and for the protection ol'public lands. We look forward to working %with you and N-our staffto ensure that the Thompson Divide gets the permanent protection it deserves. Respectfull}. Gletmood Springs City Council Bruce Christensen. Mayor xc: 1DC Edward Stern. Staff'Assistant Jahn Whitney. Regional fArector Richard Baca, Regional Director Ronnie Carleton.Chief of Staff 101 W.8TI1 STREET GLENWOOD SPRINGS,COLORADO 81601 974-38.1-Aoj w"W.c02-s"m r 4 RYf4 1 RESOLUTION 2009-15 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENWOOD SPRINGS,COLORADO, IN SUPPORT OF THE THOMPSON DIVIDE COALITION. WHEREAS,the Thompson Divide Coalition is a broad-based coalition of local ranchers, farmers, hunters, anglers, recreationalists, water users, land owners, conservationists, and local governments formed to address mutual concerns regarding the existing oil and gas leases on federal lands in the Thompson, Fourmile, Muddy, and Clear Fork Creek watersheds, the headwaters of East Divide Creek, and the potential negative impacts on this Waal area associated with their development; and WHEREAS, ranching and farming in the Roaring Fork Valley not only makes important contributions to the economy of the area, but defines the rural character of the valley. These watersheds provide clean water to farms and ranches, as well as water for domestic use. In I addition, these federal lands host grazing allotments for summer range for the majority of the areas' ranchers; and WHEREAS, the Thompson Divide area is part of a 122,000 acre roadless landscape, which is the largest contiguous roadless area in the state. These federal lands provide important habitat for wildlife, and excellent hunting and angling opportunities. The area has been recognized by the Colorado Division of Wildlife(CDOW)as high priority habitat for a variety of f` species. It is part of a critical big game migration corridor and provides key wildlife security for species such as deer, elk, bear, and lynx. The entire area is important elk calving habitat and summer range for big game. In addition, the Colorado River cutthroat trout(recognized as a Species of Special Concern by the CDOW) is found in two forks of Thompson Creek; and WHEREAS, the area offers exceptional recreational opportunities for locals and visitors. It is regularly used by bikers, climbers, hikers, snowmobilers, and cross country and back country skiers. The recreational opportunities these special areas provide are an essential part of the high quality of life offered by the valley; and WHEREAS, energy development in this area would have a deleterious effect on Glenwood Springs through increased heavy truck traffic, creating air quality, safety, and road and bridge impacts; all damaging our small town character. The areas' ranching/agricultural heritage and the exceptional wildlife habitat would be forever damaged. Furthermore, energy development in this rural and largely roadless area would create serious public environmental health and emergency management concerns; and WHEREAS, although the Thompson Divide Coalition recognizes the need for energy development, it believes it is imperative that energy development occur only in appropriate places and that it proceed in a responsible manner. The Bureau of Land Management has approved 80 leases on this special landscape, half of which were let in roadless areas without surface stipulations after the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule was in effect. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENWOOD SPRINGS,COLORADO,THAT: Section 1. The Thompson, Fourmile, Muddy, and Clear Fork Creek watersheds, the headwaters of East Divide Creek, as well as the local community, environmental, and econornic values they support,deserve preservation and protection. Section 2. Energy development on federal lands in these areas is inconsistent with such preservation and protection, and is indicative of a flawed and irresponsible approach to energy development. Section 3. The City of Glenwood Springs supports the efforts of the Thompson Divide Coalition to explore legislative initiatives and other opportunities to protect these special areas from energy development. INTRODUCED, READ AND PASSED THIS DAY OF uL 2009. CITY OF GLENWOOD SP S,COLORADO Bruce Christensen, Mayor ATTEST: Rob n S. Unsworth, City Clerk 2 303 Redstone Boulevard Redstone, Colorado 81623 August 11, 2010 Honorable John Salazar 1531 Longworth HOB Washington, D.C. 20515 202 226 9696 Congressman Salazar, We, members of the Redstone Community Association, support the efforts of the Thompson Divide Coalition. The Coalition has now drafted a bill called the Thompson Divide Withdrawal and Protection Act. We unanimously support the aims of that bill and request that you introduce the bill during this session, in order to move this effort forward. Thank you for your ongoing commitment to the residents of Colorado and for the protection of public lands. We look forward to working with you and your staff to ensure that the Thompson Divide gets the permanent protection it deserves. Respectfully, Charles F. Logan, President— Redstone Community Association VILLAGE_ September 10, 2012 The Honorable Michael Bennet United State Senator 1127 Sherman St., Suite 150 Denver, Colorado 80203 Senator Bennet, The Town of Snowmass Village supports the efforts of the Thompson Divide Coalition to secure protections from oil and gas development on federal lands in the Thompson Divide Area. The Thompson Divide Coalition represents a broad-based group of local landowners, ranchers, farmers, hunters, anglers, recreationalists,water users, conservationists and local governments, formed to address mutual concerns regarding the existing oil and gas leases on federal lands in the Thompson, Fourmile, Muddy and Clear Fork Creek watersheds,the headwaters of East Divide Creek, and the potential negative impacts on this rural area associated with their development. As you know, the Coalition is seeking federal legislation to permanently withdraw the area from availability for future leasing.The coalition is also working with current leaseholders to purchase and retire existing leases.We support this approach and appreciate any assistance that you and your staff can provide in this matter. ely, Bill Boineau Mayor RB C/bb Town of Snowmass VillaZe P.G.Box 5010 Snowmass Village, Colorado 81615 phone 979.923.3777 fax 970,923.6083 www.losv.com Thompson Divide Baseline Water Quality Report Prepared by: Robert E. Moran, Ph.D. Michael-Moran Assoc., LLC Water Quality/Hydrogeology/Geochemistry Golden, Colorado, U.S.A. remwater _gmail.corn Contributors: Dr. John Huntington, Gateway Enterprises Integrated Chemistry Tomas Glibota, Glibota Environmental Inc. Chad Rudow, Roaring Fork Conservancy February 2011 Baseline Water Quality Study: Commissioned by: Thompson Divide Coalition Conducted by: Roaring Fork Conservancy f Executive Summary This report provides and describes an initial database of representative water quality and flow data for both surface and ground waters, collected prior to the onset of any significant oil and gas development in portions of Pitkin and Garfield counties. Sampling efforts focused on the Fourmile Creek and Thompson Creek Watersheds. Water quality sampling and flow measurement were conducted at four surface water and four ground water sites selected to be representative of potential impacts from proposed oil and gas drilling and development activities. Samples were collected between late September 2009 and late August 2010, during all seasons to represent the range of normal hydrologic conditions. This study demonstrates that surface waters at the monitored sites were cold, highly oxygenated, largely sediment-free, with low concentrations of dissolved chemical constituents. Most major chemical constituents were present at concentrations below reporting limits or at low concentrations. Chemical constituents that are often indicators of industrial, agricultural or human waste contamination were reported at very low concentrations [i.e. ammonia, nitrate, sulfate, sulfide, chloride, orthophosphate, dissolved organic carbon]. Most minor metals, metal- like elements and radiation were not detected in these surface waters [i.e. they were reported at concentrations below detection limits]. Low concentrations of aluminum, barium, iron, manganese and uranium were detected in some surface waters. Such low concentrations are normal given local geology and do not indicate contamination. All organic compounds investigated were below reporting limits.The only exception is dissolved organic carbon (DOC), a,general measure of the presence of both natural and introduced carbon compounds. DOC concentrations were within expected ranges for uncontaminated surface waters. Ground water data show these waters to be generally cold, sediment-free, and well oxygenated. These ground waters contained low or non-detectable concentrations of most minor or trace constituents. Only barium had a median concentration that was above the detection limit. Several other metals and metal-like elements (boron, aluminum, iron, manganese, copper, antimony, selenium, uranium, and zinc) were detected at low concentrations, but their statistical median concentrations were below detection.The presence of these elements at low concentrations is common in such geologic formations and does not indicate any form of unusual contamination. No regulated water contaminants were detected at unacceptable concentrations in any samples. These baseline water quality results are consistent with the conclusions presented in the studies of bottom-dwelling organisms and sediment by Miller (2010). Samples collected for the present study and the Miller (2010) study were collected at the same locations. This report together with Miller (2010) indicate that the baseline waters are healthy, uncontaminated and support significant populations of aquatic organisms. Memorandum To:  Mayor and Council Members   From:  Steve Barwick, City Manager  CC:  Agency Heads  Date:  September 26, 2012  Re:  2013 Proposed Budget  The proposed 2012 operating and capital budget is provided for your review and amendment.  During 2012 and  looking forward to 2013, the City’s revenue sources seem to have settled into their range of the new normal and  are showing modest growth over their recessionary lows.  Sales and accommodations taxes should be up at least  6% in 2012 and are forecast to continue a modest recovery through 2013.   Revenue sources related to building  development will be up somewhat in 2012, partially due to new fees and fee increases.  There was also a surge in  building development submittals due to the expected changes in the development code regarding third floor  commercial building development.  This will not likely repeat itself in later years.   Real Estate Transfer Taxes  (RETT) collections still remain at post recession lows    City staff is committed to maintaining service levels at the highest rate possible.  The proposed budget is shown  in detail in the following sections of this document and is organized by the various operating funds of the City.  A  summary of the total 2013 budget is shown below.    City of Aspen  2013 Proposed Budget  2012 2013  Original  Budget  Proposed  Budget Variance  %  Change  Revenues $93,072,954 $94,184,525 $1,111,571  1.2%  Operating $49,941,280 $51,015,290 $1,074,010  2.2%  Capital Outlay $21,810,300 $32,167,720 $10,357,420 47.5%  Debt Service $5,293,160 $5,141,720 ($151,440) (2.9%)  Net Appropriations $77,044,740 $88,324,730 $11,279,990 14.6%  Interfund Transfers $18,148,800 $16,843,310 ($1,305,490) (7.2%)  Total  Appropriations $95,193,540 $105,168,040 $9,974,500  10.5%  Ending Fund  Balance $71,825,209 $65,641,722 ($6,183,487) (8.6%)      Page 2  The total budget authority is proposed to increase by 14.6% for 2013.  Most of the increase is due to a significant  increase in capital outlays, the largest being completion of the next phase of Burlingame affordable housing.   Capital outlays will decline to normal levels in future years.  Operating Budget Assumptions:  Payroll and Staffing Plan  Maintaining a competitive pay plan is important for the City to continue to attract and retain professional,  competent employees.    The proposed budget assumes that a 4.0% merit pay plan will be continued for 2013.   Health insurance contributions by the city will increase by 4% for 2012.    Employee contributions to their health  plan are estimated to increase an average of 4% as well.    The budget proposes several changes to the staffing plan which are listed below.    Position Titles Department Dollars Code Enforcement Officer (bring to 40 hrs/week)Planning $18,000  Senior Planner (two yr approval only)Planning $100,000  Reclass from Project Mgr to Senior Project Manager Engineering $5,000  Reclass Existing Special Events Staff  Special Events $11,200  Senior Administrative Assistant Special Events $76,800  Administrative Assistant (Seasonal ‐ 7 months)Parks and Open Space $26,300  Summer Downtown Core Clean Team (temp hrs)Parks and Open Space $38,400  Winter Downtown Core Clean Team (temp hrs)Parks and Open Space $47,400  Intern Support (two years only) Water Utility $30,000       Operating Expenses  Most departmental operating budgets were given a target of 103.0% of their 2012 operating budget for 2013.   There are some minor supplemental requests that were included for 2013 and are detailed in Attachment A.   The proposed operating budgets for each fund are shown in Attachment B.      Revenue Assumptions:  Sales Tax  While the City’s consumption based taxes showed strong growth from 2004 to 2008, there was a significant  decrease in 2009 due to the recession.  Sales tax saw modest growth in 2010 and again in 2011.  The following  chart shows the historic trend for sales tax and the forecast for 2010‐ 2020.    A 6% increase is forecast for 2012,  and 4% increase a year each year after that.  Based on these parameters, sales taxes, adjusted for inflation, will  not return to 2008 levels until well into the future.  Page 3      Real Estate Transfer Tax  The City’s real estate transfer tax has been declining precipitously over the last several years.   It would seem that  the transfer tax collections have returned to a long term historic level. The forecast for 2012 is $4,500,000  although August saw the highest volume for the year and may push that forecast up a bit.  In the near term, the  tax is expected to be relatively flat.  Real estate transfer Taxes are the primary revenue source for the Housing  Development fund and the Wheeler Opera House fund.    Page 4      Property Taxes  There was a dramatic decrease in assessed valuations based on the 2010 reassessment.  The City of Aspen’s mill  levy has always been subject to TABOR and therefore cannot generate property tax revenue that is any more  than the prior year plus an allowance for new construction and inflation.  The City imposed a temporary mill levy  credit in past years in order to limit its property tax collection to no more than what would be allowed under  TABOR.  There was no windfall to the City of Aspen due to the increase in assessments in prior years.  In 2012 the  City will decrease the amount of mill levy credit so that, once again, no more is collected than allowed under  TABOR.    The City currently allocates its property tax 35% to the General Fund and 65% to the Asset Management Fund.  The City still has not received final assessed valuations for 2012.  The chart below is based on an estimate for  what we expect for new construction.  When the final valuations are released in October we will calculate the  new mill levy and bring it to the City Council.      Major Proposals  While the current economic conditions are still difficult, a budget has nevertheless been crafted that allows the  city to pursue important initiatives where possible.  There are significant capital investments proposed for 2013.   There are $32.5 million of capital projects included in this budget proposal.  Some of the major projects are as  follows.    Page 5    Projects Amount Department  Burlingame Phase II $16,837,320 Housing Development Wheeler Opera House Balcony Project $2,900,000 Wheeler   Galena Plaza Redevelopment $1,950,000 Parking  Wagner Park Improvements $1,255,000 Parks  Completion Reclaimed Water Line $650,000 Water  Electric  Substation Upgrade  $600,000 Electric  Fleet Replacements $543,000 GF ‐ Streets  Fleet Replacements  $320,000 Parks   Water Quality Wetlands $300,000 Stormwater    Carbon Reduction Program 2013  $288,000 Electric  Curb and Gutter Replacements $264,000 GF ‐ Engineering  Droste Open Space Acquisition $250,000 Parks  Property Acquisition $240,000 Parks  Renovations to Aspen Ice Garden $225,000 GF ‐ Recreation  Truscott Housing Site Improvements 1B $206,000 Truscott  Aspen Mtn. Drainage Basin Improvements $200,000 Stormwater   Projects Less Than $200,000  $5,139,400 Various  Total Capital Projects $32,167,720       Summary  I look forward to discussing this in detail with you at the upcoming budget review sessions that are scheduled  through the month of October.    Attachment A EXPENDITURES SUPPLEMENTAL REQUESTS Department/Fund Total One Time Ongoing Justification General Fund City Clerk$5,000$0$5,000 Software Costs ‐ Annual operating costs for agenda management plus  webcasting equates to $7,000/year after deducting Comcast and current  webcasting resources.  The City Clerk requests an additional $5,000, and will  absorb the remaining $2,000, to maintain this service which benefits all  departments and City Council. City Attorney$19,000$0$19,000 Funding Prior Cost Increases for Services ‐ Expenditures related to research,  subscription services, filing and legal serving costs have exceeded budgeted  resources and can no longer be afforded through departmental savings.  This  request aligns budgeted resources with current price levels and demand. Finance$15,000$0$15,000 Software Maintenance ‐ Ongoing maintenance costs related to the new sales  tax and business license software, approved in the 2012 budget process, will  equal $15,000 per year. Planning$18,000$0$18,000 Code Enforcement Officer to 40 Hours/Wk. Building permit volume and  planning cases have increased sizably.  Similar pick‐up has been experienced in  "planner of the day" responsibilities.  By increasing this position to a full 40  hours per week, additional demand in core department functions can be  addressed, without negatively affecting external customers or further  extending wait periods. Planning$100,000$0$100,000 Temporary Senior Planner ‐ Planning cases and building permits volume has  increased substantially and is being compounded by a need to restructure the  existing permit process.  Temporary two‐year approval is being requested for  a Senior Planner to address pre‐building permit review.  Engineering$5,000$0$5,000 Position Reclassification ‐ Additional resources and reclassification to Senior  Project Manager are requested and commensurate with the additional  supervisory and operational responsibilities being addressed by the existing  Project Manager II position. Police$8,500$0$8,500 HVIDE Grant ‐ An expense appropriation is requested to allow for dedicated  State grant funding for DUI enforcement to be expended, beginning in 2013.   No matching funds are required. Police$25,000$0$25,000 Fire Mitigation ‐ On‐going resources of $25,000 are requested to address  annual fire mitigation efforts. Police$10,000$0$10,000 Budgetary Shortfall ‐ Proportionate mix of personnel costs relative to  operating expenses have squeezed operating budgets over time.  Additional  resources are requested, in conjunction with existing departmental savings  until exhausted, to return operational budgets to reasonable levels.   Special Events$23,000$0$23,000 4th of July Parade ‐ Annual oversight of the 4th of July parade has shifted from  ACRA to the City of Aspen's Special Events team and is requested to be  supported going forward from the General Fund.   Special Events$11,200$0$11,200 Staff Reclassification‐ Given additional events such as the New Year's Eve  Celebration, 4th of July Parade, and Pro Cycling Challenge, existing staff are  having to assume greater responsibilities.  Additional resources would allow  for reclassification of three positions performing additional and more complex  tasks. Special Events$76,800$0$76,800 Senior Administrative Assistant ‐ In direct response to taking on new events,  and additional tasks associated with developing and implementing a new  permitting process for Citywide special events, the Special Events department  is requesting a new support position  to address increasing workload and  outreach efforts. Special Events$125,000$0$125,000 Procycle Challenge ‐ With continued success and support following the second  year of this event, on‐going expenditure authority for hosting the Pro Cycling  Challenge is being requested. Aspen Recreation Center$37,200$37,200$0 Retirement Payout ‐ Consistent with City policy, one‐time funding is  requested for related retirement expenses.   All General Fund$478,700$37,200$441,500 Attachment A EXPENDITURES SUPPLEMENTAL REQUESTS Department/Fund Total One Time Ongoing Justification Other Funds Parks and Open Space$26,300$0$26,300 Administrative Assistant ‐ Seasonal help for seven months @ $20.15/hr to  assist with multiple internal and external customers Parks and Open Space$43,400$0$43,400 Summer Clean Team ‐ Requested funding provides for temporary staffing,  plus materials, to clean the core downtown area during summer months.  A  trial basis was performed in 2012 from central savings and was determined to  be a success. Parks and Open Space$52,400$0$52,400 Winter Clean Team ‐ Consistent with the summer request, a winter clean  team is also requested.  As a more skilled temporary staff is needed to operate  machinery in the winer months, personnel expenses are slightly higher. Parks and Open Space$1,000$0$1,000 Nordic Program ‐ An expenditure appropriation is requested to allow for  County related funding for nordic operations to be expended. Water Utility$30,000$0$30,000 Temporary Intern Support ‐ Requested funding is for two years to address  various environmental initiative efforts with intern support. Golf Course$55,800$55,800$0 Retirement Payout ‐ Consistent with City policy, one‐time funding is  requested for related retirement expenses.   Information Technology $48,000$21,000$27,000 Exchange Online ‐ An external hosting solution for the the City's e‐mail  exchange has been found and is being provided by Microsoft.  On‐going costs  of $27,000 are anticipated and will provide for expanded and secure e‐mail  storage and accessability. All Other Funds$256,900$76,800$180,100 Total Supplemental$735,600$114,000$621,600 Attachment B TOTAL CITY OF ASPEN 2013 APPROPRIATIONS BY FUND Fund Name Forecasted  Opening  Balance  Total 2013  Revenue Budget Total 2013  Expenditure Budget 2013 Ending  Balance General Governmental Fund        General Fund$10,343,766$23,065,300$22,172,300$11,236,766 Subtotal General Gov't Funds$10,343,766$23,065,300$22,172,300$11,236,766 Special Revenue Governmental Funds Parks and Open Space Fund$6,053,591$9,441,630$11,395,470$4,099,751 Wheeler Opera House Fund *$26,703,173$3,999,975$6,391,800$24,311,348 City Tourism Promotion Fund$198,210$2,368,800$2,567,010$0 Transportation Fund$3,714,668$2,099,500$2,170,480$3,643,688 Housing Development Fund$6,810,807$11,548,700$18,324,340$35,167 Kids First Fund$3,696,694$1,639,050$1,663,450$3,672,294 Stormwater Fund $2,307,045$1,221,800$1,212,010$2,316,835 Subtotal Special Revenue Funds$49,484,188$32,319,455$43,724,560$38,079,083 Debt Service Governmental Fund Debt Service Fund$183,865$3,451,170$3,456,080$178,955 Subtotal Debt Service Fund$183,865$3,451,170$3,456,080$178,955 Capital Projects Governmental Funds Asset Management Plan Fund$2,534,545$4,077,700$3,051,200$3,561,045 Subtotal Capital Fund$2,534,545$4,077,700$3,051,200$3,561,045 Enterprise Proprietary Funds Water Utility Fund$3,498,816$6,182,400$7,157,330$2,523,886 Electric Utility Fund$1,282,215$7,465,900$7,247,880$1,500,235 Renewable Energy Fund$1,229,983$7,400$380,600$856,783 Parking Fund$1,496,594$3,174,400$4,337,890$333,104 Golf Course Fund$25,546$1,885,200$1,778,500$132,246 Truscott Housing Fund$1,443,082$1,081,200$1,701,660$822,622 Marolt Housing Fund$70,715$1,069,500$1,116,220$23,995 Subtotal Enterprise Funds$9,046,951$20,866,000$23,720,080$6,192,871 Internal Proprietary Funds Employee Health Insurance Fund$1,179,190$4,562,900$4,535,000$1,207,090 Employee Housing Fund$2,201,930$1,282,900$221,120$3,263,710 Information Technology Fund$116,943$2,563,300$2,653,030$27,213 Subtotal Internal Service Funds$3,498,063$8,409,100$7,409,150$4,498,013 Trust Fiduciary Funds Housing Administration Fund$1,262,612$1,943,600$1,596,600$1,609,612 Smuggler Housing Fund$271,247$52,200$38,070$285,377 Subtotal Trust and Agency Funds$1,533,859$1,995,800$1,634,670$1,894,989 ALL FUNDS $76,625,237$94,184,525$105,168,040$65,641,722 Less Interfund Transfers $16,843,310$16,843,310 NET APPROPRIATIONS $76,625,237$77,341,215$88,324,730$65,641,722 * Wheeler balances are shown on an adjusted GAAP basis Ci t y of As p e n Ci t y  of  As p e n 20 1 3  Bu d g e t Bu d g e t  Ki c k o f f Ci t y  Co u n c i l  Ch a m b e r s b Oc t o ber  1,  20 1 2 Ov e r v i e w  of  20 1 3  Bu d g e t Ag e n d a 1. Bu d g e t En v i r o n m e n t 1. Bu d g e t  En v i r o n m e n t 2. G e n e r a l  Fu n d 3. A M P  Fu n d 4. Pa r k i n g Fu n d 4. Pa r k i n g  Fu n d 5. T r a n s p o r t a t i o n  Fu n d 6. P a r k s  an d  Op e n  Sp a c e  Fu n d 7 Go l f Co u r s e Fu n d 7. Go l f  Co u r s e  Fu n d Bu d g e t  En v i r o n m e n t Bu d g e t  En v i r o n m e n t 20 1 3  Pr o p o s e d  Bu d g e t Ci t y  of  As p e n 20 1 3  Pr o p o s e d  Bu d g e t 20 1 2 2 0 1 3 Or i g i n a l   Bu d g e t Pr o p o s e d   Bu d g e t V a r i a n c e %  Ch a n g e Re v e n u e s $9 3 , 0 7 2 , 9 5 4 $9 4 , 1 8 4 , 5 2 5 $1 , 1 1 1 , 5 7 1 1. 2 % Re v e n u e s $9 3 , 0 7 2 , 9 5 4 $9 4 , 1 8 4 , 5 2 5 $1 , 1 1 1 , 5 7 1   1. 2 % Op e r a t i n g $ 4 9 , 9 4 1 , 2 8 0 $ 5 1 , 0 1 5 , 2 9 0 $ 1 , 0 7 4 , 0 1 0   2. 2 % Ca p i t a l  Ou t l a y $ 2 1 , 8 1 0 , 3 0 0 $ 3 2 , 1 6 7 , 7 2 0 $ 1 0 , 3 5 7 , 4 2 0   47 . 5 % De b t Se r v i c e $5 2 9 3 1 6 0 $5 1 4 1 7 2 0 ($ 1 5 1 4 4 0 ) (2 9 % ) De b t  Se r v i c e $5 ,29 3 ,16 0 $5 ,14 1 ,72 0 ($ 1 5 1 ,44 0 ) (2 .9% ) Ne t  Ap p r o p r i a t i o n s $ 7 7 , 0 4 4 , 7 4 0 $ 8 8 , 3 2 4 , 7 3 0 $ 1 1 , 2 7 9 , 9 9 0   14 . 6 % In t e r f u n d  Tr a n s f e r s $ 1 8 , 1 4 8 , 8 0 0 $ 1 6 , 8 4 3 , 3 1 0 ( $ 1 , 3 0 5 , 4 9 0 ) ( 7 . 2 % ) To t a l  Ap p r o p r i a t i o n s $ 9 5 , 1 9 3 , 5 4 0 $ 1 0 5 , 1 6 8 , 0 4 0 $ 9 , 9 7 4 , 5 0 0   10 . 5 % En d i n g  Fu n d  Ba l a n c e $ 7 1 , 8 2 5 , 2 0 9 $ 6 5 , 6 4 1 , 7 2 2 ( $ 6 , 1 8 3 , 4 8 7 ) ( 8 . 6 % ) 4 Bu d g e t  En v i r o n m e n t Ta x a b l e  Sa l e s e x h i b i t e d  st r o n g  gr o w t h  in  20 1 1  an d  20 1 2  to date 20 % Ju l y  20 0 8 ‐ Ju l y  20 1 2 Mo u n t a i n  Co m m u n i t i e s  ‐ % Ch a n g e  in  Ta x a b l e  Sa l e s 0%5% 10 % 15 %() (1 5 % ) (1 0 % ) (5 % ) 0% (2 5 % ) (20 % ) Jul‐08 Aug‐08 Sep‐08 Oct‐08 Nov‐08 Dec‐08 Jan‐09 Feb‐09 Mar‐09 Apr‐09 May‐09 Jun‐09 Jul‐09 Aug‐09 Sep‐09 Oct‐09 Nov‐09 Dec‐09 Jan‐10 Feb‐10 Mar‐10 Apr‐10 May‐10 Jun‐10 Jul‐10 Aug‐10 Sep‐10 Oct‐10 Nov‐10 Dec‐10 Jan‐11 Feb‐11 Mar‐11 Apr‐11 May‐11 Jun‐11 Jul‐11 Aug‐11 Sep‐11 Oct‐11 Nov‐11 Dec‐11 Jan‐12 Feb‐12 Mar‐12 Apr‐12 May‐12 Jun‐12 5 Mt n .  Co m m u n i t y  Av e r a g e  (7  Re s o r t s ) As p e n Bu d g e t  En v i r o n m e n t $12 ,00 0 ,00 0   Re t a i l  Sa l e s  Ta x  Co l l e c t i o n s 20 0 4  ‐ 20 1 3  Pr o j e c t e d Re t a i l  Sa l e s  Ta x  Co l l e c t i o n s  ‐ Ju s t  ab o v e  20 0 4  le v e l s $1 0 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0   $1 1 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0   $, , $7 0 0 0 0 0 0 $8 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0   $9 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0   20 0 4  Le v e l $5 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0   $6 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0   $7 ,00 0 ,00 0   20 0 4  Le v e l $4 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0   Ci t y  Co l l e c t i o n s Ci t y  Ad j .  In f l a t i o n Ci t y ' s  Po r t i o n  of  Co u n t y Ci t y ' s  Po r t i o n  Ad j .  Inflation 6 Bu d g e t  En v i r o n m e n t Lo d g i n g  Ta x  Co l l e c t i o n s  –J u s t  ab o v e  20 0 4  le v e l s $7 0 0 , 0 0 0 Lo d g i n g  Ta x  Co l l e c t i o n s  (T r a n s p o r t a t i o n  Fu n d ) 20 0 4  ‐ 20 1 3  Pr o j e c t e d $5 0 0 , 0 0 0   $6 0 0 , 0 0 0   $7 0 0 , 0 0 0   $3 0 0 , 0 0 0   $4 0 0 , 0 0 0   20 0 4  Le v e l $1 0 0 , 0 0 0   $2 0 0 , 0 0 0   $0   Lo d g i n g Ta x (T r a n s p o r t a t i o n ) Ad j In f l a t i o n 7 Lo d g i n g  Ta x  (T r a n s p o r t a t i o n ) Ad j . In f l a t i o n Bu d g e t  En v i r o n m e n t Co m m u n i t y  De v e l o p m e n t  Re v e n u e 20 0 5 ‐ 20 1 3 Pr o j e c t e d Co m m u n i t y  De v e l o p m e n t R e v e n u e  ‐ Ne w  Fe e  St r u c t u r e  Im p l e m e n t e d  Nov. 2011 $3 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0   $3 , 5 0 0 , 0 0 0   $4 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0   20 0 5  ‐ 20 1 3  Pr o j e c t e d 20 0 5  Le v e l $2 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0   $2 , 5 0 0 , 0 0 0   $5 0 0 , 0 0 0   $1 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0   $1 , 5 0 0 , 0 0 0   $0   An n u a l Re v e n u e In f l a t i o n Ad j u s t e d Re v e n u e An n u a l  Re v e n u e In f l a t i o n  Ad j u s t e d  Re v e n u e 8 Bu d g e t  En v i r o n m e n t Ho u s i n g  RE T T  –R e m a i n s  sl i g h t l y  ab o v e 2 0 0 3  le v e l s  fo l l o w i n g  a we a k  2012 Ho u s i n g  RE T T   20 0 3  ‐ 20 1 3  Pr o j e c t e d $1 0 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0   $1 2 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0   $6 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0   $8 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0   $2 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0   $4 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0   20 0 3  Le v e l $0   9 RE T T  Re v e n u e In f l a t i o n  Ad j .  to  20 0 3  Le v e l Bu d g e t  En v i r o n m e n t Us e  Ta x  (T r a n s p o r t a t i o n  Fu n d ) Us e  Ta x    20 0 8  ‐ 20 1 3  Pr o j e c t e d $2 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0   $2 , 5 0 0 , 0 0 0   $1 , 5 0 0 , 0 0 0   $5 0 0 , 0 0 0   $1 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0   $0   10 On  De p o s i t Co l l e c t e d Re c o g n i z e d Bu d g e t  En v i r o n m e n t Re v e n u e a n d  Ex p e n d i t u r e  As s u m p t i o n s 20 1 2  Fo r e c a s t  vs 2 0 1 3  Bu d g e t  vs E v e r y  1% 2 0 1 4  & 20 1 1  Au d i t 2 0 1 2  Fo r e c a s t C h a n g e B e y o n d * Re v e n u e s * Re c r e a t i o n   2% 1 % $ 1 9 , 6 0 0 Co m m u n i t y  De v e l o p m e n t 1 4 % 2 % $ 2 8 , 7 0 0 2 % Co u n t y  Sa l e s  Ta x 5 % 4 % $ 6 8 , 8 0 0 4 % Ci t y  Sa l e s  Ta x 6 % 4 % $ 1 3 6 , 3 0 0 4 % $ Pr o p e r t y  Ta x 5 % 3 % $57 , 7 0 0 2 % Ho u s i n g  RE T T ( 1 4 % ) 1 6 % $ 4 5 , 0 0 0 5 % Wh e e l e r  RE T T ( 1 6 % ) 1 9 % $ 2 3 , 5 0 0 5 % Lo d g i n g  Ta x  (T r a n s p o r t a t i o n ) 1 1 % 0 % $ 5 , 9 0 0 4 % Us e  Ta x  (C o l l e c t e d ) 4 % 4 % $ 9 , 1 0 0 4 % / In t e r e s t  As s u m p t i o n 1 % < 1 % N /A1%‐2% Pe r c e n t a g e s  ab o v e  re f l e c t  pr o j e c t e d  ch a n g e  in  re v e n u e s . Ex p e n d i t u r e s * * In f l a t i o n  As s u m p t i o n 1 % 2 % N / A 3 % dd l & % % / % Bu dge t e d Pe r s o n n e l & Op e r a t i n g 2 % 3% N/A3% He a l t h  Ca r e  As s u m p t i o n 8 % 4 % N/ A 8% Op e r a t i n g  Co s t s  As s u m p t i o n 2 % 2 % N/ A 2% Ex p e n d i t u r e  pe r c e n t a g e s  re f l e c t  bu d g e t e d  as s u m p t i o n s  an d  no t  ac t u a l  ye a r  ov e r  ye a r  pe r c e n t a g e  ch a n g e  in  20 1 2  Forecast vs2011  Au d i t  co l u m n .  In d i v i d u a l  he a l t h  ca r e  an d  oper a t i n g ch a n ges  ar e  ma n a ged  wi t h i n  ov e r a l l  Pe r s o n n e l  an d  Oper a t i n g growth allowances.11 pg g g pgg Bu d g e t  En v i r o n m e n t Pa y  an d  Be n e f i t s • To t a l  co m p e n s a t i o n  re m a i n s  co m p e t i t i v e o Pa y  al l o w a n c e s  in c l u d e  a ma x i m u m  me r i t  in c r e a s e  of  40 % ba s e d on an em p l o y e e ’s an n u a l re v i e w date 4.0%  ba s e d  on  an  em p l o y e e s  an n u a l  re v i e w  date Av e r a g e  me r i t  in c r e a s e  is  3. 5 % Im p a c t  to  pa y r o l l  eq u a t e s  to  ro u g h l y  $4 5 0 , 0 0 0 ,  or 1.9% o Pa y  ra n g e s  ar e  th e  sa m e  as  in  20 1 2 12 Bu d g e t  En v i r o n m e n t Pa y  an d  Be n e f i t s •C i t y ’ s  ex p o s u r e  to  ri s i n g  he a l t h c a r e  co s t s  si z a b l y  lo w e r  than  90 % na t i o n a l av e r a g e 9.0%  na t i o n a l  av e r a g e •H e a l t h c a r e  co s t  co n t a i n m e n t  me a s u r e s  in c l u d e : In c r e a s e d pa r t i c i p a t i o n in hi g h de d u c t i b l e he a l t h pl a n o In c r e a s e d  pa r t i c i p a t i o n  in  hi g h  de d u c t i b l e  he a l t h  pl a n o En c o u r a g i n g  co n s u m e r i s m o We l l n e s s  pr o g r a m s O it ti t i i t o On‐sit e nu trit i on ist o Ca l l ‐a‐Nu r s e  pr o g r a m o He a l t h  Te a m •E m p l o y e r  an d  em p l o y e e  he a l t h c a r e  pr e m i u m s  wi l l  increase o 4. 6 %  fo r  Pr e m i e r  PP O  Pl a n o 35 % fo r Hi g h De d u c t i b l e He a l t h Pl a n 13 o 3.5%  fo r  Hi g h  De d u c t i b l e  He a l t h  Pl a n Bu d g e t  En v i r o n m e n t He a l t h  Ca r e Co m m u n i t y  He a l t h  In i t i a t i v e •P a r t i c i p a t e  in  a pi l o t  gr o u p  wi t h  As p e n  Sk i i n g  Co m p a n y ,  As p e n  Valley Hospital,  As p e n  Sc h o o l  Di s t r i c t ,  Pi t k i n  Co u n t y ,  an d  ot h e r s •G o a l  of  de v e l o p i n g  a he a l t h c a r e  de l i v e r y  mo d e l  th a t  is :  af f o r d a b l e ,  accessible,  fo c u s e d  on  im p r o v e d  pa t i e n t  he a l t h ,  in c l u s i v e  of  ap p r o p r i a t e  cost control  me a s u r e s ,  an d  fo s t e r s  co l l a b o r a t i o n  am o n g  pa t i e n t s ,  em p l o y e r s  and providers •I n t e n t i o n s  in c l u d e  fa c i l i t a t i o n  of  in f o r m a t i o n  sh a r i n g  be t w e e n  pilot group  pa r t i c i p a n t s  an d  ac h i e v i n g  gr e a t e r  le v e l  of  pr i c e  tr a n s p a r e n c y • F o l l o w i n g  su c c e s s f u l  pi l o t  pr o j e c t ,  ex p a n d  sy s t e m i c  ch a n g e s  to  larger  co m m u n i t y 14 y Bu d g e t  En v i r o n m e n t Op e r a t i n g  Ex p e n d i t u r e s B u d g e t ( i n c l u d i n g  Su p p l e m e n t a l  Re q u e s t s ) Fu n d 2 0 1 2  Or i g i n a l %  To t a l 2 0 1 3  Bu d g e t %  Total% Change Ge n e r a l Fu n d & AM P $2 0 4 4 4 5 7 0 41 % $20 7 5 8 5 6 0 41 % 2% Ge n e r a l  Fu n d  & AM P $2 0 ,44 4 ,57 0 41 % $20 ,75 8 ,56 0 41 % 2% Ut i l i t i e s $ 8 , 4 9 8 , 1 0 0 17 % $8 , 8 3 0 , 2 2 0 17 % 4 % Pa r k s  Op e r a t i o n s $ 4 , 2 1 0 , 8 0 0 8% $4 , 4 7 1 , 6 6 0 9%6% Tr a n s p o r t a t i o n  & Pa r k i n g $ 3 , 1 7 5 , 8 0 0 6% $3 , 3 5 5 , 0 7 0 7%6% In t e r n a l  Se r v i c e   $2 , 8 6 4 , 5 0 0 6% $2 , 6 4 4 , 7 5 0 5%‐8% Wh e e l e r Op e r a Ho u s e Fu n d $2 9 3 2 3 0 0 6% $2 9 6 2 3 0 0 6%1% Wh e e l e r  Op e r a  Ho u s e  Fu n d $2 ,93 2 ,30 0 6% $2 ,96 2 ,30 0 6%1% Ho u s i n g $ 2 , 6 5 5 , 2 0 0 5% $2 , 7 6 4 , 8 7 0 5%4% Ci t y  To u r i s m  Pr o m o t i o n $ 2 , 1 4 7 , 7 1 0 4% $2 , 5 6 7 , 0 1 0 5%20% Ki d s  Fi r s t $ 1 , 8 0 0 , 0 0 0 4% $1 , 4 5 9 , 4 5 0 3%‐19% Go l f  Co u r s e $ 1 , 2 1 2 , 3 0 0 2% $1 , 2 7 8 , 2 0 0 3%5% To t a l $4 9 , 9 4 1 , 2 8 0 10 0 % $51 , 0 9 2 , 0 9 0 10 0 % 2.3%15 To t a l $4 9 , 9 4 1 , 2 8 0 10 0 % $51 , 0 9 2 , 0 9 0 10 0 % 2.3% Bu d g e t  En v i r o n m e n t 20 1 3  Ca p i t a l P r o j e c t s It e m i z e d  Pr o j e c t s  ov e r  $2 0 0 , 0 0 0 A m o u n t %  of  To t a l D e p a r t m e n t Bu r l i n g a m e  Ph a s e  II $ 1 6 , 8 3 7 , 3 2 0   52 % Ho u s i n g  Development Wh e e l e r O p e r a  Ho u s e  Ba l c o n y  Pr o j e c t $ 2 , 9 0 0 , 0 0 0   9% Wh e e l e r Ga l e n a  Pl a z a  Re d e v e l o p m e n t $ 1 , 9 5 0 , 0 0 0   6% Pa r k i n g Wa g n e r  Pa r k  Im p r o v e m e n t s $ 1 , 2 5 5 , 0 0 0   4% Pa r k s Co m ple t i o n  Re c l a i m e d  Wa t e r  Li n e $ 6 5 0 , 0 0 0   2% Wa t e r p El e c t r i c S u b s t a t i o n  Up g r a d e   $6 0 0 , 0 0 0   2% El e c t r i c Fl e e t  Re p l a c e m e n t s $ 5 4 3 , 0 0 0   2% GF  ‐ St r e e t s Fl e e t  Re p l a c e m e n t s $ 3 2 0 , 0 0 0 1% Pa r k s Wa t e r Qu a l i t y We t l a n d s $3 0 0 0 0 0 1% St o r m w a t e r Wa t e r  Qu a l i t y  We t l a n d s $3 0 0 ,00 0   1% St o r m w a t e r Ca r b o n  Re d u c t i o n  Pr o g r a m  20 1 3   $2 8 8 , 0 0 0   1% El e c t r i c Cu r b  an d  Gu t t e r  Re p l a c e m e n t s $ 2 6 4 , 0 0 0   1% GF  ‐ En g i n e e r i n g Dr o s t e  Op e n  Sp a c e  Ac q u i s i t i o n $ 2 5 0 , 0 0 0   1% Pa r k s Pr o p e r t y Ac q u i s i t i o n $2 4 0 0 0 0 1% Pa r k s Pr o p e r t y  Ac q u i s i t i o n $2 4 0 ,00 0 1% Pa r k s Re n o v a t i o n s  to  As p e n  Ic e  Ga r d e n $ 2 2 5 , 0 0 0   1% GF  ‐ Re c r e a t i o n Tr u s c o t t  Ho u s i n g  Si t e  Im p r o v e m e n t s  1B $ 2 0 6 , 0 0 0   1% Tr u s c o t t As p e n  Mt n  Dr a i n a g e  Ba s i n  Im p r o v e m e n t s $ 2 0 0 , 0 0 0   1% St o r m w a t e r h $ $ 16 Pr o j e c t s  Le s s  Than  $20 0 , 0 0 0 $5, 1 3 9 , 4 0 0   16 % Va r i o u s To t a l  Ca p i t a l  Pr o j e c t s $ 3 2 , 1 6 7 , 7 2 0   10 0 % Ge n e r a l  Fu n d Ge n e r a l  Fu n d Re v e n u e  As s u m p t i o n s •P r o p e r t y  Va l u a t i o n s    (o d d  ye a r  re ‐as s e s s m e n t s ) As s e s s m e n t   Ye a r Ne w  Co n s t r u c t i o n a s  a  Pe r c e n t  of  Ac t u a l V a l u e Ov e r a l l  Va l u a t i o n   Gr o w t h 20 0 8 2 . 6 9 % 0 % 20 0 9 2 . 8 0 % 3 2 % 20 1 0 1 . 1 3 % ‐1% 20 1 1 0 . 4 5 % ‐26 % 20 1 2 0 . 0 5 % 1 % •P r o p e r t y  Ta x  Al l o c a t i o n   Ye a r G e n e r a l  Fu n d As s e t Ma n a g e m e n t  Pl a n 20 0 8 50 % 50 % 20 0 8 50 % 50 % 20 0 9 5 8 % 4 2 % 20 1 0 6 8 % 3 2 % 20 1 1 5 5 % 4 5 % 20 1 2 47 % 53 % 18 20 1 2 47 % 53 % 20 1 3  Bu d g e t 3 5 % 6 5 % Ge n e r a l  Fu n d $8 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 Pr o p e r t y  Ta x  Co l l e c t i o n s 20 0 7  ‐ 20 2 2  Pr o j e c t e d $6 , 5 0 0 , 0 0 0 $7 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 $7 , 5 0 0 , 0 0 0 $5 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 $5 , 5 0 0 , 0 0 0 $6 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 $3 , 5 0 0 , 0 0 0 $4 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 $4 , 5 0 0 , 0 0 0 $3 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 TA B O R Ba s e Ta x 19 TA B O R Ba s e  Ta x Ge n e r a l  Fu n d Re v e n u e  As s u m p t i o n s •S h a r e  of  Co u n t y  Sa l e s  Ta x Ye a r Ta x Re v e n u e Ci t y  Sh a r e  as  a  Pe r c e n t of Co u n t y Tax Ye a r Ta x  Re v e n u e Pe r c e n t  of  Co u n t y Tax 20 0 8 ‐1% 4 3 . 7 % 20 0 9 ‐19 % 4 3 . 1 % 20 1 0 6 % 4 2 . 9 % 20 1 1 4 % 4 3 . 1 % 20 1 2 5 % T B D 20 1 3  Bu d g e t 4 % T B D $1 2 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 $6 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 $8 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 $1 0 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 $0 $2 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 $4 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 20 $ 20 0 7 2 0 0 8 2 0 0 9 2 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 3 2 0 1 4 2 0 1 5 2 0 1 6 2 0 1 7 2 0 1 8 2 0 1 9 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 1 2 0 2 2 Ge n e r a l  Fu n d Re v e n u e  As s u m p t i o n s • C o m m u n i t y  De v e l o p m e n t  an d  En g i n e e r i n g Co m m u n i t y De v e l o p m e n t En g i n e e r i n g Ye a r Co m m u n i t y  De v e l o p m e n t (B u i l d i n g / P l a n n i n g ) En g i n e e r i n g   (N e w  Fe e  No v .  2011) 20 0 8 ‐18 % 1 8 % 20 0 9 ‐40 % ‐73 % 20 1 0 0 % 1 % 20 1 1 5 5 % 7 7 % 20 1 2 1 4 % 1 6 7 % 20 1 3  Bu d g e t 2 % 2 % $4 , 5 0 0 , 0 0 0 $5 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 $2 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 $2 , 5 0 0 , 0 0 0 $3 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 $3 , 5 0 0 , 0 0 0 $4 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 $0 $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 $1 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 $1 , 5 0 0 , 0 0 0 20 0 7 2 0 0 8 2 0 0 9 2 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 3 2 0 1 4 2 0 1 5 2 0 1 6 2 0 1 7 2 0 1 8 2 0 1 9 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 1 2 0 2 2 21 En g i n e e r i n g Co m m u n i t y  De v e l o p m e n t Ge n e r a l  Fu n d Re v e n u e  As s u m p t i o n s •R e c r e a t i o n • 20 1 3 Fe e s : on l i n e re m a i n fl a t ; in ‐pe r s o n in c r e a s e 5% (p a s s e s increase15%) • 20 1 3  Fe e s :  on l i n e  re m a i n  fl a t ;  in ‐pe r s o n  in c r e a s e  5%  (p a s s e s  increase 15%) Ye a r R e c r e a t i o n a l  Ac t i v i t i e s A R C  & Ice 20 0 8 9 % 0 % 20 0 9 ‐8% 0 % ‐10 % 20 1 0 ‐25 % 1% 20 1 0 25 % 1% 20 1 1 1 5 % ‐5% 20 1 2 ‐1% 3 % 20 1 3  Bu d g e t 3 % 1 % $2 , 6 0 0 , 0 0 0   $1 , 6 0 0 , 0 0 0 $1 , 8 0 0 , 0 0 0   $2 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0   $2 , 2 0 0 , 0 0 0   $2 , 4 0 0 , 0 0 0   $1 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0   $1 , 2 0 0 , 0 0 0   $1 , 4 0 0 , 0 0 0   $1 , 6 0 0 , 0 0 0   20 0 7 2 0 0 8 2 0 0 9 2 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 3 2 0 1 4 2 0 1 5 2 0 1 6 2 0 1 7 2 0 1 8 2 0 1 9 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 1 2 0 2 2 22 AR C  & Ic e Re c r e a t i o n a l  Ac t i v i t i e s Ge n e r a l  Fu n d Ex p e n s e  As s u m p t i o n s • P e r s o n n e l  – in c r e a s e  1. 0 %  in  20 1 3 ;  3. 5 %  th e r e a f t e r • V a c a n t  po s i t i o n s  fi l l e d  be l o w  mi d p o i n t  in  20 1 2 ,  lo w e r s  20 1 3  base •4 . 0 %  he a l t h  ca r e  co n t r i b u t i o n  in c r e a s e  in  20 1 3 ;  8%  th e r e a f t e r • C o n t r a c t u a l  Se r v i c e s  an d  Ma t e r i a l s / S u p p l i e s •N e t  in c r e a s e  of  3. 0 %  in  20 1 3 ;  2. 0 %  in c r e a s e  as s u m e d  th e r e a f t e r •R e c r e a t i o n  ma i n t e n a n c e  bu d g e t  mo v e d  fr o m  AMP •A v g .  ma i n t e n a n c e  ne e d s  of  $1 0 0 , 0 0 0 / y r  mo v e d  to  op e r a t i o n s  in 2013 •I T  Ov e r h e a d • 2 5 %  de c r e a s e  in  20 1 3  fr o m  el i m i n a t i o n  of  As s i s t a n t  IT  Di r e c t o r  position  d dd il j fl d il hf 23 an d re duc e d ca p ita l pr o jec t s ;  fl uc t u a t e s  due  to  ca p ita l thereafter Ge n e r a l  Fu n d Ex p e n s e  As s u m p t i o n s •H e a l t h  an d  Hu m a n  Se r v i c e s  (HH S )() •A l l  bu t  $5 0 , 0 0 0  of  HH S  co n t r i b u t i o n s  re m o v e d  be g i n n i n g  20 1 3 • Co m m u n i t y De v e l o p m e n t Su b s i d y Co m m u n i t y  De v e l o p m e n t  Su b s i d y   • R e v e n u e s  su f f i c i e n t  to  co v e r  op e r a t i o n a l  ex p e n s e s  th r o u g h o u t  forecast • Re c r e a t i o n Su b s i d y • Re c r e a t i o n  Su b s i d y •L a s t  5 ye a r  av e r a g e  op e r a t i n g  su b s i d y  (e x c l u d i n g  IT )  wa s  45 %  of expenses • 2 0 1 2  fo r e c a s t e d  su b s i d y  is  49 %  of  ex p e n s e s b b fl h $ • 2 0 1 3  bud g e t e d  su bsi d y  is  50 % ,  re fl ec t i n g  the $10 0 , 0 0 0  in  ma i n t e n a n c e   co s t s  pr e v i o u s l y  fu n d e d  fr o m  th e  AM P 24 Ge n e r a l  Fu n d Su p p l e m e n t a l  Re q u e s t s De p a r t m e n t On e  Ti m e On g o i n g Su m m a r y Fi n a n c e $ 0 $ 1 5 , 0 0 0 S a l e s  Ta x  an d  Bu s i n e s s L i c e n s e  So f t w a r e Cl e r k $ 0 $ 5 , 0 0 0 A g e n d a  Ma n a g e m e n t  Op e r a t i o n a l  Costs At t o r n e y $0 $19 ,00 0 S h o r t f a l l  As s o c i a t e d  wi t h  Ri s i n g Operational Costs y $ $, g p Pl a n n i n g $ 0 $ 1 8 , 0 0 0 C o d e  En f o r c e m e n t  Of f i c e r  (M o v e t o  Full Time) Pl a n n i n g $ 0 $ 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 S e n i o r  Pl a n n e r  (T e m p o r a r y ) En g i n e e r i n g $0 $5 0 0 0 Re c l a s s i f i c a t i o n to Sr Pr o j e c t Ma n a g e r En g i n e e r i n g $0 $5 ,00 0 Re c l a s s i f i c a t i o n  to  Sr . Pr o j e c t  Ma n a g e r Po l i c e $ 0 $ 8 , 5 0 0 H V I D E  Gr a n t  –D U I  In f o r c e m e n t Po l i c e $ 0 $ 2 5 , 0 0 0 F i r e  Mi t i g a t i o n P r o g r a m Pl i $0 $1 0 0 0 0 R f Ad d i t i l Ot i Ab35% Poli ce $0 $1 0 ,00 0 Res o u r c e s for  Ad d i t i on a l Ope r a ti ng Above 3.5%  Gr o w t h  Ta r g e t CO N T I N U E D O N  NE X T  PA G E 25 Ge n e r a l  Fu n d Su p p l e m e n t a l  Re q u e s t s De p a r t m e n t On e  Ti m e On g o i n g Su m m a r y Sp e c i a l E v e n t s $ 0 $ 1 2 5 , 0 0 0 P r o C y c l i n g  Ch a l l e n g e Sp e c i a l  Ev e n t s $ 0 $ 2 3 , 0 0 0 4 th of  Ju l y  Pa r a d e Spec i a l  Ev e n t s $0 $88 ,00 0 S e n i o r A d m i n i s t r a t i v e  As s i s t a n t  (New) and  p $ $, () Re c l a s s i f i c a t i o n  Ad j u s t m e n t s As p e n R e c r e a t i o n   Ce n t e r $3 7 , 2 0 0 $ 0 R e t i r e m e n t P a y o u t To t a l $ 3 7 , 2 0 0 $ 4 4 1 , 5 0 0 $ 8 , 5 0 0  Of f s e t t i n g    Gr a n t  So u r c e s 26 Ge n e r a l  Fu n d $3 2 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0   Ge n e r a l  Fu n d   Lo n g  Ra n g e  Pl a n  20 0 7 ‐20 2 2 $2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $2 4 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0   $2 8 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0   $1 2 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0   $1 6 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0   $2 0 ,00 0 ,00 0   $4 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0   $8 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0   $0   20 0 7 2 0 0 8 2 0 0 9 2 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 3 2 0 1 4 2 0 1 5 2 0 1 6 2 0 1 7 2 0 1 8 2 0 1 9 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 1 2 0 2 2   En d i n g  Ba l a n c e Re v e n u e s Ex p e n d i t u r e s Re s e r v e  (2 5 %  of Uses) In c r e a s e d  al l o c a t i o n  of  Pr o per t y Ta x  re v e n u e s  to  th e  As s e t  Ma n a gem e n t  Pl a n  ma i n t a i n s  27 py g a gr o w i n g  re s e r v e  an d  st a b l e  fu n d  ba l a n c e  in  th e  Ge n e r a l  Fu n d . AM P  Fu n d AM P  Fu n d As s u m p t i o n s •P r o p e r t y  Ta x  Re v e n u e  Al l o c a t i o n   • $1 mi l l i o n in 20 1 3 pl u s $5 0 0 0 0 0 th e r e a f t e r se t as i d e fo r tr a n s p o r t a t i o n • $1 mi l l i o n  in  20 1 3 , pl u s  $5 0 0 ,00 0  th e r e a f t e r , se t  as i d e  fo r  tr a n s p o r t a t i o n ,  pe d e s t r i a n  an d  ot h e r  po t e n t i a l  pr o j e c t s  re s u l t i n g  fr o m  al l o c a t i o n Ye a r G e n e r a l  Fu n d A s s e t M a n a g e m e n t  Plan 20 0 8 5 0 % 5 0 % 20 0 9 5 8 % 4 2 % 20 1 0 6 8 % 3 2 % 20 1 1 5 5 % 4 5 % • P l a c e h o l d e r  fo r  Zu p a n c i s S a l e  In c l u d e d  fo r  20 1 4 20 1 2 4 7 % 5 3 % 20 1 3  Bu d g e t 3 5 % 6 5 % •O f f s e t t i n g  ex p e n s e  as s o c i a t e d  wi t h  Ci t y  Ha l l  re m o d e l  al s o  in  same year •R e c r e a t i o n  Ma i n t e n a n c e  Bu d g e t s  Mo v e d  to  Op e r a t i n g $1 0 0 0 0 0 i 20 1 3 l 2% h th f t 29 • $1 0 0 ,00 0  in 20 1 3 , plus  2%  ea c h ye a r  th er e a ft er AM P  Fu n d 20 1 3  Ca p i t a l  Pr o j e c t s It e m i z e d  Pr o j e c t s  ov e r  $5 0 , 0 0 0 A m o u n t %  of  To t a l D e p a r t m e n t Fl e e t Re p l a c e m e n t s $5 4 3 , 0 0 0 22 % St r e e t s Fl e e t  Re p l a c e m e n t s $5 4 3 , 0 0 0   22 % St r e e t s Cu r b  an d  Gu t t e r  Re p l a c e m e n t s $ 2 6 4 , 0 0 0   11 % En g i n e e r i n g Re n o v a t i o n s  AI G $ 2 2 5 , 0 0 0   9% Re c r e a t i o n  (Ice Garden) Co r e  Ne t w o r k $ 1 4 3 , 0 0 0   6% In f o r m a t i o n  Technology $ Ci t y  Ha l l  3r d  Fl o o r  Up g r a d e s $12 5 , 0 0 0   5% As s e t  Ma n a g e m e n t Ha n d h e l d  Ra d i o  Re p l a c e m e n t s $ 1 2 0 , 0 0 0   5% Po l i c e Bo a r d  Re p l a c e m e n t $ 1 1 0 , 0 0 0   4% Re c r e a t i o n  (Ice Garden) Mi l l St . Pe d e s t r i a n Im p r o v e m e n t s $1 0 1 , 0 0 0 4% En g i n e e r i n g Mi l l  St .  Pe d e s t r i a n  Im p r o v e m e n t s $1 0 1 , 0 0 0   4% En g i n e e r i n g Bi k e  Wa y  Ma s t e r  Pl a n $ 7 5 , 0 0 0   3% En g i n e e r i n g Ci t y  Ha l l  Ca p i t a l  Re p l a c e m e n t $ 6 5 , 0 0 0   3% As s e t  Ma n a g e m e n t Ho p k i n s  Pe d e s t r i a n  Co n n e c t i v i t y  Im p . $ 6 3 , 0 0 0   3% En g i n e e r i n g Mo n d o  Fl o o r i n g  AI G $ 6 0 , 0 0 0   2% Re c r e a t i o n  (Ice Garden) Do w n t o w n  En h a n c e m e n t  Pe d e s t r i a n $ 5 1 , 0 0 0   2% En g i n e e r i n g Al l  Ot h e r s $ 5 0 7 , 1 0 0   21 % Va r i o u s To t a l AM P Pr o j e c t s (E x c l u d e s Pa y r o l l ) $2 4 5 2 1 0 0 10 0 % 30 To t a l  AM P  Pr o j e c t s  (E x c l u d e s  Pa y r o l l ) $2 ,45 2 ,10 0   10 0 % AM P  Fu n d Tr a n s f e r s • F e e s  as s o c i a t e d  wi t h  Pr o per t y Ta x  Co l l e c t i o n s py • E q u a l  to  2%  of  pr o j e c t e d  ta x  co l l e c t i o n s ;  $7 7 , 3 0 0  in  20 1 3 •G a l e n a  Pl a z a  Im pro v e m e n t s p • $ 1 0 0 , 0 0 0  in  20 1 3  th e n  ze r o  th e r e a f t e r • In f o r m a t i o n Te c h n o l o g y Cl o s e t Im p r o v e m e n t s In f o r m a t i o n  Te c h n o l o g y  Cl o s e t  Im p r o v e m e n t s •T o t a l  pr o j e c t  eq u a l  to  $4 5 6 , 4 0 0 ;  on e ‐ti m e  $9 5 , 0 0 0  GF  sh a r e  in 2013 • Re d ‐Br i c k In t e r f u n d Lo a n Re d Br i c k  In t e r f u n d Lo a n • $ 8 8 , 5 0 0  pe r  ye a r  th r o u g h  20 1 6 31 AM P  Fu n d $2 0 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0   As s e t  Ma n a g e m e n t  Pl a n  Fu n d Lo n g  Ra n g e  Pl a n  20 0 7 ‐20 2 2 $ 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 $1 4 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0   $1 6 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0   $1 8 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0   $6 0 0 0 0 0 0 $8 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0   $1 0 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0   $12,00 0 ,00 0   $0 $2 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0   $4 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0   $6 ,00 0 ,00 0   $0   20 0 7 2 0 0 8 2 0 0 9 2 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 3 2 0 1 4 2 0 1 5 2 0 1 6 2 0 1 7 2 0 1 8 2 0 1 9 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 1 2 0 2 2 En d i n g  Ba l a n c e Re v e n u e s Ex p e n d i t u r e s Re s e r v e  (1 2 . 5 %  of  Us e s  le s s  Ci t y  Hall) In c r e a s e d  re v e n u e a n d  ex p e n d i t u r e s  in  20 1 4  re l a t e d  to  th e  Zu p a n c i s p r o p e r t y  sa l e  an d  re m o d e l  of City Hall. ll j fl l fd d hh 20 2 2 l ih f i ddij 32 All  pr o jec t s  ar e  full y fun ded thro u g h 20 2 2  alon g  with a ne w  re s e r v e  for  tr a n s p o r t a t ion  an d pedestrian projects. Pa r k i n g  Fu n d Pa r k i n g  Fu n d Re v e n u e  As s u m p t i o n s •F e e  In c r e a s e s   $ d • $0. 5 0  in c r e a s e t o  2nd ho u r  pa r k i n g  in  Co m m e r c i a l  Co r e  (2 0 %  increase) • $ 1 . 0 0 i n c r e a s e  to  re s i d e n t i a l  da y  pe r m i t s  (1 4 %  in c r e a s e ) • $ 2 5 ‐$3 5  in c r e a s e  to  to w i n g  fe e s  (v e n d o r p r i c e  he l d  fl a t  fo r  la s t  5 years) •O n ‐St r e e t  De m a n d •M e t e r  re v e n u e  up  13 %  in  20 1 3 ,  re f l e c t i v e  of  fe e  in c r e a s e s  ab o v e  along  wi t h ef f o r t s to fu r t h e r di r e c t tr a f f i c to th e pa r k i n g ga r a g e wi t h  ef f o r t s  to  fu r t h e r  di r e c t  tr a f f i c  to  th e  pa r k i n g  ga r a g e • R e s i d e n t i a l  pa s s  re v e n u e  up  18 %  in  20 1 3 ,  pr e d o m i n a t e l y  al l  derived from  th e  $1 . 0 0  fe e  in c r e a s e • Co n s t r u c t i o n pe r m i t s up 13 % in 20 1 3 bu t st i l l do w n 35 % 20 1 1 levels • Co n s t r u c t i o n  pe r m i t s  up  13 %  in  20 1 3 , bu t  st i l l  do w n  35 %  20 1 1  levels •G a r a g e  De m a n d • R e v e n u e  pr o j e c t i o n s  in  20 1 3  re f l e c t  sk i e r  vi s i t s  re t u r n i n g  to  average levels 34 fo l l o w i n g  a we a k  wi n t e r  se a s o n  in  20 1 2 Pa r k i n g  Fu n d Ex p e n d i t u r e s •T r a n s por t a t i o n  Fu n d  Tr a n s f e r p •T r a n s f e r s  to  th e  Tr a n s p o r t a t i o n  Fu n d  ar e  no t  re q u i r e d  un t i l  2018 given  im p r o v e d  sa l e s  an d  us e  ta x  pr o j e c t i o n s  an d  fl e e t  re p l a c e m e n t  needs •G a l e n a  Pl a z a  Re d e v e l o p m e n t • E x p e n d i t u r e s  (a n d  tr a n s f e r s  in )  re l a t e d  to  th e  pa r k  de v e l o p m e n t  have  be e n pu s h e d in t o 20 1 4 ba s e d on re v i s e d pr o j e c t ti m e l i n e s be e n  pu s h e d  in t o  20 1 4  ba s e d  on  re v i s e d  pr o j e c t  ti m e l i n e s • C a p i t a l  Ne e d s $1 9 5 il l i i 20 1 3 ($ 1 0 0 0 0 0 f AM P ) d $1 1 5 il l i • $1 .95  mil l i on  in 20 1 3  ($ 1 0 0 ,00 0  fro m  AM P )  an d $1 .15  mil l i on  ($ 7 5 0 , 0 0 0  fr o m  Pa r k s )  in  20 1 4  fo r  Ga l e n a  Pl a z a  Re d e v e l o p m e n t •R o u g h l y  $8 0 , 0 0 0  pe r  ye a r  fo r  fl e e t  re p l a c e m e n t s  in  20 1 3  and 2014 35 Pa r k i n g  Fu n d $7 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0   Pa r k i n g  Fu n d   Lo n g  Ra n g e  Pl a n  20 0 9 ‐20 2 2 $5 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0   $6 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0   $3 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0   $4 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0   $1 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0   $2 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0   $0   20 0 9 2 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 3 2 0 1 4 2 0 1 5 2 0 1 6 2 0 1 7 2 0 1 8 2 0 1 9 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 1 2 0 2 2 En d i n g  Ba l a n c e Re v e n u e s Ex p e n d i t u r e s Op  Re s e r v e  (1 2 . 5 %  of  Us e s  le s s  Pl a z a ) Capital Reserve Ex p e n d i t u r e s ex c e e d re v e n u e s in th e ne a r te r m du e to ro o f re p a i r s an t i c i p a t e d as pa r t oftheGalena 36 Ex p e n d i t u r e s  ex c e e d  re v e n u e s  in  th e  ne a r  te r m  du e  to  ro o f  re p a i r s  an t i c i p a t e d  as  pa r t  of the Galena  Pl a z a  Re d e v e l o p m e n t .  Pa y  an d  Di s p l a y  Pa r k i n g  Me t e r  re p l a c e m e n t  is  sc h e d u l e d  in  2016. Tr a n s p o r t a t i o n  Fu n d Tr a n s p o r t a t i o n  Fu n d Re v e n u e  As s u m p t i o n s • U s e  Ta x • C o l l e c t i o n s  on  de p o s i t  ar e  ex p e c t e d  to  gr o w  4%  pe r  ye a r • R e a l i z e d  re v e n u e  is  an t i c i p a t e d  to  in c r e a s e  6%  in  bo t h  20 1 3  and 2014 with  pr o j e c t s  co m p l e t i n g  in  th e  ne a r  te r m ;  th e n  sl o w i n g  to  4%  th e r e a f t e r • 0 . 1 5 %  Sa l e s  Ta x •I m p r o v e d  sa l e s  an t i c i p a t e d  to  in c r e a s e  re v e n u e s  by  6%  in  20 1 2 ;  4% in 2013 Fd l Gt • Feder a l Gra n ts  •U n c e r t a i n t y  ex i s t s  wi t h  ne w  fe d e r a l  di r e c t i o n  an d  fu n d i n g • 1 0 %  of  re p l a c e m e n t  co s t s  as s u m e d  to  co m e  fr o m  gr a n t s  in  projection years  •T r a n s f e r s  fr o m  Pa r k i n g  Fu n d •N o  tr a n s f e r s  fo r  20 1 2  ‐ 20 1 7 ;  pr o j e c t e d  to  re s u m e  in  20 1 8 38 Tr a n s p o r t a t i o n  Fu n d Ex p e n s e  As s u m p t i o n s •B u s  an d  sh u t t l e  re pla c e m e n t  sc h e d u l e p •R e p l a c e m e n t  da t e  as s u m e d  af t e r  re a c h i n g  th e  fi r s t  of  tw o  possible  th r e s h o l d s ,  pl u s  1 ye a r  fo r  pr o c u r e m e n t : Th r e s h o l d B u s S h u t t l e Ag e  of  Ve h i c l e 1 2  ye a r s 5  ye a r s Mi l e a g e 5 0 0 , 0 0 0 1 5 0 , 0 0 0 • R F T A  su b s i d y • R F T A  co s t s  as s u m e d  to  in c r e a s e  5%  in  20 1 3 ; 4%  th e r e a f t e r ; •T r a n s i t  an d  lo d g i n g  ta x e s  ro u g h l y  $6 8 3 , 0 0 0  sh o r t  of  op e r a t i n g  costs,  re s u l t i n g  in  a 28 %  in c r e a s e  to  th e  re q u i r e d  su b s i d y  in  20 1 3  39 Tr a n s p o r t a t i o n  Fu n d Ca p i t a l  Ne e d s • S i z a b l e  Fl e e t  Re p l a c e m e n t  Ye a r s $ $ • 2 0 1 4 :  1 di e s e l  & 1 hy b r i d  bu s  ($1, 0 0 9 , 0 0 0 ) ;  3 sh u t t l e s  ($21 9 , 0 0 0 ) • 2 0 1 9 :    3 di e s e l  & 3 hy b r i d  bu s e s  ($ 3 , 3 1 5 , 0 0 0 ) ;  2 sh u t t l e s  ($ 1 7 0 , 0 0 0 ) • Tr a n s p o r t a t i o n De m a n d Ma n a g e m e n t (T D M ) Tr a n s p o r t a t i o n  De m a n d  Ma n a g e m e n t  (T D M ) •P r o j e c t  im p l e m e n t a t i o n  in  20 1 3  de p e n d s  on  re c e i v i n g  $1 1 7 , 0 0 0  federal  gr a n t  aw a r d Rb Pk Ti l • Rubey Par k Ter m ina l •R F T A  Bu s  Ra p i d  Tr a n s i t  im p r o v e m e n t s  ex c l u d e  th i s  fa c i l i t y  fo r  renovation • $ 1 0 , 0 0 0  ‐ $1 2 , 0 0 0  in  re p a i r  / ma i n t e n a n c e  as s u m e d  fo r  al l  ye a r s ;  additional  $2 0 , 0 0 0  fo r  sa f e t y  im p r o v e m e n t s  in c l u d e d  fo r  20 1 3   • 2 0 1 3  fu n d i n g  fo r  re ‐de s i g n  re q u e s t e d  fr o m  EO T C •F A S T E R  gr a n t  fu n d i n g  ‐ qu e s t i o n a b l e  wh e t h e r  ca p i t a l  im p r o v e m e n t s  to this 40 fa c i l i t y  an d  su r r o u n d i n g s  wi l l  qu a l i f y Tr a n s p o r t a t i o n  Fu n d $6 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0   Tr a n s p o r t a t i o n  Fu n d Lo n g  Ra n g e  Pl a n  20 0 9 ‐20 2 2 $4 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0   $5 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0   $3 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0   $1 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0   $2 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0   $0   20 0 9 2 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 3 2 0 1 4 2 0 1 5 2 0 1 6 2 0 1 7 2 0 1 8 2 0 1 9 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 1 2 0 2 2 En d i n g  Ba l a n c e Re v e n u e s Ex p e n d i t u r e s Op  Re s e r v e  (1 2 . 5 %  of  Us e s  ex c l .  Ca p i t a l ) Capital Reserve Th e ex p e n d i t u r e sp i k e in 20 1 9 is th e re s u l t of nu m e r o u s bu s an d sh u t t l e fl e e t ve h i c l e s meetingmileage 41 Th e  ex p e n d i t u r e  sp i k e  in  20 1 9  is  th e  re s u l t  of  nu m e r o u s  bu s  an d  sh u t t l e  fl e e t  ve h i c l e s  meeting mileage  an d / o r  ye a r l y  de p r e c i a t i o n  th r e s h o l d s ,  an d  th u s  sc h e d u l e d  fo r  re p l a c e m e n t . Pa r k s  an d  Op e n  Sp a c e  Fu n d Pa r k s  an d  Op e n  Sp a c e  Fu n d Re v e n u e  As s u m p t i o n s •S a l e s  Ta x d d hf •6 %  in c r e a s e  pr o j e c t e d in  20 1 2 ;  4%  in c r e a s e  in  20 1 3  an d thereafter • R e f u n d e d  an d  ne w  De b t  Is s u a n c e • $5 4 mi l l i o n in 20 1 2 ; in c o r p o r a t e s sm o o t h e d ou t ‐ye a r im p a c t s for • $5 .4 mi l l i o n  in  20 1 2 ;  in c o r p o r a t e s  sm o o t h e d  ou t ‐ye a r  im p a c t s  for  pr i n c i p a l  an d  in t e r e s t  pa y m e n t s • $ 1 , 2 2 5 , 0 0 0  Wa g n e r  Pa r k • $7 5 0 0 0 0 Dr o s t e Op e n Sp a c e • $7 5 0 ,00 0  Dr o s t e  Op e n  Sp a c e • $ 7 5 0 , 0 0 0  Ga l e n a  Pl a z a  Re d e v e l o p m e n t • $ 7 5 0 , 0 0 0  Bu r l i n g a m e  Ph a s e  II  Pa r k • $7 2 5 0 0 0 Ri o Gr a n d e Pa r k Im p r o v e m e n t s an d Pu m p • $7 2 5 ,00 0  Ri o  Gr a n d e  Pa r k  Im p r o v e m e n t s  an d  Pu m p • $ 5 7 5 , 0 0 0  Pr o p e r t y  Ac q u i s i t i o n • $ 2 2 5 , 0 0 0  Go l f  Co u r s e  Pu m p  Ho u s e • $2 2 0 0 0 0 Bo b He l m Br i d g e 43 • $2 2 0 ,00 0  Bo b  He l m  Br i d g e   • $ 1 0 0 , 0 0 0  Ri o  Gr a n d e  Pa r k  Re s t r o o m Pa r k s  an d  Op e n  Sp a c e  Fu n d Ex p e n s e  As s u m p t i o n s •S u pp le m e n t a l  St a f f i n g Re que s t s pp g q •G F  tr a n s f e r  fo r    su m m e r  an d  wi n t e r  do w n t o w n  cl e a n i n g  te a m s  ($95,800) o 20 1 2  tr i a l  ba s i s  us i n g  Ce n t r a l  Sa v i n g s  fo u n d  su c c e s s f u l • Ad m i n i s t r a t i v e su p p o r t fo r 7 mo n t h s pe r ye a r be g i n n i n g 20 1 3 ($26300) Ad m i n i s t r a t i v e  su p p o r t  fo r  7 mo n t h s  pe r  ye a r  be g i n n i n g  20 1 3  ($26,300) •T r a n s f e r s  an d  De b t  Se r v i c e  Pa y m e n t s •D e b t  se r v i c e  pa y m e n t s  of  ap p r o x i m a t e l y  $2 . 8  mi l l i o n  pe r  ye a r  beginning  20 1 3 ;  $3 . 0  mi l l i o n  in  20 2 0  an d  20 2 1 • $ 1 5 8 , 0 0 0  op e r a t i o n a l  su b s i d y  fo r  go l f ,  pl u s  an  ad d i t i o n a l  $1 3 5 , 7 0 0  for golf‐ re l a t e d  de b t  se r v i c e  (e n d i n g  20 1 9 ) •G a l e n a  Pl a z a  pa r k  re d e v e l o p m e n t  in  20 1 4  ($ 7 5 0 , 0 0 0 ) 44 Pa r k s  an d  Op e n  Sp a c e  Fu n d Ca p i t a l Pr o j e c t s  It e m i z e d A b o v e  $5 0 , 0 0 0 2 0 1 3 P e r c e n t  of Total Wa g n e r Pa r k Im p r o v e m e n t s $1 , 2 5 5 , 0 0 0 46% Wa g n e r  Pa r k  Im p r o v e m e n t s $1 , 2 5 5 , 0 0 0   46% Dr o s t e O p e n  Sp a c e  Ac q u i s i t i o n $ 2 5 0 , 0 0 0   9% Pr o p e r t y  Ac q u i s i t i o n $ 2 4 0 , 0 0 0 9 % Ri o  Gr a n d e  Ph a s e  II I $ 1 0 0 , 0 0 0   4% Ca s t l e  Cr e e k  Br i d g e  Fe n c e  Im p r o v e m e n t s $ 6 9 , 0 0 0   2% Sm u g g l e r  Fo r e s t r y  Ma n a g e m e n t $ 5 8 , 0 0 0   2% Ca s t l e  Cr e e k  Tr a i l  St u d y $  50 , 0 0 0   2% Pe d e s t r i a n  Ma l l  El e c t r i c a l  Up g r a d e $ 5 0 , 0 0 0   2% Al l  Ot h e r P r o j e c t s $ 3 2 9 , 0 0 0 1 2 % To t a l  On e ‐Ti m e  Ca p i t a l  Pr o j e c t s $ 2 , 4 0 1 , 0 0 0 8 7 % Fl t Rl t $3 2 0 0 0 0 12% Fl ee t Rep lac e m e n ts $3 2 0 ,00 0 12% Ot h e r  On ‐Go i n g  Eq u i p m e n t  Re p l a c e m e n t s $ 2 1 , 2 0 0 1 % To t a l  of  Ca p i t a l  Ne e d s $ 2 , 7 4 2 , 2 0 0 1 0 0 % 45 Pa r k s  an d  Op e n  Sp a c e  Fu n d $1 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 $1 8 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 Pa r k s  an d  Op e n  Sp a c e  Fu n d   Lo n g  Ra n g e  Pl a n  20 0 7 ‐20 2 2 $1 2 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 $1 4 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 $1 6 ,00 0 ,00 0 $6 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 $8 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 $1 0 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 $2 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 $4 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 $0 20 0 7 2 0 0 8 2 0 0 9 2 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 3 2 0 1 4 2 0 1 5 2 0 1 6 2 0 1 7 2 0 1 8 2 0 1 9 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 1 2 0 2 2 En d i n g  Ba l a n c e Re v e n u e s Ex p e n d i t u r e s Re s e r v e  (1 2 . 5 %  of Uses) Th e  in c r e a s e  in  re v e n u e  in  20 1 2  is  fr o m a  bo n d  is s u a n c e  fo r  ca p i t a l  pr o j e c t s  in  20 1 2  an d  20 1 3 .   Revenues 46 be g i n  to  ex c e e d  ex p e n d i t u r e s  in  20 1 8 ,  im p r o v i n g  fu n d  ba l a n c e  re l a t i v e  to  th e  ta r g e t e d  reserve. Go l f  Co u r s e  Fu n d Go l f  Co u r s e  Fu n d Re v e n u e  As s u m p t i o n s •P r o pos e d  Fe e  In c r e a s e s  fo r  20 1 3 p • P l a t i n u m  pa s s  ‐ $1 0 0  in c r e a s e  to  $2 , 0 4 9          (3 5  pa s s e s ) • S i l v e r  pa s s  ‐ $5 0  in c r e a s e  to  $8 2 5          (2 2 5  pa s s e s ) • 20 pu n c h pa s s $5 0 in c r e a s e to $7 0 0 (2 0 0 pa s s e s ) • 20  pu n c h  pa s s  ‐ $5 0  in c r e a s e  to  $7 0 0          (2 0 0  pa s s e s ) • R e v e n u e  Ex p e c t a t i o n s •3 . 4 %  de c r e a s e  in  gr e e n s  fe e s  an t i c i p a t e d  in  20 1 3  gi v e n  ea r l y  season  op e n i n g  an d  ex c e p t i o n a l  we a t h e r  in  20 1 2 •7 . 0 %  in c r e a s e  in  gr e e n  fe e s  an t i c i p a t e d  ev e r y  ot h e r  ye a r  beginning  20 1 5  ba s e d  on  st a g g e r e d  im p l e m e n t a t i o n  of  fu t u r e  fe e  in c r e a s e s •P a s s  re v e n u e  in c r e a s e s  pr o j e c t e d  at  2%  in  20 1 3  af t e r  in c o r p o r a t i n g  the  ab o v e  fe e  ch a n g e s ;  3%  gr o w t h  pr o j e c t e d  th e r e a f t e r 48 Go l f  Co u r s e  Fu n d Re v e n u e  As s u m p t i o n s • C l u b h o u s e  Le a s e  Re v e n u e • 20 1 3 wi n t e r pr o sh o p le a s e re v e n u e an t i c i p a t e d to do u b l e gi v e n limited • 20 1 3  wi n t e r  pr o  sh o p  le a s e  re v e n u e  an t i c i p a t e d  to  do u b l e  gi v e n  limited  sn o w f a l l  in  20 1 2  an d  re s u l t i n g  we a k  cr o s s  co u n t r y  sk i  bu s i n e s s •G o l f  Sh o p  Re v e n u e •M o d e r a t e  bu t  st e a d y  2%  lo n g ‐te r m  gr o w t h  an t i c i p a t e d  ba s e d  on recent  su c c e s s  in  re t a i l  sa l e s  (m a n a g e d  in ‐ho u s e )  an d  le s s o n s  (o u t s o u r c e d ) •E x p l o r i n g  po t e n t i a l  re v e n u e  gr o w t h  po s s i b i l i t i e s  as s o c i a t e d  with  in s t a l l a t i o n  of  a go l f  si m u l a t o r  fo r  ye a r ‐ro u n d  us e   • C o n t r i b u t i o n s • $7 5 0 0 0 do n a t i o n in 20 1 2 fo r im p r o v e m e n t s to pr a c t i c e fa c i l i t i e s • $7 5 ,00 0  do n a t i o n  in  20 1 2  fo r  im p r o v e m e n t s  to  pr a c t i c e  fa c i l i t i e s • S u b s i d y  fr o m  Pa r k s • $ 1 5 8 ,00 0  in  20 1 3  (in c r e a s i n g 3%  th e r e a f t e r ) fo r  oper a t i o n s 49 , (g ) p • $ 1 3 5 , 7 0 0  in  20 1 3  fo r  de b t  se r v i c e  re p a y m e n t s ,  co n t i n u i n g  th r o u g h  2019 Go l f  Co u r s e  Fu n d Ex p e n s e  As s u m p t i o n s •G o l f  Sh o p  Pr o f i t a b i l i t y :  In ‐ho u s e  Op e r a t i o n s • 2 0 1 0 :  $5 9 , 7 0 0  lo s s • 2 0 1 1 :  $6 9 , 7 8 1  pr o f i t • 20 1 2 : $9 9 , 6 3 0 pr o f i t pr o j e c t e d 20 1 2 :    $9 9 , 6 3 0  pr o f i t  pr o j e c t e d • 2 0 1 3  to  20 2 1 :  Av e r a g e  $1 0 0 , 0 0 0  pe r  ye a r  pr o f i t  pr o j e c t e d • Tr a n s f e r s Tr a n s f e r s • $ 2 0 0 , 0 0 0  st a r t ‐up  lo a n  re p a y m e n t  to  Pa r k s  ov e r  20  ye a r s  ($13,100/yr.) • E m p l o y e e  ho u s i n g  tr a n s f e r  co n t i n u e d  at  50 %  re d u c e d  le v e l  until 2015 •D e b t  Se r v i c e • 2 0 0 5  ST R R  bo n d  re p a y m e n t s  re m a i n  st e a d y  un t i l  ex p i r i n g  Nov. 2019 50 Go l f  Co u r s e  Fu n d Ca p i t a l •C o u r s e  Im pro v e m e n t s p • L i m i t e d  an n u a l  co u r s e  im p r o v e m e n t  bu d g e t  un t i l  fu n d  ba l a n c e  improves • $ 5 , 0 0 0  in  20 1 3 ,  in c r e a s i n g  to  $2 0 , 0 0 0  by  20 2 2 Fl t Rl t • Fl ee t Rep lac e m e n t •G o l f  ca r t s  sc h e d u l e d  ev e r y  5 ye a r s ;  eq u i p m e n t  sc h e d u l e d  ev e r y  7 years •L e a s e  pu r c h a s e  im p r o v e d  ca s h  fl o w  of  ca p i t a l  fl e e t  re p l a c e m e n t s ,   sm o o t h i n g  pa y m e n t s  ov e r  mu l t i p l e  ye a r s •R e n t a l  Eq u i p m e n t • $7 5 0 0 an n u a l l y in 20 1 3 an d 20 1 4 ; do u b l e d in 20 1 5 an d ev e r y otheryear • $7 ,50 0  an n u a l l y  in  20 1 3  an d  20 1 4 ;  do u b l e d  in  20 1 5  an d  ev e r y  other year  th e r e a f t e r 51 Go l f  Co u r s e  Fu n d $2 , 8 0 0 , 0 0 0 Go l f  Co u r s e  Fu n d Lo n g  Ra n g e  Pl a n  20 0 7 ‐20 2 2 $2 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 $2 , 4 0 0 , 0 0 0 $1 , 2 0 0 , 0 0 0 $1 , 6 0 0 , 0 0 0 $4 0 0 , 0 0 0 $8 0 0 , 0 0 0 $0 20 0 7 2 0 0 8 2 0 0 9 2 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 3 2 0 1 4 2 0 1 5 2 0 1 6 2 0 1 7 2 0 1 8 2 0 1 9 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 1 2 0 2 2 En d i n g  Ba l a n c e Re v e n u e s Ex p e n d i t u r e s Re s e r v e  (1 2 . 5 %  of Uses)52 Th e  sp i k e  in  20 1 2  re v e n u e  an d  ex p e n d i t u r e s  eq u a t e s  to  in v e s t m e n t s  as s o c i a t e d  wi t h  a ne w  pump house and  eq u i p m e n t .    In c o r p o r a t i n g  le a s e  pu r c h a s e  op t i o n  ha s  sm o o t h e d  an n u a l  eq u i p m e n t  re p l a c e m e n t  costs going forward.