HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.an.Aspen Valley Hospital.2003
VI'Ie,
Memorandum
Ihe City 01 Aspen
GiIY AnoIDer':s Ollice
TO:
Mayor and Members of Council
FROM:
John P. Worcester
DATE:
July 14, 2003
RE:
Aspen Valley Hospital District Annexation - Ordinance No. 30, Series
of 2003 - Second Reading and Public Hearing.
Attached for your consideration and review is a proposed ordinance which, if adopted, would annex
the Aspen Valley Hospital District Property into the City of Aspen. This matter is before you for
First Reading ofthe ordinance.
The property proposed to be annexed includes all of the hospital property and the portion of Castle
Creek road from the roundabout at Highway 82 to just past Doolittle Drive.
The petition for annexation was filed with the City Clerk on February 22.2002. On April 8, 2002,
City Council adopted a resolution finding substantial compliance with Section 31-12-107(1), C.R.S.
A public hearing was held on May 13, 2002, at which time Council determined that the proposed
annexation was in compliance with SS 31-12-104 and 31-12-105, C.R.S.
As you may be aware, staff has been in negotiations with the hospital for some time regarding
certain terms and conditions for inclusion in a pre-annexation agreement. Attached hereto please
find a memorandum from Steve Barwick that discusses the progress made to date on the pre-
annexation agreement. You will note that staff needs some guidance from Council on certain
outstanding issues before a final draft of the pre-annexation agreement can be presented for
approval. If agreement can be reached with the hospital administration, a pre-annexation agreement
will be finalized and presented to Council as part of its consideration of the annexation ordinance at
second reading.
The decision to annex property to the City is a legislative act and is entirely within your
discretionary powers. You may annex, or not, for any reason, or no reason at all.
ACTION REQUIRED: Approval of Ordinance No. _, Series of2003, on Second Reading.
City Manager's Comments: WA:1e --;I""c d,-e n-..~", -f'o<-:t~J +., c<'>'s,~
,
'" -(-t;s "p''J'''IJsJ "'->>.,<')(..:1.;...... ~ (:'va~c~<,-;J ;v~d";" ~ ere)'"
;$ CCyf";"(7 ''''''7 fIC, """'-1,...,,.."',--1.....:1. 71.... C;~7f F,~ 0,,,,,,.A,,....
5 MJ t"- /~<;-~ ;",/;)~.::I cP.C'; tf... c, J "'<-let a.~ t /"it, ot('l,,oe,- ,7-~'
:r .....~II '~?;Je$f ~ -(.n~;"'I.-""~~/,,):;-<'.I~ '" ffr:/.-f~66. +/) 0/4:.{
~I/ne.xd,~ is ~cl4Jf tf1tJo,DOl:> "t?ary'~",-, I-f i; ~/?.;.., c:i'y
('c........c r! If> .It! c'-~ ; -f f/~.<,,,,"'?<,~/-T)... "P.,,,,.41 /I,~ ",...."../
,
v... L~ ..;..". /1.., .",""" '~'. ,.....,. ...,I.'y,
,
:I "" <.<;f #,/);.,:1 "....... f -r-i.J 11-1. /Tv I-Is "sS....-A....... 'f~ ev......7 "~r
,
~r~;.)---f7 ",.,ne..,rJ t7 f/c {;~y s;"c..e /.,'17 rl'J'./W::" "'t;-f...,,,,,#f'.r<.
-{:.,'s J b~ - /.'"7 ;Yh,~ /, /hC<>Y'~ A/<p J4 ,!?rr-sJ aA.".,.,..-/,......
he< 5 ,n%lvd #..-, led.1 -rC,'.............cr..l CDS f fe. ~ cfr "J $'a-.....;;
J..,..ve. /-?~D"h_"'~ ~s,cj.,..,..., ~'/ ~,'~~,J ;~"-,,,k,
cc: City Manager
Community Development Director
JPW~07/09/2003-G:\john\word\memos\avh-ann-ord.doc
2
I ASPEN
July 5, 2003
Mayor and City Council
City of Aspen
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
RE: Aspen Valley Hospital Annexation Request
Dear Mayor & City Council:
The Aspen Valley Hospital (AVH) has served the upper Roaring Fork
Valley in the present facility for approximately 25 years. There
have been significant changes in medical technology and services
provided at AVH since the existing facilities were developed. The
AVH staff and Board are initiating a master planning process to
develop a new master plan to address changing technology and
service demands and guide the growth and development of AVH for the
next 10 to 15 years.
Attachment 1 depicts the AVH 26.6 acre site which includes: the
hospital, Mountain Oaks affordable housing, the piktin County
Health and Human Services Building, the Senior Center, the Castle
Creek Terraces Assisted Living Facility Center, ambulance barn, the
hospital administrator's house and approximately 8 acres of vacant
land. Attachment 2, the City of Aspen Three-Mile Annexation
Area, shows the AVH site is an enclave of unincorporated land,
surrounded by the City of Aspen. Inevitably, AVH will be annexed
during the implementation of the new hospital plan. It would be
beneficial to AVH and the City to involve the City of Aspen in the
master planning process instead of the City administering a County
approved Master plan following annexation.
This letter addresses the City of Aspen's formally adopted
annexation policies. Annexation issues raised by the City Manager
in his May 20, 2002 Memorandum to City Council are also discussed.
The AVH proposal to mitigate impacts on the City of Aspen is
summarized as are the reasons for the City of Aspen to annex AVH.
Mayor and City Council
July 5, 2003
Page 2
CITY OF ASPEN ANNEXATION POLICY
The City of Aspen established a formal annexation policy in 1988
with the adoption of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan: Annexation
Element. The Annexation Element guided City of Aspen annexations
for many years. In 1993, the City adopted Resolutions 5 and 49
establishing water system policies affecting annexation. City
water policies require a water service agreement incorporating an
obligation on the part of the water user to annex property
benefitted by City water if the City determines annexation is
desirable. Aspen Valley Hospital has already entered into a water
service agreement with the City.
In 2002, the City adopted the City of Aspen Annexation Plan
updating the 1988 Annexation Element and responding to Colorado
State statutes and Aspen's Urban Growth Boundary established in the
Aspen Area Community Plan. Annexation areas and policies to guide
annexation contained in the Annexation Element and the Annexation
Plan are similar: there have not been significant changes made to
annexation policies. Attachment 2 depicts the City of Aspen Three
Mile Annexation Area and Attachment 3 shows AVH is located in the
Meadowood neighborhood, an unincorporated enclave, completely
surrounded by the City of Aspen.
City of Aspen Annexation Plan: Annexation Criteria
The City of Aspen Annexation Plan identifies "Annexation Criteria"
which "should be used to determine when annexation is appropriate,
which land should be annexed, and how it should be zoned." The
following section demonstrates that the AVH annexation is
substantially consistent with the applicable "Annexation Criteria."
Portions of the Annexation Criteria are directly quoted as noted.
AACP Compliance
Annexation requests should be reviewed for compliance with the
Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) Annexation of AVH is consistent
with the AACP and is envisioned within the Plan.
Urban Growth Boundary
"Land within the Urban Growth Boundary
part of the City's urbanized area
appropriate for annexation" (p. 11) .
hospital is within the UGB.
(UGB) is expected to become
and should be considered
Attachment 2 shows the
Mayor and City Council
July 5, 2003
Page 3
Significant Annexations
The Plan recognizes problems may arise from annexing significant
properties such as AVH which received land use entitlements from
the County and then are annexed by th& City. This has been the
case with the Moore PUD and Aspen Highlands Village Annexations.
Annexation of AVH prior to the development of a new master plan is
intended to avoid similar problems. The AVH Board is seeking the
active involvement of the City staff, Planning and Zoning
Commission and City Council in the development of a new Master
Plan.
Fiscal Impact Analysis
The City should project the capital improvments costs and operating
costs associated with annexation. The City Manager has projected
that the annual impact of annexation on the City's expenditure
budget to be at least $ 75,000.00. This is the only City of Aspen
Annexation Criterion addressed in the City Manager's memorandum to
the City Council. The AVH staff does not concur with the City's
fiscal impact analysis.
The fiscal impacts of annexation are just one of nine Annexation
Criteria in the City of Aspen Annexation Plan. Attachment 4 is a
list and Attachment 5 is a map identifying 27 properties the City
has annexed since 1987. Two parcels of vacant land have been
annexed, Zoline and Burlingame. Two parks/recreation/open space
properties have been annexed; Iselin and Rotary Parks and the Moore
Fields. One institutional property has been annexed, Hallam Lake.
The overwhelming reason for annexing the Iselin and Rotary Parks
and the Moore Fields was so the City of Aspen could control the
master planning process for these important civic facilities. The
same rational applies to the AVH annexation.
The remaining annexations were all developed residential
properties. Extensive nationally recognized planning studies of
annexations show the annexation of institutional/parks/cultural
facilities and developed residential areas rarely, if ever, result
in net positive fiscal impacts for annexing municipalities. This
is the case with the 24 City of Aspen residential annexations which
have occurred since 1987. While some of the annexations have
generated real estate transfer tax revenues, these funds are
earmarked for specific purposes and do not offset negative impacts
on the City of Aspen General Fund. In most cases, the overwhelming
justification for annexation was to enfranchise Aspen Area citizens
in the City of Aspen political process. Residential annexations
gave hundreds of Aspen Area citizens the right to vote in City
elections. Additionally, the past two City of Aspen Mayors lived
Mayor and City Council
July 5, 2003
Page 4
in the annexed areas.
The AVH annexation will include 38 new dwelling units into the City
limits including Mountain Oaks, the Castle Creek Terrace Assisted
Living Center and the Hospital Administrator's house.
Approximately 64 additional Aspen Area residents will become
eligible to vote and run for office in the City of Aspen.
Annexation of the AVH may result in net negative fiscal operating
impacts similar to every other property annexed by the City since
1987. The annexation serves the dual benefit of enfranchising
citizens and helping one of the most important community resources
in Aspen. The City Council must weigh the fiscal impacts of the
AVH annexation against all other adopted Annexation Criteria in
reaching an annexation decision.
A modern, state of the art hospital will indirectly benefit the
local economy. Due to changing population demographics, local
hospital facilities play a more important role in attracting
residents and visitors to the Aspen Area which benefits the local
economy and off-sets negative fiscal impacts which may result from
annexation.
Development Rights/Zoning
The City of Aspen Annexation Plan calls for development rights
associated with a property in the County to be considered in the
zoning of property after annexation into the City. The development
rights of newly annexed land should approximate development rights
prior to annexation (p.12).
Pitkin County has approved the 1989, 1996 and 1997 AVH Master
Plans. The City Community Development Department has reviewed the
land use entitlements in the approved plans. The approved AVH
Master Plans include an entitlement to build a 22,800 square foot
Medical Office Building which was opposed by the City of Aspen when
the plan was approved in 1997. At the request of the City of Aspen
Community Development Department, AVH has agreed to eliminate the
Medical Office Building from the approved entitlements if AVH is
annexed.
Usefulness and Appropriateness of Each Jurisdiction's Regulations
The Aspen Land Use Regulations are different from the Piktin County
Land Use Code. The Aspen Land Use Regulations are designed to
address "intense use of land and urban development issues, such as
architectural character" (p. 12) while the County Land Use Code is
designed primarily to address rural land development issues.
Mayor and City Council
July 5, 2003
Page 5
The City of Aspen Land Use Regulations are better suited to
regulate the development of the AVH. piktin County Land Use Code
amendments were required to address prior AVH master plans.
Multiple County Land Use Code amendments were required to address
the tourist oriented uses of the Aspen Highlands Village Planned
Uni t Development. More County Code amendments may be necessary for
hospital related uses in the next master planning process. It is
unlikely that Code amendments would be necessary if the Aspen Land
Use Regulations are used to guide the preparation of the new AVH
Master Plan.
Infrastructure and Ability to Serve
"Cost, capacity and engineering issues related to extension of the
City's municipal water system to developing land on the urban
fringe is a significant annexation issue" (P. 13). The hospital is
already served with City of Aspen water.
The City Engineer has recommended urban improvrnents to the Castle
Creek Road/AVH intersection. The AVH Board has agreed to donate
up to $ 100,000 to the upgrading of the intersection which is more
than AVH's fair share.
Simplicity of City Boundary
"The City/County boundary has created confusion for citizens and
staff responsible for enforcing policy. A complex boundary can
complicate emergency service provision and, in extreme cases,
defeat efforts of City police officers. Annexations simplifying
the boundary should be encouraged while those further complicating
the division should be avoided" (p.13).
Attachment 2 shows AVH and Castle Creek
completely surrounded by the City of Aspen.
would significantly simplify the City boundary
annexation policy.
Road are enclaves
The AVH annexation
consistent with City
CITY OF ASPEN ISSUES REGARDING ANNEXATION
The City Manager addresses annexation in a May 20, 2003 Memorandum
to Aspen City Council, "Annexation of Aspen Valley Hospital" (see
Attachment 6). The Memorandum notes that discussions between the
City staff and AVH have focused on three issues:
* Construction and operation of a Detox Center;
* Reconstruction of the Castle Creek Road/Doolittle Drive
intersection; and
Mayor and City Council
July 5, 2003
Page 6
*
Fiscal Impact on the City of Aspen.
The Memorandum indicates the first two issues have been resolved.
The City of Aspen Annexation Plan contemplates the owners of
annexed property to contribute toward capital improvments such as
upgrading the Castle Creek Road/Doolittle Drive intersection. A
partnership between the City of Aspen and AVH to address and
resolve issues regarding a Detox Center goes beyond the annexation
criteria established in the Annexation Plan and reflects the desire
of the AVH Board of Directors to contribute to upgrading social
services in the Aspen Area.
The City analysis shows the AVH annexation will result in an annual
operating loss to the General Fund of between $ 50,000 and
$ 131,000 due to the proposed annexation. According to the City
Manager, the annual impact on the City's budget will be at least
$ 75,000. As previously noted, the AVH staff does not concur with
the City's fiscal impact analysis.
The City Manager's memorandum addresses only one of nine applicable
Annexation Criteria from the City of Aspen Annexation Plan. The
preceding section of this letter demonstrated substantial
consistency of the AVH annexation with the Annexation Criteria.
ASPEN VALLEY HOSPITAL COMMITMENTS
TO
MITIGATE ANNEXATION IMPACTS
Attachment
Middlebrook
commitments
are briefly
7 is a copy of a May 16, 2003 letter from Randy
to the City Manager. This letter proposes AVH's
to offset impacts from annexation. These commitments
summarized in this section.
Castle Creek Road/ Doolittle Drive Intersection
Aspen Valley Hospital will contribute the lesser half of the actual
cost of redeveloping the intersection or an amount not to exceed
$ 100,000.00.
City Health Insurance Discount
Aspen Valley Hospital will extend City of
discount equal to 15 percent off AVH charges.
stand for 10 consecutive years after annexation.
Aspen employees a
This offer will
Mayor and City Council
July 5, 2003
Page 7
Health Fairs
Aspen Valley Hospital will hold three health fairs per year. Two
will be in Aspen and one in Basalt. The health fairs will offer a
variety of screening tests and educational information for free or
at a significant discount. If there is an average attendance of
450 people at each fair and at least one-third of the participants
take advantage of the offerings, the "in-kind" value of the health
fairs exceeds $ 450,000 per year.
Health Educational Seminars
Aspen Valley Hospital will conduct at least five free educational
seminars on general health topics. If an average of 100 people
attended per seminar, the "in-kind" value exceeds $ 45,000 per
year.
Detox Center
Aspen Valley Hospital reached an agreement with City of Aspen
Police Chief, Loren Ryerson, regarding detox protocols (see
Attachment 8). Subsequent to signature of the detox agreement, the
AVH Board adopted a motion stating that "if at sometime in the
future, the City of Aspen determines the need for a detox unit, the
City of Aspen and Aspen Valley Hospital would consent to become
full partners in solving the issue" (see Attachment 7).
Private Security
Aspen Valley Hospital has contracted with a local private security
company to provide full-time 24 hour a day private security. From
March 28, 2001 and March 27, 2002 the pitkin County Sheriff's
office responded to 118 calls to the AVH campus. The addition of
private security at AVH should drastically decrease the frequency
of calls for public police services. Attachment 7, Randy
Middlebrook's May 16, 2003 letter, did not mention the addition of
a private security force a AVH.
SUMMARY OF REASONS WHY
THE CITY OF ASPEN SHOULD ANNEX ASPEN VALLEY HOSPITAL
This section summarizes the reasons why the City of Aspen should
annex the Aspen Valley Hospital.
Mayor and City Council
July 5, 2003
Page 8
1. Aspen Valley Hospital is initiating a new master planning
process to develop a Plan which will guide AVH's the growth
and development for 10 to 15 years.
2.
AVH is an enclave of unincorporated land,
City the City of Aspen.
surrounded by the
3. It would be beneficial to AVH and the community to involve the
City of Aspen in the master planning process instead of the
City administering a County approved Master Plan following
annexation.
4. The City of Aspen Annexation Plan identifies "Annexation
Criteria" which "should be used to determine when annexation
is appropriate, which land should be annexed, and how it
should be zoned." The AVH annexation is substantially
consistent with the City of Aspen Annexation Plan: Annexation
Criteria.
5. Aspen Valley Hospital is located within the City of Aspen
Urban Growth Boundary and within an area proposed to be
annexed in the City of Aspen Annexation Plan.
6. Problems may arise from annexing significant properties such
as AVH which have already received land use entitlements from
the County and then are annexed by the City. This has been
the case with the Moore PUD and Aspen Highlands Village
Annexations.
7. There is precedent for the City of Aspen to annex properties
which result in negative annual fiscal impacts on the City.
The City of Aspen has annexed 27 properties since 1987.
Twenty-four of the annexed properties were improved with
residential land uses which generate a re-occurring negative
fiscal impact on the City General Fund. The overwhelming
justification for annexation was to enfranchise Aspen Area
citizens in the City of Aspen political process. Residential
annexations gave hundreds of Aspen Area citizens the right to
vote in City elections. Additionally, Aspen's last two Mayors
lived in the annexed areas. The AVH annexation will enable
approximately 64 additional Aspen Area residents to vote and
run for office in the City of Aspen.
Three of the properties annexed were institutional/parks/
cultural facilities which result in a net negative fiscal
impacts. These annexations occurred because the City Council
sought land use control of the facilities and believed that
important institutional/parks/cultural facilities should be
Mayor and City
July 5, 2003
Page 9
Council
located in the City limits.
8. Annexation of the AVH may result in net negative fiscal
operating impacts for the City of Aspen just as virtually
every property annexed by the City since 1987. However, a
modern state of the art hospital is an asset to the local
economy with significant indirect fiscal benefits which offset
potential negative fiscal impacts which may result from the
AVH annexation. Why should the City of Aspen select such an
important community resource such as AVH to be inappropriate
for annexation?
9. The approved AVH Master Plan includes an entitlement to build
a 22,800 square foot Medical Office Building which was opposed
by the City of Aspen when the Plan was approved in 1997. At
the request of the City of Aspen Community Development
Department, AVH has agreed to eliminate the Medical Office
Building from the approved entitlements if AVH is annexed.
10. The City of Aspen Land Use Regulations are better suited to
regulate the development of AVH than the Pitkin County Land
Use Code because the Regulations are intended to regulate
urban development, while the County Land Use Code is more
focused upon rural land planning issues.
11. The City Engineer has recommended urban improvrnents to the
Castle Creek Road/AVH intersection. The AVH Board has agreed
to donate up to $ 100,000 to the upgrading of the intersection
which is more than AVH's fair share.
12. The AVH annexation would significantly simplify the City
boundary consistent with City annexation policy.
13. If annexed, AVH will extend City of Aspen employees a discount
equal to 15 percent off AVH charges for 10 years following
annexation.
14. If annexed, AVH will hold three health fairs per year.
15. If annexed, AVH will conduct at least five free educational
seminars per year on general health topics.
16. If at sometime in the future, the City of Aspen determines the
need for a detox unit, AVH consents to become full partners
with the City of Aspen in resolving the issue.
17. Aspen Valley Hospital has contracted with a local private
security company to provide full-time 24 hour a day private
Mayor and City Council
July 5, 2003
Page 10
security. The addition of private security at AVH should
decrease the frequency of the City providing police services.
please carefully consider these reasons for annexing AVH and vote
for the proposed annexation.
Thank you for your consideration of the issues addressed in the
letter.
Sincerely,
ohn Sarpa
Chairperson of Aspen Valley Hospital Board of Directors Signing
for:
Elaine Gerson
Morris Cohen
John Jellinek
Bob D'Alessio
Mayor and City Council
July 5, 2003
Page 11
List of Attachments
1. Aspen Valley Hospital Annexation Map
2. City of Aspen Annexation Plan, City of Aspen Three Mile
Annexation Area: Map A
3. City of Aspen Annexation Plan, City of Aspen Three Mile
Annexation Area: Map B
4. List of City of Aspen Annexation: 1987-2003
5. Map of City of Aspen Annexations: 1987-2003
6. May 20, 2003 Memorandum from Steve Barwick, City Manager to
the City Council, "Annexation of Aspen Valley Hospital"
7. May 16, 2003 Letter from Randy Middlebrook to Steve Barwick
regarding Annexation
8. Agreement between AVH and Loren Ryerson, City of Aspen Police
Chief regarding Detox Facility
CCAVH
THE CITY OF ASPEN
Memorandum
To: City Council Members
Thru: Steve Barwick, City Manager
From: Paul Menter, Director of Finance and Administrative Services
Date: 7/8/03
Re: Financial impact analysis, Proposed Aspen Valley Hospital Annexation
Summary:
Given current assumptions for the City's General Fund Long Range Financial Plan,
the proposed A VH annexation will increase City operating and capital expenses an
average of $186,648 per year (net of increased revenues and adjusted for inflation)
over the coming ten year period (see April 24, 2003 staff report included as
Attachment A). All of these costs are anticipated to affect the City's general fund.
Attachment B provides a graphical representation of the general fund long-range
plan to provide a baseline for comparison. Given current assumptions, the general
fund can absorb the additional cost and the City's general fund budget remains
sustainable (See Attachment C). However, the Council should be very cautious in
loading additional costs onto the general fund at this point in time. Moderate
reductions in the assumed growth and timing of sales tax, investment income, and
mitigation fee collections will result in a decline in general fund reserves of $6
million over the coming 10 years, all other assumptions remaining the same.
This dramatic sensitivity to fluctuations in consumption tax and fee revenue
illustrates the need for due care in assuming responsibility for additional fixed costs
of operations without identifying sufficient revenue to cover those costs on an
annual basis.
Background:
The City of Aspen and the Aspen Valley Hospital have been negotiating terms for
annexation of an area that includes the Hospital, the County Health and Human
Services facility, and a deed restricted attached housing development, into the City.
There are many policy considerations that must be evaluated as part of an
July 8, 2003
annexation proposal. Financial impact to the affected municipality is one of those
considerations.
The Finance Department provided a financial impact analysis of the proposed
annexation on April 24, 2003. That analysis is shown here as Attachment A.
Attachment's B through E illustrate a sensitivity analysis of the potential impact of
this annexation on the City's general fund over the coming 10 years, using the City's
long range financial planning model to project potential impacts over that period.
Analvsis:
The current general fund long-range financial plan makes the following basic
assumptions regarding future activity in the general fund:
Revenue Assumptions:
. 4% Average annual growth in sales tax revenue, 2004-2012
. 4% average annual growth in departmental fee revenue, 2003-2012
. 5% Average annual interest earnings on investment portfolio
. $4.1 million in one-time revenue from Hyatt-Grand Aspen Project, to be
received between 2005 and 2007.
Expenditure Assumptions:
. 4% average annual increase in operating costs (Labor, Commodities,
Contractual Services).
. Annual increase in Health Care costs of $1 00,000 per year (in addition to
inflationary costs) from 2004 through 2008.
. $300,000 per year subsidy for Aspen Recreation Center Operations in excess
of self generated revenues of that new facility.
Attachment A illustrates the projected financial condition of the General Fund over
the coming 10 years with these assumptions in place.
Through the first 6 months of2003, several ofthese assumptions are possible
candidates for reconsideration. Sales tax revenue growth, investment income rate of
return, and the timing of the Grand Hyatt mitigation fee revenues are the three most
likely assumptions that may require revision. Offsetting the potential impact of
reductions in these three areas is the possibility that the City will see additional one
time mitigation revenue from hotel to timeshare conversions.
I. Sales Tax Revenue: With five months of data in place for 2003, sales tax
revenueslag 2002 collections by approximately 2.2%. It is beginning to
appear as though 2003 will become the third consecutive year of reduced
sales tax revenue for the City of Aspen. In this tax collection environment, an
average annual increase of 4% over the coming 10 years is beginning to look
overly optimistic.
2
July 9, 2003
2. Investment Income: The City of Aspen is currently earning investment
income at an average annual rate of 4.33% (average coupon of current
investments). Fully half, or $17.5 million of the City's $37 million
investment portfolio will mature and therefore require reinvestment by the
end of2005. Interest rates are at their lowest levels in history. The likelihood
that the City will be able to reinvest in instruments that will both meet the
City's operational needs and net a 5% average annual retum over the coming
10 years is a very aggressive prediction given current market conditions and
the City' very short average duration on its portfolio of 1.77 years.
3. The Hyatt-Grand Aspen Droiect has yet to begin construction. The current
General Fund Long Range Plan assumes that this project would begin
construction this summer, allowing for unit sales to start in late 2004 or early
2005 resulting in completed sales of 50% of available units by the end of
2005. This activity would generate mitigation revenue for the general fund in
the amount of2.06 million in 2005, and just over $1 million in 2006 and
2007 respectively. It now appears as though it may be prudent for the City to
revise its assumptions with respect to this one time revenue source by
pushing back the anticipated collection years for this revenue to 2006 or
later.
4. One Time Revenue from Timeshare conversions: The City of Aspen will
receive in 2003 or 2004, approximately $450,000 in one-time mitigation fee
revenue from the St. Regis timeshare project, approved by Council in June of
this year. This revenue was not anticipated in the 2003 budget. Future years
may result in additional unanticipated mitigation fee collections as other
lodges and hotels seek to convert to fractional ownership. In the near term
this fee serves to offset some of the revenue erosion noted above, it also
represents the continued erosion ofthe City's bed base, which currently
generates 30% of total sales tax revenues to the City.
Attachments D and E illustrate the impact to the general fund if the following, very
reasonable, changes are made to the above noted assumptions:
. 3% Average annual increase in sales tax revenue, down from 4%
. 3.5% Average annual rate of return on investment portfolio, down
from 5%.
. Delay of Grand Aspen mitigation fee collections until 2006-2008.
With only these three changes, and no annexation, the projected ending excess cash
balance at the end of2012 decreases almost $4 million, from $10,550,000 to
$6,868,000 (Attachment D). Assuming the annexation is approved and the cost
estimates are reasonably accurate, ending cash in excess of required reserves drops
to just over $5 million. More importantly, the cash curve turns negative after 2008
(Attachment E).
3
July 8, 2003
findings and Recommendations:
financial impact is one of many criteria that must be carefully evaluated in
consideration of a proposed annexation. In this case, the proposed annexation will
have a negative impact on the City's General fund. This impact is structural. That is,
it continues over time and is the result of increasing costs related to the annexation
that are embedded in the City's core service requirements.
The City of Aspen is facing the potential of some downward adjustments in its long-
range financial projections with respect to sales tax revenue, investment income, and
mitigation fee collection, among other possible negative impacts and unforeseen
costs that may be faced by the general fund. Small downward adjustments in key
financial indicators result in significant reductions in available resources in future
years irrespective of the proposed annexation.
This raises the question: Does increasing the City's annual general fund
expenditures through annexation, thereby reducing available resources to address
current service needs in other areas, at a time general fund revenues may be eroding
structurally over a sustained period make for sound policy?
The non-financial policy considerations must be substantial to supercede the
potential financial impacts of this decision, as approval of the proposed annexation
in the current economic environment will almost certainly lead to budget reductions
over the coming two to three years in established service areas that would not
otherwise have been necessary.
4
Attachment A
THE CITY OF ASPEN
Memorandum
To: Steve Barwick, City Manager
cc: Ed Sadler, Assistant City Manager
From: Paul Menter, Director of Finance and Administrative Services
Date: April 24, 2003
Re: Proposed Aspen Valley Hospital Annexation, Draft Financial Impact Analysis
Summarv:
The attached spreadsheet (Attachment A) summarizes the initial tinancial impact analysis of this
proposed armexation. The proposed annexation will generate no additional revenue to the City except
for a small amount of sales tax. Retail activity at the Hospital gift store and cafeteria constitute the
only taxable activity within the proposed annexation boundary. Precise taxable revenue information
has been requested from the hospital but as oftrus date not yet provided.
Overall, the annexation will generate additional revenue of $9,464 annually, almost exclusively from
sales tax proceeds. There will be no ongoing costs to any fund other than the general fund as a result
of this annexation. The estimated general fund cost impact resulting from this annexation is
$15 I ,469. Assuming Hospital participation in upgrading the intersection accessing the hospital at
50% of estimated cost (see Attachment B), the one time cost impact to the City of Aspen of this
annexation comes to $117,500.
Over ten years, assuming an inflation rate of 3.5%, total additional ongoing costs to the City of Aspen
general fund comes to $1,748,981, plus $117,500 in one time costs equals $1,866,481.
Analvsis:
Revenues: A review of Tax Assessor records indicates that the proposed annexation area is composed
exclusively of tax-exempt property. County Assessor's office officials have informed the Finance
Department that no parcels of land within this area are subject to property tax. Additionally, real
estate transfer taxes do no apply to sale transactions involving property owned by governmental
jurisdictions. As all of the parcels within the annexation area are apparently owned by the Hospital or
the County, sales within this area, if they were to occur, would not generate any real estate transfer
tax revenue
July 8, 2003
The hospital is currently planning a major renovation to its facilities. However, construction material
sales are exempt from sales taxahon under state statute and will therefore not generate anyone-time
tax revenues for the City of Aspen subsequent to an annexation that took place in advance of such a
project.
Therefore, the only estimated revenue to come from this annexation will result from retail sales at the
hospital's gift shop and cafeteria, and possibly a small increase in state allocated taxes whose
allocations are based upon municipal population. In total, $3,344 in general fund revenue, and $9,464
in total revenue are projected to result annually from this annexation. The largest single assumption in
this revenue forecast is an annual taxable revenue amount of $360,000 from retail sales at the
Hospital ($1,000 per day). The Hospital has been contacted and a more precise estimate of annual
taxable sales has been requested, but as of yet this information has not been provided.
Exoenditures: This analysis projects annual and one-time expenses that will result from the proposed
annexation. While every effort has been made to capture direct expenses of this annexation, no
indirect expense component is included as part of this analysis. While such a component is almost
certainly merited, the overall impact of this component is likely to be small relative to the City's
overall financial picture. Therefore, this analysis addresses only actual direct costs that the City of
Aspen will incur.
Total annual ongoing expenses are summarized on Attaclunent A at $151,469 per year. These
expenses are all for general fund related activities. No non-general fund related expenses have been
identified as part of this analysis. These expenses are offset by an estimated $3,344 in annual general
fund revenue, for a next financial impact to the general fund of$148,125. Over a ten-year period,
assuming an inflation rate of3.5% this comes to $1,855,210 in new general fund cost for which
revenue is not recovered.
Ongoing expenses are identified in two general fund departments, Police and Streets. While there will
certainly be financial impacts on other departments, a cursory evaluation indicates that these expenses
will be not require any additional ongoing resources to avoid degradation of service levels to other
customers.
Annual increased Police Department expenses come to $86,899 per year. This amount constitutes the
fully outfitted cost of a police officer for one year. Police expenses are justified in the memorandum
provided as Attachment C to this memo. Increased demand for services resulting from several issues
contributes to the Police department's request for an additional police officer. Therefore it may be
appropriate to apply only a portion of the cost of these services against the proposed annexation.
Annual increased Streets Department expenses come to $64,570, and are comprised of three separate
cost areas. The first is annual maintenance. The estimated increase in annual maintenance costs
associated with maintaining Castle Creek Road from the Roundabout to the Hospital is estimated at
$10,000.This would include the cost of materials and supplies, as well as personnel costs for sanding,
plowing and seasonal maintenance activities.
The second cost area is the depreciable basis of the proposed new intersection (see "One Time"
costs). The City Engineer estimates that reconstruction of this intersection will cost approximately
$200,000. Assuming a ten-year life expectancy, this translates into a depreciable cost of
approximately $26,000 per year.
The third cost area is the depreciable basis for an overlay of Castle Creek Road from the Roundabout
to the Hospital entrance. The City Engineer estimates the cost of this overlay to be $112,164 (see
Attachment D). The one time cost of such an overlay is not estimated as part of the analysis provided
in Attachment A. Based upon a life expectancy of five years, the depreciable basis of this
2
July 8, 2003
improvement comes to approximately $28,000 per year, and this amount is included as an estimated
increase in ongoing expenses for the Streets Department.
One time Exoenses: Attachment A identifies $186,380 in one time expenses associated with this
annexation. $68,880 in development application review costs are shown as offset by permit fees. The
permit revenues received to offset the costs of development applications do not uniformly cover the
entire cost of the application review, however for modeling purposes and lacking information specific
to this permit application regarding actual review costs they are shown as offsetting.
Other one-time expenses include 50% of the estimated cost for renovation of the entrance to the
Hospital from Castle Creek Road, $100,000 (see Attachmenr B,page 3), and a total of$17,500 in
estimated annexation proposal review costs for the City Council ($5,000), Finance Department
($2,500), and Planning Department ($10,000).
In total, this analysis, which attempts to provide a very conservative estimate of the direct financial
impact of this proposed annexation to the City of Aspen, concludes that over a 10 year period,
increased costs to the City as a result of this annexation will be $1,855,210. This analysis only
attempts to estimate direct costs. No attempt has been made to estimate legitimate indirect expenses
that will be incurred by the City of Aspen, or to estimate in discreet detail direct expenses where there
may be some debate at to the actual level of impact to be incurred.
3
4/24/0315:17
Attachment A
City of Aspen
Hospital and Surrounding Properties Annexation
Financial Summary
One Time
Ongoing Estim. Estimated Annual
Annual Amount Amount NOTES
REVENUE:
General Fund:
Property Tax
Franchise Tax
Specific Ownership
County Sales Tax
Building Fees
Highway Users Tax
Road & Bridge Tax
General Fund Total:
Wheeler Opera House - no cost impact:
05 % Real Estate Transfer Tax
Afford House/Daycare Fund - no cost impact:.
1.0% Real Estate Transfer Tax
45% City Sales Tax
Afford House/Daycare Total:
Parks and Open Space - no cost impact:
1.0% City Sales Tax
Parking Garage Fund- no cost impact
25% City Sates Tax
TOTAL REVENUES:
EXPENDITURES
Fund:
General
Capital Improvements (AMP)
City Council
Finance
Planning
Engineering
Suilding
Environmental Health
Police
Dispatch
Streets
TOTAL EXPENDITURES
Annual Over/(Short):
Ten Year Direct Cost at3.5% inflation:
Plus one time Hospital Contribution for
Capital Improvements:
.Total Costs Recommended for Recovery
over 10 year period:
$2,184
$0
$150
$50
$2.384
$1.125
$1,125
$2.500
$625
$6.634
Ongoing Estim.
Annual Amount
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$86.899
$0
$64,570
$151.469
.$149,086
-$1,748,981/
-$117500
-$1.866,481
$0
$0
$0
All property in Annexation Area is tax
$0 exempt
$0 No impact
$0 No impact
Assumes $250k in annual taxable sales.
at Hospital store & cafe per AVH
$0 controller
$68,880 Per Comm Dev Fee Schedule
$0 No impact
$0 No impact
$68.880
$0
$0 No taxable property in annexation area
$0
$0 No taxable property in annexation area
Assumes $250k in annual taxable sales,
at Hospital store & cafe per AVH
$0 controller
$0
Assumes $250k In annual taxable sales,
at Hospital store & cafe per AVH
$0 controller
Assumes $250k in annual taxable sales,
at Hospital store & cafe per AVH
$0 controller
$68,880
OneTime
Estimated Annual
Amount NOTES
1/2 of Estimated cost to rebuild
$100,000 intersection
Estimated Cost of reviewing Annexation
$5,000 proposal
Estimated Cost of reviewing Annexation
$2,500 proposal & preparing financial analysis
Estimated one time costs of reviewing
annexation proposal and preparing
$10,000 planning recommendation.
$0
Estimated cost of reviewing one time
development application valued at $10
$68,880 million (offset by revenues).
$0
Estimated cost of new police officer, fully
$0 funded includin9 vehicle
$0
Estimated annual operating impact $10k,
Depreciable basis of intersection: $26k,
and Depreciable basis of road
$0 overlay:$28k
$186.380
-$117.500
Operating Expenses estimated at 100% of actual cost
One time expenses estimated at one time hospital contribution amount
. Benefit cost analysis completed on the basis of General Fund Revenues only - The small amount of revenue generated
from sales taxes for other funds cannol be used to offset general fund activity_
..
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Ed Sadler, Assistant City Manager
Through: Steve Barwick, City Manager
Subject: Castle Creek Road
RE: Hospital Annexation
Date: March 31, 2003
Overview:
Attached you will find a memo from Nick Adeh, City Engineer, regarding a possible
reconfiguration of the Castle Creek Road and Doolittle Drive intersection. This study was
done in response to the traffic mitigation required as part of the Waterplace development.
If you recall, there are several features of importance to this area of the road. Pulling out
of the hospital onto Castle Creek Road, there is a berm to the left which has a waterline
buried in it and looking right, Castle Creek Road curves to the left. These features make it
difficult to see oncoming traffic in either direction. For pedestrian traffic crossing Castle
Creek Road (especially from Marolt), the curve in Castle Creek Road and dense
vegetation up to the road hinder visibility when crossing. Driving south on Castle Creek
Road and desiring to pull onto Doolittle Drive, there is a slight right turn lane, but a
driver turning right can impede following traffic. There are also some drainage issues
present in the area as water attempts to move north along the road towards the
roundabout.
Solutions:
During the study and subsequent public meeting, numerous traffic related issues were
identified and the configuration of the proposed plan attempts to address those issues.
There are four main issues that this proposal attempts to address. They are:
I) RFTA's desire to have flexibility in how it's busses pick up and drop off passengers
and where they drop them off (the county health bldg., or the regular bus stop and
then depending on the direction the bus is heading).
2) The hospital and ambulance service desires to reduce the traffic conflicts (especially
emergency vehicles) as traffic approaches or leaves the hospital.
3) The County Heath Office wishing to reduce the bus traffic in front oftheir building
where elderly patrons and children are often located. The busses currently use this
drive as their turnaround.
4) Pedestrian traffic having difficulty seeing oncoming traffic as they cross Castle Creek
Road.
Nick (Engineering), Jerry (Streets), Phil (Water), Jeff (Parks) and I have made a couple
of field visits to the site to discuss options for dealing with the issues. We have
concluded that the plan put before you has addressed the issues, but that some ofthe
issues can be dealt with separately without the whole plan being adopted if needed. I
believe that if some of these issues are of true concern to these entities, that they should
help to bear the costs of these improvements. For example, the portion of the plan labeled
"Bus Lane" is there to help keep busses from turning in front of the County Health
- '
Building while giving RFTA the flexibility to drop off passengers in either direction at
the bus stop or at the County Health Building. If this aspect of the plan isn't important
enough for either entity to help pay for it, this piece can be eliminated. This would still
leave separate entrances for the hospital and Doolittle Drive. If the hospital is unwilling
to help pay to create two separate turns off of Castle Creek Road, there are still
improvements that can be made relatively inexpensively to the intersection that will
improve visibility for drivers. Similarly, the pedestrian crossing can be improved for
relatively minimal costs outside of the rest of the project.
Specifically, to improve the current sight lines at the current intersection, the berm can be
shaved back slightly and the flare of asphalt as Doolittle enters Castle Creek can be
widened. A mirror can be added at the curve to increase visibility to the south. Vegetation
can also be trimmed back and thinned out. For the pedestrian crossing, the location of the
crosswalk can be changed slightly, new signs posted, the crosswalk repainted and the
vegetation thinned out and trimmed back.
Costs:
The memo from Nick sets the cost at about $200,000. I believe that when including all
the "little" associated costs that a more accurate figure is about $300,000, with things
such as signage, drainage, culverts, bus shelters and all added. My initial thoughts would
be to split the costs three ways with the City, County and Hospital. Castle Creek Road is
a County Road, the County Health Building is a County Building, and the trail crosses a
County road. Doolittle Drive is a City road that serves a City Housing project and the
City's water plant. The current road configuration serves the hospital and the new
configuration addresses the Hospital's concerns on traffic conflicts into and out of the
Hospital.
""(
Memorandum
B/
].
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
Ed Sadler, Assistant City Manager
Nick Adeh, City Engineer
January 29, 20~3~
Castle Creek rd/Dool~t\le Dr./Entrance Rd. to Hospital
Reference:
This rep0l1 memorandum is intended to summarize the City staffs field and office
meetings and the Engineering Department's proj ect planning and infrastructure
inspections of the existing street corridors referenced here. The following summary is a
result of our routine monitoring and eV,aluation of these corridors that started in July
1996. .'
During the past 7 years we have received numerous phone calls, mostly safety
complaints, concerning this unusually laid street intersection with different traffic
circulation patterns. Each individual corridor has developed a unique functional
classification that includes pedestrian trails, wall.:ways and a bus stop gathering area.
Multiple uses of these road segments include the following movements:
Doolittle Drive
Performing as an industrial and residential street, is a route for:
- Industrial Plant chemical supplies including delivery of chlorine for water treatment.
- Emergency evacuations.
- Plant maintenance and construction.
- Residential traffic.
- Pedestrian traffic on walkways & Trails
Hospital Elltrallce Drive
Performs as a commercial and public facility access road and is a route to accommodate:
- Medical emergency traffic
- Facility visitor and user traffic (staff, patient, deliveries, etc.)
Castle Creek Road
Classifies as local/collector road and accommodates all traffic movements including:
- Recreational traffic
- Residential traffic
- Construction and maintenance traffic
- Bike traffic
- Public transportation (RFTA buses) traffic
Ed Sadler, AssisWIlI Ciry Manager
Page]
81
We retained a professional traffic consultant in 1999, to perform the following work on
intersection safety enhancements plan:
. Conduct a full traffic study and obtain daily traffic volumes and observe
pedestrian movements.
. Identify corridor operation problems associated with pedestrian and vehicular
movements.
. Recommend possible enhancement options to minimize the existing conflict
between cars, bikes and pedestrians.
In addition to individual phone calls made to Engineering Department, issues raised in
neighborhood meetings were primarily based on traffic patterns originating at the
following facilities:
1- Health & Human Services compl::ox.
2- Aspen Valley Hospital.
3- Music School student and bus operations.
4- Construction site activities in good weather seasons.
5- Surrounding high-density residential developments including hospital housing
complex, Doolittle Circle apartments, Twin Ridge sub-division, Marolt Place
apartments and Water Place housing development.
6- Water Treatment Plant and distribution system operations.
7 - RFT A bus operations,
Traffic study performed by our consultant was to address multiple corridor use and to
suggest solution(s) for traffic calming and safer movement throughout the intersections
and approaching streets,
This work was undertaken by the City Engineering Department as a mitigation project for
the City's employee housing development under construction at the upper end of the
Doolittle Drive, Recommended solutions were presented to area neighborhood residents
in meetings held by the City, Selection of the preferred alternative was based on majority
opinion given by the participating representatives from Ambulance Service, Health and
Human Services, hospital facility expansion and planning Architect (Ted Guy), Castle
Ridge and Doolittle Circle neighborhood residents, RFT A planning and operations staff,
County Public Works and Engineering, and City Department representatives. The
altemati ve "c" sketch plan attached to this memo was the preferred option for
intersection improvements at an estimated cost of $200,000 for all approaching streets}
including pedestrian crossings, bus stop gathering areas and trailhead connections for
bikers. The prefelTed plan offers the following enhancements:
I. Designated pedestrian crosswalks, walkway area and trailhead connections to
accommodate pedestrians and bikers.
2. Increased bus pullout and passenger gathering area,
Ed Sadler, Assistant Cizv Manager
Page 3
g
j
3, Integrated design for the intersection that will distribute traffic from hospital
complex and surrounding residential, commercial and industrial developments.
4. Practical traffic chmmelization to improve traffic calming and transit efficiency.
The City has completed several segments of the proposed improvements and has fulfilled
its obligations for this project. These improvements include:
I, Reconstruction of Doolittle Drive with special asphalt paving material to obtain a
longer wear life,
2, Construction of roadside drainage collection and conveyance system.
3. Construction of curb gutters and pedestrian soft path along Doolittle Drive.
The cost of improvements and engineering studies were well in excess of $1 00,000 paid
by the City, and all improvements are performing as expected.
County's obligation was to improve the Castle creek cOITidor as outlined below:
I. Reconstruct the pedestrian crosswalks and their steep approaches to trailheads to
increase the pedestrian and biker's visibility to motorists on Castle Creek Road
This work also includes tree trimming and removal of redundant and obstructing
shrubs and bushes. Many roadside bushes impair driver's ability to see and
respond to pedestrians and bikers at road crossings,
2. Repair and reconstruct the existing roadside drainage collection system to
minimize road damage and install culveli under the entrance driveway at the
Senior Center to eliminate ponding and icing problems.
3. Install adequate and proper traffic sings to better infonn motorists of pedestrian in
crosswalks and trail crossings. The existing trails accommodate commuter and
recreational bike traffic.
4. Pavement marking to delineate directional travel lanes, edge of road , and
pedestrian crosswalks for safety enhancement and traffic calming purposes.
The County has completed an asphalt overlay and has cleaned the roadside drainage
swales. All other items listed above including a culvert under the Senior Center entrance
drive remain unfinished,
The hospital would have to complete all remaining cOITective construction segn1ents
proposed for the intersection as shown in the geometric layout plan. The estimated
probable cost for this corrective work was $100,000 in 1999, Therefore, I am
recommending a contribution of at least equal to this amount plus the adjustment for
inflation as a condition of annexation.
ENG-MEM0200J.OJ
DaoUITl.E DRrYE
84
11051?\"~\.0"
I.' iJ'.1J!' G
(1
~
,..::,
~
(1
;;n
it,
~
'1-
'S
r.
d
F
HOSPITdl, A...."'ID
COUNTY B.:a.S.
Nt
TRAFFIC MIRRO R
11051?\"~
"oFJl
~R.o...NC~
~t\ p
\j
11.1:\.5, \.0"
1?iJ'.1J!'G
BUS SHELTER
D
/\
~
( Figure 7
) (
Alternative C - Two Intersection~
) ( Scale: 1" = 60J
L//)/'lY ..c- J!J/'
/."....., - ........
,,-J~
~
I---....
<:;
CASTLE CREEK ROAD
... 58C5 u
75 / ., --+
95/117 ~
N ~ ~
- ~ ~
............
N - ~
- ~ -
lIt
, / 5
0/1
a/a
--"
--+
~
11r
HOSPITAL
PARKING LOT
~
o ~ 0
......... ''''-
o :: 0
n 683 u
., /77
.,-- d \
~
TRAFFIC VOLUMES
~~ Peak / PM Peak
lr
~
.. Average Daiiy Traffic ..
- ~
........
~ -
DOOLITTLE DRIVE
"-- .a / 5a
+--0/0
,..,.- '/ 0
+-- 5a / J'
,..,.- 1 / 1
14 / 6.3 --+
J/' ~
u 575 u
:;;J G
t: Z
"- .."
[/J 1: ~
.2 z 0
_ kl e:;
lr >-<
.."
~
~ [/J ~
N 0 ~
........ CO;
N 0 :::: Q
) ~ aoo' ","""EamO w0
( Scale: 1". = 60') ( Figure 3 - Existing Traffic Volumes
r
~
...12;. .'
CASTLE CREEK ROAD
.... 11610 ..
152/9a --+
192 /23.0\. ~
~ ~
~ ~ N
N _
............
N
~ ~ ~
N _ ~
lIt
_ / 10
0/2
0/0
--"
--+
~
ltr
HOSPITAL
PARKING LOT
N
~
o ""- 0
....N....
o N 0
"1365".
I ,~.l,
.,-- 12'
,12
~
lr
TRAFFIC VOLUMES
AM Peak / PM Peak
N
~ ~
N
........
N N
~
.. Average Daily Traffic ..
DOOLITTLE DRIVE
~ 136/135
+--0/0
,..,.- _ / 0
+-- D. / 78
y-2/2
2a /12<--+
5/- ~
u 1350"
:;;J tj
E-< Z
- .."
f; CO; ~
o ~ 0
- ~
- '"' -
1(
>-<
~
::; ~
.., l>:
:::: Q
~
~ 0
........
~ 0
~' BOa< EN01mBRlJ'fO w0
( Scale: 1"
= 60') (
, . '
Figure 4 - Adjusted Traffic _Volumes ~
May 9, 2002
c
To:
From:
Re:
Mayor Helen Klanderud
Through Steve Barwick
Glenn Schaffer
Hospital District Annexation Considerations
In regards to the forthcoming annexation of Aspen Valley Hospital, the Senior Services
Center, Health and Human Services building, Hospital Administrators residence, and the
Oak Ridge Condominium complex we would like the city to consider the following for
Police Department services in these areas.
In addition to the hospital district annexation the Police Department has also seen
impact from the newly re-aligned highway and traffic patterns west of town including the
Round-a-bout and new Truscott and Buttermilk intersections. We can also expect an
increase in calls for service with the new additions to the Truscott housing,
From March 28, 2001 to March 27, 2002 the Pitkin County Sheriff's Office responded to
106 calls for service at Aspen Valley Hospital. The actual number of call for the Sheriff's
Office were greater than 106, but some of the calls for service will statutorily remain the
responsibility of the Sheriff, In addition, 12 calls for service occurred during the same
timeframe at the Senior Service Center,
Currently, an Aspen Police Officer, on average responds to 40 calls for service each
month, or 480 per year, 118 calls for service equates to approximately one fourth of a
single officer yearly,
From May 9,1999 through May 9, 2000 - Aspen Police officers made a total of 129
traffic contacts (citations and warnings) on Highway 82 West of the Cemetery Ln,
intersection, From May 9, 2000 through May 9, 2001 the number of traffic contacts in
the same area jumped to 227. The statistics for the current year are not up to date, and
presently unavailable, The average number of traffic contacts per officer in 2001 was
240, The annexation of the hospital district will also include approximately three
quarters of a mile of Castle Creek Road including the remainder of the round-a-bout
which presently is State Patrol's jurisdiction, adding further traffic enforcement areas for
the Aspen Police Department.
And finally, Truscott Place. The Aspen Police Department responded to 28 calls for
service at Truscott Place in 2001, The calls were criminal, incident and traffic accident
related, Currently Truscott has 97 units and 130 bedrooms, with a total of 121 parking
spaces available, By the completion of phase two, Truscott will have more than doubled
with 197 units, 253 bedrooms, and 203 parking spaces available, With the increase in
housing. and the new restaurant, the police department can expect call for service to at
least double in this area.
'-
0
C
'1Q 0
C ~
'" u
v biJC
~ C ~
~ .- ;!!
~ t:::: .....
U.... 0
v ;3 U
'1Q-'1Q
~ 0, .-
v ~ a
'-< u
::l v C
Ul .~ bJJ
C P .-
0.. Ul
v v
0 Jj '1Q
~ .5
'1Q
CU'.;.'2 v
'-< Ul u
.::; >, c
~~
Uej v
v . '-<
H @ V
V V P.
u ><:
c U v
'" >,'1Q
c u C
v
~ ~ '"
c v
"ca ~ bJJ
.... '1Q '1Q
C v v
v Ul ~
.::: '"
~ ..0 0
C '" .Q
v ~
:> ::l
v C
'-< ,.. 2
p. Jj
'1Q ..c
c '" .c:
'" p. ~
~ 0 Ul
c <i ....
v 0
E :>
v Ul
v '1Q '-<
>- v
'" 0 p.
p. ~ '1Q
~ '1Q v
v v t;::
v Ul .....
.... ::l '"
~
Ul C!.l ::l
'-< ..0 U
c8 ,.. >,
". a
..... Ul u ..0
'l.l ~ '1Q
'l.l Ul C
0 ~
..:::: u 0
"'l ~ v
v '" 0,
"" ~ E
"' ....
'- .... c
~ C c8 0
~..;::: u
:::: a3 .S v
- Ul ..0
... 0 ~
~ - .... Ul
Ul [:: ::l
'l.l '-< E
- v
<.J ~ C
v ....
G' E "' ....
p. r-
~ Ul Jj
'l.l d ~
~ r- .,.. Ul
~~ .~
>...1 Ul Ul ..c
v ~ f-<
~ .... ,~
- Ui bJJ ui
;; ..... :0 c v
"" 'C: Ul
~ - d "' ::l 0
~ " ~ '1Q 2-
Ul
......, %- v v ::l
-'" ..... >, u p.
- ....
;; "" ... u biJ
~.;:: 'l.l a c
\.J - '0 E
'"<: ;; - .Z
'- ... p.
- ?~ 'l.l v
c8 biJUl
~ .- ;;. Ul '1Q"d
.o~ ~ .::; '-< - "'
~ (3k; >:..., [:: v ~ 0
p..,,...o '-<
a
~ a
+-' ~ "<t
-
(fJ ..'S! <D
0 "0 ~
Q N
U Ul ~
:::. ~
.r::: '0
u a>
, '0 ::l ~u C
a> a> c rn
.... ro .2 = ~~
=:; '0 a> co x
z E 13 c u a> a> rn
Q .3 ~ ::l co C (f) a>
f- .... co -"" .~ "=
<( >- a> 1i'i C c u ~
u C\l c a> a> C\l c (f)
u: -.:: a> 0 E C .... a> ....
a> .r::: u u C\l
;:: > f- a> C\l a> ~ g;.
(f) 0 (f) OJ E
::0 0, a> C\l E 6'"
...., N c'O c a> =
'C ::J C\l > cb .... C\l
C\l a> U E "-E CL
.~ '0 C c E a>
0 >
::l - U a> C\l
.~ 0 1i'i ;e > C\l .~ .r:::
ctl .r::: .r::: 0 C\l a> (f) .r:::
... f- rn u .;0 0.. C\l f- .8
ctl
Cl a;
> -
ro
EL (5 '" ~
- " c
- 0
ctl W 0. .2:
~ 0..
U " <( c
(f) UJ :;; 0
.- .... '" :r: ~
a> 0> u
flJ ill '0 ~ '"
w =
~ E C) S
..t: C\l "'"
.... 0
co
a. 0...
c ~
0 ~
Q) ;;; '" :2
c u
l.. ~
:co u .s
:J rn ro :c -
> m f-
... W 0
U c '" ~.E2 Qj
~
:J <ll ro '~ "0 co
E co
l.. <ll .6 ~UJ ;:.
... > " f--- c
flJ ro UJ 0
0... ~
ctl 0 u
co '"
l.. <( =
.... 2
!:
- ro
'" a:l 00
-0' - a co
'" LL "<tgj
u UJ - x
ro t-- .
'C "'~
m "
UJ
:;;
C
<D ~
E a m
<D ~ ~
> 0
ro z.."J
Q.
.D ~
ro ~_
usQ.l...c:
co u N
-~co
rou_
oE-
f- f-
a>
l.... E '0
0 m C\l
0
+-' Z 0:::
a> -""
a> <ll
"'0 <ll
l.... ....
+-' m u
(j) 0 a>
1i'i
0:: C\l
u
--.-
o
C')
a
a
C'J
I'-.
C'J
.c
2
ctl <:::
~ lU
'"
0
0
'"
13
i:: 0
ti
0 m
Q. ,~
>
~ m
:,:, !0-
CT) .Q
~ <:J N
..... ~ '"
0 ctl z
(j) Q. UJ
- ~ :::;
ctl a::
Cl Q 0
u.
I
I
.
I
$20,000,000
$18,000,000
$16,000,000
I $14.000,000
I
I $12,000,000 .
.
$10,000.000
$8,000,000
I
$6,000,000
$4.000,000 .
$2,000,000 .
Attachment B
City of Aspen - General Fund Long Range Plan
Assuming AVH Annexation Beginning 2004
$0
_Re~en~ SI2,lIOG,3S4 $'4,3~2,38e $1$.959,144 "6,502,276 $16,433.385 $17,031,422 $17.~,502 Sl11,142.77e $16,&29,&32
-===:JExpendrture5 $11,219,3<12 S'3,051.~7 513,943.483 $14,460,282 $14.470.730 515,138.815 SlS.tI33.62S SI1l,4S6.;226 $11,103,731 $11.717.137 $16.477.4711
-casnovermlOlmumBal81lte $4,381,8O! $2,llilll,897 $3,111J.7.45 $4,ZU,175 SS.662.955 $6,9ll!,377 $7.385.515 $1.8-(9,994 $8.296.066 $8.$42.255 $6,870,533
I
I
I
I
$20,000,000
$18,000,000
I
$16,000,000
$14,000,000 .
$12,000,000
$10,000,000
$8,000,000
$6,000,000
$4,000,000
$2,000,000
_!'le,,,,",,"
Attachment C
City of Aspen - General Fund Long Range Plan
With Annexation Beginning 2004
All Other Assumptions Unchanged
$0
,-===::JExpenorture5 S11.211U42 $13,051,987 S13,~3,483 $14.460.282 S14.'HO.730 $lS.13a.81S $15.833.825 SIlI,4$8,m $17,103,731 $11.777,137 518,477,479
~.shoWfmiOlmumB,alance S4_361.~ S2,993,897 $3,118.745 $.4,283.115 $5,662,955 56.908.377 $7.365.515 $7,8-(9.99-' $8.296.066 58.6"2.255 $11.870,533
$16433.365517.031.422
/7ff4~ n,-.r 0
I
I
City of Aspen - General Fund Long Range Plan
No Annexation - 2003-2012
3% Sales Tax Growth,
3.5% Investment Income, 1
Year Delay in Grand Aspen Fee Revenue
All Other Assumptions Unchanged
$20,000,000
$18,000,000 .
$0
$''',133,801 513."504.&98 $16,711,099
"'''
$11,072.665 $16.S63.565 517.1112.995 $18.110.1170
$lU"1I,9n SHI,1M,51! S16.S111.oa3 $17.590,"89 $16,290,831
$6,961.3<< $7,156,938 S7,25H20 57,165,096 $6,868,632
$16,000,000
I
I
$14,000,000
$12,000,000
$10,000,000
$8,000,000
$6,000,000
$4,000,000 .
$2,000,000 .
Reven""'5
Expend~urK $11.2111.3-42 $13.051.937 $13,756.835 $104.213,113<1 "".2M,082 $14,952,187
8S11QlferM,mmum Balance $4,J61.8OlI S2,~,897 53.167.322 $2,233.139 $04,553,"23 15.651.098
/I tlucl ""~
r.;-
<.:-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
City of Aspen - General Fund Long Range Plan
With Annexation - 2003-2012
3% Sales Tax Growth,
3.5% Investment Income
One-Year Delay in Grand Aspen Fee Revenue
All Other Assumptions Unchanged
I
I
$20,000,000
$0
$16.718.000 "8.167.883 S17.07g.~S $18,575,889
""
$17,620.1$15 SllU16.~2
$18,000,000
$16,000,000
I
I $14,000,000
I
I $12,000,000
$10,000,000.
$8,000,000 .
$6,000,000
$4,000,000
$2,000,000
ReYf!fl~
E~peoddure$ $11,2111,342 $13,051,9$7 S13.~3."83 Sl...-e.o.262 Sl...711.730 515,136,1115 $15.633.625 S18.4se.226 $11,103.731 $17.177,137 "8,417.479
~lIverrTllmmumBalance :&04.361.808 52.993,897 $2,980,614 Sl,IISiI,&<I3 $3.993,479 s..,lKW,SQ& $8.028,104 $6.037,050 SS.~7.IIM 15.871.912 55.169,000
~-+-- -
=cS~ "'" 0 ./ . .. ~,"t~
I~(J /' '
~ ~/ ~
// I}, 41 \
/ c .
/ "'Il
I
I
~\
I J
,
,
/
,. ,
,~;'
/ J
I
., --t-
I
I
I
<(
0-
CO
~
I
I
I
~..-
ro
c 0)
0) 0) .....
0.= <(
(/l~ c
<(,0
0)'-
-O)(U
0..... X
>..c 0)
:!:::I-c
() c
<(
~
m
" ~
C m
, "
Ul~ 5
-g ~ c: ~
~ e ~ ~
otlc) Ul-c( ::E
l!!lij'iio~tb
.~e~~~~
a::: =:l n. C.)(I::: I-
IDDI<D
.
.!!
:E
'"
c
~
t:
.
~
.
C
~-N
.:!U.
'08"1il
~1! 5
(j8~
~
C
,
E
8
<)
"'
Z+~N
;;:
~
o
D
r.o
~
.J
/
. \ //
\//
,-- ---- -
/' .----
4l
Cl
'"
a.
t
c:
'"
a:
c:
o
~
X
4l
c:
c:
<l:
c:
4l
C.
~
-
o
~
i3
, r,',',CHMENT
'2.
I
I
m
C-
eo
:E
'"
c P!
GlGl<
~~ 5
< ~.-
-(1)10
o ~ )(
l;'.c Gl
._ t- c
U c
<
::
.
1! Ii'
~ a.
!
~lg
_ N
--2 -< ~
-51_
o . ,
~~ g>
(J -<
~
0
,
E
E
" 8
~ -
,..~
. .,
- f:
n
0
.
~ .---
ii /
. /4'1
~ /;/"'
", I
".
-
n
o
.
~
-
.
1;
~
~
'~\ ,)
.. \1 \tI
.\.~
.- ;\
II
\'
"
I
I
--..-'"--
~ :3
h
.. ~~
. ! . ) ,
g ,
~ r;. .
\
.'~ -
. "',
. $
I~
~.
~~
~
~
-'
'~"
............
~
.
~
~
o
~
~.~ '
, '.,.
I.
In
r('~ y
"
.._.-~I;
,
r'
: '
.',:,t',
, ,
, '-
\
-'I ,~",
f"'"'l.r
.....
AlTACHMENT
....
~
Q)
OJ
'"
0..
I
c:
'"
0:
c:
.Q
ro
x
Q)
c:
c:
<(
c:
Q)
0-
Ul
<(
~
o
>-
-
(3
3
,>,'
17~"
,
z
~~
cJq
:II;
og
~
o
~
q
~l
R~~~
Ef'
"~
\ \ i
1-1T"'y"i7,'~j7"/ "J, \ ,,"CO,
r / : \ ! / jr- ~ ~~~&~~
(,L...J__L"i.,,(~,.:/, Jr, ==\ m~~~
I V I S ',.0/. ': - \. OJ"~le
SUB 0 \,: ~,- '(1" ~~~~\)-8
-\ ~ ": -!. -
\r--- \, .--'it'~
'\""""jy-'''' '<t.:t~D 'C' _ \ . '
" "'PITK/NCOUNT_Y
C lLE
'/lEEK
!f
~~ ~~ IE
~b"g I~
I"~ ~ 1m
~'O ~ I~
~2 1\g II<
~n~ ~
I!!:( ~.=
^' .:B
k ;jY-!C
!( ~k;~
~ 'iG'
'"
""
q~
I
o :I.j~c:l?~~~~:I ~~~~~ ~
cc :lQ~Z~:l0!6~~:li~:I,~:i\~~m~~ ~~2t~ >
' D:I'~~a~€:I~~~~fm~~i~E~im~~~~~~~~ Q~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~ ~~;~ ;
i g i ~ ?g~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~,G~:l!'!i~~~~li'flWi~il"l!!lbif'" 'l<~ ,
' ~" I 1 ~ "',~ i\!!, ,0 !"'~!'}1."';1 '1i!'!!,",'i!l;~".., i''!ll~o" ,
'l~' 1 Ie" Illl'i"l 'I ~1~1l!! j'tt~!!~,~,!,~;~~ ""'I ~i"
Ii' "! oJ.' ""'; '~" I""!'u ," '!"'~1iT" "''''1''.''' l' ~'
i:U i ,: ~I !~~~ j~~!~J ~II~ ~ ~ ~J
; ~~ Ieol ~ E I cJ; ~q~~l ~~~~. -< QS\~6R "I" l~~ Di:"\Sr;> ~~;;~~~Fi;Qi~;>~~ 2~ ~ ~~ h~
" ! ~ ',~l' i' ill,' ,r~ .Ii'!ii M ;q~ i~'1>!'!ll ~ I 'l .li~
' 'i, , '" '"~' l~, '~"', ,. jl 1~ ~; '~l,"~'1' , 'I'l~
~! ~~~ ^, J~! ,l~l \~ll!t ~n ~ g l~ !!r~O!lij ~~ ~! ! ij,>
" ',' , · · ,,' '1""" I' I ',( 1'" 'l~!~ '1"1' , ,
Ii \~ ! :,1 I ill ni!! ~: I ,I ~ln!~I,~ ~2!!1; ,
~j "~2 .,.:, !o ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~~ 0 ~ ~~ > "~" q
~~~ :, ~ ~ ~G 'lQ q
~~(\ . : g rn ,
~!O~~
~.
Jl
City of Aspen Annexation: 1987 - 2003
SOURCE_BOOK SOURCE_PAGE NAME YEAR ACRES ORD DATE_ MAP_NO
20 5 East Meadow/Jukati 1987 2.10 Ord 36, 1987 Aug 24,1987 52
19 97 AspenG<ove.EastNood,Kn 1987 73.44 Ord 28, 1987 July 13, 1987 51
22 7 Block 19 1988 0.17 Ord 54, 1988 Dee 19. 1988 53
22 46 Centennial/Hunter Creek 1989 60.63 Ord 15, 1989 March 29, 1989 55
32 46 Harbor Lane 1989 0.10 Ord 52. 1989 Aug 28. 1989 56
22 15 Williams Addition 1989 7.08 Ord 57, 1988 Jan 9, 1989 . 54
32 38 B.N. Berger 1993 1.18 Ord 23, 1993 March 22, 1993 57
35 50 Zolina 1994 58.76 Ord 40, 1994 Aug 22, 1994 58
37 77 SlIve~oad-Willlams Ranch 1995 12.80 Ord 61,1994 March 13, 1995 59
41 77 Meroon Creek Club North A 1996 36.56 Ord 33,1996 Sept 24,1996 60
41 77 Maroon Creek Club North 1996 111.02 Ord 33, 1996 Sept 24,1996 60
41 76 Maroon Creek Club South 1996 154.87 Ord 34, 1996 Sept 24, 1996 61
44 94 Hallam Lake 1997 21.18 Ord 7,1997 Feb 24. 1997 62
43 35 Stillwater Ranch. Lot 5 1997 6.50 Ord 10, 1997 April 14, 1997 63
46 2 Snyder 1998 3.31 Ord 35, 1998 Aug 10, 1996 64
0 0 Burlingame Ranch 1999 192.67 Ord 16, 1999 May 10, 1999 67
48 75 Red House Enclave 1999 0.29 Ord 51, 1998 Jan 25.1999 65
0 0 Moore 1999 216.69 Ord 24, 1999 June 28, 1999 0
0 0 Iselin and Rotary Parks 1999 21.55 Ord 53, 1998 Jan 25, 1999 66
0 0 Barbee 1999 5.72 Ord 12, 1999 Oct. 12, 1999 0
0 0 Witz 2000 1.78 Ord 33, 2000 Aug 26,2000 0
0 0 Sandunes L.P. 2000 1.26 Ord 28, 2000 0cI23, 2000 0
0 0 Aspen Highlands Village 2000 13.32 Ord 8, 2000 April 24, 2000 0
0 0 Aspen Highlands Village 2000 69.78 Ord 8, 2000 April 24. 2000 0
0 0 Aspen Highlands Village 2000 0.51 Ord 8, 2000 April 24, 2000 0
0 0 Aspen Highlands Village 2000 0.04 Ord 8. 2000 April 24, 2000 0
0 0 Petrick 2001 4.72 Ord 44, 2000 Nov 12, 2001 0
Total = 1078.03
1. Does not Include Maroon Creek Rd Annexation
Source: City of Aspen GIS Dapt.: June 2003
ATTACHMENT
..,
~ Pl~f I: I'
.. ;l ! [,)>-Z
n ~ Hi H H
n {".UU {O n q
Pi.!p.1iS ~.
~ i iH\, i ~
~
~
r-
"
"
Q.
C
I/O
CD
~
'<
()
.z
o
-
~
'tJ
CD
::>
)>
::>
::>
CD
x
!a
o'
::>
~
~
<0
0:>
....
,
N
o
o
'"
~
~
m
'"
,~
05-23-03 02:41pm From-AsPln VallI' Hospital Administration
l
970 54. 1515
T-.31 P003/00. F-OI.
f
MEMORANDUM
ATTACHIiENT ,
TO:
FRO~
SUBJECT:
Aspen City Council
Steve Barwiek- City MlDage~ ~
A1meution ,of Aspen Valley Hospital
5-20-03
DATE:
SUMMARY; The Allpcn Valley Hospital (A VH) has tequested ~nnO!ll'.atlon into the City
of Aspen. City stalf's div'lssiClDS with the A VH have """'....'l:d on the followmg tllIee
public policy issues: '
· Construc:1ian and opetatiClJl of a Detox Centllr
· Reconsttuctilll1 of the Castle Creek Road/Doo1ittle Drive lnter8=tion
. FisceI impact to the City of Aspen
Staff has rc:acl1ed conceptll8l agreemllllts with the A VII on the first two above ilJlll1e6
(althouah I would ftlr.nl'n.-.vl1he Detox Centl: agreement.contain much more speoific
language). However, our llIl8Iysis shows the City's General Fund budget is likely to .
experience an armuaI loss of between 55D,ooO and 5131,000 due to this proposed'
~n~on.
Hospital Board members have told me they strongly prefer to redevelop the hospital
1hrough the Ci~' S land use approval process and will8late the.ir reasonltia at the public
hearing. City Council will have to deGide if the s1ated a~vantqe to the A VH is worth
the additional cost to the City's Genma1 Fund budget. Given the infonnatioD l:1ln'CIltly
made available to City swr; I am 1IJ1able to reenmmcnd armexatioD of1he Aspen Valley
Hospital.
I:fthe City 8Dd the A VH ate able 10 reach llgI'eement on the above issues. Wll will draft a
pre-llDIleutio.n agreement for tlw second reading of the .........ation ordinance.
DISCUSSION; hi their latest leuer (attal:hcd), the A VH has proposed several "in-kind"
heal1h ~11 efforts. While it is awar=t these services Would be of sub8tantial
value to the COWIlllIlity as a whole, the City of Aspen would pontinuc to experience a
large new net fisca1loss.
One way of looking at this lOllS would be that the City is purchasing a new service for
Aspe.lurea residen1S. For III1l1:l11l.ua1 cost of between 550,000 and SI31,OOO the City
. is-21-01
~,
02:41pm From-A'Pln V.IIIY HO'P'l.1 Admini,lr'l,on
T-411 P,004/004 F-014
9TO 544 1515
would etISllle 3 health fidrs and 5 health educational-..inM'S wntIld take place. .
Hospital board members will also discuss the advantages they believe will accrue to the
A VH tbrough annexatiolL
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: The following is a summary of the bOlt and worst
case financial implications of this annexation for the City of Aspen. Since dlere ate
many lUlknoWDs about the Hospital's proposalll and the actual impeets on the City's
budget, I felt it was appropriate to provide a range of possible fIn.DriIl impacts. Please
see Paul Menter's memo dated 4124/03 (llttlU:hed) for more detaiL
Best Case Wont Case
Scenario Scenario
ANNUAL REVENUES $6,634 $6,634
ADtlual EqJensllS 75,000 151,469
possible expense reduc:tioDll (18,543) (13.676)
NET EXPENSES 56,457 137,793
NET ANNUAL IMPACT $49,823 ~131,159
ON CITY BUDGET
Please recogni2e t1uIt the BDIlual impact on the City's elqlClldi1me budget is likely to be lit
'least $75,000. If City COUDcil c:hooses to pmceed with this annexation without
providin& additional budget authority, the result will be a minor, but real, decrellSe in City
setvices to existiIIg CitY residents.
RECOMMENDATION: Wlnle the City noJ1DBl1y tries everything possible to
coopezate wiJh the wishes of other importaDt lI.DIl-protit orgpni..otolons setYing the Aspen
eommuoity, I am Ullable to reeomme:n4 annllXB1ion of the A VB under tbe proposed
temIS. I believe this difficult economic period is the wrong time to add pennanelll
expenses to the City's budget, especially when there is so little obvious public policy
bendit to be gained through this lllID'uaUon. Perbllps A VB Board Members wiD bring
additionallDformatiOll to 1ight during the public hearing on this matter,
i
'I
I
1
I
,
I
, 05-20-'33
08:21.. Fr....A'p.n Vall'1 Ho,p,tal Ado;ni,tration
870 5(( 1585
T-(Z4 P,00Z/005 F-011
"~ASPEN
.t?5} ~~~!j~.d . Aspen, Colorado 81611 .970/925-1120
ATTACHMENT
..,
May 16, 2003
Steve Barwick, City Manager
CITY OF ASPEN
130 South Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Steve,
As promised, this letter represents the Aspen Valley Hospital (AVH) Board of Director's
written position and response to your letter of April 24, 2003_ Your letter shared the City stoffs
fiscal impact analysis for annexing A YR, provided analysis of the proposed cost of the Castle
Creek Road I Doolittle Drive entrance road intersection (and the Slaffproposal for A VH's share
of costs), and a list of "strategies and concepts"'that A VH might consider offering the City as
part of the annexation approval.
There were a couple of SlIggestions in your letter for A VH consideration that we do not
have any ability to control. Specifically, in relation to A VH retail pharmacy discounts, a U.S.
Supreme Court decision restricts the resale of prescription drugs by a non-profit hospital
pharmacy to only their immediate employees and patients, therefore the City would not qualify.
As for the City requesting that "A VH require prohibiting medical providers treating City of
Aspen patients at A VH (or who treat patienrs referred to them by providers working at A VH) to
accept Sloans Lake contract rermSror indemnify the City and its patients for the resulting higher
cost" we have no ability to dictate or control such' agreements' from separately iricorporilted
providers. 1 would point out that approximately 98% of medical providers offiliated with A VH
are contractually bound to 810ans Lake contract tenns. . '
What follows are a number of "strategies and concepts" that A VH would like to propose'
1. ~astle Creek Road I Doolittle Drive Intersec;tion - A VH is prepared to contribute a
one time capital el<pense to pay for the lesser of half the actual cost ofretrofining the
intersection Or a not to exceed of$100,000.
2. City Health Insurance Discount - A VB will agree to extend the City a discount equal
to 15% off A VH charges. This offer would stand for 10 consecutive years
subsequent to annexation, The impact of such a discount on the City's 2002
1
,. 05-20-bl
08:21.. From-A,pen Valley Ho,pital Admini,tratlon
870 544 1585
7-424 POOl/005 F-OII
.~" ASPEN
~J VALLEY
~ ~o?~rIJ~\lDad . AspoD, ColoradO 81611' 9701925.1120
anllualized A VB charges would be a direct savings of $13.676. Considering that only
59% of 2002 hospital charges for City employees were generated at A VB, the savings
would escalate to $18.543 if 80% of hospital charges were generated at A VB.
3. ''In.Kind'' Value for Health Education I Services Provided bv A VB-
A AVH will commit to tbree health fairs per year. Two will be in Aspen (one
dedicated entirely to citizens 55 and older), and one in Basalt. 11Ie health fair
will offer a variety of screening tests and educational infonnation, all for free,
or at a tremendous discount (examples include dT bQosters, blood
chemistries, CBC's, glaucoma checks, colorectal kits, bone density tests,
peak flow I oximetry, skin cancer checks, knee exams, foot Cl<am5, blood
pressure checks, vision and hearing testing and educational booths on topics
such as nutrition, breast health, heart health and bike fitting). Savings for a
health fair participant taking advantage of all offerings is over 51,000. If we
estimate an average attendance of 450 at each fair, and at least a third of the
participants do take advantage of all the offerings, the "in.kind" value
exceeds $450.000 I VClU:.
* If the City were to require its employees to obtain their laboratory tests
notmally accompanied with their annual physicals through the Health Fair,
the annual savings to the City if only half of its employees presented
would be $43.634 I vear.
B. A VII will cOInIIrit to at least five free educational seminars on general or
specific health topics (examples incl1ide facts about botmone replacement
therapy, living with asthina, joint disease, womcIi's cancers, the aging
process, common ear, nose, and throat problems, etc.). People often attend
medical lecmres for the purpose of obtaining information about symptoms,
diagnosis, and rreaunent of a particular disease. Frequently, this takes the
place of an initial doctor visit, saving the attendee the coSt of an office visit
fee. If we estimate an average of 100 people per seminar, the "in-kind" value
exceeds i45.000 / vear.
4. Detox _ A letter memorializing an agreement on detox protocols between A VH and
local law enforcement was signed by Loren Ryerson, Chief of Police, and A VB on
April 26, 2003 (attaChed). Subsequently, Loren contacted A vH with an additional
request that A VB's commitment accelerate in the event that the current efforts of the
Chemical Dependency Task Force do not come up with an acceptable solution. At
the May 12 A VII Board meeting, the Board adopted a motion stating that if a1
2
,.' 05-Z0-03
08:ZI.. From-A,p.n Vall., Ho,pital Adolni,tration
870 544 1585
7-4Z4 P004/005 F-OI!
.~ ASPEN
~ ~~~J~od . "'spen, Colorado 81611 . 970/925-1120
sometime in the future, the City of Aspen determines the need for a detox unit, the
City of Aspen and Aspen Valley Hospital would consent to become full partnCfS in
solving the issue.
The opportunities proposed above represent a significant financial c omroitment to the City of
Aspen by Aspen Valley Hospital in conjunction with our process of annexation. We will be
prepared to discuss the above mentioned concepts as well as any other component of the City's
anDel<ation packet dated April 24, 2003 including the Financial Impact Analysis when the agenda
item to discuss our annexation appears at the May 27, 2003 City Council Meeting. Please let me
know what time we will be on the agenda as soon as possible. Steve, thank you for the
opportunity to move forward with our annexation into the City of Aspen.
Sincerc?2IY
,),( lIJA II . J
. Ir~
Randy M:~k;rook
K,
3
05-20-03
01:21a. From-Aspen Valle, Hospital Adm,nistration
970 5.. 1595
~ASPEN
~jVALLEY
HOSPITAL
0401 Castle Creek Road. Aspen. CoIOtado 81611 .970/925-\120
Loren Ryerson
Chief of police
City of Aspen
March2l,2003
Dear Loren,
7-m PODS/ODS F-Oll
ATTACHMENT
,
Tbank you for meeting with Dr. Gallagher, Steve Knowles and myself on March lO,
2003 to outline a process for addressing intoxicated clients. We discussed how these
clients are tIiaged to the jol1 versus the decision by law enforcement to bring them to the
Emergency Room at Aspen Valley Hospital (A VH) for medical evaluation and
disposition.
.'
We ogr~ \lPon a~tandard pro~s to follow clarifying when law -enforcelIlent would
~e 14e cli~ tp theja;!l..~d ~hc;!l, ~t w~uld be appropriate to evaluate the client in the
Emergency Room. Dr. Gallagher' outlined the process in a flow diagram 1hat was haDded
out at the meeting. It was agreed that this is the process 1hat is used to oddress both social
and ~e~ClIl alcoho\ related problc;ms. '
A VII committed to organize a follow up meeting to discusS defining a clearer process for
addressing behavioral management clients. It was ag7:eed that we would meet soon after
ski ~eason. We will be in touchthe week of 4/21/03 to set up that date.
Aspen Valley Hospital is committed to continue dialog with both of the above topics in
order to clearly delineate each agency's responsibility and more imporlan11y provide the
best service to these clients in our commumty.
Please sign and retllm to verify yOU agree with the above plan.
Linda ~s, Assistant A~tor, Aspen Valley Hospital
'. .
,-;
"
. :..... :-. "'." ..' ',:. ":.:. I .~' .'... i. .'
cc,S,t~e~~ck, Aspen Ci!yManager
'. ~~Wdd\ebrOok. CEO Aspen Valley Hospital
_ UIlIOodIoI_Amorieo,.H...IIlo-
Fod1D'~720300 (!)=:-
03Z,lRO?
Date /'
O~(3{IO~
Date
VII
I-
:;;:
~
e
"'I(
-...
('I')
o
o
N
I
I"--
ex:>
(j)
.......
iJi
c
o
:;::;
Cll
><
Q)
C
C
<{
C
Q)
c..
C/l
<{
.....
o
>-
+J
o
I
I
I
I
I
>ta€JJ:;;.G/IS&a
~
~
~
~
'"
t:
o
Z
"
,
0CO
~g:
~-
U
o
o
e
.
~
...
~g:
O_
N
~
'"
u
o
.
0:
.'"
eg:
.-
0>
o
~
,
'"
~..
~
/
0
0
~ . z-
is - It) g 0 5
8 53 III Cl._ g
<Il~ffi~ -
'" ~. u .
c. ~; -5 ~ c x
'" :i2 .~
C ~ g ~ 0 ~
" 0.. g.
C. .~.~ ~c: I
0 0 il -a.-g~Q) g~
'0 ~ ~ ro ::l ~ 0 ,- ~
c ~ ~ -< g~
'" ~al ~ ~ '0
0 "U
0 .~.R <1l g z- !~
>- - IV Q) ~ IV c3
'" ~~ .:5 "
Ql ~ ~ " 0 g . .
n; '" ~ ~.5 l5 ""
::I:: " c C :J N Iii
'" .Q " .~~ ~,~ E
Ql ~ '0 '0 ~~51i5 0> I-
'^ " 0
l/I 'in x z...;;( g~~~ ~ 0
~ 1;; " ::E 0.
0 z
::J '" E '" g.=6 ~ ~ U
Q.
nn I. F
'tl
C
"
",
~I
t
:~
"
~~o ~
\LiL b
Ie QlJ 00
W ~\U ..J 0
f'..J L W Z Cl ~ '.b
'iJ W -( ~~ ~ Q C)~lL () ~ (j:J t ~ ~
'I 0 < "~I "g, I "~, g l !-C Ie" 0, i
!, : II !6~; ll~lllil~! 1111 II ~ I d! I j !!6t l~ I I
C.~, h '" ill. "!~!:i!!' 1115 ", 'k 9 ~'" >6,. "\~_ !, j ,
~~~~ ~ ! ~~ ~! i~ ~ll~. t,,~\ll~l! II I!~ ! III ,~l: \ ~l! l1Hl ~
,a'2 I ',/ '"'''''l!l/lil ,,', I" 0"' ,al, /l, g/e" ,i,o z
~D15~ ~~ 1 F~ ~,,:,iq ',\8 ! ~2ijl g; 'Ii '!~~11~\ '''~ !,i!,
0'0" j' i, " ~"'"~ "a", <. ~'o <"6",~ b,! ,~" '"
I!:!, ~l ! ~ iJ:\!'~!~i'!; :4Si:~2 18< 1! ~:llibL~~1 l!'~i:1
a ' , , , < ~"'" """ """ , 'oCo " . , ~o 'I'
',I!! 11 2/ 'e 1!~g~!IB!/!8i!j 1,1l6l! 'l~b~' :~~j'2Igl~@~ 8tti]~sa~8 '-~
"l~ "'2', c>ck'l<"o,ieo" o.! c~! "i"'~ ",'~" '"" ",,<2 2
~~.s ~iDe..~ti ~;;~tE8~'"r~,\8'1'1! I"-J<" ',,~", Q'8l'~'h" ,g;:;2'"g,
~< " , 0 ", cO "," > . '"""'" >~"" ,,> . '1"'" ! "Co< ~".
1~1~ ,!~~, !~'!~!lli~I~~l:~J~II;~I~!;i: ~lliMIB!11 ii!!I!,i!~
I ~~~i Iii; ~~!I~~!~'II!i~I!!~I!!!!!i~i~l! ~'ig~!!~!! ,~~~~~!t!]
e g~j!, ;/~~~~I'm~!111M!~G~;C~t!I!~I!!~~'!~!~lllil~~'I!,~"tilll!'
z 'il<ll 8'~"~'''2,,,,,"~,"" ""o~ ~<I~" ~""" '110081-1 '!~!9~!I",f
~ i",s <i\Il8't~~1~~~1~~Si "'~~21!3l!\"ll.l!iili.Jll/BHI'/P/~"/" ,
~ ~3~Q~~/J ii~~~t~~~33~~~~~~~~~~~5~~~1iI5~;!328F:J:Jf- 0
Z "~J. ~ 00 i)~~3f-rf-JllLr
~ ~ oio Ie ZZ ..J
;
/
L......__
- ~ "
\, \
\ \
\ \
\ ,
\,\
'\~''? ,~;-~\
\, Ii \\
\\ " \,
\"""'>' :,\\ \~<\:)
" " ",,-
~<~:~ '}~,~::~
\J
,,~
~\\-{\,~ .
co' \\....,.,. .._1,.' Q
lV -- w ; ;/74' <>__-
....- ., NOYCOCO </
\\ ---:::>
::>.. '('\ ..'-::,::q~b:;:j/\<::-::-:-::::::; (-_____.:-:~\/
.....','.----- -,.../ ..,...".(f..... ',1 ._____..\
' I~ -' \ ___ ,
"'t),.__.--- \~~;: ;
\~ ~'~'" ----.--.--\
\J, \: \ n s
., \ .-----....li .-/-~\ I II I a II
\-r~----- 'i '/N] 0 'I 5
'(PI j }-__ ~
'PI-----..-..--: i //')"'" u u_ __ ____ /'1
P, I,., / r ___ ..... 1 / \
'f"L__-_____" 1 I ./ / / l : .' I
~ Ir' / , : : /!
'. \ ---, / ':.',
\~, -..--.- \\ / , . , / :
\ r /7rjCiyJ;'Yj
.:.'! . I .', ,
: '.- / \!, \ I
' : /! I, / \ ,
: v / Ii.',
j! / I, r ~
" ,
" .
i'
... -
~ f) \)~ '2j
8 'II"-lt-,n
. "(lh.
so" 'N
~ ~h:::!~ \j
'"hh
's'.'::lg:'B
~~~~li')~
:::~~;-:1~
i--g<8~~
2~,J<:?:<
I ~~~
8~ !
2~ !
~~\L i
J1 ()
~ ~
3 .. j
~~ !, I~
:z:~ iZ
ZZ: i:so
<~"E
~"~
hI)
'DiU"
:Sh~
-' ...3<_
~ ~~~
0.. 2\JLL
~~ r~~
Z \LIU
~ 50S
~ ~2~
o ~{
>- Dr::
o ~02
~~~ !
;;:l\.fo
Ii)~
Q~;;::
~~~ I~
1,,! i~
-{ , ,
b~ i i
~~ i !~
:ld i
..JcJ~ i~
,(I, ':J
t~g i0
I ~~
ell "J"-
z, ..JO
~I ~~~
o ~'
~i ~ib)
:~ 2/ ~[~~
id eJ ~~..J'"
ir: Z h~8~
!v <( <; '" 1
"' ~ 0... f-- 1
\1 w D ~:
UJ U _ :
~ ~ F :
! bb
, tLJuJ
, '-"-
! Qtr --3
"'" .-
~: "Ii A
- <no> "
B;W "
>=:,~, .;.v
Z' H"
8! ~-8
u..! ~fJ ~CJ
01 QU "
I :2 r
~I B~ ~~
'"i ~..J "if:!
~I ~~ g~
:1115'<1:>
>-~b
~6j~~
8~2D
~~
t5~
-l\.
~~
QL
~
-u
tLcJ
~~
bf2
-"6
~~
i:'z,
~Q~
i
J~
HI
!i'1
Ill!
1'1
i'l
hi
~ -.
Ii,.
lfl"
Iljl
hll
~i f'
I'.'
I'.
~ ,ll
hH
Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete
item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired.
. Print your name and address on the reverse
so that we can return the card to you.
. Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece,
or on the front if space permits.
1. An:icle Addressed to:
f\s\,>E.'f\. s,<>.\-.oQ\ 'U,rtll."',*
o \C\ q t-h~'h. 'S<t.\-.oe\ Ci(Of>,-h
Po.Spef\. lc..O 2.ltoll
2. Article Number
(Transfer from service label)
PS Form 3811, August 2001
~eceive~ by ( Printed Name) Date of Delivery
.~, '(/'!Y-~''--
. ~ delivery address different from item 1? 0 Yes
'- If YES, enter delivery address below: 0 No
3. Servi~pe
J:lC'ertified Mail
o Registered
o Insured Mail
o Express Mail
o Return Receipt for Merchandise
D C,O.D.
4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra Fee)
DYes
7001 1140 0003 2711 1214
Domestic Return Receipt
SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SECTION
. Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete
item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired.
. Print your name and address on the reverse
so that we can return the card to you.
. Attach this card to the back of the mail piece,
or on the front if space permits.
1. Article Addressed to:
t\-t~;" e.ouv;:\-'f 'i.?,o"cJ...o", C,C)i'\",'..:r
5'2,0 S,,~ \C\~\f\
A.S\"E.f\., ~o :2,\~l\
2. Article Number
(Transfer from service label)
PS Form 3811, August 2001
102595-01-M.2509
. .
A
x
o Agent
o Addressee
C. Date of Delivery
I f j'ffl.Dv
a ress different from item 1? 0 Yes
r delivery address below: 0 No
D,
3. Servic;pe
~ified Mail
o Registered
o Insured Mail
o Express Mail
o Return Receipt for Merchandise
DC.OD,
4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra Fee)
DYes
7001 1140 0003 2711 1207
102595-01-M-2509
Domestic Return Receipt
SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SECTION
. Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete
item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired.
. Print your name and address on the reverse
so that we can return the card to you.
. Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece,
or on the front if space permits.
1. Article Addressed to:
'?~\.2,,\(\ Qouis:y A. t\o~<\q
513.0 EM\- (\r\~\{\.
J:\S\'>~'<\, Q.O ~llDLl
2. Article Number
(Transfer from service label)
PS Form 3811 , August 2001
o Agent
o Addressee
/ENkDdZry
DYes
D No
3,
o Express Mail
o Return Receipt for Merchandise
DC.O.D,
4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra Fee)
DYes
7001 1940 0007 0179 5209
102595-01-M-2509
Domestic Return Receipt
SENDER" COMPLETE THIS SECTION
. Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete
item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired.
. Print your name and address on the reverse
so that we can return the card to you.
. Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece,
or on the front jf space permits.
1. ArtiGle Addressed to:
~.D tlV 'Mto t&"""1?J1
Sic e. ha.1-....)
~~ l to 81 "'1\
~ sile
D. Is delivery address different from item 1?
If YES, enter delivery address below:
o Agent
o Addressee
DYes
D No
3. Service Type
o Certified Mail
o Registered
o Insured Mail
o Express Mail
o Return Receipt for Merchandise
DC,O.D.
4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra Fee)
o Ves
2. Article Number (Copy from service label)
o ~ ~O OX:>
PS Form 3811, July 1999 Domestic Return Receipt
Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete
item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired.
I · Print your name and address on the reverse
so that we can return the card to you.
. Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece,
or on the front if space permits.
1. Article Addressed to:
~?fA ')CAtGbL
0&1 \.k\.u{,\< ')~I?'o
~ f'C---/\ . c..o .g l(P ~ \
102595-99-M-1789
, .
~ent
o Addressee
DYes
D No
3. Service Type
o Certified Mail 0 Express Mail
o Registered 0 Retum Receipt for Merchandise
o Insured Mail 0 C.OD.
4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra Fee) 0 Yes
2. Article Number ~ y from service JabeO
IDe; 0., rz.
PS Form 3811 , July 1999 Domestic Return Receipt
~ompl~te ite~s 1, 2, and 3. Also complete
Ite.m 4 If Restrrcted Delivery is desired.
· Pnnt your name and address on the reverse
so that we can return the card to you
· Attach this card to the back of the m~ilpjece
or on the front jf space permits. '
1. Article Addressed to:
'fir" ~ Co.J~ ~'ml2...JiSY
~O 1&. n~".....s
~~ . c.o ,tC.l)
2. Article Number (Copy from service label)
lP 1.0 e;lOl> z..
PS Form 3811 , July 1999
102595-99-M-1789
x
DAgent
D Addressee
DYes
D No
D. Is delivery address different from item 1?
If YES, enter delivery address below:
3. Service Type
o Certified Mail 0 Express Mail
o Registered 0 Return ReceIpt for Merchandise
o Insured Mail 0 C.O.D.
4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra Fee)
DYes
eo,!
Domestic Return Receipt
102595-99-M-1789
.
THE CITY OF ASPEN
April 17, 2002
,
Pitkin CoUnty Board of Commissioners
530 East Main
'Aspen, CO 81611
Gentlemen
The City of Aspen Council has schedultid a public hc;aring Monday, May 13, 2002, at
5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, on the Aspen Valley Hospital Annexation petition
The purpose of the hearing is to determine and make a fmding whether the' area
proposed for annexation is eligible for annexation. Please call the City Clerk's office at 920-
5060 if you have any questions.
Sincerely
Kathryn S. Koch
City Clerk
Enclosure
Resolution #28, 2002
Petition for Annexation
By certified mail
130 SOUTH GALENA STREET' AsPEN, COLORADl? 81611 . PHONE 303.920.5000 . FAX 303.920.5197
PrinledonruydedM""
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Department
Nick Adeh, City Engineer
John Worcester, City Attorney
FROM:
Kathryn Koch, City Clerk
DATE:
February 25, 2002
RE:
Petition for Annexation - Aspen Valley Hospital District
Attached is a petition for annexation and blue print as well as a letter
from Paul Taddune requesting processing as promptly as practicable.
LAW OFFICES OF
PAULJ. TADDUNE, P.c.
reU 9-PtJcP-
.~ 19.:9-lc/:J.
PAUL]. TADDUNE
AFFILIATED OFFICE
323 WEST MAIN STREET, SUITE 301
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
TELEPHONE (970) 925-9190
TELEFAX (970) 925-9199
INTERNET: taddune@compuserve.com
FOWLER, SCHIMBERG & FLANAGAN, P.c.
1640 GRANT STREET, SUITE 300
DENVER, COLORADO 80203
TELEPHONE (303) 298-8603
TELEFAX (303) 298-8748
WILLIAM GUEST, OF COUNSEL
February 22, 2002
Via Hand Delivery
Ms. Kathryn Koch
Aspen City Clerk
130 S. Galena St.
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Kathryn:
Submitted herewith on behalf of the Aspen Valley Hospital District pursuant to
Section 31-12.104 and 31-12-105, C,R.S., please find a Petition for Annexation of Territory
to the City of Aspen (Aspen Valley Hospital District).
Please refer the Petition to the City Council for processing as promptly as
practicable,
Very truly yours,
PAUL J. TADDUNE, P.C,
<-C~ ~.
~ !
Paul J. Taddune '
Attorney for Aspen Valley Hospital District
--)
l---
c: A VH Board of Directors
Randy Middlebrook
PJT:ac
,....""I'\I',I1"I..."""\I;",,".,.],.U"."',,,[
PETITION FOR ANNEXATION OF TERRITORY TO THE CITY OF ASPEN
(ASPEN V ALLEY HOSPITAL DISTRICT)
The Aspen Valley Hospital District, being the landowner of one hundred (100%) percent
of the area, excluding public streets and alleys, meeting the requirements of Sections 31-12-104
and 31-12-105, C.R.S., alleges as follows:
I. It is desirable and necessary that the area hereinafter described be annexed to the
City of Aspen.
2. The requirements of Sections 31-12-104 and 31-12-105, C.R.S., exist or have
been met.
3. Aspen Valley Hospital District, the signor of the petition, comprises the
landowners of more than 50% of the territory included in the area proposed to be annexed,
exclusive of streets and alleys.
4. The legal description of the area to be annexed is as follows:
A tract ofland situated in the Southeast quarter of Section II, in the Southwest
quarter of Section 12 and in the Northwest quarter of Section 13, all in Township
10 South, range 85 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian, Pitkin County,
Colorado, more particularly described as follows:
Beginning at the comer common to Sections II, 12, 13 and 14;
thence along the boundary of Aspen Valley Hospital District Subdivision the
following courses and distances:
North 00023' 00" East 392.21 feet,
North 030 00' 00" West 1211.74 feet, and
North 8r 07' 00" East 333.97 feet to the West right-of-way line of Castle Creek
Road;
thence North 21 0 52' 00" West 625.12 feet along the West right-of-way line of
Castle Creek Road to the intersection with the South right-of-way line of Maroon
Creek Road;
thence North 460 31' 56" West 95.79 feet across Maroon Creek Road to the
Southeast comer of the City Thomas Property Annexation;
thence North 000 13' 00" West 120.90 feet along the boundary of said City
Thomas Property Annexation to the intersection with the South right-of-way line
of Colorado State Highway No. 82;
thence 102.39 feet along the arc ofa curve to the right having a radius of 1196.00
feet, a central angle of 04 0 54' 19" and whose chord bears North 530 16' 10" West
I 02.36 feet along the boundary of said City Thomas Property Annexation and
along the South right-of-way line of said State Highway to the southernmost
comer of the City/Zoline Open Space and Colorado State Highway 82
Annexation;
thence North 390 II' 00" East 100.00 feet along the boundary of said Zoline
Annexation to the eastemmost comer of said Zoline Annexation, said comer
being on the South Boundary Line of Open Space Annexation No. I identical
with the North right-of-way line of said State Highway;
thence 204.33 feet along the arc of a curve to the left having a radius of 1096.00
feet, a central angle of 10040' 54" and whose chord bears South 56009' 27" East
204.03 feet along said South boundary line and along said right-of-way line to the
Northwest comer of Open Space Annexation No.2;
thence South 28030' 06" West 100.00 feet along the West boundary line of said
Open Space Annexation No.2 to the South right-of-way line of said State
Highway;
thence along the West boundary of said Open Space Annexation No.2, identical
with the East right-of-way line of Castle Creek Road, the following courses and
distances:
South 160 36' 00" East 135.87 feet,
South 200 54' 00" East 2006.31 feet, and
South 320 10' 00" East 67.10 feet to the southernmost comer of said annexation;
thence south 30029' 38" West 68.32 feet across Castle Creek Road to the
eastemmost comer of Parcel A of said Aspen Valley Hospital District
Subdivision, said comer being identical with the point of beginning of City Water
Plant Annexation No.2;
thence South 230 41' 00" West 13.13 feet along the West boundary of said
Annexation to comer No, 2 of said Annexation;
thence departing said West boundary South 25052' 53" West 0.99 feet to comer
No.5 of said Annexation;
thence South 220 28' 59" West 584.06 feet along the West boundary of said
Annexation to the intersection with the South boundary line of Parcel A of said
Aspen Valley Hospital District Subdivision;
thence along the south boundary line of said Parcel A the following courses and
distances:
North 530 40' 36" West 12.70 feet,
North 23 0 41' 00" East 177.80 feet,
North 660 19' 00" West 330.47 feet, and
North 190 00' 00" West 199.69 feet to the westernmost comer of said Parcel A,
said comer being on the South boundary line of Parcel C of said Aspen Valley
Hospital District Subdivision;
thence along the South boundary of said Parcel C the following courses and
distances:
South 71000' 00" West 288.00 feet, and
South 23000' 00" West 52.80 feet to the point of beginning.
5. A proposed annexation map is attached as Exhibit "A".
6. The Aspen Valley Hospital District requests that the City of Aspen approve the
annexation of the area proposed to be annexed.
Aspen Valley Hospital District
By:
,Q
& President