HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 03/16/07
Home Rule Special Meeting
March 16, 2007
Eagle County Room
Eagle, Colorado
Commission Chairman, Am Menconi: Good morning, this is a special meeting of the
board of county commissioners for the issue of the home rule charter. Bryan, if could
you begin by introducing this for.
Bryan Treu, County Attorney: It's my understanding that the Eagle County Home Rule
charter commission has completed a revised charter and that their chairman is present
today to present that to the board of county commissioners which then triggers a
statutory requirement that the board of county commissioners call a special election. So
the purpose of to day's meeting is to receive the proposed charter and execute a
resolution calling a special election for May J, 2007. And If J couJd commissioner
Menconi,just for clarity's sake, I think there may be some confusion that's unfortunately
been created, , think, in the papers that the board of county commissioners may have
some sort of say as to whether this goes on the ballot or not and that is simply not the
case. By statute 30-1 J -505, when the charter commission presents a charter to the
county commissioners, the board has to call a special election and that's both for the
original charter and the proposed revised charter. I just want to make that clarification
because I've been getting calls with people that are confused with that process.
Menconi: Thank you. I believe the next point of order is for Don Cohen, the chair of the
charter committee to come to the podium, introduce yourself and present your
resolution.
Don Cohen: Thank you. I'm pleased to stand before you this morning on behalf of all
the members of our commission. J represent and work with ten other peopJe who, I
think you're well aware, put in a Jot of time, a lot of thought and a lot of effort to draft
an initial charter and then work on the revision of the charter. Today, at the majority
vote direction of our commission, I'm bringing you resolution 0701 that is requesting
that you put the revised charter back to the vote of our county citizens as provided for
by Colorado state statutes. I've also brought with me three copies for each of you here
too of the home rule charter.
^ .,.i,';Y
Menconi: I think we also received that this morning from our attorneys.
Cohen: You can't ever have enough copies of the charter. And with that, thank you
throughout this process for your input. We've always appreciated that from our
community and from the commissioners and I think that's really about it and if you have
any questions, I'd be more than happy to answer them.
Menconi: We might have some questions for you. Let me go through a little bit more of
the process that we have, I think, to follow this morning. Thank you, Don. Bryan, I'd like
to open it up to public comment. I'm not sure if this is a work session or a hearing but
I'm assuming it's a hearing.
Treu: Yes, that's totally appropriate.
Menconi: And after the public comment session, I would assume there'd be board
deliberation. Is our action a two part action where we're adopting their resolution and
reviewing the ballot language or is it all one?
Treu: The resolution by the Home Rule Charter Commission we would not be adopting,
that is just being presented to you but they've presented a draft resolution for the board
of county commissioners. Essentially, the resolution is calling a special election for May )
for the purpose of submitting to the registered electorates a ballot question concerning
the adoption of the revised proposed charter and that sets the ballot question. That's
our resolution and I've worked on drafting this, too so really what your issue is going to
be is adopting the ballot question to be sent to our clerk & recorder.
Menconi: So our action would be a vote for a creation of a resolution by the county
attorney for signature by the board.
Treu: Or approval of the resolution as submitted before you with modifications if you
make them.
Menconi: Thank you very much. Is there anyone here from the public who'd like to
comment?
I'm Rich Howard from Edwards. Although I won't debate with you whether I think you
have to vote today, I feel as though it is a foregone conclusion that you're going to
anyway so what I'm going to do is just speak for a moment on at least one person of the
53.5% of voters that decided not to adopt the first county charter. I did attend two of
the three public hearings that the charter commission had including last night. I'm
disappointed that the Home Rule Charter Commission is still pursuing what I consider
an unnecessary, misguided course of action and the reason why I'm bringing this up is
that I believe that at least one, if not more of you, three commissioners do support
having the home rule charter and so I would anticipate that there might be some
discussion in the press perhaps from you all and so I just want to give my position as at
least one of the people in the public that don't think we ought to be going this course
of action.
With that preface, let me continue that nothing has changed in the current, the new,
the revised charter with the exception of the partisan provision. Everything else is
identical in the first charter that the voters resoundly rejected. One small change and
the charter commission claims that this is a revised charter. Now, they might claim it is a
pretty significant one but nonetheless, it was the only provision other than a few typos
that were corrected that has changed. The continued pursuit by the Home Rule Charter
Commission, I think, smacks of spoiled losers. 53.5% of the voters voted against the
home rule charter in November and I think it's arrogant on the part of the Home Rule
2
Commission to think that that they know best and better than the electorate. We
citizens spoke at the last election and we defeated the intentions of the home rule
charter commission. The Home Rule Charter Commission did not like the results of the
vote and they continue to pursue this misguided attempt at overturning democracy. Mr.
Cohen stated after the election, and this was a quote out of the Vail Daily, that when
people don't fully understand something they're very naturally going to vote against it.
That's a quote from the paper from the eighth of November of 2006.
I find something troubling with this position. It suggests that a person is an ignorant fool
merely because he or she voted against a policy or a proposal. It's arguable that the
citizens of Eagle County completely understood the home rule proposal and consciously
voted against it. Each of you were elected by a majority of the voters in the election in
which you were elected. Did voters not know what they were doing when they voted
for each of you? I would answer that they knew exactly what they were doing when
they cast an affirmative vote for each of you. Did the voters understand what they were
doing when they voted in November to approve the school bond issue? Yes, they
completely understood exactly what they were doing. Did the voters understand what
they were doing when they voted against the early child development tax? Again, yes.
Likewise, did the voters understand what they were doing when they voted against
home rule? Again, yes.
Supporters of the Home Rule Commission, in November and then now, continually
hang their hat on so-called better representation for the county by increasing the
number of commissioners from three to five. Supporters have also argued that this will
provide better representation on the board of commissioners for the EI Jebel and Basalt
area. A corollary to this argument and one that the supporters tacitly admit is that past
and present commissioners are abdicating their roles as countywide representatives. In
other words, if going from three to five commissioners will improve representation of
the citizens, then our countywide commissioners with current countywide
representation responsibilities are not representing the citizens countywide. I would
reject that position. I believe that you do represent and are elected at large and you do
represent all citizens of this county including those of EI Jebel and Basalt. Additionally, if
EI Jebel and Basalt citizens, or citizens of any other area of the county do not believe
that a candidate or a commissioner is inadequately representing them, then they have
the responsibility to raise an alternative candidate to run for office themselves.
Another aspect of home rule that I find objectionable is the additional costs involved.
One estimate is an additional $386,000 per year in additional salaries, benefits and
administrative support to add two more commissioners. I also see a bloated
commissioner board leading to a more bloated county government department wide.
This means more costs that ultimately are paid by the tax payer with higher taxes. This
discussion, I believe, has been raised to a discussion about the expectations and
demands of the role of government. I believe that government should provide the few
services that we would not suitably provide on our own, namely fire and police
protection, roads without potholes, public health for the less fortunate and the like. We
do not need a larger government, more costly government, a government that is
bloated and ineffective. Your job as the elected representatives is to represent your
3
constituents which are all the citizens of Eagle County. Your constituents clearly spoke in
the last election and firmly rejected home rule. So I would suggest that we stop this
nonsense and end any more effort to skirt the will of the electorate and let's put it to
bed any more discussion about home rule. It appears as though it is going to be going
to the voters one more time and I would hope that, as my elected officials, that each of
you would not come out in support of this second go round since the voters already
voted once. Thank you.
Menconi: Thank you. Is there anyone else here from the public who'd like to comment?
(no one speaks up) /'II go ahead and close this to public comment. and open the floor to
deliberation comments by the board.
Fisher: Thank you commissioner, and thank you Rich for being here this morning. Again,
as Bryan Treu pointed out early on, and as it's spelled out in the statute and I'd like to
read that statute specifically, Rich, just to clarify what the guideline is in the statutory
requirement. In 30-11-505 (3), it says, "If a majority of the voters disapprove the
proposed charter, the charter commission may proceed to prepare a revised proposed
charter in the same manner provided for the preparation, submission and election of
the proposed charter. The election on any revised proposed charter must be held..." and
then it goes on to the days and the timing of that. (1) which was what gave cause for
the charter commission's proposed charter to initially be submitted for the ballot in 2006
says, "Upon submission to the board of county commissioners of a charter by the
charter commission, the board of county commissioners shall call a special election",
which I think clearly provides the statutory requirement for the decision that we're
required to make today. That being said, I think what we're here to deliberate on and
discuss is actually just the ballot question itself.
The fact that the independently elected charter commission who were elected in the
same form in the 2005 election have seen fit to bring forward a second version, a
revised edition of the proposed charter leaves us no other choice but to then make the
decision to call the special election provided that we are all in agreement with the ballot
question as it will be written on the ballot. I do have some concerns with even the
revised. I know we were submitted the ballot language earlier in the week. We had an
opportunity to look at that and provide our input through the county attorney's office
to the charter commission.
I still have concerns with the way the language has been resubmitted to us and would
like to address some of those concerns. The first concern I have is in the introductory
paragraph where it reads, "Shall an Eagle County Home Rule Charter as currently
proposed by the county home rule charter commission, as allowed by state statute"
which among other things...", then, and first, I think that the language is somewhat
difficult to understand. I'm also concerned the way it reads that it implies that there is a
home rule charter in place and that the currently proposed is a revision to that existing
home rule charter which I believe in reading and trying to understand the question and
for someone who's relying only on the ballot question to be their guide as far as how
they'll vote on this issue without reading the entire charter, I believe that can be
misleading. It was my suggestion and would like to revisit the possibility of amending
4
that to read something such as, "Shall the proposed Eagle County Home Rule Charter,
having been revised by the home rule charter commission, and as allowed by state
statute, which among other things....." and then we can address the bullet points. But I
think it clearly needs to be made known to those who are voting that they are voting on
something which is not currently in effect in our county. Much the same and I know we
don't really have the opportunity to make a change at this point in time but I would
suggest, if at all feasible and you will have to speak with your council, that if any
documents are provided for public review, that it clearly state on the cover - contrary to
the way it has been printed here - that this is a proposed home rule charter and that it
is to be adopted by the electorate in a special election that is to be held the same date.
The way it reads on this cover indicates that it is already in existence and that it is in fact
or has in fact been adopted even though the date is unclear on that. There are other
issues. I think the first bullet point in the question as it's been.....
Menconi: May I just?
Fisher: Sure.
Menconi: Just for ease, I agree with that proposed change so we could just take polls.
Sara Fisher: Okay. The first bullet point: "increases the number of county commissioners
from three to five, each living within their own geographic district", I think is perfectly
acceptable. The second bullet point, and our county clerk & recorder is with us this
morning and Teak, I might ask you for some input on this if you share the same opinion
with me or if not, if you'll provide us any feedback that you might have but in my role as
county clerk & recorder for Eagle County for ten years and the election director for the
county, I believe that a reference to an elections system implies, by those who have any
knowledge of the electoral process or the processes of managing the elections that the
elections system is the actual reference to the equipment and the processes to conduct
the election, not the election process or the partisan process and I feel that using that
term 'election system' might cause some confusion.
Teak Simonton, Clerk & Recorder: It would be very simple to change it to 'nomination
system', I think.
Fisher: Okay. The 'political nomination system'?
Simonton: The 'current nomination system'.
Fisher: Okay. Would another suggestion be 'preserves the election process' perhaps 'for
all county officials' or 'the nomination process for all county officials with the exception
of county surveyor' in which case it would need to be defined that the surveyor position
now to be an appointed position?
Simonton: Yes. 'Preserves the current nomination process'. , think that would.....
Fisher: 'For all elected county officials'.
5
Simonton: 'With the exception of the county surveyor'.
Fisher: 'Including party nomination of candidates and term limits', if that's....
Simonton: Maybe "With the exception of the county surveyor', should'go at the end of
that sentence and then after that which position would then be appointed or
something similar to that but have, 'including party nomination of candidate and term
limits', follow immediately after 'county officials'. So, 'preserves the current nomination
process for all county officials including party nomination of candidates and term limits
with the exception of the position of county surveyor.'
Treu: Maybe I have a clarification for Don. I think it's broader than just preserving the
nomination process. We're saying that nothing changes in the entire process so maybe
leaving 'nomination process' out of the original 'preserves the current election process"
would be more accurate to what we're trying to accomplish.
Simonton: Okay.
Fisher: And I think where it says that, 'all county officials', I think we need to be specific
and include, 'all county elected officials'.
Treu: Makes sense.
Menconi: I agree with that. Since both you and Teak both have worked or work in this
area, the distinction that I understood and that earlier discussion with this is the system
is also referenced as the physical machine, the election system and your (unintelligible)
and I would like to clarify th,at. Peter?
Runyon: I'm perfectly comfortable with those changes.
Fisher: The third bullet point, I believe as it reads, provides registered voters the
opportunity to place issues on the ballot through an initiative and referendum process
except for certain issues, including but not limited to, the annual operating budget or
annual budget appropriation of amendments thereto levy of taxes or any land use or
development approval or denial including zoning or rezoning. I'djust like to understand
from Mr. Cohen, if I may, if the 'including but nor limited to', in the proposed charter it's
my understanding and I'd have to reference it... that there are specificallyitems that
have been identified that would not be able to come to the board through a petition or
referendum process.
Cohen: That's exactly correct and this really does mirror those aspects in the language of
the charter that we specifically excluded: budget and land issues that could not be
voted on.
Fisher: So the 'not limited to' is there, in fact, I mean, what that, in a voter's mind I .
believe that that opens the door to, 'well they're saying they won't do it on these but
6
there's the possibility that they can say they won't do it on whatever they choose to say
they won't do it on'.
Treu: Maybe I can take a shot at that. That language was proposed by our office and the
difficulty was the language that you see in there is verbatim out of the exceptions to the
initiative but there's additional exceptions to the referendum. Initiative allows people the
power to put something on the ballot and referendum being allows people to
opportunity to kind of appeal something that the board of county commissioners would
do and there are some additions to that: calling special elections, ordering
improvements initiated by petition and to be paid for by special assessments and I think
there's one or two other minor ones that didn't lend themselves to clarity. I thought it
would be even more confusing so, 'including, but not limited to' is essentially saying,
there's more in there but...
Cohen: Sort of a catchall. Thank you for that because that's more precision than really,
you know. The main part of our intent is preserved here and with the addition of
Bryan's language, I think that does cover these smaller aspects.
Treu: The items that are listed there Sara, are items that are both found in the initiative
and referendum process. The referendum has a other few minor ones that are not
found in the initiative and I just didn't know how to cleanly put that in there.
Cohen: You did as good ajob as anybody could with that.
Fisher: And, to make sure that I understand, when we talk about through the
referendum or initiative process, we are in fact talking about through the petition
process where the petitions are formed, signed, submitted, signatures are identified and
then presented to the board of county commissioners. That being said, again I think if
we're trying to provide the C1iffsNotes for the voters, to refer to the initiative and
referendum process which already exists in Colorado statute, not through the petition
process at the county level, I think is confusing. I think if that perhaps if we were to
suggest that it provides registered voters the opportunity to place issues on the ballot
through the petition process to allow for initiatives or referenda except for certain issues.
I think it needs to be spelled out what that is. I don't think that the average individual
understands, unless you use the petition word, what that means. Any suggestions from
my fellow commissioners or the county attorney?
Treu: What if we said, 'provides registered voters the opportunity to place issues on the
ballot through petition as set forth in the initiative and referendum process.'?
Runyon: Sounds good to me.
Menconi: I agree.
Treu: 'Except for certain issues including such things as..'. We'll take out the 'including
and not limited to' just, 'including such things as the annual operating budget and .....',
so forth and so on. Does that work?
7
Simonton: Are you going to be getting me this revised text like quick, I hope?
Treu: Yes, what we're going to do is have the board of county commissioners approve
with - if they approve it with these revised changes and authorizing the chairman to
sign it, /'11 go down and it'll take five minutes and Arn will sign it before he leaves.
Simonton: Excellent.
Fisher: And then finally to the fourth bullet point as it reads in the submission, 'Provides
a code of ethics and an annual report for the Eagle County Government including the
voting record of the board of county commissioners and one, I think that the be
approved needs to be dropped into a stand alone location so it's not part of that last
bullet point. What I would like to identify here and have great concern with is the code
of ethics as I have read in the proposed charter, and that was on page 2 J .
In reviewing all of the sections of article J 0 of the proposed charter, it is my
understanding and in discussion with our county attorney, believe that each of the
sections identified in there actually exist in state statute as it is today and it is of concern
to me that because of the fact that it is really a reiteration just in other words that
though I do believe it's important that the public understand that there is a code of
ethics by which elected boards are responsible and required to do their business and
conduct business as well as the oath of office that we take before we step into this role
also reiterates the fact that we, under oath, are agreeing to abide by the code of ethics
or by the ethics provisions that are provided in statute. I don't believe that this section
and/or in the language identifies anything that does not already exist and because of
the fact that the charter actually does do other things, as far as business is concerned,
it's somewhat disconcerting to me that we're adding in something that is already in
existence and suggesting that it doesn't exist already. I think that's one of the reasons
why in the poll that was done after the failure of the first proposed charter is the way
that the question was formed led people to believe that it doesn't exist today.
The fact that perhaps, in some people's perception, not all members have conducted
themselves, whether recently or in past years or on this board or other boards perhaps
without necessarily the smell test with the existing code of ethics I think is an aside. I
believe this is misleading to the voters and indicates that it doesn't already exist and this
charter is going to ensure that their boards of county commissioners and other elected
officials within the county government do something above and beyond what they're
already required to do by statute. Therefore, I would like to suggest that that third bullet
point either be removed or the portion that speaks to the code of ethics be removed or
amended.
Peter Runyon: Sara, I have no problem removing the code of ethics. Just to follow up on
what you said, I think it's also important to note that when you refer to what is in
existence predates referendum 4 J, that the basic code of ethics that are outlined in both
the home rule charter and in the state constitution are what's prior to referendum 4 J
and I think there's been a lot of controversy over the downside of 4 J so this is sort of the
existing ones are independent of 4 J which has a whole future to itself. So, I guess I
8
would just say yah, if we could just leave that as, 'provides an annual report for Eagle
County Government including the voting record of the board of county commissioners'.
Menconi: I would agree with that also. Bryan, did you have a question?
Treu: No, I know we're trying to get Peter on the road. I would suggest that perhaps I
read it with the changes very quickly so we can make sure we have all the changes and
are on the same page.
Menconi: Peter, did you have anything different to add than Sara's comments?
Runyon: No.
Menconi: Sara, thank you. You covered it very well. Thank you very much.
Menconi: Peter does have to get down to Denver and we have commissioner, Tresi
Houpt from Garfield who is driving with him for a meeting down there so I don't want
to take up any more time, either.
Treu: Just so we're on the same page, the ballot question that will be a approved by this
resolution will read, ' Shall a proposed Eagle County Home Rule Charter, having been
revised by the Eagle County Home Rule Charter Commission as allowed by state statute
which, among other things, increases the number of county commissioners from three
to five, each living within their own geographic district, preserves the current election
process for all county elected officials with the exception of the county surveyor,
including party nomination of candidates and term limits, provides registered voters the
opportunity to place issues on the ballot through petition as set forth in the initiative
and referendum process except for certain issues including such things as the annual
operating budget or annual budget appropriation or amendments thereto, the levy of
taxes or land use or development approval or denial including zoning and rezoning and
provides an annual report to the Eagle County Government including the voting record
of the board of county commissioners', be approved, Yes or No?
Fisher: I think we captured all of the language. The one under bullet point two, I think
Teak had indicated a preference perhaps for reading, 'for all county elected officials
including party nomination of candidates and term limits with the exception of county
surveyor'?
Simonton: Yeah, and maybejust adding somewhere, if you feel that needs to be
clarified, 'which would become an appointed position', or something like that. So that
they will know there will still be a county surveyor. It's listed obviously in the detail.
Menconi: The charter is there, to touch on Rich's earlier points, there's obviously more
details in the charter and to try to clarify everything in the ballot language is not
possible. Go ahead.
Fisher: Just the one last thing to make sure before the drafting that that final 'be
approved' will be stand alone.
9
Treu: It's stand alone
Fisher: Great, thank you.
Treu: With that I would suggest the board approve the resolution with those changes
and authorize the chairman to sign upon completion by the county attorney.
Runyon: So moved
Fisher: /'11 second that motion.
Menconi: /'11 open it for discussion. Any discussion? Hearing none, all in favor?
Runyon: Aye
Fisher: Aye
Menconi: Aye. Thank you. That concludes our special hearing for the board of county
commissioners. Thank you.
10
