Loading...
Minutes 01/06/09 PUBLIC HEARING January 6, 2009 Present: Peter Runyon Sara Fisher Am Menconi Keith Montag Bryan Treu Robert Morris Teak Simonton Kathy Scriver Chairman Commissioner Commissioner Acting County Manager County Attorney Deputy County Attorney Clerk to the Board Deputy Clerk to the Board This being a scheduled Public Hearing, the following items were presented to the Board of County Commissioners for their consideration: DECEMBER 2008 BILL PAYING AND PAYROLL GENERAL FUND A ONE BAIL BONDS AARON VELDHEER ABBIE RITIMILLER ACCESS LOCK AND KEY INC ACE LANE ACTIVE ENERGIES ADP ADP ADP ADP ALAN SANDBERG ALL PHASE ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO ALL PHASE ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO ALL PHASE ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO ALL PRO FORMS INCORPORATED ALL V ALLEY WOMENS CARE ALPINE LUMBER COMPANY ALPINE LUMBER COMPANY ALPINE LUMBER COMPANY ALPINE P ARTY RENTALS ALT MERICK AMANDA BAY AMERICAN BANK NOTE CO AMERICAN SAFETY HEALTH INSTITUTE AMERIGAS AMERIGAS AMERIGAS AMY KEELEY ANDERSON & KEIL ANIXTER COMMUNICATION ANIXTER COMMUNICATIONS ANN LOPER ANN MUNCASTER ANNA POLlCASTRI APPLIED TRUST ENGINEERING APPLIED TRUST ENGINEERING APPRAISAL INSTITUTE REFUND REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT SUPPLIES REBATE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE REBATE SUPPLIES SERVICE SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICE SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICE REFUND SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE $3.20 $28.68 $47.97 $171.00 $4,000.00 $1,000.00 $3,946.30 $884.50 $876.50 $771.50 $3 I 1.00 $763.98 $154.25 $0.96 $586.06 $3,750.00 $83.95 $9.59 $2.08 $586.70 $1,918.28 $51.00 $119.75 $25.00 $4,5 I 8.1 9 $585.23 $141.37 $71.37 $88.50 $227.52 $57.46 $22.20 $141.42 $109.80 $1,149.16 $219.16 $425.00 1 01/06/09 APW A WESTERN SLOPE CHAPTER AQUATICS ASSOCIATION ARIZONA GUN RUNNERS ARTWORKS THE ASD ASPEN PUBLISHERS INC ASSOCIATION OF STATE FLOODPLAIN MANAGERS INC AT ANDT AT&T AT&T AT&T A V TECH ELECTRONICS INC A V TECH ELECTRONICS INC AVON CENTER BEAVER CREEK I HOA BABETTE LADUE BAILEYS BALCOMB AND GREEN BALCOMB AND GREEN BARBARA KEENE CHRISTOPHER BARBARANWHITFORD BEEP WEST RADIO PAGING BENTLEY SYSTEMS INC BERENS AMY BERTHOD MOTORS BERYL BUNIGER BETHANY V AN WYCK BLACK DIAMOND RESEARCH BOB BARKER COMPANY BOB BARKER COMPANY BOB ENGELBRECHT BOB ENGELBRECHT BOYZ TOYZ AND SONZ BOYZ TOYZ AND SONZ BRIAN COUNCILMAN BRUCE BAUMGARTNER BRUCE BAUMGARTNER BUFFALO RIDGE AFFORDABLE BUILDING PRODUCTS SALES INC BURBACH & ASSOCIATES INC BUSCH PROFESSIONAL CORP BUSINESS INC C STAN HALVORSOM C STAN HAL VORSOM C STAN HALVORSOM CALPHO CANYON INSURANCE-EAGLE CDW COMPUTER CENTERS CDW COMPUTER CENTERS CDW COMPUTER CENTERS CDW COMPUTER CENTERS CEA VCO AUDIO VISUAL CO INC CENTRAL DISTRIBUTING CENTRAL DISTRIBUTING CENTRAL DISTRIBUTING CENTURYTEL OF EAGLE SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SUPPLIES REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE REFUND SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICE 2 01/06/09 $9,400.00 $2,017.66 $11 8.65 $800.00 $532.50 $234.84 $150.00 $33.48 $2,555.87 $2,444. 11 $66.96 $1,501.90 $792.1 0 $4,799.01 $35.1 0 $96.00 $645.94 $176.50 $217.75 $32.40 $186.00 $60.00 $224.36 $325.24 $40.96 $32.76 $302.50 $888.75 $339.1 7 $1,4 75.00 $1,475.00 $6,699.00 $284.90 $4,000.00 $46.67 $45.3 7 $7,805.00 $678.4 I $70.00 $35.70 $320.72 $14,798.84 $ I ,824.4 7 $400.00 $120.00 $444.00 $25,882.00 $5,2 I 9.64 $1,924.01 CENTURYTELOFEAGLE CENTURYTELOFEAGLE CHAFFEE COUNTY SHERIFFS OFFICE CHAFFEE COUNTY SHERIFFS OFFICE CHARLES B DARRAH CHARLES D JONES CO INC CHARLES D JONES CO INC CHARLES W HAUSER CHARLES WOLF CHARM TEX CHARTURE INSTITUTE CHESTNUT RIDGE FOAM, INC CHRIS THE CRAZY TRADER CO ASSOC CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS CO DEPT LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT CO DEPT OF AGRICULTURE CO DEPT OF REVENUE CO DEPT OF REVENUE CO DEPT OF REVENUE CO DEPT PUBLIC HEALTH ENV WATER CO DEPT PUBLIC HEALTH ENV WATER CO DEPT REVENUE CO DEPT REVENUE CO PATHOLOGY CONSULTANTS CO PROFESSIONALS W ASTEW A TER CO RIVER WATER CONS DISTRICT CO WEST MENTAL HEALTH COLORADO COMMERCIAL SERVICE COLORADO COUNTIES INC COLORADO COUNTIES NC COLORADO COUNTY CLERKS ASSOCIATION COLORADO DEPT AGRICULTURE COLORADO DEPT OF PUBLIC HEALTH ENV WATER COLORADO DEPT PUBLIC HEAL TH,ENV WATER COLORADO MOUNTAIN NEWS COLORADO MOUNTAIN NEWS COLORADO MOUNTAIN NEWS COLORADO MOUNTAIN NEWS COLORADO MOUNTAIN NEWS COLORADO MOUNTAIN NEWS COLORADO RIVER WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY COLORADO STATESMAN COLORADO WEST MENTAL HEALTH COLORADO ASSESSORS ASSOCIATION CONSERVE A WAIT LIGHTING CONTACTPHARMACYSERV~E CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION CORPORATE EXPRESS CORPORATE EXPRESS CORPORATE EXPRESS CORPORATE EXPRESS CORPORATE EXPRESS CORPORATE EXPRESS CORPORATE EXPRESS SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE REFUNDS SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SUPPLIES SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES 3 01/06/09 $281.15 $72.87 $16,515.00 $14,355.00 $18.90 $1,686.39 $215.49 $120.00 $202.99 $1,287.58 $2,436.61 $9,801.60 $364.00 $35.00 $382.15 $50.00 $1,060.00 $770.00 $710.00 $1,085.50 $605.00 $555.00 $100.00 $310.75 $150.00 $690.10 $533.75 $5,200.00 $435.00 $75.00 $200.00 $50.00 $20.00 $537.50 $2,270.63 $2,109.16 $574.25 $115.47 $20.28 $9.36 $14,800.00 $18,778.32 $44.00 $490.00 $3,047.00 $219.60 $3,846.90 $194.58 $1,480.00 $1,017.49 $955.70 $659.28 $455.84 $361.24 $347.69 CORPORATE EXPRESS CORPORATE EXPRESS CORPORATE EXPRESS CORPORATE EXPRESS CORPORATE EXPRESS CORPORATE EXPRESS CORPORATE EXPRESS CORPORATE EXPRESS CORPORATE EXPRESS IMAGING COWBOY CATERING COWBOY CATERING COWBOY CATERING COWBOY CATERING CROSS,SARA CTSI DALY PROPERTY SERVICES DALY PROPERTY SERVICES DAN CORCORAN PLS DAN MANZANAROS DANALEIGH POWERS DAVID A BAUER DECORATIVE MATERIALS INTL LTD DEENA EZZELL DENVER HEALTH 7 HOSPITAL AUTHORITY DIAMOND SYSTEMS INC DJENSEN ELECTRIC INC DOCTORS ON CALL DOCTORS ON CALL DOLPHIN EXPRESS DON OLSEN DONALD J LAUGHLIN DONNA ILENE HAUSE DUFFORD WALLACK E JO BROWN EAGLE AIR ALLIANCE EAGLE CARE MEDICAL CLINIC EAGLE CARE MEDICAL CLINIC EAGLE CARE MEDICAL CLINIC EAGLE COUNTY MP EAGLE COUNTY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY EAGLE COUNTY SHERIFFS OFFICE EAGLE COUNTY SHERIFFS OFFICE EAGLE COUNTY TREASURER EAGLE COUNTY TREASURER EAGLE COUNTY TREASURER EAGLE COUNTY TREASURER EAGLE PHARMACY EAGLE PHARMACY EAGLE RIVER WATER AND SANITATION EAGLE V AIL ANIMAL HOSPITAL EAGLE V ALLEY CHILD CARE CENTER EAGLE V ALLEY CHILD CARE CENTER EAGLE V ALLEY EVENTS INC EAGLE V ALLEY PRINTING EAGLE V ALLEY PRINTING SERVICE SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES REIMBURSEMENT REFUND REFUND REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE REFUND SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEM ENT SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEM ENT SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SUPPLIES 4 01/06/09 $272.88 $257.78 $188.66 $137.77 $117.88 $78.22 $64.29 $282.69 $71.26 $6,182.50 $1,583.75 $817.50 $424.1 5 $81.90 $848,703.00 $501.00 $412.50 $700.00 $153.30 $122.44 $32.60 $67.40 $32.00 $549.50 $155.00 $105.00 $390.00 $50.00 $96.38 $13.76 $81.00 $247.00 $624.00 $300.00 $150,000.00 $19,350.00 $9,975.00 $187.50 $6,000.00 $2,456.25 $5,275.00 $1,350.00 $679,900.90 $652,706.94 $98.1 7 $668,533.71 $124.511$4.98 $641.87 $355.50 $6,902.50 $3,375.00 $2,634.1 9 $385.00 $310.00 EAGLE V ALLEY PRINTING EAGLE V ALLEY PRINTING EARLY CHILDHOOD PARTNERS EC GOVT FINANCE ED GRANGE EDW ARD SULLIVAN EDWARDS BUILDING CENTER EDWARDS BUILDING CENTER EEF PRODUCTIONS LLC ELAINE WOLF ELIZABETH HICKS EMILY T AMBERINO EMPLOYERS COUNCIL SERVICE ENGINEERING NEWS RECORD INNOV ATE CORPORATION INNOV ATE CORPORATION EPS DESIGN AND PRINT ERIC T BOLEY ESPIOC EVA WILSON EVERETT F AMIL Y FUNERAL HOME EVERYTHING FOR OFFICES EVERYTHING FOR OFFICES FARRELL & SELDIN FEDERAL EXPRESS FEDERAL EXPRESS FEDERAL EXPRESS FEDERAL EXPRESS FEDERAL EXPRESS FEDERAL EXPRESS FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC FILTERFRESH DENVER FILTERFRESH DENVER FIRKINS FISHER CONSULTING GROUP FISHER CONSULTING GROUP FISHER CONSULTING GROUP FRANK J BALL FRANKLIN COVEY FRED PRYOR SEMINARS/CAREER TRACK FRONT RANGE INTERNET FRONT RANGE INTERNET, INC FSH COMMUNICATIONS LLC FSH COMMUNICATIONS LLC G AND S TOOL CLINIC LLC GAIL ZINK GALLS INCORPORATED GALLS INCORPORATED GARTNER INC GENI GARCI GEORGIE C ZINDA GEORGIE C ZINDA GFOA GLAXO SMITH KLINE GLEN WOOD SHOE SERVICE SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE REBATE SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT REBATE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SUPPLIES REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SUPPLIES SUPPLIES REFUND SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE REFUND SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE 5 01/06/09 $290.00 $225.00 $2,703.00 $873,3 11.6 I $60.00 $4,000.00 $49.46 $3.75 $960.00 $69.00 $23.38 $3 11.00 $400.00 $82.00 $90,840.00 $3,000.28 $625.03 $214.65 $75.00 $336.36 $705.00 $431.98 $3,955.04 $147.90 $258.97 $112.59 $56.81 $51.67 $45.1 0 $20.30 $152.74 $1,979.27 $532.36 $277.00 $4,583.79 $3,661.77 $ I ,252.65 $22.60 $215.68 $99.00 $2,1 00.00 $8,500.00 $71.26 $1.05 $231.46 $196.18 $1,362.50 $161.65 $2,900.00 $279.50 $218.00 $132.00 $300.00 $822.80 $55.00 GLENWOOD SHOE SERVICE GLOBAL SPECTRUM GOVCONNECTION INC GOVCONNECTION INC GOVCONNECTlON INCORPORATED GOVERNING GOVERNMENT TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS LLC GRACIOUS SAVIOR LUTHERAN CHURCH GRAINGER INCORPORATED GRAND JUNCTION PIPE GRAYBEAL, PEGGY GREAT AMERICAN LEASING GREG SCHROEDER GREGORY DALY GREENBERG AND ASSOCIATES GYPSUM ANIMAL HOSPITAL INC GYPSUM RECREATION CENTER HABITAT FOR HUMANITY HART INTERCIVIC INCORPORATED HARVIE HAMMOND BROADCOM HEART OF THE WEST COUNCIL HEATHER BURCHALL HENRY SCHEIN HENRY SCHEIN HIGGINS BRAD HIGGINS BRAD HIGH COUNTRY COPIERS HIGH COUNTRY COPIERS HIGH COUNTRY COPIERS HILLS PET NUTRITION SALES HILLS PET NUTRITION SALES HOLY CROSS ELECTRIC HOLY CROSS ELECTRIC HOLY CROSS ELECTRIC HOLY CROSS ELECTRIC HONEY BUN BAKERY HSBC BUSINESS SOLUTIONS HSBC BUSINESS SOLUTIONS HSBC BUSINESS SOLUTIONS HUSTON, LAURA HVAC SUPPLY HV AC SUPPLY HV AC SYSTEMS ICON SYSTEMS LLC IDENTIX IISC INC IN POWER SYSTEMS LLC INTEGRATIVE MEDICINE INTEGRATIVE MEDICINE INTERIOR PLANTSCAPES ISC INC ISLAND BUSINESS GROUP JACK KENT MOTORS JAMES H TERRELL IV JAN KINNEY SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICE SUPPLIES REIMBURSEM ENT SERVICE REFUND SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE REIMBURSEM ENT SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICE SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE REBATE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE REFUND REBATE 6 01/06/09 $55.00 $2,500.00 $376.51 $110.1 1 $491.80 $16.00 $400.00 $15,000.00 $3,542.91 $26.99 $100.00 $1,285.71 $354.51 $440.00 $74.10 $14.00 $800.00 $5,760.00 $46,769.08 $300.00 $600.00 $226.94 $1,497.32 $71.91 $734.11 $101.92 $1,351.96 $364.25 $100.00 $105.00 $70.00 $19,707.13 $3,530.98 $556.15 $114.35 $200.00 $1,503.31 $1,064.23 $690.62 $240.00 $11.18 $33.91 $11.18 $ 106.85 $719.42 $5,097.85 $8,000.00 $9,700.00 $4,900.00 $100.00 $ 10,94 1.50 $400.00 $850.00 $76.00 $4,000.00 JAN 0 WESTMAN JANE CONNORS JANET CONNORS JARA JEFF HARDING JESUS RAMOS GARCIA JILL M BARON JM DODD DITCH DITCH JOAN IE HANLON JOHN FELIZZI JPCOOKIECOMPANY KAPLAN COMPANIES INCORPORATED KARA BETTIS CORONER KATHI RENMAN KAY WILHELM KAY WILHEM KENSIE SCOIT KERST, MIKE KEVIN KROMER KIM ANDREE KIMBERLY WALLACH KIWANIS CLUB KUSTOM SIGNALS INC KYLE HALL KYM IGLESIAS KYM IGLESIAS KZYR FM LANDS END INCORPORATED LANGUAGE LINE SERVICE LARSON REBECCA LASER JUNCTION LAURA COARSEY LAURA HORSEY LEGACY COMMUNICATIONS INCORPORATED LETITIA FICKLING LEWAN AND ASSOCIATES LEWAN AND ASSOCIATES LEXISNEXIS COURTLINK INC LIBERTY ACQUISITIONS LIGHTNING SERVICES LINDA MAGGIORE LISA MUTZ NELSON LK SURVEY INSTRUMENTS INC LOCATE PLUS HOLDINGS CORP LOCATE PLUS HOLDINGS CORP LORI SIEFERS LOZOYA VELEZ, CARMEN LUZ AVILA LYNN GOITLlEB MA MADELINE MOOS MAIN AUTO PARTS MAIN AUTO PARTS MARGARET BLAZEK MARIA ANJIER MARIA ANJIER REFUND SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE REBATE REFUND SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SUPPLIES REIMBURSEMENT REBATE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SUPPLIES REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE REBATE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE REFUND SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT REBATE SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE 7 01/06/09 $0.80 $308.90 $33.00 $65.27 $500.00 $15.00 $18.48 $644.45 $687.50 $51.01 $341.38 $169.84 $145.10 $4,000.00 $51.00 $10.20 $100.00 $932.1 8 $1,144.50 $771.92 $48.12 $145.00 $6,534.00 $105.92 $122.75 $52.25 $1,700.00 $72.45 $ 77. 77 $49.14 $259.80 $1,728.38 $ I 72.00 $139.00 $243.75 $74,060.00 $12,000.00 $310.10 $56.80 $115.00 $51.489$500.00 $458.24 $104.94 $104.94 $32.64 $180.18 $45.63 $210.00 $123.48 $13.96 $5.87 $9.75 $10.32 $3.75 MARK BLICKENSTAFF MARK CHAPIN MARK CHAPIN MARK RIBINSTEIN MARLENE MCCAFFERTY MARY JANE HESS MARY JANE HESS MATT KOZUSKO MBIA MISC MCCAULLEY REBECCA T MCI WORLDCOM MCMAHAN AND ASSOCIATES LLC MEDI BADGE INCORPORATED MEDICAL ARTS PRESS MEDICAL ARTS PRESS MEGAN ELIZABETH MUEHLETHALER MENENDEZ ARCHITECTS MERCK LA T METROPOLITAN PATHOLOGIST PC MICROPLACTICE INCORPORATED MICROSOFT CORP MID V ALLEY METROPOLITAN DISTRICT MOBILE VISION MOBILE VISION MONTY PARKS MOORE MEDICAL CORPORATION MOORE MEDICAL CORPORATION MOORE MEDICAL CORPORATION MOTOROLA MOUNTAIN EQUIPMENT MWI VETERINARY SUPPLY CO MX LOGIC INC MX LOGIC, INC NAMA NANCY N POWELL NANCY WRIGHT NARDUZZI SUSAN NEBS NEHA ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH NEILS LUNCEFORD INC NEOGOV NETTIE REYNOLDS NFPA FULFILLMENT CENTER NICHOLAUS MAUER NICOLETTI-FLATER ASSOCIATES NOVLE WELDING NRC BROADCASTING INC NW COLORADO COUNCIL OC TANNER OC TANNER OLSON PROPERTY MAINTENANCE ORKIN EXTERMINATING ORKIN EXTERMINATING COMPANY ORKIN EXTERMINATING INC OSM DELIVERY LLC REBATE REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT REFUND SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT REBATE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES REBATE SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICE SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE 8 01/06/09 $4,000.00 $241.02 $182.52 $5.60 $52.00 $342.15 $252.40 $311.00 $6,070.96 $281.41 $15.39 $15,756.25 $109.95 $207.47 $134.78 $100.00 $2,599.15 $1,957.25 $274.00 $19.24 $29,010.00 $393.36 $109.00 $91.90 $4,000.00 $843.66 $556.68 $526.95 $8,730.49 $5.43 $179.47 $900.00 $900.00 $180.00 $263.25 $234.59 $41.50 $544.52 $95.00 $218.80 $2,500.00 $504.00 $150.00 $211.25 $1,755.00 $177.50 $240.00 $170.00 $51.59 $51.59 $4,905.00 $257.38 $443.55 $260.71 $528.00 OSM DELIVERY LLC OSM DELIVERY LLC OUR NURSES INC PACIFIC SURVEY SUPPLY PAPER WISE PAPER WISE PAPER WISE PAPER WISE P ARAGARD DIRECT PAT NOLAN PEAK PERFORMANCE COPIER & SUPPLY, INC PEAK PUMP SALES INC PETRA WEBER PETTY CASH ACCOUNTING PHYLLIS ROUNDS PITNEY BOWES PITNEY BOWES PITNEY BOWES PITNEY BOWES PITNEY BOWES PORTABLE COMPUTER SYSTEMS PRINTRITE PSS INCORPORATED PSS INCORPORATED PST ENTERPRISES INC PURCHASE POWER QUEST QWEST QWEST QWEST QWEST QWEST RAND S NORTHEAST LLC RACHEL OVERLEASE RENEE DUBISSON RIDLEY MCGREEVY WEISZ PC RITA WOOD ROBERT NARRACCI ROBERT ZIMMERMAN ROBERTA A MITCH ROBERTA A MITCH ROBINSON TEXTILES ROCKY MOUNTAIN LEGAL SERVICE ROCKY MOUNTAIN REPORGRAPH RODNEY MORGAN DBA RDM ROLF LIPPERT ROLLY ROUNDS ROY HOWELL SAN ISABEL TELECOM INC SAN ISABEL TELECOM INC SAW A Y A ROSE KALPLAN PC SAYNOMORE PROMOTIONS SCHMIDT POLYGRAPH CONSULTING SCHNEIDER MAURER FOOT & ANKLE ASSOCIATES SCHOTT, BUBLITZ & ENGEL, SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SUPPLIES REFUND SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT REFUND REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT REBATE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SUPPLIES REFUND SUPPLIES SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE REFUND SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE REFUND $432.00 $396.00 $813.14 $4,053.24 $3,996.00 $3,843.00 $1,998.00 $518.75 $2,928.24 $245.11 $2,550.00 $587.75 $4.80 $1,616.09 $40.20 $1,000.00 $940.71 $210.00 $204.36 $15.00 $1,701.00 $1,437.85 $1,659.50 $769.50 $133.17 $153.10 $915.57 $3,281.06 $2,432.09 $1,028.78 $164.37 $4.78 $1,159.36 $1,198.58 $193.64 $216.80 $211.39 $58.50 $500.00 $5,000.00 $163.22 $122.70 $21.60 $148.99 $2,371.42 $39.30 $67.20 $298.63 $117.42 $117.42 $4.40 $32.33 $410.00 $485.00 $12.00 9 01/06/09 SCOTT FLEMING SCOTT LOWERY LAW OFFICE PC SCOTT SHARP SCOTT THOMPSON SCULLYS SECURITY TRANSPORT SERVICE INC SECURITY TRANSPORT SERVICE INC SERVICEMASTER CLEAN OF V AIL SERVICEMASTER CLEAN OF V AIL SERVICEMASTER CLEAN OF V AIL SHAMROCK FOOD CORPORATION SHAMROCK FOODS CORPORATION SHAPINS ASSOCIATES SIERRA MURPHY SIGNATURE SIGNS SIGNATURE SIGNS SIGNATURE SIGNS SIGNATURE SIGNS SILVER CREEK DEVELOPMENT SIMON PROPERTY SERVICES SINTON DAIRY COMPANY SINTON DAIRY COMPANY SMITH LEGAL LLC SMOWWHITE LINEN SNOWWHITE LINEN SONDRA MANSKE SOS STAFFING SOS STAFFING SERVICES SOS STAFFING SERVICES SOURCE GAS SOURCE GAS SPACES CONSULTING LLC SPADES CONSULTING SPECIAL PROTECTION INC SPECIALIZED PRODUCTS SPIECKER HANLON AND GORMLEY SPRINT SPECTRUM LP STACIBRUCE STACY DECK STATE OF COLORADO STATE OF COLORADO STATE OF COLORADO STATE OF COLORADO STEPHANIE GLENWRIGHT STEPHEN ELZING STERICYCLE INCORPORATED STERICYCLE INCORPORATED STERICYCLE INCORPORATED STEVE'S DOG AND CAT REPAIR SUMMIT HABITATS INC SUSAN C LITTLE ASSOC PA SUSAN MOTT SUSAN RODGER MA SUSAN STRAUB SUSPENSE FUND REIMBURSEMENT REFUND SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SUPPLIES REFUND SUPPLIES SUPPLIES REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SUPPLIES REFUND SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT REBATE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICE REBATE REFUND SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE 10 01/06/09 $35.69 $5.40 $39.00 $225.00 $1,051.20 $3,382.80 $1,220.40 $3,288.00 $1,547.00 $120.00 $3,987.42 $2,953.24 $238.50 $276.25 $221.00 $150.00 $84.25 $47.50 $2,200.00 $1,725.00 $756.4 7 $595.07 $16.00 $161.14 $160.44 $283.14 $1,226.88 $961.62 $369.20 $14,975.29 $135.21 $5,500.00 $5,500.00 $225.60 $118.85 $2.40 $307.23 $306.48 $311.00 $472.56 $472.56 $400.00 $25.00 $32.40 $5.08 $1,845.92 $1,837.69 $365.98 $225.00 $3,168.00 $32.00 $60.00 $70.00 $245.48 $108,447.53 SUSPENSE FUND SUSPENSE FUND SUSPENSE FUND SYSCO FOOD SERVICES TAYLOR RYAN TCC CONTRACTORS TENENZ INC TENIE CHICOINE TERRACOGNITO CONSULTING TERRI ALLENDER THE DELTA BRAVO SIERRA CORP THE FLOWER CART THE MASTER'S TOUCH LLC THE NORMANDY GROUP LLC THE OLD GYPSUM PRINTER THE PATHOLOGY GROUP THERESA CAREY THOMAS CHERYL THOMAS RUSSO THOMPSON WEST GROUP THOMPSON WEST GROUP THOMPSON WEST GROUP THREE T SYSTEMS THREE T SYSTEMS TONI BERNS TOTAL ACCESS GROUP INC TOWN OF EAGLE TOWN OF GYPSUM TOWN OF V AIL TR1 COUNTY FIRE PROTECTION TYLER HOFF TYLER TECHNOLOGIES UNDERGROUND VAULTS STORAGE INC UNDERGROUND V AULTS STORAGE INC UNITED PARCEL SERVICE UNITED PARCEL SERVICE UNITED PARCEL SERVICE UNITED PARCEL SERVICE UNITED PARCEL SERVICE UNITED REPROGRAPHlC UNITED REPROGRAPHIC UNITED SITE SERVICES UNITED STATE LIFE INSURANCE UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO US CLEANING PROFESSIONALS US CLEANING PROFESSIONALS US CLEANING PROFESSIONALS US CLEANING PROFESSIONALS US FOOD SERVICE INCORPORATED US FOODS V AIL BOARD OF REALTORS V AIL BOARD OF REALTORS V AIL DAILY V AIL DAILY V AIL ELECTRONICS SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES REIMBURSEMENT REFUND SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE REIMBURSEM ENT REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT SUPPLIES SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE REBATE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE 11 01/06/09 $105,754.30 $103,299.36 $6,601.51 $688.3 7 $25.85 $28.00 $36.43 $90.00 $2,700.00 $210.00 $1,000.00 $385.00 $11,000.00 $7,506.89 $176.89 $2,255.35 $543.30 $225.24 $175.50 $2,765.39 $1,149.20 $96.00 $4,549.08 $324.00 $85.50 $58.00 $3,013.25 $580.28 $160.21 $230.50 $500.00 -$6,990.00 $41.46 $33.80 $75.45 $57.92 $53.02 $45.48 $40.55 $164.17 $117.01 $165.80 $69.10 $4,325.00 $24,250.40 $12,125.20 $514.10 $169.50 $1,978.03 $4,636.27 $275.00 $25.00 $347.14 $223.83 $1,144.59 VAIL ELECTRONICS VAIL HONEYW AGON LTD VAIL HONEYW AGON L TD V AIL LOCK AND KEY VAIL NET V AIL RESORTS INC VAIL V ALLEY MEDICAL CENTER V AIL V ALLEY MEDICAL CENTER VAIL V ALLEY MEDICAL CENTER VALIANT EQUIPMENT V ALLEY LUMBER V ALLEY LUMBER VALLEY VIEW HOSPITAL VALUE CHECK INC VALUE WEST INC VAX SERVE INC VERIFICATIONS VERIFICATIONS INC VERIZON WIRELESS VERIZON WIRELESS INCORPORATED VERIZON WIRELESS INCORPORATED VIANNE BROWN VILAR CENTER FOR THE ARTS VINCI LAW OFFICE VIRGINIA TRUJILLO VISA VISA VISA VISTA AUTO GROUP OF SILVERTHORN W ALZ POSTAL SOLUTIONS WASTE MANAGEMENT WASTE MANAGEMENT INC WASTE MANAGEMENT INC WECMRD WESTERN SLOPE BAR WESTERN SLOPE STRUCTURED CABLING WESTERN SLOPE SUPPLIES WESTERN SLOPE SUPPLIES WESTERN SLOPE SUPPLIES WESTERN SLOPE SUPPLIES WESTERN SLOPE SUPPLIES WESTERN SLOPE SUPPLIES WESTERN SLOPE SUPPLIES WESTERN SLOPE SUPPLIES WILLIAM G HORLBECK PC WILLITS GENERAL STORE WYLACO WYN TTAYLOR XCEL ENERGY XEROX XEROX CORPORATION XEROX CORPORATION XEROX CORPORATION INC XEROX CORPORATION INC XEROX CORPORATION INC SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE REFUND REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES REFUND SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES 12 01/06/09 $210.00 $34.32 $11.48 $10.50 $11. 95 $250.00 $1,219.93 $973.88 $310.10 $3,982.82 $151.22 $14.48 $165.00 $4,250.00 $19,500.00 $223.55 $1,684.25 $2,067.05 $377.78 $5,723.88 $1,233.99 $250.25 $1,825.85 $19.00 $40.3 7 $43,916.68 $2,285.32 $516.00 $805.08 $168.36 $1,611.98 $363.81 $118.50 $11,427.00 $27.45 $4,745.00 $370.54 $234.20 $55.79 $55.20 $46.44 $43.30 $28.00 $25.00 $2,151.25 $156.00 $196.19 $19.00$$380.64 $818.95 $367.81 $246.30 $2,336.44 $2,216.87 $556.06 XEROX CORPORATION INC XEROX CORPORATION INC XEROX CORPORATION INC XEROX CORPORATION INC XEROX CORPORATION INC YAMPA VALLEY ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION ZACK DAIGLE ZEE MEDICAL SERVICE ZEE MEDICAL SERVICE ZPBEUDA ARGELIA CANO SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE REFUND SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICE DECEMBER 2008 PAYROLL PAYROLL 25 &26 ROAD AND BRIDGE FUND A PEAK INCORPORATED ACTIVE COMMUNICATIONS ARARAND CONSTRUCTORS INC BARCO PRODUCTS COMPANY COLLETTS COLLETTS COLORADO LTAP COPY PLUS CORPORATE EXPRESS CORPORATE EXPRESS CRAWFORD PROPERTIES DOUG MCKIERNAN EAGLE COUNTY TREASURER EAGLE COUNTY TREASURER EAGLE COUNTY TREASURER EAGLE V ALLEY MEDICAL CENTER EAGLE V ALLEY MEDICAL CENTER EC GOVT/FINANCE EC TREASURER ELAM CONSTRUCTION INC ELAM CONSTRUCTION INC ENVIROTECH EVERYTHING FOR OFFICES FELSBURG HOLT ULLEVIG GA TEW A Y CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION GMCO CORPORATION HANSON EQUIPMENT HEPWORTH PAWLAK GEOTECHNI HOLY CROSS ISC 1SC JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC JOHN HARRIS JV1ATION, INC LAFARGE MARVIN LAMAN JR MARVIN LAMAN JR MA YRA RUBALCABA MOUNTAIN VIEW BUILDERS NAPA AUTO PARTS NAPA AUTO PARTS SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICE SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SUPPLIES REIMBURSEMENT SUPPLIES SUPPLIES REFUND SUPPLIES SUPPLIES 13 01/06/09 $537.38 $466.26 $259.30 $256.56 $217.19 $176.62 $16.80 $536.91 $48.92 $400.00 $5,370,318.93 $1,625,947.25 $1,587.00 $138.00 $2,854.00 $926.50 $764.75 $721.85 $180.00 $9.48 $43.38 $41.41 $1,000.00 $42.50 $82,577.42 $61,141.34 $58,617.08 $90.00 $90.00 $319,659.69 $4,445.48 $176,001.09 $14,684.15 $1,530.00 $4,541.01 $20,419.39 $176,523.68 $6,045.18 $24,610.00 $508.1 0 $800.46 $7,376.45 $242.07 $8,167.50 $75.00 $8,397.50 $22,000.00 $42.49 $32.59 $65.77 $2,000.00 $162.58 $3.33 NEW PIG CORPORATION NICOLE WASSON OSHKOSH TRUCK CORPORATION PAPER WISE PREMIER TIRE TERMINAL PST ENTERPRISES PST ENTERPRISES RANDY SCHLEGEL RICK ETTLES SOURCE GAS SUSPENSE FUND SUSPENSE FUND SUSPENSE FUND SUSPENSE FUND TOWN OF GYPSUM UNITED STATE LIFE INSURANCE US CLEANING PROFESSIONALS US CLEANING PROFESSIONALS VAIL DAILY VISA WASTE MANAGEMENT WESTERN SLOPE AGGREGATE WESTERN SLOPE BAR WESTERN SLOPE BAR WESTERN SLOPE BAR WESTERN SLOPE BAR WYLACO WYLACO SUPPLY WYLACO SUPPLY COMPANY XEROX CORPORATION SUPPLIES REIMBURSEMENT SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES DECEMBER 2008 PAYROLL PAYROLL 25 &26 EARLY CHILDHOOD FUND CHRISTINE A RUSSELL DOCTORS ON CALL EAGLE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT EAGLE COUNTY TREASURER EAGLE COUNTY TREASURER EAGLE COUNTY TREASURER EARLY CHILDHOOD PARTNERS EARLY CHILDHOOD PARTNERS EC GOVT/FINANCE EC TREASURER EVANS CHAFFEE EVANS CHAFFEE GYPSUM CAPITAL PARTNERS LLC HEATHER WEST HSBC JENNIE W AHRER JENNIE W AHRER LEARNING CURVE PRESCHOOL LITERACY PROJECT MELISSA DICKEY MICHAEL ROWE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE 14 01/06/09 $632.88 $136.35 $423.87 $61.52 $411.38 $46.04 $15.62 $75.00 $75.00 $749.43 $8,985.82 $8,951.17 $2,432.81 $69.25 $124.89 $70.00 $853.38 $426.69 $81.88 $764.62 $104.42 $29,531.67 $48.95 $22.50 $1 7.90 $9.55 $89.70 $449.05 $309.30 $745.59 $1,065,874.45 $144,006.88 $350.00 $228.00 $18,391.72 $4,492.83 $4,348.89 $2,409.89 $25,163.90 $21,446.75 $9,807.96 $512.93 $146,924.29 $15,430.29 $7,676.09 $250.00 $16.98 $250.00 $21.06 $4,898.03 $20,000.00 $250.00 $250.00 MICHELLE GREGORY NURSE F AMIL Y PARTNERSHIP SUSPENSE FUND SUSPENSE FUND SUSPENSE FUND VISA DECEMBER 2008 PAYROLL SOCIAL SERVICES FUND ADELA JIMENEZ ADELA JIMENEZ ALAMOSA COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE AMY CECIL CENTURYTEL CHARLENE WHITNEY COLORADO WEST MENTAL HEALTH CORPORATE EXPRESS CORPORATE EXPRESS CORPORATE EXPRESS DARLENE MONTANO DARLENE MONTANO EAGLE COUNTY TREASURER EAGLE COUNTY TREASURER EC GOVT/FINANCE EC TREASURER EC TREASURER ELISA ACOSTA EVERYTHING FOR OFFICES EVERYTHING FOR OFFICES HEART OF THE WEST COUNCIL HEART OF THE WEST COUNCIL HIGH COUNTRY COPIERS HSBC JENNIE W AHRER JENNIFER CUEVAS JODY ANDERSON JOHN C COLLINS PC JOHN FAY JUAN DURAN KYLE MEINTYRE KYM IGLESIAS KYM IGLESIAS LANGUAGE LINE SERVICES LEXIXNEX1S LITERACY PROJECT LYNN GOTTLIEB LYONS KATHLEEN LYONS, KATHLEEN MAGGIE SCANLON MCCOLLUM, PATRICIA MCCOLLUM, PATRICIA MOUNTAIN STATES EMPLOYERS COUNCIL INCORPORATED NOLA NICHOLSON NOLA NICHOLSON SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE PAYROLL 25 &26 REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SUPPLIES REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT 15 01/06/09 $250.00 $4,074.00 $763.94 $747.08 $356.36 $2,650.93 $291,961.92 $11,268.65 $247.21 $203.58 $20.40 $550.00 $2,583.75 $219.11 $200.00 $1,500.87 $242.56 $192.69 $44.46 $25.74 $58,637.45 $57,850.21 $58,463.62 $57,625.18 $4,787.46 $98.28 $3,235.95 $2,743.80 $675.00 $450.00 $298.03 $41.75 $210.60 $780.39 $485.14 $8,770.00 $76.05 $1,079.57 $55.87 $42.75 $11.70 $15.50 $126.50 $16,363.43 $525.00 $83.07 $72.54 $141.57 $554.58 $301.86 $127.00 $148.59 $112.91 OLD GYPSUM PRINTER PATRICIA D1RKSON PETTY CASH ACCOUNTING QUILL CORPORATION RITA WOODS SAMARITAN CENTER ROCKIES SARAH LEBLANC SARAH LEBLANC SCULL YS SERA SCHOOLS SERA ACADEMY LLC SHERRY A CALOlA LLC SHERRY A CALOlA, LLC STATE FORMS CENTER STATE FORMS PUBLICATIONS SUSPENSE FUND SUSPENSE FUND SUSPENSE FUND SUSPENSE FUND SWEEP STAKES UNLIMITED UNITED STATES LIFE INSURANCE VERIZON WIRELESS INCORPORATED VERIZON WIRELESS INCORPORATED VISA XEROX DECEMBER 2008 PAYROLL WRAP FUND BEHA VIORAL INTERVENTIONS KELLEY PAULSEN KELLY PAULSEN REGION SIX ALCOHOUDRUG ABUSE CORPORATION EV TRANSPORT A nON FUND ALPINE LUMBER AMERICAN SALES AT AND T BOBCAT OF THE ROCKIES CENTRAL DISTRIBUTING CENTRAL DISTRIBUTING CENTRAL DISTRIBUTING COLLETTS COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE COLORADO MOUNTAIN NEWS COLORADO PRINTING COMPANY COLUMBINE MARKET COpy COpy COPY PLUS CORPORATE EXPRESS CORPORATE EXPRESS DAVID JOHNSON DJENSEN DOCTORS ON CALL EAGLE V ALLEY PRINTING SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SUPPLIES REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE PAYROLL 25 &26 SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES 16 01/06/09 $1,191.46 $511.88 $842.00 $106.09 $172.96 $225.00 $372.03 $217.96 $525.60 $20.00 $2,075.92 $2,050.00 $24.25 $8.70 $14,979.14 $9,507.36 $9,273.64 $637.48 $80.00 $44.50 $579.36 $29.89 $3,676.52 $1,596.05 $329,769.51 $142,371.27 $30.00 $993.28 $382.43 $2,300.00 $3,705.71 $357.29 $3,064.95 $179.97 $1,500.00 $225.46 $186.30 $81.69 $1,682.95 $110.00 $1,437.90 $6,300.97 $42.91 $1,387.75 $113.36 $727.80 $95.19 $211.08 $1,459.98 $995.00 $645.00 EC GOVT/FINANCE EC TREASURER EC TREASURER EC TREASURER EC TREASURER FEDERAL EXPRESS GH DANIELS ASSOCIATES GROUND ENGINEERING CONSULTING INC HANDI HUT INCORPORATED HARRY TAYLOR HA VENERS TRUCKING TOWING HOLY CROSS ELECTRIC HOLY CROSS ELECTRIC IMS COLORADO INNOVATIVE ENERGY JANET FIELD JANET FIELD JEFF WETZEL KATHERYN BRONN KINETICO WATER PROS KKCH RADIO KSKE NRC BROADCASTING KTUN FM RADIO KZYR FM LSC TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANT MENDENEZ ARCHITECTS MYRON CORPORATION MYSLlK INCORPORATED NATIONAL BROADDCASTING INC NRC BROADCASTING INC NRC BROADCASTING INC PAPER WISE PUBLIC ACCESS 5 PUBLIC ACCESS 5 QUILL CORPORATION QWEST SOURCE GAS SUSPENSE FUND SUSPENSE FUND SUSPENSE FUND SUSPENSE FUND TCD INC TCD,INC TIM MINAROVICH TOWN TOWN OF AVON TOWN OF GYPSUM UNITED STATE LIFE INSURANCE US CLEANING PROFESSIONALS US CLEANING PROFESSIONALS VALLEY LUMBER VERIZON WIRELESS INCORPORATED VISA WASTE MANAGEMENT WESTERN SLOPE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SUPPLIES REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES 17 01/06/09 $269,381.17 $160,431.22 $146,183.53 $138,807.30 $10,064.48 $63.92 $1,733.25 $4,754.50 $11,415.00 $163.08 $200.00 $3,104.74 $2,803.03 $43.20 $2,772.00 $83.07 $69.03 $76.86 $10.01 $35.00 $500.00 $500.00 $500.00 $1,864.00 $2,633.47 $1,833.00 $461.72 $489.94 $340.00 $288.00 $225.00 $215.43 $250.00 $250.00 $156.96 $159.49 $2,624.32 $15,517.23 $14,680.12 $14,357.72 $200.00 $313,101.86 $119,585.80 $4.09 $1,800.00 $9,166.43 $437.35 $18.00 $2,988.34 $1,494.17 $93.99 $433.11 $2,562.04 $167.17 $19.10 WESTON SOLUTIONS INCORPORATED SERVICE $3,000.00 XCEL ENERGY SERVICE $317.24 XEROX SUPPLIES $361.24 XEROX SUPPLIES $98.00 XEROX CORPORATION SERVICE $572.63 YELLOW BOOK USA SERVICE $101.00 ZEE MEDICAL SUPPLIES $82.03 $1,287,449.93 DECEMBER 2008 PAYROLL PAYROLL 25 &26 $331,435.39 EV TRAILS FUND BOBCAT OF THE ROCKIES SERVICE $2,720.00 CORPORATE EXPRESS SUPPLIES $24.77 DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES INC SERVICE $2,673.42 DAVID EVANS ASSOCIATES INC SERVICE $3,314.40 EAGLE COUNTY TREASURER SERVICE $1,587.56 EAGLE COUNTY TREASURER SERVICE $1,597.97 EAGLE COUNTY TREASURER SERVICE $1,622.91 EC GOVT/FINANCE SERVICE $1,168.00 FEDERAL EXPRESS SERVICE $25.76 INTERMOUNTAIN ENGINEERING SERVICE $21,248.75 SEEDING THE ROCKIES INC SERVICE $1,995.00 SUSPENSE FUND SERVICE $4.75 SUSPENSE FUND SERVICE $226.49 SUSPENSE FUND SERVICE $247.18 SUSPENSE FUND SERVICE $261.60 TOWN OF V AIL SERVICE $5,000.00 V ALLEY LUMBER SUPPLIES $60.35 VISA SERVICE $200.79 WYLACO SUPPLIES $69.00 XEROX SUPPLIES $6.45 $44,055.15 DECEMBER 2008 PAYROLL PAYROLL 25 &26 $3,715.44 RFV TRANSPORTATION FUND ROARING FORK TRANSIT AGENCY SERVICE $78,029.63 $78,029.63 RFV TRAILS FUND ROARING FORK TRANSIT AGENCY SERVICE $8,272.73 $8,272.73 AIRPORT FUND A AND E TIRE AIRGAS INTERMOUNTAIN INCORPORATED SERVICE $1,980.00 AIRGAS INTERMOUNTAIN INCORPORATED SUPPLIES $468.00 ASPEN PEAK MAGAZINE LLC SERVICE $238,563.13 BALCOMB AND GREEN SERVICE $137.83 BERTHOD MOTORS SUPPLIES $2,295.78 C & H DISTRIBUTORS LLC SERVICE $58.74 CDOT SUPPLIES $128.96 CENTURYTEL SERVICE $6,000.00 CHRIS ANDERSON SERVICE $21.50 COLLETTS SUPPLIES $59.41 COLLETTS SERVICE $134.81 18 01/06/09 COLLETTS CORPORATE EXPRESS CORPORATE EXPRESS CORPORATE EXPRESS COWBOY CATERING DISH NETWORK EAGLE COUNTY TREASURER EAGLE COUNTY TREASURER EAGLE COUNTY TREASURER EC GOVT/FINANCE EC TREASURER GATEKEEPERS SYSTEMS INCORPORATED GRAND RIVER CONSTRUCTION HOLY CROSS ELECTRIC HOLY CROSS ELECTRIC HOLY CROSS ELECTRIC HSBC JVIA TION INC JVIA TION INC JVIATION, INC KATHY LAWN LAF ARGE CORP INC MACDONALD EQUIPMENT CO MARK LANG MCI COMMERCIAL SERVICE MCI COMMERCIAL SERVICE METEORLIX MOSHER, ERIC NETEORLOGIX NEXTEL NORTHWEST CHAPTER AAAE INC OLDCASTLE SW GROUP INC OLDCASTLE SW GROUP INC OROGRAPHIC ENTERPRISES PEACHTREE POWER SERVICE OF COLORADO PST ENTERPRISES INC PST ENTERPRISES INC PST ENTERPRISES INC PST ENTERPRISES INC ROCKY MOUNTAIN INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT SERVICEMASTER CLEAN V AIL SHERWIN INDUSTRIES INC SKYLINE MECHANICAL INCORPORATED SOURCE GAS SOURCEGAS STERLING P A YPHONES LLC STEWARD AND STEVENSON POWER STEWARD STEVENSON POWER STEW ART AND STEVENSON POWER SUMMITEX LLC SUMMITEX LLC SUSPENSE FUND SUSPENSE FUND SUSPENSE FUND SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICE SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE 19 01/06/09 $5,950.00 $2,629.61 $38.61 $1,374.17 $9,281.57 $17,715.20 $36.03 $270.06 $298.50 $64.99 $65,991.95 $45,199.76 $51,528.62 $48,321.40 $2,735.74 $2,113.50 $1,635.56 $1,898.74 $2,916.97 $29.05 $776.00 $86,377.78 $74,281.17 $215.56 $256.61 $294.41 $263.25 $14.27 $14.27 $192.60 $156.00 $0.51 $85.00 $1,511,936.00 $2,500.00 $550.00 $717.00 $244.51 $7.57 $32.24 $40.36 $345.79 $2,095.00 $355.00 $1,096.00 $1,269.37 $1,329.88E$215.00 $370.17 $452.41 $135.44 $87.62 $87.62 $269.25 $5,268.31 SUSPENSE FUND SERVICE $5,275.95 TOWN OF GYPSUM SERVICE $5,419.94 TRI COUNTY FIRE PROTECTION SERVICE $459.60 UNITED PARCEL SERVICE SUPPLIES $4,104.00 UNITED STATE LIFE INSURANCE SERVICE $25.62 US CUSTOMS BORDER PROTECTION SERVICE $22.00 US CUSTOMS BORDER PROTECTION SERVICE $68.92 US CUSTOMS BORDER PROTECTION SERVICE $379.03 V AIL ELECTRONICS SERVICE $75.00 V AIL ELECTRONICS SERVICE $407.00 V AIL ELECTRONICS SERVICE $2,387.47 V AIL HONEYW AGON SERVICE $512.18 V AIL V ALLEY JET CENTER SERVICE $103.00 V ALLEY LUMBER SUPPLIES $22.61 V ALLEY LUMBER SUPPLIES $79.53 V ALLEY LUMBER SUPPLIES $101.51 VISA SERVICE $2,519.61 WAGNER EQUIPMENT SERVICE $8.20 W AGNER EQUIPMENT COMPANY SUPPLIES $70.75 W AGNER EQUIPMENT COMPANY SUPPLIES $718.66 WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICE $323.83 WESTERN SLOPE SUPPLIES SERVICE $182.20 WYLACO SUPPLY SUPPLIES $152.47 WYLACO SUPPLY COMPANY SUPPLIES $4,825.39 XEROX CORPORATION SUPPLIES $536.63 XEROX CORPORATION SUPPLIES $123.60 $2,231,114.86 DECEMBER 2008 PAYROLL PAYROLL 25 &26 $112,058.63 800 MHZ FUND CENTURYTELOFEAGLE SERVICE $91.84 EBY CREEK RD MAINTENANCE SERVICE $1,500.00 HOLYCROSS SERVICE $25.00 HOLY CROSS SERVICE $5,507.60 MOTOROLA SERVICE $5,468.90 QWEST CORPORATION SERVICE $954.65 QWEST CORPORATION SERVICE $1,450.00 QWEST CORPORATION SERVICE $1,450.00 VERIZON WIRELESS INCORPORATED SERVICE $3,250.60 $19,698.59 HOUSING FUND FUNDING PARTNERS FOR HOUSING SOLUTIONS SERVICE $133,704.04 $133,704.00 HOUSING AUTHORITY FUND ALEX POTENTE SERVICE $404.83 BALCOMB AND GREEN REIMBURSEMENT $247.68 CARLE, MACKIE, POWER & ROSS LLP SERVICE $240.00 CENTURYTEL SERVICE $1,568.50 COLORADO COUNTIES INC SERVICE $135.61 CORPORATE EXPRESS SERVICE $235.00 CORPORATE EXPRESS SERVICE $298.45 EAGLE COUNTY TREASURER SERVICE $223.00 EAGLE COUNTY TREASURER SERVICE $25,733.95 20 01/06/09 EAGLE COUNTY TREASURER EAGLE COUNTY TREASURER GARFIELD COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY GOLDEN EAGLE SENIORS HABITAT FOR HUMANITY OF COLORADO JILL KLOSTERMAN KIM BELL WILLIAMS KIM BELL WILLIAMS LEONA PERKINS LEONA PERKINS SCHREINER & ASSOCIATES LLC SCHREINER & ASSOCIATES LLC SCHREINER & ASSOCIATES LLC SHERMAN HOWARD LLC SUSPENSE FUND SUSPENSE FUND SUSPENSE FUND SUSPENSE FUND UNITED STATES LIFE INSURANCE V AIL DAILY VISA WESTERN SLOPE SUPPLIES XEROX CORPORATION INC DECEMBER 2008 PAYROLL OPEN SPACE FUND EC GOVT FINANCE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND A G WASSENAAR INC AMERICAN ABATEMENT INC AMERICAN CIVIL CONSTRUCTORS BOULDER ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT INC CENTURYTEL COLORADO DEPT OF PUBLIC CONTRACT ONE INCORPORATED EDWARDS BUILDING CENTER EVERYTHING FOR OFFICES FLATIRONS GRAND JUNCTION PIPE ISC JOES WALLBOARD AND SUPPLY JOES WALLBOARD AND SUPPLY LEW AN MATRIX SYSTEMS INC MAVERICK FLOORING MENENDEZ ARCHITECTS MERRICK AND COMPANY NEOGOV NEW WORLD SYSTEMS TOWN OF V AIL TRANECOMPANY TYLER TECHNOLOGY SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES PAYROLL 25 &26 SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SUPPLIES SERVICE 21 01/06/09 $26,911.04 $26,201.54 $1,857.41 $950.00 $67,000.00 $265.83 $1,908.1 0 $370.68 $603.00 $394.51 $600.00 $265.83 $4,924.68 $51,377.77 $1,081.50 $657.30 $4,153.03 $4,823.81 $6,518.71 $11.00 $309.93 $745.33 $44.15 $231,062.17 $65,478.21 $28,696.49 $28,696.49 $7,747.40 $4,073.20 $9,965.25 $765.00 $10,158.40 $70.00 $65,925.02 $23.45 $2,461.33 $2,216.25 $438.00 $6,500.00 $12,494.50 $249.09 $53,000.00 $2,944.47 $6,466.50 $4,141.51 $193,372.00 $2,500.00 $3,820.00 $50,000.00 $1,870.50 $36,603.00 VAG INCORPORATED SERVICE $1,615.25 $479,420.12 LANDFILL FUND ACZ LABORATORIES SUPPLIES $525.00 AMERIGAS SERVICE $2,268.00 AMERIGAS SERVICE $1,050.00 BARNES DISTRIBUTING SERVICE $149.55 CABELA'S MARKETING BRAND MGT SERVICE $44.60 CAROLINA SOFTWARE SUPPLIES $1,249.11 CO DEPT PUBLIC HEALTH ENV WATER SERVICE $1,252.13 CORPORATE EXPRESS SUPPLIES $281.45 CORPORATE EXPRESS SUPPLIES $1,485.66 DJENSEN SUPPLIES $647.78 DOWN VALLE SEPTIC DRAIN SERVICE $2,347.10 DUANE L PENNEY INC SUPPLIES $6.45 DUANE L PENNEY, INC SUPPLIES $450.06 EAGLE COUNTY TREASURER SERVICE $2,741.06 EAGLE COUNTY TREASURER SERVICE $855.00 EAGLE COUNTY TREASURER SERVICE $2,677.50 EAGLE V ALLEY MEDICAL CENTER SERVICE $20,812.39 EC GOVT/FINANCE SERVICE $19,880.20 EC TREASURER SERVICE $19,729.01 GRAND JUNCTION PIPE SERVICE $90.00 GREAT AMERICAN LEASING SERVICE $147,289.60 HEPWORTH PAWLAK GEOTECHNI SERVICE $1,709.79 HOLYCROSS ELECTRIC SUPPLIES $150.00 HOLY CROSS ELECTRIC SERVICE $138.00 HSBC BUSINESS SOLUTIONS SERVICE $752.50 ICS CO LLC SERVICE $99.24 IDEAL FENCING CORPORATION SERVICE $361.76 INTERWEST SAFETY SUPPLY SUPPLIES $47.88 KRW CONSULTING SUPPLIES $690.73 LEGACY COMMUNICATIONS INC SUPPLIES $14,747.00 NORTHERN SAFETY CO SUPPLIES $390.06 NRC BROADCASTING INCORPORATED SERVICE $10,493.62 PETTY CASH ACCOUNTING SUPPLIES $199.34 SUSPENSE FUND SERVICE $1,350.00 SUSPENSE FUND SERVICE $500.00 SUSPENSE FUND SERVICE $173.50 SUSPENSE FUND SERVICE $3,080.59 US CLEANING PROFESSIONALS SERVICE $3,196.67 US CLEANING PROFESSIONALS SERVICE $3,239.67 UTE CITY LANDWORKS SERVICE $93.00 VISA SERVICE $514.10 WESTERN SLOPE BAR SERVICE $6.41 WYLACO SUPPLY COMPANY SUPPLIES $124.25 WYLACO SUPPLY COMPANY SUPPLIES $16.20 YARGER SERVICES LLC SUPPLIES $289.45 $268,195.41 DECEMBER 2008 PAYROLL PAYROLL 25 &26 $48,578.84 MOTOR POOL FUND A AND E TIRE SERVICE $105.00 A AND E TIRE INC SUPPLIES $3,213.26 22 01/06/09 A AND E TIRE INC A AND E TIRE INCORPORATED A-I BASE AIRGAS INTERMOUNTAIN ANDREW BERGSTRESER BURT FORD ON ARAPAHOE INC BURT CHEVROLET BURT CHEVROLET BURT CHEVROLET BURT CHEVROLET BURT CHEVROLET BURT DODGE CHRYSLER JEEP BURT DODGE CHRYSLER JEEP IN PARKER INCORPORATED BURT DODGE CHRYSLER JEEP PARKER INC BURT DODGE CHRYSLER JEEP PARKER INC BURT FORD ARAPAHOE INC CENTRAL DISTRIBUTING CENTURYTEL COLLETTS COLLETTS COLLETTS COLLETTS COLLETTS CORPORATE EXPRESS CUMMINS ROCKY MOUNTAIN DOCTORS ON CALL DRIVE TRAIN INDUSTRIES DRIVE TRAIN INDUSTRIES DRIVE TRAIN INDUSTRIES DRIVE TRAIN INDUSTRIES EAGLE COUNTY TREASURER EAGLE COUNTY TREASURER EAGLE COUNTY TREASURER EC TREASURER GILLIG GRAND JUNCTION PIPE GRAND JUNCTION PIPE GRAND JUNCTION PIPE HANSON EQUIPMENT HANSON EQUIPMENT HANSON EQUIPMENT HENSLEY BATTERY ELECTRONICS HENSLEY BATTERY ELECTRONICS HOLY CROSS HOLY CROSS INTERMOUNTAIN COACH LAWSON PRODUCTS LAWSON PRODUCTS LEGACY COMMUNICATIONS INCORPORATED LIGHTHOUSE INC M&M AUTO PARTS MAINTAINER CORP OF lOW A INC NOVUS AUTO GLASS OJ WATSON PAPER WISE SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICE SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICE SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICE SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICE SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES $3,980.61 $2,008.18 $1,526.36 $4,126.86 $462.32 $48.06 $43.00 $44.72 $769.35 $638.34 $543.98 $291.28 $80.77 $349.50 $161.25 $203.25 $41.62 $28.28 $210.93 $75.91 $24,428.39 $16,144.03 $26,966.17 $20,605.85 $10,516.84 $84.05 $66.90 $1,289.51 $1,004.23 $727.31 $632.16 $40,012.76 $32,921.11 $34,471.10 $2,906.71 $36.26 $13.55 $278.08 $271.47 $234.00 $154.50 $79.90 $2,069.51 $2,292.26 $198.28 $303.29 $205.27 $4,714.54 $51.88 $2,064.43 $115.93 $335.00 $752.44 $159.05 $2,319.54 23 01/06/09 PREMIER TIRE TERMINAL SUPPLIES $1,262.52 PREMIER TIRE TERMINAL SUPPLIES $749.68 PREMIER TIRE TERMINAL SUPPLIES $425.56 PREMIER TIRE TERMINAL SUPPLIES $3,090.87 PST ENTERPRISES SUPPLIES $235.70 SAFETY KLEEN SUPPLIES $2,526.00 SERCK SERVICE INC SUPPLIES $1,937.57 SOURCE GAS SERVICE $4,144.12 SUSPENSE FUND SERVICE $4,115.46 SUSPENSE FUND SERVICE $4,020.38 SUSPENSE FUND SERVICE $69.25 SUSPENSE FUND SUPPLIES $1,534.60 TIRE DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS SUPPLIES $760.56 TIRE DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS SERVICE $656.16 TOWN OF GYPSUM SERVICE $9.60 UNITED STATES WELDING SUPPLIES $28.10 UNITED STATES WELDING SERVICE $2,206.32 US CLEANING PROFESSIONALS SERVICE $1,103.16 US CLEANING PROFESSIONALS SUPPLIES $30.99 VALLEY LUMBER SERVICE $65.00 VISA SERVICE $71.50 VISTA AUTO GROUP OF SILVERTHORN SUPPLIES $139.43 W AGNER EQUIPMENT SUPPLIES $638.62 WAGNER EQUIPMENT COMPANY SUPPLIES $96.32 W AGNER EQUIPMENT COMPANY SUPPLIES $38.70 WAGNER EQUIPMENT COMPANY SERVICE $123.41 WASTE MANAGEMENT SUPPLIES $111.45 WESTERN SLOPE PAINT SUPPLIES $443.83 WESTERN SLOPE PAINT SUPPLIES $86.30 WESTERN SLOPE SUPPLIES SUPPLIES $337.40 WHITEHALLS ALPINE DISTRIBUTING SUPPLIES $581.36 WAGNER EQU IPMENT COMPANY SUPPLIES $35.38 WYLACO SUPPLY SUPPLIES $25.15 WYLACO SUPPLY CO SERVICE $100.68 $280,180.26 DECEMBER 2008 PAYROLL PAYROLL 25 &26 $80,634.88 INSURANCE RESERVE FUND ALPINE COLLISION SERVICE $6,288.50 CTSI VOLUNTEER INSURANCE REIMBURSEMENT $700.00 V AIL V ALLEY AUTO BODY SERVICE $3,513.84 $10,502.34 HEALTH INSURANCE FUND DENMAN GREY AND COMP ANY SERVICE $934.95 EAGLE COUNTY TREASURER SERVICE $65,077.05 LINCOLN NATIONAL LIFE INS CO SERVICE $5,350.18 MUTUAL OF OMAHA SERVICE $6,172.21 STERICYCLE SUPPLIES $3,450.00 SUN LIFE ASSURANCE CO SERVICE $8,383.20 $89,367.59 911 FUND AT&T SERVICE $11.04 24 01/06/09 CENTURYTEL CENTURYTEL EC GOVT/FINANCE INTRADO INCORPORATED LANGUAGE LINE SERVICE NOMAD TECHNOLOGIES NOMAD TECHNOLOGIES QWEST QWEST QWEST QWEST QWEST SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE $177.97 $178.33 $5,439.62 $1,374.88 $807.57 $850.00 $850.00 $35.07 $120.17 $4,132.37 $4,171.57 $45.96 $18,194.55 BILL PAYING PAYROLL TOTAL $12,269,731.45 $2,565,495.44 $14,835,226.89 Executive Session There was none. Community Service Grants Review Suzanne Vitale, Health & Human Services Recorded Consent Agenda Chairman Runyon stated the first item before the Board was the Consent Agenda as follows: A. Approval of bill paying for the week of January 5, 2009 (subject to review by the Finance Director) Finance Department Representative B. Approval of payroll for January 5, 2009 (subject to review by the Finance Director) Finance Department Representative C. 2009 Office Supply Bid Finance Department Representative D. Resolution 2009-001 Concerning Appointments to the Citizens Open Space Advisory Committee Kris Aoki, Community Development E. Consulting Agreement between Eagle County and Smith Advisors, Inc. for Human Resources Services County Attorney's Office Representative F. Contract between Eagle County and Motorola for support and maintenance services for Eagle County's 800 MHz radio system Barry Smith, Emergency Management 25 01/06/09 Chairman Runyon asked the Attorney's Office if there were any changes to the Consent Agenda. Bryan Treu, County Attorney stated that the recommendation for Item C was for Corporate Express, other than that, there were no changes or concerns with the consent agenda. Commissioner Fisher moved to approve the Consent Agenda, Items A-F. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Contract between Eagle County Housing & Development and Economic Council of Eagle County for marketing, database facilitation and policy services for The Valley Home Store Housing Department Representative Don Cohen and Kathy Chandler-Henry were present. Commissioner Fisher requested a description of the proposal. Mr. Cohen stated that the Economic Council along with the Housing Action Team began developing the Valley Home Store about a year ago. The county secured space at the Miller Ranch Community Center and it was the council's job to get the new business up and running. The Valley Home store would provide a data base product that would manage the deed-restricted programs in Eagle County. He believed the program would provide a high level of customer service with less personnel involved. Commissioner Menconi asked about the software used to develop the database. Mr. Cohen stated that there was no off the shelf software for a scoring system. There would be software to manage the physical properties and another to manage the people. Property management software does not provide everything needed. Commissioner Menconi wondered if there would be any collaboration between the council and the county IT Department. Mr. Cohen stated that there had not been any conversations initiated. He welcomed any input or direction from others. He spoke about the communication tools. He stated that the website was up and running. However, it had not been populated with any of the property data. They were also redesigning presentations for credit counseling and buyers classes. He stated that Kathy Chandler-Henry had done an excellent job in terms of the quarterly reports. Ms. Chandler-Henry stated that quarterly reports were available for the first three quarters of 2008. The reports provide data on building permits, sales tax, real estate sales and volume, demographics and employment and other interesting data pieces. She believed they had received some good data from local businesses. Commissioner Menconi asked about the site statistics model. Ms. Chandler-Henry stated that they had looked at the cost of development and tried to integrate that into the Eagle County 2010 sustainable communities' project. They are using it as a trial project with the Tree Farm in Basalt. The Town of Basalt has three projects on line that they would like to run through the site statistics model. Mr. Cohen stated that the council invested in the site statistics software several years ago. Mr. Potente stated that the site statistics model would provide numbers related to revenue, sales tax, costs, etc. Mr. Montag stated that the program is a model and they were still working on the details. It is a possible that the model might become a requirement with land development applications in the future. Mr. Potente stated that the information would provide a better idea of the cost and benefits of a project. Commissioner Menconi asked if the council had an opportunity to get examples of other models used in surrounding counties. Ms. Chandler-Henry stated the model had been in use for over a decade and was widely used on the Front Range areas. A benefit ofthe models was its understandable and very transparent. Mr. Cohen stated that he had a high level of confidence in the product. Chairman Runyon suggested running a completed project through the software to see how they would compare. Mr. Cohen stated that they had spent the last few years collecting information. He believed there were some trends that could infuse future policy. He stated that they were making an important change to the structure 26 01/06/09 of the Economic Council Organization. They would be transitioning to a 501(c) (3) status. This would increase their ability to attract grants and other funding opportunities. They are moving to a new Board of Directors and would be adding a couple new board members from the private sector. Mr. Potente stated that the Housing Authority and the Housing and Development department requested funding for the services that the Economic Council had proposed to provide. The most important services are the website, the database, and marketing. Commissioner Fisher asked about the Economic Council's shortfall in 2008. She wondered who had been tapped in the past and who needed to be tapped in the future. Mr. Cohen stated that none of the work could have happened without the support of the board and the county. However, additional grants came from the Town of Vail, Avon, Eagle, Gypsum, East West Partners, and Century Tel. Moving forward he expected other funding sources would be available. The funding status from Beaver Creek went away but they expect to continue talks with Vail Resorts. They expect to put together gatherings and broaden the financial landscape. He believed that between municipal contributions and corporate contributions, $75,000 was achievable. He stated that the fund raising part was an important aspect of his job description. Commissioner Fisher believed that the mctior employers in the community needed to become partners and the community needed to step up to the plate. She believed in the Economic Council and Valley Homes store and believed that it was an opportunity to be much better planners for the future. She believed it was money well spent but wanted to work diligently towards raising the needed funds. She wondered if the county would receive a $100,000 request annually. Mr. Potente stated that the goal was self-efficiency. He believed that the information being delivered would be beneficial to the private sector and in the long term and this would be something they'd embrace. Eventually, moving forward, any money raised from the private sector would be used to help facilitate the work being done by the Economic Council. He expected that the amount required by the county would be much less than $100,000. Commissioner Fisher believed it was important that the board receive a quarterly update. The shortfall came as a surprise to everyone in December. She would like to see a clear forecast by July I, 2009 as to where things are for the rest of the year. The county cannot continue to be the sole supporter when the beneficiaries are not participating. Chairman Runyon wondered if they had sought a product for the smaller employers. Mr. Cohen stated that many of the smaller businesses look at the chambers for their membership. He believed it was more important to target banks, mortgage bankers, title companies, real estate companies, etc. Chairman Runyon stated that there had been push back from the real estate community that the Home Store would be cutting into their business. Mr. Cohen stated that the Home Store would only manage the transactions of properties that are not part of the open market so there would be no competition. He believed that it was an irrational fear. Commissioner Fisher believed there was a misconception. Mr. Potente spoke about the benefits to employers, employees, and opportunities to engage the business community. Commissioner Menconi believed there was a weakness in the alignment and integration of the Economic Council and the Home Store with the Sustainable Community Initiative, Communication Department, Graphic Design, and IT Department. There seems to be a role in responsibility that is not being delegated. Mr. Cohen stated that they were entrepreneurial in the way they're employed. Anytime they could use county creativity or technology, they would like to however, they would like to be market responsive and move swiftly. Commissioner Menconi stated that because the council has been integrated into Housing, he would prefer working outward. He wondered how a sustainable community's index could be created without job housing ratio data. He also did not believe the council should be selecting its board. If the county is the big funder of the nonprofit, then the board should have the oversight of selecting the board. Mr. Cohen stated that the bi-Iaws they are adopting are very specific about prescribing representatives from the county and the towns. Commissioner Menconi didn't believe there was a strategic plan as an Economic Council that was integrated with the Sustainable Community's Index. He also believed that the shaping the future classes needed to be kept fresh and new. He stated that he would like Mr. Cohen to become accredited with the International Economic Development Council so that the county has the credibility of networking what's going on 27 01/06/09 internationally. He was in favor of the proposal. However, he would like to take it to the next level and it needed to be in alignment with county government. Commissioner Fisher moved to approve the Contract between Eagle County Housing & Development and Economic Council of Eagle County for marketing, database facilitation, and policy services for The Valley Home Store as outlined in the contract that was presented by staff. Chairman Runyon seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Public Input Chairman Runyon opened and closed public comment, as there was none. Other Community Service Grants continued Suzanne Vitale, Health & Human Services Recorded Abatement Hearings Mr. Treu stated that the county had received requests from two petitioners for a 30-day continuance. The petitioner's were, Vail Plaza Development R056306 and Jodi Sullivan, c/o Duff & Phelps, LLC R008874. He suggested that the board continue the two files until February 17, 2009 at 1:30. Commissioner Fisher moved to continue the abatement hearings for Vail Plaza Development - R056306 and Jodi Sullivan, c/o Duff & Phelps, LLC - R008874 until February 17,2009 at I :30 p.m. Commissioner Runyon seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners, the vote was declared unammous. Mr. Treu stated that the remaining items were appealed by Mr. Ritchie in 2008 and resulted in adjustments. The recommendation from the Assessors Office was for an adjustment and the agent for the petitioner was satisfied with those recommendations. Petitioner Schedule No. Vail Plaza Development Riverside Plaza Lot B, LLC, c/o Robert D. Ritchie Riverside Plaza Lot B, LLC, c/o Robert D. Ritchie Riverside Plaza Lot B, LLC, c/o Robert D. Ritchie Riverside Plaza Lot B, LLC, c/o Robert D. Ritchie Riverside Plaza Lot B, LLC, c/o Robert D. Ritchie Jodi Sullivan, c/o Duff & Phelps, LLC R056306 R055602 R059363 R059362 R051952 R055597 R008874 Commissioner Fisher moved that the Petitions for Abatement/Refund of Taxes for the following individuals and Schedule Numbers be approved for the tax years, in the amounts, and for the reasons as set forth in the Assessor's recommendation sheets, such recommendations being incorporated into this hearing by reference: Riverside Plaza Lot B, LLC, c/o Robert D. Ritchie R055602 28 01/06/09 Riverside Plaza Lot B, LLC, c/o Robert D. Ritchie Riverside Plaza Lot B, LLC, c/o Robert D. Ritchie Riverside Plaza Lot B, LLC, c/o Robert D. Ritchie Riverside Plaza Lot B, LLC, c/o Robert D. Ritchie R059363 R059362 R051952 R055597 Commissioner Runyon seconded the motion. Of the two voting commissioners, the vote was declared unammous. County Branding Campaign Lisa Mac, Gogo Creative Recorded Planning Files PDS-00057 - Coleman Ranch Bob Narracci, Planning Department NOTE: Table from 06/17/08, 07/01108, 09/09/08, 09/16/08 & 12/9/08 ACTION: The purpose of this Planned Unit Development Sketch Plan application is to allow the subject 24 acre property to be subdivided into an three lot subdivision. The three lots are no less than 3-acres each and are all proposed on the Eagle County portion of the site. That portion of the property located within Eagle County is approximately 18 acres in area. The balance six acres, located in Pitkin County, will remain as 'open space'. LOCATION: 2701 Emma Road: On the north side of Emma Road; east of Hooks Spur Lane. The property is located in both Eagle and Pitkin Counties. OWNER: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: Coleman Brothers Construction, LLC Coleman Brothers Construction, LLC Stan Clauson Associates, Inc. / Patrick Rawley 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION SUMMARY OF REQUEST: As revised, this PUD Sketch Plan proposal is to subdivide a 24.16 acre, 'Resource' zoned parcel into three (3) single-family residential lots of 3-acres each and 15-acres of Common Private Open Space. Eighteen (18) acres of the subject property lie within Eagle County and the balance six (6) acres in Pitkin County. Each of the proposed lots would be served by individual wells and sewage disposal systems. Access to the subject property is via Emma Road. A. SITE DATA: 29 01/06/09 South: Pitkin County 'AFR 10' East: Residential/Agricultural 'R' Residential/Agricultural 'R' (Sipido Subdivision) West: Residential (Dreager Subdivision) 'RR' Residential (Crown Mountain 'RR' Estates Subdivision) West: Residential/Agricultural 'AL' (Rather Subdivision) i Existing Zoning: Resource Proposed Zoning: PUD- Planned Unit Development Current Development: Single family residence and agriculture. Site Conditions: Relatively level pastureland with one single-family residence. Total Land Area: Acres: (24 acres) 18 acres in Square feet: 784,080 sq. ft. Eagle County 9 acres in Eagle County Total Open Space Acres: and 6 acres in Pitkin Percentage: 62% County Water: Public: Individual Well Private: N/A Sewer: Public: Individual Septic Private: N/A Access: Via Emma Road B. cHRONOLOGYIBAcKGROUND: June 8, 2007: February 12, 2008: April 29, 2008: June 5, 2008: June 17, 2008: July 1, 2008: September 16, 2008: October 16, 2008: November 20, 2008: Initial discussion with representative from Stan Clauson Associates, Inc. Initial application received by Eagle County. Formal application referral process initiated. RFVRPC Hearing #1 BoCC Tabled to July 1, 2008 BoCC Hearing #1 BoCC Hearing #2, remanded back to RFVRPC RFVRPC Hearing #2 RFVRPC Hearing #3 C. PLANNING COMMISSION DELIBERATION SUMMARY & MOTION: On June 5, 2008, the Roaring Fork Valley Regional Planning recommended denial of the proposed development in a vote of 5 to 1. During their deliberations the following comments were made: · The proposed lot configuration should be clustered; · Need a compelling reason to approve; what is the public benefit of the proposed development to Eagle County citizens? · The property owner should benefit but so should the public. Greater creativity is necessary; perhaps homes with agricultural appearance, ADD's should be attached to the primary residence and perhaps share a common entryway - better control over who rents the ADD's; · The existing 'Resource' zoning at one dwelling unit per 35 acres is appropriate. Will not support small lots. Eagle County takes the brunt of development repeatedly where the property is split between Eagle and Pitkin Counties; · Landowners are not entitled to develop beyond existing allowances. The property can be a viable small farm. Homes located on agricultural properties are typically situated close to the road (Emma Road) leaving the balance of the property uninterrupted for agricultural activities. 30 01/06/09 · The one planning commissioner who did not support the motion to deny offered the following perspective: The subject property is not agricultural property it is rural and compatible with existing development in the vicinity and suggested that a compromise of 4 lots with the access road oriented to the side of the property versus down the middle so as to not interrupt the 6 acre open space in Pitkin County. Also suggested that common open space should be retained along the sides of the property to provide clean connection to the Rio Grande Trail corridor adjacent to the north line of the subject property. Further, believes that Resident Occupied accessory dwelling units located over garages or attached to the primary residence is more appropriate than fees-in-lieu of providing affordable housing. This planning commissioner requested that the application be tabled to allow the applicant opportunity to revise the proposal. The Board of County Commissioners conducted the first hearing on the Coleman Ranch PUD Sketch Plan proposal on July 1, 2008 over in EI Jebel. The following observations and direction were provided by the Board: Commissioner Menconi - Cannot support the application in its (then) current form; Commissioner Fisher - The applicant must provide greater justification. The proposal is purely speculative and do not see value in ruining the land use buffer that the subject property currently provides. Commissioner Runvon - Agrees with Am and Sara. The Emma Character is a huge asset to everyone; not just those who live here. This would just open the flood gates. Eight units not bad but is just the beginning. Emma is unique; we have a mandate to protect it. Commissioner Runyon honors Pitkin County and Town of Basalt letters of opposition. Prior to tabling the application to September 16, 2008, the Board directed the applicant to work closely with the Emma Caucus and surrounding concerned neighbors to reach consensus. At the second Board of County Commissioner hearing on September 16, 2008, the applicant unveiled a new three lot subdivision configuration. The Board acknowledged that the revised plan appears to be an improvement over the initial proposal and expressed concern that the applicant did not meet directly with the most impacted adjacent property owners residing in Eagle County in an effort to reach consensus. The Board concluded their hearing by remanding the application back to the Roaring Fork Valley Regional Planning Commission due to the substantial change proposed since the initial June 51\ 2008 Planning Commission hearing. On October 16, 2008, the Roaring Fork Valley Regional Planning Commission conducted the first hearing on the revised 3-lot subdivision proposal and offered the following comments: . Questioned whether or not the 'Resource' zone district designation on the subject property is still appropriate given changes in the Emma vicinity since the inception of zoning in Eagle County; A majority of the site needs to be preserved in a conservation easement from the grade break in the middle of the property toward Emma Road with 2 or 3 lots situated toward the back of the site; The applicant and staff were directed to provide updated application materials, staff report, maps, etc.; Very worried about the precedent that would be set by approving this request; Get rid of the proposed 'roundabout'; Questioned the public trail access proposed; 75 foot side and rear setbacks are unacceptable; The building envelopes must be tightened-up; Do not provide any new information at the next hearing; Need to explore thoughtful solutions; There are possibly some benefits associated with the revised proposal; The neighbors clearly do not feel that a public benefit will arise from the proposed development; The application needs to be further developed. . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 01/06/09 At the conclusion of the hearing, the RFVRPC tabled the application to November 20th, 2008. At the November 20,2008 RFVRPC hearing, the RFVRPC, in a vote of3:1, recommended denial of the proposed three lot subdivision. The following deliberation was discussed prior to voting: · All neighbors in the Emma vicinity need to step-up to assist in the master planning process. Past mistakes cannot continue. Mr. Coleman is not entitled to up zoning. Motion to deny. · Conservation easements are offsets to future development not an offset to development that is currently not allowed. · Concern about raised leach fields due to high ground water table. · The property should remain zoned 'Resource'. · The one vote against the motion indicated that they were in favor of this particular application because it includes agricultural uses, open space, trail access, etc. The proposed cluster of homes will not detract from the Emma vicinity. · The subject property is already non-conforming in terms of lot size. · Over $400,000 would be applied to Housing mitigation. · 50% to 62% open space, screening and landscaping, trail access. · Home size should be limited to 3,000 square feet. · No accessory dwelling units. · Provide trail access sign. · Affordable Housing Mitigation should be used in the Roaring Fork Valley. · Landscape buffer should be installed within one year. · Trail easement adjacent to Emma Road. · Conservation Easement to protect open space should be required. · Change the term 'activity envelope' to 'building envelope'. . 2. ST AFF REPORT A. NECESSARY FINDINGS: Section Purpose: The purpose of sketch plan review is for the applicant, the County and the public to evaluate and discuss the basic concepts for development of the proposed PUD, and to consider whether development of the property as a PUD will result in a significant improvement over its development as a conventional subdivision. It is the time when determination should be made as to whether the proposed PUD complies with the purpose and intent of these Regulations and with the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan and is generally compatible with surrounding land uses. It is also the opportunity to reach general agreement on such issues as the appropriate range of units and commercial space for development; the types of use, dimensional limitations and other variations that may be considered; the general locations intended for development and the areas planned to remain undeveloped; the general alignments for access; and whether water supply and sewage disposal will be provided via on-site systems or through connection to public systems. The outcome of sketch plan review should be an identification of issues and concerns the applicant must address if the project is ultimately to receive approval for a Preliminary Plan for PUD from the County. Where the PUD proposes activities that constitute a subdivision, the applications for Sketch Plan and Preliminary Plan for PUD shall also be required to meet the requirements of Section 5-280, Subdivision, regarding procedures for Sketch Plan and Preliminary Plan for Subdivision, respectively. 32 01/06/09 Standards: Section 5-240.F.3.e., Standards; Section 5-280.B.3.e Standards and Section 5- 230.D Standards is used to evaluate a Sketch & Preliminary Plan for PUD (with subdivision) application. All standards that would be met at a Preliminary Plan level must addressed by the application materials. It must therefore be determined, based on submitted evidence, whether applicable standards have been met at this stage. If the information supplied is found to be sufficiently vague or if it is doubtful that the proposal would be able to meet a specific Standard, then a negative finding must be made for that Standard. STANDARD: Unified ownership or control. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (1)] - The title to all land that is part of a PUD shall be owned or controlled by one (1) person. A person shall be considered to control all lands in the PUD either through ownership or by written consent of all owners of the land that they will be subject to the conditions and standards of the PUD. The subject property is owned by the Coleman Brothers Construction, LLC. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (2)] - The uses that may be developed in the PUD shall be those uses that are designated as uses that are allowed, allowed as a special use or allowed as a limited use in Table 3-300, "Residential, Agricultural and Resource Zone Districts Use Schedule", or Table 3-320, "Commercial and Industrial Zone Districts Use Schedule", for the zone district designation in effectfor the property at the time of the application for PUD. Variations of these use designations may only be authorized ursuant to Section 5-240 F.3. ., Variations Authorized. Pennitted ill Und~rlyjng ~ning'? Nature of Variation Residential: PrimaIY Single Family Dwellings with AccessOl)' Dwelling Units (ADU) X X X Residential as uses by right; only one (I) single family/primaIY unit is permitted on a nonconforming, Resource-zoned property. One ADU is potentially allowable via Limited Review. This application proposes primary residential development with Accessory Dwelling Units. If the Board of County Commissioners approves this application, they will also have granted the necessary variations to the proposed land uses. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Dimensional Limitations. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (3)] - The dimensional limitations that shall apply to the PUD shall be those specified in Table 3-340, "Schedule of Dimensional Limitations"Jor the zone district designation in effect for the property at the time of the application for PUD. Variations of these dimensional limitations may only be authorized pursuant to Section 5-240 F.3.j, Variations Authorized. provided variations shall leave adequate distance between buildings for necessary access and fire protection, and ensure proper ventilation, light, air and snowmelt between buildings. Intent ofPOOlUse ofPOO Zollinl-!: No N ecessaIY for integration of mixed uses; 33 01/06/09 No No Yes No No No 1- This property has been utilized for residential and agricultural purposes historically. The site consists of approximately 24-acres and is bisected by the Eagle County / Pitkin County line. 18 acres are located within Eagle County and the remainder 6 acres are located within Pitkin County. All residential development is proposed to occur within the Eagle County portion of the property. The 6 acres in Pitkin County is to remain as private 'open space '. Section 5-240.F.3.f., Variations Authorized, provides that in order for a variation to be granted, it must be found that the granting of the variation is necessary for the purpose to be achieved, and that the Sketch Plan for PUD achieves one or more of the following purposes: PUD Achievement(s): Yes Obtains (applicant's) desired design qualities; No A voids environmental resources and natural resources; No Provides incentives for water augmentation; No Provides incentives for trails; No Provides incentives for affordable housing; No Provides incentives for public facilities. Dimensional Limitation ECLUR Justification (Proposed) Requirement Setbacks: Ft Front Per Building Envelope 25' Proposed is greater than ECLUR Requirement Rear Per Building Envelope; 12.5' or 12 ht of Proposed is greater than ECLUR Requirement > 150 feet tallest building Side Per Building Envelope; 12.5' or 12 ht of Proposed is greater than ECLUR Requirement >150 feet tallest building Minimum of75' - 50' with Stream NA FONSI- or 100 NA year floodplain, whichever is greater ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Off-Street Parking and Loading. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (4)] - Off-street parking and loading provided in the PUD shall comply with the standards of Article 4, Division 1, Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards. A reduction in these standards may be authorized where the applicant demonstrates that: (a) Shared Parking. Because of shared parking arrangements among uses within the PUD that do not require peak parking for those uses to occur at the same time, the parking needs of residents, guests and employees of the project will be met; or (b) Actual Needs. The actual needs of the project's residents, guests and employees will be less than those set by Article 4, Division 1, Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards. The applicant may commit to provide specialized transportation services for these persons (such as vans, subsidized bus passes, or similar services) as a means of complying with this standard. 34 01/06/09 Proposed Uses '" 0Il~ '88- ie ~~ ..... o Residential Minimum 2 car garage per residence; guest parking spaces in driveways; no on street arking. '" 0Il~ '" .- ... ::s ~c:T ~~ .....'" o 8 .t\l 00., ZVl ~'3 o '" 4_ 0 "'0., a e ::r:~ .~(I) o 0 o .t\l o 0., ZVl 3 spaces per dwelling unit EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS '" OIl 0 l::: 0 __ .C::S 'i~ .3clS 'S ~'S o :n c:T Z::2~ C'-. '" '" OIl ~ o .S 0 ~ ~ g. r55~~ Yes No ic-. -'" ~ 0 gft:: .- 8- ~g. ~Vl Yes No x x STANDARD: Landscaping. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (5)] - Landscaping provided in the PUD shall comply with the standards of Article 4, Division 2, Landscavinf! and Illumination Standards. Variations from these standards may be authorized where the applicant demonstrates that the proposed landscaping provides sufficient buffering of uses from each other (both within the PUD and between the PUD and surrounding uses) to minimize noise, glare and other adverse impacts, creates attractive streetscapes and parking areas and is consistent with the character of the area. Type of ;S .~ ~ ~ '" Develo ment: t$ a 0 Oll '" --...00 0 0 ~ l::: :> ~ .... .'S ..9 OIl E- gf 0 Q.,.t= .S ..... ;> 8'" 0 .~ 0 o l::: t; ~ l::: u u8 'x 0 0 0 OIl W 00 Z fA .~ Vl S";l e '" .S OJ .S d a .2: i 0 ~ 0 _0 :::E ~ .d ....1 ....:l ....1 ~....1 Vl Vl XI X X X2 X3 X Is Not Applkable Comments/Description: r.n g 'tJ ~ .0 o '" 5 IX! o g- o .(jfJ '" i ....1 ~ o .S ~ :€:;c ~.bn ~.s .~~ ~~ ",t$ i~ ....1Vl '" a 0 o 5 i :15 ~.~ .5:::E X X I - Exceeds quantity requirements. X2 - ECLUR's recommend low water consumptive xeric landscape materials. The proposed plant pallet is not low water consumptive. X3 - Newly introduced landscaping will be confined within each residential building envelope plus perimeter landscaping on sides and rear of site as well as trees along private driveway. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS 35 01/06/09 STANDARD: Signs. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (6)] - The sign standards applicable to the PUD shall be as specified in Article 4, Division 3, Sign Regulations, unless, as provided in Section 4-340 D., Signs Allowed in a Planned Unit Develovment (PUD), the applicant submits a comprehensive sign plan for the PUD that is determined to be suitable for the PUD and provides the minimum sign area necessary to direct users to and within the PUD. Comprehensive Sign Plan Provided? Only one entry sign and individual lot address signs are allowed. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Adequate Facilities. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (7)] - The applicant shall demonstrate that the development proposed in the (Sketch) Preliminary Plan for PUD will be provided adequate facilities for potable water supply, sewage disposal, solid waste disposal, electrical supply, fire protection and roads and will be conveniently located in relation to schools, police and fire protection, and emergency medical services. ... = 0 0 't;j 0 ~ - ::; ~"a B 0 ogj '0 o >. ::; '" .- >. ... ji ~o '" 0 tsc.. t:l.. '" ~ ~ ._ P.. e a;l - '" 2g. o :::l (IJ .- 0'- li: ~ t:l..oo ooCl ooCl ~oo Exceeds ECLUR Requirements Satisfies ECLUR Requirements X XI X2 X Not ApplicablelNo ECLUR X4 Requirements Does Not Satisfy ECLUR X3 Re uirements DeviationIVIS Requested In proximity to schools, police & fire protection, & emergency medical services No X I - The total number or group of wastewater systems serving this subdivision (16 dwelling units) exceeds 10 Single Family Equivalents and may be subject to 1041 review. Please reference the attached memorandum dated May 20, 2008 from the Department of Environmental Health. X2 - The development will comply with the ECLUR's by providing a central wildlife proofrefuse station. X3 - The proposal for three lots means that the access is considered to be a driveway and not a road. As such, at the time of building permit issuance for each of the three home sites, the building permit applicant will be required to satisfy all Basalt & Rural Fire Protection District requirements for access, vehicle turn around areas. The application still does not address ad water supply for firefighting purposes. X4 - The proposed access is a driveway and not a road. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS 36 01/06/09 STANDARD: Improvements. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (8)] - The improvement standards applicable to the development shall be as specified in Article 4, Division 6, Improvements Standards. Provided, however, the development may deviate from the County's road standards, so the development achieves greater efficiency of infrastructure design and installation through clustered or compact forms of development or achieves greater sensitivity to environmental impacts, when the following minimum design principles are followed: (a) Safe, Efficient Access. The circulation system is designed to provide safe, convenient access to all areas of the proposed development using the minimum practical roadway length. Access shall be by a public right-of-way, private vehicular or pedestrian way or a commonly owned easement. No roadway alignment, either horizontal or vertical, shall be allowed that compromises one (1) or more of the minimum design standards of the American Association of State Highway Officials (AASHTO) for that functional classification of roadway. (b) Internal Pathways. Internal pathways shall be provided to form a logical, safe and convenient system for pedestrian access to dwelling units and common areas, with appropriate linkages ofJ. site. (c) Emergency Vehicles. Roadways shall be designed to permit access by emergency vehicles to all lots or units. An access easement shall be granted for emergency vehicles and utility vehicles, as applicable, to use private roadways in the development for the purpose of providing emergency services and for installation, maintenance and repair of utilities. (d) Principal Access Points. Principal vehicular access points shall be designed to provide for smooth traffic flow, minimizing hazards to vehicular, pedestrian or bicycle traffic. Where a PUD abuts a major collector, arterial road or highway, direct access to such road or highway from individual lots, units or buildings shall not be permitted. Minor roads within the PUD shall not be directly connected with roads outside of the PUD, unless the County determines such connections are necessary to maintain the County's road network. (e) Snow Storage. Adequate areas shall be provided to store snow removed from the internal street k dfi if- ~ networ an rom qr -street par ng areas. Efficient Internal EW~ericy Principal Snow Storage Access Pathways VehiCles Access Pts Exceeds ECLUR Requirements Satisfies ECLUR Requiremeqj:s X 1 X2 X3 X4 X Does Not Satisfy ECLlJR X4 Requirement Not Applicable/No ECLUR RequireIll~nt l)eViatiorilVIS. Requ.ested XI - The proposed access is a driveway and will be required to meet all requirements of the Basalt & Rural FPD at the time of building permit issuance. X2 - Access to the adjacent bicycle path must be clearly delineated as a pedestrian / bicycle path only. Proper motorized vehicle deterrent methods shall be implemented. X3 - The proposal for three lots means that the access is considered to be a driveway and not a road. As such, at the time of building permit issuance for each of the three home sites, the building permit applicant will be required to satisfy all Basalt & Rural Fire Protection District requirements for access, vehicle turn around areas. The application still does not address a water supply for fire fighting purposes. X4 - Dual points of ingress / egress are required per the ECLUR's for all new subdivisions. The proposed subdivision will be served by a private driveway. The Board of County Commissioners will need to grant a variation from the dual access requirement. D EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS 37 01/06/09 ~ MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Compatibility with Surrounding Land Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (9)] - The development proposed for the PUD shall be compatible with the character of surrounding land uses. Potential Compatibility Surrounding Land Uses I Zoning Issues Yes No North: Fonner Railroad 'R' Vacant Undeveloped 'R' X R.O.W./Regional Path South: Pitkin County 'AFR 10' Xl East: Residential/Agricultural 'R' Residential/Agricultural 'R' X2 X2 (Sipido Subdivision) Residential Residential (Crown West: (Dreager Subdivision) 'RR' Mountain Estates 'R' X3 Subdivision) West: Residential/Agricultural 'AL' X4 (Rather Subdivision) XI - Per the attached correspondence from the Pitkin County Community Development Department dated May 16, 2008: "The Pitkin County Community Development Department has serious concerns about the appropriateness of the Coleman application for an eight lot subdivision in the 'Sinclair' property in Emma. The proposal is incompatible with the prevailing development pattern in Emma and with all the efforts that Pitkin County has made and continues to make to preserve the rural character of the area. There are some historical subdivision s in the area with smaller lots, but they were established before zoning in Pitkin County. The Emma area has been zoned with a minimum lot size of 1 0 acres since 1973. This proposed development, though in Eagle County, will have its only access in Pitkin County on Pitkin's Emma Road. For all intents and purposes the development would function as if it were in Pitkin County. This proposal constitutes a 'suburban', not 'rural', development pattern at this time, in this configuration, would directly conflict with the Emma neighborhood's and Pitkin County's goals for the area. Pitkin County and the Pitkin County Open Space and Trails Department have invested millions of dollars to preserve the rural character of Emma through land purchases and conservation easement purchases on the Clark property, the Fender property, the Grange property, and the Thomas property ". Pitkin County has not commented on the current 3-10t proposal. The Town of Basalt response dated October 16, 2008 notes that the proposal is much improved over the initial effort. The Town does recommend that ifthree lots are to be approved that the maximum FAR that should be allowed on each lot is 3,000 square feet. X2 - The Sipido Subdivision was approved by the Eagle County Board of County Commissioners on February 14, 1978. The subdivision consists of one 4-acre lot and one 2-acre lot. This approval occurred almost fourteen years prior to the creation and adoption of the first Mid Valley Community Master Plan (December 19, 1991). Said Plan emphasizes low density development south of the Roaring Fork River. The Plan defines Low Density as I dwelling unit per 14 to 35 acres. If all Master Plan goals and policies are satisfied then a limited number of one or two acre lots may be allowed. Also adjacent to the east of the subject property is a 7.35 acre unplatted residential/agricultural parcel. X3 - The Dreager Subdivision was approved by the Eagle County Board of County Commissioners on February 22, 1978. The subdivision consists of five lots ranging in size from 1.8 acres to 2 acres. 38 01/06/09 The Crown Mountain Estates Subdivision consists of six lots ranging in size from 2 acres to 3.59 acres. Again, these subdivisions were both approved many years prior to the creation and adoption of the first Mid Valley Community Master Plan. X4 - The Rather Subdivision was approved by the Eagle County Board of County Commissioners on March 18, 2003. The subdivision consists of two lots in Eagle County (5.978 acres and 6.706 acres) and one 13.833 acre lot in Pitkin County. In 2003, both the Roaring Fork Valley Regional Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners found the proposed subdivision to be consistent with the spirit and intent of the Mid Valley Community Master Plan, given the Agricultural Limited zoning, to preserve the active agricultural character of the immediate vicinity - including the Coleman Ranch property. The Rather Subdivision adjacent to the west of the subject property was the most recent land use approval to occur on the east side of Hooks Spur Road and it was intended to establish a transition in development density from the larger acreage lands located west of Hooks Spur Road. That portion of the Rather Subdivision located within Eagle County works out to a net density of one dwelling unit per 6.342 acres. Applying this same density to the Coleman Ranch works out to 2.84 dwelling units on the 18 acre portion of the property located within Eagle County. Since it is not possible to construct 0.84 dwelling units, the net density is rounded down to a total of two primary residences on the 18 acre portion of the site. This Coleman Ranch PUD Sketch Plan proposal for three lots of three acres each on 18 acres is nevertheless generally compatible with existing and allowable land use in all directions from the subject property. The proposed development is comparable to the Sipido, Dreager and Crown Mountain Estates subdivisions; each of which comprises similar development densities as that which is proposed. The three lot subdivision proposes to maintain agricultural uses-by-right which will further enhance compatibility of the proposed development with adjacent land uses. Further, for the purposes of this PUD Sketch Plan evaluation; the 6 acre portion of the subject property located within Pitkin County is currently non-conforming in terms of the Pitkin County 'AFR 10' 10 acre zoning and should not be included in density calculations for development proposed to occur in Eagle County. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Consistency with Comprehensive Plan. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (10)] - The PUD shall be consistent with the Master Plan, including, but not limited to, the Future Land Use Map (FLUM). The consideration of the relevant master plans during sketch plan review is on a broad conceptual level, i. e, how a proposal compares to basic planning principles. As a development proposal moves from sketch plan to preliminary plan review, its conformance or lack thereof to aspects of the master plans may not necessarily remain static. EAGLE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN j '3 G) 5 ~ r..> '" '" FLUM "s G) 8 E 5 .i::l ~ E Dtl~igllation 0 .... ::s 5 .g I:: G) 0 ~ 0 <<i ~ 0 <t 'S '" :-:=Vl ~ r..> ~ ~ ~.~ ~ ::s 0 >1.l 0 Exceeds Recommendations 39 01/06/09 Incorporates Majority of X X X X Recommendations Does not Satisfy Majority of X X X X X Recommendations Not Applicable - Below are the Recommended Strategies to accomplish each of the stated Comprehensive Plan Policies: X1- Development . "Ensure that all plans for development recognize the need to preserve the natural beauty and environmental integrity of Eagle County". The proposed 3 lot subdivision would incrementally degrade the natural beauty and environmental integrity in this vicinity of Eagle County. · "Work to identifY and preserve quality of life characteristics like outstanding recreational facilities, open space, clean air and water, uncrowded roads, quiet neighborhoods, unique cultural events and quality services". The proposed development will alter the current quality of life characteristics present in the Emma vicinity by increasing and promoting suburban-like development. . "Incorporate population and job growth data compiled by the State Demographer into development decisions and long range planning objectives". The Mid-Valley Community Master Plan is currently in the process of being updated wherein; the most current population and job growth data available will be incorporated into long range planning objectives. With regard to this proposal, no supporting demographic data was provided with the application. . "Promote compact, mixed-use development within or adjacent to existing community centers". The proposed development is neither compact nor mixed-use nor is it adjacent to an existing community center. . "Ensure that all plans for development recognize the need to improve social equity". Affordable local resident housing will not result from the proposed development although a fee-in-lieu is proposed to mitigate the housing impact. . "Ensure that all plans for development recognize the need to maintain a healthy economy". The application states that, "The Town of Basalt will have a significant relationship with the subject site, as future residents of the property contribute sales tax revenue to Basalt's economy to a greater extent than to Pitkin County or Eagle County", the application further asserts that, "The proposed project is for residential development. Taxes collected as part of sale of the eight individual lots will create revenue for the County". Information regarding costs to Eagle County due to the development, such as law enforcement and road maintenance was not provided. . "Intersperse parks and properly scaled public spaces within and throughout areas of higher-density development". This finding is not applicable. . "Consistently apply and enforce Eagle County Land Use Regulation development standards". This is the purpose of this PUD Sketch Plan evaluation process. . "Analyze development applicationsfor conformance to the County's Future Land Use Map". The Eagle County Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map defers to the Mid Valley Community Master Plan, which identifies the subject property as appropriate for low density residential development. "Continue to allow variations from underlying zoning standards to be obtained through a Planned Unit Development but require clustering within the PUD to the benefit of the surrounding community". The PUD process is intended to facilitate flexibility in development planning; the revised 3-lot application does meet the intent of a clustered subdivision by preserving a majority of the site as commonly owned private open space. 40 01/06/09 . . .. ,1~~:8. Not an acceptable Cluster Layout. . This is an acceptable Cluster Layout. . "Require new commercial development to provide workforce housing or to provide land for workforce housing': Not applicable . "Design and locate development to minimize and / or mitigate identified impacts". The proposed development does endeavor to minimize impacts. X2- Economic Resources . "Ensure that commercial/retail development occurs in locations that are compatible with surrounding uses". Not applicable. . "Consider the impact of each second home development on the jobs to housing balance. It is likely that at least a portion of the proposed development will become second home development. If the housing plan set forth in the application is satisfied then the jobs to housing balance should be impact neutral for this development. . "Develop the services and businesses that will benefit a growing senior population". Not applicable. . "Encourage retirement housing as part ofmixed-use developments in existing towns and unincorporated communities". Not applicable. . "Select sites for retirement housing that are suitable in regards to local support services, emergency services and transportation", Not applicable. . "Apply Workforce Housing Guidelines and require commercial developers to mitigate their project's impact on the jobs to housing balance of the area". Not applicable. . "Limit the expansion of commercial zoning in unincorporated Eagle County to that necessary to serve the needs of the immediate local population". Not applicable. . "Allow the development of new service commercial and industrial uses in suitable locations provided such uses are properly bufferedfrom surroundingproperties". Not applicable. . "Encourage but limit commercial development in residential neighborhoods to local businesses that serve the basic needs ofnearby residents". Not applicable. . "Encourage live-work arrangements within community centers by promoting compact mixed-use development, pedestrian scaled retail areas and intercommunity public transportation". The subject property is located approximately 2 miles from the El Jebel / Willits Community Centers. X3- Housing . "Affordable workforce housing should be located near job centers" The subject property is located approximately 2 miles from the El Jebel / Willits Community Centers. . "Provide incentives to developers who develop workforce housing". This development proposal is not for workforce housing. . "Continue to require a Local Resident Housing Plan for all new development applications as required by the Local Resident Housing Guidelines". The Local Resident Housing Guidelines have been applied. Per the revised Affordable Housing Mitigation Plan, "No Local Resident Housing Units are proposed for this development. Cash-in-lieu mitigation for Local Resident Housing, based on 3,000 square feet of new development shall be provided by the applicant prior to the sale of Lots 2 and 3. A financial guarantee acceptable to the County shall be provided at the time of plat recordation guaranteeing payment at the time 41 01/06/09 of the sale of each lot. Mitigation of any additional square footage of new development in excess of 3,000 square feet shall be paid by the property owner prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for each residence, based on the actual floor area of the residence as calculated by the Eagle County Land Use Code. A voluntary adoption of a 1.5% Transfer Assessment shall be placed on the second and all subsequent sales of these properties (excluding properties re-sold to eligible householdes). Sta./Jis of the opinion that the PUD Guide should be revised to cap maximum allowable home FAR at 3,000 square feet per home unless the applicant for this land use application pays housing mitigation fees-in-lieu for larger residences. · "Mandate that attainable workforce housing be considered part of the required infrastructure for all new development applications". The revised Local Resident Housing Plan meets the requirements of the Local Resident Housing Guidelines. . "Continue to utilize Inclusionary Housing and Employee Housing Linkage as defined in the Local Resident Housing Guidelines in the review of development applications". The revised Housing Plan as provided in the application satisfies the requirements of the Local Resident Housing Guidelines. X4- Infrastructure and Services . "Locate new development in areas served by adequate roads and paths, and within reasonable distance to a mass transit hub'~ The subject property is located in an area served by adequate roads and paths. It is approximately two miles from a mass transit hub. . "Assure that road and trail improvements are completed concurrent to the completion of new development". If this PUD proposal is ultimately approved, at Final Plat a Subdivision Improvements Agreement and collateral will be required to ensure that all necessary infrastructure improvements are installed in correctly in a timely manner. . "Ensure appropriate transportation considerations are included in subdivision improvement agreements". This is the primary purpose of subdivision improvement agreements. . "Work with mass transit providers to expand service". This application was referred to the Roaring Fork Transit Authority for review and comment. As of this writing, a response has not been received. . "Encourage transit oriented development". This proposal does not constitute transit oriented development. . "Promote pedestrian malls and provide adequate parking on the perimeter of shopping areas to encourage walking". Not applicable. . "Encourage a network of walking trails within towns and community centers that connect typical community destinations (bus stops, schools, businesses, parks, playgrounds, etc.) with seamless pedestrian infrastructure". The proposed development does include a trail connection to the adjacent Rio Grande Trail. It is unclear if this connection is intended as a public trail access point or as an amenity for residents of the proposed subdivision. . "Within towns and community centers, retrofit public roads with parallel pedestrian routes and marked street crossings". Not applicable. . "Design streetscapes to include pedestrian friendly amenities like window spaces, store fronts, landscaping, plaza areas, marked cross walks and traffic speed controls". Not applicable. . "Promote the use of Planned Unit Developments to increase flexibility in planning and design". This is a PUD Sketch Plan application. . "Promote live-work arrangements where appropriate". Not applicable. . "Encourage an appropriate mix of retail and office locations in new neighborhoods to reduce reliance on personal cars". Not applicable. . "Evaluate all development proposals using Eagle County Land Use Regulation Road Standards". The proposal does not comply with the ECLUR standards for dual points of access. . "Assure adequate access for emergency responders". The application still does not address how an adequate water supply for fire fighting purposes will be provided. . "Require demonstration that all new developments will be adequately served by emergency and community services". If the application is revised to satisfy the Basalt and Rural FPD concerns then the proposed development can be adequately served. . "Encourage new commercial development to provide childcare as an amenity". Not applicable. . "Use House Bill 1041 powers to fully evaluate proposals for new water and sewer lines and proposals for new or expanded water or sewer treatment plants". Not applicable. 42 01/06/09 . "Require the installation of water and sewer service infrastructure concurrent to development". This proposal entails individual on-site wastewater treatment systems and individual wells that will be the responsibility of future lot owners to install. . "Require detailed transportation analysis at the preliminary approval". Using accepted engineering standards, a trip generation rate of 10 trips per day per home may be used. As proposed, the amount of trips per day generated by this development would be approximately 30. . "Provide a diversity of housing choices and prices throughout the entire county". This proposal does represent a high-end housing choice. X5- Water Resources . "Require developers to demonstrate that a legal and physical water supply exists for their development". The State Division of Water Resources, in its letter of May 8, 2008 has opined that the proposed water supply will not cause material injury to decreed water rights, so long as the applicant maintains valid well permits and is physically adequate. The existing well on-site produced an average of 30 gallons per minute over a two-hour period on November IS, 1980. If the new wells have similar production rates, the water supply should be physically adequate. . "Use a standard of extended drought conditions to determine the viability of the physical water supply proposed for a new development". Baseline data to make this determination is not available at the County and was not provided with the application. At the time of Preliminary Plan application, a current well water quantity and quality report will be required. . "Utilize current water quantity information in all development applications and planning reviews". The existing well on-site produced an average of 30 gallons per minute over a two-hour period on November IS, 1980. If the new wells have similar production rates, the water supply should be physically adequate. At the time of Preliminary Plan application, a current well water quantity and quality report will be required. . "Protect source water areas and reduce the potential for source water contamination". During site construction, Best Management Practices will be employed for storm water management, erosion control and dust suppression. . "Use pervious surfaces instead ofimpermeable surfaces when possible". The application does not propose the use of pervious surfaces. . "Ensure that development does not adversely affect the recharge of groundwater resources". ". During site construction, Best Management Practices will be employed for storm water management, erosion control and dust suppression. illdividual on-site wastewater treatment systems must be designed by a registered professional engineer to accomplish de-nitrification and be pressure-dosed to shallow trenches. . "Encourage the use of water efficient landscape materials and landscape irrigation methods". The proposal does not incorporate low water consumptive landscape materials. At the time of Preliminary Plan application, a detailed landscape and irrigation plan will be required. . "Evaluate efficiencies of non-potable water usage for golf courses and other landscaped areas". The application indicates that stormwater will be retained in a vault and used on the site for irrigation. This must be authorized by the Colorado Department of Natural Resources. . "Implement water reuse and recycling systems". The application indicates that stormwater will be retained in a vault and used on the site for irrigation. This must be authorized by the Colorado Department of Natural Resources. . "Support the implementation of voluntary and mandatory water conservation measures". With 1041 Permit review, water conservation techniques will be required. · "Require the demonstration of the availability of real (wet) water supply at Sketch Plan stage of development application". The State Division of Water Resources, in its letter of May 8, 2008 has opined that the proposed water supply will not cause material injury to decreed water rights, so long as the applicant maintains valid well permits and is physically adequate. The existing well on-site produced an average of30 gallons per minute over a two-hour period on November IS, 1980. If the new wells have similar production rates, the water supply should be physically adequate. . "Participate in water quality monitoring efforts". Not applicable. . "Follow the recommendations of the Northwest Colorado Council of Governments Regional 208 Water Quality Management Plan". ". The use of Best Management Practices for on-site stormwater management will be required. 43 01/06/09 · "Follow the recommendations of the Eagle River Watershed Plan". The subject property is not located within the Eagle River Watershed. · "Promote the appropriate best management practices for the control of storm water runoff and work to identifY and treat other non-point sources of pollution". Best Management Practices will be required with regard to stormwater management and grading activities. . "Require an effective water quality management plan be implemented with new development". . "Adhere to established Land Use Regulations and implement appropriate water quality best management practices (BMP's) on all development proposals". Best Management Practices will be required with all final construction documents and plans. . "Require buffer areas of natural vegetation between new developments and created or natural drainage ways". The proposal does not include vegetative buffers between developments. A buffer is proposed adjacent to the Rio Grande Trail. . "Minimize the extent of impervious surfaces within new developments and encourage the use of pervious paving systems". The use of pervious paving systems has not been proposed. X6- Wildlife Resources . "Support projects intent on removing or minimizing human-made barriers to wildlife migration". As of this writing, the Colorado State Division of Wildlife had not yet responded. The subject property is not located within any mapped Elk or Mule Deer habitat, range or migration route. . "Develop and implement projects that enhance existing wildlife habitat". The subject property has historically been utilized for residential/agricultural uses and is not pristine wildlife habitat. . "Prevent contaminants from entering local streams and rivers". The use of Best Management Practices for on-site stormwater management will be required. . "Direct development away from areas of critical wildlife habitat". Dependant on the Colorado Division of Wildlife response, this may become necessary. . "Implement and enforce referral recommendations of local wildlife officials". Dependant on the Colorado Division of Wildlife response, this may become necessary. . "Consider the impacts of each new development proposal in context with other existing or potential developments". This is the intent of the PUD Sketch Plan process. . "Encourage high-density development within existing community centers". The subject property is not located within a community center. . "Minimize site disturbance during construction". Other than access construction and infrastructure, the application proposes to contain all site disturbances within the designated building envelopes. . "If ornamental landscape plants are used, encourage species that are unpalatable to wildlife". With application for Preliminary Plan, a detailed landscape plan will be required. . "Require wildlife-proofrefuse containers for all new and existing subdivisions". The ECLUR's require the use of wildlife-proof refuse containment. X7- Sensitive Lands . "Require the evaluation of all geologic hazards and constraints as related to new land use". The attached Colorado Geological Survey response dated May 20, 2008 indicates that no observable surface conditions would preclude the proposed land use or subdivision. CGS did note concern about the very close proximity of the Roaring Fork River, located immediately north of the site, indicates that groundwater and perched water should be expected to occur at very shallow depths, at least seasonally. Groundwater levels tend to fluctuate and perched water is likely to collect above the clayey, less permeable soil layers and within foundation excavations (which tend to be more loosely backfilled), causing wet or moist conditions in the soils immediately surrounding basement walls and foundations. Since the lowermost floor and crawlspace levels must be located at least three feet above maximum anticipated groundwater levels, full-depth basements should not be considered feasible on this site. Due to the likely presence of very shallow groundwater and fast-draining alluvial terrace soils, engineered septic systems will likely be required. Site specific, design-level geotechnical investigations including drilling, sampling, lab testing and analysis will be needed at the building permit phase and once building locations are finalized, to identify uncontrolled fill areas, if present, to determine groundwater levels and percolation rates, and to characterize 44 01/06/09 soil and rock engineering properties such as density, strength, swell and consolidation potential, and bearing capacity at and below approximate foundation bearing depths. This information is needed to determine maximum bearing and minimum dead-load pressures, and to develop final design criteria for foundations, floor systems, pavements and subsurface drainage. . "Minimize alteration of the natural landform by new development improvements to the greatest extent possible". It is not proposed to overlot grade the entire property. . "A void the aggravation or acceleration of existing potential hazards through land form or vegetation modification". The above delineated recommendations from the Colorado Geological Survey will be made conditions of approval. . Continue to refer all development plans to the Colorado Geological Survey for comment". Done. . "Require the incorporation of all recommendations of CGS and other hazards experts into development plans". All CGS recommendations will be made conditions of approval. . "Consider the cumulative impact of in cremen tal development on landscapes that include visual, historic, and archeological value during the decision making process". The subject property is located within a scenic area with an historical agricultural past. As new development has occurred over time, the cumulative impact on the local landscape has been compromised. . "Determine the features that make a particular open space parcel valuable given its intended use as open space and ensure that these features are preserved". Not applicable. X8- Environmental Quality . "Assure access to multi-modal transportation options for all residents, second home owners and visitors". The site is adjacent to the Rio Grande Trail; it is conceivable that future residents will regularly walk or bicycle the two miles to the El Jebel / Willits community center. . "Provide affordable housing opportunities in close proximity to job centers to reduce personal vehicle trips". The site is adjacent to the Rio Grande Trail; it is conceivable that future residents will regularly walk or bicycle the two miles to the El Jebel / Willits community center. . "Focus development within towns and communities to reduce the needfor daily commuting". The subject property is not located within a town or community center. Residents will either be second home owners; they will be locals that need to commute to work (or the RFT A bus stop in the community center) or they will be locals that need not commute daily. . "Set limits for construction site disturbance, require temporary revegetation of stockpiles and permanent revegetation of all disturbed areas once final grades have been established". Site specific grading and erosion control plans will be required with the PUD Preliminary Plan and Final Plat processes. . "Require periodic watering and track-out control devices at all construction site access points". Site specific grading and erosion control plans will be required with the PUD Preliminary Plan and Final Plat processes. . "Utilize motion detectors to minimize the duration of security lighting". The application materials do not address lighting standards for the development. . "Ensure that noise levels are safe for residents, visitors and employees". Other than temporary auditory impacts during construction, it is not anticipated that the proposed development will generate undue impacts. . "Include an analysis of potential noise when making the finding of compatibility with surrounding uses for all new development proposals". Other than temporary auditory impacts during construction, it is not anticipated that the proposed development will generate undue impacts. . "Promote transit-oriented development, and encourage plans that minimize reliance on personal motorized vehicles". The subject property is not located in an area conducive to transit-oriented development. . "Design communities in a way that reduces fossil fuel consumption for heating or cooling". The proposal does not address the use of renewable resources. . Implement energy efficiency guidelines. Each habitable structure in the subdivision will be required to satisfy the County's EcoBuild regulations. . Implement energy saving techniques. Each habitable structure in the subdivision will be required to satisfy the County's EcoBuild regulations. Future Land Use Map Designation 45 01/06/09 The Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map defers to the community-specific Mid Valley Area Community Plan Future Land Use Map. Said map identifies the subject property as appropriate for low density residential development. EAGLE COUNTY OPEN SPACE PLAN <>. l;i - 6 u 6 is <:.) ~~ as O'~ e ..... ~\ 0..", t ;:l u (/1 .- U i:: ~.~ .9S '" 'Og. C.O- &U ~g U > Oc ~ ",ta ~J a 0 8"~ ._ ::;I ~u ;:l0:: :>0- OQ.. ;:r;: ..... Exceeds Recommendation Satisfies X X X X X X Recommendation Incorporates Majority of Recommendations Does Not Incorporate Recommendations Not Applicable X MID VALLEY COMMUNITY MASTER PLAN Transportatio Communit Open Space EI Lower Ruedi Missouri Housing y / lebel! Fl)'ing Reservoir Heights n Facilities Environment Basalt Pan Conformance X Non Conformance Mixed XI X2 X3 Conformance Not X X X X Applicable X I - The Local Resident Housing Guidelines have been applied and would be satisfied per the proposed Housing Plan submitted by the applicant. X2 - The Plan suggests limiting development on agricultural lands and encourages development on non-irrigated lands. X3 - The Plan identifies the region of the subject property as appropriate for low density development with a gross density of one dwelling unit per 14 to 35 acres. The plan also states that undeveloped areas on the south side of the Roaring Fork River are proposed to remain at current zoning levels. The Plan; however, allows a 'density bonus' for proposals which include preservation of agriculture and open space. This proposal does contain 15 acres of open space, albeit not entirely in Eagle County. The 'Conservation Area' is located around the three proposed individual lots. The draft PUD Guide proposes to retain agricultural uses on the property. It must be further noted that the proposed development does not comply with the recommendations of the recently adopted Town of Basalt Master Plan. Please refer to the attached letter from the Town of Basalt dated October 16, 2008. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Phasing [Section 5-240.F.3.e (11)] - The Preliminary Plan for PUD shall include a phasing plan for the development. If development of the PUD is proposed to occur in phases, then guarantees shall be provided for public improvements and amenities that are necessary and desirable for 46 01/06/09 residents of the project, or that are of benefit to the entire County. Such public improvements shall be constructed with the first phase of the project, or, if this is not possible, then as early in the project as is reasonable. 10 Phasing Plan Provided? o Yes ~I This is a one phase development. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Common Recreation and Open Space. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (12)]- The PUD shall comply with the following common recreation and open space standards. (a) Minimum Area. It is recommended that a minimum of 25% of the total PUD area shall be devoted to open air recreation or other usable open space, public or quasi-public. In addition, the PUD shall provide a minimum of ten (10) acres of common recreation and usable open space lands for everyone thousand (1,000) persons who are residents of the PUD. In order to calculate the number of residents of the PUD, the number of proposed dwelling units shall be multiplied by two and sixty-three hundredths (2.63), which is the average number of persons that occupy each dwelling unit in Eagle County, as determined in the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan. (b) Areas that Do Not Count as Open Space. Parking and loading areas, street right-oi-ways, and areas with slopes greater than thirty (30) percent shall not count toward usable open space. (c) Areas that Count as Open Space. Water bodies, lands within critical wildlife habitat areas, riparian areas, and one hundred (100) year floodplains, as defined in these Land Use Regulations, that are preserved as open space shall count towards this minimum standard, even when they are not usable by or accessible to the residents of the PUD. All other open space lands shall be conveniently accessible from all occupied structures within the PUD. (d) Improvements Required. All common open space and recreational facilities shall be shown on the Preliminary Plan for PUD and shall be constructed and fully improved according to the development schedule established for each development phase of the PUD. (e) Continuing Use and Maintenance. All privately owned common open space shall continue to conform to its intended use, as specified on the Preliminary Plan for PUD. To ensure that all the common open space identified in the PUD will be used as common open space, restrictions and/or covenants shall be placed in each deed to ensure their maintenance and to prohibit the division of any common open space. (/) Organization. J.f common open space is proposed to be maintained through an association or nonprofit corporation, such organization shall manage all common open space and recreational and cultural facilities that are not dedicated to the public, and shall provide for the maintenance, administration and operation of such land and any other land within the PUD not publicly owned, and secure adequate liability insurance on the land. The association or nonprofit corporation shall be established prior to the sale of any lots or units within the PUD. Membership in the association or non ro It cor oration shall be mandatory for all landowners within the PUD. (24 acres) 18 Total Subject acres in Eagle Coun Total Calculation Not provided Building Envelopes are proposed at 0.75 acres each. No maximum FAR or impervious area is s ecified. Total impervious is less than 25% of total site. Re NA Total Open Space 6 acres in Pitkin County and 9 acres in Eagle County 47 01/06/09 Public, Quasi-Public or Private? Private Describe: Owned and maintained by HOA. Restrictions on Open Space: Yes Describe: Commonly owned landscaped area. Organization Responsible for Maintenance: HOA t------ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS 7 MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS t------ MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS t------ '---- DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS ST ANDARD: Natural Resource Protection. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (13)] - The PUD shall consider the recommendations made by the applicable analysis documents, as well as the recommendations of referral agencies as specified in Article 4, Division 4, Natural Resource Protection Standards. .5 .5 Oll i~ -'0 =E .5 Uy (,) a 5 Z/'So OJ O'="l 0 E ~..~ Q,.='Orn E.g~ ~:!l 'V a ~'D OCZl-"O go CZl :s! ~ :S'il :a~ '0 ~ g ~ '0 ~.- ~ "Og 'V 'V 8~ t'Vc:J to~ o c ~o ';> Q,. == 0 o 0 ~lt o<s::t O<S::t ~u .- ... ~.5 Q::;A,. Exceeds ECLUR Requirements Satisfies ECLUR Requirement X XI X X4 Does Not SatisfY ECLUR Requirement X2 X3 Not Applicable/No ECLUR Requirement Xl- The comments set forth in the Colorado Geological Survey's response dated May 20,2008 must be adhered to. X2 - Even though the overall wildfire hazard rating for the subject property is 'low' per the Eagle County Wildfire Mitigation Specialist's response dated May 19, 2008; the Basalt and Rural FPD response stresses that the potential of catastrophic grassland fires occurring is ever present. X3 - The PUD Guide should be revised to restrict wood burning fireplaces within the proposed development. At a minimum, the provisions ofthe ECLUR's should apply limiting each residence to only one EP A approved new technology wood burning device, X4 - The Environmental Impact Report submitted with the application satisfies the ECLUR requirements; however the comments from the Department of Environmental Health, the Colorado Geologic Survey and any other applicable responding agency shall be made conditions of approval to ensure minimized environmental impact. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS OTHER APPLICABLE ST ANDARD(S) FOR PUD SKETcH/PRELIMINARY PLAN: The finding from the Eagle County Land Use Regulations is as follows: Pursuant to Section 5-240.F.2.a.(15): 15. (a) Supporting data to justify any proposed commercial and industrial elements in an area not so zoned (e.g. market study); Not applicable. Proposed schedule of development phasing; This is a one-phase development. (b) 48 01/06/09 (c) Statement as to the impact of the proposed PUD upon the County school system; The RE-l School District has not responded as of this writing; nevertheless, pursuant to the ECLUR's, the total amount of school land dedication required for this development is 0.1057 acres. The fee-in-lieu amount will be determined based upon a summary appraisal report at the time of Final Plat application. (d) Statement of estimated demands for County services; The application indicates that Police services will be provided by the Town of Basalt as opposed to the Eagle County Sheriff s Office. This will need to be verified at Preliminary Plan. Eagle County will not perform road maintenance within the development or on Emma Road because it lies within Pitkin County. Fire Protection will be provided by the Basalt and Rural FPD. (e) Statement of projected County tax revenue based upon the previous year's County tax levy and a schedule of projected receipts of that revenue; A statement is provided in the application but it does not project what the resulting revenue would be. (t) Conceptual site plans, and conceptual architectural plans; A conceptual site plan has been provided. (g) Proposed method of fire protection. Including information demonstrating a legal, adequate water supply for fire fighting purposes; The application proposes interior fire protection sprinkler systems in each home and a neighborhood fire hydrant system served by well water. The Basalt and Rural FPD has requested additional specific information regarding the water supply and distribution system for fire fighting purposes. (h) Employee housing plan. The employee housing plan submitted satisfies the intent of the Housing Guidelines. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-280.B.3.e. Standards for the review of a Preliminary Plan for Subdivision: STANDARD: Consistent with Comprehensive Plan. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (1)] B The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan and the FLUM of the Comprehensive Plan. The consideration of the relevant master plans during sketch plan review is on a broad conceptual level, i. e, how a proposal compares to basic planning principles. As a development proposal moves from sketch plan to preliminary plan review, its conformance or lack thereof to aspects of the master plans may not necessarily remain static. Please reference the Comprehensive Plan evaluation detailed above. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Consistent with Land Use Regulations. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (2)] B The proposed subdivision shall comply with all of the standards of this Section and all other provisions of these Land Use Regulations, including, but not limited to, the applicable standards of Article 3, Zone Districts, and Article 4, Site Development Standards. 49 01/06/09 g g3 ~ g3 <Q~ 0 ~.- ....l..... ....l ~ 'i & ~ Article 4, Site Development Standards Conditions u 5 ug I;I)~ \.>.l 8 \.>.l 8 '0 8: ~ 0 ~ e z~ 13 .!:l tl: .... ~o <: o =' ~ =' u C" .~ C" o....l '0 ~~ ~~ OU O\.>.l Z X Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards (Division 4-1) Detailed Landscape Plan X Landscaping and lllumination Standards (Division 4-2) and Lighting Plan Required with Preliminary Plan X Sign Regulations (Division 4-3) X Wildlife Protection (Section 4-410) X Geologie Hazards (Section 4-420) X Wildfire Protection (Section 4-430) X Wood Burning Controls (Section 4-440) X Ridgeline Protection (Section 4-450) X Environmental Impact Report (Section 4-460) As conditoned X Commercial and Industrial Performance Standards (Division 4-5) X Noise and Vibration (Section 4-520) X Smoke and Particulates (Section 4-530) X Heat, Glare, Radiation and Electrical Interference (Section 4-540) X Storage of Hazardous and Non-hazardous Materials (Section 4-550) Water Quality X Water Quality Standards (Section 4-560) Report Required with Preliminary Plan X Roadway Standards (Section 4-620) X Sidewalk and Trail Standards (Section 4-630) X Irrigation System Standards (Section 4-640) Required at Preliminary Plan X Drainage Standards (Section 4-650) X Grading and Erosion Control Standards (Section 4-660) X Utility and Lighting Standards (Section 4-670) X Water Supply Standards (Section 4-680) X Sanitary Sewage Disposal Standards (Section 4-690) As conditioned X Impact Fees and Land Dedication Standards (Division 4-7) Applicable ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Spatial Pattern Shall Be Efficient. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (3)] B The proposed subdivision shall be located and designed to avoid creating spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies in the delivery of 50 01/06/09 public services, or require duplication or premature extension of public facilities, or result in a "leapfrog" pattern of development. (1) Utility and Road Extensions. Proposed utility extensions shall be consistent with the utility's service plan or shall require prior County approval of an amendment to the service plan. Proposed road extensions shall be consistent with the Ea1!le Countv Road Capital Improvements Plan. (2) Serve Ultimate Population. Utility lines shall be sized to serve the planned ultimate population of the service area to avoid future land disruption to upgrade under-sized lines. (3) Coordinate Utility Extensions. Generally, utility extensions shall only be allowed when the entire range of necessary facilities can be provided, rather than incrementally extending a single service into an otherwise un-served area. The proposed subdivision is located such that it would not result in a 'leapfrog' pattern of development and the site is already served with electric, natural gas, cable and telephone. E EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Suitability for Development. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (4)] B The property proposed to be subdivided shall be suitable for development, considering its topography, environmental resources and natural or human-made hazards that may affect the potential development of the property, and existing and probable future public improvements to the area. No natural or human-made hazards have been identified that would preclude successful development of the subject property. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Compatible with Surrounding Uses. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (5)] B The proposed subdivision shall be compatible with the character of existing land uses in the area and shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. Please refer to the Compatibility discussion above. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS B. REFERRAL RESPONSES: . Eagle County Housing Department- In a verbal discussion with the Housing Department Director; the Housing Plan submitted with the application satisfies the Eagle County Housing Guidelines. . Eagle County Wildfire Mitigation Specialist- Please refer to the attached letter dated May 19, 2008. . Eagle County Engineering Department - Please refer to the attached memorandum dated May 21,2008. The Engineering Department did not issue a revised memorandum. 51 01/06/09 . Eagle County Department of Environmental Health - Please refer to the attached memorandum dated May 20,2008 from the Director of Environmental Health. The Department of Environmental Health did not issue a revised memorandum. . Colorado Geological Survey - Please refer to the attached letter dated May 20, 2008. . Colorado Division of Water Resources - Please refer to the attached letter dated May 8, 2008. . Town of Basalt - Please refer to the attached letter dated October 16, 2008. . Pitkin County - Please refer to the attached memorandum dated May 16, 2008. · Basalt & Rural Fire Protection District - Please refer to the attached letter dated May 20, 2008. A revised letter has not been provided. Although the issue of road standards is no longer applicable due to the fact that the access will serve only three lots, the applicant still must satisfy the District's requirements regarding a water supply and distribution system for fire fighting purposes. . Emma Caucus - Please refer to the attached e-mail dated October 8, 2008. Additional Referral Agencies - This proposal was referred to the following agencies with no response received as of this writing: . Eagle County Animal Services . Eagle County Assessor's Office . Eagle County Attorney's Office . Eagle County Road & Bridge . RE-l School District Administration and Transportation . Eagle County Sheriff s Office . Eagle County Weed & Pest . Colorado Division of Wildlife . Colorado Water Conservation Board . USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service . Holy Cross Electric . Qwest/PTI/Centurytel . Basalt Water Conservancy . Colorado Historical Society . Eagle County Historical Society . Mid Valley Trails Committee . Postmaster . Roaring Fork Transit Authority C. SUMMARY ANALYSIS: Benefits/Disadvantages Benefits: . Depending upon one's perspective, the proposed development would provide three new exclusive housing opportunities in the El Jebel / Emma vicinity. . Six acres of open space will be preserved in Pitkin County and nine acres in Eagle County. . 50% of the land area in Eagle County will be designated as commonly owned private open space. . The additional development will generate additional property tax for the County; local sales tax revenue and will help to sustain local businesses and merchants. . The subject property is relatively flat and developable with minimal site disturbance. Disadvanta2es: 52 01/06/09 . The proposal is not compatible with existing and allowed land uses in all directions from the subject property; exceptions being three 1970's subdivisions which received approval many years prior to adoption of the first and current Mid Valley Community Master Plan . The adjacent Rather Subdivision was approved by Eagle County in 2003 allowing only two residential/agricultural lots on 12.6 acres. This same application ofthe residential land use densities recommended in the Mid Valley Community Master Plan if applied on the subject property would result in two primary residences on the 18 acre property; retaining the right to certain agricultural uses. . Any new development in the Emma vicinity will incrementally degrade the inherent quality of place. . The proposal has not addressed the minimum standards for water distribution for firefighting purposes. . Depending upon one's perspective, the proposed development would provide three new exclusive housing opportunities in the El Jebel / Emma vicinity. . The PUD Guide should incorporate maximum impervious area calculations. . The PUD Guide should cap maximum FAR to 3000 square feet per residence. D. RFVRPc and BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OPTIONS: 1. Approve the [PDS-00057] request without conditions if it is determined that the petition will not adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare and the proposed use is attuned with the immediately adjacent and nearby neighborhood properties and uses and the proposal is in compliance with both the Eagle County Land Use Regulations and with the guidelines of the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan (and/or other applicable master plans). 2. Deny the [PDS-00057] request if it is determined that the petition will adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare and/or the proposed use is not attuned with the immediately adjacent and nearby neighborhood properties and uses and the proposal is not in compliance with both the Eagle County Land Use Regulations and with the guidelines of the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan (and/or other applicable master plans). 3. Table the [PDS-00057] request if additional information is required to fully evaluate the petition. Give specific direction to the petitioner and staff. 4. Approve the [PDS-00057] request with conditions and/or performance standards if it is determined that certain conditions and/or performance standards are necessary to ensure public, health, safety, and welfare and/or enhances the attunement of the use with the immediately adjacent and nearby neighborhood properties and uses and the proposal is in compliance with both the Eagle County Land Use Regulations and with the guidelines of the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan (and/or other applicable master plans). SUGGESTED CONDITIONS: 1. Except as otherwise modified by this development permit, all material representations made by the Applicant in this application and in public meeting shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval; 2. All comments set forth in the Eagle County Engineering Department Memorandum dated May 21, 2008 must be adequately addressed prior to PUD Preliminary Plan application; 3. All comments set forth in the Eagle County Department of Environmental Health Memorandum dated May 20, 2008 must be adequately addressed prior to PUD Preliminary Plan application; 4. All comments set forth in the Colorado Geological Survey response dated May 20, 2008 must be incorporated as plat notes on the Final Plat and implemented at the time of building permit application for each of the primary and accessory residential dwelling units. 53 01/06/09 5. All comments set forth in the Town of Basalt letter dated October 16, 2008 must be adequately addressed prior to PUD Preliminary Plan application; 6. All comments set forth in the Pitkin County Community Development Department letter dated May 16, 2008 must be adequately addressed prior to PUD Preliminary Plan application; 7. All applicable comments set forth in the Basalt & Rural Fire Protection District letter dated May 20, 2008 must be adequately addressed prior to PUD Preliminary Plan application; 8. The PUD Guide must be revised to cap maximum home size and to incorporate limitations on overall site coverage and maximum impervious surfaces. The PUD Guide should prohibit wood burning fireplaces. DISCUSSION: Mr. Narracci presented the application. He stated that the board tabled the application on December 12, 2008 so a full board could hear the proposal. He presented the chronology. He presented the revised proposal which included a subdivision of a 24.16 acre parcel into three single family residential lots and a 15 acre common private open space. 18 acres of the subject property lie within Eagle County and the balance of six acres in Pitkin County. He presented the planning commission recommendations. The RFVRP, in a vote of 3: 1, recommended denial of the proposed 3 lot subdivision. He presented the board's options. He stated that there were 8 suggested conditions as presented in the staffreport. Stan Clauson representing the applicant spoke. He stated that Dan Coleman, the applicant would not be attending the meeting. He stated that they had worked diligently to create something that would be acceptable to the neighbors. He understood the neighbors concerns over change, however, they tried to insure that there would be some benefits for them. They addressed some comments that were provided by a Planning Commissioner, Jay Leavitt. He read a letter submitted by Mr. Leavitt and stated that they'd revised the site plan in accordance with his suggestions. The applicant believed that the revised proposal addressed the neighbor's concerns. He stated that the distance from the proposed building envelopes and adjacent neighbors was great. He presented a site diagram, which illustrated the adjacent property ownership and distance to neighbors. He identified the benefits of the development, which included screening, a proposed easement for a pedestrian path along Emma Road, access to the Rio Grande Trail, and affordable housing cash in lieu payment. The applicant believed there was substantial density in the area and the development would be consistent with existing development. There would be 15 areas of open space. There would be a 150 ft. set back from the neighboring property lines for any of the building envelopes. The building envelopes would be clustered. The proposal complied with the Eagle County land use regulations and guidelines of the Eagle County comprehensive plan. They understood that there continued to be opposition but expressed a desire to move forward. Chairman Runyon opened public comment Spencer Schaeffer, adjacent property owner spoke. He opposed to the application. He believed that the zoning should not be changed. He believed that zoning was law and property owners had the right to rely on existing zoning. He believed that zoning should never be changed unless there was a compelling public purpose. He believed that the disadvantages to the neighbors and public far out weighed any public benefits. He believed that Mr. Coleman knew what the zoning was when he bought the property. The staff report mentioned that the projected generation of traffic would increase. There would be adverse impacts on water tables and adverse impacts on additional septic systems. The most significant disadvantage would be the precedent that this would set. According to the staff report presented by staff, the proposal was inconsistent with at least five of the nine listed goals, policies, and strategies of the comprehensive plan. It further stated that the proposal was inconsistent with the Mid Valley Master Plan. He asked the board to adopt the Basalt Planning & Zoning Commission's recommendation and deny the application. Commissioner Menconi asked if Mr. Schaeffer, as an attorney, had ever represented a developer. Mr. Schaeffer stated that he had represented developers. However, he had never represented a developer desiring a zone change. In the 38 years he had lived in the Roaring Fork Valley he never recalled an instance where 54 01/06/09 residential density was increased. He did not believe in up zoning of residential property unless there was a significant public purpose. Commissioner Menconi spoke about the housing component proposed by the applicant. Mr. Schaeffer believed it was totally ancillary. He believed that a zone change would be a terrible precedent to set, particularly in Emma. Parker Maddox spoke. He spoke about the views of the Emma caucus members and believed that the Emma caucus would not support the proposal. He urged denial of the application. He believed that if the board approved the file, similar requests would surface. Liz Newman, Secretary of the Emma caucus spoke. She stated that the property was only accessible through Pitkin County from Emma Road. The Emma Caucus would like to keep the property rural and residential but understood the economic realities. In the Emma area, there are some problems with water wells in terms of quantity and quality. This is one of the reasons Pitkin County had gone to down zoning in that part of the county. Tom Clark spoke. He'd been a resident of Emma for 30 years. He spoke about his family and their property. He spoke against up zoning. He stated that he'd put some of his property in conservation easements. He loves the area would like to see the area preserved for future generations. He was concerned with the precedent an approval would cause. He hoped the board would honor the current zoning and deny the application. Shelly Gross spoke. She stated that Emma was very special and encouraged the board to deny the application. Chairman Runyon closed public comment. Commissioner Fisher wondered ifthere were any out building restrictions. Mr. Narracci stated that in the resource zone districts there were no standards that would limit the size of a building. Chairman Runyon asked about the zoning history of the property. Mr. Narracci stated that the current zoning was the original zoning from 1974 when the county first enacted zomng. Chairman Runyon asked about the benefits of the proposal and whether the $400,000 payment as well as the I % real estate transfer tax should have been listed in the benefit column. Mr. Narracci stated that the housing mitigation and transfer tax could be considered public benefits. Chairman Runyon wondered where the $400,000 would be spent. Mr. Narracci stated that the money would go into the Housing Department account for the purpose of affordable housing. It was not set up to be spent in the Roaring Fork Valley although, the board could condition that the money collected be utilized on that side of the county. Chairman Runyon wondered when the money would be collected. Mr. Narracci stated that the money would be collected at the time before final plat was recorded. Chairman Runyon asked if an unlimited number of out buildings could be built. Mr. Narracci state that because the lot was nonconforming, they would be entitled to one single family residence of any size and all of the agricultural uses that were normally allowed by right. They could add an unlimited number of agricultural buildings on the property. Commissioner Runyon wondered about the 6 acres in Pitkin County. Mr. Narracci stated that Pitkin County wanted to see the 6 acres left as is. Chairman Runyon asked about the change in attitude by the Town of Basalt or Pitkin County and their recommendations for the revised proposal. Mr. Narracci stated that Town of Basalt responded with a revised letter. They believed the situation had improved by reducing the number of residential units from 8 to 3. However, they made a number of recommendations and generally, it did not meet the Town of Basalt plan. Commissioner Fisher stated that she understood the tug on the affordable housing funding and transfer tax in perpetuity. However, there were no affordable housing projects underway. She believed that the homes mayor may not be sold to second homeowners. She believed in the Emma caucus process and the importance of local community. She did not see a clear public benefit. She believed that the property was clearly purchased as an investment opportunity for Mr. Coleman. She believed that Mr. Coleman did not have the best interest for the people in the community in mind. She would be voting against the file. 55 01/06/09 Commissioner Menconi believed that the Emma caucus had a core principal that he embraced; however, there seemed to be no room for sharing. He believed that if the file were heard in the Eagle River Valley chances are it would have been passed. He believed that it was important to represent the constituents of the jurisdictions such as the Emma Caucus and the Planning Commission and support the people that know the area even though there seemed to be some lack of support for people living and working in the community. Mr. Morris stated that it was his view that it would not be appropriate for the board to base its decision in this case on a desire to look to the needs of future generations. Commissioner Menconi stated that his criteria for denial would be based on the testimony he heard from the Planning Commission and the Town of Basalt. Commissioner Runyon stated that he believed that the proposal was not consistent with the neighborhood. Commissioner Fisher moved to deny file PDS-00057 - Coleman Ranch. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous. Attest: eting was adjourned until January 13,2009. .~ ~ L)kL - Chairman I DtJlvr... 56 01/06/09