HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 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