The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPACKET Town Board 2007-02-13FiLE Prepared 2/5/07 :' TOWNJOkESTESU'ARk.--.15~441 *r-{ ?Â·t.*{ *~ Â·rb: .,Â£ . 0 Â·Â·- 4-f Jbnt:Â·'I:.*::..1.:.Al....~ke ... 1-*%111 A,% â€ž r.0 ... The Mission of the Town of Estes Park is to plan and provide reliable, high-value services for our citizens, visitors, and employees. We take great pride ensuring and enhancing the quality of life in our community by being good stewards of public resources and natural setting. BOARD OF TRUSTEES - TOWN OF ESTES PARK Tuesday, February 13,2007 7:00 p.m. AGENDA PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE PUBLIC COMMENT (Please state your name and address). TOWN BOARD COMMENTS 1. CONSENT AGENDA (Approval of): 1. Town Board Minutes dated January 23,2007. 2. Bills. 3. Committee Minutes: A. Public Safety, January 25,2007. 1. Colorado State Firefighter Conf. Road Closure - Manford Avenue, between EP Rent-All and Community Drive, on June 22,2007. 2. Estes Valley Victim Advocates Contract - $7,500 Budgeted. B. Public Works, February 8,2007. 1. Parks Dept. - Purchase Irrigation Truck - $26,575 Budgeted 4. Swanhorst & Company LLC - Approval of 2007 Engagement Letter for audit services. 5. MBIA Municipal Investors Service Corp. - Approval of 2007 Engagement Letter for investment services. 2. ACTION ITEMS: 1. OVERVIEW OF THE ESTES VALLEY TRAIL SYSTEM. Mgr. Sievers 0 Â¥ 2. FINANCIAL BENCHMARKING REPORT. Finance Officer McFarland 3. NORTHERN COLORADO WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT ORDINANCE #4- 07 - CONVERSION OF TEMPORARY USE PERMIT FOR SIX UNITS OF CBT WATER TO AN ANNUAL WATER CONTRACT. Town Attorney White. 4. TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT. 5. ADJOURN. NOTE: The Town Board reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was prepared. t hp Laserjet 3015 U/ HP LASERJET FAX invent Feb-8-2007 5:09PM Fax Call Report Job Date Time Type Identification Duration Pages Result 0 2/ 8/2007 5:00:22PM Send 6672527 1:08 2 OK 1 2/ 8/2007 5:01:35PM Send 5869561 1:08 2 OK 2 2/ 8/2007 5:02:48PM Send 5869532 1:33 2 OK 3 2/ 8/2007 5:04:26PM Send 5861691 1:51 2 OK 4 2/ 8/2007 5:06:22PM Send 6353677 1:34 2 OK 5 2/ 8/2007 5:08:01PM Send 5771590 1:42 2 OK . e Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, January 23,2007 Minutes of a Regular meeting of the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Town Hall in said Town of Estes Park on the 23rd day of January, 2007. Meeting called to order by Mayor Baudek. Present: John Baudek, Mayor Bill Pinkham, Mayor ProTem Trustees Eric Blackhurst Dorla Eisenlauer Richard Homeier Chuck Levine Wayne Newsom Also Present: Town Attorney White Randy Repola, Town Administrator Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk Absent: None Mayor Baudek called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. and all desiring to do so, recited the Pledge of Allegiance. PROCLAMATION. Mayor Baudek presented a Proclamation to Doug Frisbie, Jane Princehorn, Lynn Young and Eileen Flaherty/Salud Center acknowledging the week of January 21, 2006 as "Salud Week" in Estes Park. Eileen Flaherty/Salud Center Director invited the community to an open house at the new facilities on January 26th from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. ROOFTOP RODEO PRCA - 2006 SMALL RODEO OF THE YEAR. Art Mutschler/President informed the Board and the community that the Rooftop Rodeo received the Small Rodeo of the Year award for 2006, the second such award in three years. He thanked the Town and staff for all their efforts and support throughout the years. PUBLIC COMMENT. None. TOWN BOARD COMMENTS. Trustee Blackhurst reminded the public that the Public Safety Committee would meet Thursday at 8:00 a.m. in the Town Board Room. 1. CONSENT AGENDA (Approval of): 1. Town Board Minutes dated January 9,2007. 2. Bills. 3. Committee Minutes: A. Public Works, January 11, 2007. B. Utilities, January 18, 2007. 4. Estes Valley Planning Commission, December 19, 2006 (acknowledgement only). 4 A Board of Trustees - January 23,2007 - Page 2 5. Motion to set a public hearing date of February 27,2007 on proposed rate changes to the Wind Energy surcharge for Light and Power customers. 6. Resolution #02-07 - Schedule public hearing date of February 27,2007 for Change of Location for a Beer & Wine Liquor License held by SWEET BASILICO CAFE, INC. dba Sweet Basilico Cafe, from 401 E. Elkhorn Ave. to 430 Prospect Village Dr. It-was _moved.- and seconded (Pinkham/Blackhurst) the Consent Agenda be approved, and it passed unanimously. lA. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA (Approval of): Mayor Baudek opened the Public Hearing for all the following Consent Agenda Items: 1. CONSENT ITEMS: A. PRELIMINARY CONDOMINIUM MAP 1. Sunny Acres Condominiums, Lot 5A, Amended Plat of Lot 5 of the Amended Plat of Sunny Acres Subdivision, Van Horn Engineering/Applicant. 2. Bobcat Ridge Condominiums, Lot 2A, Shanafelt Minor Subdivision, Gary & Christine Shanafelt/Applicant. B. FINAL CONDOMINIUM MAP 1. Lakeview North Condominiums at Mary's Lake Lodge, Units 19 and 20, Lot 3, Mary's Lake Subdivision, Rams Horn Development Co./Applicant. C. AMENDED PLAT 1. Amended Plat of Lot 5 of the Amended Plat of Sunny Acres Subdivision, a Portion of the SW % of the NW /1 of Section 25, T5N, R73W of the 6th P.M., Van Horn Engineering/Applicant. It was moved and seconded (Newsom/Levine) Consent Agenda be approved with Planning Commission conditions of approval, and it passed unanimously. 2. ACTION ITEM: Ordinance #02-07, Rezoning Request from E-1-Estate and R-2-Two- Family Residential to RM-Multi-Family Residential, Lot 5A Amended Plat of Lot 5 of the Amended Plat of Sunny Acres Subdivision, Van Horn Engineering/Applicant - Mayor Baudek opened the public hearing. Planner Chilcott stated this is a corrective rezoning. The property was incorrectly rezoned during the valley wide rezoning in 2000. Attorney White read the Ordinance into the record. It was moved and seconded (Homeier/Blackhurst) Ordinance #02-07 be approved with the condition that the Town shall reserve the right to rezone the property if the amended plat is not recorded within the timeframes established in the Estes Valley Development Code, and it passed unanimously. 2. ACTION ITEMS: 1. MODEL TRAFFICE CODE REVISION - ORDINANCE #03-07. Mayor Baudek opened the Public Hearing. Administrator Repola stated the Police Department and Public Works Department recommended new names for the parking lots downtown at the Public Works Committee meeting on Board of Trustees - January 23,2007 - Page 3 January 11th that more accurately reflect the location of the lot. This was one of the recommendations from the comprehensive parking study completed by Republic Parking in 2005. Discussion followed regarding the new name for the current Brownfields Lot (proposed name Pedestrian X-Walk Lot), addition of the Brownfields Lot to the 3-Hr. Limit category, removal of the duplicate listing for Subway under the On- Street Parking Limit category, inclusion of all parking along Park Lane, correction of Far View Ln. to Far View Dr. under the Speed Limits category, retaining the Visitor Center - Main Lot name versus the Visitor Center Lot and parking limits at the Post Office on Sundays. Administrator Repola stated the appendix to the Model Traffic Code would be reviewed by the Police Department and discussed at the February Public Safety Committee. Attorney White suggested the Board consider the Ordinance revising the Model Traffic Code after the February Public Safety meeting. It was moved and seconded (Levine/Eisenlauer) the new parking lot names be approved with the renaming of the Pedestrian X-Walk Lot to the Brownfields Lot, and it passed unanimously. 2. ADOPTION OF 2007 ORGANIZATION CHART. Administrator Repola reviewed the 2007 Town of Estes Park organization chart. The chart will be updated to add the Audit Committee and the CVB Marketing Advisory Committee under Advisory Committees. Following discussion, it was moved and seconded (Newsom/Blackhurst) the 2007 Organization Chart be approved, and it passed unanimously. Administrator Repola stated the Public Works Director position has been announced and interviews would take place the end of March with a decision in April. 3. 4~h QUARTER FINANCIAL REPORT. Finance Officer McFarland reported the year end sales tax is estimated to come within 1 % of the budgeted sales tax revenue. Both the General Fund and Enterprise Funds have exceeded budgeted revenues with expenses lower than budgeted. The 2006 sales tax report will be reviewed at the February 27th meeting once the December sales tax numbers are available. Trustee Blackhurst stated the numbers reported are a reflection of a healthy business community and commended the local business community for their efforts. Trustee Levine commended staff for the quality of the financial reports. 4. TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT. â€¢ A Town Board Study Session will be held on Monday, January 29,2007 at the Museum meeting room from 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. to discuss the utilities financial plan, capital improvement plan as related to the General Fund and the Community Reinvestment Fund, Marketing District and Fire District. 5. REQUEST TO ENTER EXECUTIVE SESSION: 24-6-402(4)(B), C.R.S. - Conference with Town Attorney White for the purpose of receiving legal advice on current lawsuits involving the Stanley Hotel. Motion It was moved and seconded (Pinkham/Levine) the Town Board enter Executive Session for a conference with Town Attorney White for the purpose of receiving legal advice on the item listed above under C.R.S. Section 24-6-402(4)(B), and it passed unanimously. Whereupon Mayor Baudek adjourned the meeting to Executive Session at 8:04 p.m. 9 4 Board of Trustees - January 23,2007 - Page 4 Mayor Baudek reconvened the meeting to open session at 8:45 p.m. Whereupon Mayor Baudek adjourned the meeting at 8:45 p.m. John Baudek, Mayor Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk t RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, January 25,2007 Minutes of a Regular meeting of the PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Town Hall in said Town of Estes Park on the 25th day of January, 2007. Committee: Chairman Newsom, Trustees Blackhurst and Eisenlauer Attending: All Also Attending: Administrator Repola, Chief Richardson, Chief Dorman, Deputy Clerk Deats Absent None Chairman Newsom called the meeting to order at 8.00 a.m. FIRE DEPARTMENT. Road Closure for Colorado State Firefighters Association Annual Convention - Request Approval. Chief Dorman reported that Estes Park has been chosen as the site of the Colorado State Firefighters Association's (CSFFA) annual convention. The Estes Park Volunteer Fire Department will host the 2007 convention scheduled for Monday, June 18th through Friday, June 221 with the possibility of a parade on Saturday, June 23rd. As part of the convention, firefighter tournament competitions will be held on Friday, June 22nd and will require a section of roadway that is level, straight, and has the availability of two fire hydrants. Manford Avenue, between the Estes Park Rent-All building and Community Drive, is proposed as the site for these events. The competition would require the road to be closed from 6:00 a.m. until 6:00 p.m. All businesses would be notified prior to the event and signs, traffic cones and a summer Police officer would be used to direct people to businesses in the area. The Fire Department previously hosted this event in 1999 and 2002 and did not receive any complaints regarding the road closure in either year. The Committee recommended approval of the street closure as outlined above. Chief Dorman reported that the Fire Department is currently making arrangements for a 100m anniversary celebration. Tentative plans include a display at the museum, an event honoring volunteers and firefighters, and the possibility of a 100th anniversary commemorative statue. Town Administrator Repola requested that Chief Dorman bring more information regarding the statue design and costs to the February meeting. Reports: 1. Wildland Urban Interface Coordinator's Report - Sue Pinkham provided a report on her activities as the program's coordinator through 2006 including attendance and participation in programs and seminars with the National Firewise Conference in Denver; making property owners aware of the need to create defensible space around their homes and Community Wildlife Protection Plans (CWPP) within their neighborhoods; performance of defensible space evaluations for individuals and homeowner's associations; involvement in a slash collection service through the Fire Department; and addressing concerns about beetle-kill. She stated that educational/informational programs and events would increase in 2007 to include an event to be held in conjunction with the Fire Department's 100th anniversary celebration, and a wildfire fair at the fairgrounds on May, 19,2007. POLICE DEPARTMENT. 1 " RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Public Safety Committee - January 25,2007 - Page 2 Estes Valley Victim Advocates Annual Contract - Request Approval. Each year, Estes Valley Victim Advocates, Inc. receives funding from the Town of Estes Park for services rendered to crime victims who are residents of Estes Park. The Police Department received the contract for 2007 and reviewed it with Town Attorney White. There are no concerns or recommended changes for this year's contract. The Committee recommends the contract be approved at a cost of $7,500 as budgeted for 2007 (101-2100-421.22-98). Reports: 1. Municipal Court Annual Report - Judge Gary Brown provided the Committee with a summary of cases and revenue from the municipal court for 2006, and stated that these numbers are a direct result of the number of tickets written by the Police Department and processed through the court. Judge Brown stated that a comparison study is done every few years to ensure that the penalties and fines being imposed by the court are consistent with those in outlying counties and that this process is currently ongoing. Judge Brown stated that he utilizes counseling and community service as alternatives to high fines in order to better address the needs of the families and defendants involved in cases. Judge Brown commented that he had reviewed the Police Department's new computerized ticket-writing system and stated that although tickets are still on paper when he receives them in court, they soon will be computerized. Administrator Repola suggested a discussion with the IT Department regarding a virtual private network connection for the municipal court clerk and the possible availability of a laptop computer for use by the court. 2. PTO Presentation - To satisfy a requirement of new police officer training, Officer Tyson Russell researched the Estes Park community and identified false alarms as a public safety issue. He defined a false alarm, and reported on the dangers officers face when dispatched to this type of call. He reported on the causes of false alarms and the time and money spent responding to them. Estes Park currently has a fee for repeated false alarms and Officer Russell suggested revising the current fee schedule and requiring individuals/business owners to receive adequate education and training on the use of the alarms in an attempt to reduce the number of false alarms received. He suggested the Municipal Code be revised to include registration procedures and guidelines on home and business alarms. The Committee thanked Officer Russell for his presentation. Administrator Repola stated that this is a topic that needs to be addressed and that a public hearing will be held at a future time to receive input. The Committee requested follow-ups to this and two previous PTO presentations. 3. Republic Parking Report - Chief Richardson reviewed the recommendations included in the report prepared by Republic Parking. He stated that during the past year the Wiest parking lot had been re-striped which resulted in four or five additional parking spaces in the lot, and that directional signage for parking lots had been installed in various downtown locations. The names of the parking lots are being updated to accurately reflect their locations. Items to be addressed in the future include outlying lots for employee parking, elimination of the three-hour parking limit in downtown lots, a parking policy and enforcement program, the elimination of RV parking in the downtown area, and shuttles from outlying areas to downtown. Miscellaneous: County Commissioner Glenn Gibson addressed the Committee concerning future funding of the Larimer County Jail, due to the failure of a recent initiative at the November election to fund the operation of the jail. The county will be forced to develop a new plan for future funding. Commissioner Gibson indicated that there is some time to develop this plan as the current tax continues until 2014. i r RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Public Safety Committee - January 25,2007 - Page 3 There being no further business, Chairman Newsom adjourned the meeting at 9:46 a.m. Cynthia Deats, Deputy Town Clerk Â¢ f RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, February 8,2007 Minutes of a Regular meeting of the PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held at Town Hall in said Town of Estes Park on the 8th day of February, 2007. Committee: Chairman Levine, Trustees Blackhurst and Homeier Attending: Chairman Levine, Trustee Blackhurst Also Attending: Public Works Supt. Mahany, Deputy Town Clerk Deats Absent Trustee Homeier, Town Administrator Repola, Acting Public Works Director Goehring Chairman Levine called the meeting to order at 8:05 a.m. PUBLIC COMMENT. None TREE BOARD TREE REVITALIZATION PROJECT - REQUEST APPROVAL. Tree Board member Sue Doylen, reported on the Board's 2007 goals and activities that are in the planning stages for this spring in celebration of their 1 0th anniversary. The Tree Board is working on developing a website that may be accessed through a link on the Town's site; an Arbor Day Celebration; a symposium addressing tree health and safety, fire mitigation, and beetle-kill; celebrating the Month of the Tree during May; developing an arboretum at the CVB; revitalization of plantings community-wide; and a tree reinvestment program. The Tree Board is requesting the approval of an informational insert to be included with the March utility billing. Chairman Levine stated the insert would be beneficial in providing information about upcoming events and aid in soliciting economic participation by the community through the tree reinvestment and revitalization program. The Committee recommends approval of an insert to be included with the March utility billing. PARKS DEPARTMENT IRRIGATION TRUCK REPLACEMENT - REQUEST APPROVAL. Public Works Supt. Mahany stated that the 2007 Parks Department budget includes $37,500.00 for the replacement of Vehicle G-66 which is a 1988 31 ton Chevrolet, 4 x 2 pickup with utility body used as the irrigation truck for the Parks Department. In September 2006, the vehicle incurred transmission and engine failure. The cost to repair the vehicle would far exceed its value. The following bids were received for a replacement vehicle: â€¢ Phil Long Ford - Colorado Springs, Co. 2007 Ford F-250 4x2 w/utility body................................Bid Price: $26,575.00 â€¢ Transwest GMC - Henderson, Co. 2007 GMC 2500 4x2 w/utility body..................................Bid Price: $28 ,707.58 â€¢ Weld Countv Garage - Greeley Co. 2007 GMC 2500 4x2 w/utility body..................................Bid Price: $29,930.00 â€¢ Spradlev Barr Ford - Ft. Collins, Co. 2006 Ford F-250 4x2 w/utility body NO RESPONSE Staff recommends the purchase of a 2007 Ford F-250 4x2 with utility body to replace G- 7 + RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Public Works Committee - February 8,2007 - Page 2 66 for a cost of $26,575.00 from Phil Long Ford, Colorado Springs, Colorado and disposing of current G-66 in the most cost effective manner. Chairman Levine confirmed with Supt. Mahany that a newly-purchased vehicle would be included in the vehicle replacement plan. The Committee recommends approval to purchase the budgeted vehicle as outlined above from Phil Long Ford at a cost not to exceed $26,575.00 (101-5200-452.34-42). MISCELLANEOUS Trustee Blackhurst inquired about the replacement of timbers in the parking lot adjacent to the Dairy Queen. Supt. Mahany indicated that he will bring information about the project to the March or April Committee meeting. There being no further business, Chairman Levine adjourned the meeting at 8:21 a.m. Cynthia Deats, Deputy Town Clerk i Finance, Light & Power, Water Departments Memo To: Honorable Mayor Baudek Board of Trustees Town Administrator Repola From: Steve MeFarland, Finance Officer Date: February 6,2007 Subject: 2006 Audit engagement letter for Swanhorst & Company LLC Background Swanhorst & Company LLC (Swanhorst) has been performing the annual audit of the Town of Estes Park since 2001. According to the GFOA (Government Finance Officers' Association), auditing firms and municipalities generally work together for several years before switching entities. 2006 will be our 6th year with Swanhorst. Swanhorst also is instrumental in assisting in the preparation of our CAFR (Comprehensive Annual Financial Report). We have been awarded the GFOA's "Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting" each year in which we have worked with Swanhorst. Documentation/explanation Attached please find the Swanhorst engagement letter for the 2006 audit. Due to timing/due dates for the audit, Swanhorst has already begun work on the audit, and all that is required of this Board is approval to formerly engage Swanhorst. Steps will soon be taken to send out an RFP for engagement of the 2007 audit. This process will be reviewed and monitored by the Audit Committee, with results subsequently reported to the Town Board. Action steps requested Approval for signature on 2006 audit engagement letter. I 1 ~~c~ Swanhorst & Company LLC Certified Public Accountants December 11,2006 Board of Trustees Town of Estes Park P.O. Box 1200 Estes Park, Colorado 80517 We are pleased to confirm our understanding of the services we are to provide to the Town of Estes Park. We will audit the financial statements of the governmental activities, the business-type activities, each major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information, which collectively comprise the basic financial statements ofthe Town, as of and for the year ended December 31, 2006. Also, the combining and individual fund financial statements and schedules will be subjected to the auditing procedures applied in our audit of the basic financial statements. Audit Objective The objective of our audit is the expression of an opinion as to whether your financial statements are fairly presented. in all material respects, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States ofAmerica and to report on the fairness of the additional information referred to in the first paragraph when considered in relation to the financial statements taken as a whole. Our audit will be conducted in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and if required, the standards for financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States; the Single Audit Act of 1984; and the provisions ofOMB Circular A-133,Audits ofStates, Local Governments, andNon-Profit Organizations, and will include tests ofthe accounting records and other procedures we consider necessary to enable us to express such an opinion. If our opinion on the finangial statements is other than unqualified, we will fully discuss the reasons with you in advance. If, for any reason, we are unable to complete the audit or are unable to form or have not formed an opinion, we may decline to express an opinion or to issue a report as a result of this engagement. Management Responsibilities Management is responsible for making all financial records and related information available to us. We understand that you will provide us with such information required for our audit and that you are responsible for the accuracy and completeness of that information. We will advise you about apl,repriate accounting principles and their application and will assist in the preparation of your financial statements, but the responsibility for the financial statements remains with you. That responsibility includes the establishment and maintenance of adequate records and effective internal control over financial reporting, the selection and application of accounting principles, and the safeguarding of assets. Management is responsible for adjusting the financial statements to correct material misstatements and for affirming to us in the representation letter that the effects of any uncorrected misstatements aggregated by us during the current engagement and pertaining to the latest period presented are immaterial. both individually and in the aggregate, to the financial statements taken as a whole. 8400 E. Crescent Parkway â€¢ Suite 600 â€¢ Greenwood Village, CO 80111 â€¢ (720) 528-4306 Fax: (720) 528-4307 t Board of Trustees Town of Estes Park Page 2 Management is responsible for the design and implementation of programs and controls to prevent and detect fraud, and for informing us about all known or suspected fraud involving management, employees who have significant roles in internal control, and others where the fraud could have a material effect on the financial statements. Management is also responsible for informing us ofyour knowledge of any allegations of fraud or suspected fraud received in communications from employees, former employees, regulators, or others. In addition, management is responsible for identifying and ensuring that the Town complies with applicable laws and regulations. Audit Procedures-General An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements; therefore, our audit will involve judgment about the number oftransactions to be examined and the areas to be tested. We will plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable rather than absolute assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement, whether caused by error or fraud. Because an audit is designed to provide reasonable, but not absolute, assurance and because we will not perform a detailed examination of all transactions, there is a risk that material misstatements may exist and not be detected by us. In addition, an audit is not designed to detect immaterial misstatements or violations of laws or regulations that do not have a direct and material effect on the financial statements. However, we will inform you of any material errors and any fraud that comes to our attention. We will also inform you of any other violations of laws or regulations that come to our attention, unless clearly inconsequential. Our responsibility as auditors is limited to the period covered by our audit and does not extend to matters that might arise during any later periods for which we are not engaged as auditors. Our procedures will include tests of documentary evidence supporting the transactions recorded in the accounts, and may include tests of the physical existence of inventories, and direct confirmation of receivables and certain other assets and liabilities by correspondence with selected individuals, creditors, and financial institutions. We will request written representations from your attorneys as part ofthe engagement, and they may bill you for responding to this inquiry. At the conclusion of our audit, we will also require certain written representations from you about the financial statements and related matters. Identifying and ensuring that the Town complies with laws, regulations, contracts, and agreements is the responsibility of management. As part of obtaining reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free ofmaterial misstatement, we will perform tests ofthe Town's compliance with applicable laws and regulations and the provisions ofcontracts and agreements. However, the objective of our audit will not be to provide an opinion on overall compliance and we will not express such an opinion. Audit Procedures-Internal Control In planning and performing our audit, we will consider the internal control sufficient to plan the audit in order to determine the nature, timing, and extent of our auditing procedures for the purpose of expressing our opinion on the Town's financial statements. An audit is not designed to provide assurance on internal control or to identify reportable conditions. However, we will inform the governing body or audit committee of any matters involving internal control and its operation that we consider to be reportable conditions under standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. Reportable conditions involve matters coming to our attention relating to significant deficiencies in the design or operation of the internal control that, in our judgment, could adversely affect the Town's ability to record, process, summarize, and report financial data consistent with the assertions of management in the financial statements. * 0 Board of Trustees Town of Estes Park Page 3 Audit Administration, Fees, and Other Our fees for these services will be at our standard hourly rates plus out-of-pocket costs (such as report reproduction, typing, postage, copies, telephone, etc.) except that we agree that our maximum fee, including expenses, will not exceed $18,000. If the Town is required to conduct a Single Audit, additional fees will not exceed $2,000. Our standard hourly rates vary according to the degree ofresponsibility involved and the experience level ofthe personnel assigned to your audit. Our invoices for these fees will be rendered each month as work progresses and are payable on presentation. The above fee is based on anticipated cooperation from your personnel and the assumption that unexpected circumstances will not be encountered during the audit. If significant additional time is necessary, we will discuss it with you and arrive at a new fee estimate before we incur the additional costs. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to the Town of Estes Park and believe this letter accurately summarizes the significant terms ofour engagement. Ifyou have any questions, please let us know. Ifyou agree with the terms of our engagement as described in this letter, please sign the enclosed copy and return it to us. Very truly yours, Â§*A#&4 Â£ A.~y uo Swanhorst & Company LLC RESPONSE This letter correctly sets forth the understanding of the Town of Estes Park. Bv Title Date e > Finance, Light & Power, Water Departments Memo To: Honorable Mayor Baudek Board of Trustees Town Administrator Repola From: Steve MeFarland, Finance Officer Date: February 6,2007 Subject: 2007 Renewal of Investment Advisory Agreement with MBIA Background MBIA Municipal Investors Service Corporation and the Town of Estes Park have had an investment advisory agreement since February 2002. MBIA recommends and executes purchases and sales of U.S. Treasuries and Instrumentalities in accordance with Colorado Statutes and Town investment policy. MBIA is paid a monthly fee of 1/12 of .17 of 1 % of Adjusted Cost Value of our asset base. This equates out to about $12-15,000 per year. Documentation/explanation Attached please find the MBIA Renewal of Investment Advisory Agreement document. MBIA requests to have these agreements extended annually. Refusal/failure to execute the agreement simply means that we by default enter into an agreement with MBIA on a monthly basis. The annual agreement protects us from fee increases except on an annual basis. The investment team is going to do an RFP for our investment services in 2007. Results will be reported to the Audit Committee. Action steps requested Approval for signature on the "Renewal of Investment Advisory Agreemenf' document. 9, 4 MBIA MUNICIPAL INVESTORS SERVICE CORPORATION 1700 Broadway, Suite 2050 Denver, CO 80290 (303) 860-1100 RENEWAL OF INVESTMENT ADVISORY AGREEMENT On February 1, 2002 MBIA Municipal Investors Service Corporation, ("the Advisor") and the Town of Estes Park, Colorado ("the Client") entered into an Investment Advisory Agreement ("the Agreement") for the Advisor to provide investment management services to the Client. Article 17 of the Agreement provides that the term of the Agreement, "......shall be for the period February 1, 2002 to December 31, 2002." Article 17 further provides that, "The Client may elect to renew the Agreement upon notice to Advisor for each of the fiscal years 2003, 2004,2005 and 2006." The Advisor and the Client desire to extend the Agreement for an additional one-year period. It is therefore agreed that the term of the Agreement is extended to December 31, 2007. It is further agreed that all other terms and conditions of the Agreement remain unchanged. MBIA MUNICIPAL INVESTORS SERVICE CORPORATION Mary Donovan, Vice President Date TOWN OF ESTES PARK Steve McFarland, Finance Officer Date Town Administrator Date T 8 / . . 4 : 03 4 4 CD 4 ;/ A 6 Cl) : 11,1 . 1 L) - 'DA 1 1 0 ,L_3 -m 4 --447 R w7k--1 ~ 43 til L_# 41 4 O 41 4 0 â€¢rn 0,1 N C4 3 u,On e , Q) L BA 6=1 /} 1 I ' r . O a, VA 44(2 1-, . 4 3 c 1 IG) â‚¬ 1 4.*3 44 16-9 -1 $ .9 4 ,~ C) ~ , t' 4 L 41 - IMI a> (U t ty#: r , al L I. L) :, + W./ 43 1Â»1 --1 . 2 6 / t. 1 a o /700- 0) a 3 liz) Â£4 *21 1 '1 //9/1 , Town of Estes Park History of the Estes Park Trail System Trail System Overview "A Path to Enhancement" 51<J,"11,-irL-,11 /6/1*%4~ iÂ·a ,a~ Produced by: .1/1/1/~AliW Greg Sievers, Project Manager 'Â© ~~ Public Works Department February 2007 Colorado Big Thompson Project Project Origin & Planning 1930's - 1940's NCWCD plans to bring I - 2 HI TIA 1~ west slope water to thedrought stricken plains 1 Land use 1 Funding 1 Master plannin# 4~.3t~M. , Construction Wilyq/1,~4*.... â€¢ Usage 11.Uit ~~~~~~~~-~~' -15 * d~>j!-t~ Senator Alva B. Adams - ,~.mmt, 41'k:iIAW,l tf, 314 13 mile long tunnel ~~ -,-9,- , ff~p. Started in 1939 - Holing through ceremony Ittl /'-~'.~ #F.~2'0** b 1979 Aerial image from PW database June 10, 1944 . d//211:yolu=--&-I.ii....2/-'-- .0 1 Olympus Dam Dedication 499/RM%&1? - Land Use & the United StateS GOVe'l|ment 0]YMPUS DAM 1 - , â€¢ Lake Estes and its perimeter land is owned by the 1049 891011.61,1â€¢-1111; 11:aar,{,N *all)##it - 1 a U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. Dept. of the Interior. -/1- 6.....IM i./1,4.1 'til *!IDUK'All# 2 ~ â€¢ I.G.A. signed on March 30, 1954 to manage these *Am*960:â‚¬4â€¢111Â·':6680 ..; tdaul.#kf~*944* >~ local lands, along with the Town, NPS, NCWCD ./.â€¢ m .â€¢'t M... .1 .1-,1, . . *mi 4. 1 I â€¢ Lake area & land has been administered by the . -4 ~ E.V.R.P.D. since 1957. 111Â¢*Dil, *'All'* MWMNÂ·*a' el .W EIUM ~ â€¢ Current agreement expires 2009. New IGA will run 4 +14.4 41, erÂ· â€¢1-4110*K Â·1 1 for 25 years. (with a 25 year renewal) LÂ· /3 I . :4 . t.- â€¢ BIO.R. has also provided some trail grant money. The 160 acre Lake is filled by 1955 Concept & Planning f â€¢ 1993 -Public Works Department fields requests CDOT involvement from families wishing to ride bikes somewhere besides streets. â€¢ Staff & Trustees identify that trails are a tourist â€¢ Colorado Department of Transportation commodity state & nation wide. * administers all Federal I.S.T.E.A. funds Town Board supports a master plan. Â¥ â€¢ Some portions of the Lake Trail are in CDOT â€¢ 1994 - PW hires consulting engineers to draft a 4 highway rights-of-way, Lake Estes Loop Trail plan ana a Valley wide ~' â€¢ CDOT construction specifications are substantially master plan and write grant applications. ,%*i more strict that Town specs. â€¢ 1994 - PW & EVRPD staff successfully apply for fÂ¥ â€¢ CDOT has distributed $1.2 million in grants to the ISTEA, State & GoCo grant monies for trails. * Estes Park trail system. â€¢ Design & Construction Management costs will * â€¢ CDOT has provided $1.9 million for Highway & average 23% over the construction costs, when !* Bridge projects adjacent to the trail system, YE= grants are involved. Â» 2 t RA -/ 4,4 Town of -2 ,//4 Lake Estes Trail ~ .7 b T. Phases 1 & 2 - 1995 1 Net,â€¢ e -- Park , - 77"- 1 4 -4 /4- 4 Â·1* n<%4 *0 .1 4.7 -hy Trail %$&17 :9,1' 699/ Master 3 Ht_. = i.i~Â·.,r 24/% 6.-- Plan =~ L Â¢ mi /0:*18"~/1,11/11 p 0 1 31 4.-: _iP le=' Bridging the Big Thompson River Lake Estes Trail Phase 4 - 1998 202:EAZ' 7.-==E12~ April 5, 1995 July 26,2005 CESimage r- 3 ' 1 Lake Estes Trail Summary (not including design & CM) 1 1 1- 4 , 1 11 1 11 1 1 1.1 Tri r'11 111 11 111 11 1 1 111 11 'lul'JILL*61 4.95 1 11 lilli , J,1111111111,Â»1~. 1 aw:1111,61 2-21 Lake Estes loop trail - 3.8 miles 7050 S476900 $,6,1. 350000 ./2010 S20000 %50000 1 1995 - 2000 [ ~ Marina b~~ ~arIna 1996 1007 $34720 $17 360 $11360 3 Marina to 1998 3035' 51Â·59Â® $11600 $1! 600 S92 700 WapRI 4 Causeway 1997 2770 5456035 $225475 $203 560 5 C,useway 1998 4120 $222030 $25.390 $25390 S21250 $100000 $50000 --103" - to Power Plant 6 Mall Road 2000 2880 .GO 000 $286,000 $17400 1196000 3 ..141 1 -6 1 . 4 7 CVB to 2000 800' S257090 $151,0/ $106000 tunnel TOTALS 3.9mt 20962 /,022,675 ~76,255 $121.750 :512 - $197,850 $150000 $67,360 $96.50 It/ 74 29% 10% 7% 3% perfoot 9 Completed In 7 phases - Total Cost $2,022,675 DEDICATION CEREMONY October 26,2000 Highway 36 Tunnel @ Big Thompson River - 2000 k - -. 18.-) â€¢ CDOT allocates $1.lmillion to widen the -1 4* Highway 36 bridge. It is too narrow to meet ~351% a good 'Level of Service'. â€¢ PW also budgets in-house funds to include a 4 pedestrian tunnel parallel to river. â€¢ Tunnel allows direct pedestrian access to 2 Downtown from Lake Estes and the Visitors 3= Center, without crossing the highway. . 4 , Pedestrian Tunnel 2000 & 2006 Lake Estes Trail complete- what's Next? ........................... CE= Citizen input by Eagle Rock school Â· 44 Peacelam - Community Unity Project ' - '9 .....,WEASE,Wllill'.. Estes 4~ News~ Highway 36 Pedestrian Tunnel Fish Creek Corridor - 2001 ~ @ Community Dr. - 2001 11" 1 1 1 .1 . A CDOT highway safetygrant is awarded in 2001 to replace all Causeway guardrail on the - Hwy 36 causeway. Gets the ball rolling,,,.. ,/COE- . PW Director Linnane 'sees' an opportunity to ./MI,Imn'*11=//Il' ./.I....B# 1//lil/'pl tunnel under Hwy 36 forpedestrian access and more Federal Aid grant money is acquired. . Intersections of both CR63 & Cbmmunity Drive at Hwy 36 will be greatly inproved. . A Corridor Master Plan is developed. ~ - + -~~ Highway 36 must be raised over 11 +1 11 2 - - *. -- 4 vertical Feet to fit the tunnel under it. This requires rebuilding 800' of road. 5 Fish Creek Trail Phase 1, 2-572 1 12>#24 1 along Golf Course, 2002 al rkÂ»/ tky Fish 91.1 Creek 8/I/,Fili:'11/19:liFFF~31'll'll'llillillillilill'll. Trail , 7â€ž7=,r=~~ Wah, 2=."......N.......li Master .24 4 r m ---- 1......60 - 4.,9 - 7 6 1. Plan . Â· I'llill'll'll'llillillifilillillillea.kLiee/lilli Working right next to the wetlands ..../55;iuiL..liiicatill' 2001 9 *<PE. 4 '94 means very careful fill placement. A bridge is used to avoid the floodway 4 ' .v Fish Creek Trail, Protection of environmentally Phase 2 - 2005 sensitive areas on Fish Creek k,te, - 1--)5% *...~.b -- r . .24'L 44 -h June 2005 June 2006~ ~ 6 , Fish Creek Trail 1 Phase 3,2006 Fish Creek Trail Summary *- Location ~~7-'--i;2'~1~~~8- EVRPD LD#ITI 1,â€¢ir'O:,1Â·,60' ntill - , i.iÂ·~r-1~. . 6, 4,[*t, , -. . Â·, '11,!,fR.Ilh,1111 li. 1, ijQi .11 1,1 11,1 Ar *4â€ž 0 Hwy I 2000 3950 3624000 1122000 9907000 S198000 $150000 .7 01)0 Before underpass-lcdle PIUs 1/ 1 Erodleâ€¢â€¢Counlry .03 4900 1300 000 53000,0 Club Dr 2 Counlry Clublo 2004 2800 S 596 = $2540Â« .341000 Scott Ave r - 3 Scott '0 H,,7 2006 2800 S 264800 $164800 $100000 4 Proposed'con 2007 1/ 200**) ap: Avecrosgng TOTALS ..227,800 $1,178,000 1122000 $1412,800 $198000 1260.000 .700. Special care is taken ' 1 1 1,1. I 1 . 1 1 $110 2.74 36% 4% 44% 6% 8% 2% to keep the hillside cut , miles perfoot as small as possible in The pond open space After Fall River Corridor Trail Fish Creek Corridor summary â€¢ Use Town master plan to forecast . PW acquires an Enhancement Grant to build phases. the pedestrian tunnel at Community Drive â€¢ Goal: Connect downtown to RMNP. plus build 3/4 mile of trail south to Brodie Ave. . Grants and Town allocations will build â€¢ Exercise new 2000 EVDC. 2.75 miles of trail in 5 years. â€¢ Development Code requires . Creates a 5.2 mile loop. Includes Hwy 7 developers to provide infrastructure . Fish Creek trail total cost = $1.36m on their site. â€¢ EPURA builds Performance Park. 7 i Fall River Master Plan 2002 , Start point - Performance Park - 2002 1 .h./' 4--7 :-..4. - 9 'reaches' are developed as a Â¢WZ/*I/=~J<'4#61. proposed annual ~ phasing plan. Ill/3,9/#Al//dhill/Ell"al"/14/H~L.' .119"I/~E'*Plaib 1,4".'.. ....... %:I...../. I â€žpi#9,46 11,1- 7 M--r- il i, .1 Phase 1 - 2003 Fall River Village Fall River Trail Phase 21 2002 (Privi,itc property' cascmrnt ) , .,1 i.0,"C';'-- ' Â· PL I. A -4..w r. -Â·- Developer adds trail bridge at their cost, =I:--- r././=.. 1 ..~~ Â£#77""/ 7.i' fs/1/ENE,MOTJL West Elkhorn Avenue - Hwy 34 Business The Town agrees to build the trail May 2002 June 2006 on a 'dedicated' Trail easement provided by the land owner. -Li- 8 j Fall River Trail Foot Bridge - 2()()4 Phase 2B, West Elkhorn Avenue, 2004 Â·Â·:i,i~,;.,2..9,;i;F'41 r,"/1/MI 6 .~ Illilia l~~11 /Elle'll'll'll ~ 4, U - -- t T------g~ W.:='.434*// +VI Fall River crossing @ The Willows- before & after Bridging the Fall River Fall River Trail - Summary ~ Expansion Trails Phase Location Year Length Total T.E.P. CDOT other The Knoll property ~ 27 2''i'7~ 1 Perfoimance 2002 1315' $292,600 ! $292.600 Park to --1.- ~ -Iwi'b//4/1. .INnes St & bndge abubnents 2 James St to Valley 2003 2390 $174,655 $174,655 Rd. includes .Ilows fool bndge - 1-4 9---.&::I/*~*/J:*-- 3 2005 100' $20.000 $0 Noel Lane - #/01/'25Â£ I----.-~. Fall River Village & Bob bridge (private) Filby I ./Inv-1.Iiall-*13* L 4 Proposed Valley 2007-8 3000' $350,000 $350,000 Rd to Casle Mountain Lodge Black Canyon Oeek rustic trail 2002 ~ TOTAL $126 per 0.72 1- 3,805' $487,255 $467,255 ~ foot ~ Birch house ruins 9 . 1 ~ MacGregor Avenue sidewalk ~ Managing our Trails .Im~ :'I;~612@*99 itter ~"14. & viewing platform uuwl.....2. â€¢ Pedestrian safety ---/........ â€¢ Citizen assistance - L â€¢ Wildlife considerations___~. ,. â€¢ Maintenance .lial--Ill : 40Â¥ 1 . 1 4#9/.1//3./.HIP' 7Â·4. 1/Yrill. -Ill--O-IIIIbLiEl.#6 / 3./ MacGregor Avenue sidewalk 2004 - Also adds 43 new parking stalls Wildlife interactions on our trails ~ Public use & funs â€¢ January 2006 - Pw installed a pedestrian counter at Cherokee Draw (across from Museum) Low = 19/day, High = 614/day â€¢ 2006 usage - 69,555 pedestrians â€¢ January 2007 - new counter added @ - Big Thompson River foot bridge - Low = 73/day/water â€¢ Activity proves almost 4 times as many people use the north half of the trail vs. the south half. 10 1 | Other uses along the Trail Trail System Cost Summary Water â€¢ Lake Estes Trail: 3.8m, Total cost $2,022,675* sports â€¢ Fish Creek Trail: 2.8m , Topl cost 1 $0,227,800 2 . â€¢ Fall River Trail: .75m, Total cost *, 467,255 â€¢ Knoll - Willows: 0.5m, Total cost $% 177,655 â€¢ TOTAL invested to date (9/06) $5.717.730 â€¢ 7.34 miles of concrete trail = $147.53/LF 42 Picnicking Serenity & . M PW staff time, or material testing. ~ ' th. . , : ?j.3 â€¢ Costs shown do not include design, construction mailagement, meditation = Approximately 30% additional.gst%, ~ - *ailb. D 1, Future Plans 2007 Trail replacement 2007-8 - Extend Fall River Trail Fall River Trail- Phase 4 Begin .....6 <- =2~ Highway 34 - |~ PROPOSED DESIGN AREA Const,uction Visitors @ Center ~ "~ -#- + *4**~4â€že ' .r' Valley ,/1/"rel.'E-/2"VI//7/1,p--7,-./4*6'll Design Sidewalk ~-â€¢151.,bla- West to Road Castle fEM~,,4-9*141*64*#4.043&~ ./.F-/1 196 1./.- Mtn. , 0 1.1 Mt,2 .1 f 1 '/Dit -1 1-==0.- - 1 4,;:,4.: 1 1.pl '- .4.*ey; Replace old ~ -.=,-- Lodge Asphalt with- 0,1 Elkhorn Iver,ul an/Fal~Riwer Road i.* 34- *.1,04.) Covered FROM %,balley Roed wegt lo Eback H* Lodge - 48. concrete. Bridge area ~19R Â»04-1-*~nt~â€žq-â€¢-r 11 ; The Future ? -*I, ?98$ f Thank you, and Happy Trails 12 1 Memo Date: February 6,2007 TO: Town Board From: Gregory A. White RE: Ordinance 4-07 - Application for Permanent CBT Water Allotment Contract BACKGROUND: In 2006, the Town acquired six units of Colorado Big Thompson Water (CBT) pursuant to the Water Lease Agreement with Continental Water Bank. Pursuant to the rules and regulations of the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District (NCWCD), the Town is required to transfer the six units of CBT water to a Permanent Section 131 Contract by March 1, 2007. The purpose of Ordinance 4-07 is to authorize application to the NCWCD for conversion of six acre-feet of CBT water from a Temporary Use Permit to a Permanent Allotment Contract. BUDGET IMPLICATIONS: There are no budgetary implications STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Ordinance 4-07. ORDINANCE NO. 4-07 AN ORDINANCE TO APPLY AND CONTRACT FOR BENEFICIAL USE OF WATER ON BEHALF OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, AND PRESCRIBING THE TERMS FOR APPLICATION FOR AN ALLOCATION OF THE RIGHT TO USE COLORADO-BIG THOMPSON PROJECT WATER TO SAID TOWN OF ESTES PARK BY NORTHERN COLORADO WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT. WHEREAS, under the Water Conservancy Â·Act of Colorado, Title 37, Article 45, Colorado Revised Statutes of 1973, it is necessary that the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park, a Colorado municipal corporation (hereinafter called "Applicant"), in order to obtain the perpetual right to use Colorado-Big Thompson Project water on an annually renewable basis under C.R.S. 37-45-131 within the boundaries of the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District, by contract for the beneficial use of water from the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District, shall by ordinance authorize and direct the Mayor and Town Clerk to apply to the Board of Directors of said District for such water contract. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO: Section 1: That the Town of Estes Park has determined to apply for a contract providing for the beneficial use of six (6) acre-feet of water from the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District within the boundaries of the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District. Section 2: That the Mayor and Town Clerk be and are hereby authorized and directed to apply to the Board of Directors of said Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District for a contract providing to the Applicant the beneficial use of water upon terms prescribed by said Board in the manner and form as in this section provided, to-wit: APPLICATION TO NORTHERN COLORADO WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT FOR ANNUALLY RENEWABLE PERPETUAL WATER CONTRACT FOR RIGHT TO USE COLORADO-BIG THOMPSON PROJECT WATER UNDER C.R.S. 37-45-131 Applicant, Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park, the governing body of a Colorado municipal corporation acting as a governing body of a water activity enterprise, hereby applies to the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District, a 4 , political subdivision of the State of Colorado, organized and existing by virtue of Title 37, Article 45, Colorado Revised Statutes, 1973, for a contract for the right to beneficially use Colorado-Big Thompson Project water under the following terms and conditions: 1. The quantity of water herein requested by Applicant for annual application to beneficial use is six (6) acre-feet to be used so long as the Applicant fully complies with all of the terms, conditions, and obligations hereinafter set forth. 2. It is understood and agreed by the Applicant that any water provided for use under this contract by the Board of Directors of said District shall be primarily for domestic, irrigation, or industrial use within or through facilities or upon lands owned or served by said Applicant, provided however, that all lands, facilities, and serviced areas which receive benefit from the use of water (whether water service is provided by direct delivery, by exchange, or otherwise) shall be situated within the boundaries of Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District. 3. Applicant agrees that an acre-foot of water as referred to herein is defined as being one-three-hundred-ten-thousandth (1/310,000) of the quantity of water annually declared by the Board of Directors of the District to be available for delivery from the water supplies of the District. Applicant agrees that such water shall be delivered from the works of the District at such existing District delivery point or points as may be specified by the Applicant and that the water delivery obligation of the District shall terminate upon release of water from said works. Further, the Applicant agrees that on November 1 of each year, any water undelivered from the annual quantity made available to the Applicant shall revert to the water supplies of the District. 4. Applicant agrees to pay annually in advance for the amount of water herein provided for use under this contract by the Board of Directors of said District at a price per acre-foot to be fixed annually by said Board; and, further, agrees that the initial annual payment shall be made, in full, within fifteen (15) days after the date of notice from the District that the initial payment is due hereunder. Said notice will advise the Applicant, among other things, of the water year to which the initial payment shall apply and the price per acre-foot which is applicable to that year. Annual payments for each water year thereafter shall be made in advance by the Applicant on or before each October 1, 31 days prior to the start of the water year, at the rate per acre- foot established by the Board for municipal water use in that water year. For the purpose of this water contract, the water year is defined to be from November 1 to October 31 of the following year. If an annual payment, as herein provided, is not made by the due date, written notice thereof, by certified mail, will be given by said District to the Applicant at the following address: 2 . Town of Estes Park Attn: Town Administrator P. O. Box 1200 Estes Park, Colorado, 80517 Water deliveries shall be suspended as of November 1 of the new water year until payment of the delinquency is made. If payment is not made within ninety (90) days after the date of mailing of said written notice, Applicant shall have no further right, title, or interest under this contract; and the right of use of water, as herein made, shall be disposed of at the discretion of the Board of Directors of said District in accordance with the applicable provisions of C.R.S. Section 37-45-132 and 7-42-104. Any proceeds from any sale of the right of use to another allottee shall be paid to Applicant over and above the District's actual expense in terminating and disposing of the contract right of use. 5. This right of use shall be perpetual on an annually renewable basis. If the annual payment is made as providedin this application, the right of use shall be automatically renewed another water year without any further action of the District; if the annual payment is not timely made, as provided above, the right of use shall terminate. 6. Applicant agrees that the water allocation shall be beneficially used for the purposes and in the manner specified herein, and that this right of use is made for the exclusive benefit of the Applicant and shall not inure to the benefit of any successors or assigns of said Applicant without prior specific approval of the Board of Directors of said District. 7. Applicant agrees to be bound by the provisions of the Water Conservancy Act of Colorado; by Section 37-45-131; by the Rules and Regulations and policies of the Board of Directors of said District; and by the Repayment Contract of July 5, 1938, between said District and the United States and all amendments thereof and supplements thereto. 8. Applicant agrees, as a condition of this contract, to enter into an "Operating Agreement" with said District if and when the Board of said District finds and determines that such an agreement is required by reason of additional or special services requested by the Applicant and provided by the District. Said agreement may contain, but not be limited to, provision for water delivery at times or by means not provided within the terms of standard contracts of the District; additional annual monetary consideration for extension of District delivery services and for additional administration, operation and maintenance costs; or for other costs to the District which may arise through provision of services to the Applicant. Section 3: In the opinion of the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park, 3 I ' acquisition of this annually renewable perpetual right of use water contract for Colorado- Big Thompson Project water from the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District and the right to the beneficial use of water thereunder by said Town of Estes Park is necessary; that the continued acquisition and use of this water supply is essential for the well-being of the community and for the preservation of the public peace, health, and safety; and that the adequate protection of the health of the inhabitants of the community requires an immediate increase in Applicant's water supply. WHEREAS, in the opinion of the Board of Trustees an emergency exists, this Ordinance shall take effect and in force immediately after its adoption and signature by the Mayor. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO, THIS DAY OF 2007. TOWN OF ESTES PARK Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk I hereby certify that the above Ordinance was introduced and read at a regular meeting of the Board of Trustees on the day of , 2007 and published in a newspaper of general circulation in the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, on the day of ,2007. Town Clerk 4 4 4 ORDER ON APPLICATION Application having been made by or on behalf of all parties interested in this allocation of the right to use Colorado-Big Thompson Project water and after a Hearing by the Board, it is hereby ORDERED that the above application be granted and an allotment contract for six (6) acre-feet of water is hereby made to the Town of Estes Park, a Colorado municipal corporation, for the beneficial uses set forth in said application upon the terms, conditions, and manner of payment as therein specified. NORTHERN COLORADO WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT President I hereby certify that the above Order was entered by the Directors of Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District on the day of A.D., 2007. ATTEST: Secretary 5 APPLICATION TO NORTHERN COLORADO WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT FOR CANCELLATION OF TEMPORARY USE PERMIT The Town of Estes Park hereby applies for the cancellation ofthe following Temporary Use Permit: Pennit Dated Acre-Feet June 9,2006 6 Total Quantity to be Released 6 Dated at Estes Park, Colorado this day of ,2007. TOWN OF ESTES PARK ATTEST: By (SEAL) ORDER ON APPLICATION Application having been made by the Town of Estes Park for the cancellation of the above Temporary Use Permit, and Hearing having been held by the Board of Directors of Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District, it is hereby ORDERED that the above Temporary Use Permit be canceled. Dated the day of ,2007. NORTHERN COLORADO WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT ATTEST: President Secretary . I Finance, Light & Power, Water Departments Memo To: Honorable Mayor Baudek Board ofTrustees Town Administrator Repola From: Steve MeFarland, Finance Officer Date: February 6,2007 Subject: Review of Resort Community: Benchmarking Data document Background From page 5 ofthe attached document: "Early in 2006, several resort communities from the Colorado Association of Ski Towns (CAST) initiated the Resort Community Benchmarking Group (RCBG). The goal of RCBG is to improve existing services, processes, and procedures by learning from our peers and studying their best practices. Whereas most benchmarking groups seek to compare many entities that have very little in common, other than geographical location and perhaps population size, RCBG focuses instead 6n a very specific class of cities and towns - resort communities. The intention is to present data that more closely represents an apples-to-apples comparison, thus enabling the communities involved to better utilize the data in an effort to improve service delivery." The attached report is Phase I of (at least) a two-phase report. It examines the financial health of the participating towns on a macro level. Details in the attached document were compiled by the Budget, Debt, & Grants Department of the Park City Municipal Corporation. Fully participating municipalities include Park City, Durango, Silverthome, Telluride, Frisco, Breckenridge, Steamboat Springs, Mountain Village, Estes Park and Jackson. Six other communities (Ketchum, Sun Valley, Crested Butte, Grand Lake, Mt. Crested Butte and Snowmass) also participated to a limited extent. . Documentation/explanation Attached please find the "Resort Community Benchmarking Data" report. The first half of the report (pp 8-44) discusses demographic information and comparisons of the towns. The second half of the report (pp 44-80) discusses financial health indicators of the participating resort communities. I will present a short Powerpoint presentation at the Board meeting to highlight import findings. Action steps requested None. â€¢ Page 2 Resort Benchmark Report 330!J ) eoueu!:1 - PUBIJBBOIN GAels uoREIndod III 4!0 9, OBBIDAEâ€ž 1SOUI 041 S! solsE[ 0 Demographic Comparison by City 0 16 participating cities ZEÂ¢f :UOUBIndod 'SAV Â¤ ZES'g :UOREIndod solsE[ 0 4 -m --- Demographic comparison by city Â¤ General fund budget average: $10,434,565 Â¤ All funds budget average: $24,751,449 spury Ielol pue (l,68'fS Â£'I I $) pury IBIOUOS ollsosolo osIE O.IE (IBI'5*Z'Â§20 108 Xmed!0!unw Buned!,wed Kuu JO â€žOBELIJAE k * .1 Demographic comparisons by city Â¤ Total FTEs (153) below avg. (171) Â¤ Budgeted GF revenue ($10.4m) is below avg. OUIOque!POUI JOAAOI 41!AA SUAAO, OAN KIUO O (0017'632$) dE[ UEW onIBA ($19.3m) .SE d FC O E fl 0 E A S t Eab U > A CS Financial health indicators o Bond ratings - about half of the towns have no GO Debt. We are one of them. Â¤ Data available for service populatio , AA OWOq pu~ cUOUUIndod nICA pOSSOSSE Iclol 'SIOUSIA Financial Health Indicators Â¤ EP ranks 3rd in liquidity (ability to pay short Â¤ EP has no long term debt, so we rank #1 in OAA BUTUBOIU 'pl Â£ S~UE.I dE[ - el!.deo iod saiti o Jo SiU101 U! Suujuls ino qum luo!0930 X.IDA 0113 term obligations). i BO~ 1841 .uoquIndod 041 Su!0!AJOS 4% Financial health indicators Â¤ General fund balance as a percent of revenues: EP ranks 78 &9 40.5 Conclusion Â¤ Estes Park's financial health compares very favorably with the participating resort towns. Â¤ We will report on the 2nd half of the study as *popnIOU00 1! s! SE uoos RESORT CommunITY D .01 1 1 7 i. , 13 ty,6.2.0~19&~- . M te'-Â·'-? .4 - '4 . 1 1,1 / 4 411 0 0 1~21 1, 0 1 I 0 I ' ..1 If 41 f. t PHASE I: DEmOGRAPHIC DATn & finuncini HERITH InDICATORS 4 to TRB) Of COATEnTS INTRODUCTION 5 S. Â¢ c' DEMOGRAPHIC COMPARISON BY CITY 8 DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION OF EACH CITY 12 6 . Cle, Name 1 Page 4 City of Durango 12 r f City of Ketchum 14 City of Steamboat Springs 16 City of Sun Valley 18 Park City Municipal Corporation 20 ; Town of Breckenridge Municipal Corporation 22 i Town of Crested Butte 24 Town of Estes Park 26 Town of Frisco 28 i i Town of Grand Lake 30 Townof Jackson 32 , i Town of Mountain Village 34 Town of Mt. Crested Butte 36 , Town of Silverthorne 38 Town of Snowmass Village 40 P , I Town of Telluride 42 ,/ | 1 1 - Continued on next page 3 I i -2: , - '' D .. P# .1.-. It- -- 7- . . I . 4 f . TAW Of ConTEnTS 1 1 X. 4 1 # 1/ FINANCIAL HEALTH INDICATORS COMPARISON BY CITY 44 FINANCIAL HEALTH INDICATORS OF EACH CITY , 62 ' Cle, Name Â· Page Park City 62 . Durango 64 : Silverthorne 66 Telluride 68 Frisco 70 Breckenridge 72 1 Steamboat Springs 74 Mountain Village 76 Estes Park 78 Jackson 80 r - Â·G. --- ~'Ill--- i } 4. ./ : ' 2 47 4 4 -r \ L / J . 4 -- J ... .1 .r .â„¢ 1. H .0 - - W.J . I . -,1 40 InTRODUCTIOn ' C . Early in 2006, several resort communities from the Colorado Association of Ski Towns (CAST) initiated the Resort Community Benchmarking Group (RCBG). The goal of RCBG is to improve existing services, proc- esses, and procedures by learning from our peers and studying their best practices. Whereas most benchmark- ing groups seek to compare many entities that have very little in common, other than geographical location and perhaps population size, RCBG focuses instead on a very specific class of cities and towns-resort com- munities. The intention is to present data that more closely represents an apples-to-apples comparison, thus enabling the communities involved to better utilize the data in an effort to improve service delivery. The group decided to approach this benchmarking program in phases. First, demographic information for each participating community would be compiled to provide a back-drop or frame of reference in which to view the data. Then the group would collect a few high-level financial health indicators as Phase I of the program. Later, the group would craft a set ofkey service delivery measures to benchmark as part of Phase II. Eventu- ally the measures will become more specific as the group hones in on precisely what is important, meaningful, and useful in terms ofachieving efficiencies. RCBG Work Plan L Â¢~m~ fi:f:11~1}&#QIâ€¢Râ€¢]0Â®],-ms[Â«tâ€¢Â£4,M| ~J 0 mmill" 1/1/M:liziwilm;2mf~f*mmzwmmfi!:11@1;Ima L J The following document contains the demographic information collected by RCBG as well as the results of Phase I: Financial Health Indicators. Results were compiled by the Budget, Debt, & Grants Department of Parb City Mu- nicipal Corporation. For more information or questions regarding this Itudy, oâ€¢ ifyour resort community would like to join the Resort Community Benchmarking Group, please contact Bret Howier at (435) 615-5181 or bhowle,@parbcity.org. r ? r--- -,-21, 5 Financial Health ~IMIiNtor~ 1. , . ~ i. ~ GGIEGITIED GYKB-bU - I + 3,1 - U . .. County Fisca,1 Popula- Square ' \ City Name State Name ~ Yearr tion Miles .~ Jan. 1 - City of Durango La Plata CO 15,324 9.78 Dec. 31 October City of Ketchum Blaine ID 1through 3,100 3.4 Sept. 30 January 1 - City of Steamboat Springs Routt CO December 9,815 9.8 31 City of Sun Valley Blaine ID 10/1 - 9/30 1,427 9.87 July 1 - Park City Municipal Corporation Summit UT 7,882 12.5 June 30 -h- January 1- i Town of Breckenridge Municipal Summit CO December 3,335 4.68 Corporation 31 Town of Crested Butte Gunnison CO Jan/Dec 1,543 <1 Town of Estes Park Larimer CO Jan - Dec 5,822 6.5 January/ 2 Town of Frisco Summit CO 2.700 December Town of Grand Lake Grand CO 480 2 i Town of Jackson Teton WY July 1 thru 9,084 2.8 June 30 Town of Mountain Village San Miguel CO Calendar 1,137 3.31 ' Jan 1 to Town of Mt. Crested Butte Gunnison CO 750 1.54 Dec 31 st 01/01/XX - Town of Silverthorne Summit CO 3,909 3.29 12/31/XX January 1 - Town of Snowmass Village Pitkin CO December 2,267 33.7 31 Town of Telluride San Miguel CO 1/1-12/31 2,340 0.7 Avefage 1 | 4,432 , Max * 15,324 _J I , --.. Min 480 6 - : hir'. ':19.Fa,-1*"u'"/m,PS.4â„¢In#.b -i - --- - . - 4. .9 -Il:.4 4 t ij- I I 2 GQTniTTY;mEFFâ‚¬ID Â· th U --' 1 t City Name General Total Budget Form of.Gov- # df Elected : 1 . 1 Fund Budget All Funds ernment:" Officials k. City of Durango $26,567,063 $45,927,568 Council/Manager 5 City of Ketchum $9,080,784 $11,485,907 Council/Mayor 5 City of Steamboat Springs $22,907,000 $38,189,000 Council/Manager 7 City of Sun Valley $4,618,473 $7,522,180 5 Park City Municipal Corporation $17,040,038 $66,340,240 Council/Manager 6 42. Town of Breckenridge Municipal Cor- $19,328,894 $37,484,179 Home Rule ' Council/Manager poration 7 Mayor/Manager Town of Crested Butte $2,465,531 $9,628,161 Home Rule Mu- 7 nicipality Board/ Town of Estes Park . $11,384,897 $25,283,181 Administrator 7 Council/Manager 7 : Town of Frisco $5,545,803 $12,677,059 Home Rule Town of Grand Lake $2,351,547 $2,840,531 Council/Manager 7 Town of Jackson $10,251,870 $29,800,130 Council/Mayor 5 Council/Mayor Town of Mountain Village $2,524,742 $8,287,413 Home rule Mu- 7 nicipality Home Rule Mu- Town of Mt. Crested Butte $3,700,000 $7,853,000 7 nicipality ' Town of Silverthorne $8,109,447 $17,831,098 Council/Manager 7 Home Rule Mu- Town of Snowmass Village $10,642,384 $40,956,359 nicipality 5 rl Town of Telluride $7,035,000 $33,917,178 Municipality 7 Ave~age * 10,434,565 24,181,449 6r Max I 26,567,063 66,340,240 7 1 . ./ b n. 6., 1 A .Min i - 2,351,547 2,840*31 -5. - -4 7 , -- \ m.. \ vt,hvf k . #-I Total # of 1 ~ City Name . Employees Full Time Part Time ' Seasonhl or j (FTE's) Te,nporary ~ ./ I City of Durango 278.3 275.0 3.0 - City of Ketchum 150.0 79.0 45.0 26.0 City of Steamboat Springs 201.5 201.5 8.9 54.4 City of Sun Valley 44.0 23.0 19.0 2.0 Park City Municipal Corporation 476.0 162.0 7.0 307.0 Town of Breckenridge Municipal 453.0 162.0 - 291.0 Corporation Town of Crested Butte 64.0 30.0 4.0 30.0 Town of Estes Park . 153.0 108.0 8.0 37.0 Town of Frisco 42.0 2.0 40.0 - Town of Grand Lake 20.0 11.0 - 9.0 Town of Jackson 122.7 97.9 24.8 - Town of Mountain Village 243.0 131.0 63.0 49.0 Town of Mt. Crested Butte 57.0 19.0 17.0 21.0 Town of Silverthorne 145.0 89.0 50.0 6.0 Town of Snowmass Village 115.0 75.0 1.5 38.5 Town of Telluride 63.0 68.0 68.0 29.0 1 . W - Average 1Â·71 ~ 98' 22 73' Max 476 275 63 - 3~7 Min 20 2. "~ 2 - 8 1 ......... /' 1,1:Ill ['19111[Ull Lel kie] IliWII[4 2.1 1 1~~91*~, .1 ' . - ~~~~ r LJ~~2. ~ ~ Primary Source Secondary Total Budgr City Nome " of City's Source of eted Revenue , : Revenue City's Revenuet (2006) ' r'. . 1- I Charges for City of Durango Sales Tax $41,924,675 Services , City of Ketchum Property Tax Sales Tax $11,485,907 Charges for City of Steamboat Springs Sales Tax $35,824,000 Services Local Option City of Sun Valley Property Tax Tax $7,522,180 ..... Park City Municipal Corporation Property Tax Sales Tax $48,595,507 Town of Breckenridge Municipal Corporation Sales Taxes Other $33,178,720 Real Estate Town of Crested Butte Sales Tax $9,298,948 Transfer Tax Town of Estes Park Sales Tax Property Tax $10,423,359 County Sales City Sales Tax $9,705,256 Town of Frisco Tax Intergovern- Town of Grand Lake Sales Tax $2,221,160 mental Town of Jackson Sales Tax Severance Tax $24,661,450 Town of Mountain Village Taxes Lic/Permits $4,487,299 : Town of Mt. Crested Butte Sales Tax Property Tax $6,480,300 Recreation Town of Silverthorne Sales Tax $12,500,984 Fees Town of Snowmass Village Sales Tax Property Taxes $31,773,514 Real Estate Town of Telluride Sales Tax $17,422,967 2 Transfer Tax Average~ 19,338,884 D i ' twal 48,595,507 J u Min 2,221,160 ~ 9 1 111 " .. r - .....y- 2.liÂ·mii a rED[37(KiXi Â· . j- 6 Median Value* Median Household Income* City of Durango $34,892 $176,300 City of Ketchum $45,457 $411,900 City of Steamboat Springs $54,647 $264,900 City of Sun Valley $71,000 $610,900 Park City Municipal Corporation $65,800 $417,500 Town of Breckenridge Municipal Corporation $43,938 $286,800 Town of Crested Butte $41,250 $249,200 Town of Estes Park $43,262 $229,400 Town of Frisco $62,267 $277,900 Town of Grand Lake $45,096 - Town of Jackson $47,757 $235,600 Town of Mountain Village $30,663 $796,900 Town of Mt. Crested Butte $48,864 $213,200 Town of Silverthorne $58,839 $255,600 Town of Snowmass Village $57,059 $732,800 ' Town of Telluride $51,938 $485,600 1 9 Average 50,147Â·ly 368;493 Mai 71(0001 796,900 Min - 30,663 176,300 ~< *Source: 2000 census, U.S. Census Bureau 1 . 4. :. 4 1 - " 1 . 1 10 - a , / - -fiIEGI;TmTOTTraS:lil&181_kIDERN.UY â€¢ r Medi- Household Income* $80,000 - $70,000 - $60,000 ~ $50,000 - 0- - e IL I -Il $40,000 . - ~-----~ - - - I--Il- - - #-*#- - - - A $30,000 -- - - =- -- - -, - - - - -- - - - - $20,000 -3- , - -7- 77 .- 7- - t-- 9 7- -7.-3 $10,000 1 Â¥ 4 * 1,24 0-* I.Â¥-4// *-, $0 1- -' . ...1.-9 4 604-4464'Â§0~ ortf .C# / 43* 4/P /// 000/ 4/<ftp Ch . / 2 +9, ef \C,9 0/ y , 40 6 C<*FO (41. 4, 2 .*v 'e 6 do <f / =& ap . 4 d. P .2 Â¥, 6 1,69 + 42 6 -Â·F / 2 2// <60 040 *op# 40 i~ 4042 ,<6' 03- 14 ,00~ +4 33 I / 1 4, d- .dP fo 2. 2 9.0 89 eÂ® f Medi- Value of Owne,-Occupled Housing Units $900,000 -tÂ· $800,000 - $700,000 1 $600,000 - , 1 k $500,000 . $400,000 - - Jt " $300,000 , - Â· $200,000 â€¢ AÂ«E 0 4, *1 0 .i, . Mi~: Me EF 64*8 4-4 4 14~/1-//2/7 $100,000 ' 2. 16 *. r O E F '32 -0 : f 121' 75 3' 95 il 3 â‚¬ 3 ./ 1 11 12 ~ 1 # 75 2 22 22 :~ ~C CC C.O B O 8 02 5 > Â£5 ZZ 32 2 Pu. 122 22 2 d 11 '- 2 '- 2 $ ./0 ill 21 -4 ' f .b C~_~ â‚¬:-'- .p4-- 0 11 '. ' ' ' I .. '.Il''I '.. ' - .1 '.,â€ž 0.. . Mr'Â·~49:,/6,14 '. 1/ .4'hAIMI'll.......... Steamboat City of Sun Telluride Estes Pa SSEWMOUS JO UM01 4 '' '' â€¢#KW.' fâ€¢ 0 21 0 --ColORADO Demo...phic Information .4.m.Â¥ 1 County Name La Plata 1 Fiscal Year (Beg/End) Jan. 1-:--Dec. 31 Permanent Population Estimate (2006) 15,324 Square Miles in City Limits 9.78 General Fund Budget (2006) $26,567,063 Total Budget All Fund Combined (2006) $45,927,568 Form of Government Council/Manager Number of Elected Officials 5 Total Number of Employees (FTE's) 278.3 Full Time 275.0 Part Time 3.0 Seasonal or Temporary - Major Revenue Sources Sales Tax Total Budgeted Revenue (2006) $41,924,675 Median Household Income* $34,892 f . Median Value* $176,300 $ .&- I.- r...444 1 - I , ~ 4 + 7'.,9 - Id--.Ill.~ ../ 016 *Source: 2000 census U.S. Census Bureau 12 .. - 1./52 .... kkt-Kle-LD-11-Cia.9.2 j L Se-lies City or Comer,laed Se-lies City o, Contâ€¢acted Animal Control Contracted Planning City Arts City Police City Public Transit/ . Business Licensing City Parking Enforce- City ment W- ' Building Inspections City Recreation City i Municipal Court City Risk Management City , Economic Develop- Contracted Sewer Collection City ment Municipal Utility County Snow Removal City Energy/Natural Gas Storm Water City EMS Contracted Street Maintenance City Communications/ Water Treatment/ City City Dispatch Delivery Engineering City Technical Services City Fire County Budget Office City Garbage Collection City Human Resources City Public Affairs/ Landfill Contracted City Information Office Legal Department City Special Events City Library City Fleet Services City Parks City 1 ..1- â€ž- 13 , 4 ' :tlhÂ· 0 . r./ S. , r. 1D.110 - -3, Demographic Information - 2% .- 1 County Name Blaine Fiscal Year (Beg/End) October 1through Sept. 30 Permanent Population Estimate (2006) 3,100 Square Miles in City Limits 3.4 General Fund Budget (2006) $9,080,784 Total Budget All Fund Combined (2006) $11,485,907 Form of Government Council/Mayor Number of Elected Officials 5 Total Number of Employees (FTE's) 150.0 Full Time 79.0 Part Time 45.0 Seasonal or Temporary 26.0 Major Revenue Sources Property Tax Total Budgeted Revenue (2006) $11,485,907 Median Household Income* $45,457 Median Value* $411,900 - *Source: 200 , L- . 1. . . . ' - 14 3. '14...1,1 I . 1 I 1 1, I ..W. . 1 - . .. .1 . . i -eci~ -4 < 2*. p .'llq â‚¬ . 1 m ,~ 1----4-4 3 1 :4.- te~ i Ul~Jm Se.viges City o, Cont,aâ‚¬ted :erâ€¢lies (14 0, Cont,alted Animal Control City Planning City Arts Police City Public Transit/ Business Licensing City Parking Enforce- Contracted ment Building Inspections City Recreation City Municipal Court Risk Management City/Contracted Economic Develop- City Sewer Collection City ment Municipal Utility City Snow Removal City/Contracted ~ f Energy/Natural Gas Storm Water EMS City Street Maintenance City/Contracted Communications/ City Delivery Water Treatment/ City Dispatch Engineering Contracted Technical Services Contracted Fire City Budget Office Garbage Collection Contracted Human Resources City/Contracted Public Affairs/ Landfill County Information Office City/Contracted Legal Department City Special Events City/Contracted Library County Fleet Services City/Contracted Parks City ~tâ‚¬.r.~/mÂ·r,ih.:,-r.2my~*k;Â·d>:,4.,C*4,-Allum,m-GAÂ»U-b;iC*07.â€ž-â€¢C~~ .... 15 .re- *-#*-/* 1.-'r--0/.-Â· t .0, , nr~ r-Â·- . ..... EE]EE I 0 0 1 . COIORAIDO * - Demogâ€¢-phic Information - 23-lrl . Z-Â· - County Name Routt _ Fiscal Year (Beg/End) January 1 - December 31 Permanent Population Estimate (2006) 9,815 Square Miles in City Limits 9.8 General Fund Budget (2006) $22,907,000 Total Budget All Fund Combined (2006) $38,189,000 1 Form of Government Council/Manager , Number of Elected Officials 7 Total Number of Employees (FTE's) 201.5 Full Time 201.5 Part Time 8.9 Seasonal or Temporary 54.4 Major Revenue Sources Sales Tax Total Budgeted Revenue (2006) $35,824,000 Median Household Income* $54,647 Median Value* $264,900 o -41/ -*.Â·~&2.3:*A-1--L. *Source: 2000 census U.S. Census Bureau .. ~. ....p . . -1 " Al .1 5.. 16 '4 J e - 1. St&*lboat Â»ir* ::44* Services City o, Cont,aded Service. City O, Contâ€¢acted Animal Control City Planning City Arts Council Police City I . Public Transit/ i Business Licensing Parking Enforce- City ment Building Inspections County Recreation City Municipal Court City Risk Management City Economic Develop- EDC Sewer Collection City ment Municipal Utility Snow Removal City Energy/Natural Gas Storm Water City EMS City Street Maintenance City ; Communications/ Water Treatment/ ~ County Delivery City Dispatch ! Engineering City Technical Services City Fire City Budget Office City , Garbage Collection Waste Mgt. Human Resources City Public Affairs/ Landfill City Information Office Legal Department City Special Events Library City Fleet Services City Parks City - 17 , 1. ~~*--v/***,1-*r w - . A y e 1 IDAHO 1 1 X Â¥ .- *1 r:.r ' Demos,-phic Info,mation li County Name Blaine Fiscal Year (Beg/End) 10/1 - 9/30 Permanent Population Estimate (2006) 1,427 Square Miles in City Limits 9.87 General Fund Budget (2006) $4,618,473 ac Total Budget All Fund Combined (2006) $7,522,180 Form of Government Number of Elected Officials 5 Total Number of Employees (FTE's) 44.0 Full Time 23.0 Part Time 19.0 Seasonal or Temporary 2.0 Major Revenue Sources Property Tax R Total Budgeted Revenue (2006) $7,522,180 Median Household Income* $71,000 Median Value* $610,900 . ri %4 1////L * .61.- '1â€¢â€¢ 9 W O ill'Ljir'..1184 *ill, 11, I 01-ill *Source: 2000 census U.S. Census Bureau 1 18 I . 9 . '' - ...1 0 0 0 D-, ---*r A- 0867 . e e"==m:. F City op Cont,-ted Se-lies City 0, Cont,acted Animal Control Contracted Planning City N Arts Contracted Police City 5 Public Transit/ Business Licensing Parking Enforce- City ment Building Inspections City Recreation -1.. Municipal Court Contracted Risk Management City Economic Develop- City Sewer Collection Contracted ment Municipal Utility CQntracted Snow Removal City Energy/Natural Gas Contracted Storm Water City EMS City Street Maintenance City Communications/ City Delivery Water TreatmenU Contracted Dispatch Engineering Contracted Technical Services Contracted Fire City Budget Office City Garbage Collection Contracted Human Resources City Public Affairs/ Landfill Contracted Contracted Information Office Legal Department Contracted Special Events Contracted Library Fleet Services Contracted Parks -*..-â€¢. I; 2% -- 4 - .â€¢ - isf.+JJ<W.L.Â·479mWe.<** I 19 . :-1*7746 6111- r..1....... .,1 ....1. ' ' /' C I. -ri 4.~.2. ... t - UTAH < - : - 1 - I i ' i i' ;**P.4- Demogâ€¢aphiÂ« Information I m--J County Name Summit Fiscal Year (Beg/End) July 1 - June 30 Permanent Population Estimate (2006) 7,882 Square Miles in City Limits 12.5 General Fund Budget (2006) $17,040,038 -7-2 - Total Budget All Fund Combined (2006) $66,340,240 Form of Government Council/Manager Number of Elected Officials 6 Total Number of Employees (FTE's) 476.0 Full Time 162.0 Part Time 7.0 Seasonal or Temporary 307.0 Major Revenue Sources Property Tax Total Budgeted Revenue (2006) $48,595,507 Median Household Income* $65,800 Median Value* $417,500 1. ...Ch.- h. if,~ - *Source: 2000 census U.S. Census Bureau ,=r .1 '31.-r-/--- - - - * - .....--M ...... 20 / . - 0 - - A AdIKEEmE(01 = -. . r I -. Â£ I - ./aill'llil: L_.ti< -LA 1.. Y .. ! ~PAâ‚¬~TY] ~~ED h-- City or Contraded Se-lges Clt, or Cont,acted Animal Control Planning City ~~ Arts Police City Public Transit/ Business Licensing City Parking Enforce- City ment Building Inspections City Recreation City Municipal Court Risk Management City Economic Develop- City Sewer Collection ment Municipal Utility Snow Removal City Energy/Natural Gas Storm Water City EMS Street Maintenance City Communications/ Water Treatment/ City City Delivery Dispatch Engineering City u Technical Services City Fire Special District Budget Office City Garbage Collection County Human Resources City Public Affairs/ Landfill County Information Office City Legal Department City Special Events City Library City Fleet Services City Il Parks City 21 -â€ž -- , I-' -r41 - .' - ./ I ;''I - 1 -LV..n-/I .. ....... -1.4 - .... -*- '8= =w W - _,& . I 1 r, m .;5 2 K . .. r J â€¢ I : 1 . *- 7 '4 COIORADOC - -4. 46: U - J # 1 . . I 98/7 Demogâ€¢aphic Infoâ€¢mation *.7 10 County Name Summit Fiscal Year (Beg/End) January 1 - December 31 Permanent Population Estimate (2006) 3,335 Square Miles in City Limits 4.68 General Fund Budget (2006). $19,328,894 1 i Total Budget All Fund Combined (2006) $37,484,179 Form of Government Council/Manager (Home Rule) Number of Elected Officials 7 Total Number of Employees (FTE's) 453.0 Full Time 162.0 i e . Part Time - ~ Seasonal or Temporary 291.0 Major Revenue Sources Sales Taxes r Total Budgeted Revenue (2006) $33,178,720 Median Household Income* $43,938 Median Value* $286,800 Q *Source: 2000 census U.S. Census Bureau - I :.2.'.6" 22 -- Er, ... . . . m... ...4:....1 ....4.- .t . .1 - , 1 I . 22 0 .0 .+ 411.4 - BRBC Imt kiDGE ~; a m - cia. u mrm=, Se,vile; City â€¢, Conâ€¢,aded Se,viles Clt, O, Cont,acted Animal Control City Planning City Arts City Police City u Public Transit/ Business Licensing City Parking Enforce- City ment Building Inspections City Recreation City t Municipal Court City Risk Management CIRSA Economic Develop- Sewer Collection Special District ment Municipal Utility Snow Removal City Energy/Natural Gas Contracted Storm Water City EMS County Street Maintenance City , Communications/ Water TreatmenU 4 County Delivery City Dispatch Engineering City Technical Services Fire Special District Budget Office City L Garbage Collection Contracted Human Resources i Public Affairs/ City Landfill County Information Office Legal Department Retained Special Events City Library County Fleet Services City Parks City 23 ~ ' -- .' 1 l40* ''' -\ . 0 - ColoRABO f Demographic Info,mation County Name Gunnison Fiscal Year (Beg/End) Jan/Dec Permanent Population Estimate (2006) 1,543 Square Miles in City Limits <1 General Fund Budget (2006) $2,465,531 Total Budget All Fund Combined (2006) $9,628,161 1 Form of Government Mayor/Manager Home rule Municipal- ity Number of Elected Officials 7 , Total Number of Employees (FTE's) 64.0 Full Time 30.0 i Part Time 4.0 Seasonal or Temporary 30.0 Major Revenue Sources Sales Tax Total Budgeted Revenue (2006) $9,298,948 Median Household Income* $41,250 Median Value* $249,200 , to,h *Source: 2000 census U.S. Census Bureau .4,q /4*9 44'*.*Il 24 .,1 .... .-- -,1 ev - -91Mk.ali) ( Gunnison32,trested Butt; ~~h) Servicel Cle, o, Cont,acted Services Clt. o. Contâ€¢.,ted Animal Control City Planning City Arts Police City , Public Transit/ Business Licensing City Parking Enforce- City/Contracted , ment Building Inspections City Recreation City Municipal Court City Risk Management City Economic Develop- City Sewer Collection City ment Municipal Utility Snow Removal City i i Energy/Natural Gas Storm Water City | EMS Street Maintenance City Communications/ Water Treatment/ Contracted City Dispatch Delivery Engineering Technical Services Fire Budget Office City Garbage Collection Contracted Human Resources City Public Affairs/ Landfill , Information Office Legal Department Contracted Special Events Library Fleet Services City <- Park City -Â»1 ....... ' -in~...1-Il 25 2 . 0 0 4 1 00101*800 3 f . Dem....phic 1.00.=..10. i 44 ~r Jiz' County Name Larimer Fiscal Year (Beg/End) Jan - Dec Permanent Population Estimate (2006) 5,822 Square Miles in City Limits 6.5 t General Fund Budget (2006) $11,384,897 Total Budget All Fund Combined (2006) $25,283,181 Form of Government Board/Administrator Number of Elected Officials 7 Total Number of Employees (FTE's) 153.0 Full Time 108.0 Part Time 8.0 Seasonal or Temporary 37.0 Major Revenue Sources Sales Tax Total Budgeted Revenue (2006) $10,423,359 Median Household Income* $43,262 Median Value* . $229,400 / m~lfilry 1-----411*/AJ *Source: 2000 census U.S. Census Bureau 26 M rt .. 11 Â£ /6 1; At- ' I -'- , 11.... - 9- T, fpit. â€¢.....A I . - ...lilli=.I - - 0. - 1 2.46.lhAGe Services (14 or Contracted Sewage. Cle, O, Contracted Animal Control City Planning City Arts Police City Public Transit/ Business Licensing City Parking Enforce- City ment Building Inspections City Recreation Municipal Court City Risk Management City Economic Develop- City Sewer Collection ment Municipal Utility Snow Removal City Energy/Natural Gas Storm Water City : EMS Street Maintenance City Communications/ Water Treatment/ City Delivery City Dispatch Engineering City Technical Services City Fire City Budget Office City Garbage Collection Human Resources City Public Affairs/ Landfill City City Information Office Legal Department Special Events City Library Fleet Services City Parks City 27 -'117%-#... .â€¢ . -- 1. ... trÂ¥<Pt O 0. .t d . - --- - ...Ct. -- --3 * - m J 2 COCORADO ' i I m r t. Demogâ€¢.phic Inform..10. 6"98* ..1Â· -1 County Name Summit ~ 1 Fiscal Year (Beg/End) January/December ' Permanent Population Estimate (2006) 2,700 Square Miles in City Limits 2 General Fund Budget (2006) $5,545,803 Total Budget All Fund Combined (2006) $12,677,059 Form of Government Council/Manager Home Rule Number of Elected Officials 7 , 1 Total Number of Employees (FTE's) 84 Full Time 42 Part Time 2 . Seasonal or Temporary 40 Major Revenue Sources County Sales Tax Total Budgeted Revenue (2006) $9,705,256 1. Median Household Income* $62,267 1 Median Value* $277,900 i. t,1 0 0 * ./- J! *Source: 2000 census U.S. Census Bureau -- 28 H I -4 1.. t '' . - e 9 . 1.- 1 9,1 3 - -1. , , . - --*J r . . % --4 A J 4 . I - -9 - 2 TOWN OF_FRISCO Ill'llilliii/2-illill'll' N Serviles City oâ€¢ Contracted Se-lges City O, Conâ€¢â€¢ailed Animal Control Contracted Planning City Arts City/Contracted Police City Public TransiU Business Licensing City Parking Enforce- ment Building Inspections City/Contracted Recreation City Â·V. Municipal Court City Risk Management City Economic Develop- City Sewer Collection i ment Municipal Utility City Snow Removal City Energy/Natural Gas Storm Water City EMS Contracted Street Maintenance City Communications/ Water Treatment/ Contracted City Dispatch Delivery Engineering Contracted Technical Services Contracted Fire Budget Office City Garbage Collection Human Resources City Public Affairs/ Landfill information Office City Legal Department Contracted Special Events City Library Fleet Services City Parks City --Â¥24/31/.~...7:*9"65 - , -SC.'-m '1- I. - - 'P'.........~..1 29 a. t. .1.râ€¢14 Ill. 1. .- d .1 M. 1.Â¥i .. 0 [ 1 1 ' '[E[33 -- m - - COiORADO' +1374Â«62........ hÂ· :1*~ Demogâ€¢-phic Information . I , â€¢~,4iÂ»~r 0. r :~ *F..1 County Name Grand Fiscal Year (Beg/End) Jan-Dec Permanent Population Estimate (2006) 480 Square Miles in City Limits 2 General Fund Budget (2006) $2,351,547 i Total Budget All Fund Combined (2006) $2,840,531 , Form of Government Council/Manager , Number of Elected Officials 7 ' Total Number of Emptoyees (FTE's) 20.0 Full Time 11.0 Part Time - i Seasonal or Temporary 9.0 Major Revenue Sources Sales Tax Total Budgeted Revenue (2006) $2,221,160 Median Household Income* $45,096 i Median Value* . - L Mi r *Source: 2000 census U.S. Census Bureau . 30 t r I 'lrown of Gmad ]Iabe <J Se-liel City o. Contâ€¢aded Services (14 0, Contâ€¢aded 1 Planning Animal Control County City F Arts Non-profit Police County Public Transit/ Business Licensing Parking Enforce- ment Building Inspections County Recreation Special District -W. Municipal Court City Risk Management Contracted Economic Develop- Chamber Sewer Collection Special District ment Municipal Utility City Snow Removal City Energy/Natural Gas Contracted Storm Water EMS County Street Maintenance City Communications/ Water Treatment/ County Delivery Dispatch City Engineering Contracted Technical Services Contracted Fire Special District Budget Office City Garbage Collection Contracted Human Resources City Public Affairs/ Landfill County Information Office City Legal Department Contracted Special Events Chamber Library Special District Fleet Services Parks City 1 1 -t I ... ............... . 1 31 -3 , '*'t D- - I. r .L,0 r . WrominG '. j A Demographic Information , ; 416?Y.1 County Name Teton ,' Fiscal Year (Beg/End) July 1 thru June 30 Permanent Population Estimate (2006) 9,084 , Square Miles in City Limits 2.8 General Fund Budget (2006) $10,251,870 1 Total Budget All Fund Combined (2006) $29,800,130 4 Form of Government Council/Mayor Number of Elected Officials 5 Total Number of Employees (FTE's) 122.7 Full Time 97.9 Part Time 24.8 Seasonal or Temporary . Major Revenue Sources Sales Tax 4 Total Budgeted Revenue (2006) $24,661,450 Median Household Income* $47,757 Median Value* $235,600 i I (1 494 il'. 8 -t#-i;57.'&./*/11'I-- 0 *Source: 2000 census, U.S. Census Bureau _,~ 4442:1.3.- . - -~~--*44 wÂ· 9 . - . - B.. 1- - 7-Ylliinf ---W --. -6,9..70.=9.*ib-~-1~'////MN/V 32 F Â¢ I + . -----. 4 Amozl .. . : 1. , 1 'a, . Ml .1-7=UM H. U 7 .2 Â¥UM iman. 1 Se.viges City or Cont,aded Se,viges Cle. O, ContraÂ«ted i Animal Control City Planning City ~ Arts Police City Public TransiU Business Licensing City Parking Enforce- City/County ment Building Inspections City Recreation City/County -1. - r Municipal Court City Risk Management City Economic Develop- City Sewer Collection City ' ment Municipal Utility City Snow Removal City Energy/Natural Gas City Storm Water City EMS Street Maintenance City Communications/ Water Treatment/ City/County Delivery Dispatch City Engineering City Technical Services City ; Fire City/County Budget Office City Garbage Collection Human Resources City T 1' Public Affairs/ Landfill Information Office City 'L l Legal Department City Special Events City h t. Library Fleet Services City 1, 11 City/County * fi Parks I .. I. I . 33 1. . . 11. ULLEMI COTORADO 1 Denlographic Information 1 , 1 County Name San Miguel Fiscal Year (Beg/End) Calendar Permanent Population Estimate (2006) 1,137 Square Miles in City Limits 3.31 General Fund Budget (2006) $2,524,742 Total Budget All Fund Combined (2006) $8,287,413 Form of Government Council/Mayor Home rule Municipality 7-Town Council/5-Metro-District/4- Number of Elected Officials Mountain Village Owners Assn. (Plus 3 appointees) Total Number of Employees (FTE's) 243.0 Full Time 131.0 1 i Part Time Â· 63.0 | Seasonal or Temporary 49.0 ,, Major Revenue Sources Taxes Total Budgeted Revenue (2006) $4,487,299 Median Household Income* $30,663 Median Value* $796,900 /7.70 - ...hil Imite#*Wmat-*i ............. -- ...73........ *Source: 2000 census U.S. Census Bureau 34 1 .., t - -**6 " I t<TlmEXTIIET-' .1... - 1 11.- -t-,-1,, Sen,lies Cle, 0, Cont,aded Se-lÂ«el City or Cont,acted I Animal Control City Planning City Arts Police City ~ Public Transit/ 4 Business Licensing City Parking Enforce- City ment Building Inspections City Recreation C... Municipal Court City Risk Management City Economic Develop- City Sewer Collection Contracted ment 11 Municipal Utility City Snow Removal City Energy/Natural Gas Contracted Storm Water City EMS Contracted Street Maintenance City Communications/ Water Treatment/ City Contracted Delivery Dispatch Engineering Contracted Technical Services City Fire City Budget Office City Garbage Collection City Human Resources City Public Affairs/ Landfill Contracted City Information Office Legal Depaamen Contracte Special Events Ci Library Contracted Fleet Services City Parks City 35 14 , 1 - -12 EOID â‚¬IlfiTi-6 (Bitli,GLDI [1'ifuU I I -4.- I. 41- - -6-*-â€žG- - ... -8 - TootoRADO- - I -47 i -. . 1 - r - . - - M yoÂ®-*- ~\44\ i Demographic Information K, County Name Gunnison Fiscal Year (Beg/End) Jan 1 to Dec 31 st Permanent Population Estimate (2006) 750 i Square Miles in City Limits 1.54 General Fund Budget (2006) $3,700,000 . 't.. , Total Budget All Fund Combined (2006) $7,853,000 Form of Government Home Rule Municipality Number of Elected Officials 7 Total Number of Employees (FTE's) 57.0 Full Time 19.0 Part Time 17.0 ' Seasonal or Temporary 21.0 Major Revenue Sources Sales Tax Total Budgeted Revenue (2006) $6,480,300 Median Household Income* $48,864 Median Value* $213,200 *Source: 2000 census, U.S. Census Bureau -/ -/- I - 36 ~/00~ TITike] 9 1 - f 1 I 21 [â€¢Ii,Citkil, .17-7 - . - CK- , /, I . L. [AlÂ£64Â£i...1.1 liliED Services City oâ€¢ Contracted .e....es (14 0, Contracted Animal Control City Planning City Arts Police City Public Transit/ Business Licensing City Parking Enforce- Contracted ment Building Inspections City Recreation City Municipal Court City Risk Management City Economic Develop- City Sewer Collection ment Municipal Utility Snow Removal City Energy/Natural Gas Storm Water EMS Street Maintenance City , Communications/ Water Treatment/ Contracted Dispatch Delivery Engineering Contracted Technical Services Fire Budget Office City 1 Garbage Collection Contracted Human Resources City Public Affairs/ Landfill Information Office Legal Department City Special Events Library Fleet Services City - Parks City 37 -. 1,1.1.1 - I , 11 . 4 bAN 7 Â·Â· I - t - - ~ - ... - ./1 - 1 -1.--9 /4*- m..'t: - [ 11 IilICI CatORADO' Â° I. - .. A Demographic Information 1 County Name Summit Fiscal Year (Beg/End) 01/01/XX - 12/31/XX : Permanent Population Estimate (2006) 3,909 Square Miles in City Limits 3.29 General Fund Budget (2006) $8,109,447 Total Budget All Fund Combined (2006) $17,831,098 Form of Government Council/Manager Number of Elected Officials 7 Total Number of Employees (FTE's) 145.0 Full Time 89.0 Part Time 50.0 Seasonal or Temporary 6.0 Major Revenue Sources Sales Tax Total Budgeted Revenue (2006) $12,500,984 Median Household Income* $58,839 Median Value* $255,600 f..x *Source: 2000 census U.S. Census Bureau 38 11 , I - I.--U.... .. Unk-L -223&519&;RIâ€¢lanal 21 -/ 1 pu*19#imRF*jeq'liq - c.ec...Â£12:Dimmr, ,F Ser.kes Cit, O, Cont,=ded Se-lgel (14 0, Contracted Animal Control Contracted Planning City Arts Police City Public Transit/ Business Licensing City Parking Enforce- City ment Building Inspections City/Contracted Recreation City W * Municipal Court City/Contracted Risk Management City Economic Develop- City Sewer Collection City ment Municipal Utility City Snow Removal City ' Energy/Natural Gas Contracted Storm Water EMS Public/No Contract Street Maintenance City Communications/ Water Treatment/ Contracted City Dispatch Delivery Engineering City Technical Services City Fire Public/No Contract Budget Office City Garbage Collection Contracted Human Resources City Public Affairs/ Landfill Public/No Contract City Information Office 1 Legal Department Contracted Special Events City Library Public/No Contract Fleet Services City ~ Parks City 39 1 .---- .. I. --r'. - 4 i mn-FYX) -â€ž 0 0 11 - Y.. 'f /0. !3 . 1. e L ..:.C - 49.1 I + * COIORRIDO . .. -'.1 -1 Den-g.aphic Information 4 4*"/UP' 1 County Name Pitkin ' 1 Fiscal Year (Beg/End) January 1 - December 31 1 Permanent Population Estimate (2006) 2,267 Square Miles in City Limits ' 33.7 General Fund Budget (2006) $10,642,384 Total Budget All Fund Combined (2006) $40,956,359 Form of Government Home Rule Municipality , Number of Elected Officials 5 Total Number of Employees (FTE's) 115.0 Full Time 75.0 Part Time 1.5 Seasonal or Temporary 38.5 Major Revenue Sources Sales Tax Total Budgeted Revenue (2006) $31,773,514 Median Household Income* $57,059 Median Value* $732,800 *Source: 2000 census U.S. Census Bureau â€¢ 1 '2.Ii 40 't A I , .4- . '- I - ....I- - ..I- 64 . 9 CiI.TIT;174 , 4 :+4 Aâ€ž,4 .gr. 1 I k. C - . .I.*-1-. I i Seivices Cle, 0, Contâ€¢acted Se-lies CIR, â€¢â€¢ Contracted Animal Control City Planning City Arts City/Contracted Police City ' Public Transitj Business Licensing City Parking Enforce- City ment Building Inspections City Recreation City . Municipal Court City Risk Management City Economic Develop- City Sewer Collection ment Municipal Utility Snow Removal City Energy/Natural Gas Storm Water City EMS Street Maintenance City Communications/ Water TreatmenU Dispatch Delivery Engineering City Technical Services Fire Budget Office City Garbage Collection City Human Resources City , Public Affairs/ Landfill Information Office City 1 Legal Department Special Events City Library City Fleet Services City 15 Parks City 41 *,1 4 . Al--I m 10]llailitelir ' - 1,1 -. - COIORADO , I ... Demographic Information County Name San Miguel Fiscal Year (Beg/End) 1/1-12/31 ,/ Permanent Population Estimate (2006) 2,340 i. Square Miles in City Limits 0.7 General Fund Budget (2006) $7,035,000 Total Budget All Fund Combined (2006) $2,800,000 Form of Government Municipality Number of Elected Officials 7 Total Number of Employees (FTE's) 63.0 Full Time 68.0 Part Time 68.0 Seasonal or Temporary 29.0 1 Major Revenue Sources Real Estate Transfer Tax 6, Total Budgeted Revenue (2006) $17,422,967 Median Household Income* $51,938 Median Value* $485,600 I 1~ le#*. X /4 1 .' ,~,errr*Â¥ *L.2*1--1 0 - _7Eys, . 1~~ *Source: 2000 census. U.S. Census Bureaud,~ - -_ZZLE/fls.V,$<S.,"....'"'/1,"."./M./....0.'-A**< 42 .4,3 4*4 & . 4 r" Y /1, . -attp--UiN,U:AUui [17[dift:Gil .rn *tk:Â£79.5>2~ -.- f -1,0~.AA-ULS.2 '5* -t'. - */ v#t ./ -/11*1. I =-â€žâ€ž-1,1.liEimili - /1 4,0/0/ f 0.-kes Cle, 0, Cont,-ted Se-lies Cle, O, Conâ€¢â€¢aâ€¢ed Animal Control City Planning City Arts Police City Public Transit/ Business Licensing City Parking Enforce- City ment 1 Building Inspections City Recreation City Municipal Court City Risk Management Contracted Economic Develop- City Sewer Collection City ment Municipal Utility Snow Removal City Energy/Natural Gas Storm Water City EMS Separate district Street Maintenance City Communications/ Water TreatmenU Contracted City Dispatch Delivery Engineering City Technical Services City/Contracted Fire Separate district Budget Office City Garbage Collection Contracted Human Resources City Public Affairs/ Landfill Information Office Legal Department City Special Events City Library Separate district Fleet Services City Parks City A 43 - -/ 4- * r.#.%- 'T . .% 4 -1- F 0 % --I '"f,k ./ I . f 1 rillemno,Al 11,â€¢CTII InDICATORS t . I- . 1 - -9 L. L 91~m- . ..1 1 1 r ' .4 - - .4 45-D==-45/0 t teel 02=*f. Â·2: Â·Â·e~ 7 1 / 'I 44 .r' - m....~ - 6.1.. -1.-h.....4...4....J.eA......,- .......4 - - .9 - â€ž1....0,- - -- " 92Â¢ Se-Ile Popul.tion - 2001 40,000 4 # 35,000 30,000 + 25,000 - 20,000 --1- d l,k 15,000 -9- --- -r- ' 10,000 -er -- - 6-44 4-1 i 1 1 64#y #'4.#.4 ##4/'~6~ â‚¬#- gy / ia 04 r /2032 / es> .26) '10 Se-lge Population 2001 1 2002 1 200~ 20047 2005 Park City 20,883 20,517 21,200 21,685 22,985 Durango 16,504 16,708 17,607 17,749 18,128 Silverthorne 24,019 26,616 29,212 31,775 34,387 Telluride 5,727 5,713 5,758 5,774 5,799 Frisco 4,570 4,776 4,723 4,819 4,992 Breckenridge 10,775 11,986 12,389 12,833 13,299 Steamboat Springs 20,368 21,116 21,968 22,778 23,626 Mountain Village 3,769 4,123 4,504 5,802 5,744 i Estes Park 13,580 13,497 14,159 14,010 14,504 I Jackson 19,784 19,773 20,230 20,147 19,918 , - 9 16 " -'- '- . . ' ' ,. .u 'F* W .M'-.,I.--0......_.-----....- 45 .l>l R!11 11 ,-E[il T . -.......0-1- * 1......I.. - d 1 . p......e........... 2001 0 2002 2003 2004 2005 Park City . 7,432 7,653 7,714 7,854 7,882 Durango 14,221 14,708 15,254 15,324 15,628 Silverthorne 3,540 3,625 3,709 3,759 3,858 Telluride 2,314 2,318 2,348 2,335 2,335 Frisco 2,608 2,677 2,628 2,697 2,812 Breckenridge 2,728 3,126 3,181 3,253 3,335 , Steamboat Springs 10,375 10,402 10,607 10,742 10,919 Mountain Village 1,000 1,100 1,234 1,650 1,650 Estes Park 5,413 5,413 5,413 5,413 5,413 Jackson 8,706 8,807 8,913 9,110 9,176 'lf, 1 2nd Home Owner Pop ' 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Park City 13,004 12,653 12,896 12,950 12,683 Durango - - Silverthorne 958 981 1,006 1,031 1,057 Telluride 2,025 1,990 2,019 2,078 2,128 Frisco 3,416 3,701 3,770 3,811 3,903 Breck6nridge 7,328 8,406 8,553 8,749 8,968 Steamboat Springs 5,345 6,307 7,442 8,791 10,373 Mountain Village 3,667 4,033 4,525 6,050 6,050 Estes Park - Jackson 71 82 94 106 118 -- Aug Dally Vilitor* 2 ' 2001 ~ 2002 2003 2004 2005 Park City 6,949 6,537 7,039 7,356 8,762 Durango 2,283 2,000 2,353 2,425 2,500 Silverthorne 20,000 22,500 25,000 27,500 30,000 Telluride 2,400 2,400 2,400 2,400 2,400 Frisco 254 248 210 216 228 Breckenridge 4,383 4,657 4,931 5,205 5,480 Steamboat Springs 7,320 7,560 7,640 7,640 7,520 Mountain Village 935 1,006 1,008 1,127 1,069 Estes Park 8,167 8,084 8,746 8,597 9,091 Jackson 11,042 10,925 11,270 10,984 10,683 - 46 { C 07-- * 0/ 3?44*3*#AC:U~'1~ 1 I * v =*.v, 1 49*P - --PEEi-'ZY ~ Description: Total Assessed (Full) Valuation as provided In the Aisessor. ThiN â€¢- r - ----â€¢--=- ~ serves as a common denominator as weli as:in interesting demographic statistic. U . I ' Â¥ ./.' .-- I f I Total Allelled Value ~ 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Park City $2,938,870,858 $3,197,541,210 $3,248,321,363 $3,366,694,000 $3,688,014,044 Durango $234,335,730 $259,738,030 $272,484,960 $297,881,170 $308,804,000 Silverthorne $109,860,860 $113,033,030 $117,965,730 $119,362,850 $120,357,050 Telluride $119,451,100 $122,001,860 $134,337,600 $137,774,210 $196,442,960 Frisco $113,528,230 $113,419,380 $116,429,190 $117,493,210 $128,337,230 i- Breckenridge $221,663,430 $278,773,540 $293,607,170 $313,879,060 $315,986,100 - Steamboat Springs $375,893,540 $374,002,260 $381,450,291 $383,327,900 $441,747,060 Mountain Village $184,335,810 $187,625,520 $202,303,910 $206,128,480 $249,694,660 Estes Park . $130,171,750 $134,594,490 $145,187,100 $147,021,660 $153,326,340 Jackson $130,205,653 $140,400,627 $148,163,404 $156,477,759 $171,467,873 ~ -i.~' r U ' & 4 . . 1.. 4 6,4 4 IL *141 1 %-I: 4.-Il '-24 , 11Â£45Â£:&7*%* J. 1 .4 -4*: 6 1 - -4 11 1 + - - V, V .. râ€ž 1 43 -1 j 6/'_ le . .4 - 47 , - -- I *. I -rpry" F ~ i l,M i T 1 k ff i I 8 ~ Description: Provided by bond rating agencies. A municipal bond rating iii- f ' 1 ~ forms an investor of the relative safety level in investing in a particular bond. , .. '1 . t ./ 4 1 I 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Â¢ . 1 Park City Aa3 Aa3 Aa3 Aa3 Aa3 Durango N/A N/A N/A N/A NA Silverthorne BAA BAA BAA BAA BAA Telluride N/A NA NA N/A N/A Frisco N/A BAA1 BAA1 BAA1 BAA1 Breckenridge N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Steamboat Springs A3 Al Al Al A2 Mountain Village N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Estes Park N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A ' Jatkson , N/A NA NA N/A N/A 2001 2002 2003 2004. 2005 U. v Park City A+ A+ AA- AA- AA- Durango N/A NA N/A N/A N/A Silverthorne BBB+ BBB+ BBB+ BBB+ BBB+ 4 ~ Telluride BBB+ . BBB+ BBB+ BBB+ BBB+ Frisco N/A AA AA Breckenridge N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A ~ Steamboat Springs N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A I q Mountain Village BBB+ BBB+ BBB+ BBB+ BBB+ ~ ' Estes Park N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A ~ Jackson N/A N/A N/A N/A NA I .- $ 48 V- ''0.r ..i'..WI'.......rÂ·/,---... .Â£ .......41 ..4 I ' :1~.....1/11....1.'........1.--~ . ... 1 -- I I. . - Al LA mt~St,~t .Â·,Ut.,17: 1 - - L ' W 9 . - & .14.- Fi.g. 2001 2002 1 2003 2004 2005 4 Park City AA- AA- AA- AA- AA- Durango N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Silverthorne N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Telluride NA N/A N/A N/A N/A Frisco N/A A A A A Breckenridge NA N/A NA N/A N/A 4... Steamboat Springs N/A N/A NA N/A N/A Mountain Village A- A- A- A- A- Estes Park N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Jackson ' N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A I ./. 1 - 9. ..4/j.1 9 y .er 1 - 2, $ 21 F - 1. " 1 ..1.Il .-I.- I.- -r 49 rr , h 'r- 1 ./ .'. IN ,â€¢-5-44 ... . h.*.*-.---.' . 1 . ./ f j ~1 [.1111,] All#(C.14Ii< unul'.9) I . I. 0.1,11 Ratio 2001 2002 - 2003 1 2004 2005 1 Park City 3.31 2.97 1.40 1.42 1.44 Durango 6.87 5.89 5.60 6.40 5.52 Silverthorne 11.38 9.12 9.19 8.25 5.36 Telluride ' 3.36 1.92 2.22 2.35 2.41 ..=-. Frisco 1.56 1.79 2.15 2.13 4.21 Breckenridge 3.76 4.09 4.21 4.77 5.02 Steamboat Springs 3.71 5.10 5.85 7.32 7.81 Mountain Village - 1.55 1.58 1.49 1.56 Estes Park - - - 7.21 6.40 Jackson 8.73 9.73 9.32 7.52 6.49 O.kh...18 - moos 9.00 7.50 6.00 . R. 94 B. 6~ ..2* i h I - 4.50 3.00 , . '4. 1 1.50 h + . mim .4/'Liwilli:limw Q ..6- d 0.00 .m= ilk/04/1.1--- 1/ill/%111//U/t#/11'1Lill//U//11/I 9,3 0 &/ #...'/W/"M"/.......- 50 -- '-- -41-elLI_tmK1(21LL[92L~Llki[Q) , n -7-/11.t 6,141# / 1 p ./. # ..1.1, C-,ent Alle#$ 2001. 2002. 2003 2004 2005 Park City $3,562,500 $4,314,867 $9,590,421 $10,124,254 $10,551,287 Durango $9,492,602 $8,404,884 $9,720,593 $11,532,065 $12,486,287 Silverthorne $8,030,144 $7,132,181 $7,474,913 $8,086,254 $7,555,669 Telluride $2,177,698 $1,977,450 $2,420,328 $2,032,371 $2,195,086 Frisco $7,171,598 $8,006,003 $9,112,941 $9,128,509 $11,666,267 Breckenridge $12,117,823 $13,479,992 $12,955,822 $13,857,784 $16,125,380 Steamboat Springs $10,810,379 $10,009,899 $10,091,631 $10,337,923 $11,975,439 Mountain Village - $10,543,234 $11,186,676 $10,907,519 $14,155,856 Estes Park - - $6,533,649 $4,870,656 Jackson $3,952,063 $4,051,992 $3,732,493 $3,928,731 $3,989,655 Cu,rent Llabllitle/ 2001 ~ 2002 2003 2004, 2005 Park City $1,076,515 $1,453,381 $6,844,243 $7,132,190 $7,334,508 Durango $1,380,951 $1,427,483 $1,736,878 $1,801,846 $2,263,362 Silverthorne $705,849 $782,388 $813,002 $980,547 $1,408,955 Telluride $648,937 $1,027,339 $1,088,033 $863,473 $910,113 Frisco $4,591,636 $4,473,214 $4,234,817 $4,287,900 $2,768,970 Breckenridge $3,224,785 $3,295,430 $3,074,749 $2,905,759 $3,214,296 Steamboat Springs $2,916,351 $1,963,793 $1,725,764 $1,412,452 $1,533,617 Mountain Village - $6,809,829 $7,100,375 $7,323,935 $9,102,541 Estes Park - - - $906,742 $761,426 4 Jackson $452,947 $416,357 $400,526 $522,398 $614,466 '-9..__ 4 F f =PI--2.'1~4*- - - '- - 1 - I ""r '.,-pi---. _ 51 , '' 1 ' ' t. 'llill"lillibirliaul.ZÂ»t--I:*: T . -t. 11[ c. 1[4[1 1-1}QI]Ii7 CIIi'ID 'L . 1 . Long Term Debt Ratio 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 . r Park City 0.32% 0.27% 0.25% 0.37% 0.54% Durango . 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Silverthorne 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Telluride 4.69% 5.92% 4.73% 3.91% 2.25% Frisco 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Â·U - Breckenridge 5.15% 3.66% : 3.05% 2.48% 2.24% Steamboat Springs 0.68% 0.63% 0.57% 0.51% 0.35% Mountain Village 16.78% 15.98% 14.11% 13.11% 10.18% r Estes Park 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Jackson 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% b Â¥ 4 5.- .7. , 3.. 9 L , Â· 1 444 , 6 74 9, 1 Â· 4 1 4 .> r . ' -MY ''.661:.. -5 f . , 4 I Â» rit .... $ I -- 52 r _-Eamm@mit~'CIED #-*.-4-. *I-< -W . Â¥:- I - -1 I - 2490'~~ 11 t 1 -m,-1 -â€¢47 -7 Out:tanding GO Debt 2001 2002 -~ 2003- 2004 ~ 2005 t Park City $9,440,000 $8,760,000 $8,155,000 $12,300,000 $19,915,000 Durango $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Silverthorne $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Telluride $5,601,571 $7,226,173 $6,348,970 $5,392,245 $4,419,612 Frisco $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Breckenridge $11,410,000 $10,205,000 $8,960,000 $7,785,000 $7,065,000 Steamboat Springs $2,543,906 $2,345,675 $2,177,151 $1,945,000 $1,555,000 Mountain Village $30,937,000 $29,987,000 $28,549,000 $27,030,000 $25,425,000 Estes Park $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 : Jackson $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Allessed Value 2001 ~ 2002, I 2003 2004/ Â· 2005 0 .'.1 , .7 Park City $2,938,870,858 $3,197,541,210 $3,248,321,363 $3,366,694,000 $3,688,014,044 Durango $234,335,730 $259,738,030 $272,484,960 $297,881,170 $308,804,000 ' Silverthorne $109,860,860 $113,033,030 $117,965,730 $119,362,850 $120,357,050 i Telluride $119,451,100 $122,001,860 $134,337,600 $137,774,210 $196,442,960 6 Frisco $113,528,230 $113,419,380 $116,429,190 $117,493,210 $128,337,230 1 Breckenridge $221,663,430 $278,773,540 $293,607,170 $313,879,060 $315,986,100 i Steamboat Springs $375,893,540 $374,002,260 $381,450,291 $383,327,900 $441,747,060 Mountain Village $184,335,810 $187,625,520 $202,303,910 $206,128,480 $249,694,660 1 Estes Park $130,171,750 $134,594,490 $145,187,100 $147,021,660 $153,326,340 ~ Jackson $130,205,653 $140,400,627 $148,163,404 $156,477,759 $171,467,873 53 L.E.11.-11% 1 -7 - - - - ....1/MAS.. Iii... ......1.. .* t I. - J ' ' 'VI '.-I.- I.I.-.,7/ -9.= *Ii:DALTLEIL,2=90(EffmtÂ£i] ~ Description: Employees (both total employees and FTE's) divided by Service Population, lini- I----1. ~ployees per capita shows the overall labor productivity iii relation to population of the city. ..1 1 11 .. .. Employees per Capita 2001 2002- 2003 2004 2005 1 Park City 0.0219 0.0209 0.0215 0.0209 0.0193 1 Durango 0.0164 0.0147 0.0148 0.0149 0.0148 , Silverthorne 0.0040 0.0036 0.0031 0.0028 0.0027 Telluride 0.0176 0.0177 0.0181 0.0180 0.0186 Frisco 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Breckenridge 0.0336 0.0296 0.0286 0.0276 0.0268 Steamboat Springs 0.0147 0.0156 0.0148 0.0147 0.0116 Mountain Village 0.0389 0.0374 0.0361 0.0295 0.0313 Estes Park 0.0081 0.0085 0.0085 0.0089 0.0090 Jackson 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1 FTE'* pe, C..1.. 2001 1 2002 . 2003. 2004 , 2005 J t I- J - 1 , Park City 0.0130 0.0133 0.0127 0.0125 0.0120 Durango 0.0190 0.0197 0.0194 0.0193 0.0191 Silverthorne 0.0041 0.0038 0.0032 0.0031 0.0028 1% Telluride 0.0105 0.0109 0.0108 0.0112 0.0115 , Frisco 0.0115 0.0112 0.0113 0.0102 0.0104 Breckenridge 0.0130 0.0111 0.0109 0.0106 0.0103 Steamboat Springs 0.0122 0.0124 0.0116 0.0113 0.0110 Mountain Village 0.0303 0.0291 0.0281 0.0229 0.0244 Estes Park 0.0076 0.0077 0.0076 0.0079 0.0078 j Jackson 0.0057 0.0057 0.0055 0.0056 0.0056 . 7 V. 54 4... -,etfÂ¥=5'i ilCUEilwtfil , --I# I .Razzlmst ' r," I ,- . i ;- ... .* r . - 1 ~ & Tâ€¢*â€¢1 Emplâ€¢,ee, 2001 2ooi 2003 Â· 2004 2005 Park City 457 429 456 453 444 Durango 270 245 260 265 268 J i 1 Silverthorne 95 97 91 89 91 2 1 5 Telluride 101 101 104 104 108 1 Frisco --- - Breckenridge 362 354 355 355 356 Steamboat Springs 300 330 325 335 274 Mountain Village 147 154 162 171 180 Estes Park 110 115 120 125 130 Jackson - - - 1 -- Budgeted FTE'$ , 2Odi~-1 2002 ~ 200~ 2004 20~-1 0 Park City 271.10 272.90 270.06 270.12 275.90 Durango 314.00 329.00 342.00 342.00 346.00 Silverthorne 99.60 99.90 94.05 97.95 95.40 Telluride 60.30 62.40 62.40 64.80 66.50 Frisco 52.50 53.50 53.50 49.00 52.00 Breckenridge ' 140.50 133.60 134.60 136.60 137.60 Steamboat Springs 247.81 262.38 254.69 256.78 259.63 Mountain Village 114.03 120.03 126.35 133.00 140.00 Estes Park 103.00 104.25 107.25 110.50 112.50 Jackson 111.83 112.84 111.64 113.47 111.59 -*-#*......I- ---~ Se-lge ....1.010. 200~ 2002 200/, 2004 2005 i Park City 20,883 20,517 21,200 21,685 22,985 Durango 16,504 16,708 17,607 17,749 18,128 2 Silverthorne 24,019 26,616 29,212 31,775 34,387 Telluride 5,727 5,713 5,758 5374 5,799 Frisco 4,570 4,776 4,723 4,819 4,992 Breckenridge 10,775 11,986 12,389 12,833 13,299 J Steamboat Springs 20,368 21,116 21,968 22,778 23,626 Mountain Village 3,769 4,123 4,504 5,802 5,744 Estes Park 13,580 13,497 14,159 14,010 14,504 l~~Jackson~-- 19,784 19,773 20,230 20,147 19,918 . ..1 1 - 1 55 .1 1 1 1 1 ~ 7- 1...4~-, .-Ar, ... ..'- A. Â£ . .Ill;I~ 6[1[0(EC[Rifi) I. A Revenues pe. C.ple. 2001 2002 ~ 2003 2004 2005 Park City $827 $968 $798 $885 $1,020 Durango $1,141 $1,172 $1,217 $1,305 $1,353 ~ Silverthorne $434 $352 $317 $301 $323 Telluride $808 $886 $925 $978 $988 Frisco $1,015 $1,000 $1,269 $1,284 $1,347 Breckenridge $601 $545 $493 $527 $546 , . Steamboat Springs $944 $942 $875 $872 $915 Mountain Village $0 $3,222 $2,876 $2,863 $3,114 Estes Park $584 $613 $677 $707 $699 Jackson $429 $459. $469 $487 $518 Net Operating 1 2001 ~ 2002 2003 2004 ~ 2005 Re.e.ue* Park City $17,269,365 $19,860,091 $16,913,625 $19,181,653 $23,438,682 Durango $18,828,961 $19,581,503 $21,419,431 $23,156,754 $24,521,530 Silverthorne $10,435,851 $9,361,923 $9,268,954 $9,549,407 $11,111,057 Telluride $4,628,862 $5,060,556 $5,326,107 $5,648,627 $5,730,686 Frisco $4,637,711 $4,773,233 $5,994,370 $6,188,516 $6,722,140 Breckenridge $6,477,578 $6,533,748 $6,108,370 $6,763,330 $7,261,357 Steamboat Springs $19,233,671 $19,888,773 $19,214,146 $19,852,886 $21,612,867 L Mountain Village - $13,285,714 $12,953,793 $16,610,238 $17,888,610 Estes Park $7,931,313 $8,270,053 $9,579,264 $9,905,719 $10,137,160 ~1 Jackson $8,486,130 $9,074,493 $9,494,194 $9,809,303 $10,316,305 ~ 0. - - - - 56 A , 4121.1 644[TihirIBiIL:fillfil(ZQSiNED , . . I . 2*%.... F ../ , , 111 4, i 0,41,7 17 1 Se/vice Population I 2001 2002 1 2003 -" 2004t 2005 - Park City 20,883 20,517 21,200 21,685 22,985 Durango 16,504 16,708 17,607 17,749 18,128 Silverthorne 24,019 26,616 29,212 31,775 34,387 Telluride 5,727 5,713 5,758 5374 5,799 Frisco 4,570 4,776 4,723 4,819 4,992 Breckenridge 10,775 11,986 12,389 12,833 13,299 Steamboat Springs 20,368 21,116 21,968 22,778 23,626 Mountain Village 3,769 4,123 4,504 5,802 5,744 ' Estes Park 13,580 13,497 14,159 14,010 14,504 Jackson 19,784 19,773 20,230 20,147 19,918 ls.,ft=Â¥b'.,t.,%Â¢t*1/4/~X//0/9//1 Li 7# . ....L ., ID. - 9.- 2 ......21, . . Xma 57 6 Â®Elâ‚¬[iNED -114 -4 Description: Operating Expenses (General and Debt Service Funds) divided by Service Population. Changes I in per capita expenditures reflect changes in expenditures relative to changes in population. Taking into ac- count the service population and the iii flation factor, the indicator shows the increasing costs of providing citv services. ie E=pentes pe, Capita 2001 ~ 2002 2003 2004 , 2005 Park City $679 $762 $718 $829 $798 Durango $1,028 $1,161 $1,168 $1,237 $1,271 Silverthorne $337 $309 $269 $247 $348 Telluride Â· $917 $1,215 $1,276 $1,310 $1,Â§51 Frisco $990 $982 $1,050 $1,001 $1,020 Breckenridge $1,575 $1,446 $1,466 $1,351 $1,313 Steamboat Springs $908 $918 $882 $843 $839 . 1 Mountain Village $0 $3,375 $2,942 $2,830 $3,047 , Estes Park $519 $522 $538 $839 $803 Jackson $412 $455 $448 $485 $520 * Ne. Oper..Ing E.pent., 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 I i Park City $12,912,497 $14,483,954 $14,021,481 $15,594,567 $16,008,654 Durango $15,766,446 $18,200,336 $19,378,612 $20,759,441 $21,847,196 Silverthorne $6,670,023 $6,729,584 $6,516,924 $6,444,010 $7,237,111 Telluride $5,232,524 $5,821,267 $6,172,286 $6,332,814 $6,696,040 Frisco $4,525,940 $4,688,804 $4,958,470 $4,823,127 $5,089,792 II Breckenridge $15,456,206 $15,808,682 $17,620,241 $16,889,455 $17,016,173 i Steamboat Springs $16,053,688 $17,401,367 $17,227,002 $18,004,305 $18,626,664 Mountain Village $10,558,729 $10,179,683 $13,357,645 $14,330,340 Estes Park $7,053,550 $7,049,452 $7,613,812 $11,760,764 $11,653,577 ~ Jackson $8,155,694 $9,000,489 $9,069,734 $9,780,251 $10,353,592 58 4/. 424~ 1~.1/,4/ ...'1~~4:/. i ~~~~I~6.-'J'll i--I & . '-. I.%.I 'I.'.- , A , . I- - I .. - " 1 ./ - -- - .. 1 ArmilwÂ£/ZA~ZifiJiflpilirrwri5(itickitilj.(fijitifificimourk,JLill _ r . '. I Debt le,vige *-: 2001 2002 - 2003* * ~ 200~ 2005-~ Park City $1,273,133 $1,151,006 $1,192,520 $2,372,358 $2,340,771 i Durango $1,195,240 $1,191,965 $1,187,740 $1,187,565 $1,186,203 Silverthorne $1,434,785 $1,506,815 $1,327,224 $1,414,248 $4,738,197 Telluride $18,068 $1,120,079 $1,176,868 $1,231,475 $1,140,714 Frisco $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Breckenridge $1,519,546 $1,519,993 $536,233 $445,773 $443,985 Steamboat Springs $2,436,512 $1,976,591 $2,146,365 $1,193,377 $1,203,477 V. Mountain Village $3,357,654 $3,072,135 $3,062,443 $3,170,781 Estes Park $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Jackson $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Se,vice Population 2001 ! 2002 2003 2004' 2005 Park City 20,883 20,517 21,200 21,685 22,985 Durango 16,504 16,708 17,607 17,749 18,128 Silverthorne 24,019 26,616 29,212 31,775 34,387 Telluride 5,727 5,713 5,758 5,774 5,799 Frisco 4,570 4,776 4,723 4,819 4,992 Breckenridge 10,775 11,986 12,389 12,833 13,299 Steamboat Springs 20,368 21,116 21,968 22,778 23,626 r Mountain Village 3,769 4,123 4,504 5,802 5,744 Estes Park 13,580 13,497 14,159 14,010 14,504 ~1 Jackson 19,784 19,773 20,230 20,147 19,918 59 l A 1 . I --- 4:/ -:ht . I ~EriTiIÂ£13 Description: General Fund Balance as a percentage of Revenues. Strong reserves are often a good indicator of financial health. Gene,al Fund Balance - 2001 100.0% 80.0% 60.0% 40.0% ---=r----1,5â€ž--- ~ ' , It==1 Â· n*-11 :E,1 M- ---9 - i . -1 1.21=I n n r 0.0% - -1 1 . 1 1 1 1 1 9 440 /4032//2 00 gpo y 40 <o â‚¬30 General Fund Bdlance 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 . 1. ' 1 , Park City 15.7% 15.4% 17.5% 17.1% 14.9% Durango 42.6% 36.0% 37.6% 42.5% 42.0% i Silverthorne 95.8% 91.0% 95.1% 98.5% 72.5% Telluride 33.2% 21.6% 28.1% 23.4% 25.2% Frisco 44.8% 45.5% 43.2% 70.5% 89.2% Breckenridge 56.2% 60.1% 57.5% 61.0% 68.0% Steamboat Springs 38.7% 38.5% 41.4% 42.3% 46.2% Mountain Village - 73.2% 69.9% 45.9% 61.8% ~ Estes Park 54.2% 66.7% 78.1% 56.8% 40.5% .~ Jackson 39.3% 38.4% 35.0% 34.8% 33.3% 6- ....4 --......r'- /*I~ - 60 .. /32 t ariTTmrlfF];TD[E[Frma .i'<C"r4 ii -, 7 11 Gen Fund Ending ..1 2001 ~ 2002--*I 2003- , 2004' ~ 2005 I I Park City $2,485,985 $2,861,486 $2,746,178 $2,992,064 $3,216,779 Durango $8,012,005 $7,055,402 $8,056,618 $9,838,840 $10,301,135 Silverthorne $7,324,295 $6,349,793 $6,661,911 $7,105,707 $6,146,714 Telluride $1,528,761 $950,111 $1,332,295 $1,168,899 $1,284,973 Frisco $2,076,325 $2,170,754 $2,589,919 $4,364,044 $5,996,396 Breckenridge $8,893,038 $10,289,556 $9,881,073 $10,952,025 $12,911,084 Steamboat Springs $7,894,028 $8,046,106 $8,365,867 $8,925,471 $10,441,822 Mountain Village - $1,251,653 $1,304,217 $3,379,464 $4,852,748 Estes Park $4,295,898 $5,516,499 $7,481,951 $5,626,906 $4,109,230 Jackson $3,517,642 $3,651,371 $3,348,072 $3,436,882 $3,450,500 11, Gen Fund Reve.uel 2001 ~ 20021 ~ 2003 | 2004 - 2005 Park City $15,839,686 $18,547,273 $15,701,716 $17,454,851 $21,567,403 Durango $18,828,961 $19,581,503 $21,419,431 $23,156,754 $24,521,530 Silverthorne $7,644,717 $6,978,168 $7,004,042 $7,211,806 $8,478,118 Telluride $4,605,185 $4,390,639 $4,735,138 $5,000,949 $5,091,882 Frisco $4,637,711 $4,773,233 $5,994,370 $6,188,516 $6,722,140 Breckenridge $15,820,953 $17,122,948 $17,186,566 $17,960,407 $18,975,232 Steamboat Springs $20,405,566 $20,896,000 $20,199,866 $21,081,980 $22,590,765 1 Mountain Village - $1,709,333 $1,865,506 $7,363,740 $7,851,620 Estes Park $7,931,313 $8,270,053 $9,579,264 $9,905,719 $10,137,160 ~ Jackson $8,940,210 $9,500,657 $9,575,520 $9,869,061 $10,367,210 I '- +el-'..../.-/.F- 61 1 4. - 0. r . --imp .~ --It.- ./ . I (RB3KmIIEi) - # F, ) L _ L A. f. +t. .1 . Se,vige Population 2001 2002. ~ 2003 2004 2005 Service Population 20,883 20,517 21,200 21,685 22,985 Permanent Population 7,432 7,653 7,714 7,854 7,882 2nd Home Owner Pop 13,004 12,653 12,896 12,950 12,683 Avg Daily Visitors 6,949 6,537 7,039 7,356 8,762 1 Emploveel pe, Capita 2001 . ~ 2002. 2003 1 2004 ~ 2005 1 7. ! Employees per Capita 0.0219 0.0209 0.0215 0.0209 0.0193 FTE's per Capita 0.0130 0.0133 0.0127 0.0125 0.0120 Total Employees 457 429 456 453 444 Budgeted FTE's 271.10 272.90 270.06 270.12 275,90 1 - Operating Revenues 2001 *2002 1 20~ 2004 2005 Revenue per Capita $827 $968 $798 $885 $1,020 Net Operating Revenues $17,269,365 $19,860,091 $16,913,625 $19,181,653 $23,438,682 Operating Expentel ~ 2001 . 2002 2003 ~ 2004 2005 Expenses per Capita $679 $762 $718 $829 $798 ' Net Operating Expenses $12,912,497 $14,483,954 $14,021,481 $15,594,567 $16,008,654 Debt Service $1,273,133 $1,151,006 $1,192,520 $2,372,358 $2,340,771 % -3 AN..4,4....4.-,9 C t Geneâ€¢al Fund Balance 2001 2002 2003, 1 2004 2005 7 - 3 F General Fund Balance 15.7% 15.4% 17.5% 17.1% 14.9% Gen Fund Ending Bal $2,485,985 $2,861,486 $2,746,178 $2,992,064 $3,216,779 -r. ~, Gen Fund Revenues $15,839,686 $18,547,273 $15,701,716 $17,454,851 $21,567,403 62 - I L ..;./i . ./ - .Li 4 -ag#.-,-rat:-56:43...2.r,dtta=Â¢*~ w [PAâ‚¬MTYT 1, ' 1 , Total Assessed Value 2001 2002 2003 2004 < '2005 Total Assessed Value $2,938,870,858 $3,197,541,210 $3,248,321,363 $3,366,694,000 $3,688,014,044 --'----7 Ill GO Bond Rating 2001 2002 2003 ' 2004 2005 Moody's Aa3 Aa3 Aa3 Aa3 Aa3 S&P A+ A+ AA- AA- AA- Fitch AA- AA- AA- AA- AA- U.â€¢Idity (0â€¢1â€¢11 llâ€¢â€¢1â€¢) 2007~ 200~ 2003-7 2004-1 2005 t i Quick Ratio 3.31 2.97 1.40 1.42 1.44 Current Assets $3,562,500 $4,314,867 $9,590,421 $10,124,254 $10,551,287 Current Liabilities $1,076,515 $1,453,381 $6,844,243 $7,132,190 $7,334,508 r.1 Long Te,m Debt Ratio 2001. 2002 ~ 2003- 2004 2005 Long Term Debt Ratio 0.32% 0.27% 0.25% 0.37% 0.54% Outstanding GO Debt $9,440,000 $8,760,000 $8,155,000 $12,300,000 $19,915,000 Oulgh Ratio 4.00 0.60% 0.50% -- ./ 0A0% 4Â« T . 4 4-_1 2.00 Â· A \ 0.30% 4 1 1.00 i.jr. - t ' it , , 0.20% ' . .. - . ./ > 1. 01 0.10% t.' T.' 4 r.. 0.00% ~iÂ· Â·.%..'*:..~64....it~:A~ 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 1.1 1. 63 . 0 [10 - . I. c , COAORADO 95 el 1. ' -90-,"-,1/4..4 4 T- / Service Population 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 - \ Service Population 16,504 16,708 17,607 17,749 18,128 Permanent Poplilation 14,221 14,708 15,254 15,324 15,628 2nd Home Owner Pop - - . . Avg Daily Visitors 2,283 2,000 2,353 2,425 2,500 Emplovees pe, C..1.. 2001 2002 2003 J 2004 2005 12 . . 1 Employees per Capita 0.0164 0.0147 0.0148 0.0149 0.0148 FTE's per Capita 0.0130 0.0133 0.0127 0.0125 0.0120 Total Employees 270 245 260 265 268 Budgeted FTE's 314.00 329.00 342.00 342.00 346.00 . .-. -I : t Operating Revenues 2001 Â¥Â· 2002 2003 2004 2005 i Revenue per Capita $1,141 $1,172 $1,217 $1,305 $1,353 -: Net Operating Revenues $18,828,961 $19,581,503 $21,419,431 $23,156,754 $24,521,530 Operating Expenses 2001 2002 2003 2004, U 2005 Expenses per Capita $1,028 $1,161 $1,168 $1,237 $1,271 Net Operating Expenses $15,766,446 $18,200,336 $19,378,612 $20,759,441 $21,847,196 Debt Service $1,195,240 $1,191,965 $1,187,740 $1,187,565 $1,186,203 $1,400 -0- Revenue per $1,300 Capita $1,200 $1,100 ; J --I-- Expenses per Capita 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 64 kitv\of Duranao Geâ€¢e,al Fund Balance 9 2001 2002 | 2003 2004 2005 4 F - General Fund Balance 42.6% 36.0% 37.6% 42.5% 42.0% i Gen Fund Ending Bal $8,012,005 $7,055,402 $8,056,618 $9,838,840 $10,301,135 Gen Fund Revenues $18,828,961 $19,581,503 $21,419,431 $23,156,754 $24,521,530 ------1 - . - Tot.1 Assessed Value ~ 2001 ~ 2002 2003 2004 2005 i l I .IC. Total Assessed Value $234,335,730 $259,738,030 $272,484,960 $297,881,170 $308,804,000 GO Bond Rating . 200~ 2002 ~ 2003-1 2004 1 2005 . Moody's N/A NA N/A N/A N/A S&P N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Fitch N/A N/A NA N/A N/A --- Liquidity (O~i;h â€¢â€¢â€¢iâ€¢i zooi~-1 2002 2003- ' 2004,2-~-~ 2005 ~ Quick Ratio 6.87 5.89 5.60 6.40 5.52 Current Assets $9,492,602 $8,404,884 $9,720,593 $11,532,065 $12,486,287 Current Liabilities $1,380,951 $1,427,483 $1,736,878 $1,801,846 $2,263,362 k.i'. 4.-9 ---7 Long Te,m Debt Ratio 2001 2002 ~ 2003 -1 _ -1 2004 2005- Long Term Debt Ratio 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Outstanding GO Debt $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 65 . t . .. -' i [# 1.-1Izi ~TiTi COIORADO) -Â»EÂ»4 - 42'a -..*.-----. -- Semice Population 2001 7 2002 2003 2004 2005 Service Population 24,019 26,616 29,212 31,775 34,387 - Permanent Population 3,540 3,625 3,709 3,759 3,858 2nd Home Owner Pop ~ 958 981 1,006 1,031 1,057 Avg Daily Visitors 20,000 22,500 25,000 27,500 30,000 . Emplovees pe. Capita 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 4 , . J -4 Employees per Capita 0.0040 0.0036 0.0031 0.0028 0.0027 1. FTE's per Capita 0.0041 0.0038 0.0032 0.0031 0.0028 Total Employees 95 97 91 89 91 i Budgeted FTE's 99.60 99.90 94.05 97.95 95.40 Employees 0.0050 0.0040 -*- Employees per Capita 0.0030 ~ ~FTEs per Capita 0.0020 i-IHI=Il 6" ~ 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 -. Operating Revenue; 2001 2002 20~ 2004 2005 I , Revenue per Capita $434 $352 $317 $301 $323 Net Operating Revenues $10,435,851 $9,361,923 $9,268,954 $9,549,407 $11,111,057 ---- 0 - 9 Operating Expenle* 2001-~ 2002 2003 ~ 2004 2005 Expenses per Capita $337 $309 $269 $247 $348 Net Operating Expenses $6,670,023 $6,729,584 $6,516,924 $6,444,010 $7,237,111 Debt Service $1,434,785 $1,506,815 $1,327,224 $1,414,248 $4,738,197 Â·h.,6 66 I . 1. Ul'. *105210*:laSJYTMell . 1--'ll- --Il--Il- General Fund Balance 2001 ~ 2002 2003 2004 ~ 2005 i- General Fund Balance 95.8% 91.0% 95.1% 98.5% 72.5% | Gen Fund Ending Bal $7,324,295 $6,349,793 $6,661,911 $7,105,707 $6,146,714 Gen Fund Revenues $7,644,717 $6,978,168 $7,004,042 $7,211,806 $8,478,118 1 1 Total Allelled.Valâ€¢e. 2001 7~ 2902 2003 2004 2005 -7 ,4 1 Â£ .1-* Total Assessed Value $109,860,860 $113,033,030 $117,965,730 $119,362,850 $120,357,050 4 . 7.-1 GO Bond Rating 2001 2002 ~ 2003 2004 . 2005 Moody's BAA BAA BAA BAA BAA S&P BBB+ BBB+ BBB+ BBB+ BBB+ Fitch N/A N/A N/A N/A NA Liquidity (Oulâ€¢11 Rallâ€¢) 2001 ~ 2002-~1 2003-1 2004 | 2005 1 ! Quick Ratio 11.38 9.12 9.19 8.25 5.36 Current Assets $8,030,144 $7,132,181 $7,474,913 $8,086,254 $7,555,669 Current Liabilities $705,849 $782,388 $813,002 $980,547 $1,408,955 1 Long Term Debt Ratio ~ 2001 ~ 2002 ~ 2003 ~ 2004 2005 . I < J| r. Long Term Debt Ratio 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1 Outstanding GO Debt $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 1 1 .. 67 , 41[ 0 . ..4. af' -Â· ' 2/n.Ulltlitu13 . 1.2 1 ' . f C COCORADO - --f--- -7 -,â€ž=.---I.-I - I Service Population 2001 2002 2003 ~ 2004 2005 ~ Service Population 5,727 5,713 5,758 5,774 5,799 * Permanent Population 2,314 2,318 2,348 2,335 2,335 2nd Home Owner Pop 2,025 1,990 2,019 2,078 2,128 Avg Daily Visitors . 2,400 2,400 2,400 2,400 2,400 j Employees pe, Capita 2001 2002 2003; 2004 2005 " f . 4 Employees per Capita 0.0176 0.0177 0.0181 0.0180 0.0186 FTE's per Capita 0.0105 0.0109 0.0108 0.0112 0.0115 ' t' r - . Total Employees 101 101 104 104 108 Budgeted FTE's 60.30 62.40 62.40 64.80 66.50 1 K Operating Revenues 2001 2603 2003 ~ 2004 2005 F I i~ Revenue per Capita $808 $886 $925 $978 $988 !1 i Net Operating Revenues $4,628,862 $5,060,556 $5,326,107 $5,648,627 $5,730,686 a 1 Ope...ing ...ente, 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005. Expenses per Capita $917 $1,215 $1,276 $1,310 $1,351 Net Operating Expenses $5,232,524 $5,821,267 $6,172,286 $6,332,814 $6,696,040 Debt Service $18,068 $1,120,079 $1,176,868 $1,231,475 $1,140,714 General Fund B.I.nce 2001 : 2002 2003 2004 2005 General Fund Balance 33.2% 21.6% 28.1% 23.4% 25.2% Gen Fund Ending Bal $1,528,761 $950,111 $1,332,295 $1,168,899 $1,284,973 Gen Fund Revenues $4,605,185 $4,390,639 $4,735,138 $5,000,949 $5,091,882 68 . i il.-Il il Ill. *JEET-*<ijjl] il_Irn - 0~Im Total Alle:led"Value 2001 2002 2003 . 2004 2005 - , Total Assessed Value $119,451,100 $122,001,860 $134,337,600 $137,774,210 $196,442,960 Â¥0111Assessed Vok- $220,000,000 $200,000,000 . - 0 /@ I $180,000,000 $160,000,000 F I 1 $140,000,000 r ' ac~.0 a. 1 Â·.in:Z'#1< ygic :' $100,000,000 - - . 42 - 1 , 1 1 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 1- -- GO Bond Rating 2001--~ 2002~ 2003 ~ 2004 2005 1 Moody's N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A ~ S&p BBB+ BBB+ BBB+ BBB+ BBB+ 1 Fitch N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A r L|qâ€¢|dity (Oâ€¢1611 Râ€¢tio) 2001 Â·] 2002 ' ~ 2003' : 2004 . 2005. Quick Ratio 3.36 1.92 2.22 2.35 2.41 Current Assets $2,177,698 $1,977,450 $2,420,328 $2,032,371 $2,195,086 Current Liabilities $648,937 $1,027,339 $1,088,033 $863,473 $910,113 Long Te.m Debt Ratio ; 2001 2002 2003 2004Â· 2005 e Long Term Debt Ratio 4.69% 5.92% 4.73% 3.91% 2.25% Outstanding GO Debt $5,601,571 $7,226,173 $6,348,970 $5,392,245 $4,419,612 69 I. ../.**/.-1 - - - -~- ---F , . f. D. -3, ... I. -Il- --. ./ . I.- I. I a 2 06 COXORADO 44*3Â· .gr Service Population 2001 2002 Â· 2003 2004 2005 I . b I I Service Population 4,570 4,776 4,723 4,819 4,992 Permanent Population 2,608 2,677 2,628 2,697 2,812 2nd Home Owner Pop 3,416 3,701 3,770 3,811 3,903 Avg Daily Visitors 254 248 210 216 228 w - . - - - - ,-9--Ii'.7/ -.----........ ---1 . ----r--â€¢~- 1 Employees pe, Capita 2001 < 2002 2003 Â· 2004 ~ 2005 4.1 0 I , , , Employees per Capita 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 FTE's per Capita . 0.0115 0.0112 0.0113 0.0102 0.0104 , ~ Total Employees - Budgeted FTE's 52.50 53.50 53.50 49.00 52.00 Â£ - ./ r. . I . Opeâ€¢â€¢â€¢1â€¢g Revenues 1 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Revenue per Capita $1,015 $1,000 $1,269 $1,284 $1,347 Net Operating Revenues $4,637,711 $4,773,233 $5,994,370 $6,188,516 $6,722,140 Operating E=Dense* 2001 2002 2003 # ~ 2004 2005 Expenses per Capita , $990 $982 $1,050 $1,001 $1,020 Net Operating Expenses $4,525,940 $4,688,804 $4,958,470 $4,823,127 $5,089,792 Debt Service $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 91 Â· ./ ... -- -* .'-* - . 2 Total Allessed Valde 2001 2002 2003' 2004 1 2005 Total Assessed Value $113,528,230 $113,419,380 $116,429,190 $117,493,210 $128,337,230 70 , Â£ 1. 1 2.Â£17 C 11 - - , . 0,6 .1 C I " 25- W - 2 -- ... 1 /0.â€ž.\ 1 ... - . -a.-17 6 32 -1.1 f.7-il / -- - G TOWNEOF FRISCO I . 1 Gene..1 F..d B.I.nce 2001 2002- 2003 2004 2005 General Fund Balance 44.8% 45.5% 43.2% 70.5% 89.2% ~ Gen Fund Ending Bal $2,076,325 $2,170,754 $2,589,919 $4,364,044 $5,996,396 Gen Fund Revenues $4,637,711 $4,773,233 $5,994,370 $6,188,516 $6,722,140 .....1 ...d...... 100.0% 90.0% .V. . 80.0% . 70.0% r.1 - 4 1 60.0% . WOMPT I ... 50.0% 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 00 Bond R..Ing 2001-~ 2002 2003 , 2004 2005 . 1 Moody's N/A BAA1 BAA1 BAA1 BAA1 S&P N/A A A A A ' Fitch N/A A A A A i Liquidlel (Oâ€¢1Â«11 Râ€¢llâ€¢) 20021 2007-1 2003 2004 - 2005. Quick Ratio 1.56 1.79 2.15 2.13 4.21 Current Assets $7,171,598 $8,006,003 $9,112,941 $9,128,509 $11,666,267 Current Liabilities $4,591,636 $4,473,214 $4,234,817 $4,287,900 $2,768,970 Long Te,m Debt Ratio r 2001 1 200i 2003, 2004 2005Â· Long Term Debt Ratio 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Â£~ Outstanding GO Debt $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 - 71 ->A . I I â€¢ â€¢ [ 1 :tll [1I ,Iirl - ... W . 4 1'' 0 CO'ORADO I . lt- â„¢X- 1 . -9....=.9-Â¥ Iv Semice Population ~ 2001-~ 2002 2003 ., 2004 2005 l Service Population 10,775 11,986 12,389 12,833 13,299 Permanent Population 2,728 3,126 3,181 3,253 3,335 I I 2nd Home Owner Pop 7,328 8,406 8,553 8,749 8,968 Avg Daily Visitors 4,383 4,657 4,931 5,205 5,480 --1 Emplovees pei C.ple. 2001 2002 - 2003 ~ 2004 ~ 2005 I . Employees per Capita 0.0336 0.0296 0.0286 0.0276 0.0268 .1, FTE's per Capita 0.0130 0.0111 0.0109 0.0106 0.0103 1 . Total Employees 362 354 355 355 356 i . Budgeted FTE's 140.50 133.60 134.60 136.60 137.60 , ... -.-* B 1 Operating*Revenues 2001 2002 2003 2004 ' 2005 Revenue per Capita $601 $545 $493 $527 $546 ! Net Operating Revenues $6,477,578 $6,533,748 $6,108,370 $6,763,330 $7,261,357 : Ope...Ing ..pente, 2001 2002 2003 ~ 2004 2005 Expenses per Capita $1,575 $1,446 $1,466 $1,351 $1,313 Â· Net Operating Expenses $15,456,206 $15,808,682 $17,620,241 $16,889,455 $17,016,173 Debt Service $1,519,546 $1,519,993 $536,233 $445,773 $443,985 Reve.-O v. Expemes $1,700 -,- Revenue per $1,200 - Capita $700 , -44- | -I- Expenses per Capita L 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 -M 72 V - I- - 1,86 .. .@- A./.- :1 - 4. - BREâ‚¬: mtMiDGE 9 i Gene,al Fund Balange 2003 | 2004- â€ž~ 2005 E 2001. ~ .2002~ . General Fund Balance 56.2% 60.1% 57.5% 61.0% 68.0% $10,289,55 Gen Fund Ending Bal $8,893,038 $9,881,073 $10,952,02 $12,911,084 6 5 Gen Fund Revenues $15,820,953 $17,122,948 $17,186,566 $17,960,407 $18,975,232 1 Â¥â€¢tâ€¢l Allelled V~I~e 2001 2 2002 2003 2004 - 2005 w. Total Assessed Value $221,663,430 $278,773,540 $293,607,170 $313,879,060 $315,986,100 - r - ' 60 Bond Rating 2001 2002 ; 2003 2004 2005. Moody's N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A E S&P N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Fitch N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Liquidit. (O.1,1. Ratio) 2001 2005-7 2005Â· Â· 2004 r 2005 1 1 Quick Ratio 3.76 4.09 4.21 4.77 5.02 Current Assets $12,117,823 $13,479,992 $12,955,822 $13,857,784 $16,125,380 Current Liabilities $3,224,785 $3,295,430 $3,074,749 $2,905,759 $3,214,296 6 1 Long Teâ€¢= Debt Rati~- 2001-,=~ ~ 2002 ~ 2003 ~ 2004 - 2005 ~ - .Â· 1 . . , .... I- Long Term Debt Ratio 5.15% 3.66% 3.05% 2.48% 2.24% z Outstanding GO Debt $11,410,000 $10,205,000 $8,960,000 $7,785,000 $7,065,000 -1 73 f, 4, 4 MI[DE '. p I./ coteRA*Do, ....--.- -6."*-",1 Service Population 2001 2002 1 2003 2004 26Od 1 Service Population 20,368 21,116 21,968 22,778 23,626 Permanent Population 10,375 10,402 10,607 10,742 10,919 2nd Home Owner Pop 5,345 6,307 7,442 8,791 10,373 Avg Daily Visitors 7,320 7,560 7,640 7,640 7,520 12,000 11,000 10000 - 0 9,000 -,- - -Permanent Popuation 8,000 ~ ' ~ /~~0Â£~ -2nd Home Ouner Pop 7.000 1 4,% .-- I ' i 'llifileill'll'll'll'llillill"'IL#9*4#JWAEIVL*Â£el ' 5,000 Al='I~~I~~"~~ 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 1 - ..d' ,- 1 Employees pei Capita - ~ 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Employees per Capita 0.0147 0.0156 0.0148 0.0147 0.0116 FTE's per Capita 0.0122 0.0124 0.0116 0.0113 0.0110 Total Employees 300 330 325 335 274 Budgeted FTE's 247.81 262.38 254.69 256.78 259.63 Operating Revenues 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Revenue per Capita $944 $942 $875 $872 $915 Net Operating Revenues $19,233,671 $19,888,773 $19,214,146 $19,852,886 $21,612,867 <.4 Ope,/*Ing EN,emel "-'- 2001 , 2002 2003 2004 . 2005 ; Expenses per Capita $908 $918 $882 $843 $839 Net Operating Expenses $16,053,688 $17,401,367 $17,227,002 $18,004,305 $18,626,664 ~< Debt Service $2,436,512 $1,976,591 $2,146,365 $1,193,377 $1,203,477 74 ' Prildw~) . General Fund Balance 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 General Fund Balance 38.7% 38.5% 41.4% 42.3% 46.2% Gen Fund Ending Bal $7,894,028 $8,046,106 $8,365,867 $8,925,471 $10,441,822 Gen Fund Revenues $20,405,566 $20,896,000 $20,199,866 $21,081,980 $22,590,765 . . I Tâ€¢â€¢al Alle#led Velâ€¢â€¢ 2001 2002 , 2003 2004 2005 ' r 1 1 ' Total Assessed Value $375,893,540 $374,002,260 $381,450,291 $383,327,900 $441,747,060 & C .I GO Bond Rating 2001 p 2002 2003 2004,' 2005 5 Moody's A3 A2 A2 A2 S&P N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A ' Fitch N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 3 Liqâ€¢Idity (Oihigh 11â€¢*1â€¢) 2001 ~ 2002-~ 2003--~ 2004 - . 1005 Quick Ratio 3.71 5.10 5.85 7.32 7.81 Current Assets $10,810,379 $10,009,899 $10,091,631 $10,337,923 $11,975,439 1 Current Liabilities $2,916,351 $1,963,793 $1,725,764 $1,412,452 $1,533,617 - - k-/-....4 ., . . 1.7...i... 1 ' Long Te,m Debt Ratio 2001 ~ 2002 2003 - 1 2004- 2005 : Long Term Debt Ratio 0.68% 0.63% 0.57% 0.51% 0.35% Outstanding GO Debt $2,543,906 $2,345,675 $2,177,151 $1,945,000 $1,555,000 .34 . :Wil.-..I. 75 7 90 1 W Â»64'- I Â· Â· ,{EGEEriiTID WIEQI} COCORADO r W . -- --- - 1 Service Population 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Service Population 3,769 4,123 4,504 5,802 5,744 i Permanent Population 1,000 1,100 1,234 1,650 1,650 , 2nd Home Owner Pop 3,667 4,033 4,525 6,050 6,050 1 1 Avg Daily Visitors 935 1,006 1,008 1,127 1,069 I U F Employees pe, Capita 2001 2002 2003 2004 ~ 2005 -~ Employe6s per Capita 0.0389 0.0374 . 0.0361 0.0295 0.0313 FTE's per Capita 0.0303 0.0291 0.0281 0.0229 0.0244 i Total Employees 147 154 162 .171 180 Budgeted FTE's 114.03 120.03 126.35 133.00 140.00 - 4 Opeâ€¢=â€¢Ing Reve..6* 2001 2002 200j 2004 2005 a , . Revenue per Capita $0 $3,222 $2,876 $2,863 $3,114 $13,285,71 $12,953,79 Net Operating Revenues - $16,610,238 $17 888,610 4 3 -27-: Operating Expentes 2001 2002 2003 2004 ~ 2005 i 4. I . ~ ,_ .1 ~~4 ~ ~ ~ . , .0 Expenses per Capita $0 $3,375 $2,942 $2,830 $3,047 Net Operating Expenses - $10,558,729 $10,179,683 $13,357,645 $14,330,340 Debt Service - $3,357,654 $3,072,135 $3,062,443 $3,170,781 I Toâ€¢â€¢1 Alle:led Value 2001 2002 2003 : 2004 2005 Total Assessed Value $184,335,810 $187.625,520 $202,303,910 $206,128,480 $249,694,660 . â€¢ 9.-1/1420 - 76 I-- mi ~Itinrir; ,-41 7 Y.r Gener.1 Fund.B.!..ge 2001 2002 2003 20044 2005 General Fund Balance - 73.2% 69.9% 45.9% 61.8% Gen Fund Ending Bal - $1,251,653 $1,304,217 $3,379,464 $4,852,748 1 Gen Fund Revenues - $1,709,333 $1,865,506 $7,363,740 $7,851,620 : ' 80.0% 1 70.0% I . 60.0% , Â· 1 .. 50.096 9,& . 11-,L= . ,- -07. - 1-*-II.***E- 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 - - ---7 --' -7 GO Bond Rating 2001 1 2002 2003 2004 ~ 2005 1 Moody's N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A S&P BBB+ BBB+ BBB+ BBB+ BBB+ t Fitch A- A- A- A- A- - Liquidity (0111Â«1~all,)~ 2001 ~ 2002 2003 2004, 2005 ~ ~ Quick Ratio - 1.55 1.58 1.49 1.56 $10,543,23 $11,186,67 $10,907,519 $14,155,856 Current Assets - 4 6 Current Liabilities - $6,809,829 $7,100,375 $7,323,935 $9,102,541 0-4,-2! Long Term Debt Ratio 1 2001 7~ 2002 1 2003 2004 -- 2005--1 L Long Term Debt Ratio 16.78% 15.98% 14.11% 13.11% 10.18% ~ Outstanding GO Debt $30,937,000 $29,987,000 $28,549,000 $27,030,000 $25,425,000 - 1 - 11170 /1 77 1 11--- .. -:) I m 96 Â¥ COIORAD* . 1 l . Se..lge Population 1 2002 J 2003 2004 Â· 2005 f 200~ . 1 , 4. Servide Population 13,580 13,497 14,159 14,010 14,504 Permanent Population 5,413 5,413 5,413 5,413 5,413 * 1 2nd Home Owner Pop - - - - - < Avg Daily Visitors 8,167 8,084 8,746 8,597 9,091 . 1- Employees pe, Capita 2001 2002 2003 Â· 2004 2005 Employees per Capita 0.0081 0.0085 0.0085 0.0089 0.0090 FTE's per Capita 0.0076 0.0077 0.0076 0.0079 0.0078 Total Employees 110 115 120 125 130 I Budgeted FTE's 103.00 104.25 107.25 110.50 112.50 : .. Opeâ€¢-â€¢Ing Revenues 2001., 2002 ' , 2003 2004 2005 B Revenue per Capita $584 $613 $677 $707 $699 1 4 Net Operating Revenues ~ $7,931,313 $8,270,053 $9,579,264 $9,905,719 $10,137,160 . .........9 - Opeâ€¢11â€¢Ing E=Demes ~ 2001. ~ 2002 ~ 2003 2004 1 2005 3 Expenses per Capita $519 $522 $538 $839 $803 Net Operating Expenses $7,053,550 $7,049,452 $7,613,812 $11,760,764 $11,653,577 Debt Service $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Revenues ....emes $900 $800 * P-*..0 -0- Revenue per Capita $700 $500 5 L-'-'-7 / 1 -- Expenses per 4 1 Capita 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 11 - . .- 1- 78 : - - b- Â· - 2 .. * 44 * IA *r-:01*1.-u-=-/ lEg N , #8.48 U. Dau JE ee,ZERae v 4 General Fund ..1...e 2001 ~ 2002 2003 ~ 2004 2005 . General Fund Balance 54.2% 66.7% 78.1% 56.8% 40.5% Gen Fund Ending Bal $4,295,898 $5,516,499 $7,481,951 $5,626,906 $4,109,230 Gen Fund Revenues $7,931,313 $8,270,053 $9,579,264 $9,905,719 $10,137,160 Total Assessed Value 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 : Total Assessed Value $130,171,750 $134,594,490 $145,187,100 $147,021,660 $153,326,340 . GO Bond R..Ing ' 2001 2002- 2003 ~ 2004, . 2005 . I f 1; Moody's NA N/A N/A N/A N/A - ;r S&P N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A ' i Fitch N/A N/A N/A NA N/A 5 Lillâ€¢idlly (*â€¢111â€¢tRatIO). 2001 ~ 2002 ' ] 2003 1 2004' 20~5~ Quick Ratio - - - 7.21 6.40 Current Assets - - - $6,533,649 $4,870,656 Current Liabilities - - $906,742 $761,426 1 -3 i Long Teâ€¢m Debt Ratio. 2001 2002 2003 2004. , 2005 .~ ' I I I #I ~ Long Term Debt Ratio 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Outstanding GO Debt $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 h> fL-Arp-wiC'.:~7Â£~.,t#K~.2,44*M-TT#*INT&*ma#jumid 79 - "1 " \ 'IiÂ·i rmIRIERD COAORADO Seâ€¢vice Population 200i 2002 1 2003 2004 ~ 2005 , 1 - .1 , : Service Population 19,784 19,773 20,230 20,147 19,918 Permanent Population 8,706 8,807 8,913 9,110 9,176 2nd Home Owner Pop 71 82 94 106 118 Avg Daily Visitors 11,042 10,925 11,270 10,984 10,683 - -. 1 0 1 Employeespe, Capita 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 1 :Z : Employees per Capita 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 FTE's per Capita 0.0057 0.0057 0.0055 0.0056 0.0056 Total Employees - - - Budgeted FTE's 111.83 112.84 111.64 113.47 111.59 . -- - L 1 Ope.ating Revenues 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Revenue per Capita $429 $459 $469 $487 $518 1 Net Operating Revenues $8,486,130 $9,074,493 $9,494,194 $9,809,303 $10,316,305 i ! Operating E=penses 2001 2002. 2003 2004 2005. . i â€¢ Expenses per Capita $412 $455 $448 $485 $520 Net Operating Expenses $8,155,694 $9,000,489 $9,069,734 $9,780,251 $10,353,592 Debt Service $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 2 - Revenues v. Expeme, $550 -4- Revenue per Capita $500 $450 | -â€¢- Expenses per $400 - ,#.51:141$33%â€žAÂ¥:: '-24 Â·~'9Â· Â¢1'.'.ill/dj Capita I,IIi 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 -'*.fl"#$-*..12"11"- 80 - '43 '7 111[H[/(*111 IIX),--<:,1 .6 i -,-% ...#...= -. f .. / -**;'- ''*-/9-').-- .- T- 'Our -LATiN R~ =177 lifc-_2 V! 4 ..24.J@ 1 ..%.==08. 1 L.,42~ m.w General Fund Balamle 2001 ~ 2002 ~~ 2003. ~ 2004 | 2005-7 General Fund Balance 39.3% 38.4% 35.0% 34.8% 33.3% Gen Fund Ending Bal $3,517,642 $3,651,371 $3,348,072 $3,436,882 $3,450,500 Gen Fund Revenues $8,940,210 $9,500,657 $9,575,520 $9,869,061 $10,367,210 Total Allelled Value 2001---~ 2002~ 2003 2004 . 2005 - Total Assessed Value $130,205,653 $140,400,627 $148,163,404 $156,477,759 $171,467,873 GO â€¢â€¢â€¢d Rating " 2001 ~ 2002 ~ 2003 2004 2005 , Moody's N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A S&P N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Fitch N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A . 1- 1lt 1.Ilâ€¢Idlty (Oâ€¢1Â«11 Ratio) ~ 2001 ~ 2002 -] 20037~ 2004 ~ 2005 ] Quick Ratio 8.73 9.73 9.32 7.52 6.49 L Current Assets $3,952,063 $4,051,992 $3,732,493 $3,928,731 $3,989,655 - Current Liabilities $452,947 $416,357 $400,526 $522,398 $614,466 7- -,r--- Long Te,m Debt Ratio 2001 | 2002 ~ 2003 ~ 2004 0 2005 - Long Term Debt Ratio 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Outstanding GO Debt $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 t 1 k l M: I â€¢ -./...0..i ,Â»i I i~,w -I.-- 81 .r I .1 ... ' 1 .--Â· Â· Z8 0-- -- . ~- - .2=~ 1 9 %- b 25 0 E 2 2 & O #8 09 . 11 ,3 M 8 CD flo C (10 0 ir & E ,2 1 . W â‚¬ 2 - 16 11 0 2 C O 0 c 2 1 . 0 Â¤ t! CO = ~ 4 2 - 3 2 i I â‚¬ 2 (1) it. C 4 00 C (D C .C E > J 2 44*RE- 94#4 A-*:re - - 1. . ~wn of Mountain Village Steve Wilson Finance Director '(970) 369-6404 swilson@telluridecolorado.net AO6Â·00-ennqpelsmolulÂ©)10!Jledz~!J[ 1â‚¬99-6*â‚¬ (026) Develop- (970) 369-8250 jadler@telluridecolorado.net (970) 369-6413 kmahoney@telluridecolorado.net jriley@telluridecolorado.net Town of Mt. Crested Butte Karl Tru (970) 349-6632 ktrujillo@mtcrestedbutte-co.gov 6.10'eu:041Â·leApsÂ©une.Iq-euuop Â£0â‚¬Z-192 (026) JOPeÂ·'!C] eoueu!=1 uneig euuoG eU,04118Alls JO UMol 6JO-ewollpeAlisÂ©40WCPI 90Â£2-191 (026) JeSBUBIN UAAol Jeple40}eg LU00*ASO)Â©eoueuu 962Â£-Â£16 (026) i01081!Cl eoueu!=I !)ISMO>lehl euuepeIN e6eil!A SSELUMOUS JO UAAol A06 00-epunlielÂ©>peqi aNZZ (026) Joloe]!o eoueu!=I aP!Â·'n'lal #O UAAol A05 00-epunile}Â©u!Uell,4 89 L 1-8ZZ (026) A06Â·00-eunqpeiselmwÂ©elepl.1 1â‚¬99-64Â£ (026) -doleAea *1!un Â£8 .... /2.-,Li- At 91:* 2 12 2 % 2 0 Â§ 9 9 m 0**%53, 9 9 9 9 9 7 9 99 02 Â· O 46 6 Â® AN ARIN;222Â®kkÂ°Â°Ace c,) A co Â© to CD (O 1 LO LO 802 & 6600 O 00 0 00 CO LO LO O o A Â£8&8822& &,%,@.ha: 2 8 0, e Â·5 k E k 9 - e 0 0 0- 3 05 : 8 82 5 .0 5 O 2 Â®&8 2 2 2 a) (10 0 2*2 [fe EE 5%,iga 0 - 4 o *0 0 6 e g E 2 E 8 4 0 SE 8 < 5 &2 & 12 2 2 3 M El E 3 0 0 E iE m = E 2- 2 ,E ,M ~ ~ i W C E 2 (0 C 0 . C P R L E .5 O 0 8 .E m 153 2 M W M EaÂ®o 22* 3 15 2 1 3 3 2 4 If . 4 0 0 Oic C Â£ 2 - 2 .CD , c .2 % 000)0 NEÂ® 2 m I- 3222:2' C 0 0 .a C i .- U) 0 1 i 2 1 C O Â® OMY 1 - I Â® 1*92 & m 9 13 CL J C OED ON O 1 Ki 2 3 E U) O Q U) O U) Â® C N C a) : 0 m 0 8.~ O U.1 3 4 8 5 2 5 5 O '0 '3 99 COC "\05855 â‚¬ 22** *** 00 0 0 000, 0- 1-0 1- Â«- - ------ -R----W70- -= *Il . ./.-- . . -- - - ---I./-..+I- #/-- MP---I--- -r- .