CONSERVATION FINANCE FEASIBILITY STUDY APRIL 2016 PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO

Transcription

1 CONSERVATION FINANCE FEASIBILITY STUDY APRIL 2016 PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO

2

3 PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO CONSERVATION FINANCE FEASIBILITY STUDY APRIL 2016 Copyright April, 2016,The Trust for Public Land. All rights reserved. Cover photo: Pitkin County Open Space and Trails Facebook page. THE TRUST FOR PUBLIC LAND :: CONSERVATION FINANCE DEPARTMENT 1

4

5 PITKIN COUNTY COLORADO CONSERVATION FINANCE FEASIBILITY STUDY APRIL 2016 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction 2 Executive Summary 3 County Overview 4 Pitkin County Open Space and Trails... 6 Potential Funding Mechanisms 9 Property Tax Bonds Elections 20 Calendar Election History Next Steps Appendices 31 This feasibility study is not a legal document and should not be relied upon for legal purposes. 1

6 PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO CONSERVATION FINANCE FEASIBILITY STUDY APRIL 2016 INTRODUCTION The Trust for Public Land works to protect the places people care about and to create close-tohome parks and trails particularly in and near cities, where 80 percent of Americans live. Our goal is to ensure that every child has easy access to a safe place to play in nature. We also conserve working farms, ranches, and forests; lands of historical and cultural importance; rivers, streams, coasts, and watersheds; and other special places where people can experience nature close at hand. Since 1972, The Trust for Public Land has protected more than 3 million acres and completed more than 5,200 park and conservation projects. In Colorado, TPL has helped protect nearly 105,000 acres. To help public agencies or land trusts acquire land, TPL assists communities in identifying and securing public financing. TPL s conservation finance program offers technical assistance to elected officials, public agencies and community groups to design, pass and implement public funding measures that reflect popular priorities. Since 1996, TPL has been involved in nearly 500 successful ballot measures and twenty successful legislative campaigns that have created more than $57 billion in new funding for parks, restoration, and land conservation across the nation. Voters have approved 81 percent of the ballot measures assisted by TPL. Pitkin County asked The Trust for Public Land to explore funding options available to fund land conservation and trails efforts. Given the substantial investment of time and resources required for a successful conservation finance initiative, preliminary research is essential to determine the feasibility of such an effort. The study presents several viable local public options for funding land conservation in the county and provides analysis of which local options and funding levels are feasible, economically prudent, and likely to be publicly acceptable. This research provides a stand-alone, fact-based reference document that can be used to evaluate financing mechanisms from an objective vantage point. 1 1 This report is based on the best information publicly available at the time of drafting. March

7 PITKIN COUNTY COLORADO CONSERVATION FINANCE FEASIBILITY STUDY APRIL 2016 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Trust for Public Land undertook a feasibility analysis to explore the public funding options available to support open space and trails purposes in Pitkin County. In order to understand what would be an appropriate funding source or sources, this report first provides a brief overview of existing open space programs, governance and funding as well as some background about the county. Next, the report analyzes possible alternatives for funding open space and trails, including the authority for their use and revenue raising capacity. Finally, since most revenue options require approval by voters, this report provides pertinent election information, such as voter turnout history and election results for local finance measures. In Colorado, local governments have utilized several different public finance options to support parks and conservation. The primary revenue options include the sales tax, property tax and bonds, along with less frequently used mechanisms such as the lodging tax, use tax and impact fees. This study focuses on two options that present opportunities for financing in the county, which are as follows: Property Tax. Pitkin County could ensure a steady, reliable stream of funding for parks, open space and trails purposes, including capital projects and operation and maintenance expenditures, by extending its existing mill levy. For example, an extension could generate roughly $11 million in annual revenue and continue to cost the average homeowner about $200 a year without raising taxes. A 0.5 mill levy increase would cost the average homeowner an additional $27.The county could also impose a new levy or increase the existing open space levy. Voter approval is required. Bonding. Pitkin County could issue both general obligation bonds and revenue bonds for land conservation purposes. General obligation bonds are backed by the County s full faith and credit. Revenue bonds are re-paid by project-generated revenue or a dedicated revenue stream such as the sales tax. Generally, bond proceeds are limited to capital projects and may not be used for operations and maintenance purposes. Voter approval is required for all debt increases. The Colorado Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR) requires voter approval prior to the imposition by cities and counties of a new tax, tax rate increase, mill levy increase, tax extension, or other change that results in a net gain of tax revenues or the creation of any multiple fiscal year debt or other financial obligation. The Pitkin County Home Rule Charter also requires voter approval for the above actions. As such, the next steps for Pitkin County should include narrowing funding options to those that match the needs identified in the county s planning processes and testing voter attitudes toward a specific set of funding proposals. The Trust for Public Land recommends conducting a public opinion survey that tests ballot language, tax tolerance, and program priorities of voters in throughout the county. 3

8 PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO CONSERVATION FINANCE FEASIBILITY STUDY APRIL 2016 COUNTY OVERVIEW Pitkin County is located approximately 210 miles west of Denver and 120 miles east of Grand Junction in the Colorado Rocky Mountains. The County encompasses 973 square miles, of which approximately 81 percent is publicly owned and is controlled by the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management. The estimated population of the county is 17,376 people. Pitkin County s geography is largely defined by its stunning mountainous geography and beautiful valley. Iconic mountains include the Maroon Bells and Mount Sopris, which along with many other mountains in the county, offer significant opportunities for hiking, skiing and other alpine recreation activities. Pitkin County is located entirely within the Roaring Fork Watershed, an area approximately the size of Rhode Island. The Roaring Fork River provides a substantial amount of water to the Colorado River. Silver prospectors first arrived in the Roaring Fork Valley in 1879 and set up camp at the foot of Aspen Mountain. 2 Today, recreation, tourism, real estate and construction dominate the local economic activity of the county. However, Pitkin County remains a rural county, with a population density of 15.3 persons per square mile, compared to 41.5 for all of Colorado. 3 Pitkin County s communities are primarily located in the Roaring Fork Valley. Three municipalities, Aspen, Snowmass Village, and Basalt, are located in the county. Unincorporated communities in Pitkin County include Old Snowmass, Meredith, Redstone, and Woody Creek. Pitkin County is also home to the ghost town of Ashcroft. Pitkin County maintains a strong legacy of agriculture and farming, although the role of agriculture has decreased greatly in recent years. Although there were fewer farms in Pitkin County in 1959 than the present day, the acreage dedicated to farming was much greater. In 1959, 75 farms and ranches covered 111,828 acres. In 2012, 82 farms covered 32,094 acres. This decrease in farming occurred primarily in the 1960s farmland has decreased incrementally from the 1970s to present. 4 Between 2000 and 2010, Pitkin County s population grew by 15 percent ranking 21 st of Colorado s 64 counties. As a Pitkin County Population Community 2014 Population Pitkin County 17,626 Unincorporated Area 6,962 Aspen 6,805 Snow mass Village 2,898 Basalt (part) 961 Source: Colorado Department of Local Affairs, State Demography Office comparison, Eagle County grew by 25 percent and Garfield County grew by 28 percent over the same time period. 5 Although Pitkin County s growth rate is lower than that of neighboring 2 Pitkin County at a Glance. 3 Pitkin County Public Health Improvement Plan Accessed March 25, n.pdf 4 Condon, Scott. Historical Census of Agriculture shows ranching s long decline in Pitkin County. The Aspen Times. June 28, Accessed March 25, Frey, David. Garfield County, New Castle lead Western Slope growth. Aspen Journalism,. April 28, Accessed March 25,

9 PITKIN COUNTY COLORADO CONSERVATION FINANCE FEASIBILITY STUDY APRIL 2016 counties, it is still a significant increase and is an issue in the county. The 2014 Pitkin County Community Survey found that managing growth was one of the highest priority issues facing the county. 6 The elderly population in Pitkin County is projected to increase at a greater rate than any other age group in the next 30 years. A seven-fold growth in the over 60 population is anticipated between 1990 and 2040, increasing from seven percent to approximately 20 percent of overall population of Pitkin County. The overall population is expected to grow just 2.5 times in the same 50 year period. 7 The County is a quasi municipal corporation and political subdivision of the State. The County exercises and provides all mandatory county powers and functions as provided by law and has all rights and powers delegated under the constitution and laws of the State for exercise by counties. In addition, the County has adopted the Pitkin County Home Rule Charter. The County charter became effective on July 1, 1978, following an approving election, and establishes the organization and structure of County government. Weld County is the only other home rule county in Colorado Pitkin County Community Survey. Accessed March 25, Pitkin County Public Health Improvement Plan: While organized differently from most other Colorado counties, the City and County of Denver and Broomfield City and County are not organized pursuant to the home rule charter act. Instead, they are organized under a charter pursuant to article XX of the Colorado Constitution. 5

10 PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO CONSERVATION FINANCE FEASIBILITY STUDY APRIL 2016 Board of County Commissioners Pitkin County is governed by a five-member board of Board of County Commissioners commissioners. The commissioners are responsible for policy making and legislative authority. The Board of County Commissioners is responsible, among other things, for passing ordinances and resolutions, adopting the budget, appointing committees and hiring the County s manager and attorney. Approval by the Board of County Commissioners is required for changes in the total budget of any fund. 9 The commissioners are elected by district to four-year staggered terms and may serve only three consecutive terms. The board is the county government s main policy-making body. Three commissioner seats will be up for election in November Commissioner Owsley (District 3) is unable to run for re-election due to term limits. Commissioners Child and Newman, in districts 4 and 5 respectively, are both seeking re-election. As of March 2016, potential candidates for the open District 3 seat include a member of the Open Space and Trails Board and a former member of the Healthy Rivers and Streams Board. 10 The other elected County officials are the Assessor, Clerk and Recorder, and Sheriff. The County manager is responsible for carrying out the policies and ordinances of the Board of County Commissioners, for overseeing the day to day operations of the County and for appointing the department heads. Pitkin County Open Space and Trails Name District Term Expires Patti Clapper District Rachel Richards District Michael Ow sley District Steve Child District George New man District Open Space and Trails is the county department responsible for the countywide open space and trails program. Open Space and Trails owns or holds a conservation easement slightly over 20,000 acres of property. 11 The mission of the Open Space and Trails program is to acquire, preserve, maintain and manage open space properties for multiple purposes including, but not limited to, recreational, wildlife, agricultural, scenic and access purposes; and to acquire, preserve, develop, maintain and manage trails for similar purposes. The department actively manages over 4,500 acres of open space and 72 miles of trails. Pitkin County Open Space and Trails also assists in the preservation of Pitkin County s agricultural heritage. Open Space and Trails also manages about 250 acres of agricultural lands, as of 2014, that are leased or will soon be available to agricultural producers. This program provides local farmers with an affordable opportunity to work local land. 12 Land in Pitkin County is expensive. A Largely excerpted from Pitkin County Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, pages ii - iii 10 Auslander, Jason. Pitkin County commissioner races starting to heat up. The Aspen Times. March 7, Accessed March 7, Pitkin County Open Space and Trails Master Asset Inventory. February 25, Accessed March 25, Krivonen, Marci. Interest Grows in Pitkin County Agricultural Program. Aspen Public Radio. September 10, Accessed March 25,

11 PITKIN COUNTY COLORADO CONSERVATION FINANCE FEASIBILITY STUDY APRIL 2016 survey found that the per-acre value of agricultural land in Pitkin County, at $5,597, was the third highest of all Colorado counties, behind only Boulder and Denver. 13 Pitkin County residents are frequent users of properties maintained by Open Space and Trails and profess high levels of satisfaction for open space in the county. A 2014 Pitkin County Community survey found that 94 percent of respondents were very satisfied or satisfied with parks, open spaces and trails, and 75 percent indicates that they received either some benefit or great benefit for the open space and trails portion of their property tax dollar. The survey also found that 53 percent of respondents used the County trail system at least once a week. 14 History and Funding First approved by voters in 1990, Pitkin County Open Spaces and Trails is funded by a dedicated 3.75 levy tax on property. The tax generated approximately $ million in revenue in Pitkin County voters re-approved the levy in 1999 and The levy is set to expire in Pursuant to Colorado law and the Pitkin County Home Rule Charter, funds from the open space mill levy shall be deposited in the Open Space/ Trails Fund. The Open Spaces and Trails Fund consists primarily of property tax revenue. In 2014, property tax revenue accounted for 85 percent of total fund revenue, intergovernmental transfers accounted for 13 percent of revenue. Other sources of revenue, such as licenses and permits, charges for services, fines and forfeitures, investment earnings, and miscellaneous, accounted for approximately two percent. 15 The fund had a total fund balance of approximately $12.78 million as of December 31, 2014, compared to $11.35 million as of December 31, 2013.The budgeted expenditures for the program in the 2016 county budget total approximately $5.48 million (5.2 percent of total county expenditures). The ending fund balance forecast for the 2016 budget is approximately $12.1 million. 16 Although Open Spaces and Trails maintains a five-year budget projection to aid planning and financial decision making, the Department does not budget for acquisitions in any given year. Instead, the Department prefers to respond nimbly to opportunities to acquire property from willing sellers as it becomes available on the market. The Pitkin County Home Rule Charter authorized uses of the Open Space Fund and creates percentage allocations for the eligible purposes. Seventy-five percent of revenue shall be used for the acquisition and improvement of real property, water rights and mineral rights for open space uses and purposes. Twenty percent shall be used for acquisition and improvement of property for trail and trailhead uses. Lastly, five percent of revenue shall be used for managing, maintaining, rehabilitating, and preserving County open space and trails. This includes property owned by the county as well as trails made available to the public by other public and private entities. This allocation can also be used to foster stewardship of public and private open space lands, promote 13 Condon, Scott. Historical Census of Agriculture shows ranching s long decline in Pitkin County. The Aspen Times. June 28, Accessed March 25, Pitkin County Community Survey. Accessed March 25, Pitkin County Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, Page E Pitkin County Budget, Page 34. 7

12 PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO CONSERVATION FINANCE FEASIBILITY STUDY APRIL 2016 public education and awareness of the benefits of preserving open space and trails. 17 The County Code allows for the percentage revenue allocations described above to be increased or decreased by up to 10 percent for anytime, although the allocation for maintenance shall never be less than five percent. The table to the right shows the allocation ranges for Open Space and Trails purposes as described by the Home Rule Charter. 18 In practice, the Department has settled on allocations of 75 percent for open space, 10 percent for trails, and 15 percent for operations and maintenance. Similar to many other counties and communities in the United States with a preponderance of federal land holdings, the trend in recent years of decreased federal funding for management of federal lands places a stress on Pitkin County finances. This is in part due to the growing threat of forest fires in the American west, as the Forest Service spends a steadily increasing portion of its budget on forest fires. Open Space and Trails Board of Trustees The Open Space and Trails Board of Trustees is empowered by the County Charter to jointly Name District Term Expires authorize acquisition of property and annual Graeme Means District 1 April 1, 2017 expenditures from the Open Space Fund. The Trustees also make recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners regarding land protections policies in the County generally. Five trustees are appointed by the Board of County Commissioners; each represents a commissioner How ie Mallory Haw k Greenw ay Tim McFlynn Tai Jacober District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5 April 1, 2019 April 1, 2018 April 1, 2020 April 1, 2016 district. Each trustee serves a five-year term without pay and may not hold any other county or municipal office or be employed by the county or a municipality. In March 2016, Board member Tai Jacober (District 5) announced his intention to not seek renewal of his board seat set to expire April 1, The Open Space and Trails Program is overseen by Director Dale Will and assistant director Gary Tennenbaum, and is administered by a staff of 10. Healthy Rivers and Streams Fund Program Pitkin County Open Space and Trails Purpose Minimum Maximum Current Allocation Acquisition and Improvement of Open Space Acquisition and Improvement of Trails and Trailheads Revenue Allocations 65% 85% 75% 10% 30% 10% Operations and Maintenance 5% 15% 15% Open Space and Trails Board of Trustees In 2008, Pitkin County voters approved the authorization of the Healthy Rivers and Streams Fund Program, to be funded by a new 0.1 percent sales tax increase. The program intends to meet the following objectives: 17 Home Rule Charter Articles and Home Rule Charter Articles Szewczyk, Collin. Open Space board seat is opening up. Aspen Daily News. March 7, Accessed March 7,

13 PITKIN COUNTY COLORADO CONSERVATION FINANCE FEASIBILITY STUDY APRIL 2016 Maintain and improve water quality and quantity within the Roaring Fork watershed Purchase, adjudicate changes of, lease, use, bank, sell, and protect water rights for the benefit of the Roaring Fork Watershed Work to secure, create, and augment minimum stream flows in conjunction with partners to ensure ecological heath, recreational opportunities, and wildlife and riparian habitat Promote water conservation Improve and construct capital facilities that contribute to these objectives. The measure also allowed Pitkin County to issue revenue bonds of up to $12 million for these purposes. 20 Ballot language for the measure is included in Appendix D. Funding and Governance A seven-member Healthy Rivers Board assists the Board of County Commissioners in administering the program and advises them on the expenditures and administration of the fund. Each member is appointed by the Board of County Commissioners and serves a four-year term. 21 The tax is projected to generate approximately $1 million in annual funding in Recent Activity and History The Healthy Rivers Board is currently exploring a project that will maintain healthy river ecology and keep seasonal flows in the Roaring Fork River. It will also include a series of man-made recreational river waves that will provide recreational opportunities such as a kayak play park. The Board is currently accepting public comments regarding the project and is to be located in Basalt. 23 Municipal Conservation Finance in Pitkin County The City of Aspen, Town of Snowmass Village, and Town of Basalt have approved conservation finance ballot measures in recent years. Voters in Aspen in 2000 approved a portion of a one-half cent sales tax increase for open space and recreation purposes. Voters in Snowmass Village in 2010 approved a seven-year, 0.81 mill levy to acquire a parcel of open space. That levy was projected to generate $2 million for land conservation purposes. Snowmass Village voters previously approved a $7.125 million bond for open space and trails in Voters in Basalt approved a $3 million bond in 2001 for open space, parks and watershed protection. In 2006, voters approved a one Pitkin County Budget, Page Pitkin County Healthy Rivers Project Basalt, CO. Pitkin County Healthy Rivers. Accessed March 25,

14 PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO CONSERVATION FINANCE FEASIBILITY STUDY APRIL 2016 percent local sales tax increase for parks, trails and open space. This represents one-third of the total sales tax. 24 In 2008, voters rejected a $5 million bond for open space and parks purposes. These funds and programs are separate and in addition to the activities of Pitkin County and the Open Space and Trails Department. In some cases, municipal and county funds are used to create match funding on projects of joint interest. FISCAL HEALTH The 2015 year-end revenue estimate was $28.37 million and the year-end expenditure estimate was $27.93 million. As of December 31, 2014 the County s assets exceeded its liabilities by $ million, an increase in $ million from the previous year. The chart to the right shows County revenue sources as a percentage of total revenue for Approximately one-quarter of total revenue is derived from property taxes and another one-quarter is derived from sales taxes. The most recent Comprehensive Annual Financial Report states that the economy is improving and property values in most areas will increase for the 2016 budget year. At the end of calendar year 2014 outstanding general obligation debt was $15.4 million and sales tax revenue bonds totaling $7.1 million were outstanding. Citing the County s strong financial position, Moody s Investor Service continues to rate the County s general obligation bonds as Aa1, the second highest credit rating level available. 25 Economy Winter and summer tourism, second homeowners, construction and real estate are the primary factors in the economy. Pitkin County s tourist industry is among the largest economic drivers for the County and is among the largest and least seasonal of any Colorado county with substantial ski resort facilities. 26 This is evidenced by a Principal Tax Payers in Pitkin County (2014) Aspen Skiing Company 315 East Dean Assoc. Inc. Snow mass Acquisition Company, LLC Silvertree Property Co. Starw ood Hotels & Resorts Little Nell Hotel Brush Creek Land Company, LLC Hyatt Grand Aspen Holy Cross Electric Assn. The Residences at the Little Nell Condo Assoc. Inc. Jerome Property, LLC Ritz Carlton Aspen Highlands Condo, Assoc., Inc James E Cox Living Trust Snow mass Club Maroon Creek, LLC 24 Condon, Scott. Basalt sales tax collections surge 10% in The Aspen Times. February 6, Accessed April 4, Pitkin County Annual Financial Report, Page B Pitkin County Annual Financial Report, Introduction. 10

15 PITKIN COUNTY COLORADO CONSERVATION FINANCE FEASIBILITY STUDY APRIL 2016 fairly equal distribution of sales tax collection throughout the year. In 2014, approximately 60 percent of sales tax revenue was generated during the winter season and 40 percent of sales tax revenue was generated during the summer season. 27 Within the tourism industry, the ski industry is a primary driver of Pitkin County s economy. One useful proxy for tourism during the winter months is annual skier Principal Employers in Pitkin days by year. There were 1.32 million annual skier days during County (2014) the 2003/2004 season, increasing annually to a high of 1.47 Aspen Skiing Company million in the 2007/08 season. Skier days dropped to 1.28 million Aspen Valley Hospital in the 2008/2009 season and have since rebounded to 1.35 St. Regis Aspen Resort million in 2013/ Aspen Skiing Company and the associated Roaring Fork Transit Agency Little Nell Hotel are the largest employers in Pitkin County City of Aspen accounting for 31 percent of total county employment. The 10 Pitkin County largest employers in the county represent roughly 50 percent of Aspen School District total employment. Agricultural, primarily the raising of livestock, Westin Snow mass Wildw ood Resort plays a moderate but declining role in the region s economy. Viceroy Snow mass Resort The median household income in Pitkin County is $64,502 and Silvertree Hotel of Snow mass the per capita income is $64,381. The per-capita income is the Sheridan Luxury Trust, Aspen fourth-highest of any county in the United States. Sixty two Hotel Jerome percent of the population owns a home; the median home value is $670, However, the average home values vary greatly by area within the county. For example, average single family homes range from around $5 million in Aspen down to $500,000 only thirty miles away. 30 The table on the following page summarizes indicators of three major components of the local economy: the construction industry as measured by building permit valuations, tourism as measured by taxable retail sales, and real estate sales value estimated from the County Clerk s document fee collections. Ritz Carlton Pitkin County Housing Demographics Total Housing Units 12,953 Occupied Housing Units 8,152 Vacant Housing Units 4,801 Units For seasonal, recreational, or occasional use 3,807 Ow ner-occupied housing units 4,904 Renter-occupied housing units 3,248 Source: Northwest Colorado Council of Governments, 2010 Census Data The total dollar volume of all real estate sales topped $2 billion in 2015, dominated by activity in Aspen and Snowmass Village. This was a more than 32 percent increase in sales volume than in 2014, and was the most of any Colorado county with resort towns. Eagle County held the second largest sales volume at just under $2 billion. Pitkin County s high sales volume was buoyed by the sale of ultraluxury homes, defined as residences sold for $10 million or more. These sales accounted for about one third of total sales Pitkin County Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, Page G Pitkin County Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, Page G29 29 Pitkin County at a Glance Brochure 30 communication with Tom Isaac. Pitkin County Assessor. March 25, Condon, Scott. Aspen real estate market soars past other resorts. The Aspen Times. February 25, Accessed March 28,

16 PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO CONSERVATION FINANCE FEASIBILITY STUDY APRIL 2016 Historical Construction, Tourism, and Real Estate Indicators (expressed in millions) Great Recession Building Permit Value 2% Sales Tax Taxable Retail Sales Real Estate Sales Millions % Change Millions % Change Millions % Change Millions % Change 2009 $ % $ 13, % $ 665, % $ 1, % 2010 $ % $ 14, % $ 707, % $ 1, % 2011 $ % $ 15, % $ 760, % $ 1, % 2012 $ % $ 15, % $ 782, % $ 1, % 2013 $ % $ 16, % $ 836, % $ 1, % 2014 $ % $ 18, % $ 907, % $ 1, % Source: 2015 Pitkin County Comprehensive Annual Financial Report Like many counties and communities in Colorado, the recession significantly impacted Pitkin County residents and businesses. County property values and subsequent tax collection were also impacted. While tax revenue only decreased in the year 2011, that decrease was substantial as revenue has yet to rebound above the prerecession level. In 2015, assessed property values increased for the first time since the 2010 tax year. This increase led to a 9.3 percent increase in property tax revenue for the county and its dozens of special districts. Despite the increase, property values remained approximately 20 percent lower than in June POTENTIAL FUNDING MECHANISMS Generally, there are three primary types of revenue sources available to local governments to pay for parks and land conservation: discretionary annual spending, creation of dedicated funding streams, and debt financing. The financing options utilized by a community will depend on a variety of factors such as taxing capacity, budgetary resources, voter preferences, and political will. Significant, dedicated funding generally comes from broad-based taxes and/or the issuance of bonded indebtedness, which often require the approval of voters. In TPL s experience, local governments that create funding via the legislative process provide substantially less funding than those that create funding through ballot measures. As elected officials go through the process of making critical budgetary decisions, funding for land conservation often lags behind other public purposes, and frequently less than what voters would support. It is understandably often difficult to raise taxes without an indisputable public mandate for the intended purpose. Nationwide, a range of public financing options has been utilized by local jurisdictions to fund parks and open space, including general obligation bonds, the local sales tax, and the property tax. Less frequently used mechanisms have included special assessment districts, real estate transfer taxes, impact fees, and income taxes. The ability of local governments to establish dedicated funding sources depends upon state enabling authority. In order to best assist Pitkin County, which has a strong and long-lasting open space program, The Trust for Public Land only examined the mill levy and bonding. 32 Carroll, Rick. Pitkin County property values rise for first time since recession. The Aspen Times. December 23, Accessed March 14,

17 PITKIN COUNTY COLORADO CONSERVATION FINANCE FEASIBILITY STUDY APRIL 2016 Conservation Finance in Colorado Local governments in Colorado enjoy one of the highest success rates for conservation finance ballot measures in the country. Roughly 76 percent of local conservation finance measures (107 of 140) on the ballot in Colorado between 1996 and 2015 were approved. The most frequently used funding mechanisms for land conservation include sales taxes, property taxes, and bonds. For a list and map of successful local conservation funding measures in Colorado, see the appendices to this report. Taxpayer s Bill of Rights (TABOR) 0 Sales Tax Conservation Finance Mechanisms in Colorado Property Tax On November 3, 1992, Colorado voters approved the Taxpayer s Bill of Rights (TABOR) Amendment to the State Constitution that limits the powers of public entities to borrow, tax, and spend. Specifically, TABOR requires voter approval prior to the imposition by cities and counties of a new tax, tax rate increase, mill levy increase, valuation for assessment ration increase, tax extension, or other change that results in a net gain of tax revenues or the creation of any multiple fiscal year debt or other financial obligation (except for enterprise revenue bonds). TABOR also limits annual percentage increases in property tax revenues and total revenues to inflation plus population change in the preceding calendar year. Revenues collected by taxing entities in excess of the limit must be refunded during the next calendar year. In addition, in the absence of voter approval, TABOR limits annual percentage increases in spending to the total of inflation plus the changes in the actual value of real property within its boundaries. If revenues fall in any calendar year, the lower spending total becomes the new base for computing the next year s limits. On November 8, 1994, Pitkin County voters approved a revenue change authorizing the County to retain and spend all revenues from any sources received in 1994 and thereafter. Bond Lodging Tax Use Tax Other # Passed # Failed 13

18 PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO CONSERVATION FINANCE FEASIBILITY STUDY APRIL 2016 Property Tax In Colorado, local governments levy property taxes, and there is no state property tax. The largest share of property tax revenue (roughly two-thirds) generally goes to support public schools. 33 The remainder is used to support the general fund, to pay principal and interest on general obligation bonds, to support public health and welfare, and to finance police and fire services. TABOR limits both the growth of tax revenue Summit $1,560,754,480 $83,943, and tax rates to inflation plus population change in the preceding calendar year. 34 Chaffee $357,246,263 $19,027, Local Routt $1,010,602,650 $53,614, governments in Colorado must have prior Garfield $3,179,326,340 $144,369, voter approval to increase the mill levy above San Miguel $721,286,630 $31,499, the prior year s mill levy. Colorado statutes Pitkin $2,609,828,700 $104,582, also cap property tax levies to the amount of the preceding year plus 5½ percent. 35 Excluded from the limitation are property taxes used for payment of bonds. Taxing entities must obtain voter approval to raise property taxes above the 5½ percent revenue limit. Property Tax in Pitkin County Comparison of Valuation, Property Tax Revenue, County Mill Levy, and Total Average Levy by County County Assessed Valuation Total Revenue The estimated property value in Pitkin County is the 11th largest out of all Colorado counties. 36 Pitkin County s property tax revenue is also the 11th largest of all Colorado counties. 37 Pitkin County s general property tax levy rate is the lowest of surrounding counties and is among the lowest of all Colorado counties. Pitkin County s total average county levy, the average levy rate of all applicable county, city, school and special district levies, is also the lowest of surrounding counties. The Pitkin County Home Rule charter states that any new or additional tax, as well as an increase or change to an existing tax, must be approved by a majority of those actually voting on the question at an election. 38 County Mill Levy Total Average County Levy Arapahoe $7,566,784,871 $782,729, Larimer $4,283,763,213 $380,093, Lake $227,052,209 $16,235, Gunnison $548,795,510 $35,159, Eagle $2,642,161,070 $164,856, Mesa $1,805,016,290 $110,277, Grand $686,321,970 $41,335, Annual Report, Div. of Property Taxation, Colorado Dept. of Local Affairs, at Sect. II. 34 Colo. Const., Art. X, C.R.S (1)(a) (2010). 36 Estimated Residential Assessment Rate for : Final Analysis. Colorado Department of Local Affairs. Division of Property Taxation. April 15, Accessed March 28, Forty-Fourth Annual Report to the Governor and the General Assembly. Colorado Department of Local Affairs Division of Property Taxation. May 15, Accessed March 28, Pitkin County Home Rule Charter Article

19 PITKIN COUNTY COLORADO CONSERVATION FINANCE FEASIBILITY STUDY APRIL 2016 Using the property tax for open space and trails An extension of the existing property tax could ensure a continued steady, reliable stream of funding for open space and trails purposes. This includes both capital projects and operation and maintenance expenditures. An extension of the existing 3.75 mill levy would generate roughly $11.04 million in annual revenue using 2015 Levies and Revenue - Primary Pitkin County Taxing Authorities current valuations. An extension would not increase taxes and homeowners would not pay any new taxes. The owner of a $1 million home would continue to pay Source: 2015 Pitkin County Abstract of Assessment, independent calculations using Abstract figures. approximately $299. The average homeowner would continue to pay approximately $300. Each $100,000 in home value would require $30 in taxes. Taxing Authority Assessed Valuation Mill Levy Tax Revenue Pitkin County - Total 2,943,772, $21,412,997 Aspen School District $2,735,887, $24,926,676 Roaring Fork School District (Pitkin County portion) $207,884, $9,625,034 Colorado Mountain College $2,943,772, $11,766,257 City of Aspen $1,492,162, $7,427,985 Tow n of Basalt $46,549, $426,303 Snow mass Village $490,010, $4,525,732 Open Space and Trails Levy (Part of Pitkin County -Total) 2,943,772, $11,039,145 The table below is an estimate of additional annual revenue and cost to households with a potential levy increase. An increase in the mill levy could increase the funding available to open space and trails purposes. A 0.5 mill levy increase would generate $1.47 million in additional funding above the current level. The increase would cost the average homeowner about $27 per year and the owner of a $1 million home about $40 per year. 39 Property Tax Levy Distribution in Pitkin County - Percentage of Total Taxes Collected Pitkin County Government (23%) Schools and Other Governments (77%) General Services 8.3% Library 3.5% Healthy Communities Fund 2.0% Open Space and Trails 9.4% Other Districts 11.5% Municipalities 11.6% Fire Protection 7.5% Aspen Valley Hospital 7.0% Schools 39.2% Pitkin County Mill Levy Increase Mill Increase* Taxable Valuation Additional Annual Revenue Cost /Year/ Avg Home** Cost /Year/ $100,000 Home Cost /Year/ $1 Million Home 0.25 $2,943,772,090 $735,943 $13 $2 $ $2,943,772,090 $1,471,886 $27 $4 $ $2,943,772,090 $2,207,829 $40 $6 $60 1 $2,943,772,090 $2,943,772 $53 $8 $ Total Taxable Value = $2.943 billion. Average home value is defined as $670,200 - which is the midpoint of the median home values in Pitkin County provided by an independent service that aggregates asessors' data nationwide. Residential property is assessed at 7.96% of actual market value. TPL is still in communication with the Pitkin County Assessors office at the time of drafting. 15

20 PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO CONSERVATION FINANCE FEASIBILITY STUDY APRIL 2016 The size of the mill levy could depend on whether the county intends to continue funding its open space program as is or to broaden the scope of projects that can be supported by the tax to include purposes not currently authorized, for example. Funds could be spent on any authorized purpose of the county as specified in the ballot resolution or specified county resolution, including bond payments with voter approval. Program elements such as eligible purposes and revenue allocation percentages could be modified and approved by voters as part of the process to extend or increase the levy. Voters could also approve a reallocation of the funding ranges that currently govern the distribution of revenue between acquisition, trails, and operations and maintenance. As such, a ballot measure provides an opportunity to ensure that funding from the tax can be applied to all priorities identified by the OST Board and the Board of County Commissioners. Implementation Generally, a county Board of Commissioners is authorized to prepare and submit ballot language to place funding measures before the voters of the county. A majority of voters must approve the levy. The Pitkin County Home Rule Charter grants the county Board of Commissioners powers that include, but are not limited to, levying a tax, setting a special election, and setting a ballot question. The Board must pass a formal resolution that is approved by a majority of the quorum at the public meeting at which it is first introduced. Formal resolutions must be subject to consideration at two separate public meetings. 40 The process for submitting a mill levy increase to the ballot is complicated due to TABOR requirements. Basic requirements for the ballot question include mandatory opening language; a description of the type and rate of the mill levy increase; the purposes for the increased mill levy; and the expiration date if applicable. Local governments seeking to impose a mill levy increase must submit a proposal at a November state general election, biennial local district election, or on the first Tuesday in November of an odd-numbered year, in accordance with the TABOR requirements. Thirty days before a ballot issue election, the election official must mail a titled notice to all registered voters. The title of the notice must be as follows (as appropriate): NOTICE OF ELECTION TO INCREASE TAXES ON A CITIZEN PETITION/ ON A REFERRED MEASURE The notice must include only the following: 1. Election date, hours, ballot title and text, address and phone number of election place; 2. For proposed tax, the estimated or actual total fiscal year spending for the current year and the past four years, and the overall percentage and dollar change; 3. Estimates of the maximum amount of each increase and fiscal year spending without the increase; 40 Pitkin County Home Rule Charter Article

21 PITKIN COUNTY COLORADO CONSERVATION FINANCE FEASIBILITY STUDY APRIL Two summaries of up to 500 words each, one for the measure and one against the measure. The summaries must be filed with the election officer 45 days before the election. 41 Colorado communities that utilize a property tax for land conservation Ten counties in Colorado, in addition to Pitkin County, have levied voter-approved property taxes ranging from one mill to 3.75 mills to fund land conservation acquisitions and programs in Colorado since The ten counties are Bent, Clear Creek, Crowley, Eagle, Otero, Prowers, Pueblo, Routt, San Miguel, and Summit counties. In addition, voters in three Colorado municipalities have approved dedicated property tax levies for parks and conservation: Erie, Manitou Springs, and Snowmass Village. Modification of Percent Allocations The table below provides hypothetical examples for modifying the percentage allocations of eligible uses for tax revenues deposited in the Open Space Fund. The current funding level, as projected in the County s Open Space and Trails Multi-year Projection as of September 30, 2015, is highlighted in green. 42 The Department believes that maintenance costs will increase up to 30 percent of total revenue by The allocations of 35 percent for open space and 50 percent for operations and maintenance are similar to the structure of the changes to Larimer County s open space program approved by voters in Estimated Revenue Allocation for Open Space and Trails Purposes - Levy Extension with Potential Modifications to Percent Distributions % for Open Space $ for Open Space % for Trails $ for Trails % for 0&M $ for O&M 75% $ 6,375, % $ 850, % $ 1,275, % $ 5,525, % $ 1,275, % $ 1,700, % $ 5,100, % $ 1,700, % $ 1,700, % $ 4,250, % $ 1,700, % $ 2,550, % $ 4,250, % $ 2,550, % $ 1,700, % $ 3,825, % $ 2,125, % $ 2,550, % $ 2,975, % $ 1,275, % $ 4,250, % $ 2,830, % $ 2,830, % $ 2,839, % $ 2,550, % $ 3,400, % $ 2,550, % $ 2,125, % $ 2,125, % $ 4,250, % $ 2,125, % $ 4,250, % $ 2,125, % to 75% $1,700,000 to $6,375,000 10% to 40% $850,000 to $3,400,000 15% to 40% $1,275,000 to $3,400,000 Based off of current assessed valuation of $2,943,772,090, levy of 3.75 mills that generates $ million, and estimate of 20% deduction from gross revenue for administration costs, tax collection fees, and debt service. Revenue estimates do not include assumptions for grow th. 41 Colo. Const., Art. X, 20(3)(b). 42 Document provided via by Dale Will. March

22 PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO CONSERVATION FINANCE FEASIBILITY STUDY APRIL 2016 Bonds To raise funds for capital improvements, local governments in Colorado may issue bonds. 43 There are two primary types of long-term bonds: general obligation (GO) bonds, which are guaranteed by the local taxing authority, and revenue bonds that are paid by project-generated revenue or a dedicated revenue stream such as a particular tax or fee. Generally, bond proceeds are limited to capital projects and may not be used for operations and maintenance purposes. 44 General Obligation Bonds The Colorado County Home Rule Powers Act grants Pitkin County the authority to incur debt and issue general obligation bonds for parks and open space purposes upon approval by a majority of voters at an election. 45 The Pitkin County Home Rule Charter cites this authority to issue general obligation bonds for open space purposes, as well as all other public purposes, upon approval of the voters. 46 General obligation bonds in Pitkin County are secured by the County s full faith and credit, and all taxable property within the boundaries of the County is subject to ad valorem taxation without limitation as to rate or amount to pay the principal of and interest on the bonds. 47 Pitkin County issued general obligation bonds in both 2000 and The 2006 bonds were issued for the purposes of refunding the County s outstanding general obligation bonds, for purchasing, improving, and maintaining open space and trails, and paying costs of issuance of the bonds. The 1990 and 1999 measures approved by voters each authorized Pitkin County to incur new debt of up to $12 million, and the 2006 measure approved by voters authorized Pitkin County to incur debt of up to $20 million. The County has authorization to issue an additional $23.17 million of general obligation debt for future open space acquisitions or trail construction projects, although the Open Space and Trails Department s Estimated General Obligation Bond Financing Costs - Pitkin County, CO Bond Issue Annual Debt Service Cost/Year/ per $100k value Cost/Year/Averag e Home Cost/Year/$1 Million Home $5,000,000 $367,909 $ 0.99 $ 6.67 $ 9.95 $10,000,000 $735,818 $ 1.99 $ $ $15,000,000 $1,103,726 $ 2.98 $ $ $20,000,000 $1,471,635 $ 3.98 $ $ $25,000,000 $1,839,544 $ 4.97 $ $ (d)(I). 44 Federal government rules governing the issuance of tax-exempt bonds limit the use of proceeds to capital purposes such that only a small fraction of bond funds may be used for maintenance or operations of facilities. State and local laws may impose further limits. 45 C.R.S (2015) (29) and (33). 46 Colorado statutes permit counties to issue general obligation bonds for public buildings, making or repairing public roads or bridges, developing, maintaining, and operating mass transportation systems, acquiring or building or acquiring and building airports and landing strips, , but does not provide such authority for park, open space and other land conservation purposes. However, the Pitkin County Home Ruler Charter permits the county to issue general obligation bonds for open space purposes. 47 General obligation bonds in Pitkin County are secured by the County s full faith and credit, and all taxable property within the boundaries of the County is subject to ad valorem taxation without limitation as to rate or amount to pay the principal of and interest on the Bonds. 18

23 PITKIN COUNTY COLORADO CONSERVATION FINANCE FEASIBILITY STUDY APRIL 2016 stated policy is to avoid issuing debt in order to avoid increased debt serve payments. 48 TPL s bond cost calculations provide a basic estimate of debt service, tax increase, and cost to the average homeowner in the community of potential bond issuances for parks and land conservation. Assumptions include the following: the entire debt amount is issued in the first year and payments are equal until maturity; 20-year maturity; and 4 percent interest rate. The property tax estimates assume that the jurisdiction would raise property taxes to pay the debt service on bonds. The cost per household represents the average annual impact of increased property taxes levied to pay the debt service. The estimates do not take into account growth in the tax base due to new construction and annexation over the life of the bonds. The jurisdiction s officials, financial advisors, bond counsel and underwriters would establish the actual terms of any bond. 49 Revenue Bonds Counties, including Pitkin County, may issue revenue bonds, the proceeds of which may be used for the acquisition of parks and open space. 50 Counties are authorized to issue revenue bonds payable solely out of any county capital improvement trust fund moneys. 51 Revenue bonds are not considered an indebtedness of the county and are not subject to the statutory debt limitations. TABOR requires voter approval for the creation of any multiple fiscal year debt or other financial obligation including revenue bonds. Legal counsel should be consulted to confirm if the existing open space mill levy may be used to pay debt service on revenue bonds. The above table shows the repayment costs of various revenue bond amounts ranging from $5 million to $50 million assuming a five percent interest rate and 20-year maturity. The jurisdiction s officials, financial advisors, bond counsel and underwriters would establish the actual terms of any bond. Process for Implementation Revenue Bond Financing Costs Interest Years to Annual Bond Issue Rate Maturity Debt Svce $5,000, % 20 $401,213 $10,000, % 20 $802,426 $20,000, % 20 $1,604,852 $50,000, % 20 $4,012,129 Pitkin County may neither issue debt nor assign revenue to repay borrowing funds unless approved by a majority of the electors voting at an election called to decide on the issue. 52 The Home Rule Charter gives specific authority to the Board of County Commissioners to submit bond issue questions to the electorate. A bond issue question may be submitted to the voters at 48 Personal Communication with Dale Will. March 11, Assumes 20-year bond at 4.0% interest rate; 2015 Total Taxable Value = $2.943 billion. Average home value is defined as $670,200 - which is the midpoint of the median home values in Pitkin County provided by an independent service that aggregates assessors data nationwide. Residential property is assessed at 7.96% of actual market value. TPL is still in communication with the Pitkin County Assessors office at the time of drafting. 50 Conversation with Jenny Cogswell, Colorado Counties Inc. 7/25/02. She indicated that this is controlled by TABOR. 51 CRS [ ]. See., e.g., and Counties may also issue revenue bonds to finance the acquisition, construction, and improvement of public improvements, buildings, and facilities which such counties are authorized to acquire, construct, and improve as part of a county capital improvement trust fund to Pitkin County Home Rule Charter Articles and

24 PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO CONSERVATION FINANCE FEASIBILITY STUDY APRIL 2016 either a special or general election. 53 A bond issue question cannot be voted on at the primary election, which in 2016 is to be held on Tuesday, June 28. The election notice must specify the amount of the indebtedness to be funded, the proposed amount of bonds to be issued, and the rate of interest. 54 At such election the ballots or voting machine tabs must contain the words "For the Funding Bonds" and "Against the Funding Bonds". 55 Ballot titles for bonded debt increases shall begin, "SHALL (DISTRICT) DEBT BE INCREASED (principal amount), WITH A REPAYMENT COST OF (maximum total district cost),...?" Sales Tax Sales taxes are the largest revenue generator for many municipalities and counties in Colorado. The state levies a 2.9 percent sales tax. The maximum local sales tax rate is governed by voter approval. Current county sales tax rates range from a low of 0.25 percent in Arapahoe County to 5 percent in Hinsdale and San Juan counties. The county sales tax in Pitkin County is greater than the rate in many other Colorado counties. Comparison of Sales Tax, Selected Colorado Counties County Rate % Eagle 1.5 Garfield 1 Grand 1 Lake 4 Pitkin 3.6 Routt 1 Summit 3 State Average 2.12 AMENDING ELIGIBLE USES OF REVENUE The Trust for Public has been asked by Pitkin County to examine specific changes to the Open Space program such as modifying the percent allocations for existing eligible uses a topic explored in a previous section of this study. The Trust for Public Land also examined potential new eligible uses such as using county funds outside of Pitkin County and using funds to improve federal lands. While The Trust for Public Land understands that Pitkin County is also interested in exploring the use of funds for acquisition, stewardship, and programming of cultural and historic resources, research on this subject area is not included in this report. Each of these changes would require a modification to Article XIII of the Pitkin County Home Rule Charter. To help Pitkin County explore these issues, The Trust for Public Land examined the process for implementation necessary to amend the home rule charter and provided examples of other Colorado counties modifying their open space programs at the ballot. The Trust for Public Land also provides examples of spending funds outside of the county borders as well as examples of using local funds to finance improvements to federal lands. The Trust for Public Land also examined ballot language of conservation finance measures in Colorado to identify programs that list historic preservation as an eligible purpose. Voters in 53 Pitkin County Home Rule Charter Article CRS[ (1)]. 55 Ibid. 20

25 PITKIN COUNTY COLORADO CONSERVATION FINANCE FEASIBILITY STUDY APRIL 2016 Summit and San Miguel Counties each approved conservation finance measures that included language that included historic preservation. Voters in the cities of Boulder and Thornton also approved measures that include historic preservation as an eligible purpose. 56 Process for Amending the Home Rule Charter Any changes to the Pitkin County Open Space and Trails program, such as modifications percent allocation for eligible uses or adding new eligible uses, must be done by an amendment to the Home Rule Charter. 57 There are two methods by which the home rule charter may be amended. Action to amend the charter may be initiated by a petition signed by at least five percent of the registered qualified electors of the county or by a resolution adopted by the Board of County Commissioners submitting the proposed amendment to the qualified electors. 58 Any tax levy increase or authority to issue general obligation debt would also require an amendment in order to ensure that additional funds would be deposited in the Open Space Fund. 59 It is likely that an extension of the levy would also necessitate an amendment to the home rule charter in order to ensure that funds generated by the extension would be deposited in the Open Space Fund. Within thirty days of a proposed amendment, the Board shall publish notice of and call an election to be held not less than 30 but no more than 120 days after the aforementioned publication. The text of any proposed amendment shall be published with said notice. 60 If a majority of the registered qualified electors voting thereon vote for a proposed amendment, the amendment shall be deemed approved. 61 The footnote below contains the 2006 Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners submitting the open space and trails question to the voters. 62 This resolution contains sample language that could be used for a 2016 renewal and is an example of how the issues of reauthorizing the open space/trails program by amending the County Charter, extending the property tax levy, and authorizing the issuance of general obligation debt may all be addressed in one ballot question. 56 TPL LandVote Based on precedent of previous modifications to the open space program in the home rule charter, as evidenced in Board of County Commissioner resolutions and ballot measures, as well as through personal communication with Dale Will. 58 Pitkin County Home Rule Charter Articles and Based off of language used in Pitkin County Home Rule Charter Article Pitkin County Home Rule Charter Article Pitkin County Home Rule Charter Article Resolution No Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners. 21

26 PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO CONSERVATION FINANCE FEASIBILITY STUDY APRIL 2016 Changes to Open Space Programs in Other Colorado Counties Pitkin County is interested in exploring the possibility of making modifications to the structure of its Open Space program, such as increasing the amount of funding available to maintain existing open space properties and extending the flexibility of percentage allocations for each program purpose. Below are recent examples of Colorado county land conservation ballot measures that added one or more of these changes. Pitkin County would need to modify its County Charter in order to make similar changes as described below. Previous referenda in Pitkin and other Colorado counties indicate that these changes could be approved in the same ballot question as a public finance mechanism such as a property tax extension or increase. Unlike the changes to the program authorized in the 2006 Pitkin County open space levy extension, which referenced a county ordinance that described the changes, the measures below described the specific changes to the respective programs in the ballot language itself. Larimer County In 2014, Larimer County voters overwhelmingly approved an extension of the 0.25 cent sales tax to protect natural areas, open space, rivers and wildlife habitat. In addition to extending the tax, the measure called for amending certain provisions of the program known as the Help Preserve Open Spaces Initiative, which provides 50 percent of revenue to the County and 50 percent to municipalities. The measure reduced the County s percentage allocation for acquisition funding from 70 percent to 35 percent, increased the funding for operations, maintenance, improvements and administration from 15 percent to 50 percent, and allowed the remaining 15 percent to be used for either purpose. 63 Ballot language for the measure is included in appendix E. Boulder County Boulder County currently imposes a 0.6 percent open space sales and use tax comprise of four ongoing sales taxes as the result of six voter-approved sales tax resolutions. While most of the voter-approved resolutions allow that funds to be used for maintenance, One such voter resolution, a 2004 increase of a 0.1 percent sales tax through 2014, that drops to a 0.05 percent sales tax in perpetuity, states that a minimum of 10 percent of funds generated be spent for management and maintenance through 2024 and that all funds be spent on open space management and maintenance in the years following. 64 Boulder County Open Space and Recreation also receives County property tax funds for operations, maintenance, and trail construction. 65 The Boulder County program also allows for the expenditure on funds to preserve cultural, historical and archeological areas Open Space Funding Sources. Boulder County, Colorado. Accessed March 11,

27 PITKIN COUNTY COLORADO CONSERVATION FINANCE FEASIBILITY STUDY APRIL 2016 Arapahoe County In 2011, Arapahoe County voters approved a 10 year extension of the 0.25 percent sales tax for open space, parks, and recreation. Voters first approved the open space tax in 2003, which consists of county expenditures, revenue distribution to local governments based on population (known as shareback funds), and a competitive grant program open to special districts and municipalities. The 2011 extension included small revisions to the structure of the program, such as: allowing municipalities to spend an additional 10 percent of their shareback funds on property maintenance, A one percent increase in allowable County administrative costs, A 0.5 percent increase in the amount available for the maintenance, enhancement, and operations of current designed Arapahoe County heritage sites, such as a historical agricultural property, A 1.5 percent decrease in the amount available to the county for acquisition or development of open space and trails Ballot language for this measure is included in Appendix G. San Miguel County In 2001, voters in San Miguel County approved a 1.5 mill levy increase for open space acquisition, as well as the development, maintenance and operations of open space, parks, trails, historic preservation, and fairgrounds. The tax levy will expire only when repealed by the voters. Ballot language for this measure is included in Appendix H. Examples of Spending Local Funds Outside of the Taxing Jurisdiction Over the course of its lifetime, Pitkin County has repeatedly partnered with both municipalities inside Pitkin County as well as with neighboring counties and towns. The Trust for Public Land examined two recent instances where a Colorado county acquired or contributed to the purchase of land outside of the county boundaries in order to illustrate examples of this practice throughout the state. 69 Election results for selected public finance measures in the Roaring Fork Watershed are included in Appendix L. A general map of the watershed is shown to the right. In 2014, Boulder County officials approved contributing approximately $1.5 million towards the purchase of a The Trust for Public Land LandVote database. 68 Parmelly, Nichole. Arapahoe County voters to consider Open Space sales tax extension Arapahoe County. August 30, Accessed March 11, Photo to the right obtained from U.S. Geological Survey. 23

28 PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO CONSERVATION FINANCE FEASIBILITY STUDY APRIL 2016 conservation easement over approximately 3,400 acres of land known as either the Toll property or Tolland ranch. 70 Of the approximately 3,400 acres, only about 380 to 400 acres is located in Boulder County. The remainder is located in Gilpin County. This parcel was the number one priority in the nation in 2013 for the U.S. Forest Service s Forest Legacy Program. The Colorado State Forest Service contributed $4.9 million towards the $7.1 million purchase price and will hold the easement, with Boulder County as the backup easement holder. This conservation activity would not have occurred without funding from Boulder County. Boulder County s funding contribution did not come from open space sales tax revenue Instead, funding came from general fund money that the county earned in income from approving the Northwest Parkway toll highway as well as income from past sales of county-owned properties. In 2015, El Paso County acquired a 1,191 acre parcel of forestland, known as Jones, Park, from the city of Colorado Springs. The park is located in both El Paso and Teller Counties. The county planned to spend $200,000 in excess revenue, authorized 2014 TABOR-required vote known locally as Measure 1A, on trails in the park. 74 The City of Denver owns approximately 14,000 acres outside of city limits. The Denver Mountain Parks contain 22 accessible parks and 24 conservation areas that extend across four counties. 75 Using Local Funds to Improve Federal Land Pitkin County has expressed interest in exploring the possibility of authorizing selective stewardship funding of U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management property. For example, the County is interest in acquiring or improving a boat ramp that is currently owned by the Bureau of Land Management. The County previously acquired two other open space parcels property adjacent to the Wingo Junction boat ramp and Gold Butte climbing area. 76 The County sought to acquire this property to preserve the option for future expansion of the staging area for boaters, as the boat ramp is frequently overcrowded. 77 The authors of this report spoke with colleagues within The Trust for Public Land, including Washington D.C. based federal affairs staff and various land transaction project managers across 70 Fryar, John. Tolland Ranch conservation easement purchased completed. Times-Call. Longmont, CO. January 22, Accessed March 11, Fryar, John. Boulder County approves conservation easement purchase Times-Call. Longmont, CO. May 13, Accessed March 11, Macy, Tom and Quinlan, Christine. Toll project important to Boulder County. Daily Camera. Boulder, CO. May 25, Accessed March 11, Conservation Easement Permanently Protects Largest Private Property in South Boulder Creek Watershed. The Conservation Fund. January 21, Accessed March 11, Mountain Parks. Denver Parks and Recreation. Accessed April 4, Aspen area fall update. McKinley Sales real estate. Accessed March 25, Urquhart, Janet. Pitkin County eyes open space to augment Wingo boat ramp. The Aspen Times. October 8, Accessed March 25,

29 PITKIN COUNTY COLORADO CONSERVATION FINANCE FEASIBILITY STUDY APRIL 2016 the country, regarding this issue. This section represents a summary of these conversations and findings. The Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Forest Service are allowed to enter into what is known as a good neighbor agreement with a state to carry out authorized forest, rangeland, and watershed restoration services. These include activities to treat insect- and disease-infected trees, activities to reduce hazardous fuels, and any other activities to restore or improve forest, rangeland, and watershed health, including fish and wildlife habitat. Activities such as the construction, alteration, repair, restoration or replacement of permanent roads, parking areas, public buildings, and public works are not eligible uses under a good neighbor agreement. 78 An arrangement may be possible if Pitkin County is willing and able to partner with the state and structure the project in such a way to be geared towards an eligible activity. For example, in the case of a BLM-owned boat ramp, if the project is structured toward an eligible activity such as watershed restoration or providing services to reduce overgrowth, it may be possible to allow the county to maintain the ramp after BLM repairs it. 79 Additionally, BLM has authority to sell its surplus land under the Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act (FLTFA) of Although authorization for FLTFA expired in 2011 and is no longer authorized, there is legislation currently under consideration in Congress that includes a reauthorization of FLTFA. 80 The Trust for Public Land recommends contacting the local Bureau of Land Management or United States Forest Service office directly to discuss individual project situations it is likely that the agency would be able to tell the County if they would allow the proposed activity communication. 81 Pitkin County could amend its home rule charter in order to provide open space funds or other moneys to finance this purpose. In recent years, both Pitkin and Eagle counties were in discussion with the U.S. Forest Service to fund the acquisition of Forest Service property. 82 The Forest Service is also exploring an opportunity to work with the housing authorities of Pitkin, Eagle and Garfield counties to upgrade housing facilities. Forest Service-owned housing facilities have deteriorated over the years because the Forest Service budget has limited funds for capital improvements and maintenance. 83 Pitkin County is also exploring a partnership to fund a federal employee, under employment of the U.S. Forest Service, to provide law enforcement at the North Star Nature Preserve and other locations in order to police reckless behavior and a growing party scene. An inter-governmental agreement between the county and federal government could be a plausible method to fund this communication with Ron Carlton, Federal Affairs Legislative Director, and Richard Lukas, Director of Federal Grants and Program Development, both of The Trust for Public Land. March 8-9, Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management. Last Updated October 21, Accessed March 11, Personal Communication with Dave Sutton. Director of California s Our Land Our Water Program, The Trust for Public Land. March 8, Condon, Scott. Firefighting puts Aspen-area forest management in a pinch. The Aspen Times. February 19, Accessed March 25, Condon, Scott. Forest Service vows to replace its facilities in Aspen. The Aspen Times. May 7, Accessed March 25,

30 PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO CONSERVATION FINANCE FEASIBILITY STUDY APRIL 2016 arrangement. 84 Local funding could come from sources such as the county s general fund, the city of Aspen, and the County s Open Space and Trails Board, as well as from private sources such as the Aspen Center for Environmental Studies and private landowners. 85 There have been multiple high-profile instances of local governments funding activity on federal land. Three examples are described below. Denver, Colorado In August 2010, The U.S. Forest Service s Rocky Mountain office partnered with Denver Water, the Colorado utility that delivers water to more than 1.3 million people spread across more than 335 square miles, to improve water quality and reduce the risk of forest fires. The two agencies, both facing budget shortfalls due to increased forest fires caused in part by the spread of the northern pine beetle, agreed to fund a $33 million program known as From Forests to Faucets, with $16.5 million from each agency, to cut and clear dead trees to prevent fire and erosion. Denver Water funded its portion of the program by water bill fee increases. The utility agreed to finance the removal of dead trees in priority areas by implementing water fees that were projected to cost households $27 over a five-year period. The program allowed the Forest Service to reduce the threat of forest fires, resulting in decreased costs, and reduced the amount of muddy and irregular water that the utility had to filter, resulting in reduced water treatment costs. 88 To date, the program has treated more than 38,000 acres of forest. 89 Flagstaff, Arizona Forest fires and floods affect many communities, especially in the Western states, and the U.S. Forest Service is exploring ways to build partnerships with host communities to address forest health and recreation. The City of Flagstaff, Arizona presents a model of cooperation to fund efforts to avoid fire damage and the potential for flooding. In November 2012, Flagstaff voters approved a $10 million bond to thin forests and reduce wildfire threat to 11,000 acres in and around Coconino National Forest. The measure received strong support with 73 percent voting in favor. Recent fire events brought the issue to the forefront of public concern in the city. In 2010, the Schultz Fire burned some 15,000 acres of forest on the eastern side of the San Francisco Peaks ridge. Heavy rainfall followed soon after causing extensive flooding to a housing subdivision. A similar event on the western side would cause catastrophic flooding and threaten the city s main surface drinking water supply. 84 Szewczyk, Collin. Partnership eyed to rein in wild scene around river put-in. Aspen Daily News. March 2, Accessed March 25, Auslander, Jason. Pitkin County mulls forest officer proposal. The Aspen Times. March 11, Accessed March 25, Finley, Bruce. Land managers launch tree-clearing plan to avoid threats to water. The Denver Post. August 28, Accessed March 28, From Forests to Faucets: U.S. Forest Service and Denver Water Watershed Management Partnership. Denver Water. Accessed March 28, Barrett, Kelli and Stanton, Tracy. Why Denver Spends Water Fees on Trees. Ecosystem Marketplace. March 21, Accessed March 28, Lochhead, Jim and Jiron, Dan. From Forests to Faucets: the Denver Water/US. Forest Service partnership. The Denver Post. November 27, Accessed March 28,

31 PITKIN COUNTY COLORADO CONSERVATION FINANCE FEASIBILITY STUDY APRIL 2016 Additional funding and assistance was provided by the U.S. Forest Service and Arizona State Forestry, Northern Arizona University, the Grand Canyon Trust, local and national conservation organizations and local area fire districts. The individual cost of the bond to city taxpayers is approximately $25 a year on a $250,000 home. Santa Fe, New Mexico In 2002, the City of Santa Fe, New Mexico partnered with the U.S. Forest Service to create a 10 year forest treatment program to reduce the fuel load within the non-wilderness portion of the city s watershed. The effort allowed the Forest Service to reduce the fuel loads on over 5,500 acres of forest. The program continues to this day. As of 2013, the City of Santa Fe Water Division pays approximately $220,000 per year to continue a long term effort for forest treatment. 92 ELECTIONS Calendar The deadline for the designated election official of each political subdivision to certify the ballot order and content if the election is being coordinated with the county clerk is no later than 60 days before the election. 93 Typically, an ordinance may not be approved at the same County Commission meeting in which it is introduced, and public notice is required. The table on the following page details the election calendar for the November 2016 election. The Pitkin County charter states that to the greatest extent possible, County elections shall be held at the time of the General Election, and that the deadline for submission to the Clerk and Recorder shall coincide with the corresponding deadlines established by state statute Colorado Election Calendar 29-Jul If a political subdivision has taken formal action to participate in the Coordinated Election, it must notify the (5); (Friday) county clerk in writing. (100 days before the election, if the governing body has taken formal action) (4) 9-Sep Last day for the designated election official from each political subdivision that intends to conduct an election (3)(a) (Friday) to certify the ballot content. If the election will be coordinated with the county, the certification must be delivere Rule 6.2 to the county clerk and recorder of each county that has territory within the political subdivision. (no later than 60 days before the election) 23-Sep Last day to file written comments pertaining to local ballot issues with the designated election official in (4) (Friday) order to be included in the ballot issue notice. (the Friday before the 45th day before the election) 26-Sep Last day for a petition representative to submit a summary of comments in favor of their local ballot issue (3) (Monday) (No later than 43 days before the General Election) 27-Sep Last day for the designated election official to deliver ballot issue notices to the county clerk (Tuesday) (No later than 42 days before the General Election) 7-Oct Ballots for the Coordinated Election must be printed and in possession of the designated election official (2.7) (Friday) (No later than 32 days before the General Election) 7-Oct Last day to mail notice of election for ballot issues. (At least 30 days before a ballot issue election) Art. X, Sect. 20(3)(b) (Friday) (5) Source: 90 Valley & State, Bonds Target Flood Threat, December 12, Municipal Watershed Investment Plan. City of Santa Fe. Accessed March 11, Colo. Rev. Stat (3)(a). 94 Pitkin County Home Rule Charter Pitkin County Home Ruler Charter

32 PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO CONSERVATION FINANCE FEASIBILITY STUDY APRIL 2016 Election History Since most local public finance mechanisms require voter approval it is useful to look at the election results history for the district. Election results for countywide referenda from present and select municipal referenda in Pitkin County from 1996 present are included in Appendices J and K. Voters have been generally supportive of county and municipal public finance measures in recent years. County voters have supported all but one measure since The Trust for Public Land did not comprehensively examine election results for other special taxing districts in Pitkin County beyond the 2015 results previously mentioned. In November 2015, voters in Aspen School District overwhelmingly approved Measure 3A, a property tax increase that will raise an extra $991,000 per year for the district, with more than two thirds support. 96 This increase was the maximum increase level allowed by the state (equal to 25 percent of the district s total program). This measure largely came in response to a $2.2 million deficit from the state. The District previously received voter approval in 2010 for a property tax increase. A sales tax measure to benefit the school district will likely be on the ballot in November In 2011, city of Aspen voters approved a 0.3 percent sales tax to support schools, which delivered anywhere from $1.4 million to $1.8 million annually. 97 That tax is set to expire in 2016 and the city will likely ask for voters to renew. Officials in Snowmass Village are considering options to financially support the school district as well. The Snowmass Village town manager previously stated that the town s sales tax rate is already high, so officials are exploring various options to help the school district. 98 The Roaring Fork School District (RFSD), a larger district that contains some Pitkin County students, also is experiencing similar adverse impacts. In November 2015, RFSD voters approved a $122 million bond issue to provide affordable employee rental housing, a new elementary school, an elementary school remodel and improvements at all schools. The District is located in Garfield, Eagle and Pitkin Counties. Of the approximately 1,000 residents who voted on the question in Pitkin County, approximately 57 percent supported the measure. In November 2015, 72 percent of voters approved a five-year extension of the Aspen Valley Hospital District s 1.5 mill levy The District boundaries include substantially all residential and commercial property in Pitkin County. 96 Ward, Bob. Aspen school tax triumphs, incumbents re-elected. Aspen Journalism. November 5, Accessed March 11, Ward, Bob. Roots of Aspen School District Question 3A go back five years. Aspen Journalism. October 5, Accessed March 11, Ward, Bob. Aspen School District launches first of two pleas to voters. The Aspen Times. September 2, Accessed March 30, Pitkin County Election Results

33 PITKIN COUNTY COLORADO CONSERVATION FINANCE FEASIBILITY STUDY APRIL 2016 In November 2014, voters approved a property tax increase for the Aspen Ambulance District for the purpose of supporting ambulance services. This was the District s first mill levy increase in its more than 32 years of existence. The district will be able to levy up to $978,000 in the The increase will help meet operational needs, and provide funding to replace aging equipment, garage and office space. The district s boundaries include Aspen and the unincorporated areas of Pitkin County from Watson Divide up to Aspen. 101 Voter Registration and Turnout 102 As of February 2016, Pitkin County had 11,495 registered voters. Voter turnout in Pitkin County has been mixed with a low of 33 percent turnout in the 2013 Coordinated Election and a high of 69 percent in the last presidential election. 103 Voter turnout Active Voter Registration Pitkin County Democrat 4,224 Republican 2,043 Unaffiliated 5,079 Others 150 Total 11,496 Total Voter Registration Pitkin County Democrat 5,201 Republican 2,625 Unaffiliated 6,681 Others 203 Total 14,710 by active voters is significantly higher than turnout by all registered voters. The table below details voter registration and turnout for elections since In November 2012, 45 percent of voters cast ballots by mail, 27 percent cast ballots through early voting, and 26 percent cast ballots at their election day polling place. Ethniticity of Pitkin County Registered Voters % of Total Ethnic Group Registered Voters British Isles 53.68% No Ethnicity Identified 12.71% Germanic Europe 11.43% France & Low Countries 5.00% Latino 4.35% Mediterranean 4.14% Scandinavian 3.12% Former Soviet States 2.70% East Asian 1.16% Russian (omitting FSS) 0.54% Middle Eastern 0.45% South Asian 0.25% Balkan States 0.16% African-American 0.12% Pacific Islands 0.10% Native American 0.08% Islamic Asian 0.02% Multi-ethnic 0.01% Date Total Ballots Cast Pitkin County Voter Turnout Total Registered Voters Total Active Voters % Turnout % turnout (Active voters) Nov-15 5,597 14,458 N/A 41% N/A Nov-14 7,861 15,595 11,541 50% 68% Nov-13 4,865 14,915 N/A 33% N/A Nov-12 10,145 14,619 10,413 69% 97% Source: Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder, Colorado Secretary of State Sample Ballot: Voter Registration Numbers, Elections Center, Colorado Secretary of State and Eagle County Elections Department. 103 Voter registration and turnout information from Pitkin County Election, Accessed March 30,

34 PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO CONSERVATION FINANCE FEASIBILITY STUDY APRIL 2016 Upcoming and Potential Ballot Measures As previously mentioned, the City of Aspen is likely to place a sales tax extension measure on the November 2015 ballot to benefit the Aspen School District. A survey of local media did not indicate any potential upcoming countywide ballot measures. Next Steps The next steps for Pitkin County should include narrowing funding options to those that match the needs identified in the county s planning processes and testing voter attitudes toward a specific set of funding proposals. The Trust for Public Land recommends conducting a public opinion survey that tests ballot language, tax tolerance, and program priorities of voters in throughout the county. 30

35 PITKIN COUNTY COLORADO CONSERVATION FINANCE FEASIBILITY STUDY APRIL 2016 APPENDICES 31

36 PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO CONSERVATION FINANCE FEASIBILITY STUDY APRIL 2016 Appendix A: 1990 Pitkin County Open Space & Trails Ballot Question November 1990 (Approved 55 percent Yes) Pitkin County Question 1 Shall the Pitkin County Home Rule Charter be amended to authorize the Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County, Colorado, to create an Open Space/Trails Board of Trustees to establish acquisition priorities and recommend management guidelines and other relevant policies and procedures to guide the expenditure of open space/trails funds, in accordance with the provisions of proposed Article XIII contained in Resolution No ; and Shall the Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County, Colorado, be authorized to levy a property tax of up to 2.5 mills for the purpose of funding the purchase, improvement and maintenance of open space and trails, subject to the restrictions contained in Resolution No.90-63; and Shall the Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County, Colorado, be authorized to issue general obligation indebtedness up to a maximum amount of $12,000,000, for the purpose of funding the purchase, improvement and maintenance of open space and trails, subject to the restrictions contained in Resolution No.90-63, with a net effective interest rate not to exceed 12% per annum and a maximum levy of 30 years, to be issued in one or more series and payable from property tax without limitation as to levy or amount, however, the actual levy required to service such debt shall annually be deducted from the 2.5 mills authorized above? Appendix B: 1999 Pitkin County Open Space & Trails Ballot Question November 1999 (Approved 69 percent Yes) Referendum 1A: Reauthorizing County Open Space and Trails Program funding for ten years- Charter Amendment, property tax levy, and general obligation indebtedness. Shall existing Pitkin County taxes of $2.8 million be increased up to $5.6 million annually for the purpose of continuing to fund the purchase, improvement, and maintenance of open space and trails by the extension of the existing property tax levy of 2.5 mills and the imposition of an additional property tax levy of up to 1.25 mills for a total of up to 3.75 mills for ten years, commencing with the tax year 2000 (collection to being in 2001) and continuing thereafter through the tax year 2009 at a levy of up to 3.75 mills but no less than 2.5 mills; and shall Pitkin County be entitled to collect, retain, and spend on behalf of the Open Space and Trails Program the full revenues from the property tax levy of up to 3.75 mills regardless of whether the annual revenues from such tax increase in any year after the first full year in which it is in effect exceed the estimated dollar amount stated above and regardless of whether any such increase exceeds the revenue limitations contained in the county home rule charter, state law or the state constitution; and Shall Pitkin County debt be increased $12 million with a maximum repayment cost of up to $34 million, and shall Pitkin County taxes be increased up to $1,300,000 annually and be levied in any year without limitation as to rate or amount to repay such debt, with the actual property tax levy required to repay such debt and the debt previously approved by the electorate on November 6, 32

37 PITKIN COUNTY COLORADO CONSERVATION FINANCE FEASIBILITY STUDY APRIL , annually dedicated to reduce the levy of up to 3.75 mills authorized above; such debt to be evidenced by the issuance of general obligation bonds or notes in one or more series, with or without a premium for redemption prior to maturity, with a net effective interest rate not to exceed 8.5% and a maximum term of 31 years, and upon such other terms as the board of county commissioners of Pitkin County may determine; all for the purpose of funding the purchase, improvement and maintenance of open space and trails; and Shall Article XIII of the Pitkin County Home Rule Charter be amended to reauthorize and augment the open space/trails program in accordance with the provisions of resolution ? Appendix C: 2006 Pitkin County Open Space & Trails Ballot Question November 2006 (Approved 72 percent Yes) REAUTHORIZING COUNTY OPEN SPACE AND TRAILS PROGRAM FUNDING FOR TEN YEARS CHARTER AMENDMENT, PROPERTY TAX LEVY, AND GENERAL OBLIGATION DEBT SHALL PITKIN COUNTY DEBT BE INCREASED $20 MILLION WITH A MAXIMUM REPAYMENT COST OF UP TO $56 MILLION, AND SHALL PITKIN COUNTY TAXES BE INCREASED UP TO $2,100,000 ANNUALLY AND BE LEVIED IN ANY YEAR WITHOUT LIMITATION AS TO RATE OR AMOUNT TO REPAY SUCH DEBT, WITH THE ACTUAL PROPERTY TAX LEVY REQUIRED TO REPAY SUCH DEBT AND DEBT PREVIOUSLY APPROVED BY THE ELECTORATE FOR OPEN SPACE AND TRAILS, ANNUALLY DEDUCTED TO REDUCE THE LEVY OF UP TO 3.75 MILLS AUTHORIZED BELOW; SUCH DEBT TO BE EVIDENCED BY THE ISSUANCE OF GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS OR NOTES IN ONE OR MORE SERIES AND WITH OR WITHOUT A PREMIUM FOR REDEMPTION PRIOR TO MATURITY; ALL FOR THE PURPOSE OF FUNDING THE PURCHASE, IMPROVEMENT AND MAINTENANCE OF OPEN SPACE AND TRAILS; AND SHALL THE EXISTING PITKIN COUNTY OPEN SPACE AND TRAILS PROPERTY TAX LEVY OF 3.75 MILLS BE EXTENDED FOR TEN YEARS, COMMENCING WITH THE TAX YEAR 2010 (COLLECTION TO BEGIN IN 2011) AND CONTINUING THEREAFTER THROUGH THE TAX YEAR 2019, AT A LEVY OF UP TO 3.75 MILLS BUT NOT LESS THAN 2.5 MILLS; AND SHALL PITKIN COUNTY BE ENTITLED TO COLLECT, RETAIN, AND SPEND ON BEHALF OF THE OPEN SPACE AND TRAILS PROGRAM THE FULL REVENUES FROM THE PROPERTY TAX LEVY OF UP TO 3.75 MILLS REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE ANNUAL REVENUES FROM SUCH LEVY EXCEED THE REVENUE LIMITATIONS CONTAINED IN THE COUNTY HOME RULE CHARTER, STATE LAW OR THE STATE CONSTITUTION; AND SHALL ARTICLE XIII OF THE PITKIN COUNTY HOME RULE CHARTER BE AMENDED TO REAUTHORIZE AND AUGMENT THE OPEN SPACE/TRAILS PROGRAM IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF RESOLUTION -2006? 33

38 PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO CONSERVATION FINANCE FEASIBILITY STUDY APRIL 2016 Appendix D: 2008 Pitkin County Healthy Rivers and Streams Fund November 2008 (Approved 62 percent yes) Referendum 1A: Dedicated Sales Tax for Healthy Rivers and Streams Fund Shall Pitkin County taxes be increased up to $1,000,000 annually for the first fiscal year (2009) and by such amounts as may be generated annually therafter by the imposition of a new 0.1% sales tax (that equals 10 cents on every one hundred dollar purchase), dedicated for the sole purpose of establishing a healthy rivers and streams fund administered by the Board of County Commissioners with the advice of a Citizens Board and to be used for the following objectives: -Maintaining and improving water quality and quantity within the Roaring Fork Watershed -Purchasing, adjudicating changes of, leasing, using, banking, selling, and protected water rights for the benefit of the Roaring Fork watershed -Working to secure, create, and augment minimum stream flows in conjunction with nonprofits, grant agencies, and appropriate state and federal agencies to ensure ecological health, recreational opportunities, and wildlife and riparian habitat; -promoting water conservation; and -improving and constructing capital facilities that contribute to the objectives listed above; Shall Pitkin County debt be increased by an amount not to exceed $12 million with a maximum repayment cost of $21 million to accomplish the purposes states above, such debt to consist of revenue bonds which shall bear interest, mature, be subject to reemption, with or without premium, and be issued, dated and sold (at, above or below par) in such manner and containing such other terms, not inconsistent herewith, as the Board of County Commissioners may determine; Shall Pitkin county be authorized to pay such bonds from and to secure such payment by a pledge of the new 0.1% sales tax and other legally available funds; Shall a capital improvement fund be created for such projects; and shall Pitkin County be entitled to collect, retain, and spend the full revenues from such tax increase notwithstanding any limitation in the state constitution, state law or the county home rule charter? 34

39 PITKIN COUNTY COLORADO CONSERVATION FINANCE FEASIBILITY STUDY APRIL 2016 Appendix E: 2014 Larimer County Open Space Ballot Question November 2014 (Approved 82% Yes) Ballot Issue 1A CONTINUE PROTECTING OUR NATURAL AREAS, OPEN SPACE, RIVERS AND WILDLIFE HABITAT WITHOUT INCREASING TAXES, SHALL THE EXISTING ONE-QUARTER OF ONE PERCENT LARIMER COUNTY SALES AND USE TAX, OR 25 CENTS FOR EVERY 100 DOLLARS (WHICH WILL NOT BE COLLECTED ON SALES OF FOOD OR PRESCRIPTION DRUGS), BE EXTENDED FOR 25 YEARS FOR THE SAME PURPOSES OF: CONSERVING NATURAL AREAS, OPEN SPACES, RIVERS AND WILDLIFE HABITAT, PROTECTING LANDS THAT PRESERVE WATER QUALITY AND RIVERS, LAKES AND STREAMS, OPERATING, MAINTAINING AND IMPROVING NATURAL AREAS, PARKS AND TRAILS, AND PROTECTING WORKING FARMS AND RANCHES SUBJECT TO RECOMMENDATIONS OF A CITIZENS' ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND INDEPENDENT AUDIT, AND CONTINUING THESE FUNDS INCLUDING EARNINGS THEREFROM AS A VOTER-APPROVED REVENUE CHANGE WITHOUT REGARD TO ANY SPENDING, REVENUE, OR OTHER LIMITATION CONTAINED WITHIN ARTICLE X, SECTION 20 OF THE COLORADO CONSTITUTION OR ANY OTHER LAW, AND WITH NO CHANGES TO THE HELP PRESERVE OPEN SPACES PROGRAM EXCEPT CHANGING THE COUNTY S PORTION TO 50%, AND ALLOWING AT LEAST 35% OF THE COUNTY FUNDS TO BE USED FOR LAND ACQUISITION AND CONSERVATION; AT LEAST 50% FOR IMPROVEMENT, MANAGEMENT, MAINTENANCE AND ADMINISTRATION OF OPEN SPACE, NATURAL AREAS, WILDLIFE HABITATS, PARKS AND TRAILS; AND AT MOST 15% TO BE USED FOR EITHER OF THESE COUNTY OPEN SPACE PROGRAM PURPOSES? YES/FOR NO/AGAINST 35

40 PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO CONSERVATION FINANCE FEASIBILITY STUDY APRIL 2016 Appendix F: 2002 Eagle County Open Space Ballot Question Open Space Tax November 2002 (Approved 51% Yes) Appendix G: 2011 Arapahoe County Ballot Measure November 2011 (Approved with XX percent yes) Water, Wildlife, Open Space, Trails and Parks Measure Ballot Issue 36

41 PITKIN COUNTY COLORADO CONSERVATION FINANCE FEASIBILITY STUDY APRIL 2016 Shall the existing one quarter of one percent (0.25% or 25 cents for every 100 dollars) county-wide sales and use tax for water, wildlife, open space, trails and parks, which is currently set to expire on December 31, 2013, be extended for a period of ten years to and including December 31, 2023, and shall Arapahoe County Resolution Number be amended to provide for such extension, for the same purposes including to: Preserve urban and rural open space and natural areas; Protect lands that preserve water quality in rivers, lakes and streams; Provide, maintain and improve neighborhood parks, open space, sports fields, picnic facilities, and biking, walking and multi-use trails; Protect wildlife habitat and corridors; Protect views, vistas and ridgelines; Preserve agricultural and ranch lands; and Enhance and maintain designated heritage areas; With the continued requirements that the County's program expenditures for projects and grants be first submitted to a citizen advisory board for a recommendation to the County Commissioners, and that the County program be subject to an annual independent audit, and subject to such other requirements as are set forth in Resolution Number and any authorized amendments thereto, and continuing these funds as a voter approved revenue change; and, Further, shall Arapahoe County Resolution Number be amended to: 1) reduce the allocation available to Arapahoe County Government to acquire open space and develop trails from 28.16% to 26.66%, and 2) clarify that such percentage may also be used for the restoration, improvement and protection of open space and other related uses, and 3) change the allocation available to Arapahoe County Government for administration of the open space program from 3% to 4%, and 4) change the allocation available to Arapahoe County Government for designated heritage areas from 3.6% to 4.1%, and 5) with respect to the 50% shareback of open space sales and use tax revenues allocated to municipal governments in Arapahoe County, change the percentage of such shareback funds that may used for maintenance of open space, trails, parks and ball fields from 10% to 20%, and 6) clarify that such shareback funds may be used for regional parks as well as neighborhood parks, all as specified in Resolution Number

42 PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO CONSERVATION FINANCE FEASIBILITY STUDY APRIL 2016 Appendix H: 2001 San Miguel County Measure November 2001 (Approved with XX percent yes) Shall San Miguel County, Colorado, taxes be increased $688,585 annually through an increase in the San Miguel County General Fund 2001 ad valorem property tax mill levy of one and one-half (1.5) mills, for the purpose of providing funds for County acquisition, development, maintenance and operations of open space, parks trails, historic preservation, fairgrounds and other related purposes, and for each year therafter by the amount of additional ad valorem property tax revenue which is generated in those subsequent years through such increased property tax levy of one and one-half (1.50 mill; and shall San Miguel County be authorized to increase it revenue and expenditure limits beyond those authorized by Article X, Section 20 of the Colorado Constitution, commonly known as the Taxpayers Bill of Rights or TABOR; and section , C.R.S., for the 2002 fiscal year and each subsequent year thereafter, to the extent of such additional property tax revenues and associated grants, to be budgeted and appropriated to the County General Fund for the purposes stated hereinabove, until and unless repealed by a majority of the registered electors of San Miguel County voting thereon? 38

43 PITKIN COUNTY COLORADO CONSERVATION FINANCE FEASIBILITY STUDY APRIL 2016 Appendix I: Local Colorado Conservation Measures 39