Loading...
06-12-17 Town Council Work Session.pdfTown Council Monday, June 12, 2017 4:00 PM 130 Kearns Road Council Chambers Agenda 1.Start Time 4:00 P.M. 2.Town Park Pedestrian Crossing Design 21..Town Park Pedestrian Crossing Design Agenda Item Summary.docx Entryway site maps.pdf 3.Review of Elected Officials Transportation Committee (EOTC) Meeting Materials 31..EOTC meeting materials EOTC meeting materials.docx 4.TOSV Housing Opportunities and Updated Housing Demand Analysis 41..TOSV Housing Demand Analysis Agenda Summary Housing Attachments A-C.docx Attachment D - TOSV Housing Program Background.pdf Attachment E - Seven Star Site Map and Massing.pdf 5.Discussion and Process to opt out of SB 05-152 SB 05-152 Agenda memo broadband 06 12 2017.docx 1 Town Council Page - 2 Attachment A - PitkinLetter RE SB152 and Fact sheet.pdf Attachment B - SB152OptOuts_Spring2017.pdf Attachment C - Broad coverage map landscape 06 08 2017.pdf 6.Adjournment 2 Town of Snowmass Village Agenda Item Summary DATE OF MEETING: June 12, 2017 AGENDA ITEM: Town Park Pedestrian Crossing Design PRESENTED BY: Anne Martens, Public Works Director BACKGROUND: As part of the 2017 budget process the pedestrian crossing at Brush Creek Road and Town Park Station was identified and approved as a priority project. The approved project budget is $165,000. Attached are the plans intended to be advertised for bids this summer. At the work session we can discuss the details to gain further understanding of the plans. Basically, page 1 (C101) shows the existing infrastructure with the proposed improvements overlaid on the aerial, page 2 (E1) shows the existing and proposed lights, and page 3 (E3) shows the lighting photo metrics. We are proposing to utilize the Town Standard street lights but use LED and smart technology. 3 4 5 6 Town of Snowmass Village Agenda Item Summary DATE OF MEETING: June 12, 2017 AGENDA ITEM: Review of Elected Officials Transportation Committee (EOTC) Meeting Materials. PRESENTED BY: David Peckler, Transportation Director BACKGROUND: The EOTC Packet will be distributed to you on Friday, June 9, 2017. The last draft of the agenda noted the following topics for discussion: 1. 2017 Budget Update. 2. Confirmation of Meeting Dates – September 14, 2017 has been added to discuss the Upper Valley Mobility Study (UVMS). 3. Grand Avenue Bridge project update on the Roaring Fork Transportation. Authority (RFTA) service plan during bridge closure beginning August 14, 2017 and opening again in November. 4. UVMS Update. 5. Snowmass Service Proposal. 6. Battery Electric Bus Program Update and potential NoLo Grant. 7. Possible Updates: Basalt Underpass & Brush Creek Park-&-RIde 7 1 Town of Snowmass Village Agenda Item Summary DATE OF MEETING: June 12, 2017 AGENDA ITEM: TOSV Housing Opportunities and Updated Housing Demand Analysis PRESENTED BY: Clint Kinney, Town Manager Travis Elliott, Assistant to the Town Manager Background: In April 2017, the Town Council reaffirmed its long standing goal of creating and maintaining quality housing opportunities for our workforce. In support of that goal, Town staff will be updating the Town Council on the Town’s housing program, the local demand for housing, and a potential new housing opportunity. Housing Demand Executive Summary In 2008, RRC completed the Town’s most recent Housing Demand Analysis. These numbers were used in the Town’s 2010 update to the comprehensive plan, which determined that the Town needed an additional 474 housing units to keep up with demand and meet our housing goals. Since that time, however, a lot has changed. RRC’s employment data and projections were taken at the height of economic activity before the Great Recession. The Town has also added to its housing inventory since RRC’s original analysis. With these significant changes in mind, the goal of this analysis was to update the projections and overall demand for housing in Snowmass Village, using the most recent data available. In summary, employment totals in Snowmass Village still remain slightly below where they were in 2007. This, in addition to more employee housing inventory being built, results in a slight reduction to our overall demand for employee housing since the original RRC report was conducted. The total units needed are summarized in the table below (Figure 1). Total Employee Housing Demand in Snowmass Village 2010 Comprehensive Plan Update: 474 Additional Units 383 Additional Units Figure 1: Unit Demand Summary 8 2 The totals above are the units needed to currently meet, and continue to meet, the Town’s land use requirements and goal of housing 60% of the total employees that work in Snowmass Village. It does not include employees that work outside of Snowmass Village, such as school district employees, hospital employees, RFTA employees, etc. The full breakdown and calculation of additional units needed is attached to this memo (attachment B). Background Analysis: To reach the total units needed, as summarized above, Town staff used BLS labor statistics to update the total employment numbers in Snowmass Village that were calculated by RRC in 2007. An average of winter season employees and summer season employees was calculated to reach a current year-round average employment. That number was then divided by 1.35, which RRC determined was the average number of jobs each employee holds (attachment A). To forecast the amount of additional employees that will be working in Snowmass Village in the next five years, the Town borrowed from APCHA’s demand analysis and added the employee generation numbers from the Base Village PUD Amendment Application. Both of these are very conservative estimates, and they do not factor any additional major developments into the equation. Figure 2 provides an overview of our local employment forecast from 2007 -2022. Using this updated total employment and five year forecast, we further refined these numbers to determine the total number of housing units needed to meet the Town’s housing goal.A lot of the same assumptions and calculations that were used by RRC in 2007 have been kept constant for this update. Below is a breakdown of the assumptions that were kept constant or updated from RRC’s original analysis and employee surveys (figure 3). Assumption or Metric Calculation Used Source Jobs per employee 1.35 2007 RRC Employee Surveys Total affordable free market units 210 2007 RRC Report Figure 2: Total Employment Forecast 9 3 Free market units vulnerable to non-employee occupancy 90%2007 RRC Report Deed restricted units subject to retiree / former employee occupancy 28%2007 RRC Report; TOSV calculations Employees per Housing Unit 1.65 2012 EPS APCHA Demand Analysis; TOSV Calculations Town Land Use Code Employee Housing Target 60%TOSV Land Use Code Figure 3: Summary of Calculations Used Current Employee Housing Demand: In addition to updating the 2007 report from RRC, Town staff has also gathered additional insight to the current demand for Snowmass Village employee housing through our current rental waitlist and applications for deed restricted housing.As of May 17, 2017, there are a total of 143 individuals on the official TOSV Housing Office waitlist for rental units ranging from studio to 3 bedroom units. In addition, the number of qualified buyers that have applied for deed restricted units has increased substantially since 2010. To date in 2017, an average of 14.7 qualified applicants per property have applied for available deed restricted housing units in Snowmass Village. This is up from an average of 2.4 qualified applicants per property in 2010. These are interested buyers that meet TOSV housing requirements and have been financially qualified for the purchase price of the property. These increasing numbers are supportive of the updated demand analysis. A full breakdown of the average number of qualified applicants since 2010 is available in figure 4 below. Figure 4: Avg. Deed Restricted Qualified Applicants Conclusion: Even through the conservative estimates used in this analysis, we can conclude that the demand for employee housing is increasing in Snowmass Village. Meeting this total demand for hundreds of new units may never be 100% feasible, but if the Town wishes to meet its housing goals, we should evaluate 10 4 additional actions and housing projects to increase the opportunities for quality housing for our employees. Attachments: A. Updated Snowmass Village Employment Worksheet B. Snowmass Village Employment Forecast C. Five Year Housing Demand Summary D. TOSV Employee Housing Program Background E. Seven Star Site Map & Massing 11 5 Attachment A: Updated Snowmass Village Employment Worksheet 12 6 Attachment B: Snowmass Village Employment Forecast 13 7 Attachment C: Five Year Housing Demand Summary 14 N O W M A S S V I L L A G E T o w n o f S n o w m a s s V i l l a g e E m p l o y e e H o u s i n g P r o g r a m T h e T o w n o f S n o w m a s s V i l l a g e f o r m e d a H o u s i n g A u t h o r i t y i n 1 9 7 9 t o e s t a b l i s h a n E m p l o y e e H o u s i n g p r o g r a m . A t t h a t t i m e , t h e T o w n a d o p t e d a n o r d i n a n c e r e q u i r i n g d e v e l o p e r s t o a d d r e s s t h e T o w n ’ s e m p l o y e e H o u s i n g n e e d s . T h e O r d i n a n c e i s b a s e d o n a f o r m u l a t h a t c a l c u l a t e d t h e a m o u n t o f s q u a r e f o o t a g e o f E m p l o y e e H o u s i n g n e e d e d b a s e d u p o n j o b g e n e r a t i o n r a t e s o f t h e p r o p o s e d d e v e l o p m e n t . T o d a y ’ s m i t i g a t i o n f o r m u l a r e q u i r e s a 6 0 % h o u s i n g a c c o m m o d a t i o n o f n e w e m p l o y e e s g e n e r a t e d w i t h n e w d e v e l o p m e n t . T h e O r d i n a n c e r e q u i r e s a m i n i m u m o f 4 4 8 S F . p e r f u l l t i m e e m p l o y e e f o r n e w d e v e l o p m e n t . I n s o m e c a s e s , t h e T o w n m a y a c c e p t l a n d d e d i c a t i o n o r c a s h - i n - l i e u s u f f i c i e n t t o p r o v i d e u s w i t h t h e m e a n s t o c o n s t r u c t t h e p r o j e c t . T h e d e v e l o p m e n t i s t y p i c a l l y r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e p l a n n i n g a n d d e v e l o p m e n t a p p r o v a l s o f t h e e m p l o y e e h o u s i n g p r o j e c t s . I n m o s t i n s t a n c e s , t h e n e t o p e r a t i n g i n c o m e o f a n E m p l o y e e H o u s i n g p r o j e c t i s s u f f i c i e n t t o c o v e r d e b t s e r v i c e . T h e r e f o r e , i n o r d e r t o p r o m o t e a n E m p l o y e e H o u s i n g p r o j e c t , t h e T o w n c a n p r o v i d e t a x - e x e m p t c o n s t r u c t i o n a n d p e r m a n e n t p u b l i c f i n a n c i n g . T h e T o w n a l s o p r o v i d e s d e e d r e s t r i c t e d s a l e s u n i t s t o q u a l i f i e d e m p l o y e e s . I n t h i s c a s e , t h e u n i t s a r e o f f e r e d f o r s a l e t o q u a l i f i e d e m p l o y e e s a n d t h e T o w n r e g u l a t e s t h e r e s a l e p r i c e . T h e r e s a l e p r i c e i s t y p i c a l l y r e s t r i c t e d t o 3 % a n n u a l a p p r e c i a t i o n o r t h e C P I r a t e w h i c h e v e r i s l e s s . I n s p i t e o f t h i s a p p r e c i a t i o n c a p , t h e r e h a s b e e n a c o n t i n u a l s t r o n g d e m a n d f o r o u r s a l e s u n i t s . A l l e m p l o y e e h o u s i n g s a l e s a r e r e a l e s t a t e t r a n s f e r t a x e x e m p t . O n c e a p r o j e c t h a s s o l d o u t , t h e o w n e r s f o r m a H o m e o w n e r ’ s A s s o c i a t i o n a n d t h e n e i g h b o r h o o d b e c o m e s r e l a t i v e l y s e l f - g o v e r n i n g . T h e T o w n i s t h e n r e s p o n s i b l e o n l y f o r a d m i n i s t e r i n g t h e r e s a l e o f t h e u n i t s a n d q u a l i f y i n g n e w p u r c h a s e r s . T h e R o d e o P l a c e A f f o r d a b l e H o u s i n g p r o j e c t i s t h e T o w n ’ s n e w e s t a f f o r d a b l e c o m p l e x c o m p l e t e d i n 2 0 1 2 . R o d e o P l a c e c o n s i s t s o f 2 1 s i n g l e f a m i l y h o m e s a n d f o u r d u p l e x b u i l d i n g s ( 8 u n i t s ) . T h e T o w n p u r c h a s e d t h e l a n d i n s t a l l e d t h e i n f r a s t r u c t u r e a n d s u b s i d i z e d t h e h o m e s t o m a k e t h e s e h o m e s a f f o r d a b l e f o r S n o w m a s s V i l l a g e e m p l o y e e s . T h e s e h o m e s h a v e b e e n d e s i g n e d t o b e l o w m a i n t e n a n c e a n d t h e y a r e a l l v e r y e n e r g y e f f i c i e n t w i t h s o l a r p a n e l s t o a s s i s t w i t h h o t w a t e r h e a t i n g a n d e n e r g y e f f i c i e n t b o i l e r s . T h e C r o s s i n g s a 1 9 9 4 p r o j e c t w h i c h i s l o c a t e d d i r e c t l y b e h i n d R o d e o P l a c e i s a n o t h e r o n e o f t h e T o w n ’ s l a r g e s t h o u s i n g c o m p l e x e s w i t h 3 5 s i n g l e f a m i l y h o m e s s i t u a t e d o n a b o u t 1 5 a c r e s o f l a n d o b t a i n e d t h r o u g h a d e v e l o p e r . T h i s w a s a n i n e m i l l i o n d o l l a r p r o j e c t , c o m p l e t e d w i t h v i r t u a l l y n o o u t - o f - p o c k e t c o s t t o t h e T o w n ( e x c e p t s t a f f t i m e ) . T h e e n d r e s u l t i s t w o b o o m i n g , v i a b l e n e i g h b o r h o o d s o f “ l o c a l s ” c o m p l e t e w i t h k i d s , s c h o o l b u s e s a n d a r e a l c o m m u n i t y s p i r i t . I n a d d i t i o n t o t h e C r o s s i n g s h o m e s ( 3 5 ) a n d t h e R o d e o P l a c e h o m e s ( 2 1 ) t h e T o w n h a s 1 2 0 o t h e r d e e d r e s t r i c t e d o n e , t w o a n d t h r e e b e d r o o m c o n d o m i n i u m s i n S n o w m a s s V i l l a g e f o r a t o t a l o f 1 7 6 d e e d r e s t r i c t e d s a l e s p r o p e r t i e s . T h e T o w n o w n s a n d m a n a g e s 2 4 7 r e n t a l a p a r t m e n t s l o c a t e d m o s t l y w i t h i n t h e V i l l a g e c o r e t h a t c o n t a i n 3 4 4 b e d r o o m s a n d h o u s e a p p r o x i m a t e l y 3 7 5 r e s i d e n t s . O v e r a l l , t h e H o u s i n g P r o g r a m i s c u r r e n t l y p r o v i d i n g h o u s i n g f o r a p p r o x i m a t e l y 7 7 3 v i l l a g e e m p l o y e e s a n d t h e i r f a m i l i e s w i t h i n t h e 4 2 3 T o w n o w n e d e m p l o y e e h o u s i n g u n i t s . N u m e r o u s o t h e r e m p l o y e e s l i v e i n o t h e r e m p l o y e e h o u s i n g u n i t s s u c h a s C l u b C o m m o n s o p e r a t e d b y t h e A s p e n S k i i n g C o m p a n y . M o s t o f t h e s e u n i t s a r e f i l l e d w i t h s e a s o n a l w o r k e r s . S e v e r a l l o d g e s / c o n d o m i n i u m c o m p l e x e s a l s o p r o v i d e h o u s i n g t o w o r k e r s i n t h e i r o w n u n i t s . T h e T o w n o f S n o w m a s s V i l l a g e H o u s i n g P r o g r a m c u r r e n t l y o f f e r s a w i d e r a n g e o f e m p l o y e e h o u s i n g t o v i l l a g e e m p l o y e e s f o r r e n t a l a n d p u r c h a s e . T h e T o w n h a s s t r i v e d t o c o n s t r u c t a f f o r d a b l e h o u s i n g t h a t w i l l m e e t t h e n e e d s o f m o s t V i l l a g e e m p l o y e e s f r o m t h e e n t r y l e v e l w o r k e r t o t h e m a n a g e m e n t l e v e l e m p l o y e e s . T h e a f f o r d a b l e h o u s i n g u n i t s i z e s o f f e r e d r a n g e i n s i z e f r o m s t u d i o s t o f o u r b e d r o o m s i n g l e f a m i l y h o m e s . A p r i m a r y g o a l o f t h e H o u s i n g D e p a r t m e n t i s f o r a l l t h e e m p l o y e e h o u s i n g p r o p e r t i e s t o b l e n d i n t o t h e c o m m u n i t y a n d n o t b e l a b e l e d “ e m p l o y e e h o u s i n g p r o j e c t s ” . D u r i n g t h e l a s t t w o y e a r s t h e T o w n h a s i n v e s t e d a l m o s t $ 7 m i l l i o n i n t h e r e n o v a t i o n o f t h r e e a f f o r d a b l e h o u s i n g r e n t a l c o m p l e x e s . T h e r e n o v a t i o n s a r e a n t i c i p a t e d t o a d d a n o t h e r t w e n t y t o t h i r t y y e a r s o f s e r v i c e l i f e t o t h e s e a p a r t m e n t c o m p l e x e s . T h e T o w n o f S n o w m a s s V i l l a g e i s v e r y p r o u d o f t h e i r h o u s i n g a c c o m p l i s h m e n t s w i t h i n t h i s r e s o r t c o m m u n i t y a n d t r u l y b e l i e v e s t h a t t h e E m p l o y e e H o u s i n g P r o g r a m h a s m a d e a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e b y a l l o w i n g e m p l o y e e s t o r e s i d e h e r e y e a r r o u n d a n d t h i s a d d s g e n u i n e v i t a l i t y t o t h e c o m m u n i t y . F o r m o t e i n f o r m a t i o n p l e a s e c o n t a c t J o e c o f f e y , H o u s i n g D i r e c t o r a t I c o f f e v t o s v . c o m o t c a l l 9 7 0 - 9 2 3 - 2 3 6 0 15 S U M M A R Y O F T O W N O W N E D E M P L O Y E E H O U S I N G D a t e : 2 / 2 7 1 2 0 1 7 R E N T A L U N I T S C o m p l e x T y p e S . F . # o f U n i t s B r u s h C r e e k S m . S t u d i o 2 6 0 1 B r u s h C r e e k S t u d i o 3 0 0 1 0 P a l i s a d e s S t u d i o 3 5 2 1 6 B r u s h C r e e k S t u d i o / L o f t 3 7 5 1 2 M o u n t a i n V i e w S t u d i o 3 9 2 4 0 V i l l a s N o r t h S t u d i o 4 0 0 i O M t . V i e w P h a s e I I S t u d i o 4 4 8 1 8 B r u s h C r e e k 1 B d r / 1 B a t h 4 9 0 3 M o u n t a i n V i e w 1 B U t / i B a t h 5 0 5 1 8 M t . V i e w P h a s e I I 1 E d t / i B a t h 6 7 8 4 V i l l a s N o r t h 1 E d t / i B a t h 6 9 2 8 C r e e k s i d e 1 E d t / i B a t h 7 4 6 1 5 M o u n t a i n V i e w 2 B d r / i B a t h 7 5 7 8 P a l i s a d e s 2 B d r / i B a t h 7 8 1 1 0 V i l l a s N o r t h 2 E d t / i B a t h 8 1 6 8 M t . V i e w P h a s e I I 2 E d t / i B a t h 9 3 6 4 C r e e k s i d e 2 B d r / 2 B a t h 9 1 7 3 0 M o u n t a i n V i e w 2 B U t / i 1 / 2 B a t h 1 0 0 8 2 1 V i l l a s N o r t h 2 B d r / 2 B a t h 1 0 8 0 6 M o u n t a i n V i e w 3 B d r / 2 B a t h 1 3 5 8 5 T o t a l R e n t a l U n i t s 2 4 7 T o t a l B e d r o o m s 3 4 4 O W N E R U N I T S , D E E D - R E S T R I C T E D C o m p l e x T y p e S . F . # o f U n i t s C a p i t a l P e a k S t u d i o 4 7 1 - 6 1 9 3 M o u n t a i n V i e w 1 B U t / i B a t h 5 0 5 8 C r e e k s i d e 1 B d r / i B a t h 7 4 6 9 C a p i t a l P e a k 1 B d r . / i B a t h 7 3 9 1 C r e e k s i d e 2 B d r / 2 B a t h 9 1 7 1 8 M o u n t a i n V i e w 2 B d r / i B a t h 1 0 0 8 5 D a l y T o w n h o m e s 2 B d r / 2 B a t h 1 2 5 0 6 M o u n t a i n V i e w 2 E d t / i V 2 B a t h 1 0 0 8 1 9 S i n c l a i r M e a d o w s 2 B d r / i 1 , 4 B a t h 1 0 4 0 - i 3 0 0 1 0 C o u n t r y C l u b 2 B d r / 2 V 2 B a t h 1 2 0 8 4 C a p i t a l P e a k 2 B d r m / 2 B a t h 1 1 5 4 1 M o u n t a i n V i e w 3 B d r / 2 B a t h 1 3 5 8 5 C o u n t r y C l u b 3 B d r / 2 V 2 B a t h 1 5 3 0 2 D a l y T o w n h o m e 3 B d r / 2 B a t h 1 5 5 0 1 0 S i n c l a i r M e a d o w s 3 B d r / 2 B a t h 1 4 6 3 - i 4 8 4 i i C r o s s i n g s S i n g l e F a m i l y H o m e s 1 5 0 0 - 3 0 0 0 3 5 R o d e o P l a c e S i n g l e F a m i l y H o m e s 2 1 4 0 - 3 0 8 0 2 1 R o d e o P l a c e D u p l e x 2 B d r / 2 B a t h 1 3 0 0 8 T o t a l S a l e s U n i t s 1 7 6 16 MAY 24 ,2017 SITE PLAN – OVERALL NTS •7 DUPLEX BUILDINGS WITH 14 UNITS •10 SINGLE FAMILY HOMES •3 BEDROOMS EACH, ALTERNATE 2 BEDROOM DUPLEX ON LOT C •TOTAL OF 17 BUILDINGS, 24 UNITS, 70 BEDROOMS LOT A LOT B LOT C NEXT PAGE 17 MAY 24 ,2017 SITE MASSING – VIEW FROM BRUSH CREEK ROAD LOOKING NORTH-WEST JUST NORTH OF THE ROUND-A-BOUT LOT A LOT B LOT C BUILDING MASSING, MATERIALS, AND COLORS DERIVED FROM EXISTING BUILDINGS 18 Town of Snowmass Village Agenda Item Summary DATE OF MEETING: June 08, 2017 AGENDA ITEM: Discussion and Process to opt out of SB 05-152 PRESENTED BY: Travis Elliott, Assistant to the Town Manager BACKGROUND: Senate Bill 05-152 restricts local government from using public funds to build, purchase, or maintain any type of cable, telecommunications, or broadband network to public subscribers. In order for a local government to do so, the jurisdiction is required to opt out of this bill through a referendum and simple majority vote. Pitkin County opted out of Senate Bill 05-152 in 2015, and they have joined approximately 95 other counties and municipalities across the state to opt out of the legislation. A map of the jurisdictions that have voted to opt out of SB 05-152 is attached to this memo (attachment B). Last summer, Pitkin County asked Snowmass Village to follow suit and also opt out of the bill to remove any legal impediments to possible area broadband initiatives. Attached is the letter from Pitkin County asking us to consider opting out of the legislation, along with a more thorough overview of the bill, election results, and why jurisdictions are choosing to ask their voters to opt out (attachment A). In order for the Town to place an opt out question on the November ballot, we would need to go through the following process and adhere to the corresponding deadlines: Last day to notify County Clerk, in writing, that we will participate in the general election - Friday, July 28. Last day to execute IGA with County Clerk – Tuesday, August 29. Last day to certify ballot content – Friday, September 8. No formal action is requested of the Town Council at this meeting. If the Town Council has additional questions or would like to move forward, staff will bring back draft ballot language and additional information for the Town Council to act on at a later meeting date. 19 A T T A C H M E N T A 20 21           To: County Commissioners, Municipal Elected Officials, and Staff From: Geoff Wilson, General Counsel, CML Eric Bergman, Policy Director, CCI Date: July 31, 2015 Re: Materials on SB 152 elections _________________________________________________________________________ Introduction In order to compete in today’s economy, communities across the state have become increasingly dependent on broad bandwidth Internet access (“broadband”) for business development and operations. The availability of broadband also enhances the quality of life and desirability of a community by providing residents access to things like online education and distance learning opportunities, telemedicine and entertainment content (movies, music, etc.). Broadband has become so critical, in fact, that many now regard it as a basic infrastructure need - on par with roads, water systems and energy grids. Unfortunately, numerous communities across Colorado still lack adequate broadband service. The reasons vary, but more often than not these areas are too sparsely populated, too remote or in regions where the topography (mountainous terrain, etc.) makes expanding service difficult and expensive for telecommunication providers. These communities are “upside down” from a business model standpoint, and providers are unable or unwilling to connect these areas, leaving them at an economic disadvantage from their more urbanized neighbors. While local governments often play a direct role in economic development efforts, cities and counties historically have not been directly involved in the delivery of retail telecommunication services. However, the increasing demand for broadband service – often driven by economic development concerns - has forced many local government officials to reexamine their role in the provision of broadband services. In the last few years, a growing number of local governments have started looking at investing public dollars in broadband infrastructure improvements (usually fiber optic cable lines or cell towers) in order to attract Internet providers and enhance economic development efforts in their region. The Department of Local Affairs has also heard these community concerns, and this year expanded its existing broadband planning grant program to include funds for local government investments in “middle mile” broadband infrastructure.     22 SB 152 and Statutory Prohibitions on Local Government Broadband Infrastructure One of the biggest impediments to local governments enhancing broadband infrastructure is a law passed in 2005, which has since been commonly referred to as “Senate Bill (SB) 152” (SB05-152, attached to this memorandum and codified at sections 29-27-101-304, C.R.S.). SB 152 prohibits most uses of municipal or county money for infrastructure to improve local broadband service, without first going to a vote of the people. The hurdles put in place by this statute are not insurmountable; indeed, in the past few years ten municipalities and three counties have placed measures on the ballot to override the prohibitions in SB 152. These measures have passed handily in virtually every jurisdiction - with the support of citizens who are frustrated and want timely action on broadband service in their communities. Continued dissatisfaction over a lack of adequate broadband is resulting in more and more jurisdictions considering going to the ballot with SB 152 questions. Late in 2014, CML and CCI began meeting with local government officials, economic development professionals and telecommunication experts from jurisdictions whose voters had approved SB 152 questions at the ballot. One outcome of these conversations is the development of this memorandum and materials designed to help interested local government officials and staff to frame the issue and consider the impacts of preparing their own ballot questions. SB 152 Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ’s) What does a SB 152 election accomplish? SB 152 requires that an election be held before a local government may “engage or offer to engage in providing” various telecommunication services. The term “providing” is given an expansive definition in the statute, which restricts both the direct and “indirect” provision of service (“indirect”, in turn, is given its own, broadly restrictive definition). Fortunately, through a successful SB 152 election, a local community can clear away this legal impediment to a wide variety of local broadband initiatives. It is important to point out that the vast majority of local governments who have passed SB 152 questions (or are considering going to the ballot in the near future) are not interested in hooking up homes and businesses and providing actual broadband services themselves. By and large, these jurisdictions are working to enhance local broadband infrastructure in order to attract service providers who would otherwise be unwilling or unable to serve their communities. The local broadband initiatives in the jurisdictions passing SB 152 questions to date usually involve some form of public-private partnerships between local governments, economic development agencies and the industry. Is referring a SB 152 question to the ballot expensive? No more so than any other referred measure. Most jurisdictions have referred their questions when the municipality or county was already having an election. Accordingly, the addition of the SB 152 issue did not significantly increase costs. In a coordinated election, a particular jurisdiction’s costs would be affected by the terms of the IGA regarding election cost allocation between the county and participating local governments. 23 Are there any restrictions on referring SB-152 ballot measures in odd-numbered year coordinated elections?  Apparently not. A wide number of locally-referred questions have been submitted to voters in coordinated elections conducted in odd-numbered years in Colorado. Local governments have regularly referred TABOR questions and home rule charter amendment ballot questions to the voters in odd-numbered years, and this practice is explicitly authorized in C.R.S. § 1-41-103. Additionally, the Attorney General issued an opinion in 1999 (No. 99-8 AG Alpha No. HE CS AGAWD) which concluded that local governments may refer ballot questions on term limits in odd-numbered years as well. Odd- year ballot questions dealing with issues outside of TABOR, charter amendments and term limits are less common, but have been referred fairly regularly by local elected officials over the years without challenge. The language in SB 152 (specifically C.R.S. § 29-27-201(1)) requires that “Before a local government may engage in providing…telecommunications service, or advanced service, an election shall be called on whether or not the local government shall provide the proposed…service." This authorizing language is broad in nature, and does not appear to limit the ballot question to the general election ballot. Again, local government officials are advised to consult with legal counsel in the development of these ballot questions.  What sort of election specifics does SB 152 require? Not many. SB 152 specifies four requirements for ballot questions in a SB 152 election. (See: C.R.S. § 29-27-201(2)) The ballot: (1) Shall pose the question as a “single subject”, (2) Shall include a description of the “nature of the proposed service,” (3) Shall include a description of “the role that the local government will have in the provision of the service,” and (4) Shall include a description of the “intended subscribers of such service.” How have other jurisdictions addressed these requirements? A review of the ballot questions put forth by local governments so far (included below) shows a clear preference for broad “anything and everything” type authority. Industry representatives have complained from time to time that such local ballot language has lacked the specificity required by the statute. This notion has never been tested in court. One might also argue that a “broad authority” question that describes the nature of the service proposed, along with potential future build-outs or applications, is not fatally flawed by its inclusion of the latter. Furthermore, courts have been traditionally hesitant to reverse the will of the voters, if evident. Obviously, the development of local SB 152 ballot language should be done in close consultation with legal counsel. What about the “single subject” requirement? The term “single subject” is not defined in SB 152. Nonetheless, the ballot questions submitted by local governments thus far seem comfortably within the single subject standard applied to statewide ballot initiatives, in cases such as In the Matter Of The Ballot Title and Submission Clause for 2013-2014 #129, 333 P.3d 101 (Colo. 2014). Local government officials are urged to consult with legal counsel. 24 Are there any additional election requirements that distinguish a SB 152 question from other matters routinely referred to the ballot by a county or municipality? No (but again, please confer with your legal counsel). As always, attention should be paid to the requirements of the Fair Campaign Practices Act (Section 1-45-117, C.R.S.), which forbids use of public funds for advocacy in elections. This restriction is a prudent consideration in planning any campaign for a successful SB 152 election. Does voter approval of a county SB 152 ballot question have the effect of authorizing the provision of such services by municipalities within that county? No. SB 152 requires voter approval by each jurisdiction participating in the provision of covered services. Does a jurisdiction need to approve a SB 152 ballot question in order to qualify for broadband infrastructure grant funds from the Department of Local Affairs (DOLA)? It depends. DOLA’s broadband grant program provides funding for regional planning and “middle mile” infrastructure projects (i.e., projects that do not provide “last mile” connections to customers). The guidance in DOLA’s broadband grant policies suggests that each jurisdiction must determine whether it is in compliance with the statutory restrictions set forth in SB 152. DOLA requires any grantee to be in compliance with any applicable laws and regulations. DOLA itself will not make that determination, nor does the awarding of a grant confer any certainty or acknowledgment of compliance on DOLA’s part to the grantee. DOLA’s broadband grant policy guidelines can be found at: http://dola.colorado.gov/demog-cms/content/dola-broadband-program. The broadband landscape in Colorado is changing rapidly, and local government policies regarding broadband and economic development will need to evolve to keep pace with this change. CCI and CML will be providing additional research and guidance over the course of the year on this important policy issue. If your jurisdiction is moving forward on a SB 152 ballot question, please notify either CCI or CML. If you have additional questions or comments, please contact Geoff Wilson at CML at 303.831.6411 (e-mail: gwilson@cml.org) or Eric Bergman at CCI at 303.861.4076 (e- mail:ebergman@ccionline.org). 25 Votes to Exempt from SB05-152 Source: Department of Local Affairs 26 Pitkin County Ballot Measure 1A: (Fall 2015) Shall Pitkin County, without increasing taxes, be authorized to provide, either directly or indirectly with public and/or private sector partner(s), all services restricted since 2005 by Title 29, Article 27 of the Colorado Revised Statutes described as High-Speed Internet Services (Advanced Service), Telecommunications Services, and/or Cable Television Services, to foster the expansion of such services, including but not limited to any new and improved high bandwidth service(s) based on future technologies, to residents, businesses, schools, libraries, nonprofit entities and other users of such services without limiting its Home Rule authority? 27 Sample Local Government Ballot Language for SB 152 Elections County Questions Rio Blanco County (Passed Fall 2014) “Without increasing taxes, shall the citizens of Rio Blanco County, Colorado, authorize the Board of County Commissioners of Rio Blanco County, Colorado, to provide to potential subscribers including telecommunications service providers, residential and commercial users within Rio Blanco County, all services restricted since 2005 by Title 29, article 27 of the Colorado Revised Statutes, including “telecommunication services,” “cable television services,” and “advanced services” which is defined as high speed internet access capability in excess of two hundred fifty six kilobits per second both upstream and downstream (known as “broadband”) including any new and improved bandwidth services based on future technologies, utilizing the existing community owned fiber optic network and/or developing additional infrastructure, either directly or indirectly with public or private sector partners?” San Miguel County (Passed Fall 2014) “Without increasing taxes, shall San Miguel County, Colorado, have the legal ability to provide any or all services currently restricted by Title 29, article 27, Part 1, of the Colorado Revised Statutes, specifically described as “advanced services,” “telecommunication services,” and “cable television services,” as defined by the statute, including, but not limited to, any new and improved high bandwidth services based on future technologies, utilizing community owned infrastructure including but not limited to any existing fiber optic network, either directly, or indirectly with public or private sector service providers, to potential subscribers that may include telecommunications service providers, and residential or commercial users within San Miguel County?” Yuma County (Passed Fall 2014) “Without increasing taxes, shall the citizens of Yuma County Colorado re-establish their counties’ right to provide all services and facilities restricted since 2005 by Title 29, Article 27 of the Colorado Revised Statutes, described as “Advanced Services,” “Telecommunication Services,” and “Cable Television Services,” including providing any new and improved broadband services and facilities based on future technologies, utilizing existing or new community owned infrastructure including but not limited to the existing fiber optic network, either directly or indirectly with public or private sector partners, to potential subscribers that may include telecommunications service providers, residential or commercial users within the boundaries of Yuma County?” 28 Municipal Questions SPRING 2015 GRAND JUNCTION CITY OF GRAND JUNCTION REFERRED MEASURE 2A SHALL THE CITY OF GRAND JUNCTION, WITHOUT INCREASING TAXES BY THIS MEASURE, BE AUTHORIZED TO PROVIDE, EITHER DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY WITH PUBLIC OR PRIVATE SECTOR PARTNER(S), HIGH-SPEED INTERNET SERVICES (ADVANCED SERVICE), TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES ANDIOR CABLE TELEVISION SERVICES AS DEFINED BY § 29-27-101 TO 304 OF THE COLORADO REVISED STATUTES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY NEW AND IMPROVED HIGH BANDWIDTH SERVICE(S) BASED ON FUTURE TECHNOLOGIES, TO RESIDENTS, BUSINESSES, SCHOOLS, LIBRARIES, NONPROFIT ENTITIES AND OTHER USERS OF SUCH SERVICES, WITHOUT LIMITING ITS HOME RULE AUTHORITY? PASS, 75%- 22% ESTES PARK WITHOUT INCREASING TAXES, SHALL THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK REESTABLISH THE TOWN'S RIGHT TO PROVIDE ALL SERVICES RESTRICTED SINCE 2005 BY TITLE 29, ARTICLE 27 OF THE COLORADO REVISED STATUTES, DESCRIBED AS "ADVANCED SERVICES," "TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES" AND "CABLE TELEVISION SERVICES," INCLUDING ANY NEW AND IMPROVED HIGH BANDWIDTH SERVICES BASED ON FUTURE TECHNOLOGIES, UTILIZING COMMUNITY OWNED INFRASTRUCTURE INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE EXISTING FIBER OPTIC NETWORK, EITHER DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY WITH PUBLIC OR PRIVATE SECTOR PARTNERS TO POTENTIAL SUBSCRIBERS THAT MAY INCLUDE TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICE PROVIDERS, RESIDENTIAL OR COMMERCIAL USERS WITHIN THE TOWN AND THE SERVICE AREA OF THE TOWN'S LIGHT AND POWER ENTERPRISE? PASS, YES: 1652 NO: 136 FALL 2014 BOULDER SHALL THE CITY OF BOULDER BE AUTHORIZED TO PROVIDE HIGH-SPEED INTERNET SERVICES (ADVANCED SERVICES), TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES, AND/OR CABLE TELEVISION SERVICES TO RESIDENTS, BUSINESSES, SCHOOLS, LIBRARIES, NONPROFIT ENTITIES AND OTHER USERS OF SUCH SERVICES, EITHER DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY WITH PUBLIC OR PRIVATE SECTOR PARTNERS, AS EXPRESSLY PERMITTED BY §§ 29-27-101 TO 304, “COMPETITION IN UTILITY AND ENTERTAINMENT SERVICES,” OF THE COLORADO REVISED STATUTES, WITHOUT LIMITING ITS HOME RULE AUTHORITY? PASS, 17512-3551 CHERRY HILLS VILLAGE SHALL THE CITY OF CHERRY HILLS VILLAGE, WITHOUT INCREASING TAXES BY THIS MEASURE, AND TO RESTORE LOCAL AUTHORITY THAT WAS DENIED TO LOCAL GOVERNMENTS BY THE COLORADO GENERAL ASSEMBLY AND FOSTER A MORE COMPETITIVE MARKETPLACE, BE AUTHORIZED TO PROVIDE HIGH-SPEED INTERNET, INCLUDING IMPROVED HIGH BANDWIDTH SERVICES BASED ON NEW TECHNOLOGIES, TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES, AND/OR CABLE TELEVISION SERVICES TO RESIDENTS, BUSINESSES, SCHOOLS, LIBRARIES, NON-PROFIT ENTITIES AND OTHER USERS OF SUCH SERVICES EITHER DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY WITH PUBLIC OR PRIVATE SECTOR PARTNERS, AS EXPRESSLY PERMITTED BY ARTICLE 27, TITLE 29 OF THE COLORADO REVISED STATUTES? PASS, 2362- 613 RED CLIFF SHALL THE TOWN OF RED CLIFF BE AUTHORIZED TO PROVIDE CABLE TELEVISION, TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND/OR HI-SPEED INTERNET SERVICES TO RESIDENTS, BUSINESSES, SCHOOLS, LIBRARIES, NONPROFIT ENTITIES AND OTHER USERS OF SUCH SERVICES, EITHER DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY THROUGH PUBLIC OR PRIVATE SECTOR PARTNERS? PASS, 56-24 29 WRAY WITHOUT INCREASING TAXES, SHALL TH CITIZENS OF WRAY, COLORADO RE- ESTABLISH THEIR CITY'S RIGHTS TO PROVIDE ALL SERVICES AND FACILITIES RESTRICTED SINCE 2005 BY TITLE 29, ARTICLE 27 OF THE COLORADO REVISED STATUTES, DESCRIBED AS "ADVANCED SERVICES,' TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES' AND 'CABLE TELEVISION SERVICES,' INCLUIDNG PROVIDING ANY NEW AND IMPROVED BROADBAND SERVICES AND FACILITIES BASED ON FUTURE TECHONOLOGIES, UTILIZING EXISTING OR NEW COMMUNITIY OWNED INFRASTRUCTURE INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE EXISTING FIBER OPTIC NETWORK, EITHER DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY WITH PUBLIC OR PRIVATE SECTOR PARTNERS, TO POTENTIAL SUBSCRIBERS THAT MAY INCLUDE TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICE PROVIDERS, RESIDENTIAL OR COMMERICAL USERS WITHIN THE CITY? PASS 3167- 2461 YUMA WITHOUT INCREASING TAXES, SHALL TH CITIZENS OF YUMA, COLORADO RE-ESTABLISH THEIR CITY'S RIGHTS TO PROVIDE ALL SERVICES AND FACILITIES RESTRICTED SINCE 2005 BY TITLE 29, ARTICLE 27 OF THE COLORADO REVISED STATUTES, DESCRIBED AS "ADVANCED SERVICES,' TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES' AND 'CABLE TELEVISION SERVICES,' INCLUIDNG PROVIDING ANY NEW AND IMPROVED BROADBAND SERVICES AND FACILITIES BASED ON FUTURE TECHONOLOGIES, UTILIZING EXISTING OR NEW COMMUNITIY OWNED INFRASTRUCTURE INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE EXISTING FIBER OPTIC NETWORK, EITHER DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY WITH PUBLIC OR PRIVATE SECTOR PARTNERS, TO POTENTIAL SUBSCRIBERS THAT MAY INCLUDE TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICE PROVIDERS, RESIDENTIAL OR COMMERICAL USERS WITHIN THE CITY'S UTILITY SERVICE AREA? PASS, 71%-29% SPRING 2014 MONTROSE REFERRED MEASURE "A" PASS 3969- 1396 WITHOUT INCREASING TAXES, SHALL THE CITIZENS OFTHE CITY OF MONTROSE, COLORADO, RE-ESTABLISH THEIR CITY'S RIGHT TO PROVIDE ALL SERVICES RESTRICTED SINCE 2005 BY TITLE 29, ARTICLE 27 OFTHE COLORADO REVISED STATUTES, DESCRIBED AS "ADVANCED SERVICES," "TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES" AND "CABLE TELEVISION SERVICES," INCLUDING ANY NEW AND IMPROVED HIGH BANDWIDTH SERVICES BASED ON FUTURE TECHNOLOGIES, UTILIZING COMMUNITY OWNED INFRASTRUCTURE INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE EXISTING FIBER OPTIC NETWORK, EITHER DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY WITH PUBLIC OR PRIVATE SECTOR PARTNERS, TO POTENTIAL SUBSCRIBERS THAT MAY INCLUDE TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICE PROVIDERS, RESIDENTIAL OR COMMERCIAL USERS WITHIN THE CITY? FALL 2013 CENTENNIAL BALLOT QUESTION 2G PASS 76%-24% SHALL THE CITY OF CENTENNIAL, WITHOUT INCREASING TAXES, AND TO RESTORE LOCAL AUTHORITY THAT WAS DENIED TO ALL LOCAL GOVERNMENTS BY THE STATE LEGISLATURE, AND TO FOSTER A MORE COMPETITIVE MARKETPLACE, BE AUTHORIZED TO INDIRECTLY PROVIDE HIGHSPEED INTERNET (ADVANCED SERVICES), TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES, AND/OR CABLE TELEVISION SERVICES TO RESIDENTS, BUSINESSES, SCHOOLS, LIBRARIES, NONPROFIT ENTITIES AND OTHER USERS OF SUCH SERVICES, THROUGH COMPETITIVE AND NON-EXCLUSIVE PARTNERSHIPS WITH PRIVATE BUSINESSES, AS EXPRESSLY PERMITTED BY ARTICLE 29, TITLE 27 OF THE COLORADO REVISED STATUTES? 30 FALL 2011 LONGMONT BALLOT QUESTION 2A: WITHOUT INCREASING TAXES, SHALL THE CITIZENS OF THE CITY OF LONGMONT, COLORADO, RE-ESTABLISH THEIR CITY'S RIGHT TO PROVIDE ALLSERVICES RESTRICTED SINCE 2005 BY TITLE 29, ARTICLE 27 OF THE COLORADO REVISED STATUTES, DESCRIBED AS "ADVANCES SERVICES," "TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES" AND "CABLE TELEVISION SERVICES," INCLUDING ANY NEW AND IMPROVED HIGH BANDWIDTH SERVICES BASED ON FUTURE TECHNOLOGIES, UTILIZING COMMUNITY OWNED INFRASTRUCTURE INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE EXISTING FIBER OPTIC NETWORK, EITHER DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY WITH PUBLIC OR PRIVATE SECTOR PARTNERS, TO PROTENTIAL SUBSCRIBERS THAT MAY INCLUDE TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICE PROVIDERS, RESIDENTIAL OR COMMERCIAL USERS WITHIN THE CITY AND THE SERVICE AREA OF THE CITY'S ELECTIC UTILITY ENTERPRISE? Y/N PASS: YES 60.82% (13238), NO 39.18% (8529) FALL 2009 LONGMONT BALLOT ISSUE 2C-- AUTHORIZATION TO ALLOW THE CITY TO PROVIDE TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES, ADVANCED SERVICES AND CABLE TELEVISION SERVICES TO RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL USERS WITHIN THE SERVICE AREA OF THE CITY'S ELECTRIC UTILITY ENTERPRISE FAIL, YES 44%, NO 56% 31 UPDATED: SB05-152 Ballot Questions 2015/2016 Spring 2016 AKRON PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY GRANTED BY C.R.S. SECTION 29-27-101 TO 304 TITLED "COMPETITION IN UTILITY AND ENTERTAINMENT SERVICES" SHALL THE TOWN OF AKRON BE AUTHORIZED TO PROVIDE HIGH-SPEED INTERNET SERVICES (ADVANCED SERVICES), TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES, AND/OR CABLE TELEVISION SERVICES TO RESIDENTS, BUSINESSES, SCHOOLS, LIBRARIES, NONPROFIT ENTITIES AND OTHER USERS OF SUCH SERVICES EITHER DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY WITH PUBLIC OR PRIVATE SECTOR PARTNERS AS THOSE TERMS ARE DEFINED IN THE AFOREMENTIONED STATUTES WITHIN THE TOWN OF AKRON, COLORADO? Pass BUENA VISTA Issue B. Without increasing taxes by this measure, shall the Town of Buena have the right to provide, either directly, and/or indirectly with public and/or private sector partners, high-speed internet services, including but not limited to any new or improved high bandwidth services based on future technologies (advanced services), telecommunications services, and/or cable television services to residents, businesses, schools, libraries, nonprofit entities, other governmental entities and other users of such services located within the boundaries of the Town of Buena Vista, as expressly permitted by SB 05-152 (codified at Sections 29-27-101 to 304 of the Colorado Revised Statutes)? Pass FRUITA WITHOUT INCREASING TAXES, AND TO RESTORE LOCAL AUTHORITY, SHALL THE CITY OF FRUITA BE AUTHORIZED TO PROVIDE ADVANCED SERVICE (HIGH SPEED INTERNET), CABLE TELEVISION SERVICE, OR TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICE, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY WITH PUBLIC AND/OR PRIVATE SECTOR PARTNERS, TO RESIDENTS, BUSINESSES, SCHOOLS, LIBRARIES, HEALTH CARE FACILITIES, NONPROFIT ENTITIES, AND OTHER USERS OF SUCH SERVICES LOCATED WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE CITY OF FRUITA AS EXPRESSLY PERMITTED BY TITLE 29, ARTICLE 27 OF THE COLORADO REVISED STATUTES? Pass 32 MANCOS BALLOT ISSUE 1: Shall the Town of Mancos, without increasing taxes by this measure, be authorized to provide any or all services currently restricted by Title 29, Article 27, Part 1 of the Colorado Revised Statutes, described as “advanced service,” “telecommunications service,” and “cable television service”, including, but not limited to, any new and improved high bandwidth services based on future technologies, utilizing community owned or other infrastructure, including but not limited to existing fiber optic network, either directly, or indirectly, or by sale, or purchase, or resale, or by contract with public or private sector service providers, to potential subscribers that may include telecommunications service providers, advanced service providers, residential users, commercial users, schools, libraries, non-profit entities, and other users of such services? Pass ORCHARD CITY Shall the citizens of the Town of Orchard City, without increasing any taxes, re-establish their Town’s right to provide all services restricted since 2005 by Title 29, Article 27 of the Colorado Revised Statutes, described as “advanced services,” “telecommunications services” and “cable television services,” including any new and improved high bandwidth services based on future technologies, utilizing community owned or leased infrastructure either directly or indirectly, including use of Town wireless connections in Town facilities without charge to members of the public, with or without public or private sector partners, to potential subscribers that may include telecommunications service providers, resident or commercial users within the Town? Pass PAGOSA SPRINGS WITHOUT INCREASING TAXES AND WITHOUT LIMITING THE TOWN’S HOME RULE AUTHORITY, SHALL THE CITIZENS OF THE TOWN OF PAGOSA SPRINGS REESTABLISH THEIR TOWN’S RIGHT TO PROVIDE ALL SERVICES RESTRICTED SINCE 2005 BY TITLE 29, ARTICLE 27 OF THE COLORADO REVISED STATUTES, DESCRIBED AS “ADVANCED SERVICES,” “TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES” AND “CABLE TELEVISION SERVICES,” AS DEFINED BY THE STATUTES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ANY NEW AND IMPROVED HIGH BANDWIDTH SERVICES BASED ON FUTURE TECHNOLOGIES, UTILIZING COMMUNITY-OWNED INFRASTRUCTURE INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY EXISTING FIBER OPTIC NETWORK, EITHER DIRECTLY, OR INDIRECTLY WITH PUBLIC OR PRIVATE SECTOR SERVICE PROVIDERS, TO POTENTIAL SUBSCRIBERS THAT MAY INCLUDE TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICE PROVIDERS AND RESIDENTS, BUSINESSES, SCHOOLS, LIBRARIES, NONPROFIT ENTITIES, AND OTHER USERS OF SUCH SERVICES? Pass 33 SILVER CLIFF Question D: shall the Town of Silver Cliff, without increasing taxes, and to restore local authority that was denied to all local governments by the state legislature in 2005, and to foster a more competitive marketplace, be authorized to directly or indirectly provide or sponsor high-speed internet (advanced services), telecommunications services, and/or cable television services to residents, businesses, schools, libraries, nonprofit entities and other users of such services, through competitive and non-exclusive partnerships with private businesses, as expressly permitted by article 29, title 27 of the Colorado revised statutes? Pass WELLINGTON WITHOUT INCREASING TAXES, WITH THE INTENT OF STUDYING FEASIBILITY AND IN THE FUTURE EVALUATING THE VIABILITY OF THE TOWN OF WELLINGTON POTENTIALLY PROVIDING SERVICES, SHALL THE CITIZENS OF THE TOWN OF WELLINGTON, COLORADO, ESTABLISH A TOWN RIGHT TO PROVIDE SOME OR ALL OF THE SERVICES RESTRICTED SINCE 2005 BY TITLE 29, ARTICLE 27 OF THE COLORADO REVISED STATUTES, DESCRIBED AS “ADVANCED SERVICES,“ “TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES” AND “CABLE TELEVISION SERVICES,” INCLUDING AND NEW AND IMPROVED HIGH BANDWIDTH SERVICES BASED ON FUTURE TECHNOLOGIES, UTILIZING COMMUNITY OWNED AND PRIVATELY OWNED AND CONTRACTED FOR INFRASTRUCTURE INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO EXISTING FIBER OPTIC NETWORK, EITHER DIRECTLY OF INDIRECTLY WITH PUBLIC OR PRIVATE SECTOR PARTNERS, TO POTENTIAL SUBSCRIBERS THAT MAY INCLUDE TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICE PROVIDERS, RESIDENTIAL OR COMMERCIAL USERS WITHIN THE TOWN? Pass WESTCLIFFE Shall the town of Westcliffe, without increasing taxes, and to restore local authority that was denied to all local governments by the state legislature in 2005, and to foster a more competitive marketplace, be authorized to directly or indirectly provide or sponsor high-speed internet (advanced services), telecommunications services, and/or cable television services to residents, businesses, schools, libraries, nonprofit entities and other users of such services, through competitive and non-exclusive partnerships with private businesses, as expressly permitted by Article 29, Title 27 of the Colorado Revised Statutes? Pass Fall 2015 34 ALMA 2A WITHOUT INCREASING TAXES, SHALL THE CITIZENS OF THE TOWN OF ALMA, COLORADO, RE- ESTABLISH THE TOWN'S AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE ALL SERVICES RESTRICTED SINCE 2005 BY TITLE 29, ARTICLE 27 OF THE COLORADO REVISED STATUTES, DESCRIBED AS "ADVANCED SERVICES," "TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES," AND "CABLE TELEVISION SERVICES," INCLUDING ANY NEW AND IMPROVED HIGH BANDWIDTH SERVICES BASED ON FUTURE TECHNOLOGIES, UTILIZING COMMUNITY OWNED INFRASTRUCTURE INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO EXISTING FIBER OPTIC NETWORK, EITHER DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY WITH PUBLIC OR PRIVATE SECTOR PARTNERS, TO POTENTIAL SUBSCRIBERS THAT MAY INCLUDE TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICE PROVIDERS, AND RESIDENTIAL OR COMMERCIAL USERS WITHIN OR OUTSIDE THE TOWN, ANY LIMITATION CONTAINED IN SAID TITLE 29, ARTICLE 27 NOTWITHSTANDING? Pass BAYFIELD 2E Without increasing taxes, shall the Town of Bayfield be authorized to reestablish the right to provide high-speed internet services (advanced service), telecommunications services, and/or cable television services (all as defined in §29-27-102, Colorado Revised Statutes) to residents, businesses, schools, libraries, nonprofit entities and other users of such services, either directly or indirectly with public or private sector partners? Pass BRIGHTON Ballot Issue 2L WITHOUT INCREASING TAXES, SHALL THE CITY OF BRIGHTON BE AUTHORIZED TO PROVIDE HIGH-SPEED INTERNET SERVICES (ADVANCED SERVICES) AND/OR TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES, AND/OR CABLE TELEVISION SERVICES TO RESIDENTS, BUSINESSES, SCHOOLS, NONPROFIT ENTITIES AND OTHER USERS OF SUCH SERVICES, INCLUDING ANY NEW AND IMPROVED HIGH BANDWIDTH SERVICES BASED ON FUTURE TECHNOLOGIES, EITHER DIRECTLY, AND/OR INDIRECTLY WITH PUBLIC AND/OR PRIVATE SECTOR PARTNERS, AS EXPRESSLY PERMITTED BY §§ 29-27-101 TO 304, “COMPETITION IN UTILITY AND ENTERTAINMENT SERVICES,” OF THE COLORADO REVISED STATUTES, WITHOUT LIMITING ITS HOME RULE AUTHORITY? Pass 35 CEDAREDGE 2F Without increasing taxes, shall the Town of Cedaredge, Colorado, have the legal ability to provide any or all services currently restricted by Title 29,Article 27,Part 1, of the Colorado Revised Statutes, specifically described as "advanced services," "telecommunications services," and "cable television services," as defined by the statute, including, but not limited to, any new and improved high bandwidth services based on future technologies, utilizing community owned infrastructure including but not limited to any existing fiber optic network, either directly, or indirectly with public or private sector service providers, to potential subscribers that may include telecommunications service providers, and residential or commercial users within the Town of Cedaredge? Pass CRAIG 2A Without increasing taxes, shall the City of Craig, Colorado restore local authority that was denied to all local governments by the state legislature, and to foster a more competitive marketplace, be authorized to directly or indirectly provide high speed internet ("advanced services"), "telecommunications services", and/or "cable television services", to residents, businesses, schools, libraries, non-profit entities and other users of such services, through partnerships with private businesses and other entities, as expressly permitted by article 29, title 27 of the Colorado revised statutes? Pass CRAWFORD 2D Without increasing taxes, shall the citizens of the Town of Crawford, Colorado re-establish their Town's right to provide all services restricted since 2005 by Title 29, Article 27 of the Colorado Revised Statutes, described as "advanced services," "telecommunications services," and "cable television services," including any new and improved high bandwidth services based on future technologies, utilizing community owned infrastructure including but not limited to the existing fiber optic network, either directly or indirectly with public or private sector partners, to potential subscribers that may include telecommunications service providers, residential or commercial users within the Town and the service area of the Town's light and power enterprise? Pass 36 CRESTED BUTTE Without increasing taxes, shall the Town Council of the Town of Crested Butte, Colorado, re- establish the authority to provide all services, restricted since 2005 by Title 29, Article 27 of the Colorado Revised Statutes, described as “advanced services” (high-speed internet), “telecommunications services” and “cable services”, including any new or improved high bandwidth services based on existing or future technologies, telecommunications services and cable television services to residents, businesses, schools, libraries, non-profit entities, governmental entities, and other users of such services, either directly or indirectly, to any and all service areas, with public or private sector partners? Pass DELTA 2A Without increasing any taxes, shall the citizens of the City of Delta, Colorado re-establish their City's right to provide all services restricted since 2005 by Title 29,Article 27 of the Colorado Revised Statutes, described as "advanced services," "telecommunications services" and "cable television services," including any new and improved high bandwidth services based on future technologies, utilizing community owned infrastructure either directly or indirectly with public or private sector partners, to potential subscribers that may include telecommunications service providers, residential or commercial users within the City of Delta? Pass DURANGO 2CWithout increasing taxes, shall the City of Durango be authorized to reestablish the right to provide high-speed internet services (advanced service), telecommunications services, and/or cable television services (all as defined in §29-27-102, Colorado Revised Statutes) to residents, businesses, schools, libraries, nonprofit entities and other users of such services, either directly or indirectly with public or private sector partners? Pass 37 FAIRPLAY 2B WITHOUT INCREASING TAXES, SHALL THE CITIZENS OF THE TOWN OF FAIRPLAY, COLORADO, RE-ESTABLISH THE TOWN'S AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE ALL SERVICES RESTRICTED SINCE 2005 BY TITLE 29, ARTICLE 27 OF THE COLORADO REVISED STATUTES, DESCRIBED AS "ADVANCED SERVICES," "TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES," AND "CABLE TELEVISION SERVICES," INCLUDING ANY NEW AND IMPROVED HIGH BANDWIDTH SERVICES BASED ON FUTURE TECHNOLOGIES, UTILIZING COMMUNITY OWNED INFRASTRUCTURE INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO EXISTING FIBER OPTIC NETWORK, EITHER DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY WITH PUBLIC OR PRIVATE SECTOR PARTNERS, TO POTENTIAL SUBSCRIBERS THAT MAY INCLUDE TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICE PROVIDERS, AND RESIDENTIAL OR COMMERCIAL USERS WITHIN OR OUTSIDE THE TOWN, ANY LIMITATION CONTAINED IN SAID TITLE 29, ARTICLE 27 NOTWITHSTANDING? Pass FORT COLLINS 2B Without increasing taxes by this measure, shall the City of Fort Collins, in the exercise of its home-rule authority, have the right to provide, either directly, and/or indirectly with public and/or private sector partners, high-speed internet services, including but not limited to any new or improved high bandwidth services based on future technologies (advanced services), telecommunications services, and/or cable television services to residents, businesses, schools, libraries, nonprofit entities and other users of such services located within the boundaries of the City of Fort Collins growth management area, as expressly permitted by SB 05-152 (codified at Sections 29-27-101 to 304 of the Colorado Revised Statutes)? Pass FRASER Ballot Question 2 Shall the Town of Fraser be authorized to provide high-speed internet services (advanced services), telecommunications services and/or cable television services to residents, businesses, schools, libraries, nonprofit entities and other users of such services, either directly or indirectly with public or private sector partners, as expressly permitted by Colorado Revised Statutes §§ 29-27-101 to 304, "Competition in Utility and Entertainment Services," without limiting the Town's authority? Pass 38 GUNNISON 2C Without increasing taxes, shall the City Council of the City of Gunnison, Colorado, re-establish the authority to provide all services, restricted since 2005 by Title 29, Article 27 of the Colorado Revised Statutes, described as “advanced services” (high speed internet), “telecommunications services” and “cable services”, including any new or improved high bandwidth services based on existing or future technologies, telecommunications services and cable television services to residents, businesses, schools, libraries, non-profit entities, governmental entities, and other users of such services, either directly or indirectly, to any and all service areas, with public or private sector partners? Pass HAYDEN Referendum 2E Without increasing taxes, shall the Town of Hayden, Colorado have the legal ability to provide any and all services currently restricted by Title 29, Article 27, Part 1, of the Colorado Revised Statutes, specifically described as “advanced service,” “telecommunications services,” and “cable television services,” as defined by the statute, including, but not limited to, any new and improved high bandwidth services based on future technologies, utilizing community owned infrastructure including but not limited to any existing fiber optic network, either directly, or indirectly with public or private sector service providers, to potential subscribers that may include telecommunications service providers, and residential or commercial users within the Town of Hayden? Pass HOTCHKISS 2C Shall the town of Hotchkiss, without increasing taxes, and to restore local authority that was denied to all Local Governments by the state legislature, and to foster a more competitive marketplace, be authorized to provide high- speed internet (advanced services}, telecommunications services and/or cable television services to residents, businesses, schools, libraries, nonprofit entities and other users of such services, either directly or indirectly, with public or private sector partners as expressly permitted by Article 29,Title 27,of the Colorado Revised Statutes? Pass 39 IGNACIO 2A Without increasing taxes, shall the Town of Ignacio, Colorado have the legal ability to provide any or all services currently restricted by Title 29, Article 27, Part 1 of the Colorado Revised Statutes, specifically described as "advanced service," "telecommunications service," and "cable television service", as defined by the Statute, including, but not limited to, any new and improved high bandwidth services based on future technologies, utilizing community owned or other infrastructure, including but not limited to any existing fiber optic network, either directly, or indirectly, or by contract, or by sale or purchase of resale of wholesale cable television service, telecommunications service or advanced service, with public or private sector service providers, to potential subscribers that may include telecommunications service providers, advanced service providers residential users, commercial users, schools, libraries, non-profit entities, and other users of such services within the Town of Ignacio, Colorado? Pass LOVELAND 2C. Authorizing the City of Loveland to provide advanced service (high speed internet), cable television service, or telecommunications service. Without increasing taxes, and to restore local authority, shall the City of Loveland be authorized to provide advanced service (high speed internet), cable television service, or telecommunications service, directly or indirectly with public and/or private sector partners, to residents, businesses, schools, libraries, health care facilities, nonprofit entities, and other users of such services located within the boundaries of the City of Loveland or the service territory of the City of Loveland’s power enterprise as expressly permitted by title 29, article 27 of the Colorado Revised Statutes? Pass 40 OAK CREEK 2A Without increasing taxes, shall Oak Creek, Colorado have the legal ability to provide any and all services currently restricted by Title 29, Article 27, Part 1, of the Colorado Revised Statutes, specifically described as "advanced service," "telecommunications services," and "cable television services," as defined by the statute, specifically including new and improved high bandwidth services based on best available technologies, utilizing current and new community owned infrastructure to any existing fiber optic network, either directly, or indirectly with public or private sector service providers, to potential subscribers that may include telecommunications service providers, and residential or commercial users within the Town of Oak Creek, and that said service may be provided by the Town of Oak Creek alone or in partnership with other governmental, private or corporate, including non-profit, entities? Pass OURAY QUESTION 2E: Without increasing taxes, shall the citizens of the City of Ouray, Colorado re- establish their City's right to provide all services restricted since 2005 by Title 29, Article 27 of the Colorado Revised Statutes, described as "advanced services," "telecommunications services," and "cable television services," including any new and improved high bandwidth services based on future technologies, utilizing community owned infrastructure including but not limited to the existing fiber optic network, either directly or indirectly with public or private sector providers, to potential subscribers that may include telecommunications service providers, residential or commercial users within the City? Pass PAONIA 2B Without increasing taxes, shall the citizens of the Town of A ballot question Paonia, Colorado re-establish their Town's right to provide all services restricted since 2005 by Title 29,Article 27 of the Colorado Revised Statutes, described as "advanced services," "telecommunications services," and "cable television services," including any new and improved high any ballot question bandwidth services based on future technologies ,utilizing community owned infrastructure including but not limited to providers, residential or commercial users within the Town? Pass 41 RIDGEWAY 2BWithout increasing taxes, shall the Town of Ridgway be authorized to provide all services currently restricted by Section 29-27-201,of the Colorado Revised Statutes, defined therein as "advanced services", "telecommunications services" and "cable television services", including high speed fiber optic internet services and any new or improved telecommunication services, either directly or indirectly, or with other public or private parties including other telecommunication service providers, to commercial, residential and other non residential customers? Pass STEAMBOAT SPRINGS 2C Without increasing taxes, shall the City of Steamboat Springs, Colorado have the legal ability to provide any and all services currently restricted by Title 29, Article 27, Part 1, of the Colorado Revised Statutes, specifically described as "advance service," "telecommunication services," and "cable television services," as defined by the statute, specifically including new and improved high bandwidth services based on best available technologies, utilizing current and new community owned infrastructure to any existing fiber optic network, either directly, or indirectly, with public or private sector service providers, to potential subscribers that may include telecommunications service providers, and residential or commercial users within Routt County, and that said services may be provided by the City of Steamboat Springs alone or in partnership with other governmental, private, corporate, or non profit entities? Pass TELLURIDE 2b Shall the Town of Telluride, without increasing taxes by this measure, be authorized to provide high-speed internet services (advanced service), telecommunication services, and/or cable television services as defined by § 29-27-101–304 of the Colorado Revised Statutes, including but not limited to any new and improved high bandwidth services based on future technologies, to residents, businesses, schools, libraries, nonprofit entities, and other users of such services, either directly, or indirectly with public and/or private sector partners, without limiting its home rule authority? Pass 42 THORNTON No. 2T:Shall the City of Thornton, without increasing taxes, re-establish its authority to provide high-speed Internet services (advanced services), telecommunications services, cable television services, including any new and improved high bandwidth services based on future technologies, utilizing community owned infrastructure including, but not limited to the city’s existing fiber optic network, to residents, businesses, schools, libraries, nonprofit entities and other users of such services, either directly or indirectly with public or private sector partners, as expressly permitted by §§ 29-27-101 to 304, “Competition in Utility and Entertainment Services,” of the Colorado Revised Statutes, without limiting its home rule authority? Pass WINTER PARK Shall the Town of Winter Park be authorized to provide high-speed Internet services (advanced services), telecommunications services and/or cable television services to residents, businesses, schools, libraries, nonprofit entities and other users of such services, either directly or indirectly with public or private sector partners, as expressly permitted by Colorado Revised Statutes §§ 29- 27-101 to 304, "Competition in Utility and Entertainment Services," without limiting the Town's home rule authority? Pass YAMPA 2BWithout increasing taxes, shall Yampa, Colorado have the legal ability to provide any and all services currently restricted by Title 29, Article 27, Part 1, of the Colorado Revised Statutes, specifically described as "advanced service," "telecommunications service," and "cable television service," as defined by the statute, specifically including new and improved high bandwidth services based on best available technologies, utilizing current and new community owned infrastructure and any new or existing fiber optic network, either directly, or indirectly with public or private sector service providers, to potential subscribers that may include telecommunications service providers, and residential or commercial users within the Town of Yampa, alone or in partnership with other governmental, private or corporate, including non-profit, entities? Pass 43 4/26/2017 DOLA Broadband Partnerships https://demography.dola.colorado.gov/D3_BroadbandStatus/1/1 Broadband Funding Status Maps Overview Plans Completed Planning Process Underway Planning Application in Process Planning Discussion Underway Infrastructure Contract Awarded Infrastructure Application Under Review Votes to Exempt from SB 05­152 Custer LaPlata SanJuan Pitkin Park Moffat Summit Montrose San Miguel Huerfano Delta Gar ATTACHMENT C 45