Office of the City Clerk

March 18.2019

John Spezia
Petitioners' Committee ("Committee") representative
642 Evans Street
Steamboat Springs, CO 80487
jspezia@yahoo.com

Rich Levy
Committee representative
2754 West End Ave
Steamboat Springs, Co 80487
massageranger@hotmail.com E-mail and registered mail delivery

RE: West Steamboat Neighborhoods Annexation Ordinance ("Ordinance No. 2681")

Referendum Petition

Dear Mr. Levy and Mr. Spezia:

Please find attached my certificate certifying the insufficiency of the referendum petition
submitted to me on March 7, 2019. The Committee submitted a petition containing twelve
hundred and thirty-nine signatures. I have determined that four hundred and four (404)
of these signatures are not valid for the following reasons. 1 have attached a copy of the
petition with notes identifying each invalid signature and the reason for my determination.

Per Section 8.4 of the City Charter you may within two (2) days of your receipt of my
certificate submit notice of your intention to supplement the petition or to seek review of
my decision by the City Council. The City Charter specifies that my certificate be sent by
registered mail. Therefore, even though I have also delivered this letter and my certificate
by e-mail, your two (2) day response period begins when you receive this letter via
registered mail.

Section 8.2 of the City Charter required me to issue petition blanks to the Committee. I
relied on the City Charter procedures governing the initiative and referendum process in
preparing the petition blanks and determining what information should be included.
These Charter provisions supersede corresponding procedures in Chapter 31, Article 11
of the Colorado Revised Statutes pursuant to C.R.S. 31-1-101 and 31-11-102. However,
I have interpreted terms not defined in the Charter, such as street address, to be
consistent with Chapter 31, Article 11.

137 10th Street, P.O, Box 775088, Steamboat Springs, Colorado 80477-5088
(970) 879-2060 » Fax. (970) 879-8851 » www.steamboatsprings.net
Colorado state law requires me to liberally construe City regulations relating to the
initiative and referendum process. Petitions must substantially conform to these
regulations. The regulations must further the goal of preventing fraud or mistake in the
initiative and referendum process. In determining compliance with City regulations, I
relied on petition signature rejection guidelines previously adopted by the City Clerk's
office, which were provided to Committee representatives on March 8, 2019.

Section 8.4 of the Charter requires me to certify the sufficiency or insufficiency of the
petition within ten (10) days of receipt. This time period is insufficient to allow for me to
conduct a public hearing on the various objections and protests lodged by interested
parties. I solicited written comments from the Committee and representatives of West
Steamboat Neighborhoods, LLC, ("WSN") by Thursday, March 14 and responses by the
end of business on Friday, March 15, 2019. My decision is based on the petition and the
written legal arguments, protests, and other information ! received as of Friday March 15,
2019. This decision is subject to the rights of the Committee to seek City Counci! review
of my determination of insufficiency.

Sionatorv is not a "Qualified Elector"

Charter Section 8.3(a) requires each signer of a petition to be a "qualified elector".

Charter Section 13.15(j) defines a qualified elector to be a "person who is qualified and
registered to vote in the elections of the City pursuant to the Colorado Municipal Election
Law." I determined that one hundred and sixty-five (165) signatures were invalid due to
the signatory not appearing on the Routt County Clerk and Recorder's list of registered
voters. Signatures determined to be invalid for this reason are identified by code #1.

Name Variations/Omission of Generational Suffixes

i determined that two (2) signatures were invalid on the basis of the fact that the
signatures consisted of identical names and addresses. Signatures determined to be
invalid for this reason are identified by code #2.

Address Variation

I determined that one hundred and fifteen (115) signatures were invaiid due to the address
on the signature line not matching the voter record. Signatures determined to be invalid
for this reason are identified by code #3.

lilecjibie Sicjnatures

I determined that seven (7) signatures were invalid due to the fact that they are illegible.
Signatures determined to be invalid for this reason are identified by code #4.
Duplicate Sianatures

I determined that three (3) signatures were invalid as duplicate signatures. Signatures
determined to be invalid for this reason are identified by code #7.

Alteration of Petition Sections

I determined that two petition sections, Petition Sections Nos. 3 and 4, were altered by
the addition of city and county information to the address section of numerous signature
lines. This determination is based on my comparison of handwriting, location, spacing,
and ink colors of the city and county information and other address information in these
petition sections.

These alterations were not acknowfedged in the affidavit of the circulator. The Committee
declined to confirm or deny the alterations or to provide information identifying which
signature lines were altered. In these circumstances, Colorado state law mandates that
I determine that these petition sections are invalid in their entirety. The determination
invalidates one hundred and twelve (112) signatures.

Omission of City and County address information/Sicjnature Dates

Section 8.3(b) of the City Charter requires signatures to be followed by the street address
of the person signing. The term street address is not defined in the Charter. I interpreted
this term to require a street name and number along with the city and county of residence.
This interpretation is consistent with the statutory requirements set forth in Section 31-11-
108 of the Colorado Revised Statutes. Accordingly, each signature page of the petition
specifies that street address should include street name and number along with the city
and county of residence.

A representative of the Committee inquired on February 20, 2019 as to the requirement

that signatures include city and county of residence. The City Attorney on February 20,
2019 affirmed this requirement in writing. A second representative of the petitioners'
committee objected on March 14, 2019 to the requirement that signatures include city
and county information.

Colorado appellate courts have approved municipal requirements that signatures include
city and county of residence information as a reasonable measure to prevent fraud and
mistake that does not unduly burden the initiative and referendum process. The City
Charter requires that petitions be signed by qualified electors. The qualifications of a City
elector include residence in the City. Therefore, I find that the requirement to state City
residence is a reasonable measure to prevent fraud and mistake in the petition process.

Eighty-seven (87) signatures are missing city and/or county information. Three (3)
signatures are missing a date. These signatures otherwise comply with City regulations.
The burden on my office of validating these signatures without city and/or county
information, or the date of signature, is minimal. The number of signatures that include
all the requested information indicates that the Committee attempted to obtain compliance
with these requirements. I further note that the Committee advised me that its circulators
were to some extent hampered in this effort by a lack of space in the signature lines.

State law requires me to impose a standard of substantial compliance with City

regulations, i find that, as a whole, the petition substantially compiles with the address
and date requirement imposed by the City Charter. Therefore, ! have not invalidated any
signatures for lack of city and/or county information.

Separation of Ordinance Text from Petition

Section 8.3(b) of the City Charter requires that the text of the ordinance that is the subject
of the petition be attached to the petition throughout its circulation. Each of the forty (40)
petition sections I provided to the Committee was attached to a copy of Ordinance No.
2681 with a binder dip. The Committee returned to me the twenty-one (21) petition
sections that constitute the petition without the copies of Ordinance No. 2681 attached.
The Committee submitted to me seventeen (17) copies of Ordinance No.2681 in a box
with, but not attached to, the petition sections.

Nineteen (19) blank petition sections were returned to me with the ordinance attached to
each petition section with a binder clip. Thus, the Committee returned a total ofthirty-six
(36) of the forty (40) ordinance copies provided by me. The petitioners' committee
provided me with no information as to when or why the ordinance was separated from the
twenty-one (21) petition sections or why four (4) copies of the ordinance were not
returned.

I have received a protest to Petition Section No. 22 from representatives of WSN on the
grounds that petition signatories were not given an opportunity to review the subject
ordinance prior to signing.

I interpret the Charter requirement that the ordinance be attached to the petition during
its circulation in the context of the required statement in the circuiators' affidavit that each
signatory have an opportunity to review the subject ordinance. I find that strict compliance
with the attachment requirement is not necessary to prevent fraud or mistake so long as
the ordinance was present and available for review at the time of signature. I also note
that the length of Ordinance No. 2681 prevented my office from attaching it to the petition
with staples and that the binder dips may not have been sufficient to prevent disassembiy
while the petition was circulated.

I find that the detachment of the petitions from the ordinance is circumstantiai evidence
that the ordinance was not attached to the petition throughout the circulation process.
However, each petition section was accompanied by an affidavit of the circulator stating
that each signatory was afforded an opportunity to review the ordinance. In the absence
of more detail as to when the ordinance copies were detached from the petition, evidence
that the ordinances were detached from the petition is insufficient to overcome this sworn
statement.
I have also received an affidavit from Dunte Valrey alleging that he signed the petition on
February 23, 2019, that the ordinance was not present during his review of the petition,
and that he did not have an opportunity to review the ordinance.

The Committee urges me to discount this affidavit on the grounds that Mr. Valrey's
profession ensures his understanding of the petition and on the basis of unsubstantiated
speculation regarding Mr. Vairey's motives. The former is irrelevant to the requirement
that each signatory have an opportunity to review the ordinance. The latter I find to have
no evidentiary value whatsoever.

I have also received e-mail communications from other signatories of petition sections
circulated by the circulator of Petition Section No. 22 attesting that she gave them ample
opportunity to review the ordinance. On the basis of this evidence, I conclude that the
drculator's affidavit for Petition Section No. 22 substantially complies with the applicable
Charter requirements.

i find that Mr. Vairey's affidavit is somewhat corroborated by the fact that each petition
section was detached at some time from the copy of the ordinance. I therefore determine
that Mr. Vairey's signature is invalid for this reason. I note that Mr. Valrey's signature is
also one of the one hundred and fifteen (115) signatures invalidated due to address
discrepancies.

Validity of Spouse Signatures

Representatives of WSN have protested the validity of Petition Sections Nos. 2, 8, and
19 on the grounds that they include pairs of spouse signatures made in the same
handwriting. These allegations effectively contradict the circuiators' affidavit, which states
that each signature was made in the presence of the circulator by the person named.

I acknowledge that similarities exist in the handwriting of at least some of the address
lines of these signatures. However, similarities between the signatures themselves is
less clear. In the absence of expert testimony on this point, I cannot conclude that this
evidence is sufficient to overcome the sworn statements of the circuiators. Accordingly,
I reject the protest both as to individual signatures and to petition sections.

The Charter requires that I certify the sufficiency of the petition within ten (10) days of
receipt. This time frame is insufficient for me to obtain expert analysis of the petition and
to allow the Committee a reasonable opportunity to review and respond to such report.
For this reason, I have not sought such analysis.
Please direct any questions regarding this letter to me.

Sincerely,

I^^VA^l^
Juli6"Franklin, CMC
City Clerk

Cc: City Council

Gary Suiter, City Manager
Dan Foote, City Attorney
David O'NeiI, Brynn Grey Partners
 City of

CERTIFICATE OF SUFFICIENCY

I/ Julie Franklin/ City Clerk for the City of Steamboat Springs/ Colorado/ do hereby
certify that the petition for referendum regarding City of Steamboat Springs Ordinance
#2681 (West Steamboat Neighborhoods Annexation)/ has been examined and has been
found to be insufficient. The examination brought forth the following findings:

Number of sections documents submitted: 21

Number of sections documents examined: 21

Number of signatures submitted: 1239

Number of signatures examined: 1239

Number of signatures rejected: 404

1. The name in the signature line is not found on the voter registration file: 165
2. Name variations/ if Jr. or II is present or omitted and two persons with the same name
reside at the same address: 2
3. The address on the signature line does not match the voter record: 115
4, The signature is illegible: 7
7. Duplicate signature: 3
Disqualification of petition sections 3&4: 112

Number of signatures verified: 835

Number of registered electors required: 1078

Signed this 1^\ day of March/ 2019

\M^ ;^uMl f^\^

Tulie Franklin/ CMC
City Cierk