HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-03-24 Support Documentation Town Council Work Session
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL
WORK SESSION
TUESDAY, MARCH 24, 1987
2:00 p.m.
AGENDA
1. Update by 25th Anniversary Committee
2. Vail Associates/Vail Valley Foundation Request for Extension of
Amphitheatre Lease
3. Discussion of Redesign of Amphitheatre Perimeter Fence
4. Discussion of a Change in the Ramshorn Condominium Owners'
Restrictions
5. Discussion of Capital Projects
6. Planning and Environmental Commission Report
7. Information Update
8. Other
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL
WORK SESSION
TUESDAY, MARCH 24, 1987
2:00 p.m.
EXPANDED AGENDA
2:00 1. Update by 25th Anniversary Committee
David Kanally
Pat Peeples Action Requested of Council: Receive presentation and ask
any questions you may have.
Backqround Rationale: David Kanally will be giving an
update on what the Committee has been doing and make an
appeal for financial backing.
2:15 2. Vail Associates/Vail Valley Foundation Request for Extension
Jack Hunn of Amphitheatre Lease
Action Requested of Council: Give staff direction on
extension of present lease and whether terms should change
or remain the same. Also, respond to questions regarding
road paving and lighting.
Backqround Rationale: The Vail Valley Foundation is
requesting extension of the present lease for a five year
term. Also, they are requesting the Town to pave the access
road and provide lighting along all entrance paths.
Staff Recommendation: There is no budget for these items
this year, but we are talking with private firms about the
possibility of donating the paving project for the
Amphitheatre. Lighting should wait and be designed and
budgeted as a part of the Ford Park improvements. Larry
will have recommendations regarding the lease at the
meeting.
2:40 3. Discussion of Redesign of Amphitheatre Perimeter Fence
Tom Braun
A discussion of: 1) a request to replace the existing chain
link fence around the amphitheatre with a hedge and
landscape barrier, 2) a request to expand the western
perimeter of the alpine garden due to the new hedge and
landscape barrier for the amphitheatre, and 3) a request to
create an alpine garden demonstration area in the
amphitheatre entry plaza. (Applicants: Vail Valley
Foundation/Vail Associates, Mr. Jack Hunn and Mr. Glen
Ellison; Alpine Garden, Mr. Marty Jones and Ms. Helen
Fritch)
Action Requested of Council: 1) Determine if the chain link
fence should be replaced with a hedge and landscape buffer;
2) provide general comments on the concept of whether or not
the alpine garden should be allowed to expand its perimeter
35 feet to the west; and 3) provide general comments on the
concept of the alpine demonstration area.
Backqround Rationale: None.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the
request to replace the chain link fence with a hedge and
landscape barrier. In respect to the request to expand the
alpine garden, staff feels that more information is
necessary in order to determine whether or not this is a
reasonable request. At this time, the staff does not feel
that the 30-35 foot expansion of the alpine garden is
warranted. However, the staff is willing to look at further
information to make an informed decision on the expansion.
Staff supports the alpine garden demonstration area as long
as design plans and a letter of credit to cover the project
cost are submitted.
3:10 4. Discussion of a Change in the Ramshorn Condominium Owners'
Peter Patten Restrictions
Action Requested of Council: Discuss the applicants'
request to change the Ramshorn condominiums' use
restrictions from 2 weeks in the winter and 2 weeks in the
summer to 8 weeks in the winter and 8 weeks in the summer.
The condition that owners of Ramshorn condominiums only use
their condominiums two weeks in the winter season and two
weeks in the summer season was applied to the project
through a request to convert the Ramshorn Lodge to a
condominium project in June of 1984. This use restriction
is a requirement of the subdivision regulations governing
the conversion of lodges to condominiums. The applicants
are requesting to change this use restriction from 2 weeks
to 8 weeks in order to increase the usage of the property.
(Applicants: Mr. David Garton and Mr. Tim Garton)
Background Rationale: The staff agrees with the applicant
that the main intent of the use restriction is to ensure
that the condominiums will be used as if the property was
still run as a lodge. The section of the code which relates
to converting lodges to condominiums basically allows for
ownership to change but is intended to maintain the use of
the project as if it were a lodge.
Staff Recommendation: At this time, staff is recommending
that the use restriction be changed to 4 weeks. Our opinion
is that 8 weeks for owner usage during the summer and winter
seasons limits the use of the units by open rental market
users.
3:30 5. Discussion of Capital Projects
Action Requested of Council: Review staff recommendations
for each item and concur or modify.
Background Rationale: Staff has prepared recommendations
for action on each capital project to present to Council.
Council's action on these will outline the steps to be taken
over the next few weeks. See summaries of Council
priorities and staff recommendations enclosed.
3:45 6. Planning and Environmental Commission Report
Peter Patten
3:55 7. Information Update
Ron Phillips .
4:00 8. Other
-2-
RECD MAR 1 1 1987
Nil,NsS®CiateS,Inc. { ,~s d 4,614,
Creators and Operators of Vail and BeaVer Creek 3
March 9, 1987
Mr. Larry Eskwith
Town of Vail
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
RE: Gerald R. Furd Amphitheater
Ref. No. 176
EXTENSION OF LEASE
Dear Larry:
The Vail Valley Foundation is in the process of making the necessary
commitments for the final phase of construction for the Gerald R. Ford
Amphitheater within Ford Park. The fund raising effort has been going
extremely well and the Vail Valley Foundation is confident that the project
will be complete and operational by midsummer.
It is our understanding that our current lease agreement expires as of
March 28, 1987 and, therefore, it will be necessary to extend the lease to
permit the continued construction of the project. The purpose of this letter
is to request that the extension of the Vail Valley Foundation's lease be
included on the agenda for the Town Council meeting on March 17, 1987. The
Vail Valley Foundation is interested in executing a longer term lease at this
time and requests that the Town of Vail consider a five (5) year term. It is
suggested that the lease also include a provision for termination in the
event that the Town of Vail accepts the Amphitheater, together with the
endowment fund, as a gift from the Vail Valley Foundation during the term of
the lease.
Please contact me at your earliest convenience to confirm that we will be on
the agenda and to advise if you will require any information prior to the
meeting.
Best Regards, `
VAIN ASSOCIATES INC.
Jack D Hunn, rector
Real tate Development
:ssp
cc: Bob Knous
Lissa MacKintosh
Post Office Box 7 • Vail, Colorado 81658 • (303)476-5601
RECD MAR 1 1 1087
`UAsSOC1ateS9 Inc.
Creators and Operators of Vail and Beaver Creek
P a~ ~k
March 10, 1987
Mr. Ron Phillips
Town Manager
Town of Vail
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
RE: Gerald R. Ford Amphitheater
Ref. No. 178
PHASE III CONSTRUCTION
'Dear Ron:
The Vail Valley Foundation is pleased to announce that it is proceeding with
Phase III construction of the Gerald R. Ford Amphitheater, including site
development in accordance with all approvals and permits. We are soliciting
an extension to the lease between the Town of Vail and the Vail Valley
Foundation and will, hopefully, be meeting with the Town Council on
March 17, 1987, to discuss the continuation of the project and the schedule
for its completion.
The purpose of this letter is to encourage the Town of Vail to expedite the
completion of the following improvements within Ford Park in conjunction with
the completion of the Amphitheater, specifically:
1. The completion of the access road through the park between the
frontage road and the Amphitheater; including the installation of
base courca, aFpha t avi•6, dro'ii.26a _ as mac.:$si,LI y and the
r r
landscaping of all disturbed areas.
2. The development of a lighting system along the various pathway
systems leading from the three designated parking areas to the
Amphitheater facility. It is suggested that this lighting system
could be designed for seasonal use in order to minimize the cost.
Because the Amphitheater project includes ambient and site lighting systems,
night time performances will be feasible provided that Amphitheater patrons
can travel safely from the facility to the various parking lots. Roadway
improvements are both desirable and necessary for the safe transportation of
emergency vehicles and for the convenience of equipment deliveries to and
from the facility.
Post Office Box 7 • Vail, Colorado 81658 . (303)476-5601
Mr. Ron Phillips
March 10, 1987
Page two
We believe that the success of the Amphitheater, as perceived by the public,
will depend to a large extent on the image that we project this season. The
completion of the pathway lighting and the paving of the road will serve to
enhance the image of the project.
Sincerely,
VAI ASSOCIATES INC.
Jack D. Hunn, irector
Real E ate Development
JDH:ssp
cc: Bob Knous, VVF
AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into as of the 1st day of April ,
1986 by and between the VAIL VALLEY FOUNDATION ("Foundation"), P. 0. Box 309, Vail,
Colorado 81658, and the TOWN OF VAIL, Colorado ("Town"), with Municipal Offices at
75 South Frontage Road, Vail, Colorado 81657.
1. Recitals
1. The Foundation is a non-profit, tax exempt charitable organization
involved in supporting community charitable, cultural, educational and recreational
programs within the Vail valley;
2. The Town desires to work with and encourages the Foundation to
undertake projects which would benefit the citizens of and visitors to Vail;
3. The Foundation has agreed to assume the responsibility for the
financing and construction of the Ford Amphitheater ("Amphitheater") and to obtain
an endowment for the purposes of financing the ongoing repair and maintenance
operations of the Amphitheater whose construction was originally begun by the Gerald
R. Ford Commemorative Committee at Vail, thereby relieving the burden of so doing to
the Town and providing a quality facility for recreational activities and events,
and for the citizens of and the visitors to the Vail valley and the State of
Colorado;
4. The Foundation has previously expended funds to complete certain
preliminary work necessary to prepare the Amphitheater site for further
construction; and
5. The Foundation has raised funds to do additional work on the
Amphitheater and remains committed to the completion of the Amphitheater and to the
maintenance of the Amphitheater for a period of no less than five (5) years or until
an endowment can be raised for that purpose.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Foundation and the Town agree as follows:
II. Aqreement
1. Ground Lease
On the terms and conditions set out below, and the consideration of
the payment of ten dollars ($10.00) by the Foundation to the Town and the prompt
performance by the Foundation and the Town of the covenants and agreements to be
kept and performed by the Foundation and the Town, the Town does lease to the
Foundation and the Foundation hereby leases from the Town the following property
described in Exhibit A attached hereto ("property") lying in the Town of V?-'[,
County of Eagle and State of Colorado.
2. Term
This lease shall be for a term commencing on April 1 1986
and ending March 31 1987, unless sooner terminated as hereinafter
provided.
3. Rental
The Foundation agrees to pay the Town a rent of ten dollars ($10.00)
for the full term of this lease payable in advance at such place as the Town may
specify in writing to the Foundation.
4. Lease Expenses and Costs
During the term of this lease the Foundation shall pay all costs,
expenses and obligations of every kind or nature relating to the property or the
improvements thereon which may arise or become due. Notwithstanding the foregoing,
the Town will impose no expense or cost on the Foundation which would cause the
Foundation to lose its tax exempt status.
5. Payment of Taxes
During the term of this lease the Foundation shall pay, before any
fine, penalty, interest or cost may be added, or become due or be imposed for
nonpayment thereof, all taxes, assessments, water and sewer rents, rates and
charges, transfer taxes, charges for public utilities, excises, levies, licenses and
permit fees, and other Governmental charges which during the term of this lease may
be assessed or become a lien on the property with respect to the Amphitheater
improvements on the property itself. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Town will
impose no tax, assessment, rate or charge which would cause the Foundation to lose
its tax exempt status.
6. Improvements
During the term of this lease the Foundation shall be permitted to
construct the following elements of the Amphitheater in accordance with plans
approved by the Town of Vail:
1) The basement below the stage.
2)_ The stage system as designed by the Architect of the
Amphitheater.
3) The vaulted roof forms over the stage and seating areas.
-2-
4) The wing walls adjacent to the stage to help focus attention to
the performance and to provide a backstage area for the
performers.
5) The bermed seating area to the west and north of the project.
6) Electrical lighting and service systems related to the roof
system over the stage.
7) The relocation of primary electrical power which is in conflict
with the Amphitheater construction.
8) The reconstruction of the existing bike path to the south and
east of the facility.
9) The landscaping of the area immediately south of the stage to
provide a backdrop for performances.
10) The rough grading and hydro-mulching of the entire construction
site to control dust.
During the term of this lease the Foundation shall continue its fund
raising and as additional funding becomes available, may continue construction on
the. Amphitheater to provide the following in accordance with plans approved by the
Town of Vail:
1) The tickets/concession building.
2) The public restroom facility.
3) The performers' restroom and "green room" facility.
4) The storage and receiving building.
5) The expanded seating slab and the creation of the box seats,
grass seating areas and planter boxes below the roof.
6) All site retaining walls.
7) All landscaped construction, perimeter control fencing, the
'irrigation system and decorative iron gates as originally
proposed and approved.
8) The brick paving in all plaza areas.
9) Asphalt paving in the designated areas.
10) The connection of water and sewer systems to the existing
infrastructure and, consequently, the payment of applicable tap
fees.
The Foundation shall not authorize any variance from the plans or
specifications which have been approved by the Town for the construction of the
Amphitheater without the prior written approval of the Town.
-3-
The Foundation shall not use the property for any other purpose except
for the construction and maintenance of the Amphitheater as set forth herein and
limited fund raising activities after a TCO is issued.
7. Permits
The Foundation shall procure permits necessary for any construction
work it wishes to proceed with on the property and during such construction skull
comply with all applicable legal requirements. All work done by the Foundation
shall comply with all applicable laws, ordinance and regulations of the State of
Colorado and the Town of Vail.
8. Bonds
If the work done by the Foundation on the property is to exceed the
total sum of fifty thousand dollars ($50,000.00) the Foundation shall obtain all the
necessary surety bonds from the contractor who is to do the work as required and set
forth by Title 38, Article 26 of the Colorado Revised Statutes, as amended. The
Foundation shall submit to the Town for its review, which approval shall not be
unreasonably delayed or withheld, a copy of the written construction agreement with
the general contractor who is to do the work on the property.
9. Waiver of Fees
The Town agrees to waive all building and development fees within its
control and to aggressively recommend in writing to other Governmental and, public
entities and political subdivisions t"cL sucl- entities and political subdivis ons
also waive any fees that may normally be assessable during the development of the
amphitheater.
10. Insurance
At all times during the term of this agreement the Foundation shall
.carry and maintain the following insurance policies with insurance companies
satisfactory to the Town. Such policies shall include a provision requiring a
minimum of thirty (30) days notice to the Town in case of change or cancellation.
1) From the time when construction of any improvements commence a
builder's risk policy in an amount equal to cover the current
replacement cost of any such improvement.
2) From the time when this lease commences, comprehensive general
liability insurance in an amount of one million dollars
($1,000,000.00) per occurrence including the following
coverages: Contractual insurance; personal injury; premises
operations; explosion, collapse and underground hazards; product
-4-
f ,
completed operations hazards; broad form property damage; and
independent contractors.
3) The Foundation shall require all contractors and subcontractors
performing services in the construction of any improvements on
the property to obtain worker's compensation insurance in
accordance with the provisions of the Workman's Compensation Mct
of the State of Colorado for all employees engaged in the
construction of said improvements.
4) From the time any improvements are completed on the property and
while this lease is still in effect, fire and extended coverage
insurance in an amount equal to one hundred percent (100%) of the
full replacement cost of the Amphitheater.
All policies of insurance required to be maintained by the Foundation
shall name the Town and the Foundation as the insured as their respective interests
may appear. The Foundation shall provide the Town with certificates of insurance
evidencing the policies listed above prior to the commencement of the term of this
agreement. The Foundation and the Town agree that in the event of the destruction
or damage of any of the improvements constructed by the Foundation all insurance
money which is payable to the Town and/or the Foundation shall be utilized to
replace or repair said improvements. Any excess money received from insurance after
the reconstruction or repair of said improvements, if there be no default on the
part of the Foundation in the performance of this agreement, shall be paid to the
Foundation.
11. Indemnification
The Foundation agrees to indemnify, defend, hold and save harmless the
Town against any and all claims, debts, demands or obligations which may be made
against the Town arising by reason of or in connection with any alleged act or
omission of the Foundation or any person claiming under, by, or through the
Foundu:icn; and if it beco,,es necessary for the Town to defend any action seeking to
impose any such liability, the Foundation shall pay the Town all costs of court and
attorneys fees incurred by the Town in such defense in addition to any other sums
which the Foundation may be called upon to pay by reason of any entry of judgment
against the Town in any such litigation.
The Town agrees to indemnify, defend, hold and save harmless the
Foundation against any and all claims, debts, demands or obligations which may be
made against the Foundation arising by reason of or in connection with any alleged
-5-
act or omission of the Town or any person claiming under, by, or through the Town;
and if it becomes necessary for the Foundation to defend any action seeking to
impose any such liability, the Town shall pay the Foundation all costs of court and
attorneys fees incurred by the Foundation in such defense in addition to any other
sums which the Town may be called upon to pay by reason of any entry of judgment
against the Foundation in any such litigation.
12. No Lien
The Foundation agrees that it will not permit or suffer to be filed or
claimed against the interest of the Town in the property during the term of th's .
agreement any lien or claim of any kind and if such lien or claim be filed, it shall
be the duty of the Foundation thirty (30) days after having been given notice of
such lien or claim by the Town to cause the property to be released from such lien
or claim either by payment or by posting of a bond or by the payment into the
appropriate court of the amount necessary to relieve and release the property from
such claim, or in any other matter which as a matter of law will result, within such
period of thirty (30) days, in releasing the Town and the property from such lien or
claim.
13. Assignment
This lease is not assignable without the prior %,iritten approval of the
Town.
14. Financing
The Foundation.shall be responsible during the term of this lase for
financing the construction of any improvements on the property and for the repayment
of any loans obtained for the construction of the improvements on the property. The
Foundation agrees to indemnify and hold the Town harmless from any failure to repay
any loan used to finance the construction of said improvements.
15. Repair Obligations
During the term of this lease the Foundation will keep in a good state
of repair the property and all improvements constructed on the property by the
Foundation. The Town agrees that during the term of this lease it will be
responsible for the maintenance of the Gerald R. Ford park other than the property
and the improvements constructed thereon including, but not limited to, maintenance
and operations of parking areas, access roads and existing public restrooms outside
the leased property.
-6-
16. Foundation's Default and Termination of Lease
The Town may give the Foundation five (5) days notice of the intention
to terminate this lease if the Foundation is in default in the performance of any of
the covenants, terms or conditions of this lease and such default is not cured
within thirty (30) days after written notice thereof given by the Town. If the Town
shall give the five (5) days notice of termination, then at the expiration of such
period this lease shall terminate as completely as if that were the date dali1.1--.
fixed for the expiration of the term of this lease and the Foundation shall then
surrender the property to the Town. If this lease shall so terminate, it shall be.
lawful for the Town at its option, without formal demand or notice of any kind, to
reenter the leased property by any means, including force, and to remove the
Foundation therefrom without being liable for any damages therefor. The Foundation
shall remain liable for all its obligations under this agreement despite th_=
termination of this lease and the Town's reentry.
The Foundation shall have the right to terminate this agreement upon
the completion of the Amphitheater and the establishment of an endowment in the
amount of four hundred thirty five thousand dollars ($435,000.00) to be used
exclusively for the operation, maintenance and repair of the property and the
Amphitheater.
17. Expiration
At the expiration of this lease the Foundation will deliver possession
of the property and all improvements including any furnishings, fixtures and
equipment which the Foundation may have affixed upon the property to the Town.
18. Maintenance of the Amphitheater
The Foundation shall be and remain fully and solely liable for all
costs and expenses relating to the operation, maintenance and repair of the property
and all improvements thereon until March 31, 1991 or until such time that an endow-
ment in the amount of four hundred thirty five thousand dollars ($435,000.00) in
cash or Federal securities is established by the Foundation exclusively for the
operation, maintenance and repair of the orooerty and Amphitheater and agreement has
been reached by the respective parties as to the management of the endowment.
19. No Waiver
No waiver of a breach of any of the covenants in this lease shall be
construed to be a waiver of any succeeding breach of the same covenant.
-7-
20. Written Modifications
No modification, release, discharge or a waiver of any provisacros
hereof shall be of any force, affect or value unless in writing signed by the Town
and t"? Fcu elation.
21. Entire Agreement
This document and its Exhibits contain the entire agreement between
the Town and the Foundation as of the date of signing. The execution hereof has not
been induced by either party, by representations, promises or understandings not
expressed within this agreement, and there are not collateral agreements,
stipulations, promises, or undertakings whatsoever upon the respective parties which
in any way touch the subject matter of this instrument which are not expressly
contained in this instrument.
22. Notices
If either party desires to give notice to the other in connection with
and according to the terms of this agreement, such notice shall be by a registered
or certified mail and it shall be deemed given when deposited in the United States
mail with postage prepaid and such notices are addressed as follows:
Town of Vail
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
Vail Valley Foundation
P. 0. Box 309
Vail, Colorado 81658
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties so sign this agreement on this 2nd day of
April 1986.
TOWN OF VAIL VAIL VALLEY FOUNDATION
By: By:
Rondall V. Phillips, Town Manager John Horan-Kates, President
-8-
A~
TO: Town Council
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: March 24, 1987
SUBJECT: Changes to the amphitheatre and relocation of the
Alpine Garden
I. REQUEST
A. The Vail Valley Foundation is requesting that the
chain link fence be removed from the amphitheatre
design and be replaced by a "hedge" and landscape
barrier. The landscape barrier would follow the exact
same line as the original fence. The Foundation has
submitted a conceptual plan for Town Council review.
B. Secondly, the Alpine Garden supporters feel that the
change to the landscape barrier is a good idea,
however, their opinion is that the proposal encroaches
into their project area. They would like to extend
the alpine garden to the west approximately 30-35 feet
in order to maintain an adequate buffer between the
projects.
C. The alpine garden supporters would like to create a
demonstration alpine garden in the proposed landscape
island in the entry plaza to the amphitheatre and
alpine garden. This space is approximately 76 feet x
36 feet. Instead of the amphitheatre planting the
island with spruce and aspen, the Alpine Garden Club
would like to create an alpine garden in the island.
II. The DRB reviewed the three requests at their meeting on
March 19, 1987. They support the idea of the landscape
barrier as long as the concern for securing the
amphitheatre and liability are addressed by the applicant
for the Town Council. The Board also supported the idea of
the demonstration garden and felt that it would create a
more interesting entry plaza. At this time, they had no
specific comments on the issue of the Alpine Garden
expanding to the west 30-35 feet.
III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
A. Landscape Barrier
Staff supports the idea of removing the chain link fence
and replacing it with a landscape barrier. It will be very
important to design the landscape barrier so that the hedge
p;
appears as natural as possible and the surrounding
landscaping tapers down so as not to create an unnatural
look for the park. Our opinion is that the conceptual
drawing does not indicate clearly who is responsible for
what plantings. Staff recommends that at the final Design
Review Board review of this project on April lst, the
applicant submit a drawing that clearly shows only those
plantings proposed by the amphitheatre. We realize that
these plantings will blend in with the alpine garden, but
our concern is that substantial planting be pinned down
through this approval. With respect to liability, the
staff feels that the Town Council must determine if it is
reasonable to have the landscaping instead of a chain link
fence for control.
B. Expansion of Alpine Garden to the West
As far as the question of whether or not the alpine garden
should expand to the west an additional 30 to 35 feet,
staff is concerned that the request will have a negative
impact on the informal playfield to the west of the garden.
Our opinion is that perhaps an additional 10 to 15 feet
could be added to the alpine garden on the west side of the
project. However, at this time the staff is not convinced
that even that additional width is necessary. In order to
better determine if any increase in alpine garden area is
warranted, the staff would request that the alpine garden
and Vail Valley Foundation submit a drawing that clearly
shows the following information at a scale of 1" = 501.
1. The existing perimeter of the alpine garden in
relation to the surrounding park uses.
2. The proposed alpine garden perimeter with the
expansion to the west 35 feet.
3. The existing amphitheatre fence and landscape
perimeter.
4. The proposed hedge and landscape barrier.
5. The original amphitheatre fence line.
When this information is submitted on one drawing, the
staff will be able to determine the specific impacts of the
request to expand the alpine garden by 35 feet. At this
time, however, the staff feels that 35 feet is unnecessary
and at the most 10 feet of expansion to the west may be
warranted.
C. Alpine Garden Demonstration Area
Staff supports this concept. We would ask that the
alpine garden provide design plans for the landscaping
and a letter of credit to cover the project costs
before final approval is given to the idea. our
opinion is that the project will be very positive for
the plaza for both the amphitheatre and alpine garden.
We also agree with the DRB that the design will need
to have some height and softness so that the plaza
does not become too cold and hard in its appearance.
TO: Town Council
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: March 24, 1987
SUBJECT: Request to relax the use restriction on the Ramshorn
Condominiums which limits owner useage to 2 weeks in
the winter and 2 weeks in the summer
Applicants: Mr. David Garton and Mr. Tim Garton
1. THE REQUEST
The applicants are requesting to relax the use restriction
on an owner's useage of a Ramshorn condominium. In Section
17.26.075 of the Subdivision Regulations concerning
converting accommodation units to condominiums, it states
that,
"An owner's personal use of his unit shall be
restricted to 14 days during the seasonal periods of
December 15th through April 15th and 14 days during
June 15th through September 15th. This seasonal
period is hereinafter referred to as 'high season.'
'Owner's personal use' shall be defined as owner
occupancy of a unit or nonpaying guest of the owner or
taking the unit off the rental market during the
seasonal periods referred to herein for any reason
other than necessary repairs which cannot be
postponed or which make the unit unrentable...."
The Gartons are requesting to change the use restriction
from 2 weeks during the winter and summer high seasons to 8
weeks in the winter and summer high seasons. Owners would
be obligated to put their units on the open rental market
when the units are not being used during the high season.
The applicants are also saying that they would furnish
their unsold condominiums and put them into the rental
pool.
The applicants have submitted the following reasons why
this change is justified:
"We are unable to sell our Ramshorn condominiums with
the current use restrictiion, Municipal Code of the
Town of Vail, 17.26.075. Attached to this letter is a
copy of our current price list as compared to our
original price list. Even with these significant
price reductions, we have not sold a Ramshorn
condominium since August 1, 1985.
Basically the use restriction does not fit the
condominium useage pattern extant in ski areas today.
It has made our condominiums unsaleable. Worst of all
for Vail, the unsold Ramshorn condominiums are not
being utilized at all by visitors to Vail. The use
restriction as it stands right now is unnecessary and
intolerble; the rental obligation is both desirable
and tolerable. We request that the use restriction be
relaxed, not lifted for the Ramshorn condominiums to
limit owner useage to 8 weeks in the winter and 8
weeks in the summer. The rental obligation would
continue in effect as is. In return, we would furnish
all our unsold condominiums and put them into the
rental pool."
II. DECISION MAKING PROCESS FOR THIS REQUEST
Section 17.26.075 F. states that the Town Council is
responsible for reviewing any requests to modify the
conditions for the conversion of accommodation units to
condominiums. This section states:
"All conditions set forth within this section shall be
made binding on the applicant, the applicant's
successors, heirs, personal representatives and
assigns and shall govern the property which is the
subject of the application for the life of the
survivor of the present Town Council plus 21 years.
Conversion of accommodation units located within a
lodge pursuant to this section, shall be modified
only by written aqreement of the Town Council and the
owner or owners of the units which have been
converted into condominiums. The documents creating
and governing any accommodation unit which has been
converted into a condominium shall be modified by the
owners of such units only with the prior written
approval of the Town Council."
Simply stated, the Town Council has the responsibility to
review any requests to modify the conditions of lodge
conversions to condominiums. For this reason, staff felt
that it would be helpful to have a work session on the
request before the issue would be presented at an evening
Town Council meeting. After the work session, the
applicants would be required to submit their request with
the approval of the owners of any of the condominium units
and other owners in the project before the Town Council
could approve the request to modify the use restriction.
Once the Town Council has given their approval of the use
restriction, the approval would be written in an agreement
signed by the Town Council. It should be noted that this
request is project specific and would not apply to other
projects that have use restrictions.
III. BACKGROUND ON THE REQUEST
In June of 1984, the new owners of the Ramshorn Lodge
requested to convert the lodge into a condominium. This
request came under the subdivision regulations Chapter
17.26, Condominium Conversion, with the specific section
relating to accommodation unit conversions being
applicable. This request was approved by the Planning
Commission. Below is a table which explains the existing,
proposed and allowable statistics relating to the Ramshorn
property.
EXISTING PROPOSED
# SQ FT # SQ FT
Accommodation units 28 8,146 17 6,266
Dwelling units 3 2,479 7 5,903
Total density 17 10,625 15.5 12,169
Common lobby/lounge 2 1,337 2 1,038
Total allowable 13 18,572 2.5 6,403
over under
Parking spaces 33* 33
*Applicant has ability to add an additional 4 spaces and is
required 35 total spaces including the meeting room
requirement.
Please see the enclosed information related to this request:
1. PEC memo dated 6/20/84
2. PEC minutes
3. Garton letter, 3/4/87
4. Condo Conversion Section 17.26.075
IV. BACKGROUND ON THE USE RESTRICTION
The primary principle behind the use restriction was that
lodges are a use which should be maintained, particularly
in the Village and Lionshead areas. The accommodation unit
conversion section of the code allows the ownership to
change for a project, but maintains the use pattern as if
the project is still operated as a lodge. The use
restriction was created so that an owner buying a
condominium would have the use of the unit during high
season periods for only two weeks per season. This
restriction made the unit available to other guests during
these high season periods. The concern was that if the use
restriction did not exist, the original lodge units would
no longer be available to the general public due to being
converted to condominium units. For this reason, the use
restriction has been applied to any conversion of a lodge
to condominiums to maintain available lodge rooms.
The second objective of the use restriction is to ensure
that the rooms will be filled as much as possible. In many
condominium projects, owners are not using their
condominiums throughout the year and the condos are empty.
If the condos are required to be placed on the open rental
market when not being used by owners during their two week
periods in the summer and winter, these rooms will be
available to rent for guests.
This ordinance does make it somewhat difficult to convert
lodge rooms to condominiums and staff believes that it is
important that it does not become appealing to convert
lodqe rooms to condominiums, as it is important to
maintainae available for the open rental market.
However, the staff does realize that the Ramshorn project
is not being utilized to its full extent as was intended
through the condominium conversion that occurred in 1984.
We agree with the applicant that the use patterns have
changed in resort communities today as far as how long
condominium owners wish to use their units. Some of this
change is due to the fact that resort communities no longer
have such a speculative market. Those people who actually
buy condominiums tend to want to use them more frequently,
as they are not buying them solely for investment purposes.
Staff has also noticed that the Park Plaza project in
Beaver Creek sells five week interval ownership packages
covering both the summer and winter seasons. This appears
to be more in line with the useage amount of a second home
owner in resort areas.
IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The staff's opinion is that 8 weeks in both the summer and
winter high seasons is not an appropriate change to the use
restriction. It should be remembered that the Ramshorn was
originally a lodge and that during the conversion, it was
made clear that even though the ownership changes, the
project should still function as a lodge. Our opinion is
that if the 8 week restriction is used, too much of the
prime time for guest rentals will be taken away from the
open market.
Our opinion is that a relaxation to 4 weeks for both the
winter and summer high seasons is more reasonable. The
rental obligation must continue as well as the condition
that the Ramshorn owners furnish all the unsold
condominiums and put them into the rental pool. Staff's
objective is to ensure that the Ramshorn project is
utilized by owners as well as guests as much as possible.
Our opinion is that the 4 week restriction is a reasonable
way to facilitate greater use of the project. Essentially,
the winter season is 17 weeks and the summer season is 13
weeks. It is felt that 4 weeks during each of these
seasons is a reasonable amount of time for an owner to use
the condominium. If it is assumed that the owner has 4
weeks during the high seasons, that allows the owner to use
the condominium 24% of the time during the winter and 31%
of the time during the summer season. Staff feels that
this is a reasonable amount of time for the owner's use.
If the use restriction is 8 weeks, the owner would have the
use of the condominium 47% of the time during the winter
season and 62% of the time during the summer season. It is
felt that these percentages go against the original intent
of the use restriction to keep units available to the
tourist market.
We also feel that it is very important that the Ramshorn
owners furnish their unsold condominiums and put them into
the rental pool. The owners have agreed to do this, which
should greatly help with the utilization of the project.
For these reasons, the staff feels that 4 weeks plus the
rental obligation and furnishing of unsold condominiums
for the rental pool would be a reasonable solution to the
Ramshorn dilemma.
?l~rntnn ^.d Envtrnr7enta] Co:..ission
F:;O,I: Cc mun i ve iopment Department
DATE: June 20, 1984
SUBJECT: Request for a condominium conversion of the Ramshorn Lodge
Applicant: Polar Partnership
I. THE REQUEST
The Ramshorn Lodge has changed property ownership recently, and the new
owners wish to convert the lodge into a condominium and construct a major
remodel of the interior of the lodge. This request falls under the sub-
division regulations, Chapter 17.26, Condominium Conversion, with the
specific section relating to accommodation unit conversions applicable.
The applicants are proposing to restrict all but three of the accommodation
and dwelling units proposed even though the ordinance requires only the
accommodation units to be restricted in terms of owner use.
This property encompasses two lots, one which is zoned Public Accommodation
and contains 23,216 square feet (.533 acre) and another lot of 6,006
square feet zoned Parking District. The following table explains the
existing, proposed, and allowable statistics relating to the property
(including parking).
EXISTING PROPOSED
NO. SQ FT NO. SQ FT
Accommodation Units 28 8,146 17 6,266
Dwelling units 3 2,479 7 5,903
Total Density 17 10,625 15.5 12,159
Common Lobby/Lounge 2 1,337 2 1,038
Total Allowable 13 18,572 2.5 6,403
over under
Parking Spaces 33* 33
* Applicant has ability to add an additional 4 spaces and is required
35 total spaces including the meeting room requirement.
* ( RAMSHORN -2- 6/20
These numbers reveal that the number of accommodation units is being<
reduced, the number of dwelling units is proposed to increase, a slight';:,`'',
reduction in lounge area is proposed, and that the parking needs can be
met. It should be noted that part of the request is to eliminate the
existing lounge adjacent to the check-in office area on the main floor
of the lodge, while slightly increasing and greatly improving the existing
lower level game room area. The proposal is to construct a meeting room
facility where the game room now exists to accommodate.approximately 60 persons.
The net loss in square footage is approximately 300 square feet of common
area under this proposed revision. Also, gas fireplaces will be installed
in accommodation units, while the creation of seven new wood burning
fireplaces would occur in the new meeting room and in 6 of the new dwelling
units.
II. CRITERIA TO EVALUATE THE PROPOSAL
The criteria to evaluate the condominiumization of the lodge is found
in Section 17.26.060 relating to all condominium conversions whether
accommodation units are involved or not, as well as 17.26.075, the specific
section addressing requirements for converting accommodation units to
condominiums, and also 17.26.080 which, again, applies to all condominium
conversions and not specifically toward lodge conversions. The Town Building
Department has completed the required inspection for conversion, and the
applicant has agreed to the list of changes required. Criteria relating
to tenants' occupancy, employee housing, and current rental rates are not
applicable to a lodge conversion.
III. COMPLIANCE WITH STIPULATIONS OF SECTION 17.26.075 REGARDING ACCOMMODATION
UNIT CONVERSIONS
The request is basically in compliance with the section regulating accommodation
unit conversions with the exception of the reduction of size of common
areas. The section stipulates that the common areas of any lodge with
converted units shall remain common areas and be maintained in a manner
consistent with its previous character." It goes on to say that "any changes,
alterations or renovations made to common areas shall not diminish the
size or quality of the common areas. It is the staff's interpretation
that'the proposal does not strictly meet the standards of this provision.
However, it should be noted that this provision is a discriminatory one
toward applicants wishing to condominiumize a lodge over applicants wishing
to merely obtain a building permit to alter common areas of a lodge without
converting to condominiums. In other words, an existing lodge owner could
obtain a building permit to reduce in size or alter the existing common
areas of the lodge without being required to meet the provisions of 17.26.075.
Once an applicant wishes to condominiumize and remodel simultaneously,
the provision relating to common areas then applies. This is an existing
loophole within our regulatory system which creates an inequity toward
a property owner wishing to change the ownership format of the lodge.
With this in mind, the staff feels the net reduction of 300 square feet
of common area should be reviewed within the overall context of the project
orn -3- 6/20/84
and not be an item to singled out. Also changes
relating to the proposed condominium declarations and what the specific
language requires in the Town ordinance need. to be addressed.as conditions
of approval.
IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The staff feels that, although the specific intent with regard to common
areas is not being complied with, the overall project generally meets the
intent of the ordinance to not have a change-of use occur on the property.
The applicants do propose a large improvement effort to the property. (see
attached cost estimate) and are restricting all but three dwelling units
to the 14 day high season use restriction as per the ordinance. Technically,
they would only be required to restrict the 17 proposed accommodation units
and not the additional 4 dwelling units proposed. Moreover, the addition
of the meeting room and its concurrent marketing could be a benefit to
the community with regard to attracting small group business meetings.
The following conditions of approval will apply to this project:
1. All accommodation units may have only gas fireplaces which must be
specifically approved as such by the Community Development Department.
C~ L2. The condominium declaration proposed shall be revised to reflect the
14 day owner use restriction period and not the 15 day period currently
contained in the declarations.
___-3. The declarations shall contain language stating that the declarations
may be changed only with the prior written approval. of the Town Council.
4. The declarations shall contain language stating that all business activity
relating to sale of the condominium units shall comply with local zoning
and sign ordinances.
5. Items 1 through 13 contained within the Addendum to Application for
Condominium Conversion of Ramshorn Lodge as submitted by the applicant
as part of the application shall become part of this approval and binding
upon the applicant.
`C -2- 6/25/84
in the area and is totally in concert with the Urban Design Guide Plan.
One problem is that the project takes out some very nice landscaping that screens
the corner of the Gondola Building.
Jack Hunn, representing the applicant, responded to the landscape issue by stating
that Richard Matthews gave Vail Associates a letter stating his opinion as to
which trees could be replanted. The letter said that some of the Aspen trees could
not be successfully transplanted, but that the large spruce could be replanted.
Hunn proposed using large trees with a new configuration for the new
landscaping. Bill Pierce, architect for the project, stated that this project
used space that was already in existence--in effect it was an infill project rather
than a proposal that added more square footage to the--size of the building. He felt
that the building was needed.
Edwards felt that the staff should keep track of V.A's parking allotted to the
Gondola Building. Donovan and Rapson felt that the DRB should look closely at
the landscaped area'and at the size of the trees to allow screening of the building.
Jim Viele moved and Will Trout seconded to approve the request for the exterior
alterations per the staff memo dated June 21, 1984 and to approve a conditional
use to have an office above the 2nd floor. The vote was 6-0 in favor, unanimous.
6. Request for a conditional use permit in order to add a dininq deck onto Purcell's
Restaurant in the Lifthouse Lodqe. Applicant: John Purcell
Tom Braun described the proposal, adding that it complied with the Lionshead
Improvement Program, and the use conformed to the Urban Design Guide Considerations
relating to commercial expansion. He added that the staff was concerned about
two existing trees. He stated that the plan allowed for the trees to be saved
and that the staff supported the project as long as the two trees were saved.
John Perkins, representing Ken Wentworth, the architect, stated that the two trees
would be saved. Rapson moved and Viele seconded to approve the request as per
the staff memo with the condition that the ees be sa The vote was 5 in
favor with none against, and Donovan rthe aining becae of conflict of interest.
7. Request for condominiumization o Ramshorn Lodge loca ed on Lot A,
Block 3, Vail Village 5th Filinq. plicant: Polar Part ership
Peter Patten described the request as per the staff memo stating that the staff
recommended approval because the majority of the project met the conversion criteria
as long as the applicant met the five points outlined in the memo and the 13 points
attached to the memo. Jay Peterson, representing the applicant, was on hand to
answer questions. Donovan asked if the 14 day restriction was for both summer
and winter, and the answer was that it was. Edwards was concerned that the parking
requirement was not pinned down. Patten explained that it was difficult to determine
an exact number of parking spaces because the conference room was also a lounge
area. Dan Corcoran, engineer on the project, stated that the F-1 property could
handle 16 spaces--that landscaping would also have to be included. Peterson stated
that the facility would be a lounge most of the time, and felt that 33 spaces
would be adequate. He added that they could actually have 27 spaces, that
PEC 6/25/84
33 was a compromise, and 35 would be at the expense of less landscaping.
Edwards and Trout both wanted to have the number of parking spaces finalized at
PEC. Will felt that it was important as well"..as a-submittal requirement.to have parki
outlined on the site plan. Peterson stated that he was open to a PEC decision
on the parking. Patten felt that there was ambi uity in the ordinance, that the
staff felt 16 to 18 spaces could be provided on the F-I property, and the staff
recommended that 35 parking spaces be required. Rapson felt that 35 spaces should
be provided and striped. Viele agreed but felt that he would be sympathetic to
a parking variance because he did not want to see more asphalt than was necessary.
Donovan wanted to see more landscaping as opposed to more asphalt. She stated
that she would like to see a stipulation that if additional parking was necessary
that it would be added. She wanted to insure that the Ramshorn would not remonstate
against the sidewalk improvement part of the Golden Peak project, and she asked
if the Ramshorn would pay for their part of the sidewalk. Peterson felt that
it would be unfair for the Ramshorn to pay unless an improvement district was
formed. He agreed to be part of an improvement district.
Donovan did not feel that the conversion would be a positive addition to the community
Peterson responded with the statement that this w.as a change of ownership, not
a change of use, and the change of ownership would allow for an upgrading. Piper
reminded the PEC that Cascade Village did receive a compromise on parking and
he would like to see a compromise to 33 spaces to allow for additional landscaping.
Patten reminded the board that in the summer additional parking was available
at Golden Peak. Jim Morter, architect, added that the Ramshorn track record also
had been good. Patten stated that a landscape buffer would have to be added no
matter what.
Edwards moved and Piper seconded to approve the conversion per the staff recommendatior
with the chanqe to 8A of 31 spaces and if needed 4 more spaces be added, that
8c, the fence encroaching on the Town of Vail riqht-of-wa_y will be removed at
the applicant's exoense.that 8B be omitted, that the five points in the memo
and the other 13 points in the addendum to the application be adhered to with
with.the exception of 8B. The vote was 5 in favor with Trout abstaining because
he felt the plan should delineate the parking spaces.
rams-horn
VAIL, COLORADO 81657
PHONE (303) 476-5546
March 4, 1987
Mr. Peter Patten
Building Department
Town of Vail
75 South Frontage Rd.
Vail, CO 81657
Dear Peter:
Reflecting our meeting Friday afternoon, following is a
description of our situation and an outline of our request:
We are unable to sell our Rams-Horn Condominiums with the current
Use Restriction, Municipal Code of the Town of Vail, 17.26.075.
Attached to this letter is a copy of our current price list as
compared to our original price list. Even with these significant
price reductions, we have not sold a Rams-Horn condominium since
August 1, 1985.
Basically the Use Restriction doesn't fit the condominium owner
usage pattern extant -in ski areas today. It has made our
condominiums unsaleable. Worst of all for Vail, the unsold Rams-
Horn Condominiums are not being utilized at all by visitors to
Vail.
The Use Restriction as it stands right now is unnecessary and
intolerable; the Rental Obligation is both desirable and
tolerable. We request that the Use Restriction be relaxed, not
lifted, for the Rams-Horn Condominiums to limit owner usage to 8
weeks in the winter and 8 weeks in the summer. The Rental
Obligation would continue in effect as is. In return, we would
furnish all our unsold condominiums and put them into the rental
pool.
qP,--jectfu ly s ubmitted,
uar n Tim Garton
cc: Mayor Paul Johnston
Vail Town Council
.r { I ~
c cic~tlov~ l~n~~ ~ o i l
l
6.075 Condominium Conversion
17.2
. U ,
Any applicant seeking to convert any accommodation unit within the tom shall
comply with the requirements of this section. The requirements contained in this
section shall not apply to structures or buildings which contain two units or less.
A. I i,c rr s}ui r, mc_nis an~1 restxi.cL i n:: I~crrc~in Colltlii l„ rl :;hall be
illcl.uded in the condominium declaration for the projecL, and filed
of record with the Eagle County clerk and recorder. `l)o condominium
units creates: shall remain in the short term rental market to be
used as temporary accommodations available to the g(-ncr,.l public.
1. An owner's personal use of his unit shall be restricted to
fourteen days during; the seasonal periods of December 15th
through April 15th and fourteen days during June 15th through
September 15th. This seasonal period is hereinafter referred
to as "high season." "Owner's
personal use" shall be defined
as owner occupancy of a unit or nonpaying guest of the owner
or taking the unit off the rental market during the seasonal
periods referred to herein for any reason other than necessary
repairs which cannot be postponed or which make the unit unrentable.
Occupancy of a unit by a lodge manager or staff employed by the
lode, however, shall not be r.estr~cted by this section.
2. A violation of the owncr's use restriction by a unit owner shall
subject the owner to a daily assessment rate by the condomil)iu:n
association of three times a rate considered to be a. reasonable
d, ily rental rate for the unit at the time of the violation,.
~rhi eh r~sss s:;r~ent ~:lic n ci d shat 1 be dcpositc,d in the gencral
fulids of the c01;c3011)1n i L:m .z ,-r,0C:i ;it. i on f 6l' use in upfj-;Ldi ng an,l
x ep.,liring the Common c!'Lc•Illents of the es~ne3c,rni ni i;n,t:. 'A11 sung;
assessed against the owner for violation of the c\,iner's persona].
Ic use restriction and unpaid shall constitute a lien for the benc-
fit of the condominium association on that owner's unit, whicl,
lien shall be evidenced by written notice placed of record in
the office of the cl.erh, and recorder of Eat;].(-,* County=, Colorado,
and which may be collected by foreclosure,. on an owner's condo-
minium unit by the association in like manner as a mortgage or
deed of trust on real property. The condomi.niuir, association's
failure to enforce the owner's personal use restriction shall
give the town the right. 'to enforce the restriction by the
ac-;sessment and the lien provided for hereunder. If the town
enforces the: restriction, the town shrill receive the funds
collected a- result of such enfo1-cc11JU i.. In the c vcii t,
liti.gatic~n r.•esult.s fT.on] thE; enforcrinent of the restric,tion,.
as part of its reward to the prevailing party, the court
shall award such party its court costs together with
reasonable attorney's fees incurred.
3. The Town shall have the right to require from the condo-
minium association an annual report of owner's personal
use during the high seasons for all converted condominium
units.
B. Any locrge located within the.Town which has converted accomo-
ration units to condominiums shall continue to provide custoilliry
Iod;;c: facilities and services including a customa r;; 11-L1-keti,1it;
pro""ram .
A
C. The converted condominium units shall remain available to the
general tourist market. This condition may be met by inclusion of
the units of the condominium project, at comparable rates, in any
local reservation system for the rental of lodge or condominium
units in the Town..
D. The_-cz cn areas of any lodge with converted units shall remain
common areas and be maintained in a manner consistent with its
previous'character. Any changes, alterations or renovations made
to common areas shall not diminish the size or quality of the
common areas.
E. Any accommodation units that were utilized to provide housing
for employees at any time during the three years previous to the date
of the application shall.remain as employee units for such duration
as may be required by the Planning and Environmental Commission or
the Town Council.
F. Applicability: All. conditions set forth within this section
shall be made binding on the applicant, the applicant's successors,
heirs, personal representatives and assigns anu Shall govern the
property which is the subject of tiro application for the life of the
survivor o.f the present Town Counc.i.l plus twenty-one years. Conver-
sion of accommodation units located within a lodge pursuant to this
section, shall be modified only by the written a-rt,~cmcnt of the Town
Council and the owner or owners of the units which have been cr.nvert.c,d
into condominiums. The documents crcati.nn and governing any ?c rc.,!
lotion unit which has barn convertcd into a coiiclom.i.nium shall ho
only v ith the prior wri.ttc,!i
nx,dific_cl by the owners of such units
approval, of the Town Council..
-37
~K
G. Procedure: The -conversion of. an accomn.odation unit in an existin;
lodge shall be accomplished pursuant to the subdivision review process.
The applicant shall provide the following documentation to the Town
at the time of the application to convert accommodation units located
in a lodge to condominium units:
1. Proof of ovinership;
2. Site inventory for the property ir.dicatinb in detail
the actual loca..tion of any amenities serving the
lodge;
3. Affidavit of services provi.(Icd as is called for in sub-
paragraph 2 'above ,
4. Designation and description of all employee units,
5. Plan of improvements t-o be made to the property along wit103.
to
estimated mated costs therefor. (Ord 28, 1982) .17.26.080 Action on preliminary map
A. At the hearing on the preliminary map, th_ oling ~___.~~sion shall consider
whether the proposed conversion is consistent with the following housing goals
of the town:
1. To encourage continuation of social and economic diversity in the town through
a variety of housing types;
2. To expand the s6pply of decent housing for low and moderate income families,
3. To achieve greater economic balance for the town by increasing the number
of jobs and the supply of housing for people who will hold them.
10WO of nail
75 south frontage road
vail, colorado 81657
(303) 476-7000
MEMORANDUM
TO: Vail Town Co ncil Members
FROM: Ron Phillipsl/
Charles Wick (2/,-6,-/
DATE: March 20, 1987
RE: Project Update/Proposal
MARKETING OF VAIL
Requested Council Action: To reconvene the VRA-Town of Vail task
force to determine the specific requested level of
expenditures, the specific funding source(s), the basic
business license structure and address the
administrative/legal questions.
Timeline: Task force proposal to the Town Council by June 2,
1987.
Considerations: Evaluate integration with other projects to
determine whether a new revenue source is needed. Any
adjustments to business license structure needs to be
completed for the 1988 budget.
CONGRESS HALL
Requested Council Action: To proceed with market feasibility,
economic/financial assessment and site/programmatic analysis.
Timeline: Market feasibility to be completed by June 1, 1987.
Other analysis to be completed by August 1, 1987.
PROJECT UPDATE/PROPOSAL MEMO
MARCH 20, 1987
PAGE 2
UNFINISHED PROJECTS
Requested Council Action: Approve the following projects for 1987
to be paid for from the Real Estate Transfer Tax Fund.
PROJECT 1987 PRELIMINARY COST
A. Final Action Plan Development
for Ford and Donovan Parks,
Recreational Path System and
Town Wide Landscaping $30-40,000
B. Buffehr Creek Park Design 3,500
Sandstone Park Re-Design 2,500
Softball Field Improvements Design 3,000
C. Buffehr Creek Park Construction 22,000
Bighorn Park Construction/Phase II 45,000
Softball Field Construction 25,000
Gold Medal Stream Tract/Phase I 6,000
Cascade/Lionshead Bike Path Const. 60,000
1987 Preliminary Total $207,000
Timeline: Complete above projects in 1987.
Considerations: The approval of these projects in 1987 will also
require the funds to be appropriated through a supplemental
appropriation ordinance.
VISITORS CENTER
Council Action: Task force headed by Harry Frampton to study and
recommend visitor's center location, design, size and
feasibility of private funding.
Timeline: Task force proposal to the Town Council by July 1,
1987.
Considerations: A staff person from the Community Development
Department will be assigned to assist the task force.
PROJECT UPDATE/PROPOSAL MEMO
MARCH 20, 1987
PAGE 3
GOLF CAPACITY
Requested Council Action: Request VMRD to complete a preliminary
design for the use of the Katsos property for expanded golf
capacity.
Timeline: Preliminary design to be completed by July 1, 1987.
Considerations: The Town needs a preliminary design completed in
order to determine the impacts a golf course would have on
this property.
PARKING SOLUTION
Requested Council Action: Request the Parking and Transportation
Task Force to examine the long range parking outlook for the
town and to make a report to the Council including
recommendations to future courses of action.
Timeline: Task force report to be presented in conjunction with
final reports on the Congress Hall.
Considerations: The task force needs to evaluate the complete
parking impacts of a new congress hall, of future mountain
expansion and other factors which may affect parking.
AQUATIC CENTER
Requested Council Action: Proceed with the current Phase II
analysis by the Aquatic Center Task Force.
Timeline: Aquatic Center report to be given to the Town Council
in May, 1987.
VILLAGE IMPROVEMENTS
Requested Council Action: Fund the conceptual design (to include
preliminary cost estimates) of streetscape improvements for
the Village in 1988.
Timeline: Upon funding approval the conceptual design could be
completed in three to four months.
PROJECT UPDATE/PROPOSAL MEMO
MARCH 20, 1987
PAGE 4
Considerations: This design work would provide a basis for
establishing an improvement district and also provide a
framework for public improvements to be developed in
conjunction with private sector development projects.
TOWN OF VAIL
PRELIMINARY PROJECT RANKING/RATING
TOWN COUNCIL
MEETING OF 3-10-87
TOP 8 PROJECTS COUNCIL RATINGS
1) Marketing of Vail -4.86
2) Convention Facilityl -4.14
3) Unfinished Projects -4.00
4) Visitors Center -3.57
5) Golf Capacity -1.00
6) Parking Solution2 0.00
7) Aquatic Center3 .40
8) Village Improvements4 .66
Other Projects
Street Improvements 4.00
Alpine Garden 5.00
Transportation Solution 5.00
1 Combination of Answers to Congress Hall, Dobson Arena Phase II
and Continued Studies.
2 Combination of Answers to Parking Structure Addition. to other
Parking Solutions.
3 Combination of Answers to Aquatic Center., scaled down Aquatic
Center, Swimming.Pool and Continued Studies.
4 Combination of Answers to Village Improvements and Village
Enhancements.
5 Council Rating is based on the Weighting of the Priority
Ratings less the number of Council Responses. The lower the
score the higher the rating.
3-20-87
TOWN OF VAIL
PRELIMINARY FUNDING SOURCES
Town Council Meeting of 3-10-87
FUNDING SOURCE&
PROJECT NO. OF SECOND NO. OF THIRD NO. OF
RATING PROJECT PREFERRED RESPONSES PREFERENCE RESPONSES PREFERENCE RESPONSES
1 Marketing of Vail Bus. Lic. Fee 6 Sales Tax 4 Mill Levy 2
2 Congress Hall
Sales Tax(2,3) 5 Bed Tax(2,1) 3
Capital Private. Part. 52
Operating Bed Tax 3
3 Unfinished Projects R.E.T.T. 7
(Does not include cemetery, streets or village improvements)
4 Visitors Center Sales Tax 6 Bed Tax(4,1) 5 Mill Levy 4
(Four responses of sales tax for reallocation of sales tax with mill levy replacement to general fund)
5 Golf Capacity VMRD--Request Preliminary Design of Katsos Property as a Golf Course
6 Parking Solution Dependent on Location and Financing of Convention Center
7 Aquatic Center Dependent upon final studies and scale of project
8 Village Improvements Village Improvement District most likely
1 Direct Private Participation in Funding Would be the overriding funding source on all projects.
2 Combination of Answers for Direct Private Participation and Private Participation through a Special District
for Commerical areas.
3-20-87
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
March 23, 1987
2:30 P.M. Site Visits
3:00 P.M. Public Hearing
1. Approval of minutes of March 9, 1987.
2. A request for a conditional use permit for commercial
storage at the West Vail Mall located at 2161 North
Frontage Road.
Applicant: Vail Mall Joint Venture/Mr. Dave Tyrrell
3. A request for a front setback variance and requests
for conditional uses for a drive-through window and
outdoor dining deck on Parcel A, a Resubdivision of
Tract D, Vail das Schone Subdivision.
Applicant: The Wend Group Partnership
To be 4. A request for a setback variance to add retail space
tabled by to the Lionshead Centre Building located on Lot 5,
applicant. Block 1, Vail Lionshead First Filing.
Applicant: Vail Lionshead Centre Condominium Assoc.
Colorado Association
of Ski Towns
TO: All CAST Members
FROM: Ron Phillips, CAST Secretary
DATE: March 16, 1987
SUBJECT: April 9-10, 1987 CAST Meeting
The next CAST meeting will be held April 9-10, 1987 in Winter Park. The schedule
and agenda will be as follows:
Thursday, April 9
Accommodations: Millers Inn (Please call before April 2 - see attached
information sheet for room accommodations)
Call 726-5313 to make reservations and identify CAST. When
making reservations, please inform Millers Inn of the number of
lift tickets desired for Friday afternoon.
Dinner: Millers Inn (Please call before April 2 - see attached
information sheet for menu selections)
Call 726-5313 to make dinner menu selection and identify CAST.
6:00 p.m. Executive Committee Meeting - Millers Inn
6:30 p.m. Cash Bar
7:30 p.m. Dinner (Cost of dinner will be $20.00/person for those
desiring not to stay at the Inn.)
Hearty souls, Yuppies and partying types will convene at the Stampede for
dancing, drinking and miscellaneous activities. Nick Teverbaugh will make
a bed check at 1:00 a.m.
Friday, April 10
8:00 a.m. Breakfast at Millers Inn
8:45 a.m. Millers Inn bus will depart for the Mary Jane Ski Area for
those desiring not to drive or for those unable to drive.
.9:00 a.m. CAST Meeting - The Winter Park Recreational Association will
host the meeting in the Moffat Room.
A. Mayor Teverbaugh and Jerry Groswald, President of the
Winter Park Recreational Association, will make a
presentation concerning Winter Park's expansion plans.
MEMBER MUNICIPALITIES:
Aspen • Avon • Breckenridge • Crested Butte • Durango • Frisco • Glenwood Springs • Granby
Grand Junction 0 Leadville • Mt. Crested Butte 0 Silverthorne • Steamboat Springs • Telluride • Vail 9 Winter Park
B. Winter Legislative Tour Survey Results - Gary Martinez
C. Summer Legislative Tour Report - Harvey Rose
D. Evaluation of Staff Participation in CAST Meetings
E. Legislative Report
F. Nominating Committee Appointments - Paul Johnston
G. Other
Lunch will be available at the Mary Jane Cafeteria or in one of the private
restaurants.
The Lift (Public Bus System) will transport participants back to Millers
Inn after lunch for those desiring not to ski. Please don't miss the bus
since a 4-mile walk will be necessitated.
Skiers will be transported by to the Inn by the Millers' bus and/or by the
Lift at approximately 4:15 p.m.
RVP/bsc
-2-
!PIT REC'13 JAN 2 6 1987
Ask
Imo- -
YnLLERS INN
P.O. BOX 53, WINTER PARK, COLORADO • 80482 • 303/726-5313 • OUTSIDE COLORADO 800/824-8438
INFORMATION SHEET
ACCOMMODATIONS (floor plans available on request)
LODGE ROOMS hold from 2 to 7 people. Each room has a private bath.
ECONOMY ROOMS are in the Balcony House. Each room has a private bath.
SUITES will bold from 4 to 6 people. Each suite has 2 bedrooms, bath, living area, TV,
refrigerator, and fireplace.
CABINS will hold from 4 to 12 people. The cabins have 1 to 4 bedrooms, kitchenettes, TV,
fireplace, living area and are located on the stream.
CONDOMINIUMS hold 6 to 10 people. Each has 2 bedrooms, a living area and loft, 2 full
baths, kitchen, TV and fireplace.
NOTE. Comfortable, clean, rustic lodge. No two rooms are alike.
BAR open until 9:00 p.m. each evening (8:00 p.m. on Sundays).
CHECK-OUT TL1 IE is 9:00 a.m. If you are skiing the last day you are welcome to leave luggage at the
desk and shower and change before you leave.
FRUIT, SNACKS and a warm fire welcome you in the lounge after skiing.
GAMES, puzzles and cards are available in the office.
MEALS: Breakfast - 8:00 a.m. Dinner - 6:30 p.m.
We serve "family style" and everyone eats together. Meals are served promptly at the times given. If you
come later or there is not enough space at one table for your group, please fill in where ever seats are available
- it's a good opportunity to meet -other interesting people.
NOISE: This Inn is old and sound carries very easily. Therefore, if you are one of those hearty ones who
can ski all day and boogie all night, we congratulate you and ask that you please keep noise to a minimum
after 10:00 p.m. in consideration of other guests.
PHONES: Outgoing calls may be made at any time. Incoming calls go through our switchboard which
is open from approximately 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. If we are unable to reach you or a message comes in
after our office is closed, we will post a message at the front desk. Wake up calls can be arranged with
the front desk.
SHUTTLE BUS is provided to and from the ski area every day.
SKI STORAGE: Ski boots may. be kept in your rooms but we would like the skis and poles to be stored
in our ski storage shed located in the covered walkway in front of the lodge. It will be locked at night.
WHIRLPOOL AND SAUNA: Please do not take soap, shampoo, towels or glass containers into the whirlpool.
Open until 10:00 p.m. each evening.
If we missed something, just ask...we don't mind!
Nick and the entire staff want your stay with us to be pleasurable. This is your vacation and we want you
to have fun! So, please let us know if there is anything we can do to make your stay more enjoyable.
If the staff has served you well... gratuities may be left in your room or at the desk when you pay your bill.
Sincerely,
4i I
P.O. BOX 53. WINTER PARK, COLORADO 80482 303/726-531:1
January 10, 1987
CAST MEETING--WINTER PARK--APRILA-10, 1957
Millers Inn will be your host for lodging and meals during the
- CAST meeting April 9-10, 1987. Millers is one of the Mountain
Inn: of Winter Park: and we thought you would enjoy an option that
is not available in most areas. All of our rooms are different
and we also have suites with two bedrooms and living room and
cabins with two-four bedrooms (see information sheet on back).
The rates include lodging and dinner (see menu below) Thursday
night and breakfast Friday morning as well as taxes and
gratuities and are as follows:
Single Occupancy-------------$70.00
Double Occupancy--------------$5..00/Person
(Two per room or two per
bedroom in suites or
cabins)
MENU
BROCCOLI SOUP
SPINACH SALAD
HOMEMADE BREAD
Choice of Entree
STEAK DIANE
DEEP FRIED NEW POTATOES
ASSORTED FRESH VEGETABLES
or
JAGERSCHNITZEL(Fresh veal with chanterelle mushrooms)
HOMEMADE POTATO PANCAKES
RED CABBAGE
or
TROUT ALMOND I NE
WILD RICE
ASSORTED FRESH VEGETABLES
CHOCOLATE TRIFLE
Please call Millers Inn directly for reservations and choice of
entree (1-726-5013). We're looking forward to seeing you in
April.
Sin,,c//erely,
`u
..Nick: Teverbaugh
Owner /Manager-
UPDATE: 3/17/87
C.A.S.T. MEMBERSHIP LIST
Aspen Bill Stirling, Mayor 130 S. Galena
Robert S. Anderson, Jr., Manager Aspen 81611
925-2020
Avon Allan Nottingham, Mayor Box 975
Bill James, Manager Avon 81620
=949-4280
Breckenridge Steve West, Mayor Box 168
Gary Martinez, Manager Breckenridge 80424
453-2251
Crested Butte Mickey Cooper, Mayor Box 39
Bill Crank, Manager Crested Butte 81224
349-5338
Dillon Florine Raitano, Mayor Box 8
Bill Simmons, Manager Dillon 80435
468-2403
Durango Leonel B..Silva, Mayor 949 2nd Avenue
Bob Ledger, Manager Durango 81301
247-5622
Frisco Rick Backlund, Mayor Box 370
Mark Glover, Manager Frisco 80443
668-5276
Glenwood Springs Dennis Pretti, Mayor 806 Cooper Avenue
Mike Copp, Manager Glenwood Springs 81601
945-2575
Granby Alan B. Carter, Mayor Box 17
Lee Merkel, Manager Granby 80446
887-3750
Leadville Dennis F. Reece, Mayor Box 923
Doug Jones, Administrator 515 E. 8th
Both Leadville 80461
486-0349 -
Mt. Crested Butte Joe Fitzpatrick, Mayor Drawer D
Jim Dean, Manager Mt. Crested Butte 81225
349-6632
Silverthorne Bill Schmidt, Mayor Box 1309
David Varley, Manager Silverthorne 80498
468-2637
Steamboat Springs J. Alan Barbee, Councilmember Box 775088
Harvey Rose, Manager .:Steamboat Springs 80477
879-2060
Telluride B. J. "Chip" Lenihan, Mayor Box 397
Gary Hickcox, Manager Telluride 81435
728-3851
Vail Paul Johnston, Mayor 75 S. Frontage Road
Ron Phillips, Manager Vail 81657
476-7000
Winter Park Nick Teverbaugh, Mayor Box 3327
Box 3904 - 726-5313 Winter Park 80482
Daryl Shrum, Manager 726-8081
NON-MEMBERS
Georgetown Ann MacConnell, Mayor Box 426
Lee Woolsey, Manager Georgetown 80444
569-2555
Grand Junction Stephen'C. Love, Mayor 250 N. 5th
Mark Achen, Manager Grand Junction 81501
244-1511
Grand Lake Gene Stover, Mayor Box 6
Bill Ray, Manager Grand Lake 80447
627-3435.
Gunnison Bob Decker, Mayor Box 239
Dale Howard, Manager Gunnison 81230
641-2444
Manitou Springs Dan Stuart, Mayor 606 Manitou Avenue
Patrick Lynch, Manager Manitou Springs 80829
685-5481
Nederland Hugh Pitzer, Mayor Box 396
Don Morrison, Manager Nederland 80466
258-3284
Pagosa Springs Bill Whitbred, Councilmember Box 265
:Pagosa Springs 81147
264-4151
Poncha Springs Steve P. Hall, Mayor Box 56
Poncha Springs 81242
539-6882
Colorado Muni- Sam Mamet, Assoc. Director Silver State Bank Bldg.
cipal League Jerry Dahl, Attorney 1500 Grant St., #200
Denver 80203
831-6411
N.W.C.C.O.G. Larry Pearson, Exec. Dir. Box 739
Frisco 80445
688-5445
Colorado Ski John Lay, President 1410 Grant St., #A201
Country USA Kerri Shwayder-Greenberg* Denver 80203
Denise Raney 837-0793
Thomas R. H. Glass 110 Lodgepole
Frisco 80443
State Tourism Jerry Groswaid, Exec. Board 5500 S. Syracuse St.,
Board 726-5514 #267
Bill Winkler, Chairman, Advi- Englewood 80111
sory Council - 565-7453 592-5410
Kristin Murphy
* Send information to her attention.
-3-
2 4 i987
Page 12 Chronicle and Pilot February 13,1987
Area officials toy with idea of tram transportation
system between Crested Butte and Mt. Crested Butte
Larkin said that once more it needs to be shut down for
by Mark Reaman
b
maintenance the whole
investigation is done, the costs:
, transportation system would
are pretty "cut and dry. You just
Area officials are looking - 4 u need, come to a standstill unless there
t tell them the length yo
. .
at the idea of a 21st century the vertical rise and how many were some sort of back-up-like
monorail or tram connecting the people you want moved per buses
old fashioned Victorian town of hour, and they can give you a :cam As for a monorail, which is
Crested Butte with the modem - fairly accurate estimate within :i much more expensive than a
is
ski resort area of ML tested five or ten percent" tram, wind does not bother it -
Butte. McDowell said that but ice and snow could hinder
The area transportation positive aspects of a tram its operation. McDowell was
committee is discovering all system include not only its confident there were ways to
sorts of problems with the bus'"
=s : ; efficiency and tourist appeal, take care of the problems
system between the two towns McDowell estimated a
and members do not feel a tram but it is quiet, non-polluting and
has the capacity to move the tram would cost between three
or monorail is out of the Hamp McDowell people. "It would make an Gus Larkin and five million dollars for
question as a repla-......L excellent connection between three or four miles. 'It could be
Aspen is seriously con- _ ----:ttee member and CBMR Crestea Butte, ML Crested deterrents," Larkin said. funded as a private enterprise -
sidering a tram linking Aspen Vice President Gus Larkin, is Butte and the proposed North "As for a monorail, I'm not venture. It could be funded by
and Snowiness and Vail has that it would be a "unique Village." sure if it can handle the steep the public through the towns or
come up with a proposal for an tourist attraction. It could also The biggest problem terrain. The monorails I have it could possibly be funded
area monorail. be more economical than buses appears to be obtaining the seen, such as at Disneyland, run through a consortium of private
"It is a good option for us in the long run;' hesaid. rights of way for such a system. on a flat area;' he said. and public enterprise. For
because the capacity of Gothic "Operating costs should be Cost, as always, is also a hold While CBMR President Ralph example, with the ski
Road cannot increase too much less than in a bus system and a up. "When it comes, it will be a Walton was at Vancouver for corporation and the formation
more;" said committee member tram would last longer than 10 lot of dollars all at once. It is the World's Fair, he was told ofa transit authority."
and Mt. Crested Butte Planner or 12 buses," Larkin explained. not like a bus system where you the three-mile monorail at the "There is no rush,"
Hamp McDowell. 'The "Still, I'm not sure we have can add a bus or two at a time. event was up for sale but Larkin McDowell explained. "With
technology is already there; it enough information to make a There is a large initial is not sure of the current status the Aspen and Vail plans out in
is not exotic" good educated guess about its investment. That plus the "Even if we do utilize a the public, it elevates people's
Among the positive aspects possibilities. It is still just an probability of spending a lot of monorail or tram, there is still consciousness The next step is
of a tram system, according to idea." money for the rights of way are a problem with the termination to get some preliminary cost
points;' he said. "How do we estimates."
transport people once they '7 don't really expect it to
arrive. Those systems can't do come for a long time,' said
everything buses candor' Larkin. "Even though such
McDowell pointed out that things are common in Europe,
high winds would hinder a we just haven't thought it all
~L tram just like a chair lift and it out yet" "
One Day Only
Sat. Feb. 14, ''People movers" gain attention in
Valentine's Day Vail, Aspen, and Park City areas
Vail joins Aspen and Park monorail system from a
Q Cuff City, Utah, bringing to three Washington D.C trans-
y< the number of Rocky Mountain portaton engineering firm
50/o
resorts which are considering They are looking towards a
{ t' rep!--cing bus systems with "people mover system" as an
'people movers". alternative to purchasing six
Insulated Jaekets i Vail is looking at a cable additional buses to accom-
driven monorail to transport modate peak flow.
Pants & One Piece Suits riders from Vail to Lions Head, According to the Vail TnnT
about 1.75 miles one way. Vail the system could cost $15-20
moves about 3 million riders million; but then a in,
As well as other special RED TAGGED ITEMS along this route each year. according to the same article, a
j They presently use 26 buses at new bus in Vail costs $130,000,
GOGGLES peak times. Because they are which is better than double
1 seeing steadily increasing what a Crested Butte bus cost
9 HATS riders as well as congestion, four years ago and the Vail
LONG UNDERWEAR Vail has commissioned a "pre- vehicles probably aren't
feasibility" study on a "designer buses".
SKIER FANNY PACKS,
KIDS MOON BOOTS
(Earth's Best(
ranRA~ 3d9-6656 Herbal Extracts
sEcr Capsule Form Fully Extracted
® J -'A'te At the ski area base Mom have experienced more energy, better health
t and athletic performance.
DEB DIROFF • 349-5145
BOX 282 FOR-LIST OF EXTRACTS AVAILABLE
.I iii. • -lii v..u•w u~ -..a_' .M.rt..,. ...r..... w~.. war r•-.-•..._:.-
TOWN OF SRECKENRID13E
150 SKI HILL ROAD P.O. BOX 168 RECT FEB 2 5 1987
BRECKENRIDGE, COLORADO 80424
TOO SUBJECT CAST FoL-LDC-) -1-1P
tea P1-~~LL~PS
MESSAGE DATE ~2./2aj ~87
LE-m6R L,u•Er~E rn?'~tLE9~ -70 ~l_l. C-C~l-0.
Etom.AIQRS t ND CZ P2ESEs-~ TtVCSC THAov_1pjG'I THErn
FpR AT~'EN O s G TOE L E C5 1'S L AT1 V C k-CL A Q-, A Cb P c~ 0c
"t HE LE EP- kt:) ATf~1C1ACO.
SIGNED
REPLY
GATE
i
I _ SIGNED
OMal fp111 lOD.?1V . Dlilufulf0 Sf Oulll COffOflilO.. 100 S. SCNSSISf 5050 • SIMCOLMSMIff. ILLINOIS 60061 INSITNVCTION. TO Fl.C.I.(..R:
Ww•T. w..l•.., o.1.Cw .lu.. w... wr..T• COw•. w.TUwN w.MM Co.• TO .INO.w
IN111- CTION. TO Bf NO.R:
w.o _ow co_ .....o w .ao w aonu wnw e...oti --CT.
February 20, 1987
vl
Dear Senator V3:
On behalf of the Colorado Association of Ski Towns.(CAST), as well as per-
sonally, I want to thank you for attending the Legislative Tour in Durango
and Purgatory. As an elected official myself, I am well aware of the time
commitment required to be a legislator, which is in addition'-to the--time - -
required for your regular job and family. Thus, it was especially gra-
tifying thatyouu and 32 of your colleagues were able to commit an entire
weekend away from home for the seventh CSCUSA/CAST Legislative Tour.
From my perspective, the primary goal of the tour has always been to fami-
liarize newly-elected legislators and those from other parts of the state
with the unique issues and problems experienced by ski communities and ski
areas, as well as the benefits that accrue statewide from skiing, which
makes up a substantial part of Colorado's tourism business. Hopefully, our
presentations provided you new insights and a better understanding of the
______..ski__J ndustry and our communities. If there are any facts, figures or
clarification which might be helpful to you, please feel free to contact me
and I will see that this information is forwarded to you as soon as
possible.
The most important benefit, however, may be the opportunity for us as local
and statewide elected officials to get to know each other, away from our
everyday environments, and to establish relationships that will improve
communications.
Again, thank you for your interest and please don't hesitate to call me or
any other CAST members you met on the Legislative Tour if you have any com-
ments on how we can improve upon future Legislative Tours.
Sincerely,
Stephen C. West
Mayor
Vice President of CAST
SCW:pb
10WO of Vail
75 south frontage road office of town attorney
vail, colorado 81657
(303) 476-7000
March 19, 1987
Eagle County Board of County Commissioners
c/o Susan Vaughn
Director, Community Development
550 Broadway
Eagle, Colorado 81631
RE: Application for Party Status for the Homestake Phase II
Public Hearings.
At their meeting on March 17, 1987 the Vail Town Council voted
unanimously to apply for party status for the upcoming Homestake
II public hearings to be held April 20th to the 24th, 1987.
Council feels strongly that there would be impacts upon the Town
of Vail that can best be represented at the hearings by the
designation of party status for the Town of Vail. We feel that
our position can best be presented in this manner.
We will be prepared to attend the April 3rd meeting with a draft
of our testi ony and list of witnesses. We appreciate the
County Commi sioners consideration of this application.
Sincerely,
Lar Eskwith, Town Attorney
cc/Vail Town Council Members
Ron Phillips
Peter Patten
i
I~EC' MAR 1 6 1987
NORTHWEST COLORADO
N\XCCOG COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS
409 Main Street. Suite 209 * Post Office Box 739 * Frisco. Colorado 80443 Frisco 303 668-5445
Denver Direct 303 573-7611
MEMORANDUM
To: Headwater Counties and Municipalities
From: Barbara Green
Re: Washington D.C. Meetings
Date: March 12, 1987
On April 7th and 8th, a delegation from Eagle, Grand and
Summit Counties will be meeting with Colorado's
Congressional delegation in Washington, D.C. Enclosed is a
copy of a letter we sent to Senator Tim Wirth explaining our
purpose for the meeting.
cf
. I
Eagle County:Avon, Basalt, Eagle, Gypsum, Minturn, Red Cliff, Vail, * Grand CountrFroser, Granby, Grand Lake, Hot Sulphur
Springs, Kremmling, Winter Park, *Jackson County-Walden, * Pitkin County-Aspen, Snowrnass Village, * Routt County:Hayden,
Oak Leek, Steamboat Springs, Yampa, * Summit County-Blue River, Breckenridge, Dillon, Frisco, Montezuma, Silvfthore
.
NORTHWEST COLORADO
Nwc:z COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS
4 9 Mcrn Street. Suite 2C9 Past U ice a x 739 FnSca Cc!crccj~ * Fra' ~ _
Denver Duec _ i
March 12, 1987
The Honorable Timothy E. Wirth
United States Senator
237 Russell Senate Office Bldg.
Washington, D.C. 20510
Attn: Roxie Wilpez
Dear Roxie:
A delegation from Eagle, Grand and Summit Counties is
scheduled to meet with you on April 7th at 3:30 p.m.. The
purpose of the meeting is to familiarize you with West Slope
impacts associated with Two Forks and Williams Fork water
projects, to discuss inadequacies with the draft Dcny.r
Metr__o.p.4._1ita_n.._Wa_ter.. Su.p'p.1.y....._Enyzrcnmenta.....Inpaq~ _ Sta men t.
.
nd to explai_n our position regarding the 404 permit
(EIS), an'd'-'_t-o-
decision. As you know, over 605% of the firm annual yield of
the Two Forks project would be supplied by diversions from
Grand and Summit County rivers and reasonably foreseeable
future projects would divert hundreds of thousands of acre
feet of water from Eagle County. The only protection from
impacts associated with these projects is afforded by the
Federal Clean Water Act. Consequently, the Counties are
very interested in seeing that the NEPA process and 404
permit process are implemented appropriately.
Below is a summary of our agenda:
1. Impacts to Headwater Counties: Two Forks and Williams
Fork Projects
a. Reduction of water quality in Dillon Reservoir
(increase in concentrations of phosphorus and
chlorophyll a concentrations in average and wet
years).
b. Elimination of white-water rafting on the Blue and
Colorado Rivers (and associated reductions in
tourist dollar revenue).
Eagle County-Awn, Basalt, Ecgle, Gypsum, Mintt rn, fled Ciff, Vcil, * Grand County.Freser, Grant?y C_rcnd Ldke. Hat Sulphur
Sprngs, Kremmling, Winter Pcrk, *Jackson County:Walden, * Pitkin County-.Aspen, Snomrc ss village, * Routt CountyHcyden,
Ock Oeek, Stecmbeat Springs, Yampa, * Summit County:Blue RNer, &eckenndge, Dillon, Frisco, Montezuma, SiX e<ttiane.
C. Impacts to junior water rights due to higher
frequency and duration of "call conditions" at
downstream locations.
d. Loss of deer and elk habitat in the Williams Fork
basin.
e. Water quality degradation in Blue, Fraser and
Williams Fork Rivers with potential higher water
treatment costs for ammonia removal.
f. Potential loss of fisheries below Green Mountain
Reservoir due to drastic stream flow reductions in
wet years (flows reduced from approximately 90
c.f.s. to 14 c.f.s.).
2. Major Inadequacies of the Draft. _EI_S
a. Incomplete discussion of water quality impacts in
the Fraser River; no discussion of impacts zc
water treatment.
b. Confusing, inaccurate and incomplete discussion of
socioeconomic impacts (e.g. effect on local
communities associated with loss of recreation
opportunities and agricultural land).
C. Inaccurate population figures used to demonstrate
demand for a large Two Forks.
d. Confusing and incomplete discussion of cumulative
impacts and alternatives.
3. Comments on the 404 Permit Process
Proponents of the. project have spent millions of
dollars in preparation of the EIS yet very little of
that expenditure has been focused on West Slope
analysis. Summit County has endorsed the concept of
East Slope storage but the headwater Counties cannot
support issuance of the Two Forks or Williams Fork
permit unless all impacts on the West Slope have been
properly addressed in the EIS and mitigation plans have
been carefully analyzed. The Army Corps of Engineers
_ should be encouraged to take whatever additional time
may be required to ensure a complete and accurate EIS.
A permit issued in haste based on incomplete data can
only lead to litigation and unnecessary delays.
We all look forward to meeting with you in April. We will
be showing a five minute video presentation, and we would
appreciate having a video monitor available when we meet.
Sincerely,
Barbara Green
General Counsel
BG:cf
cc: Eagle County and Municipalities
Grand County and Municipalities
Summit County and Municipalities
. j y
9=11 o I t•1 0 VA 11110144
1A
4
r
CO Zo 0 /-PO
Vail Trail Editor
935 S. Frontage Road WK.
Vail, CO 81657
1e Editor;
Recent. l.::! I read an l ad in I the Vail Trail that in very
bold letters t• the
Vail +'r': i.l l h' a Medical Center makes 'k•f'1e claim
"First care, j-•Irli='I'I we care you". wish to differ with
t}•};1t ad a.ft•en my r"+`'cM=•nt• visit to •f:•f'e +'+r+l' C. I was Walled A.
the t•r"ea.t•Cil+3nt• that I recieved and the behavior of the staff'
there.
First 1:.•h Pf: oP l in Radiologg lost the orders that the
i.l+")ct'or., had Phoned into them for some relatively simPle tests.
Then ! when I 1. w+=%'!"1't:. 'f,.+°:+ admissions to make arrangements Cot,
billing with 't:•hr:•m I I.!.a.s informed that they would not Provide
F'I''''!ri+:;k's to me unless my iti.!.:lt1r.n were life ti'"Irk:'clat•ing as I
_
am •a. r'•+-'+;;iP ient; of Medicaid, due to an in.Iur"'u that I reci*.'vt:d
in 'l•:.f°e Vail + •1.l I.!_'':! aPProximateig two Years ago.
}e+..a.1.isH' of (11'_I excessive medical costs, aPProximatelg
$300,000 to date and the fact that my health insurance
comP a.Y'I'_1 had cancelled rile: I am forced to take Medicaid from
the State of Colorado to cover my medical bills.
Tf"I+.,_a11 Proceeded cProceeded to tell Cie that tf~ eg would oiuld not, take rimy
h1
I'1~~~Jicaid [.1ca.1.!.-•e Medicaid dMedicaid would only Pas them if rig it.•1,1at•7.i;n
were life thr"'e•a,t,i'1"1'-1, which is .x.'11 out right deliberate lie and
in r;`'i•^ie'('I+_e told me th.a,t because I do I`t have sufficient funW.-!.
to Pan fil'_a own (il+•:ri:17.ca.l bills, and that I have to take Medicaid
from the State of Colorado, that. I am .a. second class
t citizen.
They t:•f"Ik:n Pr''or.:+=•eded to tell me that my tests need to be
:i mme+;l i. a.te1 q . which they did, that I should get into my
truck and drive to 1_Ie1"Iver"•, (whi+_f`I I tr''1.lel'a believe is an
u'I'nd1.!.e f' I•a.r''d:-f"IiP on .a.n::aEJo+;1'd in need of medical care).
I aril u i.'t e 1.!.F':: et• at this behavior having been a resident
.
of t1.1+-; Vail Valley for mans Years Paid taxes here for
mans gears. SC;+(ile of which have gone to fund the VVMC an the
Premise that then wish to imProve the quality of Patient care
for the residents and visitors of the Vail Valley. But
because I •a m •a. Medicaid r' e c i P i a n t. I'm .a, second class citizen
(and a P P a.rent l'a in their eyes) therefore 'riot entitled to the
same medical care that tl"IC'1se who can Pas for it themselves or
have Pri.vat.e health insurance.
E'.!! !'a1ls I think that treat F'+-•,:+r' 1+.: that
Lthey should r-.-
with much dignity and
f f 1F-•:.,,;r.-' Medicare and Medicaid as .
resPect as Possible, because as we all know being forced to
,..F::'+..ak17. 1
take t'1Far:~+1+.:•a''f~'! I'Itcta.7.+'.~, +='1:.%y can 1.:4*.' degrading e':+.'1''M=r•''7.*•!-IcC.
bom
. " they embarrassed - (w'~l+_: a.n greatly when I went
(~!ta,r"•t"•.=1,'::•":.,_'+..7 and degraded (•1
:x.11+..1
in a tt.emP t:L Y1'-a to receive medical care.
,r~'7.! ! fi I resident, Vail,
in ! ! my 1,.! ..I I having I::.._r! a long 1.:11'::4 term the
Valley Medical r•._:f::%nt: er°' has breeched their Public duty to the
residents a.nd visitors of the Vail Valley by failing to
Pt'•'+°.x''11+:1e ru'..{II.al medical c•=4.r"'F:: for Al.._L._, _ because they don "t
care to have to W.-, and collect medical bill's from :•h State
of Colorado for those of I_I,`_. who are unable a.'.:4 their
medical bills tl'-Ierrl:::el''1e::. as well as settle for •-4'Rr <:i.a.ma.{' el!.4
05 i:F_•'I{. an the dollar, which is the t:at.r~..that which Medicaid
also might add that anybody tt'!•:a.ts been inhured on
I, ori comP _I'l`d has t'``:+'..:rc',ided t•'•I+ar"'I{.5+1an comP maximum medical benefits ,'i•}' $100,000.00 is is then Put on Medicaid of
which 7. c_!.'!I believe t(...!er"•e have been (il•::1.•I"Iy f'1+:1'''e in {.;.he al I.eg .
It (il'_•a belief that because +'+'I•• their breech of their
Public duty that not only should the Town of Vail 5 •4J. sP4''nd :a.Yly
Possibility of future funding to : VYM?=:! but all
„ Private :ii°.:F~~''t:~-: that l•"a' beet making
aorgaorganizations organizations and organizations and have Private donations to , . t' : should also °•I.~.:. '•r d
the n ~
contributions to the V+';+t'!r_. until such time that theg have
a. ` P 1. -4.'_a +-i d an ,';t!= ,":'j', and t;;.r`••ue l g honest effort to Provide quality
medical cc!.I:.e ;_;r°• ALL the residents of the Vail. Valley
regardless of their financial
7 have also 4 1 P on doing some checking with the State A,'
Colorado found .:h.',!,'._. if the 111.: continues to fail to Provide
t'1 ~ i r" i P i '1 1-l:• on , an needed basis
to .r... , ~::+.ir.:.=!.i.;: r. ~ of that the
services
funding that t•:h ~,'+','1!.: r"'+°+~.1+~'''it~c.. tr',~!m the State +.+'f• h_.!_+lor"'•7do and
the Medicaid Program .a. of May 1. • t, ! 1987, will be dr-• am•:? t i c l !-a
decreased.
T. believe that •i f the , t 1r_: 4,)11.1. not resPond the
citizens or the State of Colorado directly then maybe the
folks •a.{". 't.•1-!+.' V ',Ill..; will r' •e_,P+_t•,"1+:1 to •a. Pinch in their Pocket..
I:!r!+:k l•'.+'.:4 a r"•e+:a41.+::1;1.+:n i.'!"! contributions from citi.::'_+=••i's t;l..l•'li_ feel.
Public consciousness enough and Goverment funding, that they understand that sometimes Pe+..!I" l e ._I,r"'!„• f!.+I'"'ce+a into situations
(i.e. taking Medicaid) that they rk=' `1 l l g don't want to j k:++_: in
but t they have any choice.
&_Yl rI
cc 'a. i.1. Town Council
''r'a.i.l D-4.i 0,4
Vail Valley Medical Center
tEC'0 MAR - 5 1987
J. NICHOLAS MCGRATH, P.C.
ATTORNEY AT LAW
600 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE
SUITE 203 AREA CODE 303
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 TELEPHONE 925-2612
March 4, 1987
Larry A. Eskwith, Esq.
Town Attorney, Town of Vail
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, CO 81657
Re: Eagle County--Highland Meadows
Dear Larry:
Thank you for clarifying in our telephone conversation
that the tone I read from your letter of February 17, 1987
was not the tone you intended. I appreciate that Vail does
want to work something out, and assure you that is my
understanding of the position of Eagle County. We will
certainly want to review your letter and proposed factual
corrections. Perhaps someone from the Eagle County planning
staff can contact Vail's planning staff directly: after all,
who issued what building permits is something that the two of
us ought to be able to agree upon, even if we might
subsequently disagree as to the consequences of those
actions.
The Eagle County planning staff, attorney, and I will be
reviewing your letter and additional factual information with
the Board of County Commissioners, and will get back to you
or the Town of Vail after that is accomplished.
I would appreciate it if you would circulate a copy of
this letter to those who received a copy of your February 17
letter, so that we can start on a more positive note in
resolving these issues.
Thanks once again.
Sincerely,
J. Nicholas McGrath, P.C.
12:eaghm3O4•ltr
10WH of nail
75 south frontage road
vail, colorado 81657
(303) 476-7000
MEMORANDUM
TO: Vail Town Council
FROM: Steve Barwick ,1-CCU'
DATE: March 18, 1987
RE: Financial Reports
Since we have now reached the middle of March, 1987 without a
report on the outcome of the 1986 fiscal year, I am sure each of
you has wondered about the cause for the delay. In a nutshell,
the delay is due to problems with the old computer system and the
illness of our primary auditor. These problems have been dealt
with and the auditors now estimate that a preliminary set of
financial data will be available by the middle of April. If this
is true, I should be able to present the year end report to you by
the end of April..
On a positive note, it appears that substantial gains in fund
balance occurred in several funds. Most notably, the General Fund
should show a fund balance increase of $400,000 or more primarily
due to lower than expected insurance costs and increased
construction fees.
The normal monthly and quarterly reports on current year revenues
and expenses will continue as soon as our new computer system is
operational. These reports should be available on a regular basis
no later than May.
Thank you for your patience.
SHB/ds
REH MAR 1 2 1987
10 March 1987
Mr. Ron Phillips
Town of Vail
75 S. Frontage Road
Vail, CO 81657
Dear Mr. Phillips:
On behalf of the Vail Community Chorale, we gratefully acknowledge your
generous gift of $500.00 toward our costume fund. We are nearly out of the
red on this project and we couldn't have done it without the help of the Town
of Vail.
Regarding your question about performing in the summer, we would be very happy
to sing at any Town of Vail functions. In the past we have presented programs
at the 4th of July festivities at Gold Peak (through VRA), and as street
musicians for several years at the Festival of the Arts (through the Eagle
Valley Arts Council). If there is some particular festival or event, we would
like to know in advance so that we can prepare appropriate music. As I
mentioned in my previous letter, our summer music repertoire is limited and
we need to purchase additional music. With advance notice, we can arrange to
fund that.music purchase.
We welcome the opportunity to be of continued service to the Town of Vail
through our music. We thank you for your support and look forward to a long
and happy association.
Best regards,
Betty J. undgren
Secretary
Vail Community Chorale
P.O. Box 647
Avon, CO 81620
949-5289 (h)
476-1972 (o)
i
Y`'{iT+11 Y}N, .'ir{~ t~'~~j~4 'J.'<,'k l+ Y4 ~.t kj,~`l 'ry4{{~i* IY'h{`nF x~1L is ~'~~•$^~~tV~ ,J(' ''t.5'~, I,f u}'F
1
' } l t, t y ~ =^`4. ,y 51 d~+S (1 ~,wx Et L•',fp ,fist ~ ~ ~ 'f. ! 4,.2 ~ Nt,~ )y x ~ ~ e7 l 7.
,1" ~E:~~4 tt it~ ~ E~ a a'.. ~P~ S~v4~'~C,~~ ^z?,~ 1's~ s~'".~z~sr ~?kM . ,~r-?~ ry7 ;'+r stt- iTRj ~ tt t s r
v ~1t~AI:y,Donl Miss An Evening With Tom Brokaw
tt: I5 i i 4 N
~t
} 719}4'~
\ ~P ((t17 [rY7 j, Y~"~ {}xt r''[x sg •M~t11e.:FatC.r}ijlt''.fFytrJjSt{ 7r2Fy."r°tr d ~Z, rl'~C•{•``.g I4~ sLL.
r.A s. 11 BF t x4 a } { vt 1 f{.w a1 5 / tt4t 37;~{.(tS t~ 'r
14sPa Y +i l~yt7 dr ~1 sk ~`rt h c.,~,r~.,P r s x't xrt
w~x~ti r+. Yes 2~~~~r~f t t {~pr ~~Et~ "#'.s fir '1 ?yv t}'I r:~ ~5f ri~t~
' ,T ! '}t t'.'r •''w I~ j., PyF P~,! S .x:; it '.S n v f r 'ja 't' r } ~ 7?~y, 4 ~ `4 J: } t ~~~444~ AA t R A A
'Where: The Westin Hotel at Vail
f ~ ,G l ~ { •~i4 a. 1 4V ~ r tl{~ '7gqAS nc. sy {O ~
Ott { , : h. - , .s \ 'c t ! nr r `Y~ F r`r44hi'tit''S 't,,s.~~CJ
~i When. Saturday evening, April 4'. 198. 21 00
t 4 t'' wa! 1;~k3' 5
m ~t~~ ~'rttig°
r?{ " Casli Bar: 6:30 p.m Dinner: 7000.
•ti r, , f •''?r rat ; , ,~rsr, , . r x~r7 `h v~-t~afi~'
The Scoop: Mr. Brokaw will discuss "Challenges in the `80's m
relation to mass communication". He will
+ speakingtoDenver's EmmyOrganization andthe,
'Vail public is invited to attend.
The Cost: Tickets are $47.50 per person and are available atthe s
Westin Hotel's front desk. Cash local checks and
;credit cards will be accepted. Tickets must be
''':purchased no later than March 31, and are available
r on a limited basis. Call theVail Resort Association for ' r
~ , more information, 476-1000.
r } 7
i
ENMKI
Page 22-A The Aspen Times March 12, 1987
'edi -i - o-ria
Acqxol
k 4 L
wF yy,_ -t
sales taxW.election
may be saved
f ? 'p,
after near:Ioss
Never has the pettiness of Aspenites, includ-
ing city council members, ;been morp.4pparent
than during the first, two of three marathon
council sessions. this week.
Although few denied the benefits of a new
recreation complex and improved nordic trail,
maintenance, many opposed sending a sales
tax question to the voters Opposition was not , .
to the recreation proposal, but to the fact that It consists of a generic ordinance calling for a
other needed capital. improvements like a per- May 5 vote on a one-cent sales tax hike to b*
forming arts center and parking garage were - 'allocated to "recreational, cultural and public -
not included. facilities plus a resolution creating eight'
r
Despite several compromises being offered _ballot questions for the May 5 electioh,`the first
during the meetings .'Monday 'and Tuesday, of which asks approval for a one percent; sales
i none pleased all three members of the council.: tax, while the next three ask approval to issue
majority who favored the tax hike, or residents - $5 million in sales tax revenue bonds'for 'a'
who felt money should also be allocated for a recreation complex, $5 million fora performing
performing arts center or a parking garage. arts.-complex and $4 million fora parking
By their insistance on participating in re- tgarage. . `i_ s;;'~
venues from the tax ordinance, promoted by ~ -;A_ £In.4ddition,•:one of the other questions asks. _
backers of the recreation complex, they almost; 4 voter approval, for sale of the existing ice gar- s
stymied, not only.the r chances of sharing in a }den in order to ,`,'facilitate development Wu d
May tax increase election; but the sales tax multi-use recreational facility1 ' -
ballot question itself. If the council majority can retain its:resolve• .
i Members of the council were no better: They and adopt the ordinance, numbered 13, on final
entered Monday's meeting with a clear major- reading at the.April 2 special meeting at'which
ity in favor of a sales tax hike to finance the fit is to be considered again, and also adopt the
i recreation complex and/or other capital im-'- ballot question resolution, as promised, local''
provements, but almost destroyed it by their" voters may get the chance to vote for the ame- -
bickering,- vacillation: Arid inability--to com-_ :unities Aspen needs and which will help :'our
promise during the first two meetings. 6s it retain'its position as one of the finest:in.
It appeared at the end of-Tuesday's session f the world.
that Mayor, Bill Stirling, who steadfastly The council majority will deserve our com--
opposed any_ sales tax increase and orated ; `mendation; rio matter what the voters decide;,f
F
against it and for more,study of alternatives at pit does.'
each session, would win the day by his resolute- =''`'=J - hness. ,yf ' :311 r
If he had, the community,' which now has . :
built-up a momentum for financing improve-,
ments, would have been the loser. Luckily,,.
j Assistant City Manager Ron Mitchell proposed
a compromise solution after Tuesday's meeting
that pleased not only the"council majority, buC ;1;
also the various community factions.
1
_ "7
;..March 12;-1987,, The. Aspenjimes'•'!Pase3,A
ou nci i
n~ds;, sales-_ _ r
ax" so u ton,77
z
by Bil Dunaway used to help build the recreation reading, but he would prefer to Ordinance 4 without a new whined about high.' sales; taxes . .
It took several hours and much complex. have anew ordinance adopted on, noticed hearing. being applied only in the city and
bickering at three separate meet-. Ordinance 4, which called fora first reading because of the mag- When representatives of the not the county, without adequate
•-,'ing- this week; but Aspen's city half cent sales tax increase and .nitude of the change. ~ MAA (Music Associates of Aspen) notice'or' discussion;.the`cofincil ~U
council majority arrived atacom- ' had been approved on first read During disucssion that fol- and Ballet West again com- was commended by.Les Anderson,
'
promise sales tax hike toplace be ing at the February 23 meeting, ,slowed, a motion by Stirling to re- plained that the ordinance was representing the Joint Facilities
fore city voters on May 5. was scheduled for second reading ject Ordinance 4 was defeated, a " too vague about a fund allocation Committee and the MAA, and. by
It involved adopting a new ordi- : and public hearing Monday.motion by Isaac to amend Ordi- ` for the performing arts, while the Martin Kahn for the Recreation
nance imposing a one cent sales However, at Monday's hearing nance 4 to one percent for general council could not agree what to do, } Center Committee.
'tax increase for "recreational; it was greeted not only by another capital improvements was re- "'the meeting and ordinance were With Collins absent the com- 4
cultural and public facilities,'.'oration by Mayor Bill Stirling jected and a motion by Stirling to . again continued until. Wednesday promise ordinance was adopted
and a promise to adopt a resolu- against sales taxes, but also by continue the hearing until March "evening. by a three-to-one vote,' with'Pat ' .3
tion placing funding for specific concerted opposition from repre-..' 23 was seconded, but withdrawn As all motions concerning the Fallin, Tom Isaac and Charlotte
projects on the ballot. sentatives of the arts groups and. when Isaac said he would be out of sales tax ordinance, the one to Walls voting approval and Bill
The facilities mentioned in the advocates for a parking structure. '!town at that session. ` continue the meeting'until Stirling voting no. '
ordinance, numbered 13, were, For almost three hours Monday Finally, after more bickering Wednesday 'was contested by In addition, the council major-
further described: "such as, but and another two hours Tuesday among council members, a motion Stirling and Charles Collins. ity. set April 2 as the date for
not limited to, multi-use re- evening,- after Monday's hearing by Pat Fallin to amend ordinance After Tuesday's session assis- second and final consideration a
,
creational, performing arts and : had been continued, some resi- 4 to add another half cent to the tant city manager Ron -Mitchell and promised to adopt the resolu- 14
parking facilities, including re- dents stressed the need to either half cent proposed for a recreation proposed his compromise, which' tion describing the ballot ques- :,k,
creational and cultural programs,-:postpone action on the half cent complex to fund capital improve had also been.suggested several tions and funds to be allocated for
capital improvements, capital ex- tax hike or increase it to one cent.,--- ments, including a performing,, 'weeks ago -in an Aspen Times the various projects.
penditures, land acquisition and and include a parking center and/; warts. center; parking structure;',.:: editorial, to council members, Since this is the second sales
general. operating purposes or a parking garage.. :land acquisition, and others.;r who asked that it be prepared by . tax ordinance approved on initial .
The promised resolution would Others including a high school Amendment Written r the city attorneys office for the ''reading by the council, and since
;;.have eight ballot questions, one of student with a petition with 153 Prepared by the city attorney Wednesday session. council members have been per-
-.;-which would ask voter approval names, said they did not care if while the council continued with suaded to change their minds in
for a one cent sales tax, and four of the council increased the tax to other business Monday, the- : Wednesday Meeting the past, no one can be certain s
which would ask for related pro- . one cent, but wanted it to adopt amended ordinance was opposed' Wednesday Stirling again that the tax increase will go to the .7
ject funding. - something with financing for the as too vague by some performing voiced his concerns with increas- - voters until after the April 2
In these four questions voters ice rink and swimming pool arts adherents, and, after addi ing taxes, accused the council of meeting.
would be asked to OK use of $5 building. tional wrangling, tabled by the going "absolutely berserk ...a Some of the other people ex-
million in sales tax revenue bonds One Cent is OK council until a continued meeting while citizens argued over pro- pressing themselves at one or to finance a recreation complex; After listening to the many Tuesday. jects the council raising taxes more of the three meetings were
$5 million for a performing arts statements, the council seemed Tuesday Session like Santa Claus to give everyone Clark Smyth, Jon Busch, Sy Cole-
center, and $4 million for a park- willing to increase the sales tax Tuesday, Mayor Stirling again what they want and urged man, Martin Flug, Bill Perich,
ing garage, by one cent, but could not agree on, orated and Aspenite Mary Martin more study. Richie Cohen, Les Anderson, Tam
how to word an ordinance amend- whined against increasing sales However, the council and back- Scott, Bryan Kelleher,, Walter.
Ice Garden Sale ment. taxes, and Taddune repeated his ers of arts and the recreation faci- Ganz, Jeff' Bentley, Jim Curtis,
Another question would ask vo- City Attorney. Paul Taddune preference for a new ordinance as lities all expressed approval of the Bill Martin, - and several others `
..ters to approve a future sale of the explained they could amend ordi- opposed to facing possible prob proposed compromise. who did, not announce :,their
exis n
ting ice garden if proceeds are . nnance 4 and adopt it on second lems from such a major change in Although Mary Ma n
r, rti'again ;'ames.
Page 10-A The Aspen Times March 5,1987
3
on Busch
i ;
they-are,looking:at some sort ot:" .'4x Vail too is looking at sales tax
i s: < r
;F x ;Sky Tram. 'increases 'to fund their wish list of'
k.-.
k~. They are looking at a mayor ex- . lmproveme`nts and amenities..
pansion of their lee Arena for 1.4 They are also exploring improve-
g--million :,and a -municipal swim= s ~ment district and increased prop-
) 14.°.:.r.V~ •i - :.'y. `~v4 ~ . .i..
. fining complex -at .$5 ,million.' erEy tax revenues..
` i x `''Aspen of 'cou`rse i"s`about to allow"' '"'Aspen, like Vail, lias an exten-
ail citizens voters to choose whether to fund a sive wish list some of which might
study amenities 7.5~million recreation cente'r.t;;;beconsidered essential, andsome
(swimming, icetskating, gymna just nice to have. The problem I
Each week this paper `pub- siuin)`with sales`tax'dollars. z-see here is an apparent piecemeal
dishes a column titled Resort Re- Vail is considering a.4. million ryapproach being taken by our City
port. Whi le many of us may gloss . ~d'ollar expansion of their Village leaders. There are only a few ways
over this item, thinking it some ',x'parking 'structure.. Aspen's plan of coming up with additional pub-
sort of Chamber of Commerce ners have formulated a plan to lic funds, and in the case of sales
hype about what's going on in our address our off street parking tax, there is a maximum of only
town, it is not - and it should, in needs through a timed series of one penny available.
tact, be essential reading for those parking structures. At this point Is funding of a recreation cen-
of us who live and work here. Re- it appears that our City Council ter, primarily a nice thing for loc-
sort Report is a briefdigestof hap- wishes to fund a facility here als, most appropriately funded
penings at other Colorado, ski re' through property taxes, as they through sales tax? Is it a priority
v sorts. x n have been deaf to placing this for the well being of our resort? At
Fritz Benedict`prow.ided me ` ; issue before voters on an equal best we who live here can only
With a very interesting-article re= ,<<<footing."with the, recreation give an incomplete answer be-
cently from the February 13 Vail center. : ? cause we are given no choice
Trail. Titled "Citizens tell what.;grail i even considering im- through the ballot question as it is
projects they think are best or provemen'ts to'their `Town Hall presently worded. Certainly this
Vail", it outlined subjects :to be; '-much as Aspen`leaders.have been is to the liking of recreation cen-
addressed at a series of public`.; ;,pushing for renovation of our City ter promoters. By not allowing vo-
meeting scheduled by.the T9wnt_4._, Hall. While we might be ahead of ters to choose from among op-
Council. : SV.ail in some respects (Vail is tons, their project automatically
According to Mayor Johnston, :considering softball fields, bike assumes highest priority.
the aim of the meetings is to hear paths and golf course improve-;; _;-Council -would better serve the {
what' citizens want and to decide ments), the parallels between the „community by giving voters the
what Vail should do "to keep two communities at this time are choice of funding by sales tax in=
ahead of the pack". On the table uncanny. t_•,11:9l:•-crease or through property tax in-
are more than 42 million in possi- There is one major difference crease.. They should allow voters
ble community improvements.- though, and that is that Vail is opportunity to address priorities
How surprising, and even discon-:: !asking its citizens to tell them 'by, at the least `placing a sorely
certing to see that Vail is talking ' their priorities: While in fairness v needed parking structure on the
about so many of the very things I must remind you that Aspen ballot with funding options.
which are currently under consid- went through a similar process a I do not relish Council's position
eration in Aspen. 'couple of year's ago; there has right now. I too was part of a spe-
Vail is looking at replacing its been no recent update. An update cial interest group last year. I
- existing bus route between Vail of community goals is in order. A wanted the `old popcorn wagon
Village and Lions =Head with a': local special interest group has '-site set.aside as a town square.
"people mover" monorail system. - lobbied hard and long for their pet ~ Clearly voters preferred a- build-
While this particular article did project - a major recreation ing on the corner. It is very diffi-
not go into detail, it appears that center. cult to resist pressure groups.
our readers s eak= 7
m
we should have done? has initiated constructive solu= town but on what amenities are `best`resort town in-the United
s aspen amen hies.:-, i we know that there is a park-, tions in anticipation of their prob- offered. States.
pro
ing problem in Aspen: Vail has lems and their economic growth; Point The Private Clubsr I'. The Volk property was 'put on
Editor: solvgd theirs' And that we need to do likewise: have worked 'at three of those the ballot for open space and that
i There are two issues,,that I- ""2 We know that the present ice Tht is why we elect our officials clubs -simultaneously, at three'- did 'not even address the fun-
would like to address: °=:`skating facilities and pool area so that we have individuals who pools. I stall could not accommo- damentals. of what can keep
Issue 1 -Taxes.. We:-are, all a pose hazardous conditions which are prepared to foresee and plan date all of the people who wanted Aspen in the forefront.-.Even with
'aware of Mayor's `Stirling.'s:.could foreseeably subject the city for the growth and viability our swimming, lessons. One of the . my nominal salary, Lwould be
genuine concern with not raising of Aspen to a potential multi- town and our futures. i club owners stresses that the happy to pay' an extra. cent. be-
:the city of Aspen's'taxes: •No onemillion dollar liability suit. Points to consider: Will Asperclubs cannot make money yet he, cause it is preserving.my,future in
likes taxes. In certain econortiic Vail has not only a spectacular be willing to sacrifice the groups is still in operation. I know for fact-:- this town. =
;times, taxes are the most prudent ice skating rink and swimming that we have so painstakingly rGhat-one of theclubswasmakingati Respectfully submitted,
;approach to the management of pool but they also have plans to cultivated over the years because ; hefty profit until bad manage- Toni Kronberg
foreseeable practical expenses build a three-pool facility to meet we are not functional? ' ment stepped in at which point it Aspen, Colo
.that the city wil l need to be frnan-. Vail's growing needs. They antici- Dick Butera pointed out that; was sold, _
cially responsible for. pate to generate generous re- the Aspen Skiing Company was' ; Conclusion: The, voters should
Is it not true that if we look with venue from these new additions. behind the times because they, did 'have"an, opportunity to decide if
foresight into the future of Aspen 3-,As for the ;Performing Arts not 'take the risk and invest ini ;they want a tax, increase to fund
that we will need a Capital Im- Cente'r,:= so .much of:,our lodge j,Ytheir'mountains with functional these needed facilities..
provement• Budget that 'ene'om' districf, retail; stores, ,dining Nand profitable technology that
j';
` ;passes such facilities as a parking establishments aria income to `-'''would continue to keep tourists These projects are not whimsic-
garage,.a recreational center and workers depends on the summer coming back to Aspen. The Silver _ gal ideas. They all will eventually
a performing arts center. How are trade' that ;is. produced by the Queen is one of the best things; need,to be~built..I suggest that at
we going to generate enough re- jMusic 51Festiva1; the ballet, the that has ever happened to Aspen, lthis`time''=let the voters decide if
venue to fund all of these projects? arts;:'the Given Institute and-the Why it was only this week that they want to'.preserve and take
Ultimately, the source of revenue,- :Center for, Humanistic Studies. there was talk of Vail negotiating: ;the necessary`steps to.build some
will be taxes. Vail has a performing arts cen- to host the prestigious downhill.' resources that will make their fu- '
Issue 2 - Viability. of Aspen's' ter in the Carlson area near the Can we afford to lose such events?i ture more secure and stable.
Economy. We are all aware that Westin Hotel.) + It's sure that the voters of
Aspen has three problems: park-' Why am I comparing Aspen to. Point - People want to'get. 'Aspen will be responsible for'im-
ing, recreation and performing Vail? Is it because we want to be- their money's worth. They do not: plementating this tax but it will
arts facilities. When.will Aspen --come like Vail. No, it is because decide where to spend their vaca be all of us that will contribute to
and.our.town fathers real ize.what we need,to.understand that..V.ail.....tions based.on.the sales tax in.thel.. maintain.and- make.' Aspen-.the-a
DEooEre- Past
• : iii. F,.:{ f u ' r - - f
REAL ESTATE r, r,
~e.
e - takes: a-
t w-:o'ik
M EL
StAht .
By Gail L. Pitts.' Tfie information that is avails--~ -
Denver Post Business write. able typically to the vacation :prop- ~ e lJi k . (~l~ 7
A new vacation property market- - erty .purchaser is not. a§. complete i
'i
g technique that gives .city dwell- as it should be," he said.
ers a look at distant :resorts ma. So. Barlow and, Ha strum: be an
y..... g . g . ho"
-,,ppi,n
help to boost the sagging real es setting up regional sales": offices in
tate market in Vail. Minnesota and Wisconsin and ere' r
Through Vacation Properties.ated the-first resource center in S
Network, people in Minneapolis, `Bloomington, Minn:;:a Minneapolis
Chicago, Milwaukee and Detroit 'suburb. NETWORK from Page 3-B.
who have a yen to own a home or . At the -end of last year, they ;ex "
condo in the Vail Valley can view a panded into northern Michigan and For the first two months of the
cross section of the market without Vail: when' they. bought :Ski and year, traffic at the Minneapolis
`center is running about30' petcest
leaving home. Shore,. a real estate agency based ahead of 1986 '
-At the network's resource cen- in Charlevoix, Mich -
ters in those cities, they can sift By last,:week;" Vacation Propet- -For now,: Vacation 'Properties
through the estimated. 1,150 resi=-, =sties 'Network.. had, 29 offices _ and .-.Network can_.only: sup 'I -informs
dential properties currently in 'the $175 million worth of listings cover- tion on. Vail, not about other ski ar-
Vail multiple listing`system and •ing'3,200 vacation properties: In= eas in. the: state.. That-expansion
get information on .restaurants,..-:eluded are'204..condos;. townhomes i.. could be in the works if the`compa-
shops, golf courses, even what the :and single=family homes in-the Vail: ny continues its rapid growth: ' -
fishing's like E ; : Valley : f ,
The information is pulled up on a -'At the end of February the net First; however, Barlow==and
Resource Center computer. hooked ,work-opened three, more: resource - Hagstrum are looking. at,,5uu' Belt
areas and East Coast .oppo~tuni
up to Vacation Properties three centers'- in Detroit;,Chicago apd
offices in Vail and Avon. ' Milwaukee. This week'each of toe Lies { r
The network is '"a bridge for ,four . centers: WH1 Bold' a "Vail :They're convinced ghat they
metropolitan people in one area: to : night;'?.an open house .to introducae :have a national network tvitlr?er ap-
shop for vacation homes in another residents to the opportunitiesIn pealing to vacationing families that
area," said Chris' Barlow,--vice:-:,Colorado ski country..:`;:s want to save time and trouble.-.Asa
resident of the 15-month=old MinSellin resort ro erties 7 z
P g p P their ads for the resource centers
neapolis company. It's an affiliate doesn't have "W be a matter of sit ,may a~ f } Y b , ;
of Shelter. Tech Corp., a group of pg'back and waitu?1; for the vacs- Sfr q~ t, - r,, Y a'
private, real estate-related compa- "'-toning family to: drop,in,, Barlow. "You could. use..up-.a' lifetime of
nies owned by. Barlow : and Paul. sa.d• ; :vacations looking for the vacation
Hagstrum; president k "We've seen' a decided pick-up In -,home-of a lifetime:";~
The network was born of. Hags= interest since the tax law..was seta
tram's own frustration looking for ,ally signed and second homes were
a vacation home in. Minnesota and `exempted;',-fie. said.:.:'.:=
Wisconsin. It .took'him 3% years to,
find one. ' ...._r v ° Please see NETWORK on 78
Steven D. Jeffers 717 Seventeenth Street
Vice President Suite 2700
Public Finance Denver, Colorado 80202
303 292-1600
KIRCHNER MOORE & COMPANY
i A subsidiary of Drexel Burnham Lambert Incorporated
Investment Bankers
March 16, 1987
Mr. Charles Wick
Administrative Services Director
Town of Vail
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
Dear Charlie:
You have requested we address the impact of the Town of Vail restricting the real
estate transfer tax to its existing 1%, with any increase above this amount being tied to
a favorable vote of the people. Such analysis will be made in light of the impact this
restriction will have on the Town's future financings relative to rates, marketability, and
structuring constraints
As way of background, the Town currently has outstanding approximately $3.6
million of refunding land transfer tax anticipation warrants, maturing serially through
December 1, 1997. These warrants advance refunded the Town's 1980 warrants and 1981
warrants. The outstanding warrants are special and limited obligations of the Town
which are payable solely from proceeds of the Town's real estate transfer tax and on a
junior lien basis from 2% of the Town's 4% sales tax. The junior lien pledge on sales tax
revenues is subject to the prior and superior claim upon the 2% sales tax revenues by the
Town's outstanding general obligation bonds and any future general obligation bonds
which may be issued by the Town. The warrants are not payable from the proceeds of
any general property taxes. All three series of warrants were issued as non-rated, non-
insured debt. Based upon the proven track record of collections of real estate transfer
taxes in the changing economic times from 1980 to present, it is my belief that any new
issue of land transfer tax warrants, or an advance refunding of the outstanding warrants,
properly presented might quality for a bond rating and/or municipal bond insurance.
The Town has restrictive covenants within the existing land transfer tax warrant
ordinance governing the issuance of additional debt having a parity claim to the same
security as the outstanding warrants. Two of these restrictions that are most germane to
our discussion are: (1) the real estate transfer tax revenues have to have been sufficient
to pay debt service for the two years immediately proceeding the year in which the
additional warrants are proposed to be issued, without the use of any other Town funds,
including sales tax revenues; and (2) the real estate transfer tax revenues as certified by
an independent accountant, derived in the last complete year immediately preceding the
date of issuance of such additional warrants shall have been sufficient to pay an amount
at least equal to 135% of the sum of the debt service due on the outstanding warrants
and the average annual debt service due on the proposed warrants.
The Town has also covenanted within the ordinance authorizing the outstanding
warrants that so long as the warrants remain outstanding and unpaid, the Town will not
repeal or amend the land transfer tax ordinance or the sales tax ordinance in any manner
which would diminish the revenues pledged for repayment of the warrants.
Having outlined the background, my analysis is as follows. Clearly the Town has a
covenant within the existing warrant ordinance which would prohibit them from
decreasing the existing land transfer tax below 1%. However, such covenant does not
preclude the Town from taking action from restricting future increases in the land
transfer tax from the existing 1%. It further seems clear that the Town is prohibited
from issuing additional parity lien bonds without first demonstrating that such warrants
are payable solely from the existing revenue stream of just land transfer taxes without
factoring in any sales tax revenues which might be available. Assuming the Town were
to impose this restriction upon the increase in the real estate transfer tax above 1%, and
further assuming existing real estate transfer tax revenues and coverages were sufficient
to issue additional warrants; such proposed change would probably, by itself, not have a
major impact upon the Town's obtaining a bond rating on the new issue. Therefore little
or no impact upon rates or marketability would be noticed with the issuance of either a
rated or non-rated bond.
I am concerned, however, that such imposition upon the Town regarding increasing
the real estate transfer tax without a vote of the people would have an impact upon the
Town being able to obtain municipal bond insurance on the issue. With such insurance the
proposed issue will clearly sell better than a rated or non-rated bond issue without
insurance. Using conservative sentiments, I feel it is safe to assume that an insured bond
would sell at least 50 basis points (i.e. 0.50%) better than a rated bond, resulting in a
savings of approximately $75,000 per $1 million of debt issued over a 20-year period.
Likewise, an insured bond would sell at least 75 basis points (i.e. 0.75%) better than a
non-rated bond, resulting in a savings of approximately $110,000 per $1 million of debt
issued over a 20-year period. As it currently stands the Town has maximum flexibility of
raising the real estate transfer tax only by ordinance if necessary to cover outstanding or
proposed debt service. Eliminating this flexibility by taking such action out of the hands
of Council and putting it back in the hands of the voters may cause concern on the part
of the insurance companies. Due to the perceived volatility of this revenue stream to
begin with, such restriction may be enough to cause the insurance companies to decline
to insure a new issue. Clearly in the case of the Town of Breckenridge, where we have
had success in insuring bonds backed in part by real estate transfer taxes, the fact that
we could raise revenues if necessary by increasing the real estate transfer tax by Council
action without a vote of the people lent a degree of comfort to the insurance companies
which in part helped in obtaining insurance.
The final concern I would have with such a proposed restriction centers around
flexibility. Currently, the Town's sales tax revenues are critically tied to the issuance of
general obligation debt, land transfer tax revenue debt, and pure sales tax revenue debt.
Any issuance of future debt payable from any of these sources impacts and dilutes the
Town's ability to incur future debt from any of these sources. Furthermore, any increase
in general obligation debt, any increase in sales tax, or the imposition of an
accommodations or lodging tax would further require voter approval. The one pure
source of revenue left which the Town Council controls is the real estate transfer tax.
To require increases in this revenue source be subject to voter approval takes away the
final amount of flexibility Council retains relative to revenue bond financing.
I hope this adequately addresses your questions on this issue. Please let me know if
I can be of further assistance.
Very truly yours,
KIRCHNER MOORE OMPANY
Steven D. Jeffers
SDJ:bjk
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, MARCH 17, 1987
7:30 p.m.
REVISED AGENDA
1. Approval of December 23, 30 and 31, 1986 Special Meetings Minutes
2. Ordinance No. 8, Series of 1987, second reading, an ordinance amending Chapter
3.48 Land Transfer Tax of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail to provide
that the money in the Land Transfer tax Fund may be used for improving as well
as acquiring real property for parks, recreation, open space and/or similar
purposes; and setting forth details in regard thereto.
3. Resolution No. 10, Series of 1987, a resolution designating Silverado Banking
Association as a depository for the funds of the Town as permitted by the
Charter of the Town, its ordinances, and the statutes of the State of
Colorado.
4. Public Hearing on I-70 Interchange Modifications
5. Marriott's Mark Resort Sign Variance
6. Trailways Lines, Inc. Lease Agreement
7. Appeal of a Design Review Board Decision approving a duplex located on Lot 34,
Vail Meadows
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
8. Town Manager's Report
9. Adjournment
ZONING f
relationships of structures and open spaces to land uses within the
vicinity and the town, and the appearance of buildings and open
spaces as they contribute to the area as it is being developed and
redeveloped. In order to provide for the timely exercise of
judgment in the public interest in the evaluation of the design of
new development and redevelopment, the town council has
created a design review board (DRB) and design criteria.
Therefore, in order to preserve the natural beauty of the town
and its setting, to protect the welfare of the community, to
maintain the values created in the community, to protect and
enhance land and property, for the promotion of ,health, saf:s,
and general welfare in the community, and to attain the objectives
set out in this section; the improvement or alteration of open
space, exterior design of all new development, and all modifi-
cations to existing development shall be subject to design review
as specified in this chapter.
It is the intent of these guidelines to leave as much design
freedom as possible to the individual designer while at the same
time maintaining the remarkable natural beauty of the area by
creating structures which are designed to complement both their
individual sites and surroundings.
ThP QhjectivPq, nf design review shall be as follows:
A. ' 1 o recognize the interaepenaence of the public welfare and
aesthetics, and to provide a method by which this inter-
dependence may continue to benefit its citizens and visitors;
B. To allow for the development of public and private property
which is in harmony with the desired character of the town as
defined by the guidelines herein provided;
C. To prevent the unnecessary destruction or blighting of the
natural landscape;
D. To ensure that the architectural design, location, configura-
tion materials, colors, and overall treatment of built-up and
open spaces have been designed so that they relate harmo-
niously to the natural landforms and native vegetation, the
town's overall appearance, with surrounding development
and with officially approved plans or guidelines, if any, for
the areas in which the structures are proposed to be located.
E. To protect neighboring property owners and users by making
sure that reasonable provision has been made for such
(Vail 11-15-83) 446
DESIGN REVIEW
matters as pedestrian and vehicular traffic, surface water
drainage, sound and sight buffers, the preservation of light
and air, and those aspects of design not adequately covered by
other regulations which may have substantial effects on
neighboring land uses.
(Ord. 39 (1983) § 1.)
18.54.015 Definitions and rules of construction.
Any words, terms, or phrases used in this design review guide
shall be defined and interpreted in accordance with the definitions
contained in Section 18.04 of the Vail Municipal Code, unless the
context clearly indicates a different meaning was intended. If the
context is unclear, the matter will be referred to the design review
board for final determination.
The distinction made between those items contained within
this chapter that are mandatory and those that are discretionary is
that statements which are mandatory are prefaced by the word
shall, and the statements or guidelines which are discretionary (or
merely suggestions) are prefaced by the words should or rnay. In
all instances, any particular or specific controls over the general.
(Ord. 39 (1983) § 1.)
18.54.020 Board organization.
A. There is established.a design review board (DRB) of the Town
-'of Vail: The'DRMSfiall be composed of five members. Four
members shall be residents of the Town of Vail appointed by
the town council and the fifth member shall be a member of
the planning and environmental commission of the town. The
design review board shall remain a seven member board until
February 1984. After that time, the board will become a five
member board.
B. The terms of office for the four members at large shall be two
years on an overlapping basis and shall expire on February 1
of the year of termination. The term of office for the planning
and environmental commission member shall be three
months.
C. A vacancy on the design review board shall occur whenever a
member of the board is removed by the town council, dies,
447 (Vail 11-15-83)
.tea
' AECT MAR 1 1 _1987
INVESTMENT BANKERS
1801 CALIFORNIA STREET/SUITE 3700
DENVER. COLORADO 80202
(303) 293-8500
March 5, 1987
Town of Vail
Attention Mayor and Councilmembers
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
RE: The Health Hazard Caused by Vail's Inadequate Water Treatment
System
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers:
I think it is time you came clean and made the unsuspecting public
aware of the fact that Vail's water is unfit to drink. Vail
Associates puts a warning on its ski lift tickets that skiing is a
hazardous sport involving risk of injury. The City of Vail should
be at least as honest and publish warnings stating that drinking
Vail's water could be hazardous to one's health and result in a
severe case of giardia.
How can Vail even consider itself a world class resort when it has
a second class water treatment system? This is a problem that has
existed for years in Vail and yet nothing has been done to protect
the unsuspecting public from this substantial health hazard. The
public isn't even given the courtesy of a warning.
My problems began when I attend our annual company conference
which is held at the Westin Hotel. I, along with other members of
my firm, our invited clients and guests and their families from
all over the United States, were in Vail between January 31 and
February 7. During that period, I contracted giardia from
drinking Vail's water. I did not realize this until 10 days later
when I came down with a severe case of diarrhea while on a
business trip. I suffered for 5 days, not knowing what I had
until I could get back to Denver and see my physician. After
hearing I had been in Vail two weeks earlier he immediately stated
that I had contracted giardia from your inadequate water treatment
system, and he prescribed medication to cure the problem. I am
happy to say that after a week of medication, I am now feeling
better and seem to have knocked out the giardia I got from
drinking your water. I am luckier than some who have not been
able to rid themselves of this bug so quickly.
However, I have not forgotten the health hazard I. my family, and
my company's valued clients and guests were unknowingly subjected
to by drinking your impure water. I will recommend to my partners
that we not hold our annual conference in Vail next year unless
something is done about this health threat which affects everyone
who visits Vail.
Vail City Council
March 5, 1987
Page Two
At a minimum, you owe tine general public the courtesy of a warning
regarding the health risk drinking your water poses. Vail: World
Class Skiing, But Don't Drink the Water. It reminds me of those
third world countries I used to visit south of the border.
Sincerely,
NEWMANf`IAND ASSOCIATES, INC.
Roger W. Hein
Vice President
CC: Vail Associates
Manager, Westin Hotel Vail
Upper Eagle Water & Sanitation District
' y
UPPER EAGLE VALLEY REC'n MAR 16 1987
WATER AND SANITATION DISTRICTS
846 FOREST ROAD . VAIL, COLORADO 81657
(303) 4767480
March 12, 1987
Thomas Steinberg, M.D.
VAIL MOUNTAIN MEDICAL,--P.C.
181 West Meadow Drive
Vail, Colorado 81657
RE: GIARDIA COMPLAINT
Dear Dr. Steinberg:
I am seeking your advice as to how to answer the attached letter complaining of
giardia. Our Vail Valley Consolidated Water District water system is now primarily
on deep wells, avoiding the giardia cyst present in surface water. Also, a giardia
cyst has not shown up during the last five years of water testing. Incidentally, we
are one of only two districts in Colorado that test for giardia.
My initial reaction is that Mr. Hein-s doctor "assumed" he had giardia and did
not confirm it. This may happen a lot, even in our valley. The criticism of the
water system is unfavorable and inaccurate.
I will appreciate your commenting on the enclosed letter. Please give me a call.
Sincerely,
VAIL VALLEY CONSOLIDATED WATER DISTRICT
David E. Mott
General Manager
DEM:das.50
xe: Joe Macy, Vail Associates
Jack Skinner, Manager, Westin Hotel
Ron Phillips, Manager, Town of Vail
Vail Town Council x/
Enclosure
PARTICIPATING DISTRICTS - APIIO v It-Al, Mf I Itr, WA r! Fl. • .'"I r.1f t Ir ;t. (f r~ ~ tlf A :'I It CI<f I-h r.t1 11- 'NA 111, ~ IfLN1t•: 1+f I n rAf I."n I I I. CLEAN
EAGLE VAIL Mf- I NO WA 11.14 0 I-OWA1II,S ML I HI) I I • 1 •'.l•-i 1 11! f ?.11 Al .f I.WJ I i 1+ • 1 )1';'[ It i-1•; ,Li- VALI L,' CUNSUI.I(jA I I t '>Atll I A i it)t7
VAIL VALI!_: r urr,ul K'A l 1 1, WA I I L• VAn V?A 1111 Arli)'',APn I A I I()r?
c
MEMBER'S LUNCHEON ianBUSINESS AFTER HOURS
NC EQ
H N*
MARCH 18, 1987
Christine McGinley Executive Director, Vail Institute will speak on the
upcoming Summer Season.
TIME: 11:30 Cash Bar - Noon Lunch
COST: $7.50 Members - $8.50 Non-members
LOCATION: Kennedy's at Singletree
Reservations for the Luncheon are necessary and should be made at the
WVVRA, or by calling 949-5189 prior to 12 noon, Tuesday, March 17th.
UINE..SS AFTER HOURS
MARCH 24, 1987
TIME: 5:30 - 7:30
LOCATION: Eagle River Inn, Minturn
Complimentary Beer, Wine and Hors d'oeuvres
Mastercard or Visa accepted RCCT MAR 1 6 1987
EC'G MAR 2 3 1987
Vail Associates, Inc.
Creators and Operators of Vail and Beaver Creek
March 18, 1987
Mr. Ron Phillips
Manager
Town of Vail
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
RE: Gerald R. Ford Amphitheater
Ref. No. 183
VALUE ENGINEERING
Dear Ron:
As you may be aware, the Vail Valley Foundation is exploring opportunities to
value engineer certain elements of the project in order to maximize value and
minimize the waste of limited resources. The Vail Valley Foundation
understands the Town of Vail's concerns that quality and durability should
not be sacrificed in the interest of potential cost savings.
Please be advised that we are not contemplating any substitutions which would
not be in the mutual best interest of the Town of Vail and the Vail Valley
Foundation. It is agreed that any modifications to the project's scope which
fall under the auspices of the building inspectors and/or DRB review will be
brought to the attention of the appropriate individual prior to proceeding.
Furthermore, we will submit a list of the substitutions and alternates that
would not otherwise require the approval of the local Building Official, Gary
Murrain, for his review, prior to authorizing any revisions to the original
specifications.
We consider the Town of Vail our partner in the development of the
Amphitheater and will consider its needs and desires in the course of
constructing the facility. We do, however, request that the Town of Vail be
reasonable in considering any modifications to the original specifications
that we feel are in the best interest of the project, both aesthetically and
economically.
Sincerely, cc: Bob Knous, VVF
VAI ASSOCIATES. INC.
Jack D. Hunn, i ector
Real E ate Development
H:ssp
Post Office Box 7 • Vail, Colorado 81658 • (303)476-5601