The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1988-03-22 Support Documentation Town Council Work Session~- VAIL TOWN COUNCIL WORK SESSION TUESDAY, MARCH 22, 1988 2:00 p.m. AGENDA 1. Discussion of Proposed Sky Lights for the Ford Amphitheater 2. Discussion of Cascade Village Frontage Road Improvements 3. Report on Year End Investment Results 4. Discussion of Sign Improvement Program 5. Discussion of Visitors Center - Next Steps 6. Discussion of Recreation Trails Master Plan 7. Information Update 8. Other 9. Executive Session - Land Negotiations VAIL TOWN COUNCIL WORK SESSION TUESDAY, MARCH 22, 1988 2:00 p.m. EXPANDED AGENDA 2:00 1. Discussion of Proposed Sky Lights for the Ford Amphitheater Betsy Rosolack Rudi Fisher Action Requested of Council: Approve/disapprove for the next step (which. is to present the design to the DRB). Background Rationale: The Vail Valley Foundation has asked Rudi Fisher to design sky lights to enclose the open spaces above the seating area of the Amphitheater in order to give more protection from the elements. 2:15 Z. Discussion of Cascade Village Frontage Road Improvements Andy Norris Action Requested of Council: Hear Andy Norris's explanation of difficulties with the Highway Department and discuss whether any Council action is appropriate. Background Rationale: .Andy Norris and the Cascade Village Metro District have been working with the Highway Dept. for over a year to get the speed limit lowered to 35 mph past the Cascade entry road. This would make proposed intersection improvements more reasonable because they would be designed for 35 mph traffic rather than 45 mph traffic. The Council wrote the Highway Dept. over a year ago supporting the 35 mph speed limit. 2:30 3. Report on Year End Investment Results Steve Thompson Charlie Wick Background Rationale: Investment reports for December 31, 1987 and February 29, 1988. 2:40 4. Discussion of Sign Improvement Program Peter Patten Stan Berryman Action Requested of Council: Decide on how to phase the project's implementation. Background Rationale: We've had discussion in staff meetings and in Parking/Transportation Task Force meetings about the sign program phasing. Generally, we've discussed the merits of moving the pedestrian signs and directories as well as the hand held maps from next year to this year in anticipation of the World Championships. Staff Recommendation: Accelerate portions of Phase II to 1988 as per enclosed memorandum. 2:55 5. Discussion of Visitors Center - Next Steps Peter Patten Action Requested of Council: Decide on how to proceed with the project. Background Rationale: A Visitors Center Task Force was formed and delivered recommendations to Council. At least one new alternative has been chosen for further study. The Chairman of the Task Force feels it should be disbanded as it has finished what it was asked to do. Staff Recommendation: (See enclosed memorandum.) Allow architect selected to begin evaluation of all viable alternatives along with staff and a new "client group" selected by Council. 3:10 6. Discussion of Recreation Trails Master Plan Rick Pylman Action Requested of Council: Listen to presentation and receive copies of preliminary draft of trails master plan. Make appropriate comments, especially with regard to priorities for 1988, to allow the project to proceed. Background Rationale: The trails plan has been developing over the past several months. A public meeting and survey has been conducted. The project is ready for a first draft review. 4;10 7. Information Update 4:15 8. Other ~_ 4:25 9. Executive Session - Land Negotiations -2- Town of Vail, Colorado Investment Report Summary of Accounts and Investments Balances as of December 31, 1987 Money Market Accounts (see page 1) Commercial Banks Colorado Investment Pools Money Market Mutual Fund Total Funds For Reserve Balances Percentage Percentage Operating Funds 12/31/87 of Total Allowed -------------------------------------------------------- $351,459 S152,136 $503,595 8.87$ 100$ 5203,218 $203,218 3.58$ 50$ $20,955 ------------------------ $20,955 0.37$ 50$ ---------- $575,632 $152,136 - ------ $717,768 12.82$ Commercial Savings ~ Banks Loans Certificates of Deposit (see .page ----------- 2) ----------- - Eagle County Institutions $710,987 $710,987 Other Colorado Institutions S200,000 $90,000 $290,000 National Institutions $288,000 --- $390,000 $678,000 Total --------- $1,198,987 ----------- $480,000 ----------- $1,678,987 Percentage of Portfolio in Savings ~ Loans $710,967 12.52$ $290,000 5.11$ $678,000 11.94$ $1,678,98T 29.57$ 100$ 8.96$ 15$ U.S. Government Securities (see page 3) Treasury Notes GNMA's U.S. Savings Bonds Total $1,190,000 $1,655,000 53,045,000 53.64$ 100$ $210,115 $210,115 3.70$ 100$ $15,000 $15,000 0.26$ 100$ ----------------------------------- ------ $1,415,115 $1,855,000 $3,270,115 57.60$ Total Portfolio Maturity Schedule Maturing Within 12 Months Maturing Within 24 Months Maturing After 29 Months $3,669,734 $2,007,136 $5,676,870 100.00$ $5,221,755 91.98$ $0 $455,115 8.02$ ------------- ------- $5,676,870 100.00$ Money Market Accounts Balances as of December 31, 1987 Institution Interest Balance Type of Accounts Received 12/31/87 First Bank of Vail - Operating First Bank of Vail - Municipal Court First Bank of Vail - Insurance Colorado Trust (Investment Pool) Merrill Lynch (Money Market Fund) Central Bank of Denver (NOW Account) Lionshead Improvement District $71,317 5287,382 $2,962 $63,877 $7,121 $152,136 $32,727 $203,218 $4,288 $20,955 $5,845 $200 $1,275 0 -------------------- $125,535 5727,768 -------------------- -------------------- page 1 Certificates of Deposit Balances as of December 31, 1987 Bank Name, Location Days to Rates Purchase Maturity Maturity Days to Maturity Par Coupon Yield -------------------------- Date Date at Purchase Maturity Value Meza Bank, Phoenix Arizona ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- 90 12.050$ 7.100$ 12-Nov-86 25-Apr-88 530 116 $90,000 First Bank of Gladstone, Missouri 99 7.750$ T.750$ 30-Oct-87 O1-Jun-88 215 I53 $99,000 Albuquerque Federal Savings and Loan 53 7.750 7.750$ 29-Oct-86 O1-Jun-88 581 153 $53,000 Perpetual American Federal Savings and Loan, Mclain Virginia 62 12.650$ 5.864$ 24-Oct-86 05-Sep-88 682 249 $62,000 30 12.700$ 7.595$ 24-Oct-86 12-Sep-88 689 256 $30,000 Pacific Federal Savings and Loan, Sea ttle 55 9.600 7.400$ 24-Oct-86 12-Sep-88 689 256 $55,000 First American Bank, Boston Mass 99 8.250$ 8.250$ 12-Nov-87 12-Nov-90 1096 1047 $99,000 Suffield Savings Bank, Suffield Connecticut 100 7.750$ 7.750$ 30-Oct-87 O1-Jun-88 215 153 $100,000 First Fe deral Savings and Loan, Mich 90 11.600 7.568 24-Oct-86 05-Oct-88 712 279 $90,000 Columbia Fedezal Savings and Loan, Denver Co 90 11.800$ 6.727 24-Oct-86 19-Dec-88 782 349 $90,000 Bank of Colorado, Colorado Springs Co 100 8.000$ 8.000$ 23-Oct-87 31-May-88 221 152 $100,000 Rio Blanco State Bank, Rangely Co 100 7.750$ 1.7508 03-Aug-87 02-Aug-88 365 215 $100,000 Vail Nat ional Ban k 500 7.250 7.250$ 03-Jul-87 09-Jan-88 185 4 $500,000 6.000$ 6.000$ O1-Mar-87 Ol-Mar-88 366 61 $10,987 Avon National Bank 100 8.000 8.000$ 26-Oct-87 26-Apr-88 183 117 $100,000 Alpine Bank of Eagle 100 7.000; 7.000$ 25-Aug-87 24-Aug-88 365 237 $100,000 Avq Yield 7.421$ $1,618,987 Page Z Government Securities Balances as of December 31, 1981 ***Treasury Notes*** Days to Rates Purchase Maturity Maturity Days to Par No. ------- Coupon ---------- Yield -------- Date ------ Date at Purchase Maturity Value 1 7.125$ 6.163$ ----- 24-Oct-86 ----------- 31-May-88 ----------- 585 ------------- 92 ------------ $200,000 2 1.125$ 7.337$ 28-May-87 31-May-88 369 92 $260,000 3 7.125$ 7.337$ 28-May-87 31-May-88 369 92 $590 000 ** 4 10.000$ 9.000$ 25-Nov-85 31-May-88 918 92 , $1,315,000 * 5 6.625$ 7.018$ 20-Auq-87 31-Jul-88 346 153 $250,000 6 6.375$ 6.694$ 21-Apr-87 30-Sep-88 528 214 $250,000 7 8.875$ 7.470$ 11-Mar-86 15-Feb-96 3628 2908 $230,000 Avq Yield. 7.909$ $3,045,000 Footnotes: * GO Bond Reserve ** RETT Bond Reserve ***GNMA'S*** Pool Coupon Yield ------------------------ 5803 8.000$ 8.480$ 13003 8.000 9.500$ 14659 8.000$ 9.200$ Avq Yield 9.152$ Purchase Date 14-Nov-86 24-Oct-86 24-Oct-86 Years to Estimated Maturity Maturity Years to Principal Date at Purchase Maturity Outstanding -------------------- 15-Oct-05 19.1 11 $47,212 15-Oct-06 20.2 5 579,733 15-Jan-07 21.2 5 $83,170 5210,115 ***U.S. Savings Bonds*** Years to Issue Maturity Maturity Years to Series Yield Date Date at Purchase Maturity Cost ------ -------------------------------------------------------------------- EE 7.170$ O1-Oct-86 O1-Oct-96 10 8.59 $15,000 Total $3,270,115 Page 3 Town of Vail, Colorado Schedule of Interest Income for the Year Ending December 31, 1987 Type of Accounts or Instruments ------------------------------- Money Market Accounts (see page 1) Certificates of Deposit Treasury Notes: For Bond Reserves For Operations and Debt Service GNMA's Savings Bonds Budgeted Interest Income Income~in Excess of Budget Interest Income 5125,535 $176,281 $156,735 $80,621 $19,158 $1,008 $559,338 $510,000 $49,338 page 4 a Town of Vail, Colorado Investment Report Summary of Accounts and Investments For the Month Ending February 29, 1988 Money Market Accounts (see page 1) Commercial Banks Colorado Investment Pools Money Market Mutual Fund Total Funds For Reserve Operating Funds Balances Percentage Percentage 2/29/88 of Total Allowed $1,094,591 $152,930 $1,197,521 15.61$ 100 $1,604,299 $1,604,299 20.92$ 50$ $221,997 $221,99T 2.89 50$ ----------------------------------- ------ $2,870,887 $152,930 $3,023,817 39.42$ Commercial Savings ~ Banks Loans Certificates of Deposit (see page -------- 2) ---------- - Eagle County Institutions $410,987 $410,987 Other Colorado Institutions $200,000 $90,000 $290,000 National Institutions $288,000 ----- $390,000 $678,00 0 Total ------ $898,987 ----------- $480,000 ----------- $1,378,987 Percentage of Portfolio in Savings ~ Loans U.S. Government Securities (see page 3) Treasury Notes GNMA's U.S. Savings Bonds Total Total Portfolio Maturity Schedule Maturing Within 12 Months Maturing Within 24 Months Maturing After 29 Months $410,987 5.36$ $290,000 3.78$ $678,000 8.89 $1,378,987 17.98$ 100$ 6.26$ 15~ $1,190,000 $1,855,000 $3,045,000 39.70$ 100$ $206,788 $206,788 2.708 100$ $15,000 515,000 0.20$ 100$ ----------------------------------- ------ $1,411,788 $1,855,000 $3,266,788 42.60$ $5,661,662 $2,007,930 $7,669,592 100.00$ $7,217,804 94.11$ $0 $451,788 5.89 ------------- ------- $7,669,592 100.00$ Money Market Accounts Balances as of February 29, 1988 Institution Interest Balance Balance Type of Accounts High Low Average Received 1/31/88 2/29/88 -------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ First Bank of Vail - Operating Interest 6.16$ 5.43$ 5.90$ $3,064 ----------------------------- ----------------------------- Balance $1,264,192 S190,537 $657,148 $654,555 $939,056 ----------------------------- ----------------------------- First Bank of Vail - Municipal Court Interest 6.16$ 5.43$ 5.90 $923 Balance _____________________________ $78,931 $91,727 First Bank. of Vail - Insurance Interest 6.16$ 5.43$ 5.90$ $729 Balance ----------------------------- $161,310 $152,930 ----------------------------- Colorado Trust (Investment Pool) Interest 6.35$ Balance $2,668 $204,299 $1,504,299 Merrill Lynch (Money Market Fund) Interest 6.06$ Balance $967 $21,030 $221,997 Central Bank of Denver (NOW Account) Interest Balance $273 $18,808 ------------------------------- $7,851 $1,120,398 $3,023,817 ------------------------------- ------------------------------- Page 1 Certificates of Deposit Bank Name, Location Rates Purchase Par Coupon Yield Date ------------------------------------ Mera Bank, Phoenix Arizona 90 12.0508 7.100$ 12-Nov-86 First Bank of Gladstone, Missouri 99 7.750$ 7.750$ 30-Oct-87 Albuquerque Federal Savings and Loan Days to Maturity Maturity Days to Date at Purchase Maturity ------------------------------ 25-Api-88 530 56 O1-Jun-88 215 93 53 7.750$ 7.750$ 29-Oct-86 O1-Jun-88 581 Perpetual American Federal Savings and Loan, Mclain Virginia 62 12.650$ 5.864$ 24-Oct-86 05-Sep-88 682 30 12.7008 7.5958 24-Oct-86 12-Sep-88 689 Pacific Federal Savings and Loan, Seattle 55 9.6008 7.9008 24-Oct-86 12-Sep-88 689 First American Bank, Boston Mass 99 8.2508 12-Nov-87 12-Nov-90 1096 Suffield Savings Bank, Suf field Connecticut I00 7.750$ 7.750$ 30-Oct-87 OI-Jun-88 2I5 First Federal Savings and Loan, Mich 90 11.6008 7.5688 Z4-Oct-86 05-Oct-88 712 Columbia Federal Savings and Loan, Denver Co 90 11.8008 6.7278 24-Oct-86 14-Dec-88 782 Bank of Colorado, Colorado Springs, Co 100 8.0008 8.0008 23-Oct-87 31-May-88 221 Rio Blanco State Bank, Rangely Co 100 7.7508 7.7508 03-Auq-87 02-Aug-88 365 Vail National Ban k 100 7.0008 7.0008 09-Feb-88 O1-Apr-88 57 6.0008 6.0008 O1-Mar-87 O1-Mar-88 366 100 6.7508 6.750$ 11-Jan-88 11-Apr-88 91 Avon National Bank 100 8.0008 8.000$ 26-Oct-87 26-Apr-88 183 Alpine Bank of Eagle 100 7.0008 7.0008 25-Auq-87 24-Auq-88 Avq Yield 7.4048 93 189 196 196 987 93 219 289 92 155 32 1 42 57 365 177 Maturity Value .$90,000 $99,000 $53,000 $62,000 $30,000 $55,000 $99,000 $100,000 590, 000 $90,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $10,987 $100,000 $100,000 5100,000 $1,378,987 Page 2 Government Securities Balances as of February 29, 1988 ***Treasury Notes*** Days to Rates Purchase Maturity Maturity Days to Par Market No. ------- Coupon --------- Yield --------- Date ----------- Date ---------- at Purchase Matuzity Value Value 1 7.125$ 6.163 24-Oct-86 - 31-May-88 ------------ 585 ------------ 92 ----------- $200,000 ------------ $200,375 2 7.125 7.337$ 28-May-87 31-May-88 369 92 $260,000 $260,488 3 7.125$ 7.337$ 28-May-87 31-May-88 369 92 $540,000 $541,013 * 4 10.000$ 9.000$ 25-Nov-85 31-May-88 918 92 $1,315 000 $1,317 466 ** 5 6.6258 7.018$ 20-Aug-87 31-Jul-88 346 153 , $250,000 , $250,078 6 6.375$ 6.694$ 21-Apr-87 30-Sep-88 528 214 $250,000 5299,688 7 8.875$ 7.470$ 11-Mar-86 15-Feb-96 3628 2908 $230,000 5240,134 Avg Yield 7.909$ - ------------ $3,045,000 ----------- $3,059,242 Footnotes: * GO Bond Reserve ** RETT Bond Reserve ***GNMA'S*** Pool Coupon Yield ------------------------ 5803 8.000 8.480 13003 8.000$ 9.500$ 14659 8.000 9.200 Avg Yield 9.147$ Purchase Date 14-Nov-86 24-Oct-86 24-Oct-86 Years to Estimated Market Maturity Maturity Years to Principal Value Date at Purchase Maturity Outstanding See Footnote * --------------------------------------------------------- 15-Oct-05 19.1 11 $47,116 $93,612 15-Oct-06 20.2 5 $76,655 $70,954 15-Jan-07 21.2 5 $83,017 $76,843 ------------------------ $206,788 $191,409 ------------------------ ------------------------ Footnotes: * Market Value Changes Daily ***U.S. Savings Bonds*** Years to Issue Maturity Maturity Years to Maturity Series Yield Date Date at Purchase Maturity Cost Value ------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- EE 7.1708 O1-Oct-86 O1-Oct-96 10 8.59 $15,000 530,000 ------------------------ ------------------------ Total $3,266,788 Page 3 75 south frontage road VAIL 1989 vail, Colorado 81657 (303) 476-7000 department of public works/transportation MEMORANDUM TO: RON PHILLIPS r ..~ FROM: STAN BERRYMAN'v DATE: MARCH 10, 1988 RE: TOWN OF VAIL SIGNAGE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM The attachment summarizes the staff's recommendations regarding implementation of the Signage Improvement Program. The program has been separated into four phases. The first phase (1988) includes interstate, ramp, frontage road, and pedestrian Signage as well as development of a full color three dimensional map. We feel that this combination produces maximum benefits for the guest, especially in light of the 1989 World Championships. Funding for the Signage outlined in Phase I is included in the 1988 Capital Budget. Funding for development and production of the maps. will need to be appropriated if the Council desires to implement the proposed Phase I. SB/njm cc: Peter Patten TOWN OF VAIL SIGNAGE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PHASE I - 1988 INTERSTATE SIGNAGE Unit Message Color No. Cost Logo, Vail Town Limits Elevation 8600' Green 2 $4,000 Vail, Next 3 Exits Green 2 $3,000 Exit 180 Info, Parking - Next Right Blue 1 $3,000 Exit 173 Vail West Entrance - 1 Mile Green 1 CDOH Exit 173 Vail West Entrance - Next Right Green 1 CDOH Exit 175 Vail - 1 Mile Green 1 CDOH Exit 175 Info, Parking Hospital - Next Right Blue 1 CDOH Exit 175 Vail Village LionsHead - Next Right Green 1 CDOH Exit 176. LionsHead - 1 Mile Green 1 CDOH Exit 176 LionsHead - Next Right Green 1 CDOH Subtotal Total $8,000 $6,000 $3,000 $17,000 1 INTERCHANGE RAMPS GUIDE SIGNS Message Parking, Info w/Symbols EV(2) , MV(2) , WV(2) <East Vail Bighorn Vail Drive North> Subtotal FRONTAGE ROAD GUIDE SIGNS Message ^Vail Village - 2 Miles ^LionsHead - 3 Miles ^Cascade Village - 4 Miles Parking, Info w/Symbols Parking Information <Outlying Free Skier Parking ^Lot Full - Parking Ahead Subtotal Color Green Green Green Color Green Blue Blue Blue Blue Blue 2 Unit No. Cost Total 6 $2,000 $12,000 1 $1,000 $1,000 1 $1,000 1 000 $14,000 Unit No. Cost Total 1 $4,000 $4,000 4 $2,000 $8,000 4 $1,500 $6,000 4 $1,500 $6,000 2 $1,000 $2,000 2 $1,500 3 000 $29,000 VILLAGE/LIONSHEAD GUIDE SIGNS Unit Function No. Cost Total Custom Map Displays 2 $6,000 $12,000 Pedestrian Guide Posts (4"x4"x6') 20 $200 $4,000 Pedestrian Symbols/Mounting 240 $30 7 200 Subtotal $23,200 Continency - Signage $10,000 Design and Illustrate Full-Color Three-Dimension Map of Vail Design $13,500 Printing, 500,000 Copies 75 000 Subtotal $88,500 TOTAL PHASE I COST - 1988 $181,700 3 PHASE II - 1989 Message/Function Frontage Road Street Name Signs Village Parking Structure Update Repaint Interior Add Floor Numbers/Color Strips Destination Signs Symbols Exterior Identification Signs LionsHead Parking Structure Update Add Floor Numbers/Color Stripe Update Destination Signs Symbols Exterior Signs Bus Stop Posts (8"x8"x8") Vehicle Guide Signs on Street Name Posts I-70 East/West Entrance Exit 180/173 - 1 Mile Exit 180/173 - Next Right TOTAL PHASE II COSTS - 1989 Unit No. Cost Total 14 $250 $3,500 $lo,ooo $7,500 40 S.F. $25 $1,000 50 $25 $1,250 $3,000 $5,000 40 S.F. $25 $1,000 50 S.F. $25 $1,250 $2,000 15 $1,500 $22,500 100 $25 $2,500 4 $6,000 $24,000 4 $6,000 $24,000 $108,500 4 PHASE III - 1990 Message/Function Custom Entry Signs/Landscaping (Could be Included in Town Landscape Plan) TOTAL PHASE III - 1990 PHASE IV - 1991 Message/Function Remove/Replace No Parking Remove/Replace Regulatory Street Name Signs Bus Stops Recreation Path Guide Posts Miscellaneous Public Facilities/Parks TOTAL PHASE IV - 1991 TOTAL SUMMARY COSTS Unit No. Cost Total 2 $70,000 $140,000 $140,000 Unit No. Cost Total 114 $100 $11,400 100 $100 $10,000 120 $250 $30,000 68 $600 $40,000 100 $150 $15,000 $10,000 $116,400 $547,600 5 TO: Ron Phillips FROM: Peter Patten DATE: 3/17/88 SUBJECT: Visitors Center Since Harry Frampton has suggested disbanding the Visitors Center task force, I have been giving some thought as to where we go from here. The Council has expressed an interest in exploring Gordon Pierre's concept of utilizing the existing Transportation Center in the Village as a site for a new Visitors Center while relocating the transpor-tation functions, including the bus terminal area, to the Lionshead parking structure. I believe it would be worthwhile to examine this along with other alternatives the Council wishes to pursue. Thus, I believe that the next step in the process is to isolate the alternatives that the Council feels are the most attractive and to pick the best one for implementation. The Council has chosen Morter Architects as the project. architectural firm. My recommendation is to utilize Morter's firm along with Town staff and a client contact group chosen by Council. The Council could choose to be the client contact group themselves or could designate a separate group with Council members sitting on the committee. In previous discussions with the architectural selection committee, it was recommended that Jeff Winston would be a benefit to such a client contact group. These suggestions should probably possible for Council discussion in public meeting on the matter. be scheduled as soon as anticipation of a mid-April cc: Visitors Center Task Force i~ ~ C.~`.~ VAIL METROPOLITAN RECREATION DISTRICT TREASURER'S REPORT FOR MONTH ENDING FEBRUARY 29, 1988 OTHER REPORTS CASH SUMMARY .PAGE 1 CASH FLOW PROJECTION 1988. ,PAGE 2 REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES BUDGET - PAGE 3 ACTUAL 02/29/88 REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES BUDGET - PAGE 4 ACTUAL 12/31/87 ,... Vail Metropolitan Recreation District Cash Summary Month Ending February 29, 1988 NOW Money Market Account Account Total ----------------------------------- S29,731.10 S15,000.00 $39,731.10 Beginning Balances 1/31/88 Revenues: Property Tax Collection, Net Advance Deposits Clubhouse Lease Steve Jones Contract Collections for Steve S. Interest Income Misc Expenditures: Released Checks - February Visa/Mastercard Charge Ending Balances 2/29/88 Investment Schedule: Bank First Bank of Vail 5,320.07 5,320.07 2,000.00 2,000.00 5,803.49 5,803.49 989.55 489.55 1,927.20 1,927.2-0 147.99 228.49 376.43 48.98 4$.98 (33,929.72) (33,929.72) (40.59) (40.59) $6,998.OT $15,228.44 S21,126.51 Account Date Maturity Interest Book Interest Type Purchased Date Rate Amount Received MM O1-Mar-88 31-May-88 5.827$ $15,000 $228.49 Page 1 Vail Metropolitan Recreation District Cash Flow Projection 1988 Actuals Through February 29, 1988 Actual Actual Proj. Proj. January February March April TOTAL Cash Balance 12/31/87 $99,830 S49,830 Revenues: Property taxes, Net 10,989 $5,320 $58,337 $55,000 129 191 Green fees ~ cart rentals 2,000 5,000 5,000 , 11 000 Golf and Tennis passes 50,000 , 50 000 Tennis , 0 Clubhouse lease 2,750 5,804 2,750 2,150 19 059 Accounts receivable , 0 Lottery 0 Steve Jones Contract 989 489 Due to Pro Shop 1,917 1 927 Other 9,108 49 75 , 4 232 Interest 222 198 , 370 Expenditures: 17,569 15,737 66,162 112,750 112,213 Payroll Operational ex 8,918 13,000 13,000 18,000 52,918 penses Contributions 8,026 6,235 9,000 10,000 33,261 Capital outlay 3,900 2,000 56,000 3,400 58 000 Management contract 87 25 000 ~ 22,725 , 47 725 Management contract 88 11,700 , 17 700 Debt service Bonds 720 , 710 Debt service clubhouse 11,335 11,335 0 Revenues over (under) 92,664 33,970 24,0.00 129,925 $225,059 Expenditures (25,100) (18,233) 42,162 (11,675) Ending Cash Balances $24,730 $6,997 $48,659 S36,989 Page 2 Vail Metropolitan Recreation District Revenues and Expenditures Budget-Actual Month Ending February 29, 1988 Revenues: Property taxes -Net Specific ownership taxes Golf passes Green fees Net Range Cart rentals Clubhouse lease Tennis revenue Interest Lottery proceeds Miscellaneous TOTAL Expenditures: Golf course maintenance Equipment maintenance Clubhouse operations Carts Golf course improvements Tennis operations General Administration Debt Service TOTAL Revenue over (under) Expenditures Beginning Fund Balance 1/1/88 Ending Fund Balance 2/29/88 1988 Budget $ of Budget Actual ------------------------------------- S386,360 1$ 52,722 18,000 15$ 2,680 100,100 0$ 0 648,700 0$ 0 10, 000 0$ 0 173,400 0$ 0 33,000 17$ 5,500 33,500 0$ 0 3,000 20$ 598 9,500 0$ 0 12,000 --------- 12~ 1,494 ------- 1,427,560 ---------------- ----------- 1$ ----------- ---------- 12,999 ---------- 287,793 10$ 29,347 52,700 4$ 2,226 201,275 3$ 6,219 3,100 1$ 45 135,000 1$ 2,000 91,650 0$ 300 147,465 9$ 13,992 447,113 ---------------- 3$ ----------- 12,090 ------ - 1,366,096 5$ - -- 66,219 561,514 (53,225) 26,812 (S26,413) Page 3 Vail Metropolitan Recreation District Revenues and Expenditures Budget-Actual For Year Ending December 31, 1987 Revenues: Property taxes -Net Specific ownership taxes Golf passes Green fees Cart rentals Net Range Clubhouse lease Tennis revenue Interest Lottery proceeds Miscellaneous TOTAL Expenditures: Golf course maintenance Equipment maintenance Clubhouse/Golf course operations Carts Tennis operations Tennis -Equipment General Administration Debt Service Land Lease TOTAL Revenues over (under) Expenditures Clubhouse Remodel Beginning Fund Balance 1/1/87 Ending .Fund Balance 12/31/87 Bond Reserve Fund 1987 Budget $ of Budget Actual ------------------------------------- S382,323 1068 $903,599 18,500 98$ 18,070 87,600 107 93,965 56b,650 99$ 531,17b 189,000 96$ 176,627 5,000 102$ 5,080 20,000 96$ 19,250 37,650 86$ 32,451 18,000 51$ 9,251 8,000 119$ 9,510 12,000 79$ 9,933 1,339,723 988 1,307,907 ----------------------------------- 299,775 96$ 283,881 39,700 71$ 28,295 234,500 119$ 266,304 92,300 08 0 89,900 109$ 98,200 3,500 16$ 559 133,675 101$ 135,673 386,150 101$ 389,102 70,000 100$ 70,000 1,399,500 95$ 1,271,959 ----------------------------------- (9,777) 35,998 $800,000 60$ 982,102 957,966 11,812 15,000 526,812 Page 9 ~ - %~-~ ~; ~ ~ ~ ~~- ~~ ~~ f ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~~~ - , ~~ ~ d" s ~~ `;. r ~--~~/ .,.e ~ ~c ~~~~~ , r ,,~~ „~~~~, ~Q e ~~ ~~J ,Y- ~,~~, ~~ ~ / ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ,~ .- i~~ ~ ~~-r/) .- /, ~ti i i !'~ ~/ ;~ -~: ~'"~~; ~% i __. ,~.. 1'Own Of ~8i~ E-mp~.o~ee - WHEN: Friday, April 1, 1988. Registration from 9:00-9:30 a.m. WHERE: Gold Peak. Pick up bibs at Gold Peak Restaurant- upstairs. HOW MUCH: No inflation here! A measly $10.00/person. Includes race fee, a Vail Woolens designed ski headband, party and trophies. WHAT: Good question! Teams of 4 compete on a dual giant slalom course. RULES: Each team of 4 must have at least 1 female or child. The worst time on each team will be dropped leaving the top 3 times to determine team score. PRIZES: Trophies will be awarded to the top 3; men, women, men telemarkers, women telemarkers, and top 5 teams. CROSSCOUTRY: For those of you who don't want to race, there will be a cross country excursion beginning at 2:00. Meet at the Vail Golf Course. $8.00 includes ski headband and party AND prize for the best outfit. Call Karen Morter at x 207 for more information. PARTY: Something new so pay attention! The party will be at Satch's at the Golf Course from 3:30-5:30. We have to be out of there by 5:30 so trophies will be awarded at 4:30- . don't be late! Party will feature free beer (now I have your attention!) wine, pop ,taco bar and much more. If you only want to "do" the party, the fee is $3.00. SINGLES: If your department is a dud, send in your name alone and I will put you with a fun group! Department: ~ Team Name: Te I e m a rk please check if in the 1 , ~ telemark division 2. 3. ~ 4. w/c ~ Cross Country Skier $ ALL MONEY MUST ACCOMPANY REGISTRATION FORM!! MAKE CHECKS PAYABLE TO TOWN OF VAIL. REGISTRATION DEADLINE TUESDAY, MARCH 29- NO EXCEPTIONS!!!!!!! return to Ceil at the Rec department, for more info call x 254 or Karen M. x 207 Tune the boards, place your bets, clear your calendars and pad your fanny- IT'S RACE TIME!! Due to semi popular demand, we will be having the battle of the boards on APRIL FOOLS DAY-very appropriate Read on for more info. G'0 MAC ~ ~ ~~~~ A MEMBER OFTHE SEARS FlNANCIAL NETWORK TIMBERLINE REAL ESTATE, INC. March 14, 1988 Mr. Ron Phillips and Members of the Town Council 75 S. Frontage Rd. Vail, ~ 81657 Greetings, 286 BRIDGE STREET VAIL, CO 81657 BUS. (303)476-2113 I recently read the article about the No Smoking Ordinance which the town is considering. I am very interested in getting this ordinance passed and have in fact been preparing a proposal of my own which I was going to bring to you on this exact subject. I recently met with Sharon Mollica of Aspen, Colorado who was instrumental in getting the No Smoking Ordinance passed in Aspen. It is my understanding that this has improved the quality of life in the Aspen community, and that the locals and visitors alike are very pleased with the ordinance. Smoking in a bar is one thing, but smoking in a restaurant is entirely a different matter. I am definitely for "no smoking" in eating areas throughout our town. It is my understanding that some of the restaurants in Aspen have experienced an increase in food sales now that smoking is prohibited in the eating sections since the people no longer have anything to do with their hands! I would also suggest a no smoking area in the bars in our town. It is my belief that one of our responsibilities is to give our local people and our tourists the healthiest, fresh air environment that we are able to give to them. Think about giving the gift of fresh air and better health to ail the people who are gathered in the-Vail community to live or to play. Think about giving people the choice of going into a smoking area if they want to smoke or breath smoke, or think again about giving the choice of people a dining experience that is clean and fresh and healthier. I hope you will choose to vote on a No Smoking Ordinance covering as many public facilities that you can think of thereby enriching the Vail experience even more so. I will applaud an intelligent decision such as this! Sincerely, ,kCt~/ B. Susan Rychel An Independently Owned and Operated Member of Coldwell Banker Residential Affiliates, Inc. Wholesale 303-329-9595 TWX 910-931-2206 Retail 303-329-9559 ~C'~ MAR ~~ ~ 1988, Seattle Fish Company ~eaeera i~2 aPe ~ii~dd v~ j 6211 E. 42nd AVE. DENVER, COLORADO 80216 March 14, 1988 Down Counci 1 , Toavn of Vai 1 i'S South Frontage Road West Vail, Colorado 81657 Members of the Town Council, Once again as an owner of Vail property, on Beaver Dam Circle, I am adamantly opposed to the appeal being made by h1r. and hirs. Ben Rose regarding 443 Beaver Dam Road. Allowing their property to double the number of units allowed per lot would definitely hurt the value of my property as well as the other established properties in the area. You have turned down their first request and it is the sincere hope of my wife, children and myself that you ~vill also turn down their appeal request. Sincerely, ~~a Edward M. Iacino 332 Beaver Dam Circle Vail, Colorado THE MOST MODERN PLANT IN THE ROCKY MOUNTAIN REGION "If It Swims - We Have It" DECD MAR 1 8 1988 IINTERSTATE~ ~3ATTERIES March 15, 1988 Tour, Counc i 1 Tolnxt o f Va i t 75 South Frontage Road West Vail„ Colorado 81657 Dear Touxi Council Members: As a property o>tiner in Vail„ I'd like to document my opposition to Mr. & Mrs. Rose's request regarding the dividing of their current lot into tue (2) lots. I„ at this time„ oppose any changes in lot configuration that will allow an increase in population dwelling density,, because I feel the increased density will have a negative impact on the overall quality of life for Vail residents. _~Ve`ry t:~u l y your°s,, c_. ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~/ ~ or ian E. Mi 1 l er NEM/np INTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEM OF AMERICA, INC. 9304 Forest Lane • Suite 200 • Dallas, Texas 75243 • (214) 340-0432 JoxN L. TYLER REC'it MAR i 8 ~$ 160 HITMBOLDT STREET UI:NVF.R, COLORADO 80218 March 17, 1988 Town Council Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road West Vail, Colorado 81657 Re: Lot 4, Block 4 - Vail Village Third Filing 443 Beaver Dam Road Dear Council Members: On April 5, 1988, a zoning request on the above property will be appealed. On September 9, 1987, I wrote a letter to the Town Planning and Environmental Commission urging that a zoning variation not be allowed. The applicant's request was denied. Again, I would strongly urge you not to allow a zoning var- iation. The proposal would "overburden the land" and would directly affect my property at 383 Beaver Dam Circle. Sincerely yours, ~ < ohn L. Tyler cc: Mrs. Paul Fuller Lawrence L. Levin RECD MAR 1 8 1988 BURTON E. GLAZOY 875 NORTH YIICHIGAN AVENUE. SUITE 3900, CHICAGO. ILLINOIS 80611 March 16, 1988 Town Council Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road West Vail, Colorado 81657 Dear Councilpersons: We are the owners of a residence at 454 Forest Road (west property), which fronts on Beaver Dam Road. This letter is in regard to a proposal to create two primary/secondary lots on Lot 4, Block 4, Vail Village 3rd Filing, 443 Beaver Dam Road. We under- stand a hearing on this matter is set for April 5 before the Town Council. This proposal was considered by the Vail Planning and Environmental Commission on January 25. The ' Commission rightfully and overwhelmingly turned down the request. We strongly oppose this proposal. Technicalities aside, the creation of four living units where only two would now be permissible is simply a bad idea. Increased density in this resi- dential community is contrary to rational land use plans. Avery signiL-icant and uarlnful precedent would be set for future similar variances in this community. As you know, traffic on Beaver Dam Road is substan- tial already and additional housing units over what is currently permitted would worsen the situation. From an economic view, it is understandable why a landowner would want to double the permissible number of buildings on his property; however, this is not an acceptable basis for land use planning. We can assure you that we did not purchase our home in 1986 with the expectation that the Town of Vail would be permitting the doubling of density virtually across the street from us. In fact, homeowners rely upon the Town of Vail to protect them from such events based upon its reputation for sensible land use restrictions. Please note our opposition to this request. Yours very truly, ,.- ~ r ~~ Burton E. Glazov / ~ .~ // ~~'/ n Adrienne G. Glazov ~ Michael L. Phillips vanuary 23, 1987 MEMC~~ P~~11~ S p. and Associates Public Accountants To: Whom it may concern From: Mike Phillips REC'0 MAR 1 4 1988 Re: Preliminary thoughts on why Visitor's Center should be located in Lionshead. I. Located between Golden Peak and the Westin, it is in the Center of Town. II. Adjacent to the major summer attraction, i.e., The Gondola. III. Parking and traffic congestion not a problem in Lionshead, 130 Vans and Taxis using Transportation Center. IV. Located centrally between exit from east, and what will be exit, form west when highway department completes changes to main Vail. exit. V. Reduces congestion at four-way stop VI. Lionshead view of mountain and Vail superior to transportation center. VII. All major services are also located in Lionshaed. (No flower shop, grocery or theater) IX. Parking for guests better at Lionshead because Vail structure is full most of the .year, even in the summer. X. Make better use of both parking facilities by relieving some pressure on Vail structure voluntarily. P. O. Box 1403 Vail, Colorado 81658 (303) 476-1692 ,~- R~c'~ ~aR 1 ~ ~Yjzs. ~. ~adLet~ eox f3 113 ~ozzis clQoad ~1Lmin9fon, L~sLawaze 19&03 ~_ ~~~ ~~~ ,, o ~ T ~/ Zt~r-.-s 4.---a-o-,-~ ~.-. ~e~ ~L"crc3~G~-~t-t_r ,~~~ ~ - , -- ~ ~ ate. -~z-~'--~ 0~.,7~' ~~ ~ ~..~- c*--=_.-.j /c (~~~ ~c~ G~-~~~ _`"~ ., - -~. ~ ~~ - ~ "' ~ % - ~-~-,~ ~ ~ ~ ~®-~.~' ~-~~ r_~ i i „//// J .~~., -~-c.~ .~ . ~' ~~ Gl _~ ~~ _, --L-~-~.~ _ ' - '~ i i . s, _~ ~~~. ~. ~acLLet~ eox 113 ~o¢¢i2 cRoacL ~iLmin9fon, L~sLawa¢e 19&03 p ~--^ _' ~ ~ ~-~----~ ~.~ 9 .+...~ ~~~ ~~ ~~ ~~~ ~ ~~ _~~ ~' G~~~t ~ ' ~7,L PRESENT: ABSENT: Colin Gleason Steve Simonett Colleen McCarthy Bill Bishop AGENDA Betty Neal LOCAL LIQUOR LICENSING AUTHORITY Larry Eskwith REGULAR MEETING Pam Brandmeyer MARCH 9, 1988 10:00 A.M. 1. Oath of Office - Bill Bishop (term ending 3-90) So sworn. 2. Consideration of the Board of the following modifications of premises: a. Lancelot, Inc., dba, the Lancelot Restaurant Continued to 4-13-88. b. Koumbaros, Inc., dba, the Clock Tower Cafe Continued to 4-I3-88. c. Bridge Street Restaurant Association, dba, Vendetta's Continued to 4-13-88. 3. Consideration of the following corporate structure changes for the listed licensees: a. DAB Investments, Inc., dba, the Vail Holiday Inn Continued to 4-13-88. b. CAN AM of Colo., Inc., dba, the Sundance Saloon Continued to 4-13-88. c. Arizona DTM, Inc., dba, the Doubletree Hotel-Vail Continued to 4-13-88. d. Gary Haubert/Steve Buis, Etal, dba, the Lionshead Bar and Grill Continued to 4-13-88. e. Antlers Condominium Association Continued to 4-13-88. 4. Consideration of the. following items for Village Inn Plaza Liquors, Inc., dba, Village Inn Plaza Liquors: a. Corporate Structure Change Unanimously approved. 1) Thomas 0. Maw assuming 33-1/37 stock/named as Vice President and Director (replacing Joseph Staufer) 2) Registered Manager - Thomas 0. Maw Unanimously approved. 5. Consideration of the following items for S.C.G., Inc.,. dba, the Red Lion Inn Restaurant: a. Registered Manager - Andrew Charles Boaz Unanimously approved. b. PUBLIC HEARING - A continuation of the Suspension/Revocation consideration of the Board of a Suspension/Revo- Hearing continued to cation Hearing of the Hotel/Restaurant Liquor 4-13-88,'w/following License held by S.C.G., Inc., dba, the Red Lion conditions: Inn Restaurant, with the grounds for suspension or revocation, as follows• • 1) Licensee must notify board within 48 hours 1) Whether licensee failed to report a change of of any change of status financial interest, to wit: the financial w/receiver. interest of the Graceland Corporation in the 2) Licensee must notify license, within 30 days after said change, in board within 48 hours of violation of 12-47-106, D.R.S., as amended. any change in lease. 3) Receiver, or his 2) Whether licensee unlawfully failed to completely representative must disclose all persons having a direct or indirect appear before board on financial interest in the license and the extent monthly basis for update of such interest to the Local Licensing Authority, on financial status. to wit: the financial interest of Graceland Corporation, in violation of 12-47-129(4)(a), This hearing is continue C.R.S., as amended, and Rule 3(B) of the Rules indefinitely, based on of Procedure of the Liquor Licensing Authority these criteria being met. of the Town of Vail. 6. Consideration of the Board of the following items relating to licenses held by Steven Satterstrom, Inc.: a. Satch's Restaurant at the Clubhouse Unanimously approved. 1) Corporate Structure Change - Frederick P. Sackbauer, III - 497 Shareholder, Secretary/Treasurer/Director AGENDA LOCAL LIQUOR LICENSING AUTHORITY MARCH 9, 1988 PAGE TWO b. Satch's Starter Shark 1) Corporate Structure Change - Frederick P. Sackbauer, III - 4:9:7.; Shareholder, Secretary/Treasurer/Director 2) Registered Manager - Richard S. Hessom 3) Renewal 7. PUBLIC HEARING - Consideration of the Board of an application for a Special Events Permit/Fermented Malt Beverage, 3.27 Beer Only, by the Town of Vail Recreation Department, in conjunction with the Vail Lacrosse Tournament, to be held at the location of the Ford Park, Lower Bench, 700 Block of South Frontage Road East, Vail, Colorado, on July 1, 1988, from 4:00 P.M. to 7:00 P.M., listing the following offficers: a. Town Manager - Rondall V. Phillips b. Event Manager - Barbara Masoner Unanimously approved. Continued to 4-13-88. Unanimously approved. Unanimously approved. 8. PUBLIC HEARING - Consideration of the Board of a 1007 Unanimously approved. transfer of the Hotel/ Restaurant Liquor License currently held by the International Equity Group, Ltd., -Brent Scowcroft, Etal, dba, the Vail Hotel and Athletic Club, to JWT 1987 Vail Limited Partnership, at the location of 352 East Meadow Drive, Vail, Colorado: a. Jack W. Theimer, General Partner b. Limited Partners - 1) Patrick Bourgeois 2) National City Bank, Akron, Trustee for Buckeye Trust 3) Society National Bank, Frustee for Marboro Trust c. Registered Manager - Markus Gatter 9. PUBLIC HEARING - Consideration of the Board of a 1007 transfer of the Tavern Liquor License currently held by Trilogy S, Inc., dba, the Club, to TR Investments, Inc., dba, the Club, listing the following officer, director, and 1007 shareholder: Todd P. Milner - President/Vice-President/Secretary/ Treasurer/Director/1007 Shareholder At the location of 304 East Bridge Street, Vail, Colorado. Registered Manager - Todd P. Milner/REGISTERED UNDER TRILOGY S, INC., DBA, THE CLUB 10. PUBLIC HEARING - A continuation of the hearing to grant a 1007 transfer of the Hotel/Restuarant Liquor License currently held by James B. Craddock, dba, the Best Western Raintree Inn - Vail, to Robert G. and Isabel C. Mann, dba, the West Vail Inn, at the location of 2211 North Frontage Road West, Vail, Colorado. 11. Notification of the Board of recent renewals: a. Sweet Basil, Inc., dba, Sweet Basil 12. Notification of the Board of a recent incident report from the Vail Police Department, Case X688-00759, 7-11, Service to an Intoxicated Person. Unanimously approved. Continued to 4-13-88. Unanimously approved. Application withdrawn. Unanimously approved. Suspension/Revocation Hearing to be called for 4-13-88 meeting. AGENDA LOCAL LIQUOR LICENSING AUTHORITY MARCH 9, 1988 PAGE THREE 13. Notification of the Board concerning The Great Letter of support for Vail Police Race, April I3, 1988 - Brian Terrett and enforcement of State guide- lines to be sent to licensees/ 14. Any other matters the Board wishes to discuss. published. Meeting adjourned at 11:55 A.M. .. r, REC'~~ ir1AR 21 998 NATURAL ENERGY RESOURCES COMPANY March 11, 1988 Brigadier General Robert H. Ryan Commander, Missouri River Division U. S. Army Corps of Engineers 12565 West Center Road Omaha, Nebraska 68144 Subject: Green Mountain and Gunnison Alternatives to Two forks Dear General Ryan: The Metro Denver water scene is becoming increasingly confused with the Corps' final Two forks I?IS, and the Denver Water Department's (DWD) recent decision to pursue their Green Mountain Pumpback alternative (see attached news article). Green Mountain has always been D~JD's fallback alternative if and when Two Iorks fails. Although the Colorado 6dater Resources and Power Development Authority completed the two year Green Mountain Study in April 1987, this study was immediately shelved for fear of upsetting the Two Iorks Study. Green Mountain is a superior alternative to Two forks, but it was disqualified from consideration in the IIS because of DbVD's position that it would take too long to legally resolve water right matters. This excuse is a red herring, as D4VD's legal experts now down play Green Mountain's water right problems - - "Denver prefers a talked-out settlement rather than a long and costly court battle". D`VD also has their historic December 15, 1986 "Water-1'or-Dollars" agreement with the 64est Slope's Colorado River District that supposedly cleared the legal hurdles for both Two Iorks and Green Mountain. However, the Corps'. ITS has increased ~~est Slope awareness of the severe environmental damage that Two Iorks or Green Mountain would create by Denver's continued dewatering of their same Upper Colorado tributaries. The Corps has unfortunately also used the same D6JD water right excuse to disqualify the more efficient gravity siphon from the Gunnison's Union Park Reservoir to the South Platte and Metro Denver. This unique diversion from the untapped Gunnison would be environmentally and economically superior to either Green Mountain or Two Iorks, according to recent studies by major engineering firms. The Bureau of Reclamation has long recognized the trans-mountain potential of the Gunnison, and the President's 1989 budget includes funds for a major BOR study of the Gunnison for Colorado's future Last Slope growth (see attached budget item). This new study will surely embarrass the Corps, because their ETS is limited to D`~D's preferred alternatives and existing water rights. P.O. Bax 557 • Palmer Lake, Colorado 90133 • (?031 481-?003 z IC the Carps and the Denver water establishment are interested in a valid IIS For public evaluation, a Supplement to the Final EtS should be issued that includes a comparison with the Green htount;ain arld Gunnison alternatives. Otherwise,. confusion will c~c~ntinue tc~ reign, and Colorado's image will suffer from an escalating environmental battle that will soon be in the national arena. Sincerel , Allen D. (Dave) Miller President AUM/bm Atchs: News Article BOR Budget item ' cc: local, state, and federal officials B12 GAZETTE TELEGRAPH WEDNESDAY, MARCH 9, 1988 Plan to divert West Slope water meets opposition Record 50 objections filed against Denver proposal Associated Press GLEi\ WOOD SPRINGS -The historically emotional issue of transmountain water diversions is heating up again in water court here, with a record number of objections filed to Denver's plan for tapping Green Mountain Reservoir. V~'ater court records show as many as 5U to~rns. cities and counties, irrigation and oil companies, ski areas and water dis- tricts want to put up a fight in the case. The filing deadline for objectors was Feb. 29, and their he concern comes number tops the 42 in another recent, because of the size of sticky transmountain diversion plan by Au- the diversion, the v~~ay rora to tap the Gun-~ nison River. it paves the V~'a~% for In this case, even Aurora and Denver's more diversions, and other suburban v<•ater customers are because it invades the among the objectors. "Everybodv's con- previously sacrosanct cerned, and rightly so," said Don Ham- Green ~~Ollntaln burg, attorney for the Colorado River Reservoir. Water Conservation District. The concern comes because of the size of the diversion, the war it paves the v<•ay for more diversions, and because it im•ades the previously sacrosanct Green Moun- tain Reservoir, near Kremmling. Grand Junction attorney Jim Dufford, in his filing for the city of Grand Junction; Clifton W ater District and Orchard Mesa Irrigation District, said Denver has no right to Green Mountain water. Green Mountain Reservoir was built for the Western Slope, to make up for diversions in the Colorado-Big Thompson Project. . Dufford said the Western Slope is "entitled to the bene- fits" of Green Mountain, and Denver's filing could injure West- ern Slope water rights. Hamburg said the diversion could come ahead of water the Western Slope could use for its oven future growth. Dufford and attorneys for other objectors also charge Den- ver with speculating in water. and water rights in the filing, since it has no use for the diversion. On Dec. 31, attorneys for the Denver Water Department filed six cases in Division b water court in Glenwood Springs, ask- ing the court to change old rights and grant new ones. Denver wants to pump all of Green Mountain's yearly inflow back up to Dillon Reservoir and on to the Front Range. This scheme is called the Green Mountain Pumpback pro- ject, a $400 million pump and pipeline that would run 120,000- acre-feet of water a year 20 miles uphill from Green Moun- tain, near Kremmling, to Dillon. The pipeline would run parallel to the Blue River. An acre- foot equals 325,851 gallons, and Green Mountain holds about 15U,OU0 acre-feet. Denver's plans call for replacing the diverted water with a new Western Slope reservoir. All but one of the nine possible reservoir sites Denver named are held by the River District. The idea for this plan was framed in a historic agreement made between Denver and the River District in 1986, but now that it's in water court, there are many questions. Hamburg believes the filings go beyond the agreement, and he's already talked with Denver Water Department attorneys over the issue. 'The only way to get out of this morass is to sit down and write an operational plan on how this would work," Hamburg said. In the course of such planning, Denver would amend some of tl~e filings and dismiss others, shaping the filings to fit the plan, Hamburg figures. It may not be what Denver wants, but it would avoid a law- suit that could last from five to 10 years, Hamburg and others say, Fou'll never get this settled with b0 objectors," Hamburg said. Mike Walker, attorney fur the Denver VS'ater Department, said Denver prefers atalked-out settlement rather than a long and costly court battle. "This is definitely the way we're moving," he said. "We've had three meetings with groups of people already, and I'm v<•illing to talk v<•ith anyone else to sort through this thing and make it more understandable." PF-44 ' Bureau of Reclamation l SCHE~fiLF. OF GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM Region Project State ~~ Upper Colorado Upper Gunnison llncomnah re Rasin Project Colorado Initiation Completion Percentage Cost Sharing ~ Type of Study FY 1989 FY 1993 FO Pro ect Investigation Summarized Financial Data Total to Estimated September 30, Program Estimate Balance Total 1987 FY 1988 FY 1989 To Complete Reclamation: S 920,000 S -- $ -- $ 120,000 $ 800,000 Non-Federal: 1,380,000 -- 180,000 1,200,000 Other Federal: -- - -- -- TOTAL S2 300,000 S -- $ -- $ 300,000. $ 2,000,000 Description of Program The Upper Gunnison-Uncompahgre Basin Project is located in central and west-central Colorado in the Gunnison and Arkansas River Basins. The purpose of investigations would be to determine the most effi- cient use of Gunnison River Basin waters for its citizens and the citizens of the State of Colorado. The Gunnison River Basin has significant and valuable water resources with substantial storage held in trust by Reclamation in the Wayne N. Aspinall Unit reservoirs. A combining of east slope consumptive needs with the west slop environmental and recreational needs provides a un ique opportunity for the State to distribute capital to achieve balanced economic development among histor ically competing, interests. This investigation is being proposed by the Colorado Water Resources and Po wer Development Authority, the I?pper Gunnison River Water Conservancy District, and the Colorado River Water Conservation District. Because Reclamation facilities play major water management roles within the basin, Reclamation would likely prepare the Planning Report/Environmental Impact Statement. 65 NATURAL ENERGY RESOURCES COMPANY March 2, 1988 Governor Roy Romer ;l-.ate Cahi r,ol T3uiLdi_nq Ik~nver, Colorado 80203 Lamar Governor Romer: According to your recent cortm~ent to Colorado's West Slope Club 20 officials, you are withholding your decision on Two Forks until the public has ~~ chance to evaluate the Corps of Engineers' Final 1?nviroruneut~tl lrnpact Statement (L'EiS). LIow can the public and government officials adequately evaluai;e this complex issue when the most- logical water alternative has been omitted from the study? 'Phe untapped Gunnison Basin has long been known by the Bureau of Reclamation and other water experts as an excellent water source for Colorado's future East Slope growth. However, the intimidating Denver water establ.ishrnenE has been able to delude the Corps and Governor 1,arrun's Round 'T'able group into thinking that Two forks is Colorado's only rc~~tsonable choice for Last Slope growth. Unfortunately, the Round `fable pa r.ticipants did not consider the readily available (.unnison alternative. Because of the state's previous high level acquiescence, the Corps continues with their "fatally flawed" study that has only considered those structural alternatives that fit the dreams and o.ld water rights of the Denver Water Department. This is in spite of the Corps' recent, but belated, preliminary evaluation that shows the Upper Gunnison can be a cost effective and environmentally sound water supply alternative for Metro Denver. The Corps readily admits that Colorado's governor is in the drivE~r's seat with regard to Two I~orks. Instead of allowing the cxmtinuc~d waste of tl:e public's nner~y and funds on an invalid and incomplete study, suggest you ask the Corps to withhold their imminent release of their final study report until the Bureau of Reclamation and Colorado's current joint study of the Gunnison water alternative is available for comparison. With our present slow growth, we surely have the tin>F~ to avoid what is potentially Colorado's greatest environmental mistake. Sincerely, ~fj ~/' ~~~~~ Allen D. (Dave) i`liller President ADI`i/bm cc: local, state, and federal officials ~EC'D p~~R 2 1 X988 BERNAF~D H. MENDIK 330 MADISON AVENUE NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10017 March 18, 1988 VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS Town Council Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road West Vail, Colorado 81657 Re: 443 Beaver Dam Road Subdivision Request Gentlemen: I own the property at 265 Beaver Dam Road and previously sent a letter in support of the captioned subdivision. Upon further reflection and after personal inspection upon my arrival in Vail, I now would like to voice my strong opposition to the request. The two streets, Beaver Dam Road and Forest Road are among the most beautiful streets in Vail and are already becoming quite con- gested. Any further subdivision will inevitably lead to further subdivisions and an erosion into the green areas and tranquility of the area. I strongly urge you to follow the unanimous lead of the Vail Town Planning and Erivironmerital Commission. Sincerely, Bernard H. Mendik Charles L. Biederman 5 Sunset Drive Englewood, Colorado 80110 , ~fi~~ ~ '~ ~~~~ March 16, 1988 Town Council Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road West Vail, Colorado 81657 Dear Council Members, I wish to take this opportunity to reaffirm my strong objection to the subdivision request dealing with the Rasberry house at 443 Beaver Dam Road. Being a resident of Beaver Dam Road, I feel that approval of the subdivision conflicts with the intention of Section 17.04.OlOC of the Vail code. It is evident that said subdivision would not go towards protecting and conserving the value of the land throughout the municipality and would contribute toward establishing a dangerous precedent for the future. There is more than enough traffic currently on Beaver Dam Road and at some point, increase to that traffic should be prevented. This particular situation represents the opportunity for the Town Council to support the wishes of many of the residents along Beaver Dam Road. Thank you for your consideration. Very truly. yours, ;~ i Charle iederman 254 Beaver Dam Road /tw DECD MAR 2 ~ 19~~ PARISH ASSOCIATES 415 WEST MICHIGAN AVENUE KALAMAZOO, MICHIGAN 49007 March 16, 1988 Town Council Town of Vail 7550 Frontage Road, West Vail, Colorado 81657 Re: 443 Beaver Dam Road - Raspberry House M/M Ben Rose Minor Subdivision Request Dear Council Members: This letter is in opposition to the referenced Minor Subdivision and is written on the behalf of and at the request of my children, Barbara Parish Gibbs, Katy Parish Miller, P. William Parish, Preston L. Parish and David C. Parish, who own the residence at 338 Rockledge Road. It is in further support of my earlier correspondence addressed to the Planning and Environmental Commission last January, a copy of which is appended. The Town of Vail is fast losing its charm and appeal because of the many additions of multiple dwellings to former single dwelling lots. As a result the green space for which so many municipalities yearn is disappearing at an alarming rate. At a time when other cities are razing buildings to build parks and improve the environment, the Town of Vail is being pressured to move in the opposite direction. It is unfortunate that this situation has already developed but it would be disasterous to permit it to continue. The increased density that is the inevitable result of excessive subdivision will only aggravate an already emerging environmental problem. In our view the Planning and Environmental Commission's denial of the applicant's request should be upheld and we hope the Council is so disposed. Sincerely, ~- Preston S. Parish PSP.fl encl. PARISH ASSOCIATES 415 WEST MICHIGAN AVENUE KALAMAZOO, MICHIGAN 49007 January 20, 1988 The Planning & Environmental Commission Ttie Town of Vail Vail, Colorado 81657 Re: A Request For A Minor Subdivision To Create Two Primary/Secondary Lots on Lot 4, Block 4, Vail Village, Third Filing, 443 Beaver Dam Road Dear Commissioners: I am writing on behalf of and at the request of my children, Barbara Parish Gibbs, Katharine Parish Miller, P. William Parish, Preston L. Parish and David C. Parish, who own the residence at 338 Rockledge Road, in opposition to the referenced minor subdivision. As former limited partners of Vail Associates, my wife and I acquired and built upon the above Rockledge Road property in 1962. Since that time my family has watched with dismay the continuing encroachment on open space in the residential and other areas of Vail Village. The granting of subdivisions and variances has had an adverse environmental impact and is not in keeping with the recorded covenants. A case in point is a similar minor subdivision opposite our children's house which has destroyed the character of the lower end of Rockledge Rvad. Increased density in the residential areas is positionatoythesaforementioned and this letter is to register our vigorous opp application. Sincerely, ._-- ~. Preston S. Parish PSP/fl