Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-10-30 Support Documentation Town Council Work Session ~.J N VAIL TOWN COUNCIL WORK SESSION TUESDAY, OCTOBER 30, 1990 2:00 P.M. AGENDA 1. Presentation on Affordable Housing Conferences in Whistler, BC and Aspen, CO 2. Follow-Up on Issues Raised by the Council concerning the Affordable Housing Proposal by Professional Development Corporation 3. Follow-Up Discussion of Regional Transportation System 4. Information Update 5. Other UAIL TOWN COUNCIL WORK SESSION TUESDAY, OCTOBER 30, 1990 2:00 P.M. EXPANDED AGENDA 2:00 1. Presentation on Affordable Housing Conferences in Whistler, Kent Rose BC and Aspen, CO Ron Phillips Kristan Pritz 3:00 2. Follow-Up on Issues Raised by the Council concerning the Ron Phillips Affordable Housing Proposal by Professional Development Corporation Background/Rationale: Update on comments from Tuesday informational meeting on the three sites will be presented. Ron Phillips' letter to Tom Campbell outlining Council issues will also be discussed. 4:00 3. Follow-Up Discussion of Regional Transportation System Stan Berryman Ron Phillips Action Requested of Council: Approve/modify/decline funds for the proposal. Background/Rationale: The Town of Avon and Eagle County submitted a proposal last week requesting Town funding for a regional bus system. Town of Vail staff has performed an analysis of employee ridership and associated County (see enclosed memo). The costs of providing service to Minturn is also enclosed. Bill James and Bob McIlveen will be at the work session with a revised proposal. 4:30 4. Information Update Ron Phillips 4:35 5. Other - ~~i tows of nail 75 south frontage road va11, Colorado 81657 (303) 479-2105 office of town manager MEMORANDUM T0: Kristan Pritz Community Development Director Nolan Rosall Rosall, Remme & Cares, Inc. FROM: Ron Phillips DATE: October 25, 1990 SUBJECT: Town of Vail Affordable Housing Study Kent Rose and I had the privilege of attending an "Employee Housing in Resort Communities" conference in Whistler, British Columbia a couple of weeks ago where we were exposed to some interesting affordable housing concepts. I know it is late in the process for you to be considering new input, but I think some of the issues addressed by Whistler's policies could relate to needs we have in Vail. I particularly think that the ordinance requiring any new development or redevelopment to be employee housing self-sufficient is important for us to consider. I have attached a copy of a summary of the Whistler employee housing policies for your review. I also have attached a copy of the Whistler local ordinance called "By-Law No. 811, 1990" which establishes and imposes charges for municipal employee housing services on any new development or redevelopment in the community. RUP/bsc Attachments cc: Vail Town Council Vail Housing Task Force Larry Eskwith Steve Barwick .Z RESORT MUNICIPALITY OF WHISTLER EMPLOYEE HOUSING POLICIES - October, 1989 1. NEW DEVELOPMENT That all new developments applying for Development Permits be required to be self-sufficient in employee housing. Observations: (a ) It has been estimated that the current shortfall to meet the 1989 demand is 1456 bed units and that unless new development meets its own needs in housing the new employees it generates, the shortfall will increase by 860 bed units per year for the next three years and at varying levels thereafter. (b) It is not always appropriate for employees to be~ accommodated on the same site as the new development that creates their jobs and off-site solutions have to be found. (c) Off-site housing projects can be developed by the same developer if it can obtain suitable land at an affordable price. This will normally require the cooperation of the Municipality in rezoning lands and putting the appropriate controls in place to ensure that the housing remains affordable and cannot be sold in the open market (to the highest bidder). (d) Developers of new projects might find it attractive and beneficial to simply supply limited equity funding to the W.V.H.S. or through it to a subsidiary company of the Municipal Housing Corporation (presently called "Marmot Employee Housing Corp. " ) in exchange for the long term righ-c of first option to lease a unit for its employees in a designated housing project owned by the company. { ' 4 -Page 2- (e) A method will have to be developed under which the number of employees generated by a particular , project can be determined, similar, perhaps, to the "Resident Generation Scale" adopted in Aspen which sets factors applied to numbers of tourist accommodation rooms and square footage of commercial space being developed. e.g. 0.2-0.4 employees per room 3.5 employees per 1000 sq.ft. retail 5.0-10.0 employees per 1000 sq.ft. for restaurants and bars (f) To make this mandatory and enforceable a works charge may have to be established requiring payment of a fixed charge per employee generated which could be waived if the developer either provided its own employee accommodation or participated in a housing project sponsored by the W.V.H.S. or the Municipal Housing Corporation. This will require further detailed legal study. 2. EMPLOYER PARTICIPATION That as a condition of its employees being permitted to occupy accommodation in any project under the ownership or control of the W.V.H.S. or the Municipal Housing Corporation and any of its subsidiaries, an employer must be a member in good standing of the W.V.H.S. and guarantee the annual rentals on the unit being occupied. Observations: (a) The Constitution of the W.V.H.S. limits its purposes to: "-acquire, construct and manage -housing accommodation -on a non-profit basis -for employees of members of the Society -who are otherwise unable to afford accommodation in the RMOW" It is therefore beyond the Society's powers and a breach of its Constitution to rent units to persons who are not employed by a member in good standing of ; the Society. (b) The bylaws of the W.V.H.S. state that to remain in good standing a member must not refuse "to provide upon request an unconditional guarantee of the full rental payment due in respect of housing units allocated for the use of employees of that _ member". -Page 3- (c) Neither of the above provisions have been strictly adhered to in the past but the Directors of the W.V.H.S. have resolved to conduct a membership campaign with employers in the Municipality and to limit future leases to employees of members in good standing and to require their guarantees of annual rentals. Membership dues are proposed at $10 for every employee shown on a member's payroll on 1st January each year up to a limit of $1000 per year. This revenue from dues should be more than sufficient to cover the Society's annual operating expenses and avoid the need for Municipal grants in the future. 3. EQUITY FUNDING OF MOUSING PROJECTS That employers be required to underwrite the cash equity required to make a housing project achieve a break-even cash flow on affordable rents presently estimated at approximately $1 per square foot per month. Observations: (a) Attached as Appendix "A" hereto is a "Rental Housing. Project -Pro Forma" intended to serve as a basic financial model against which to test individual projects and also from which to derive some guidelines for equity funding requirements. (b) The principal variables in this pro-forma are: (i) land cost (if any), (ii) the mix and form of the housing units, (iii construction costs, and (iv) site and servicing costs. The. rate of interest to be paid on mortgage financing is the other significant factor in determining what equity financing is needed. In the pro-forma a difference of 3$ in the mortgage interest rate can have a $500,000 impact on the required equity component for a $5 million project. (c) The pro-forma is largely based on the experience of f the W.V.H.A. in developing its Nordic Court project. There, the 30 units retained by the Society were equity funded by selling off 12 additional units to return a net of approximately $300,000 or $10,000 for each of the 30 remaining units which then required mortgage financing of $1,250,000 or approximately $40,000 per unit to meet their costs. {S` ~ -Page 4- (d) This pro-forma indicates that a cash equity of °T'~ approximately $5,000 per bed may be required to allow a project to break even at rentals of $1 per square foot per month. This could vary substantially depending on the variations in costs. 4. MARKET DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL INCENTIVES That the management policy applied by Council in permitting market development as an incentive to encourage the development of Resident Employee Accommodation be based on bed units rather than square metres of construction and that this include a distinction between private residential bed units and commercial (public) bed units. Observations: (a) The present policy of permitting two square metres of "market housing" for every 10 square metres of . new Resident Employee Accommodation ("REA") does not appear to have any economic basis and does not even refer to commercial accommodation or retail space. (b) Given that the Official Community Plan ("O.C.P.") and the REA Policy both rely on a bed unit count as the basis for quantifying and comparing development, it is the more appropriate unit of measurement in _ establishing ratios between the amounts of private development and employee housing to be considered. (c) _To make a project on private land workable economically and at all attractive to the land owner it may be necessary to adopt ratios as low as three employee beds to one private residential bed and one employee bed to one commercial bed. This will depend on a number of variable factors in each project; particularly location, site services and density In each case there will need to be very close communication and negotiation between the proponent, Municipal staff, Council and the W.V.H.S. in order to work out a level and mix of development acceptable to all parties. 5, CONTROLS TO ENSURE AFFORDABILITY AND SUPPLY ' That a variety of control mechanisms be developed to ensure that employee housing is made affordable and remains available over time and in particular, that the W.V.H.S. in conjunction with the Municipal Housing Corporation have legal control over who occupies the _ housing and the level of rents to be charged. z . -Page 5- Observations: . (a) The present form of Restrictive Covenants applied to privately owned units intended to serve as employee accommodation (12 Nordic Court units and 36 ova Lake units) have no rent restrictions and strictly speaking are only rights of first refusal for employees to rent at whatever rental is demanded by the owner. If an employee cannot afford the rent asked for, the unit can be offered to the open market (highest bidder). (b) By distinction, 30 of the units in Nordic Court are owned by the W.V.H.S. which decides who lives there and at affordable, break even, rents. The best control is ownership but a long term read lease to the W.V.H.S. from a private owner at a fixed or formulated rent can be equally as effective and have the added advantage of the owner being able to obtain a tax advantage from claiming capital cost allowances, thus improving the economics of the project. (c) Long term land leases of single family lots to employees or of townhouse or apartment sites to employers from the Municipal Housing Corporation, over land registered in its name, could also be an effective way of establishing a market for affordable rousing sites, separate from the open market. The ground rent could be prepaid and the lessee allowed to register a construction mortgage ahead of the lease so that financing would not be difficult. Assuming that the lease payment is at a level of, say, 50$ of the value of the land on the open market, a mortgage of up to 90$ of the total of the lease cost plus construction cost would still be well secured. e•g•. Lease Onen Market land cost $ 40,000 $ 90,000 value construction 140.000 140,000 cost total $180,000 $230,000 905 mortgage 162,000 162,000 equity $ 18,000 (10~) $ 68,000 (29.5$) - To protect the lessee's interest in ,the value of the improvement there would have to be provision for renewal of the land lease at the expiry of the term at an agreed rental or alternatively the lessor. would be obligated to pay for the improvement at its . fair market value as agreed or determined by arbitration (probably at depreciated replacement R S -Page 6- ~ ' cost). Similar provisions can be found in Part 3 of the Condominium Act applicable to leasehold strata titles such as the Eva Lake Road project. The lease would only be assignable to a qualified resident. employee . (d) Additional objectives can be achieved through lo::g term land leases such as requiring that a sing?e family home must include an employee rental suite or that shorter term rentals be at formulated rents a..^.d only to qualified resident employees. - - - - - ~ APPENDIX A RENTAL HOUSING PROJECT -PRO FORMA TYPICAL: (a) 100 apartment units @ 500 sq.ft. each (b) mix of 1 bedroom (500 sq.ft.) and 2 bedrooms :(700 sq.ft.) (c) mix of townhouses (2 or 3 bedrooms) @ 900 to 1200 sq.ft. each plus suites @ 500 sq.ft. Assuming a total of 200 bed units in each case total buildable square footage = 50.000 sg.ft. DEVELOPMENT COSTS: land @ $10/sq.ft. buildable = $ 500,000 construction @ $70/sq.ft. = 3,500,000 services and site preparation = 500,000 project management = 50,000 works charges - 155,000 interest on construction financing = 245,000 housing society fees = 50.000 Total costs = 55,000,000 OPERATING PRO FORMA: Annual revenues @ $1 per sq.ft. per month = $ 600,000 Annual expenses: management, maintenance, insurance reserves and miscellaneous @ 20~ of income = 120,000 taxes @ 14 mils on $5 million = 70,000 = 190.000 Net 5410.000 Mortgage financing supportable by a net income of $410,000 = $4,000,000 maximum - annual payment @ 9~ interest and 25 year amortization = 5397.429 Total development costs 55.000.000 Equity required 51.000.000 or $5,000 per bed unit NOTES: (1) By eliminating the land cost of $500,000 the mortgage required can be reduced to $3,500,000 and the project will break even at up to 11~ mortgage interest for which the required annual payment would be $404,263 (2) Mortgage funds at 9$ interest appear to be available for employee housing which is a permitted investment for ( Immigration Funds. In that case, if the land cost can be eliminated there may not be any need for equity funding. RESORT MIINICIPALITY OF WHISTLER BYLAW NO. 811, 1990 A BYLAW TO ESTABLISH AND IMPOSE CHARGES FOR MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEE HOUSING SERVICES • WHEREAS section 9 of the Resort Municipality of Whistler Act, S.B.C. 1975, c. 67 empowers Council by bylaw to establish charges. to be imposed on land and improvements in the Resort Municipality of Whistler for municipal works and services, and empowers that the bylaw may provide that those charges shall be levied and collected by the Resort Municipality; NOW THEREFORE the Municipal Council of the Resort Municipality of Whistler in open meeting assembled ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: Citation 1. This bylaw may be cited for all purposes as "Employee Housing Service Charge Bylaw No.811, 1990". Interpretation 2. In this bylaw: _ • r. ~~bed unit" means (i) one sleeping room that contains no cooking facilities and comprises a total floor area of less than 9.29 square metres measured within the walls; (ii) one half of a sleeping room that contains no cooking facilities and comprises 9.29 square metres or more of total floor area measured within the walls; or (iii) not more than one self-contained sleeping room, that may be attached to a separate bathroom, which sleeping room contains both accommodation and not more than one set of cooking facilities, where the sleeping room is controlled by an instrument; 'Class A land's means a parcel of land zoned to permit a detached single family residential dwelling unit but not~a duplex dwelling uait, at the time an event specified in section 5 occurs; 1 ••Class B land~~ means a parcel of land zoned to permit a duplex dwelling unit, hostel or pension at the time an event specified in section 5 occurs; ••Class C land~• means a parcel of land, other than Class A land or Class B land, which is not subject to a rental pool covenant and which is zoned to penait residential dwelling units; ••Class D land~• means a parcel of land which is not Class A land, Class B land or Class C land; ••commercial•• includes every intended commercial, retail and industrial use except guest rooms, meeting rooms and a portion of a kitchen serving the meeting rooms, lobby areas and recreation facilities and non-revenue generating auxiliary uses thereto; ••dwelling unit•• means a self-contained set of habitable rooms in a building, including not more than one set of cooking facilities; ••employee~• means an individual person who works within the boundaries of the Municipality; ••employee housing services~~ includes without .limitation acquisition and improvement of land and acquisition, construction, replacement, operation and maintenance of buildings used or intended for the accommodation of employees and which land or buildings are acquired, owned, developed or operated by the Municipality or its agent; ••gross floor area~• means the total area of all floors in a building on a parcel, measured to the outside surface of the exterior walls of the building, including stairwells, basements and cellars but excluding crawlspaces, parking areas, elevators and areas occupied by fixed machinery or equipment. ••quest room~• means no more than three habitable rooms that are self-contained as a single unit that is used for tourism accommodation or is subject to a rental pool covenant and which may include a bathroom and one set of cooking facilities; ••hostel•• means a building used as a temporary place of lodging ' containing one or more dormitories and includes common areas for washing, cooking, dining and socializing, bathroom, kitchen, dining and social facilities; and which may also contain an auxiliary residential dwelling unit; 2 - "instrument's means a document substantially in the form of ( - that referred to in the June 25, 1990 Resort Municipality of Whistler Council policy entitled "Employee Housing - Legal Controls" which document is registered in favour of the Municipality or its agent in the Land Title Office and restricts the use of a bed unit so that only employee housing services ar.e permitted therein; "pension's means a building used for temporary lodging by paying guests that includes no more than eight quest rooms, common areas including a dining room intended for the use of. such paying guests, and an.auxiliary residential dwelling unit; "rental pool covenant" means a covenant substantially in the form and with the content of Schedule A or having the effect of Schedule A and registered in the Land Title Office in favour of the Municipality under section 215 of the Land Title Act against title to a dwelling unit; "temporary~~ means use by an individual for a total of less than four consecutive weeks in a calendar year; "tourism accommodation's means containing one or more habitable rooms or dwelling units that are used primarily for temporary lodging of visitors. Establishment of Charges 3. The following charges are established toward provision of employee housing services in the Municipality: (a) no charge for each parcel of Class A land; (b) no charge for. each parcel of Class B land; (c) no charge for each dwelling unit on Class C land; (d) in respect of -each parcel of Class D land, $5,000 per employee calculated according to the employee generation formula set out in Schedule B. Purpose of Charges 4. Charges collected under this bylaw may be used 'by the Municipality for any purpose directly or indirectly related to employee housing services whether or not such use results in any specific or direct benefit to the parcel in respect of which the charges were paid. 3 Im~aosita.nn and rol].ection of Charges 5. Subject to the following provisions of this bylaw, the r~ charges established by section 3 are imposed on all land and improvements in the Municipality, except all or part of a parcel and improvements thereon charged by an instrument or in respect of which an executed and registrable proposed instrument is held in trust by the Municipality or its agent, and shall be paid by the owner and collected by the Municipality each time the following specified events occur: (a) a building permit, or more than .one building permit within a 365 day period, is issued for a parcel of Class D land, authorizing: (i) a new building or structure or an addition or extension to an existing building; or (ii) replacement or renovation of a previously constructed building or a portion of a building within a parcel where at the time of building permit application the value of the replacement or renovation exceeds 50$ of the assessed value of that building or a portion of a building within a parcel ; or (b notwithstanding section 5(a), a building permit is issued ..for a parcel of Class D land, authorizing work which would result in a change in use where the new use.saould generate more employees under Schedule B than the a. previous use would generate under Schedule B. 6. Charges imposed under this bylaw: (a) shall be collected notwithstanding that one or. more of _ the specified events in section 5 has previously occurred and no charge or only part of a charge was collected at that time; (b) when payable on subdivision, shall be paid only in respect of the number of parcels created in addition to the number of parcels existing at the time of subdivision; (c) shall be payable on building permit issuance for a parcel of Class D land based on the information contained in the building permit application and on the employees generated according to the formula set out in Schedule B; and 4 (d) shall be confirmed as to ..amount, and adjusted as _ necessary; with .reference to the -building actually constructed prior to issuance of an occupancy permit. i. Previous Payment 7. A charge is payable in respect of every event under section 5, provided that a charge is not payable under this bylaw where a charge under this bylaw has been paid previously for the same event in respect of the same development. Credits 8. Notwithstanding section 7, a credit shall be deducted from 'the amount .that would otherwise have been imposed under this bylaw in respect of a parcel for the amount of employee housing services charges previously paid to the Municipality for that parcel of land under this bylaw. Non-Refundability 9. Under no circumstances other than as provided for under this bylaw shall any charges collected pursuant to this bylaw be refunded. When an approved subdivision plan is not deposited or no construction is commenced pursuant to an approved building . permit, charges collected shall be credited toward charges payable. in respect of a future charging event under Section 5. ~teserve Account 10. Charges collected under this bylaw shall be paid~~into a reserve account and used only for employee housing services, including payment of principal and interest on existing or new debt incurred by the Municipality or its agents in providing any of the employee housing services. Exemption 11. a) .Imposition and collection of Municipal employee housing services charges otherwise payable under this bylaw are deemed. to be waived by this bylaw where a condition set out in Schedule C is first satisfied as of the date the applicable event referred to in section 5 occurs. (b) An owner of land in relation to an event referred to in Section 5 may at his option pay the Municipal employee housing services charges payable under this bylaw, or , satisfy a condition set out in Schedule C, or both. 5 ORDER OF THE MINISTER prescribing municipal employee housing services and approving the basis for charges imposed made this _ day of , 1990. FIRST, SECOND AND THIRD READINGS given this 25th day of Jtme , 19 9 0 . APPROVED BY THE MINISTER this day of , 1990. APPROVED BY ~in~ INSPECTOR OF MUNICIPALITIES this day of 1990. RECONSIDERED, ADOPTED AND FINALLY PASSED BY A VOTE OF THE COUNCIL MEMBERS this day of , 1990 R.H. Drew Meredith, Mayor Barbara Elliott, Municipal Clerk I hereby certify that this is a true copy of Employee Housing Service Charge Bylaw No. 811, 1990. _ - ~ Barbara Elliott, Municipal Clerk 1350DL 6 • , BCHEDIILE "A" - RENTAL POOL COVENANT LAND TITLE ACT Section 215 THIS Restrictive Covenant made as of the 14th day of August, 1989. BE~rwr~EN: [INSERT NAME AND ADDRESS OF COVENANTOR] (Incorporation No. ) (herein called the "Covenantor") AND: RESORT MIINICIPALITY OF WHISTLER, a Municipality incorporated under the Resort Municipality of Whistler Act, having an office at 4381 Blackcomb Way, Box 35, Whistler, British Columbia, VON 1B0 (herein called the "Covenantee") wn~REAB: A. The Covenantor is the registered owner of those lands and premises situate, lying and being in the Resort Municipality of Whistler, in the Province of British Columbia, and more particularly known and described as: [INSERT LEGAL DESCRIPTION] (the "Lands"); Schedule °A° - RENTAL POOL COVENANT LAND TITLE ACT This section of the bylaw has been omitted from the course materials. It describes the rental conditions that property owners whose Whistler property sits inside the resort lands, must adhere to. As such it is not germane to the affordable housing discussions. SCHEDIILE B Employee Generation Formula B1. Subject to section B2, for every intended use referred to in an application in respect of an event referred to in section 5, where the intended use is set out in Column I, the number of employees deemed for the purposes of this bylaw to be generated by the intended use is set out in Column II: Column I- Intended Use Column II- Emulovees Generated commercial 1 per 46.45 sq. metres of commercial space and auxiliary uses thereto quest room 0.2 per quest room B2. Where the number generated under Column II results in a fraction, the number of employees deemed for the purposes of this bylaw to be generated by the intended use shall be rounded up to the next whale number. { SCHEDIILE C Exemptions Exemptions C1. Pursuant to section 11, imposition and collection of Municipal employee housing services charges otherwise payable under this bylaw are deemed to be waived by this bylaw where a condition prescribed in sections C2 or C3 is satisfied as of the date the applicable event referred to in section 5 occurs. Ownership of emnlovee dwellincs unit C2. (a) Where an event referred to in section 5 occurs, the owner of the parcel affected by the event shall own, whether as a result of new construction or otherwise, one employee bed unit for every employee deemed by this bylaw to .be generated by the event referred to in section 5, provided that: . (i) the employee bed unit complies with every applicable bylaw of the Municipality; (ii) the employee bed unit is located within the boundaries of the Municipality; and (iii) the employee bed unit shall not already be subject T?~ to an instrument. N(b) To the extent the employee bed unit does not exist as of the date of the applicable event referred to in section 5, then the owner of the parcel affected by the event referred to in section 5, in lieu of satisfying section C2(a) as of the date of his application, may deliver an unconditional, irrevocable letter of credit in the form and with content of Schedule D to the Municipality in the amount of 120$ of the charge otherwise payable under this bylaw, which letter of credit shall be: (i) returned to the owner when section C2(a) is satisfied; or (ii) cashed by the Municipality and used as a charge under this bylaw if section C2(a) is not satisfied within two years of the applicable event, and the amount of the letter of credit in excess of the charge payable is hereby deemed to be payable to the Municipality as an administrative surcharge. Ownershiti of Rent Equity Share ~ ' C3. Where an applicable event referred to in section 5 occurs, ( the owner of the parcel affected by the event shall own one rent equity share evidenced by a duly executed rent equity agreement referred to in section C3(b), in respect of an employee housing program owned or operated by the Municipality or its agent, for every employee deemed by this bylaw to be generated by the event referred to in section 5, provided that: (a) the owner is a member of the Whistler Valley Housing. Society; (b) the owner executes a rent equity agreement for every employee deemed by this bylaw to be generated by the event referred to in Section 5 which agreement contains at least the following provisions: (i) the owner shall have the benefit of one rent equity share, being the right to house one employee in a employee bed unit owned or operated by the Municipality or its agent for a term of not less than ten years from the date the employee bed unit becomes available; (ii) the consideration paid by the owner for the rent equity share in respect of the employee bed~unit referred to in section C3(b)(i) shall comprise: (A) the pro-rated actual cost net of mortgage costs of supplying the employee bed unit, including the pro-rated portion of land value based on assessed value~as of the date of the event referred to in Section 5, such that the actual cost is without profit to the Municipality or its agent, to be paid on the date of execution of the rent equity agreement; and (B) a monthly rental charge equal to the actual cost to the Municipality or its agent of maintaining, operating and administering without profit the employee bed unit, including mortgage payments, taxes and contingencies; (iii) the owner may at his option renew the lease every ten years for a total of 100 years in return for ' payment in advance of the actual cost without profit of refurbishing the unit plus a monthly rental charge equal to the actual cost to the Municipality or its agent of maintaining, operating and administering the employee bed unit including mortgage payments, taxes and contingencies; i (c) the owner shall enter into a rent equity agreement only with the Municipality or its agent and not by assignment, ~ i transfer, assumption or otherwise from any person other than the Municipality or its agents; (d) consideration paid under this section C3 of this Schedule C is not refundable under any circumstances; (e) in the event an owner applies to the Municipality to acquire a rent equity share in respect of an employee housing employee bed unit in respect of which the Municipality has not on the date of the application prepared a bed unit pro foi~na and a required prospectus or disclosure statement then the. owner may elect to acquire,a rent equity share in respect of an employee bed - unit proposed by the Municipality or its agent to be developed by delivering to the Municipality an executed rent equity agreement and an unconditional, irrevocable letter of credit in the amount of $6,000.00, provided that in the event: ' (i) the Municipality or its agent develops the employee bed unit pro forma and required prospectus or disclosure statement within two years of the application, then pursuant to the employee bed unit pro forma the owner shall as of the date of delivery by the Municipality of a required prospectus or disclosure statement, as the case may be, pay the consideration for the employee bed unit under Section C3(b)(ii) by directing_the Municipality to cash the letter of credit and by paying to the Municipality the excess amount required under the pro forma, in addition to the $6,000.00; (ii) the owner within 30 days of receipt by him of the be8 unit pro forma and a required prospectus or disclosure statement, as the case may be, fails to pay the consideration under section C3(e)(i), then the Municipality may cash the letter of credit and apply it as a charge under this bylaw, and the amount of the letter of credit in excess of the charge payable is hereby deemed to be payable to the Municipality as an administrative surcharge, unless the owner within the 30 days: (A) satisfies section C2; or (B) extends the letter of credit for only a third year to afford the owner an extension period to satisfy section C2, provided that if the owner fails to satisfy section C3(e)(ii)(A) or (B) then the Municipality may cash the letter of credit and apply it as a charge under this bylaw, and the amount of the letter of credit in excess of the charge payable is hereby deemed to be payable to the Municipality as an administrative surcharge. - SCHEDIILE D - Form of Irrevocable Letter of Credit Date: Bank: Resort Municipality of Whistler. Box 35 Whistler, British Columbia VON 1B0 Dear Sirs: Re: Irrevocable Letter of Credit No. Upon the instructions of (the "Developer") we hereby establish in your favour our irrevocable credit for the sum of dollars in Canadian currency. This credit shall be available to you on demand by sight drafts drawn on the Bank of when supported by your written demand for payment made upon us. This Letter of Credit is required in connection with a undertaking by the Developer to perform certain works and services required by you. We undertake not to refuse to honour any sight draft that you present to us for payment under this Letter of Credit. You may make partial drawings or full drawings at any time. We shall honour your demand without enquiring whether you have a right as between yourself and the Developer. This Letter of Credit shall remain in force until 12:00 a.m., 199_. Bank of f Authorized Signatory 1350DL . 1' - town of nail 75 south t ~ ge road vatl, Colorado 81657 (303) 479-2105 office of town manager October 25, 1990 Mr. Thomas H. Campbell Professional Development Corporation 6685 Quince, Suite 111 Memphis, Tennessee 38119 Dear Tom: Please find enclosed a copy of the letter from Larry Kallenberger approving at least the $6 mill-ion allocation in private activity bonds for 1991. I would like to give the Department of Local Affairs official written notice in the next few days of our withdrawal of the 1990 allocation which has to be done by Wednesday, October 31, 1990. There are five financial considerations which I would like you to address in your review of the financial pro formas for this housing project. Those concerns are as follows: 1. As I mentioned to you before you left, the monthly rents on the units seem to be high for affordable housing. The Town of Vail would like you to target the rents in the 80% of the units that are not CHFA controlled at a maximum of $1.00 per square foot per month. 2. The assumption that these units can be built at only $45 per square foot in hard construction costs has not be justified with any detail. I would appreciate you providing that type of justification to us in writing so that we can evaluate the realities of that figure. 3. The assumption that the units will be occupied at a 95% level year 'round should also be justified in writing. Projects that appeal to similar types of renters such as Timber Ridge on summer occupancy levels might be helpful. 4. Once the reserve fund is established as required by the bond holder, the Town of Vail would like for all excess cash flow including interest earnings from the reserve fund to be diverted to a maintenance account which would be controlled by the Town of Vail. We would appreciate a description of how you feel that can be accomplished. . 'f~ Mr. Thomas H. Campbell October 25, 1990 Page 2 5. We request detailed pro forma operating expense and revenue figures for the first ten years after construction is completed. There are a number of issues that also need to be discussed in relationship to a proposed lease agreement between the Town of Vail and Professional Development Corporation. Some of those issues that we feel need to be addressed are as follows: 1. The monthly rents for the units must be restricted from escalating over the life of the project except for real increases in insurance and property taxes. 2. The amount of management fee the management company charges to the project must also be fixed. 3. It is the Town of Vail's desire to require that upkeep and maintenance be at a level that will keep the units in excellent shape for a 30 to 50 year life. 4. What kind of mechanism do you. propose to deal with possible market rent decreases in the future? . 5. If the Mountain Bell site is put into the lease at a lower cost than the other two parcels on a per unit basis, how would this affect the rent amounts per unit? 6. Is there a requirement under the bonds to pledge the land as collateral, or is the security only a long term lease and the improvements on the land? We would appreciate you addressing all these issues in writing with detailed numbers supporting the narrative along with some suggestions from you as to wording to include these issues in a future lease agreement. Thank you very much for your consideration of these items. I am sure there will be more issues to discuss as we work on this agreement over the next few weeks. Sinc a y, f Rondall V. Philli s Town Manager RUP/bsc cc: Vail Town Council Larry Eskwith Kristan Pritz Steve Jeffers Bob Irvin R~C'D OCT 2 21990 ~ STAI OF COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL AFFAIRS oF,co~ OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Fe.' 1313 Sherman Street, Rm. 518 * Denver, Colorado 80203 ~ rs76 ~ Phone (303) 866-2771 October 17, 1990 Roy Romer Governor Larry Kallenberger Executive Director • Mr. Rondall Phillips Town Manager Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road . Vail, Colorado 81657 Dear Mr. Phillips: This letter is afollow-up to conversations between this office, Tom Campbell and yourself. It was discussed that the Town of Vail was requiring public . meeting above what was originally planned and that this would preclude Professional Development from meeting the year end closing date on the $6,000,000 of Private Activity Bonds that were awarded in August. Two options were discussed to remedy the situation: turn back the $6,000,000 1990 allocation within the next two weeks in return for receiving the $6,000,000 in 1991 allocation; or retain the 1990 allocation and push to close this year. It, is our understanding, at this point in time, that both the Town of Vail and Professional Development would like to pursue the first option assuming assurances are given from this office that a 1991 allocation would be given. Assuming that the multifamily activity of the Private Activity Bond Program . is retained by the Congress, that the Town of Vail desires to proceed with " this project, and that the 1990 ailocation is returned within the next twa " weeks, it is my intention to re-allocate the $6,000,000 to the Town of Vail in 1991. Please be aware that any additional allocation desired in 1991 would require a separate action by this office. . Please contact Lesley Nearman or myself if you have any questions. Sincerely, ar K en erger Execut' a Director . /rI ~l TOWN OF PAIL 75 Soutb Frontage Road Department of Public Works/Transportation Vail, Colorado 8165? 303-479-2158/FAX 303-479-215? MEMORANDUM TO: Vail Town Council Ron Phillips FROM: Stan Berryman DATE: October 25, 1990 RE: Analysis of Avon-Beaver Creek Resort Bus Proposal Following is a brief analysis of costs associated with the Avon-Beaver Creek bus proposal: 416,199 1989-90 total system ridership 40,000 Employees working in Vail (Andy Daly estimate - 10/16 Council meeting) 416,199 < 16.645> Subtract Minturn and Eagle ridership 399,554 Net projected total ridership 40,000 Vail employees < 1,600> Subtract Minturn and Eagle ridership 38,400 Net projected employee ridership 3f3 .400 S 43 , 353 S 66 , 043 *399,554 $451,093 $687,952 i system cost system cost no capital with capital * Vail employees make up approximately 9.6% of total ridership SB/slh MEMO TO: BILL JAMES, TOWN MANAGER FROM: LARRY BROOKS, DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL SERVICES - DATE: OCTOBER 25, 1990 : 'LJRN TRANSPORTATT.ON SERVICE The Town of Vail has inquired about bus service between Vail and Minturn. We recommend service tailored to the employee as follows: A.M. P.M. Minturn to Vail Vail~to Minturn 6:15am 6:45am 4:15pm 4:45pm 7:15am 7:45am 5:15pm 5:45pm 8:15am 8:45am 6:15pm 6:45pm Such service would be most efficiently run with a separate bus specifically designated to this route. Total Operating Costs Operating Capitalization Hours Cost/Hr. Cost Miles Cost/Mile Cost Total 1015 $34.39 34,906 24,888 .75 $18,666 $53,572 Less Revenue - 10,500 X $1.05 x.025 NET LOST $42,545 Revenue projections are based on somewhat historic information, since the route serving Minturn has not operated in this fashion in recent years. That is to say that the Minturn service ran west into Avon/Beaver Creek rather than into-Vail. • town ofi nail 75 south iror~tage road vail, Colorado 81657 (303) 479-2105 office of town manager October 26, 1990 Mr. Rod Slifer June Creek Ranch Company Slifer Smith & Frampton 230 Bridge Street Vail, Colorado 82657 Dear Rod: The purpose of my letter is to generally outline a proposal that you, Fred Green, Kent Rose, and I have discussed over the past few weeks. .This general proposal has been shared with the Town Council, and they are in agreement with it conceptually. The Town of Vail feels that it is important to maintain at least 50 acres of the Berry Creek 5th Filing in public ownership, plus the 5.6 acres between the railroad tracks and the Highway Department rest area. We would be agreeable to the discussion of selling June Creek Ranch Company approximately 50 acres of the Berry Creek 5th Filing in exchange for the following consideration: 1. An agreement to build affordable housing on the 13+ acres owned by the Millers south of the railroad tracks in the area of the reserve. The affordable housing would need to be done on a time schedule that would satisfy the contractual obligation the Town of Vail has with George Gillett for beginning the planning process with Eagle County and actual construction within the time limits set out in that contract. Z. One million dollars in cash paid to the Town of Vail at time of closing. 3. The proposed transaction needs to be addressed in such a way that it does not violate provisions of the contract between the Town and George Gillett. - - - Mr. Rod Slifer October 26, 1990 Page 2 R ' I know that we have discussed the possibility of June Creek Ranch Company building recreational facilities on the land that would remain in the Town of Vail's ownership as consideration for the exchange of property, but we believe at this time it is more desirable to have the cash to put into our general fund balance than to have recreational facilities built on the site in the near future. This conceptual proposal is being shared with you in order to have something on the table to begin discussions and negotiations if you are interested. Please let me know when you might be able to meet to discuss it. Sincerely, Rondall V. Phillips Town Manager RUP/bsc i cc: Vail Town Council Fred Green Larry Eskwith 1 I i ,1 ~ WORK SESSION FOLLOW-UP 10/26/90 Page 1 of 3 TOPIC QUESTIONS FOLLOW-UP SOLUTIONS 8/8/89 WEST INTERMOUNTAIN ANNEXATION LARRY: Proceeding w/legal requirements for Marijke Brofos will be circulating petitions. (request: Lapin) annexation. 5/1 AMEND CODE, 12.04.240, STREET CUT STAN/LARRY: Per Council direction, proceed. Schedule joint meeting with staff, Public Service, and Holy PERMITS Cross. 6/12 VAIL GLO SIGN (request: Levine) RON/KRISTAN: Through DRB, or some other process, Kristan has written a letter to Vail Glo. They are still can the lettering color and lighting be modified? talking. Kristan spoke with Craig Holzfaster and he said he is looking into it. 6/26 AIR QUALITY SUSAN: Issue of air quality recommendations needs Ordinance being developed far PEC review by 11/12/90. to be revisited by this fall. 6/26 TED KINDEL MEMORIAL TODD 0.: Track down ownership of land to the south PEC recommended Mill Creek area. Public Works will (request: Rose) of the Christiania. If this belongs to the TOV, coordinate placement. Letter sent to Gordon Britton begin to formulate memorial plan, i.e., park authorizing placement. bench, plaque, etc.? 7/17 BIKES/ROLLER BLADES AND SKATES/ KEN/LARRY: Should bicycles, roller blades, etc. be Researching appropriate ordinances for application in 1991. SKATEBOARDS prohibited from highly pedestrianized areas in the Village and Lionshead? 7/24 AG/OPEN SPACE AMENDMENT LARRY/KRISTAN: Legal research requested to make Research underway. Larry will report to Council on 11/13. ORDINANCE AG/Open Space 35 acre minimum per unit. 7/21 UNDERGROUNDING UTILITIES IN LARRY/STAN: Work with Holy Cross Electric to Scheduled to begin this fall. Memo drafted for Jim Gibson. EAST VAIL establish special improvement district(s) for Memo sent to property owners by staff. Engineering undergrounding utilities in East Vail. estimates received from Holy Cross. Larry, Stan, and Ran to meet to develop schedule. 9/11 VESTED RIGHTS ORDINANCE LARRY: Schedule for evening meeting review. Community Development will meet with Larry on 11/14/90. 9/11 RAISING FEES FOR PARKING FUND KRISTAN: Schedule for work session review. Scheduled for Work Session 11/13/90. CONTRIBUTIONS 9/20 LIONS RIDGE FILING 4 RON: Homeowners Assn, would like Town to buy Ron contacted Jim Fritze about tax abatement if Town takes common area for back taxes and penalties. ownership. Tax liability only about $5,500. County Attorney has not yet responded. r `'r WORK SESSION FOLLOW-UP 10/26/90 Page 2 of 3 TOPIC QUESTIONS FOLLOW-UP SOLUTIONS , 9/25 CHARGES FOR OUT-OF-DISTRICT DICK: Prepare updated figures based orr actual cost Will have recommendations for Council by Nov. 13. FIRE RESPONSE of fire response for unincorporated areas served by Vail F.D. for ordinance amendment consideration. 9/25 VANDALISM EXPENSE REPORT STAN/CAROLINE: Compile figures relating to Town Caroline to handle a news release, based on memo. (request: Steinberg) expense incurred from vandalism (i.e., traffic gate repairs, lights on streamwalk path, signs, toilets, etc.) for public release. 9/25 SYMPOSIUM SPEAKER - ELDON BECK KRISTAN: Check professional fees remaining in Workshop is scheduled far Nov. 21-28 with Eldon Beck, Sherry (request: Rose) Community Development to gather Eldon Beck's Dorward, and Jeff Winston. views on long-range plans, streetscape improvement plan, performing arts center location, West Meadow Drive Mall, Master Plan for LH - all possible subjects. 9/25 EMPLOYEE HOUSING HOUSING TASK FORCE IMPORTANT DATE Public meeting Thurs., 10/25, 7:30 p.m., in the Council Chambers. 9/25 PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION RON/STAN: Place on earliest agenda possible to This item is on the Work Session agenda for further COUNTY-WIDE discuss the following: Leadville bus service, discussion. vans, long-term commuter system, Parking & Transportation Advisory Committee role, Avon/BC transit, extending TOU service to Eagle-Vail, donating outdated TOV buses for the Minturn/ Leadville route, etc. Engage assistance of James Johnson. 9/2 REVIEW COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT KRISTAN/GARY: Consider fees currently charged for Set for Work Session 11-13-90. FEE STRUCTURE ~ labor intensive review processes, "fast- tracking," red tags, etc. Consider reinstating the street use tax? 9/~7 E911 KEN: Write to the County Commissioners to restate Resolution of support for intergovernmental agreement our position that user fees are a standard and scheduled for Nov. 6 Evening Meeting. appropriate method of collection - rather than seizure funds. ' 'r WORK SESSION FOLLOW-UP 10/26/90 Page 3 of 3 TOPIC QUESTIONS FOLLOW-UP SOLUTIONS 10/10 SPECIAL EVENTS COMMITTEE CAROLINE: Should the Marketing Board put together Process is underway. a review process and criteria for special events funding proposals, Jim Gibson will sit on this committee. 10/16 WATER QUANTITY/QUALITY KRISTAN: Schedule joint meeting w/Water District, To be scheduled in November. (request: Lapin) Town Council, PEC, and Wayne Schroeder to discuss water issues. 10/26 SYMPHONY OF SPORTS To be aired on NBC (Channel 4), Saturday, 11/24, on Sports World, 4:00 - 6:00 p.m. i Heritaglle Communicarions, Inc. 2195Ingerso Avenue Des Moines, Iowa 50312 515-246-1440 September 27, 1990 . Mr. Ron Phillips !/'i't'`'' Town Manager, Town of Vail ~ ' 75 S. Frontaage Rd. Vail, CO 81657 Dear Ron: Now that the Eagle County Commissioners have decided to put the TV translator issue before the voters in November's general elections - - I wanted to update you on the facts. Unfortunately I think the public perception and anticipation is far greater than the reality of a TV translator system. I'm enclosing copies of two engineering studies. The February 16, 1990 study was commissioned by our company and provided to the - Eagle County Commissioners. The Commissioners in turn hired a consulting engineer to review both the proposed system and our engineering report and came to one independent conclusion. I'd like to summarize some of the findings of the County's engineering report for you: 1. Outdoor, rooftop antennas are a certainty for a large portion of the proposed translator service area. Mr. Smith's report to the county concludes, "I find the translator Service Plan to represent a scheme which is workable but flawed, which would serve much of the intended area, but which would miss a substantial portion of it, unless residents are willing and permitted to install proper outdoor antenna's. (Smith and Powstenko pages 4 and 5). 2. The cost continues to escalate. When the Town was approached three years ago for funding the cost was estimated at $250,000.00 in capital and $2.00 per $100,000.00 valuation for operating expenses. Today the cost is nearly $1.0 million in capital, $11.25 in taxes each year and $5.5 million total over the next ten years with more expense possible. Again quoting Mr. Smith's report to the County: "....to the extent that further upgrading may be required to eliminate serious deficiencies, additional funding would be necessary, and such costs could be substantial. (Page 8). Mr. Ron Phillips September 27, 1990 Page Two 3. It could take 5 to 8 years to obtain all the licenses necessary to operate the system as proposed. (Page 9). In this period of time emerging technologies such as direct broadcast satellite with handkerchief size dishes are expected to be readily available at competitive cost. The proposed translator system also will not acc~.w,.odate high definition television broadcasts, another emerging technology. In the age of fiber optics and high powered satellites the residents of Eagle County are being asked to pay nearly $5.5 million for 1950's television technology. I'm enclosing an analysis on emerging technology from Donaldson, Lufkin and Jenrette Securities Corporation also for your review. I am meeting with each of the local newspapers and radio stations in the next week to ask them to carefully review these engineering reports and present all the facts related to this issue. I hope you will add your voice in objection to the proposed system after reviewing these independent findings and the report by our engineer. I appreciate your time and consideration. Please call me if you have any questions. Sincerely, HERITAGE COMMUNICATIONS, INC. Kevin L. Rice Senior Vice President - KLR/sls Attachments ' ' 1 v ~r` f I 1 I K - 10-30-90 01:50 PM FROM TOWN OF AVON P02 'f Town of Avon P. O. Bax 97b, Avon, CO $1320 (308) 9494280 - - October 26, 1990 Mr. Ron Phillips Town Manager T~~~+.~ OF YAIL 75 South Frantage.ROad Vail, CO 81657 Dear 1M~. pnillips, sub~equQnt to our October 88rd esentation to the 'Vail Town council, we held a muting of the transpartati.an oommittoe on Thursday, October 2Sth. The purpose of th5.e meeting was to re-define our request far transportation funding iron the Town of vaf i . Pith limited time available to arrive at a aongensus, the merit at extensive analysis of the ridership and aogt data ie questionable. stars Berryman presented a straight-fo.....:..rd topsubmitio our funding request, that wo endorse and would like a C....,rarison of the empla ®e ridership with the total ridership for the routes in question ~011~ ~ a Total Riderst~i~~ Empla s R~.dership=9.6~ 416,199 ao,oo~ --i~(Mints~rn, Eagle stouter) - 1 ~ 600 399,544 38,400 since the veil ew~.loy~ee ridership idrresents 9.6$ of the aystaas - 1 total, tae request that the Town of Vail contribute this portion of the total operatirsq cost ( $66, Q43) . Total Operating Cost $68T,X 9~6$ • S 861043 Th® vaii Council also asked us to ~...ide service betooeea I4.tnturn w and vafi. Such $erviea x311 have a net soffit of $48,500. The total requested from the Town cf Vail for the employee routes is therefore $508,500. sincerely, W eta Q. Jamie Robert Mcllveen rt Manager Director operations ~riW OF AVON $EAVER CREEK RE30~'1' en/ Marriott Studies- . = Its Commercial. ~s . .,s~i~t' Paper Exposuret~ By RnxpnLL .SMITH . And MaxY Lu CaxtvEVaL> ; y Both Moody's Investors Service Inc.: scc~}f Reporters ur THE wwu. STREET JounHwi.~ and Standard. & POOr's Corp. said In +Iate' Marriott Corp. indicated it may reduce;i September they were reviewing Marriott's~f its reliance on short-term b,,. ~ „~;ng in the' credit rating for possible downgrade: -Andy: commercial paper market after the latest , Tuesday, Duff & Phelps Corp., another;rat= downgrade of its credit rating this week: ing agency, downgraded Marriott's com-, Once a highflying hotel and food serv= mercial paper to a 2 rating. : ` • ices company, Marriott is the latest comb Daniel J. Donoghue, a vicepresident~"{ pany with heavy debt and big exposure •to charge of. commercial. paper _ ratingsvat, falling real-estate values to be buffeteif in" Chicago-based Duff & Phelps, said the new~7 the financial markets. Yesterday, its stocky .rating made it tougher for Marriott to;,'re-~~ , fell 51.375 to 58.75 a share in composite~_ sell its commercial paper, partly. because;;. trading on the New York Stock Exchange. of•a proposed new federal rule thatIimits~ on volume of 1.6 million shares. ~ money-fund investments in lower-rated:pa;:~~ Joseph Doyle, a lodging analyst • at:. per to ,5% of a fund's assets:: r ""~:c`=s Smith Barney, Harris Upham & Co., said, As a result of those factors, plus jitters ; "I would expect that it's going to be very., throughout the credit markets, . Mr.. Don=;'; difficult [for. Marriott ] to roll over the com= oghue said, some issuers of commercial mercial paper." Commercial paper visa paper have exited the market,-either. voI=~, form of short-term debt that must be re-: untarily or involuntarily. Those who left m sold, or rolled over, almost continuously'to'. eluded Reynolds Metals Co. 'and Unisys°' investors such asmoney-market funds. Corp. Mr. Donoghue estimates that the: en= Executives of Marriott, which has'`$1~ tire commercial-paper market mayaiave~p • billion in commercial paper outstanding; shrunk from $500 billion to 5450 billiontIiis.: indicated at meetings with. investors°;and - year. "People -are reluctant to get' overx= - securities analysts Tuesday that it mayre~ posed to companies that may get into troll: place some of its commercial paper with,' ble,", he sald.'•~': ~ rw bank loans under existing loan ;agree-;`- - -Marriott has backup bank. lines of ~~18~x merits. billion that could be-used to replace :;its; David Chichester, Marriott's assistant=w commercial` paper. Last year; one lower.# treasurer, acknowledged in an interview°, rated commercial paper issuer;`Integiafed','~ that there "may be concern in part;~~l,~ Resources Inc.;.found that it couldn't~tap cause the credit markets have tightened~tip~ such backup lines .when the market deed- a bit and the;commercial:_paper market up for Integrated's commercial papei.;:-:~ has tightened up even more.'- Marriott executives say their bank Whether Marriott will reduce itscoi7t- agreements don't contain a "material'ad- mercial 'paper, :Mr: ° :Chichester°'added verse change" clause that would give the "only depends on the market.":The.~COin banks a legal excuse not to make the new; pany will "from time to time continue•#fo loans. . borrow from banks as well.as the comme~: Marriott's problems reflect overcapa- . cial paper market.",Executives of both;CS° city in the lodging industry and slumping, ` First Boston Inc. and Merrill Lynch,&~Go~ real estate prices. Last month;, Prime Mo=.~ Marriott's coinmercial.paper dealers;_said- for Inns ended up filing for reorganizatiyori Marriott hasn't had any problem rese . under Chapter 11 of the federal Bank its commercial paper. ,a x~ . ruptcy Code, largely because of weakeNngw Once an active hotel developer thata;, real estate prices. Prime Motor Inns' moi?e~~ sold its properaes to investors ann. matt ~ battered Marriott s stock as well:•~~"~`~~~,^ abed them for a fee, Marriott pas puequ~t~:. - - t~tal debts of about X3.3 billion, neariy ro RaflPC'ting cnrh ' OnCeTI1S. ' 'Utt's" times its stock~rkat vanie~nr X2S:S1:mL? * stock has falleg,,,,frc~m more than Ron-A lion. - - ~ snare within the past year and a half ~ y~= On Sept. 25, Marriott put the brakes~o new h4tai trine rn . ,oti and report~a sower-than-expected_proeress in . a ~p .gram announced last sprins to sell abdut~-' $2 billion in assets. Yesterday's, s'toCR slid , f,.~ was ruelea by reports that two separate , sale plans were faltering, as well ,as; tcu= mots that Marrlot was having trouble Belie ing its commercial paper: - , ' - - ,~f-29-90 MON 18 c 12 CML FAX N0. 3038608175 P. 02 B~ML-G~c L'~t. ~6 ~~,~n. ~ f'+~datal tfudpot Detldt Updem ~a3(3 iatrodsreUort ~ Cangresslanei leaders reached tentellve agreement an a major tax and defidt reduction package at 3:30 am. Friday marrdr~ ~ the 101st Congress hoped to Pole fate Frkiay a Saturday and then adjourn. The tirml deleib are stet unceriah. As agreed to, the psclege • ter remncll~tfon fegislalion • urouid call (ot rto cols fn federal agststance to dUaa attd towns cverthe nwst d Yeats. and it would extend key etipited municipal fast programs far one year. But N would fmpase (oderaily mandated Social Secudly faxes on state and mun~ipa) governments and melt empksyees; td~ter tedetel gas texas de~tnd tndeQeit rQdad'ron rather then rebwTding highways, hrldges, anal public transpatlatien; and, (or the fret dme aver, fmNatlona art the ' deduclblidy of State and local prapeny and totems faxes. The agreement efminttGes the proposed petroleum tax on cities end towns and aver 55 hIDlon N mandatory Medicare taxes, end rejects efforts to s~nifirarsUy increase MtiRal(arta on the detiuttbilty of state and Iocaf property and incortte taxes. WhUe the Mal agreement falls Far short of the Rasty 0 bit pawed by rho House, ft would protrlde cfles and towns more time to adjust titek personnel paHdea acrd icudge?s to meat the newly mandated Seaal 3ecarily texas and axterx! authority is pravido housing and eeonamic development opporhusHlaa - each lmprovementa aver wtrat the Hrsssge had adopted. The Agreoment Tho ttgresment would ra}ae hdhrWual Income tax rates on the rvealthieat Americana to 31 psroertt, would set afboron deditot~lllry a1t~c11t?g state and local t ~ artd lnaome taxed, tr<asld Impose a 5 cent per ga4on federal gas tax L.~..~se, would hscrease the wage ~ to medicare taxes !rom Sb1,300 to 3i 2b,400, and would ' Increase the aAernate indivldsrel and corporate minimum taxes, The agreemera would raise approximately $1 tie bAliori in new lasses - tnduding tens o(bifkrns of faCtlny rho naflars's cites andtowns - and ast hods federal spernltng by about S25c1 bpion ovr3r Ute nerd 6 ysar9. Tcgettter udtlt the reduced costs to the nadon of interest on the r~ticnal debt, the agtaenreM is supposed to redurse federal detfdts stoat the period by 3500 6ilfon -the largest deft redudiort padsege In rite nation's hismty, Tlta agreement does not fetes hto eccasnt env of the o~4 4lthe ta'tpres~rrted baiisxsi of the savings and loan frsdustry, the costs of operation Dasen SttiQb In Saud Arable, or the 37 hificn targiveness of Egyptian debt to the United States. ft wotdd dramalicapy erter artdextend the Gremm-Rudman taut, re-extending it for another ihre years, If adopted, tlt~ Ci1dnQ9Sr waUld B~ImInaIB dll6 olnBa~/ 9O perCA1~ !n at munidpat programs and rtatiorsel defense aperetlans spending sdraduted to go into eltey~ at mldrsight on Saturday. October 27th. Under the re-write, the iedaral gpverrunent would adoptthe munldpdbudget polky otpaY-as-yvu~o, resluimg eery tax art su break to be paid for with acvrr~pas~inq ar oortspeneafing tax itcreatue. 9iarferllr stay Irtsxsase h andllemenl of dteasi(onary apandlrrg would have to bs offset with edher a faders! tax increase ar aqultralent apendttg cut, Under lha revlsod Gremm-Rudman,tederel de4toits couid fnaaase s~nllfcarrtiyower the nextthreo yaarsw(thouttrlggadrtg anyasxass-ttsrrboard ate in prlorhy munlclps! progtgms. Federal deticris, 8 the agreement is slgrred Into tars, are projected to reach record levels next year and in f tt92, acrd thArt (eves oR to a tangs wail to ®caess of 3243 bslfon annuafy. De spite gpttmlem at tfre White Flouse and hlpantsen Carsgresstonel teedership, the Qutcame o(lhe Vote is very much in dot~t. Aver 1 is Hcuae Repssht~ans ha4 vc~vd to vote against soy dsflch redusdlon agreement by late Thursday nigh, and many Demoorat~ ere expected to rejsotthQ agreement bes~use of its proposed Inrxaa9e - ~ federal gas exase taxes std llmftattons on the deductibildy of state and focal property and income texas. Tmtlrsg 6reakthrougfr fiause, 6enaie ar?d adminisltaifon negotiators r~dsed the lxa~trrough an the key.vbatade al taxing lfte rrealihieet Am~:w..a an 1Ned„ ~ w f, Earfa the Congress had agaed !o a 1Nhfe Flouse p..,...~J to al'arrinate the so-caf ed bubble and se! a top taus sees 0131 percent - (n stied ratslstg tax rates for Ole highest income Iatttlli~ from 28 l0 31 portent, but tuning tax rates for upper middle Income families from 39 to 31 percent. The liauae had bear, ktslsting upot? a surtax on lt3xpayets making over 31 mle'ron ardrually; the 1Ntsi1$ House and 6enats had ;,..,~.,:Wl upon a mare leavers limitetioft on the daductlblAq v(stata and Iota! farces. Under life oorrrprorttise, instead o(having a surtax on suehAmerkxans orgrsater trolls en dedsuibffy, the agreemer would ` - phase and rho value of personal exempilons for aingfe taxpayers making mare Than x100,000 and jofat fliers with N excess of 3150,000. The agreement on how m Irscrosse fasces an weallh(er Americans paved the way for the Ilnal nsgotiellarss on a bU which bv9t the adminlslralion end Congress hope tv81 end fasidget negotiations for the tareseeable future. Itttpact on Chlea and Towne - Theagreement would Lund aggregate domestic disaetionaty programs, inducting aA munidpa{ programs, to keep lava) xn'lh otlation ot~at the next 5 years. fn the flrsi 8 yoara, eli dsmestle prograrrta - from HUD to EpA to eduaetlots to trensportatlor? to NASA - wotdd compete with each ocher. M ttte Iasi 2 years, muntclpa! programs lYOUId Ai90 CDnfpBi9 sQglrtsf tOrelgrl std artd dateless spending. FAX N0. 3038608175 P. O1 - - ,~'-29-90 MON 1B: 13 CML . For dries and towns the mast Cal provsians are to the tmc area C'dlos and ioWns would gear a eignlGcant poRion of the tax increases. fn many inslanoes, aisles exrcl looms would t~ve no Choice but to increase tore! taxes or ad boat services in order to pay the mandated federal lax, ~ The key lax Urrteases afleding cliee scut towns in the proposed agreement fndude: • Mandatory 9octal sewray For dose and towns, the reconc(Pvtlcn bfl(woutd mandate s3or~ef 3ecurliY on nnrnlc~aGSies end then employees not acsivaly covered by a public retltomerd system ettedlve July 1,11, tampered m iris date proposed ray both the adminrelraiton and the Hausa of Jancrer}r 1,1991. The pr+ovlsiorrs would require a 6.296 federal roc oontrburfan from ~olh thQ empbyer mun€efpelay end to dedugforti& irrnn the enlptoyse's pay, !t would provrde an exemption for students employed fn pub0o schools, oelleges and unNersfties, The language is intended to apply to murridpef employees ~ etig~te tar any retirement plan, but would also he mandated ii paRtdpation b a dty'a system ~ elec(h?e, and qro empbyae were to elect not to paritdpata The propose! la projected to cost slate and focal govemmeMs about 310 b>alon ova !tre next 6 yrs. l~A and CiiflL strongly supported deiening any such nrdndateumtl at feast January 1,1992 as proposed by the Senate -both forctatilkatlon as to how h wouM appy, end in order for chlae and lawns to take whatever budget aetlona would be required to pay the coat of a new fadotal mandate, ' DedudlbiGly of Stale and Local Taxes The racorrc~aiton bill would inrpase a flmitattan on the dedud~iy of state and loam property scut income taxes e8edive an January 1,1991. The pnsvislon is projected to increase lederat tax revenues by about 518 b1lQart, under the agreement taxpapera whh adjusted gross incomes Gt excess of si00,OQ0 annually would only be perml<ed to talcs itemized dedudlons o1 ttre amounts In exrxrss of 5300 per $10Aao. the agreement would not arty Ifmfl, but also disalmkrate against state and bCaf taxes and charitable conirlbuflare. The craw Ilmflation would apply to a0 slate and municipal !acres; however, h would exempt tntereet on lnvesimenle sod medical and casualty casts, Gas and Atriatton Taxes: The bill would Increase both federal gas texas and aviation taxes rn December 1,1990.1M?Aa aporllon of both lnLz~.,. would be dedtcaled 1c the Federal fiiptn~y and Aliport Trust Furrd$, nacre of the stew federal eadsa tax ittd'eases quid actually he s~enl tar those purpcee9. Thus both tsdaai tat increases wouldoat~nlyadverselyimp~ct ~~e andlocabutrenmcea forairportsand highways, but would alp sal a pr~ocaderrt of dedtoatieg federal userteen farde8dl redudton, railcar than puhpc tntrastrudure. tinder tfie agreement, ifira federal gag tax would 6rcreaao by 6 cents a gallon. As ttro Wealdy went to grass, d was unclear whether the house foul agreed to a tuRtta Senate proposal to provide for further gas tax increases next year o1 the year attar to the event of sharp daps in the price o! imported oil. a ' i ' Expiring MunlcpalTax Yrovisierre: The agreement Indudea a one year extension of the expiring single temily rnunlc~ai mortgage reveeue bonds end madQaga credit 1 aartiltcate,...~. and the ems! Tssrre industrial developmerrl frond program, Munktipal authority fo hisrre these klinds of trot exempt hands had Sxptred fast September Cllr, The agreement also provld~ forthe extartstan ottrio tow tnooma i-busirrp Tax Oredit, targeted jobs tax credlt9, and aher expired provbfons, a also btctrides tedrnlcal changes to Iasi year's taro prwiding greeter flex~9ty tar muntclpal tasuanoe of general obilgatian and reventw hands used for the purpose afi ptlbl'w b?iraglrtloturel 'Mandatory Medicare: The float agreement eanrinates 1Nhife House and leader~~ proposals to mandate mandatory Medicare taxes on stela and focal govemmeats and they empbyeas httgd prfar ~ April 1,1988, The agreement truxeaees the cep or level of annual income sr~ject to federal Medtaate taxes from ire aura ri level o} Sti1,900 to over $128.000 effective January 1,1891. 'Petroleum lax tnaeeses: Tt1a Mal agreement eaminales th9 proposed petroleum excise tax on heatMg oil, clues, and other uses, Toharm taxes: would raise 4 cents a pack in 199f and 4 eenla more to 1993; would raise about $5.9 fsil8on over 5 years; ' Bear, wine d spicks: would raise about $10 blllton over 5 years: of feclNe Jait.1,1991 it would increase the oxcise tart on disl'dfed splrfla try abor8 $1.54 par ga6on, doubt rho tax on beer l0 3a cents per Six pack, and tnrraase 9re t2oc per bottle of wine by 2Z cents; " 1 o9G hrxury eradse tax: would cake about $t.9 b~lion over 5 yaa~ the tax vrouid not apply to luxury autos tausos worth in excess of S30.o0o and weighing bas Ihan 8,000 pounds) or boats sold tp 8 a'!y of toym for exClusfve use 61 police, law en[arcemerd, or omergenay medicrtl senrir~a; tfie teat would apply to eutomabges above 534,40D, boats and yadtts worstr ovsr;}140,000, jewelry and tut'B 2bove 314,400. CML Staff Carrtacts -Sam Memel, i~;n SuRCtw - (303j 831.6411. - ~ town of ua i I 75 south frontage road vail, Colorado 81657 (303) 479-2105 office of town manager October 29, 1990 Mr. Larry Kallenberger Executive Director Colorado Department of Local Affairs 1313 Sherman Street, Room 518 Denver, Colorado 80203 Dear Larry: In accordance with your letter of October 17, 1990, the Town of Vail is hereby returning its 1990 allocation of private activity bonds in the amount of $6 million to the Department of Local Affairs. The 1990 allocation is being returned since the public meeting process on zoning for Professional Development Corporation's proposal for affordable housing is taking longer than anticipated, and we feel we would not be able to issue these bonds in 1990. Both the Town of Vail and Professional Development Corporation agree that the allocation should be returned at this time with the understanding that we would like to pursue the reallocation of at least $6 million to the Town of Vail in early 1991. We sincerely appreciate the cooperation of your department, and particularly the help of Lesley Nearman, in both the allocation process . and now in the cooperative effort to return this allocation. We are pleased that this allocation will be used in another project during 1990 and, as agreed upon, will pursue the reallocation in early 1991. As you well know, developing affordable housing projects in mountain resorts is a very difficult process, and we appreciate your patience and effort and assisting us in this manner. Sinc a y, , Rondall V. Phillips Town Manager RUP/bsc cc: Uail Town Council Thomas H. Campbell, Professional Development Corporation i . town ofi nail 75 south frorrtage road vail, Colorado 81657 (303) 479-2105 office of town manager October 25, 1990 Mr. Thomas H. Campbell Professional Development Corporation 6685 Quince, Suite 111 Memphis, Tennessee 38119 Dear Tom: Please find enclosed a copy of the letter from Larry Kallenberger approving at least the $6 million allocation in private activity bonds for 1991. I would like to give the Department of Local Affairs official written notice in the next few days of our withdrawal of the 1990 allocation which has to be done by Wednesday, October 31, 1990. There are five financial considerations which I would like you to address in your review of the financial pro formas for this housing project. Those concerns are as follows: 1. As I mentioned to you before you left, the monthly rents on the units seem to be high for affordable housing. The Town of Vail would like you to target the rents in the 80% of the units that are not CHFA controlled at a maximum of $1.00 per square foot per month. 2. The assumption that these units can be built at only $45 per square foot in hard construction costs has not be justified with any. detail. I would appreciate you providing that type of justification to us in writing so that we can evaluate the realities of that figure. 3. The assumption that the units will be occupied at a 95% level year 'round should also be justified in writing. Projects that appeal to similar types of renters such as Timber Ridge on summer occupancy ` levels might be helpful. 4. Once the reserve fund is established as required by the bond holder, the Town of Vail would like for all excess cash flow including interest earnings from the reserve fund to be diverted to a maintenance account which would be controlled by the Town of Vail. We would appreciate a description of how you feel that can be accomplished. Mr. Thomas H. Campbell October 25, 1990 Page 2 5. We request detailed pro forma operating expense and revenue figures for the first ten years after construction is completed. There are a number of issues that also need to be discussed in relationship to a proposed lease agreement between the Town of Vail and Professional Development Corporation. Some of those issues that we feel need to be addressed are as follows: 1. The monthly rents for the units must be restricted from escalating over the life of the project except for real increases in insurance and property taxes. 2. The amount of management fee the management company charges to the project must also be fixed. 3. It is the Town of Vail's desire to require that upkeep and maintenance be at a level that will keep the units in excellent shape for a 30 to 50 year life. 4. What kind of mechanism do you. propose to deal with possible market rent decreases in the future? 5. If the Mountain Bell site is put into the lease at a lower cost than the other two parcels on a per unit basis, how would this affect the rent amounts per unit? 6.~ Is there a requirement under the bonds to pledge the land as ' collateral, or is the security only a long term lease and the improvements on the land? We would appreciate you addressing all these issues in writing with detailed numbers supporting the narrative along with some suggestions from you as to wording to include these issues in a future lease agreement. Thank you very much for your consideration of these items. I am sure there will be more issues to discuss as we work on this agreement over the next few weeks. Sinc a y, Rondall V. Philli s Town Manager RVP/bsc cc: Vail Town Council Larry Eskwith Kristan Pritz Steve Jeffers Bob Irvin " R~C'0 OCT 2 21990 STAI t OF COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL AFFAIRS oF•~oto OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR - yam" 1313 Sherman Street, Rm. 518 Denver, Colorado 80203 ~ *•r~876f* Phone (303) 866-2771 October 17, 1990 Roy Romer Governor Larry Kallenberger Executive Director Mr. Rondall Phillips Town Manager Town of Vail . 75 South Frontage Road • Vail, Colorado 81657 Dear Mr. Phillips: This letter is afollow-up to conversations between this office, Tom Campbell " . and yourself. It was discussed that the Town of Vail was requiring public meeting above what was originally planned and that this would preclude Professional Development from meeting the year end closing date on the $6,000,000 of Private Activity Bonds that were awarded in August. Two options were discussed to remedy the situation: turn back the $6,000,000 ~ 1990 allocation within the next two weeks in return for receiving the $6,000,000 in 1991 allocation; or retain the 1990 allocation and push to close this year. It, is our understanding, at this point in time, that both the Town of Vail and Professional Development would like to pursue the first option assuming assurances are given from this office that a 1991 allocation would be given. • Assuming that the multifamily activity of the Private Activity Bond Program is retained by the Congress, that the Town of Vail desires to proceed with " this project, and that the 1990 allocation is returned within the next twa " weeks, it is my intention to re-allocate the $6,000,000 to the Town of Vail in 1991. Please be aware that any additional allocation desired in 1991 would require a separate action by this office. Please contact Lesley Nearman or myself if you have any questions. Sincerely, ar K en erger Execut' a Director RECD OCT 2 91990 ~ PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION 6685 QUINCE, SUITE Iii MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE 38il9 901.753-1100 FAX 901.753-1127 October 26, 1990 Mr. Rondall V. Phillips BY HAND Town Manager, Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Re: Professional Development Corporation Affordable Housing Proposal Dear Ron, Thank you for the letter from DOLA. It is in accordance with the language we discussed with Ms. Nearman when we requested she have DOLA write this letter. She was kind enough to send us a copy last week. As we told you and the Council we needed such a letter to give to the prospective Bond purchaser to give them some comfort that there would be Honds to purchase in 1991. I will address what you have called "financial considerations" in the same order as set forth in your letter. However, it may be helpful to state a few preliminary assumption which undergird these responses. Fi.r'Gt~ I am arruming that the Town will elect to become the owner of all three sites and lease them to PDC. Second, the strong expressions from you and Council that a reduction in rental rates was needed, suggests to us that in considering the land price for all three sites, the Council may be willing to take steps to impact the price. Third, I am assuming that all parties realize that the Hond Purchaser will have an equal if not a greater interest in the occupancy, rates, and preservation of the units in a good condition for the life of the Bonds in order to insure the ~ servicing of the debt. 1. In order to,approach the Town's target rate of X1.00 per sq. foot on the 80% of the units, you must consider that the rental rate set on these units, as proposed, is directly related to the fact that those rents support the "costs" of the project to provide the 20% low-rent units. Attached as 1 r Exhibit A to this letter is a complete breakdown of the project costs, maintaining the low-rent unit prices and reducing the balance of the units (80%) rental figures to equate, as near as possible, to X1.00 per sq. ft. Please„ note that the low-rent units still have to be supported by the rent on these market rate units. As the caption indicates, in order to bring the cost of the units down to the target range of X1.00 per sq. ft. the cost of all three sites would have to be assumed by the Town of Vail. This in turn reduces the amount of the Bond interest, Debt Service Reserve and other related costs. Exhibit A-1 sets forth the same information with the market rents assuming the purchase of the sites by the Developer for X1,080,000. You will note that based on the 149 units applied fo~the rent structure has been reduced from earlier estimates. _ 2. Hard construction costs of X45.00 per sq. ft. are demonstrated in the Trade Item Breakdown attached as Exhibit B to this letter. This breakdown is based my our knowledge of building costs in all of our projects and our experienc e here in Colorado. In addition I have had my construction manager confirm that the material and labor prices we have used elsewhere are consistent with the pricing for hard construction costs we are using here. I must point out that this figure assumes a minimum of 149 units and does consider that we will, through the use of other sites, be able to secure certain material and earth moving prices for a ultimate total of 300 units as set forth in our original submission to the Town. Attached as Exhibit H-1 is a letter from a qualified Colorado general contractor we have used on some of our other Colorado projects and who we will be working with as soon as final contract plans have been developed to perform some or all of the work. I will serve as the General Contractor but will sub-contract portions of the work. 3. Year round occupancy is a concern we all share. The Eagle County and Vail Affordable Housing (Oct. 25, 1990 Draft) studies amply support a year round occupancy, or alternatively a year-round lease for these units at a 95:/. occupancy. The longer these units. are set at these fixed rents, the more in demand they will be. To avoid the problem found all over Vail of people renting these on a year-round ~ basis, but using them as second homes, we will be using in all of our Agreements with the Town and in our Lease Application forms a certification process requiring that the renter be employed for at least 30 hours per week in Eagle County. Attached as Exhibit C is a letter from Vail Associates, Inc., dated Oct. 24, 1990 giving further support to this premises. Attached as Exhibit C-1 is a Tennant Rules Form we will require to be signed. " 2 ~ ~ - 4. The Reserve Fund you refer to under this number is a Fund established from Bond proceeds at Closing by the Bond Purchaser. It is equal to 10% of the face amount of the Bonds issued. It remains solely under the control of the Bondholder. Any excess cash flow is a projection and will itself be a subject of negotiation between the Developer and the Hond Purchaser. The Bond Purchaser may want some kind of Replacement Reserve Fund established, with their approval required for expenditures other than those set forth in the pro forma. My expense and revenue projections beyond the first year, have established the Replacement Reserve Fund and allocated expenditures for repainting appliance replacements, carpeting etc. as they will be needed. This Replacement Reserve will build over the ten year period despite the very substantial expenditures I have budgeted to keep the project in excellent condition. The Bondholder may cap that fund out at some figure. I will guaranty a substantial portion of the Honds and will, through my • company, maintain the project on a regular basis to ensure that it stays rented for the life of the Bonds. There is no way I can agree to Town control over excess cash flow. Ron, there seems to be some concern that the developer might, if he manages well, make some money. On the other hand there are responsible business and community groups who have difficulty understanding why the developer would do this project with so much financial risk and such a relatively small return. I have set the management fee at b25.00 per month, per occupied unit. Assuming 149 units and a 95% occupancy, the management fee would be X42,465 per year. As you can see the achievement of the managment fee depends on the managment firm doing a good job In the same way the projected cash flow depends on the achievement of all of the managment goals. 5. Attached as Exhibit D is the pro forma operating expense and revenue figures for a ten year period. I have used the same basic number as in the original proposal for 304 units, but for this response we have used the number of units, 149, in the current application for this Bond Issue. My office sent to you by FAX earlier this week a very rough and I ~ am sure incomplete list of items which should be in any proposed Lease Agreement. I am attaching with this letter a copy of the information we sent previously. • ~ ~ ha~~ Fa~rered the limitations upon which we think the band hAlder Gan agree for freezing the rent levels in the attached document. The management fee is as stated, based on 3 r ~25.t7C per month, per occupied unit. As I have stated in this letter we share a common concern and interest in the upkeep and maintenance of the project. I believe the projected expenditures from the replacement reserve demonstrate that concern. The lender, the Bond Purchaser, will not factor market rent decreases in the Bonds. Just as any lender sets his amortization. schedule for a loan, he will not automatically reduce it if you lose your job or take a cut in pay. It is for these reasons the Bond Purchaser requires the personal and corporate guarantee of the Developer and establishes a Debt Service Reserve before the project begins. That is not to say that a reasonable Bond Holder would not respond to financial hardships, arising from market conditions, on an otherwise well managed project. The Bond Holder has the option of reducing the pay rate on the interest, deferring to the end, the amount of the reduction, or other steps which will take into account the reduced income due to lower market rents. As I have pointed out in the attachment, the Bonds will be secured only by the leasehold interest and the buildings. .The security will only be, in addition to the Developer's guarantee, - the long term lease, the improvements and any equipment associated with the project. I will deliver this letter to your office on Saturday or Monday. Hopefully we can meet with you on Monday. I have already made an appointment with Steve Barwick for 8:30 A.M. Sincerely, Thomas H. Campbel l THC/bp enclosures i t-. 4 EXHIE~IT-A ~ 149 UNITS COSI° ISSUANCE ri r , ~ ri ri r ~ 1 1 c_r , i ri rir LAND , g2t~r , 5c_r~~r ~i r CONSTRUCTION ~8,ir85,iri_r~i ~:',619,ir9`~ ARCHITECT ~~~`8i i , ~',irc_~ ~ 14 4 , 764 CONSTRUCT I ON I NTERF_Sl' ~ 1 , 71:' , ~ rt_ri r ~8:?9 , 59`.~ DEE~T SERVICE RESER'.~E ~ 1 , 5i rc i , i li ii i 9 , iri7Cr LEGAL ~ 19b . ~iri r X96 , ti,1 1 EsOhdD PRINTING ~T,i_rcri> ~1,47ii OFFICIAL STATEMENT ~ 1 , 5iri r ~'7.w5 TOTAL ~15,c_iirtj,ircjc:r ~5,47~:r,971 DEE~'T SEF;VICE 9 . i ri_r'/. :'bi r 4q. , ('rte 1 5~8, X48 DEE~T' SERV . COVERAGE c-i , 1.3^, i~b2 VACANCY c7 . i r5 ^6 , 412 OF'ERAT I NG E X F'ENSES 18i ~i i ^68 , 2i rt r TOTAL INGUt'IE NEEDED 954.922 NET OF'ERAT' I NG I hdCOt'IE bbt r , ~ 1 !.i DEE+T SERVICE COVERAGE 1,2~ RENT F'ER FOOT r . 91 SCE . UNITS TYPE SG~.FT. RENT INGOh1E FT. fir cj 48Cr 4.~ 7 5:~' -''89 4 , 8~,r~ r lir 1 5:'4 477 57.191 5,24iy 1 ~:r 2 788 717 8b , t~rir5 7.881 r 4r.S i r 48c-i 4.x,7 24i r , 99Cr , i r8i r .'s3 1 i'4 4Ti 17 , :?2 % 19 912 2 788 •?17 '<!1.ir19 27.58Cr 149 954,922 87.49' RE: hd'T' S W I 'f H L; F~iF= F~a a UNI-fS -I'~'F'E Sn.FT. REh1TS INCOt'IE ~/S.F. Iii ii 48ir :~8,76ir cj.b7 f i r 1 524 47 4 1. b4i r c_r . bb ~ Iii 2 7L.;8 416 49,92ir c_r.ST 4b it 48ir 474 '~b1,7ir:? c_r.99 ':8 1 5~~ 518 :b.i>ir7 ir.99 'S~ 788 778 6 , 892 i r , 99 149 954.9'.~:~ - EXHIEtIT-A-1 ~ 149 UNITS COST I SSUAhJCE ~Ttrtr ~ i rt rc_r ~ i .~L . t r~ ii r LAhJD ~ , 9Ltr , Si rtr ~ 1 , tr(~i i , trt ~i r CONSTF:UCT I ON ~8 , trF15 , t rt rc:r , 619 4 ~?95 ARCHITECT ~LBtr,Sc_rtr X144„764 CONSTRUCTION INTEREST ~ 1 , 71? , i_rc_rtr ~8 , 4 Sq DEE~T SERVICE RESEF;VE ~ 1 , SCrtr , ~ rtrtr g;F,~9 „ tri it r LEGAL ~ 19b , Si_rtr X96 , 1 1 F~sOND PFD I NT I NG , t ~trtr ~ i 4 47t_r OFFICIAL STATEh1ENT ~ 1 , ;t rtr ~7? TOTAL ~ l ~ , trc:rtr , ~ rr rtr ~b , 57L a 971 DEEsT SERVICE 9 . trtr% :~bt r q 8803 6T4 , 651 . DEE~T SEF;V . COVERAGE ~ r . LS 158, bb: VACAhJCY U, i r, X 1 4; OF'ERAT I NG EXPENSES 18t rtr Lb8 , L c.rtr TOTAL I NGOh1E NEEDED i , tr 9 ~ , L47 hJET OF'EFtAT I NG INCOME : 9:'•. , ? 14 DEE~T SERVICE COVERAGE 1.LS RENT F'ER FOOT ~ 1 . i r4 SCJ . 1 ~N I TS TYPE SG! . FT . RENT I NGOh1E FT . 1 tr tr 48tr trtr 59 , 978 4 , 8t ri r 1~r 1 SL4 546 6:`.i,4i6 G,Lotr itr r' 783 8Li 9~3,4~-,4 ; ,8s3ir 4b tr 48tr Strt r L?S , 898 L' , tr8i r .:TB 1 5L4 546 L48 , £~tr8 19 , 91 L 'S L '788 8L 1 ?44 , bL:' L7 , 58c:r 1 A 9 1 , i ~9:' , L47 87 , 49L RENTS W I ~T'H CHFA 1 IhJ I TS TYPE SC2 . F~T . RENTS I NGOt~IE ~ / S . F . ' ' iii t, 48i~ ~'L" '8,7bt.r Ci.b7 1tr 1 SL4 :'47 41,64tr tr.b6 1 tr L 78B 416 49 , 9Lt r tr . 5? 46 tr 48t r 554 Ri_r5 , bi_>._~ 1.15 H 1 5L4~ btr4 L75 , 596 1.15 5 788 9t r9 .T81 .7'x'7 1.15 149 1 , i_r9:" , L 4 7 EXHIEtIT-E~ VA I L AFFOF;DAEsLE: HODS T NG E'ER s~.FT. CONSTRUCT I Ord TRADE ITEM L~+REAk::DgUJN 8~>, 4~'~' SITE 410E;k::/UTILI'TIES ;b£3,~aE39 PAVING ~7„b.~./.I. LANDSCAF' I NG 4~ , ~i a~ W I hJDOWS ? 12 , 99i a CALF I hJETS 79.71 1 INSULATION :'4.14? HAF;DWARE 8 , q:~7 DRYWALL 1 , c_a~:ai CARPET 1 1._ti, 4i!9 FAINTING gb~~q.~ UNIT NUML-aEF;S 418 TO I L_ET ASSC . b , 441 . MIRRORS 4,718 SHEEN I hJG 9.0 ' 1 AF'F'L I ANCES 1:~7 , 676 PLUMB T NG 54 , 41 HEATING 6:~:,b~ia ELEC'TR I CAL 17i a , 486 CONCF;ETE X56.579 ROUGH CARPENTRY 8q.:?,~59 F:OOF I NG 55 ~ .?y i GUTTERS 1 ~ , i a4i a BLIhJDS 5,61; t F'LAYCiFiOUI`JD EGIUIF'. 15,87 * VENERAL REL"•IUIREMENTS 176 .f_.:J ~ ?K OVE RHE::AI) y 17 , 146 TOTAL , 619 , t_a9~ X45 . i afa * GENEF;AL ttEC7U I REMENT AND UVEF;HEAD . TF-IESE I TEt•'I S I hJCLUDE SLIC:t-I ITEMS AC FEES , I NSURArdCE , J O£~ OFFICE , TEMPORARY U`f I L I T T ES , SUPER I N"f EhJUEhJT , TRAVEL, F'F:O~IECT h'IAI`JAGER, L-a[]rJI?S, TF:uct~::~.; f~ DEL, TEMF'OF;ARY S I GNF~aGE , F'Ehdf_: I hJG , S'T~ORAGE ET'C . i Y~AYS`~'AR CUSTOM HOMES • COMNIERCUIL • DEVELOPMENT f BUILDING COMPANY OCTOBER 26, 1990 Thomas F~I. Campbe 11 Professional Development Corporatiori• 1974 Ve~,,u„~t Road Vail, Colorado RE: Vai,1 Affordable Housing Proposal Dear Tom, We~have~ xeviewed the preliminary architectural and site information on the three sites presently pending for rezoning in the town of Vail. From our examination of the topographic informatirn~ and our discussions of the outlined specifications we have a strong intErest in participating wit}1 Professional Development Gor~soration 1T1 the COnstruCtlon Of these ~ traits . The trade item breakdown: we discussed is in line with the type of canstruction . pxopased on these. sites. Frrnn working with you on other projects here in Colorado, 1 beleive that we both have a good handle an the material and Iabor costs. Zf the entire 300 units can begiz? in the spring and summer of 1991, then the increased buying power will insure better prices. Tom, the expence of the site work on the Tlountaiz~ bell and the Oberlohr sites will be substantial and it~is important that the density you are. seeking on the ~Pedetto site is important, because the greater nwnUer of units you have there at a lower site dev~:lopment cost will produce per unit savings which will help bear the greatex e.Ypense on the other two sites. With good construction management and careful selection of sub-contractors I beleive that these units can be built for $45.00 per sq, ft. As soon as we have full contract drawings we can fa,zm up•our prices and begin the negotiations wath sub-contractors. 1 look forward to woxkang with you either as a General Contractor or .as Contraction Manager for the entire pxoject. Sincerly, Allen Dili- esident DAXSTAR BUIL NG CC~tPANY P.O. BOX 28127 • COLORADO SPRINGS, Ca 80536. 71aP' ~~dll, . y ~Vai1 Associates, Inc. • Creators and Operator! of Vail and Bca~tir Creelt° Rex~rta October 24, 1990 Mr. Thomas.H. Campbell, President Professional Development Corporation 6685 Quince Rd. Suite 111 Memphis, Tennessee 38119 Dear Tom, W~a have been working with yvu for several y®ars in an effort to develop a!lvrdable housing for our employees and the many other employers in the Vail Valley. We have supported your recent proposal to the town of Vail and the State for bond allocations. At this point you have done what you said you would do. Vail Associates i.s the single largest employer in the Vail Val- ley. We annually employ 7OO year round employees and 3500 em- ploy~®a during aki.eeason (6 months). The need.lor housing both short and long term exists year round. For these reaoons, wa have entered into several hundred year .round leases with local • epartmante and.mobiie home. parks to provide housing for our employees. This has been ,the practice of .many other employers in the valley including the county, town and school districts. Although your development cannot be leased up by one employer due to the statutes oP Private Activity Honds, Vail Associates can easily serve as a clearing house for persons looking for housing and refer as appropriate to your property. We wili.be happy to also discuss a lease guarantee !or those units occupied by Vail Associates employees similar to what we hays done locally as I mentioned above. WA would also be in a position to recommend prior to •the completion of your units in 1991 that employees consider preleasing units from you. ' In closing, we feel that the project design and the sites select- ed offer good access to both transportation and services neces- • eery to enjoy a fully occupied property on a year round basis. incerely, rry i er ' v.P. rporate Administration Past Office Box 7 • Vail, Colc~ndo 81658 • USA - (303) 476.5601 ' RULES AN® REGULAT{®NS ~X ~ ~ / - The following Rules and Regulations are established to provide for the continuing pleasure, comfort and security of all residents and their guests. It is our intention to have a good environment for each tenant. 1. RENT ~ 15. DISPOStTiON OF ABANDONED PROPERTY Rent Is due on or before the first day of each calendar month and to no In accordance with State Lew, managementwlll dispose of any personal event later than the tenth day of the month. A S10 (ten dollar) late property left on the premisesbytenents after making reasonable efforts charge shall be added on the 11th day of the month, to have the tenant or his legal representative remove same. 2 INCOME CHANGE 16.. RE-EXAM{NATiON OF INCOME Since your rent Is calculated based on your Income, it Isyour responsi- Income and compensation must be verified at least annually by bility to report any change in Income to the Resident Manager, management: Tenant egress to furnish this information promptly at 3. BOARDERS mana~gment's request. The tenant agrees to advise management of The Tenant is not allowed to take to Boarders. Thts could cause you as changes in income at any time during the year. p tenant to become :an ineligible tenant due to income, number of 17. ILLEGAL ACTIVITY people in household or this can cause problems with other tenants. Tenants must refrain from Illegal or other activity which Impairs the 4. SUB-LEASING physical or social environment of the complex. Sub-leasing or assignment of en apartment Is prohibited. 18. pISTURBANCES S. INSURANCE Tenants will conduct themselves end cause family members end guests Insurance coverage maintained by the Landlord does not protect the who are on the premises to conduct themselves in a manner which will tenant from loss of personal property due to fire, theft, water damage, not disturb the neighbors' peaceful enjoyment of their accommodations. etc. The tenant is advised to obtain a policy of Renter's Insurance. 18. TV AERIALS 6. PARKING No TV or radio wires end aerlels will be placed on the premises unless Parking is provided for ell tenants. Parking on the grass is prohibited. authorized by management. Parking for guests is In a designated location. You are responsible for 20. SIGNS the parking of your guests. Tenant is forbidden to put up or display signs on the leased premtses. 7. UNUSED AUTOMOBILES 21. RULES Unused automobiles are to be moved from the project. No inoperable Management reserves the right to make changes and reasonable rules automobiles ere to tie repaired on the grounds. Unused or Inoperable as may tie needed for fhe safety, care, and cleanliness of the premtses automobiles will 6e towed away at the owner's expense alter proper end for the preservation of good order. Tenants will be given written notice according to State Law. notice of any changes. B. AUTOMOBILE REPAIR 22 LOCKS Repairing or lubricating automobiles will not be permitted on the Locks may not be changed oradded without permission of the manage- project site. ment. Locks or chains added must be left In place when you vacate. 9. APARTMENT REPAIRS 23. LIGHTS Tenants must report all requests for repairs to the resident manager. The landlord furnishes a working bulb In each Ilght socket when you There will be scheduled visits in each apartment by the resident move In. It is the responsibility of the tenant to replace all bulbs end manager end maintenance man. It is our intention to give a 4-hour fuses with the proper size as needed and to leave one to each socket notice of such inspections If possible, when vacating. 10. DAMAGE 24. WALL HANGERS You are required to pay for all damages end repairs to your apartment. Tenants may put up wall hangers with small Hells. Subsequent damage Theresponsibllityrestswiththe_residentforftemssuchasbrokenglass, will be determined by number and size holes. toilet stoppage, broken screens e!:d.similer items that are covered by 25. MAINTENANCE OF APPLIANCES the resident or his guest. You are not permitted to make repairs or Tenant will use with care ell appliances and fixtures provided In the alteratibns without consent of the Management. apartment. The appliances Including the oven will be clean when you 11. HAZARDS move In. It must be clean when you move out. If not,the cost of cleaning Tenants must keep the premises, and such other areas es' may be will be taken from your security deposit. assigned for his exclusive use in a clean, sanitary, end sate condition. 26. FIRE EXTINGUISHER Personal property such as toys, bicycles, barbeque grills, etc. must be Afire extinguisher is provided In each apartment. It must not be kept stored in the tersent's outside storage. These items will not be left removed when you move out. If you need assistance In operating the on sidewalks, parking areas or entrances. equipment, contact the site manager. 12. GUESTS ~ ~ All tenants are responsible for their guests. Overnight guests in excess 28• RESTRICTED AREAS of two-nights must be cleared with the resident manager. Overnight Children ere not permitted to play in laundry rooms, balconies, stair- guests of more than lour persons must be cleared with the resident ways or vacant apartments. manager. 29. pUIETNESS 13. PETS Playingotradios,TV,phonographs,andmusicalinstrumentsmustbeat NO pets ere permitted. except that no rule may be promulgated that reasonable quiet levels. would prohibit the tenancy of a tenant household memberwhorequires 30, WATERBEDS the services of a trained and certified seeing eye or hearing ear animal to Waterbeds ere not permitted. achieve the normal function of that household member. - 14. REFUSE All reluse and garbage must be placed in a garbage bag and placed in designated places. , 31. FORWARDING ADDRESS 34. MOVING The tenant must leave a forwarding address with the resident manager, All tenants must give a 30-day written notice prior to moving. 32. KEYS 35. LEASES ' All keys must be turned in to the resident manager. Cancellation of the lease will forfeit the security deposit unless the 33. REFUNDS toliowing exists: (A) All refunds of security deposits will be mailed to the tenant at the (A) If employment change requires 20 or more miles of travel or !f a forwarding address left with the resident manager, w(thin 30 days after home is purchased, and the unit is vacated. ~ (B) A thirty (30) day written notice is provided. (B) You will Not be considered for a refund on the security deposit unfit you have completed the move out checklist, turned in ell keys, and left your forwarding address. Tenant Co-Tenant I certify that a copy of the Rules and Regulations was delivered to the tenant(s). t3y Management EXHIBIT-D t PROFDRMA-TEN YEAR OPERATIONS INCOME: A55UME 95t OCCUPANCY (1,093,247 EXPENSES: 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 CARETAKER 17433 17433 18130 18856 19610 SUPPLIES 1341 1341 1341 1341 1341 PAINTING & DECORATING 7373 7373 7313 52373 7313 GENERAL MAINTENANCE 6705 6705 6705 6705 6105 GROUNDS 21456 21456 21456 21456 21456 SERVICES 5364 5364 5364 5364 5364 FURNITURE 6 FIXTURES 0 0 0 23840 57000 MISC. OFER C05T 2684 ~ 2684 2684 2684 2684 SUB TOTAL 62356 62356 63053 132619 121533 ELECTRICITY 15421 16038 16679 17347 18040 MATER 9387 9162 10153 10559 10981 SEMER 9381 9762 10153 10559 10981 FUEIiTELE 0 0 0 0 U TRASH kEMOVAI 4359 4511 4806 5046 5298 SUB TOTAL 38554 40140 41191 43511 45302 MANAGER SALARY-RESIDENT 14483 15062 15665 16291 16943 ~ MANAGEMENT FEE 46345 48199 50121 52132 54217 ACCOUNTING 4023 4023 4023 4023 4023 LEGAL 2611 2011 2011 2011 2011 OTHER ADM. 1335] 13353 12353 13353 13353 s SUB TOTAL 80215 82648 85119 81810 90541 REAL ESTATE TAXES 52500 52506 52504 52500 52500 SPECIAL A55ESSMENTS 0 0 0 0 0 OTHER TAXE5,FEES,PERMITS 0 0 0 0 0 SUB TOTAI 52500 52500 52500 52560 52500 PROPERTY INSURANCE 42563 42563 42563 42563 42563 COMPENSATIONS 0 0 0 0 0 BOND.PREMIUM5 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 5UB TOTAL 44575 44575 44575 44575 44575 INTERE5T EXPENSE 0 0 0 0 0 OTHER EXPENSES 0 0 0 0 0 SUB TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 TDTAL 278,200 282,214 287,098 361,015 354,457 ` REPLACEMENT RESERVE 65,730 131,459 191,189 262,919 DEBT SERVICE 634,651 634,651 634,651 634,651 CA5H FLOM 110,641 105,768 31,851 38,409 PRDFDRMA-TEN YEAR DPEkATIDNS INCDME: A55UME 95x DCCUPANCY EXPENSES: 1996 1947 1998 1994 2000 CARETAKER 20394 21210 22056 22441 23858 5UPPLIES 1341 1341 1341 1341 1341 PAINTING ~ DECDRATIN6 1373 52373 11988 7373 52313 GENERAL MAINTENANCE b7D5 6705 24705 6705 6705 fiRDUNDS 21456 21456 21456 21456 21456 SERVICES 5364 5364 5364 5364 5364 FURNITURE 6 FIXTURES 80840 23840 23844 23840 0 MISC. DPER C05T 2684 2684 2684 2684 2684 SUB TOTAL 146151 134913 114436 91104 113781 0 D 0 0 0 ELECTRICITY 18762 19512 20293 20292 21104 MATER 11421 11421 11878 12353 12841 SEWER 11421 11818 12353 12841 13361 FUEL/TELE D 0 4 4 0 TRASH REMOVAL 5563 5841 6134 6440 6762 5U8 TOTAL 47161 48652 50657 51932 54013 0 0 0 0 0 MANAGER SALARY-RESIDENT 17621 18326 19059 19821 20614 MANASEMENT FEE 56386 58641 bD487 63426 65963 ACCOUNTING 4023 4023 4023 4023 4023 LEGAL 2011 2011 2011 2011 2011 OTHER ADM. 13353 13353 13353 13353 13353 r SU8 TOTAL 93394 96354 99432 102634 105964 0 0 0 0 0 REAL E5TATE TAXES 52504 52500 52500 525D0 52504 SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS 0 0 0 0 0 OTHER TAXE5,FEE5,PERMIT5 0 0 0 0 0 SUB TOTAL 52540 52500 525D0 525D0 52500 0 U 0 0 0 PROPERTY INSURANCE 42563 42563 42563 42563 42563 CDrIPENSATI0N5 0 0 0 0 0 80ND PREMIUMS 2012 2012 2012 2D12 2011 SUB TOTAL 44575 44515 44575 44515 44575 a o D D 0 INTERE5T EXPENSE 0 0 0 0 0 DTHER EXPENSES 0 0 0 0 0 SUB TDTAL 0 0 0 0 0 i 10TAL 383,192 377,D54 361,601 343,344 374,894 REPLACEMENT RESERVE 328,649 394,318 4bD,iDB 515,838 591,561 DEBT SERVICE 634,651 634,651 634,651 634,651 634,651 CASH FLDN 9,073 15,812 31,265 49,521 21,972 A55UMPTIDNS: PAINTING EXTERIDR EVERY TMD YEAR5 PAINTING & DEGDRATIN6 APPLIANCE5 20X OVER FIVE YEARS FURN. & FIXTURES ~ CARPET 1001 REPLACEMENT OVER 5 YEARS FURN. ~ FIXTURE5 BLINDS IOOX REPLACMENT FIVE YEAR5 ~ FURN b FIXTURES i ~ PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION-NAIL-DRAFT LIST OF MATTERS TO BE COVERED IN LEASE BETWEEN TOWN OF NAIL AND PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LEASE TERMS: 1. 30 year ground lease to PDC> 2. Twenty (20`/.) of units must be retained at low income rents as required by ,IRS Code. 3. All units shall, subject to the terms of the Bonds, be restricted to persons employed in Eagle County for at least 30 hour per week. 4. Units built at each site shall conform to all appropriate zoning regulations, design review criteria and Building Department approvals. (NOTE: This clause covers many matters which could be more particularly set out in the lease but should be instead covered in areas such as Conditional Zoning, Deed Restrictions and the like.) 5. Market Rents established in the final lease document shall be maintained throughout the term of the lease, subject only to the following adjustments: a. Increases in real or personal property taxes, or other fees and assesments by any State, Federal, Couunty, Town or other governmental unit. b. insurance cost increases. c. Utility cost increases. d. Extraordinary maintenance, such as costs associated with unusual weather conditions, more than average snow removal costs, etc. e. Repairs in excess of insurance reimbursement. f. To meet any debt service deficit. g. Increases in Management fees over the Base fee of ~M~.t,~~a per' unit, per month, limited to CPI increases. h~ Any Asher .~n~rea~e in the Base Market rate shall require the approval of PDC and the Town of Vail. r b. Professional Development Corporation shall provide resident management services at each site. 7. Tenant Leases shall be for a minimum of one year terms. 8. Tenant polices shall generally follow the terms of PDC's Standard Policy Tenant Agreement, as set forth in the attachment to this Draft. 7. The Final Lease terms shall be subject to such other terms and conditions as the Bond Purchaser shall reguire at the time of the purchase of the Honds. i i~ i ~ l~iQ,u~ r ! / ~ ~q ~j~~ ~'Q OCT 2 9199 ` r ~ ~ _ r~~ ar Chi ~ ~ C~' l p ~ /~l V~,L ~~C,~I~!-~.~ i ~ C~ ~ 1~0~ I?/1 C~p/Lt/~l /'S~~~o~n ii ~-/1~/~ (~l~l~ ~ ©i.J 1~L ~~v j~( C° i~L ±I / ~ i Q fah r~Ce c~h ~ ZC.cd~h~~ ~ 5dc`~, ' ~ ~ Q..~.c~ ~ ~1 Q ~ @ C Vim' ~`~i-~ e (~t}~~ ~ (tiv (D lit d1c Yin s) G'`.~~/ V n ~ ~ ~ / I i c ~ I c t U`r~ neg. ~ ~ z s ~a,!~ ~ 1/~'l Kept ~ sS~s r r ~ ~ r f (~'f c~? ~Zlt ~ v ~c,o-rQ ~ p~f,:e. ~,t,~,d-,~1~ Y ' i ~ i ~ j ~ ~~j ~ ~ /1 . _ ~ r" ~y ~ ~Q-Q 1'~/ K/L.~ Q.i~ Q ~ t ~ (-~,~n\ a/1.1.V1 J~ ~P ` ^ f ~ V / I (r/G/ ' ^ ~ 1 c~ ~ r l ~ . u oQ ee5 1 i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~f~w/~ Y- N e f~~ ~ f //'w 'Yl1 ~ ,vv? -r ~ - ( L VTR ; ~ L © IV~r.. ( _"i fit' ~ tom.- k tn/ X11 . c.~; V ~ " t 1 t'e u~ ~ . t the s ; n ~ ~ ~1,eu~? ~ ~ - p ~ U ~,`Q.~ I ~ i S ~ 1, ,.~,e.. Si't'"`- `~''O ~ .-y,. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~Q ~ ~ ~ ~ ,1t, w ~ ~e ~ ~ ~"a , ;i ~ ~ ~ i~' ~ j i 41 'ti 1 1 i f'~ i, t 1 s ~4~; i Garton Development RECD OCT 2 91990 company POST OFFICE BOX 705 YAII, COLORADO 81658 303-476-5075 303-~i76-7455 FAX October 23. 1990 Vail Tcwn Council Dear '.ail Town Council: I have enclosed a copy of my letter which I have sent to the local newspapers concerning my dog which was caught in a leg hold trap in the Booth Creek drainage. I believe the enclosed letter is self-e~;planatcry, but I wish to formally ask you to consider passing a motion requesting the Division of Wildlife to restrict the Gcre Valley from any further trapping. If you would like me to come before you personally, I am more thar, willing tc do sc. I wauid Nape that all of you feel as I do on this subject and will write a letter to the Division of Wildlife making this request. If there is some way in which you can act in a unilateral fashion without the Division of Wildlife approval. I would wholeheartedly support that, but it was my understanding that your ability to control activities outside the town boundaries was limited. Please let me know if there is anything that I can do to further advance this cause. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Tim Garton TG; b j Enc . cc: Director of the Division of Wildlife i Uc t cz~er 2 2 . 1990 The Vail Daily Dear Editor: ~n October 10. 1990. I took my two labradars for a short hike up the Booth Creek. drainage. This hike was spoiled to say the least. Within a 100 yards after I crossed the forest service boundary my five year eld black lab was caught in an animal trap which damaged his front right paw and severely lacerated his tc.n~~ue. The trap wa.s of the double variety which insures that the animal cannot escape. My dog was literally mad with pain. Subsequent calls to local law enforcement officers informed me that the perpetrator of this disaster was operating within current. state laws, which I find literally unbelievable. Treat trapping a wild animal in any circumstances is a form of cruelty I thought was widel;r understood. But to endanger local pets and children lI could hear the children on the Vail Mountain Schaol soccer field calling and shouting to each other only several hundred yards away.) is simply unacceptable. If a child playing in tries area. were caught in one of these traps the results could truly be disastrous. A number of years back the shooting of rifles in the Gore Valley was prohibited. If that made sense. certainly wild animal traps should likewise be excluded. Incidentally the fox which was caught adiacent tc the Vail Golf Course the same day was also trapped by the same senseless fellow who somehow feels that the Vail Valley's fur bearing residents are his personal asset to be destroyed at whim. I am sending a copy of this letter to the Vail Town Council as well as the Division cf Wildlife. It would be my hope that the ' Town Council would make a recommendation to the Division of Wildlife that the Gcre Valley be excluded from any trapping in the future. Thank you far printing this letter. Sincerei~: . Tim Garton I COMMITTEES: TIMOTHY E. WIRTH COLORADO ARMED SERVICES RLI,~n OCT 2 61990 BANKING BUDGET ~nit~~ ~tate,~ senate ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES WASHINGTON, DC 20510-0603 October 23, 1990 Vail Town Councilmembers 75 S. Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Dear Friends: Knowing of your concern with the situation at the Eagle Mine Superfund site near Minturn, I would like to bring your up-to-date on my efforts to hasten a satisfactory solution to the continued toxic contamination of the Eagle River and the surrounding area. In early August, as a result of the continued releases of pollutants and increasing public dissatisfaction with a clean-up effort that seemed to be making a bad situation worse, I decided to contact the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), questioning the effectiveness of the Remedial Action Plan that directs the court-ordered clean-up. I also requested that the EPA exercise its authority and insist on a more effective, complete, and permanent clean-up. Since that time, my staff has met with the Colorado Department of Health, representatives of the owners of the site, Paramount, Inc., and the EPA to emphasize my concern with this problem and~to establish a prudent course of action directed toward solving this problem. Pursuant to my request, the EPA has agreed to exercise stricter enforcement and monitoring of the clean-up. The capacity of the water treatment plant is being increased to handle the unexpectedly large volume of contaminated ground water, and increased monitoring will pinpoint seepages at their source. The technical problems posed by the highly mobile pollution at Eagle Mine are complex, and demand close and continued oversight to ensure the protection of human health and the environment. I will remain involved in this issue and will continue to do whatever I can to see that the clean-up of the Eagle Mine superfund site proceeds in as effective and timely manner as possible. With best wishes, Si erely you Timothy E. Wirth. TEW/mg 1129 PENNSYLVANIA STREET 1003 MAIN STREET 830 N. TEJON ST. UNITED BANK BUILDING DENVER, CO 80203 GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81501 SUITE 105 8TH AND MAIN ST. 303/866-1900 303/245-8044 COLORADO SPRINGS. CO 80903 SUITE 410 719/634-5523 PUEBLO, CO 81003 719/542-6987 ~ REC"Q OCT 2 61990 ~ OFFICE OF STATE PLANNING AND BUDGETING . BUDGET BRIEF FY 91-3 October 23, 1990 A COMPARISON OF AMENDMENT #1 WITH OTHER STATE TAX AND EXPENDITURE SYSTEMS Colorado vs. Californi~i Property taxes in California were rising at a rapid -pace. When Proposition 13 Thirteen years ago in 1 ~ ~ Colorado passed,. state government had a $4 billion became the second state in the country - surplus to help mitigate the local impact. to ~ create a state ,spending limitation. These conditions do not currently exist Colorado's law was adopted two years in Colorado. prior to a' similar measure in California. Fiscal discipline has long been a tenet of fi Ird nn . Cooao ace According to the most recent data from AMENDMENT # the . U.S. Department of Commerce, Colorado tax levels are lower than those o Regwres vofer approval. for, in California. Yet proponents of Colorado's 'state and loyal government tax; Amendment 1, which is a constitutional or fee: increases, n i n t it t o m m nt s e o urta sta e a d c e d e de d o 9 local government spending, cite California o .State spending may not exceed as an example of how the taxpayers fumed tkte annual percentage change , around their tax system that "triggered an m state :population growth and.. . economic boom." Nationally, Colorado , inflation, ranks 31st from highest to lowest in state and local tax burden, but o State individual and, corporate California ranks 24th, out-taxing in0ome taxes wiq be;taxed at, Colorado by a significant margin. .one rate :.1 . n is inappropriate to compare the situation o Resider~al properly #axeS `will surrounding California's passage of not exceed :more: than: one Proposition 13 with Colorado's percent of market'`value; plus' .......doter approved detrt, Amendment #1. During the late 1970s, v I in atffomia were r a ues C oe P P rty ..skyrocketing as a result of a real estate o Allows ,Deal .,govern .ants o boom. Consequently, home prices were shift: tt~e post of .certain rapidly escalating and property tax levies >>>~progcamsto:the~state>; were well over 2°~ of market value. - The BUDGET BRIEF is a review of current budget issues for the State of Colorado. Contact OSPB staff at (303)866-3317. n Colorado Tax Levels in sales taxes and $2.54 for income taxes ~ ~ for every $100 of personal income. Colorado state and local tax levels are below the ~ U.S. average. As Table 1 indicates, 'for every $100 earned in personal income, the U.S. average for state and local taxes total $11:56. In Sate and Local Taxes Colorado, the FY 1988 amount is $10.83. Have Decreased - These amounts combine property, sales, Between 7970 and 1988 and income taxes. .Colorado is not considered a high tax state. Colorado tax burdens are Table 2 shows how the tax burden has substantially less than the three highest changed since 1970. State and local states which include Alaska, New York, taxes -in Colorado comprised $i 1.62 for and .Wyoming, with tax levels of $19.73, every~$100 of personal income in 1970. $16.38, $15.73 respectively per $100 of Almost_20 years later, the Colorado tax personal income. burden has decreased to $10.83. In addition, Colorado slipped in U.S. ranking Colorado property taxes are slightly higher from the 20th to 31st state, reflecting the than 'the national average totalling $3.88 decline in tax burden. per $100 of persona! income compared to $3.51 for the U.S. average. This places Colorado Snendina Levels Colorado in the 20th place out of the fifty ~ . states. The spending side of Colorado's state budget shows moderate growth. Again, The higher than average amount is due Colorado ranks at the bottom half of the primarily to the state's property tax ~ states, showing below average spending classification. system. Commercial rates for the past five years from FY 1986 property is taxed at twice the rate for through FY 1991. Data from the National residential property. According to data Association of State Budget Officers ranks prepared by ,the Federal Housing Colorado in .27th place. Colorado's Administration (FHA), the average effective spending limit requires state annual property tax rate for single family homes expenditure growth to be under 7°~. in Colorado wifh FHA-insured mortgages in 1987 is about 1°~ of market value. For local government -which includes However, the property tax burden varies cities, counties, school districts, and - across Colorado depending on the nature special districts general fund spending of the special districts, size of tax base, .information throughout the U.S. is not educational system, and demand for local available. However, in Colorado the government services in each community. state prohibits local governments from increasing property tax revenue each ' Regarding Colorado state and local year by more than 5.5°~. Exceptions income and sales taxes, the state may be made if the government unit asks ranks 30th in the United States for both for voter approval which is a voting types of taxes. This results in $3.88 paid requirement already in place in Colorado. 2 - ~ growth to inflation and population. Colorado's current measure is called the Amendment ~1 Comoared to Existing 7°~ Limit or the Kadlecek Amendment..lt State Tax and Soendina Limitations _ limits annual general fund expenditure increases to 7°~ each year. Changes to In addition to :balanced budget - the 7°6 limit can be adopted with a requirements mandated in 49 states, 21 majority vote of the legislature, although states (including Colorado) have adopted no signficant adjustment has been measures to limit the annual growth of necessary. state revenues or expenditures. The proposed Amendment #1 is more stringent than any other existing state Colorado Was Second State ~ tax or expenditure limitation. To Adopt Spending Umitation Differences include: 1. Fifteen states tie their budget limit to New Jersey was the first state to adopt a growth. in the state economy; only limitation in 1976 (which later expired and Alaska has a binding limit that is tied then was reenacted), closely followed by to inflation and population as required Colorado and Rhode Island. This gives by Amendment #1. Alaska is also Colorado the distinction of having the unique because the state obtains longest enacted state spending _ most of its revenue from the oil limitation in the country. industry which, until recently, has been depressed. The flurry of activity in adopting these - limitations came immediately after the The most responsible spending lid passage of Proposition 13. Of the 21 would allow expenditures to grow states with limits, 14 states passed them when the economy expands and between 1978 and 1980 (refer to Table 3). slow the growth when the economy contracts. In fact, California The .most recent adoption occurred in previously had their limit tied to New Jersey in 1990, when the previous inflation and population changes, but limit was reenacted. The cap applies only the voters switched it this past to direct state expenditures such as June to personal income growth corrections and- state institutions. Grant- because the original limit was too in-aid programs to local governments .restrictive. Also, Utah had a limit were exempted. based on inflation and population, but also altered it this year to include The most common type of limits are personal income which provides the generally tied, with some variation, to state state with more flexibility. ` personal income growth. This allows government to grow in step with the 2. Only California is required by its private economy. However, there are limit to have tax increases other types of limitations that select a approved by the voters. No other specific allowable growth figure or tie state is required to seek a popular 3 vote to raise revenue. If additional Again, this differs with experience in most ..revenue is needed that would override other states. Only California's Proposition the limit,. fifteen states allow an 13 and Massachusetts' Proposition 2-1 /2 override with a legislative vote. This rolled-back property taxes. All other procedure provides a public record states' limitations imposed on local showing which legislators voted for .governments restrict the rate of future and against spending increases. govemment growth they did not force a reduction of current services. 3. No state, including Calffornia, requires fee increases to be Table 4 summarizes the various types of approved by the voters. Under property tax restrictions used in other Proposition 13, local govemments states. Colorado currently has in place began to reduce their source of the 5.5% property tax revenue limit. income from property tax and increased their revenue from user Summan? fees. The reliance on fees helped Cal"rfornia offset the tax roll-back. When Colorado tax and spending practices'' are Compared to the other 49 Fiscal discipline can also be attained with states, Colorado is generally below the other methods, and Colorado has national. average. State general fund adopted several of these spending spending levels and taxing levels are management tools.. These include a moderate. In addition, there are constitutional requirement for a balanced numerous other checks and balances budget, gubernatorial line-item veto, in .place at .both. the state and local constitutional debt restriction, program levels that keep spending and tax evaluation and sunset procedures, and a increases in line with the desires of the required budget reserve. taxpayers. Amendment #1 would • ..,reduce the level of current services With regard to local government, now provided to Colorado citizens and Amendment #1 places a revenue reduce the flexibility of Colorado limitation on cities, counties, school. government to respond to future districts, and special districts by limiting demands placed on it by the changing combined residential property tax mill national economy. levies to a total of 69 mills or 1 °k of market value over a 10 year period. Consequently, in some parts of Colorado, property taxes must be cut back. 4 ~ TABLE 1 RANKING OF STATE AND LOCAL TAXES PAID PER $100 OF PERSONAL INCOME FISCAL YEAR 1988 Sales and Individual - Total Property Gross & Corporate Rank Taxes Taxes Receipts Income Tax U.S. Average 511.56 53.51 34.15 3298 1 AK 19.73 WY 7.04 HI 7.93 NY 8.18 2 NY 16.38 AK 8.91 WA 7.29 DE 4.83 3 WY 15.73 NH 6.48 NM 6.81 MD 4.73 4 HI 14.81 OR 6.48 NV 8.b8 MA 4.61 6 ME 13.33 MT 5.39 LA 8.15 MN 4.49 8 VT 13.23 VT 5.33 TN b.98 HI 4.15 7 MN 13.23 NY 4.79 AZ 6.69 MI 4.11 8 WI 12.94 MI 4.87 FL b.48 NC 4.10 9 UT 12.91 RI 4.87 MS 6.29 WI 3.93 10 NM 12.48 NJ 4.81 TX 5.17 ME 3.88 11 MT 12.39 WI 4.b5 SD 5.15 OR 3.79 12 MI 12.29 NE 4.52 AL b.02 UT 3.71 13 AZ 12.17 IA 4.48 UT b.00 CA 3.58 14 RI 11.90 CT 4.31 OK 4.81 OH 3.61 i6 ~ MD 11.77 SD 4.31 AR 4.73 KY 3.42 16 WA 11.70 ME b23 SC 4.80 SC 3.27 17 IA 11.84 TX 4.18 WV 4.61 GA 3.23 18 OR 11.59 MN 3.97 ME 4.45 VA 3.17 19 LA 11.45 KS 3.89 NY 4.42 VT 3.14 20 DE 11.38 CT 4.28 PA 3.05 21 NC 11.38 IL 3.83 NC 4.20 RI 3.05 22 MA 11.35 AZ 3.78 MO 4.19 IA 3.03 23 SC 11.29 MA 3.83 IL 4.18 MT 2.90 24 CA 11.19 UT 3.54 GA 4.12 ID 2.89 25 KS 11.17 WA 3.41 MN 4.08 IN 2.88 28 OK 11.07 FL 3.28 ID 4.08 WV 2.73 27 NJ 10.98 IN 3.22 KY 4.03 KS 2.73 28 NE 10.92 ND 3.20 IN 9.95 AR 2.b9 29 WV 10.87 CA 3.12 WY 3.93 MO 2.b8 30 IL 10.87 OH 3.04 z':>ss{s~~'>'>'~';~'3 <`#'>:`'`:<?~;>:`~~d 31 "`•~~.~~,:,:.:,~~`.~Y`~~$3~ ID 3.02 VT 9.87 NJ 2.40 32 ~~~TX~~:-. ,.~-~~~10.82-~- VA 2.93 ND 3.88 AL 2.37 33 OH 10.81 PA 2.98 WI 3.80 OK 223 34 CT 10.80 MD 2.65 CA 3.77 NE 221 35 PA 10.78 GA 2.83 KS 3.78 IL 2.17 38 ID 10.87 SC 2.70 RI 3.76 AZ 2.08 37 GA 10.83 MS 2.59 OH 3.58 NM 1.98 38 NO 10.80 NV 2.44 NE 3.b7 AK 1.90 ! 30 NV 10.58 NC 2.38 VA 3.37 ND 1.75 40 SD 10.68 TN 2.13 PA 3.34 MS 1.88 - 41 MS 10.55 OK 2.09 NJ 3.31 LA 1.68 42 KY t0.b4 HI 2.09 MD 3.29 CT 1.40 43 VA 10.45 WV 2.05 IA 3.28 NH 0.95 44 tN 10.40 MO 2.03 MI 2.91 TN 0.89 45 FL 10.02 LA 1.85 MA 2.84 FL 0.33 48 TN 9.72 KY 1.81 MT 1.82 SD 0.30 47 AR 9.70 AR 1.7b AK 1.63 NV 0.00 48 AL 9.81 DE 1.b9 NH 1.39 TX 0.00 49 MO 9.41 NM 1.38 DE 1.38 WA 0.00 60 NH 8.82 AL 1.11 OR 1.08 WY 0.00 SOURCE: Government Finances in 1987-1988, U.S. OepartmeM of Commerce, I Bureau of the Census, January 1980, p.101. TABLE 2 y . STATE-LOCAL TAX REVENUE PER x100 OF PERSONAL INCOME FISCAL Yi==ARS 19701978. AND 1988 FY 1970 FY 1978 F1i' 1988 • Level Rank Level Rank Level Rank U.S. x11.32 x1208 x11.56 Alaska 9.17 48 18.04 2 16.73 1 New York 14.37 1 18.30 1 18.37 2 Wyoming 12.42 12 15.28 3 15.73 3 Hawali 13.45 S 13.17 10 14.81 4 Malne 12.17 15 12.33 13 13.33 S Vermont 14.22 2 13.48 9 13.23 8 Minnesota 11.99 18 13.58 8 13.22 7 Wisconsin 13.97 3 13.58 7 12.94 8 Utah 12.62 8 11.91 18 12.92 9 New Mexico 12.50 0 12.85 12 12.48 10 Montana 12.41 13 12.95 11 12.34 11 Michigan 11.35 22 12.23 15 12.30 12 Arizona 12.83 8 13.88 8 12.17 13 Rhode Island 10.93 29 12.00 17 11.90 14 Maryland 11.77 18 12.31 14 11.77 15 Washington 11.11 27 12.02 18 11.70 18 Iowa ' 12.22 14 10.98 33 11.84 17 Oregon 11.11 28 11.78 22 11.80 18 Louisiana 11.80 21 11.70 25 11.45 19 Delaware 10.43 33 11.04 18 11.38 20 North Carolina 10.45 32 10.85 40 11.38 21 Massachusetts 11.82 17 14.48 5 11.35 22 South Carolina 0.94 38 10.80 37 11.29 ~ 23 Celifomia 12.82 7 14.82 4 11.20 24 Kansas ~ 1128 24 11.12 30 11.17 25 Oklahoma 6.74 42 10.22 41 11.07 28 New Jersey 10.05 38 11.87 20 10.98 27 Nebraska 11.27 2b 11.79 21 10.92 28 West Virginia 10.88 30 11.18 28 _ 10.87 29 Illinois 11.30 23 10.00 34 10.87 30 ::i:>z>s>:. . Texas ~ ~ 9.53 48 10.02 43 10.82 32 Ohio 8.92 50 0.52 48 10.81 33 Connecticut 10.22 35 11.02 32 10.80 34 Pennsylvania 10.85 31 11.81 .28 10.78 35 Idaho 10.98 28 10.85 35 10.87 38 Georgia 0.98 37 10.88 38 10.83 37 North Dakota 12.49 10 11.58 27 10.80 38 Nevada 11.75 10 11.73 23 10.b9 39 South Dakota 13.47 4 11.10 31 10.56 40 Missisdppi 12.48 11 11.13 20 10.55 41 Kentucky 10.29 34 10.82 38 10.64 42 Virginia 0:73 43 10.89 38 10.41 43 ~ Indiana 0.80 40 9.87 44 10.40 44 Florida 6.85 30 9.79 47 10.02 45 Tennessee 6.68 4b 10.21 42 8.72 48 Arkansas 9.73 44 0.80 48 9.70 47 Alabama O.bt 47 0.80 45 69.81 48 Missouri 0.70 41 0.48 50 0.41 49 New Hampshire 0.00 40 0.71 48 8.62 50 SOURCE: State-local Flscal Indicators, Natlonal Conference of State Lepislstures, _ Denver, Colorado, January 1990, p. 08. Government Finances in 1987-88, U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of tha (;.ensue, Waehin{1ton, D.C., p. 101. ~I TABLE 3 STATE TAX AND SPENDING LIMITATIONS ` LJrrtit , State Applies To Year Adopted Revenue (R) Const. (C) or .Expend. (E) Statutorv~ ARpron. /A) Nature of Limit Qverride Provisions Aarerrdnter>< 1 E Growth of Poprde0ion IiAajorihr of Voters Z fC1 >i Irdl~)on Alaska A Growth of Population Approved by Govemoror3/a Vote of Legislature 1982 (C) & Inflation and Voters Arizona A 7°~6 of Personal I...,,, 2/3 Vote of Legislature 1978 (C) California A Personal In,,. Growth Majority of Voters 1979 (c) COLORADO A 7%ANNlJ/1LGROWTH MNUORRYOF LEGISLATURE 1977 ~ Hawaii A Personal Income Growth 2/3 Vote of Legislature 1978 (C) Idaho A 5.33°i6 of Personal 2/3 Vote of Legislature 1980 (S) Income Louisiana R Ratio to Personal Majority of Legislature 1878 (S) Income in 1979 Massachusetts R Growth of Wages 8 Majority of LegLglature 1986 (S) Salaries , Michigan R Ratio to Personal 2/3 Vote of Legislature 1978 (C) Income in 1979 Missouri R and E Ratio to G'~.s.,nal 2/3 Vote of Legislature 1980 (C) lrrcome In 1981 Montana A Persona! Income Growth 2/3 Vote of Legislature 1981 (S) Nevada E ~ Growth of Population Non-binding 1978 (S) and inflation New Jersey E Growth of Per Capita Inoome Majority of Legislature 1990 (S) Oklahoma A 12°k Adjusted for Inflation None 1985 (C) Oregon A Personal I. Growth Majority of Legislature 1979 (S) Rhode Island A t'? 696 Annual Growth Non-binding 1979 (s) S. CaroMa A Personal I. Growth 2/3 Vote of Legislature 1980, 1984 (C) Tenn.:.., R Personal Inoome Growth Majority of Legislature 1978 (C) Texas A Personal Income Growth Majority of Legislature 1978 (C) Utah A Growth of Population, Majority of Legislature 1989 (S) Inflation 8~ Personal L Washington R Personal Income 2/3 Vote of LegLslature _ 1979 (S) (Z Limit applies to governor's budget request but not to legislative action. SOURCI:'Tax and Spending UMtations on the November Belbt," National Conference of State Legislatures, September 1980. i v . , . - TABLE 4 - - LIMITS ON LOCAL GOVERNMENTS Property Tax Rate Limits: (30 states) .Alabama,. Alaska, Arkansas, California, Florida, Idaho, lUinois, Iowa, Kentucky,: Louisiana, , .Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina,North - Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Washington, West Virginia, Wyoming. Propertv Tax Revenue Limiits: (15 states) Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Nevada, New Jersey (counties), New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island (cities), Washington. Revenue Rollback Limits: (12 states) Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Ohio, Texas, Virginia. Assessment Increase Limits: (6 states) Arizona, California, Iowa, Maryland, ,New Mexico, New York. General Revenue Limits: (2 states) Minnesota (property tax plus state aid), Nevada (property tax plus sales tax). Expenditure Limits: (3 states) Arizona, Califrornia, New Jersey (cities only). - Full Discosure or Truth-in-Taxation: (15 states) Delaware (counties only), Florida, Hawaii, :Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana (cities only), Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia. No Limits nn Local Governments: (7 states) Connecticut, Georgia, Maine, New Hampshire, .South Carolina, Vermont, and Wisconsin. In addition, Hawaii and Virginia have only full disclosure limits, which are not as binding as other types of limitations. SOURCE: "How States Limit City & County Property Taxes & Spending," National Conference of State Legislatures, Denver, Colorado, March 1989.