HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-01-21 Support Documentation Town Council Regular Session Ti~~
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, JANUARY 21, 1992
7:30 P.M.
AGENDA
1. Ten Year Employee Recognition.
* Martha Raecker, Community Relations
* Mike Vaughan, Fire Department
2. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION.
3. Ordinance No. 22, Series of 1991, second reading, an ordinance amending the
investment policy of the Town of Vail.
4. Resolution No. 24, Series of 1991, a resolution allowing Upper Eagle Valley
Consolidated Sanitation District to use approximately 10 acres of Town-owned land for
wetland mitigation. Applicant: Upper Eagle Valley Consolidated Sanitation District.
5. Hearing to Consider the Removal of the Booth Creek Local Improvement District from
the Rockfall Hazard Map.
6. Discussion of Heritage CableVision Rate Increases -Stan McKinzie.
7. Appointment of two Design Review Board Members.
8. Adjournment.
C:VIGENDA.TC
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, JANUARY 21, 1992
7:30 P.M.
EXPANDED AGENDA
7:30 p.m. 1. Ten Year Employee Recognition.
Ron Phillips Martha Raecker, Community Relations
Mike Vaughan, Fire Department
7:45 p.m. 2. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION.
7:50 p.m. 3. Ordinance No. 22, Series of 1991, second reading, an ordinance
Steve Thompson amending the investment policy of the Town of Vail.
8:00 p.m. 4. Resolution No. 24, Series of 1991, a resolution approving
Andy Knudtsen wetland mitigation sites in the Town of Vail for the Black Lakes
Reservoir Expansion Project, with certain conditions.
Action Requested of Council: Approve/deny/modify Resolution
No. 24, Series of 1991.
Background Rationale: When the Upper Eagle Valley
Consolidated Sanitation District proposed to expand Black Lake
Reservoir No. 1, Eagle County approved the request with the
condition that the District provide 10.75 acres of wetland
restoration to mitigate the impacts of the construction. The
District requested the right to use land owned by the Town of
Vail to fulfill its mitigation requirements. On August 21, 1990, the
Vail Town Council passed a resolution supporting the expansion
of Black Lake Reservoir No. 1. On September 10, 1991, the
specific mitigation proposal was presented to Town Council, and
the Council approved the request to proceed through the
planning process. On October 14, 1991, the PEC approved the
" mitigation plan by a 7-0 vote. The last step in the Town's review
process is for the Town Council to give final approval to the
mitigation plan.
By approving the resolution, The Town is recognizing that the
mitigation sites will be protected under Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act. The Town will have to consult with the Army Corps
of Engineers before undertaking any construction project that
would cause the destruction or degradation of the wetlands. The
Corps of Engineers may required the Town to mitigate any
impacts to the wetland areas.
Please note that the resolution includes a condition of approval
that requires the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) to review and approve any changes to the flood plain
which may be caused by this project.
Staff Recommendation: Approve Resolution No. 24, Series of
1991.
1
8:15 p.m. 5. Hearing to consider the removal of the Booth Creek Local
Larry Eskwith Improvement District from the Rockfall Hazard Map.
Action Reauested of Council: Approve or deny removal of the
Booth Creek Local Improvement District from the Rockfall Hazard
Map.
Backaround Rationale: L&M Contractors has now completed the
Rockfall Mitigation Berm, and Banner Engineering has certified
the berm as substantially complete. This is a hearing in
accordance with 18.69.050 to determine whether the area
covered by the Local Improvement District should be taken out of
the Rockfall Zone. Both the engineer and geologist will be
present to give testimony.
8:45 p.m. 6. Discussion of Heritage CableVision Rate Increases.
Stan McKinzie
Action Requested of Council: Stan McKinzie requested to meet
with Council to discuss the reasons for the rate increase which
Heritage CableVision (TCI) has imposed.
9:05 p.m. 7. Appointment of two Design Review Board Members.
Action Requested of Council: Appoint two Design Review Board
members from the individuals interviewed at today's work
session.
9:15 p.m. 8. Adjournment.
C:IAGENDA.TCE
2
ORDINANCE NO. 22, Series of 1991
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE INVESTMENT POLICY
OF THE TOWN OF VAIL
WHEREAS, the Town Council believes that certain amendments in the Investment Policy
of the Town of Vaii will be beneficial.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF
VAIL, COLORADO:
1. The Investment Policy of the Vail Town Council for the Town of Vail is hereby
amended to read as set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof.
2. If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance
is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions of this Ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed
this Ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless
of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, causes or phrases be
declared invalid.
3. The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this Ordinance is
necessary and proper for the health, safety and welfare of the Town of Vail and the inhabitants
thereof.
4. The repeal or the repeal and reenactment of any provision of the Municipal Code
of the Town of Vail as provided in this Ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any
duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution
commenced, nor any other action or proceedings as commenced under or by virtue of the
provision repealed or repealed and reenacted. The repeal of any provision hereby shall not
revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated
herein.
INTRODUCED, READ AND APPROVED ON FIRST READING this 16th day of July ,
1991, and a public hearing shall be held on this Ordinance on the 21 day of JAN., 1992, at
7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado.
Ordered published in full this 16th day of Julv , 1991.
J ~ v1/L,
Kent R. Rose, Mayor
ATTEST:
QM(,(.(,v ~ , u~
Chapter 3.52
ILA +r ~STMENT POLICY
SeCt10ASS
3.52.010 Statement of purpose.
3.52.020 Scope.
3.52.030 Investment objectives.
3.52.040 Delegation of authority.
3.52.050 Investment prudence.
3.52.060 Investment instruments.
3.52.070 Competitive selection of investment instruments.
3.52.080 Interest allocation method.
3.52.090 safekeeping and custody.
3.52.100 Portfolio diversification.
3.52.110 Maturity scheduling.
3.52.120 Qualified institutions and broker/dealers,.
3.52.130 Investment committee.
3.52.140 Reporting requirements.
3..52.150 Monitoring and adjusting the portfolio.
3.52.160 Internal controls.
3.52.170 Policy review.
3.52.180 Funds borrowing from pooled cash fund.
3.52.010 Statement of purpose.
This Investment Policy of the Vail Town Council for the Town
of Vail represents the financial boundaries within which its cash
management process will operate.
REVENUE AND FINANCE
A. Areas covered by this policy include:
1. Scope of Financial Funds to be Invested (Section
3.52.020).
2. Investment Objectives (Section 3.52.030).
3. Delegation of Authority for Investment Decisions (Section
3.52.040).
4. Investment Prudence (Section 3.52.050).
5. Investment Instruments (Section 3.52.060).
6. Competitive Selection of Investment Instruments (Section
3.52.070).
7. Interest Allocation Method (Section 3.52.080).
8. Safekeeping and Custody (Section 3.52.090).
9. Portfolio Diversification (Section 3.52.100).
10. Maturity Scheduling (Section 3.52.110).
11. Qualified Institutions and Broker/Dealers .(Section
3.52.120).
12. Investment Committee (Section 3.52.130).
13. Reporting Requirements (Section 3.52.140).
14. Monitoring and Adjusting Portfolio (Section 3.52.150).
15. Internal Controls (3.52.160).
16. Policy Review (Section 3.52.170).
REVENUE AND FINANCE (CONTINUED)
B. Cash management goals shall be developed within the
constraints of this policy statement. Goals shall include.
1. Percentage of cash invested. The town shall be earning
interest on all available funds for investment.
2. Percentage of return (yield). A targeted range of yields
should be stated as a goal. This target yield goal shall
be presented in the annual operating budget.
3. Total dollar return goal. Combines the goals of
percentage of cash available and the percentage of yield
to obtain a total dollar return goal.
(Ord. 22(1989) I:Ord.34 (1988):Ord.17(1987).)
3.52.020 Scope.
This investment policy applies to all financial funds of the
Town of Vail (hereby referred to as the "town"), except the Pension
Trust Fund.
Monies held by the Colorado State Treasurer and Eagle County
Treasurer during tax collection period shall be governed by State
of Colorado and Eagle County investment policies and are not
subject to the provisions of this policy. (Ord.22(1989(
II:Ord.34(1988):Ord.17(1987).)
3.52.030 Investment objectives.
Each investment transaction shall first seek to ensure capital
losses are avoided, whether they are from default of securities or
erosion of market value. The town, as its second major objective,
seeks to attain market rates of return on its investments. Market
rate objectives must be consistent with constraints imposed by the
primary objective of the safety of principal, internal cash flow
considerations and any Town of Vail ordinance, restricting the
placement of public monies. Speculative investments will not be
allowed. Speculative investments are those attempting to gain
market premium appreciation through short term market volatility
resulting in increased risk and loss exposure. The town will not
purchase a security which cannot be held to maturity. This does
not mean an investment cannot be sold prior to maturity.
(Ord.22(1989) III:Ord.34(1988):Ord.l7(1987).)
3.52.040 Delegation of authority.
Management responsibility for the investment program is held
by the town manager and appointed designees. No employee may
engage in an investment transaction except as provided under the
terms of this policy and any procedures which may be established by
the town manager. The town manager shall review the, monthly
investment report see Section 3.52.140).
It shall be the duty of the controller to manage the day-to-
day operations of the portfolio, and place actual purchase/sell
orders with institutions. In the absence of the controller, the
administrative services director shall assume these duties.
The authority for the investment philosophy and selection of
investment managers for the Town of Vail Employee Pension Plan and
the Town of Vail Police and Fire Employees Pension Plan shall be
the responsibility of the Pension Plan Trustee as defined in the
pension plan document. (Ord22(1989)
IV:Ord.34(1988):Ord.17(1987).)
3.52.050 Investment prudence.
Investments shall be made with reasonable financial judgment
and care, under circumstances then prevailing, which persons of
prudence, discretion and intelligence exercise in the management of
their own affairs, not for speculation, but for investment,
considering the primary .objective of safety of principal as well as
the secondary objective of the obtainment of market rates of
return.
Investment officers acting in accordance with written
procedures and exercising due prudence shall be relieved of
personal responsibility for an individual security's credit risk or
market price changes, provided deviations from expectation are
reported in a timely fashion, and appropriate action is taken to
control adverse developments. (Ord.22(1989)
V:Ord.34(1988):Ord.l7(1987).)
3.52.060 Investment instrwnents.
The town shall invest in the following accounts, or
securities:
A. Fully collateralized or insured interest bearing checking
accounts, savings accounts, and certificates of deposit at
commercial banks with amount not to exceed one hundred
thousand dollars if the bank is not designated as a qualified
institution by the investment committee.
Collateral shall be limited to treasury bills and notes,
municipal bonds, and government agency bonds and notes. Real
estate mortgages are prohibited for use as collateral.
A commercial bank may use any securities authorized by the
Public Deposit Protection Act as collateral under the following
circumstances:
When money is being wired from one bank to another and for
some reason the transaction is not completed and in order to
protect the town's funds it is necessary to deposit them into an
account for one banking day, plus any consecutive days that fall on
a Saturday, Sunday, or a holiday.
B. Certificates of deposit at savings and loan associations
insured by the FSLIC or other agency of the federal government
with amount not to exceed ninety-nine thousand dollars.
Deposits with savings banks insured by the FDIC with
amount not to exceed ninety-nine thousand dollars.
C. (1) Any security issued by, guaranteed by, or.for which the
credit of any of the following is pledged for payment:
The United States, a federal farm credit bank, the•
federal land bank, a federal home loan bank, the federal
home loan mortgage corporation, the federal national
mortgage association, or the government national mortgage
association;
(2a) Any security issued by, guaranteed by, or for which the
credit of the following is pledged for payment: An
entity or organization which is not listed in paragraph
(1) of this subsection (C) but which is created by, or
the creation of which is authorized by, legislation
enacted by the United States congress and which is
subject to control by the federal government which is at
least as extensive as that which governs an entity or
organization listed in paragraph (1) of this subsection
(C) .
(2b) No security may be purchased pursuant to this paragraph
(2) unless, at the time of purchase, the security is
rated in its highest rating category by one or more
nationally recognized organizations which regularly rate
such obligations.
D. Colorado Investment Pools. The town may participate in
a Colorado Public Investment Pool, the Colorado Local
Government Liquid Asset Trust or other similar local
government pools organized in conformity with Part 7 of
Article 75 of Title 24, CRS, which provides specific authority
for pooling of local government funds.
E. Any money market fund that is registered as an investment
company under the .federal "Investment Company Act of 1940", as
amended, if, at the time the investing public entity invests
in such fund:
(I) The investment policies of the fund include seeking
to maintain a constant share price;
(II) No sales or load fee is added to the purchase price
or deducted from the redemption price of the investments in
the fund.
F. No load mutual funds that invest in mortgage backed
securities issued by the Government National Mortgage
Association ("GNMA") or the Federal National Mortgage
Association ("FNMA"), or the Federal Home Loan Mortgage
Corporation ("FHLMC").
Repurchase agreements - with either qualified commercial
banks or a primary securities dealer for which a properly
executed master repurchase agreement has been entered into by
the town. Repurchase agreements involving pooled collateral
shall be avoided. The securities used as collateral shall be
safekept in accordance with Section 3.52.090 on Safekeeping
and Custody. ,
3.52.070 Competitive selection of investment instruments.
If a specific maturity date is required for cash flow
purposes, bids will be requested for instruments which meet the
maturity requirement. If no specific maturity is required, a
market trend (yield curve) analysis will be conducted to determine
which maturities would be most advantageous. After selecting a
type of instrument at least two bids should be obtained from
similar institutions. Two bids are riot required if treasury bills
or notes are purchased at a treasury auction of for overnight or
open-term repurchase transactions.
The town may place an investment with a local institution that
is not the highest bidder, provided the bid is not more than
twenty-five basis points below the highest bidder.
The rate of interest must be at least equivalent to the
average rate of return available in the market place.
It is the responsibility of the controller to demonstrate
compliance with this section. A local institution is defined as a
bank or savings and loan association doing business inside the
corporate limits of- the Town of Vail and/or Eagle County.
(Ord.22(1989) VII:Ord.34(1988):Ord.17(1987).)
3.52.080 Interest allocation method.
All investments will be in the name of the Town of Vail and in
most cases it will be a general policy of the town to pool all
available operating cash into a Treasury Cash Management investment
portfolio. However, a specific investment purchased by a specific
fund shall incur all earnings and expenses to that particular fund.
Interest earnings from pooled funds shall be allocated to all
participating funds in the following order.
A. Payment of interest earnings shall be allocated to designated
funds from its specific investments.
B. Payment to the general fund of an amount equal to the total
annual bank service charges as incurred by the general fund
for all operating funds as included in the annual operating
budget.
C. Payment to the general fund of a management fee equal to five
percent of the annual pooled cash fund investment earnings.
D. Payment to each fund of an amount based on the average monthly
cash balance included in the common portfolio for the earning
period. (Ord.22(1989) VIII:Ord.34(1988):Ord.17(1987).)
3.52.090 Safekeeping and custody.
All investment securities (which are held in book entry form)
purchased by the town shall be held in third-party safekeeping by
an institution designated as primary agent. The primary agent
shall issue a safekeeping receipt to the town listing the specific
instrument, rate, maturity and other information.
Securities may be purchased from the primary agent's brokerage
department and safekept by the same bank's trust department.
(Ord.22(1989) IX:Ord.34(1988):Ord.l7(1987).)
3.52.100 Portfolio diversification.
The town will diversify use of investment instruments to avoid
incurring unreasonable risks inherent in overinvesting in specific
instruments, individual financial institutions.
Maximum Percent
of Portfolio
Diversification by Instrument:
Money Market and Interest Bearing
Checking Accounts with
Commercial Banks 50%
Money Market Funds 50%
U.S. Treasury Obligations
(Bills, Notes and Bonds) .100%
U.S. Government Agency Securities
(per Section 3.52.060(C1)) 100%
U.S. Government Agency Securities
(per Section 3.52.060(C2a)) 25%
Repurchase Agreements 75%
Certificate of Deposit
Commercial Banks or Savings Banks 100%
Certificate of Deposit
Savings and Loan Association 25%
Local Government Investment Pool 100%
Diversification by Financial Institution:
Repurchase Agreements
No more than fifty percent of the total investment
portfolio shall be secured in Repos with any one
institution.
Certificates of Deposit - Commercial Banks
No more than twenty percent of the total investment
portfolio shall be secured in any one commercial bank's
CDs.
If the amount of any of the above investments are in excess of
the percentage allowed, it is not considered a violation of this
policy if the amount is corrected within thirty days.
(Ord.22(1989) X:Ord.6(1989)Ord.34(1988):Ord.l7(1987).)
3.52.110 Maturity scheduling.
Investment maturities for operating funds shall be scheduled
to coincide with projected cash flow needs, taking into account
large routine expenditures (payroll, bond payments) as well as
considering sizeable blocks of anticipated revenue (sales tax,
property tax). The average maturity of the portfolio shall never
exceed two years. (Ord.22(1989) XI:Ord.34(1988):Ord.l7(1987).)
3.52.120 Qualified institutions and broker/dealers.
Qualified banks - can only be commercial banks and the town's
investment with the bank may be in excess of one hundred thousand
dollars. The town's finance controller shall obtain and review the
bank's quarterly consolidated report of condition ("Call" Report) -
the annual audited financial statements, the monthly listing of
securities pledged for collateralization, and the independent bank
evaluation, quarterly, to determine that the banks meets the
standard selection criteria established by the investment
committee.
Non-qualified banks - can be either commercial banks or
savings and loans or savings banks and the town's investment with
the bank is or will not be in excess of one hundred thousand
dollars. The finance controller shall inquire with bank officials
,and/or review an independent bank evaluation to determine the banks
meets the standard selection criteria established by the investment
committee.
The town shall select a primary bank, the bank the town uses
to process daily deposits and checks, every two years beginning in
1990. A formal request for proposal should be used in the
selection process.
Securities dealers not affiliated with a bank shall be
required to be classified as reporting dealers affiliated with the
New York Federal Reserve Bank, as primary dealers. Broker/dealers
which are not primary dealers may be used if they have been
approved by the investment committee. The investment committee
shall develop and document the methodology for qualifying non-
primary broker/dealers. (Ord22(1989)
XII:Ord.34(1988):Ord.17(1987).)
3.52.130 Investment committee.
There is hereby created an investment committee, consisting of
the town manager, administrative services director, and the finance
controller. Members of the committee will meet at least quarterly
to determine general strategies and to monitor results. Minutes of
the decisions made by the investment committee shall be kept on
file in the town clerk's office. The committee shall include in
its review and deliberations such topics as: potential risks,
authorized depositories, rate of return, maturity structure and
investment transactions. (Ord22(1989)
XIII:Ord.34(1988):Ord.17(1987).)
3.52.140 Reporting requirements.
The finance controller will submit a monthly investment report
which discloses investments on the last day of each month. This
report will be distributed to the town manager, town council
members, and the administrative services director. The finance
controller will present at least semi-annually the investment
report to the town council. (Ord.22(1989)
XIV:Ord.34(1988):Ord.17(1987).) "
3.52.150 Monitoring and adjusting the portfolio.
The finance controller will routinely monitor the contents of
the portfolio, the available markets and the relative values of
competing instruments, and will adjust the portfolio accordingly.
(Ord.22(1989) XV:Ord.34(1988):Ord.17(1987).)
3.52.160 Internal controls.
The finance controller shall establish a system of written
internal .controls, which shall be reviewed annually by the
independent auditor. (Ord.22(1989) X:Ord.34(1988):Ord.l7(1987).)
3.52.170 Policy review.
The investment policy shall be reviewed annually by the
investment committee and the town council. (Ord.22(1989) XVIII.)
3.52.180 Funds borrowing from pooled cash fund.
All funds may borrow cash from the pooled cash fund in order
to cover shortfalls in their equity in pooled cash. The interest
rate charged shall be equal to the interest rate earned on the pool
at the time the money is borrowed.
/~/L~
MEMORANDUM
TO: TOWN COUNCIL
FROM: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
DATE: JANUARY 7, 1992
RE: BACKGROUND INFORMATION FOR RESOLUTION NO. 24, SERIES OF
1991, REGARDING UPPER EAGLE VALLEY WATER AND SANITATION
DISTRICT'S WETLAND MITIGATION PROPOSAL.
This packet of information to the Council includes:
e
• the staff memorandum to the PEC (dated October 14, 1991), describing the
proposal in detail;
• a letter from Bob Weaver (dated November 15, 1991), the wetland consultant
for the Vail Valley Consolidated Water District (VVCWD) outlining the
responsibilities the Town of Vail will assume;
• a draft copy of Resolution No. 24, Series of 1991.
Staff would like to highlight the information in Bob Weaver's letter which outlines the
responsibilities the Town will assume by passing this resolution. Mr. Weaver has stated that
"there are no prohibitions or restrictions with regard to the future use or development of the
wetland mitigation sites that do not already apply to the existing wetlands within the Town of
Vail." Except for a commitment to consult with the Army Corps of Engineers prior to any
construction activity in these mitigation sites, the Town will not assume any other
responsibility. The District will assume all on-going maintenance for the wetland areas and
will take responsibility if the efforts through this. program are not successful or if a natural
event damages the viability of the wetland areas.
Please note that within the resolution there is one condition of approval. The consultant must
show that the modifications made to Gore Creek to restore the wetland areas will not affect
the 100-year flood plain. The consultant has been working on this issue but has not yet
provided a final determination from Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). In
Resolution No. 24, there is a section which requires that VVCWD provide the Town with
documentation from FEMA, finding that the flood plain is not affected. If that is not the case,
then VVCWD must apply for a flood plain modification permit.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: October 14, 1991
SUBJECT: A request for a review a wetland mitigation proposal for areas along Gore
Creek.
Applicant: Upper Eagle Valley Water and Sanitation District
Planner: Andy Knudtsen
I. BACKGROUND
On January 28, 1991, Eagle County permitted a request by Upper Eagle Valley Water and
Sanitation District to expand Black Lake Reservoir No. 1. The County, in conjunction with the
.Army Corps of Engineers, has required that the District provide 10.75 acres of wetland
restoration to mitigate the impact to the 5.4 acres which will be lost as a result of the Black
Lake expansion. The Water and Sanitation District has hired Hydrosphere, a wetland
consultant, who has identified four areas where new wetland areas can be, or have been,
restored. An existing parking lot at Black Lake No. 2 will be excavated and then restored to a
wetland condition. It will provide .75 acres of the requirement. The Katsos Ranch open space
area oxbow improvement will fulfill 6.0 acres of the requirements. The other two involve
intermittent distances of stream bank along Gore Creek, focusing on the stream banks in the
golf course area. The bank improvements will result in a total of 4 acres of restoration. Three
of these acres will be provided with new plantings in the areas of Stephens Park, Donovan
Park, Booth Falls Road, and the eastern golf course. One acre has already been established
through the "Fishing is Fun" project done in 1988. This project improved Gore Creek from
Ford Park to the golf course clubhouse. Future improvements to be made will all occur east
of the clubhouse.
On August 21, 1990, the Vail Town Council passed a resolution supporting the expansion of
Black Lakes Reservoir No. 1. The expanded reservoir will enhance in-stream flows during the
winter, a time when stream flows are typically lowest. When the resolution was passed, the
Council recognized that over 10 acres of wetlands would need to be restored to mitigate the
impacts of the expanded reservoir. On September 10, 1991, the wetland mitigation proposal
was presented to the Town Council. The Council approved the request to proceed through
the planning process and generally had positive responses to the project.
`
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A. Katsos Ranch
After studying the Katsos Ranch area, the consultants identified a way to restore a
portion of the area to a wetland condition. The specific area on which they are
focusing is located east of the beaver ponds and west of the recreation path bridge
over Gore Creek. The plan involves constructing four drop structures, approximately
two feet high, by grouping boulders together. These structures are identified with large
asterisks on the attached Exhibit A. The locations of these boulder groupings may
vary, depending on the stream characteristics. However, there will not be more than 4
structures. The boulder groupings will be similar to those installed in 1988, in the
"Fishing is Fun" project (see Exhibit B). In their report on the proposal, the consultants
state that each drop structure "will raise the water surface elevation in the creek which
will raise the local water table, adding to the hydrologic restoration of the area." The
drop structures require approximately 2-5 hours to construct. Large machinery, like a
backhoe, will be required to operate in the stream channel for that period of time. The
drop structures may also increase the surface elevation of the flood plain. If this is the
case, an amendment to the floodplain will be required.
Another major component in this effort is to re-open an ox-bow that has become dry.
The consultants have stated that "a large dry ox-bow channel ...became
hydrologically separated from Gore Creek between 1974 and 1983, based on review of
aerial photographs. The separation could have been naturally caused due to a large
runoff event, channelization and urbanization, or a combination." Making the oxbow
function again entails directing enough water into the ox-bow to affect the soil
conditions. A majority of the water in Gore Creek will continue to flow through the
more direct channel.
In order to achieve the goal of directing some water into the ox-bow, the consultants
are recommending that a drop structure be built at the junction of the main creek
channel and the upper branch of the ox-bow. The consultants are concerned,
however, that this drop structure may direct too much water into the ox-bow during
high runoff period. From a more detailed analysis of low points along the creek
channel, they will be able to determine if this will be the case. If, after their research is
completed, they find that too much water may enter the ox-bow, they will pursue a
second option, which is a head gate. This is a second choice to the consultants, as
the gate would require manual operation. It would, however, be more effective in
directing the water to the appropriate channel. The drop structure would be
constructed to fit the context of the stream bank. It would be built parallel to the main
channel. The consultants predict that it will not be noticeable unless someone was
directly above it. It would be constructed out of concrete, but would either side would
be backfilled so that it was flush with the grade of the stream. The most noticeable
aspect will be a 2-foot wide trench leading from the main channel through the control
gate. Landscaping would be planted along the stream bank and continued along the
gate so that it blended into the rest of the vegetation along the stream bank.
2
'
During the Council review of the project, one of the members stated that when the ox-
bow was by-passed with a more direct stream channel, small in{ets from the ox-bow to
the beaver pond were left dry. As a result, the fresh water supply to the beaver pond
has been reduced and has caused an algae problem. By reopening the ox-bow, the
consultants hope that fresh water will seep into the pond and improve the water
conditions. The consultant has stated concerns that the algae problem may be due
not only to a lack of fresh water, but also due to an increase in water temperature.
This project has the potential to help the situation. However, it may not solve the
algae problem completely.
The consultants would also like to provide an educational area, describing these
improvements. As funding has not been secured, this may or may not be constructed.
B. Gore Creek Riparian Zone Planting
The other area within the Town of Vail which the consultants have identified to improve
involves 2.5 miles of creek channel along Gore Creek. The consultants' report calls for
"cottonwood, alder, birch, gooseberry, aspen, dogwood, and chokecherry to be planted
in combination with willow sprigs along the bare banks of Gore Creek." Exhibit C is
provided at the end of this memorandum, showing how planting improvements will be
made to the banks. This vegetation will help stabilize the soil on the banks of the
creek, and improve wildlife habitat along the creek. Exhibit D shows many different
areas along the banks which were considered. The consultants focused on an area
along the golf course, and are working with golf course personnel to the exact
locations for the bank improvements. Some other banks, which are not located in the
golf course area, will also be improved. These include Stephens Park, Donovan Park,
and the Booth Falls Road area.
III. ISSUES
Issues staff identified in the review of this proposal include impacts to the floodplain and visual
impacts from the improvements. The drop structures may alter the elevation of the floodplain
and if this is the case, Upper Eagle Valley Water & Sanitation District must secure approval
from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) prior to the construction of any of
the improvements. There is also the potential that the visual impacts from the improvements
may alter the natural appearance of this open space area. The original proposal included an
18" x 18" irrigation ditch which would bring water around the south side of the wetland area
directly into the ox-bow. Staff understands that this is no longer included in the proposal. The
irrigation ditch would have been the most noticeable part of the work. Staff believes that the
improvements will blend into the existing natural area better without the ditch. Regarding the
drop structures, staff believes that because they will look like those in the Ford Park area, that
they will not significantly alter the character of the area. There are many positive impacts
from the project, such as improved wetland conditions resulting in better ground water .
recharge and discharge, better food chain support functions, a reduction in erosion, and an
improvement to animal habitat. Staff believes that there are really no negative impacts,
assuming there is not a floodplain issue and the construction is handled in a sensitive manner.
The consultants have been working with FEMA and will have a determination as to the impact
of the proposal on the floodplain prior to final Town Council review.
3
•
IV. REVIEW PROCESS
The purpose of this Planning and Environmental Commission worksession is to allow the
public an opportunity to express any of their concerns about this proposal: As mentioned
earlier, Council has approved the request to proceed through the planning process with the
understanding that the Planning and Environmental Commission would conduct a review of
the impacts of the proposal. The action needed from the PEC is a finding that the impacts are
acceptable to the Town and that the project should be allowed to proceed, or that the proposal
would result in unacceptable impacts, and that the consultants should propose other
alternatives. After PEC review, the applicant will return to Town Council for final approval of
the use of Town land.
V. CONCLUSION
Staff believes that the project offers several benefits without any negative impacts. Staff
believes that the Town is fortunate to have these improvements made to Gore Creek at no
cost to the Town. During the PEC worksession, it was noted that one of the benefits of the
project is, to have the improvements made in the same riparian corridor where the impacts
were made. The positive aspects include a benefit to fish and wildlife habitat in the riparian
corridor, improved vegetation, which in turn benefits the food chain, as well as an
improvement of the water quality in the creek. Staff believes that one impact which may need
additional review is the alteration of the floodplain. Staff recommends that the Planning and
Environmental Commission approve the wetlands improvement master plan (as shown on
Exhibits A, C and D), finding that the impacts are reasonable, and that the proposal is a
reasonable use of open space land, with the condition that, if it is determined that the
proposal will affect adjacent properties, or increase the quantity or velocity of flood waters or
affect the 100-year floodplain, the applicant shall request approval from the Town of Vail for a
floodplain modification, according to Section 18.69.040(D), and provide the necessary
approvals from FEMA.
Exhibits: A - Ox-Bow
B -Drop Structure Photographs
C -Stream Section
D -Valley Plan of Streambank Work
c:\pec\memos\wetland.014
' 4
` REC'n NOU 2 1 1991
. ~ a _
` ~ -
. , y°
HYDROSPI-SERE
Resource Consultants
November 15, 1991
Larry Eskwith, Esq.
City Attorney
Town of Vail
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
Re: Wetland Mitigation Sites for Black Lakes Project
Dear Larry: ~ .
In response to a request from Andy Knudtsen, this letter is intended to
provide you with additional background information regarding the proposal by
the Vail Valley Consolidated Water District for restoration of wetlands within
the Town of Vail for mitigation of wetland impacts associated with the
enlargement of Black Lake No. 1. The proposal for restoration of these
wetland areas was developed by the District, in Cooperation with the,Town of
Vail, during the period of November 1987 through August of 1990 and includes
the revegetation of bare streambanks along a 1.5 mile section of Gore Creek
adjacent to the Golf Course that was completed in October of 1988. The
District now seeks final approval from the Town of the additional sites and
design plans for those sites with an acknowledgement that the Town recognizes
that the restored wetland areas will be protected under Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344).
B~CKG1tOUND INFOBI~ITION
The enlargement of Black Lake is required b'y the Augmentation Plan
decreed by the District Court for Water Division No. 5 (Case No. 82CW328),
which provides the legal basis for year-round operation of the water supply
system serving the Town of Vail. The decree requires the District to provide
300 acre feet of storage at Black Lakes for release to Gore Creek during the
wintertime to meet minimum streamflow requirements of the Colorado Water
Conservation Board and the Colorado Division of Wildlife.
The District has been issued federal, state, and local permits for
the enlargement of Black Lake No. 1 and plans to construct the project during
i'~ ~il~'V' .~\1 i~ I~`, ~I~ 1.l I,~{;I l~`'t'I'Ill;~ ~.C~~~I PIII~]It~S I1li~ )I";11Ht1~~>R tiV'Stt_Sl1S
I~k1'~'~.\[ILtiii.ti;il[c_'?ii~I its,ills.it~r.C:~~I~u'~1~1r_i,~;(i3~~_' 131St-1=13-`~:~!-l "1_Cl~_F~1x1303)442-061(3
• Larry Esk~oith, Esq. November 15, 1991
Page 2
the summer of 1992. The Section 404 Permit approved by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers and the 1041 Permit approved by Eagle County require that the
District compensate for wetland impacts using mitigation sites located at the
Black Lake No. 2 parking lot, Katsos Ranch, and at locations along Gore Creek
within the Town of Vail where riparian habitat conditions have been degraded.
For your information, I have enclosed a copy of the wetlands section and
decision section of Eagle County Resolution No. 91-12 approving the 1041
Permit for the Black Lake project. The mitigation sites required under the
404 Permit are identical to those in the 1041 Permit.
The specific locations and plans for the wetland restoration areas
within Vail have been developed with extensive coordination with Andy
Knutdsen, Town Planner and Ernie Bender, Golf Course Superintendent. These
plans were approved by the Planning and Environmental Commission on October
14, 1991, contingent upon the requirement that the District provide
documentation of any potential changes in the designated floodplain and
approval from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), if necessary.
ACTION REQUESTED FROM TOWN OF VAIL
The action being requested from the Town by the District involves
first the approvals necessary for use of the mitigation sites, which are
located on lands owned by the Town. This would include any other
authorizations from the Town that may be necessary for the District to
implement the project during the summer of 1992.
Second, the District is requesting that the Town recognize that the
mitigation sites located within the Town will be protected under Section 404
of the Clean Water Act. A letter or resolution to this effect has been
requested from the U.S. Forest Service because the Black Lake enlargement
project is located on public land within the White River National Forest.
Since the wetland impacts associated with the project are on Forest Service
lands, the Forest Service wants to make sure that the mitigation areas will
receive the same level of protection as wetlands located within the National
Forest System. Technically and legally, this letter or resolution is for
appearances only because the provisions of the Clean Water Act pertaining to
wetlands already apply equally to the Town and the Forest Service.
Aquatic resources, including wetlands, are protected under the Clean
Water Act and the guidelines for its implementation. With few exceptions, the
act does not distinguish between different types of land ownership where
wetlands are located. Thus, any proposed activity or project that would
result in the loss or degradation of wetlands located on public or private
lands within the Town of Vail is subject to review by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (COE) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The wetland
mitigation sites proposed by the District would be subject to the same level
of protection that applies to currently existing wetlands located within the
Town.
ONGOING RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE TOWN OF VAIL
The only ongoing responsibility of the Town is to comply with the
provisions of the Clean Water Act, which I would assume is already the
Larry Eskwith, Esq. November 15, 1991
Page 3
practice of the Town. All this means is that the Town of Vail must consult
with the COE before undertaking any action or construction project that would
cause the destruction or degradation of the wetlands resulting from the
mitigation program, just as is currently the case with any other activity that
may impact wetlands. The COE may require the Town to apply for a Section 404
Permit and the issuance of that permit may be conditioned upon a requirement
that impacts to any wetland area be mitigated. All Section 404 Permits are
also subject to review by EPA. Under the current operating policies and
regulations, the COE and EPA "will strive to avoid adverse impacts and to
offset unavoidable adverse impacts to existing aquatic resources, and for
wetlands, will strive to achieve a goal of no overall net loss of values and
functions."
With regard to ongoing maintenance, the District is responsible for
the establishment of the mitigation sites and for monitoring the sites to
insure their continued viability. If any site cannot be successfully
established, then the District is responsible for finding a replacement site.
Also, if any natural event or accident should cause the loss or degradation of
a site, then the District, not the Town, would be responsible for whatever
action may be required for its restoration or replacement. The Town of Vail
would have no ob]_igations for ongoing maintenance.
CONCLUSION
In summary, there are no prohibitions or restrictions with regard to
the future use or development of the wetland mitigation sites that do not
already apply to existing wetlands within the Town of Vail. The wetland
mitigation sites will receive the same level of protection that is now
provided under the Clean Water Act to all other wetlands, whether they be
located inside or outside the Town or on public or private lands. Generally,
it can be expected that any impact to these sites will require mitigation.
I have tried without success to reach you by telephone to discuss
t}iis matter and to make sure that all of your concerns are addressed. I hope
this letter will help in answering your questions and that you will give me a
call if I have overlooked anything or if there are any further questions.
Sincerely yours,
Hydrosphere
Robert M. Weaver
Enclosure
cc: Warren M. Garbe
Andy Knudtsen
1
F. f _ VA[L GOLF CLUB JOHN A. DOBSON ARENA
303-179-2260 321 East Lionshead Circle
V
~ r C~ FORD TENNIS COJIPLF.X \ail. Colorado 81657
303-J79-2293 ;03-079-2271
ail ~~ecrea ior~~~ ~tARKF,TINGlSPECIAI. EVENTS SAIL YOUTH SERVICES
D I S T R I C T M SPORTS i95 fast Lionshead Circle
303-579-2279 \nil. Gda,ado 81657
~ c - NATURE CENTER 143^179-2292
292 1Vest 1lfeadow Drive Fail, Colorado 81657 303-579-2291
303-179-2279 • FA!C 303-579-2197
January 7, 1992
Mr. Warren Garbe
- District Manager
Vail Valley Consolidated Water District
846 Forest Road
Vail, CO 81657 ,
Dear Mr. Garbe:
This letter is to express my approval of the proposed "Riparian
Vegetation restoration along Gore Creek within Vail Golf Course."
(Black Lake #1 Enlargement Wetland Mitigation for Vail Valley
Consolidated Water District). I have reviewed the plans submitted
by Diane Yates (Landscape Architect) and physically examined the
proposed sites for this project. The proposal presents no problems
for the Golf Course and will, if anything, enhance the natural
setting.
Sincerely,
?
Ernie Bender
Golf Course Superintendent
cc: Diane Yates, Landscape Architect, ASLA
FAX - 449-0629, Boulder
RESOLUTION NO. 24
Series of 1991
A RESOLUTION APPROVING WETLAND MITIGATION SITES IN THE TOWN OF VAIL
FOR THE BLACK LAKES RESERVOIR EXPANSION PROJECT,
WITH CERTAIN CONDITIONS
WHEREAS, the Vail Valley Consolidated Water District (VVCWD) proposed to enlarge
Black Lake No. 1, located near Vail Pass, to accommodate an additional two hundred twenty-
seven (227) acre-feet of water storage capacity; and
WHEREAS, the Town of Vail approved Resolution No. 6, Series of 1988 and Resolution
No. 21, Series of 1990, in support of the proposed Black Lakes Reservoir Project, subject to
certain conditions; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Black Lakes Reservoir Project is supported by the Colorado
Division of Wildlife and .will be operated so as to optimize the use of project water for fishery
benefits during the winter low flow period; and
WHEREAS, in conjunction with requirements for mitigation of 4.5 acres of wetlands lost
at Black Lakes, the VVCWD has participated with the Town of Vail and Trout Unlimited in a
stream habitat improvement program for Gore Creek and contributed ten thousand dollars
($10,000) to that program; and
WHEREAS, the VVCWD has proposed additional mitigation of wetland impacts with
measures that will restore approximately 6 acres of wetlands at Katsos Ranch and approximately
3 acres of riparian wetlands at other sites along Gore Creek within the Town of Vail to the benefit
of wildlife habitats, fisheries, water quality, and scenic and heritage values;
WHEREAS, the VVCWD understands that prior to initiating any construction activity, it
must provide documentation to the Town of Vail from the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) that the proposed modifications to Gore Creek will not affect the 100 year flood
plain. If this determination cannot be made, the VVCWD must apply for a flood plain modification
according to Section 18.69.040 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF
VAIL, COLORADO, that the Town Council approved the wetland mitigation sites as proposed by
the VVCWD and as approved by the Planning and Environmental Commission.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town Council of the Town of Vail recognized that
the wetland areas restored under this mitigation plan will be fully protected under Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344).
INTRODUCED, READ, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of
1991.
r
Margaret A. Osterfoss, Mayor
ATTEST:
Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk
~9~¢~
SUPPLIED BY JIM GIBBON. (1/14/92)
XG:. .TOWN COUNCIL ~
~eritage Connnzunications,~nc.
2195 ingcrsoll Avenue
Dcs M~incs, loH•a 50312
S 15.246.1440
CONFIDENTIAL
November 21, 1990
Mr. Kaiser Marcus
#3 Whittier Court
Rancho Mirage, CA 92270
Dear Kaiser:
I appreciate the opportunity to make one last, best offer to you
so that Heritage can retain the Nail Marriott Mark Resort as a
valued customer. _
Under the present month to month rate, the hotel has been paying
SS~,117.44 for service. I would like to propose a $7.00 rate
pe= month per outlet (plus applicable taxes) for a three yeai
term with no rate increases. This would reduce your cost of
cable service to $29,568.00, a ;0$ reduction from our already
discounted rate. This is the lowest rate we have ever offered
;y property in lragle County an3 would ircluae the following
conditions:
a. Marriott Mark would sign a non-disclosure statement
with penalties for disclosure. Heritage cannot
a.~ford to offer this rate to the general population
cr lodging community at large.
b. Th:~ service would be limited to our Vail. channels
z-; 2, with channel, 13 pre-emptied to include bisney
on a free-to-the ~,1est basis, all included in the
$7.00 rate.
c. Heritage will have the right to install an
addressable converter in each Noom at Heritage's
expense and market a packag.e.-or.._pax-~~r-stay__and
pay-perwiew services to the-guest ~ to..help-.~reeoup, -r~:,~ : _ -
some of our lost revenue from the hotel. This ig a
service like Spectradyne and is a typical hotel
amenity.
d. Heritage will pay the Marriott Mark 7$ of the net
revenue generated by the guest paid services.
T~1e make you this offer because we have wanted to experiment with
c::e property on guest paid service9 to see, if we can generate
e::.:~ugh revenue to reduce aai hotel's cable expenses. .°If this is
OtiJjw 26=90 MON 6 3B~ KA I SEF4
• ~
.
T.
. Mr. Kaiser Marcus
November 21, 1990
Page Two
a success in your property over the next three years we plan to
offer it to everyone, but in the meantime we are very concerned
~ about keeping this a private deal between us.
I hope you find this offer acceptable. It allows you to
significantly reduce your cost without the capital investment. in
a satellite dish and without creating any friction in the Vail
Co~rmunity with your requested zoning variance. It gives us a
chance to experiment with a new service level and pricing
structure that could be mutually beneficial to us and.the Vail
lodging community as a whole.
I will be happy to t~•avel to meet you personally or with the
Vail staff to conclude this deal to be effective January 1,
1991. '
Again, my deepest thanks for the opportunity to make this offer.
Sincerely,
I;r.kITA~E COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
Kevin L. Rice
Senior vice President
NLkf SIS
x ' I
,E
,^f,~
1
1,
' TIMOTHY E. WIRTH REC'~ JAN 1 3 1992 COMMITTEES:
CO LORApQ~ ARMED SERVICES
` ~ BANKING
BUDGET
~nite~ ~tate,~ senate ENERGY AND
NATURALRESOURCES
WASHINGTON, DC 20510-0603
January 9, 1992
Honorable Margaret Osterfoss
Office of the Mayor
75 S. Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
Dear Mayor Osterfoss:
Thank you for contacting me to share your thoughts about cable
television legislation. I appreciate hearing from you.
I agree that increased regulation of the cable industry-may be
appropriate to address examples of excessive cable television rate
increases and customer service problems. Since the passage of the
Cable Act of 1984, the industry has been able to develop and deploy
new technology, increase channel capacity and offer new programming
and networks, bringing cable to new areas and increasing programming
variety and choices. However, there remain some problems associated
with basic cable rates and customer service. In some cases,
"financial players" interested in maximizing short-term profit have
taken advantage of rate deregulation and some customer service
problems can be traced to the rapid increase in the number of cable
viewers served by a company.
The Senate Commerce Committee recently reported the Cable Television
Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (S. 12), legislation that seeks to
address these problems. While we need to protect consumers, S. 12
includes a number of provisions that go beyond the scope of basic
rates and customer service. Some of these provisions would hurt
consumers by hindering the development of new programming and
technologies, ending the dramatic growth in the number and types of
programs available to viewers since the passage of the 1984 Cable
Act.
After cable legislation was reported in the last Congress, I worked
with supporters of cable legislation to address similar concerns I
had with that legislation. After reaching an agreement with Senator
Albert Gore of Tennessee, I encouraged the Senate to consider the
proposal. Unfortunately, the continued objections of other~Senators
and the President prevented further action.
Currently, local governments can regulate cable rates in areas where
the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) determines a cable
company does not face effective competition. The FCC recently
modified its definition of effective competition. Under the new
regulations,, a cable system would face effective competition when six
1129 PENNSYLVANIA STREET 1003 MAIN STREET 830 N. TEJON ST. UNITED BANK BUILDING
DENVER, CO 80203 GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81501 SUITE 226 201 WEST 8TH STREET
303/866-1900 303/245-8044 COLORADO SPRINGS, CO 80903 SUITE 850
719/634-5523 PUEBLO, CO 81003
CONTAINS RECYCLED FIBERS 719/542-6987
i
~3~nuary 9, 1992 1 .
Page 2
or more over-the-air signals are available in the service area, or if
an independent multi-channel vendor is available to more than 50
percent of the households in the area with at least 10 percent of the
households subscribing to the competing service. Previously, the
FCC's effective competition standard was three over-the-air signals
available in a community. Under the new regulations, approximately
sixty percent of the cable systems may now be subject to rate
regulation, allowing local officials the authority to regulate cable
companies in many areas without further congressional action.
The Senate may consider S. 12 later this year. During debate on this
proposal, I will work to produce legislation that protects consumers
against excessive rates and poor service, while assuring that viewers
will continue to have access to a wide range of programs.
Again, thank you for sharing your views. Please do not hesitate to
contact me in the future on this or any other matter.
With best wishes,
Sinc 1 yours,
~ U11
Timothy E. Wirth
TEW/md
®cn ~ COMMITTEES:
HANK BROWN RECD JAN ~1 3 1992 BUDGET
COLORADO ~ ~ ~ •
FOREIGN RELATIONS
JUDICIARY
~nite~ ~t~.t~,~ ~e~ate
WASHINGTON, DC 20510-0604
December 18, 1991
The Honorable Margaret A. Osterfoss
Mayor
Town of Vail
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
Dear Mayor Osterfoss:
Many thanks for contacting us regarding the cable rate increase
by Heritage Cablevision.
We have followed up on your correspondence by contacting the
Federal Communications Commission and asking that it review
your concerns. As soon as we receive a response we will be
back in touch.
Than you ain for taking the time to contact us.
Si e 1
nk Brown
nited States Senator
HB/mda
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
E r. i
~ ~ S _ ~ fir" , . • ~~tg-~~, l ~ ~
9 G 9
• Cable- T V Firms der-Friced Tiers
Brin Cries of ®utra e From Consumers~• •
g - g
p By MAitK Rosicxaux
SCafjR2AOTLeTOfTHEWALLSTREETJOURNAL ~,,.y ~7 y;;,,.
NEW YORK-For the nation's cable-tel- ~ 'i+ ° ` 9 l~ ' `
evision operators, getting down to baS1CS percentage of all cable subscribers in tiered systems In Laredo, Texas, Paragon Cable split its basic service
often seems something best avoided. and changed its pricing structure
Keenly aware of new federal rules that solo
NUMBER OF MONTHLY
let more cities cap basic cable rates, cable PACKAGE CHANNELS FEE
systems have simply redefined what so
"basic" supposedly means. They have aasicsarolce ti7.oo •
carved out a layer of popular channels to ao
form a new "tier" that costs extra-and ~ : Limited basic t2.ao _
thus they effectively dodge the rules aimed so Faragon;pr8terted » ou
at curbing price increases for basic ca-
ble. 20 t ~ ~ ~ Paragon preferred 1B so
The practice of "tiering" wasn't preva-
lent in late 1989, when Congress first to Limitedbas;c ~.ss _
threatened to impose new regulations on PanQonpreferred';. ie.so
cable, just three years after it had largely O
deregulated the industry. But tiering had I li I ll , ~ Paragon preferred ` % z®.~O '
spread to almost 60% of all cable sub- 1991
scribers by the middle of last year. It is sowces: A.c. Nlersen; caare rerew'smnAdmrmsrranon
likely to expand even further this year. ~~d Marketing soclery source: Paraoon Gabre
Consumer Complaints -
Consumer groups call it a shell game the change. In some cases, customers are average cost comes from Paul Kagan As-
that has let cable companies blithely slap
on unfair rate increases. In the past few penalized for switching to the lower-priced sociates, acable-research concern; Time
months alone, the cable system in Los An- tier by having to pay an extra one-time Warner's cable group declines to discuss
geles imposed a 12% hike on its most popu- charge. specifics of its channel prices. )
lar package, and the system here in Man- Only a sliver of cable subscribers on Charging an extra $8 for the tier is "to="
hattan similarly seta 10% increase. Last tiered systems-usually well under 10%- tally unjustified," asserts Bill Squadron,
March, Time Warner Inc.'s Brooklyn sys- actually buys the redefined narrow basic who oversees New York .City cable sys-
tem formed a new tier that included MTV . service. When federal investigators ran- terns as the city's telecommunications
and CNN; nine months later, it raised the dourly called systems and posed as cus- commissioner. "These companies are pro-
charge for the tier by 34%. tourers, they found that nine leading com- tecting unbelievably favorable market con-
"Cash flow is the name of the game for Panies offering tiers didn't even acknowl- ditions-no competition and no regula-
these companies," says lawyer Nicholas edge the existence of the lowest-priced tion." Time Warner's Mr. Aurelio dis-
Miller, who represents several cities in dis- basic tier, according to a recent report misses the charge as unreasonable.
putes with cable systems. "Their main from the General Accounting Office. lCalls Startling Price Increases
concern is how do we frustrate, confuse, by a reporter to Time Warner systems in Just four years ago, cable companies
divide or slow down an attem t to re late Manhattan and Brooklyn produced similar were doing the reverse of tiering. When.
p ~ results. )
the rates." "The game for cable operators is to tell Congress freed cable from rate regulation
Virtually all of the nation's biggest ca- regulators that this is a separate and op- by local governments, systems folded all
ble companies now use tiering. They main- tional tier," says Joseph Van Eaton, a ca- channels and rates into one basic offering.
tain that it more fairly spreads the costs of Then they levied startling and aggressive
- various channels among the viewers who ble lawyer for several cities. "But they're price increases. Cable bills shot up 61%
really want them, that it lets them lower telling subscribers that expanded tiers are from December 1986 to July 1991. ~-•i
part of basic service."
the price of pared-down basic cable and Despite cable operators' claims to the Cable operators said the jump was
reach viewers who merely want better re- contrary, the price structure behind tiering needed to make up for years of artificially ;
ception and the low-income people who often has little basis in reality, in terms low rates, when local governments had re-
otherwise couldn't afford cable, Criticism of demand for the channels and operators' fused to grant adequate fee increases. But
of tiering "is pure cable-bashing that is to- costs. For example, Time Warner's Brook- a Justice Department report ,found that
tally unjustified," says Richard Aurelio, lyn-Queens cable group previously charged only about half of the rate rise was due" to
president of Time Warner's New York ca- hi her costs.
ble ou $20.90 for 58 channels. Last March it split g
~ p' the dial into 24 channels for basic (814.95) As criticism intensified, Congress began .5
Many cable operators, however, don't and a tier of 34 popular channels for an ex- weighing new regulation but got nowhere. ;
tell customers that a cheaper basic option tra 85.95. Then it tacked on an extra 82.05 A bigger threat came from the Federal
is available. They simply switch customers for the tier last month, a 34% increase. Yet Communications Commission. In January
aver to the more expensive tiers through a the tier probably costs the company only 1990, the FCC announced a proposal that
"negative option" that requires sub- 83.52 to begin with, based on an average would vastly increase the number of com-
scribers to go out of their way to reject monthly cost of 16 cents a channel. (That Please Turn to Page 810, Column 1
•
able- rT ~ :irrn,~ ~ er-~~ rtice : , ~ers
Br r. es off `ra ~ e :From Consumers
in C ti Out ,
u•,
, ,
,
, , , , , .
NEW YORK
ForRtheict3nux ` ~
Staff Reporter of T~ Wnri. Sz'ReE1' JoURIVA2. ! ~ r ~ " ~ ~
nation's cable tel , ~ . < r s: =
' evasion operator's, getttng down to bastes ~ ~ ~
r ~ F ~~rcentage of aft cable subscnbers in tiered svstems In Laredo, Texas ParagomCable split dstiasic service i
often seems something best avoided z ° ~ 'and cbanged its pricing structure
"Keenly. aware of new"feder'al rules that i
• ~ i ;;NUMBER OF n;iMONTHLY
let more cities cap basic cable rates, cable I - ` " ' ` 1 PACKAGE ;CHANNELS, , `FEE '
svstems ' have simply `redefined what I 50 : ~ ` - - '
"basic" 'supposedly mearis.:•They ';have ~ ' ' ' ' ~ _ ;Basic servire 5i7-~
carved out a'la er of,,popular channels to, ao
' y t
form a new tier that costs extra and ~ r`~ ~ omit: d L„~;c t2oD
thus they effectively dodge the rules alrried ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Paragon prererrod ~ 12oD
at curbing :price Increases ,for `basic ca- i
ble ~ ~ si, I ~ ~ Paragon preferred 18.50
The ,practiceof `tiering ' wash t preya- . ~ ~
lent in late 1989, .when .Congress first I ~ ~ ~ umitetl 4as;c t ~.9~ -
on .
threatened to im se ,new re lations ,,ly Q ~ Dreferred , : fe 5tl
Po ~ ~
.cable, ust three,years after it had lar e
g
dere lated the mdust . But, term had ~
' " It I 1 ~ ~ i Paragon preferred 20.SD
t~ rY g ts9o ~ 1x91 , , '
,spread °to almost 60% .of all .cable sub j , A C Nelsen Cable Television Adm,ntstraGnn t ,
sCrlberS by the'mlddle of last year It 1S ~ ~t,rkenngSociety;. source'Paragoncatite
likely ao; expand even, further this year, ~ I , . ~
Consumer Complaints ~ _ ~
-Cohsumer goups call rt a shell `game ` ` ~ ~ `
the. change.,;In some, cases; customers are..' average cast comes from Paul Kagan As'
.that has let. cable companies blifhely slap penalized, for witching to the lower,priced.. sociates a`'cable=research•'coricern, •~Time
' • on unfair rate-,-increases: Ip the' past ;few tier'by 'having to pay ah extra .one-time Warner's cable group ,declines' fo discuss
months alone,;the cableaystemih Los An cfiarge._ ~ ` ~specifics:of its channel prices.)
geles imposed a'12% hike on its most popu ,Only .:a slider of cable :subscribers on..~ 'Charging an extra $8`fo'r the tier, is,"to`-'
` •`lar package ':and the 'system ;here In Man , .
h'attan'simtlarly seta!''IO%;increase Last ,,tieredsystems usually:.well under 10%-„ tally 'unjustified 'asserts Bill Squadron, .
March; Time~Warner3nc.'s Brooklyn"sys actually ,buys the 'redefined narrow basic' who-.oversees :New `York City cable sys=`'
tern formed a new Cier ;that inchd'ed MTV, service. When federal investigators ran- . terns, as the ;;city s telecommunications
.and CNN nine:months later;.it raised .the d'omly called systems and posed,. as cos ,commissioner.;`,These:companies•ai•e;pro-
charge #or the -aer ;by 34% ,tourers, they found that:nine leading corn- tectirig'unbeliedably fadorablemarket con-
'.""Cash flow is the.name of the' game for parries offering tiers didn't even acknowl-; ` ditions-no competition and ~,,no r i•egula'
ed a the existence` of the lowest- raced' tion '`Time Warner
• ys~ lawyer Nicholas g. + P s'"the charge assu Me~Aureho dis-
-these companies sa basic tier according • to a recent report', masse onable
Miller who representssederal.cties in'dis ~ ~ ' ~
utes with cable ms `Their :main from the;General Accounting Office. (Calls Startling FriCe Increases ,
p syste by a reporter to Time Warner' systems in ,
concern, is how'.do we :frustrate; coniiise Manhattan,and Brooklyn'produced similar Just four :years ,ago :cable. companies
divide or slow down an attempt to regulate .,.,results ' ~ ~ ~ - were,'domg ,the reverse of;,tiering: When,
the,:rates ~ ..',`.?The game for cable;operators is to tell .Congress freed cable from rate regulation
Virtually all ;of the .nation's biggest 'ca ..regulators Ghat this Is a aeparate and op- by 1ocaI governments; ~ systems folded; all
ble companies<now use tiering.;They: main- , channels and fates intp'one basic offering.
tional tier ':,says Joseph Van Eaton, a. ca-
taro that. it more. fairly spreads the costs ;of • bie'la ~ Then they levied startling and aggressive.
wyerN;for sederal cities. "But they're
various :channels among the viewers ..who 'telling subscribers` that expanded tiers are ~ Price";increases Caple btlls :shot up.. 61%
really want them that;it lets them lower from December 1986 to July 1991 '
part of basic service
the price of pared down basic~cable,and ,~Desptte;cable operators' claims to the Cattle operatoi•ssaid..the ;41ump was
reach viewers :who merely want:better, re contrary,ahe price, structure behind tiering 'needed to make ~up for•.years,of.artificially
ception and -the low=income:.people who ~ low rates .when local governments had.re-
often has little basis Invreahty in_terms.: ,
otherwise couldn t afford cable.`Criticism of demand forµthe,charinels and operators' 'fused to gt;ant adequate fee;inereases. But
'of tiering `ispure cablebashing,~that is, to costs For„example ~TIme,4Varnei•'s Brook-' : ~ a"Justice Department., reports found that
tally un'ustified, '.says ;Richard Aurelio ' ~ ~ only,aboitt half of the rate rise•was due~ao
lyn Queens; cable group previously charged ~ , , ~ , f , , ~ ;
;p l r s New York fca $20.90 for 58 channels Last .March it split :higher costs. - ~ - ' l
ble sgroup f Tune Warne F N
` s=. • th'e,dial'into 24 channels for basic ($14 95) As criticism intensified ,Congress began
'Many cable operators however don't and a tier of 34 popular channels fors an ex-, .weighing new,regulation but got nowhere.
tell customers that a cheaper tiasic option fr'a $5.95"..Then •it tacked on`an" extra $2.05, A .bigger threat:~came, from the Federal
is available. They simply switch customers .for the tier'last month,.a';34%increase: Yet: Communications • Commission; ~ InJanuary
over to the more expensive tiers through a • the:`,tier 'probably' costs the company only 1990, the FCC announced;a proposal that
"negative option" that requires sub ,$3.52..tt begin with, based on •an average would vastly increase the number of com-
scribers to go out of their way to reject monthly. ,cost,;of,,;16 cents a channel. (That Please Turn to Page 810, Column 1
was adopted in June 1990 ~`n'a
Continued From Page BI Paragon, a subsidiary of Kblcom Inc, in
~ munities allowed to ride herd on basic ca- Houston, also lowered the price of its. ll-
ble rates. channel basic offering to $7.95 a month
When Congress deregulated cable in from $12 last July, but only a small num-
1987, it ]et a handful of communities-those ber of subscribers were affected. i
that had fewer than three broadcast sta- Some cities are trying to fight the cable
Lions in their local markets-continue to companies by seeking, the right to regulate
regulate local cable rates. The new FCC the extra tier of "expanded basic." The
rule proposed to let towns with fewer than city of Gillette, Wyo., is in a court battle
six stations control cable rates, affecting with Tele-Communications Inc., the na-
61% of all cable systems and covering 34% tion's largest cable operator.
of all cable subscribers in the U.S. In December 1989, Tele-Communica- .
But the FCC didn't pass the new rule tions retiered its channels and automata--
, until last July-and by that time tiering cally switched customers to the expanded
had taken hold. The FCC rule also had a service. It also began charging extra for '
major loophole: It let local governments items such as converter boxes and cable•><~
control only basic rates. guides. By May 1989, a customer would
"It tends to make a mockery of the pro- have had to pay $22.20 for the same pack- •
cess," says Bill Johnson, deputy chief of age that had cost $16.74, a jolting 33% in-
the mass-media bureau of the FCC. "It's crease in just five months. '
Outraged, the city passed an ordinance.,.,;
annoying to the consumer because what that set the price for basic service at $12.80
they want isn't regulated by the city." and set expanded basic at $13.20. Tele- '
The new FCC rule gave Laredo, Texas, Communications, refused to lower the ~
• ~ - - < - new authority to control local cable rates.
But in June 1990 the local cable company, price, and the city filed suit. In November;
Paragon Cable, split its single package of a federal judge ruled that the city had the
34 channels into a basic offerin of 11 and authority to set only "basic rates." Now
a second tier of 23 channels. Subscribers Gillette is pursuing a second argument, '1
were signed up for the expanded basic tier that TCI's expanded basic" tier isn't : -f
automatically and had to pay the system really a distinct and separate product from
$15 each to change to the more limited basic service. (TCI officials declined to
basic service. comment on the situation in Gillette.) - i
If Congress regulates every level of
Three months later, the system raised service, "it will freeze the development of . • ;
the price of the second tier by 30%, from $5 new programming," contends Steve Ef-
to $6.50. It tacked another $2 increase on Eros, president of the Community Antenna•
one year after that. The end result: In 15 Television Association, a cable trade
months after Paragon imposed the tiered group. He says proposed laws aimed at
approach, Laredo subscribers were paying tiers would put artificial price caps on
21% more for the same 34 channels ($20.50 channels. "We are finding our price levels =
a month, compared with $17 when the tier now," he says. ~
f %
WORK SESSION FOLLOW-UP January 17, 1992
Page 1 of 2
TOPIC QUESTIONS FOLLOW-UP SOLUTIONS
818!89 WEST INTERMOUNTAIN COUNCIL: Proceeding. w/legal requirements for County is not renewing contracts for snowplowing,
ANNEXATION annexation. animal control, and police services.
(request: Lapin)
7127 UNDERGROUND UTILITIES IN LARRY/GREG: Work with Holy Cross Electric to New options for allocation of costs will be presented
EAST VAIL establish special improvement district(s) for to Council in a timely manner to be included in the
underground utilities in East Vail. required notification of the affected property owners
in the proposed special district.
05/07 SALES TAX COLLECTION LARRY/STEVE: Research remedies to change this to Draft ordinance forwarded to Forest Service and VA for
(request: Gibson/Lapin) a mandatory TOV tax collection. review. Larry Lichliter states review will take another ~
30 days.
07109 SNOW REMOVAL ON PRIVATE LARRY: Research ordinance. Larry has been asked to prepare an ordinance for
SIDEWALKS discussion at 2111192 work session.
09/17 STREET LIGHTS PETE BURNETT: The LionsHead Merchants Public Works will present analyzed data by spring of
(request: Levine) Association would like to see a couple changes, '92.
which might include some of the lighting by Montaneros,
which is too bright, and placing it in front of Gallery
Row in the Treetops Building.
11/19 NEWSPAPER VENDING LARRY: What can be done to make these uniform and Scheduled for discussion at work session on 214/92.
MACHINES locations less prolific?
WORK SESSION FOLLOW-UP January 17, 1992
Page 2 of 2
TOPIC QUESTIONS FOLLOW-UP SOLUTIONS
12103 CONSENSUS BUILDING! COUNCIL: Carl Neu will be conducting an all-day These special sessions will be held in the St. Moritz
GOAL SETTING consensus-building session with council on Tuesday, Room of the Sonnenalp.
1/28/92. He will then spend ahalf-day working on goal-
setting on Tuesday morning, 2/18/92. Mark your
calendars.
12/17 LIONSHEAD MERCHANTS MTG. KRISTAN: This group meets the first Tuesday of each Kristan has spoken with new leader, Packy Walker.
month. We are attempting to schedule for 2/4192.
(Merv, Peggy, Rob, Jim G., Ron, Kristan, Diana
Donovan, Ned Gwathmey)
01107 VILLAGE LOADING AND EVERYONE: A community meeting with Arnie Ullevig Staff is organizing a report for discussion by Council.
DELIVERY ISSUES was held on Wednesday, 1/15/92. ,
01/07 KINSLEY RON: Schedule a 15 minute presentation by Fred This presentation has been tentatively scheduled for
GEOTECHNICAL, INC. "Skip" Kinsley re: oil and gas exploration in the the regular evening meeting on Tuesday, 2118/92.
greater Vail area.
01114 DOWD JUNCTION COUNCIUSTAFF: Walk-through tentatively scheduled
INFORMATION CENTER for Friday, February 7, 1992. Time yet to be set.