HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-04-07 Support Documentation Town Council Work Session ~
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL
WORK SESSION
TUESDAY, APRIL 7, 1992
1:00 P.M. IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS
AGENDA
1. Site Visit:
Christiania at Vail, 356 Hanson Ranch Road Lot D, Block 2, Vail Village First Filing,
and Lot P-3, Block 5-A, Vail Village Fifth Filing.
(Applicant: Paul Johnston)
2. Art in Public Places Board Candidate Interviews.
3. DRB Report. .
4. Discussion Re: Use of Real Estate Transfer Tax Revenues.
5. Discussion Re: Funding for Future Capital Projects.
6. Information Update.
7. Council Reports.
8. Other.
9. Executive Session: Legal Matters.
10. Adjournment.
G:WGENDA.WS
r
S
L ~ ~
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL
WORK SESSION
TUESDAY, APRIL 7, 1992
1:00 P.M. IN COUNCIL CIiAMBERS
EXPANDED AGENDA
1:00 p.m. 1. Site Visit: Christiania at Vail, 356 Hanson Ranch Road/Lot D,
Mike Mollica Block 2, Vail Village First Filing, and Lot P-3, Block 5-A, Vail
Village Fifth Filing. (Applicant: Paul Johnston)
Action Reauested of Council: Review site in preparation for first
reading of Ordinance No. 8, Series of 1992, to provide for the
establishment of a development plan, and establishing Special
Development District No. 28.
Background Rationale: The Planning and Environmental
Commission, on March 23, 1992, in a public hearing,
unanimously recommended approval (by a vote of 4-0) of the
establishment of an SDD for the Christiania at Vail.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the
establishment of the SDD request per the staff memo, which is
dated March 23, 1992.
1:45 p.m. 2. Art in Public Places Board Candidate Interviews.
Shelly Mello
Action Reauested of Council: In preparation for appointment at
the April 7, 1992, evening meeting, interview the individual who
has submitted an application to fill one AIPP Board position for a
three year term. Kenneth Robins and any others who may
submit an application after packet distribution will be interviewed.
2:15 p.m. 3. DRB Report.
2:20 p.m. 4. Discussion re: Use of Real Estate Transfer Tax Revenues.
Steve Barwick
Larry Eskwith Action Reauested of Council: Clarify desired categories of
projects which may be funded by Real Estate Transfer Tax.
Backaround Rationale: Council members have questioned the
use of RETT revenues for such items as sidewalks, park
restrooms, and landscaping for various capital projects.
2:50 p.m. 5. Discussion re: Funding for Future Capital Projects.
Steve Barwick
Action Reauested of Council: Decide how, or if, the Town will
fully fund its future capital needs and desires.
Backaround Rationale: Projects show that the Town of Vail will
have difficulties funding those future capital items which are
necessary to continue providing current service levels. Also, the
Town is unlikely to have resources available to meet a large list
of new capital demands.
1
ti
c
3:50 p.m. 6. Information Update.
7. Council Reports.
8. Other.
9. Executive Session: Legal Matters.
12. Adjournment.
C:UIGENDA. WSE
2
~c RvP
Tc U
To: Town of Vail
Planning and Environmental Commission
From: Jim Lamont, Planning Consultant
Date: March 9, 1992
RE: A request for the establishment of a Special Development
District at the Christiania at Vail.
The East Village Homeowners Association, Inc. is in
receipt of public notices, application documents, and
Department of Community Development memoranda associated with
the request to establish a Special Development District at
the Christiania at Vail.
On behalf of the East Village Homeowners Association,
our review of the documentation provided to date indicates
the following:
I. There is insufficient justification for the
establishment of a Special Development District at the
Christiania at Vail.
1. There are insufficient improvements in the public
interest to warrant the degree of variance being requested
from established zoning development standards.
a. The providing o.f one off-site employee dwelling unit
.and one on-site short term restricted dwelling unit are not
sufficient public improvements to warrant increasing the
density and congestion that currently exists in the East
Village neighborhood..
b. The removal of asphalt, relocation of a fence off of
. public property, and the construction of a pedestrian walking
path on stream tract land are not a sufficient public
improvement to offset the imposition of increased density and
setback incursions.
c. The application increases the violation of
underlying zoning standards rather ,than bring the building
into greater compliance with zoning standards. The proposal
is a grant of special privilege that is not generally
available to other property owners in the same zone district
or neighborhood.
_ 2. The analysis of review criteria provided by the
Development of Community Development staff is incomplete,
and insufficient. There is a lack of documented evidence by
the applicant or the town staff of project impacts and that
the proposed improvements will directly offset the impacts
created by the proposal.
To: Town of Vail
Planning and Environmental Commission
From: Jim Lamont, Planning Consultant
Date: March 9, 1992
RE: A request for the establishment of a Special Development
District at the Christiania at Vail.
Page Two
a. "Grandfathering" of parking, loading, and setback
incursions is an inappropriate justification for the
continuation of practices that, by allowing increases in
allowed density, aggravates known problems of function and
congestion.
b. The evaluation of the Special Development District
criteria is incomplete. Neither the staff report nor the
application specifically addresses the proposal's
compatibility and sensitivity to the "neighborhood and
adjacent properties," according to the established criteria
of architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer
zones, identity, character, visual integrity and orientation.
c. The justification of GRFA increases over allowed
underlying zoning limits based upon changes in definition of
GRFA is inappropriate.
d. The justification of GRFA and Common Area over
allowed underlying zoning limits based upon excessive
- increases in proposed common area is inappropriate.
e. The justification for the manner in which
conformance with parking requirements are achieve is not
compatible with underlying zoning requirements and provisions
of the Vail Village Master Plan. Goals and policies do not
provide for off-site parking.
f. The justification for the proposal based upon a
recitation of selected goals and objectives from the Vail
Village Master Plan is incomplete. The site is not
designated as an in-fill site.
g. The justification that the proposal conforms to
other planning and design policies is incomplete. Portions
of the Streetscape Plan apply.
h. The evidence to justify that one off-site employee
housing unit is an adequate incentive to allow several major
incursions of underlying zoning is insufficient.
i. The evidence to justify that one on-site short term
restrict dwelling unit is an adequate incentive to allow
several major incursions of underlying zoning is
insufficient.
To: Town of Vail
Planning and Environmental Commission
From: Jim Lamont, Planning Consultant
Date: March 9, 1992
RE: A request for the establishment of a Special Development
District at the Christiania at Vail.
Page Three
j. The evidence to justify setback incursions is
insufficient.
k. The evidence that existing traffic congestion on
• public streets will be improved by the proposal is
insufficient. Traffic congestion is a major problem at the
intersection of Hanson Ranch Road and the Mill Creek Chute.
Summary:
Due to the incompleteness of the evidence and
documentation, please note that our comments and criticism
are not necessarily limited to subjects that are addressed in
this memorandum.
The Board of Directors of the East Village Homeowners -
Association, Inc. requests that sufficient documentation and
evidence be provided so that an adequate evaluation of the
impacts of this project can be completed.
At this time, there is insufficient justification for
the creation of a Special Development District for the
Christiania at Vail.
The Board of Directors of the East Village Homeowners
Association, Inc. objects to the project as proposed and does
not support the projects as proposed.
It is requested that the Town of Vail Planning and
Environmental Commission deny the application as proposed.
04. C76. 92 04 45 PM mMOTORC7LA CC}l~F' Ii6lTS PC72IO3
~ - RECElVEQ APR 6 1992
17t5~1 67P S3C10
RO8ER7" W. GALYI hl X C ' R'V/o ,
1303 EAST AL00NGUIN RCAC ~ ~ / /
SCHAUMBUR~, ILUN0189of9B-1066 j~ v 111///
Aprli 6. 1992
Mayor and Town Council
Towtt of Yail
7S South Frontage Road West
Vail, CO 81857 ,
Aear Mayor Osterfoss and Town Council Members:
I wish to bring to your attention. on behalf of the members of the East Village
Homeowners Association. our concerns with regard to the Special Development
District being proposed by the Christiania at Vail.
It is the general perspective of the Homeowners Association that the Christiania
proposal is an inappropriate application of the Special Devrelopment District pro-
vision of the Town of Vail zoning code. We arse concerned that if the agpGcation is
apptnved that there will be a setting of a precedent that will blur snd confuse the
purpose of the SDD provision.
The members of the Board of Directors and myself have reviewed the Special De-
velopment District provision and the Christiania application, It is our position
that the purpose of the Special Development District is for new development or for
the substantial tear down of an exlsdng building and the redevelopment of the
site. It is our contention that the Christiania does not conform to the stated pur-
pose of the SDD provision.
We do not believe i[ is appropriate that the Special Development District provision
can be used as a means of circumventing the requirements of its underlying zone
dis[rict. Speclflcally~ at a minimum all zoning standards must be met before a
Special Development District can be considered.
It is inappropriate, we believe to use the Special Development District as a means
of avoiding prohibitions found in the nonconforming and variance provisions of
the zoning code. We find that the degree and number of the requested categories
that exceed standard zoning requirements would suggest a grant of special privi-
lege.
It is our contention that the existing SDD provision allows for the continued ea-
pansian of the Christiania beyond underlying zoning limitation. The provision
allows for staff approved minor amendments and major amendments that remove
substantial protections for adjacent property owners &tilar:lnt®ed by standard zone
districts. We are greatly troubled by the broad latitude described by this provi-
sion.
04. 05. 52 04:45 F'N! ~Mt~T~Rt~Ld~? CORF E-iQTS P03103
-
- '
1Vtayor Oaterfoss and Tawn Council Members
April 6, 1992 `
Page ~'wv
We alsa concur with the points and Criiiciams raised in tha March 9, 1992 memo-
randum submitted to the Planning and Environmental Camnxissian by our Plan-
ning Consultant. We ask that these items be specifically and th4raughly addresscd
' by the town staff and ~ the applicant.
It is nut our intent to attempt to deny the awners of Christiania at Vail their legit-
imate property deveiapmertt rights. We have no opposition to the approval that
~ was gr®nted in 1$$1. Howcvcr, we cannot support a building oxpansion that gives
spacial privileges and benefits to the Christiania at the expense of the rights se-
eurod by the zpning code for adjacent property owners,
n ere! y
Robert 'VV. Galvin
President
8asl Village Flomeowners Assoc.
RWO:ch
cc: Jim Lamont
04. OB. 92 04:45 PM mMtJTORC}LA CORD EI6lT~ PO 1/03
RECEIVED APP 6 199
13Q~ E. ~ILQ~N~RIIt~ Md~A~
~cN~?u~~v~, eo~~
Ta: Mayor bs~~rfosa T~~~~~:
N~MB~N: ,(309? 479-2157 ~ ~Aj~: ,4-b-92 .
~.~T~~:
.8ob Galvin ~ ~0~) 576e53po
4
ME~SAC~4 ,
T~T~#. Nt~lOA~EFt ~ lIVI~LIJ~ 1'Ni~ Ply: , ~ .
I~ ~~~d N~ C°i~ Carsis
T~~~~ ~ (7Q8) 576-4944
. k~ : R vP
YC~
`.y~ `RECEIVED ARR ~ 0 992
' WILLIAM I. MORTON
Apri13, 1992 .
Mr. Larry Eskwith
75 Frontage Road West
Vail, CO 81657
Dear Mr. Eskwith:
. ~ ~ ~ ~ I wish to convey to you my concerns regarding the
application for a Special Development District by the
Christiania at Vail.
As an adjacent property owner, with a residential
condominium in the Mill Creek Court Building, I am
directly impacted by the Christiania proposal. The close .
proximity of the remodel project to my residence will have
. a significant impact. I would ask that you consider my
concerns during the public hearing on this matter. They
are as follows:
I 1. Setback Encroachments: The proposed expansion,
i ~ exclusive of balconies, intrudes into the required setback
on different floors from 2'-6" to 4'-6". The encroachments
will intrude into the views from my apartment. As you
know, our neighborhood is not protected by view corridors
. and, therefore, I must rely on the enforcement of the
setback in order to insure that my views and open spaces
_ - _ are protected. I would ask that you deny the setback
encroachments on the upper floors of the building.
~ ~ ~ ~ 2. Garage Encroachment/Garbage Dumpster: The
. existence of garbage dumpsters and sheds throughout the
community is unsightly and, in many cases, unsanitary.
The proposal for the handling of refuse from the
Chrisitania has just not been thought out thoroughly or in
' what would be the best interest of the pedestrians and all
of us in the surrounding community. Since one of the
stated purposes of the remodeling project is to upgrade
. ' the property, I would suggest that enclosing the dumpster
within the structure of the building should be considered.
It's easy to recognize that existing or proposed
o~
. ~
f, ,
Mr. Larry Eskwith
Apri13, 1992
. Page 2
landscaping would not sufficiently obscure the trash
_ _ _ . , dumpster from public view. I would suggest the setback
for the garage be denied unless the dumpster could be
- incorporated with the building.
. ~ ~ 3. Streetscape Improvements: I have read about the
. Streetscape plan recently adopted by the Town Council.
As such, there are opportunities for the applicant to
incorporate into the development plan some or all of these
ideas that would certainly enhance the project. This
. ~ would include upgrading street edges using brick or
concrete block pavers, improving landscaping, a stone
planter replacing the tie-timber planter on Hanson Ranch
. Road, decorative street lights,. and facing the retaining
wall on the P-3 site with native stone, curbs and gutters.
. E .
4 4. Special Development District: After reading the
1 rules and regulations about SDD, I would suggest the use `
of that for the Christiania project is inappropriate. My
interpretation would be the intention of SDD is for new .
development, and this certainly is not. Further, most
categories where the proposal exceeds standard zoning
_ _ requirements, would not be permitted by the limitations
. . placed upon the expansion of non-conforming uses or
_ _ . variances. My feeling is the SDD is being used as a
. _ ~ _ _ . , means to avoid the limitations placed upon the expansion
. . _ _ of existing non-conforming uses and, therefore, this
. request for SDD should be denied.
. ~ It is not my intent to attempt to deny the owners of -
~ ~ Christiania at Vail their legitimate property development
rights. I have no opposition to the approval that was
. ~ granted in 1991. However, I cannot support a building
expansion that gives special privileges and benefits to the
Christiania at the expense of my rights as well as those of
other adjacent property owners.
Mr. Larry Eskwith
Apri13, 1992
Page 3
I wish that I could be there to personally present my
views. Instead, I hope you will accept this letter and its
intent in your consideration.
- - - - cer y,
illiam Morton
cc: Paul Johnston
. ,
~ , ~ r
KENNETH IVI. ROBINS ~ ~~,r-;r, ~ ~ .
ATTORNEY AT LAW
41 O SEVENTEENTH STREET SUITE 1 705
DENVER. COLORADO 80202
TEL: 303 S71 -0700 FAX: 303 571 -4503
March 24, 1992
Community Development Department
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
Gentlemen:
I would like to apply for a position on the Art in Public
Places Board of the Town of Vail. I am a property owner in the
Town of Vail, owning, with my wife, a home at 154 Beaver Dam Road.
Although we live full-time in Denver, we spend almost every weekend
in Vail, and I am available to come to Vail during the week to
participate in meetings.
My qualifications for this position include my interest in art
in general, and contemporary art in particular. My wife and I
collect contemporary art and display our collection in our homes in
Denver and Vail. I am a member of the Board of Directors of AFCA
(Associates for Contemporary Art) of the Denver Art Museum. My
wife has just completed two terms as a Trustee of the Denver Art
Museum, serves on several committees at the Museum as well as being
the present Co-Chairman of AFCA.
I am an attorney by profession and have practiced both in
Denver and in Vail.
I would appreciate being considered for this position and
believe that I could contribute to the Board as well as to the
public art in Vail.
Please do not hesitate to contact me with regard to the above
and the time of any interview you would like.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
Very truly yours,-
.
xenneth M. Robins
r
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD AGENDA
APRIL 1, 1992
3:00 P.M.
SITE VISITS
1:15 p.m.
1 Scorpio Condominiums - 121 W. Meadow Drive
2 Holy Cross - Lionshead Switchgear box at Vail Glo
3 Holy Cross - Switchgear box South of S. Frontage Rd. at
Spruce Creek
4 Hutchinson Residence - 2955 Basingdale Road
5 Holy Cross - Behind Brandess Building
6 Holy Cross - S.E. Corner Buffehr Creek Rd. and
Lionsridge Loop Road
7 Grand Traverse at Vail - 1403 Moraine Drive
S Holy Cross - Lion's Ridge Loop switchgear box (exist.)
9 Holy Cross - Red Sandstone Park switchgear box
10 Holy Cross - Sun Vail/Rec Path switchgear box
11 Byrne Residence - 16 Forest Road
12 Holy Cross - Crossroads switchgear box
13 Caulkins Residence - 3010 Booth Creek Drive
. 14 McCuaig/Borne Residence - 5165 Main Gore Drive
AGENDA
1. Gerald R. Ford Amphitheater - Roof modifications & MM
weatherproofing.
530 S. Frontage Road East/Ford Park.
MOTION: George Lamb SECOND: Pat Herrington
VOTE: ~4-0
Approved for the 1992 "season" only.
2. Ore House - Canopies. SM
232 Bridge Street/Lot A, Block 5, Vail Village 1st.
MOTION: George Lamb SECOND: Pat Herrington
VOTE: 4-0
TABLED TO APRIL 15TH MEETING.
3. Caulkins Residence - Review of exterior detailing. SM
3010 Booth Creek Drive/Lot 4, Vail Village 11th.
MOTION: George Lamb SECOND: Pat Herrington
VOTE: 4-0
Approved.
4. Hutchinson - New primary with restricted 2nd unit. ST-7
2955 Basingdale Road/Lot 15, Block 6, Vail
Intermountain.
MOTION: SECOND: VOTE:
TABLED TO APRIL 15TH MEETING.
5. Scorpio Condominiums - Facade improvements. JK
121 W. Meadow Drive/Lot 1, A resubdivision of part of Lot
D, Vail Village 2nd Filing.
MOTION: George Lamb SECOND: Pat Herrington
VOTE: 4-0
CONSENT APPROVED.
6. McCuaig/Borne Residence - New Single Family. JK
5165 Main Gore Drive South/Lot 19, Vail Meadows 1st
Filing. '
MOTION: George Lamb SECOND: Pat Herrington
VOTE: 4-0
Approved as submitted strong recommendation to applicant
to review rock material and pattern on home on Elk Track
in Beaver Creek.
7. Byrne Residence - Change to approved plans to allow JK
different architectural treatments for separated
primary & secondary units.
16 Forest Road/Lot 1, Block 7, Vail Village 1st.
.MOTION: George Lamb SECOND: Sherry Dorward
VOTE: 3-0
TABLED TO APRIL 15TH MEETING. Ned abstain as did work on
building.
8. Holy Cross switchgear box locations: JK
a. S.E. corner of Buffeter Creek Road and Lions Ridge
Loop Road.
b. Behind Brandess Building.
c. South of South Frontage Road at Spruce Creek.
d. Sun Vail/Recreation Path.
e. Red Sandstone Park.
f. S.W. corner of Lionshead Circle and South Frontage
Road.
~g. S.W. corner of South Frontage Road and Village
Center Road (Crossroads}.
MOTION: George Lamb SECOND: Sherry Dorward
VOTE: 4-0
Staff to review revised landscaping, avoid walls and
fences where possible. Use plant material to screen.
A
9. Lionshead Miniature Golf - Permanent facility. SM
Tract D, Vail Lionshead 1st Filing.
MOTION: George Lamb SECOND: Pat Herrington
VOTE: 4-0
Approved as submitted.
10. Grand Traverse at Vail - Window changes. SM
1403 Moraine Drive/Lot 24, Dauphanais/Moseley
Subdivision.
MOTION; George Lamb SECOND: Pat Herrington
VOTE: 4-0
CONSENT APPROVED.
11. Discussion of proposed lighting ordinance. AK
Draft ordinance scheduled for Council worksession on
April 14, 1992.
12. Bailey Residence - New Single Family. JK
193 Beaver Dam Road/Lot 38, Block 7, Vail Village 1st.
MOTION: SECOND: VOTE:
TABLED TO APRIL 15TH MEETING.
MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT:
Pat Herrington ~.~~~na Whitten (PEC)
Sherry Dorward
Ned Gwathemy
George Lamb
STAFF APPROVALS:
Morton - Lodge at Lionshead Phase III, Unit #11 Exterior changes.
191 E. Meadow Drive/Resub. Lot 1, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 2nd.
Sitzmark - (Polo Shop), repair of retaining wall.
183 Gore Creek Drive/Tract A, Block 5-B, Vail Village 1st.
Rothbart Residence - Material change entrance stair.
2349 Chamonix Drive/Lot 12, Block A, resub. of Vail Das Schone 1st.
Katz Residence - Replace hot tub/replace some decking.
3031 Booth Falls Road/Lot 13, Block 1, Vail Village 12th.
Vickers Residence - New deck.
2633 Kinnickinnick Drive/Meadow Creek Condos. Phase III, Unit E-2,
Dorn Residence - Conversion of garage to GRFA.
416 Forest Road/Lot 3, Block 1, Vail Village 3rd.
ttijest Vail Mall - Retaining walls and fence.
Lot 2, Vail Das Schone 3rd Filing.
Cano - Enclose balcony.
520 East Lionshead Circle/Lionshead Center Building #205.
LAND TRANSFER TAX
and option is entered into, then the land transfer tax shall
not be due and payable unless and until the exercise and
consummation of such option. If any other lease with such
an option to purchase is entered into, the land transfer tax
shall be due and payable at the time .of such transfer.
. F. "Transfer" means, whether or not the same is in writing or
- is recorded, and includes (1) any sale, grant, assignment,
. - ~ = .transfer, exchange, or conveyance of any ownership or
title to real property situtated in the town, or (2) the sale,
letting., conveyance, assignment or transfer of a possessory
- - interest in real property, subject to the exemptions provided
in this chapter.
(Ord. 5(1980) § 3: Ord. 26(1979) § 3.)
3.48.020 Imposed.
There is imposed a tax on all transfers whether by deeds,
instruments, writings, leases, or any other documents, or
otherwise by which any lands, tenements or other interests in
. ~ - real property located in the town are sold, granted, let, assigned,
. transferred, exchanged or otherwise conveyed to or vested in
a purchaser, or purchasers thereof, or any other person or
j persons, except as may be specifically exempted by Section
3.48.050 of this chapter. Such tax shall be due and payable at
the time of transfer and contemporaneously therewith. (Ord.
' 5(1980) § 1: Ord. 26(1979) § 1.)
- 3.48.030 Liability for payment.
- ~ _ ~ Each seller and each buyer and each person or persons
_ _ _ _ from whom or to whom a transfer is made, which is subject .
- _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ to the tax imposed under Section 3.48.020, shall be jointly
' - ~ ~ and severally liable for payment of the tax. The seller or person
- - - - - - from whom a transfer is made shall remit the tax to the town
treasurer. (Ord. 5(1980) § 2: Ord. 26(1979) § 2.)
- ~ ~ 3.48.040 ~ Amount payable.
= The amount of tax payable in each case shall be as follows: -
- ~ ~ ~ A. Where there is no consideration or when the consideration is
~
~
62-3
cv~~~i iz-i-x~~
.
REVENUE AND FINANCE
five hundred dollars or less, no land transfer tax shall be
. ~ payable.
B. Where the consideration shall exceed five hundred
dollars, the land transfer tax payable shall be one
percent of the consideration, the proceeds of which tax
. ; ~ ~ shall be earmarked for acquisition and improvement of
- real property including paying incidental costs and the
- - ~ - principle of and interest on any borrowing for the
. , acquisition, such property to be located either within or
without the limits of the town or contiguous thereto. No
. - increase in the one percent tax rate established by this
subsection shall be levied after the passage of the
effective date of this subsection, until such tax rate
increase shall have been approved by a majority of the
registered electors voting at a'regular or special election.
(Ord. 8(1987) § 1: Ord. 5(1980) § 4: Ord. 26(1979) § 4.)
3.48.00 Exemptions.
The land transfer tax imposed by this chapter shall not
. apply to:
- A. Any transfer wherein the United States, or any agency or
' ~ instrumentality thereof, the state, any county, city and
- county, municipality, district or other political subdivision
of this state, is either the grantor or grantee;
B. Any gift of real property, where there is no consideration
other than love and affection or charitable donation;
. C. Any transfer by document, decree or agreement partitioning,
terminating or evidencing termination, of a joint tenancy,
' ~ ~ : ~ - tenancy in common or other co-ownership in real property;
however if additional consideration of value is paid in
- ~ - _ - - _ - . connection with such partition or termination, the tax shall
apply and be based upon such additional consideration;
' ~ ~ D. The transfer of title or change of interest in real property
- ~ . by reason of death, pursuant to: A will, the law of descent
~ and distribution, or otherwise; '
' E. Transfers made pursuant to reorganization, merger or con-
solidation of~ corporations, or by a subsidiary to a parent
62-4
-
y;
LAND TRANSFER TAX
C. For the purpose of collection of the taxes imposed by this
. ~ chapter, all banks, title companies, escrow companies,
building and loan institutions, attorneys, real estate agencies,
. or other closing agents or agencies, permitted as such to do
business under the Paws of the state may collect the land
transfer tax (holding such funds in trust for the town)
- - - and remit the same to the town for and on behalf of the .
_ seller and buyer, forthwith.
- - - D. The town manager is authorized to negotiate and enter .
into an intergovernmental contract with appropriate offs-
cers of Eagle County for the collection of this tax, including
the payment of a fee to the county officers for such
collection.
(Ord. 5(1980) § 8: Ord. 26(1979) § 8.)
,,~C 3.48.090 Land transfer tax fund.
' A. All funds received by the town pursuant to this chapter
shall be deposited in the land transfer tax fund, which
. ~ fund is hereby created. The fund shall be subject to
appropriation only for the following purposes: acquiring
. and improving real property, for parks, recreation, open
space and/or similar purposes and the construction
' _ - of buildings which are incidental to park, recreation and
' open space land, including paying incidental costs and
l
the principle of and interest on any borrowing for such
acquisition, improvement and construction.
B. For the purposes of this chapter, building shall mean any
structure having a roof supported by columns or walls,
. _ - or any other enclosed structure for the housing of
persons, animals, or property.
(Ord. 8(1987) § 2: Ord. 5(1980) § 9: Ord. 26(1979) § 9.)
. 3.48.100 Due date-Penalties for delinquency.
The tax imposed under this chapter is due and payable .
at the time of the transfer, and is delinquent if it remains unpaid j
. for thirty days thereafter. In the event that the tax is not paid
prior to becoming delinquent, a delinquency penalty of ten
1
62-9
1992-1996 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS W`S ~t/t'[~H~ ~ 3
dO. REOUIRED PROJECTS 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 TOTAL
603 Parking Structure Landscape Contingenry 30,000 ~ 30,000
Pave Ford Park & Left 7um Lane 481,074 481,074
408 Chapel Bridge Replacement 10,000 450,000 q&0,000
TOTAL REQUIRED PROJECTS 40,000 931,074 0 0 0 0 971,074
ESSENTIAL PROJECTS
908 Fre Truck Replacement 250,000 310,000 560,000
551 Town Shop Ventilation System 46,200 .46,200
904 Communication System Mtce i3 Replacement 20,000 15,000 15,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 110,000
552 Vail Fre Station Storm Sewer 24,450 ~ 24,450
511 Slifer Fountain Repair ~ 30,000 30,000
550 Miscellaneous Building Maintenance 50,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 175,000
112 Street Improvement Mtce Program ~ iW}l 600,000 600,000 600,000 1,800,000 1,800,000 1,800,000 7,200,000
510 Parking Structure Capital Mtce Program 55,000 190,000 200,000 220,000 200,000 415,000 1,280,000
530 Rec Path Mtce Program 85,000 75,000 79,000 83,000 87,000 81,000 500,000
• -524 Bus Shelter Improvement ~ Replace 40,000 42,000 44,000 46,000 48,000 51,000 271,000
553 Drainage Improvements 30,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 280,000
983 Street Furniture Replacement 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 120,000
501 Town Shop and Bus Bam Mtce Program 26,700 370,000 400,000 375,000 600,000 200,000 '.,971,700
811 Remodel Bus Terminal 35,000 35,000
201 Street Light Improvement Program 30,OOp 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 180,000
912 Replace Buses 600,000 1,125,000'" 4,381,000
554 PW Office Remodel 50,000 ~ 50,000
984 Pedestrian Overpass Walkway 50,000 I 50,000
Police Department Space Expansion 185,000! 3x',399-544,000 544,000 L 2,214,000
PWlTrans Office Expansion ~-450,000 450,000
Computerization of Lionshead Parking ~ I 140,000 140,000
Library Carpet 27,500 27,500
Additional Bus ~ 236,000 255,000 716,000
Fre Extrication Equipment 16;000 16,000
TOTAL ESSENTIAL PROJECTS 2,042,350 1,870,500 3,125,000 4,865,000 4,974,000 3,951,000 20,827,850
TOTAL REQUIRED ~ ESSENTIAL PROJECTS 2,082,350 2,801,574 3,125,000 4,865,000 .4,974,000 3,951,000 21,798,924
DESIRABLE PROJECTS
Land Acquisition 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 2,500,000
Affordable Housing Project 100,000 100,000
Implement New Shuttle Buses 100,000 200,000 1,500,000 1,300,000 3,100,000
Simba Run Underpass 140,000 70,000 2,340,000 2,550,000
Meadow Drive Const Documents 66,000 66,000
Sidewalk Improvements 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 250,000
Christiania Loading Dock 150,000 650,000 2,250,000 3,050,000
Vail Road Medians & Sidewalk 191,444 ~ 191,444
Pulis Bridge Replace 330,000 330,000
. Relocate Checkpoint Charlie 110,000 110,000
Siebert Circle ? 0
Frontage Road Widening 8 Landscape Medians 593,782 593,782
Frontage Road Bike and Ped Path 144,966 144,966
Test Temporary Close 170 Ramps 60,000 292,000 352,000
West Vail Interchange Imp 170,000 370,000 540,000
TOTAL DESIRABLE PROJECTS 2,476,192 1,700,000 3,182,000 4,670,000 1,850,000 0 13,878,192
TOTAL CAPITAL PROJECTS 4,558,542 4,501,574 6,307,000 9,535,000 6,824,000 3,951,000 35,677,116
24-Mar-92
r SHORTFALL IN FIVE YEAR Sl!®GET PROJECTION
1993 $ 21,885
1994 367,458
1995 1,341,024
1996 1,287,629
1997 726.549
$3,744,545
Other items which may exacerbate the shortfall:
• Americans with Disabilities Act expenses
hA ~,(~-2~ oufG-300, 0 D0~
• Annual minor capital items
.~5~, esa - ~a~c~v~,l. G~.~.rai,~I.v~-t,4.d,~a.~,U.e2,
• Bus depreciation not funded in 1997
~ ~-oo, ooa
• Sales tax revenues currently below projections
• Tax and spending limitation proposals
c~.d ~vn~.a~u~- e~ tom, .e . ~f ~ao~ ~0~ .
3 a ~~L ~ C~2rdd c~&~
~evt r~ 3 ye.~ ~~c~
~~LU.
tic it`i tN?U~-t ~ ~U~- r~ev~e~~,u.p-~
OPTIONS FOR ADDRESSING
CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDING SHORTFALL
1) Reduce planned capital projects
2) Use Reserves
• $1 million Capital Projects Fund balance
• $1.35 million Bond Reserve available December 1995
3) Use Tax on construction materials
4) Extend and refinance existing debt
~soo, e o o 4d -tis
(.5 Glo
Staff Recommendation~~'Do not rely upon anv one option
~ a- nu.. 9~
c.
FUNDING SOURCE
ORGANIZATION ISSUE PRIVATE TAX-BASED TAX SOURCE
School District Possible vote on $500,000 operating issue Property Tax
Possible vote on $500,000 transportation issue
Vail Valley Foundation $750,000 remodel of Ford Amphitheatre X
Town of Vail Performing Arts/Conference Center Lodging Tax
X X
Marketing Board Valley Wide Marketing ~ Lodging Tax
Use Tax on
Town of Vail Capital Projects Funding ~ Construction
Materials
Town of Vail Additional Vail Land Purchases ~ Additional
RETT
Vail Housing Authority Employee Housing Projects X Additional
RETT
\
~7
TOWN OF VAIL
75 South Frontage Road Department of Administrative Services
Vail, Colorado 81657
303-479-2116
FAX 303-479-2157
MEMORANDUM
TO: Vail Town Council
FROM: Steve Barwick
DATE: April 1, 1992
RE: Use Tax
USE TAX DEFINITION: A tax levied on taxable items purchased in another jurisdiction
but brought back into the taxing jurisdiction. Use taxes are almost always adopted in
tandem with sales taxes. Aside from the function of raising revenue, the primary
purpose of a use tax is to protect retailers in the taxing jurisdiction by discouraging
consumers from making their purchases outside the jurisdiction simply to avoid its sales
tax. '
USE TAXES IN COLORADO: Over 90% of Colorado's municipal population live in cities
with a use tax. Of the 41 Colorado municipalities which collect their own sales taxes,
only Vail, Avon, and Breckenridge do not have a use tax. The vast majority of use taxes
are set at the same rate as the municipal sales tax.
_ ADMINISTRATION: The collection of a use tax on building materials used in Vail
would be relatively simple. An estimated tax amount would be collected at the time a
building permit is issued and would be based upon the same information provided for
the building permit. Both the Town of Vail and the developer or builder would have
the opportunity to correct the amount of tax after construction is complete. The only
additional administrative expense for this tax is expected to be the cost of a few audits
per year.
REVENUE ESTIMATE: A 4% use tax on building materials is projected to yield
approximately $500,000 per year. This estimate is based upon an average of $27 million
in building activity in Vail over the past three years. This revenue will obviously vary
considerably from year to year.
INCIDENCE: This tax will add 2% to the current cost of new or remodel building
activity in Vail.
IMPLEMENTATION: Per section 11.1 of the Vail Town Charter, a use tax could be
implemented after two readings of an ordinance establishing the tax.
RFTT
Bevised: 9J 3/1992
T4HN OF VAIL
REAL ISTATR TRANSfIR TAI
History and Budget
1992
1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 ; 1992 1992 BUDGRT
dONTH Ar,TOAG AGTOAL Ar,TOAL ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTOAL ACTUAL ACTOAL ACTUAL ACTOAL ACTDAL ACTDAL BDDGBT ACTDAL VARIANCI
January 63,999 98,089 106,981 119,972 78,053 80,733 101,374 131,916 96,119 309,233 162,954 165,141 106,390 88,238 ( 18,1521
February 40,595 69,018 105,024 132,220 86,289 170,052 64,906 44,040 109,873 140,192 133,085 71,413 ; 89,120 110,960 21,840
March 69,885 126,935 109,533 137,820 62,693 63,831 92,557 38,791 68,104 145,957 77,995 183,698 ; 89,050 121,409 32,359
Subtotal 174,480 294,042 321,538 390,012 227,035 314,616 258,837 214,747 274,095 595,382 374,034 420,252 ; 284,559 320,607 35,048
April 76,855 94,653 65,900 103,526 173,321 90,396 182,743 95,554 179,671 151,069 152,027 108,040 ; 114,199 -
Nay 42,738 84,324 54,663 90,599 96,006 228,673 98,551 120,984 99,736 220,299 167,972 96,994 105,355
June 62,239 125,433 54,488 140,638 76,467 49,513 79,915 73,509 101,364 122,466 136,364 141,863 ; 90,688
July 49,367 185,110 104,262 68,539 157,598 88,.528 70,441 47,949 126,537 125,675 15,169 132,042 93,044
August 79,859 115,499 71,282 9T,806 58,937 32,850 100,182 61,137 109,315 86,347 77,486 99,820 78,503
September 59,800 113,992 49,332 96,746 64,671 48,516 108,167 78,819 115,557 143,305 35,745 85,645 ; 79,184
October 108,510 154,000 42,498 122,546 88,732 109,633 93,860 124,291 177,360 241,393 118,986 258,974 124,545
November 102,623 107,768 81,698 91,385 105,109 74,909 89,047 114,839 241,888 165,964 102,210 268,394 ; 112,095
December 142,662 133,867 110,911 56,533 81,890 333,139 106,695 95,495 192,947 192,737 107,880 95,742 ; 117,529
TOTAL 899,133 1,409,688 956,572 1,258,330 1,129,766 1,370,783 1,188,538 1,027,324 1,619,471 2,044,638 1,387,873 1,707,766 ; 1,200,000 320,607 36,048
' pedestrian priority; it provides visual interest while slowing traffic. Design
consideration should be given to maintenance and snow-plowing needs.
" Once the pedestrian path passes the west end of the hospital, it crosses back
over to the north aide of the street again and is reduced in width. Shared use
of the roadway by buses and pedestrians is planned for the remainder of the
. corridor west to the Library/Ice Arena Plaza. The walkway from the hospital
to the Library/Ice Arena Plaza would not be separated from the street by a
curb.
• Seating is provided at regular intervals and at bus slope. Opportunities for
public art should also be considered at these points. The seating moat be
designed with careful attention to location, views, landscaping, etc., to insure
the seating will be used.
• A neighborhood entry feature has been designed at the beginning of West
Meadow Drive, near the fire station, to act as a psychological deterrent to
. unnecessary vehicular traffic. The fire station apron provides an opportunity
for these care to turn around. While this treatment will only discourage the
lost visitor from continuing west on Meadow Drive, it was felt to be a
reasonable compromise between acard-activated gate or manned control gale.
~ _
_ A pocket park is proposed on the Ski Museum site, creatu?g a sense of
pedestrian entry for the corridor and a better visual connection to East
Meadow Drive. The park would include needed public restrooma, seating,
and extensive landscaping.
• The Plan calls for extensive right-of-way landscaping to soften the corridor
and reflect the landscape character of nearby Gore Creek The landscaping
should be used to add as much visual interest and natural character to the
sidewalk and seating areas as possible. Dense plantings are proposed to
" create a sense of enclosure for this pedestrian corridor. Some landscaping on
private property will be necessary to achieve this effect. Additionally,
planters have been proposed east of the fire station to help define the
roadway and reduce the amount of asphalt.
• A handicap boa atop has been added at the main entry to the hospital.
own of Vail $treetecape Master Ylan~ ~ Page ~
a
• r ~4
[,L 5nx1Nn
r~hCxrl'
~ ,'~ESr atEactra vl! _ _ , ~ ~ WEST I+oLroav nm ~ x.. wnl.x -
3 - > _ _ Y rLr ~ _ _ ~-w~~~ nvu•rxx.rnr..ll L..... r.~
V 'Ili a ' t~~f M ~
1 1 D I1
- ~ jV
f Hq.IDe'I wUJSE 1 f' I
t ^
- { I
" !r
_ ~ 4
fCR[5: hla.+vl'tr1h:T'rItM91::r ~ ~ O
RESIOEIrtiaL
v
rrRE Srntrdl ~
1` I ~t
SE ARE`;R r~.l.l. note. nrrntrwnr -
1 nn 'r TlCrtl •~'ff
n .l ~ ~~w
.b L
1~;~ ~ LEGEI~iD {
s - fig.'
k ~"+;1
r 7^/~ .`I~t^.., A~~x~,.r. A. nrm.'.. ~ Ir..Tnx x..._..n.x
~ f~ ®:r-xwN
f ®,~5~ r u
t.au.ml.mu. m,~.,resr z,~.r n n:z
uaRaa l'3 ~ ~O m. ..A,,.L, hn~.M
r .L.. x L.l.m
0
i '
1
. rru. nr,;rs<n~rn+ta n'~nnxar ;
~ - ~
-
y aot.r .v u...,~o
,aIL„a~LE. WEST MEADOW DR.
in.t.Lr.r9. r..l nrtl ~7~ 1'® ~ R!EDlfal1G£'1TER
/~e,_ ,:.y ~ ` ~ ~ VAIL VILLAGE SfF€E TSGPE
r~EC V IMPROVEMENT R.AN 1
\ .t w MEgDOWI~_ 9I M DRIVE l~~y {
1 I
RE_IpEtlit%.l
:`^Ailn I. ntilro nnui trf. ITC.
Figure 6
Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan Page 32
RECEIVED APR - 7 199 x~ ' Tc
V~ ~~V' ~ ~ o ~ l.°.1 ~ ~ I ~ 3030 BOOTH CREEK DRIVE, VAIL, COLORADO 81657 Roomy
a
Lary
~JM
To The Va i 1 To ~~rn Counc i 1
We respectfully petition the To;an Council to reverse the
Design Review Board decision of April 1, 199? which overuled
the Town. Council decision of August 7th,1990 denvin~ the
x~ro~aosed~ - r:~sidence at 301.0 Booth Creek Drive the right to have
hicrhly visable blta.e anal white painted shutters.
The ot~rn.ers of the residence 1{nowingly violated the Council
ruling and 20 months later returned to the DRB seeking an
a~aproval in order to obtain a certificate of occupancy.
ThP immediate neighbors have expressed their strong objection
to the shutter coloring and design as inappropriate to the
surroundings and immediate neighborhood. DRB Guidline
Section 18.5'x.050 is clear in its language regarding compatibility.
?~Te on.ce again come before you and ask that the Council uphold
their decision of 8/7/90 trhich gave the DRB the permission
to grant a building permit conditional that the shutters he
done in a solid color.The building permit was granted and the
conditions have been violated as well as a Council ruling ignored.
We see no evidence of hardship that should reverse the origi.n~l_.
Council decision that the residence at 3010 Booth Creek Drive
should have trim and shutters of a solid color inorder to
be compatikale ~~rith its surroundings and existing structures and
be in compliance with DRB Guideline 18.5.050.
As the individuals most directly affected we ask you to overule
the DRB's granting approval for an action clearly in violation
of a Council .ruling.
r
erne wand Gi da Kaplan
x/6/92 `
cc:~~ ~ ?
RECEIVE® APB 7 1992
INVITATION TO Al ~~ND
A GOAL SHARING SESSION
BETWEEN
EAGLE COUNTY GOVERNMENT
AND
THE TOWNS OF THE COUNTY
Monday, April 27, 1992
9:00 a. m.
Hyatt Regency at Beaver Creek
Beaver Creek, Colorado
(303) 949-1234
Buffet Luncheon
20.00 per nercotz
Eagle County Commissioners Questions or Agenda Items
P. O. Box 850 Call.• Jack D. Lewis
Eagle, Colorado 81631 Assistant County Manager
(303) 328-8605 (303) 328-8605
RSVP by Friday, April 17, 1992
SENT SY ~ EAGLE COUNTY 4- 2-92 1149 3033287207-~ 3034792157; # 1 / 2
• -N Fig ~
'1.
:;~ti.,
Apri12, 1992 - 8:29 `:l. kaclF cauhrY RuuDINC;
: ; .
• "~•~`t• 551 RROADWAy
OFFICE QF TFfi: _ P.O. kOX 850
• BOARD dF COMAANER$ FAQf, COLQRADO B 1631
(303) 328.8803
: ~ FAf(~ (303) 32B•1~07
e
EAGLE ~~~~T~, .
A~EI~TDA? - . ~
BOARD a]F COI,rNTY COMMISSIONER
RE0IJLAR MEETING DAY
MONDAY, APRIL 6, 1992
09:U0 -0]:30 G4AI, 5~,~ I<'u+TG SFSSIGN
errof rim ~c~r ta'<oss RDO~ Carl Neu
x1:30 - 01:40 CONSENT GAL~AI3
EAt3IE CUUN12'RODM
IIBJdB f1FA RnU77NS A1181 N17lV~GTON7RDVSJ?S7dL A?g7~1RE AR8 PLA[F.D DN 2SB LtDNsFFM•GlLF.M)AR li9 ALLOW 77~ BOAR,O QF
i7PUN7Y LiD3f3GSSfOA~'!LS 710 SPEND f7Y 7TMH il11TD $At?DQGY ON MORL fMPQRTdM i7SMS ON A LSN1iTAY AGErDA. ANY
DoMA(f83TO1Vfli; MdPRSQU&iT 7HATANl71'~lf BB 'liF.lIIOV~' F1',Obf 77fR GONSBM CAI~]1~AR dM.1 lJON57DFRED SEPARiTELP.
ANYMSBfBrBB dF 71~' Pu~JC MrlP ?{EQUEST" ANY f7EAt B~ IiBMOVED' PRDM 7$S C~ON5RN1'AGBlI~~}.
i
1. B1LiL I'AYTNG
Linda Fankuch, Accqunting
Lamy Clever, Controller
A(°I'I4N: A~.~~,~,,~„~ ral subject tQ review by the County Manager.
Z. A~~;c~x~~UVAL OF 14'IINUTES
]ohnnette Phillips, Clerk to the Eaard
ACTION: Consider approval. •
3. AGRr~vvIENNT WI'i'~ ALPINE E14TGl)o1rr;~amrG, lI1VC., 1@'dllt
ENC~II~rr.~?ING ,s>d,~.'4~ICES I+~UR ~ 1VgODIFdCATIQN OF
BRIDGE STRUCTgJItE PTUMBI?.R EACJ-028-Q0.1
(HII,LCRF.3T TlRi['VE OVER s,d>~ EAGLE DIVER) .
Larry Metternick, County Hngineer
ACTION: Consider approval.
4. BIGOT OF
V6?!~'Y AI~NID14~N7' A~'LICATI(~N FO1lI
EAGLE COUNTY I.A.ND~'ILL
Ja><nes R. Pritae,, County Manager •
ACTION:. Consider ar~,~L u~ gal.
SENT BY~EAGLE COUNTY ; 4- 2-92 11 49 ; 3D332872D7-~ 3D84792157;# 2/ 2
.r'
S, SOIiTWAY~E LICENSE AND MAINTE1~TAt~iCE
AGREEMENTS FOR 1VIOTOR POOL FLE ~"I'
MANAGIIVIENT SO~+Y WJARE
Bill Smith, Motor Pool Supervisor
ACTION: Consider at,r.. ~ ral.
01:1- 01<:45 AGRFFArt~;~r Ign, x roe ~.~d EAGLE COUNTY
P'•1Vii~GENCY ~ N.l .~.r BONE SERVICE ALPI'l~[ORI•I'Y AlYD
JOHNSON, I'CUNKEL ANID ASSOCIATES, INC.
carnvn~xoorr Mara Kleansehnridt, Deputy County Attorney
ACT)<ON: Consider a~,..,.va1.
01:43 -02:(10 La~u~R Ly~.~~T$E HEARING - I~L,i~:Bf)WL, INC.
~a~ covxnROOar Kevin Lindahl, County Attorney
ACTION: Consider a~ry.~,~a1.
02:00 ~ 02:25 A. COl?dSIDER APPROV~?L OF REIDUCTION OF
COLd,A a,~dAL:19~-VALLEY ~ELOPMENT, FOR O~
ORCHARD PLAZA
Baca couxrpRnoM Phi11 Scott, Fsngineer
At~ Y YON: Consider approval .
B. RIGIiT-OF=WAY E7CCIIANGE - Uprw~ CAY°ii~.E
ROAD
z.,acry 1Vlettw~.~ick, County Fatgin~r
Maly Ja Berenato, Amt. County Attorney
Tim gunlcel, County Surveyor
ACTION: Consider a~,~,~.,,raY.
r
02:25 - 03:00 WORK SF~SSION -REGARDING PROa'~eauTY AIIJAt;~r1T
TO I+AIItGXtOUND5
~r~~ !roar crross xo,ou ~ Jerry Butters
Terry Quinn, Hsq.
03:00 - 0x:00 C. APPEAL CI.INICCDtN><N~ DENIAL. OF A1V
AI?'PL,ICATION FOR A SIGN ~r' + ' T
atT of the AOLP CR'a,SS $POI~ Mark Iiinch, Carbondale, Colorado
D. API'1&AL CONCERNING DENIAL OF AN
APPY.ICATIO1Vi FOxt A SIGN a ~~IVIIT FOR ~ ~ x
FI1"LSONS OF FITZSIIaiIOZONS MOTOR.
COMPANX
arr~ra~aoar..~?~,..-?ieon~r Mike Blair, P1a~inet-
04:04 -44:30 WORK 3ES.SION - CO1dT~.~,~NING FREE +GOYERNli~ffi1TTAL
AGENCY DUMPING AT ~~.m, EAGLE COIU'NTY LANDI+'ILL
Don Fessler, Road end Bridge Supervisor
THIS ACiSNQA IS PROVIDPd3 F(BZ ]i4r~ri~iATIONAL PEIRROSFS ONLY • ALL TII~9 ABH APPROX IMATB. T[3H BOARD R'ffiI.R
IN 36'g3ION MAY COlY31DHR ~,~,~~)7'~,g THAT ARE BR4UCiHT BFsFORS;I'.
PAGE 2
SENT BY:EAGLE COUNTY ; 4- 2-92 15 15 ; 3033287207-~ 3034792157;# 1/ 1
4
April 2, 1 - I4:40
' EAGLE COUNIY &11lDING
~;r~`:r....r: , 551 BROADWAY
OfFlCE CIF 'I'NE P.O. B~~X 850
BOARD Of CAMMg510NERS EAGLI, COIQRApp 8163 I
303 3~8•BBO5 .•ti..'.
( ) ~ ; ~ PAX; (3U3) 328-7107
t ' ~Z ~ ° r- ~~Ys1"~v
EA~L~ ~~li1~T1(, ~~~~R~D~?
A~E1~TI~A
$o~ o~ Cov~TY co~r~ssrai~>xs
REGLJI.AR.1dI~ET~Tf,~ I)AY
TiJB517A~, APidII.7, ~ •
_Og:Oa - 10;~ way s>~ ssl,~~r
•~-w~~ Peggy osterfoss, Mayor, Town of Vail
J~:rry Davis, Mayor, mown Qf Avoc:
I0:00 - 10:30 PEKING LITIGATIOAI
~rr~v~e aasr.>P aan?~s~r . Bevin Lin~ahl, County Attorney
10:3+0 - 12•.00 ~"IIAVEL TIldIE TO EL JEBI+IY,
12:00 - 01:30 I,UNCII WITH EI-~~ASALT SEAII~T+I CI'I'11t.~,I.rTS
01:30 - 01:45 VISIT BASALT REGIONAL LIPRA.Id~Y
01:45 - 03:00 wORlit SP,SSIIJN - VV~EI~Y UPDATiE
assaz~tr~r J R. Fritze, County Nlana~ar
03:00 -04:00 BVOlIK SES~IQN 'i~1rITH ~ n; ~ Ym ~ COIJNT'~
r,~r anr,~ COMIVdISSIl~NEliS
04:00 - 05:00 wOlllf SES~iON ~ a~M i 4tu BGB i4ICISTet1?I~T, CGIA
se.4Als'~u(~1.,~+?u~lG D.~.?t' .t. OF Z'IIA~T~Pr3~7'~l'X'IO1~T ANII Ye'ia~ COXI11~7'it'
CUlVINTISSrONE~iS
03x00 -07:110 p~~
07~:~0~0~ p-)/0~9:OQ PUBLIC MEu; ` u~TG
J~fJ J~[l98 rE~,~ 1JJ J
TH93 Ad~ibA i3 PltAV~DBp FOB IIVFORMAZYONAI. ~P09W ONLY - ALL TAdBS AR$ APPRO]UMMATE. TBB BUA[tb W1l11~$
IlV STy951UN MAY CXZN9IDffit viam[ rC&MS THAT ARB 1~tOU018'I' Siac~vxH iT.
x~ , r~
MEMORANDUM
T0: All Employees
FROM: Brenda Chesman
DATE: April 1, 1992
SUBJECT: Employee Appreciation Day
This is to remind you that THURSDAY, APRIL 9, has been chosen as a
. Town Manager designated Employee Appreciation Day and the day of our
annual Pancake Breakfast!!
The Pancake Breakfast will be held at Satch's Restaurant at the Golf
Course Clubhouse, 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. There will be pancakes (of
course!),. smoked pork chops, juice, and coffee. This is the one day
a year Department Heads and Management cook for and wait on
employees! Don't miss it!
Full-time regular employees have the option to take the day off, or
work and take another day off in its place. Seasonal employees,
sorry, but you will be required to work this day (but we'll expect to
see you for breakfast!).
If you have any questions, please call me at ext. 2111.
1
/bsc
y,.
taws ~ Sao
Mern°f''°'n • • .
pers°nai
Pam Brandi°QyeT • ~ r
~i
• I'
. I
~ 1r. •
Vall ~ alle S ecl 1
y p a
events Commission
~ Special. Event Request Application
IMPORTANT: This form must accompany all applications. Please type or print. Use a
separate form for each event.
Name of Event:
Date of Event: Is date firm? Tentative?
Chairperson or Contact: ~
Address:
Day Phone: Evening Phone:
Sponsoring Organization:
Are you a Corporation? State and Date of incorporation:
What is your tax status? (e.g. for-profit or non-profit)
Circle One: Is this event New or Pre-existing? If Pre-existing, how many years?
Location of Event?
Brief Description of Event:
Who is the event tazgeted towards?
.
Amount of Request: $
Do you want input from the Special Events Commission regarding possible ways to
improve your event?
3/31/92
COUNCIL: THIS IS THE FIRST DRAFT OF AN APPLICATION FOR FUNDING BY THE
VAIL VALLEY SPECIAL EVENTS COMMISSION. IF YOU HAVE ANY SUGGESTIONS/
DELETIONS/MODIFICATIONS/ADDITIONS, PLEASE DON'T HESITATE TO LET ME KNOW.
THE COMMITTEE IS INTERESTED IN YOUR SUGGESTIONS. THANKS! pab
1
Fy,
iii.
Event Analysis
Attach additional information to this form if more room for explanation is needed.
1. ORGANIZING ENTITY:
la. History and experience of organizer:
;I~
lb. Event Beneficiary:
lc. What Percentage of proceeds goes to Beneficiary?
2. BUDGET:
2a. Amount requested: $
2b. What percentage of the total event budget does this request represent?
2c. Detail sources and uses of requested funding?
~i
t: rs;~ 4a
t.
2d. Detail Revenue sources'and sponsorship potential:
2e. If a request for seed money is a part of the plan, detail your rationale and plan for
repayment, if applicable:
r
2f. How are Profits distributes?
2g. If this funding request thi°ough the Special Events Commission is not approved (in
part or in entirety}, will the event still occur? If will still occur (without this requested
funding), what will the difference be?
2
2h. If this event is continued next year, do you plan on requesting funding again next
year?
3. INSURANCE /RISK MANAGEMENT:
3a. Description of Insurance and Risk Management as pertains to the event:
3b. Are all involved pazties~co;`.named as insured?
4. OPERATIONS PLAN:
4a. Attach your Operations Plan, clearly detailing and addressing specific issues such as:
1. Staffing; paid and volunteer
2. Ticket Sales, concessions plan (if applicable)
3. Operations set-up and teaz-down
4. Environmental/Safety issues including security and clean-up.
5. Any other pertinent operations considerations.
' :a
~
5. MARKETING PLAN:
Sa. Attach your detailed Marketing and Advertising Plan.
Sb. Will this event draw visitors to the Vail Valley?
Sc. Is this a "Quality of Life" event for local residents?
Sd. If this is a Spectator Event, how many spectators do you project?
Locals Visitors Total
Se. If this is a Participation Event, how many participants do you project?
Locals Visitors Total
Sf. Will lodging be required for either Spectators or Participants?
What portion of lodging will have to be discounted or comped?
Sg. What geographic mazkets will this be marketed to?
~P!.
~
t.'
t
3
•
~
6. BENEFITS TO THE; V'AIL VALLEY:
6a. Describe the benefits to the. Vail Valley, both short and long-term:
7. CONTINGENCY PLAN:
7a. An inclement weather plan`(if applicable) should be detailed and attached.
7b. How are losses handled?~
8. PREVIOUS YEAR'S RESULTS:
8a. If this is not afirst-time event, please submit an additional Event Analysis on last
year's actual results.
VERY IMPORTANT: Applications received without all requested information will not be
considered for funding until all requested information is received by the Special Events
Commission. You may provide any additional information you deem appropriate, but
please be brief.
PLEASE READ CAREFULLY AND SIGN: If financial support is allocated to this event,
I agree that the funding willhb~e~used solely for the designated and approved purposes as
stated in this application. I.;~~~ree to follow all policies and guidelines, and will supply
budgets, ad copies, affadavits'and proof of expenditures to the Vail Valley Special Events
Commission, as requested. If this funding is approved, the Special Events Commission
will require a written post-event evaluation to be submitted within 30 days following the
event. Acknowledged and agreed to by:
Event Chairperson: ~ Date
Upon completion of this form, please submit to ~a~~ f"~ ~
c~
V-~i. Applications/funding requests will be reviewed quarterly. Applicatio s must be
received 14 days rior to uarterly Review Meetings. Please check with
s. `7~ ~G~.Q,, ~a.Ta.~, ~79•d.l oo.
4
VAIL VALLEY SPECIAL EVENTS COMMISSION
Minutes, March 18,1992
Rocky Mountain Radio Conference Room
Present Absent
Ken White - Vail Steve Lorton - Vail Assoc.
Margie Plath - Vail
Tom Britz - Vail Valley Marketing Board
Kent Gubler - Avon
The first meeting of the Vail Valley Special Events Commission was
convened on March 18, 1992 at Sam in Avon.
Tom Britz opened the meeting and briefly discussed the history of
the Special Events Commission. This was .followed by a general
discussion of the roles and responsibilities of the commission.
A. The commission agreed to start our activities by formulating
three items:
1. A Special Event Application Form.
2. An objective criteria of approval.
3. A post event evaluation.
These items will be developed at our next meeting.
B. The commission agreed we should have a Chairperson and
Secretary. Ken White nominated Tom Britz far Chairperson and
it was seconded by Kent Gubler. Margie Plath made the
nomination unanimous. Kent Gubler nominated Ken White for
Secretary and it was seconded by Margie Plath. Tom Britz made
the nomination unanimous.
C. Margie Plath will write a press release discussing the
commissions roles and responsibilities and our first meeting
activities.
D. Our next meeting was set for March 25, 1992 at 4:OOpm in Avon.
Tentative agenda will be:
1. Formulate Special Event Application Form
2. Formulate an objective criteria for approval.
3. Formulate a post event evaluation.
kg
Xc:
RECEtVE® MAR 3 0 1992 . ~ ~~ti F,,~ ,f~,~k
A~
C®LOIZ
FRONT
RANGE
MEMORANDUM
TO: ADVISORY COUNCIL BOARD MEMBERS
FROM: KENT ZIMMERMAN
DATE: MARCH 27, 1992
SUBJ: NEXT MEETING & AGENDA
Please marls your calendars for the CTB Advisory Council meeting on
Wednesday, April 8th at 9 a.m. at the Colorado Convention Center prior to
the conference. Meeting room location will be C-201.
AGENDA
A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
B. NATIONAL TOURISM WEEK PRESS PLAN
Action Item -Call for information
C. RESULTS OF REGIONAL NEEDS
ASSESSMENT
Action Item
I . Research Discussion ~ .
2. Discussion Matrix Concept (see
attached matrix)
3. Action Regional Planning Process
D. UPDATE TRAVEL INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION
OF COLORADO
E. UPDATE ON CONVENTION CENTER EFFORTS
F. NEW BUSINESS
2440 PEARL
BOULDER, CO
8 0 3 0 2
1.800-444-0447
(303)442-2911
~ RECEIVED MAR 3 ~
MENO~AwouM
T0: Regional Task Force
FROM; Rich NEredith and Deborah Milo
SUBJECT: Research Update
Meeting P~otice
lolorado7ourizuiBoard OAT E: 3/26J92
In Fiir~,,rlwat; SV~CM ti(.lQ
Cc~v~r, Colorado ttUi0a
(.1031 ~2-~~10
(:A3) i92•riOG fax
Ni. We missed many of you at our last meeting. Oon Harrion presented
preliminary findings from our Needs Assessment questionnaire. As you
recall, our objective was to discover what marketing-related programs
or services mere most important to tourism industry businesses, and hox
urgently they were needed. Eleven such activities were identified:
1. Promote region during "off-peak" season
2. Conduct regional travel writer FAH tours
3. Stimulate group travel tours to/through region
d. Advertise regic:n in Colorado media
5. Advertise regicn in National media
6. Organize/implement special events in region
7. Seminar: Marketing on a limited budget
8. Conduct consumer/market research
9. Develop/distribute tourisa~ brflchures, planning guides, and other
publications that promote the region_
10. Education service: Hospitality training
11. Develop and issue media news releases about the region
We talked about "menu" headings ar categories into which we could group
these activities fcr planning purposes and came up with the following:
1. Educatlon/Communications
2. Advertising/Promotion (redefined as "Lead Generation and
Qualification")
3. Research
4. Media Relations
Wa talked about designing a matrix to help in the planning process.
Such a matrix could provide a format for matching program activities
with menu categories. We also discussed the posslbility that there may
be some twctics which the CT8 requires such as presenting the state
Task Force Update Fage 2
3/26/92
endorsed hospitality training program throughout the region or
Including at least one tactic froth each of the ~rour categories.
The CTB advisory Council meeting is scheauled fo,r the morning of April
8th, at the new Convention Center at 9:00 a.m. (.Keynote luncheon begins
at 11:30 a.m.) Don Merrion is planning to present the Regional Meeds
Assessment findings; the matrix and planning concept will also be
presented and discussed.
. This portion of the program will begin at approxtmately 9:30 a.m.
AlI•regional representatives are invited and encouraged to attend.
Pleasa don't hesitate to call if ycu have questions or want to talk
about this. Otherwise, we l~k Forward to seeing you on April 8.
Thanks.
1 C_ FH~~E t~~}
Hie is a sar.-.~Ie of the maZx, :with some boxes famed to ~.ve you al-t idea or how
if wor ~.s.
Service Education Adveztisirg R~earrh Media
Comasunicatzon Ze3d Gzst/¢ual Relations
Promote I ~ 1 FaII L?irett Mail to
Off. Season ~ CTB Sunsek M ;g Irgtrries
'Travel Wr:f~~ ~ Conduct =all
Fam Tours CaIo: Fam Totr
Group Travel Conduct GrcLro
Tows Packagiri~ ~rYor!c,hop
Tn-State ~ dvertise ~^edal ~vF3t#_c
Advertising in I: enver New~ar er
taut-vf-State AQv iri CIB
Ad lertisi.ag C3ffiaal YLS. Guido
Special Commadcn Sr~-ziy an Gn7up
even ~a Toc~ n-~st Pogt:Izr Ever,
MazkrLin.~ PtY:.~tcc CTI} Dt.~gnz.:
Seminaz Marketisig V.orl+.shap
CaizsuL:er/ Cvaspilc Touzi~: indicators
h4ct Research within s~e~ on
D e vim is t Produce a Pe~nzi
Pu~licativns Sl.~eci~l ~Yents G>ride
xosp=:;.zi~ CLC
?raining Training
:Media News Dec~lon and
Releases Regional Press Kit
. ~
! ,
Sezvice Ednca~an Advertising Rasearc~ ~.fedia
Caatmunication Lead GenlQcal Relations
promote
Off Season '
17eavel Writer
F~ Tours
Group Travel
Totes
Ltt•Sta:2
Advercisiag
Uut-of-Stare
Adrert£sing
Special
Everts
Mark etirig
Semuiar
Corssuater/
M3ct Reseazch
DevlDist
Yublicat3onS
Hospitality
'~'rainizg
;Media dews
Releases
7"onr f~ Trntrd NcuS - MmrAny, (nnunn~ 20, 1992 - 35 ~ ,
me.i" ~ .
~ • •
a.' or Sttif t In Tourism Marketing Strate~,y
Panel Favors M ~
Lay Ru(Irnrnre Srrtor-Terrero five steps and gains approval representatives from the rnrise Commerce, was put on notice businesses in mantles in ~~-hide
TnLL.I\}-fASSCG, Fla. - T1~e from Gov. l;awton Chiles. industry, attnclions, convention earlier this yearby the state that it tourism is the primaryry inclustn~.
nature of advertisements pro- "Ihe propos~ll, supported by and visitor bureaus, the state, ho- would have to establish its own Use of the fees, r~~(rich r~~uuld
rooting Florida as a vacation des- the 1-louse Committee on Tour- tels and restaurants. The coot means of funding itself. supply revenue to a dedicated
tination could change dnrnatical- ism, Fiospitality and P_conomic mission was created by the legis- 71ie result of the commission's tourism fund (car the state, would
{ next year if a ~ro sal hero Deve4opment, writ be presented lature last Aril to come up with research? To develop a fives-year more than `rouble the state's
r,nveilecf before tie s~te 1-louse by the h3orida Tourism Commis- anew funding source after the marketing plan funded by a tourism budget from $t3 million
of Representatives this week sior~--a committee of ]8 leaders Florida Division of Tourism, part "tourism promotion investment in fiscal year 1992/93 to $27 mil-
makes it through all the legisla- in the tourism industry including of the Ilorida Department of fee" imposed on tourism-related erid of the3dccade.tltFwouldalso
transfer the responsibilities of the
tourism division to a new com-
mission to be comprised of mem-
"The bill's ro osal would The five-year markelin Ian bets from the private hospitality
p p g p "State advertising would also Indust that would shape flor-
cl~ange the nature of the mar- developed by the Florida Tour- take a more cooperative pos- ry
keting of Florida dramatically. ism Commission would take ef- hr re. The state would provide ida's tourism marketing phns.
/~dvcrlising world go from the feet in fiscal year 1993/94 (begins much more of an umbrella plan
July 1993) with afirst-year bud- for the regions to participate
gget of $27 million, escalating to in," he continued. 'The 'See
EN R®l1TE TOI: $45 million by the fifth year. 11tie Florida Coast to Coast to Coast'
plan proposes keeping its cement campai n got a lot of complaints
FLQRIDA source of hrnding-~1.5 cents of that it didn't provide the oppor-
the $2 surcharge imposed on car hulity for areas to plug into it."
rentals as the sole means of (r~id-
generic to the strong use of 800 or ing the bud},~et in 1992/03 and as a Industry-Driven Operation
maybe even 900 numbers to pro- base to Qre budget in f 993/99. In The new commission would
mote different areas of the state," fiscal year 19921'93 that source is still act as part of the De artment
said )oho Evans, head of the prcr expected to generate $12 million of Commerce, but would be in-
Frun manyganent committee of to $14 million. It generated $l3 dustrryy-driven, Evans said. `
the lorida Tourism Committee. million in fiscal 1991!`)2. "M<~rketing would be much
Evans is also the president of ~"The general feeling of every- more focused on market segnien-
the Florida Tourism Association, one on the commission is that cation," he added. "We would
anon-profit educational group (Continued on Page 38) look at the different audiences
fonnecl to provide information that are out there, including mi- _
on the tourism industry, whose notifies, environmentalists, hon-
several hundtrd memlxrs in- eymooners, and the elderly."
dude the Florida Hotel and Mo-
tel Assodation, Ilorida Restau-
rant Elssodation, attractions and
local tourism bureaus.
" Tourism -7~lte l~udney Langcrfield
FEATURE ARTICLE ~ of Industry!
Conlin ucd from Pagt 2 '
Tourism--The Rodney Dangerfield of Industry! is an invitation to r.:in. would
General Motors reaistically trust
_ Borg Warner transmssion advertis-
fiG answers is definition. Tourism billion dollars into the state's econ- ing or Goodyear tine promotions to
;Eu_ sell Oldsmobiles? What if Coca
_ is, by and large, acollection of busi- omy each and every year). Cola were to adopt the position that
- y, nesses which are not easily identi- ~Ne as industry leaders, cannot grocery store promotion alone
~ fled and/or mtalogued into a tradi- continue to allow government to ~ would maintain their ;1 position,
~ tional industry mold. turn its back on tourism because
L'• _ Y~ Industrial maturity is another tourism seems a "painless" area to hence discontinuing all competitive
" ' ~ ~ factor. Tourism as anything but a cut if tourism in our national brand advertising. i
nese ouestions
~ • are, of course, rhetorical. Such ac-
conceptval entity is a relatively new economy falters, as have other lions would spell disaster for any
idea. Many elements of the tourism major segments, we will experience business in a competitive environ-
' mix do not view their future as far more difficult times ahead. , ment. Yet, those are p: Basely the
J Ph;uip Keent III being tied to a collective star. It is incumbent r:oon us to do a assumptions our elered officials all
Diversity of product, approach better job of quan[it_:.ng and com- too often make w~th tourism, i.e.,
The tourism budget for the state and priority fuel separatist attitudes municating tourism's positive im- (1) The private sector elements
of California was reduced by more as well. A further manifestation is pact to policy and decision-makers. ~ of the tourism industry should carry ~
than 50 percent in the last legisla- a hodgepodge of govenmental re- iVonetheless, government has afun- ~ the entire challenge with the indi-
tivesession, relegating the largest lotions activities with little or no fo- damental responsibility to provide victual parts somehow negating the
tourism destination in the country eus• This lack of uniformity and informarion services which identify necessity for a competitive whole;
to 43rd position in terms of state continuity pres• and promote the ~ (2) We need not romote or ro-
moniesdevoted to the development ents a less than "If tourism in our national economy scenic, cultural, p p
of this enormous economic re- convincing and falters, as have other major seg- and natural diver- feet tourism resources as visitors will
source. Granted, the butchery was harmonious front meats, we will experience far more continue to mme in increasing num-
di cult times ahead" sity of the destina- bers re ardless of com etition and
part of an attempt to resolve the with elected offi- ~r lion-whether it be J g p
largest defidt in the state's budget- dals to whom we ~ a city, region, state t levels of public spending.
ing history, but it was also accom- must often look for support and or country. 1 Perhaps as an industry we have
pushed amid legislative cries of leadership in the realm of omnibus Beyond this bedrock contribu- yet to earn the respect of our polio- i
"superfluous;' "not a state respon- economic development activity. lion, government must facilitate a 1 ~ leaders through familiarity and
sibilit and (m enonal favorite) What is erha s more disturb- ositive and roductive business consistency of purpose. On the '
y' y p p p p p other hand, serious misconceptions
"we don't subsidize other Indus- ing is the disdainful attitude dis- environment providing leadership I abound regarding toursm's contzi-
tries, why should we support played toward tourism. As a sod- and involvement, both directly and bution to both the economy and the
' tourism?" ety, we do not seem to question the indirectly. ~ sodety. I am reminded of the line
Such sentiments are not unique relevance or legitimacy for govern- The oft heard suggestion that ~ from John Irvine's book, Hotel New
to California, although the Golden ment support of the agricultural government does not provide mas- Hampshire, regarding the difficulty
State poses aparticularly appropri- industry or high technology sector. rive subsidies, protective tariff's, of succeeding in the lodging indur-
ate example of the schizophrenic At the same time, tourism (which support quotas and duect stimulus rty bemuse of the need to rational-
genre. Here is a state which, at its often outranks both in economic for other industrial sectors is pat- ire a business based on "sellin
peak, invested approximately $0.30 importance) is continually chal- ently absurd. While the private sec- sleep"~ g
per capita to support an industry lenged as non-essential, self inter- for mrt (and does) promote individ- l Such are the absurdities we face
which returns 581.49 every year in erred or undeserving of public de- ual elements of the destination ~ in our efforts to legitimize the
duect state and local tax relief to velopment, maintenance, or protec- "product;' it must depend on po- travel industry as an important
each of its citizens. Here is a state five involvement. litical sui~divisions to provide some ~ engine of employment, generator of
where tourism employs not only 1 Answers to the questions of of the overall "packaging." revenue, and medium for construc-
out ~of every 7 workers, but twice why we should spend tax dollars to California has enjoyed one of live cultural change. Move over
the number employed in agricul- ensure the viability of tourism are the largest tourism economies in Rodney!
lure and jobs equal to manufactur- the very same reasons we publicly the world. As a result, the state is
ing in all its aggregate. support and protect our agricvl- among the most vulnerable to .
So where did we in California, rural, natural, and industrial re- aggressive and well-funded compe- ~ J• Phi((ip Keene, III is President of the
and by extension many states and sources: (In California's case, tition To assume that tourism can Cati
fornia Tourism Corporation, and
Board Membn o f the Trove! and
the nation itself, go wrong? Why tourism is responsible for 750,000 survive while maintaining high em- Toarvm Reseaxh .tssociarion.
does tourism enjoy so little respect? jobs, tax relief of 52 billion a year, plovment and revenue levels
Among the obvious, albeit simplis- and huge export infusion of 520 without governmental involvement
2 .
r ,
34 - Tonr 6 TrnrMl Ncurs -Monday, Jarnrary 20, ]992
• Y •
1 c~X ®11 ~'0~11'15121 ~1,15111~SSeS ~1"® ®S~C~ .Ill .M15SOl1I'1
ay Ruthnrnre Srrtor-Terrero would support the hill. fore the year is over, he said. fiscal 1992 budget means that there now."
JL'[TE[ZSONCI'[Y, Mo.-The 13ven if its funding is not That budget was approximate- maintaining targeted markets The tourism division relics
Missouri Division of Tourism has eliminated, Kapplcr said, the ly $1 million lower than )hat is still a question. primarily on out-ot-state telcvi-
jvined the, raanks of state torirism tourism division still faces se- approved for fiscal 1991.. "We'm still not sure how lion spots using atoll-free 8C
departments stnrggfiling to find vere budg~et cuts for fiscal 1993. much money we'll have," telephone number and instnrct•
new methods of finandn And the fisca11992 tourism bud- races Budget Cuts Kapplcr said. "Chicago is our ing viewers to call for travel in-
Abill that would establish a get of $5.3 million~9 million of The tourism division's spring largest, most expensive market, forniation. Aside from Chicago,
dedicated tourism fund by taxing which is allocated for adverbs- advertising campaign is in plarn, but there is some doubt as to markets targeted are those
the tourisrn industry in Missouri ing-could also be reduced be- although a potential crrt in the whether we'll be able to go in states bordern~g on ~4iss~uri.
was a„r.:~ted to be formally pre-
sented to die state legislature last
week by a committee of state-
appointed rivate industry repre-
sentatives ~ormed a year ago to "
develop long range funding and
marketing plans for the tourism ,n v ~ v ~ ° v , [ o v , w ,
~ > ~ ~ rn . N ~ ~ 40 ~ G X v ~ G v rn I ° r.. ~ v ~ y b G ar
division. ~ o ~ A.,~ ° o o ro ~ ° m ~ ~ ° v°, o ~ a ° ~ ~ at°, o b ro
lire tourism division-which ~ ~ a. ~ ° U o 3 ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 ° • E~ v •G ~ ate, v o a m v ;ti -d
is current) funded sold :°'S'" ~ ~ 0°~- ~ r ~ o ° ~ a, ~ c° N ~ ~ ~ td ~'ro
throw h le ~slative a ro n N'v" v ro o ~ v V G a a ~°'v N ~ ° ~ ~ ~ ~ p, on,'v ~ N Y ~°a H
g E 1?P, P ° v v-d.~v .O,ov~ o ~ bN v o~ a, N
ations-is faang the possrUUrlity of Q, v ~ a ~ G v ~ ° b 'N ~ N ~ b .5~ ' G ~ N ~ ° p,. N ~ ~ x ~ rl, m
losing its entire budget for die .ti y ~ ~ 'n p° ~ w .N ' y ~ o .n ° d . ~ ~ ° ~
v a.~ f o v Yp~~' 'crly G o4A 01 v 3-G a'~
1993 fis~~l year, which begins ~ d, v v p ~ a a, ~ .b a, ° G ~ o ~ o •y ~ o -°a, •~..r a a
Jul} 1, as the stale seeks $&1 mil- a, > ~ b ° G o ~ F, v > ,n v o b ~ o rn ,n ~ o • o
a iX o A 5 cr~ y rn o v G o G
lion in fundin to accommodate w° cpi'G • > m ~ ~ m v ~'Q ° a N x ~
v..~ro•~3 3 v o,-;x°:01 a,. °Hx oc~.° ~Go;g
to H y f0 H O • G OO•'-' b ~ C, ',y . 4., '.y .
educational needs. ~ 'a, ~ oo ro ° ~ oo v ~ ~ ~ ~ > a 'v ~ ro ~ H b ~ ~ y ~ ° p. ° .a [
State Re Chris Kell ,chair- ° ~ ~ v ~ ~ ° 'a [ ~ ° 3 ~ a, tJ ~ -i°- m :a o a ~ ~ ~ ~ c, v c ~
man of the House Budget Com• ~ A ~ ~ ~ o ~ o ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 ~ a.~ ~ '`i7 ~ o ~ .c ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ •n° n 3 ~ .5 ~ ~ ° ~
mittee, proposed last month at a cn
meeting of the Joint Interim
Committee on the State E3udget
Crisis that all fundin for die
tourism division be eLminated. ,
The elimination of funding
could happen easily enough,
said Steve lCappler, public rela-
tions manager for die tourism di-
vision. "As the budget mmes
tluough the [House [3udget]
committee, all that would leave b
happen is that $0 be voted in for
the tourism budget," he said.
RECEIVED MAR 3 0 1992
. .,.x ~ ~ r~x~
e
\
,o\
COLORADO'S .
FRONT
MINUTES RANG E
COLORADO TOURISM ADVISORY COUNCIL
February 12th, 1992 - 1 p.m.
Radisson -Denver
Attendees:
Rich Meredith Deb Milo Paul McEncroe
Terry Sullivan Senator Tilman Bishop Kent Zimmerman
Dennis Van Patter Eileen Omhoefer Joe Fitzpatrick
Darlene Scott Maryann Virgili Debbie Kovalik
Hilton Fitt-Peaster Dwight Bower Judy Pryor
Dudley Smith Wright Catlow Bob Foster
John Tindall Barb Neal Liz Smith
George Woolsey Dave Tragethon Ken Francis
Kitty Clemens - Janie McCullough Dave Strunk
Dan Hopkins Tom Kleinschnitz Fred Epplen
Pat Lee Laura Myers
Guests:
Bill Douglas Wayne Hutchins Mick Snapp
Liz Cannon
The meeting was called to order by Kent Zimmerman at 1:10 p.m.
WELCOME
Senator Tilman Bishop welcomed those in attendance. He noted the
importance of the representation and link between the transportation, slci,
accommodation, restaurant, and attraction industries to the policy makers.
He commended the efforts of the Colorado Tourism Board staff as well as
those staff managing the efforts of the State Welcome Centers. Senator
Tilman Bishop stated that two forth coming Welcome Centers will be in Fort
Collins and Julesburg.
Senator Tilman Bishop is excited by the international market and that
Colorado is becoming more global.
2440 PEARL
BOULDER, CO
8 0 3 0 2
1.800-444-0447
(303)442-2911
~ Advisory Council
February 12th, 1992
Page 3 of 6.
Comments on the Advisory Council
Rich Meredith stated that the purpose of the Advisory Council is to
determine goals on statewide and federal issues. The Intermodel Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act and the 1993 sunset of the CTB legislation are
issues that affect Colorado and must be proactively conveyed to the public.
SMITHSONIAN AIR ~ SPACE MUSEUM - BOETCHER FOUNDATION
Bill Douglas, Wayne Hutchins and Mick Snapp with the Boetcher Foundation
presented the plan to convert Stapleton International Airport into a facility
to house the Air & Space Museum.
Bill Douglas explained that presently the Air & Space Museum will be
awarded to Dulles Airport and that House Bill 3281 proposes a national
competition for the Smithsonian site. He encouraged those in attendance to
lobby in/out of -state representatives to support HB 3281 to allow a
competition for the site. Bill Douglas suggested sending enthusiastic letters
of support to congressmen and/or to Mich Snapp, Stapleton
Redevelopment, Stapleton International Airport, Denver, CO 80207.
Bill Douglas emphasized that an estimated 2.5 million visitors per year
would be drawn from first, second and tertiery states.
Wayne Hutchins noted a number of points - $10 million has been secured for
this venture at no cost to the Smithsonian Institute, 1.5 million square feet
is available which exceeds the 670,000 square feet requirements for the
facility, the site availability matches the timing, parking facilities for 5,000
cars is intact within close proximity to the proposed museum, and a
tremendous tourism base with easy access to main corridors of the state.
COLORADO ALTITUDE RESEARCH INSTITUTE (CART)
Dr. Jack Reeves, professor of medicine -pediatrics, founder of the Altitude
Awareness Institute presented statistical information on the effects of
altitude on conference attendees to Keystone, Vail and Winter Park.
He explained that as you go higher, the barometric pressure decreases, the
air is thinner and less oxygen is available resulting in your body working
harder to pump blood and breathe. Reactions may be to develop a headache,
a touch of nausea, unusual tiredness, shortness of breath and dizziness.
P
Advisory Council
February 12th, 1992
Page 5 of 6.
ACTION PLAN
Kent Zimmerman reviewed the strategies:
1. One week in spring and in fall a group of 4-5 volunteers will
perform an educational CTB efforts blitz.
2. Every Advisory Council meeting, one paragraph updates from members '
will be submitted to Kent Zimmerman.
4. Each Advisory Council member commits to bring one guest
representative to the Advisory Board meetings at least once a year.
6. Region Efforts -
- Provide a communication link twice a year in a formal
presentation.
- Keep in touch with our own constituents.
- Keep in touch with each state representative respective to area.
TOURISM TASK FORCE
Kent Zimmerman reported that the Task Force will address various issues in
the next few months. .
Kent Zimmerman requested that the Speakers Bureau work with Rich
Meredith and Deb Milo on developing an agenda and plan. The Speakers
Bureau volunteer panel consists of Pat Lee, Kitty Clemens, Liz Smith, Terry
Sullivan, Deb Kovalik, Ken Francis, and John Tindall. Pat Lee motioned to
approve a Speakers Bureau and Tom Klienschnitz seconded. All were in
favor. The motion passed.
NEW BUSINESS
Dwight Bower introduced George Osborne with the U.S. Department of
Transportation Federal Highway Administration.
Fred Epplen noted the importance of the effects of the Sunset Tax dated for
June 30, 1993 and how the Advisory Council should be proactive to ensure
that the tax does not disappear. He encouraged lobbying with senate and
house representatives.
Hilton Fitt-Peaster explained that TIAC is an up and coming organization of
industry and non-profit tourism organizations. He encouraged participation
with TIAC which is also taking a proactive role in legislative issues. Pat Lee
added that on January 13th, 1992 130 tourism industry representatives and
66 legislative representatives attended the first function of TIAC at the
Denver Buffalo Club.
. RECt=~vEO - t tssz
I-ILtU
~ aura ainaa~ aoo+.
IN THE UN1 t t?D STATES DISTRICT COURT caroc~ cocoa
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
MAR 3 01992
Civil Action No. 89 N 1098 '~M~ ~ M~NSPEgKE)?
• CLERk
LODGE TOWER CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION and TOWN OF VAIL,
Plaintiffs,
V. J
LODGE PROPER 1 irS, INC.; WESTERN LAND EXCHANGE COMPANY; CLAYTON
' YEL i 1 trR, SECRETARY, UNi 1 t:D STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE;
F. DALE ROBERTSON, CHIEF, U]V i i ~D STATES FOREST SERVICE; MANUAL
LUJAN, JR., SECRETARY, ~ UNi i r,D STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR;
GARY E. CARGILL, REGIONAL FORESTER, ROCKY MOUNTAIN REGION,
UNi i trD STATES FOREST SERVICE; NEIL F. MORCK, STATE DIRECTOR,
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, UNi t r,D STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE
INTERIOR,
Defendants.
RECOMMENDATION OF UNrrr.~ STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiffs' Lodge Tower Condominium (Lodge Tower) and the Town of Vail (Vail)
commenced this action seeking to invalidate a land exchange between the United States and .
Western Land Exchange Company (Western), acting on behalf of Lodge Properties, Inc.
(LPI). The defendants are Clayton Yeutter, Secretary of -the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA), F. Dale Robertson, Chief of the U.S. Forest Service, Manual Lujan,
Secretary of the U.S. Department of the Interior (Interior), Gary Cargill, Regional Forester .
' and Neil Morck, State Director of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) (referred to
collectively as the "Federal Defendants"), LPI and Western (referred to collectively as the
"Private Defendants"). The Private Defendants have moved to dismiss and for summary
judgment. Both the Plaintiffs and the Federal Defendants have filed motions for partial
X~ ; RAP
Te
summary judgment. On January 8, 1992, a Special Order of Reference was signed by
United States District Judge Edward W. Nottingham pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(1)(8) and
Rule 603 of the Local Rules of Practice referring these motions to me for a proposed
recommendation as to disposition. For the reasons contained herein, it is my
recommendation that the motions of the Federal Defendants and the Plaintiffs be granted
in part and denied in part. I further recommend that the motion of the Private Defendants
be denied.'
I. THE FACTS
The land at issue comprises 2.07 acres, known as the Lodge Parcel, situated in the
Town of Vail and formerly owned by the United States Forestry Service. On June 26, 1989,
the United States exchanged this land for 385.81 acres of wilderness property in a three-way
transaction involving the United States, Western, and a third party.2 A overview of the
events, particularly the administrative process preceding the land exchange, is necessary for
' a full understanding of the issues presented by the various motions.
' A. The First Decision to Exchange and Environmental Assessment
' The parties have submitted voluminous briefs, as well as supporting documents. After
examining the briefs, the supporting documentation, and the administrative record, I have
determined that oral argument would not materially assist in resolving the issues presented.
2 The land acquired by the United States consisted of private inholdings in the Eagles
Nest Wilderness (the Wilderness Parcel). LPI obtained an option to purchase the
Wilderness Parcel from Janice Sterrett and Valerie Olsen. In a three-way closing out of
escrow, the Private Defendants paid Sterrett and Olsen for the Wilderness Parcel, the
United States issued a patent to Western for the Lodge Parcel, and LPI conveyed the
Wilderness Parcel to the United States.
2
In late 1983, the Forest Service proposed amulti-parcel land exchange to which LPI,
through its agent Western, responded.' (Vol. I, p. 4).' In December of 1983, the Forest
Supervisor notified the Boards of County Commissioners in those counties affected by the
proposed exchange. (Vol. 1, p. 60). On January 6, 1984, the Forest Supervisor issued a
Notice of Publication describing the areas and terms of the proposed exchange. (Vol. I, p.
95).
On January 11, 1984, the Town of Vail, through Paul K. Strickland, lodged an initial
objection to the proposed exchange. (Vol. I, p. 75). Over the next several months the
Mayor of Vail, as well as dozens of Vail residents wrote to the Forest Service expressing
concerns over and objections to the proposed exchange. (Vol. II, pp. 7-159; Vol. VII, pp.
120-154, 168).
On January 31, 1986, the Regional Forester issued his first Decision Notice (DN(1))
regarding the land exchange proposal. DN(1) included a finding of no significant
. envirnmental impact (FONSI) based upon an Environmental Assessment (EA), conducted
in November, 1984. (Vol. VII, p. 1). On March 7, 1986, Vail appealed the FONSI. (Vol.
VII, p. 9). Thereafter, on March 13 and 14, 1986, other Notices of Appeal were filed by a .
As originally proposed, the exchange between the Forest Service and Western included
a larger Lodge Parcel than the one finally conveyed, as well as an additional parcel, known
as Spraddle Creek, which was not included in the final transaction . Ad. Rec. Vol. II, p. 1.
~ Citations to the administrative record will be by volume and page (V. p. For
reasons not disclosed by the file, the pagination of the administrative record was
accomplished in reverse order. As a result, the initial page of each document has a higher
page number than later pages of the same document.
3
citizens' group, as well as by Emmett Mossman and David Cooper (Vol. VII, pp. 24-32).
The appellants submitted a lengthy Statement of Reasons in support of their appeals;
appended letters from town officials, residents and property owners; and attached a petition
with over 1100 signatures of individuals protesting the proposed exchange.
On May 19, 1986, the Deputy Regional Forester issued a statement indicating that
the November, 1984 EA might have been deficient. As a result, the DN(1) was withdrawn,
thereby mooting the pending appeals. (Vol. VII, p. 309). A supplement to the original EA
was ordered. (Vol. VII, p. 310).
B. The Second Decision Notice ~DN(211 and Anneal
On June 19, 19$6, a new Decision Notice and FONSI were issued by~ the Regional
Forester. (Vol. I, p. 173). DN(Z) also contained a finding that the exchange was in the
public interest, as required by 43 U.S.C. § 1716. The accompanying revised EA included
discussions of the proposed exchange, alternatives to the proposed exchange, and public
interest evaluations for each alternative. (Vol. VI, p. 110). In discussing the first alternative,
which involved a conveyance of the Lodge Parcel to the Private Defendants, the EA
assumed that the most probable use of the property would be for the addition of 100 hotel
rooms to the Lodge at Vail. (Vol. VI, p. 96). The EA noted that this assumed use would
provide a significant positive benefit to the economy and tax base of Vail. (Vol. VI, p. 91).
On July 28, 1986, Mossman, Cooper, and Vail appealed DN(2) and the EA (Vol. VI, .
pp. 118-167). The parties to the appeal were permitted to make oral statements at the ~
4
r
offices of the Associate Deputy Chief of the USFS.S (Vol. VI, pp. 277, 292). Thereafter,
on April 29, 1987, the Chief of the Forest Service remanded the matter to the Regional
Forester. (Vol. I, p. 176). In essence, the Chief concluded that he had no basis for
reviewing either DN(2) or the EA because no appraisal had been made of the lands
involved in the proposed exchange. (Vol. VI, p. 301).
C. The An~raisal Process. the Third Decision Notice (DN(311, and Appeal
The land subject to the exchange was appraised. (Vol. V, p. 274). The appraisal of
the 2+ acre Lodge Parcel noted that the existing zoning by Vail was for open space.
Nevertheless, the appraiser assumed that the most feasible use of the parcel would be for
recreational residential purposes. (Vol. V, p. 266). As a result, the valuation of the Lodge
Parcel was predicated upon development of one single family residence (the highest and best
use permissible under the zoning which the appraiser. determined to be most probable once -
the land was placed in private hands). (Vol. V, pp. 250-51).6 DN(3) was issued on
September 17, 1987. Based on the 1986 EA, DN(3) concluded that the exchange would be
s Decisions made by Forest Supervisors are appealed to the Regional Forester; decisions
made by the Regional Forester are appealed to the Chief of the Forest Service; and
decisions of the Chief of the Forest Service maybe appealed to the Secretary of Agriculture.
Review by the Secretary is wholly discretionary and,: if not specifically accepted for review
by the Secretary within ten days of filing, the Chief's decision becomes final. 36 c:rx
6 The Forest Service Appraisal Handbook (FSH 5409.12 § 1.12(1)) requires that
appraisers determine fair market value of land as if privately owned, irrespective of its
present ownership. Although Vail's zoning for Forest Service land was open space, the .
appraiser concluded that in private hands, the zoning would be upgraded to permit some
type economic utilization.
5
in the public interest and found that it would not have a significant environmental impact.
(Vol. I, pp. 182-187). Appeals were again taken by Vail, Mossman, Cooper, and Lodge
Tower, the latter requesting intervenor status. (Vol. V, pp. 1-4, 10-15, and 299-303). The
appeals raised numerous issues, including alleged deficiencies in the EA, the FONSI, and
the appraisal.
On June 16, 1988, the Chief of the Forest Service upheld DN(3) on all issues except
the validity of appraisal, and remanded the to the Regional Forester for the limited purpose
of reappraisal. (Vol. I, p. 189). The Chiefs instructions upon remand were to reappraise
the Lodge Parcel as if it were zoned "the same as existing and/or potential zoning of nearby
similar or adjoining private properties." (Vol. I, p. 189).
A subsequent appraisal was completed on November 1, 1988. (Vol. II, p. 347). The
appraiser concluded that, although the surrounding properties were commercially zoned, the
highest and best use for the Lodge Parcel under the most probable zonine applicable if the
property were in private hands, would be for one, or perhaps two, residential homesites.'
(Vol. II, p. 357). The appraisal valued the 2.07 acre parcel at $915,000.$
'The appraiser cited political, legal and economic infeasibility of upzoning including
incompatible adjacent land uses, physical constraints of the site and political opposition to
development. (Vol. II, p. 357). Additionally, the appraiser cited two recent failed attempts
to simply subdivide property for single family use. (Vol. II, p. 356).
e Vail submitted an appraisal report prepared by an independent appraiser who
concluded that the 2.07 acre parcel had an estimated value of $4,263,000, based on a highest
and best use of 37 condominium units averaging 1,500 square ~ feet per unit. The vast
difference in valuation between Vail's appraiser and the Forest Service appraiser was clearly
due to a divergence of opinion regarding the zoning issue. Vail's appraiser took the Chief's
instructions literally, and appraised the propery as if it were zoned commercially. On the
6
D. The Final Decision Notice (DN(411 and AoDeal
On November 8, 1988, yet another decision notice and FONSI were issued by the
Regional Forester. (Vol. I, p. 194). Unlike previous versions, DN(4) addressed the matter
of public access on the existing Mill Creek Road. While reserving a perpetual easement in
the patent, DN(4) further provided that "Lodge Properties, Inc., shall have the right to
relocate said access easements at the Lodge's sole expense, provided such relocation does
not interfere with use of the road by the United States or the public." (Vol. I, p. 193). It
was specifically noted in DN(4)'that the Lodge Parcel had been reduced from 2.5 acres to
2.07 acres. DN(4) made no mention of the fact that the development assumptions in the
1986 EA were inconsistent with the development assumptions utilized by the Forest Service's
appraiser in valuing the Lodge Parcel.
Administrative appeals to the Chief of the Forest Service were filed by Lodge Tower,
Vail, and Mossman, and Western was granted leave to intervene. In addition, Lodge Tower
- requested a stay of the decision pending appeal. (Vol. IV, p. 8). On December 22, 1988, .
the Reviewing Officer (the Associate Deputy Chief) granted a stay, indicating that deeds or
patents should not be exchanged until the Forest Service ruled on the merits of the appeal.
. (Vol. TV, p. 23). Prior appeals had resolved all matters except the adequacy of the .
reappraisal. With respect to this remaining issue, DN(4) stated: '"The approved appraisals
other hand, the Forest Service appraiser took into account Vail's zoning history and the : _ .
town's attitude toward development of the Lodge Parcel in arriving at his opinion that the
most probable zoning of the property in private hands would be primary/secondary
residential. -
7
meet the requirements of law, policy, the Chiefs remand order, and the appraisal
instructions which were concurred in by the Chief." (Vol. I, p. 193). On June 16, 1989, the
reviewing officer affirmed DN(4). (Vol. IV, p. 607). On June 26, 1989, the acting Assistant
Secretary of Agriculture determined not review the matter. (Vol. II, p. 413).
E. The exchange Arocess
Even as the the administrative appeal of DN(4) was pending before the Chief of the
Forest Service, the Defendants were taking steps to insure that the exchange would close on
- an expedited basis if the appeal process concluded favorably to them. On May 30, 1989, the
Forest Service, LPI and the third-party owners of the Wilderness Parcel executed escrow
instructions. These instructions required that all documents and monies necessary to close
the exchange would be held in escrow by a title company.' (Vol. I, pp. 134-38). Further,
and notwithstanding the pendency of the appeal, on June 2, 1989, the Regional Director of
Lands for the Forest Service requested the BLM to issue a patent for the Lodge Parcel,
certifying that the exchange met the requirements of law and regulations. (Vol. I, pp. 295-
97).
On June 26, 1989, and within minutes of receiving the notification that the Secretary
had declined review, the closing out of escrow occurred, and the title documents were
recorded. By the time Plaintiffs Sled this action, approximately ten minutes after the
recording of the deeds and patents, the status Quo ante had already been altered, thereby
9 A cash equalization payment of $145,000 was paid to the Forest Service by LPI in
order to balance the value amount of the 2.07 acre parcel with the 385 acres of wilderness : -
acreage being exchanged. (Vol. I, p. 296). ~ .
8
1
effectively mooting Plaintiffs' Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order filed along with
their complaint.
II. THE FEDERAL DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SLI2v1MARY JUDGMENT
A. Propriety of Summary Judgment
Before delving into the merits of the Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment, the Court must first consider the propriety of summary judgment at this stage of
the proceedings. While it would appear that suits for judicial review under the
Administrative Procedure Act based upon an administrative record would readily lend
themselves to resolution on motions for summary judgment, there are indications in the
decisions of the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit leading to a contrary conclusion.
E.g.. Heber Vallev Milk Co. v. Butz, 503 F.2d 96 (10th Cir. 1974); Nickol v. United States,
501 F.2d 1389 (10th Cir. 1974). These decisions suggest that when a court reviews an
administrative record to determine whether the agency's decision is supported by substantial
evidence, the court must enter findings of fact and, thus, summary judgment may be
inappropriate. Later cases have read Heber and Nickol as not precluding summary
judgment in administrative review cases, but rather as simply requiring that the trial court
explain its decision in sufficient detail to permit appellate review. E.g.. Hallenbeck v.
Klenne. 590 F.2d 852 (10th Cir. 1979); Hil] v. Morton. 525 F.2d 327 (10th Cir. 1975).10
I have fully reviewed the administrative record in this case, and my Recommendation
to It should also be noted that Nickol and Hill involved review under a "substantial
evidence" standard. As discussed more fully in the text infra. the appropriate standard for
review here is whether the agency's action was "arbitrary and capricious:'
9
v
will outline in detail the factual support in the record for each of my conclusions. I have
further determined that the the issues raised by the cross motions for summary judgment
and by the motion to dismiss can be resolved as a matter of law by a review of the
administrative record, without further judicial proceedings. As a result, is appears to be of
little consequence whether my recommended disposition is deemed to be pursuant Rule 56
or is considered to be a non-Rule 56 determination based upon an examination and review
. of the, agency record. ~
B. The First Claim for Relief (The Forest Service's Findine of Public Interest under .
FLPMAI
Both the General Exchange Act, 16 U.S.C. §485 and FLPMA, 43 U.S.C. § 1716(a)
permit the Secretary of Agriculture to exchange lands in national forests upon a
determination that the exchange wi71 serve and benefit the public interest. Additionally,
FLPMA mandates that in considering the public interest, the Secretary shall give full
consideration to "better Federal land management and the needs of State and local people,
including needs for lands for the economy, community expansion, recreation areas, food,
fiber, minerals, and fish and wildlife 43 U.S.C. § 1716(a)." The Plaintiffs' first claim
for relief asserts that (a) the Secretary's decision to enter into the exchange is not in the
public interest; and (b) the Secretary improperly applied the criteria identified in Section
1716(a). The Federal Defendants have moved for summary judgment on this claim on the
"Similar "public interest" type findings are required under 43-U.S.C. § 1716(b) (the
Secretary must find that the Federal land is "proper for transfer out of Federal ownership
and 36 C.F.R. § 254.3(a)(1)(iv)(the parcel must be "suitable for elimination from the
NFS.").
10
.c
grounds that (a) the complaint fails to state a claim for relief; (b) Plaintiffs' failed to
adequately raise the issue of public interest in the administrative proceedings; (c) the
,Secretary's public interest determination is not reviewable; and (d) even if reviewable, the
Secretary's decision was not arbitrary and capricious.
The first claim for relief in Plaintiffs' first amended and supplemental complaint
alleges that the land exchange here in question is not in the public interest, and that the
Lodge Parcel is not proper for transfer out of federal ownership. Paragraph 45 of the first
- amended and supplemental complaint contains a summary of factors supporting the
Plaintiffs' position. In addition, a lengthy statement of facts, contained in paragraphs 14-39,
is incorporated by reference into the first claim for relief and discusses the Federal
- Defendants' decision to exchange the Lodge Parcel for the Wilderness Parcel. (Complaint, -
paragraph 26(a)-(g)).
The government asserts that these allegations are inadequate because they do not
. sufficiently specify the reasons why the retention of the Lodge Parcel in federal ownership
would better promote the public interest. Of course, F.R.C.P. 8(a)(2) merely requires a
short and plain statement of a party's claim for relief. Allegations pass muster if they give
the apposing party fair notice of the claim and permit him to prepare a responsive pleading.
Runvan v. United Brotherhood of Carpenters. 566 F: Supp. 600, 608 (D. Colo. 1983). A
complaint should not be dismissed unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can
prove no set of facts which would entitle him to' relief. , Conlev v. G~~son, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46
(1957); Harbert v. RaDD. 415 F. Supp. 83 (D. Okla. 1976). Judged by the liberal pleading
11
v
standards applicable under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the allegations in the first
claim for relief contain the requisite specificity to withstand a motion to dismiss or a motion
. for summary judgment premised on pleading deficiencies.
The Federal Defendants next contend that judicial review of the Regional Forester's
public interest finding is barred, because the plaintiffs failed to raise the issue during the
administrative appeal process. °Absent exceptional circumstances, a reviewing court will not
consider questions which were not raised before 'the administrative agency. Hormel v.
. Helverin~, 312 U.S. 552 (1940); Wilson v. Hodel. 758 F.2d 1369 (10th Cir. 1985).
After reviewing the Statements of Reasons (SORB) filed by the Plaintiffs, and the
attachments thereto, I conclude that the public interest issues were adequately raised during
the administrative process. For example, the SORB relating to the appeals of DN(1) and
DN(2) are replete with discussions of factors which were either allegedly not considered or
not adequately considered in the initial EA. Specifically, the SORB take issue with the
FONSI in light of the EA's assumptions as to the proposed use of the Lodge Parcel by the
Private Defendants. The fact that the contentions are directed at the EA, rather than at
the public interest factors identified in FLPMA is not signficant, since many of the same
considerations are applicable to both. Deficiencies in the appraisal process and the agency's
highest and best use determinations are discussed in detail in the SORB filed pursuant to the
appeals of DN(3) and DN(4). Although the SORs may not have expressly identified these
matters as going to the issue of "public interest" under 43 U.S.C. § 1716, this, in itself, should
not bar the Plaintiffs from judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act.
12
While the plaintiffs have satisfied the procedural conditions precedent to invoke their
right of judicial review, the Federal Defendants' position concerning the plaintiffs'
substantive right to review has some degree of merit. The Administrative Procedure Act,
5 U.S.C. § 701(a)(2) expressly precludes judicial review of any administrative action which
is committed to agency discretion by law. The Courts have construed this exclusion
narrowly, holding that its application is limited to those rare situations where a statute is
drawn in such broad terms that there is "no law to appIy." Citizens to Preserve Overton
Park v. Vole, 401 U.S. 402, 410 (1970). Though the exception is narrow, it has consistently
been applied to the ultimate finding of an administrative agency that its decision is in the
public interest. E.e. Sellas v. Kirk, 200 F.2d 217 (9th Cir. 192), cert. denied, 345 U.S. 940
(1953); Ferrv v. Udall, 336 F.Zd 706 (9th Cir. 1964), cert. denied,. 381 U.S. 904 (1965).
More specifically, the "committed to agency discretion" exemption has been found applicable
to public interest findings made in connection with federal land exchange decisions. Siena
Club v. Hickel, 467 F.2d 1048, 1051 (6th Cir. 1972), cert. denied sub nom.. Sierra Club v.
Morton, 411 U.S. 920 (1973); Lewis v. Hickel, 427 F.2d 673 (9th Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 400
U.S. 992 (1971).
The final determination as to whether federal lands are appropriate for transfer out
of federal ownership and whether a land exchange is in the public interest involves a
weighing and balancing of costs and benefits. This weighing and balancing process is not
governed by legal principles, but is peculiarly within the expertise. of the administrative
agency charged with managing the land in question. As such, the ultimate decision that an
13
r
exchange is in the public interest is nonreviewable.'Z
Although the finding of public interest, in itself, is not reviewable, this does not mean
that the entire decision-making process relating to land exchanges is outside the realm of
. judicial scrutiny. Judical review may still be available on specific questions. National Forest
Preservation Group v. Butz, 485 F.2d 408 (9th Cir. 1973). For example, 43 U.S.C. § 1716(a)
mandates that in considering the public interest, the Secretary of Agriculture must "give full
. consideration to better Federal land managment and the needs of State and local people,
includine needs for lands fqr the economy. community expansion. recreation areas. food,
fiber, minerals, and fish and wildlife Under Section 706(2)(A) of the Administrative
Procedure Act, this Court has the power to "hold unlawful and set aside agency action "
found to be arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with
law." One of the matters to be addressed by the ~ Court under 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A) is
whether the Secretary properly considered the relevant factors identified in 43 U.S.C.
i
§ 1716(a). Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402, 416 (1970)("court must
consider whether decision was based on consideration of the relevant factors See
also Florida Power & Lieht Co. v. Lorion, 470 U.S: 729, 743 (1985); Motor Vehicle MfQrs.
Assn v. State Farm Mut. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29 (1983); Kancia v. Immisration &
Naturalization Service, 944 F.2d 702, 708 (10th Cir. 1991); Central States Const. v. Small
u Likewise, the Plaintiffs would not be entitled to a review of the Federal Defendants'
decision to determine whether it is based on substantial evidence. A substantial evidence
review is limited to situations where the agency is exercising its rulemaking power or its
decision is based on a public adjudicatory hearing. Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v.
Volpe, 401 U.S. 402 (1970).
14
Business Admin., 770 F. Supp. 1447, 1453 (D. Kan. 1991)
. The administrative record in this case reveals that the Regional Forester's finding of
public interest was premised in substantial part upon an assumed use of the Lodge Parcel
for additional hotel accommodations. The the 1986 Environmental Assessment, which
formed the basis for the Forest Service's NEPA findings of no significant impact, as well as
for its FLPMA findings of public interest, indicated that if this proposed use was approved
by the town, approximately 100 hotel rooms would be added. (Vol VI, p. 093). The 1986
EA also stated:
Potentially, the most significant positive benefit of exchanging
this Parcel is the economic impact on the Town of Vail.
S,praddle Creek and the Lodge parcels could be added to the
Town's tax base. Also, stimulation of the local economy could
. be enhanced through local workforce members if development _
occurs on these parcels. A study conducted in 1983 bv_
manaeement consultants Pannell. Kern & Forrester indicates
. ~ that the Vail Villaee area needs additional hotel
accommodations to effectively market its services. Additionally.
increased accommodations will be needed to meet needs
associated with the Drooosed ski area expansion. This arcel
would offer that oDnortunity. (Vol. VI, p. 091).
Atlhough both the findings of no significant environment impact and public interest
were predicated on the use of the Lodge Parcel for development of hotel accomodations,
even the 1986 EA recognized that such a use was dependent upon a change in Vail's zoning
classifications. (See Vol. VI, at p. 093, where the EA observes: "In fact, no development
can occur unless the current zoning classifications are changed to allow more intensive uses
such as those contemplated by Lodge Properties, Inc.").
After the preparation of the EA, the Forest Service essentially abandoned its position '
15
that the Lodge Parcel would be utilized for development of hotel accomodations. Instead,
during the appraisal process required under FLPMA, the Forest Service appraisers adopted
the position that the most probable use of the Lodge Parcel would be for primary/secondary
residential development as a single homesite or as two homesites. (Vol. N, p. 379). The
appraisers concluded that there was little or no demand for additional hotel rooms in Vail,
and that the adoption by Vail of zoning which would permit the construction of hotel
accomodations or any other commercial use was highly unlikely. (Vol. N, pp. 385-383).
The Regional Forester accepted the Forest Service appraiser's position concerning
the most likely use of the Lodge Parcel. Thus, in the Responsive Statement to the
co~,solidated appeals of DN(4), the Regional Forester stated that (a) the Lodge Parcel was
not physically suited for development as afree-standing hotel; (b) the economic viability of
anew hotel development was questionable; and (c) the the town of Vail was not likely to
zone the parcel for commercial or multi-family residential development. (Vol. N, p. 456).
DN(4), issued on November 11, 1988, implicitly adopts the opinion of the Forest
Service appraiser regarding the most probable use of the bodge Parcel. (See Vol. I, pp. 194,
wherein the Regional Forester adopts the Forest Service appraiser's valuation of the Lodge
Parcel). Yet, the FONSI and public interest finding is premised on the information
contained in the 1986 EA, which, in turn, considered an entirely different utilization of the .
property."
" The Federal Defendants' brief in support of their motion for partial summary
judgment states that the public interest evaluation for Forest Service land exchange
proposals is accomplished as part of the NEPA evaluation. See Govenment's Memorandum
16
The Federal Defendants argue that the discrepancy between the the most probable
use of the Lodge Parcel identified during the valuation process and the assumed use for
purposes of the public interest and FONSI determinations is simply a result of different
standards applicable under the FLPMA valuation procedures and NEPA. I have reviewed
the FLPMA valuation procedures contained in the Uniform Appraisal Standards and the
Forest Service Appraisal Handbook; the statutory factors which the Forest Service is
required to take into account in determining whether a land exchange is in the public
interest; and the methodology to be employed in complying with NEPA. I find no conflict
among them. Where federal action consists of conveying federal lands to private developers,
neither the public interest nor the enviromental impact can be adequately considered
without an agency assessment of the most likely or probable use of the property once it
- comes into private hands. See Northern Plains Resources Council v. Luian. 874 F.2d 661,
666 (9th Cir. 1989).
The Federal Defendants apparently acknowledge that they. must analyze public
interest based on the most probable future development of the land by the transferee. They
assert that they complied with this requirement by eliciting statements from LPI that it
wished to utilize the Lodge Parcel for hotel expansion. See Federal Defendants' Brief
Opposing Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment, pp. 24-25). However, where, as here, -
the agency determines that neither existing nor reasonably probable future local zoning
would permit such a use, the developer's hypothetical plans are at best speculative and at
In Support of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, p. 9.
17
worst illusory.
In short, the administrative record clearly establishes that the public interest findings
1
made by the Regional Forester and affirmed by the Chief Forest Service are based, at least
in part, upon an assumed use of the subject property which is im.grohable at best. The
spirit, if not the letter, of FLPMA requires that the factors identified in 43 U.S.C. § 1716(a)
be evaluated based upon the most probable utilization of the Lodge Parcel. While a judicial
tnbunal should not substitute its judgment for that of the Forest Service concerning the most
probable development of the subject property, the court cannot abdicate its reviewing
responsiblity under the Administrative Procedure Act by sanctioning the selection of a use
which the agency itself views as largely fictional.
Based on the foregoing, I conclude that the Federal Defendants are not entitled to
judgment as a matter of law on the Plaintiffs' first claim for relief, and, therefore, I
recommend that the Federal Defendants'~Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on the first
claim for relief be denied.14
C. The Second and Fifth Claims for Relief (Valuation under FLPMAI
The exchange provisions of FLPMA require an equalization of value between the
parcels being transferred into and out of federal ownership. In this regard, 43 U.S.C. .
§ 1716(b) states:
14 The fact that the moving party is not entitled to judgment under the applicable law
is an appropriate basis for denying a motion for summary judgment. See Krieeer v.
Ownership Corp., 270 F.2d 265 (2d Cir.1959); Welt v. Koehrine Co., 482 F. Supp. 437 (N.D. ~
Ill. 1979). ~ .
18
The values of the lands exchanged by the Secretary under this
Act and by the Secretary of Agriculture under applicable law
relating to lands within the National Forest System either shall
be equal, or if they are not equal, the values shall be equalized
by the payment of money to the grantor or to the Secretary.
concerned as the circumstances require so long as payment does
not exceed 25 per centum of the total value of the lands or
interests transferred out of the Federal ownership.
The Plaintiffs' second claim for relief contends that the Forest Service failed to
appraise the Lodge Parcel in accordance with applicable regulations and instructions
regarding highest and best use and, as a result, the land was significantly undervalued. The -
fifth claim for relief alleges that the Forest Service appraisal underlying the exchange
decision valued the Lodge Parcel as of May 15, 1987, although the final decision to approve
the land exchange did not occur until November 8, 1988. This delay, argue the Plaintiffs,
resulted in a violation of agency guidelines which provide that an appraisal is only valid for
one year from the date of an exchange agreement.. Forest Service Manual § 5413.1(2)
(Unless fixed by an exchange agreement, the appraised value is valid for one year from the
date of the appraisal.).
The Federal Defendants have moved for summary judgment on the second and fifth ,
claims on the grounds that (a) Plaintiffs have no right of action and/or no remedy under the
Administrative Procedure Act; and (b) Plaintiffs lack standing to raise valuation issues under
FLPMA. Wh~e I disagree with the Federal Defendants on their first point, I fully concur
with their second contention.
The Administrative Procedure Act vests the federal courts with jurisdiction to review
19
agency action and also constitutes a waiver of the government's sovereign immunity. The
Federal Defendants acknowledge this Court's jurisdiction, but assert that because the
exchange has already occurred and a patent has issued for the Lodge Parcel, the Plaintiffs
have no right of action. In support of this position, the Federal Defendants rely on several
decisions indicating that only those who assert a superior title to the government have the
right to attack the validity of a federal land patent. E.Q.. Fisher v. Rule, 248 U.S. 314, 318
(1919); Ravoath. Inc. v. City of Anchorage. 544 F.2d 1019 (9th Cir. 1976); Kale v. United
States, 489 F.2d 449 (9th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 417 U.S. 915 (1974). .
FLPMA itself creates no private right of action. Nevertheless, and contrary to the
Federal Defendants' position, the Administrative Procedure Act does confer a right of action
in favor of aggrieved persons for judicial review of administrative agency decisions. Sierra
Club v. Hodel, 848 F.2d 106$, 1076 (10th Cir. 1988). "Section 702 of the APA permits
actions against an agency even when there is not an implied right of action" under the
particular statute pursuant to which the agency purported to act. Id. The Administrative
Procedure Act confers a broad right to review agency decisions, with only narrow exceptions
where (a) review is expressly prohibited by statute; or (b) the matter is commited to agency
discretion by law. 5 U.S.C. § 701. Absen*. the applicability of one of these two exceptions,
the agency bears "the heavy burden of overcoming the strong presumption that Congress did
not mean to prohibit all judicial review of [the agency's] decision." Dunlop v. Bachowski,
421 U.S. 560, Sfi7 (1975); Sierra Club v. Hodel, 848 F.2d 1068, 1975 (10th Cir. ]988).
I conclude that under the circumstances of this case, the doctrine precluding attack
20
on land patents has no application. Many of the cases cited by the Federal Defendants
involve suits brought by adverse claimants to federal lands. These decisions stand for the
proposition that the Quiet Title Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2409a, supplies the exclusive remedy for
such claims; and that the claimant cannot avoid the mandates of the Quiet Title Act by
bringing an independent suit under the Administrative Procedure Act. E.Q.. Donnelly v.
United States, 841 F.2d 968, 971 (9th Cir. 1988); McIntyre v. United States. 789 F.2d 1408
(9th Cir. 1986); Lee v. United States, 809 F.2d 1406 (9th Cir. 1987), cert. denied sub nom.
Lee v. Eklutna. Inc., 484 U.S. 1041 (1988). However, in the present case, the plaintiffs are
not adverse claimants to the Lodge Parcel. The dispute here does not involve competing
claims to title, but rather the alleged failure of the Forest Service to follow its own
regulations and instructions in processing a proposed land exchange. This type of claim does
not fall within the ambit 'of the Quiet Title Act.
In addition, the administrative record clearly establishes that the escrow arrangements
and other mechanations of the agency to facilitate delivery of the patent within minutes after
the completion of .the administrative appeal were specii•ically designed to preclude judicial
review under the Administrative Procedure Act. The case law amply supports the
proposition that an agency cannot cut off Administrative Procedure Act review or the
availablility of a remedy by simply expediting delivery of a land patent. See Donnelly v.
United States. 841 F.2d 968, 972 n. 5 (9th Cir. 1988)("We decline to construe McIntyre as
requiring the absurd result that the government could deprive someone of property title by
administrative wrongdoing and then immunize its actions by selling the contested property
21
on the eve of trial."); National Forest Preservation Groun v. Butz, 485 F.2d 408, 411 (9th
Cir. 1973).u
Although, under the circumstances presented here, the Administrative Procedure Act
creates a right of review despite the delivery of a patent, I conclude that the~plaintiffs lack
standing to seek review of the Forest Service valuation of the Lodge Parcel. My conclusion -
is premised on the fact that neither of the Plaintiffs can demonstrate a real and immediate
injury arising from the alleged undervaluation of the subject property.
Standing goes to the court's subject matter jurisdiction. United States v. Citv of Twin
Falls. Idaho. 806 F.2d 862 (9th Cir. 1986), cert. denied sub nom. Citv of Twin Falls. Idaho
v. Envirotech COrD., 482 U.S. '914 (1987). In the context of an action under the
Administrative Procedure Act, the standing requirement has both constitutional and statutory
aspects. Article III standing requires that "federal plaintiffs must allege some threatened or
actual injury resulting from the putatively illegal action before a federal court may assume
u The Plaintiffs point to various statutes and regulations, which they allege were violated
by the speedy delivery and recording of the patents and deeds. 43 U.S.C. 1716 and
1718 (Secretary of Interior may issue patents for Forest Service land exchanges only after
any disposal authorized by the Act); 36 C.F.R. § 254.10(d)(administrative rights to appeal
apply to decisions approving land exchanges); FSH 5409.13 -Land Acquisition Handbook
§ 38.4 (prohibition of conveyances of federal lands before completion of congressional
oversight and resolution of appeals); 36 C.F.R. § 211.18(4)(i)(an administrative stay remains
in effect for 10 days after a decision on the merits, unless a different period is specified in
the decision documents). As the Federal Defendants point out, each of these provisions can '
be read as applying only to proceedings which are part of the administrative review process,
and as not bearing on the timing of an exchange once the administrative process is at an
end. Nevertheless, when considered in combination with the Administrative Procedure Act,
there is a clear intent manifested by Congress and the agency itself to permit not only an~
effective administrative appeal, but also an effective and meaningful judicial review.
22
jurisdiction." Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 617 (1973). In other words, standing
in the constitutional sense mandates that there be a nexus between the defendant's allegedly
illegal conduct and .the plaintiff's purported injuries. Sabine River Auth. v. U.S. Dept. of
Interior, 951 F.2d 669 (5th Cir. 1992).
The "injury in fact" necessary to support Article III standing need~not be substantial;
an identifiable trifle will suffice. United States v. Students ChallenQine Reeulatorv Agencv
Procedure (SCRAPI, 412 U.S. 669 (1973). Nevertheless, the injury must be perceptible,
concrete and specific, Id. at 689, as well as real and immediate, rather than conjectural or
hypothetical. California Bankers Assn v. Shultz, 416 U.S. 21, 69 (1974). A plaintiff may not
rely on "the remote possibility unsubstantiated by allegations of fact, that [his] situation might
have been better had respondents acted otherwise, and might improve were the court to
afford relief. Warth v. Seldin. 422 U.S. 490, 507 (1975). Normally, a mere allegation of
"injury in fact" will suffice, but, if controverted by the defendant, the plaintiff must
demonstrate facts supporting his allegation. Public Citizen v. Lockheed Aircraft Coro., 565
F.2d 708, 714 n. 22 (D.C. Cir. 1977). .
In addition to Article III standing, the Administrative Procedure Act has a separate
and distinct standing requirement; namely, that the plaintiff be adversely affected or
aggrieved. This has been construed to require not only a showing of "injury in fact," but also
that the interest sought to be protected by the complainant is arguably within the zone of
interests protected or regulated by the statute which purportedly authorizes the complained
of agency action. Clarke v. Securities Industry Assn, 479 U.S. 388, 395-96 (1987);
23
Association of Data Processing Service Organizations v. Camp, 397 U.S. 150 (1970).
Plaintiffs cannot demonstrate standing simply because they have been injured by the
Forest Service land exchange. Rather, in the present case, the Article III standing
requirement mandates that Plaintiffs show a nonspeculative causal connection between their
injuries and the alleged violation of the equal value provisions of FLPMA. Northern Plains
Resource Council v. Luian, 874 F.2d 661 (9th Cir. 1989). Plaintiffs attempt to establish this
nexus by arguing that the Forest Service appraisers' failure to follow regulations and
instructions regarding the appropriate zoning resulted in an arbitrarily low appraised value
for the Lodge Parcel. They further contend that this insufficient appraised value assigned
to the Lodge Parcel may (a) adversely impact the value of surrounding property; (b) result
in a low assessed value of the Lodge Parcel for property tax purposes; and (c) permit other
property owners in the town of Vail to contest property tax assessments. In support of these
contentions, plaintiffs point to the fact that the county assessor must take into account recent
i
sales of like properties in setting actual value for tax purposes. Mav Stores Shopping
i
Centers. Inc. v. Shoemaker, 151 Colo. 100, 376 P.2d 679 (1962);Colorado and Utah Coal
Company v. Rorex, 149 Colo. 502, 369 P.2d 796 (1962).
Plaintiffs have made no showing that the appraised value assigned to the Lodge
Parcel for purposes of the exchange has negatively impacted either the value of property in
Vail or the assessed valuation assigned to the Lodge Parcel or surrounding land.16 Further,
16 In an attempt to solidify their contentions regarding injury in fact; Plaintiffs have '
submitted affidavits from the Budget Officer of the town of Vail and the appraiser for the
Eagle County Assessor. The Budget Officer's affidavit simply states that if the Forest
24
Plaintiffs' assertion that the Forest Service appraisal will have a significant future bearing on
0
values or assessed valuations is simply erroneous. While the price paid for comparable
properties is clearly a relevant factor in valuing nearby real estate, the comparable sales or
market data approach to value .prohibits consideration of exchanges or swaps which do not
involve cash. E.g.. State v. McDonald, 88 Ariz. 1, 352 P.2d 343 (1960); Department of
Business & Econ. Dev. v. Baumann, 56 Ill. App. 2d 382, 308 N.E.2d 580 (1974); Hav v.
Bogs, 77 Wash. 329, 137 P. 474 (1914); Citv of Cheyenne v. Frangos, 487 P.2d 804 (Wyo.
1971). In addition, unlike actual cash sales prices, appraised valuations of one property may
not be utilized to establish a value for other real estate. See C.R.S. § 39-1-103(5)(a)."
The plaintiffs allege other injuries in fact, including (a) damages which will be
Service appraisal was used as a basis to establish assessed valuation, it would adversely
impact the town's tax base. This adds nothing to the plaintiffs' position regarding standing.
The affidavit of the the appraiser for the Eagle County assessor comes somewhat closer to
the mark by stating that the appraised value of the Lodge Parcel "is one factor" which would
be taken into account for arriving at actual value for assessment purposes. However, the
. matters to be considered for determining actual value for tax purposes are set by statute in
Colorado, and are not left to the discretion of the county tax assessors. C.R.S. § 39-1-
103(5)(a) expressly provides that value shall be based upon the cost approach, the market
approach and the income approach. As indicated in the text, infra, these appraoches do not
permit the consideration of exchange transactions. Furthermore, the affidavit of Jody
Caruthers, the Eagle County Assessor, attached to the Federal Defendant's reply brief, states
that the 1989 full year fair market value for the Lodge Parcel, as set by the assessor, was
$3,606,760, and that, in fact, the assessor did not take zoning into account in arriving at this
value. It is, therefore, clear that neither the valuation nor the reasoning of the Forest
Service appraisals played any part in the assessor's valuation for tax purposes.
" Prior to 1983, C.R.S. § 39-1-103(5)(a) did permit consideration of "known or
recognized value" of other properties and "appraisal value for loan purposes on comparable
properties" in setting actual value for tax assessments. The statute was amended in 1983 to
limit the valuation methodology to the tradional three approaches to value; namely, cost,
income, and market data or comparable sales.
25
sustained by relocation of Mill Creek Road; (b) injury to the scenic, recreational, and wildlife
values of the Lodge Parcel; (c) reduction in the value of the Lodge Tower condominiums
by development of the adjacent Lodge Parcel; and (d) an adverse impact on the
environmental values within the town of Vail. While these averments may well satisfy the
injury in fact requirement for Article III standing, they have no nexus to the zone of interests
sought to be promoted by the equal value provisions of FLPMA. Thus, they fail to meet the
test for standing under the Administrative Procedure Act. See Data Processing Service
Organizations, Inc. v. Came, 397 U.S. 150 (1970).
Since none of the plaintiffs' alleged injuries fulfill the dual criteria for standing to
. raise claims relating to violation of FLPMA's equal valuation provisions, the Federal
Defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the second and fifth claims for
relief, and I so recommend.
D. The Third Claim for Relief (Failure to Comely with NEPAL
The 1986 EA analyzed three alternative courses of action, one of which involved an
exchange of federal for nonfederal lands. The EA assumed that one of the properties to
be exchanged out of federal ownership was the Lodge Parcel. The conclusion reached in
the EA was that the environmental effects of the proposed land exchange would be
insignificant. Although the final Decision Notice approving a land exchange (DN(4)) and
the Forest Service's final FONSI were not issued until November 8, 1988, they were
premised on the 1986 EA, which was never amended or supplemented.
Plaintiffs claim that the 1986 EA was deficient in that (a) it was predicated on a use
26
for the Lodge Parcel which was later rejected by the agency itself; (b) it failed to take into
account the environmental effects of relocating Mill Creek Road; (c) it improperly assumed
that any identifiable adverse environmental consequences could be adequately mitigated
through regulation by the town of Vail; (d) reasonable alternatives to the exchange of the
Lodge Parcel were not considered; and (e} inadequate consideration was given to the the
cumulative impacts of the Forest Service Land Adjustment Program. The Federal
Defendants have moved for summary judgment on this claim, asserting that the
- administrative record reveals no deficiencies in the EA.
The National Environmental Policy Act has dual aims. First, it requires the agency
to consider every significant environmental impact of a proposed action. Second, it obligates
the agency to inform the public that it has taken into account environmental concerns in
connection with its decision. Baltimore Gas & Electric Co. v. Natural Resources Defense, -
Council, Inc., 4b2 U.S. 87 (1983). NEPA does not elevate environmental concerns over
other objectives. It simply mandates "that the agency take a `hard look' at the environmental -
consequences before taking a major action. The role of the courts is simply to ensure that
the agency has adequately considered and disclosed the environmental impact of its actions -
and that its decision is not arbitrary or capricious." Id. at 97-98. -
An agency is required to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) if it is
proposing major federal action which has a significant impact on the environment. Sierra
Club v. Hodel, 848 F.2d 1068 (10th Cir. 1988). The applicable regulations require an agency
to list those actions which normally require an EIS and those that do not require either an
27
EIS or an EA. 40 C.F.R. § 1501.4(a). In situations not encompassed within either category,
the agency first prepares an EA. 40 C.F.R. § 1501.4(c). If the EA indicates that the
environmental effects will be insubstantial, the agency issues a FONSI. 40 C.F.R.
1501.4(e) and 1508.13.
It is the agency, not the court, that is to take the `hard look' at environmental effects.
The court may not substitute its judgment for that of the agency. Klenoe v. Sierra Club, 427
U.S. 390 (1976).' The decision of the agency that its action will not have a significant
environmental impact may be overturned only if it is arbitrary and capricious. Marsh v.
Oregon Natural Resources Council, 490 U.S. 360 (1989); Village of Los Ranchos De
Albuaueroue v. Marsh, 1992 WL 21811 (10th Cir., February 11, 1992). "If the record before
. the agency does not support the agency action, if the agency has not considered all relevant
factors, or if the reviewing court simply cannot evaluate the challenged agency action on the
basis of the record before it, the proper course, except in rare circumstances, is to remand - .
to the agency for additional investigation or explanation." Florida Power & Light Co. v.
Lorion. 470 U.S. 729, 744 (1985).
As previously discussed in Section I(A) of this Recommendation relating to the Forest
Service's public interest finding, the 1986 EA analyzed the environmental impact of
transfering the Lodge Parcel out of federal ownership based upon an assumed future use
for development of hotel accomodations. As the Forest Service recognized in its November
1, 1988 appraisal, development of the .Lodge Parcel as a free standing hotel was . .
economically and physically infeasible, and any hotel or other commercial use of the .
28
property was politically unlikely, given the position of the town of Vail regarding such
development. The Forest Service's official position from the time of the 1988 appraisal
through the final administrative appeal was that the most probable future zoning for the
Lodge Parcel would be primary/secondary residential. In addition, the property was
appraised upon the assumption that it would be utilized for development of one or two
residences. The failure to consider the environmental impact of what the Forest Service
itself believed was the most probable future use of the subject property was arbitrary and
capricious.
Upon reaching the conclusion during the appraisal process that the most probable
use of the Lodge Parcel would not be for hotel accomodations, the EA should have been
revised to take into account this change in the Forest Service's position. Such an approach
would have been entirely consistent with internal Forest Service instructions, as contained
in the Land Acquisition Handbook (FSH 5409.13 § 36.3(1)), which provide that "[t]he
appraisal may necessitate revision in the EA or EIS." It would have also fulfilled the
mandate of NEPA that the agency take a `hard look' at the real environmental impact
associated with its action.
For similar reasons, the Forest Service's failure to take into account the effects of a
potential relocation of Mill Creek Road was arbitrary and capricious. The 1986 EA was
prepared based on an assumed development plan which did not contemplate the relocation
of the Mill Creek Road right-of--way. Indeed, it was not until the final decision notice was
29
issued on November 8, 1988 that the matter of road relocation was ~considered.18 DN(4)
expressly gave LPI the right to relocate the right-of-way easement for Mill Creek Road at
its expense. (Vol. IV, p. 2).
The Forest Service has never considered the environmental impact of moving the Mill
Creek Road right-of-way or the alternatives available to lessen any adverse environmental
consequences which might flow from such relocation. The Federal Defendant's contention
that any relocation would have a de minimus effect is inadequate. Such ~a decision must rest
with the agency after it takes a `hard look' at the issue. It is not a matter to be addressed
by the court. See Florida Power & LiEht Co. v. I.orion, 470 U.S. 729, 744 (1985).
For these reasons, I conclude that the Federal Defendants are not entitled to a
judgment as a matter of law on the third claim for relief, and recommend that their Motion
. for Partial Summary Judgment be denied as to this claim.19
III. THE PLAINT1rrS' MOTION FOR PARTIAL Si:~tARY JUDGMENT
f
A. Second Claim fir Relief (Failure to Properl~ppraise the Lodge Parcell
For the reasons previously stated in Section II(C) above, the Plaintiffs lack standing
1e The matter of relocation arose because the existing Mill Creek Road right-of-way
would have to be moved in order to accomodate a subdivision of the Lodge Parcel for the
development of two single-family dwellings. The fact that the final decision notice
authorized relocation of the right-of--way is yet another indication that the perceived most
probable use had changed between the date of the 1986 EA and the November 8, 1988
decision notice.
19 For purposes of disposing of the Federal Defendants' motion-for summary judgment
on the third claim, there is no need for me to consider the other alleged deficiencies in the
EA raised by the Plaintiffs. However, these will be discussed in relation to the Plaintiffs'
Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, infra.
30
to raise an allegedly improper valuation under FLPMA's exchange provisions. Thus, the
bases for my recommendation that the Federal Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment should be granted on this claim also dictate that the Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment should be denied.
Even if the Plaintiffs' had standing to seek review of the valuation process employed
by the Forest Service in connection with the Lodge Parcel, the administrative record fails to
establish that the procedure or methodoly employed was arbitrary and capricious. The
Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions ("Uniform Standards"), adopt
the generally accepted definition of fair market value; namely, what a knowledgeable willing
buyer under no compulsion to purchase would pay in cash or terms equivalent to cash to a
knowledgeable willing seller under no compulsion to sell. (Vol. IV, p. 345Z). In
determining what a willing buyer would pay, the appraiser must look to the highest a best
use to which the property could be put under existins zonine. (Uniform Standards, Vol. N,
p. 345G). An exception to this principle is made if the appraiser concludes that there is a
reasonable possibility of a zoning change. In such a situation, the property should not be
appraised as if the zoning change has already taken place, but rather the potential
modification of zoning should be taken into account to the extent it affects the cash
consideration which the hypothetical buyer would be willing to pay. (Uniform Appraisal
Standards, Vol. IV, p. 345G). See also Forest Service Appraisal Handbook, FSH-5409.12
§ 1.33d. _
Where the subject property is being conveyed out of federal ownership and into
31
private ownership; the land must be appraised based upon its probable zoning and value
once it comes into private hands. Id. This guideline is entirely consistent with the concept
of fair market value. A hypothetical private willing buyer presumably will not continue to
employ the subject property for the existing Forest Service uses, .and, hence, the
consideration he is willing to pay will bear little relationship to the value of the land
premised on its historical use by the Forest Service.
The Forest Service appraisals of the Lodge Parcel fully complied with the mandates
and guidelines of the Unif~~ Appraisal Standards, the Forest Service Appraisal Handbook,
and generally accepted appraisal procedures. These appraisals considered the highest and
best use to which the property could be put, the existing zoning, and the reasonably
possibility of a change in zoning to accomodate a use more consistent with the parcel's
development potential. Based on these considerations, the appraisers concluded that the
most probable zoning of the Lodge Parcel once it came into private hands would be
primary/secondary residential. While one might disagree with the conclusions, they certainly
cannot be deemed arbitrary and capricious.
The Plaintiffs assert that the procedure adopted by the Forest Service appraisers
violated the instructions issued by the Chief of the Forest Service. Specifically, they note
that the Chief directed that the Lodge Parcel be appraised "as if zoning and potential zoning
is similar to that existing on adjacent or nearby similar private properties." (Vol. IV, p. 433).
Plaintiffs further point out that the zoning on adjacent private lands is commercial and high-
denisty multiple family.
32
To the extent that the Chiefs instructions can be read as requiring an appraisal of
the Lodge Parcel premised on commercial or high-density multiple family use, it is
inconsistent with the concept of fair market value, and does .not comply with the
requirements or suggestions contained in the Uniform Appraisal Standards or the Forest
Service Appraisal Handbook.m Neither the Chief's instructions, nor the opinion of the
Reviewing Officer questioned the Forest Service appraisers' conclusions that once in private
hands, the highest zoning reasonably probable would be primary/secondary residential.
Under these circumstances, an arbitrary mandate that the Lodge Parcel should valued as if _
it were zoned for commercial use would do violence to both the concept of fair market value
and the purposes underlying the equalization of value called for by FLPMA.Z'
B. Third Claim for Relief (Violations of NEPAL
m In all probability the Chiefs remarks concerning the zoning of adjacent land were not
meant to preclude the Forest Service appraisers from following the Uniform Appraisal
Standards or the Forest Service Appraisal Handbook. Certainly, if the appraisers' .
investigation revealed that the Lodge Parcel would be zoned similar to surrounding
properties, they would have been under an obligation to value the parcel as if that zoning
was already in place. However, once the appraisers determined that the Lodge Parcel would
probably not be zoned commercial or high-density residential, they wre clearly obligated to
value the property based on their opinion of the most likely zoning which would be assigned
to the property in private hands. It should also be noted that neither the reviewing
appraiser, nor the Accoiate Deputy Chief who handled the appeal suggested that there was
any conflict between the Chief's instructions and the appraisal procedure employed by the
Forest Service appraisers.
Z' Valuing property for commercial or high-deniity iesidental use when, in fact, the most
probable future zoning is primary/secondary residential would effectively preclude any
exchange under the provisions of FLPMA. Given the equalization mandate of FLPMA, no
reasonable person would ever consider making a substantial payment to equalize value when
the value of the parcel sought to be acquired was premised on a use not feasible under
probable zoning.
33
For the reasons set out in section II(D) of this Recommendation, Ifind and conclude
that Plaintiffs are entitled to a judgment as a matter of law on their third claim for relief
alleging violations of NEPA. Specifically, those violations consist of (a) the failure to assess
the environmental impact of the exchange based upon the assumed use deemed most likely
by the Forest Service itself in light of probable zoning restrictions; and (b) the failure to
consider the environmental impact of a relocation of the Mill Creek Road right-of--way, even
though such a relocation was permitted at the discretion of the transferee.
The Plaintiffs have also raised additional grounds for their position that the 198b EA
and the Forest Service FONSIs were arbitrary and capricious. They claim that (a) the EA
did not address alternatives to the land exchange and road relocation; and (b) the EA failed
to take into account the cumulative effects of this and other land exchanges. If find no merit
to either of these contentions. The 1986 EA did. discuss three alternatives; an exchange of
Federal lands, including the Lodge Parcel for the Wilderness Parcel; a conveyance by sale .
.
or under the Exchange for Schools Act of three parcels to the town of Vail; and taking no
i
action. The Plaintiffs state that the EA should have also considered acquisition of the
Wilderness Parcel through outright purchase or by eminent domain. The Federal
Defendants respond that Congress has not appropriated funds for such purposes, nor has
Congress specifically authorized the use of condemnation power. 16 U.S.C. § 1134(c).
NEPA and the regulations promulgated thereunder only require that reasonable
alternatives to the proposed action be evaluated. E.g., Headwaters~Inc. v. BLM. Medford
District, 914 F.2d 1174, 1180 (9th Cir. 1990). Furthermore, the range of alternatives which
34
„ .
must be considered in an EA is less comprehensive than in an EIS. State of North Carolina
v. Federal Aviation Adm., 1992 WL 31178 (4th Cir., February 24, 1992); Coalition on
Sensible TTanSD.. Inc. v. Dole, 826 F.2d 60, 66 (D.C.Cir. 1987). AS the United States Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit has stated: "[I]t remains something of an anomaly to insist
that an agency assess alternatives for an action that it has determined will not have a
`significant' effect on the environment." Citv of New York v. United States Dept. of Transp.,
. 715 F.2d 732, 744 (2d Cir. 1983), cert. denied. 465 U.S. 1055 (1984). See also Olmsted
Citizens for a Better Community v. United States, 793 F.2d 201, 208 (8th Cir. 1986). I
conclude that, under the circumstances of this case, the failure of the 198b EA to consider
alternatives which could not be effectuated without Congressional appropriation or
delegation of eminent domain power was not arbitrary and capricious.
For similar reasons, I conclude that the EA's discussion of cumulative effects was not
arbitrary or capricious. Essentially, the Plaintiffs complain that that although the EA dealt
with the cumulative effects of outstanding exchange proposals, as well as proposals for
outright acquisition, it did not delve into the effects of. potential future exchanges for which
- no proposal was actually on the table. Again, an EA is not designed to exhaustively study
the cumulative effect of possible, but speculative, future transactions.
IV. THE PRIVATE DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR Sl;m~fMARY JUDGMENT AND
MOTION TO DISMISS
The Private Defendants have also moved for summary judgment on the grounds that
Plaintiffs cannot attack the patent issued for the Lodge Parcel unless they assert a superior
title thereto, and that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to consider the claims J";
35
. a .
against them. The first of these arguments has already been considered and rejected in
connection with the Federal Defendants' Motion far Partial Summary Judgment. Under the
circumstances here presented, the issuance of a patent did not deprive the Plaintiffs of either
a right of action or a remedy under the Administrative Procedure Act. See Donnelly v.
United States. 841 F.2d 968, 972 n. 5 (9th Cir. 1988}; National Forest Preservation Group.
v. Butz, 485 F.2d 408, 411 (9th Cir. 1973).
The Private Defendants' jurisdictional argument is likewise without merit. In a suit
far review of agency action under the Administrative Procedure Act, the court may assert
jurisdiction over any private parties who are necessary in order to afford full relief. Siena
Club v. Hodel, 848 F.2d 1068,1077-78 (10th Cir. 1988)(joinder of private parties appropriate
under F.R.C.P. 20). See also League to Save Lake Tahoe v. Tahoe Regional Plannin4
Agency, 558 F.2d 914 (9th Cir. 1977)(joinder of private parties appropriate under F.R.C.P.
19). Furthermore, to the extent that the Private Defendants' position is predicated on the
fact that they have already received a patent, it must be rejected for the reasons stated
above.
Having disposed of the Private Defendants' contention that private parties cannot be
joined in an action such as this, I now turn to their argument that not enough private parties
have been joined. Under F.R.C.P. 19, a person must be joined, if possible, when (a) he
claims an interest relating to the subject of the action, and disposition of the case in the
~ I will treat the Private Defendants' Motion to Dismiss as a motion under F.R.C.P.
. 12(b)(7)
36
person's absence would impede or impair his ability to protect his interest; (b) failure to join
a party would leave existing parties in a position of incurring double, multiple, or inconsistent
obligations; or (c) a person's absence would preclude granting full relief to the parties
already present. No contention is made here that the failure to join the former Wilderness
Parcel owners would impair their ability to protect their interests, or that the existing parties
might be sub}ect to multiple or inconsistent obligations. Rather, the Private -
Defendants argue that the absence of the former Wilderness Parcel owners from the lawsuit
will make it impossible to afford complete relief.
The Private Defendants are correct that the entire exchange transaction cannot be
unwound without the presence of the former Wilderness Parcel owners. However, this
observation, in itself, does not compel the conclusion that their joinder is required under
Rule 19, or that the action should be dismissed for failure to join them. Certainly, in the
event that the Court ultimately orders a rescission of the exchange, complete relief can be
afforded to the Plaintiffs. Likewise, as to the Federal Defendants, the status auo ante can
be restored without joinder of additional parties. It is only the Private Defendants who
- cannot be placed in the same position they occupied prior to the closing of the exchange.
Rule 19 is intended to embody equitable principles. Britton v. Green, 325 F.2d 377,
- 382 (10th Cir. 1963). The Private Defendants apparently perceived that a speedy closing of
the exchange would provide some insulation against the Plaintiffs' claims. Of course, the
disadvantage to such a procedure is that if. it is not successful, full rEturn to the status auo - -
ante might not be possible. These are matters which the Private Defendants should have
37
z . •
weighed before agreeing to proceed with the exchange closing even though further litigation
was a foregone conclusion in light of the vehiment objections vocied by Vail and other
parties during the lengthy administrative process. Consequently, I recommend that the
Private Defendants' Motion to Dismiss be denied.
V. APPROPRIATE RELIEF
The above described failure of the Forest Service to properly consider certain factors
in its decision-making process flaws the EA, the FONSIs, and the DNs. The appropriate
remedy in such a situation is to remand the matter to the administrative agency with
directions to reconsider its public interest finding and its FONSI after taking into account
the most probable use of the Lodge Parcel in light of likely zoning constraints and the
impact of any relocation of the Mill Creek Road right-of-way. Florida Power & Light v.
Lorion, 470 U.S. 729, 744 (1985); Sierra Club v. Hodel, 848 F.2d 1068 (10th Cir. 1988).
Since there are claims still outstanding not resolved by this recommendation, and in order
to avoid piecemeal consideration by the agency, remand should await completion of judicial
review regarding the remaining claims.
Based on the foregoing, I hereby RECOMMEND that the Federal Defendants'
Motion for Partial Summary Judgment be GRAN t t?~ IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.
Likewise, the Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment should be GRANTED IN
PART AND DENIED IN PART. The Private Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment
and Motion to Dismiss should be DENIED. ~ _
38~
.
_
Dated this.~~~day of March, 1992
'
~j
Bruce D. Pringle
United States Magistrate 3udge
39
UN i r~~ STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
UNi t r.D STATES DISTRICT COURT
UN i i r.~ STATES COURTHOUSE
DENVER, CO 80294
BRUCE D. PRINGLE 844-2117
Magistrate Judge
CER t it KATE OF MAILING
Civil Action No. 89 N 1098
I hereby certify that a copy of the RECOMMENDATION OF Il~ll~ly STATES
MAGISTRATE JUDGE dat d~ March 30, 1992, entered by Magistrate Judge Bruce D.
Pringle was mailed this ~ day of March, 1992, to the following persons:
Charles B. White, Esq. Lawrence A. Eskwith, Esq.
Wayne F. Forman, Esq. 75 South Frontage Road
Andrew W. Loewi, Esq. .Vail, CO 81657 ~ -
Margaret E. Porfido, Esq.
410 Seventeenth Street
22nd Floor
Denver, CO 80202
Randall M. Livingston, Esq. Kenton W. Fulton, Esq.
James S. Bailey, Jr. Esq. Department of Justice "
One United Bank Center -Land and Natural Resources Division "
1700 Lincoln Street, Suite 3800 General Litigation Section
Denver, CO 80203 P.O. Box 663
Washington, D.C. 20044-0663
James W. Winchester, Esq.
Assistant United States Attorney
t.O~C~ ~L~ ~~Lti~z7Z7~
Secretary to~Magistrate Judge Pringle
40
ti
~.jetcu,~c,(
. ~ - -~ECEIyEfl APR - 6 f992
NATIONAI. OIFF-LOAD DICY~LE ASSOCIATION
April 1, 1992
Ron Phillips
Town of Vail
- ~ ~ - 75 South Frontage Road West -
- Vail, CO 81f57
Dear Mr. Phillips, ~ .
On behalf of the National Off-Road Bicycle Association (NORBA) and World Cup
- mountain bike sponsor Grundig, I would like to ~..r~ess our sincere thanks to you andthe - -
other American Cycle Classic Executive Committee members for your support in hosting
. the 1992 Grundig World Cup Finals this September. ~ _ - .
- I write to you on the opening days of Spring, the closing of a successful ski ~ - _ `
. - ~ season, and the beginning of what should be an outstanding year of mountain biking in this
- . country. We are more than pleased that the Vail Valley is involved, and look forwazd to ~ ~ , ~
- sharing and learning with you. - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -
_
. - ~ I would like to take this opportunity to share with you a few of our goals with ~ '
- - respect to the World Cup Finals: 1) that the Vail community is proud and satisfied with - -
. .their involvement, 2) record the development and execution of the Finals as the standard of _ "
- ~ international mountain bike racing, 3) take full media advantage of there major 1992 events -
- in Colorado (Winter Park, Durango, Vail), 4) expose the Finals to potential new sponsors; -
_ 5) dispel the notion that mountain biking at resorts is unreasonably expensive, and 6) ' - - '
- - - ~ communicate that the sport is open to all abilities.
- ~ ~ NORBA is committed to supporting the goals of Vail and the U.S. Forest Service. - '
Please, do not hesitate to contact me if we can be of any assistance. Once again, thank you -
~ ~ and we look forward to the Finals in Vail.
- ~ Sincerely., - - "
- - ~
~
. 'Philip Milburn
~ Executive Director
'1750 East Boulder Colorado Springs, CO 80909 ¦ 719-578.4717 ~ FAX 719-578.4628 ~ -
e' , W~l.(~CJ~I.
'1 ~ A, J. ,
AGENDA ~1,1 L r'1,~.,'L~:.
RECEI~~ED - 6 1~9~
_ .
REGULAR MEETING
VAIL PARK ~ RECREATION DISTRICT
dba VAIL RECREATION DISTRICT
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
2 : 4 0 PM,
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 8, 1992
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Call to order 3:00 PM
Approval of Minutes: March it and 25, 1992 (see attached)
Public Input
1. Eagle - Vail Cooperative Agreements (see attached)
2. Youth Sports Update - Robin Olsen/Terry Debeau
3. Par 3 Golf Course - Interview Land Architects (see attached)
3:30 PM A. Gene Bates & Associates, Palm Beach Gardens, FL
4:00 PM" B. Dick Bailey Design, Inc., Scottsdale, AZ
4. EXECUTIVE SESSION - Contract Negotiations for Architects -
Land & Building.
5. Adjournment
ATTACHMENTS: -Minutes - March 11 & 25., 1992
-Eagle-Vail Cooperative letter
-Par 3 Golf Course
-Vail's Outdoor Ice Rink - FYI
vmrd\agenda
~ t, .
vT ~ :
?iINUTEB
~QQLAA B[E~I1T8
VJ12Y. PARK i A$CRE71TIOli DYSTb4ICT dba PAZL RECA87~TYODT ®ISTRICT
MEMBERS PRESENT: Colleen McCarthy, Ren Wilson, Hermann Staufer, Gail
Molloy, Lew Meakiman
.MEMBERS ABSENT; None
OTHERS PRESENT: Brian Jones
CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 3:15 PM.
APPROVAL OF
MINUTES: ~ McCarthy made a motion to approve the minutes from
'February 10, 12 and 26 1992, second by Meskimen,
passed unanimously.
PUBLIC INPUT: None
BERRY CREEK UPDATE: Merv Lapin and Peter Jamar join the meeting. Lapin
gave the board an overview of where and what the Berry
Creek Board has accomplished to date. He has put
together a conceptual drawing of the land. and showed
this to the Board. The Berry Creek Board has had 8
public meetings from Red _Cliff to Eagle gathering
. ~ public input on the land use. Proposed items include
equestrian, softball, parking, miscellaneous activity
building, multi-purpose field, children's play area
. and school. Jamar will reveal the findings of the
surveys taken at the public meetings tomorrow. He
reminded the Board that this is only one piece. of.
. information to use in the planning process.
Lapin stated he would like to see one recreation
district formed from Vail to Edwards and possibly
Wolcott. Robinson stated he needs direction from the
Board if they wish to~be involved in the Berry Creek
complex and more specifically the softball fields in
this project. Lapin stated if VRD would choose to do
the softball fields they would build the fields, run
them and maintain them..
Wilson wants to discuss at their next meeting a
philosophical stand regarding VRD's management of the
Berry Creek land.
VAIL INTERNATIONAL
HOCKEY TOURNAMENT
(ADDITIONAL ITEM) Merv Lapin stated he has set up a separate
organization of parents of Bantam and High School
players and they will b® th® her ~ ii~`runn n ~ a
Q;:.
International Tournament. The Vail Jr: ~::_Hmclc~y;
;Club
will be the sponsor. The Tournament which ~corisi8t~':o!
Bantam and High School teams is sold out and .ther® his
a waiting list to get in. Lapin .ia asking;
~®~rea:..
ice tim® to be donated by VRD if ma~'as'li;-~®.~.q®t;~a:
China team to participate in the ~,tournaiaen~t~,a~s bas
,
teams from Canada Russia and China coming;`-~o~~: the
Tournament t~rhich is April 16-19,=;1992. . - .~?~~-s,~
Robinson stated this ~ ec~uatea ~ - ~to ~ 4 days ~-,gental
(approximately $3,500), plus lost revenue from public
skating. _ ~ ~ _
Meskimen made a motion to give the Vail International
Hockey tournament free ic® time on April 15-19;~~but
only if a team from China actually participates in the
tournament. Any profit realized from this tournament
will be turned over to VRD up to the amount of $3, 500.
VRD will receive major billing as a sponsor of the
Tournament, second by Stauffer, passed unanimously.
The Board would like a financial report from the Vail
Jr. Hockey Club. Robinson indicated this has been
requested and we will get it from Craig Denton.-
TEEN CENTER REPORT: Robin Olsen and Diane Leach join the meeting. Robin
stated the Teen Center received great attendance in
- ~ ~ _ early January. A rumor started that the Teen Center
had become a meeting place for drugs and alcohol
connections. The middle school principle at a PTA
4.~.~ ~ meeting publicly blamed the Teen Center for drinking
and drug problems at the middle school. Robin has
' taken many steps to continually educate parents,
' ~ ~ students and other adults that the teen center is and
will continue to be a safe area for children to be'
completely free of drugs and alcohol. Some additional
~ _ ~ steps taken lately consist of removing the student
access phone, instituted a sign in program, police
stop by regularly and do public relations work with
the kids. Robin meets regularly with the counselors
at all schools.
The Board instructed Robin to set up a meeting with
the Middle school principle to educate him as to what
the Teen Center does, write a letter to him with
- copies going to the school board and superintendent of
schools and get on the PTA agenda to give an
informative talk to the parents.
HEALTH INSURANCE: Molloy made a motion to go with the 80/20, $250
deductible plan, second by McCarthy, passed
unanimously.
.*i .:~r Y.
~1. ~t ti r:~t''-.. ~/.fi~~t=.~`' `•t~,,W `~~iii'.~.~~ •:.j ~Y~ ~i, Y_S~f•
t. , ~ ~~11z j -t J f 4
• _ = ~ ~ Y; ~ N.~chols =the ~neti. ~Outd~Toor
- Robinson introduced Dennis i ~ _ k'
DENNIS NICHOLS~ ~
Recreation Director to tht Board. Dennis-jove~rnment.-
. Derv from his past job which wms with .ths q .~,.,_:,.f.... ,
Th® Board welcomed Dennis.. t._
" in Germany • - - _ ~r:~~ - " _ ,}~}jy~~.}~ - .
. COURSg;.. --IZj}j'ERVIEW BUILDING ARCHIT$GTS ~ 1~,.~,-: , -
GOLF , . ~_..~.L' wants`:~f or
. :what ~th® Board .
- - -Robinson gave-an overviews:cf-. 230 s.f...for,~~~fooa.,T`;3ZS
- ~ the starter goose euildinq~~`,:: and ,additional
s. f . for open seating, .220 -rest rooms, .
square footage (to be -determined} `",~-for.~ ~ttsriclosed
oi! .:course equipment storage.
. registration area and q _
- Haux gave the :-.Board an
- - e~ + I~ocfan - Bike _~i~X
overview of his firm and :reviewed ~
eted fai Vail,nt
projects and the work they have comp
gorter ~.rchitects - Ji~Morte~ Gave the Board an
overview of the firm and his ideas on how to
economically build this building.
Fr~t~len Pierce Br-
i_ B{1} Pierce Gave-the Board
an overview of the firm and their clients including
many public entity clients. .
Robinson indicated the Boar~h it lnextameeti q cand
these three archi wish to hire. Molloy and Stauffer
determine who they
felt they could n et these Ar h tects do a drawing ofea
would like to hav
proposed building.
Molloy made a motion c m lets ai conceptualc drawinge~
three architects to P es,
" second by Stauffer. Molloy and Stauffer y
" McCarthy, Meskimen, Wilson no. Motion dies.
The Board will discuss this".item at their next
meeting.
OPERATIONAL UPDATES:~SYMPB~N~ OF ,~pORTS Robinson reported that Holly
Turner wants to come back next year, but run the
operation through ins to ltake ltheFf nanci 1. risks
Foundation is will g
The
They want VRD to rearantee e$12 000 totaVRDf then the
Foundation would gv
next $12,000 of net ticket sales would go to VRD.
~Meskiman made a motion to allohon h of Sportsawith
Foundation to negotiate with Symp Y
the rental of the Dobson Arena set at $12,000 as long
- as it dues not to $12 000 Y£ m ti
ket sales goesato
profits made up
.y .'a~S":' ~ n-t;•.~ .:p.,-„ r.• df •..a~~v ti -vJ+s:; a :k:•.' . .~lt~.~' - - ~uS.•- r'~ 7~ ~ if~~ -
- : c.:iF ~ ~t~'~ ~i}~ g n ~ ra~r~(j i ~grL:I' ~ Q' r"~ r ~ Y r, f\,.3,"V' _
• . ~ r.. N t~ jp~, t ~1 '1. 7~ ~R~~ _ a;af:~'~a ~,i'1Yd'Gi+C` S
x
. ~ ~ ~ .VI3Dr,~~ ~eecond .'by .E~cCurthy, passed unanimouol '
. .:-~urcie ..showed the hoard a' jacket w2ich would
Ibe ®uitabli::;~lor._.:3:. seasons. . ~ Th®:~cost'~~Li~ ~_~r2~a
. - - _ jeclcat. ' :ah® ":`indicated ~th®-°'~tatu~® ~:~C~at~.~~' ~ ®eds . -
. unilorma ~~and :"Meru' :ass no money _budQeted.~®r~ •ea:~:
. . _ - Ttne : ~Soard; ~ `authorised :.,-Asffiussen ~~®:~;~ur~s~ es~
. = . ~ - jmckets..:in ~'~;~e~aantity up to the dollir-aabun ~ seed.::;
,
- _ _ _ =1eBt 'meet 1''"~.J®®_ - - - _ .
- eta :Fi'~.M.-^G .V.f S.: - ^1+ :^y.Vl:^.
ADJOURNMENT s ~ Meet inq adjourned ~t .6 s 3 0 PM. ~ ~
~
~
Gail Molloy, Secretary ~ ~ •
vmrd\min
~;.•i,:'1_1. J - ~ty~i~ ,y • _ ~;~"z1E.d~'~':. y'tt~ r A= T~.
..',w•,. t+~' , 3;:,;:'' .fix y.~;9r.: S°:K.
•s~ ..y:" , ~ _ _ ~ ./-.}.a~,i'-'" Vii,:.. ;{Kf~~ L 'a~.T-~
j,.. •
i•~'•
V71IL B71Ax i A$CAE7ITIOM DiBTAICT dba V71iL AECAA7ITIOM DIBTAIC'!'
V.~~ ~
. ~lACB ~ S ~ 1~ ~ Z . ~ Jf ~
MEMBERS PRESENT: Colleen McCarthy, Ren Wilson, Gnil ~ _ j'-~
;Mo Yo
- " Meskimen = ~ - ~ - - r~,~Y'- •
MEMBERS ABSENT: Hermann Steufar
OTHERS PRESENT; Rob Robinson -Brian Jones • ~ ~ -
CALL TO ORDER: 7:40 AM - 4''~'-_: ~ .
PUBLIC INPUT Craig Arford from the menus golf association asked for
a cart pass for medically disabled people.
CART PASS: McCarthy made a motion to sell a cart pass
to medically disabled individuals for $150 plus $7 per
.use; a Doctors excuse must be presented, second by
Meskimen, passed unanimously.
Gaf 1 Molloy arrives 7:55 AM ~ _ - -
ARE & POST SF,ASON PASS: Meskimen made a motion to
_sell an Eagle County Resident-Pre/Post/After 5 pass
for $250 plus $10 green fee/per tee time with the same
• restrictions as the resident pre/post/after 5 pass,
second by McCarthy, passed unanimously.
GOLF OPERATIONS '
• BRAINSTORMING: ~iOTEI,iBOOKINGS Robinson said we have always required
• a $1000 deposit at the beginning of the golf season
• from each Vail hotel wishing to make bookings at the
Vail Golf Club. Board feels this is fair and wants to
continue this practice.
ADVANCE GROUP BOOKINGS No weekend play for groups
except for those groups Satch deems to be
grandfathered in.
SR. CITIZEN GREEN FEE RATE Robinson stated the Board
had previously eliminated this fee of $25 green fee
for resident seniors. He has had 3 requests to
reinstate this fee. Satch indicated other courses do
not typically offer a resident Sr. green fee discount.
The Board wants to keep its Resident green fee rate at
the previously established $45.
RESTAURANT OFFICE SPACE Rob said there is potential
office space to move the restaurant into. However the
.,x~ .i.. r-..,, i > ri:' .A, LCD
' ~ i ' ~'!cS ~ 4 x~i.'SF;~.: - ,~?ss~s~~P~T~ t 'lvV .t~e ~
. ~ rY.~f+~ .e~..r _ : ~"°.wt °'<9t~• }^'''ytyw~• y r: ;a, . f.L#
• •fi.' stye a
..`t-
• ti
-
-
- cost will be $1~, 000-$15, OOA- to bring tho„®j>acY~ Y_.,~
. code. Th® Board wants to table the proiect'~toae:~ov..>ri~`:=:
Staft can . ~ work out - any ~ aoeinq/rs®rc~~n~~,~.. t .
arran ement® as necess 5.
g ary with th® exist ~_offic~s
Y•
~1. ;
Tt3M WHYTrtir,AD- JUNIAR GOLF FOND RAISER ;i8®®. tta. a
- ~ - Satch said :this- -tournanant=t~=~.ia ':~usual3 '~i~ at: s
.u
- Arrowheac4.- ~~`.They can't - do` =~T thi® -:yea=: r
- host it at Vail. =The Sro ~~:and Jr. °.wilh. a~ i
- - same day one th® same course.: Robi~isoa~~~as~ed~~#$ia
- - VRD Board member get further involved in.thi iAhit``, e~?
decisions. Satch said he would be ha -
ppy.~t~. aV~~ .
Board member sit on this committee. ~ °~~`t~~ ~~~t=
- - :~?.'rgr~ r',0......,;
McCarthy made a motion to allow Satch to =hold ~_th~e~:Tos
Whitehead Tournament on June 19, 1992 at 'the Vail Golf
Club with the Jr. fee of $15 (no carts) and the Sr.
fee of $25 (with carts) and appoint a VRD Board member
to the Whitehead committee and try and make .this
tournament a rotating tournament among the local golf
courses, second by Molloy, passed unanimously.
GOLF MAINTENANCE
BRAINSTORMING: Ernie Bender reviewed his equipment purchasing
schedule with the Board members. Ernie is clearing
greens of snow to prevent damage. He will be filling
in the trenches on the fairways. The irrigation
• company will- be ready to start April 15 weather
permitting. They want to be off our course by early
-5.,, June. Driving range will have to have drainage work
,'S;.°-~ done.
Ernie wants to designate a second Assistant
Superintendent. With the additional emphasis on
' parks, ball fields and the par 3 he feels this
position is needed. The Board gave Robinson approval
. - . to create a second assistant position and eliminate
the lead maintenance position currently held by
.Sanders. Both assistant position will be exempt from
the Fair Labor Standard Act thus eliminating over-
' time.
JAN/FEB 92
VARIANCE REPORTS: Robinson reviewed the report with the Board. McCarthy
wanted to know if our system for receivables is
adequate to keep track of income. Jones indicated it
is a manual system. Our computer cannot handle this
program. McCarthy indicated that the new narrative
and monthly system was more user friendly and more
helpful than the old system.
MARKETING UPDATE: STAFF UNIFORMS The Board chose the soft teal shirt,
with VRD logo and the word "staff" printed on it. The
golf maintenance staff should have T-shirts instead
1 .fir i ; r~ ' e~~A t+ " 1 .,I x)
. V~ , ~ ~3 ,p~.
~ ,s ..a.is. i ~p~ +{'+1^~],,,eXSas"r,. .~~_o~~ :~~'S J `
(f" r!"~~'~J~l_~'-'^', .~t + i~ ~ ~ K r~4~ r fit' • ~ - f.,. 4
r.: : i.-.... ~ ~ , r:..
•
. and purchase as many as the hudgit~J.allovrs~ ;:;r
- - ~As~u8s~1 Cant,.pOSe bl®' ~e ~ ~Q®..~,.:..
- ~ selling advertising in thi?= ~;~i~ _ ..F,
. - : Beard does mot wand to s®11'ad~_:~os;: ~ -
• atalf ~ should seriously rese~c~i•. ®r~ ~ om'iaiq~
f a 11 winter '-bsochuge . - . = `1lsauss ~a~~ _ ~ .
/
. _ - adv®rtisinq •.grl~in to pr®sent-=torte®. o~_ ~a l:
- ~ Richard , stralas~ ~-~i~ ~ `s®. a° `~ot®s
. for :th® summer brochure in exc3iange ~f or ~ ~~o~a gol! -
~ ~ -and cart ss . - Re wi 11 also- t~otoa ' ou out
. the upcoming yeas o! a 11 our ®vants :'to ; gel - ame staged
photos - which Asmussen need. `>~~°-~~or.~ ~.tapcoming
lublications/ads. . Y•;~;:b;;1:,~... .
McCarthy made a motion to give-Richard~~~:Strauss a
Resident 7 Day Restricted Golf Pass in E~cchange for
photos for the brochure and upcoming year, second by
Molloy, passed unanimously.
Meskiman made a motion to give Strauss ~a`rcart pass,
second by Molloy - 2 yes; 2 no -motion dies.
GOLF ENTRAAIC~ SzC~ Asmussen showed the Board a
drawing of the new proposed golf sign. and•color
scheme. The Budget is for $400 and the estimate came
- in at $2,500. The Board wants to try and do this
remodel in-house with our staff. They want to remove
the roofing, install a background and place lights at
the base of the sign shinning up. This should be
accomplished for a lot less money.
,1992 SII$V~ Asmussen reviewed. the results of the
survey with the Board. Robinson indicated he will
incorporate these findings into the three year plan.
ELECTION: Robinson informed the Board that 9 candidates have
chosen to run for the 2.._open seats on the VRD Board.
EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Board went into executive session to discuss
personnel matters.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 10:40 AM.
Gail Molloy, Secretary .
7
TO: VRD BOARD OF RECTORS
FROM: ROB ROBINSOPd
DATE: APRIL 2, 1992
SUBJECT: EAGLE-VAIL
. Several weeks ago I met with Howard Gardner and Clark Shively of
the Eagle-Vail Metropolitan District. At that meeting we
collectively agreed not to have any reciprocal golf passes for
1992. However, Eagle-Vail has a desire to maintain .the tennis
agreement for at least one more year; primarily for those
individuals who would like to play tennis at either Vail or Eagle-
Vail and bring along a resident of the other District.
While their tennis fees are less than ours, the only Berson
eligible to buy an Eagle-Vail pass would be an Eagle-Vail .resident.
In addition to this agreement, Eagle-Vail is offering swim lessons
to all Eagle County residents at the same rate. We anticipate
participating with them in some fashion in order to promote lessons
to our non-swimming children. Their board also has invited us to
an informal breakfast (coffee and donuts) get together at their new
pavilion on May 21, 1992 at 8 AM. ~ It will be. an opportunity for
the two boards to become better acquainted.
TO: BOARD OF DIRECTORS ~ ^
FROM: ROB ROBINSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 'LJ
DATE: April 2, 1992
SUBJECT: PAR 3 COURSE ARCHITECTS
At our April 8, 1992 meeting the Board needs to choose both a
building and a course architect for the Par 3 course if we are.
going to proceed with this project.
The building archi~:ects are staying firm with their bids of 8$ of
the total building Losts; sa cost is not a factor in the decision
process. In conversations with Jim Morter, there is no savings to
the District if we utilize the plans for the Starter House. The
expanded size of the par 3 building, walk-way enclosure, storage
space needs and the land topography along with height requirements
all dictate new drawings.
The Course architects do vary in costs, that information follows:
Dick Bailey: Fixed fee of $65,000 plus expenses relating to.
travel, meals and lodging.
Gene Bates: Sliding scale not to exceed $50,000 with no extra
charge for travel, meals or lodging.
Lastly, and most important, you will find attached a letter from
Dick Phelps which most of you have already seen. This letter has
some very serious overtones and we should carefully review Dick's
concerns and statements before we proceed with this project. I
will be walking the course with Gene Bates on Wednesday April 7,
1992 at approximately 11 AM. We will be reviewing the feasibility
of this project with Gene and any board member who would like to
join us, is invited to do so. As I have previously discussed with
most of you, Gene's opinions' will be most useful as we presently
have one architect who feels the. project is feasible and one
architect who does not. These diverse opinions have been
formulated from the disaster/routing plan that we had Dick Baily~
do.
In addition if we should proceed with this project, the Board needs
to understand that Dick Phelp's letter could serve as legal
documentation from a golf course architect that the Par 3 Course,
in his opinion, is a liability. In the case of a litigation
incident a prosecutor could .easily argue that the Board of
Directors was negligent .in pursuing the par 3 course development.
w\landgolf
I
RI~HARI~ 1VI. P~iELPSy I~TI~,
co~.~ cou~.S~ A~Cxr~~C~°
t'.t~. tit)X 3295 ~EvERGREEN, COLORADO X0439 303-b70-04'Ts
April 1, 1992 _
Mr, Rob Robinson
Executive Director
Vaal Recreation ~isttict
292 West Arieadow Drive
Vail, Colorado S16S7
Dear Rob:
'thank you for your letter of lvlarch 24, 1992, informing us that we were selected to
be one of three finalists for the proposed 9-hole par-3 golf course in Vail, VVe are
always honored to be in serious consideration.
However, now that we have received the aerial photos and copies of the preliminary
- `ketch done by lvir, Bailey, we must beg your forgiveness and ask that our name be
withdrawn from consideration, Had we been aware of the site limitations earlier we
. would have spared ourselves and you kind people this emharrassmene.
in our opinion, the site is not-large enough to design, construct and operate a safe
- golf facility. In today's litigious society, we are very concerned that serious -
_ . accidents and disruptions will occur that will result in lawsuits against the District,
. y, the golfcourse architect and golfers. A number of our concerns are enumerated
below.
' ~ 1. Existing homes -the existing homes on the north side of the site have
. enjoyed the luxury of a peaceful, quiet, safe environment. Constructing the
course will undoubtedly result in golf balls entering these properties; noises -
_ of maintenance equipment early in the morning will be noticeable and
"strangers" going by their back .yards will be an annoyance. This is always
the case when a golf course is built;t~ housing has been established, The
Courts have frowned on any potential of introducing these interferences and
dangers next to existing homes.
- 2. Interstate ?0 is ahigh-speed highway (b5 m.p,h.~ adjacent to the proposed
course. Not only is it very close to the golf site it is below the site making it
that much more susceptible to errant golf balls, A shattered windshield at 63
m.p.h. could be devastating. Should you go ahead with this course we
would suggest a clockwise routing of the holes to keel the slice/shank on the ~ _
site rather than allowing it to fly onto the interstate or into the hort~s.
3. The corridor width is 150' through the center of the site which is
considerably less chat that recommended by the American Society of Golf
Course Rrchitects and the 1\'ational Golf Foundation. A conmdor fora
regulation hole is a minimum of X00', so even considering the paz-3, it
should not be less than 2~ feet. Aside-by-side golf hole scenario has a
minimum of S00' with consideration for the par-3 holes, this might drop to
Mr. Rob Robinson April 1,1992
Executive Dinct~ pago 2
Vail Recreadon ®istrict
~ feet. Once again, the Courts are well•versed in these dimensions and,
should i~ju or damage occur, an "expert witness" familiar with these
Standards wt!! tCStify aS 3UCh.
4. Walks such as those between 1 to 2, 2 to 3 and 7 to 8 are all dangerous
considering those people hitting balls directly at the "walker."
S. Several centerlines of fairways are within 30 to 40 feet of the Qroperty lino.
Even assuming perfect shots from the type of clientele who wtll be playing
this course, thts is entirely to close,
Sketching in realistic green shapes and sizes further creaus extreme dangers.
Considering a 5,000 to 6,000 square foot Teen, the right sides of those
greens on most holes, but particularly 3 and would be within 10 to 15 feet
of the property line. Thane is no room to move those greens left as they
would fall dangerously in front of bolts playing the opposite direction. The
same • sized green on hole #S would not leave room far tee #b. Greens at #2
and #7 would likely be combined into a double green which, again, is
extremely dangerous on a course such as this..
- ~ 7. The topography or slope of land from side to side further complicates
_ . _ construction and will result in some difficult fill slopes on the downhill sides
of greens and secs which will cause more extreme bounces toward I.70.
These can be mitigated by excavating on the uphill side but they cannot be
totally eliminated.
R. The area shown for parking, entry and starter shack is extremely limited.
. Grading would be crucial for this. to work -required setbacks from the entry
road could likely limit available space and neighbor objections as to the
starter building aesthetics and placement could be obstacles as well.
- Rah, we just feel thtre is not enough room to fit what you would like into this site.
V1re detest turning down possible work, but in clear conscience, we cannot
recommend that you do this project. .
Thank you most sincerely for inviting us to be interviewed, We hope your #4
candidate may be willing to take our place. We wish you good luck on your project,
but we also Nape that you will strongly consider the convnents above. We realize
that we are commenting on a preliminary sketch plan, but afier 30 years in the
business, we do nit see a reasonable solution that would vary that much, Please
,don't hesitate to give me a call if you have any questions.
Sin
- Richard M. Phelps, ASGGA
RMP/tmp
DICK BAILEY while in Vail, Dick was active in local poli- ~ -
tics serving on the Vail town council for six
years. During his tenure as councilman, he
was involved in the planning of some of Vail's
- - - . ~ significant public facilities.
As one of the original partners in the .
. - Singletree Golf Club and Resort Community,
Dick was responsible for the project's land
plan.and development, including construction
of the golf facilities. The Singletree Golf
Course is now considered one of the finest
_ golf courses in the Rocky Mountains; and was
selected by Golf Digest as one of the top 50
resort courses in America.
Dick further expanded his development ex-
• pertise when he and Singletree partner, Jim
• - Bartlett,-relocated to Scottsdale, Arizona in late
1:...J
1981 to undertake the Desert Highlands
project. Desert Highlands has been recognized
by Golf Digest as the 40th best golf course in
the United States.
- • ick began .his development career in
1964 while managing the architec-. In 1985, he and Jim Bartlett formed the Bai-
tural firm of Fitzhugh Scott, Archi.- ley/Bartlett Group, Managing Partner of the
tect in Vail, Colorado. He was responsible Forest Highlands project near Flagstaff, Ari-
for the design and construction of many of zona. In this capacity, he has been respon- -
Vail's original landmark buildings. Bible for all facets of the planning, design and -
development of the project. He also designed
In 1966, Dick joined the- firm of Slifer and and supervised the construction of the 18-hole
Company as general partner where he was Putting course at Forest Highlands.
active in real estate brokerage and new devel-
opment projects. His experience with Slifer 'Throughout his 25 year career in architec-
and Company included residential/commer- ture, land planning and real estate, Dick has
cial sales and leasing, raneh sales, and the de- acquired a fine eye for aesthetics and detail.
sign and construction of multi-family residen- It is this experience that he brings to golf
tial homes and commercial buildings. course design projects.
I~
=
L~E~TEL®PEIZ BACI<~R®UND INFLUENCES
DESIGN PHIL®S®PHY
Dick Bailey has a perspec- fundamentalsnecessaryfor dential community,
tive on golf course design the successful execution of
few other designers enjoy. agolf-oriented residential Q. How will the site influence
How does this insight influ- community. There is noth- your golf course design?
eves his own golf course ingmyopicinmyapproach
designs? to a golf course design chal- A. Natures features andhaz-
lenge. On the contrary, it is ards will play a predomi-
Q. Having been a gol
f course impossible, due to my de- nant role in the strategy and
developer, how do you think velopment background, to routing of a client's golf
this backgrou~rd will servos you visualize the golf course course. The effective use of
ili the golf course desig~i busi- routing without consider- the natural and existingfea-
~icss? ~ ing the fundamental land tures will always be pre-
planandcirculationsystem. ferred to man's artificially
A. Most importantly, it af- My ability to relate to cli• created features. A client's
fords me the unique capa- ent, land planner,. engi- unique requirements as
bility of understanding golf veers, architects, and gov- they relate to the golf course
course design from the ernmental. agencies means and land plan may cause
developer's or client's per- a number of important the creation of earthforms
spective. Having spent things to my client -time which without the intro-
years in the profession, I and dollars saved and a golf duction of land planning
understand the subtle nu- coursewhichiscomfortably .considerations would not
ancesalongwiththeproject compatible with the resi- be imposed on the golf
4 -
+y./
•r ~ ' I- V.
~ .
!'S.
-
3't
"Tl~e effective use of fhe ~iatural "O~ie geed look Drily to golf- "The finishedgolf coursewill be
a~idexisti~tgfeatureswillalways oriented contraiu~iities my part- an appropriate and unique Gre-
be preferred to magi's artificially ilerships have co~?iplefed to date ation, identifiable only in ifs
created features." tofullyundersfn~2d~liysensifiv- originality."
ity to thce2ivironme~it and e~ivi-
ro~tnreiital issues."
~3
course. Should this condi- cessfully devegetated~ and executed shots. Fail, how-
tion be necessary to the revegetated our site where ever and the price exacted
developer's successful ex- development activity im- will be a bogey or worse.
ecution of his plan, every patted the desert flora. The Seldom will you find con-
effortwill bemade tomake .impact of this "instantland- ditions on my golf courses
those features as natural in scape" effort was immedi- which can be described as
appearance as modern con- ate and dramatic. purely penal. Strategy will
struction techniques and When Jack Nicklaus, our dictate the configuration of
design criteria allow. ~ golf course architect, real- earthforms, bunkers and
ized the astonishing success hazards. The condition cre-
Q. Wl~nt is your philosophy re- we were having with the ated may well present the
gardingthe interaction of golf revegetation, he started opportunity for heroic
corirsesarld tlieenvirannrent? moving the native desert achievement, but an alter-
floor asthough itwere silly- nate and less challenging
A. One need look only to ~ putty. The impact on the route will be available.
golf-oriented communities character of the golf course
mypartnershipshavecom- was unlike that of any golf Q. Do you think your golf
pleted to date to fully un- course previously con- courses will exhibit a recog-
derstand my sensitivity to strutted in a desert envi- nizable character unique to
the environment and envi- ronment. This single dis- Dick Bailey?
ronmental issues. play of environmental sen-
Desert Highlands stands sitivity pretty much "wrote A. While I am very familiar -
out as a fine example of the the new book" on desert with the design character
developer and golf Course J golf course design and es- and style of many past mas-
architect working in con- tablished what has become ters of golf course design,
, cert with the environment.. the expected norm for my personal style will be a
` Desert Highlands was my ~ desert golf course develop- constantly changing reflec-
first experience working ment. ~ tion of many elements. Ex-
with the desert environ- _ istingterrain,client'sneeds
ment. We were informed Q. Wliat strategic consider- and budget are but a few
by knowledgeable local ations do yo:~ take into ac- considerations inputting
authorities that thirty years count where designing a golf my designs. Although the
was required for the rich . course? design strengths of past
Sonoran desert landscape masters will undoubtedly
to recover after being dis- A. Visual clues will suggest influence my work, I see
turned by man and his ma- the most obvious way to the finished product as an
chines. This was '.a make a par or birdie. If amalgamation of old pre-
timeframe wholly incom- these clues go unnoticed or cepts and new concepts.
patible with our fast-track are rejected for a more "he- The finished golf course will
approach to development. roic"approach, chances are _ be an appropriate and
Working closely with an an optimum score can still unique creation, identifi-
aeronautical engineer beachieved,butonlyasthe able only in itsoriginality.
turned landscaper, we sue- result of at least two finely '
ly
1 ~
. i
In 1983 Bates was invited by Jack Nicklaus to join the Nicklaus Golf Course Design ~ ,E
organization. His first project was to administer the design and to build the Cayman Golf
Course {modified distant goli). A truly unique course, located in the Cayman Islands,
B.W.I., it consists of three golf courses in one: an 18 hole executive cDUrse, an 18 hole ~
Cayman ball course, and a regulation 9 hole course. This was the beginning of an exciting
era. Just as Jack Nicklaus was becoming a Who's Who in the golf course design industry,
Bates' involvement quickly moved to other projects in the United States and around the
world. Not only was Bates'involved in the design and construction process, he was also
responsible for evaluating Nicklaus's new projects and clients as well as the proposed golf
course sites, which carried him to many corners of the world. Finally Bates was named
Vice President of Design and Construction. for Sack Nicklaus Goif Services, a title which he
held until his departure from the Nicklaus organization in early 1988.
Bates finally decided to apply his acquired skills and knowledge of the business of golf
course architecture and construction, which he has accumulated from Gary Player, Ron
Kirby, Bob Cupp, Jack Nicklaus and others, on his own. The results have been rewarding.
Jack Nicklaus had Bates renovate Mayaroo Lakes Golf Course, one of the top 100 golf
courses in the U.S. Bates formed a very exciting working relation with Johnny Miller to
provide Miller's technical requirements for designing golf courses at Jot-~nny Miller Design
Ltd. He has also formed the same relationship with Jerryrieard, past PGA Tour player.
Bates has been selected to design. several new 18-hole layouts across the country as well as
renovating several existing courses.
As detailed in Bates' project list, he has ha3 the opportunity to work on several of the U.S.
and world's top 100 golf courses. They include:
. Scioto Courtry~ CIub - Columbus, Ohio
Shoal Creek - Birmingham, Alabama
Mayaeoo Ickes Golf Club ~ West Palm Beach, Florida
Wack-Wack Golf and CountryClub - Manila, Philippines
Royal Johannesburg Golf Club - Johannesburg, South Africa
Gary Player Golf Club Bophuthatswana, South Africa
Elephant Hi1Is Country. Club - ~ Victoria Falls, Rhodesia
j .
r
1
1 •
a In a few years many of the new golf courses which Bates has been involved arc predicted to .
surface in the elite world ranking including:
St. Hellion Golf Club - St. McIiion En 1
. g and
Golf Club Gut Altentann - Salzburg, Austria
Westin Kuaui Lagoons- Kuaul, Hawaii
PGA West Members Course La Quinta, California
'I~ro recent golf courses designed by Bates have been nominated by Golf T?igest as bese
new public and private golf courses for 1990 -Green Spring Golf Course in Washington, .
Utah, was nominated for public and Binks Forest Country Club in West Palm Beach,
Florida, was nominated for private course. In additon, Brighton Crest Golf Course near
Fresno, California, has won the Gold Nugget Grand Award for Besi Planned Golf Course
Community over 100 Acres at the Pacific Co2st Builders Conference in San Francisco.
Bates is currently designing courses in the following locations:
USA: -Florida -Tennessee . -Ohio
-New Hampshire ~ • New Jersey -Hawaii .
California -Wisconsin -Indiana
-Nevada V T~K
! ~ Intcrnationat: -Sweden -Japan -Jamaica
~ - • England ~ .
As a natural progression of careers, Bates is being sponsored for membership to the
.American Societ~r of Golf Course Architects by Peie Dye, Rees Jones and Geoffrey
Cornssh.
With this hack round ex erience ar~d achievement, Bates is a wise choice for the desi n of.
g P g
your golf course. He has a peaonai involvement and dedication for each project. In
addition, if Bates is unhappy with the Contractor°s golf course shaping, his "hands-on" -
bulldozer expertise allows him to make corrections andJor f eld modifications while visiting
g a site. This is a valuable asset.
.
I (D
'
• ~ • DT;SIGN PHILOSOPHY
Vt'c take pride at GBA, Inc. in our dcsi~n of a golf course because as we always take into
account several considerations and variables which we thoroughly investigate prior to .
finalizing the site specific design of that particular golf course.
~
! In geeeral, we have no preconceived ideas of how the golf course will be designed, but we
dohave guidelines which affect our approach to design on all courses. Among them are;
+ -safety : .
- playability for all levels of players
-cost
-maintenance
- golf'in poppulation
- age ot~golfers
These guidelines are strongly influenced by site specific conditions such as:
- topography
- climate
-geology
-elevation
- em?ironment
We incorporate tl~e overall expectations of the otivner and the total resources available to
develop the entire golfing complex.
With the preceding generalizations in mind, our foal is to maximize and blend all ofthe
aforementioned influences to create a course which becomes:
-enjoyable
- a reasonable challenge to all golfers
-beautiful
-coexistent with its natural surroundings
-profitable
-maintainable
Considering all these foregoing factors and components of golf course development and
the desired results, there are~some principle design philosophies for which we strive:
- Make the course playable for everyone, especially the high handicappers, seniors,
women and juniors. This group of players are the majority of the golfing population
world wide. If they can enjc~v and ~ompiete a round of golf, they will return for
more. ~ - , . -
- Create a beautiful course which is pleasing to the senses and provides an
atmosphere for relaxation to all people who come. _
-Develop balance of design! Don't do anything radical or out of places Present
challenge -not intimidation! ~
~ l
A golf course is meant to provide an enjoyable outlet for the golfing needs of a specific
area and its golfing population. Whether the course is a private, public or resort facility,
people must want to play it again and again.
I~ ~
t. t
GENE I3. BATES j
-Golf Course Design Experience
Architectural
p~iect ~g jdpcatioIl t~lgtionshl~ .
Jve~r P%eets
Valhalla Louisti~ille, KY Jack Nicklaus
Long Bay Club North Myrtle Beach, SC Jack Nicklaus
Richland Country Club Nashville, TN Jack Nicklaus .
Country Club of the South Atlanta, GA Jack Nicklaus
Pawleys Plantation Georgetown, SC Jack Nicklaus
Country Club of Louisiana Baton Rouge, LA Jack Nicklaus
PGA West Resort Course ~ La Quinta, CA Jack Nicklaus
PGA West Members Course La Quinta, CA Jack Nicklaus
Westin Kauai Lagoons Kauai, Hawaii Jack Nicklaus ,
Golf Club Gut Altentann ~ Sahburg, Austria ~ Jack Nicklaus j
Golf Club Crans Crans Sir Sierre, Switzerland Jack Nicklaus -
Sycamore Hills. Golf Club Ft. Wayne, IN ~ ` . Jack Nicklaus ~ ~ -
TPC of Fairlane Detroit, MI • Sack Nicklaus
St.Mellion Golf Club St. Hellion, England . Jack Nicklaus
Britannia Golf Club Grand Cayman, BWI Jack Nicklaus
Melrose Club Defauski Island, SC Jack Nicklaus ~
Walden Lakes Country Club Plant City, FL ~ Golforce ' .
Gary Player Country Club Bophuthatswana, So. Africa Kirby/Player .
Clearwater Bay ~ - Lantau Island, Hong Kong Kirby/Player j
Kani-Irag Golf Course Cebu, Philippines Kirby/Player
The Falls Golf & Racquet Club Lake ToYaway, NC Golforce/Gene Bates
_ _
Missing Link Golf Course Milwaukee, WI Gene Bates
Athens Country Club Athens, GA George Cobb
~Vloonsee Goff Course Moonsee, Austria Gene Bates/Mark Muller
Wynstone Country Club ~ Chicago, IL Jack Nicklaus
English'I~rn New Orleans, LA Jack Nicklaus
Ptmari an Golf Club Fort Collins, CO ~ Jack Nicklaus
S ,
The Landings Wilmington, NC Jack Nicklaus
. ~f
-
~ a ii II
Remodel or Renovation Projects
Breckenridge Golf Club Brackenridge, CO Jack Nicklaus
Sunnyfield Country Club Mito City, Japan Jack Nicklaus
Shoal Creek Golf Club Birmingham, AL Jack Nicklaus
Kensington Golf Club Johannesburg, South Africa Kirby/Ptayer
Cheeca Lodge Islan~orada, FL Goiforce/Gene Bates
Wack•Wack Golf & Country Club Manila, Philippines IGrby/Player
Mt. Myon Country Club Legaspi City, Philippines Gene Bates
Royal Johannesburg Golf Club Johannesburg, South Africa I{irby/Player
Park View Golf Club Sandton, South Africa Gene Bates
Rand Park Golf Club Johannesburg, South Africa Gene Bates
Elephant Hills Country Club ~ Victoria Falls, Zimbabwe Gary Player
Lubbock Country Club Lubbock, TA Joe Finger
Odessa Country Club Odessa, TX Charles Howard
Scioto Country Club Columbus, OH Jack Nicklaus/Bob Cupp
Fine Isle Golf Course Lake Lanier, GA Kirby/Player -
~1cw1~'resent F~iects .
Shore Oaks Golf Club Little Silver, NJ Johnny Miller/G. Bates
Coliingtree Park Northampton, Ergland Johnny Miller/G. Bates
Traverse Mountain Resort Salt Lake City, CJT Johnny Miilcr/G. Bates .
Binks Forest Country Club. Wel?ington, FL Johnny Miller/G. Bates .
Due Process Stables Colts Neck, NJ Johnny Miller/G. Bates
Brighton Crest Fresno, CA Johnny MilleriG. Bates
Green Spring Golf Coursc V~'ashington City, [JT Gene Bates
Adam's Farm Indianapolis, IN Gcne Bates
Presidential Golf & Country Club Con•,~~ay, NH Gene Bates
Rivenvood Country Club Port Charlotte, FL Gene Bates
i
Drax Hall Country Club St. Ann's Bay, Jamaica Gcne Bates •
Mauritzberg Slotts Golf Resort . I\orrkoeping, Sweden . ~ Gene Bates l
Tri 1e Crovm Count Club Boone Coun KY. Gene Bates
p ~ ~
4
l
'I?~e Players Club Muncie, IN Gene Bates
Sea Mountain Resort Punalu°u, Hawaii Johnny Miller/G. Bates
Sekitei ICawazu Resort lzu Peninsula, Japan Johnny hiillcr/G. Bates
Olympus G G Desert Hot Springs, CA Johnny Miller/G. Bates
Walking Horse Golf Course ~ Lewisburg, TN Gene Bates
Riverton G.G Salt bake City, U'P Gen Bates
Palm Lakes GG St, George, UT Gene Bates
Lake Park G.G Salt bake City, tl'I' ~ Gene Bates
Centerville Municipal G.C. Centerville, OH Gene Bates
Fota Island G.G Cork, Ireland Johnny Miller/G. Bates
White Wing Estates Salano County, CA Johnny Miller/G. Bates
remodel or Renovation Proms
Mayacoo Lakes Country Club West Palm Beach, FL Jack Nicklaus
Wellington Golf Club Wellss~gton, FL ~ Johnny Miller '
Stillwater Valley Webster, OH Gene Bates
The Forest Country Club Ft. Myers, FL Gene Bates
South Seas Plantation Captiva Island, FL Gcne Bates
Eastwood Golf Course Ft. Myers, FL Gene Bates '
Ozaukee Country Club Milwaukee, WI Gene Bates/Jerry Heard
Summit Hills Country Club Crestview Hills, ICY Gene Bates
_
T
~ ;l
_
r;
i
i
a~
VAII,°S OIJTDOOIt ICE RIND
1991 • 1992 vVINTER SEASON
AFTER ACTI01v1 REP®R'~'
The Outdoor Ice Rink opened at the Vail Golf Course December 20,1991 and
closed on March 1,1992. The number of skaters using the rink for the season was
2601 (an increase of 17°1o from last year). Total revenue this winter was $4741,
with an additional $2498 outstanding from the sleighride operation. This total was
$18261ess than budgeted. The primary reason for the revenue variance is due to
the low number of group rentals. 1991 group rental revenue was $1813, whereas
1992 group rental revenue was only $550.
Total expenses were $2155 less than the original budgeted figures. The major
single variance was an overage in advertising. The original budget did not include
advertising for the outdoor ice rink. Total salaries were less than budgeted due to a
cutback in hours of operation.
Marketing for Vail's Outdoor Ice Rink focused on public skating and group rentals.
. A Grand Opening celebration was scheduled before Christmas to invite local
skaters, concierge, and families to enjoy a free day on the ice. Other advertising .
included:
-Rack cards at information outlets
-Vail Daily
-Vail Trail
-Flyer through VRA mailing
-Vail Associates employee newsletter
-TV-B, TV-13
-Channe123
. Two aspects of the Outdoor Ice Rink that need improvement are group rentals and
the broomball league. Groups that rented the ice last year did not return this year.
Vail Ski Patrol booked their weekly practice ice at Dobson Arena (moved to the big
top!,) instead of the outdoor ice rink. Other attempts to secure consistent weekly
rentals with local skating groups were unsuccessful. The broomball league
. received great interest, but individuals found it difficult to form a team. Although
everyone indicated that the schedule and registration fees were reasonable, it was
difficult to organize teams during the winter months without competing with
established sports leagues at Red Sandstone Gym.
a~
Mail's Outdoor Ice Rink 1991-1992
After Action Report
Page Two
_ Suggestions For Next Yearti
-alternate sticks and pucks for different skill levels
-encourage figure skaters to buy private ice at night for freestyle sessions
-build cubbyhole shelving system for rental skates that will also serve as
storage for personal items for skaters
-educate Dobson staff with outdoor ice rink information
-work more aggressively with Satch's to book group rentals
. -broomball league needs to be promoted more aggressively
-fix hockey nets v
What Worked Well This Year:
-water was available for skaters and nordic skiers
¢ -cordless phone allowed attendant to monitor rink activities while
+ answering the phone
~ -Grand opening party was good for locals, but difficult to schedule
f
concierge party due to busy time of year
-incorporating sleighride reservation did not materialize -Steve Jones
decided that Satch's would take reservations
-helmets were available for public. use
-kleenex was available for public use
-vacuum cleaner was a big plus
-6pm - 7pm maintenance time was eliminated to provide more skating time
-morning skating time was eliminated due to low numbers from previous year
-rink attendants were trained to use snow removal equipment .
as
.
VAIL'S OUTD®®I~ ICE RINK
BUDGET DETAII.
1991-1992 WINTER SEAS®N
BUDGE ~ t:D
REVENUES:
Skate Rental $4191.00
Group Rental ~ 550.00
Salary Reimbursement 2498.56
TOTAL REVENUES $7239.56 $9065.00
EXPENSES:
Salaries $5447.18 $6840.00
Rink Attendant S 119.51
Maint. 327.67
Social Security $ 278.78 $ 424.00
Medicare $ b5.20 $ 99.00
Contract Labor (referees) ~ $ 300.00 $ 110.00
Advertising $ 219.00 $ -0-
Utilities Water/Sewer $ 56.25 $ 170.00
Telephone Rate Charge ~ $ -0- $ 150.00 .
Misc. Operating Supplies $ 333.31 $ 500.00
Soil', Sand, Peat Moss $ -0- $ 500.00
HEF Operating Charge ~ $ -0- $ 60.00
Vehicle Parts $ 148.35 ~ 150.00
TOTAL EXPENSES $6848.07 $9003.00
NET INCOME $ 391.49 ~ 62.QQ
~1
u
1710°
100 1®.00
0~ ° ~ 8k~~ 9a 0 29 3S.aO
:00 ® gicelete 8 1g 0 9, 61 q.a+0
4~0 t ~ ® 0 2Ag $ 0 C ~ a ~ as
12~ " OO $1Q,atets Z 120-
gkolete A6t~'l 1 1 0 O 13 4 ® ~ ® 0 ~ g[1.O0
1 1 ~ ~ 1 12 0 0 ~ 10 9 ~ 1b 13 g 73 gg.0O
0 129.aO
1 a' a a o o e ® Q o o ~ 133.00
' ~ ~ 0 9 ° ° ~ ® 7 ° o ° ~
~,11p1 91 Ia to 15 1 4 0 ® 1~.oa
~1 ~ 1a 15 1T 0 0 t3 9 1$ 0 0 0 1~ 111.00
12l~1 Aa 1A ~ 17 0 14 0 a 97.00
~~1 ~ 14 10 /7 0 0 ~ 9 T a ® a ~ ig.a0
~1 ~ ~ 1a 12 6 0 91 as 113 a 0 ® ~ 57 00
2r~9 ~ ~ a3 ~ ~ ® 2 ~ 19 1 ® 0 0 3g 70.00
1 4d a6 10 a ® 1a S 0 ® 0 0 ~ g8.OO
gfJ1~1 87 ~ ~ ~ a 0 1a Z 1 a ° 0 ® ~ 0'~
It01~ s8 14 14 to a a 7 s 2 a a o d A1.oo
1A2 21 ~ ' ~ ~ 0 a 0 0 0 0 ~ 1~ ~
1 13 0 1° o ° s 1 15 ° o a ~ 8;ao
1t 1s s ~ 9 e a to 2 ° o 0 10 5.00
?tolt~ 1 a e a 0 o a 1 0 ° o ° 1C 27.aa
1t~a 1s 10 2 ° a ° o ° o c o 0 a3 ~
1t 15 A c o 0 2 ~ a A o c 24 t2
~.00
Inoue 23 5 o a s o 0 23 ~
1n1~ 17 8 a 1 0 6 1 1 0 ° 49 gs.
tn~ 7 ° 3 0 0 A 2 s 0 o d ~ 11g~
1 1 7 a 9 0 0 5a 35.ao
in
~ ~ e a 's ~ a z1 1g ~ o ~ o ~ 1o.ao
1t15t~ 7 s o 12 s a 11 5 0 3 0 ° 19 1x.00
1n~ 3 3 0 9 2 2 c o c ~
1t 1~ 25 ° t3 a o 2
u ~ 16 10 2 1 a 5 0 a c o o ~ 5g.ao
1n~ 3g 13 1~ ~ o o a o 1 0 2 a ~ 17.00
1 t 11 0 a p 0 1 0 a A 0 0 g 19.00
1ta,,,1,,t~~r to a g_ S p O 3 1 a O 0 a ~ 3s.0a
112Z~ 13 4 7 6 3 a 0 0 a 0 a a 91 ~~00
~S 1 1$ 9 ~ 13 a 0 1 0 0 9 0 0 ~ 73.00
1t25~ A7 12 10 0 0 0 0 ® O 0 0 9 31 178.x0
t 1(tBl~Z 5 A 1 2 0 a 10 9 0 ® 0 0 81 y0 g.00
1127102 g 3 e " a ° a ° 0 0 2a ~
1R~ 13 0 a 0 0 a 8 0 0 0 0 g 153•
11 a 0 a 2 10 0 75 29.00
i 1 t 12 8 S 3 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 9 47.00
1 1!'91f~ 2a 13 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 11g•0~O
~ 1t~ 51 a5 ~ s o a 2 1 a c o c A5 ~a.ao
4 ~
13 e 0 ~ a p a ~ 9 0 a a 2 g1.aa
tae ~ 17 12 s c a ~ 1g c 0 0 0 ~ 3.OA
9 1 a 0 a 0 0 0 S 5 37 g8.~
11 7 4 0 0 0 0 10 p 1400
11 21 2 g 0 a a g a 15 0 p ~ 240.x0
7f~ 25 A 10 4 1 a 3 0 0 27 21 0 0 135.aa
10 2 1 2 A 0 0 0 105 ~
5 3 0 0 S8.
C~ 17 ® p 10 0 a p ® ~ 0 p 0 65 30.00
1f92 14 1 1 10 p 0 35 2s A 0 0 0 2g 33.00
6 2 0 3 0 48.CO
1~ 1T 2 4 7 C a ~ 17 0 0 C 0 148
4~ 27 17 a 4 1 0 0 0 0 ~ 32.00
1~ 48 1 q 1 0 a 10 4 0 0 0 0 13 33.00
9 9 0 S 0 0 56.C~
171 ~ 5 8 7 0 0 a 14 C 0 ~ 0 ~ 49.0'
81~ ~ 5 3 3 a 0 ® 0 1 0 2 p 23 O.C
9~ 13 i1 0 11 0 0 10 0 g 5 0 0 0 O.t
~ 20 20 a 0 ~ g 2 0 0 0 0 0.
~ 13 ~ 2 7 t 0 23 10 0 p 0 0 0 2'15 4~
y
i 3 4 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 55a
a 3 a ° o a a ° o a o 2801
41~ 0 0 0 ° o ° o ° a s1 11
o a o 0 166
~ 0 U 0 0 0 6~ ~ 154
7192 0 ~ 3~ 447 35 4
Stg2 0 r..,j
1374 ~
O A1-S
~~C~IV~~? 7 1992
DISTRIBUTION LIST - PUBLIC WORKS PRIORITY LIST
BRIAN ANDERSON ERNST GLATZLE TOWN COUNCIL
STEVE BARWICK GARY MURRAIN DEBBIE ROELAND
MIKE BRAKE GREG HALL MIKE ROSE
DICK DURAN SUSIE HERVERT TODD SCHOLL
CAROLINE FISHER JIM HOZA DAN STANEK
ANNIE FOX DD DETO LEO VASQUEZ
JOHN GALLEGOS JOE KOCHERA PAM BRANDMEYER
KRISTIN PRITZ CHARLIE OVEREND LARRY ESKWITH
PETE BURNETT TODD OPPENHEIMER FILE
JODY DOSTER MANUEL MEDINA
MEMORANDUM
T0: RON PHILLIPS, TOWN MANAGER
FROM: KEN HUGHEY, INTERIM DIRECTOR, PUBLIC WORKS/TRANSPORTATION
DATE: APRIL 6, 1992
RE: PUBLIC WORKS PRIORITY LIST FOR THE WEEK OF
APRIL 6 - 10, 1992
STREETS AND. ROADS
A. 1. Begin spring clean up of cinders throughout Town and haul
them off.
2. Remove totem poles at the following locations:
a. E. end WI b. E, end Ice Arena
c. E. end Mtn. Haul'
3. Paint- Town Engineer's office. ~ - -
4. Complete flagging certification with Department bf
Highways.
5. Investigate Highway Department plowing Vail Pass bike
path.
6. Move 3 bus stop posts on Chamonix to southside of road.
7. Obtain approvals for installation of banner poles on
Bridge Street.
8. Inventory and stock rock at Meadow Mountain for Willow
Bridge project.
9. Paint new gate arms.
10. Restripe lanes-at 4-Way and lst Bank. -
11. Break down winter equipment for summer operation.
PARKING STRUCTURE/TRANSPORTATION "
A. 1. Confirm with PCL, west exhaust fan status.
2. Repair Library smoke sensors.
3. Repair short in lights at LHTRC.
4. Assist electrician at Municipal Annex Building.
5. Repair storage area light at VTRC.
6. Finish fire code check list at Municipal Building.
7. Experiment with new "Lot Full" procedures.
i
PUBLIC WORKS PRIORITY LIST
Page 2
CARPENTERS
A. 1. Construct "project" for Library.
2. Construct cabinets and shelves for new Community
Development Department.
3. Refinish benches.
4. Install chair rail in Public Work's Administration
Building.
5. Construct and install bulletin board for Willow Bridge.
6. Construct and Install window boxes for old Post Office.
7. Construct 5 suggestion boxes for Personnel Office.
ELECTRICIANS
A. 1. Continue remodel work at Old Post Office.
2. Meet with Contractor regarding Willow Road Bridge.
3. Repair ground fault.- LHTRC fire alarm system.
4. Repair lights at the following locations:
a. PW Administration coffee area
b. Bighorn street light
5. Order exhaust fans for Police Department locker rooms.
6. Conduct electrical inspections.
7. Change all time clocks.
8. Repair mig welder.
PARKS DEPARTMENT
A. 1. Finalize Stephen's Park easements with Larry Eskwith.
2. Contact Larry Eskwith regarding Weed Ordinance.
3. Investigate alternate planting containers for VTRC.
4. Work with planners on Ski Museum"site.
KH/dsr