Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-05-12 Support Documentation Town Council Work Session . VAIL TOWN COUNCIL WORK SESSION TUESDAY, MAY 12, 1992 2:00 P.M. IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS AGENDA 1. PEC Report. 2. DRB Report. 3. Discussion Re: Drainage Easement on Lot 10, Block C, Vail Ridge Subdivision. Property Owner: Kent Rose. 4. Art In Public Places Activities Update. 5. Discussion Re: Parking Along Frontage Road by Ford Park. 6. Discussion Re: Refinancing Town of Vail Debt. 7. Information Update. 8. Council Reports. 9. Other. 10. Adjournment. THE NEXT VAIL TOWN COUNCIL OVERVIEW WORK SESSION AND EVENING MEETING WILL BE ON TUESDAY, 5/19/92, BEGINNING AT 6:30 P.M. C:WGENDA.WS VAIL TOWN COUNCIL WORK SESSION TUESDAY, IlAAY 12, 1992 2:00 P.M. IN COUNCIL CFIAAABERS EXPANDED AGENDA 2:00 P.M. 1. PEC Report. 2:15 P.M. ~ 2. DRB Report. 2:25 P.M. 3. Discussion Re: Drainage easement on Lot 10, Block C, Vail Ridge Kent Rose Subdivision. Property Owner: Kent Rose. Action Requested of Council: Listen to Kent's request and discuss the situation, Backaround Rationale; Kent is requesting the waiver of building permit fees in exchange for a storm drainage easement which was not obtained before the underground drainage line was installed. Please see attached letters. 2:45 P.M. 4. Art in Public Places activities update, including the VTC project and Kristan Pritz recent gift. Action Requested of Council: Uphold/deny AIPP decision. Backaround Rationale: On May 6, 1992, the AIPP Board voted unanimously to accept from the Vail Valley Arts Council the sculpture "Is Anyone Listening?", by Donald C. Mitchell in memory of Arne Hansen. The piece will be located on the grass area in front of Arnesen Fine Arts. 3:00 P.M. 5. Discussion Re: Parking along Frontage Road by Ford Park. Corey Schmidt Ron Phillips Action Requested of Council: Provide direction as to enforcement policy. Backaround Rationale: See attached memo dated May 6, 1992, from Corey Schmidt to Ron Phillips. 3:20 P.M. 6. Discussion Re: Refinancing of Town of Vail debt. Steve Barwick Action Requested of Council: Discuss this item and the Town's long term financial situation. Backaround Rationale: Town staff and Bond Council will present various scenarios for the possible refinancing and extension of current outstanding bonds. Included will be scenarios which would allow for purchase of significant amounts of additional land. 4:50 P.M. 7. Information Update. 8. Council Reports. 9. Other. 10. Adjournment. C:WGENDA:WSE PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION May 11, 1992 AGENDA 1:OOPM Site Visits 1:30PM . Worksession 2:OOPM Public Hearing Site Visits Worksessiori 1. A request for a worksession on a conditional use permit for the Vail Team Tennis facility, generally located to the south of the Liorishead Skier Bridge and north of West Forest Road on the existing tennis courts, and more specifically described as follows: A part of the NW Ya of Section 7, Township 5 South, Range 80 West of the 6th PM, Town of Vail, Eagle County, Colorado, described as follows: Beginning at a point whence the southeast corner of Lot 2, Block 2, Vail Village 6th Filing, according to the map thereof recorded under Reception No. 99380 in the office of the Eagle County, Colorado, Clerk and Recorder bears S80°50'59"W 103.58 ft; thence N08°09'53"W 126.74 ft; thence N80°53'20"E 286.55 ft; thence S07°47'19"E 127.66 ft; thence S81 °04'13:W 285.70 ft to the point of beginning, containing 0.835 acres, more or less. Applicant: Vail AssociatesNail Recreation District Planner: Mike Mollica Public Hearing 1. A request for an extension of a previously approved setback variance for the Pitto Residence, Lot 3, Block 1, Vail Village Eleventh Filing/2920 Booth Creek Drive. Applicant: J. Russell Pitto Planner: Mike Mollica 1. 2. A request to expand a previously approved conditional use permit allowing a public utility and a request for a variance from Section 18.58.320 regulating satellite dish antennas for 501 N: Frontage Road West/Lot 8, Block 2, Vail Potato Patch. Applicant: U.S. West New Vector Planner: Andy Knudtsen/Jill Kammerer 3. A request to rezone the "Ski Museum" pocket park site from Public Accommodation to Public Use District. The site is located at the northwest intersection of Vail Road and West Meadow Drive, and more specifically described as follows: A part of Lot "B", Amended Map of Vail Village, Second Filing, County of Eagle, State of Colorado, more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the Northeast Corner of Section 7, Township 5 South, Range 80 West of the 6th P.M.: thence Southerly along the East Line of said Section 7 a distance of 390.78 ft; thence on an angle to the right of 90°00'00" a distance of 25.00 ft to a point on the East Line of said Lot "B", said point being 73.00 feet Northerly from the SE corner of said Lot "B" and the true point of beginning; thence continuing along the aforesaid course a distance of 98.75 ft to a point on the Southwesterly line of said Lot "B", which is the Northeasterly line of W. Meadow Dr.; thence on an angle to the left of 121°43'21" and along the curve to the right having a radius of 175.00 feet and a central angle of 02°06'21 and an arc distance of 6.43 ft to a point of tangent; thence continuing along said tangent a distance of 33.97 ft to a point of curve; thence on a curve to the left having a radius of 75.00 ft and a central angle of 60°23'00" and an arc distance of 79.04 ft to a point of tangent; thence continuing along said tangent a distance of 13.48 ft to the Southeasterly corner of said Lot "B", said corner being 25.00 ft Westerly of the East line of said Section 7; thence on an angle to the left of 90°00'00" and along the Easterly line of said Lot "B" and along a line parallel to the East line of said Section 7 a distance of 73.00 ft to the true point of beginning, more generally known as NW corner of Vail Road and West Meadow Drive, Vail, Colorado. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Mike Mollica 4. A discussion concerning the roof form for Special Development District No. 6, Phase IV-A of the Vail Village Inn; Lot O, Block 5-D, Vail Village First Filing/100 East Meadow Drive. Applicant: Josef Staufer Planner: Mike Mollica 5. Approval of April 27, 1992 meeting minutes. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD AGENDA MAY 6, 1992 3:00 P.M. SITE VISITS 11:30 A.M. 1 Aspen Grove Homes - 1456 Buffehr Creek Drive. 2 Cambria - 1655 Aspen Ridge Road. 3 Anderson - 2478 Garmish Drive. 4 Spruce Creek, Phase III, Bldg. #1 - 1760 S Frontage 5 Alderette - 1784 S. Frontage Road West. 6 Hymers - 1459 Greenhill Court. 7 Westin Hotel - 1275 Westhaven Drive. 8 Rumford - 675 Forest Road. 9 Vail Team Tennis - Located to the south of the Lionshead skier bridge and north of West Forest Road. 10 Enzian Condominiums - 705 W. Lionshead Circle. 11 Vail Gateway Plaza - 12 Vail Road. 12 Byrne Residence - 16 Forest.Road. 13 McAdam Residence - 145 Forest Road. 14 Laughing Monkey - 223 E Gore Creek Drive/Creekside Bldg . 15 May Palace - 223 E. Gore Creek Drive/Creekside Bldg. 16 Wildflower Restaurant - 174 Gore Creek Drive. 17 Christiania Lodge - 356 Hanson Ranch Road. 18 Smith Residence - 950 Fairway Drive. 19 Grubbs Residence - 1031 Eagle's Nest Circle. 20 Stempler - 1044 Homestake Circle. 21 Vail Golf Course Berm - 1778 Sunburst Drive. 22 Wilhelm - 4289 Nugget Lane. 23 Schrager - 4249 Nugget Lane. AGENDA: 1. Vail Team Tennis - Stadium tennis facility. KP/MM Conceptual. Generally located to the south of the Lionshead skier bridge and north of West Forest Road. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Conceptual no vote taken. • 2. Cambria - Carport and heated drive. MM 1655 Aspen Ridge Road/Lot 5, Block 4, Lions Ridge Filing. #3. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: TABLED TO MAY 20TH MEETING. 3. Grubbs Residence - Exterior modifications to JK existing single family residence. 1031 Eagle's Nest Circle/Lot 1, Block 1, Vail Village 1st. MOTION: Pat Herrington SECOND: Gena Whitten VOTE: 3-0 Consent approved. 4. Anderson - New Garage. JK 2478 Garmish Drive/Lot 27, Block A, Vail Das Schone 1st. MOTION: Pat Herrington SECOND: Gena Whitten VOTE: 3-0 Consent approved. 5. Laughing Monkey - Signs. JK 223 E. Gore Creek Drive/Lot A, Block 5-B, Vail Village 1st. Creekside Building. MOTION: Pat Herrington SECOND: Gena Whitten VOTE: 3-0 Consent approved. 6. Stadler Residence - Replacement of failed retaining JK wall. 2703 Cortina Lane/Lot 9, Block A, Vail Ridge. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: STAFF APPROVED. 7. Byrne Residence - Change to approved plans to JK modify approved architectural treatments for separated primary & secondary units. 16 Forest Road/Lot 1, Block 7, Vail Village 1st. MOTION: Pat Herrington SECOND: Gena Whitten VOTE: 3-0 . Approved. 8. Kaiser/Hall Residence - Carport addition to existing SM primary/secondary residence. 4916 Juniper Lane/Lot 5, Block B, Bighorn 5th Filing. MOTION: Pat Herrington SECOND: Gena Whitten VOTE: 3-0 Approved with condition: Add 6 evergreens, 2 at 8', 2 at 6', 2 at 10', include berms. 9. May Palace - Airlock. SM 223 E. Gore Drive/Part of Lot A, Block 5-B, Vail Village 1st. MOTION: Pat Herrington SECOND: Gena Whitten VOTE: 3-0 Consent approved." 10 Schrager Driveway - Revised driveway/landscape plan. SM 4249 Nugget Lane/Lot 8, Bighorn Estates. MOTION: Pat Herrington SECOND: Gena Whitten VOTE: 3-0 Consent approved. 11. Rumford - An addition of a primary residence to ~ SM ,r existing secondary residence. 675 Forest Road/Lot 4, Block 2, Vail Village 6th Filing. MOTION: Pat Herrington SECOND: Gena Whitten VOTE: 3-0 Approved as submitted. 12. Aspen Grove Homes - four new dwelling units. AK 1456 Buffehr Creek Drive/Lot 2, The Ridge at Vail. MOTION: Pat Herrington SECOND: George Lamb VOTE: 3-1 Approved with conditions. Ned Gwathmey voting against. 13.~ McAdam Residence - New Single Family. AK 145 Forest Road/Lot 29; Block 7, Vail Village lst. MOTION: Pat Herrington SECOND: George Lamb VOTE: 4-0 Approved with conditions. ~ _ 14. Westin Hotel - Pouring new 60'x60' slab for tent. AK 1275 Westhaven Drive/a portion of Cascade Village. MOTION: Pat Herrington SECOND: Gena Whitten VOTE: 3-0 Consent approved. 15. Christiania Lodge - Major renovation of lodge. MM 356 Hanson~Ranch Road/Lot D, Block 2, Vail Village 1st and Lot P-3, Block 5-A, Vail Village 5th. MOTION: Pat Herrington SECOND: Gena Whitten VOTE: 3-0 Approved the final architectural design of the building and approved the overall streetscape concepts (including Lot P-3) The streetscape details will come back to the DRB for further review at a later date, however this review will not hold up the issuance of a building permit for the project. 16. Vail Gateway Plaza - Seasonal Christmas Tree ~ MM (35' tall) at the southeast corner of the 4-way stop. 12 Vail Road/Lots N & 0, Block 5-D, Vail Village lst. MOTION: Pat Herrington SECOND: George Lamb VOTE: 4-0 Approved - for a live evergreen tree only, limbed up to a maximum of 9' above grade. 17. Smith - New primary/secondary residence. AK 950 Fairway Drive/Lot 6, Vail Village 10th. MOTION: Pat Herrington SECOND: Gena Whitten VOTE: 4-0 Approved with conditions. . 18. Wildflower Restaurant - Dining patio expansion. AK 174 Gore Creek Drive/A part of Block 5-C, Vail Village 1st. The Lodge at Vail. MOTION: Pat Herrington SECOND: Gena Whitten VOTE: 3-0 Consent approved. 19. Spruce Greek, Phase III, Building #1 - New AK Residence. 1760 S. Frontage Road West/Spruce Creek Phase III. MOTION: George Lamb SECOND: Pat Herrington VOTE: 4-0 Approved. 20. Hymers Duplex - Review of modified north elevation. JK 1495 Greenhill Court/Lot 6, Glen Lyon Subdivision. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: T1~BLED TO MAY 20TS MEETING . 21. Precourt - Conceptual review of landscaping. SM 328 Mill Creek/Lot 4, Block 1, Vail Village 1st. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Conceptual review no vote taken. 22. Stempler - Removal of tree. SM 1044 Homestake Circle/Lot 4, Block 6, Vail Village 7th. MOTION: George Lamb SECOND: Pat Herrington VOTE: 3-0 Approved. 23. Levine - Interior 250. SM 680 W. Lionshead Place/Antlers Lodge, Unit #702. MOTION: Pat Herrington SECOND:. Gena Whitten ' VOTE: 3-0 Consent approved. 24. The Cascades - Revised landscape plan. SM (Millrace IV/Cosgriff Parcel). Unplatted parcel located between the Westin Hotel and Millrace Development in Cascade Village. MOTION: George Lamb SECOND: Gena Whitten VOTE: 3-0-1 Approved.' Ned Gwathmey abstained. 25. Alderette - Demo/rebuild of primary/secondary JK residence with two 250's. 1784 S. Frontage Road West/Lot 3, Vail Village West 2nd Filing. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: TABLED TO MAY 20TH MEETIYIG. 26. Enzian Condominiums - Color change. JK 705 W. Lionshead Circle/Lot 1, Block 2, Vail~Lionshead 3rd Filing. MOTION; George Lamb SECOND: Pat Herrington VOTE: 4-0 .Approved subject to Board review of deck color. 27. Wilhelm Residence -250 addition and modifications to JK exterior. 4289 Nugget Lane (West side), Lot 5, Bighorn Estates resubdivision of Lots 10 & 11. MOTION: Pat Herrington SECOND.: Gena Whitten VOTE: 3-0 Consent approved. . 28. Ore House - Canopies. SM 232 Bridge Street/Lot A, Block 5, Vail village lst. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: TABLED TO JUNE 3R.D MEETING. 29. Set date for DRB/PEC worksession on guidelines. 30. Vail Golf Course - Berm modification. GH 1778 Sunburst Drive/Lot 3, Sunburst Filing #3. MOTION: Pat Herrington SECOND: George Lamb VOTE: 4-0 Approved. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: Ned Gwathemy Sherry Dorward i'~ Pat Herrington George Lamb Gena Whitten (PEC) STAFF APPROVALS: Anderson - Garden window. 945 Red Sandstone Road, Unit B-3. Fritz Residence - Deck enclosure. Booth Falls Townhomes, Unit #7. Borel Interior Remodel with new window. Vail Golf Course Townhomes, Building L. Vail Point Unit #34 Addition. Lot 1, Block 3, Lion's Ridge 3rd Filing. Vail Point Unit #28 - Addition. Lot 1, Block 3, Lion's Ridge 3rd Filing. . Sonnenalp - Weitz-Cohen sign for staging area. 20 Vail Road/Sonnenalp Hotel. Lamb Residence - Interior 250. Lot 15, Block 1, Bighorn 5th. Shapiro Residence - Exterior modifications. Lot 1, Block 2, Vail Valley lst. Mail Boxes - Sign. Vail Das Schone Shopping Mall. Hiller - Deck expansion. Vail Point Townhomes. Gorsuch Building - Two skylights additions to North side and top floor of building. 232 Bridge Street/263 E. Gore Creek Drive. Lot C, Block 5, Vail Village lst Filing. Crowley Residence - Bedroom expansion/closet addition. 3090 Booth Falls Court/Lot 9, Block 2, Vail Village 12th. Dorn Residence - Addition. 416 Forest Road/Lot 3, Block 1, Vail Village 3rd. Aspen Ridge Road - Entry walls. 1475 - 1675 Aspen Ridge Road/Lots 1-6, Block 4, Lionsridge F-3. Glen Lyon Office Building - Add window to north and west elevations. 1000 S. Frontage Road West. Cuccia Residence - Replace driveway and retaining walls. 2528 Arosa Drive/Lot 7, Block C, Vail Das Schone #1. Schofield Residence - Garage. 1448 Vail Valley Drive/Lot 18, Block 3, Vail Valley 1st. River House Unit #10 - Remodel. Lot 3, Block 6, Vail Village lst. Vail Mountain School - New dormers on 3rd floor. 3160 Frontage Road East/Lot 12, Block 2, Vail Village 12th. Wilson - Restucco. Lot 7, Block 2, Bighorn 5th. Concert Hall Plaza - Retaining wall reconstruction. 616 West Lionshead Circle/Nail Lionshead.4th Filing. Pitkin Creek Commercial Space - Convert vacant space to commercial. 3931 Bighorn Road. Canton Residence - Addition. 1853 Lion's Ridge Loop/Lot 3, Block 3, Lionsridge Filing #3. Vail Village Transportation Center - Rain gutters.' 241 Frontage Road East. Stadler Residence - Replacement of failed retaining wall. 2703 Cortina Lane/Lot 9, Block A, Vail Ridge. Vail Village Inn - Deck expansion for Unit #503, Phase III building. 100 N. Frontage Road/Lot 0, Block 5-D, Vail Village 1st. Crossroads at Vail - Addition to Unit E-4. 141 E. Meadow Drive/Lot P, Block 5-D, Vail Village 1st. Town of Vail Municipal Building - Community Development/Community Service Remodel. 111 N. Frontage Road. r2ECEIVED APR 2 3 2992 Xc : Li+G rv i ~ KENT R. ROSE P 0 BOX 2101 VAIL CO 81658 April 23, 1992 Mr. Rondall V. Phillips Town Manager Town of Vail 75 S. Frontage Road West Vail, CO 81.657 Dear Ron: I am in receipt of your letter dated March 31, 1992. The terms for settlement you have suggested are unacceptable. There is no direct benefit to my property from the existence of the storm sewer as there was no natural drainway there previously. It was solely for the convenience and economic benefit of the street improvement district. As I have mentioned earlier, I remain concerned that there may be further incumbrance to my property if my planned sewer service line cannot be connected to the side sanitary sewer line because of the presence of the storm sewer. I3o sanitary sewer stub was provided for this lot when the streets were improved, as was the practice for every other vacant lot, because the Town assumed service would go to the side sewer line. I remain agreeable at this time to,resolve the issue quietly and grant you an easement for the Town fees associated with my building project. If that is not acceptable to you and the Town Council, I suggest you either begin negotiation or condemnation procedures or make arrangements to remove the storm sewer. Very truly yours, J O'Y~_ Kent R. Rose w 476-6340 h 476-3375 Y / ? . It ly TOWN OF PAIL ~ 75 South Frontage Road Office of the Town Manager Yail, Colorado 81657 303-479-2105 /FAX 303-479-2157 March 31, 1992 Mr. Kent R. Rose POB 2101 Vail, CO 81658 Dear Kent, Again, I regret the differences we are experiencing with regard to the storm drainage line that was installed over a portion of your Lot prior to you owning it, As I understand the situation, a small portion of the storm drainage line is within a utility easement, but the major portion of the line is within a water line easement which you feel is not appropriate. We have been seriously considering your view that the storm drain line represents trespassing on your property and that the Town should therefore waive the building permit fees for the home you are planming to build. As I have mentioned to you, the Council. feels that the approximate $4,000 in fees is excessive for.this type. of easement. We have talked about this issue with a couple of appraisers and to an attorney in Denver who has dealt with the acquisition of many of these types of easements. The opinion is that an easement of this type, particularly one which is running congruently with other utility easements, is worth approximately $500.00. We understand your opinion that the Town acted inappropriately by installing the storm drain line without a specific easement and outside of the utility easement, and, consequently, we are willing to increase that amount to $800.00. It is not apparent that any damage has been done to pour property and it could be maintained that your property has been enhanced by the fact that the storm drainage now runs within a buried line rather than over the surface of the property itself: We are hopeful that our offer of an $800.00 deduction from your building permit fees will be agreeable to you, in exchange for this easement. The Town. of Vail will bear the cost of surveying and recording the easement. Of course, the Town Council will need~to give final approval to these terms. If you approve of the terms in this letter, please sign in the space provided below and we will consider this a binding agreement in order that you can proceed with your construction project even before the easement documents are finalized. R _ Mr. Kent R. Rose March 31, 1992 Page 2 Kent, we look forward to reaching a mutually agreeable solution to this situation. Sins y, - Rondall V. Phillips Town Manage: RVP/dd xc: Vail Town Council, Lawrence A. Eskwith, Ken Hughey Terms accepted by Kent R. Rose -Date . d M E M O R A N D U M TO: Ron Phillips FROM: Corey Schmidt . RE: Parking on South Frontage Road at Ford Park DATE: May 6, 1992 Per our discussion about the decision.to disallow parking on South Frontage Road at Ford Park, here are my concerns: Parking has been allowed on the South side of the road for a very long time. Obviously, with the large number of cars that park along this road in the summer, a change in enforcement philosophy will likely be met with a great deal of criticism. There is probably not enough parking in the dirt lot east of the tennis courts to handle most summer events at the Amphitheatre, or for softball games. "Educating" people to park at the Village Parking Structure and walking to the Amphitheatre, Ford Park or the softball fields will be very difficult. As a result, alot of enforcement will probably be necessary. I would like Council to provide us with direction and set some policies in the following areas: 1. Do we enforce the parking ordinance only,when the Village Structure is not full and '°bag" the signs when it is full? Does Council want it enforced regardless of the status of the structure? 2. The structure probably will not be full during Hot Summer Nights concerts. These concerts occur during softball games. When there are multiple events such as this at Ford Park, do they want us to ticket vehicles? If so, I think they need to realize the number of parking tickets issued could be 50-150 and the man hours to enforce this consistently will be great. 3. The enforcement philosophy for July 4th weekend and the Lacrosse Tournament needs to be specifically discussed. 4. If Council wants us to enforce parking, does "towing" play a part in our enforcement program? I am not in favor of towing illegally parked vehicles from Ford Park, but Council needs to realize that without a strong enforcement stance, we will write a tremendous amount of parking tickets every year, with little effect on the number of vehicles that will continue to park there. Vail Village is the best example of how little effect "parking tickets" have on the problem. Every year we seem to write more tickets in Vail Village, yet people continue to park illegally all the time. r 5. Do we allow people to load and unload on the Frontage Road? A large number of vehicles will probably use the Frontage Road to load or unload passengers, equipment, coolers,.etc. Technically, this would be against the law unless a loading zone was placed along the road. I have other concerns about whether we can consistently enforce this area if a large number of vehicles continually park there. Sporadic enforcement will add to the' confusion as people will complain that they parked there another time and didn'_t receive a ticket. Lastly, we will do a public education program to help alleviate the negative public relations that will inevitably happen with this change in enforcement, but Council should realize that the potential for alot of criticism directed at town government is great. Please see me if you have any questions. G~5 ~ ~a y~ TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO PROPOSED REFUNDING SENERIOS PLAN B OLD OPf10N I OLD OPTION II SOLVES CAPffAL PROJECTS SHORTFALL SOLYES CAPTAL PROJECTS SHORTFALL SOLVES CAPITAL PROJECTS SHORTFALL PURCHASE S6 MILLION OF ADDffIONAL LAND PURCHASE $6 MILLION OF ADDRIONAL LANG CONSTRUCT 51.8 MILLION OF AODfT1fN1AL PROJECTS - --~UAAENI - _g - _ SAYINGSi - -SADIN09- - __~hUINOS~ DEFEASANCE TOTAL DEFEASANCE TOTAL (COS'fS~FROM DEFEASANCE TOTAL ((ASTS~FROM DEFEASANCE TOTAL (COSTSJFROM CURRENT CURRENT FUND DEBTSERVIC FUND DEBT SERVICE CURRENT FUND DEBTSERYICE CURRENT FUND DEBT SERVICE CURRENT YEAR PRINCIPAL INTEREST DEPOSITS PAYMENTS PRINCIPAL INTEREST DEPOSTS PAYMENTS DEBTSERYICE PRINCIPAL INTEREST DEPOSITS PAYMENTS DEBT SERVICE PRINCIPAL INTEREST DEPOSITS PAYMENTS OEBTSERYICE " ~1,a4 , S1,znr,070 51,43o,49s 54~,5s~ 1,aa , "6~~fz5T,b7~--51,43o,d§~~$di~;5 1~5T,b7o $1,4~b~9 ~ 53,szz,5~~-- ~5ib,~ -areS,Dbb- - $i~57, 1, , 2 , 69 1, D.D 1993 1,555,000 1,145,805 1,437,149 4,137,954 1,555,000 1,145,805 1,437,149 4,137,954 0 475,000 1,145,805 1,437,149 3,057,954 1,080,000 0 520,805 1,437,149 1,957,954 2,180,000 1994 1,675,000 1,022,960 1,446,140 4,144,700 1,675,000 1,0?2,960 1,446,740 4,144,700 0 595,000 1,022,960 1,446,740 3,064,7D0 1,080,000 5,000 1,022,960 1,446,740 3,064,700 1,080,000 1995 2,369,300 1,142,905 82,944 3,595,229 1,821,844 090,441 82,944 2,795,229 800,000 745,000 887,285 62,944 1,715229 1,880,000 745,DOD 887,285 82,944 1,715,229 1,880,000 1996 2,200,134 1,249,866 0 3,450,D00 1,689,958 960,042 0 2,650,000 800,OOD 1,001220 566,780 D 1,570,OD0 1,880,000 1,001,220 568,780 0 1,570,000 1,880,000 1997 2,046,057 1,403,943 0 3,450,000 1,571,609 1,078,391 0 2,650,000 800,OOD 931,1D4 638,896 0 1,570,D00 1,880,000 931,104 638,896 0 1,570,000 1,880,000 1996 7,899,087 1,550,913 0 3,450,000 1,458,719 1,191281 0 2,650,000 800,OOD 864222 705,778 0 1,570,D00 1,880,000 864222 705,778 0 1,5701,000 1,880,000 1999 1,575,599 1,499,401 0 3,075,000 1,165,687 1,109,313 0 2275,000 BOO,ODO 888,996 846,OD4 0 1,1~,D00 1,340,000 688,996 846,004 0 1,735,000 1,340,008 2000(1) D 0 0 0 1,550,000 1,073224 0 2,623224 (2,623224 1;650,000 1,142,464 0 2,792,464 (2,792,464 1,75D,000 1211,705 0 2,961,705 2001 1,440,000 1,178,050 0 2,618,050 (2,618,050 1,540,000 1259,859 0 2,799,859 2799,859 1,63D,000 1,333,487 0 2,963,487 (2,961,7D5 2002 (2,963,48 1,435,000 1,359,011 D 2,794,011 (2,794,011 1,520,000 1,439,510 0 2,959,510 (2,959,510 2tl~04 1,340,OOD 1,456,803 0 2,796,803 (2,796,803 1,420,000 1,543,777 0 2,963,777 (2,963, 1250,OD0 1,549,420 0 2,799,420 (2,799,420 1,325,000 1,642,385 D 2,967,385 2005 1,160,OD0 1,630208 0 2,790208 (2,790208 1230,D(10 1,728,589 0 2,958,583 (2'967,385 2006 980,000 1,554224 0 2,534224 (2,534224 1,145,000 1,615,904 0 2,96D,904 (2,958,583 2007 (2,960,904 1,065,000 1,898,659 0 2,963,659 (2,963,659 2008 2009 TOTALS $14,765,257 $10.272,863 $4.397.332 529,435,452I~ 815,372.817 $10,906,577 54;397332_ $30.676.726 ~241274~ ~15790,542~17024567 54397,332_- 537212,441. IS7,776989~ 516,345.542 $19.061.585 A $4.397332 $39.804462 , X510369010 FOOTNOTES (1( Series 1989 Debt Service Reserve Furl of 51,940,000 applied to debt service in the year2(p0 (2) Series 1985 DeM Service Reserve Fund of 51,351,000 rot c»rrsidered in the above senerios . f DEBTt v&iI85e town of vas, Colorado . ~g2 :..:..~.ted Lease Payment $cMedub Land ACquiation 7 Veer Tenn Aa of July 1, 7992 6000000 $emi- Mnual Arxwal Gate Principal Coupon Interest Total Total t y0192 350,000 8.500% 162.500.00 512.500.00 512.500.00 06/0793 355.000 6.500% 183,62500 538,62500 7y0193 365,000 8.500% 172,087.50 537,087.50 1,075,772.50 06!0194 380,000 8.500% 160,22500 540,22500 7ypt94 390,000 8.50096 747,87500 537,87500 1,078,100.00 o6ro19s aos.ooo B.SOO% 735,2naoo s4o,2onoo 12/0195 420,000 8.500% 122.037.50 542,037.50 1,082.237.50 08/0198 435:000 8.500% 108.387.50 543,387.E 7?J0198 445.000 6.50096 94,250.00 539.250.00 1,082.837.50 08/0197 480,000 8.500% 79,787.50 539,787.50 12/0197 475,000 6.50096 84,837.50 539,837.50 1,079,625.00 08/0198 490,000 8.500% 49,400.00 539,400.00 12101/98 505,000 8.500% 33,475.00 538,47500 1,077.875.00 06/0199 525.000 6.500% 17.062.50 542,06250 ty01~ 542.06250 8-000.(100 1530.750.00 7530.750.00 7530.750.00 Average Coupon Fite 6.500096 Bond Years ' 23.550.00 Yeent Average Life 3.9250 Years Prepared M: George K Baum & Company O6- May- 92 10:58 AM c~~iu RBFONDI Plan B: Plan C: Plan D: Solve Capital Frojects Shortfall Solve Capital Projects Shortfall Solve Capital Projects Shortfall Purchase $6 Nillion of 9dditional Land Purchase $6 tlillion of Additional Land Construct $1,8 Nillion of 9dd'1 Projects CORRBNT TDi~6 TOT9L S94INGS FROtl C9PIT9L TDT9L SJVINGS ERDtl C9PIT9L L9ND TDT9L S94INGS rr"RDN C9PITdL L9ND BDDITIDN9L CORRHNT CDRRFNT DEBT SFRP. ;DRBT SFRP. CDRRHNT PROJISCTS ; DRBT S)SRV. CDRRENT PRDJRCTS DRBT ; DRBT SRR4, CORRRNT PRDJRCTS D]SBT C9PITdL YR6R PRiNCIP9L INTRREST PdYtlaNTS P9YNENTS DRBT S>SRV. SBORTF9LL P9Ytl1;NTS DEBT SRR4, SRORTF8L1 SERVICE PdYNRNTS DRBT SRRV, SRORTF9L6 SHRVIC)s PRDJRCTS 1992 2,875,499 1,257,070 4,132,569 4,132,569 D 3,622,569 (516,POD) 0 512,50D 2,922,569 (1,210,000) 0 512,5D0 7D0,60D 1993 2,992,199 1,145,806 4,137,955 9,137,955 D 3,D57,954 (1,086,001) 0 1,D75,713 1,957,954 (2,180,001) 0 1,D75,713 1,1D6,60D 1994 3,121,196 1,022,960 4,144,700 4,144,7DD 0 3,D64,700 (1,084,066) D 1,D78,lOD 3,D64,70D (1,686,OD0) 6 1,07B,1D6 1995 1,835,435 1,759,794 3,595,229 2,795,229 (800,OD0) 800,DDD 1,715,229 (1,880,D00) BDO,DOD 1,D82,238 1,715,229 (1,88D,66D) 80D,000 1,082,236 1996 2,571,212 87B,7B8 3,456,000 2,650,000 (BD6,600) BDD,OOD 1,570,OD0 (1,886,600) 8D0,400 1,D82,637 1,57D,D06 (1,880,000) 80D,OOD 1,OB2,637 1997 2,741,595 708,904 3,450,D6D 2,650,060 (806,ODD) 806,D06 1,570,OOD (1,880,000) 800,DD0 1,079,625 1,570,6D6 (1,8BD,D00) 804,D00 1,D79,625 1998 2,929,283 52D,717 3,450,DD0 2,650,000 (80D,D06) 800,400 1,57D,OOD (1,98D,006) BOO,DDO 1,677,875 1,570,000 (1,880,D00) BDO,D00 1,077,875 1999 2,755,.842 319,158 3,D75,ODD 2,275,000 (800,DOD) 800,D00 1,735,600 (1,34D,D00) BDO,ODO 542,062 1,735,D00 (1,390,060) 800,000 542,D62 2000 0 2,623,224 2,623,229 2,792,969 2,792,464 2,961,705 2,961,705 2001 0 2,618,65D 2,618,D50 2,799,859 2,799,859 2,963,987 2,963,4B7 2002 D 0 2,794,611 2,794,D11 2,959,510 2,959,510 2603 0 0 2,796,803 2,796,803 2,963,777 2,963,777 2004 0 0 2,799,420 2,799,420 2,967,385 2,967,385 2D05 D 0 2,796,2D8 2,790,208 2,958,583 2,958,583 2006 D 6 2,534,224 2,534,224 2,960,964 2,960,904 2007 D 0 0 0 2,963,659 2,963,659 TOT9L 21,822,756 7,612,697 29,435,453 30,676,727 1,241,274 4,000,D00 ; 37,212,441 7,776,98E 4,DDO,OOD 7,53D,750 ; 39,804,462 1D,369,069 4,000,000 7,530,75D I,BDD,6D0 a Debt Service Reserve Funds dvailable: ;Debt Service Reserve Funds 9vailable: ;Debt Service Reserve Funds 5vailable: ;Debt Service Reserve Funds Available: 1995 $1,351,OD0 1995 $1,351,DD0 1995 $I,351,040 1995 $1,351,OOD , ;Present Value Gost $118,347 ;Present Palue Cost $530,505 ;Present Value Cost $554,614 Q Boad Yield ; B Boad Yield ; 8 Bond Field i ' • 1 1~ TOWN OF VAIL ~ 7S South Frontage Road Department of Community Development Vail, Colorado 81657 . 303-479-2138/479-2139 May 6, 1992 Mr. William Wood Hcly Cross Ranger District P. O. Box 190 Minturn, CO 81645 RE: Town of Vail Discussion of Eagle's Nest Wilderness Area Management Policies, Reply No. 2320. Dear Bill: Recently, the Vail Town Council and Planning and Environmental Commission have discussed your letter regarding management policies within the Eagle's Nest Wilderness Area. The general opinion is that areas receiving too much use should be restricted but not closed. Suggestions for alleviating the demand for certain areas include limiting the number of heartbeats allowed in a certain area, distributing information describing alternative areas which do not receive as much demand, and as a last resort, developing a permit system regulating the access to the area. In general, the Council and Planning Commission members thought that a permit system was not a very positive solution. There was some discus.~ion that trail maintenance could be :mproveC> specifically that water bars should be added to drainage areas and that washed out trails should be repaired. In some cases, there appears to be inadequate parking at trailheads. As most people will find some way to park and still use an area, the Town believes that limiting parking is not an effective way to reduce use in certain areas. Concerning trapping, the Town would encourage a policy preventing trapping within fifty (50) feet on either side of all roads and trails in wilderness areas. Regarding fire management, some Planning Commission members felt that efforts to reduce the fire potential adjacent to communities would be beneficial. However, these kinds of practices would not be appropriate deep within wilderness areas. Some Commissioners commented that commercial outfitters did not appear to create more impact than other private groups. Finally, the Town believes that if a permit system is developed in which fees will be collected, the fees should be designated for that area and be used for improvements to that wilderness area. Mr. William Wood May 6, 1992 Page 2 hope these comments are helpful in the development of new management policies. Please call me if you would like to discuss the Town of Vail comments further. Sincerely r. Andy nudt en Town Planner ~ cc: Vail Town Council. PEC Ron Phillips M" TOWN OF VAIL ~ 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 303-479 2100 FAX 303-479-2157 May 6, 1992 F. Gilman Spencer, Editor . The Denver Post P.O. Box 1709 Denver, CO 80201 RE: "U.S. lax on ski-resort fire inspections" article printed Tuesday, April 21, 1992 in the Denver Post Dear Mr. Spencer: An article written by Robert Kowalski, Denver Post Washington Bureau, was published April 21, 1992, referring to "ski-resort fire inspections." With all due respect, an important point of clarification needs to be made in follow up. The article failed to differentiate between the ski area and the local community, commonly referred to as "Vail." The "Vail ski resort," "Vail officials," and "Vail spokesman" referred to in the article are representatives of Vail Associates Inc., owners ~ and operators of the ski mountain facilities. They do not own, operate, or control matters of concern with the community of Vail itself, otherwise known as the Town of Vail. The Town of Vail itself is a duly incorporated municipality, which, in fact, has a very aggressive and successful fire inspection program and. has had such a program for over 15 years. The fire department has two stations within the community and a staff of 16 full time paid personnel. All commercial buildings and large multi-family residential structures within the town limits are inspected by our competent, certified, state licensed fire inspectors each year. In fact, some 1200 facilities within the corporate town limits are inspected annually. Vail Associates Inc., has contacted the Town of Vail regarding a contract to provide fire inspection services for those buildings and structures on Vail Mountain which lie outside the town limits, those referred to iri your article I presume. The Town of Vail has provided advice and cursory review of Vail Associates' facilities in the past, and we anticipate providing appropriate services in the future. F. GILMAN SPENCER LETTER MAY 4, 1992 PAGE 2 We raise this point of clarification because, realistically, the greatest number of . residents and guests to enter a building or other structure would do so not on ,Vail Mountain but within the community itself. Your article alluded that no buildings in Vail are subject to formal inspection. To the contrary, the vast majority of them are indeed inspected annually. Thank you in advance for allowing us to clarify this important point. If you would like to discuss this matter, or any related issues further, please don't hesitate to contact me at 479-2252. Sincerel Dick Duran Chief, Vail Fire Department cc: Vail Town Council Ron Phillips, Town Manager PIHT " 7G 11 ~ VJYJ llHV1U tVHI'15 ~ H55U1: S~J3~3~(E71 P • Z~~ ---~5$~~~~ ' ~~-~t:u-dy-c~i-yes=be~~#it k;, ~ onf °;haar~r; n_ ; t~r_~~i `~-n---~3~C . =arch ~ ~'y~~ o,~~~iooK r~'~~~ ~ ~ ~ Hsving a rarcational trait adjacent ...Homes itnmedtately adjacent to to or near yotu property can actually the trail did not experience an increase in ' increase property values and improve the burglary and vandalism after the trail ~ 0 • t',w quality of Life- opened. t(~ . . That's the conclusion of a Seattle Not a single resident surveyed felt ~~IA R1YfcR GO Etrgineering Departn7ent study t0 deter- the trail should be closed. Less than 3 Per mine what effect an urban trail has on cent cited any problems serious enough ~ , property values, vaAdaliSm and crime in to cause them to consider moving. the Immediate area. ...AltnaSt two thirds of those sur- The study involved the Burke- veyed felt the trail increased the; quality Gilman Trail. a 12.1-mile route cozt- of life in the r~eishborhoo+,i. And two strttcted in 1978 along an abandoned residents said they had been among railroad right-of--way. The mufti-propose leaders oppn~i ~ the trail. bul new they trail, with 9.85 miles located within the "believe the trail IS the best thins that has Beattie city limits, bas about 750,000 happened to the neighborhood.,. users annually-twice as many as orig- One concern did surface during the inaliy forerdst: survey. Thirteen per cent of those con- Eesidt~s residential areas, the trail ~~ed mentioned user conflicts, such as ~ y passes through an industrial district, bicyclists speeding on the trait. ° ~ ' R'" . . several neighborhood commercial areas, the 'University of Washington, and Links C~rinook #!'8I(~f~f°S j~en #ri3d~ s#~e~nrard~~ri~ six different parks. Data for the study was collected by 1?ve members of the Chinook Trail Mary Anne Lovell and the Sierra Club, interviews with residents near a~td adja- Association have sigsted up so far to Hamilton 'frail fmm parKistg lat to cent to the trail, real estate agents who participate in tStt CTA Trail Stewardship Rodney Falls, and Ted lClump, Rfldiley handle Home sales near the trail, and Pzogrsm. Falls to Hamilton Motmtain summit. police officers who patrol ntighbor- Undez the program a volunteer Persons interested is joining the , hoods adjaoent to the trail. assumes responsibility for monitoring a sewardsbip program are invited to con- . The study reached these key conCltr;- sesmtnt of teal over a 1Z-month period. Sider the following trail possibilities~ sicns: The steward is t.nNw.Ed to walk the trail Tarbell Trail-1000 Road to Gold Prdperiy near but not immedi- segment and note nay Herded mainte- C~'eek Campground; Cald Creek Camp- ately adjacent to the Btvlst.+Gilrnan Trail nartre, and may accompany subsequent grotmd to Rack Creek; Rock Creek to i9 signific,~tttty easier to sell and sells for work parties in the area. Tarbell; Tarbetl to Squaw Butte. an average of 6 pear cent mare. Stewards to date aze: Garence Three Corner Reck-Washougal ]?roptrty ittmzedia[ely aQjaceflt to Edwazds, lEilen Davis Trail is Yancou River to Three Corner Rack. the trail is slightly easier to seIl, but prlt~ ver; Ken and Sandra Nliiler, Pacific P. csFic Crest Tiail~-Greenleaf tuck are only from rem to one-half per cent Crest Trail from TamAnous fraiIhead at to Three Comer Rock; Tamanous tratl- more. North lionaeville to Greereaf Creek; head to Bridge of the Gods. IYVf\•~l~V~ ~/t~ • ~ us, aasrAar= AAtp ' VANCaUYF.R, WA t Permit No. 818 Qtlnooa7ida Assoaatton . P.O. E~t')97 .en~~,.~.wavesaeao~l Ms. Gregg S. Everhdr•t ' ~8 B SiJ C,;rbet t Ave, Por~tlarrd, QR 97~r71 Cc.~ REc~A~r~n ~R/~Y - s 1692 Eagle \/alley Community Forum BOARD MEETING Thursday, May 14, 1992 5:30PM Minturn Town Hall (1/2 Block West of Community Center) AGENDA 1. Review of Survey Results 2. Strategic Plan (Neal, Paller and Lewis) 3. 501(c)(3) Application (Blecker) 4. Housekeeping Issues (Mueller) ® ~ Bank Balance Just a Reminder...: The Town of Vail's Clean-Up Day is May 16, and the first 400 to sign up have $20 given to the non-profit organization of their choice in the Valley. We can use the money, friends, so think of the Forum if you are able to participate, and sign up early! y • ~clC ~ /EGG`-~ti!v~~~vu.; - 6: t( ~ e:'s19.~:r;S .b•S~:l'J'J.~',7 f ? ; t ?T, i ROCkV AAC zs,~.::~...,.,a;axa . z~ sa r a. z:a:,~a.,~ x 5 .m e. a !x..,... . 3 e.u„n 3. r.,......,,,~:a .w:~.. ~ ~....:,a,,.s`,~~'°:~s. s, 'a ,v~^:a<z:.~ - _ - BEAT • - ~ - ~ •=Rob Reuteman, City Editor; Burt Hubbard, Suburban Editor ¦ 892-5381 ~ ~ • - . ®e C es ea - Winter Park's' Sales ~ - ~ ~ ~ are aghast at the idea of increasing . ' the sales tax, one of their key . :.levy would top state - ~ Colorado a~pro~e ~o~. Roy Roiner's suggested 1.90 ~ revenue sources. - . ~ at 1~.2%~ Will tOUnStS - ~ the state's sales tax in 3ovember, here is the "It's very difficult for us," said ' • - ~ ' ' • ~ - ~~~d ktcal and state sales tax rates that will be eha~ed Vail city manager Ron Phillips, ' brave such helghts? . a~~s ~,~'state. ' -'whose community's sales tax . . - - _ would - p to °i "1 has impl' a- By John Sanko Arvada - _ 8 3% Federal Heights 7 8% `bons that are hard to measure but . ' , '.'.'News Capitol Bureau ' - Aspen:::::;:::: . ........:......8:796 Fort Collins':::::::?`.::::::: 'r`f.; &:7596. which we feel are very real. { Sales tax rates in soiree of Colo- Aurora 8 3% Glendale 8 39'0 - "Wh t the -sta ce of • ; a is i Botiilder 7 66°Q Golden.......::........ ,8 39'a - ~ 'rado's mountain towns are some of ~ est to come to Colorado to ski, - - Brighton 8 55% Grand Junction 8 759'0 - . - the highest in. the country and to fish, to go river rafting, horse- 7896 'would soar higher under Gov. Roy' f3?•aorl3tie~d ...,8.396 .4afayette:. • back riding, whatever? What is the Canon City 7 5% Lakewood 7 3% Romer's plan to tolerance level when it gets too - AT-CAPITOL raise taxes for 4:}3erry t#i11S V~llag~... ' $ S~ t:~.ttletS?>1- ' 8°~ ~ .high? Is. this going to have a nega- ¦ Lawmakers schools.: Colorado Springs - 7.59'a Longmont 7.55% five effect on the guest population - give tentative Tourists at commerce ~ilp:?;::; 8.396 t~iorthgienn 8.3% coming to Colorado to enjoy the • OK to right-to- Winter Park ::;:..Denver 8 3% Pueblo 8 59'0 amenities that are here?" diebill/12 next season - burango. 80'!o W'es~mirister 8:0596 . • - would a more Ed ewater 8 69o Wheat Ride 7 3% The olorado unicipa eague ¦ Groff vows P Y g g hasn't taken an official position on 1993 bill ~ - than $1 m tax. Englewood' 8.396 Wnrter Pa3c 10 ~ the' tax yet, but its leaders don't controlling for each ~ 10 - ` ' like the idea. They say Romer guns/12 purchase if the Sales tax breakdown for Denver if tax increase is approved should have gone to an income tax . governor's plan ; to hel schools. Romer has. said he State City RTD Baseball Cultural Total P ' ~ to increase the state sales tax from - - ~ referr an i 39~o to 49/o is a roved b voters in 4C 3.5C - 0.6C 0.1C - 0.1C- 8.3C P ed ncome tax, but a., PP Y - state sales tax had the strongest -November. The ski resort has the a rs _ state's highest sales tax at 9.2%. source' n+wn~c3pa~ T~ces.° cobraao wtan~c~pat ~ea~ue support mong vo Most of that is local taxes... _ - . Rocky Mountain News 'Senate President Ted Strick- Some lower elevation towns - - ~ . land, R=Westminster, opposes any than our counterparts around' the The average nationwide is new taxes for schools but also - = aren'.t far behind Winter Park. - country." $487," said Jacobs. "We can't say criticized Romer's choice of a .Denver, which uses sales tax for Although Colorado's local sales how this would affect Colorado's state sales tax. - everything from running govern- taxes are among the nation's high- ranking overall because ,other "What we need-to be concen- ' : merit's daily operations to mass est, the current 3% state sales tax states are changing, too." tafting on is what the tax burden is . transit, building a baseball stadium ranks with Wyoming as the lowest. Romer's announcement Thurs-• on. our citizens, notwithstanding • and help for the arts, would see a But when the local and state day of plans to bypass. the legisla- the nation's average or what the hike in sales taxes from 7.3% to taxes are combined, Colorado tore and take a $320 million tax rest of the states do," Strickland ' 8.3%. ranked 15th in the nation in sales hike proposal straight to the peo- `said. ~ - _ "In terms of the sales tax gener- taxes at $506 per capita, .accord- ple in the November general elec- • "This would have a greater im- ' ally, we have about 'maxed' out on ing to the Colorado Public Expend- tion was having a' ripple effect. 'pact 'upon the local governments • ' _ j-. it in Colorado,"~ said Sam Mamet, , iture Council. across the state Friday. If ap- because we right now are at the - associate director of the Colorado. Hawaii was No. 1 at $1,062 per proved, the tax would go into ef- threshhold for the limitation for Municipal League: - ~ ,capita, followed by the state of -fect on Dec. 1. - ~ -some of those communities," -•~-''•`We're one.of the highest in the Washington at $1,045, according Municipal officials don't neces- . Strickland said.."You're threaten- ' ~ • 'country. Our cities in Colorado ~ to CPEC research director Jim sarily object to the schools' need > ing their abilities to raise funds for rely more heavily on the sales tax :lacobs. for additional money, but generally' themselves.". - _ . Jude gays : - . ' - § Yo3y`l S. z~ :.off . t®u h Crack ' Y~. y .9 ' H~~Y $ . ~ - N ~ lmv ^ ~ n ~ ~ ~,Nt" • - : e- .S • ~ 1 zy ~ ~ ~f~~. may. ~ ~e~~e~Ce~ - . dosCrod~~ar~.ate gg y i I ' By Sue Lindsay ~ ~ ~ ~~~i: ~ ' , 3 ~y r~~s~'" • •:~''•'RoekyMountainNewsStaffWrater ~ ~ : ~ A federal judge Friday called ~ 3 w - ~ _ i z`~CL (/Lt, '6:~( ~°a:~1~:*;Tb•ijJ'~F'.~:~'Jf?:t.T.i RvCkVAAo~ "d~S,~"s•°."~ .vx:aa;~.H:..~..~:w~~ c:....:. <...,----.~:;a...... .,..::':-.a. _a:.~.>:. M:o u,.:a..c~:e:,.r>., ris- y .~..s..w.u. x',~cw`,.::b_...~~.<:. :,c>;:G^t;~w,t'~~3 - - ~ - . ~ - •-Rob Reuteman, City Editor; Burt Hubbard, Suburban Editor ®892-5381 - ~ ' ~ • t. Winter Park's' Sales o-. 'are aghast at the idea of increasing . ~ ' . the sales tax, one of their key I :levy would top state cotarado a~;~ ~ approve Gino. R~ Romer's suggested l°lo revenue sources. " `at 10.260' wlll tOUriStS ;increase in the state's: sales tax in NErvem>jer; liere is the ` ' ` . "It's very difficult for us," said - ~ .brave SllCll llel htS? coml>taed Local and state sales tax rates that mill be charged Vail city manager Ron Phillips; g con.i~un~es acrrrss the state. -whose community's sales tax' • ' ( would jump to 9%. "It has implica- I - By]ohn Sanko Arvada 8.3% Federal Heights 7 B% tin hat r hard to measure but - I o st a e { Aspen:...:. 8..7°6 Port Col(in5 ...6 75% which we feel are very real. I ."News Cayito! Bureau • ~ Aurora 8 3% Glendale 8 3% • •Sales tax rates in some •of Colo "What is the resistance of a Bou(ci2~ T 66w ; Golden 8.39'0 rado's mountain towns are some of guest to come to Colorado to ski, Brighton 8 55% Grand Junction 8 ?59'0 ~ the highest in .the country and _ <::< - : to fish, to go river rafting, horse- . Broomlle€d..:....:; 8.3% Lafayette:.... T 896 ? ~ ' would soar higher under Gov. Roy - back riding, whatever. What is the • Canon City 7 5% Lakewood 7 3% - i • Romer's plan to tolerance level when it gets too Citecri!.F#~)1s.V{(lage:..:.:......83~ L~tkietork...:.... 76°la ~ ~ ' AT.CAPITOL raise taxes for gh. Is_ this going to have a nega- Colorado Springs 7 59'o Longmont 7.55% five effect on the - ®Lawmakers schools. _ guest population give tentative Tourists at Commerce G}ty 8,356, ' IVorthglenn..- ;:8.396 coming to Colorado to enjoy the • OK toright-to- Winter Park Denver 83% Pueblo 859'u amenities that are here?" diebill/12 next season Durango...... S:ovo 1Nestm3nsier 8:135% would a more Ed ewater 8.89'0 Wheat Ride 7 35'0 The Colorado Municipal League s B Groffvows P Y g g. hasn't taken an official position on 1993 bill than $1 in tax. Englewood 8~% W€nter Park' : ' 10 246 b d d 't ' t e tax yet, ut its ea ers on controlling •for each $10 guns/12 urchase if the Sales tax breakdown for Denver if tax increase is a roved like the idea. They say Romer p pP should have gone to an income tax . governor's plan State City RTD Baseball Cultural Total to help schools. Romer has said he • - ' ; _ to increase the state sales tax from _ < p e income 39% to 49'o is a roved b voters in 4C 3.5C 0.6C O.iC O.iC' 8.3C referr an tax, but a pp Y state sales tax had the strongest November. The ski'resort has the - - ~ - ' ~ Source-- r~Curalcipal Taxes Colorado M~nklpal League; ? support among voters. state s highest sales tax at 9.29'0. _ ' Most of that is focal taxes... - Roc~y nno~nca~n NeWS Senate President Ted Strick- - Some lower elevation towns - land, R-Westminster, opposes any - aren't far behind Winter Park. ~ than .our counterparts around the "The average nationwide is new taxes for schools but also - country." _ $487," said Jacobs. "We can't say criticized Romer's choice of a Denver, which uses sales tax for Although Colorado's local sales how this would- affect Colorado's state sales tax. • everything from running govern- taxes are among the nation's high- ranking overall because .other "What we need-to be concen- ' " merit's daily operations to mass est, the current 3% state sales tax states are changing, too." ~ trating on is what the tax burden is - transit, building a baseball stadium ranks with Wyoming as the lowest. Romer's announcement Thurs- ' on our citizens, notwithstanding ' and help for the arts, would see a But when the local ar,d state day of plans to bypass. the ]egisla- the nation's average or what the . - . hike in sales taxes from 7.39'o to taxes are combined, Colorado tore and take a $320 million tax rest of the states do," Strickland 8.396. : ~ ranked 15th in the nation in sales hike proposal straight to the peo- 'said. - "In terms of the sales tax gener- taxes at $506 per capita, .accord- ple in the November general elec-. ' "This would have a greater im- ally, we have about 'maxed' out on ing to the Colorado Public Expend-- tion was having a ripple effect. • "pact 'upon the local governments _ it in Colorado," said Sam Mamet, ~iture Council. across the state Friday. If ap- because we right now are at the - associate director of the Colorado Hawaii was No. 1 at $1,062 per proved, the tax would go into ef- 'threshhold for the limitation for Municipal League. ~ ,capita, followed by 'the state of fect on Dec. 1. - - 'some of those communities," . "We're one of the highest in the Washington at- $1,045, according Municipal officials -don't neces- Strickland said. "You're threaten- country. -Our cities in Colorado • : to CPEC research director Jim sarily object to the schools' need > ing their abilities to raise funds for ' • : rely more heavily on the sales tax .iacobs. - for additional money, but generally themselves." . - ~ _ dude ~~ys~ : ~ - - • I~ ja.,a: ~s ~ . . ~ ~ ~ sent~n~es s~.~`i< ~ r- i ~ l 7 ~ +~i; 3' . BySueLindsay ~ ' ~ ~ 'Rocky Mountain News StajjWrite_r ~'h ~ - ~ ~ s, r. • A federal 'ud e Frida called ~ ~ • ~ 1 ~ RECEYVEID MAY - 9 1992 United States Forest White River Holy Cross Ranger District Department of Service National P.O. Box 190 A_g_ricultu;e ~ Forest •Minturn. Colo~d~ 81645 Reply to: 5430 Date: .May 7, 1992 Ron Phillips 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81645 Dear Ron: I have received your letter regarding the Spraddle Creek Parcel and the Golf Course Maintenance Parcel. .I understand that the Town wishes to pursue an independent review appraisal. I have forwarded this information to Forest Supervisor's Office in Glenwood Springs. A package will be sent to you from that office regarding the review appraisal process. I hope that this effort will resolve our outstanding differences and .that the transaction can proceed. Please contact Rich Phelps or myself if you need further information. Sincerely, ILLIAM A. WOOD District Ranger cc: Mike Spencer, SO Lands Paul Zimmerman, RO Lands - ~S Fs-ezoo•za~~-az~ _ - - ROBERT S. ENGELMAN, SR. ONE FINANCIAL PLACE SUITE 1116 CHICAGO, IL. 60605 TEL.: (312j 663-7086 May 4, 1992 Mr. Mike Mollica Vail Recreation District. 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado $1657 Dear Mr. Mollica: Confirming our conversation today regarding. the hearing scheduled for May 18th, 1992, in reference to the Vail Tennis facility that will abut lot 2, block 2, 6th filing, I wish to enter a strong objection to the planned facility. My house is on lot 3, block 2, adjacent .to the lot border- _ ing the East side of the Tennis court. The Tennis court was elevated when it was built and the plan to put a stadium on the el~yated court would raise an obstruction that would seriously block the view from both my house and a house that I might build on lot 2 for my children. Or, it would seriously effect the market value of the lot.. Currently I am paying taxes on lot 2, block 2 of $9,407.86 and on lot 3, bock 2 of $6,403.12. I have been a property owner on West Forest Road from 1965. In view of my residence, the taxes I have paid, the potential loss of value, the obvious discomfort ,that will ensue from traffic and parked cars on my road, I object to this' unnecessary project. .Please forward a copy of these objections to every member of the Planning Commission and the Town Council, if necessary. Unfortunately, I will be unable to attend the meeting in person. I would like to be advised of the results. Sincer l~y . Rob rt S. n elma , Sr. RSE/msh CHAPMAN AND LARSEN, P.C. ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW 143 EAST MEADOW DRIVE SURE 498 VAIL, COLORADO 81657 BRUCE D. CMAPMAN' TELEPHONE: (303) 476-0075 DIANE R. LARSEN TELECOPIER: (303) 476-0076 'Also admitte0 in Florida May 11, 1992 E.I.N. 6a-i~o44o0 Dear PEC Member: This law firm represents Larry Field who is the owner of the home located at 586 Forest Road. Mr. Field has asked that I inform you that he is strongly opposed to utilitizing the proposed site for the Vail Team Tennis facility. Mr. Field's house is directly across Forest Road from the proposed facility. In his opinion that the proposed location is not an appropriate location, either temporary or permanent, for such a facility. He does not feel that a stadium structure is in keeping with the residential character of the neighborhood. He objects to the noise that will be generated and the unpleasant aesthetics of such a stadium. Several people that he has spoken with have said that it is not a permanent structure and that they agree that the proposed location would not be an appropriate long term location. Mr. Field feels that if it is not appropriate for the long term why should it be appropriate for the short term. It may seem like the short term to you but it is a large percentage of the time that Mr. Field and his family have planned to be in Vail this summer. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, HAPMAN EN, P.C. ce BDC:rlp . v > ' d - . TOWN IF I~~IL 7S South Frontage Road Department of Community Development Vail, Colorado 81657 303-479-2138 / 479-2139 May 8, 1992 Mr. Paul Johnston 356 Hanson Ranch Road Vail, CO 81657 RE: CHRISTIAtdIA AT VAIL Dear Paul: On May 6, 1992, the Town's Design Review Board approved the final building design for the Christiania at Vail and also approved the design concepts for the proposed streetscape improvements adjacent to the Christiania. This approval will allow you to proceed to the building permit phase for the project, however, the final streetscape details will need to come back to the DRB for final review and approval. The staff is hopeful that the Town and Vail Associates can come to agreement on the ownership issues regarding Lot P-3 and Lot J so that the final streetscape design for this area can be completed in a timely manner. v On May 5, 1992; the Town Council also voted unanimously to approve the streetscape concept design for the Christiania. This is the same design that was ultimately approved by the DRB on May 6, 1992. The streetscape concepts which you agreed to incorporate into your development plan for the Christiania are as follows: - The existing planter located north of your surface parking, and immediately south of ' the Mill Creek 'Court Building, would be expanded by approximately 1-1/2 to 3 feet in width, and would be rebuilt utilizing stone. A bench may be incorporated into the planter. - In lieu of providing payment of one third of the cost to construct the sidewalk along the west side of the Mill Creek Court chute, it was agreed Hanson Ranch Road improvements would be more appropriate. Such improvements would include asphalt removal and the installation of landscaping along the north side of Hanson Ranch Road, immediately south of Lot P-3 and Lot J. It is anticipated that approximately 3 feet of asphalt (in width) would be removed beginning at the southeast end of Lot J. The area of asphalt to be removed would be widened, and increased to approximately 10 feet in width, towards the southwest corner of Lot J and extending further west to c Mr. Paul Johnston May 7, 1992 Page 2 the southwest corner of Lot P-3. A curb would be installed along the full length of this area and a double soldier course (paver edger) would be installed immediately south of the curb. Landscaping is also proposed along the north side of Lot P-3. - Landscaping would be installed in all the areas where the asphalt had been removed, and a proposal to irrigate and maintain these areas will also be required. - Lighting will be further reviewed by staff, with the possibility that one or two new light fixtures may be required. In order to avoid any future confusion regarding the timing of the design work and implementation of the streetscape improvements, I would like to briefly layout what I believe to be the three possible scenarios. They are as follows: I. 1. Town of VailNail Associates resolution of Lots P-3 and J ownership issues. 2. DRB approval of the final streetscape design. Design is contingent upon item 1 above. 3. Construction of the streetscape elements as a part of the Christiania project, during the Summer/Fall 1992. 4. Issuance of a T.C.O. for the Christiania. II. 1. Town of Vail/Nail Associates resolution of Lots P-3 and J ownership issues. ~ 2. DRB approval of the final streetscape design. Design is contingent upon item 1 above. 3. If construction of the streetscape improvements is not possible before a T.C.O. is requested, then it will be necessary to enter into a Developer Improvement Agreement (cash escrow/letter of credit) with the Town to cover the costs of the improvements. 4. Issuance of a T.C.O. for the Christiania. 5. Construction of the streetscape elements, during the Spring of 1993, or at a later date if approved by the Town Council. III. 1. No resolution of Lots P-3 and J issues. 2. DRB approval of the final streetscape design. 3. If construction of the streetscape improvements is not possible before a T.C.O. is requested, then it will be necessary to enter into a Developer Improvement Agreement (cash escrow/letter of credit) with the Town to cover the costs of the improvements. 4. Issuance of a T.C.O. for the Christiania. 5. Construction of the streetscape elements, during the Spring of 1993, or at a later date if approved by the Town Council. r Mr. Paul Johnston May. 8, 1992 Page 3 I hope this is not too confusing, however, if you should have any questions or comments " regarding any of the above, please do not hesitate to contact me at 479-2138. Sincerely, / v~L~ Mike Motlica Assistant Director of Planning cc: Vail Town Council Ron Phillips, TOV Jay Peterson Kurt Segerberg Kristan Pritz, TOV Memorandum TO: Vail Town Council and Ron Phillips FROM: Kristan Pritz and Andy Knudtsen Community Development Department DATE: May 12, 1992 RE: FYI: PROGRESS ON THE CEMETERY PROJECT On April 27, the Town staff received nine responses to the Request for qualifications for the cemetery project. We were pleased with the response, as the teams were highly qualified. Most teams were made up of 3-5 firms and included a local (Vail or Denver) lead landscape architect, a cemetery designer, a cemetery management specialist, and in some cases, engineering firms, environmental consultants, architects, and municipal financial specialists. We selected 4 out of the 9 teams which will receive a Request for Proposal. As part of the Statement of Qualifications, we asked for each team to submit an estimated budget. In the RF®, we listed the work program and had the respondents base their budget on each component of the project. The numbers were approximate and most teams gave a high and a low estimation. On the average, budgets ranged from $30,000 to $55,000. The lower budgets did not include soils work. At this time, we have a budget of $27,500. When staff did the research to try to determine what the budget should be for a project like this, we spoke mainly to landscape architects in the Denver and Vail areas. As the landscape architects got more involved in the project, started developing their teams, and began discussing the project with management consultants, it became apparent that this component was more complicated and would cost more than they originally thought. We have encouraged the four finalists to try to reduce their budgets without decreasing the quality of the project. Final proposals are due on June 29, 1992. At that time, we will be able to evaluate the adequacy of the budget. In order to get high quality design and sound management direction, the budget may need to be increased. It has been an enjoyable project to work on, as there is quite a bit of enthusiasm in the design community about this project. People see it as an opportunity to work on a very unique project and are excited about pulling together amulti-disciplinary team. Request for Proposals Town of Vail Cemetery May 8, 1992 Introduction The Town of Vail is soliciting proposals from teams, made up of qualified architects, landscape architects, designers, artists and/or individuals having an understanding of cemetery programming and design. The primary goal of the Request for Proposals (RFP) is to hire consultants to develop a comprehensive design and management plan for the proposed Town of Vail cemetery. The Town of Vail is located in an alpine environment at an elevation of 8,200 feet. Thirty years ago, the Vail Valley was an undeveloped mountain meadow. Today, Vail has approximately 4,000 permanent residents, with accommodations for up to 30,000 guests. The Vail ski area has over 1.5 million skiers a year, which does not include the increasingly popular summer season. Vail is at a juncture at this time, trying to balance the needs of the community with the demands of a resort. The cemetery project is an example of the maturation of the area, as it becomes a more established community. The Vail Town Council has selected the upper bench of Donovan Park as the site for the proposed cemetery. The Planning and Environmental Commission will need to review the proposed cemetery design in a Conditional Use Review hearing. The site is made up of an open meadow of approximately ten acres and, immediately adjacent to the south, a heavily forested steep slope. All of the land is owned by the Town of Vail. The site is located in the West Vail area, and has established residential neighborhoods on three sides of it. To the south is the White River National Forest. A map attached to this RFP shows the master plan for Donovan Park, including the configuration and general topography of the upper bench of the park. The site selection process has been completed and took into consideration 13 sites. An 11 member "Cemetery Committee" assisted the town boards in the selection. A detailed Cemetery Report analyzing each of the sites has been completed. Throughout the discussions of the site selection, the Town made it clear to interested parties, particularly adjacent neighbors, that the concept for the cemetery development was to keep the site natural. The challenge of this project is to maintain the natural characteristics of the site and make the use compatible with the established residential area surrounding the property. Consultant's Scope of Services The primary objective for the consultant team is to develop a master plan for the cemetery, accompanied by a management plan. The following tasks are outlined to give bidders a sense of the scope of work associated with the project. 1. Preliminary Work Review the survey and topography of the upper bench of Donovan Park (to be provided by the Town). Develop a base map of the existing conditions, identifying any environmental constraints. Provide sufficient soil testing to identify geological and structural constraints. The consultant team is responsible for providing the soils information and should include the cost of this work in the budget. Request jor Proposals • Town of Vai! Cemetery • May 8, 1992 • Page 1 2. Design Work A. Generate at least two conceptual designs for discussion purposes. Design work should take into account Vail's natural environment and focus specifically on compatibility with adjacent uses. The conceptual designs should include burial options such as cremation and below-grade vaults. The design should be able to function for uses other than burials, such as weddings. It should also include awalking/memorial path, - an area for parking and other components necessary for the operation of a cemetery. B. Produce a final master plan for the cemetery. In addition to the master plan, detailed information should be provided, documenting the species and size of landscaping and identification of all materials. For key elements of the design, such as entries, focal points or pathways, sections, elevations and details should be provided. Plans should be drawn at a scale of 1"=10' or 1"=20'. C. Provide two sketches, showing the character that the cemetery will have once it has been constructed. D. Identify construction costs by phase, listing each component of the infrastructure separately. In addition to earthwork, roads and utilities, cost estimates should include lighting, signage, structures if proposed, parking, fences, pathways, landscaping, etc. 3. Management Analysis A. Provide altematives for establishing a cemetery management group. These options should include public and private scenarios, with the possibility of contract service, and should discuss staffing required to manage the facility. B. Provide an analysis of operating costs and revenues for each type of management group listed above. Specific costs such as personnel, equipment, and the man hours required for operation should be identified. Up front construction costs must be calculated with a plan provided to cover those costs. Sources of revenues should also be discussed, specifically the cost of plots, and projections for future annual revenues. C. Provide alternatives in methodology for year-round operation and maintenance. Discuss differences between summer and winter operations. D. Provide an analysis of the demand for cemetery plots, with options for limiting use of the cemetery to residents of Vail. Cemetery capacity for different constniction phases will need to be determined relative to demand for cemetery plots. . 4. Public Review Process A. Facilitate two community meetings, one before design work is initiated to understand the community, neighborhood, and cemetery committee concerns, and one after the conceptual designs are developed to receive comments about the initial design work. Request for Proposals • Town of Vail Cemetery • May 1992 • Page 2 B. Attend meetings, as requested by staff, when the project will be presented to Town Boards for their review and approval. It is likely that the Design Review Board, Planning and Environmental Commission and the Town Council will each review the conceptual designs during "worksession" hearings. After a final plan has been .produced, Town staff will present it to each of the three boards for final at,t,~~val, ' including a PEC Conditional Use hearing. Consultants should also anticipate attending approximately three meetings with the cemetery committee at various times within the design development stage. Plans will need to be revised as necessary to assimilate input received at meetings. 5. Written Revort At the conclusion of the design development and management analysis, provide a written report documenting the effort. This should include a thorough description of the project, the ' design concept, discussion of design options, summary of significant input made during the design review process, a specific management proposal addressing each of the points listed above, and a final recommendation. 6. Other Define the future steps the Town will need to take to complete the project. This will include providing a list of drawings needed for construction documents, determining the areas of the site where detailed survey information will be needed, and determining the type of platting process to use for the cemetery. An estimated budget should be provided for each of.these items. Proposed Schedule RFQ issued: March 26, 1992 Qualifications Statement submittal deadline: April 27, 1992 RFP issued: May 8, 1992 Proposal Statement submittal deadline: June 29, 1992 Proposal review, tentative consultant interviews and consultant selection: July, 1992 Neighbofiood meetings, project design, Town of 3-4 Months Vail staff review: Town board review and approval: 2-3 Months Budget The budget information provided in most of the Statements of Qualifications exceeded the budget allocated by the Town. For the Statement of Proposal,.the.Town requests that the consultant team incorporate ways to reduce the proposed budget, while maintaining the quality of each team. Request jor Proposals • Town of Vail Cemetery • May 8, 1992 • Page 3 Format All proposals, at a minimum, should include the following parts: A letter of transmittal; description of the design approach; description of the management approach; a list of the staff; an experience record; a budget/cost proposal and an optional supplemental section. Each part should be clearly defined for easy reference. Five copies of the proposal must be submitted. Letter of Transmittal: The letter of transmittal is to be addressed to: Andy Knudtsen Town Planner Town of Vail 75 S. Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 This letter should contain a summary of the key points of the proposal, and should include: - An identification of the firm which is to be the prime consultant and the individual within that firm who will be the project manager. - An identification of the firms involved in the proposal, and a brief overview of the strengths of each firm. - A statement that the proposal will remain in effect for 60 days after receipt by the Town of Vail. The proposal shall contain the name, title, address and telephone • ~ number of an individual or individuals with authority to bind the company, who may be contacted during the period of evaluating the proposal. Design Approach: This part of the proposal should contain a description of how the approach to the project is to be organized and how the work is to be completed. This section should focus on process, as the ultimate goal of this effort is public approval by the Vail Town Council and other Town boards. The proposer should include descriptions of the resources available to the consultant team which will be used in the project. The relationships between the firms on the team should be explained and how potential inconveniences due to geographic separation between firms will be handled. This is particularly important as the project teams tend to draw upon several consultants located in different parts of the country. Management Approach: In this part of the proposal, the Town is looking for an outline of the approach to be used in the management analysis. Specific methods to determine demands for plots, projections for revenue, as well as ways to handle up front construction costs should be provided. Factors that will be used to determine if the management should be public or private should also be provided. All of this must be proposed in a way which is appropriate for Vail's relatively small population. Examples of previous work along these lines should be included. Request fog ProposaLr • Town of Vail Cemetery • May 8, 1992 • Page 4 Proiect Staffing: This part should include a list of the individuals assigned to the project from each firm, with a brief description of their responsibilities. Resumes for each member should also be included. Experience Record: Firms should list previous projects that design team members have worked on that are relevant to this project. The proposer should explain how information from those projects will benefit the Vail Cemetery project. Budget/Cost Proposal: This section of the submittal should provide a summary of costs for all . services and materials anticipated to be incun~ed. A summary table should be provided which indicates the persons/days assumed and the cost involved for each task. Materials, travel, reimbursable expenses and miscellaneous costs should also be summarized in this table. The consultant should review the work tasks and provide the Town of Vail with a statement as to the appropriateness and adequacy of the budget identified in this RFP relative to the total maximum fee for all expenses necessary to accomplish the work. Supplemental: The proposer may submit any additional supplemental information in this section, including any information submitted in the Statement of Qualifications which might have changed since that time. Deadline All proposals must be submitted by 5:00 p.m., Monday, June 29, 1992. General Conditions Limitation and Award: This RFP does not commit the Town of Vail to award a contract, nor to pay any costs incurred in the preparation and submission of proposals in anticipation of a contract. The Town of Vail reserves the right to accept or reject all or any proposals received as a result of this request, to negotiate with all qualified sources, or to cancel all or part of the RFP. After a priority listing of the final firms is established, the Town of Vail will negotiate a contract with the first priority firm. If negotiations cannot be successfully completed with the first priority fine, negotiations will be formally terminated and will be initiated with the second most qualified fine and, likewise, with the remaining firms. Selection: Initial evaluation will be based upon proposal content. After evaluation, firms may . be contacted for interviews. Interviews are anticipated to be scheduled for the month of July. The Town of Vail reserves the nght~to not interview, and to make final consultant selection based upon proposal content alone. The selection is to be based an, among other things, work experience, understanding of cemetery programming and management, general design ability, cemetery design ability and the budget proposal. Eaual Employment Opportunity: The proposer will not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, religion, sex or national origin. The proposal will take affimlative action to ensure that applicants are employed and that employees are treated equally during employment, without regard to their race, color, religion, sex or national origin. Such action shall include, but not be limited w the following: employment upgrading, Request for Proposals • Town of Voi! Cemetery • May 8, 1992 • Page 5 demotion or transfer, recruitment or recruitment advertising; layoff or termination; rates of pay or other forms of compensation; and selection for training, including apprenticeship. Request jor ProposaLr • Town of Vai! Cemetery • Moy 8, 1992 • Page 6 - ~4 . • ~Ieon Mack wouli :hl~~~to . 1 _ _+r ~ . E ~ , _ . _ _ uppose'an~acquaintanceroffeis_ to 'terest rate is 2 percent;a dear. The long- ~ , finance your.,new,house ~..'at.an •teiznloan secured byland holdings of interest.:rate of,: just•,2,;percent ;a. .M.D C :and its Richmond .Homesdivision. ~ ~„4~° t Y.~?' - ~ : The bottom ~.~Ime aWhen .Richmond ;iBut~there's one stnng•attached. Every wants to sell.lots.and build`homes;.Apollo tinieyyou move the furniture or paint ,has a right to approve relea'sing'the lots . _ the bathroom your buddy wants,to ap #or sale ~ , 4 ~ ~ c ~ r. „ ~ ~ ~ a , d , .prove the _plans A bargam~ A pam'm the , In addition to`;the $S40 million,debt; .a ' you know ;what , y ` ~ { ~ ~ F second tie that binds 11+hze1 and °Black is ~Bo~led down to its essential details thLS Drexel~Burnham Lambert 'Black under- Altus.to restructure~unk=liorid•failures;";;: is~the situation that ;Larry Mizel,~ehair Avrote`~ many of ~Dr~exePs uifamous junk-. , including, Vail's parent,F Gillett Iiolduigs, man~of M.D C Holdu?gs,;and Leon Black, zbond deals, Mizel s ~company',issu,'ed some as well as. M:D.C Niizel has repurchased 1Vew,Yok financier head of Apollo?In n: >$;700 million m~junk•;Iionds m-itsflawed many of its junk bonds at bargam;base- vestments and 'prospective owner-~of, bid to, dominate' homeb°uildmg n~Denver merit prices and~is trying to makeira"pr'ofit 'Vail/beaver Creek,.will be ~ •wr`estling~ -;and other"ma~or~cities ' from -a slimmed down~;homebu~ldin o ~ g P- with this summei , Now`both men are- hf ping to 'hit jack-. eration focused on Colorado. , ~,~~M:D C,,nM~l'svhomebuildmg company pots,7on~the comeback:, trail. ~$1 rk 'has Apollo, with financial bac ~ from A1= ' _ owes Black somel~$140GFniillion and them ~~teamed with th~'e French' financeant, 7,tus, ~got~ its ;M ,D C bonds~"as~part of ;its" ~,'~'ca a:Fi~.nr~i~..~b~xty~`'{; Pru~°f~.,'~,.^card;~'3F:~~~'`.X.sna'`~~.~~.x? ;a~ P~R., r,'i,Y,~er~t~,~: _Sa ~ s'~..r ~ - :i.~, f.. ~ t - ~ x r ~ fir" , . t•~ P • . this: ~2~ E~so~ut~on~ ~,,~~~~~f 'J ~ ^ 'P ee~:S„'~a. w~.~'a~,..x`rt,g'? i v ~:~ra ~ ir~ ~ ..f~'l:%K: ~ successful bid last year, for'$4'.5 bilhon~in' ges, $lack~isn't'tlikely;to".find another in`~~., , ~ "junk" owned by `failed ~Cahfornia incur vector to take the" bonds off lus,hands. ~;rF~~ ~ I er,'Egecutive . Life:,_ „ : ~ ~ ~4 t aMeanwh~le, M D C 4 doesn't want to cut r . _ ~ Executive Life originally wasrt collect ,~a~quicks deal with Apollo'IAltus -;that will, . mg double-digit•.anterest rate`s on its force it to'part with. precious cash to pay~r~ ` M:D C. junk bonds, +but it swapped them higliei interest .payments .,But M D C . for the 2 percent notes: when .N1:D.C. ran sn';t exactly thrilled about havug to seek' ,into troulile. The swap, 'kept Executive pemission from'Black`agd hi"s~Frencbz Life from having`to take big wnteoffs.on partners to release building lots wellA x ~ Iits'M:D.C._holdings_.._ ` until the ,next century , w , People familiar with the situation say Nteanwbile, through a separate maneu that Apollo -which has doubled its moos ver'; MAAF, ~another~`French~ firm, ;is ~ ley overnight ui some deals ~isn't~thrl about, to ;acquire 15„,percent~of'; M D C 's filed with the idea-:of rtcollecting -2k percent ¢„common stock The stock also~was owned, interest on its NI D C Sloan s `~`$a `';,41 a~~ `by Executive~Life + ~ B.! d ! nn t ~ EC ~ Gz 3yt. ~J t "j~,:r /,~l-.tt 7 i¢~ 7ba' ~ ~v .Y'~" a f . But with Richmond ,CEO David ~iVIan t ~rSacre bleuS:„,r~~, , , ~ ,<i,~ k 6RR~ ; i, s- „ , a s , r r F S..?~ S` rtr, re ~ .i- Y7' S t ! darich•headed for anal n month on po- 'Henry Dubroff Ls $asinessreditor o~~The . i~liticaYcam ai iinone -~tnderin char n'~.DenverrsPost ' „r~r~~~`~~~:~;i~ 4~°6~"~~"~'`~~tt'~~' r ~ • ~ D ~~y6 Sl TOWN OF 1~AIL ~ _ , 75 South Frontage Road Office of the Mayor Vail Colorado 81657 303-472100 FAX 303-479-2157 May 11, 1992 Mr. Kenneth Bueche, Executive Director Colorado Municipal League . 1660 Lincoln Street, Suite 2100 Denver, Colorado 80264 Dear Ken, The Vail Town. Council heartily endorses Ron Phillips as a candidate for the CML Executive Board to represent municipalities under 6,500 population. Ron has served very well on the CML Board for the last four years, and presently serves as Secretary/Treasurer of the Board. We would like to see him continue on the Board and endorse his nomination for the upcoming election at the Municipal League Conference in Ft. Collins. Sincerely, Margaret A. Osterfoss Mayor LG1[l11~ u eh TOWN OF PAIL _ 75 South Frontage Road Office of the Town Manager Yai~ Colorado 81657 303-479-2105 /FAX 303-479-2157 May 11, 1992 Mr. Kenneth Bueche, Executive Director Colorado Municipal League 1660 Lincoln Street, Suite 2100 Denver, Colorado 80264 Dear Ken, . This letter serves as my notice of intent to run for the CML Executive Board for another two year term. I will once again be seeking to represent communities under 6,500 population. My service on the Board for the past four years has been enjoyable, and I am looking forward to another two year term. Please inform the nominating committee that I wish my name to be placed in nomination. Sincerely, Rondall V. Phillips Town Manager . RVP/dd 'r a 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 SCROLL 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: MAY 11, 1992 RE: PUBLIC WORKS PRIORITY LIST FOR THE WEEK OF MAY 11 - MAY 15, 1992 STREETS AND ROADS A. 1. Replace cribwall on bikepath near Sundial. 2. Continue spring clean up of cinders throughout Town and haul them off. 3. Demo concrete on southside Pedestrian Overpass and replace stairs. 3. Clean culverts on Forest, Beaver Dam and Rockledge Roads. 4. Replace cribwall on bikepath near Sundial. . 5. Restripe crosswalks at little 4-Way and 1st Bank. 6. Repair catch basin and ditch on Rockledge Rd. 7. Repair pavers at A & D Building. 8. Recompact and reinstall pavers in Lionshead. 9. Retrieve fallen trees from Gore Creek for high water season. 10. Repair shoulders on various bike paths: a. Red Sandstone b. Bridge Road 11. Check culverts for high water throughout Town. 12. Replace concrete for bus barn heating system repair. 13. Open restrooms at Bighorn Park. 14. Install new PC board in bus wash on 5/11. PARKING STRUCTURE/TRANSPORTATION A. 1. Confirm with PCL, west exhaust fan status. ' 2. -Repair Library smoke sensors. 3. Train new building janitor. 4: Test new floor sealer for Terminal Building. 5. Investigate the retrofit of the Golfcourse turnaround. 6. Number all bus stops. 7. Resolve paver problems. 8. Paint structure as needed. 9. Waterproof bus barn. e PUBLIC WORKS PRIORITY LIST Page 2 CARPENTERS A. 1. Construct cabinets and shelves .for new Com Dev. 2. Replace bridge guard rail on Chamonix Lane. 3. Construct restroom~building for Stephens Park. 4. Construct additional plant storage for greenhouse. ELECTRICIANS A. 1. Continue remodel at Old Post Office. 2. Repair computer room lighting system. 3. Repair ground fault - LHTRC fire alarm system. 4. Repair lights at the following locations: a. Old Town Shop b. East gate in Lionshead c. Bighorn Rd. d. North day lot in LH 5. Order exhaust fans for Police Department locker rooms. 6. Construct new microphone system for Council Chambers at Municipal Building. 7. Repair damaged outlet at East end of mechanic's bay. 8. Add new lights at Manor Vail Covered Bridge. 9. Restock electrical truck. 10. Repair damaged disconnect at E. Meadow Drive. 11. Run conduit for irrigation system both north and south at VTRC. 12. Construct cords for clean up day, 5/16. PARKS DEPARTMENT A. 1. Finalize Stephen's Park easements with Larry Eskwith. 2. Purchase park replacement trees. 3. Work with planners on Ski Museum site. 4. Set up staging area for Valley Crest. 5. Obtain bids for "Trees for Vail" irrigation system and tree purchase. 6. Complete Phase II Stephen's Park plans and prepare for bid. 7. Finalize plans for Lionshead Plaza project with Alpine International. 8. Schedule setting new utility pole at Stephens Park. 9. Check out seed at rockfall berm. KHldr 0 rt r WORK SESSION FOLLOW-UP May 8, 1992 Page 1 of 3 TOPIC QUESTIONS FOLLOW-UP SOLUTIONS 1991 05107 SKI AREA ADMISSION TAX LARRYISTEVE: Research remedies to change this to Draft ordinance forwarded to Forest Service and VA for (request: Gibson/Lapin) a mandatory TOV tax collection. review. Forest Service response unclear. Ron has discussed with Jerry Oliver, who will now discuss the issue with George Gillett. Ordinance No. 14, Series of 1992, tabled for first reading to 5/19/92. 11119 NEWSPAPER VENDING LARRYIANDY/MIKE M.: What can be done to make Discussions have begun with vendors. Voluntary MACHINES these uniform and locations less prolific? agreement still being pursued. 1992 01121 EVENING PARKING MIKE ROSE/STEVE B.: Evaluate financial Mike will prepare new analysis of data prior to the STRUCTURE FEES ramifications of eliminating parking structure fees beginning of the budget-setting process in September. (request: Lapin) after 6:00 p.m. each night. Staff to explore other options. 1 01121 BEAVER POND KRISTAN: Check with FEMA experts and Interfleuve, Three reports received from Interfleuve, Hydrosphere, REVITALIZATION Hydrosphere, and Wetland Aquatics to see what solution ~ and Wetland Aquatics will be analyzed by Community what might be appropriate to revitalize this pond ~ Development and Todd 0., and then presented to (i.e., dredging or other means). j Council at 619192 work session. The beaver are back! Update to follow. 1 i 02104 HERITAGE CABLEVISION CAROLINE: Prepare new letter of protest for Mayor's ~ Will do upon return of Merv. FRANCHISE NEGOTIATIONS signature. XC: Newspapers, Dillon, Minturn, etc. (request: Lapin) E 02111 HORSEDRAWN CARRIAGE KEN/LARRY: Prepare extension to agreement, Advisory Committee to help draft standards of AGREEMENT including possible provisions for hobbling, dragging operations and other criteria. Draft contract weights, and other options. to be presented to Council at 5/26192 work session prior to signing. Dave Sloan, Carriage Rides, Inc., is currently not doing business. WORK SESSION FOLLOW-UP May 8, 1992 Page 2 of 3 TOPIC QUESTIONS FOLLOW-UP SOLUTIONS 02117 EXTERIOR LIGHTING KRISTAN/ANDY: Draft ordinance. Input received and joint discussions will continue including all interested parties. Initial meetings held with night tour scheduled for 6/2192 evening meeting, 03110 AFFORDABLE HOUSING KRISTAN/LARRY: Finalize ordinance. Ord. No. 9, Series of 1992, to Council for first PROVISIONS ORDINANCE reading on 612192. 03110 LIONSHEAD SALES TAX FIGURES STEVE B./STEVE T.: Packy Walker, on behalf of the Will investigate. Staff time now being spent on special (request: Osterfoss, Levine, LH Merchants Assn,, is requesting an accounting of ~ events/daily sales tax reporting program. Staff will Gibson, Steinberg) sales tax taken from a.square footage basis, standard ~ attempt to meet these other concerns after completion number (such as Dow Jones) of businesses reporting, to ~ of the special events program. offer a comparative analysis. 03/17 GOAL SHARING SESSION COUNCIL: Carl Neu will be facilitating agoal-sharing Everyone is attending. session to include the Avon Town Council, Eagle County Commissioners, and Vail Town Council. Tuesday, June 22, 1992, from, 2:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m., is the newly scheduled date. Please mark your calendars. 04107 REVIEW RETT LARRY: Schedule for Council review. Staff will work with parties-in-interest to further work out revisions and suggestions from 4121/92 work session. Public airing to be called. 04107 USE TAX ON CONSTRUCTION LARRY: Prepare ordinance for implementation January Scheduled for 612192 evening meeting as an ordinance MATERIALS 1, 1993. for first reading. WORK SESSION FOLLOW-UP May 8, 1992 Page 3 of 3 TOPIC QUESTIONS FOLLOW-UP SOLUTIONS 04/14 SPRING VACATION COUNCIL: At your easiest convenience, please let Jim Gibson will be out 519-28/92. SCHEDULES either dd or Pam know of any vacation plans that will take you away from regularly scheduled meetings. We ask for this at this time of year to ensure a quorum for scheduled items. 04114 CML SUMMER COUNCIL: The annual conference is scheduled for Those signed up are as follows: Tom, Rob, CONFERENCE the week of 6116-20 in Fort Collins. Peggy, Jim S., and Ron. 04/21 ADDITIONAL AMPLIFICATION LEO VASOUEZ: With new work session arrangement, IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS can we hang ceiling microphones to increase voice coverage? 05107 CONSOLIDATION OF MARTHA: Contact special districts in our area Martha will draft letters to be sent to the new POLLING PRECINCTS FOR to offer the TOV Municipal Building as an President of each special district to offer this SPECIAL DISTRICT ELECTIONS optimal, accessible palling site for future location. (request: Lapin) elections.