Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
1992-12-15 Support Documentation Town Council Work Session
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL OVERVIEW WORK SESSION TUESDAY, DECEMBER 15, 1992 4:30 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS - AGENDA 1. Discussion Re: Proposed Major Amendment to SDD #4 -Cascade Village for the Comerstone and Waterford building sites. Applicants: MECM Enterprises (Waterford) and Commercial Federal Savings (Comerstone.) 2. Site Visit: View Examples of Exterior Lighting throughout Town. 3. Discussion re: Draft Ordinance No. 6, Series of 1992, concerning amending zoning code language regulating outdoor lighting. 4. PEC Report. 5. Information Update. 6. Council Reports. 7. Other. 8. Adjournment. . THERE WILL BE A SPECIAL TOWN COUNCIL EVENING MEETING ON TUESDAY, 12/22/92, BEGINNING AT 7:30 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS. AGENDA: PRESENTATION OF THE CHUCK ANDERSON YOUTH AWARDS. THERE WILL BE NO VAIL TOWN COUNCIL WORK SESSIONS ON 12!22/92 OR 12/29/92. THE NEXT VAIL TOWN COUNCIL OVERVIEW WORK SESSION WILL BE ON TUESDAY, 1/5!93, BEGINNING AT 6:30 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS. THE NEXT VAIL TOWN COUNCIL EVENING MEETING WILL BE ON TUESDAY,.1/5/93, BEGINNING AT 7:30 P.M. IN TOY COUNCIL CHAMBERS. ~k~k~~k~k~k~~k~k~k~k~k~k~k~k C.'WGENDA.VYS -~,Y~.. VAIL TOWN COUNCIL OVERVIEW WORK SESSION TUESDAY, DECEMBER 15,1992 4:30 P.M. IN TOV COUNCfL CHAMBERS EXPANDED AGENDA 4:30 P.M. 1. Follow-up discussion to 12/8192 work session re: Proposed major Shelly Mello Amendment to SDD #4 -Cascade Village for the Cornerstone and Waterford building sites. The Comerstone site is generally located on Westhaven Drive south of the Cascade Village parking structure between Westhaven Driver and the Terrace Wing. Waterford site is on the southeast comer of the S. Frontage Road and Westhaven Drive intersection. Applicants: MECM Enterprises (Waterford) and Commercial Federal Savings (Comerstone.) Action Reauested of Council: Please review the enclosed Planning and Environmental Commission (PE}\C) memo and conditions of recommendation for specific details of this project, and outline of concerns for the applicants to address at first reading. The (PEG) recommended approval of the amendment to Council by a vote of 5-1. Diana Donovan opposed the project. 5:30 P.M. 2. Site Visit: View Examples of Exterior Lighting throughout Town. Andy Knudtsen David DiLaura Action Reauested of Council: View examples of exterior lighting and Gary Dvorak, throughout Town in preparation for discussion of Draft Ordinance Lighting Technologies No. 6, Series of 1992, regarding amending language in the zoning _ _ code regulating outdoor lighting. Backaround Rationale: Town staff has been refining a draft ordinance which would reinstate language in the Design Review Board (DRB) guidelines regulating outdoor lighting. Mr. David DiLaura, President of Lighting Technologies, Inc. has made suggestions for standards to use in the ordinance. Staff and the consultants will review these standards with Council during the site visit, showing how several existing lights do/do not comply with the proposed ordinance. 7:00 P.M. 3. Discussion re: Draft Ordinance No. 6, Series of 1992, concerning Andy Knudtsen amending zoning code language regulating outdoor lighting. David DiLaura and Gary Dvorak, Action Reauested of Council: Discuss Ordinance No. fi, Series of Lighting Technologies 1992, and provide comments to staff. Backaround Rationale: Town staff has been refining a draft ordinance which would reinstate language in the Design Review Board (DRB} guidelines regulating outdoor lighting. Mr. David DiLaura, President of Lighting Technologies, Inc., has made suggestions for standards to use in the ordinance. 4. PEC Report. 5. Information Update. 1 6. Council Reports. 7. Other. 7:30 P.M. 8. Adjournment. i~ ~k~k~k~~k~k~k~k~k~k~k~k~k~k~k _ . THERE WILL BE A SPECIAL TOWN COUNCIL EVENING MEETING ON TUESDAY, 12!22!92, BEGINNING AT 7:30 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS. AGENDA: PRESENTATION OF THE CHUCK ANDERSON YOUTH AWARDS. THERE WILL BE NO VAIL TOWN COUNCIL WORK SESSIONS ON 12!22/92 OR 12/29/92. THE NEXT VAIL TOWN COUNCIL OVERVIEW WORK SESSION WILL BE ON TUESDAY, 1/5/93, BEGINNING AT 6:30 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS. THE NEXT VAIL TOWN COUNCIL EVENING MEETING WILL BE ON TUESDAY, 1/5!93, BEGINNING AT 7:30 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS. ~k~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ C:WGENDA.WSE 2 MEMORANDUM TO: Town Council FROM: Community Development DATE: December 8, 1992 SUBJECT: Planning Commission recommendations to the Town Council to approve a minor subdivision and major amendment to SDD #4 Cascade Village to amend the Development Plan for Waterford and Cornerstone parcels in Area A. iiF;iiv::~i::iiii icyv,!in.?x'.._?n:ih%;._{.nv.i:iiii::::jii:: L'{'•i ~ n.:., n...........' :::::::::.......yy. r. ii\~}:i~'.iY~if:••.•:t$}.:::::i{:~ii:<}if:{Y.?rl`?i{~:tii}{r;`:::i_vi{;i':}?~~:ji::?:ij':^iiL?i4}:-:.v :i^:i::::.; ; a ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::iryii: iii: {::;:x :.'i nti4ii::iii:: i::y'L...:: e:...:: • ..:::.::w..w:::: ~.i .............::::::vi::::::::: y::: i:::::: i x::::.~ ' M1. }:Sii;i.,..::::... • ....::::........v.. r:.iiiiiti~iiw:;:.•.v: iniii::.ii:i::::::::::: {tii•: iiiiii::.::. ...::n~:::::::::::::::::::::::::::.:. ~r x::::::::: ;•::::w:: n.......:::: x:; :v: ibi: :..v ::v:::: m:::;; ."Y:: iii}iiiii;ili; iiiiii% r, :..:::::'iiiiiG~r ....~.:~::iiiii*iiiiiiiii'.i}i::v:: ~iY n}v: :w: v::::v :vfitiv`ii.....:......~..Yn+: ii: }:iiii:•:4:Ji4iivfi:i:..,.....:..........}'is'x".iF..:::: mvn n~ ........:......x..xy............M1........ r............C On December 7, 1992, the PEC recommended approval for a request to amend SDD #4 Cascade Village Area A. The vote was 5-1. Diana Donovan opposed the application based on concerns related to the following: 1. The change in the TR definition to allow for units larger than 645 sq. ft. of GRFA, 2. The proximity of the Waterford building to the creek; and 3. The 20' width of the emergency access between the Cornerstone Building and the existing Terrace Wing Building. She also stated that she was generally more comfortable with the proposed Waterford project than the proposed Cornerstone project. The PEC also approved a request for a minor subdivision to create two independent lots for the two sites in question, the Waterford and Cornerstone building sites. The following items were conditions of the Planning Commission's recommendations to the Town Council. The staff's recommendation is listed in the attached memorandum, to the PEC dated December 7, 1992. Cornerstone 1. Before the building permit is released for the project, the three proposed employee housing units shall be permanently restricted per the Town of Vail Housing Ordinance as follows: a. The EHU shall include two (2) on-site parking spaces or the EHU shall include one (1) on-site parking space and the EHU shall be located "on" the Town's bus route (as determined by the Town Zoning Administrator); b. The EHU shall not be subdivided into any form of time shares, interval ownerships, or fractional fee; c. The EHU shall be leased, but only to tenants who are full-time employees who work in Eagle County. The EHU shall not be leased for a period less than thirty (30) consecutive days. For the purposes of this Section, afull-time employee is one who works an average of a minimum of thirty (30) hours each week; d. No later than February 1 of each year, the owner of the employee housing unit shall submit two (2) copies of a report (on a form to be obtained from the Community Development Department), to the Community Development _ Department of the Town of Vail and the Chairperson of the Town of Vail Housing Authority, setting forth evidence establishing that each tenant whom resides within the employee housing unit is a full-time employee in Eagle County. This agreement shall be recorded at the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder's Office. 2. Transient residential units proposed on both Scenario 1 and 2 shall not be individually condominiumized at any point in the future. These. units shall remain as rental units - used in the same manner as hotel type units and are not intended for individual ownership. The definition of TR shall be changed to accommodate this proposal. 3. -The developer agrees to complete asphalt borings and an as-built survey and to provide them to the Town of Vail for the area of the road adjacent to their property in order to determine the condition of Westhaven Drive. The Town Engineer shall determine when these drawings shall be required. -4. The proposed landscape plan between the Terrace Wing and the proposed Cornerstone building shall be revised prior to the review of the project by the DRB. For emergency services, an access lane must be provided from the western courtyard to the ski lift. In meeting this condition, the water feature on the landscape plan for this amendment may be removed or revised accordingly. The proposed landscaping in this area shall be part of the Cornerstone development and, therefore, it is the developer's responsibility to complete this portion of the project when the Cornerstone project is constructed. These plans shall be included in the building permit for the Cornerstone development at such time that it is developed. 5. The area of road in which parking is proposed under Westhaven Drive for the Cornerstone project shall be conveyed and transferred through the proposed minor . subdivision to the Cornerstone property. An easement shall be granted to the Town of Vail over this area for public access. `6. In Scenario 2 of the Cornerstone project, three DUs will be condominiumized and available on the free market with no rental restrictions. In addition, two DUs that each have one AU and one lock off, shall have the rental restrictions applied per Section 17.26.075 of the Subdivision Regulations. An additional DU will be available with one lock off for condominiumization. This DU/LO unit will also have the condominium- . conversion rental restrictions applied to it per Section 17.26.075 of the Subdivision Regulations. Watertord 1. The two proposed employee housing units shall be restricted per the Town of Vail Housing Ordinance. This agreement shall be submitted before the building permit is released for the project. This agreement shall be recorded at Eagle County Clerk and recorder's Office.. Please see the specific provisions of the ordinance under item 1. Cornerstone. 2. The developer agrees to complete asphalt borings and an as-built survey to determine the condition of Westhaven Drive from the South Frontage Road to the south end of the Cul-de-sac. The applicant agrees to provide stamped, engineered construction drawings for any road revisions that are necessary to bring the road up to Town standards. These construction drawings shall be reviewed and approved by the Town of Vail's engineer prior to the release of a building permit. All road improvements shall be completed by the developer for the project prior to T.C.O. The road will also be dedicated to the Town prior to the release of a T.C.O. The dedication of the public access easement for the remainder of Westhaven Drive shall be conveyed at such time that the minor subdivision plat is submitted prior to a building permit being released for the project. The public access easement shall allow for parking enforcement by the Town of Vail. 3. The bike path shall be relocated and the existing easement shall be amended if possible on the minor subdivision plat to correspond to the new location. If the bike path is relocated while Waterford is being constructed, the bike path must be relocated . and the easement provided to the Town for public access before a T.C.O. is released. The minor subdivision plat shall be completed and recorded prior to the release of any building permits for either project. The minor subdivision plat shall include the conveyance of property to Cornerstone for its parking located below grade, the Town's public access easement over the underground parking area in the current cul-de-sac, and the relocation of the bike path on the Waterford site, and the public access easement across Westhaven Drive. 4. The DRB will review the proposed landscaping in the areas of the retaining walls on the west and east ends of the site. The DRB will review the north elevation's architectural details. The applicant has also agreed to review the possibility of eliminating the skier access on the east end of the project. However, the PEC felt that if the applicant could significantly decrease the retaining walls necessary to build the access, the skier access could remain. Waterford/Cornerstone 1. The general condominium plat and declarations shall be reviewed by the Town attorney and the Community Development Department. The primary concern is that the parking be made permanently available to the users of the project. This includes the permanent dedication of those spaces allocated to commercial areas as short term public parking. All proposed required parking associated with the uses shall not be conveyed, used or leased separately from the uses. Public parking on the third floor of the Cornerstone project shall be made available to the public for short term parking within the building. The wording of the agreements listed above are also subject to the Town Attorney's review. These items will appear in the proposed ordinance for this amendment unless otherwise modified by the Town Attorney or the Town Council. DEC 11 '92 12:03 CFS MOI 1 Commercial ~ecleral ~ . Mortgage Corpar~tron • December 11,1992 Ms. Shelly Mello,~Planner ~2 . Community.Development, Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road west Vail, CO 81657 RE: kmendments to S.D.D. ~4 " Cornerstone Dear Shelly: After talking to Jerry Mullikin our designated spokesperson, and Ned Gwathmey the architect/planner retained to modify the design for the Amendment to S.D.D. 4, we have surmised that we should withdraw Scenario 2, the one with DU~s. We have discussed this with the management committee and feel that the Council • concerns may be met with 'the following program which is consistent with-that w~iich is in place at .this time: .Transient Residential Dwelling Units. Although there are provisions for 50 of these units in the ordinance..t~ow, wa have the feeling that more would be better. With the`~``~2-5, square. foot maximum, the building. mass as approved will accommodate 64 TRs and we will leave it to the Council to consider the acceptability of the increase. Perhaps this - responds to discussion on the need. for these kinds of units-in - Vail. and the desire to make -the Garnerstone" project more . feasible. We must request that these TRs may-be developed as condominiums. per. the ordinance 18.46.020 B and that the other aspects of the definitions of TRs remain. Commercial ~ ~ - Planning Commission's insistence on conimercial~will be per the . approved plans with 11,000 square feet mainly an the plaza level. . Employee Housing ~ ~ _ - Although employee housing. is not in the existing ordinance, in the negotiations faith the' Staff they clearly became a . requirement for the proposed DUs.- In that there are ria longer . any DUs,. we. propose to use that area to fulfill the required - parking for the 64 TR Units. If the Council feels the need for the Employee Units,. we will request-a mixed use parking credit " of `3.,~ which will fill the requirement. ~ ~ - .~ti 2 Steele Street Sure 20 i DEC 11 '92 12:04 CFS MORT PAGE.02 Ms. Shelly Mello Page 2 ~zt is our understanding, that .this can be accommodated in the GRFA, building .volume, height and mass, site coverage, etc., that is in place in the existing ordinance. ~ am sorry that I cannot attend the Council Work Session, Tuesday, December 15, but have authorized Jerry and Ned to act in our behalf in these matters. Thank you for your continued consideration. Sincerely, ~ ~ Anna L. Ross Assistant Vice President ;j MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: December 7, 1992 SUBJECT: A request for a minor subdivision and a major amendment to SDD #4, Cascade Village, to amend the development plans for the Waterford and Cornerstone parcels in area A. The Waterford site is generally located on the SE corner of the intersection of Westhaven Drive and the S. Frontage Road. The Cornerstone site is on Westhaven Drive south of the Cascade Village parking structure. The legal descriptions are as follows: Waterford Site That part of the SW 1/4 NE 1/4, Section 12, Township 5 South, Range 81 West of the Sixtfi Prinapal Meridian, Town of Vail, Eagle County, Colorado, described as follows: Beginning at a point on the southerly right-of-way line of Interstate Highway No. 70 whence an iron pin with a plastic cap marking the center of said Section 12 bears S 33°10'19" W 1447.03 feet; thence along said southerly right-of-way line two courses 1) N 52°50'29" E 229.66 feet 2) N 74°38'17" E 160.70 feet; thence departing said southerly right-of-way line N 88°45'57" E 138.93 feet; thence S 40°45'14' W 94.32 feet; thence S 18° 18'36" W 54.08 feet; thence S 01°21'36" W 205.02 feet thence S 12°07'36" W 110.25 feet; thence S 28°28'36' W 164.48 feet; thence N 40 °17'04" W 211.16 feet; thence N 49°42'56" E 97.80 feet; thence N 37°09'31` W 95.59 feet; thence S 52°50'29" W 55.10 feet; thence 69.48 feet along the arc of anon-tangent curve to the left having a radius of 65.00 feet, a central angle of 61°14'42" and a chord that bears N 58° 55'53" W 66.22 feet; - thence N 37°09'31" W 118.50 feet To The True Point of Beginning, County of Eagle, State of Colorado; and the Comerstone parcel described as follows: Comerstone Site That part of the SW 114 NE 1/4, Section 12, Township 5 South, Range 81 West of the Sixth Prinapal Meridian, Town of Vail, Gounty of Eagle, State of Colorado, described as follows: Beginning at a point on the easterly line of a nonexclusive easement for ingress and egress known as Westhaven Drive recorded in Book 421 at Page 651 in the office of the Eagle County, Colorado, Clerk and Recorder whence the center of said Section 12 bears S 38°34'43"W 1,168.27 feet; thence along said line of Westhaven Drive N 52°43'41"E 143.92 feet; thence departing said line of Westhaven Drive, 132.24 feet along the arc of anon-tangent curve to the left having a radius of 55.00 feet, a central angle of 137°d5'30" and a chord that bears N 42°11'46"E 102.61 feet; thence N 52°50'29'E 65.24 feet; thence S 37°09'31'E 95.59 feet; thence S 49°42'S6"W 97.80 feet; thence S 40°17'04"E 24.12 feet; thence S 52°50'29"W 213.66 feet; thence N 37°09'31"W 105.76 feet to the point of beginning containing 0.6848 acres more or less. Applicant: MECM Enterprises, Waterford Site and Commercial Federal Savings, Cornerstone Site Planner: Shelly Mello .......:.,.r.,,..:,:.~x.:.:Nr.~»r,.,u, .rr:. ......v::;r:...~, r:::::::::::...... . ~ ..vi9Cii'l6r+?4ti ti4L,'~Hlsifh~... .'OG}}. ,,.........n...rvS}ifv/ir»vr4n}r.... r.n . r..,.. ..r . n. h xi~+f?'' ':iv ~'}xr. . . :'t~:: r.. I. INTRODUCTION In July, September, and October of 1992, the PEC reviewed a proposed amendment to the Cascade Village SDD #4, Area A, Development Plan. The initial proposal specifically addressed the Waterford site located at the southeast comer of Westhaven Drive and the South Frontage Road. It has been decided that, in order to move forward with the amendment to the Waterford site, that the Comerstone site to the west of Waterford also needs to be amended. In October, 1992, a third work session was held which specifically addressed the Comerstone site. The changes to the Cornerstone site are necessary because currently there is an interdependence between the two sites in respect to the provision of parking. Each site is owned by independent entities and it is their desire to eliminate any interdependence between the two sites. The anal of this effort is to approve two development plans which can, be constructed independent of each other.. II. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant is requesting a major amendment to Special Development District (SDD) No. 4, Cascade Village Area A and more specifically, the Cornerstone and Waterford sites. A minor subdivision is also being requested to create two individual lots. The Cornerstone parcel is bound by the proposed Waterford project to the east, Gore Creek and the Westin Terrace Building to the south and Westhaven Drive to the north. The Waterford parcel is on the corner of the South Frontage Road and Westhaven Drive with Gore Creek to the south and the Waterford site to the west. The parcel was zoned SDD from the time it was annexed into the Town of Vail in 1974. There is no underlying zoning. The current approval far the Comerstone site allows for one development scheme with two options for the commercial area. The applicant is proposing two scenarios for this amendment. Scenario I includes transient units and commercial area while Scenario 2 includes a mixture of dwelling units, transient units, and commercial area. In addition, both Scenarios include three employee units. The Cornerstone site modifications are being necessitated by the inclusion of parking which previously was located on the Waterford site. Parking has been accommodated below grade and on the second and third levels. Scenario 2 calls for 34 transient units, 6 dwelling units with 3 lockoffs, 2 accommodation units and 3 employee units in Scenario 2. Scenario 1 would allow 52 transient units and 3 employee units. Under Scenario 2, the applicant has requested that three of the dwelling units located in the east wing be free market and proposes that the remaining 3 dwelling units, the 3 corresponding lockoffs, and the 2 accommodation units would be condominiumized and restricted by the "condo conversion requirements. The 1989 approved plan allows for 50 transient units. In both scenarios, the applicant proposes to permanently restrict the transient residential units to a lodging use, ie. the units will not be condominiumized. Please see Section IV (A) Zoning Consideration for a detailed comparison between the approved plan and the two proposed scenarios. 2 The Cornerstone proposal currently being reviewed does propose to locate parking below a portion of Westhaven Drive. The applicants propose to transfer ownership of a portion of the road with the proposed minor subdivision to allow for this. The i 989 approved Waterford plan allowed for two scenarios. The applicant is proposing only one development plan for this amendment. The first included 75 accommodation units and the second allowed for 30 dwelling units. Both included 3,800 square feet of commercial space and parking for both the Waterford and Cornerstone sites. The applicant is currently proposing only one scenario which allows for 27 dwelling units and 2 employee units. No increase in GRFA has been requested and the parking for the Waterford dwelling units will be provided an site. The applicant also proposes to relocate the recreation path 10' to the south. Please see Section IV (B) for specific zoning considerations. III. BACKGROUND The Cascade Village Development was previously owned by a single development entity. As proposed by the past developer, the project was a system of interdependent phases to be built into an integrated complex which provided commercial areas, short- term and long-term residential units and consolidated parking facilities. Since the bankruptcy of the original developer, ownership of the sites has been dispersed among different owners. This plan is now more difficult to execute, as each owner has different development objectives for their respective sites. The change in ownership effects the Cornerstone project because, as approved, all of the parking for the Cornerstone project was to be located on the Waterford site. These projects are now held by two entities who want to provide their own parking on their respective sites. 166 parking spaces were to be provided in the Waterford project for the Cornerstone development. An additional outstanding issue in the Cascade Village development is the ownership status of Westhaven Drive, from the South Frontage Road to the Gore Creek Bridge. The road is owned by the owner of the Waterford site, MECM Enterprises, and is privately maintained by a separate entity. This road has not been conveyed to the Town because it does not meet the Town's minimum road standards. 3 IV. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS A. Comparison of Approved and Proposed Development Plans for Cornerstone Approved Proposed Proposed Scenario Scenario 1 Scenario 2 1) Density of Units) 50 TR' S2 TR + 3 emp. 34 TR units 't 3 DU's (free market) 3 D U w/3 I.o. and 2 AU's (restricted) 3 emp. units' 2) G R FA 28,110 sq. ft. 28,110 + 1800 sq. ft. 28,110 + 1800 for emp. units sq. ft. for emp. units 3) Common Area 34,919 sq. ft. 16,817 sq. ft. 16,817 sq. ft. 4) Commercial Space 26,040 or 11,100 sq. ft. 11,100 sq. ft. 29,065 sq. ft. 5) Credits Given None per multi-family per multi- zoning family zoning 6) Height North 71' max on 71' from plaza 71' from plaza to top of ridge to top of ridge South N/A because 49 49 East buildings are 70 70 West connected 67 67 7) Setbacks North 0 0 0 South Distance between Terrace Wing and Cornerstone 45' 54 54 East 0 0 4 - West 0 0 0 8) Site Coverage 26,533 sq. ft. 20,930 sq. ft. 20,930 sq. ft. 9) Parking 155.9 or 89 req. spaces w/75% 84 req. 166 spaces enclosed; wl15% enclosed in 89 proposed w/ enclosed; Waterford 100% enclosed 89 proposed Structure w/100% enclosed B. Comparison of A~aroved and Proposed Development Plans for Watertord Approved Approved Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Proposed 1) Density of Units) 75 AUs 30 DUs 27 DUs+ 2 restricted emp. units 2) GRFA 47,500 sq. ft. 47,500 sq. ft. 47,500 sq.ft. +1100 sq. ft. restricted emp. units 3) Common Area 14,297 sq. ft. 14,297 sq. ft. 33,913 sq. ft. 4) Retail Space 3,800 sq. ft. 3,800 sq. ft. 0 5) Credits Given None None per multi-family zoning 6) Height North 48 feet 48 feet 55 ft. South 61 feet 61 feet 65 ft. East 61 feet 61 feet 65 ft. West 48 feet 48 feet 56 ft. 7) Setbacks (Building) North 8'-15'-18' 8'-15'-18' 4'-46'-64 North (to parking lot) NA NA 2'-25~ South 20 min. 20 min. 26 min. East 20-91 20-91 10-84 5 - West 18 18 10 8) Site Coverage 26,186 sq. ft. 26,186 sq. ft. 19,230 sq. ft. 11,100 sq. ft. surface lot 2 - 25' 9) Parking 72.7 spaces 87.7 spaces 58 spaces all parking all parking required; enclosed enclosed 60 proposed 43 enclosed or 75% or req., 19 surface SDD # 4 defines a transient as follows: "Transient residential dwelling unit or restricted dwelling unit" shall be defined as a dwelling unit located in amulti-family dwelling that is managed as a short term rental in which all such units are operated under a single management providing the occupants thereof customary hotel services and facilities. A short term rental shall be deemed to be a rental for a period of time not to exceed 31 days. Each unit shall not exceed 645 square feet of GRFA which shall include a kitchen having a maximum of 35 square feet. The kitchen shall be designed so that it may be locked and separated from the rest of the unit in a closet. A transient dwelling unit shall be accessible from common corridors, walks, or balconies without passing through another accommodation unit, dwelling unit, or a transient residential dwelling unit. Should such units be developed as condominiums, they shall be restricted as set forth in Section 17.26.075--17.26.120 governing condominium conversion. The unit shall not be used as a permanent residence. Fractional fee ownership shall not be allowed to be applied to transient dwelling units. For the purposes of determining allowable density per acre, transient residential dwelling units shall be counted as one half of a dwelling unit. The transient residential dwelling unit parking requirement shall be 0.4 space per unit plus 0.1 space per each 100 square feet of GRFA with a maximum of 1.0 space per unit." Permanently restricted employee units do not count towards density or GRFA per the current SDD#4 Ordinance. The proposed D.U.'s are restricted per the Use Restrictions in Section 17.26 Condo Conversion of the Subdivision Regulations per the developer's request. Lock-off Unit: A dwelling unit in amultiple-family building may include one attached accommodation unit no larger than one-third of the total floor area of the dwelling. 6 f The proposed projects depart from the existing definition of transient unit provided in this SDD. This definition will need to be revised to allow for the larger TR units proposed in Scenario I and II for Cornerstone. The proposed size of the lockoffs do not conform to the definition provided in the zoning code. As approved, the Cornerstone and Waterford buildings were connected below grade. In the approved plan, a large portion of the Cornerstone common area was located on what is now considered Waterford property. In the proposed plan, the two projects are completely separate and the parking structure for Waterford is located in front of the residential development. In the previous plan, Waterford residential structure was located directly above the parking. For this reason, the staff feels that it is more accurate to consider the projects together when reviewing common area and site coverage as shown below: Cornerstone/Vllaterford Cornerstone/VVaterford Approved Proposed Total Site Coverage 52,719 sq. ft. 40,160 + 11,100 parking structure = 51,160 sq. ft. Total Common Area 49,216 sq. ft. 50,730 sq. ft. V. SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT CRITERIA The criteria to be used to evaluate this proposal are the nine Special Development District (SDD) development standards set forth in the special development district chapter of the Zoning Code. The criteria are as follows: A. Design compatibility and sensitivity to the Immediate environment, neighborhood and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, Identity, character, visual Integrity and orientation. 1. Cornerstone The mass and bulk of the proposed project is similar to that of the approved development plan. The building shell will remain the same for each proposed scenario. This building shell is similar to that of the approved plan in mass and scale, however, it is no longer connected to either the Conference Center to the west or the Waterford Building to the east. The proposed building footprint is smaller than that of the approved development plan with the proposed site coverage at 20,930 square feet and the approved site coverage at 26,533 square feet. The south elevation has 6 exposed levels. Levels 3-6 are exposed on the north elevation adjacent to Westhaven Drive, for a total of 4 exposed floors with the following uses: 7 1st Level Commercial (9,900 sq. ft.) 2nd Level Parking/Employee units (3 units) 3rd Level Parking/Commercial (11,200 sq. ft.) 4th Level Residential 5th Level Residential 6th Level Residential This proposal adds an additional level to the building compared to the 1989 approval. The approved development plan has a total of 5 exposed floors on the north elevation and 3 levels on the south elevation. However, the overall height of the building has not increased. This additional level was accomplished by decreasing the floor to ceiling heights at each level and increasing the amount of usable area in the roof form. The need to add parking on this site has changed the overall program for the building. This effects the building because more floor area is needed to accomplish the development standards set forward by the SDD. This was accomplished while working with the existing building envelope, by first adding below grade parking and second by adding an additional level above grade. The amount of approved commercial space has been decreased from 29,065 square feet to 11,100 square feet. The staff recognizes that all of these changes are necessary in order to accommodate the need for on-site parking. This proposal also includes a reduction in the mass over the pedestrian access area which is a focal point for those entering Cascade Village. The decrease in the mass wiN allow for an increase in visibility of the mountain behind. The proposal includes the use of architectural details similar to those of the other existing buildings in Cascade Village. This includes a metal roof, protruding balconies, stucco finish and painted metal railings. In addition, arcades similar to those in the Terrace Wing have been included at both the Terrace Wing level and the Westhaven Drive pedestrian level. With the approved development plan, there was a great deal of consideration given to the public spaces on the site. These areas include, the mall area and the outdoor stair through the Cornerstone building connecting Westhaven Drive to the ski lift, the public space between the Terrace Wing and Cornerstone, as well as public areas connecting this site to the rest of the Westin Complex. This was accomplished with a series of connected plazas and other site amenities starting at Westhaven Drive leading to the ski lift/pedestrian area. Due to emergency access requirements, the applicant has proposed to include a modified plan of the approved landscape plan for the area between Cornerstone and the Terrace Wing with this amendment. It is the staff's findings that these off-site amenities are to be completed by the developer of the Cornerstone project at the time of the construction of this project. There is a severe grade change on this site from Westhaven Drive to the ski 8 lift~public space level. This, along with the configuration of the site, present many practical difficulties. Due to the grade change, the visual impacts of each building elevation are different. Because each side of the building is exposed to public ways, staff believes each elevation of the building to be very important. Landscape material and berms have been incorporated into the plan in order to decrease the visual impacts of each of these elevations. The staff finds that although the proposal includes a net increase in square footage because of the additional parking level below grade that the proposal is in compliance with the intent of the Cascade Village development and is compatible with the area surrounding the project. Please note site coverage, GRFA and common area have actually been decreased. 2. Waterford This site is disturbed due to the dumping of excess fill from other projects in Cascade Village. For this reason, there are few natural characteristics remaining on the property. There is also a severe grade change on this property from the South Frontage Road to the bike path (adjacent to the Creek.) The proposed plan for the Waterford project is more of a departure from the approved plan than that proposed for Cornerstone in respect to architectural style and site planning. The architectural details are similar to those of the Westin, however, the massing incorporates a series of smaller roof forms in a series of staggered towers versus a single roof mass as seen in other Cascade Village buildings. The proposed building does exceed the maximum height on the west and south elevations. Per the SDD and the approved plans, the maximum height allowed is 48 and 61 feet respectively. The height of the proposed west elevation is 56 feet. The current proposal is to allow for a building of 65 feet from finish grade to the top of the ridge on the south side. The staff feels that due to the changes in the project and the relocation of the mass, that this is an acceptable solution. The main increase in height along the west elevation is acceptable for the same reason. As approved, the minimum distance from the building to bike path was 20 feet. As proposed, that distance would increase to 26 feet. Again, the staff feels that this also supports the ability to increase the height to 65 feet because of the increased distance between the pedestrian area and the bike path. The staff finds that the relocation of the building and the decreased height adjacent to the Frontage Road justify the increase in height on the west elevations and along the pedestrian path on the south elevation. While the approved plan proposed more mass adjacent to the Frontage Road, this proposal shifts the concentration of mass to the south. The staff finds that this is an improvement tb the plan because it will provide relief along the Frontage Road. At-grade surface parking will be located between the Frontage Road and the building. There is no surface parking in the approved plan. The surface parking will be five feet below the top of the berm adjacent to the 9 Frontage Road. This parking and landscaping will provide a buffer between the building and the Frontage Road. In addition, a 5-25 foot wide strip of landscaping is proposed between the parking and the applicant's property line. As a result of the shifting of the mass away from the Frontage Road, the mass is closer to the recreation path on the south side. While there are 2-4 stories on the north side (Frontage Road view) there will be 4-5 1/2 stories on the south (Gore Creek side). The proposal maintains a 26 minimum setback from the bike path which is proposed to be relocated 10 feet off to the south. A landscape which includes berming between the bike path and the building helps to maintain the pedestrian scale of the area. Staff also looked at the approved building mass adjacent to Westhaven Drive, (west elevation). The staff feels that this proposal addresses the location of mass and bulk better than the approved plan as less building is proposed in this area. Originally, more building length was proposed along Westhaven Drive. Though the building's height impacts the bike path and the properties to the north and west. The staff finds that, although the proposal includes an overall increase in common area the proposal is in compliance with the intent of the Cascade Village development and is compatible with the area surrounding the project. Please note, GRFA and site coverage have not increased and a substantial amount of floor area is below grade. The staff encourages the applicant to add additional architectural detail particularly windows on the north elevation prior to DRB review. B. Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, eff(cient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. 1. Cornerstone The applicant is proposing two scenarios for this site. Previously, there was a single development plan which included transient units and retail uses. The proposed Scenario I provides for 52 transient units, 3 employee units, 11,100 square feet of commercial area, 2 loading berths, and 89 enclosed parking spaces. This would allow 2 additional transient units or 1 DU over the existing approval. Scenario 2 provides 34 transient units, 3 free market dwelling units, 3 dwelling units with 3 lockoffs, 2 accommodation units to be restricted per the Condo Conversion requirements, 2 employee units, 11,100 square feet of commercial area, 2 loading berths, and 89 enclosed parking spaces. The resulting residential density is under the approved density by 1 DU. Of the three restricted units, two would each be sold with an associated lock-off and an AU and the third condominium would have only one lock-off. 10 Applicant's Proposal Unrestricted Condominiums: 3 DU Restricted Condominiums: 2 DU each w/ 1 lockoff and 1 AU 1 DU with 1 lockoff Transient units: 34 Transient units Employee units: 3 units Scenario 2 involves a substantial departure from the original plan for Cascade Village. The requested change involves three unrestricted dwelling units in instead of all transient units. The initial intent for Cornerstone was to provide short-term rentals which, it was believed, would subsequently increase the use of the entire Cascade facility. The staff has researched this issue and found that there is a demand for short-term rentals of this type in the Valley. Currently, the bed base is split 50/50 between condos and accommodation type units according to the Vail Resort Association. Demand for each type of unit seems to differ between season. There would appear to be a greater demand for accommodation type units during the summer for short 2-3 day stays, while during the winter, stays tend to be longer and condominiums are more desirable. For this reason, we feel that short-term rentals must be included in the proposal and if Scenario 2 is approved a minimum of 3 DU's with their lock offs should be permanently restricted per the Condo Conversion requirements. The two AU's in Scenario 2 should not be condominiumized with the adjacent condominiums as the applicant has proposed. This would keep the AU's in the rental pool. We also believe that allowing 3 large free market dwelling units is acceptable given the change in development requirements for this project such as parking. It is felt that the mixed use character of the project is still maintained. Staff's Recommendation Unrestricted condominiums: 3 DU Restricted Condominiums: 3 DU w/1 lockoff Rental units: 34 Transient units 2 AU Employee units: 3 11 2. Waterford As proposed, the project includes 27 free market condominiums (with 47,500 square feet of GRFA) and 2 restricted employee housing units (1100 square feet of GRFA) for a total of 48,600 square feet of GRFA. Historically, the GRFA and the units in SDD #4 dedicated to employee housing have not been counted towards the overall density of the project. The request decreases the number of approved units from 30 to 27. The density proposed is in keeping with the original development scenario and is compatible with the surrounding area. 3. Cornerstone/Waterford Em~lovee Housing The applicant for Cornerstone is proposing 3 employee units. In reviewing the application, the staff used the suggested employee housing criteria. This study suggested that the following formula be used to determine employee housing requirements for projects that do not exceed density. Cornerstone Scenario 1: 52 TR x .75 emp. per unit = 39 11,100 sq. ft. of com x 6.5 emp. p/1000 sq. ft. = 72.15 111.15 x .15 housing multiplier 16.67 Scenario 2: 34 TR + 2 AU x .75 emp per unit = 26.25 6 DU x .4 emp per unit = 2.4 11,100 sq. ft. com x 6.5 emp per 1000 sq. ft.= 72.15 100.8 x .15 housing multiplier 15.12 Waterford 27 DU x .4 emp per unit = 10.8 x .15 housing multiplier 1.62 Assuming 2 employees will share each unit, 9 units would be required for Scenario 1 and 8 units would be required for Scenario 2 for Cornerstone. One unit would be required for Waterford for a maximum possible total of 10 units for both projects. 12 .f Because a total of 5 employee units are being provided between the Waterford and Cornerstone projects, where previously there were none proposed, and because parking must now be provided on site, the staff finds that 5 units are acceptable. The proposed Waterford project is below density as is Scenario 2 of the Cornerstone proposal. As proposed, Scenario 1 for Waterford is 2 transient units over the approved density, but there is no increase in GRFA. The staff sees the provision of employee housing as a benefit to both projects and will not require additional employee units as a result of this. Historically, in Cascade Village, GRFA and units attributed to employee units have not been counted toward density or GRFA for the project. C. Compliance with the parking and loading requirements as outlined in Chapter 18.52. Cornerstone/VNaterford Under Section 18.52 of the Municipal Code, each dwelling unit with less than 2,000 square feet of GRFA would have a parking requirement of 2 spaces and those with over 2,000 square feet of GRFA would require 2.5 spaces per unit. Those with less than 500 square feet require 1.5 spaces. The parking requirements for accommodation units and transient units are as follows: .4 space per accommodation unit, plus .1 space per each 100 square foot of GRFA with a maximum of 1 space per unit. Each employee unit will require 1 parking space assuming the units are one bedroom units. Each site will now satisfy its parking requirement on site. As discussed previously, this has significant implications on the program for the Cornerstone site. The staff believes that this change is very positive because it allows each site to be developed and operated independent of each other. The parking provisions are listed below: Required Parkina Proposed Cornerstone Scenario 1 89 spaces with 75% 89 spaces proposed enclosed with 100% enclosed Scenario 2 84 spaces with 75% 89 spaces proposed enclosed with 100%enclosed 13 Waterford 58 spaces with 60 spaces with 75% enclosed 43 enclosed or 75% of req. The Comerstone project will also provide 2 loading berths along Westhaven Drive for the commercial uses. Staff believes this criterion is met. D. Conformity with the applicable elements of the Vall Comprehensive Plan, Town policies and Urban Design Plans. Cornerstone and Waterford Applicable goals and objectives form the Town's Land Use Plan for this area include: 1.1 Vail should continue to grow in a controlled environment, maintaining a balance between residential, commercial and recreational uses to serve both the visitor and the permanent resident. 1.12 Vail should accommodate most of the additional growth in existing developed areas (infill areas). 1.13 Vail recognizes its stream tract as being a desirable land feature as well as its potential for public use. 3.1 The hotel bed base should be preserved and used more efficiently. 3.3 Hotels are important to the continued success of the Town of Vail, therefore conversion to condominiums should be discouraged. 3.4 Commercial growth should be concentrated in existing commercial areas to accommodate both local and visitor needs. 3.5 Entertainment oriented businesses and cultural activities should be encouraged in the core areas to create diversity. More night time businesses, on going events and sanctioned "street happenings" should be encouraged. 5.1 Additional residential growth should continue to occur primarily in existing, platted areas and as appropriate in new areas where high hazards do not exist. 5.3 Affordable employee housing should be made available through private efforts, assisted by limited incentives, provided by the Town of Vail, with appropriate restrictions. 5.4 Residential growth should keep pace with the market place demands for a full range of housing types. 14 5.5 The existing employee housing base should be preserved and upgraded. Additional employee housing needs should be accommodated at varied sites throughout the community. 1. Cornerstone When the Cascade Village development was proposed, there was a comprehensive plan developed which provided a balance of long- and short- term housing. The Goals 3.1 and 3.3 specifically address the Town's desire to maintain hotel type units. In considering each proposal, the staff considered three points: 1. What was previously approved, 2. What are the current goals and objectives of the Town at this time, 3. We recognized that the conditions of ownership of Cascade Village have changed. Both proposals allow for residential and commercial growth in a recognized core area which are discussed in goals 1.1, 1.12, 3.4, and 5.1. The provision of employee housing as addressed in goals 5.3 and 5.5 is being incorporated into each project which is a benefit to the Town. The Scenario 2 proposal involves a change to allow some dwelling units versus all short-term transient units. The staff feels that it is important to maintain units which are available for short-term use, however, we recognize the importance of providing a full range of housing types. Scenario 2 provides dwelling, accommodation, transient, and employee units. This scenario will be a positive change for this parcel if 3 of the dwelling units were restricted and the lockoffs attached were also restricted by the Condo Conversion requirements. The staff would recommend that the two accommodation units in Scenario 2 not be condominiumized and sold and therefore remain in the rental pool. The remaining three dwelling units would be free market. This area is also considered to be a mixed use commercial center for the Town, similar to Lionshead and Vail Village. The reduction of commercial square footage has been carefully considered. The staff finds that some reduction in commercial space is necessary in order to accommodate on-site parking. 2. Waterford The Waterford proposal request is for 27 free market condomiriiums, 2 employee units, and no commercial square footage. The staff feels that the elimination of the allowed 3,800 square feet of commercial space is warranted due to the location of the project which is more removed from the commercial areas in Cascade Village and the change to the overall design scheme for the project. E. Identification and mitigation of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect the property on which the special development district Is proposed. 1. Cornerstone There are no natural and/or geologic hazards on this site which would restrict its development. 15 2. Waterford The proposed building does not encroach into the 100 year fioodplain or 50' Gore Creek setback. The relocated bike path will not encroach into either the creek setback or 100 year floodplain. F. Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designed to produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural features, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community. 1. Comerstone The at-grade building footprint of the proposed plan and the approved plan are similar however, Comerstone is no longer connected to the Waterford building or to the Conference Building to the west. When comparing the current proposal to the approved plan, the overall setbacks are similar. An additional floor has been proposed in this project as a result of reducing the floor-to- ceiling heights at each level and using the area in the roof form more efficiently. The total height of the building has not increased. The maximum height as measured form the plaza to the highest point on the roof is 71 feet. Landscaping has been incorporated on the east elevation to screen the lower building mass, The parking will not be open to the exterior and at any level and the exterior of the structure will be detailed with inset stucco arches and painted metal railings. A landscape plan has also been included for the plaza area between the Terrace Wing and the Cornerstone project. The approved plan has been modified in order to allow for emergency access. The staff feels that this area should be constructed with the Cornerstone project. 2. Waterford The proposed building uses a series of staggered towers and broken roof forms with the parking facilities located to the north of the building. The approved building for this project was a series of lower structures and a more unified roof plan. The parking facilities were located below the facility. The building mass was similar to that of the other Cascade Village Buildings. This proposed plan concentrates the mass and bulk such that the result is a more vertical building which is setback farther from the South Frontage Road than the original approval. The site planning of the proposed project and the approved project also differ. The approved plan incorporated residential dwelling units over the parking facilities and spread out the development. The proposed plan does not overlay the building and the parking facility. Instead, they are separate entities. A 5 - 25 foot wide landscape buffer has been proposed between the at-grade parking and the property line in order to insure adequate landscaping area on the applicant's property. There is approximately 25 feet between the property line and the closest portion of the building. In addition, there is 15-20 feet of 16 landscaped CDOT right-of-way between the property line and the road. If all of the existing vegetation in this area is destroyed during excavation, it will be replaced with trees of comparable size. The applicant will be responsible for documenting this existing vegetation prior to the release of any grading or building permits for the project. When comparing the current proposal, including the parking facility, to the approved plan, the overall setbacks are similar. The biggest difference is the location of the massing. This relocation of mass is especially apparent in the area along the South Frontage Road. However on the south side, it is similar to the approved plan along Westhaven and the bike path. The staff is concerned with two elements of the site plan. The first of these is the series of retaining walls on either end of the project. The staff recognizes that these walls are necessary due to the severe grade changes on the site, however, we feel that the landscaping should be more dense for better screening. The second issue is related to the retaining walls on the east end of the property. The staff would like to see the proposed skier access into the building eliminated and the building used as a retaining wall. This will also decrease the impact of the east elevation as viewed from the bike path. G. A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and off-site traffic circulation. 1. Cornerstone and Waterford The Town is interested in resolving an off-site circulation concern. This involves the dedication of a portion of Westhaven Drive to the Town. Currently, Westhaven Drive from the South Frontage Road to the Gore Creek Bridge is owned by the Waterford project applicant, MECM Enterprises. The road does not meet the Town's standards and certain improvements related to the grade, construction and building clearance beneath the pedestrian bridge will need to be addressed prior to the conveyance of the right-of-way to the Town. The staff does not feel it would be equitable to require the Watertord developers to complete all of the road improvements in conjunction with their project. Instead, we feel that the Waterford developers should be required to bring the portion of the road from the South Frontage Road to the cul-de-sac up to standards and dedicate this portion and also dedicate a public easement for the remainder of the road to the Gore Creek bridge. The applicant's for Watertord have agreed to complete this work prior to the issuance of a TCO for the project. The Cornerstone developers have also agreed to perform the necessary tests which include borings to determine base compaction and an as-built profile of the road to determine the condition of the road in front of their project as part of this amendment, however, they will not be required to complete the necessary improvements. Public Works' opinion is in that it would be impractical to have Cornerstone rebuild the portion of Westhaven Drive in front of their project because all of the road improvements from the cul-de-sac should be completed at the same time. 17 2. Comerstone With the proposed minor subdivision, a portion of Westhaven Drive, where the Comerstone parking is located under the roadway, will be conveyed to the Comerstone property owner. The Town will then obtain an easement for public access where the Westhaven Drive will now cross private property. The Town staff finds that this is a reasonable solution. Pedestrian circulation through the Cornerstone building to the ski lift is proposed as a series of plazas with landscaping from Westhaven Drive to the ski lift pedestrian area. The staff feels that the proposed stairway is an inviting element which is pedestrian friendly. The plaza area at the bottom of the stair between the buildings includes an arcade with landscaping and will incorporate concrete unit pavers for the walking surface. The staff feels that the pedestrian area addresses the circulation needs in an aesthetic and functional fashion. The staff would like to see the concrete unit pavers used in two areas which are currently proposed as asphalt and concrete. These areas are along the sidewalk adjacent to Westhaven Drive and at the ski lift approach where it connects into the bike path. H. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space In order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and functions. Both sites are substantially disturbed, there are few remaining natural characteristics. With the proposed development, there would be limited remaining open space on the site. Because of this, the remaining landscaped areas become critical. Landscaping is especially important along the South Frontage Road, Westhaven Drive, and the pedestrian mall area. The applicants have proposed landscaping plans which address these areas. 1. Cornerstone The applicant has included the approved landscape plan for the public space between the Terrace wing and the Cornerstone site as previously discussed. The need for emergency access has resulted in a modification of the approved plan. The proposed landscaping for the area in between the Terrace Wing and Cornerstone includes a series of low concrete planters having irregular shapes. This landscaping is shifted towards Cornerstone to allow for the 20 feet fire lane. In respect to the landscaping sketch adjacent to the southeast corner of the building, the applicant proposed to keep the green space as is and will provide a 20 foot accessway through this area. Final design details will be provided prior to DRB review. Staff believes that a paver walkway and additional landscaping are acceptable in place of the original plan's terrace and water feature. The applicant has proposed to raise the grades along the east and west ends of the building in order to further screen these areas. The staff would request that the DRB consider the planting materials in these areas in order to provide as much screening as possible. 18 r 2. Waterford The applicant has met with the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) to discuss the limitations on landscaping along the Frontage Road. CDOT has indicated that all existing landscaping may remain and that additional landscaping may be added to the south of the existing vegetation. For this reason, the staff finds that the proposed distance between the parking structure and the property line is adequate. As discussed previously, any landscaping which is destroyed during the construction process will be replaced with comparable vegetation. The staff would also request that all walkways be made of concrete unit pavers versus concrete. The applicant is proposing to relocate the recreation path approximately 10 feet to the south. This is being proposed in order to increase the buffer between the recreation path and the building. The staff has reviewed the site and feels that this is appropriate for the first 225-250 feet of the path from east property line. The relocation will not displace any vegetation nor will it encroach into the flood plain or creek setback. However, we do not feel it is necessary to move the remaining portion of the path. The applicant also proposes to rebuild the existing pedestrian access form Westhaven Drive to the ski lift should the Cornerstone project not be built at the time of the construction of the Waterford project. I. Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional and efficient relationship throughout the development of the special development district. Cornerstone and Waterford As initially proposed, Cornerstone and Waterford were to be constructed simultaneously. This simultaneous phasing plan was necessitated by the provision of parking on the Waterford site for the Cornerstone project. Due to the subsequent change in ownership of the two sites, this becomes a difficult proposition. An interim landscape plan for the Waterford site has been proposed in the event that these projects are not constructed simultaneously. In the process of reviewing each of these requests, it has become apparent to the staff that when parking is added to the approved development plan for Cornerstone, it becomes difficult to maintain the approved development rights (ie. GRFA, number of units, and commercial space). Both proposals include a net reduction of development rights while adding employee units. The staff finds that it is absolutely critical to the approval of any amendment for either the Waterford or Cornerstone project, to resolve the parking issue in a workable solution. In the staff's opinion, the applicant's have achieved this goal. 19 VI. MINOR SUBDIVISION REVIEW CRITERIA The standard criteria for any minor subdivision includes lot size, the road frontage and lot configuration which are different for each zone district. Because this is an SDD and there is no underlying zoning, there are no lot size, frontage or lot configuration requirements for this minor subdivision. A minor subdivision is being completed in order to create two independent lots as well as deed a portion of the road to Cornerstone. Historically, these sites have been portioned off as the project developed. Because there are numerous owners now involved in the development of Cascade Village,. the staff feels it is necessary to complete this minor subdivision. The minor subdivision completed before a building permit is released for either project. VII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff supports the applicants' requests to amend the development plans for the Waterford and Comerstone sites located in SDD #4 -Cascade Village Area A. The staff finds that each proposal meets the SDD criteria as well as the goals and objectives of the Town. In considering each application, the staff worked to achieve solutions which take into account the changing conditions of Cascade Village and the most appropriate development for each parcel. In the Cornerstone project, the staff remains concerned with the applicant's request to condominiumize the proposed AUs. However, we find that the merits of this amendment are substantial and do not find that the AU issue is reason enough to recommend denial of the project. We also find that the request to allow for 6 DUs, 3 of which will be condominiumized without the condo conversion requirements to be acceptable. With the Waterford proposal, there is an increase in the proposed common area. The total increase in common area for the two projects in comparison to the original two projects is 1514 sq. ft. Given the fact that the density GRFA and site coverage are below the previous amounts for both ,staff believes this average is acceptable. The same reasoning is also applicable to the height increase of four feet on the south and east elevations. In addition, staff prefers the building massing of the proposed project over the previous projects. The staff has some design concerns with the landscaping and architectural details for the Waterford site which we believe can be addressed by the DRB. The staff would like to see the skier access on the east end of the building removed and the building be used to retain a portion of the slope. We would also like to see the landscaping in both of the retaining areas increased to screen the proposed keystone walls as well as the east elevation of the Cornerstone building. This element should be reviewed by the DRB in detail. The staff would also require that the DRB review each building elevation for architectural details especially those on the north elevation. On both sites, the staff would require that all of the public walks be of concrete unit pavers. This includes the path from the recreation path to the ski lift and the public walkways adjacent to Westhaven Drive. 20 The staff finds that each project can now function independently of the other. We recognize the need to make certain allowances because of changes to the parking and the change in ownership and feel that each project meets the SDD criteria and Town of Vail objectives. The staff also supports the applicant's request for a minor subdivision in order to create two independent lots, one for each project and to dedicate that portion of Westhaven Drive needed to construct the underground parking in the Cornerstone project. A public easement for the portion of undedicated right-of-way will also be dedicated at this time. This must be completed prior to the issuance of any building permits for either project. The staff assumes the following conditions will be met with this amendment. Development Aareements Cornerstone: 1. The three proposed employee units shall be permanently restricted per the Town of Vail Housing Ordinance. The agreement shall be submitted before a building permit is released for the project. This agreement shall be recorded at the Eagle County Clerk Recorder's Office. 2. The transient residential units proposed in both Scenario 1 and 2 shall not be condominiumized at any point in the future. These units shall remain as rental units used in the same manner as hotel type units and are not intended for individual ownership. 3. The developer agrees to complete asphalt borings and as-built surveys and provide them to the Town to determine the condition of Westhaven Drive in the area of the road adjacent to their property. 4. The proposed landscape plan between the Terrace Wing and the proposed Cornerstone building shall be revised prior to the review of the project by DRB. A 20 foot access lane for emergency services must be provided from the Westin courtyard to the ski lift. In meeting this condition, the Water feature on the landscape plan for this amendment may be revised accordingly. Waterford 1. All proposed employee housing units shall be restricted per the Town of Vail's Housing Ordinance. This agreement shall be submitted before a building permit is released for the project. The agreement shall be recorded at the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder's Office. 21 t 2. The developer agrees to complete borings and provide an as-built survey to determine the condition of the road from the South Frontage Road to the cul-de-sac. The applicant agrees to provide engineered drawings for any road revisions necessary for review by the Town of Vail Engineer prior to the release of a building permit All road improvements and dedications shall be completed prior to TCO. This includes the dedication of a public easement across Westhaven Drive from the cul-de-sac to the bridge over Gore Creek. 3. The bike path shall be relocated and the existing easement shall be relocated on the minor subdivision plat. 4. The minor subdivision shall be completed prior to the release of any building permits for this project. 5. The DRB will review proposed landscaping in the areas of the retaining walls on the west and east ends of the site. The DRB will review the north elevation for architectural detail. These items are all subject to the Town Attorney's review. The staff appreciate the applicant's effort to work with the PEC and staff to develop two projects which meet the SDD criteria. The staff believes that the proposals are positive. The changes were arrived through a series of work sessions and have helped to make two well designed projects which are independent developments within Cascade Village. The staff would like to thank the PEC and the applicants for their work in developing and reviewing this project. The staff believes that the proposal for each building are positive and that the changes make for a better project. :\PEC\MEMOS\CASCADE.N23 22 a[ ,:'~:L :'?j'•,'^l ~.tii'+i~::i'~!' ,.~'~i ~'t irY rr•'"t~ F:. y.~ i - ~ •);,as.. ~ , n:i. :Jr _ i ,,..~f,j~r~ rFyy,{ ~r."JY~,1 ~•~i ~}i Y;~ ti'~~'.~~~f~(~j ~T •~~~y~`'~ r(, . - :•r_~. ..r.,'!'r~^"'i,:-r'dy .,~1~.,~L.", f;... ~I~v :.,`q'f~.yy'~1'r`~fi.•~ yT,,-((~~••~~,.' tt l' w~ J,~J rik• - :t, i._.: ,i;I," L'•i •'•'Y 'i~l:K:. y.Ca tt; Y~V.,r/- ? ;r:. '.r:'- t','=,:t:..(t•~.~u r,-.,1 .'1a'1•., t~ 7yt ,t~ ti ~ 'r' w - t ~ :1 . ~ S .~f•y ,~y S t ':.I J rl. :~'r.~. V t .1 S',' _ r - ~ 7i f' , t~„ . V. ) IN . x •At•• i v - r, - l~ . , '-1,71 1 ~ - + f t' ' y~ ~ ~ ~ 4 { Y• •-r~ ir- , • ~ ~ - •u; r.~ . 1 ' •'V - ,l '•r'' : iJ.' x 1 s, , r ' ~ i ~ +fr'' ..3 J(~ . i- ~ ,,fit r r . ! "'r.- t' ~-~;r 1. x1• "F ea:•• s ~•.r 7 .•t ~ •c' - - Liar-•.;. :;t 'a".•'-~r~?~:f.,'t}'9•, r'~.,L(1., J+'~',.•~.w~''F.,• } ,a.,f,.. A,: +d:. r'(~r:: y~ ~,;y •J~....t'C,•, t•~ ~ .,E- 3.1 •4..{•s 111...~r' "_i: i':.r , r: k'r.o : ~+i'`'` r.:...4. rt' sJ* Crr'1 ~'3r :I~ i _ a.~ • - 'i:..i''JC' .F:,:.j.. '.i r • ~o+`~ , r ,r:: L•K - . . ~i - • Y Y T' T 4: ' 7 t l• •.i' r~ ~,~~yr S. .ti _ ¢!(1 N ~h. t_~, y,a k.. icy l-x- ~ - 'j , . ~ , ~ . ""••44 Il.~ / _ i _ ~ w • . ~ J ~ _ W. _ ~ - _ . • i. . ; ~ . . s :1 ~ ~ _ t•lti.~ C~ r •,:~?Sty" - ~ _ _ _ Y ~ _ ~ _ ill } ~ . _ , • 6`~~~.... F. ~~'1F*y ~,-'t" - wt r ~ _ ~;s7M .~;.~sr-<-?~". ,~„'.i: ~tri! I'tt ~•,lf~..i ' ' _ • • iy . rte. j,F~ 'P, + i _ _ _ ~ y • J~~Vti: 1J? R~a, l ,"~!NN 1"`~j~t'1`. ,~t . lr~~'t '~y,1 1 ~ ~~....j~~Y .~~!r(C: f ~ ~ ~ -~•~•~.c::x+~ M1^ 1 • ~,y;~'. `.',F~{~_ '.t~~:::JJJ•••^^^"'l«<::a ` ~,lf~ + .ts 'K'• ~ ~ > ' ~ 1 I ~s ~ ' ~r - - - . _ - ~ ~ .•."',~'r:c;y~• rl' J ~_'!r~'iJ~~; I: 1 . ~ /i _ .1=~j~~ 1~,±, ~r:,tC ~r-~'a:;~t.?^';F~",'~s~r!~~l, .{.t?~o-,~'}:~~,r~>; ~~~l~ .~j } ~''T. ':~„f~,;a V~ V :l>X _ ~':r'i„ '~.("'r .•.'.:,ir~, ~'k~Y:Y''f'1~ i('_v,9"Yf~,{,sh ,.~~,~~R• ~ti''"if r; ~~i' "r'.`. ~;'r~''• / ~ ~ ~I~•c~Yf ~ j ~ ' tir~t't-'~I,;VJ~~ R 'Fw 7 { ~ ) ~i ' F.-E ~ • - :.+='f ' ~..ls. .•st~:,.• 'b~YSrj~~.•.c+,?'D'rr, 2-2' C;{ ~ 1~~ j rt ' _ ~'•r-•i~i'`~.~•.c:.+~i i,'.~~j:.A~r..,i'~i-.~7!vht_:~l•,-t'~~L:l~~'~~i~it' -t~'y'~~1. ..Y• Yrf ,~•~~s 2+ _ ~ - ,1;:>;y." ~tA ,n,:,.•'(.~,~!.+Y~~ ' ; ',lr'}':4.'~~~~e~i ~~••~L~~ .rJf~;i' .-;u~~CQ; .~r„.rJ -t r ^~t'~ _ ~ --~'~,~'i'r"~ r.,; ')t? ;`":^~;7 (.4.4!•J.µ 'S})~~: (^I .tf~ it,{- • - ` 2-''~~'~.,~ ~„nF yA!...,,; ;ft.r,,. r~ }~•k.,; r.Kl-{'ia.q?k ~:ylr~ ~ '~(ly~,~• r. ~ -,•r'1'tr: .'nl~~ ~~"r:~ir;":~ C- ~1 .~..,r~ ~.'4i'- :9w .o~.' . i~"It~~.~~~'. i ~i t'+-~ - ~ +~w'•.,;,.+^ s••F1C`1'r•4r,~~'.. ti... J, vyr~: ,af7',+.:'r.a Y^f ~7a l .~~A.. 7` .~1; Z '.J~•, •u ~ ,w~yt~, r',. '~'j~ ~~j•~, .,v '.r~ .y w, %•~{•_r.i'--. ~.~;?.i.c k i '1. ,•;.I.~ a.' }!j"~rAiztj; , r~r;.. .',<f;~ l~~''~. o'~ Y~U2 - - •~Y^ «r- f/•f'~~{Y. N}{r`!Y, .,i` ~ '^i,'~~:. ;,Y; ..q~:: •.Y~ •t t ~'G' .4 ~ t - _ . rr',tu. r t:•. ~n yr f 9 777 n~.,~ r FY'c.~-}~ ,~y ,i~ . I ~~~"I•ti_ ,,7-''',e~C~it. ..Z'T t~.,. ~"r.,ti.>:, r' J. Y y .)~'ii~' h:. .{,.-7:. 71, '.1.:1 ^5.x.4 - Y>\y"i,' WJ-5.:. ,S•i }•i.+j ~jy^~'~,•~Vr~.~!'7 Pr!~•~~y~f ) •~.T, 11;(?•.. ;:ts 't, - i.f' r4 r~~ ~';l~~,i,)11~~h :$`f'l it •v~<t~f'-.7.. µ 1I, 1•' ~ ~pYM.h ~'i/Yy`rk,~~''S ~'..v~ 1. . ..•1'~ . ~~.~~°~,ff~f'L . r•~, .~:Z~~ ~ .jJ~7y{y,, 7~yk 4 , C._. ,N~'E=`.+)-~,a-}. .t . ,,,J ~[r,Y • ,;'M,~. •.a"• ',y L'~} '~.1~ " 1`. .~~1 r `~r,S'~~~44' :•M, ~ t rig .F j r~7.C•c C,:r~.Ihrh::, r.~t '•L: i ~ r-.~, . _ .,1. ~Jy ~ 1••t{. :~..9 ~r -l~_.1-, ~ ~{%:C,' + Yx~.s ~~1 ~ , 4'?•. /j, 'iF t:..,. ;,r,:r. ~ r, ;I,. fyt ) ~}~Rp~,.~i.~ S1r 7,YJ - ~ ,r+ .`.•~..t~ /f. ,a~,? a.. 1~ .tn,• w` x ,ft 1?' 1'~y' ,.%.r;L rc'~i g•' ~ :ri,. - ..rr 7i i . l r.~./^ A i•.,./ ~..'rr'..r 'rr; ~t ir'~'1.^•4e: 1 ~ n ,~y~ ..f't' ~1,~y~ 4...~• ~ k• ~ L w~7(r : 1'. _ '/:P ) y, "1' t ~l ' 1~'• 4• ~~'.i•l~v (t ~7: ~['7. •4I•~~,,1F.S ~''j~C. ~1 ~'T1N ~ ,~l,~ ~h14 • ;fn 1", •~,•,...~i-F,,~~.''=~'S 1.>,i.';r •c':r1'' •r~'~; t~~,` .:9t~~ t ~•t r"5'..'~'!C ~1i1.• ,~tY~..J,~~ ~::i~7t: - .,..•~;7'°~' ~p~,1»:i•N`r:~r,,,,'r!~i::' r;; f,.•.~'Y:,y.k1!• i+~r:. ~~'p`„"!?~. ~S.yYy, a;~` .H ~~i!>t-. ~ ~+.4~ .,t._~.,trir,~ ~t';~ - ~ ~,.~t ~~~~Sa'•R's~ .n.ir. .~1~"!•~r21`~~' ~,L ,•ii.l!• Y~i' .M i•7:'1 t .R.:. `F~y'yyJ~' ~ ~ +W r('Y;!`; •,r.. ^.f; `•rr ~~~V? ~n:;~ i _ -T:' , :{:...'y' :.r; eti'r •~~.f. .}.•1 YT i l~a7 r7'• 1- ,:t+: ~ t;Y.. ~~.t fti~. lr,7 F.' - ~rr:i.. i(`?~p'~t, Yr•,i'c, •i.-. ),.`Y' .1~y~:(~,. 2{ i~4+''L' i 7 ;,~f' t: t,kr ~ Y. . r;~+°tiZr. '.7 ii: ,y, r t ;'?~..r~l~rr(rt;~, I;>r~' ~ 1~,a fl'~ , fL~;7 y,r.~r_Iy 9T • f""~ .n.,.4,- 'r>fi lJ4.rc~~~• :1 ~M .a~' i'y. ':f' •4 ~h~ - rZ r• ~;.a'>.•a •^',t:..i:~~,i. •7.~;.• •1 't~.~~;,•~t;?~~ r; 4+. -s.:~. x~ti f . •..~/•_~rr.: ,~3.:,,,~. , s!~ l~. w~ ! ~'yy, _ Y•,,j'J.:~ `i'~^'~i~ iir 7'" h"' i w1r~' ~ ~y '`]f _ _ . rY• ~ ,r.. ;~'•F: w1y },.'r: '{.`14 f. 3~: ~ ~ t ~ r~!".'..\•iili~~i/~.~ j'2..:'. . - •i''~ c,n'!''.,t.~;:!rS „`r.~`,f~`j`; !r, _`J•.:;:h.,;,~y} r..' 'r <<..~, .li;?:1t,Y'}r't}, i~- a .7X S,' 7" ,~'a':G-•. r, , a 's~ • „Y'. ~ ~ . , x•.=>'. v< `'ur'^ ...t. ! i c A •r! 7 1%~ r..75 l';r ;r ~ r ~ r x. I;P t, ~ ~ !f; t:7' ~ :;,,5 ~f. ti', t sr: ;4' .x Y~2t,'y~, t'~c~ „r ~t f'~ • fi • •r , r` r.. ~"d' ~.~''•.:r'~'A(., :l:~: Jrc _.r>~ •4n . ~ ~ •~4, V- .a: ~'.7 ' ..Y~ ~ J'i~V},-. "fir. 1. r'^" •yi; -Z,-,,~ . !'f;., <;;:'{•r•' t•.1,1`, .,f ~'•,'~•'y f ytii;r.ttjft. ' ~Tr .~'l'f.fl Ali...?_~;r~~ ~ r,.i: 'J,.. I~:.rt , 4 ;t { r • ~1~•, ~ 't:'('1 n L'•`2.;~'(' r .•r'. ~ 1 .;t':~': ,J. ,r^ :w-, t"l,..-r-4,,. 7T r " t. :'"i l,,,•-, a• , y 'r;;, J r .t~.y t ,q. ~ r,,.,.t '1„ C t r .o- t, p• ~ /~4Y s. • y r. t~- . C'`~~ 1~~~~:.'. t ~ < r Y, c:-ri',: Ai. 'r a.: r r 'l; c r . ::l' •'t'~: art,,'°.~" i` t,rc `,J.. ,.~~C! Lv .l.e~ x r, 1 1•(:C.4 al t• ~ r' 11I' .r' fir; J.r~: I:,:.~ y7~•~ r N.. :i• ~f "a: ! Y \•ti Y~~ Zf~1,.~"'•r ~r~St.N. ~ y~ ~ r. 1. ~'r~{. . :r, _ t = j!.'?,... p_?3~,-'~ .tit ,cf. ~ S, ;,1•• ~~,_..F 1 :D JVGq~ - _,r, ..r" {,''~',`r •~t;; ` `'„t. dr ,~j 1! ,{x: i. w 1;,,~1' ~~•tk ' Y. Ji Y/",t flw7 1..;~.~ry!'I.7, ,I.; b}. v~',l.r is • .tr . :I . r'•~ JJ F' • ~ ~ 'i,. T . ~ i~'1"'~I"~,';~f j i, IMF ~_'1.~ c ' _ ~ _ -r - Y r _ _ to _ ~ ~ -Y` ~'i k..aF.: 1'71', ~"h 's;,,r: .."1 'L~~ 1 ~ ~ _ y.. - ,i'I T I• ~'niG i"TI'l~j•l( ,1;.. ~~'„a',:~I'~ :1 1,•..`/ _ . - - - ;1'"''`ii ,t 1 I:~.. .rni ''li1, t(~l i('il. ~~.11'r f ll.l l~,ll I fl. .I. 'Yio,b .11. ,f, _ _ ~ ` • , r.• r; !1 , ~}n :,111" fi f~{~ .'~,Vd . :(r ~I~' 1.1- , " i~ - - - ~ fir..: . . R ~O:g{ i a., ~l1 i,.,ll 1t. I, .I}1:'li,,..F~,l; ,i:61 .,n^h 1;. _ ",y _ _ ,I.^..,,, hf1,1, e• pfd., 1P1,I •1~~1 I.l~I~ 'f ,I,: ~1~! ,d ~I'41 ''ll°I .'i.•1:IglI. ~ -a'::1~,o-;..: - _I - i'-'a`_fl:' t . I .~f~ '!;r ''d.'; et11 1. 1~1 'li I' ~ ~.I'I Ni' f AXIf' .I'i' 'Q~'~`I't :f `I~ li;'{:Il..d„ •1.11 { :1 F ~':I~1 - I1 ail ' 'L1 :L •J '9 1: ~I III~I l' i:~i+Ii1 :11IIii ,p''d,. rl+, rp• ..,rt~ .L ;I: ..i, - ;I ni' - '111 14.11 l 11;`1...1:, .I Ii1}i I,. II'1 ~I ` .1 >,41y1 ; - ~1, 11{ {;1., - 11 I V, f ,f IIII '~1 {11Y, t~L~111.1 ~I{ Ill • '('ll'lll!;:{llti'll~' ;I;ilfl,~ 1'::.:.; ~C~ ~i.l~. ~ Ll t+.l~'1• ' 'I I 1 r.: . I~` ~11~1, l.ll!~ '1111. ,1,. ..:1111",~ I~YI'.. •1,,,~1:!H~(''.i _ - r..__ ~Illti~` 11f4Ib11,1 i1'.1 , rtgt'. 11'' =;1 ,;111:1^n 'd r~.~.• - ''"A - ~t---=• ~t 1 +f'i•I : ,,11 1 ,,J.1~~I I~i4 I, 71 :I 1 ~ IYI"rvl'.I : ',1`~ .i, ''11 = ` ~ - - _ _ - _ " i - •~.._~..i~.:-y; ? -y1~ ~ . ~ •'s'1 1 ~l, I~ 1 ' , II lil if iT~l+l~ n~~ .li''~i ~ y, - - -'L r ~R~---~ ti . 14 I ' ~ ' : { 111 ~ 1 , I = ! . " - - i ~ - ~f.. j ;~:t - : : 1 ; ' I - - ~ t ; 'i'~ a ~ - ti: . ''`1 , . ~k , . ` t III ~ ~ ' l I ~I ~ ill {j4;'=~ ~ _ _x _ 't _ - -_~{•1~~1":?:.+~I I'~1:• 4 I ` 'Mill°<<' ^S ^I ' r - tl :1 `l Il I ~ , 1~ i'i.iil+.'(111: .l ~ ~tv'~ i1 n~:~ _ =11{~t{ 1' ~Illl x:1,1 111 I ~ ,1"~ •'r:-: ~1~~ ``1 t..?11 7 f .4''., :II1111 I 1t I 'I 1 ~r rI - •:J-' "Y i':i .Ilfl11_~.Pi• / s. 11.'11'. '~:1!'~~ j%J"~~-v~,=-~.•'~i; ~'r1-.,, ~r~~'1' II~ r~'';?ar:~'~'` .:j'~-r-~r,-> ~~L~ ` i` _ ~'f.+;.%r."~ / . y~- 1 Vic? I'•,•l`~ y/£57 Np IVE ~ - '~i~ ~ ~J^ ~.~r ~ , 1 _ u I':• II',,~• ;,1 ,dr' e::: Y;~L_L".:,1 .1. - i t;~. ,1~" ;lb~r" +xu '.d,l • ;v}„I~jr -:'.~nl :a,~..1.. ,i`iY:: - ~ ;r}.a. "i'::L+,. LdSil ''.Ilr i'il.' ''t'.t~i.::'` ~,i,' ,;oP. 1': "i+~ n,c .io+ ='i - ~.h~i`'"°a~' / 1 121•~'li ~I. .14M11i1.~'1, ~•,JI'.~`--:.'. - 1 „ - .Ji .1.,• ~ ~ ~ , - ay ..1 - ~ t I,~, .iq , _ _ ( _ 2 < ~F.w. 1 ,'`:fr~`~%"' I'~ • ~ t.' f: '?`i:n E`~~~;.~: _ :~;jlllp}; - _ I.~~1 _._...~.-..L-...v.~. _ ,iIi' 'b ~y S:";>'r, '.>'''1•.~/r'~ `E ' $ `r~:+:. [F--- ' ~j1;1:11.t.r' r-"~_ ~I+" i}y/ . J~ y'. f/:1'~: ~ ; 1`• • r •L.~~ ~r.'y - II~1 1` _f =111! f)c'~ --~t-_^ iCl Ilt~'{,~~iy _ '•~1 ~ ~ ;1,,~':.rf-~1,?tl ~ t„I~--=- t ~ • , rte.. I1 1 I(4j'.•. r 1: _ , ; arr ~i1.1 ~ I,, 111{, i1: li t jQ . ~`j~~~}~.z: f;r:1 ~p-_ ~~'L-~~s;`~._~r, ~ r. .r;e1l~''h~, !A~~ ~~1.:/ tif.. -4-.'y~ _ ,`^`~i.. c:.~. yam. _ ",`t C1 _ 1.~'„ - ~`1%_~-~ `_~Wli•~ r 1 ~'~,-^i' i`.' ~ '~F.. _ ~ I' l I;1 {11,11 I _ ~ 5i'~' ){+~+"I.i._ ["`i:l II .i~ 'l~f^. 'r~ .t'~i' r,'~ ~•f,' rj-~.,"s - ~ ':.1 is .1 _ ~ ` ~ % • 1 _ ~ 4 CASCADE VILLAGE ~r.-:-~;====`7<.1 _ +'i' (~~`~~~r•'r~~j STER PLAN ~7 IP'I~:htii:• '.7::`~:~:;'~~i~ `~;;ii?~ ' J - ~ r., r,~ p~C L ~N 1 N tr ...i - y + l . • - 1 1 ' f 1 _ ~ P 5 d 5P 5 • i i .o ~'u~ DL. ie.0 • t , ' t ~ i I i Ks y e eL 9 - I GASGAOF GLUE i. ~ ALe~ I'' I { ~ . LL. K.G . ~ - ~ ~ / \ f - I tro ~ 1l ' ~~y, P}~~?tt ~t ~•I~'L ~E `i~.4~> I ~ 9tvaiLe l.~.t+0at/ mac'-T~;: 1'.-J,~' F-,.~-~ , •N 1.W[N LNI 1 ~ del rY. •f 1ril~jf^~ 1t5THAVEN ORNE ~ ~ ~+'e ' rtr/- ~.5~'r~ n ~'~L P~~~?}~ ~°:rrf/1._...------- 1 gib! ~ stoKncc ~k t.~:= - G:J C_..f:'t n_ ~7'(,•`;'+; \ NpTCL 5PA ~qvr+. + ~ i ~ :~n.dNL: _ { t ~!'-.:..f ~u4~~ w acs~r,» x+r pARt.NJG ' ~ ' Pl_AZA P~UfL01NG ~ ` ---,uYI = c~RCU.~rwN i.P Nf~ 1L _ DnLL,~NY CJ~.I~ TO.S~L.' ` ~ CORNER NONE O. -V. O C1 'CJ- 1 q R~~\~.-J, I-I...A.uf • , I •,z,;+ .;`t~~1Z..: I ~ ~++1! ~CC,~i~`•; %ueit~~ia • 1:. ` ~1l r.:11~ 41. d'=-`; ~ t-•.'~ ..,r TcRRAGG WIiJG ~ . ' ~.fi~ _ ' 6 . FLO©R PLAN ~G-G ~ ~ =tir r,,_ • ; ~ ~ I~•~~~~-.-~- ty,.i,}"; ; i ~=f!" t I t'7 ~~te,r' . y~' n7 L; • " _ ~-i ~r 1 J :PAC 55 ~o SP'_E 0 SP ~ C` ~ 1 ~ 1 I ~ ~ ITS T . ' • r I I EL. 06.0 y • I I 9• AC 5 a 5 AL 5 b 5P L[ , r_i• ' I ~ ~ 1 ~ _Mf~'I11___{~ ` ~~{~LL~---~~~.1~~._..I ~1._J 1_ ~ .;Sa~: Ir. I - 1 I ...1 I 1~6 (;!'AGC51 I Y S~ACt75~ .%•ri... ' I i 1 I I I Il L •~1 JS 5f hGt9 E SPACES ~ ' I r I' ~ CL. 02.0 r ~ !.t': 1 ~ ~ •.r ,I ' / \ 'j .I SP LC 7 AC 5 o.e - ir:f~•" ~.`r. I-_-~_-~ ~ I I 1 w, Lauae .re .,~t.~~ / rte. ~ -ilk% ~ ; . \ ~ (,;rrJX{'1,~~qqJJ~~ t-. 11'~ J 'a)'~{a'L ~ ~ Ohl. • ~ ~ o.;,.,R . ~ r.~rr 1 uor>•N •~!!:+r'---f~..uL~•.- r ~~L~•~.Ji ' tiff Kn ~ a \ ~ - ~,~v2(~TAU!~ANT RETAIL. - ~l~ fl_ ~ tt'~.~. ar^ t :..o \ STORAGE PULP Ii0011 i~•rn RL T` \ 1 r' 7 - ~ ,•.:;r I{l`l ~ ~ UATERFGRO N.~tii~t . ; f'IN} Iv.n` h~ iu t«.;~1 ,u~. J _~ia?.F~ :.';;'~.'':F~ ..r' `'+-ri - - Yn ,y o d J FLAT 1540 (;Lp9hlCi~ '"L°~. - ._..er.._AZ ~mr`1).l( _ _ 1.i J~~, % PARY INC r 29360 _~•__r_o= ti~~.,•_ \4t _ 1 URGIR.ATION ;9'15 ' r ,I~ SUD TOTAL 28. Z 5 't • ' ,.t [ - ~i GORNGR STONE DUILOtNG ti,. _o__a__~ _ ..•~!I RESTAURANT 4415 . .r v o'-'v"c~"'v"-'v--o' ~ 14-t, rr 2jo ..t 14A~1?.^L~~ 'I ".~~ii ?~Vti.L ^.',•f 1;Nf111~1,L, i i I~ 4="•\ RETAIL. 2D60 . • ~ •~.,.=..J "~,Yf•,!~ Q I .i ~ 111 '~~t,. LtRGULATION 1060. • . L~ ~ is ~ r - f~ --=-i .t:a t krh 5K1-SL#'POgT '1330 _ h 1 ~ s~ ,•N~ P ai¢rn ~.uf, ..o 'ter T ri'ri<I~~l~ ~1r~„y~~'1;: i~~p~Yi~ r1;~ ~ '~i ~~x R.-~~k D TERRACE WING ,;r(;1,!`-~~-~ ~`,a~~r'3",.a.~ ~:3• A`;(r r~,\~=~~1./--L ' i;''.1,r~81a~ dt'^:.rc.i" .ef oii~ ~ SUD TOTAL 18.465 :±~""~'ry~, ' FL::~O~' PLAN ELEVATION 4-7.5 ~~~~A~,pli~°; - I ~`J' fl ! ,~~gr: ~ ` _ ,t'Yn>tn1>,~ cs~rst;r.i AwrJay ~~,(C,+1}t1c 5LA1 r' 20•.0• .lJ~'.. 4 _ .y~~y, . I I t 1• ~ I •flAr ' fLAT FLAT FLAT ~ ,.,...wAe fLAT wl Lt LI,1 P flit ZJ wT M ~ U,r b • E rGLUB ~ . fLAr _ T . twn wwwf 'wi 17 • ~ FLAT I - ~ L vT~ rw~.. . ~ ~ ~ u+wlz % a „ I~.~ Y3LSt'~tlP-_ ~ ~ ~ tea, u.r .r wr v.r ~ i~r n is . s enr roe wf n I t yl:,r~' ? ~ V ? Via 7 6U~LOING wr a wr n I wr la I wren I wr I. I I+~r'~ 1 uor wr . -rr.r Ic ufr ~ uar a u.r ~ wr e _ . . V~-T I ~ 1 ~~I -f I I ~ i . ~ ~ ~ WATGRFORO , ToL,H Houses vo. FLATS ~ II00 . n ~ URLLLATION ' ~ ' I ~ OAI..CON7 ~ i I I I` ~ ~ ~I SUDTOTAL 2.1.5`ic 1 1 r/1or,IFO GT/11.IF P.I III nlnl~ ~ ~~~j 'K tv~~~'~''•%-r=f .f•.T..e ~ J.•v ~~~,1 ~(i`•; • `war l w:`. r,, :7)rf~~ I "'~•1- Yi::. .,5,:'' ' .+-i': `~-t:~.--} ~:•~~(C~1frG2 •i'.•:. . ' I I I is ..l:a L:: may; . ~ .r * -•'s';;:i • - GASGAOE GLUE .+'e• ~ '~~iw.-.~~~,-= •s.l s_: ':-'.~a:.. :"i=i: S Vii; t~'M•~ YvY'i 1' •:~~,~f ~~f, `l _,\~~a :fit,; n'•~:;{ ~ •i_ 1 - ~:jy_4~ :~~d,.2r'^=C2:~°F-~~~aT~ S~~kkY t• . . J.._.-. / ~w ,iI.J " . ,qV~.l r. ....;.t •.rr. ;.r.. xcocr..eae 1 :~%~i~ .i=. • -c:^ 'i-'-I tcit,2--~t• C:. :iifi' ~~~+-i ~.i.. ~~.:.-~z I ' 77 1 -'-i-~ 1 ~f ' ,.1 .:JI -~i~ , PLAZA BUILDING a, t, ...i•+ - ~a,~ ' ~ ' -,J~ Z--ii s,•.-. L..A7ERFORD _ /I-..T9 N, X00 + ~ 1 c.:i l'" cet.u_ ~:oo A. t~R~ aSo7 . cxc~.n~t xco EA••!-'. I SUD TOTAL ~ 22.'.60 i `~1;~,~' y~- ~ ~ GORNE2 57GNL BUILDING 4... ~ •r.F~!y? I'~ 'p I L~ I IJ ~I C~:.• OCFi~C • 41~•.~ c-jf TERRACE WINC - y~l\3_ I a I ~ SUD TOl . . - I FLODR PLAN El t ~~'Y~G~. ~crDY GW\. a nto :n. iu--~ i ,1..1-..-.. ' .,`;:'ai;jl~:ll I i~II_',IMF:};Ill~l~~iltlili::n.•i~i•a:u.,:! +il~, ! 'r:~lllllt~~:'.Il~~f I~~ !IY'~J~I I II _ /~~~~,,.~..---~~~555777 ~77~~ ,J~~/ _ -(''~~''T f~7_-~~I !'a~~ ~t~~}~~ „~i~•, 1.:,u~,,,• _I a. C ` • . •.:1:~ a : (~,TLlI i ~,jl,~~:~~ 1 " _'.1 ~ .'t n I JL.4~ l li""5l hl11J L]~:_ _ f r~'-'i%~I i ~+~J ~~I. . ~V~7f .1 !I ! I I'~11~_ I I LI I I'r-i-' ~1:~11---~~ 1- c{:~ cam' J(~ i_ ~'.I,<.. _ T~-r_11( -...I!1 ~.~_T,~.q~~dm ~.E 1Q-11~~~~!-1s' ~ ~I..~~-~~, ±~.~..~~i~~; '~a~~`. 1 I.r!.a I.,wa ~ It -r. y ~--~r.i. -J. _ . 1 1 -y...~a_-.-. 1 Ct.il ~ ~ : I CORNERSTONE I I PLAZA BUILDING l ' i - • • NORTH ELEVATION ' ~~'III i! I I v~~t~ y l,. I, : t. •I 11 r';^'I . j~f.",%:_ I! I II,tiIII!. - I !!I~'..Irili.'~~~ ` I!:~!~~n~i;!l I:IIiIj~;~Jhi'.,n I ~,,`~~I. ~ ,:a! ;i,; .II: I i~, ~ ut~ylil ~IIi ~.ll~ I~i~T\ - - . . I~1 ~ 'I~ !'II~i~='I _'1 I rtl f I,I~~~ ,1._~ III'~..~ ~illll ~ ~ I~ I ; I I j~;1tLi,nrml!IIIII ~t ~ ~!II~ .!>T' ,~~Ib,i a ~ ry-_ rrrr ~-inrlrlrrlr}}l]C.7u~t]~]7LL~ ~~~uL ~ ~ 1 s - ~ ~ , + ,r ~„IYr-i n n r--~ r~ r- , r,ln nl 1Q.1 ~~'~';rr' i.'; I • ~ IIii - a.t-~~_:-~~ l 1 - N Q 1-- - -11' u!L.-i~~ lj~ra ~ ~~~r ~ mtt1 ~~r- ~ ~Q~I((-1~-=-.-.---~ t , ~ ; ,~tk,; • I ' COHNEHSTONC ~ i ~ ~ WATEHf OHO,. ~ - - " " „ . - 2: SOUTH ELEVATION•-''=~' ~ ~ - ! 'P~~--- . - t 1 i` 'FT 4' ~J.: rort'.oust O~ tgne tAN rr0..6i 1JW . u.e ao wT i1 WI :a IaOalYt . ~ tO~N ftOIY WT tI GLUE _ ~ ~ 'CI ~ • I ' • ~ Tl~ri NOllrG _ I W TN 1 SZ. I ~ ~ ~ i:; _ • tO.N /Wl~i • ' _ w~ri 57C _ ~ ~~~~'---`7771 ~ Wi:r~~ ` • I ~i wTl WTZ u.~~ _ _ wr wr wt un wr wr wr , - zs a rt t+ t. a~ r~ ~JI ~ - _ _ I WHa f•~'G ' :~'t. Uaf b WT Il WT r WT q lI/T WT U W7 IL WT a WT10 WT 7 WT O Uar 7 tFG'• ~ ~ ' I ` , 4 ~ ~ ' .t J 1 WATERFORD / ~ Tow rouses Moo • • TERRACE WING I . i I ~ F y t'~?~ `'V 1, 1 ~~~ill' !I/1/~. FL11.L"Ik~a r.} a 1, ~ e~ ,~f! I11~111 LLul1T S L~• rc~9 S~a(W ~:21rs~i(~~~.01 fl~ ~~^'`T y" `1~~ (T ~ U bl • ~ (~u ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ . ,'fit` , ' ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ j~ I tax. Fpi~~ b ct~(k~ L h~ ~IC~ aVral1~'~ J~u rCl • ~'k SOUTH ELEVATION • • I _ T-- - - - ~ t~ -BSI r`' ~ ~ ti_. T~ '~-h-'!~ ~ < i / A' ~ i i ~ ~ l~I`6'rool~llLlI. . • fY~ I L n II 1 L 1 1 1.-1~ i ' WA7'ER~ORD . CORNERSTONE , ~i.~r~n~J' IN7E.STATc ~ I 1 . i N S2'SO'29' F~_N"y 7'yC'?9' EP79. eo' / ~wr.• ~ I ~ ~I 225.66-;~•\ I ' L I ~ i \ ~ - , • l.-` . ~/~i p n a li ..I~ - _ 1111111 - r ~ . - - _ Q ~ . r - lC -rte ~ I ! - - - rii ~ ~ - - ~ I ~ .,o ~ - r ~ ! II. ~ n.. ~ a ~ j ~ f:DDITIOtiL.L ~ -i 5 nO, a~•ia. I ~ % / RlGisi - OF - VlAY ` / ~ o --~~'x-- ---pal ~ ~ / I 7e~~~\ey / ~ I dr ~y \ +)F PLAN /.,fi ~ ~Ps~ . r' f'. 6;~%Y~ r • 1~~~~ ra. ).z;,~:~~-c4a:n~~ S~a.~ Ir~~,ACG.~i~ ~~~~I~~~~~~ ~I~ ~ ~fkllllli ~Iwwwn~!r~.I~T-~` . ~ I I ~I~III'~ v ' _ . L: : f1 LJ 1.: L, ~ t~~,-~~I~ ` ~ { ` ~ 1 y I l i i• I t ; l l ~ ` ~f _ -'J_-w ~ }1 I 1 11 ,~L•7,r1~1 (~I~l ~'4'll ~ fir. - - • ~ ~ T is - L M~,cf lc. h~~.~l V,~~~ ~nw~ CORNERSTONE ' • WATERFORD . EAST ELEVATION • , • 7~~~ ~ ~ r't`e`' e ~~?~y f 1 I _ L11J C[)J I _ ~ ~ ! ° ~ 11 NOC~TN ELEVATION ~ ~ 1 ~N~'~~~~ ' ~ ~ _F .~t[" - ~.7"'raw r5.~-wlA..r ~Sf.•i,::,4itr rune. Jf]Y'i+~lY i u n. i~i~._ • } ' Frontage Road - 'f ITS T I l , i I I j~' t~. \ r _ ~ 1. ~ i.~ ~ti` ~'`j~vf ~~~a~ I a ~ ~ .I . . I . t:-----~ I Waterford - • , Y'`r~ • ;r i _ ~ l Ali ::1 ) _ I' 1 _ 4~~ \ Off 1, ~1 l _ _ ~r 0 0 . _ ~ ~ = ~,~rr ~ Jac ~ ~ ,ti r/~ k ~ ' °o • ~ r Legend (Estimated OuanGGes) . f .r ~ ~ Existing Trees 1 ' : \ • ~ ~ Without showdown Cornerstone , - ~o Qf ' ' ~ s r ~ ~ (spy-~~t Patmore Ash s (See shut L•1) ~ `-s 13 • 3- Caliper - - //yy~~ Qi° - ~ p l J Colorado Blue Spruce :.S - . - s ~ w0 ' ~ 11.6', 20-10', 20-17, 11.14' FGgh ~L 0 T ~ °p~ Quaking Aspen uI ~n~~ - _ _ . 0 ~ , oo - zs- ca~~. sox c?y„ps ~ - ' o ~b G~~e/// : Canada Red Cherry iy„ O p OO / ~ 12 • J' CaL ckrrips /~L ~r"~ ~10~0 _ 0 c ~ t.:,..: .Shrubs ~ l1 °CD ~O~ O 400 • 5 Gallon ' ..nil 0 ~ i' ~ . ~ n p~ _ i I.I I I , I~ y~. X. ~ ry t:' .-.i.__ o. ~ ~ ~ f - F c I: ~ / r°.------ i. / 1 ~ II I II!! I~I I I I VIII ~ _.1~..____1__ ~ I I j ~ rr II'' ll ~ ~ Ilil ~ i~ ! / + f a ~ + i!Ill~~~lfiil[ ~ ~Lliili;iiiiiE!ild I I ~ r-- 1 J ~i~~i~:;~lll!iiLi~ ~ i ^ ~fl!!ifil;llii% r li!~!~iGiiil1i~~!~ i l-~ I' . I ~ I , ~ ~ ,I 1il ~ Ilili;~!il[ilili~ ~ I_~II_~LJ E: _ ~ 1 . r k', I, l ~ ~lill~,!lli~~ll!;lll u u ~ ~~~~r~~~ W~-~~~~ `~n`- - \ 4( i n ~ Vii: ~ , is Y-~ i__1 \ I - ® I ; ~ i r I f=,~; I ,ti`` .1 I \idl-1. r~ ~ ~ i u i(~ j-JR ~:.~'1~ ~ io o ~?~~~~o m ~ ill m ~ ~ o i~~± o ~ ? ~~r:-~ ? _ ` 1-17 D D ~ , d i ~ ~ t ~4a t ~'k: .'~C" x' 'L~.S~' 'v. ~7•.. icy., ~`~t~ .~~Y1".:7: •'s~~'r •~~•i. L 1 _ ' '`I vn9' ~ I, ~G:T~ov.,g ' - I _ I 11.5 vacr • ~ ~ ~ na7s.w-~ II O UU~T ~~R. _ _ . . I~ I~ I _ OCcK I'1 7~ D[v Rw+rt I P U.~17 I~~o. ~ 1 veaic c ~ eaorcon v urllT _oaa 6C~ I ~ . c ~ ~^l 'ore` ~,rfna -or~ra i ea c . _ a -r-- - :-i-~ .---r. - I I__.l :I,~WI JCS LSVI;L I 1 N.~ 1 I t7t''p~ t.0. O=_GCtn: _ ~ 1 1 ~t t r. X111,_: . i a b i. r ~ ~ 1 ` ~ yN•. ~ u a ` - l n~ , ` I- I ' ~,y A - L..__ s _ riT . 1 I - _ _ ~ - _ _ -.-~.I I I • ~/L..?pL CIf LYE D~IV1 , ' ~i Y Y..rT 7. f. `I I I orncr w.•r~~ ~..Ifr+..~r.. ' I_~ ~ i _ _ _ _ r.. _ I Y YNR ~ r/~~a_ ~ I WW. ..Rrf N.L 11 1I_ rr'-tIGIN4 L4~L1. r 11 11L Ji !11 ? uYrT vr. ~ rr.nnr u.+a ~ •I __J~ ~---I ~ 3~ BUILDING SECTION I) ? Y.YT ~a I /1 1 ' .I~`_ \`I r.rll.~,r llJl r . ~ I ~I ~ YNi7 ~ Vrf t11I4 ~ /~rT 1___ ~ ..,r.. ~r+rT / /..fro ~ l I:J__f._i.l __l.=.i..~ ^i I ~ 't_s~_ c uwrt . rov ~ ..I~ I :...:.I i u.~.: L I .~xrrNC, oec~ _ i ~.1 ~ < ur.ut- ~~-ot uwG+cr~+~T~O I II PrarcY.lr. L6`/BY•~ (J ~ 1~ G ~ 1 ~I1 • } rrr I _.la ?~Yra FTY L~NG~ L.-_:_~ _ _ 1 1 0 ~...T G u-riT ~ a.: 1 1 4 BUILDING SECTION /m' I I _ O I ' ~ G f 10a.rrJ(i HLN I I 1 ~ I ~ U.+ir .J~_~ 1 1 I , 1 I I ~~~~T•`"" (1) tSUILUiNG SECTION !/o • n4.4 • • IS~.I ~ I ..v . • • ' / yOr/i NO ? j i' ~ ~ i ta"rwv I 1 JNIT t s.•,rl ~ . 1 ~ . -...:.-L I-t: - I 1-•-J t UNIT cap Ti~ti.1 t~J I n • t UNIT !o l' '~/'M~' ? , .:..:.~_:_z._.--,...-------'-..,..._._.. r.,: INS _ - it _r...---~ I~ uWT cw° I uNaKtr~nTCV Tyt~WU(~' LW/t1.M _ p_ ~ ~ I ?ooY +rr.. : Rta. RmM. _ ~w . ' rvrrl~YrLIN ~ . ~ _ ~ ~ _ R. i • . ~ • ' , . ~ t'~ ' i.,;r 1 ` ; ~d .T`I' .•ly yam. y"' `:u.+ti! I•l: 1~ ~ ~1°?i ~p \ .pwl.~- I'-e}, `l. 1' ~Af,~~~„ ~'L ~ I fe ;y j.. FI ~ 4~ • 4 ~ • r r y ,r ~ +I A 4 J ~_l`~~~~~~ a . . y(~ Westhaven Drlve -i • ~ N't!~EbS _ ~t:.] ~ See et .~i ` she PERGN.ew~G r..~.GN1.10! ~ I ~ i fl ~ i ~~j~i ~ , se..-r re~~.~.r^~*c•I'e:e I Corne-stcnc l~___ Plaza Wlny I 1~~~-----_~'-'y``~~+~ rkW,Nq = 1 III I^ I . _ ~ ~ T T-'~• "c.A`~.1 I'' .i i ` 1 11'1, 1t• 1. ~ II J ~-1 `:f\~~~ . : =lily l~ illilll 11 i - ' i" --r:"~'~ II11 I ~ 7}4 I ,r tyN 'G`...V1/~.~'Y•: I ,i I"~-;~~1:-. ~!r~ I•~ Jp~~~~ L~.~J _ i'-~I.r`'°, , 1r.~p, i1 Q l i YJ. ~'`'a~ ~ IC •(~~nN{rt2 ~~I /f'•I-• -`~II~11I=~Il~_ I 1' ~ ~y^~"~~~=f~_'~S ~ "L~C7~- ' ~ ~ r. r - - ~=-a e.---~,--..- I Preliminary wre w. rna.c.p. a.ly..• s. c.n.w.wr 7 - 3 ~ " ~ T: , I I ~ ~ ' ` _ LANDSCAPE PLAN -a: ; ~".I ~ Q ~ i ~ Tcrraco Wlnp o r is ~z sr 1 Q ~ ~ ~ o-.-r... -,....:.uGt'~"- - - .W . n~~ ~d4.'!' .Li :dll. it' I .rua~wre....+.:.a.a ~ I •'5. -;~:s:.o~'ils'1~'r~i~~.3Jdw4alGvtitc^o:_ii' H I t i ' • U ~ ~ f W~TSr-~oh•v . • Gtib~`p` 4LU6 ~ . _ ~ ~ r , ' Y M ~ ~ .u *..La~ • ~ I ~w i.l 1 r t~ r N ~i-~.a I ~f I \hrW'uT Drcl..a 7.4"T .tc TM ? \ i r• .1.4Y 1 i• ~ H 1 I . {O { ~ I W M i? T G.+LaK• My.la dl ~ /Ob 1 I r ~ V..`uy'C " I .7. .tf.1. Na ~ ~J~ ~ .t? ~L.:. 61~C o.~i .f_ - Q~ / ~ / 1 - 1 .w-i`~ ,`jam. ~ v ~~o~.`I-1 ~r 1~.a~N b 11.i ~ ~nw~ui `,~jr~/~~'rwaa --\.]II s Va1z~. I-~'. I ~ / { ~ >r~rnc~•~ il.a~~- 'L~M~.r4.~'•-: rb:r` wsn••-!.N T I'~li'SII II 'a.l :.a.a•~ a..~ 9« ::::1;~.+.~-- ...I.d.l 1':' goo. c .to.o' ' f r'•"p .un L~ III ~h - i ~-,_':ue -._~w. •.w `N7 ' I ~~ex InTINV 6rVV.y 'TYr~~''XiOa ec~+ r:v S' ~N.:.oc. ea.o•+ . _ a ` 1 rxlti7uu. sK.WJ. \ sr+r•v.l.i.kl~vr ?s+.ls vl.r-sr w..~ ~ _ w1 fs..,.r~ ~ r ~I~.. I rwwowr. H•w~+T •.c. II. f I . a TE~K.E W InG ~ - ~ ~ . ~..yrsr•rs I H~p.TN p ' ~.=~.'C r"'iY `'`_~~AM~' a, ~ r_a.r~. ~..,:r .`E:~- _ c•~ ..~~5.~-~ S'` ,'t ~ ~nd' Z X. S.~s~~ors ' .rT • ~ ti,r . _ .H.; ~ ¢ s- t' Y . C_GY"'.~T,Y~y~~i'i.. a~k3-c f s:.;~y,Si6i:.3rtr•~Kfi~~ ~~y, .u..'-'_~- ii~ . iZ_:'+i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ it 444 n~~ i i ,b~nut4 _ i. ! F. ~ 777 I t l.~~~' \ 3'. `1 - i~ 1 ~ ~ 7 \ _ __j! _ t ~~`N ~ .I ti . .i i , f. ~ ~ LEVEL 38 - ~ ~ - ~~L Ir_y' :J~ I _i s. .S. 1?"r''.tF~ ~ j r _ ~ 1! ~ t mil, .t• .;ftLrEl- ALES' ,I -~i'? :r.T~.: ~ ~~_'1 ~~~il- ~*.i.~~t;..:;.:L;.r:d.:., j}•tt`.~.~ .I.tl _ ~•'c,: ,,~~,tsy"i;.~°s-_>T.,~~.~j1~ r ~ ~i ry'LF~ i~a 1? 1T~•~'i1..~` ~Zt.~-~~5~ ~'~'i!. •i~%~ .L .~i' , :~.R%~j~ ~G'-'i.~L / . - n~ni,:il Pnclcir.i. 1 ~ - - • E.yPi.oY~ •F~~~ Erie. ' + C.CCP!~ gx6Tir:S a:~=.~ :n har_ . • LEVEL 60 r1\ 1{ I., ! , ' ~ i ~ " ~ ~ ~ i I : 1-F~ J FEt~ESj F-W ~ ~1 ~ ~ . Zr.r,uTc~ I ...!.mot-' •I.,~;,;:'J.'Tep'.~~ ;il' r 1 I ~ ( ~ 1 ~ 1 ~ r ~a~.`~m.~'•.1%..S"~ I l "y'r~,n ~'U`•,Mc^' y,L ..~j I 1 ~ --1 ~ ~FTw.Et.. ~ 1 ~ ~ _ .:IC n~~4~.~lh,t~~l'.L. I }L- ---a- __1__- i.:.:?:~i(_ ,..:DH•.. ,LD': -'~tF{' --';-n~:.~•~~,~•~••f^' . 1 ~~.l~ :Iii~i' ,1'111 L~ _~1 i 7 ~~i' EL y .'~1~.~.~-.~t~..~~` 1~=T ~ ll'• l'.. ~ ~i ; is{. "~'~~--irr-r'~^^^~.~--.--...-.--. ~.~..V'..a~- _ ~ 111 .f:'•1~.. / a -j- w~TIN r.~rs~ _ 1~ ~ ~ • ~ - y"I'~~ 1l tiltYll" lllllj t (111 4 ~ 1111 I 11,y~1 11 ' IIIY11Yf Ilj IIIIiI1f ! ~tl' 4 ` , 111;1, tl Y I111111ir1111111 .1I~iii~ h`~T ~.ii1 ~ •14 , •t I ~ 1 1 "f j .'y~`~1~ i1f` ~`~!!1 J.,i41 ~,1 ~I~?f I! x~ Illi ,,,,,f,,, li, ~ _..:7..-..:.. :-y -f , I ,l : I i i ~ . • 1111`1111 t._~! ` _ _ -~-.._...N~r-~....~..._ - - " ` I~i -11~1111~1,_ii~ _ i' .ifl4,f _ I~;~~{ 1,, „ .~„Ilij!1 ,;i~~li~1: pu-s. i I' L: '1 ~ . C~ :::-?J. L3'IC L"r= 4 L'=` ~ ! ~ ' , ~ f 1 I ! ' ~ ~ 1 ~ ! 1 I t I ~ I 1 1 ~~h pt;•l/ t~v~ ~.5~ ~ tti.•d) u•.1 teal :'i: ,1;~'I4 jlll _ •'•'1~1i} tI - ) i Lr k I 011. I{~~~~~I~~e+-:r~:~+.!~11 i~ 1 1 ~t1 1~ `~~v N111~j~'~j~ 1 ~~~,l~f;i(11 ,li~'.I.. , I I`{I} ~L,~F~, f~ Y ~ Ij1 ~{1 1 Ii I/ l `1 r'^'~: 4 II~~ 1 ..r~~,, ~ ?~I I 11.,1 _ It ,i ,!t,11 1 1 ~IItl1;:~)~,);t 11111111if1 , 1 1 I1 . 4 1 . -1;111,1 ~T~ LEVEL 102 • •4 ' ~ • ` mfr yam.-- 1`/ u~'O„ 3~. ,,;y.. , Ill 1!411111 ' !1111 !Ill~ll.1~1114 1 y.111 )111 ~!i111lI~III~IY11111tf1~11• ~ ~ 1 i1~11„ ~,I~1~~1111~111.1!I!{II~ _ - ' ~ 4 ~ ~f,~ Y. ~ ~ ~ r ' 1crCli:1~ j~ ~ -cam :rti -r' i•~~ iii i '~1 •+~•.~s f,y_;IYh . , %r~Y ~ i:~ w•~~.t ~~'~j l' _ I_~~i~fll l~'1.!i ~+.•,:1,-~_^a:??7+..~'.~';.~"'y1 .~:,:r • _ ~Y_~ - .:.tom: _ -c.,., is .~:'l :`-J'_:: ' „~•-..rte ~..~.._~c."" ^_~'>='.i ~ ; • ~ - ~-t ; . - l ~ 1 _I' ;\1 i ! is it ,i1i~1~1111intlllltl 111111~IIY~~114I!I•flll: flll-1111. ~ • ,si' • . . ~~~r•,` • i~ir? 1 - _ --,~T"_", - - `,::;Tc; ;.y :-,.;_:G.~~t'f1LLahW~-r:, _ ~ LEVEL 82 ' ; SCENARIO '~2 ~ SCHEDULE OF UNITS . ~ ~ . i ~J ~ TR..- 34'.UiiITS - 15835: SQ FT r Q ~ DU 6 UNITS .a :..,12~~275 :SQ FT . .h.' r r ~Y~ ~ - 4 t`? u A 't ' ur N .111111•.. 1111 It 111 VIII 11111,11111111 II111111111111 Ill~lli'~' ~ .11111! IIIIII,illlli I 11 1,~. it ( I 1_ I~~~~ r I~~ I ~~I I , la ;ll 11111 i 1 I I ~I I I ~ I`I`d ~ C 1 :4!I I I I ! I I `~'I I I i•'. i ' M ~ • !1111111 j .",4i.+., -K. "i~ 1 11! 11111 I . - i7 _ ~ ~ I1 hill 1, J _ , ll I ~ I . I II n. - ' 1 ~ _ =:ir: l III 11 I ~ I I ~ - ~ ~ - E 11•;1111 °1 I! T~->: I I I• ~ ~ II + ii it it ~ ~11I I ( .II i' l , I _ • ~ .II _ 1 ill; ~i I~;I. Ill •.I ~ ( ~ ' 11 , , I I .~11 iII1~Il l..Illi1. ? , . ~ . I P! ~ 1 `t IIC.!.J ~ I~ l h," ' •~.t l yl : I I I I i~ .l I , Ill ~ y--~ i l 111111 11!11111111 Illilll 111111 ill Ali li 1 it 1!iII II III II_ I.1 , 11,1,1 _ i I i li , ~ ~ ~ - ~"~oxsr LEVEL 102 +S`~B _ . • cu•+.c r.rJ.c• ~ . - Ilillilllllllllllllilllll;Ill_I~Icll'IiIIIIiI!Illllllli 11111~!~11111111 ~ IIIIIIIIIll1111111111111 1 Illl I - :-F-~' ?LD . F.[. Tt. t Tr.{ -F'L. _.:T" TFt "R" D rF•G Il , ( I, III' 111.t11j~. I 11 _ _ i*',:~,. ~:1• .ll,l ~'11' L I l'I~IIIIII~ •.H 1 _ .~G TF-G. -i_ G T~•G TF-•G T~.t ; r.L TG{ `t-L ` 1 i : I~h..l' I 1 11-,'. • \~i! I.I ~\yl I I I1 I I l ~ I TL{ Tr-G Tr.L T(~'G _ 1 i~~~l' F/H/.. ! tFdl i-Jl•:~V:`1 I Il l~l y 'l~Ly.•i~,T~i1:li~Lli iT;. ~i ~-ii Ii;iit,Tl•.!ii~.i,i M illi, lllll,l~ ~1V I i 1 I III11 I LEVEL 9 2 •~.•g ~,.,~,1 ' brut r. m•-o- ' • - : T:..-g Tt- A. Tr: A. ; j:A T L-A '!~,.~A. 1~ I ~Z. B T' J~ . it ,"1t•'.1 i~~ ~ t-~'r, .'•j'~~_;- , II •r: I ` ~ f ,I ~ 1•(•••~~~ ^^L7.S~ .noa,ned~i!.yir•+•-e!y:iw..+..v_ r. r..> a<~:: i•t:.::$•:a .~:J, , _ :T r. f fe'; may= f'•:y~`I.+.~'~.~.. r, _ _ ~ x . ---i~`ir.:d+ca: .rw '1•:~G•,... ~CSt5r.2sb_ ar.:.:: .15:1'.?i::, .:::S:R. _ -_1:r• T~: P~ '1't-A 'iF~. 'j}-,A 'iJr -r•A rf--A TF-A I I •7 ; 11 :ssr,~ " k. • 1 ! r I I I ~ 'lZ+~ TC-A ~Z..~. i'L•,~. I. ,;1. v 1~~ ~ L~VCL 82 -~~soc,~ I~/ ~E r.so•b• - - - OUTDOOR LIGHTING SITE VISITS Town Council -December 15,1992 Bulldlna Name Address Tvoe of Llahtlnq Calculation Value 1. Ford Park 530 S. Frontage Road East Typical town and country street light 9500/(8 X 10) 119 parking lot 2. Vail Golf Course Townhouses 10 inch diameter globe 1750/(n x 52) 22 3. Batches! Seasons at the Green 1778 Sunburst Drive Uplighting of aspens- 100 watt (two on south side) 17501(<19/8> x 4.46} i65 75 watt (one on north side) 1190!(<19/8> x 4.46) 112 4. Private Residence 1905 Sunburst Drive Tree mounted uplighting /(n x 32) 5. Hutchinson 2049 Sunburst Drive Fixtures mounted on either side of gate 360/(<9/S> X 4) 80 Residence 6. Private residence 1558 Vail Valley Drive Free standing pole light 17501(1918) x (4.4} 167 7. Steinberg residence 1022 Eagle Nest Circle Decorative street light ~ 1380/(n X 2.52) 70 8. Golden Peak 458 Vail Valley Drive Wall pack fixture mounted near roof line 27,5001(12 X 12) 191 Ski Base 9. Village street lamp Throughout village Fixtures mounted on decorative post Since the HID source is a full cutoff, the with visible incandescent lamps luminance test is not applied. and includes a cutoff HID source. 10. Whitehead 366 Hanson Ranch Road Wall mounted lights 1750!(<19/8> x 4.46) 165 Residence 11. Village Center 120 Willow Bridge Road Uplighting on aspen 190010 X 2.52) 97 Bulldlna Name Address Tvge of Llahtlnq Calculation Value 12. Vail Mountaineering 201 Gore Creek Drive Uplighting aspen trees 4000!(318 X 3.25) 3282 13. Holiday Inn 13 S. Frontage Road West Fixtures mounted at corners of roof lines 107,0001(8 x 12) 1114 conservative estimate 36,0001(8 x 12) 375 14. Vail Spa 710 S: Frontage Road West White light illuminating sign (east side) 4200/(7 x 11) 55 ' Spot light illuminating sign (west side) 2000/(n x 2.42) 113 15. Amoco Gas Station 890 So. Frontage Road West Fluorescent tubes under canopy 9350/(96 x 1.5) 65 NOT ON SITE VISIT: Kravis Residence 424 West Forest Road Tree mounted uplighting 2850/(~rt x 2.52) 145 Byers Residence 392 Beaver Dam Circle Tree mounted uplighting 770/(a x 22) 61 Westin Hotel 1300 Westhaven Drive In-ground uplighting of Mountain Ash trees 3840/(n x 3.52) 100 Private residence 765 West Forest Road 9" diameter globe 1750/(n x 4.52) 27 Spotlights by garage door 2000/(~ x 2.38) 113 Private residence 586 West Forest Road Tree mounted uplighting 3800/(2.125 x 5.5) 325 AN~YILETTERSWTESITE - D°a . . . ORDINANCE NO. 6 Series of 1992 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 18.04 OF THE VAIL MUNICIPAL CODE BY THE ADD1TfON OF SECTIONS 1$.04.137, 18.04.175, 18.04.205, 18.04.251, 18.04.273 AND 18.04.367, SETTING FORTH NEW DEFINITIONS RELATING TO THE ZONING CODE; REPEALING SECTION 18.54.050; AMENDING SECTION 18.54.040(C)(1) OF THE VAIL MUNICIPAL CODE BY THE ADD{TION OF PARAGRAPH (m) PROVIDING FOR OUTDOOR LIGHTING PLANS TO BE SUBMITTED TO THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OF THE TOWN OF VAIL; AMENDING SECTION 18.54.050 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE TOWN OF VAIL BY THE ADDITION OF PARAGRAPH (J) PROVIDING A NEW SECTION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD GUIDELINES RELATING TO OUTDOOR LIGHTING; AND PROVIDING DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO. WHEREAS, the Town.Council of the Town of Vail wishes to minimize the unintended and undesirable side effects of outdoor lighting, while encouraging the intended and desirable safety and aesthetic purposes of outdoor lighting; and WHEREAS, the Town Council wishes to establish a new section of the Town's Design Guidelines, setting forth standards to regulate outdoor lighting. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO THAT: Section 1 Section 18.04 of the Vail Municipal Code is hereby amended by the addition of Section 18.04.137 to read as follows: Fu!! Cutoff -Alight source in which no more than 2.5 percent of its total output is emitted above 90 degrees as measured from nadir as shown in the example below: , - ~ . _ , r .r _ ~ ~ O 0 ~ . \ ~ ~ I \ • , Section 2 ~ Section 18.04 of the Vail Municipal Code is hereby amended by the addition of Section 18.04.175 to read as follows: High Intensity Dlscharge Light Source - An electric discharge light source including mercury vapor, high pressure sodium, and metal halide lamps. Section 3 Chapter 18.04 of the Vail Municipal Code is hereby amended by the addition of Section 18.04.205 to read as follows: Light Source - a single artificial point source of luminescence that emits measurable radiant energy (n or near the visible spectrum. • Section 4 Chapter 18.04 of the Vail Municipal Code is hereby amended by the addition of Section 18.04.251 to read as follows: Luminous Area -The maximum light emitting area of a light source, measured in square inches. The maximum light emitting area is the area of translucent material which encases a light source. in the case of a clear glass covering, the luminous area is the area of the light source. Examples of luminous area are shown below: /119' 8" r . ZZ • 1 - Town and Count ry • Clear Glass Spot light luminous area • ((19/8) x (4.4)) ~ 10.45 sq. in. Radius =two inches luminous area x(3.14)(2") ~ 12.6 sq. in. w i • ~ j 1 J, • 1" _.I . 'Town and Country • ` Translucent Encasement luminous area = (8 x 10) a 80 sq. in. 4" 2 Flame Style ~ ~ • luminous area = (1 x 4) = 4 sq. in. ~ 1' t" Section 5 Chapter 18.04 of the Vail Municipal Code is hereby amended by the addition of Section 18.04.273 to read as follows: Outdoor Lighting -Any light source, or collection of light sources, located outside a building, including but not limited to, light sources attached to any part of a structure, located on the surface of the ground, or located on free standing poles. Section 6 Chapter 18.04 of the Vail Municipal Code is hereby amended by the addition of Section 18.04.367 to read as follows: Source Lumens -Total initial tamp lumens of the light source. Section 7 Section 18.54.040(C)(1) of the Vail Municipal Code is hereby amended by the addition of Paragraph (m) to read as follows: (m) Lighting Plan. An outdoor lighting plan shall be submitted separately from the site plan or landscape plan, and shall show the location, the height above grade, the type of illumination (such as incandescent, halogen, high pressure sodium, etc.), the source lumens, and the luminous area for each light source which is proposed. The applicant shall provide documentation that the lights meet the standards set forth in Section 18.54.050 (.!}2. In addition to locating this information graphically on a plan. the applicant shall provide the information on the application form provided by the Town of Vail Community Development Department. Section 8 Section 18.54.050(C)11 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows: c•~n~^'°yt'-TiE~i;tl::~ ~ X311 ~8-~eSigf}e~'$Rt~-19Eut£E~ IR r....,.::Ae~9-~iRtFi?I: E :.:r~a&t-6~ }fgl~g ~.pcn ln,~+n~ s~aas-w~it#+;; G r~apesed-pre}eet r' "M" 3 F- Section 9 - y Section 18.54.050 of the Vail Municipal Code is hereby amended by the addition of Paragraph (J) to read as follows: 1. Purpose This section of the design guidelines establishes standards for minimizing the unintended and undesirable side effects of outdoor lighting while encouraging the intended and desirable safety and aesthetic purposes of outdoor lighting. It is the purpose of the design review guidelines to allow illumination which provides the minimum amount of lighting - which is needed for the property on which the light sources are located. In addition, the purpose of this section is to protect the legitimate privacy of neighboring residents by controlling the intensity of the light source. 2. Approval Required All outdoor lighting within the Town limits shall conform to the standards set forth below. In order to ensure that outdoor lighting proposals are compatible with existing structures, their surroundings, and with Vail's environment, the DRB may limit the total number of light sources proposed for a property. For the purposes of this section, residentially zoned properties shall be defined as those in Hillside Residential, Single Family, Two-Family, Primary/Secondary, Residential Cluster, Low Density Multi-Family and Medium Density Multi- Family Zone District, as well as all Special Development Districts which have any of the above-referenced zone districts as the underlying zoning. All other zone districts shall be considered, for the purposes of this section, as being commercially zoned. a. Luminance: Light sources located on all property in the Town of Vail which are not fully cutoff shall exhibit a ratio of source lumens to luminous area not exceeding 125. For example: source lumens < 125. luminous area b. Light fixtures affixed to poles: For all light sources located in commercial zone districts, the maximum mounting height for light sources on a pole shall not exceed 35 feet. For all light sources located in residential zone districts, the maximum mounting hei ht for li ht sources on a ole shall not exceed 10 feet. 9 9 P 4 c. Light sources affixed to structures: _ For all properties within the Town of Vail, light sources may be affixed to any wall of a structure. Light sources shall not be affixed to the roof of a structure. d. Cutoff shields: . All light sources located in commercial zone districts which exceed 15 feet in height sha11 exhibit a full cutoff shield. e. HID light sources: High intensity discharge light sources shall not be permitted in any residential zone district nor shall they be permitted for the purpose of illuminating vegetation. f. Light source location: In no case shall any outdoor lighting other that Christmas tree lights be fixed to vegetation. 3. Exemptions. The standards of this section shall not apply to: a. Christmas tree lights which are of a temporary nature Located in residential zone districts, as listed in Section 18.54.050 (J)2, and which are illuminated only between November 1 and April 15 of each year. b. Christmas tree lights which are temporary in nature and are located in zone districts other than those residential districts listed in Section 18.54.050(J)2. c. Sign illumination, as set forth in Title 16. d. Municipal lighting installed for the benefit of public health, safety and welfare. 4. Nonconformities. Please note: The length of the translt/on period discussed below Is not definite. The Town Attorney Is currently researching this type of regulation. As of the effective date of this ordinance, all outdoor lighting that does not conform to the requirements of this ordinance shah be non-conforming outdoor lighting. Such non- conforming outdoor lighting shall be legal and may be continued and maintained for five (5) years after the effective date of this ordinance, but thereafter shall conform to all requirements of this ordinance. The five (5) year period after the effective date of this ordinance shall be r called the transition period. Any existing outdoor lighting source which is altered or moved within the 5 year 5 transition period, or thereafter, shall conform to this ordinance. An existing lighting source may be maintained during the transition period without having to conform to this ordinance. Section 10 If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not effect the va{idity of the remaining portions of this ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. Section 11 The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety and welfare of the Town of Vail and the inhabitants thereof. Section 12 The repeal or the repeal and reenactment of any provision of the Vail Municipal Code as provided in this ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceeding as commenced under of by virtue of the provision repeated or repealed and reenacted. The repeal of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein. Section 13 All bylaws, orders, resolutions and ordinances, or parts thereof, inconsistent herewith are repealed to the extent only of such inconsistency. This repealer shaft not be construed to revise any bylaw, order, resolution or ordinance, or part thereof, theretofore repealed. 6 INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, APPROVED AND ORDERED PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL, this day of , 1992. A public hearing shall be held hereon on the day of , 1992, at the regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Vail, Colorado, in the Municipal Building of the Town. Margaret A. Osterfoss, Mayor ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED this day of , 1992. Margaret A. Ostertoss, Mayor ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk andy'~ machinalc:iliphgnpbrde ~ 7 . OUTDOOR LIGHTING SITE VISITS For Town Council -December 15,1992 Building Name Address Tvge of Liahtinq Calculatlan Value 1. Brandess Builidng Parking lot pole mounted 2. Safeway Parking lot pole mounted } ~ 3. Gant Bros. Parking lot pole mounted Since fixture is fully cut off, fully cut off fixtures luminance test is not applied. 4. Westin Hotel 1300 Westhaven Drive In-ground uplighting of Mountain Ash trees 3840/(n x 3.52) 100 5. Amoco Gas Station 890 So. Frontage Road West Fluorescent tubes under canopy 93501(96 x 1.5) 65 6. Private residence 765 West Forest Road 9" diameter globe 1750/(n x 4.52) 27 Spotlights by garage door 2000/(n x 2.38) 113 4 7. Private residence 586 West Forest Road Tree mounted uplighting 3800/(2.125 x 5.5) 325 y4 i ~ . c' r o 8. Vail Spa 710 S. Frontage Road West White light illuminating sign 42001(7 x 11) 55 9. ~ Holiday Inn 13 S. Frontage Road West Fixtures mounted at corners of roof lines 107,000!(8 x 12) 1114 conservative estimate 36,000!(8 x 12) 375 10. Village Center 120 Willow Bridge Road Uplighting on aspen 1900/(rz X 2.52 97 11. Vail Mountaineering 201 Gore Creek Drive Uplighting aspen trees 40001(3!8 X 3.25) 3282 12. Village street lamp Throughout village Fixtures mounted on decorative post Since the HID source is a with visible incandescent full cutoff, the luminance lamps and includes a cutoff HID source. test is not applied. 13. Golden Peak 458 Vail Valley Drive Wall pack fixture mounted near roof line 27,500/(12 X 12) 191 Ski Base 14. Steinberg residence 1022 Eagle Nest Circle Decorative street light 13801(rz X 2.52) 70 i5. Private residence 1558 Vail Valley Drive Free standing pole light 1750!(1918) x (4.4) 167 16. Batches/ Seasons at the Green 1718 Sunburst Drive Uplighting of aspens-100 watt 1750(<19/8> x 4.46) 165 Uplighting of aspens - 75 watt 11901(<19/8> X 4.46) 112 . 17. Hutchinson residence 2049 Sunburst Drive Fixtures mounted on either side of gate 360/(<9/8> X 4) 80 18. Ford Park parking lot 530 S. Frontage Road East Typical town and country street light 95001(8 X 10) 119 19. Kravis Residence 424 West Forest Road Tree mounted uplighting 28501(n x 2.52) 145 (not on site visit) 20. Byers Residence 392 Beaver Dam Circle Tree mounted uplighting 7701(n x 22) 61 4 { ANDYIL't i i tRS1LiTESITE _ ~ ~ 1 S f d v ( 'i n l PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION • DECEMBER 14, 1992 AGENDA 11:00 P.M. Site Visits 1:00 P.M. Work Session 2:00 P.M. Public Hearing Site Visits: 11:00 A.M. Kandell Manor Vail Berkowitz Crossroads Upper Bench Donovan Park Work Session: 1:00 P.M. 1. A work session with the PEC to'discuss a request for the establishment of a Special Development District, a CCI exterior alteration, a minor subdivision, a zone change and an amendment to View Corridor No. 1 for the Golden Peak House, 278 Hanson Ranch Road/Lots A, B, and C, Biock 2, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Golden Peak House Condominium AssociationNail Associates, Inc./GPH Partners, Ltd./Margaritaville, lnc. Planner: Mike Mollica/Tim Devlin Public Hearing: 2:00 P.M. 1. A request for a joint work session with the Design Review Board and the Planning and Environmental Commission to review the proposed design of the Vail Cemetery to be located in the upper bench of Donovan Park generally . located west of the Glen Lyon subdivision and southeast of the Matterhorn neighborhood.. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Andy Knudtsen 1 2. A request for setback variances, stream setback, and a site coverage variance at the Manor Vail Lodge to allow the construction of a trash enclosure, located on Part of Lot 1, Block B, Vail Village Seventh Filing/595 East Vail Valley Drive. Applicant: Manor Vail Lodge Planner: Andy Knudtsen TABLED UNTIL JANUARY 11, 1993 r, . 3. A request for a conditional use permit to allow a major arcade (family entertainment center) to be located at the Crossroads Shopping Center, located on Lot P, Block 5D, Vail Village First Filing/141 East Meadow Drive. Applicant: Charlie Alexander _ Planner: Tim Devlin 4. A request for setback variances to allow construction of a deck at the Kandell residence, 4259 Nugget Lane East, Lot 2, Bighorn Estates Resubdivision of Lots 10 and 11. Applicant: Bob Kandell : s~._.__ Planner: Tim Devlin 5.: ~ A request for a work session for.variances for site coverage and setbacks to allow the remodel of a residence located at 315 Mill Creek Circle/Lot 2, Block 1, - . - . Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Howard and Judy Berkowitz Planner: Shelly Mello - 6. Recommended steps for protecting community forest resources. Staff: Jim Curnutte/Russell Forrest/Todd Oppenheimer . . 7. Review of PBS video on Dan Dailey, selected artist for the Vail Transportation Center art project. ' 8. A request for a work session to amend Chapter 18.24 Commercial Core I and ~ Chapter 18.26 Commercial Core II of the Town of Vail Zoning Code (relating to exterior alterations). ~ • Applicant: Town of Vail - , ~ . ~ , Planner: Mike Mollica . . TABLED TO JANUARY 11 2 TOWN OF VAIL MEMORANDUM TO: Ron Phillips Council Members FROM: Shelly Shanley DATE: December 15, 1992 RE: Investment Report Enclosed is the investment report with balances as of November 30, 1992. The average yield for the debt service fund was 7.78% and the average yield for the pooled cash fund was 3.710. Please call if you have any questions.. Town of Yail, Colorado Invest~ent Report Sunary of Accounts and Invest~ents for the Month Ending Move~ber 30, 1992 Funds For Reserve Balances Percentage Percentage Operating funds 11 j30f 92 of Total Allowed Money Market Accounts (see page 1) Co~~ercial Banks ((136,762) 1282,963 f11b,201 0.82$ 501 Money Market and Mutual Funds (1,006,516 (9,238,238 (10,244,814 5T.3B$ 100$ Colorado Invest~ent Pools f5,75S,d70 fS,1iS,610 32.24$ 100$ Total f6,62S,484 (9,521,201 (16,146,685 90.44$ U.S. 6overn~ent Securities (see page 2) Treasury Notes d Bills (493,987 fS65,330 (1,059,317 5.93$ 1008 GMMA's f122,T32 1121,732 D.69$ 100$ U.S. Savings Bonds (24,247 (24,247 D.14$ 100$ Federal Agency Discount Notes 6 Bonds (500,000 f500,OD0 2.80$ 100$ Total (1,140,966 (565,330 f1,ID6,296 3.63$ _ Total Portfolio (7,766,450 (10,066,531 f11,852,961 94.06$ Maturing Yithin 12 Months fT,125,484 S9,S21,201 f16,64d,68S 93.24$ Maturing Yithin 24 Months f D SO f0 0.00$ Maturing After 24 Months 5640,9bb (585,330 (1,206,296 6.15$ (7,166,450 (10,086,531 f1T,852,481 100.00$ Breakdown of Reserve Funds 6.0. Bond Reserve 51,830,339 Police Bond Proceeds (5,718,110 Capital Projects Bond funds S2,2S5,114 Chuck Anderson Me~orial (10,991 Health Insurance Funds (211,972 530,086,531 12J1DJ92jlp invs~ll • Money Market Accounts as of Moveaber 30, 1992 --For the Month of koveaber-- lnstitution Balances Type of Accounts Nigh Low Average 11~30~42 COMMERCIAL BAMK ACCOOHTS First Bank of Yail -Operating - Interest 2.6252 2.625$ 2.625$ ((149,498) Balance (383,886 f11,131 (199,831 First Bank of Yail -Insurance Interest 2.625$ 2.b2S$ 2.625$ (211,912 Balance Central Bank of Oenrer Interest 2.20Oi General Operating Account Balance f23,12i Total Couercial Bank Accounts 1146,201 IOCAI GOYERNMEHT IMYESTMEMT POOLS _ Colorado Trust (lnvest~ent Pool) Interest 2.840$ Balance (1,893,999 Colorado Trust (Invest~ent Pool) Interest 1.890$ Balance (834, 523 CSAFE Interest 3.430$ Balance ;3,021,148 total Local Gorern~ent Invest~ent Pools Accounts fS,155,61O MONEY MARKET FUNDS . ~ Federated Securities Corp. U. 5. Treasury Trust Reserve Account Interest 2.]]08 Balance S1,DOO,b16 fidelity Invest~ent Gorern~ent Money Market Accounts Interest 2.8808 Bond Issue Reserve Account :t Balance 5264, 393 1992 Bond Proceeds Balance 15,118,110 Capital Projects Bond Rccount Balance S2,1SS,119 Overland Express Interest Balance (1,006,516 Total Money Market and MutuAl Funds :10,144,814 Total all accounts 116,146,685 ==Account Subject to Arbitrage Rebate 12f 1OJ91jlp invull Page 1 6overnaent Securities • as of Nore~ber 30, 1442 zz:Treasury Notes Bills:tt Oat's • to Days Interest Rate Purchase Maturity Maturity to Book Par • Type Fund Coupon Yield Date Date at Purchase Maturity Yalue Yalue Tero Debt Service i.820$ 21-Jun-91 1S-Nov-95 1608 1080 (565,330 (100,000 Note Pooled 5.500$ 20-Oct-92 30-Sep-41 1806 li6S 5493,981 fS00,000 Average Vield 6.14$ S1,OS9,311 t1,T00,000 Average Oat's to Maturity 1423 tzt6NMA'Sttt Years to Esti~ated Interest Rate Purchase Maturity Maturity Years to Principal Pool Coupon Yield Date Date at Purchase Maturity Outstanding 5803 8.000$ 8.480$ 14-Mov-86 15-Oct-O5 19.10 16.00 535,230 13003 8.000$ 9.500$ 24-Oct-86 1S-Oct-06 20.20 11.00 (39,029 14659 8.000$ 9.200$ 24-Oct-86 15-Jan-O1 21.20 18.00 548,413 Avg Yield 9.089$ 5122,132 tttU.S. Savings Bonds:tt Years to Issue Maturity Maturity Mears to Book Maturity ~ - Series Yield Date Date at Purchase Maturity Yalue Yalue EE 1.1]0$ 01-Oct-86 Ol-Oct-96 10.00 3.84 (24,141 (30,000 t::Federal Agency Discount Notes 6 Bondsttt Days to Interest Rate Purchase Maturity Maturity Days to Book Maturity Agency Fund Coupon Yield Date Date at Purchase Maturity Value Value FNlB Pooled 7.080$ 1.080$ 25-Jun-91 25-Jun-43 131 201 fS00,000 (500,000 5500,000 :500,000 Rverage Yield 1.08$ Average Oat's to Maturity 20T Total S1,I06,246 12(10(42j1p invtrll Page 2 REC~IYED ~ 4 ~ X~ : December 14, 1992 The Vail Town Council ' T.. ~ u of Vail 75 S. Frontage Road West Vail, CO 81657 RE: Gore Creek Pedestrian Bridge Deaz Council Members: I was quite surprised and disheartened to read in the paper that you voted to have the pedestrian bridge over Gore Creek removed and relocated. As a member of the Design Review Board, I remember that our approval of the new International Bridge included a provision that the pedestrian bridge would be reviewed when the new bridge was completed to determine its viability as a supplemental means to cross Gore Creek. We also would examine various design alternatives which might be compatible with either the new International Bridge or the general character of Vail. Although the pedestrian bridge may be perceived as being an "ugly sucker", its removal and possible relocation to the Katsos Ranch property is, in my opinion, not an appropriate solution. As a member of the public, I feel the more bridges we have across Gore Creek the better, and we certainly should not remove an existing one arbitrarily. I agree with Diana Donovan's comments in her letter to the Vail Trail and those expressed by Herman Staufer and the Mayor herself in that more public comment and input is not only necessary but required. I not only agree that the Council should reconsider its premature vote to remove the pedestrian bridge, but I also question what prompted the Council to vote on this issue. Please allow the Design Review Board to perform our job and give the general public an opportunity to shaze their opinions. ' Most sine ely, t... George S. b 1~.~ c(~&,o ?tiu. r~-e~-e~- ~a boz,~ `~~unc. Uc~.t. 0~ ~X?~.cae '~o.~.~~. 5TA1 t, OF COLORADO DIVISION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT Department of Local Affairs ~~o,p Harold A. Knott, Director „ei'~] ~o t ~ + * 'f X876 ~ MEMORANDUM Roy Romer Governor Larry Kallenberger TO: All Local Officials Executive Director FROM: Geoff Withers J RE: Compliance with Amendment #1 DATE: December 3, 1992 The Taxpayer's Bill of Rights (TABOR) has been the subject of much discussion by local governments in the past four weeks. This memorandum is intended to outline what I . understand to be the most immediate concerns of compliance with TABOR. The most immediate of these relate to nronerty tax issues. which cannot be easily amended after , December 1~. Please understand that some of these issues are open to varying interpretations. You may benefit from consulting your own sources of advice, such as your local government associations, attorneys, accountants, and other local practitioners. The Colorado Municipal League has published a guide for Implementation of Amendment # 1 which is available from them for a fee (303-831-6411). The Division of Local Government will be conducting a series of workshops on TABOR compliance at various locations throughout the state in February, 1993. This summary is provided for your information only: Each provision of TABOR can be discussed in far greater detail. This memo is intended as an "alert," primarily on property tax questions. Please do not hesitate to call us if you have questions about these matters. First, it is important to understand that at least two terms in TABOR, "enterprise" and "reserve," have been in use in the accounting field for many years, and now have new definitions under the Amendment. Second, it is important for you to read the Amendment yourself so that you are somewhat familiar with its terms, so I have also enclosed copy for your information. TABOR imposes three new limits on local governments. Old limits in statute, such as the "5~/z%" property tax limit and various mill levy limits, are still in effect. All these limits, both old and new, can be thought of as "nesting" within each other. That is, the most restrictive will affect you before any less restrictive ones become effective, and their = . relationship to each other may change annually. The new TABOR limits relate to mill levy, property tax revenue, and spending, in order of increasing complexity. In the following discussion of these limits I refer parenthetically to the appropriate section of TABOR for your reference. 1313 Sherman Street, Room 521, Denver, Colorado 80203 (303) 866-2156 FAX (303) 866-2251 i..:,. Enterorises are excluded from all three TABOR limits [(2)(b)]. To qualify as an enter~~ase each of three tests must be met: a) a government-owned business, b) authorized to issue its bwn ` ` ~ ~ revenue bonds, and c) receiving under 10% of annual revenue in grants from all Colorado state and local governments. [Definitions for the terms "government-owned business," and "grants" are being sought, and are not expected until mid-1993 at the earliest; whether an "enterprise" may meet test b) by the "owning" government having such authority is also in question.] Mill Lew The mill levy which you certified last year (1991) for collection in 1992 is the maximum levy that you may certify in 1992 for collection in 1993 [(4)(a)]. This is the most immediate and absolute limit which you will face. If your valuation for assessment has declined, then this mill levy limit will prevent you from realizing the same revenue as last year. This mill levy limit includes any special levies in 1991 (for debt, refunds & abatements, etc.), the year in which your "base" was defined. Property Tax Revenue Limit The property tax revenue limit in TABOR is included within paragraph (7). It allows a percentage increase in property tax revenue equal to: a) inflation (the Consumer Price Index for Denver-Boulder [(2)(f)]), plus b) local growth ("a net percentage change in actual value of all real property in a district from construction of taxable real property improvements, minus destruction of similar improvements, and additions to, minus deletions from, taxable real property" [(2)(g)]). The CPI index is not available for calendar year 1992 until March 1993, but we understand that two governmental estimates have been developed ranging from 3.3% to 3.8%.1 "Local growth" is different from the new construction and annexations which county assessor(s) certified to you earlier this year. NOTE: the language in (2)(g) defines local growth as "a net percentage change in actual value of all real Drooerty in a district." This includes tax-exempt property (churches, parks, post offices, city halls, etc.), as well as taxable property. Some assessors with whom I have spoken simply do not know the actual value of all real property, therefore, the "local growth" factor may not be feasible to be used in the 1993 budget, in which case you may be limited to an estimated increase for inflation only for this year. If your assessor(s) can provide this number, or you have somealternate source upon which you feel you can rely, then you might consider using it by adding it to the inflation increase estimate which you choose. This limit includes any special levies in 1991 (for debt, refunds & abatements, etc.), the year in which your "base" was defined. As debt is retired, the property tax limit base is lowered accordingly [(7)(d)]. Spending Limit It is critical that you properly define the base for the TABOR spending limit. All your future operations could be radically altered by miscalculating this for your 1993 budget. As mentioned above, this is the most complex of the three limits and should be understood thoroughly. . ~ Officc of State Planning and Budgeting: 3.3%; Legislative Council: 3.8%. The actual, CPI change for the first six months of 1992 is 3.4%, as published by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. The local spending limit in (7)(b) is allowed to increase annually by the same percentage .increase factor outlined under "Property Tax Revenue Limit," above. Since the percentage increase allowable for inflation will not be final until March, 1993, it is reasonable to consider postponing a final decision on the definition of your spending base until spring, 1993. "Fiscal year spending" (FYS) is defined in (2)(e): it includes, "expenditures and reserve increases," but exempts "gifts, federal funds, collections for another government, pension contributions by employees and pension fund earnings, reserve transfers or expenditures, damage awards, or property sales." Therefore, the spending limit becomes, by definition, a revenue limit. Revenues are of three types: a) those excluded or exempted from the limit, b) those which your district can spend, and c) those which you may not spend without electoral approval and must _ be refunded [(7)(d)J. Exemptions from FYS are specific revenues mentioned in (2)(e). Of note is the exemption for "reserve transfers or expenditures," and the fact that "reserve increases" are included in FYS [(2)(e)]. This is widely interpreted to mean that if surplus revenues are allocated to reserves they are considered "spending," and once .part of the reserves, they may be spent in any year . without being considered "spending." Therefore, the definition of vour reserves is critical to the establishment of vour spending base. There are differing theories of the initial establishment of reserves. The most conservative view is that any unspent fund balances at 1992 year end become your reserves. A slightly less conservative view is that any increase to net fund balances during 1992 is to be considered "spending," and should be added to actual expenditures to establish your FYS base. The least conservative approach is to consider all fund balances to be "reserve increases," since a TABOR reserve did not exist before 1993 and therefore any moneys set aside in a reserve is an increase. There are alternative approaches which I have heard proposed, but none may be necessarily more legal than another until the courts or legislature define acceptable practice. One thing is certain: this debate will only occur for the initial establishment of a reserve for the 1993 budget. Once the FYS base is set, the only factors which will change it will be from enterprises which have qualified/disqualified [(7)(d)], and decreases from debt service reductions ((7)(d)], business personal property tax exemptions and credits [(7)(d)], and the return to the state of . mandates (9). I have enclosed a copy of an outline which Douglas Bruce, the author of TABOR, has provided . us entitled "Calculating Amendment 1 Fiscal Year-Spending." His interpretation of 'T'ABOR will probably not have the same weight as future legislative and judicial interpretations, but you may have an interest in his views on this issue. Emergencv Reserves TABOR requires that your district reserve at least 1% of FYS (excluding debt service) as an emergency reserve (5). That amount must increase to a minimum of 2% in 1994, and 3% in 1995. Other Provisions State mandates [(9)], refunds [(1) and (7)(d)], and elections [(3}] are other issues with which you will need to become familiar. Our workshops in February will deal with these and other matters. You will receive notice from us when these workshops are scheduled. CALCULATING AMENDMENT 1 FISCAL YEAR SPENDING • ~ By Douglas Bruce J~>`, I. Exclusion of enterprises--(2)(d) ~E~~~92 _ ~A. 3-part test i 1. "Government-owned business" requires two enti~`~esi'' ~ a. .Lv~~r~ ~ ` an owning government and a business activity. So a government cannot be an enterprise (cannot own itself). c:%%' Businesses lack the power to raise taxes and es~=s~S~~tiq~'~ provide traditional goods or services, not regulations • or other inherently governmental roles. • 2. "Authorized to issue its own revenue bonds" does not preclude government (e.g. a city council) from having that power IF it is the board of directors for the enterprise and ALL debt liability is held to enterprise revenue. Authority to issue can be created after 1992. ' 3. "Receiving under 10~ of annual re*renue ir. grants frCm ail CulcratiG 5tai.C aril iCjcal Governments combined" includes money from the owning government.. Grants also . include grants of tax exemptions, which are the same as giving cash to pay taxes. Grant level changes could qualify or disqualify an enterprise yearly--(7)(d). 3. Significance Enterprise aTroids fiscal year spending (FYS), debt, cr other Amendment 1 limits. Internalizes risk/revenue. Enterprise money to district is district revenue. II. FYS exemptions--(2)(e) A. Gifts--private, not government sources; no value can be given in exchange. • B. Federal funds--but NOT state or local funds to another district. State funds given to local district must pass both state and local FYS limits. Same with intergovern- mental agreements between city and county (each should pay own bills to avoid revenue to receiving district). Federal mandates aren't an exception to spending limit. C. Collections for another. government--county collecting property taxes for city or school district. Does NOT mean state revenue given to locals (like HUTF money). " D. Pension contributiorYS by emplo`pees and pension fund earnings--but district contribution does count. E. Reserve transfers or expenditures--money from fund A to fund B is not a "reserve increase." Aiso, money spent from prior year savings or carryover balance is not ` FYS. Thus, spending reserves will NOT pad your 1992 base. Accrued reserves do NOT affect your FYS base. You can car.y forward and it will not count against FYS when spent, because it was part of revenue in the year . received, so "use it or lose it" is FALSE. Savings are encouracred. "Reserve" means ALL money, from any year, .eft at the end of the year; it need not be designated or earmarked. Ignore accounting definition or methods. F. Damage awards--settlement or judgment in your favor, " merely transforming assets (a damaged car into cash.) _ G. ?roperty sales--same idea. Amendment 1 encourages sale of assets (the cash is not subject to FYS limit, real estate sale to private sector adds to "local growth.") r' III. FYS exceptions--(7)(d) - A. Borrowed money is NOT revenue (compare a mortgage) or FYS. No reason for inflation. + growth allowance for - fixed, temporary, disfavored cost. The FYS definition limits keeAina of revenue. Future new debt or payoff of present or future debt adjusts the total dollars that may be spent,-but OUTSIDE the FYS base. Erd of debt requires spending cut. B. Reductions--(8)(b), (9), (1), and (3)(c)--force a district to lower FYS spending, give tax relief. C. Voter-approved revenue changes AFTER 1991. Changes before 1992 may comply with (4)(a) but not with FYS limits (old tax increase voted, never taker., is lost because of spending limit). Only voter-approved change Ar^TER 1991 will be allowed. Voters can raise listrict F`IS limits without raising taxes--last line of (7}(d)-- to avoid yearly election over waiver of refunds. IV. Calculating 1993 local FYS (excluding enterprises) A. The base is current (1992) ar,oss revenue as adjusted for (2)(e) and (7)(d). "Reserve increases" come only from current (unspent) revenue, so can't re-name or spend old reserves ("reserve transfer or expenditure") to pad r^YS base. (7)(d) exceptions are fixed dollar• - amounts, so 1992 approval of a 1/2 cent sales tax only adds to spending total by the annualized collection in the rest of the first fiscal year--no later growth. B. Base changes 1. Inflation in 1992--necessarily an estimate since year not over. 3.4~ indicated by Bureau of Labor Stats: Must lower FYS limit during 1993 if estimate too high. 2. Local growth--not available in 1992 if assessor did _ not determine denominator of the needed ~rac~ior_: "actual value of all real property in a district." VOTE: This includes value of all church, government, . and other non-taxable real property. Local growth can't be taken until proof is available. "Local growth" is NOT total assessed value change (would overlap inflation). Numerator of fraction is ONLY changes from net. new. construction (buildings bui'_t less fires, demolitions, etc. which must be ~vstematicall•~ recorded for offset) of taxable improvements and fror,: changes in taxable real property rol'_s (net annexatioTs and taxable status changes iT churches, government land, ` . etc.) "Annual local growth" need not be calendar year. C. Items in (7) are exceptions AFTER arnuai base changes; t::ey never wrap into the base and NEVER get local growth or inflation adjustments. :V. Summary example--adapt to your situation 1) I992.gross revenue (excludes borrowed money, repayment of loans, carryover funds, other assets} = 5110 M.M _ 2) Deduct Federal mounds of $5 million = 105 MM 3) Deduct private gift of $1 million = 104 M1~ 4) Deduct property sale of $4 :pillion = '00 MM 5) $100 MM + (3.4)~ 1992 inf?ation = 1993 FYS of 5103.`4 MM. local growth only when figures ready.) 6) November 1993: voters approve $5 million annual tax. 7) December 1993: do calculations 1-5, then add SS MM to total, assuming tax hike starts January 1, 1994. 8) December 1994: ditto (DON'T add $5 ~M to base). 9) November 2995: voters cut 1996 taxes $3 MM. 10) December 1995: do step 8 ard then deduct $3 MM. (Spending of reserves saved from prior year is OR at any time but is NOT part of FYS calculations.) 11) 196: revenue used ir. the FYS limit is $2 :GSM more tha: the limit allows you to spend. You must refund it reasonably (see (1)) in the next fiscal year unless voters agree you car. keep it (wit?: or without a permar_ent increase in your FYS.) refunds can be temporary tai: cuts - a nd are of total district excess revenue, not source by source. If sales tax r~.ses $'2 millior. faster than the FYS rate, but property tax rises $Z million slower, there is no re=and due. NOTE: FYS limits are on the whole non-enterprise government, including urban renewal districts, housing authorities, basin°ss imgrove:^.ent d~str~ct~, etc. There _s NO • specific limit on police, parks, roads, or ANY agency or department. Their appropriations are decided by elected officials. NOTE: FYS covers designated revenue received & not refunded. WF?ETHER SPENT• ON SALARIES, CARS, ETC. OR "SPENT" ON SAVINGS AND CARRIED FORWARD TO NEXT YEAR IS IRRELEVANT TO THE TOTAL. FYS totals all nor.-exempted, non-refunded revenue (not debt) from nor.-enterprises. The limit is on spendable revenue growth, whether saert or saved. NOTE: Read second sentence of Amendment 1. When you have two or :Wore ways to compute, YOU yIUST use the most limiting approach--a broad net and broad scope of revenue unless specifically excluded. If existing limits are reached before the Amendment 1 limit, existing limits apply. NOTE: (4)(b) includes nulti-year lease options ard employment contracts; CertiflCateS of participation even ~f subject to anr_ual appropr=ations; loan guarantees; etc. NOTE: '"ake advantage of (8)(b) and (3) for '_oca'. tax rel~.ef. ******:r*~~~~ CONTACT: Douglas Bruce Box 25018 Colo. Spgs. CO 80936 (719} 550-0010 J Text of Amendment 1-Taxpayer's Bill of Rights (Bruce) Be it Enacted by the People of the State of Colorado: Article X, Section ZO The Taxpayer's B1II of Rights. (1) General p... ~ ;dons. This section takes effect Decanter 31. 1992 or as stated. Its preferred interpretation shall reasonably re...o:.. most the growth of govemme:tt All provisions are self~:tecuting anti severable and sttpasede conflicting state consdtudonaL state statutory. charter. or other state or local provisions. Other limits on district revenue, spending. and debt may be weakened only by future voter y.r....~aL Individual or class action enf .......ant suits may be filed and shall Nava the highest civil priority of resolution. Successful plaintiffs are allowed costa and zeasanable attorney fees. but a district is not unless a suit against it be ruled frivolous. Revenue collected, kept, or spent t7legally since four full fiscal years before s suit is filed shall be refunded with 109o annual simple interest from the initial conduct Subject w judicial review, districts may use any reasonable method for refunds under this section. including t_..r...:.ry tax credits or rate reductions. Refunds need not be r...r..-..anal when prior payments are impractical to identify or return. When armual district revenue is less than amtual payments on general obligation bonds. pensions, and final court judgments, (4) (a) and (7) shall be suspended to provide for the deficiency, (Z) Term defhrltlons. Within this section: (a) "Ballot issue" means anon-recall petition or referred measure in as election. (b) "District" means the state or arty local government, excluding enterprises. (c) "Emergency" excludes economic conditions, revenue shortfalls, or district salary or fringe benefit increases. (d) "Enterprise" means a government-owned business authorized m issue its own ravrnue bonds and receiving under 1090 of annual revenue in grants from all Colorado state and local governments combated. (e) "Fiscal year spending" means all district expenditures and reserve increases except, as to boo's, those for refunds taade in the current or nett fiscal year or those from gifts. federal funds. collections for another govcrunar, :pension cottnibutions by employees and pension fund earnings. reserve transfers or expenditures. damage awards. or property sales. • (f) "Inflation" means the percentage change in the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Price Index for Denier-Boulder. all items. all urban consumers. err its successor index. (g) "Local growth" for anon-school district means a net percentage change in actual value of all real r...r....~ in a district from construction of taxable real pr.,r w.~ i...r.., cements. minus destruction of similar i...r... ~emalts, and additions to, minus deletions from, taxable real property. For a school district. it means the percentage change in its student enrollment (3) Election provisions. (a) Ballot issues shall be decided in a state general election. biennial local district election. or oa the fast Tuesday in November of odd-numbered years. Except for petitions, bonded debt, or charter or cattsdtutional provisions. districts may consolidate ballot issues and voters may :.rr...ve a delay of up to four years ai voting on ballot issues. District actions taken during such a delay shall not extend beyond that period. (b) 15-ZS days before a ballot issue election, districts shall mail at the least cost, and as a package where districts with ballot issues overl.:r. a dtle3 nca: a oz set of notices ad~aessad re "wii Registetsd Vatera" at each address of ono or morn active registered el.,....,.,,. Titles shall have this order of preference: "NOTICE OF ELECTION TO INCREASE TAXES/TO INCREASE DEBTION A u i i/ r i f Pn t 1 i iaN/ON A REFERRED MEASURE." Except for district voter-..rr.., red additions. notices shall include only: (i) The election date, hours, ballot title, tent and local election office address and telephone number. (ii) For r.,.r,.sed district tax or bonded debt increases, the estimated of actual total of district fiscal year spending for the ctarent year and each of the past four years, and the overall percentage and dollar change. (iii) For the fiat full fiscal year of each r...r..sed district tax increase. district estimates of the maximum dollar amount of each increase and of district fiscal year spending without the increase. (iv) Far r..,r..sed district bonded debt. its principal amount and maximum acmual and total district repayment cosh and the principal balance of total current district bonded debt and iu maximum annual and remaining total district repayment wst (v) Two summaries. up to 500 words each, one for and one against the r..,r,Nal, of writtrn...,,,...,atts filed with the election officer by 30 days before the election. No summary shall mention names of persons or private groups, nor airy endorsements of err resolutions against the Y...r,.saL Petition representatives following these rules shall write this summary for their petition. The election officer shall maintain and accurately sunustarize all other relevant writIen comments. (c) Except by later voter aYr..,:al, if a tax increase or fiscal year spending exceeds any estimate in (b) (iii) for the same fiscal year, the tax increase is thereafter reduced up to 1009a in pr.,~.....:on to the combined dollar excess, and the wmbined excess revenue refunded in the next fiscal year. District bonded debt shall not issue on terms that could exceed its share of its maximum i' t ~ a repayment costa in (b) (iv). Ballot titles for tax or bonded debt increases shaII begin. "SHALL (DISTRICT) TAXES BE INCREASED (fast, or if phased m, final, full fiscal year dollar increase) ANNUALLY.»?" or "SHALL (DISTRICT) DEBT BE INCREASED (pratcipal amount). WITH A REPAYMENT COST OF (maximum total district cost)...?" (4) Required electiotu. 5;.:...:..g November 4, 1992. districu must have voter ~:.rr_. ~ el is advance for (a) Unless (1) or (6) . applies, any new tax, tax sate iaaease, mill levy above that fot the prior year. vahtadaa for asaessmeat ratio iaezease for a r--r - ~ , class. or ezteasion of as ezpiriag tax. or a tax policy change directly causing a net tax rtweaue gain to any district (b) Except fror refinancing district bonded debt at a lower iateresc rate or adding new employees to existing district pension plans, creation of airy multiple-fiscal year di..» or :..,i:.... district debt or other financial obligation whatsoever without adegaate . present cash reserves pledged irrevocably and held far payments is all future fiscal years. (S) Emergency reserves. To use for declared emergencies only. euh district shall reserve for 1993 196 oz more, for 1994 290 or more, and for all later years 396 oz more of its fiscal year spending excluding bonded debt service. Umtsed reserves apply to the next year's reserve. Emergency taxes. This subsection grams no new taxing power. Emergeery property razes are prohibited. Emergency tax revenue is excluded for r,.. r.,ses of (3) (c) earl ('n. even if later ratified by voters. Emesgenry taxes shall also meet all of the following conditions (a) A Z/3 majority of the members of each house of the general assembly or of a local district board declares . the emergenry and imposes the tax by s:.r.r..~.t.......3ed roll call votes. (b) Emergenry tax revenue shall be spear only after emergency reserves are depleted, and shall be refunded witltirt 180 days after the emergency earls if not spent on the emergency. (c) A tax not ~,r...ved on the next election date 60 days or more after the declaration shall end with that election month. Spending limits. (a) The maximum atmual percentage change in stare fiscal year speeding equals intlation plus the percentage change is state population is the prior calendar year. adjusted for revenue changes ~.r.,, red by voters after 1991. Population shall be determined by annual federal census estimates and such number shall be adjusted every decade to match the federal census. (b) The maximum armual percentage change in each local district's fiscal year spending equals inflation in the prior calendar year plus aamtal local growth, adjusted for revenue changes ..,.r-., red by voters after 1991 and (8) (b) and (9) reductions: (c) The maximum anmtal percentage change in each district's property tax revenue equals inflation in the prior calendar year plus attmtal local growth, adjacted for property tax revenue changes arr.,.~ed by voters after 1991 and (8) (b) and (9) reductions. (d) If revenue from sources not excluded from fiscal year spending exceeds these limits in dollars for that fiscal year, the excess shall be refunded in the neu fiscal year unless voters ..r.,,.,, re a revenue change as as offset Initial district bases are ctarertt fiscal year spending and 1991 r...r».~ tax collected is 1992 Qualification m disqualification as an enterprise shall change district bases and future year limits. Future creation of district bonded debt shall increase. and retiring or refinattciag district bonded debt shall lower. fiscal year speeding and r...r tax revenue by the annual debt service so funded. Debt service changes, reductions. (1) and (3) (c) refunds, and voter-urr- ~ red revenue changes are dollar amounts that are exceptions to, sad not part of, any district base. Voter-~.=,r.., red revenue changes do not require a tax rate change. (8) Revenue limits. (a) New or increased transfer tax rates oe real r...r_.~ are prohibited. No new state real r..,r._.~ tax or local district income tax shall be imposed. Neither as income tax rate increase nor a new state definition of taxable income shall apply before the neu tax year. Arty i.........e tax law change after July 1, 1992 shall also require all taxable nos income m be taxed ` atone rate, excluding refiutd tax credits or voter-ter,..... ed tax credits. with no added tax or surcharge. (b) Each district may enact cumulative uniform ez....r.:ons and credits to reduce or end business personal r...r-.~ taxes. (c) Regardless of reassessment frequeary, valuation notices shall be mailed armually and may be appealed annually, with no presumption in favor of say pendiztg valuation. Past or future sales by a lender or goveauttent shall also be considered as comparable market sales and their sales prices kept as public .......ds. Actual value shall be stated on all r...r...~ tax bills and valuation notices and, for residential real r...r _.1, determined solely by the market :.:.r...ach to appraisal (9) State mandates. Except for public education through grade 12 or as tequircd of a local district by federal law, a local district may reduce or earl its subsidy to any program delegated to it by the general assembly for administration. For ctnitrtt programs, the state tray require 90 days notice and that the adjusanent ocaa in a maximum of tluee equal armual installments. Received by Secretary of State, May 8,1991. Retyped from the original by Legislative Council sta,~};1une 23,1992 and by CML July ?9.1992. f t -~~~7 arc ` ' ',f.t: ~prJ~-~ . 1 t, ~ - r~ C y Z L ~ ~ V4 = ~s 7 , ~ ~ s '~'~v y .,F.Y ~ ? ,I~a~ . S ~ `~,s ~ IR 11 I z ~ i ~ . ~ ' t' l 4 ~ ~ ~ 1-y .r. f 1 R. 1 C 3~f• - a ~ y 7. w. ~r'} ~ . ,5 '~,i~±t _ s s,~ :y ~ _ a . ~ 2rA i+ ~`F Winter of Discontent ~ 1 Facinga I ~ f~ J ~ moral • ~ ^ ~ 3~; ~ dilemma: i Johnson, A boycott over gay rights threatens the ~ ~ • w white, s~® . ~ Nicholson, Colorado holidays of the rich and famous °a: Hamilton on the slopes; ; ~ Hawn oo bad: it was shaping up to be a great gay rights, although it is fair to ~ v a;~; ~ ' ` parties with season in Aspen, for those who call it wonder if they actually ski. ~ Ku~'t their second home. The weather was Barbra Streisand, who helped ~ ' ~ ~ ~ Russell great, and even if the weather turned lousy kick off talk of a boycott in a there were the holiday parties ahead, and speech last month, issued a _ _...'t=;,"r' even if the parties ended up being not so hot statement supporting it, while ...well, you'd still be rich, or you wouldn't acknowledging that "innocent people man of Aspen's Gay and Lesbian Commu- even be there. Everything was fine until may suffer." Among the self-proclaimed nity, said that "to stay away is to give in to gay activists in Los Angeles sufferers: billionaire Marvin Colorado for Family Values," the group called for a boycott of Colorado Davis, a powerful Hollywood that pushed the initiative. "They want us in reprisal for the state's nar- F ~ ` figure and part owner of the all to leave Colorado." Gay Ski Week, an row vote in favor of an amend- ' ' _ Aspen Skiing Co. Davis's ef- annual tradition that last year brought in ' ment that would overturn local forts to line up celebrities about 2,500 visitors, will go on in Aspen ~ • gay-rights laws. This posed ~ against the boycott met with next month as scheduled: what passes for a moral dilem- ~l, ~ ` success last week from Robert For some celebrities, of course, the issue ~ ma in the lives of people like ' Wagner, Cher and others. is simple. Martina Navratilova, who is gay, ~ ~ ~ r Canceled plans: Coloradans said she will leave the state if the vote isn't ' Don Johnson, Vanna White, r. ;i Jack Nicholson, George Hamil- ~ may or may notbe moved by the reversed; Barry Diller, former chairman of ton and Goldie Hawn: whether , y ~ # threat of never seeing Joan Riv- Fox, said he had no trouble deciding where • to spend Christmas on the _ ` ~ - ers in snow pants again. But to vacation this winter: "I have a house in I slopes of Aspen, or go to Tahoe No ski• Streisand ~ they were taking seriously the Utah." But many others face a difficult i ~ or Jackson Hole instead. actions of less glamorous bod- choice; Aspen, after all, is one of their j This great issue found most ies, such as the National Coun- homes, with all that implies: tradition, r,: of Hollywood squarely wishing it would go cil for Social Studies, which canceled plans friends, real-estate investments. The boy- away. The Los Angeles chapter of the Gay to meet in Denver in 1994. This could cost Cott, whether it succeeds or fails, will make ; and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation the state some $4 million, more than Don no one happy, except, perhaps, one Hunter wrote to more than 250 industry leaders on Johnson spends in restaurants in a whole S. Thompson of nearby Woody Creek. Nov. 25, asking them to support the boy- year. Several other large conventions were "These are the very people who shouldn't Cott. The group had received only 10 favor- also considering moves. Denver Mayor come here," says the famous writer-cur= ; able replies by last week-seven from Wellington Webb led atalk-show blitz mudgeon. " I don't go into Aspen. But I will lawyers and producers, plus Whoopi Gold- against the boycott, pointing out that both more if celebrities boycott." berg, Joan Rivers and director Jonathan his city and Aspen had a long record of JERRY ADLER (ULtIt SHERRY KEEYE-OSBORN ;l Demme. Obviously these three care about tolerance for gays. And Terry White, chair- in Deaver and D o N N A F o o T E in Los Angers TURIAR--GAMMA~LIAISON, JOHN BARRE7T-G[pBE PHOTOS, TURL-1K. PHOTOGRAPHERS ASPEN, TURIAK ' VEWSWEEK :DECEMBER 1-~, 1992 45 ~j 1. ' . • . ~ .~'0k,q~ rt.. .y~ K ~ I a,t~ ~I kVa ~ l ' Cyr 1#iiF., 1* 4 ~ f \ ~ f 1 ?''L ; ~ ~ 'R' d 1 ~ ' ..iS,.~ya ^RFa~ '"I $ .:y h'-~ V r-.•,~ sue,, t ' ~ tI 5~ ~ ` ~y1 ~ L ~ :ice ¦ ¦ I 1 C ',f'y~ i, Facing a Winter of Discontent ~ ~ ~r, , ~ f moral # ° dilemma: :~1 ~ `y Johnson, ; A boycott over gay rights threatens the ~ White, Colorado holidays of the rich and famous ~ ` fir'., ~ ~ Nicholson, ' . ~ J Hamilton on the slopes; Hawn j 0o bad: it was shaping up to be a great gay rights, although it is fair to ~ ~ ! parties with season in Aspen, for those who call it wonder if they actually ski. _ ~ ~ ,,f " ' Kurt Ttheir second home. The weather was Barbra Streisand, who helped ~ ~ " ~ t ~ ° Russell great, and even if the weather turned lousy kick off talk of a boycott in a > = ~ there were the holiday parties ahead, and speech last month, issued a - even ifthe parties ended up being not so hot statement supporting it, while ...well, you'd still be rich, or you wouldn't acknowledging that "innocent people man of Aspen's Gay and Lesbian Commu- even be there. Everything was fine until may suffer," Among the self-proclaimed pity, said that "to stay away is to give in to j gay activists in Los Angeles sufferers: billionaire Marvin Colorado for Family Values," the group called for a boycott of Colorado Davis, a powerful Hollywood that pushed the initiative. "They want us ' in reprisal for the state's nar- figure and part owner of the all to leave Colorado." Gay Ski Week, an I row vote in favor of an amend- ti~ ` Aspen Skiing Co. Davis's ef- annual tradition that last year brought in ' went that would overturn local } forts to line up celebrities about 2,500 visitors, will go on in Aspen gay-rights laws. This posed _ against the boycott met with next month as scheduled: what passes for a moral dilem- success last week from Robert For some celebrities, of course, the issue ma in the lives of people like ~ - Wagner, Cher and others. is simple. Martina Navratilova, who is gay, ~ ~ i Don Johnson, Vanna White, ~ a+' Canceled plans: Coloradans said she will leave the state if the vote isn't ~ I Jack Nicholson, George Hamil- ~ may or may not be moved by the reversed; Barry Diller, former chairman of C ton and Goldie Hawn: whether r,' threat of never seeing Joan Riv- Fox, said he had no trouble deciding where • to spend Christmas on the =l` ers in snow pants again. $ut to vacation this winter: "I have a house in ' y slopes of Aspen, or go to Tahoe LoNDOx FEATOBFS they were taking seriously the Utah." But many others face a difficult i No ski: Streisand ° Aspen, after all or Jackson Hole instead. actions of less glamorous bod- choice, , is one of their ~ This great issue found most ies, such as the National Coun- homes, with all that implies: tradition, ~ of Hollywood squarely wishing it would go cil for Social Studies, which canceled plans friends, real-estate investments. The boy- away. The Los Angeles chapter of the Gay to meet in Denver in 1994. This could cost cott, whether it succeeds or fails, will make and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation the state some $4 million, more than Don no one happy, except, perhaps, one Hunter wrote to more than 250 industry leaders on Johnson spends in restaurants in a whole S. Thompson of nearby Woody Creek. Nov. 25, asking them to support the boy- year. Several other large conventions were "These are the very people who shouldn't ~ cott. The group had received only 10 favor- also considering moves. Denver Mayor come here," says the famous writer-cur- ~ able replies by last week-seven from Wellington Webb led atalk-show blitz mudgeon. "I don't go into Aspen. But I will . - lawyers and producers, plus Whoopi Gold- against the boycott, pointing out that both more if celebrities boycott." j berg, Joan Rivers and director Jonathan his city and Aspen had a long record of JERRY ADLER Wllll SHERRY KEENE-oSBORN I Demme. Obviously these three care about tolerance for gays. And Terry White, chair- in Denaer and D o x N A i• o o TE Los Angeles , TUR(AK-GAMMA-LIAISON. JOHN B.4RRETT-G(.OBE PHOTOS, TURGIK. PHOTO('RAPHER9 ASPEN, TU1tG1IS NEWSWEEK : DECEMBER i~, 1992 45 , ,.,~~L~, ar'.. . • l EhC~.rlk.~t~~" i _ • { ~ x ~ 6 / 0 W 2 m • ± o ora a s ee reeze w ^I A star sparks a boycott to protest the state's antigay amendment, but Aspen's glitterati can't bear to give up their holiday hot spot Standby Your '-i By RICHARD CORLISS ited bias in jobs or housing based on sexu- nuns, said it may move its 1993 meeting { al orientation. Says Robert Bray of the Na- out of Colorado because of Amendment 2. i OME ALONE ON CHRISTMAS? NoT tional Gay & Lesbian Task Force: "Colo- Could it be that, in support of civil j Hollywood's swank set: Arnold rado is thus the first state in U.S. history rights for gay Americans, Tinseltown's lib- `j and Cher, Rupert Murdoch and to sanction discrimination against gays." erals lack the Sisters' guts? Whoopi Gold- Marvin Davis and other star Two weeks after the vote, Barbra Strei- berg and director Jonathan Demme are lights atop the Hollywood power tree. sand raised the boycott banner: "We must among the handful of movie shakers to an- . They're usually skiing or schmoozing in now say clearly that the moral climate in pounce support for the boycott, and a few s~ Aspen, the Rocky Mountain town that is Colorado is no longer acceptable, and if producers have scratched plans to shoot ~ the glitterati's Gstaad. This Christmas, we're asked to, we must refuse to play films on location in the state. But most Hol- _ f though, the slopes may be a bit less con- where they discriminate." Later, she said lywood-Aspen celebs are mum on the sub- Bested. And some of the entertainment she would respect the decision-to boycott ject; shhh! has replaced schuss. Politicized i elite who winter at Colorado resorts may or not-of "the people living in Colorado, performers, who during the South African notice the soot of a guilty conscience tar- whom this most deeply affects." boycott easily refused to play Sun City, find • nishing their white Bogner ski togs. Some groups have already decided. it tougher to say they ain't gonna ski in American ski spots are not often politi- The National Council for Social Studies, snowtown. Well, most of them didn't have cal hot spots. But on Nov. 3, by a 54%-to- the American Association of Law Librar- Sun City gigs, but a lot have condos in As- 46Wo vote, Coloradans approved Amend- ies, the National Education Association pen. As often happens, property triumphs j ~ ment 2, which mandated "no protected and the Coalition of Labor Union Women over principle and convenience over con- status based on homosexual, lesbian or bi- have either canceled or ceased negotia- science. In addition, the industry still cow- ; sexual orientation." The vote voided laws lions for conventions in Colorado. Even ers before America's perceived antipathy in Aspen, Denver and Boulder that prohib- the Sisters of Loretto, an order of Catholic to gays. Though Hollywood's gay commu- i 1:~ j , 1 I y Il . . , , , , . _ , ~i~ 4 ' ~ "f:; . - • . I., n ~ ~ t Canon we never. seem to leave well enough alone. 1t the,heart of these extraordinary copter"~"s Is_-oiu li a, 4 r z _ III * r We're always: searching to bring you: something better. newest, smallest, magic ef~icnent PC Milt Cartn~~t~ver; ' . ~ ~"Like our revolutionary, new Canon PC®300 series personal -that's the exclusive, single camidge unit that~~s . copiers =the smallest, lightest, most advanced personal Canon personal copiers virtually mafntenancee F In rr ~ ; c~plers ever dessed ~ addition our new copiers requite:no warm-up~tnme Canon U.S.c1., Lnc., Home Office Produtts Division, One Canon Plaza, Lake Success, tit' 11P1?. PC is a Regisrere Trademar o Canon, Inc. ®1992 Canon c• . 3 I i i "z i _ _ ~ F II, ~ o ~ a a r < Il rights history. "When some of us were ? Z ' " ~ ~ trying to desegregate the South," he told n' Arsenio Hall last week, "we went south. We ; , ~ didn't boycott the South." Different battles may require different ' t ~ strategies. "The radical right is targeting r 35 states in the next two years for initia- - F. t y: k.v ~ ~ ti<•es like Colorado's," says Sue Anderson, _ ' r ' ~ executive director of Denver's Gay and Les- Town: R.J. and Jill, Don, Martina, Andy and Chris, and Jack will boycott the boycott bian Community Center. Oregon's heinous Measure 9, which declared homosexuality a j. N "as a show of support for the people of that "abnormal, wrong, unnatural and per- , o community, which overwhelmingly de- verse," lost on Election Day, though it was ? ;1 ~ - feated Amendment 2." Don Johnson and supported by 43% of the electorate-the Melanie Griffith, significant contributors same percentage that voted natiomvide for " ~ " to aros groups, say they are troubled by the Bill Clinton. Antigay activists will try again, f vote but have no plans to move. Other fun says Anderson, "and use Colorado's word- 1,i ~ couples-Robert Wagner and Jill St. John, ing, because it worked." I , r~ Chris Evert and Andy Mill-are expected But boycotting works too. Arizona lost to be on view, somewhere between the an estimated $500 million in business in chateaus and the inevitable pickets. the hvo years after it defeated a motion to ' As in any good drama, ambiguities declare Martin Luther King Jr.'s birthday a "We must refuse to la abound. Should out-of-staters~ake their ski state holiday. The voters finally decided Y y dollars to antiabortion Utah. Should the that an extra day off was preferable to per- where they discriminate, ~ voters of Denver, Boulder and Aspen, most manent blacklisting. A successful boycott -BARBRA STREISAND of whom opposed the amendment, suffer of Colorado would send a muscular mes- forthe attitudes of their neighbors? Tennis sage to other states considering such an nity is large and powerful, homosexuality ace Martina Navratilova, the resort's most initiative: Don't. "Sanctioning discrimina- isstill the love that dare not speak its name. famous bisexual, supports a lawsuit tion,"says Anderson, "is bad for business." Hollywood is still Closetland. against Amendment 2 but argues that a Does it really matter, then, if a boycott is And Aspen is still, for many of the rich- boycott would hurt local ga}-s as much as also bad for the pleasure of Hollywood ly famous, the place to be. Jack Nicholson the bigot brigade. Wellington Webb, Den- royalty? -Reported 6ySauy6. Donnelly/ will be there this winter, says his agent, ver's first black mayor, finds analogy In ClV- Los Angeles andJoni H. Blackman/Denver ,E , I a s, _ ti ~:1' ~ ,x, r _ _ {r~ ~ . ~ya _ _ ~?y. - ~a~~ 2Y r CC~~ j',~ 'e~ ! S ~ ! ~ ` T "fir, ~ ~ f ~ - ~ l; ' i 1', u ~ ~ ~ ii }•tch Should saveyoa considerable time and a~~;ravationl Caff 1-800-X321-H(JP for more un.the Canon P~~, E d can~even turn themselves oti'-:when you forgzt tu. ~ 300~series.rlnd discover thr~~~more re~ason~ ~tih},~,Cinpn' r Select our basic PC 310,c~pier or one of our convenient; -personal copiers am number one'.' ~ ~ ~ 1 ' t 1« ` tomatic feed models=the PC 330, or the PC ~30L ~ r F 'ch can copy up to legal-size documenu. Y~ 4 . . ti.: f ~ 1, f 2 _ . - v _ _ _ _ _ _ . jQ 1CC ~ C~tttc~c,~ . B 'ice: . . C UNITED AIRLINES # cordially invites you to the inauguration of service on Thursday, December 17, 1992 from _ 4PM to 6PM. ~ Cocktails and hors d'oeuvres will be served. ~ f Eagle-Vail Jet Center 0215 Eldon-Wilson Rd, Eagle Co. ~~__-I . , 865ZS-Z£Z8-TL6 ~ i _.I Ur111'ED AIRLir1E5 F - - 1 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 C~D~D.:~Dy~~+i~c LEO VASQUEZ JOHN GALLEGOS JOE KOCHERA PAM BRANDMEYER KRISTIN PRITZ CHARLIE OVEREND LARRY ESKWITH PETE BURNETT TODD OPPENHEIMER KEN HUGHEY JODY DOSTER MANUEL MEDINA FILE MEMORANDUM T0: RON PHILLIPS, TOWN MANAGER FROM: LARRY GRAFEL, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/TRANSPORTATION DATE: DECEMBER 7, 1992 ' RE: PUBLIC WORKS PRIORITY LIST FOR THE WEEK OF DECEMBER 7 - 11, 1992 STREETS AND ROADS A. 1. Trouble shoot Xmas lights at Covered Bridge, Library tree Lionshead and 4-Way. 2. Decorate street light poles throughout Town. 3. Fabricate 20 "Not Maintained in Winter" signs and install. 4. Return hi-lift to E-Z Way in Eagle. 5. Paint sculpture in south west corner of LHTRC. 6. Prepare area to park and plug in engine heaters for backhoes, Kenworth and Freightliner. 7. Clean bridges and prepare for removal by purchaser. 8. Prepare trailer for Xmas tree lighting. 9. Jim H. and Charlie 0. to conduct interviews for Heavy Equipment Operator I position 12/7. 10. Mandatory safety meeting Wednesday, 12/9 at 12:30 pm in Town 5hop's lunchroom. PARKING STRUCTURE/TRANSPORTATION A. 1. Install Xmas lights and garland at structures. 2. Improve handicap signage at structures. 3. Install ventilation to toll booths. 4. Install door closer at Community Development. 5. Repair and assemble shelves for Library. CARPENTERS A. 1. Construct bulletin boards. 2. Assist with Xmas decorating. 3. Construct shelves for Finance and Municipal Court. M, s PUBLIC WORKS PRIORITY LIST Page 2 ELECTRICIANS A. 1. Run conduit for fire detector for storage facility at VTRC. 2. Prewire monitoring devices for Bus Dept. at VTRC. 3. Install smoke detector and lights at Ski Museum Storage. 4. Repair leaning street light pole at Municipal Bldg. 5. Continue Xmas light installation. 6. Repair various light outages. 7. Install disconnect at cinder bin. 8. Prep stage lighting and receptacles. 9. Investigate spare circuit for Covered Bridge. PARKS DEPARTMENT A. 1. Schedule removal of dead tree at Library entrance. 2. Draw up plans for Fleet Maintenance Restrooms. 3. Begin work on tree brochure (Coalition Tree, Coalition Grant) . 4. Finalize 1993 flower order, contact suppliers. 5. Complete planting plan for Dowd Junction Recreation Path. LG/dr December 11, 1992 WORK SESSION FOLLOW-UP Page 1 of 3 TOPIC. QUESTIONS FOLLOW-UP SOLUTIONS 1991 11/19 NEWSPAPER VENDING LARRY E./ANDY/MIKE M.: What can be done to make Locations for the newspaper boxes have been MACHINES these uniform and locations less prolific? determined and approved by all TOV departments. Staff will talk to Larry E. to determine if voluntary agreements or an ordinance outlining locations are appropriate. Working on wrap-up by early winter 1993. 1992 02/17 EXTERIOR LIGHTING KRISTAN/ANDY: Draft ordinance. Consultant is doing research on more lighting concerns. An evening meeting site visit has been scheduled for 12!15/92. 08/25 FOLLOW-UP PEG/PAMlLARRY G.: Mr. Shrader has called to find out Additionally, as requested at the 9!9/92 Speak Up WITH BUCK SHRADER (CDOT)/ whether there has been improvement on the maintenanc meeting, Larry will request extending the 45 mph truck JAKE BRAKES/SPEED for the west side of the bike pathNail Pass. Although speed limit past the East Vail interchange. We will LIMITS ON VAIL PASS CDOT has stepped up efforts to clean and maintain, their try to set up a meeting with affected property owners, efforts have not been consistent, and this was state patrol, CDOT, etc. We will include in our communicated by Pam. communication a request for flash guards at the Bald Mountain Rd.ll-70 overpass, as well as a thank-you for cinders choice on 1-70. 09/08 1041 PLAN LARRY E.: Barbara Green has asked whether the Town Larry E. has spoken to Barbara Green, who feels there (request: Steinberg) of Vail has a 1041 Plan. could be a benefit to the Town. Therefore, Larry E. is collecting additional information and will draft an ordinance. Schedule for further discussion at work session on 1112/93. 09115 PAUL'S FLAG POLE LARRY G./KRISTAN/CAROLINEIRON: Whatever becam Staff will review former pole placement and (request: Lapin) of the flag pole that was to be erected outside VRA present recommendation. offices honoring Paul Johnston? WORK SESSION FOLLOW-UP December 11, 1992 ` Page 2 of 3, TOPIC. QUESTIONS FOLLOW-UP SOLUTIONS 09/15 LIMITATION OF TERMS LARRY E.: Draft ordinance limiting appointed TOV board Scheduled for first reading at evening meeting FOR BOARD APPOINTMENTS to 8 consecutive years. 12115/92, adding eligibility requirement after 1 term of (request: Shearer) off the board (i.e., 2 years off.) 09!22 SPEAK UP MEETINGS PEGIRONJCAROLINEJBRUCE CHAPMAN/PAM: Meet to Will do. discuss some proposed changes to the Speak Up Meetin series, i.e., format, acquisition of debatable topics, presentation to annual condominium association annual meetings, speakers from "like" impacted communities (Carmel-by-the-Sea, etc.) 10!27 ELEVATOR INSPECTION LARRY E./GARY M./KRISTAN/DICK: Tom Steinberg NWCCOG is getting together the contract, at which PROGRAM brought in proposed resolution to adopt legislation time it will be presented at a January'93 work session. (request: Steinberg) for the elevator inspection program. 11/03 UNPLATTED LANDS AS KRISTAN/MIKE MOLLICA: Have we followed up with Will do. DONATIONS contacting owners of parcels that may be given to (request: Steinberg) TOV as gifts -understanding we are still moving through the LOA process. 11/10 COUNTY REGIONAL COUNCIURON: November and December meetings hav MEETINGS been canceled. January meeting tentatively scheduled for Wednesday, 1/20/93, at 5:15 P.M., TOV Council Chambers. Between now and this meeting, staff will work with "host" entity on setting agenda, assuring attendance, etc. 11/20 CANCEL COUNCIL EVERYONE: Work session for December 29 has been WORKS SESSIONS/ canceled. A Special Evenina Meetinq on 12!22 has DECEMBER '92 been set for presentation of Chuck Anderson Youth Awards only. . WORK SESSION FOLLOW-UP December 11, 1992 Page 3 of 3 TOPIC QUESTIONS FOLLOW-UP SOLUTIONS 12!06 INTERNATIONAL LARRY G.: Based on Council's decision to remove the BRIDGE SNOW footbridge, it is imperative that snow be completely REMOVAL removed from the International Bridge, in order to allow both pedestrian and vehicular traffic. 12!06 URD CONTRACT STEVE B.: Peggy will call Ken Wilson to indicate ANALYSIS Council cannot begin negotiations until the first of February. Prepare analysis of contract for Council review. VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR EVENING MEt I ING TUESDAY, DECEMBER 15, 1992 7:30 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS AGENDA 1. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION. 2. Discussion Re: Proposed Town of Vail Cemetery Management Plan and Conceptual Design. 3. PUBLIC HEARING: Ordinance No. 31, Series of 1992, second reading, an ordinance accepting certain improvements constructed and installed in and for Booth Creek Local Improvement District, determining the total cost thereof, receiving and accepting the assessment roll apportioning the cost thereof to be paid by special assessments among affected parcels within the District, assessing the cost as apportioned therein against each assessable parcel within the District especially benefitted by the improvements, prescribing the method of paying and collecting the assessments, describing the lien securing payment thereof, making necessary findings with respect to the satisfaction of all conditions and requirements relating to the foregoing, and limiting actions challenging the proceedings. 4. Ordinance No. 32, Series of 1992, second reading, an ordinance making supplemental appropriations from the Town of Vail General Fund, Capital Projects Fund, Vail Marketing Fund, The Real Estate Transfer Tax Fund, Police Confiscation Fund, LionsHead Mall Project Fund, Conservation Trust Fund, LionsHead Mall Debt Service Fund, Booth Creek Debt Service and Construction Fund, Heavy Equipment Fund, Town of Vail Debt Service - Fund, West Vail Debt Service Fund, and Police Building Construction Fund of the 1992 Budget and the Financial Plan for the Town of Vail, Colorado; and authorizing the expenditures of said appropriations as set forth herein; establishing a reserve fund balance of $5,740,000; creating an emergency reserve of $550,000; and setting forth details in regard thereto. 5. Ordinance No. 30, Series of 1992, first reading, an ordinance amending Title 2 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail by the addition of Chapter 2.36 -Limitation of Terms, to provide for the limitation of terms for all members of permanent Town of Vail Boards and Commissions. 6. Ordinance No. 33, Series of 1992, first reading, an ordinance repealing and reenacting Chapter 18.32 of the Vail Municipal Code, adding sledding and tobogganning parks as a conditional use. Applicant: Vail Associates, Inc. 7. Ordinance No. 34, Series of 1992, first reading, an ordinance repealing Section 11 of Ordinance No. 14, Series of 1987, Subsection 9, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (This ordinance concerns a major amendment to SDD #6, Vail Village Inn, to remove a previous condition of approval for Unit No. 30, Phase t, Vail Village Plaza Condominiums/100 East Meadow Drive.) Applicant: BSC of Vail, Colorado, L.P./Frank Cicero. f 8. Adjournment. 1 THERE WILL BE A SPECIAL TOWN COUNCIL EVENING MEETING ON TUESDAY, 12/22/92, BEGINNING AT 7:30 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS. AGENDA: PRESENTATION OF THE CHUCK ANDERSON YOUTH AWARDS. THERE WILL BE NO VAIL TOWN COUNCIL WORK SESSIONS ON 12!22/92 OR 12/29/92. THE NEXT VAIL TOWN COUNCIL OVERVIEW WORK SESSION WILL BE ON TUESDAY, 1/5193, BEGINNING AT 6:30 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS. THE NEXT VAIL TOWN COUNCIL EVENING MEETING WILL BE ON TUESDAY, 1/5/93, BEGINNING AT 7:30 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS. C'WGENDA.TC 2 t y VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR EVENING MErc I ING TUESDAY, DECEMBER 15, 1992 7:30 P.M. IN TOY COUNCIL CHAMBERS EXPANDED AGENDA 7:30 P.M. 1. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION. 7:35 P.M. 2. Discussion re: Proposed Town of Vail Cemetery management plan Andy Knudtsen and conceptual design. Action Requested of Council: Review the recommendations made by the Cemetery Task Force, discuss the management options, and the conceptual design. Give direction to staff and consultants as to how to proceed. Background Rationale: The Town's cemetery consultants have been working on a conceptual design and recommendation regarding management structure. These have been presented to the Task Force, the Vail Religious Foundation, and the neighbors at an on-site meeting. Before proceeding, the consultants need a show of support from Council for the work that has been done to date. At this time, all groups who have reviewed the information support the management structure being the Minturn Cemetery District. Concerning the design, most everyone involved supports the concept. Staff Recommendation: Support the recommendations made by the Cemetery Task Force to have the cemetery managed by the Minturn Cemetery District and to approve the conceptual design. 8:50 P.M. 3. PUBLIC HEARING: Steve Thompson Ordinance No. 31, Series of 1992, second reading, an Larry Eskwith ordinance accepting certain improvements constructed and Larry Grafel installed in and for Booth Creek Local Improvement District, Greg Halt determining the total cost thereof, receiving and accepting the assessment roll apportioning the cost thereof to be paid by special assessments among affected parcels within the District, assessing the cost as apportioned therein against each assessable parcel within the District especially benefitted by the improvements, prescribing the method of paying and collecting the assessments, describing the lien securing payment thereof, making necessary findings with respect to the satisfaction of all conditions and requirements relating to the foregoing, and limiting actions challenging the proceedings. Steve Thompson 4. Ordinance No. 32, Series of 1992, second reading, an ordinance making supplemental appropriations from the Town of Vail General f Fund, Capital Projects Fund, Vail Marketing Fund, The Real Estate Transfer Tax Fund, Police Confiscation Fund, LionsHead Mall Project Fund, Conservation Trust Fund, LionsHead Mall Debt Service Fund, Booth Creek Debt Service and Construction Fund, Heavy Equipment Fund, Town of Vail Debt Service Fund, West Vail 1 - ~ . s Debt Service Fund, and Police Building Construction Fund of the 1992 Budget and the Financial Plan for the Town of Vail, Colorado; and authorizing the expenditures of said appropriations as set forth herein; establishing a reserve fund balance of $5,740,000; creating an emergency reserve of $550,000; and setting forth details in . regard thereto. 10:00 P.M. 5. Ordinance No. 30, Series of 1992, first reading, an ordinance Lany Eskwith amending Title 2 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail by the addition of Chapter 2.36 -Limitation of Terms, to provide for the limitation of terms for all members of permanent Town of Vail Boards and Commissions. Action Requested of Council: Approve/deny/modify Ordinance No. 30, Series of 1992, on first reading. Background Rationale: Council directed staff to prepare an ordinance for their consideration which limited permanent Board and Commission members to 8 consecutive years of service. This is the same limitation the Charter places on Council terms. 10:10 P.M. 6. Ordinance No. 33, Series of 1992, first reading, an ordinance Jim Curnutte repealing and reenacting Chapter 18.32 of the Vail Municipal Code, Joe Macy, adding sledding and tobogganning parks as a conditional use. Vail Associates, Inc. Applicant: Vail Associates, Inc. Action Requested of Council: Approve/deny/modify Ordinance No. 33, Series of 1992, on first reading. Background Rationale: Vail Associates, Inc. (VA) would like Chapter 18.32.030 of the Vail Municipal Code amended in order to add "sledding and tobogganning parks" to the list of conditional uses in the Agricultural and Open Space Zone District. After - second reading, VA plans to apply for a conditional use permit for a sledding and tobogganning park on VA owned, unplatted land in the Lionshead area. The Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) voted unanimously to support the request at their 12/7/92 meeting. Staff Recommendation: Approve Ordinance No. 33, Series of 1992, on first reading. 10:30 P.M. 7. Ordinance No. 34, Series of 1992, first reading, an ordinance Mike Mollica repealing Section i 1 of Ordinance No. 14, Series of 1987, Subsection 9, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (This ordinance concerns a major amendment to SDD #6, Vail Village Inn, to remove a previous condition of approval for Unit No. 30, Phase I, Vail Village Plaza Condominiums/100 East Meadow Drive.) Applicant: BSC of Vail, Colorado, L.P./Frank Cicero. Action Requested of Council: Approve/deny/modify Ordinance No. 34, Series of 1992, on first reading. Background Rationale: The (PEC); on 12/7/92, unanimously recommended approval of the request. The vote was 5-0. Staff Recommendation: Approve Ordinance No. 34, Series of 1992, on first reading. 10:45 P.M. 8. Adjournment. 2 l1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r THERE WILL BE A SPECIAL TOWN COUNCIL EVENING MEETING ON TUESDAY, 12/22/92, BEGINNING AT 7:30 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS. AGENDA: PRESENTATION OF THE CHUCK ANDERSON YOUTH AWARDS. THERE WILL BE NO VAIL TOWN COUNCIL WORK SESSIONS ON 12/22/92 OR 12/29/92. THE NEXT VAIL TOWN COUNCIL OVERVIEW WORK SESSION WILL BE ON TUESDAY, 1/5/93, BEGINNING AT 6:30 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS. THE NEXT VAIL TOWN COUNCIL EVENING MEETING WILL BE ON TUESDAY, 1/5/93, BEGINNING AT 7:30 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS. ~~~~~~k~~~~~k~~~k~ C:VIGENDA.TCE 3 MEMORANDUM TO: Town Council FROM: Community Development Department DATE: December 15, 1992 SUBJECT: A review of the proposed design of the Vail Cemetery to be located in the upper bench of Donovan Park generally located west of the Glen Lyon subdivision and southeast of the Mattefiom neighbofiood. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Andy Knudtsen , 'f::".,~::.,.::as;cocf:;;r;:;:::<vr. ~<•"^''•1;;;q::t~.>r, .;,cif~.%c^'?~i.,.,Y'i'»•<~ffff 'r,P°rl.,'~'"'~;7ri~.~, •F •~~t`h~r D "~~.N . y ::'.•r.~ :.,;rFr! ::•.•::%%.a~':Wi.f::: f~.. .!4>.... ,lr~~i~'~~.~:' ,r .sue... +s :v ~ i t,. . r<iiru ~r,;:.:;H,:$'.'•,:;`:x ,~fS>i,S~'ti:=:•::::.::.;.•: •'::rr.. ;,y/:a:'y.. .•rr.::r.>x.:;:?'?i?.;::~..•?icc>vr'??.su.z:.: ....•~ilr.<::~i+`•frr rr. rift+~ ? ...f:, .,!~::$i:..t.^r,},.Gyr:~%i:. •:?•=:?:'.~i?./i'p%x.. t......... /i % ,~,':~ic';r }Y.. :iiiii'ysssy::::. vn4::: n?•.^••v,-W:::.::~ri: :f:•:"v:.:...:.;:y • + .,:e fMU:vrii.:•:Ji:J'N I. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Since the public meeting on October 27, 1992, which was the kick off meeting for the master planning process for the cemetery, the consultant team, the staff, the cemetery task force, and the neighbors have discussed a variety of issues and now have a conceptual design and a conceptual management plan. The design process cannot proceed further until the Town Council reviews the work that has been done to date and provides direction on how to complete the master planning project. The two questions staff needs answered at this time include: 1. Doss the conceptuai design meet the expectations of the Town Council? 2. is the proposed management approach one that is acceptable to the Town Council? Please note that the consultant team will be present for this meeting to answer any questions that you may have. The team includes Sherry Dorward, Vice President of Alpine International; Eldon Beck, President of Alpine International; Jack Goodnoe, Landscape Architect with HEPY, from Southfield, Michigan; and Larry Sloane, President of LF Sloane Consulting Group, from Del Mar, New York. il. BACKGROUND Since the public meeting on October 27, 1992 at Seasons at the Green, the following steps have been taken to understand what ideas people have for the cemetery: 1. Initial design concept generated by consultant team during the charette on October 28th and 29th, 1992. 1 2. Design alternatives presented to the public on the afternoon of October 29, 1992. 3. Staff met with interested members of the community individually over the past several weeks. 4. Design presented to the Cemetery Task Force on November 5, 1992. 5. Design presented to the Vail Religious Foundation on November 10, 1992. Responses indicated that in-ground burial was a high priority, but that within the congregations, (Lutheran and Presbyterian, specifically) cremation is becoming a more attractive option. 6. Other mountain communities contacted about various issues, specifically out-of- town requests for burials, general operations, winter burial and management structure. 7. Management options presented to the Cemetery Task Force on November 30, 1992. Larry Sloane was present to discuss the alternatives with the Task Force members. 8. Meeting with neighbors on site on December 3, 1992 to review the design, walk the upper bench, and understand where the cemetery facilities would be located. It is important to mention that the two Cemetery Task Force meetings where the design was discussed and where the management plan was discussed did not involve as many members of the Task Force as staff had hoped for. Though the design was officially approved by the Task Force on November 5, and the management plan was approved on November 30, there were only six members present November 5th and five members present November 30th. III. EVALUATION OF THE DESIGN At this time, the designers are proposing that a majority of the grave sites be located at or around the tree line of the upper bench of Donovan Park. There will be five types of "grave sites." A majority will be niches for cremation remains. These will each take up approximately one cubic foot of space. The second option will be crypts. These are each approximately 2 foot by 2 foot by 7 foot. They will accommodate a coffin, will be on-grade, will be accessed from one end, and may be stacked. The third option will be traditional in- ground burial. The fourth option will be cenotaphs, which are memorials to those who have already died and who are buried or scattered elsewhere. These are likely to be inscriptions on boulders or benches within the cemetery. The last option the consultant team has suggested are "growing memorials". These will be trees identified on the Master plan (species and location) which an individual can buy as a memorial to a deceased individual. The location for most of these grave sites is within a hollow, which begins at the tree line and extends up-slope. The concept is to begin a pathway at the tree line and arrange crypts, 2 niches and cenotaphs on one side of it as it ascends up the slope. Please see the attached diagram, which shows how a trail could be benched into the site and how crypts and niches could be Located adjacent to it. The crypts and niches will be situated among boulders, as shown on another attached diagram. The traditional in-ground burial will be located at the base of the tree line adjacent to the meadow. Access to this area of the project will be by a road from Matterhorn Circle, that crosses the meadow and ends in a circle drive. The road is anticipated to be designed as a "two-tire-track" road and is anticipated to not be visible from Matterhom Circle. The rest of the upper bench of Donovan Park is planned to be landscaped in a way to buffer the neighbors by extending the forest down into the meadow at appropriate locations, and integrating the various parts of the open space together. Please see the site plan attached at the end of the memo. This conceptual design has been reviewed by individuals at a public meeting, at the Vail Religious Foundation, at a task force meeting, and at a meeting with the neighbors on-site. In all of these situations, people have responded very positively to the design. The concept of locating most of the burial sites within the trees and some of them at the tree line has been well received. With this concept, most of the burial sites will be completely screened. Some of the neighbors on the west end of the park have been concerned about the amount of buffering between the circle drive and their properties. After walking the site with them, they believed that the changes in grade, the trees that are proposed, and the distance from the improvements to their homes all work together so that the cemetery will be adequately buffered. IV. EVALUATION OF THE MANAGEMENT OPTIONS Attached to this memo are pros and cons, developed by Larry Sloane, of four different management scenarios. These scenarios include Town operation, district operation, private operation, and non-profit operation. Mr. Sloane will elaborate on the management issues at the meeting. After a preliminary analysis, he is recommending that the best group to operate the cemetery is the Minturn Cemetery District. He has not completed a final analysis of the operation under the district, as the consultant team is waiting for direction from the Town Council. The Task Force members who discussed this with him on November 30 had several questions about a district operation. Their primary concern seemed to center around control and assurance that the area would be maintained as a natural site. Larry described potential elements of a contract (pricing, landscape maintenance, and policy review, land ownerships, etc.) between the Town and the District. With these answers, the members of the Task Force concurred that the district operation would be best. V. CONCLUSION Staff recommends that the Town Council approve the conceptual design and approve the Minturn Cemetery District as the management entity. These two conclusions have been reached by the Cemetery Task Force and minutes of both meetings are attached to this memo for your review. We believe that the design has been buffered well from the 3 f surrounding neighbors and that the details of the design are excellent. We believe that many of the conceptual ideas (for the road, the crypts, the niches, the headstones, etc.) are sensitive to the natural setting. Concerning the management scenario, staff believes that the district will be able to do the best job of funding and operating the cemetery. 4 ry ~1 ' ~ W b ~y~~~~ NGItB P~0v6 .1"'~" wM~~~P^' ne <A ~h Fjoulau ~~~y, bo hlr,~'~nltei'0 N~`ret ni,~ ' r°`~q G~ J, n ~ w G~Y~t P~v~ ~r ~c~ ~Gh~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ash e t..: `L y~ ~ r i I ~ f I' „ ~ 1~, I' ~i~ ' k 1 a • ~,,,rc . ~ ~ ~ ~ • ~ • ,1 ~ ~ ,~r?~ ~ ~ , ~ ~Y ~z ~ fi i . W~u- a ~ ~N T ~!'VY~ ~ r f r./ s Nl 1 McAit~ inn _ ails ~ ~ ~ f ' . ~ ~~t , ~ lus c~1v r 0~~"~i~ ~ ' ~ . ~ (5 ~~~a w ,~,o}~ect'~1 end ,Z R? r~erv~ fit' dra?~a~,~l ~ ` 'w~ ~ ~ ~~~Cr ~ 1NZ~~W ~ - w ~ a~ t Yra~ ~~1~e ~ Me.~d~ nlervPVZ11 1~ 1' i be~h i a~ - 1 p ~ ~ ~I n or H1~ItC' IIAVE_~• ~-~Oh 'f~P~'~E ~ r ` a~ r W ram b~hat v ` Sri P~ ~ ` ~ ~ i ~e S~sn~ ~ ~ wd1'1 u~d me~~ w~~ro~~ ~vnal t ' . Mc~~ r crr-~ -~~rr~ ~ h n ~ E v~zli~fi~°~1 6f~N ~ e~ ~e ~ ~ ~ . merta ~r M~ ..1 .RrC'D 2 5 ,~R mount of the holy cross Lutheran church • box 1103 • vail, Colorado 81658-1103 - 4 A ~ v i i 7 'r~ _ ~ .-a t Sr i ~ ' (1 ~j 7.l~ ~ Z J l Tµ...,M;i4 +aFr lrv .Jib t ? ~ ! November 23, 1992 - 's ~ ~ i ~ ' ~1 r ~ ' v i ~.r~`•-~.- ...,_..l 1f Y~ ~ ; r. ~ ,s ~ i+[~ ~ ~ tE 9:3 f~+Y~'~ll~y h i i~ .yy ~ C Andy, Knudtsen t , , ~ ak ,,.t Town`'of Vail Community;~Development ~ ~ n lam'' ~ ~ v, r~„ 75'~South.Frontage. Road ~ y Vail,, Colorado, 81657: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' _ ~ct:. ~~k•. Dean; Andv _ ~ i _ The Church:'Council" of ^Mour?t" of the : Holy:'Cross::` Lutheran Church:;~at~:'its, :regular"~ meeting',on November 19,`1992, unanimously: asked me to: send 'this`: letter:expres-• sing their support of the concept and proposed design for the Vail Cemetery.,'r, which is to..be located in Donovan. Park. Please accept :this as an expression:,, ' . ~ . of support and gratitude. ; Sincerely, - ~ t,...:. . t . ~ u is Rivers Jardis, secretary % "s . ; - Mt of the Holy Cross, near Vail ` • ~ g~i~ [cr`y' E~ r~, E1~:i::.~ ~'.li ! ~ 177 , . . ~ "'777 ~ ~ .c ~~~~~r The Vail Rel(gious Foundation j(1~~ ' ' t~ November 11, 1992 Mr. Andy Knudtsen Community Development Town of Vail Vail, Colorado 81658 Dear Andy, - We of the Vail Religious Foundation express to you and Susan Doward our appreciation for your presentation regarding the Vail Cemetery development. After reviewing the site development concepts, we commend your department's concern for environmental impact and the meditative atmosphere. It does appear that you are very diligent in securing input relative to the kinds of need, quantity of need, and the impact of this facility. We the Vail Religious Foundation affirm your efforts and the project. Sincerely Yours, li~ Benny C rk Vail Religious Foundation, President 19 WII Food • Volt, Ca~.,..J~ 81657 MEMO To: The Vail Town Council From: Dave Cole RE: Vail Cemetery Date: 12/10/92 I was present at public meeting October 27th, the task force meeting November 5th, and task force meeting November 30th, as well as being involved during earlier phases of the project (site selection, etc.) going back to 1987. I concur with the decisions of Task Force regarding the design and the management of the cemetery. As one who was involved with the site selection, I do not want to reopen that can of worms. I am pleased with the environmental sensitivity and the "low profile" of the design. I believe that it will become an asset for the neighborhood. I am sorry that I cannot attend this meeting, but I planned an out-of-state trip long ago. C~_. r / (i~, . - L:F. Sloane Consul Group g Pro'S and Con's " ~ ~I I,3 = ' v 1J Town Management Pro's * The Town retains total control over design, implementation and operations. * The Town Clerk's Office would be able to absorb this minimal paper and money handling function. * Town staff can be assigned to the modest maintenance functions on a weekly basis or for snow removal on an as needed basis. Burials can be accomplished by contract with a private concern or funeral home. Con's The County and the cemetery district officials have an opinion the Town should not operate a cemetery rather this is a cemetery district responsibility. * Although the cost is small, Vail already funds 90% of the costs of the Minturn Cemetery District through a Mill Levy. This would continue and constitute a double cost. * I am advised the Town capital funding maybe limited and/or delayed due to prioritizing by the council. This may cause the cemetery not to be started. Not-For-Profit Management _ Pro's Eliminates direct Town staff time and involvement. * Presumably places responsibility with highly motivated and interested group of citizens with no profit motive. * Keeps local, Vail control of site, development and operations. Con's At this point I know of no group willing to step forward to enter the "Cemetery Business". * The group would have to rely upon a Town capital contribution or private donations to capitalize the project and such funding sources may be difficult to secure. * May fall back to Town if the N-F-P Corporation is not successful in producing operating surplus. 2 .L.F: Sloane Consul Grou - , g P r i i-'~, , Private For Profit Ouerator I ~ i r: ~ Pro's Private company provides all capital requirements except land acquisition cost. * Town, while contract is in place, will not have any operating expenses except staff time of supervision of contractor. * The Town's residents will be offered this protection with apro-active marketing effort. Con's Legally this may be complex with the Town retaining title to the underlying real property while the private firm installs fixtures or permanent capital improvements. * The Town would have the least control under this scenario for development and operations. * The firm would presumably be seeking to profit from the investment and space prices may be higher as a result. Further, the building prohabition on the site may severely limit interest as the private firm cannot develop office, chapel, funeral home facilities on the site. Cemetery District Management Pro's The district has taxing power to provide the capital funding for Phase I of the cemetery through a special Mill Levy. * This district is operating a cemetery in Minturn and cost savings are likely through a single management. The district could add the inter-mountain cemetery to its responsibilities to avoid the abandonment of this historic site. * Both the district and the county encourage this approach legally and technically. The district's commissioners are now with at least one Vail resident as a member. The use of the district for management will encourage the upper valley to work together. Further, the Town is already funding the district through a Mill Levy and now this funding would include a more direct benefit to the Town's taxpayers while eliminating further Town expenditures for the cemetery. 3 D~3aC~ L.F: Sloane ConsulThg Group Con's The district has been casually operated heretofore and the Town will need assurances of the enhancements of management practices by the district. * The special Mill Levy will be an additional cost to Vail residents probably including funding for the 2.5 acre expansion of the Minturn Cemetery. * The Town will want to craft an understanding with the district on design, long term land use and operating policies prior to approving this approach. This may be met with resistance by the District. Further, there is vacancy on the district board which should be filled. _f CEMETERY TASK FORCE MINUTES FROM NOVEMBER 5, 1992 Those present included: Dave Cole Bob Borne Cissy Dobson Ella Knox Judy Sibley Diana Donovan Sherry Dorward Russell Forrest Kristan Pritz Andy Knudtsen Sherry Dorward, Vice president of Alpine International, presented the design. She reviewed the different alternatives which the design team considered and discussed the evolution of the design. Members of the audience generally had favorable response to the design. Specific questions centered around the automobile access. It was suggested that the design team provide a cross section througf~the "circle drive" showing how much cut and fill there will be to provide this part of the'design. People were also wondering where cars could be parked and how many cars could be accommodated for a funeral. There was also discussion about the design of the niches and crypts. People had questions as to how the crypts would be sealed and wanted to see a detail of what this area would look like. They were also concerned about head stones which would be used for the in-ground burial. In response to these comments, Sherry said that when the design team refines the design, they would provide: 1. Across section through the "circle drive" which would show how much cut and fill would be needed. 2. Across section of the access road showing where cars would park and indicating how many cars would be accommodated with this design. 3. A standard for the head stones for the in-ground burial plots. It was suggested that markings be boulders, generally flat in shape. These then would be engraved with information of about the deceased individual. 4. A detail of the niches and crypts which would show what the area would look like. a Page Two Minutes Cemetery The focus of the discussion shifted from the design to the issue of limiting burials to locals. The group agreed that a local was someone who owned land within Eagle County or resided within Eagle County for a minimum of ten years. It was generally agreed that the design should try to accommodate everyone fitting this category of "local." Don Simonton summarized the meeting by saying this is the kind of design that the community has wanted. He suggested that the memorial walk be included in this design. It was agreed by all in the group that this could easily be done with the proposed trail system. The general consensus of the group was that the design met the expectations of the way the cemetery should look, since it will maintain the natural setting and appearance of the upper bench of Donovan Park. It was the general consensus that different components (niches, crypts, scattering area, pathways and in ground burial plots) would adequately address the different burial preferences, and that the design tied all of the components together in a creative and environmentally sensitive manner. Diana Donovan moved to approve the minutes and Dave Cole provided the second. They were approved 5-0-0. CEMETERY TASK FORCE November 30, 1992 MEETING MINUTES PRESENT Dalton Williams Dave Cole Diana Donovan Larry Sloan Sherry Dorward Kristan Pritz Andy Knudtsen Kristan Pritz opened the meeting by stating that the goal of the meeting, was to determine the final recommendation of the Task Force to Town Council for the best management alternative. _ She reviewed the agenda for the meeting and then asked the Task Force to review the minutes from the November 5, 1992 meeting. Diana Donovan moved to approve them and Dave Cole provided the second. The Task Force voted 5-0-0 and approved them. Larry Sloan started his presentation regarding the different alternatives for the management structure. Before getting into the details of each one, he briefly answered a question regarding the initial capital outlay. He said that there would be a one time assessment to cover the initial construction costs and then the revenue from the cemetery would cover on- going costs. He continued answering questions and said that the one time tax assessment would be approximately $10.00 per $100,000.00 of valuation. Concerning the private non-profit alternative, he said that there was a problem in that there were no interested groups in the valley who wanted to take on this effort. He further stated that there are many existing private non-profit charities in the valley who compete for the same charitable gifts. Concerning the private alternative, he said that the national marketing orientation of a private firm as well as the need on their part for buildings on-site would be problems for Vail. One of the task force members said that the potential lack of control regarding the development of the cemetery was his primary criterion in determining the best management structure. Concerning the Town alternative, Larry said that funding and construction probably would not be done as quickly by the Town as by the district and that a district management approach would be the best alternative. He said that the statutory organization of the state regulations led him to conclude that the cemetery district management is the appropriate method to use. Since the community already has a district in place, it makes sense to use it. Acquiring the revenue in order to construct the cemetery would be simpler with the district. Finally, a "valley wide" approach to solving this problem would be a plus. Someone asked if the district could expand the boundary and increase the size. In answer to that question, Larry and Dalton said that the district is surrounded on all sides by other cemetery districts and that it would be very difficult to expand the size of the Minturn Cemetery District as it would mean reducing the size of others. People had questions about the cemetery district, specifically about its capability to manage the proposed Vail Cemetery. 1n response, Dalton and Larry said that recent changes in board members have improved the operation. They reviewed the current Minturn operation. A task force member asked that once the district began managing the cemetery, if that decision could ever be change in the future. Larry said that the contract between the Town and the District could be very detailed and include many specific points. Some of these would be that the Town should retain ownership, that it should specify a lease area, that it should specify a term after which the management would revert back to the Town or be renewed, that it should require the district to comply to the master plan designed by the current team, that the pricing structures be specified at this time; etc. In answer to other questions on this topic, Larry said that because everything would be automated and starting from scratch, there would be many ways to avoid problems and streamline management. The task force said that they would like the consultant team to expand the pros and cons of the Town and district. The number one criteria to them was ensuring that the design, construction, and operation of the cemetery maintain the upper bench of Donovan Park in the most natural state possible. With that concern stated and with the understanding that the contract between the Town and the District could fully address that concern, the task force unanimously said that the district operation would be acceptable. The next issue dealt with the concern about, locals vs. non-locals being buried in the cemetery. A task force member wanted to know why we couldn't prohibit outsiders. Another suggestion was to limit requests from outsiders to cremation remains. Another suggestion was to structure the pricing as a way to limit outsiders. It was mentioned that with a tiered pricing structure, that funding for the cemeteries would be accomplished easier. Even with the relatively high cost applied to outsiders, the task force members said they were concerned that the cemetery would run out of land. Larry Sloan said that there are limits on how far one can accurately project into the future cemetery demand and recommended that estimates be limited to fifty years. At that time technology could change as well as burial preferences and the cemetery may take a different shape. The demand for burial units was discussed with specific discussion about growth rates down- valley vs. up-valley. There was a statement made that there is unlimited space for crypts and niches but that the in-ground burial p{ots require the most resources and should be priced the highest. One member suggested that eligibility should be determined. He suggested that it should be a very broad definition and his intent was not to exclude anyone that did in fact have a connection to the community. He further stated that there was no need to include outsiders for economic reasons and did not want the cemetery to take on a commercial approach. The task force generally concurred with that position and said that they wanted to develop a specific definition of eligibility for handling this issue. Criteria to use in the definition could include a drivers license, voter registration, land ownership, lease, previous lease, etc. It was suggested that the pricing system be based on major connections to the valley vs. minor connections to the valley but that outsiders should not be allowed. It was also suggested that a three tier pricing structure be implemented for those living within the district boundaries, those living within the county boundaries, and those living outside the county. A conclusion was not developed. In summary, the two primary concerns of the task force, were (1) limited space and (2)preserving the cemetery as anon-commercial operation. It was the consensus of the group that the management structure should be the Minturn Cemetery District and they believed that this recommendation should be forwarded to Council for their final decision. The task force wanted an additional meeting to discuss the outsider vs. insider issue. The last point made at the meeting was that the management contract was a key element and must be very specific and address a variety of issues. The goal of the management contract would be to preserve the upper bench of Donovan Park and keep it as natural as possible. Another point to include in the management contract would be to require that the Minturn Cemetery District be responsible for not only the Minturn and Vail Cemeteries, but also the Intermountain Cemetery. ~U~ ~ ~ ~I~~ _ Ii_'r .x _ _ ~ 1 .~{w~ ~t _ ..-mil"- ~ t 10~ -ter ~ \ ` G^ ~ 1 ~ y~ `+1 a ~p0 ~ ~ 1 \ I ' I \ _ ~ j ---.~.c!~.~/~~N tMllly ~M~+W~ _ ~ "i ~ \ , r 1 li ly. ..\\"f., i ~ . ~ i~ - Mme". l.ti" ,I 1 ~ ~ / \ ~ l' • a c . ~ 3 I ~ _ . ' ORDINANCE N0.31 SERIES 1992 AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING CERTAIN IMPROVEMENTS CONSTRUCTED AND INSTALLED IN AND FOR BOOTH CREEK LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT, DETERMINING THE TOTAL COST THEREOF, RECENING AND ACCEPTING THE ASSESSMENT ROLL APPORTIONING THE COST THEREOF TO BE PAID BY SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS AMONG AFFECTED PARCELS WITHIN THE DISTRICT, ASSESSING THE COST AS APPORTIONED THEREIN AGAINST EACH ASSESSABLE PARCEL WITHIN THE DISTRICT SPECIALLY BENEFITTED BY THE IMPROVEMENTS, PRESCRIBING THE METHOD OF PAYING AND COLLECTING THE ASSESSMENTS, DESCRIBING THE LIEN SECURING PAYMENT THEREOF, MAKING NECESSARY FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO THE SATISFACTION OF ALL CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO THE FOREGOING, AND LIMITING ACTIONS CHALLENGING THE PROCEEDINGS. WHEREAS, the Town Council of the Town of Vail (the "Town") has heretofore by Ordinance No. 13, Series of 1989 (the "Creation Ordinance"), authorized and ordered the construction and installation of improvements therein described (the "Improvements")for the Town of Vail, Colorado, Booth Creek Local Improvement District (the "District") and determined to levy special assessments against the affected parcels in the District specially bene~itted by the Improvements, according to the method and within the limitations therein described; and WHEREAS, the Town Council has heretofore by Ordinance No. 20, Series of 1989, issued special assessment bonds designated Town of Vail, Colorado, Booth Creek Local Improvement District, Local Improvement Bonds, dated August 15, 1989, in the aggregate principal amount of $365,000 (the "Bonds"), to pay a portion of the cost of constructing and installing the Improvements and covenanted to apportion, levy, and assess the cost of the Improvements in amounts sufficient, together with any excess proceeds from the sale of the Bonds, upon the assessable parcels within the District; and WHEREAS, the Improvements are now substantially complete; and WHEREAS, the Creation Ordinance provided that the assessments to be levied against the affected properties shall not exceed the assessment amounts provided in the schedule of assessments attached to the Creation Ordinance, except (a) if actual construction costs exceeded estimated construction costs (but only to the maximum an additional 15%), (b) if land acquisition costs exceeded estimated costs, or (c) if separate and additional elements of costs were incurred in construction or for other items which were of a nature generally not r foreseen and included in the construction costs at the time of the estimate, all as provided by Section 20.04.080 of the Vail Code; and 1~ WHEREAS, the notice of the creation of the District which was published and mailed to affected property owners provided the estimated total to be assessed against affected property was $366,766, and further provided that this was the maximum amount to be assessed except as described in the preceding paragraph; and WHEREAS, the construction company originally selected by public bid to construct the improvements within the District failed to build the improvements in acxordance with plans and specifications and subsequently brought suit against the Town when the Town refused to pay the construction company a portion of the contract price; and WHEREAS, as a result of the failure of the construction company to construct the project in accordance with the plans and specifications and the subsequent litigation, the final costs of the improvements are $507,187 which exceed the original estimate; and WHEREAS, a portion of the amount in excess of the original estimate is additional construction costs which exceeded the estimate which do not exceed the estimate by more than 15% and a portion is separate and additional elements of costs which were of a nature generally not foreseen and included in the original estimated construction costs; and WHEREAS, the Town Manager has ascertained the total cost of the Improvements, less that portion thereof to be paid by the Town, and has brought the matter of levying assessments therefor before the Town Council; and _ _ WHEREAS, an assessment roll for the District, showing the amount of each assessment, has been prepared by the Town's Controller; and WHEREAS, the Town Manager has heretofore caused a notice of hearing in the form prescribed by Section 20.04.180 of the Code of the Town to be mailed, along with a copy of Section 20.04.200 of the Vail Code, by first class postage prepaid mail to the last known owners of the affected parcels as shown on the real property assessment rolls for general (ad valorem) taxes of Eagle County as of five days before the mailing, on November 24, 1992, and to be published in The Vail Trail, a newspaper of general circulation in the Town, in its issue of December 4, 1992; and WHEREAS, the Town Council has held a public hearing on proposed special assessments against parcels within the District and upon the ordinance by which the same shall be Levied, all as required by Chapter 20.04 of the Code of the Town, at its regular meeting on December 15, 1992. 2 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, A COLORADO: 1. Ao~roval of Notice. The Town Council hereby finds that notice of proposed assessments and of a public hearing thereon has been given and a public hearing held in accordance with Chapter 20.04 of the Code of the Town. The Town Council hereby further finds that all other conditions and requirements relafing to the levying of special assessments against parcels within the District have been fully satisfied. 2. Acceptance of Improvements. The Town Council hereby accepts the lmprovements constructed and installed in and for the District. 3. Aooroval and Aa~ortionment of Costs. The Town Council hereby finds that the total cost of the Improvements, including engineering, legal, and incidental costs, is $507,187, that the portion thereof to be assessed against the parcels of land within the District is $487,187, and that the balance has been paid by the Town. 4. Finding of Benefit. The Town Counal hereby finds that the Improvements are local improvements which have conferred general benefits upon the Town and also special benefits upon the affected parcels within the District. Parcels proposed to be assessed abut or are in the vicinity of the Improvements and will receive substantial special benefits from the construction and installation thereof which are separate and distinct from the general benefits to the town. Said special benefits consist of the mitigation of rockfall damage to each parcel and the improvements located thereon. This finding is made after considering evidence relating to the following factors: (1) The effects upon the appearance and environment of and for the properties abutting upon or in the vicinity of the Improvements; (2) The availability of the Improvements for use by the properties abutting upon or in the vicinity of the Improvements; (3) The type of improvements made and the policy followed in making assessments on similar improvements constructed in the past; (4) The nature of the Improvements, singularly or in combination, and their influence throughout the area and as to the individual parcels of property; (5) The ever-increasing responsibility and changing concept of what is required of the individual property owners at their own costs under the police power even though the general public also has available to it such improvements; 3 (6) The zoning, uses, and potential uses of the properties in the vicinity of the Improvements; (7) .Opinions on the effects upon the fair market values from the Improvements upon properties in the vicinity of the Improvements; (8) The probable influence from the Improvements relating to the protection or preservation of the values of the properties in the vicinity of the Improvements. 5. A~oroval of Assessment Roll. The Town Council hereby receives and approves the assessment roll for the District as prepared by the Controller, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 6. An~roval of Assessment Method. The amounts specified in the assessment roll have been computed according to the method described in Ordinance No. 13, Series of 1989. The Town Council has heretofore determined, and by this Ordinance does again determine, that the method of assessment is a fair and equitable one, providing for a reasonable apportionment of the cost of the Improvements consistent with the benefits conferred. The determination made hereby is reached after hearing evidence relating to special benefits actually conferred upon the affected parcels, including without limitation increased market value, and all other relevant circumstances. 7. Finding that Benefits exceed Assessments. The Town Council hereby determines that as to each parcel of real estate the special benefits exceed in value the amounts to be assessed therefor and that the assessments are apportioned amount the respective parcels in approximation to the benefits conferred. 8. Sufficiency of Assessments. The Town Council hereby finds that the proposed assessments reflected in the assessment roll will be sufficient in the aggregate to cover the portion of the total cost of the Improvements to be defrayed by the levying of special assessments. 9. Lew of Assessments. Special assessments are hereby levied against the respective parcels as set forth in the assessment roll, and the Town Clerk is hereby instructed so to notify the affected parcel owners. 10. Date Assessments Due. All assessments made in pursuance of this Ordinance shall be due and payable without demand to the Director of Administrative Services on January 18, 1993. 4 ` 11. Election to Pav in Installments. All such assessments may at the election of the owner be paid in installments with interest. There shall be no interest charge against any assessment, payment of which is made in full to the Director of Administrative Services on or before January 18, 1993. The Town Manager may publish a notice in at least one newspaper published and of general circulation in the Town at least ten days before that date, which notice shall state the place of payment and the time for it to close. The failure to publish such notice or to do any other act or thing required by this section shall not affect such assessment or any installment thereof, or the lien the Town holds therefor, nor extend the time for payment thereof. Failure to pay the whole assessment on or before January 18, 1993, shall be conclusively considered and held to be an election on the part of such owner to pay in installments the amount of the assessment then unpaid. 12. Installment Due Dates. Assessments not paid on or before January 18, 1993, shall be payable in 10 substantially equal installments of principal, payable March 1, 1993, and annually on March 1 of each year thereafter until and including March 1, 2002, which interest on the unpaid principal amount at the rate of nine and one half percent (9.5°!°) per annum, payable on each principal payment date. 13. Prepayment in Full. The owner of any parcel herein assessed may at any time pay the whole unpaid principal due under this Ordinance with the interest accrued to the next interest payment date, without penalty. 14. Delinquent Assessments. An assessment or installment thereof shall be considered delinquent if not paid within thirty days after the date set for payment thereof in this Ordinance. A delinquency shall cause the whole amount of unpaid principal and accrued interest to become due and payable. Any delinquent assessment or installment shall continue drawing interest as hereinabove provided plus penalty interest at the rate of 1.5% per month. As soon as any assessment or installment thereof shall become delinquent, the Director of administrative Services shall mark the same delinquent on the assessment roll and shall, at least once each calendar year, but not sooner than the first day of October, certify such assessments, along with interest and penalty, to the County Treasurer of Eagle County, Colorado; and the County Treasurer shall extend such assessment upon the real property tax rolls of the County and collect the same in the same manner as delinquent general taxes levied upon such property. Upon certification of the delinquent assessment or payments, the cost of such collection shall also become due and payable. However, at any time prior to the date a delinquent assessment is 5 certified to the County Treasurer for collection the owner may pay the amount of delinquent ' installments, accrued interest thereon and penalties due, and shalB thereupon be restored to the right thereafter to pay in installments in the same manner as ff default had not been made. 15. Assessment Liens. The assessments made pursuant to this Ordinance shall be a lien in the several amounts assessed against each tract or parcel of land from the effective date of this Ordinance. In the event of the subdivision of any parcel assessed, the assessments shall in each case be a lien upon the individual lots of the subdivision in proportion to their respective shares. The liens for assessments shall be prior and superior to all other liens, claims, encumbrances, and titles, whether prior in time or not, and shall constitute a lien until paid; provided, however, such assessment lien is subordinate and junior to any lien for general taxes and is subject to extinguishment by the sale of any property on account of the nonpayment of general taxes; and provided, further, any such assessment lien on any parcel is prior and superior to any assessment lien thereon subsequently levied. 16. Ordinance Conclusive. After the expiration of thirty days from the effective date of this Ordinance, all actions or suits attacking in any way the proceedings held, the determinations and findings, made, and the assessments levied herein, shall be perpetually barred and shall not thereafter be questioned in any court or before any other tribunal. In order for one to have standing to challenge the proceedings in any respect, or the Ordinance adopted, _ or any assessment levied, he must have asserted his objections in accordance with Chapter 20.04 of the Code of the Town. Review shall be limited to the objections so asserted. If a court of competent jurisdiction sets aside any final assessment, then the Town Council may make a new assessment generally in accordance with the provisions of this Ordinance and applicable provisions of the Vail Code. 17. Authorizina Action. The officers of the Town are hereby authorized and directed to take all action necessary or appropriate to effectuate the provisions of this Ordinance. 18. Ratification. All action heretofore taken by the Town and by the officers thereof not inconsistent herewith directed toward the levying of special assessments against parcels within the District specially benefitted by the construction and installation of the Improvements therein is hereby ratified, approved and confirmed. 19. Repealer. All acts, orders, ordinances, resolutions, or parts thereof, of the Town in conflict with the Ordinance are hereby repeated, except that this repealer shall not be construed so as to revive any act, order, ordinance, resolution, or part thereof, heretofore 6 r ~ repealed. 20. If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance; and the Town Councl hereby deGares it would have passed this ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. 21. The Town Council hereby finds, determines, and declares that this ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety, and welfare of the Town of Vail and the inhabitants thereof. 22. The repeal or the repeal and reenactment of any provision of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail as provided in this ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceedings as commenced under or by virtue of the provision repealed or repealed and reenacted. The repeal of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein. 23. All bylaws, orders, resolutions, and ordinances, or parts thereof, inconsistent - herewith are repealed to the extent only of such inconsistency. This repealer shall not be construed to revise any bylaw, order, resolution, or ordinance, or part thereof, theretofore repealed. INTRODUCED, READ, APPROVED, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL ON FIRST READING this 1st day of December, 1992, and a public hearing shall be held on this Ordinance on the 15th day of December, 1992, at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado. Margaret A. Osterfoss, Mayor ATTEST: 1 Town Clerk 7 READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED this 15th day of December, 1992. Margaret A. Osterfoss, Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk caoHnsz.~~ 8 - RECEIVED - 1 ~ 193 East Gore Creek Drive • Vail, Colorado 81657 • 303/476-1212 December 4, 1992 Mr. Rondall V. Phillips Town of Vail South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Dear Mr. Phillips; Reference is made to then notice of a public hearing ~r_ special assessments for the Booth Creek Local Improvement District. Please take note that any and all future notices regarding the property located at 3245 Katsos Ranch Road and owned by John Galt Mountaineering, Ltd. should be sent to 193 Gore Creek Drive Vail, Colorado 81657. The documentation provided to property owners at the time the District was created set forth the obligations of the property owners in the then proposed District. It was on the basis of the information provided that the property owners evaluated the facts and made their determinations. At this time the Town of vailis attempting to increase these obligations by in excess of $4,000 per property owner. This proposed increase arises from a number of factors including but not limited to the following: 1. Failure on the part of the Town of Vail to adequately monitor and inspect the progress of the work being performed. 2. Dlegligence on the part of the Town of Vail to properly admin- ister the contract while permitting the contractor to circumvent the requirements of the contract. 3. Willfull misconduct oin the part of the Town of Vail to properly advise property owners in the District of contract negotiations which awarded additional monies to the contractor for his failure to properly adhere to the work specifications. Property owners in the District are, therefore, being asl~ed to pay additional sums arising from the negligence of the Town of Vail. These proposed increases are in direct violation of the provisions of the recently enacted Amendment # 1 (The Bruce Amendment). The hearing scheduled for December 15, 1992 fails to comply with the provisions of the Amendment and violates the constitutional rights of the property owners in the District. Sincerely, ~1o an J. Las n fe-.~'_ n alt Mountaineering, Ltd. i RECEII~ED 9E~ - 7 1992. .C~ ~~n _ JD ~ ~nQ~li Y~ v~'ouS~ t/' e-S ~~G(.c~(Q f 3/~/l~ ~i P ~ ~~iC s ~,r! l'~ t ~f~Y? Gt' (Tz~~~ Gt ~ ~ l~ Q~ ~ ~Q,w Ui ~ ~ ~ ~ ` / y ~ ~ ~ ap~~ to cs 1 N ~oo~/ ~n~ l rove, sfr/ ~ ~ ~ ~ -F i awn ~ U~ ~~ie-- r~e5~7` r~ os ~ a % y~` l'8` ~ ~ s 2~rnos f ~rQ~~ S 5 ~o ~ h ~ ~ D r, lc~'~ /~rr~e 5~/ ~v`i,'~1 a r (6Gi~e~ a ~ru.-?-i q ~ ~ ~ cvo~u 7'o Gt To ~ r~ Sf Q ~ 356 ova ~ i n ~cU~'~~ ~ra~Q a wn ~5 eat ~a~ /y, ~D~, s ~ ~~`~u~~ ~v,~~~ ~;~e.. _ D Q~ r~i !Z'tQ.~ ~ 5 ~o ~+'~-u ~ ~j'~r w~ G~ S E'SS~~O ~ ~of~-~ w~` ntiu~~~~lied ~~ss ~ fy, ~ f,'P~~( ~1~~ ~c suf tr~~ ~ G~ y ~ ~ ~rroy ~E ~o npf ~ 7~-- >nGre~y.~ ,'r asse~srrle.~`, ncere~~~ x{76-r~77 ~o~ %na~i~/i RECEIVED DEC ' 9 ROBERT P I.AMMERTS 12 5 PARK AV EN U E OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLA.73102 December 7, 1992 Town Manager's Office Town of Vail, Municipal Building 75 South Frontage Road West Vail, CO 81567 Attn: Rondall V. Phillips, Town Manager Re: Notice of a Public Hearing of Special Assessments for the Booth Creek Local Improvements District of the Town of Vail,"CO Town of Vail, We are the owners of lot 3, block 2, Vail Village 12th Filing, Booth Creek Town of Vail, Colorado and in accordance with the Notice of Public Hearing, We hereby object to the proposed assessment as set out in schedule one attached to the Notice of Public Hearing to be held December 15, 1992 at 7:30 pm in Council Chambers, Vail, Co. A Public Hearing on this subject was held July 18, 1989 at which time the total estimate of cost was $386,766, which cost was a maximum amount but in no event to be 15~ greater than that amount. It is our understanding that the boulder berm was constructed, that the construction was not properly monitored by the city engineer, that the berm was not compacted in accordance with construction and engineering requirements and that consequently overruns have been experienced. We object to the increased assessment from the July 18, 1989 hearing and assessments. It appears that the assessments have been made in an arbitrary and discriminatory manner, not taking in account the size of the lots, the location of the lots or the lot's suseptability to boulder damage. It also appears that certain lots in the 12th filing are not being assessed, being lots 1, 9, 10, 11 and 12 of block 2 and Tract C of block A. We cannot determine the location of "Block - Lot Parcel A". We object to the arbitrary and discriminatory method of assessment. December 7, 1992 Page Two Town of Vail Lot 3 is a vacant lot. In recent years no boulders have fallen on this lot and it is highly unlikely that any boulders will ever reach this lot. We object to the assessment to the lot in view of the unlikely event of boulder damage. We cannot be present at the meeting to be held December 15, but reserve unto ourselves all legal remedies that may be . available to prohibit any excessive, arbitrary and/or discriminatory assessment that may be made by the Town of Vail as a result of said meeting. Respectfully submitted, George A. Cloves, Jr. Robert P. Lammerts By: Robert am~merts f RPL/pb ~ - RECE1dIED - 9 1992 • ROBERT P I.AMMERTS 125 PARK AVENUE OKLAHOMA CITY,OKLA.73102 December 7, 1992 Town Manager's Office Town of Vail, Municipal Building 75 South Frontage Road West Vail, CO 81567 Attn: Rondall V. Phillips, Town Manager Re: Notice of a Public Hearing of Special Assessments for the Booth Creek Local Improvements District of the Town of Vail, CO Town of Vail, I am the owner of lot 4, block 2, Vail Village 12th Filing, Booth Creek Town of Vail, Colorado and in accordance with the Notice of Public Hearing I hereby object to the proposed assessment as set out in schedule one attached to the Notice of Public Hearing to be held December 15, 1992 at ' 7:30 pm in Council Chambers, Vail, Co. A Public Hearing on this subject was held July 18, 1989 at which time the total estimate of cost was 5386,766, which cost was a maximum amount but in no event to be 15% greater than that amount. It is my understanding that the boulder berm was constructed, that the construction was not properly monitored by the city engineer, that the berm was not compacted in accordance with construction and engineering requirements and that consequently overruns have been experienced. I abject to the increased assessment from the July 18, 1989 hearing and assessments. It appears that the assessments have been made in an ` arbitrary and discriminatory manner, not taking in account the size of the lots, the location of the lots or the lot's suseptability to boulder damage. It also appears that certain lots in the 12th filing are not being assessed, being lots 1, 9, 10, 11 and 12 of block 2 and Tract C of block A. I cannot determine the location of 'Block - lot parcel A". I object to the arbitrary and discriminatory method of assessment. December 7, 1992 Page Two ' Town of Vail Lot 4 is a vacant lot. In recent years no boulders have fallen on this lot and it is highly unlikely that any boulders will ever reach this lot. I object to the assessment to the lot in view of the unlikely event of boulder damage. I cannot be present at the meeting to be held December 15, but reserve unto myself all legal remedies that may be available to prohibit any excessive, arbitrary and/or discriminatory assessment that may be made by the Town of Vail as a result of said meeting. Respectfully submitted, F . ~ S y~ obert Lammer s RPL/pb _ - - ~ Sybill R. Navas 3255 Katsos Ranch Road Vail, Colorado 81657 ~j - ,4 - - December 6, 1992 Mr. Rondall V. Phillips Town Manager Town of Vail ~ 75 South Frontage Rd. West Vail, CO 81657 - - - ~ ~ - Dear Ron, Jorge A. Navas and Sybill R. Navas; who reside at 3255 Katsos Ranch Road, (Block 1, Lot 9, Resub of Lot 7, Vail Village 12th Filing) hereby register the following objections to the proposed levying of special assessments against this property located in the Booth Creek Local Improvement District of the Town of Vail. The proposed special assessment of $18,737.97, based on a total cost of $507,187 is substantially in excess of the $12,116 per unit based on a total of $335,000 proposed in June 1989, and which was the figure on which we voted to form the above mentioned focal improvement district. A July 1989 budget indicates that this estimatewas revised upward to a total - cost of $386.766, with individual property owners each paying $14,106. We - ~ would like to know how the final cost came to be 54% higher than the amount which the residents of this district approved by vote. How is it possible that the Town of Vail can allow an expenditure so much in excess of that which was agreed to by the voters of this district? And, how is it possible that the Town of Vail can have allowed the trench-berm complex to have been completed before deciding that it had been improperly compacted; an oversight which required the complete reconstruction of the project in the summer of 1991, two years after the project - was initiated! _ The proposed special assessment is based on an expenditure - greatly in excess of what was approved in the summer of 1989, and we do _ - not agree to pay the increased costs which the Town of Vail incurred without _ . - the approval of the residents of this district. We both plan to be present at the - ~ public hearing concerning this issue on December 15, 1992 and to vocalize our objections at that time. Sincerely/ ~ . Jorge A. Navas ' . Navas cc. Owners in the Booth Creek Local Improvement District, Town of Vail, Colorado 12-09-92 10.34AM FROM LONGS 79 JF. l; P02 ~ - I RECEIVED DEC C9 1992 ~ 3241 Katsos Ranch Road VQII, CQ 81657 December 9, 1992 Mr. Steve Thompson Town of Vall 75 South Frontage Road 1~est r veil, CC7 81657 ' ° - Dear Mr. Thompson: As owners and residents in the Booth Creek Local Improvement district of the Town of Vail, Colorado, we do hereby o#fer protest to costs of the assessmerrt for the trench- berm complex for the mitigation of rock fall damage effective January t $,1993. This assessment is not consistent with the previous agreements discussed on May 26, 1988 and June 29,1989 and is therefore unacceptable to the District. Ws do nat intend to comply with any assessment in $xcess of the latest agreement effective June 29, 1989. ~Sinaerely, ~ "i l Douglas L. Wall Brandy McLaughlin Wall . ~ ~..r'' :~1 . : E n.. ~ _ ~ . , ` RECEIVED D~'C - 9 199 . I I~~ . Sri, G0~2~ V, f~lwLc~,.~-s ~ ~ ~ 9 z . V r_1,i . ~O. a I .~oS ~ GCtii ~ C~~ ~CLiI Y i~lo-~ ~ ~i ~ ~ ~ Z ~ ~ ~ /es u9» ~GCSL° I~ ' r e.o la,~o.F~ ~ .~p_ .I i; ' ~f/~.c.a~ i~~ o-~-~-~~ nc.er~-t.~•-S.,v ~-oC._ o-u~~a~~9-Qa..~.caQi ~ ~4~r ~9 ~Q~_ X989. '.rev xo7 ~.w ~Q _ . t~-e_~ . ~ ae.~~l~Qsee~ee~.p i~ ~ i : ,..e.LU. ~,~.o-u~ y ~-o u.~.~ o/Z.- ~6~~v ~i~r.-c.~ a : _ ..cJ a~ ~.a-~~ C~ e ~ ~e~ _.P-e~-~ cow-~o~ . ~ ~ ~ 9 ~ , ~ % 8' ~ ~ ~i rye..-~.~ ~ , l . ii ~i .A. °~'/f . i%Yh-G-e'p ~41~~ ems. O~~ _ ,A G . . ~ I I C~'`-~-T-~C-~- S'rL'-'J2-~-~-. •.~2.0.~ ~ _ ~ml~C..l~ ~_e, ..i.~j~O,U rte--`- 1"L~.` . i w , . : ::~.:i Y.: . - . ~ i; II _ _ ~ - ~ . ' I! ! l~..P . l~c.c_e~ • , / ~ 9~.i - - , , o .o-fG d-~c.~v ~/1,e.~-o~..c_o~~.:._ . '_l~.el-.: _ s ~L.oivim ~..,.c.R A, AZ• ~s .,e ~e~ • .2,_~~ ~ f II . v ~~~-r ' - • ~ I .~o,y ~r 2../. ~',e.4 ~ Gtr ,eq I I ~~l ~ CTA N ~ TALL ~ . 03 Z ~ l /~C•qT S.nC ' I~ . ' I - _ 11 ` . I) ,ly ..I I ~ ~ ~ . r 5 ~ ~ ' is ii. . ,r~ . iy ,.y:;:'. t• r.' ' - - l F • NOTICE OF A PIIBLIC HEARING - ON SPECIAL ABBEBSMENTB FOR ia~ BOOTH CREEK LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT OF aar+ TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO A public hearing will be held on the levying of special .assessments against property located in the Booth Creek Local Improvement District of the Town of Vail, Colorado on December 15, 1992, at 7:30 p.m. (or as soon thereafter as the matter can be heard) at the Council Chambers in the Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado. The general nature of the improvements constructed in the District include a trench-berm complex for the mitigation of rock fall damage. The total cost of the improvements is $507,187. Of this amount, $20,000 has been provided by the Town of Vail and $487,187 will be provided by assessments to be levied against specially benefitted properties. Objections to the proposed assessment must be logged in writing by the affected property owner with the Town Manager's office at the Municipal Building, in Vail, Colorado, no less than five (5) days prior to the date of the hearing before the Town Council. The objections must be framed so as to identify the specific issue(s) involved, the grounds therefor, and the witnesses who will present the evidence at the hearing and the general nature ` of their testimony. The writing must also include the name of the owner(s) and description of the affected property. Prior to the hearing, the Town Manager will forward to the Town Council the written objections which he has received. He may at the same time forward his comments in writing in respect to the project and the NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING ON A SPECIAL AND LOCAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT IN THE BOOTH CREEK AREA OF VAIL, COLORADO A public hearing will be held on the creation of a local improvement district for the construction and installation of certain improvements to mitigate rockfall damage in the Booth Creek area of Vail, Colorado on Tuesday, June 6, 1989, at 7:30 p.m. (or as soon thereafter as the matter can be heard) at the Council Chambers in the Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado. The general nature of the improvements proposed include, but are not limited to, berms for the mitigation of rockfall damage. The total estimated cost of the improvements is $335,000. Of this amount, $20,000 will be provided by the~Town of Vail and $315,000 will be provided by assessments to be levied against specially benefited parcels. The general area to be assessed is Blocks 1 and 2 of Vail Village 12th filing, which is known as the Booth Creek area of the Town of Vail. The legal description of the parcels to be assessed appears on the attached schedule. A map showing the boundaries of the local improvement district is available for public inspection in the Town Manager's office. The Town proposes that the cost of the improvements to be assessed against the specially benefited parcels be apportioned among such parcels so that an equal amount of the total cost to be assessed will be assessed against each parcel of land within the proposed Booth Creek Local Improvement District. "'Parcel"' means any lot, tract, or parcel of land within the district which is separately identified on the property tax records of the Eagle County assessor's office. The estimated assessments to be levied against each parcel appear on the attached schedule. These are the maximum amounts that may be levied against the respective ' ~r,. BOOTH CREEK ASSESSMENT SCHEDULE 1 Amount of Owner and Address Parcel Owned Assessment Mara Grasis Bossow Block 1, Lot 5, Vail Village $18,737.97 Box 5055 - 12th Filing Vail, CO 81658 Rodnie W. Garton Block 1, Lot 10, Unit B, $18,737.97 Lynne Erion Resub of Lot 7, Vail Village 1545 Lake Drive 12th Filing Townhouse Loveland, CO 80538 Roy A. Johnston Lot 1, Parcel B, Vail Village $18,737.97 3135 Booth Falls Court 12th Duplex, Resub of Lot 2 Vail, CO 81657 Johann Mueller Block 2, Lot 6, Vail Village $18,737.97 910 Fairway Drive .12th Filing Vail, CO 81657 Brandess-Cadmus ~ Block 1, Lot 10, Unit A,Resub $18,737.97 Real Estate, Inc. of Lot 7, Vail Village 12th 281 Bridge Street Filing Vail, CO 81657 George H. Clowes, Jr. ~ Block 2, Lot 3, Vail Village $18,737.97 Robert Lammerts 12th Filing ' c/o Lammerts 125 Park Avenue Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Crown Corr, Inc. Block 1, Lot 11, Resub of Lot $18,737.97 Box 1750 7, Vail Village 12th Filing Highland, IN 46322 Robert S. Carpenter Block I, Lot 2, Unit A, Marquez $18,737.97 2170 Tecumseh Park Lane Duplex, Vail Village 12th West Lafayette, IN 47906 Filing Daniel J. and Barbara v Block 2, Lot 2, Unit B, Vail $18,737.97 A. Feeney Village 12th Filing ` 3145A Booth Falls Vail, CO 81657 John W. Gray .3z~c~i~~. Block 1, Lot 6, Unit B, Vail $18,737.97 3819 Janitell Road ~2d Village 12th Filing Townhouse Colorado Springs; CO 80906 J. Edward Gund Block 2, Lot 8, Vail Village $18,737.97 3100 Booth Falls Court 12th Filing Vail, CO 81657 ;'jar - y ~ • ~ , ~-~7I1f1`~/U 7 ~Q9 Z_,' - '.I ~ _ RECEIVED ~ ~ ~ l . j 1 t - ~'l~. 7 ~ . ~ ~ - _ _ .~a~h,c~- - ~ . . Vic, .~ac.~ . .I iz1 ~ ~ - ~u - I . . . - ~ - . . . 9~._ . :%ii.' ~ . ten" • _ . . V / - I • ~ r• ~ ' i~ ~ f ,i . . ' .II . ~ ~ ' . . l -l _ - , - r - - - -li - . --------..il - 1 ~ .1_.___ . -I - ~ . li~ III = . ~ . • i s, ' III ~ ~ ~1: ~ ;t.ys{ ' _ ~ _ :i, ~ _ n:ri' fit,. _ I ~ _ w ' . / , i - . . ' .y . ~ ~ ED GUND . ~ i 3100 Booth Falls Court - ~ ; Vail, Colorado 81657 ED GUN D RECEIVED DEC 1 0 1992 .f Mr. Rondall V Phillips Town of Vail Vail, CO 81657 . :.t f Dear Ron: I want to object the berm recently constructed does n~~completely protect Block 2, Lot 8 Vail Village 12th Filing. This was brought to the attention of Stan Berryman during construction. There ~ was a small addition made, but not to - provide full protection. Also, no mention has been made when ~ the restriction that has been applied to this area will be removed. Sincerely, 3100 Booth Falls Court Vail, Colorado 81657 303-476-1985 RECEIVED ut~ ~ 0 1992 December 10, 1992 (Hand Delivered) Edward M. and Katherine P. Gwathmey 3226 Katsos Ranch Road Vail CO 81657 Re: Special Assessment for the Booth Creek Local Improvement District Block 1, Lot 2 Unit B Marquez Duplex Concerning the assessment of $18,737.97 for our property, we are not opposed to an assessment and feel that the mitigator has merit. We object to the increase of $4700 over the last adjusted budget figure that we were told. The fact that the compaction was not acceptable to the Engineers and that the job was not completed in a timely fashion was the responsibility of the town and we should not have to pay for it. I feel that we had a contract with the town for the job to be $14,000. So Miss Kitty and I object in part. I also feel that the questions raised by Pat Dauphinais regarding the distribution, especially the Mueller duplex should b discussed. ~~~C~~~/~0 ~i~ ~ 1 D ~~A~~ Mr. Steve Thompson , Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 December 9, 1992 Dear Mr. Thompson, I wish to express my objection to the manner in which this assessment is to be levied against the property owners in the Booth Creek Local Improvement District. I am including what I believe to be a more equitable and comprehensive formula for cost sharing. I have used the dollar amounts as set forth in Ordinance No. 31 Series of 1992 but I do not agree that they are appropriate. Based upon conversations with other property owners in the district, since I was not involved in any of the original discussions, it seems clear that the town has , exceeded the figure which was agreed to in the 1989 meetings. Sincerely, Patrick G. Dauphin is Booth Creek Local Improvement District In order to create an equitable cost sharing of the expenses associated with this district, I suggest the following categories of dwellings and assignment of shares. CATEGORY 1 Vacant Lot One share to be paid by January 18, 1993. No additional share is due if a single family residence is built. One additional share is due if second unit is built prior to January 18, 2003. LOTS IN CATEGORY 1 Lot 11, Block 1 Crown Corr Inc. Lot 3, Block 2 Clowes/Lammerts Lot 4, Block Z Lammerts CATEGORY 2 Single Family Residence One share to be paid by January 18, 1993. One additional share is due if a second unit is built or existing building is divided and sold separately prior to January 18, 2003 LOTS IN CATEGORY 2 Lot 1, Block 1 Stiemle Lot 3, Block 1 Story Lot 4, Block 1 Hallenbeck Lot 5, Block 1 Bossow Lot 9, Block 1 Navas Lot 7, Block 2 Dauphinais Lot 8, Block 2 Gund CATEGORY 3 Duplex Residence One share to be paid by each of the two units by January 18, 1993. A total of two shares per lot. LOTS IN CATEGORY 3 Lot 2, Block 1 Gwathmey/Carpenter Lot 6, Block 1 McLaughlin/Gray Lot 8, Block 1 Galt/Piper Lot 10, Block 1 Brandess-Cadmus/Garton Lot 1, Block 2 Leavitt/Johnston Lot 2, Block 2 Feeney/Lind Lot 5, Block 2 Garton/Garton Lot 6, Block 2 Mueller/Mueller CATEGORY 4 Vail Mountain School, Lot 12, Block 2 One share to be paid by January 18, 1993. Any future Residential Development will be charged at one share per unit built prior to January 18, 2003. Using the categories shown above, there are presently twenty seven assignable shares. When the first additional share is due, the dollar amount will be arrived at by dividing the original cost, $ 487,187.00, by twenty eight shares, $ 17,399.53. This amount will be charged for the twenty eighth share and refunded to the twenty seven current shareholders in equal payments of $ 644.42 per share. When the second additional share is due, the dollar amount will be arrived at by dividing the original cost, $ 487,187.00, by twenty nine shares, $ 16,799.55. This amount will be charged for the twenty ninth share and refunded to the twenty eight current shareholders in equal payments of $ 599.98 per share. And so on,,, These funds will be collected from the new shareholder by the Town of Vail upon issuance of a building permit for the additional unit or upon transfer of some portion of an existing unit. The additional share must be paid for in full at this time. These funds would then be distributed by a title company at the expense of the new shareholder. Initial payments may be paid in full or amortized over ten years as indicated in the ordinance. If at anytime in the future this berm is extended to protect additional properties in the neighborhood, appropriate compensation will be paid to all shareholder in this district. 6 Dec 92 ~~L Town Manager's office _ ' Municipal Building Vail, Co 81657 Gentlemen: This letter is my formal protest against the special assessment on my property at 3226 Katsos Ranch Road. Block 1, Lot 2, Unit A, Marquez Duplex, Vail Village 12th Filing 1) I find it improper for the property owners to be charged for the mistakes of others. As I understand it, the original estimate for the creation of the trench-berm complex was in the neighborhood of $10,000 to which the property owners agreed. I see nothing of an unforeseeable or technical nature that should have prevented this estimate from being firm. Then because of errors by the contractor, errors in supervision, interest, & legal fees, the cost overrun was nearly 100%. None of these additional costs were the fault of the property owners an thus they should not be held responsible for them. The overrun costs should be apportioned to those who caused them. If agreement as to this apportionment cannot be made, then this is what the courts are for. For an area of disagreement of a quarter of a million dollars, I am sure, the legal profession is anxious to assist. Since this will surely add to the already egregious overrun, I suggest every effort be made to avoid this. In the meantime, I suggest that the agreed on assessment be collected so as to eliminate unnecessary interest costs. These should have been levied as costs were incurred anyway. I am willing to pay tomorrow or whenever specified my proper share, but I am not pleased to be paying for the incompetence of others. 2) I object to what I interpret as the proposed payment plan. I read that if the entire sum is not paid by 18 Jan 92, then it must be paid in ten installments at an interest of 9.50 per annum. I agree that minimum of loo for the first payment & a minimum of 10% per annum thereafter is reasonable, but feel that no one should be obligated to maintain a debt if he prefers to reduce or eliminate it sooner. Yours very truly, r(~-~"' Robt S. Carpenter RSC: rc "~1ail 1V~ounfain Sc~iool RECEIVED ~ ®1992 December 10, 1992 HAND DELIVERED Rondall V. Phillips Town Manager Town of Vail Vail, Colorado Re: Protest of Special Assessment Dear Mr. Phillips: Vail Mountain School ("VMS"), as the record and beneficial owner of Lot 12, Block 2, Vail Village 12th Filing, herein submits its objections to the proposed special assessment against property located in the Booth Creek Local Improvement District of the Town of Vail. OBJECTIONS 1. The increased stiecial assessment is limited to 516.221.90. By notice on or before July 18, 1989, the TOV notified VMS of a proposed special assessment of $14,106 against its property (referenced above) predicated on a total cost of $386,766 for the construction of a "Rock Fall Berm". The notice further states that the Special Assessment represents the maximum amounts that may be levied against the respective parcels, unless (1) actual construction costs exceed estimated construction costs, in which case the assessments may be increased by not more than 15 percent; " The notice recently received by VMS references a public hearing to be held December 15, 1992 and states "[t]he total cost of the improvements is $507,187" and levies a special assessment against VMS of 18,737.97, an amount substantially in excess of the 15~ limitation. 2. The Town of Vail is solely resDOnsible for the increase. The TOV has characterized the excess as "construction costs". The Objector believes the excess. cost may emanate from the Contractor's failure to adhere to compaction standards established by the TOV and the inability of the TOV to force compliance. When the resultant litigation was "settled", the TOV undertook the additional financial obligation to cause the berm to be compacted or re-compacted as originally specified. At the public meetings in 1989, staff members of the TOV made numerous representations 3160 KATSOS RANCH ROAD • VAIL, COLORADO 81657 • (303) 476-3850 r ai . . Rondall V. Phillips December 10, 1992 Page Two i regarding the ability of the Contractor and construction (quality) and cost controls to be implemented by the TOV. It was these representations that caused VMS to accede to the TOV's request and join the Special Improvement District even though the TOV had previously forced VMS to spend in excess of $90,000 to provide the same protections afforded by the rock fall berm. Assuming the foregoing facts to be accurate, property owners should not be responsible for any excess as these costs do not reasonably fall in the category of additional elements of costs of a nature generally not foreseen s Very trul yo s • Fre rick S Otto Treasurer. FSO/rgl r~,1~ S 3230 Katsos Ranch Road Vail, CO 81657 December 3, 1992 Mr. Steve Thompson Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road West Vail, CO 81657 Dear Mr. Thompson: In response to the notice of a public hearing on the levying of special assessments for the Booth Creek Local Improvement District of the the Town of Vail, Colorado, we do hereby offer protest to the suggested costs listed. We have agreed .to a Special Development District as per previous meetings and the established budgets of May 26, 1989 and June 29., 1989. The referenced assessment notice of January 18, 1993 is not consistent with any previous agreements, meetings, notices or budgets and therefore not an acceptable cost for the District as previously approved. We do not understand when, why or how the Town of Vail could expend money in excess of the agreed to and approved costs. We have not agreed to or approved any costs after the June 29, 1989 budget and listed assessment and do not now. agree to the additional, unapproved costs. Si er y _ ay Story C-P~ Pamela V. Story cc. Owners in the Booth Creek Local Improvement District, , Town of Vail, Colorado N 12/9/92 R~G~j~i D ~~C 1 ~ U a o` Ron Phillips ~ c Town of Vail eh 75 South Frontage Rd. W. 0 Vail, CO 81657 U . nl Steve Thompson W ^ Town of Vail - 0 75 South Frontage Rd. W. Vail, CO 81657 ~ ~ Re: Notice of a Public Hearing for the Booth Creek Improvement District U ° ~ Ron and Steve: ~ N In November of 1989, I purchased my home that I had been previously ~o renting. The purchase was from a partnership dba Margem III. I was informed by Margem III that an assessment of $12,000 would be made ~ J ~0 upon property owners in the vicinity due to the rockfall mitigation. It was - ~ ,00 further negotiated that 1 would pay this assessment. ~ Imagine my surprise when, three years later, I receive a notice of p assessment for just under $19,000. V As best as I can figure out ,not having been a direct party to early notices ~ and forming of a district; we trusted the Town of Vail to act as our agent ~ and the town blew the budget. The increase sure makes me pucker, how o u? I am not a happy camper. ~o N Sincerely; x 0 Duane P' er .a d L V L A~ W w~ W RECErvE®~ L c ~ ~ ~ss2 December 9, 1992 Mr. Rondall V. Phillips Town Manager Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Rd. West Vail, CO 81657 . Dear Mr. Phillips, Daniel J. Feeney and Barbara A. Feeney who reside at 3145-A Booth Falls Court (Vail Village Fil 12, Block 2, Lot 2, Unit B) object to the levying of special assessments against this property located in the Booth Creek Local Improvement District within the Town of Vail. The proposed special assessment of $18,737.97 is substantially more than the $12,116 assessment proposed in June 1989 which was agreed upon. A July number indicates an increase to $14,106 but never more than this was approved. I would like to know how the increase can be justified, and the reasoning behind the increase in cost. Was there an oversight in supervising and evaluating the project? We do not agree to pay this increase in cost without your seeking approval from the residents of this district. S' cerely Daniel Barbara A. Feeney a~,, N,~1 December 9, 1992 PROTEST TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO BOOTH CREEK LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT Property Owners: Rodnie Garton PO BOX 1182 Vail, CO 81568 Lynne Erion 1545 Lake Dr. Loveland, CO 80538 Legal Description: Block 1, Lot 10, Unit B, Resub of Lot 7, Vail Village 12th Filing Townhouse We the affected property owners, do hereby protest the proposed assessment amount of $18,737.97. This amount by far exceeds the proposed assessment of $12,116.00, proposed in 1989. Rodnie Garton being our legal witness when we purchased said property in October of 1991. Lynne Erion Rodnie Garton r RECEIVED pEC i 4 1 ' Mike Cindy Steimle December".11 1992 3220 Katsos Ranch Road. Vail CO 81657 Mr. Ron Phillips Town Manager Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Rd West Vail CO 81657- Dear ~Ir Phillips ` In response to the $18,737.97 assessment for the Booth Cx'eek rock fall mitigation, we do file protest to the suggested costs. The costs are not in accordance with the previou"sly established budgets of $12,116 and finally $14106. We do not_:feel responsible for any incured interest on the bond as a result of delays due to the General Contractor or mismanagement by the town of Vail or or for any reason without notice or explanation. Sincerely, Michael Steimle c~/~`~ Cynthia Steimle_ 1 SQ'~e~rnQe Y. . , ~ , . . 221 South Route 41 Schererville, IH 46375 ' December 14. 1992 Kr. Steve Thompson Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Dear Mr. Thompson: Consider this letter a formal protest on the levying of special .assessments for the Booth Creek Local Improvement District of the Tarn of Vail, Colorado. The assessment notice of January 18, 1993 is not consistent rith prior meetings or budgets and therefore not acceptable for the District. Were the additional costs due to the fact the contractor did not follor the original specifications? Why did the Torn of Vail spend the additional monies? Since ly, i Jos~p ,J. 'Pellar f or orn Corr, Inc. cc: Orners of Block 1, Lot 11, Resubdivision of Lot 7, Vail, Village 12th Filing JJP/sr -TC ~ a~ ~5-~a- ~-3 Booth~Creek Special Assessment District Budget (Over) Percent Original Actual Under Over Budget Budget Budget Revenue: Contributions: Town of Vail 20,000 21,441 (1,441) Eagle County 20,000 (20,000) Bond Proceeds 365,000 367,697 (2,697) Interest Income 29,675 (29,675) Tota I Revenue 385, 000 438, 813 (53, 813) Expenditures: Construction Costs 299,356 315,900 (16,544) Engineering 49,000 73,942 (24,942) Subtotal Construction 348,356 389,842 (41,486) 11.91% Engineering 21,088 (21,088) Legal 30,690 (30,690) Bond Issuance Cost 18,600 10,024 8,576 Interest On Bonds 19,800 109,356 (89,556) Total Expenditures 386,756 561,000 (174,244) Shortfall (1,756) (122,187) (120,431) Bonds Payable 365,000 365,000 Total Assessment 366,756 487,187 bthbdgt 15-Dec-92 y ~ ~ ` ORDINANCE N0.32 SERIES OF 1992 AN ORDINANCE MAKING SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS FROM THE TOWN OF VAIL GENERAL FUND, CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND, VAIL MARKETING FUND, THE REAL ESTATE TRANSFER TAX FUND, POLICE CONFISCATION FUND, LIONSHEAD MALL PROJECT FUND, CONSERVATION TRUST FUND, LIONSHEAD MALL DEBT SERVICE FUND, BOOTH CREEK DEBT SERVICE AND CONSTRUCTION FUND, HEAVY EQUIPMENT FUND, TOWN OF VAIL DEBT SERVICE FUND, WEST VAIL DEBT SERVICE FUND, AND POLICE BUILDING CONSTRUCTION FUND OF THE 1992 BUDGET AND THE FINANCIAL PLAN FOR THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO; AND AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURES OF SAID APPROPRIATIONS AS SET FORTH HEREIN; ESTABLISHING A RESERVE FUND BALANCE OF $5,740,000; CREATING AN EMERGENCY RESERVE OF $550,000; AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO. WHEREAS, contingencies have arisen during the fiscal year 1992 which could not have been reasonably foreseen or anticipated by the Town Council at the time it enacted Ordinance No. 39, Series of 1991, adopting the 1992 Budget and Financial Plan for the Town of Vail, Colorado; and, WHEREAS, the Town has received certain revenues not budgeted for previously; and, WHEREAS, the Town Manager has certified to the Town Council that sufficient funds are available to discharge the appropriations referred to herein, not otherwise reflected in the Budget, in accordance with Section 9.10(a) of the Charter of the Town of Vail; and, WHEREAS, in order to accomplish the foregoing, the Town Council finds that it should make certain supplemental appropriations as set forth herein. WHEREAS, the Town Council wishes to establish a reserve fund balance in the amount of $5,740,000; and WHEREAS, the Town Council wishes to establish an emergency reserve in the amount of $550,000. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO that: 1. Pursuant to Section 9.10(a) of the Charter of the Town of Vail, Colorado, the Town Council hereby makes the following supplemental appropriations for the 1992 Budget and Financial Plan for the Town of Vail, Colorado, and authorizes the expenditure of said appropriations as follows: FUND AMOUNT General Fund $ 52Qr8 Capital Projects Fund 2,278,086 Real Estate Transfer Tax Fund 822,298 Vail Marketing Fund 45,000 Police Confiscation Fund 27,645 Heavy Equipment Fund 12,000 Lionshead Mall Project Fund 66,468 Conservation Trust Fund 7,800 Lionshead Mall Debt Service Fund 4,500 Booth Creek Debt Service Fund 500 Booth Creek Construction Fund 18,000 Town of Vail Debt Service Fund 20,126,030 West Vail Debt Service Fund 500 Police Building Construction Fund 100:000 ^4r ~~1$ 1 r 2. The Town Council hereby establishes a reserve fund balance of $5,740,000. 3. The Town Council hereby establishes an emergency reserve in the amount of $550,000. 4. If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. 5. The Town Council hereby finds, determines, and declares that this ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety, and welfare of the Town of Vail and the inhabitants thereof. 6. The repeal or the repeal and reenactment of any provision of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail as provided in this ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceedings as commenced under ar by virtue of the provision repealed or repealed and reenacted. The repeal of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein. 7. All bylaws, orders, resolutions, and ordinances, or parts thereof, inconsistent herewith are repealed to the extend only of such inconsistency. This repealer shall not be construed to revise any bylaw, order, resolution, or ordinance, or part thereof, theretofore repealed. INTRODUCED, READ, APPROVED, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL ON FIRST READING this 1st day of December, 1992, and a public hearing shall be held on this Ordinance on the 15th day of December, 1992, at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado. Margaret A. Osterfoss, Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED this day of , 1992. Margaret A. Osterfoss, Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk C:10RD93.32 2 ORDINANCE N0.32 SERIES OF 1992 AN ORDINANCE MAKING SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS FROM THE TOWN OF VAIL GENERAL FUND, CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND, VAIL MARKETING FUND, ThE REAL ESTATE TRANSFER TAX FUND, POLICE CONFISCATION FUND, LIONSHEA[3 MALL PROJECT FUND, CONSERVATION TRUST FUND, LIONSHEAD MALL DEBT SERVICE FUND, BOOTH CREEK DEBT SERVICE AND CONSTRUCTION FUND, HEAVY EQUIPMENT FUND, TOWN OF VAIL DEBT SERVICE FUND, WEST VAIL DEBT SERVICE FUND, AND POLICE BUILDING CONSTRUCTION FUND OF THE 1992 BUDGET AND THE FINANCIAL PLAN FOR THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO; AND AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURES OF SAID APPROPRIATIONS AS SET FORTH HEREIN; ESTABLISHING A RESERVE FUND BALANCE OF X5,740,000; CREAT#IaIG AN EMERGENCY RESERVE OF X550,000; AND Se ~ ~ LNG FORTH DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO. WHEREAS, contingencies have arisen during the fiscal year 1992 which could not have been reasonably foreseen or anticipated by the Town Counal at the time it enacted Ordinance No. 39, Series of 1991, adopting the 1992 Budget and Financial Plan for the Town of Vail, Colorado; and, WHEREAS, the Town has received certain revenues not budgeted for previously; and, WHEREAS, the Town Manager has certified to the Town Council that sufficient funds are available to discharge the appropriations referred to herein, not otherwise reflected in the Budget, in accordance with Section 9.10(a) of the Charter of the Town of Vail; and, WHEREAS, in order to accomplish the foregoing, the Town Council finds that it should make certain supplemental appropriations as set forth herein. WHEREAS, the Town Council wishes to establish a reserve fund balance in the amount - - of $5,740,000; and WHEREAS, the Town Council wishes to establish an emergency reserve in the amount of $550,000. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO that: 1. Pursuant to Section 9.10(a) of the Charter of the Town of Vail, Colorado, the Town Council hereby makes the following supplemental appropriations for the 1992 Budget and Financial Plan for the Town of Vail, Colorado, and authorizes the expenditure of said appropriations as follows: FUND AMOUNT General Fund $ ' `~O.x~ Capital Projects Fund 2,278,086 Real Estate Transfer Tax Fund 822,298 Vail Marketing Fund 45,000 Police Confiscation Fund 27,605 Heavy Equipment Fund 12,000 Lionshead Mall Project Fund 66,468 Conservation Trust Fund 7,800 Lionshead Mall Debt Service Fund 4,500 Booth Creek Debt Service Fund 500 Booth Creek Construction Fund 18,000 Town of Vail Debt Service Fund 20,126,030 West Vail Debt Service Fund 500 Police Building Construction Fund 100 000 ZS y " - . . 2. -The Town Council hereby establishes a reserve fund balance of $5,740,000. 3. The Town Council hereby establishes an emergency reserve in the amount of $550,000. 4. If any part, section, subsection, sentence, louse or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any ' one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. 5. The Town Council hereby finds, determines, and declares that this ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety, and welfare of the Tornrn of Vail and the inhabitants thereof. 6. The repeal or the repeal and reenactment of any provision of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail as provided in this ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceedings as commenced under or by virtue of the provision- repealed or repealed and reenacted. The repeal of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein. 7. All bylaws, orders, resolutions, and ordinances, or parts thereof, inconsistent herewith are repealed to the extend only of such inconsistency. This repealer shall not be construed to revise any bylaw, order, resolution, or ordinance, or part thereof, theretofore repealed. INTRODUCED, READ, APPROVED, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL ON - - FIRST READING this 1st day of December, 1992, and a public hearing shall be held on this Ordinance on the 15th day of December, 1992, at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado. Margaret A. Osterfoss, Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED this day of , 1992. Margaret A. Osterfoss, Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk C:~ORD93.32 2 . ~ J- ORDINANCE NO. 32 SERIES OF 1992 AN ORDINANCE MAKING SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS FROM THE TOWN OF VAIL GENERAL FUND, CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND, VAIL MARKETING FUND, THE REAL ESTATE TRANSFER TAX FUND, POLICE CONFISCATION FUND, LIONSHEAD MALL PROJECT FUND, CONSERVATION TRUST FUND, LIONSHEAD MALL DEBT SERVICE FUND, BOOTH CREEK DEBT SERVICE AND CONSTRUCTION FUND, HEAVY EQUIPMENT FUND, TOWN OF VAIL DEBT SERVICE FUND, WEST VAIL DEBT SERVICE FUND, AND POLICE BUILDING CONSTRUCTION FUND OF THE 1992 BUDGET AND THE FINANCIAL PLAN FOR THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO; AND AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURES OF SAID APPROPRIATIONS AS SET FORTH HEREIN; ESTABLISHING A RESERVE FUND BALANCE OF $5,740,000; CREATING AN EMERGENCY RESERVE OF $550,000; AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO. WHEREAS, contingencies have arisen during the fiscal year 1992 which could not have been reasonably foreseen or anticipated by the Town Council at the time it enacted Ordinance No. 39, Series of 1991, adopting the 1992 Budget and Financial Plan for the Town of Vail, Colorado; and, WHEREAS, the Town has received certain revenues not budgeted for previously; and, WHEREAS, the Town Manager has certified to the Town Council that sufficient funds are available to discharge the appropriations referred to herein, not otherwise reflected in the Budget, in accordance with Section 9.10(a) of the Charter of the Town of Vail; and, WHEREAS, in order to accomplish the foregoing, the Town Council finds that it should make certain supplemental appropriations as set forth herein. WHEREAS, the Town Council wishes to establish a reserve fund balance in the amount of $5,740,000; and WHEREAS, the Town Council wishes to establish an emergency reserve in the amount of $550,000. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO that: i . Pursuant to Section 9.10(a) of the Charter of the Town of Vail, Colorado, the Town Council hereby makes the following supplemental appropriations for the 1992 Budget and Financial Plan for the Town of Vail, Colorado, and authorizes the expenditure of said appropriations as follows: FUND AMOUNT General Fund $ ~r. Capital Projects Fund 2,278,086 Real Estate Transfer Tax Fund 822,298 Vail Marketing Fund 45,000 Police Confiscation Fund 27,605 Heavy Equipment Fund 12,000 Lionshead Mall Project Fund 66,468 Conservation Trust Fund 7,800 Lionshead Mall Debt Service Fund 4,500 Booth Creek Debt Service Fund 500 Booth Creek Construction Fund 18,000 Town of Vail Debt Service Fund 20,126,030 ' West Vail Debt Service Fund 500 Police Building Construction Fund 1001000 1 2. The Town Council hereby establishes a reserve fund balance of $5,740,000. 3. The Town Council hereby establishes an emergency reserve in the amount of $550,000. 4. If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause ar phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. 5. The Town Council hereby finds, determines, and declares that this ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety, and welfare of the Town of Vail and the inhabitants thereof. 6. The repeal or the repeal and reenactment of any provision of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail as provided in this ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceedings as commenced under or by virtue of the provision repealed or repealed and reenacted. The repeal of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein. 7. All bylaws, orders, resolutions, and ordinances, or parts thereof, inconsistent herewith are repealed to the extend only of such inconsistency. This repealer shall not be construed to revise any bylaw, order, resolution, or ordinance, or part thereof, theretofore repealed. INTRODUCED, READ, APPROVED, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL ON FIRST READING this 1st day of December, 1992, and a public hearing shall be held on this Ordinance on the 15th day of December, 1992, at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado. Margaret A. Osterfoss, Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED this day of , 1992. Margaret A. Osterfoss, Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk C:\ORD93.32 2 ~ 1 ORDINANCE NO. 32 SERIES OF 1992 AN ORDINANCE MAKING SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS FROM THE TOWN OF VAIL GENERAL FUND, CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND, VAIL MARKETING FUND, THE REAL ESTATE TRANSFER TAX FUND, POLICE CONFISCATION FUND, LIONSHEAD MALL PROJECT FUND, CONSERVATION TRUST FUND, LIONSHEAD MALL DEBT SERVICE FUND, BOOTH CREEK DEBT SERVICE AND CONSTRUCTION FUND, HEAVY EQUIPMENT FUND, TOWN OF VAIL DEBT SERVICE FUND, WEST VAIL DEBT SERVICE FUND, AND POLICE BUILDING CONSTRUCTION FUND OF THE 1992 BUDGET AND THE FINANCIAL PLAN FOR THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO; AND AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURES OF SAID APPROPRIATIONS AS SET FORTH HEREIN; ESTABLISHING A RESERVE FUND BALANCE OF $5,740,000; CREATING AN EMERGENCY RESERVE OF $550,000; AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO. WHEREAS, contingencies have arisen during the fiscal year 1992 which could not have been reasonably foreseen or anticipated by the Town Council at the time it enacted Ordinance No. 39, Series of 1991, adopting the 1992 Budget and Financial Plan for the Town of Vail, Colorado; and, WHEREAS, the Town has received certain revenues not budgeted for previously; and, WHEREAS, the Town Manager has certified to the Town Council that sufficient funds are available to discharge the appropriations referred to herein, not otherwise reflected in the Budget, in accordance with Section 9.10(a) of the Charter of the Town of Vail; and, WHEREAS, in order to accomplish the foregoing, the Town Council finds that it should make certain supplemental appropriations as set forth herein. WHEREAS, the Town Council wishes to establish a reserve fund balance in the amount of $5,740,000; and WHEREAS, the Town Council wishes to establish an emergency reserve in the amount of $550,000. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO that: 1. Pursuant to Section 9.10(a) of the Charter of the Town of Vail, Colorado, the Town ~ , Council hereby makes the following supplemental appropriations for the 1992 Budget and Financial Plan for the Town of Vail, Colorado, and authorizes the expenditure of said appropriations as follows: FUND AMOUNT General Fund $ Sig, 3,~3 S'i3 82:`% Capital Projects Fund 2,278,086 Real Estate Transfer Tax Fund 822,298 Vail Marketing Fund 45,000 Police Confiscation Fund 27,605 ~ Heavy Equipment Fund 12,000 ~ Lionshead Mall Project Fund 66,468 Conservation Trust Fund 7,800 Lionshead Mall Debt Service Fund 4,500 !!`y~® Booth Creek Debt Service Fund 500 G~tv P Booth Creek Construction Fund 18,000 Town of Vail Debt Service Fund 20,126,030 West Vail Debt Service Fund 500. Police Building Construction Fund i~0"0~ 24, 0~6, ~8 o~g ro 1 f 2. The Town Council hereby establishes a reserve fund balance of $5,740,000. 3. The Town Council hereby establishes an emergency reserve in the amount of $550,000. 4. If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall nat affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. 5. The Town Council hereby finds, determines, and declares that this ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety, and welfare of the Town of Vaif and the inhabitants .thereof. 6. The repeal or the repeal and reenactment of any provision of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail as provided in this ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceedings as commenced under or by virtue of the provision repealed or repealed and reenacted. The repeal of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein. 7. All bylaws, orders, resolutions, and ordinances, or parts thereof, inconsistent herewith are repealed to the extend only of such inconsistency. This repealer shall not be construed to revise any bylaw, order, resolution, or ordinance, or part thereof, theretofore repealed. INTRODUCED, READ, APPROVED, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL ON FIRST READING this 1st day of December, 1992, and a public hearing shall be held on this Ordinance on the 15th day of December, 1992, at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado. a Margaret A. Osterfoss, Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED this day of , 1992. Margaret A. Osterfoss, Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk C:\ORD93.32 ' 2 t F ~ ` ORDINANCE N0.32 SERIES OF 1992 AN ORDINANCE MAKING SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS FROM THE TOWN OF VAIL GENERAL FUND, CAPITAL PROJE~. ~ ~ FUND, VAIL MARKETING FUND, THE REAL ESTATE TRANSFER TAX FUND, POLICE CONFISCATION FUND, LIONSHEAD MALL PROJECT FUND, CONSERVATION TRUST FUND, LIONSHEAD MALL DEBT SERVICE FUND, BOOTH CREEK DEBT SERVICE AND CONSTRUCTION FUND, HEAVY EQUIPMENT FUND, TOWN OF VAIL DEBTSERVICE FUND, WEST VAIL DEBT SERVICE FUND, AND POLICE BUILDING CONSTRUCTION FUND OF THE 1992 BUDGET AND THE FINANCIAL PLAN FOR THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO; AND AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURES OF SAID APPROPRIATIONS AS SET FORTH HEREIN; ESTABLISHING A RESERVE FUND BALANCE OF $5,740,000; CREATING AN EMERGENCY RESERVE OF $550,000; AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO. WHEREAS, contingencies have arisen during the fiscal year 1992 which could not have been reasonably foreseen or anticipated by the Town Council at the time it enacted Ordinance No. 39, Series of 1991, adopting the 1992 Budget and Financial Plan for the Town of Vail, Colorado; and, WHEREAS, the Town has received certain revenues not budgeted far previously; and, WHEREAS, the Town Manager has certified to the Town Council that sufficient funds are available to discharge the appropriations referred to herein, not otherwise reflected in the Budget, in accordance with Section 9.10(a) of the Charter of the Town of Vail; and, WHEREAS, in order to accomplish the foregoing, the Town Council finds that it should make certain supplemental appropriations as set forth herein. WHEREAS, the Town Council wishes to establish a reserve fund balance in the amount of $5,740,000; and WHEREAS, the Town Council wishes to establish an emergency reserve in the amount of $550,000. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO that: 1. Pursuant to Section 9.10(a) of the Charter of the Town of Vail, Colorado, the Town Council hereby makes the following supplemental appropriations for the 1992 Budget and Financial Plan for the Town of Vail, Colorado, and authorizes the expenditure of said appropriations as follows: FUND AMOUNT General Fund $ 512,321 ' Capital Projects Fund 2,2?8,086 Real Estate Transfer Tax Fund 822,298 Vail Marketing Fund 45,000 Police Confiscation Fund 27,605 Heavy Equipment Fund 12,000 Lionshead Mall Project Fund 66,468 Conservation Trust Fund 7,800 Lionshead Mall Debt Service Fund 4,500 Booth Creek Debt Service Fund 500 Booth Creek Construction Fund 18,000 Town of Vail Debt Service Fund 20,126,030 West Vail Debt Service Fund 500 Police Building Construction Fund 100,000 24, 016, 608 1 ' 4 2. The Town Council hereby establishes a reserve fund balance of $5,740,000. 3. The Town Council hereby establishes an emergency reserve in the amount of $550,000. 4. If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. 5. The Town Council hereby finds, determines, and declares that this ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety, and welfare of the Town of Vail and the inhabitants .thereof. . 6. The repeal or the repeal and reenactment of any provision of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail as provided in this ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceedings as commenced under or by virtue of the provision repealed or repealed and reenacted. The repeal of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein. 7. Afl bylaws, orders, resolutions, and ordinances, or parts thereof, inconsistent herewith are repealed to the extend only of such inconsistency. This repealer shall not be construed to revise any bylaw, order, resolution, or ordinance, or part thereof, theretofore repealed. INTRODUCED, READ, APPROVED, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL ON FIRST READING this 1st day of December, 1992, and a public hearing shall be held on this Ordinance on the 15th day of December, 1992, at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado. Margaret A. Osterfoss, Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED this day of , 1992. Margaret A. Osterfoss, Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk C:\ORD93.32 . 2 ORDINANCE N0.30 SERIES 1992 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 2, OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE TOWN OF VAIL BY THE ADDITION OF CHAr ~ CR 2.36 -LIMITATION OF TERMS, TO PROVIDE FOR THE LIMITATION OF TERMS FOR ALL MEMBERS OF PERMANENT TOWN OF VAiL BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS. WHEREAS, Section 2.3 of the Municipal Charter of the Town of Vail provides that Tawn Council members shall not serve for more than eight consecutive years; and WHEREAS, the Town Council believes that such a limitation on Town Council terms of office has been good and has resulted in the election of new Council members with different insights and fresh perspectives; and WHEREAS, the Town Council believes that it would benefit the health, safety, and welfare of the Town of Vail to provide a similar term limitation for aft members of the Town's permanent Boards and Commissions. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the Town Council of the Town of Vail, Colorado: 1) Title 2 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail is hereby amended by the addition of Chapter 2.36 -Limitation of Terms, to read as follows: 2.36.010 _ No member of any permanent Town of Vail Board or Commission shall serve for more than eight consecutive years. A Board or Commission member, who has served 8 consecutive years may serve again after a period of 2 years of non-service. 2.36.020 All current members of the Town's permanent Boards or Commissions on the effective date of this ordinance shall be entitled to complete their term of office regardless of whether the completion of such term would exceed eight (8) years. 2) If any part, section, subsection, sentence, dause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, dause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be dedared invalid. 1 3) The Town Counal hereby finds, determines, and declares that this ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety, and welfare of the Town of Vail and the inhabitants thereof. 4) The repeal or the repeal and reenactment of any provision of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail as provided in this ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceedings as commenced under or by virtue of the provision repealed or repealed and reenacted. The repeal of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein. 5) All bylaws, orders, resolutions, and ordinances, or parts thereof, inconsistent herewith are repealed to the extent only of such inconsistency. This repealer shall not be construed to revise any bylaw, order, resolution, or ordinance, or part thereof, theretofore repealed. INTRODUCED, READ, APPROVED, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL ON FIRST READING this day of , 1992, and a public hearing shall be held on this Ordinance on the day of , 1992, at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Vail _ Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado. Margaret A. Osterfoss, Mayor ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Acting Town Clerk READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED this 'day of , 1992. Margaret A. Osterfoss, Mayor ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Acting Town Clerk 2 ORDINANCE NO. 33 SERIES 1992 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 18.32.030 _ OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, BY THE ADDITION OF SLEDDING AND TOBOGGANNING PARKS AS A CONDITIONAL USE. WHEREAS, the Town Council has determined that it is reasonable, appropriate, and beneficial to the town and its citizens, inhabitants, and visitors to amend Section 18.32.030, Agricultural and Open Space District, to provide for the addition of Sledding and Tobogganning Parks as a Conditional Use. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the Town Council of the Town of Vail, Colorado, that: Section 1 18.32.030 -Conditional Uses, is hereby amended by the addition of subparagraph J to read as follows: J. Sledding and Tobogganning Parks. Section 2 If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. Section 3 The Town Council hereby finds, determines, and declares that this ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety, and welfare of the Town of Vail and the inhabitants thereof. Section 4 The repeal or the repeal and reenactment of any provision of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail as provided in this ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceedings as commenced under or by virtue of the provision repealed ar repealed and reenacted. The repeal of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein. Section 5 All bylaws, orders, resolutions, and ordinances, or parts thereof, inconsistent herewith are repealed to the extent only of such inconsistency. This repealer shall not be construed to revise any bylaw, order, resolution, or ordinance, or part thereof, theretofore repealed. 1 INTRODUCED, READ, APPROVED, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL ON FIRST READING this day of , 1992, and a public hearing shall be held on this Ordinance on the day of , 1992, at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Vail Muniapal Building, Vail, Colorado. Margaret A. Osterfoss, Mayor ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Acting Town Clerk READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED this day of , 1992. Margaret A. Osterfoss, Mayor ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Acting Town Clerk CiORD9233 . 2 - - MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: December 7, 1992 - SUBJECT: A request for a major amendment to SDD No. 6, to remove a previous condition of approval for Unit No. 30, Phase I, Vail Village Inn/100 East Meadow DriveNail Village Plaza Condominiums. Applicant: BSC of Vail Colorado, LPJFrank Cicero, Jr. Planner: Mike Mollica 5.::..r 555.:.. 5...::.~:. tn.{:•:s:}.:?-}L: :w;; n l}^iii::Y.•~iiY.:}.+i}'(Niti::'v-vf{:^Y'{:.}}YA:iN:':{..;...~:...:......~r..... .;.-v {:^^:L.}}:4Y}}}};i:!i-}}ii}i}:•}:.: n.. n...:.~ ..nG....x::.v.v... .r.:C•/.:w:::::: .v...:..... .:v...... r.n •I. L: s..: ::r.I•%i}iJ.?~,viw.v... ri:• {:{{:{}i.}}}}}}ii ::t:t.:::::: nv:. 1: ..:...........::::v:v•v.`•}`}:}-{::.•.+-:.v.F.i:•~}}:{.nr{{nn:.7J}}.. ryy:: :v}:•}Y: JY•:S .xt..... {.}i}:..,. • .r:: ;{.,.....::..:...:.}.,r.•::::.. „;f. ; .:.-.:...5.....:5.2 .v... w. : Yv :•}:r{:{545}:^%•}r.- n v: :....5:.5:.5 .xv:....... r rY.:4:: n... v..:i.•v::::::.:. .v::.\--}::}}::.::{:::+iii:•}}iis~:f,...:::~ti:{.5:::::+}-}:;::}}}!a}:'-}}S{,.':`<:}:>i~}i~:i::?~k:{vi•}.: v.:}::.: v..:. "7 v.~:.. ::F.v:::.... r... n:..... -nr{~. +ttv 5.,.., ;.:v ;y :'}f. ti.,: .54..:r 5.....5....... w}ncac~ Gca;,,a}X{r,...{...5...:..~ ?e. i.w,~h.Cw., k•'~t~~C.. ~ ..5 '.~/..'.,.+.vow.r-:,N„M,,,,a.V..:r3c....-:::,:::.•:!::~t-+d.1w~3d::'£,.X::...'.;•:::;ft.`.:.:;:.~:::•;,..: ~:l:t~`v: ~ ~..;~+,;vj.:~F2 F:i}::~v;~.'~:::':`•`>%~~n %:i ''':;:~:K:%:'~ .:a,.,,{ »~~~2~ I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant, Frank CiceroBSC of Vail Colorado, is requesting a major amendment to Special Development District No. 6 (Vail Village Inn) in order to remove a previous condition of approval for residential Unit No.-30~Iocated in Phase I. The applicant is requesting that Section 2, B of Ordinance No. 24, Series of 1989, be eliminated. This section of the Ordinance places certain rental restrictions upon condominium Unit No. 30 of the Vail Village Inn Plaza Condominiums. Specifically, Section 2 of the - - Ordinance reads as follows: - "Condominium Unit 30 of the Vail Village Plaza Condominiums shall be subject to the restrictions of Section 17.26.075 of the • Town of Vail Subdivision Regulations if utilized for residential purposes. The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this Ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety and welfare of the Town of Vail and the inhabitants thereof." The applicant is requesting that Town approval of the request be subject to the following condition: - "Removal of restriction effective upon the filing with the Town of Vatl proof of ownership of atwo-bedroom property within the Town of Vatl which shall have Its use restricted to rental purposes:' 1 . , 11. BACKGROUND AND HISTORY ' The following outline reconstructs the planning processes which occurred in 1989, and in 1992, allowing condominium Unit No. 30 of the Vail Village Inn Plaza Condominiums to be converted from commercial use to residential use. a. September 26, 1989 -The Planning and Environmental Commission recommended denial of the request to amend Special Development District No. 6 {Vail Village Inn) to increase the Gross Residential Fioor Area by 6,000 square feet. This amendment would allow the applicant to convert an existing commercial space (Good's) to a residential unit. The PEC recommended denial of the request, by a vote of 4 to 3, finding that a loss of commercial space in the core was not appropriate. b. October 17.1989 -Ordinance No. 24, Series of 1989 (First Reading) was reviewed and discussed by the Town Council. Subsequently, the Ordinance was tabled until the next evening meeting. c. November 7, 1989 -Ordinance No. 24, Series of 1989 (First Reading) was again reviewed by the Town Council. After discussion, the Town Council approved the Ordinance unanimously, by a vote of 7 to 0. d. November 21, 1989 -Ordinance No. 24, Series of 1989 (Second Reading) was unanimously approved by the Town Council, by a vote of 7 to 0, on the consent agenda. e. August 24, i 992 -The PEC unanimously recommended denial, of a request for a major amendment to Special Development District No. 6 (Vail Village Inn) in order to remove a previous condition of approval for residential Unit No. 30, located in Phase I, by a vote of 7 to 0. The request was for Section 2, B of Ordinance No. 24, Series of 1989, to be eliminated. This section of the Ordinance places certain rental restrictions upon condominium Unit No. 30 of the Vail Village Inn Plaza Condominiums. f. September 15, 1992 -Ordinance No. 26, Series of 1992 (First Reading) was unanimously denied by the Town Council, by a vote of 6 - 0 - 1 (Bob Buckley abstaining). 2 1I1. SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT CRITERIA. The criteria to be used to evaluate this proposal are the nine Special Development District (,SDD) development star~da.~ds set fcr;l::.^. t!:e srcc°a'. MV./V,V,.I~~V^? dst.^:ct chapter of the Zoning Cade. The criteria are as follows: A. Design compatibility and sensitivity to the tmmedfate environment, neighborhood and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, identity, character, visual Integrity and orientation. This request involves no physical changes to the existing building, architectural design, character, or any of the other review criteria stated above. The staff believes that this development standard is not applicable to the applicant's request. B. Uses, activity and density which provide a compatlbie, efficient and workable relationship with surround[ng uses and activity. As indicated in previous staff memorandums regarding the redevelopment of this condominium, the staff continues to recognize the difficulty of supporting second and third floor retail uses within this part of the Village. We also continue to support the goals of the Land Use Pfan, as weii as the Vail Village Master Pfan. which indicate-tha~one of the methods of strengthening and continuing the existing Village Core vitality is to encourage both high-quality retail and ashort-term bed base. Additionally, because the applicant's original request was for an increase in density (i.e., GRFA) the staff continues to - - maintain that there should be a positive benefit to the Town, as well as a furtherance of the Master Plan's goals, for the approval of the requested increase in density. Initially, the applicant's request did not include the restricted employee dwelling unit and the staff was of the belief that the condominium should be utilized primarily for tourist-oriented accommodations and, thus, should be restricted according to Section 17.26.075 (Condominium Conversion) of the Town of Vail Subdivision Regulations. A copy of this Section of the Subdivision Regulations is attached to this memorandum. The staff does, however, recognize the need for permanently restricted employee housing within the Town's municipal limits. The Town's employee formula calls far 0.4 employees per multi-family residential unit. We believe that the applicant's request, to provide one permanently restricted two-bedroom employee dwelling unit within the Town, would be a positive benefit to the Town, meets the Town's employee formula, and would further the goals of the Town's Master Plans. C. Compliance with parking and Loading requirements as outlined to Chapter 18.52. The Town's parking and loading standards for residential use have been met 3 " with the conversion of condominium Unit No. 30 from retail commercial to = residential. D. Conformity with applicable elements of the Vall Comprehensive Plan, Town policies and Urban Design Plans. The following sections of the Town of. Vail Land Use Plan speclflcatly relate to this proposal: ~ _ Village Core-Lionshead 4.2 - Increased density in the core areas is acceptable so long as the existing character of each area is preserved through implementation of the Urban Design Guide Plan and the Vail Village Master Plan. Residential 5.3 - Affordable employee housing should be made available through private efforts assisted by limited incentives provided by the Town of Vail, with appropriate restrictions. 5.5 - The existing employee housing base should be preserved and upgraded. Additional employee housing needs should be accommodated at varied sites throughout the community. . The following sections of the Vatl Vlltage Master Plan specifically relate to this proposal: 2 ~ - Goal - to foster a strong tourist industry and promote year-round economic health and viability for the Village and for the community as a whole. 2.6 - Objective -Encourage the development of affordable housing units through the efforts of the private sector. 2.6.1 - Policv -Employee housing units may be required as part of any new or redevelopment project requesting density over that allowed by existing zoning. 2.6.2 - Policv, -Employee housing shall be developed with appropriate restrictions so as to insure their availability and affordability to the local work force. 2.6.3 Policv, -The Town of Vail may facilitate in the development of affordable housing by providing limited assistance. 4 . E. Identification and mitigation of natural andlor geologic hazards that affect the property on which the special development district is proposed. No natural and/or geologic hazards are present or affect this property. - F. Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designed to produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural features, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the - community. This development standard is not applicable to the applicant's request. G. A circuiatton system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and off-site traffic circulation. This development standard is not applicable to the applicant's request. H. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and functions. This development standard is not applicable to the applicant's request. 1. Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional and efficient relationship throughout the development of the special development district. This development standard is not applicable to the applicant's request. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Upon detailed review of the applicant's request to eliminate a previous condition of approval for Unit No. 30, the staff recommendation is for approval. The recommendation for approval carries the applicant's suggested condition that the removal of the existing rental restriction shall become effective upon the filing with the Town of Vail, proof of ownership of atwo-bedroom property within the Town of Vail, which shall have its use restricted to rental purposes, according to the following: 1. The employee housing unit (EHU) shall not be subdivided into any form of time shares. interval ownerships, or fractional fee. 2. The EHU shall be leased, but only to tenants who are full-time employees who work in Eagle County. The EHU shall not be leased for a period less than thirty (30) consecutive days. For the purposes of this Section, afull-time employee is one who works an average of a minimum of thirty (30) hours each week. - 3. No later than February 1 of each year. the owner of the employee . _ 5 housing unit shall submit two (2) copies of a report on a form to be obtained from the Community Development Department, to the Community Development Department of the Town of Vail and Chairman of the Town of Vail Housing Authority, setting forth evidence establishing that each tenant whom resides within the employee housing unit is a full-time employee in Eagle County. 4. The provisions as set forth above shall be incorporated into a written agreement in a form approved by the Town Attorney which shall run with the land and shall not be amended or terminated without the written approval of the Town of Vail. Said agreement shall be recorded at the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder's Office prior to the release of the use restriction for Unit No. 30. The two-bedroom employee dwelling unit shall consist of approximately 700-1000 square feet of gross residential floor area and shall include a minimum of two on-site parking spaces. Although the staff believes that maintaining the existing rental restriction on the dwelling unit (Unit No. 30) furthers the goals of the Town's Master Plans, we also believe that the provision of permanently restricted employee housing also furthers many of the goals of the Town's Master Plans. In summary, the staff believes that the applicant's request is in conformance with the SDD review criteria as listed in Section III of this memorandum. - peclmemos\W 112792 s r SUBDIVISIONS C. Plans and descriptions showing how the following will be performed: 1. All site work shall be brought up to current town . standards unless a variance therefrom is granted to the . applicant by the town council in accordance with the variance procedures of this Title 17. The town council may, if it deems necessary, require additional parking facilities tomeet requii =menu of owners and guests of the condominium units 2. Corrections of violations cited in the condominium conversion report by the bui]ding inspector ~ ~ 3. Co;: +r::zinium projects shall meet current Uniform Build- • ing C:+•3e requirements for heat and fire detection devices and systems. (Ord. 29 (1983) § l: Ord. 2 (1983) § 1 (part).) 17.26.075 Condominium conversion. Any applicant seeking to convert any accommodation unit within the town shall comply with the requirements of this _ section. The requirements contained in this section shall not apply to structures ar buildings which contain two units or less. A. 'The requirements and restrictions herein contained shall be included in the condominium declaration for the project, and filed of record with the Eagle County clerk and recorder. The . condominium units created shall remain in the short term ~vut ttas-aat 298-4 f . • - CONDOMINIUMS AND CONDOMINIUM CONVERSIONS L - rental market to be used as temporary accommodations avaiiable to the Reneral public. 1. An owner's personal use of his or her unit shall be - restrictcd to twenty eight days durin¢ the seasonal • period of December 24th to ,January 1st and February !st to March 20th. This seasonal period is • hereinafter i•cferred to as "high season." "Owner's personal use" shall be defined as owner's occupancy of a unit or non-paying guest of the owner or taking the unit off of the rental market during the seasonal periods referred to herein for any reason other than for ncccssrry repairs which cannot be postponed or which may make the unit unrentablc. Occuoancv of a unit by a lodge manaa,er or staff emoloyed by th+e , - lodge, however. shall not be restricted by this sec • ~ - 2. A violation of the owner's use restriction by a unit owner ` shall subject the owner to a daily assessment rate by the condominium association ofthree times a rate considered to be a reasonable daily rental rate for the unit at the time of the violation, which assessment when paid shall be common elements of the condominiums. All sums • assessed against the oa~ncr for violation of the owner's _ - personal use restrictian~nd unpaid shall constitute a lien for the benefit of the condominium association on that owner's unit, which lien shall be evidenced by written notice placed of record in the office of the clerk and _ recorder of Eagle County, Colorado, and which may be - collected by foreclosure, on an owner's condominium unit by the association in like manner as a mortgage or - deed of trust on real property. The condominium associa- tion's failure to enforce the owner's personal use restric- • lion shall give the town the right to enforce the restriction - -by the assessment and the lien provided for hereundcr.lC _ ~ .the town enforces the restriction, the town shall receive the funds collected as a result of such enforcement. In the ' - event litigation results from the enforcement of the restriction, as part of its reward to the prevailing party, ' the court shall award such party its court costs together with reasonable attorney's fees incurred. . 298 5~~" • - • (Vail 12.1-E7) f ' a• • SUBDIV1S10NS ' • 3. The town shill have the right to require from the condominium association an annual report of owner's . personal use during the high: seasons for al! converted condominium units. 4. The converted iod~e units shall not be used as • permanent residences. For the purposes of this section, a person shall be presumed to be a permanent resident if such person has resided in the unit for six consecutive months notwithstanding • tram time to time during such six month period the • pcrsnn may briefly dwell in other places. B. Any lodge located within the town which has converted accom1modation units to condominiums shall continue to gr^ti•i~r v•YJtV~1%rry la;!g~ ~.~i^rilitirv Y~.~'1 JV~ ~.rVJ l~,blrN~~la a customary marketing program. C. The converted condominium units shall remain available to the general tourist market. if unsold thirty days after recording of the condominium map, the unsold con- verted condominiums shalt be required to be furnished and made available to the general tourist market within ninety days after the date of recording of the condo- . minium map. This requirement may be met b~,inciusion _ of the units of the condominium project, at comparable • rates, in any local reservation system for the rental of lodge or condominium units in the town. ' D. The common areas of any lodge v?•ith converted units shall remain common areas and be maintained in a manner consistent with its previous character. Any changes, altcra- lions or renovations made to common areas shall not diminish the size or quality of the common areas. E. Any accommodation units that were utilized to provide housing for employees at any time during the three years • -previous to the date of the application shall remain as employee units for such duration as may be required by the planning and environmental commission or the town council. F.: Applicability. All conditions set forth within this section shall • be made binding on tl~c applicant. the applicant's successors. - heirs, personal repro}:ntatives and assigns and shall govern the property which is the subjecCof the application for the life ~ 298-6 j tVait 12.1-i<7) r .,u: CONDOMINIUMSANDCOI~DOMINIUM CO1\VERSIONS _ C O Q~ ~ C of the survivor.of the present town council plus twenty-one C O ' = • g years. Conversion of accommodation units located within a. C O _ C lodge pursuant to this section, shall be modified only by the C' O : / x•ritten agreement of the town council and the owner or ' C O ! C : owners of the units which have been convened into condo- - C ~ ~ ~ miniums.The docunxnu creatingand go~~erning any axommoda- ~ O ~ _ - -lion unit which has been convened into a condominium shall . be modified by the owners of such units only with the prior " ~ ° x•ritten approval of the town council. G. Procedure. The conversion of an accommodation unit in an existing lodge shall be accomplished pursuant to the sub- division review process. The applicant shall provide the following documentation to the town at the time of the application to convert accommodation units located in a lodge to condominium units: 1. Proof of ownership; 2. Site inventory for the property indicating in detail the actual location of any amenities serving`tlieLodge; 3. Affidavit of services provided as is ~cal)ed for in sub- paragraph 2 above; _ 4. Designation and description of all employee units; - - 5. Plan of improvements to be made to the propcny along with estimated costs therefor. (Ord. 21(1987) 1-3: Ord. 2(1983) § 1 (Part).) 17.26.080 Action on preliminary map. A. At the hearing on the preliminary map, the planning commis- . Sion shall consider whether the proposed conversion is .consistent with the following housing goals of the town: : 1.~; :To encourage continuation of social and economic _ ~ ~ diversity in the town through a variety of housing types; 4 t. _ 1 ~ ~ 2. To expand the supply of decent housing for low and ~ O ~ - ~ , .:moderate income families; 3. To achieve greater economic balance for the town by C C ' • _ - increasing the number of jobs and the supply of housing !or people who will hold them. i- 0 i~ ~ B. The commission may require that a reasonable percentage of C O ~ ~ the converted units be reserved for sate or rental to persons of L • 0 i ~ moderate income. Oa~__ 1_' 298-7 t~'a it l 2.1-R7) ORDINANCE N0.34 SERIES 1992 AN ORDINANCE REPEALING SECTION 11 OF ORDINANCE NO. 14, SERIES OF 1987, SUBSECTION 9, AND St ~ ~ LNG FORTH DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO, AMENDING SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 6, VAIL VILLAGE INN, TO REMOVE A PREVIOUS CONDITION OF APPROVAL FOR UNIT NO. 30, PHASE I, VAIL VILLAGE PLAZA CONDOMINIUMS/100 EAST MEADOW DRIVE. BE IT ORDAINED by the Town Council of the Town of Vail, Colorado as follows: Section 1 - Leaislative Intent A. On November 21, 1989, the Town Council passed Ordinance No. 24, Series of 1989, amending Section 8 of Ordinance No. 14, Series of 1987, by the addition of Subsection 9 placing certain restrictions on the use of condominium unit No. 30 of the Vail Village Plaza Condominiums. B. An application has been made to the Town of Vail to repeal Subsection 9 of Section 11 of Ordinance No. 14, Series of 1987. C. The Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town, on December 7, 1992, held a hearing on the proposed amendment and has submitted its recommendation to the Town Council. D. The Town Council finds that the review criteria of the Town of Vail Special Development District Ordinance is met by the proposed amendment. Section 2 The applicant or his successors in interest agrees to file with the Town's Department of Community Development proof of ownership of an employee housing unit (EHU), which shall have its use restricted to rental purposes, and shall conform to the following: A. The EHU shall consist of a minimum of 700 square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA); B. The EHU shall consist of a minimum of iwo-bedrooms; C. The EHU shall be located within the Town of Vail municipal limits; D. The EHU shall be a "new" employee housing unit, (i.e a unitwhich is not currently use restricted); E. The EHU shall include two (2) on-site parking spaces or the EHU shall include one (1) on-site parking space and the EHU shall be located "on" the Town's bus route (as determined by the Town Zoning Administrator); 1 ` F. The EHU shall not be subdivided into any form of time shares, interval ownerships, or fractional fee; G. The EHU shall be leased, but only to tenants who are full-time employees who work in Eagle County. The EHU shall not be leased for a period less than thirty (30) consecutive days. For the purposes of this Section, afull-time employee is one who works an average of a minimum of thirty (30) hours each week; H. No later than February 1 of each year, the owner of the employee housing unit shall submit two (2) copies of a report (on a form to be obtained from the Community Development Department}, to the Community Development Department of the Town of Vail and the Chairperson of the Town of Vail Housing Authority, setting forth evidence establishing that each tenant whom resides within the employee housing unit is a full-time employee in Eagle County; and I. The provisions set forth in this Section shall be incorporated into a written agreement in a form approved by the Town Attorney which shall run with the land and shall not be amended or terminated without the written approval of the Town of Vail. Said agreement shall be recorded at the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder's Office. Section 3 Subsection 9 of Section 11 of Ordinance No. i 4, Series of 1987, is repealed. Section 4 If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. Section 5 The Town Council hereby finds, determines, and declares that this ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety, and welfare of the Town of Vail and the inhabitants thereof. Section 6 The repeal or the repeal and reenactment of any provision of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail as provided in this ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceedings as commenced under or by virtue of the 2 rr 4 provision repealed or repealed and reenacted. The repeal of any provision hereby sha11 not revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein. Section 7 All bylaws, orders, resolutions, and ordinances, or parts thereof, inconsistent herewith are repealed to the extent only of such inconsistency. This repealer shall not be construed to revise any bylaw, order, resolution, or ordinance, or part thereof, theretofore repealed. INTRODUCED, READ, APPROVED, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL ON FIRST READING this day of , 1992, and a public hearing shall be held on this Ordinance on the day of , 1992, at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado. Margaret A. Osterfoss, Mayor ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Acting Town Clerk READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED this day of , 1992. Margaret A. Osterfoss, Mayor ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Acting Town Clerk G:~ORD92.34 3 SENT BY~EAGLE COUNTY ;12-11-92 ; 14 05 ; J0332872Q7-~ 1/ 3 • December 11, 1992 12:18 ,~~1 ' ~ EAGLE CoLNTY flIrLDING 55 f BRCIADWAY OFFICE OF THE ' PA. 80X 850 BOARD Df COMA~R5514r1ER5 EACitE, COLORADp $ t$j I (303) 326-8605 ,.;y;'`~ FAX: (303) 3]i•7207 EAGLE COUNTY, COLO~?DO AGENDA soARD o~ coux~r~ coMMiss~oN$RS RBGULA~t I~iff~, i u1G DAx DECEMBER 14, 1992 I 09:00 -10:00 WORE SESSION - Y~ Y UPDATE arr. ~a~ goat r~OSS xooar James R. Fritze , Gouaty N~anager 10:00 -10:45 PENDING LITIGATION arr. Aoi,Y aoaar Kevin Li>~datlt., County Attorney . i 10:43 - 11.:00 *t*ggEAKs•~ I . i . 11:00 - 11;30 WORK SESSION CONi,~a~TINC~ ACCESS TRAIL ' art of the Boar cRa~ss Roaar „>~UUGH i naf. SOMESTEAD SUBD ONTO FOREST ~rr.VICE LAND Buddy Calhoun ~ 11:30 -12:00 WORK SESSION ~i~,t~ ~r~,a $UMAN URGE arraf rac Boer moss aocW COUNCIL • , Richard i~. Trnchses, Ph.D 12:00 - 01:30 as*LUNCHs:: 01:30 - 01:45 CONSENT CAI~l1~AR s~r~ c>DUxrfa~o~rr 1TPa/8 OF d ROflllll~ AND M~1KrnN7IrOYaRATAt afdlflBBdREPLdf~p f)1V 7f5~ COXS6M Cdl~A7E Tr? A!!1!W 7SE EOAFD PF ~ i WWrlY GbaD[ISSIOIYFRT 7t? SP1911D R.'4 !7l(8 AJIG7 ElYfaRl~1' ON arORH lal~ORIANI f!$8fS ON ,r IBlk,aar ACfBI~A. ANY OOJ1Gr1S51nn®e~ft~rx[r~tJEST78dTANrrf~aa •~,rOY~•FR0317A8'a~~v7~CAlL11IDrdRdll~At7A~a~nSE1•i1R~78LY. AM' iI~MBEJi! OF 7HE A(JBf1C arAY •RBQUBS7' ANYl7F,~r BS ~EAdOYBA• FROar 2HE 00114l8~1~1'AG~J~A. . i 1. BILL PAYIl~IG Linda Pankuch, Accounting Larry Clever, Coatroller ACTION: Arr., rsl subject to review by the County Manager, i - SENT BY~EAGLE COUNTY ;12-11-92 14 05 ; 3Q33287207-~ 2/ 3 Z. QUpT-CLAIM a~+.r.D VACATWG PiQRTIONS WF+SLEYAN ROAD AND AMHLRST ROAD LOCA ~ r.a. WITI@T CRELK ~4~i ~ ~,~aON, PER RESOLUTION 91-1~5 gevin Lindaht, Cotmt9 Y ACTION: Oder approval. 3. REQL~a TO RELEASE ~a:••S OF TRUST LOTS 1, Z, AND ZO S~TYISION, WHI LOTS HAVE,br~l RIB-BUBDI` y,rr.D AS COYOTE SUBDIYJS[Ol`i SBVia Lindabl, awnty Att~ay ACTION: Con~ndnr ~ val. 4. BFSOLL ~ ~ VACATING RIva i -OF WAY OVPN AS LARIAT LOOF IN &vu 1 ~ F[lRTY SUBDIV4SION, AUTHORIZING CHAIRMAN TO .u~,l RELATED ~u.Y CLA1?~ DEEDS Sid Fmc, Seoiar Planner, Comm:mity meat ACTION: Consider y+prnval. 5. REi.EASE OF ALL CLAIMS ON OF MID VAId.EY M:... ~OPOLITAN DISTRICT FOR REPAIRING GINAL ROAD Dos Fesaler, Road and Bridge Stipeivieor ACTION: Camaider arr. ~ ~1. WAIVER AND B~ FACT AGREEMENT a ~rrr~+T SHARON J. rr.,rr.~ AND GEORGE N. I.ANDBUM; AND EA COUNTY. SPATE OI' COLORADO CONa.riaNII~TG APYLICATI N OF Y~• EAGLE C04. ~ Y : BUIQ.DING CODE Geary Hest, Ci?isf Building inapectnr ACTION: Consider ~ ~,.~r~..~ ~ sl. 7. LIQITOR LICENSE IIEAe.k. ~w (RENEWAL) jET ~.YL?~ i'r.R CAFE, INC. Mary Jo .~.,;to, Assistant Comty A ACTION: Conaidor . ..,l. 8. RESOLUTION OBUERING CANCELLATY N OF CERTAIN UNCOId.E+..r~ FEItSONAL I'ROP'ERTY Aar: (IIVCLUDING MOBILE HOMES), PURSUANT TO C.B.B. 3?-1 114(2) (A) Sherry Brandon., Treasurer ACTION: Coneidet approval.. ~ 9. RESOLUTION DESIGNATING .1r..~~~,~1GS ~F ~n~ BOARD OF COUNTY CObIINISSIONERS; v~r~~ HOUB3; AND LEGAL HOLIDAYS OF , ne. COUNTY OF EAGLE, STATE OF COLORADO, FOR FISCAL YEAR Igl3 Iumee R Frig, ~xih' M~b'~ ACT10N: Consider approval. 10. RESOLUTION AUTHORTLING Y rr, ESTABLLSHMErfT Ol~ TAE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CQUh Y kr.S (NACo) T3~.~.a.REU CO~~c~:75ATION PLAN FOR . na CO[INTY OF EAGLE Jarees R. Fritre, County Maoagor ACTION: Consider approval. SFNT BY~EAG;LE COUNTY ;12-11-92 ; 14 06 ; 3033267207-~ 3/ 3 01:45 - 8Z:08 RE.50LUTIONS SIGNING B~cr~ awnrfrxraoer MaryKessler, OffilzManagear for Community D~welopmeaat a. PD-?.81-92-A-ELLIOTT RANCH PUD AMENDI4..~~ LOT 4 b. PD~308-92-, u,+. G~~N RANCH c. T 1~9z-DF.NISSEN,r,.~..nr.ec d. zc-2s2-~a~AR~oNY r~~~ ACTION: Consider arr ~ ~al_ 02:00 -02:10 LIQUOR LICENSE HEARING (SENEWAL APPLICATION, ~lc~..,.u~7lYROOJ?1 MANAGAt'SRTG1,~~~.A~,~?,N, ANDMODYF[CATION) FOR .TK AND F CORPORATION dba TRAMONTY Mary 7o B:...~.ato, Assistant County Attorney ACTION: Consider a~ r , ~,al. 02ap -02:15 RESOLUTION APFC3II~ 1~+1C BOARD OF TRUST'EE5 TO ~GLSaounnrxoo~w THE EAGLE YALLEY LIBRARY DISTRICT Mary Jo B"z~.,:..ato, Assistant County Attorney AC iY~u~N: Consider a~,~..., ral. OZ:15 -02:30 ***BRF.AK*:* 02:30 - 03:00 ZS-328A1=LYON TBUCSS STORAGE YARD FacrB oovnm~ leoo~r Sid Fox, Senior Planner, Community Development ACTION: Consider Special Use application to develop a contras-tors' storage yard and one caretakex's unit. Tb~is item was tabled from November 24. 03:00 - 03:38 P[TBLIC MF~TING REGARDING S~ TANKS AT raca~ Qovtvtr.?,, ~ EAGLE COUNTY AIItPORT Craig Colby, Vice Pmsident and General Manager of Vail Beaver Cree]c Jet Center 7I18 NCI' h.c`c.auld OF THS F.ACILB COUIV7'Y CQNML~RIONl~9 WII1.86 QN DSC~>ilt 21.1992. THIS At3ENDA IS PROvIDrin FAY tNF(l~lhf ATIt~NAL M1QP(38E5 ONLY - ALL T~9 A1tB APP~OJCm1ATB. '[118 BOARD WSII.E IN SF5.4102V MAY CONs,..~ QiHFlt II'Biw15'IHAT AR6 HiFOUGHT ~,ae~~aE rr. PAGE 3 ~ R~'C~IVEO DEC - g ~ ass o b RES L`LTS THROGGH CONCEPTS. PROMOTIONS :~~D CREATIVE COMMGN{CATIONS. ~ - MEMORANDUM " ~ TO: Ron Phillips Harry Frampton ~ . Kent Myers . Pat Peeples . _ john Garnsey - - . Frank Johnson ~ . FROM: John Horan-Kates East West Marketing ' RE: Notes from our Sister it_v~BYainst.,,:~~?ing Session with St. Moritz " . • ~ ~ DATE: December 3, 1992 . - • - - _ - ~ _ ~ . • Here are some brief, notes from our meeting last week to highlight the key items ~ . • . ~ : of , discussion. ~ - - - . - ! • It .was, mutt}ally agreed that .the principal objective of the relationship . ~ ~ is ~ education. However, Hans Peter feels we could take advantage of - . - ~ ~ ~ joint marketing opportunities, -particularly those directed at the travel :.trade. - - _ • The .primary activity has been, and should continue to be, exchanges. ;The suggestion was made that future exchanges should have atopic - . ~ ~ _ or focus, and that the host site should organize many of the activities ~ ~ around that particular topic: - For example, if a hotel personnel . . = .exchange were to be initiated then the visiting community would ~ : - _ . - ~ . - send primarily hoteliers ,while the host community would organize _ • ' . - meetings, site visits and, .perhaps, business conferences directed at the hotel industry. _ If each community brought the resources available to . it ,around each particular, topic, a very meaningful exchange program - " ~ could evolve. Topics might include marketing, hotel operations, ~ . - ~ schools, service organizations, in-bound: travel programs -and . . . • :resort/community operations. ~ ~ _ - : • ~ Another idea mentioned to tie the two communities closer together ~ _ . - . ' ~ ~ was special competitions or events. A ski race or a golf tournament " - ' DENVER NAIL VALLEY ;4100 E. PRENTiCE AVE.. SL!ITE 8J0. ENGLEWOOD. CO 801 I i I00 E. THOMAS PLACE. BEAVER CREEK REBURY. DRAWER ?770. AVON CO' 816?0 ?03 ?_V•80 a .FAX: 303 ??0.5103 30? 8.ys_y?00 ~ FAX: 303 815-^J. . ~ ,i. could be created on ahome-and-home series basis that might be both fun and generate some publicity. • Another suggestion made was to establish a cooperative marketing organization with other of the world's leading resorts. The group would include obviously Vail and St. Moritz, but might also include Whistler, Baraloiche and others. • The Vail contingent agreed that we need to cazefully determine what we really want to do, and more importantly, who should manage and . coordinate this relationship. To this last point, I will try to get us together the week of December 14th. 12i10~92 16:00 $ 303 479 2197 P.02 ~1 L. A , Holiday Tree Lighting x.992 Event Agenda ~U, ~a•ro•fr-' Saturr~ay, December 19, 1992 Lionshead Ceremony 5:40 prn Carolers in Lionshead 5:4Spm Dignitaries meet at Chart House for refreshments 5:50pm Vail Community Chorale sings 3,5 songs 6:05pm Mayor Qsterfoss welcomes public and introduces Dignitaries: TOV Of#icials, C.ounky Commissioners, Vail Associates representatives, Santa, any celebrities, ]'resident Ford a~td family b:15pm President Fard greets the audience President Ford introduces Pat Iamilton who wi11 sictg Oh Holy Night, * * * Hamilton sings C)h Holy Night. 6:19 pm President Ford introduces Art Kleimer who will lead a short prayer (text attached). * * k Ark Kleimer prayer b:20pm 1'residsnt lord makes brief aruwuncement, lights tree as Vail Community Chorale sings lay to the World 6:23pm Vail C:onnmunity Chorale, Pat Hamilton lead dignitaries and the public in a C.~ristmas carol * Santa departs stage and circulates among crowd b:Zbpm Mayor Ustcrfoss thanks public for attending and announces Village tree lighting at 7:t)t}pm. 6:27pm Dignitaries, Vail Community Chorale, Santa, etc. depart into tluee wagons on site for transport to Sonnenalp Austria Haas Wagon #1 Vail Community Chorale, Pat Ilamiltvn Wagon #2 President Tard, Dignitaries Wagon #3 Remaining Dignitaries, Santa, Vail Ambassadors Note: t~gents shouYd be prepared to drive Fords to Sri fer Square for Vf ]loge ceremony if taeat~her is inclerrtent. 12~10i92 16:01 $ 303 479 2197 P. 03 ~'Vilra~e Ceremo~n~ 6:40pm C:arolere at Village CcL..~,.ony site b:4Spm Dignitaries, Fords, meet at Sonnenalp Austria Haus for refreshments prior to Village ceremony. * * * Vail Community Chorus sings 3-5 songs 7:05pm Mayor t7sterfoss introduces Aignitaries: TC7V t7ffi.cials, County Commissioners, Vail A~vciates representatives, Santa, any celebrities, President Ford and family 7:1Spm President lord greets the audience k ~ * immediately prior to lighting the tree, President Ford introduces Pat Iamilton who will sing Ave Marie k** Hamilton siYtgs Ave Maria 7:19 pm President Ford introduces Art Klcimer who will lead. a short prayer (text attached). - • Art Klcimer prayer 7:20pm President Tord makes brief announcement, lights free as Vail Community Chorale sings Jov to the World 7:23pm Vail Community C',horale, Pat Hamilton lead dignitaries and the public ' in a Christmas carol t * Santa departs stage and circulates among crowd 7:2bpm Mayor Osterfoss thanks public for attending. AYUiounces Winter Wonderlights awards ceremony immediately after tree lighting 72'1'pm President Pord and fami}y, '}'C~V Uffieials, County Commissioners, Vail Associates representatives, Santa, any crlcbritic~s depart stage for Sonnenalp while Vail Community chorus continues to lead public In (:~ristrnas carols ` Vail Community Chorale continues to lead public in t~ristmas carols ' 7:35pm Video presentation of "Winter WanderLights" awards winners 7:50pm Event concludes T~ o~Ly . ~p w Si;fMMAItY OF FINDINGS: SYSTEMS ASSESSMENT FOR t~tir; TOWN OF VAIL Browne, Bortz, &Coddington, Inc. 1992 Browne, Bortz, &Coddington, Inc. (BBC) recently completed a comprehensive systems assessment of all aspects of the Town of Vail organization. A Steering Committee consisting of representatives from the Town Council, senior management, and the public guided the process and assisted in formulating recommendations to then be presented to the Council, Town employees, and the community. In the course of the study, BBC sought the perceptions related to Town services from external customers of the Town and conducted detailed interviews with over 100 Towri employees. An in-depth analysis of innovative management systems from across the country was included as part of the study. BBC's research found that while residents, second homeowners, and businesses have high expectations, they are generally pleased with the quality of Town services. The quality of Town service delivery is due to the relatively high caliber of Town employees; however, it was found that internal management systems in some situations worked against efforts of employees rather than for them. We found some systems did not meet customer needs and determined the root causes for these specific breakdowns would span the organization as a whole. In summary, the Town suffers from various negative elements found in most traditional hierarchical organizations. As is the case with many such businesses or organizations, for employees or a department to improve or even maintain the quality of services now delivered to customers, the entire Town must work differently. Recommended actions focus on three main issues. 1. Build trust. Lack of trust and fear on the part of employees is typical in any large, traditionally managed organization or business. Communication difficulties and distant physical proximity on a daily basis between departments, managers, leaders, and employees can lead to misinfonrration and, ultimately, mistrust. Lack of communication and at times fear on the part of employees within the Town is most often felt in relation to Town Council members and the Town Manager. A number of actions are recommended to improve the Town's internal working environment: a. The Town Council and Town Manager should make and maintain a serious commitment to make changes. The Council must start this process. b. The Town Council and Town Manager should be more visible to employees and interface regularly with employees in the employees' environments. + c. Employees should be encouraged to attend Council meetings and be allowed to speak up on issues of importance to them. Council members should assume the role of listening and then handle matters through the appropriate channels. d. The Town Council should be cognizant of all comments made by members, even made lightly or in jest. The Council members should be aware of perceptions created when they are making off handed or negative comments and cease this habit. e. The Town Council and Town Manager should commit to independent checkpoints and surveys with employees, and commit to sharing the results as was enacted with the recent employee survey. f. The Town Manager position should have a greater role as a "coach" to department heads, rather than "director of activities." The Town Manager should be evaluated on how well he or she establishes, develops, and coordinates the management team. This position becomes more proactive and less reactive to operational issues. 2. Enhance Communication and Redesign Decision Making Processes. Like many large organizations, decision making within the Town of Vail can be often slow or haphazard, with many layers of the organization involved in relatively minor issues. The Town Council and Town Manager assume decision making responsibilities which can often be delegated to other levels of the organization and the division of responsibilities between the Council and the Town Manager's Office is not clearly understood. Recommended initiatives include the following: a. The Town Council and Town Manager can better understand appropriate roles by reviewing the Town Charter. Proper definition of roles would result in fewer decisions going to the Council, freeing time for the Council to devote to more important, long range issues. b. The Town Council should narrow its role and responsibilities in making financial decisions. The Council should focus on outcomes from Town government and the aggregate level of resources associated with achieving those outcomes (ie. avoid focusing on specific line items). c. The Town Council should focus on and solidify desired outcomes and overall direction, such as creating vision for Vail and for Town government, governing by specifying desired outcomes, and governing by measured outcomes. d. The Town Manager should further empower departments to make decisions. The Town should decentralize the decision making structure, empowering individuals as close to the customer as possible to make decisions affecting service to those customers. The Council, the Town Manager and department heads should recognize that more responsibility and authority at the department level might lead to more mistakes, but will be healthy in the long run. ,J e. When decisions are made by top management, managers should explain them to employees. Not all decisions can be decentralized; therefore, when the Council or the Town Manager make a decision affecting employees, if possible, both the decision and the underlying rationale should be explained. £ The Council and managers should reinforce success. If the Council and the Town Manager develop a regular pattern of positive recognition of employees, this pattern will be easier to follow for department heads and other managers. 3. Develop Teamwork, With the changes recommended above, especially delegation of additional responsibility and authority to departments, more decision making will take place among teams working within and between program areas. However, teamwork within the Town is currently underdeveloped and must be fostered within and between departments. The following suggestions could help achieve this goal: a. Train employees in team skills, including problem solving skills, skills in team process, efficient meetings, etc. b. Develop necessary information for team decision making and make this information available to teams. c. Form ad-hoc teams for specific issues. For example, if teams are formed to discuss specific personnel or benefits issues, they should reach a recommendation, possibly implement it, and then dissolve. In some cases, - . Council member(s) might be appointed to teams. d. Provide the authority to the teams to implement changes. e. If necessary, reallocate department responsibilities to ensure greater teamwork. For example, design review and inspection functions might be consolidated as one team under Community Development. Responsibility for leadership in implementing this process rests with the Town Council. This report was designed to give the Council an understanding of what stands in the way of improvement and what actions are required. In order for changes to be successful, it is important to implement training programs at all levels of the organization and to maintain an ongoing measurement process which answers the question, "How has all that has been done improved Town operations?" In conclusion, the Town is doing well in providing service with a high level of employee skill. BBC's recommendations are made to build upon what is already done well and to introduce a process of change that will further improve performance and participation of employees, enhance cost efficiency, and lead to more satisfied customers. i e~ ~ - ~ Sumriiary of Findings, ma:~Assessment~f~or the Town of Vail e _ ~ - : , BBB Iris: . ~ - BBC recently completed a comprehensive systems assessment of all aspects of~Town ~ . government. A ~::.:~.'ng Committee. cansisdng of representatives from Counal, senior mono em and thy,/~pu lick, uid "~e ooe s ands assisted in f~,....ulatin recon mend&f ons to ~To`swn~~{utc'~; ' the Darla of: the stud, BBC sou t the percepEfons of Town s~~ ~ Ices from°extei'na1 Customers of'~the Town and conducted dinterviews with over I00 Town employees. Many of the suggestions outlined 'min BBC's report emerged .directly from. disCussfbns_-with Town customers and entpluy from across anal~sis_ ~Iqf innpvative Management 'systems the country ~ ~ ~ ,r - f2 f < ,ems - Our research found that while re~idents,.s~nd.'~omeowner~;~nd businesses have high . expectations, they are generally pleased with the quality of Trown services. The quality of Town del'v rye, due to.the_r~el ti ~ hi 'bar of Town employees; however,'~~1E~:~s~i ea s k.;,s _ _ r t efforts of employees rather, than for them. sys not meeting customer needs root causes'for these breakdowns ~y s~pann~d the org ti as w off. in suml. - , the Town suffers ~r~ n a~}y~~` aspects `~°a~di'~'`ionia~ 3e chieal organizations.~For,~~-~ ~`t ~'~'m"p~d~r ev`~ `~i~ ~i of services now delivered to, cus;..~~,~~,.ers,,.the entire ~"must.work differently. Recommended ~ } . - , actions ~fociised on~ three issues: ` _ ~ _ ' .c. ~•.~x-~~~ E,!~;Thee issues Krere found thro ut the or ization ugho and primaxiiy pertain to employs' feelings -£uward tl1e Town Manager and Council. A number of actions ~nrere recommended to improve the inir:...al working environment. $reakdowns in communication and decision making. Decision making and communications are often slow or haphazard, with many layers of the organization involved with relatively~minor-is ues. The Tow~Coiu?dl:and Town Manager deal with matters that are inar'r'•.~rriate those levels of the organization, and the division of responsibilities between Coup ' and the Town Manager's Office is not clearly understood. Reecommended initiatives address these issues. Lack of to skip. We found ~everal exa#n les of breakdowns in teamwork in course of th _ ~ p the study To implement the angel recommended In the study, more decision malting will need to take place amo~g teams working directly with the Town's customers. Capabilities of Town employees to work as taeams can be further developed with the re~..~.mended actions. Building upon what ft already oes~well, the Town needs to introduce a r.~.,cess of change that will further improve artidpaHon of employees, enhance cost effi©ency and lead to increased satisfaction fits customers.. Responsibility for leadership in . impleu~en4iitg this process rests 'th Town Council. I ' T ~ , PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL - TORN COUNCIL DIRECT REPORTS The Town of Vail shall utilize a results-based performance appraisal system for the Town Manager, the Town Attorney, and the Municipal Judge. The type of system minimizes subjectivity in the appraisal process and promotes employee motivation due to the fact that the employee is involved in determining the goals and expectations to be evaluated on the appraisal. The objectives of the performance appraisal system are: 1. Establish a strong c.,......unication link between the Town Manager, the Town Attorney, the Municipal Judge, and the Town Council. 2. Identify and clarify the expectations and results for the three positions. 3. Provide a means of feedback from the Town Council to each of the three positions. 4. Motivate the employee and reward job performance. 5. Identify performance areas needing improvement, 6. Provide continuity of operations from year to year. For the Town Manager, Town Attorney, and the Municipal Judge, the process of performance appraisal and merit pay review begins in November of each year. At this time the encumbent(s) will prepare a comprehensive list of goals (for the upcoming calendar year) for his/her position. Simultaneously, the Town Council will prepare its list of goals and expectations for each of the three positions. At a joint goal setting meeting, the Council and the encumbent(s) will reach agreement on the goals for the next year and the goals will be written into Part 1 of the performance appraisal form. Agreement rust be reached prior to the beginning of the calendar year. .The three individuals will be evaluated against these mutually agreed upon goals. When writing goals, keep the following criteria in mind. Well written goals are: 1. Stated in terms of end results to be achieved. 2. Measurable, i.e. stated in terms that are quantitative, qualitative, and timely. 3. Clear, concise, and unambiguous. 4. Realistic, practical, and linked to the organizational objectives. 5. Ambitious enough to pose a reasonable challenge to the individual. is • 9.9~ . Post-It"' brand fax transmittal memo 7671 I # of pages ? 9 To?O~d?1~ Gt.RS~/hf~ FromPfGCi~/ osTFi2/~o~t'S Co. Co. ~U V Dept. / t~ Phone # ~ ~ 9 , ~ ~ 06 Fax#nS9 ~ bOp~ Fax# y ` o~~,S'7 - Once per quarter throughout the reporting period (calendar year), each encumbent will make a formal status report to the Council, indicating progress toward each goal, problem areas, and successes. If necessary, adjustments or modifications to goals, priorities, schedules, resources, etc, shall be made during the status report. All changes should be_made in writing on the performance appraisal form. Utilizing the quarterly status reports will tend to eliminate many "surprises" and will provide a high level of comfort regarding ongoing operations within the Town of Vail. Finally, during December of each year, the Town Council shall complete a formal performance appraisal and merit pay review for the previous 12 months (Jan-Dec) on each of the encumbents. A completed appraisal form shall be signed by the Mayor and a copy given to the encumbent at the time of the appraisal discussion. TOi~TN ONAGER PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL ~tAl~ DATE OF REVIBFi: DATE OF HIRE: DATE ASSUMED THIS POSITION: r . , i PART 1 - PERFORMANCE GOALS i RESULTS A. GOALS B. ACTUAL RESULTS C. COMMENTS: PART 2 - PERFORMANCE CRITERIA CRITERIA PERFORMANCE RATINGS OUT GOOD MS NI UNSAT LEADERSSIP COMMUNICATION SKILLS INTERPERSONAL SKILLS PROBLEM ANALYSIS DECISION HARING ~ JUDGEMENT POLITICAL SENSITIVITY PEOPLE ~ ORGANIZATIONAL SENSITIVITY CREATIVITY ~ INITIATIVE MANAGEMENT FLERIBILITY PLANNING & ORGANIZING COMMENTS: PART 3 - DEVELOPMENT MAJOR STRENGTHS: AREAS NEEDING IMPROVEMENT: OVERALL PERFORMANCE RATING: OUTSTANDING - EXCEEDS EXPECTATIONS AT ALL TIMES GOOD - EXCEEDS MOST EXPECTATIONS MEETS BASIC - MEETS BASIC EXPECTATIONS ' NEEDS IMPROVEMENT - NOT ALL EXPECTATIONS ARE MET UNSATISFACTORY - FAILS TO MEET MINIMUM EXPECTATIONS Employee Signature Mayor, Town of Vail f . ~ PERFORMANCE CRITERIA LEADERSHIP: Provide direction and influence toward accomplishment of team goals; ability to develop teamwork and maximize resources within a team to achieve team goals. COMMUNICATION SKILLS: Effectiveness of oral, written, and listening skills; ability to c....~..unicate meaning in a clear, concise and accurate manner to other members of the team. INTERPERSONAL SKILLS: Cooperative, pleasant, and helpful in dealing with others; ability to create a harmonious, open, working environment; works well with others. PROBLEM ANALYSIS: Effective in distinguishing symptoms from problems; recognizes important data and is able to identify possible causes of problems; . clarifies ambiguities and is able to see unusual aspects of a problem situation and find unique solutions. DECISION HARING & JUDGEMENT: ' . Ability to evaluate data and potential courses of action and to reach unbiased, rational, logical decisions; willingness to make decisions, render judgements, and take actions. POLITICAL SENSITIVITY: Aware of the impact of political influence on decisions and organization. PEOPLE & ORGANIZATIONAL SENSITIVITY: Awareness of other people, the environment, and his/her own impact on other people; capacity to perceive the effect and implications of decisions and actions on other parts of the organization; aware of the effect of political influence on decisions and the organization. G r L 1 • K CREATIVITY ~ INITIATIVE: Ability to introduce new and original ideas and sound courses of action; actively influences events rather than passively accepting them; sees opportunities and acts on them. I~ANAGEIKENT 1rLEZIBII~ITY: Ability to modify approach and/or style to reach a goal. PLANNYNG i ORGANIZING: Establishes a course of action for self and others to accomplish specific goals. . PERFORMANCE RATIgGS r 1. OUTSTANDING: = Consistently and significantly exceeded goals and expectations in all areas. of performance. Made a major contribution to the total performance of the organization. 2. GOOD: Consistently exceeded goals and expectations in most areas of performance. 3. MEETS BASICs Successfully achieved the basic goals and expectations in all areas of performance. May have exceeded goals andlor expectations in some areas and missed in some others. Has competently performed the duties of the position. 4. NEEDS IMPROVEMENT: Performance has been reasonably adequate but has not been successful in achieving all the goals and expectations. Has not completely reached the desired level of achievement for this position. Marginal level of performance. - 5. UNSATISFACTORY: Failed to meet the goals and expectations of the position. ! - ;xi K;,S~a SYSTEMS ASSESSMENT BROWNE, BORTZ & CODDINGTON, >NC Town Of Vail f ~ - . ~r L:. C ~ 155 50UTH MADISON L DENVER, COLORADO 80209 `303' 321-2547 REPORT L l__. ~i ~ r' F;- SYSTEMS ASSESSMENT ~ Town of Vail, Colorado Prepared for rr Vail Systems Assessment Steering Committee l_. ~ Prepared by I. David Keen and John Glassman BBC, Inc. 155 South Madison, Suite 230 Denver, Colorado 80209 ~ (303) 321-2547 L L November 17,1992 L rqi 1) 11 ] J ~.r TABLE OF CON i r,1VTS Section I. Summary of Findings ......................................................................................1 - Identification of Problems ......................................................................1 Systems are the Problems l Change Must Come from the Top .......................................................2 Organization of the Report ....................................................................2 I: II. Back ound and Histo gr ry......» 4 Initial Expectations of the Study Team ...............................................4 How the Study Evolved .........................................................................4 f_ Learning from Others 5 III. Summary of Findings from External Customers ....................................6 ~ APProach ~ ................6 - High Customer Expectations 6 Generally High Customer Satisfaction ......7 Areas of Dissatisfaction ...........................................................................8 Conclusions ........................................:......................................................8 i r IV. How the Town Has Been Able to Deliver Quality Services .................9 ( V. Improving Internal Systems .........................................................................11 1~-' 1. Fear and Lack of Trust ...................I1 2. Communication and Decision Making ........................................:17 3.. Teamwork 26 VI. Next Steps ........................................................................................................29 ff _ Where to Start 29 I ~ Necessa In redients for On oin Success 29 `y rY g ~ g ~ g kk_.... Conclusions .................:.............................................................................30 f~~~' 1... L 'f ' ~ c ~ SECTION I. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS This report presents the findings of an intensive five-month study of how the Town of Vail might improve its operations to better meet customer needs. This was a cooperative effort involving BBC consultants, Town management and staff, Town Council and representatives of the public. Our analysis focused on the Town's systems to serve customers. The study examined both "external" customers ~ ~ permanent and second home residents, business persons, employees of local businesses, visitors, and others and "internal" customers such as employees within Town departments. _ Identification of Problems We found generally high quality services and commend the Council, Town management and employees for these efforts. Serious breakdowns in internal management systems were identified, however. In fact, the breakdowns in internal operations among all levels of Town government identified in this study are sufficiently serious that Town services might deteriorate if these issues are not addressed. Both BBC's interviews with employees and an independent employee survey conducted by Mountain States Employers Council found a high level of frustration among Town managers and employees throughout the organization. While staff are eager to further improve quality of service to Town customers, we found I . .significant barriers to the Town moving forward with these initiatives. Some recent changes in internal systems have been beneficial; however, barriers remain. ~ Therefore, the principal objective of this report is to examine root causes of breakdowns in internal systems and recommend changes. S stems are the Problems y u . Breakdowns in town operations represent internal systems failures and ~ structural problems rather than lack of performance by any manager or employee. We found three areas in which the Town must improve in order to continue to ~ t deliver quality services to its customers: i . 1. Reducing fear and building trust among Town employees, ~ managers and Council. 2. Improving systems for internal communication and decision making. 3. Building teamwork within and between departments. r n r.;~ i. . This report analyzes symptoms and root causes for each of these three issues. ' ~ We recommend specific actions for each area. Improvements can only be made if the Council and the Town Manager fundamentally rethink how the Town operates. Change Must Come from the Top _ While the body of this report suggests many changes in how the Town ~ functions, the most important recommendation relates to where the process of change must start. For the reasons below, any change process in the Town of Vail _ _ must begin with Town Council: Because root causes for systems breakdowns span departments, responsibility for solutions cannot be assigned within departments. s: There must be some overall direction for the improvement process ~ - that cuts across departments. • Similarly, functional breakdowns occur between employees, management and Councl. Our analysis indicates that root causes of f many problems involve Town Council. Because department ~ directors and the Town Manager have little control as to how Town Council operates, Council members themselves must take the lead ~II - in addressing these issues. i__ • As discussed further in this report, there is a high level of fear ' throughout the organization, even among senior management. These individuals are not in a position to make decisions concerning change. Leadership must come from Council. BBC urges Council to carefully consider this report in its entirety as well as other information available to Council before making any commitments to change. g P Or anization of the Re ort For these reasons, we believe only Council has the ability to initiate the rocess of im rovin how the Town serves its customers. As such, we have P P g structured this report to give Council members the information they need to understand the issues identified in the course of this study and the choices they face. Section II presents background on our research methods and how the study L evolved as it became clear that systems problems were not specific to individual departments, but spanned the organization. The study focused on both external and internal customer perceptions of quality of Town services and the efficiency and effectiveness of operating systems. We found that external customers generally rated Town services as high quality (results are summarized in Section III). We then had to reconcile these findings of general external customer satisfaction with L. 2 _ , _ ~ . r ' the high levels of Town employee-~dissatisfaction with internal operating processes and systems. Section N presents our assessment of how the Town has been able to achieve favorable ratings from its external customers in the face of internal systems breakdowns. In other words, this section examines what the Town is doing right that Council and Town management should strive to preserve. i Finally, Section V of the report presents our assessment of symptoms and root causes related to the three key barriers preventing the Town from further improving its operations. Actions are recommended and measurement systems to gauge progress in implementing the recommendations are outlined. We discuss internal systems breakdowns in a form that respects the confidentiality of information provided to us from individuals inside and outside the organization. Section VI summarizes our conclusions and presents the next steps necessary to successfully implement the recommended changes. f i r i r t L f... . ~r . L 1. L: i~~ i; c i 3 L ~ SECTION II. BACKGROUND AND HISTORY I. Maintaining a high quality of Town services has been a long standing commitment of Council members, Town management and staff. In early 1992, the Town Council decided to engage an outside consultant to conduct a comprehensive _ review of the Town's systems for delivering services. The Town formed a steering committee composed of Council, management and public representatives to select a consultant and direct the project. The Town of Vail selected BBC, Inc. (Browne, Bortz & Coddington, Inc.), aDenver-based management consulting firm, to conduct a systems assessment pertaining to all aspects of town government. Initial Expectations of the Study Team When the BBC study team initiated this engagement in June, we anticipated that the project would focus on individual Town services, and how systems for delivering those services might be improved to better meet customer needs. This was the direction given by the Steering Committee and was con_ sistent with our prior experience with the Town. We designed the research to provide detailed analysis of specific departments. BBC interviewed over 100 individuals connected . with the Town as well as analyzed the results of the Mountain States Employers Council survey of Town employees. We also conducted original research on the perceptions of the "average" Town customer. ( How the Study Evolved f This research was conducted with the expectation that our results would be department specific recommendations (e.g., on how to help the Library or Fire Department redesign some of their work functions to better meet customer needs). What we found in three months of research was that while customers were very ! demanding of the Town, they were generally pleased with the quality of Town services. However, we determined that the quality of Town service delivery was due to a very high caliber of employees, their remarkable personal commitment to l their jobs and substantial resources committed by the Town, but that internal r:.~. management systems generally worked against front-line employees rather than for , them. We did not find one person associated with Town government that did not ` care about doing a good job for their customers. However, BBC and the Mountain States Employers Council independently identified high employee frustration and - low morale. L Further, when we found department systems not meeting customer needs, root causes for these breakdowns spanned the organization as a whole. For example, it is not possible to recommend systems improvements for Community Development or Police without addressing larger issues negatively affecting all areas is 4 _ of the Town. For a department to improve or even maintain the quality of services it now delivers to customers, the entire Town must work differently. This report addresses root causes of breakdowns in service delivery rather than symptoms. i Root causes of breakdowns in meeting customer needs rarely focused on an individual employee, manager or Council member, or even a single department. Rather, root causes for systems failures were usually imbedded in how the Town government is structured to function. Learning from OEhers These findings were somewhat outside BBC's experience working with local governments. Most local governments have a customer base that is much less demanding and these organizations typically Iack the caliber of Vail's staff. For these organizations, many employees simply do not care about making special efforts to serve their customers. Major changes in internal management systems of these organizations would have little chance of being effectively implemented. We have often been able to work with these organizations to substantially improve the operations of a single department or division without addressing organization-wide issues. [ . We also drew upon our experience with successful private sector or not for profit organizations. Many of the issues we identified in Vail are also true of these private organizations, but the mechanisms available to deal with these issues differ. In local government, customers do not directly see the true cost of service so demands are relatively unconstrained by cost. And, as ineffective organizational structures tend to go out of business in the private sector, there is often more ~ incentive for change. Because of these findings, we looked toward examples of innovative local governments that have faced some of the issues we identified in Vail, and tried to learn from their experiments in fundamentally restructuring operating systems. We contacted staff from Sunnyvale, California to Madison, Wisconsin to Palm Beach County, Florida. Colorado examples include the City of Fort Collins and City of Brighton. Frankly, there are more failures than successes from these examples, but we hope the recommendations presented here have benefited from both sets of results. While individual recommendations included in this report can be found in certain innovative communities throughout the country, we found no ` local government organization to be implementing them as a whole. Sunnyvale probably comes the closest, but Vail would truly be charting a new course in public sector management with these initiatives. We do not believe any new system of operating, whether it is Total Quality Management (TQM) or new budgeting systems, can be adopted without refining the principles to the unique circumstances . of the particular organization. The recommended actions presented in this report are highly specific to the present conditions of the Town of Vail. 5 I ~r~.. SECTION III. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS FROM EXTERNAL CUSTOMERS This study was grounded in a firm understanding of external customer perceptions of the quality of Town services. We devoted substantial efforts to _ determining how the "average" customer rates Town services, rather than rely on the more readily available information on how more vocal customers perceive the Town. Approach External customers of the Town include business owners and managers, non- : Town employees, permanent residents, second home owners and tourists those individuals or groups who directly benefit from Town services. ("Internal customers" relates to all Town staff and Council members.) We obtained information about external customer perceptions from original research with customers, interviews with front-line employees, interviews with other staff and Council members, attendance at Speak Up meetings, and analysis of past community meetings and surveys. BBC conducted three focus groups, one each with Vail business owners and managers, permanent residents and full-time Denver Metro Area. residents with second homes or other property in Vail. i . Participants were randomly selected from tax roles and homeowner lists in order to solicit perceptions from "average" customers. As a whole, this information gave the study team a strong basis for the following analysis, except for data on destination or day visitors. We recommend that the Town work more closely with Vail Associates and Vail Resort Association in obtaining visitor perceptions of Town services. High Customer Expectations . Vail customers are very demanding. While there is no "typical" customer, the following presents a fairly accurate picture of customer expectations. t • In general, customers set high expectations for Town services, much higher than they would have set for communities in which they might have lived previously (or for where second home owners make their permanent homes). Not only do customers want high service levels (e.g., dry streets after snowfall, frequent bus service, well stocked library), but they want service delivered with "small town" friendliness. For example, they want friendly bus drivers and police officers. r.; 6 :l ~ ~ - - - • In large part, Town facilities and the way Town services are delivered are important to preserve a sense of community in Vail. Customers want progress, but do not want to be inconvenienced. For example, street repairs are important, but people don't want r- access to their home or business affected by a work crew. I._ • When customers have a concern, they want to be able to talk with I l someone from the Town and have the problem quickly resolved. Even if a problem occurs on a weekend or after working hours, - customers expect to be able to talk with a Town representative right ~ away. • Vail customers want favorable treatment, or at least want to be F>: - treated as well as any other customer. Vail customers also want predictability in how the Town operates. Some customers will go directly to the Town Manager or Council members if they don't like ~ - the response they get from staff. In some cases, customers start .at ` the top of the organization, bypassing front-line staff. - • In Vail, customers have little tolerance for bureaucratic inefficiencies that might be standard practice at other local - governments. They don't like rules or regulations that stand in the way of common sense answers to a problem. • Vail customers, espeaally business people and permanent residents, are interested in town government, but generally want information in an easily accessible form. (For example, most customers are not interested in attending Council meetings or Speak Up meetings j ~ because these are inconvenient and time consuming.) Customers want to know why decisions are made and what alternatives were considered. They want to feel that they have a voice in decisions if they choose to become involved. Realistically, most customers do not want to make a substantial effort on their own to obtain information or directly participate in Town government. Generally High Customer Satisfaction ~ ` Even thou h the eeceive that the Town does not consistently meet all of g YP these expectations, customers -rate most Town services favorably. In fact, many services receive rave reviews from customers: snow plowing, the Library, Fire Department, flower beds, and for the most part, Vail bus service. In general, we were impressed at the consistency of favorable customer perceptions regardless of .L the methods used to collect this information. 7 L Areas of Dissatisfaction Areas in which customers express the most dissatisfaction are those where I the Town regulates or restricts their activities rather than directly provides services. r In other cases, customers are dissatisfied when they have to directly pay for services. I Man customers erceive desi n review and ins ection functions at Y P g P the Town as bureaucratic, inefficient, inconsistent and cumbersome. i There are some negative feelings about police services regarding inconsistencies and unfriendliness. • Residents and business owners expressed strong dissatisfaction with : parking in town, believing that there is inadequate free parking . ~ fe (although many admit they know where to park illegally) and that the parking structures are too expensive, too confusing and too crowded. ` Of the Town services that were rated the lowest quality in ;the 1989 and 1990 resident surveys, all pertained to regulatory functions building plan inspections, plan review, the Design Review Board, Planning and Environmental Commission, traffic law enforcement and animal control. . L Also, customers do not necessarily understand the geographic and functional boundaries of the Town of Vail versus other entities such as Vail Associates or the State Highway Department. In many cases, performance of these other entities is L not up to the standards of Vail customers. Customers often blame the Town for the quality of services provided by others. I.. Conclusions Information on the perceptions of external customers (residents, business ~ owners, etc.) and internal customers (employees and managers) was collected concurrently by the study team. Early on, we were struck by how favorably most external customers rated Town services in light of how negatively Town employees perceived internal operating and management systems. We had to ask ourselves , how the Town has been able to deliver quality services in the face of internal systems breakdowns. This issue is addressed in the following section. L L~ . r 8 - SELttON IV. HOW THE TOWN HAS BEEN ABLE TO DELIVER QUALITY SERVICES ~I - r By the very nature of this assignment, much of the information collected = t focused on things the Town was not doing well. In particular, we identified serious breakdowns in internal systems. We had to ask ourselves, with all of the factors i working against Town employees, why were the Town's very demanding customers ~ generally satisfied with the quality of the services they received? Answers to this _ question can give the Counal and Town Manager guidance on what not to lose that f . is working well for the Town. There are several very positive attributes of current Town government that the Council and Town Manager should work to retain. • Town employees are high caliber. Most employees take personal pride in doing a good job. They look forward to coming to work ` and many work beyond a standard work week. Working for the Town of Vail is one of the better jobs available in the community in . t terms of professionalism, compensation and work schedule. While most Town employees believe they are not paid commensurate with the cost of living in the area, local employers complained to us i that they find it difficult to compete with the Town for employees. Recent low turnover of Town employees confirms that, with all of the frustrations of working for the Town, it is still one of the best jobs in the area. Whether this will remain true in the future is open to debate. Over half of the employees responding to the i Mountain States survey answered affirmative to the question, "Would you accept a job at another organization doing the same job as you do here, with the same pay and benefits?" Most employees directly interact with external customers, understand customer needs and feel responsible to the customer. We were impressed with the extent to which the employees we t=. interviewed could not onl identif external customers, but also Y Y , express needs and expectations from the perspective of customers. ' ! This is very positive for the customer, but leads to frustration among employees if they experience roadblocks in better meeting community demands. Understanding of external customer needs - ~ surpassed recognition of internal customer needs. In some areas, employees have developed a strong sense of pride in their departments. However, outside the Town Manager's Office and the Administrative Services Department, we did not find a , strong sense of pride in being a Town employee. Many employees i 9 F; M1~. within other departments do not feel that they are really a part of Town government. Some employees expressed pride in their departments but embarrassment in being a part of Town government. • Management and Council are committed to serving their customers I and want to see the Town provide the best services possible with _ the available resources. Council members and the Town Manager ~ make decisions with the best of intentions for all concerned, even if the consequences aze not what might be hoped for. The suggestions for improvement that follow pertain to how Council and r. management can work differently rather than harder. Most . Council members and all of Town management certainly work hard now. Spending more time is not the answer to improvement. . . • For most functions, the Town makes substantial resource commitments in order to deliver quality services (e.g., buses, snowplowing). Certain departments have developed creative ~ systems to more efficiently utilize existing resources (e.g., student I firefighters in the Fire Department). Substantial funding has gone into public places such as the Library and parks. The findings in this study confirmed that the breakdowns in Town operations identified are systems failures and structural problems rather than lack of l_ performance of any manager or employee. I._ f f_::~ - r l_ 10 a th rr r ~ e 4-. :i: I SECTION V. IMPROVING INTERNAL SYSTEMS r l In the course of this study, we identified numerous specific actions the Town could take to improve services. But, if we could identify these, why weren't they already being implemented by the Town? Town Council and Town management _ _ generically know what to do to further improve Town services design systems to better respond to customer needs, measure costs and quality, provide feedback : mechanisms, etc. Several Counal members and staff are familiar with Total Quality _ Management concepts. The real value of the BBC study effort must be in identifying the fundamental road blocks in carrying out quality improvement. If we gave a laundry list of possible systems changes, these wouldn't have any more chance of successful implementation than other good ideas developed by Town staff. What then is keeping the Town from moving forward? Why are many ~ employees so frustrated? What are the barriers to quality improvement in the . ~ organization? Based upon our research, we do not believe speafic initiatives to improve the ~ quality of services will be successful within the Town unless three key issues are first addressed: 1. Eliminate fear and build trust. 2. Improve systems for communication and decision making. 3. Build teamwork. 1. Fear and Lack of Trust ' ~ BBC and the Mountain States survey independently identified lack of trust r.~: within Town government as a key concern. It is a fundamental barrier to any improvement process within the Town. Symptoms, root causes and recommended actions to combat this problem aze presented here. Symptoms. One of the key findings from the Mountain States employee ~ y survey, also confirmed by BBC's research, was the pervasive fear and lack of trust throughout Town government. I When asked, "overall, does everyone feel free to speak up and say what they think?" 63 percent of employees in the Mountain States survey said "seldom" or "almost never." . L . I1 a ' ~ "Is communication from Town management usually open and honest?" 61 percent with an opinion said "seldom" or "almost never." 1. • "Does the Council respect and support the work of Town employees?" 68 percent of those with an opinion responded negatively. There were two findings that stood out the most for us from the employee survey. One was the response to the following question: • "Do you feel management will take steps to correct the problems identified by this survey?" 65 percent of those with an opinion responded negatively. From this statistic and our discussions with staff, Town employees have very low expectations of any positive actions made by Council or management from either the Mountain States survey or the BBC study. i The second comment that had a strong impact on us comes from our individual meetings with employees, many of whom gave us details of their experiences with lack of trust and fear of reprisal. One employee informed us that he had his wife fill out the Mountain States survey because he feared that the ~ comments would be traced back to himself if he used his own handwriting. If this were only an isolated instance, we wouldn't think much about it. In the case of the Town of Vail, it is perhaps the best example of an organizational-wide pattern of fear and distrust. Fear and lack of trust primarily pertain to employees' feelings toward the ~ Town Manager and Town Council. In some cases, certain areas of Administrative Services were also included in this group. Some employees were fearful that a ~ powerful citizen would get them in trouble with Council or the Town Manager, and that they wouldn't be supported. Trust is much less of an issue within departments than between a department and the Town Manager and Council. E.::; One of the other telling symptoms is an unwillingness of staff and management to speak freely on important issues in front of the Town Manager or Council members. This includes weekly meetings of department heads. ' ~ Analysis of root causes. There is no one single factor behind the lack of trust within the Town. This problem has been building for some time, and in fact may now be improving. Sources of fear and lack of trust include: l~' i i 12 L E.:- r.: ~ ~ ~ Council is out of touch with employees' work. Most staff doubt that Town Council really understands or cares to know what really happens in town government. Both employees and most Council members recognize that Council is out of touch with the employees' work. This is exacerbated by the turnover in Council every two yeazs. It is difficult for Council as a group to have a firm understanding of every Town department. • Employee communication with Council is restricted. Staff believe that Town personnel policy prohibits them from discussing issues with Council members. Some employees told us of severe reactions from Town management if they went outside formal channels to . Council. Some employees even believe that they are not allowed to attend Council meetings. • Certain responses by Council members create more problems. Many Council members are very sensitive to these concerns, but ' certain responses of Council members may increase problems rather than make progress toward solutions. For example, there have been recent instances where individual Council members attended . department staff meetings (which we believe is healthy) but made some promises to employees that likely cannot not be kept. This . further confuses employees about the role of Council and C; unnecessarily puts senior management who had previously said no to employees' requests in a difficult situation. It also furthers the lack of trust. • Certain Council members make negative remarks about employees. Probably the most damaging to Council-employee relations are off- hand negative comments made by certain Council members that are derogatory to employees. Staff can quote word for word a t' Council member's comment years after it was made. We were told = i<~~ directly by one department head, "We try to build morale all year just to have some silly comment from Council tear it all down." Staff that have the most interaction with Council better understand and can accept negative comments. Staff that have little interaction . other than to read comments in the newspaper have the worst I'' reaction. l Staff does not understand that off-hand remarks by one or two I Council members do not reflect the views of all of Council. This L was also borne out in the Mountain States employee survey: 87 percent of those with an opinion said "most always" or "often" to L the question "Does Council believe that Town employees are being overpaid for their work?" Additionally, other Council members not immediately responding to the negative comments of a few 13 . i - r- ' - leaves the impression that those comments are the accepted views of the entire Council. r, Many employees fear reprisal. The distrust and fear staff have of the Town Manager, and in some cases other administrative staff, have several roots. We begin by identifying what works well. Staff that work directly with the Town Manager on a day to day basis are generally very positive about their working relationships. Ratings of management _ and supervision were very high among staff within the Town Manager's Office in the Mountain States employee survey. This was confirmed in BBC's interviews. One of the reasons for this is that the Town Manager is more visible and accessible to staff within . the Town Manager's Office, as would be natural for any individual holding this position in Town government. The greater the physical distance from the Town Manager, the greater the feeling of isolation and fear. Among department heads, we sense a reluctance to openly discuss important issues in group meetings with the Town Manager. There is fear among these individuals of bringing up any surprises in a group setting. Because of prior negative experiences, in some cases department heads do not bring sensitive issues directly to the Town - . - Manager, but instead go to other senior managers who have a closer - working relationship with the Town Manager. There is a core team [ of senior staff including the Town Manager that work very well together, but most department heads do not feel part of this team. f While this is a natural part of any organizational structure, the - ( level of fear among certain senior managers is beyond what is healthy for an effective management team. Throughout the - organization, staff are afraid of being embarrassed or criticized. Rightly or wrongly, they also fear losing their jobs. Particularly in Vail, where would senior managers get a similar position? f Actions. Several steps might be taken to begin to address these issues. Again, employees are skeptical about the Council's and Town Manager's willingness to ' make any changes. Any real. changes will have an immediate positive impact. Over the long term, some level of fear and lack of trust are going to be part of any organization like the Town of Vail. Council and management must continuously work to address these issues. Most importantly, the Council must start this process. Specific recommendations include: ' ~ a. Council and Town Mana er should make a commitment to chan e. g g Any serious commitment to change should come from both the L_ - 14 L ~i } - i e, 1:::~ Council and the Town Manager, and only be as specific as what Council and the Town Manager know they will follow through on. Employees have very low expectations of whether Council and the Town Manager will do anything from the results of this study or the Mountain States survey. Announcing changes but not following through would be more damaging than no action. h Council and Town Manager should be more visible to employees. Council members should be visible within departments to communicate that the Council cares about employees and is interested in more information on day to day operations. Tours of departments might be a good first step if Council is certain that ~ ~ many Council members will follow through. (In the past this didn't happen, further damaging Council-employee relationships). Council, the Town Manager and department heads must ~ communicate to employees the purpose of these meetings. Employees and department heads still report to the Town Manager, t not directly to Council. While employees may raise issues for Council consideration, Council members should not respond other than to express that employee concerns are important and would be handled at the appropriate level of Town government (see ' ~ discussion of roles below). The Town Manager should also make additional efforts to get out of Town Hall and into the departments. j__ (Many Public Works, Fire and Library employees refer to Town Hall as "downtown" or the "home office.") In recent months, whenever the Town Manager has made these efforts, we have heard positive - ( feedback from employees. There may be other informal ways Council and the Town Manager can build rapport with employees i such as attending employee picnics and other social events. c. Employees should be encouraged to attend Council meetings and be t allowed to speak to Council members if desired. In our study, we have often heard this comment from several managers, "employees want to talk directly to Council, but that's like an employee of a big i corporation expecting to be able to go talk to a board member." We disagree. While direct communication with Council has a number of drawbacks, the perception of a muzzle on staff must be changed. ' ( Council members are elected representatives of the community, L- many constituents contact Council members directly, and prohibiting employees from doing the same is currently damaging the organization. We make this recommendation in spite of some serious concerns and reservations. (One factor in making this recommendation is i; that some employee-Council contacts currently take place and are . probably unavoidable.) This policy should only be announced if 15 4.: ~ ~ ~ Council members clearly understand the appropriate role of . Council (discussed in detail below). As with citizen comments, Council should not take action, but listen and suggest how certain issues might be handled through normal channels within Town government. The Council member should explain to the employee why he or she cannot immediately act on the problem. Issues raised in confidence should remain so. The Town Manager should communicate this policy to all employees. We recommend that the Town announce this change only after clarity of roles is established as discussed later in this report. d. Council should stop off-hand negative comments about employees. Council members should understand the impact negative comments have on Town employees. When inappropriate statements are made, other Council members should immediately - respond to clarify that such comments do not reflect the views of Council. When comments are inaccurately represented in a newspaper, Council should request a correction. ~ . e. Council and Town Manager should commit to independent checkpoints. We recommend that the Council and Town Manager ' schedule a second set of employee surveys (preferably through Mountain States) for the summer of 1993.. This survey should focus on changes in employee perceptions since the 1992 survey. Council and Town Manager should commit to openly share results as done with the most recent employee survey. The Council and Town Manager might also want to retain consulting services for another round of in-depth interviews with certain staff and managers t during the summer of 1993. £ The Town Manager position should have a greater role as a coach to department heads. We have observed some improvements in the relationship between departments and the Town Manager since initiating this study. For example, changes in the budget process this fall have removed a substantial source of friction. Council, the ` Town Manager and department heads should recognize that more responsibility and authority at the department level might lead to more mistakes, but will be healthy over the long run. One of the responsibilities of the Council and Town Manager position should be to foster an atmosphere that tolerates mistakes as long as staff quickly correct problems and learn from these experiences. This L recommendation leads directly into the next section of the report related to the Town's decision making structure. The actions discussed here onl re resent a first ste in re lacing fear with a Y P P P r . sense of trust throughout the organization. There is no one time "fix" for these I• 16 j~ . t r .R~ r ` e r< . ~ problems; rather, the entire organization should continue to address these concerns over time. That is why tracking employee perceptions through continued surveys is ' ~ so important to long term effectiveness of Town government. The Council will know that it is effectively tackling this problem when employees tell management • and Council that fear is decreasing and trust improving. Ongoing employee surveys are the best way to get this information. Z Communication and Decision Making r- • Town of Vail decision making and communication suffer from most of the _ _ negative aspects of traditional hierarchical organizations. Certain conditions in Vail government lead to further breakdowns. Many of the issues and the recommendations outlined here are closely related to fear and lack of trust discussed above. . Symptoms. Breakdowns in communications and decision making take several forms: • We heard from staff throughout the organization that decision making is slow and haphazard. "It shouldn't take a day to make a { simple decision," was a common statement. • One of the most frustrating experiences for Town employees is to make a suggestion, have it go up the ladder and come back down as a different decision without any explanation as to why the f suggestion was changed. l__ • The length of certain decision making processes such as financing or hiring senior staff has high costs to the organization. When Council is involved, certain decisions can be held up for many months. . ' • Decisions regarding changes in internal systems can take months to be resolved, or no action might be taken. / While managers have the responsibility for meeting customer needs in their functional areas, they often believe that they lack the authority to make many decisions without first checking with the l- department head or Town Manager. Similarly, the Town Manager brings many decisions to Council that he could make on his own (and as discussed in this section, Town Charter would have him make on his own). • Our study found different levels of the organization working at u mers mi ht acce man ifferent cross purposes Savvy c sto g ss y d individuals within the Town. For example, a customer might go to i 17 I_ . ~ f, r' ~,r ~ a staff person on a needed permit, and also mention these needs to the director of Community Development, the Town Manager and perhaps a Council member. • Employees indicated a lack of communication regarding their r performance. There appears to be little positive feedback within the l.. organization. "I know I'm doing a good job if I'm not yelled at," is a representative example of comments we received from many employees. In the Mountain States employee survey, 53 percent of the employees responded "seldom" or "almost never" to the question "do you receive enough recognition for the work you do?" Analysis of root causes. Our analysis points to several factors. • Vail has a formal, hierarchical decision making structure. The Town usually operates under a system of formal chain of command. Therefore, it suffers from many of the same problems of any such organization. Issues raised by front-line staff go to their supervisors up to the department head, and often from the department head to the Town Manager. In some cases, issues will E go to Council. Once a decision is reached, it is reported back down through the organization. Front line staff must often stop while • - they wait for a decision that is slowed by many layers of the organization. This might be in the middle of digging a hole in a street (so holes sometimes must be refilled while awaiting a decision.) So many decisions going through the chain of command - slow the process. Further, the quality of the information available to the front line staff deteriorates through each step of the process. . Town Manager and Council deal with issues that are inconsistent with their appropriate roles. The Town Manager and especially Town Council deal with issues that are inappropriate for those - levels of the organization. Council and the Town Manager have traditionally focused too much on controlling inputs to Town operations and insufficient time to desired outputs or outcomes. The Town is a $25 million a year organization in which Council members spend time on minor personnel issues and the purchase of chairs for Council chambers. Often, Council fails to tackle major long term issues affecting the Town, instead focusing on details for which their effort is not productive. This leads Council members to L put too many hours into this job, and diverts attention from where it is most needed. There is some indication that this situation is improving. For am 1 hi ud cle i the first time that arm nth ds ex p e, t s b get cy s dep t o ea have budget responsibility. In the past, the Town Manager and L 18 1__ r ' ~ r ~ Town Council would review individual line items in each department's budget. This process was time consuming and frustrating for all concerned. This year, department heads were provided budget totals and given the responsibility and authority to allocate resources within that budget to best meet department objectives. This is a major improvement over past budget reviews. Also, in prior years Town Council would establish number of staff positions for each department. Departments now have somewhat more flexibility in staffing. External customer demands receive priority. The hierarchical ( decision making structure in Vail operates more smoothly and quickly when issues relate to external customer needs, especially _ when citizens complain to Council or the Town Manager, than when issues relate to internal customer requests. Throughout the study, it was clear that when an external customer complains, they receive quick response. Work for other external customers is put aside while the Town responds to urgent complaints. Most internal customer needs are put behind external customers. This gives ~ many employees the perception that they are unimportant. Council ~ and management sometimes fail to recognize that responding to internal needs allows staff to better meet external customer needs . without any breakdowns in the system. ` Customers make multiple points of contact with the Town. Vail's decision making structure can break down when customers make f . multiple points of contact with the Town. They might talk with front line staff, but also make additional contacts with the Town Manager or Council member. In this case, three or more people including top management may be working on the same problem. The staff person assigned responsibility for that area may inadvertently work at cross purposes with top management, which further reinforces staff reluctance to make decisions on their own. This is a common problem for Community Development and ff~~:: Public Works. 1~~.:~ The Town's "problem referral process" is designed to combat this issue. If anyone in Town government receives information from a customer about a problem, he or she might fill out a referral card and direct it to the person responsible for that area. When this system works, it short cuts some of the confusion in getting the right person involved. However, decisions may still need to be reported up through the organization for approval (and many multiple customer contacts are not contained by this system). Also, staff is expected to quickly shift priorities to immediately respond to the problem referral. This creates inefficiencies and rework for i:.~: k~~;: c` 19 L i r,•: - i:.. Town operations. There needs to be more balance between short term problem solving and meeting long term objectives. ' Managers lack clear guidance on directions for department programs. We found departments needing leadership on major questions regarding direction and policies for the department. They . are stymied in getting clear direction and expectations of the Town Manager and Council. Each department has major questions that can only be answered by Council. Lack of guidance limits their ability to move ahead to better meet customer needs. Either the decision making system has been too cumbersome for these decisions to be made, or department heads have been discouraged and not made the effort to obtain answers to these decisions. Without overall guidance, individual decisions have to be pushed up the management ladder, adding to the volume of the information flow and decision delays. • There is insufficient attention to motivating employees throughout ' ~ the organization. Whether or not there is a pattern of positive feedback within an organization usually starts at the top of the organization. As discussed previously, top-down communications are more often negative than positive. r Actions. The following recommendations suggest how the Town can work differently, not harder. Many of these actions take the Town back to operating as I stated in the Charter. - - a. Council and Town Manager can better understand appropriate roles by reviewing the Charter. BBC staff are not attorneys and cannot advise Council on legal interpretation of the Town Charter. However, it appears that much of the present misunderstanding of roles and responsibilities can be resolved by reading the Charter. . _ Proper definition of roles would result in fewer decisions going to Council, freeing time for Council to devote to more important, t:: ~ longer term issues. This would drastically speed decision making. r._. It will also remove some sources of frustration between staff and Council. i ~ The following sections should be analyzed to clarify the roles of Council and Town Manager. i n .4. 1 n hi f Sect o 6 Re atio s p o Council to Admmistratrve Service. Neither the council, ifs member, the mayor, nor any council ~ committee shall interfere with the town manager or other town officer to prevent {cim from exercising his judgment in fhe 20 I. ,e ~rf p. . appointment or employment of officers and employees in the administrative service. I.. In the past, Council has not allowed the Town Manager to establish a management team as he sees fit. An example of this was Council's acceptance and then denial of an Assistant Town Manager ' I~: position. Whether or not an Assistant Town Manager position made sense, this is a clear example of the Town Manager's lack of authority to independently establish a management structure. i We also question whether it is appropriate for Town Council to set salary levels for specific positions other than the Town Manager. This was one of the factors that delayed filling positions such as the director of the Public Works Department. j.. Section 6.4. Relationship of Council to Administrative Service. Except for the purpose of inquiry, the council and its members, the mayor, and any council committee shall deal with the administrative service solely through the town manager and ~ neither the council, its members, the mayor shall give orders to any of the subordinates of the town manager. We see Council often entering the gray area of potentially L. interfering with Town Manager authority. )f Council is going to have more open communications with staff, it is very important that all parties understand that this is to increase the Council's understanding of the Town, not to subvert the Town Manager's authority and responsibility for administration of the Town. Similarly, when Council members are approached by a atizen with a problem, they should communicate the problem to the Town Manager or staff but should be careful not to make any ' commitments to the citizen in how the matter will be handled. If Council members do not approve of Town activities, they should ~ communicate this to the Town Manager and his staff, but the ~ responsibility for implementing any actions rests with the Town Manager and staff. Over the long term, if Council does not like how the Town government is operated, Council should consider making a personnel change in the Town Manager position. It is very important for anyone in the Town manager position to know where he or she stands in the eyes of Council. We believe any uncertain of commitment ne ativel affects not onl the Town tY g Y Y Manager's ability to lead Town operations, but furthers the sense of f fear and lack of trust within the organization. 21 is r- h Council should clarify its role in making financial decisions. Again, a review of the Charter is instructive. Section 4.8. Action by Ordinance Required. every act making an appropriation shall be by ordinance. Section 9.3. Budget. In organizing the budget, the manager shall utilize the most feasible combination of expenditure classification by fund, organization unit, program, purpose or activity and object. We recommend that the Council narrowly view its roles and responsibilities for financial decisions. The Council should focus / on outcomes from Town government and the aggregate level of resources associated with achieving those outcomes. The Council should not focus on inputs to Town government such as expenditures within specific line items, cost of particular purchases or number of staff positions. ' We recommend that the Town Manager submit a budget by ~ department and by major program or activity, but that line item budgets not be submitted to the Council. This is consistent with ~ recent changes in the Town's budget process. We recommend that the Council not consider the cost of specific line items (e.g., chairs), but that the Council focus on the overall costs of delivering specific levels of service or outcomes (only possible if the Town moves toward a program budget within departments and a system to measure customer perceptions of service quality). 1c Town Council should focus on desired outcomes and overall direction. The above recommendations suggest where Town Council should not be involved. There are several areas in which ? ~ Council should expand its activities. Vision for Vail and for Town government. Town Council has been criticized by the community and especially by Town employees for _ not having a vision for the community. We believe this is somewhat unfair: Council has a vision for the future but has not clearly communicated that vision to its constituencies. A written i statement is needed. i ~ Citizens and Town employees also need a written statement of how Council perceives the role of town government in achieving an . overall vision for the community. We would urge Council to solicit input from Town employees in the process of developing this statement. With the help of an outside facilitator, planning i• i:., 22 i ~ retreats involving any interested staff might prove very beneficial in building a common sense of purpose. Governing by specifying desired outcomes. Traditionally, municipal entities are governed by councils that specify inputs into governmental operations as their means of directing and I controlling the organization. For example, past councils in Vail and most other communities gave only general direction about what they wanted departments to achieve, but were very specific on ~ inputs such as the number of staff positions or fire stations or salary - levels. A focus on controlling inputs is an ineffective way to govern. Other governments have moved toward managing by desired outputs (e.g., number of library books, number of arrests, _ .miles of street repaved). Again, this can establish an incentive ~ structure for departments that tend to miss or confuse intentions of councils and the public. We recommend that Vail Town Council move toward clearly stating desired outcomes from town government. Council needs to 4 . develop concise statements to answer the question, "what business ~ are we in?" For example: Is the Town in the business of providing books and other materials at a library facility or in the business of access to information? We found the Library to be excellent within its four walls but limited in t its response to community needs outside these walls. What L direction can Council give? Is the Town in the business of fighting fires or preventing fires? This is a good example of where measuring "outputs" number of fires responded to is counter to desired outcomes prevention of ~ fires. i Similarly, is the Town in the business of catching violators of Town ordinances or in the business of promoting actual and perceived safety in the community? There is some indication that management gives police guidance on the relative number of - tickets to be issued. Is this consistent with desired outcomes for . public safety services? Council members have strong opinions on directions for police services, but we have not seen these formalized. . Is the Town in the business of encouraging provision of affordable employee housing, in the business of directly providing that housing, or none of the above? 23 r. f • ~ E_~ ~ Council should also define the customers of each department. Examples of questions that emerged in this study include: f . If fhe Town is in the information access business (through the Library), are all Vail Valley residents to be equally served? Are r schools to be directly served? l~: If the Town is in the business of preventing traffic accidents in the ~ area and providing immediate emergency services for accidents that occur (for which a major function of the Fire Department is service on 1-70), what is the role of the Police Department outside the jurisdiction? If the Town is in the business of ensuring smooth traffic flow through the community, should it take over responsibility for the Frontage Road? Governing by measuring outcomes. Most of the data that Council has received in past years pertains to inputs. Although the Town Public Relations staff go far beyond most other municipal governments in soliciting customer perceptions on the quality of Town services, additional steps are required to give the Town accurate information on its performance in achieving desired j outcomes. More systematic surveys of "average" customers are needed (ensuring higher response rates than past mailed surveys). ~ ~ ~ Surveys should be designed to probe perceived quality of specific ' services, especially from actual users of these services. (For example, the City of Brighton, Colorado surveys individuals that have come in contact with the Police Department to gauge perceptions of how they were treated.) Non-perceptual data also need to be developed to measure Town performance (e.g., number j : of fires, property damage from fires, average length of time for permit review, etc.). There is a well developed pool of literature reviewing different types of measures that can be applied to gauge performance and effectiveness of municipal services. This information will give departments immediate feedback on i how they can improve services. The data will also give Council a - new way to gauge the effectiveness of Town operations. d. Town Manager should further empower departments to make decisions. All of the recommendations listed above are necessary for improvement of Town operations whether or not the Town chooses to move toward decentralized decision making in departments. If the Town Manager is to retain control over many decisions, the above changes will make his or her job easier. 24 F~ 1 L f U vii E However, we believe that many of the breakdowns in _ communications and decision making will still occur. Further, lack of trust and the sense of fear among the organization will be more I . difficult to address if key decisions are still made by one person. r BBC recommends that the Town introduce a decentralized decision f. makin structure, em owering individuals as close to the customer g P as possible to make decisions affecting service to those customers. Many of the decisions that currently go to the Town Manager should remain within departments. Department heads should further empower program managers to make service delivery and resource allocation decisions. Department heads or managers within departments should have the flexibility to adjust service levels, redesign services and reallocate resources to respond to customer needs as long as these actions are consistent with the available budget and Town Council direction on desired outcomes. The role of the Town Manager changes under this system. The ` Town Manager's position is more of an advisor or coach to department heads and less as a director of their activities. The Town Manager should be evaluated on how well he or she establishes, develops and coordinates the management team. This - position becomes more proactive and less reactive to operational issues. In essence, the Town Manager serves as the team leader. What we propose will be difficult to implement. The person - _ holding the job of Town Manager, regardless of who that individual is, will have a tendency to retain control over decisions in order to ~ avoid what he or she might perceive as inappropriate actions by departments. As a result of the structure of Town government, the Town Manager's position will have the best understanding of the desires of Council. In part, this occurs because of the lack of clear, ~:i.; formal direction from the Council on desired outcomes from Town government. Further, if Town Council involves itself in 'i:::: operational details, then the Town Manager had better do the same in order to be able to respond to Council. In sum, Council cannot expect a change in management style from the Town Manager's ' position unless Council members adopt the changes in Council operations indicated in this report. One example of a recent success demonstrates this point. Changes in the budget process implemented this fall represent a major ! - positive step in redefining roles and responsibilities among ~ Council, Town Manager and department directors. We do not believe that the Town Manager would have delegated budget authority to departments if Council had still reviewed line items in 25 l~ ~ r~ ~ the budget. Changes in Council's role in the budget process allowed changes in responsibilities between the Town Manager and department heads. In fact, we believe the Town can go one step further and give departments some ability to carryover unused budget from one year to the next. f . However, delegation of budget responsibility and authority raises other issues. While department heads have been given this responsibility, they do not necessarily have decision making authority on the associated departmental activities. Not all decisions on road improvements, for example, are made within Public Works. Decisions on specific activities of Community Development may come from the Town Manager or Council. We believe it is inappropriate to give budget responsibility to managers that do not have ultimate control over the activities (and thus the required resources) of their departments. e. When decisions are made by top management, managers should explain them. Not all decisions can be decentralized. When Council or the Town Manager make a decision affecting employees, if possible, communicate both the decision and the underlying rationale. I f. Council and managers should reinforce success. If Council and the L__ Town Mana er develo are ular attern of ositive reco ition of g P g P P 8'n employees, this pattern will be easier to follow for department heads and other managers in their interactions with employees. . 3. Teamwork With the changes recommended above, especially delegation of additional responsibility and authority to departments, more decision making will take place ~ among teams working within and between program areas. However, teamwork within the Town is currently underdeveloped. We anticipate more breakdowns in systems if effective teamwork is not fostered within and between departments. Symptoms. Several examples of breakdowns in teamwork were identified . over the course of the study. We do not assign blame and in fact did not search for - any in these examples; they are provided only to illustrate results of breakdowns in 'teamwork between and within departments. These breakdowns directly affect ~f service to the customer. a L Because of distant parking, Library staff know customers want a book drop, but as yet have been unable to create and operate one. In part, this is because staff had looked for other departments to 26 i' I- • ~ w ~ ' . - ~ transport the books. , This is one example of a breakdown in teamwork between departments. ~ Community Development staff approve designs that Public Works or Fire Department inspectors will not approve, leading to anger and confusion among customers and between departments. _ • Dispatcher operations within the Police Department have historically not been well integrated with Fire Department operations. • Street designs make it difficult for Public Works and Fire Department staff to operate their vehicles. . Purchasing is not coordinated. For example, each Town department independently designs and contracts for its own stationery. Staff in certain departments spend endless hours in internal ~ meetings, with little being accomplished. We found examples of meetings between departments with no one willing to make decisions to move forward. • We found a specific example of front line staff of two different ~ _ departments working together to redesign a system to better serve . the customer; supervisors rejected the suggestion without explanation. Analysis of root causes. The present decision making structure of the Town does not lead to teamwork, particularly between departments. It is not surprising I that many staff do not have team skills because they have not had much practice or might have had past negative experiences. i • Teams have not been empowered to make decisions; such decisions are more often top-down. In the past, team recommendations may not have been implemented. • Town employees have not been trained in team skills. . Information necessar for im roving systems is often not available Y P (e.g., comprehensive customer survey data, cost data). L_: • Responsibilities overlap among departments (e.g., design review and inspection, dispatch and Fire operations). Many employees feel strong loyalty to their departments, but for reasons outlined in this report, often do not feel an integral part of Town government. They do not put a priority on working with other departments. f. 27 v! ' n ~ ~ ~ IFF::.. Actions. Any renewed emphasis on teamwork must begin at the top of the organization. Employees will not be willing to participate if at best, they believe their recommendations will not be considered, or at worst, they fear reprisal by raising any suggestions for change. (As an example, Town employees that might contribute most to the employee communications committee are very reluctant to : ~ participate.) Further, teams to improve. Town service delivery systems will not be _ effective if team members do not have a sense of desired outcomes from Council. Thus, we see all of the recommendations outlined previously in this report - especially delegation of decision making to departments as necessary conditions for building successful teams. Recommendations include: a. Train employees in team skills. Introduce problem solving skills, ,skills in team process, efficient meetings, etc. ' h Develop necessary information for team decision making, and ~ make available to teams. For example, program cost information i and quality of service information will be needed for any team ' attempting to improve Town service delivery systems. i c Form ad-hoc teams for specific issues. For example, if teams are formed to discuss specific personnel or benefits issues, they should reach a recommendation, possibly implement it and then dissolve. L In some cases, Council member(s) might be appointed to teams. d. Provide the authority to implement changes. Currently, teams do . ~ not now have any authority to implement changes. In some cases, this should be a direct team responsibility. e. If necessary, reallocate department responsibilities to ensure greater teamwork. For example, design review and inspection functions might be consolidated as one team under Community Development. . L 28 '~i ~c! ~ A c ~ s ~ SECTION VI. NEXT STEPS Where to Start For the reasons discussed at the outset of the report, Town Council must _ initiate the process of changing how the Town operates. This report was designed to give Council an understanding of what stands in the way of improvement and what actions are required. BBC urges Council to carefully consider this report in its entirety as well as other information available to Council before making any commitments to change. Announcing these initiatives without the commitment to follow through would be more damaging to the Town in the long run than ignoring the recommendations altogether. If a commitment to change is in place, we strongly recommend that the key to starting the process is to clarify the roles of Town Council and the Town Manager position. The Town would benefit from bringing in an outside professional in facilitating this process. This single step can go a long way in rebuilding trust within the organization. Without this step, the chronic issues identified in the Mountain States survey and BBC's study will continue. We also recommend that the Town Council and Town Manager make available the findings of the study to employees and the general public. In order for the recommended change process to be successful, Town constituency and Town ( employees must understand and support the effort. Necessary In~edients for Ongoing Success Training. Many of the recommended actions require further training at all levels of the organization. Council will only be able to follow through on . . t_., recommendations if additional management tools are provided. Individual Council members and senior managers should contact communities such as Sunnyvale, Phoenix and Fort Collins where similar efforts are underway. Roles of the Town Manager and department heads will be shifted, and training will be required to facilitate these changes. Further, Town staff can only build team skills li through outside training. If this training could be achieved through internal l resources, it would have already been accomplished. Measuring progress. Without an ongoing measurement process, the Council and Town Manager will not be able to answer the question, "how has all that has been done improved Town operations?" i_._ A different approach to measuring sucess will be necessary from what is traditionally employed by the Town. The outcomes intended from the I~ . 29 I i ~ r v recommended actions are not black and white. For example, employee "fear" and "trust" are highly subjective; one cannot simply check off accomplishing items 1, 2 and 3 and proceed on to the next task. Gauging progress is also a moving target. As discussed previously, there is no r one time "fix" for the problems identified in this study; rather, the entire organization should continue to address these concerns over time. For example, as Council members change, roles of Council and the Town Manager will continue to be examined. Thus, there is no one benchmark for improving internal systems. We recommend that internal employee surveys performed on an annual basis is the best single indicator of whether the actions taken are producing the intended outcomes. Again, we believe that the Council will know that it is effectively . tackling these problems when employees tell management and Council that things have changed. These surveys might be augmented by assessments by outside consultants or other independent observers. l Conclusions ~ In conclusion, the Town is doing well in providing service with a high level . of employee skill. Gur recommendations are made to build upon what is already done well and to introduce a process of change that will further improve performance, enhance cost efficiency and lead to more satisfied customers. The organization is ready for these changes. Many of the suggestions L. .outlined in this report directly emerged from conversations with individuals within Town government. Town managers and employees care. There is some urgency to charting a future course, however. We must caution the Town that if C this window of opportunity is missed, it will be much more difficult to initiate change in the future. . l._ L 30 l__ s r i ~ r a EMPLOYEE OPINION SURVEY PREPARED FOR: - ~ TOWN OF VAIL PFEPARED BY: MOUIJfAW STATES EMPI.~ ~ w COUNGL, lNC. P. O. Box 539 Darner, Colorado 80201-0539 (303) 838-5177 June 1892 r } ~ r ~ TOWN OF VAIL EMPLux~E OPINION ~unv~Y TABLE OF CO,~ 1 ANTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY STATISTICAL SUMMARY COMPARISON OF DEMOGRAPHICS BY CATEGORY QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES BY QUESTION QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES BY CATEGORY COMPARISONS BY QUESTION r COMPARISONS BY CATEGORY ESSAY RESPONSES QUESTIONNAIRE e TOWN OF VAIL EMPLOYEE OPINION SURVEY E%E~,urIVE SUMMARY The Town of Vail Employee Opinion Survey was conducted..in June, 1992 by Mountain States Employers Council, Inc. All personnel at The Town of Vail were asked to participate during work time. One Hundred Forty Nine out of 195 employees completed the survey questionnaire for a response rate of 76g. The questionnaire contained a total of: * 66 Multiple Choice Questions 39 Standard Questions (with norms) 27 Custom Questions * 5 Open Ended (essay) Questions * 5 Demographic Sorts The multiple choice questions are scored on a 1.0 to 4.0 scale, with 4.0 being the most positive. Please refer to the bottom of this page for the numerical values used in this survey. The higher the numerical value, the more positive the results. Overall, the score for the Town of Vail was a somewhat positive 2.7 (r which is .2 below the norms developed for this survey by previous participants. The 66 multiple choice questions were placed in 8 subject categories. The specific category scores ranged from a high of 3.2 for the Benefits Category to a low of 2.1 for the Town Council Category. CATEGORY MEAN BENEFITS 3.1 SUPERVISION 3.0 HOURS AND {DORKING CONDITIONS 3.0 JOB SATISFACTION 2 g COMMUNICATION 2.4 ~ MANAGEMENT 2.4 PAY 2.3 TOWN COUNCIL 2.1 GRAND TOTAL 2.7 THE NUMERICAL VALUES USED IN THIS SURVEY CAN BE INTERPRETED AS FOLLOWS: 3.0 AND ABOVE VERY POSITIVE 2.8 - 2.9 POSITIVE 2.6 - 2.7 SOMEWHAT POSITIVE 2.5 NEUTRAL 2.4 AND BELO{J NEGATIVE _ ~ TOWN OF VAIL Opinion Survey Results By Category Survey Score . 4.0 3.5 ~ . 3.0 N 2.0 1.5 1.0 Benefits Hrs.$ W.C. Commun. Pay Supervision Job Sat. Mgt. Town Counc. 3.1 3.0 3.0 2.8 2.4 ,2.4 2.3 2.1' TOV's Overall Score 2.7 PARTICIPATION AND RESIILTS BY DEMOGRAPHICS SORTS The following are the demographic sorts requested by the Town of Vail with the corresponding number of participants and mean scores for each: No. Survey Overall Participants Mean Scores WHERE DO YOII WORK Fire Department 8 2.8 Police Department 44 2.7 C~,~u..unity Development 10 2.5 ' Public Works Administration/ Roads & Streets Maintenance 21 2.7 Bus Department 13 2.5 Parking Structures 7 2.8 Landscaping & Parks 6 2.7 Fleet Maintenance 8 ~ 2.6 Admin. Services-Data Proc./ Finance & Sales Tax/Personnel Municipal Court/Dept. Head 16 2.8 r- Library 8 2.6 Town Management 6 3.3 Not Specified 2 2,6 PAY STATIIS Hourly 112 2.7 Salaried 36 2.9 Not Specified 1 2.4 SHIFT Day (8AM - 5PM) 103 2.7 Swing (5PM - Midnight) 20 2.6 Not Specified 26 2.7 3 ~ r PARTICIPATION AND RESIILTS BY DEMOGRAPHICS SORTS (Cont'd) ! SE% Female 56 2.7 Male 92 2.7 Not Specified 1 2.4 AGE 19 - 29 Years 29 2.6 30 - 39 Years 67 2.6 40 - 49 Years 38 2,g 50 - 69 Years 12 2.9 Not Specified 3 2:5 TOTAL 149 2.7 NOTE: For reporting purposes, Dept. Heads were combined with Admin. Services. Participants age 60-69 were combined with the 50- 59 age group. i, r CT` MOST POSITIVE/MOST rrECATly~ Among all multiple choice questions asked, the most positive and most negative results are as follow: MOST POSITIVE Co. Question No. Question Score Norm #37 Are your coworkers helpful 3.4 3.3 and cooperative? #43 Is your supervisor willing 3.4 3.4 to help or answer questions you have concerning your work? # 5 Does your supervisor care 3.3 3.2 about you as a person? #22 Overall, are benefits offered 3.3 2.9 at the TOV as good as benefits offered by other organizations? #32 Are supplies and materials 3.3 3.2 available when you need them? #46 Is the Council cost conscious? 3.3 N/A #56 Do you enjoy your job here? 3.3 3.3 #58 Are you given a chance to use 3.3 3.2 your own judgment where conditions warrant it? # 4 I feel the employee cost for 3.2 N/A medical/dental insurance is reasonable. #18 Is there a lack of concern for 3.2 3.1 , the safety of the employees of the TOV? #19 Are you satisfied with your 3.2 3.3 current work schedule? #33 Is your supervisor honest 3.2 3.3 with you? #55 Do you have a lot of freedom 3.2 N/A to get your job done? 5 s . MOST POSITIVElMOST NEGATIVE {Cont'd) MOST NEGATIVE Co. Question No. Question Score Norm #24 Do the Council members under- 1..6 ~ NIA stand the needs of employees and their families? #61 Do the Council members under- 1.7 N/A stand the work of the TOV employees? #28 Does the Council believe that 1.7 N/A TOV employees are being overpaid for their work? #53 Does the Council respect and 2.1 N/A support the work of the TOV employees? #45 Do you feel management will 2.1 2.4 take steps to correct the problems identified by this survey? #41 Overall, does everyone feel 2.1 N/A free to speak-up and say what they think? #31 Are the amounts of pay 2.1 2.3 increases you receive adequate? #39 Does management let you know 2.2 N/A about changes before they are made? #30 Is the c~..~.unication from Town 2.2 N/A Management usually open and honest? #23 When changes are made in the 2.2 2.5 operation at the TOV, do you feel the interests of employees are considered? #14 Are there opportunities for 2.2 2.6 advancement for qualified employees in the TOV? 6 COMPARISON TO NORMS The preceding summary contains all the multiple choice questions used in this survey the standard questions (with norms) plus those tailored just for this survey. The norms in the survey are formed by the opinions of approxiunately 42, 000 area G,..~loyees in a wide variety of private and public enterprises. When only the standard questions are used, the results for the Town of Vail when compared to the norms are as follow: CATEGORY D~v1ATION FROM NORM Benefits + .2 Hours and Working Conditions Equal Job Satisfaction - .1 Supervision _ ,1 Management _ ,2 Pay - .2 7 ~ . TOWN OF VAIL Opinion Survey Results By Category Survey Score 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 Pay Benefits Job Sat. Hrs. 8~ W.C. $upv. Mgt. TOV ~ 2.3 3.1 3.2 3.0 2.7 2.4 . NORM 2.5 3.1 3.0 3.1 2.8 2.6 TOV's Overall Score 2.7 Community Norm 2.9 COMPARISON TO NORIKS ( cont' d ) More specifically, the resulting scores that deviated most significantly from the norms were: MOST POSITIVE Difference Question No. Question from Norm #22 Overall, are benefits + .4 offered at the TOV as good as benefits offered by other organizations? #12 Do you feel TOV's benefits + .2 are adequate to meet your needs? - MOST NEGATIVE Difference Question No. Question from Norm #48 Would you accept a job - .6 at another organization doing the same job as you do here, with the same pay and benefits? #14 Are there opportunities - .4 for advancement for qualified employees in the TOV? #23 When changes are made in - .3 in the operation at the TOV, do you feel the interests of employees are considered? #26 Is the lighting of your work - .3 , area sufficient for you to do your best work? #35 Is management concerned - .3 about you as an individual? #45 Do you feel management will - .3 take steps to correct the problems identified by this ~J survey? a NO OPINION RESPONSES It should be noted that 20~ or more of the survey participants had no opinion on two of the multiple choice questions. Percent Co. Question No. Question No Opinion Score #34 Does the TOV fill jobs 20$ 2.6 from outside when there are qualified people within who want the job? . #28 Does the Council believe 20$ 1.7 that TOV employees are being overpaid for their work? rr 10 COMMENTS SECTION The open-ended questions at the back of the questionnaire afforded employees an opportunity to expand on previously surveyed topics or verbalize their thoughts to questions requesting an essay response. Their responses provide excellent insights and some thoughtful suggestions. Samples of each of the open-ended questions follow. A. What I really like about the TOV is: "It's a good place to work, live, and fellow employees are great." "It's a beautiful place to live and quality of life is very good." "Flexible work schedules. Adequate pay scale--not great--but adequate, casual atmosphere." "The stability of the job and the people I work with on a day to day basis." "I have the chance to do a lot of different things." "It is year round employment and a good benefit package." B. What I really dislike about the TOV is: "Cost of living. Workspace conditions--limited." "I feel that there are many inequities in the treatment of employees within departments and from dept. to dept." "The pay is not equal to the cost of living.." "Taking away parts of the benefit package." "I feel there is too much lack of communication between departments." "Management seems to take employees for granted sometimes." 1(\l 11 i COM~NTS SECTION (Cont'd) C. What improvements or changes would you recommend to help make the TOV a better place to work? "More communication between upper management and the people who actually do the work." "Listen to the employee's more." "Treat everybody fairly." "New police building so we have the space to fit our needs." "More positive recognition for employees." "Daycare is badly needed." D. What is your best source for information at the TOV? The grapevine was cited as the best source of information for many employees followed with supervisors, the local newspaper and memos. Also mentioned were: Management/Department Heads Newsletter Employee Meetings Bob Mach Secretaries Bulletin Boards E. General Comments: "I think Town Council and office management should come out to see what the laborers are doing and encourage them. There is not enough of seeing them." "Most people who work for the Town really care but we need to improve communications between depts." , "This questionnaire is a good first step. It is good to give the employees a chance to tell the Council what they think. The Town used to be a fun place to work with happy people." "For the most part, TOV is probably the best place in the valley to work." 12 REMEMBER . * Timely feedback of survey results is critical to ..the integrity of this process. Normally, the organization- wide results of the multiple choice questions are shared with employees, along with a "thank-you" for their participation. * Management's evaluation, responses, and action steps should be c~..~...unicated reasonably soon thereafter to the employees. * Management should take any negative results in as constructive a manner as possible. Avoiding defensiveness, blame placing, and "witch hunting" are most important in achieving positive results from the survey. * This survey is only a "snapshot" of what participants thought on the day they completed the survey. Opinions are dynamic and can be (and are) changed. * This report does not contain all the solutions to the challenges you face. It must be regarded as another piece of creditable management information to be used in reaching sound decisions. However, it does quantify and document what employees consider the greatest strengths and shortcomings of the organization. * Follow-up surveys are normally recommended 18 to 24 months apart. This provides consistent measurements for management on the effectiveness of their changes. Comparisons of yourself, over time, are far more . important than comparison to norms. 13 TOWN OF VAIL MOUNTAIN STATES EMPLOYERS COUNCIL, INC. ' COMPARISON OF WHERE DO YOU WORK? BY CATEGORY HOURS & WORKING CODE WHERE DO YOU WORK? PAY COND. BENEFITS SUPV. 1 FIRE DEPARTMENT 2.9 3.1 3.1 3.2 2 POLICE DEPARTMENT 2.2 2.9 3.1 2.9 3 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 2.3 2.8 3.2 2.8 4 PUB WRKS ADMIN/RDS 8 STRS MAIN 2.5 3.0 3.0 2.9 5 BUS DEPARTMENT 1.9 3.1 2.8 2.5 6 PARKING STRUCTURES 2.7 3.1 2.9 3.0 7 LANDSCAPING & PARKS 2.2 2.8 3.2 2.9 8 FLEET MAINTENANCE 2.2 3.0 3.1 3.0 * 9 AD.SVC-DP/FIN&S.TAX/PERS/M.CRT 2.7 3.0 3.5 3.1 10 LIBRARY 1.9 3.0 3.3 3.2 12 TOWN MANAGEMENT 2.8 3.3 3.8 3.4 13 NOT SPECIFIED 2.5 3.0 3.1 3.0 JOB COMMUNI- TOWN CODE WHERE DO YOU WORK? SATISF. MGMT. CATION COUNCIL 1 FIRE DEPARTMENT 2.7 2.6 2.5 2.1 2 POLICE DEPARTMENT 2.9 2.6 2.5 2.0 3 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 2.5 2.1 2.1 2.3 4 PUB WRKS ADMINiRDS 8 STRS MAIN 2.8 2.2 2.3 2.2 5 BUS DEPARTMENT 2.5 2.1 2.1 2.0 6 PARKING STRUCTURES 2.9 2.6 2.6 2.5 7 LANDSCAPING & PARKS 2.9 2.4 2.5 1.9 8 FLEET MAINTENANCE 3.0 2.1 2.3 1.7 * 9 AD.SVC-DP/FIN&S.TAX/PERS/M.CRT 2.9 2.5 2.5 2.2 10 LIBRARY 2.5 2.2 2.1 2.4 12 TOWN MANAGEMENT 3.3 3.6 3.2 2.7 13 NOT SPECIFIED 2.5 2.1 2.0 2.0 * ADMIN. SERVICES-DATA PROC./ FINANCE & SALES TAX/PERSONNEL MUNICIPAL COURT/DEPT. HEAD . ~ TOWN OF VAIL MOUNTAIN STATES EMPLOYERS COUNCIL, INC. COMPARISON OF PAY STATUS BY CATEGORY HOURS & WORKING CODE PAY STATUS PAY COND. BENEFITS SUPV. 1 HOURLY 2.2 3.0 3.0 2.9 2 SALARIED 2.7 2.9 3.5 3.1 3 NOT SPECIFIED 1.3 2.4 3.6 3.3 JOB COMMUNI- TOWN CODE PAY STATUS SATISF. MGMT. CATION COUNCIL 1 HOURLY 2.7 2.4 _ 2.4 2.1 2 SALARIED 2.9 2.6 2.5 2.2 3 NOT SPECIFIED 2.0 1.4 2.0 2.5 ~i • ~ TOWN OF VAIL MOUNTAIN STATES EMPLOYERS COUNCIL, INC. COMPARISON OF SHIFT BY CATEGORY HOURS & WORKING CODE SHIFT PAY COND. BENEFITS SUPV. 1 DAY C8AM - 5PM) 2.5 3.0 3.2 .3.0 2 SWING AND NIGHT 1.9 2.9 3.0 2.8 4 NOT SPECIFIED 2.2 3.0 3.0 2.9 JOB COMMUNI- TOWN CODE SHIFT SATISF. MGMT. CATION COUNCIL 1 DAY (8AM - 5PM) 2.8 2.4 _ 2.4 2.2 2 SWING AND NIGHT 2.7 2.3 2.2 1.8 4 NOT SPECIFIED 2.7 2.5 2.4 2.2 i i i i I i • TOWN OF VAIL MOUNTAIN STATES EMPLOYERS COUNCIL, INC. COMPARISON OF SEX BY CATEGORY HOURS & WORKING CODE ~ PAY COND. BENEFITS SUPV. 1 FEMALE 2.4 3.1 3.3 .3.0 2 MALE 2.3 2.9 3.0 2.9 3 NOT SPECIFIED 1.3 2.4 3.6 3.3 JOB COMMUNI- TOWN CODE SEX SATISF. MGMT. CATION ,COUNCIL 1 FEMALE 2.7 2.4 _ 2.3 2.1 2 MALE 2.8 2.5 2.5 2.1 3 NOT SPECIFIED Z.0 1.4 2.0 2.5 t . i i i • ~ ~ TOWN OF VAIL . ~ MOUNTAIN STATES EMPLOYERS COUNCIL, INC. COMPARISON OF AGE BY CATEGORY HOURS & WORKING CODE ASE PAY COND. BENEFITS SUPV. 2 19 - 29 YEARS 2.Z 3.0 3.1 .2.9 3 30 - 39 YEARS 2.3 2.9 3.2 2.9 4 40 - 49 YEARS 2.4 3.1 3.1 3.0 5 50 - 69 YEARS 2.7 3.1 3.2 3.1 7 NOT SPECIFIED 1.9 2.6 2.9 2.8 JOB COMMUNI- TOWN CODE AGE SATISF. MGMT. _ CATION COUNCIL 2 19 - 29 YEARS 2.7 2.3 2.3 1.9 3 30 - 39 YEARS 2.7 2.4 2.4 2.1 4 40 - 49 YEARS 2.9 2.6 2.5 2.2 5 50 - b9 YEARS 3.2 2.6 2.6 2.5 7 NOT SPECIFIED 2.4 2.3 2.b Z.2 I f i i l I i TOWN OF VAIL MOUNTAIN STATES EMPLOYERS COUNCIL, INC. QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES BY QUESTION MOST ALMOST NO QUESTION ALWAYS OFTEN SELDOM NEVER OPINION MEAN 1 DOES THE TOV MAKE AN ADEQUATE 20% 32% 34% 11% 2% 2.6 EFFORT TO TELL YOU HOW PAY IS DETERMINED? . 2 IS THE TEMPERATURE IN YOUR 21% 27% 25% 23% 3% 2.5 WORK AREA PROPERLY REGULATED? 3 IS YOUR WORK AREA CLEAN? 22% 49% 17% 11% 1% 2.8 4 I FEEL THE EMPLOYEE COST FOR 40% 36% _10% 7% 6% 3.2 MEDICALiDENTAL INSURANCE IS REASONABLE. 5 DOES YOUR SUPERVISOR CARE 51% 30% 13% 6% 1% 3.3 ABOUT YOU AS A PERSON? 6 DO YOU RECEIVE ENOUGH RECOG- 12% 34% 39% 14% 1% 2.4 NITION FOR THE WORK YOU DO? 7 ARE SUGGESTIONS YOU MAKE FOR 15% 42% - 30% 9% 5% 2.7 IMPROVEMENT LISTENED TO AND CONSIDERED BY MANAGEMENT? 8 DOES YOUR DEPARTMENT HEAD TAKE 19% 38% 28% 15% 1% 2.6 l _ TIME TO TALK WITH THE EMPLOYEES? 9 ARE YOU PAID ACCORDING TO WHAT 12% 31% 28% 26% 3% 2.3 YOUR JOB IS WORTH TO THE TOV? 10 ARE THE WASHROOMS AND REST- 33% 46% 15% 5% 1% 3.1 ROOMS CLEAN? 11 IS OVERTIME ADMINISTERED ON A 32% 31% 11% 18% 7% 2.g FAIR AND EQUITABLE BASIS IN YOUR DEPARTMENT? ' 12 DO YOU FEEL TOWS BENEFITS ARE 35% 47% 10% 6% 2% 3.1 I ADEQUATE TO MEET YOUR NEEDS? ~ i i 13 ARE EMPLOYEES TREATED FAIRLY 25% 53% 12% 8% 2% 3.0 ' BY YOUR SUPERVISOR? 14 ARE THERE OPPORTUNITIES FOR 8% 26% 39% 23% 4% 2.2 ADVANCEMENT FOR QUALIFIED EMPLOYEES IN THE TOV? 15 DOES MANAGEMENT DO AN ADEQUATE 13% 38% 30% 17% 1% 2.5 JOB OF KEEPING YOU INFORMED AS • TO IMPORTANT ISSUES INVOLVING YOU? i f I ' TOWN OF VAIL MOUNTAIN STATES EMPLOYERS COUNCIL, INC. QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES BY QUESTION MOST ALMOST NO AUESTION ALWAYS OFTEN SELDOM NEVER OPINION MEAD 16 IN GENERAL, DOES MANAGEMENT 12% 32% 26% 30% 1% 2.3 KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON AT YOUR LEVEL OF THE ORGANIZATION? 17 DOES YOUR PAY PROVIDE YOU WITH 9% 36% 35% 21% 0% 2.3 A REASONABLE STANDARD OF LIVING AND LIFESTYLE? 18 IS THERE A LACK OF CONCERN FOR 6% 11% 32% 44% 6% 3.2 THE SAFETY OF THE EMPLOYEES OF - THE TOV? 19 ARE YOU SATISFIED WITH YOUR 47% 36% 9% 9% 0% 3.2 CURRENT WORK SCHEDULE? - 20 DO YOU FEEL THE TOV HAS 32% 48% 17% 2% 1% 3.1 ADEQUATELY COMMUNICATED TO YOU THE BENEFITS FOR WHICH YOU ARE ELIGIBLE? 21 DO YOU LOOK FORWARD TO COMING 30% 51% 11% 4% 4% 3.1 TO WORK? 22 OVERALL, ARE BENEFITS OFFERED 42% 42% 8% 2% 7% 3.3 _ AT THE TOV AS GOOD AS BENEFITS OFFERED BY OTHER ORGANI- ZATIONS? 23 WHEN CHANGES ARE MADE IN THE 6% 29% 40% 21% 4% 2.2 OPERATION AT THE TOV, DO YOU FEEL THE INTERESTS OF EMPLOYEES ARE CONSIDERED? 24 DO THE COUNCIL MEMBERS UNDER- 1% 12% 31% 48% 8% 1.6 STAND THE NEEDS OF EMPLOYEES AND THEIR FAMILIES? 25 I FEEL THE SKI PASS BENEFIT IS 42% 30% 11% 15% 3% 3.0 VALUABLE. ~ 26 IS THE LIGHTING OF YOUR WORK 39% 34% 18% 9% 1% 3.0 AREA SUFFICIENT FOR YOU TO DO YOUR BEST WORK? ' 27 DOES YOUR SUPERVISOR TELL YOU 14% 46% 26% 13% 1% 2.6 ' WHEN YOU'VE DONE A GOOD JOB? 28 DOES THE COUNCIL BELIEVE THAT 39% 32% 5% 3% 20% 1.7 TOV EMPLOYEES ARE BEING OVER- PAID FOR THEIR WORK? C_. TOWN OF VAIL MOUNTAIN STATES EMPLOYERS COUNCIL, INC. QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES BY QUESTION MOST ALMOST NO QUESTION ALWAYS OFTEN SELDOM NEVER OPINION MEAD ' 29 DO YOU FEEL MANAGEMENT 13% 48% 31% 7% 1% 2.7 ENCOURAGES EMPLOYEES TO DO THEIR BEST WORK? 30 IS THE COMMUNICATION FROM TOWN 7% 30% 36% 23% 4% 2.2 MANAGEMENT USUALLY OPEN AND HONEST? 31 ARE THE AMOUNTS OF PAY 7% 27% 36% 28% 3% 2.1 INCREASES YOU RECEIVE ADEQUATE? 32 ARE SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 38% 53% 7% 2% 1% 3.3 AVAILABLE WHEN YOU NEED THEM? 33 IS YOUR SUPERVISOR HONEST WITH 42% 40% 9% 7% 2% 3.2 YOU? 34 DOES THE TOV FILL JOBS FROM 9% 26% 30% ~ 14% 20% 2.6 OUTSIDE WHEN THERE ARE QUALI- FIED PEOPLE WITHIN WHO WANT THE JOB? 35 IS MANAGEMENT CONCERNED ABOUT 9% 33% 34% 21% 2% 2.3 YOU AS AN INDIVIDUAL? 36 IS THE TOWN MANAGER OPEN TO 14% 27% 25% 21% 13% 2.4 TALK WITH EMPLOYEES? 37 ARE YOUR COWORKERS HELPFUL AND 49% 45% 4% 1% 1% 3.4 COOPERATIVE? 38 HAS YOUR SUPERVISOR BUILT 35% 38% 19% 7% 1% 3.0 A GOOD TEAM OF PEOPLE? 39 DOES MANAGEMENT LET YOU KNOW 8% 28% 34% 28% ~ 2% 2.2 • ABOUT CHANGES BEFORE THEY ARE MADE? 40 DO MANAGEMENT DECISIONS 9% 35% 38% 12% 7% 2.6 PLACE ROADBLOCKS IN THE WAY OF PRODUCTIVITY? 41 OVERALL, DOES EVERYONE FEEL 11% 25% 28% 35% 1% 2.1 FREE TO SPEAK-UP AND SAY WHAT THEY THINK? 42 IS YOUR WORK SPACE SUFFICIENT 22% 21% 18% 36% 2% 2.3 IN SIZE TO DO YOUR JOB EFFECTIVELY? i , TOWN OF VAIL MOUNTAIN STATES EMPLOYERS COUNCIL, INC. QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES BY QUESTION MOST ALMOST NO QUESTION ALWAYS OFTEN SELDOM NEVER OPINION MEAN 43 IS YOUR SUPERVISOR WILLING 50% 39% 9% 1% 1% 3.4 TO HELP OR ANSWER QUESTIONS YOU HAVE CONCERNING YOUR WORK? 44 IS YOUR JOB CHALLENGING ENOUGH 32Y. 42% 18% 8% 0% 3.0 TO USE YOUR FULL ABILITIES? 45 DO YOU FEEL MANAGEMENT WILL 11% 20% 25i 32~ 12i 2.1 TAKE STEPS TO CORRECT THE PROBLEMS IDENTIFIED BY THIS _ SURVEY? 46 IS THE COUNCIL COST CONSCIOUS? 47% 24% 11~ 6~ 11% 3.3 47 DOES YOUR SUPERVISOR LET YOU 27i 54% 17% 2~ Oi 3.1 KNOW EXACTLY WHAT IS EXPECTED OF YOU? 48 WOULD YOU ACCEPT A JOB AT 30i 26% 8% 26% 11% 2.3 ANOTHER ORGANIZATION DOING THE SAME JOB AS YOU DO HERE, WITH THE SAME PAY AND BENEFITS? 49 ARE YOU RECEIVING ADEQUATE 26i 47% 20i 6~ 1% 2.9 ` TRAINING TO DO ALL ASPECTS OF YOUR JOB PROPERLY? 50 IS THERE A PROBLEM WITH 15% 32% 32i 19% 3% 2.6 RECEIVING DIRECTIONS FROM MORE THAN ONE PERSON? 51 DO YOU FEEL THE OVERALL ATTI- l0i 42% 35% l0i 3% 2.5 TUDE OF TOV EMPLOYEES TOWARD THEIR JOBS IS POSITIVE? 52 DO YOU FEEL FREE TO DISAGREE 23% 28% 29% 19% li 2.5 WITH YOUR SUPERVISOR WITHOUT j FEAR OF REPRISAL? I 53 DOES THE COUNCIL RESPECT AND 5i 24% 33% 28i 10% 2.1 ' SUPPORT THE WORK OF THE TOV ' EMPLOYEES? 54 ARE PROMOTIONS AT THE TOV 11% 30i 33i 13~ 13% 2.4 GIVEN TO THE MOST QUALIFIED PEOPLE? 55 DO YOU HAVE A LOT OF FREEDOM 38% 46i 12% 3% 1% 3.2 ' TO GET YOUR JOB DONE? i i TOWN OF VAIL MOUNTAIN STATES EMPLOYERS COUNCIL, INC. ' QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES BY QUESTION MOST ALMOST NO QUESTION ALWAYS OFTEN SELDOM NEVER OPINION MEAN 56 DO YOU ENJOY YOUR JOB HERE? 45% 42% 9% 3% 1% 3.3 57 WHEN YOU HAVE A WORK RELATED 37% 39% 17% 6% 1% 3.1 PROBLEM, DO YOU GO TO YOUR SUPERVISOR FOR HELP? 58 ARE YOU GIVEN A CHANCE TO USE 40% 48% 11% 0% 1% 3.3 YOUR OWN JUDGMENT WHERE CON- DITIONS WARRANT IT? 59 ARE YOU ENCOURAGED TO WORK 19% 37% 34% 8% 3% 2.7 TOWARD YOUR PERSONAL GOALS AND OBJECTIVES AT THE TOV? 60 ARE COMPLAINTS AND CRITICISMS 24% 44% 21% 9% 2% 2.8 HANDLED FAIRLY BY YOUR SUPERVISOR? 61 DO THE COUNCIL MEMBERS UNDER- 1% 9% 38% ~ 40% 11% 1.7 STAND THE WORK OF THE TOV EMPLOYEES? 62 ARE YOU ENCOURAGED TO MAKE 24% 42% 27% 5% 3% 2.9 r SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVING YOUR l WORK? 63 IS THE COUNCIL IN TOUCH WITH 7% 36% 30% 13% 13% 2.4 THE NEEDS OF THE COMMUNITY? 64 DOES MANAGEMENT TRY TO MAKE 17% 44% 26% 10% 3% 2.7 THE TOV A GOOD PLACE TO WORK? 65 ARE YOU KEPT INFORMED ABOUT 16% 58% 19% 5% 1% 2.9 THE THINGS YOU NEED TO KNOW TO DO YOUR JOB PROPERLY? 66 IS THE TOWN MANAGER WILLING TO 21% 28% 15% 17% 17% 2.7 TALK WITH ANY EMPLOYEE IF THEY DESIRE? I GRAND TOTALS 2.7 I i • TOWN OF VAIL MOUNTAIN STATES EMPLOYERS COUNCIL, INC. QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES BY CATEGORY MOST ALMOST NO ~ CATEGORY~OUESTION ALWAYS OFTEN SELDOM NEVER OPINION MEAN ' PAY 1 DOES THE TOV MAKE AN ADEQUATE 20% 32% 34% 11% 2% 2.6 EFFORT TO.TELL YOU HOW PAY IS DETERMINED? 9 ARE YOU PAID ACCORDING TO WHAT 12% 31% 28% 26% 3% 2.3 YOUR JOB IS WORTH TO THE TOV? 17 DOES YOUR PAY PROVIDE YOU WITH 9% 36% .35% 21% 0% 2.3 A REASONABLE STANDARD OF LIVING AND LIFESTYLE? 31 ARE THE AMOUNTS OF PAY 7% 27% 36% 28% 3% 2.1 INCREASES YOU RECEIVE ADEQUATE? TOTAL PAY ~ 2.3 i I I I i i I s i . TOWN OF VAIL MOUNTAIN STATES EMPLOYERS COUNCIL, INC. QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES BY CATEGORY MOST ALMOST NO CATEGORY/QUESTION ALWAYS OFTEN SELDOM NEVER OPINION MEAD HOURS AND WORKING CONDITIONS 2 IS THE TEMPERATURE IN YOUR 21% 27% 25% 23% 3% 2.5 WORK AREA PROPERLY REGULATED? 3 IS YOUR WORK AREA CLEAN? 22% 49% 17% 11% 1% 2.8 10 ARE THE WASHROOMS AND REST- 33% 46% 15% 5% 1% 3.1 ROOMS CLEAN? 11 IS OVERTIME ADMINISTERED ON A 32% 31% 11% 18% 7% 2,g FAIR AND EQUITABLE BASIS IN YOUR DEPARTMENT? 18 IS THERE A LACK OF CONCERN FOR 6% 11% 32% 44% 6% 3.2 THE SAFETY OF THE EMPLOYEES OF THE TOV? 19 ARE YOU SATISFIED WITH YOUR 47% 36% 9% 9% 0% 3.2 CURRENT WORK SCHEDULE? 26 IS THE LIGHTING OF YOUR WORK 39% 34% 18% 9% 1% 3.0 AREA SUFFICIENT FOR YOU TO DO YOUR BEST WORK? 32 ARE SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 38% 53% 7% 2% 1% 3.3 AVAILABLE WHEN YOU NEED THEM? 37 ARE YOUR COWORKERS HELPFUL AND 49% 45% 4% 1% 1% 3.4 COOPERATIVE? 42 IS YOUR WORK SPACE SUFFICIENT 22% 21% 18% 36% 2% 2.3 IN SIZE TO DO YOUR JOB EFFECTIVELY? TOTAL HOURS AND WORKING CONDITIONS 3.0 i I , ~ ~ TOWN OF VAIL • MOUNTAIN STATES EMPLOYERS COUNCIL, INC. QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES BY CATEGORY MOST ALMOST NO CATEGORY~OUESTION ALWAYS OFTEN SELDOM NEVER OPINION MEAD BENEFITS 4 I FEEL THE EMPLOYEE COST FOR 40~ 36~ l0i 7~ 6~ 3.2 MEDICALiDENTAL INSURANCE IS REASONABLE. 12 DO YOU FEEL TOWS BENEFITS ARE 35i 47i l0i 6~ 2X 3.1 ADEQUATE TO MEET YOUR NEEDS? 20 DO YOU FEEL THE TOV HAS 32i 48i _17i 2~ 1~ 3.1 ADEQUATELY COMMUNICATED TO YOU • THE BENEFITS FOR WHICH YOU ARE ELIGIBLE? 22 OVERALL, ARE BENEFITS OFFERED 42i 42i 8i 2i 7i 3.3 AT THE TOV AS GOOD AS BENEFITS OFFERED BY OTHER ORGAN I - ZATIONS? 25 I FEEL THE SKI PASS BENEFIT IS 42i 30i lii 15i 3i 3.0 VALUABLE. TOTAL BENEFITS 3.1 i i I i TOWN OF VAIL MOUNTAIN STATES EMPLOYERS COUNCIL, INC. QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES BY CATEGORY MOST ALMOST NO CATEGORY/QUESTION ALWAYS OFTEN SELDOM NEVER OPINION MEAL SUPERVISION 5 DOES YOUR SUPERVISOR CARE 51% 30% 13% 6% 1% 3.3 ABOUT YOU AS A PERSON? 13 ARE EMPLOYEES TREATED FAIRLY 25% 53% 12% 8% 2% 3.0 BY YOUR SUPERVISOR? 27 DOES YOUR SUPERVISOR TELL YOU 14% 46% 26% 13% 1% 2.6 WHEN YOU'VE DONE A GOOD JOB? 33 IS YOUR SUPERVISOR HONEST WITH 42% 40% 9% 7% 2% 3.2 YOU? 38 HAS YOUR SUPERVISOR BUILT 35% 38% 19% 7% 1% 3.0 A GOOD TEAM OF PEOPLE? 43 IS YOUR SUPERVISOR WILLING 50% 39% 9% 1% 1% 3.4 TO HELP OR ANSWER QUESTIONS YOU HAVE CONCERNING YOUR WORK? 47 DOES YOUR SUPERVISOR LET YOU 27% 54% 17% 2% 0% 3.1 KNOW EXACTLY WHAT IS EXPECTED OF YOU? 50 IS THERE A PROBLEM WITH 15% 32% 32% 19% 3% 2.6 RECEIVING DIRECTIONS FROM MORE THAN ONE PERSON? 52 DO YOU FEEL FREE TO DISAGREE 23% 28% 29% 19% 1% 2.5 WITH YOUR SUPERVISOR WITHOUT FEAR OF REPRISAL? 57 WHEN YOU HAVE A WORK RELATED 37% 39% 17% 6% 1% 3.1 PROBLEM, DO YOU GO TO YOUR SUPERVISOR FOR HELP? 60 ARE COMPLAINTS AND CRITICISMS 24% 44% 21% 9% 2% 2.8 j HANDLED FAIRLY BY YOUR ~ ~ SUPERVISOR? i 62 ARE YOU ENCOURAGED TO MAKE 24% 42% 27% 5% 3% 2.9 SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVING YOUR WORK? TOTAL SUPERVISION 3.0 I i I TOWN OF VAIL MOUNTAIN STATES EMPLOYERS COUNCIL, INC. QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES BY CATEGORY MOST ALMOST NO C CATEGORY/QUESTION ALWAYS OFTEN SELDOM NEVER OPINION MEAD JOB SATISFACTION 6 DO YOU RECEIVE ENOUGH RECOG- 12% 34% 39% 14% 1% 2.4 NITION FOR THE WORK YOU DO? 14 ARE THERE OPPORTUNITIES FOR 8% 26% 39% 23% 4% 2.2 ADVANCEMENT FOR QUALIFIED EMPLOYEES IN THE TOV? 21 DO YOU LOOK FORWARD TO COMING 30% 51% _11% 4% 4% 3.1 TO WORK? 34 DOES THE TOV FILL JOBS FROM 9% 26% 30% 14% 20% 2.6 OUTSIDE WHEN THERE ARE QUALI- FIED PEOPLE WITHIN WHO WANT THE JOB? 44 IS YOUR JOB CHALLENGING ENOUGH 32% 42% 18% 8% 0% 3.0 TO USE YOUR FULL ABILITIES? 48 WOULD YOU ACCEPT A JOB AT 30% 26% 8% 26% 11% 2.3 ANOTHER ORGANIZATION DOING THE SAME JOB AS YOU DO HERE, WITH THE SAME PAY AND BENEFITS? t 49 ARE YOU RECEIVING ADEQUATE 26% 47i ZO% 6% 1% 2.9 TRAINING TO DO ALL ASPECTS OF YOUR JOB PROPERLY? 51 DO YOU FEEL THE OVERALL ATTI- 10% 42% 35% 10% 3% 2.5 TUDE OF TOV EMPLOYEES TOWARD THEIR JOBS IS POSITIVE? 54 ARE PROMOTIONS AT THE TOV 11% 30% 33% 13% 13% 2.4 GIVEN TO THE MOST QUALIFIED PEOPLE? 55 DO YOU HAVE A LOT OF FREEDOM 38% 46% 12% 3% 1% 3.2 TO GET YOUR JOB DONE? I ` 56 DO YOU ENJOY YOUR JOB HERE? 45% 42% 9i 3% li 3.3 58 ARE YOU GIVEN A CHANCE TO USE 40% 48% 11% 0% 1% 3.3 YOUR OWN JUDGMENT WHERE CON- . DITIONS WARRANT IT? 59 ARE YOU ENCOURAGED TO WORK 19% 37% 34% 8% 3% 2.7 TOWARD YOUR PERSONAL GOALS AND OBJECTIVES AT THE TOV? ~ TOTAL JOB SATISFACTION 2 8 i i , TOWN OF VAIL MOUNTAIN STATES EMPLOYERS COUNCIL, INC. QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES BY CATEGORY MOST ALMOST NO CATEG0RYiDUESTION ALWAYS OFTEN SELDOM NEVER OPINION ME; MANAGEMENT 7 ARE SUGGESTIONS YOU MAKE FOR 15% 42% 30% 9% 5% 2.7 IMPROVEMENT LISTENED TO AND CONSIDERED BY MANAGEMENT? 8 DOES YOUR DEPARTMENT HEAD TAKE 19% 38% 28% 15% 1% 2.6 TIME TO TALK WITH THE EMPLOYEES? 15 DOES MANAGEMENT DO AN ADEQUATE 13% 38% 30% 17% 1% 2.5 JOB OF KEEPING YOU INFORMED AS TO IMPORTANT ISSUES INVOLVING YOU? 16 IN GENERAL, DOES MANAGEMENT 12% 32% 26% 30% 1% 2.3 KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON AT YOUR ' LEVEL OF THE ORGANIZATION? 23 WHEN CHANGES ARE MADE IN THE 6% 29% 40% 21% 4% 2.2 OPERATION AT THE TOV, DO YOU FEEL THE INTERESTS OF EMPLOYEES ARE CONSIDERED? 29 DO YOU FEEL MANAGEMENT 13% 48% 31% 7% 1% 2.7 ENCOURAGES EMPLOYEES TO ~ DO THEIR BEST WORK? 35 IS MANAGEMENT CONCERNED ABOUT 9% 33% 34% 21% 2% 2.3 YOU AS AN INDIVIDUAL? 36 IS THE TOWN MANAGER OPEN TO 14% 27% 25% 21% 13% 2.4 TALK WITH EMPLOYEES? 39 DOES MANAGEMENT LET YOU KNOW 8% 28% 3~i% 28% 2% 2.2 ABOUT CHANGES BEFORE THEY ARE MADE? 40 DO MANAGEMENT DECISIONS 9% 35% 38% 12% 7% , 2.6 PLACE ROADBLOCKS IN THE WAY OF PRODUCTIVITY? 45 DO YOU FEEL MANAGEMENT WIII 11% 20% 25% 32% 12% 2.1 TAKE STEPS TO CORRECT THE PROBLEMS IDENTIFIED BY THIS SURVEY? 64 DOES MANAGEMENT TRY TO MAKE 17% 44% 26% 10% 3% 2.7 THE TOV A GOOD PLACE TO WORK? 66 IS THE TOWN MANAGER WILLING TO 21% 28% 15% 17% 17% 2.7 TALK WITH ANY EMPLOYEE IF THEY DESIRE? TOTAL MANAGEMENT 2.4 . ~ . ~ TOWN OF VAIL MOUNTAIN STATES EMPLOYERS COUNCIL, INC. QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES BY CATEGORY MOST ALMOST NO CATEGORY/9UESTION ALWAYS OFTEN SELDOM NFVER OPINION MEAN COMMUNICATION 30 IS THE COMMUNICATION FROM TOWN 7% 30% 36% 23% 4% 2.2 MANAGEMENT USUALLY OPEN AND HONEST? 41 OVERALL, DOES EVERYONE FEEL 11% 25% 28% 35% 1% 2.1 FREE TO SPEAK-UP AND SAY WHAT THEY THINK? 65 ARE YOU KEPT INFORMED ABOUT 16% 58% 19% 5% 1% 2.9 THE THINGS YOU NEED TO KNOW TO DO YOUR JOB PROPERLY? TOTAL COMMUNICATION 2,4 l,~ i I i I . ~ TOWN OF VAIL MOUNTAIN STATES EMPLOYERS COUNCIL, INC. QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES BY CATEGORY MOST ALMOST NO CATEGORY/QUESTION ALWAYS OFTEN SELDOM NEVER OPINION MEAN TOWN COUNCIL 24 DO THE COUNCIL MEMBERS UNDER- 1% 12% 31% 48% 8% 1.6 STAND THE NEEDS OF EMPLOYEES AND THEIR FAMILIES? 28 DOES THE COUNCIL BELIEVE THAT 39% 32% 5% 3% 20% 1.7 TOV EMPLOYEES ARE BEING OVER- PAID FOR THEIR WORK? 46 IS THE COUNCIL COST CONSCIOUS? 47~ 24% 11% 6% 11% 3.3 53 DOES THE COUNCIL RESPECT AND 5~ 24% 33% 28~ 10~ 2.1 SUPPORT THE WORK OF THE TOV EMPLOYEES? 61 DO THE COUNCIL MEMBERS UNDER- 1% 9% 38% 40Y. 11% 1.7 STAND THE WORK OF THE TOV EMPLOYEES? 63 I5 THE COUNCIL IN TOUCH WITH 7% 36i 30% 13•r. 13x 2.4 THE NEEDS OF THE COMMUNITY? TOTAL TOWN COUNCIL 2.1 f i i , I TOWN OF VAIL MOUNTAIN STATES EMPLOYERS COUNCIL, INC. COMPARISONS TO NORMS COMPANY OVERALL ,QUESTION MEAN NORM 1 DOES THE TOV MAKE AN ADEQUATE 2.6 2.6 EFFORT TO TELL YOU HOW PAY IS DETERMINED? 2 IS THE TEMPERATURE IN YOUR 2.5 2.6 WORK AREA PROPERLY REGULATED? 5 DOES YOUR SUPERVISOR CARE 3.3 3.2 ABOUT YOU AS A PERSON? 6 DO YOU RECEIVE ENOUGH RECOG- 2.4 2.6 NITION FOR THE WORK YOU DO? 7 ARE SUGGESTIONS YOU MAKE FOR 2.7 2.6 IMPROVEMENT LISTENED TO AND CONSIDERED BY MANAGEMENT? 9 ARE YOU PAID ACCORDING TO WHAT 2.3 2.5 YOUR JOB IS WORTH TO THE TOV? 11 IS OVERTIME ADMINISTERED ON A 2.8 3.0 FAIR AND EQUITABLE BASIS IN YOUR DEPARTMENT? 12 DO YOU FEEL TOWS BENEFITS ARE 3.1 2.9 ADEQUATE TO MEET YOUR NEEDS? 13 ARE EMPLOYEES TREATED FAIRLY 3.0 3.1 BY YOUR SUPERVISOR? 14 ARE THERE OPPORTUNITIES FOR 2.2 2.6 ADVANCEMENT FOR QUALIFIED EMPLOYEES IN THE TOV? 15 DOES MANAGEMENT DO AN ADEQUATE 2.5 2.7 JOB OF KEEPING YOU INFORMED AS TO IMPORTANT ISSUES INVOLVING YOU? I 18 IS THERE A LACK OF CONCERN FOR 3.2 3.1 THE SAFETY OF THE EMPLOYEES OF THE TOV? 19 ARE YOU SATISFIED WITH YOUR 3.2 3.3 CURRENT WORK SCHEDULE? 20 DO YOU FEEL THE TOV HAS 3.1 3.1 ADEQUATELY COMMUNICATED TO YOU ' THE BENEFITS FOR WHICH YOU ARE ELIGIBLE? c~.. ' ~ TOWN OF VAIL MOUNTAIN STATES EMPLOYERS COUNCIL, INC. COMPARISONS TO NORMS COMPANY OVERALL QUESTION MEAN NORM 22 OVERALL, ARE BENEFITS OFFERED 3.3 2.9 AT THE TOV AS GOOD AS BENEFITS OFFERED BY OTHER ORGANI- ZATIONS? 23 WHEN CHANGES ARE MADE IN THE 2.2 2.5 OPERATION AT THE TOV, DO YOU FEEL THE INTERESTS OF EMPLOYEES ARE CONSIDERED? 26 IS THE LIGHTING OF YOUR WORK 3.0 3.3 AREA SUFFICIENT FOR YOU TO DO YOUR BEST WORK? 29 DO YOU FEEL MANAGEMENT 2,7 2,q ENCOURAGES EMPLOYEES TO DO THEIR BEST WORK? 31 ARE THE AMOUNTS OF PAY 2.1 2.3 INCREASES YOU RECEIVE ADEQUATE? 32 ARE SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 3.3 3.2 AVAILABLE WHEN YOU NEED THEM? 33 IS YOUR SUPERVISOR HONEST WITH 3.2 3.3 YOU? 34 DOES THE TOV FILL JOBS FROM 2.6 2.6 OUTSIDE WHEN THERE ARE QUALI- FIED PEOPLE WITHIN WHO WANT THE JOB? 35 IS MANAGEMENT CONCERNED ABOUT 2.3 2.6 YOU AS AN INDIVIDUAL? 37 ARE YOUR COWORKERS HELPFUL AND 3.4 3.3 COOPERATIVE? 40 DO MANAGEMENT DECISIONS 2.6 2.6 PLACE ROADBLOCKS IN THE WAY OF PRODUCTIVITY? 43 IS YOUR SUPERVISOR WILLING 3.4 3.4 TO HELP OR ANSWER QUESTIONS YOU HAVE CONCERNING YOUR WORK? 44 IS YOUR JOB CHALLENGING ENOUGH 3.0 3.0 TO USE YOUR FULL ABILITIES? i i ~ ~ TOWN OF VAIL MOUNTAIN STATES EMPLOYERS COUNCIL, INC. COMPARISONS TO NORMS COMPANY OVERALL 9UESTION MEAN NORM 45 DO YOU FEEL MANAGEMENT WILL 2.1 2.4 TAKE STEPS TO CORRECT THE PROBLEMS IDENTIFIED BY THIS SURVEY? 47 DOES YOUR SUPERVISOR LET YOU 3.1 3.0 KNOW EXACTLY WHAT IS EXPECTED OF YOU? 48 WOULD YOU ACCEPT A JOB AT 2.3 2.9 ANOTHER ORGANIZATION DOING THE SAME JOB AS YOU DO HERE, WITH THE SAME PAY AND BENEFITS? 49 ARE YOU RECEIVING ADEQUATE 2.9 3.0 TRAINING TO DO ALL ASPECTS OF YOUR JOB PROPERLY? 50 IS THERE A PROBLEM WITH 2.6 2,g RECEIVING DIRECTIONS FROM MORE THAN ONE PERSON? 51 DO YOU FEEL THE OVERALL ATTI- 2.5 2.6 TUDE OF TOV EMPLOYEES TOWARD ? THEIR JOBS IS POSITIVE? 54 ARE PROMOTIONS AT THE TOV 2.4 2.6 GIVEN TO THE MOST QUALIFIED PEOPLE? 56 DO YOU ENJOY YOUR JOB HERE? 3.3 3.3 57 WHEN YOU HAVE A WORK RELATED 3.1 3.2 PROBLEM, DO YOU GO TO YOUR SUPERVISOR FOR HELP? ' 58 ARE YOU GIVEN A CHANCE TO USE 3.3 3.2 i YOUR OWN JUDGMENT WHERE CON- ~ DITIONS WARRANT IT? ~ i i 59 ARE YOU ENCOURAGED TO WORK 2.7 2.8 TOWARD YOUR PERSONAL GOALS AND OBJECTIVES AT THE TOV? 60 ARE COMPLAINTS AND CRITICISMS 2,g 2,g HANDLED FAIRLY BY YOUR SUPERVISOR? GRAND TOTAL 2.8 2.9 i TOWN OF VAIL MOUNTAIN STATES EMPLOYERS COUNCIL, INC. COMPARISONS TO NORMS PAY COMPANY OVERALL BUESTION MEAN NORM 1 DOES THE TOV MAKE AN ADEQUATE 2.6 2.6 EFFORT TO TELL YOU HOW PAY IS DETERMINED? 9 ARE YOU PAID ACCORDING TO WHAT 2.3 2.5 YOUR JOB IS WORTH TO THE TOV? 31 ARE THE AMOUNTS OF PAY 2.1 2.3 INCREASES YOU RECEIVE ADEQUATE? TOTAL 2.3 2.5 i 1 I ' i • ~ ~ TOWN OF VAIL MOUNTAIN STATES EMPLOYERS COUNCIL, INC. COMPARISONS TO NORMS HOURS AND WORKING CONDITIONS COMPANY OVERALL QUESTION MEAN NORM 2 IS THE TEMPERATURE IN YOUR 2.5 2.6 WORK AREA PROPERLY REGULATED? 11 IS OVERTIME ADMINISTERED ON A 2.8 3.0 FAIR AND EQUITABLE BASIS IN YOUR DEPARTMENT? 18 IS THERE A LACK OF CONCERN FOR 3.2 3.1 THE SAFETY OF THE EMPLOYEES OF _ THE TOV? 19 ARE YOU SATISFIED WITH YOUR 3.2 3.3 CURRENT WORK SCHEDULE? 26 IS THE LIGHTING OF YOUR WORK 3.0 3.3 AREA SUFFICIENT FOR YOU TO DO YOUR BEST WORK? 32 ARE SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 3.3 3.2 AVAILABLE WHEN YOU NEED THEM? 37 ARE YOUR COWORKERS HELPFUL AND 3.4 3.3 COOPERATIVE? TOTAL 3.1 3.1 i ~ ~ TOWN OF VAIL MOUNTAIN STATES EMPLOYERS COUNCIL, INC. COMPARISONS TO NORMS BENEFITS COMPANY OVERALL 9UESTI0N MEAN NORM 12 DO YOU FEEL TOWS BENEFITS ARE 3.1 2.9 ADEQUATE TO MEET YOUR NEEDS? 20 DO YOU FEEL THE TOV HAS 3.1 3.1 ADEQUATELY COMMUNICATED TO YOU THE BENEFITS FOR WHICH YOU ARE ELIGIBLE? 22 OVERALL, ARE BENEFITS OFFERED 3.3 2.9 AT THE TOV AS GOOD AS BENEFITS OFFERED BY OTHER ORGANI- ZATIONS? TOTAL 3.2 3.0 i ~ TOWN OF VAIL MOUNTAIN STATES EMPLOYERS COUNCIL, INC. COMPARISONS TO NORMS SUPERVISION COMPANY OVERALL 9UESTION MEAN NORM 5 DOES YOUR SUPERVISOR CARE 3.3 3:2 ABOUT YOU AS A PERSON? 13 ARE EMPLOYEES TREATED FAIRLY 3.0 3.1 BY YOUR SUPERVISOR? 33 IS YOUR SUPERVISOR HONEST WITH 3.2 3.3 YOU? 43 IS YOUR SUPERVISOR WILLING 3.4 3.4 TO HELP OR ANSWER QUESTIONS YOU HAVE CONCERNING YOUR WORK? 47 DOES YOUR SUPERVISOR LET YOU 3.1 3.0 KNOW EXACTLY WHAT IS EXPECTED OF YOU? 50 IS THERE A PROBLEM WITH 2.6 2.8 RECEIVING DIRECTIONS FROM MORE THAN ONE PERSON? 57 WHEN YOU HAVE A WORK RELATED 3.1 3.2 PROBLEM, DO YOU GO TO YOUR SUPERVISOR FOR HELP? 60 ARE COMPLAINTS AND CRITICISMS 2,g 2,g HANDLED FAIRLY BY YOUR SUPERVISOR? TOTAL 3.0 3.1 i I ~ I i i I i i ~ . ' TOWN OF VAIL MOUNTAIN STATES EMPLOYERS COUNCIL, INC. ' COMPARISONS TO NORMS JOB SATISFACTION ' COMPANY OVERALL QUESTION MEAN NORM 6 DO YOU RECEIVE ENOUGH RECOG- 2.4 2.6 NITION FOR THE WORK YOU DO? 14 ARE THERE OPPORTUNITIES FOR 2.2 2.6 ADVANCEMENT FOR QUALIFIED EMPLOYEES IN THE TOV? 34 DOES THE TOV FILL JOBS FROM 2.6 2.6 OUTSIDE WHEN THERE ARE QUALI- FIED PEOPLE WITHIN WHO WANT THE JOB? 44 IS YOUR JOB CHALLENGING ENOUGH 3.0 3.0 TO USE YOUR FULL ABILITIES? 48 WOULD YOU ACCEPT A JOB AT 2.3 2.9 ANOTHER ORGANIZATION DOING THE _ SAME JOB AS YOU DO HERE, WITH THE SAME PAY AND BENEFITS? 49 ARE YOU RECEIVING ADEQUATE 2.9 3.0 TRAINING TO DO ALL ASPECTS OF YOUR JOB PROPERLY? 51 DO YOU FEEL THE OVERALL ATTI- 2.5 2.6 TUDE OF TOV EMPLOYEES TOWARD THEIR JOBS IS POSITIVE? 54 ARE PROMOTIONS AT THE TOV 2.4 2.6 GIVEN TO THE MOST QUALIFIED PEOPLE? 56 DO YOU ENJOY YOUR JOB HERE? 3.3 3.3 58 ARE YOU GIVEN A CHANCE TO USE 3.3 3.2 YOUR OWN JUDGMENT WHERE CON- DITIONS WARRANT IT? 59 ARE YOU ENCOURAGED TO WORK 2.7 2.8 TOWARD YOUR PERSONAL GOALS AND OBJECTIVES AT THE TOV? TOTAL 2.7 2.8 i `~i i ~ ~ TOWN OF VAIL MOUNTAIN STATES EMPLOYERS COUNCIL, INC. COMPARISONS TO NORMS MANAGEMENT • COMPANY OVERALL QUESTION MEAN NORM 7 ARE SUGGESTIONS YOU MAKE FOR 2.7 2.6 IMPROVEMENT LISTENED TO AND CONSIDERED BY MANAGEMENT? 15 DOES MANAGEMENT DO AN ADEQUATE 2.5 2.7 JOB OF KEEPING YOU INFORMED AS TO IMPORTANT ISSUES INVOLVING YOU? 23 WHEN CHANGES ARE MADE IN THE 2.2 2.5 OPERATION AT THE TOV, DO YOU FEEL THE INTERESTS OF EMPLOYEES ARE CONSIDERED? 29 DO YOU FEEL MANAGEMENT 2.7 2,q ENCOURAGES EMPLOYEES TO DO THEIR BEST WORK? 35 IS MANAGEMENT CONCERNED ABOUT 2.3 2.6 YOU AS AN INDIVIDUAL? 40 DO MANAGEMENT DECISIONS 2.6 2.6 PLACE ROADBLOCKS IN THE WAY 1. OF PRODUCTIVITY? 45 DO YOU FEEL MANAGEMENT WILL 2.1 2.4 TAKE STEPS TO CORRECT THE PROBLEMS IDENTIFIED BY THIS SURVEY? TOTAL 2.4 2.6 I ~'i i i i . , ' ~ TOWN OF VAIL PAGE- 1 MOUNTAIN STATES EMPLOYERS COUNCIL, INC. WRITTEN RESPONSES A. WHAT I REALLY LIKE ABOUT THE TOV IS: NO RELATIVES WITHIN ONE THOUSAND MILES. ITS A BEAUTIFUL AREA. SUMMERS. BENEFITS AND GUARANTEED 40 HR. WEEK. THE PEGPLE I WORK WITH. I HAVE A GOOD SCHEDULE,~OK. PAY AND I LOVE WORKING OUTDOORS. ALSO I LIKE GOING TO THE SEMINARS AND LEARNING. IT'S A GOOD PLACE TO.WORK, LIVE, AND FOLLOW EMPLOYEES ARE GREAT. FELLOW WORKERS. BENEFITS (HEALTH, DENTAL AND TOWN PASS). LOCATION. PEOPLE. THE LOCATION AND THE CO-WORKERS. FAIR PAY AND BENEFTIS. MANAGEMENT AND CO-WORKERS ARE ALWAYS THERE FOR YOU. _ I LIKE WORKING WITH MY CO-WORKERS, BECAUSE EVERYONE IN OUR f~ DEPARTMENT HAS BEEN WORKING TOGETHER FOR MANY YEARS AND YOU KNOW WHAT TO EXPECT FROM THEM. I FEEL IT IS A SECURE JOB. IT ONE OF FEW EMPLOYER IN THE AREA THAT OFFER FULL TIME YEAR ROUND WORK WITH GREAT BENEFITS. THE PEOPLE I WORK WITH. THE FACT THAT THIS SURVEY IS FINALLY BEING DONE--LETS CONTINUE IN THIS DIRECTION. ITS A BEAUTIFUL PLACE TO LIVE AND QUALITY OF LIFE IS VERY GOOD. I WORK WITH A VERY FINE GROUPS OF PEOPLE. I LIKE THE CONCERNED INTEREST OF MY FELLOW EMPLOYEES WHO ~ STRIVE TO GIVE 100 EFFORT TO ACCOMPLISHiPRODUCE QUALITY ` WORK. IN MANY CASES THIS IS WITHOUT ACKNO4lLEDGEMENT OR ~ CREDIT FOR WHAT THEY DO BECAUSE THEY HAVE PRIDE IN THEIR WORK. THE BENEFITS. STEADY RELIABLE WORK, PAID ON TIME. i THE PEOPLE I WORK WITH ON A DAY TO DAY BASIS. I HAVE A LOT c OF FREEDOM IN MY JOB TO DO IT AS I LIKE. THE MAJORITY OF STAFF, ESPECIALLY IN ELUSIVE OF IMMEDIATE I. . . i ' ~ TOWN OF VAIL PAGE- 2 MOUNTAIN STATES EMPLOYERS COUNCIL, INC. WRITTEN RESPONSES A. WHAT I REALLY LIKE ABOUT THE TOV IS: STAFF. LOCATION. AS A VEHICLE TO "POTENTIALLY^ EXPLORE MY ABILITIES. FLEXIBLE WORK SCHEDULES. ADEQUATE PAY SCALE--NOT GREAT--BUT ADEQUATE CASUAL ATMOSPHERE--VERY LITTLE PRESSURE OR STRESS BUT STILL ON EMPHASIS ON BEING PROFESSIONAL IN APPROACH. THEY WORK HARD TO MAKE ALL DEPARTMENTS GET TO KNOW ONE ANOTHER AND WORK TOGETHER AS A TEAM. I FEEL ALL ADMINISTRATIVE PERSONNEL APPROACHABLE. THE LOCATION. EMPLOYEE BENEFITS (INSURANCE, RETIREMENT FUND, FLEX ACCOUNT). THE LOCATION OF MY JOB. THE T.O.V. DOES NICE THINGS FOR EMPLOYEES THAT DON'T GET ENOUGH APPRECIATION--PICNICS, CHRISTMAS PARTIES, ETC. A LOT OF BIG COMPANIES DON'T DO THINGS LIKE THAT FOR THEIR EMPLOYEES. LOCATION--I LIKE LIVING IN A SMALL TOWN WITH LOTS OF SPORTS. ~ THE VARITY OF TOV BENEFITS--INS. RETIRMENT ETC. POSITIVE WORK ENVIRNOMENT; GOOD ORGANIZATIONAL LEADERSHIP; RECOGNITION FOR EFFORT; LATTITUDE GIVEN FOR CREATIVITY. MOST DEPARTMENTS INTERACT WELL WITH EACH OTHER. MY JOB. 1. THE PEOPLE I WORK WITH. 2. THE JOB I DO--SELF ACCOMPLISHMENTS. PROBABLY THE MOST FAIR EMPLOYER IN VALLEY. i PENSION PLAN. YEAR ROUND STEADY JOB. NICE PEOPLE TO WORK WITH. ~ BENEFITS AND PENSION PLAN. MY POSITION ALLOWS ME DISCRETION TO BE ABLE TO DO MY JOB WELL. IT ALSO ALLOWS ME TO LIVE IN THIS BEAUTIFUL COMMUNITY. I ALSO LIKED WORKING FOUR TO TEN HOUR SHIFTS BETTER THAN FIVE EIGHTS. THE DAYS OFF ALLOW YOU TO FORGET THE STRESS OF CONSTANTLY DEALING WITH TOURISTS WHO I KNOW MAKE THIS TOWN WHAT IT IS. THE EMPLOYEES ARE A GREAT BUNCH OF PEOPLE. IT'S A FAIRLY ` GOOD PLACE TO WORK GOOD PAY AND BENEFITS. STABLE i i i I TOWN OF VAIL PAGE- 3 MOUNTAIN STATES EMPLOYERS COUNCIL, INC. WRITTEN RESPONSES A. WHAT I REALLY LIKE ABOUT THE TOV IS: EMPLOYMENT. TOWN MANAGEMENT IS GENERALLY ABLE TO BALANCE EMPLOYEE NEEDS WITH TOWN NEEDS CONSIDERING THE POLITICAL INTERFERENCES. CO-WORKERS. ' THE WAGES. IT'S LOCATED IN THE VALLEY. PLENTY OF BIKING AND TENNIS, SKIING. THE CO-WORKERS IN MY DEPT AND THROUGHOUT THE TOWN. PERSONNEL. THE CO-WORKERS AND DEPARTMENT HEAD IN MY DEPARTMENT. A REAL ' EFFORT HAS BEEN MADE TO CREATE A POSITIVE ENVIRONMENT WITHIN THE LARGER ORGANIZATION. INDIVIDUALS ARE ENCOURAGED AND RESPECTED. THE BENEFITS ARE VERY GOOD, EXCELLENT PENSION PROGRAM, INSURANCE, ETC. ENVIRONMENT AND BENEFITS. GENERALLY SPEAKING, EMPLOYEES ARE ( TREATED FAIRLY. I LIKE THE TOWN MANAGER AND HIS STAFF. HALF OF THE P.D. ' MANAGEMENT IS GOOD, AND THE REMAINDER ARE UNQUALIFIED AND JUST WAITING TO RETIRE. THE PEOPLE I WORK WITH. THE AREA IN WHICH WE LIVE. LACK OF CRIME AND VIOLENCE. CLEAN AIR. THAT WE ARE IN VAIL! THE OPEN RELAXED ATMOSPHERE. THE GOOD WORK ETHIC OF THE i EMPLOYEES. THE GENUINE TEAM SPIRIT WHICH EXISTS MOST OF THE TIME. BENEFITS, QUALITY OF PEOPLE WORKING IN ORGANIZATION, MY JOB. THE HIGHLY MOTIVATED EMPLOYEES. i THE PEOPLE AND THE BENEFITS. j THE ENVIRONMENT AND THE QUALITY OF LIFE. MOST OF THE PEOPLE WHO WORK FOR THE TOWN ARE REALLY GREAT i PEOPLE. SKI PASS FOR SCHEDULING, FRIENDLY PEOPLE, GOOD BENEFITS. i i i i TOWN OF VAIL PAGE- ~ 4 MOUNTAIN STATES EMPLOYERS COUNCIL, INC. WRITTEN RESPONSES , A. WHAT I REALLY LIKE ABOUT THE TOV IS: THE BENEFITS ARE GREAT. GREAT SUPERVISORS AND ADMINISTRATION. EXCELLENT BENEFIT PACKAGE. MY FELLOW EMPLOYEES. THE VARIATION OF WORK RESPONSIBILITIES. FREEDOM, TRUST, BENEFITS. I LIKE MY JOB. I LIKE MOST THE PEOPLE I WORK WITH, THE BENEFITS AND PAY ARE RESONABLE GOOD FOR THE AREA. CO-WORKERS/LOCATION/RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES/PARKING/ BENEFITS. . I ENJOY THE BENEFITS AND MOST OF THE PEOPLE I WORK WITH. MY EMPLOYMENT WITH THE TOV HAS GIVEN ME OPPORTUNITY NOT ONLY TO USE MY KNOWLEDGE, SKILLS, AND ABILITIES BUT TO ENHANCE AND CHALLENGE THEM. IT IS A WARM FLEXIBLE PLACE WHERE PEOPLE ARE WILLING TO HELP ME GET MY WORK DONE. THERE IS A HIGH LEVEL OF CONCERN ABOUT CUSTOMER SATISFACTION, WHICH SPILLS OVER INTO A CONCERN ABOUT CO WORKER/EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION. - I LIKE THE PEOPLE WHO WORK FOR THE TOV. BEING ABLE TO CHOOSE A FLEXIBLE SCHEDULE THAT WORKS FOR MY FAMILY. I DDN'T HAVE TO LOOK FOR A JOB EVERY SIX MONTHS. IT'S POSSIBILITIES! IT HAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE SO GOOD. IT HAS EMPLOYEES WHO CARE, ARE CONSCIENTIOUS AND WANT THE BEST FOR THE TOWN--THEY CAME WITH A GOOD SPIRIT. I ENJOY THE AREA. I AM NOT A SKIER BUT WORKING FDR THE TEAM IS ONE OF THE BETTER JOBS WITHIN THE VALLEY. ;IT'S ABILITY TO GROW AND RESPOND TO IT'S EMPLOYEES NEEDS ARE STILL SHORT ~ BUT WITH WORK CAN IMPROVE AND I BELIEVE IN THE LONG RUN WILL I LIKE LIVING IN THE MOUNTAINS, AWAY FROM THE NUBBLE AND ' BUBBLE OF CITY LIFE. ' A BEAUTIFUL AREA TO WORK. DIFFERENT JOBS AT AlL TIMES KEEPS ME BUSY AND NOT BORED. THERE ARE A LOT OF GOOD FELLOW EMPLOYEES THAT WORK FOR T.OV. i . THE ABILITY TO LIVE IN AN ALPINE ENVIRONMENT. THE BENEFITS OFFERED TO EMPLOYEES. 1 I AM ALLOWED OPPORTUNITIES TO "CLIMB THE LADDER" BENEFIT PACAGE IS GOOD ALSO FLEXIBLE WITH FAMILY MATTERS. ~ THE PAY AND BENEFITS ARE VERY GOOD: AND A FEW YEARS AGO IT i .I i f ' ~ TOWN OF VAIL PAGE- 5 MOUNTAIN STATES EMPLOYERS COUNCIL, INC. WRITTEN RESPONSES A. WHAT I REALLY LIKE ABOUT THE TOV IS: WAS MUCH BETTER PLACE TO WORK AS OF NEW TENSION IS VERY GREAT. THE WORK THAT I'M DOING, AND THE PEOPLE I WORK AROUND ARE A GREAT BUNCH OF PEOPLE, (BENEFITS ALRIGHT). I LIKE THE PEOPLE I WORK WITH. I LIKE MY SUPERVISOR A LOT. ' THE TOWN OF VAIL IS REAL FUN PLACE TO WORK. THE CLOSE WORKING RELATIONSHIP OR "FAMILY^ CONCEPT WE HAVE BUILD AND MAINTAINED IN OUR DEPARTMEN OVER THE YEARS. CO-WORKERS WITH HEATHLY AND HUMOROUS ATTITUDES TOWARD WORK AND LIFE IN GENERAL GREAT CO-WORKERS. THE STABILITY OF THE JOB AND THE PEOPLE I WORK WITH ON A DAY TO DAY BASIS. THE PEOPLE, HOURS AND THE EQUIPMENT WE HAVE TO WORK WITH. PROVIDE GOOD BENEFITS, GOOD PAY, GREAT PEOPLE EMPLOYEE, GOOD EQUIPMENT FOR USE ON JOB, CO-WORKERS HELP EACH OTHER. MY CO-WORKERS AND THE FACT THAT WORK IS NEVER BORING. THE PEOPLE THAT WORK FOR THE TOV. THE TOWN SHOULD BE VERY - LUCKY TO HAVE THE QUALITY OF EMPLOYEES THAT THEY DO AND TRY TO DO MORE TO KEEP THEM. BENEFITS ARE GREAT. CLEAR CUT, COMMON OBJECTIVE! JOB SECURITY, BENEFITS, CURRENT SUPERVISOR. MY WORK SCHEDULE--THAT'S IT! I HAVE THE CHANCE TO DO A LOT OF DIFFERENT THINGS, SOME I LIKE AND SOME I DON'T LIKE, BUT I LIKE IT BECAUSE IT'S NOT THE SAME OLD THING DAY IN AND DAY OUT. I LIKE WORKING OUT SICK T0. MOST OF THE EMPLOYEES ARE GOOD TO WORK WITH. THE JOBS WE ' D0, I THINK, ARE PRETTY GOOD AND PROFESSIONAL. WORK DAYS ~ (WEEKS) ARE GREAT. EVERYONE CAN STAND OUT WHEN THE NEED IS WARRANTED. IT IS YEAR ROUND EMPLOYMENT AND GOOD BENEFIT PACKAGE. THE PEOPLE I WORK WITH AND THE CHALLENGE OF THE JOB. THE AVAILABILITY OF QUALITY RESOURCES TO DO THE JOB RIGHT, AND THE EASE OF OBTAINING THEM. ~ WORKING IN SUCH A WONDERFUL ENVIRONMENT AND MEETING A LOT OF i i TOWN OF VAIL PAGE- 6 MOUNTAIN STATES EMPLOYERS COUNCIL, INC. WRITTEN RESPONSES A. WHAT I REALLY LIKE ABOUT THE TOV IS: WONDERFUL PEOPLE. WHAT THE AREA HA5 TO OFFER WHEN NOT AT WORK. A HEALTHY PLACE TO WORK. IT'S A GOOD SMALL TOWN ON THE WHOLE THE COMMUNITY IS MADE UP OF A LOT OF GOOD PEOPLE. THE STABILITY AND BENEFITS. THE PEOPLE WITHIN MY DEPARTMENT ARE WONDERFUL TO WORK WITH. I ALSO ENJOY THE__CASUAL °NON-CITY° ATMOSPHERE. INFORMAL ATMOSPHERE--PEOPLE, POSITIVE ATTITUDE, COOPERATION, LOCATION, BENEFITS. CO-WORKERS. THE ONLY REASON I'M WITH TOV IS FOR RETIREMENT FIVE YEARS VESTED, IF I WOULD HAVE KNOWN WHAT TOV IS LIKE, TO START WITH I WOULD NEVER HAVE EVEN. WORKING ENVIRONMENT, PAY INCREASES, POSITIVE, PRO-ACTIVE ATTITUDES TO INCREASE PRODUCTIVITY, TEAM-EFFORTS, OPEN INFORMAL COMMUNICATIONS WITHIN THE ORGANIZATION, VERBAL REWARDS. THE BENEFITS, THE FREEDOM MY IMMEDIATE SUPERVISOR GIVES ME TO MAKE DECISIONS THAT WOULD ALLOW A JOB TO GET DONE. THE FRIENDLY, CONGENIAL ATMOSPHERE OF ALL OF THE EMPLOYEES. THE POSITIVE SUPPORT I RECEIVE FROM OTHERS AND THE CONFIDENCE PLACED IN MY BY MY SUPERVISORS. GREAT BENEFITS--MOST OF THE PEOPLE ARE PLEASANT TO WORK WITH AND BE AROUND. ~ I HAVE A FEELING THAT THE TOWN IS WILLING TO CHANGE TO MAKE THINGS BETTER. THE FLIP SIDE TO THAT IS THAT IF IT COST'S MONEY THE WILL NOT BE T00 OPEN. EXPECT MORE FOR LESS. LONG TURM THIS WEARS PEOPLE DOWN. THE LOCATION, PUBLIC SCHOOLS, YOUTH SPORTS PROGRAMS. I ENJOY THE JOB I DO FOR THE TOWN. I LIKE THE PEOPLE I WORK WITH. I LIKE THE VAIL VALLEY AND THE PEOPLE THAT LIVE HERE. THE SEASONAL EMPLOYEES WHO COME IN EVERY YEAR/SEASON AND DON'T HAVE A BIG SAY ON WHAT GOES ON, BUT DO THE MOST WORK i AND ARE THE MOST VISABLE. SMALL ENOUGH ORGANIZATION WHERE EVERYONE KNOWS EACH OTHER. i i i ~ TOWN OF VAIL PAGE- 7 MOUNTAIN STATES EMPLOYERS COUNCIL, INC. WRITTEN RESPONSES A. WHAT I REALLY LIKE ABOUT THE TOV IS: JOB SECURITY; BENEFITS; MY SUPERVISOR; THE RECEPTIONISTS AT TOV; YOU CAN DISCUSS YOUR PROBLEMS EVEN WITH TOWN MGR. THE POSITIVE REINFORCEMENT FROM MY SUPERVISOR; EMPLOYEE COMMUNICATIONS COMMITTEE. THE AREA. THE GENERAL CALM AND NON-INSTITUTIONAL WORKING ATMOSPHERE. IT IS LAID BACK YET EFFICIENT AND PRODUCTIVE. IT IS A VERY RESPONSIVE ORGANIZATION. THE PEOPLE. THE °BUSY^ SEASON, WHEN I'M SO BUSY I FORGET TO STOP FOR LUNCH. THE TOWN DOES HAVE NICE PEOPLE WORKING FOR IT. MY CO-WORKERS, THEY ARE A GOOD & SUPPORTIVE GROUP OF PEOPLE. PEOPLE I WORK WITH. CNOT MANAGEMENT.) MY JOB DUTIES. MY COLLEAGUES; MY WORK SCHEDULE; MY IMMEDIATE SUPERVISOR; / THE BENEFITS; THE BUILDING. THE FLEXIBILITY ON MY SCHEDULE. THE SURROUNDINGS OF THE BUILDING, THE SCENERY, THE WEATHER, THE RECREATIONAL BENEFITS: SKI PASS, GOLF PASS. HAVING A PERSONNEL DEPARTMENT IS AN IMPROVEMENT. THIS DEPT SHOULD REPORT TO TOWN MANAGER. ADVISE FROM PERSONNEL DIRECTOR SHOULD BE NEEDED. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF I.E. SECRETARIES ARE VERY FRIENDLY. KEN HUGHEY IS PLEASANT. EMPLOYEE TO EMPLOYEE RELATIONS ARE GOOD. PEOPLE ARE GENERALLY FRIENDLY. LEADERSHIP IS COMPETENT BUT PARANOIA NEGATES THEIR SUCCESS. i THE PAY, PENSION, BENEFITS PACKAGE. MOST OF MY WORK. LOTS OF TOV EMPLOYEES. BENEFITS. PEOPLE. THE INCREDIBLE AND MUCH APPRECIATED BENEFITS PACKAGE--ESPECIALLY THE PENSION PLAN. I WISH MORE EMPLOYEES APPRECIATED THIS. ALSO, MANY OF THE PEOPLE I WORK WITH ARE FUN. THE CASUAL ATMOSPHERE OF THE TOV MAKES IT EASIER TO APPROACH MANAGEMENT AND ATTEMPT TO SOLVE PROBLEMS. THE T.O.V. MANAGEMENT IS PROFESSIONAL AND MAINTAINS HIGH STANDARDS IN MOST INSTANCES. THE MANAGEMENT DOES CARE ABOUT 1 I i i • ~ ~ ~ TOWN OF VAIL PAGE- 8 MOUNTAIN STATES EMPLOYERS COUNCIL, INC. WRITTEN RESPONSES A. WHAT I REALLY LIKE ABOUT THE TOV IS: EMPLOYEES WHILE MAINTAINING HIGH STANDARDS. 1. THE BENEFITS ARE WONDERFUL? I. PERSONNEL IS OPEN, FRIENDLY AND SUPPORTIVE. THE PEOPLE WITH WHOM I WORK. THE PEOPLE. LOCATION, PENSION PLAN, INSURANCE PLAN. UPPER LEVEL SUPERVISORS LIEUTENANTS, CHIEF, PERSON. DIRECTOR ARE ^REAL PEOPLE°. THAT IS, THEY OPENLY MAKE THEMSELVES AVAILABLE TO TALK TO ABOUT ANYTHING. THE ENVIRONMENT CI.E. SKIING, OUTDOOR SPORTS, ETC.). THE BENEFITS; ALTHOUGH THE PAY COULD BE BETTER (SLIGHTLY). I KNOW IT SOUNDS LIKE A CHICHE', BUT I REALLY ENJOY THE PEOPLE I WORK WITH. THE BENEFITS ARE OUTSTANDING. I ALSO LIKE THE °AIR" OF INFORMALITY HERE. I THINK RON AND DEPT. HEADS REALLY TRY TO DO RIGHT BE THEIR EPLOYEES, AND I FOR ONE APPRECIATE IT. FOR THE MOST PART, THE TOWN STAFF IS A VERY PROFESSIONAL ( GROUP OF INDIVIDUALS. THE TOWN PROVIDES FAIR PAY AND BENEFITS. THE WORK IS CHALLENGING AND I LIKE BEING ASSOCIATED WITH MOST OF THE TOWN EMPLOYEES. THE QUALITY OF LIFE IN THIS AREA IS SECOND TO NONE. I CAN'T SEE LIVING ANYWHERE ELSE. WORK--I LIKE THE FRIENDLY RELAXED ATMOSPHERE AND THE FEELING THAT WE'RE ALL (USUALLY) PULLING IN THE SAME DIRECTION. WE TRY AND DO THINGS IN A QUALITY MANNER AND WE NORMALLY HAVE THE RESOURCES TO DO THINGS PROPERLY. IN GENERAL, THERE IS AN ATTITUDE OF TEAMWORK. HAS THE POTENTIAL TO BE AN EXTRAORDINARY PLACE TO WORK. DIVERSITY OF WORK EXCEEDS MOST PLACES. GREAT FREEDOM IN DETERMINING WHAT ARE IMPORTANT GOALS AND AM ABLE TO WORK ~ TOWARDS THEM. GREAT SETTING AND LIFE STYLE. ~ I FEEL THE TOV OFFERS GOOD BENEFITS, HOURS AND WORKING CONDITIONS. I ENJOY WORKING WITH GUESTS AND FEEL THAT THE TOV ENCOURAGES EXCELLENT HOSPITALITY. LOCATION OF JOB ALTHOUGH DUE TO JOB DEMANDS AND STRESS LEVEL ~ OF JOB IT IS NOT ALWAYS EASY TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE LOCALE. EVERYONE GET ALONG TOGEATHER MOST OF THE TIME I'M AT THE TOP OF MY PAY RANGE AND MAKING A REASONABLE i f ~ ~ TOWN OF VAIL PAGE- 9 MOUNTAIN STATES EMPLOYERS COUNCIL, INC. WRITTEN RESPONSES A. WHAT I REALLY LIKE ABOUT THE TOV IS: LIVING THE BENEFITS AND PEOPLE. I HAVE A GREAT SUPERVISOR. I ENJOY THE PUBLIC WORKSiTRANSPORTATION WORK LOAD. HOW IT WAS. THE BEAUTY--HOW CLEAN WE KEEP IT--NICE PLACE TO WORK. THE WORKFORCE AND MANAGEMENT. THE PEOPLE WITH WHOM I WORK, THE POSITIVE REINFORCEMENT I RECEIVE FROM MY SUPERVISOR AND CO-WORKERS, THE COOPERATIVE ATMOSPHERE--AND EVERY DAY IS UNIQUE AND DIFFERENT? WORK SCHEDULE AND HELPING PEOPLE THE ARE AND FREE TIME TO ENJOY IT MY CO-WORKERS ARE FUN. THERE IS A SENSE OF LEVELYNESS AND POSSIBILITY AT WORK. I FEEL ^NEEDED^. t i I i i i i . . ' ~ ~ ~ TOWN OF VAIL PAGE- 10 MOUNTAIN STATES EMPLOYERS COUNCIL, INC. WRITTEN RESPONSES B. WHAT I REALLY DISLIKE ABOUT THE TOV IS: . THE LACK OF WILL TO TAKE CHARGE. TOURISTS CAN SAY AND DO ANYTHING THEY WANT AND WE HAVE TO TAKE IT. LOCALS SAY AND DO ANYTHING THEY WANT BECAUSE THEY ARE ^SPECIAL". IS THE MANAGEMENT? IS THE PUBLIC PUTTING IN ON OPINION WHEN THEY DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE DOING, THEN ARGUE WITH YOU WHEN YOU EXPLAIN. WE SEEM TO BE GETTING LIKE A BIG CITY PUT IT IN ETC ETC ETC. PAY SCALE. COST OF LIVING. WORKSPACE CONDITIONS--LIMITED. IT'S ATTITUDES TOWARDS EMPLOYEE'S. BASICALLY, ^THERE IS ALWAYS SOMEONE TO FILL YOUR POSITION^, IF YOU WANT TO LEAVE OR DON'T LIKE WHAT IS GOING ON. COUNCIL MEMBER DON'T UNDERSTAND WORKING CONDITIONS. OVER THE LAST COUPLE YEARS THERE HAS BEEN A CHANGE IN ATTITUDES TOWARDS WORK BECAUSE THERE ARE TO MANY NEW RULES - THAT WE MUST FOLLOW. I USE TO LOOK FORWARD GOING TO WORK. WITH THE CHANGING OF COUNCIL MEMBERS YOU GET SOME INCONSISTENCYS. YOU HAVE TO ADJUST TO THE NEW COUNCILS OFTEN THE MOST COMMON ANSWER TO EMPLOYEE CONCERNS--^I DON'T KNOW ^OR^ WE'RE WORKING ON IT WE'LL GET BACK TO YOU". A LOT OF THE THINGS I NEED TO DO MY JOB ARE EITHER LCOKED UP OR MISSING OR NEVER EXISTED, LACK OF TRUST. I FEEL THAT UPPER MANAGEMENT HAS NO CLUE OR CONCERN OF OR ABOUT WHAT GOES ON AT THE GRASS ROUTE LEVEL. I I FEEL THAT THERE ARE MANY INEQUITIES IN THE TREATMENT OF EMPLOYEES WITHIN DEPARTMENTS AND FROM DEPT. TO DEPT. OFTEN TIMES BASED ON PERSONALITY DIFFERENCE AND PERSONAL BELIEFS AND ATTITUDES--UNFAIRLY SO IN MANY CASES. PEOPLE ARE OFTEN JUDGED FOR WHO THEY ARE AND NOT NECESSARILY THE JOB THEY D0. SOME PEOPLE HAVE WORK FOR TOV FOR A LONG TIME AND ARE NOT FULL TIME WITH BENEFITS. BENEFIT CUTS, EVERY DEPARTMENT HAS DIFFERENT RULES, WHAT IS OKAY FOR ONE TO DO IS NOT OKAY FOR EVERYONE TO D0. { THE TOWN DOESN'T REALLY USE ITS OWN EMPLOYEES WISELY, THERE IS A LOT OF TALENT BEING WASTED. WORKING FOR P.W. MAKES I I I i I TOWN OF VAIL PAGE- 11 MOUNTAIN STATES EMPLOYERS COUNCIL, INC. WRITTEN RESPONSES B. WHAT I REALLY DISLIKE ABOUT THE TOV IS: PEOPLE THINK THERE IS SOMETHING WRONG WITH YOU AND YOU HAVE TO ALWAYS PROVE YOURSELF. UNTIL RECENTLY A LACK OF COMPARITIVE COST OF LIVING INCREASES. AN OPPORTUNITY FOR EMPLOYEES TO MAKE CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE TOV AND COMMUNICATING WITH OTHER ACQUIRED EXPERTISE. A LACK OF SUPPORT FOR ALL THE ARTS (WE FALL BEHIND OTHER RESORTS) BEING TOLD I DON'T KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON WHEN I'M TRYING TO FIND OUT. FAILURE TO RECOGNIZE THAT THE PAY SCALE IS BELOW AVERAGE FOR OTHER MOUNTAIN COMMUNITIES FOR BUS DRIVERS AND THE SCALE IS PARTICULARLY LOW IN RELATION TO COST OF LIVING IN VAIL. I'M HAPPY WITH THE EFFORTS PUT FORTH BY THE T.O.V. AS MY EMPLOYER. I WAS UNHAPPY WITH A RECENTLY POLICY CHANGE WHICH CAME OUT AFFECTING ALL DEPARTMENTS. THE POLICY WAS GENERIC AND DIDN'T CONSIDER THE JOB BEING DONE BY EACH DEPARTMENT. I FELT THAT THE POLICY COULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED FOR EACH DEPARTMENT RATHER THAN ACROSS THE BOARD--END OF SUBJECT. PAY RATE. EXTREME PAY RANGE IN HIERARCHY. - THE WAY THEY ARE NOT FAIR TO ALL TOV EMPLOYEES. THE PEOPLE WHO WORK YEAR AROUND AND NO BENEFITS, JUST TO SAY A FEW DOLLARS AND THEN OVER SPEND ON NEEDLESS THINGS. ALTHOUGH I RESPECT ^MANAGEMENT" FOR THEIR HIGH MORAL VALUES. I AM NOT MORMAN, AND DON'T WANT YOUR VALUES PUSHED OFF ON ME. THE SKI PASS BENEFIT, IS REALLY NOT FAIR--IF YOU CAN'T SKI FOR WHATEVER REASON, YOU'RE PENALIZED. THE TOWN COUNCIL--THEY DON'T REALLY WANT LONG TERM EMPLOYEES. THE REDUCTION OF BENEFITS OVER THE YEARS. THE i LACK OF COST OF ^VAIL^ LIVING IN THE PAY. THE STANDARD OF LIVING IS SHRINKING--NOT GROWING OVER THE YEARS. AT TIMES, COMMUNICATION BETWEEN DEPARTMENTS IS INEFFECTIVE. ' IT'S NOT PERFECT BUT I DON'T KNOW OF ANY BETTER PLACE TO BE, AND I BEEN PLACES WHICH WERE WORSE. i 1. EMPLOYEE BENEFITS HAVE STEADILY GONE DOWN HILL. 2. PAY INCREASES HAVE BEEN ENOUGH TO COVER INFLATION--AT THE METRO LEVEL. IT COSTS MORE TO LIVE HERE. NOTHING HAS BEEN DONE TO MAKE UP THAT DIFFERENCE. ~ 3. THE P.D. WORK SPACE IS T00 CONFINING. ~ 4. THE TOWN COUNCIL IS MORE IN TUNE TO SELECT COMMUNITY MEMBERS THAN IT IS THE TOWN WORK FORCE. I COUNCIL AND MANAGEMENT ARE MUCH, MUCH MORE CONCERNED FOR i I << ` ~ ~ TOWN OF VAIL PAGE- 12 MOUNTAIN STATES EMPLOYERS COUNCIL, INC. WRITTEN RESPONSES ' B. WHAT I REALLY DISLIKE ABOUT THE TOV IS: PUBLIC CRITICISIM AND LINE ITEMS THAN EMPLOYEEiPROBLEMS. SOMETIMES T00 STRICT AND SERIOUS DEALING VJITH PEOPLE ON VACATION. VACATION AND BENEFIT POLICIES ARE CONSTANTLY • CHANGING. T00 MANY CLOSE KNIT CLIQUES IN MANAGEMENT. TWO FACED ' ATTITUDE FROM UPPER MANAGEMENT WHICH FILTERS DOWN THRU MIDDLE MANAGEMENT. REPRAISALS FOR HONEST SUGGESTIONS MADE. THE OPPORTUNITY FOR ADVANCEMENT IN THE POLICE DEPT. IS DEPLORABLE. I HAVE A FOUR YEAR COLLEGE DEGREE AND SUPERB ' EVALUATIONS YET I WAS TWICE PASSED OVER IN ADVANCEMENT OPPORTUNITIES. I FEEL THAT I WAS TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF TO DO THE DEPARTMENTS LOWEST JOB BECAUSE THEY KNEW I WANTED TO ' ADVANCE THEY FIGURED THEY COULD HAVE A REALLY SMART PERSON DOING A JOB THEY MIGHT USUALLY HAVE DONE BY SOMEONE LESS INTELLIGENT. THE POSITION OF C.S.O. DOESN'T ALLOW PEOPLE TO USE THEIR BRAINS. OVERQUALIFICATION FOR THIS POSITION IS WORSE THAN UNDERQUALIFICATION. • NO OPPORTUNITY FOR JOB ADVANCEMENT, OR SCHOOLING OR JOB TRANSFER. UPPER MANAGEMENT SEEMS TO TAKE AN "I DON'T CARE ABOUT CLASS EMPLOYEES^. MOST PEOPLE WORK TWO TO THREE YRS TO MAKE ENDS MEET, VERY HAD TO SAVE MONEY FOR HOUSE OR - OTHER NEEDED ITEMS. COUNCIL GIVES IN TO PRESSURE GROUPS WHO DO NOT NECESSARILY HAVE TOWN'S INTEREST AT HERAT. COUNCIL OFTEN OUT OF TOUCH WITH THE ^REAL^ WORLD. THE PEOPLE THAT I HAVE TO PUT UP WITH MAINLY T.O.V. EMLOYEES. A PROJECTION OF CONTENT BY MANAGEMENT FOR THE SAKE OF IMAGE ~ AND PERSONAL GOALS, WHEN THE REALITY OF THE EMPLOYEES IS THAT THEY ARE NOT CONTENT. TOTAL LACK OF COMMUNICATION. THE MANAGEMENT DOESN'T CARE OR KNOW WHAT INDIVIDUAL DEPTS ARE DOING. TOWN COUNCIL 4JANTS MORE OF US FOR LESS, ALWAYS HAS, TOWN MANAGER DOESN'T KNOW HOW T0. HE'S BASICALLY A RELIGIOUS TYRANT, HE SEES THINGS ONLY FROM HIS VIEWPOINT. NO ONE OUTSIDE HIS RELIGION IS WORTH ANYTHING. THAT LESS ^VISIBLE" DEPT DO NOT GET THE RECOGNITION THEY DESIRE AND NEED. i SUPERFICAL CONCERN ABOUT EMPLOYEES. i I DISLIKE WHAT I SEE AS THE POSTURE OF MANAGEMENT, I SEE IT ~ AS VERY SELF-SERVICE. THERE IS NOT AN ATMOSPHERE THAT LENDS i f ' ~ TOWN OF VAIL PAGE- 13 MOUNTAIN STATES EMPLOYERS COUNCIL, INC. WRITTEN RESPONSES B. WHAT I REALLY DISLIKE ABOUT THE TOV IS: ITSELF TO GOOD TEAM-BUILDING. IT'S A ^4JITH ME OR AGAINST ME^ ATTITUDE AND INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES AND TALENTS ARE NOT RESPECTED. PEOPLE ARE NOT REWARDED A ACKNOWLEDGED FOR THEIR WORK RATHER FOR THEIR FIRM LOYALTY TO THE MANAGER. MONETARY COMPENSATION MAKES LIVING IN THE TOV AREA IMPOSSIBLE. THE COST OF LIVING HURTS THE LONG TERM EMPLOYEE FROM REACHING HIS GOALS. LACK OF CONCERN FOR THE EMPLOYEE'S BENEFIT--ONLY THE GUEST FIRST. LACK OF MEDICAL BENEFITS FOR DOCTORS HERE NOT DENVER, FAILURE TO KEEP UP WITH LOCAL COST OF LIVING--ATTITUDE OF IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT MOVE. BACK STABBING--THE LOOK OF COMPLETE AGREEMENT, COMPLETE UNDERSTANDING, COMPLETE WILLINGNESS TO HELP YOU AND THEN YOU ARE ^WRITTEN UP^ FOR CAUSING PROBLEMS. SOME OF OUR BEST EMPLOYEES REALLY LIKE WORKING HERE AND WANT TO HELP IMPROVE THE WORK ATMOSPHERE, BUT BECAUSE OF THEIR OPENNESSiSUGGESTIONS THEY ARE LABELED A REBEL--PUNISHED FOR IT. THAT IS WRONG. ALSO COUNCIL IS COMPLETELY UN-IN TOUCH WITH THE POLICE DEPT. _ THEY SPEND GRANDIOSE AMOUNTS OF MONEY ON SURVEYS, ART, OTHER ORGANIZATIONS THEN STONEWALL GIVING EMPLOYEES WHOSE POSITION HAS BEEN IN PLACE FOR YEARS A FULL TIME POSITION INCLUDING BENEFITS. THE JANITORS DO NOT CLEAN THE BATHROOMS AND OFFICES WELL. THE MIDDLE MANAGEMENT IS INCONSISTENT WITH OBJECTIVES. PROMOTIONSiRECOGNITION IS BASED ON PERSONALITIES. POLITICS. WE NEED MORE OPEN COMMUNICATION. i LOW PAY FOR THE JOB THAT IS BEING DONE. THE PAY IS NOT EQUAL TO THE COST OF LIVING. THE PATHETIC WORK PLACE--POLICE BUILDING. EMPHASIS ON NEGATIVE SUPERVISION. THE SALARY LEVELS VS THE HIGH LIVING COSTS. THE MOST IMPORTANT BENEFIT (SKI PASS) COST, WHILE THE OTHER REC BENEFITS ARE FREE. LOW PAY SCALE. INSTEAD OF BEING A PROGRESSIVE BUSINESS, I FEEL THAT THEY ARE RE-GRESSING IE, HOURS, SOME BENEFITS ETC... I DON'T _ LIKE ASKING A QUESTION AND BEING TOLD THAT THEY WILL FIND AN ANSWER AND NEVER GETTING THE ANSWER. I I i , i TOWN OF VAIL PAGE- 14 MOUNTAIN STATES EMPLOYERS COUNCIL, INC. WRITTEN RESPONSES B. WHAT I REALLY DISLIKE ABOUT THE TOV IS: t I DON'T LIKE THE MIDDLE MAN OF PERSONNELL. HE TELLS US WHAT HE THINKS WE WANT TO HEAR, AND THE PROBLEM STILL REMAINS. I DON'T LIKE BEING LIED T0. I WANT TO BE TOLD THE TRUTH. IF I LIKE IT OR NOT BUT THE TRUTH. TIME DEMAND FOR WORK--IT IS ALL CONSUMING AND TIME REG. TO ACCOMPLISH TASKS IS UNREALISTIC YET EXPECTED. COME TO TOV AND SPEND YOUR LIFE WORKING. INABILITY OF MANAGEMENT TO DISCERN A CRISIS FROM A COMPLAINT. AlL COMPLAINTS ARE HEATED AS A CRISIS. EVERYTHING IS A PRIORITY. TO MUCH TIME MUST BE COMMITTED TO JOB AT THE EXPENSE OF PERSONAL TIME AND TIME-OFF POLICY AT ONE HRS OFF FOR THREE HRS OF WORK IS UNFAIR BUT PROBABLY A M00T POINT AS WORK LOAD IS TO GREAT TO EVER TAKE TIME OFF. MANAGEMENT, THEY MAKE A LOT OF RULES AND REGULATIONS AND WASTE A LOT OF PAPER TO MAKE THEIR JOBS LOOK IMPORTANT. THEY ADD MORE STRESS TO THE JOB. TOWN COUNCIL OFTEN IS T00 CONCERNED OR OVERLY CONCERNED ABOUT CRITICISM AS IT RELATES TO WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE FOR TOWN GOVT. AND ITS EMPLOYEES; I.E., POLICE BUILDING, STAFFING LEVELS, SALARIES/BUDGET PROCESS WITH MANAGER AND COUNCIL IS T00 PAINFUL. THE AMOUNT OF WORK. EVERYTHING IS A PRIORITY. I GET HANDED A L07 OF PROJECTS LAST MINUTE. T00 HIGH OF AN EXPECTATION TO CRANK OUT A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF WORK WITHOUT ERRORS. MY SUPERVISOR CHANGES MY SCHEDULE T00 MUCH. SETS UP T00 MANY MEETINGS. THEIR TIMING FOR CHANGING MANAGEMENT HAS SOMETHING TO BE DESIRED. SEEMS WOMEN IN THE COMPANY NEVER GET TO ADVANCE WHEN THEY ARE CLEARLY THE BEST PERSON FOR THE JOB. i IT'S LOST ITS CASUAL, SMALL TOWN APPROACH TO ITS CUSTOMERS AND EMPLOYEES. REGULATIONS ARE SO TIGHT A PERSON LOSES j THEIR SPIRIT AND CREATIVITY FOR FEAR OF BREAKING A RULE. I IT'S VERY TOP HEAVY, OVERLOADED IN THE ADM. AREA. MORE VOICE, MORE INPUT FROM ALL LEVELS IN DECISION MAKING. INPUT ` IS TAKEN AT TIMES, BUT IS OFTER IGNORED, PATRONIZED, PERHAPS. MORE OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD, VALUED AND TRUSTED. THERE IS A FEELING THAT ONE CAN'T SHARE THEIR FEELING FOR FEAR OF REPRISAL. PEOPLE ARE SCARED! THERE IS NO WAY TO COMMUNICATE WITH THE COUNCIL AS AN EMPLOYEE. IT HAS TO GO THROUGH 7HE CHAIN OF COMMAND. SO THEY DON'T ALWAYS KNOW WHATS HAPPENING. I FEEL FOR THE COST OF LIVING IN THE VALLEY ON THE HOURLY I WAGE WHICH THE TOWN IS WILLING TO PAY IT'S EMPLOYEES BOTH i ENTRY LEVEL AND EXPERIENCED IS TO LOW FOR THIS AREA! i THE UNWILLINGNESS TO PAY TOV EMPLOYEES IN ACCORDANCE WITH i I 1 1 ~ TOWN OF VAIL PAGE- 15 MOUNTAIN STATES EMPLOYERS COUNCIL, INC. WRITTEN RESPONSES B. WHAT I REALLY DISLIKE ABOUT THE TOV IS: THE COST OF LIVING IN VAIL. SAME JOBS IN THE METRO AREA PAY THE SAME OR MORE AND IT IS MUCH LESS EXPENSIVE TO LIVE THERE. TO MANY CHIEFS AT TIMES FROM OTHER DEPTS, SOME SUPERVISORS HAVE THEIR PETS LET THEM GET BUY WITH ALMOST ANYTHING (OTHER EMPLOYEES NOTICE BUT DON'T WANT TO GET INVOLVED). ' EVERYBODY LIKE TO BLAME THE OTHER GUY IT SEEMS. THE INABILITY TORECOGNIZE OUTSTANDING EMPLOYEES AND ALLOW THEM TO ADVANCE IN THE ORGANIZATION. INABILITY TO CHANNEL THE SUCESS OF VAIL MOUNTAIN INTO A PROGRESSIVE, EXEMPLANARY GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION. TO MAY WANT TO BE "CHIEF^ LACK OF COMMUNICATION BETWEEN DEPT. FOR A SMALL WORK PLACE, POLITICS GETS IN THE WAY. T00 MANY PEOPLE ARE AFRAID OF WHO THEY WILL UPSET WITHIN COMMUNITY TO DO THEIR JOB'S EFFECTIVELY ALSO TAKES TO LONG TO HAVE SOMETHING DONE WITHIN TOWN RANKS. . THE COUNCIL DOES NOT TALK TO EMPLOYEES TO FIND 4lHAT THE PROBLEMS ARE--UNSCHEDULED MEETINGS ONE MEMBER TO ONE EMPLOYEE OFF THE RECORD. THE WAY PEOPLE A TREATED, SOME PEOPLE ARE TREATED A LOT BETTER THAN OTHERS. CWERE IN THE WRONG GROUP OF PEOPLE. NO COMMENT. UPPER MANAGEMENT LACK OF PERSONAL CONTACT ON A DAILY OR WEEKLY BASIS WITH THE "WORKER BEES.^, SOMETIMES THERE SEEMS TO BE T00 MUCH MANAGING AND NOT ENOUGH OBSERVATION AND RECOGNIZITION OF WHATS BEING DONE. T00 MANY CHANGES WITH DEPARTMENT HEADS AND UPPER MANAGEMENT MbRE APPRECIATION TOWARDS LOYAL EMPLOYEES WHO HAVE GIVEN THEIR "LIFE^ TO THIS JOB, THE DISTANCE BETWEEN TOWN MANAGEMENT AND THE WORKERS. I DON'T LIKE HOW STAN BERRYMAN WAS FORCED OUT BY RON. I DON'T ~ LIKE HOW THE TOWN MANAGER RECEIVES HOUSING THROUGH THE TOWN ' AND MAINTENANCE ON HIS HOUSING. I DON'T LIKE THE WAY SOME ~ DECISIONS ARE MADE BEFORE EVERYONE IS INFORMED. I DON'T LIKE THE WAY SOME SEASONAL FULL TIME WORKERS ARE TREATED AS FAR AS BENEFITS AND PAY G0. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE PAY AND BENEFITS KEEP UP WITH INFLATION. GETTING INFORMATION FROM THREE DIFFERENT PEOPLE WHO ALL HAVE WAY OF GETTING THE JOB DONE. COMMUNICATION BETWEEN UPPER MANAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEES. COMMUNICATION BETWEEN OUR SUPERVISOR AND JOB FOREMEN. I WE NEVER LEAVE ANYTHING ALONE ONCE IT IS FINISHED. THINGS I I i ; TOWN OF VAIL PAGE- 16 ' MOUNTAIN STATES EMPLOYERS COUNCIL, INC. WRITTEN RESPONSES B. WHAT I REALLY DISLIKE ABOUT THE TOV IS: ARE ALWAYS BEING DONE AND REDONE. LET'S DO THEM RIGHT THE FIRST TIME AND GO ON TO SOMETHING ELSE. T00 MUCH IS BEING TAKEN AWAY FROM THE EMPLOYEES. THERE NEEDS TO BE A COST OF LIVING INCREASE AND LONGEVITY NEEDS TO BE BROUGHT BACK! THE TOV IS NOT AS RELAXED AS IT USED TO BE. T00 MANY DEMANDS ARE PUT ON THE EMPLOYEES. GET THE BONUS PROGRAM AND THE FIVE, TEN, FIFTEEN AND TWENTY YEAR WARDS STRAIGHTED OUT. THE COUNCIL AND TOWN MANAGEMENT KEEP PUTTING THINGS OFF. LACK OF PAY RAISES TO HELP REACH MAX. LACK OF COMMUNICATION, UNWRITTEN RULES, LACK OF RESPECT, • GETTING AHEAD BY WHO YOU ARE AND WHO YOU KNOW. LACK OF FLEXIBLE WORK WEEK. THE "IN^ GROUP BENEFITS. THE DOUBLE-STANDARDS. FAVORITES. THEY PUT OUT T00 MANY MEMOS. WASTE OF PAPER! I DON'T THINK MANAGEMENT IS HERE TO HELP US. I THINK THEY ARE OUT FOR THEIR OWN BEST INTEREST. I REALLY HAVE A HARD TIME WORKING WITH PEOPLE WHO DO NOT CARE, LIKE ONE OF MY SUPERVISORS AND MANAGEMENT. MANAGEMENT SEEMS TO TAKE EMPLOYEES FOR GRANTED SOMETIMES. A LOT OF DECISIONS ARE MADE WITHOUT CONSULTING THE WORKERS FIRST. EMPLOYEES NEED TO KNOW DETAILS OF ALL GOING ON. WHETHER IT BE INSURANCE OR PENSION. THERE ARE T00 MANY (I'LL GET BACK TO YOU'S). TAKING AWAY PARTS OF THE BENEFIT PACKAGE. DISTRUST BETWEEN DEPARTMENTS, NOT GETTING ALONG. EMPHASIS ON POLITICS, SEEMING DISREGARD FOR INDIVIDUALS. ORGANIZATION AS A WHOLE LACKS INTEGRITY. ~ THE CONSTANT STRESS AND PRESSURE TO PERFORM UP TO HIGH f STANDARDS. CAN'T THINK OF ANYTHING THAT REALLY CHAPS MY HIDE. 1 ° I FEEL THERE IS T00 MUCH LACK OF COMMUNICATION BETWEEN DEPARTMENTS AND LACK OF TOWN COUNCIL THE NEED TO KNOW WHAT OUR JOBS ARE AND WHAT IT TAKES, MATERIALS AND•SPACE TO GET ~I THE JOB DONE. I i STYLE OF MANAGEMENT--INTIMIDATION. i s THE FACT THAT WE ARE REQUIRED NO IFS, ANDS OR BUTS TO CATER I TO EVERYONES NEEDS. IT GET A BIT MUCH AT TIMES. SOME PEOPLE NEED TO FIGURE LIFE'S NOT ALWAYS GOING TO TREAT THEM i i l 1 i TOWN OF VAIL PAGE- 17 MOUNTAIN STATES EMPLOYERS COUNCIL, INC. WRITTEN RESPONSE5 B. WHAT I REALLY DISLIKE ABOUT THE TOV IS: LIKE GOLD. THE MANAGEMENT REFUSES TO ADDRESS MAJOR EMPLOYEE CONCERN. • FOR EXAMPLE, CHILDCARE, FLEXIBLE WORK SCHEDULES. ALSO, UPPER MANAGEMENT AND COUNCIL ALWAYS SEEM TO BE ANTI-EMPLOYEE, WHICH CAUSES MORALE PROBLEMS. LACK OF INTEGRATED COMPUTER NETWORK. PEOPLE WHO WON'T ACCEPT CHANGE--THOSE THAT WANT TOWN TO BE WHAT IT WAS TEN YEARS AGO. AMOUNT OF PAPERWORK GENERATED. JOB PAY TO OFFSET THE COST OF LIVING IN THIS AREA. WENT TO WORK FOR TOV. SINCE MOVING HERE THREE YEARS AGO. THE BENEFIT5 ARE GOING DOWN HILL AND AFTER I GET VESTED I WILL BE LOOKING FOR ANOTHER JOB. ' HIRING PRACTICES--BY KEEPING A POSITION OPEN FOR GREAT LENGTHS, NOT HIRING FROM WITHIN, GOING TO THE OUTSIDE TO SEEK VOER-QUALIFIED PEOPLE WHO WILL NOT LAST, MAKING CHANGES TO DISMANTLE, RATHER THAN IMPROVE. • THE MANAGEMENT DOES NOT SEEM TO BE CONCERNED OF THE WELFARE AND IDEAS OF THE LABORERS. THEY WILL "LISTEN" BUT NOT ( RESPOND, BASICALLY YOU ARE EITHER TALKING TO A BRICK WALL OR YOU ARE GIVEN "BASIC ANSWERS" WITH NO REASONING. YOUR OPINIONS ARE SHOVED UNDER THE CARPET. T00 MANY DEPARTMENTS ARE UNDERSTAFFED WHILE MANAGEMENT IS OVERSTAFFED. THE EMPLOYEE COMMITTEE DOESN'T SEEM TO GET ANYWHERE--ROUND A ROUND ANSWERS. DECISIONS ARE MADE T00 OFTEN WITHOUT INPUT OR REASONING. PAY IS T00 LOW FOR STAP,TING EMPLOYEES. MANAGEMENT ATTITUDE IS HIRE NEW PEOPLE AT SEVEN DOLLARS VERSUS RE-HIRING A RETURNING SEASONAL EMPLOYEE OF TWO TO FIVE YRS), WHO WOULD KNOW THE JOB, FOR EIGHT DOLLARS AND FIFTY CENTS ANTYIME A MANAGEMENT (NEW) EMPLOYEE GETS HIRED ON AND WANTS TO DO SOMETHING GOOD FOR THE EMPLOYEES IT'S 'j LOOKED UPON AS EITHER BENEFIT MANAGEMENT (NOT EMPLOYEES) OR GET OUT. POOR MORALE AMONG EMPLOYEES BECAUSE OF MANAGEMENT, LACK OF FEEDBACK, EMPLOYEES FEEL CONSTANTLY THREATENED OF THEIR JOBS IF THEY HAPPEN TO HAVE AN OPINION OTHER THAN WHAT ' MANAGEMENT HAS. i ALTHOUGH THE LUNCH ROOM IS ADEQUALLY SUPPLIED WITH REF., M.W., AND TOASTER OVEN, THE SPACE IS TO SMALL. IT WOULD BE NICE TO HAVE A CONFORTABLE PLACE TO RELAX AWAY FROM THE WORK SPACE DURING LUNCH. 1B. NEED MORE SUPPORT FOR STAFF FROM TOWN COUNCIL, TOWN MANAGEMENT. NEED EMPLOYEES TO BE ABLE TO MAKE MISTAKES AND LEARN FROM THEM WITHOUT THE "WRATH OF COUNCIL" OR OTHER i ( _ MANAGEMENT COMING DOWN SO HARD. ALTHOUGH tJE ARE A PUBLIC ENTITY, WE ARE MADE UP OF HUMAN BEINGS WHO ARE NOT PERFECT. i i TOWN OF VAIL PAGE- 18 MOUNTAIN STATES EMPLOYERS COUNCIL, INC. • ~ WRITTEN RESPONSES B. WHAT I REALLY DISLIKE ABOUT THE TOV IS: MORE SUPPORT IS NEEDED FOR THE EMPLOYEE TO HELP GET A MORE BALANCED, EVEN-TEMPERED WORK ENVIRONMENT. 2B. THERE NEEDS TO BE MORE FLEXIBILITY AND UNDERSTANDING FOR INDIVIDUAL CIRCUMSTANCES, I.E. SINGLE PARENTS, SICK CHILDREN, SICK EMPLOYEES, ETC. I FEEL THERE IS A GREAT DEAL OF GUILT LAID ON AN EMPLOYEE WHO DOESNHT GIVE MORE THAN 40 . HOURS A WEEK AND LOVING IT EVERY DAY! 3B. THE COST OF LIVING IN THIS VALLEY IS WAY OUT OF PROPORTION TO PAY SCALE. YOU NEED TWO-THREE JOBS, A TWO FAMILY HOUSEHOLD, ETC. TO LIVE HERE. IF YOU HAVE CHILDREN--YOU CAN FORGET ABOUT TRYING TO AFFORD ANY HOUSING WHERE EVERYONE CAN HAVE THEIR OWN BEDROON! THE PERCEPTION THAT TOWN COUNCIL HAS ABOUT OUR JOB AND THAT WE AR OVERPAID. THE DEMANDS ARE VERY HIGH AND THE COST OF LIVING IS HIGH. ALSO THE WORKING CONDITION IS TERRIBLE IN THE MUNI BUILDING AND P.D. ALSO THE EROSION OF BENEFITS IS DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND. HIGH COST OF LIVING; COST OF FOOD, HOUSING, AND GASOLINE. I DON'T THINK THE MANAGEMENT IS HONEST WITH THE EMPLOYEES. THE TOWN MANAGER IS MORE INTERESTED IN LOOKING GOOD THAN IN THE GOOD OF THE TOWN OR THE EMPLOYEES. THE TOWN COUNCIL GETS T00 MUCH OF THEIR INFORMATON FROM THE MANAGEMENT AND - NOT FROM OTHER SOURCES INCLUDING INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYEES. GOOD EMPLOYEES HAVE BEEN FORCED TO LEAVE THE T04JN BY TOWN MANAGEMENT. AS YOU CAN READ FROM ABOVE THE RESPECT FROM MANAGEMENT. ALSO THE WASTE OF MONEY IN MAKING DECISIONS THAT SHOULD BE LONG TERM BUT THE TOWN IS THINKING SHORT TERM. NO EMPLOYEE HOUSING. MANAGEMENT PHILISOPHY APPEARS TO BE BASED ON THE NEGATIVE. NOT ENOUGH COMMUNICATION BETWEEN MANAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEES T00 MUCH TURNOVER. HARD TO BUILD A TEAM 4JHEN THE PLAYERS CHANGE OFTEN. I AM NEAR THE TOP OF MY PAY RANGE, SOME ARE AT THE TOP. IF ' YOU CANNOT EXCEED THE CEILING AFTER BEING A DEDICATED EMPLOYEE FOR A LENGTH OF TIME, THIS IS TERRIBLE INCENTIVE AND DOES NOT ENCOURAGE QUALITY EMPLOYMENT. LIBRARY EMPLOYEES ARE AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAY SCALE, EARNING LESS ! THAN SAY, SOMEONE WHO SHOVELS SNOW FOR ONE SEASON. UPPER MANAGEMENT IS NOT REALLY AWARE OF THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE LIBRARY AND IT'S ROLE IN THE COMMUNITY. THIS COMMUNICATION HAS NEVER REALLY BEEN SUFFICIENTLY ESTABLISHED. IT'S EXPENSIVE AND MY JOB IS RESTRICTED TO PATROL OR INVESTIGATIONS. (I CAN'T AFFORD TO STAY.) 1. THE FACT THAT I FEEL MORE LIKE A PROCESSOR THAN A TRULY i I i TOWN OF VAIL PAGE- 19 MOUNTAIN STATES EMPLOYERS COUNCIL, INC. WRITTEN RESPONSES ~ B. WHAT I REALLY DISLIKE ABOUT THE TOV IS: ` INFORMED PRODUCER OF THE WORK REQUIRED OF ME. 2. IT IS JUST ABOUT IMPOSSIBLE TO AFFORD LIVING HERE ALONE. EITHER AFFORDABLE HOUSING OF A NATURE I'M ACCUSTOMED TO OR A SALARY TO COVER RENT WOULD DEFINITELY BE A PLUS. I WOULD LIKE TO REMAIN AT TOV BUT FEEL AFTER ONE MORE YEAR I WILL BE FORCED TO DECIDE TO MOVE ON JUST BECAUSE I CAN'T AFFORD TO LIVE HERE. ALL I CAN AFFORD TO DO IS WORK. AND, I LIKE MY WORK--A LOT. THAT SOMETHING WASN'T DONE SOONER. THE ^SLOW^ SEASON, WHEN I HAVE TO ASK OTHER PEOPLE IF THEY HAVE ANYTHING I CAN DO TO KEEP BUSY. HOW POLICIES WORK FOR SOME DEPARTMENTS AND NOT OTHERS. POOR MANAGEMENT, SEXIST MANGEMENT (AGAINST FEMALE). POOR MANAGEMENT ATTITUDE TOWARDS HIGHER SKILLED EXPL. ALL THE BUTT KISSING--BACK STABBING. THE BUREAUCRATIC MIND-SET; PIGEON-HOLING; EACH OF INCENTIVE TO LEEARN, IMPROVE, ADVANCE; BEING TREATED LIKE CATTLE; THE PREMIUM PLACED ON DOCILITY; THE THREATS, THE REPRISALS. THE LACK OF APPRECIATION FOR THE JOB PERFORMED BY EMPLOYEES. EVALUATIONS ARE ALWAYS LATE AND NEVER REFLECT THE SALARY WE MADE. THE COMPARISONS THEY MADE WITH OTHER RESORT TOWNS THAT ARE NOT EVEN CLOSE TO THE HIGH-COST OF LIVING IN VAIL. THE WAY THEY WRITE JOBS DESCRIPTIONS THAT DO NOT MATCH WITH THE ^EXTRA^ WORK OR ^EXTRA^ RESPONSIBILITIES WE GAIN DAY AFTER DAY. THE TOWN IS GETTING BIGGER AND WITH THAT COMES MORE DEMANDING ^DUTIES" TO SERVE THE PUBLIC; IT'S ALWAYS A DEMAND FOR BETTER SERVICE AND TO "KEEP SMILING" BUT OUR SALARIES DO NOT GET BETTER. OUR MANAGEMENT DO NOT SEE THIS SITUATION BECAUSE THEY ARE NEVER IN CONTACT WITH US. SEPARATE BUILDINGS SO THEY DO NOT HAVE TIME OR ^CHANCE^ TO SEE AND APPRECIATE OUR EFFORT TO MAKE THIS TOWN A NUMBER ONE. OUR REQUESTS ARE ALWAYS PUT ON THE SIDE BECAUSE ^OUR SALES REVIEW^ DIDN'T MAKE IT, OR BECAUSE ^WE" (MANAGEMENT) DON'T HAVE THE MONEY TO DO IT", BUT YET THE MONEY IS PUT ^IN ~ OTHER PLACES", NO FOR ITS EMPLOYEES. ~ SECRETIVE FEAR BARED MANAGEMENT WITH CLIQUE SURROUNDING TOWN MANAGER. MANAGEMENT DEAL ONLY 4lITH EACH OTHER. CREATIVITY CAN EASE BUDGET CONCERNS. LACK OF CLEAR DIRECTION AND JOB DUTIES WITHIN DEPT. FIGHTING AMONGST CO-WORKERS WHICH MNGMNT IGNORES. tJEEDLESS GOSSIP LEADING TO FIGHTING ALSO IGNORED. i I EACH DEPT. HAS DIFFERENT RULES AND BENEFITS. I SOMETIMES FEEL AS THOUGH WE ARE T00 REGULATING AND T00 I I i ' ~ TOWN OF VAIL PAGE- 20 MOUNTAIN STATES EMPLOYERS COUNCIL, INC. WRITTEN RESPONSES B. WHAT I REALLY DISLIKE ABOUT THE TOV IS: QUICK TO SAY ^NO^, RATHER THAN TRYING TO WORK WITH PEOPLE. SAME SITUATION BETWEEN DEPARTMENTS--T00 MUCH BACK BITING RATHER THAN EMPATHY FOR A JOB THAT NEEDS EVERYONE'S COOPERATION. SOME SUPERVISORS TACTIC APPROVE OF DAMAGING COMMENTS TOWARDS OTHERS. THE NEGATIVE ATTITUDE THROUGHOUT THE TOWN EMPLOYEES AND STAFF. NEGATIVITY SPREADS UNFORTUNATELY. COUNCIL APPEARS TO NOT BE EMPLOYEE RETENTION FOCUSED. THERE APPEARS TO BE ENOUGH MONEY TO SATISFY THE EMPLOYEE COST OF LIVING NEEDS, ETC. HOWEVER, OUR WORK LOAD, JOB STANDARDS, AND COST OF LIVING ARE HIGH; OUT PAY IS NOT AS PROPORTIONATELY HIGH, GIVEN THE HIGH COST OF LIVING. THE PAY IS T00 LOW, I BELIEVE THIS IS TRUE FOR MOST OF US. THIS VALLEY IS T00 EXPENSIVE--PAY DOES NOT MATCH COST OF LIVING. TAKES A RIDICULOUS AMOUNT OF TIME TO GET THINGS ACCOMPLISHED--EVEN WHEN THEY ARE A PRIORITY. CHANGE IS SOMETIMES SLOW TO COME. SKI PASS SHOULD BE FREE, EXCLUDING TAXES WHICH I UNDERSTAND HAVE TO BE PAID. THE RICH, ARROGANT PART OF THE COMMUNITY. RON PHILLIPS IS NOT VERY APPROACHABLE AS A TOWN MGR. AND ESPECIALLY AS A PERSON. SUGGESTIONS I HAVE MADE (TO PERSONNEL), IN WRITING, HAVE BASICALLY BEEN IGNORED. I REALLY DON'T THINK COUNCIL MEMBERS HAVE A REAL GRIP ON THEIR EMPLOYEES. I'M NOT SURE THE MAJORITY OF THEM KNOWS HOW A LARGE CORPORATION WORKS--WHICH IS WHAT WE ARE IN REALITY. ALSO, THEY TALK ABOUT IMPROVING EMPLOYEE MORALE, THEN BADMOUTH EMPLOYEES TO THE PRESS DURING BUDGET TIME. I GET THE IMPRESSION MOST OF THE--EXCEPT TOM--THINK WE DON'T WORK HARD OR SMART--AND THIS IS SIMPLY NOT TRUE. LACK OF ACCEPTABLE WORK SPACE. THE CONDITIONS IN THE POLICE DEPARTMENT ARE TERRIBLE. COUNCIL HAS A CHANCE TO CORRECT ~ THIS IF POLITICS DON'T GET IN THE WAY OF COMMON SENSE? WORK LOADS ARE EXTREMELY HIGH MOST OF THE TIME. THIS TENDS TO ^WEAR^ ON YOU. i HOWEVER--THERE ARE NO CLEAR GOALS--WE'VE NEVER SET TNEM. THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A CLEAR VISION COMMUNICATED FROM THE COUNCIL OR MGMT. WE'RE GOING SOMEWHERE BUT I'M NOT SURE WHERE. ALSO, COST OF LIVING IS HIGHER THAN OTHER PLACES AND j COUNCIL/MGMT. DOES LITTLE TO TRY TO COMPENSATE FOR IT. i i WHEN THERE IS A PROBLEM--TOWN MANAGER NEEDS TO AVOID GETTING UPSET WITH EMPLOYEES OTHER THAN THE DIRECTOR. PROLEMS NEED i . ' ~ ~ TOWN OF VAIL PAGE- 21 MOUNTAIN STATES EMPLOYERS COUNCIL, INC. WRITTEN RESPONSES B. WHAT I REALLY DISLIKE ABOUT THE TOV IS: TO BE RESOLVED USING MORE OF A TEAM APPROACH. 1. NO DIRECTION FROM COUNCIL OR MANAGEMENT ON THE BIGGER ISSUES WHICH NEED THE BRAIN POWER OF THESE INDIVDUALS. 2. A LACK OF TEAMWORK OR STRONG TEAM MANAGEMENT DECISIONS ON MAJOR ISSUES. EMPLOYEE MORALE, BUDGETS, CRISIS, ETC. 3. MANAGEMENT FEELS THEY KNOW EVERYTHING AND EITHER THEIR LAZINESS OR ARROGANCE FAIL TO COMMUNICATE WITH STAFF PRIOR TO MAKING DECISIONS CAUSES PROBLEMS. 4. NO LONG TERM STRONG MANAGEMENT GOALS THAT ARE BEING WORKED OUT. EVERYTHING APPEARS AS A CRISIS. 5. TOWN MANAGER'S AVOIDANCE OF TOUGH OR POLITICAL DECISIONS, HOWEVER WORRIED ABOUT THE SMALL DETAILS. CRITICAL ATMOSPHERE, LACK OF CONSISTENCY AND POOR MANAGEMENT IN MY DEPARTMENT. THE AMOUNT OF BEAURACRACY AND THE REACTIVE VS. ACTIVE MANAGEMENT STYLE. MUCH OF MY TIME IS SPENT REACTING TO PROBLEMS WHICH ARE SOMEWHAT TEMPORARY. THE MANAGEMENT TREATS THE SYMPTOMS OF THE PROBLEM RATHER THAN ADDRESSING THE ACTUAL PROBLEM. AND OFTEN TIMES IT IS REALLY T00 LATE TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT THE REAL ISSUE. ALSO T00 MUCH TIME IS SPENT ON ISSUES WHICH EFFECT THE VOCAL MINORITY AND RATHER THAN THE LARGER ISSUES WHICH EFFECT THE MAJORITY. T00 MUCH TIME IS SPENT ON TRYING TO FIX MINOR ISSUES AND--THEREFORE THE REAL ISSUES DO NOT GET THE NECESSARY ATTENTION. THERE ALSO SEEMS TO BE A DOUBLE STANDARDS IN THE WAY ISSUES ARE HANDLED AT DIFFERENT LEVELS. WHILE IT IS OK FOR MANAGEMENT TO DO SOMETHING IT IS UNACCEPTABLE FOR THOSE BELOW THAT PERSON TO ACT IN THE SAME MANNER. THAT'S NOT TO SAY THAT EITHER BEHAVIOR IS ACCEPTABLE. IT'S JUST THAT IT IS VERY HYPOCRITICAL OF MANAGEMENT TO REPRIMAND AN EMPLOYEE FOR SOMETHING THAT THEY DO THEMSELVES. TAKES FOREVER TO GET TO TOP OF PAY SCALE i THE ATTITUDE OF MANAGEMENT AND THE TOWN COUNCIL. ALL THEY CARE ABOUT IS THE SALES TAX COMING IN AND DO NOT CARE PEOPLE CANNOT AFFORD TO LIVE HERE. ~ NA HOW IT IS. NOTHING. i OH, WELL...THE DISGRUNTLED AND NEGATIVELY OPINIONATED CITIZEN AND VISITOR CAN BE WEARING. i ( WASTE OF MONEY, LACK OF CONSISTENCY IN MANAGING EMPLOYEES FEEL LIKE TOV DOES NOT HAVE THE EMPLOYEE'S BEST INTERESTS i I ~ ~ • 1 ' ~ ~ TOWN OF VAIL PAGE- 22 MOUNTAIN STATES EMPLOYERS COUNCIL, INC. WRITTEN RESPONSES B. WHAT I REALLY DISLIKE ABOUT THE TOV IS: AT HEART THE SENSE OF PARANOIA IN MANAGEMENT. IT IS HARD TO GIVE IDEAS TO SUPERVISORS UNDER SIEGE. THEY JUST WANT TO LAY LOW. IF COUNCIL WANTS A NEW COACH, GET ONE. THIS LOOKING FOR PROBLEMS SO THE COACH (TOWN MANAGER) CAN BE FIRED IS NOT WISE. BY UNDERMINING ROWS LEADERSHIP, COUNCIL CREATES A SITUATION WHERE RON IS LOOKING TO SEE WHO IS BETRAYING HIM. COUNCIL IS CAUSING RON TO VIEW PEOPLE WITH SUSPICIOUS EYES, AND HE BECOMES MORE AND MORE ISOLATED. EITHER SUPPORT HIM OR GET A NEW TOWN MANAGER. ADMIN CLERK 2'S ARE PAID THE SAME AS SNOW SHOVELER. THIS REALLY FRUSTRATES ME AND I CAN'T JUST UP AND MOVE TO DENVER OR WHERE THE WAGES ARE BETTER. NO PLACE TO G0. MAKE A DECISION. (/r L I i i l I 1. ' ~ TOWN OF VAIL PAGE- 23 MOUNTAIN STATES EMPLOYERS COUNCIL, INC. WRITTEN RESPONSES C- C. WHAT IMPROVEMENTS OR CHANGES WOULD YOU RECOMMEND TO HELP MAKE THE TOV A BETTER PLACE TO WORK? TAKE CONTROL. LET LOCALS KNOW WHAT IS EXPECTED OF THEM SO THEY CAN SET A GOOD EXAMPLE FOR TOURISTS AND MAKE THE TOURISTS AND FELLOW WORKERS EXPERIENCES HERE BETTER. BETTER MANAGEMENT. INFORM THE PUBLIC BEFORE YOU DO SOMETHING TO CHANGE THE AREA. THEY NEED TO KNOW SO THEY DO NOT COMPLAIN TO THE PEOPLE ONLY FOLLOWING ORDERS. PLAN BETTER DO IT ONCE. BETTER WAGES--COST OF LIVING IS RISING QUICK. INCREASE SPACE OF WORKPLACE. PAY INCREASE TO SUPPLEMENT COST OF LIVING. 1. COMPARABLE PAY IN REGARDS TO COST OF LIVING IN VAIL. 2. NO ^HIDDEN AGENDAS". 3. A FAIR AND EQUITABLE ^RAISE SCALE THAT APPLIES TO ALL TOV DEPARTMENTS. _ BETTER LIGHTING IN THE SHOP AREA. WHERE WE PARK OUR PLOWS. COUNCIL MEMBER TO SEE EMPLOYEES SIDE. BE A MORE EQUAL ON THE BONUS PROGRAM. PEOPLE GET BONUSES FOR WHAT IS IN THEIR JOB DESCRIPTION. PEOPLE WHO GO BEYOND THEIR JOB DESCRIPTION GET OVER LOOKED. LESS CHIEFS MORE INDIANS. THERE HAS BEEN A TREND TOWARDS MORE MANAGEMENT, BUT A RELUCTANCE TO HIRE LABOR. THUS THE LABOR PAD IS STRAINED. WE USED TO ALL WORK TOGETHER. NOW THERE IS A DEFINITE SEPARATION WHERE MANAGEMENT WON'T GET THEIR HANDS DIRTY. ~ LEAVE IT WHERE THE NEXT PERSON CAN FIND IT. BUY IT SO THE i JOB CAN BE DONE. MORE COMMUNICATION BETWEEN UPPER MANAGEMENT AND THE PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY DO THE WORK. i I WOULD RECOMMEND A MORE OPEN DOOR, HONEST POLICY FOR DEALING WITH EMPLOYEES INSTEAD OF MUCH OF THE BEHIND THE SCENES ACTION WHICH TAKES PLACE. RECOGNIZE THE POTENTIAL AND CAPABILITIES OF THE QUALITY PEOPLE WHICH HAVE BEEN HIRED AND ALLOW THEM TO WORK TO THEIR FULLEST POTENTIAL FOR THE BEST INTEREST OF THE TOV. ( THAT ALL PERSONS AFTER WORKING A YEAR OR SO BE MADE FULL TIME? WE ALL HAVE FAMILIES AND NEED TO SUPPORT THEM THE i i ' ~ TOWN OF VAIL PAGE- 24 MOUNTAIN STATES EMPLOYERS COUNCIL, INC. WRITTEN RESPONSES C. WHAT IMPROVEMENTS OR CHANGES WOULD YOU RECOMMEND TO HELP MAKE THE TOV A BETTER PLACE TO WORK? BEST WE CAN? FLEXIBLE WORK SCHEDULES AVAILABLE TO EVERYONE--NOT JUST A SELECT FEW. IN GENERAL MAKE THINGS AS FAIR AS POSSIBLE. LISTEN TO THE EMPLOYEE'S MORE. IMPROVE WORKING CONDITIONS BY IMPROVING AND EXPANDING THE SHOP. AN OPPORTUNITY TO EXPAND IF NOT IN THE JOB THEN OTHER PACETS OF THE TOV. A MAINTENANCE OF WAGE TO COST OF._LIVING. A CHILD CARE PROGEAM. AN EMPLOYEE THINK TANK THAT SOMEONE LISTENS T0. AN ALLEVIATION OF OVER INFORMATIVE MEMOS, TOWARD ONES THAT DISSEMINATE TO THE BOTTOM LINE. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE MORE PRIDE AND RECOGNITION GIVEN TO EMPLOYEES THAT HELPED THE TOV ACHIEVE ITS COMMON STATUS. A REVAMPED BONUS PROGRAM. TO RECOGNIZE THOSE EMPLOYEES WHO MAKE NO COtJTRIBUTIONS TO THE PROFESSIONAL OPERATIONS, ARE IN FACT A HINDRANCE TO SMOOTH OPERATIONS, AND GET RID OF THESE PEOPLE. (I.E. GET RID OF THE DEADWOOD). I LIKE WORKING FOR THE T.O.V. IN GENERAL. THINGS COULD BE BETTER AT THE POLICE DEPT. IF THE UPPER MANAGEMENT HAD LESS - WORK AND RESPONSIBILITY. THE CHIEF AND LIEUTENANTS SEEM TO HAVE A LARGE WORK LOAD. PAY INCREASE. THE COMMUNICATION IS SOMETIMES AFTER-THE-FACT AND INADEQUATE--THE MONTHLY NEWSLETTERS COULD BE MORE INFORMATIVE AND LESS TRIVIAL. TREAT EVERYBODY FAIRLY. RAISE THE BASE PAY IN ORDER TO GET MORE RELIABLE PEOPLE TO WORK HERE AND STAY. i ~ MAYBE SOME MORE FLEXIBLE WORKING HOURS--FOUR TO TEN HOUR DAYS, OR SEVEN TO FOUR/EIGHT TO FIVE/NINE TO SIX--TYPE CHOICES. BETTER UP AND DOWN COMMUNICATION. LONG TERM ONE JOB LEVEL ENHANCEMENT. LARGER BONUS AMOUNTS, FOR LONG TERM OUTSTANDING EMPLOYEES. ' ENHANCE COMMUNICATION BETWEEN DEPARTMENTS; DEVELOP MORE i POSITIVE ^INVESTMENT^ OF EMPLOYEES IN THE ORGANIZATION. i DAY CARE FOR FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN. ~ 1. STOP PASSING ALONG COSTS TO EMPLOYEES AND REDUCING i COVERAGE ON INSURANCE. LOBBY FOR NEW LEGISLATION THAT HALTS I I i ~ TOWN OF VAIL PAGE- 25 MOUNTAIN STATES EMPLOYERS COUNCIL, INC. • WRITTEN RESPONSES C. WHAT IMPROVEMENTS OR CHANGES WOULD YOU RECOMMEND TO HELP MAKE THE TOV A BETTER PLACE TO WORK? RISING INSURANCE RATES. 2. START PAYING WHAT IT COSTS TO LIVE HERE AT THE SAME LEVEL IT COSTS YOU TO LIVE IN THE METRO AREA. 3. NEW P.O. BUILDING. 4. BE MORE SUPPORTIVE OF TOWN EMPLOYEES. DON'T TAKE US FOR ' GRANTED. MORE ROOM TO WORK IN. NOT HAVING A FEAR OF EXPRESSING MYSELF. BETTER PAY. HAVE DEPARTMENT MEETINGS OCCASIONALLY WITH PERSONAL MANAGER, DEPT SUPERVISOR, AND TOWN MANAGER TO DISCUSS GRIPES AND NEW POLICIES ETC. CONCERNING VAIL AND HOW IT RELATES TO OUR JOB. MANAGEMENT DONE BY PEOPLE WITH EXCELLENT PEOPLE SKILLS AND PROPER MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUES. BETTER PAY, LESS SEASONAL JOBS MORE FULL TIME. COUNCIL NEEDS TO REALLY LOOK AT H04J SUBSTANDARD AND DANGEROUS THE PRESENT POLICE BUILDING SITUATION IS. INCREASE THE LEVEL OF TRUST. BETTER COMMUNICATION. A LITTLE BIT MORE CONCERN REGARDING THE ECONOMY AND PAY. GET RID OF UPPER MANAGEMENT AND DEPARTMENT HEADS. LET THE EMPLOYEES WHO ARE QUALIFIED MORE INTO THE POSITIONS THEY CAN DO A BETTER JOB AT. I'D GET RID OF ALL LIARS, THERE ARE A LOT OF THEM. I'D LIKE TO HOPE THAT MY PAYCHECK WOULD BE WORTH SOMETHING, I'M AFRAID SOON IT WON'T BE. MORE COMMUNICATION BETWEEN DEPT! BE INTRODUCED TO NEW EMP, ~ ETC. J EMPLOYEE'S COUNCIL THAT REPORTS TO THE TOtJN COUNCIL. ' THE LAST FEW YEARS, THERE HAS BEEN A DEFINITE DROP IN ' IN-HOUSE SERVICES. SOME VERY GOOD PEOPLE HAVE LEFT BECAUSE OF CURRENT MANAGEMENT. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE AN EFFORT TO ' CREATE A POSITIVE, SUPPORTIVE ENVIRONMENT FOR ALL EMPLOYEES NOT THE "SELECT FEW". COUNCIL MIGHT BE SURPRISED TO LEARN HOIJ FEW TOV EMPLOYEES LIVE AND SHOP IN TOV. WAGE SURVEYS WITH COMPARABLE ENVIRONS SHOULD BE ACCOMPLISHED. TOV IS NOT A FRONT RANGE RESORT COMMUNITY. ~i ~ POLICE DEPT NEEDS TO BE EXPANDED. I i i i ' ~ TOWN OF VAIL PAGE- 26 MOUNTAIN STATES EMPLOYERS COUNCIL, INC. WRITTEN RESPONSES C. WHAT IMPROVEMENTS OR CHANGES WOULD YOU RECOMMEND TO HELP MAKE THE TOV A BETTER PLACE TO WORK? DEFINE WHAT THE COMMUNITY IS, NOT JUST WHAT THE COUNCIL WANTS. GET WHAT THE EMPLOYEE NEED IDENTIFIED. DON'T JUST LISTEN--DO SOMETHING WHEN SUGGESTIONS ARE GIVEN. IF SUGGESTION CANNOT BE COMPLETED--GIVE THE PERSON A VALID REASON AS TO WHY? NOT JUST...^THE COUNCIL WON'T HEAR OF IT^. WHY WON'T THEY? WHAT DO THEY WANT? ETC. WE ARE A TEAM, WHY DON'T ^WE^ CUS VS. SUPERVISORSiMGNMT) FEEL LIKE ONE? WHY CAN'T WE FORGET THE PIDDLY-SHIT? CONCENTRATE ON THE IMPORTANT ASPECTS OF POLICE WORKiDISPATCHING? HAVE FUN: IF PEOPLE ENJOY THEIR WORK ATMOSPHERE THEY WILL WANT TO COME TO WORK? DO THE BEST JOB. LEAVE 'EM ALONE TO DO IT? MORE TRAINING! MORE TRAINING! MORE TRAINING! THE MUNICIPAL BUILDING IS FAR T00 CROWDED AND INEFFICIENT. WE SHOULD ALSO BE GETTING MORE INPUT FROM THE LINE WORKERS. SEE ABOVE. NEW POLICE BUILDING SO WE HAVE THE SPACE TO FIT OUR NEEDS. UPPER MANAGEMENT NEEDS TO TAKE A GOOD LOOK AT MIDDLE MANAGEMENT AND REPLACE WITH QUALIFIED INDIVIDUALS. BIGGER BUILDING? MORE SPACE, BETTER AIR. WINDOWS. SKI BENEFITS--SHOULD BE THE SAME FOR NON SIERS AS A IS FOR SKIERS. NEXT POLICE BUILDING. MORE POSITIVE RECOGNITION FOR EMPLOYEES. INCREASE IN SALARY LEVELS. CHOICE OF FREE BENEFITS. MORE RECOGNITION FROM COUNCIL MORE PUBLICITY ABOUT WHAT IS DONE IN TOV. MORE INTERACTION BETWEEN DEPARTMENTS. HIGH PAY SCALE. , NEW MANAGEMENT TEAM WHO WORKS TO PROGRESS SET NEW STANDARDS, RATHER THAN HAVING TO DO THINGS BECAUSE SOMEONE ELSE IS. LOOSE THE PERSONNEL MANAGER AS HE IS JUST A YESiCOMPANY MAN--NOT COMPASSIONATE--HAS LITTLE CONCERN FOR EMPLOYEES. IT IS A WASTE OF TIME TO INTERACT WITH HIM. LOOSE THE TOWN MANAGER--HE HAS AN UNCONTROLLABLE TEMPER AND IS VERY i CONTROLLING. WILL NOT LET DEPARTMENT HEADS RUN THEIR ' DEPARTMENTS. i I MORE CONCERN FOR THE FULLTIME EMPLOYEE. A NEW TOWN MANAGER. UNDERSTANDING THAT SOME DEPARTMENTS ARE DIFFERENT AND SHOULD BE HANDLED DIFFERENT. BETTER COMMUNICATION TO EMPLOYEES AT ALL LEVELS AS TO WHAT i i r ' ! ~ TOWN OF VAIL PAGE- 27 MOUNTAIN STATES EMPLOYERS COUNCIL, INC. WRITTEN RESPONSES C. WHAT IMPROVEMENTS OR CHANGES WOULD YOU RECOMMEND TO HELP MAKE THE TOV A BETTER PLACE TO WORK? IS BEING DONE AND WHY IT IS BEING DONE. MORE SENSITIVITY TO EMPLOYEES BY COUNCIL RELATING TO WORKING CONDITIONS, WAGES, COST OF LIVING, WORK PACE, ETC. HAVE THE MANAGEMENT LIGHTEN UP. NO ONE ELSE SEEMS TO BE THAT SERIOUS IN THE COMMUNITY. THE DRESS CODE IS T00 SERIOUSiT00 CONTROLLING. FOR THE DOWN TOWN MANAGEMENT TO GET OUT AND WORK WITH THE BLUE COLLAR WORKERS. SO THEY CAN SEE WHAT WE_HAVE TO PUT UP WITH FROM ^OUR GUEST^. ACCENT THE POSITIVE--LET PEOPLE SHARE THEIR IDEAS FOR IMPROVEMENT--LIKE THIS SURVEY--REALLY LISTEN--DON'T PULL THE I'M MANAGEMENT GAME. I WOULD VALUE AND ENCOURAGE EMPLOYEE INPUT. I WOULD PUT EMPHASIS ON TRUST. I WOULD DEAL WITH • PEOPLE INDIVIDUALLY AND NOT MAKE SWEEPING POLICIES THAT EFFECT THE WHOLE BECAUSE OF AN INDIVIDUAL PROBLEM. I WOULD SET UP EMPLOYEE FORUMS FOR DISCUSSION TO DISCUSS NEW IDEAS, CHANGES. I WOULD OPEN COMMUNICATION LINES HAVE COUNCIL, MANAGEMENT TO BE MORE VISIBLE TO LISTEN AND SHARE. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT THE MANAGEMENT AND THE COUNCIL BE CROSS TRAINED AT ALL THE RESPECTIVE JOB'S TO REALLY SEE WHAT - THE EMPLOYEE'S GO THROUGH AND WHAT THEY REALLY HANDLE IN AN • EIGHT TO TEN HR SHIFT. PAY EMPLOYEES WHAT THEY ARE WORTH IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE INFLATED COST OF LIVING IN VAIL. UNDERSTAND AND TRULY APPRECIAL OUR JOBS. MAKE EXTENDED SCHEDULES SO WE CAN HAVE MORE INPUT INTO OUR LIFE OUTSIDE OF WORK. COMMUNICATION. ADVANCE NOTICE ON ALL JOB PROJECTS. BETTER PAY FOR JOB DESCRIPTION. GET THE SEASONAL EMPLOYEE INVOLVED MORE (LIKE THIS). i ~ SUPERVISORS MUST LEARN TO REACH THE MIDDLE AND LOWER LEVELS OF THE ORGANIZATION. EXCELLENT IDEAS MAY STEM FROM THESE LEVELS? ALSO, SUPERVISORS MUST LEARN TO 4JORK MORE ' EFFECIENTLY TOGETHER. THERE ARE PRESENTLY T00 MANY POLITICAL MOTIVES IN DECISION MAKING BY SUPERVISORS AND UPPER-MANAGEMENT, TOV WIDE. i ALLOW PEOPLE TO DO JOB HIRED TO D0, WITHOUT FEAR GET A SENSE OF ^TEAM" THROUGHOUT THE TOWN AND NOT JUST WITHIN DEPT. GET THE COUNCIL MORE IN TUNE TO TOWN WORKINGS. THEY SEEM TO BE SELF SERVING AND NOT OBJECTIVE. i BETTER COMMUNICATION. CONSIDER HIGH RENT COSTS. ~ MORE PAY FOR WHAT EXPLECTED OF A PERSON. I ' ~ ~ TOWN OF VAIL PAGE- 28 MOUNTAIN STATES EMPLOYERS COUNCIL, INC. WRITTEN RESPONSES C. WHAT IMPROVEMENTS OR CHANGES WOULD YOU RECOMMEND TO HELP MAKE THE TOV A BETTER PLACE TO WORK? NO COMMENT. BI-WEEKLY OR MONTHLY ^BULL SHIT SESSIONS^ WITH UPPER MANAGEMENT I.E. TOWN MANAGER, PERSONAL DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT HEAD WITH FRONT LINE EMPLOYEES OCCASIONALLY WITH COUNCIL MEMBERS ALSO THE SOCIAL ASPECT OF OUR JOB OVER THE YEARS ' HAS BEEN A BIG PART OF 'TEAM BUILDING' BUT RECENTLY (LAST COUPLE OF YEARS) I'VE SEEN THAT FADING. THE ABILITY TO HAVE A COUPLE OF BEERS AFTER WORK, OFF THE CLOCK AT WORK HAS BEEN TAKEN AWAY AND THIS HAS HAD A NEGATIVE AFFECT ON THE "ESPRITE DE CORP". LESS HEALTH CARE COST. BETTER MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEE COMMUNICATION. HIRING FROM WITHIN. LONGEVITY RETURN CHILD CARE. MORE COMMUNICATION BETWEEN DEPARTMENTS. PROVIDE TRAINING FOR EMPLOYEE WHO WOULD LIKE TO ADVANCE IN HIS OR HER JOB. IT'S TIME TO START MAINTAINING WHAT'S BEEN BUILT OVER THE PAST 25 YEARS. WE SHOULD SLOW DOWN AND TRY TO TAKE CARE OF WHAT WE HAVE. IT'S STARTING TO BECOME T00 MILITARY. WE'RE ONLY HUMAN AND CAN DO ONLY SO MUCH TO PLEASE THE PUBLIC. LET UP AND LET US DO OUR JOBS! THE TOV NEEDS A DAYCARE SETUP FOR THE EMPLOYEES. THIS WOULD REALLY HELP THE PEOPLE THAT MISS A LOT OF WORK DUE TO CERTAIN PROBLEMS WITH THEIR KIDS. PEOPLE WOULD BE AT WORK MORE OFTEN. TOV TO PROVIDE EXPENDABLE TOOLS. (ETC) HACK-SAW BLADES, DRILL BITS, EAZY-OUTS, ETC. TREAT EMPLOYEES LIKE ADULTS, NOT CATTLE. HELP CREATE A FLEX WORK WEEK THROUGH SCHEDULING AND CROSS-TRAIN. i HIRE WITHIN THE TOWN. FIX THE DISLIKES. HAVE A PERSONNEL ~ DIRECTOR WHO IS FAIR. TO HAVE MANAGEMENT AND COUNCIL COME OUT TO P.W. TO HEAR FROM 1 US ABOUT WHAT WE THINK ABOUT THE INTER-WORKINGS OF THE TOWN. ALSO, TO DO AWAY WITH A SUPERVISOR WHO DOES NOT CARE ANY MORE AND GIVE SOMEONE ELSE A CHANCE AT IT. MANAGEMENT NEEDS BETTER COMMUNICATIONS WITH EMPLOYEES. BENEFITS MAYBE COULD BE EXPLAINED BETTER. QUIT USING STATS FROM OTHER TOWNS TO GRADE US. THE COMMUNICATION COMMITTEE SHOULD BE DISSOLVED. IT IS NOTHING MORE THAN A PARTY c COMMITTEE OR SPECIAL EVENTS COMMITTEE. A LARGER BUILDING FOR THE SHOP, MORE LIGHTS. .BETTER i TOWN OF VAIL PAGE- 29 MOUNTAIN STATES EMPLOYERS COUNCIL, INC. WRITTEN RESPONSES C. WHAT IMPROVEMENTS OR CHANGES WOULD YOU RECOMMEND TO HELP MAKE THE TOV A BETTER PLACE TO WORK? COMMUNICATION BETWEEN EMPLOYEES AND SUPERVISORS AND MANAGEMENT. MANAGEMENT TO KNOW WHAT A PERSON REALLY DOES. LESS POLITICAL INFLUENCE ON DAY-TO-DAY OPERATIONS AND DECISIONS. LESS PROFESSIONAL REWARDS FOR PEOPLE DOING THE KISSING UP AND MORE FOR THE PEOPLE DOING THE WORK. 1. BETTER WORKING CONDITIONS, (MORE SPACE, PRIVACY, TOOLS, ETC.) 2. REDUCE THE STRESS. _ • DONUTS AND JUICE AT THE OPINION SURVEY. (HA HA). BETTER COMMUNICATION WITHIN THE WORKPLACE. FOR COUNCIL AND MANAGEMENT TO TAKE A CARING ROLE NOT JUST WITH SEASONAL EMPLOYEES, BUT A LONGER LOOK AT HOW TO IMPROVE ON THE FULL-TIME PEOPLE THAT WORK FOR THE TOWN, ON MORALE AND ETC. LET DEPT HEAD RUN THEIR OWN DEPTS DON'T TRY TO ALL DEPTS FROM ONE OFFICE. HELP THE SEASONAL GE7 FULL TIME. UNDERSTANDING FROM UPPER MANAGEMENT AND COUNCIL ABOUT WHAT IT'S REALLY LIKE FOR THOSE OF US WHO DON'T MAKE THE MONEY THEY DO AND ARE AT THE BASE LEVEL IN HAVING TO DEAL WITH IT ALI. RECOGNIZE THAT VAIL IS AN EXPENSIVE PLACE TO RAISE A FAMILY, WHICH MEANS BOTH PARENTS MUST WORK. ALLOW MORE FLEXIBLE WORK SCHEDULES THAT COULD HELP ALLEVIATE THE STRESS OF THE WORKING PARENTS. ALSO PROVIDE OR HELP SUBSIDIZE A CHILDCARE BENEFIT. ^LISTEN^ TO EMPLOYEES! NETWORKED COMPUTERS--RESULT IN 75Y. INCREASE IN PRODUCTIVITY. DIFFERNET SCHEDULES. PAY INCREASE. DAY CAREiNIGHT CARE FOR ~ CHILDREN. PAY INCREASE FOR EACH SHIFT WORKED--(IE MORE PAY FOR WORKING MID SHIFTS, SWINGS, ETC). ~ I HAVE TRIED TO MAKE CHANGES AND GIVE SUGGESTIONS BUT MANAGEMENT WILL LISTEN BUT THATS Att. ~ ASK FOR INPUT FROM EMPLOYEES RATHER THAN ADMIN. REGULATIONS HANDED OUT AS POLICY. (CERTAIN ISSUES ONLY.) LISTEN TO EMPLOYEE CONCERNS, AND FOLLOW THROUGH, TO COME TO MUTUALLY f AGREED UPON TERMS TO DECREASE STRESS LEVEL. ! BOOST MORAL? BENEFIT SEMINAR FOR ALL EMPLOYEES SO THEY CAN BETTER UNDERSTAND WHAT IS OFFERED TO THEM. BETTER C-- ~ COMMUNICATION WITH MANGEMENT. THEY NEED TO REALIZE THEY I~ i i ~ TOWN OF VAIL PAGE- 30 MOUNTAIN STATES EMPLOYERS COUNCIL, INC. WRITTEN RESPONSES C. WHAT IMPROVEMENTS OR CHANGES WOULD YOU RECOMMEND TO HELP MAKE THE TOV A BETTER PLACE TO WORK? HAVE GREAT, COMPETANT, HARDWORKING EMPLOYEES, NOT TWO-BIT LABORERS. MAYBE A FLEX WORK SCHEDULE? • LIGHTEN UP! EVEN THOUGH WE ARE IN THE PUBLIC EYE CONSTANTLY--WE ARE HUMAN AND DO NOT HAVE CONTROL OVER EVERY ISSUE? MORE MONEY, BETTER RAPPORT WITH MANAGEMENT AND AFFORDABLE IN-HOUSE DAY CARE CENTER FOR EMPLOYEES WITH CHILDREN WOULD BE TERRIFIC'. ALSO DAY CARE PASSES WITH V.R.D. WOULD BE TERRIFIC T00. THE TENNIS AND GOLF PASS ARE WONDERFUL FOR THOSE WHO USE THEM BUT IF YOU NAVE A FAMILY THE CHANCES ARE SLIMMER--WHY NOT OFFER SOMETHING THAT IS USED AND IS USEFUL TO STRUGGLING FAMILIES? DAYCARE IS BADLY NEEDED. A NEW MUNI BUILDING, BETTER YEARLY BONUS AMOUNTS. MORE OF A FEELING OF TEAMWORK IN THE TOWN WHICH HELPS BUILD A BETTER FEELING OF COMMUNITY. BRING THE EMPLOYEES FAMILY INTO THE TOV TEAM. PROVIDE A FLEXIBLE SKI PASS OR GOLF PASS SYSTEM FOR THE FAMILY TO USE. HIGHER STARTING WAGES TO HELP COMPENSATE FOR THE HIGH COST OF LIVING, ESPECIALLY HOUSING. THE POWER OF THE TOWN MANAGER SHOULD BE REDUCED. HIS DECISIONS SHOULD BE REVIEWED. PEOPLE SHOULD BE HIRED AND PROMOTED FOR THEIR ABILITY, NOT BASED ON THEIR LOYALTY TO THE TOWN MANAGER. A FEELING OF TRUST AND FAIRNESS NEEDS TO BE BROUGHT BACK TO TOWN GOVERNMENT. WORKING CONDITIONS IN THE TOWN HAVE GONE TDOWN FOR THE LAST EIGHT YEARS, THEY NEED TO BE IMPROVED. EMPLOYEE HOUSING. IN THE YEARS TO COME THE VALLEY IS GOING TO NEED MORE PEOPLE. IT IS GOING TO BE 41ISE TO GET HOUSING FOR SEASONAL EMPLOYEES OR THE TOV IS NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO FILL THE JOBS. 4 ENCOURAGE OPEN AND HONEST COMMUNICATION, NOT "BACKSTABBING°. ' BETTER WORK FACILITIES. ENCOURAGE TEAMWORK. HIGHER PAY CDUE TO HIGH COST OF LIVING) TO HELP STOP TURNOVER. I' MORE EMPHASIS ON THE ROLE OF THE EMPLOYEE COMMUNICATIONS COMMITTEE. THIS IS AN INVALUABLE TOOL. MORE NOTICE (IN ADVANCE) FOR MEETINGS. THE IMPORTANCE OF EACH INDIVIDUAL JOB, I.E., POLICE, FIRE DEPT, LIBRARY, ETC. NEEDS TO BE SERIOUSLY RE-EVALUATED ON A SCALE THAT DOES NOT NECESSARILY ~ REFLECT A NATION-WIDE SURVEY, BUT CONSIDERED IN RESPECT TO ~ THE COMMUNITY. A PERSON CAN WALTZ IN TO THE TOV AND TAKE A ( POSITION THAT REQUIRES LESS RESPONSIBILITY AND EVEN INTELLECT, AND REGARDLESS OF EXPERIENCE MAKE T4lICE WHAT AN I i . i. ~ ~ ~ TOWN OF VAIL PAGE- 31 MOUNTAIN STATES EMPLOYERS COUNCIL, INC. WRITTEN RESPONSES C. WHAT IMPROVEMENTS OR CHANGES WOULD YOU RECOMMEND TO HELP ' MAKE THE TOV A BETTER PLACE TO WORK? ' EMPLOYEE OF EVEN TEN YEARS IS MAKING. NATIONWIDE SURVEYS ARE INADEQUATE AND DO NOT ENCOURAGE QUALITY IN THE WORKPLACE. THERE ARE EMPLOYEES OF VERY YOUNG AGE AND EXPERIENCE MAKING A GREAT DEAL MORE THAN PEOPLE WHO HAVE MUCH MORE RESPONSIBILITY AND WORK A LOT HARDER THAN THEY D0. TEAMWORK IS ALSO AN AREA IN NEED OF GREAT IMPROVEMENTS. WE TEND TO OPERATE IN AN INDIVIDUAL BASIS WITHIN OUR DEPARTMENT RATHER THAN AS A UNIT. THE SAME COULD BE SAID FOR THE INTER-DEPARTMENTAL PICTURE. PAY COMPARABLE TO THE COST OF LIVING. MORE DIVERSIFIED WORK. (IT'S HARD TO MAKE A DECENT LIVING UP HERE.) 1. MORE QUIET SPACE TO WORK--LIKE AN OFFICE OF MY OWN (NOT A CUBBY). 2. MORE WARM LIGHTING--LESS NEON GLARE--DESK LAMPS. 3. AN INEXPENSIVE CAFETERIA SO I CAN AFFORD AT LEAST ONE MEAL A DAY. 4. KEEP THE CHATTERING LADIES AWAY. FAIRNESS TO ALL, COMPASSION! GET PPL. WHO CARE FOR PPL., NOT THE DOLLAR SIGN. GET RID OF C UNQUALIFIED SUPV. a MANAGEMENT WHO ARE BUSY KISSING EACH OTHERS BUTTS, TRYING TO MAKE EA. OTHER LOOK GOOD. IMPROVED COMMUNICATION FLOWS BETWEEN COUNCIL AND EMPLOYEES. THE TOWN MANAGEMENT CONTROLS THE COUNCIL BY CONTROLLING THE INFORMATION THAT REACHES COUNCIL (CENSORSHIP). TO GET ACQUAINTED WITH THE DIFFERENT DEPARTMENTS AND BE AWARE OF THEIR NEEDS. TO LISTEN THE DEPT. HEADS 61HEN THEY REQUEST FOR HELP OR ADVICE. TO TEACH SUPERVISORS TO BE FAIR AND TO STOP MANIPULATIONS. C COUNCIL MUST BE MORE INVOLVED. THIS MANAGEMENT TEAM IS SO CLOSED TO IDEAS THAT LEADERSHIP IS NEEDED FROM COUNCIL. LAST FEW COUNCILS HAVE BEEN WEAKENED BY CROSS PURPOSES OR DISRUPTIVE MEMBERS. MANAGEMENT TOOK HOLD--PUT PEOPLE IN ` MANAGEMENT POSITIONS WHO AGREE WITH MANAGER, THIS SURVEY AND i OTHER ATTEMPTS INDICATE COUNCIL IS TRYING. GO BEYOND THE SURFACE--SPEAK TO EMPLOYEES--ALLOW US TO SPEAK BACK. i STRONGER MANAGEMENT. BETTER AND MORE ADVANCED COMMUNICATIONS--NOT BEING TOLD AT LAST MINUTE. TO BE RECEPTIVE AND ENCOURGAE INPUT PRIOR TO FINAL DECISIONS BEING MADE. DEFINITE CONTROL AND/OR SOLUTIONS WITH OFFICE j PROBLEMS. ' LEARN TO WORK AS A TEAM. THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE WORKED HERE MANY YEARS AND HAVE COME TO i i ' TOWN OF VAIL PAGE- 32 MOUNTAIN STATES EMPLOYERS COUNCIL, INC. WRITTEN RESPONSES C. WHAT IMPROVEMENTS OR CHANGES WOULD YOU RECOMMEND TO HELP MAKE THE TOV A BETTER PLACE TO WORK? DISLIKE THEIR JOBS SHOULD RECOGNIZE THAT AND MOVE ON. I THINK THE RECENT DECISION NOT TO RECTIFY THE PENSION HOME LOAN SITUATION WAS A MISTAKE. MORE SURVEYS LIKE THIS FOR HONEST INPUT FROM EMPLOYEES AND PROMOTE COMMUNICATION BETWEEN MANAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEES. A NEW POLICE BUILDING. LET'S FIND A WAY TO PAY FOR IT. OTHER RESORT COMMUNITIES APPEAR TO DO A BETTER JOB OF MAINTAINING SUCH ITEMS. 1. INCREASE PAY! 2. INCREASE THE WORK AREA CSPACE)! 3. UPGRADE OFFICE EQUIPMENT--THE COPIER AND TYPEWRITERS. FIND OUT WHAT THE EVERYDAY EMPLOYEE NEEDS--NOT THE SUPERVISORS. BUILD US A NEW POLICE DEPT.! THE P.O. SHOULD HAVE A DEPARTMENT WIDE MEETING EVERY THREE TO FOUR MONTHS TO VOICE CONCERNS, PROBLEMS, ETC. THIS MEETING SHOULD INCLUDE PATROL AND ADMIN. REQUIRE THE COUNCIL TO GET BETTER ACQUAINTED WITH ALL DEPARTMENTS. GET RID OF THE ZERO-BASED BUDGETING--GIVE SOME RESPONSIBILITY, AND PROVIDE TRUST, TO THE DEPT. HEADS. I WOULD LIKE COUNCIL MEMBERS TO INTERACT MORE WITH EMPLOYEES--THEY ARE OUR BOSSES. HOW ABOUT EACH DOING "A DAY IN THE LIFE OF" BY WORKING SIDE BY SIDE WITH EMPLOYEES IN DIFFERENT AREAS--A DAY HERE AND A DAY THERE. OTHER THAN WHAT IS MENTIONED ABOVE--WE HAVE A DIFFICULT TIME RETAINING EMPLOYEES--POLICE OFFICERS AND DISPATCHERS. THE COST OF LIVING FORCES PEOPLE TO MOVE. THE TOWN SHOULD PAY AS MUCH MONEY AS IT CAN FOR THESE POSITIONS AS HIGH TURNOVER _ RATES HAVE A DRAMATIC EFFECT ON EFFICIENCY EFFECTIVENESS AND PROFESSIONALISM. THESE JOBS ARE VERY DIFFICULT TO LEARN TAKING AN AVERAGE OF TWO TO THREE YEARS TO BECOME ^GOOD". ` THE TOWN COUNCIL IS HYPERSENSITIVE TO CRITICISM. WHEN AN ISSUE COMES BEFORE THEM THAT THE SUPPORT, BUT LATER FACE TOKEN, BUT LIVELY OPPOSITION, THEY BUCKLE UNDER THE PRESSURE. EXAMPLE IS THE TRAFFIC LIGHTS AT THE FOUR-WAY ISSUE. THEIR INABILITY TO MAKE HARD DECISIONS SETS A DECISION MAKING TONE THAT PERMEATES THE ENTIRE TOV I ORGANIZATION. ALL DECISIONS HAVE POLITICAL CONSEQUENCES. DEPT. HEADS ANALYZE AND AGONIZE OVER THE SIMPLEST OF DECISIONS LOOK FOR THOSE CONSEQUENCES, MANY TIMES, WHEN NONE ' EXIST. THIS "ANALYSIS PARALYSIS" THEN DROPS TO OTHER LEVELS (MANAGERS AND SUPERVISORS) WHERE THE PROLEM IS ALSO EVIDENT. I Y ~ i ' ' ~ TOWN OF VAIL PAGE- 33 MOUNTAIN STATES EMPLOYERS COUNCIL, INC. WRITTEN RESPONSES C. WHAT IMPROVEMENTS OR CHANGES WOULD YOU RECOMMEND TO HELP MAKE THE TOV A BETTER PLACE TO WORK? SOME MAJOR DECISIONS ARE MANY TIMES PUT OFF FOR MONTHS AND MONTHS (AND MONTHS) BECAUSE NOT DEALING WITH THE ISSUE IS EASIER THAN ADDRESSING IT HEAD-ON. TOWN MANAGER RON PHILLIPS IS OVERWORKED AND NEEDS AN ASSISTANT. BECAUSE OF THIS AND HIS NATURAL °OVER-ANALYSIS^ STYLE, DECISION AFFECTING TOV DEPTS. AREN'T MADE. HE ALSO NEEDS TO ENCOURAGE • HIS DEPT. HEADS TO MAKE DECISIONS WITHOUT CONSULTING WITH HIM ON EACH AND EVERY ISSUE. EXAMPLES KEN HUGHEY, CHIEF OF POLICE, ASKED IF HE COULD CHANGE THE COLOR OF THE UNIFORM, ASKED IF HE COULD CHANGE FROM REVOLVERS TO AUTO-PISTOLS, ASKED IF HE COULD CHANGE FROM SHOTGUNS TO AUTO-CARBINES. THESE WERE THINGS THAT THE DEPT. LEADERSHIP FELT WERE NECESSARY, YET SINCE HE ASKED PHILLIPS, HE NOW HAD TO WAIT FOR ANSWERS. NOT ONE OF THESE ISSUES WAS DECIDED IN LESS THAN A YEAR. ANALYSIS PARALYSIS--THIS ENVIRONMENT IS DEVELOPED AND NUTURED BY THE COUNCIL--BY EXAMPLE.--THEY (AND MGMT.) ARE NOT LEADING US! MAKE BUDGETING EASIER BY EXPLAINING UP FRONT IN GENERAL HOW MONEY WE SHOULD EXPECT TO BE ABLE TO GET FOR OUR DEPTS. THIS WILL AVOID A LOT OF UNNECESSARY RESEARCH ON PROJECTS. DIRECTORS SHOULD PROBABLY HAVE MORE TRAINING IN PEOPLE j MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEES AND HANDLING COUNCIL. t - REPLACE THE TOWN MANAGER. HE IS A CANCER TO THE ORGANIZATION. WORKING UNDER HIM IS LIKE LIVING IN AN ABRUSIVE HOUSEHOLD. IF THE TOWN MANAGER TRUELY BELIEVED IN DEMMING'S OR ANY OTHER QUALITY PROGRAM THE TOWN OF VAIL WOULD NOT BE LOOKING FOR MANAGEMENT METHODS THEY WOULD BE IN PLACE. BETTER COMMUNICATION, TRUST OF THE STAFF. MANAGEMENT DESIRES A STRONG PROFESSIONAL PROGRESSIVE AND EFFICIENT STAFF BUT UNWILLING TO SUPPORT IT 100X. IT TAKES RESOURCES, LEADERSHIP AND TIME. BUILDING OF TEAMWORK, USE THE STAFF AS AN INTELLECTUAL ASSET. CLEAR GOAL SETTING AND COMMITMENT TO THE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES, A PROGRESSIVE APPROACH TO TACKLING THE STICKY ISSUES AND SOME GUTS TO i CARRY THROUGH. IN GENERAL, THE TOV IS A GREAT PLACE TO WORK! ' BETTER MANAGEMENT TRAINING. TOV SEEMS TO BE LIVING IN THE DARK AGES WHEN IT COMES TO POLICY AND PROCEDURE. TOV NEEDS TO RECOGNIZE THAT IT IS A LARGE AGENCY AND MAKE CHANGES ACCORDINGLY (I.E., COMPUTERS, ETC.). CUT DOWN ON COMM. DEVELOPMENT DEPT. THEY PUT EXTRA COST ON PROJECTS AND TO MANY JOBS HAVE TO BE REDONE I r ~ MORE PAY AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING MORE COMMUNCIATION BETWEEN DEPARTMENTS AND MANAGEMENT. f . ' ~ ~ ~ TOWN OF VAIL PAGE- 34 MOUNTAIN STATES EMPLOYERS COUNCIL, INC. WRITTEN RESPONSES C. WHAT IMPROVEMENTS OR CHANGES WOULD YOU RECOMMEND TO HELP MAKE THE TOV A BETTER PLACE TO WORK? NEED AN, OPEN LINE OF COMMUNICATION. I AM TIRED OF HEARING THE WORD ^BUDGET" IT IS A ROAD BLOCK. ELIMINATE MOST OF THE ^NO PARKING^ SIGN. MAKE THE POLICE FORCE MOVE ACTIVE WHEN WE'RE PLOWING SNOW. PROVIDE ^REALITY THERAPY^ FOR UNHAPPY EMPLOYEES. SATISFY NEEDS OF EACH DEPARTMENT NOT WANTS IN ,REGARDS TO PURCHASES AND COMMUNICATE HONESTLY TO EMPLOYEES. MAKE THE FIRE STATION SAFER PLACES TO WORK (IE VENTILATION SYSTEMS NEED TO BE IMPROVED TO FHA GUIDELINES) COUNCIL NEEDS TO MAKE A DECSION CONCERNING MANAGEMENT AND DON'T WAFFLE. TOWN SHOULD COME UP WITH NEW WAYS TO REWARD EMPLOYEES OF TOP OF RANGE. C I i i 1 ! ~ TOWN OF VAIL PAGE- 35 MOUNTAIN STATES EMPLOYERS COUNCIL, INC. WRITTEN RESPONSES D. WHAT IS YOUR BEST SOURCE OF INFORMATION AT THE TOV? BULLETIN BOARD. RUMORS. DEPT HEAD. FROM THE PEOPLE. THE SECRETARIES. THEY ALWAYS SEEM TO HAVE THE ANSWERS AND ARE MORE APPROACHABLE THAN THE UPPER MANAGEMENT. SCUTTLEBUT. FELLOW WORKERS. SUPERVISORS. BOB MACH AND HEARSAY. MY SUPERVISOR. MANAGEMENT. MY SUPERVISOR. IMMEDIATE SUPERVISOR OR SECRETARIES. EMPLOYEE MEETINGS. MY IMMEDIATE SUPERVISION. OTHER WORKERS. COUNCIL PACKETS, JACQUE LOVATO, LOCAL NEWS PAPERS. STAFF MEETINGS AND MEMOS, OTHER EMPLOYEES. RUMOR AND GOSSIP ONE-ON-ONE WITH IMMEDIATE SUPERVISORS. I ~ SUPERVISORS. EMPLOYEE BULLETIN BOARD. MEMOS. ~ FROM MY SUPERVISOR. INFORMATION THAT FILTERS THROUGH THE GRAPEVINE OR WHAT COMES FROM REPORTERS IN THE NEWSPAPERS. i THE NEWSPAPER AND GOSSIP. WORD OF MOUTH--GOSSIP, WHICH ONE MUST TAKE WITN A GRAIN OF SALT. r i RUMOR! I TOWN OF VAIL PAGE- 36 MOUNTAIN STATES EMPLOYERS COUNCIL, INC. WRITTEN RESPONSES D. WHAT IS YOUR BEST SOURCE OF INFORMATION AT THE TOV? THE COMPUTER SYSTEM AND REPORT FILES. MY SUPERVISORS, MEMOS. MY SUPERVISOR--SGTS. CO-WORKERS AND SUPERVISORS. THE INTERDEPARTMENTAL MEMOS POSTED. GOSSIP--LOCAL NEWSPAPER, TOWN NEWSLETTER. _ TOWN MANAGEMENT, GENERALLY VERY OPEN AND REALISTIC, IS MY BE5T SOURCE. NEWSPAPER ARTICLES. VAIL DAILY PAPER. THE PUBLIC, NEWSPAPERS AND CO-WORKERS, NO ONE ELSE SHARES ANYTHING WITH US. OTHER EMPLOYEES AT THE SAME LEVEL. SUPERVISORS. ! OTHER TOV EMPLOYEES AND MOST OFTEN THE LOCAL NEWSPAPER. INTERNAL COMMUNICATION IS OBVIOUS AND OFTEN AFTER THE FACT. ^OLD NEWS^. EMPLOYEE NEWSLETTER AND THE VAIL DAILY. SGT. ONORATO AND BRENDA CHESMAN. THE GRAPEVINE. GOOD QUESTION--I END UP GOING THRU A SERIOUS CHAIN. BOB M. HAS MY BEST SOURCE. MY SUPERVISOR. USUALLY THE PERSONNEL DEPARTMENT. ' RIGH7 N0, CO-WORKERS. THIS IS WHY WE HAVE THE RUMORS, ETC. PEOPLE SEEM AFRAID TO GO TO THEIR SUPERIVSOR'S FOR INFO. NEWSLETTERS, AND MEMO'S. BOB MACH. i GOSSIP ~ WORD OR MOUTH NEWSLETTER. i i TOWN OF VAIL PAGE- 37 MOUNTAIN STATES EMPLOYERS COUNCIL, INC. WRITTEN RESPONSES D. WHAT IS YOUR BEST SOURCE OF INFORMATION AT THE TOV? SECRETARIES TOWN MANAGER. FIELD SUPERVISORS. STAFF MEETING. THE BULLETIN BOARD AND SUPERVISOR. I RECEIVE INFORMATION THROUGH MEMOS, OTHER EMPLOYEES AND SUPERVISOR AND SOMETIMES THE NEWSPAPER. I FEEL THAT THE BEST SOURCE FOR INFORMATION FOR THE TOWN OF VAIL IS THE BUS DEPT AND PUBLIC WORKS, BECAUSE THESE ARE GENERALLY THE FIRST CONTACT PEOPLE THAT THE PRIEST SEE. NO ONE SPECIFIC GOOD SOURCE, YOU MOST OFTEN HAVE TO REALLY WORK AT GETTING ANSWERS AND OBJECTIVES MET. FELLOW WORKERS. GOSSIP. SOME MEETINGS. . CO-WORKERS AND SUPERVISOR/WORD OF MOUTH. MY IMMEDIATE SUPERVISORS, ALSO MOST INFO I GET GOING ON WITHIN TOWN RANKS COMES FROM NEWSPAPER AND NOT COUNCIL TALKING TO DEPT'S. l GRAPE VINE ONLY. WORD OF MOUTH. IS WHEN WE GET A MEMO ABOUT THE FACTS. OR OUR SUPERVISOR LETS US KNOW WHATS GOING ON. THE PERSON WHO IS ULTIMATELY IN CHARGE OF THE PROJECT OR TASK YOU ARE COMPLETING. FELLOW EMPLOYEE AND INPERSONAL MEMOS! ` DEPARTMENT HEAD OR SUPERVISOR. IN THIS ORDER: 1. MEMOS. 2. NEWSLETTER. 3. EMPLOYEE COMMUNICATION. 4. MANAGEMENT. I RECEIVE MOST OF MY INFORMATION BY WORD-OF-MOUTH, THEN TRY ~ TO FOLLOW-UP BY ASKING QUESTIONS. IMPORTANT ITEMS LIKE POLICY CHANGES ARE USUALLY COMMUNICATED VIA MEMO FROM MANAGEMENT. l~ TOWN TALK NEWS LETTER AND INFORMATION PASSED ON BY EMPLOYEES. I II I4 4 ~ ~ TOWN OF VAIL PAGE- 38 ' ~ MOUNTAIN STATES EMPLOYERS COUNCIL, INC. WRITTEN RESPONSES D. WHAT IS YOUR BEST SOURCE OF INFORMATION AT THE TOV? SUPERVISORS. 1. LOCAL NEWSPAPERS. 2. OTHER EMPLOYEES. BILLY. . GOSSIP. FROM OTHER EMPLOYEES WITHIN DEPARTMENTS. THE BENEFITS DIRECTOR IS USUALLY A GOOD SOURCE OF INFORMATION, NOT THE PERSONNEL DIRECTOR. A GOOD NEWSLETTER FROM TOWN MANAGER WOULD PROBABLY BRING OUT THE MORALE MUCH BETTER. WORD OF MOUTH ANA MEMOS IF THEY ARE POSTED. CO-WORKERS--SOMETIMES THE NEWSPAPER. MY SUPERVISORS. ALL THE EMPLOYEES ARE A GREAT SOURCE OF INFORMATION ABOUT ALM05T ANYTHING YOU CAN THINK OF. MYSELF FINDING OUT WHAT THE INFORMATION IS AND HOW TO DEAL ( WITH IT. l.~ OLDER EMPLOYEES OF TOV, ONES WITH MANY YEARS WORKING FOR TOV. YOUR BOSS. FELLOW EMPLOYEES. GOING DIRECT TO ANOTHER DEPARTMENT USUALLY TAKES DAYS IF NOT WEEKS ON GETTING AN ANSWER. FELLOW CO-WORKERS. WE HEAR MORE THROUGH THE GRAPEVINE THAN THROUGH UPPER MANAGEMENT. i INFORMAL CONTACTS. I i USUALLY, MY SUPERVISOR THROUGH PROPER CHANNELS, OTHERWISE, ` EMPLOYEE °HERE-SAY" FROM THE FRONT DESK AND RUMOR MILL. - ~ S FO IS RECEIVED BY RUMOR RUMORS- HA HA. BUT IT S TRUE MO T IN AND THEN IT GETS OUT OF HAND. SUPERVISOR, AND MEMOS PASSED AROUND EMPLOYEE HAND BOOK. MEMOS AND NEWSLETTER CWORD OF MONTH DOES NOT ALWAYS GET THE s MESSAGE ACROSS) ALSO, IF IT'S IN WRITING NO ONE CAN COMPLAIN OR MISINTERPRET INTENTIONS (I.E.--THE RECENT PENSION LOAN UPRISING!) DEPT. HEAD. HE PROVIDES INSIGHT INTO THE COMMUNITY. I i i ' TOWN OF VAIL PAGE- 39 MOUNTAIN STATES EMPLOYERS COUNCIL, INC. WRITTEN RESPONSES D. WHAT IS YOUR BEST SOURCE OF INFORMATION AT THE TOV? l COMMUNITY FOLKS WHO EXPRESS THEIR FRUSTRATIONS. I FEEL THE COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE IS VERY FRACTIONALIZED AND AT TIMES THEY ARE NOT SURE WHAT THEY WANT OTHER THAN THEIR WAY. FELLOW EMPLOYEES. OTHER EMPLOYEES AND SOMETIMES TOWN COUNCIL MEMBERS. SOME OF THE NEWSPAPER ARTICLES ARE GOOD. ARTICLES NOT PUT OUT BY THE TOWN ARE GOOD. I WOULD SAY THE ONLY SOURCE IS EACH OTHER. THE TOWN HOLDS ONE MEETING FOR THE WINTER PEOPLE THEN NOTHING FOR THE REST OF THE YEAR. IF I HAD A PROBLEM I WOULD NOT KNOW WHO WOULD HELP ME. CIN REGARDS TO WORK.) FELLOW CO-WORKERS. MY SUPERVISOR. EMPLOYEE COMMUNICATIONS COMMITTEE. MY SUPERVISOR. PAM BRANDMEYER. • MY SUPERVISOR. THE GRAPEVINE. SUPV. AND MANAGEMENT ARE ALWAYS MAKING POLICY WITHOUT LETTING EVERYONE KNOW. COUNCIL MEETINGS TELEVISED ON CH. 23; CO-WORKERS' WORD-OF-MOUTH. THE NEWSLETTERS. GOSSIP. KNOWING SOMEONE WHO KNOWS THE SCOOP. PUBLIC RELATIONS HAS NO CONTENT. RELAEASES TRIVIA TO PRESS. EMPLOYEE MEETINGS EITHER RAMBLE OR CREATE HARD FEELING. i WHEN WE MEET WITH THE DIRECTOR OF ADMIN SERVICES AND SOME OTHER TOV-WIDE MEETINGS (IE. BENEFITS, ETC.). DEPARTMENT MEETINGS. MEMOS. NEWSLETTER. , MY BOSS. i NEWS RELEASES FROM PR OFFICE IS VERY HELPFUL. ALL OF MY SUPERVISORS, LTS., CHIEF, ETC. i ~ MY CO-WORKERS, PERSONNEL, AND THE NEWSLETTER.: ( i IMMEDIATE SUPERVISORS. i ` CO-WORKERS. BRENDA CHESMAN (BENEFITS). 1 i ~ TOWN OF VAIL PAGE- 40 MOUNTAIN STATES EMPLOYERS COUNCIL, INC. WRITTEN RESPONSES D. WHAT IS YOUR BEST SOURCE OF INFORMATION AT THE TOV? THE VAIL DAILY AND TRAIL! (OR GOSSIP). THE EMPLOYEE NEWSLETTER IS A WASTE OF THE PAPER IT'S PRINTED ON. THE EMPLOYEES FOR THE MOST PART. AND MY SUPERVISOR. MY DEPARTMENT LOAD. INFORMAL LINES OF COMMUNICATION. COMM. DEV.--GARY MENRAIN AND MIKE MOLLICEE/AND PUB. WORKS--GREG HALL TODD 0./POLICE KEN HEGLEY/LANI ESKWITH. TOP FARCE WOULD BE PUBLIC WORKS OUTSIDE OF MY DEPT. SUPERVISOR AND OTHER STAFF MEMBERS. DISCUSSION WITH COWORKERS. PERSONNEL DIR. THE GRAPEVINE MY SUPERVISOR AND THE PEOPLE I WORK WITH IN THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT WORD OF MOUTH. MY SUPERVISOR. MY SUPERVISOR AND CO-WORKERS--ATTENDANCE AT A VARIETY OF MTGS. ASKING QUESTIONS LISTENING AND SENDING MEMOS DEPT HEAD ANNIE OR PERSONNEL. DO DEPARTMENT HEADS REPORT TO RON OR TO TOWN COUNCIL. THERE ARE TIMES WHEN I FEEL ANNIE SHOULD UPDATE COUNCIL, SHE SAID SHE UPDATES RON. 1 f i TOWN OF VAIL PAGE- 41 MOUNTAIN STATES EMPLOYERS COUNCIL, INC. ' WRITTEN RESPONSES E. GENERAL COMMENTS: THE TOWN OF VAIL SAVES MONEY BY HAVING MANY SEASONAL EMPLOYEES BUT THESE EMPLOYEES STILL NEED INSURANCE. SO TO PAY THE INDIVIDUAL COST OF INSURANCE MEANS THAT THESE EMPLOYEES NEED A SECOND JOB. AND AFTER WORKING 60-80 HRS. A WEEK IT IS NOT UNUSUAL FOR THEM TO BE A LITTLE SHARP WITH TOURISTS. BAD FOR THE TOURISTS, BAD FOR T.O.V. PUBLIC WORKS HAS NOT HAD A SUPERVISOR FOR TWO YEARS. AS FAR AS GETTING DECISIONS MADE--IN MOST CASES TAKES TWO TO THREE WEEKS BECAUSE OF THE PROCEDURE OF MANAGEMENT IT MUST GO THRU THE TOWN MANAGER. WITH THESE PROCEDURES PUBLIC WORKS IS REALLY NOT VERY EFFECTIVE. IT APPEARS THE CITY MANAGER WANTS COMPLETE CONTROL OF ALL PROJECTS AND DEPARTMENTS. IT IS MY BELIEF THIS IS NOT AT ALL PRACTICAL BECAUSE OF THE ` SIZE OF THE TOWN AND THE SCOPE OF THE PROJECTS. IF THE CITY MANAGER DOES NOT HAVE FAITH AND TRUST IN THE DEPARTMENT HEADS, HE SHOULD REPLACE THEM. I FEEL THE REASON IT HAS TAKEN SO LONG TO GET A PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR WAS BECAUSE OF 7HE PAY. I FEEL THE PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR IS AS IMPORTANT AS THE CITY MANAGER, IF NOT MORE IMPORTANT. THE OTHER REASON I FEEL THE MAN HAD TO BE HAND PICKED BECAUSE ANY DECISION MAKING HAD TO BE DONE BY THE CITY MANAGER BEFORE THE PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR COULD GIVE IT TO THE DEPARTMENT. PUBLIC WORKS HAS BEEN OPERATING FOR THE PAST TEN YEARS WITHOUT AND ADDITIONAL PEDPLE EXCEPT FOR ONE SPECIAL EVENTS PERSON. IF YOU LOOK AT THE STAFF IN THE MAIN OFFICE IT MAKES YOU WONDER WHAT THEY DO AND IF THEY ARE REALLY NEEDED. IF THE COUNCIL THE CITY MANAGER GAVE STRICT INSTRUCTIONS TO ALL DEPARTMENTS THAT ANY MONEY SPENT WILL BE CHANGED TO THAT PROJECT ONLY. THE OLD POST OFFICE SEEMS TO HAVE AN UNLIMITED AMOUNT TO SPEND. IT MAKES THE REST OF THE DEPARTMENTS WONDER WHAT'S GOING ON. THE TOWN USED TO BE A VERY ENJOYABLE PLACE TO WORK, BUT LATELY THE MORALE HAS BEEN VERY POOR. PART OF THIS IS BECAUSE OF NO DIRECTION. HOPEFULLY THE NEW MAN WILL PULL THE DEPARTMENT BACK TOGETHER. ONE OTHER THING I WOULD LIKE THE COUNCIL TO DO IS GO BACK TO ON SITE INSPECTIONS. THIS WOULD GIVE THEM A MORE COMPLETE PICTURE OF WHAT IS HAPPENING. 4 I THINK TOWN COUNCIL AND OFFICE MANAGEMENT SHOULD COME OUT ~ 1 TO SEE WHAT THE LABORERS ARE DOING AND ENCOURAGE THEM. THERE IS NOT ENOUGH OF SEEING THEM. THEY NEVER THANK US FOR LITTLE IMPROVEMENTS. MOST PEOPLE WHO WORK FOR THE TOWN REALLY CARE BUT 41E NEED TO IMPROVE COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN DEPTS. SKI PASS BENEFIT FOR FIRST YR PEOPLE IS A WASTE--MAY AS WELL BUY ONE THROUGH VA ITSELF. COST IS THE SAME BECAUSE OF COST AND TAX ON ENTIRE PASS. ~L-' START VALUING THE EMPLOYEE AND JOB THEY D0, SPECIFICALLY THE i i i • • ~ TOWN OF VAIL PAGE- 42 MOUNTAIN STATES EMPLOYERS COUNCIL, INC. WRITTEN RESPONSES E. GENERAL COMMENTS: POLICE DEPT. BASICALLY ENJOY WORKING FOR THE TOWN AND THE PEOPLE I WORK WITH. MORE MONEY FOR THE EMPLOYEES. MY OPINION OVERALL, THE TOWN SHOULD START LOOKING AT THE . EMPLOYEES INSTEAD OF THINKING ABOUT HOW MANY SKIERS WE ARE GOING TO HAVE THIS SEASON. WE NEED TO GET OUR FACILITIES UP TO SNUFF. WE KEEP EXPANDING STAFF, BUT WE DON'T PROVIDE ANY NEW SPACE OR STORAGE. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE DEPARTMENT HEADS THAT HAD MORE CONFIDENCE IN DECISION MAKING. IT WOULD BE NICE TO GET QUICK ANSWERS INSTEAD OF HAVING TO CHECK 4JITH THE TOtJN MANAGER ON EVERYTHING. UPPER MANAGEMENT IS GOOD, BENEFITS ARE GOOD, WORK AREA NEEDS IMPROVEMENT TO GET JOB DONE. I LIKE WHAT I DO AND I LIKE THE PEOPLE I WORK WITH. ' OVER-ALL, IT'S A FINE PLACE TO LIVE AND WORK. C THE TOV PROVIDES ONE OF THE BEST EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES--IF NOT THE BEST--FOR PEOPLE IN THE AREA. THE ' BENEFITS PROGRAM IS OUTSTANDING AND COULD POSSIBLY BE IMPROVED THROUGH SOME TYPE OF A COST OF LIVING INCREASE TO TO ALLOW EMPLOYEES TO KEEP ABREAST OF EVER INCREASING LIVING COSTS IN TOV AND THE AREA. MY GREATEST CRITICISM IS THAT GREATER VALUE IS NOT REALIZED FROM THE INDIVIDUAL TALENTS OF IT'S EMPLOYEES. THE CREATIVE TENDENCIES ARE STIFLED TO ACHIEVE CONFORMING. TRY TO KEEP ALL EQUAL. (BENEFIT WISE). i WHY BOTHER WITH JOB DESCRIPTIONS WHEN YOU ARE EXPECTED TO DO ' IT ALL ANYWAY. WE SEEM TO BE LOSING GROUND WHEN IT COMES TO BENEFITS AND ' SALARIES. BENEFITS AND WORK CONDITIONS HAVE NOT IMPROVED IN RECENT YEARS. THE UPPER MANAGEMENT PAY IS DISPROPORTIONATELY HIGH COMPARED TO REGULAR EMPLOYEES. AFTER YEARS WORKING WITH/FOR THE TOV, I FIND MYSELF IN A JOB THAT DOES NOT ALLOW FOR EXPANSION NOR EXPRESSION. 4JHEN I SEEK OTHER VEHICLES OUTSIDE WORK I AM DISCOURAGED. I SEE SO MANY EMPLOYEES WITH SO MANY TALENTS THAT ARE UNDER UTILIZED i BECAUSE THE PARAMETERS OF THEIR JOBS PRECLUDE THEIR OVERALL ABILITIES. I RESET BEING TREATED AS IF I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT TAKES TO BE A GOOD EMPLOYEE, WHEN OVER THE YEARS OTHER ~ EMPLOYEES LIKE MYSELF HAVE HELPED THE TO{JN EARN ITS POSITION I i i ' TOWN OF VAIL PAGE- 43 MOUNTAIN STATES EMPLOYERS COUNCIL, INC. r ~ WRITTEN RESPONSES E. GENERAL COMMENTS: OF RESPECT IN THE RESORT COMMUNITY. WHILE I APPRECIATE THE BUDGETING CONSTRAINTS THE COUNCIL AND TOV MUST WORK UNDER. I FIND IT FRUSTRATING TO SEE THE TOV ALWAYS FOLLOWING OR • PLAYING CATCH-UP. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE TOV TAKE THE IN MORE AREAS AND ADDITIONALY WOULD LIKE PERSONALLY TO CONTRIBUTE IN THESE EFFORTS. I ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT MY JOB • CANNOT EXPAND WITHOUT THE TOWN EXPANDING ALSO, BUT UNDER UTILIZED EMPLOYEES ARE OFTEN EASILY DEMORALIZED WHEN THEY WANT TO CONTRIBUTE. PLEASE OFFER US A VEHICLE TO HELP THE TOWN BETTER ACHIEVE THEIR GOALS. I AM VERY CONTENT; HOWEVER, WITH MY DEPARTMENT AND SUPERVISORS BU_T AM FRUSTRATED WHEN CONSTRAINTS ARE PLACED ON US BY PEOPLE WHO APPEAR MORE CONCERNED WITH MONEY THAN NECESSARY PROFESSIONAL ADVANCEMENT AND STRATEGIC DECISIONS. I HAVE TRIED TO HAVE FAITH IN THE TOV IN ITS EFFORTS TO ESTABLISH A PARITY WITH OTHER TOWNS IN WAGES AND SKILLS, BUT AS I SEE OTHER TOWNS GROW AS VAIL I HAVEN'T SEEN SAME RESULTS. I WOULD LIKE TO • CONCLUDE BY SAYING THANK YOU TO THE TOV AND COMMIT FOR WHAT THEY HAVE DONE AND WHAT THEY ARE TRYING TO ACHIEVE. I WOULD • JUST LIKE THE ABILITY TO DO THE SAME FOR THE TOV AND PEEL GOOD ABOUT DOING IT. THANK YOU. P.S. PLEASE CORRECT AS NEEDED BEFORE PRINTING. GENERALLY I ENJOY MY JOB AT TOV BUS DEPT. THE ONLY ASPECT WHICH IS INTOLERABLE AND CAUSES ANY STRESS AT ALL IS THAT WHICH I REFERRED TO ABOVE IN C. SOME FELLOW EMPLOYEES TEND TO BE UNCOOPERATIVE AND UNRESPONSIVE TO WORKING TOWARD A COMMON GOAL OF SMOOTH PROFESSIONAL OPERATIONS. I'M NOT AT ALL FAMILIAR WITH THE TOWN COUNCIL OR IT'S FEELING AND ATTITUDE TOWARD ME, MY DEPARTMENT OR THE ENTIRE TOWN OF VAIL STAFF. I WORK IN A DEPARTMENT KNOWN FOR IT'S HISTORY OF SHORT STAFFING. THIS SITUATION WENT ON FAR T00 LONG BEFORE IT GOT BETTER CWE ARE UP TO STAFF NOW, OR CLOSE AT MOST TIMES). WHEN THINGS WEREN'T SO GOOD OUR MANAGEMENT OFTEN POINTED THEIR FINGERS AT THE COUNCIL FOR NOT BEING i ABLE TO MAKE CHANGES. IT SEEMS LIKE EXTREME BUREAUACRACY AT THE TOP OF THE ORGANIZATION. ~ I DO NOT LIKE THE WAY SOME SUPERVISOR ARE ALLOWED TO VERBAL ~ MISTREAT AN EMPLOYEE AND GET AWAY WITH IT. P.W. i OVERALL, I LOVE MY JOB AND CO-WORKERS. I APPRECIATE THE BENEFITS MY FAMILY AND I ENJOY. IT'S BECAUSE OF THESE i BENEFITS THAT I STAY HERE. I 1 PUT UP THE SUGGESTION BOXES THAT HAVE BEEN SITTING IN THE TOV OFFICES/ON ABOUT TWO MONTHS. GET RON PHILLIPS A ( ~ PERSONALITY--GET KEN HUGLEY A FULL TIME JOB IN ONE PLACE AT ONE TIME. GET MERV LAPIN A JOB--IN SOME OTHER PLACE--LIKE I i i I TOWN OF VAIL PAGE- 44 MOUNTAIN STATES EMPLOYERS COUNCIL, INC. WRITTEN RESPONSES E. GENERAL COMMENTS: CHINA. TOV IS ONE OF THE FINEST WORK ENVIRONMENTS I HAVE EXPERIENCED. OF COURSE, IT IS NOT PERFECT--BUT GIVEN ITS SIZE, ITS LIMITED REVENUE BASE, AND THE MYRIAD OF GOALS IT IS EXPECTED TO ACCOMPLISH, I BELIEVE IT IS IN THE TOP 'PERCENTAGE OF PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS. IT IS UNFORTUNATE THAT MANY EMPLOYEES HAVE WORKED AT TOV FOR SO LONG ANDiOR HAVE NEVER EXPERIENCED ANY OTHER WORK ENVIRONMENTS, THAT THEIR VIEWS MIGHT BE MORE NEGATIVE THAN WARRANTED. YOU ASK A LOT OF QUESTIONS ABOUT HOW RECEPTIVE THE TOWN MANAGER IS. HE IS WILLING TO TALK TO ANYONE, HOWEVER, HE HAS VERY COLD PERSONALITY. WHEN I FIRST STARTED WORKING FOR THE TOWN, IT WAS A LOT MORE ENJOYABLE. SOMETHING HAS CHANGED. I FEEL WE ARE WELL UNDERPAID CONSIDERING THE LEVEL OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING AND STANDARDS OF WORK ETHIC .EXPECTED OF US. SOCIAL SECURITY IS NOT TAKEN OUT OF OUR PAYCHECKS. SOMEONE SHOULD EXPLAIN AND SPELLOUT EXACTLY WHAT THAT MAY MEAN WHEN REACHING RETIREMENT AGE. OVERALL A GREAT PLACE TO WORK AND LIVE WITH THE FEW ' EXCEPTIONS ABOVE. THE T.O.V. NEEDS TO MORE FULLY UTILIZE THE PEOPLE WHO CAN USE THEIR BRAINS. MANY COLLEGE GRADS COME HERE TO LIVE AFTER SCHOOL FOR A FEW YEARS. WHY NOT USE THIS ANNUAL INFLUX OF TALENT TO MAKE VAIL A BETTER PLACE. THESE KIDS HAVE JUST DROPPED 550,000 FOR AN EDUCATION, WHY DOESN'T VAIL TAKE AND USE THESE ASSETS RATHER THEN HAVING THEM DO ALL THE BOTTOM OF THE TOTEM POLE JOBS? SKI PASS BENEFIT IS GOOD BUT NON SKIING PEOPLE REALLY DON'T GET THE FULL COST OF THE SKI PASS $725.00 THEY ONLY GET A PERCENTAGE. ONCE YOU'RE IN A CERTAIN JOB ITS HARD TO MOVE UP, NO ROOM FOR ADVANCEMENT. TOWN NOT WILLING TO HELP PEOPLE CONTINUE THEIR EDUCATION IN ANY FIELD NOT JUST THE ONE YOUR IN--SUCH AS CHANGING OVER TO COM DEV OR FIRE DEPT ` OR OTHER DEPTS. i BOB MACH, IN PARTICULAR, HAS HAD A VERY POSITIVE AND SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON TOWN MANAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEES. RON PHILLIPS NOT GIVEN SUFFICIENT CREDIT FOR HIS ACCOMPLISHMENTS. T.O.V. NEEDS TO MOVE FORWARD IN THE AREAS OF PAY. t ~ ALL IN ALL I LIKE IT. WE GOT A VERY GOOD TOWN MANAGER. `-'I THE TOWN CREATES A LARGE AMOUNT OF REVENUE FOR PRIVATE I i " ~ TOWN OF VAIL PAGE- 45 MOUNTAIN STATES EMPLOYERS COUNCIL, INC. WRITTEN RESPONSES E. GENERAL COMMENTS: BUSINESS/VA--AND THE TOWN EMPLOYEES ARE RESUNSIBLE FOR KEEPING THIS PLACE RUNNING. PAY SHOULD REFLECT THIS. A GREAT TOWN BEING SUNK BY POOR LEADERSHIP. TOV IS DOING A FANTASTIC JOB. LIKE ANY CIRCUMSTANCE, THERE IS GOOD AND NOT SO GOOD. THERE ARE SOME FINE PEOPLE, GOOD BENEFITS BUT I BELIEVE A REAL LACK OF POSITIVE LEADERSHIP AT THE MANAGERS LEVEL. I'M HAPPY WITH MY DEPARTMENT, BUT NOT THE LARGER ORGANIZATION. I BELIEVE COUNCIL NEEDS TO GET FAMILIAR--NEVER IN TEN YEARS HAS COUNCIL PERSON VISITED OUR DEPARTMENT TO OBSERVE OPERATIONS OR OUR DEPARTMENT TO OBSERVE OPERATIONS OR KNOW EMPLOYEES. I THOROUGHLY ENJOY MY JOB AND WORKING FOR TOV. THE WAGE SCALE MAKE IT NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE TO RECRUIT QUALIFIED EMPLOYEES AND KEEP THEM. HAS COUNCIL GIVEN CONSIDERATION TO ATTRITION AMONGST FUN-TIME YEAR-ROUND EMPLOYEES? IS COUNCIL INTERESTED IN KEEPING QUALIFIED PEOPLE? I REALLY ENJOY MY JOB AND PLAN TO CONTINUE WORKING HERE FOR A FEW MORE YEARS. I WILL BE FORCED TO FIND OTHER EMPLOYMENT, SO MY WIFE AND I WILL NOT BE ABLE TO RAISE CHILDREN IN THE VALLEY AS IT IS T00 EXPENSIVE. LETS NOT LET THIS PLACE TURN INTO ANOTHER ASPEN, WHEN THE FOLKS WHO LIVE HERE CAN'T STAY AND ARE MOVED OUT DUE TO THE POOR PLANNING OF OUR TOWN LEADERS IN THE PURSUIT OF THEIR OWN PERSONAL GAINS. THANKS FOR THE CHANCE TO SPEAK. NOW, LET'S LISTEN! DO SOMETHING WITH THESE VALUABLE COMMENTS! SOME OF THE OFFHAND, DEROGATORY REMARKS BY CERTAIN COUNCIL j MEMBERS REGARDING TOWN EMPLOYEES ARE EXTREMELY HARMFUL TO ~ MORALE. THIS IS THE FINEST GROUP OF EMPLOYEES I HAVE EVER BEEN ASSOCIATED WITH--INCLUDING PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS. LISTEN TO EMPLOYEES AND HAVE SUPERVISORS STOP HEAD HUNTING. PAY US FOR THE COST OF LIVING! i THE TOWN COUNCIL HAS NO CLUE HOW HARD JOV EMPLOYEES WORK. EVEN YOUR IMMEDIATE SUPERVISORS ASSUME YOUR WORK MUST BE NEAR PERFECT. IF IT'S NOT YOU GET HAMMERED ON EVALUATIONS. MINIMAL RECOGNITION OR POSITIVE MOTIVATION. i I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE HUSH--HUSH ENVIRONMENT OPENED UP AND ~ DISPEL THE SECRECTIVE REPUTATION THE TOV HAS. TOWN COUNCIL (REPRESENTS PUBLIC) HAS NO RESPECT FOR TOV EMPLOYEES. . ' ~ ~ TOWN OF VAIL PAGE- 46 MOUNTAIN STATES EMPLOYERS COUNCIL, INC. WRITTEN RESPONSES E. GENERAL COMMENTS: I'M TIRED OF THE RUN AROUND EMPLOYEES RELIEVE NO ONE WILL EVER GIVE A STRAIGHT ANSWER, THEY HAVE TO ^ASK SOMEONE^ AND THEY NEVER GET BACK TO YOUR. BOB MACH IS A MIDDLE MAN FOR WHAT THE COUNCIL WANTS, HE HAS TO BE THE LOAD GUY SO MANAGEMENT AND COUNCIL DON'T LOOK SO BAD. I HAVE A REAL GRIPE AS YOU MAY HAVE NOTICED WITH THE TOWN MANAGERS INABILITY TO DEAL WITH CRITICISM FROM THE COMMUNITY. CONSOLIDATION OF P.W. AND CDD IN SAME BLDG. WOULD BE MUCH MORE EFFECIENT AND COULD CREATE BETTER COOPERATION BETWEEN THESE TWO DEPTS. CONTINUAL SWITCHING OF PRIORITIES IS ALSO A CONCERN WITH MY DEPT. AS SOMEONE WHO KNOWS SOMEONE CALLS AND OTHER WORK IS PUSHED ASIDE TO RESPOND TO THE OLD BOY NETWORK CONNECTION. WITH MY DEPARTMENT THERE SEEMS TO BE MORE CONCERN FOR THE SEASONAL PEOPLE. AT ONE TIME THEY WERE EVEN MAKING MORE ' MONEY THAN THE FULL TIME. I FEEL THAT THEY THINK THEY WOULD SAVE MONEY BY HAVING LESS FULL-TIME EMPLOYEES, BUT .IT SEEMS THEY WASTE SO MUCH ON TURNOVER AND TRAINING. AND THROUGHOUT THE MANY YEARS I'VE WORKED, THE SUPERVISORS HAVE LITTLE RESPECT FROM EVERYONE BECAUSE OF THE WAY THEY DEAL tJITH PEOPLE. WE NEED SUPERVISION THAT IS THERE TO HELP YOU AND WORK WITH YOU, NOT PEOPLE ON POWER TRIPS. MAYBE MORE TRAINING ON HOW TO DEAL WITH PEOPLE TO MAKE THEM HAPPIER - WORKERS. SAME GOES FOR OUR NEW MANAGEMENT. I FEEL ' MANAGEMENT AND PERSONEL ARE NOT VERY HONEST AND IT SEEMS THAT SINCE THE TOWN IS A MUNICIPALITY, THEY CAN MAKE tJHAT EVER REGULATIONS THEY WANT AND EMPLOYEES HAVE NO RECOURSE BUT TO ALWAYS ACCEPT WHAT IS BEING HANDED DOtJN TO THEM. I FEEL THE TOV HAS A LOT OF GOOD EMPLOYEES WHO HAVE ENOUGH SELF RESPECT ABOUT THEMSELVES THAT THEY DO A GOOD JOB. I DON'T THINK MANAGEMENT HELPS WITH THAT RESPECT, SO I FEEL IN THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS THEY HAVE LOST SOME VERY VALUABLE EMPLOYEES. THERE ARE A LOT OF CHANGES GOING THROUGH THE ' BUS DEPARTMENT. THEY ARE TRYING TO MAKE OUR DEPARTMENT SIMILIAR TO THE OFFICES AND ADMINISTRATION. SO I FEEL WE ARE LOSING A LOT OF THINGS, WHICH MADE THE JOB APPEALING. MOST IMPORTANT IS FLEXIBILITY. I THINK OUR DEPARTMENT NEEDS TO BE HANDLED A LOT DIFFERENT FROM THE OTHER NINE TO FIVE ` JOBS. THE TOWN COUNCIL NEEDS TO BE VISIONARY IN THEIR DECISION MAKING AND NOT DO KNEE-JERK REACTIONS TO ISSUES OR DECISIONS. NO DECISION PLEASES EVERYONE, SO THEY NEED LISTEN TO ALL SIDES OF AN ISSUE BUT MAKE A DECISION THAT IS BEST FOR ALL OF US IN THE LONG HAUL. THEY SHOULD ALSO AVOID MICRO MANAGEMENT OF DEPTS AND PROJECTS. MY SUPERVISOR HAS DOUBLE STANDARDS. SHE COMES DOWN HARD ON ~ US IF WE ARE LATE TO MEETINGS, BUT SHE IS OFTEN LATE. TYPICAL OF MANY ISSUES. THOUGH I SENSE SHE IS HIGHLY I i i ' TOWN OF VAIL PAGE- 47 MOUNTAIN STATES EMPLOYERS COUNCIL, INC. WRITTEN RESPONSES E. GENERAL COMMENTS: CONCERNED ABOUT ME PERSONALLY. I FEEL THAT I AM NOT FREE TO EXPRESS MYSELF ABOUT WORK ISSUES. SHE HATES DISAGREEMENT. • I SENSE THAT IF I DISAGREE T00 MUCH I WOULD GET ON HER SHIT • LIST. ONCE THERE, THERE IS NO GETTING OFF IT. SHE IS HIGHLY CONCERNED ABOUT THE IMAGE OF OUR DEPARTMENT. IF WE DO ANYTHING WHICH MIGHT HURT THAT, SHE OVER REACTS. I FIND THAT I HAVE LEARNED TO BE VERY FLEXIBLE IN ORDER TO SERVIVE. BUT THIS CUTS DOWN ON MY PRODUCTIVITYiEFFICIENCY SIGNIFICANTLY. MY BOSS IS HIGHLY COMMITTED. SHE TRIES TO BE VERY FAIR. SHE CARES ABOUT US GENUINELY. BUT HER EXPECTATIONS ARE T00 HIGH. I FEEL THE TOV IS T00 TOP HEAVY. THE MANAGER AND HIS PERSONEL ARE PAID T00 HIGHLY AND BECAUSE OF THIS IT TAKES AWAY FROM THE BLUE COLLAR WORKER. THEY JUST KEEP CUTTING OUR PAY. THANKS FOR DOING THIS! I FEEL THAT THE TOWN STILL NEEDS TO REALIZE THAT IT IS NOT A CORPORATE INDUSTRY LIKE UA AND IT NEEDS TO REALTE TO THE EMPLOYEES NEEDS OF HOUSING, PAY AND THE 4JILLINGNESS OF BEING ABLE TO MAKE IT MORE COMFORTABLE FOR THE EMPLOYEE TO LIVE COMFORTABLE AND SATISFIED THAT THEY CAN REACH AND ACHIEVE THEIR GOALS IF THEY STAY WITH THE COMPANY FOR WHAT EVER t~ LENGTH OF TIME. I FEEL LIKE THE TOWN NOT ONLY DOES NOT UNDERSTAND OUR JOBS OR CONTRIBUTIONS, BU7 ALSO DOES NOT HAVE ANY DESIRE TO DO S0. THEY TAKE US FOR GRANTED AND THE TURNOVER RATE DOES NOT BOTHER THEM. OBVIOUSLY THERE ARE PROBLEMS OR MORE PEOPLE WOULD BE STAYING. IF THEY PAYED US WHAT WE 4JERE WORTH, MAYBE PEOPLE WOULD ENJOY THEIR JOBS MORE. THEY NEED TO SHOW US THEY APPRECIATE US AND THAT THEY BELIEVE WE ARE 4JORTH KEEPING AROUND. MANAGEMENT SHOULD CONSIDER TO GET THE JOB PROPERLY DONE IT TAKES TIME AND A LOT OF EFFORT, INCLUDING GOOD PEOPLE. HOPE THIS WILL HELP TO GET A LOT OF SMALL PROBLEMS SOLVED. THANK j YOU! I THE TOV DEPARTMENT HEADS MUST CREATE AN ENVIRONMENT IN THEIR - RESPECTIVE DEPARTMENT IN WHICH THE EXCELLENCE OF THE EMPLOYEES CAN PRESENT ITSELF. INSECURITIES AT THE DEPARTMENT HEAD LEVEL IS PRESENTLY KEEPING EMPLOYEES VOICES UNHEARD. DIFFERENCES IN THE UPPER MANAGEMENT MUST BE RESOLVED IN ORDER FOR THE TOWN TO PROGRESS. WHY MUST THE PERSONNEL DIRECTOR PROCTOR THIS SURVEY? THIS IS AN UNNECESSARY WASTE OF TOV MONEY! THE WORK LOAD IN OUR DEPT. IS INCREASING WHILE COMPETENT EMPLOYEE'S DECREASING SO PEOPLE l•JHO ARE GREAT ASSETS TO THE ' TOWN OF VAIL PAGE- 48 MOUNTAIN STATES EMPLOYERS COUNCIL, INC. WRITTEN RESPONSES E. GENERAL COMMENTS: LINE FOR INCOMPENTS WITHOUT BEING RECOGNIZED. IT TOOK TWO YR'S AND EIGHT MONTHS TO COME UP WITH A JOB TITLE THAT I HAVE BEEN DOING STILL JOB DESCRIPTION IS NOT AT HAND PLUS SALARY SURVEY HAS NOT BEEN COMPLETED. THE COUNCLE OR MANAGEMENT DOES NOT KNOW WHAT EACH DEPT. DOES--ONLY BY MANE--BOTH SHOULD SPEND SOME TIME ASKING EMPLOYEES AND BEING IN THE WORK AREA. ONLY INTERESTED IN WHICH THE PUBLIC CAN SEE NOT WHAT KEEP THE TOWN RUNNING FROM BEHIND SOME THAT THE PUBLIC NEVER SEES. A GOOD PLACE TO WORK, BUT DOES NEED CHANGES IN P.W. MANAGEMENT AND STOP THE TREATING A GROUP BETTER THAN THE OTHER. I FEEL THEY NEED TO LOOK MORE INTO THE AWARD OF 10,1520, YEAR EMPLOYEES. ALSO I FEEL THEY NEED TO GO BACK TO LONGEVITY AND DO AWAY WITH BONUS PROGRAMS. I THINK THE TOWN SHOULD OFFER THE AVERAGE WORKER THE TRAINING TO MOVE UP, INSTEAD OF ALWAYS LOOKING TO OUTSIDE OF THE TOWN FOR REPLACEMENT WORKER. PEOPLE 4JH0 HAVE BEEN HERE FOR OVER FIVE YEARS SHOULD BE LOOKED AT FOR JOBS INSTEAD OF PEOPLE WHO COME TO THE TOWN FOR THREE WEEKS AND LEAVE. PEOPLE THAT ARE DEDICATED TO THE TOWN SHOULD BE TREATED WITH MORE RESPECT THAN SOMEONE WHO WANTS TO SKI AND THEN FINDS THE LACK OF HOUSING AND HIGH COST OF LIVING NOT TO THEIR LIKING HIRE PEOPLE WHO CARE AND LIVE HERE! OVERALL THE TOWN OF VAIL IS A GREAT PLACE TO tJORK. WORK PROGRESS AND PRODUCTION IS OFTEN LIMITED BY A SHORTAGE OF WORK VEHICLES. MORE THAN THE REQUIRED NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES MUST BE SENT TO A JOB SITE BECAUSE THERE ARE NOT ENOUGH VEHICLES TO GO AROUND OR EMPLOYEES MUST BE SHUTTLED BECAUSE THERE ARE MORE WORKERS THAN SEAT BELTS. ALL "SUMMER USE^ VEHICLES HAVE TO BE JUSTIFIED WITH A "lJINTER USE^ ALSO, WHICH IS NOT ALWAYS POSSIBE. WORK VEHICLES ARE TOOLS, IT'S HARD TO GET THE JOB DONE WITHOUT THEM. ~ ~ SOME DEPARTMENT HEADS SHOULD NOT BE PUT INTO THE POSITION THAT THEY HAVE. MY SUPERVISOR DOES A GREAT JOB. THERE SHOULD HAVE BEEN MORE QUESTIONS ON THIS SURVEY ABOUT DEPT. HEADS. I AM GENERALLY QUITE CONTENT, EXCEPT FOR THE SLOlJ PAY INCREASES. TOV SHOULD BE ABLE TO HELP OUT EMPLOYEES THROUGH FLEXIBLE WORK SCHEDULES. WRITTEN RULES AND REG. THAT ARE FOLLOWED FOR EVERYONE, NOT OVERRIDE BY THE "IN" GROUP. BOB MACH NEEDS TO RETURN CALLS, GET BACK 4JITH PEOPLE WHEN HE TOWN OF VAIL PAGE- 49 MOUNTAIN STATES EMPLOYERS COUNCIL, INC. WRITTEN RESPONSES E. GENERAL COMMENTS: TELLS THEM HE'LL GET BACK TO THEM. THERE ARE A LOT OF THINGS THAT NEED TO BE ASKED LIKED, 1. CHILD CARE. 2. STAND-BY TIME. 3. BONUS PROGRAM. 4. BETTER BENEFITS FOR US. 5. SKI PASS BENEFITS. 6. EMPLOYEES WHO HAVE WORKED FOR THE T04JN TEN, FIFTEEN, TWENTY YEARS NEED SOMETHING. 7. WHAT ABOUT THE FEW OF US THAT REALLY CARE .A BOUT WORKING HERE, UNLIKE SOME PEOPLE WHO ARE HERE FOR THE MONEY. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE A BETTER CHANCE TO MOVE UP IN THE TOWN, LIKE FIRE THIS ONE SUPERVISOR WHO NO LONGER CARES. I KNOW I COULD DO A BETTER JOB. REVERTING BACK TO ALL OF ABOVE, IT COMES DOWN TO MANAGEMENT COMMUNICATING TO THE EMPLOYEES MUCH BETTER. T00 MANY THINGS GO ON TO LEAVE WORKERS IN SUCH DISARRAY. OUR CHARACTERISTICS HAVE CHANGED TONJARDS OUR JOBS BECAUSE OF T00 MUCH NIT-PICKING. LOSE THIS HERE, THAT THERE, PAY MORE, GET LESS. THE NITPICKING AND INCONSIDERATE PUBLIC IS THE MOST ANNOYING - PART OF THE JOB. . THE TOWN GOVERNMENT HAS PLAYED A DIRECT ROLE IN ESCALATING THE COST OF LIVING IN THIS AREA OVER THE LAST FIVE YEARS, AND ALMOST NOTHING HAS BEEN DONE TO ENSURE THAT HARD WORKING EMPLOYEES OF THE TOWN CAN LIVE AND SUPPORT THEIR FAMILIES ON THE SALARIES THE TOWN PAYS. THE COUNCIL HAS ZERO KNOWLEDGE OF WHAT WE D0, HOW 4JE DO IT, OR WHY WE DO OUR 4JORK. THEY VIEW US AS THE ENEMY--WE SPEND THEIR MONEY. THEY GIVE US UNCLEAR OR UNREALISTIC GOALS AND EXPECT UNREASONABLE PERFORMANCE. THEY EXPECT ALL THIS WHILE CUTTING BACK OUR PAYiBENEFITS BUT THEY STILL EXPECT US TO SMILE. i I REALLY ENJOY WORKING FOR THE TOWN. I FEEL THEY NEED TO ~ LOOK AT MORE ISSUES ON FULL-TIME PEOPLE AND FAMILIES TO HELP MAKE A MORE POSITIVE OUTLOOK AS A 4JHOLE IJITHItJ THE PEOPLE THAT WORK FOR THE TOWN, AND IN THE COMMUNITY. EMPLOYEES NEED TO FEEL HUMAN, TO HAVE THE ABILITY TO MAKE HONEST MISTAKES AS WELL AS SUCCESSES. THE TOWN, MANAGEMENT AND SUPERVISORS NEED TO ACCESS THE TREATMENT OF EMPLOYEES. IF YOU ACT A CERTAIN WAY AND GET IN WITH THE RIGHT PEOPLE YOU'VE GOT IT MADE IF NOT YOU GET A ~ PAYCHECK. AND I FIGURE THAT'S THE WAY IT 410ULD BE ANYWHERE SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT CAN BE DONE ABOUT THAT. THERE NEEDS TO I ' TOWN OF UAII PAGE- 50 • ~ MOUNTAIN STATES EMPLOYERS COUNCIL, INC. WRITTEN RESPONSES E. GENERAL COMMENTS: BE MORE UNDERSTANDING ABOUT THE COSTS AFFECTING THOSE WHO LIVE HERE AND DON'T MAKE THE MONEY UPPER MANAGEMENT IIOES. IT'S TIME THOSE "WORKING" FOR US ACTUALLY TAKE A STEP DOWN AND SEE WHAT WE REALLY NEED. I KN04J EVERYONE IS TRYING BUT TRYING CAN ONLY GO ON FOR SO LONG. WE WERE VERY EXCITED TO HAVE A NEW PERSONNEL DIRECTOR AND IT SEEMED LIKE PROGRESS WAS GOING TO EVENTUALLY HAPPEN. IT HAS BECOME EVIDENT LATELY THAT NO ONE IN UPPER MANAGEMENT HAS THE AUTHORITY TO MAKE THEIR OWN DECISIONS. EVERYTHING GOES THROUGH THE TOWN MANAGER, EVEN THE MOST MINOR ..SITUATION. THIS SEEMS LIKE A POOR WAY TO MANAGE--A DICTATORSHIP. THE COUNCIL SHOULD PAY ATTENTION TO EMPLOYEES NEEDS, AS VAIL GETS LARGER (NEW HOTELS, MORE LIFTS) AND SHOULD DO AWAY WITH "FIX IT IF IT AIN'T BROKE", "DO MORE WITH LESS", ATTITUDED ON THEIR BEHALF. WE ARE ALL PEOPLE TRYING TO SUCCEED HERE, AND WE SHOULD BE ON THE SAME SIDE OF THE FENCE. I CAN ONLY HOPE THAT SOMETHING POSITIVE CAN COME OUT OF THIS. HOPEFULLY MANAGEMENT WILL REALIZE THAT THEY ARE NOT °ALWAYS THINKING OF WHAT'S BEST FOR THE EMPLOYEE". MAYBE AT SMITLE SCHOOL MANAGEMENT SHOULD STAND UP AND INTRODUCE. THEMSELVES AND STATE WHAT THEY ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR. IT TOOK - ME TWO YRS TO FIND OUT WHO RON PHILLIPS 4JAS? NOW THAT'S NOT SAYING T00 MUCH FOR HIS RELATIONS 4JITH EMPLOYEES. I DON'T , - BELIEVE I'M THE ONLY ONE THAT FEELS LIKE THAT. I'M GLAD I HAVE BEEN GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO WORK FOR THE TOV. IT IS NICE TO WORK FOR A BUSINESS THAT DOES TRY TO TREAT ITS EMPLOYEES FAIRLY AND IS CONCERNED ABOUT THEIR WELFARE. I FEEL MY SUPERVISOR REALLY DOES CARE ABOUT HOW I FEEL CONCERNING MY JOB AND 4JANTS ME TO SUCCEED AND GIVES ME THE SUPPORT TO ACHIEVE THAT SUCCESS. ON THE WHOLE, THE TOV IS HEADED IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION BUT THE REALITY IS THAT THE COST OF LIVING HERE IS TOTALLY OUT OF SINC WITH THE SALARIES. IF LEADVILLE'S GAMBLING PASSES--YOU CAN BE SURE WE ARE ALL GOING 70 BE AFFECTED. IF i THERE ARE NOT ENOUGH EMPLOYEES TO SERVICE THE TOURISTS, ~ ~ MAYBE SOME OF THE PEOPLE RENTING OUT HOMES 41ILL DROP THEIR PRICES. IF NOT, I CAN'T SEE ME STAYING AROUPJD FOR LONG BECAUSE THE BENEFITS THE TOWN OFFERS DOES NOT PAY THE IMMEDIATE BILLS OR FEEDS OUR CHILDRE. I LIKE MY JOB FOR THE TOV. I HAVE HOPE FOR CHANGE IE NEW BUILDING ETC. IF I LOOSE SIGHT OF THAT GOAL BY TOWN COUNCIL CHANGES I WILL HAVE A DIFFICULT TIME LOOKING AT THE LONG TURN GOAL OF STAYING WITH THE TOWN. THE NIYLIE AND DINING OF BENEFITS IS DIFFICULT TO TAKE. POSSIBLY A FLEXIBLE i OPTION PLAN TO PICK AND CHOOSE. BENEFITS WOULD BE NICE. ALSO REMEMBER THAT MANY TOV EMPLOYEES HAVE FAMILIES AND AT . TOWN OF VAIL PAGE- 51 MOUNTAIN STATES EMPLOYERS COUNCIL, INC. WRITTEN RESPONSES - E. GENERAL COMMENTS: TIMES THE FAMILIES NEED TO FEEL PART OF THE TOV TEAM! FAMILIES MAKE A LOT OF SACRAFICES TO WORK AND PROVIDE A QUALITY PRODUCT USUALLY THE QUALITY EMPLOYEE PROVIDES QUALITY TO THE FAMILY AND SHOULD BE REWARDED FOR THEIR STANDARD, SACRAFICE, AND DEDICATION ALSO. VAIL IS A BEAUTIFUL PLACE TO LIVE, BUT IT IS A VERY HARD PLACE FOR A WORKING MAN TO MAKE A LIVING. THIS QUESTIONAIRE IS A GOOD FIRST STEP. IT IS GOOD TO GIVE THE EMPLOYEES A CHANCE TO TELL THE COUNCIL WHAT THEY THINK. THE TOWN USED TO BE A FUN PLACE TO WORK WITH HAPPY PEOPLE. IN THE LAST EIGHT TO NINE YEARS THAT HAS CHANGED. NOW IT'S JUST A JOB. THAT'S T00 BAD. IN WORKING FOR THE TOWN NOW A YEAR AND FIVE MONTHS I HAVE SEEN MOST OF IT. I HAVE BEEN OVERLOOKED BECAUSE I DIDN'T KNOW THE RIGHT PEOPLE. I HAVE SEEN PEOPLE GET LET GO BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T ^FIT IN". I WISH THE TOtJN WOULD GET SOME GUTS AND NOT BE RUN BY THE MERCHANTS WHO SEEM TO GET WHAT EVER THEY WANT. THE TOWN OF VAIL HAS EXCELLENT POTENTIAL TO BECOME A TOP EMPLOYER. HOWEVER, AT THIS POINT, THERE APPEARS TO BE T00 ~ LARGE OF A DIVISION BETWEEN THE EMPLOYEE AND EMPLOYER. V IF A DEPARTMENT NEEDS TO HAVE IT'S POLICIES RE-EVALUATED BY A COMMITTEE, THEN THAT COMMITTEE SHOULD BE FAMILIAR WITH THAT DEPARTMENT. IF THE COMMITTEE IS SELDOM EVER SEEN WITHIN THAT WORKPLACE THEY SHOULD NOT BE GIVEN THAT RESPONSIBILITY. HOW CAN SOMEONE WHO, NEVER SEES THE EMPLOYEES OR THEIR WORKPLACE HAVE ANY IDEA NOJd TO EVALUATE AND RECONSTRUCT POLICIES? THERE IS SOMETHING SERIOUSLY WRONG HERE. IF INTER-DEPARTMENTAL COMMUNICATION 4JERE ENHANCED THIS WOULD MAKE FOR AN OVERALL COHESIVENESS. MAYBE THERE IS T00 MUCH POLITICS INVOLVED WHERE IMPROVEMENTS SHOULD BE MADE. THIS SURVEY WAS LONG OVERDUE AS MUCH AS IT WAS NECESSARY. 4 I HAD NO COMMENT ABOUT THE COUNSEL BECAUSE I DO NOT KNODJ , ! THEM OR THEIR OPINION OF THE P.D. EXCEPT (MERV) HE HATES US. I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE MORE TIME TO STUDY AND LEARN THE FULL DETAILS INVOLVED WITH ALL OF THE PAPER I PUSH. BUT, AND I THINK IT IS BECAUSE THIS 4JOULD REQUIRE OT, I AM ENCOURAGED JUST TO GET THINGS DONE--WHETHER I REALLY UNDERSTAND OR NOT. I WOULD LIKE TO NOT FEEL GUILTY WHEN I SPEND EXTRA TIME--EVEN UNPAID--WORKING ,ON PROJECTS I FEEL I NEED TO BETTER UNDERSTAND. T00 MUCH FAVORITISM WITH ONE OR T4lO EMPLOYEES. NIT PICKING, C_ SUPERVISORS HIDING AND SPYING ON EMPLOYEES. i TOWN OF VAIL PAGE- 52 ' MOUNTAIN STATES EMPLOYERS COUNCIL, INC. WRITTEN RESPONSES r E. GENERAL COMMENTS: THE TOV CARES MORE ABOUT MONEY THAN THE EMPLOYEE. LONGEVITY MEAN SNOTHING; DEDICAITON, PPL. SKILLS, EDUCATION MEAN NOTHING; IF YOUR A FEMALE. YOU DON'T STAND A CHANCE! I WISH PERSONNEL WOULD ACT AS THE EMPLOYEES' REPRESENTATIVE TO MANAGEMENT RATHER THAN AS MANAGEMENT'S REPRESENTATIVE TO U5. THE APPRAISAL INTERVIEW IS LIKE A NAUGHTY CHILD'S TRIP TO THE PRINICIPAL'S OFFICE--DEMEANING, DISINCENTING. HOPEFULLY THESE SURVEYS WILL HELP SOMEWAY TO OPEN THE EYES OF OUR MANAGEMENT BECAUSE THIS IS A 4JONDERFUL.PLACE AND DESERVES BETTER LEADERSHIP TO MAKE EVERYONE ON IT HAPPY. HOW CAN IDEAS MOVE THROUGH THE ORGANIZATION. GOOD PEOPLE ARE BEING LOST. LEADERSHIP STIFLES INNOVATION AND DISCOURSE. FOR THE MOST PART, TOV IS PROBABLY THE BEST PLACE IN THE VALLEY TO WORK. WE SHOULD MOVE MORE QUICKLY IN OUR HIRING PRACTICES. GOOD CANDIDATES ARE FINDING OTHER EMPLOYEMENT. WE SHOULD ALSO COMMUNICATE BETTER WITH CANDIDATES--LETTING THEM KNOW WE'VE RECD. THEIR APPLICATIONS, AND WHAT STAGE, IF ANY, THEY'RE ff IN DURING THE HIRING PROCESS. l.^ THE COUNCIL APPEARS TO BE T00 WILLING TO SACRIFICE THE LOCAL COMMUNITY AL T00 OFTEN TO FULFILL THE PASSING WHIM OF THE TOURISM ORIENTED BUSINESS COMMUNITY. THERE SHOULD BE A MORE BALANCED APPROACH. OTHER RESORT COMMUNITIES APPEAR TO MAINTAIN A BETTER SENSE OF ^COMMUNITY". IT IS LACKING HERE IN A BIG WAY! WORKING AT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT IS LIKE WORKING WITHIN A °CLASS-CONSCIOUS SYSTEM". YOU ARE TREATED ACCORDING TO THE POSITION YOU HOLD. USE THIS SURV EY TO MAKE CHANGES, DON'T SIMPLY LOOK AT THE RESULTS AND CONTINUE DOING THINGS THE SAME. I ~ NICE DAY TODAY. 1 THE SKI PASS BENEFIT IS NOW CONSIDERED INCOME FOR TAX PURPOSES SO IT NOW COSTS ALMOST ONE HALF OF 4JHAT THE PASS IS WORTH. TOV COULD PROVIDE A BETTER SKI PACKAGE. ALSO, FAMILY PACKAGES SHOULD BE LOOKED INTO. BRING BACK THE TOV SKI DAYS--WITH ORGANIZED TOV ACTIVITIES (I.E. RACES, LUNCH, ETC.). AS A SUPERVISOR WHO HAS ATTENDED A NUMBER OF COUNCIL MEETINGS, IT SEEMS AS IF COUNCIL DOES NOT TRUST ITS STAFF, INCLUDING THE TOWN MANAGER. COUNCIL NEEDS TO REALIZE THAT TOWN OF VAIL PAGE- 53 ` MOUNTAIN STATES EMPLOYERS COUNCIL, INC. ' WRITTEN RESPONSES E. GENERAL COMMENTS: THEY PAY A GREAT DEAL TO THOSE "PROFESSIONALS" TO MAKE STAFF RELATED DECISIONS. IF THEY DON'T TRUST THEIR STAFF, THEY SHOULD REPLACE THEM. THEY SHOULD NOT CONSTANTLY SECOND GUESS THEIR DECISIONS. OVERALL, THE TOV IS A VERY GOOD PLACE TO WORK. I CAN'T SEE MYSELF LEAVING FOR MANY YEARS. UNFORTUNATELY, OTHERS DON'T SEE IT AS I D0. COUNCIL NEEDS TO BE COGNIZANT OF IT AND WORK TO RETAIN EXCELLENT EMPLOYEES WHO ARE ON THE BUBBLE AND TO IMPROVE THE STANDARD OF LIVING OF ALL EMPLOYEES. IN PUBLIC WORKS THE COMMENTS ON A SUPERVISOR ARE BASED ON THERE BEING NO REAL DEPARTMENT HEAD IN THE LAST YEAR AND A HALF. OPINIONS ON QUESTIONS REGARDING TEAMWORK, DIRECTION, COMMUNICATION WERE EXTREMELY BETTER PRIOR TO STAN BERRYMAN LEAVING. I LOOK FORWARD TO THE NEW DIRECTOR COMING ON BOARD SO THE DEPARTMENT CAN GET ON WITH ITS WORK. IN GENERAL THE TOtJN IS A GOOD EMPLOYER, HOWEVER THEY ARE NOT AS PRISTINE AND WONDERFUL AS THEY THINK THEY ARE. •THE ATTITUDE THAT YOU ARE LUCKY TO WORK FOR THE TOV NEEDS TO BE DROPPED. YES, THERE ARE GOOD BENEFITS, BUT THE PEOPLE PUT UP WITH ALOT AND WORK VERY HARD 4JHICH IS NOT ALWAYS RECOGNIZED. THE REALITY IS THAT THERE ARE AS MANY DEMANDS _ ON THE TOV EMPLOYEE (COMDEV) AS YOU 4JOULD FIND IN A LARGER CITY, H04JEVER THIS IS NOT RECOGNIZED NOR IS IT DEALT WITH ACCORDINGLY. PROJECTS DO NOT SEEM TO BE THOUGHT OUT COMPLETELY BEFORE THEY ARE STARTED. NO REWARD FOR NOT SPENDING ALL OF A YEARS BUDET SO WHEN YOU DO NEED MORE BUDGET FOR ONE YEAR YOU DON'T GET IT. WE NEED MORE MONEY TO BE ABLE TO LIVE IN THIS AREA AND MAKE ROOTS. I FEEL FANTASTIC TO WORK FOR AN ORGANIZATION LIKE THE TOV...IT'S A FIRST-CLASS, DEDICATED OPERATION. j I REALLY LIKE MY JOB! MY COMPLAINTS, I BELIEVE, 4lOULD BE ~ APPLICABLE TO ANY JOB! AN ORGANIZATION SHOULD CONTINUE ~ TO STRIVE TO BE FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE TO THE TAXPAYERS AND ' CONSISTENT AND HONEST WITH THEIR EMPLOYEES. FD STATIONS NEED MORE SPACE AND BETTER SAFER WORKItJG CONDITIONS LIBRARY MANAGEMENT IS OKAY. HOWEVER, TOV DOESN'T ACKNOWLEDGE OUR "PROBLEMS". THEY WANT TO BELIEVE THE LIBRARY IS FUN AND GAMES. WILL THE LIBRARY STAFF EVER TALK TO COUNCIL? MOST LIBRARIES HAVE LIBRARY BOARDS, WHY DOESN'T t, VAIL?...AT LEAST WE ARE NOT REPORTING TO THE ASST. TOWN i ' TOWN OF VAIL PAGE- 54 MOUNTAIN STATES EMPLOYERS COUNCIL, INC. WRITTEN RESPONSES E. GENERAL COMMENTS: ~r MANAGER. TOV OFFICES ADD PEOPLE MORE EASILY THEN OTHER DEPARTMENTS. THERE ARE MORE PEOPLE IN THE MUNI BUILDING THAN THERE USE TO BE. IS ANYONE IN CHARGE IN ACCOUNTING? THIS STAFF DOES NOT SERVE THE TOWN OF VAIL DEPARTMENTS...WE SERVE THEM. STAFF ARE SURLY AND UNHELPFUL. MY SUPERVISOR WOULD TALK TO ME IF I HAD THEIR ATTITUDE. MAYOR PEGGY IS DOING A GOOD JOB. SHE NEEDS TO CONTINUE AND NOT BE DISCOURAGED. CHILDCARE. WILL THE DAY EVER COME THAT VAIL DOES NOT THEN TALK ABOUT IT. ASK BOB MACH TO COME UP WITH OPTIONS. THERE IS AN INNER CIRCLE WHO MAKES MANAGEMENT DECISIONS...RON, PAM, STEVE B AND KEN H. MY DH IS NOT PART OF THIS CIRCLE AND I FEEL WE LOSE AS A RESULT. RON MIGHT BROADEN THE CIRCLE IF HE DIDN'T FEAR FOR HIS JOB. LAST ELECTION WAS UNSETTLING. WHY IS THE PERSONNEL MANAGER REPORTING TO FINANCE? HE REPRESENTS THE EMPLOYEES. l i ~ , ~ ~ ~ l EMPLOYEE OPINION SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE PREPARED FOR: TOWN O F VAI L MOUNTAIN STA7E3 EMPI~ ~ w COUNCIL WC. P. O. Box S39 Dsnvu, Colorado 802014539 C~3) 8393177 June 1992 EMPLOYEE OPINION SURVEY FOR TOWN OF vAIL KT1 • ~ ~ 6192 I_ INSTRUCTIONS= ~ THE PURPOSE OF THIS SURVEY IS TO HELP THE TOWN OF VAIL MAKE THIS A BETTER PLACE TO WORK. PLEASE DO NOT SIGN YOUR NAME. YOUR OPINIONS WILL NOT BE IDENTIFIED AS YOURS. NO ONE FROM THE TOWN OF VAIL WIII EVER SEE THIS QUESTIONNAIRE. AT THE BEGINNING OF THE SURVEY YOU ARE ASKED TO GIVE CERTAIN INFORMATION (FOR EXAMPLE WHERE YOU WORK). THIS ALLOWS MOUNTAIN STATES EMPLOYERS COUNCIL TO SORT OPINIONS INTO SPECIFIC GROUPS SO CHANGES CAN BE CONSIDERED FOR THOSE AREAS. ANY GROUP WITH LESS THAN 5 EMPLOYEES WIII NOT BE RE- PORTED BY ITSELF. INSTEAD IT WILL BE ADDED 70 A LARGER GROUP TO KEEP YOUR OPINIONS CONFIDENTIAL. RESULTS OF THE SURVEY ARE ONLY SORTED BY ONE CHARACTERISTIC AT A TIME TO ENSURE YOUR REPLY REMAINS ANONYMOUS. TWO OR MORE CHARACTER- ISTICS ARE NEVER COMBINED FOR ANY REPORT (FOR EXAMPLE, WHERE YOU WORK AND SHIFT). GIVE ONLY ONE ANSWER FOR EACH MULTIPLE CHOICE QUESTION. CIRCLE THE NUMBER IN THE BOX WHICH IS CLOSEST TO YOUR OPINION. FOR PURPOSES OF THIS SURVEY, YOUR SUPERVISOR IS THE PERSON WHO ASSIGNS WORK AND REVIEWS YOUR PERFORMANCE. MANAGEMENT REFER5 TO THE TOWN MANAGER, THE DEPARTMENT HEADS, PUBLIC RELATIONS AND THE ASSISTANT TO THE TOWN MANAGER. THE COUNCIL REFERS TO THE VAIL 70WN COUNCIL. AT THE END OF THE SURVEY YOU ARE INVITED TO WRITE YOUR OPINION ON SPECIFIC QUESTIONS. PLEASE WRITE AS MUCH AS YOU " LIKE ABOUT ANY OF THE QUESTIONS ON THESE PAGES. PLEASE BE HONEST AS YOU ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS. NO EMPLOYEE WILL BE IDENTIFIED' THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION. II. YOUR CHARACTERISTICS (PLEASE CHECK THE APPROPRIATE RESPONSE) 1. WHERE DO YOU WORK?, 1 FIRE DEPARTMENT 2 POLICE DEPARTMENT ' 3 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 4 PUBLIC WORKS ADMINISTRATIONiROADS & STREETS MAINTENANCE 5 BUS DEPARTMENT 6 PARKING STRUCTURES 7 LANDSCAPING 8 PARKS 8 FLEET MAINTENANCE 9 AD1iIN SSIrVIC'SS - DATA PttOC. /g~~ & SALBS TAZ/PKR.S...k.?a../l~iJNICIPAL wv~ 10 LIBRARY 11 DEPARTMENT HEAD 12 TOWN MANAGEMENT (Town Hanager, Tows Attorney, Town Clerk'e Office, . Public Relations, Office Support) CONDUCTED BY MOUNTAIN STATES EMPLOYERS COUNCIL, INC. • • II. YOUR CHARACTERISTICS 2. PAY STATUS I HOURLY 2 SALARIED 3. SHIFT I DAY (8AM - SPM) 2 SWING (SPM - MIDNIGHT) NOTE: ~APPRO%I?1ATE SHIFT TIISES 3 NIGHT (11PM - 7AM) 4. SEX 1 FEMALE 2 MALE 5. AGE 1 18 YEARS 2 19 - 29 YEARS 3 30 - 39 YEARS 4 40 - 49 YEARS 5 50 - 59 YEARS 6 60 - 69 YEARS t^ CONDUCTED BY MOUNTAIN STATES EMPLOYERS COUNCIL, INC. • III. QUESTIONNAIRE ~ t J ~ PLEASE ANSWER EACH QUESTION. CHOOSE ONLY ONE ANSWER. I MOST I I I ALMOST II NO I I ALWAYS I OFTEN I SELDOM 1 NEVER II OPINIONI I I I i II I i I I i II I 1. DOES THE TOV MAKE AN ADEQUATE I 1 I 2 I 3 I 4 II 5 I EFFORT TO TELL YOU HOW PAY IS I I I I II I DETERMINED? I I I I II I I I I II I 2. IS THE TEMPERATURE IN YOUR I 1 I 2 I 3 I 4 II 5 I WORK AREA PROPERLY REGULATED? I I I I II I I I i i II I 3. IS YOUR WORK AREA CLEAN? I 1 I 2 1 3 1 4 II 5 I I I I I II I 4. I FEEL THE EMPLOYEE COST FOR I 1 I 2 I 3 I 4 II 5 I MEDICALiDENTAI INSURANCE IS I I I I II I REASONABLE. ( I I I II I I I I i II 1 5. DOES YOUR SUPERVISOR CARE I 1 I 2 I 3 I 4 II 5 I ABOUT YOU AS A PERSON? I I I I it I I i I I II I 6. DO YOU RECEIVE ENOUGH RECOG- I 1 I 2 I 3 I 4 II 5 I NITION FOR THE WORK YOU DO? I I I I II I i I I I II I 7. ARE SUGGESTIONS YOU MAKE FOR I 1 i 2 i 3 i 4 II 5 I IMPROVEMENT LISTENED TO AND I I I I II I CONSIDERED BY MANAGEMENT? I I I I II I I i I I II 1 8. DOES YOUR DEPARTMENT HEAD TAKE I 1 I 2 I 3 I 4 Il 5 TIME TO TALK WITH THE I I I I II ~ I EMPLOYEES? I i I I II I I I i I II i 9. ARE YOU PAID ACCORDING TO WHAT I 1 I 2 I 3 I 4 II 5 I YOUR JOB IS WORTH TO THE TOV? I I I I II 1 I I I I it I 10. ARE THE WASHROOMS AND REST- I 1 I 2 I 3 I 4 11 5 I ROOMS CLEAN? I I 1 I II I i I I I II I 11. IS OVERTIME ADMINISTERED ON A I 1 I 2 I 3 I 4 II 5 I FAIR AND EQUITABLE BASIS IN I ( I ( II I YOUR DEPARTMENT? .I I I I II I I I I I II i 12. DO YOU FEEL TOWS BENEFITS ARE I 1 I 2 I 3 I 4 II 5 I ADEQUATE 70 MEET YOUR NEEDS? .I I I I II I` 1 I I i II I " I3. ARE EMPLOYEES TREATED FAIRLY I 1 I 2 I 3 I 4 II 5 I. BY YOUR SUPERVISOR? I I I I II I i I I I II I 14. ARE THERE OPPORTUNITIES FOR i 1 I 2 I 3 1 4 II 5 I ADVANCEMENT FOR QUALIFIED I I I I II I EMPLOYEES IN THE TOV? I I I I II I I I I I II I 15. DOES MANAGEMENT DO AN ADEQUATE I 1 I 2 I 3 I 4 II 5 I JOB OF KEEPING YOU INFORMED AS I I I I II I TO IMPORTANT ISSUES INVOLVING I I I I II I YOU? I I I I II I CONDUCTED BY MOUNTAIN STATES EMPLOYERS COUNCIL, INC. ' . J I MOST I ( I ALMOST II NO I I ALWAYS I OFTEN I SELDOM I NEVER 11 OPINIONI . I I I I II I I. I II I I6. IN GENERAL, DOES MANAGEMENT I 1 I 2 I 3 I 4 II 5 I KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON AT YOUR I I 'I I II I LEVEL OF THE ORGANIZATION? I I I I II I 1 I I I II I 17. DOES YOUR PAY PROVIDE YOU WITH I 1 I 2 I 3 I 4 II 5 I A REASONABLE STANDARD OF I I I I II I LIVING AND LIFESTYLE? ,I I I I II I I I i I II I I8. IS THERE A LACK OF CONCERN FOR I 1 I 2 I 3 i 4 II 5 I THE SAFETY OF THE EMPLOYEES OF I I I I II THE TOV? .I I I I II I I I I I II I I9. ARE YOU SATISFIED WITH YOUR I 1 I 2 i 3 I 4 II 5 I CURRENT WORK SCHEDULE? 1 I I I II I I I I I II I 20. DO YOU FEEL THE TOV HAS I 1 I 2 I 3 I 4 I) 5 I ADEQUATELY COMMUNICATED TO YOU I I ( I II I THE BENEFITS FOR WHICH YOU ARE I I 1 I II I ELIGIBLE? I I I I II 1 I I I I II I 21. DO YOU LOOK FORWARD TO COMING I 1 I 2 I 3 1 4 II 5 I TO WORK? I I I I II I I I I I II I 22. OVERALL, ARE BENEFITS OFFERED I 1 I 2 I 3 I 4 II 5 I AT THE TOV AS GOOD AS BENEFITS I I I I II I OFFERED BY OTHER ORGANI- I I I I II I ZATIONS? I I I I II I I I I I II I 23. WHEN CHANGES ARE MADE IN THE I 1 I 2 I 3 I 4 II 5 I OPERATION AT THE TOV, DO YOU I I I I ii I FEEL THE INTERESTS OF I I I I II I EMPLOYEES ARE CONSIDERED? I I I I it I I I I i II I 24. DO THE COUNCIL MEMBERS UNDER- I 1 i 2 I 3 I 4 II 5 I STAND THE NEEDS OF EMPLOYEES I I I I II I AND THEIR FAMILIES? I I I I II I I I I I II I 25. I FEEL THE SKI PASS BENEFIT IS I 1 I 2 I 3 I 4 II 5 I VALUABLE. I I I I II I I ~ I I. I II I 26. IS THE LIGHTING OF YOUR WORK I 1 I 2 I 3 I 4 II 5 I` AREA SUFFICIENT FOR YOU TO DO I I I I II I YOUR BEST WORK? I I I I II 1 I I I I II I 27. DOES YOUR SUPERVISOR TELL YOU I 1 I 2 I 3 I 4 II 5 I WHEN YOU'VE DONE A GOOD JOB? I I I I II I I I I II I 28. DOES THE COUNCIL BELIEVE THAT I 1 I 2 i 3 I 4 II 5 I TOV EMPLOYEES ARE BEING OVER- I I I I II I PAID FOR THEIR WORK? ,I I I 1 II I CONDUCTED BY MOUNTAIN STATES EMPLOYERS COUNCIL, INC. ~ I MOST I I I ALMOST II NO I I ALWAYS I OFTEN 1 SELDOM I NEVER II OPINIONI 1 I I 1 II I 1 I i I II I 29. DO YOU FEEL MANAGEMENT i 1 I 2 I 3 I 4 II 5 I ENCOURAGES EMPLOYEES TO I I I I II I DO THEIR BEST WORK? I I I I II I I I I I II 1 30. IS THE COMMUNICATION FROM TOWN I 1 I 2 I 3 I 4 II 5 I MANAGEMENT USUALLY OPEN AND I I I I II I HONEST? I I I I II I I I I II I 31. ARE THE AMOUNTS OF PAY I 1 I 2 I 3 I 4 II 5 I INCREASES YOU RECEIVE I I ( I II I ADEQUATE? I I I I~ II I, I I I I II I 32. ARE SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS I 1 I Z I 3 I 4 11 5 I AVAILABLE WHEN YOU NEED THEM? 1 I I I II I, I I I I II I 33. IS YOUR SUPERVISOR HONEST WITH I 1 I 2 I 3 I 4 II 5 I YOU? I I I I II I I I I I II I 34. DOES THE TOV FILL JOBS FROM I 1 I 2 I 3 I 4 II 5 I OUTSIDE WHEN THERE ARE QUALI- I I I I II I FIED PEOPLE WITHIN WHO WANT I I ( I II I THE JOB? I i I I II I I I I I II I 35. IS MANAGEMENT CONCERNED ABOUT ( 1 I 2 I 3 I 4 II 5 I YOU AS AN INDIVIDUAL? I I I I II I - I I I I II I 36. IS THE TOWN MANAGER OPEN TO I 1 I 2 i '3 I 4 II 5 I TALK WITH EMPLOYEES? I I i I II I I I i I II I 37. ARE YOUR COWORKERS HELPFUL AND I 1 I 2 I 3 I 4 II 5 I COOPERATIVE? I I I I II I I I I I it I 38. HAS YOUR SUPERVISOR BUILT I 1 I 2 I 3 I 4 II 5 I A GOOD TEAM OF PEOPLE? I I i I II I I I I i II i 39. DOES MANAGEMENT LET YOU KNOW ( 1 I 2 I 3 I 4 II 5 I ABOUT CHANGES BEFORE THEY ARE I I I I II MADE? i I I I II I I 1 I I II i 40. DO MANAGEMENT DECISIONS i 1 I 2 I 3 I 4 II 5 I PLACE ROADBLOCKS IN THE WAY I I I I II I OF PRODUCTIVITY? I I I I II I` I I I II I ' 41. OVERALL, DOES EVERYONE FEEL I 1 I 2 I 3 I 4 11 5 I FREE TO SPEAK-UP AND SAY WHAT I I I I II THEY THINK? 1 I I I II I i I I I ~ II I 42. IS YOUR WORK SPACE SUFFICIENT I 1 1 2 I 3 I 4 II 5 I IN SIZE TO DO YOUR JOB I I ( I II I EFFECTIVELY? I I 1 I II I CONDUCTED BY MOUNTAIN STATES EMPLOYERS COUNCIL, INC. ' I MOST I I I ALMOST II NO I I ALWAYS I OFTEN I SELDOM I NEVER II OPINION) I 1 I II I I I I I II 43. IS YOUR SUPERVISOR WILLING I 1 I 2 I 3 I 4 II 5 TO HELP OR ANSWER QUESTIONS I I I I II I YOU HAVE CONCERNING YOUR WORK? I I I I II I I I it I 44. IS YOUR JOB CHALLENGING ENOUGH I 1 I 2 I 3 I 4 II 5 i TO USE YOUR FULL ABILITIES? I I I I II 1 I I I I it I 45. DO YOU FEEL MANAGEMENT WILL I 1 I 2 I 3 I 4 II 5 I TAKE STEPS TO CORRECT THE I I I I II I PROBLEMS IDENTIFIED BY THIS i I ( I II I SURVEY? I I I I II I I I I II 46. IS 7HE COUNCIL COST CONSCIOUS? i I I 2 I 3 I 4 II 5 I I I I I II i 47. DOES YOUR SUPERVISOR LET YOU I 1 I 2 I 3 I 4 II 5 I KNOW EXACTLY WHAT IS EXPECTED I I I I II OF YOU? I I I I II I I I I I II i 48. WOULD YOU ACCEPT A JOB AT I 1 I 2 I 3 I 4 II 5 I ANOTHER ORGANIZATION DOING THE I i I I II I SAME JOB AS YOU DO HERE, WITH I I I I ii I THE SAME PAY AND BENEFITS? 1 I I I I) I I I I I II I 49. ARE YOU RECEIVING ADEQUATE I 1 I 2 I 3 I 4 II 5 I TRAINING TO DO ALL ASPECTS OF I I I I II I YOUR JOB PROPERLY? I I I I II I I I I I II I 50. IS THERE A PROBLEM WITH I 1 I 2 I 3 i 4 II 5~ I RECEIVING DIRECTIONS FROM I I I I II I MORE THAN ONE PERSON? I I I I II I I I I I II I 51. DO YOU FEEL THE OVERALL ATTI- I 1 ( 2 I 3 I 4 II 5 I TUDE OF TOV EMPLOYEES TOWARD I I I I II I THEIR JOBS IS POSITIVE? I I I I It I I I I I II I 52. DO YOU FEEL FREE TO DISAGREE I 1 I 2 I 3 I 4 II 5 I WITH YOUR SUPERVISOR WITHOUT I I I I II I FEAR OF REPRISAL? I I I I II I I I I I II I 53. DOES THE COUNCIL RESPECT AND I 1 I 2 I 3 I 4 II 5 I SUPPORT THE WORK OF THE TOV I I I I II I EMPLOYEES? I I i I II I I I I II I 54. ARE PROMOTIONS AT THE TOV I 1 I 2 I 3 I 4 II 5 I GIVEN TO THE MOST QUALIFIED I I I I II I PEOPLE? I I I I II I I I I II I 55. DO YOU HAVE A LOT OF FREEDOM I 1 I 2 I 3 I 4 II 5 I TO GET YOUR JOB DONE? I I I I II I I I I II 56. DO YOU ENJOY YOUR JOB HERE? ,I 1 I 2 I 3 I 4 11 5 I CONDUCTED BY MOUNTAIN STATES EMPLOYERS COUNCIL, INC. w ' ~ I MOST I I I ALMOST II NO I I ALWAYS I OFTEN I SELDOM I NEVER II OPINIONI I I I I II I I I i i II 5T. WHEN YOU HAVE A WORK RELATED i 1 I 2 I 3 I 4 II 5 I PROBLEM, DO YOU GO TO YOUR I I I I II I SUPERVISOR FOR HELP? ,I I i I II I I I I I II I 58. ARE YOU GIVEN A CHANCE TO USE I 1 I 2 I 3 I 4 II 5 I YOUR OWN JUDGMENT WHERE CON- I I ( I II I DITIONS WARRANT IT? I I I I II I I I I I II I 59. ARE YOU ENCOURAGED TO WORK I 1 I 2 I 3 I 4 II 5 I TOWARD YOUR PERSONAL GOALS I I I I II 1 AND OBJECTIVES AT THE TOV? 1 I I I II I I I I I II I 60. ARE COMPLAINTS AND CRITICISMS I 1 I 2 I 3 I 4 II 5 I HANDLED FAIRLY BY YOUR I I I I II I SUPERVISOR? I I 1 t II I I i I i I I I 61. DO THE COUNCIL MEMBERS UNDER- I 1 I 2 I 3 I 4 II 5 I STAND THE WORK OF THE TOV I I I I II I EMPLOYEES? I 1 I I II I I i I I II I 62. ARE YOU ENCOURAGED TO MAKE I 1 i 2 I 3 i. 4 II 5 I SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVING YOUR I I I I II I WORK? I I I I II I I I I I II I 63. IS THE COUNCIL IN TOUCH WITH I 1 I 2 I 3 I 4 II 5 I THE NEEDS OF THE COMMUNITY? I I I I II I _ I I I I II I 64. DOES MANAGEMENT TRY TO MAKE I 1 I 2 I 3 I 4 II 5 I THE TOV A GOOD PLACE TO WORK? I I I I II I I I I I II I 65. ARE YOU KEPT INFORMED ABOUT I 1 I 2 I 3 I 4 II 5 I THE THINGS YOU NEED TO KNOW TO I I I I II I DO YOUR JOB PROPERLY? I I I I II I I I I I II I 66. IS THE TOWN MANAGER WILLING TO I 1 I 2 I 3 I 4 II 5 I TALK WITH ANY EMPLOYEE IF THEY I I I I II I DESIRE? I I I I II I CONDUCTED BY MOUNTAIN STATES EMPLOYERS COUNCIL, INC. . .t ~ +l, . ? . A. WHAT I REALLY LIKE ABOUT THE TOV IS: h B. WHAT I REALLY DISLIKE ABOUT THE TOV IS: C. WHAT IMPROVEMENTS OR CHANGES WOULD YOU RECOMMEND TO HELP MAKE THE TOV A BETTER PLACE TO WORK? - D. WHAT IS YOUR BEST SOURCE OF INFORMATION AT 7HE TOV? E. GENERAL COMMENTS: ' THANK YOU FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION. THE RESULTS OF THIS SURVEY WILL BE COMMUNICATED AS SOON AS THEY CAN BE COMPILED. . PLEASE ~ NOT SIGN YOUR NAME CONDUCTED BY MOUNTAIN STATES EMPLOYERS COUNCIL, INC. i