HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-10-05 Support Documentation Town Council Regular Session VAIL TOUVN COUNCIL ~~~~I~~ ~~~~I~~. SUES®A~, ®Clr®~ER 5, ~ J93 7:30 IP.~. t~ ~®b C®t.@t~IC9L CHAtVI~ERS (EXPA6V~fE® AGENDA 7:30 P.M. 1. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION. 7:35 P.M. 2. Consent Agenda: Approval of the Minutes of the September 7, 1993, and September 21, 1993, Vail Town Council Evening Meetings. 7:40 P.M. 3. Ordinance No. 22, Series of 1993, second reading, an ordinance Tom Moorhead submitting to the registered electors of the Town of Vail at the Steve Thompson Regular Municipal Election to be held an Tuesday, the 16th of November, 1993, the question of whether the Town of Vail sales taxes should increase $2,100,000.00 annually by the imposition of anew sales tax of 0.9% on restaurants and bars and a new sales tax of 1.8% on lodging beginning on January 1, 1994, and each subsequent year; the annual revenues shall be designated exclusively for the construction, marketing and operation of a performance and conference center; authorizing the Town of Vail to increase debt up to $12,600,000.00 by issuance of negotiable interest bearing bonds for the purpose of providing the construction, marketing and operation of a performance and conference center; providing for the cessation of such portion of the tax increase that is no longer necessary to service the revenue bonds; setting forth the ballot title; providing for notice of the election; providing far conduct of the election; providing further details in relation to the foregoing. Action Requested of Council: Approve/deny/modify Ordinance No. 22, Series of 1993, on second reading. Staff Recommendation: Pass Ordinance No. 22, Series of 1993, on second reading. 8:00 P.M. 4. Ordinance No. 24, Series of 1993, first reading, an ordinance Sally Lorton repealing and reenacting Section 3.40.170 of the Municipal Code Steve Thompson of the Town of Vail deleting the definition of "charitable." Action Reauested of Council: Approve/deny/modify Ordinance Na. 22, Series of 1993, on second reading. Background Rationale: This ordinance would remove present restrictive definition of "charitable organization" presently in TOV's Municipal Code. Staff Recommendation: Approve Ordinance No. 24, Series of 1993, on first reading. 8:10 P.M. 5. Public Hearing Re: Parking Structure Rates. Peggy Osterfoss 1 9:00 P.M. 6. Adjournment. ~®lff~ UfPC®MIR9G MEE~B~G S1TAR~ ~SMES SELODU: SHE f~E~C~ VA~L ~®~iV~l C®UP~CiL REGULAR !N®RK SESS901~ i~N~LL ~E ®~I ~'UES®~a~, 1 0112193, SEGINNIIVG A~ ~ 1:00 A.M. ~N ~OV COU~CBL CHAMBERS. SHE E~9LL®W9~IG VAIL ~®W~9 C®UNCIL REGULAR W®R&C SESS90~4 l~9LL BE SUES®A~, 10/19/93, BEGINNING AT 2:00 P.M. 9~B ~®V COUNCIL CHAMBERS. SHE I~EX~' !TAIL ~G~N COUNCIL REGULAR EVENIPIG MEETING !f~lILL EE TUE~J®AV, 10/19/93, BEGINNING AT 7:30 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS. C:WGENDA.TCE 2 D ~ . y lYlll~l V 1 ~S VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING SEr i AMBER 7, 1993 7:30 P.M. A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, September 7,1993, in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building. The meeting was called to order at 7:40 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Peggy Osterfoss, Mayor Merv Lapin, Mayor Pro-Tem ' ,Jim Gibson jim Shearer Tom Steinberg Rob Levine Bob Buckley TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Larry Grafel, Acting Town Manager Tom Moorhead, Town Attorney Pam Braridmeyer, Assistant to the Town Manager Holly L. McCutcheon, Town Clerk Mayor Osterfoss and Jim Shearer were not present when the meeting was called to order by Merv Lapin. The first item on the agenda was Citizen Participation of which there was none. Agenda Item No. 2 was a-Consent Agenda consisting of two items: A. Approval of the Minutes of the August 3, 1993, and August 17, 1993, Vail Town Council Evening Meetings. B. Ordinance No. 11, Series of 1993, second reading, an ordinance rezoning Tract C of the Spraddle Creek Estates Subdivision from Greenbelt and Natural Open Space zoning to Single Family Residential zoning, a tract located within Spraddle Creek Estates subdivision, an approximately 40 acre parcel located north and east of the Main Vail 1-70 interchange. Applicant: SBC Devel~Y~.~ent Corporation, a Colorado Corporation. Merv Lapin read the titles in full. Jim Gibson moved to approve the Consent Agenda, with a second from Tom Steinberg. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Item No. 3 was an Executive Session regarding legal matters. That Executive Session had instead been held at the end of the Work Session earlier this date, and no Executive Session was called during the Evening Meeting. Item No. 4 was Ordinance No. 17, Series of 1993, second reading, an ordinance approving a Speaal Development District (known as SDD No. 28, The Valley, Phase II), and the devel„r~~~ent plan in accordance with Chapter 18.40 of the Vail Municipal Code and setting forth details in regard thereto. Merv Lapin read the title in full. The applicant was Steve Gensler/Parkwood Realty. Andy ICnudtsen noted a minor amendment to the ordinance since first reading. He recalled an issue of concern on first reading was related to Employee Housing Units (EHUs), because an EHU had not been included in the SDD. He discussed the details of this particular EHU. Another change to the ordinance since first reading was the addition of a condition requiring that, prior to issuance of any building permits within this SDD, the applicant would provide a drainage plan meeting the standards of the Town Engineer. With those changes, Andy said staff recommended approval. He said they had spoken with Jay Peterson, Tom Braun, and Steve Gensler, who all wexe in agreement with the changes. Jim Gibson moved to approve Ordinance No. 17, Series of 1993, on semnd reading, with a second from Rob Levine. Mayor Osterfoss arrived at this time. Before a vote was taken, there was note by Jay Peterson of a correction to be made under Section 4 - Devel.,r,~~ent Plan (11)(e) (footnote) to state that "the additional 309 square feet was made up of 159 taken from the under (not lower) devel„r..~ent area and 150 granted by the Town of Vail." There was brief discussion about prior site visits to other developments with 40% slope. Merv stated he felt it was a mistake to allow SDDs in residential zone districts. Jim Shearer amved at this time. Andy stated the developer had I.~~.~, very specific in his designs, and felt there was a level of assurance regarding fill, cut areas, and scarring. He said several additional studies had ~.~r:.. done in an effort to establish exactly how the project will be developed. Merv also ~...r~essed mn,.C~.~ed about building on 40% slopes. Tom Steinberg asked if this was an SDD, and if TOV did not allow building on 40% slopes, other than single-family homes and duplexes, how TOV was allowing this project on an SDD. Without further input and research, Tom Moorhead was unable to answer this question. Andy said 1 Vail Town Co~meil Evening Meeting Minutes 9f!/93 it was staff's understanding that this SDD allowed variations from the Code standards. After further discussion; Jim Gibson called the question. A vote was then taken and the motion passed, 5-2, Merv Lapin and Tom Steinberg opposed. Item No. 5 was Ordinance No. 19, Series of 1993, second reading, an ordinance amending Chapter 18.24 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail by deleting Section 18.24.058, and amending Chapter 8.24 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail by the addition of Section 8.24.058, controlling undesirable plants within the Town, declaring such plants a nuisance, setting forth penalties for the violation of this ordinance; and setting forth details in regard thereto. Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full. Tom Moorhead explained the original ordinance, Ordinance No. 11, Series of 1992, had already been passed, was in the Code and that Ordinance No. 19, Series of 1993, would simply relocate the original ordinance to its correct place in the Code. Rob Levine moved to approve Ordinance No. 19, Series of 1993, with a second from Jim Gibson. Bob Buckley advised he planned to vote against this ordinance, feeling it was unenforceable and a waste of time. Tom Steinberg stated he was vehemently against this ordinance, feeling it had not worked. Mayor Osterfoss pointed out that a vote against relocation of the existing ordinance within the Code would not eliminate the ordinance from the Code, but that another ordinance to eliminate it from the Code would be required. Jim Gibson recalled the whole purpose behind the original ordinance was an effort to cooperate with State agricultural concerns created by specific undesirable plants. Jim Gibson called the question. A vote was taken and the motion passed, 4-3, Tom Steinberg, Bob Buckley, and Merv Lapin opposed. Item No. 6 was Ordinance No. 13, first reading, an ordinance amending Paragraphs 16.32.030() and 16.32.040(A) of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail, to provide for the termination of any non- conforming sign five years after the effective date of any amendment to the Sign Code Ordinance, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full. Jim Gibson moved to table Ordinance No. 23, Series of 1993, on first reading until such time as staff had time to complete research on it. Jim Shearer seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed, 7-0. Item No. 7 was Ordinance No. 20, Series of 1993, first reading, an ordinance submitting to the registered electors of the Town of Vail at the Regular Municipal Election to be held on Tuesday, the 16th of November, 1993, the question of whether the Town of Vail should be authorized to collect and spend the full revenues generated during 1994 and each subsequent year in an amount not to exceed $ (which amount does not include revenue generated from ad valorem property taxes] without any increase in such tax rate and to spend such revenues for debt service, municipal operations, and capital projects; authorizing the Town Council to adopt annual budgets and amendments thereto to implement the approval of this referred measure; setting forth the ballot title; providing for notice of the details in relation to the foregoing. Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full. Tom Moorhead indicated there were two issues to be discussed. First, in regard to the part of the ordinance stating in an amount not to exceed...", he said there was no direct language in Amendment 1 stating that the amount had to be included in a revenue change, as being done in this particular ordinance. He said the direction to include the amount was only included in those sections which described what had to be on the ballot when a new tax, an increase in tax, or renewal of a tax were being proposed. He explained that by putting a specific amount in this ordinance, TOV was placing a burden on itself if TOV were to exceed that amount. Another request of the voters to spend that amount would then be required. He noted Boulder and Commerce City were not including a specific amount in their ballot questions. He did not believe, based on the language in Amendment 1, that TOV had to include a specific amount in this particular ballot question. Merv Lapin felt an advantage of putting a specific amount in the ordinance was that if the question passed, it would differentiate TOV. He said Amendment 1's author, Doug Bruce, was making an argument against these ballot questions for not including specific amounts. Merv asked if the ballot question did declare a specific amount whether that would differentiate TOV and keep TOV protected I.,,.., a challenge by Bruce. Tom Moorhead replied that would put TOV in an uid~r~,~dent position as opposed to taking the same position as other municipalities. He said it was clear that if a specific amount was picked and it was exceeded, TOV would be in the position of having to make a refund unless the voters approved spending that additional amount. He repeated there was nothing in Amendment 1's language stating a specific figure had to be included in a revenue change. He said that a specific amount included in TOV's ballot question would have to be so large that it could cause concern among the voters. In addition, other issues that would be on the ballot would make it very difficult to predict what kind of revenue situation TOV might be in next year. After discussion about various reasons for and against including a specific amount, Tom Moorhead advised leaving the specific amount out. Steve Thompson felt Bruce would retort by saying the reason the specific amount needed to be included was because once that amount was exceeded, no matter when, Amendment 1 would require going back to a vote. Steve added that was how Bruce set that up, but the. marts were not necessarily looking at what the intent was when they were reviewing some of these cases. Steve felt no matter which way TOV chose to word the ballot question, it would not be satisfactory to Bruce. 2 Vail Town Counc9 Evening Meeting Minutes 9/7/93 a ` ~ Tom Steinberg stated TOV should not be allowing Bruce to dictate what TOV did. Rob Levine agreed. Steve noted the at~.,..~ey for Boulder had been working on Amendment 1 since day one with CML committees, and he felt comfortable following what Boulder was doing. After discussion, it was agreed the ordinance language be changed to read, "An ordinance submitting to the registered electors of the Town of Vail at the Regular Municipal Election to be held on Tuesday, the 16th of November, 1993, the question of whether the Town of Vail should be authorized to collect and spend the full revenues generated including reduction in debt service during 1994 and each subsequent year [which amount does not include revenue generated from ad val...~..~ property taxes] without any increase in such tax rates and to spend such revenues for debt service, municipal operations, and capital r~ ~~ects, effective January 1, 1994; authorizing the Town Council to adopt annual budgets and amendments thereto to implement the approval of this referred measure; setting forth the ballot title; providing 'for notice of the election; providing for conduct of the election; providing further details in relation to the foregoing." After Council questions about sales taxes, ski lift ticket taxes, and real estate transfer taxes, Jim Gibson moved to approve Ordinance No. 20, Series of 1993, on first reading, with the language changes as stated above. Before a vote was taken, there was discussion about the benefits of making the ordinance effective January 1,1993. Jim Gibson amended his motion to further change the ordinance to have it become effective January 1,1993. Jim Shearer seconded the amended motion. Rob Levine felt that rnuld be harmful if it gave the perception that there were excess revenues in 1993. After further discussion about rationale for making the ordinance retroactive, a vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Item No. 8 was Resolution No. 10, Series of 1993, a resolution waiving a restriction on residential condominium unit #3 at the Red Lion Inn Condominiums to allow a minor exterior alteration for the expansion of the residential condominium unit. The applicant, Jay Peterson was present. Jim Curnutte reviewed the description of the request as detailed in the CDD's memo dated July 26,1993, to the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC). He stated when this property was redeveloped several years ago, there was a restriction put in the Declaration of Covenants for the property which stated there would be no exterior modifications which increased the GRFA on this building. However, as detailed in the above ref~.~.~ced memo, the Condominium Declaration indicated the restriction could not be amended without the prior written consent of the Vail Town Council, and, therefore, Council did have the ability to review the minor exterior alteration requested. If Council felt the intent of the restriction was not being violated, they could approve the resolution to allow for the alteration. Tom Steinberg moved to approve Resolution No. 10, Series of 1993, with a second from Rob Levine. Before a vote was taken, Rob asked if the specifics of this proposal would apply to any potential waiving of restrictions in the future. Jim Curnutte advised that Resolution No. 19, Series of 1993, was prepared to be very specific to this request only. Any future request would have to go through this same process. Under discussion, it was noted there was a conflict in Section 1 of the Resolution. It was agreed to amend the language in that section referring to exterior modification. Tom Steinberg amended his motion to include the language amendment discussed. Rob Levine amended his second. After brief discussion about the project's GRFA and note that a new definition of GRFA had been adopted, a vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0: Item No. 9 was Resolution No: 11, Series of 1993, a resolution to offer amnesty for a limited period of time from the 1.5% per month penalty provided in Paragraph 14, Ordinance No. 31, Series of 1992, for delinquent assessments in the Booth Creek Local Improvement District. Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full. Tom Moorhead explained there were presently seven assessed property owners who had failed to pay their assessments, and they would be certified to Eagle County as delinquent October 1,1993. He advised there had been several discussions with some of the property owners within the last week and they had indicated they wanted to come current, but they had not realized there was a penalty. They realized there was interest, but not a penalty. Tom Moorhead noted that Ordinance No. 31, Series of 1992, clearly called for the penalty, and based upon that ordinance, the penalty of 1.5% per month was in effect. He added that a letter had been sent out in December, 1992, announcing the Public Hearing in regard to the assessment, but that letter referred only to an interest payment, and not to the penalty~payment. After speaking with some of those assessed, it seemed if there were amnesty offered, several of them would come within compliance. He said he had discussed this with Steve Thompson and Steve Barwick, and it was felt this was an opportunity to bring some of those delinquent property owners into compliance prior to the date of the certification. Passage of this resolution would also put these property owners on notice that they were not in compliance and that there would be no question that the penalty for 1993, as well as for 1994, would be in effect. Merv Lapin moved to approve Resolution No. 11, Series of 1993, with a second from Tom Steinberg. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Item No. 10 was a presentation of a meeting planner demand analysis for the Vail Valley 3 v~ Tom ca,~~ ~e~ M ~u~ sn~ Performance & Conference Center (WP&CC) as called for in TOV's Resolution No. 8, Series of 1993. ' Cazoline Tremblay distributed a document summarizing selected highlights of the VVP&CC Meeting Planner Demand Analysis of the Conference Center prepared by Benton & Hire in August 1993. She noted a copy of the full report was available upon request. Caroline discussed, in detail, primary issues including the size of groups most likely to meet in Vail, when those groups were most likely to meet in Vail, how often the conference center would be used, the effect of the conference center on area hotels, how many new meetings would come to Vail because of the conference center, and what the meeting numbers meant for the local economy. The summary asked the question if the estimated return of $10,765,000-$13,456,250/year was worth the investment of $2.1 million/year. The Benton & Hire report concluded it was. Noting there were many different ways to calculate what the proposed performance and conference center's economic impact on the community would be, Caroline explained some of the details of how the research was done. She stated that meeting attendee expenditures were determined by the International Association of Convention Visitors Bureau's (IACVB) average expenditures from meeting planners. To emphasize that VVP&CC planners were taking the most conservative approach to arrive at the figures they had, she compared IACVB's figures with the Colorado Tourism Bureau's i ts) retail spending habits of visitors to this State. She felt that the estimated return each year was worth the $2.1 million. The $21 million would be funded by tax revenues, if the proposed 0.9% restaurant and bar tax and the proposed 1.8% lodging tax were passed by the voters, combined with private contributions, Town of Vail contributions, and revenue bonds would pay for the construction, marketing and .,ru ation of the proposed conference center. Tom Steinberg indicated that one of the continuing controversies he had been hearing was that this proposed conference space offered nothing for the visual arts. He felt it might be reasonable at the present time to divert some of the meeting space to an environmentally controlled space for visual arts. He stated he did not think the conference center size should be cut back, but perhaps converted for the next ten years or so to solve the visual arts problem, and then, if the space was needed for conventions, it could all be converted to convention space. Caroline felt there were certain modifications that needed to be made in the design to accommodate the needs of the meeting planners and that would be the addition of break-out rooms, the addition of partitions, and the addition of permanent registration areas. She said there was also some space which could be modified to accommodate local visual arts. She said that was something that was another phase in the design process but was something the Steering Committee was in favor of. She said they were in favor of having a small room in the existing facility for the visual arts. She felt that would happen in the final design. She stated right now they were in Plan C of the design phase and she was certain there were going to be some changes. Tom Steinberg felt it was important for it to be said that a visual arts area was being considered. Caroline advised she had spoken with the local visual arts community and had met with the president of the Vail Valley Arts Council and discussed the Steering Committee's plans and expressed support for the visual arts space in this facility. The Vail Valley Arts Council's primary concern was that they felt they had been promised a space in the past which they had not gotten, and they were apprehensive about getting it now. Caroline said she assured them that they would get a space similar to what was presently available to them at the Librazy. She said the Arts Council cautioned against the WP&CC implying that they were offering something that would not be. Caroline totally agreed with that, saying the Steering Committee would like to have a room in the facility that could be used for local arts and traveling shows, but they were not planning to build a performance center, a conference center, and a museum. Tom Steinberg added that room for visual arts would need special heating and air conditioning because loaners of expensive art would not even consider loaning the art unless security could be guaranteed. Cazoline said the designs were still preliminary, but those issues would be taken into account. Mayor Osterfoss noted that, in addition to the $10-$13 million incremental conference center return, it would be fair to say there would also be the return of performance facility, because, as she understood it, the two proposals were, in fact, linked together. She felt that it was worth mentioning that would create a substantial return in i~.~~ts of cultural value to the community. There was discussion about endowments to support performances at the proposed performance side of the facility. Such endowments were set forth as requirements in TOV's Resolution No. 8, Series of 1993. Caroline said current plans included endowments to support the performing arts. Merv asked Tom Moorhead about part of Resolution No. 8, Series of 1993, which stated that monies would be accumulated for no longer than three years before beguuling construction on a facility He asked Tom Moorhead what if the generation of revenues took more than three years. Tom Moorhead said the revenues would be earmarked for construction, maintenance and operation of the performance and conference.center, and if revenues were collected and not used, he believed the issue would have to go back to the voters for an extension or for alternative use direction. Tom Moorhead confirmed that if it took more than three years to generate the necessary and required revenues, construction could not begin. He pointed out that an ordinance and ballot question still had to be drafted to refer the issue to the voters. Merv Lapin asked how sales taxes would be refunded if necessary, and inquired if the forthcoming 4 Vai] Town Council Evening Meeting Minutes 9/?/9Ci tl a F ordinance was where the potential refunding issue would be addressed. Tom Moorhead said refunding previously collected taxes was a very delicate issue; it was a very difficult proposal, and no one had yet come up with strong suggestions on how those taxes would be refunded. It was suggested the taxes could possibly be refunded through the provision of additional services by TOV. Jim Gibson asked if Resolution No. 8, Series of 1993, could be extended. He asked if there were any legal ramifications with parenting money. If at the end of three years building was not eminent, could the resolution be extended without going to the voters. Tom Moorhead said that would depend on the ballot question, but he needed to research this further. There was further discussion about ramifications to TOV should inadequate revenues be raised in the stated time period. Rob Levine said he wanted to add to Resolution No. 8, Series of 1993, that the portion of such additional taxes which specifically paid for debt reduction would sunset when the debt was retired. He moved to strike Section 2(A} of Resolution No. 8, Series of 1993, given that contingency had been met by the presentation made by Caroline Tremblay at this meeting. Jim Gibson did not feel it needed to be stricken, it was just one of the rnntingencies that had already been satisfied. Tom Moorhead explained that Resolution No. 8, Series of 1993, had been passed, adopted, and was effective. He noted that a resolution reflected Council's position on matters that were of a temporary nature. He indicated changes discussed at this meeting would be properly included within "whereases" in the ordinance yet to be drafted. Merv Lapin asked how the proposed ordinance would address the issue of the inadequate generation of revenues raised by the tax related to carrying the cost of the praposed performance and conference center's building and maintenance. He stated he did not want those costs to end up as property tax. Tom Moorhead indicated further research was necessary. Caroline also had no answer to that question. After further discussion, Tom Moorhead advised in light of Amendment 1, he did not think the ballot question needed to provide for the possible eventuality of needing more tax dollars in the future. He believed Council was limited by having to go back to the voters to ask for those tax dollars. He said a figure would have to be computed as to how much would be raised in the first year. He advised this would be addressed in the forthcoming ordinance which he hoped to have prepared for first reading at the September 21,1993, Regular Evening Meeting. Caroline said there was always the chance their budget was not accurate, but the numbers had been reviewed and the figures were believed to be conservative.. If there was error, she felt they were erring on the conservative side. She said she understood Merv's concern, but that the Steering Committee had approached this as a private enterprise business and that the numbers presented were firm numbers they believed in. Rob Levine thanked Caroline for extensive work on this effort. There being no further business, a motion to adjourn the meeting was made and passed unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 9:15 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Margaret A. Osterfoss, Mayor A i t SST: Holly McCutcheon, Town Clerk Minutes taken by Dorianne S. Deto c:~l~rss>:r7.93 5 Vail Town Coune~7 ]~ening Meeting Minutes 9/7/93 f, MINUTES VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING SEr i nMBER 21, 1993 7:30 P.M. A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, September 21,1993, in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 P.M. - MEMBERS PRESENT: Peggy Osterfoss, Mayor Merv Lapin, Mayor Pro-Tem Jim Gibson Jim Shearer Tom Steinberg Rob Levine Bob Buckley TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Larry Grafel, Town Manager Tom Moorhead, Town Attorney Pam Brandmeyer, Assistant to the Town Manager Holly L. McCutcheon, Town Clerk The first item on the agenda was an Executive Session regarding land issues. The Executive Session began at 7:00 P.M., and was adjourned to the Regular Evening Meeting at 7:30 P.M. The second item on the agenda was Citizen Participation of which there was none. Item No. 3 was Ordinance No. 20, Series of 1993, second reading, an ordinance submitting to the registered electors of the Town of Vail at the Regulaz Municipal Election to be held on Tuesday, the 16th of November, 1993, the question of whether the Town of Vail should be authorized to collect and spend the full revenues generated including reduction in debt service during 1993 and each subsequent year [which amount does not include revenue generated from ad valorem property taxes) without any increase in such tax rates and to spend such revenues for debt service, municipal operations, and .capital projects, effective January 1, 1993; authorizing the Town Council to adopt annual budgets and amendments thereto to implement the approval of this referred measure; setting forth the ballot title; providing for notice of the election; providing for conduct of the election; providing further details in relation to the foregoing. Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full. Tom Moorhead advised he had spoken with the Secretary of State's office Election Division to verify if setting up ballot questions in pazagraphs, as directed by Council for easier understanding by voters, met State requirements. Tom Moorhead said he was advised that the Secretary of State had no objection to setting ballot questions in paragraphs, and, in fact, setting forth ballot questions in the most understandable fashion was being encouraged. After brief discussion concerning minor language changes, Jim Gibson moved to approve Ordinance No. 20, Series of 1993, on second reading with the recommended changes. Tom Steinberg seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. With regard to the public informational process on this ballot question, Steve Thompson stated staff was working on scheduling meetings with various groups during October and early November, 1993. Item No. 4. was Ordinance No. 22, Series of 1993, first readvng, an ordinance submitting to the registered electors of the Town of Vail at the Regular Municipal Election to be held on Tuesday, the 16th of November, 1993, the question of whether the Town of Vail should increase annually by the imposition of a new tax of 0.9% on restaurants and bars and a new tax of 1.8% on lodging beginning on January 1,1994, and each subsequent year producing approximately $2,100,000.00 in the first year; the annual revenues shall be designated exclusively for the construction, mazketing, and operation of a performance and conference center; authorizing the Town of Vail to increase debt up to $12,600,000.00 by issuance of negotiable interest bearing bonds for the purpose of providing the construction, marketing, and operation of a performance and conference center; providing for the sunset of such portion of the tax increase that is no longer necessary to service the revenue bonds; setting forth the ballot title; providing for notice of the election; providing for conduct of the election; providing further details in relation to the foregoing. Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full. Tom Moorhead recommended changes in the ballot question set forth in this ordinance based upon his review of Amendment 1 and conversations with Susan Baird, Staff Attorney in the Election Division of the Secretary of State's office. He recommended this ballot question be broken down into paragraphs in a manner similar to the ballot question in Ordinance No. 20, Series of 1993, so it, too, would be more easily understood by the voters. He suggested this ballot question begin, "Shall the Town of Vail sales taxes be increased $2,100,000.00 annually by the imposition of a new sales tax of 0.9% on restaurants and bars and a new sales tax of 1.8% on lodging beginning on January 1, 1994, and each subsequent year?"and eliminating the wording, producing approximately $2,100,000.00 in the first year Jim Gibson felt that inasmuch as TOV did not have control over how much revenue the proposed sales tax increases might generate, this ballot question should include the less 1 veil Tovrn Counc9 Bening Meeting Minutes 9f1L93 definitive language, approximately $2,100,000.00." Tom Moorhead said the language he suggested ' was exactly as the language was set forth in Amendment 1 on how to begin wording of any proposed new tax implementation. In response to Jim Gibson's inquiry about the potential generation of a greater amount in the first year than stated in the ballot question, Tom Moorhead indicated TOV may have to return to the voters to receive their authorization for TOV'to retain any additional amount. Assuming the ballot question passed, if greater amounts were generated in subsequent years, Tom Moorhead believed TOV would be able to utilize the additional amounts without return to the voters. He clarified that potential revenue generated by the sales tax increases set forth in this ballot question were entirely separate from all other TOV revenues, emphasizing that Ordinance No. 20, Series of 1993, dealt with the generation and spending of general revenues. Ordinance No. 22, Series of 1993, was a complete and separate ballot question and potential funds raised by it were earmarked specifically for the construction, operation _and marketing of the performance and conference center. He stated the best reasoned opinion concerning Amendment 1 at this time was that the first year's generated revenues must be specified and that was the only year that the specification of amount pertained to, and that it was appropriate for TOV to generate and expend an increase in those revenues after the first year. In this particular ballot question, he said TOV would be limited by the conditions earmarked for this particular tax. He noted the ballot question included the contingency that if in three years construction had not begun, a decision about whether or not the revenues should be returned, whether or not the revenues should continue to be collected and retained for the performance and conference center, or what other action should be taken would then have to be made by the voters. Tom Moorhead advised that the term "Article X, Section 20" in the ballot question was the technical name for Amendment 1. It was agreed to include as part of the ballot question that Article X, Section 20 was commonly known as Amendment 1. . There was discussion concerning when these proposed taxes would be reduced and finally sunset. Steve Thompson felt that if the timeframes were known they should be included in the ballot question, but he could not predict exactly when these taxes would be reduced and sunset. It was established the bonds would be thirty year bonds. Merv Lapin felt the ballot question should be as . explicit as possible with taxation issues, but Jim Gibson was concerned about the possibility of eliminating refinancing the bond, which might be an option at some future date. Caroline Tremblay stated when the Vail Valley Performance and Conf«~.~ce Center (VVP&CC) Steering Committee worked with Steve Barwick concerning the recommended wording of this ballot question, the reason they did not specify when the proposed taxes would be reduced and finally sunset was because of TOV's early bond retirement history. Jim Gibson said there was also the possibility that TOV might choose to extend the bonds and felt that possibility would be complicated if a specific reduction and/or sunset date was set forth. Bob Buckley agreed. Caroline asked for additional language clarification. She felt the word "sunset" was confusing and suggested the word "cease" be used instead. After discussion, Council consensus was reached to change "sunset" to "cease." Jim Gibson moved to approve Ordinance No. 22, Series of 1993, on first reading, with the changes as suggested by Tom Moorhead and Caroline Tremblay. Tom Steinberg seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Merv Lapin inquired what would happen if it took more than three years to raise the necessary and required funds. Tom Moorhead said the three years was an imposition Council had decided to impose upon the collection and retention of these proposed taxes. He said because Council placed that restriction, at the end of three years if construction had not yet begun, TOV would have to return to the voters for direction on whether TOV should continue to collect and retain the funds with the intent of a performance and conference center being started or to return the funds to the taxpayers of Vail. Tom Moorhead pointed out that it was stated in the ballot question in Ordinance No. 22, Series of 1993, that if construction has not begun the tax will expire on December 31, 1996, and the revenues collected will then be treated in a manner consistent with the revenue requirements of Article X, Section 20." Jim Gibson noted that included any reason, not only finance. There was discussion about the possibility of extending the three year contingency to four years. Caroline Tremblay said the VVP&CC Steering Committee had recommended that particular paragraph to Council as a safeguard to the public as assurance that something would happen within three years. She said the VVP&CC Steering Committee felt three years was the outside time limit that a local person could imagine the beginning of the construction of the facility and that the VVP&CC Steering Committee wanted to have a tight rope on themselves. She added that all of the VVP&CC Steering Committee's cost projections at this point were aimed at having construction beginning in the spring of 1996. She explained that if they incurred more of an operating expense than they planned, even using very conservative estimates of what meeting planners would pay for the use of a conference room, there would be some revenue there they mold conservatively expect to have as income to cushion their budget estimates. After additional discussion, based on the substantial pro forma evaluation by the VVP&CC Steering Committee, Jim Gibson called the question. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. After the vote, Merv Lapin commented that the VVP&CC was a compromise of many people's ideas, and he still had major concerns about the conference center. He was primarily concerned that what was being proposed to handle groups of approximately 300 was basically what could be handled 2 Vail Town Council Evening Meeting Minutes 9f2U93 S 3P A ' now in about three or four different facilities in the area. He wondered if there would be enough of an overflow from those groups presently being handled by local facilities to bring enough business for a conference center. He indicated he voted for Ordinance No. 22, Series of 1993, because he wanted to see it go to a vote, but emphasized he did not feel at this point that voting for this ordinance should be viewed as his decision to vote for both the performance and the conference centers, only that he was in favor of letting the voters decide. Caroline Tremblay added that the demand analysis done by Benton & Hire had taken rota account that the local facilities with existing meeting space would fill prior to the conference center because meeting planners would always prefer to meet in a hotel with meeting space before using a conference center. Merv Lapin directed Tom Moorhead to be prepared to answer what would happen if there were not sufficient revenues produced by this ordinance's ~..,,rosed taxes to cover bonds. Merv asked if that something that needed to be covered in the ordinance. Bob Buckley asked Caroline Tremblay to check with the WP~CC Steering Committee before second reading to del~~..ine how strongly they felt about the three versus four year issue. Bob strongly endorsed the performance and conference Centex and did not want to see the project jeopardized if the monies were not available in three years but would be available in four years. Merv also asked Tom Moorhead to be prepared .to address what Council could and mold not do in terms of providing support for the project in the election process. Item No. 5 was Ordinance No. 23, Series of 1993, an ordinance amending Sections 3.48.1300 and 20.04.370 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail to provide delinquent taxes and/or assessments to be certified to the Eagle County Treasurer no sooner than October 1st of each yeaz, and declaring an emergency. Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full. Tom `Moorhead said this ordinance was necessitated by a change in the procedures of the Eagle County government. Eagle County had requested TOV adopt a procedure consistent with theirs. This ordinance would place TOV's ordinance in step with Eagle County's procedures. If certifications were received after October 1, they would not be collected until the following year. The reason this ordinance was declared an emergency was so it would be effective by October 1, 1993. In response to Merv Lapin's inquiry about negative aspects of approving this, Tom Moorhead explained TOV had been certifying by December 1 making it impossible for Eagle County to enter delinquent taxes and/or assessments on their rolls for the following yeaz. Tom Moorhead said this dealt with real estate transfer taxes and special assessments only. After discussion, Tom Steinberg moved to approve Ordinance No. 23, Series of 1993, as an emergency ordinance, with a second from ]im Sheazer. Before a vote was taken, Merv Lapin emphasized that use of an emergency ordinance should be only under extreme circumstances because emergency ordinances only have one reading and do not give the public and opportunity to respond and voice their opinions. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. At this time, Jim Gibson moved to reconsider the vote on Ordinance No. 20, Series of 1993, with a second from Merv Lapin. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Merv Lapin suggested that instead of reading, "Those remaining restrictions continue to require:" followed by the requirements, that the last sentence of the second paragraph of Ordinance No. 20, Series of 1993, read, "The remaining restrictions are:" followed by the listing of the requirements as already approved. After discussion, Jim Gibson moved to approve Ordinance No. 20, Series of 1993, on second reading, with this suggested language amendment. Merv Lapin seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Rob Levine and Tom Steinberg both indicated that they were pleased that so much time was being spent on the wording of the ballot issues so they were clearly understandable. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Item No. 6 was Appeal of a Design Review Baazd (DRB) decision for the Stu Brown property, Lot G4, 2nd Filing/1330 Sandstone Drive. The applicant was Stu Brown. The appellant was the Vail Town Council. Andy ICnudtsen stated this was a project that had been submitted in the early part o of summer '93 and that the DRB had reviewed it several times. He noted that during the site visit earlier during Work Session on this date, Council had an opportunity to better understand the site and location of the buildings, and there had been discussion about the project changes that had been made. He said staff, since the site visit, had responded to discussion with Council, and suggested ways this project mold be made more compatible with the neighborhood, primarily by screening with landscaping. Mayor Osterfoss explained that since this was an appeal of a call-up of a DRB decision, what Council was focusing on was the Design Review Guidelines as they pertained to this project. She said staff had been specifically directed to look at the landscape plan and make recommendations to Council as to how that could be enhanced to more fully comply with the Design Review Guidelines. Counal, staff, Hugh Wazder, and Hal Engstrom, architect for the project reviewed site plans and discussed the landscaping and suggested changes. Kathy Douglas indicated she did not like the density, however, Tom Moorhead advised that Council could not review that issue. After discussion, Merv Lapin moved to approve the project with the twelve conditions already set forth by the DRB and detailed in the Community Development Department's letter dated September 14, 1993, to Stewart H. Brown, Hugh Warder, and Hal Engstrom with the further condition that the project add landscaping consisting of 94 warranteed 3" - 4" aspen trees, 57 g v~ T~ co~~ ~a~~ na~~ n~„~c~ s~zva3 a warranteed 6' -10' spruce trees, and that the timber walls be changed to boulder walls and they also be engineered. Bob Buckley sernnded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed, 6-1, Tom Steinberg orrsed. There being no further business, a motion to adjourn the meeting was made and passed unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 8:37 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Margaret A. Osterfoss, Mayor At tt;5i: Town Clerk . Minutes taken by Dorianne S. Deto 4 e C: VvIINNSEP21.93 4 Vail Town Counc>7 Evening Meeting Minutes 9/2ll93 de e4 T®~l ~~dL 75 South Frontage Road Department of Administrative Services Yail, Colorado 81657 303-479-2116 FAX 303-479-2157 MEMORANDUM TO: Vail Town Council FROM: Steve Barwick DATE: October 1, 1993 RE: VVP&CC Ballot Measure The Performance and Conference Center Steering Committee has recommended several changes to the attached ballot measure. The only significant change is to specify the method of refund of unspent tax revenue as a sales tax reduction. I will work with Tom Moorhead upon his return Tuesday morning to make the changes for Tuesda~s Town Council meeting. Please let me know if you have any questions or comments. SHB / dak ae e4 T®i~l ®F SAIL _ _ _ _ 75 South Frontage Road Department of Administrative Services bail, Colorado 81657 303-479-2116 FAX 303-479-2157 MEMORANDUM TO: Vail Town Council FROM: Steve Barwick DATE: October 1, 1993 RE: VVP&CC $allot Measure The Performance and Conference Center Steering Committee has recommended several changes to the attached ballot measure. The only significant change is to specify the method of refund of unspent tax revenue as a sales tax reduction. I will work with Tom Moorhead upon his return Tuesday morning to make the changes for Tuesdays Town Council meeting. Please let me know if you have any questions or comments. SHB/dak ®Fi®BIVAB`9CE N®. 22 SB=B~9ES OF 1993 AEI ®F3®9N9AB~ClE St9S~A9TTVIVG THE REGISTEFiE® ELECT®RS ®F TFIE TOW~9 ®B= VABL AT THE REGULAR ~19H9C8PAL ELECT90~B TO SE HEL® ®N TOES®AV, TF9E 16th ®F H®VEMSE8,1993, THE QUESTB®N ®P WHETHER THE ~®1N~1 OF VABL wAaAan awn n o0 0rar rum nwA®nepgAnAa • 9 7 TAXES SHOUL® E6VCREASE $2,100,000.00 ANNl9ALLY B3Y THE IIMP®SETE®B~B ®B= A NEW TAX ®.9% OBE RESTAURAINTS A6V® EAB~S AB\B®A B\BEW SALES' TAX ®F 1.9% ®@~I::,~®®GDB~IG BEGINNING ®N JAF?UARV 1, 1994, AB~® EACH SA ppS~R1.p p[~17.p'~p oP~~~; ®®C~9'4n 9/~19.i1~ A®Q®ANIVIA w ~sA 9/ @~99i f1f1~f1f1A AA AAA 'A'AJQ QAfw1f~T VC w Q• ~Y~1~~p®® gwis4A®42AAIG~CCIw IL~llo ~E~Vp EB~p4,~JEgS pp SHALpL~ SB= C®®ESBCB~pA~E® EXCL®UCSIC!/E®LYp} pE®/®~ R T{B~~®E pC®NS Owl®~a`E~Y~'Ip~®/~b~WB®I~A, p~®•tlytl•BA®~1P~p~~ p0 B®tl~y A®~tl®® p®B'6E"6 qAp gTg~@p®tl~l `s®~ A ~N`'~I'!G®~r®0.1YYAAtlVC®s~~• p ~ Atl~~{® ~/®Nr~lEIi;ENCE CI~E/N tl ~9g'Cp, l'pUpC.d~~H®~Bp~®BC~d^~ T•~~y&Bs T®Ytl~l gtlg®Bp tl AgBL®~~wBI®tl pV,gl"9~ASB~=y ®B:® II X1.7 ~g II $®1p flSy6®®g~V®.Q~ ~ H B`S, ~Cy~pA®`8 qC~~ ®~B/-1,/tl~~ApBg:~iaA~®®0p ll®/A'~~®L~g~pBYtlp ll~B=i®L~S tlg ®®y B=TIE;'18~1y~1~ ~®CItl®S B•®g~pB~ N H~ IPQ.DRIP®®Sp~p ®p~/'~IPR®~gV B ,y®'~89~9g~~ ll H®~ p~'t®//~41+./9Y~7 6 Ip{"~96yCV®®~8®®6®~a, i`tl'9AE"1pBg[^~ tl B8`!®~TUABC~O® ®~L~ /A~~B®! 0p®~/~Ag ~~~~®RIIIflAN~.E AN®'LO®®CJ~B=RENCiE 4~IENTEQly r 61®V B®B6`Ai~ ~®9"9 1 f7G !kil!~,~S~~l.';4~1r!!l~d. SUCH ~®RTB®N U HE U A/L BN~e I~BEA$E tl HA A BS BV® L®IV~~9"b ABC ~~I/GSSF10"L 3 Y SERVBCE THE REVENUE S®N®S; SETT9NG FORTB°6 THE BALLOT TBTLEg PROVI®ING P®R N®TBCE ®E THE ELECTS®~; PR®!/I®ING B°®R C®N®UCT ®E THE ELECTSON; PROV9®BNG FURTHER ®ETA9LS BN B~ELATB®N T® THE E®REG®9NG. WHEREAS, the Vail Town Council on the 20th day of July, 1993, passed Resolution No. 8, Series of 1993, establishing its support of the Vail Valley Performance and Conference Center and placing certain contingencies upon such support; and WHEREAS, the contingency concerning the economic feasibility of the Vaif Valley Performance and Conference Center has been fulfilled; and WHEREAS, the Vail Town Council wishes to submit to the registered qualified electors of the Town at the next Regular Municipal Election for approval a 0.9% tax on restaurants and bars and 1.8% tax on lodging which revenue will be dedicated to the construction, marketing, and operations of a performance and conference center; and WHEREAS, consistent with the aforementioned tax, the Town of Vail would issue revenue bonds in the amount of $12,600,000.00; and WHEREAS, the portion of the tax that is required to finance the debt of the revenue bonds will sunset when the debt is retired; and WHEREAS, the aforementioned taxes if approved would be collected in 1994, and each subsequent year and be collected and retained for no longer than three (3) years before construction begins on a facility which incorporates a performance and conference center consistent with the total public and private funds available; and WHEREAS, the funds collected and retained will not be included within the general revenue of the Town of Vail; and 1 Ordinance No. 22, Series of 1993 WHEREAS, the collection, retention, and expenditure of the full revenues derived from such tax and the proceeds of said bonds will not be limited by State revenue or expenditure limitation of Article X, Section 20 of the Colorado Constitution; NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the Town Council of the Town of Vail, Colorado: SECTION 1. At the regular municipal election to be held in the various precincts and at the polling places of the Town of Vail on Tuesday, the 16th day of November, 1993, between the hours of 7:00 A.M. and 7:00 P.M., there shall be submitted to the vote of the registered electors of the Town of Vail the question herein authorized. SECTION 2. At the said election, the official ballot, including absentee ballots, shall state the substance of the question to be voted upon and so stated shall constitute the ballot title, designation and submission clause, and each registered elector voting at the election shall indicate his or her choice on the question submitted, which shall be in the following form: SHALL THE T®WN VAIL TAXES ?~E INCREASE® ~2,~6~O,t~Ofl40fl; AIaNUALLY ICY THE IMPOSITION OF ANEW TAX ®F 0.9% ®9~N RESTAURANTS AN® BARS AN® A NEW SI~~S TAX OF 1.13% ON LO®(aI9dG I~EGINNING ON ~BAN49p?ff3Y 1994, AN® EACH SUSSE®UENT YICAR2; ~eanvee~eee.es~ wee®esnvee?eaw~CO u ~e 4nn nnn nn ee.o Tug ~e~ez T.7 ...7...... THE ANNUAL REVENUES SHALL 13E ®ESIGNATE® EXCLUSIVELY F®~$ THE CONSTRUCTIOI~I, I;VIARICETINCGa; AN® OPERATIONS OF A PERFORMANCE AN® CONFERENCE CENTE~. THE REVENUES WILL SE COLLECTE® AN® RETAINE® FOR 1110 LONGER THAN THREE (3) YEARS CONTINCaENT UPON THE BEGINNING OF CONSTRUCTION ON SUCH FACILITY AN® IF SUC~I CONSTRUCTION HAS NOT BEGUN THE TAX WILL EXPIRE ON ®ECEMSER 31, 1996, AN® THE RREVENUES COLLECTE® WILL TFIEN SE TREATE® IN A MANNER CO9~SISTEG~IT WITH THE REVENUE RE®UIREMENTS OF ARTICLE X, SECTION 20"; CUIMIl~MC31NL.Y IfI~E~1fl/N ~11~fEw6~£liUi~l° ~ Ate®/a~i~,'~'~E gABC'~R A~E~Ii~Ni~~TA ®tJRIPIG SHE PER9®® 6~F C®LLECTIOIV AIJd RETEBJT@ON OF THE TAX SUCH REVI=NUE SHAM. NOT SE INCLUIJE® WITHIN THE ~aENERAL REVENUE OF THE TOWN OF VAIL N®TWITHSTAN®ING ARTICLE X, SECTION 20. IN CONNECTION WITH THE TAX, SHAD, THE TOWN OF VAIL ®EST f3E INCREASE® UP TO $12,600,000.00 BY ISSUANCE OF NEGOTIABLE INTEREST SEARING SON®S FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVI®ING THE CONSTRUCTION, MARKETING; AN® OPERATION OF A PERFORMANCE AN® CONFERENCE CENTER? THE SON®S ARE TO SE PAYABLE FROM THE REVENUES FR0~1 THE T~?X AUTHORIZE® ABOVE AN® THE PORTIO~J OlF THE TAX WHAT IS RE(~UIRE~ TO FINANCE THE ®EST OF THE REVENUE SON®S WILL GFAS~ WHEN THE ®EST IS RETIRE®. FOR THC~ ~IEAStDRE AGAINST THE MEASURE 2 pcdinance No. 22, Series of 1993 a SECTION 3. If a majority of all the votes cast at the election shall be for the measure, the measure shall be deemed passed, and the Town of Vail shall be authorized to collect and retain the full revenues in accordance with the approved measure and such revenues and expenditures will be separate and apart from any other expenditure of the Town which may be limited pursuant to Article X, Section 20 of the Colorado Constitution and notwithstanding the passage of any other State of Colorado initiative limiting such collection or expenditure, and the revenues authorized for expenditure by the passage of this measure shall not be counted in any such expenditure limitation. SECTION 4. The election shall be conducted under the provisions of the Charter and ordinances of the Town of Vail and, to the extent applicable, under the provisions of the Colorado Municipal Election Code as set forth in Title 31, Article 10 of the Colorado Revised Statutes (C.R.S.). SECTION 5. The Town Clerk of the Town of Vait shall give public notice of the election on the question hereby submitted (a) by causing the notice to be published in the Vail Trail as provided by law, (b) by mailing to "all registered voters" at each address within the Town of Vail at which a voter is registered no sooner than twenty five (25) days before the election and no later than fifteen (15) days before the election a notice entitled "Notice of Election on a Referred Measure". This notice shall include only: (1) the election date and hours for voting, (2) the ballot title, (3) the text of the measure to be voted upon, (4) the office address and telephone number of the Town Clerk, and (5) two (2} summaries, not more than five hundred (500) words each, one (1) for and one (1) against the measure, of written comments filed with the Town Clerk no later than thirty (30) days before the election. No summary shall mention names of persons or private groups, nor any endorsements of or resolutions against the measure to be voted upon. The Town Clerk shall maintain on file and accurately summarize all relevant written comments. SECTION 6. The officer of the Town of Vail are authorized and directed to take all action necessary or appropriate to effectuate the provisions of this ordinance. SECTION 7. The Town Council finds and declares that this ordinance is a matter of local concern pursuant to Article XX, Section 6 of the Constitution of the State of Colorado. SECTION 8. 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 3 Ordinance No. 22, Series of 1993 the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, ciauses or phrases be declared invalid. SECTION 9. 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 10. 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. SECTION 11. 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 21st day of September, 1993, and a public hearing shall be held on this Ordinance on the 5th day of October, 1993, at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado. Margaret A. Osterfoss, Mayor ATTEST: Holly L. McCutcheon, Town Clerk READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED this day of , 1993. Margaret A. Osterfoss, Mayor ATTEST: t Holly L. McCutcheon, Town Clerk C:\ORD93.22 4 Ordinance No. 22, Series of 1993 PROPOSE® ALTERNATIVE WOR®ING FOR OR®INANCE NO. 22, SERIES OF 1993 z SI-IALI_ THE TOWN OF VAIL SALES TAXES BE INCREASE® $2,100,000.00 ANNUALLY BY THE IMPOSITION OF A NEW SALES TAX OF 0.9% ON RESTAURANTS AN® BARS AN® A NEW SALES TAX OF 1.8% ON LO®GING BEGINNING ON aJ~ANUARY 1, 199, AN® EACH SUBSEQUENT YEAR AN® SHALL THE TOWN OF VAIL ®EBT I3E INCREASE® UP TO $ WITH A REPAYMENT COST OF $ ?THE ANNUAL REVENUES SHALL BE ®I=SIGNATE® EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE CONSTRUCTION, b1fIARI(ETING AN® OPERATIONS OF A PERFORIlflANCE AN® CONFERENCE CENTER. THE PORTION OF THE TAX THAT IS REQUIRE® TO FINANCE THE ®EBT OF TIME REVENUE BONDS MILL EXPIRE WHEN THE ®EBT IS RETIRE®. THE REVENUES WELL BE COLLECTE® AN® RETAINE® FOR NO LONGER THAN THREE (3) YEARS CONTINGENT UPON THE 18EtaINNING OF CONSTRUCTION ON SUCH FACILITY Ai~l® IF SUCI~I CONSTRUCTION HAS NOT BEGUN THE TAX WILL EXPIRE ON ®[ECENIBER 31, 1996, AN® THE REVENUES COLLECTE® BUT NOT SPB=NT WILL THEN BE TREATE® IN A MANNER CONSISTENT WITH THE REVENUE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE X, SECTION 20, COMMONLY KNOWN AS A61lIEN®IUIENT 1 AN®/OR THE TABOR AIrAEN®IIAENY. ®URING THE PERIO® OF COLLECTION AN® RETENTION OF TFiE TAX SUCH REVENUE SMALL NOT BE INCLU®E® WITHIN THE GENERAL REVENUE OF THE TOWN OF VAIL NOTWITHSTAN®ING ARTICLE X, SECTION 20, AN® WITHOUT LIflAITING THE COLLECTION OR SPEN®ING OF OTHER REVENUES OR FUNDS BY THE TOWN OF VAIL UN®ER ARTICLE X, SECTION 20, OF THE COLORA®® CONSTITUTION OR ANY OTHER LAW. THE BON®S SHALL BE PAYABLE FR®NI TI'IE REVENUES OF THE TAX RUTHORIZE® A®OVE AN® OTHER TOWN OF VAIL REVENUES AS ®ETERMINE® BY COUNCIL FROM TIME TO TII~flE. 5 Ordinance No. 22, Series of 1993 ®R®I~?~?NCE 24 SERIES ®F 1993 A~ ®R®INAI~CE REPEALIB~C~ AN® REEN~?CTI~t~ SECTION 3.40.170 ®E TB~E 1~4JNICIPAL C®®E ®E SPIiE 1~®l1Vf~ ®F VAIL ®ELETIf~~ TIE ®EFII~ITI®IV ®E °'CI~ARITASLE." WHEREAS, the Town Council of the Town of Vail believes that it would be for the benefit of the health, safety, and welfare of the residents of the Town of Vail if the definition of "charitable" is deleted from the provision providing for sales tax exemptions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1 Section 3.40.170 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail is repealed and reenacted as follows: 3.40.170 -Exemptions. The following goods and services shall be exempt from sales tax under the provisions of this Chapter 3.40: A. All sales to the United States government and to the State, its departments and institutions and the political subdivisions thereof in their governmental capacities only. B. All sales made to charitable organizations in the conduct of their regular charitable functions and activities. C. All sales which the Town is prohibited from taxing under the Constitutional Laws of the United States, the State, or the Town's Charter. D. All sales of cigarettes. 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 1 Ordinance No. 24, Series of 1993 0 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. Section 5 A11 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 , 1993, and a public hearing shall be held on this Ordinance on the day of , at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado. Margaret A. Osterfoss, Mayor ATTEST: Holly L. McCutcheon, Town Clerk READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED this day of , 1993. Margaret A. Osterfoss, Mayor ATTEST: Holly L. McCutcheon, Town Clerk C:\OfiD93.24 2 Ordinance No. 24, Series of 1993 ; u e4 T®~l ®F VAIL 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 303-479-2100 FAX 303-479-2157 October 1, 1993 Vail business License Holder: We'd like to encourage you to participate in a public hearing on Tuesday, October 5th regarding several parking and bus service changes proposed by the Town of Vail. Public comments will be heard beginning at 8:10 p.m. during the regular town council meeting in the Vail 1V3unicipal Building. Highlights of the proposed changes are as follows: Free winter parking in Vail Village and Lionshead structures shortened from 90 minutes to 45 minutes, with a $1 fee up to 90 minutes. Peak bus service on outlying routes (East Vail, West Vail, Sandstone) inca~eased to 10 to 15 minute intervals. Free parking in Vail Village and Lionshead structures extended to 2.5 hours upon entry between 6 and 10 p.m. Ford Park converted to free car pool lot for riders of 3 or more between 7 a.m. and 2 p.m, Otherwise, $10 daily parking rate. Please contact the Community Relations Office at 479-2115 if we can help you with additional background material. A flyer also is enclosed for distribution. We look forward to your participation Tuesday evening. u e Silverthorn Community Relations Enc. ~V~~I~ r Phew Parking Rates A~ public hearing has been scheduled to solicit comment on atwo-pronged parking proposal aimed at decreasing traffic congestion and increasing evening retail business. 9. FREE WINTER PARKING IN VAIL VILLAGE AND LIONSHEAD STRUCTURES REDUCED FROM 90 MINUTES TO 45 MINUTES, WITH A $1 FEE UP TO 90 MINUTES. 2. PEAK BUS SERVICE ON OUTLYING ROUTES (EAST VAIL, WEST VAIL, SANDSTONE) INCREASED TO 90 TO 95 MINUTE INTERVALS. 3. FREE PARKING IN VAIL VILLAGE AND LIONSHEAD STRUCTURES EXTENDED TO 2.5 HOURS UPON ENTRY BETWEEN 6 AND 90 P.M.. 4. FORD PARK CONVERTED TO FREE CAR POOL LOT FOR RIDERS OF THREE OR MORE BETWEEN 7 AM AND 2 PM. OTHERWISE, $10 DAILY PARKING RATE. 11Y ~~~~o tlY ~7~~® ~/ai/ T®~vn C®uncil ~harnbers ®ct®ber 5, X993 ~o ~®Pll/le H ~I-~®lJL® i EIS®e Residents, business owners, vendors, and others who are interested in this important issue For more information, call Suzanne Silverthorn, Community Relations at 479-2195 ~ ~ = ~ ~ . ~i~ - ey . FOR IMMEDIATE RELEAS E October 1, 1993 _ Contact: Mike Rose 479-2178 x ~ i ~ Suzanne Silverthorn 479-2115 ' ~ a PUBLIC HEARING SCHEDULED FOR OCTOBER 5TH ON 1 ~ ~ PROPOSED PARKING RATE CHANGES TO SUPPORT . ~ ~ INCREASED BUS SERVICE ,:I ~ ~ ~ ~ (Vail)--Residents are encouraged to attend a public hearing Tuesda evenin ~ k Y 9 t e (10-5) to comment on atwo-pronged parking proposal aimed at decreasing traffic ~ ~F~_~~ , ~ . ; congestion and increasing evening retail business. The public hearing is scheduled i.- ~ P , for 8:10 p.m. during Tuesday's town council meeting in the Vail Municipal Building, 75 t' l ,I i ~ ~ ~ S. Frontage Rd. > ~ As proposed, free parking in the Vail Village and Lionshead structures would s ~;j - ~ ,a be shortened from 90 minutes to 45 minutes, with a $1 fee up to 90 minutes. :s z. ' ~ A second part of the proposal would extend free evening parking in the i.,. ,F,:,•`; structures to two-and-a-half hours between 6 and 10 .m. ~ p . i The plan is expected to generate additional revenue to be used for increased bus ~ service on outlying routes. "We're trying to create more opportunities and incentives A i ' ~ for people to ride the buses irito town at peak times, rather than drive," said "f . ~ Transportation Manager Mike Rose. "This will help in reducing the gridlock traffic we t ~ .i experienced last winter." The goal is to increase average daily ridership on the West ~ ,F -l ' ~ ;r w ' ~ Vail and Sandstone routes by eight percent; and a four percent average increase on ~ ~ the East Vail route. At the same time, Rose hopes to reduce the number of free . _ ~~F ' parking transactions in the structures by 40 percent, thereby reducing overall L_ -''rte 7s souTH rao`~rACE ROA1~ (more) VAII., COLORADO 81657 l'ELEPHO\E 303-479.2100 PROPOSED NEW PARKING RATES ADD 1 congestion throughout town. "In the past, we've averaged 1,000 free parking transactions per day," Rose said. "That's 40 percent of our total transactions." The proposal to expand free parking after 6 p.m. is intended to help shop and restaurant owners increase their evening business, according to Rose. Residents also will be asked at Tuesday's public hearing to comment on.a plan to convert the 250 parking spaces at Ford Park into a car pool lot, with free parking for riders of three or more between the hours of 7 a.m. and 2 p.m. seven days per week. Otherwise, vehicles would be charged $10. Paid parking will begin the day before Thanksgiving, regardless of a decision by Vail Associates to begin the ski season early, Rose said. For more information about the public hearing, please contact the Community Relations Office at 479-2115. # # #