HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-11-21 Support Documentation Town Council Evening Session
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL
EVENING MEETING
TUESDAY, November 21, 2000
7:00 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS
NOTE: Times of items are approximate, subject to change, and cannot be relied upon to
determine at what time Council will consider an item.
1. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION. (5 mins.)
2. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 27, Series of 2000 - Annexation of
Allison Ochs 1-70. (15 mins.)
Greg Hall
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Approve, approve with
conditions, or deny Ordinance #27, Series of 2000, on second reading.
BACKGROUND RATIONALE: Portions of the 1-70/Frontage Road right-
of-way are not within Town of Vail limits. As part of a contract agreement
with CDOT to take over maintenance of the Frontage Road, the Town of
Vail is annexing the portions of right-of-way not already within the Town
of Vail. Please refer to the staff memorandum for additional information.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Town Council
approve Ordinance #27, Series of 2000, on second reading.
3. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 28, Series of 2000 - 2001 Budget.
Christine Stouder (20 mins.)
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Approve Ordinance #28, Series of
2000, on second reading.
BACKGROUND RATIONALE: Through a series of work session meetings,
Council has reviewed the 2001 Budget. To comply with the Town Charter,
the budget must be formally adopted by December 1, 2000.
The changes have been made to the Capital and RETT Funds as discussed
at the November 14 worksession.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve Ordinance #28, Series of 2000 on
second reading.
4. First Reading of Ordinance No. 26, Series of 2000 - an
Allison Ochs ordinance amending the Town Code, Title 12, Chapter 22, Section
4, adoption of view corridors, by adding two view corridors in
Lionshead and setting forth details in regard thereto. (20 mins.)
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Approve, approve with
conditions, or deny Ordinance No. 26, Series of 2000, on first reading.
BACKGROUND RATIONALE: On May 20, 1997, recognizing the
importance of visual connections, the Town Council approved the use
of the existing Town of Vail view corridor ordinance to designate the
first protected public view corridors in Lionshead. In order to qualify
for protection under the Town's ordinance, a view corridor must meet
the following criteria:
• The proposed view corridor protects and perpetuates a view
from public pedestrian areas, public ways, or public spaces
within the Town which fosters civic pride and is in the public
interest for the Town.
• The proposed view corridor protects and enhances the Town's
attraction to residents, guests, and property owners.
• The proposed view corridor protects a view which is commonly
recognized and has inherent qualities which make it more
valuable to the Town than other more common views.
The Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan identifies five view
corridors. However, it recommends that only two legally protected
view corridors be established. The remaining three views are to be
established as critical design parameters, not as benchmarked and
surveyed corridors.
Lionshead View Corridor 1 is seen from the west end of the
Lionshead parking structure, standing at street level at the main
pedestrian exit, looking southwest toward the gondola lift line.
Lionshead View Corridor 2 is seen from the pedestrian plaza at the
east end of the Lifthouse Lodge, looking south directly up the gondola
lift line.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Community Development
Department recommends that the Town Council approve Ordinance
No. 26, Series of 2000, on first reading.
5. First Reading of Ordinance No. 29, Series 2000 - Setting the Mill Levy.
Christine Stouder (15 mins)
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Approve, approve with
conditions, or deny Ordinance No. 29, Series of 2000, on first reading.
BACKGROUND RATIONAL: The Town Council must set the mill levy for
the next fiscal year and certify to the County Commissioners by
December 15, 2000. Since the de-Brucing of the Property Tax passed
last week the Town council can assess a base mill levy of 4.69 mills
without a mill levy credit. If that is done the Town will collect an additional
$225,779, over what is currently budgeted if the assessed valuation does
not change in early December.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends that the Town
Council approve Ordinance No. 29, Series of 2000, on first reading.
6. Peer Resort Visit Report-out. (30 mins.)
Suzanne Silverthorn
7. Colorado Open/Sonnenalp of Vail Foundation. (15 mins.)
David Edminston
8. The Sonnenalp Redevelopment Proposal Presentation. (30 mins.)
George Ruther
BACKGROUND RATIONAL: Johannes Faessler, represented by Brahn
and Associates and Resort Design Collaborative is proposing a
redevelopment of the Sonnenalp property located alone East Meadow Drive.
Prior to making a formal application to the Town of Vail Community
Development Department the applicant wishes to present preliminary plans
to the Town Council and to the community. Once a formal application has
been submitted the review of the project will proceed through the Design
Review Board, Planning Commission and the Town Council processes.
ACTION REQUESTED OF TOWN COUNCIL: Listen to the applicant's
presentation.
9. Ford Park Management Plan Paid Parking Approval. (5 mins.)
Pam Brandmeyer
BACKGROUND RATIONALE: The Ford Park Management Plan was
approved in April of 1997, this following a two year period of public input
and debate. One of the components of this approved plan is Goal #4:
Resolve parking and South Frontage Road access problems. Objective
4.1: Develop and implement a parking management plan for Ford Park.
The action step calls for parking attendants to manage entrances and
exits, setting a parking fee to generate sufficient funds to cover the
attendant, and fee parking to be in effect for high-parking demand days
only. The Ford Park Managed Parking Committee, composed of
members of the VRD, WF, VAGF, Bravo!, residents at-large, and Town
Council representation and town staff, began meeting in September to
establish a calendar for the Y2001 summer managed parking program.
An earlier approval of this calendar was requested by the user groups in
order to expedite and clarify their individual programming and ticketing
programs. The dates and times included in your packet have been
arrived at through discussion and consensus. This will mark the fourth
summer this program has been in effect.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the Y2001 Summer Ford Park
Managed Parking Program as presented.
10. Town Manager's Report. (5 mins.)
Bob McLaurin
11. Adjournment (9:40 P.M.)
NOTE UPCOMING MEETING START TIMES BELOW:
(ALL TIMES ARE APPROXIMATE AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE)
THE NEXT VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR WORK SESSION
WILL BE ON TUESDAY, 11128/00, BEGINNING AT 2:00 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS.
THE FOLLOWING VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR WORK SESSION
WILL BE ON TUESDAY, 12/5/00,
BEGINNING AT 2:00 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS.
THE NEXT VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR EVENING MEETING
WILL BE ON TUESDAY, 12/5/00, BEGINNING AT 7:00 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS.
Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479-
2332 voice or 479-2356 TDD for information.
C:IAGENDA.TC
• ORDINANCE NO. 27
Series of 2000
AN ORDINANCE ANNEXING CERTAIN PROPERTY MAPPED AS THE INTERSTATE AND
FRONTAGE ROAD AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO.
WHEREAS, the Town of Vail has adopted Resolution No. 8, Series of 2000, a resolution
initiating the annexation of certain property mapped as portions of the interstate and Frontage
Road to the Town of Vail, Colorado.
WHEREAS, this annexation is being completed pursuant to Section 31-12-106 of the
Colorado Revised Statutes; and
WHEREAS, notice and hearing has been set as provided in Section 31-12-108 of the
Colorado Revised Statutes; and
WHEREAS, this is an area eligible for annexation as set forth in Section 31-12-104 of
the Colorado Revised Statutes.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF
VAIL, COLORADO, THAT:
Section 1. The Town Council finds regarding the annexation of the portion of the 1-70
right-of-way as legally described in Attachment A and as shown on Attachment B attached
hereto that:
A. Not less than 1/6 of the perimeter of the area proposed to be annexed is
contiguous with the annexing municipality.
B. A community of interest exists between the area proposed to be annexed and the
annexing municipality.
C. Said area is urban.
D. Said area is integrated with the annexing municipality and is consistent with the
Comprehensive Open Lands Plan and the Vail Land Use Plan.
E. This annexation fulfils all requirements of Section 12-31-105 of the Colorado
Revised Statutes, Limitations in the Colorado Revised Statures.
Section 2. Annexation costs. All costs and expensed connected with the annexation
shall be paid by the Town of Vail.
Section 3. Filing Copies of the Annexation Plan and Annexation Ordinance in
accordance with Section 31-12-113 of the Colorado Revised Statutes.
A. A copy of the annexation plat with the original of this annexation ordinance shall
be filed in the Office of the Town Clerk of the Town of Vail.
B. The Town Clerk shall file for recording two (2) certified copies of this annexation
ordinance and a map of the area annexed containing a legal description of such area with
the County Clerk and Recorder of Eagle County, Colorado.
C. The County Clerk and Recorder of Eagle County shall be directed to file one (1)
certified copy of the annexation ordinance and map with the Division of Local Government
or the Department of Local Affairs.
Section 4. As this property consists of road right-of-way, no zoning shall be imposed on
the annexed area.
Section 5. This annexation shall take effect in accordance with the Charter of the Town
of Vail and the Statutes of the State of Colorado.
Section 6. 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 validity of the remaining
portions of this ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this
ordinance, and each part, 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 7. 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 8. The amendment of any provision of the Town Code as provided in this
ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, and 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 amended. The amendment of
any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or
superseded unless expressly stated herein.
Section 9. 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 ON FIRST READING, APPROVED, AND ORDERED
PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL ON FIRST READING this 71h day of November, 2000, and a public
hearing for second reading of the Ordinance set for the 21 s' day of November, 2000, in the
Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado.
Ludwig Kurz, Mayor .
Attest:
Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk
READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED this 21st day
of November, 2000.
Ludwig Kurz, Mayor
Attest:
Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk
PARCEL DESCRIPTION - PARCEL A (see sheets 2 and 3 for parcel diagram)
A parcel of land lying within Sections 2, 3, 4, 5, 8 and 9, Township 5 South,
Range 80 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian, Eagle County, Colorado, described
as follows:
Beginning at the northwest corner of said Section 8, on the existing Town of Vail
Boundary; thence, along the existing Town of Vail Boundary, the following two (2)
courses along the southerly and easterly lines of the parcel annexed to the Town
of Vail, as Parcel B, by Ordinance 7, Series of 1980:
(1) N8904612711E 1327.04 feet;
(2) N00°1811411W 155.94 feet; thence, continuing along the existing Town of Vail
Boundary, the following two (2) courses along the southerly line of the
parcel annexed to the Town of Vail by Ordinance 35, Series of 1984:
(1) S66o52112"E 241.10 feet;
(2) S7304813211 E 214.12 feet; thence, continuing along the existing Town of Vail
Boundary, the following three (3) courses along the southerly line of the
parcel annexed to the Town of Vail by Ordinance 11, Series of 1970:
(1) 57304611511E 789.30 feet;
(2) 57804911611E 567.90 feet;
(3) 575028118"E 942.40 feet to a non-tangent point on curve; thence, continuing
along the existing Town of Vail Boundary, and along the southerly line of
the parcel annexed to the Town of Vail by Ordinance 13, Series of 1970,
1327.90 feet along the arc of a curve to the left, having a radius of
5580.00 feet, a central angle of 13038,0411, and a chord which bears
N89036"34"E 1324.70 feet; thence, continuing along the"existing Town of Vail
Boundary, the following three (3) courses along the southerly line of the
parcel annexed to the Town of Vail by Ordinance 25, Series of 1977:
(1) 456.43 feet along the arc of a curve to the left, having a radius of 5580.00
feet, a central angle of 0404111211, and a chord which bears N80033"38"E
456.30 feet to a point of tangency;
(2) N78,11310211E 1534.29 feet;
(3) N67o4l,33"E 415.82 feet; thence, departing the existing Town of Vail
Boundary, the following four (4) courses along the northerly right-of-way
line of Interstate Highway No. 70:
(1) N6605014111E 224.7 feet;
(2) N79o2513411E 900.2 feet;
(3) S8302414111E 316.2 feet;
(4) N7800911111E 239.5 feet to the existing Town of Vail Boundary; thence, along
the existing Town of Vail Boundary, the following ten (10) courses along the
southerly line of the parcel annexed to the Town of Vail by Ordinance 11,
Series of 1972:
(1) N78o0911111E 460.5 feet;
(2) N5402715611E 373.4 feet to a non-tangent point on curve;
(3) 425.7 feet along the arc of a curve to the left, having a radius of 5430.0
feet, a central angle of 04029131" and a chord which bears N7505412711E
425.6 feet to a point of non-tangency;
(4) N8503612911E 724.6 feet;
(5) N73o3914211E 2175.3 feet to a point of curvature;
(6) 1667.3 feet along the arc of a curve to the right, having a radius of
5880.0, a central angle of 16014,47" and a chord which bears N81047106"E
1661.7 feet to a point of non-tangency;
(7) N43°40'3311E 151.0 feet;
(8) N81o0714511E 164.2 feet;
(9) S73°41'44"E 459.3 feet;
(10) 587c,33105"E 1191.52 feet; thence, continuing along the existing Town of Vail
Boundary, and along the northerly line of the parcel annexed to the Town of
Vail by Ordinance 20, Series of 1974, 51405611811W 337.48 feet; thence,
continuing along the existing Town of Vail Boundary, the following four (4)
courses along the northerly line of the parcel annexed to the Town of Vail
by Ordinance 12, Series of 1973:
(1) N87-33105"W 880.00 feet;
(2) N87o3014911W 685.82 feet;
(3) N88o1914111W 150.00 feet;
(4) 565010'3111W 283.65 feet; thence, continuing along the existing Town of Vail
Boundary, the following two (2) courses along the northerly line of the
parcel annexed to the Town of Vail by Ordinance 20, Series of 1974:
(1) 565010"3111W 32.95 feet;
(2) N8905915211W 868.80 feet to a non-tangent point on curve; thence, continuing
along the existing Town of Vail Boundary, the following seven (7) courses
along the northerly line of the parcel annexed to the Town of Vail by
Ordinance 9, Series of 1972:
(1) 508.28 feet along the arc of a curve to the left, having a radius of 5550.00
feet, a central angle of 0501415011, and a chord which bears 576017'11"W
508.10 feet to a point of tangency;
(2) S73°39142"W 375.30 feet;
(3) 582011'2711W 202.20 feet;
(4) S73o39'42"W 2100.00 feet;
(5) 565029'27"W 211.10 feet to a non-tangent point on curve;
(6) 463.28 feet along the arc of a curve to the right, having a radius of
5910.00 feet, a central angle of 04°29'2911, and a chord which bears
575059125"W 463.19 feet to a point of non-tangency;
(7) 577027'47"W 610.80 feet; thence, continuing along the existing Town of Vail
Boundary, the following five (5) courses along the northerly line of the
parcel annexed to the Town of Vail by ordinance 5, Series of 1972:
(1) N89o23'38"W 191.15 feet;
(2) 578009'1111W 145.86 feet;
(3) 577034'49"W 2700.20 feet;
(4) 57600415911W 747.40 feet to a non-tangent point on curve;
(5) 107.63 feet along the arc of a curve to the right, having a radius of
5923.00 feet; a central angle of 01002127 and a chord which bears
578040'25"W 107.60 feet to a point of non-tangency; thence, continuing along
the existing Town of Vail Boundary, the following three (3) courses along
the northerly line of the parcel annexed to the Town of Vail by Ordinance 5,
Series of 1970:
(1) N56°5015311W 77.60 feet;
(2) S78o0911111W 355.40 feet;
(3) 50002310311W 24.48 feet to a non-tangent point on curve; thence, continuing
along the existing Town of Vail Boundary, the following four (4) courses
along the northerly line of the parcel annexed to the Town of Vail by
Ordinance 4, Series of 1972:
(1) 1070.51 feet along the arc of a curve to the right, having a radius of
5923.00 feet, a central angle of 1002112011, and a chord which bears
58801412511W 1069.02 feet to a point of non-tangency;
(2) N79o4512911W 227.00 feet to a non-tangent point on curve;
(3) 1067.50 feet along the arc of a curve to the right, having a radius of
5900.00 feet, a central angle of 10°22'00", and ;a chord which bears
N78o53'39"W 1066.10 feet to a point of non-tangency;
(4) N71038154"W 324.00 feet; thence, continuing along the existing Town of Vail
Boundary, the following two (2) courses along the northerly line of the
parcel originally incorporated as the Town of Vail:
(1) N0000110611W 54.51 feet;
(2) N7904511311W 2696.98 feet; thence, continuing along the existing Town of Vail
Boundary, and along the easterly line of the parcel annexed to the Town of
Vail by ordinance 8, Series of 1969, N00o23100"W 39.20 feet, to the point of
beginning.
PARCEL DESCRIPTION - PARCEL B (see sheets 4 and 5 for parcel diagram)
A parcel of land lying within Sections 11, 12, 14, and 15, Township 5 South,
Range 81 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian, Eagle County, Colorado, described
as follows:
Beginning at the common 1/4 Corner of said Sections 11 and 12; thence N8902712511E
1386.70 feet; thence S3303013811W 80.90 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING, on
the existing Town of Vail Boundary; thence, along the existing Town of Vail
Boundary, the following thirteen (13) courses along the southeasterly line of the
parcel annexed to the Town of Vail by Ordinance 1, Series of 1986:
(1) S520501 2911W 768.50 feet;
(2) 542044'15"W 51.40 feet;
(3) 552050'29"W 131.20 feet;
(4) 564031'20"W 157.90 feet;
(5) 548x33'0011W 218.00 feet;
(6) S49o5210011W 200.54 feet;
(7) N37o0913111W 0.90 feet to a non-tangent point on curve;
(8) 354.80 feet along the arc of a curve to the left, having a radius of 5910.00
feet, a central angle of 0302612311, and a chord which bears S4503314111W
354.75 feet to a point of tangency;
(9) 54305012911W 350.00 feet to a point of curvature;
(10) 774.93 feet along the arc of a curve to the right, having a radius of
5550.00 feet, a central angle of 0800'0011, and a chord which bears
S47o5012911W 774.30 feet to a point of tangency;
(11) S51°5012911W 350.00 feet;
(12) 569041'49"W 274.90 feet to a non-tangent point on curve;
(13) 45.08 feet along the arc of a curve to the left, having a radius of 6000.00
feet, a central angle of 00025,5011, and a chord which bears 54900713411W
45.08 feet; thence, continuing along the existing Town of Vail Boundary, the
following twelve (12) courses along the southeasterly line of the parcel
annexed to the Town of Vail by Ordinance 26, Series of 1986:
(1) 681.89 feet along the arc of a curve to the left, having a radius of 6000.00
feet, a central angle of 06030,4211, and a chord which bears 54505115411W
681.52 feet to a point of non-tangency;
(2) 542,,34'45"W 6.30 feet;
(3) S6200213911W 282.20 feet;
(4) S260181 4611W 463.30 feet;
(5) S280441 2311W 458.90 feet:
(6) S460151 4511W•178.42 feet to a non-tangent point on curve;
(7) 219.18 feet along the arc of a curve to the left, having a radius of 800.00
feet, a central angle of 15041'511', and a chord which bears 54602913611W
218.50 feet to a point of non-tangency;
(8) S3804410011W 414.59 feet;
(9) S45048118"W 422.13 feet;
(10) S21°3612411W 392.37 feet to a non-tangent point on curve;
(11) 285.23 feet along the arc of a curve to the right, having a radius of
1760.00 feet, a central angle of 0901710811, and a chord which bears
S59°23118"W 284.92 feet to a point of non-tangency;
(12) S67°0312411W 259.95 feet; thence, departing the existing Town of Vail
Boundary, the following thirteen (13) courses along the northwesterly
right-of-way line of Interstate Highway No. 70:
(1) 566057143"W 28.15 feet;
(2) 568°25147"W 113.3 feet;
(3) 567025'0311W 307.8 feet to a non-tangent point on curve;
(4) 223.4 feet along the arc of a curve to the left, having a radius of 3015.0
feet, a central angle of 0401414011, and chord which bears S63°18'22"W 223.3
feet to a point of non-tangency;
(5) S59°11'56"W 307.8 feet;
(6) S5801110611W 559.0 feet to a point of curvature;
(7) 2.0 feet along the arc of a curve to the left, having a radius of 3040.0
feet, a central angle of 00°02 16", and a chord which bears S5800915811W 2.0
feet to point of non-tangency;
(8) S01°3213811E 17.30 feet to a non-tangent point on curve;
(9) 711.1 feet along the arc of a curve to the left, having a radius of 5880.0
feet, a central angle of 06055,4511, and a chord which bears S5001913611W
710.7 feet to a point of tangency;
(10) S46051144"W 464.7 feet;
(11) S75°17'27"W 345.1 feet to a non-tangent point on curve;
(12) 174.5 feet along the arc of a curve to the right, having a radius of 846.00
feet, a central angle of 110491, and a chord which bears 561031'14"W 174.2
feet to a point of non-tangency;
(13) S73°28'58"W 22.8 feet, thence, departing said northwesterly right-of-way
line of Interstate Highway No. 70, S01034129"E 518.1 feet to the
southeasterly right-of-way line of Interstate Highway No. 70; thence
N5404715211E 53.69 feet along said southeasterly right-of-way line; thence
the following four (4) courses along the northwesterly line of Vail
Intermountain Development Subdivision, Block 10, according to the plat
thereof recorded in Book 254 at Page 974:
(1) N54o4715211E 181.51 feet to a non-tangent point on curve;
(2) 241.88 feet along the arc of a curve to the ].eft, having a radius of 1246.00
feet, a central angle of 1107'21", and a chord which bears N6100213411E
241.50 feet to a point of non-tangency;
(3) N55059'3311E 373.60 feet;
(4) N4304215211E 99.72 feet; thence the following three (3) courses along the
northwesterly line of Vail Intermountain Development Subdivision, Blocks 5
and 6, according to the plat thereof recorded in Book 218 at Page 799:
(1) N44o14'31"E 72.78 feet;
(2) N4505910911E 303.00 feet to point of curvature;
(3) 309.23 feet along the'arc of a curve to the right, having a radius of
3344.00 feet, a central angle of 0303'56" (05017'23" calculated), and a
chord which bears N47c3l'0711E (N48138106"E calculated) 309.11 feet, to the
existing Town of Vail Boundary; thence, along the existing Town of Vail
Boundary, the following eleven (11) courses along the northwesterly line of
the parcel annexed to the Town of Vail by Ordinance 15, Series of 1987:
(1) 350.19 feet along the arc of a curve to the right, having a radius of
3344.00 feet, a central angle of 0600'0011, and a chord which bears
N55°10'38"E 350.03 feet to a point of tangency;
(2) N58011'0611E 559.86 feet;
(3) N59010109"E 290.30 feet to a non-tangent point on curve;
(4) 194.36 feet along the arc of a curve to the right, having a radius of
2680.00 feet, a central angle of 04009'1811, and a chord which bears
N63°37144"E 194.31 feet to a point of non-tangency;
(5) N67o25109"E 197.10 feet;
(6) N87o0910011E 220.75 feet;
(7) N21o3710611W 73.65 feet;
(8) N6903410011E 315.60 feet to a non-tangent point on curve;
(9) 783.9 feet along the arc of a curve to the left, having a radius of 2110.0
feet, a central angle of 2117'11", and a chord which bears N5301411811E
779.4 feet to a point of non-tangency;
(10) N35°13'27"E 473.0 feet; ,
(11) N351)10147"E 131.67 feet; thence, departing the existing Town of Vail
Boundary, the following two (2) courses along the southeasterly right-of-way
line of Interstate Highway No. 70:
(1) N35013141"E 74.93 feet to a non-tangent point on curve;
(2) 299.2 feet along the arc of a curve to the right, having a radius of 5540.0
feet, a central angle of 0305'3711, and a chord which bears N351122'01"E
299.1 feet; thence the following six (6) courses along the northwesterly
line of Elliott Ranch Subdivision, according to the plat thereof recorded in
Book 285 at Page 925:
(1) 280.92 feet along the arc of a curve to the right, having a radius of
5540.00 feet, a central angle of 0254'1911, and a chord which bears
N38°2311911E 280.89 feet to a point of tangency;
(2) N390501 2911E 100.00 feet;
(3) N52o1913811E 92.20 feet;
(4) S830451 53"E 36.10 feet;
(5). N39o501 2911E 340.00 feet;
(6) N27°0012511E 34.74 feet; thence, departing the northwesterly line of said
Elliott Ranch Subdivision, and continuing along the southeasterly right-of-
way line of Interstate Highway No. 70, the following seven (7) courses:
(1) N27o001 0711E 105.9 feet;
(2) N36o4212211E 332.9 feet;
(3) N46033I1111E 348.1 feet;
(4) N370081 2211E 71.4 feet;
(5) N470331 2211E 89.1 feet;
(6) N010391 4011E 24.9 feet;
(7) N48°0015711E 322.92 feet to the existing Town of Vail Boundary; thence, along
the existing Town of Vail Boundary, the following six (6) courses along the
northwesterly line of the parcel annexed to the Town of Vail by Ordinance
18, Series of 1986:
(1) N48000'57"E 308.28 feet;
(2) N4405010111E 217.50 feet to a non-tangent point on curve;
w
(3) 783.60 feet along the arc of a curve to the left, having a radius of 5780.00
feet, a central angle of 07046104 and a chord which bears N4802212711E
783.00 feet to a point of tangency;
(4) N44o29129"E 825.90 feet to a point of curvature;
(5) 410.24 feet along the arc of a curve to the right, having a radius of
2815.00 feet, a central angle of 0802110011, and a chord which bears
N4803915911E 409.88 feet to a point of tangency;
(6) N5205012911E 552.40 feet; thence, continuing along the existing Town of Vail
Boundary, and along the northwesterly line of the parcel annexed to the
Town of Vail by Ordinance 26, Series of 1978, N2305012011E 656.0 feet, to the
TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.
ORDINANCE NO. 28
SERIES OF 2000
ANNUAL APPROPRIATION ORDINANCE: ADOPTING A BUDGET AND
FINANCIAL PLAN AND MAKING APPROPRIATIONS TO PAY THE COSTS,
EXPENSES, AND LIABILITIES OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, FOR ITS
FISCAL YEAR JANUARY 1, 2001, THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2001.
WHEREAS,' in accordance with Article IX of the Charter of the Town of Vail, Colorado,
the Town Manager prepared and submitted to the Town Council a proposed long-range capital
program for the Town and a proposed budget and financial plan for all Town fiends and activities
for the fiscal year; and
WHEREAS, notice of public hearing on the proposed Town budget and capital program
was published on the 3" of November, 2000, more than seven (7) days prior to the hearing held
on the 21" of November, 2000, pursuant to Section 9.5 of the Charter; and
WHEREAS, it is necessary for the Town Council to adopt a budget and financial plan for
the 2001 fiscal year, to make appropriations for the amounts specified in the budget; and
NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the Town Council of the Town of Vail, Colorado,
that:
1. The procedures prescribed in Article IX of the Charter of the Town of Vail, Colorado,
for the enactment hereof have been fulfilled.
2. Pursuant to Article IX of the Charter, the Town Council hereby makes the following
annual appropriations for the Town of Vail, Colorado, for its fiscal year beginning on the first day
of January, 2001, and ending on the 31 st day of December, 2001:
FUND AMOUNT
General Fund $19,110,219
Capital Projects Fund 1,0;421 03Q
Real Estate Transfer Tax Fund 12,661,232;
Vail Marketing Fund 336,700
Debt Service Fund 2,324,908
Heavy Equipment Fund 2,275,541
Health Insurance Fund 1,703,660
Dispatch Services Fund 1.287.318
Total $50120;60.8:
Less Interfund Transfers (6.024,192)
Net Budget
09C416=
3. The Town Council hereby adopts the full and complete Budget and Financial Plan
for the 2001 fiscal year for the Town of Vail, Colorado, which are incorporated by reference
herein and made part hereof, and copies of said public records shall be made available to the
public in the Municipal Building of the Town.
4. This Ordinance shall take effect five (5) days after publication following the final
passage hereof.
Ordurmice No. 28, Series of 2000
1
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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 ON FIRST READING, APPROVED AND ORDERED
PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL, this 7`h day of November, 2000. A public hearing shall be held
hereon on the 216` day of November, 2000, at the regular meeting of the Town Council of the
Town of Vail, Colorado, in the Municipal Building of the Town.
Ludwig Kurz, Mayor
ATTEST:
Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk
READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED in
this 216` day of November, 2000.
Ludwig Kurz, Mayor
ATTEST:
Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk
Ordinance No. 28, Series of 2000
2
ORDINANCE NO. 29
SERIES OF 2000
AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE LEVY ASSESSMENT AND COLLECTION
OF TOWN AD VALOREM PROPERTY TAXES DUE FOR THE 2000 TAX YEAR AND
PAYABLE IN i ttE 2001 FISCAL YEAR
WHEREAS, it is necessary for t e Town Council to provide for the levy, assessment and
collection of Town ad valorem property taxes due for the 2000 year and payable in the 2001 fiscal
year.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the Town Council of the Town of Vail, Colorado,
that:
1. For the purpose of defraying part of the operating and capital expenses of the
Town of Vail, Colorado, during its 2001 fiscal year, the Town Council hereby levies a property
tax of 4.705 mills upon each dollar of the total assessed valuation of $513,332,310 for the 2000
tax year of all taxable property within the Town, which will result in a gross tax levy of
$2,415,229, calculated as follows:
Base mill levy 4.690 $2,407,529
Abatement levy .015 7.700
Total mill levy 4.705 $2.41 ,229
Said assessment shall be duly made by the County of Eagle, State of Colorado, as directed by the
Colorado Revised Statutes (1973 as amended), and as otherwise required by law.
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.
3. The Town Council hereby finds, determines, and declares that this ordinance is
necessary and proper for the health, safety, and welfare of the Town of Vail and the inhabitants
thereof.
4. The repeal or the repeal and reenactment of any provision of the Municipal Code
of the Town of Vail as provided in this ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any
duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution
commenced, nor any other action or proceedings as commenced under or by virtue of the
provision repealed or repealed and reenacted. The repeal of any provision hereby shall not revive
any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein.
1
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 ON FIRST READING, APPROVED AND ORDERED
PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL, this 21 st day of November, 2000. A public hearing shall be held
hereon on the 5'' day of December, 2000, at the regular meeting of the Town Council of the
Town of Vail, Colorado, in the Municipal Building of the Town.
Ludwig Kurz, Mayor
ATTEST:
Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk
READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED in
this 5`' day of December, 2000.
Ludwig Kurz, Mayor
ATTEST:
Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk
2
PEER RESORT COMPARISONS
SPRING 2000
CONTEXT/BACKGROUND
ASPEN
¦ First silver prospectors arrived in 1879 and by the early 1890s, the population
grew to over 12,000, making it the third largest city in Colorado behind
Denver and Leadville. At one time, Aspen was the largest producer of silver
in North America
¦ When Congress repealed the Sherman Act in 1893 and the country returned
to the gold standard, silver prices plunged eventually leaving a population of
approximately 350 by the 1930s
¦ Walter Paepcke's "Aspen Idea" of mind, body, spirit was launched around
1945 with creation of the Aspen Skiing Corporation, Aspen Institute, Design
Conference at Aspen and Aspen Music Festival
¦ Aspen Mountain opened for skiing in 1946 but didn't gain much prominence
until it was selected to host the World Alpine Ski Championships in 1950
¦ Today's population is 6,000 full-time residents; skier visits at all four
mountains total 1.32 million. (Snowmass has three times the skier volume
than Aspen)
¦ Impacts of trophy homes (generating an estimated 2.5 employees year-
round) had caused Pitkin County to place a 6-month moratorium on
construction of new homes of 5,000 sq. ft. or more
PARK CITY
¦ Founded in 1869 as a silver-mining town; by 1900, it was a booming mining
town with 10,000 residents and 100 saloons
¦ The mining company opened Park City Mountain Resort in 1963.
¦ Historic District for preservation in the commercial core
¦ Park City is home for many people who work in Salt Lake City, creating a 2-
way rush hour between the two cities
¦ Primary homeowners' property taxes are 55% of total assessed; second
homeowners are taxed at 100% value
¦ Today's population is 6,500 full-time residents; skier visits at Park City
Mountain Resort total 1.2 million; NA at Deer Valley; and 200,000 at the
Canyons
SUN VALLEY
¦ In the early 1880s, Ketchum was a booming mining town and had a
reputation for its therapeutic hot springs. By 1884, it was a thriving mining
town with 13 saloons, 4 restaurants, 2 hotels and many other businesses.
¦ By 1936, the once prosperous mining town had been transformed into a
sleepy little town with a year-round population of 100 people. Union Pacific
began construction of the Sun Valley Resort and doors were opened in 1937
to the public.
¦ Sun Valley, "America's First Destination Ski Resort," was frequented by many
famous movie stars including Clark Gable, Gary Cooper and Ingrid Bergman.
¦ Today's population in Ketchum is 3,873 full-time residents; 997 full-time
residents in Sun Valley. Skier visits at Sun Valley total 96,500.
WHISTLER
¦ In the early 1900s people came to the Whistler area, then known as Alta
Lake, during the summer for fishing and lake activities. Mines and mills were
also operational in the area at that time.
¦ In 1914, the railroad made access to the area much easier
¦ In 1965, Highway 99 was completed and Whistler Mountain opened for skiing
¦ The first Resort Municipality in Canada, Whistler incorporated in 1975, giving
Whistler taxation capabilities never before used in Canada
¦ Today's population is over 5,000 full-time residents. Eighty percent of the
Whistler workforce lives in town. Skier visits total 2.2 million for
Whistler/Blackcomb combined.
VAIL
¦ Vail was developed as a European-themed ski resort which opened in 1962
by visionaries who served in the 10th Mountain Division (ski troopers) during
World War II
¦ Since then, a community has grown up around the resort with 4,500
permanent residents now calling Vail home
¦ 70 percent of the properties in Vail are owned by part-time residents
¦ Vail has increasingly become a destination for international visitors following
the 1989 World Alpine Ski Championships
¦ Skier visits are about 1.4 million annually
NICHE
ASPEN
¦ Retreat for body, mind & spirit via recreation, humanities and culture
¦ Environmental consciousness (Ski Co & Community)
¦ Glamour, glitz & expense
¦ Preservation of Victorian architecture
¦ Shopping
PARK CITY
¦ 2002 Winter Olympics
¦ Myles Rademan influence
¦ Customer service at Deer Valley
¦ Historic shopping district
SUN VALLEY
¦ Nostalgia/mystique of Sun Valley Lodge & ownership
¦ "America's first destination ski resort"
2
¦ Summer ice show
KETCHUM
¦ Small-town atmosphere and western feel
¦ Emerging art galleries
WHISTLER
¦ #1 Ski Area in North America (Ski Magazine)
¦ High value for American dollar
¦ Energy and vitality
VAIL
¦ Extraordinary ski mountain
¦ International focus
¦ World championships venue (skiing, mountain biking)
¦ Pedestrian village design
¦ Fortune 500 influence
¦ Gerald & Betty Ford
VISION
ASPEN
¦ The "Aspen Idea," developed in the late 1940s by Walter Paepcke is the
central vision that serves to connect the city, ski company and other core
organizations. Aspen strives to symbolize the "finest and fullest realizations
of mankind's physical, spiritual and intellectual possibilities." The Aspen
Institute, the Aspen Music Festival and School, the International Design
Conference at Aspen and the Aspen Skiing Company are outgrowths of this
1940s "modern renaissance." The vision is complex and involves multiple
organizations and efforts.
PARK CITY
¦ 'We're a ski town. Without it, we're a suburb." Myles Rademan, the city's
public affairs director, who launched a leadership training program in 1996, is
largely responsible for creating continuity in this vision over the years.
However, officials are feeling somewhat threatened by the growing number of
Salt Lake City transplants who live in Park City but commute to their jobs in
Salt Lake. The challenge, they say, is for these new residents to understand
and appreciate the ski town economy and how it contributes favorably to their
quality of life. The 2002 Winter Olympics has served as the inspiration for
pulling together. Also, the city is most responsible for setting the ski town
tone, since there are three separate ski operations and no dominant entity.
The city's charge is to help position Park City as a "world-class, year-round
community that respects its, environment, heritage and diversity."
SUN VALLEY
3
¦ "We're a full-service summer and winter resort, where skiing is just one part of what
we do." The Sun Valley ownership appears to operate in a self-sufficient mode in
isolation from Ketchum.
KETCHUM
¦ 'To sustain the quality of life enjoyed by Ketchum's residents and quality of
experience offered to visitors." The draft Ketchum Comprehensive Plan also goes
on to state: "because real estate development, sales, construction and related
activities are now the most important economic force in the area, the City is no
longer totally dependent on ski resort activities for its economic well-being."
WHISTLER
¦ "We will be the premier mountain resort community." Specific goals have been
adopted within the Resort Municipality and Intrawest to build upon a four-season
resort focus, including a bid for the 2010 Winter Olympics.
VAIL
¦ "To be the premier mountain resort community." Work is currently underway to add
additional clarity to the vision to better understand what success will look and feel
like.
RESORT COMMUNITY ALIGNMENT (Residents. Elected Officials. Ski Col
ASPEN
¦ Alignment wasn't all that obvious to the delegation. For example, each group we
talked to had a different set of issues and priorities. While the city was focused on
serving community needs with a $25 million major youth/recreation initiative for
parks, recreation and trails, the Chamber identified a shrinking bed base and lack of
available airline seats as serious issues. Neither the Aspen Ski Company nor the
Chamber Resort Association seemed to be involved in influencing the city's political
agenda as a partner entity. "There's no question Aspen is a community first. The
resort can wait in line. Most people here are pleased Whistler is No. 1 and not
Aspen," said Pat O'Donnell, CEO Aspen Ski Corporation. "People feel if Aspen Ski
Co succeeds, it will threaten the small-town character," he continued. Interestingly,
Aspen City Manager Steve Barwick said, 'we're still a ski town.... If we saw a 10
percent decrease in skier days, we'd be hurt." We were told the business
community rarely weighs in on issues in an organized way. However, that may
change as the second homeowner economy begins to take hold with door-to-door
deliveries, etc. This is expected to cause a decrease in the volume of "walk-in" retail
business.
PARK CITY
¦ With all eyes on the 2002 Winter Olympics, Park City appears to be focused and
aligned. Ski areas are working on a reciprocal lift ticket. Park City Mountain Resort
suggests a collective visioning process--looking 20 years out--with the city, county
and three ski areas as a "constant process."
4
SUN VALLEY/KETCHUM
¦ Mostly, we found alignment extremes in the Sun Valley region. For example, we
heard instances in which second homeowners within the City of Sun Valley are
willing to write personal checks for municipal needs, such as a fire truck or
snowplow. It was described as a "country club" atmosphere. However, residents in
Ketchum are more conservative. There, elected officials faced an unsuccessful
recall effort when they voted to add a density bonus for a 44-unit residential
development that included 14 inclusionary housing units. In addition, news of a
newly-dismissed lawsuit protesting Ketchum's annual contribution to the Chamber
as an economic development tool was on the front page of the local newspaper.
Meanwhile, the director of the Chamber of Commerce expressed frustration about
Sun Valley's low-key marketing efforts, while Ketchum representatives didn't
mention how tourism or skiing ties into their vision at all. Instead, they identified the
second home economy as the "driving force." Chamber and Sun Valley Resort
officials expressed frustration in the Hailey Airport Board's decision to ban 737s from
the airport, which makes access to the area more difficult. While each of these
stakeholder groups has roles, these groups don't appear to be working toward a
collective higher purpose.
WHISTLER
¦ The various stakeholder groups appeared to be working in the same direction with a
strong sense of purpose to make Whistler a premier resort and that a key means of
doing that is through a strong community. Monthly meetings are held among the
larger stakeholder group, including Tourism Whistler, ski company, Municipality of
Whistler, Chamber and Lodging representatives. In addition, private quarterly
meetings are held among the ski co, Municipality and Tourism Whistler to visit goals
and encourage open dialogue.
VAIL
¦ Through the leadership of Mayor Ludwig Kurz and Vail Mountain COO Bill Jensen,
the Town of Vail and Vail Resorts are positioned to work together to identify and
achieve common goals after bringing more clarity to Vail's vision. Once this fine-
tuning has been completed, the possibilities for shared community-wide alignment
are enormous and would give Vail a distinct competitive advantage.
CRITICAL ISSUES
ASPEN
¦ As identified by the City:
¦ Affordable housing. A 200-bed joint seasonal project with the Music Associates
is opening in June. Will be used in summer for music program and in winter for
ski employees. A 38-unit rental project for low income seniors opened in
September. Working on a 225 for-sale project outside the city limits with a pre-
annexation agreement. Very controversial and may take to a public vote in
August rather than fight it out with citizen initiative.
5
• Transportation. Light rail still in limbo. Developing a Regional Transportation
Authority with 8 municipalities and portions of three counties. A boundary vote
will occur this November. With driver shortages and capital replacement costs,
can't continue to sustain service levels unless a permanent funding source is in
place.
¦ Youth/Recreation Initiatives. $25 million project. Adding ballfields, relocating
fields, new pool, ice rink, youth center moving to new location. Also includes
park improvements, trail system improvements, Nordic system, sidewalk
improvements. "Huge reward for our work force." $14 million bond passed last
May with 80 percent public support.
¦ As identified by the Ski Co:
¦ Strict land use controls are regulating the tourism economy in a negative way.
City/County won't let Aspen Ski Co use its assets to the fullest. For example,
use of the gondola in the evenings is prohibited.
¦ Down-valley movement. "We-"they" mentality. "Haves and have-nots" are
creating hard feelings. By only having the elite in Aspen, community fabric is
reduced. Also, hard to find workers.
¦ Lack of affordable seasonal housing.
¦ Second home retreats host parties and function in isolation. Has caused a shift
in the economy: the catering business is booming and the restaurant business is
declining.
¦ "There's an apathy about skiing and I'm frightened that it could become an
amenity like golf. With Vail's mass, you shouldn't face this.... These days,
people seem only interested in an 'adequate' mountain and nothing more. Our
business is the ski business. We're not in the real estate business. Maybe
servicing the older person is our niche." Pat O'Donnell, CEO Aspen Ski Co
¦ As identified by the Aspen Chamber Resort Association:
¦ Capacity of town is a limiting factor in airline seats and live beds. Lost 35 percent
of airline seats when Continental closed its Denver hub in 1994. Now rely on
Eagle County Airport. Bed base peaked in 1994. Then, with loss in economy
lodge sector (12 lodges lost to private home development), bed base is now 20
percent smaller than 1994. Erosion could be even higher due to lack of
comprehensive data source.
¦ Work force shortage crisis caused by housing and transportation.
PARK CITY
¦ As identified by the city:
¦ Downtown area and parking issues
• Growth (economic development, housing prices)
¦ Relationships with county (urban sprawl, development review)
• Bedroom community of Salt Lake City (possible erosion of ski town culture)
¦ Olympic participation
¦ Internet sales (loss of municipal tax income)
¦ Fractional fee units (lost tax income if not in rental pool)
¦ As identified by Park City Mountain Resort:
¦ Poor quality of base area
6
¦ Aging and quality of bed base
KETCHUM
¦ Design and character of downtown
¦ Parking (is it a problem or not?)
¦ Entrance to town
¦ Future planning of River Run ski base area development
¦ Affordable housing
WHISTLER
¦ Completing a vision plan
¦ Access
¦ Affordable housing
¦ Conversion to paid parking
¦ 2010 Olympic bid
VAIL
¦ Lodging quality
¦ Resort value
¦ Redevelopment
¦ Affordable housing
¦ Public amenities
¦ Community polarization
¦ Leadership
¦ Clarity of vision
ACCESS
ASPEN
• Sardy Field in Aspen offers 12 daily flights via United Express from DIA. Northwest
Airlines flies nonstop twice daily between Aspen and Minneapolis/St. Paul and
America West Express offers year-round nonstop service between Phoenix and
Aspen. Visitors also rely on service from the Eagle County Regional Airport, 70
miles away. Aspen is a 3 Y2 hour drive from Denver.
PARK CITY
¦ A 30-something mile drive from airport in Salt Lake City.
SUN VALLEY/KETCHUM
¦ Requires a connecting flight to Hailey from Salt Lake City, or a 22 hour drive from
the Boise airport. Efforts continue to allow 737s to return to the Hailey airport.
WHISTLER
¦ A 60-mile drive along the Sea-to-Sky Highway from the Vancouver International
Airport. If Whistler wins the Olympic bid for 2010, a high-speed rail line and
widening of the highway are anticipated to be funded by a federal grant.
7
VAIL
¦ A 30-plus mile drive from Eagle County Regional Airport which offers nonstop
service from 11 U.S. cities; a two-plus hour drive from Denver International Airport.
A high-speed monorail from DIA to the Eagle County Airport is under statewide
consideration.
SENSE OF ARRIVAL
ASPEN
¦ Traffic was heavy along Highway 82 (even on a non-peak day) as we made our
entry into Aspen. Various forms of development were visible on the valley floor from
Glenwood Springs to Aspen. A sense of arrival into Aspen occurs when the highway
transforms into a tree-lined main street at the edge of the city. The transition creates
a feeling of tranquility and calm.
PARK CITY
¦ A four-lane boulevard entry from the suburbs of Salt Lake City created an urban
impression. Later, "quaintness" was the term the group used to describe the historic
shopping district with its mining town architecture and scale.
KETCHUM/SUN VALLEY
¦ The entry into Ketchum from the Hailey Airport had a rural feeling with high-end
residential developments sprinkled alongside the two-lane roadway. With multiple
ski portals at Sun Valley, there was no single sense of arrival.
WHISTLER
¦ The group arrived in darkness and had a difficult time finding the lodge. Prior to
nightfall, the winding drive along the Sea-to-Sky Highway from Vancouver was
interesting and scenic.
VAIL
¦ From 1-70 west over Vail Pass, the arrival into Vail along the interstate is more
majestic than arrival from 1-70 east due to the absence of development along Vail
Pass. Dowd Junction serves to help buffer the urban areas from Eagle-Vail to
Edwards. Entry features are eventually planned for Vail's off-ramps.
SENSE OF PLACE
ASPEN
¦ Aspen's mining roots and its Victorian architecture provide an authentic sense of
place. The downtown area is designed in traditional square blocks and is easy to
navigate. The ski mountain and chairlifts are visible from most areas of the city,
providing a sense of connection to the mountain and environment.
PARK CITY
8
• The historic mining district, with its 234 shops and restaurants, is the central activity
hub of Park City. The district includes a chairlift from the center of town to Park City
Mountain Resort. The Deer Valley ski area is a self-contained
residential/commercial area and is separated from other elements of the city, as is
the Canyons ski area, with new development occurring at the base, just outside the
city limits.
SUN VALLEY
¦ The Sun Valley Lodge, built in 1938, is rich with history and mystique, creating a
strong sense of connection among those who visit. The experience is revered and is
passed down from one generation to the next. On the mountain, the newly built day
lodges, with their magnificent splendor, serve to reinforce Sun Valley as a magical
place. Ketchum, itself, contributes little to this magical experience, as most of Sun
Valley's operations, including lodging, commercial, restaurant and skiing, are self-
contained within the Sun Valley ownership.
KETCHUM
¦ With cars parked down the middle of the streets, Ketchum had an old-west, relaxing
feeling. However, some of the newer commercial development projects seemed to
conflict with the old-west persona.
WHISTLER
¦ The pedestrian villages at the base of Whistler and Blackcomb mountains serve as a
crossroads to connect visitors and residents, creating vibrancy and energy. The
pedestrian village is the focal point for retail in the region, with a notable absence of
`strip mail' development in Whistler.
VAIL
¦ Vail Village, with its landmark Covered Bridge and Clock Tower, has created
postcard images and memories for years.
SKI AREA OWNERSHIP
ASPEN
¦ Aspen Skiing Company is privately owned by a private corporation headed by the
Crown Family. It operates Aspen Mountain ("the athlete's mountain") which rises
above the city. Plus, 3 other ski areas on the outskirts of town: Buttermilk Mountain
("the finest learning mountain in America"); Aspen Highlands ("the activities
mountain"); and Snowmass ("Colorado's finest high altitude cruise"). All four areas
are operated on White River National Forest lands. The Aspen Ski Co operations
are mountain-focused with little to no real estate opportunities available.
PARK CITY
¦ The 3 ski areas surrounding Park City have three ownership groups: Deer Valley is
privately owned by Edgar Stern and Rodger Penske; Park City Mountain Resort is
owned by Powder Corp., a Park City-based private corporation; the Canyons is
9
owned by American Skiing Corporation, a publicly traded company accountable to
stockholders. All 3 ski areas are operated on private lands and real estate
development is a component of all 3 companies.
SUN VALLEY
¦ Privately-owned by a hands-on oil magnate, Sun Valley's resort operations are
driven by the owner's desires and priorities to operate a full-scale resort in which
skiing is but one of several amenities. The mountain is private property and base
mountain development is pending.
WHISTLER
¦ Owned by Intrawest, a publicly traded company accountable to stockholders. The
mountains are owned by the Canadian Province.
VAIL
¦ Owned by Vail Resorts, a publicly traded company accountable to stockholders and
operated on White River National Forest lands. VRI has an active real estate
division. In addition, VRI operates Beaver Creek, Breckenridge and Keystone, also
on Forest Service lands.
AESTHETICS
ASPEN
¦ Mixture of new and old architecture works well and maintains small-town Victorian
character. Size and impacts of trophy homes becoming a concern.
PARK CITY
• With most of the surrounding land privately owned, hillside development was very
noticeable. Also, overhead power lines stretched throughout the historic district.
Structures in the historic downtown district were narrow and quaint, reflecting the
mining influence, while structures in the Deer Valley area were newer and larger,
resembling Beaver Creek.
SUN VALLEY
• With a countywide ban on hillside development and commercial operations
contained--by legislation--to the urban areas, the drive into Sun Valley had a
pleasurable, rural feel. Once in Ketchum, a growth surge in the commercial area
was noticeable that included new, larger buildings that seemed to overpower
neighboring buildings. Overhead power lines were noticeable in most locations. At
the Sun Valley ski area, the interior and exterior of new day lodges had the look and
feel of a four-star hotel.
WHISTLER
¦ Pedestrian village intersections are a focal point for street entertainment and cafes.
Exterior finishes in commercial villages were of a lower quality than many of us had
expected.
10
VAIL
¦ Established view corridors preserve critical views to the mountain throughout the
pedestrian villages. Plans to upgrade some of the larger buildings in Lionshead are
underway.
LODGING/BED BASE ISSUES
ASPEN
¦ Aspen's bed base is eroding through attrition and closure of older antiquated lodges
¦ Approximately 300 beds have been lost since 1994 alone
¦ For several years regulatory policy weighed heavily against the refurbishment or
replacement of old lodges; recent regulatory changes are intended to and may
reduce the approval and mitigation burdens of redeveloping lodges, though
economic challenges of hotel redevelopment may constrain the addition of "live"
beds
¦ Lodging quality is generally very good to excellent in renovated lodges and adequate
to fair in older properties
¦ Lodging variety is generally good, particularly when valley wide lodging stock and
condominiums are considered
PARK CITY
¦ Park City's bed base is spread out across the valley from the Canyons to the Old
Town base to Deer Valley
¦ Bed base is growing, primarily at the Canyons with the new Grand Summit condo
hotel and Marriott timeshare projects in Park City itself. Deer Valley's lodging base
appears to be static.
¦ Lodging quality in Park City and the Canyons appears to be typically mid-range with
limited variety; Deer Valley lodging stock is of higher quality, but very limited supply
¦ Significant opportunities for expanded bed base exist in three areas:
¦ The Park City base parking lot site
¦ American Ski Company's Canyons projects
¦ Perimeter and rural areas
SUN VALLEY
¦ Ketchum
• The town bed base is in danger of attrition through the loss of older,
uneconomical lodges, particularly at entry level price points
¦ From May 1999 to May 2000, the valley lost 951 short-term beds, a 16 percent
decline from 6,710, according to the Sun Valley-Ketchum Chamber of
Commerce. Developers say retail, office or long-term residential units command
higher rents than hotel space.
¦ Existing Ketchum lodging, excluding condominiums, appears to be concentrated
in low to mid-price hotel / motel product of little variety and modest appeal
¦ Very modest incremental bed base is being added in the form of a high-end
vacation club project
¦ The River Run site offers an excellent opportunity for mixed use lodging by the
Sun Valley Resort Company, probably in the form of a boutique hotel, fractional,
and condominium product
¦ Redevelopment and in-fill opportunities for a wider variety of lodging would
appear to be significant
¦ Sun Valley
¦ The bed base is old in a classic sense, but refurbished high end product under
common resort company management; service quality is high
¦ Reinvestment in the rooms has resulted in three complete room renovations in
25 years
¦ A mix of conventional lodges, condominiums, and cabins provides variety
¦ Significant expansion opportunities exist on 2,000 undeveloped acres
¦ Strong summer business and the growth of summer destination business would
seem to provide a significant growth opportunity if access and transportation
constraints are resolved
¦ Hailey
¦ The bed base appears to be limited to low end motel type product and physically
removed from the resort's central amenities and attractions
¦ Given the location, competitive lodging opportunities in Hailey appear to be
minimal
WHISTLER
¦ Whistler is still creating new bed base, recently in the Blackcomb area with
expansions to Chateau Whistler, the Whistler Club fractional product, and a
forthcoming Four Seasons hotel, and at the foot of Whistler Mountain with a new
Westin "strata" or condo hotel; these expansions alone amount to several hundred
keys and "live" beds
¦ Additional bedbase, probably in the form of condo hotels with governmentally
mandated rental pools will be built in the redeveloped and newly expanded western
portals to Whistler Mountain
¦ Lodging variety and quality are impressive and/or adequate from the high end (Pan
Pacific, Chateau Whistler, etc.) to mid-price and entry level products
¦ In all price points value is excellent, especially given present currency differentials
¦ Whistler's build-out bed base is defined and capped through the resort municipality
master plan
Affordability may be affected once supply reaches its mandated limit, but the
excellent mix and well funded cooperative marketing efforts of Tourism Whistler may
manage the hospitality economy effectively and sustainably
VAIL
¦ Vail's "live" bed base is eroding as older condominium properties greatly increase in
value and are removed from rental programs as second homes
¦ Older mid-price and entry level lodges have not been adequately maintained or
continually refurbished resulting in poor guest impressions of value and under-
performing occupancies in several key properties
12
¦ Compared to many newer resort products Vail's bed base appears dated and
substandard; even flagship properties' rooms are regarded as undersized, of
marginal quality, and short on amenities
¦ Opportunities for new or upgraded bed base are limited to incremental expansions
or redevelopment of existing properties, both of which are financially difficult and
constrained by regulatory measures designed to protect community character
¦ Vail's lodging base is challenged by saving what has made it special while
reinvigorating the product and value
¦ Opportunities for a few, incremental improvements in bed base, through
redevelopment or otherwise, offer the potential of expanding the variety of offerings
and raising the overall perceived value, supplementing and complimenting existing
stock
¦ An opportunity might exist for public / private collaboration to reinvest in older lodges
to alleviate the financial burdens of refurbishment
SERVICE QUALITY & EMPLOYEE HOUSING
ASPEN
¦ Chamber sponsors Aspen Service University twice a year which provides basic
customer training
¦ Due to the traffic congestion on Hwy 82, most service workers in Glenwood Springs
would rather drive to Vail to work than to Aspen
¦ Aspen Ski Co has "doubled" its housing inventory to 300 beds; "city has made a
commitment to housing, but you have to have lived here a while to take advantage
of it."
¦ Intranet recruitment has helped the hiring process
¦ As downvalley has developed, it has become harder to find employees to work in
Aspen
¦ 10 years ago, Aspen Ski Co would have 4 to 5 applicants per job; it's not that way
any more. However, the Ski Co still employs 250 people with 20 or more years of
service, including one person who has 45 years of service with the company
¦ Aspen Ski Co hires 1,000 new workers every year
¦ A valley pay study is underway to determine if Ski Co wages should be increased; lift
ops start at $9.25 an hour with an end of season bonus
¦ Aspen-Pitkin County Housing Authority has focused on supervisor-level housing,
leaving seasonal housing needs up to the private sector
¦ Aspen Ski Co is interested in building seasonal housing, but can't find the land
Park City
¦ Proximity to Salt Lake City with large labor pool and housing inventory reduces
worker shortage and affordable challenges experienced in most resorts; customer
service is enhanced via Mormon values instilled by many employees.
¦ Park City Mountain Resort still has problems recruiting and retaining employees. It
will likely recruit some employees from Australia. They're also looking at
automation. In addition, appeal of Winter Games will generate employment interest.
13
SUN VALLEY
• Affordable housing is a problem in Ketchum; only 10 to 15 percent of Ketchum's
workforce live in Ketchum; most Sun Valley/Ketchum employees live down valley in
Hailey
• Sun Valley has 470 beds for employees in the village; also use 2, 46-passenger
buses from Twin Falls to bring in 100 workers; there are 300 foreign nationals who
work at Sun Valley (100 from Costa Rica, 26 from Australia, 40 from France, 12 from
Peru and some from the Philippines)
• International employee recruitment occurs twice a year for Sun Valley
• Sun Valley operators say more adequate housing is needed for mid-management
and semi-professionals. "No one in the local community will build it, so we'll
probably* have to do it."
WHISTLER
¦ As a planned resort, Whistler has been successful in implementing a housing
program. Since 1997, over 1,100 employee restricted beds have been added to the
inventory, bringing the total number to about 2,600 beds (plus 1,500 beds operated
by the ski company).
• Whistler's housing goals are to house 80 percent of the Whistler workforce (retention
focus) and to facilitate the development of restricted ownership housing stock via the
private sector (500 units/year).
¦ The Chamber of Commerce provides training opportunities and recognition
programs for employers and employees to ensure service excellence throughout the
resort. In 1986, the Whistler Spirit Program was created. Discounted ski passes are
available to those who participate in one of the programs. There is no other
merchant or community discount program available; therefore, virtually everyone in
the community attends the Spirit program.
¦ There was a genuine level of pride and helpfulness in the staff and residents we
encountered. We attributed this to the following: drinking age is 19; 80 percent of
the workforce live in the Municipality of Whistler, most within walking distance to the
village; there are a lot of bars and restaurants that serve the workforce; there is a
high level of appreciation shown to the staff; 40 percent of employees on the
mountain are returning employees; half of the on-mountain employees are age 18-
25.
• Whistler/Blackcomb has a `Protagonist of Animation' on staff. His job is to keep the
employees enthusiastic. He skis around in the afternoon, giving lift operators
cookies; he holds beer and macaroni & cheese dinner parties for front-line staff; he
coordinates training programs.
VAIL
¦ In collaboration with the Town of Vail, Vail Resorts, Vail Chamber and Business
Association and Vail Valley Tourism & Convention Bureau, a communitywide
employee of the month program has been created. Thought to be the only one of its
kind in North America, "Premier Impressions" offers significant prizes and rewards
for excellence in guest service.
¦ In 1998, the Town of Vail completed construction of a 24-unit seasonal housing
14
development which is used for Town of Vail bus drivers, snowplow drivers and other
critical staff. It has dramatically reduced the employee shortages in these critical
areas. During the summer months, the units are made available to employees of
other local businesses.
¦ In 2000, the Town of Vail purchased 12 rental apartments from the local owner to
maintain the units as local employee housing and also to prevent them from being
converted into second homes.
¦ The Town has facilitated new ownership opportunities for 80 local employees.
¦ The Town of Vail, in potential partnership with Vail Resorts, is working to maintain
596 rental beds as local employee housing in the heart of the town.
¦ In partnership with Eagle County, the Town of Vail is presently working to develop
approximately 200 units (mix of for-sale and rental) for local employees on the Berry
Creek Fifth property in Edwards.
¦ In partnership with the Eagle River Water and Sanitation District, the Town of Vail
has been able to develop more affordable units through tap fee waivers.
¦ The Town master leases units from local property owners to provide, housing for
employees arriving from Australia and New Zealand for the winter season.
¦ The Town targets housing opportunities that exist near free bus routes to make
commuting easier and friendlier.
PARKING & TRANSPORTATION
ASPEN
¦ Paid parking has been successful. Was substantiated by a public vote to continue
the program. Generates $300,000 to $400,000 annually which gets plowed into
transit
¦ Prior to paid parking, spaces were occupied 100 percent of the time; now there are
vacancy rates of 15 percent and complaint levels are way down
¦ Parking structure costs $7.50 for all day or $3 for all day with a pass. On the street,
it's $1 an hour with a 2-hour maximum.
¦ Y2 cent countywide transit sales tax goes to regional transportation
¦ Rail service is still 5 years or more away
PARK CITY
¦ Parking: goal is to maximize utilization of spaces via high turnover
¦ Paid parking at $1 an hour with 3 hour maximum was implemented two years ago;
still a campaign issue; decision to maintain paid parking year-round on Main St.
¦ Some tourists have boycotted Park City because of paid parking, but most
complaints are from locals.
¦ Looking at the possibility of installing meters like Telluride
SUN VALLEY
¦ Ketchum can't decide if it has a parking problem or not. There are 1,700 free public
spaces with a 2 hour limit in the central core.
¦ Traffic congestion in and out of the valley is considered to be a problem
15
WHISTLER
¦ The provincial government runs Whistler transit (WAVE). This is a free service
around the Village area of Whistler and Blackcomb. The outlying routes to the
residential areas are paid routes of $1.50 per rider (Can), with discounted monthly
passes. There is no regional transit service between the towns of Squamish and
Pemberton, the two bedroom communities.
• Whistler would one day like to have free transit service, similar to Vail. The current
transit service is funded jointly by the provincial government and through use of the
hotel tax. One additional funding source for transit is possibly paid parking.
¦ There are over 5,000 free public parking spaces provided at the resort. In addition,
each development must meet a parking requirement. The transportation master
plan for Whistler suggests a paid parking management plan.
16
VAIL
¦ The Town of Vail developed significant parking at its base areas early-on in
its history. As such, the Town has 2,500 spaces of close-in parking available
for users. The challenge has been to control the demand for parking through
hourly fee structures which tends to conflict with Vail's desire to reduce the
price of parking to encourage visits by downvalley residents. The second
challenge is the split between destination skiers and day skiers. The split is
now moving more toward day skiers which puts additional pressure on the
number of parking spaces needed. Current estimates place the need for an
additional 1,000 spaces to meet this increased demand from day users.
¦ The Town of Vail Transit system is the envy of the industry. Currently over 3
million riders use it annually. It is the largest free system in North America. In
addition, there is a county transportation system which is funded with a half-
cent sales tax, which provides service for all county users. The challenge to
Vail's transit system is noise, smell and the always-difficult task of having
enough employees to run it. Work is currently underway to take the next
steps to solving these problems with new technology.
¦ Roadway capacity in the Town of Vail was solved for the near-future with
introduction of the modern roundabouts at the Main Vail and West Vail
interchanges. Now only minor improvements are needed to the circulatory
frontage roads to complete the system.
• Access across the interstate is a problem which still requires a solution.
LAND USE / REAL ESTATE ISSUES - CONSTRAINTS AND,
OPPORTUNITIES
ASPEN
¦ Largely built-out within the commercial core
¦ 2% growth caps limit development of outlying areas
¦ Real estate quality is almost entirely luxury; land prices are top of the resort
market
¦ Very expensive - limits the market to only the richest segment of the
population
¦ Highly regulated - keeps supply capped, but quality is very high as a result
¦ Redevelopment very constrained - revitalization difficult and uneconomical
¦ Municipal participation and subsidies only method of providing affordable
housing
¦ Comparatively a very good retail environment and mix despite on-going
debate of "nationals" versus local "boutiques"
¦ Commercial rents pushing $170 / s.f. on prime corners - beyond viability -
vacancies starting to appear and tax receipts falling
PARK CITY
• Town core itself nearly built-out; major site available at the base
¦ Real estate quality is generally mid-price point; Deer Valley is adequate
upper end
17
¦ Major development occurring at The Canyons - low to mid-price point real
estate
¦ Olympic infrastructure investments are enormous and will provide significant
physical amenities
¦ Outlying and rural areas of two counties provide substantial development
opportunities
¦ Residential housing is affordable outside of the municipal jurisdiction
¦ Sprawl and suburbanization pose serious land use, character, transportation,
and "community" problems
¦ "Main Street" commercial core has adequate, but uninspiring retail mix and
presentation
¦ Commercial rents very low - $40 / s.f. range
SUN VALLEY
¦ Comprised of three or more real estate sub-markets all of which are visually
appealing
¦ Ketchum is only 38% built out and possesses great small town charm
¦ Ketchum is in land use crisis; master planning and architectural guidelines are
not fixed and poorly planned and executed projects are damaging the town
fabric
¦ Ineffective regulatory environment may lead to new, poorly executed
constraints which do further, though different, harm to community viability
¦ Wonderful base area facilities give character to the mountain portals,
¦ Real estate prices in town, though low by Vail standards, are high compared
to wages; affordable residential real estate is down valley creating commuting
and "community" issues
¦ Redevelopment and in-fill opportunities are great if done well; River Run
base poses great opportunity
¦ Commercial core has interesting, eclectic mix and some great storefronts;
other buildings are poorly executed and fail to blend into the surrounding
commercial context
¦ Rents are very low, in the $25 / s.f. range, but commercial volumes are
commensurately low and business fall-out of newer ventures is anticipated
¦ Sun Valley contains the historic resort properties and high-end residential
¦ Focus is on high end hospitality and second home properties
Quality is very good
¦ Sun Valley Resort has 2,000 acres of undeveloped land - significant
development opportunity
¦ Constraints appear to be self-regulated or limited to access difficulties
¦ Hailey comprises the affordable local community with high-end second homes
on larger acreages
¦ Affordable three bedroom single family residences are available in the $115 -
150,000 range
¦ The commercial core seems to service the local populace
¦ Hailey's opportunities as a locals community are great, but growth pressures
will be great
18
¦ Land use coordination between the three communities would appear to be
non-existent
¦ Sprawl on a small scale is already occurring and the down valley drain may
pose economic and vitality problems for the older communities and
commercial core
WHISTLER
¦ Enormous land use advantages for creation and sustainability
¦ Provincial infrastructure subsidies at outset
¦ Purpose built resort community
Large municipal boundaries extend well beyond the commercial core and
permit local housing within the town
¦ Commercial development is concentrated in the core for both guest and local
needs
¦ Fully master planned and only now approaching 80% build out
¦ Land use restrictions and covenants favor and even compel "live" beds
¦ Density, in the form of "bed units" is granted for development of resort
amenities or infrastructure (i.e. resort creation is incented by and rewarded
with density)
¦ The land use and regulatory environment appears to be collaborative or one
of "partnering" between private and public sectors
¦ Real estate quality is mid to high quality, though predominately "affordable"
¦ Significant development and re-development opportunities appear to exist at
the resort's perimeter or the expanding western portal
¦ The commercial mix is good with both "nationals" and local "boutiques"
present and retail vitality appears to be quite good; rents are in the $50 to
$70 (CAN) sq. ft. range
¦ The concentrated "live" bed base surrounding the commercial core should
keep it vital upon build-out
¦ The town has not yet had to face the problems of dwindling residential or
lodging supply as build-out approaches and affordability may become a
problem when this occurs
¦ Transportation infrastructure seems to be one shortcoming of the
implemented master plan and may pose problems for tying land uses
together as the municipality grows to its boundaries; perimeter properties may
not be as attractive to users if they can not conveniently access the mountain
and commercial core
VAIL
¦ Vail is essentially built-out and tightly constrained physically
¦ Land use issues are relegated to redevelopment or revised use questions
¦ High real estate values significantly impact and constrain redeveloping and
revitalizing aging mixed-use, lodging, and commercial stock
¦ Though much of Vail's real estate is dated and aging, refurbished or
redeveloped properties are of generally high quality and Vail Village remains
charming and appealing
19
¦ With demand remaining high, supply essentially capped, and regulatory
constraints existing to protect community character, redevelopment is usually
uneconomic
• Modest opportunities for real estate renewal exist with close private / public
cooperation or collaboration
¦ Affordable residential opportunities are essentially non-existent in the town
¦ The commercial sector is spread out within the town and has been drawn
down valley
¦ Retail vitality is waning and the commercial mix is comparatively limited
• Commercial rents vary considerably, but the prime street rents range from
$80 - $120 / s.f.
PARTNERSHIPS & MARKETING
ASPEN
• Chamber is focused on getting people into town; "driving tourism is our
focus;" operations include management of 3 visitor centers
Typically, Chamber has driven summer business while Aspen Ski Co drives
winter business; now people are asking Chamber to do more to help
augment winter.
Total Chamber budget approaches $1 million; 45 percent comes from 800-
plus members; $162,000 comes from the City of Aspen; other income is from
sponsorship and event management fees
• Chamber's direct marketing budget is $100,000, includes collateral, trade
shows, advertising; does not include staff
• Aspen's retail and restaurant groups are inactive; lodging group is active
Lodging community works well together; Aspen Sales Directors Assn. share
all leads
Bed base is too small to do much in the way of group meetings
5 to 6 percent of reservations are booked through central reservations
• Capacity limitations, re: include lack of airline seats and beds are critical
issues
Aspen will market the fact there are no crowds there
• Rooms are fully booked on weekends in July and August; summer visitors
stay half as long and generate half the revenue of winter
• There's no comprehensive source of data for bed base inventory; finding
more erosion than originally thought
Aspen's food and wine festival in June is the kick-off to summer
• Summer sales tax collections have increased by four percent, while winter
has seen a decrease
PARK CITY
¦ 3% transient room tax. 90% of that tax is given from the County to the
Chamber to be used for marketing.
¦ Creates a $2.9 million fund. Primarily used to market the area, Park City, not
the individual resorts. 65% of budget is used to market winter
20
¦ Marketing council made up of 1 rep each from the Canyons, Park City
Mountain Resort and Deer Valley, and the Chamber
¦ 75% of winter visitors are destination visitors to the 3 resorts, with a combined
total of 1.3 million skier days last year
¦ Demographic profile of winter visitors: from California (21 Florida (9%),
New York (7)
¦ 60% repeat visitors, average age 41, 77% male
¦ average length of stay: 5 nights, skiing 4.9 days
¦ In the summer, the guests are 48% male, 52% female with 27% between 35-
45 years and 23% between 45 - 54 years
¦ 30% of summer visitors are from Utah, 16% from California and 8% from
Arizona
¦ Shopping, sightseeing and visiting art galleries are among the top reasons
listed for why people go to Park City in the summer
¦ Slogan, "We take the snow we need and pass what's left to Colorado"
SUN VALLEY
¦ Winter visitors come from: 22% California; 20% Idaho, 16% Washington,
12% international, 13% central US.
¦ Summer guests come from: 48% Idaho, 19% other West, 14% California, 7%
central US, 6% Northeast
¦ Ski company doesn't do marketing or promotion, they focus their energy on
Public Relations, but the Chamber gets funding from the county and cities to
market the area. They focus their marketing efforts on the `experience', not
just the skiing
WHISTLER
¦ Whistler Resort Association, now referred to as Tourism Whistler, was
incorporated as an association of land owners to promote, facilitate and
encourage development, operation and marketing of resort lands. All
businesses located on 'resort lands' are required to become members. There
are currently 4,500 member businesses and individuals. Its role is clearly
defined in the community by its mandate, to "increase tourism through the
active marketing of the resort".
¦ The Chamber of Commerce provides services to businesses, information
services for visitors, and coordinates training programs for the tourism &
hospitality industry. They also operate an Employment Centre, which
supplies job postings, counseling and other employment services.
¦ The Chamber's "Spirit Program", familiarization program and guest service
training, is required to receive discounted ski passes from
Whistler/Blackcomb. There are 3 programs to choose from: a 4-hour training
program for first year employees, a Spirit Day, expo trade show for returning
employees, or a luncheon for owners and managers, with updates from the
ski company and Municipality
21
VAIL
¦ Local marketing district funded by 1.4% lodging tax, focused on marketing
summer and shoulder seasons
¦ Ski company focuses on marketing winter
MUNICIPAL TAX BASE
ASPEN
¦ Municipal budget is about $40 million, includes water and electric
departments
• Sales tax is 8.2 percent; there is no lodging tax (Aspen's portion is 1.7
percent)
¦ Sales tax generates about 48 percent of general fund budget
¦ Property taxes are low, generating about $2 million, or about 6 percent of the
general fund
¦ Housing is funded through a portion of 2 taxes: sales tax (.45 percent) and
Real Estate Transfer Tax (1 percent)
PARK CITY
¦ Municipal budget is $69 million which provides services such as police, fire,
water, recreation and transit, as well as other enterprise funds; general fund
budget is $17 million
¦ Capital budget is usually $14 million; this year spending $22 million to prepare
for Olympics
¦ Park City's sales and use taxes are as follows:
State of Utah 4.75 percent
Local Option 1.00 percent
Resort Tax .75 percent
Transit Tax 0.25 percent
Total Sales Tax 6.75 percent
Also:
Restaurant Sales Tax 1.00 percent
(originally passed to build a convention center, but never able to pull it off
because it's a "money drainer.")
Transient Room Tax 3.00 percent
¦ Sales tax collections in winter are twice that in the summer. Total sales tax
represents 10 percent of municipal revenues
¦ Sales taxes are collected on the 2 ski mountains located within the city limits:
Deer Valley and Park City Mountain Resort
¦ Two-thirds of residential properties are second homes, a total of 7,000
¦ Second homes are taxed at 100 percent of assessed value; primary residents
are taxed at 55 percent of assessed value
¦ Property taxes account for $9.3 million annually and represent 12 percent of
the municipal budget revenues
¦ Voters passed a $10 million open space bond in 1998. So far, the city has
spent over $4 million to purchase open space.
22
SUN VALLEY
¦ Local options tax for next 10 years: 3 percent lodging tax and 3 percent retail
tax to generate about $1.5 million annually. A 2 percent bed tax goes to the
state for tourism.
KETCHUM
¦ Local options tax for next 15 years: 2 percent lodging tax and 1 percent retail
tax to generate about $1.8 million annually. A 2 percent bed tax goes to the
state for tourism
¦ Low property taxes
WHISTLER
¦ General fund budget is $30 million (Can) and $15 million (Can) for capital
projects.
¦ Although there is a 10 percent sales tax in Whistler, nearly all that money
goes to the Provincial government.
¦ Whistler depends on property tax for 67 percent of its revenue. Impact fees
make up the remainder of its income
VAIL
¦ Municipal budget is $34 million, which provides essential services such as
police and fire protection, plus additional services to accommodate Vail's
guests, including the largest free transit system in the nation and an award-
winning public library.
¦ Vail's tax rate is 8.5 percent on retail sales. The breakout is as follows:
State of Colorado 3.0 percent
Eagle County 1.0 percent
Eagle County Transportation 0.5 percent
Town of Vail 4.0 percent
¦ There also is a 1.4 percent lodging tax which funds shoulder season
marketing in Vail
¦ More than half of the town's revenues are derived from sales tax collections,
with 70 percent of it collected during the five months of the ski season.
¦ A 1.4 percent local marketing district tax was overwhelmingly approved by
voters in Nov. 1999. The tax is applied to short-term lodging of less than 30
days. The tax will generate an estimated $1.5 million to $1.7 million annually
and will be used for Vail-only marketing and promotion purposes during the
summer and shoulder seasons.
¦ Vail's property tax mill levy is 4.064 mills for 1999. These collections
represent about 7 percent of the town's overall budget.
¦ A 1 percent Real Estate Transfer Tax (RETT) has been in place since 1980.
These funds, about $2.5 million per year, have been used for the purchase of
open space and for the development and maintenance of parks trails.
¦ A 4 percent ski lift tax generates about $2 million per year and assists in
operation of Vail's transit system. This tax is the only one of its kind in the
23
country and represents the highest contribution level by a ski resort to its
municipal partner in the state and perhaps the nation.
AMENITIES & RETAIL QUALITY
ASPEN
• Abundance of arts, culture and recreation to reflect the Aspen Idea:
integration of the mind, body and sprit. Programs include: Aspen Music
Festival and School, Jazz Aspen at Snowmass, Aspen Art Museum, Wheeler
Opera House, Anderson Ranch Arts Center, Aspen Ballet Company and
School, Aspen Filmfest, Aspen Writer's Foundation, Aspen Historical Society,
Aspen Institute and International Design Conference
• Marketing materials boast 1 restaurant for every 55 residents
• Retailers are noting a change in the economy, a flattening of traditional retail
in favor of second home economy (door-to-door deliveries, etc.)
• Front page headline in local newspaper touted empty storefronts while we
were there
• Sales tax revenues have flattened in the last few years
• City wants to strengthen commercial core with transfer of development rights.
"With huge mitigation fees, we've gone too far the other way," the Aspen City
Manager said. "We had purposeful growth control. But we didn't stop growth.
The economy just went elsewhere into the second home economy."
• City says chain stores (Gap, Banana Republic) are less of an issue because it
serves the local shopper
• "We're as known for shopping as skiing"
• City hasn't determined what government's role is in re-examining the Aspen
economy
• City has embarked in a downtown reinvestment demonstration program to
widen sidewalks and narrow streets at key downtown intersections to
replicate successful retail opportunities
PARK CITY
¦ The commercial core area has been preserved through two different Tax
Increment Financing mechanisms, using similar vehicles to the Urban
Renewal Authority.
¦ Current rental retail rates range from $40- $80 / square foot.
¦ In Summit County, taxable retail sales grew in 1999 by 10%; restaurant sales
grew by 4% in 1998.
¦ Park City Mountain Resort advertises the town hosts 106 restaurants, 2 micro
breweries, 24 bars and nightclubs, hundreds of shops, 22 art galleries, 2 live
theaters, 3 cinemas, 21 ski and snowboard rental shops and 3 bookstores
¦ In summer, many SLC residents come to PC for an evening out, to get away
from the city's heat and to enjoy one of the many good restaurants in PC.
24
SUN VALLEY
¦ The commercial area in Ketchum is experiencing a transition where old
mining buildings in the commercial area are being replaced by new office,
gallery and retail buildings
¦ Ketchum is beginning to experience parking problems. Currently, all parking
is available on the street at no charge. New buildings are required to provide
on site parking, however, the number of spaces seems low per square foot of
office/retail space. Parking is a bigger problem in summer than in winter.
¦ The retail area in Sun Valley is managed by the Sun Valley Resort, and
mostly consists of boutique shops.
Ketchum boasts a number of high quality restaurants. It is not uncommon for
locals who live `down valley' in Hailey (12 miles away) to come to town for
dinner.
¦ Current rental rates on Main Street run approximately $40 / square foot.
WHISTLER
¦ Whistler's pedestrian village is extensive and hosts a great number of retail
and 75 restaurant choices
¦ There are a few key, prominent chain stores on the pedestrian mall. We
noted that many of the people were using the national chain stores, as
evidenced by the number of Eddie Bauer and Levi shopping bags on the
streets
¦ There is no 'down valley' shopping or dining competition, therefore locals use
the shops and restaurants in the pedestrian villages to fulfill their own needs
¦ Current rental rates along the pedestrian village run $50 to $75 (CAN) per sq.
ft.
¦ Among the amenities in town, there is a small theater used for conferences
and private functions during the day and as a local movie theater at night
¦ At the Meadow Park Sports Centre, there is an indoor skating rink, fitness
centre, squash courts and swimming pool
¦ A new library/museum is planned
VAIL
• Vail's retail shopping experience is challenged by high rents, approaching as
much as $120 per sq. ft. Some high profile store fronts have remained empty
for long periods of time
• It is widely held that Vail has too many t-shirt shops and needs to improve its
retail mix
• "Monopoly" concerns are raised by the community when Vail Resorts
considers additional retail sector pursuits
• Employee shortages have caused shops to trim hours and personnel, causing
service quality challenges and inconsistent hours of operation
• Vail retailers are being courted with lucrative deals-and lower rents--to
invest in Intrawest businesses at nearby Copper Mountain
25
• With the exception of the West Vail area, few stores in Vail Village or
Lionshead offer products for "locals." This causes shops to rely exclusively
on guest volume
• Public amenities in Vail include an ice arena, golf course, outdoor
amphitheater, alpine gardens, nature center, seasonal skatepark and library
• Efforts are underway to construct a conference/learning/events center,
second ice sheet and family activity center to augment Vail's off-mountain
offerings
• The mountaintop Adventure Ridge facility for ice skating, sledding,
snowmobiling, etc., has been a popular addition to Vail's amenity mix. Given
Vail's success, similar facilities are now being offered at other resorts.
SKI AREA INFORMATION
ASPEN MOUNTAIN
¦ base area elevation: 7,945 feet
¦ summit elevation: 11,212 feet
¦ vertical drop: 3,267 feet
¦ average annual snowfall: 300 inches
¦ 675 acres of terrain
¦ # of trails: 76
¦ lift capacity: 10,755 skiers per hour
¦ snowmaking: 218 acres
ASPEN HIGHLANDS
• base area elevation: 8,040 feet
¦ summit elevation: 11,675 feet
¦ vertical drop: 3,635 feet
¦ average annual snowfall: 300 inches
¦ 680 acres of terrain
¦ # of trails: 125
¦ lift capacity: 5,400 skiers per hour
snowmaking: 110 acres
BUTTERMILK MOUNTAIN
base area elevation: 7,820 feet
¦ summit elevation: 9,900 feet
¦ vertical drop: 2,030 feet
¦ average annual snowfall: 200 inches
¦ 420 acres of terrain
¦ # of trails: 43
¦ lift capacity: 7,500 skiers per hour
¦ snowmaking: 108 acres
26
e
SNOWMASS
¦ base area elevation: 8,104 feet
¦ summit elevation: 11,835 feet cirque/12,510 feet big burn
¦ vertical drop: 4,405 feet
¦ average annual snowfall: 300 inches
¦ 3,010 acres of terrain
¦ # of trails: 83
¦ lift capacity: 24,321 skiers per hour
¦ snowmaking: 130 acres
PARK CITY MOUNTAIN RESORT
¦ base area elevation: 6,900 feet
¦ summit elevation: 10,000 feet
¦ vertical drop: 3,100 feet
¦ average annual snowfall: 350 inches
¦ 3,300 acres of terrain
¦ # of trails: 100 designated
¦ lift capacity: 27,200 guests per hour
¦ snowmaking: 475 acres (top to bottom)
DEER VALLEY, WITHIN PARK CITY'S CITY LIMITS
¦ base area elevation: 6,570 feet
¦ summit elevation: 9,570 feet
¦ vertical drop: 3,000 feet
¦ # of trails: 88 designated runs, 6 bowls
¦ lift capacity: 19 lifts
snowmaking: over 500 acres
THE CANYONS, just outside Park City's city limits
¦ base area elevation: 6,800 feet
¦ summit elevation: 9,990 feet
¦ vertical drop: 3,190 feet
¦ average annual snowfall: 350 inches
¦ 3,300 acres of terrain
¦ # of trails: 125 designated
¦ lifts: 13
¦ snowmaking: 475 acres (top to bottom)
SUN VALLEY
¦ base area elevation: 5,750 feet
¦ summit elevation: 9,150 feet
¦ vertical drop: 3,400 feet
¦ 2,054 acres of terrain
¦ # of trails: 78
¦ lift capacity: 28,120 guests per hour
¦ snowmaking: 630 acres (top to bottom)
27
WHISTLER/BLACKCOMB
¦ base area elevation: 2,214 feet
¦ summit elevation: 7,160 feet
¦ vertical drop: 5,020 feet
¦ almost 7,000 acres of terrain
• # of trails: 200
¦ lift capacity: 59,000 guests per hour
¦ snowmaking: 530 acres
VAIL
¦ base area elevation: 8,120 feet
¦ summit elevation: 11,570 feet
¦ vertical drop: 3,450 feet
¦ 5,289 acres of terrain
¦ # of trails: 193
¦ # lifts: 33
¦ lift capacity: 51,781 guests per hour
¦ snowmaking: 380 acres
¦ 346 inches of annual snowfall
28
. '..990~ft
COT-OlRaDO N
First Data Colorado Open
2001 Schedule of Tournament Events
Media Day - Date to be determined
Monday, August 27, 2001
The Sonnenalp Foundation Invitational
Sonnenalp Golf Club
• Hosted by the Sonnenalp Foundation of Vail
• A limited number of spaces will be available for First Data and other Colorado Open
sponsors to participate in this event.
• Details to be provided to the First Data Colorado Open by the Sonnenalp Foundation
of Vail.
Tuesday, August 28, 2001
First Round of the First Data Colorado Open Pro-Am
The Summit Course at Cordillera
8:00 a.m. Continental breakfast and check-in
10:30 a.m. Shot-gun start, maximum of 34 foursomes
• Box lunches, beer, pop will be complimentary
Championship Participant event
• Date and time to be determined
Page 2
2001 Schedule of Events
Wednesday, August 29, 2001
Second Round of the First Data Colorado Open Pro-Am
Hyatt Beaver Creek Golf Club
8:00 a.m. Continental breakfast and check-in
10:30 a.m. Shot-gun start, maximum of 34 foursomes
• Scores from Tuesday's pro-am will be carried over and scoring will be based on
running totals.
• Box lunches, beer, pop will be complimentary.
VIP Sponsor Reception and Awards Dinner
Hyatt Beaver Creek Resort Hotel
6:00 p.m. Cocktails and silent auction
7:30 p.m. Dinner and awards
Friday, August 31, 2001
First Data Colorado Open Events Concert presented by the Vail Valley Foundation
Gerald Ford Amphitheater
• Performer to be determined
• Time to be determined
• All sponsors and championship players and caddies will be given one admission
ticket to this event. Other tickets may be purchased at an amount to be determined.
Thursday, August 30 through Sunday, September 2, 2001
38th First Data Colorado Open Championship
Sonnenalp Golf Course
• Tee times will begin at 7:30 a.m. with the second wave at 12:00 p.m.
• After Friday's play, the field will be cut to the top 70 and ties.
• Awards ceremony will take place Sunday immediately following play on the 18`n
green.
001,0 D0
OPEN
First Data Colorado Open
2001 Schedule of Tournament Events
Media Day - Date to be determined
Monday, August 27, 2001
The Sonnenalp Foundation Invitational
Sonnenalp Golf Club
• Hosted by the Sonnenalp Foundation of Vail
• A limited number of spaces will be available for First Data and other Colorado Open
sponsors to participate in this event.
• Details to be provided to the First Data Colorado Open by the Sonnenalp Foundation
of Vail.
Tuesday, August 28, 2001
First Round of the First Data Colorado Open Pro-Am
The Summit Course at Cordillera
8:00 a.m. Continental breakfast and check-in
10:30 a.m. Shot-gun start, maximum of 34 foursomes
• Box lunches, beer, pop will be complimentary
Championship Participant event
0 Date and time to be determined
Page 2
2001 Schedule of Events
Wednesday, August 29, 2001
Second Round of the First Data Colorado Open Pro-Am
Hyatt Beaver Creek Golf Club
8:00 a.m. Continental breakfast and check-in
10:30 a.m. Shot-gun start, maximum of 34 foursomes
• Scores from Tuesday's pro-am will be carried over and scoring will be based on
running totals.
• Box lunches, beer, pop will be complimentary.
VIP Sponsor Reception and Awards Dinner
Hyatt Beaver Creek Resort Hotel
6:00 p.m. Cocktails and silent auction
7:30 p.m. Dinner and awards
Friday, August 31, 2001
First Data Colorado Open Events Concert presented by the Vail Valley Foundation
Gerald Ford Amphitheater
• Performer to be determined
• Time to be determined
• All sponsors and championship players and caddies will be given one admission
ticket to this event. Other tickets may be purchased at an amount to be determined.
Thursday, August 30 through Sunday, September 2, 2001
38`h First Data Colorado Open Championship
Sonnenalp Golf Course
• Tee times will begin at 7:30 a.m. with the second wave at 12:00 p.m.
• After Friday's play, the field will be cut to the top 70 and ties.
• Awards ceremony will take place Sunday immediately following play on the 18`h
green.
y
a~
? ~ ~:i Tarr d" ~ s ,
a' _s
`r.
pp-
-
FIRST DATA
,r
1~.Q
BEN
, r.
yam:
-
K
_ bd R
i
V,
r,
1n
1+
-
~Ln
.
C01,0F
sCkDO
N
46L AL
90# -al f,~'e -/I,'19~esf leve-
- ~ w~ ,n ba ~ ~ " x~ ~ ~a~q, ' ~ ~ '~R'•\ - Irv.
74,
r
INA
"7i~e h2fLence o in e s cen er ,
fhl~e presence of M o un ah2s,
appease our Irrlfaflons and'
e eoafes our rleno~s~l s." ~¢r ~z¢~~o ~merson
9 F p v
u
x* ~ ~ ~ ` ~ saw ~
E.
w ""`s- a=`'v~, a y
AV4
4
I
7~e gxI -s DIala Colorado'- Open ~oenls
osfed y f-e pail ` alley
~71uyusl 27 fhrouy~ 6epfemb'er 2, 2001
90.~df f1~e L~~es / le o ef
The First Data Colorado Open events incorporate the premier corporate Golf
Event in all of Colorado and the most prestigious State Open in the Country.
Since 1964, the First Data Colorado Open Golf Tournament has
become legendary, drawing local and national sponsors, and
first quality players and champions from across America and
around the world.
Wt
The Vail Valley offers you a unique opportunity to bring your
top clients to the quintessential corporate Golf experience and
contribute to a most valuable cause - the research and
treatment of cancer. Proceeds of the events will benefit the
University of Colorado Cancer Center and the Edwards Cancer
Treatment Center in Edwards, Colorado.
To launch the 2oo1 First Data Colorado Open events, we have
chosen to bring the entire tournament to Vail, Colorado. To the relentless
splendor at the top of the Rocky Mountains. Where Eagles soar.
The Tournament has hosted Masters, PGA and NCAA champions, and Ryder
and Walker Cup winners. Our past participants inchhide:
Fa Smn Snead, Al Geiberger, Steve Elkington, Fred Couples, Steve Jones,"
rt> Phil Mickelson, Bill Bisdorf, Bruce Devlin, Jonathan Kaye, Dave Hill, Tommy
Aaron and many others.
rte,. F ,
;041 zvlf~~ ee
s ecfacuJar c z a_.[e n9es.. .
'
~~e 3rrst 17oundof 11_, e 3lrsl Data coLorado Ooen fro-
li'osled l~ lie ~urnrnil C)our•se al Gairo( lera
guesda ~u
M, . .
9usl2SM
The Golden Bear brings 30 years of design experience to
Cordillera with The Summit Course - a Jack Nicklaus Signature
Golf Course. Scheduled to open for play in 2001, the 18 hole
looped course will unquestionably establish Cordillera as one of 4 > "b'
the premier golf communities in the Rocky Mountains. Designed
to showcase some of Cordillera's most stunning vistas, the
Summit Course will provide an unforgettable golf experience.
~ r
,mss
< u q
s ~4ry '
Jl e &cor2cl7e0un0(of 1,1_,_e irsl Jala Colora(% ()j)en 7ro- _;Vrn
l osled 115-e .1_7~eaoer G-eele- Doff ~lu~
7'~cc~ix.rc~a/. '~/uyu.sl ?91l
The Beaver Creek Golf Course is a Robert Trent Jones II designed,
6,40o-yard championship golf course set in the magnificent Beaver
Creek Valley and surrounded by the White River National Forest.
A stream weaves its way throughout the course, which is
enhanced by sweeping vistas of Beaver Creek Mountain and
surrounding ranges.
7l e 3jfl mini d :fir sf 'Jala GOforao% oJyen
l osfed We 6onnenalp o Gluh
/fursclaY, f3uJ us130121irou9A c~uno~af, c~epleml i- 212cl
Sonnenalp. An impeccable course. Critically acclaimed. Famous for
its challenging yet fair play. Designed by Robert Cupp and Jay
Morris, this Scottish links-style course rises 7,00o feet above sea
level offering majestic mountain views.
Co~u, uuo Golf Magazine and Golf Digest have recognized the
Sonnenalp Golf Club as one of the top resort courses in the United
States. The First Data Colorado Open tournament is proud to
return to the Rocky Mountains and call the Sonnenalp Golf Club
its home.
i
Qnof9l0-PIous Pemards.
Elegant European dining white linen award-winning wine
_
cellars live music gathering spots sensational spas ,
top-of-the-line fitness centers
and state-of-the-art-meeting rooms and facilities to assist you
in business.
.
r ,
~ L
its
a`~
i
7, 2ere rs a sererze andseffledmajesfy in woodland
scenery Mal enlers info 1al'e soul anddelyf_Vs and
eleoafes d, andfifjs rf cvrfnl-no4je inclnalrons. n
~JOIf lUll~ a AtOei' - ui pose.
As true players know, Golf is not just a game. It is a passion. Away
of life. The First Data Colorado Open Events are also a way to help
save a life.
All funds generated from the First Data Colorado Open Events
benefit the University of Colorado Cancer Center and the Edwards
Cancer Treatment Center.
Join us in the fight against cancer as you take part in any of these
unique events. Your support of these prestigious corporate
events and your sponsorships are vital to the life-giving work of
these Centers. ,
9o,~_riz f/e 7ournamenf o} Lre.
What a superp; opportunity for you and your clients to enjoy the
intense and rugged beauty of the Rockies, promote your business in
an exceptional setting, play extraordinary courses and contribute
to a cause that saves lives.
COO~OI~ADO
GOLF FOR CHARITIES FUND
( oO o
a
wx U~
~+iYw.aaS+M.~;._. .,.&r:.wa, a , . ,.-.-r, , n ze . .,r. ~ r . _ n~~. --T''~tw-
FIRST DATA
(~01 1) 0
OPEN
2001 scl~eo(ufe o eoenls
%u9usf 271
70n66
7h/_e 6onnenaJ_p Joundafion 9nU11¢llon¢f
,715-e 6onnenafp 9o ~'Clu6
Hosted by The Sonnenalp Foundation of Vail
/uesdat,, ._;Yuy(rst 23'M
irsf ~~ounojof fe 3irsf 'bafa Cofor¢olo open Jro-m
Hosted by The Summit Course at Cordillera j
TC)ednesdar 71uyusf 291E
~inaf found of Me, 3ti-sl `_)a1a Colorado 0pen Ji-o -71m
Hosted by The Beaver Creek Golf Club
Following play, the Pro-Am dinner will be hosted by The Hyatt Resort and Spa ',d
~ ; ~./flzrrscfa f, `~uyusf 30f~
Jiisl ~¢fa ~nuif¢fion¢l
Hosted by The Vail Golf Club..
A~ AW,~futSday, 'Ai'Psf 301 f~rouy~`c5unc~¢y c_5eplem4er 2nd
lie 3sf ~til sl '.f~afa Co1011ado ~~Oen "
Hosted by The Sonnenalp Golf Club'
3 /*Oneae?Ip Retort
COJLLER4) of van
u
~y
TOWN OF VAIL
WORLD
Office of the Town Manager
CHAMPIONSHIP-
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657 1999 -VAIL-BEAVER CREEK
970-479-2105/Fax 970-479-2157
TM
MEMORANDUM
TO: Vail Town Council
FR: Bob McLaurin, Town Manager
RE: Town Manager's Report
DT: November 21, 2000
WHITE WATER PARK CONSTRUCTION UPDATE
The construction of the White Water Park is proceeding in good order. The project will
be substantially complete by Thanksgiving. Following the Thanksgiving holiday we will
repave the sidewalk and reopen the pedestrian bridge.
UPCOMING ITEMS:
November 28. 2000 WS-2:00 P.M.
Employee Recognition - Larry Pardee & Lorelei Donaldson
PEC Report
Review Critical Strategies
Lunch Walkabout in West Vail/Pasta Pronto
Secret Shopper
Schmidt Sewer Line - Discuss Perpetual Easement Agreement Across TOV Property
December 5. 2000 WS - 2:00 P.M.
Electric Carts
Review Uniform Bldg. Fire Code.
Review Evening Meeting Agenda
December 5. 2000 TC - 7:00 P.M.
W RECYCLEDPAPER
I" Reading of Ordinance No. 30, Series of 2000 - Amendment of the Employee Pension
Plan
1St Reading of Ord. No. 31, Series of 2000 - Amendment of the Fire and Police Pension
Plan
1St Reading of Ordinance No. 32, Series of 2000 - Supplemental No. 5
2"d Reading of Ordinance No. 11, Series of 2000 - Model Traffic Code
2"d Reading of Ordinance No. 26, Series of 2000 - Lionshead View Corridors
2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 29, Series of 2000 - Mill Levy
December 12. 2000 WS - 2:00 P.M.
Local Marketing District Board of Directors.
DRB and PEC Report
Town of Vail
Action Plan
September 2000- November 2001
Council Status Next Council Point of Contact/
Action Timeline Date Lead Employee
Community Alignment
& Partnerships
¦ Define/clarify legal Ludwig Kurz
and political 6 &14 01/03 - 01/04 Tom Moorhead
leverage wNRI month
¦ Set CouncilNRI 14 month Retreat has been scheduled January 01 Suzanne Silverthorn
retreat for January 3`d &4 m
¦ Begin report out to
community at "Peer 14 month Community Meetings set for 11/ 24/00 Suzanne Silverthorn
Resort" meeting 11/24 & 12/29
¦ Redefine TOVNRI On hold until tactical
Task Force 14 month activities are identified - post January 01 Ludwig Kurz
TOVNRI Retreat
¦ Define desired
outcomes by Process will be designed Bob McLaurin
creating a vivid 14 month following TOVNRI retreat January 01 Suzanne Silverthorn
description for 2005, In early January Russell Forest
2010, 2015, 2020
¦ Work w/ Merchants Flow chart graphically
to define approval 6 month defining process being 12/12/00 Pam Brandmeyer
procedures for prepared.
special events
Noise reading complete & Greg Hall
1-70 Noise Abatement 14 month model being prepared 12/12/00 Russ Forrest
Action Council Status Next Council Point of Contact/
Timeline Date Lead Employee
Maintain natural
environment and town
infrastructure
Everyone
¦ Foster stewardship
& partnership 6 & 14 Ongoing
months
¦ Achieve Disney
standards
¦ Reinstitute "Adopt-a-
Path/Street"
¦ Village Parking 14 month Structural engineering 12/12 Nina Timm
Structure (retail) analysis underway. Greg Hall
Council to get public
feedback on commercial Town Council
space built by TOV.
¦ Review Uniform 14 month Staff to review UBC and UFC Gary Goodell
Building Code and identifying staff interpretation 12/12 Mike McGee
Fire Code and opportunities for appeal. Tom Moorhead
Greg Morrison
Review conflicts between
TOV codes and UBC & UFC.
¦ Parking Pay in Lieu 6 month Staff is preparing ordinance
setting higher fees for 11/07/00 Brent Wilson
residential uses and lower (if
any) for commercial uses.
¦ Community 6&14 Concept paper due in
Facilities Hub Site month December. Concept paper 12/05/00 Russ Forrest
presented to Council on 12/5
Action Council Status Next Council Point of Contact/
Timeline Date Lead Employee
Special Events
A "flowchart" which
¦ Brief Council from a graphically illustrates .
first-time promoter's 6 month procedures being prepared. 12/12/00 Pam Brandmeyer
& neighbor's
perspective
¦ Solicit input from 6 month Meeting held 11/09
local event Subcommittees assigned 12/12/00
organizers:
• Appoint member to 6 month Greg Moffet has agreed to Greg Moffet
"shadow" Sybill at
Special Events do this in Jan 01 01/01
meetings
¦ Identify additional Currently available venues 03/00 Mike Vaughan
6 month identified and occupancy
venues load to be determined for
each site
Wayfinding
Greg Hall
¦ Approve drawings Substantially complete Suzanne Silverthorn
¦ Install upon arrival 6 month 01/01 NA Greg Hall
Suzanne Silverthorn
¦ Trail identifiers 04/01
installed by 4/15101
Council delayed TIF election
¦ Lionshead Public 6 & 14 until 11/01. Staff proposes to Staff to provide Russ Forrest
Financing month reinform public of the public update on next Bob McLaurin
improvements identify in the steps in mid Steve Thompson
LH Master Plan and options December
for financing improvements.
We are currently defining
required improvements.
Agreement for design
¦ Donovan Park 6 & 14 services complete. PEC to 12/12/00 George Ruther
month consider zone change &
conditional use permit 11/27.
Action Council Status Next Council Point of Contact/
Timeline Date Lead Employee
¦ Ruins Staff met with owner on Nina Timm
14 month 10118100. He has not Tom Moorhead
communicated back. Russ Forrest
Contract between developer
¦ Berry Creek 14 month & County complete. Sketch Nina Timm
plan on the overall Berry Tom Moorhead
Creek 5"'/Miller Ranch site Russ Forrest
has been submitted and has
been approved.
¦ Timber Ridge 6 month Council to review revised 12/05/00 Allison Ochs
ordinance in Dec. Tom Moorhead
6 month Identify impacts of Telluride Tom Moorhead
housing decision
¦ Decide on Fire Bob and John Gulick to
Station location(s) 6 month prepare memo summarizing Jan 01 Bob McLaurin
and staffing and framing issues. John Gulick
In-town Transportation
MK Engineering is preparing
¦ Review alternatives 6 months an analysis and report. 11/28/00 Greg Hall
to replace in town Report to Council in Nov Mike Rose
shuttle
¦ Prepare 5 year 6 month Council has reviewed and 11/21/00 Council
capital budget modified CPF budget. 2nd
reading of budget 11/21
¦ Explore possible
funding partners 14 month
(demo project)
- - -
kf,
i 1 -
I
i,
r
I
i
1
9
[EVOLUTION OF TWO SKI TOWNS]
_ How did Vail become
Vail? And Whistler
Whistler? We know
all about the great
skiing at both resorts,
but here's the brick-
` by-brick story of
how their villages
evolved-and what
that means today.
4. By Hal Clifford
;i ,
' r 1
r'` sa t;5-- 7'x yea '.3 s - _r
4 a•Ez ~N n° i
r a ~ f { il 2+_+ 7 ~3 t Y n~rt t z a> - 3- tit t ! " -ON rt.~.s N ~'161&100~11R*~! - - : W =3 z +':?`'s4~ VFia^J ..~e..• 4 .A `1 .'7 ~ ':.d `t 7~r`f ~p~•1F~~3''{'k
ge, `r-a }}8 fgTf~k"',itFt tY' a'tC ',r X`,',c t ? oP r f
C 'Y pa. tom- w a: ,nF# t.~. .e f t ter 4s Fr •c: ,i.7 1 i',t's n s _ -z-t ,..off' 43`
+ ; as , r ~ ~ t , y Fa F ' . t i- - q-'.. - --i ,3~.
r tj !€}..Fr.. :F E F t~`T Fit #tf .r f~
5r r.N'i't~~Yt°Iro'S.`f',YSe',.36f/#C'n,i-.tct3 F{° : _ ~~1
A.' ts- ,ttTJ, fiES 7k, gE rr ?
6 # _t ~7-r Ft Af ti'"°'+i } T,r - ? - r4 'i
r a EFEt 1C14 {a.e F~-,ry FR..,'Ot ro c~j r} k
- - K. f • "mod "t . .i.
s $F a''4 orct}sp3 T a ` 11 , , 4.'!-., 'f 4Y~ I'
>aEa ( q
° xI YL Wi 'F } ; i t s '.'3 z i si'.: • ,.f I i
4_ Y nVf:rE a dj,~A, r rFa'?i~'~j* _y •`S~. -:E
~ N-, .,1E r T ;tf F 1 •?i' Pr Y _ Q . tj i
4trt of a eat wit' ti tr vc x +Y t t If b e #
iS t K, 'ir 4 P ,t { .y. t a N F 3 7 7 `~'l" i 1, S t *
G r " } t 1f Vic{ F' $ ' E t~ r m~F iy i i , r -"-A
SS: i
i --r - to E e#. ! ,Y £e;p F. R t il9 rq l'VY r_r 'I -
X :i § '3r 3~ rt { r- F5(f ria }8 Tt{ s. ~r,,.~ i. ~'#"t ti
A i -r "'i z t.~ f' ~Z. Yr I "n i 6: -Z F W * 1 ! I
z
r '.~S rr 1; ~.r - '.it~1E "+Sy " qti "~e c Hair t*a t r ,l+ .~f-,•-s'
a i iX y tf 1f.3. A! p s. s _ r FU i6'_II, .'3
' S t? E, f{ FU t C t - %i - ^l x _zr y'
.,E. ,3'~ •e~llt 4;FZ'eS~ Z> 'a i {r2----i ' S..._, t..-
,q }ft irs..6 ..~.d. Ljjn.n,;.ret' 'Yta' `
s _ F~ ti I
# .a _ _
y
R 4 F C.:4
~p IN-
4 ij..
6 t,.,, •e+,{ 'r+•F'hi5r Y\ 'r',t S, .y +`t'. r- ,t rc"~.^.'soa-,°.
l~
-r _ } 2
:1 li fi'` E. 11 F = - J' -t a't r ,4`. 'gy'p t i
- t i y _ . a
tb ^r ai ate, r.t E u "i "Y~'"f h r~ .3C -3tr.,sI - - ` F, r r.
ai F _ ~ ~,e my fi II
Vii; 'iiZyr` I ,t` - - r.
° t 4
,y.
!$1> ( _ `q
.
t '.'ti 1
f « -vc- .grorE .11111. _ -
t .
i
r `6{v ,r F s -r •e~'4~ rf.. Ftt~ 4tG?.yr- [ 401
y' i
sc _ ""IAlR~+E~7t!gtAlTn'"^ai.'E7P t y w ,e-°-a s,- F !
a r g I r'r~ he~rT t ° '7'? 'tI 7. ~.z-. r i
z{ x {y i i T < kta t<3t1 : rf rF i x
4: v`t •F fF rtit 5.~k#j m Yl`, aTF 3,,ti - c s r +'e- a -'-'.'Z h { i
-"r3 , s~-!° : rt tr'rt z,+ •x.! fk E •m.{ Fk 'S i t e~ rr ryi ray f <
~ r 37 F t 4 Z € E E
-a x ti ~y# x t~..¢, Jf ,Ff`:{F~ it cxTe e eee f c (`~~was i"I 8 2 7~ w , y F exxs r v ^t i,i~fi~R t7 { ra 4
Y f iL"< ' - kF . "fr• v •*'s ,
ar~rrtFerta"ttPE~s _ECr:ksE 6etY : 4u~~ rSi e~` cs 5
t - r' x d f3 l 1 [:t?v# r.715.48 ~,f5.t.,,{(~E ti'S+ +,,r Et +r4, tC Ff ; + i
.j £ r , r
~s fkyryr4+frs ta~~ 1t r~~Ca a w.. r: 4 y i
fh 7 r "t "`^'tI . ' !A "r2 tf[i, r+, ~r3' ~:-~~-t al '~t~`n' E11 rf f trt 4 € I' t 'il I
v, F r b f' - t c to <p ~ r r - - s tF.. - } 'ti I
k+'r*7 r4 } tg.~ .;SO l .cs'raj ~t€ '}F, `o wt{ r it -z .e ta[;i°e G' c s "~t d- L _ .+~M . _ i, I
y , t~ i' t Y !t3 .ri2t pr§Rfr. a 7f t F
;I
s n. 12, a k i
I * s• {?;t1{ €PSr aKlt Fa tF$2! - f.6 pFEOek ''!-5a.'d cz v/ rs { yFf tt 7 ? I K e Xx 'S - `w r~.. + ry I11
~~!'r jT `4 `-.3 '3` ' ! .r 'y f Y - tf „f 36 i f +t4r Ch - i~ '
Ati i .t V1+4k AQ tlF3E 7d,,, Jia ja x St b" - i 5rr , _G i yw4 u •c-4 1 .6 I'~i
- , a t. rK ystt v rEr f a it r ;e} e e atef E r f s 7:S~ 1~q t 6 t s I
S.
r~s~k_.,, F € aA oaF7 rt'tFo.i t4-t y=hay..+ of t f~`rte e-s'sFoz3t"E a k svn r rty t t' N.
y y! f t 6 el < ic E
i• y r s pK
~Xj~l: 6 e i s art 45jE~t f} f_ ~3EYF StT t'Sl a -.'!di 4 p{Ya"t , St ~ 'S EL yb Fh r rttE e,,ggG t wttF_ FFq qa I
rt 'F F )Y~l Cfp ...k!{F~ r 7F~ ~a },i x, ,V,c al. !EI,a E •r4 ~ E W •k~ f,.c_.. -^P i
i 4 e t t z P/UJF' t Y{rY~ F t S K,'' fc,F ''CEEtbtl .;.r Y L e a ' f
5t ifM.S t'3 L~: to X sEF [c~E 4 5 -<L'&4AEsY +cF-r.x tr. J „a, i A > slims i + q 'y r •i t ; iJ.
1`M h f t= 3's a &U t_' aF t a s x b' ~{I
it t ( k-f~ f S~, 7a iC'~ J .ia e1F~i kc+ItE fa3 r rrlrl {'`f 'r4! , _ /YAi Fke i~ ivel -S,a2 4.f,,ER 07 -l..~f'+ ~'.}q p ' - -I
d to y t r R 7f i., t s"Ta fvs' 'f ! F Fop?+ 1 a- ;t i~54 G { M '
t .5. , } tr s.t r 7 d::
tcb , Y {i€ 41 . . ~'fEy~i` r ( ill
F ~r } ' p g
3 4 y-Y-.f [ 'Y 0.k4 P i":';'~ f g ;n. ; . OM 4j a t %t?v g;"Ol~9 Rt sl '"~~kt ~SfYB F..+.rS(4JE .ak sE1 tz 34 ,s X:1;
i,~ Na#'It fgtL r ?qef~ ~`.a,.[4' YJ yy -ti ii~,'t .ir' 'ti-f,.t .1- '4~ t rIr f' FI
7x~ ( -rsf 'n_ p,r F r#-CEfF lV Fr'+F M1._. t& {!i{3 -*F~. / riS;~,{c#{ xk Ea aa~ tai 5~. ,i~;~-~ { I
/ 7.
f` • f .s- i it r ,.~3~ f i 7 7 p , naz' t ..r, F
t+.,icr saa ..,~-.:o .,.n.s s..,..~..r. w_.,_:- - -w-! z« .ti...
.e.....w._.- -.L.i_~..s<'.z.--; ! I
I- ~ 11 ~..r r..._ i:;
i.
fF
. ~ ~ I . ~ - I _
k:
v ~v
•.r-.: 0,,..... . .e: +c.r.. '4n . vn - .x , . » ..t-..... - '.:t - - - :h;eii
tee..
s„~ v ?
Z
E.V:_O FT W'0.~SK"IU,,_~ ;N`°
M3 -
_ r
3.
4 ~
, ok;" L.. SrF-_. ' •~:is.is
pares °'raisedirion _ V'
liis ers in,$5Q0.0' ff
.o.-':'' o' + tai mdlvl
and aii[a3s,~=woo i _colistiitctsh'
g,
and" 3~
aUU:chuiiks ;sgiYietimestl~.. restaurantsanliom
u~oso•Ti' d~'
.
._M Y.1? p h. was, wo ol
Tibuse:an=a:eo " Ie Hof Iii e: SI
P. ;`assesfQa d. ` V -
F=TMu .uals:'.andz' bb';wiilii:nake`tkeir,`statelneut"
~e-Iat .1•:;" .p.A.._- vl.. _;'~_M - _ _'t3.=-•.< 4:f ,!i
- .fit S. vxf ts:' .u'~}.•:..:._-. "la...,c;_•_:v.<i',.w:•r.?
= entice tlie'ori aI= a .ais>
<:of . Assoc ates;.w and:tliatwo ld'a ld'tothe ..12esa` yya 'we.
,L'^';`," - _ .L..y]-i t. F - .rg}{ t4: - _ - +:~„'>rw:a•-'-3;..,.~.,. J• _ <4 '`i:
x°.F ';c.. s3t:'=:t a=' tom:. e err
_entheywlt,thetr=zesort :fast a, Wltfleterandifferent.xii uts:`'° Yc .r
_
5*1
' 5°t setxt" .,.a •...a. > u ix, = 1, ~x;:r.:.,, - I,,, , mac,- _ .a_R ,
. ?tiX =fix t „v.;.@~ >#tw?' ?I yf(, 11.e;;x,,Y='-. i.3~ _ >.~:'s'~ ~,~;•:-~n'_
4.rt:z =.~Y~'xr.q..,ru y u*n.
•
` ~-aaLlL•~
~....ee#s~bacl~faitb~u~#°~e=vlsloli~'
rs:+;r- . •a` - .,.k".i _H, _.e:v,.~-L'z' ``:zs,~<.. # x. ;:.i'Z' - -a-.._,-„xx; W
- 'r 'r z "~";*•:x~.~`-'^:f;~*j'?, ~u ~ _ ~,.<,r,;,,.r~; °t"^, -~„;:.~„s:; ~ ~;,,g~~'~,:.... ~r- <=;•=7~_ 9=mix: ~:1. ; sri,=° ~::;.~E'
3I•'`iW lIi `-R.'t.`~.`.'~'r~ P2r'':b YiK•:!r±. {!':+,y
thie" ,first h~ V41`4
QLY6= n,-.' -?:•;.s-""
'F :?y, °::'.s'~~&r:, >.r,"._ ~•?k'.„(.A?xo.s~°..~*< ~9x` v ae,<
a~~-s~ ,~s:.. ;aye=>v~:~.• ~ .,~;~n:: yak
5.y'~tr - ~y.%,_':.: .k, +42`•:x':.., ,~n
gctiuie.fa~th''uia: `rttliatwas=o" ='=Yiesicie;wlat:woilldiU:.~...e Bli ;Street tat first:... Vin.
' ~..EE ?r. .n•F-";1~,%-r':L's,
n `::<i 'E^di - z:,.-: ,3;z,<.,;.;_;~._... scY:,S"" t:•:r^s"s
^'begizi b_ciiiiesotG;i~tavitialaissea=faire=°r:rsummesbefore:thes:o
- ,~y;.,,y,•.n wv':"ul_,`• - :.h "'p,.- - - - :,..i.<:+ l:,.u :'fy,.<k_rs-.i. '"3.
;sn.r
±ent:wllere>tlle;;g~a:, Vin' traie". j =:cocenarliilnselfabautw arnmedthe ii;i
petty.. veil`,: ,Kr:
' - :.``$4' .i v~ F'•~:##9:-'~=-T` - =$'s-. -t~..~rg'sR'~s a~=. n;:.: - _ - ..hia-d=<- :r•f;:' :=f' - - ~~r.4:t'a'Y
.$?:,.vz';`. S,,c?:~ ..S"~`:.•"? -_~:a,a...,•fS; i",>±., ?a_4:Y. - , - s,.tc_ - - -+.,tic-
W118t `l0 :dii e,=, 7C011~1I1 ".f*i ':Oiit ~~OO tt d{dn ".1i13.:
t V ai1;
• x'
7~:SSUCiat@S:dld)
K, . s • < e; „s._ x _ " ,JOSef StallfC.;8n
y'•k'fYia"fw
:5.; ,^y-f,'Y: -l. ^:i="`'=:.:,:-.h;:
..a{M.- `t .J ~~i~jr~€.aa;:.",.'"
:$4-; ~AW-f~m,;-01l't:Wd
•
J:-• _ _ TY'.Fssz~iJnw. ~:r%`xas'>A ~ . ~ ~^.~?~:6~""°r+r~'j"£':fh=:'~~*-..:1: - -:.r~.,..: a-.?" - ~ k_., _
`kk'"nr"`+:: .:.z ..<::4.J.`..1 3:1„4a -.K .`i';'>''• i~t{'2m'',"'•`~_ O~-,F','".~i•.^w.,.`'Y:
9 eII^ e " ,F»~.;'.. 3.:;<iY~ F_ `:-•x:;...^>;Y..
„oPP v!t~i is tl e's %maaket:was`a =.sto : ""Monmarter tl e~ lifts'.started:'r iiilun :'Elie' a=
1s'
ppdG.. y.,
:•s`.-ar , 'fG _ _;t:;'=!rn;.w „s.+ n.: -g~.
z'
Fm
aII r.A-.o er5ln lil;: ; IIP,X~ LL s
da"`heYwas`tte:.m' ',oftlie v
x?l?.." _Y __+tid`,, ail_esfauiaat
".a' :a?La'c•`;v= '*,.•.:,.,.:-.,:4s.::.;~.~€
o;'~_.4 l^3 s'". ,.u-.,r.. [•°..3;" _ „`"':'T+`,:.F,i's:,~.s:.,.. - - -£-4r.':. e_ x;r,'wc~l'SZ:
-~_aLa was~~Ttie `.:at
fvM&A'de d"evelo _a Soon lle_.. : VCon
,r`a;
i=s -rstyAQ~Y.
-03 I~x l . :>Yr _ e~- ?
r 2 VF„kii,-U~G~S1T11
~-:c..•:~~;:~':`":`•U~:=?3'~F.-:~;"~?',;~~i..r~~:=v-.ni.;=;'':'~^v~"r.:".,„,;..-:.:.s+,.__:=_~:Sh.,.s.<-=~r.•>,~r..'~x.. _°.<`<i:;
beglnnrung°',ire=:wiy.erliiaTts_ilie"mg;ttie'waiin'months` andwaatedl`da:fora
a--tea
'.VVhistfe
R4 `'.is
,nn -IFio to~
aril ' ' "'...wool
v -
aa'I."•~',':_ ve:.'Stauf . ei d`eventually::o~vintlie~vail~:'V11I'::age
:
s;.,-< s' >rr"`?
rv.
r
~~d•-,mtlii~ 1
"cOUll
r
-arm
,gs
Seiliert:e on,
& i1ViSlfSIIef' S11CCe53?+;~:
wliocame-toVai~in 1964anstill - u ::.e j"'
h a
`riivesher~ Tloneofus came';llere =vaoulii a eri'Ie
.`_r:w ,rn:r v,w .=,•.x: - _l?p.n,
with: a'.d
e e'iu'>lcitel'>oc.retal'
<s-: - g? rt'resort s-:1;2UQ nala acres tf~
Ynanageriea sxain'Fa ychuFhi
'.bull ia'Il& 4,y,-.'k't,`ts'; ,c..?~;'-: ~'c.l=;:,,' aa.;53iss~ .y,,-• ;`,i='~
ding ospatever:Tihe -f~irst;siri resst~
;as~.°=ti
COTiurlnni dMdedflld
t3! a°~ - :desl~ried'as=saes
,....-»~:>r„v:i'~~:i:w", •~-.~ey.~:, ~:.:5,~3;:0"~: `s: _ _..,r..r4 wi:~4'j,ts ar~r,,=.,Ys't~?i;'s`<°,. ~'{a, y~
you:`:take;ttiecuretI'lltalte::ttieru egtrimual}~~':frdln
v.>m4s3~-,:',i'''•x''~x:.::_,;^k:-':. ?`v`,>-,'-.~.i-.:t p:?~.;:;`~.e _ _;.:+*.;t?:zas•ta~r.::F~7.;'
-•`llv~yaYa1:[^. •.'`.;"a5,,`.:it•,~z.w-;'}++z
g, e ts`= 'C-„ % naturdll °"II]ade RtC} Of IC119fit1C~S '
x':+,-~~~`r{~, l~,4*~r..:>f}x` _ - - _ -,Y,-"..:: i5? r~,: w.:%•E: -knu-~';,-'
erl;. ijn 1 u :nas ` _
1 i says; RodkSlferrw OAS
tal^
- :,7.~t~*-- ,;:r!~'~.er~~;. :dx. ;zr`:t;.; met,~`'~rir..;::F~:::*:~"5•,z~'_~:~"-''.
s`i9,62' andcount a neage'::z
- :xa~~:,sr='~;,_~;';-~,.,:~,,t;~.x,.>-'~?=.= :Cal'eerAl~n„~~a11='8Sx13e~aSS7St8i1~',SKI-iy•; -
ml- i &,>a :that
SU;O(td irst.°sea•:
Zj;, ;t? setiooI`di:'u;a:.,:wei}ton tozsele`'
_=!~%.e-;;' - Y:e.-~ _ :L•_~~„iha;ta,...T•,~..=.1_.::3rrs;:-:~ FvV".'t5...
:butlit was ,o and nine n~!" _ z,t
QQ'~ ~~as'~~lnayo%,and~is,-no~?*~ a-partner~~u;..,
acted`astliePied`' +P
Pi' c;7_Seileit:f=' <Slifer .3m1 tIt Ft
r - - 'S'ralnptgn`tli'
reeahs' and;tlie ;believed
xi valI` s dominant'reat'.estate fi
becavse:'TbelieYeil'.ai
"l"lleTP811tyVVdS:SSOCI'
u r. a iioent-I'1Fiew ia; ,
ates:was;strappeeljforeapital and"
mind `this was:goirig to work:<I just .they used all of tlieir'resoi rces,.in
didnlc Vite know'lio v it THE
was developing the'aki mountain
.'gou?gto woFlEk° Seibert tried to.exert _ - _ • ~ • ~ `soIIie,arrhi= Bosto
The_pt; ace : gi?R .like Topsy; an i'` tecturai control in+the Village :bu7 first tracks i
so it;did woriz:' Seibert had-been. siding was growing at'a' pheriom-
deeply:influenced`:iby heck; St. "enal, rate and `development was taking off
A Itoifand other European resorts: ` . pushing down the yalteyfilling understand
t
„that seemed to hang together as a l % the. formes rancli.''iands; The
enjoy an ent
whole. He and architc ts.p tzhu _
boom was on=and it st71 is.
i= -
S ott a'
nd FTitz-
enedict - -
eavi'
BOOK rr,
sinned a small, co 'esive town.: The trio, eompr sed'the' ?..T. H E N 'CAME. W _H I S T;L E R reservations
architectural review commjttee=the only review until the :j While Seibert and'Eaton, were scrainbhng foi their first not require a
town 07a4..M4.efit,waS:forined funds. a-consortium of, Vancouver-`businessmen 'was
It didnothave:th' planningthatgoes'
ontoday,''Kelton' sniffing around Garibaldi Erovincial'l'ark in British •
says "Eagle County, for the first t0 years of Val1, was very
Columbia's Coast Range, seeking a possible site for a fu- . ~,c6:
much? in i Cae
. the' background." on't6e
The. town. was formally consti- tore inter Olympics.. Encouraged by :a Positive ,x oY.,i 2 op
tuted'in.]966. Vail sold its millionth lift ticket'in'W& Sud- from Austrian skier Willie Sebaeftler concernin ' , the
. .x
denly people were building, and building fast Seibert sold mountains above the fishing resort of Alta, the group A on'rae°Ptane
• - ~ oiSJii rr`r'aisi
' -e~d'o~:d~dtus?c
Y ;
[EVOLUTION OF TWO SKI TOWNS]
raised $800,000 and committed itself to building lifts on with building the resort, didn't have to worry about pesky
the south side of Whistler Mountain, at what is now the details like private property rights. The village was envi-
Creekside portion of the ski area. sioned first, then carved out of the public domain.
The first paying skiers arrived on Feb. 15,1966, follow- Properties were put up for bid in four phases, and every
ing a rough dirt road. Alta had been a popular fishing resort parcel was described in terms of what could be built there,
since the Twenties, but there was no town or local govern- what the mix of uses would be, how big the building could
ment, and as more homes and lodges popped up among the be. Before the land for a building was sold, the government
tall timber of the Fraser River Valley, problems developed. had determined almost everything but the paint color on
Most significant was pollution of the popular fishing the window trim.
lakes in the early Seventies, a problem attributable to inad- "You could create a master plan, you could put
equate septic systems. Something had to be done. covenants on the titles to those properties, you could create
That something involved government at the highest design guidelines for the properties, volumetrics for how
levels. The late Canadian Prime the building was constructed,"
Minister Pierre Trudeau, an avid recalls Mike Purcell, Whistler's
BEHIND THE NUMBERS
skier, hungered for a world-class A C~ w~~ r?governmerd approach tliat limited town planning director. "Once
Canadian ski resort. Al Ra.ine, the rights alknved WhOler to discourage vacant second that was done and the land was
Canadian National Ski Team's homes, keep a Fill on real estate prices, have more work- subdivided and sold off, then any-
former coach, and his wife, erst'''e i" tcw' and pmvide more "hot b e& for gu8body buying the parcel knew
Olympian Nancy Greene, had just what they were getting right from
the place at Alt& the outset. I think," he adds,
"E "Canadians tend to be a little
The provincial government of $433,000 $282 1'ii
British Columbia froze develop- more accepting of government."
$216 $711; 24KS.
ment in the Fraser Valley to create Not everybody was happy
HOUSE: M[uaON t : : M
breathing then created the with the heavy-handedness of
Resort Municipality of Whistler CONDOS Ottawa and Victoria. The land
TOWNHOMEMS $579,963 outside the village core was
on Sept. 6,1975. The governmen-
tal equivalent of a platypus, it was ' $1.07 down-zoned in the name of com-
atwon* n+iutoK pact village development. "Once
a public-private hybrid that had as SALE5
its goal the creation and develop- y I the development of the village
ment of Whistler Village on what LO YE 3896 8U96 was confirmed in the late Seven-
UVING IN T. i
was then the local dump. ties it was r.,,.Ljr much scorched ftr
RENTAL
29,700 32 earth for the rest of the valley for
"The municipal council basical- O :,D cuESrs=: ~ a ly made a plan for the valley. They commercial development, creat-
decided where development *includesalefE.WeCounty.-IndudesVail ing a number of very unhappy
should occur, and they decided Avon. Beaver Creek. AD prime are in U.S. a landowners," Meredith says.
how much development should t° 145 CONS The differences between Vail
occur," says Drew Meredith, who and Whistler were as simple as
ran the Whistler Resort Associa- - ' this: At Vail, Seibert and his
lion for 14 years and is now president of The Whistler Real cohorts saw a chance to make something happen in the
Estate Co. "They got anything they wanted. They had the open spaces of the American West, where the myth of
prime minister of Canada, they had the premier of British Manifest Destiny and the power of property rights reigned t
Columbia eating out of their hands." The provincial gov- supreme. The Gore Creek and Eagle River valleys were full
ernment threw $10.45 million into the pot to help things of potential-and risk. At Whistler, everybody knew by
along. Unlike Eagle County, Colo., the government down 1976 exactly what was going to happen, because the gov-
the road in Victoria was very interested indeed in what the ernment told them.
ski pioneers were up to. "We are the most planned community in Canada," says
Meredith. "It's amazing how the plan that was laid out
he critical factor in Whistler's development in the mid-Seventies by the town fathers has played out Altim,
was that most of the land in the Fraser so well."
Valley was owned not by ranchers but by the That planning stands as Whistler's great innovation.
government, or "crown." Because the land Vail's signature innovation was Seibert's determination to
for the village was crown land, town council build a village tied to a ski mountain, and to draw from
members, who also sat as the board of directors of the Europe's best mountain villages as his design inspiration.
Whistler Land Development Company and were charged Only one other American resort, Sun Valley in the Thirties,
• i :i
[EVOLUTION OF TWO SKI TOWNS]
had tried this. Otherwise, skiing in the early Sixties l j
involved a few lifts coming out of existing towns such as
Aspen or thrown up near a farmer's fields. Seibert also gEHINDTHENUMBERS
F!
understood, 20 years before Whistler's town fathers did,
the financial reasons to build a year-round resort We asked central reservations at each resort to # I
He pushed hard and early for the golf course that was price a hypothetical vacation for the week of
built in the late Sixties just east of Golden Peak's base-the Feb. 3-10, 2001. We specified two people for six
first of 12 golf courses that now dot the Gore Creek and nights, seven days, double occupancy in a mid-
Eagle valleys. "1 had to fight and argue with the board of range hotel room in the Whistler and Vail villages ! ~I
directors," Seibert says. "They said, 'What do you need a (new or renovated construction within the last ,j
golf course for? They probably thought it would give me a five years). We also asked for five-of-six-day lift ? I':
chance to goof off. I knew the bank wants its money 12 9 ,
tickets; aone-day lesson; full equipment rentals
months a year, and you can't live on winter alone."
(shaped downhill skis, boots and poles); round-trip
Seibert found Terry Minger, who signed on as Vail's
first town manager in 1969, and Eldon Beck, a California coach with atwo-week advance purchase airfare j h
landscape architect who in 1972 convinced Vail Associates from Chicago; van or similar transfer between the
to convert the core of Vail Village to a pedestrian zone. airport and the resort. Whistler's great advantage
Both men eventually were recruited to help develop for U.S. travelers is the strength of the U.S. dollar,
Whistler Village, beginning a long tradition of one resort which accounts for the bulk of the savings on a ;
stealing ideas from the other. Whistler versus Vail vacation package. It's also a
"We tried to address the things that we had seen that major reason that SKI readers ranked Whistler
didn't work in Vail and other places," Minger says. "By 13th in North America for Value, while Vail checks &
1970, Whistler knew the market was there; it was just a in at 80th out of 87 resorts. We calculated these
question of capturing it."
costs at an exchange rate of $1 U.S. to $1.45 CDN. !I' `
Ground was broken on Aug. 21, 1978 for Whistler
Village. By December 1980, new lifts were running at This may, of course, change-and Canadian visitors I
would need to multiply these prices by 145 percent 14
Blackcomb and Whistler, the two Canadian peaks
bracketing the nascent Whistler Village, where early to get the Canadian dollar costs.
planning decisions still affect property owners.
Whistler's Phase II and Phase III condominium owners II
may not reside in their units for more than eight weeks
annually, and for the rest of each year must hand their 6 NIGHTS'i g j
property for rental to tourists. These covenants LODGING TfiRlitfl{T`
were all part of the plan to keep Whistler's beds full of 5-DAY LIFT
free-spending visitors rather than becoming a haven for TICKET 92
vacant second homes, as has happened in Vail. I-DAY GROUP
LESSON
oday, at the base of Blackcomb and ` " l
TWhistler ski areas, a small satellite dish 5-DAY SKI
RENTALS
gathers a musical feed that is broadcast for
ey the entertainment of skiers and boarders. ROUND-TRIP
AIRFARE
Until 11 am., the music is classical; from 11 FROM 4
to 2 it's middle-of-the-road; after that, it's contemporary CHICAGO
rock and rap for the apras-skiers. These decisions are made : • sq
TOTAL
by executives at Intrawest Corp., who run Whistler and PER PERSON = ~I
Blackcomb and much of Whistler Village's real estate. Such
decisions follow the command-and-control approach first
elucidated by landscape architect Beck, who was hired to NOTES The Vail Village property was remodeled in 1998 and
design Whistler Village after his work at Vail. Visiting is 200 yards from the Vista Hahn. The Whistler accommodation
Whistler Village is nice today because planners intend it is a studio at the Town Plaza Suites. The Vail pass is also good at
to be nice; a ski shop or Starbucks or quaint French bistro Beaver Creek, Breckenridge, Keystone and Arapahoe Basin; the
Whistler pass is also good at Blackcomb. The Vail ski rentals
is located where it is because Intrawest thought that
include a 20 percent discount because they were booked more
it should be there, not because that's where an entrepre- than three days prior to arrival. Airfare can fluctuate depending
neur found some space for rent. I CONTINUED ON PAGE 203 on day of travel; includes ground transportation.
M
j
~!x~ r r. ~.I •!x~ ufcr,~, FF ~
MEMORANDUM
TO: Town Council
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: November 21, 2000
SUBJECT: Ordinance No. 26, Series of 2000, proposed language for Lionshead View
Corridor No. 2
Foresight Point E is at the easterly "build to line" of Lot 4, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 1" Filing,
when in the future, the owner of Lot 4, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 1s' Filing, comes forward with a
plan for redevelopment, the westerly . boundary of Lionshead View Corridor 2 will be a
consideration for approval or disapproval by the reviewing board. Prior to approval of the
redevelopment application by the Town of Vail the new westerly boundary shall be resurveyed
and formally adopted.
W's 1t d oo 3
VAIL CHAMBER AND BUSINESS ASSOCIATION
box 2135,vail, colorado 81657
MEMORANDUM
TO: Vail Town Council
FROM: VCBA
RE: Street Vendors
DATE: November 21, 2000
On November 8, 2000 the Board of Directors of the VCBA met and
discussed the topic of Street Vendors. Knowing that this could turn
out to be a nightmare, we approached the subject cautiously but
hope that we have come up with a workable solution.
As is currently the case, business owners can now display
merchandise outside of their stores provided they stay on their
leased space. We have encouraged this to take place only from
the end of the ski season up to Thanksgiving. We support the
maintenance of this policy. We suggest that additionally, a
requirement must be that the outside operation be an extension of
the business as it exists inside the leased space. For example, a
business whose main operation is the sale of men's clothing could
not decide to sell hot dogs outside of their store.
If the operation on the outside does not match that of the inside, a
separate business license would be required. At the time of the
application for such a license, we suggest that the application be
reviewed by the VCBA. It will then become the role of the VCBA to
make a recommendation regarding the type of outside business
being requested. Some of the criteria for approval will include
compatibility with the neighborhood and neighbors. There will be
an attempt to control unnecessary competition between neighbors.
If approved, the license will specifically identify the exact type of
product that can be sold from that location and the hours of
operation. Such an approval will require that the operation be
entirely on private leased space and that all health and safety
requirements of the TOV be met. Additionally, only currently
licensed business owners with currently attached leased space in the
TOV will be eligible. A merchant without an attached lease space will
NOT be eligible. The new operation must operate on attached leased
space.
11-02-2000 9.07AM FROM KEMWSWARTS 19705d7d722 P.2
Temporary Vendor Carts: Temporary veu.dor carts may be allowed when they meet the following criteria:
1. They are Icmate d entirely on private property, (we would prefer on private property) but the Town
could allow on public property specifically desiguated for vending by the Town. (Note that the Town
leases Town real estate to certain entities for similar uses.)
2. They are no greater than one hundred (.100) square feet in size.
3. They provide no service other that the sale of food, beverages in a form for immediate consumption or
products, only if directly related to the business located on the business private property. They may
only provide service and products that is directly related to that business.
4. They meet all requirements of all health regulations.
5. They do not directly compete with any other contiguous business or a business located within four
hundred (400) feet.
6. They may collect monies for payment of the vending services, food, merchandise or goods.
7. They shall be owned and operated by business owners, operators or entities located and licensed
within the Town.
S. Even though referred to as Temporary Vendor Cart, the same shall always be designated to one
permanent location, excluding special events.
9. They comply with all Town codes and State and Federal statutes, rules, and regulations.
10. They provide a positive impact upon the community, as determined by an evaluation of the
application against all relewwt policies of the Town code. These will include, but not be limited to,
aesthetics, site design, architectural compatibility, European atmosphere of the Town, etc.
The matter of Temporary Vendor Cart will be tested during two trial periods to determine the feasibility
and compatibility of the same with the Town. The first test period will be during the winter of 2000-2001.
The second test will be during the summer of 2001. Thereafter, the Town will complete an analysis and
study of the test to evaluate the continuation or termination of the Temporary Vendor Cart.
11-02-2000 9:07AM FROM KEMWSWARTS 1970547d722 P.1
NOeI, InC.
183-2 Gore Creek rirrvc
P.O. BOJC
VAJL, CO 81657
November l, 2000
Via Fax: (970) 479-2157
Pam Srai.idmeyer
Assistant Town Man.ager
Toml of Vail
Dear Pam:
. Attached is our thoughis ai the vendo,r cart, and we think it covers the itens we diseussed.
Lrich Bflumaaa
natJ/]04/h 1
G6t~a-a,~ C~'.prrrxa ~9 Y~~
VAIL MARKETING ADVISORY COUNCIL
_ FRONT' RANGE SUMMER VACA,t ION
AWARENESS & IMAGE SURVEY
OCTOBER 2000
rld`~rT~ ~~!\S4lT1Y 8 "a"i-ral a vad"8s ~7a~ r~vTav
Following is a competitive spending report for Mountain Resorts both nationally and in the
Denver/Boulder market.
DENVER/BOULDER
Methodology
We generated these figures calling all major media in the market and having them provide
spending figures for May to October 2000. All requests were granted except for magazines,
which have a policy of not releasing competitive information, and online, which did not respond.
Please see attached for a list of media providing information for this analysis.
The spending for Vail is reported as provided by the media.
Please remember to use this information as anecdotal and only to get directional input on
spending patterns.
Overall Spending
Total estimated spending for the category was $881,278 gross. The majority of dollars (69%) was
in newspaper, followed by radio, and airport.
Medium Gross Spending Share Of Spending
Newspaper $610,225 69%
Radio $258,553 30%
Airport $12,500 1%
Television $0 0%
Total $881,278 100%
Competitors' Spending Patterns
Of the 18 competitors measured, the majority primarily used newspaper, with six also having
radio in the mix.
13 relied primarily on newspaper:
Aspen 76%
Beaver Creek 79% -
Copper Mountain 100%
Dillon/Frisco 100%
Durango 100%
Estes Park 100%
Glenwood Springs 100%
Grand Junction 100%
Grand Lake 100%
Keystone 63%
Mesa Verde 100%
Steamboat Springs 88%
Telluride 100%
Three relied primarily on radio:
Breckenridge 100%
Vail 53%
Winter Park 47%
Avon and Colorado Springs had no reported spending. By comparison, VVMB allocated dollars
between Radio (53%) and Newspaper (47%).
Share of Voice
It was no surprise to us that the biggest spenders were the major Colorado resort areas, as follows:
Advertiser Gross Spending Share of Voice
Vail $246,911 28%
Steamboat Springs $157,956 18%
Keystone $142,322 16%
Estes Park $98,293 11%
Aspen $78,381 9%
Winter Park $54,254 6%
Copper Mountain $31,852 4%
Beaver Creek $29,783 3%
Glenwood Springs $9,617 1 %
Mesa Verde $9,088 1%
Durango $6,705 1 %
Breckenridge $5,882 1 %
Grand Junction $5,294 1%
Grand Lake $2,647 0%
Dillon/Frisco $1,235 0%
Telluride $1,058 0%
Avon $0 0%
Colorado Springs $0 0%
Total $881,278 100%
By comparison, VVMB's spending ranked number one with 28% share of voice.
MEDIA LIST
Newspaper
Denver Post
Rocky Mountain News/Boulder Daily Camera
Westword - did not respond
Magazines
5280 - does not release competitive information
Colorado Expression - does not release competitive information
Colorado Homes & Lifestyles - does not release competitive information
Radio
KALC-FM
KBCO-FM
KBPI-FM
KDJM-FM
KHIH-FM
KHO W-AM
KIMN-FM
KKFN-AM
KKHK-FM
KOA-AM - did not respond
KOSI-FM
KQKS-FM
KRFX-FM
KXKL-FM
KXPK-FM
KYGO-FM
Television
KCNC-TV _
KDVR-TV
KMGH-TV
KTVD-TV
KUSA-TV
KWGN-TV
Online
CitySearch - did not respond
DigitalCity - did not respond
Airport
TM Media -
Cable
AT&T Cable
DESTINATION
Methodology
For Destination we used a competitive report purchased from Patterson Ad Reports. The report
provides information on all media except online and provides spending for 2nd and 3rd quarter
2000. Please be aware that this reports doesn't differentiate between a summer and winter
message so it's possible that some data in the 3rd quarter may include some advertising with a
winter message.
Again, please only use this information to get directional input on spending patterns.
Overall Spending
Total estimated spending for the category was $1.3 million and consisted solely of magazine
advertising.
Competitors' Spending Patterns
Not so surprisingly, all advertisers spent all their dollars with magazines.
Share of Voice
Again, the biggest spenders were the major Colorado resort areas:
Competitors Magazine Spending SOV
Vail $231,600 18%
Copper Mountain $189,200 14%
Beaver Creek $186,400 14%
Breckenridge $161,300 12%
Winter Park $100,100 8%
Aspen $95,800 7%
Steamboat Springs $87,500 7%
Telluride $67,500 5%
Estes Park $59,600 4%
Crested Butte $51,800 4%
Colorado Springs $37,800 3%
Keystone $33,000 2%
Grand Junction _ $19,500 1%
Grand Lake $11,300 1 %
Avon $0 0%
Dillon/Frisco $0 0%
Durango $0 0%
Glenwood Springs $0 0%
Mesa Verde $0 0%
Total $1,332,400 100%
By comparison, Vail's spending ranked number one with 18% share of voice.
r
r
1
1
r
r VAIL MARKETING ADVISORY COUNCIL
r r iKONT RANGE SUMMER VACATION
AWARENESS & IMAGE SURVEY
r
r
r
r OCTOBER 2000
DRAFT: 11/8/00
r
r
r
r
r Prepared By:
i hh HOWELL RESEARCH GROUP
1758 Blake Street
Denver, Colorado 80202
(303) 296-8000
1
1
CONTENTS
' Summary 1
1. Introduction 6
' Objectives
J 6
Methodology 7
i Comparison to 1990 Survey 7
II. Survey Findings 8
' Awareness of Colorado Summer Vacation Destinations .
Recall of Advertising for Colorado Summer Vacation Places 14
Summer Vacation Experience - 2000 17
Consideration Given to Visiting Vail for Summer Vacation 20
' Image/Perceptions of Vail 26
Activities Interested In for Colorado Summer Vacations 36
' APPENDIX A - Questionnaire Used For 2000 Front Range Summer Vacation
Awareness and Image Survey
1
i
' LIST OF TABLES
' Table 1 Top of Mind Awareness of Colorado Summer Vacation Destinations
(Unaided) 9
' Table 2 Number of Summer Vacations Taken in 2000 17
Table 3 Demographic Profiles of Consumers Who Visited, Considered or Did Not
Consider Vail for a Summer Vacation 22
Table 4 Reasons for Not Considering Vail for a Summer Vacation by Household
' Income 25
Table 5 Overall Impressions About Colorado Summer Resort Areas 27
Table 6 Reasons for Overall Impression of Vail as a Summer Resort Area (Unaided) 31
' Table 7 Specific Perceptions About Vail as a Summer Vacation Place 33
' Table 8 Overall Types of Activities Most Interested In While Vacationing
in Colorado During the Summer by Selected Characteristics 37
Table 9 Influence of the Availability of Good Shopping in Selecting a
Place for Summer Vacation in Colorado by Selected Characteristics 40
Table 10 Interest in Educational Programs While on a Summer Vacation in
Colorado by Consideration Given to Vail 41
i
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Unaided Awareness of Colorado Summer Vacation Places 10
Figure 2 Favorite Place for Summer Vacation in Colorado 11
' Figure 3 Vail as Most Favorite Place by Demographics 12
Figure 4. Colorado Summer Vacation Places That Are Avoided 13
Figure 5 Unaided/Aided Recall of Advertising for Colorado Summer Vacation Places -
2000 15
Figure 6 Aided Recall of Advertising for Colorado Summer Vacation Places -
1990 and 2000 16
' Figure 7 Colorado Summer Vacation Places Visited - 1990 and 2000 19
Figure 8 Consideration Given to Visiting Vail in Summer 2000 21
Figure 9 Overall Impression of Colorado Summer Vacation Places - 1990 and 2000 28
' Figure 10 Overall Impression of Vail by Demographics 29
Figure 11 Likelihood of Visiting Vail with Incentive of Free Night's Lodging 35
' Figure 12 Activities Most Interested In for Colorado Summer Vacations (Unaided) 38
1
1
1
1
' SUMMARY
A survey of Denver Metro Area residents with household incomes of $75,000 or more was
conducted between September 28 and October 18, 2000 to assess the awareness and image of Vail
as a summer vacation place. In addition to providing input to creating advertising for Front Range
' residents, the research establishes a benchmark on which to help evaluate advertising effectiveness
and perceptions of Vail over time.
The following are the key findings g y from the 2000 Front Range Summer Vacation Awareness and
Image Survey:
• Awareness
• Vail enjoys relatively high top-of-mind (unaided) awareness as a summer vacation place in
Colorado. Awareness of Vail (31%) was the highest among all other specific destinations
1 including Steamboat Springs (26%), Breckenridge (25%), Aspen (19%), Durango (18%),
Glenwood Springs (17%) and Estes Park (17%).
• Although Vail enjoyed the highest awareness, it was the favorite place for only 9% of the
consumers. As most favorite, Vail ranked second slightly behind Steamboat Springs (10%).
' Preference for Vail was higher among women, younger consumers (21-34 years of age) and
consumers with household incomes of $100,000 or more.
• Advertising Recall
• Recall of summer advertising for Vail ranked second behind Breckenridge. Unaided recall
' of Vail advertising was at 16%, compared to 20% for Breckenridge. Vail's aided recall was
at 42%, compared to 50% for Breckenridge.
• While unaided recall understates actual recall and aided recall
typically typically overstates
actual recall, the survey results provide a good indication of advertising recall for Vail
relative to other Colorado summer vacation places and establishes a benchmark for future
measurement.
• Summer Vacation Experience
• Nearly all consumers (97%) had taken at least one summer vacation (pleasure trip requiring
an overnight stay of at least one night) between May 1 and September 15, 2000. In total,
' these consumers had taken, on average, 3.3 summer vacations this year.
1
• Consumers were less likely to have taken a summer vacation in Colorado (67%) than outside
the state (80%).
1
• Consumers have taken, on average, 1.7 vacations within Colorado this summer. The number
' of Colorado summer vacations taken in early summer were nearly identical to the number
taken in late summer. The consumers had made, on average, 0.8 trips between May 1 and
June 30 compared to 0.9 trips between July 1 and September 15.
• Vail was more likely (12%) to have been visited for a 2000 summer vacation among Denver
Metro Area consumers than any other Colorado destination. The percentage of consumers
visiting Vail in 2000 was nearly identical to that measured in a similar 1990 survey.
• Consideration Given to Vail
• One-fourth of the Denver Metro Area consumers had either visited (12%) or considered
i (14%) Vail for a summer vacation this year. That leaves three-fourths of the consumers
(74%) who did not consider Vail.
' • The primary reason for not considering Vail for a summer vacation was "expensive" (36°
/o).
Other frequently mentioned reasons were "wanted to go elsewhere" (17%), "lacks activities
I am interested in" (13%), "prefer to vacation out of state" (11 and "unfriendly" (10%).
' • Vail visitors were more likely to be 21 - 34 years of age and have household incomes of
$100,000 or more than persons who had considered/did not visit or did not consider Vail.
' • Image/Perceptions of Vail
• Although Vail had the highest level of awareness and the highest percentage of visitations,
' its overall image ranked last among eight major summer resort areas in Colorado. Only 28%
of the consumers had a very favorable impression of Vail, while 32% had a somewhat
favorable impression. One-third of all consumers (33%) had an unfavorable impression
of Vail as a summer resort (18% somewhat and 15% very unfavorable).
2
• Vail's overall image has declined somewhat from 1990. A comparison of the mean score
favorability ratings (1.0 - very unfavorable to 4.0 - very favorable) for 1990 and 2000 show
that only Vail and Winter Park had declines in favorability. Vail received a mean rating of
2.8 in 2000 compared to 3.0 in 1990. In 1990, Vail's rating ranked seventh and was higher
1 than Aspen. In 2000, Vail's rating ranked eighth, slightly below that of Aspen.
• The overall impressions of Vail vary by some demographic characteristics. Females rated
Vail somewhat higher than males (2.9 vs. 2.7). Overall impression of Vail declines with age.
Consumers 21 - 34 (3.0) and 35 - 54 (2.9) rated Vail considerably higher than those 55 - 64
(2.5). Single persons (3.2) gave Vail higher ratings than married persons (2.8). Interestingly,
the ratings did not differ by household income.
' Very favorable impressions of Vail were most likely to be based on "beauty of area,"
"variety of activities," "good dining," "good shopping," and "friendly." Less favorable
impressions were based on the same reasons cited for not considering Vail: "expensive,"
"lacks activities wanted," "unfriendly" and "too crowded/too tourist oriented."
' While the majority consumers perceive that Vail is a good place for a summer vacation,
is a good weekend getaway, has the activities you like to do on a summer vacation, is a good
place for restaurants, is a good place for shopping and is a friendly place, these perceptions
are not strong and sizeable segments disagree with these perceptions.
• The perceptions that present a major obstacle for Vail as a summer vacation place relate to
1 "cost." Consumers do not perceive Vail as having "reasonably priced lodging" or being a
"good value." Only 28% of all consumers agreed that Vail has a large number of
reasonably priced lodges and hotels during the summer. The majority disagreed (54%),
while nearly one out of five had no opinion (18%). Agreement was lower (24%) that the
cost of a summer vacation in Vail is a good value compared to other vacation spots in
' Colorado (66% disagreed).
• There is some interest in an incentive of a free night's lodging on Sunday evening after a two
night stay on Friday and Saturday. This incentive was appealing to 11 % of all consumers:
31% who had visited Vail, 19% who had considered Vail and 6% of those who had not
considered Vail for a summer vacation. Although small, a 6% conversion among three-
fourths of all targeted consumers would increase the percentage of targeted consumers
visiting Vail from 12% to 16% (a relative increase of 50%).
' 3
• Activities Interested In for Colorado Summer Vacations
• Consumers are far more likely to classify themselves as being most interested in
Sports/Outdoor activities (71%) than Arts/Music/Cultural activities (9%) or both equally
(15%).
' • The majority of all consumers (55%) said (unaided) they were interested in hiking when on
' summer vacations in Colorado. The next most frequently mentioned activities were
bicycling (28%), camping/backpacking (23%) and fishing (19%).
• The vast majority of consumers (70%) say that the availability of good shopping does not
influence their selection of a place for a summer vacation in Colorado. Three out of ten
consumers said yes (18%) or sometimes (12%). Those who had considered, but not visited
Vail were more likely to have been influenced at least sometimes (52%) than those that had
actually visited Vail (40%). Consumers who had not considered Vail were far less likely
(24%) to have been at least sometimes influenced by the availability ofgood shopping.
1 • Sizeable segments of consumers, but not the majority, expressed interest in specific
educational programs while on a summer vacation in Colorado. Programs with the highest
interest were learning about hiking/camping (42% very interested), class on local history
including tours of historical sites (39%), learning how to golf/how to improve game (28%),
learning how to mountain bike (27%) and class on cuisine and wine (25%). Expressed
interest in these programs did not take into account any cost considerations.
1 • Implications
• The balance in the number of Colorado summer vacations taken by Denver Metro Area
consumers in the early and late summer indicates that Vail needs to promote early summer
as well as late summer visits, and that Vail needs to be fully open and ready to accommodate
visitors by the end of May.
1
• The primary perception that Vail needs to overcome in attracting summer visitors is that it
is "too expensive." Consumers have most probably based their perceptions on the cost of
Vail during the ski season and are not aware of the "amount and quality of reasonably priced
lodging" during the summer.
4
• Other perceptions work against Vail as a summer vacation place:
"it lacks sports/outdoor oriented activities"
"it is unfriendly or snobbish"
"it lacks value compared to other Colorado vacation places"
' Providing an incentive of a free night's stay on Sunday after a two night stay may prove
successful in increasing the frequency of visits among current summer guests and attracting
first time visitors.
• Providing special programs primarily geared toward sports/outdoor activities such as
1 hiking/camping, mountain biking and golf may help to position Vail as more of an "outdoor
oriented" experience among those who perceive Vail to be too tourist oriented and
commercialized.
i
t
1
~ 5
1
' I. INTRODUCTION
' A survey of Denver Metro Area residents was conducted to assess the awareness and image of Vail
as a summer vacation spot for Front Range residents. This study was conducted for the Vail
r Marketing Advisory Council by The Howell Research Group under the direction of Barnhart/CMI.
OBJECTIVES
The research provides the Vail Marketing Council with information that will assist in creating
advertising for Front Range residents and establishes a benchmark on which to help evaluate the
effectiveness of its advertising over time. The specific research issues addressed in the survey
included:
1. What is the awareness of Vail as a summer vacation destination relative to other places in
Colorado?
' 2. Which Colorado resorts do consumers prefer or avoid for summer vacations?
3. What is the image of Vail as a Colorado summer vacation destination relative to other places
in Colorado?
' 4. What are the specific perceptions of Vail as a summer vacation place regarding value,
availability of activities, lodging, etc.
' 5. What is the recall of Vail summer advertising?
6. How many summer vacations did Front Range consumers take this year? Where did they
1 g°?
7. What consideration was given to going to Vail for a summer vacation this year?
' 8. What types of activities are consumers most interested in while taking a summer vacation
in Colorado?
9. Is there any interest in participating in educational programs or classes while on a summer
vacation in Colorado?
10. Would an incentive or a free night of lodging on Sunday encourage weekend visitors to
vacation in Vail during the summer?
1
' 6 THE HOWELL RESEARCH GROUP
' METHODOLOGY
' This research was conducted with a telephone survey of 300 randomly selected residents in the six-
county Denver Metropolitan Area. The respondents were screened to include those who fit Vail's
1 primary target:
- 21-64 years of age
- $75,000+ household income
The survey sample was also stratified to include an equal split between men and women.
1 In order to increase the incidence (percentage) of qualified respondents, an "income directed" sample
was initially used and then potential respondents were screened for age and income. An "income
directed" sample uses phone numbers from telephone exchanges and zip codes where there is a
higher probability that persons will meet the income criteria. This provides a more cost-effective
approach than a typical "non-directed" sample.
The survey was conducted between September 28 and October 18, 2000. Each interview lasted
' approximately 15 minutes.
A random sample of 300 produces results which are statistically reliable within f5.7% at the 95
percent confidence level. In other words, 19 out of 20 times the survey results will be within f5.7%
of how the entire population would have responded if they had been surveyed.
COMPARISON TO 1990 SURVEY
A similar Front Range Awareness and Image Survey was conducted in 1990 for the Vail Valley
Marketing Board. Several of the questions were asked in both surveys, thus allowing for ten-year
comparisons.
' It should be recognized that the household income criteria for survey respondents differed between
the 1990 and 2000 surveys. In 1990, the minimum household income was $35,000. Although
' inflation over the past 10 years would equate to a substantially higher income, a $35,000 household
income in 1990 would still fall below a $75,000 household income in 2000.
7 THE HOWELL RESEARCH GROUP
' II. SURVEY FINDINGS
AWARENESS OF COLORADO SUMMER VACATION DESTINATIONS
' i Top-of-Mind Awareness
' When consumers think of places for a summer vacation in Colorado, they were more likely to
mention (unaided) Vail (31%) than any other destination. Vail was the summer destination
mentioned first by 12% of the consumers and in total by 31 % of the consumers. Other Colorado
' destinations with relatively high top-of-mind awareness were Steamboat Springs (26%),
Breckenridge (25%), Aspen (19%), Durango (18%), Glenwood Springs (17%) and Estes Park (17%).
1 (Refer to Table 1 and Figure 1.)
1 Awareness of Vail varied by household income. Consumers with incomes of $100,000 or more were
more likely to have a top-of-mind awareness of Vail than consumers with incomes of $75,000 -
$99,999 (38% vs. 26%).
i Most Favorite Colorado Summer Vacation Place
Although Vail enjoyed the highest awareness among Colorado summer vacation places, it was the
favorite place for only 9% of the consumers. As most favorite, Vail ranked slightly behind
Steamboat Springs (10%) and slightly ahead of Breckenridge (8%), Glenwood Springs (7%),
' Durango (6%), Estes Park (5%) and Aspen (5%). There'were no specific destinations that were the
favorite of a large segment of the consumers. Preferences were scattered among a multitude of
places throughout the western portion of Colorado. (Refer to Figure 2.)
Preference for Vail as most favorite Colorado summer vacation place varied by the demographic
characteristics of the consumers. Women were more than twice as likely to prefer Vail as men (13%
vs. 5%). Younger consumers 21 - 34 years of age, were more likely to prefer Vail (18%) than
consumers 35 - 54 (8%) or 55 - 64 (0%). Preference for Vail also increased with household income.
Consumers with household incomes of $75,000 - $99,999 were less likely to prefer Vail (7%) than
' those with incomes of $100,000 or more (12%). (Refer to Figure 3.)
Colorado Summer Vacation Places Avoided
No particular destination is "avoided" as a Colorado summer vacation place by a large percentage
of consumers. Aspen (6%) was mentioned (unaided) most frequently, followed by Vail (5%),
' Eastern Plains (3%) and Colorado Springs (2%). More than seven out of ten consumers (72%) said
there were no places they avoided. (Refer to Figure 4.)
8 THE HOWELL RESEARCH GROUP
TABLE 1 TOP OF MIND AWARENESS OF COLORADO SUMMER
VACATION DESTINATIONS (UNAIDED)
' First Total
Mentions Mentions*
' Vail 12 31
' Steamboat Springs 11 26
Breckenridge 14 25
Aspen 6 19
1 Durango 5 18
Glenwood Springs 8 17
Estes Park 7 17
' Winter Park 3 10
Colorado Springs 3 9
Mesa Verde 2 7
' Grand Junction 2 7
Telluride 1 7
Dillon/Frisco/Silverthorne 1 7
Grand Lake 4 6
Copper Mountain 2 5
Keystone 2 4
' Beaver Creek 1 4
Avon 0 2
Crested Butte 0 2
Other 11 33
None 4 3
TOTAL 99%
BASE (300 ) (300 )
Reflects multiple responses.
Adds to less than 100% due to rounding.
' Source: The Howell Research Group
9 THE HOWELL RESEARCH GROUP
1
1
FIGURE 1
UNAIDED AWARENESS OF COLORADO
SUMMER VACATION PLACES*
VAIL 31%
STEAMBOAT SPRINGS 26%
' BRECKENRIDGE 25%
ASPEN 19%
DURANGO AMW18% -001W ' ESTES PARK 17%
GLENWOOD SPRINGS 17%
1
WINTER PARK 10%
COLORADO SPRINGS 9%
MESA VERDE 7%
' TELLURIDE
7%
' DILLON/FRISCO/
SILVERTHORNE 7%
GRAND JUNCTION 7%
' GRAND LAKE
6%
COPPER MOUNTAIN - 5%
OTHER 46%
i
0% 20% 40% 60%
'
Reflects Multiple Responses
10 'ftm HOWELL RESEARCH GROUP
F~G~RE 2 S~1~M~R
LASE FAR
V OFO E P COLORA
FA VAcA-TjoN ?N
(30/0
VA~?- 10%
OAT SPRiNG,s 80/0
STEAMB
RECKENR~DG,E 70/0
i
B
G 00j) SpFtINGS 6~
LENw URANGO
` D 5Qk
EST ES PARK
5%
Asp EN
pRING'S 3%
COLORADO S 3°l0
W 1NT ER PARK
EYSTONE 2~
K
ND LAKE 20/0
GRA
ELLUR~DE 20/0
T
rZo10 , 19°10
UNCTION
GRAN 17 go.
OTHER
0
Zaolo 25~%
ONE~DON'T !KNOW % 5°/0 1 O0/0 15010
N
o
TAE Nd~LL RESEA.RCN GRpUP
11
PLACE
F?GURE 3
FA`sQRIT
ST aGRAPH?CS
VAIL AS NIO
BY 1)
9%
-TOTAL
_EN- %
M ALE 5010
3
FEMALE
1 p
pGE 1$_/0
2J-34
34-54
55-64 Q%
E
tN 7% `
$75,000-$99'999
12%`,
$100'000+ 010
2 250/
15 /o
00/0 5% 100/0
Ta HOWELL nSEARCti GROUP
1 '2
' FIGURE 4
COLORADO SUMMER VACATION PLACES
THAT ARE AVOIDED*
' VAIL 5%
ASPEN 6%
EASTERN PLAINS 3%
COLORADO SPRINGS 2%
' WINTER PARK
o
1/o
' ESTES PARK 1%
KEYSTONE 1%
GRAND JUNCTION 1%
MESEA VERDE 1%
TELLURIDE
o
1/o
CRESTED BUTTE 1%
OTHER 11%
NONE/DON'T KNOW lmmmmm=W72~/o
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
' Reflects Multiple Responses
13 THE HOWELL RESEARCH GROUP
RECALL OF ADVERTISING FOR COLORADO SUMMER VACATION PLACES
' Advertising recall for Colorado summer vacation places was tested in two ways. First, consumers
were asked (unaided) to name any Colorado places they remembered seeing or hearing any
advertising for this summer. Secondly, consumers were asked directly (aided) if they recalled seeing
or hearing any summer advertising for eight specific Colorado resort areas including Vail.
Surveys can provide a relative, but not completely accurate, measure of advertising recall. Unaided
recall questions typically understate actual recall, while aided questions typically overstate ad recall.
The value of these questions is the relative position of Vail's ad recall compared to other Colorado
destinations.
' It should be noted that ad recall may include advertising for the entire resort area or town, as well
as for specific lodging and attractions in the area.
Ar Unaided Recall
In total, only 43% of all consumers said they recalled (unaided) any advertising for Colorado
vacation places this past summer. This small percentage further substantiates the "understatement"
' of ad recall in unaided questions. Vail (16%) had the second highest level of unaided ad recall
behind Breckenridge (20%). All other Colorado destinations were mentioned by less than 10% of
the consumers. (Refer to Figure 5.)
z Aided Recall
' As expected, aided ad recall was dramatically higher. Nearly three-fourths of the consumers (73%)
recalled summer advertising for at least one of the eight resort areas tested. Aided advertising recall
for Vail (42%) was again second behind Breckenridge (50%). However, aided ad recall for Winter
Park (39%) and Steamboat Springs (39%) was similar to that of Vail. (Refer to Figure 5.)
Aided recall of summer advertising for Vail declined significantly between 1990 and 2000 from 65%
to 42%. However, aided ad recall declined for each of the eight Colorado resort areas that were
' tested. (Refer to Figure 6.)
Aided ad recall did not vary significantly by gender, age or household income.
i
i
' 14 THE HOWELL RESEARCH GROUP
1
' FIGURE 5
UNAIDED/AIDED RECALL OF ADVERTISING
' FOR COLORADO SUMMER VACATION PLACES
2000 -
VAIL
BRECKENRIDGE y;,/
~
~ 50%
WINTER PARK //~'J~;
' ASPEN
' STEAMBOAT SPRINGS
3s
KEYSTONE
32%
DURANGO
/11 wa' / , 31%
' ESTES PARK
' OTHER 42%
INA
I i i ,
0% 20% 40% 60%
= UNAIDED AIDED
' NA - Not Applicable
15 THE HOWELL RESEARCH GROUP
' FIGURE 6
AIDED RECALL OF ADVERTISING FOR
' COLORADO SUMMER VACATION PLACES
- 1990 & 2000 -
VAIL 1 65%
42%
1
' BRECKENRIDGE 67%
50%
WINTER PARK 48 /o
39%
ASPEN 46%
' 127%
1
STEAMBOAT SPRINGS
39%
KEYSTONE 5 9 %
' 132%
DURANGO
31%
56%
'21 ESTES PARK
31%
' o 0 0 /0 20% 40% 6 0 /0 80%
1990 2000
1
' 16 TBE HOWELL RESEARCH GROUP
SUMMER VA CATIONEXPERIENCE - 2000
' Ar Number of Summer Vacations
Nearly all consumers (97%) had taken at least one summer vacation (pleasure trip requiring an
overnight stay of at least one night) between May 1 and September 15, 2000. In total, these
consumers had taken, on average, 3.3 summer vacations this year. (Refer to Table 2.)
Eight out of ten consumers (80%) had taken at least one summer vacation outside of Colorado this
year for an average of 1.6 trips. Consumers were less likely to have taken a summer vacation in
Colorado since only 67% had taken at least one trip. However, those taking Colorado summer
vacations made more frequent trips since, on average, the consumers had taken 1.7 vacations within
Colorado this summer.
The number of Colorado summer vacations taken in early summer were nearly identical to the
' number taken in late summer. The consumers had made, on average, 0.8 trips between May 1 and
June 30 compared to 0.9 trips between July 1 and September 15.
TABLE 2 NUMBER OF SUMMER VACATIONS TAKEN IN 2000
' Colorado
Outside May 1 - July 1 - All
Number Colorado June 30 September 15 . Total Vacation
0 20% 53% 47% 33% 7%
1 35 27 31 26 19
2 26 12 13 14 21
3 11 4 5 12 16
4 or more 18 4 4 15 37
TOTAL 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
BASE (300 ) (300 ) (300 ) (300 ) (300 )
AVERAGE 1.6 0.8 0.9 1.7 3.3
Source: The Howell Research Group
17 11m HOWELL RESEARCH GROUP
' ¦ Colorado Summer Vacation Places Visited in 2000
' Vail was more likely (12%) to have been visited for a 2000 summer vacation among these
consumers than any other Colorado destination. Other Colorado destinations visited this summer
included Estes Park (8%), Steamboat Springs (8%), Breckenridge (8%), Glenwood Springs (7%),
' Winter Park (6%), Durango (5%), Aspen (4%) and Grand Lake (4%). (Refer to Figure 7.)
In terns of Colorado summer vacation places visited, the 1990 and 2000 survey results were nearly
identical. In 1990, 13% of the consumers surveyed reported a summer vacation in Vail. In total,
' 63% of the 1990 consumers reported at least one summer vacation in Colorado compared to 67%
of the 2000 consumers.
18 TnE HOWELL RESEARCH GROUP
1
' FIGURE 7
COLORADO SUMMER VACATION PLACES
' VISITED: 1990 & 2000
- 1990 & 2000 -
TOTAL (NET)///%/;/%%%%%////%/%%%%%%/„//%/!%%/%~//%%/!/%//!///,~%1 s 3 %
67%
1
VAIL 139
12%
1
ESTES PARK 8%
8%
s%
-4
STEAMBOAT SPRINGS
8%
' BRECKENRIDGE 40% s%
GLENWOOD SPRINGS s%
WINTER PARK s%
s%
' DURANGO 4%
s%
' ASPEN i%
4%
GRAND LAKE
' 4%
OTHER s%
63%
I I I I
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
1990 2000
' 19 THE HOWELL RESEARCH GROUP
' CONSIDERATION GIVEN TO VISITING VAn FOR SUMMER VACATION
' f Consumer Segments
The consumers can be segmented into three categories regarding their experience and consideration
' of Vail for a summer vacation. (Refer to Figure 8.)
Visited 12%
Considered/Did Not Visit 14
Did Not Consider 74
' There are some significant variances in the demographic characteristics of
these three consumer
' segments. However, this data should be used with caution since the sample sizes of those who
visited and those who considered/did not visit Vail are small. Vail visitors were younger than either
those who considered/did not visit or did not consider Vail for a summer vacation. More than two
' out of three visitors (68%) were 21 - 45 years of age compared to 59% of those who considered Vail
and 49% of those who did not consider Vail. (Refer to Table 3.)
Visitors had higher household incomes than the other two segments and those who considered/did
' not visit Vail had higher incomes than those who did not consider Vail. Two-thirds of the visitors
(66%) had annual household incomes of $100,000 or more compared to 58% of those who
considered Vail and 43% of those who did not consider Vail.
Those who visited or considered/did not visit Vail were more likely to be single (17% and 20%
' respectively) than those who had not considered Vail (8%). Although more likely to be single, those
who visited or considered Vail were also more likely to have children under the age of 18 (60% and
' 57% respectively) than those who had not considered Vail (53%).
' 20 THE HOWELL RESEARCH GROUP
' FIGURE 8
CONSIDERATION GIVEN TO VISITING
' VAIL IN SUMMER 2000
' VISITED VAIL
12%
' CONSIDERED VAIL/
DID NOT VISIT
14%
DID NOT INI
CONSIDER VAIL
' 74%
21 THE HOWELL RESEARCH GROUP
1 TABLE 3 DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILES OF CONSUMERS WHO VISITED,
CONSIDERED OR DID NOT CONSIDER VAIL FOR A SUMMER
VACATION
Considered -
Total Visited Did Not Did Not
' Sample Vail (12%) Visit (14%) Consider (74%)
Gender, ' Male 50% 51% 43% 52%
Female 50 49 57 48
'
Age TOTAL 100% 100% 100% 100%
' 21 - 34 17% 31% 19% 14%
35 - 44 36 37 40 35
45 - 54 37 26 29 41
55-64 10 6 12 10
TOTAL 100% 100% 100% 100%
Household Income
$75,000 - $99,999 53% 34% 42% 57%
' $100,00 - or higher 47 66 58 43
TOTAL 100% 100% 100% 100%
Marital Status
' Married 90% 83% 80% 92%
Single 10 17 20 8
' TOTAL 100% 100% 100% 100%
Have Children Under 18
' Yes 55% 60% 57% 53%
No 45 40 43 47
' TOTAL 100% 100% 100% 100%
BASE (300 ) (35)* (42)* (223)
* Use with caution - small base of respondents.
Source: The Howell Research Group
22 THE HOWELL RESEARCH GROUP
' Ar Reasons for Not Considering Vail
Consumers who had not considered Vail for a summer vacation this year (74% of total) were asked
(unaided) why they had not considered Vail. More than one-third of these respondents (36%) said
it was "too expensive". (Refer to Table 4.) When respondents mentioned "too expensive," it was
apparent from their comments that they were primarily referring to lodging and food. Some of the
specific responses illustrating this perception were:
' "Too expensive. In general, this is a very expensive town. Lodging, restaurants, shopping are
all very expensive."
' "I don't think it's worth the trip. It's too pricey."
"The prices are way too high. I just don't like having to spend that kind of money just to have
fun.,"
"They like to overcharge people on merchandising and eating."
"It costs too much for a place to stay and the food."
' "Prices are considerably higher than comparable vacation spots offering similar activities."
' Other frequently mentioned reasons for not considering Vail were "wanted to go elsewhere" (17%),
"lacks activities I am interested in" (13%), "prefer to vacation out of state" (11%), "unfriendly"
' (10%), "prefer outdoor/non-resort activities" (9%) and "too crowded" (9%):
Some of the specific responses referring to "lacks activities I am interested in" were:
' "Nothing to do there. Nothing I like to do - water skiing, boating, sailing and swimming."
"It's extremely boring. Everything. The only thing they have is to shop and spend oodles of
money."
' "Nothing happening for me there. I am older and don't get into the night life like young kids."
' "There is nothing there that appeals to me. It's a place for the filthy rich to sit around, be bored
and do nothing."
' 23 THE HOWELL RESEARCH GROUP
It was also apparent that many consumers don't feel comfortable in Vail and consider it
"unfriendly."
' "I also feel it is very rude to outsiders. If you don't live there and look ritzy, they don't approve
of you."
' "There is a very snobbish attitude there that I don't like."
' "It's pretentious. A royal pain in the ass and full of itself."
"People are rude."
"I feel Vail is a very prejudicial place. Majority is white and when a Hispanic goes there,
regardless if they have money, they make you feel not wanted there."
' "When I hear Vail, I think of millionaires and a bunch of rich yuppies."
There were no significant differences in the top three reasons given for not considering Vail by
household incomes. However, there were some differences in the less frequently mentioned reasons.
' Consumers with incomes of $100,000 or more were less likely than consumers with incomes of
$75,000 - $99,999 to mention "prefer outdoor/non-resort activities" (3% vs. 13%) and "don't know
about Vail for summer" (2% vs. 10%). Consumers with higher incomes were more likely to mention
"unfriendly" (18% vs. 5%), "prefer to vacation out of state" (15% vs. 9%), "lack of time/no
vacations" (10% vs. 5%) and "have property/condo elsewhere" (8% vs. 3%).
1
24 THE HOWELL RESEARCH GROUP
' TABLE 4 REASONS FOR NOT CONSIDERING VAIL FOR A SUMMER
VACATION BY HOUSEHOLD INCOME
' Household Income
$75,000- $100,000
Reasons* Total $99,999 or More
Expensive 36% 35% 34%
' Wanted to go elsewhere 17 18 17
Lacks activities I am interested in 13 15 11
Prefer to vacation out of state 11 9 15
' Unfriendly 10 5 18
Prefer outdoor/non-resort activities 9 13 3
Too crowded 9 9 8
' Lack of time/no vacations 7 5 10
Don't know about Vail for summer 7 10 2
Have property/condo elsewhere 5 3 8
' No lake at Vail 2 3 1
Go skiing there - want different place
in summer 2 1 2
' Too close to highway 2 3 1
Other 6 8 3
' BASE (223 ) (118 ) (88 )
Reflects multiple responses.
Source: The Howell Research Group
' 25 THE HOWELL RESEARCH GROUP
1
' IMAGEIPERCEPTIONS OF VAIL
' N Image of Vail Relative to Other Colorado Summer Resort Areas
Consumers were asked their overall impressions of Vail and seven other Colorado summer resort
areas. Although Vail had the highest level of awareness and the highest percentage of visitations,
its overall image ranked last among these consumers. Steamboat Springs was rated highest,
followed by Estes Park and Durango. (Refer to Table 5.)
Only 28% of the consumers had a very favorable impression of Vail, while 32% had a somewhat
favorable impression. One-third of all consumers (33%) had an unfavorable impression of Vail
as a summer resort (18% somewhat and 15% very unfavorable).
A comparison of the mean score favorability ratings (1.0 - very unfavorable to 4.0 - very
favorable) for 1990 and 2000 show that only Vail and Winter Park had declines in favorability. Vail
received a mean rating of 3.0 in 1990 compared to 2.8 in 2000. In 1990, Vail's rating ranked seventh
and was higher than Aspen. In 2000, Vail's rating ranked eighth, slightly below that of Aspen.
' (Refer to Figure 9.)
' The overall impressions of Vail vary by some demographic characteristics. Females rated Vail
somewhat higher than males (2.9 vs. 2.7). Overall impression of Vail declines with age. Consumers
21- 34 (3.0) and 34 - 54 (2.9) rated Vail considerably higher than those 55 - 64 (2.5). Single persons
' (3.2) gave Vail higher ratings than married person (2.8). Interestingly, the ratings did not differ by
household income. (Refer to Figure 10.)
' 26 THE HOWELL RESEARCH GROUP
r~ ~r r r~ r ~r r¦ r r¦ r r r r~ r ¦r ~r r r~ ~r
TABLE 5 OVERALL IMPRESSIONS ABOUT COLORADO SUMMER RESORT AREAS
Overall Impression
Very Somewhat Somewhat Very No Mean
Resort Area Favorable Favorable Unfavorable Unfavorable Opinion Score*
Steamboat Springs 54% 31% 5% 2% 9% 3.5
Estes Park 48 35 6- 3 7 3.4
Durango 47 33 5 3 12 3.4
Breckenridge 48 35 6 6 5 3.3
Winter Park 28 45 11 8 10 3.0
Keystone 26 45 11 8 10 3.0
Aspen 28 38 16 10 8 2.9
Vail 28 32 18 15 7 2.8
BASE --------------------(300 )
* Mean score is calculated by assigning integer values of "4" to very favorable, "3" to somewhat favorable, "2" to somewhat
unfavorable, "1" to very unfavorable and disregarding the no opinions.
x
Source: The Howell Research Group
r
r
r
n
x
C)
z
0
c
b
' FIGURE 9
OVERALL IMPRESSION OF COLORADO
SUMMER VACATION PLACES
- 1990 & 2000 -
' - MEAN SCORE -
i
PC /I
STEAMBOAT SPRINGS 3.4
3.5
ESTES PARK 3.3
3.4
r.r7il~
DURANGO
I 3.4
r ............................riiiirirri~ri~~//rill
BRECKENRIDGE 3.2
' 3.3
WINTER PARK 3.1
' I 3.0
AM: All
' KEYSTONE
3.0
l
ASPEN
2.9
3.0
VAIL
2.8
1 2 3 4
' VERY SOMEWHAT SOMEWHAT VERY
UNFAVORABLE FAVORABLE
1990 2000
' 28 THE HOWELL RESEARCH GROUP
' FIGURE 10
OVERALL IMPRESSION OF VAIL
BY DEMOGRAPHICS
' - MEAN SCORE -
' TOTAL 28
' GENDER
MALE 2.7
FEMALE 2.9
' AGE
21-34 3.0
' 34-54
2.9
55-64 2.5
INCOME
$75,000-$99,999
' 28
$100,000+ 28
1
MARITAL SATUS
' MARRIED 28
SINGLE 3.2
1 2 3 4
' VERY SOMEWHAT SOMEWHAT VERY
UNFAVORABLE FAVORABLE
29 TI-IE HOWELL RESEARCH GROUP
' Ar Reasons for Overall Impression of Vail
When asked (unaided) why they had a specific impression of Vail as a summer resort area, the
' majority of all consumers (63%) said something negative, while 44% said something positive. Since
respondents were allowed to provide multiple responses, some consumers mentioned both positive
and negative reasons. (Refer to Table 6.)
' Consumers with very favorable impressions of Vail were most likely to say their impression was
based on "beauty of area" (36%), "variety of activities" (26%), "good dining" (24%), "good
shopping' (17%) and "friendly (16%). Some of those with a very favorable impression (11%) also
' mentioned something negative about Vail - their primary negative response being "too expensive"
(5%).
' Consumers with a somewhat favorable impression of Vail were more likely to mention something
negative (74%) than positive (39%). Their most frequently mentioned reasons for a somewhat
favorable impression were "too expensive" (36%) and "lacks activities wanted" (17%). On the
positive side, their most frequently mentioned response was "fun to visit" (11
' Very few of those with somewhat or very unfavorable impressions had something positive to say
' about Vail. The majority ofthose with somewhat unfavorable (72%) and very unfavorable (55%)
impressions of Vail said it was because Vail was "too expensive." Other frequently mentioned
reasons were "lacks activities wanted," "unfriendly" and "too crowded/too tourist oriented." Those
' very unfavorable toward Vail were twice as likely as those somewhat unfavorable to mention
"unfriendly" (32% vs. 17%).
30 THE HOWELL RESEARCH GROUP
' TABLE 6 REASONS FOR OVERALL IMPRESSION OF VAIL AS A SUMMER
RESORT AREA (UNAIDED)
' Imnression of Vail
Very Somewhat Somewhat Very
Reasons* Total Favorable Favorable Unfavorable Unfavorable
' Positive (Net) 44% 95% 39% 2% 7%
Beauty of area 13 36 6
Variety of activities 10 26 6 2
Good dining 8 24 2
Good shopping 8 17 7
Fun to visit 8 12 11
Village atmosphere 5 13 3 2
Friendly 5 16
Good skiing 4 7 4 2 2
' Close/easy to get to 3 6 2
Good lodging 3 7 1
Weather 2 7
Golf 2 4 2
Cultural activities 1 1 1
Other positive 5 11 5
Negative (Net) 63 11 74 100 96
Expensive 37 5 36 72 55
Lacks activities
' wanted 13 2 17 20 18
Unfriendly 10 1 5 17 32
Too crowded/too
' tourist oriented 9 1 9 15 16
Don't like Vail for
summer 4 1 4 7 2
Too far 2 4 2
Not aware of Vail
for summer 1 3 2
Poor parking 1 1 4 2
Prefer other places 1 1 2
Too close to highway 1 2 2
Other negative 3 4 7 2
' Don't know 1 3
BASE (279 ) (84) (97) (54) (44 )
* Reflects multiple responses.
' Source: The Howell Research Group
31 THE HOWELL RESEARCH GROUP
' Ar Specific Perceptions About Vail as a Summer Vacation Place
Among several specific perceptions about Vail as a summer vacation place, consumers were most
' likely to agree that Vail is a good place for restaurants. Two-thirds (69%) either strongly (34%)
or somewhat agreed (34%) with this statement. (Refer to Table 7.)
' Although some consumers did not consider Vail for a summer vacation because it was unfriendly,
' the majority (61%) agreed that Vail is a friendly place, " while 30% disagreed.
There were several perceptions about Vail for which a majority agreed and about one-third
' disagreed:
' Vail is a good weekend getaway (61 % vs. 33%)
Vail has the activities you like to do on a summer vacation (59% vs. 34%)
Vail is a good place for shopping (54% vs. 32%)
Vail is a good place for a summer vacation (57% vs. 36%)
' Nearly all of those who visited Vail this summer (89%) agreed (66% strongly) that Vail is a good
place for a summer vacation.
1 Less than one-half of the consumers with children agreed (49%) that Vail is a good place to take
children for a summer vacation, while 39% disagreed.
Consumers do not perceive Vail as having "reasonably priced lodging" or being a"good value."
Only 28% of all consumers agreed that Vail has a large number of reasonably priced lodges and
hotels during the summer. The majority disagreed (54%), while nearly one out of five had no
' opinion (18%).
Agreement was lower (24%) that the cost of a summer vacation in Vail is a good value compared
' to other vacation spots in Colorado. Two-thirds of all consumers (66%) disagreed with this
statement including 34% of those who visited Vail and 52% of those who had considered Vail.
1
' 32 THE HOWELL RESEARCH GROUP
TABLE 7 SPECIFIC PERCEPTIONS ABOUT VAIL AS A SUMMER VACATION PLACE
Agreement
AL-ree Disaeree No Mean
Statements Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly Opinion Score*
Vail is a good place for restaurants 34 34 8 12 12 3.0
Vail is a good weekend getaway 35 26 14 19 6 2.8
Vail has the activities you like to do
on a summer vacation 29 30 17 17 7 2.8
Vail is a friendly place 27 34 12 18 10 2.8
Vail is a good place for shopping 25 29 15 17 14 2.7
Vail is a good place for a summer
vacation 24 33 15 21 7 2.7
Vail is a good place to take children
for a summer vacation** 23 25 20 19 13 2.6
w Vail has a large number of reasonably
priced lodges and hotels during the
summer 12 16 22 32 18 2.1
The cost of a summer vacation in Vail
is a good value compared to other
vacation spots in Colorado 8 16 29 37 10 1.9
BASE ------------------(300
Mean score is calculated by assigning integer values of "4" to strongly agree, "3" to somewhat agree, "2" to somewhat disagree,
x "1" to strongly disagree and disregarding the no opinions.
0
Reflects responses of only persons with children under 18.
Source: The Howell Research Group
m
0
0
' Ar Likelihood of Visiting Vail with Incentive of Free Night's Lodging
Consumers were asked how likely they would be to visit Vail if Vail offered a free night's lodging
on Sunday evenings after a two night stay on Friday and Saturday. In total, 11 % of all consumers
said they would be very likely to avail themselves of this incentive. (Refer to Figure 11.)
Three out of ten of those who visited Vail this summer (31%) would be likely to avail themselves
I of this incentive. Although this could be termed "cannibalization" of current business, it may result
in more frequent visits among current visitors.
The incentive was very appealing to 19% of those who considered Vail this summer but did not visit.
Only 6% of those who did not consider Vail would be very likely to avail themselves of this
' incentive. However, since this segment represents three-fourths of all targeted consumers, a 6%
conversion would increase the percentage of all targeted consumers visiting Vail from 12% to 16%.
1
1
34 THE HOWELL RESEARCH GROUP
' FIGURE 11
LIKELIHOOD OF VISTING VAIL WITH
' INCENTIVE OF FREE NIGHTS LODGING
If Vail offered a free nights lodging on Sunday after a two
' night stay on Friday & Saturday, how likely to visit Vail?
TOTAL 11%
CONSIDERED VAIL
VISITED
31%
CONSIDERED 19%
DID NOT CONSIDER sod
i
INCOME
1 $75,000-$99,999 10%
$100,000+ 11%
o 0 0 0 /0 10 /0 20% 30% 4 0 /0 50%
= VERY LIKELY
35 THE HOWELL RESEARCH GROUP
' ACTIVITIES INTERESTED IN FOR COLORADO SUMMER VACATIONS
' Ar Types of Activities Most Interested In
Not surprisingly, Colorado consumers are far more likely to be most interested in Sports/Outdoor
' activities (71 instead ofArts/Music/Cultural activities (9%) when vacationing in Colorado during
the summer. Another 15% of the consumers said (non-prompted) that they were equally interested
in both types of activities, while 4% said they were interested in neither. (Refer to Table 8.)
Both men (76%) and women (67%) said they were most interested in Sports/Outdoor activities.
' Interest in Arts/Music/Cultural is higher among consumers aged 55 - 64 (20%). Consumers with
household incomes of $100,000 or more were slightly less likely to be most interested in
' Sports/Outdoor and Arts/Music/Cultural activities, but more likely to say both equally compared to
those with incomes of $75,000 - $99,999.
' There was essentially no difference in how the three Vail consumer segments (visited, considered
and did not consider) classified their interest in activities.
' AF Specific Activities Most Interested In for Colorado Summer Vacation
' The majority of all consumers (55%) said (unaided) they were interested in hiking when on summer
vacations in Colorado. The next most frequently mentioned activities were bicycling (28%),
camping/backpacking (23%) and fishing (19%). (Refer to Figure 12.)
Those who had visited Vail this summer were more likely (66%) to mention hiking as an activity
1 than those who had considered (50%) or not considered Vail (54%). Interest in specific activities
did not vary significantly by the three consumer segments except those who had considered, but not
visited, Vail were somewhat more likely to mention sightseeing/historical sites and golf.
36 THE HOWELL RESEARCH GROUP
TABLE 8 OVERALL TYPES OF ACTIVITIES MOST INTERESTED IN
WHILE VACATIONING IN COLORADO DURING THE SUMMER
BY SELECTED CHARACTERISTICS
Tv )e of Activities Most Interested In
' Sports/ Arts/Music/ Both
Outdoors Culture Eauallv Neither Total*
ALL RESPONDENTS 71% 9% 15% 4% 99%
Gender
' Male 76 9 12 3 100
Female 67 9 19 5 100
' Aize
21 - 34 74 10 16 0 100
35 - 44 75 6 15 4 100
45 - 54 69 8 16 7 100
' 55 - 64 63 20 13 3 99
Household Income
' $75,000 -$99,000 75 12 10 4
101
$100,000+ 67 5 23 5 100
Consideration Given to Vail
Visited 71 6 17 6 100
Considered/not visited 71 7 17 5 100
Did not consider 71 10 15 4 100
* May add to more or less than 100% due to rounding.
' Source: The Howell Research Group
I 37 nE HOWELL RESEARCH GROUP
FIGURE 12
ACTIVITIES MOST INTERESTED IN FOR
' COLORADO SUMMER VACATIONS (UNAIDED)*
HIKING 55%
BICYCLING 28%
' CAMPING/BACKPACKING 23%
FISHING 19,
BOATING/SAILING 12%
' SIGHTSEEING 110/0
CONCERTS/THEATRE 10%
GOLFING - 9%
' ARTS/FESTIVALS 8%
HORSE RIDING 6010
RAFTING/KAYAKING
5%
i SWIMMING 5%
SHOPPING 2%
' DINING
2%
HUNTING 2%
OTHER 15%'
0% 25% 50% 75%
* Reflects Multiple Responses
' 38 THE HOWELL RESEARCH GROUP
' AF Influence of Good Shopping in Selecting Colorado Summer Vacation Place
The vast majority of consumers (70%) say that the availability of good shopping does not influence
their selection of a place for a summer vacation in Colorado. Three out of ten consumers said yes
' (18%) or sometimes (12%). (Refer to Table 9.)
Surprisingly, there was little difference in how men and women responded to the availability ofgood
shopping in selecting a Colorado summer vacation place. Older consumers (55 - 64) were more
likely (40%) to be at least sometimes influenced by the availability of good shopping. There were
no differences in the influence of the availability of good shopping by household incomes.
Those who had considered, but not visited, Vail were more likely to have been influenced at least
sometimes (52%) than those that had actually visited Vail (40%). Consumers who had not
' considered Vail were far less likely (24%) to have been at least sometimes influenced by the
availability ofgood shopping.
' AF Interest in Educational Programs While on a Summer Vacation in Colorado
Consumers were asked their interest level in nine different educational programs that they or
' members of their family might participate in while on a summer vacation in Colorado. The largest
segments were very interested in learning about hiking/camping (42%) and local history/tours of
' historical sites (39%). Those who had visited Vail this summer were more likely to express interest
in these programs than those who had considered/did not visit or did not consider Vail. (Refer to
Table 10.)
One-fourth or more of the consumers were very interested in programs about how to golf or
' improve your game (28%), learning how to mountain bike (27%) and cuisine and wine (25%).
Those who had visited or considered Vail were far more likely to be very interested in these
' programs than those who had not considered Vail for a summer vacation.
Learning how to fly fish (22%), botanical class on vegetation and flowers in area (20%) and
' learning how to kayak (19%) were each very appealing to one out of five consumers. Those who
had considered Vail expressed more interest in these programs than either those who had visited or
' had not considered Vail.
' Only 10% of the consumers were very interested in a class on holistic programs such as yoga or
meditation. However, those who had visited or considered Vail were more likely (17%) to be very
interested.
' 39 THE HOWELL RESEARCH GROUP
TABLE 9 INFLUENCE OF THE AVAILABILITY OF GOOD SHOPPING IN
SELECTING A PLACE FOR SUMMER VACATION IN COLORADO
' BY SELECTED CHARACTERISTICS
Does Availabilitv of Good Shonnine Influence Selection?
' Yes Sometimes No Total
TOTAL RESPONDENTS 18% 12% 70% 100%
Gender
Male 20 9 71 100
Female 16 15 69 100
Ase
21 - 34 24 10 66 100
' 35 - 44 17 10 73 100
45 - 54 17 12 71 100
55 - 64 17 23 60 100
' Household Income
$75,000 - $99,999 18 13 69 100
$100,000+ 19 12 69 100
' Consideration Given to Vail
Visited 31 9 60 100
' Considered/Not Visited 31 21 48 100
Did Not Consider 13 11 76 100
Source: The Howell Research Group
' 40 771E HOWELL RESEARCH GROUP
' TABLE 10 INTEREST IN EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS WHILE ON A
SUMMER VACATION IN COLORADO BY CONSIDERATION
GIVEN TO VAIL
Respondents Who Were "Very Interested"
Consideration Given to Vail
Considered/
Did Not Did Not
Tvpe of Program Total Visited Visit Consider
Learning about hiking/camping 42% 60% 45% 39%
Class on local history including
tours of historical sites 39 49 41 38
Learning how to golf or how to
improve your game 28 37 31 26
Learning how to mountain bike 27 46 36 22
Class on cuisine and wine 25 26 41 22
Learning how to fly fish 22 20 29 22
' Botanical class on vegetation and
flowers in the area 20 23 31 17
Learning how to kayak 19 17 26 18
Class on holistic programs such
as yoga or meditation 10 17 17 8
BASE (300 ) (35 ) (42 ) (223 )
Source: The Howell Research Group
41 THE HOWELL RESEARCH GROUP
1
1 APPENDIX A
Questionnaire used for 2000 Front Range Summer Vacation
1 Awareness and Image Survey
1
1
i
1
1
r
t
r
r
1
i
1
'Rm HOWELL RESEARCH GROUP
r
FINAL: 9/26/00
' FRONT RANGE SUMMER VACATION AWARENESS & IMAGE SURVEY
' Name: Telephone No.:
Interviewer: Date: Time: Began: Ended:
' HELLO, I'M WITH , A PUBLIC
OPINION RESEARCH FIRM IN DENVER. WE ARE CONDUCTING A SURVEY OF
' COLORADO RESIDENTS REGARDING THEIR VACATION EXPERIENCES THIS PAST
SUMMER. YOUR RESPONSES ARE CONFIDENTIAL AND WILL BE USED ONLY FOR
RESEARCH PURPOSES.
' I NEED TO ASK YOU A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS ABOUT YOURSELF TO MAKE SURE WE
GET A REPRESENTATIVE SAMPLE FOR OUR SURVEY.
1. Which of the following age categories contains your age? READ LIST
Under 21 1 (THANK & TERMINATE)
21-24........... 2
25-34 3
35-44 4
45-54........... 5
' S5-64.....:::::: 6
65 and older 7 (THANK & TERMINATE)
Refused 8 (THANK & TERMINATE)
' 2. Is the total annual income of your household before taxes more than $75,000 or less than
$75,000?
' Less than $75,000 1 (THANK & TERMINATE)
Exactly $75,000 2
1 More than $75,000 3
I THE HOWELL RESEARCH GROUP
3. When I say the word vacation, I mean any trip for pleasure away from your home which
' requires an overnight stay of at least one night. When you think of places in Colorado for a
summer vacation which one comes to mind first?
(DO NOT READ LIST. ONE RESPONSE ONLY. RECORD UNDER Q.3)
' 3a. What other summer vacation places in Colorado can you think or.
(DO NOT READ LIST. MULTIPLE RESPONSES ONLY. RECORD UNDER Q.3a)
' 3b. What is your most favorite place for a summer vacation in Colorado?
(DO NOT READ LIST. ONE RESPONSE ONLY. RECORD UNDER Q.3b)
' 3d. Are there any places in Colorado that you would avoid for a summer vacation?
(DO NOT READ LIST. MULTIPLE RESPONSES O.K. RECORD UNDER Q.3d)
Q.3 Q.3a Q.3b Q.3d
' First Others Most Would
Mention Mentioned Favorite Avoid
' Aspen 1 1 1 1
Breckenridge 2 2 2 2
' Colorado Springs 3 3 3 3
Copper Mountain 4 4 4 4
Dillon/Frisco 5 5 5 5
' Durango 6 6 6 6
Estes Park 7 7 7 7
Glenwood Springs 8 8 8 8
' Grand Junction 9 9 9 9
Grand Lake 10 10 10 10
Keystone 11 11 11 11
t Mesa Verde 12 12 12 12
Steamboat Springs 13 13 13 13
Telluride 14 14 14 14
' Winter Park 15 15 15 15
Vail 16 16 16 16
Avon 17 17 17 17
' Beaver Creek 18 18 18 18
Other (Specify):
' 19 19 19 19
20 20 20 20
21 21 21 21
' 22 22 22 22
None 23 23 23 23
Don't Know 24 24 24 24
2 THE HOWELL RESEARCH GROUP
' 4. Do you recall seeing or hearing any advertising for Colorado vacation places this past summer?
Yes 1
' No 2 (SKIP TO Q.5)
Don't remember 3 (SKIP TO Q.5)
1 4a. For which places did you see or hear any advertising this Summer?
(DO NOT READ LIST. MULTIPLE RESPONSES OK. RECORD UNDER Q.4a)
Q.4a
' Vacation Place Recall Advertisine
Aspen 1
Breckenridge 2
Colorado Springs 3
Copper Mountain 4
' Dillon/Frisco 5
Durango 6
Estes Park 7
' Glenwood Springs 8
Grand Junction 9
Grand Lake 10
' Keystone 11
Mesa Verde 12
Steamboat Springs 13
' Telluride 14
Winter Park 15
' Vail . 16
Avon 17
Beaver Creek 18
' Other (Specify
19
' 20
21
' 22
' None 23
Don't Know 24
' 3 THE HOWELL RESEARCH GROUP
' 5. Do you specifically recall seeing or hearing any advertising for any of the following resort areas
this past Summer? (READ & ROTATE LIST)
' Yes No
a. Aspen 1 2
b. Breckenridge 1 2
c. Durango 1 2
d. Estes Park 1 2
e. Keystone 1 2
' f. Steamboat Springs 1 2
g. Winter Park 1 2
h. Vail 1 2
' 6. How many vacations outside of Colorado have you taken since May 1 of this year? A vacation
is any trip for pleasure which required an overnight stay of at least one night.
' Vacations Outside of Colorado
' 6a. How many vacations in Colorado did you take between May 1" and June 30`h of this year?
Vacations In Colorado (May 1 - June 30)
6b. How many vacations in Colorado did you take between July 15` and September 15`h of this year?
' Vacations In Colorado (July 1 - September 15)
' (IF ANSWER TO BOTH Q's 6a & 6b = "0," SKIP TO Q.8 - OTHERWISE ASK Q.7)
4 THE HOWELL RESEARCH GROUP
7. Where did you go in Colorado for a vacation this Summer?
(DO NOT READ LIST. MULTIPLE RESPONSES OK.)
' Aspen 1
Breckenridge 2
' Colorado Springs _ ; : 3
Copper Mountain 4
Dillon/Frisco 5-
Durango 6
Estes Park 7
Glenwood Springs 8
' Grand Junction 9
Grand Lake 10
Keystone 11
' Mesa Verde 12
Steamboat Springs 13
Telluride 14
' Winter Park 15
*Vail 16 (SEE INSTRUCTIONS)
Avon 17
' Beaver Creek 18
Other (Specify
19
20
21
' 22
None 23
' Don't Know 24
(*IF VAIL MENTIONED IN Q.7, SKIP TO Q.10 - OTHERWISE GO TO Q.8)
8. Did you give any consideration to going to Vail for a vacation this summer?
' Yes 1 (SKIP TO Q. 10)
No 2 (ASK Q.9)
' 5 THE HOWELL RESEARCH GROUP
9. Why didn't you consider Vail for a summer vacation this year? (PROBE & CLARIFY)
' 10. When you vacation in Colorado during the summer, are you most interested in sports and
outdoor activities or are you most interested in arts, music and cultural activities?
' Sports/Outdoor activities 1
' Arts/Music/Cultural activities . 2
Both Equally 3
Neither 4
11. What types of specific activities interest you the most when taking summer vacations in
Colorado? (PROBE & CLARIFY)
t 12. When you select a place for a summer vacation in Colorado, does the availability of good
shopping influence your decision?
' Yes 1
No 2
Sometimes 3
Don't Know 4
6 THE HOWELL RESEARCH GROUP
' 13. How interested would you or members of your family be in participating in-the following
educational programs while on a summer vacation in Colorado? Would you be very interested,
' somewhat interested or not interested in (READ & ROTATE LIST)
' Very Somewhat Not Don't
Interested Interested Interested Know
' a. Learning how to kayak 1 2 3 4
b. Learning how to fly fish 1 2 3 4
c. Learning about hiking and camping 1 2 3 4
' d. Learning how to mountain bike 1 2 3 4
e. A class on cuisine and wine 1 2 3 4
f. A botanical class on the vegetation and
' flowers in the area 1 2 3 4
g. A class on the local history including tours
of historical sites 1 2 3 4
' k. A class on holistic programs such as yoga
or meditation 1 2 3 4
' i. Learning how to golf or improving your
golf game 1 2 3 4
' 14. Are there any other types of educational programs or classes that would encourage you to take a
summer vacation in Colorado? (PROBE & CLARIFY)
t
15. I would like your overall impressions of some specific summer resort areas in Colorado. Even
though you may never have been there, would you say your impression is very favorable,
somewhat favorable, somewhat unfavorable, or very unfavorable? (READ & ROTATE)
' Very Somewhat Somewhat Very No
ry ' Favorable Favorable Unfavorable Unfavorable Opinion
a. Aspen 4 3 2 1 0
b. Breckenridge 4 3 2 1 0
c. Durango 4 3 2 1 0
d. Estes Park 4 3 2 1 0
' e. Keystone 4 3 2 1 0
f. Steamboat Springs 4 3 2 1 0
g. Winter Park 4 3 2 1 0
' h. Vail 4 3 2 1 0
(IF H.(VAIL) IS "DON'T KNOW," SKIP TO Q.16)
' 7 THE HOWELL RESEARCH GROUP
1
15a. Why did you rate Vail (RESPONSE FROM 0.15) ? (PROBE AND CLARIFY)
' 16. I will read some statements about Vail as a summer vacation place. Please tell me if you
strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree or strongly disagree with each statement.
(READ LIST)
' Agree Disagree No
Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly Opinion
a. Vail is a good place for
' a summer vacation 4 3 2 1 0
b. The cost of a summer vacation
in Vail is a good value
compared to other vacation
spots in Colorado 4 3 2 1 0
' c. Vail has the activities you
like to do on a summer
' vacation 4 3 2 1 0
d. Vail is a friendly place 4 3 2 1 0
e. Vail is a good place to take
' children for a summer
vacation . 4 3 2 1 0
' f. Vail is a good week-end
getaway . 4 3 2 1 0
g. Vail has a large number of
' . reasonably priced lodges
and hotels during
' the summer 4 3 2 1 0
h. Vail is a good place
' for restaurants 4 3 2 1 0
i. Vail is a good place
' for shopping 4 3 2 1 0
' 8 THE HOWELL RESEARCH GROUP
17. If Vail offered summer visitors a free nights lodging on Sunday evenings after a two night stay
' on Friday and Saturday, how likely would you be to visit Vail and avail yourself of this
incentive? Would you be very likely, somewhat likely or not likely?
' Very likely 1
Somewhat likely 2
Not likely 3
' Don't know 4
MY LAST QUESTIONS ARE ABOUT YOU AND YOUR FAMILY. YOUR RESPONSES ARE
' COMPLETELY CONFIDENTIAL AND WILL BE USED ONLY TO CLASSIFY ALL THE
RESPONSES TO OUR SURVEY.
' 18. Are you married or single?
' Married 1
Single 2
Refused 3
1 19. How many children under the age of 18 do you have living in your household?
1 20. Which of the following categories reflects your annual household income before taxes?
READ LIST - EXCEPT "REFUSED"
1 - $75,000 to less than $100,000 1
$100,000 to less than $200,000 2
$200,000 or more 3
' Refused 4
21. What is your zip code?
1
THANK YOU FOR ANSWERING MY QUESTIONS
1 INTERVIEWER: COMPLETE INFORMATION BELOW AFTER INTERVIEW
' 22. Gender (BY OBSERVATION)
Male 1
' Female 2
i
1
9 THE HOWELL RESEARCH GROUP
1