Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-01-04 Support Documentation Town Council Evening Sessiont TOWN COUNCIL EVENING SESSION AGENDA VAIL TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, CO 81657 6:00 P.M., TUESDAY, JAUNARY 4, 2005 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. ITEMITOPIC: Citizen Input. (10 min.) 2. ITEM/TOPIC: Consent Agenda. Approval of 12.07.04 Evening Session Minutes. (5 min.) 3. Pam Brandmeyer ITEM/TOPIC: Review and approval to direct the Town Manager Matt Mire to sign an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) between the Eagle County School District (RE50J), Vail Recreation District (VRD), and the Town of Vail (TOV) for the management and operation of the Vail Gymnastics Center. (15 min.) BACKGROUND RATIONALE: The VRD is prepared to start classes on January 17, 2005, and an IGA has been prepared as it affects VRD, RE50J, and the TOV. At this point although the document has been shared with attorneys for both districts and other personnel, as well as the town's insurance provider, CIRSA, the town has received no feedback on the conditions outlined within the IGA. Therefore, staff is looking for Council direction regarding the content of the document. Assuming there is general conceptual agreement from Council and assuming there are no major issues from the other entities, staff is requesting Council direct the Town Manager to sign this IGA with the VRD and RE50J. 4. Pam Brandmeyer ITEMITOPIC: Annual appointment of newspaper of record for Town of Vail publications and notices for 2005. (5 min.) ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Appoint The Vail Daily as the newspaper of record for 2005 for the . Town of Vail publications and notices. BACKGROUND RATIONALE: S The town annually establishes a newspaper of record for all public notices. This year, we requested a bid from Eagle Summit Publishers, owner of all the newspapers in Eagle County, and requested a bid for The Vail Daily publications. The bid has been opened and the attached bid is the result of the bid proposal. The newspaper of record will be appointed at the evening meeting of January 4, 2005 at 6:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter can be heard. RECOMMENDATION: Appoint a The Vail Daily as the newspaper of record for 2005. 3. Lorelei Donaldson ITEMITOPIC: Commission on Special Events (CSE) Appointments. (5 min.) ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Appoint six applicants to the CSE; three members shall be appointed for a one year term (through December, 2005) and three members shall be appointed for two year terms each (through December, 2006. BACKGROUND RATIONALE: Beginning January, 2005, the CSE shall consist of seven (7) members to be appointed at large. Applicants must be residents of the Town of Vail, own real property within the Town of Vail, own a business in the Town of Vail, or be employed within the Town of Vail. The terms of three new members shall be for one year and the terms for the other three new members shall be for two years. The terms end on December 31, 2005 and December 31, 2006, respectively. Thereafter, the Town Council shall annually appoint CSE members to two-year terms every January. Members of the CSE shall serve at the will of the Town Council. The CSE shall support the Town Council's goals and objectives and makes decisions in alignment with the Town Council's marketing direction. The mission of the CSE is to support street entertainment and special events for vitality, year-round fun, sense of community and increased quality of experience for guests and residents: The Functions and/or duties of CSE shall include, but are not limited to: hiring and overseeing a director and/or staff, as well as event producers and/or promoters; creating, funding and seeking special events for the Town of Vail; evaluating event applications and event success; submitting an annual budget for operations and events; coordinating the community calendar for special events; seeking out additional funding for special events through sponsorships and donations; evaluating and executing contracts for special events; and all other functions as directed by the Town Council. There are currently six vacancies CSE. The Town received nine (9) applications for the vacancies. Four applicants are incumbent members of the CSE (noted by asterisks below). The Council needs to interview each applicant at the work session and then appointment five applicants to the CSE at the evening meeting. The applicants are as follows: Ian Anderson* Dave Chapin* Todd Gerhke Mark Gordon Lynnette Miscio Steve Rosenthal* Joe Joyce Richard tenBraak* Heather Trub RECOMMENDATION: Appoint a total of six members to the CSE, 3 members for one year terms and 3 members for two year terms each. I have also enclosed an attendance summary for the CSE for your review. 6. Greg Hall ITEM/TOPIC: I-70 Noise Mitigation Study Update- Hankard Mike Hankard Environmental Inc. (60 min.) Ralph Trapani ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Listen to the presentation and provide direction on the action steps outlined. BACKGROUND RATIONALE: Since April 2004, Hankard Environmental Inc. has been under contract with the Town of Vail to provide consulting services as part of a comprehensive effort to reduce the impact of traffic noise on I-70. The scope of work for the I-70 Noise Mitigation Study contains five areas of study: 1) measure the change in noise levels resulting from increased police speed enforcement on I-70; 2) conduct a temporary noise wall demonstration; 3) evaluate available noise mitigation measures; 4) prepare a proposal for funding of a mitigation demonstration project; and 5) provide recommendations for increasing the effectiveness of the Town of Vail noise ordinance. Hankard Environmental will present an update on the study and associated findings, which include recommendations for quiet asphalt, continued traffic enforcement, noise barriers and mitigation education for affected properties. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: - Direct staff to contract with CTL-Thompson, Inc., for up to $40,000 to develop a low noise asphalt mix that will meet CDOT's approval for use during the I-70 overlay through Vail in 2007. .~ - Direct staff to work with CDOT to facilitate use of "quiet" asphalt in all future asphalt work in Vail, including pursuit of a test strip. - Continue use of sand storage berms along I-70 in Vail and work to obtain approvals from private property owners to expand the sand storage berm project onto private properties, where feasible. - Direct staff to draft a policy resolution outlining Town of Vail support for concrete barrier use in place of the existing open rail barriers during future additions and replacements. 7. Bill Gibson ITEMITOPIC: Request to proceed through the development review process with a proposal to construct aschool/community garden on Town of Vail property. (15 min.) ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Approve, approve with modifications, or deny the applicant's request to proceed through the development review process. BACKGROUND RATIONALE: It is the desire of Kate Cocchiarella, Kay Graybill, and Kathleen Stephanoff to construct aschool/community garden located at the Red Sandstone Elementary School (610 North Frontage Road West / a portion of Tract C, Vail Potato Patch) adjacent to the existing playground and soccer field. This property is owned by the Town of Vail and zoned Outdoor Recreation district. The proposed garden can be allowed with the Planning and Environmental Commission's approval of a conditional use permit fora "public parks and active public outdoor recreation areas and uses, excluding buildings". The Town Council serves the role of "property owner" for all Town of Vail owned property. As the property owner, the Town Council must consent to the applicants proceeding through the Town's development review process. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Should the Town Council support the concept of this proposal, the Community Development Department recommends that the Town Council approve this request to proceed through the development review process. Please note that an approval of this request does not constitute an explicit approval of the proposed improvements; it only authorizes the applicants to proceed through the Town's development review process. 8. Matt Mire ITEM/TOPIC: First Reading of an Ordinance No. #2, Series of 2005, amending Title 6, Chapter 4, Article A "Carriage Operations," of the Municipal code of the Town of Vail; and setting forth details in regard thereto. (10 min.) ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Approve, amend, or deny Ordinance No. #2, Series 2005, on first reading. .~ BACKGROUND RATIONALE: These amendments were requested by staff to allow the Town Manager and/or the Chief of Police flexibility to re-route the carriages when needed due to construction and changes in the carriage staging area. The amendments will also increase the penalty assessment for a first violation of this section of the Vail Town Code from $5.00 to $50.00. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve, or approve with amendments, Ordinance No. #2, Series 2005, on first reading. 9. Bill Gibson ITEM/TOPIC: Second reading of Ordinance No. 17, Series of 2004, an ordinance amending Special Development District #4, Cascade Village, to allow for the creation of Development Area E, located at Tract K, Glen Lyon Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (5 min.) ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Table the second reading of Ordinance No. 17, Series of 2004, to May 3, 2005. BACKGROUND RATIONALE: On July, 12, 2004, the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission voted 4-2 to forward a recommendation of approval, with conditions, for the proposed amendments to Special Development District #4, Cascade Village. On August 3, 2004, the Town Council approved the first reading of Ordinance No. 17, Series of 2004, with a condition requiring resolution of issues, related to the Protective Covenants of Glen Lyon Subdivision, by a vote of 7-0. On August 17 and October 5, 2004, the Town Council tabled the second reading of Ordinance No. 17, Series of 2004, to allow Vail Resorts additional time to resolve the covenant issues. The outstanding covenant issues have not yet been resolved; therefore, Vail Resorts is requesting the second reading of Ordinance No. 17, Series of 2004, again be tabled to a future Town Council meeting. 10. Matt Mire ITEM/TOPIC: Second Reading of Ordinance No. #23, Series 2004. An ordinance amending the Vail Town Code regarding the jurisdiction of the Town of Vail Municipal Court and setting forth details in regard thereto. (5 min.) ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Approve Ordinance No. #23, Series 2004, on second reading. BACKGROUND RATIONALE: A recently decided Colorado Supreme Court case (Town of Frisco v. Baum, 90 P. 3d 845 (Colo. 2004), appears to have expanded the jurisdiction of the municipal court in certain home rule municipalities that have .` adopted charter language granting themselves "exclusive and original" jurisdiction. More specifically, the Supreme Court's decision upheld the ruling of the District Court, that it lacked jurisdiction over a C.R.C.P. Rule 106 appeal of a zoning decision and that such -cases are the jurisdiction of the municipal court. Since the Town of Vail has also adopted such charter language and since our belief is that the municipal court is NOT the proper venue for these matters, Ordinance 23, 2004, operates to limit the jurisdiction of the Town of Vail Municipal Court to handling criminal matters. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve Ordinance No. #23, Series 2004, on second reading. 11. Lorelei DonaldsonlTEMITOPIC: Resolution No. #1, Series 2005. (10 min.) ITEMITOPIC: Resolution No. 1, Series of 2005, a resolution designating a public place within the Town of Vail for the posting of notice for public meetings of the Vail Town Council, Planning and Environmental Commission, Design Review Board, and other boards, commissions, and authorities of the Town of Vail. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Approve, approve with amendments or deny Resolution No. 1, Series of 2005. BACKGROUND RATIONALE: Pursuant to Section 24-6- 402(2)(c) of the C.R.S. as amended, provides that local public bodies must give full and timely notice to the public of any meetings at which the adoption of any proposed policy, position, resolution, rule, regulation, or formal action occurs at which a majority or quorum of the body is in attendance, or is expected to be in attendance. RECOMMENDATION: Approve Resolution No. 1, Series of 2005. 12. ITEM/TOPIC: Town Managers Report. (10 min.) - Tipsy Taxi - WCTB Update 13. ITEM/TOPIC: Adjournment. (8:35 p.m.) NOTE UPCOMING MEETING START TIMES BELOW: (ALL TIMES ARE APPROXIMATE AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE) r~ THE NEXT VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR EVENING MEETING WILL BEGIN AT 6 P.M. TUESDAY, JANUARY 18, 2005, IN VAIL TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24-hour notification. Please call 479-2106 voice or 479-2356 TDD for information Vail Town Council Evening Meeting Minutes Tuesday, December 7, 2004 6:00 P.M. Vail Town Council Chambers The regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was called to order at approximately 6:00 P.M. by Mayor Rod Slifer. Members present: Rod Slifer, Mayor Dick Cleveland, Mayor Pro-Tem Diana Donovan, Farrow Hitt, Kent Logan Greg Moffet Kim Ruotolo, Staff Members: Stan Zemler, Town Manager Matt Mire, Town Attorney Pam Brandmeyer, Asst. Town Manager The first item on the agenda was citizen Input. Michael Cacioppo announced he would be leaving the Vail Valley for the winter and moving to Playa del Carmen, Mexico, to begin a new Internet travel company. Mark Gordon, Vail resident, thanked all involved with the Middle Creek affordable housing project as he thought their efforts were worthwhile. Gordon stated comments he has gathered around the community have been positive and the building itself is proof the town cares about its citizens. The second item on the agenda was an Eagle County Schools Update. John Brendza, Superintendent of Eagle County School District RE50J, reported the district is currently re-doing its marketing efforts, and as a part of that undertaking, is reaching out to all the municipalities and quasi-governmental organizations to "open the doors to communication." Brendza stated the district has many initiatives underway and it wants to be an active partner in the community. Cleveland inquired as to if the district was undergoing a new bond initiative. Brendza responded the district was focusing on the effective use of existing facilities and no bond initiatives were planned at this time. Moffet thanked Brendza for the district's participation in the recently undertaken Gymnastics Center next to Red Sandstone Elementary School in Vail. The third item on the agenda was a presentation and request for funds from the Vail Recreation District. Following a presentation- by representatives from the• Vail Recreation District earlier in the afternoon, the Council tentatively agreed to evaluate a request for making repairs to the Ford Park clay tennis courts. Nino Licciardi and Peter Cook, VRD Board Members, had provided a recent financial analysis of the District's revenues and expenditures. They stated the District would require the use of tax anticipation bonds to operate through March in the 2005 fiscal year. Licciardi and Cook also stated the VRD does not maintain a capital reserve budget or capital reserve funds. The VRD Board Members also retracted a request for the town's financial assistance (50%) in providing a free outdoor ice rink at the Vail Golf Club driving range. VRD requested Real Estate Transfer Tax funds be used for capital repairs on the tennis courts, per the TOVNRD lease of 12/21/93. It was reported the courts require substructure (irrigation) and fencing repairs be made for an estimated total cost of $60,000, as the south side foundations are beginning to give way. Zemler asked if a Council consensus existed regarding the repair of the courts. Council gave direction to pursue another evaluation of the courts, and if capital maintenance was required, new estimates and bids be received under the town's supervision. Moffet stated he believed the town was obligated to make the repairs if they were structural. Ruotolo suggested asking the town engineer to verify the nature of the problems. Donovan said she was not comfortable granting approval until town staff confirmed the problem. Slifer and Hitt thanked the VRD for creating a primitive outdoor ice rink at the golf course. The fourth item on the agenda was a presentation on the Architectural Direction on the Vail Conference Center. Council voted 6-1, (Donovan opposed) to approve the Conference Center Advisory Committee (CCAC) recommendation to accept the "Architectural Vision Inspired by Natures as the concept to be pursued in design of the Conference Center. Moffet moved and Logan seconded the motion. Donovan voted" against the motion, stating she believed it was an "orchestrated outcome.° Community Development Director Russell Forrest reported after reviewing the public input and the associated costs with each of three proposed designs, the recommended option would create an outstanding architectural structure. The materials as envisioned by the design team (Fentress Bradburn) would utilize "mountain materials" such as heavy stone and timbers. Forrest further elaborated when people come to Vail they expect quality and want to know they are in Vail. "This design makes that connection to the surrounding environment." Project architect Kurt Fentress also recommended selection of the organic design concept. He stated the architecture would help with marketing because it is new and fresh. Fentress further elaborated the design would create a group of civic buildings that are more common to each other, as Dobson Arena and the town library are located in near proximity. Donovan and Ruotolo expressed concern some CCAC members felt intimidated and forced to vote for the organic design. Slifer and Jim Lamont of the Vail Village Homeowners Association stated the public process surrounding the Conference Center development was as open as either had experienced in their involvement with ' the town. Forrest reported Council may receive architectural models of the project as soon as January, 2005. Local resident Paul Rondeau asked if environmental efficiency considerations would be factors in the center's design. Representing Architectural Resource Consultants (ARC), Chris Squadra replied that the center would be a masterwork of innovation, focusing on environmental responsibility and sustainable design. Rick and Gwen Scalpello expressed concern and urged caution to Council as they guided themselves through the development process. Bill Jewitt spoke in support of design number three. Jim Lamont, representing the Vail Village, Homeowner's Association, asked Council to delay their decision so as to allow the inclusion of second homeowner's opinions in the public process, when they arrived in late December. The fifth item on the agenda was discusson and approval of the Current Ford Park Paid Parking dates for'the 2005 Summer Calendar. Council unanimously approved, 7-0, the proposed parking plan. Cleveland moved and Moffet seconded the motion. Ruotolo and Donovan questioned why the town would charge at the Ford Park lot at the same time when the parking structures were free to utilize. Staff clarified parking fees were imposed 2 i u to ensure available parking access to multiple groups utilizing the park simultaneously. Acknowledging concerns expressed by Donovan, Ruotolo and Slifer requested Zemler investigate possible parking management. alternatives prior to establishing a 2006 parking plan for the park. Donovan encouraged better signage be provided for guests when the Ford Park lot is full. The sixth item on the agenda was the first reading of Ordinance No. #23, Series 2004. An ordinance amending the Vail Town Code regarding the jurisdiction of the Town of Vail Municipal Court. Council unanimously approved the Ordinance, 7-0, with In introducing the ordinance, Town Attorney Matt Mire noted a recent Colorado Supreme Court case Town of Frisco v. Baum, 90 P. 3d 845 (Colo. 2004), has possibly expanded the jurisdiction of the municipal court in certain home rule municipalities who have adopted charter language granting themselves "exclusive and original" jurisdiction. More specifically, the Supreme Court's decision upheld the ruling of the District Court, that it lacked jurisdiction over a C.R.C.P. Rule 106 appeal of a zoning decision and that such cases are the jurisdiction of the municipal court. Since the Town of Vail has also adopted such charter language and since town staff has indicated the municipal court is not the proper venue for these matters, Ordinance 23, 2004, was created to limit the jurisdiction of .the Town of Vail Municipal. Court to. handling criminal matters. Council passed the motion unanimously, 7-0. Moffet moved and Cleveland seconded the motion. The seventh item on the agenda was the first reading of Ordinance No. #31, Series of 2004, an Ordinance Amending Section 12-11-4, National Pollution Discharge Elimination System, Section 12-11-6, Erosion Control, and Section 14-6, Grading Standards. Council unanimously approved, 7-0, a staff request to table the item until January 4, 2005. Moffet moved and Ruotolo seconded the motion. The eighth item on the agenda was the first reading of Ordinance #32, Series of 2004. An ordinance vacating a certain part of the system of public ways of the Town of Vail, Colorado, i.e., that public right-of-way constituting those portions of Red Sandstone Road contiguous to either Tract A or Tract B, South Frontage Road Subdivision. Council unanimously approved, 7-0, to grant the vacation on first reading. Mire announced the vacation was only one small aspect of a larger land swap occurring between the town and Vail Resorts. Representing Vail Resorts, Jay Peterson,. reiterated Mire's comments. Moffet~moved and Logan seconded the motion. The ninth item on the agenda was the second reading of Ordinance No. #24, Series of 2004, an ordinance establishing Special Development District (SDD) No. #38, Manor Vail Lodge, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Council approved, 6-1, (Donovan opposed) second reading of an amended version of Ordinance No. #24. Donovan stated her opposition stemmed from the proposed stream tract encroachment. The amendments were: (1) The applicant, with the input of staff, shall design and construct an extension to the existing sidewalk from Ford Park to the existing bus stop along Vail Valley Drive. The new sidewalk shall extend onto.the 430 square foot parcel which will be deeded to the Town from Manor Vail on the southeast corner of the property. The design of the sidewalk shall be depicted on the building permit set of drawings; (2) The Manor Vail Condominium Association will maintain a working front desk for the purpose of conducting hotel-like operations for a period of no less then ten (10) years from the date of this SDD approval, which will facilitate the continuance of the rental program at Manor Vail Lodge. This condition helps to achieve the municipal objective of insuring tax generation by establishing an active rental program for a condominium project. A change to the DIA was also approved in regard to the time frame the town had to use the $100,000 intended for public improvements. 5-years was changed to 10-years. Several Council members expressed concern that $100,000 in public improvements in exchange fora $40 million redevelopment was not enough. Ruotolo asked that a public access easement be granted. Glen Porzak, President of the Manor Vail Condominium Association, responded this would require a 2/3 vote from the Homeowner's Association. The applicant did commit to not creating barriers to the area and indicated the public was welcome to enter the area along the pedestrian easement to access Ford Park. Moffet stated he voted for the project due to the substantial hotel-like amenities currently existing at Manor Vail, leading to increased rental potential and increased sales tax revenue. Hitt moved and Moffet seconded the motion to approve. The tenth item on the agenda was the second reading of Ordinance No. #27, Series of 2004, an Ordinance making supplemental appropriations to the 2004 budget Council unanimously approved, 7-0, this ordinance, making supplemental appropriations to the 2004 Budget, reflecting amendments requested during the first reading of the ordinance. Cleveland moved and Hitt seconded the motion to approve. The eleventh item on the agenda was the second Reading of Mill Levy Certification; Ordinance No. #28, Series 2004. Council unanimously approved, 7-0, the 2005 Mill Levy Certification. The approved mill levy was set at 4.70780. Cleveland moved and Moffet seconded the motion. The twelfth item on the agenda was the second reading of Ordinance No. 30, Series of 2004, the Town of Vail amending Title 3, Chapter 6, of the Vail Town Code regarding the Commission on Special Events (CSE). Council unanimously approved, 7-0, second reading of an ordinance amending the establishment of the Vail CSE as. it pertains to appointments and qualifications. An amendment received support from Council which included a provision in the ordinance requiring a vote of four or more members for approval. Donovan requested the CSE pay due diligence to making ethical decisions regarding conflicts of interest. Donovan also requested the CSE and Vail Local Marketing Board (VLMD) be managed under the auspices of one "economic guru." Moffet moved and Ruotolo seconded the motion to approve. The thirteenth item on the agenda was resolution No. #22, Series of 2004, a Resolution approving and accepting, on behalf of the Town of Vail (the "Town" or "Grantee"), a special warranty deed from Buffehr Creek Partners, a Colorado Limited Partnership (the "Grantor"), which deed pertains to a certain parcel of land within the Town of Vail and which is encumbered by a conservation easement in favor. of the Eagle Valley Land Trust, a nonprofit Colorado corporation (the "Trust"). Council unanimously approved accepting the special warranty deed to a property located on Buffehr Creek Road. Mire explained in December of 2003, the Grantor acknowledged this nine acre property had significant scenic, aesthetic and open space values as set out in the Colorado Revised Statutes, and the Grantor conveyed a Deed of Conservation Easement in favor of the Eagle Valley Land Trust in order to permanently preserve the entire property as open space for the use and enjoyment of the general public. Cleveland asked if the property would increase the town's liability exposure. Mire explained the property would offer no more inherent risk than any other town owned property. Grantor Ed Zneimer stated he believed the parcel should be a considerable benefit to the community. Moffet moved and Ruotolo seconded the motion to approve. The fourteenth item on the agenda was the Town Manager's Report. - Zemler proposed a format for the December 30 Annual Town Meeting, scheduled from 4 to 6 p.m. The format proposed to include open house displays on various projects by town staff, plus an update on the town's financial status as well as a report on the town's key areas of focus. A panel discussion was also proposed as a possibility. Ruotolo questioned why the meeting was to begin at 4:00 p.m. Staff responded the date and time were arranged to accommodate attendance by second homeowners at the meeting. - Assistant Town Manager Pam Brandmeyer wished pre-Happy Birthday greetings to Jim Lamont who would be turning 60 years old later in the month. - Brandmeyer stated the town remains on Eagle County's radar for funding assistance fora West Vail Fire Station and was considering a $250,000 contribution in both '05 and '06. The fifteenth item on the agenda was Adjournment. The meeting was adjourned at approximately 9:20 p.m. Moffet moved and Logan seconded the motion to adjourn. Respectfully Submitted, Rodney E. Slifer, Mayor ATTEST: Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk Minutes provided by Corey Swisher. .~ T~wNOF VAIN Town Clerk MEMORANDUM T0: TOWN COUNCIL FROM: Stan Zemler, Town Manager RE: Legal Newspaper of Record for the Town of Vail DATE: December 29 2004 The town annually establishes a newspaper of record for all public notices. This year, we requested a bid from Eagle Summit Publishers, owner of all the newspapers in Eagle County, and requested a~bid for The tai/Dai/y publications. The bid has been opened and the attached bid is the result of the bid proposal. The newspaper of record will be appointed at the evening meeting of~January 4, ~ ' 2005 at 6:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter can be heard. 75 South Frontage Road .Vail, Colorado 81657.970-479-2136/ E9X 970-479-2320 . www. vailgov. com y i=~ RECYCLEDPgPER Newspaper Bid Proposals for the Town of Vail for 2005 Newspaper Classified Ads/Legal Publications Display Ads Vail~Daily $3.80 per column inch $3.35 per column inch 2005 (*5 column format) Sunday -Thursday (*5 column format) $3.52 per column inch (Friday-Saturday) (*6 column format) Vail Daily $3.60 per column inch $3.20 per column inch 2004 (Legals are based on a 5-column format (Display advertising, column which is 1.867" wide and 1" in depth) inch rate is based on a 6 column format which is approx. 1.53" wide by 1" in depth) i' Vail Daily December 22, 2004 Town of Vail Attn: Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Dear Lorelei: The Vail Daily's bid for the 2004 Town of Vail's legal and display column per inch prices are: Display Legals Sunday -Thursday $3.80 $3.35 *5 column format Friday -Saturday $3.52 *6 column format *see attached price sheet r Effecti~e:Jan.:~l, 2005, through. Dec~.~31, 2005.-; :~::. ~ ~: ~ ~•;'~~; . ~ - : ~:_::~- ~ -~ The Vail Daily will provide a notarized proof of publication that will be sent after the last publication date of the legal or public notice. A receipt with the amount due for that specific legal or public notice will also be provided with the proof of publication. Additionally, by the 5th of each month a monthly invoice will be mailed with tearsheets. The Vail Daily offers a 5 column legal and 6 column display format. (Attached mechanical specifications.) Special deadline consideration may be needed for 2 pgs plus legal ads for processing and proofing to ensure accuracy of the ad. Legal and public notices are best received electronically, again to ensure accuracy. The Vail Daily is excited to submit this bid and partner with you for your 2005 advertising needs. Sincerely, I ~ ~_ Andrea Palm-Porter Associate Publisher TOV 2005 VD Sun-Thu, Fri-Sat 12/22/2004 Town of Vail Prices in the Vail Daily Jan. 01, 2005 -Dec. 31, 2005 B&W Reta _ il Open __ _ ~Sunday_Thursdayy ~ __FrUSatjSavings S-T Savings F/S Full Page $1,184 10"x15" $302 $317 -$882 -$867 70% $82910"x10.42" $211 $222 -$617 -$607 2/3 Page $789 6.6"x15" $201 $211 -$588 -$578 1/2 page $592 10"x7.42" or 4.89"x15" $151 $158 -$441 -$433 47% $552 6.6"x10.42" $141 $148 -$412 -$405 35% $414 4.89"x10.42" $106 $111 -$309 -$303 1/3 page $395 6.6"x7.42" or 3.21 "x15" $101 $106 -$294 -$289 30% $342 6.6"x6.42" $87 $92 -$255 -$250 1/4 page $296 4.89"x7.42" or 6.6"x5.42" $75 $79 -$221 -$217 22% $257 4.89"x6.42" $65 $69 -$191 -$188 20% $237 6.6"x4.42" $60 $63 -$176 -$173 18% $217 4.89"x5.42" $55 $58 -$162 -$159 17% $197 3.21 "x7.42" $50 $53 -$147 -$144 14% $171 3.21 "x6.42" $44 $46 -$127 -$125 1/8 page $145 3.21 "x5.42" $37 $39 -$108 -$106 11% $138 4.89"x3.42" $35 $37 -$103 -$101 10% $118 3.21 "x4.42" $30 $32 -$88 -$87 8% $92 3.21 "x 3.42" $23 $25 -$69 -$67 1/16 page .$66 3.21 "x2 42" , - $17 $18 -$49 -$48 'Spot Color ..., s. ~ , .. ~ _ , ~ ~ ~ . _. .,, :• Full Page $1,274 10"z15" $397 ~ F$412 -$877 -$862 70% $890 10"x10.42" $276 $287 -$614 -$603 2/3 Page $847 6.6"x15" $262 $272 -$585 -$574 1/2 page $633 10"x7.42" or 4.89"x15" $194 $201 -$439 -$431 47% $590 6.6"x10.42" $181 $188 -$409 -$402 35% $440 4.89"x10.42" $133 $138 -$307 -$302 1/3 page $418 6.6"x7.42" or 3.21 "x15" $126 $131 -$293 -$288 30% $361 6.6"x6.42" $107 $112 -$254 -$249 1/4 page $311 4.89"x7.42" or 6.6"x5.42" $91 $95 -$220 -$216 22% $272 4.89"x6.42" ~ $81 $85 -$190 -$187 ° . $252 6.6"X4.42" ~'' ` ' " •~"' ' ' $7fi° ~ $79 "` ~ ~ ' -$1754 ~'=$172 18% $232 4.89"x5.42" $71 $74 -$161 -$158 17% $212 3.21"x7.42" $66 $69 -$146 -$143 14% $186 3.21 "x6.42" $60 $62 -$126 -$124 1/8 page $160 3.21 "x5.42" $53 $55 -$107 -$105 . 11 % $153 4.89"x3.42" $51 $53 -$102 -$100 10% $133 3.21 "x4.42" $46 $48 -$87 -$86 8% $107 3.21 "x 3.42" $39 $41 -$68 -$66 1/16. page_ $81 3.21 "x2.42_" $33 $34 -$48 -$47 Fuil Color . • .. Full Page $1,364 10"x15" $493 $497 -$871 -$867 70% $97410"x10.42" $365 $367 -$609 -$607 Z3 Page $930 6.6"x15" $350 $352 -$580 -$578 1/2 page $713 10"x7.42" or 4.89"x15" $279 $279 -$434 -$433 47% $669 6.6"x10.42" $265 $265 -$405 -$405 35% $517 4.89"x10.42" $215 $214 -$302 -$303 1/3 page $495 6.6"x7.42" or 3.21 "x15" $208 $206 -$288 -$289 30% $437 6.6"x6.42" $187 $186 -$249 -$250 1/4 page $386 4.89"x7.42" or 6.6"x5.42" $171 $169 -$215 -$217 22% $347 4.89"x6.42" $161 $159 -$185 -$188 20% $327 6.6"x4.42" $156 $153 -$170 -$173 18% $307 4.89"x5.42" $151 $148 -$156 -$159 17% $287 3.21 "x7.42" $146 $143 -$141 -$144 14% $261 3.21 "x6.42" $139 $136 -$122 -$125 1/8 page $235 3.21 "x5.42" $132 $129 -$103 -$106 11% $228 4.89"x3.42" $130 $127 -$98 -$101 10% $208 3.21 "x4.42" $125 $122 -$83 -$87 8% $182 3.21 "x 3.42" $118 $115 -$64 -$67 1/16 page $156 3.21 "x2.42" $112 $108 -$44 -$48 COLORADO ~/IOUNTAIN NEWS MEDIA }~ Ad Sizes -~ .~ • ~ 1 col. = 1.53" 4 col. = 6.6" 2co1.=3.22" 5co1.=8.3" 3co1.=4.91" 6co1.=10" Doubletruck = 20.75" x 15.25" Modular ad saes fisted on separate sheet' Maximum page depth: 15" 1. col. = 1.46" 8p9.12 2. col. = 3.1" 18p7 3 col. = 4.72" 28p4 4 col. _ .6.35" 38p1.2 5co1.=8" 48p 6 col. = 9.63" 57p9 Maximum page depth: 11" IVlod ul ar saes: 1 /8`page~ = 3 col: x 2:75"°~,,~, ~ ~,-._< ,;~ 1/4 page'=3coLx5.5" 1 /2 page vert = 3 col. x 11 " 1 /2 page horz = 6 col. x 5.5" Full page = 6 col. x 11" Full page w/ bleeds=10.25"x12.5" "CALL TO VERIFY DOUBLETRUCK ~ ~- 1 col. = 1.17" 7p.24 2co1.=2.35" 14p1.2 3 col. = 3.6" 21 p7.2 4 col. = 4.85" 29p1.2 Maximum page depth: 7.85" Modular sizes~~Y{ 1/4page=2col.x3.75" 1 /2 page vert = 2 col. x 7.85" 1 /2 page horz = 4 col. x 3.75" Full page = 4 col. x 7.85" Full page w/ bleeds = 5.85"x 8.85" 1 col. = 1.42" 8p6.24 2 col. = 3" 18p 3 col. = 4.6" 27p7.2 4 col. = 6.17" 37p.24 5 col. = 7.78" 46p8.16 6 col. _ 9.35" 56p1.2 Maximum page depth 13.24" Modular sizes 1 ~8 page = 3 col. x 3.21 " "(3.33") 1/4 page = 3 col. x 6.53" "(6.667°) 1 /4 page = 6 col. x 3.55" "(3.6sr~) 1 /2 page vert = 3 col. x 13.24" `(13.5") 1 /2 page horz = 6 col. x 6.53" "(6.s67~~) Full page = 6 col. x 13.21" "(13.5") "SIZE WHICH WILL BE LISTED IN THE PBS SYSTEM `CALL TO VERIFY DOUBLETRUCK -~ .~. - 1 col. = 1.56" 9p4.5 2 col. = 3.28" 19p9 3 col. = 5" 30p1.5 4 col. = 6.75" 40p6 ,Doubletruck = 14" x 9.25" Maximum page depth 9.25" fi Modular sizes 1%8page=3.28"x2.3" 1/4page=3.28"x4.6" 1 /2 page vert = 3.28" x 9.25" 1/2 page horz = 6:75" x 4.6" Full page = 6.75" x 9.25" Full page w/bleed = 7.35" x 10.6" ~ Final page trim size = 7.25" x 10" 1 col. = 1.32" 7p11.04 2 col. = 2.75" 16p6 3 col. = 4.21" 25p3.12 4 col. = 5.64" 33p10.08 5 col. = 7.1" 42p7.2 6 col. = 8.53" 51 p2.16 7 col. = 10" 60p Maximu m page depth: 16" updated 11.17.03 by Marisa Uavis TO: Town Council FROM: Stan Zemler, Town Manager Greg Hall, Public Works Director Chad Salli, Project Engineer Dwight Henninger, Police Chief DATE: 1-4-05 SUBJECT: I-70 Noise Mitigation Study Update 1. BACKGROUND Since April 2004, Hankard Environmental has been under contract with the Town of Vail to provide consulting services as part of a comprehensive effort to reduce the impact of traffic noise on I-70. Mike Hankard and Ralph Trapani, representing the consultant team, have prepared a presentation outlining a series of mitigation actions in the categories of "source," "path" and "receiver" controls. Their observations and recommendations, along with proposed next steps by Town of Vail staff, are presented below. 2. OVERVIEW BY HANKARD ENVIRONMENTAL This overview summarizes noise mitigation recommendations based on the work, to date, by Hankard Environmental. Recommendations are broken down into source, receiver, and path controls. A brief description of the key differences in these types of controls is provided first, followed by a description of each recommended noise mitigation measure. 1. Source controls benefit everyone. For example, reducing speeds and/or putting down quiet pavement reduces noise at ALL homes and businesses in town, versus a wall that benefits only those directly behind it or thicker windows that affect only an individual property. Therefore, the number of people that benefit from source measures is large. The cons of source controls are that each measure is costly, speed reduction requires cooperation from almost the entire. motoring public, pavement changes require significant CDOT coordination, and covering the roadway has complex engineering, logistical, and political hurdles. 2. Path controls, i.e. barriers, benefit a given area such as a neighborhood. The extent of the benefited area depends on the height and length of the barriers and on topography. Barriers can consist of earthen berms, vertical walls, or some combination thereof. Barriers are typically 15 feet tall, can be hundreds to thousands of feet long, and provide 5 to 10 d6 of noise reduction to those located within 300 feet of the barrier. Barriers are not very effective for receptors that are elevated above the roadway, such as houses on a hillside or the upper floors of a high-rise building. The cons of barriers, particularly walls, are. aesthetics, cost, and the rigors of CDOT coordination. 3. Receiver controls, such as the construction of solid fences on individual properties and the installation of better windows are effective, but only benefit individual properties. Such measures are the responsibility of the property owner/developer. There are no significant cons to receiver controls, other than moderate cost. Hankard recommends the Town of Vail consider each of the noise mitigation measures described below. None are simple and straightforward. This is not surprising, as the problem of I-70 noise has slowly evolved over the past three decades. Traffic volumes and speeds have increased slowly but steadily, and property development has continued in relatively close proximity to the highway. Back in the 1970's, we estimate that daytime loudest hour highway noise levels were in the 55 dBA range. Generally speaking, this is a tolerable level to most people. Levels are now in the 65 to 70 dBA range, which are levels that begin to annoy people. Therefore, reversing the problem will take time, effort, money, and will come about only through the application of a variety of mitigation measures. 3. PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS BY HANKARD ENVIRONMENTAL Source Controls A. Continue Speed Reduction Campaign Hankard believes that a concerted effort of police patrols, signage, and education could reduce speeds on I-70 and subsequently reduce noise levels by 1 to 2 dBA. An added benefit to the patrol effort has been a reduction in motor vehicle accidents. The accident rates during the 2004 campaign were lower when compared with the same time frame from the previous year; 2003 - 78 motor vehicle accidents, 2004 - 57 motor vehicle accidents. While we do not have any hard evidence as to exactly what level of effort is required, we do not believe that a few hours per week of patrols and one or two passive signs will be enough. To achieve real, long-lasting speed reduction we need to slowly change the psyche of local and visiting drivers: To that end, we recommend the Town consider at least one full-time police officer providing 20 hours per week of patrols, "your speed" and other signs at 5 locations in each direction (two coming into each end of town and one somewhere in between), and the existing level of outreach continued year to year. The estimated costs are $25k for the signs, $65k per year for the officer, and $5k per year for the education/outreach program. B. Investigate quiet Pavements Research and testing of "quiet pavements" is ongoing in Europe, at the Federal level in the U.S., and within CDOT. The research is aimed at determining if certain asphalt pavements produce less noise than others, if the reduction lasts over time, and if the pavements are as durable as those currently in use. Results to date indicate that certain pavements could provide a noise reduction of 2 to 4 dBA versus CDOT's typical Superpave mix, at least initially. However, the issues of the longevity of this reduction, and of durability are not as completely understood. Hankard recommends Vail pursue a path of ensuring, to the best of the Town's ability, that CDOT has enough conclusive evidence in 2006 or so, that the Department and FHWA will approve a new, quiet, mix design for Vail in 2007: That mix design must be shown to be quiet both initially and over its lifespan, and proven to be durable in Vail's climate. To that end, we recommend that the Town consider the following options: • Meet with or somehow consult with CDOT to ensure that any work done by the Town is in concert with CDOT's and FHWA's pavement approval process. • Review the Statewide Transportation Plan (STIP) for other Mountain Communities to see if any comparable roads are due to be rehabilitated prior to 2007, with the thought that Vail could help fund a quiet pavement pilot project somewhere else to provide timely noise reduction and durability data. • Consult with the I-70 Mountain Corridor Project and related groups to see if Vail could serve as a test case for quiet pavements for that project, as community noise is a significant issue along.the entire I-70 Mountain Corridor. • Hire CTL Thompson to develop a quiet pavement mix design for Vail, and conduct accelerated testing on the resulting pavement at a cost of $25k to $50k. • Construct a test strip IF the results of mix design testing are favorable, and CDOT indicates that a test strip would be beneficial to their decision making process. The construction and testing of a 1,000 foot-long test strip is estimated to cost between $200k and $300k. C. Cover I-70 According to Hankard this alternative should always be considered, because it offers the best noise reduction of any recommended measure. Placing I-70 in a cut-and-cover tunnel through all or part of Town would certainly be a significant, complex, expensive project. It should be noted that tunnels require full-time staff and equipment, thus have a high recurring cost. If the proposed I-70 Dowd Canyon tunnel comes to fruition, the challenge of providing full time staff and equipment may be eased by the proximity of that tunnel facility to one in Vail. Lacking a Dowd Canyon tunnel, Hankard recommends consideration of shorter, multiple tunnels that may not require fully staffed tunnel facilities. This could be accomplished by placing developments over the highway consisting of one or more buildings along with some extended plaza-like space. These could be placed in critical noise areas. This would also provide anorth-south connection for pedestrians. Care would need to be taken regarding noise from the portals. A full tunnel feasibility study evaluating short versus long tunnels, safety, and life cycle cost issues would be the next step if Vail wants to pursue covering I-70. Path Controls A. Continue to Exhaust Berming Opportunities An initial field review of I-70 through Vail indicates that there are still areas where earthen Berming would provide some noise reduction. We will identify these areas, and we advise Vail to continue working with CDOT to get these berms constructed. B. Install Solid Safety Barriers Much of the noise from vehicle traffic comes from the interaction of the tire and the pavement. Therefore, in certain areas, even a relatively short (height-wise) barrier would provide some noise reduction. CDOT's 3-foot tall Type 7 Solid Safety Rail, which the Department uses regularly on its roadways, would be a .- logical choice as it meets current safety standards. Preliminary modeling and a field survey of Town indicate that the Type 7 rail would provide 1 to 3 dB of noise reduction only in a few specific areas where the terrain conditions are appropriate. For those areas where open guardrail currently exists, the Town could consider petitioning CDOT to replace it with solid rail when it is due for major maintenance. Alternatively, the Town could petition CDOT to replace existing open rail with solid rail immediately, or install solid rail where none exists currently. Hankard will provide a description of areas where the solid rail will provide at least 1 to 2 dBA of noise reduction at adjacent residences. In considering its options, both cost and aesthetics should be weighed. Type 7 barrier costs approximately $50 per foot (installed). Sites will require anywhere from 500 to 2,000 linear feet, at a resulting cost of $25k to $100k per site. Aesthetically speaking, Type 7 rail does tend to become chipped and marred over time. C. Install Steepened Slope Berms There may be some areas where a 5 to 10 foot tall barrier is needed to provide any significant noise reduction, yet there is not enough room for a berm with the standard slopes of 3:1 or even 2.5:1, and a concrete wall would be too obtrusive or otherwise infeasible. In these areas, asoil-reinforced steepened earth berm combined with a Type 7 barrier shape on the traffic-side (where necessary) provides a possible solution. A preferred site, a preliminary design, and a cost estimate will be prepared by Hankard for the Town's consideration. D. Analyze Preferred Noise Watt Location CDOT responded to Vail's request to construct a temporary noise barrier demonstration by requiring that any such barrier must meet all of the requirements of a permanent barrier. Therefore, a temporary barrier is not recommended, as it would cost almost as much as it would to construct a permanent barrier. Hankard recommends that one preferred site for a permanent barrier be identified. Either the Town can dictate a location, or Hankard can provide a list of three or so where acoustically a wall would be appropriate. The preferred site should then be analyzed according to CDOT noise guidelines, a cost estimate produced, and the issue of aesthetics discussed. Receiver Controls A. Advise Residents on Do-It-Yourself Noise Control Solution Individual property owners can reduce noise at their homes and businesses by constructing small barriers (berms and/or walls), placing outdoor use areas such as patios in more quiet parts of their property, installing acoustic windows in select locations, and otherwise sealing the highway side of their homes. We recommend that Hankard Environmental develop a brief how-to document that can be made available to townspeople (i.e. distributed, placed on website, etc.) B. Strengthen Design Review Process Hankard recommends Vail require new developments and re-developments along I-70 to consider noise at the very earliest stages of design. Outside recreation areas should be somehow shielded from the highway. Inside areas should be specified with adequate windows. Exposed decks facing the highway should be avoided. Hankard will draft some guidelines for the Town's consideration. 4. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS The fist of recommendations from Hankard Environmental are comprehensive and, in some cases, will require additional research and review. However, staff recommends taking immediate action on the following next steps: • Direct staff to contract with CTL-Thompson, Inc., for up to $40,000 to develop a low noise asphalt mix that will meet CDOT's approval for use during the I-70 overlay through Vail in 2007. • Direct staff to work with CDOT to facilitate use of "quiet" asphalt in all future asphalt work in Vail, including pursuit of a test strip. • Continue use of sand storage berms along I-70 in Vail and work to obtain approvals from private property owners to expand the sand storage berm project onto private properties, where feasible. ' • Direct staff to draft a policy resolution outlining Town of Vaii support for concrete barrier use in place of the existing open rail barriers during future additions and replacements. 5. ATTACHMENTS CDOT Letter, re: Temporary Noise Barriers STATE OF COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Region 3 222 South Sixth Street, Room 317 Grand )unction, Colorado 81 501-2 769 (970) 248-7225 FAX# (970) 248-7254 November 8, 2004 Mr. Greg Hall, Town Engineer Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road West Vail, CO .8167 Dear Greg: ~~~~ OT ®® ~i DEPAPTMENT OF TRAN5POgTpTION In response to our field meeting in Vail September 9, 2004, I am writing this letter to formalize our discussions with respect to the Town of Vail's request for the placement of demonstration noise wall along I-70 within the Town limit of Vail. As we discussed, CDOT has adopted a Sound wall policy (PD 1900.0) and procedural directive (1900.1) (see attachment 1). We further discussed that some elements of the directive would not be applicable for a demonstration wall. This letter serves as directions for the Town of Vail to proceed with their request. The location, design and construction of the demonstration wall must be identical in location, design and construction as the wall that the Town intends to ultimately construct should CDOT and FHWA approve a permanent installation. If the design and construction is deemed to interfere in any way with existing drainage flow, the Town's submittal must provide for a method for handling such drainage. Your application needs to include a study documenting the justification; need and effectiveness o. f the proposed noise barrier consistent with the criteria and requirements outlined in the. Department Noise Analysis and Abatement Guidelines dated December 1, 2002 (see attachment 2}. Sound levels must meet or exceed the threshold levels established by CDOT and FHWA. If sound levels continue to be at the levels reported in the June 14, 2004 Hankard memo and are found to be below necessary thresholds, approval of the Town's proposal is unlikely. The application needs to juste why placement of the noise barrier wall on the state highway right of way is necessary. The Town must justify why the demonstration wall be placed o$' interstate right-of way, such as north of the north Frontage road. Cost of land and convenience of the neighboring landowners may not be suff dent justification. The Town's proposal must demonstrate that the proposed demonstration wall will fully simulate the final proposed noise wall installation (location, height, length, site design, wall type). All cost for the development of the proposal including all studies, design, ROW, and construction including CDOT costs associated with construction, will be the responsibility of the applicant. Mr. Greg Hall November 8, 2004 Page 2 of 2 All noise barriers proposed to be located on the interstate highway system shall be subject to Federal Highway Administration review and approval. All design elements of the wall shall be in accordance with latest CDOT standards and AASHTO design guidelines. The applicant shall demonstrate that the wall can be designed and placed to ensure the safety of the traveling public. The applicant shall demonstrate that the design will address all drainage issues associated with the placement of the demonstration wall. Please be advised these comments are general in nature. If your request is approved, specific terms and conditions for the construction, maintenance and removal of the demonstration wall will be addressed in the permit process. An Intergovernmental Agreement will be required to fully document such terms and conditions. In closing, I am glad that we were able to meet and discuss this issue with you on site. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me at our Grand Junction office. Sincerely, ~cccc l~/~~ Ed Fink, Director Transportation Region 3 xc: Smith T. Speral / LaDow Nall file s ` ORDINANCE N0.2 SERIES 2005 AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING CERTAIN AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 6, CHAPTER 4, ARTICLE A "CARRIAGE OPERATIONS," OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE TOWN OF VAIL; AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO. WHEREAS, it is the desire of the Town Council of the Town of Vail ("the Town") to make certain amendments to the Vail Town Code as it pertains to horse drawn carriage operations in the Town; and WHEREAS, it is the Town Council's opinion that the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the Town would be enhanced and promoted by the adoption of this ordinance. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1. Section 6-4A-3 of the Vail Town Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (deletions are shown in s~et~#, additions are shown in bold and and=)• 6-4A-3: HOURS OF OPERATION: Horse drawn carriages are permitted to operate at any time seven (7) days a week except: a) between the hours of #~ve three o'clock (3:00) P.M. to five o'clock (5:00) P.M. on Bridge Street, or b) in the Village core or Lionshead Village areas on those days or those times as deemed by the Town Manager and/or the Chief of Police when such operation would constitute a hazard to the public safety; for example, July 4, New Year's Eve, etc., and with consideration of extreme weather conditions. Section 2. Section 6-4A-4 of the Vail Town Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (deletions are shown in ,additions are shown in bold and underline). 6-4A-4: APPROVED ROUTES; EXCEPTIONS Horse drawn carriages may operate on any street within the Town with the following exceptions: A. Excepted Areas: On any "gated" area commonly found on Town bus routes or bus stops. Ordinance No. 2, Series of 2005 2. On any area commonly referred to as a "frontage road". 3. On any portion of I-70. 4. On any recreation path. B. Gate And Walking Area Excluded From Restricted Areas: The use of the east side gate on West Meadow Drive and the walking path which exists between West Meadow Drive and East Lionshead Circle, running between the Dobson Ice Arena and the Evergreen Lodge will not be included in the restricted areas. C. Entries And Exitways: Horse drawn carriages may not impede any entry and/or exit way of any building. D. The Town Manager and/or the Chief of Police may temporarily amend waive or suspend the provisions of this section at anv time for the Town's convenience or in the event of extraordinary circumstances as determined by the Town Manager or Chief of Police. Section 3. Section 6-4A-6 of the Vail Town Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (deletions are shown in ,additions are shown in bold and underline). 6-4A-6: CARRIAGES UNATTENDED: Carriages shall not be left unattended and drivers will remain with the carriage and in control at alf times. Should it be necessary for the driver to leave the carriage una~tended, the carriage shall be unoccupied and the horses shall be securely tied to designated fixed objects. Compliance with this section shall not constitute a ... . chargeable offense under Section 6-46(E1 of the Vail Town Code. Section 4. Section 6-4A-7 of the Vail Town Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (deletions are shown in s~lfike~#r~gq, additions are shown in bold and underline). 6-4A-7: CONDITION OF CARRIAGES: All carriages used within the Town shall be well maintained, in neat appearance and hitched appropriately with safety and serviceable harnesses. Lights are to be of such luminance as to be readily visible at five hundred feet (500') front and rear, with signals for turns and stops. A braking system independent of the horse(s) is to be installed and Ordinance No. 2, Series of 2005 serviceable on any carriage operating within the Town. A sounding device, either horn or bell, is to be available on each carriage. The horse(s) should be familiar with said device and demonstrate no adverse reaction to such device when used. Section 5. Section 6-4A-8 of the Vail Town Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (deletions are shown in ~#,rsug#, additions are shown in bold and underline). 6-4A-8: REQUIRED EQUIPMENT: The following equipment is required: A. Buckles (no snaps) on harness ends. B. Throat latch. C. Blinders. D. Nose band. E. Brichen. F. Buckle safes or keepers behind all buckles. G. Whip. H. Round collar or breast collar style harness. I. Kickstrap. J. Diapers. K. Sharp knife, with a blade length less than 4 5 inches. L. Harness bells. M. Reflectors on front of hitch. Section 6. Section 6-4A-9 of the Vail Town Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (deletions are shown in s#~+ke~eeg#, additions are shown in bold and underline). 6-4A-9: NUMBER OF HORSE DRAWN CARRIAGES: It is the judgment of the Town Council that in order to enable the Town bus system to function properly and to protect pedestrians within the Town that controlling the number of horse drawn carriages operating within the Town is within the public interest. To this end, the maximum number of horse drawn carriages to be operated regularly on the streets of Vail is a total of feer six {4} ~ to be allocated to all approved companies. The Ordinance No. 2, Series of 2005 3 ti Town Manager has the authority to specify the locations of operation of the horse drawn carriages. The maximum and minimum number of horse drawn carriages operated by any approved company shall at all times be within the limits determined by the Town Council and Town Manager applying the principles of a public convenience and necessity. Section 7. Section 6-4A-10 of the Vail Town Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (deletions are shown in ~1~eug#, additions are shown in bold and underline). 6-4A-10: PENALTIES: A. Schedule Of Penalties: The following schedule shall apply to offenses charged pursuant to the penalty assessment procedure for all offenses involving a carriage operation violation: First offense Second offense within one year $ 50.00 150.00 Subsequent offenses Mandatory within one year court appearance B. Imposition Of Penalty; Revocation Of Permit: 1'heabnve-stated fines are minimum penalties and all violations are subject to the general fine provisions of up to a one thousand dollar ($1,000.00) fine and/or up to one hundred eighty (180) days in jail. There shall be a mandatory revocation of a carriage operation's permit upon a third violation of this Article within an eighteen (18) month period of time. Section 8. If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. Ordinance No. 2, Series of 2005 4 Section 9. The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety and welfare of the Town of Vail and the inhabitants thereof: Section 10. The amendment of any provision of the Town Code as provided in this ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceeding as commenced under or 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 11. All bylaws, orders, resolutions and ordinances, or parts thereof, inconsistent herewith are repealed to the extent only of such inconsistency. This repealer shall not be construed to revise any bylaw, order, resolution or ordinance, or part thereof, theretofore repealed. INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, APPROVED, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL ON FIRST READING this 4~' day of January, 2005, and a public hearing for second reading of this ordinance set for the 18th day of January, 2005, at 6:00 P.M. in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado. Rodney Slifer, Mayor Attest: Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk Ordinance No. 2, Series of 2005 g t r ORDINANCE NO. 23 SERIES 2004 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE VAIL TOWN CODE REGARDING THE JURISDICTION OF THE TOWN OF VAIL MUNICIPAL COURT AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO. WHEREAS, the Town of Vail, in the County of Eagle and State of Colorado (the "Town"), is a home rule municipal corporation duly organized and existing under laws of the State of Colorado and the Town Charter (the "Charter"); and WHEREAS, the members of the Town Council of the Town (the "Council") have been duly elected and qualified; and WHEREAS, Article XX, Section 6, of the Colorado Constitution grants to a home rule municipality the power to define and regulate the jurisdiction of its municipal courts with respect to matters of focal and municipal concern; and WHEREAS, Section 7.2 of the Vail Town Charter provides for the creation of the Town of Vail Municipal Court; and WHEREAS, Section 7.2 of the Vail Town Charter further provides that the Town of Vail Municipal Court shall have "exclusive original jurisdiction of all cases arising under the ordinances of the town and as may be conferred by law"; and WHEREAS, the Council has previously adopted Chapter 9 of Title 1 of the Vail Town Code to implement Section 7.2 of the Vail Town Charter with respect to the jurisdiction and powers of the Town of Vail Municipal Court; and WHEREAS, the Council desires to clarify the jurisdiction of the Town of Vail Municipal Court with respect to civil actions, which are brought against the Town under Rule 106(a)(4) of the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO THAT: Section 1. Title 1, Chapter 9, of the Vail Town Code is hereby amended by the addition of Section 1-9-9, entitled "Exception To Jurisdiction," to read as follows (additions are shown in bold and underline): 1-9-9• Exception To Jurisdiction: Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 1-9-4 or Section 7.2 of the Town Charter, the municipal court shall not have jurisdiction Ordinance 23, Series of 2004 1 ~~..• i ~~ over anv civil action brought against the Town, including anv claim brought pursuant to Rule 106 of the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure. Section 2. Section 12-3-3(E), entitled "Appeal of Town Council Decisions," is hereby amended to read as follows (additions are shown in bold and underline; deletions are shown in E. Appeal of Town Council Decisions: The final decision of the Town Council with respect to anv appeal pursuant to this Chapter or development permit application submitted pursuant to this Title mom[ be appealed to an appropriate court pursuant to Rule 1O6(a)(4) of the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure The Town of Vail Municipal Court shall not have jurisdiction over such civil action. Section 3. If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of .this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance; and the Town Council. hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance, and each part„section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. Section 4. 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 5. The amendment 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 amended. The amendment of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously amended or superseded unless expressly stated herein. Ordinance 23, Series of 2004 2 v! Section 6. 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. Section 7. This ordinance, as adopted by the Town Council, shall be numbered and recorded by the Town Clerk in the official records of the Town. The adoption and publication shall be authenticated by the signatures of the Mayor, or Mayor Pro Tem, and Town Clerk, and by the certificate of publication. Section 8. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect five days after publication following final passage. INTRODUCED, READ, APPROVED, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL ON FIRST READING this 21St day of December, 2004 and. a public hearing shall be held on this Ordinance on the 4th day of January, 2005 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado. Rodney Slifer, Mayor ATTEST: Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk INTRODUCED, READ, ADOPTED AND ENACTED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED IN FULL this 4th day of January, 2005. Rod Slifer, Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk Ordinance 23. Series of 2004 3 RESOLUTION NO. 2 SERIES OF 2005 A RESOLUTION DESIGNATING A PUBLIC PLACE WITHIN THE TOWN OF VAIL FOR THE POSTING OF NOTICE FOR PUBLIC MEETINGS OF THE VAIL TOWN COUNCIL, PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION, DESIGN REVIEW BOARD, AND OTHER BOARDS, COMMISSIONS, AND AUTHORITIES OF THE TOWN OF VAIL. WHEREAS, Section 24-6-402(2)(c), C.R.S., as amended provides that local public bodies must give full and timely notice to the public of any meetings at which the adoption of any proposed policy, position, resolution, rule, regulation, or formal action occurs at which a majority or quorum of the body is in attendance, or is expected to be in attendance; and WHEREAS, the Town of Vail now wishes to designate a public place within its boundaries for the posting of such full and timely notice to the public for meetings of the Town Council, the Planning and Environmental Commission, the Design Review Board, and other boards, committees, and authorities of the Town. NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Town Council of the Town of Vail, Colorado: 1. The Town Council hereby designates the bulletin boards at the east and west entrances of the~Town of Vail Municipal Offices'as the public places for the posting of full and timely notice as required by Colorado law. 2. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its passage. INTRODUCED, READ, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 4th day of January, 2005. ATTEST: Rodney E. Slifer, Mayor Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk .~ . Vt3if01 • o 54 `Lla~' ~i~=~ ~~ VAI LVALLEY Chamber 8&Tourism Bureau Visitor Center Recap-November 2004 Lodging Reservations Recap Number of Lodging Reservations Booked: 43 Total Value of Bookings: $7,481.00 Commission Received: $897.72 Property # orRes Gross Revenue Antlers 1 $266.00 Destination Resorts 1 $79.00 Evergreen Lodge 11 $1,291.00 Fall Ridge 1 $378.00 Holiday Inn 3 $237.00 Lodge at Vail 1 $119.00 Manor Vail 1 $78.00 Park Meadows 2 $118.00 Roost Lodge 1 $59.00 Sitzmark Lodge 10 $1048.00 Sonnenal Resort 2 $2,905.00 Mountain Haus 1 $210.00 Lionshead Inn 5 $453.00 Hotel Gasthof Gramshammer 4 $587.00 Totals 43 $7,481.00 Concierge Night The Visitor Centers held the first of three Concierge Nights on November 29. This evening focused on the East Meadow Drive area. The participants included 17 Concierge that visited 12 businesses. The evening ended with gathering at La Bottega for food, refreshments, and door prizes. The businesses that participated included: Bag and Pack Shop, Hothouse, Kid Sport, La Tour, Left Bank, Pazzo's Pizzeria, Pismo, Verbatim Booksellers, Candi Johns Salon, and Karats Jewelers. Two additional Concierge Nights are held in December at Vail Village and Lionshead Village. These evenings give Town of Vail businesses an opportunity to showcase to frontline ?odging staff what products and services that they have to offer. In turn, the Concierges gain knowledge about Vail businesses that better allow them to service guests. These evenings also build valuable relationships among many that are new to the area, strengthening the Vail Community. ti Community Host The Community Hosts were not working during November. During this time, preparations were made to organize the Orientation held on December 11 ~' and scheduling the Hosts for the upcoming season, which will kick off on December 18. Questions/Comments: Katie Barnes: 479-1046 x101/katie@visitvailvalley.com Mike Griffin: 479-1046 x104/mike@visitvailvalley.com . _, •, Antlers at V ail Order Details for iVovember 20~IC?4 Of er Nig t Custom 4Confirm Order_ Agent ~; > ; Daft/~`ime~ ~ " dame a Totafi Booked er ~ ~m~il 'ed By . r rm condo 8004 Crystal - LHVC ' located on ' Patricia crystal@visi ~ 11/20/2004 16:0 5 ever $133:0 0 Nov 2L2004 Tedeschi ailvalley.com VailonSale: < room condo 8004 Crystal - LHVC located on Patricia , crystal@visi 11/20/2004 16:0 5 river $133.00 Nov 20 2004 Tedeschi ailval!ey.com VailonSale' Des tination Resn e$s=' Yait C ?~rder ~tet ais for No~r~'mber" '2004 O er Night Custom Con irm Order°, Agent Date/iirrre.,, ~aMe Tatar Booked er Email ed By Landmark TH One Bedroom 799 Mona - LHVC Condos Close Ricardo mona@visity 11/8/2004 16:12 to Gondola $79.00 Nov $ 2004 Rodriguez ailvalley.com VailonSale ~alfiridcte of V ail:4rder Details for Novpm beir 2004 ~ 4 ei~ Nig t Custom ~ Confrrm Order. Agent Date/Time Name Total ~po{c~e~. er- ~ e~ .~mai~; ,, , ed, By Kersandra - Bath Condominiu Chai Dong kersandra@vi sitvailvalley,c - 8032 VVVC 11/25/2004 11:02 m $189.00 Nov 26 2004 Hyuk om VailonSale e Kersandra - ~~ Condominiu Chai Dong kersandra@vi sitvailvalley.c 8032 VVVC 11%25/2004 11:02 m $189.00 Nov 25 2004 Hyuk om VailonSale t~ofiicla "inn & Suites'A `eit Vai _ t Qraler`Detafi 5 for OVem~e-' 20Q4 Offer 'i ~ ce Nig t °° Custorra ~~bntirm Qrd~r Agent ~ flate~Ti~e ~ Name Total . " Baoke~f,a er,, ...' _. ~mai>s ~~ B,y ~~ oe oom- 2 Queens 8045 Amanda - VVVC from Holiday Wade ' mike@visitvai 11/27/2004 16:50 Inn $89.00 Nov 27 2004 Patterson Ivalley.com VailonSale o e oom- 2 Queens from Holiday .7996 Mike- VWC .11/19/2004 14:00 Inn' $79.00 Nov 4 2004 Linda Green Kay Special from 7944 Mike - VWG 11/5/2004 12:06 Holiday Inn and Suites $79.00 Nov 6 2004" Rey G Grehmer mike@visitvai Ivalley.com VailonSale Special from 7944 Mike - VWC 11/5/Z004 12:06 Holiday Inn, and suites' $79.00 Nov 5 2004 Rey G Grehmer I mike@visitvai valley.com VailonSale Eves reen Lail ~~e.at Yail Or der. De#ai ls; fior Nov~ttb.+~r 2 004 O er Nrg t ' Custom Confirm Order _ Agent ; Dater Time,:. , Name Total " Booked er ~mai- ~o B~ Nevvly Renovated A nnette@visi A 8062 V nnette - WC Hotel Rooms B raden w. v ailvalley.co 11/30/2004 12:04 from $75.00 $75.00 N ov 30 2004 O lson m V ailonSale E~~rgr~en Lodge at Vail PJrde>r. Det ails Foy Noerettlbwr ~:00~ . offer ~ Night C~S~o m Confirm t)rd~~. ; ~ , A~ea~t Date~`T~m~ . ~ Nanne ~'ota,l BoQt~~sf er j Email ed By Newly Renovated Hotel Rooms Alexander 8060 Mike - VV~/C :11/30/200410:16 from $75.00 $150.00 Nov 22 2004 Waaler Kilie Newly Renovated' Amanda - Hotel Rooms Richard mike@visitva i 8046 VVVC 11/27/2004` 17:00 from $75.00 $99.00 Nov 27 2004 . Hensinger Ivalley.com - VailonSale Renovated Mountian View Hotel; Room kersandra@v i Kersandra - Starting at Pankaj sitvailvillage. 8044 VVVC 11/27/2004 15:43 $109.00 $109.00 Nov 27 2004 Nahajan com VailonSale Newly Renovated kersandra@vi Kersandra - Hotel Rooms Steve sitvailvillage. 8040 VVVC 11/26/2004 14:34 from $75.00 $99.00 Nov 26 2004 Degouveia '` com VailonSale Newly Renovated kersandra@vi Kersandra - Hotel Rooms Gregory sitvailvalley.c 8039 VWC 11/26/2004 10:55 from $75.00 $99.00 Nov 26 2004 Porter om VailonSale Newly Renovated' kersandra@vi Kersandra - Hotel Rooms Gregory sitvailvalley.c 8039 VVVC 11/26/200410:55 from $75.00 $198.00 Nov 26 2004 Porter om VailonSale Nevvly Renovated Kersandra - Hotel Rooms Emmanuel kersandra@v 8037 VVVC 11/25/2004 16:35 from $75.00 $75:00 Nov 25:2004 Marchais ailvillage VailonSale Newly Renovated Hotel Rooms mike@visitvai 8016 Mike - VVVC 11/22/2004 15:02 from $75.00 $75.00 Nov 22 2004 John A Knox I valley.com VailonSale Newly Rehovated - Crystal - Hotel Rooms J eff' kawasrima@ 8012 VWC 11/22/200412:57 from $75.00 $75:00 Nov 22 2004 Lundberg - y ahoo.com VailonSale Crystal - Thanksgiving c rystal@visi 8034 LHVC 11/25/2004"12:34 S pecial $158.00 Nov 25 2004 S haron Harris a ilvalley.com V ailonSale Crystal - Thanksgiving :c rystal@visi 8022 L HVC 11/23/2004-12:04 S pecial $79.00 N ov 23 2004 D avid Bell a ilvalley.com V ailonSale r Lodge at 1la 'il Order [3etails for Novetiber 3004 Offer Night Custom Confirm Order ; ~ ggent ~~ DaCe/Tirxrte: ~~ Name ~ Totai sool~~ed er ~ Email ~~ ~~ed By - Crystal Lodge Guest crystal@visi 80I7 VWC 11/22/200415:35 ~ Room .$119.00 NoG22 2004 C fV`Manion ailvalley.com VailonSale `Man~f Vait"Re soit order Details 'ffJr N~-vember 2004 ~. er Night Custom Con irm . Order Agent Date/Time Name To#al .,. Bogked., er= Email;,, _ ed B.~ Golden Peaks Premier 796 Crystal - LHVC Location - Larry crystal@visi lij6/2004 14:40 Hotel Room. $78.00 Nov 6.2004 McCnllis ailvalley.com VailonSale PariC Meadflws Cod a ©rd er"Detail§` c+r Navett~tier 2t l+D~l _ _ ©f ~r Nig t ~t$m Con arm Order Agent Date/TimF Name Total ,Boak~~ , ~~- ~ . Email, ed ay 7975 Crystal- VVVC ' 11/17/2004 11:30 Studio $59.00 Nov 17 2004 Ross' E Brunner crystal@visi ailvalley.com VailonSale Annette - anne a visi 7969 VWC 11/16/2004 15:51 Studio $59.00 Nov 16 2004 aaron Johnson vailvalley.co m VailonSale Roost Lad a Order Details fs~r fVbv~emb ~~r, ~0U4 _ Offer Night, Custom Confirm Q;rder :~ ._ ~i eott ~= ~ Dates/~im~ ~: ~" N~iet~e Total l~oaked er ~ email ed E3y 7997 Mike- VWC 11/19/2004 14:03 Standard $59.00 Nov 12 2004 una +on Joosten Juan Sitzmark at 1~aif-Order Detailsfcar~ No~em b~er 2>~Q4 : ~af er Nig t Custom ~ Confirm: Order . , Agent Date/Time ` Name ~ Total B,noked er. Email ~ ~ ~d By ~- Annette - Center of Vail _ pawel leszek anne e`a~'is+ vailvalley.co 8028 VWC 11/24/2004 12:33 Villiage $99.00 Nov Z5 2004 umanski m VailonSale Anriette - Center of Vail pawel leszek anne a visi vailvalley.co 8028 VWC 11/24/2004 12:33 Ylliage $99.00 Nov 24 2004 umariski m VailonSale ' 8008 Mike.- VWC 11/21/2004 14:55 Cuter of Vail Villiage $198.00 Nov 21 2004 David'A 13emd I mike@visitvai valley.com VailonSale 8003 Mike- VWC 11/20/2004 11`16 Center of Vail Villiage $99.00 Nov 20 2004 Bonni S Doherty I mike@visitvai valley.com VailonSale ntec o ai 7995 Mike - VWC 11/19/2004 13:59 Villiage $79.00 Nov 4 2004 Cabin, Gint Shelly Annette - Center of Vail a v nne a yisi ailvalley.co 7970 VVVG 11/16/2004 16:03 Villiage $79.00 Nov 16 2004 c al r. seneca m VailonSale A nnette - Center of Vail g a retchen r. i nne e visa tvailvalley.co 7968 V WC 11/16/2004 14:40 V illiage $29.00 N ov 16 2004 miller:. m VailonSale K ersandra C enter of Vail h a arry eugene v nne a visi ailvalley co 7966 L HVC 11/16/2004 11:41 ~ 1liage $73:00 N ov 16 2004 j emfson ~ m . " V ailonSale .7959 M ike - VWG , C 11/12/2004 16:05 V enter of Vail illiage $79.00 N M ov 12 2004 J r Elliot M m uren` , Iv ike@visitvai alley.com V ailonSale ~. Cehter of Vail Pamela L mike@visitvai -7943 Mike -VWC 11/5/2004 10:00 Villiage $79.00 Nov 52004 Wagner Ivalley.com VailonSale Mona - Center of-Vail Nestor ` ' mona@visity ' '` '7940 VWC 11/4/2004 12:49 Villiage $79:00 Nov 4 2004 Ahumada . ailvalley.com VailonSale _ Sorrnenal~Resar# of Vail C1rt~e~ petails far November':2flg4 Affer ~ Night ~Cu~torn Confrm ~~a~er~ Agent , : Dat~eJTi~a'4e~, , s~artare . ; 3'o~ai Sac~k~d,~ .er:. . ~rr~a~i1 .:_ ed By ` 806.1 Mike - VWC 11/30/200410:31 suite $2,700.00 Nov 23 2004 Upinski, Tara ~ Katlin ~urnor sw e- creekside- Robert 7994 Mike -VWC .11/19/2004 13:57 king $205.00 Nov 192004 Morrow Jason 1~r~i1's Mountain Haas Orii er Detains for Nwem~ber 20CI4 C)ffer Nrg~ Custo~rxr - Cary rrm ,Order Agen~~ Uate/~'i~~ Naraie _. ~ot~i -; ; Bocaked er' ~~aa1 ±~t#~ ~y room e eon, 801 1 Mike VWC 11/22/2004 12:29 Valley $210.00 Nov 13.2004 Andres Lee ~.IfJnS~~~d ~~!'1r1 Di'de` - p8~~1~5 ~~f)f~H~V~rTi~34'C ~~~~ -° - ,, Caffsr --- = - ~iry~i-t Cus*or~T ~~ Gonfirm Clyder Agen~~-:,_ Aate,/Ti~e, Nar~P__. To~~l...,. _Soak~c~ ~r; ,..,...,. ~rrral.,, ~cf~~y.-.,.,- Crystal - Thanksgiving Daranee crystal@visity 8038 LHVC 11/25/2004 17:05 Special $79:00 Nov 25 2004 Payattakool ailvalley:com VailonSale Crystal - Thanksgiving John crystal@visity 8036 LHVC '11/25/200415:55 Special ' :$79.00 Nov 252004 Harriman ailvalley.com VailonSale Crystal - Thanksgiving crystal@visity -.$034 LHVC 11/25/2004 12:34 Special °.$158.00 Nov 25'2004 Sharon Hams ailvalley.com VailonSale Crystal - Thanksgiving crystal@visity 8022 LHVC 11/23/2004 12:04 Special $79.00 Nov 23 2004 David Bell ailvalley:com VailonSale ' ~9otei`~asthof G~am s~acrt(e~r~1r girder D~ #ai~s~frfr November ~'~Di)$'° C)ffer -- rNrgirt Custor~n ~ Con rrm Larder: Agent _ Date/Tinne Name '1'ot~~i ~ ?6oo~ked er ErrEaii r ed. gy tan ar 8059 Mike -VWC 11j30/2004 9:50 Rooms $332.00 Nov 20 2004 Tom Johns Skeika rysta - tan ar nrns 8015 VWC 11/22/2004 14:58 Room $85.00 Nov 12 2004 Hanson Christina rysta - tan ar ennis 8014 WVC 11/22/2004 14:56 Room $85.00 Nov 12 2004 Hanson Crystal - Standard crystal@visi 7947 LHVC ,: 11/7/2004-11:52 Rooms $85.00 Nov.7 2004 Thomas Knoll ailvally.com VailonSale T01V~v'OFVA11 Memorandum To: Town Council From: Stan Zemler, Town Manager Dwight Henninger, Chief of Police Date: December 28, 2004 Subject: Tipsy Taxi Inquiry Councilman Moffet has inquired about instituting a Tipsy Taxi program for Vail with service provided to the rest of Eagle County. In preliminary research on the issue, two functioning programs have been examined and contacts were made with the two existing taxi companies serving Vail. The existing taxi companies' responses were cool to somewhat interested. They feel they have enough business during bar closing hours and were not interested in reduced rates or subsidized fares by the government. As a point of interest, a tipsy taxi program has been attempted twice in the last fifteen years with marginal success. The program ran for only one season and was funded by the bars and taxi companies. Our investigations found that the longest running, most successful program is the Pitkin County Tipsy Taxi which is in its twenty-first year providing service from Aspen to as far north as Snowmass Village and Basalt. The program is privately funded but run by a Pitkin County Sheriff's Department employee at a cost between $15,000 and $60,000 per year, depending on the level of bus service. The existing taxi companies are paid regular rates with $75 vouchers handed out by police officers, as well as bartenders who have attended training. Fund raisers are held to cover annual operating costs. The coordinator in Pitkin County has helped Eagle County at least three times in trying to start a tipsy taxi in Eagle County, including assistance with some fundraising events, but to her knowledge there has never been a successful start to the program. She feels this has reduced the credibility of the program in Eagle County and the potential for fund raising. Summit County Prevention Alliance is in its second year of running a program modeled after the Pitkin County program, and they are reporting that so far it has been fairly successful using the local taxi company. Their success could be due to limited bus service available during late night hours. In a recent meeting with a number of local Vail restaurant/bar owners and managers, the idea was discussed. The upshot of this meeting was that there was a very limited interest in providing such a service and no interest in funding such a project. Currently the Town of Vail Transit Service provides late night bus service effectively to all areas of the Town of Vail and ECO Transit provides three late night buses that travel the entire valley. They also provide direct service to Beaver Creek until midnight. Current taxi fares from Vail (approximate depending on specific mileage) are as follows: Eagle-Vail $25 Edwards $40 Eagle $90 Airport $120 It appears that the two transit services are providing effective service although there may be an issue for down valley residents to get from the bus stop to their residences. Unfortunately, there are no other taxi services serving the western part of Eagle County. The question for the Council members to consider: "Is there a desire to fund and staff such a service for down valley residents over and above the ECO bus service?" If so, we will do additional research and present to the Council a complete proposal for a viable program with cost estimates for consideration. Water protection adrift Colorado's regulatory system a leaky dam By Miles Moffeit and Theo Stein Denver Post Staff Writers Sunday, December 19, 2004 - A dead zone lingers in the headwaters of the South Platte River, high above the town of Fairplay. The cause is no mystery. The London Mine, one of the richest gold-ore strikes in Colorado history, has hemorrhaged toxic metals into South Mosquito Creek for decades, killing fish habitat over smile-long stretch. During the last seven years, the mine violated pollution limits dozens of times, but the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment never levied a fine. This year, the mine owner and a developer persuaded the state to relax the pollution limits. Now the mine won't violate them so often. The deal symbolizes Colorado's long slide toward leniency for polluters and lax oversight programs, according to an analysis of state records and interviews with several government scientists and regulators. Waivers of the most protective water standards for streams are routinely granted by the state. And penalties are rarely levied against repeat violators. Today, governmental scientists and other experts worry that Colorado is no longer doing enough to safeguard its 107,000 miles of rivers and streams that also serve the rest of the country downstream. "This is the cradle of the waters of the United States," said Myrna Poticha, a former Colorado water-quality commissioner. "We're facing a shortage of water, and we have an ethical responsibility to fiercely protect it. Right now, we're not meeting that responsibility, and it breaks my heart." ~" Over the last two decades, as battles have been waged over water rights, another trend has escaped public scrutiny in Colorado: Corporations, utilities and their lobbyists, often working in unison, have increasingly shaped regulatory policy over water quality. Meanwhile, several water-protection programs have been left at "risk of failure" and at odds with federal regulations, according to Colorado health department documents and audits obtained by The Denver Post. Problems with the state's water-quality oversight are showing impacts. A sewage 7 • . ~ • -- plant in Red Cliff has been cited: 2Z7 times, in.the pastax,years for allowing.. .. , . .:~M :~,,~. . untreated sewage to leak into the Eagle River -but has never been fined. Endangered fish along the Colorado River are threatened with pollutants from another sewage treatment plant. In addition, the state is unable to regulate farm pollution, which is so pervasive along the filthy Arkansas River that it has cut into crop yields on irrigated fields and forced some towns to install expensive new water treatment systems. Several communities and the state are seeking federal help fora 123-mile pipeline to provide them with clean water. And while Colorado drinking water generally receives high marks from independent studies, the state has logged 8,625 drinking-water violations but just four fines since 1998. Health department officials vigorously defend the state Water Quality Control Division. They say its work is effective and appropriate. As for London Mine pollution, the deal state officials cut recently with a developer will improve the quality of water, they say. And they point to recent successes, such as reduced inspection backlogs in some programs, as signs of improvement. "It wouldn't be credible to sit here and tell you everything is hunky- dory," said Doug Benevento, executive director of .the health department, to whom Gov. Bill Owens referred questions. "We think we have an excellent program. We think it's one of the best in the country." According to Mark Pifher, chief of the state's water programs, "We are lean. But we are doing a lot with what we have." Yet the foundation for protecting water quality -rooted in the 1972 federal Clean Water Act and the Colorado Water Quality Control Act - is growing shakier, according to interviews with experts and hundreds of documents reviewed by The Post. Among the concerns: • Currently, one out of every six of Colorado's 657 identified stream segments has a waiver of pollution standards in place, allowing corporations and others to pollute ~~ those segments at levels higher than normally permitted. One common form of waiver unique to Colorado has drawn fire from the EPA for its "chilling" effect on water protection. • Only a third of the 60 most frequent pollution violators have been hit with penalties during the last decade, an analysis of federal and state records shows. The vast majority of those offenders were municipal sewage plants. After six years of violations, the state began threatening fines against Red Cliff this spring, prompting a town official to say it should have been done years ago. • T-REX, the state's signature highway project, violated pollution standards for storm water for a year before the state began taking formal action, records show. It took three years for the state to levy a fine. On Friday, state officials finally announced they would penalize the project's contractors to the tune of $215,000 - after The Post questioned them in recent weeks about their handling of the case. Last summer, Pifher and other state employees drafted a report to the legislature, warning that they needed an extra $3.3 million to hire 32 additional staff members over three years to adequately monitor water systems and pollution dischargers. In r 2003, state legislators stripped $2 million in tax dollars from the agency, forcing it to rely solely on fees and federal grants this year. Now, according to the 140-page report, some water-quality programs are "at risk of failure." Rapid-response teams for drinking-water emergencies lack equipment and staff. There is "virtually no enforcement" of violations discovered during inspections of water and wastewater-treatment systems. Construction sites, feedlots and hog farms go uninspected. Monitoring of stream quality and fish tissue for contaminants is declining. And the report noted at least another dozen critical needs. But Benevento, in an interview this month, downplayed his staff s warnings. No immediate staffing increases will be sought, he said. "We are not at risk of failure," Benevento said. "I believe the department is running very well." Benevento said fees on dischargers have jumped dramatically in the last two years. Any staff increases would probably need to be supported by yet more fee increases, he said. "I want to be sensitive to the stakeholders," he said. But, he added flatly in a letter, "dischargers are not in control" of the regulatory process. Watered-down standards More than any other state, Colorado has pioneered the art of relaxing its rules, experts say. Water-quality protection was improving in the '70s and '80s when commissioners appointed by Gov. Dick Lamm declared war on pollution. Poticha, for example, successfully spearheaded limits on soluble uranium after she researched its cancer- causing impacts around the world. The momentum began changing in the late '80s when businesses and other dischargers sued the state over water-quality standards they considered too strict, former regulators say. Fearful of losing in court, health officials created a network of study committees and other venues that granted greater access to dischargers, water users and other "stakeholders" during the creation of pollution standards. They were invited to sit on committees that drafted proposed water regulations. During the last eight years of former Gov. Roy Romer's terms, the state assessed fines on an average of 13.4 polluters per year. During Gov. Bill Owens' first six years in office, that number dropped to nine per year, even though the total amount of the fines was larger. . ~~ . ~~.': ^ .K' ..:~'+~i 1"'.t :.G ~_'~/'~4;~-'~ ~.~ ~~. ~"'t, i,`Ve~.".%brrK~:Y44 .. ` ... ~~.i5' ~ _ ~= ..t Said David Holm, the water-quality division's former director: "11Ve began turning to a utilitarian value system that says, 'Let's see what we can do to help the dischargers.' The prevailing view now is that we shouldn't tie their hands with restrictive policy." Now the state's environmental mantra is: "compliance assistance" first, followed by penalties as a last resort, according to Pifher's report to the legislature. Among the most dramatic changes to pollution regulation during the '90s was the 1994 self-audit law -known as the "Coors bill" for its main supporter. It granted companies immunity from penalties if they disclosed their violations before inspectors found them. During that decade, the federal EPA objected to 300 proposed state standards on riverways it considered inadequate. At the same time, new federal regulations and mandatory salary increases for employees "cannibalized" funding for monitoring programs, said Holm, a biologist who stepped down in 2002. The Water Quality Control Commission, which sets statewide policies on water " conditions, also saw big changes. Owens replaced departing members who had science backgrounds with attorneys and others representing regulated industries. Of the current nine members, only chairman Chris Wiant, a chemist and holdover from the Roy Romer administration, has a science background. Owens has appointed six Republicans to the commission, five of whom replaced Democrats who departed when their terms expired. After Holm left the Water Quality Control Division, Owens installed Pifher, a water lawyer for the city of Colorado Springs, which has sought relaxation of water standards. It's the first time in at least 15 years the division has not been headed by a scientist. Yet the decisions made by the division and commission are scientific in nature. Most of the state's drinking water is pulled from rivers and creeks, and the federal Clean Water Act requires states to set standards to maintain and improve those waters. The health of humans and fish depends on them. More than any other state, however, Colorado has departed from the traditional use of standards, pioneering "site-specific" changes at the request of facilities permitted to discharge pollutants, experts say. Corporations and other water users pay consultants to produce scientific reports that are then used as evidence when the companies lobby for relaxed limits on water contaminants. Measured against other states its size, Colorado's staffing for water protection is about 35 percent below the average. As a result, the state at times relies on the outside reports from paid consultants -not state scientists. " Current .and former government scientists call the" process the game " .Here's„how it works: ~ ~ " A business ar utility is at risk of violating limits on its discharge permit for protecting the river into which it puts pollutants.. It asks for asite-specific standard -essentially a change in the amount of pollution it is allowed to put into the waterway - so that it won't have to pay a fine or install costly treatment facilities. The, company bases the request on a scientific study it pays for, and hopes that the water- quality commission will agree. If approved, the discharger has awater-pollution standard tailored just for it -and it can be permanent. But tracking the number of these special standards isn't easy. The state doesn't have a map detailing their exact locations, sizes and the dischargers they benefit. No research has been done on their cumulative effect. Among the most worrisome of the waivers used by Colorado, according to biologists, are "temporary modifications" and "ambient" classifications. These designations grant less protection because they postpone goals of the Clean Water Act. Ambient classifications allow the current level of pollution in the stream to continue -sometimes permanently. "Temporary modifications" suspend standards for a fixed period. But some of these are far from temporary. As with the London Mine, records show, they can run for at least 18 years. Many scientists, including some at the federal Environmental Protection Agency, say the state has used these modifications of federal standards too frequently, putting them in place without "defensible" science. And often the sharpest criticism comes not from the water-quality division staff, but from biologists with the Colorado Division of Wildlife, who are charged with protecting fish habitat. "The public has no idea how this process works," said Barbara Horn, a Division of Wildlife scientist. "The power in the state has shifted to a group of stakeholders with a lot of money to spend on attorneys and consultants. They are driving the process, and they're driving it for the vast majority of the waters in the state." This year, the Division of Wildlife assailed 16 proposed site-specific revisions to water standards for the South Platte and other northeastern Colorado river basins. In the reports presented by the dischargers, they found flawed calculations, incomplete data and, overall, a lack of scientific rigor. "I don't ever remember that many" objections, said Jay Skinner, hydrologist with the Division of Wildlife for 18 years who says the water users often spend thousands, sometimes millions, of dollars on studies to attempt to relax standards, even though the data are flawed. "I fear things could only get worse." Throughout the 1990s, the EPA warned Colorado that its water classifications, which are supposed to set levels of protection, needed better scientific justification. ', During that time, the federal agency has objected, to more than 300 classifications issued by the state.State officials said they have now resolved all but two of the ~~ ' disputes. Yet the EPA continues to question the standards. Last January, the federal agency sent a letter to Colorado criticizing its widespread use of one type of temporary modification, urging the state to reconsider its approach to the waiver and demand more research to justify its use. Current practices "undermine the credibility of existing state water-quality standards," the agency said. That letter also criticized one waiver given to the city of Grand Junction, which pumps treated wastewater into channels of the Colorado River. It raised concern that endangered fish could be at risk and said the waiver seemed to be based on "convenience" to reduce regulation. As of October, the EPA was again pointing out problems in a memo, saying the state's willingness to grant loose standards is a continuing "high priority source of concern." The slide continues, longtime observers say of the process. ':Over the last 20 years, what you see is this steady lowering of the bar, a weakening of the standards," said Melinda Kassen, former counsel for the water commission who now works for Trout Unlimited, an advocate for healthy fisheries. John Stednick, a Colorado State University biology professor, agrees, saying he is worried that the current process favors powerful entities whose resources sometimes overwhelm an understaffed water division. The water agency needs more funding for water monitoring and more scientists to scrutinize the bombardment of proposals, he said. In testimony before the commission, he recently criticized methods used by Denver International Airport to win a relaxed oxygen standard in nearby creeks. He believes the water commission needs to start considering the overall impact of granting so many waivers. "The consequence of downstream-use impairment or cumulative effects is rarely considered," Stednick said. Murky waters, murky process A defunct mine still leaks metals into a creek. The answer: Homeowners buy a solution. London Mountain was once considered a prospectors' heaven. Miners carted away almost a million ounces of gold over the last century. The mining ended in the early '90s. But the drain of wastes hasn't. Heavy concentratigns,of metals,such.as zsnc,,,cadrn urn andiron still~flo.~nr.into South _ Mosquito Creek, Mosquito Creek and other~tributaries that merge with the South Platte on its journey east. ,~ The ongoing contamination, largely leaking from two tunnels, is not dangerous to human health because it is diluted before reaching drinking reservoirs, health officials say. But the metal-laden waters have damaged fish habitat. "It's an imperiled system," said Fairplay resident Richard Hamilton, a former state biologist who has fished in streams with beds stained red with mine waste. "Some things are alive. It's an on-or-off proposition." During the '90s, segments of Mosquito Creek landed on Colorado's roster of polluted waters. This year, Fairplay-area residents hoped the state would take a strong stand to protect the creek. They wrote a series of letters to the state asking for stiff enforcement. Instead, the' Water Quality Control Commission again approved site-specific changes to pollution rules governing the creeks that run through the mine property. Among those who endorsed the change: Commissioner Paul Grundemann, director of water and wastewater for the Centennial Water and Sanitation District, which leases water from the London Mine tunnel. Grundemann, who did not disclose the arrangement to the commission, said he didn't feel his vote posed a conflict. The decision carne after a long negotiating process that government scientists compared to a business deal. London Mine interests asked for a dramatic relaxation of metals standards using science that state biologists said was flawed. "This is the new-age way of getting around standards," said Horn, the Division of Wildlife biologist. "They go after the seams in the process, and they cleverly stitch around them to get what they want. The result is that you don't end up with the most protective standard." The case also reflects the state's reluctance to fine violators. The London Mine Limited Liability company, which has held a permit for one of the tunnels, has violated its pollution limits 45 times in six years, according to state records. But the state has never assessed a penalty. State officials said they chose not to fine the mine company owner, Ben L. Wright, characterizing him as an elderly man who cannot afford fines or costly treatment. But Wright, 86, said he leased his property to miners who paid him $10,000 a year over two decades. He has owned the mine since the 1950s. Wright, an attorney, does not believe that his company should be held responsible for pollution under environmental laws he sees as unfair. "The condition of the water has existed for over 100 years," Wright said, adding that some mining companies tried to treat the water. "Over the years, the state sent me a bunch of letters. Every time we wrote the state a letter and explained ' exceederces, they backed off. '- During an interview, state officials acknowledged never investigating Wright's finances. They also never probed for other deep pockets associated with the mine. v Wright maintains that Coors Brewing Co. is a responsible party, saying an affiliate of the beer company mined the property in the early '90s. Coors also has owned rights to the polluted water flowing into the creeks, but state law does not hold companies liable for pollution simply because they hold a water right. "Coors Brewing. is not responsible for the quality of the water that comes out of a water right," said company spokeswoman Aimee Valdez, Within the last two years, Coors sold water rights in one of the tunnels and 200 acres alongside it to THF, a company owned by billionaire Stan Kroenke. Because THF now owns rights to London Mine water, it can take water downstream from the South Platte River for its 2,000-acre Prairie Center development in Brighton. When representatives for the London Mine and THF approached the state for a waiver of water-quality standards, state officials were unaware that Coors had contributed to a study of the water used to justify the relaxation. As the study first began circulating, scientists with the Division of Wildlife reviewed a copy. And they became alarmed. Chadwick Ecological Consultants, the Littleton science adviser, ignored the presence of an important family of metal-sensitive insects in calculating the toxicity of the creek water. The omission helped justify easing the standard. The study also lacked detailed sampling data and used research gathered on another stream that had won asite-specific standard, a tactic Horn considered inappropriate. "London Mine's proposal is not acceptable," Horn wrote in a report to the water division. Steve Canton, president of Chadwick, said there was no attempt by his firm to tailor a study to benefit its client. "We were trying to get one (standard) we thought was reasonable and protect what we would expect to find there," he said. Horn and her co-workers persuaded the water-quality division to force the London Mine team to revise its calculations and approach, ultimately blunting some of what the mine partners wanted. "Given the process, we feel like we fought for the best possible outcome," Horn said. The state ultimately agreed to allow the mine to continue releasing elevated concentrations of metals into the creek. THF promised to treat some of the water. No one will be fined. And owners of new homes in THF's Brighton development will ultimately pay to clean the water, according to THF lawyer Mary Hammond. State officials argue that Colorado's waters already are burdened by natural ,, , . ~ contaminants,aike salt and; seleni,urn, :aswelL as,.chemicals,from thousands of mines _ ::.... r. ,, ~ . like the London Mine. They say they have "improved the technical data and rationale" for site-specific standards to account for those conditions. Regulators also contend that they have enhanced water-quality standards on 7,711 miles of river in the South Platte Basin and lowered them for just a few users. They declared the London Mine deal a win for the developer and for the environment. "We absolutely think we made the water quality better," Benevento said, by persuading THE to treat the water when it had no legal obligation. In addition, although the temporary modification was extended, it was made more stringent than the previous temporary standard. Some residents near the mine see it differently. They see a powerful company that convinced the state to avoid enforcing the strictest pollution limits on a creek they love. "That's the story of the London Mine," said Eddie Kochman, the former head of the Division of Wildlife's fisheries section who lives downstream of the mine. "It's not what it will do to Mosquito Creek. It's the process it went through." A giant, muddy mess State officia/s couldn't keep up with the T-REX contractors' erosion and storm-water violations. Colorado officials and contractors have hailed the speed of the $1.73 billion T-REX construction project, saying one of the state's most expensive highway projects ever will meet or beat its 2006 deadline. But the untold story is how state environmental officials were unable to keep up with erosion problems caused by what inspectors called a "disregard" of proper prevention practices. The health agency's chief said the six-figure penalty against Kiewit Construction and Parsons Transportation Group was the largest ever for violations of storm-water regulations, which aim to protect fish habitats. And he defended the state's response to problems, saying it takes time to bring enforcement actions and correct flawed practices. But he chose to let the Colorado Department of Transportation off the hook for liability, even though it was supposed to oversee pollution-management practices along the highway. "The problem is fixed," Benevento said. The EPA also questioned the state's appetite for enforcement, noting that only four formal enforcement actions have been brought in the past three years for storm- water violations. Currently, there are more than 4,300 storm-water permits. State officials say it~is unrealistic to expect inspections for every site. They have increased inspections and enforcement actions this year. They also are developing a program that uses private contractors to conduct inspections for the state. But a lack of inspections wasn't the problem with T-REX. It was a lack of enforcement. State inspectors identified problems with the 19-mile-long project almost as soon as a storm-water permit was issued to Southeast Corridor Constructors, the partnership between Kiewit and Parsons, in January 2002. But it wasn't until December 2002 when state officials began the enforcement process, records show, and not until May 2003 when the state issued its formal notices of violation. By then, problems were still occurring, according to memos. T-REX officials say they now have problems under control. "We are fully iri compliance," said Karen Morales, T-REX spokeswoman, who' called the massive scale of the project a. factor. "This is not only a widespread construction project, but it's mobile." Morales said T-REX officials have tried to negotiate a fair settlement. In June 2002, five months after state inspector Nathan Moore found problems with T-REX's permit, he discovered problems, including few measures to prevent fuel spills, soaps and other chemicals from running into storm drains. Several steep slopes had no erosion controls. Gutters were clogged with sediment. "If a large storm event were to hit ... considerable pollution would occur," Moore predicted in a June letter to contractors. The storm arrived in September 2002, sending muddy water and debris splashing into creeks near the Logan Street overpass and forming gullies near construction sites. In October 2002, inspectors found more violations. And in November of that year, an inspector submitted an enforcement action for his superiors' approval. In May 2003, Southeast was formally notified of the violations. And it wasn't until later that year that T-REX erosion problems came under better control, records show. Benevento acknowledged he could have sought penalties from CDOT but chose not to. "We made a decision to go after the people who were in operational control." i' ~rrfinking from the riiver .. ' , , . ~ ,-'".,..~ _°-, ~; ~,~' ,°. ~. . Chronic violations at many rural wastewater plants have drawn concern from the federal EPA. Red Cliff resident Jim Bradford's first experience with town water 12 years ago wasn't a good one. He contracted giardiasis, a waterborne illness that brings on intense cramping and diarrhea. Since then, residents of the small town on the Eagle River near Vail have intermittently had to boil their drinking water when their treatment plant failed. At other times, the town discharged sewage effluent that violated state permits into the river. State officials acknowledge that chronic violations at many smaller; rural wastewater plants go unpunished. According to EPA records, 57 of the 60 most frequent discharge-permit violators in the state were small sewage plants, ranging from Red Cliffs 277 violations to merely dozens. Two- thirds of the frequent offenders had no official enforcement actions taken by the state. Of 21 fines that were assessed, eight were for $5,000 or less. Enforcement questions dog the state's drinking water, too. Federal regulators last spring told the state to begin formal enforcement against four drinking-water systems with ongoing problems, including the towns of Trinidad and Phippsburg. Ninety-nine public water systems are on some kind of state compliance schedule, which means they have deficiencies that must be rectified. Since 1998, the state has logged 8,625 drinking-water violations. But regulators have issued only four fines, three to the same operator. State officials say those numbers fail to give a true picture of their drinking-water protection programs. Since January 2003, they say, the department has issued 3,483 compliance responses under the Safe Drinking Water program, including 23 boil orders to make water potable, 98 formal enforcement orders, and compliance advisories or warnings to 541 systems. In an April 2004 audit, EPA officials said the state's drinking-water program had shown "vast improvement" over the last three years. But they were troubled by the state's reluctance to start formal enforcement action against some of these systems. The lack of a credible threat has allowed some systems "unlimited time to investigate treatment options while providing water that does not meet national drinking-water standards," the audit found. One town's troubles Red Cliff repeatedly violated wastewater treatment standards but has never been lined. Red Cliff is Colorado's poster cFiild for a rural water system in trouble: Among its violations: allowing raw water to go straight from an Eagle River tributary to residential taps. Mayor Ramon Montoya said Red Cliff sdrinking-water system is now in full compliance with state laws. But the town sewage plant needs replacing - a reality made clear to him when the state finally threatened a $32,000-per-day fine this year. Officials have hired an engineering firm - as ordered by the state. But with only 144 customers, raising the needed $4 million to $5 million for a new plant and repairs to the old pipes will be a challenge. Benevento said he's proud of his agency's policy of not imposing civil penalties against small municipal sewage plants like Red Cliffs. Instead the state prefers using incentives, encouragement and grants to pursue a strategy of "compliance assistance." "We will allow them to turn penalties into compliance, so they can take the penalty money and use it to actually fix the problem," Benevento said. "That's what it's all about, fixing the problem." But resident Bradford, now a town board trustee, said the lack of a credible threat allowed local officials to put off for years the tough decisions they needed to make to keep systems from violating pollution laws. The threat of penalties is "a really good motivator," Bradford said. "Nobody wants to be fined." The federal EPA is charged with enforcing the Clean Water Act. But the agency delegates administration of the law to state agencies, adopting the role of watchdog or overseer. If state performance is poor enough, the EPA can take over the program. But in Colorado, the state and the EPA are so tightly intertwined that the state's performance is rarely criticized in public, experts say. "There is a coziness," said Melinda Kassen, the former water counsel. "They work together, go to each other's meetings. EPA is the backstop for the state. But given that EPA itself has limited resources, if they push too hard, problems end up in their lap. There are incentives for the EPA not to push too hard." Stephen Tuber, the EPA's assistant regional administrator, offered a measured endorsement of Colorado's work: "They are consistently adequate." Water Quality Commission chair Chris Wiant said the commission relies on the division to give it scientifically defensible standards and the EPA to review the commission's decisions. Int een ,.E " PA has to approve all our standards, and like everyone else, they have { ~., . -_ ~~ ~ - .: ,~. ~< 'even"us ood . , ,._ , g • g ,, feedback;" Wia~nt said."Myphope is that if they think something isn't right; that they have heartburn over''it; they wouldri't approve it:'The commission has to trust the division to give us information. There's risk of us micromanaging that process." But Poticha, the former commissioner, said the commission must take the Clean Water Act's goals to protect waters more seriously and ensure that Colorado's policies aren't giving an economic break to polluters. "When you bring the regulated community into the regulation-making process, you're making compromises on water quality," Poticha said. "You have to ask whether our state program is oriented toward giving waivers to polluters so they can profit." Researcher Monnie Nilsson and computer-assisted reporting editor Jeff Roberts contributed to this report. Staff writer Miles Moffeit can be reached at 303-820-1415 or at mmoffeitCa)denverpost.com . Staff writer Theo Stein can be reached at 303-820-1657 or tsteinCo)denverpost. com . _ r Pvtlu~ian via~atvr~ ~clt~r r~s~,tacar° a~rfrons ~,rt~~rr~-rte }r t than ~ ~aurth ~f the ~ t ~ue~ ~ri~i~~6~'~ i~ ate s 1 la~re t~ hit vvitio pEr~tfy .All tf~sr rc~s i ~Sers~rts ~ p~-i~te water ~ set ~ti~. Est ~- sy~ latatc~ri ~e t~s~i ate tea, at` i14. a9 Facility vio6attauts Reeativing ura~r tc~p~ctiaetg fps Tim of Re€f t~T 277' ~~ suer 3 !ka 74TDEryg!Idc' 251 ~ 1 ~i ~a~n~ iA l~utn {~~ 12~ ~°~ 2 . h1¢g°T's 6txi~r t~,Sti 113 Sa~fc ~ 2 F~sruaps.P~o~isftirt -,,,~.>.,,~ ..>„~<.~ BF -, ,..w,. Ss!€f~fief~xa' ., ~. 3 ... .a .,.~ ib OYgii f1~ ~t)s'k1 ~ ~ E PFdY.tg f~t1Yd ~ ~ . , .w>.~ ~,. ~~ .4....~..,.~,.,w.r 'iYdd ~ Tti- San. ~kTii°t !1? Sth I~akt~ Fes' S ~~~ U4'~eI~V!' 74 k 2 571,~t~6[ 2iT112 ~ San. €~~tr3ci 7b ~ ~h~t "c ~xvnr~ ~ ~~ S3t.;ta{L~. ~ Si~~~~1 ~or~ 491 P,ir ~ _....__............ b9 ~....... ,..._,_ ~:~=.I~ F~aEte _ __......___ 2 ____ _~. ffty~t~Ae~t~ ~ __~ 1 _ . $T§,T~m29~17 i'~alky~ithx, b~ Calnra~Of&rer 2 Mo "'- Ta~an~ _ _ .~ 62 _._. .. ih _._-_..~ -•.__-.. ~ .____. _...._. 34,3~1~'#3 ....__- .._.__...._-... 7 Ttrzm{ Saab Cott ~~ Saaith ~ ~ ~SruttGo-ftu~'hi~huegEaanm. b~ C+:dztr. 1 P~ ___.~._. _.._. .. _...._~ ..___..-.__..~ ._v._. __._ _.._. ~a4r~ibC~yts~t~up ~~ ~~ ~ ~~,~in34t32 ~a~x Sa TTshiet _._..-__.._..._........__._..___..___ ~~ _.._ _ C~nr E5~• 2 ~ 't'~un~,'~mES~pIi~SGr < ,~, .~ 53 ~N w. ___.__._._....___.._._.~...-. ~ai~ra~f .. ,,~,.~,,. .___.__._.•. "e ~ _._...__..___._.-.__ si~pinpTnhF~nea ~ a~ ,, ,...ma1 , ».,.,...~. •,.N,....,.,e..a T4iYtl$C~ff 71 ttil~Eif' ~ ~~,~~Y~~I T}ae [1efq~1' Pr~si ~.i~F~1~[It~tC'9atr78 ~, F3~tAifYBCIt~Mt`~t'~`8flL1i'fNYltl~6~rlY~'I~i2 .V{OI812~Gf2L 1§A~t3iMlfi §d1Bf@ ~P.I:I.~YUd ~h'J ~ OL1ilr?:+' "~` ~`it~i~l'{ta'i'~ 29i~170 Z~Hiili~'I S~YA!(Cll~~f' ~ 4FK~Y*.II}-`~~ SF4@g1BS ~Ci#.MUd~-~~(Y7y1 d~S~A~@!@4Y;i'i.{i ,~ , :a ; ~ 4f'•• 'J i'iyi.r:a:~nt~; ~^1od°~~R~,p'.•~~~~~i~241A@1~~1RA~~,nri~c{-lorar,lt~ .t Q"' g t~-~q ~a~.c'D~=*~b- •.w,.9Aa,.~k1a-~~~fi'.,a~r .15.~zar w, , •, . e ~ a f.r. ~ ~ _ ~t '~ - * ~ ~~,~ff _ _ ~ : ]he devastating 2002 drought brought Colorado's water supply prob- ~T' "~Jl lem to the surface. Studies indicate that Coloradans will need an ~ (JV additional 630,000 acre-feet (205 billion gallons) per year of new water by 2030 to meet a projected 53 percent increase in municipal z and industrial demands. ~? --I Approximately 2.8 million more people are expected to call Colo- ~ rado home by 2030, and most of them, almost 2.4 million, will live o -- along the Front Range. But the greatest percentage increases are ~ z December 2004 41 . ~ ~-.. ., .. ~. ... -. .. f.. r .r. ..:: S. L.. u:12.-.~..Is expected in Westem Slope and moun- tain communities, .where municipal demands will neatly double from present day levels. The shortage is exacerbated by the fact that almost 90 percent of Coloradans live along the Front Range, from Pueblo to Fort Collins, but approxi- mately 80 percent of the state's water is found in rivers and streams on the Western Slope. Although the problems were clear, the solutions were not. Colorado's con- cerns about its water supply had many voices. An agricultural water supplier saw municipalities depleting the supply for~ranchers and farmers who needed it to .irrigate crops and care for livestock, while other agriculturalusers wanted to be able to continue to sell their water rights to municipal users. Municipal and maintain an adequate water supply for its residents and the environment. - Finding .ways to accommodate the state's diverse interests, however, was a challenge. SWSI's approach was to con- duct technical roundtables that included representatives from multiple interests within each. of Colorado's eight major river basins.. They included local gov- ernments, water providers, agricultural users, recreational interests, the envi- ronmental community and the business sector. The roundtables' composition helped ensure that the full range of local priorities and expertise was reflected in the study's findings and solutions. -Meeting foot times in each basin from September 2003 through October 2004, the' roundtable members . exchanged ideas,' reviewed water supply and business leaders feared diminishing water supplies and depletions of non-renew- able aquifers would adversely affect their local economies. Rafting companies, fishing guides and ski areas saw drought conditions hitting their bottom lines. At the same time, conservation groups and local governments struggled to protect streams and river flows to safeguard natural habitats and species. z 0 U oa r U z Q U w a Assessing the situation Colorado state legislators sought an initiative to meet the state's future water needs. The legislature asked the state Department of Natural Resources' Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) to perform an I8-month study -the Statewide Water Supply Initiative (SWSI) - to determine how it would demand data, identified and summarized planning initiatives, and helped guide the development of water supply and demand objectives and strategies. Each basin identified projects or strategies that are being planned or considered to meet its future water needs. SWSI's water management objectives and performance measures were used to gauge the ability of the solutions to meet the diverse range of interests of water providers and users. They ranged from meeting municipal, industrial and agricultural demands to enhancing recreational opportunities. One basin's experience The Arkansas River Basin, Colorado's largest basin, provides a good example of the water supply issues that stakehold- ers confronted statewide: balancing the needs of increased population growth with agricultural and recreational use. The Arkansas basin.. covers 19 coun- ties, including the Colorado .Springs and Pueblo urban areas. Between 1990 and 2000, the population in the region increased by 27 percent and now accounts for nearly 20 percent of the state's residents. Consistent with overall state water use, 85 percent of the Arkansas basin's water is used to irrigate agricultural land, with about 1.7 million acre-feet diverted annually for irrigation out of a total 2 million acre-feet used. The basin- also is popular for fishing and river rafting, which are .both economically important to the area; particularly in the moun- tainous headwaters of the basin. Fur- thermore; .173,000 acre-feet of additional water storage will be needed to support growth in the Arkansas basin through 2040, according to a recent S,outheast- em Colorado Water Conservancy Dis- trict study. With so many competing demands for water, along with explosive population growth and stringent environmental requirements, SWSI incorporated the perspectives of all roundtable members. That was done:. ,by creating a list of statewide water management objectives and using them to evaluate future water supply options. The final set ct' water management objectives includei sus- tainably meeting municipal, industrial and agricultural demands; optimizing existing and future water supplies; enhancing recreational opportunities; protecting cultural values; and comFly- 42 December 2004 www.americancityandcounty.con is °' I. ~ ~~" ~ ~~ , ~. Y ~ - i., ~~ - ~ - ;. .-. ~ t , - , i--~ ~ ing with all applicable laws, regulations" - . ". ~ - and water rights. ~ -s-y Y~ ~ '" ~ y - After the objectives were. decided, .-'~ , roundtable members could move away " -=- ~ ' -, -~ from individual agendas and toward ~"` - meeting a broad range of needs. "The focus of the meetings was. to build a ------~ ------ ~= ,,,~.;.~.,r,-,=.~` ~ ~ consensus to address specific issues ~ ~_?_~ ~, - ~~'' ~.}'~' ,~ { within the river basin," says Gary Barber, _ .;' ,; ` _ , r ' i,,~; ~ ,. ~ consultant for El Paso County Water' ,•~ _ ~ ~' ' ~ } - Gf5 "T ~ ' ~~ 0 Authority. Decisions were not based on ~ y,? ie 05 Integrating h ~ ~~ .~ _ ,:L 2 ma on rule but accordin to Barber i ty g ;! ci' attsti+~tc °'~ ~ t,r , ,+. 4 ~ - ~ " GIS & LAMA . "on discussions seeking common ground. , ~s , ~ , ''' Itte~rdc lca~crs ' ~ between diverse interests: Ir helped us. ~ ~- Conference ;,'-k ~ _ ~ w. f~ ~ ~~ move away from a focus> on what: each ~ ~ ~~~ ~ + ,~ ~ • - Fehruar~ 15-13 2005 +' ~~r r;," ~~' , group wanted to' win and move toward ,.~;~ , r stoiidt - . •. _ what we, as a state,;.didn't wane to ~'.~ : ~ Hyatt Regency-Sa;~annah ,~? teci~iol"n~~aJt w~" ~ '-~ „ lose. ;,~ ,, , ~`~ ij~m`ta t~trurx~Irs~, +noic k Once the roundtable developed water ?>. ,~ , , supply options for the Arkansas basin ~~ I~1ore...I3etter...~raster: , ~ f~" - such as building new storage, enlarg- ;-~ ~-~aj;jn the _ `; " ing existing storage, rotating agricultural r r ~ ,.- ^ •'; ~~~ s. ~ ~ ; ` transfers and expanding water conserva- , ~` `~ f ~ x ~ . ~4~~ ' Y~~ MoblirY ~~ r~ ~" Technology ~:ty Uf~• r - tion -the. SWSI team identified each ~ ~ ~ y '"~` ~ ~s roundtable member's preferred options ~` ~ ~~ ~ _ ` ',~ ~°~ ~~ and led discussions about the betiefits * +Lu ~'~ ~ `v~ '~s w*~ ~ ~ '" and issues of each water supply option. '~ <; ,.~ ' ~, } ~ s ~ x ~- As aresult, the decisions were based h d d iw[~"Y~ yj,~'~~ :~ ~U! G~ l ~ on s are , not indivi ual, needs. Partici- ~; x ; ,,; ~,,; ,: t ~ .-. pants understood each others'" interests . F , _ f - .- ' T and sought ways to meet multiple objec- ~, ~ r - ~ 3 ~,, ~ ~ ~, ~,~~ ~ ,~„ ,~` rives with solutions -such as a new or ` ~ _ ~ r ~ ~ ~ ~ - i expanded reservoir that included storage ~ ~ .: .,ti;~ , ;~ ~ ' _ ~_ for both municipal use and downstream ~ ~ _- " flow enhancement. They also discussed . ~'~ "~ ~ , "~; z + "~.~ . rotating agricultural transfers that would 'i ~ ` allow agricultural water to be leased to i , " municipalities on a temporary, rotational a ~~'~ " ~. a ~ . " ,<4 , ~ ~ basis; which can preserve existing' agri- x Con ferenre Sponsors: ~ ~~• ' culture while providitig cities with water f -' ~ ~ - a, K .",k in times of drought. :: ~' ~ ',;' ~ ~ .~~"_- '~'` ~, ,,`" .~ ~` k, The.. roundtable members also estab- ~ lished relationships that ideally will _ " . l'RISA ~'rh.,r "i~d R~~~innal ~~ -;~ .,~~s;"~L. , n ~ ~" . , . continue after the initial phase~of SWSI ; . t',Ferni2 ~~>> ~~ ~ ~ ass, < -~~~~~:~ ~~,~ _ concludes this month. "The coundtables "'~, ~ "+- `' '' ~ were~a very good way to bring:;together • `~ _~ d ~~~< < ;; rn A diverse. stakeholders who ought to be ~ y r ~ " `" ' ' '" a working together but hadn't been;" says ~ . For more information, ' I ~,~U - tnreni~nor~i,~s;-~c~i~iin z c~. David: Nickum, executive director. of _ ~ ~ s<<;,ns ~iF-«~rs ~g " Boulder-based Colorado Trout Unlim- ` or ~swlv.iaao.or ~ ~ ited. "I' am' encouraged that conserva- ' ' e° tion options associated with municipal '- ~ r_ . ~ ---- Circle No. 20 on Reader Service Card or visit freeproductinfo.net/amc DeCembef 2004 43'. and industrial uses will be given serious consideration, and hope that the con- versations begun between the round- table participants will help those diverse interests continue to work together." Moving forward In Colorado, the responsibility for water supply planning and development rests with the local and regional water providers: Throughout the state, local water providers have identified ways to " meet the majority of the state's increased demand. Strategies for the Arkansas basin include enlarging existing storage reservoirs,, acquiring agricultural: water rights and transferring them to,.munic- pal. and industrial use; and" enharictng water conservafiori and reuse programs; Current and planned water projects. and management. options, are expected to` supply approximately 80 percent of the addi"tional 630,000 "acre-feet of water needed by 2030. In spite of the progress, SWSI found that there are no firm plans for the remaining 20 percent, or 126,000 acre- feet per year, of municipal and industrial water needed by 2030. That problem is spread across many of Colorado's eight basins but is greatest in the Arkansas and South Platte basins, whose popula- tions are the fastest growing along the firont Range. The 20 percent gap is partially attrib- utable to the lack of a local government water provider that has the responsibil- ity for providing water supplies to the new growth areas. Other areas .have identified potential solutions for meet- ing future water needs, but the ability to implement the solutions is uncer- tain because of permitting or financial constraints. The CWCB plans more basin round- tables to address the problems, and will discuss ", inter-basin and future water management issues through`, 2005. The state also will lie evaluating' approaches to prioritizing stream reaches for flow enhancement;. identifying ways for those who will benefit from flow-enhance- ments to participate financially; assess- ing interstate andtntra-state compacts ~.._ Y i! A ~ ~Td.i. governing the use of available water supplies; and assessing the state's role in addressing water. management issues. SWSI is the most far-reaching effort ever undertaken to understand Colorado's. water supply and demand.. Understanding the- trade-offs between water development and management, and making wise decisions is essential. SWSI has asked Coloradans to shift away from individual, parochial needs and agendas toward recognizing that the water issues facing each basin affect"the entire state. By taking both a basin and a statewide approach to managing water, resources, SWSI has given the"CWCB the comprehensive perspective needed to provide all Coloradans with safe, suf- ficient, long-term water supplies. ~ Rod Kuharich is director; and .Rick Broaun is project manager at the Colorado Water Conservation Board. Kelly- DiNa=. tale is a principal; " Susan:' Morea is vice president, and John Refiring is an associate in the Denver office of Cambridge, Mass:- based CDM: ~ ~,~~~,~ ~ t s c q t "t' ---'h Circle No. 21 on Reader Service Card or visit freeproductinfo.net/amc ~ ~.'f. ~ ~ ~ 7! f .. .~ 1 i December 2004. 45 m n D Z CJ k~? C7 O C Z .r ~~ 1111:J1 t lO1~L~1 \~ V 1 f 1 December 28, 2004 To: Vail Town Council Stan Zemler Pam Brandmeyer Judy Camp From: Sally Lorton Re: November Sales Tax On the reverse side, please find the latest sales tax worksheet. I estimate I'll collect another $44,000.00 in November sales tax to bring November collections to $616,096.00. If so, we will be up 4.20% or $24,827.00 from November 2003 and up 3.16% or $18,873.00 from budget. Attached please find two worksheets that report on the conference center tax collection. Month i March IL~i~~i en,6„r iTatal 993 1,855,364 994 1,805,707 995 1,894,597 995 1,935,782 997 2,052,569 998 2,115,359 Town of Vail Salss Tax Worksheet 12/28/2004 1999 2000 2001 2,066,459:_2,034,529 2,210,547 002 2,073,481 003 1,997,091 udget 2,017,203 004 Co/%ctlona 2,225,422 udgal Var/ance 208,219 CAenga /rom 2003 11.43% Change /rom Budget 10.32% 1,828,766 1,988,090 864,303 1,674,495 2,250,656 794,668 7,816,107 2,739,298 791,092 7,993,389 2,240,865 966,993 2,089,673 2,580,992 874,427 2,153,121 2,368,077 1,107,334 2,021,486 2,415,202 952,843 2,223,670 .2,545,573 926,771 2,366,327 2,568,877 1,043,431 2,281,833 2,699,664 870,875 2,171,163 2,372,942 871,468 2,732,423 2,396,839 880,244 2,362,406 2,343,759 991,853 229,983 (53,080) 111,609 11.90% -1.23% 13.81 % 10.79% -2.21% 12.68% 257,248 287,315 324,681 318,920 329,783 382,718 370,864 -: 388,121 448,234 414,248 428,919 433,238 411,297 (21,947) -4.71 % -5.07% 475,161 548,820 590,685 594,907 630,366 633,400 692,811 .. 721,774 751,439 657,707 742,755 750,235 731,808 (18,427) -1.47% -2.46% 811,538 825,954 892,830 891,566 893,483 867,125 963,717 990,650 1,043,637 1,073,430 1,707,882 1,183,926 1,130,883 1,050,004 J1,235,470 1,038,516 1,157,867 1,124,275 1,044,966 7,084,318 1,075,532 1,029,446 1,086,363 1,039,813 1,128,204 992,658 41,841 (47,155) 4.90% -3.57% 3.85°,6 -4.53% 560,535 725,205 645,902 630,453 637,831 735,608 806,600 817,373 747,766 713,574 679,208 686,048 755,395 69,347 11.22% 10.11°/, 400,525 408,405 461,791 413,573 472,836 515,531 536,204 4 547,201 486,570 484,425 508,092 513,209 511,681 11 528) 71% 0 -0 30% 553,681 594,491 617,147 601,208 707,166 656,596 582,260 691,445 571,783 642,293 591,269 597,223 572 096 , 125 127) . -3 24% . , , . -4.21 go -'~ >> ~"~~ ~, 11 1 tE~6 ~ a67 1 2.152.710 1 2 956,562 1 2525 61E~1~ 17 ~ X93 13,477,104 12,967,384 12,407,885 12,532,838 13,026,573 493.736 .~ ~~~,~,~ ~. ; 1 1 '-~'~ ~- - 1 _~~-~,-~~10 2,068,851 2,254,709 2,070,834 1,883,805 2,062,205 ~ 1,933,940 2,1 X9.417 2,171,~~~75 ~,15 ~ ~=~r~ i 12,395,778 13,007,013 13,030,448 13,719,308 14,747,419 15,030,386 14,509,421 15,232,588 15,411,044 75,106,801 14,578,983 14,725,800 J onth Town of Vail Conference Center Retail Tax (. 12/28/2004 2004 2003 Budget Co/%ctions 5%) Worksheet Change Budget from Variance 2003 Change from Budges January 233,274 227,706 266,964 39,258 14:44% 17.24% February 250,236 244,263 283,431 39,168 13.27% 16.04% March 283,013 276,258 284,498 8,240 0.52% 2.98% April 99,694 97,315 115,591 18,276 15.95% 18.78% May 46,376 45,269 46,139 870 -0.51 % 1.92% June 83,981 81,977 83,885 1,908 -0.11% 2.33% July 122,562 119,637 130,261 10,624 6.28% 8.88% August 119,843 1 16,983 1 14,869 (2,1141 -4:15% -1.81 September 78,107 76,243 86,610 10,367 10.89% 13.60% October 57,330 55,962 57,752 1,790 0.74% 3.20% iVovember 67,602 65,987 65,121 (866) -3.67% -1.31 Total 1,442,018 1,407,600 1,535,121 127,521 6.46% 9.06% December 253,449 247,400 Total 1,695,467 1,655,000 onth Town of Vail Conference Center Lodging Tax (1 12/28/2004 2004 2003 Budget Co/%ctions .5%)Worksheet Change Budget from Variance 2003 Change fiom Budget January 258,035 263,236 304,069 40,833 17.84% 1.5.51 February 314,645 320,987 354,088 33,101 12.54% 10.31 March 342,984 349,897 332,935 (16,962) -2.93% -4.85%. April 64,246 65,541 87,119 21,578 35.60% 32.92% May 15,964 16,286 17,999 1,713 12.75% 10.52% June 54,153 55,244 56,634 1,390 4.58% . 2.52% July 84,422 86,124 94,588 8,464 12.04% 9.83% August '` ' ~ `81,820 "'`'83,469 ' ' 82,876' "'(593)" 1":29% ' '-0.71 % September 42,569 43,427 48,683 5,256 14.36% 12.10% October 25,131 25,638 27,961 2,323 11.26% .9.06% November 29,089 29,675 26,234 (3,441) -9.81 % -11.60% Total ~_ 1,313,058 1,339,524 1,433,186 93,662 9.15% 6.99% December 260,232 265,476 Total 1, 5 73, 290 1, 605,000 Staufer' E:ommercal; L. ~,: C. - .100 East IVleadow .Drive #31 -. `. Vail,. Colorado:.81657., ~. ~' To the Mayor and Members of the Town Council ofahe Town,:of Vail 12/3.0/04 Ladies: and .Gentlemen,; . - ~ ... .: ~ . . ~ .On December 13th the~Town of Vail, t'lanning.and Environmental. Commission ~ - ~. . voted- five=to two to-uphold the Town Staff's re~mmendation to deny the . ~ . :~ ' : application: of the 'developer of Crossroads for: Special Development District No. 39. - . - I understand that the developer is appealing to the.Town council to overiiirn the ~ ~ . :. findings of the~Planning: Commission. - I sincerely"hope" that the. Council=will uphold the decisionof: the Planning.:: - - . Commission.:.- : ~ . The proposed development would irrevocably change the character of Vail; .: ` - • : - ~ Ii' the. developer is right in his claims that "alpine" is ;out, why is it that the first stop. . .our guests make. is~Gasthof.Gramshammer, if the. are lucky: enough to get, in the - : 'door.: I~et.'s not forget. that."alpine"-.has made us and had Iaonshead stayed, with the .. - ~. program they would not have'to spend multi millions now to make it attractive::. ~ . I never thought ~ would .become a cheerleadeF. for:Vail Resorts;. but they. have spent. ' - millions to make. the l~iarriott Hotel look attractive and are now embarking on .. ~ . .. . ~. projects, spending hundreds, of millions to mare Lonshead compatible with "the . romance and charm of Vail's own alpine heritage"::(Their add~.in the Vail )wily) ~ - They.obviously have got it; and h hope that the ~CounciL will. continue to protect "the . ~ ' romance and charm: of Vail°'s alpine heritage": ~ _ - - . .The developer's slogan is"Bring people back-toy Vail". ~ _ ~ ~ - ~ . : If .we need pin ball machines aad bowling alleys to bring people back to Vail,` we are . - _in sorrier shape. than, anybody. could: imagine:. ~ r ~~. The application should~be.denied. on all grounds included in the staff memo dated. " December .~3th 2004.: ~ .. . - : ~ . ~: . In addition`-all zoning rotes should be applied equally to aU~ applicants.Village~ Inn ' - :Plaza Phase III" was required to drop to one story, at East Meadow brive with a - - setback of over 20 feet: 60 feet height without any setback is preferential spot. - ~ zoning and therefore unacceptable. The distances shown between .buildings on the ,: ; Phone (970) 4T6=545.Q ~ `,Fax (970),..476-5461. ~ : ~' joestaufer@earthlink.riet - ~ ~ ' west side ranging from 45 to 83 feet are mostly achieved by taking the neighbors property into consideration and the setback on the developer's property is mostly zero. I appeal to you not to let greed ruin our town forever. IJS~N~~S :oM ~ .. THURSDAY, DECEMBER 30, 2004 ~~ h -~~ ', Lockheed facing cuts - ~ ~, N Lockheed Martin'stock falls xy.percent be- ~ ~ ~ _`~ ~ ;~ W ' ~ cause of the possibility that the•Defense De- 'y~ ,'+, "~ ' + r 'x ~ pl. partment may cutproduction of the F/A-zz ,~ sµ stealth Fighter-bomber But strong support ac in Congress may sage the projecrt. > 2C k~ ''f;t ~ ~~ ~~ lei ,~:!'~ ~ ~, , ~ -aa.`:.ifd :w Too much s ace= for .. .p too-(few e•onventlons? Colorado Springs. Vail '~ . .. Proposed downtown The Broadmaor Hotel Facdityi Vail Conference Centee . , convention canter', '.. andResort". ° ~. ~ ,(about 113,000 square feet)^_ (155,000 square feef of - .` (114,000 square feet Cost: $42.5 million (estimate) ' convention and meetino- plus70,000=square-foot, . "' space, 25,000-square-. expansion) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Source`of funding: a 15 percent ~ , Moot-U.S. OlympicHall of ' ' increase.in Vail's lodging tax and a . , . Fame) Cost of expansion: $43 'half-cent increase imthe sales tax Cost: $74 milliom rnl~~iyn" appro`v`ed by votersin November - , (estimate) Source of funding: The 2002 - ' Broad~noor Hotel & Projected open(ng: 2007 - ' ' Source of funding: ~` Resort .. ~ , „ ' . unknown, expected to be ontbe ballot this sprincj, Projected openhuJ: - _ ~.. ,r Octoher20o5 ~. Possi6k upening: 2007 'n+; ~ence Cen[er' ! - y1 s .fir '~ ..,,_7_i ~.. ~ .. S~r~`," , . 1 tEB ti i~.` ~~~, ~r. f TY' I t u .., •. '~~ fir-. ,II Z'tr t ~~:'Aa t ' .. r , :. . _. ;. ~'~ ~ ~ - ,,~ _ ~ •~ k ~ ~~ ~ ~'r~ ~K 1~ 1r f ~` 1C2 .t j .: I'M1 ~ '~^ ~~ ~ - ~ ~ ~~1' µr' 4~j,r1 ,s t 1 l Y. 'r. {~ ~ 7 yp;^tnCt;liC~.".r~ .r. - '`'t . jl { a ` •;~ ti X63 la -~ 7~ ~~_ ~~ - ,e ter i . to simc al to The De~rvcr Pozt L.u R ~ eonvmrtWgCenter hole ' ~ . ~ p special tp The Denier POST- ' e ' r .. ., Keystone , . , Grand Junction j„ ` ' ' Facility: Keystdne Confer ence CenteP (65,000 square • Facility Two Rivers Convcntioii Center (23,000 - feed `~- ~ '~ square feet) ~ ' - .. ; Cost of expansion: $11,5 million to add 26,000. Cost of remodel and expanslom $641nillion in 2001 square feet in 2000 Source of fuming: Gty ol,Grand'Jien_ ction General '~. . . ' ~Soureeotfunding.Vail~Resoitrtnc,~ownerof~ ~`~FundatidtheGrandJunctiodt_ionsClub, I(eystane Resort Opened. 1975 ! ~. Opened: 1989. Colorado .Springs and Vail jnc~y jump .,into the growing pool of conference centers. But'critcs doubt the facilities could compete with Denver's .for: revenue. By Julie Dunn Attendance at the aoo. major U.S., trade shows ,, ... Denver Post Staff Writer . and conventions has. dropped from a peak of 5.i ~ .~ :. ~ = G to 4.i nullion ui 20o3,.,Sanders said, million in i99 Decades-long proposals to build publicly fund-. At the same. time, the amount of exhibition space ed' convention and conference centers in Golo ..; ,has, grown from, 4o.q. million square feet in i99o rado .Springs and Vail may be'neai-ing reality ~~ to 63.6 million square feet available this year. amid uestions of whether ahe investments will. q ~ ~ . "You've got a lot more, space chasing fewer at- ' . ,< pay off. tendees," Sanders said. "I'd advise serious cau- Colorado Springs residents will most. ;likely : tion before launching such a project" vote this spring on a $74 million,convention.cen< . ,. 'Another hurdle for. Vail and.Colorado Springs: ter and U.S. Olympic.Hah of Fame.; <' ~ their regional. airports offer far:;:fewer direct deci- ;; ' Iri Vail, the Town. Council will make a fmal .flights than. Denver International Airport, a fac-. lion early next year on whether to-break,ground for that meeting planriers take.. mto consideration ~ ~ ~ ` on a s4a.5 milhon;conference center that was ap- . a location. ' ~ ~ , ,in choosmg proved by voters in aooa '~ ' . "We're a second tier markzt (m Colorado), and , The earliest.the facilities in Vail, and Colorado it's_very competitive out there,' said Jackie Duff, Springs would open,,is aoo~ " , , president of the Pikes Peak Lodging Association,.., Proponents envision, economic engines' that ' , a group,of Colorado.Springs hotels that oppose ' pump millions of dollars into_their~communities building a convention center because they'say from increased tourism, overnight hotel guests ~ ;current meeting facilities are"adequate. and sales-tax revenues..: . "The reality is many meeting planners are look- , , ,, ~... With the same logic, Denver'spent more than ing for the nonstop air service,".Duff said. "I think ~3io million, to expand the Colorado; Convention , , .we, would lie naive if we don't recognize that ` Center, which. opened to great ,fanfare. this.:, at Colorado . many people 'who are looking month. ;,,Springs are,also looking at big brother Denver up sure bet But convention centers are far from a the. road."" , Tlie meetings and convention industry has been . , ~ .; It is possible for convention centers to thrive in several years;:. according .to. Hey- . shrinking for, smaller Colorado cities. Two Rivers.Convention , wood Sanders, apublic polieyprofessor at the.Uni- ; Center in Grand Junction opened in 1975 and un- ~ versity ofTexas at San Antonio and a leading Grit- , is of convention centers as revenue generators. > See CENTERS on 8C ;~ .. ~s`, ,. . ~, .r ~.. , .. u.._ ..,~.W. ._.. _._.~~ . ~` HC THE DENVER POST * 7 T THURSDAY, DECEMSBER 3O, ZOO4 C~N~'ERS: Number of ;conventioneers ~ falls as ~ amount of- s aceincreases _ ,r .: : _ _ • , .- < CDNTINUED-FROM 1C But some believe the city doesn't' - need the additional exhibition. space.. derwent a renovation in zoos. It genet- Colorado Springs is already home'to _ ated-Si.3 million in revenue in zoo3. two ioo,ooo-squaze-footvenues -the ' " Yoti justhave to have a really good. Phil Long Expo Center and the South- plan `and a:reall strop ' roduct,`? said ern Colorado '`' Y g P Expo Center: Lariy McCue, director of conference "We're opposed to it because we be-~ ' sales at.Keystone Conference-Center; lieve that.this is not gotng to be,the bo-- - which .opened' tts'tnountain confer- nanza to'the tourism industry,that has, encespace in i98q It's aibabout quali- been repoited," said Duff,~.who is also _ ty ofservxce ' • : - general manager of the~local Embassy, " . s _: .. .., . , . Suites hotel "We already have places 1 Ned fOT COIIVCIItIOII,CeIIte[; where people can hold conventions.:. `~ ~' ' (IebatCtl III.COIOCddO;Springs ' >, We believe ,this one would eventually ~z •;~ - ~ r ,~,r, ~,,. , _• ~ ~~~' become a tax burden to,the cihsens." ` . ~ ~ ' +~ "~ ' ^+` r ~ °~ r' -,. s 7'`, ~' In ,Colorado:: Sprmgs 'the -proposal ~ _ "-~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,._.k , ~ ~::,~ •_ Another: factor in the Colorado :_ t -~~~ ~~j r ~- '~ ~~'. ~.; calls'for a isg,ooo square-foot eonven= tion `center`'and a: z' .ooo-s uare-foot:- Springs,' convention - mazket-xis The ' ~ '~ F Y, i '.'- n ~ ~; '~~'~ .~' ~:` ~ ~"` i U.S.' Qlympic Hall f Fameq,The. U.S. ; Broadmoor hotel and.Resort, whtch;i;_ ~'.y ` ~ `~ x ' -- ~ _~ t~ ~` ~ * ~' ; ~ ~ .. ' , ,~.,Y ~ <t ~ ' Y Olympic Commuttec's adminisErative undergouig,a g43 million expansion, ot- , t _4 ~ ~,: , ~ ~ ' ~,, ~' , . ;: r'-~ ' ,: + .~, c -,'_ ~ 4 headquarters are m Colorado Springs:,, tts convention, space, slated to open u'. ~~ ..~ ~ .~, , ~,_ ,t~ '~ _ '` ~', ~ _!< jr' ,,~} ~ <$ _ ~ xy ,- ~ ; ~{ , , . ,~ • October. The addttional o,ooo s ante . r ; , '~ ,r `.. f 7.~ a` <_ it ,~ .~ ,. ~~ 'h .. ~ ,,,,,. . ,~. 1'~ • . 'I!' The centeris part of the city's larger.: - - 7 4 r ~ ~~ s ; ^:' ~ - ; urban `renewal" plan fo'r, southwest feet will bring the-Broadmoor's total- `~ +z^'fI k •. ~ ,.. ~ ~ ~` ~ ,-,~- ,;•~, t,-; r t downtown., :. g_ space to:: .. _ convention and meetin G • ' ~ b,= '. f'~ ~' s _ , The proposed convention center is about.i84,ooosquarefeet: - `~;, "~+ `.r r ~ ~.~ ~`~~~~• , x'1k~ "The mazket is so oversaturated, iYs t' '~ ~ -` likely to be funded by an+increase in t , ,- ;, lodging and auto-rental taxes, said tough," said Broadmoor ,president,- -~ • Tom~james; a Colorado Springs attor- . 'Stephen Baztolin, who, opposes -the : - neywho isheading the coalition ofcon '::? city's convention center proposal; : ~ ~' - ~ "~ ~ "~ ''"' - ~oiw r« ' "But m our case, all we're doin us a '- '_ - vention center proponents. Voters - g 7 t: ~ = L . ,~ acf there.havelon beenw ofa tiblicl addmg'anothe; niche of business to ~, ~' .~,;~kL ~°- ," ~ - funded convention-'center and have our existing base." ~ . , , ,.. _ turned down. numerous proposals in ~ .. , - Craig F Vlfalker~ Denver Pdsf h,e photo the ast three decades. --`' - A I1tIS11 III V811 t0 8ttf1Ct p g - P Y Y P P king p ~ g g; A foe of Colorado S tin s' convention center fans sa s that °xnan eo le who aze loo at Colorado S rtn s "Colorado Springs has not approved COIIVeIItiOIIeCI'9 III O~-SeeS011 aze also looking at big brother Denver"~atid.its newly; expanded facility;. the auditorium of which is shows above.: this several times in the past, so histo-- ` In November zooz, Vail voters ap- ~ - ry would ,say. that it: will be a chat-•.-: proved a L5 percent, lodging tax =in-: -But s controversy has erupted over; tee. "We feel pretty comfortable that if "You don't spend Sqz `million huild= lenge;? James said. "But in my-own crease and ahalf=cent sales,tax increase the chosen "natural" design for the con- _ we do a good jo_ b on this, the people ing something that cari be ixsed four or opinion; this 'will be: the most viable to fund ` a proposed ;4z.q million, ferencecenter,completewithanundti- : wlll.come." five months out of the.yeaz," said Di- ;.. ~. '' . proposal yet to be put forth. I'm opti- u3,ooo-square-foot-conference facility. lating roof, wfiich some say looks like a ,The Vail. Conference-Center is part aaa Donovan; a Vaib-Town ~ Council mistic voters wIll approve." It will be in Lionsliead Village .and mushroom. - of a push by the.resort`and the town to member who is against the conference According to a zoo3 feasibility study 'could host corporate and professional "I believe that the brand name of attract tourists year-round, center. "The rest of the time, the beds funded by taxpayer money, the center groups as lazge as"z,goo people. ~ Vail will give us, a very strong adyan-~ Given tlie' lack of: room inventory aze just not available." - could have an economic' impact. on If the Vail Town Council approvesfi- tage;' said Stan Cope, owner of Vai1= andparkmgspaces;duringpeakskisea- - downtown of S87.i million by zou, cre-_ 'pal design.,, and fmancal'~ plans this . propertymanagement company Amer- son;`some say i_b is not a wtse move to •- Staff writer Julie Dunn can be reached ate t,zoo new jobs and bring in about Sz spring, construction couldbe complef- •ican Hospitality and a member of tlie; build's facility that can be fully,viable : at 3o3-Sao-i59z or - million in annual tax revenue. ed.by zooz. ; - Conference Center Oversight Commit=' only from Match through November ~ jdunn@denverpost.com: - MEMORANDUM TO: Vail Town Council FROM: George Ruther, Community Development Department DATE: January 4, 2005 SUBJECT: Informational Presentation on Special Development Districts What is a Special Development District? A Special Development District (SDD) is best described as a municipal land use planning tool utilizing an overlay form of zoning whereby deviations from the prescribed development standards of the underlying zone district maybe granted to allow increased flexibility and creativity in the design of a site which achieves the adopted land use and development goals and objectives of the community. What is the purpose of a Special Development District? According to Chapter 9, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code, the purpose of a Special Development District is to, "encourage flexibility and creativity in the development of land in order to promote its most appropriate use; to improve the design character and quality o the new development with the town; to Facilitate the adequate and economical provision ofstreets and utilities; to preserve the natural and scenic featuf-es of open space areas •and to - .' further the overall goals of the community as stated in the Vail comer. ehensive plan An ~ • '' `~" approved development plan for a special development district, i~z conjunctio~Z with the property's underlying zone district, shall establish the requirements for guiding development and uses of property included in the special development district. The special development district does not apply to and is not available in the following zone dish°icts: Hillside residential, single family, duplex, primary/secondary. The elements of the development plan shall be as outlined in section 12-9A-6 of this article. " Who may apply for a Special Development District designation? Any owner of property to be included within the. proposed Special Development District or his (her) agent or authorized representative. One exception applies however, a Special Development District designation may not be applied to properties located within the Hillside Residential, Single-family Residential, Two-family Residential, or Two-family Primary/Secondary zone districts. ~ What are the procedures for establishing a Special Development District? Section 12-9A-4, Development Review Procedures, Vail Town Code, outlines the various steps and procedures for• establishing a Special Development District. According to Section 12-9A-4, there are two primary steps in the establishment procedures' l~pre-application meeting with the Town staff; and 2) PEC and Town Council review. In an effort to ensure an efficient and timely review of a Special Development District development review application, the first step is the applicant shall meet with the Town staff for a pre-application meeting. The purpose of the meeting is to: 1) discuss the goals of the proposed special development district, 2) the relationship of the proposal to applicable elements of the town's master plan, and 3) the review procedure that will be followed for the application. The second step in the process is the actual review of the application by the PEC and Town Council. What are the roles of the PEC, DRB, Staff, and Town Council in the review of a Special Development District development review application? Development applications for the establishment of a Special Development District are first reviewed by the Plamling & Environmental Commission, (PEC) for impacts associated with the proposed uses on the development objectives of the Town and compatibility of any requested deviations from the prescribed development standards (ie. GRFA, site coverage, building height, etc.) with the Town's adopted design criteria. The review and recommendation of the application by the PEC is based upon a set of prescribed criteria. According to the Vail Town Code, in part, "the design criteria shall be used as the principal criteria in evaluating the merits of the Special Development Dish~ict." The nine design criteria are outlined below: A. Compatibility: Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment, neighborhood and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, identity, character, visual integrity and orientation. B. Relationship: Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship u%ith surrounding uses and activity. C. Parking And Loading: Compliance with parking and loading 1°equirements as outlined in Chapter 1 D of tlsis Title. D. Comprehensive Plan: Conformity with applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, Town policies and urban design plans. 2 E. Natural andlor Geologic Hazard: Identification and mitigation of natural and/o~° geologic hazards that affect the property on which the special development district is proposed. F. Design Features: Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designed to produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural features, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community. G. Traffic: A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians adds°essing on and off-site traffic circulation. H. Landscaping: Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in ordeT° to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and function. L Workable Plan: Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, .functional and efficient relationship throughout the development of the special development district. In nearly all instances, the review and recommendation of the PEC is the result of numerous meetings with the staff and worksession discussions and public hearings before the Commission. In the case of an application to establish a Special Development District, the role of the PEC is to act in an advisory capacity to the Town Council. According to the Vail Town Code, the PEC can recommend approval approval with modifications or denial of an application to establish a Special Development District to the Town Council. Then, and often concurrently the Design Review Board (DRB) reviews a separate development application conceptually for compliance with the prescribed design guidelines of the Town Again, as often is the case, the review of the application occurs over the course of several conceptual review meetings with the Board. The DRB, however, does not take final action on the development application until final action on the SDD application has been taken by the Town Council. The Town Council's review of an application to establish a Special Development District is based upon a number of considerations. According to the Vail Town Code, the Council's final decision on an application to establish a Special Development District shall be based upon consideration of the recommendation forwarded by the PEC and compliance with each of the nine design criteria prescribed in the Zoning Regulations. The Town Council's evaluation of an application to establish a Special Development District is in the form of an amending ordinance. As is the case with the PEC, the Town Council can approve approve with modifications or deny the application by either approving or denying the request upon two readings of the amending ordinance. The final step in the review process if final design review of the development application by the DRB. The final decision of the DRB is based upon compliance with the following design guideline criteria: 3 - Architectural compatibility with other structures, the land and surroundings - Fitting buildings into landscape - Configuration of building and grading of a site which respects the topography - Removal/preservation of trees and native vegetation - Adequate provision for snow storage on-site - Acceptability of building materials and colors - Acceptability of roof elements, eaves, overhangs, and other building forms - Provision of landscape and drainage - Provision of fencing, walls, and accessory structures - Circulation and access to a site including parking, and site distances - Location and design of satellite dishes - Provision of outdoor lighting - Compliance with the architectural design guidelines of applicable master plans. What types of land uses are allowed in a Special Development District? Pursuant to Section 12-9A-7, Uses, Vail Town Code, "Determination o,~permitted, conditional and accessory uses shall be made by the Planning and Environmental Commission and Town Council as a part of the formal review o the imposed development plan. Unless further restricted through the review of the proposed special development district permitted, conditional and accessory uses shall be limited to those~ermitted conditional and accessory uses in a psropert~'s underlying zone district. Under certain conditions, commercial uses may be permitted in residential special development districts if, in the opinion of the Town Council, such. uses are primarily for the service and convenience of the residents of the development and the immediate neighborhood. Such uses, if any, shall not change oi° destroy the predominantly residential character of the special development district. The amount of area and type of such uses, if any, to be allowed in a residential special development district shall be established by the Town Council as a part of the approved development plan. " For example, if a proposed Special Development District is located within the Public Accommodation (PA) zone district, those permitted, conditional and. accessory uses listed for the PA zone district would be permissible, provided the uses were not further restricted as part of the final approval. Can the underlying zone district of a proposed Special Development District be changed? Yes. A property owner can propose to amend the underlying zoning of a proposed Special Development District. In order to do so, an application for a zone district amendment would be required. The amendment application would be reviewed concurrently with the application to establish the Special Development District. ~ 4 ~~ If a Special Development District is an overlay district atop an underlying zone district, how is development regulated within the Special Development District? Development within a Special Development District is regulated pursuant to an Approved Development Plan. An approved development plan is the rincipal document in iding the development, uses and activities of a special development district A development plan shall be a roved b :ordinance b the Town Council in con'unction with the review and a royal of an special development district. The development plan shall be comprised of materials submitted in accordance with Section 12-9A-5 of this Article. The development plan shall contain all relevant material and information necessat~y to establish the parameters with which the special development district shall develop. The development plan may consist of but not be limited to the approved site plan floor plans building sections and elevations vicinity plan parking plan preliminarypen space/landscape plan densities and permitted conditional and accessory uses In essence, the approved development plan, along with the approving ordinance, becomes an "illustrative and written contract ".between the Town and the property owner for the future development of the site. What about the development standards (ie, site coverage, GRFA, density, building height, landscape area, parking, setbacks, etc.), how are they determined? Development standards including lot area site dimensions setbacks height density control site coverage, landscaping and arking shall be determined by the Town Council as part of the approved development plan with consideration of the recommendations of the Planning and Environmental Commission. Before the Town Council approves development standards that deviate from the underlying zone district it should be determined that such deviation provides benefits to the Town that outweigh the adverse effects of such deviation This determination is to be made based on evaluation of the proposed special development district's compliance with the design criteria outlined in Section 12-9A-8 of the Zoning Regulations. Historically, deviations have been granted for development in Special Development Districts to allow for increases in GRFA, density (dwelling units per acre) building height, site coverage along with decreases in the requirement amounts of parking, landscape area, and setbacks. Justification for such deviations has included proximity to public transportation, increased protection of the Gore Creek corridor, increased number of accommodation units, compliance with the adopted goals and policies of the Town's master plans, provision of on-site employee housing units, below-grade development versus above-grade development, provision of public improvements (sidewalks, plazas, loading/delivery, etc.) on private property, increased commercial square footage in exchange for GRFA, reductions in density (dwelling units per acre), provision of open space and public recreation, protection of natural area from future development and creation of a "third" village. Can a Special Development District approval be amended? Yes. By definition, an ainendinent i<s either "major" or "minor". The distinctions between the two are generally the extent or magnitude of the changes requested and the subsequent review process prescribed for each. For example, change is use; increases in GRFA, change in the 5 number of dwelling or accommodation units or requests to modify or enlarge the boundaries of a Special Development District are considered major amendments. As such, the review process for a major amendment is nearly identical to that required to establish a Special Development District. A minor amendment by comparison, would be a request to modi buildingplans, site or landscape plans that do not alter the basic intent and character of the approved special development. Regardless of whether an amendment is considered major or minor, in order to be approved, the amendment must be consistent with the adopted design criteria. What findings must the PEC and Town Council make to approve or deny a request to establish a Special Development District? To avoid claims of arbitrar~or capricious decision making by the To~Nn's Commission and Council, the Vail Town Code establishes design criteria that must be evaluated and specific findings of fact that must be made about the application by the reviewing bodies. In all instances, when either making a recommendation or takingLfinal action on an amending ordinance, the PEC and Town Council must find that, "The applicant has nZet the buy°den of demonstrating that the submittal materials and the proposed development plan comply with each of the nine design criteria, or demonstrated that one or more of the nine design criteria is not applicable, or that a practical solution consistent with the public interest has been achieved. " Does an approval of a Special Development District ever lapse? Yes. The developer must begin initial construction of the special development district within three (3) years from the time of its final approval, and continue diligently toward the completion of the project. If the special development district is to be developed in phases, the developer must begin construction of subsequent phases within one year of the completion of the previous phase. If the developer does not begin and dili ently work toward the completion of the special development' district or an~ge of the special development district within the time limits imposed by the preceding subsection the approval of said special development district shall be void. The Planning and Envirorunental Commission and Town Council shall review the special development district upon submittal of an application to reestablish the special development district following the procedures outlined in the Zoning Regulations. In addition to the above-prescribed time requirements, the Town Council may, at its discretion, place more restrictive time requirements upon an approval. This was the case with the approvals of the Vail Plaza Hotel and Westhaven Condominium Special Development District major amendment applications. Upon approving each of the applications, in addition to making the necessary findings of fact, the Town Council also found that the interest and welfare of the public would be furthered by placing a shorter timeframe on the length of the respective major amendment approvals. 6 Are Special Development Districts unique to Vail? Yes and no. The terminology used, "Special Development District" is somewhat unique to Vail. In most instances, the term "Planned Unit Development" (PUD) is used to describe a land use planning tool that encourages flexibility and creativity in the development of land in order to promote its most appropriate use; improves the design character and quality of the new development with the town; facilitates the adequate and economical provision of streets and utilities; preserves the natural and scenic features of open space areas; and furthers the overall goals of the community as stated in the comprehensive master plan. Regardless of the term used, however, upon reviewing a number of other communities' zoning and land development regulations, the procedures for establishing or amending an SDD or PUD are nearly identical to those outlined in the Vail Town Code. In all instances the creation of an SDD or PUD is seen as an amendment to the municipalities zoning or land use regulations, and as such, requires review and approval of an amending ordinance by the legislative body of the municipality.