HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-02-01 Support Documentation Town Council Evening SessionTOWN COUNCIL
EVENING SESSION AGENDA
6:00 P.M. TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 2005
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS
75 S. Frontage Road W.
Vail, CO 81657
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. ITEM/TOPIC: Citizen Input (10 min.)
2. ITEMITOPIC: Consent Agenda. Approval of 12.21.04, 01.04.05,
and 01.18.04 Minutes. (5 min.)
4. Greg Hall ITEMITOPIC: Seibert Circle Modification Options. (45 min.)
Brent Wenk
Leslie Pickling ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL:
Listen to public comment. Vote to approve one of the options to
modify Seibert Circle.
BACKGROUND RATIONALE:
The Vail Village Design team will present three options for Seibert
Circle and give the estimated costs for each. The first option is to
retain the existing sculpture and to add some landscaping and
water. The second option is to add cobble pavers to the area and
to bring in water and gas for a fire pit. The third option is to
replace and relocate the existing sculpture and to create a new
design that will have visual appeal throughout the year.
There will be an open house from 5:15-6:00 p.m. for the public to
view the options. Brent Lloyd will be on hand to answer
questions.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The Art in Public Places board endorses Option C and would
further recommend replacing the existing sculpture with a
traditional style fountain that would honor Pete. Seibert's vision for
Vail Village.
5. George Ruher ITEMITOPIC: Informational presentation to the Vail Town Council
on the proposed Lionshead Streetscape design. The purpose of
the presentation is to share the proposed design with the Town
Council and to gain information and input from the Council on the
design as the applicant progresses forward with final design
development drawings for review and approval by the Design
Review Board. (60 min.)
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL:
Listen to a 30 minute presentation and engage in a discussion on
the topic.
BACKGROUND RATIONALE:
On September 27, 2004, the Town of Vail Planning &
Environmental Commission (PEC) approved a major exterior
alteration application allowing for the construction of the
Lionshead Core Site Hotel. In approving the application, the
Commission required the applicant to construct certain off-site
improvements. Included within the improvements is the
streetscape within the Lionshead Mall area.
To date, the applicant has met on numerous occasions with town
staff, Lionshead merchants and property owners, neighbors, the
Town of Vail Design Review Board and PEC. In addition, the
applicant has held several open house meetings to hear concerns
regarding the streetscape plan and to the solicit input on the
project.
6. Warren Campbell ITEM/TOPIC: A request for the Town Council to remand SDD
#39 (Crossroads) back to the PEC for review prior to returning to
Council fora 1st reading of an ordinance. (5 min.)
7. Bill Carlson ITEM/TOPIC: First Reading of Ordinance No. #3, Series of 2005,
an ordinance amending Section 12-11-4, Materials #o be
Submitted; Procedures, Section 12-11-6, Park Design Guidelines,
and Section 14-6, Grading Standards, Vail Town Code, and
setting for details in regard thereto. (20 min.)
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL:
Approve, approve with modifications, or deny Ordinance No. #3,
Series of 2004, on first reading.
BACKGROUND RATIONALE:
On November 23, 2004, the Planning and Environmental
Commission voted 7-0 to forward a recommendation of approval
for the proposed text amendments to the Town of Vail's erosion
control and storm water quality standards.
8. Charlie Davis ITEMITOPIC: First Reading of Ordinance No. #4, Series of 2005,
an ordinance repealing and reenacting Chapter 10-1, Building
Codes, Vail Town Code; adopting by reference the 2003 Editions
of the International Building Code, International Residential Code,
International Fire Code, International Mechanical Code,
International Plumbing Code, International Fuel Gas Code,
International Energy Conservation Code; 2002 Edition of the
National Electrical Code; and with regard to the above-described
codes, adopting certain appendices, setting forth certain
amendments thereto, and setting for details in regard thereto. (30
min.)
-ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL:
Approve, approve with modifications, or deny Ordinance No. 4,
Series of 2005, on 1•irst reading.
BACKGROUND RATIONALE:
On January 24, 2005, the Town of Vail Building and Fire Code
Board of Appeals forwarded a recommendation of approval to the
Town Council for the proposed text amendments.
g. ~ ITEM/TOPIC: Town Managers Report (10 min.)
- VCBA Update
10. ITEMITOPIC: Adjournment (9:05 p.m.)
NOTE UPCOMING MEETING ART TIMES BELOW:
(ALL TIMES ARE APPROXIMATE AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE)
THE NEXT VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR EVENING MEETING
WILL BEGIN AT 6 P.M. TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 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 Councii Evening Meeting Minutes
Tuesday, December 21, 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: .Dick Cleveland, Mayor Pro-Tem
Diana Donovan,
Farrow Hitt,
Kent Logan
Greg Moffet
Kim Ruotolo,
Rod Slifer, Mayor
Staff Members: Stan Zemler, Town Manager
Matt Mire, Town Attorney
Pam Brandmeyer, Asst. Town Manager
The first item on the agenda was Citizen Participation. Ron Wolfe, recently elected
Mayor of Avon, extended the Town of Avon's commitment to work with the Town of Vail
on any project/issue of mutual interest at the state or county level.
Scott Proper, Vail Recreation District Board Member, reported increased ice
programming at Dobson Arena was available as well as free skating on Christmas and
New Year's Eve day with extended hours. Proper also stated snowshoeing and cross-
country skiing are accessible at the Vail Golf Course.
Paul Rondeau stated many residents of the Town of Vail have an expectation of an open
and public process regarding future decisions related to the Vail Conference Center.
Logan, a member of the Conference Center Oversight Committee, noted the advisory
group had held 45 public meetings and would continue to keep the process visible and
accessible to the public.
The second item on the agenda was the Youth Ambassador Recognition. On behalf of
the Vail Valley Exchange, Scott O'Connell introduced the 2004/05 Vail Valley Youth
Ambassador Award recipients: Natalie Thoburne, from Benalla Shire; Geoff Ham, from
Mansfield Shire; Christina Harrison, Battle Mountain High School; and Kyle Moore,
Battle Mountain High School. Merv Lapin, a member of the Vail Valley Exchange Board,
thanked Council for its support of the Youth Ambassador program. Lapin then
encouraged Council to look back at the value of exchanges and comparative trips the
town had supported and taken part in the past. Lapin specifically encouraged the
regeneration of the relationship with Vail's sister city, St. Moritz. Slifer also expressed
enthusiasm for the program and stated he had recently been in touch with officials from
St. Moritz on another matter:
The third item on the agenda was the Police Department Recognition of Code
Enforcement Officer Moses Gonzales. Police Chief Dwight Henninger announced
Moses Gonzales was being awarded the Bronze Wreath ofi Meritorious service fior
providing outstanding service to the citizens of the Town of Vail and Eagle County. The
award was a result of being recommended by Gonzales' peers. In particular, Gonzales
was commended for organizing the annual food drive, the "shop with a cop" program,
the Colorado Peace Officers Ski-Snowboard Race and other activities.
The fourth item on the agenda was the appointment of Board Members to the Vail Local
Marketing District Advisory Council (VLMDAC). J. Scott Gubrud, Robert Llewellyn, Beth
Slifer and Pamela Stenmark were appointed by Council to the Vail Local Marketing
District Advisory Council. Council also accepted Vail Resorts' recommendation to
appoint Ian Arthur as a representative to the board from the company. Moffet moved
and Cleveland seconded the motion to approve. The motion passed unanimously, 7-0.
The fifth item on the agenda was the Consent Agenda. Moffet moved and Hitt
seconded a motion to approve the Nov. 2 and Nov. 16 evening session minutes. The
motion passed unanimously, 7-0.
The sixth item on the agenda was the Seibert Circle Redesign process. Following a
discussion during the work session, Council agreed to postpone additional review in
which direction is being sought for the potential redesign of Seibert Circle at the top of
Bridge Street in Vail Village. Council agreed to. discuss the matter during the Jan. 18
evening session. Town Manager Stan Zemler said comprehensive cost estimates for
several design possibilities would be provided prior to the meeting. Vail Resorts has
offered to earmark $500,000 of a $1 million streetscape commitment to add a new, year-
round feature to Seibert Circle, which would require relocation of the granite art pieces
currently in place. Public Works Director Greg Hall stated it was estimated relocating the
existing art would cost $100,000. Both Council and Jay Peterson, representing Vail
Resorts, expressed interest in reviewing all potential design options. Numerous options
were discussed, varying from maintaining the status quo to constructing a large
water/fire feature surrounded by heated pavers. The Art in Public Paces (AIPP) board
and the streetscape Design Committee reported they had been exploring potential
design possibilities for the past several months. Moffet moved, with Cleveland
seconding the motion to approve. The motion passed unanimously, 7-0.
The seventh item on the agenda was the Vail Memorial Park. The Council voted 5-0 to
include $50,000 in the 2006 budget as a donation to tf~e Vail Memorial Park endowment
fund. Moffet moved and Logan seconded the motion. Donovan and Slifer voluntarily
recused themselves from the discussion as they both served on the Memorial Park
Foundation Board of Directors. Rev. Carl Walker, foundation chairman, announced 17
percent of the memorials developed in the first phase of the park had been sold,
subsequently requiring additional development of the next phase within two to three
years. In 2003, Council granted a $50,000 loan to the foundation to cover start up costs
including design and construction of the park. Walker reported the board of directors for
the park was now in a position to start re-payment of the loan; however, asked for
Council's consideration to accept the contribution of that original amount, entitling the
town to become a "benefactor" of the Memorial Park. Council did not choose to forgive
the loan as it would set precedent. Instead, the town pledged, subject to appropriation, a
donation in 2006 after the loan would be repaid.
The eighth item on the agenda was a request to purchase tap fees for the proposed
Conference Center location in 2004. Council authorized the Town Manager to spend up
to $298,000 for water and sewer taps for the Charter Bus Lot site prior to December 31,
2004. Moffet moved and Logan seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously,
7-0. It was reported after this date water and sewer tap fees would increase significantly
and the tap fees are transferable or can stay with the land if the Conference Center is
not built. Donovan expressed concern the tap fees were not transferable, prompting
Council to require Eagle River Water & Sanitation District (ERW&SD) to guarantee in
writing the transferability of the fees. Logan and Slifer then announced the Conference
Center Oversight Committee would not be in a position to make a recommendation on a
bond sale in February as had been initially proposed. Instead, the group recommended
allowing time for the design phase to materialize to more accurately estimate the cost of
the project. It was reported the project designers would continue to move forward
developing the building schematics. Logan also stated the committee would revisit key
operating assumptions so as to be able to provide more accurate operating estimates as
they relate to potential deficits. Donovan asked why the center concept No. #1 was not
further elucidated pictorially as she believed Council had asked the designers to do. Hitt
reiterated Donovan's comments. Zemler responded he believed the designers had only
been asked to produce a summertime depiction of option No. #3. Jokingly, Cleveland
stated he believed he could gamer enough support to change the design concept to
option no. #2. Logan reinforced the decision to allow more time for design development
was not a delay, only a change in aself-imposed time line. Hitt stated he believed the
decision was prudent. Moffet announced any increase in interest rates would be
mitigated by additional sales tax accumulation.
The ninth 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 in introducing the item, Town Attorney Matt Mire stated due to a
publication error, the ordinance, previously approved on first reading during the Dec. 7
meeting, would need to be reread. The motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Moffet moved
and Cleveland seconded the motion to approve.
The tenth item on the agenda was the second reading of Ordinance No. #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 second reading. Moffet moved and
Ruotolo seconded the motion. Mire and Jay Peterson, representing Vail Resorts,
announced the vacation was only one small aspect of a larger land swap occurring
between the town and Vail Resorts. Mire did ask Council to ask for Vail Resorts
assurance they would not record the vacation until the town was able to exchange
parcels. Peterson established Vail Resorts would agree to the request. Moffet moved
and Ruotolo seconded the motion to approve.
The eleventh item on the agenda was the Town Manager's Report. Zemler announced
the town's community meeting would be held from 4 to 6 p.m. Thursday, Dec. 30, at the
Donovan Pavilion.
Noting several recent tragedies, Hitt asked the community to keep the families of those
individuals in their prayers.
~-~.,
The twelfth item on the
approximately 7:10 p.m.
passed unanimously, 7-0.
Respectfully Submitted,
agenda was adjournment. The meeting was adjourned a1
Moffet moved and Ruotolo seconded the motion. The motion
Rodney E. Slifer, Mayor
ATTEST:
Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk
Minutes provided by Corey Swisher.
Vail Town Council Evening Meeting Minutes
Tuesday, January 4, 2005
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: Dick Cleveland, Mayor Pro-Tem
Diana Donovan,
Farrow Hitt,
Kent Logan
Greg Moffet
Kim Ruotolo,
Rod Slifer, Mayor
Staff Members: Stan Zemler, Town Manager
Matt Mire, Town Attorney
Pam Brandmeyer, Asst. Town Manager
The first item on the agenda was Citizen Input.' Kaye Ferry, executive director of the
Vail Chamber and Business Association, announced an account at WestStar Bank had
been opened to accept donations for Tsunami flood victims, with 100 percent of the
money collected going directly to the Red Cross Tsunami Fund.
The second item on the agenda was the Consent Agenda. Council unanimously
approved, 7-0, with one modification from Donovan, the Dec. 7 evening session minutes.
Moffet moved and Cleveland seconded the motion to approve.
The third item on the agenda was the review and approval to direct the Town Manager
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. Council agreed to postpone
commenting on the draft IGA until the Town Attorney, Matt Mire, had the opportunity to
adequately review the document. Mire stated he had recently contacted both the VRD
and school district attorney, and a thorough review of the document. would begin
immediately.
The fourth item on the agenda was the Annual Appointment of Newspaper of Record for
Town of Vail Publications and Notice for 2005. Council unanimously voted, 7-0, to
appoint the Vail Daily as the newspaper of record for the Town of Vail. In response to
Council inquiries, Assistant Town Manager Pam Brandmeyer reported rates had
increased from the previous year. Moffet moved and Ruotolo seconded the motion to
approve.
The fifth item on the agenda was appointments to the Vail Commission on Special
Events. lan Anderson, Dave Chapin, and Richard tenBraak were appointed by Council to
~S~
two-year terms on the Commission on Special Events. Steve Rosenthal, Todd Gerhke
and Mark Gordon were appointed to one-year terms on the same board.
The sixth item on the agenda was an I-70 Noise Mitigation Study Update. Since April
2004, Hankard Environmental Inc. was 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 contained 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. During the meeting, Hankard Environmental
presented an update on the study and associated findings, which included
recommendations for quiet asphalt, continued traffic: enforcement, noise barriers and
mitigation education for affected properties.
This overview summarizes noise mitigation recommendations based on the work, to
date, by Hankard Environmental. The recommendations are broken down into source,
receiver and path controls. A brief description of the Icey differences in types of controls
is provided first, followed by a description of each recommended noise mitigation
measure.
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 Colorado Department of
Transportation (CDOT) coordination, and covering the roadway has complex
engineering, logistical, monetary 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 dB of noise.. reduction to those..
located within 300 feet of the barrier. Barriers are not very effective for receptors
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.
Representing Hankard Enviornmental Inc., Mike Hankard and Ralph Trapani
recommended the Town of Vail consider each of the aforementioned noise mitigation
measures. Both gentlemen stressed none of the options are simple or straightforward,
~.
as the problem of I-70 noise has slowly evolved over the past three decades. Traffic
volumes and speeds increased slowly but steadily, and property development continued
in relatively close proximity to the highway. It was estimated in the 1970's the loudest
daytime hour highway noise levels were in the 55 dBA range, a tolerable level to most
people. Levels now hover in the 65 to 70 dBA range, levels that begin to annoy people.
Council directed Zemler to pursue all options deemed financially feasible, and to.seek
potential collaborative partners investigating similar noise mitigation measures. Ruotolo
asked if the town was able to develop a reliable rubberized asphalt compound, could the
town patent it. The Hankard representatives stated there was a possibility. Moffet
stated he believed the citizens of Vail would not be willing.to mitigate noise on their own
noise Logan inquired as to the success of the town's vehicular speed control measures.
Henniger stated 900 motor vehicles had been stopped and one hundred tickets issued.
Henninger reported a three mile an hour reduction in speed had been recognized on I-
70, since the mitigation program had been undertaken.
The seventh item on the agenda was a Request to Proceed through the Development
Review Process with a Proposal to Construct aSchool/Community Garden on Town of Vail
Property. Kay Graybill and Kristen Lester requested Council permission to construct a
school/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. The request did not receive Council approval, failing 2-5, with
Moffet and Ruotolo voting for approval. The majority of Council felt a discrepancy existed
between what was submitted and viewed during a site visit earlier in the day, and what the
parties requested during their formal Council session presentation. The Town Council
serves the role of "property owner" for all Town of Vail owned property and must consent to
the applicants proceeding through the town's development review process. Zemler stated
the project would be further investigated, discrepancies clarified and returned to Council for
re-consideration. Ruotolo stated she understood the application process was difficult and
encouraged the applicants to keep pursuing the garden.
The eighth item on the agenda was the 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. Council
unanimously approved, 7-0, the amendments requested by staff to allow the Town
Manager and/or the Chief of Police flexibility to ' re-route the horse carriages when
needed due to construction and changes in the carriage staging area. Moffet moved
and Cleveland seconded the motion to approve.. The amendments also increased the
penalty assessment for a first violation of this section of the Vail Town Code from $5 to
$50. Slifer requested the carriages be required to follow traffic laws. Logan inquired as to
why this matter had come before Council. Henninger responded it was due to a few
recent incidents.
The ninth item on the agenda was the 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.
Council approved, 6-1, to table the item to May 3, 2005. Cleveland moved and Moffet
seconded the motion to approve. Hitt dissented, stating he believed the original
ordinance from 2004 should not be continued so far into 2005.
The tenth item on the agenda was the 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. Council
unanimously approved, 7-0, second reading of the ordinance. Moffet moved and
Ruotolo seconded the motion to approve.
The eleventh item on the agenda was 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.
Council unanimously approved, 7-0, the Resolution. Moffet moved and Ruotolo
seconded the motion to approve. Pursuant to Section 24-6-402(2) (c) of the C.R.S. ~as
amended, this resolution provides 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.
The twelfth item on the agenda was the Town Manager's Report.
- Tipsy Taxi
Town Manager Stan Zemler asked if there were any questions regarding a memo
provided by Police Chief Dwight Henninger regarding the possibility of reinstating Tipsy
Taxi services in Vail. Having requested information on the service, Moffet stated if there
was no impetus from the restaurant community, he would not pursue the item.
Cleveland reported the Eagle County Regional Transportation Authority (ECO) may offer
bus passes to inebriated people in the future; however, any planning is strictly
preliminary.
- Vail Valley Convention & Tourism Bureau (WCTB) Update
The WCTB Visitors Center Operation report was provided. Donovan asked why the
Sitzmark and Evergreen received more reservations than other properties. Several
council members responded it was due to pricing.
The thirteenth item on the agenda was adjournment. The meeting was adjourned at
approximately 8:20 p.m. Moffet moved and Ruotolo seconded the motion. The motion
passed unanimously, 7-0.
Rodney E. Slifer, Mayor
ATTEST:
Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk
Minutes provided by Corey Swisher.
_.
~~.
Vail Town Council Evening Meeting Minutes
Tuesday, January 18, 2005
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: Dick Cleveland, Mayor Pro-Tem
Diana Donovan,
Farrow Hitt,
Kent Logan
Greg Moffet
Kim Ruotolo,
Rod Slifer, Mayor
Staff Members: Stan Zemler, Town Manager
Matt Mire, Town Attorney
Pam Brandmeyer, Asst. Town Manager
The first item on the agenda was Citizen Input. Displaying photographs of recent
problems in her neighborhood, Sybill Navas asked that trash/waste receptacles of
suitable size be required at homes being "rented ouY' and appropriate waste
management services be provided.
The second item on the agenda was the Ratification of the Vail Gymnastics Center
Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) between the Town of Vail, the Vail Recreation
District (VRD), and the Eagle County School district, RE50J. Town Attorney Matt Mire
announced the town had entered into a 60-day operating agreement with the VRD and
RE50J, as the entities' attorneys continued to work on a lease for facility.
The third item on the agenda was the Second Reading of Ordinance No. #2, Series of
2005, amending Title 6, Article A; "Carriage Operations," of the Municipal code of the
Town of Vail; and setting forth details in regard thereto. Council unanimously approved,
7-0, on second reading the amendments requested by staff to allow the Town Manager
and/or the Police Chief flexibility to re-route the horse carriages when needed due to
construction and changes in the carriage staging area. The amendments also increased
the penalty assessment for a first violation of this section of the Vail Town Code from $5
to $50. Police Chief Dwight Henninger clarified the ordinance prescribes routes the
carriages may take and time schedules they may operate. Hitt questioned whether
carriages were allowed to cross the covered bridge located behind Manor Vail, crossing
Gore Creek leading to Ford Park. Henninger stated no, and specified he would talk to
the carriage operators to make sure his drivers avoid the bridge. During the opportunity
for public input, local resident George Knox stated more attention needed to be paid to
removing horse manure from the village streets. Cleveland clarified the carriage
operating agreement describes how manure is to be removed and should be enforced.
Moffet moved and Ruotolo seconded the motion to approve.
The fiourth item- on-the- agenda was a Conference Center Update. Scott Dergance,
representing conference center architects Fentress Bradburn, discussed the evolution
and future of the conference center's currently proposed design. Dergance provided
detailed massing model photos and computer generated study sketches of the proposed
conference center. Community Development Director Russell Forrest stated the
Conference Center Advisory Committee agreed to not pursue a guaranteed maximum
price until the design. process moved further along. Donovan stated the center's design
was "atrocious" and said she was sorry the town was heading in this direction
architecturally. Donovan also asked why the center was not being designed as a multi-
use facility. Ruotolo also stated she was very uncomfortable with the direction the
center was taking. Forrest asked that if the Council had problems with the design, to
acknowledge such, and give staff further direction, prior to a significant investment in the
current design. Council then voted 6-1 (Donovan opposed), to continue to pursue the
present design with particular attention spent. on identifying appropriate materials for the
roof. As such, project designers were asked to provide examples/illustrations of
alternative roof materials, including sod. During a pause for public comment, Jim
Arraind stated he thought the design team was fabulous, however the center's present
design reminded him of a church. Georgine Burton communicated she thought the
center's design was "appalling." Bill Rey inquired as to if the proposed copper roof would
oxidize, subsequently staining the structure.
The fifth item on the agenda was a Work Session type presentation to review the proposed
Crossroads Redevelopment and Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC)
Recommendation, prior to scheduling a first reading of an amending ordinance. Russ
Forrest, Director of Community Development, began the presentation by stating master
planning and zoning of the proposed Crossroads redevelopment site had not been
addressed for a number of years. Forrest then emphasized if Council needs more time or
work sessions, to let the Community Development Department know, since the project is
large and potentially difficult to wholly understand. He then advised Council to listen to all
presentations and ask questions to more fully understand the Crossroads redevelopment
proposal. Warren Campbell, Senior Planner, provided an overview illustrating the project in
terms of its compliance with town code and various master plans. The presentation included
descriptions of the deviations requested and the impacts associated with those deviations,
both positive and negative._ In addition,.. the.. presentation_ included_ a__ description_..of_ the.
proposed public benefits, with staff concluding proposed public benefits did not outweigh the
deviations proposed. Campbell stated the project would establish precedent for other
properties. Slifer noted that each project brought before Council is approved on its own
merits. Jeff Winston, town planning consultant, provided a computer generated model of a
"walking tour" of the proposed project. Winston clarified ~ staff recommended design
alterations affecting the character of the building would eventually impact bulk and mass of
the building. Representing the applicant Peter Knoble, Dominic Mauriello, stated the PEC
would not adequately be able to appropriately address the project until they received
specific direction .from Council. Council requested a comprehensive height comparison
report/presentation. Logan requested a quantification of public benefits, similar to those
provided by Vail Resorts for the Lionshead Core Site redevelopment. Ruotolo requested an
explanation/definition of public benefits. Hitt questioned why the project's rental program had
not been addressed publicly. Mauriello explained a comprehensive program has been
developed by local property manager Stan Cope. Hitt also asked for an explanation of a
1~..'
parking club. Mauriello responded the project's parking capacity would facilitate the
diversion of traffic from the town owned parking structures. The following is a summary of
the questions/concerns raised by Council and asked to be reviewed/explained in the near
future:
- Define, Evaluate, and Quantify Public Benefits
- Ability of Fire Department to Protect the Project
- Operating Description of the Private Parking Club
- Provide a Scale Visual Model
- Provide Height Overlays
- Public Loading/Delivery Availability
- Public Plaza Event Mock-up
- Employee Housing Unit Requirements and Plan
- Encroachments into Town Right-Of-Way
- Reevaluate Bulk & Mass
- Trash Dumpster Location in Project
- Concerns Over Success of Maintaining Ice Rink Ice
- Concerns Over Encroachments into Setbacks
- Concerns Over Exhaust Vents in Northwest Corner of Site
- Concerns About Similarities of Commercial Spaces
- Clarity on Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) Involvement
Ron Byrne, Sean Byrne, Jason Perez, Colleen McCarthy, Roberta Sheller, Scott Rutherford,
Pay Mitchell, Bill Hewitt, Sheika Gramshammer, Paul Hields, George Knox, Randal
Martinez, Mark Gordon, Stan Cope, and Paul Frezzaca spoke in support of the project.
Elaine Kelton, Ann Bishop, Craig Cohen, Ernie Sheller, Bill Rey, Tom Steinberg, Hans
Uldrich, and Dean Hall either expressed concern or asked for more detailed information
regarding the project. Project applicant, Peter Knoble, thanked Council for their time,
attention to the project, and willingness to cooperate.
The sixth item on the agenda was the Town Manager's Report.
- Request for Support of the Proposed Eaton Ranch Open Space Acquisition by
the Vail Valley Foundation. Ceil Folz, Vail Valley Foundation President,
presented a request for support for the potential Eaton Ranch Open Space
acquisition in Edwards, saying it would enhance quality of life in the Vail Valley.
Ron Wolfe, Eagle County Open Space Committee Chairman and Town of Avon
Mayor, expressed his belief the project, although the land was technically an
"urban playground," would lead the way for future open space acquisition.
Council unanimously approved, 7-0, to support the program with stipulations on
the amount of money to be used for the acquisition and the land's future uses.
Moffet moved and Logan seconded the motion to approve. Council did impose
three conditions as they reflect the recommendation from the Citizen's Open
Space Advisory Committee:
1) No more than $3 million dollars be allocated to the project from the
County's Open Space Fund.
2) The property is covered in its entirety by a permanent conservation
easement, ensuring that it will be protected as open space in
perpetuity and never sold or developed by Eagle County for other
purposes.
tt
3) All County funding, from all sources, would be contingent upon the
Vail Valley Foundation raising, in full (their portion of) the $12 million
purchase price by the sale deadline.
Council also suggested the unincorporated Edwards area participate monetarily
and County Commissioners remain aware municipalities in the county, including
Vail, would eventually be relying on open space funding support.
- East Meadow Drive streetscape Design Committee. Town Manager Stan Zemler
recommended the town continue with the current streetscape committee
membership, unless any current members would wish to be replaced. Zemler
noted the streetscape committee, as composed, has been effective and
successful in guiding the Village streetscape project. Representing East Meadow
Drive business owners, Rick Scalpello expressed concerns the East Meadow
Drive streetscape project was not thorough enough. Public Works Director Greg
Hall stated East Meadow Drive improvements are included in the 2007 Capital
Improvements Budget and plans are being addressed. Donovan expressed
concern the proposed improvements had become a staff project and did not
encapsulate enough community and council input.
- Community Meeting Date
Zemler reported town staff had a "hold" on several dates for the next Annual
Community meeting. The Council selected January 12, 2006.
--Adjournment.
The meeting adjourned at approximately 11:15 p.m. Ruotolo moved and Moffet
seconded the motion to adjourn. The motion passed unanimously, 7-0.
Rodney E. Slifer, Mayor
ATTEST:
Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk
Minutes provided by Corey Swisher.
1 ~.
s ~~
PLAZA ~'~~°c~,
LODGE ~
RED
LION
~P~SO~ PO
~G~
~'
HILL
BUILDING
GRANITE COBBLE AREA
GRANITE STEPS AND AMPHITHEATER
CONCRETE PAVEMENT
EXISTING TREE
~-LANDSCAPE PLANTER
AIL SEIBERT CIRCLE -EXISTING STREETSCAPE
i _ - -- _- K ~~ ~~kiM - - S.- ~~~
s~~~
PLAZA ~'~~
LODGE ~
RED
LION
BRIDGE
STREET
BUILDING
no-rlnnl n
PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS:
- SMALL WATER FEATURE AT COBBLE AREA
- ALL OTHER EXISTING STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS REMAIN IN
~
o PLACE
~PG~op CONSTRAINTS:
~~ ~ - NO FIRE PIT CAN BE INCORPORATED
- WATER FEATURE IS LIMITED DUE TO SIZE OF WATER LINE
CONNECTION AND INABILITY TO INSTALL UNDERGROUND
FOUNTAIN VAULT
-CHARACTER OF MATERIALS WILL REMAIN SOMEWHAT
DIFFERENT FROM REMAINDER OF STREETSCAPE
- DETERIORATING CONCRETE PAVEMENT WILL STILL NEED
REPLACEMENT IN FUTURE
- JESUS MOROLES SCULPTURES AND GRANITE STEPS REMAIN
REMOVE GRANITE COBBLE AREA LIMITING EXTENT OF CHANGES AND PLAZA RETAINS
INSTALL WATER FEATURE CONTEMPORARY CHARACTER
JESUS MOROLES SCULPTURE,
GRANITE STEPS PRELIMINARY BUDGET:
AND AMPHITHEATER REMAIN $10
000
CONCRETE PAVEMENT ,
SITE DEMOLITION
REMAINS SNOWMELT IMPROVEMENTS $10,000
STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS $5,000
WATER FEATURE IMPROVEMENTS $80,000
GENERAL CONDITIONS AND CONTINGENCY $45,000
PRELIMINARY BUDGET $150,000
AIL SEIBERT CIRCLE - OPTION A -MINOR RENOVATION
VAIL VILLAGE SEIBERT CIRCLE
OPTION A -MINOR RENOVATION
PRELIMINARY OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COSTS
FEBRUARY 1, 2005
ESTIMATED UNIT ITEM
DESCRIPTION QUANTITY COST COST
SITE DEMOLITION
REMOVAL OF GRANITE COBBLE AND CONCRETE SUB-SLAB 400 SF $4.50 $ 1,800.00
SITE PREPARATION AND EXCAVATION 1 LS $5,000.00 $ 5,000.00
DUST CONTROL 1 LS $1,500.00 $ 1,500.00
WATER CONTROL 1 LS $1,000.00 $ 1,000.00
SUBTOTAL $ 9,300.00
SNOWMELT IMPROVEMENTS
SNOWMELT REPAIR, REBALANCING, AND SYSTEM 1 LS $10,000.00 $ 10,000.00
RECHARGE
SUBTOTAL $ 10,000.00
STREETSCAPEIMPROVEMENTS
MODIFICATION AND REPAIR OF DAMAGED CONCRETE 1 LS $5,000.00 $ 5,000.00
AND STONE
SUBTOTAL $ 5,000.00
MAIN FEATURE IMPROVEMENTS
PUMP SYSTEM, PRECAST VAULT, ELECTRICAL 1 LS
CONNECTIONS, AND CONTROLS
STONE MASONRY FOR FEATURE 400 SF
CONCRETE FOUNDATION 15 CY
WATERPROOFING 400 SF
GENERAL CONDITIONS AND CONTINGENCY
GENERAL CONDITIONS
CONSTRUCTION SURVEYING 1 LS
$30,000.00 $ 30,000.00
$75.00 $ 30,000.00
$1,200.00 $ 18,000.00
$7.00 $ 2,800.00
SUBTOTAL $ 80,800.00
$1,000.00 $ 1,000.00
ESTIMATED
DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT
COST ITEM
COST
TRAFFIC CONTROL 1 LS $3,000.00 $ 3,000.00
MOBILIZATION (DEMOBILIZATION) 1 LS $7,500.00 $ 7,500.00
SUBTOTAL $ 11,500.00
CONTINGENCY
PROJECT MANAGEMENT/TOWN OF VAIL DIRECT COSTS $ 13,992.00
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND DESIGN COSTS $ 15,000.00
TOWN OF VAIL DIRECT COSTS $ 4,000.00
SUBTOTAL $ 44,492.00
PRELIMINARY PROJECT COSTS $ 149,592.00
PLAZA
LODGE
HILL
BUILDING
s ~~a
~~~~~~
I ~` 1'~;
/~~
OPTION B
PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS:
- FEATURE AT GRANITE COBBLE AREA CAPABLE
OF SUPPORTING FIRE AND WATER
- COBBLED PAVING IN LIEU OF EXISTING CONCRETE
~P~1~QOP~ -JESUS MORALES SCULPTURES AND GRANITE STEPS REMAIN
~~G~ ~ CONSTRAINTS:
- JESUS MOROLES SCULPTURES AND GRANITE STEPS REMAIN
LIMITING EXTENT OF CHANGES AND PLAZA RETAINS
CONTEMPORARY CHARACTER
PRELIMINARY BUDGET:
SITE DEMOLITION $35,000
REMOVE GRANITE COBBLE AREA INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS $30,000
INSTALL FOUR SEASON FEATURE
SNOWMELT IMPROVEMENTS $100,000
IESUS MOROLES SCULPTURE,
GRANITE STEPS STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS $120
000
AND AMPHITHEATER REMAIN ,
REMOVE CONCRETE PAVEMENT MAIN FEATURE IMPROVEMENTS $250,000
AND REPLACE WITH SNOWMELT
AND COBBLED PAVERS GENERAL CONDITIONS AND CONTINGENCY $200,000
PRELIMINARY BUDGET $735,000
RED
LION
BRIDGE
STREET
BUILDING
i
I
AIL SEIBERT CIRCLE - OPTION B - PARTIAL RENOVATION
VAIL VILLAGE SEIBERT CIRCLE
OPTION B -PARTIAL RENOVATION
PRELIMINARY OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COSTS
FEBRUARY 1, 2005
DESCRIPTION
ESTIMATED UNIT ITEM
QUANTITY COST COST
SITE DEMOLITION
REMOVAL OF CONCRETE PAVEMENT
REMOVAL OF GRANITE AND CONCRETE SUB-SLAB
REMOVAL OF LIGHT POLE AND BASE
REMOVAL OF LANDSCAPE AREA
REMOVAL OF STORM DRAINAGE INLETS
TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION FENCING
TEMPORARY UTILITIES
DUST CONTROL
WATER CONTROL
TREE & EXISTING PLANTER PROTECTION
INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS
4 INCH POTABLE WATER SERVICE LINE
STORM MANHOLE, 4' DIAMETER
PVC STORM PIPE
FOUNTAIN DRAIN CONNECTION
UTILITY TRENCH
UTILITY PULLBOX
SNOWMELT IMPROVEMENTS
SNOWMELT SYSTEM (TUBING, MANIFOLD, AND CONTROL
CONNECTIONS)
4,925 SF $2.75 $ 13,543.75
400 SF $4.50 $ 1,800.00
3 EA $500.00 $ 1,500.00
1 LS $2,000.00 $ 2,000.00
1 EA $1,500.00 $ 1,500.00
1 LS $2,000.00 $ 2,000.00
1. LS $2,000.00 $ 2,000.00
,1 LS $5,000.00 $ 5,000.00
1 LS $5,000.00 $ 5,000.00
1 LS $500.00 $ 500.00
SUBTOTAL $ 34,843.75
1 LS $5,000.00 $ 5,000.00
1 EA $1,866.00 $ 1,866.00
85 LF $108.25 $ 9,201.25
1 EA $5,571.00 $ 5,571.00
85 LF $96.56 $ 8,377.60
1 EA $3,320.00 $ 3,320.00
SUBTOTAL $ 33,335.85
6,689 SF $15.00 $ 100,335.00
SUBTOTAL $ 100,335.00
STREETSCAPEIMPROVEMENTS
DESCRIPTION
ESTIMATED UNIT ITEM
QUANTITY COST COST
EARTHWORK
AGGREGATE BASE COURSE
ASPHALT PAVEMENT
CONCRETE UNIT PAVERS - 80MM
LIGHT POLE AND CONCRETE BASE
FEATURE LIGHTS
EVENT POWER RECEPTACLES
HOLIDAY LIGHTING RECEPTACLES
ELECTRICAL CONNECTIONS
MAIN FEATURE IMPROVEMENTS
PUMP SYSTEM, PRECAST VAULT, ELECTRICAL
CONNECTIONS, AND CONTROLS
STONE MASONRY FOR FEATURE
CONCRETE FOUNDATION
SCULPTURAL COMPONENTS
GENERAL CONDITIONS AND CONTINGENCY
GENERAL CONDITIONS
CONSTRUCTION SURVEYING
TRAFFIC CONTROL
MOBILIZATION (DEMOBILIZATION)
CONTINGENCY
PROJECT MANAGEMENT/TOWN OF VAIL DIRECT COSTS
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND DESIGN COSTS
TOWN OF VAIL DIRECT COSTS
^1 LS $5,000.00 $ 5,000.00
268 TON $40.28 $ 10,795.04
313 TON $66.57 $ 20,836.41
6,000 SF $8.60 $ 51,600.00
1 EA $8,000.00 $ 8,000.00
4 EA $3,500.00 $ 14,000.00
1 EA $1,429.00 $ 1,429.00
2 EA $1,236.00 $ 2,472.00
1 EA $6,392.00 $ 6,392.00
SUBTOTAL , $ 120,524.45
1 LS $75,000.00 $ 75,000.00
400 SF $300.00 $ 120,000.00
20 CY $1,200.00 $ 24,000.00
1 LS $7,500.00 $ 7,500.00
SUBTOTAL $ 226,500.00
1 LS $5,000.00 $ 5,000.00
1 LS $25,000.00 $ 25,000.00
1 LS $50,000.00 $ 50,000.00
SUBTOTAL $ 80,000.00
$ 71,464:69
$ 66,700.37
$ 8,000.00
SUBTOTAL $ 226,165.06
ESTIMATED UNIT ITEM
DESCRIPTION QUANTITY COST COST
PRELIMINARY PROJECT COSTS $ 741,704.11
i
i
I
;i
i
PLAZA
LODGE
~ ~~o ,
~~~~0~
RED
LION
OPTION C
PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS:
- FOUR-SEASON FEATURE WITH THE POTENTIAL FOR WATER ,
FIRE, ICE, SOUND, PERFORMANCE, AND LIGHTING.
- COBBLED PAVING IN LIEU OF EXISTING CONCRETE
- JESUS MOROLES SCULPTURES AND GRANITE STEPS ARE REMOVED
CONSTRAINTS:
- RELOCATION COSTS OF JESUS MOROLES
SCULPTURE AND STEPS
PRELIMINARY BUDGET:
HILL ~ ' ~ SITE DEMOLITION $55,000
BUILDING INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS $30,000
COMPLETE RENOVATION OF SNOWMELT IMPROVEMENTS $100,000
SEIBERT CIRCLE WITH STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS $130,000
.,~ ~ FOUR-SEASON FOCAL FEATURE
ALL JESUS MOROLES SCULPTURES MAIN FEATURE IMPROVEMENTS $500,000
REMOVED
GENERAL CONDITIONS AND CONTINGENCY $325,000
BRIDGE PRELIMINARY BUDGET $1,140,000
STREET PROPOSED VAIL RESORTS COST SHARE ($500,000)
BUILDING RELOCATION OF $300,000
JESUS MOROLES SCULPTURE
PRELIMINARY TOWN PROJECT BUDGET $940,000
AIL SEIBERT CIRCLE - OPTION C -COMPLETE RENOVATION *AIPP RECOMMENDATION*
VAIL VILLAGE SEIBERT CIRCLE
OPTION C -COMPLETE RENOVATION
PRELIMINARY OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COSTS
FEBRUARY 1, 2005
DESCRIPTION
ESTIMATED UNIT ITEM
QUANTITY COST COST
SITE DEMOLITION
REMOVAL OF CONCRETE PAVEMENT
REMOVAL OF GRANITE AND CONCRETE SUB-SLAB
REMOVAL OF LIGHT POLE AND BASE
REMOVAL OF LANDSCAPE AREA
REMOVAL OF STORM DRAINAGE INLETS
TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION FENCING
TEMPORARY UTILITIES
DUST CONTROL
WATER CONTROL
TREE & EXISTING PLANTER PROTECTION
INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS
4 INCH POTABLE WATER SERVICE LINE
STORM MANHOLE, 4' DIAMETER
PVC STORM PIPE
FOUNTAIN DRAIN CONNECTION
UTILITY TRENCH
UTILITY PULLBOX
SNOWMELT IMPROVEMENTS
SNOWMELT SYSTEM (TUBING, MANIFOLD, AND CONTROL
CONNECTIONS)
4,925 SF $2.75 $ 13,543.75
2,530 SF $4.00 $ 10,120.00
3 EA $500.00 $ 1,500.00
1 LS $2,000,00 $ 2,000.00
1 EA $1,500,00 $ 1,500.00
1 LS $2,000.00 $ 2,000.00
1 LS $2,000.00 $ 2,000.00
1 LS $5,000.00 $ 5,000.00
1 LS $5,000.00 $ 5,000.00
1 LS $500.00 $ 500.00
SUBTOTAL $ 43,163.75
1 LS $5,000.00 $ 5,000.00
1 EA $1,866.00 $ 1,866.00
85 LF $108.25 $ 9,201.25
1 EA $5,571.00 $ 5,571.00
85 LF $98.56 $ 8,377.60
1 EA $3,320.00 $ 3,320.00
SUBTOTAL $ 33,335.85
6,689 SF $15.00 $ 100,335.00
SUBTOTAL $ 100,335.00
STREETSCAPEIMPROVEMENTS
DESCRIPTION
ESTIMATED UNIT ITEM
QUANTITY COST COST
EARTHWORK
AGGREGATE BASE COURSE
ASPHALT PAVEMENT
CONCRETE UNIT PAVERS - 80MM
LIGHT POLE AND CONCRETE BASE
FEATURE LIGHTS
EVENT POWER RECEPTACLES
HOLIDAY LIGHTING RECEPTACLES
ELECTRICAL CONNECTIONS
MAIN FEATURE IMPROVEMENTS
PUMP SYSTEM, PRECAST VAULT, ELECTRICAL
CONNECTIONS, AND CONTROLS
STONE MASONRY FOR FEATURE
CONCRETE FOUNDATION
SCULPTURAL COMPONENTS
GENERAL CONDITIONS AND CONTINGENCY
GENERAL CONDITIONS
CONSTRUCTION SURVEYING
TRAFFIC CONTROL
MOBILIZATION (DEMOBILIZATION)
CONTINGENCY
PROJECT MANAGEMENT/TOWN OF VAIL DIRECT COSTS
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND DESIGN COSTS
TOWN OF VAIL DIRECT COSTS
1 LS $5,000.00 $ 5,000.00
268 TON $40.28 $ 10,795.04
313 TON $66.57 $ 20,836.41
6,689 SF $8.60 $ 57,525.40
1 EA $8,000.00 $ 8,000.00
4 EA $3,500.00 $ 14,000.00
1 EA $1,429.00 $ 1,429.00
2 EA $1,236.00 $ 2,472.00
1 EA $6,392.00 $ 6,392.00
SUBTOTAL $ 126,449.85
1 LS $100,000.00 $ 100,000.00
800 SF $400.00 $ 320,000.00
45 CY $1,200.00 $ 54,000.00
1 LS $25,000.00 $ 25,000.00
SUBTOTAL $ 499,000.00
1 LS $6,000.00 $ 6,000.00
1 LS $35,000.00 $ 35,000.00
1 LS $75,000.00 $ 75,000.00
SUBTOTAL $ 116,000.00
$ 110,194.13
$ 102,847.86
$ 10,000.00
SUBTOTAL $ 339,041.99
ESTIMATED UNIT ITEM
DESCRIPTION QUANTITY COST COST
PRELIMINARY PROJECT COSTS $ 1,141,326.44
PROPOSED VAIL RESORTS COST SHARE FOR ARTISCULPTURAL FEATURE $ (500,000.00)
RELOCATION OF JESUS MOROLES SCULPTURE
* ESTIMATE BASED UPON PRELIMINARY RELOCATION ESTIMATE PROVIDED BY
CONTRACTOR, MAY ADJUST DEPENDING UPON FINAL LOCATION
$ . 300,000.00
PRELIMINARY PROJECT BUDGET $ 941,326.44
VAIL STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENT CONSTRUCTION:
- 2005 STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENT CONSTRUCTION WILL OCCUR ON UPPER BRIDGE STREET AND
HANSON RANCH THIS COMING SPRING AND FALL
-BUSINESSES AT SEIBERT CIRCLE WILL ALREADY BE DISRUPTED BY THE CURRENT STREETSCAPE
I CONSTRUCTION DURING THOSE PERIODS.
-POTENTIAL SAVINGS MAY BE ACHIEVED THROUGH ECONOMIES OF THE LARGER STREETSCAPE PROJECT
-CONSTRUCTION CAN BEGIN IN SPRING 2005 WOULD BE COORDINATED WITH THE STREETSCAPE
I PROJECT WITH ANTICIPATED COMPLETION IN FALL 2005
EXISTING CONDITION OF SEIBERT CIRCLE:
-THE EXISTING CONCRETE PAVEMENT AT SEIBERT CIRCLE IS DETERIORATING AND WILL REQUIRE SIGNIFICANT
REPAIR OR REPLACEMENT IN THE NEXT 5 - 10 YEARS. THE COSTS RELATED TO THE EVENTUAL REPLACEMENT
COULD BE SUBSTANTIAL AND WOULD REQUIRE COMPLETE REPLACEMENT OF CONCRETE PAVEMENT AND
~ SNOWMELT IMPROVEMENTS. PROJECTED COSTS FOR THIS REPLACEMENT WOULD BE $250,000 - $300,000.
PROPOSED COST SHARE BY VAIL RESORTS:
i -VAIL RESORTS HAS TENTATIVELY PLEDGED $500,000 OF THEIR BUDGETED $1,000,000-FOR THE FRONT DOOR
PROJECT TOWARDS A FOUR SEASON FEATURE AT SEIBERT CIRCLE.
OPPORTUNITY TO CREATE SOMETHING SPECIAL;
- SEIBERT CIRCLE PRESENTS AN OPPORTUNITY TO CREATE A FEATURE THAT PROVIDES THE YEAR ROUND
ATTRACTION. ELEMENTS SUCH AS WATER, FIRE, ICE, SOUND, LIGHTING, AND PERFORMANCE OFFER TREMENDOUS
TOOLS TO ENLIVEN SEIBERT CIRCLE AND REFLECT THE VALUES OF THE VAIL COMMUNITY.
AIL SEIBERT CIRCLE -TIMELINE AND LOGISTICS
_..
i
;~
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Town Council
DATE: February 1, 2005
SUBJECT: Town Council's comments, concerns, and questions, to be reviewed and
considered by the Planning and Environmental Commission.
At the January 18, 2005, Town Council meeting a work session was held regarding the proposed
Crossroads redevelopment which served as an opportunity for members of Council to gain a
further understanding of the project. Af that meeting clear direction was provided to staff, the
Commission, and the applicant that additional work was required. That direction included the
following:
^. Create an exhibit which accurately compares the height of the proposed Crossroads .
building to the heights of the Four Seasons, Vail Plaza Hotel, and Vail Village Inn
Condominiums.
^ Submit greater detail on how the proposed reduced commercial rents would be achieved
and maintained over time.
^ Submit greater detail on how the plaza will function and operate for public .events. ie.
public easements, use agreements, transportation impacts, etc.
^ Address concerns over the use of Town right-of-way for private improvements.
^ Revise the proposed structure to step down in height as it approaches the west, east
and southern property lines in order to better relate to surrounding uses and structures.
^ Increases in landscaped areas are needed on the site and within the plaza.
^ Submit details on how the proposed private parking club will operate in order to ensure
that it is utilized to its fullest extent of capacity.
^ Submit details on how deliveries arriving in the loading/delivery area exit the structure so
as to serve surrounding properties and the proposed commercial and restaurants.
Provide details on the proposed use agreement for the loading and delivery facility.
^ Address concerns about the location of the exhaust vents in the northwest corner of the
site in close proximity to Vail Village Inn Condominiums.
^ Revise the above grade commercial store fronts to create greater diversity between the
spaces.
^ Submit greater detail on employee housing fulfillment strategy. ie. new units, existing
units, buy down of units, etc.
^ Submit details on how the proposed dwelling units will operate in conjunction with the
front desk management. ie. inclusion of attached accommodation units or other
incentives to increase the likelihood of "hot beds".
^ Revise the height of the structure to address concerns of setting a new precedence.
^ Submit details on what involvement and approvals will be needed from CDOT.
^ Submit details on the ability for the fire department to adequate protect the structure in
the event of a fire.
^ Reduce the negative impacts of the above grade structure encroachments into required
setbacks.
^ The bulk and mass of the structure is too large. A balance must be achieved which
maintains the Village atmosphere in this key location. ,
~rif
Y ~ ~ Vail
t.
~' ~~a.~'r Chamber &
" :~~_ Business
•.
1~ssociation
241 S. Frontage Road E., Suite 2
Vail; Colorado 81657
Phone: 970.477.0075
FAX: 970.477.0079
E-mail: infoC vailchamber.org
Web Site: www.vailchamber.org
MEMORANDUM
TO: Stan Zemler, Town Manager, TOV
FROM: Kaye Ferry, Exec. Director, VCBA
RE: Quarterly Update (4~', 2004)
DATE: January 27, 2005
As we agreed, our 4`~ quarter financials will be late due to Joyce's recent liver transplant surgery.
However, an update on programs and activities is included here.
The VCBA has just concluded a successful year at many levels. I will simply address several
items and their progress.
1. Our first year as a dues paying organization was very successful. We had over 250
members who paid dues ranging from $100-$250. Those rates were increased to a
range of $150-$350 for the 2004-OS membership year which runs from October 1,
2004-September 30, 2005. This represents approximately 40% of the business license
holders for last year .Additionally we have developed a new membership packet that
includes brochures on each of the. benefit packages we offer.
2. Our web site has been revamped. We have included a listing with a phone number for
all businesses in the TOV. Additional information, including a picture and narrative is
included only for members that have a business license in the TOV. This service was
originally available to all business license holders but that policy was changed when
our funding mechanism changed. This service is now only offered to our member since
the TOV did not fund this request.
3. As part of the redesign of our web site, employers can now post job listings.
4. We created a wide variety of benefits for our members that include discounted rates for
payroll processing, credit card processing, health insurance, radio advertising, worker's
comp, PC mall, business security services, Costco_membership, notary services, VAC
membership, human resource and small business service, AAA, merchant ski pass,
AT&T.
13. As of 1/24/05, the VCBA will be the administrator of the Special Events calendar for
the TOV. Primarily because we have a vested interest in having this information as up
to date as possible, combined with the fact that it was not being done for a variety of
reasons, the VCBA will now provide this service. While it will not be our job to ferret
out this information, we will serve as the designated agency for processing and
updating this information when it is received.
14. We are currently compiling a Membership Evaluation Survey and hope to review the
results at our March meeting.
January 27, 2004
Council Members, Oversight Committee and Staff
I pulled this off the Brookings Institution site. Although Heywood Sanders has been
attacked as being against convention centers I have been told that HVS has yet to see a
convention center they didn't like. Obviously, both consultants have good points and the
truth is somewhere in between.
I have not had an opportunity to read the report in its entirety but page 28 jumped out at
me as I was printing this.
I hope all involved will read this if you haven't already. In reality it should have been
provided to you already and perhaps it has. I certainly have not seen it before.
Happy reading!
Diana Donovan
i
e.~...__ .
;~ - $-~'-~ -~
.. -
d
~ -~~,~ _. ,i `i ~i.,i
"s
.`~~~~ ~,, J~ Sit ~,-~ 3
j,~--, ~ ~ -• -r
Space Availlable:
The Realities of Convention Centers
as Economic Development Strategy
Heywood Sanders
Executive Summary
To cities the lure of the convention business has long been the prospect of visitors
emptying their wallets on meals, lodging, and entertainment, helping to rejuvenate
ailing downtowns.
However, an examination of the convention business and city and state spending on
host venues finds that:
® The overall convention marketplace is declining in a manner that suggests that
a recovery or turnaround is unlikely to yield much increased business for any
given community, contrary to repeated industry projections. Moreover this
decline began prior to the disruptions of 9-1 1 and is exacerbated by advances in
communications technology. Currently overall attendance at the 200 largest
tradeshow events languishes at 1993 levels.
® Nonetheless, localities, sometimes with state assistance, have continued a type
of arms race with competing cities to host these events, investing massive
amounts of capital in new convention center construction and expansion of
existing facilities. Over the past decade alone, public capital spending on conven-
tion centers has doubled to $2.4 billion annually, increasing convention space by
over 50 percent since 1990. Nationwide, 4~ new or expanded convention centers
are now in planning or construction.
® Faced with increased competition, many cities spend more money on addi-
tional convention amenities, like publicly-financed hotels to serve as
convention "headquarters." Another competitive response has been to offer
deep discounts to tradeshow groups. Despite dedicated tares to pay off the public
bonds issued to build convention centers, many-including Washington, D.C
and St. Louis-operate at a loss.
This analysis should give local leaders pause as they consider calls for ever more public
investment into the convention business, while weighing simultaneously where else
scarce public funds could be spent to boost the urban economy.
~ANU:ART 2oOj • THE BROC)6INGS IN5TITUTIOIV • RESEARCH BRIEF
B
I. Introduction
onventions are big business, attracting free-spending visitors booking do~~-ntown
hotel rooms, eating at restaurants, and thronging theaters and night spots.
At any rate, that's the theory.
So in the last decade, state and local governments have made massive commitments
to tourism and conventions as part of their central economic development strategies.
From Atlanta to Austin, Charlotte to Chicago, cities, states, and public authorities have
invested billions in an arms race with competing cities to lure conventions and their atten-
dees to new or expanded convention centers. 1Vlany of these same places have also invested
in publicly-owned hotels, new and expanded airports, and downtown-oriented rail transit
systems, all designed to support their hunt for conventions and trade shows.
However, while the supply of exhibit space in the United States has expanded steadily,
the demand for convention and tradeshow exhibit space, and the attendees these events
and space bring to a city, has actually plummeted.
Nlany cities have seen their convention attendance fall by 40 percent, 50 percent, and
more since the peak years of the late 1990s. The sharp drop has occurred across a range of
communities, including a number of the historically most successful convention locales in
the nation.
Nonetheless, new public capital spending for convention centers has doubled over the
past decade, growing from $1.2 billion in 1993 to an average of $2.4 billion annually from
2001 through 2003. That massive spending has fueled an expansion of center exhibit space
from 40.4 million square feet in 1990 to about 60.9 million in 2003, a S 1 percent increase
over the 13 years. And some 40 cities-including New York, Chicago, Denver, Hartford,
Tampa, New Orleans, Detroit, Albany, Raleigh, Phoenix, and Colorado Springs-are plan-
ning or building as much as an additional four to five million square feet of space in the
hopes of boosting jobs and tax revenue.'
Take Raleigh, North Carolina for example. Analyzing its convention prospects in July
2002, consultant KP1bIG predicted that an enlarged convention center would more than
double the city's convention attendance from an annual average of 90,000 to some
190,000 by 2010, yielding more than $30 million in new annual spending for the city and
county and 900 new jobs.' For public officials like Raleigh Mayor Charles Meeker; the
vision of this impact and its potential for creating a revitalized downtown presented a com-
pelling case for public action.?
The rhetoric was much the same in Phoenix, where a city staff report on a proposal to
spend $300 million for an expansion of the city's Civic Plaza convention center argued
that, "Convention business makes economic sense for Phoenix because it brings people
here from other states and nations, who spend money throughout our community and then
go home. Each conventioneer generates almost $1,500 in direct spending in Arizona-stay-
ing in our hotels, eating in our restaurants, buying goods in our shops, playing golf in our
resorts and going to tourist attractions throughout the state.";
The promise was that a bigger center would yield $256 million in annual new convention
spending and create 7,700 new jobs while doubling city convention-linked tax revenues.
As these examples show, the decision to build or expand a convention center is predi-
cated on the assumption that "if you build it, they will come." And more recent consultant
feasibility studies of new and expanded centers have indeed forecast continued growth in
demand for center space. A PriceWaterhouseCoopers analysis in January 2004 of an
expansion of New York City's Jacob K. Javits Convention Center predicted industry growth
and more than enough demand to go around. Predicting that a larger convention facility
in ivlanhattan could increase attendance by 38 percent and yield $391 million in new visi-
tor spending for the city; the PriceWaterhouseCoopers analysis contends that an expanded
Javits "would result in expansion of existing customers to events, result in the creation of
J:INUARI' 2ooj • THE BROOhINGti INSTITUTION • RESEARCH BRIEF
B
new shows, and attract conventions and tradeshows that are currently held in competing
facilities."'
For Colorado Springs, CO, a Nlarch 2004 feasibility study arg~~ed that, "Economic
cycles notwithstanding, the overall lonb term trend of [convention] growth suggests that
the supply of events will recover along with an overall economic recovery."^ And a i~~Iay
2004 updated analysis for Albany, NY concluded "For the meetings industry, things have
generally returned to pre-9-1 1 condition."' .F1lbany's consultant could thus predict a new
center in that city would house over 300 events annually, with attendance of 270,000 gen-
erating nearly 100,000 new hotel room nights annually. Other such rosy predications have
been made for cities as diverse as'Branson, iV1O; Cleveland, OH; Schaumburg, IL; and
Osceola, FL.
Unfortunately, the pervasive market information provided to these localities and their
decision-makers is fundamentally flawed and inaccurate.
Simply put, the overall convention marketplace has shifted dramatically, in a manner
that suggests that a recovery or turnaround is unlikely to yield much increased business for
any given community. Less business, in turn, means less revenue to cover facilities'
expenses, and less money injected into local economies.
This paper examines national and local trends in convention center events and atten-
dance over the past decade, and how they stack up against projections--as such, it provides
some insight into whether or not these projects are likely to produce the financial benefits
local boosters of center construction and expansion projects anticipate. The paper then
looks behind these trends to offer a look at what factors may be driving them. Finally, it
attempts to describe the true costs localities incur as result of increasingly questionable
convention centers investments, and provides some suggestions as to how the local deci-
sion-making process regarding them might be better informed and executed.
Such an analysis does not pretend to provide a full exposition of the costs and benefits
associated with convention center investments: It does not examine the public subsidies
that go into these projects, nor evaluate the revenue such spending generates.
What it does do, however, is shed some light on the realities of this changing and unpre-
dictable business, and in doing so, provide a cautionary tale for cities hoping to reap its
increasingly elusive rewards.
R'Iethodology: Overcoming Errant National Data
National data on a great many sectors of the economy-retail sales, new home starts,
public and private construction, air travel, auto sales, manufacturing orders-is readily
available in a consistent and relevant form. Not so for the convention and tradeshow
industry.
Despite the commitment of billions of dollars by a variety of state and local governments,
the available national data on convention demand is at best scant, murky, and of limited
reliability. The national market data regularly employed by consultants comes from a small
number of industry sources, and often reflects estimates rather than performance, guesses
rather than substance.
Meetings and Corzrentions magazine, for example, surveys its subscribers on a biennial
basis. But those data on meeting numbers, attendance, and spending reflect all the limita-
tions of an unknown subscriber base and an uncertain response rate. Another industry
publication, Tradeslzrnu bUeek, regularly disseminates a number of indices of convention and
tradeshow activity. Its annual Data Boolz, covering more than 4,500 conventions,
tradeshows, and public events, has regularly been employed to index dernand. But its num-
bers are simply forecasts by event organizers of exhibit space use and possible attendance
for events months in the future. They are never updated, revised, or turned into "actuals."
And even these projections are provided for only a fraction of the 4,800 events listed. The
totals are created by multiplying the averages of those reporting by the number of events.
"Simply pzct,
the overall
convention
marketplace
has shifted
dramatically."
JANGARP aoo5 o THE BROOf:INGS INSTIi'UTION • RESEARCH BRIEF
B
The arguably more substantial of the Tradeshow Week measures come from its annual
compilation of the 200 largest conventions and tradeshows, in terms of exhibit space. The
"200" listing yields actual post-event figures for exhibit space use ar_d attendance for what
are by definition the largest and most successful events-a changing cast from year to year.
It does not index the larger industry in any sense, and the `'200" is obviously most relevant
to those cities like Las Vegas (with 38~events in 2003), Chicago (with 27 events), Orlando
(17), Atlanta (16), and New Orleans (8) which have the exhibit space to accommodate the
largest conventions, often in multiple centers. Furthermore, its reported figures on annual
change are created in a manner (described below) that has a serious upward bias. Still, the
total annual volume of space use and attendance for the "200" (not the calculated change
figures) does provide at least a plausible starting point for examining trends in market
demand, and thus I utilize it here to offer some insight into national trends.
Given the dearth of reliable, national numbers, the majority of this analysis instead relies
on data from major individual centers themselves. That data primarily measure convention
and tradeshow activity, and thus exclude the kinds of local public or consumer shows-the
auto show, home show, or garden show-that draw largely from the city or metropolitan
area. Where a center does not provide figures limited to convention and tradeshow atten-
dance, the paper uses available "total attendance" numbers. In some cases, the analysis is
supplemented by information from centers or local convention and visitors bureaus on the
hotel use generated by a center (in terms hotel room nights used by convention and
tradeshow attendees). While these hotel use figures may miss some people who book
rooms on their own, they provide the best index of center use by out-of-town visitors, the
critical element of economic benefit and impact for a community.'
In light of these data limitations, this should be considered a preliminary review of cur-
rent trends in the convention center industry, the primary purpose of which is to provide a
frank reality check on the overly optimistic forecasts localities utilize to justify new public
investments in convention facilities. It is hoped that this analysis will spark further discus-
sion and study on this important and timely issue.
II. Trends: Portrait of a Faltering Industry
hat supposedly justifies the public commitment to a convention center in the
face of the cost of debt service and operating loss is its potential yield in conven-
tion and tradeshow attendees, a yield that is a function of larger economic and
market forces, the competitive position of an individual city, and efforts of every
other community seeking a piece of the convention "boon." In other words, the real test for
Washington, or Chicago, Orlando, or even Schaumburg, is how many people come and \vhat
they leave behind for the local economy.
A look, then, at the national and, even more importantly, local trends in convention and
trade show events and attendance provides valuable insight into whether or not new invest-
ments in the convention center industry are worth their weight in debt and larger public
costs.
National Trends from the Ti-czdeslzmv WeeFZ 200
To get a broad overview of the national trends affecting the industry during the 1990s and
early 2000s, the study begins with an analysis of the nation's largest conventions and
tradeshows-the Tradeshrnv Week 200.
In 1992, Tradeshow Week 200 events spanned about 50.4 million square feet of exhibit
space with total attendance of 3.9 million people. Over the next seven years, exhibit space
use increased 33 percent to reach 67.8 million square feet of space by 1999. But the pat-
tern of total attendance during this period was far from regular, steady growth (Figure 1).
JANUARI' ?ooj • THE BROO(:INGS I~STITL'TION • RESEARCH BRIEF
Figure 1. Attendance at Tradeshow Week 200 events began to decline in the
mid-1.990s and is now at the 1_evel of 1993
6
SS _-
S _
C
O
4S - ..~-..__ _._-
e~ _
y ~ --- .-_..^_
u
G
'' is
v
Q 3 ___ -___~.~__.
2.5 .------....-'-__.
2
lcar
Smirce: Traeieshow l"Neck "200" Dircctor-y
Figure 2. Exhibit space use and attendance at Tradeshow Week 200 events
began to diverge in the mid-1990s
,~
°
o
n ~zo
a
J 1~
7
j
JDF.:
v
Year
Snurcc: Tradeshrnv ltieeh. "200" Directory
,4lfter hitting a peak of 5.1 million in total attendance in 1996, it then dropped down to 45
million in 1999, before rising to 4.8 million in 2000 (Figure 2). Something had begun to
change in the convention and tradeshow industry such that-well beforr__ September 11-
the largest and most successful events in the business were not yielding more attendees.
Several of the largest of the 200 events-like the annual l~'ational Hardware Show-
exemplify these broad trends. The Hardware Show reportedly covered 821,785 square feet
of exhibit space in 1991 and attracted 52,934 attendees. By 1997 it had grown to 1.3 mil-
lion square feet, an increase of 58.2 percent, and attendance hit 73,000-a 38 percent
R
~ .
~ " ~.-~~.
- Ian _.___._._.-_. ~_
-~ SPACEBJDES
- o--p.TT EWC:~NCEIi
'iT7ie economic
downturn of
2001 and
the events of
September 11
came upon an
industry already
in the process
of change."
]ANUARY ?oog • THE BR0061NGS INSTITGTION • BESE:IRC:H BRIEF
B
boost. These numbers helped fuel the image of an industry on the rise. By 1998, however,
attendance had begun to slip, to 65,759, and by 2000, there was evidence of even greater
decline. Exhibit space that year for the Hardware Sho~ar fell to 1.26 million square feet :with
attendance of only 62,025, followed by yet another drop to 1.0 million square feet of
exhibit space and 52,310 attendees for 2001. Large computing and technology shows-dis-
cussed later in the paper-similarly played a crucial role in boosting the apparent
performance of the industry during the 1990s, only to falter by the end of the decade.
As it was, the economic downturn of 2001 (with a particularly serious impact on the
technology sector) and the events of September 1 1 came upon an industry already in the
process of change, with far less predictable and certain growth. The Tradeshoiv Week 200
summary For 2001 reported the "steepest declines in directory's history"-a drop in exhibit
space of 1.3 percent and an attendance drop of 4.5 percent, with a number of events that
were cancelled not even included." And the impacts did not stop with 2001. The 2002 edi-
tion of the Trndeshou~ Week 200 reported a further decline in space use (6.0 percent) and
attendance (4.4 percent)."' It would not be until its 2003 edition that the "200" summary
could report some positive news, that the industry could "see the light"-exhibit space use
down just 0.7 percent from 2002, but attendance up 3.4 percent."
This modest dip in exhibit space use coupled with the attendance increase for 2003 is
seen by some as portending an industry turnaround and continued growth. For example, a
February 2004 consultant study for Schaumburg, Illinois notes that, `'Preliminary data for
2003 suggests resumed growth" and that, "Longer term trends in the industry, however,
have indicated substantial growth in demand for exhibit space," providing a justification for
the village's investment in a $215 million convention center and apublicly-owned 500
room hotel.''
This "imminent turnaround" view of convention and tradeshow activity is no doubt
heartening to those in the industry and to local officials. It is, unfortunately, wrong-an
artifact of Tradeshow Week's• peculiar methodology and the narrowness of focusing on only
200 very large events. Tradeshow Week calculates annual percentage change figures by ask-
ing event organizers what their exhibit space and attendance were in the previous year and
a year earlier. If (as is commonly the case), organizers report a revised figure for two years
ago, that usually smaller older figure becomes the base for calculating change. And they
only include events noted in a previous year, shrinking the base for comparison and often
including in the growth calculation data for biennial shows from two years previously."
A look at the "real" numbers for 2003, then, tells a different story than the one told by
Tradeshow Week. In 2002, the "200" events together spanned 64.65 million square feet of
exhibit space while the 2003 total amounted to 61.9 million-a drop of 4.2 percent, not
the reported 0.7 percent. Further, the 2003 attendance total was only 4.1 million, down
from 4.2 million a year earlier. This represents a 3.2 percent decrease in attendees, a pretty
far cry from the 3.4 percent increase claimed.
The data from the Trc~deshrnv [rVeek 200 illustrate how, by the end of the 1990s, conven-
tion and tradeshow growth began to shift into decline. These data present only a limited,
and understated, picture of the real magnitude of convention and tradeshow change, how-
ever. For local officials and citizens deciding about the prospects for a new or expanded
convention facility, the real question is how this national change has affected the perform-
ance of actual, local convention centers-and their future prospects.
Local Convention Center Trends
To better understand the trends affecting local convention centers, this analysis categorizes
them into four major types: major national centers, emergent national powers, prime visitor
destinations, and regional centers. Each one is discussed in turn, below.
~rlNUrlRI' 2O0j • THE BROOI:INCiS INSTITUTION • BEtiE:1RCH BRIEF
B
Figure 3. Ma}or event attendance at Chicago's McCormick Place has
dropped sharply
121p000
,100000 ..'--.._ ...--
,OOrono --
-~
--
U
Q 700000 -
600000 ___________.-__. _________-
500000 _.-_. .__ _~.___
400000
1 I 1 1 1
Year
Snnrce: Trndeshmv lNeeh "200" Directory nnul Ckicngo Cnnrentinrt ur:d Trnrrisor B~x1rd
The Major National Centers: Chicago, New York, Atlanta, and New Orleans
A small group of cities-Chicago, New York, Atlanta, and New Orleans-have long domi-
nated the supply of convention center space and the demand from the largest convention
and tradeshow events.
Chicago's McCormick Place is prime example of a successful center feeling the squeeze
of recent trends. Propelled by a series of expansions, McCormick has led the space race
since the 1960s and today boasts 2.2 million square feet of exhibit space. It has also hosted
the greatest fraction of the Tradeshow Week 200 events. In 1991, McCormick held 28 of
the "200," second only to New York. Two years later, that total reached 30 events with
attendance (including exhibitors) of I.1 million, putting Chicago first in events ahead of
Las Vegas (26) and New York (25). At its peak in 1996, the center managed 24 of the "200"
with attendance of 1.14 million.
By 1999, however, the tide began to shift. McCormick's convention and tradeshow event
count for that year fell to 22 with attendance of 831,163. Although attendance grew to
960,149 in 2000, by 2002, the event count vas only 19, with attendance of just 688,354
(Figure 3). Things began to look up in a bit in 2003, with an event count of 25 and atten-
dance of 767,207. Still, despite the growth in "200" events, average attendance per event in
2003 was at the lowest level since 1993. The picture is less rosy if you look at McCormick's
total atte~zdance in 2003, which includes public shows along with conventions and
tradeshows. The 2003 total attendance figure of 2,512,168 is substantially below the levels
for 2002 (2.7 million), 2001 (3.0 million), and 2000 (3.3 million), amounting to a drop of
25 percent over the three year period. Indeed, it is the lowest total since the attendance
reports began in 1994.
New York City's Jacob K. Ja~~its Convention Center is decidedly smaller than McCormick
Place with only 800,000 square feet of exhibit space, but in 1991 it led the nation in the
count of "200" events with 29. The ensuing years saw a marked shift in New York's pre-
eminence, however, with its "200" total falling to just 18 by 1997, 15 for 2000, and 14 in
2003, as the city was obliged to compete with other destinations. Overall, the Javits Center
housed about 60 conventions and tradeshows annually through the 1990x. But since the
Javits managed its peak convention attendance from these events, 1.4 million in 1997, the
J:~~une~~ goo; • TEie BROOIiINGS I~sril~ur~o~ • RESe-~xcti BeieF
B
``Despite their
historic dorni-
Hance, Chicago,
New York,
Atlanta, and
New Orleans
have all seen
significant
loss in recent
convention
activity."
Figure 4. Atlanta's Georgia World Congress Center saw attendance
drop even with an expansion to,1.4 million square feet of exhibit space
in June 2002
ioooooo -
----
C ~_
m
'~
G 700000 _ -___~.__
O]
600000 __
.~
v
;= _
U
--- -
maooo
Fisca! Year Ending June 30
Source: Ceorniu world Cn7:;ress CenterAidJioriip
pattern has been similar to that of Chicago. Despite boosting its convention and tradeshow
event count from 62 in 2000 and 61 in 2001 to 70 in 2003, attendance slipped first to
1.25 million in 2000, then to 977,600 in 2001, 931,850 in 2002, and finally 955,150 for
2003.'a Overall, the Javits' convention and tradeshow attendance has dropped 32 percent
from the 1997 total. ,
Atlanta's Georgia World Congress Center (GWCC) has also been among the nation's
dominant centers, with a total of 18 "200" events in 1991. Fueled by substantial state fiscal
support, GWCC expanded in 1992 to 950,000 square feet, and again in June 2002 to a
total of 1.4 million square feet of exhibit space. The convention and tradeshow attendance
at the GWCC boomed through the 1990s with the exception of the year when it was
largely used in support of the Olympic Games, reaching a total of 837,752 attendees in fis-
cal 1997 (ending June 30, 1997). By fiscal 1999, as Figure 4 shows, that total had slipped
to 723,284, and by fiscal 2002 fell further to 569,887. The expansion of the center-
opened in June 2002 (prior to the 2003 fiscal year)-was justified in large part by a
consultant study that forecast increased attendance, to 1.45 million by 2006. Instead, con-
vention and tradeshow attendance came to just 512,194 in fiscal 2003, lower than the year
before. Preliminary attendance figures for fiscal year 2004 show total convention and
tradeshow attendance dropping even further, to 396,517-less than half the fiscal 1997
sum.''
A prime visitor destination city New Orleans' Nlorial Convention Center is the fourth
major U.S. convention facility. For 1998, just prior to the opening of a major expansion, the
Morial managed total convention attendance (including exhibitors and guests) of 789,271.
With a boost to 1.1 million square feet of exhibit space in January 1999, the center hit a
record total attendance of 1.06 million (Figure 5}. A year later, however, the center's atten-
dance slipped to 834,947, dropping each year after to just 622,250 for 2003-a loss of
41.5 percent from 1999.
In sum, despite their historically dominant competitive position and place as major com-
mercial centers, Chicago, New fork, Atlanta, and New Orleans have all seen significant
recent loss in convention activity, even as they expanded their convention centers. In part,
their losses reflect the emergence of two new convention locales, which have succeeded in
J:\~i\L'ARl' ?ooh • THE BRO061NC;5 IN5F1TUTtON • RESE:\RCH BRIEF
B
Figure 5. Convention attendance at New Orleans' Morial Convention Center
has fallen steadily since 1_999
Eap:msion Opened
11[0000
G 1000000 -.-..__..__ _. _.._._.........___--___~.-_.___
C ~p000 _-_..___ __ ..___..._.___-___..._____.-.__._
i
~ e[d000 ~ .__-_~._____....... ~_.____........_._____.
G 7W000 __._.....~._....___...____..___..__..__.-_.. ...._._.._..__...__.._
L
G
600000 -_..__._.___...........__-_____.__.._..._..._....~___._.._._.....-_
U
scoooo .....__ ..... ............ .. . ......__ _.
r ~> > s r zo z r zo zo zo
Year
Snurce: Morin! Cnrzrer:tion Centerrlathority
both massively expanding their own exhibit space and luring events and attendees from the
traditional destinations.
Emergent National Powers: Las Vegas and Orlando
Las Vegas and Orlando emerged during the 1990s as significance players in the convention
and trade show market.
Las Vegas' growth as a prime convention center destination is largely a result of both its
appeal to visitors and the Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authoritys ability to garner
about $160 million in tax revenues every year from the more than 125,000 hotel rooms in
the area-revenues available for marketing, promotion, and sales of the. area. The Las
Vegas Convention Center has grown from its original 90,000 square feet in 1959 to 1.3
million square feet in 1998, and, most recently, to 1.985 million squar(~ feet in January
2002. Total convention attendance grew apace in the 1990s, from 819,259 in 1992 to
nearly 1.2 million in 1998 and 1.3 million in 1999, well in excess of national trends.
But as Figure 6 indicates, the convention center began to face a more difficult competi-
tive situation starting in 2001. Despite the major expansion in 2002, attendance dropped
that year, and then fell again in 2003 to less than 1.2 million. Measured in terms of aver-
age attendance per convention event, the Las Vegas center has seen a dramatic fall-off in
the last two years-from an average of 26,15=} in 1999 to just 16,369 in 2003. The vastly
bigger public center is succeeding in gaining some new business, but its "production" of
attendees is far more modest on average. The Las Vegas Center's most :recent performance
may in part reflect the impact of a new privately-owned convention center in the city. The
Mandalay Bay Convention Center opened in 2003 with 1 million square feet of exhibit
space, and has already lured events from other venues, including the SIA SnowSports
tradeshow from the Las Vegas center and Promotional Products Expo from Dallas.
Orlando's Orange County Convention Center, like the Las Vegas Convention Center, has
benefited from the combined fiscal benefit of tens of thousands of local hotel rooms-
which generate a substantial revenue stream for center expansion and marketing-and the
unique leisure and visitor amenities of its location. The Orange County Center has been
regularly expanded since its 1983 opening with 150,000 square feet of space, to 1.1 million
JA\U:\R]' aooj • THE BROOI:INGS 1~STITUTIO`d • RESEARCH BRIEF ~~
"Las Degas and
Orlando too
have been hard
hit by .the recent
change in the
indz.tistry, with
major new
expansions
yielding almost
nothing in terms
of increased
business."
Figure 6. Las Vegas Convention attendance slid even after it doubled exhibit
hall space in 2002
V ____
C
-~
y „~ - --
a
~~ -
r
0
U moo _._.- _.~~
Ycar
Source: Las l/egas Coirreutinn and b'isitors:luthority
in 1996 and most recently 2 million square feet in October 2003.
Orlando's annual convention and tradeshow event count grew from 66 in 1990 to 1 16 in
2000, with parallel attendance growth from 376,973 to 921;247. The center then saw a
dramatic attendance drop in 2001, with a modest recovery in 2002 to a level still well
below that of 1998, 1999, and 2000. The center managed another increase of 5.9 percent
to 859,188 for 2003, some 60,000 of whom attended events in the newly opened
North/South Hall.
Perhaps the most telling point about Orlando's performance is the projected level of
attendance (based on bookings) for 2004 and 2005, with double the exhibit hall space of
previous years. The Orange County center is forecast to house just 1 13 conventions and
tradeshows in 2004 with estimated attendance about 1.1 million. And as of mid-June 2004,
definite bookings for 2005 come to only 77 conventions and tradeshows with estimated
attendance of 955,000. So with double the space built at a cost of $748 million, Orlando
will probably see only slightly more convention business than it managed in 2000.
Both Las Vegas and Orlando have strong records of convention performance, both
attracting substantial attendance and luring events from cities like Chicago, Atlanta, Los
Angeles, and New Orleans. Nonetheless, they too have. been hard hit by the recent change
in the industry, with major new expansions yielding almost nothing in terms of increased
business.
Prime Visitor ®estinations: Boston and San Francisco
Some cities have long managed a successful role as visitor destinations as a result of their
history, amenities, and distinctiveness. Both Boston and San Francisco are such locales,
where a convention center can build on a large base of hotel rooms, restaurants, shopping,
arts, and cultural facilities.
Boston's relatively small existing convention center, the Hynes, provides 193,000 square
feet of exhibit space in a prime Back Bay location surrounded by some 5,000 hotel rooms.
Writing in 2001, consultant David Petersen described the center as having "achieved maxi-
mum occupancy in the first year after expansion" [ 1988] and thus a "phenomenal
success."'fi
JANUARI' ?ooj • THE BRO06INGS 1NSTITU"CION • RESEARCH BRIEF
B
Figure 7. Hotel room night generation by Boston Hyries Convention Center
has fallen steadily since 2000
~~ -- - -
z
E »
U _
O
s jpppp0 -____`_.__ .___ -__.______
100000
1 I I 1
Year
Source: Nlussaclniastts Courentior: Centeriluthnrity
A close look at annual hotel room use figures provided by The Massachusetts Conven-
tion Center Authority shows, however, that even with its accolades and Boston location,
the Hynes has not been immune to the larger changes in the conventian and tr<-deshow
industry. During the 1990s, hotel room nights averaged about 328,000, with a peak of
401,367 in 2000. As Figure 7 shows, the 2001 total dropped to 337,200 and fell to
253,698 for 2003. The center's occupancy rate, which had varied between 65 and 70 per-
cent during the 1990s, fell to 52 percent in 2002 and 2003. Booking estimates for 2004
indicate about 258,000 hotel room nights-a continuation of the 2003 activity level. And
estimates based on bookings for the next few years show no evidence of a turnaround, with
about 260,000 room nights for fiscal year 2005 and 220,000 for fiscal 2006.
Even as the Hynes has been losing business, the Massachusetts Convention Center
Authority has been busy building a new Boston Convention and Exhibition Center with
some 512,000 square feet of exhibit space, which opened in July 2004.. The 1997 market
and feasibility study for the new BCEC projected a total of 38 events with 302,800 atten-
dees yielding 398,135 room nights for the center's first year of operation, rising to 57
conventions and tradeshows with 470,600 attendees (and 675,000 room nights) by the
fifth year. Current bookings show only six events (including four conventions) with about
65,000 attendees for the partial first year. But even that figure is wildly inaccurate, as it
includes an estimated 50,000 attendees for the July 2004 East Coast ~~Iacworld Expo. The
actual attendance for Macworld came to just over 8,000. For 2005, the authority has about
67,000 room nights on its books. Current estimates are that the BCEC will reach about
200,000 room nights in fiscal year 2008, less than a third of the feasibility study estimate.
And a large fraction of the center's future business represents events like the Boston
Seafood Show, New England Grows, and the Boston Gift Show-events that have long
been held in other Boston venues.
Like Boston, San Francisco has long been a strong visitor destination and a prime con-
vention locale, particularly for medical and professional groups, and for technology-related
events such as Apple's annual Macworld during the 1990s. The i\~loscone Convention Cen-
ter offered 442,000 square feet of exhibit space through most of the 1990s, with the 2003
opening of iVIoscone West adding another 96,660 square feet of space. The iMoscone Cen-
JAN U:ARl` 2ooj • TNF BROORINGS INSTITUTION • RESEARCH BRIEF
B
`~As the expansion
of major venues,
national eco-
nomic cycles,
and the chang-
ing meetings
industry have
come together in
the last few
years, regional
convention
locales have
faced a highly
competitive
environment for
national and
regional events."
Figure S. Attendance at the expanded Baltimore Convention Center has both
fallen and failed ±o reach the projected 330,000 annual attendance
Y
:J
C:
:~
.y
3
0
x
v
C
0
Fiscal Year
Source: Baltineore Cor:rentirnT Ceraer
ter has benefited from a prime location near the hotels and shopping of Union Square and
the adjacent attractions of the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art and Sony's Metreon
entertainment complex. .
The convention attendance at Moscone came to 728,771 at 56 events for fiscal vear
1997-98, followed by 790,548 the following year. A sharp drop in fiscal 2000 was followed
by a return to previous level-737,694 at 52 events in fiscal 2001 (prior to September 1 1).
Convention attendance and events then dropped for 2002, and again for fiscal 2003. The
fiscal 2003 attendance of 600,975 was 24 percent less than the peak in fiscal 1999, and
about equal to Nloscone's attendance in fiscal 1993. The convention event count came to
39-a 36 percent drop from fiscal 1999.
While both the Hynes and Moscone Centers enjoyed strong attendance during the
1990s, both have seen sharp drops in the last several years. If business doesn't rebound,
the success of Boston's new convention facility-and the Moscone expansion-seems dubi-
ous at best.
Regional Centers
The great majority of large and medium-size American cities enjoy neither the vast conven-
tion spaces of Chicago, Las Vegas, or Orlando, nor the substantial visitor and amenity base
of Boston or San Francisco. For San Jose or Baltimore, Tampa or Houston, the search for
convention business holds the promise of promoting do]ntown development (or redevelop-
ment), new hotels, and economic grov,~th. These cities must build their convention efforts
on a combination of state and regional events for which they hold some natural advantage
and the relatively fixed pool of rotating national convention events. As the expansion of
major venues, national economic cycles, and the changing meetings industry have come
together in the last few years, these cities have faced a highly competitive environment for
national and regional events, with uncertain yields in visitors and their spending.
Baltimore, for example, has long appeared to be a singularly successful case of visitor-
oriented downtown revival. It also received substantial financial support from the state for
the expansion of the Baltimore Convention Center to its current 300,000 square feet of
exhibit space. Still, Baltimore's recent convention attendance record is less-than-stellar, as
~:]NUAR]' zooj • THE BROOIi1NCi5 INSTITUTION • RESEARCH BRIEF
19D000
___-
__.______.- ~..
_-._._____..__.
,~
B
Figure 9. Indianapolis' Indiana Convention Center has also seen a decline in
convention and tradeshowv atterdarce since 2000
v
:J
G
C
b
L."
Y
~ ~
Year
Soarce: Indimm Conver:tion Center
shown in Figure 8. The convention center has seen an attendance drop of 28.2 percent
since fiscal year 2001 (ending June 30), to a level equivalent to pre-expansion fiscal year
1993.
Indianapolis presents another case of a city that has successfully managed large-scale
public and private investment in its downtown core, much of it aimed at attracting visi-
tors and tourists. One recent estimate for downtown investment from 1974 to 2000
came to $4.4 billion."Along with regular expansions of the Indiana Convention Center
and contiguous RCA Dome,'the city has provided subsidies that havE~ resulted in a
growth of the downtown hotel room stock from 2,064 rooms in 1986 to 5,130 in 2003.
But neither major public spending nor the ample supply of adjacent hotel rooms has
been sufficient to insulate Indianapolis from the larger forces affecting the convention
and tradeshow industry, however. As Figure 9 indicates, attendance has plummeted from
608,467 in 1996 and 600,643 in 1999 to just 402,525 for 2003-a fall of 33 percent
from 1999.
Washington, D.C. replaced its 380,000 square foot center with a new $834 million,
725,000 square foot facility at the end of March 2003. For 2003, the new center housed
324,000 convention attendees who used 315,307 hotel room nights. Those 2003 totals
(albeit for a slightly shorter period) can be compared to the performance of the far smaller,
previous center. From 1990 through 1997, the old Washington Convention Center hosted
an average of 337,301 attendees and 337,b40 room nights. Vlore recently, the center saw
convention attendance of 281,900 for fiscal year 1999 and 345,800 for fiscal 2000, with a
total of 352,243 hotel room nights in fiscal 2000. Authority officials ac~ticipate about
400,000 room nights generated by the new center in 2004. After building an entirely new
convention center with almost double the exhibit space, the Washington Convention Cen-
ter Authority has seen effectively no increase in attendance or hotel use.
Serious attendance problems stretch to centers in the West and South as well. The Dal-
las Convention Center, for example, counts attendees at tradeshows and at conferences,
with the latter category including~a mix of national, regional, and local events. For fiscal
year 1999, the tradeshow and conference attendance totaled 594,01 1, perhaps affected by
a large turnout for the National Association of Home Builders convention. The nest year's
60000D E~p;~nsiim Opened Juh~ ?000
wouro -
gppppp _.._. __..--
_
___.__.__
._~
.
_~~
~~
1
J:INUAR]' zoos • THE 13R0061NGS INSTITUTION • RESEARCH BRIEF
B
tr~~en thoSP ('itieS
that have
invested in
major center
expansions have
seen flat busi-
ness, despite
earlier market
and feasibility
studies that
predicted more
space would
bring substantial
increases in
events and
attendance."
Figure 10. Hotel room nights generated by the Dallas Convention Center
have fa_11en dramatically
pt. 2002
s
m
z
E
0
cc°
Y~a~
Source: HVS Lrternntionu(, "Proposed Headquarters Hotel-Dallas, TX"
attendance was just 424,881, followed by 384,348 in fiscal 2001. But for fiscal year 2003,
tradeshow and conference attendance fell to 282,534-a drop of 52 percent from the 1999
total. A related index of the Dallas center's performance, its count of conventions and con-
vention-related room nights, presents a parallel pattern. For calendar year 1999, the center
housed 47 conventions that generated 627,787 room nights.'" Those figures fell to 36 con-
ventions and 368,882 room nights, or a room night loss of 41.2 percent. The estimated
room night total for 2004 (including one event listed as tentative) is 280,784 (Figure 10).
The city of Denver is currently in the process of doubling the size of its Colorado Con-
vention Center, and adding a 1,100 room city-owned Hyatt hotel. That major public
investment comes even as the city has seen a substantial decline in the business at the
existing 300,000 square foot center. In 1998, its peak year, the center managed 51 conven-
tions and tradeshows with 256,309 attendees. Attendance dropped to 130,285 in 2002 (for
36 events), and then rebounded slightly to 155,171 (at 33 events) for 2003, or a 39 percent
attendance decline from 1998 (Figure 11).
Charlotte has also seen a dramatic activity shift in recent years, measured in terms of
reported convention and tradeshow attendance at the 280,000 square foot Charlotte Con-
vention Center, which opened in 1995. In fiscal year 1999, 49 conventions and tradeshows
accommodated 528,615 attendees. The attendance dropped to 305,316 in fiscal 2001 at
39 events. The fiscal 2002 attendance total (affected by September 1 1 and the state of the
national economy) fell further to 187,084 from 32 convention and tradeshow events. Fiscal
2003 showed improvement, probably aided by discounts on center rent, to 39 conventions
and tradeshows that counted 301,381 attendees. But the latest data for fiscal 2004 shows
34 conventions and tradeshows with a total of 233,845 attendees.
And the list goes on. Cincinnati's Sabin Convention Center saw its com~ention atten-
dance drop by 47 percent from fiscal year 1997 to fiscal 2003. The convention attendance
at Houston's George R. Brown Center fell 69 percent from fiscal 1999 to fiscal 2003. The
comparable drop for the Atlantic City Com~ention Center amounted to 25 percent. Hotel
room night activity from the Los Angeles Convention Center plummeted 65 percent from
2000 to 2003. The Pennsylvania Convention Center in downtown Philadelphia went from
573,857 hotel room nights generated in 2002 to 270,080 for 2004-a 53 percent drop. For
JANUARI' zooj • THE BROO6INGS INSTITUTION • RESE:IRCH BRIEF
Expansion Opened Se
_- ___
~ooooo ~_
-
Figure 11. Denver's Colorado Convention Center has seen its convention
and tradesho:v attendance fall
-
v ~~ ~------- --~
V
C
:d
b
„aj 2(10000 _ -_. _ ~ .
O
~ )50000
v
J
G
O
U ,~ _
sooao
r r r
liar
Sovrcce: Colorado Crnareatinr: Center
San Jose's McEnery Center, the attendance fall off amounted to 52 percent from 2000 to
2003. And for Civic Plaza in Phoenix, the convention attendance drop :From 1997 to 2003
totaled 92,984 attendees, or 48 percent.
These trends-coupled with similar stories in Sacramento, Tampa, IVlinneapolis, Port-
land, Austin, and others-demonstrate that the dramatic, if not catastrophic, fall in
convention activity and attendance has been both substantial and pervasive.
In sum, major destinations like Chicago and New York, Atlanta and New Orleans have
seen serious declines in events and attendance in recent years. Those declines have also
had a clear impact on centers in Las Vegas and Orlando which have historically gained
market share, events, and attendance. Finally, a host of other communities of varying size
and regional location have also seen notable changes, in the form of substantial loss of
events and attendance. Even those cities that have invested in major center expansions
have seen flat business, despite earlier market and feasibility studies that predicted more
space would bring substantial increases in events and attendance.
There is little evidence that this situation will turn around in the short term. Future
booking data for Austin, St. Louis, Orlando's Orange County Convention Center, the new
Boston Convention and Exhibition Center, and the Dallas Convention Center suggest that
a turnaround is not likely to be in the immediate offing. Indeed, the director. of the Dallas
Convention and Visitors Bureau told a group of local hotel officials in July 2004 that the
city's convention bookings "suck."'° And New Orleans' iVlorial Convention Center, which
saw a 38 percent drop in attendance to 622,500 in 2003, is forecast to retain an atten-
dance level of between 600,000 and 670,000 a year from 2004 though 2007 based on ~
bookings through early 2004.
The bottom line: With events and attendance sagging in even the hottest destination
spots, few centers are even able to cover basic operating costs-and local economic
impacts have fallen far short of expectations.
JANUARY zooj • THC- BR006IN(;5 INSTITOTION • RL56r1RCH BRIEF
B
Table 1. Major tradeshow event performance declined considerably from 1999 to 2003
Event Space
1999 Space
2003 Percent
Change Attendance
1999 Attendance
2003 Percent
Change
CONEXPO* 1,732,002 1,845,808 657% 101,261 80,054 -20.94%
Super Show 1,388,053 797,390 -42.55% 65,495 62,622 -4.39%
Hardware Show 1,300,000 459,000 -64.69% 67,643 27,569 -59.24%
ICUEE (International
Construction & Utility
Equipment Expo) 1,116,835 1,113,881 -0.26% 8,201 7,413 -9.61%
COMDEX 1,155,000 150,000 -87.01% 200,000 39,229 -80.39%
~ CONE.~PO is held cren- three years. The n:nst recent ckitu is frrr 2002.
Source: Trndeshou~ lveek "200" Directory for 3000, 3003, 200-{
III. Behind the Trends: Where Did the Convention Business Go?
n October 2000, Michael Hughes, the director of research services for the industry publica-
tion Tradeshow Week, did a presentation for the International Association of Assembly
Managers entitled, "How Long Can the Boom Continue?" As part of his presentation,
Hughes noted the continuing expansion of convention centers, and forecast a "soft
landing" for centers "especially in the second- and third-tier markets," concluding that "[m]ust-
attend events will stay strong if not grow more important to their industries.""' Hughes pointed in
particular to the five largest expositions (in terms of exhibit space) in I999, a group that included
the construction equipment show CONEXPO, the National Hardware Show, and the COMDEX
computer show. Each of these five was a "must-attend" for its industry. But as shown in Table 1,
Hughes' predictions were clearly overly optimistic: From i 999 to 2003, four of the five events
dropped in terms in exhibit space, with the percentage change averaging 37.6 percent. And all five
events lost attendance, with three losing more than 20 percent since 1999.
Whatever the sense a few years ago of the scale, import, or sectoral dominance of these
and other tradeshows, it should now be clearly evident that "the boom" has not continued,
and that the convention and tradeshow business has witnessed a sea change. Yet despite
these trends, new and expanded centers are being constructed in communities all over the
country. And so the problem, quite simply, boils down to this: Demand for convention cen-
ter space is not keeping pace with its growing supply, severely limiting the ability of
individual centers to accrue hoped-for economic benefits, and ultimately galling into ques-
tion the value of these large public investments. A look at the convention center business,
and how it has changed, can provide some insight into how and why this imbalance has
arisen.
Declining Demand and Structural Change
The declines in events and attendance experienced by convention centers in recent years
do not simply reflect a move from one city to a less attractive one, or a dramatic restructur-
ing of a particular event. Rather, they are the product of industry consolidation, particularly
in the hardware and home improvement industry, reductions in business travel in the face
of increasing cost and difficulty, and alternative means of conveying and gathering informa-
tion.
The Travel [ndustryAssociation's annual estimate of business and convention travel, for
example, has declined from 164.3 million person-trips in 1999 to 142.4 million in 2002
and 138.2 million trips in 2003. That amounts to a 15.9 percent drop, one that began
JA\U:1R1' ?005 • TFIE BROOhINGS I\STITUTIO\ • RESE;\RCFI BRIEF
B
before 2001.'' At the same time, the improved quality of telecommunications and the rise
of Internet use have provided businesses with means of selling and promoting products and
providing information without the cost, difficulties, and time consumption ~f inter-city
travel.
A look at tradeshows-the gift fairs, crafts fairs, home furnishing shows, apparel and
clothing shows that support particular industries-helps illustrate these trends.
As new industrial sectors and new products rise, for-profit event organizers will seek to
capitalize on the opportunity for new shoes and new locations-all to I:he benefit, of
course, of those cities able to land them. For much of the 1990x, for example, the high
technology boom supported an enormous growth in tradeshow events dedicated to comput-
ing and information technology. Tradeshoiv Week's annual Data Book counted 325 events in
the computer and computer technology category in 1995. By 2000, that category had
grown to 477 events, ranking first across industry categories, surpassing medical and
health care (471), home furnishings (369), and education (292 events).
But as the information technology sector has been buffeted by economic change, so too
have the tradeshow events that serve it. The 2002 event total for computing came to 371.
By 2004, the computing area had fallen sharply to 303 total events. This pattern holds true
even among the very largest information technology events-those in the Tradeshow Week
200. In 1999, events in the broadly defined "computers and electronics" category made up
21 of the "200," including two of the top six in terms of exhibit space.l'et by 2003, only
eight of those 21 remained among the "200" with the others having either dropped off the
list because they decreased in size or, like a number of Internet shows, ceased to exist.
Those eight shows which persisted on the "200" listing had 478,393 attendees in 1999. By
2003, their total attendance had fallen to 257,026-a decline of 46.3 percent
These drops affected even formerly premier events. For example, the Las Vegas-based
COMDEX show had triumphed during the 1990x, growing from 1.13 million square feet
and 127,279 attendees in 1991 to 1.38 million square feet and 211,886 attendees in 1997.
It was sold by its originator, Sheldon Adelson, to the Japanese Softbank firm in April 1995
for over $800 million. Yet by 2001 it had slipped to 805,706 square feet and attendance of
124,613, and for 2003 it spanned a mere 150,000 square feet and attracted just 39,229
attendees. Finally the 2004 COVIDEX was cancelled, though plans are afoot to revive it in
fall 2005.
Similarly, New York City's PC Expo (later TechXNY), held annually at: the Jacob K. Javits
Convention Center, dropped from 96,269 exhibitors and attendees in 1998, to 75,972 in
2000, to a mere 20,509 in 2003, despite the fact that the bulk of attendees were "locals"-
fully 90 percent of the 2002 attendees came from Connecticut, New Jersey, or New York.
The attendance drop clearly began before 2001, and it was not likely a result of the threat
of terrorism or the difficulties involved in airline travel (Figure 12).
The result of this broad decay of computing tradeshows-what had been a staple of the
convention business in 1990s-is that cities are now both competing for a smaller pool of
events, and that those events are yielding a far smaller total of attendees and economic
impact.
To make matters worse, the dramatic attendance drops have not been limited to the
computer industry. While a few sectors did see increases in tradeshow activity-Tradeshrnv
Week reported a total of 538 medical and health care events in 2004, for example, up from
471 events in 2000-a number of other large, industry-dominant tradeshows have sus-
tained notable attendance losses. As shown in Table 1, the "Super Show' put on by the
sporting goods industry saw a substantial drop in exhibit space and a modest attendance
fall off from 1999 to 2003. The attendance drop for the construction industry's CONEXPO
was more dramatic, at 21 percent. And the National Hardware Show lost 59 percent of its
attendees over the same period, turning into two competing events in Las Vegas and
Chicago for 2004. Chicago's ~V1eCormick Place also suffered from the attendance declines
"In addition to
computing
convevttions,
a number of
outer large,
industry-domi-
Want tradeshoa,vs
have sustained
notable atten-
dance losses. "
~A\UARl' 3ooj • THE BROUI:INGS INSTITUTION • RESEARCH BRIEF
Figure 12. Declining attendance at TechXNY/PC Expo at
New York's ,davits Center
c
m
c
c~
Q
i i ~
Ycar
So:arce: Exhibit Survc7~s, "AnraunlAtteudeerludit, TechUVY"'
-~
moo -
0
i ~
of the National Restaurant Show (57,995 in 1999 to 49,279 in 2003), the Supermarket
Industry Convention (34,000 in 1999 to 9,730 in 2003), and the Society of Manufacturing
Engineers' FABTECH show (30,658 in 1999 down to 17,934 For 2003).
Given these industry trends, even centers with a relatively stable stream of annual events
are finding fewer attendees than in the recent past. At the Las Vegas Convention Center,
for example, the average per convention attendance fell to 16,369 in 2003, rather less than
the highest average figure of 26,154 in 1999, and the lowest since 1991. In New Orleans,
average event attendance hit 6,044 in 2003, down from 9,578 in 1999. And for New York's
Javits Convention Center, average attendance at conventions and tradeshows dropped From
20,216 in 1999 to just 13,645 for 2003.
Increasing Supply: More Space, New Choices, Greater Glut
Despite diminishing demand, the last few years have seen a remarkable boom in the vol-
ume of exhibit space in U. S. convention centers.
Expansions and entirely new centers added 9.6 million square Feet of space between
1990 and 1995, another 3 million to 2000, and 8.8 million more over the last three years
(Table 2). New centers will be opening in the latter part of 2004 in Tacoma and Columbia,
South Carolina, joined by expanded centers in Denver, Grand Rapids, Cincinnati, and Des
Moines. The next two years will see new centers open in Hartford, San Juan, and Virginia
Beach. And major expansions are underway at Chicago's McCormick Place, New Orleans'
ylorial Center, and Phoenix' Civic Plaza, while a proposal for a new stadium/convention
center expansion being is considered in New York. A host of other cities-from Albany to
Tampa, Cleveland to Boise-have completed feasibility studies that apparently justify new
convention center development or expansion. Even in communities li1:e Pittsburgh and
Portland where convention center expansion proposals have been defeated by the voters,
more space has still been built. Additionally, there is no evidence that the convention cen-
terbuilding boom is over or even seriously slowing. And so the competition for
events-large and small-becomes ever fiercer (Table 3).
So how do these cities justify the building frenzy? The traditional argument for expand-
ing an existing center or building a larger new one is that more space will enable a center
JANLIARI' 2ooj • THE BROORINGS INSTITUTION • RESE:IRCH BRIEF
Table 2. Despite declining trends in conventions and tradesho~vs, dozens of cities have
built arrxpanded eonve..tion ce,.ters since 2000
Cities with New Centers Cities .,nth Expanded Centers
Boston, MA Anaheim, CA
College Park, GA Atlanta, GA
Council Bluffs, IA Austin, TX
Galveston, TX Charleston, WV
Grand Forks, ND Chattanooga, TN
High Point, NC Columbus, GA
Houston, TX Columbus, OH
Knoxville, TN Dallas, TX
Omaha, NE ~ Denver, CO
Overland Park, KS Duluth, GA
Pittsburgh, PA El Paso, TX
Sarasota, FL Fort Lauderdale, FL
Savannah, GA Fort Smith, AR
Springfield, MO Fort Worth, TX
Tunica, MS Fresno,.GA
Washington, DC Greensboro, NC
West Allis, WI Hickory, NC
West Palm Beach, FL Hot Springs, AK
Wilmington, OH Houston, TX
Indianapolis, IN
Lafayette, LA
Las Vegas, NV
Louisville, KY
Memphis, TN
Minneapolis, MN
Orlando, FL
Portland, OR
Reno, NV
Richmond, VA
Rosemont, IL
Salt Lake City, UT
San Antonio, TX
San Diego, CA
Seattle, WA
Source: Tradeshnu~ lUeek Major Exhibit Hall Director) (2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 200#) nrul authors research
or city to accommodate-and hence attract-larger events, or a larger fraction of the total
pool of conventions and tradeshows. Thus consultant Charles H. Johnson could reassure a
citizens' committee in Fort Worth that, "with the expanded convention center, you can now
accommodate from 85 to 88 percent of the meetings industry from the exhibit space stand-
point."" Similarly a March 2001 analysis of Nashville's need for a larger center could
argue, "At 300,000 square feet of first-class exhibit space, a facility in Nashville could
accommodate nearly 90 percent of the potential market, while 400,000 square feet could
accommodate approximately 9~ percent."" Larger events, of course, mean more people
spending more money in the local economy.
"The reality of
the industry is
that there are
relatively few
large events in
terns of exhibit
space. "
~ANUARI' ?005 ~ THE BROORINGS IvSTITliTION • RESEARCH BRIEF
B
Table 3. Dozens more cities are currently planning or constructing
ne:v centers or expansions
Cities with New Centers Planned/Underwa Cities with Expansio
Albany, NY Baton Rouge, LA
Branson, iti'IO Bellevue, WA
Cleveland, OH Chicago, IL
Colorado Springs, CO Cincinnati, OH
Columbia, SC Daytona Beach, FL
Erie, PA Des Moines, IA
Hampton, VA Edison, NJ
Hartford, CT Fort Wayne, IN
Jackson, MS Grand Rapids, MI
Lancaster, PA Hickory, NC
Las Cruces, NM .Indianapolis, IN
Lynwood, WA Kansas City, MO
Raleigh, NC Nashville, TN
Rockford, IL New York, NY
San Juan, PR Palm Springs, CA
Santa Fe, NM Peoria, IL
Schaumburg, IL Philadelphia, PA
Springfield, MA Phoenix, AZ
St. Charles, MO Salt Lake City, UT
Tacoma, WA San Jose, CA
Vail, CO Spokane, WA
Virginia Beach, VA Tampa, FL
Snurce: Trarleshom Week Mnjar Exlrihit Hall Directar)~ (2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004) arul autluor's research
But as centers seek to expand, the reality of the industry is that there are relatively few
large events in terms of exhibit space. While the largest of Tradeshow Week's 200 events for
2003 used 1.25 million square feet, the rnediarz-sued event used just 235,000 square feet.
The biggest convention centers in the nation-in Chicago, Atlanta, and Orlando-are not
expanding in order to serve the relative handful of very large events. They are expanding in
order to accommodate simultaneous small and medium-sized events, the kinds of events
that now use far smaller centers. A 1997 analysis by Ernst & Young of Orlando's expansion
market noted that, "Similar to other convention centers in this class, the Las Vegas Con-
vention Center hosts only a few events that require the entire facility. They are primarily
expanding to enable the center to attract more medium-sized events that will provide for
smoother hotel utilization-events can be staggered so that while one group is meeting,
another can be moving in or out."'' The Ernst & Young study then went on to mention that,
"Chicago, too, sees the opportunity to host the large number of events in the medium-sized
range and are providing the high-quality space they require."''
The Conventions, Sports and Leisure consulting firm's assessment of New Orleans'
market position noted that, "the VIorial Center's present marketing strategy focused on
targeting multiple events that can be held concurrently at the center rather than single
shows utilizing all or a majority of the facility.'°'^ And the same firm's assessment of an
expansion of Denver's Colorado Convention Center argued, "[a]dditionally, many other
cities that compete with Denver are expanding their convention centers. This frequently is
for the same reason that Denver is looking to expand, namely the ability to host simultane-
JANUARS' 2ooj • THE BROOI:INGS INSTITUTIOV • RESEARCH BRIEF
B
ous activities."" Each of these communities is seeking to expand their overall business by
going "downmarl:et" in search of smaller events.
Thus while small centers get bigger in order to accommodate bigger events, bigger
centers are getting bigger in order to accommodate small and medium-sized events simul-
taneously. The result of that convergence is that meeting planners are finding a vast
increase in the venues open to them, from "big" destinations like Las Vegas and Chicago
that might once have turned away a smaller event, to mid-size communities like Austin,
Co}umbus, or Portland, to "new" locales-like Branson, 140 or Lancaster, PA-that are
seeking to seriously gain convention business. Even groups that have historically used
major centers have chosen, for one reason or another, to hold their convention in a
smaller venue. For example, the American Urological Association, which has regularly met
in large centers such as Chicago's McCormick Place and Orlando's Orange County Cen-
ter, will hold its 2005 convention in San Antonio's =F~0,000 square foot Henry B. Gonzalez
Convention Center.
In short, a larger center may open up the possibility of greater convention business. Or,
it may simply expand the array of choices open to meeting planners and organizers, allow-
ing them to try out new sites or take advantage of special deals. Thus the American
Psychological Association is holding its 2004 annual convention in the quite modestly-sized
Hawaii Convention Center before moving to Washington for 2005 and New Orleans the
following year, in part because the Honolulu facility was trying to fill the dates. The end
result is a kind of "churning" where meeting planners try out new venues and locations,
responding to incentives and opportunities and the possibilities offered by a far larger num-
ber of centers with potential space. And if a new city or venue fails to support the level of
attendance sought, there are always other alternatives.
1V: The Costs of Chasing Conventions
he studies that justify both the new center space and the publicly-owned hotels paint
a picture of tens of thousands of new out-of-town visitors and millions of dollars in
economic impact. Despite that rhetoric, these projects carry real risks and larger
potential costs, particularly in an uncertain and highly competitive environment.
Costs and lYlore Costs
The first of these costs is, in fact, more costs. The fact is, investment in a new convention
center often doesn't end with the facility itself. Faced with convention centers that are rou-
tinely failing to deliver on the promises of their proponents and the forecasts of their
feasibility study consultants, many cities wind up, as they say "throwing good money after
bad." Indeed, weak performance-an underutilized center, falling attendance, an absence
of promised private investment nearby-is often the justification for further public invest-
ment. Anew center is thus often followed by a subsidized or fully publicay-owned hotel,
then by a new sports facility such as an arena or stadium (occasionally combined with the
com~ention center), ultimately by an entertainment or retail venue, and perhaps a new cul-
tural center or destination museum.
In endorsing a city plan for providing deep public subsidies for a new 1,000 room hotel,
the Dallas Nlorvzi)zg News recently editorialized:
Dallas has a great com~efation center. Dallas has great )zotels. It just doesn't have a great
hotel attached to its convention- cesater...
A hotel ~is a good investment i~n Dallas' future. We've already spent the money to build
one of the rzatiort's• largest, most advanced exhibit spaces. We'd be foolish to let it sit idle
nznch of the t~inze for lack of a~x attached hotel.'"'
"Convention cen-
ters themselves
nre expensive,
money-losing
propositions. "
jANU:1Rl' 2008 • THE BROORI~(iS ItisTrruTlo,~ • RESE:IRC:H BRIEF _
B
Public failure-and even what the Morning Neivs terms a "buyer's market"-does not
bring a political cost or a strategic rethinking and redirection. It just brings more.
For many cities; in fact, the public cost of the convention bet is growing and largely
open-ended. The 800 room Hyatt hotel adjacent to Chicago's McCormick Place, for exam-
ple, was built and is owned by the ttiletropolitan Pier and Exposition Authority at a cost of
$127 million. And new hotels in Houston, Omaha, Myrtle Beach, Austin, and soon Denver
are also fully publicly o~+~ned. In Denver, with a doubling of the Colorado Convention Cen-
ter underway, the city has taken on some $367 million in debt to build an 1.100 room hotel
next door, with the expectation that such a combination is bound to succeed in boosting
the local convention business. And add Portland, San Antonio, Baltimore, Phoenix, and
Washington, D.C. to the list of cities in the process of promoting new public or publicly-
subssdized hotels as the "answer" to their convention problems.
Opportunity Cost
With the commitment of such huge sums to convention centers and related facilities
comes a serious second cost-the opportunity cost of not investing this money in other pub-
lic goods, even those aimed at downtown revitalization and economic development.
The taxes on restaurant meals, car rentals, and general sales taxes that pay for conven-
tion centers are legitimate public revenue sources, which could be used for a broad array of
local public purposes. The investment of $400 or $600 million in downtown revitaliza-
tion-including housing, retail, and infrastructure-could provide a substantial
development stimulus and inducement to private investment, for example. And in <iny given
city,, investments in transportation, industry cluster development, schools, neighborhood
development, or any number of other priorities may be likely to yield far more bang for the
buck. These projects have greater direct appeal to local residents, and thus offer greater
likelihood of success
In short, at a time when city finances are obviously stressed, the price of a failed conven-
tion and visitor strategy can be measured in terms of all the other investments, services,
and fiscal choices that will be never realized as a result.
Fiscal Cost
At the end of the day, though, the most dramatic cost of convention center investment is
fiscal.
State and local investment in these large scale developments have long been justified in
terms of the broad local economic impact they generate, the presumed result of thousands
of visitors, staying over in local hotels multiple nights with their spending summing to mil-
lions each year. In truth, however, convention centers themselves are expensive,
money-losing propositions.
To begin with, each new or expanded center typically comes with a capital cost measured
in the hundreds of millions. For example, the latest expansion of the nation's largest center,
Chicago's McCormick Place, will add some 600,000 square feet of exhibit space at a cost
of $850 million. The cost of the new Washington Convention Center and its 725,000
square feet of exhibit space came to $650 million. Boston's new Boston Convention and
Exhibition Center had a price tag of $621.5 million for its 516,000 square feet of exhibit
space and related space-plus $71 million for a convention center in Springfield, and $19
million for a new convention center in Worcester that came with the deal approved by the
state legislature. Even Richmond's more modest 120,000 square foot center expansion car-
ried a $129 million price tag.
For these cases, and dozens of others, the debt incurred in building or expanding the
center is not repaid through the centers' operation, or from taxes on convention center
attendees or exhibitors. Rather, the public revenues supporting convention center bonds
typically include taxes on all area hotel rooms-in the city, the county, or even a multi-
]ANOdRI' 300j • THE BROOI:INGS 1NS'fITOTION • RGSEARCH BRIEF
county region-as well as other broad-based taxes and surcharges. For the new Boston cen-
ter, an increased hotel room tax has been joined by a 5.75 percent tax on hotel rooms built
after July 1997, a ~ 10 per transaction tax on auto rentals, a five percent sightseeing sur-
charge, an additional five percent sales tax charged in certain area hotels, and revenues
from the sale of new Boston taxi permits-all designed to yield more than the $64 million
required for annual debt service on the center. Similarly, the revenues supporting the $36
million annual debt repayment for the new Washington Convention Center include a 2.5
percent tax on all hotel room sales in the District of Columbia, a one percent tax on restau-
rant meals and auto rentals, a surcharge on the city's corporation franr_hise tax, and an
added surtax on the unincorporated business tax. These new tales certainly don't fall just
on convention center attendees, or even just on ~~isitors.
By shifting the debt for center construction to a Far broader revenue base, cities and
other governments can earn a measure of protection from the vagaries of the convention,
or even hotel, business. But the changing convention market does have a direct impact on
the operating cost of a center. Convention center's commonly pay their direct operating
expenses-personnel and maintenance, utilities, insurance, and other costs-by charging
center users rent for their space, and through additional charges on food and beverage
service, telecommunications, and a host of other items. Still, almost every convention cen-
ter in the country operates at a loss, not even counting construction costs or debt.
Convention center consultant David Petersen noted in 2001 that "In worth America, only
two or three convention centers in major markets consistently generate enough operating
income to pay operating expenses.""'
An October 2003 consultant study for the Oregon Convention Center, for example,
described an annual operating loss at Seattle's Washington State Convention and Trade
Center of "approximately $5.3 million," and an operating loss at San Jose's McEnery Con-
vention Center of $5 million in fiscal year 2002."'And the numbers far the new
Washington Convention Center are even worse. A 1998 financial forecast estimated that
the center would bring in about $20 million in operating revenues in 2004, against some
$25.6 million in operating expense, leaving a loss of $5.6 million. A recent auditor's esti-
mate for fiscal year 2004-05 puts the likely operating loss at $16.2 million." Added to that
is another $36.2 million in annual debt service, and $7.8 million in marketing costs for a
total annual cost of some $60.2 million.
For these and other centers that cannot generate enough revenue to cover their operat-
ing costs, additional funds are needed to cover their losses. That may require more money
from a city government, a reduction in funds for marketing, or an entirely new tax source.
To make matters worse, these centers must continue to scramble for events amid stiff
competition. Increasingly, as a result, many facilities have been.offering; discounts on center
rental rates and other special incentives, further compounding their inability to cover costs.
Examples of this trend abound. The city of Dallas recently began advertising its "Desti-
nation FIero" package, offering half-price center rent, a $5.00 per room night rebate for
local hotel use, and discounts on shuttle service, exhibit setup, and even airfare for events
booked through the end of 2007." The Hawaii Convention Center is offering free rent on
events booked through 2010." Charlotte recently "won" the 2005 Mennonite USA conven-
tion against competition from Columbus, Indianapolis, and Nashville by offering the
convention center for free, plus some extra incentives.`` The Seattle Convention and Visi-
tors Bureau's 2004 marketing plan notes that the Oregon Convention Center has been
offering the center "on a complimentary basis," while Denver is offering free rent on its
expanded center scheduled to open in December 2004. And then there is Los Angeles
"which offers extremely attractive pricing.""
The financial impact of these discounts and free rent offers goes right to the operating
revenues (and losses) of a convention center. A center owner still has to pay for utilities,
maintenance, and labor even when the. center is free, thus boosting its annual operating
"Compared to
St. Louis'
overall capital
investanes2t, the
total amount
invested in con-
vention facilities
is remarkable."
JANUARI' ~co~ • THE BR0061VGS 1VSTITUTION • RESE:IRCH BRIEF
loss. The Wnshirozgtoroz Post recently reported that part of the Washington Com~ention Cen-
ter's operating loss was the result of more than $2.7 million in center rent disco>mts.`" Of
course, center boosters argue that the increased ~~isitor spending and economic impact
from new events more than make up for those losses. But the promise of increased hotel
taees and economic impact is often just that-a promise. As the annual count of attendees
declines, all of the impact of their presumed spending falls in step.
That small nwnber of centers that are able to generate enough revenue to cover-or at
least come close to covering-their operating costs typically do so by booking a greater
number of local events.
There's a major.tradeoff to this approach however: Local events don't bring in out-of-
town visitors spending their out-of-town money at local restaurants, retail shops, and
tourist destinations-spending that ultimately boosts a cities' general revenues.
V. Case Study: A Look at St. Louis
he fiscal impact of convention center investment is exemplified by St. Louis, a city
which has long sought to boost its economy and sustain downtown with a visitor and
convention strategy.
The city's Cervantes Convention Center opened in 1977 with 240,000 square feet of
e.~chibit space and the promise it would "make St. Louis a top contender as a site for conven-
tions."'' The city went on to invest both local and federal dollars in a new downtown sho ma
PP~
mall, a festival marketplace and hotel at Union Station, and a restored riverfront warehouse dis-
trict, with the aim of positioning St. Louis as a major tourist destination.
By the mid-1980x, local convention officials and business leaders were promoting an
expansion of the center with the argument that it would boost the local meetings business
and aid do~vnto~nm. In a referendum vote in 1987, the city's voters approved an increased
hotel tax and a new restaurant tax to pay the $150 million cost of the expansion. The
investment in the convention center expansion was a major undertaking for the city, as its
general obligation debt had dwindled to just $30 million in the wake of a failed bond issue
package in 1974. St. Louis was putting its public dollars on a very expensive bet on a con-
vention center, rather than on basic services or public infrastructure. It was committing its
general revenues to pay off the center expansion bonds.
Just a few years later, the city would increase its bet on conventions yet again, attaching
a planned new domed stadium-intended to lure an NFL team-to the convention center,
with the argument that it too would add more exhibit space. This time, the city partnered
with the state and St. Louis County incurring only $60 million of the $240 million cost of
what is now the Edward Jones Dome. And once again, it committed city general fund
monies to pay the $6 million annual cost of the stadium debt. In order to justify the com-
mitment of city dollars, consulting firm Coopers & Lybrand conducted a study that
projected the convention center's business would triple, generating some $12 million a year
in new city tax revenues.`"
The first piece of the convention center expansion opened in 1993, followed by the
dome in 1995. Together, they were supposed to have launched St. Louis into a new level of
convention activity. But where Coopers & Lybrand had estimated more than 814,000
added annual "attendee days" for the center (assuming each of the 200,000 new attendees
would stay more than four days, thus using an equivalent number of hotel room nights),
the actual results were far short. In 1999-four years after the addition of the dome-only
1 73,000 attendees accounting for 203,000 hotel room nights participated in center con-
ventions and tradeshows.
The overall product of St. Louis' bet on conventions can be seen in the annual volume of
downtown hotel demand from 1991 (pre-expansion and dome} through the 1990x. In
]aNU:1R1' 200 • THE BROOKINC;S Ivs"fITOT10N • RESE:IRCH BRIEF
B
1991, the downtown hotels accounted for I. l6 million occupied room nights. After the
comrention center expansion and the domed stadium, 1996 hotel demand amounted to 1.2
million, a gain of about 38,000 annual room nights. But for 1997, demand dropped to 1.18
million and then I.15 million the following year. ``' In terms of filling more hotel rooms, the
city's im~estment in more and newer convention center space and a dome had done
absolutely nothing to either fill existing downtown hotel rooms or to prompt the private
development of more hotels. As a bet, it had proved decidedly unrewarding.
Faced with the lackluster performance of a facility dubbed '`America's Center," down-
town business leaders and city officials pressed for even more public ir-vestment, in the
form of a deeply subsidized headquarters hotel adjacent to the center. Over a period of
years during the 1990s, the city sought to induce a private developer to build a major new
hotel. But those efforts effectively Failed. Finally, in 1999, St. Louis ofl~icials embraced a
scheme by Historic Restorations, Inc. to combine the renovation of an old hotel with an
entirely new building, supported with a variety of city and state financial vehicles. City
leaders were convinced that a big hotel would catapult the city into the front rank of con-
vention destinations. The Convention and Visitors Commission argued that the hotel could
boost the city's overall convention business from 30 events a year to 50 or more, from
414,000 annual room nights to about 800,000. And again, the scale of the public bet was
massive.;"
The new 1,081 room St. Louis Renaissance Hotel would cost about $265 million, and be
paid for with a $98 million federal empowerment zone bond, more than $80 million in city
aid including a bond issue secured by federal Community Development Block Grant funds,
another $21 million in state tax credits, and some $20 million in federal historic preserva-
tion tax credits. The private investors, IGmberly Clark and Historic Restorations, put in
about 10 percent of the cost.
Compared to the city's overall capital investment, the total amount being invested in
convention facilities was really quite remarkable. After the defeat of a major package of
bond projects in 1974, the city had effectively stopped putting general obligation bond
projects before the voters. As a result, the city's general debt fell to about zero in 1998. A
$65 million bond issue for new fire stations was approved in November 1998, putting the
city general obligation debt at $47.5 million in 2002, with another $4C17 million. in capital
leases, all of which did not require voter approval and was almost entirely devoted to build-
ings downtown including the convention center. In essence, for two decades the city had
reshaped its capital investment, directing most of its own investment resources to the con-
vention center and stadium, a new arena, and a jail and courts building. In doing so, it also
created a continuing drain on the city's general fund resources.
The convention center and stadium complex were supposed to be revenue generators,
with their debt repaid through the city's general fund by increased taxes on hotel rooms
and restaurants. The annual debt service on the first phase of the expansion, funded by a
1993 bond issue, came to $1 1.9 million in 2001, plus another $2 million for "asset preser-
vation." The city was also committed to $6 million a year to pay for the dome. But the
actual revenue from these visitor-based taxes has been far less than the projected $12 mil-
lion.
For fiscal 2001, the restaurant tax yielded the city about $3.9 million, with the hotel tax
generating another $5.2 million. Set against the total $20 million anmial debt payment for
the convention center and stadium, these investments constitute a continuing fiscal bur-
den. And compared to the city's annual property tax revenues of $42 million, it is a
substantial ongoing commitment into an indefinite future, taking public dollars that could
have been spent on basic services. Compare this debt, for example, to spending on other
major activities. It amounts to 15 percent of the current spending for police services ($134
million), exceeds the $18.6 million general funding spending for parks and recreation, and
is about 42 percent of the current annual city spending for the fire department. In 2003,
"dn city after cit}~
the new private
investment and
development
that these con-
vention centers
were supposed to
spur has simply
not occurred."
J,ANU.1R1' zoos • THE BROOFINGS 1NSTITUTIOV • RESEARCH BRIEF
St. Louis refinanced its debt on the center, temporarily deferring its repayment but boost-
ing the size of the subsequent annual bill.
The new Renaissance hotel was fully open in Fehnlary 2003, finally giving the city the
complex of convention center, stadium, and headquarters hotel that had long been viewed
as vital to its competitive position in the convention industry. There was, however, in the
economic environment of 2003, not a great deal of evidence of the kind of com'ention suc-
cess for which city leaders had long hoped. The Convention and Visitors Commission's
estimates of convention attendance at the center came to about 155,700, little changed
from the 154,800 of a year earlier, or the 156,000 of 2000. And for 2004, booking esti-
mates stood at only 1 15,300. Where Convention and Visitors Commission president Bob
Bedell had promised 50 or more annual major conventions, the 2003 total came to 25,
with about 23 estimated for 2004."
And, the hotel itself continues to be a drain on city resources. With no boost in conven-
tion business, the Renaissance was hard pressed to maintain a reasonable occupancy level
and daily rate in 2003, particularly when downtown hotel occupancy averaged just 55 per-
cent. That year, the Renaissance averaged under 50 percent occupancy at a rate of just
$110. That was far less than the projected 63 percent occupancy and $131 a night room
rate estimated by the 2000 feasibility study that justified the hotel. Performance was weak
enough to attract the attention of VIoody's Investor Services, which had rated the $98 mil-
lion in empowerment bonds for the hotel in 2000.
Faced with the hotel's notably weak market performance, ~~oody's placed the hotel
bonds on its "watchlist" in October 2003, finally downgrading their rating near the end of
December to a speculative level. iNoody's assessment was less than heartening, noting that
the hotel was failing to meet its operating costs let alone the $7.1 million annual repay-
ment of the bonds.;' The hotel's operating deficit (before debt service) came to $1.7 million
for the year. And things appear little better for 2004. For the first half of the year, the
hotel's occupancy rate came to 49 percent, at a $110 average room rate, yielding a pro-
jected operating loss for the year of $2.3 million before debt sen~ice. And Moody's
downgraded the bonds again in August 2004.
St. Louis used the vast bulk of its $130 million in federal empowerment bonds authori-
zation, fully 75 percent, in pursuit of its convention hotel dream. It also took on the
obligation to repay another $50 million backed by its HUD community development block
grant funds. The commitment to the hotel, rather than some other form of job creation or
economic development, thus represents a substantial opportunity cost. Now, with the hotel
failing to meet its operating costs or debt service, the city of St. Louis will be forced to use
$500,000 in federal aid to meet the debt service cost this year.
But the bill for the convention center and headquarters hotel in a highly competitive
market does not stop there. The Nloody's assessment of the hotel's financial prospects
argued that its future success "will depend in part on continued redevelopment of down-
town," with the city seeking to "fast track certain downtown redevelopment efforts.";' The
likelihood is that St. Louis and the state of Missouri will continue to pour public capital
investment and tax subsidies into the dowmtown area and convention competition, despite
the limited returns. The city is thus regularly subsidizing the convention center at the
expense of other public services or other revitalization strategies.
,JANUARI' zoog • THE BR0061VG5 INSTI"rUT10N • RESEARCH BRIEF
1~
VI: Implications for Public Policy: Making Smarter Investments
oday, a broad cross section ofAmerican cities from Richmond; VA to Peoria, IL; iack-
son, i~IS to Tacoma, WA have or are investing millions of public dollars in the quest
for convention center success.
They are pursuing an economic development strategy that has already failed in
dozens of cities, and holds little prospect of succeeding in most. With the possible exception of
a handful of major cities that have long dominated the national and regional economies and a
very small number of prime visitor destinations like Orlando and Las Vegas, the grand promises
of convention center investment are unlikely to be realized, the strategy doomed to failure.
This being the case, it important to try to understand why state and local leaders are
making such bad decisions, and how the systems that drive those decisions can be
improved to yield better outcomes for cities and their residents.
Working from Real iblarket Information
As described earlier, national and local information on convention center trends and per-
formance is sorely lacking.
For most sectors of the national economy- home sales, housing starts, auto sales, retail
sales, new public and private construction, employment-there is an abundance of readily
available, widely reported, and consistently verifiable data on performance and trends. That
is simply not the case for the convention and tradeshow industry at the national level.
Where we can see the performance of hotels and airlines, the level of activity in the
nation's convention centers remains inadequately measured and poorly described, often by
trade publications with their own indices or consulting firms with proprietary data that is
impossible to verify.
The contemporary market environment has thus been described by .a June 2004 "viability
assessment" for Cleveland as one in which "the exhibit space required to accommodate
future event needs will increase..."" And while noting "an oversupply of convention facili-
ties," it could argue that a new center would help assure "a vibrant, thriving central city at
[the region's] core."'' In similar fashion, a iVlay 2004 updated analysis for a proposed new
convention center in tllbany, New York was able to present a graph showing regular annual
growth in convention and tradeshow attendance of t~vo percent a year from 2003 through
2008 (following a modest downturn), coupled with the conclusion that "For the meetings
industry, things have generally returned to pre-9-I 1 condition... Travel to meetings and
large tradeshows has resumed and will continue.";" The penultimate conclusion for Albany
was that '`the research still indicates strong support for the [conventioc~ center] project as
recommended... a significant demand generator in the local economy.";'
The information dearth that surrounds convention centers is no less problematic in
terms of individual cities. The public entities which own and manage convention facili-
ties-city or county governments, public authorities, and state government
agencies-report the basics of convention center performance in a wide variety of ways
that tend to obscure rather than enlighten. The city of Austin, Texas for example, has an
elaborate performance measurement system for city departments, allowing them to meas-
ure such things as the cost of curb ramp installation and the cost per employee of
prescription drugs. Btit while the Convention Center Department reports on such things as
the customer satisfaction rating of event set-up, it provides no readily available information
on the convention attendance at the center. One city report includes the information that
the center achieved a i7 percent occupancy ratio for fiscal year 2003.'" But while that fig-
ure can tell an observer that the center was rented, it provides no distinction between
conventions and public shows or between loca{ or national events, nor any index of how
many attendees the newly-expanded center managed to attract. The measures needed to
really assess the center's performance: annual convention and tradeshow attendance,
JANUARI' zoos • THE BR0061NGS IM1STITUTIOV • RESEARCH BRIEF
annual hotel room night generation, number of out-of-town attendees are just not there.
In a similar fashion, the state of Washington, widely recognized for its use of perform-
ance measurement, priority-setting, and budgeting for outcomes, neatly reports the number
of attendees at the state-owned Convention and Trade Center in downtown Seattle,
together with ratings of customer satisfaction.'" But that total attendance figure includes
national convention attendees together with estimated 10,000 attendance at "Seattle's
Cookin'!!" and the 80,000 attendees for the Flower and Garden Show. What the state does-
n't report is the annual total of convention and tradeshow attendees, particularly from
out-of-state. By obscuring the most relevant center performance, its ability to lure visitors
and generate economic activity, these measures provide a false sense of the center's return
on investment and performance and obscure the impact of larger national market forces.
Reliable national market data that can describe convention center supply and demand
would not necessarily improve the decision-making process at the local and state levels.
But it would provide some basis for independent assessment of local performance and suc-
cess, and of the prospects of a new or expanded center, beyond the analyses and
conclusions of paid consultants. And once built, a serious assessment of what the state or
local economy is actually receiving from its investment in a convention facility requires real
measures of relevant performance, reported in an accessible fashion that supports compari-
son with forecasts and promises, and that links the cost of funding and operating a center
with its return and results.
vlaking the Process Transparent and Valid
Real information and performance measures are just the first needed element in creating
an environment capable of assessing the public worth of convention center investment.
What is also vital is a set of policy review and analysis institutions that truly evaluate the
promises of a new or expanded convention center-the likelihood of new spending, job cre-
ation, and private investment generation-as well as the risks of failure.
As we've seen above, local decisions to invest in a new or expanded convention center or
hotel typically rely on consultant's market or feasibility studies that portray a growing,
expanding industry and which ensure that the given locality is quite capable of successfully
competing for convention events and out-of-town attendees-and in the process reaping
large financial benefits. Where, as in the last two years, there is clear evidence of a
changed market environment, these studies have quite often shifted to a different source of
data, promised an imminent market turnaround, or simply ignored the question of compe-
tition altogether.
One solution to this issue would to subject these consultant feasibility and market stud-
ies to a process of independent, outside audit and review that assesses the assumptions
which undergird the promises, and the methodology which shapes the performance fore-
casts and predictions. Where a consulting firm has a history of overestimating likely
attendance or economic impact, that history and background should playa role in assess-
ing the potential for success and the likelihood of failure.
Take the case of Richmond, VA. Three successive consultant studies, in 1990, 1995, and
October 1999, made the case for tripling the size of the Richmond Convention Center,
financing it through a metropolitan area wide hotel tax. The argument was that the bene-
fits of the increased attendance at the larger center, in the form of a greatly increased
volume of convention attendees and their hotel use, would flow to hotels in suburban
counties as well as the city. Ina 1995 study, the consultant projected that two to three
years after opening, an expanded center would attract ?08,000 annual attendees who
would use a total of =F16,000 hotel room nights."'A subsequent projection by the consult-
ant in late 1999 was that the expanded center (with a $165 million price tag) would bring
140,000 rtc~v hotel room nights of business to the metro area.'' But in its second year of
operation, the Greater Richmond Convention Center generated a total vohrme of 44, i 62
~ANUARY 2005 ~ THE BROOhINCS INSTITUTION • RESEARCH BRIEF
B
convention-related room nights-less than a third of projected new nights.
In Nleguprojects and Risk: An Azzatozzz}' ofArnbitiori-a ?003 book documenting the pat-
tern of over-estimated performance and underestimated costs in major public
projects-Brent FI}n~bjerg and his colleagues make the case for a system of peer review for
public project proposals, bringing outside expertise to bear on estimates of costs and bene-
fits to help "decide whether the information produced by project promoters and their
consultants is state-of-the-art and balanced."'' There is little institutional precedent for sys-
tematic outside review of such things as convention center projects in the U.S. But the
existing system of evaluating the financial prospects of capital projects and debt issues by
bond rating agencies (Moody's, Standard and Poor's, and Fitch) provides a model for more
systematic review of larger performance forecasts and potential results.
The current model of bond ratings is intended to assess risk for bond purchasers, and to
monitor financial performance over time as it affects the risk and sale potential of a public
bond issue. Increasingl}; the official statement for a new bond issue includes substantial
detail about a project and its fiscal backing, often including a formal feasibility study And
requirements for "continuing disclosure" provide a means of tracking at least some ele-
ments of (largely financial) performance. But because convention centers are commonly
financed by debt backed by very broad and diverse revenue streams, a center can magnifi-
cently fail as an economic and visitor generator, while the repayment of its bonds is fully
assured.
A broader system of project review by the independent rating houses could build on their
reputation for integrity and oversight, offering the review of promotional claims and fore-
casts called for by Flyvbjerg as part of the rating process.
Im~olving the Public
The widespread use of revenue-backed bonds to finance convention centers and related
projects has long provided a means of avoiding state constitutional requirements (in the
vast majority of states) for voter approval of general obligation debt fully backed by the
local government. And even where the voters have said "no" to center bond issues or new
taxes-as they have done in Pittsburgh, Columbus, Portland, and San Jose-investments in
convention facilities have a way of happening despite the electoral outcome-as in Pitts-
burgh, Columbus, Portland and San Jose. Yet there is no magic to the revenue backing of
convention center bonds. Unlike other revenue debt issued for water or wastewater proj-
ects, airports or ports, they are not repaid by charges or fees on conveztion center users.
Instead, everyone who stays in an area hotel room, eats a meal in an area restaurant, or
rents a car helps pay the principal and interest on center debt.
A far greater level of public involvement and review is needed during the local center
development process. Such review has been almost entirely absent. As convention center
financing and development has shifted from city governments to public authorities and
even state government, the visibility and understandability of the projects and their costs
has become murky and distant to the general public. The workings of such entities as
Chicago's Metropolitan Pier and Exposition Authority, the Rhode Island Convention Cen-
terAuthority in Providence, Pittsburgh's Sports and Exhibition Authority, the county
convention facilities authorities in Columbus (Franklin county) and Cincinnati (Hamilton
county), Ohio, Atlanta's Georgia World Congress Center Authority, Milwaukee's Wisconsin
Center District, and the San Diego Convention Center Corporation have been effectively
insulated from the vagaries of city politics and much public input.
Although it would be useful to subject the investment and taxation decisions of Chese
agencies and their counterparts to more substantial public input and review-by requiring
affirmative votes by the relevant general purpose local government or by making their
spending on major construction projects subject to referendum vote- there appears to be
little interest at the state government level in restraining them. A fuller panoply of public
~ANU:\Rl' zoo5 • THE BR0061NG5 iNSTITUTI<}~r o RF.SE\RCH BRIEF
B
participation mechanisms including hearings, surveys, and formal advisory committees
with real public. membership would provide at least a partial means of removing the insula-
tion from local democracy that these institutions now enjoy.
Changing Federal Oversight and Regulation
Convention center projects, like most publicly-owned capital investments, benefit from the
advantages of tax-exempt municipal debt. The exemption of interest payments from federal
income taxation serves to both reduce the cost of borrowing money and to provide an
implicit federal subsidy (from all taxpayers) for these projects. The logic of income tali
exemption for local projects that are effectively "private purpose" has already been seriously
questioned. But today, the argument that the expenditure of hundreds of millions of dollars
for hundreds of thousands of square feet of nev<< convention center space in an already
glutted market serves the purpose of local economic development appears rather strained.
The argument for tax-exempt bonds and federal empowerment zone bonds for hotel proj-
ects would appear even more questionable. That local officials are willing to try almost any
investment in their quest for more convention visitors is quite clear. But there is no real
reason why federal subsidies intended to boost job creation for inner city neighborhoods,
and the "public purpose" rationale for municipal bond issues, should extend at all to hotels.
I-Iotels have historically been purely private investment, and the new publicly-owned and
bond-financed hotels in Austin, Houston, Omaha, Sacramento, Myrtle Beach, and Denver
compete directly with their privately-financed counterparts, often with the result of drag-
ging down occupancy and room rates for the entire market.
Just as the late Sen. Daniel Moynihan proposed Congressional legislation limiting the
use of tax-exempt bonds for stadium and sports facility projects, a similar effort to limit fed-
eral support for the "space race" in convention centers makes sense. Those communities
that wish to invest in a modestly sized facility for local civic purposes can and should be
allowed to do so with tax-exempt bonds. But centers with more than 100,000 square feet of
exhibit space do not serve a largely local purpose, and there is no compelling reason for the
nation's taxpayers to support them.
;YIaking Other Policy Choices
Today, as all cities are obliged to compete with dozens of others, the prospects of real eco-
nomic development and opportunity based on the convention strategy appear nil. Any
serious approach to dealing with urban needs and problems in cities like Baltimore and
Washington, New Orleans, Atlanta, Milwaukee, St. Louis, Detroit, or even Minneapolis
and San Antonio must seek an alternative path based on different kinds of investments.
Baltimore, another city that has been celebrated for its urban turnaround, has made a
raft of public investments in its downtown and Inner Harbor-including two sports stadi-
ums, the National Aquarium, and an expanded convention center-bringing a flow of
visitors estimated at more than 1 1 million in 2002. Yet, for all that presumed visitor activity,
the Census Bureau's County Business Patterns found just 3,454 employees in the city's
hotel sector in 2001, or about 1.1 percent of total private employment. The city's poverty
rate stood at 22.9 percent in the 2000 Census, effectively unchanged from the figure in
1980, as the city's population fell from more than 905,000 in 1970 to just 651,154 in
2000.
New Orleans boasts an impressive reputation as a visitor destination and a convention
center with more than one million square feet of exhibit space. The Morial center is cur-
rently in the process of another expansion with a price tag of more than X450 million. The
city's 2001 hotel employment came to 14,035, or about 6.5 percent of total private employ-
ment. New Orleans' poverty rate was 2 i.9 percent, little changed from decades earlier, as
the city's population fell From 593,471 in 1970 to 484,6 i4 in 2000.
For these cities, and a host of other older central cities that have invested hundreds of
~ANOARI' ?ooj • THE BROORINCS 1NSTITUTION • RESEARCH 13RIfiF
B
millions in convention and visitor infrastructure, the return on that investment in terms of
job creation and urban turnaround has been modest at best.
Edward Glacser's "Rcirvcnting Boston" offers a longer term historical perspective that
supports an alternative policy approach." Noting that Boston has succeeded in adapting
itself to a series of economic changes since the early nineteenth century including the
recent shift from manufacturing to a center of the "information economy" Glaeser attrib-
utes the city's adaptability to its human capital: `'Most skilled cities hawe done well over the
past two decades, and Boston in 1980 had a strong skill base relative to its Rust Belt peers
like Syracuse and Detroit."" He goes on to emphasize Boston's ability to re-orient the local
economy as other cities challenged its dominance, and its character as "a place that people
wanted to live.""
The Boston case and a large volume of related research suggest that the future of a city
rests on its investment in education and human capital, as well as basic city services, rather
than in the sole development of a tourist wonderland.
Seattle's "families and education" property tax levy provides an example of the commit-
ment of public resources to human capital and development as a central local development
strategy. Originally approved by Seattle's voters in November 1990, and re-authorized in
1997 and again in 200=I, this tax currently generates some $ 16.7 million annually to fund
such city services as preschool and early childhood education, family support, student
health programs, and support for high-risk youth. Compared to the debt service on a con-
vention center, it is about half the annual payment for the new Washington, D.C.
Convention Center, and a fraction of the combined operating loss and debt service of most
centers.
The Seattle levy is not necessarily a panacea or the optimal strategy for all cities. But it
does illustrate two important points. First, the city's voters have been willing to support a
tax increase at the polls when its resources serve a direct community purpose: Second,
Seattle has been willing to innovate and attempt a new policy direction with substantial
involvement of the public it serves. Innovative policy approaches that seek to build flexible
local economies and workforces capable of adapting to social and economic change offer
potentially far greater rewards than building ever larger convention centers in the hope-
largely misplaced-that someone will eventually come.
VII. Conclusion
he boom in convention center development over the last decade has been a triumph
of public sector entrepreneurship and fiscal innovation, marrying the creation of new
public authorities, an increased fiscal-role for state government, and a host of new tax
and revenue sources to the development of enormous new facilities. That success in
spending has in turn spurred even more public investment, by cities large and small, in com-
panion facilities including new publicly-owned and financed hotels.
But if taxing, spending, and building have been successful, the performance and results
of that investment have been decidedly less so. Existing com%ention centers have seen their
business evaporate, while new centers and expansions are delivering remarkably little in
terms of attendance and activity.
What is even more striking, in city after city, is that the new private im~estment and
development that these centers were supposed to spur-and the associated thousands of
new visitors-has simply not occurred. Rather, city and convention bureau officials now
argue that cities need more space, and more convenience, to lure those promised conven-
tions. And so underperforming convention centers now must be redeemed by public
investment and ownership of big new hotels. When those hotels fail to deliver the prom-
J:WU;\Rl' 2ooj • THE BR006INGS INSTITUTIOi~~ • RESEARCH BRIEF
B
ises, then the excuse is that more attractions, or more retail shops, or even more conven-
tion center space will be needed to achieve the goal of thousands of new visitors.
Thcre is nc doubt that local .~.^eting and event spac:, pravides an important public
amenity for communities of all sizes. And few would disagree that even large-scale comren-
tion centers can be an asset for certain highly competitive cities, and certainly for the
industries and visitors thev host.
Nationwide, however, it is abundantly clear that a new or ever-bigger convention center
cannot in and of itself revitalize or redeem a downtown core. It is also distressingly appar-
ent that convention centers and massive public commitments to visitors and tourism can
do Little to address the large problems of poverty, decay, population loss, and housing aban-
donment that plague our older core cities. By understanding these limitations, local leaders
will be better positioned to make more informed policy choices and develop more holistic
economic development strategies.
Jr1NUAR1" 200j • THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION • RESE:IRCH BRIEF
Endnotes
I. Tntdesho+v \Verk. Jlajor Exhibit FLrll Uirectan' 2(l0i
(Los Angeles: TnrdrshD++' \1`eek. 2001. pp. 12-20.
2. I;PMG LLP. ":\larkrt and Fin:mcial Analysis for Additional
Cmnvention Center Space in lialrigh. North Carolina."Juh•
1002, pp. 12-13.
3. Cih of Raleigh, :N'C. "Council :1linutes, June 30, 3003 "
available at ht[p://www.ralrigh-nc.org/citydata/min-
utrs/2003/
mjun3003.doc.
3. Cih of Phoeniy. AZ, "P:arick Grtdv to Sheol Scatter.
"Civic Plaza Expansion -Status Report." 2001, available at
+ey+w.c i.phoenix.az.usf \ EIVSRELAV 1lplazaccr.html.
S, Price\VatrrhnuseCoopers, "illarkrt and Economic An:[hsis
for a Proposed Jaeuh l:. Javits Convention Center Egtan-
siun and Hrndyuorters Hoteh" January 300#, pp. 3-~l.
6. HVS International. "Draft Colorado Springs Com~ention
Center FcasihiliR Study. ~ March 200. Section 3-10.
7. Strategic Advisors Croup, ".Alham C:omention Center la
Hotel Complex Update Report," Mar 200-4, p. i
H. It should hr noted that the one do+vnside in using this
localized data is that even center "counts" its contention
attendees somewhat differentht +eith some using ^ctual
attendance and others estimating it from hotel room hnok-
ings or use. Some include exhibitors and guests at
conventions and tradesho+cs. While this variety makes it
difficult ur directly compare centers, the data used are as
' consistent as possible Fnr each center over time, based nn
its ac[u:d :urav of comentions and tradesho+vs.
9. Tradeshow V1/eek. Trudeshou~ Vi4ek 2(N), 2sth dmnud Edi-
timr (Los Angeles: Tradesho+c \•\'eek. 2002), p. 5.
f 0. Trtdesho+v Week, Trudeshnw Week 200. 29th .Amnml Edi-
tiuu (Los Angeles: Tntdrshow \Veik. 2003), pp. i-fl.
1 I. Tradesho+v Week. Tradrahrni Wee F. 2lN), 3(lih Ameirc•rsar)~
F.ditimr (Los Angelis: Trrdeshos• Week, 2000, p. i.
12. HVS International, "Cnm~ention Center flanker and Finan-
cial Analysis: Proposed Development oF:\'e+y Cnm•ention
Center, Schaumburg, lllinnis," February 20(1, Section -F-
I I.
13. The hack+vard look in calculating perernt change for indi-
vidual events goes hack avo vean for biennial sho+rs. Thus
the space and attendance of hienni:d shn+cs in 2003 are
annpa red to [heir performance in 2001-a: particularly lo+v
base tear Fnr mam events.
1-1. Nl'C and Co., "Tourism Barometer: December & Full }ear
2003.'.
t ~. The Atl:mta Convention and Visitors Rureau also reports
the total com~rntion attendance for the metropolitan area,
including meetings in the Americasflart, suburban conyen-
[ion centers, and hotels. From a peak of 3,692,000 in 199,
attend:mcr hats fallen to 2,tiS7i,+-17 in 20(13-a drop of 32
percent.
16. David C. Petersen, Uevrlopiug S)wrts, Cornrntinrq mid Per-
jnrrnin~•Arts Centers: Third Edition (Washington: Urban
Land Instintte. 2001), p. 223.
I7. f7ark S. Rosrntraub, "Indianapolis, n Sports Strategy, and
the Redefinition of Do+cntmm~ Kedecclopmrnt." in Ucnnis
l{. Judd ed., The Infrastruc(ure of P{ay LArmDnk, Al": Al. E.
Sharpe. 2003).
IH. HVS International, ":1larkrt Study+vith Financial Projec-
tions" Proposed Headquarters Hotel Dallas. "frets," Urrft
Frbntarv 100.
l9. Suzanne (tart,. "Convetxion Office Seeks Hotel: V-Vclp,"
U:tllas Morning Ne+vs. July 26.2(10-1.
30. flicharl S. Hughes, "Ho+c Lunt; Can the Boom Con-
tinue%," presentation to the International Convention
Crntrr Conference of the International Assrciation of
:lssembly fl:magers, Tucson. Arizona. Oc biher 6, _'000.
21. Travel Industry Association of .America. "Unmestic (ravel
(larkrt Report 200." July 200-1. Thr TIA series on husi-
nrss/cum~ention travel also shn+vs no real gm+eth from
199 (162.ti million trips) to 1999 (163.3 million), and a
decline [0 161 .5 million in 2000.
32. Charles H. Johnson, "Presentation to the Citizens' Com-
mittee For Fnrt \I'orth's Future. :f larch IQ 2003."
23. Gtmentions, Sports and Leisure Inc.. ":}nnlvsis of the
Long=Perm Convention Facilitc Nerds of the ::Nashville,
Frnnessee Market," fiurch 2i, 200E p. 39.
2i. Ernst & }'Dunn. "Loner Range Strnrgic Plan fur the Orange
County Convention Center." 199 i, p. 1 ~.
2i. lbid.
26. Conventions, Spots and Leisure International, "Long Rage
\larkrt Demand and Feasibilih'Analysis for the Ernest :V.
Morial Ne+v Orleans Exhibition Hall Authority," 1999, p.
32.
27. Ciq• of Denver, "Report of the flavor's Com•ention Center
E~pansinn Task Force,.. March L2, 1999, p. 2S.
2S. "Com~entinn Hotel: The Plan's a Good One. Do It," Unllus
;1lontin~ N`vu•s, October 20. 2001.
29. David CL Petersen, Uerelnpin~ Sports, Cnurevtinu, wed Per-
jnrnriq~ Ares Centers. Third F_dition, (\Vushingtrm: Urban
Land Institute. 2001), p. K3.
30. G. H. lohnson Consulting, "Oregon Convention Crntrr
BenchmarkingAnalysis," October 2003, section 3 p. 30.
31. District uF Columbia Auditor, "Certification of the Suffi-
cirncv of the Washington Convention Center.Authorita:c
Projected Revenues... Fnr Fiscal fear 2001," Juh' 200.1.
32. See wvvtv.visi[dallas.tom/pdf/herc>.pdf.
33. Praha Natar;tjan, "Convention Center \Vill Offer Frt•e
Kent," YuciFc Bnsiueas tl'errs, (larch 2fi, 200-1.
3~F. Leigh Dyer, "Exhibit Halls Echo o'ith Tr,rvel Slump: Char-
lotte Com•entimt Center Either has tD Pass Up Income or
Sit Empty." Clurrlntte Obsenrr, Junr 26. 2003.
35. Ibid.
36. U:ma Hedgpeth, "fleeting Expectations," VVnthin,~trm Ynst,
March 29, 200-1, p. E1.
37. St. Louis City Plan Commis:ion. "St. Louis Development
Program," June 1973, p. S2 '.
3R. Coopers & Lyhrtnd, "13epnrt on the Expansion of the Cer-
vantes Convention Center," 1991, pp. 8-1 I.
39. Hotel Consulting St<n~ices Inc.. "Market Study and Finan-
cial Projections: Proposed Itennissancr Hotel and
Rennissancc Suites, St. Louis, flissouri," September 2000,
p. 76.
30. C. U. Stelrer, "Thr Big Fis: A Desperate St. Louis Pays Top
llollar to Gamble on a Rislo~ Convention-Center Hotel." St.
Louis Rirc•r(rnnt Ti rues, November I9, 1999, np.
~1. Alargarct Jackson. "(Un)comrntnrnal St. Louis: Renais-
sance Grand Misses First }'ear Pmjections," St. Louis
Busiurss Jwrruah
April 9, 200, np.
i2. Moodvs Im•estors Service, "hating Update: St. Louis
Industrial Development Authority, St. Louis." December
13. 2003.
93. Ibid.
~~. Cleveland State Unicersih~ and Conventions, Sports, and
Leisure, Inc., "Economic Dect•lopmrn[ anti a Ne++• Conven-
tion Center in Do+rnto+vn Cleveland: r\n Assessment of
Issues antl Viabiliht "June 200-1, p. -F 1.
~S. Ibid., pp. 77 :md 79.
]ANU:}R}~ 2ooj • THE BROOI:IAC5 INS"fITUTION • RESEARCH BRIEF ,
~6. Strategic Advisory Gr<xgr, ":1lbany Convention Crntrr 2K
Hotel Complex Update Report," \lay 2001, pp. ~ and K.
i7. Ihid., p. 1.
3F, Cih~ oFAustin. TY, "Alcmor.+ndum fmm I;tnh~ Gana to
\t:n•nr and City Council:' September 30. 2003 1-'inancial
Performance Report," February 200-F, p. Si.
~9. Uavid Osborne :md Peter Hutchinson. TLe Price o} Gnrerrr-
nrent (Newyork: Basic Rooks. 2003).
S0. I:PMG Pent ~.\laneick, "Cost-Renrfit Anah~sis for the
Expansion of the Richmond Centre," April 1991.
~ 1. C. H. Johnson Consulting, "Feasibility Sntdv Report to the
Greater Richmond Convention Crntrr Authority," October
1999.
i2. Rrent Flyrhjerg. \ils Rruzelius, and bVerner Ruthengatter,
illeguymject and Hick (New fork: Cambridge University
Press, 2003), p. I l2.
53. Edward Glaeser, "Rrincenting Roston: L6~0-2003," Har-
varJ Institute of Economic Research Discussion Paper
101 i, September 2003.
?~. Ibid., p. 2.
ii. Ibid., p. fi.
~ANU,\R1' 200j • TWE BROOKINGS IVS'Cf'CUTfON • BESEARGH BRIEF
B
Acknowledgments
The author :vould ]ike to thank the numerous cite, state, convention center, and crnven-
tion and visitors bureau staff members who provided both information and insights, the
staff of the Metropolitan Policy Program-particularly Jennifer Vey for help in refining this
report-and his wife Hilary for her editorial assistance and support. A special thanks is
due Prof. Ned Hill, without whom this work could not have taken its present form.
The Metropolitan Policy Program would like to thank the Fannie h~Iae Foundation and the
Ford Foundation for support of this Central Cities Initiative research brief.
For More Information:
Heywood Sanders, Ph.D.
Professor
Department of Public Administration
University of Texas at San Antonio
210-458-2538 or 210-735-0777
Heywood. Sanders@utsa.edu
Brookings Institution Metropolitan Policy Program
202-797-6139
www, brookings. edu/metro
~ANUr1R1' aooj • THE BROOIiINGS INSTITUTI01' • RESEARCH BRIEF
THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION
1775 Massachusetts Avenue, NW • Washington D.C. 20036-2188
Tel: 202-797-6000 • Fax: 202-797-6004
www.brookings.edu
METROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM
DIRECT: 202-'797-61i9 • F.4,Y/DIRECT: 202-i97296j
www, brookings.edu/metro
,~
MEMORANDUM
January 27, 2005
To: Vail Town Council
Stan Zemler
Pam Brandmeyer
Judy Camp
From: Sally Lorton
Re: December Sales Tax
On the reverse side, please find the latest sales tax worksheet. I estimate I'll
collect another $89,000.00 in December sales tax to bring December collections to
$2,355,703.00. If so, we will be up 8.50% or $184,605.00 from December 2003 and up
7.42% or $162,741.00 from budget. The year would be up 5.99% or $873,082.00 from
2003 and up 4.93% or $726,265.00 from budget.
Attached please find two worksheets that report on the conference center tax
collection.
onth Town of Vail
Conference Center Retail Tax (.
1 /26/2005
lUU4
2003 Budget Co/%cfions
5%) Worksheet
Change
budget tiom
Variance 2003
Change
from
Budget
January 233,274 227,706 267,007 39,301 14.46% 17.26%
February 250,236 244,263 283,474 39,211 13.28% 16.05%
March 283,013 276,258 284,541 8,283 0.54% 3.00%
April 99,694 97,315 1 15,618 18,303 15.97% 18.81
May 46,376 45,269 46,166 897 -0.45% 1.98%
June 83,981 81,977 83,912 1,935 -0.08% 2.36%
July 122,562 1 19,637 130,291 10,654 6.31 % 8.91
August 119,843 116,983 114,900 (2,083) -4.12% -1.78%
September 78,107 76,243 87,087 10,844 11.50% 14.22%
October 57,330 55,962 59,868 3,906 4.43% 6.98%
November 67,602 65, 987 71,173 5,186 5.28 % 7.86
December 253,449 247,400 270,468 23,068 6.71 % 9.32%
Total 1,695,467 1,655,000 1,814,505 159,505 7.02% 9.64%
onth Town of Vail
Conference Center Lodging Tax C 1
1 /26/2005
lUU4
2003 Budget Co/%ctions
.5%)Worksheet
Change
Budget trom
Variance 2003
Change
trom
Budget
January 258,035 263,236 304,140 40,904 17.87% 15.54%
February 314,645 320,987 354,159 33,172 12.56% 10.33%
March 342,984 349,897 333,006 (16,891) -2.91% -4.83%
April 64,246 65,541 87,147 21,606 35.65% 32.97%
May 15,964 16,286 18,027 1,741 12.92% 10.69%
June 54,153 55,244 56,662 1,418 4.63% 2.57%
July 84,422 86,124 94,611 8,487 12.07% 9.85%
August 81,820 83,469 82,900 (569) 1.32% -0.68%
September 42,569 43,427 48,706 5,279 14.42% 12.16%
October 25,131 25,638 28,688 3,050 14.15% 11.90%
111ovember 29,089 29,675 33,017 3,342 13.50% 11.26%
December 260,232 265,476 286,632 21,156 10.14% 7.97%
Total 1,573,290 1,605,000 1,727,695 122,695 9.81 % 7.64%
t3.
a ~ i
~ ~~w1?
y" ,.
~' ~'..~
~ r
~i
,r ` For ~~
,~ ~ ,;
}tr~a~~rr~~~~z'az~ f:~
~'~~~~~~e~1f "~:~T~1.~
R
1~~d,f~fe1 ~ ~'F'~e.'P'.J
~~re ~`~~rt ~r.~.tr~-~rra1"~y~
st~~r:~~ r'i~e'~~f~c',,~s:s
~7 ~'tp3j .~ adf 7P --l:
T~'i~ F~~~~ ~e-~ti~r
~" ~~n ~t
5~~~ ~t~3
Ec~~a*ar~i~; f'.~
~~~, i~:~:~tie~.~a~r~s~.c~g
~,rrr~~.l~e~.t~~, c~r4
X C ~ Cc~,u,u,~-
0~:~
January 21, 2005
Pam Brandenmeyer
Town of Vail
Vail Town Hall
75 South Frontage Road West
Vail, CO 81657
Dear Pam,
New Year's Greetings! We are writing to say thank you one more time for your 2004
contribution to The Heuga Center's annual auction. Your help in this important way
has allowed the Center to accomplish so much for people and families facing a
difficult chronic disease like multiple sclerosis (MS) -and, we couldn't have done it
without you.
We also want you to be aware of some changes for 2005. As you may have heard,
The Heuga Center's winter events have taken on a new look and a new format. The
Snow Express is now the Vertical Express for MS and will take place at 22 resorts
across the country on Saturday, February 12, 2005. In celebration of the 20tH
anniversary of the first Snow Express for MS at Mt. Alyeska, The Heuga Center will
attempt to set two new world records: one for the most vertical feet skied or ridden in
a single day (at Vail Resort) and a second for the largest on-snow fundraiser (at all
resorts nationwide). I have enclosed a press release about the Vertical Express for
MS - or you can visit the website at www.verticatexnress.org.
As in past years, this event will be the largest fundraiser for The Heuga Center. We
will still host a "Finals" awards event in mid-April to honor our sponsors and top
fundraisers -piggy-backing on Spring Back to Vail activities and with on- and off-
slope festivities. However, we have decided not to hold our annual April Finals
auction -arid at this time don't know if an auction will be held.
We are so grateful for your past support and for helping us promote health and
creating hope for people with MS. Please mark your calendar for Saturday,
February 12th and join the fun at one of the 2005 Vertical Express for MS events./
We would love to see you in Vail at the headliner event, or at one of the other
participating resorts close to home. ~,~
With best wishes for a happy and hopeful year ahead,
~ g , `~~~
• `' ,~~'
Phyllis artinez ~ ~~'' J
Director of Development Programs '~ , `~ w
~}~ c
p.s. Please stay in touch!
"1q. ~.
~~`/f-~
~ ~ ~
~~Pp~ i
'' <bx+ ~ S
®~j` a
`~ t
~~. Ms
~~~ n``~
_a
~d'~!~'.fPii~ td°'.~~~
+tr~~'~ca!'P,a i~~
. ~°rrrr~x ~.~~~~at~'.r~;'~
dt A~'i'9'e'i'iZ~dt~J'J'cZi~~~(J
1'i f Pid oil 'd~t.'fi~
~ ~ ~rte~
3t~da~ i'~FC'J~,1'~eG:'.~.
~"~1't'a~t'e Il~i?s ~'.
~x ~dn '~~
~~~~ 313
~r;~r~1s,. G~CI
~~fi~2
~~~~~~. ~~1icr±~~~s~ss.c
~.Y~; a-~.~i~~~.~: rte
REGISTRATION/CALENDAR ANNOUNCEMENT
MS SUPPORTERS UNITE FOR VERTICAL EXPRESS
FOR MS AT 22 RESORTS SATURDA Y, FEBRU.~RY 12,
2005
The Heuga Center, World-Renowned MS Center, Attempts Two New
World Records to Raise Funds and Awareness
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Media Contacts:
New York: (212) 877-5551
Eda Kalkay
edaCa~edakalkay.com
Denver: (303) 333-1402
Reggie Phillips
ReQaie(a~turneror.com
Mariana Singer
Mariana@turnerpr.com
(Edwards, CO) December 10, 2004 -Chances are you or someone you know is one
of the 400,000 Americans affected by multiple sclerosis (MS). The Heuga Center,
a charity MS organization based in Edwards, Colorado, has announced that on
Saturday, February 12, 2005, supporters, snow enthusiasts, and families will
unite to raise money and MS awareness at 22 resorts nationwide during the Vertical
Express for MS!
The event, which was founded 20 years ago as the Snow Express for MS by skiing
Olympian and Heuga Center founder, Jimmie Heuga, will draw skiers and riders from
across the country in an attempt. to set two new world records: the first, for the
largest on-snow fundraising event, and the second, at Vail, CO; for the most vertical
feet on snow in one day. All donations will be accepted in person on the day of the
event or in advance on the event website, www.verticalexpress.org. Both on-snow
and "virtual" supporters may contribute on-line.
The Snow Express began in 1985, when Jimmie and ten others set a. world record,
skiing one million vertical feet during 24 hours in Alyeska, Alaska. In celebration of
the 20th anniversary of that feat, the Vertical Express for MS aims to establish two
new world records, while raising funds and awareness for The Heuga Center and MS.
All proceeds will support The Heuga Center's proactive wellness programs that focus
on educating people living with MS and their families on what they "can do" to live
healthy, active and fulfilling lives. The Center's interactive CAN DO programs are the
only MS programs of their kind in the world.
How to Participate
To participate .in the Vertical Express for MS, individuals or teams can register in
advance of the event at www.verticalexpress.orq, or on-site at any of the 22
participating resorts on event day, Saturday, February 12, 2005.
(more)
A
[ti
Page Two...Announcing The Vertical Express for MS
Everyone who skis or rides, or has a vested interest in supporting programming for
people living with MS and their families is invited to .take part in the event. Donation
stations at each participating resort will be clearly marked. Participants can expect a
full day of celebration, including interactive activities, apres parties and prizes. All
donations are welcome; those of $100 or more include the benefit of a lift ticket, and
event gifts.
Incentive prizes for top pre-event fundraising include outdoor apparel, snow play
equipment and a chance to win a VIP trip to Vail. Participating individuals and/or
teams are encouraged to drum up support in advance of the event by soliciting
donations through friends, family and colleagues. Individuals who raise $5,000 (or
teams that raise $5,000/team member) may choose to come to Vail on February 12 to
take part in the vertical foot world record attempt or attend "Spring Back to Vail" in
April, 2005. Visit www.verticalexpress.org for all the details and to register.
Participating resorts include:
Arizona Snowbowl Arizona
Arapahoe Basin Colorado
Beaver Creek Colorado
Breckenridge Colorado
Copper Mountain Colorado
Durango Colorado
Keystone Colorado
Loveland Colorado
Sol Vista at Granby Colorado
Steamboat Colorado
Sunlight Colorado
Telluride Colorado
Vail* Colorado
Schweitrer Idaho
Boyne Mountain Michigan
Big Sky Montana
Ski Beech North Carolina
Ski Anthony Lakes Oregon
Solitude Utah
Sugarbush Vermont
Crystal Mountain Washington (Note: Event is
March 5, 2005)
Squaw Valley USA California (Note: Event is
March 5 & 6, 2005)
(more)
r
Page Three...Announcing The Vertical Express for MS
"The Vertical Express for MS marks the 20`h anniversary of the Snow Express, our
primary source of funding," explained Bob Gardner, Chairman of The Heuga Center
Board. "This is a tremendous milestone we are celebrating and we are reaching out to
our thousands of supporters over the last 20 years with an aim to break fundraising
records and help share our programming with more individuals and families living with
MS. We hope everyone planning to ski or ride this seasori will choose to join the fun
for a great cause on Saturday, February 12."
According to .Heuga Center President, Brian Hutchinson, "The Heuga Center has
literally changed the thinking as to how MS should be managed...Many who attend
our programs say their lives have changed significantly for the better."
The Center's programs include the five-day, flagship, CAN DO Program, the CAN DO
2, a two-day follow up program for graduates of the CAN DO Program, JUMPSTART,
a one-day introduction to The Heuga Center wellness philosophy, as well as various
collaborative programs, tele-conferences and on-going research.
The Vertical Express for MS is sponsored by Rolex Watch, USA, RSN, Columbia
Sportswear, Event Networks, National Frozen Foods and Ski Magazine. The Vertical
Express for MS is endorsed by Snowsports Industries of America's Winter Feels Good
Program. For more information or to register for the Vertical Express for MS, visit
www.verticalexpress.org. To learn more about The Heuga Center, visit
www.heuga.org, or call 888-DO-IT-4MS.
###
From: Tim Swift <tswift@vail.net>
To: Dick Cleveland <dcleveland@vailgov.com>, Diana Donovan <ddonovan@valgov.com>,
Farrow Hitt <fhitt@vailgov.com>, Kent Logan <klogan@vailgov.com>, Greg Moffet
<gmoffet@vailgov.com>, Kim Ruotolo <kruotolo@vailgov.com>, Rod Slifer <rslifer@vailgov.com>
Date: 1/19/200510:04:24 AM
Subject: Crossroads Redevelopment
Dear Honorable Council Members,
Last night I attended your Council meeting for the purpose of learning
firsthand (along with you) about the proposed Crossroads redevelopment
project. I must say, I came away impressed with the efforts the developers
have made to address the concerns of the Town planning staff and feel
strongly that the plan should be approved. I would have stated such during
the public comment portion of the meeting, but many people had already
echoed my sentiments and at that stage of the evening the last thing anyone
wanted was another two minutes from me. Besides, I needed more that two
minutes to list all my reasons. Hence, this a-mail.
My primary concern, which I heard expressed by at least one Council member
is what, exactly, is a public benefit? Your staff representative spent a
great deal of time talking about what was not, or could be construed as not,
a public benefit. What I am having trouble with is that if increased
revenue, street improvements, a skating rink, new entertainment options,
dwelling units, new retail opportunities, more the required number of
parking spaces, and public restrooms are not public benefits then what are
they? The word 3amenities~ was used more than once to describe these
things. Perhaps it was used in an attempt to distinguish these things from
'true public benefits, but I never heard the definition of a 3true~ public
benefit. If I missed something, I^m sorry, but what Mr. Mauriello and Mr.
Knoble are proposing sound pretty beneficial to this observer.
An other objection seemed to be the height(s) of the building, but I felt
that the developers addressed these points well. They point out that the
107^ number that was talked about occurred at only one point of the
building, not the entire roofline, and, because of the steep slope of the
roof went down dramatically. This hardly describes a 3great wall, as some
fear. I feel I must point out that zoning laws are written when times are
good and everyone wants do everything. Needs, circumstances, and tastes
change. These things are inevitable and must be understood as well as
embraced. It was interesting to note that the zoning regulations for this
parcel date to 1969! Maybe it^s time~for a zoning upgrade. If ever there
was a parcel in Vail that cried out for an upgrade it is Crossroads. To
call the current structure an eyesore is doing it a favor. It has clearly
outlived it^s time and should be retired gracefully. To hold these
developers to a standard that was developed over 35 years ago is to say that
the needs of the Town of Vail have remained stagnant as well.
I would argue that a little architectural diversity can serve us well.
Homogenization might be good for milk, but it is bad for people and the
places they live and play. The critics are correct when they say that the
developers plans are different from the surrounding neighborhood. They
certainly are, and I, for one, am thankful for it. It is time for Vail to
make the kind of impression with its town that it has with its skiing. Vail
Resorts, for all the bad things that are said about them, have recognized
this and are putting their money where their concerns are with the
redevelopments of Lionshead and the base of Vail Mountain. The kind of
stunning architecture that the Crossroads developers have proposed can only
compliment what is going on at the east and west ends of Vail Village.
One more thought in closing. One person objected to the plan saying that if
Vail needed arcades, theaters, and bowling alleys to attract people back
then it is in real trouble. I submit that it does because it is. Edwards
and Eagle offer much more in the way of family diversions than Vail. That
is why my family lives and plays there. Vail will always have a mountain
that can not be equaled, but take heed of what the gentleman from Pacific
Palisades said last night. His family (read: his kids) would rather go to
Mammoth because Vail is 3boring;~. He is not alone.
I remind you of the vision statement that hangs over your heads: Ito be the
premier mountain resort community. Unless projects like the Crossroads
redevelopment are encouraged and nurtured this vision is in serious
jeopardy.
I told you I needed more than two minutes.
Thank you for your attention.
Tim Swift
Edwards
CC: Peter Knobel <peter@vailcrossroads.com>, Dominic Mauriello
<mauriello@comcast. net>