The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2005-10-04 Support Documentation Town Council Evening Session ,~ TOWN COUNCIL EVENING SESSION AGENDA 6:00 P.M. TUESDAY, OCTOBER 4, 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. Stan Zemler ITEM/TOPIC: Request to authorize the Timber Ridge Proposal Jamie Fitzpatrick Review Committee to move forward with Corum Real Estate Group and request a full proposal from Corum for the redevelopment of Timber Ridge Village. (30 min.) ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Authorize the Timber Ridge Proposal Review Committee to invite Corum Real Estate Group to submit a full proposal for the redevelopment of Timber Ridge. BACKGROUND RATIONALE: A Request for Proposals (RFP) was issued to solicit developers for the Timber Ridge site. The RFP was broken into two steps. The first step was a request for qualifications. Corum Real Estate Group submitted a complete response to the qualifications request. The Proposal Review Committee met with a representative from Corum. Based on Corum's submittal and presentation the Review Committee is recommending Council invite Corum Real Estate Group to take the next step and submit a full proposal. Jamie Fitzpatrick from Corum will be at the. meeting to review with Council his team's qualifications for redeveloping Timber Ridge. 3. Lorelei Donaldson ITEMlTOPIC: 2005 Election Judge Appointments for the November 8, 2005 Regular Municipal Election. (5 min.) ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Appoint five regular judges to participate in the November election. BACKGROUND RATIONALE: By Colorado State Statute, each polling place must. have a minimum of three judges to assist with municipal elections; We are requesting the appointments of Vi Brown, Karen Morter, Mary Jo Allen, Holly Cole and Summer Holm. RECOMMENDATION: Appoint five judges to assist with the November 8, 2005 at-the=polls Regular Municipal Election for the Town of Vail. 4. ITEM/TOPIC: Consent Agenda Re: 09.06.05 and 09.20.05 Meeting Minutes Approval. (5 min.) 5. Russ Forrest ITEM/TOPIC: West LionsHead Planning Process. (20 min.) BACKGROUND: Vail Resorts has submitted plans for a Ritz condominium project on~the West Day Lot. The applicant intends to comply with the LionsHead Mixed Use I zoning on the property. In addition, Vail Resorts is pursuing approval from the U.S. Forest Service through its National Environmental Policy Act Process. The Forest Service will require the preparation of an Environmental Assessment which will consider the environmental impacts of a new lift on the West side .of LionsHead. The proposed location of the West LionsHead lift would be directly adjacent and to the west of the proposed Ritz condominium project. Staff and Vail Resorts agree a planning process must now be. initiated in the Town of Vail to evaluate the implications and land use issues associated with a new lift in this location. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: On' September 20th, the Town Council asked staff to develop a planning process for evaluating a new lift proposal in West LionsHead. Staff is requesting approval from the Town .Council on a process for developing a plan that would consider a new lift and ski portal on the west side of LionsHead. Furthermore, staff is requesting that the Town Council appoint two of its members to join a planning team for creating an acceptable concept for West LionsHead. This planning process would also consider additional public parking and potentially transit improvements, along with other public improvements associated with the creation of a new lift. This may result in an amendment to the LionsHead Master Redevelopment Plan. 4. Bill Gibson ITEM/TOPIC: Second reading of Ordinance No. 17, Series of 2004, an ordinance amending Special Development District #4, Cascade Village, to allow for the creation of Development Area E, located at Tract K, Glen Lyon Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (5 min.) ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Approve, approve with modifications, deny, or table the second reading of Ordinance No. 17, Series ,of 2004.;. The applicant. is requesting that the Town Council table .the second reading of Ordinance No. 17, Series of 2004, to November 15, 2005.. BACKGROUND RATIONALE: On July 12, 2004 the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission voted 4-2 to forward a recommendation of approval, with conditions, for the proposed amendments to Special Development District #4, Cascade Village. On August 3, 2004 by a vote of 7-0 the Town Council approved the first reading of Ordinance No. 17, Series of 2004, with a condition that the applicant, Vail Resorts, resolve any issues related to the Protective Covenants of Glen Lyon Subdivision, prior to the second reading of this ordinance. On August 17 and October 5, 2004; January 4, May 3, June 21, August 4, and September 6, 2005, and the Town Council tabled the second reading of Ordinance No. 17, Series of 2004, to allow the applicant additional time to resolve issues related to the protective covenants. The outstanding protective covenant issues have not yet been resolved; therefore, Vail Resorts is requesting that the second reading of Ordinance No. 17, Series of 2004, again be tabled to a future Town Council meeting. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Table the second reading of Ordinance No. 17, Series of 2004, to November 15, 2005. 5. Judy Camp ITEM/TOPIC: First reading of the 2006 Budget Ordinance No. #22, Series 2005. (20 min.) ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Approve or approve with amendments first reading of the 2006 Budget Ordinance No. #22, Series 2005. BACKGROUND RATIONALE: To be provided in separate memo STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve or approve with amendments the first reading of the 2006 Budget Ordinance No. #22, Series 2005. 6. Matt Mire ITEM/TOPIC: First Reading of Ordinance No. #23, Series 2005, an ordinance repealing and reenacting Title 6, Chapter 3, Article of the Municipal Code of .the Town of Vail relating to restraining order violations and setting forth details in regard thereto. (10 min.) ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Approve, amend or deny Ordinance No. #23, 2005. BACKGROUND RATIONALE: Since the Town of Vail's adoption and codification of .its restraining. order legislation in 2004, several of the Colorado Revised Statutes referenced and cited in the Town Code relating to restraining orders have been repealed by the Colorado General Assembly. As such, the. restraining order prohibition as set forth in the Vail Town Code prohibition has been re-written to delete the repealed statutes. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve Ordinance No. #23, Series 2005, on first reading. 7. Matt Mire ITEMlTOPIC: First Reading of Ordinance No. #24, Series 2005, an ordinance deleting Title 4, Chapter4, Articles A and B, Vail Town Code as they relate to time-share disclosure and registration requirements; amending Title 12, "Zoning Regulation," for proposed housekeeping amendments relating to the definition time-share units and. setting forth details in regard thereto. (10 min.) ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Table the first reading of Ordinance No. #24, Series 2005, to the regular meeting of the Vail Town Council on October 18, 2005. BACKGROUND RATIONALE: On September 12, 2005, the Planning and Environmental Commission considered text amendments to certain sections of Title 12, Vail Town Code, to define the term "time-share unit" and to replace the terms "timeshare estate unit," "fractional fee unit," and "timeshare license unit" with the term "time-share unit." The sole purpose of the proposed amendments to Title 12 is to remove conflicting provisions from the Town Code and to better describe similar land uses. The proposed amendments are NOT intended to after any existing land use or development policies. Based upon the proposed amendments to Title 12, specifically the definition of "time-share unit," staff is .also recommending deleting outdated sections of the Vail Town Code relating to disclosure and registration requirements of time-share projects. On September 12, 2005, the PEC unanimously recommended approval of the amendments to Title 12. However, the staff needs additional time complete Ordinance No. 24, Series 2005, which would implement the above-referenced changes. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Table the first reading of Ordinance No. 24, Series 2005, to the regular meeting of the Vail Town Council on October 18, 2005. 9. ITEM/TOPIC: Town Manager's Report. (10 min.) - AIPP placement of lion sculpture at the Children's Garden of Learning: 10. ITEM/TOPIC: Adjournment..(805 p.m.) NOTE UPCOMWG 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, OCTOBER 18, 2005, IN VAIL TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24-hour notification. Please call 479-2106 voice or 479-2356 TDD for information. MEMORANDUM TO: Town Council FROM: Timber Ridge Proposal Review Committee (PRC) Stan Zemler, Judy Camp, Russ Forrest, Greg Hall, John Gallegos Kent Logan, Greg Moffet Steve Lindstrom, Ethan Moore DATE: October 4, 2005 SUBJECT: Response to the RFP for redevelopment of Timber Ridge The Timber Ridge Proposal Review Committee is made up of nine members. The members include the Timber Ridge Affordable Housing Corporation Board of Directors, Kent Logan and Greg Moffet from Vail Town Council and Ethan Moore and Steve Lindstrom from the Vail Housing Authority. The Request for Proposals (RFP) for the redevelopment of Timber Ridge was issued this summer. The RFP was broken into two phases. The first phase was a request for qualifications and a redevelopment concept. The second phase is submittal of full redevelopment proposal. Corum Real Estate Group submitted a response to the RFP and made a presentation regarding their qualifications to the entire PRC. The PRC, after reviewing their response and hearing their presentation, would like to continue moving forward with Corum towards submittal of a full redevelopment proposal. At this time, the PRC is requesting that Council authorize the PRC to continue to work with Corum Real Estate Group. TOWN OF YAI~ Town Clerk MEMORANDUM TO: VAIL TOWN COUNCIL FROM: LORELEI DONALDSON, TOWN CLERK DATE: SEPTEMBER 29, 2005 SUBJECT: APPOINTMENT OF REGULAR MUNICIPAL ELECTION JUDGES It is my pleasure to suggest the following five prospective appointees as judges for the Regular Municipal Election to be held Tuesday, November 8, 2005: Vi Brown 2556 Cortina Lane, P.O. Box 547 Vail, CO 81658 Mary Jo Allen 1956 Cabin Circle, P.O. Box 861 Vail, CO 81657 Holiday (Holly) Cole 2084 Zermatt Lane, #C, P.O. Box 741 Vail, CO 81658 Summer Holm 1858 West Gore Creek Drive Vail, CO 81657 Karen Morter P.O. Box Vail, CO 81658 75 South Frontage Road .Vail, Colorado 81657.970-479 2136/FA1C970-479-2320 . www.vailgov.com RECYCLED PAPER Vail Town Council Evening Meeting Minutes Tuesday, September 6, 2005 6:00 P.M. Vail Town Council Chambers Council Members present: Rod Slifer, Mayor Dick Cleveland, Mayor Pro-Tem Diana Donovan Kent Logan Kim Ruotolo Farrow Hitt Greg Moffet Staff Members Present: Stan Zemler, Town Manager Pam Brandmeyer, Asst. Town Manager Matt Mire, Town Attorney The first item on the agenda was Citizen Input. Ruotolo reported there was a local Hurricane Katrina disaster relief organizational meeting held earlier in the day at the Eagle County Building in Eagle. She stated another meeting would be held at 5:30 p.m. Sept. 8 in the Holiday Inn-Apex Lodge Ballroom. Eagle County Commissioner Arn Menconi announced that a web site with information on local recovery assistance was available at www.eaglecounty/Katrina. The second item on the agenda was the Consent Agenda, approval of Aug. 2 and Aug. 16 Minutes. Moffet moved with Cleveland seconding a motion to approve the minutes without amendments. The motion passed unanimously, 7-0. The third item on the agenda was a Construction Update. Public Works Director Greg Hall reported streetscape work had begun for the fall season earlier in the day. Work on the LionsHead core site had been continuing primarily on the tunnel area. In West Vail work was to continue by the Conoco service station for a few-days with paving taking place later in the week. Improvements to the "Vail Road chute" by the Lodge at Vail were to begin in the near future. Final improvements (streetscape) to the Parker's Green and Founder's Parking Garage also are being completed. The fourth item on the agenda was Resolutions #16, Series of 2005 setting forth language for a ballot question on November 8, 2005, to raise the lodging tax to pay for the construction and operation of the Vail Conference Center and Resolution #17, Series of 2005, expressing Council's intent in developing a threshold for collecting up to 1.5% in additional lodging tax for the conference center. A) Resolution #16, Series of 2005, which sets forth language to have a ballot measure on November 8 which would ask voters to increase the lodging tax for the conference center, and B) Resolution #17, Series of 2005, which would state the Town Council's intent on collecting up to 1.5% of new lodging tax for the conference center. Community Development Director Russ Forrest reported on August 31 the Conference Center Advisory Committee (CCAC) met to review the guaranteed maximum price from Mortenson Construction and proposed ballot language. At that meeting the Committee unanimously recommended Council approve Resolution #16. and #17, Moffet moved to adopt Resolution #16 with Logan seconding. Representing Architectural Research Consultants, Chris Squadra reported a guaranteed maximum price of $64,772,865. The price included the following: Construction Costs $ 53,376,740 Soft Costs $ 4,700,000 Housing Requirement $ 525,000 Furniture Fixtures & Equipment (FF&E) $ 1,845,000 Town of Vail Contingency $ 4.326.125 Total Cost $ 64,772,865 The Town of Vail contingency included: Construction $ 1,756,093 FF&E $ 184,500 Consultant, Eng & Design $ 255,151 Other Contingency $ 2.130.381 Owner's Contingency $ 4,326,125 Finance Director Judy Camp introduced town underwriters Johnathon Hurue and Michael Lund representing Piper Jaffray. Hurue explained the fees and costs associated with bond issuance. Underwriting, insurance premiums and rating expenses were all associated with the cost of issuance. Camp then described a 30 year projected financial analysis of the center. Donovan clarified funds had been budgeted for significant repairs and replacement (more than basic maintenance). Squadra reported the building would be under warranty the first year of operation. Representing the town, bond attorney Dee Wisor reported Resolution #16 ballot language would approve a lodging tax of not more than 1.5% (which will result in a total lodging tax imposed by the town of not more than 3.0%). The ballot language would give Council authorization to increase or decrease the tax, based on available cash reserves. The initial tax could possibly be .79% based on interest rates and bond insurance. During a pause for public comment Michael Cacioppo provided nine reasons why Council should not approve Resolution #16. CCAC member Rob Levine stated many people were supportive of the conference center with or without the language included in Resolution #16. CCAC member Rick Scalpello disagreed with the proposed funding requirement analysis. Logan stated Scalpello's findings were a matter of financial semantics. Logan emphasized, `This is not a field of , dreams project. If we build it, they will not necessarily come...This is as big a risk as the original founders of Vail undertook." Logan's comments clarified business owners would receive a larger rate. of return than. would the..town. "Let the town- decide. (by referendum). this is a risk they want. to underwrite at this point in time:' Representing the Holiday Inn-Apex, Mark Cervantes clarified. that if the ballot question fails,.: the. 2002. tax would go away: He asked Council to reconsider and spoke. in support of the conference center: CCAC member and VaiF Marriott General Manager Dave Pease spoke in support of the center on behalf of the Marriott and Vail Resorts. Mark Gordon asked if the ballot passed, could another petition preclude the construction of the center? Town Attorney Matt Mire answered yes. Donovan expressed concern the construction budget projections were not accurate. "I have continued to be disappointed with this...There has never been a pro%on discussion...) think this is a risk that is too big to take...) will also vote against it at the ballot box because of the architecture." Slifer stated a contract with the builder and contingencies would be adequate to cover costs. Responding to Logan's comments, Michael Cacioppo argued the risk for the conference center was not as great as that assumed by the founders of Vail. Wisor clarified the resolution did not bind Council to actually issue the debt. An amended motion passed 6-1, Donovan opposed. Moffet then moved to approve Resolution #17 with Logan seconding. Moffet stated he would like to examine a way to reduce the tax burden on the lodges. He encouraged exploring a mechanism that would enable Council to reduce the Vail Local Marketing District (VLMD) tax since a portion of the tax is used to market groups just as the conference center budget would provide. Donovan stated the conference center would compete with existing conference space. CCAC member Stan Cope asked if the initial tax rate would be based on current interest rates or those existing at the time of debt issuance. Forrest clarified the ability to lower the projected .79% initial tax increase if existing rates remained at the status quo or fell: Wisor clarified the VLMD is a separate legal entity from the town. The motion approving Resolution #17 passed 6-1, with Donovan opposed. Hitt stated more of the financial burden should have been shouldered by a partial sales tax increase. Slifer thanked the CCAC for their industriousness and time consuming efforts. The fifth- item on the agenda was an appeal, pursuant to Section 12-3-3, Appeals, Vail Town Code, of the Town of Vail PEC's approval of a variance from Section 12-6C-6, Setbacks, Section 12-6C-8, Density Control, and Section 12-6C-9, Site Coverage, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for a residential addition, located at 1448 Vail Valley Drive/Lot 18, Block 3, Vail Village Filing 1. Senior Planner Bill Gibson stated on July 25, 2005, the PEC approved a variance from Section 12-6C-6, Setbacks, Section 12-6C-8, Density Control, and Section 12-6C-9, Site Coverage, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for a residential addition at 1448 Vail Valley Drive. The appellant, Vail Town Council, "called- up" the PEC's decision at its August 2, 2005, public hearing. Staff recommended Council uphold the PEC's approval of a variance from Section 12-6C-6, Setbacks, Vail Town Code, to allow for a residential addition at 1448 Vail Valley Drive, subject to the findings in the staff memorandum dated July 25, 2005. However, staff recommended Council overturn the PEC's approval of a variance from Section 12-6C-8, Density Control, and Section- 12-6C-9, Site Coverage, Vaif Town Code, to allow for a residential addition at 1448 Vail Valley Drive, subject to the findings in the staff memorandum dated July 25, 2005. The applicant, Robert Stephenson, stated due to the multiple levels (five) of his home and elderly relatives he would like to request the ability to construct a new 100 sq. ft. single-story front entry room with a 45 sq. ft. five-story elevator addition (total of 225 sq. ft.) ,Speaking on behalf of the applicant, John Schofield, a next door neighbor and former PEC chair, explained the variance requests, adding that some discrepancy regarding the GRFA could be related to methods for calculating GRFA within the town which have changed many times. Project architect Pam Hopkins said, "We are asking for a variance for the garage not for additional site coverage." Moffet replied, "You still require a GRFA variance." Moffet moved to uphold the set back variance with Cleveland seconding. The motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Moffet then moved to uphold the setback variance in relation to covered parking with Cleveland seconding. The motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Moffet moved to overturn the PEC in regard to additional site coverage in relation to covered parking with Ruotolo seconding. Donovan stated she could have accommodated the additional .square footage by reconfiguring the existing square footage. The motion passed 4-3 with Hitt, Slifer and Logan opposed. Moffet then moved to overturn the- GRFA variance. The motion passed- 4-3 with Hitt, Slifer and Logan opposed. The sixth item on the agenda was. the discussion of Village Streetscape Mill Creek Court Building Construction contract Award for 2005-2006. The town and Mill Creek Court Condominium Association cooperatively designed and received a proposal for construction improvements in Vail Village. Council was advised negotiations were underway and finishing the streetscape in this area was an appropriate objective. Staff negotiated a cost sharing agreement with the condominium association. The association board has agreed to the proposal. These improvements include the replacement of planters, steps, landscaping, installation of snowmelt systems and final streetscape treatments. In addition the association has agreed to upgrade a trash dumpster. The town reviewed the proposal with the contractor. The project is scheduled to begin construction later this year and finish in spring 2006. Staff recommended council add the required additional dollars to the supplemental budget to fund the town's portion of the project: $225,000 from Real Estate Transfer Tax (RETT) Fund and $50,000 from Capital Projects Fund; the remainder of the project will be funded by the Mill Creek Court Condominium Association ($205,000) and from the existing streetscape budget ($95,000). Hitt moved to supplement the Village Streetscape budgets by $225,000 from RETT and $50,000 from the Capital Projects Fund and direct the Town Manager to execute a change order with B&B Excavating up to $550,000 to construct the streetscape improvements around the Mill Creek Court Building. General concern from Council and' staff was expressed in regard to an on-going concrete shortage. Mire encouraged an amendment be added to the project regarding approval of contracts between the town and the adjacent property owner. The motion was amended. The motion passed unanimously, 7-0. The seventh item on the agenda was a discussion of Gore Valley Trail Improvements at Cascade Village. Landscape Architect Greg Barrie recommended the following: Approve a total project budget of $645,000 with the understanding the town will be reimbursed for the cost of Project 1 through the Holy Cross Energy Enhancement Funds. Award the Gore Valley Trail Improvements at Cascade Village project, in whole, to B&B Excavating in the amount of $ 574,583.87 with the understanding a portion of the work would be completed in the spring. Staff has continuously worked on multiple projects in the Cascade Village area for the pasf several years. While Cascade Village Metropolitan District postponed their projects previously scheduled for this fall, the town was in a position to pertorm much needed maintenance work to the Gore Valley Trail., starting on Sept. 12. A portion of the work would be completed in the fall, with the remainder of the work occurring in the spring of 2006. Hitt asked about the widening of the recreation path behind Cascade Village. Barrie stated the path would be a consistent ten feet in width. Hitt expressed concern about the straightening of the path as its meandering nature added to its quaintness. Hitt inquired about the status of easement agreements., He stated rec path dollars have always been contingent on easement grants and would not vote on this unless easements are tied to the money., Barrie stated negotiations were cordial and significant progress had been made. Donovan. clarified natural areas would. be protected. Ruotolo moved: to approve the aforementioned projects with Moffet seconding. Hitt requested the funding be contingent upon recreation path easement resolution. The motion passed 6-1, with Hitt dissenting.. 4 The eighth item on -the agenda was a discussion of the. West Vail Sub-Area Plan Process. Community Development Director Russ Forrest announced the purpose for creating a West Vail Sub-Area Plan was to provide an improved framework for decision making in the West Vail commercial area by providing direction on appropriate uses, bulk & mass, along with other development parameters. It would also help to identify other public improvements which developers would consider upon submitting proposals to the Community Development Department, such as affordable. housing, retail uses, parking and traffic circulation improvements. Council had in previous meetings identified a need for the West Vail area to have asub-area plan created for a well thought out redevelopment of West Vail. The plan would study the area from the Roost Lodge west to Wendy's on the North Frontage Road. There is a mix of zoning between The Roost Lodge and the Brandess Building. Donovan asked if too many projects were too far along in the application process for the proposed study to be valid. Representing the Vail Village Homeowner's Association, Jim Lamont encouraged fostering the reality that West Vail is an integral part of the community. Lamont stated his association looked forward to being involved in the process. Slifer asked the Conoco on the South Frontage Road be included in the study. 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 The applicant requested Council table the second reading of Ordinance No. #17, Series of 2004, to October 4, 2005. On July 12, 2004 the PEC voted 4-2 to forward a recommendation of approval, with conditions, for the proposed amendments to Special Development District #4, Cascade Village. On August 3, 2004 by a vote of 7-0 Council approved the first reading of Ordinance No. #17, Series of 2004, with a condition the applicant, Vail Resorts, resolve any issues related to the protective covenants of Glen Lyon Subdivision, prior to the second reading of this. ordinance. On August 17 and October 5, 2004; January 4, May 3, June 21, and August 4, 2005 Council tabled the second reading of Ordinance No. #17, Series of 2004, to allow the applicant additional time to resolve issues related to the protective covenants. The outstanding protective covenant issues have not yet been resolved; therefore, Vail Resorts requested the second reading of Ordinance No. #17, Series of 2004, again be tabled to a future Council meeting. Moffet moved with Cleveland seconding. The motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Ruotolo asked if the tabling provided a reasonable time. Representing Vail Resorts, Jay Peterson stated, "VVe are pursuing it, and we feel we can get it done." Logan then asked if The Arrabelle at Vail Square construction was proceeding on schedule. Peterson stated, "We are currently two to three weeks behind...We have had a significant amount of water...We feel like we can get the dirt past the skier bridge by ski season." Zemler confirmed the opening of the gondola in the winter would not be delayed. Cleveland asked for construction reports from Vail Resorts for the next few months. Logan also asked if there was significant impetus to rename the LionsHead ski area. Peterson stated, "Yes, and we have not tried to hide that...The name of our project is The Arrabelle at Vail Square...Much of our signage will reflect that...We've had a lot of support for the idea." The tenth item on the agenda was the second reading of Ordinance No. #19, Series 2005,. an Ordinance making supplemental appropriations to the 2005 Budget, Supplemental Appropriation. No. #2. ,Moffet moved to approve the ordinance with Ruotolo seconding. The motion passed unanimously, 7-0. The eleventh item on the agenda was Resolution No. #15, Series of 2005, a resolution expanding the boundary of the Study Area of the Lionshead Redevelopment and amending Chapter 5, Detailed Plan Recommendations, LionsHead Redevelopment Master Plan, to include Section 5.19 Evergreen Lodge at Vail. Chief Planner George Ruther explained on June 27, 2005, the PEC held a public hearing to discuss a text and map boundary amendment to the LionsHead Redevelopment. Master Plan. The. purpose of the amendment is to include the Evergreen Lodge in the Study Area of the LionsHead Redevelopment Master Plan. Upon discussion of the amendment, the Commission voted unanimously to table the final hearing on the proposed amendment to a future meeting date. The purpose of the tabling was to allow staff and the applicant an opportunity to address the various questions of the Commission prior to the Commission taking action on the request. The Commission specifically requested any amendments to Chapter 5, Detailed Plan Recommendations, should make reference to the following: Vehicular and pedestrian access • Maintenance of the existing accommodation units on the site • Impacts on Middle Creek • South Frontage Road improvements • Physical relationship to the Vail Valley Medical Center • Relationship to the proposed Vail Conference Center • Need for architectural improvements • Loading and delivery improvements • Pedestrian connection to West Meadow Drive On July 17, 2005, the Community Development Department requested a work session with Council to discuss the merits of preparing an amendment to the LionsHead Redevelopment Master Plan that would expand the boundary of the plan to include the Evergreen Lodge. Upon discussing the possible merits of the amendment, the. Commission directed staff to prepare an amendment for further Commission and Council consideration. On August 22, 2005, the PEC voted 6-0-0 to forward a recommendation of approval of the proposed text and boundary amendment to the LionsHead Redevelopment Master Plan to Council. In forwarding a recommendation of approval, the Commission expressed the need for Section 5.19.3, Preservation of Existing Accommodation Units, of the proposed amendment to place more emphasis on no net loss of accommodation unit square footage, creation of quality hotel rooms, and the maintenance ofthe number of-existing "hot beds;" rather than placing so much-focus on merely maintaining the number of existing rooms. T.J. Brink, HB Development, stated he intended to include hotel suites in the project. He also advised Council he intended to reface the tower portion of the project and redevelop the portion of the building nearest the South Frontage Road. Ruotolo clarified an accommodation unit can not be a time share. Slifer and Cleveland stated they did not want to lose one single hotel room. Donovan asked Brink, "Why do you need to go into LionsHead to do what you want to do?H Brink responded, "I don't need to. I could do a Speciat Development District (SDD). It is zoned multi-family and I would need a conditional use to add. hotel rooms. I don°t like conditional uses: They can be taken away." Ruther clarified,' the existing: structure's redevelopment would need to express good architectural design:."This project does not have to look like the Arrabelle:' Hitt. emphasized the ,structure would need to fit into the surrounding environment, both natural and architectural: Logan asked what the allowable. GRFA was for the property. Ruther stated he did' not have the information 6 immediately available. Donovan asked for apro/con statement as to why Council should or shouldn't approve the change. Moffet moved to approve with Ruotolo seconding, with a condition tied to the rezoning of the site. The motion also included an absolute height clarification. Representing the Vail Village Homeowner's Association, Jim Lamont verified administrative processes surrounding the resolution. Donovan stated the project was a good example of what SDDs were created for. Zemler re-emphasized a rezoning is not the time to dictate what goes on the property. Michael. Cacioppo stated the building was ripe for redevelopment. He discouraged Council from micromanaging projects as they came to Council for approval. Zemler stated comparing the Evergreen Lodge project and zoning process was not similar to what existed with the recently failed Crossroads redevelopment. "I think we had good success with the Arrabelle...lt had a background to work with as opposed to nothing at all." Hitt questioned, "Is Vail Resorts the only one who is allowed to redevelop their property? We have one hand out asking people to redevelop and the other hand out trying to keep them from doing so." Logan asked for at least a conceptual description of what the developer intended to do with the property. Zemler discouraged Council from trying to perform the function of the PEC. Peter Knobel stated, "If someone is going to invest in this town they need guidelines...There has to be some baseline for what you are going to be able to do with the property." Logan stated he believed the size of the project impacted the character of the town and therefore became a public policy decision. Donovan stated she did not believe the project fit the LionsHead character of mass and scale. The motion passed unanimously, 7-0. The twelfth item on the agenda was the Town .Manager's Report. Nothing was reported. The thirteenth item on the agenda was adjournment. Moffet moved with Hitt seconding a motion to adjourn. The motion passed unanimously, 7-0 at 10 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Rodney E. Slifer, Mayor ATTEST:. Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk Minutes provided by Corey Swisher. 7 Vail Town Council Evening Meeting Minutes Tuesday, September 20, 2005 6:00 P.M. Vail Town Council- Chambers Council Members present: Rod Slifer, Mayor Dick Cleveland, Mayor Pro-Tem Diana Donovan Kent Logan Kim Ruotolo Farrow Hitt Greg Moffet Staff Members Present: Stan Zemler, Town Manager Pam Brandmeyer, Asst. Town Manager Matt Mire, Town Attorney The first item on the agenda was Citizen Input. There was no citizen input. The second item on the agenda was a Construction Update. Public Works Director Greg Hall provided an overview of construction projects occurring throughout the community. Updates were provided on streetscape work on Bridge Street, utility work on East Meadow Drive, streetscape work on Hanson Ranch Road as part of the Tivoli Lodge construction, and continued progress in LionsHead with construction of the Arrabelle at Vail Square. Sewer work has been completed at the West Vail roundabout and a turn lane is under construction on the South Frontage Road for an employee parking lot at the Vail Resorts maintenance -yard (Holy Cross site). Hall said it was unclear if the contractor for the Four Seasons project would be able to schedule relocation of the Spraddle Creek culvert any time soon as approvals have not been completed. Hall said he did not know what impact the delay would have on the project's overall timetable. The third item on the agenda was a transfer request for Eagle County Down Payment Program. With a motion by Moffet and a second by Logan, Council voted 7-0 to approve a request to transfer $10,000 from the town's buy-down program to the Eagle County. Down Payment Assistance Program. In presenting the request, Vail Housing Coordinator Nina Timm noted the Eagle County program has helped 34 employees purchase homes within the Town of Vail. She explained the town's buy-down program is used to purchase free market housing units in Vail, convert them to deed-restricted units, then re-sell the units to qualified buyers at a subsidized price. Timm said the town's buy- down program has previously donated $17,000 to the county fund. The goal is to have the county loan program be self-sustaining by 2008. The. fourth .item on the agenda was Council Contributions. As part of the 2006 budget process,. Council. reviewed 42 proposals from 37 organizations requesting funding and/or in-kind services for.,. next year in the categories of economic, educational, recreation, arrangements. and agreements, and Real Estate Transfer Tax (RETT). Introducing the discussion Assistant Town Manager Pam Brandmeyer described the criteria used by staff to evaluate the proposals: 1}Does the request bring people to town? 2) Does it give guests something to do while they're here? and 3) Does it support them while they're here? Brandmeyer asked council to provide direction, with additional review to take place during first reading of the 2006 budget ordinance on 10.04.05, followed by second reading, on 10.1.8.05. Council then reviewed a worksheet identifying individual funding recommendations from each member, as well as the town manager, and offered the following direction for inclusion in the budget proposal: Economic Bravo! Vail Valley Music Festival/New York Philharmonic, $100,000; Bravo! Vail Valley Music Festival, $25,000 and 15 Ford Park permits valued at $1,350; TEVA Mountain Games in-kind valued at $7,640; Vail Jazz Foundation Labor Day Weekend party, $7,500; Vail Farmers' Market, in-kind services valued at $8,000; Vail Valley Foundation Birds of Prey, in-kind transportation, $14,000 (contingent on bed base); Vail Valley Foundation The Session, in-kind parking valued at $3,400; Vail Valley Foundation American Ski Classic, in-kind parking valued at $3,000; Vail Valley Foundation Streetbeat Winter Concert Series, $20,000 plus in-kind services valued at $6,500; Vail Valley Foundation Vail International Dance Festival, $15,000; Vail Valley Foundation Hot Summer Nights, $25,000 plus in-kind services valued at $2,800; Vail Valley Chamber & Tourism Bureau Summer Air Guarantee, $10,000; Vail Valley Chamber & Tourism Bureau Summer Air Administrative costs, TBD; Vail Community Host Program, seven blue parking passes valued at $4,125; Vail Commission on Special Events, $650,000, plus in-kind parking valued at $825; and $50,000 as a "placeholdet" for economic development/construction mitigation. Educational Eagle Valley Alliance for Sustainability, $15,000 "placeholder"; Vail Symposium, use of Donovan Pavilion through cooperative partnership with Vail Library; Vail Valley Exchange, $6,000; and Vail Valley Institute, $2,500. Recreation Battle Mountain High School Ski Team, up to 500 parking coupons, valued at $2,500; Battle Mountain Huskies Hockey Booster Club, TBD; Skating Club of Vail, nine days of ice, valued at $11,891; Ski & Snowboard Ctub of Vail, four days of ice valued at $5,285; Snowshoe Shuffle, in-kind parking valued at $4,000; Special Olympics, 80 parking coupons, valued at $1,280; Vail Junior Hockey Association, TBD; and Vail Valley Medical Center Luncheon/Style Show, in-kind parking, valued at $4,000. Arrangements and Agreements Vail Valley Community Channel 5 operating, $64,000; Vail Valley Community Channel 5 capital improvements, $8,200; Youth Recognition Award, $7,000; Eagle Valley Child Care, $40,000; and Vail Valley Athlete Commission, $4,750. Real Estate Transfer Tax Fund 2 Vail Memorial Park Endowment Fund, $50,000; Eagle River Watershed, .$100,000; Betty Ford Alpine Garden Foundation operations and maintenance, $50,000; Betty Ford Alpine Garden Foundation Educational Interpretive Stations in the Main Garden, $30,000 basedon a~ $70,000 Great Outdoors Colorado grant. In reviewing the requests, Council members also redirected several proposals to other funding, sources, including requests by the Colorado Ski Museum and the Vail Valley Chamber & Tourism Bureau (VCBA). Funding proposals for seven programs submitted by the Vail Chamber and Business Association (VCBA) received the most attention during the evening with Councilman Farrow Hitt expressing support fora $233,075 VCBA proposal to subsidize free gondola rides in LionsHead to help mitigate construction impacts. During the public comment period, Craig Arford of Vail Ski & Bike Tech in LionsHead and Bill Jewitt of Bart & Yeti's shared their support for the gondola proposal, saying the construction impacts in LionsHead were taking a toll on the business community's ability to remain viable. While the two acknowledged no sales tax revenues are derived from activities on the mountain, they said the passport component of the proposal would generate sales tax elsewhere since it requires recipients to visit businesses in LionsHead before a free gondola ticket would be issued. Town Manager Stan Zemler urged caution in Council's evaluation of the request, noting other businesses in other areas of the community are also being impacted by construction. He suggested consideration of a mitigation program assisting businesses across the community. While acknowledging the difficulties. experienced by LionsHead merchants and in lieu of the gondola proposal, Council agreed to set aside $50,000 as a "placeholder" to be used for ayet-to-be identified program to improve the business climate townwide as a result of the construction impacts. Other VCBA proposals included $15,347 to fund a booth at the Colorado Snow Sports Expo in 2006; $41,734 and a blue parking pass to fund the Premier Impressions customer service recognition program; $14,700 to fund the Vail Gift Card program; $36,740 to fund the Vail Guide; $8,345 to fund the Vail Loves You Coupon Book; and $11,555 for web site funding. Kaye Ferry, VCBA Executive Director, was among those who spoke to explain the value of the VCBA's funding requests. In particular, Ferry explained the perceived benefits of participating in the Colorado Snow Sports Expo, the positive contributions of the Premier Impressions program and the subsidy required to produce a comprehensive guide for Vail that includes the listings of all business license holders. VCBA board members Marka Brenner and John Cogswell also asked Council to support the programs. While individual Council members favored contributing reduced amounts to selected VCBA programs, the consensus of the Council majority was to leave the requests unfunded unless -otherwise resubmitted by the town manager: Other speakers during the public comment period included Matt Scherr, director of the Eagle Valley Alliance for Sustainability, Jeanne Reed of Bravo! Vail Valley Music Festival, Jim 13randmeyer, executive director of the Betty Ford Alpine Gardens, and Sybill Navas, Coordinator for the Vail Commission on Special Events. In addition, Rick Silverman helped explain regulations related to Title IX during a discussion about a request for ice time at Dobson Arena for the Battle Mountain Huskies. Silverman also suggested the town impose an impact fee on developers to~ help fund programs to assist neighboring businesses during construction. The fifth item on the agenda was a Mountain. Haus Request to Proceed.. With a motion by ~Moffet and`a second by Ruo4olo, the Council; voted 7-0 ,to approve a request. by the Mountain .Haus to proceed through the development review process for a new covered entry and removal of the request to .alter landscaping on the west. elevation of -the 3 existing building within the Town of Vail property surrounding Slifer Square. While discussing the item, town planner Warren Campbell noted the entry improvements were contained in a 1998 town approval, but were never completed. Councilmembers added an amendment to the motion, requiring an easement should the improvements be approved. Diana Donovan expressed frustration with the applicant for cutting trees, calling the unapproved action "unforgivable." The sixth item on the agenda was a Emergency Ordinance Setting Ballot Language for Amendment to Vail Home Rule Charter, re: Vail Municipal Court Jurisdiction. ,Following a motion by Moffet and a second by Cleveland, Council voted 7-0 to approve an emergency ordinance to submit a Town of Vail Charter amendment to Vail voters at the 11.08.05 election. Town Attorney Matt Mire explained.the ballot question was prepared to address a recent Colorado Supreme Court case requiring Home Rule cities with charter language similar to Vail's to use their municipal courts to handle zoning and land use appeals. Due to the lack of appropriate resources, Mire noted the Eagle County District Court has historically presided over such cases rather than the Vail Municipal Court. The Charter Amendment, he said, would formalize the existing practice. The ballot will read as follows: SHALL THE HOME RULE CHARTER OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, BE AMENDED TO ELMINATE THE EXCLUSIVITY OF THE VAIL MUNICIPAL COURT'S JURISDICTION OF ALL CASES ARISING UNDER THE ORDINANCES OF THE TOWN? Due to its emergency status, the ordinance required an affirmative vote from at least five of the seven Council members. The seventh item on the agenda was a birthday recognition. Mayor Slifer interrupted the meeting to ask those in the room to join him in wishing Kim Ruotolo a happy birthday. The eighth item on the agenda was an authorization of Town of Vail Matching Employee Financial Contribution to the American Red Cross for Hurricane Katrina Relief Efforts. With a motion by Moffet and a second by Cleveland, Council voted 7-0 to authorize an expenditure of $3,500.50 from Council Contingency funds to match an equal amount of dollars raised by town employees to be donated to the American Red Cross for Hurricane Katrina relief efforts. Council made a finding that providing matching funds is for the public purpose of intergovernmental cooperation and assisting with the cost of providing food, shelter, clothing and other necessities for the victims of Hurricane Katrina in Colorado and elsewhere in the U.S. The ninth item on the agenda was the Town Manager's Report. • Pine Beetle Mitigation on Upper Bench of Donovan Park Stan Zemler provided an update on the town's forest health program, which included cutting pine beetle-infested trees on a 29-acre town-owned parcel above Donovan Park. The work will also involve cutting of some aspen stands in an overall effort to help rejuvenate the forest and reduce the fire danger. • Holy Cross Easement Following a motion by Moffet and a second by Ruotolo, Council voted 7-0 to grant an easement to Holy Cross Energy for an underground electric transmission line in the area of the Vail Associates snowmaking pump station and to allow the town manager 4 r to execute the easement/agreement. The action follows previous approval of an easement for the same area which was granted to Vail Resorts. However, in explaining the need for. a new easement agreement, Town Attorney Matt Mire indicated the utility company preferred to take the easement directly from the Town of Vail rather than Vail Resorts. The tenth item on the agenda was Adjournment. Moffet moved with Ruotolo seconding a motion to adjourn. The motion passed unanimously, 7-0 at approximately 8:30 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Rodney E. Slifer, Mayor ATTEST: Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk Minutes provided by Corey Swisher. 5. MEMORANDUM TO: Vail Town Council FROM: Community Development Department DATE: October 4; 2005 SUBJECT: West Lionshead Planning Process Staff: Russell Forrest 1. SUMMARY OF REQUEST On September 20~', the Town Council asked staff to develop a planning process for evaluating a new ski lift proposal in West Lionshead. Staff is requesting approval from the Town Council on a process for developing a plan that would consider a new ski lift and ski portal on the west side of Lionshead. Furthermore, staff is requesting that the Town Council appoint two of its members to join a planning team for creating an acceptable concept for West Lionshead. This planning process would also consider additional public parking and .potentially transit improvements, along with other.public improvements associated with the creation of a new ski lift, which may result in an amendment to the Lionshead Master Redevelopment Plan. 2. WEST LIONSHEAD APPLICATIONS Vail Resorts has submitted plans for aRitz-Carlton Residences condominium project on the West Day Lot. The applicant intends to comply with the Lionshead Mixed Use I zoning on the West Day Lot property. In addition, Vail Resorts is pursuing approval from the U.S. Forest Service through its National Environmental Policy Act Process for the addition of a new ski lift. The Forest Service will require the preparation of an Environmental Assessment which will consider the environmental impacts of a new ski lift on the west side of Lionshead. The proposed location of the West Lionshead ski lift would be directly adjacent and to the west of the proposed Ritz-Carlton Residences condominium project. The U.S. Forest Service has indicated that they would like to work closely with the Town in considering a ski lift proposal in this location. Vail Resorts has recently acquired the Vail. Professional Building and Cascade Crossing Building along with obtaining an option to purchase the BP (formerly Amoco) station in the vicinity. No applications or redevelopment proposals have been received by the Town of Vail for these parcels. 3. PROPOSED PROCESS The current western boundary of the Lionshead Master Plan area is Red Sandstone Creek. A question which may be asked is whether the boundary should be extended to the West. The Lionshead Master Redevelopment Plan did not consider a new ski lift on the west side of Lionshead. Therefore staff is proposing to initiate a planning process which would evaluate the full implications of new ski lift along with other potential land use changes in this area. It would also evaluate moving the Frontage Road which was proposed in the Lionshead Master Redevelopment Plan. Two specific public needs that would be evaluated would include additional public parking and a transit facility. This process would develop a concept which could then'be incorporated into an amended Lionshead Master Redevelopment Plan. Staff is proposing the following to create an acceptable concept: • The Town and Vail Resorts begin to meet as a planning team every 2-3 weeks to evaluate planning needs and options for West Lionshead. • Two Town Council member and two Planning and Environmental Commission Members would join Town staff to create a planning team representing the Town of Vail in the above mentioned planning meetings. • Meetings would be noticed .and open to the public. • Vail Resorts would join the planning team~and provide professional design services in the process. • The Town would engage design assistance as needed such as Winston Associates and/or Felsburg, Holtz, and Ullvig (Town's transportation consultant) to critique and evaluate designs and plans as appropriate. • The West Lionshead Planning Team would actively engage the public in evaluating options and developing a plan for West Lionshead. This would include several public meetings to solicit public input on plan options. • Regular updates to the Vail Town Council and the Planning and Environmental Commission on progress. • The planning team would provide a recommendation to the Vail Town Council and Planning Commission on appropriate options for potentially :amending the Lionshead Master Redevelopment Plan. It is anticipated that it would take three to four months to complete the development of a concept. The next step once a concept is accepted could include a formal process to amend the Lionshead Master Redevelopment Plan. F:lcdev\COUNCIL\MEMOS\05\westlionsheadplanningprocess.doc 2 TOWN OF VAIL REVENUE HIGHLIGHTS September 29, 2005 Sales and Related Taxes Sales tax for the month of August is expected to be flat with August 2004 and favorable to budget by 5%. As expected, early indications are LionsHead sales tax collections will be down from last year, while sales tax on utilities is up. Year-to-date through August collections estimated at $11.8 million will exceed budget by 12.1% and last year by 5.7%. The next highest year-to-date occurred in 2001 with January through August collections of $11:7 million. Conference center sales and lodging taxes for August of $185,090 are flat with budget and down $12,902 or 6.5% from last year. For the year-to-date, total conference center taxes of $2,810,358 are up 15.6% from budget and up 5.8% from.last year. Construction Permit Fee Revenue Construction permit fees have reached record levels as a result of major redevelopment projects with fees of $1,221,113 collected through September 28, 2005. Six major projects, Arrabelle, Forest Place, Gore Creek Place, One Willow Bridge Road, Sonnenalp Resort (20 Vail Road), and Vail Plaza Hotel account for $751,121 of the revenue to date. The full year amended budget for construction permit fees is $1.8 million including $1.3 million for major redevelopment projects. The ability to meet the budget for major projects is dependent upon the timing of the initial building permit for Four Seasons and the completion of projects including Forest Place, Gore Creek Residences, Vail Plaza Hotel, and Westhaven Condominiums. Fees will be tracked closely and it is likely an amendment to the 2005 construction permit fee revenue budget will be submitted with the third supplemental appropriation in November. Revenue from residential and smaller projects is tracking on or slightly above budget. Construction permit fees include building, electrical, mechanical, plumbing, and sprinkler permits. Recreational Amenities Fees The recreational amenities fee is a separate fee charged on all new residential square footage at the time a building permit is issued. This fee is recorded in the Real Estate Transfer Tax (RETT) Fund. Redevelopment projects are also having a major impact on this revenue. $348,161 has been remitted during the first nine months of 2005 compared with $60,953 for the same time period last year. Four major projects (Arrabelle, Forest Place, Gore Creek Place, and Sonnenalp Resort) generated $304,557 of the year-to-date revenue and we are on track to meet the 2005 amended budget of $360,000. Real Estate Transfer Tax (RETT) RETT collections through the end of September are $4.5 million compared with $3.3 million through the end of September last year. Over $1.1 million was collected from real estate sales related to major transactions (over $10 million selling price) including: sale of the Chateau to the Four Seasons developer; continued sales of Crossroads units to the developer; sales to the public of Vail Mountain Lodge timeshares; sales to the public at Founders' Park Garage; sale of the Vail Marriott and sale of Frontage Road shopping center property. We are on track to meet our amended 2005 budget of $6.0 million. 051004 Revenue Highlights - 1 - MEMORANDUM September 27, 2005 To: Vail Town Council Stan Zemler Pam Brandmeyer Judy Camp From: Sally Lorton Re: August Sales Tax On the reverse side, please find the latest sales tax worksheet. I estimate I'll collect another $50,000.00 in August sales tax to bring August collections to $994,397.00. If so, we will be up 5.06% or $47,915.00 from budget and flat with August 2004. Attached please fmd two worksheets that report on the conference center tax collection. Town of Vail Sales Tax Worksheet 9/27/200 5 % Change % Change Month lssa ' 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Budget 2005 Co//ecdonr Budget Vedence hom 2004 from Budget .,t „ i ' •. : • r w ~ ~ January 1,805,707 p,894,597 1 935,782 2,052,569 2,115,359 2,066,459 2,034,529 2,210,547 2,073,481 1,997,091 2,225,841 2,11 8,488 2,272,914 154,426 2.11% 7,29% February 1,814,495 1,816,107 1,993,389 2,089,673 2,153,121 2,021,486 2,223,670 2,366,321 2,281,833 2,111,163 2,362,825 2,248,865 2,428,237 179,372 2.77% 7.98% March 2,250,656 . 2;139,298 2,240,865 2,580,992 2,368,077 2,415,202 2,545,573 2,568,871 2,699,664 2,372,942 2,344,178 2,231,117 2,781,122 550,005 18.64% 24.65% April 794,668 I 791,092 966,993 874,427 1,107,334 952,843 926,771 1,043,431 870,875 871,468 992,157 844,305 913,911 69,606 -7.89% 8.24% May 287,315 1 324,681 318,920 329,783 382,718 370,864 388,121 448,234 414,248 428,919 411,595 391,744 458,162 66,418 11.31% 16.95% June 548,820 I 590,685 594,907 630,366 633,400 692,811 721,774 751,439 657,707 742,755 732,113 696,803 833,341 136,538. 13.83% 19.59% July 892,830 893,483 963,717 1,043,637 1,107,882 1,130,883 1,235,470 1,157,867 1,044,966 1,075,532 1,128,514 1,074,085 1,150,792 76,707 1.97% 7.14% August 891,566 867,125 990,650 1,073,430 1,183,926 1,050,004 1,038,516 1,124,275 1,084,318 1,029,446 994,445 946,482 944 397 (2 085) -5 03% -0 22% , , . . al Tot ~ 7ac, ~~67 5 317 <n,E ~r, 1u.5 ~, 10,E74 h77 11 ~)51,P,17 10 Tor 652 11,714,424 11,670,985 11,127,092 10,629,376 11,191,668 10,551,889 11 782 876 1 230 987 ~ 513° ~ 11 67° e ~~ 't'~ _ ~ _ ~ .. n~ yak' r^' ~ cS -c• r ~ ~,,~ : '7 1 ~r_~ - ~ ~ , , , , 2a ~ , h September. 725,205 I 645,902 630,453 637,831 735,608 806,600 817,313 747,766 713,574 679,208 757,033 720,521 October 408,405 461,791 413,573 472,836 515,531 536,204 547,201 486,570 484,425 508,092 532,537 506,853 November 594,491 . I 611,147, 607,208 707,166 656,596 582,260 691,445 571,783 642,293 591,269 623,646 593,567 December 1,992,855 p,994,540 2,068,851 2,254,709 2,070,834 1,883,805 2,062,205 1,933,940 2,139,417 ' 2,171,098 2,362 095 2 248 170 , :: .:..~,~ '~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , , , ~ ~ ` ` .b.~ _~- :,vv' , Vii, Total 13 007 013 113 030 448 13 719 3 , , , , , , 08 14, 747,419 15,030, 386 14, 509,421 15, 232, 588 15, 41 1,044 15,106, 801 14, 578, 983 15,466, 9 79 14, 621,000 1 1, 782, 876 1, 230, 987 Town of Vail Conference Center Lodging Tax (1.5%)Worksheet 9/27/2005 % Change % Change 2005 Budget from from Month 2003 2004 Budget Co/%ctions Variance 2004 Budget ;fl; E \.~ ~ ~ Y1'N yN ~ij~~~~ u January 258,035 304,140 276,303 308,714 32,411 1.50% 11.73% February 314,645 354,159 32.1,744 365,143 43,399 3.10% 13.49°h March 342,984 333,006 302,527 411,444 108,917 23.55% 36.00% April 64,246 87,147 79,171 70,276 (8,895) -19.36% -11.24% May 15,964 18,027 16,377 21,365 4,988 18.52% 30.46% June 54,153 56,662 51,476 67,643 16,167 19.38% 31.41 July 84,422 94,611 85,951 95,452 9,501 0.89% 11.05% August 81,820 82,900 75,312 74,387 (925) -10.27% -1.23% ~; w ~ y g~~ Total 1,216,269 1,330,652 1,208,861 1,414,424 205,563- 6.30% 17.00% September 42,569 48,706 44,248 October 25,131 28,707 26,080 November 29,089 33,037 30,013 December 260,232 289,276 262,798 s. olt Sw'~ ~ , r t . ~ "S s'1v ~ ~i~~r ",~~~w ,>2 I f ii ~ ii3,' S~. ' a . ~ { a~t.i~. r ° . ; Total 1,573,290 1,730,378 1,572,000 1,414,424 205,563 onth Town of Vail Conference Center Retail Tax (.5%) Worksheet 9/27/2005 % Change % Change 2005 Budget from from 2003 2004 Budget Co/%ctions Variance 2004 Budget January 233,274 267.,013 245,637 271,630 25,993 1.73% 10.58% February 250,236 283,480 260,830 291,164 30,334 2.71 % 11.63% March 283,013 284,547 258,952 333,925 74,973 17.35% 28.95% April 99,694 115,624 109,419 106,881 (2,538) -7.56% -2.32% May 46,376 46,172 45,406 50,768 5,362 9.95% 11.81 June 83,981 83,918 80,741 96,938 16,197 15.52% 20.06% July 122,562 130,300 124,611 133,925 9,314 2.78% 7.47% August 119,843 115,092 109,760 110,703 943 -3.81 % 0.86% r --~ ~~~ Total 1,238,979 1,326,146 1,235,356 1,395,934 160,578 5.26% 13.00% s ~~~`a= - '` ~ ~'`.a ~"'1"ir~4, f -e%~~::• r 't}. , ~r~: ~ .aY rij,~a, sus ~ - "'~~ ~ A~~ ~;^`.A ~ *t ~ r °µyw,,,' ~~~..1. ~. z 5d. ~ 1'~"T, 'a~ '=J`'~'t '+~,..~ ~ ^- , ~` t ~~a.w- ~ yt~v.;.,.. '~~ ,~ `S September 78,107 87,126 83,472 October 57,330 60,325 58,721 November 67,602 71,641 68,792 December 253,449 276,725 260,659 _ - E,~ ~ ~. , g~ `] Total 1,695,467 1,821,963 1,707,000 1,395,934 160,578 CVc V lG,~,6S U.'k~!_1kh 2006 RESORT MARKET BASE SALARY FORCAST Aspen Avon Breckenridge Eagle County Pitkin Country Steamboat Springs Summit County Telluride 5% 4% 4% n/a 4% 5% 5% 4% Average 4.5 % Vail 4% w 12000 10000 8000 m m ~, 6000 s c 0 Actual Base Practice Comparison September, 2005 4000 2000 0 0 200 400 600 800 Points TOWN OF VAIL ige f Steamboat Summit Cty. - • - Vail 1000 1200 1400 1600 (,tl~ l~. ~f, 05 W.ter~ ~ '1 Vail Chamber & Business 1~ssociation 241 S. Frontage Rd. E., Suite 2 Vail, Colorado 81657 Phone: 970.477.0075 FAX: 970.477.0079 E-mail: info@vailchamber.org Stan Zemler, Town Manager Town of Vail 75 S. Frontage Road Vail Colorado 816752006 October 3, 20052006 Dear Stan: I don't know where we are on our scheduled review of funding options for the 2005-2006 Vail Guide. But in anticipation of that discussion, I have prepared the following set of information. Tb begin, clearly our goal has always been to make the Guide a Vail publication. It has also been to make it be the only inclusive piece listing all Vail business license holders free of charge, thereby serving as a true guide for our guest. We of course have also always maintained that if the product or service is not available through one of our Vail businesses, we gave the publisher liberty to list those services even though they are offered out of Vail. So I guess the next step is to clear up any issues of concern to the TOV as they relate to this strategy. We indeed did find three errors regarding realtors. I have explanations for two of those and no possible explanation for the other and I will be happy to share those with you when we meet. Suffice it to say that errors happen no matter how diligent we might be, but they were nonethe- less errors for which we apologize. The issue of letting local Vail businesses list their other locations has never been a problem in the past, however, if the town feels it to be inappropriate, we can reconsider. I have already discussed it with our publisher and he is willing to revisit those businesses for whom it would be an issue. I know of one who has told me he would pull his ad as his addresses are an integral part of his logo, but we can deal with that if funding is dependent on that decision. I believe the last technical issue has to do with the golf course listings. With the guest in mind, we felt it helpful to list all of the golf courses in the area. Again, this is negotiable if it interferes with funding but our recommendation is to continue as we have in the past. I also did some math when I sent Pam and Judy the project report when I submitted the invoice for the 2004-2005 Guide. I have updated those numbers to reflect this year's dollars. The Guide is 68 pages with a standard full page rate advertising rate of $1875 for members and $2225 for non- members. Town information has 15.5 pages allocated to free business listings, maps, event calendars. This does not include editorial content highlighting the town's amenities, ie. the transportation system, Library etc. At those numbers, the town's real dollars share of the guide could reasonably be argued to be between $29,062.50- $34,487.50. Without town support, the burden of paying for those pages would have to be shifted to other advertisers and our dues paying members. Additionally, without town support we run the risk that the free listings etc. would have to be eliminated for financial reasons. We look forward to further discussion of this matter as I know the budget is quickly approaching its final form. We are committed to maintaining this publication as a quality piece highlighting Vail businesses and feel sure that after 8 years, we can come to some accommodation that meets the funding requirements of the TOV Sincerely, Kaye Ferry, Executive Director pus ca,c~, ds ~ ~ Public Comments on the Concepts Presented for the West Vail Plan September 26, 2005 ~ 5:15 pm Apex Lodge/Holiday Inn Values: • The types of retail services offered • Drive-up, easy access to community-oriented businesses • Access to/from I-70 as well as access to other areas and services • Open space, recreation areas • Pedestrian access • Close-up parking • Local quality • ,Mountain views and scenic views; can currently view over the W .Vail Lodge from Chamonix to the mountain (--60-65'). • Diversity of uses -retail, residential, service - a lodging option is good in this area i.e. -retain nonconforming uses present in WVL Potential for Change: • Mitigate negative effects of vehicles (noise, exhaust) • Roundabouts are at a physical limit, cannot be enlarged; what is their capacity? • Improve pedestrian access; safety • Auto connectivity between businesses • Pay attention to Chamonix side of buildings for aesthetic value on all sides • Complete streetscape -all around treatment for all vantage points • Opportunity for new architectural designs and standards • Emphasize spaces between buildings to improve continuity • Improve parking aesthetics while keeping it convenient for shoppers (i.e., Riverwalk needs more parking & more room for circulation) • Mixed-use to encouraged vitality; allow both residential and commercial • Add a visitor center • Work with partners more effectively to ensure business vitality; market study • Additional height is okay • Surface parking -seasonal deficiencies • Integrate a recreational amenity such as REI's climbing wall • Complementary vs. competing businesses y ., -~ n.~. .,. ~ ---- - _. - - A - -- - --~- - _ _ - - - -~ Corey Swisher -Fwd: Fw: Letter to Vail Town Council Members Page 1 ~ From: Matt Mire To: Swisher, Corey Date: 10/14/2005 9:33:46 AM Subject: Fwd: Fw: Letter to Vail Town Council Members »> "DIANA DONOVAN" <dianamdonovanC~msn.com> 10/12/2005 7:17:16 PM »> This is to request your support of the amendment to SDD No ----- Original Message ----- From: William W. Bailey To: rsliferC~vailaov.com ; dcleveland@vailaov.com ; ddonovanC~vailaov.com ; kruotolo~vail oo v.com ; kloganCa?vail ov.com ; omoffet@vailgov.com ; fhitt~vailoov.com Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2005 7:11 PM Subject: Letter to Vail Town Council Members Letter in Support of the Amendment to SDD No. 22 (October 18th meeting) This is to request your support of the amendment to SDD No. 22 that is scheduled for the October 18, 2005 Town Council meeting. My name is William W. Bailey and I am a Virginia licensed attorney, now retired. My wife, Pam, and I currently live most of the year in Maryland. We purchased a home in Grand Traverse (1420 Moraine Drive.SDD No. 22) in March of 2004. We have five children (ages 16 to 36) and we have vacationed in Vail as a family for over 25 years. It is our intention to retire at our home in Vail when our youngest daughter enters college in 2008. I mention our family and retirement intentions because both bear very importantly on the importance to our family of the adoption of the above referenced amendment to SDD No. 22. At the time we purchased our home in Vail we realized that it offered a possible potential for expansion (within our present home footprint) to accommodate our family, future grandchildren and close friends during their visits. We consider adoption of this amendment of the utmost importance to our family quality and enjoyment, and therefore certainly a reflection of the personal commitment our family has to the responsibilities, as well values and benefits, of being a part of the Vail community. I would ask that you incorporate by reference to this letter the correspondence from Charles and Carol Baker (1428 Moraine Drive), as well as any other correspondence and support for adoption of the amendment previously communicated, and certainly any testimony at the time of the hearing by Mr. and Mrs. Charles Baker and Mr. and Mrs. Patrick Dauphinais. To underscore the critical importance the passage of this amendment has to our family, I have made reservations to travel to Vail on the 18th from the East coast to offer at the time of the hearing my personal support for passage of the amendment. Corey Swisher -;,,Fwd: Fw: Letter to Vail Town Council Members Page 2 My wife and I appreciate the opportunity to offer comment for the record, and I look forward to being at the Town Council meeting on the 18th. Thank you. Corey Swisher Fwd• Fw: SDD No 22 ~ ~ Page 1 From: Matt Mire To: Swisher, Corey Date: 1 0/1 4/2005 9:34:00 AM Subject: Fwd: Fw: SDD No 22 »> "DIANA DONOVAN" <dianamdonovanC~msn.com> 1 0/1 2/2005 9:20:57 PM »> ----- Original Message ----- From: Joan Ackerman To: rslifer@vail,ocLv.com ; dclevelandC~vailaov.com ; ddonovanC~vailaov.com ; kruotoloC~vailaov.com ; kloaanC~?vailaov.com ; amoffet@vailaov.com ; fhittC«~vailaov.com Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2005 3:00 PM Subject: SDD No 22 I support the revision to SDD No. 22 and hope that you will give it careful consideration. I shall be out of town on the date of the work session or I would be there to lend my presence in support of this amendment. Joan Ackerman 1550 Lionsridge Loop ima@vail.net CC: Brandmeyer, Pam October 12, 2005 Deaz Council Member: My name is Wolfgang Dorner. I own a home in Vail in Grand Traverse. The homes in Grand Traverse are subject to a Special Development District, specifically SDD #22. It is my understanding that SDD #22 has some of the strictest azchitectural rules in Vail. Because of SDD #22, the residences of Grand Traverse aze more limited in how they can utilize their property than other residents and homeowners in Vail. I agree that reasonable restrictions with respect to the land use and improvements aze appropriate. I do not believe, however, that rules or laws which are more restrictive to certain residences are equitable. I therefore support the proposed amendment to SDD #22 that is scheduled for the October 18, 2005 council meeting. I believe that the proposed changes are supported by various government agencies and are the most equitable to the property owners and reasonable alternatives for government enforcement of correcting the unintended consequences of the present rules. I would appreciate your consideration of this matter and your vote in favor of this change. Very truly yours, Wolfgang Dorner 1424 Muraiiie Drive Vail, CO 81657 Corgi Swisher -Fwd: Fw: Special Development District No. 22 Grand Traverse Pageni From: Matt Mire To: Swisher, Corey Date: 10/14/2005 9:36:42 AM Subject: Fwd: Fw: Special Development District No. 22 Grand Traverse »> "DIANA DONOVAN" <dianamdonovanC~3msn.com> 1 0/1 3/2005 9:32:31 PM »> ----- Original Message ----- From: Jres2skiC~aol.com To: rslifer@vailaov.com ; dclevelandC~vailgov.com ; ddonovan~vailgov.com ; kruotoloC~lvailaov.com ; kloaan@vailgov.com ; amoffet~vailaov.com ; fhittC~vailgov.com Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 1:54 PM Subject: Special Development District No. 22 Grand Traverse We live at 1800 Lionsridge Loop in the Grand Traverse subdivision SDD No. 22. It's not often that we enter the public debate arena, however this issue is about fairness. As you are aware there have been changes made to GRFA rules over the years. Most recently Ordinance 14, Series 2004 has eliminated our residence from improvements that other Vail homeowners can make. These improvements were even allowed at one time to other homeowners in SDD No. 22. Originally when the Grand Traverse was developed, small lots were planned so that there would be large amounts of open space. The GRFA rules applicable at that time for each lot were not reasonable, so a total amount of GRFA was agreed upon for the entire development and then allocated lot by lot. With the changes in the way GRFA is calculated by Ordinance 14, Series 2004 the currently allocated GRFA is far too small to allow for improvements such as interior conversions. SDD No. 22 has very strict architectural guidelines according to the Community Development Department and the PEC Commissions. Site coverage, roof pitch; height and design do not allow any increase in bulk and mass. Therefore, all that's left is interior conversions (which were allowed). It has been said that GRFA is a crude tool for controlling bulk and mass. Eliminating GRFA in SDD No. 22 would be a simple and equitable means of testing how well architectural rules control bulk and mass. If other approaches were used such as the underlying primary/secondary zoning off this SDD, more GRFA would be available than the architectural rules allow. Thanking you in advance for your consideration. Voting in favor of this change would be appreciated. Jeff and Helen Resnick CC: Brandmeyer, Pam --~--- Core Swisher -Fwd: Fw: Support for revision to SDD no. 22 Page 1 From: Matt Mire To: Swisher, Corey Date: 1 0/1 4/2005 9:36:57 AM Subject: Fwd: Fw: Support for revision to SDD no. 22 »> "DIANA DONOVAN" <dianamdonovanC~lmsn.com> 10/13/2005 9:35:46 PM »> ----- Original Message ----- From: Sharon Hankins To: rslifer@vailaov.com ; dclevelandC~vail ov.com ; ddonovan~vailgov.com ; kruotoloCalvailaov.com ; kloganC«3vailaov.com ; amoffetC~vailaov.com ; fhittC~vailgov.com Sent: Sunday, October 09, 2005 10:47 AM Subject: Support for revision to SDD no. 22 Please support the revision to SDD no. 22. It is not fair that the changes made to GRFA rules under Ordinance 14, Series 2004 has frozen me out of making the same types of interior conversions my neighbors in the Grand Traverse have made in the past and that other Vail homeowners can now make. The proposed changes are supported by Community Development and PEC as the most equitable and readily administered means of correcting the unintended consequences to SDD No. 22 of previous changes made to GRFA rules. Thank you for your time. Sharon Hankins 1408 Moraine Dr. Vail, CO CC: Brandmeyer, Pam Core Swisher -Fwd: To Vail Town Council _ _ ,rv Page 1 7 From: Matt Mire To: Swisher, Corey Date: 10/14/2005 9:37:13 AM Subject: Fwd: To Vail Town Council »> "DIANA DONOVAN" <dianamdonovanC~lmsn.com> 1 0/1 3/2005 9:37:09 PM »> To Vail Town Council: We have a home in the Grand Traverse.' Because our subdivision is a Special Development District the rules that apply to the rest of Vail do not apply to us. Our SDD document contains GRFA requirements that apply to us even though they were changed for the rest of Vail last year by Ordinance 14. While we have made interior improvements in the past as the rules have changed, we find that our neighbors cannot now make the same changes.we have made because of this requirement in our SDD document. This kind of un-intended result unjustly penalizes our neighborhood. Please vote for fairness and vote for amending our SDD document to eliminate any GRFA requirement. Our SDD document is so restrictive architecturally, that changes to our homes that add bulk or mass would still be prohibited. Very truly yours, Carol and Charlie Goolsbeee 1450 Moraine Dr. CC: Brandmeyer, Pam Core Swisher- Fwd: Fw: The Grand Traverse ~ Page 1 ' From: Matt Mire To: Brandmeyer, Pam; Swisher, Corey Date: 10/18/2005 10:30:43 AM Subject: Fwd: Fw: The Grand Traverse »> "DIANA DONOVAN" <dianamdonovan@msn.com> 10/18/2005 10:29:36 AM »> ----- Original Message ----- From: MIKE AMY GISH To: rsliferC«?vailaov.com ; dclevelandC~vailgov.com ; ddonovanCu~vailaov.com ; kruotoloC~3vailaov.com ; kloaanC~vailaov.com ; amoffetC~vailaov.com ; fhittC~vailaov.com Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2005 2:09 PM Subject: The Grand Traverse Hello Council members!! This is a letter to encourage you to consider changing the building restrictions in our neighborhood. The Grand Traverse is a great neighborhood for families... the open space behind our home provides a safe and large playground for everyone. West Vail has always been our home and we love living in this neighborhood. We have a great house, but it is 2700 sf and we had surprise twins bringing us to 4 children. Being able to dig out our crawl space under the garage would not effect the look of our home but would give us the additional space so that we could call this our home for many more years. We have looked at other homes in this area and it would be cost prohibitive for us to upgrade. We have been hopeful that the changes with the GRFA would allow us to add this necessary space onto our home so we can stay in Vail and not have to move our family down valley and out of Vail. Thank you for all of your time. Amy and Mike Gish H ~ - -~----- -~,~_ Core- Swisher -Fwd: Fw: Grand Traverse Buildin Re uiations -- -_ - -- From: Matt Mire To: Brandmeyer, Pam; Swisher, Corey Date: 10/18/2005 10:54:54 AM Subject: Fwd: Fw: Grand Traverse Building Regulations --~- y Page 1 »> "DIANA DONOVAN" <dianamdonovanC~msn.com> 10/18/2005 10:37:03 AM »> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeff Stitgen" <Lffstitaen@yahoo.com> To: <rsliferC~vailaov.com>; <dclevelandC~vail ov.com>; <ddonovanC~3vailaov.com>; <kruotoloC~lvailnet.com>; <kloganC«~vailgov.com>; <amoffetC«3vailgov.com>; <fhittC~vailgov.com> Sent: Saturday, October 15, 2005 1:08 PM Subject: Re: Grand Traverse Building Regulations > Sirs, > I am a homeowner in the Grand Traverse. I am writing > to encourage your support for the modificatior}s to SDD > No.22 as proposed by Pat Dauphinais. > I believe this proposal will have little or no > impact on the appearance of the neighborhood. What it > will do is make our neighborhood a far better place > for permanent residents. The difference between a > second home. and a primary residence often comes down > to storage. The ability to have a basement will be > crucial. It also avoids outside clutter. > I think this proposal is good for the neighborhood > and good for Vail. I strongly encourage your support > Jeff Stitgen > 1750 Lionsridge loop Core Swisher -Fwd Fw: Support for the Revision to SDD #22 Pa e 1 From: Matt Mire To: Brandmeyer, Pam; Swisher, Corey Date: 10/18/2005 10:27:37 AM Subject: Fwd: Fw: Support for the Revision to SDD #22 »> "DIANA DONOVAN" <dianamdonovanC~msn.com> 10/18/2005 10:22:35 AM »> ----- Original Message ----- From: Tom Headley To: rsliferC~3vailaov.com ; dclevelandC~vailaov.com ; ddonovanC~vailoov.com ; kruotoloC~vail ohm ; kloganC~vailgov.com ; gmoffetC~vailgov.com ; fhittC~3vailoov.com Sent: Monday, October 17, 2005 3:47 PM Subject: Support for the Revision to SDD #22 Dear Vail Town Council Members: We want to express our support for the revision to SDD No. 22. We feel that we should be allowed to make revisions to the interior of our house as long as we don't enlarge the outside of the house. Changes made to GRFA rules under Ordinance 14, Series 2004 currently keep us from making these interior changes. Thank you for supporting this revision. Sincerely, Judy and Tom Headley 1426 Moraine Dr. _. _._ Pam Brandmeyer -Fwd: Fw: Grand Traverse Building Regulations ~ ~- Page 1~ From: Matt Mire To: Brandmeyer, Pam; Swisher, Corey Date: 10/18/05 10:54:54 AM Subject: Fwd: Fw: Grand Traverse Building Regulations »> "DIANA DONOVAN" <dianamdonovan@msn.com> 10/18/2005 10:37:03 AM »> -----Original Message ----- From: "Jeff Stitgen" <ieffstitgenCa~vahoo.com> To: <rslifer(~vailgov.com>; <dclevelandCa~vailgov.com>; <ddonovanCcD_vailgov.com>; <kruotoloCa)_vailnet.com>; <klogan(a)_vailgov.com>; <g_moffet cC~.vailgov.com>; <fh ittCa)va i Igov. com> Sent: Saturday, October 15, 2005 1:08 PM Subject: Re: Grand Traverse Building Regulations > Sirs, > I am a homeowner in the Grand Traverse. I am writing > to encourage your support for the modifications to SDD > No.22 as proposed by Pat Dauphinais. > I believe this proposal will have little or no > impact on the appearance of the neighborhood. What it > will do is make our neighborhood a far better place > for permanent residents. The difference between a > second home and a primary residence often comes down > to storage. The ability to have a basement will be > crucial. It also avoids outside clutter. > I think this proposal is good for the neighborhood > and good for Vail. I strongly encourage your support > Jeff Stitgen > 1750 Lionsridge loop ~~Core Swisher -Fwd: Fw. Special Development District No.22,Grand Traverse e__Pa e 1 From: Matt Mire To: Brandmeyer, Pam; Swisher, Corey Date: 10/18/2005 10:27:25 AM Subject: Fwd: Fw: Special Development District No.22,Grand Traverse more input for the ercord on the grand traverse »> "DIANA DONOVAN" <dianamdonovanC~msn.com> 10/18/2005 10:21:27 AM »> ----- Original Message ----- From: Robert Stiber To: rsliferC~vailgov.com ; dclevelandC~vailgov.com ; ddonoVan.C~vailgov.com ; kruotoloC«~vailoov.com ; klogan(~vailoov.com ; gmoffetCa3vailgov.com ; fhittC~vailoov.com Sent: Monday, October 17, 2005 4:17 PM Subject: Special .Development District No.22,Grand Traverse We are requesting your support of the amendment to SDD No.22 that is scheduled for review at the Oct 18 council meeting. We have been Vail homeowners in SDD 22 for the past 10 years. This amendment would facilitate continuing home improvements in a neighborhood that has strict architectural rule. Thanks for your consideration. We would appreciate your support of this change. Robert and Judith Stiber 1500 Lionsridge Loop -Core Swisher -Fwd: Fw: The Grand Traverse ~ Pa e 1 From: Matt Mire To: Brandmeyer, Pam; Swisher, Corey Date: 10/18/2005 10:30:43 AM Subject: Fwd: Fw: The Grand Traverse »> "DIANA DONOVAN" <dianamdonovan@msn.com> 10/18/2005 10:29:36 AM »> ----- Original Message ----- From: MIKE AMY GISH To: rslifer@vailgov.com ; dcleveland~vailgov.com ; ddonovan@vailgov.com ; kruotoloC~vailgov.com ; klogan@vailaov.com ; gmoffetC~3vailgov.com ; fhittCvailoov.com Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2005 2:09 PM Subject: The Grand Traverse Hello Council members!! This is a letter to encourage you to consider changing the building restrictions in our neighborhood. The Grand Traverse is a great neighborhood for families... the open space behind our home provides a safe and large playground for everyone. West Vail has always been our home and we love living in this neighborhood. We have a great house, but it is 2700 sf and we had surprise twins bringing us to 4 children. Being able to dig out our crawl space under the garage would not effect the look of our home but would give us the additional space so that we could call this our home for many more years. We have looked at other homes in this area and it would be cost prohibitive for us to upgrade. We have been hopeful that the changes with the GRFA would allow us to add this necessary space onto our home so we can stay in Vail and not have to move our family down valley and out of Vail: Thank you for all of your time. Amy and Mike Gish ~ ~a is.os ~,i~c,~d-. Parking Rates 2005-2006 Existing Rates 0- 1 and 1/2 hour 1 and 1/2 to 2 hour 2 to 4 hour 4 to 6 hour 6 plus hours Shopper Rates 0- 3 hours Pass Prices Gold Blue Green Pink Value Card Rates Non Peak Vail Peak Vail Non Peak Eagle Peak Eagle Proposed Rates $0 0- 1 and 1/2 hour $4 1 and 1/2 to 2 hour $10 2 to 4 hour $15 4 to 6 hour $16 6 plus hours Shopper Rates $3 ~ 0- 2 hours 0- 3 hours Passes Prices $2,000 Gold $825 Blue $450 Green $50 Pink LH Const Pass Value Card Rates $5 Non Peak Vail $10 Peak Vail $6 Non Peak Eagle $12 Peak Eagle $0 $4 $10 $15 $16 $3 $5 $2,000 ,$8~5~ 8d~ $4-~sa $400 $6 $12 $7 $14 iv, ~$.~5 ~~C-rU~NCa TO: ALL TOWN OF VAIL REGISTERED VOTERS NOTICE OF ELECTION TO INCREASE TAXES AND DEBT ON A REFERRED MEASURE TOWN OF VAIL EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO 'Election Date: Tuesday, November 8, 2005 Election Hours: Local Election Office Address and Telephone Number: Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk Town of Vail, Colorado 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Telephone: (970) 479-2136 Ballot Title and Text: BALLOT QUESTION 1: 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. SHALL TOWN OF VAIL DEBT BE INCREASED $7,640,000 WITH A REPAYMENT COST OF $16,685,000 AND SHALL TOWN TAXES BE INCREASED $1,950,000 ANNUALLY IN THE FIRST FULL YEAR OF COLLECTION AND BY WHATEVER ADDITIONAL AMOUNTS AS ARE RAISED ANNUALLY THEREAFTER FROM THE LEVY OF AN ADDITIONAL LODGING TAX OF NOT MORE THAN 1.5% (WHICH WILL RESULT IN A TOTAL LODGING TAX IMPOSED BY THE TOWN OF NOT MORE THAN 3.0%) TO FINANCE, OPERATE AND MAINTAIN A CONFERENCE CENTER SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING LIMITS OR CONDITIONS: IF THIS QUESTION IS APPROVED BY THE VOTERS, THE AUTHORITY TO ISSUE DEBT PURSUANT TO THIS QUESTION TOGETHER WITH THE AUTHORITY TO ISSUE DEBT PURSUANT TO QUESTION 2B APPROVED BY THE VOTERS ON NOVEMBER 5, 2002 WILL TOTAL $57,700,000 WITH A REPAYMENT COST OF $112,295,000; AND IF THIS QUESTION IS APPROVED BY THE VOTERS, THE SUNSET FOR THE LODGING TAX AND SALES TAX LEVIED PURSUANT TO 2002 QUESTION 2B IS REPEALED AND SUCH TAXES AND THE LODGING TAX LEVIED PURSUANT TO THIS QUESTION SHALL NOT TERMINATE UNTIL TERMINATED BY LEGISLATIVE ACTION BY THE TOWN; AND • IF THIS QUESTION IS NOT APPROVED BY THE VOTERS, THE AUTHORITY TO ISSUE DEBT PURSUANT TO 2002 QUESTION 2B SHALL TERMINATE IMMEDIATELY AND THE AUTHORITY TO LEVY TAXES PURSUANT TO 2002 QUESTION 2B SHALL TERMINATE EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2006, AND THE TOWN COUNCIL SHALL EITHER REFUND ANY REMAINING REVENUES FROM SUCH TAXES PURSUANT TO SUCH REFUND METHODOLOGY AS THE .TOWN COUNCIL DETERMINES OR SUBMIT A QUESTION TO THE VOTERS ON HOW SUCH REVENUES SHALL BE USED; AND . • THE LODGING TAX AND SALES TAX LEVIED PURSUANT TO 2002 QUESTION 2B AND THE I.5% LODGING TAX AUTHORIZED PURSUANT TO THIS QUESTION ARE CURRENTLY ANTICIPATED TO BE SUFFICIENT TO PAY DEBT SERVICE ON THE BONDS AND APPROXIMATELY $1,500,000 ANNUALLY TO PAY THE COSTS OF OPERATING AND MAINTAINING THE CONFERENCE CENTER; AND • IN ORDER TO FINANCE, OPERATE AND MAINTAIN THE CONFERENCE CENTER, THE TOWN COUNCIL MAY LEVY, INCREASE OR DECREASE THE LODGING TAX APPROVED BY THIS QUESTION FROM TIME TO TIME SO LONG AS IT DOES NOT EXCEED THE RATE OF I.5% ;AND • THE COUNCIL EXPECTS THAT THE RATE OF THE LODGING TAX APPROVED BY THIS QUESTION TO BE IMPOSED BEGINNING IN 2006 WILL BE APPROXIMATELY .79%; PROVIDED THAT THE ACTUAL RATE WILL BE DETERMINED BASED UPON THE SALE OF THE DEBT AUTHORIZED BY THIS QUESTION AND 2002 QUESTION 2B; AND • SUCH LODGING TAX SHALL BE LEVIED ON THE PRICE PAID FOR THE RENTING OR LEASING OF LODGING FOR LESS THAN THIRTY CONSECUTIVE DAYS; AND • SUCH DEBT SHALL BE EVIDENCED BY THE ISSUANCE OF REVENUE BONDS PAYABLE FROM THE LODGING TAX AUTHORIZED BY THIS QUESTION AND THE LODGING TAX AND SALES TAX AUTHORIZED IN 2002 QUESTION 2B; SUCH BONDS TO BE SOLD IN ONE OR MORE SERIES ON TERMS AND CONDITIONS AND WITH SUCH MATURITIES AS PERMITTED BY LAW AND AS THE TOWN COUNCIL MAY DETERMINE, INCLUDING PROVISIONS FOR REDEMPTION OF THE BONDS PRIOR TO MATURITY. WITH OR WITHOUT PAYMENT OF A . PREMIUM OF NOT MORE THAN THREE PERCENT OF THE AMOUNT SO .REDEEMED; AND • THE PROCEEDS OF SUCH DEBT AND TAXES AND ANY EARNINGS FROM THE INVESTMENT OF SUCH PROCEEDS AND REVENUES BE COLLECTED. AND SPENT AS A VOTER APPROVED REVENUE CHANGE UNDER ARTICLE X, SECTION 20 OF THE COLORADO CONSTITUTION? 2 Total Town Fiscal Year Spending Fiscal Year 2005 (estimated) $ 43,829,007 2004 (actual) $ 42;995,340 2003 (actual) $ 37,127,290 2002 (actual) $ 34,648,353 2001 (actual) $ 33,882,261 Overall percentage change from 2001 to 2005 22.7 Overall dollar change from 2001 to 2005 $ 9,946,746 * The Town's revenues maybe collected, retained and spent without limitation or condition as a voter-approved revenue change. Proposed Tax Increase Town Estimate of the Maximum Dollar Amount of the Proposed Tax Increase For Fiscal Year 2006 (the First Full Fiscal Year of the Proposed Tax Increase): BALLOT QUESTION 1: $1,950,000 Town Estimate of 2006 Fiscal Year Spending Without Proposed Tax Increase: Information on Town's Proposed Debt BALLOT QUESTION 1: Principal Amount of Proposed Bonds: Maximum Annual Town Repayment Cost Total Town Repayment Cost: Information on Town's Current Debt* $ 41,476,726 Not to exceed $7,640,000 Not to exceed $3,705,000 Not to exceed $16,685,000 Principal Amount Outstanding Debt: $ 14,825,000 Maximum Annual Repayment Cost: $J 2,324,457 Remaining Total Repayment Cost: $ 17,540,447 Excluded from debt are enterprise and annual appropriation obligations.. 3 The following summaries were prepared from materials filed by persons in favor of or opposd to the ballot question: Summary of Written Comments FOR Ballot Question 1: In the upcoming election, Vail voters have the opportunity to make a decision important to the future of our community. Ballot question #1 asks voters to approve an additional 1.5% lodging tax to pay for the Vail Conference Center. First and foremost, ballot question #1 is a lodging tax only. Visitors staying in our hotels and condominiums, will pay the tax, Vail's residents will not be affected. Ayes vote does NOT increase taxes; to Vail residents. The Vail Conference Center will attract more of our target customers. Meeting attendees already represent a significant percentage of our existing destination overnight business and the Conference Center will bring more corporate groups and associations of doctors, lawyers and other business people to shop, dine and stay in our community. Furthermore, the Conference Center will attract groups and meetings in our spring and fall seasons, when we have the most availability and opportunity for growth. The Vail Conference Center will generate an estimated $34 million in incremental revenue for Vail. That includes: $10 million in lodging revenue and $22 million in retail, restaurant and activity spending. The Vail Conference Center will generate $10-12 million in additional wages and gratuities for locals who work in Vail and .will provide more year-round employment security and opportunities! This is the final chance for Vail to build a conference center. If ballot question #1 fails, the center will be killed and Vail will miss out on this critical economic opportunity. VOTE YES on ballot question #1. Support the Vail Conference Center because it's right for Vail. Summary of Written Comments AGAINST Ballot Question 1: Financial risk to town and property owners in Vail is higha in light of recent natural disasters and skyrocketing costs of materials. Mountain conference centers have challenges that cities do not. Many experts believe that a conference center that does not have hotel beds attached is fatally flawed. The business plan indicates a disproportionate amount of income from food and beverage in direct competition with existing food and beverage operations. No parking fees are currently projected because most of the parking is public parking. The plan also indicates a large percentage of projected business is from existing business including local non profits; not new business. Data indicates that it will not be viable in the spring or shoulder seasons. Summer conferences compete with family vacation time and are not popular. This proposal could pull funds from other projects and critical infrastructure of the Town of Vail. Once we start building, we are committed whether the financial report and projected building costs are right or not. The additional lodging tax will make Vail one of the highest tax rates on tourists in the ski industry and in the state and will discourage group and tourist business. The cost of the conference center has mushroomed to $60 million. The town's financial consultant estimates that the center will lose $984,000 to $1,285,000 on operations. There is no guarantee the town will not have to pay this operating loss in the future. Vail property-owners are the ultimate guarantors of all debt taken.on by the Town of Vail regardless.of any lodging tax, and computations of all the economic benefits are being compiled using historical data.. Any change in` the business model, or in technology, like video conferencing, will result in a failure to meet their projections. Nineteen new conference centers have been built since 2000, 34 have been. updated and/or ,4 expanded, and 22 new ones are in the planning stages. All of these are in addition to the huge inventory already built prior to 2000. If we don't understand the details and huge challenges of the convention business, let's not get into it. The town of Vail should not use taxpayer dollars to compete with private businesses. There are at least eleven facilities that offer conference space including several,under construction. Use our money to build a West Vail fire station, upgrade the main fire station. Prior consultants emphasized larger groups want to stay in one hotel, close to an airport. Our airport is closed April to July 1 and September to December 15. In winter, Vail is predominately occupied by skiers. Total cost of the Conference Center to Vail's taxpayers is roughly $160M. Is a Conference Center the best use of $160M of town money? If the conference center loses more money than projected, the town will have to use General Funds that were intended for services, streets, equipment, salaries, etc. Three-fourths of all U.S. conferences can be handled by Vail's existing or planned private facilities.