HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-04-05 Agenda and Support Documentation Town Council Evening Session VAIL TOWN COUNCIL
EVENING SESSION AGENDA 07k TOT
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS
75 S. Frontage Road W.
Vail, CO 81657
6:00 P.M., APRIL 5, 2011
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 Participation (15 min.)
PRESENTER(S): Public
2. ITEM /TOPIC: Consent Agenda:
1) Approval of Release Town of Vail v. WENK et al. Case number
08CV467 and Settlement Amount of Nine Hundred Thousand dollars
($900,000); and
2) Approval of Findings of the Vail Town Council for Real Estate Transfer
Tax Appeal Hearing March 15,2011 (5 min.)
PRESENTER(S): Pam Brandmeyer
3. ITEM /TOPIC: Town Manager Report:
Revenue Highlights - Kathleen Halloran
February Sales Tax - Kathleen Halloran (15 min.)
PRESENTER(S): Kathleen Halloran
4. ITEM /TOPIC: Conference Center Funds Update (45 min.)
PRESENTER(S): Kent Logan and Stan Zemler
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Staff requests that Council answer
the questions posed in Section VII of the attached memorandum, including
project selection, public outreach, next steps, sample ballot language and
refund methodology.
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this session is provide the Council with an
update on the concepts selected for potential funding through a ballot
initiative to reallocate the Conference Center Fund and to get direction from
the Vail Town Council on next steps.
The concepts directed for review by the Town Council at the September 21
meeting include:
• Remodel the Golf Clubhouse with the addition of an events
pavilion This multi - purpose venue would serve golfers, Nordic users,
potential special events and meetings /receptions.
• Remodel and expansion of Vail Village Welcome Center to
support a Heritage Center with space for receptions and other
functions and T6wi'iWvide signage /information /guest
enhancement system —This multi -media welcome center would be
high tech yet high touch; triple the square footage of the existing
information center with connectivity to the Colorado Ski and
Snowboard Museum on the floor below as well as a flexible floor plan
for receptions and other functions.
• Expansion of the fields at Ford Park An additional field and restroom
would be added in Phase I of this Ford Park implementation project on
the Upper Bench. This phase does not include parking, the Lower
Bench or Ford Amphitheater projects.
• Council directed staff to remove Dobson Arena expansion and
renovation at the December 7 meeting
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that Council direct Staff to
move forward with the proposed next steps.
5.
ITEM /TOPIC: A review of the proposed Lionshead Redevelopment Master
Plan amedments to facilitate the Ever Vail project.
Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan (Resolution No. 6, Series of
2011):
A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for an
amendment to the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, pursuant to
Section 2.8, Adoption and Amendment of the Master Plan, Lionshead
Redevelopment Master Plan, to amend the detailed plan
recommendations for West Lionshead (Ever Vail), and setting forth
details in regard thereto. (PEC 110002)
Major Subdivision:
A request for a review of a preliminary plan for a major subdivision, pursuant
to Chapter 13 -3, Major Subdivision, Vail Town Code, to allow for the creation
of two lots for the redevelopment of the properties known as Ever Vail (West
Lionshead), located at 862, 923, 934, 953, 1000 and 1031 South Frontage
Road West, and the South Frontage Road West rig ht-of-way/u nplatted (a
complete legal description is available for inspection at the Town of Vail
Community Development Department), and setting forth details in regard
thereto. (PEC080062)
Rezoning (Ordinance No. 7, Series of 2011 y
A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a zone district
boundary amendment, pursuant to Section 12 -3 -7, Amendment, Vail Town
Code, to allow for a establish Lionshead Mixed Use 2 District zoning on
Parcels 1 and 2 of the Ever Vail Subdivision located generally at 862, 923,
934, 953, 1000, and 1031 South Frontage Road, and the South Frontage
Road rig ht-of-way/u nplatted (a complete legal description is available for
inspection at the Town of Vail Community Development Department), and
setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC080061)
Special Development District Amendment (Ordinance No. 8, Series of 2011
A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a major
amendment to Special Development District No. 4, Cascade Village,
pursuant to Section 12- 9A -10, Amendment Procedures, Vail Town Code, to
allow for the removal of Development Area D (Glen Lyon Office Building)
from Special Development District No. 4, Cascade Village, and for a zone
district boundary amendment, pursuant to Section 12 -3 -7, Amendment, Vail
Town Code, to include ffi6�. Object property in the Lionshead Mixed Use 2
District, located at 1000 South Frontage Road West /Lot 54, Glen Lyon
Subdivison, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC090036)
Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code, Amendment ( Ordinance No.
9, Series of 2011):
A request for a final recommendation to the Vail Town Council for prescribed
regulation amendments, pursuant to Section 12 -3 -7, Amendment, Vail Town
Code, to amend Section 12- 10 -19, Core Areas Identified, Vail Town Code, to
amend the core area parking maps to include "Ever Vail" (West Lionshead)
within the "Commercial Core" designation, and setting forth details in regard
thereto. (PEC080065) (60 min.)
PRESENTER(S): Warren Campbell and Vail Resorts Development
Company
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: The Community Development
Department requests the Vail Town Council continue the Major Subdivison,
Ordinance No. 7, 8, and 9, Series of 2011, and Resolution No. 6, Series of
2011 to the April 19, 2011 public hearing.
BACKGROUND: Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan: On January
24, 2011, the Planning and Environmental Commission forwarded a
recommendation of approval, with conditions, for proposed
amendments to the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, by a vote
of 3 -1 -2 (Rediker opposed, Viele and Cartin recused).
Major Subdivision: On January 10, 2011, the Planning and Environmental
Commission forwarded a recommendation of approval, with conditions, on
the preliminary plan for the major subdivision to establish Parcels 1 and 2 of
the Ever Vail Subdivision, by a vote of 5 -0 -2 ( Viele and Cartin recused).
Rezoning: On January 10, 2011, the Planning and Environmental
Commission forwarded a recommendation of approval, with conditions, for a
zone district boundary amendment to establish Lionshead Mixed Use 2
District zoning on Parcels 1 and 2 of the Ever Vail Subdivision, by a vote of
5 -0 -2 ( Viele and Cartin recused).
Special Development District Amendment: On January 24, 2011, the
Planning and Environmental Commission forwarded a recommendation of
approval, with conditions, for a major amendment to Special Development
District (SDD) No. 4, Cascade Village, to remove the Glen Lyon Office
Building from the SDD in order for it to be incorporated into the Ever Vail
Subdivision, by a vote of 4 -0 -2 ( Viele and Cartin recused).
Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code, Amendment: On January 11,
2010, the Planning and Environmental Commission forwarded a
recommendation of approval, with conditions, for a prescribed regulations
amendment to Section 12- 10 -19, Core Areas Identified, Vail Town Code, by
a vote of 4 -0 -2 ( Viele and Cartin recused).
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Community Development Department
recommends the Vail Town Council continue the public hearing on the
request for the Major Amendment, Ordinance No. 7, 8, and 9, Series of
2011, and Resolution No. 6, Series of 2011 to the April 19, 2011 public
hearing.
6. ITEM /TOPIC: Lionshead Transit Welcome Center Construction Contract
Award (45 min.)
PRESENTER(S): Tom Kassmel
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Award Construction Contract
BACKGROUND: The TNhlbf Vail and the Vail Reinvestment Authority, are
in the process of completing the Lionshead Transit Center Project. The
Project has multiple design and construction Phases, each at various points
of completion. The purpose of this Council session is to award the
construction contract for the Lionshead Transit Welcome Center (LHTWC),
the Phase II Improvements. The Town received 6 bids thru a public bid
process, with R.A. Nelson being the lowest responsible bid after a detailed
evaluation of scope, schedule, logistics and cost during a subsequent two
week process.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Town Staff recommends awarding the
project to R.A. Nelson, with Alternates 1, 2, 3, 5, 7 and 8, excluding
alternates 4, 6, 9, and 10, and directing the Town Manager to enter into a
contract with R.A. Nelson, in a form as approved by the Town Attorney, for a
total contract amount not to exceed $5,910,000.00; and approve an increase
in the Lionshead Transit Center Project budget in the amount of $197,000;
and approve the finishing of the space under the stairs as described above,
increasing the Lionshead Transit Center Project budget by an additional
$100,000 for a total of $297,000.
7. ITEM /TOPIC: Adjournment (9:05 p.m.)
4/5/2011
W (TF YAM
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO
MEETING DATE: April 5, 2011
ITEM /TOPIC: Consent Agenda:
1) Approval of Release Town of Vail v. WENK et al. Case number 08CV467 and Settlement
Amount of Nine Hundred Thousand dollars ($900,000); and
2) Approval of Findings of the Vail Town Council for Real Estate Transfer Tax Appeal
Hearing March 15,2011
PRESENTER(S): Pam Brandmeyer
ATTACHMENTS:
Findings of the Vail Town Council RETT Appeal
4/5/2011
FINDINGS OF THE VAIL TOWN COUNCIL
REAL ESTATE TRANSFER TAX APPEAL HEARING MARCH 15, 2011
This matter came before the Vail Town Council on March 15, 2011 as an appeal from the Town
Manager's denial of the application for a real estate transfer tax exemption concerning property
transferred on September 29, 2010. The property at issue is Condominium Unit A -5 and Parking Unit
AP -25, Building A, Northwoods Condominiums, commonly known as 600 Vail Drive #A5, Vail, Colorado.
On March 15, 2011, the Vail Town Council reviewed the application and supporting materials
submitted by the applicant. The Vail Town Council voted unanimously to UPHOLD the Town Manager's
decision to deny the application subject to the following findings:
Under Section 2- 6 -6(A) of the Vail Town Code, the applicant has the burden of proving that an
exemption from the real estate transfer tax applies and has failed to prove that the transfer qualifies for
a real estate transfer tax exemption, for the following reasons:
1. The applicant failed to prove that the transfer was made to an organization that is owned by the
persons by whom such transfer was made. The evidence did not establish that Parpolcondor was
owned by the same persons who owned Pacific Condor.
2. The applicant failed to prove that the owners of Parpolcondor have the same relative interests
in Parpolcondor as they had in the property immediately prior to the transfer.
3. There was consideration paid in this transfer and therefore the transfer is disqualified from a
RETT exemption. Specifically, the evidence showed that a $1.2 million mortgage and note were
executed by Parpolcondor to Pacific Condor in the transfer. This mortgage is consideration under the
Code, because it is a mortgage given to secure the property's purchase price.
4/5/2011
2 -1 -1
m (TF YAM
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO
MEETING DATE: April 5, 2011
ITEM /TOPIC: Town Manager Report:
Revenue Highlights - Kathleen Halloran
February Sales Tax - Kathleen Halloran
PRESENTER(S): Kathleen Halloran
ATTACHMENTS:
Revenue Highlights
February 2011 Sales Tax
2011 Sales Tax Information
4/5/2011
MEMORANDUM
March 31, 2011
To: Vail Town Council
Stan Zemler
Pam Brandmeyer
Judy Camp
From: Sally Lorton
Re: February Sales Tax
On the reverse side please find the latest sales tax worksheet. I estimate
Vail will collect another $75,000.00 in February sales tax to bring February
collections to $2,780,501.00. If so, we will be up 11 % or $274,781.00 from
budget and up 7.9% or $203,141.00 from February 2010. The ski season
(November — February) would be up 10.6% or $884,982.00
February Lift Tax is up 5.5% or $40,403.00 from February 2010. Lift Tax
for the ski season (November — February) is up 11.7% or $237,820.00 from
09/10.
4/5/2011
TOWN OF VAIL
REVENUE HIGHLIGHTS
March 30, 2011
Sales Tax
Upon receipt of all sales tax returns, February collections are expected to be
$2,780,501 up 11.0% from budget and 7.9% from last year. The ski season
(November- February) is up 10.6% from prior year. Inflation as measured by the
consumer price index was up 2.1 % in February.
Real Estate Transfer Tax (RETT)
RETT collections through March 30 total $1,062,254, flat from this time last year.
Approximately $466,203 or 44% is from major redevelopment projects including
Landmark, Manor Vail, Mountain View, Ritz Carlton Residences, Solaris, and
The Sebastian. Collections not related to major redevelopment projects currently
total $604,079, down 14% from this time last year.
Parking Revenue
Season year -to -date (Nov -Feb)
Pass sales for the season to -date November - February total $705,406, down
5.8% compared to the prior season.
Daily sales for the season so far total $2,465,564, down 5.6% compared to the
prior season.
Parking transactions (this number does not include pass usage) compared to last
season: Vail Village is up 4.9% and LionsHead is down 3.7 %.
Transactions from season pass sales have fluctuated as well: 802 passes were
sold this winter, down 8.7% from prior season. The number of value cards,
however, increased by 74 %, mainly due to the inclusion of Eagle County
residents. The number of value cards sold to Vail residents increased by 48.7 %.
-1-
4/5/2011
3 -I -1
( O C l) = d N r- �
ai 1- 00
U m
0
0 0 0
G O N r- �
V (O
U : N
00 00
C6 C6
0
a W Cl) (7) (h Cl)
c N O V V
Cl) O Cl) Cl)
N (C) Il- ll-
H OO O LO (LO
I� I� V V
N w, N N LO (n
V
d
O
U
(O O (O (O 00 I- (C) V V Cl) V N O
(O N 00 00 (O Cl) 00 V O Cl) 0 O O
d (C) " N 00 00 O O 00 00 N O
a O (C) N I- V V Cl) (n V O N V 0
= O N (O (h r-- O O r-- (C) 00 I� (C) O
m (C) (C) O (O _ V I- _ O I- (C) 0 (f) O
N N (n N N (O
(h O Cl) V V (C) (n I� N (C) N (C) (h
00 (O V O (h N (O (O (n N (O I- O
(h (h O O O 11- 11- (h V (h O I�
V I- (C) O Cl) 00 I� V Cl) (O
N O r V 00 (C) N I- N V (O O O (D r-
(n (n (O _ V 00 N _ I- (C) r-- O (O
N N (n N N I�
Cl) O N r- O M O V (h (h V 00
I- 00 O O V (C) Cl) (O O (C) Cl) I- r- Cl)
rn O 00 (n (n O - N 00 (h I- O 00 O (h
O O 00 00 V (C) (O I� 00 (h CO CO
N 00 O O Cl) N 0 (C) 00 (n (n
(O (n N (f) N_ _ O_ I- LO (O (C) O
++ N N (n N N (O
N
N (C) (n O V 00 Cl) N (n O I- O 00 O
t (n I- O O O V O O O O N O
Y O O N Cl) O O 00 r- (C) I- - O Cl)
> L O (O 00 00 N 00 I� O V N O N
O I- r- V N O N O V Cl) (O (n Cl)
Q N O O O (h O (O O (h (h 00 (O I- O O
Q N N (h (O (h - - - N O
r K
c M O Cl) O O O V r- (fl 00 O I- 00
O V V V V r- 00 V
00 O I� (h (C) 00 00
N O Cl) 00 (O O (n Cl) (n N 00 00 I� (h
N 00 O 00 Cl) V (C) (O (D O 00 V N
I� � (C) O (h (n O N_ _ O (O I� 00 O
co N N (C) N N 00
(n O (n V V (h N Cl) V O O N 00 O
00 Cl) (f) N 00 (O V V O 00 (n 00
O O (h N (h N (O (n (h (n N_ (O
O I- � (C) N O 0) (C) (n (n N V O
N O N N (C) 00 V O (C) (n (h O I- V
(n (n 00 N_ V 00 N O 00 (O I- r- 00
N N (n N _ _ N r-
I� r- V V O Cl) Cl) (n I- Cl) 1- N O
(O I- V O (C) I� 00 00 O I� M 1-
W) O (h (h (n Il O O 00 - O O
O ((7 O ((7 (n (n 00 V O Cl) (n (O () O Cl)
N r- N O 00 (n M 0 O O O � V 00
N V I� 11.
O V 00 _ O I- (C) I (C) V
N N V N N (O
(n (O 00 I- (C) Cl) V (C) CO I- O (C) O
V N (O I� (C) O V M M V O r-
00 00 (O (n (n V O (C) (O O O
(n N 00 V N N 00 V I- N Cl) N O
N N O 00 V O (h N O (C) Cl) N (D O
N (h (n (h O V � _ O I- (C) (O CO V
N N V N N (6
CO V 00 O (C) N (D 00 N O 00 CO
O O (C) N (O (n Cl) V O O O O 00
O _ N V O I (C) V N O N O O
O (7) O N r- N V r- N r- O O r- r-
N O m 00 V r-- O O O (C) (n (n
N V N N V
00 CO V r- NT O ( N O
V 00 (h (D 00 N I� O (h ((") V N V 00
p Cl) (n O V r- V V Cl) V N O O
O I� 00 (C) O (C) V 00 00 V Cl) O
�j N O N (h (D 00 V (O O O I� V (O
N N V N N (C)
I- 00 V O I� (C) O O M O V
V N (O Cl) Cl) (O I- O r- 00 V V
(n (h 00 00 V N 'V 00 N I� (C) I� O O
O O (O (O 00 Cl) 00 I� V I� O Cl)
N
O r- O V V (C) (n N V 00 r- (h T
N (h (n (n O_ V r- _ _ I- V (C) O_ V
N N V N (C)
� N N
7 i 4/ ` ?( V - N 7 d m N N
r R C R c 7 tm C V O N a+
LL. 3 ?'rm� Q m � � Q N O Z D H
TO *
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO
MEETING DATE: April 5, 2011
ITEM /TOPIC: A review of the proposed Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan amedments
to facilitate the Ever Vail project.
Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan (Resolution No. 6, Series of 2011
A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for an amendment to the
Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, pursuant to Section 2.8, Adoption and
Amendment of the Master Plan, Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, to amend the
detailed plan recommendations for West Lionshead (Ever Vail), and setting forth details
in regard thereto. (PEC 110002)
Major Subdivision:
A request for a review of a preliminary plan for a major subdivision, pursuant to Chapter 13 -3,
Major Subdivision, Vail Town Code, to allow for the creation of two lots for the redevelopment
of the properties known as Ever Vail (West Lionshead), located at 862, 923, 934, 953, 1000
and 1031 South Frontage Road West, and the South Frontage Road West right -of-
way/unplatted (a complete legal description is available for inspection at the Town of Vail
Community Development Department), and setting forth details in regard thereto.
(PEC080062)
Rezoning (Ordinance No. 7, Series of 2011
A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a zone district boundary
amendment, pursuant to Section 12 -3 -7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to allow for a establish
Lionshead Mixed Use 2 District zoning on Parcels 1 and 2 of the Ever Vail Subdivision located
generally at 862, 923, 934, 953, 1000, and 1031 South Frontage Road, and the South
Frontage Road rig ht-of-way/u n platted (a complete legal description is available for inspection
at the Town of Vail Community Development Department), and setting forth details in regard
thereto. (PEC080061)
Special Development District Amendment (Ordinance No. 8, Series of 2011
A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a major amendment to Special
Development District No. 4, Cascade Village, pursuant to Section 12- 9A -10, Amendment
Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow for the removal of Development Area D (Glen Lyon
Office Building) from Special Development District No. 4, Cascade Village, and for a zone
district boundary amendment, pursuant to Section 12 -3 -7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to
include the subject property in the Lionshead Mixed Use 2 District, located at 1000 South
Frontage Road West /Lot 54, Glen Lyon Subdivison, and setting forth details in regard thereto.
(PEC090036)
Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code, Amendment ( Ordinance No. 9, Series of 2011
A request for a final recommendation to the Vail Town Council for prescribed regulation
amendments, pursuant to Section 12 -3 -7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to amend Section 12-
10-19, Core Areas Identified, Vail Town Code, to amend the core area parking maps to include
"Ever Vail" (West Lionshead) within the "Commercial Core" designation, and setting forth
details in regard thereto. (PEC080065)
PRESENTER(S): Warren Campbell and Vail Resorts Development Company
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: The Community Development Department
requests the Vail Town Council continue the Major Subdivison, Ordinance No. 7, 8, and 9,
Series of 2011, and Resolution No. 6, Series of 2011 to the April 19, 2011 public hearing.
4/5/2011
BACKGROUND: Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan: On January 24, 2011, the
Planning and Environmental Commission forwarded a recommendation of approval,
with conditions, for proposed amendments to the Lionshead Redevelopment Master
Plan, by a vote of 3 -1 -2 (Rediker opposed, Viele and Cartin recused).
Major Subdivision: On January 10, 2011, the Planning and Environmental Commission
forwarded a recommendation of approval, with conditions, on the preliminary plan for the
major subdivision to establish Parcels 1 and 2 of the Ever Vail Subdivision, by a vote of 5 -0 -2
( Viele and Cartin recused).
Rezoning: On January 10, 2011, the Planning and Environmental Commission forwarded a
recommendation of approval, with conditions, for a zone district boundary amendment to
establish Lionshead Mixed Use 2 District zoning on Parcels 1 and 2 of the Ever Vail
Subdivision, by a vote of 5 -0 -2 ( Viele and Cartin recused).
Special Development District Amendment: On January 24, 2011, the Planning and
Environmental Commission forwarded a recommendation of approval, with conditions, for a
major amendment to Special Development District (SDD) No. 4, Cascade Village, to remove
the Glen Lyon Office Building from the SDD in order for it to be incorporated into the Ever Vail
Subdivision, by a vote of 4 -0 -2 ( Viele and Cartin recused).
Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code, Amendment: On January 11, 2010,
the Planning and Environmental Commission forwarded a recommendation of approval, with
conditions, for a prescribed regulations amendment to Section 12- 10 -19, Core Areas
Identified, Vail Town Code, by a vote of 4 -0 -2 ( Viele and Cartin recused).
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Community Development Department recommends the
Vail Town Council continue the public hearing on the request for the Major Amendment,
Ordinance No. 7, 8, and 9, Series of 2011, and Resolution No. 6, Series of 2011 to the
April 19, 2011 public hearing.
ATTACHMENTS:
Memoradum Responding to TC Questions Raised on March 15, 2011
Attachment A for the Memorandum Responding to TC Questions from March 15, 2011
Attachment B to the Memorandum Responding to TC Questions from March 15, 2011
Attachment C tot he Memorandum to TC Responding to Questions from March 15, 2011
Resolution No. 6, Series of 2011 Saff Memorandum to TC 040511
Draft of Resolution No. 6, Series of 2011, LRMP Amendments for Ever Vail Attachment A
Staff Memorandum to the PEC Dated Janaury 24, 2011 Regarding the LRMP Amendments
Attachment B
PEC Minutes of the January 24, 2011, Public Hearing Regarding the LRMP Amendments
Attachment C
4/5/2011
MEMORANDUM
TO: Vail Town Council
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: April 5, 2011
SUBJECT: Follow up to Town Council questions from the March 15, 2011 work session on
the Lionshead Mixed Use 1 and 2 Districts and Special Development Districts
I. QUESTIONS
What is the rate of participation of Manor Vail units in the rental program and their rate of
occupancy?
There are a total of 140 units at Manor Vail. Of these units, 93 (66 %) participate in the rental
program. Of the 17 new units constructed during the redevelopment, two (12 %) participate in
the rental. The annualized occupancy rate for units participating in the rental program is 45% to
55 %.
Are conference groups in the range of 750 to 1,000 participants a critical group to attract
in Vail?
Staff has attached the Executive Summary and Demand Projections portions of the 2004 Draft
Vail Conference Center Business Plan. Table 4 of the Executive Summary identifies the
projected events and attendance from 2007 -2011. The identified average attendance for the
various conference types ranged from 100 to 517 attendees.
In a memorandum from the Vail Valley Partnership, attached for reference, it was identified that
the organization was not pursuing large groups due to a lack of space to host their events. It is
stated that the single largest facility is that of the Cascade which can accommodate 700
attendees. If multiple properties are used allowing for break out meeting and meal space
approximately 800 attendees may be accommodated. In terms of "lost business" since 2008
the Vail Valley Partnerships reports that 39 groups in excess of 750 attendees have been lost.
What is the average participant size of medical and health and wellness conferences?
In the Vail Valley Partnership memorandum, Mike Egan, President and CEO of the Steadman
Philippon Research Institute, identified the typical medical and health and wellness conference
as ranging between 100 and 300 attendees. According to Eagan, the existing facilities in Vail,
with regard to technology, do not lend themselves well to Continuing Medical Educations class
room teaching environments.
II. ATTACHMENTS
A. Executive Summary of the Draft Vail Conference Center Business Plan March 2004
B. Chapter 8, Demand Projections of the Draft Vail Conference Center Business Plan March
2004
C. Vail Valley Partnership memorandum dated April 5, 2011
1
4/5/2011
5 -I -I
HVS Conference, Sports & Entertainment DRAFT Vail Conference Center Business Plan Executive Summary 1
Executive Summary
Summary of Key HVS assisted the Town of Vail's appointed Conference Center Advisory
Findings Committee (Committee) in developing a recommendation for a new
conference center in the Town of Vail. For a complete understanding of the
recommendations and estimates and the supporting analysis the reader
should refer to the full report.
Table 1 shows a summary of key data on the proposed project.
Table 1
Summary of Key Project Data
Facility Program
Main Ballroom 25,000 Square Feet
Breakout Meeting Space 20,000 Square Feet
Gross Building Area 100,000 Square Feet
Estimated Demand at Stabilization (2011)
Number of Events 244
Attendance 75,600
New Room Nights 69,425
Estimated Financial Operations at Stabilization (2011)
Revenue $5,035,644
Expenses $5,778,937
Net Income (Loss) ($743,293)
Estimated Economic Impact at Stabilization (2011)
Total Spending $33,131,009
Jobs 329
Fiscal Impact $1,416,386
Financing Assumptions
Estimated Construction Cost $42,501,024
Annual Debt Service Payments $2,600,000
Date of Debt Issuance December 2004
Repayment Period 30 Years
Ta Exempt Interest Rate 4.70%
Source: HVS
4�20H
-2 -I
HVS Conference, Sports & Entertainment DRAFT Vail Conference Center Business Plan Executive Summary 2
Project History The need for a new conference center in Vail has been under consideration
for some time. Prior studies and analysis have identified the need for a
conference center with anywhere from a 20,000 to 40,000 square foot main
ballroom. Despite these findings, Vail has continued to lack a conference
facility that can accommodate groups in excess of 500 attendees.
In November 2002 voters in the Town of Vail passed a public referendum in
favor of developing a new conference center with proceeds from an
additional 1.5 percent lodging tax and a 0.5 percent sales tax. The Town
appointed a Committee to determine the financial feasibility of developing
the facility with the available revenues and the appropriate facility program.
In August 2003 the Town of Vail hired HVS Convention, Sports &
Entertainment Facilities Consulting to develop a business plan for a
conference center. This analysis is designed to determine the feasibility of
such a development and to measure its potential economic impact in the
community.
Recommended Facility This report recommends that the Town of Vail pursue the development of a
Program new conference center with a 25,000 square foot main ballroom / exhibit space
and 25,000 square feet of breakout meeting space. The facility should feature
an overall level of quality representative of Vail's reputation as a world -class
resort destination. Design features should enhance event attendees' sense of
being in a remarkable mountain resort. Table 2 shows the recommended
program.
4/5/2011
5 -2 -2
HVS Conference, Sports & Entertainment DRAFT Vail Conference Center Business Plan Executive Summary 3
Table 2
Recommended Facility Program
Size Capacity
Area Square Banquet Theater Reception Classroom U -Shape
Feet
Main Ballroom / Exhibit Space 25,000 2,070 2,780 2,630 1,710 670
Ballroom A 8,400 690 930 880 580 220
Ballroom B 4,100 340 460 430 280 110
Ballroom C 8,400 690 930 880 580 220
Ballroom D 4,100 340 460 430 280 110
Mountain Terrace 5,000 410 560 530 -- --
Meeting Rooms 20,000 1,650 2,220 2,110 1,370 530
Block 1 / Junior Ballroom 10,000 830 1,110 1,050 680 270
Junior A 2,500 210 280 260 170 70
Junior B 2,500 210 280 260 170 70
Junior C 2,500 210 280 260 170 70
Junior D 2,500 210 280 260 170 70
Block 2 6,000 500 670 630 410 160
Room 2 -A 3,000 250 330 320 210 80
Room 2 -B 1,500 120 170 160 100 40
Room 2 -C 1,500 120 170 160 100 40
Block 3 4,000 330 440 420 270 110
Room 3 -A 1,000 80 110 110 70 30
Room 3 -B 1,000 80 110 110 70 30
Room 3 -C 1,000 80 110 110 70 30
Room 3 -D 500 40 60 50 30 10
Boardroom 500 -- -- -- 20 10
Total 1 45,000 3,720 5,000 4,740 3,080 1,200
Lobby/ Prefunction Space -
Ballroom 10,000
Lobby / Prefunction Space -
Meeting Rooms 10,000
' Square feet excludes terrace
Sources: LMN & FNS
The Committee asked HVS to analyze an alternative facility program with a
main ballroom measuring 20,000 square feet and a total construction cost that
could be adequately funded with annual debt service payments of $2.55
million. HVS analyzed this alternative scenario in detail. After reviewing the
two options the Committee determined that the 25,000 square foot ballroom
scenario was preferable due to its greater demand potential. The Committee
also asked HVS to determine the effects of eliminating all events other than
conferences at the recommended facility. A decision to implement a booking
policy that restricted all but conferences from occurring at the facility would
4/5/2011
5 -2 -3
HVS Conference, Sports & Entertainment DRAFT Vail Conference Center Business Plan Executive Summary 4
more than double the estimated annual operating deficit. This analysis is
included in an appendix.
Site Issues At the direction of the Committee, HVS and its architectural consultant LMN
Architects assessed the capacity of two potential sites to accommodate the
recommended facility program. The sites included the Charter Bus Lot
adjacent to the Lionshead parking structure and the area above the existing
Lionshead parking structure. LMN's analysis of the sites revealed that either
could accommodate the recommended facility. The smaller Charter Bus Lot
site would require the construction of a two -level conference center. The
option that calls for building the facility above the parking structure could
accommodate a single -level facility. A single -level conference center generally
is more efficient in terms of its special layout, but a properly designed two -
level facility can achieve a high level of efficiency as well. In addition,
building the facility over the parking structure would leave the Town more
options for incorporating a proposed adjacent transit center. Construction
consultants working for the Town estimated that the construction premium
for building the facility above the parking structure would be approximately
$3 million in hard construction cost. Due to concerns about the useful life of
the existing Lionshead parking structure being less than the anticipated life of
the conference center to be built above, the Town directed HVS to proceed
with the assumption that the facility would be built on the Charter Bus Lot
site. However, the Town continues to evaluate potential solutions that could
improve the feasibility of the option of building above the parking structure.
Existing Conditions Vail has several hotels with conference center space, but none with a
dedicated ballroom space with more than 8,300 square feet. An analysis of six
peer resort markets details the facility programs and operations of their
conference centers. Table 3 shows the amount of function space in these
conference centers and the number of lodging units in their market areas.
4/5/2011
5 -2 -4
HVS Coherence, Sports & Entertainment DRAFT Vail Conference Center Business Plan Executive Summary 5
Table 3
Square Feet of Function Space by Type in Peer Resort Conference Centers and Area
Lodging Units
Largest Room (Estimated
Square Feel of Maximum Lodging Units
Square Feel of
Facility Largest Single Banquet Number of in Market Annual
Meeting Space Space Capacity in # of Meeting Rooms Area Operating Profit
People (Loss)
Banff Centre 52,814 5,879 486 53 4,364 ($639,465)
Keystone Conference Center 44,180 19,800 1,636 25 1,300 ($1,695,565)
Monterey Conference Center 40,976 19,600 1,620 15 4,500 ($1,500,000)
Snowmass Conference Center 18,399 10,823 894 10 1,300 WA
Telluride Conference Center 10,961 6,069 502 9 1,362 ($600,000
Whistler Conference Centre 34,403 16,500 1,364 19 5,200 WA
Peer Facility Average 33,622 13,112 1,084 22 3,004 ($1,108,757)
Banff Centre financial operating revenue includes $8.9 minion in grants
Sources. Major Exhibit Hall Directory 2002 and respective facilities
Input from Event HVS surveyed planners of national and State events to learn about their
Planners perceptions of Vail's attractiveness as a location for their events and to gauge
their overall level of interest in bringing events to a new conference center in
Vail. HVS received a total of over 50 completed responses to an internet
survey, conducted three focus groups, and interviewed several other meeting
professionals.
One of the key survey questions asked event planners of national and
regional events to rank the relative attractiveness of the set of peer conference
centers and the proposed facility in Vail, as shown in Figure 1.
4/5/2011
5 -2 -5
HVS Conference, Sports & Entertainment DRAFT Vail Conference Center Business Plan Executive Summary 6
Figure 1
Ratings of Overall Attractiveness of Resorts as Event Locations
Vail, CO - Conference Center *.::. 3.4
lil
Monterrey CA - Conference 3.3
Center
Aspen, CO - 3nowmass 3.2
Conference Center
Keystone, CO - Resod & 3.0
Conference Center
Whistler, BC - Conference 3.0
Center
2.9
Banff, AB - Banff Centre
1 2 3 4 5
Very Unattractive Avenge Very Attractive
Source: HVS Survey
These event planners ranked the proposed Vail facility ahead of any of the
other peers as a potential location for their events.
In another key question, HVS asked national event planners to indicate how
frequently they believed they would utilize the planned Vail conference
center. Two - thirds of the event planners indicated that they expected to
utilize the conference center. Approximately 43 percent of the respondents
indicated they planned on using the facility at least once every five years.
HVS also surveyed State of Colorado event planners and asked them to rate
the overall attractiveness of a set of existing primary convention facilities,
conference centers, and hotels with meeting space that frequently host State
events. This survey was entirely separate from the national survey and the
respondents and results are distinct and do not overlap with or represent a
subset of the national survey. HVS selected the list of facilities based upon an
assessment of the one or two facilities in each market that would compete
most directly with a conference center in downtown Vail for State events.
Figure 2 shows the average ratings of these selected facilities.
4i5 _ 2 011
5 -2 -6
HVS Conference, Sports & Entertainment DRAFT Vail Conference Center Business Plan Executive Summary 7
Figure 2
Relative Attractiveness of Selected Event Locations Among State Event Planners
Vail 4.43
Denver 3
Colorado Springs 321
r
Aspen 321
Keystone 3.07
Englewood 2.92
Telluride 2.36
Grand Junction 2
Forl Collins 228
Pueblo 2.07
Greeley 2.00
Boulder 1.92
1 2 3 4 5
Very Unattraclive Average Very Attractive
Source: FNS Survey
Event planners rate Vail as easily the most attractive event destination. It is
typical to see some bias in favor of the subject location in such surveys, but
the disparity between the rating for Vail and the other locations in the state is
noteworthy. The disparity between Vail and the other resort locations on the
list is indicative of significant demand potential associated with events that
typically utilize resort locations.
Demand Projections Table 4 shows the projected number of events and attendees by type of event
between 2007 and 2011, the point at which the analysis estimates that the
facility would reach a stabilized point of demand.
4i ;'011
? -7
HVS Conference, Sports & Entertainment DRAFT Vail Conference Center Business Plan Executive Summary 8
Table 4
Projected Events and Attendance 2007 - 2011
Event Type 20 07 2008 2009 2010 2011
Number of Events
Corporate Conferences 15 19 21 22 23
Association Conferences 7 15 22 25 26
Banquets 25 30 38 42 45
Meetings 90 100 107 109 110
Entertainment 10 13 14 15 15
Other 20 22 23 24 25
Total 167 199 225 237 244
Average Attendance
Corporate Conferences 433 473 481 485 507
Association Conferences 507 498 503 511 517
Banquets 400 400 400 400 400
Meetings 100 110 115 120 125
Entertainment 500 500 500 500 500
Other 450 450 450 450 450
Total Average 258 281 293 302 310
Total Attendance
Corporate Conferences 6,500 8,995 10,095 10,675 11,650
Association Conferences 3,550 7,465 11,070 12,765 13,450
Banquets 10,000 12,000 15,200 16,800 18,000
Meetings 9,000 11,000 12,305 13,080 13,750
Entertainment 5,000 6,500 7,000 7,500 7,500
Other 9,000 9,900 10,350 10,800 11,250
Total 43,050 55,860 66,020 71,620 75,600
Source: HVS
The projection estimates that total attendance would increase from 43,050 in
2007 to 75,600 in 2011.
Table 5 shows the estimated percentage of room nights the conference center
would attract that would be new to the community and the resultant number
of new room nights by type of event.
4/5/2011
5 -2 -8
HVS Conference, Sports & Entertainment DRAFT Vail Conference Center Business Plan Executive Summary 9
Table 5
New Room Night Projections
Event Type 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Percent New to the Market
Corporate Conferences 80% 83% 84% 85% 85%
Association Conferences 85% 87% 88% 90% 90%
Banquets 50% 55% 60% 65% 70%
Meetings 15% 18% 20% 20% 20%
Entertainment 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Other 15% 15% 15% 15% 15%
New Room Nights
Corporate Conferences 15,680 23,406 27,216 28,985 31,875
Association Conferences 8,500 18,357 28,160 33,120 34,740
Banquets 950 1,265 1,740 2,080 2,380
Meetings 165 252 300 320 340
Entertainment - - - - -
Other 75 75 75 75 90
Total 25,370 43,355 57,491 64,580 69,425
Source: FNS
The projection estimates that the proposed conference center would attract
close to 70,000 new room nights to the market annually by demand
stabilization in 2011.
Table 6 shows the projected operating revenues and expenses for the
recommended facility.
Table 6
Projected Conference Center Revenue and Expenses
Revenue /Expenses 2 007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Revenue $2,496,333 $3,394,855 $4,169,501 $4,652,975 $5,035,644
Expenses $3,610,253 $4,334,901 $4,997,440 $5,427,391 $5,778,937
Net Income ($1,113,920) ($940,046) ($827,939) ($774,416) ($743,293)
Source: WS
The financial operating projections estimate that the facility would operate at
a deficit of between $1.1 million in the first year and $743,293 at stabilization
in 2011. Operating deficits in this range are typical for conference center
facilities of this size. After 2011 inflation would cause the annual operating
4/5/2011
5 -2 -9
HVS Conference, Sports & Entertainment DRAFT Vail Conference Center Business Plan Executive Summary 10
deficit to increase slightly as the expenses increase at a greater increment due
to the fact that they are greater than revenues.
Economic Impact The ability of conference centers to attract new events and attendees from out
of town who spend considerable amount of money in the local economy is
the primary rationale for municipalities to invest in these facilities. HVS
estimates the amount of new spending that the proposed conference center
would attract to the Town. The methodology HVS employs is designed to
measure only the new spending that the proposed facilities would attract to
the Town and exclude any transfer spending.
Using average spending data from the International Association of
Conference & Visitor Bureaus and several local sources, HVS estimates the
amount of new direct spending the proposed facilities would generate. HVS
then uses an input / output model to estimate the indirect and induced
spending the Town's economy would capture and the number of jobs this
spending would support. Table 7 shows the estimated new spending and the
number of jobs the events attracted to the conference center and
headquarters hotel would generate in the Town economy.
Table 7
Total Spending (Inflated Dollars in Millions ) & Employment Impact
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Type of Impact Spending Jobs Spending Jobs Spending Jobs Spending Jobs Spending Jobs
Direct Impact $8.7 102 $15.1 170 $20.7 226 $23.7 252 $26.2 268
Indirect' 1.0 10 1.8 16 2.5 21 2.8 24 3.1 26
Induced' 1.3 14 2.2 22 3.0 29 3.5 33 3.8 35
Total $11.0 125 $19.0 207 $26.2 277 $30.0 308 $33.1 329
' Total industry output
Source: HVS
The economic impact analysis estimates that the conference center would
attract new events and attendees that would generate approximately $33.1
million in new direct, indirect, and induced spending into the Town
economy and would support 329 jobs.
Table 8 shows the estimated fiscal tax revenue that the additional events and
attendees would generate for the Town.
r
4/5/2011
5 -2- 10
HVS Conference, Sports & Entertainment DRAFT Vail Conference Center Business Plan Executive Summary 11
Table 8
Summary of New Fiscal Tax Revenue
2007 2008 2009
Estimated Tax Base Estimated Tax Base Estimated
Tax Tax Base Revenue Revenue Revenue
Local Sales $8,130,138 $365,856 $13,589,590 $611,532 $18,717,020 $842,266
Hotel Lodging 3,777,237 109,540 6,654,038 192,967 9,175,759 266,097
Total $475,396 $804,499 $1,108,363
2010 2011
Estimated Tax Base Estimated
Tax Tax Base Revenue Revenue
Local Sales $21,458,855 $965,648 $23,941,871 $1,077,384
Hotel Lodging 10,567,174 306,448 11,689,710 339,002
Total $1,272,097 $1,416,386
Source: F NS
By the time demand for the proposed conference center stabilizes in 2011, the
analysis estimates that the new spending would generate a little over $1.4
million in fiscal tax revenue annually for the Town. Of this new revenue,
approximately $295,055 would be allocated to the conference center from the
0.5 percent sales tax and 1.5 percent lodging tax and $163,656 would be
allocated to the Vail Local Marketing District, leaving approximately $957,675
in Town of Vail tax revenue that isn't directly allocated to the conference
center or the marketing district.
Financing The town of Vail hired an architectural consulting firm to develop a cost
estimate of the recommended facility, results of which are shown in Table 9.
4/5/2011
5 -2 -11
HVS Conference, Sports & Entertainment DRAFT Vail Conference Center Business Plan Executive Summary 12
Table 9
Conceptual Cost Estimate of the Rec ommended Conference Center
Conference Center- 125 Parking Spaces- Total Project
100,000 SF 40,965 SF Cost
Item Total Cost Cost / SF Total Cost Cost / SF
Hard Costs
Construction $27,371,452 $274 $2,504,111 $61 $29,875,563
Sitework $3,868,831 $39 in above $3,868,831
Total Hard Costs $31,240,283 $312 $2,504,111 $61 $33,744,394
Soft Costs
Design, Engineering, and Materials Testing Fees $2,467,982 $25 $87,644 $2 $2,555,626
FF &E, Teledata, POS, AN, Parking Equip, Etc. $1,920,000 $19 $275,000 $7 $2,195,000
Permits, Tap Fees, and Other Govt. Fees $350,000 $4 $50,000 $1 $400,000
Contingency $1,798,913 $18 $145,838 $4 $1,944,751
Legal, Project Management, and Insurance $1,661,253 $17 In Cont. Cntr. -- $1,661,253
Total Soft Costs $8,198,148 $82 $558,482 $14 $8,756,630
Total Development Cost $39,438,431 $394 $3,062,593 $75 $42,501,024
Source: Arch@ectural ResourceConsultants
HVS developed preliminary estimates of the amount of revenue that will be
available from the dedicated taxes, as shown in Table 10.
4/5/2011
5 -2 -12
HVS Conference, Sports & Entertainment DRAFT Vail Conference Center Business Plan Executive Summary 13
Table 10
Estimated Revenues Available for Debt Service
Sales Tax Revenue Lodging Tax Revenue Estimated Total Available
Year Oper Profit
Available for Available for Total Available Tax Annual % Revenue for
Conference Center Conference Center Revenue ($000) Change (Loss) s) Debt Service
($000) ($000) ($000)
2003 1,813 1,531 3,343 - -- 3,343
2004 1,763 1,512 3,274 -2.1% -- 3,274
2005 1,700 1,497 3,197 -2.4% -- 3,197
2006 1,789 1,542 3,331 4.2% -- 3,331
2007 1,939 1,619 3,557 6.8% (1,114) 2,443
2008 2,002 1,679 3,681 3.5% (940) 2,741
2009 2,052 1,747 3,798 3.2% (828) 2,970
2010 2,102 1,818 3,920 3.2% (774) 3,146
2011 2,153 1,895 4,047 3.2% (743) 3,304
2012 2,201 1,948 4,149 2.5% (766) 3,383
2013 2,250 2,002 4,253 2.5% (789) 3,464
2014 2,301 2,058 4,359 2.5% (812) 3,547
2015 2,353 2,116 4,469 2.5% (837) 3,632
2016 2,406 2,175 4,581 2.5% (862) 3,719
2017 2,460 2,236 4,696 2.5% (888) 3,808
2018 2,515 2,299 4,814 2.5% (914) 3,900
2019 2,572 2,363 4,935 2.5% (942) 3,993
2020 2,630 2,429 5,059 2.5% (970) 4,089
2021 2,689 2,497 5,186 2.5% (999) 4,187
2022 2,749 2,567 5,316 2.5% (1,029) 4,288
2023 2,811 2,639 5,450 2.5% (1,060) 4,390
2024 2,875 2,713 5,587 2.5% (1,092) 4,496
2025 2,939 2,789 5,728 2.5% (1,124) 4,604
2026 3,005 2,867 5,872 2.5% (1,156) 4,714
2027 3,073 2,947 6,020 2.5% (1,193) 4,827
CAGR 2.5% 1.5%
Souse: FNS
The investment banking firm of George K. Baum assisted HVS in defining the
appropriate financing assumptions and calculated the financing capacity
under the proposed financing plan. The Committee considered a variety of
financing plans with varying assumptions regarding annual debt payments,
total facility cost, cash funded versus insured reserves, and other variables
before selecting a preferred finance plan. Table 11 shows the funding capacity
and the source and uses of funds that result from this financing approach.
4/5/2011
5 -2 - 13
HVS Conference, Sports & Entertainment DRAFT Vail Conference Center Business Plan Executive Summary 14
Table 11
Sources & Uses of Funds
Sources
Proceeds of Debt $42,450,000
Premium (Discount) 1,086,882
Cash contribution from tax revenues prior to debt issuance 501,024
Total $44,037,906
Uses
Project Fund $42,501,024
Underwriters Discount 424,500
Cost of Issuance 424,500
Insurance Premium 600,249
Debt Service Reserve Fund Insurance 87,057
Rounding 576
Total $44,037,906
Source: George K. Baum & Company
This preliminary assessment of financing capacity indicates that the
dedicated revenues are sufficient to support debt payments on an
approximate $42 million bond issue.
Table 12 shows the estimated net debt service payments each year, the
coverage ratio, and the net fund balance.
4/5/2011
5 -2 -14
HVS Conference, Sports & Entertainment DRAFT Vail Conference Center Business Plan Executive Summary 15
Table 12
Vail Conference Center Available Revenue, Debt Service, Coverage Ratios, and Fund Balance
Available Cash Annual Annual Annual Capital Net Fund
Funded Funds Main- Balance
Revenue Funds Net Debt Debt Funds Annual Cumulative
Additional Available tenance other Expen- Yearly Net Assuming
Year from Debt Available Service Service Available Operating After Reserve ditures Cash Flows Net Fund Annual
Dedicated Service for Debt Payments Coverage After Debt Loss Operating Co ry Balance Interest
Taxes Payments' Service Service Loss button Growth
2003 3,343,447 3,343,447 3,343,447 3,343,447 3,343,447 3,343,447
2004 3,274,466 3,274,466 3,274,466 (210,000) 3,064,466 6,407,913 6,465,086
2005 3,196,774 3,196,774 (2,597,988) 1.23 598,786 598,786 (2,037,330) (1,438,543) 4,969,369 5,137,095
2006 3,330,929 3,330,929 (2,596,363) 1.28 734,566 734,566 (500,938) 233,629 5,202,998 5,458,568
2007 3,557,418 300,000 3,857,418 (2,899,363) 1.33 958,055 (1,113,920) (155,865) (40,000) (495,865) 4,707,133 5,056,045
2008 3,681,127 300,000 3,981,127 (2,896,863) 1.37 1,084,265 (940,046) 144,219 (70,000) (225,781) 4,481,352 4,916,722
2009 3,798,346 300,000 4,098,346 (2,896,113) 1.42 1,202,234 (827,939) 374,295 (80,000) (5,705) 4,475,647 4,995,093
2010 3,920,224 300,000 4,220,224 (2,898,144) 1.46 1,322,080 (774,416) 547,664 (100,000) 147,664 4,623,311 5,228,173
2011 4,047,036 300,000 4,347,036 (2,896,355) 1.50 1,450,680 (743,293) 707,387 (135,000) 272,387 4,895,697 5,589,961
2012 4,148,514 300,000 4,448,514 (2,895,575) 1.54 1,552,939 (765,592) 787,347 (220,000) 267,347 5,163,045 5,952,897
2013 4,252,567 300,000 4,552,567 (2,901,888) 1.57 1,650,680 (788,560) 862,120 (250,000) 312,120 5,475,165 6,366,811
2014 4,359,261 300,000 4,659,261 (2,598,28B) 1.79 2,060,974 (812,216) 1,248,758 (275,000) 673,758 6,148,922 7,149,441
2015 4,468,665 - 4,468,665 (2,599,888) 1.72 1,868,777 (836,583) 1,032,194 (300,000) 732,194 6,881,116 8,003,891
2016 4,580,846 4,580,846 (2,597,388) 1.76 1,983,459 (861,680) 1,121,779 (350,000) 771,779 7,652,895 8,912,536
2017 4,695,878 4,695,878 (2,597,750) 1.81 2,098,128 (887,531) 1,210,597 (400,000) 810,597 8,463,492 9,875,538
2018 4,813,833 4,813,833 (2,595,738) 1.85 2,218,095 (914,157) 1,303,939 (415,000) 888,939 9,352,431 10,933,348
2019 4,934,786 4,934,786 (2,596,350) 1.90 2,338,436 (941,581) 1,396,855 (420,000) 976,855 10,329,286 12,097,163
2020 5,058,815 5,058,815 (2,599,350) 1.95 2,459,465 (969,829) 1,489,636 (425,000) 1,064,636 11,393,922 13,368,661
2021 5,185,998 5,185,998 (2,599,500) 1.99 2,586,498 (998,924) 1,587,574 (435,000) 1,152,574 12,546,496 14,749,839
2022 5,316,417 5,316,417 (2,596,800) 2.05 2,719,617 (1,028,891) 1,690,725 (435,000) 1,255,725 13,802,221 16,257,786
2023 5,450,154 5,450,154 (2,596,250) 2.10 2,853,904 (1,059,758) 1,794,146 (435,000) 1,359,146 15,161,367 17,894,941
2024 5,587,297 5,587,297 (2,599,000) 2.15 2,988,297 (1,091,551) 1,896,746 (435,000) 1,461,746 16,623,113 19,662,690
2025 5,727,931 5,727,931 (2,598,000) 2.20 3,129,931 (1,124,297) 2,005,633 (435,000) 1,570,633 18,193,747 21,569,555
2026 5,872,147 5,872,147 (2,598,250) 2.26 3,273,897 (1,158,026) 2,115,871 (435,000) 1,680,871 19,874,618 23,619,266
2027 6,020,038 6,020,038 (2,599,500) 2.32 3,420,538 (1,192,767) 2,227,771 (435,000) 1,792,771 21,667,388 25,815,926
2028 6,171,698 6,171,698 (2,596,500) 2.38 3,575,198 (1,228,550) 2,346,647 (435,000) 1,911,647 23,579,036 28,169,025
2029 6,327,223 6,327,223 (2,599,250) 2.43 3,727,973 (1,265,407) 2,462,567 (435,000) 2,027,567 25,606,602 30,678,282
2030 6,486,715 6,486,715 (2,597,250) 2.50 3,889,465 (1,303,369) 2,586,096 (435,000) 2,151,096 27,757,699 33,353,977
2031 6,650,275 6,650,275 (2,595,500) 2.56 4,054,775 (1,342,470) 2,712,305 (435,000) 2,277,305 30,035,004 36,201,635
2032 6,818,008 6,818,008 (2,598,750) 2.62 4,219,258 (1,382,744) 2,836,514 (435,000) 2,401,514 32,436,518 39,222,197
2033 6,990,022 6,990,022 (2,596,500) 2.69 4,393,522 (1,424,226) 2,969,296 (435,000) 2,534,296 34,970,814 42,427,193
2034 7,166,427 7,166,427 (2,598,750) 2.76 4,567,677 (1,466,953) 3,100,724 (435,000) 2,665,724 37,636,538 45,818,422
' A portion of the funds accumulated prior to debt service issuance is used to augment debt service payments in years 2007 through 2014
Project implementation costs of $210,000, including consulting lees and owner's representative costs, subtracted from fund balance in 2004
Cost of debt Issuance, underwriters spread, insurance premiums and cash towards construction cost of $2,037,330 subtracted from fund balance in 2005
Pre - opening expenses of $500,938 subtracted from fund balance in 2006
Source: FNS International
Including both the annual debt service payments and the estimated
operating deficit of the conference center, the tax revenues dedicated to this
project are sufficient to finance its costs and still maintain a healthy fund
balance to help insulate the Town from risk associated with higher -than-
anticipated operating deficits. To help the Town evaluate the implications of
increased operating deficits for the facility HVS performed a sensitivity
4/5/2011
5 -2 - 15
HVS Conference, Sports & Entertainment DRAFT Vail Conference Center Business Plan Executive Summary 16
analysis on the effects of a series of increased operating deficits, as shown in
Table 13.
Table 13
Sensitivity Analysis on Size of Operating Deficit as a Percent of Original Estimate
Base 110% 125% 150% 197%
Annual Net Fund Annual Net Fund Annual Net Fund Annual Net Fund Annual Net Fund
Operating Operating Operating Operating Operating
Year
Income Balance Income Balance Income Balance Income Balance Income Balance
Loss wAnterest ( Loss) wAnterest Loss w/Interest Loss wAnterest Loss wAnterest
2003 3,343,447 - 3,343,447 3,343,447 3,343,447 - 3,343,447
2004 6,465,086 - 6,465,086 6,465,086 6,465,086 - 6,465,086
2005 5,137,095 - 5,137,095 5,137,095 5,137,095 - 5,137,095
2006 5,458,568 - 5,458,568 5,458,568 5,458,568 - 5,458,568
2007 (1,113,920) 5,056,045 (1,225,313) 4,944,653 (1,392,401) 4,777,565 (1,670,881) 4,499,084 (2,194,423) 3,975,542
2008 (940,046) 4,916,722 (1,034,050) 4,709,421 (1,175,057) 4,398,469 (1,410,069) 3,880,215 (1,851,890) 2,905,898
2009 (827,939) 4,995,093 (910,733) 4,701,452 (1,034,924) 4,260,992 (1,241,909) 3,526,892 (1,631,040) 2,146,783
2010 (774,416) 5,228,173 (851,857) 4,852,070 (968,020) 4,287,915 (1,161,623) 3,347,658 (1,525,599) 1,579,974
2011 (743,293) 5,589,961 (817,622) 5,133,098 (929,116) 4,447,802 (1,114,940) 3,305,643 (1,464,287) 1,158,384
2012 (765,592) 5,952,897 (842,151) 5,411,661 (956,990) 4,599,809 (1,148,388) 3,246,721 (1,508,216) 702,915
2013 (788,560) 6,366,811 (867,416) 5,737,465 (985,699) 4,793,446 (1,182,839) 3,220,080 (1,553,462) 262,152
2014 (812,216) 7,149,441 (893,438) 6,428,112 (1,015,270) 5,346,117 (1,218,325) 3,542,792 (1,600,066) 152,543
2015 (836,583) 8,003,891 (920,241) 7,186,568 (1,045,729) 5,960,584 (1,254,874) 3,917,277 (1,648,068) 75,860
2016 (861,680) 8,912,536 (947,848) 7,995,069 (1,077,100) 6,618,868 (1,292,521) 4,325,201 (1,697,510) 13,106
2017 (887,531) 9,875,538 (976,284) 8,853,629 (1,109,413) 7,320,766 (1,331,296) 4,765,994 (1,748,436) - 36,978
2018 (914,157) 10,933,348 (1,005,572) 9,802,549 (1,142,696) 8,106,350 (1,371,235) 5,279,353 (1,800,889) - 35,403
2019 (941,581) 12,097,163 (1,035,740) 10,852,869 (1,176,977) 8,986,428 (1,412,372) 5,875,694 (1,854,915) 27,512
2020 (969,829) 13,368,661 (1,066,812) 12,006,106 (1,212,286) 9,962,275 (1,454,743) 6,555,889 (1,910,563) 151,885
2021 (998,924) 14,749,839 (1,098,816) 13,264,093 (1,248,655) 11,035,473 (1,498,386) 7,321,107 (1,967,880) 338,100
2022 (1,028,891) 16,257,786 (1,131,781) 14,643,745 (1,286,114) 12,222,682 (1,543,337) 8,187,578 (2,026,916) 601,582
2023 (1,059,758) 17,894,941 (1,165,734) 16,147,323 (1,324,698) 13,525,897 (1,589,637) 9,156,853 (2,087,724) 943,050
2024 (1,091,551) 19,662,690 (1,200,706) 17,776,033 (1,364,439) 14,946,048 (1,637,326) 10,229,405 (2,150,355) 1,362,118
2025 (1,124,297) 21,569,555 (1,236,727) 19,538,207 (1,405,372) 16,491,184 (1,686,446) 11,412,813 (2,214,866) 1,865,475
2026 (1,158,026) 23,619,266 (1,273,829) 21,437,378 (1,447,533) 18,164,548 (1,737,040) 12,709,830 (2,281,312) 2,454,960
2027 (1,192,767) 25,815,926 (1,312,044) 23,477,452 (1,490,959) 19,969,740 (1,789,151) 14,123,555 (2,349,751) 3,132,726
2028 (1,228,550) 28,169,025 (1,351,405) 25,667,708 (1,535,688) 21,915,733 (1,842,825) 15,662,440 (2,420,244) 3,906,249
Source: WS
This sensitivity analysis shows that the annual operating deficit would need
to be 197 percent of the current estimates in each year for the net fund
balance to dip below zero at any point during the debt repayment period.
Implications of an There are some indications that the cost associated with adding the necessary
Increase in the parking spaces to the adjacent parking deck associated with the conference
Construction Cost center could increase by $1.5 to $2.0 million over the current estimate. There
are several options for dealing with such an increase in the construction cost.
4/5/2011
5 -2 -16
HVS Conference, Sports & Entertainment DRAFT Vail Conference Center Business Plan Executive Summary 17
The first option to consider would be to take the additional costs out of the
fund balance. Since the fund balance with interest is over 4.5 times greater
than the projected annual operating loss in 2007 and that ratio rapidly
increases thereafter, the Town could still maintain a sufficient fund balance to
cover any unintended significant increases in annual operating losses if the
fund balance decreased by $1.5 to $2.0 million. If the fund balance decreases
by $2.0 million the ratio of the fund balance to the estimated annual
operating deficit is still 2.7 to 1 in 2007.
Another option would be to restructure the debt service payments to make
them greater in later years when there is more tax revenue available to pay
off the debt. Similar to taking the additional construction funds from the
fund balance, this option is attractive because it does not alter the physical
program or demand potential of the facility. However, restructuring the debt
service payments so that they are lower in the early years and greater in the
later years would increase the overall financing cost of the project.
The third and least attractive option would be to reduce the construction cost
of the conference center itself by reducing the size of the facility. If this option
proves necessary as a last resort for dealing with increased construction costs,
the least damaging approach to the demand potential of the facility would be
to reduce the breakout meeting space. A small reduction in the amount of
breakout meeting space of 3,000 square feet or less would have the least
detrimental effect on the demand potential of the facility. If a greater
reduction of facility program space were necessary, than the main ballroom
area would likely need to be reduced so as to preserve an adequate ratio of
fixed -wall breakout rooms to total function space.
Timing of the Issuance The Committee considered the merits of waiting an additional year and
of Debt issuing debt in December of 2005 rather than December 2004. The advantage
of waiting an additional year would be that the Town would collect an
additional year's worth of tax revenues in that time and this money would
augment the initial fund balance for the project. However, if interest rates rise
during 2005 the additional borrowing costs may offset the advantage of
beginning with a higher fund balance. Another consideration is the
additional year of cost escalation in the construction cost for the facility.
Finally, waiting another year would delay the opening of the facility and the
economic benefits it is projected to generate for the Town's economy.
In consultation with the Town's financial advisor, the Committee determined
that the interest rate risk and construction cost increase associated with
4/5/2011
5 -2 -17
HVS Conference, Sports & Entertainment DRAFT Vail Conference Center Business Plan Executive Summary 18
waiting another year was not worth the benefit from another years worth of
tax revenue collections. If tax- exempt rates increased by 0.75 percent in 2005,
a scenario considered possible by the Town's financial advisor, the capacity of
the Town's debt issuance would decrease by approximately $2.9 million. This
decrease in debt capacity would largely offset any gains from an additional
year of tax collections.
4/5/2011
5 -2 -18
HVS Convention Sports & Entertainment DRAFT Vail Conference Center Business Plan Demand Projections 8 -1
8, Demand Projections
The facility recommendation sets the stage for demand and financial'
operating projections. The recommended conference center will provide Vail
with a facility that is capable of attracting and accommodating a new subset
of event demand for the market.
Distinction Between The development of a conference center in Vail would represent a significant
Conference Center and shift in the capacity of the market to attract events. In the past, Vail has relied
Existing Vail Facilities on a combination of hotels with meeting spaces and Dobson Arena to
with Function Space provide venues for larger conferences, in excess of 500 attendees and other
types of events. Vail's ability to compete for events in excess of approximately
500 attendees is currently very poor due to the fact that event planners
almost always avoid situations where their events need to be conducted in
more than one facility. As a result, Vail has largely been unable to attract
larger events that can upwards of 1,500 attendees into the market, fill up
rooms in multiple lodging properties, create a significant increase in
downtown activity, and generate the level of overall economic impact that
motivates resort communities to invest in conference centers. A conference
center is designed to attract the type of events that generate significant
economic impact by hosting events that bring in far more attendees than any
single hotel in the market can accommodate. In addition, these facilities serve
as a type of living room for the community, hosting a variety of banquets,
entertainment events, fundraisers, and local civic events, when there are no
room night generating events scheduled in the facility.
Individual hotels or hotel resort facilities typically develop meeting space to
generate group room night demand in periods when other higher -rated
corporate or leisure demand is not sufficient to provide adequate levels of
occupancy. In periods when corporate or high -end leisure travel is at its
peak —either due to seasonal patterns or economic cycles —these facilities
may elect to leave their meeting spaces vacant or rent them for day meetings
because they can command higher room rates from other demand segments.
Hotels are also reluctant to provide room blocks in excess of a certain
percentage of their total room counts so as to avoid turning away more
�i
i
4/5/2011
5 -3 =1
HVS Convention, Sports & Entertainment DRAFT Vail Conference Center Business Plan Demand Projections 8 -2
profitable corporate business. As a result, the size of events that individual
properties can accommodate is constrained. Conference centers can
accommodate larger events that attract room nights not only to nearby
properties, but also to other facilities in the market area.
The fact that selected events have spent considerable time and effort to
convert Dobson Ice Arena into a function space for their events is evidence of
the strong demand for larger events in Vail. However, Dobson was not
designed for these types of events and lacks the breakout space, business
amenities, audio / visual capabilities, and overall quality level to effectively
accommodate most conferences and professional meeting events.
Demand Projections For the purposes of this demand projection, HVS estimates that the Vail
for the Vail Conference Conference Center will open on January 1, 2007. HVS bases its demand
Center projections on the several key factors analyzed in the preceding report
sections, including:
• The levels and character of event demand at existing hotels with
meeting facilities in the market,
• Surveys, interviews, and focus groups with event planners,
• Comparative analysis of the Vail market relative to a set of peer
markets,
• The actual event demand in selected peer markets with
conference center facilities,
• Lost business data maintained by the Vail Valley Chamber &
Tourism Bureau, and
• Interviews with the Vail Valley Chamber & Tourism Bureau sales
staff.
Table 8 -1 shows event projections for the new Vail Conference Center for
2007 through 2011.
l
4/5/2011
5 -3 -2
HVS Convention, Sports & Entertainment DRAFT Vail Conference Center Business Plan Demand Projections 8 -3
Table 8 -1
New Vail Conference Center Projected Events and Attendance 2007 - 2011
Event Type 20 07 2008 2009 2010 2011
Number of Events
Corporate Conferences 15 19 21 22 23
Association Conferences 7 15 22 25 26
Banquets 25 30 38 42 45
Meetings 90 100 107 109 110
Entertainment 10 13 14 15 15
Other 20 22 23 24 25
Total 167 199 225 237 244
Average Attendance
Corporate Conferences 433 473 481 485 507
Association Conferences 507 498 503 511 517
Banquets 400 400 400 400 400
Meetings 100 110 115 120 125
Entertainment 500 500 500 500 500
Other 450 450 450 450 450
Total Average 258 281 293 302 310
Total Attendance
Corporate Conferences 6,500 8,995 10,095 10,675 11,650
Association Conferences 3,550 7,465 11,070 12,765 13,450
Banquets 10,000 12,000 15,200 16,800 18,000
Meetings 9,000 11,000 12,305 13,080 13,750
Entertainment 5,000 6,500 7,000 7,500 7,500
Other 9,000 9,900 10,350 10,800 11,250
Total 43,050 55,860 66,020 71,620 75,600
Source: HVS
The projection assumes that demand will stabilize in 2011. The term
"stabilized demand" does not mean that the demand stops increasing.
Rather, a new facility reaches stabilized demand after sufficient time has
passed since the announcement and the completion of a project so that its
demand potential is no longer restricted by the fact that it is a planned or a
new facility. Booking a facility that is under development presents challenges
because potential tenants must consider the possibility that the facility will
not open as scheduled. In addition, some potential tenants are cautious of
being one of the first events booked into a recently opened facility, due to
concerns regarding the potential for operational problems associated with l
new facilities. When a facility reaches its stabilized level of demand, it has
achieved its demand potential relative to its peer facilities.
t
4/5/2011
5 -3 -3
HVS Convention Sports & Entertainment DRAFT Vail Conference Center Business Plan Demand Projections 8-4
The time it takes to reach a stabilized level of demand for different events
varies by event type. Association conferences have longer booking windows
and are less likely to risk booking a newly opened facility because their
sponsoring associations often depend greatly upon such events for their
overall annual revenue. Some association events have booking lead times of
three to five years. Smaller meetings, banquets, and certain corporate events
may book within three months or less. Assuming that the recommended
facility opens on January 1, 2007, the facility will complete five years of
operation and reach its stabilized demand by the end of 2011.
The reluctance among event planners to schedule events in newly opened
facilities has grown in recent years as a result of the recent influx of new
facilities. The greater number of available conference facilities enables event
planners to be more selective and less likely to assume the risk inherent in
scheduling an event in a facility soon after its scheduled opening. Delays in
the opening of conference centers are relatively common and there will be
considerable uncertainty among event planners concerning the actual
opening date until its construction is well underway. In recognition of this,
HVS has projected a modest level of demand in the first years of operations
and an accelerated increase to the point of stabilized demand in years four
and five.
The following points provide details on HVS' demand projections for the
various event categories.
Corporate Conferences
Vail's appeal to corporations conducting employee seminars, training, sales
meetings, product launches, and incentive functions is significant. Interviews
with hotels with meeting space in Vail indicate that these events provide a
significant source of their group room night demand. Many such events are
too large for any of the existing facilities in Vail. The lost business reports
maintained by the Vail Chamber & Tourism Bureau and interviews HVS
conducted with selected examples reveal a significant volume of events that
are in excess of 500 attendees that have expressed interest in coming to Vail.
Vail's reputation as a premiere resort location has an obvious appeal for high -
end professional groups such as doctors, lawyers, and business executives.
The strong orthopedic medical presence in Vail suggests that it would be an
ideal location for larger medical conferences and continuing educational
activities than existing hotel venues can accommodate. The Town should
4/5/2011
5 -3 -4
HVS Convention, Sports & Entertainment DRAFT Vail Conference Center Business Plan Demand Projections 8 -5
consider the possibility of developing relationships with area universities and
a leading medical center that is interested in conducting a series of programs
and seminars. Such affiliations are beneficial for facilities because they serve
as a source of demand in less busy years or seasons and cost little in
marketing once the relationship is established. For example, the conference
center could serve as the home for continuing medical education in the field
of orthopedics and draw upon the significant local talent in this field. Other j
natural affiliations could include environmental and geological studies
programs at universities in the region.
Table 8-2 shows HVS' demand projections for corporate conferences by
season and scope.
Table 8 -2
Projected Corporate Conferences by Season and Scope of Event
Season / Scope 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Summer
National 5 33% 6 32% 7 33% 7 32% 8 35%
State & Regional 4 27% 6 32% 6 29% 6 27% 6 26% k'
Shoulder 1
National 2 13% 3 16% 3 14% 4 18% 4 17%
State & Regional 3 20% 2 11% 2 10% 2 9% 2 9%
Ski
National 0% 1 5% 2 10% 2 9% 2 9%
State & Regional 1 7% 1 5% 1 5% 1 5% 1 4%
Total 1 15 100% 19 100% 21 100%1 22 100%1 23 100%
Sources: HVS i
The facility is projected to initially attract roughly the same amount of state
demand as national demand. As the facility becomes more established in the
market the ratio of national corporate demand increases. The summer is
expected to be the busiest season for corporate conferences, followed by the '
shoulder season. Demand during the ski season is expected to be no more
than three events per year due to the very high room rates during this
period. However, the events that do occur will be highly lucrative to the
Town in terms of both room revenue and other spending.
Association Conferences
The new conference center would enable Vail to compete much more
effectively for association business. The input HVS received from association
planners in the focus groups and surveys indicates that Vail has tremendous
4/5/2011
t
5 -3 -5
HVS Convention, Sports & Entertainment DRAFT Vail Conference Center Business Plan Demand Projections 8 -6
z
appeal as an event location. HVS anticipates that a greater number of sate
associations will utilize the conference center, but the national associations
will generate more total room nights because of their larger size and longer
average stay in the market.
National association conferences will account for a larger portion of total
event demand in Vail than in other peer resort locations due to the strength
of Vail's reputation as a premiere resort destination. Vail's wealth of visitor
attractions makes it a particularly appealing event location for a wide variety
of rotating national conferences. The facility recommendation for the
conference center is tailored in part to capture a larger share of national
association events than the other peer resort facilities can accommodate.
The demand potential for state association events is considerable. One of the
biggest challenges for Vail as a destination for association events is the cost
and convenience of transportation. However, the focus groups and surveys
indicated that concerns regarding transportation to Vail are minimal among
state event planners. Furthermore, the State of Colorado is somewhat lacking
in larger facilities to host state association events, although the City of
Colorado Springs is considering the development of a new convention
center. Denver's Colorado Convention Center focuses primarily on national
conventions and tradeshows and consumer shows because few State events
are large enough to need the amount of exhibit space it offers. Outside of
Denver's primary convention center, the State's largest facilities capable of
handling conventions and tradeshows are Denver's larger hotels with
meeting space. The recommended conference center in Vail is large enough
to compete effectively with these Denver hotels for the larger state association
events. Examples of such larger State Association events include the annual
conferences of the Colorado Pharmacists Association and the Colorado
Association of School Executives, which require more exhibit space than any
of the resort peer conference centers offer but can fit nicely into the
recommended conference center in Vail.
Table 8 -3 shows the estimated annual number of association conferences by
season and geographic scope.
i
4/5/2011
5 -3 -6
HVS Convention, Sports & Entertainment DRAFT Vail Conference Center Business Plan Demand Projections 8 -7
Table 8 -3
Projected Association Conferences by Season and Scope of Event
Season /Scope 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
# I % # % # % # % # %
Summer
National 2 29% 4 27% 6 27% 7 28% 7 27%
State & Regional 4 57% 6 40% 8 36% 9 36% 10 38%
Shoulder
National 0% 1 7% 2 9% 2 8% 2 8%
State & Regional 1 14% 3 20% 4 18% 5 20% 5 19%
Ski
National 0% 0% 1 5% 1 4% 1 4%
State & Regional 0% 1 7%1 1 5%1 1 4% 1 4%
Total 7 100% 15 100% 22 100% 25 100% 26 100%
Source: HVS
The projected number of association events reflects the increasing difficulties
that new facilities are having in booking events soon after they open.
Demand eventually increases to 26 events per year, 17 of which would occur
in the summer season.
Seasonality of Conference Demand
The high degree of seasonality of conference demand has some important
implications for the facility program and marketing efforts. With a projected
total of 31 conference events in the summer season, the conference center
needs to be able to accommodate simultaneous events. HVS developed a
mock event schedule for the summer season that indicated the facility would
need to have at least eight simultaneous events during the summer to reach
its projected level of event demand. This need to accommodate simultaneous'
events is one of the primary rationales for the recommendation of a 25,000
square foot, divisible main ballroom space that is capable of handling
simultaneous events of between 10,000 and 12,000 square feet.
This demand seasonality provides a uniquely appealing market opportunity
for Vail, as the peak seasons for group event demand, the summer and to a
lesser extent the shoulder season, are during periods of relatively lower
occupancy and average daily room rates. Even in the summer when
occupancies can be fairly high, the injection of additional group demand into
the market has the potential to significantly bolster room rates as properties
can become more selective in terms of the rates they offer and the demand
segments they target.
4/5/2011
5 -3 -7
HVS Convention, Sports & Entertainment DRAFT Vail Conference Center Business Plan Demand Projections 8 -8
Banquets
The main ballroom at the conference center would be the largest and one of
the premiere banquet spaces in the Vail market, both in terms of size and
overall quality of the space. The ballroom would not only serve as a main
exhibit and food service area for conferences, but also as a stand -alone
banquet hall for weddings, fundraisers, and various food functions. Examples
of such events include receptions, holiday parties, civic luncheons and
dinners, chamber of commerce functions, and others. The new facility should
be particularly successful in attracting stand -alone events that utilize the
ballroom spaces, in part because of the current small supply of hotel -based
ballroom space in downtown Vail lacks a larger ballroom such as the one
recommended for the conference center. The 10,000 square foot junior
ballroom on the meeting room level would also host smaller banquets,
however the number of events in this projections assumes that the facility
would not aggressively compete for banquets requiring less than 10,000
square feet so that it doesn't compete directly with existing hotel properties.
Meetings
The new Vail Conference Center's meeting rooms would not only serve as
breakout meeting space for conferences and events with exhibits, but also
serve as space for smaller meetings. Meetings as defined in this market
analysis include various smaller gatherings such as business seminars,
employee training sessions, civic events, classes, and other similar events.
HVS considered the existing supply of meeting spaces in area hotels and
other facilities in determining reasonable levels of meeting demand. The
analysis also considered the number of meetings at conference centers in peer
markets.
The conference center would likely t most of its meeting demand during
Yg g g
peek group demand periods when space at hotel -based facilities was booked.
Considering that most meetings are smaller in size than conferences, many
meeting planners will tend to prefer to use smaller venues with meeting
space that is oriented specifically for their types of events. At an average
attendance between 100 and 125 per meeting, the HVS projections assume
that the conference center focuses on larger sized meetings.
i"
Entertainment
Entertainment events that could occur in the proposed conference center
range from indoor arts or musical performances to cultural festivals. These
4/5/2011
5 -3 -8
HVS Convention, Sports & Entertainment DRAFT Vail Conference Center Business Plan Demand Projections 8 -9
events would occur in the conference center's main ballroom space, which
could provide temporary seating arrangements for different types of setups.
Most of these events would occur in the winter season when Vail has the
largest number of potential attendees to draw from and the demand for
conferences is at its lowest point due to high lodging room rates and
occupancies. The facility would not host rock concerts or consumer shows
that are likely to cause significant wear and tear on the ballroom's amenities.
Other
The other category includes events such as assemblies and various civic
functions. HVS based its projections of other types of events on the levels of
demand at comparable facilities and an assessment of events currently
occurring at other facilities that may be more appropriate for a conference
center. In addition, there are some types of events that may not be occurring
at all that would occur if the proposed facility were available. Assemblies
include functions such as religious gatherings and graduations. The other
category also includes any unique events that do not fall into one of the prior
categories. One example of such an event is the World Ski Championship.
The conference center could be utilized as a media center for this event if it
should return to Vail. In the past, the organizers have erected temporary
tents to house the media center for this event at a significant cost.
Projected Room Nights HVS has estimated room night generation by multiplying the number of
from Conference estimated attendees by two factors: 1) the percent of attendees requiring
Center Demand lodging and 2) the average length of stay in the market. The projection
presents attendance by type and scope of event, and the assumptions
regarding lodging demand vary accordingly. The assumptions regarding the
percentage of attendees requiring lodging is based on the experience of
comparable facilities and CVBs in booking national, state, and local events.
This assumption also factors in the share of event attendees who are likely to
share a room during an event. For instance, national events are likely to have
a higher percentage of event attendees requiring lodging than state events.
However, lodging room rates in the winter may motive a higher percentage
of event attendees to double occupancy. HVS weighs these various factors in
its estimates for the percent of attendees requiring a distinct lodging room.
The average length of stay is calculated according to assumptions regarding
data on event length. Information from the actual event statistics of existing
conference centers in other markets, event planner surveys and interviews,
and industry standards inform these assumptions regarding average event
length.
4/5/2011
5 -3 -9
HVS Convention, Sports & Entertainment DRAFT Vail Conference Center Business Plan Demand Projections 8 -10
HVS tailored these assumptions specifically for Vail based on the
characteristics of events appropriate for the market and the likelihood that
attendees to state events would come from far enough away to require
overnight lodging. Table 8 -4 shows the assumptions regarding the
percentage of attendees requiring lodging and the number of room nights
per lodger.
Table 8 -4
Assumptions for N umber of N ights in Market and Percent of Attendees Requiring Lodging
Length of Stay (Nights in Vail) % Attendees Requiring
Lodging
Event Season/Scope Corporate Association Corporate Association
Conferences Conferences Conferences Conferences
Summer
National 4.25 4.00 90% 95%
State & Regional 3.25 3.00 75% 80%
Shoulder
National 3.25 3.25 95% 95%
State & Regional 2.50 2.25 75% 80%
Ski
National 4.50 4.00 90% 90%
State & Regional 3.75 3.50 70% 70%
Source: HVS
The preceding assumptions reflect the average total number of room nights
in Vail by season and type of event. HVS has factored in information from
interviews with Vail lodging facility managers with meeting space, data from
the Vail Chamber & Tourism Bureau, and industry data in these
assumptions. On average, event attendees will spend less time in a resort
market like Vail because the primary purpose of their trip is typically for
business or professional reasons rather than recreation. However, there will
be some event attendees who choose to extend their stay in Vail because of its
overall appeal. Precise data on length of pre and post stays is difficult to
quantify and attempts to do so are often influenced by the policy goals of
those sponsoring such studies. In light of this, HVS views the preceding
assumptions as reasonable, but also recognizes that some upside potential
exists, particularly if marketing efforts focus on providing affordable lodging
rates for event attendees who elect to extend their stays.
4/5/2011
5 -3- 10
HVS Convention, Sports & Entertainment DRAFT Vail Conference Center Business Plan Demand Projections 8 -11
Table 8 -5 shows the resulting projection of room nights generated by event
type from 2007 through 2011, the year when HVS estimates that demand will
stabilize.
Table 8 -5
Projected Room Nights 2007 - 2011
Event Type 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Corporate Conferences 19,600 28,200 32,400 34,100 37,500
Association Conferences 10,000 21,100 32,000 36,800 38,600
Banquets 1,900 2,300 2,900 3,200 3,400
Meetings 1,100 1,400 1,500 1,600 1,700
Entertainment - - - - -
Other 500 500 500 500 600
Total 33,100 53,500 69,300 76,200 81,800
Source: HVS
HVS estimates that the new conference center would generate approximately
33,100 room nights in the market in 2007 and 81,800 by 2011. A small portion
of these room nights comes from events that may have been in the market at
other facilities. HVS made assumptions about the percentage of room nights
from each event category that would be transferred from existing facilities in
the market. These ratios will be small because the proposed conference center
will provide a new type of event space in the Vail market, opening up new
categories of demand. Additionally, HVS assumes that the management of
the conference center will not focus its marketing efforts on smaller
conferences that could fit into lodging facilities with event space, except for
periods when group demand is at its highest and event space is sparse. Table
8 -6 shows the assumptions of the ratio of room nights that will be new to the
market and the total number of new room nights.
c
t
i
r:
i
4/5/2011
5 -3 -11
HVS Convention, Sports & Entertainment DRAFT Vail Conference Center Business Plan Demand Projections 8 -12
t;
E=
Table 8 -6
Ratio of Conference Center Room Nights New to Market and Total New Room Nights
Event Type 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Percent New to the Market
Corporate Conferences 80% 83% 84% 85% 85%
Association Conferences 85% 87% 88% 90% 90%
Banquets 50% 55% 60% 65% 70%
Meetings 15% 18% 20% 20% 20%
Entertainment 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Other 15% 15% 15% 15% 15%
New Room Nights
Corporate Conferences 15,680 23,406 27,216 28,985 31,875
Association Conferences 8,500 18,357 28,160 33,120 34,740
Banquets 950 1,265 1,740 2,080 2,380
Meetings 165 252 300 320 340
Entertainment - - - - -
Other 75 75 75 75 90
Total 25,370 43,355 57,491 64,580 69,425
S ource: FNS
The ratio of new room nights increases for certain categories of demand as
the facility is expected to attract a higher share of new events to the market as
it approaches demand stabilization and the effects of its targeted event
marketing are fully realized. As the facility establishes itself in the market for
conferences it will be able to attract large events that have longer planning
horizons and larger events are more likely to be new to the market. Over time
the facility will develop its own marketing contacts and attract interest from
potential events that may have not considered Vail in the absence of a true
conference center facility. HVS based the assumptions regarding the share of
new room nights on the following:
• A detailed analysis of the existing Vail hotels with conference
center facilities in Section 2,
• Interviews with managers of existing hotels with conference
center space to determine the degree to which they can compete
for events approaching 500 attendees and their views on the
relative market position of the conference center, p
• The input from event planners indicating their preference for a l
self - contained hotel conference center whenever one is large
enough to accommodate their events,
4/5/2011
5 -3- 12
HVS Convention, Sports & Entertainment DRAFT Vail Conference Center Business Plan Demand Projections 8 -13
• Event planner survey responses that indicated the need for
simultaneous use of more function space than is currently
available in any existing facility in Vail,
• Vail Valley Chamber & Tourism Bureau lost business reports
which demonstrate a significant volume of events that are too
large for existing Vail facilities,
• The demand projections, which call for a modest number of larger
events rather than more smaller ones, and
• An overall assessment by HVS of the ability of the conference
center to complement existing conference facilities rather than
compete with them for a finite supply of events.
The projection of Vail Conference Center event - related room nights new to
the market serves as a primary input in the analysis of the economic impact
associated with the event activity at the facility.
Potential Negative Impact on Existing Facilities
A new facility with the amount of function space recommended in this report
will cause the market to shift and affect existing lodging properties with
meeting facilities to some extent. The magnitude of this impact is extremely
difficult to quantify and depends upon the target market of the facility and
the share of demand that is either too large for any existing facilities or occurs
during times when larger existing event spaces are fully utilized. The
recommended conference center in Vail is designed to target events of 500
attendees and above, which reduces the direct competition between it and
existing facilities. However, the conference center will fill in open spans in its
event schedule with smaller events if they are available. In general, any event
that can fit into one of the existing lodging properties with event space will
prefer to be in such a facility since their entire event could occur under one
roof. So, in many cases the conference center will only be competitive for
smaller events when the larger lodging properties with event space do not
have adequate capacity to accommodate the full event demand.
The negative impacts on existing facilities that do occur will be largely
focused on the least attractive event spaces in the market that currently serve
as overflow event space or as second choices of events that would prefer to be
elsewhere if there were sufficient availability. Another consideration
regarding the issue of negative effects on existing properties is that in the
4/5/2011
5 -3- 13
HVS Convention, Sports & Entertainment DRAFT Vail Conference Center Business Plan Demand Projections 8 -14
absence of the development of the conference center the underlying growth
in the demand for events as the economy expands would motivate existing
properties to develop new or expanded event spaces and new properties to
include event space in their facility programs. If however, the conference
center is built, the impetus for developing such new event space will decrease
somewhat. As a result, over the long term the development of the conference
center will have as much or more effect on the type and maximum capacity
of new event space in the market than its overall supply.
HVS' projections estimate that in the stabilized year of demand 85 percent of
the total room nights occurring in the conference center would represent net
new group room nights in the market. The remaining 12,375 room nights
would be those that may have occurred elsewhere in the market even
without the existence of this new facility. However, one should not consider
all of these transferred room nights to represent a net loss of room nights to
existing properties. These existing properties will react to the increased
competition in a number of ways to seek new sources of group room demand
on their own. If one assumes that they would be able to replace at least half of
these transferred room nights, the net effect on existing properties would be
6,188. Underlying growth in the demand for group room nights over time
will gradually reduce the portion of transferred room nights that are not
replaced by new demand. The conference center is projected to achieve
much lower levels of event demand in its first years of operation and this will
further mitigate negative effects on existing properties. It is also possible that
the increased event activity associated with the conference center will
increase the exposure of Vail as an event destination and cause the
underlying rate of growth in group room night demand to increase.
The potential for negative effects on existing lodging properties with event
space deserves careful consideration and was one of the primary rationales
for the recommended facility program and suggested target market of events
in excess of 500 attendees. If the conference center project included a new
full- service attached hotel designed to accommodate most of the net new
group demand the potential negative effects on existing lodging properties
would be considerably greater. However, given that the entire supply of net
new group room nights associated with conference center events will enter
the existing group demand pool the project represents a net benefit to
existing properties in the form of increased group room night demand.
r-
Approach to Marketing The demand projections assume that Vail will maintain certain key policies
Efforts and procedures that are typical of booking practices currently implemented
E
i
4/5/2011
5 -3 -14
HVS Convention, Sports & Entertainment DRAFT Vail Conference Center Business Plan Demand Projections 8 -15
in peer markets with resort conference centers. These policies grant priority
to events that generate substantial numbers of room nights. Typically, certain
types of events and/or events that generate a minimum number of room
nights are given booking priory 18 months and out so that events that do not
meet a minimum room night threshold will not preclude the booking of
events that have more economic impact potential. HVS recommends that
Vail adopt a booking policy that reserves conference center dates for 18
months in advance for events that attract a total of at least 500 room nights
and for 12 months in advance for events that attract a total of at least 200
room nights.
The average advance booking times for group events has been decreasing in
g g l� p g
recent years and it is important that the conference center reserve events
dates for the most productive events in respect to their ability to generate
economic impact. This type of booking policy insures that conference facilities
do not lose out on the most lucrative events in terms of economic impact
because the facility's schedule is filled with less productive local events that
attract relatively less new spending. Within 12 -to -18 months, facilities are
usually free to book any type of business deemed worthwhile for the
community, regardless of the number of room nights it generates. This policy
has implications for the financial operations of the facility. Local events and
banquets typically generate more revenue on a per square foot utilized basis
than conferences because so many facilities with event space are willing to
discount or waive space rental fees for events that generate room night stays.
In most cases, sales and marketing for conference facilities is the joint
responsibility of the local convention & visitors bureau and the management
staff of the facility. These entities are expected to cooperate on proposals for
group business. The bureau focuses its efforts on events such as corporate
and association conferences, employee training, sales meetings, seminars,
continuing education, and incentive functions that generate a substantial
number of room nights. The conference center sales staff is usually more
focused on attracting events that generate net operating income and help to
mitigate any operating deficits of the facility. These dual marketing aims help
maintain a balance between the desire to utilize the conference center as a
tool for attracting event attendees from out -of -town and the resulting
economic impact they generate and the need to keep any necessary operating
subsidies for the facility to a minimum. However, the specific characteristics
of the marketing arrangements for such facilities can vary considerably from
market to market, particularly in the case of resort markets such as Vail that
4/5/2011
5 -3- 15
HVS Convention, Sports & Entertainment DRAFT Vail Conference Center Business Plan Demand Projections 8 -16
have large resort companies that are actively engaged in their own marketing
efforts.
Without a larger conference facility, the Vail Valley Chamber & Tourism
Bureau's ( VVCTB) prior marketing and sales efforts have been largely
directed at hotel -based events. This analysis assumes that the VVCTB or
another entity designated by the Town will begin conference center
marketing and sales efforts in earnest immediately. In certain instances a
municipal department of tourism markets conference facilities rather than a
visitor bureau. However, the VVCTB's group marketing budget and
marketing materials for 2004 includes an effort to being marketing the
conference center. Regardless of the specific marketing arrangement, HVS
assumes that these marketing efforts will be comparable to the efforts of other
peer markets assessed in this report. This will require an increase over
existing marketing resources devoted to promoting Vail as a destination for
state, regional, and national conferences. The degree to which these increased
resources come from an increase in existing funding sources, new funding
sources, and/or a reallocation of existing sources is a matter for the Town, the
designated marketing organization, and other interested parties to assess.
HVS estimates that the total costs of marketing the conference center to
corporate and association events will be between $600,00 and $700,000
annually in 2003 dollars including salary and benefits costs. If the VVCTB
were to take on a portion or all of the marketing responsibilities, the
necessary increase in conference - oriented marketing efforts would not only
be a function of resources, but would also require a change in the emphasis of
overall bureau activities. The emergence of Vail as a truly competitive and
active in participant in the market for conferences between 500 and 1,500
attendees will require a similar shift in the functions and focus of the VVCTB.
The City should consider various ways of assisting the efforts of the VVCTB
or whatever entity markets the facility and providing incentives to help
protect the community's investment in a new conference center.
Currently, the VVCTB collects commissions from lodging properties on
rooms it books. Some similar form of commissions on conference center
related room nights could, in conjunction with a portion of the group
marketing resources the VVCTB already has, provide the necessary financial
resources to effectively market the conference center. Due to the increasing
propensity of event attendees to book lodging through alternative means
such as the internet and various discount lodging companies, HVS
recommends that the Town consider establishing a system for tracking the
4/5/2011
5 -3- 16
r
HVS Convention, Sports & Entertainment DRAFT Vail Conference Center Business Plan Demand Projections 8 -17
number of conference center room nights booked by the VVCTB and
establish a commission system with the lodging community based on the
estimated share of total conference center room nights rather than those
booked directly by the VVCTB into individual lodging properties.
As discussed in the section on event planner input in this report, a single
point of contact for establishing room blocks for conferences is critical for the
success of the facility. The Town of Vail should implement a system that
encourages event planners and attendees to utilize such a central reservation
system. There are several ways to accomplish such a system, and the specific
characteristics of it are dependent upon the type and structure of the entity
responsible for marketing the facility. However, it is important to stress that
the marketing of the conference center and the process of booking group
room blocks must be seamless and convenient for both event planners and
attendees.
i
4' '_'011
`rs
J -17
A4
1a l.l.ey
PnJ9Tn Eft SHlP
The Chamber 6 Tourism Bureau.
Memorandum
April 5, 2011
To: Vail Town Council
CC: Kelli McDonald, Town of Vail Economic Development Manager
Beth Slifer, Vail Local Marketing District Advisory Council
Re: Group sales opportunities in Vail
The Vail Valley Partnership, as the dedicated vendor for group sales to the Vail Local Marketing
District and Town of Vail, was recently asked to provide basic market information regarding
groups & meetings. Specifically, the Partnership was tasked with providing background
information to the Town Council on the number and size of group functions that would fit in a
venue for 750+ as well as the potential for hosting Continuing Medical Education (CME)
meetings.
As part of this project, the Partnership reached out to a small sample of local lodging properties
with the most meeting space available for groups /meetings. We also researched our database.
While these findings are accurate, please note it is not an all - inclusive survey of all the hotel
properties in the Town of Vail but rather a snapshot of select large partners. Of equal
importance, it is important to note that the Vail Valley Partnership (nor the Vail lodging
community) are not aggressively pursuing large group programs due to a lack of space to host
their events /functions.
Currently the largest venue available to host groups is at the Vail Cascade Resort at the Gore
Range Hall with 19,234 square feet to accommodate up to 700 attendees. By utilizing multiple
properties (Vail Mountain Marriott Resort & Spa and Vail Cascade Resort), this allows for over
45,000 square feet of meeting space to accommodate up to 800 attendees with breakout meetings
and meal space.
Lost Business:
PO Box 1130, Vail, CO 81658
www.visitvailvalley.com
4/5/2011
5 -4 -1
A4
1a l.l.ey
PRA°Tn Eft SHlP
The Chamber 6 Tourism Bureau.
Since 2008, the Vail Valley Partnership has found that, through our direct sales efforts, Vail has
lost the following business (primarily due to lack of group meeting space or accommodations):
188 groups less than 300 (64 %)
65 groups between 300 -750 (22 %)
39 groups greater than 750 (14 %)
Over the same time period, the Vail Marriott Resort & Spa reported at least 25 -30 group
programs lost due to lack of space to accommodate their program. The Vail Cascade Resort
reported losing at least 15 groups totaling 12,000+ room nights.
Continuing Medical Education programs:
The HVS conference center study (2004) estimated the average size of meetings (not specifically
medical) at 125 people. Based on a brief survey of lodging properties, the average CME program
in Vail is between 60 -150 people; consensus is that this is due to the fact that, as a destination,
we do not have the capability to handle programs much larger than this due to space constraints.
The Partnership knows (from prior discussions, group proposals and attendance at industry
tradeshows) that Continuing Medical Educations programs are an opportunity for Vail; for
example, Johns Hopkins has 800 CME programs per year.
Select stakeholder feedback:
Vail Mountain Marriott Resort & Spa (Sonny Kerstiens):
It's not necessarily a matter of "lost" groups as the fact that most experienced planners know that
Vail simply doesn't have the space to accommodate large groups. It's more of a matter of groups
that we can't pursue.
My opinion on the large event /meeting location is that it is most certainly a necessity if we want
to truly be a year -round destination. I am confident, based on our National sales arms, that we
would be able to bring more people to Vail in the summer months should we have a venue to
accommodate. I firmly believe it can help June, August and September. The business is out
there.
Vail Cascade Resort (Margaret Coyle):
A large community meeting space would drive more business to Vail. We cannot bid on many
PO Box 1130, Vail, CO 81658
www.visitvailvalley.com
4/5/2011
5 -4 -2
A4
vela val.ary
PnPTfIEPSHIP
-
The Chamber 6 Tourism Bureau.
association programs due to exhibit space needs. The town would also be able to play in smaller
city -wide groups (a "city- wide" group being a program that utilizes multiple lodging properties
to accommodate their guests). Examples include ski shows, summer sports shows, etc.....with
these types of events it would drive room nights into the spring, summer and fall time frames for
all of Vail.
Mike Egan (President and CEO of Steadman Philippon Research Institute:
As you may know we just finished a national orthopedic course at the Marriott for 200+
surgeons. Upcoming we host the Vail Hip Symposium for 250 surgeons at the Cascade.
Unfortunately, the facilities are less than ideal, as are most in the USA, typically being hotel
ballrooms, with poor sight lines to the information being presented.
I strongly believe that a conference center, with amphitheater, for up to 300 participants would
be in constant use, if available. Once medical societies were aware of such a facility, in Vail, it
would be sought after for their respective meetings.
The attendees of these meetings usually are accompanied by family members, spend 3 -6 days
and make an economic impact. These type of meetings are held virtually every weekend
throughout the USA. There are no dedicated facilities that I am aware of, for such meetings. As
you know, our group frequently presents at such meetings worldwide (last year we made 220
such presentations worldwide)
There are annual meetings that are 1000 - 40,000 attendees, but the most frequent are the 100-
300 in size. If there were a facility for medical tourism here, we of course, would have more
courses here. So would the various other medical specialties.
John Schelter (Arthrex):
Ideal seating and space requirements for Continuing Medical Education programs is:
Classroom Style set up for CME Credits
25 square feet per person for groups of less than 60 people. (2 persons per 6 foot table)
23 square feet per en for _r�oups of 60 to 250 people
ZZZZZD
I 0
CLASSROOM STYLE: Most desirable
Additions: At times there will be model /demo table in the back — preferred 6 ft with no chairs.
PROJECTION: We prefer 2 — 8X8 r
PO Box 1130, Vail, CO 81658
www.visitvailvalley.com
4/5/2011
5 -4 -3
A,4
Veal,[ Val t y
P n P T n E R S H I P
The Chamber 6 Tourism Bureau.
4�
Ll.KI
ear projection screens because it allows the a higher resolution and smoother delivery. (10X10
for 250)
Front projection screens are fine as well — we prefer to hang the projector so it does not interfere
with anyone's view. It is positioned in front of the screens.
PO Box 1130, Vail, CO 81658
www.visitvailvalley.com
4/5/2011
5 -4 -4
MEMORANDUM
TO: Vail Town Council
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: April 5, 2011
SUBJECT: Resolution No. 6, Series of 2011, a resolution to amend Chapter 4,
Recommendations — Overall Study Area and Chapter 5, Detailed Plan
Recommendations, Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, pursuant to
Section 2.8, Adoption and Amendment of the Master Plan, Lionshead
Redevelopment Master Plan, to amend the recommendations for West
Lionshead (Ever Vail) and setting forth details in regard thereto.
I. PURPOSE
The purpose of this agenda item is to review Resolution No. 6, Series of 2011.
Resolution No. 6, Series of 2011, is a resolution to amend Chapter 4,
Recommendations — Overall Study Area and Chapter 5, Detailed Plan
Recommendations of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. The proposed
amendments incorporate greater detail with regard to the Master Plan
recommendations for the proposed Ever Vail project. Resolution No. 6, Series of
2011 is attached for reference (Attachment A).
II. BACKGROUND
On January 24, 2011, the Planning and Environmental Commission forwarded a
recommendation of approval, with modifications, of the proposed amendments
by a vote of 3 -1 -2 (Rediker opposed, Cartin and Viele recused). The January 24,
2011 staff memorandum (Attachment B) and hearing minutes (Attachment C) are
attached for reference.
The modifications included with the recommendation of approval were as follows:
1. Section 4.4.3 the Commission does not believe the proposed view
corridors should prevent other properties form redevelopment, specifically
proposed view corridor eight.
2. Section 5.17.1 is to be modified to include the language from 5.20
regarding the provision of access to ERWSD .
3. Section 5.172 is to be modified to include the language from 5.20
regarding the provision of access to ERWSD .
4. Section 5.172 is to be modified to delete the second sentence of
paragraph four and a new sentence added to reference section 4.7 of the
Master Plan.
5. Section 5.17.7 is to be modified to state in the sixth sentence of the first
paragraph that `public spaces and plazas are not shaded by buildings
6. Section 5.17.8 Staff shall inform the Town Council that the Commission is
concerned about the timing of office replacement.
1
4/5/2011
5 -5 -1
7. Section 5.17. 10 is to be modified to identify the creek as a "community
resource" and be more affirmative in the requirement of wetland
preservation and tree preservation and relocation. Additionally, language
requiring the mitigation of development impacts is to be added.
8. Section 5.21.12 is to be modified to state 5.17.13 and the third paragraph
is to be deleted.
9. Section 5.21.13 is to be modified to state 5.17 14 and to delete
references to the LEED and include references to the green design
principles
10. Section 5.20 Staff shall inform the Town Council of the architectural
design concern raised by the public and discussed by the Commission.
III. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL
The Town Council is being asked to actively engage in a discussion with the
applicant, staff, and public on the proposed resolution and to continue this
application to the April 19, 2011 public hearing.
IV. ATTACHMENTS
A. Resolution No. 6, Series of 2011
B. January 24, 2011 Staff Memorandum to the Planning and Environmental
Commission
C. January 24, 2011 Minutes of the Public Hearing
2
4/5/2011
5 -5 -2
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: January 24, 2011
SUBJECT: A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for an
amendment to the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, pursuant to
Section 2.8, Adoption and Amendment of the Master Plan, Lionshead
Redevelopment Master Plan, to amend the recommendations for West
Lionshead (Ever Vail) and setting forth details in regard thereto.
(PEC110002)
Applicant: Ever Vail, LLC, represented by the Mauriello Planning Group
Planner: Warren Campbell
I. SUMMARY
The applicant, Ever Vail, LLC. represented by the Mauriello Planning Group is
requesting a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for an amendment to the
Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, pursuant to Section 2.8, Adoption and
Amendment of the Master Plan, Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, to
amend the recommendations for West Lionshead (Ever Vail) and setting forth
details in regard thereto. Amendments to Chapter 4, Master Plan
Recommendations — Overall Study Area, and Chapter 5, Detailed Plan
Recommendations, are proposed to provide more specific recommendations and
standards for the Ever Vail development.
Based upon Staff's review of the criteria outlined in Section VI of this
memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented, the Community
Development Department recommends the Commission forward a
recommendation of approval, with conditions, to the Town Council regarding
the proposed amendments to the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan.
II. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
The applicant, Ever Vail, LLC, represented by the Mauriello Planning Group is
requesting a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for proposed
amendments to the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. The proposed
amendments are intended to change those portions of the Master Plan which no
longer reflect the desired outcomes of the West Lionshead properties that will
comprise the Ever Vail development. The amendments will establish the desired
recommendations and standards for the Ever Vail development. The purpose of
the amendments are not to amend or otherwise alter the overall goals, objectives
and policies stated in the Master Plan.
1
4/5/2011
5 -7 -1
The Master Plan recommendations for West Lionshead (Ever Vail) were adopted
in 2007, and included three key concepts that would result in the creation of a
new portal to Vail Mountain. Those key concepts are the relocation and
realignment of the South Frontage Road, public parking spaces in addition to any
zoning requirement, and the incorporation of a ski lift (gondola). The proposed
amendments are the result of approximately three years of review of the
redevelopment of West Lionshead with the development known now as Ever
Vail. The amendments propose to capture the current thinking about the desired
results within Ever Vail. The amendments include several images which will
exhibit the specific and general goals and objectives of Ever Vail. These
concepts for layouts and design include, but are not limited to, the South
Frontage Road relocation, the gondola, the transit center, the public parking, the
mountain operations service yard, loading and delivery, pedestrian and vehicular
circulation, and public plazas and walkways.
Staff has attached the proposed amendments to the Master Plan (Attachment A).
The proposed amendments in the attachment are indicated with additional
language in bold and language to be removed (deleted) shown in strife thrE)
III. BACKGROUND
On December 11, 2006, the Planning and Environmental Commission forwarded
a recommendation of approval for amendments to the Lionshead Redevelopment
Master Plan to include the Vail Professional Building and Cascade Crossing
parcels within the Master Plan boundaries and to amend the recommendations
for the area known as "West Lionshead ".
On February 6, 2007, the Vail Town Council adopted Resolution No. 4, Series of
2007, which implemented the changes to the Lionshead Redevelopment Master
Plan regarding West Lionshead and the area known as Ever Vail.
On September 24, 2007, the Planning and Environmental Commission forwarded
a recommended approval of the preliminary plat by a vote of 6 -0 -0. This
application was subsequently withdrawn by the applicant while it was in the Town
Council review process.
On October 22, 2007, the Planning and Environmental Commission forwarded a
recommendation of approval on the proposed rezoning of the two new parcels
proposed to be established in the Ever Vail Subdivision by a vote of 5 -1 -0
(Cleveland opposed). This application was subsequently withdrawn by the
applicant while it was in the Town Council review process.
On August 11, 2008, the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission
voted 4 -0 -1 (Viele recused) to forward a recommendation of approval of
Resolution No. 19, Series of 2008, for the Vail Land Use Plan map amendment
to allow for a change in the land use designation from Community Office to
Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan for the Glen Lyon Office Building site.
On September 2, 2008 the Vail Town Council approved Resolution No. 19,
Series of 2008, described above. The motion passed 4 -3 -0, with Foley, Hitt and
Rogers dissenting.
2
4/5/2011
5 -7 -2
On December 8, 2008 the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission
voted 5 -0 -1 (Viele recused) to forward a recommendation of approval to the Vail
Town Council for Resolution 26, Series of 2008, which included amendments to
the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan to incorporate the GLOB within the
document. On February 3, 2009 the Vail Town Council adopted Resolution No.
26, Series of 2008, by a vote of 5 -1 -0 (Foley opposed).
On March 22, 2009, the Planning and Environmental Commission approved a
partial preliminary plan which established the 1 -70 right -of -way. This partial
preliminary plan was endorsed by the Town Council on April 21, 2009, for
submittal to CDOT for review.
On January 10, 2011, the Planning and Environmental Commission unanimously
forwarded recommendations of approval to the Vail Town Council for the
adoption of the Ever Vail preliminary plan and the zoning of Parcels 1 and 2 of
the Ever Vail Subdivision to Lionshead Mixed use 2 District. These
recommendations of approval were conditioned upon the recording of the Ever
Vail final plat.
IV. ROLES OF THE REVIEWING BOARDS
Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan Amendments
Planninq and Environmental Commission:
Action: The Planning and Environmental Commission is advisory to the Town
Council. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall review the proposal
and make a recommendation to the Town Council on the consistency of the
proposed amendment with applicable review criteria and the policies, goals and
objectives outlined in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan and other
applicable master plan documents.
Town Council:
Action: The Town Council is responsible for final approval /denial of a Lionshead
Redevelopment Master Plan amendment. The Town Council shall review and
approve the proposal based on the consistency of the proposed amendment with
applicable review criteria and the policies, goals and objectives outlined in the
Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan and other applicable master plan
documents.
V. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS
This section of the memorandum contains portion of the Lionshead
Redevelopment Master which are pertinent to the application. The proposed
amendments are found in the attachments.
Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan (in part)
4/5/2011 3
5 -7 -3
Chapter 1: Executive Summary
Recommended Actions
The following list summarizes the recommended actions, both public and private, that
are contained in the master plan. Please refer to individual chapters for more detail on
specific topics and individual properties.
Development/ Redevelopment
• Encourage, facilitate, and provide incentives for the redevelopment and
renovation of existing structures in Lionshead.
• Create a Vail Civic Center comprised of the Dobson Ice Arena, the Vail
Public Library, and new development on the existing charter bus lot.
• Develop the south face of the Lionshead parking structure with ground
floor retail/ commercial space and locals/ seasonal housing above.
• Develop the Town of Vail infill parcel at the east portal to the Lionshead
pedestrian and retail mall; make it an active entry landmark.
• Encourage first floor retail expansions in the retail core improving the
spatial proportions of public spaces by extending into the pedestrian
street.
• Encourage, facilitate and provide incentives for the creation of a five -star
resort hotel in the Lionshead core.
• Encourage, facilitate, and provide incentives for the creation of seasonal
housing in the western end of Lionshead.
Pedestrian Circulation
• Implement the Vail Streetscape Masterplan for the Vail Village - Lionshead
connection along West Meadow Drive.
• Redevelop the existing east Lionshead pedestrian portal.
• Develop, with public - private cooperation, two continuous pedestrian axes
(north -south and east -west) through Lionshead. Create new walkways
and plazas and replace deteriorated pavements.
• Install a snowmelt system in the Lionshead pedestrian mall.
• Require pedestrian walks and paths along all streets.
• Connect the Gore Creek recreation path below the Gondola lift line.
• Provide for pedestrian and bicycle traffic along the South Frontage Road.
• Encourage, facilitate, and provide incentives for the creation of one or
more new west Lionshead pedestrian portals through redevelopment of
Concert Hall Plaza, the Montaneros Condominiums, and the Vail
Associates core site.
• Create a new north Lionshead pedestrian portal in conjunction with
development of a public transportation facility on the north day lot.
• Replace the existing skier bridge.
• Implement a comprehensive directional signage program.
Connections with the Natural Environment
• Create a passive recreation trail system on the south side of Gore Creek.
• Establish public view corridors to preserve the visual connections to
Lionshead's natural environment.
4
4/5/2011
5 -7 -4
• Encourage, facilitate, and provide incentives for the creation of green
landscape corridors penetrating into the Lionshead environment.
• Enhance the western end of the Gore Creek recreation path through
landscape and environmental remediation.
Vehicular Circulation
• Restrict the vehicular traffic on East Lionshead Circle to Town of Vail "in-
town" transit, emergency vehicles, and adjacent local property owners.
• Provide all necessary improvements to the South Frontage Road
including widening, acceleration /deceleration lanes, landscaped medians,
and other appropriate measures to facilitate and clarify traffic flows.
• Realign the South Frontage Road at the western end of Lionshead.
• Realign the West Lionshead Circle and Lionshead Place intersection.
• Encourage, facilitate, and provides incentives for the removal of snowcats
and winter mountain service vehicles from Forest Road.
• Create a central skier drop -off point on the north day lot.
• Implement a comprehensive directional signage program for vehicles.
Transit
• Create dispersed transportation centers in Lionshead to accommodate
local and regional transit, local shuttles, skier drop off, and charter buses.
Locations for these facilities may include the North Day Lot, the
Lionshead Parking Structure, and West Lionshead (aka EverVail).
• Remove the existing Concert Hall Plaza bus drop -off.
• Relocate the existing Lionshead Place regional bus stop to the north day
lot, Lionshead Parking Structure, or West Lionshead area..
• Improve the now difficult left turn from East Lionshead Circle onto the
South Frontage Road.
• Connect the future development in west Lionshead to the Town of Vail in-
town transit route.
• Investigate alternative clean transit technologies.
• Investigate potential intermodal connections to future non - vehicular
regional transit systems.
Parking
• Add at least one more deck to the Lionshead parking structure.
• Conduct studies to establish the user profile of people accessing
Lionshead from the parking structure; use this to determine the desired
user profile and true parking demand.
• Investigate the possibility of a secondary parking structure in the western
end of Lionshead.
Chapter 2, Introduction
2.1 Purpose of the Master Plan
"This master plan was initiated by the Town of Vail to encourage
redevelopment and new development initiatives in the Lionshead
study area. Both public and private interests have recognized that
Lionshead today lacks the economic vitality of Vail and fails to
5
4/5/2011
5 -7 -5
offer a world class resort experience. Lionshead's economic
potential has been inhibited by a number of recurrent themes:
• Lack of growth in accommodation units ( "hot beds');
• Poor retail quality;
• Deterioration of existing buildings;
• Uninteresting and disconnected pedestrian environment;
• Mediocre architectural character; and the
• Absence of incentives for redevelopment.
This master is a comprehensive guide for property owners
proposing to undertake development or redevelopment of their
properties and the municipal officials responsible for planning
public improvements. The plan outlines the Town's objectives and
goals for the enhancement of Lionshead and proposes
recommendation, incentives, and requirements for redevelopment
and new development. "
2.2 Definition of a Master Plan
In the development of the Lionshead Master Plan, the following
definition has been used as the basis for this work:
A master plan is a guide, a flexible framework for future action. It
articulates a community's fundamental land use policies,
principles, and goals in a broad and general way. It plans for the
future physical development or redevelopment of an area of the
community, including its functional and circulation systems and its
public facilities.
The land use policies in a master plan are generally implemented
through zoning ordinances. Existing zoning and land use codes
may be modified and new provisions enacted in order to conform
to the master plan and carry out the plan's objectives.
A master plan does not convey approval for particular
development proposals or concepts, nor can it be implemented in
a short time frame. After adoption of the Lionshead Master Plan,
every development proposal will have to go through the applicable
development review and approval process, with its attendant
public notices and public hearings. A proposal's adherence to the
policies contained in the adopted master plan will be one of the
factors analyzed by staff, the Planning and Environmental
Commission (PEC), the Design Review Board (DRB), and the
Town Council (as applicable) in determining whether to approve or
disapprove the specific proposal.
6
4/5/2011
5 -7 -6
2.3 Policy Objectives
The Town Council adopted six policy objectives on November 4,
1996 to outline the important issues to be addressed in the master
plan and to provide a policy framework for the master planning
process.
2.3.1 Renewal and Redevelopment
Lionshead can and should be renewed and redeveloped to
become a warmer, more vibrant environment for guests
and residents. Lionshead needs an appealing and
coherent identity, a sense of place, a personality, a
purpose, and an improved aesthetic character.
2.3.2 Vitality and Amenities
We must seize the opportunity to enhance guest
experience and community interaction through expanded
and additional activities and amenities such as performing
arts venues, conference facilities, ice rinks, streetscape,
parks and other recreational improvements.
2.3.3 Stronger Economic Base Through Increased Live Beds
In order to enhance the vitality and viability of Vail, renewal
and redevelopment in Lionshead must promote improved
occupancy rates and the creation of additional bed base
( "live beds" or "warm beds') through new lodging products.
2.3.4 Improved Access and Circulation
The flow of pedestrian, vehicular, bicycle and mass transit
traffic must be improved within and through Lionshead.
2.3.5 Improved Infrastructure
The infrastructure of Lionshead (streets, walkways,
transportation systems, parking, utilities, loading and
delivery systems, snow removal and storage capacity) and
its public and private services must be upgraded to support
redevelopment and revitalization efforts and to meet the
service expectations of our guests and residents.
2.3.6 Creative Financing for Enhanced Private Profits and Public
Revenues
Financially creative and fiscally realistic strategies must be
identified so that adequate capital may be raised from all
possible sources to fund desired private and public
improvements.
7
4/5/2011
5 -7 -7
VI. CRITERIA FOR REVIEW OF PROPOSED MASTER PLAN AMENDMENTS
The applicants are proposing to amend Chapter 4, Recommendations Overall
Study Area, and Chapter 5, Detailed Plan Recommendations of the Plan, to
include detailed recommendations for development within the "West Lionshead"
area for the Ever Vail Development.
Amendments to the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan require a public
hearing review process as outlined in Section 12 -3 -6 of the Town Code. If
approved, amendments are adopted by resolution by the Vail Town Council.
According to the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, amendments to the
Master Plan must address the following review criteria:
How have conditions changed since the plan was adopted?
The Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan was adopted in December of 1998.
Since its adoption there have been several resolutions approved to include
properties such as the Vail Professional Building, Cascade Crossing, and most
recently the Glen Lyon Office Building within the study area boundaries for the
Master Plan. These properties were included within the study area boundaries
and recommendations and standards for the redevelopment of the sites were
incorporated into Chapters 4 and 5 of the Master Plan. The result of the
incorporation of these properties and the associated recommendations for
redevelopment is the proposed Ever Vail development.
Conditions have changed since the adoption of amendments to the West
Lionshead recommendations in 2007, which warrant the adoption of
amendments to the Master Plan. The Master Plan does not currently reflect the
most recent concepts anticipated for the Ever Vail development. Those concepts
include the incorporation of the Glen Lyon Office Building site into the planning
for Ever Vail, the single phased relocation of the South Frontage Road West, and
the basic concepts for bulk, mass, heights, and structure layout to create public
spaces and streets. The proposed amendments seek to provide clear direction
on the desired outcomes to be associated with Ever Vail. The amendments
include text and images which begin to provide greater framework and validity to
the plans and designs which have been reviewed in earnest over the past
several years.
The proposed amendments are also to serve as a reflection of the findings of the
fiscal and economic analysis performed by Economic and Planning Systems
which was presented to Town Council in late 2010 and early 2011.
How is the plan in error?
Staff does not believe the plan is in error. The proposed amendments seek to
provide the clear direction the Town and applicant are seeking for the Ever Vail
development. The amendments attempt to capture the concepts and ideas that
the Planning and Environmental Commission, Town Council, Staff, consultants,
and the applicant have been discussing since the 2007 amendments to the
Master Plan. As Ever Vail will be a project which is completed through multiple
phases Staff and the applicant believed that amendments to the Master Plan
8
4/5/2011
5 -7 -8
should be adopted to memorialize several key concepts and ideas in order to
preserve them for discussion and inclusion when proceeding with future
applications such as the major exterior alteration applications.
How would an addition, deletion, or change to the plan be in concert with
the plan in general?
The proposed amendments are in concert with the Lionshead Redevelopment
Master Plan as they are not amending any of the adopted policies, objective, or
goals that are currently recommended for the West Lionshead area. Ever Vail is
located within the West Lionshead area and the proposed amendments provided
greater specificity with regard to the desired outcomes to be achieved through
redevelopment on the site. Staff believes the amendments further existing
concepts contained within the Master Plan thus they remain in concert with the
plan in general.
VII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Community Development Department recommends that the Planning and
Environmental Commission forwards a recommendation of approval, with
conditions, to the Vail Town Council of a proposed amendments to the
Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, pursuant to Section 2.8, Adoption and
Amendment of the Master Plan, Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, to
amend the recommendations for West Lionshead (Ever Vail) and setting forth
details in regard thereto. Staff's recommendation is based upon a review of the
criteria and findings as outlined in this memorandum and from the evidence and
testimony presented.
Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to forward a
recommendation of approval of this request; the Community Development
Department recommends the Commission pass the following motion:
"The Planning and Environmental Commission approves with
conditions the applicants' request for proposed amendments to
the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, pursuant to Section
2.8, Adoption and Amendment of the Master Plan, Lionshead
Redevelopment Master Plan, to amend the recommendations for
West Lionshead (Ever Vail) and setting forth details in regard
thereto."
Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to forward a
recommendation of approval of this request; the Community Development
Department recommends the Commission include the following conditions:
"1. The applicant shall provide revised digital images to staff
depicting the Simba Run underpass on all figures identified in
the amendments, prior to being scheduled for the reading of a
Resolution to adopt the changes to the Master Plan.
2. This approval for amendments to the Lionshead Redevelopment
Master Plan is contingent upon approval of the associated
4/5/2011 9
5 -7 -9
special development district major amendment application,
recording of the final plat, and the adoption of the proposed
Lionshead Mixed Use 2 District zoning for the property. "
Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to forward a
recommendation of approval, with conditions of the applicants' request, staff
recommends that the following findings be made as part of the motion:
"The Commission finds that the proposed text and figure
amendments to the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan comply
with the review criteria outlined in Section VI of the memorandum
to the Planning and Environmental Commission, dated January 24,
2011, and that the amendments, as proposed, further the goals,
objectives and policies, as stated in Chapter 2 of the Lionshead
Redevelopment Master Plan. "
VIII. ATTACHMNENTS
A. Proposed Amendments to the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan
10
4/5/2011
5 -7 -10
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
January 24, 2011
�. 1:OOpm
TOWN OF VAlI, '
TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS / PUBLIC WELCOME
75 S. Frontage Road - Vail, Colorado, 81657
MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT
Luke Cartin Michael Kurz
Bill Pierce
Henry Pratt
John Rediker
Tyler Schneidman
David Viele
60 minutes
1. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for an amendment to the Lionshead
Redevelopment Master Plan, pursuant to Section 2.8, Adoption and Amendment of the Master
Plan, Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, to amend the recommendations for West
Lionshead (Ever Vail) and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC110002)
Applicant: Ever Vail, LLC, represented by the Mauriello Planning Group
Planner: Warren Campbell
ACTION: Approve with conditions /modifications
MOTION: Pratt SECOND: Schneidman VOTE: 3 -1 -2 ( Rediker opposed, Vlele
and Cartin recused)
CONDITION(S):
1. The applicant shall provide revised digital images to staff depicting the Simba Run
underpass on all figures identified in the amendments, prior to being scheduled for the
reading of a Resolution to adopt the changes to the Master Plan.
2. This approval for amendments to the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan is
contingent upon approval of the associated special development district major
amendment application, recording of the final plat, and the adoption of the proposed
Lionshead Mixed Use 2 District zoning for the property.
3. The Commission recommended the following modifications to the proposed Master
Plan amendments:
1. Section 4.4.3 the Commission does not believe the proposed view corridors should
prevent other properties form redevelopment, specifically proposed view corridor
eight.
2. Section 5.17.1 is to be modified to include the language from 5.20 regarding the
provision of access to ERWSD .
3. Section 5.17.2 is to be modified to include the language from 5.20 regarding the
provision of access to ERWSD .
4. Section 5.17.2 is to be modified to delete the second sentence of paragraph four
and a new sentence added to reference section 4.7 of the Master Plan.
5. Section 5.17.7 is to be modified to state in the sixth sentence of the first paragraph
that "public spaces and plazas are not shaded by buildings ".
6. Section 5.17.8 Staff shall inform the Town Council that the Commission is
concerned about the timing of office replacement.
7. Section 5.17.10 is to be modified to identify the creek as a "community resource"
and be more affirmative in the requirement of wetland preservation and tree
Pa a e 1
4/5/20`11
5 -8 -1
preservation and relocation. Additionally, language requiring the mitigation of
development impacts is to be added.
8. Section 5.21.12 is to be modified to state 5.17.13 and the third paragraph is to be
deleted.
9. Section 5.21.13 is to be modified to state 5.17.14 and to delete references to the
LEED and include references to the green design principles
10. Section 5.20 Staff shall inform the Town Council of the architectural design
concern raised by the public and discussed by the Commission.
Commissioners Viele and Cartin recused themselves on this item.
Warren Campbell made a presentation per the Staff memorandum, allowing for comment on
each section as he reviewed them with the Planning and Environmental Commission.
Section 4.4.3 Ever Vail View Corridors
Commissioner Pratt asked for the purpose of proposed view corridors 6 and 8. He asked why
view corridor 6 is so far down the site. He suggested it should be located further up the creek
towards the frontage road, potentially on the pedestrian bridge proposed across Red Sandstone
Creek. He added that there is nothing preventing further encroachment towards the creek and
that the view corridor should provide further protection. Similarly, view corridor 8 is not connected
to the project.
Warren Campbell explained that there was previously a view corridor located on the bridge of the
relocated frontage road looking south. The view corridor was removed as there is a 30 -foot
setback off of the centerline of Red Sandstone Creek providing for a 60 -foot wide no build zone
negating the need to protect the view. He stated that view corridor 8 was to provide for a
connection back to the Lionshead core along the proposed pedestrian connection.
Commissioner Pierce asked what the Gore Creek setback is from the centerline.
Warren Campbell responded that the setback is 50 feet from centerline resulting a 100 -foot wide
zone.
Dominic Mauriello added that Lionshead is 60 acres and has 5 view corridors. He noted that the
view corridors would protect from future development. However, he agrees that view corridor 8
may not be necessary unless the commission wants to limit the Marriot.
Commissioner Pratt added that the view corridors need to be necessary for inclusion in the
Master Plan.
George Ruther added that the view corridors are needed to visually orient people around and
through Ever Vail.
Section 5.17.3 Parking
Commissioner Rediker asked what parking requirements are required in Lionshead Mixed Use 1.
Warren Campbell responded that the parking requirements are regulated through Chapter 12 -10
Off Street Parking, Vail Town Code, which identify the required number of parking spaces based
upon each land use and there sizes.
Page 2
4/5/2011
5 -8 -2
Commissioner Rediker asked about when the Commission would determine parking
requirements for uses without parking requirements listed such as is identified for the gondola.
Warren Campbell responded that this would occur during the conditional use permit application.
Commissioner Rediker asked who the 400 parking spaces would be provided for in the
development.
Warren Campbell responded that the 400 public parking spaces would be in addition to what is
required by zoning regulations and the no net loss of employee parking. For example, this would
be in excess of the parking required for the hotel, dwelling units, and commercial. The 400
parking spaces are meant to address the Town's parking shortage and provide parking for the
new gondola.
Section 5.17.2 Vehicular Access and Parking
George Ruther added that the proposed Master Plan language would remove the concept of
how redevelopment would occur in West Lionshead should the frontage road remain in its
current location, but rather recommends realignment.
Dominic Mauriello stated that there are a number of enclosed loading and delivery bays at -grade
and the language should be amended in the fourth paragraph to identify that these proposed
locations exist.
Bill Pierce asked if the amendments should reflect the exact locations of above ground loading
and delivery. He stated that there are a number of issues with at grade loading and delivery
bays, specifically with the doors being open allowing visibility into the spaces.
Dominic Mauriello stated that the at -grade loading and delivery are within the development and
do not directly accessible from the frontage road.
Section 5.17.3 Parking
Dominic Mauriello stated that he recognizes that there is further word smithing and changes to
be made by the Vail Town Council when policy discussions occur, however he specifically
wanted to keep the 283 parking space number in paragraph 2 to lock in that number.
George Ruther stated that this number could change and the Town's files reflect the need for
replacement of 283 parking spaces under the no net loss policy of the Master Plan.
Commissioner Rediker asked about the short term spaces for skier drop off and grocery store
uses.
Dominic Mauriello responded that the skier drop -off could be signed to allow commercial access
to the grocery store which is in close proximity. It was currently not known what language would
be placed on the signs to allow this and for what time duration. He noted that there will be
parking for the grocery store underneath the building.
Commissioner Pratt asked to clarify that the 400 spaces would be in excess of required parking
and replacement parking.
George Ruther confirmed that it would be 400 spaces plus the replacement parking plus required
parking, totaling approximately 1,100 parking spaces.
Paqe 3
4/5/2011
5 -8 -3
Commissioner Rediker asked about the location of bus stops and their relationship to the
gondola.
Warren Campbell responded that the walk would be about 800 feet, which is closer than the walk
from the transportation center to lifts in Vail Village.
Section 5.17.5 Gondola and Vail Mountain Portal
Commissioner Rediker asked how close the gondola building is to Gore Creek.
Warren Campbell responded that the face of the building will be at least 50 feet from the
centerline of Gore Creek.
Commissioner Rediker asked what easements would be required for the gondola.
Warren Campbell responded that an agreement will need to be reached with the Town of Vail for
an easement across several town owned parcels to allow the gondola lift line to proceed up the
mountain.
Dominic Mauriello added that a conditional use permit would be required and further discussion
of the specifics would occur at that time.
Section 5.17.6 Pedestrian and Bike Access
Commissioner Pratt asked about the pedestrian connections from southwest corner of the Ritz to
the gondola. He stated that the route is out of the way and confusing. He suggested a more
direct route along the access road to the subterranean maintenance facility be incorporated.
Dominic Mauriello responded that there are grade changes and access to below grade areas for
vehicles that would prevent access by pedestrians. He added that it is not impossible to allow
for pedestrian access but it is not desirable. He stated that pedestrians will be fed into the
commercial area of the project.
Commissioner Pierce added that the alley between the Arrabelle and Lion Square Lodge, and
between Arrabelle and Lionshead Center both are the shortest way to the Lionshead gondola,
and so people use these alleys frequently.
Commissioner Pratt added that people want to take the quickest route to the lift, and that in other
locations, people don't have to walk away from the lift.
Commissioner Rediker asked where the exact location of the pedestrian bridge across Gore
Creek was proposed to be located.
Dominic Mauriello pointed out its location.
Commissioner Pratt added that a bridge to the project from the Gore Creek bike path would help
to connect both sides.
Section 5.17.7 Public Spaces and Plazas
Commissioner Pratt suggested that fifth sentence of the first paragraph be revised to clarify that
the buildings were causing the shading and not the sun.
Paqe 4
4/5/2011
5 -8 -4
Section 5.17.8 Preservation of Existing Office and Retail Space
Commissioner Pratt asked about the timing of the office replacement. He added that being a
tenant of one of the buildings, a hypothetical tenant would have to leave and sign a lease
elsewhere, thus leaving the Town of Vail. He suggested that there be some agreement on
timing.
Dominic Mauriello added that this would be something that would be negotiated with the Town.
Commissioner Pierce added that there should be some language about the replacement of
office, perhaps half being replaced quickly.
Section 5.17.10 Relationship to Red Sandstone Creek and Gore Creek
Commissioner Rediker stated that the creeks should be referred to as natural resources not
amenities. There should be more shall statements not should statements, specifically about the
preservation of trees and vegetation. He is pleased with proposed improvements along Red
Sandstone Creek, making it a better waterway. He stated that stone /boulder areas along Gore
Creek and Red Sandstone Creek are inappropriate. He stated that only certain places should
take people right up to the creek with other areas being protected from people encroaching.
Words like contemplates and best efforts are too broad. He said the project should enhance the
protection of the creek.
Jim Lamont, president of Vail Homeowners Association, spoke about pushing urban uses too
close to the creek edge. He said there needs to be more protection of the creeks and limits as to
how close development, paths, etc. can go. He referenced the water quality data that has been
gathered recently which highlight the need to protect the riparian corridor.
Section 5.17.11 Employee Housing
Commissioner Rediker asked whether there is an employee housing component to the Ever Vail
project and asked about timing of employee housing.
Warren Campbell responded that the applicant is proposing to meet the employee housing
needs but it may or may not be all on -site at the moment each building is completed. However,
at the completion of the project, the full regulations will be met both on and off site.
Section 5.17.12 Development Standards
Commissioner Pierce asked if the interpolated grading plan is included in other SDD amendment
requests. He stated the value of having the baseline for redevelopment in the future.
Commissioner Rediker asked for clarification on 3 to 4 story maximum along Gore Creek.
George Ruther stated that master plan language was attempting to convey a perception of the
desired outcomes not black and white regulations. The language 3 to 4 stories was an attempt
to clarify the desired bulk and mass expression.
Section 5.17.13 Architectural Improvements
Commissioner Pratt asked if the proposed language in the second paragraph is setting up the
project for a deviation from the design guidelines. He added that Lionshead from the 1970s
Paqe 5
4/5/2011
5 -8 -5
used to be a contemporary expression of alpine architecture, and that the same mistakes should
not be in Ever Vail.
Commissioner Pierce said hopefully we wont repeat the 1970s Lionshead style. He added that
each board should review the architecture for compliance with Master Plan.
Commissioner Pratt added that this section should say it should comply with Lionshead Design
Guidelines.
Dominic Mauriello stated that the third paragraph could be struck.
Section 5.17.14 Green Building
Commissioner Pierce stated that the LEED mention could be stricken as the program may not be
around in the future or a different program may be desired.
Commissioner Pratt agreed that LEED should be removed and a more general reference to
green building principles included.
Section 5.20 Eagle River Water and Sanitation District
Diane Johnson, representative of ERWSD, stated that the proposed language for her
organization's property was acceptable. She did request that Sections 5.17.1 and 5.17.2 be
modified to include the language found in 5.20 with regard to providing legal and physical access
to ERWSD. She added that Section 5.17.2 should expand on "cars and trucks" to mention the
need of construction vehicles, semi - trucks, etc. to access the ERWSD site.
Jim Lamont, Vail Homeowners Association, made a comment on 5.20. He stated that the Vail
Homeowners Association is concerned about the location of the ERWSD, and its interaction with
Ever Vail and the Town as a whole. The functional and aesthetic relationship is concerning. The
town has left the interaction between ERWSD and Ever Vail to the owners. He asked a number
of questions regarding the ERWSD site, including zoning, etc. Lamont asked if the ERWSD was
redeveloped, if the Design Guidelines of the LRMP would apply. He stated that the Town has
control of how the ERWSD gets redeveloped and it should be clear that architectural
improvements are needed. He stated that the Commission should set guidelines about the
ERWSD site, and how it should aesthetically be connected to the Ever Vail project.
Commissioner Pierce stated that no one is overlooking the lack of detail on ERWSD site in the
LRMP. He asked Staff what direction to go in.
George Ruther stated that any amendments could be brought forward by the public, staff,
property owners, Commissioners, Town Council, etc. He said Staff would be reluctant to
suggest that the ERWSD site be mixed use with retail etc.
Jim Lamont added that high class international clientele oriented development next to the
"barnyard" is inappropriate. He stated that the plant could have a park on the top to be more
compatible with public spaces of Ever Vail. He added that the Town could be laughed at for not
addressing this.
Diane Johnson stated that the district and the applicant worked together to discuss future
changes on the site. She added that to relocate a sewer treatment facility was not an easy task.
There were many complicated and expensive issue related to pipe up sizing and discharge back
Paqe 6
4/5/2011
5 -8 -6
in the current location to address water rights issues. She added that taxpayer money should
not go for beautification beyond what is necessary.
Jim Lamont added that the ERWSD should be committed to accomplishing compatible
beautification to adjacent projects.
Commissioner Rediker asked for clarification of compatible beautification.
Jim Lamont responded that the ERWSD site needs to be a good neighbor in the community and
fit the aesthetic guidelines.
Commissioner Pierce said the commissioners should be careful in responding to neighbor
concerns about an existing property that is not being redeveloped.
Dominic Mauriello stated that the ERWSD site is required to comply with the LRMP design
guidelines.
Commissioner Pierce said that he agrees but perhaps there should be a note that this site
doesn't have to comply with the LRMP design guidelines.
George Ruther stated that there is no way to force changes to any building not proposing to
redevelop.
Jim Lamont said he would be upset if the ERWSD would not be interested in updating the
property to meet the guidelines better. He said the community needs to push for improvements.
Commissioner Pratt suggested that the master plan amendments be tied into the Gore Creek
Water study to ensure protection.
Diane Johnson, ERWSD, stated that Red Sandstone Creek is a major contributor of loading (i.e.,
phosphorus and nitrogen) to Gore Creek and the studies show that the negative components
found in Red Sandstone Creek occur up above the Ever Vail site where old logging roads and
such cause impacts. She believes the applicant's mitigation efforts on Red Sandstone Creek
cannot address (improve) the conditions that exist upstream of the proposed development.
Commissioner Pratt said he is uncomfortable putting requirements on ERWSD, but the Town
Council should know that there are concerns about the language in 5.20
Commissioner Pierce went back to public view corridors, specifically view corridor 6 and
respecting that the setbacks provide permanent view corridor. He stated that view corridor 8
affects others, not Ever Vail, and this is not the purpose of the view corridor.
George Ruther responded that the view corridor 8 is for a visual connection from Ever Vail back
to the Lionshead Core not to capture a view about the Marriott.
The Commissioners agreed to a five minute break to allow Staff an opportunity to capture all the
modification they heard to the proposed language so it could be read back to them.
Staff read the multiple changes into the record and the Commission referenced them in their
motion.
Paqe 7
4/5/2011
5 -8 -7
W (TF YAM
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO
MEETING DATE: April 5, 2011
ITEM /TOPIC: Lionshead Transit Welcome Center Construction Contract Award
PRESENTER(S): Tom Kassmel
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Award Construction Contract
BACKGROUND: The Town of Vail and the Vail Reinvestment Authority, are in the process of
completing the Lionshead Transit Center Project. The Project has multiple design and
construction Phases, each at various points of completion. The purpose of this Council
session is to award the construction contract for the Lionshead Transit Welcome Center
(LHTWC), the Phase II Improvements. The Town received 6 bids thru a public bid process,
with R.A. Nelson being the lowest responsible bid after a detailed evaluation of scope,
schedule, logistics and cost during a subsequent two week process.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Town Staff recommends awarding the project to R.A. Nelson,
with Alternates 1, 2, 3, 5, 7 and 8, excluding alternates 4, 6, 9, and 10, and directing the Town
Manager to enter into a contract with R.A. Nelson, in a form as approved by the Town
Attorney, for a total contract amount not to exceed $5,910,000.00; and approve an increase in
the Lionshead Transit Center Project budget in the amount of $197,000; and approve the
finishing of the space under the stairs as described above, increasing the Lionshead Transit
Center Project budget by an additional $100,000 for a total of $297,000.
ATTACHMENTS:
Memo
4/5/2011
MEMORANDUM
TO: Town Council
FROM: Tom Kassmel, Public Works Department
DATE: April 5 2011
SUBJECT: Lionshead Transit Welcome Center Construction Contract Award
I. Background
The Town of Vail and the Vail Reinvestment Authority, are in the process of
completing the Lionshead Transit Center Project. The Project has multiple design
and construction Phases, each at various points of completion;
• Phase I:
Description: A new Frontage Road Transit Building, Bus Bays, Frontage
Rd Improvements, and a New Passenger Drop -off in the Lionshead
Parking Structure.
Status: Construction in progress, scheduled for completion by June 30
2011
• Phase II:
Description: Lionshead Transit Welcome Center replacing the existing
Lionshead Auxiliary Building.
Status: Bid Process complete. Ready for construction contract award.
Pending construction schedule April 25 — Dec. 15 with possible early
setup and tenant move out the April 18 — April 24
• Phase III:
Description: Streetscape improvements to the East and West portals of
Lionshead at E. Lionshead Circle and W. Lionshead Circle bus stop plaza
areas.
Status: Reviewing Design RFP's for design in 2011 and construction
budgeted for 2012.
The purpose of this Council session is to award the construction contract for the
Lionshead Transit Welcome Center ( LHTWC), the Phase II Improvements.
Since Council approval for the LHTWC improvements, the project received PEC
and DRB approval, and Construction Documents were completed and publically
bid. The final project includes the demolition of the Lionshead Auxiliary Building
and the construction of a new three (3) story Lionshead Transit Welcome Center,
which includes;
• First Floor: Public waiting area, information, locker room, restrooms,
and a retail component,
• Second Floor: Vail Recreation District offices, program space for Camp
ECO Fun and Imagination Station,
• Third Floor: A flexible community event space and rest rooms,
• Access: Two new elevators and heated stairs for building and
parking structure access.
The Town received 6 bids thru a public bid process, with R.A. Nelson being the
lowest responsible bid after a detailed evaluation of scope, schedule, logistics
and cost during a subsequent two week process.
4/5/2011
6 -1 -1
Progress of the project since the kick -off in May 2009 has been tracked on the
Town of Vail website at http:/ /www.vailgov.com /transitcenter. All formal
documentation, memos and presentations are available there for your review.
II. Summary of Bid Results
The Town of Vail publically bid the Lionshead Transit Welcome Center project
and received six (6) bids from pre - qualified bidders on March 15` 2011 (See
attached Bid Summary). The initial base bids received ranged between $6.0 and
$7.2 million, with total alternates increasing the bids to $6.8 to $7.7 million.
Following the bid opening staff reviewed each bid, interviewed the two most
responsive bidders, and requested additional information /clarifications and value
engineering evaluations from those two bidders, The Weitz Company and R.A.
Nelson.
After presentation of the schedule, logistics plan and potential Value Engineering
(VE) by each general contractor candidate, and a careful review of the VE efforts
by the Town staff and the design team , the lowest responsible bidder providing
the best combination of scope and price is R.A. Nelson at $5.91 million (refer to
attached Bid Summary and VE Summary)
III. Bid, VE Process and Alternates
The Town of Vail began the bid process for this project in January with three bid
packages: A, B, and C.
These first three bid packages were let in order to save approximately six (6)
weeks in the 2011 construction schedule. Proposals for the LHTWC Packages A
(Precast Structure), B (Elevators), C (Mechanical Equipment) were publically
advertised and solicited. Proposals were received on January 25` and Bid
Packages A and B were awarded by Council on February 2n Bid Package C
was not awarded as it was not advantageous to the Town at that time based on
short lead times shown by the proposers.
Prior to the issuance of LHTWC Bid Package D, the General Contractor (GC)
construction bid package, the Town pre- approved eight (8) general contractors to
bid the project, thru a Request For Qualifications approval process.
Bid Package D was let out to bid to those pre- approved on February 7` 2011,
and. included the complete construction of the project, including the mechanical
equipment that was not awarded in Bid Package C. Bid Package D also
required the general contractor candidates to use the pre - selected sub-
contractors from Bid Packages A and B, and include the cost quoted for the
fabrication and installation portions of Packages A and B in their bid.
On March 15`", 2011 the Town received six (6) bids at a public bid opening. The
initial base bids received ranged between $6.0 and $7.2 million, with total
alternates increasing the bids to $6.8 to $7.7 million.
Following the bid opening staff reviewed each bid and requested additional
information /clarifications from the two most responsive bidders, The Weitz
Company and R.A. Nelson.
4/5/2011
6 -1 -2
These two firms were chosen based on both of their base bids being at least
$160,000 lower than the next lowest bidder; their being the only two firms that did
not request additional monies to meet the Town's schedule requirements; and
still being the two low bidders using any combination of alternates.
The two apparent low GCs were debriefed on March 16 and requested to
provide a very detailed construction schedule, a detailed "submittal" preparation
and approval schedule, a detailed logistics plan, pricing of a list of value
engineering options prepared by the design team and Town staff, as well as a
request to provide any other value engineering opportunities they saw.
The submittals were received as requested by the noon deadline on March 22
and each team then presented their information in person to the Town and
design team in oral interviews on March 23rd.
All VE, logistics and scheduling submittals and presentations were kept in strict
confidence, and no information from one candidate was shared with the other GC
candidate. All information was then reviewed by the Town and the design team,
additional submittal clarifications were requested from the GC's on March 24
and then received back by the Town on March 25 A final VE analysis was
completed, and a recommended VE strategy and GC award recommendation
was then provided to Council for review on March 31 St, for direction on April 5tH
Value Engineering Highlights
The hard construction cost target budget for this project was $5.6 million dollars
based on a estimate completed in December. Subsequent scope additions and
escalation were known to have increased this budget, but due to the proximity of
the bidding by general contractors, paying for another estimate and requesting
additional budget funding was not a practical use of Town funds.
As expected the bids received were over this target number. The VE process
realized over 150 items that were worth over $1.0 million. After a rigorous and
collaborative analysis and VE process staff, the design team, and the GC's were
able to bring the project within 5% of the target budget. The majority of the
accepted VE items will not be noticed in the finished building. Some of the
highlighted VE items are;
Potential user noticeable items:
• Removal of canopy roof over the First Floor VRD patio that was tucked up
against the parking structure behind the trash enclosure —$50k
• Removal of the Corten paneling from the north side of the building and
replacement with stone veneer. This is in the area between the building
and the parking structure with limited visibility. —$20k
Unnoticeable VE Items:
• Revised logistics plan savings —$25k
• Alternate snow fence connection —$12k
• Alternate wood grade for wood trim Fascia —$40k
• Alternate thickness of wood fascia —$10k
• Alternate wood knot appearance in glulams —$12k
• Wood T &G ceiling stained and sealed on site in lieu of pre- finished —$9k
• Replace Citadel Metal soffit with T &G soffit —$35k
Alternates
4/5/2011
6 -1 -3
The project was bid as a base bid with ten (10) alternates. The contractors were
instructed to bid the base bid based on the plans and specifications with no
schedule or Federal Transit Authority constraints. They were also instructed to
bid the ten alternatives as follows;
1. Performance & Payment Bonds: This alternate was included to understand
the cost of bonding the project; this also helps the Town understand the
bonding companies' perspective of the contractor from a performance and
payment liability standpoint. This alternative is recommended for award.
2. Accelerated Schedule: This alternative was included to understand the
additional cost that might be incurred to meet the Town's ideal construction
schedule milestones.
a. Southeast Lionshead parking Structure stairs and lower access tunnel
open from June 30 — September 6th
b. Elevators open to the public by November 15 2011
c. All First Floor work completed by November 15 2011
d. Building completion by December 15 2011
This alternative has no costs associated with it and is recommended for
award.
3. Access Plan: This alternative was included to allow the contractor to provide
alternative means of construction to meet the Town's restrictive staging and
access plan requirements other than that presented to the contractor. This
alternate has no cost associated with it and is recommended for award.
4. Federal Transit Authority (FTA) Requirements: This alternative was included
to understand the additional costs that would be incurred by the Town in
order to comply to the FTA requirements, most notably the Davis Bacon
Wage Act. This alternate is not recommended for award as it will cost more
to be FTA compliant than the FTA funding remaining in the Town's 5309
grant. (See below for detail)
5. Fire Upgrades: This alternative was provided to separate out the costs of
upgrading the Lionshead Parking Structure fire suppression standpipe
system. This alternative is recommended for award.
6. Photovoltaic Cells on Roof: This alternative was provided to understand the
additional cost to add photo cells on the roof of the project. The pay back for
this alternate in utility savings is 25 years as bid, with the help of potential
grant funding the payback is expected to reduce to 16 years. This is a very
visible display of solar technology and complies with the Towns goal of being
stewards of the environment. Staff believes this should be reassessed with
the environmental projects to be presented to Council later this month. This
alternative is not recommended for award at this time.
7. Light Fixture: This alternative was provided to understand the additional
costs to install LED fixtures in the passenger drop -off drive aisle instead of
matching the existing parking structure fixtures. This alternative is
recommended for award.
8. Corten: This alternative was provided to understand the cost add or cost
savings if a traditional corten fabrication system was installed instead of the
specialized system that is included in the base bid. Though the base bid
specialized corten system may provide an enhanced aesthetic appeal and
will be more resistant to runoff staining, staff believes it is in the best interest
of the Town to realize the alternate savings. The alternate corten system will
weather differently and will show rust staining from water run -off as typical
with weathered steel. This alternative is recommended for award.
9. General Conditions: This alternative was provided to understand the
additional costs that might be incurred if the project were to be extended
beyond the anticipated construction schedule due to no fault of the
contractor. This alternative is not recommended for award but will be the
basis for future General Conditions cost if needed.
4/5/2011
6 -1 -4
10. Overhead: This alternative was provided to understand the expected
overhead on any additional changes that are due to no fault of the contractor.
This alternative is not recommended for award but will be the basis for future
Overhead costs if necessary.
IV. FTA Considerations
The Lionshead Transit Center Project, as a whole, Phase I and II, were allocated
approximately $5.0 million from a Federal Transit Authority 5309 grant. The grant
requires a minimum 80/20 split in order to receive the funds, as well as compliance
to federal rules and regulations. In order to make full use of the FTA funding of $5.0
million, the town is required to spend a minimum of $1.25 million, over and above the
FTA funds, for a total of $6.25 million.
Phase I of the Lionshead Transit Center Project, anticipated to be completed on
June 30` 2011, is expected cost approximately $6 million dollars all inclusive
(Design, Construction, Management, etc ). Since 96% of the required expenditure
will be met by the Phase I project alone, only about $200k to $250k will be available
for use by Phase II.
The most costly FTA requirement for this project is the Davis Bacon Wage Act, in
which a minimum wage must be paid to all employees of the General Contractor and
the sub - contractors, these prevailing wages are determined and provided by the
Federal government on a periodic basis. In this particular project the cost of meeting
these requirements ranged from —$313k to — $668k, with the recommended
contractor coming in at $312,906.
The Town staff is recommending not to use the remaining FTA funding for the
LHTWC, Phase II Improvements. This will save the Town from paying —$313k for
the $200k to $250k remaining of the grant, and will relieve the project of the burden
of FTA compliance and auditing.
By forgoing the remaining grant funding for this project, we are eligible to use the
remaining $200k to $250k of funding for the purchase of Town buses. We currently
have $2 million budgeted for the purchase of buses, by using the remaining grant
funds for the buses the Town will save $200k to $250k in the Capital Fund. However
this will require the VRA /TIFF to make up that same shortfall in the LHTWC project
budget.
V. Project Budget
In order to stay within the Lionshead Transit Center Project overall budget the
total budgeted construction costs for Phase II was $6.46 million.
Construction (Bid +VE) $5,910,000
Construction (Owner provided) $ 302,000
AIPP, Lighting, Signage, Security Cameras,
Utility Service Connections, BP Fees,
Site Furnishes, Building FF &E
Construction Administration /Inspection /Testing $ 120,000
Construction Contingency $ 325,000
Total: $6,657,000
Budget shortfall: $ 197,000
4/5/2011
6 -1 -5
Staff proposes the following to make up the shortfall;
Since the TIFF bonding was approved last Fall, which included funding for the
Lionshead Transit Center Project (Phases I, II, III), the Lionshead Surface
Parking Expansion, and the Library Remodel, the Town has developed three
potential parking lot expansion conceptual layouts, all of which can be
constructed for under $650k, well within the —$962k budget. Staff recommends
transferring $197k of this budget to the Lionshead Transit Center project budget
to make up for the shortfall. This transfer will allow each project to be completed
as scheduled.
Also, the budget assumed the full use of the FTA grant of $5 million for this
project. By forgoing the grant funding for this project, we are able to use the
remaining grant funds towards the purchase of new buses which will save $200k
to $250k in the Capital Fund, as described above. However this will require the
VRA /TIFF to make up that shortfall of $200k to $250k in the LHTWC project
budget due to the grant fund transfer.
By implementing both of these budgetary strategies, the project can be awarded
within budget, and maintain its current construction schedule.
VI. Local Contractors
Each General Contractor has significant recent local experience within Vail and each
have provided the following breakdown of fees that will be provided by local
subcontractors. The fees have been broken out by percent of contract dollars, and
by local sub - contractors, and percent of workers that reside in local Counties. For
the purposes of these discussions we have provided the breakdown of those sub-
contractors and workers who are within Eagle County.
GC and Sub - Contractors in Eagle County
RA Nelson 82%
Weitz 60%
GC and Sub - Contractor's workers residing in Eagle County
RA Nelson 85%
Weitz 76%
VII. Additional Scope
After final design and final approvals from DRB and PEC, the under stair storage
area become a very desirable space for multiple functions. The original design
assumed this area was cold storage and mechanical space. This underutilized
1200 SF area of cold storage has the possibility of changing into useable and
habitable space by adding finishes, mechanical, electrical and plumbing fixtures,
thus a very economical way to gain space in a critical area. The request is to
moderately finish this space, for retail storage /BOH, an IT room, VRD/Town
storage, and most significantly a possible location for a future Ambassador Host
Locker room and bathroom. The total increased cost of this space has been
estimated at $100,000 or roughly $83 per square foot. Moving forward with this
recommendation would require an additional budget increase over and above the
requested budget above. A plan view of the potential finished space is attached
for reference.
4/5/2011
6 -1 -6
VIII. Operation and Maintenance
Once constructed, it is estimated that the net new Operation and Maintenance
costs, including utilities, janitorial services, general maintenance, and snowmelt,
will be in the range of $55,000 to $65,000 per year. These numbers will be
adjusted once operations begin.
Snowmelt Costs: $20,000
Utility /Janitorial /Maintenance $40,000
These costs have been anticipated and will be budgeted for in the 2012 and
future years budgets. Operating costs from project completion to the end of 2011
will be minimum and have been included in the 2011 budget.
There are possible cost savings to the operations and maintenance, if the town
decides to be reimbursed for utilities and maintenance by tenant users. A
volume discount for elevator maintenance may also be available.
IX. Staff Recommendation
Town Staff recommends awarding the project to R.A. Nelson, with Alternates 1,
2, 3, 5, 7 and 8, excluding alternates 4, 6, 9, and 10, and directing the Town
Manager to enter into a contract with R.A. Nelson, in a form as approved by the
Town Attorney, for a total contract amount not to exceed $5,910,000.00; and
approve an increase in the Lionshead Transit Center Project budget in the
amount of $197,000; and approve the finishing of the space under the stairs as
described above, increasing the Lionshead Transit Center Project budget by an
additional $100,000 for a total of $297,000.
X. Attachments
Please find attached these additional documents for your review and
understanding:
• Bid Summary & Value Engineering Summary
• Additional Space Exhibit
4/5/2011
6 -1 -7
TOV Lionshead Transit Welcome Center updated on March 30, 2011
Bid D - Summary Printed on 3/31/2011 at 11:32 AM
FCI MW Golden PCL RA Nelson Weitz White
Base Bid $ 6,837,000.00 $ 6,816,136.00 $ 7,160,905.00 $ 6,650,777.00 $ 6,606,000.00 $ 6,877,000.00
Alternate p1 Bonds $ 43,250.00 $ 73,861.00 $ 55,000.00 $ 66,050.00 $ 52,300.00 $ 65,900.00
Alternate p2 Accelerated $ 180,500.00 $ 120,191.00 $ 109,378.00 $ - $ - $ -
Alternate p3 Access Plan $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - No Bid
Alternate p4 FTA $ 668,832.00 $ 471,468.00 $ 444,606.00 $ 312,906.00 $ 358,232.00 $ 387,500.00
Alternate p5 Fire Alarm $ 22,454.00 $ 21,383.00 $ 32,691.00 $ 36,032.00 $ 21,000.00 $ 21,600.00
Alternate p6 Photovoltaic $ 31,894.00 $ 30,373.00 $ 31,309.00 $ 28,470.00 $ 29,700.00 $ 30,700.00
Alternate p7 Light Fixture $ 1,810.00 $ 1,723.00 $ 1,776.00 $ 1,775.00 $ 1,200.00 $ 1,740.00
Alternate p8 Corten $ (375,000.00) $ (341,738.00) $ (320,000.00) $ (325,000.00) $ (409,050.00) No Bid
Alternate p9 General Conditions $ 7,993.00 $ 9,149.00 $ 11,195.00 $ 20,945.00 $ 9,620.00 $ 9,700.00
Alternate #10 Overhead (As submitted) $ 10,932.00 $ 134,302.00 $ 138,439.00 $ 137,800.00 $ 136,500.00 $ 135,600.00
Clarifications Yes None Major Minor Minor None
Contract Comments Yes None Yes None None None
Schedule Dates April 25 - Dec 12 April 25 - Feb 6 April 25 - March 12 1 May 2 -Dec 6 May 2 - Dec 15 April 25 - Dec 15
Calendar Days 230 1 329 1 323 1 212 1 230 230
Total 1 $ 7,429,665.00 $ 7,336,848.00 $ 7,665,299.00 $ 6,929,755.00 $ 6,805,502.00 $ 7,529,740.00
Total w/ Recommended Alternates 1,2,3,5,7, & 8 $ 6,710,014.00 $ 6,691,556.00 $ 7,039,750.00 $ 6,429,634.00 $ 6,271,450.00 $ 6,966,240.00
Value Engineering Summary
Town of Vail Developed $ (133,028.00) $ (56,418.00)
Contractor Developed & Comment Responses 1 1 $ (372,674.00) $ (124,354.00)
Total Recommeded VE 1 1 $ (505,702.00) $ (180,772.00)
Tennant Finish Costs 1 $ (13,878.00) $ (6,050.00)
Total Bid w/ Recommended Alternates and VE 1 $ 5,910,054.00 1 $ 6,084,628.00
S\11111, wo, IAe ae1 a \aa o,r�\w,�P�111.1ntia1o�\ald P ,.e�a,d,\ 4/5/2011
w,w�aummarv+raN Page 1 of 1
6 -1 -8
A
3
2.1 2.2
-
A.5
ROOM
\ /
,HOST SKI STORAGE 129 �
° 123
B ® / I I
�a� HALL /
32 /
H.S. RESTROOM
131 ® /
1
c / /�. — - - - - - --
E/STORAGE
127 — — — — — — — — —
WATERgNTRY
STORAGE 121 STORAGE INFO CENTE
103
� ELEV MECH ROOM
/ \
122 \ STORAGE
ST
/ AI
/ ELEV. 02 AIR2
ELEV. 01 • / ��
10� /
e� I
o
UP
VESTIBULE /
°
UP 101
i \ U
�
Cl 2 6 ' `'
/ LANDSCAPE AND HARDSCAPE