Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-09-06 Agenda and Support Documentation Town Council Evening Session VAIL TOWN COUNCIL EVENING SESSION AGENDA TOM OF 'A VAIL TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, CO 81657 6:00 P.M., SEPTEMBER 6, 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 August 2 and August 16, 2011 meeting minutes; 2) EHU Release - Gardner; 3) EHU Exchange - 2 Proposed Exchanges; and 4) Resolution No. 16, Series of 2011 (5 min.) 3. ITEM /TOPIC: Town Manager Report: 1) Revenue Highlights; and 2) EGE Air Allliance Statistics (15 min.) PRESENTER(S): Various 4. ITEM /TOPIC: An appeal, pursuant to Section 12 -3 -3, Appeals, Vail Town Code, of the Town of Vail Design Review Board's denial of a design review application, to allow for landscaping changes adjacent to the Covered Bridge, located at 246 East Meadow Drive (Slifer Square) /Tract I, Block 5E, Vail Village Filing 1 and Bridge Street right -of -way, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (DRB110301) (25 min.) PRESENTER(S): Warren Campbell ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Pursuant to Section 12 -3 -3, Appeals, Vail Town Code, the Vail Town Council shall uphold, uphold with modifications, or overturn the Design Review Board's August 3, 2011, decision. BACKGROUND: On August 3, 2011 the Design Review Board unanimously denied a request to make landscaping changes on the north side of the Covered Bridge. The proposed landscaping changes were to facilitate a view of the iconic Gorsuch clock tower located within view corridor 1. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Design Review Board recommends that the Town Council upholds its August 3, 2011 decision regarding DRB110301, pursuant to the findings in the memradum. 9/6/2011 5. ITEM /TOPIC: Resolution No. 17, Series of 2011, A Resolution Approving the Employment of Rothgerber Johnson & Lyons LLP as Special Counsel; and Delegating Certain Powers to Council Member Margaret Rogers in Connection Therewith. (15 min.) PRESENTER(S): Matt Mire ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Approve, amend or deny Resolution No. 17, Series of 2011. BACKGROUND: The Town of Vail (the "Town ") is proposing to engage Rothgerber Johnson & Lyons LLP to serve as special counsel to represent the Town solely in connection with the Town's claims against various on -line travel companies (the "OTCs ") arising out of the OTC's sale of temporary, overnight lodging within the Town and subsequent failure to pay lodging tax and sales tax to the Town required by law. The special counsel engagement is limited to performance of services rfelated to this matter, including representing the Town in a pending lawsuit against the OTCs. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve, amend or deny Resolution No. 17, Series of 2011. 6. ITEM /TOPIC: Lionshead Welcome Center Update. (45 min.) PRESENTER(S): Tom Kassmel and Suzanne Silverthorn ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: The Town Council is being asked to review the conceptual programming and budget for the Lionshead Welcome Center as well as associated costs to reprogram the building and to direct staff to proceed accordingly to maintain the construction schedule for completion on December 15, 2011. BACKGROUND: Construction of the Lionshead Welcome Center has been underway by R.A. Nelson since April 27, 2011. The 10,600 square feet building was designed by 4240 Architecture and includes programming on the ground level for a new visitor information center, a transit waiting area, public restrooms and ski lockers, plus Vail Recreation District youth services programs on the second floor and a community gathering area on the building's top floor. Space for food and beverage service was originally included in the design. However, staff has subsequently been directed to remove the food and beverage service aspect from the facility. This enabled a reprogramming of the interior space which has necessitated change orders. Additionally, Phase 1 of the Guest Service Enhancement Program has been underway since May 2011 and has included completion of conceptual programming for the Welcome Center as well as an assessment of the town's signage /wayfinding system for vehicles and pedestrians. Estimated costs for implementation have been prepared for review and direction by the Town Council. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Town Council is being asked to review the conceptual programming and budget for the Lionshead Welcome Center as well as associated costs to reprogram the building and to direct staff to proceed accordingly to maintain the construction schedule for completion on December 15, 2011. 9/6/2011 7. ITEM /TOPIC: Lionshead Transit Center Phase III - Lionshead East Mall Plaza and Concert Hall Plaza Streetscape Projects; selection of preferred design concept. Please refer to attached memorandum for the remainder of the information. (30 min.) PRESENTER(S): Tom Kassmel and Mary Hart ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Select preferred design concept. BACKGROUND: See memorandum. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: See memorandum. 8. ITEM /TOPIC: Adjournment (8:30 p.m.) 9/6/2011 TOW& OF . 1� �l VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: September 6, 2011 ITEM /TOPIC: Consent Agenda: 1) Approval of August 2 and August 16, 2011 meeting minutes; 2) EHU Release - Gardner; 3) EHU Exchange - 2 Proposed Exchanges; and 4) Resolution No. 16, Series of 2011 ATTACHMENTS: August 2, 2011 Toun Council Minutes August 16, 2011 Town Council Minutes EHU Release Request - Gardner EHU Exchange Request Resolution No. 16, Series of 2011 9/6/2011 Vail Town Council Meeting Minutes Tuesday, August 2, 2011 4:00 P.M. Vail Town Council Chambers The regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was called to order at approximately 4:00 P.M. by Mayor Dick Cleveland. Members present: Dick Cleveland, Mayor Andy Daly Kerry Donovan Kim Newbury Margaret Rogers Susie Tjossem Kevin Foley Staff members: Stan Zemler, Town Manager Matt Mire, Town Attorney Pam Brandmeyer, Assistant Town Manager The first item on the agenda was the Consent Agenda. Each item was discussed and passed separately. The consent agenda included: 1) Approval of the July 5 and 19, Council meeting minutes; Foley made a motion to approve with minor corrections; and the motion was seconded by Newbury. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7 -0. 2) Approval of Resolution No. 13, Series of 2011 A Resolution Approving an Intergovernmental Agreement between the Town of Vail and the Eagle River Water and Sanitation District. Daly felt in section three of the resolution, the base rate being increased annually at 3% should be removed. Cleveland stated the town should be treated equal to every other customer the district has. Thus, language on pages three and four will be removed. Left in place will be the final sentence in section four, which reads, "The Raw Water Use Fee shall not be charged during such times as the Town is using domestic water for irrigation purposes, in which case the Town shall be charged pursuant to the District's treated domestic water rates." Also, under Section 8, Failure to Deliver Operations, Cleveland noted there was no incentive on the District's side to fix a problem. Daly said due to some failure on their part, the District should sell treated water at the irrigation rate. The tiered rate is always lower than the irrigation rate. Staff was instructed to Town Council Meeting Minutes of August 2, 2011 Page 1 9/6/2011 2 -1 -1 negotiate the base rate under Section 3. Daly moved to approve Resolution 13 with the amendments and the motion was seconded by Foley. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7 -0. 3) Approval of Resolution No. 14, Series of 2011 A Resolution to Ratify the Amended Articles of Association of the Northwest Colorado Council of Governments (NWCCOG). Newbury moved to approve Resolution No. 14, and the motion was seconded by Donovan. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7 -0. 4) #7 Hole Electric Line Burial. Daly noted because this was a comprehensive bidding process with six contractors bidding, he was comfortable directing the Town Manager to sign the contract with Icon, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $127,572.25 and the motion was seconded by Donovan. Rogers was concerned there was too much of a variance between high and low bidders. Chad Salli, with Public Works, explained this was a different methodology as this was a unit price project, not a guaranteed price. Salli also noted this contractor had "set the standard" with the South Frontage Road project. Rogers still stated she would like to hear how the stream crossing and mobilization comes out. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7 -0. 5) 2011 Street Maintenance Project, Crack Sealing. Daly noted four companies had bid the project. The question was asked if there was local participation. Salli replied in the past eight years no local companies had bid this type of project. Daly moved to direct the Town Manager to enter into a contract with Superior, and the motion was seconded by Newbury. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7 -0. 6) The last consent agenda item was the Employee Housing Unit (EHU) Exchange Requests. Nina Timm, Housing Coordinator, explained two EHU Exchange requests to release deed restrictions for pay -in -lieu were before the Council. Timm stated Council was achieving what they'd set out to do and that both of these homes were required to have the EHU occupied. Rogers moved to direct the Town Manager to enter into these agreements, and the motion was seconded by Newbury. It was noted the funds of $240,650 for the release of each restriction would go into a dedicated housing fund, which could then be used to "buy down" a unit and put a deed restriction on it, a more efficient use of resources. Town Council Meeting Minutes of August 2, 2011 Page 2 9/6/2011 2 -1 -2 A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7 -0. Rogers motion followed the recommended language in the August 2, 2011, staff memorandum. Foley offered the Council's condolences to the Elliott family. The second item on the agenda was the Town Manager Report. Kathleen Halloran, Budget Manager, reviewed the revenue highlights with the Council. She stated upon receipt of all sales tax returns, June collections are estimated to be $891,791 up 2.1% from last year and 12.5% up compared to budget. Year to date collections of $11.3 million are up 9.8% from prior year. The year to date and full year budgets have been amended by $900,000 to reflect additional collections earlier in the year. Year to date revenue is up 11.5% from the original budget and up 2.6% from the amended budget. Inflation as measured by the consumer price index was up 3.6% in June. The Use tax collections as of July 26, 2011 total $403,260 compared with $616,163 at this time last year, down 35 %. The annual budget of $500,000 projected a decrease of 55 %. She also said the Real Estate Transfer Tax (RETT) collections through July 26, total $2,432,738, down 29% from this time last year. Annual budgeted revenue of $4.7 million is a 32% decrease from 2010 collections. Approximately $1,100,430 or 45% is from major redevelopment projects including Arrabelle, Four Seasons, Landmark, Manor Vail, Mountain View, Ritz Carlton Residences, Solaris, and The Sebastian. Collections not related to major redevelopment projects currently total $1,332,308, down 21.4% from this time last year. In summary, across all funds and revenue accounts through July 31, 2011, total revenue of $38.8 million is up 1.5% from budget and down 4.9% or approximately $2.0 million from this time last year, mainly due to a decrease in RETT collections ($1 million), the sale of the Arosa Drive duplex last year ($900K) and a decrease in Use Tax collections ($212K). The town has currently received 68% of the total budgeted revenues for the year. The third item on the agenda was an update on the Gore Creek stream tract encroachments. Rachel Dimond, Planner, stated the staff would like direction from Council on next steps for removal of the stream tract encroachments. She said on October 6, 2009, Council adopted a "zero tolerance" policy for allowing private encroachments on town -owned stream tract lands constructed without approval and instructed staff to pursue removal of all encroachments. The town acquired stream tract properties along Gore Creek and its tributaries over time to protect the natural riparian areas and to protect wildlife habitat. Town Council Meeting Minutes of August 2, 2011 Page 3 9/6/2011 2 -1 -3 She stated most the private encroachments onto town -owned stream tracts negatively impact the community due to sensitive riparian areas having become destabilized and damaged, public access for recreation is limited as public property appears private, the privatization of the stream tracts has effectively taken property from the public, water quality has been reduced due to elimination of riparian plants and habitat, development has occurred within the floodplain, which can have negative impacts on the flood plain and adjacent properties and wildlife habitat, food and breeding grounds have been threatened. She said most of the encroachments will get resolved this year and staff understood Council direction was to cite those that are noncompliant with "criminal trespass." She said 43 property owners were sent letters by staff in April 2011. Of these properties: 4 completely resolved encroachments; 1 property received Town Council approval to have the Town of Vail remove encroachments; 26 properties have agreed to remove encroachments; 3 properties have impending site visits to discuss resolution; 8 properties have received letters according to certified return receipts but have not contacted the Town to resolve the issues; and 1 property refuses to accept the certified letter sent to him. Dimond also said staff will send an additional certified letter to each property owner that has not responded in order to provide another opportunity for owners to remove illegal encroachments. Property owners will have three business days to respond. Daly noted the town cannot afford further degradation of riparian zones, based on a recent Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (ERW&SD) report Council heard in the afternoon, and as well, this could endanger the gold medal status of Gore Creek. Rogers encouraged staff to work closely with Town Attorney Mire on the process. Foley asked staff to keep up the positive public relations because this is for the good of the town. The next item on the agenda was item number four, a discussion on Comcast services. This item was moved to a later time as the Comcast representative had not yet arrived. The Council heard the ninth, now fourth, item on the agenda, which was an Emergency Ordinance No. 17, Series of 2011, an ordinance to approve the general planning document for the 2011 USA Pro Cycling Challenge, to allow for temporary amendments to the Town's fire lanes, no parking areas, pedestrian zones and outdoor display and sign regulations to facilitate the 2011 USA Pro Cycling Challenge, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Rachel Dimond, Planner, stated the USA Pro Cycling Challenge is expected to be the largest spectator event in Colorado history and one of the largest sporting events to ever take place in the United States. For seven consecutive days, 128 of the world's top Town Council Meeting Minutes of August 2, 2011 Page 4 9/6/2011 2 -1 -4 athletes will race across nearly 600 miles through the majestic Rockies, reaching higher altitudes than they've ever had to endure, more than two miles in elevation. It's the best of the best in professional cycling, competing on a challenging course through some of America's most beautiful scenery, including cities such as Aspen, Vail, Breckenridge and Steamboat Springs. As the interest in professional cycling continues to grow as a global sport (which is evident by the addition of two new UCI- sanctioned races this year alone in Beijing and Quebec) it is fitting that the USA Pro Cycling Challenge comes along just in time to put a stake in the ground for the United States. The USA Pro Cycling Challenge is expected to be one of the biggest and best races worldwide, America's answer to the Tour de France. The inaugural USA Pro Cycling Challenge will take place August 22 -28, 2011. With more than one million spectators and viewers expected for the event, as well as national television exposure on NBC and the cable network VERSUS, the USA Pro Cycling Challenge will be the race to celebrate in America. Spectators of this race will see Olympians, World Champions and some Tour de France competitors. Fans worldwide will have access to the competition and riders like never before with the most advanced, interactive online, smartphone and broadcast television experience presented to date in professional cycling. The 2011 USA Pro Cycling Challenge will hold a time trial in Vail on August 25, 2011. The proposed suspension of regulations would help facilitate this world class event, and would be effective from Wednesday, August 24, 2011, through Thursday, August 25, 2011. The regulations will be effective for the racecourse area, which runs through Vail Village and follows the Frontage Road and Bighorn Road to the cul -de -sac on the Vail Pass recreation path. Staff recommends the Vail Town Council approve Emergency Ordinance No. 17, Series of 2011. Donovan was concerned with Section 8, Loading and Delivery and that the delivery restrictions might be too onerous. Council directed staff to work with Medalist and the Vail Valley Foundation to provide additional accessibility. Community Development Director George Ruther noted Mountain Plaza would be completely accessible. Daly moved to approve emergency Ordinance No. 17, for this one -time reading, and the motion was seconded by Foley. Foley encouraged staff to get the word out on any inconveniences the community might encounter during the event. Rogers suggested a map with the route be posted at the upcoming Community Picnic at Bighorn Park on Tuesday, August 9 A motion was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7 -0. At this time, Mike Trueblood with Comcast arrived, so Council moved back to the scheduled item number four, which is now: The fifth item on the agenda was an update from Comcast on products and services. Mike Trueblood, local Comcast representative, introduced himself and noted he was familiar with the area, having been a resident from 2004 to 2006. He asked to be considered the point of contact and that he was concerned with timely, effective Town Council Meeting Minutes of August 2, 2011 Page 5 9/6/2011 2 -1 -5 service. He added Comcast had cleared the audit items; had conducted 165 repairs; done numerous inspections; identified 65 units for repair in the town's right -of -way; the company will track repairs and keep the town apprised; Comcast has brought in incremental personnel from Denver; and will launch an additional 70 -75 channels in late October. He stated there are approximately 2,000 customers in Vail with no digital device. When these improvements are completed, the town will have project parity. Trueblood committed to more frequent updates to Council and to be responsive where Comcast has issues. He stated there will be notable increases in high speed data. Rogers asked as Comcast transitioned, if analog would still be able to get those channels. Trueblood stated a user must have the digital device. Comcast will staff up for Thanksgiving, recognizing that is the traditional start of the ski season and that they would respond as quickly as they can. He stated their goal for "same day for trouble calls" was 80 -85 %. Their current response time has been closer to 36 hours, which he intends to correct. Three days is totally unacceptable. Tjossem confirmed every TV in a home must have the digital device. Newbury asked how many digital devices were available. Trueblood responded a thousand are warehoused in Silverthorn and daily shipments will be made. Cleveland confirmed there is no charge for up to three devices. Trueblood indicated Vail would be a good fit as a "pioneer market" in the mile - high region (Colorado and New Mexico) and Vail could certainly qualify as a trial market. Mire indicated the next step would be to bring the compliance agreement to an executive session, followed by an evening public discussion. Trueblood ended by saying Comcast has to do a better job. A dinner break was taken at 5:00 p.m. The meeting resumed at 6:00 p.m. The sixth item on the agenda was Citizen Participation. There was no citizen's participation. Foley stated Tito Montoya, who was a long time employee of the Town of Vail, passed away this week. Council extended their condolences to the family. The seventh item on the agenda was a review of the proposed draft of Resolution No. 12, Series 2011, a resolution submitting a ballot question to the registered electors of the Town of Vail at the November 8, 2011, regular town election regarding the use of certain lodging tax and sales tax revenues, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Matt Mire, Town Attorney, reviewed the proposed language presented in an attached draft resolution which will be presented for Council adoption at the Council meeting on August 16, 2011. Mire stated on July 19th, Council was presented with the results of a poll of registered voters conducted by Public Opinion Strategies to determine voter's reaction to proposed ballot language for use of funds originally collected for a conference center. A resolution adopted by the Council is required to place a question on the November 8, 2011; ballot. The resolution set forth the reasons for submitting a ballot question and set the draft Town Council Meeting Minutes of August 2, 2011 Page 6 9/6/2011 2 -1 -6 ballot language identical to that which was tested in the poll. A draft resolution is presented for discussion so that any changes and /or additions requested by Council may be incorporated prior to proposed adoption of the resolution on August 16. Cleveland read the following ballot language into the record. "Ballot Question No. 1 Without increasing taxes, shall the Town of Vail use the remainder of the one and one - half percent lodging tax revenues and one -half percent sales tax revenues collected from January 1, 2003, through December 31, 2005, to fund the following projects that will promote recreation, promote tourism and support the economy in the Town of Vail: Renovation of the clubhouse at the Vail Golf Course and Nordic Center, including a new pavilion; Field expansion and restroom renovation at the Ford Park Sports Complex; and Ford Park Amphitheater improvements, including outdoor seating and restroom improvements ?" Donovan stated this was the wording used in the polling survey. Rogers said there are a number of people who are confused about the new pavilion. Daly suggested saying community space instead of a new pavilion. Camp suggested the wording be community pavilion and extended deck. Newbury said to use expanding and improving the clubhouse including a community space. Newbury said they should have more information to clarify that additional funding would be need to be provided toward these projects because the current wording suggests the funds will completely provide for these projects and the town needs partners. Zemler suggested whoever is in charge should do the education of this. Zemler said they need to make sure there is an aspect of the language that states the new community space is to serve the community. Gretchen Busse, resident, stated she has lived on Sunburst Drive for many years. She said she was told the pavilion would be 6,000 square feet and didn't think that was appropriate as this is in a residential area. She is concerned as there are a lot of bicyclists that ride on Sunburst Drive and she is concerned about adequate parking as are some of her neighbors. Cleveland said the information she got was incorrect. The pavilion will be built in the footprint of the existing golf course club house. She wants more information on how big of a pavilion they are trying to build and where the parking will be. Daly said there will be more parking available and the pavilion would be in part of the club house building footprint. Daly suggested she contact Mike Ortiz and get the neighbors together to discuss this project in further detail. Joe Hanlon, with the Vail Recreation District (VRD), said they will be reaching out to the neighbors of the area and go through the plans and educate people on what this project looks like. Jim Lamont, Vail Homeowners Association, said they have concerns at Ford Park Town Council Meeting Minutes of August 2, 2011 Page 7 9/6/2011 2 -1 -7 on traffic flow, parking, and turn arounds, etc. He said they need to finalize some of these details and narrow down the scope prior to the election. Rogers made a motion to direct the town attorney to amend the ballot language and bring the resolution back to the next meeting and the motion was seconded by Newbury. Foley stated Zemler was going to make sure the town had buy -in from the partners involved. Hanlon said they are planning on getting everyone on board at the next VRD meeting. Ceil Folz, President of the Vail Valley Foundation (WF), stated the WF is willing to be a partner in funding the amphitheater project. Folz said the express buses and parking at Ford Park is working well this summer. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7 -0. The eighth item on the agenda was a review of the concepts for the East Lionshead Mall Plaza and Concert Hall Plaza. Tom Kassmel, Public Works, asked the Council for comments and to provide direction to proceed through the town's Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) and Design Review Board (DRB) entitlement process with one alternative for each project site so they can start the projects next year. He stated on May 17 Council awarded the design contract for the Lionshead Transit Center Phase III - Lionshead East Mall Plaza and Concert Hall Plaza Streetscape Projects to the Mary Hart Design Team. The Lionshead East Mall Plaza and Concert Hall Plaza Streetscape Projects are the third phase of the Lionshead Transit Center redevelopment and are funded by the Vail Reinvestment Authority (VRA) through Tax Increment Financing (TIF) dollars. The two projects complete the link between the Lionshead Transit Center, the redeveloped Lionshead Mall commercial core and the hotels and lodges of West Lionshead. Staff and the design team will present options for both the East Lionshead Mall Plaza and Concert Hall Plaza. Kassmel reviewed the past two years process for the East Lionshead Mall area. The outcome was to funnel the pedestrian traffic to one area. Staff and the design team over -layed the Slifer Square plans over this site and it fit quite well and revised it from there. Concert Hall Plaza concepts were reduced to beautifying this area. The total cost for both projects is $2.825 million; the cost is $2.075 million for East Lionshead Plaza, which includes design, management, testing, materials, owner construction costs, and owner contingency for $500,0000 for East Lionshead Plaza and $1.575 million for construction costs; and for Concert Hall Plaza the cost is approximately, $750,000. The design, management, testing, materials, owner construction costs, and owner contingency are $241,000 and $509,000 for construction costs. Town Council Meeting Minutes of August 2, 2011 Page 8 9/6/2011 2 -1 -8 Mary Hart, with Hart Design, went through their process over the past few months, including defining the program elements and understanding the town's goals for each project. She went through the options for each site as well as the preferred option. Sybil) Navas, special event coordinator, stated she was able to review the plans and goals for this area. She said the Lionshead community wants more events in that area. She said the Arrabelle liquor license precludes more events in this area and limits the mall area for having events as it is a long and narrow space. She said an additional $25,000 would have to be added for electrical service, and $40,000 for a canopy and deck to add in this area for buskers or other events including music. Hart said there is an idea to use the bus shelter area to accommodate a small stage and have an area for special events. Hart said there are four areas to be reviewed with feedback for each area: loading and delivery location, special events, view corridor and Lionshead Master Plan. Special event liquor issues between Arrabelle and the plaza were discussed. The design wasn't made for special events specifically. She said the Lionshead Master Plan states that View Corridor One requires this view corridor to be open. She showed the new bus shelter would encroach into the view corridor and asked if Council wanted to have them apply to PEC for an approval of an encroachment into the view corridor or get it out of there. She said they would have to change the master plan on the build -to lines and adjacent property owners were not in favor of the build -to lines changing in the master plan. Planners supported changing the lines to be clear on the intent. Kassmel said the budget summary for East Lionshead Plaza was $2.075 million and for Concert Hall Plaza is $750,000. The Preferred Option is $2.35 million for East Lionshead Plaza and $702,000 for preferred option for Concert Hall Plaza. With an option for snowmelt at each project there is an additional $435,000 for East Lionshead Plaza and $85,000 for snowmelt at the bus loop at Concert Hall Plaza. He discussed the pros and cons of heating both areas. Rogers asked if the Treetops Homeowners Association was on board with the East Lionshead Plaza concept plan. Hart said the owners liked having the ADA access fixed. Rogers asked if they liked it because the town would have to pay for it. Hart said that topic would need to be discussed further. Tjossem asked about matching the bus shelter with the Welcome Center. Hart said continuity was the consideration for getting them to match. Newbury said they were using these as they are all part of an integration of all the areas in Lionshead. Kit Williams representing Lazier Properties and twenty other tenants in the area, spoke to the East Lionshead Plaza concepts. They feel the walkway from the transportation center needs to be widened. The archways can stay where they are currently located. Town Council Meeting Minutes of August 2, 2011 Page 9 9/6/2011 2 -1 -9 There is an issue of a planter blocking the walkways and they want it opened up next to the ADA access archway areas. He said there needs to be more than 24 feet and they want the walkway wider. Also, get rid of the landscape and rocks and use the existing walls. The view corridor needs to be a clear shot to the bus stop. Newbury was supportive of the staff recommendation on the loading and delivery areas. The purpose was to get the delivery vehicles off the streets. There was consensus among the Council. Donovan said one of the issues and objectives was to get rid of interaction between vehicles and pedestrians. This encourages that to happen and doesn't support accommodating special events there but some tents in the area would be ok. Kassmel said the intent wat not to make it a special event area but it could accommodate additional tents and special events if Council wanted to allow it. $25,000 is the additional cost to add an electric panel for special events. Cleveland said they are overloading this area. He wants a bus shelter only and it needs to be open and simple. Daly said he doesn't want to compromise the view corridor for an event shelter. Foley said this area is not for special events and keep it an entry point. Rogers said greenspace is important because there is very little green space in Lionshead. They need to bring more nature into this area. Staff would like to get rid of the build -to lines in the Lionshead Master Plan. Newbury said she is not in favor of changing the master plan. Preferred alternatives with snowmelt was discussed. Tjossem liked it. Daly said the town did it at Solaris and Vail Village and we need to do this for Lionshead. Newbury is opposed to it for environmental reasons and Cleveland is opposed also. Rogers asked if snowmelt can be added that is more efficient. Kassmel said the geo thermal process doesn't melt the snow and doesn't make sense. Staff is recommending to snow melt the bus circle at East Lionshead Plaza and also at Concert Hall Plaza. Daly clarified that the north path would not have snowmelt. Kassmel said people coming from the north over the bridge tend to go to the west. The $85,000 heats the pedestrian paths not the bus area. There could be an option to upgrade to include the bus areas. Kassmel recapped the discussion and stated they would have loading and delivery on the east side and at Arrabelle; no additional power or costs for special events and no compromise of the view corridor. Also, there would be no changes to the Lionshead Master Plan; snow melt would be at the East Lionshead Mall bus loop and heat the sidewalk only. He also said the preferred option direction is to widen the east side entry space, simplify the bus shelter and keep some green space. This will allow an adequate area for people to transfer back and forth through the area easily. Zemler requested staff come back with this item in two weeks and to adjust the budget and plan and review it one more time, as well as have a site visit. Town Council Meeting Minutes of August 2, 2011 Page 10 9/6/2011 2 -1 -10 The ninth item on the agenda was first reading of Ordinance No. 18, Series of 2011, an ordinance rezoning the Ruder cemetery, Red Sandstone Park parking lot, and Parcel G of the Residences at Briar Patch from residential districts to open space and recreation districts. This ordinance will be reviewed concurrently with the Resolution No. 15, Series of 2011. Bill Gibson, Planner, stated on June 27, July 11 and July 25, 2011 the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) forwarded recommendations of approval for the zoning map amendments for the Ruder Cemetery, Red Sandstone Park parking lot and Parcel G of the Residences at Briar Patch. Donovan made a motion to approve first reading of Ordinance No. 18, and the motion was seconded by Rogers. A vote was taken and passed unanimously, 7 -0. Foley requested site visits before second reading at the next meeting. The tenth item on the agenda was Resolution No. 15, Series of 2011, a resolution changing the land use designation of the Ruder cemetery, Red Sandstone Park parking lot, and Parcel G of the Residences at Briar Patch from residential to open space. This resolution was reviewed concurrently with the Ordinance No. 18, Series of 2011. Bill Gibson, Planner, said on June 27, July 11 and July 25, 2011, the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) forwarded recommendations of approval for the Land Use Plan map amendments for the Ruder cemetery, Red Sandstone Park parking lot, and Parcel G of the Residences at Briar Patch. Donovan made a motion to approve Resolution No. 15, subject to second reading of Ordinance No. 18, and the motion was seconded by Rogers. A vote was taken and the motion passed 7 -0. The eleventh item on the agenda was second reading of Ordinance No. 16, Series of 2011, an Ordinance Amending Title 4 Chapter 2 of the Vail Town Code by the Addition of a New Section 4 -2 -6 Governing Special Event Liquor Permits. Matt Mire, Town Attorney said the Colorado General Assembly has adopted Senate Bill 11 -066, which takes effect August 10, 2011, and which allows local licensing authorities to assume sole authority to approve or deny applications for special event permits to serve alcohol. Ordinance No. 16 will enable the Council to elect local control over special event permitting as allowed by Senate Bill 11 -066. Foley made a motion to approve Ordinance No. 16, on second reading and the motion was seconded by Donovan. A vote was taken and the motion passed, unanimously, 7- 0. Town Council Meeting Minutes of August 2, 2011 Page 11 9/6/2011 2 -1 -11 The twelfth item on the agenda was a discussion on Ever Vail and this work session focused on addressing several questions raised at the July 19 Council public hearing which focused on responding to questions from the previous July 5 th meeting regarding the 3D model, view corridors and pedestrian connections for the proposed Ever Vail development. Warren Campbell, Chief Planner, stated this discussion wrapped up the questions and answers on the Lionshead Master Plan. He reviewed Resolution No. 6, which amends Chapters 4 and 5 of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan as was included in the memorandum dated August 2, 2011. He went into detail discussing view corridors. He also addressed questions Council raised at their July 19 meeting. There was a site visit by Council during the work session earlier in the day. Rogers stated regarding elements of the Developer Improvement Agreement (DIA), that she wanted to add a bullet point to have remedies for defaults such as landscaping. Daly said he wants the applicant to look at grade changes that allow for the smooth flow of pedestrians in this area. Cleveland said the master plan should minimize the hard scape, functional bicycle lanes and a smaller width pedestrian path. Greg Hall said they can take four feet off the bike /pedestrian path and add it to the bike lane. He said the path is closed from November 1 to end of ski season. Roger said the town has to adapt to what people do. Campbell said staff will come back with bike path and hard scape issues at the next meeting. He said in draft Resolution No. 6, the green text addresses discussions the Council has brought up in past meetings regarding the Ever Vail view corridors, parking, pedestrian and bike access and site coverage. Daly wants the parking spaces to be included in the DIA. Newbury said the stream tract should be preserved, not enhanced. Rogers said if the PEC requires more parking spaces beyond the 400 required, that needs to be addressed. She also stated at the western end of Ever Vail, she is in favor of two to three stories, not three to four stories before stepping back. Cleveland, Daly, and Foley agreed with Rogers. Tjossem disagreed. Rogers said all along the creek there should be two to three stories maximum. Newbury doesn't have a problem on how it's written now. There was an additional request to improve the wording on the legal and physical access to the Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (ERWSD) property. Mire said staff could work on the wording. Campbell said this discussion doesn't close the book on this topic. Staff recommends continuing all the ordinances and applications to the next meeting. Town Council Meeting Minutes of August 2, 2011 Page 12 9/6/2011 2 -1 -12 Jim Lamont, Vail Home Owners Association (VHOA), said what he saw was a plethora of utility lines on the site visit. Are all the lines going to be cleaned up and when will they be cleaned up. Cleveland stated this will be part of the DIA and said all the lines should be buried. Mauriello said he talked to Bill Kennedy and the power lines will be underground all the way to Cascade. Additional discussions on view corridors, landscaping and tree relocations ensued, with preservation of as many trees as possible. Jim Lamont, VHOA, said he wanted to know what happened to the issue raised regarding views over the ERWSD and preserving that view corridor. Newbury said that may be worth preserving since there is no restriction on the height in that district according to Campbell. Campbell said staff will look at this issue. Donovan made a motion to continue the public hearing on the request for the Major Subdivision, Ordinance No. 7, 8, and 9, Series of 2011, and Resolution No. 6, Series of 2011 to the August 16, 2011, public hearing and the motion was seconded by Daly. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7 -0. The thirteenth item on the agenda was adjournment. Foley made a motion to adjourn and the motion was seconded by Newbury. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7 -0. The meeting was adjourned at 9:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dick Cleveland, Mayor Attest: Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk Town Council Meeting Minutes of August 2, 2011 Page 13 9/6/2011 2 -1 -13 Vail Town Council Meeting Minutes Tuesday, August 16, 2011 6:00 P.M. Vail Town Council Chambers The regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was called to order at approximately 6:00 P.M. by Acting Mayor Pro -Tem Kevin Foley. Members present: Kevin Foley, Acting Mayor Pro -tem Andy Daly Kerry Donovan Margaret Rogers Susie Tjossem Members absent: Dick Cleveland, Mayor Kim Newbury, Mayor Pro -tem Staff members: Stan Zemler, Town Manager Matt Mire, Town Attorney Pam Brandmeyer, Assistant Town Manager Foley, Acting Mayor Pro -Tem, expressed Council's condolences to Mayor Cleveland and his family at the passing of Cleveland's father. The first item on the agenda was Citizen Participation. Mike Cacioppo said he had two items he wanted to address. First, he felt there was a need for more cell phone towers in and around Vail and on Vail Mountain. He said this is a safety issue. He said he wanted the Council to send letters to the major cell phone carriers and grant them the right to place cell phone towers where they are needed. He said there are cell towers in existence that look like trees to make them blend in with the surroundings. He said the second issue was a topic he has addressed before Council for years. He wants the Council to vote for town board vacancies verbally and not by paper ballot. He wants to know who voted for which person for each board vacancy. He claimed the Council was voting by secret ballot. Mire clarified to Council that they are not voting in secrecy and the way Council currently votes for board members is appropriate. Kailey Moore, Vail International resident, asked the Council if four or five pine trees could be planted on the east side of the Lionshead Transportation Center. Town Council Minutes for August 16, 2011 Page 1 9/6/2011 2 -2 -1 The second item on the agenda was Resolution No. 12, Series of 2011, a resolution submitting a ballot question to the registered electors of the Town of Vail at the November 8, 2011 Regular Municipal Election regarding the use of certain lodging tax and sales tax revenues, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Zemler stated the funds remained due to the conference center not being built. The pavilion is a component of the golf course renovation. He reviewed the three projects that are proposed to be renovated with the funds: the expansion and improvement of the clubhouse at the Vail Golf Course and Nordic Center, including a multi -use community space; field expansion and restroom renovation at the Ford Park Sports Complex; and Ford Amphitheater improvements, including outdoor seating and restroom improvements. Matt Mire, Town Attorney, said on August 2, 2011, Council reviewed a proposed draft of Resolution No. 12, Series of 2011, submitting a ballot question to the voters for use of funds collected through the conference center taxes from 2003 through 2005. The draft ballot language is the same as the ballot question used to poll registered voters. That language referred to a pavilion at the golf course /Nordic center, which was confusing to community members who thought there would be a separate building for the pavilion. At that time, Council directed staff to modify the language for the ballot and the Ballot Question now reads as follows: "Ballot Question No. 1 Without increasing taxes, shall the Town of Vail use the remainder of the one and one -half percent lodging tax revenues and one -half percent sales tax revenues collected from January 1, 2003 through December 31, 2005 to fund the following projects that will promote recreation, promote tourism and support the economy in the Town of Vail: Expansion and improvement of the clubhouse at the Vail Golf Course and Nordic Center, including multi -use community space; • Field expansion and restroom renovation at the Ford Park Sports Complex; • and Ford Amphitheater improvements, including outdoor seating and restroom improvements? Yes No Daly asked if the town had received letters from the partners, the Vail Recreation District (VRD) and the Vail Valley Foundation (WF), agreeing to be funding partners in these projects. Zemler stated the town does not currently have letters but at the last Town Council Minutes for August 16, 2011 Page 2 9/6/2011 2 -2 -2 council meeting the entities agreed with the concept. Daly also asked if the funds for each project would change and would those discussions take place before the election. He also requested more details on the projects be communicated to the public prior to the election. Mire said he would be coming back to the Council to address the Fair Campaign Practices Act (FCPA) requirements and campaign issues around supporting the measure. He said there will be one opportunity for the Council to support the passage of the ballot question. Daly said he didn't necessarily want to put out a document supporting the ballot question but to give the electorate more detailed information regarding the ballot question. Zemler said a detailed document is already available out for public review. Daly made a motion to approve Resolution No. 12, and the motion was seconded by Tjossem. Gretchen Busse, resident, stated she and her husband met with Mike Ortiz with the VRD. She wanted the ballot question read out loud. Daly read the question for the record. She thanked Mike Ortiz and the Council for their time in helping her to understand what is proposed at the Vail golf course. Stephen Connolly, resident, stated he doesn't think they should pass this resolution and he doesn't think the ballot question will pass. He doesn't feel these changes will put heads in beds. He heard the VRD wouldn't be operating the facility. He wanted to know who and where the money would be going to if that is the case. He wanted the town to hold onto the funds until a better idea comes along. Jim Lamont, VHOA, stated the VHOA had a board meeting and the topic of discussion was where the town was going due to the economy. He said his board members are well versed in business and economics. They want to know if the Council is providing an option to retain the $9.4 million to allow the electorate to discuss what to do with the funds at a later date. Mike Cacioppo, disagreed with Connolly. He said either spend the money or return it to the community. He said the funds have been in the town's account for way too long. He reiterated that this was not a tax increase. He said the question was how to spend the money. If you don't improve the sports fields, the town will lose some of the groups that go there and we need to keep them coming back. He said giving back a small percentage of the funds over the next ten to twenty years to the population doesn't make sense. He is in support of two of the projects and that will put heads in beds. He said the ballot question is going to pass, as it's a no brainer. Daly said the Council put together a committee to research this question for many months and they came up with these projects that will benefit the community. He said both the WF and the VRD will be helping to fund the projects will partner with the town to get these projects completed. Town Council Minutes for August 16, 2011 Page 3 9/6/2011 2 -2 -3 Rogers said she was concerned about keeping the money for a longer time period. She feels this will stimulate the economy in several ways: there would be more bang for the buck, expenditures will stimulate the economy and will be a mini - stimulus for our own economy as it will create jobs and create economic energy in town. A vote was taken and the motion passed, unanimously, 5 -0. The third item on the agenda was the Town Manager Report. Dwight Henniger, Vail Police Chief, gave a review and update on the U.S. Pro Cycling Challenge and the Divas Half Marathon (DHM) special events. He said there are about 1,200 runners registered for the Divas Half Marathon. Tjossem questioned how the Sunday Farmers Market would impact both of these events. Laurie Asmussen, event producer for the DHM, said there were recreation path closures and the event producers handed out notices to approximately 1,500 residents in town from Donovan Park to East Vail. She said there will be about four -hours of intermittent closures from 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. Signs have been up for about eight days. Jamie Gunion, representative of the VRD and a runner, said there are no road closures but intermittent delays on the recreation path. Daly asked about the road closures for the US Pro Cycling Challenge. Adam Lueck, with the VVF, stated the event is nine days away from happening in Vail. He presented a short video on the event to the Council and public. He said the eyes of the world will be on Vail for approximately all ten miles of the race in Vail. He stated this is the only original Coors classis course in the race. There will be lots of press on this event: local news, Facebook, Twitter, Versus and many other news channels. Lueck discussed closures and impacts, beginning on Wednesday, August 24, the bus route will change and the tent company will build out the tents at Solaris and the Vail Village Transportation Center top deck. Deliveries for the village should have little impact on Wednesday. However, on Thursday morning, 1,000 people will begin to set up the event in Vail Village. There are 640 rooms for tour staff alone. The build out will begin at 4 a.m. for the immediate start area at Solaris, withthe course fencing will be up at 5 a.m. This will lock the village area down. All deliveries will be suspended from 5 a.m. to 6 p.m. on Thursday, August 25. The Sitzmark and Pepi's access will be available until 10:30 a.m. on Thursday. The main closure of Vail Valley Drive out to East Vail will be from 11:30 a.m. until the last rider goes by, maybe around 4 p.m., but this will depend on the number of riders in the Time Trial. The WF will not know until the end of Wednesday how many participants there will be on Thursday. Lueck also said they plan on opening the roads as soon as they can after the last rider goes through. He said the Vail Village and Gore Creek Drive will be first priority to open and outside the village will be to open the Frontage Road. The police department crews have been communicating with most businesses in town and WF has been contacting businesses that will have high impacts due to the race. The WF has other Town Council Minutes for August 16, 2011 Page 4 9/6/2011 2 -2 -4 areas where they are distributing all information on the race: on their website, Facebook, Vail.com, Vailgov.com, in the newspaper, etc. More schedules will be distributed as Time Trial day gets closer. Tjossem asked if camping would be allowed in Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) right -of -ways. She thinks people may misinterpret that to mean Vail has camping. Lueck said camping in the East Vail proper and Bighorn area would not be allowed. Forest Service area camping is dispersed camping on Vail Pass, and is allowed. Tjossem stated one of the concerns is not being able to get buses through on the side streets of Vail. Lueck stated signage will go up on Monday, August 22, on where people can park and camp. Tjossem also asked about where the port -a -lets will be available. Lueck stated a large number of them will be stationed in Vail Village and satellite port -a -lets will be on Aspen Lane and Bighorn Road, at the camp ground gate, mid -way up Vail Pass and at the Black Lakes. Rogers asked if there would be camping by the gate going up the pass. Lueck said people can camp there but without a car. There are designated campgrounds by the Forest Service and dispersed camping on Forest Service property wherever you want on the pass. Lueck said there will be 17 team buses, 8 riders per team and a mix of pro tour (major league) continental and pro continental vehicles. Buses will be parked at Ford Park. Public safety and incident command will be located at the town offices. He stated CDOT confirmed the pot holes and millings will be gone by race time. Currently, lodging and bookings are at 2010 levels. Foley said any cyclists or folks wanting to watch the races in East Vail need to get there early. The Forest Service has had signage up at the Black Lakes since August 15, the old Highway Six is closed for the race, the Forest Service will have two officers at the top of Vail Pass and there will be another officer at the bottom past Main Gore Drive. Lueck said parking is one of the biggest issues. Special ECO buses will come from Beaver Creek to Vail. Cow bells will be handed out for those who ride the bus that day. Henninger thanked all the residents and community members for collaborating in making this event happen. Food vendors will be on the top deck of the transportation center and within a 200 foot area on Meadow Drive and little bit around the Children's Fountain. Entertainment will be on the top deck as well. A band will be on the far east side of the south deck of the transportation center, as well as a beer tent, Smash Burger and Quizno's. The rest of the food vendors will be on Meadow Drive, including La Cantina, Nickies Quickies and Moe's BBQ and others. A beer vendor will also be on Meadow drive and near the Children's Fountain. The event required two special event liquor licenses, plus the Express Lift/Mountain Plaza liquor license. The concert at Town Council Minutes for August 16, 2011 Page 5 9/6/2011 2 -2 -5 Mountain Plaza will be from 5 p.m. to 7 p.m. Council thanked the WF, Chief Henniger and all other event staff for all their hard work on this event. The fourth item on the agenda were the appointments to the Commission on Special Events (CSE) and Local Licensing Authority (LLA) One member was appointed to the CSE and one member was appointed to the LLA. Donovan made a motion to appoint Amanda Zinn to the LLA and Daly seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed, 5 -0. Cacioppo spoke again and was upset with Council for voting by paper ballot. He said they violated the Vail charter. He also asked Tjossem to recuse herself as he thought she had a conflict of interest. Tjossem said she would defer to the town attorney. Mire stated she didn't have a conflict. Rogers made a motion to appoint Joyce Gedelman -Viers to the CSE and the motion was seconded by Daly. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 5 -0. The fifth item on the agenda was a presentation on the Eagle Air Alliance Three Year Strategic Plan. Kent Myers, representing the Eagle Air Alliance and the Eagle County Airport, reviewed the draft of a three year strategic plan with the council. He reviewed the airline industry overview, including the aircraft coming into the Eagle County Airport, seasonal characteristics, targeted pledge amounts, economic impacts, visitor percentages and other aspects of the strategic plan from the power point presentation. Rogers wanted more detail on the numbers as it relates to Vail. Zemler said the numbers will be in the budget process. Myers said he could get this information to the Council within 10 days. Tjossem asked if the Eagle Air Alliance has gone to the Aspen Ski Company or Pitkin County for funding. Jim Lamont, Vail Home Owners Association, said he has seen the presentation and finds it intriguing and compelling enough to ask what other entities they will be visiting in terms of funding requests and a schedule. Myers said they would be making a request to the Town of Avon in September, Town of Gypsum in August, and Town of Eagle in the first part of September. He doesn't have a schedule for Eagle County yet. Lamont said one of the critical points is if Aspen will be contributing to the alliance. Myers said the airport operator can raise fees but it affects all tickets. He said the more important issue is time, the longer we take to make the initiative in supporting and Town Council Minutes for August 16, 2011 Page 6 9/6/2011 2 -2 -6 being the leading edge and overcoming I -70, the more critical it becomes. He said additional points of service, Washington - Dulles, San Francisco, Houston, and more international flights can bring people in to Eagle County. Rogers said she is in favor but said the Council has a responsibility to find out if there is a Return on Investment (ROI) for the community. She wants some solid data before she will vote in favor. She urged all other entities to do their homework so this can move forward rapidly and be supported by all of them. Tjossem asked about the low cost carrier. Myers said they typically want a contract for long term and fly in two to three days a week. The money needed to be raised is unrealistic. Myers stated this is the greatest resort airport in the country, where our clientele has a huge advantage. We need to leverage this through marketing. Johannes Faessler, owner of the Sonnenalp, stated he wished the community and all of Eagle County would support this project. He said Vail and the County have an extraordinary advantage with this airport. He believes they need to find a permanent funding source. Myers will submit more data for the next meeting. The sixth item on the agenda was a review of the Ever Vail project with the emphasis on introducing the major subdivision, rezoning, and special development district amendment and general phasing of the proposed Ever Vail development. These topics are intended to further the understanding of the specific applications being proposed by the applicant to establish the Ever Vail development. Campbell stated staff requested council continue the Major Subdivision, Ordinance No. 7, 8, and 9, Series of 2011, and Resolution No. 6, Series of 2011 to the September 6, 2011 public hearing. Foley asked for PEC meeting minutes. Campbell said they will provide those at next meeting. Alex Iskederian with Vail Resorts Development Company (VR), said they have a grand opening for First Chair tomorrow, August 17, at 4:30 p.m. and invited Council. Iskederian said the discussion this evening was primarily about phasing of the project. He stated they will discuss a fairly detailed phasing plan, one possible plan, which is a best guess of how this may go if it went tomorrow. VR took a look at what is important to the town: open space, employee housing, parking, etc. The owners will be in full compliance with all requirements, including through the construction phases. There are one or two exceptions and they will figure out how they will address the temporary deficiencies. The schedule will need to rely on the economy, the real estate market and current high end real estate inventory sales. He said the most likely part of the first Town Council Minutes for August 16, 2011 Page 7 9/6/2011 2 -2 -7 phase is relocating the Frontage Road. The earliest the Frontage Road would move is spring of 2013. The earliest building would begin in 2014. The owners have not received all the required approvals from CDOT. The owners have to have all the approvals and they only have two years to get it done once the approvals are received. Mauriello went through the power point on major subdivision, subdivision and rezoning of Special Development District #4. He said this size project typically has a fifteen year build -out of the project. He said part of the first phase was having the hotel component built as this was important to Council and it made it easier to comply with the requirements. The mountain operations and the maintenance buildings would need to be moved first to relocate underground. Then eighty percent of the retail spaces would be built. Phase one would take 8 1 /2 years to complete, without pause. Major concerns of Council were parking, employee housing requirements, hotel timing and office space replacement. Lionshead Mixed Use 2 (LMU2) versus Lionshead Mixed Use 1 (LMU1) difference is to allow for the heavier service of the mountain operations and maintenance facility. Jim Lamont, VHOA, said he was still confused about the gondola phasing and wanted to know if the gondola was part of the underground phasing. Iskerderian said it is not part of that phasing at this time. He said the gondola could be built and the parking supporting it would be on the west side of the property. Campbell asked the council to continue the five items. Tjossem asked how long the rest of the process for this project will take to go through Council. Campbell said hopefully this will all be done by December. He said the topics for the next meeting will be the questions from the master plan and tonight's questions. Mauriello said the Developer Improvement Agreement (DIA) is the next topic of discussion. Daly agreed that discussion of the DIA sooner than later is optimal. Daly requested this item be delayed to the September 20 council meeting as there will be a couple of Council members out for the September 6 th meeting. Donovan made a motion to continue the Major Subdivision, Ordinance No. 7, 8, and 9, Series of 2011, and Resolution No. 6, Series of 2011 to the September 20, 2011, public hearing; and the motion was seconded by Daly. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 5 -0. The seventh item on the agenda was a request by the owners of 45 Forest Road for the permanent use of the Forest Road Right of Way (ROW) for permanent structural shoring by means of soil nail anchors for remediation of existing structural components and for new foundation walls. Town Council Minutes for August 16, 2011 Page 8 9/6/2011 2 -2 -8 Tom Kassmel, introduced the general contractor for the project, David Viele, with Viele Construction. Viele introduced Mark Donaldson, architect, Tony Falhaber, project manager and Jim Wear, attorney for the project. Viele talked about the design issues of the foundation walls on this property. The existing conditions are unsightly and need repair, but they are on town property. A major portion of the house gets torn down and the renovation is comprehensive. He went through the steps on how to accomplish the removal and replacement of the current walls to shore the foundation walls. Daly asked if the wall was in the same place as the old one. Viele said yes. Tjossem asked about the two parking spaces being removed. Viele said the parking spaces were granted, not required. The owner has agreed to abandon two parking spaces. There were other options; however, this option is the best solution due to the grade issues and it wouldn't be as intrusive as others. In summary, he said the owner is willing to repair and support, in perpetuity, the foundation wall which is on town property. This design is providing a solution that is the least impactful of all the options available. Tjossem asked if there were other properties in Vail that this may happen to in the future. Kassmel said he can see a few other properties that may need this. He said there is some uniqueness to this site. Mire said there is no precedential value in approving this project. This project is unique and the removal of the parking is a significant value and town benefit, as well as the repair of the wall. Jim Wear, attorney with Sherman and Howard, recapped the public benefits: 1) stabilizes the road, 2) rebuilds the wall to a better structural condition, 3) removes the two parking spaces, 3) does not interfere with any utilities, 4) encroachments are in the existing driveway, 5) not in the road and 6) adds landscaping and improves the appearance of the neighborhood. He said this is the best solution for this project and the owners would be responsible for any damage to the road. Mire said repairing the road, if there is damage, is part of a standard agreement between the town and the owner. Staff said based on the owner's request and documentation, the staff does support the use of permanent shoring within the Town ROW. Staff recommends that at a minimum the existing retaining wall and existing foundations be allowed to be shored and remediated as proposed in order to maintain the stability of the home, driveway and road for the foreseeable future. Town Council Minutes for August 16, 2011 Page 9 9/6/2011 2 -2 -9 Foley asked Kassmel if staff was comfortable with this proposal. Kassmel said they agree with the applicant's engineering results. This is the least impactful to the town as a whole. He said this is the best practical way to move forward. Rogers didn't see a whole lot of down side in allowing them to do this as it won't be visible and gives the town the advantage in not having to shore up the road. She said just because the town hasn't granted this in the past isn't a reason to not grant it now. Rogers made a motion to approve with four conditions: 1) enter into a license agreement with the town manager which is approved by town attorney, 2)indemnify for loss or damage, 3) the two parking spaces are to be removed and 4) any repairs need to be done in perpetuity by owner. The motion was seconded by Tjossem. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 5 -0. The eighth item on the agenda was a request to authorize the town manager to enter into a contract with Icon, Inc. in the amount of $124,213 for the reinstallation of the Jesus Moroles Granite Amphitheater to the lower bench of Ford Park. Todd Oppenheimer, Public Works, requested the Council award and authorize the town manager to enter into a contract with Icon, Inc. in the amount of $124,213 for the reinstallation of the Jesus Moroles Granite Amphitheater to the lower bench of Ford Park. Daly asked about the electrical with lighted elements part of the sculpture and if the lighting would be on in the evening. Oppenheimer said it would be limited evening lighting, on a timer and will be the first permanent sculpture in Ford Park. Tjossem asked if this piece affects the overall Ford Park Master Plan. Zemler said this piece of art doesn't affect the outcome of the master plan for Ford Park. This site has been designated for AIPP for a long time. Donovan asked where temporary art will be placed if this site is taken by a permanent art sculpture. Oppenheimer said there are more places in the lower bench to have temporary art. Daly asked if this piece should be sold. Rogers said no. She stated it was a good investment for the town and it's a draw for our Mexican tourists who support this particular artist. She said this is a great place for this piece and will help revitalize Ford Park. She said Vail is very fortunate to have this piece of art in its collection. Daly made a motion to authorize the town manager to enter into a contract with Icon, Inc., in the amount of $124,213 for the reinstallation of the Jesus Moroles Granite Amphitheater and the motion was seconded by Rogers. A vote was taken and the motion passed, 4 -1, Tjossem opposed. Town Council Minutes for August 16, 2011 Page 10 9/6/2011 2 -2 -10 Jim Lamont, VHOA, said his association questions the value of the piece, the location of the piece in Ford Park and said the money could be used for other projects. The ninth item on the agenda was the contract award for the renovation of the Red Sandstone Park play area. Todd Oppenheimer, Public Works, said the renovation of the Red Sandstone Park play area is a part of the Town of Vail Playground Safety and Improvement Plan which began in 2002. As with previous play areas, staff has worked with an artist recommended by the Art in Public Places Board (AIPP) to develop a unique and artistic play area. The design has been approved by the AIPP Board and the Design Review Board and was discussed at a Council work session in May, 2011. Staff received five bids for the project. Based on the lowest bid, the work can be completed within the project budget of $464,000. Staff recommended awarding the contract to R.A. Nelson Construction in an amount not to exceed $320,475. Daly made a motion to award the contract to R.A. Nelson and to authorize the town manager enter into a contract with R.A. Nelson with an amount not to exceed $320, 475, and the motion was seconded by Tjossem. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 5 -0. Oppenheimer stated Booth Falls has a playground that needs to be repaired but staff also wants to go before Council in the future for a playground in the Lionshead commercial core area as well. The tenth item on the agenda was second reading of Ordinance No. 18, Series of 2011, an ordinance rezoning the Ruder cemetery, Red Sandstone Park parking lot and Parcel G of the Residences at Briar Patch from residential districts to open space and recreation districts. Warren Campbell, stated on June 27, July 11 and July 25, 2011 the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) forwarded recommendations of approval for the Zoning map amendments for the Ruder cemetery, Red Sandstone Park parking lot, and Parcel G of the Residences at Briar Patch. On August 2, the Council approved the first reading of Ordinance No. 18, by a vote of 7 -0 -0 and the Council also approved the associated Resolution No. 15, Series of 2011, contingent upon the adoption of the ordinance on second reading. The associated Resolution No. 15, Series of 2011, changed the Land Use Plan map designations for the three properties from residential categories to open space. Donovan made a motion to approve Ordinance No. 18 on second reading, and the motion was seconded by Rogers. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 5 -0. Town Council Minutes for August 16, 2011 Page 11 9/6/2011 2 -2 -11 The eleventh item on the agenda was adjournment. Tjossem made a motion to adjourn and the motion was seconded by Rogers. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 5 -0. The meeting was adjourned at 9:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Kevin Foley, Acting Mayor Pro -tem Attest: Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk Town Council Minutes for August 16, 2011 Page 12 9/6/2011 2 -2 -12 (°; TOWN OF VAIL' Memorandum To: Vail Town Council From: Community Development Department Date: September 6, 2011 Subject: Request to remove a Type I Employee Housing Unit deed restriction from 166 Forest Road / Lot 8, Block 7, Vail Village 1 Filing DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST The applicant, Mr. William W. Gardner, owner of Vail Village 1S Filing — Lot 8, Block 7, is requesting "that our EHU restriction be removed -i " due to the change in minimum lot size requirement from 15,000 square feet to 14,000 square feet by Ordinance No. 6, Series of 2000, on April 4, 2000 II. BACKGROUND • The property is zoned Two - Family Primary / Secondary Residential. • The lot is 0.329 -acres (14,331 square feet). • Design review approval and building permits were issued for the current residence in 1995. • The Type I employee housing unit (EHU) deed restriction for 360 square foot of floor area was executed on December 5, 1996. • The current residence received a Certificate of Occupancy for a Single Family Residence and a Type I EHU on February 2, 1997. • The deed restriction was re- recorded on September 4, 1998 due to a recording error. • Passage of Ordinance No. 6, Series of 2000 changed the minimum lot size in the Two - Family Primary / Secondary zone district from 15,000 square feet to 14,000 square feet. • Section 12 -6D -8, Density Control, Vail Town Code allows "Not more than a total of two (2) dwelling units shall be permitted on each site with only one dwelling unit permitted on existing lots less than fourteen thousand (14,000) square feet ". • Mr. Gardner purchased the subject property on April 6, 2001. III. OPTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION • Release the existing Type I EHU deed restriction o Pros • Meets the request of the property owner. • Would be allowed after Ordinance No. 6, Series of 2000. 9/6/2011 2 -3 -1 • Consistent with action taken May 17, 2011 on Lot 25, Buffehr Creek Subdivision. o Cons • Reduces the number of EHUs in Vail. • Would not have been allowed by zoning at the time the development was originally approved. • EHU would count as density. • Repeal the Type I Employee Housing Restrictive Covenant and replace it with a Type 11 Employee Housing Restrictive Covenant o Pros • Would eliminate an existing non - conformity (Type I instead of a Type II). • Maintains the number of EHUs in Vail. o Cons • Does not provide Mr. Gardner what he has requested. • Type 11 EHU counts as density. • Utilize 12 -13 -5: Employee Housing Unit Deed Restriction Exchange Program, Vail Town Code "The purpose of this Section is to provide occupied livable, affordable employee housing units within the Town of Vail through the establishment of an employee housing unit deed restriction exchange program. The exchange program allows the Town Council to release a deed restriction from an existing employee housing unit in exchange for the placement of an employee housing deed restriction on another dwelling unit and/ or a fee -in -lieu payment made to the Town of Vail." o Pros • Maintains compliance with current zoning regulations. • Maintains the deed restricted EHU in Vail. • Utilizes the program established for these types of requests. o Cons • EHU would count as density. • Take No Action o Pros • Maintains the number of EHUs in Vail. o Cons • Does not provide Mr. Gardner what he has requested. • Maintains an existing non - conformity. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends the Vail Town Council authorize the Town Manager to release the employee housing unit deed restriction recorded against 166 Forest Road / Lot 8, Block 7, Vail Village 1S Filing based upon Ordinance No. 6, Series of 2000 changing the minimum lot size in the Two - Family Primary / Secondary zone district from 15,000 square feet to 14,000 square feet. This action eliminates an existing non - conformity and is consistent with previous Town of Vail action on property with deed restricted employee housing units affected by the 2000 change in minimum lot size. Town of Vail Page 2 9/6/2011 2 -3 -2 V. DIRECTION REQUESTED OF TOWN COUNCIL Provide direction on what action, if any, the Town Council would like the Town Manager to take on behalf of the Town of Vail in regards to the deed restriction recorded against 166 Forest Road / Lot 8, Block 7, Vail Village 1S Filing. VI. ATTACHMENT A. Email request from Mr. Gardner received August 18, 2011 Town of Vail Page 3 9/6/2011 2 -3 -3 Nina Timm From: Pam Brandmeyer Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2011 4:50 PM To: Nina Timm; George Ruther Cc: Council Dist List Subject: FW: Collective Council e- mail...please respond on behalf of the Council. Thanks! From: beth.lyons @gardnerlewis.com [mailto:beth.lyons @gardnerlewis.com] Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2011 2:20 PM To: Council Dist List Subject: Vail Town Council Dick Cleveland, Mayor 75 So Frontage Street Vail CO 81657 Dear Town Council: On April 4, 2000 the Vail Town Council adopted Ordinance No. 6, Series of 2000, changing the minimum lot size requirement in the two - family and primary /secondary zone districts from 15,000 square feet to 14,000 square feet. Subsequently, on May 17, 2011 the Vail Town Council approved the release of the EHU Restrictive Covenant located at Lot 25, Buffehr Creek Subdivision based on the above change in minimum lot size requirement in the two - family and primary /secondary zone districts from 15,000 square feet to 14,000 square feet. We own the property at 166 Forest Road in Vail where the lot size is 14,331 square feet. In light of this, we are writing to request that our EHU restriction be removed as well. We appreciate your attention to this matter and look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, William W. Gardner 1 9/6/2011 2 -3 -4 TOWN OF VAIL� Memorandum To: Vail Town Council From: Community Development Department Date: September 6, 2011 Subject: 12 -13 -5: Employee Housing Unit Exchange Program — A request authorizing the Town Manager to execute two releases of deed restrictions from existing employee housing units I. 12 -13 -5: EMPLOYEE HOUSING UNIT EXCHANGE PROGRAM, VAIL TOWN CODE On June 21, 2011 the Vail Town Council unanimously approved the passage of Ordinance No. 10, Series of 2011. Vail Town Code identifies the purpose of the amended regulations as follows: Purpose: The purpose of this Section is to provide occupied livable, affordable employee housing units within the Town of Vail through the establishment of an employee housing unit deed restriction exchange program. The exchange program allows the Town Council to release a deed restriction from an existing employee housing unit in exchange for the placement of an employee housing deed restriction on another dwelling unit and/ or a fee -in -lieu payment made to the Town of Vail. II. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST NO. 1 The owner of Lot 8, Block 1, Vail Village First Filing has demonstrated the property complies with the prescribed development standards (density controls including GRFA and number of units, site coverage, landscaping and parking requirements, etc.), as outlined in the applicable zone district section of Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code, upon exchange of the deed restrictions. The owner is requesting the exchange of the employee housing unit deed restriction and will provide a new employee housing unit that is 3 times the square feet of the existing deed restricted employee housing unit in Vail. The unit has been identified and approved by staff. 9/6/2011 2 -4 -1 III. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST NO. 2 The owner of Lot 14, Block 3, Vail Valley First Filing has demonstrated the property complies with the prescribed development standards (density controls including GRFA and number of units, site coverage, landscaping and parking requirements, etc.), as outlined in the applicable zone district section of Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code, upon exchange of the deed restrictions. The exchange was approved on August 2, 2011 with a fee -in -lieu payment. The owner will now provide a new employee housing unit that is 2 times the square feet of the existing deed restricted employee housing unit in Vail. The unit has been identified and approved by staff. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends the Vail Town Council approve the proposed exchanges of employee housing units located at Lot 8, Block 1, Vail Village First Filing and Lot 14, Block 3, Vail Valley First Filing. Staff recommends the following motion be made: "The Vail Town Council authorizes the Town Manager to execute deed restriction releases and approves these requests for an exchange of employee housing units, pursuant to Section 12 -13 -5, Employee Housing Unit Exchange Program, Vail Town Code, to allow for the release of an employee housing unit deed restriction at Lot 8, Block 1, Vail Village First Filing and the release of an employee housing unit deed restriction at Lot 14, Block 3, Vail Valley First Filing , in exchange for new deed restricted employee housing in Vail, and setting forth details in regard thereto." Town of Vail Page 2 9/6/2011 2 -4 -2 RESOLUTION NO. 16 Series of 2011 A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE TOWN OF VAIL AND THE TOWN OF AVON REGARDING SHARING THE COST OF TELEVISION PRODUCTION EQUIPMENT; AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO. WHEREAS, the Town of Vail (the "Town "), in the County of Eagle and State of Colorado is a home rule municipal corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of Colorado and the Town Charter (the "Charter"); WHEREAS, the members of the Town Council of the Town (the "Council ") have been duly elected and qualified; WHEREAS, the Town and the Town of Avon ( "Avon ") provide funding for Public Access TV5 ( "TV5 "); WHEREAS, the Town and Avon wish to enter into an Intergovernmental Agreement ( "IGA ") outlining the purchase and thereafter the shared use of the production equipment that will be stored, maintained and transported by TV5 for public benefit, including the recording of Town Council meetings; and WHEREAS, the Council's approval of Resolution No. 16, Series 2011, is required to enter into an IGA. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO THAT: Section 1. The Council hereby approves and authorizes the Town Manager to enter into the IGA with Avon outlining the purchase and shared use of the production equipment as attached hereto as Exhibit A. Section 2. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its passage. INTRODUCED, PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Vail held this 6 day of September, 2011. Richard Cleveland Town Mayor ATTEST: Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk Resolution No. 16, Series 2011 9/6/2011 2 -5 -1 Resolution No. 16, Series 2011 9/6/2011 2 -5 -2 AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT ( "Agreement ") is made and entered into this / c. day of , 2011, (the "Effective Date ") by and between the Town of Vail, a Colorado home rhl° municipal corporation with an address of 75 South Frontage Road, Vail, CO 81657 ( "Vail "), the Town of Avon, a Colorado home rule municipal corporation with an address of P.O. Box 975, Avon, CO 81620 ( "Avon "), and Public Access TV5, a nonprofit corporation with an address of P.O. Box 5600, Avon, CO 81620 ( "TV5 ") (each individually a "Party" and collectively the "Parties "). WHEREAS, Vail and Avon provide certain funding for TV5; and WHEREAS, Vail and Avon desire to cooperatively purchase and thereafter share certain production equipment more particularly described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference (the "Equipment "); and WHEREAS, Vail and Avon further desire that the Equipment be used, stored, maintained and transported by TV5 for public benefit, including the recording of public meetings for Vail and Avon. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the compensation specified herein, the premises, the mutual promises of the Parties, and the mutual benefits to be gained by performance, it is agreed as follows: 1. Consideration. As a condition to the continued funding of TV5 by Vail and Avon, and to facilitate TV5's production capabilities, the Parties agree to below terms and conditions. 2. Purchase of Equipment. The total initial purchase cost of the Equipment is $35,741. Within thirty (30) days of the Effective Date, Vail shall purchase the Equipment, and Avon shall reimburse Vail for fifty percent (50 %) of the cost of the Equipment, but not to exceed $20,000 or available PEG fees, within thirty (30) days of receipt of an invoice from Vail. The Equipment shall be jointly owned by Vail and Avon, and TV5 shall have no ownership rights to the Equipment. 3. Maintenance and Repairs. a. The annual maintenance costs for the Equipment are estimated to be $2,343.00. Vail shall pay the maintenance costs each year, and Avon shall reimburse Vail for fifty percent (50 %) of the maintenance costs within thirty (30) days of receipt of an invoice from Vail. b. The cost of necessary repairs to the Equipment that are not covered by the insurance set forth in Paragraph 6 hereof or chargeable to any other person or entity shall be divided equally between Vail and Avon; provided that both Vail and Avon agree in writing to the repairs. 1 7/14 2011 9/6/2011 2 -5 -3 4. Use. The Equipment shall be used for the recording of public meetings held by Vail and Avon. TV5 shall be responsible for transporting the Equipment to the respective municipal buildings and thereafter recording the public meetings. Vail and Avon shall each designate a contact person with whom TV5 shall coordinate scheduling of the Equipment. Scheduling of the Equipment shall be on a first -come, first - served basis. On the Effective Date of this Agreement, the regularly scheduled meetings of Vail and Avon do not conflict. Should a scheduling conflict arise that TV5 cannot resolve, the matter shall be referred to the Town Managers of Vail and Avon for resolution. 5. Term and Termination. The term of this Agreement shall be for five (5) years commencing on the Effective Date, unless terminated earlier as provided in this Agreement. Either Vail or Avon may terminate this Agreement prior to the expiration of its term upon not less than thirty (30) days prior written notice to the other Parties; provided that the municipal Party responsible for early termination of this Agreement shall lose all rights to the Equipment, and title to the Equipment shall immediately transfer to the non - terminating municipal Party. 6. Assumption of Risk. Each Party has independently evaluated and reviewed the risks involved with using the Equipment. Fully understanding these risks, each Party agrees to assume full responsibility and liability for the risk of bodily injury or property damage which may result from use of the Equipment. Each Party will be solely and entirely responsible for its own negligent acts and the acts of its agents, employees and representatives during the performance of this Agreement. 7. Insurance. TV5 shall procure and maintain at its sole expense insurance coverage, including comprehensive liability, personal injury, property damage and worker's compensation with minimum combined single limits of six hundred thousand dollars ($600,000) each occurrence and one million dollars ($1,000,000) general aggregate. The policy shall be primary insurance, shall contain a severability of interests provision, and shall be endorsed to include Vail and Avon and their officers and employees as additional insureds. No additional insured endorsement shall contain any exclusion for bodily injury or property damage arising from completed operations. All coverage shall be continuously maintained to cover all liability, claims, demands, and other obligations assumed by TV5. In the case of any claims -made policy, the necessary retroactive dates and extended reporting periods shall be procured to maintain such continuous coverage. Failure on the part of TV5 to procure or maintain a policy or policies providing the required coverage, conditions, and minimum limits shall constitute a material breach of this Agreement upon which Vail or Avon may immediately terminate this Agreement, or at their discretion, procure or renew any such policy or any extended reporting period thereto and may pay any premiums in connection therewith, and all monies so paid shall be repaid by TV5 upon demand. Vail and Avon each reserve the right to request and receive a certified copy of any policy and any endorsement thereto. 8. Miscellaneous. a. Governing Law and Venue. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Colorado, and any legal action concerning the provisions hereof shall be brought in Eagle County, Colorado. 2 7 14 2011 9/6/2011 2 -5 -4 b. No Waiver. Delays in enforcement or the waiver of any one or more defaults or breaches of this Agreement by a Party shall not constitute a waiver of any of the other terms or obligation of this Agreement. c. Integration. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the Parties, superseding all prior oral or written communications. d. Third Parties. There are no intended third -party beneficiaries to this Agreement. e. Notice. Any notice under this Agreement shall be in writing, and shall be deemed sufficient when directly presented or sent pre -paid, first class United States Mail to the party at the address set forth on the first page of this Agreement. f. Severability. If any provision of this Agreement is found by a court of competent jurisdiction to be unlawful or unenforceable for any reason, the remaining provisions hereof shall remain in full force and effect. g. Modification. This Agreement may only be modified upon written agreement of the Parties. h. Assignment. Neither this Agreement nor any of the rights or obligations of the Parties hereto shall be assigned without the written consent of the other Parties. i. Governmental Immunity. Vail and Avon and their officers and employees are relying on, and do not waive or intend to waive by any provision of this Agreement, the monetary limitations (presently one hundred fifty thousand dollars ($150,000) per person and six hundred thousand dollars ($600,000) per occurrence) or any other rights, immunities, and protections provided by the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act, C.R.S. § 24 -10 -101, et seq., as amended, or otherwise available to Vail or Avon and their officers or employees. j. Subject to Annual Appropriation. Consistent with Article X, § 20 of the Colorado Constitution, any financial obligation of Vail or Avon not performed during the current fiscal year are subject to annual appropriation, and thus any obligations of the Town hereunder shall extend only to monies currently appropriated and shall not constitute a mandatory charge, requirement, debt or liability beyond the current fiscal year. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Agreement, effective as of the day and year first above written. TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO Stan Zemler, Town Manager ATTEST: 3 7/14/2011 9/6/2011 2 -5 -5 Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Matt Mire, Town Attorney 7/14/2011 9/6/2011 2 -5 -6 _ .S Op ' ,' i • e • TO OFA „do ON, P0 .4' • DO • • • 11 � � toRADO • •• own M. tier ATTEST :� Town Clerk - APP AS TO 1 . : Town Ao r -y PUBLIC ACCESS TV5 By: Name: Its: STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. COUNTY OF ) The foregoing instrument was subscribed, sworn to, and acknowledged before me this _ day of _ , 2011, by - as the of Public Access TV5. My commission expires: (S E A L) Notary Public 5 7'14:201 1 9/6/2011 2 -5 -7 TOW& OF . 1� �l VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: September 6, 2011 ITEM /TOPIC: Town Manager Report: 1) Revenue Highlights; and 2) EGE Air Allliance Statistics PRESENTER(S): Various ATTACHMENTS: Revenue Highlights EGE Air Allliance Statistics 9/6/2011 TOWN OF VAIL REVENUE HIGHLIGHTS August 30, 2011 Sales Tax Upon receipt of all sales tax returns, July collections are estimated to be $1,473,143 up 19.9% from last year and 26.4% up compared to budget. Year to date collections of $12.2 million are up 10.9% from prior year. The year to date and full year budgets have been amended by $900,000 to reflect additional collections earlier in the year. Year to date revenue is up 13.4% from the original budget and up 5.0% from the amended budget. Inflation as measured by the consumer price index was up 3.6% in July. Use Tax Use tax collections as of August 30, 2011 total $537,469 compared with $694,922 at this time last year, down 27 %. The annual budget of $500,000 assumed a decrease of 55 %, and has already been surpassed. Real Estate Transfer Tax (RETT) RETT collections through August 30 total $2,640,994 down 33% from this time last year. Annual budgeted revenue of $4.7 million is a 32% decrease from 2010 collections. Approximately $1,214,930 or 46% is from major redevelopment projects including Arrabelle, Four Seasons, Landmark, Manor Vail, Mountain View, Ritz Carlton Residences, Solaris, and The Sebastian. Collections not related to major redevelopment projects currently total $1,426,064, down 22% from this time last year. Summary Across all funds and revenue accounts through August 30, 2011, total revenue of $34.7 million is up 1.9% from budget and down 4.0% or approximately $1.5 million from this time last year, mainly due to a decrease in RETT collections ($1.3 million). We have currently received 61% of total budgeted revenues for the year. -1 9/6/2011 3 -1 -1 EGE AIR ALLIANCE 20 SECOND STREET # 215 EDWARDS, CO 81632 To: Vail Town Council From: Kent Myers, EGE Air Alliance Date: August 29, 2011 Subject: EGE Air Alliance Three Year Strategic Plan and TOV and Tax Revenue Analysis Tax Revenue Analysis Attached is an analysis of the incremental tax revenue generated in the TOV and BCRC if the three year targeted air service plan is supported and put in place. The EGE Air Alliance is requesting a $30,000 annual pledge from the TOV. If all the flights were available, it is estimated the annual incremental increase in sales tax revenue generated in the TOV by the passengers would exceed $248,000. Thank you for your past support and interest, if you have any questions please contact me. Kent Myers EGE Air Alliance 970 390 7207 kent @airplanners.net 9/6/2011 3 -2 -1 2 . 2 co co ? � o R R b 2 to > co 2 m LC) LC) m £ CD / a g a 4 4- 2 E Q L4 e- ? 22 (0N- CO () .- CO 3 0 c 8 co �����LO�LO 2 ¥ A¥ A CO CO S¥ N 0 W —I 0 W RS k (N CN (N CO 2 c 0 O. to CO o CO 2 / C) (N |q \ u 2 0 9 ® r:5 r @ • ƒ , a k ,- co co R|° s- 2 / / _ 1 Q CD E 0 LL 0 / = LL a RI 0 = 0 £ ¥ - - . § 0 ƒ 0 0 o) U § 0 0 Z ± E \ 0 E 1E o = ® 0 as / ? To 2 CO 1E 5 0 0 o w o } X § \ § 7 ƒ (0 0) \ / I- C LC) / / \ ^ LC) G7 « CO a & a G ToCt 5 To . E § 0 a — @ @ N- co @ \ ) 2\ e R R - / R= Ce k k / y / � CO (0 (0 7 S ] 2 2 z/ « R a* 7 CV k 0) (1) / / CO CO / j 2 \ 2 >, § ] N- w# N- N- 0) 0 0 m m = # } § > \ \ \ CO \ u \ w 17). ®® « R a LO s ] j 7 7 & & \ 7 / 2 - • fi e ® e =RZn CO # / LO - • : ` z\§ CI) \ § \ N- LO 2 7 _ > ® ^ iii L ( \ C 'Es 6f\ ° \) \\ ...-m \ > j j \ \ \ - _ -} CO CO LO a a • 5 co m >. - 0 • � ® ( M § / k / 0) 0) \ j CO \ \ > & w w 0 m m« ## _ _ 0 • / \ / >S / Cr) k / G LO 4 CO 2 & \ . % N \ E d J 2 2 j 2 CO a CO ) LC5 � O $ ) - • 0 \ \ \ - \ m \ \ \ � \\)) § f § ® \ /24 ///f / ƒ \ \ � co \ \ ��� ce y 7 / e ° 0 1-'5 / 0 ) / / 0 f b ° 3 4 ® CI [ / z § k \ J 0 E z 0 / CD c0 / \ j C..) 2 c 0 } MINN OF Ni VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: September 6, 2011 ITEM /TOPIC: An appeal, pursuant to Section 12 -3 -3, Appeals, Vail Town Code, of the Town of Vail Design Review Board's denial of a design review application, to allow for landscaping changes adjacent to the Covered Bridge, located at 246 East Meadow Drive (Slifer Square) /Tract I, Block 5E, Vail Village Filing 1 and Bridge Street right -of -way, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (DRB110301) PRESENTER(S): Warren Campbell ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Pursuant to Section 12 -3 -3, Appeals, Vail Town Code, the Vail Town Council shall uphold, uphold with modifications, or overturn the Design Review Board's August 3, 2011, decision. BACKGROUND: On August 3, 2011 the Design Review Board unanimously denied a request to make landscaping changes on the north side of the Covered Bridge. The proposed landscaping changes were to facilitate a view of the iconic Gorsuch clock tower located within view corridor 1. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Design Review Board recommends that the Town Council upholds its August 3, 2011 decision regarding DRB110301, pursuant to the findings in the memradum. ATTACHMENTS: Memorandum to Town Council Public Works Memorandum Photograph of View Corridor 1 9/6/2011 TOWN OF VAIL' Memorandum TO: Vail Town Council FROM: Community Development Department DATE: September 6, 2011 SUBJECT: An appeal, pursuant to Section 12 -3 -3, Appeals, Vail Town Code, of the Town of Vail Design Review Board's denial of a design review application, to allow for landscaping changes adjacent to the Covered Bridge, located at 246 East Meadow Drive (Slifer Square) /Tract 1, Block 5E, Vail Village Filing 1 and Bridge Street right -of -way, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (DRB110301) Appellant: Vail Town Council Planner: Warren Campbell I. SUBJECT OF THE APPEAL The appellant, Vail Town Council, filed an appeal (call -up), pursuant to Section 12 -3 -3, Appeals, Vail Town Code, of the Town of Vail Design Review Board's August 3, 2011, denial of a request to allow for landscaping changes adjacent to the Covered Bridge, located at 246 East Meadow Drive (Slifer Square) /Tract 1, Block 5E, Vail Village Filing 1 and Bridge Street right -of -way. On August 3, 2011 the Design Review Board unanimously denied a request by Town Staff to make landscaping changes on the north side of the Covered Bridge. The proposed landscaping changes were to facilitate a view of the iconic Gorsuch clock tower located within view corridor 1. The minutes of the hearing are reflected as follows: "The Design Review Board (DRB) cited Chapter 12 -22, View Corridors, Vail Town Code which contained no provisions for the "maintenance" of view corridors with regard to vegetation. Furthermore, Section 14- 10 -3C, Site Planning, Vail Town Code, states the following: "C. Removal of trees, shrubs, and other native vegetation shall be limited to removal of those essential for development of the site, those identified as diseased or those essential for creating defensible space. Mitigation may be required for tree removal." The DRB has consistently used this regulation to prevent the removal of vegetation for the sole purpose of obtaining a view to a landmark (commonly the Gore Range or the ski mountain). The DRB was concerned about allowing the Town to perform an 9/6/2011 4 -1 -1 action which is consistently denied for private property owners as this request occurs frequently. The DRB understood the concern of the encroachment of the vegetation on the view corridor and had several suggestions and concerns. There was a concern that the removal of the trees would expose a roof material and a building which might have a negative effect if it became completely exposed. The Board highlighted that the original design intent of Eldon Beck was to limit the view to short distances into the Village and create an element of surprise. It was stated that the trees frame the Covered Bridge and are solely a summer problem, and does this warrant removal. The DRB suggested that the Town Council direct staff to prepare amendments to Chapter 12 -22, View Corridors, Vail Town Code, to include provisions for "maintenance" of a view corridor with regard to vegetation which established a set of criteria by which an evaluation could be made. It was further suggested that Section 14- 10 -3C, Site Planning, Vail Town Code, would be improved with the addition of provisions and criteria for the evaluation of the removal of vegetation that may have been improperly cited during original installation and after a number of years has impacted important views. A requirement for replacement should accompany any provision allowing for this." II. APPLICABLE DOCUMENTS Vail Town Code Chapter 12 -22 View Corridors (in part) 12 -22 -1: PURPOSE: The town believes that preserving certain vistas is in the interest of the town's residents and guests. Specifically, the town believes that: A. The protection and perpetuation of certain mountain views and other significant views from various pedestrian public ways within the town will foster civic pride and is in the public interest of the town. B. It is desirable to designate, preserve and perpetuate certain views for the enjoyment and environmental enrichment for the residents and guests of the town. C. The preservation of such views will strengthen and preserve the town's unique environmental heritage and attributes. D. The preservation of such views will enhance the aesthetic and economic vitality and values of the town. Town of Vail Page 2 9/6/2011 4 -1 -2 E. The preservation of such views is intended to promote design which is compatible with the surrounding natural and built environment, and is intended to provide for natural light to buildings and in public spaces in the vicinity of the view corridors. F. The preservation of such views will include certain focal points such as the Clock Tower and Rucksack Tower, which serve as prominent landmarks within Vail village and contribute to the community's unique sense of place. 12 -22 -2: DEFINITIONS: For the purposes of this chapter, the following terms shall be defined as shown below: STRUCTURE: Anything permanently constructed or erected with a fixed location including, but not limited to, new buildings, building expansions, decks, mechanical equipment, vents, ducts, satellite dishes, fences, stop lights, light poles, signs, utility poles, skylights or any similar object. VIEW POINT ORIGINATION: The survey pin, called out as the instrument in each legal description defining a view corridor boundary, which is the basis for each view corridor. 12 -22 -3: LIMITATIONS ON CONSTRUCTION: No part of a structure shall be permitted to encroach into any view corridor set forth in this chapter unless an encroachment is approved in accordance with section 12 -22 -6 of this chapter. 12 -22 -5: AMENDMENTS: An amendment of the regulations of this chapter, including a request to add a new view corridor, delete an existing view corridor, or amend the boundary of an existing view corridor, may be initiated by the town council on its own motion, by the planning and environmental commission on its own motion, or by application of any resident or property owner in the town, or by the administrator or his /her designee. C. Criteria For Amendments: The town council shall only approve an amendment to this chapter adding a new view corridor, deleting an existing view corridor, or amending the boundary of an existing view corridor if the amendment complies with the policies and goals of the applicable elements of the Vail land use plan, town policies, and urban design guide plans and other adopted master plans, and meets all of the following criteria: 1. If the request is to add a new view corridor or to amend the boundary of an existing view corridor in such a way which expands an existing view corridor: a. That the proposed view corridor or the boundary amendment protects and perpetuates a view or views from public pedestrian areas, public ways, or Town of Vail Page 3 9/6/2011 4 -1 -3 public spaces within the town which foster civic pride and are in the public interest for the town. b. That the proposed view corridor or boundary amendment protects and enhances the town's attraction to residents, guests and property owners. c. That the proposed view corridor or boundary amendment protects a view which is commonly recognized and has inherent qualities which make it more valuable to the town than other more common views. 2. If the amendment is to amend the boundary of an existing view corridor in such a way which reduces the existing view corridor or is to repeal an existing view corridor: a. That the boundary amendment or repeal will not reduce or eliminate any view or views from public pedestrian areas, public ways, or public spaces within the town which foster civic pride and are in the public interest for the town. b. That the boundary amendment or repeal will not reduce the town's attraction to residents, guests, and property owners nor be detrimental to the enjoyment of public pedestrian areas, public ways, public spaces or public views. c. That the boundary amendment or repeal will not diminish the integrity or quality, nor compromise the original purpose of the existing view corridor. 12 -22 -6: ENCROACHMENTS INTO EXISTING VIEW CORRIDORS: An application for approval to encroach into an existing view corridor may be initiated by the town council on its own motion, by the planning and environmental commission on its own motion, or by application of any resident or property owner in the town, or by the administrator or his /her designee. C. Criteria For Encroachment: No encroachment into an existing view corridor shall be permitted unless the applicant demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that the encroachment meets all of the following criteria: 1. That the literal enforcement of section 12 -22 -3 of this chapter would preclude a reasonable development of a proposed structure on the applicant's land. 2. That the development of the structure proposed by the applicant would not be such as to defeat the purposes of this chapter. 3. That the development proposed by the applicant would not be detrimental to the enjoyment of public pedestrian areas, public ways, public spaces, or public views. Town of Vail Page 4 9/6/2011 4 -1 -4 4. That the development proposed by the applicant complies with applicable elements of the Vail land use plan, town policies, urban design guide plans, and other adapted master plans. 5. That the proposed structure will not diminish the integrity or quality nor compromise the original purpose of the preserved view. III. SUBJECT PROPERTY The subject property is located at 246 East Meadow Drive (Slifer Square) /Tract 1, Block 5E, Vail Village Filing 1 and Bridge Street right -of -way. IV. STANDING OF APPELLANT Pursuant to Section 12 -3 -3, Appeals, Vail Town Code, the appellant has standing as the property owner to appeal the Design Review Board's August 3, 2011, decision. V. REQUIRED ACTION Pursuant to Section 12 -3 -3, Appeals, Vail Town Code, the Vail Town Council shall uphold, uphold with modifications, or overturn the Design Review Board's August 3, 2011, decision. VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Design Review Board recommends that the Town Council upholds its August 3, 2011 decision regarding DRB110301 based upon, the evidence and testimony presented, and the findings of fact listed below. The Design Review Board recommends the Vail Town Council makes the following findings of fact: • The subject property, 246 East Meadow Drive, is located within an adopted view corridor, view corridor 1. • Pursuant to Chapter 12 -22, View Corridors, Vail Town Code, establishes criteria by which an adopted view corridor can be amended or encroached upon. • Pursuant to Chapter 12 -22, View Corridors, Vail Town Code, there are no criteria which speak to the maintenance and or removal of vegetation to preserve adopted view corridors. • Pursuant to Section 14- 10 -3C, Site Planning, Vail Town Code, tree removal "shall be limited to removal of those essential for development of the site, those identified as diseased or those essential for creating defensible space." Town of Vail Page 5 9/6/2011 4 -1 -5 • On August 3, 2011, the Design Review Board, held a public hearing on the applicant's request for a modification to the landscaping adjacent to the Covered Bridge in Slifer Square at 246 East meadow Drive in accordance with Section 12 -11 -4, Material To Be Submitted; Procedure, Vail Town Code. • On August 3, 2011, based upon the review of the application to the Design Review Board, the Board's site visit to the subject property, and the evidence and testimony presented, the Design Review Board found that neither Chapter 12 -22, View Corridors, or Chapter 14 -10, Design Review Standards, Vail Town Code allowed for the removal of healthy vegetation meeting any prescribed criteria. • On August 3, 2011, the Design Review Board unanimously denied the applicant's request for the modification of landscaping adjacent to the Covered Bridge. • On August 16, 2011, the appellant, Vail Town Council filed an appeal (called -up) the Design Review Board's August 3, 2011, decision in accordance with Section 12 -3 -3, Appeals, Vail Town Code. • Notice of the Vail Town Council's hearing of this appeal has been completed in accordance with provisions of Section 12 -3 -3, Appeals, Vail Town Code. The Design Review Board recommends the Vail Town Council makes the following conclusion: "Based upon a review of the Staff's September 6, 2011, memorandum to the Vail Town Council, the evidence and testimony presented, and the finding of facts, the Vail Town Council concludes: The Design Review Board's August 3, 2011, denial of a request for landscaping changes adjacent to the Covered Bridge pursuant to Chapter 12 -11, Design Review, Vail Town Code, located at 246 East Meadow Drive/Tract 1, Block 5E, Vail Village Filing 1 and Bridge Street right -of -way, and setting forth details in regard thereto, meets the standards and conditions imposed by the requirements of the Vail Town Code." The Design Review Board recommends the Vail Town Council makes the following motion: "Based upon a review of the Staff's September 6, 2011, memorandum to the Vail Town Council, the evidence and testimony presented, and the finding of facts, the Vail Town Council upholds the Design Review Board's August 3, 2011, denial of a request for landscaping changes adjacent to the Covered Bridge Town of Vail Page 6 9/6/2011 4 -1 -6 pursuant to Chapter 12 -11, Design Review, Vail Town Code, located at 246 East Meadow Drive/Tract 1, Block 5E, Vail Village Filing 1 and Bridge Street right -of- way, and setting forth details in regard thereto, based upon the conclusion that the Commission's determination meets the standards and conditions imposed by the requirements of the Vail Town Code." VI. ATTACHMENTS A. August 3, 2011, memorandum to the DRB from the Public Works Department B. Photograph Image of View Corridor 1 Town of Vail Page 7 9/6/2011 4 -1 -7 TOWN OF VAIL' 1309 Elkhorn Drive Public WorkslTransportation Department Vail, Colorado 81657 970.479.2158 vailgov.com 970.479.2166 fax Project: Clock Tower View Corridor Enhancement Study Design Review Board Application August 3, 2011 Applicant: Town of Vail Project Description: The maturing aspen trees located to the west of the north end of the Covered Bridge have increased in height to the point where they are blocking the view of the Clock Tower from the designated view corridor point as well as the overlook area south of the entrance to the Ski Museum. Town Council has directed staff to create a proposal to open up the view of the Clock Tower. The proposal is as follows. View Enhancement Proposal: The view looking south from the Village Parking Structure is one of the defining images of Vail. It is much photographed and painted and is identified around the world as symbolizing Vail Mountain and the town of Vail. The proposal begins by breaking down the components of this iconic view. Viewed from the Village Parking Structure the Clock Tower is the primary focal point. It is a monumental element rising higher than the surrounding buildings with Vail Mountain as the back drop. As the viewer moves down from the structure the view changes. The Clock Tower begins to be obscured by the trees and the focal point of the view becomes the Covered Bridge. The aspen trees to the west of the north end of the Covered Bridge have both a negative and positive influence on the sequence of views experienced by those entering the Vail Village over the Covered Bridge. The height of the aspen trees negatively influences the view from the Village Parking Structure by blocking the view of the Clock Tower. Obviously, this is a summer time only condition. The presence of the aspen tree branches and leaves have a positive influence on the "post card" image of the Covered Bridge by framing the view and creating balance in the image. This is a year - round condition which changes slightly summer to winter. The aspen trees also positively influence the view of the Covered Bridge by blocking some of the view of Bridge Street and the buildings immediately south of the bridge. The scene beyond the bridge, if not partially screened by the leaves and branches, would create a busy, less organized image of the Covered Bridge. It is noteworthy to point out that the designer 9/6/2011 4 -2 -1 of the Vail Village, Eldon Beck, intentionally screened the view of Bridge Street from Slifer Square. The intention was to have Bridge Street revealed to the visitor upon exiting the Covered Bridge. The slight left hand curve of the street then pulls the visitor up the street to see what lies beyond the immediate field of view. The proposal seeks to remove the negative influences affecting the view of the Clock Tower while retaining the positive influences the leaves and branches have on view of the Covered Bridge. Multiple options were explored before arriving at the proposal. The first option explored was to do nothing. Allow the trees to continue to mature and, in several years, remove and replant them as they decline in health and vigor. This option does nothing to eliminate the winter season, negative influences of the tree on the view or and fails to enhance and retain the desired iconic image. The second option explored was to remove only one aspen tree (3 tree to the right of the bridge) to partially open up the view of the Clock Tower from the designated view point and the Ski Museum overlook. This option only partially resolved the negative influence and would be short lived as the trees continued to grow. The third option, which is the proposal, eliminates the negative influences on the Clock Tower view and enhances the positive influence that leaves and branches have on the view of the Covered Bridge. The proposal includes the removal of 7 aspen trunks, of which 3 are the original planting and 4 are off shoots of the root system. In addition, 5 to 6 shrubs would be removed to allow removal of the root systems of the aspen trees. The existing Vail map would be removed and the boulder holding the Dobson Plaque would be shifted closer to the pedestrian pavement. In place of the aspen trees, a single Spring Snow Crabapple tree would be planted. In place of the shrubs, several flowering shrub roses, and spreading juniper bushes would be planted to fill out the planting bed and provide some screening of the view across the creek. The Spring Snow Crabapple was selected for it's arching form, spring profusion of white blossoms, and non - fruiting characteristic. Visitors to Vail (and all us locals) who visit during the right weeks in June would be treated to a spectacular image with the white blossoms framing the entry to the bridge and contrasting against the dark stained wood. Staff would seek out the largest Spring Snow Crabapple that could be obtained to create as much immediate positive impact as possible. With an approval of the proposal from the DRB and the Town Council, staff is prepared to complete the work immediately after the Labor Day holiday. The cost t of implementing the proposal is projected to be less than $10,000. List of attached images: 1. Existing conditions site plan 2. Planting plan for proposal 3. Photo of Existing View 4. Sketch of view without aspens 5. Sketch of view with crabapple 6. Sketch of proposal approaching Covered Bridge 7. Sketch of proposal at Covered Bridge Town of Vail Page 2 9/6/2011 4 -2 -2 -- +. -- ..,. .., ...3....71.,...Tr . . - - '''■ :7 -,--,-, 4 (Aal... - ___ 7-. "'..i. L '.11 k - ' s. - i . . "," _ - ---■- •F'" - - . r k ...., • . - ' " . .._ - " . : - • a.. . .• y ,mf . . . te- k ,, . ' .. - . 7 ' : • ._ •':.-.--% .-- ' tk --- ;?, ,,, . ..:4 ' fi . ' • . .4 •; ---- ; • ' - ' - 4.' •''' - - , -1•• ,,,-., ,„ . - _•' 4- .,,_: - iimumr. _- ._ ; --.-- - --• •' , 3... ,-, •.- ..• - --.1 .. --- - , ,7. --, Fk•_ . c., s -' ..,•-1, - ..• _ .. ,_ ,, . - . -_-. -, ._,...---_, .;--,i, .,,.-...-....:,:-- -,. • i. _ -- - . 4 :. • ".■. + .' " '' • . . . - • - ..--', --- _-e `- ,. ° t - • . ..,, . .4....... , - - ' '• - . • - -.•:- ■■ I - _ . .1 . .- .. - •- s. ,, D - .F . - - .- .-:---......;.'....; - 3 , -. - t . c = ....0 -,- • N., - 'A .; - ' .- . . ' - -.. ..I. . . - 14 • . ,, . ; ,.. . . . • • -,..-7 .,' .- .: ,i.-T.. - - -_,_ - .... , 5 4?, ? .d•„...,ii-- - - k 7. t -.4, .. '..- -.`a -.-,,-..-.: -:,:= _. .......-:.• . „.... . .4. - alk -. . . *4 . .... • , I. VIA a s.. 11%. , t4 , ,,710.. - ,,,, ..--,. , .0 - f - : - • ' . . .t..-- . Fi •,,,,, a, ■ . .„ ',.... ..... . t „ _, - 'a+ „.' , r . ... .,... ' .0. ' - :, • ... . ' . * A "" .- . . - k 4 .411011.0" . .,. ar l• - . .1 .-,... .-. ,,,,..Q. _,- .- :i.. . '- • .1f • .: ' ••• - •• . ' •• , . , .• ..;= , _ ,... . ===. .,= . 411,.. , .:'• • = ' . 1) i ;•. .". ''. . , r •Va :. ''. _ ' ' . . A. -.,." I.1 . Z.:; .. 4 - .... -. r . .. ' . ... .. ... ...1* ' ' A ' . -- ' ' 1- - - - -. - - , :7 ' • -14 I • ' •-• -'"Y.• - '.- .1 - 7. i -`-*- "`!. '''' : ' - c' - - - -‘'- - - ;,r.I l l - - • A 2,,1-. - a . ", - -;"{ - • - - - - . . . • ' ' • V - k-,...t„ : - , .- : - , 4..4. - i ;• _.; -"- . - ',..- ' -• Z. kr.; Llt re '"'''' ":- . '--'. I . °C - .1 '-. ' . !.`• °=- , ,r,,.1 °- - ■ki, •.... -4 4 , ,,,,,."- :. ...._... _,E. -:--t,.., ......10,r _-- .. -'.- ai - 7 1 -. :....e 40„, ft,. , . _ , „,.i... c . . .. - __- ---- - .-._-_-,, ,._,...,,, _,.., -.:,,2 ,;._.- :-.,. - ..e -...',--:_ -,;. , .. • ,_ : _ -.--_-- - - _ - I.- --- .-. .444 girl -. . 1 .- •-- -. - .:- - - , - ...!..k., . • - .,-,:r .•,, _.!.....,. - #' 7_ _. , , =_ .. 75- ,- .,,.. --_,- _ _ :. - ' 4 .: '' - -. --..!+, '...5.. ' L.* ''' ( .-4.= i... 1 M7- - • .... . _, .. •soar...- ' - ' 4. 1 ..... - - 7 °. •••••': -.- ." '' '''. •'-f': •'- -'''' •.° - • -::`- '----- ° ;•4 * -' 4r • • e- 1 -- :2 - '4 : : -.7-- . 1-'''.'4 •-• • ' 1 . - j - --'•.-- • • " 1 ' - --:- ' ' ." " ' - : - ' - r t•'- i, * ' - -4 - • - .... - ..- .: C I , l ...., _ , ,...;. ...-:"; - .44,, %' ••-•'' ' ei % - , ' . •- ii, , It' _ - -- - 11 .„-■ .., , - a ,„•-•.... .,, • , .1,e - .r. ,;• 4 k ..•g '-'.-,,' .. ' ...-‘ i - - ..- r i• - • l : it. '• '' - . .. - , .. -, l "A.,47 L' z ' ' , -' --- : .% ' ‘ - : .-`4. - <-:•. "..• i . II i 01 . = •=..: ., A, . ' •'.- .. - .1211 - "k " • -el' XI ': ' f ' - ' - 4.; -..• ` `,Z • . , , ,'‘ .i ' ,.. ,:•_• -,4.. - • r: ' - -'' • ;. •• -• ' ..4:11, . ' •''' ... - . 4,:..*A . V ' 45, , -.-- 1 - - - • alk,..: - . : , ' : :,7 .., • . ..., ;,... , .,,.....,•io" . "` . , ' %.,,-. _■■••••) •••." . ...V - t - . .r.ra ... ... ....... .."A- :, . ° r r 1" kr r-- - - --A - • - i . - w . - • to' - * -- -. 7 ...a. -,-; - el- •-= -. c- ., . -.. - - - ir.',,,, - - ' ... ----- . .-7.:- - f i _,_113 c . - ..a. ‘ ' : - .1 %.N.4. - `. :'" -t. - - ;;. Vile F=.-z _ A- .r,' • - '-..,- - 4.- : . ...„7.1t;,.„ • .:•,. 4 . ..:.--'2,7. :4r .,44 2‘ , , : .;..,.. . - .?43.4.•Th" ... ? r_. '#----- .. '. ,_ %,;,-.-.....,._ -;--:- "-•.-, - - • .t. - ' /Ir. - '' - v - .4 `N.7 ..,_.... • -.,g . • . - i .- A ' , V.:. '-• . _ . a* -I_ -.:• , . . 4 -•;- - -II_ , , .. - - f --; • .6" . . .,,• -, 105k, ._ • -.6,,. - '' ,,••• .. -- - ' - i --: , ., -- - ' ,•. - - c - :I..; - • ...„ . -11- .....„ .• . __.,_ ...,:. , _ - .,4A. ,...,.• _ ... 0);........ . ..,...„......„, _ .. . • _...._. •., EA: -:_‘ ,- . .; -kk: Z ' -". ri r: . 4, - .. " ',. - r . -A ..1._ -•:.• ..-;:-, . . ... ,..... ! ..• .. - . ,, • ., „,..,,,:_, _ --..,...._...- -. • • - se- ..-.. : -.._ AA. : - .. tg •- - . . :....; _ - - -5r A-,..7:-....--:-• ':--- -. --' •: ,- .1g - - - -.0-• - • - . ..:.-- . ... - - .. ,.. ,..- jk.• . --.-_,*::••-.-:- _ -. *7_7 -: - .: _ ,..i.....,_ _ , , .. .,_, . _ , 1 - ... -1-. .. _ . . . ...,, '" . ''.7. ' : ..„ ; • .7 ••• •- •::,-1. .., - :11. 1 ': i 7 ilf ' r... ' - ' ' ' ' ' '7.-. 1. ,_ j -- 14..,',4 .0 -,., _ . , - , . • , _ . .4e..,1".._".. •. . . • , • ,• ..i. . _ „ • . . ,I .._ - , ,:- --. ._ -i.s.- - • . - ,-,...-v• ar--- -.... ......„.-. . .- --•.: .. . . ... • --. - - . . .. . - - - -....- .. - - - 1. - ".-. ti: . .... . __,..---- .,- -...r4.. :".1. 'il,"." - ....- • t tor :-„,.. - - z '• ,•__ . .. k&,..... - , - .- 1 - .- -i -- -• t;" -- ,t" - 1., 1 ' - e. . 4 , . .t i -"' k - .. 1 - :- - k. .. - - I. rr A- ,.. -, , ---,.,.3...-, -... _. , _ f .,, 1 ,,, E, .. t 7 - - - • -:---- .-:-.,_ ,- - = .- ,, - • - . - - 11*•,,Z. - - -• ••=-:... 4. ; 4..: ° - i. • ;. : -:- ::°. Is. i tat t Allr '_ .. . = - -=•::-.. ,-,7- -- - - - 1 ,„ d i • - - t. : _ -t' • TA LIN • ,.• s Uri" . ''. 7...t. 4_ ,s .. ill • sa . _ - .4 "-- ;., /1 . - -.1.. . ..."_...., 7 _...1,... _. :. ,- __•0 ... ._.•,....., . ....„. ...,..,•••__......... -,•,, . , . . 1..... - .iiiii-4.,.........•„,_,,, • , .. ,... m, ..... .._. . . loil .f. ,.,- . .,._ , . -_,. .. , - ,,. - • _ - ..._ _ , • : _ --_-_----------- Ir.f-14 - --11.1.--".- ---------------U'-'y■NuOMmo•■-r ......=......_, - -_. . - • ' . : `-• r r ''''• . - --,•'' .---.."... - ' -''-.- - - ___ - ---.--- . .,_ _, -- --. ________ - --..-- - r:rr --' --. ,.- - -- --- - '` - ''...- ' - - - -- ___ _ ____ . ,..........,,,,_- _ - - - ,--- _ - _ - -- _ - ''' -' , .. .--- '• er 111 -..- . - .. - - H 1 • 7 • ,- 4 - - - - - 11_ . - ..._ _ • ._.._, _ .., . ,,.....- 4 - 2 - 3 to L o ,..,..,_ ti v.k. ... , 1/43 c ... _ NI ...1.■ P ei, —. ri— 4 );"----- k) i lkP L T-- j_ i t 4 .," i J .„ (\,,,,,_ ,,,,L. 1, t.t) E s- i i 1- - I U.. 0 . , • Ice -S1 C / 1 1 _____! qi . \.) . : ----___ . . „ ' ' 115M - iv. -. ...._-_,... ' -/ 4+ • - <"-.-!' 40,,,--. -- -Z‘-':- , ' .<",:- .„..,,- • , cllia / - //I- , ammo= 1.. % ,, .2.:::,A,..:. , . - -7-• ,,,,------ ik . , 4 . -.(/,•,;;:-' ,, -.. , .,—. .......ial at • NEN :-..- -7,--,,-, '' ,,?-- / . .--.., . / 0 _ kp ."--- -- : ,,.-. Alloks! ---....-■ ,. . ,,, -----... .,-, ' . 2 \\_....-- '..,. to. ....... ,....,,,, 11 40t r io \\;.........,, II. lai• . ' L -- " i ' r-j''' -,''' . --c)- -- \ / ),., \ -.1, / I at Niri.- , ,,.-..s --- - -,•,- . -',--- - ,--,' .. --- - .i.',. --;•• ' / _L / ''. '',/ 4. Vi 0 00" / / —. 4 til _____' 1 4 1 , , ,,,. ft . ,1:1:7 0%,a, ; Is ) - 1 7 ---,,' c") I I 4 .-- .------ ' -IS . •.- A-1 if 4 4-0 //-- ft ----'..7:/f d t , ,, < - . -i w •-.1.-:• ; : i ..r" i o: ,.,,,,,, , eiP. -_____,"*-----2,,-- , ,/ -- „... , ......„, . ., ii ivitip # vi ,,, .:;= \ r _.-..:*,,, 1 1, • /,/, ... - ,;.;,,,,, : ,..r.,2,-___,-- _1.,-,,-i.„4 \\... _ "?'"....",...,, ' ' -,,. i ' - Ab. \ : al ..1 I II h ipA it k elf - ,,,,ere. --'•'- - J j , ,-,-...„-, ,--- - gm mpg .1. ,IIP _---,------- -. .-- --- 7" - '''-- --- ' i ( - it •,, , _ z ,., • . , \ \ L * - %%% /. / .1.4 / .',,...,.. //...;/, v r Ny - - NA _---' io /7./, ..,,, \ • wa., — z,. ( %%% !-..: / ••• ,‘ 14114 .--)/ ' . ---_,__-____--,: : . • ---:.,,, . ,•• J-' t 7' go - -----„(-_, , . .._— -..... ,•• ,. , . ,, - . - -.— / • P 040 ',I'd L. • - . . Ind° A i 1 ' L--- •I' ,-- /' • • ...,..• ‘1) ,.; ...:•,../ - . "" I I ' ' ''. \ \ ••''''..., -----=': ' ,,,, iPilraw, • - .- . - .._. , . . . 9/6/2011 Ag 9 . - • , - ''.---,----__\' , ,,..• ,- 7...... , •,‘,.. ..„ \ • . / . .0-.;' .• • 4 - 2 - i , N 4:- .._ __. ,,,,, "-Q.. kt tst c c 4 4. 4... cl ____,( K ^ E 7 ...4, ,d --.- -# � ��� =� ma (}� l Q 0 1 --- i I 7 i ____,, ......,,_ � - ` t l eife / E `t ai,,,p _ __ 1 IP 0 .-• - - V !----, • , lir . /,,, '',...,, --..---__.„, • i • s• _ N t f • V I N , , , 1 i / , . allifill0 / ill ititi „/„. ,.., ,.\,,,,,),,,,,,___,,, , ,...,,,,, ,1 _, , _,_ oar' ii ,!, jp ... --- -ebr ---..,_____. i ' - - , ...... ..,._ „pig. Oh 41* *// ////1 7 ------ L.', f 1,, , , " / a 41P .. f �_ � s • i 7 • •� +�• • ` s 4, +� op ��� / ' � � � / -- ie. - _-___ 6 , 1 ,..,,,_. ..40i , .\\ ,,, _-__,:::_•_ .-_-,/,,,,,;,- - • tei l �� + t = - r f 4 -2 -5 , • , . . .: t :: :. , A . •- --:.',..rb i :-.4.41::i + - •- ,' • , • : -4 • '... : .* . 1..... .•- .7.: .. K.. .$.: - 0.: : ....:-:,...:../. ,::...,:.•..... -:. ,.:. --- „...„,..;•,.. ,...,,,,,,..., . .. „ , • i - .. - --,. :4' , • .:::,, :. •• ..• - .,.:,•,.; , • :, a . , ,',,. • • , ...:-;;I:: i %:,...r....;.i ■ •• _ . `, , , ... .„ i •• • "F• : • ,.7 tl : . .L.'• • 1 • t..r."../ -!Fi 1$,#. . „ i 01 •.• , " .' I •t " . . "' • ,..„ .. . . hi. • • • - .I.; .' 1' k : • % ''' --"•• -, : ..• :. ,' • !„4.,. '1. . :' . . • . , . .• . , , - ---,, , "' ... , ,.. ., . • • .- . ..; , • , . •• 4. ''' ' • • • re 7 -"y7fe, ° 4 ' ) .. ■ :' " J • , . V. • I . ; ler, t • • • > i /;„. , s"„ n't ' 1 ' ' tc, ■••• •//` , •„, t .0;/'' Aof"...r• %I. ',. " '' '!'' , i V r. . . rr • 0 .,. ref: •: . , . '. a" r . - • ' r , ..%."1", 4 ... „. , ...• * • .2 : : ,....-0 ,- ..- ir .."---. • ..- • . -. - , ••• ... e --, --v-- • , .‘ c'f."' - .. -. • — ' ! l': .•' e l.c ----: -&- • .` e'er " • ..„1; A ...... ,„/ ,,,..,.-'... 4 ..° 0: rie•- .--ilf:--•-" r 4 ,.• o 1 e .1 . ..-- •" e , ."... r....' i• •Y _ _.._7.-.,--.-zr . .., ..."•er, .....:,... ‘ `,41;.' - • fi " '', ".:0,1 ..,,,6? • ..e • ..--- : • . , • .—:.1-7:-.71=:;:-.17-1\ .;„2 . ......,;:•,-,•••■•• ,.., ,....../.. , <- .......r, . 7 .,.....-:,. ... 1 f ,r , /e • . .„.... ______. —.7..7-: - - If... A „,... ,, . ,4, , , , ,.....,;;;;‘, :::.•,-..._,.., . „;-..., .1%7? ."- .„ .:. . -', , , . r ,„- - 4 C, _ , - . . :j ' '• . ." ,- -- e A- ,,,, -**42- -..... •-•, •'• • .- 7 " • • - •r: , Y5•7":,r, ; ' , •er‹...•...-. , ,, , :e .„ 4„." • r f ,...•••4'.r• - - ; : ? I"' • '.. ,,efr• 7 ;; .* ** ". 2. , ..,... ••• ,.------ - - • •4''' 17,/-6 :- a: .r .,f .4 ,1,- . r• c „...0 , ; r , „„. ,.....,,,,„. ,, ... '• At ..„. '''...,Ver•." ' • • A:4 ''?"07 ..-. .i 7 ` ' r 2 '' ' ( 43 I' 4. ""...- e .....-. . . ,,,,..,6 ..'• ..- . ' 1 ....1 '',..' 42 ' ,''' 7 • .2% ,,fir, *"... • ......Ke - 0' . i• i 4 %II, 1 6 it ••,,,,- •• - 7‘t 71 Al .,, ,,,, V . ....2i" f ..„-------- -.. r; v .,--7 , -; ----,, -___,, - ,,..,, 1,te ••••,:... ....- .,....!-,-"," - ,,. /1" .r ....-, - , " , At • , :1 f t „, -... ....-- ....../.7,..,,,,, ,...%. ; ,.. p.1 . ,< °• , •-- . 2 .•-`. .,„.; - ... .. , ....,-- f ' • ."- f 11,..‘ W i v. i a 4 41 0 f.1.4 .• 0- `4..7 e„!..'•• f*„. ........-..---- -.. ,,..-e..........*--.....7:-'r----1, .i.• ...,,... - ??......,... 4 . e , 4 I r,,,,,,,„, ... • 7- o• ......•---,.......•=7.•-•...--- ... „e'-••••' •• ■ , e' Zj ,,-„,..e ,...,,, '7 - """re" ; ' •* .;' ,• `!". 4 11.B . 0 IX I.,* ir . ... 404111 ' .. .„.>"‹.,1 •. ......., ,.. ,./..,/ , < .. i 11 4, .1 (i ...% 7.' '. M ./•••• '•.\,_!•"" T7 .. „4.1e .. ,;;;S: ( 7: ............ "‹.,, t , Igor -- - ' ---.Cr 4 L. I 4 . ......"." •',- ,-. .,,<„,--.." • „..-- ":::4 - „,-,”" :. „. ..."7 r-: - . ' : ' 4- ."""::;,..." :„..t-' , , 1 _ .....7% ...- • • 1.0 -7.7:‘..0-. - -7 & I I I ' - _,&-. - ,, . .. . . •,- ,,, _.,..-_,.„ ,-- - ..." ,...- ••-- sr I 1 -.0 ` , " _AO°. .- ' . ....... :::** " ..... . 46.-' 1 .0 '''",. ' .. " ""-- ..•"/ / - i* . ..... 1 4 ,0e0° , .;',1••• A - -; -. , = . - - ", r - - . ` -- - -• - -. - : — - • - - e ". - .,'. . > _ , , r„ . _ , „...-- .... .. ____. ___........____.......__--- ....... , ....... I 00°.. • : ..:.. .. . - • - -- - - .., - --,.._ -7 - -,---• ,,4, .40F' si •-•ci-e"?. ---,, ,-- - 0 '',,.... .. ___ _ _ "' ,•''. f' ( ./. ` 'S.. C L 0 CK TO WU FAC PA THE *5y..1 mu5E.111^A OvC.R.LOOK A5Fr_t1 - II< r. .5 A.)5 Cr 171 e. COVEIRZO /51 RENC-Ait-D 9/6/2011 4 - 2 - 6 •;, '+ • . . \ ' ,w , • r `• . . y ��•.. 4r t E i ll .. l ` . •• • ., Sti' '..1 %:.; • + ..4 :t + , • e.;;;71/0. •- V.•• • • i s ••I 4 i , °, ! ~. _ " f l� i f j rt '~ . �• 4••• / I' ter/ "/R-"-,-_,...•••-',..--;.‘" ! / fir //+' IIIi f 2- .� - f r .1 . /,/ rid!' �.✓ r // i / �� _ '��' .....,...,:,,;,,,,,„:„.... , „:„.......,:y>,,,,--,.., 0 „ „.,,,,,,,,,...,'',,'_,/ ... ,,A .......„.----:;„-;•, ,i 41 ---7.---'.."-_:"... f/ /J� 41; .. , � .+'ff r (ni p / ! �f � s f ' r _ , . , .4 . /".. a 1 1 g Ir. ' ) . . / 'II”- . • ... . . . . ,„.,,,....,•• ,„ . . e 4111 „1„,.. ,... ,010 .. " .., „ .....■: 0".. 7.7 „.-,.... i ...- ,- i tks, „Jr s i r s , i g . ,..._ -.0 12 11.. „Av.:, „...., CLOCK. TO .R PiA.CiM THE 5i.1 MU 5E. ?L IM 0 Vr- Fi.LOCK A5 ?r rd TFc. r. 5 GHT or Tilt. COt c DJJDZt RL.M..Nt.l SPRll`1C 51" ar)v) CM.1 :AF LE. Int. 1 J FL/AL' 9/6/2011 4 -2 -7 - • - r Z fv ti t( . .. 1. .. 1 Vii~ a ,`! '.* : I 7 M • ' X Y. u rn, .. , � V1' t • p,Mtii w � y r.S .wit a5 1 • t • .i� - - k t ■ t `� • '. :!4_ . .'- -A A. - •~ > 1 4. - 1 LR,■ . • y c ; ti r � 1 ' r ' " 'Li A s A�! i + r1 ar d :: .,- , !a �� _ i 9' # 1 t , , t, --.,....:-% . , ' - 1' " j• r ,,,.•°. , t . 1 ' �R ;hit!, 9 ■ ■ ' a Y `7 V A , `� i - te r ' .. r. , , 1. r:iiii ~ - - - ter, \ ,� 4,,,, y.1#_ 1 • z— s k ra • , .. ' l i k 11 �i� ~� r -.-sue .r f , ' ,_ rc 4.,�y'r.�ea v '" t 'F %r- a•t • L�y' ;t I k � p . �y r' k , , ,, ,41„, • r ` 1.17 ' `° ... t } 4 � ,S ::‘,,.,„ • ' •' ✓ISAr 4 '.-1....4`, Y • 1 4 ` $ i 4 !3 / t � - `� 4 • J s. ' f - ' t1 , ti � : 14 i � 5' i `t 1 r te ' ` 1 -1 .'� _ r, s, . f S 4, . * 14.4-r4-4.•., 4 T i _ al S f L P f' i ' f ti �`. • Ci 4 S. Y �y 1 L t p �c ,F„ j i f. • ir - _,...,. `- SILL S _'.4,!.-'4,,,,-iv�y � � t t � .,�� ° t 7 { f , + , y r 9` 4t.a.l• t F 1�, ► --, 'ms s '. • 44 ' '''' '.5.4 -::. . - . , •r� _ 1 .. , fi r , . , `} SS,r .@s.� .; 1 �: oU yam` +t.� I t/ r +� �y 4 � ..Alr:afi: , .'-. , T.:4‘ Cif ...,...3 ,44.1 3a 1,{...„'' '., • k . 100. t ti".4k,,,:. '• ".... 44 A*44.P.k 1 0 ' ' m �"u�; '1 alb -- ir . " 4 -. 1 . �� .� •! `": �` _ ��• . t . . 4. A S . . r. 'fir } r . f • . } _ .4 1 X 11 '`; , �� ' �� w - � a ' �� ,•e . , :: 1: ••: P 7 . ' ^ ' �`. � A e It - �,tiQ' 4 ;, i y f . ' .. i 3. r .. xRS4 1 �' ` . •\ ,.�, �1� Y } r 1. 1. y ri '- . •. _ .. , ,iJ /l • :• k . � .,n �,-, _ "' " _ . • - - • • 4 , ^Z1. '�`! • ,M _ ;` a ,� " ( ^ � , >� . .. w .,`` '� � '- ` fir.. F; L ; ''''::INit .....% • y �- +r"��'' t f F p N • -; . *-k AH' r ye 4 - .r^• } . ' 4 �.\ ." S` 'e1 + -.�.` a } �! t "' r w g • '3;;:z-b. t.. lot , * , . dr. , � tit T j 1 d � 1 f ? _ .- ` Ty / • J ( a d' of {{ , " p.• S ; ) . . 1 .t S' ' -•,, t - :,., !! .li'�- ' ' . r . 10 vA 'p , i '. ,vA 2" _ 4� `£9( �, ,= ..�� �E� 4 is + .-. , ,;� * , , ,f44'',' -. Ilk , w6, ,a. _ °a • '� ' i • . ,fig { . 1 ` _ }yqt ' 1.,„? 4;` w� • � k k ' 9/6/2011 t f ' ' .' 1 1 f I 1 i-..- t o ' m \ 4 f 1 � � NOW Y Y i \ , 1 , . `� ' � , .( 411#4 ■ . i s _ 1 — — , ir • , , , ........... .... . ' + 4 . ► _ • . ,�. 9 p ' till c 4i •! It 'O , - • . l i , — • T . $ 's •,' If i. -L -'�. r 1 VI , a„ 1 1 t • _ . ' 141 N '' 4.411, illt L ') . - 1 ' . 1 ! - . , • • . :.• ,„ , , l s ,•. ,. Al r .„. 4. Ili „ ,..... , ' 1 f ,.._;_i.. ii. it r r . 4 m - ° - 1 I .,, i } TOM OF V iL VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: September 6, 2011 ITEM /TOPIC: Resolution No. 17, Series of 2011, A Resolution Approving the Employment of Rothgerber Johnson & Lyons LLP as Special Counsel; and Delegating Certain Powers to Council Member Margaret Rogers in Connection Therewith. PRESENTER(S): Matt Mire ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Approve, amend or deny Resolution No. 17, Series of 2011. BACKGROUND: The Town of Vail (the "Town ") is proposing to engage Rothgerber Johnson & Lyons LLP to serve as special counsel to represent the Town solely in connection with the Town's claims against various on -line travel companies (the "OTCs ") arising out of the OTC's sale of temporary, overnight lodging within the Town and subsequent failure to pay lodging tax and sales tax to the Town required by law. The special counsel engagement is limited to performance of services rfelated to this matter, including representing the Town in a pending lawsuit against the OTCs. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve, amend or deny Resolution No. 17, Series of 2011. ATTACHMENTS: Resolution No. 17, Series of 2011 Exhibit A Complaint & Summons 9/6/2011 RESOLUTION NO. 17 Series of 2011 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE EMPLOYMENT OF ROTHGERBER JOHNSON & LYONS LLP AS SPECIAL COUNSEL; AND DELEGATING CERTAIN POWERS TO COUNCIL MEMBER MARGARET ROGERS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH WHEREAS, the Town of Vail (the "Town "), in the County of Eagle and State of Colorado is a home rule municipal corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of Colorado and the Town Charter (the "Charter "); WHEREAS, the Vail Town Council (the "Council ") is authorized by Section 1 -6C -1 of the Town Code to employ special counsel to serve under the direction of the Town Attorney; WHEREAS, the Council desires to employ Rothgerber Johnson & Lyons, LLP ( "RJ &L ") to serve as special counsel for the Town pursuant to Section 1 -6C -1 of the Town Code; WHEREAS, a proposed form of contingent fee agreement for legal services (the "Agreement ") between the Town and RJ &L has been prepared, a copy of which is marked Exhibit "A ", attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference; WHEREAS, the Council has reviewed the Agreement, and finds and determines that it should be approved; WHEREAS, RJ &L will require approval of the Council to take a variety of actions necessary to discharge its obligations under the Agreement; WHEREAS, the Council regularly meets only on the first and third Tuesdays of each month; WHEREAS, many of the actions RJ &L will be required to take on behalf of the Town will be time sensitive, and will necessitate approval between scheduled meetings of the Council; and WHEREAS, Margaret Rogers is a council member, has past experience with litigation matters, and has agreed to serve as a key point of contact between the Council and RJ &L. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, as follows: Section 1. The Agreement between the Town and Rothgerber Johnson & Lyons, LLP (Exhibit "A" hereto) is approved; and the Town Manager is authorized, empowered, and directed to execute the Agreement for and on behalf of the Town of Vail. Minor changes to or amendments of the Agreement may be made by the Town Manager if the Town Attorney certifies in writing that the proposed changes or amendments do not substantially affect the essential elements of the Agreement. Resolution No. 17, Series 61 9/6/2011 5 -1 -1 Section 2. Council member Margaret Rogers is authorized to act on behalf of the Town and, with the assistance of the Town Attorney, direct the work of RJ &L pursuant to the Agreement. Her authority includes, but is not limited to, authorizing RJ &L to: communicate settlement demands on behalf of the Town to any party, commence litigation against any party on behalf of the Town, accept or reject any settlement offer received from any defendant, and take any other action in furtherance of the Town's claims. Section 3. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its passage. INTRODUCED, PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Vail held this 6 day of September, 2011. Dick Cleveland Mayor of the Town of Vail, Colorado ATTEST: Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk Resolution No. 17, Series of 2011 2 9/6/2011 5 -1 -2 RTT One Tabor Center, 'Suite 3000 1200 Seventeenth Street Thomas M. Rogers 1II Denver, Colorado 80202 -5855 Attorney at 1.aw ROTH GE RB E R Telephone 303.623.9000 303.628.9506 Fax 303.623.9222 trogers@rothgerber,eom JOHNSON 8 www.rothgerber.com LYONS LLP Denver • Colorado Springs • Casper August 31, 2011 THIS IS A CONFIDENTIAL AND PRIVILEGED ATTORNEY- CLIENT COMMUNICATION, VIA I-IAND DELIVERY Stan Zemler, Town Manager 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Re: Contingent Fee Agreement for Legal Services Dear Mr. Zenner: We are pleased to welcome the Town of Vail as a client of Rothgerber Johnson & Lyons LLP (the "Firm "). We appreciate the opportunity to serve as the Town's legal counsel in connection with the matter identified below. This letter describes the terms of our engagement (the "Agreement "). This is an important, binding legal document so please read it carefully. 1. Scope of Engagement. We have been engaged to represent the Town of Vail ( "Town ") solely in connection with the Town's claims against various on -line travel companies (the "OTCs ") arising out of the OTC's sale of temporary, overnight lodging within the Town and subsequent failure to pay lodging tax and sales tax to the Town as required by law. We have agreed that our engagement is limited to performance of services related to this matter, including representing the Town in a pending lawsuit against the OTCs. Our acceptance of this engagement does not involve an undertaking to represent the Town or its interests in any other matter. We may agree to limit or expand the scope of our representation from time to time, provided that the Town agrees to such change and we confirm any such change in writing. 2. Our Representation. Other Colorado municipalities have or may become clients of our Firm in connection with claims against the OTCs similar to the Town's. Please understand that this representation will be joint,. meaning that the Town will not be the only client of this Firm in our pursuit of claims against the OTCs. The Town and other Colorado municipalities that retain the Firm to represent them in connection with their claims against the OTCs for unpaid lodging taxes will be referred to herein collectively as our "Clients." Based on our work with the Town and other Clients respectively, we may recommend that we prosecute the claims of the Town or any other Client on an individual basis. At this time 00960755 / 1 } 9/6/2011 5 -2 -1 ROTHGERBER JOHNSON 8 LYONS LLP Mr. Stan Zemler August 31, 2011 Page 2 we are pursuing the claims of all Clients, including the Town, through the filing of a class action lawsuit currently pending against the OTCs in Summit County, Colorado. Mike Plachy, Joy Woller and I will be the attorneys primarily responsible for the pursuit of the Town's claims against the OTCs. Other attorneys and staff at our firm will also work on this matter. 3. Town's Responsibilities. The services we will provide pursuant to this Agreement will be on a contingency fee basis, which is more fully discussed below. If we recover from the OTCs on the Town's claims, through settlement, judgment or order of a court, the Town will be responsible for payment of our attorney fees, as well as the reasonable costs and expenses incurred during the time we provide legal services described in this Agreement, such as photocopy charges, legal research expenses, court costs, court reporter fees, travel expenses, witness fees and similar expenses. Such expenses and costs will be deducted from any recovery obtained in the course of our representation. The Town agrees to be candid and cooperative with us and to keep us informed with complete and accurate factual information, documents and other communications relevant to the subject matter of our representation and otherwise reasonably requested by us. In particular, the Town will make every effort to provide a representative to attend trials, hearings, depositions, and other proceedings, and to commit the appropriate time and resources to meet the Town's discovery obligations. Because it is important that we be able to contact the Town at all times in order to consult with representatives of the Town regarding this representation, the Town will promptly inform us of any changes in relevant contact information, including relevant mail and e -mail addresses and phone numbers. Whenever we need instructions or authorization in order to proceed with legal work on the Town's behalf, we will contact the appropriate Town representatives at the latest address and phone number that we have received. 4. Contingency Fee Agreement. This matter is being handled on a contingency fee basis. The Town, through its authorized agent, must review and sign the Disclosure Statement, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit A and incorporated by reference, which is required by Colorado law. The form of the Final Disbursement Statement that will set forth the fees the Firm earns pursuant to the agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit B. The contingency upon which compensation is to be paid, if any, is the Town's recovery of funds or other thing of value (by the filing of a lawsuit, settlement, negotiation or any other means) from the OTCs based an their failure to pay the Town excise or sales tax on lodging or accommodations as required by law. The Firm has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of Breckenridge, Colorado and other home -rule municipalities similarly situated. The Town is anticipated to be a member of that class. In a class action lawsuit, the court will set the amount of any fees and costs the Firm will be entitled to recover. Nonetheless, the Town agrees that the fees and costs it has agreed to pay 100960755 / 1 } 9/6/2011 5 -2 -2 ROTHGERBER JOHNSON 8 LYONS LLP Mr. Stan Zemler August 31, 2011 Page 3 hereunder and as described further below are reasonable and may be relied upon by any court in determining the Firm's fees and costs. There may be circumstances where the Court does not set the amount of any fees and costs that the Firm may recover; for example, if a class action is not certified. If the Court does not set the amount of the Finn's fees and costs and if the Town recovers from the OTCs as a result of the filing of a lawsuit, settlement, or negotiation, the Town agrees to pay the Firm 30% of the Town's Net Amount of Recovery, as defined below. If recovery is not made on any of the Town's claims, the Town will not be responsible for the payment of any attorneys' fees, contingent or otherwise, or costs except as provided below. The Firm shall be entitled to a contingency fee on any recovery from the OTCs for unpaid taxes for any period of time that is the subject of the lawsuit or the resolution thereof (which shall expressly include any funds paid by the OTC's in exchange for an abeyance in future periods); conversely, no contingency fee shall be owed for the recovery of taxes for any period of time that is not the subject of the lawsuit or the resolution thereof. A. "Town's Gross Amount of Recovery" or "Town's Gross Amount" is defined as the total recovery of fiends by or on behalf of Town (damages, punitive damages, treble damages, pre judgment interest, post judgment interest, and court - awarded attorneys' fees and costs), before payment of costs, expenses, and other disbursements for which Town is responsible. The Town's Gross Amount collected includes any costs or attorneys' fees awarded to and received by the Town. B. "Town's Net Amount of Recovery" or "Town's Net Amount" is defined as the Town's Gross Amount minus costs, expenses, and other disbursements, advanced by the Firm, for which the Town is responsible. 5, Attorneys' Fees or Costs Awarded in Town's Favor. If the court awards attorneys' fees in the Town's favor in any amount, the Town agrees that those fees will be included in Town's Gross Amount of Recovery and thus used to pay fees and costs owed to the Firm pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. 6. Assessment of Costs and Attorneys' Fees Against Losing Party, The Town understands that a court may assess costs against the losing party and, further, both the Town and the Firm may be liable for the attorneys' fees and costs of the prevailing party as a sanction for bringing claims without substantial justification or misconduct during the litigation of the ease. If litigation results in an award of attorneys' fees and/or costs in favor of the opposing party and against the Town, satisfaction of such an award will be the responsibility of the Town only, and will not be the responsibility of the Firm, unless the attorneys' fees and /or costs are awarded by the court as a sanction for misconduct by the Firm. Any award of costs or attorneys' fees to the OTCs, regardless of when awarded, will not affect the contingency fee (if any) owed by the Town under this Agreement. {00960755/1} 9/6/2011 5 -2 -3 ROTHGERBER JOHNSON 8 LYONS LLP Mr. Stan Zemler August 31, 2011 Page 4 7. Alternative Fee Agreements. Town has been advised of the right and opportunity to use some other form of fee arrangement, such as hourly rates and fixed fees, but has elected to proceed on the contingent fee basis set forth in this Agreement. 8. Town's Responsibility for Costs. The Firm will advance costs on behalf of the Town. At this point, we reasonably anticipate the total of the costs to be incurred on behalf of the Town and the other Clients will be approximately $100,000. This is only an estimate and not an agreement to a maximum. The Town is, obligated to pay its share of all out-of-pocket expenses incurred in the preparation and presentation of Town's claims, up to the amount of any recovery, including, but not limited to, such things as: filing fees, costs of consultants, costs of expert reports, expert witness fees, cost of obtaining records, deposition expenses, mileage, travel expenses, investigation costs, photographic expenses, copying expenses, lay witness fees, and computer access charges. The Town will not be obligated to pay any costs unless it obtains a recovery from the OTCs. The Town understands that this list is not exhaustive and that costs may be incurred for items other than these examples. The Town's share of these costs will be deducted from the Town's Gross Amount of Recovery and paid to the Firm. 9. Multiple Clients and Waiver of Conflicts. The Town acknowledges that our Firm represents other municipalities who are pursuing claims against the OTCs. In representing those other municipalities, it may necessary for our Firm to take actions which may have an indirect adverse impact on the Town's claims. For example, one of our claimants could choose to settle with the OTCs which could mean that the Town will not be able to use any judgment obtained by the settling municipalities as precedent against OTCs. In other words, some of the Clients may settle and others may not. By signing below, the Town knowingly and voluntarily agrees to waive any potential conflict of interest that may arise in pursuit of claims by our Firm for other Clients. Our Firm will undertake to disclose to the Town any circumstances we perceive as a potential conflict of interest should those circumstances arise. Should future disagreements or conflicts of interest arise between the Town and other Clients, or if the representation of joint claimants becomes adversely affected by the common representation, other arrangements for the Town's representation may become necessary. The Town also understands and agrees there will be no confidences solely between the Town and the Firm regarding the work the Firm performs in this matter for the Town because everything may be shared with other Clients. Please understand that although the Town and all of the other Clients have the same type of claims against the OTCs, each of the Clients has its own tax ordinance, facts and circumstances. Thus, some Clients may recover more than others in a settlement or in court, and some may recover less or nothing at all. Should we obtain a settlement offer from the OTCs, it will be communicated to the Town. At that time, the Town can decide whether to accept the offer or not. It is possible that some Clients may accept the offer while others do not. In such a case, Clients who accept an offer will not be able to proceed to court. If the number of Clients who do not accept an offer from the OTCs is small in comparison with the number that settle, our Firm retains the right to choose not to go forward with the court case. On the other hand, if there is no settlement offer or {00960755/1) 9/6/2011 5 -2 -4 ROTHGERBER JOHNSON 8 LYONS LLP Mr. Stan Zemler August 31, 201 l Page 5 only a small percentage of the Clients we represent choose to accept a settlement offer from the OTCs, our Firm with direction and advice from our Clients could decide to proceed to trial on the individual claims. Or, depending upon facts and circumstances learned during the representation, the Firm with input and advice from our Clients, could continue with a class action case wherein one or more of our Clients could serve as class representatives. At present the Firm is not adverse to the Town in any matter. The Firm regularly represents clients in tax disputes with various taxing agencies, which may include the Town. If retained, the Firm will not accept any representation adverse to the Town relating to excise taxes or sales taxes on lodging or accommodations. The Firm requests that the Town waive any conflicts of interest that may arise, or be perceived to arise, from the Firm's representation of other clients in tax disputes that may arise in the future, provided such disputes do not relate or pertain to excise taxes or sales taxes on lodging or accommodations. 10. Advice about Possible Outcomes. At the commencement and during the course of our representation, we may express opinions or beliefs concerning this matter, alternative courses of action, or results that might be anticipated. Any such statement made by any lawyer of the Firm is intended to be an expression of opinion only, based on information available to us at the time, and should not be regarded as a promise or guarantee. 11. Settlement. Depending upon the progress of the matter, it may be in the Town's best interest to attempt to negotiate a settlement. However, we will not make or accept any settlement offer without first conferring with the Town. The Town is solely responsible for making final decisions about whether or not to accept a settlement offer. If a class action settlement is reached, and the Town is not a named Plaintiff in the class action, we will advise the Town regarding the settlement but the decision whether to accept a settlement will be up to the named Plaintiff(s). If a class action settlement is reached that the Town does not agree to, the Town may retain separate counsel to object or to opt out of the class, the Town agrees that the Firm may continue to act as counsel for the class. The Firm will assess the strengths and weaknesses of the Town's claims and will provide guidance to the Town regarding settlement matters. If a settlement offer is received and the Firm recommends acceptance, but the Town fails to accept the Firm's guidance, the Firni, at its discretion and in compliance with all ethical rules governing withdrawal of counsel from a case, may terminate its representation of the Town under this Agreement. 12. Associate Counsel. The Firm and the Town anticipate that the Firm will associate with co- counsel from other law firms. Compensation to any associated counsel will be paid out of the fees set forth herein and shall be the responsibility of the Firm, not the Town. When the work of the Firm is referenced herein, that reference shall include the work of any associated counsel. We anticipate that our associated counsel will be the following Georgia firms: Crongeyer Law Firm, P.C., Bird Law Group, and The Finnell Firm. 13, Subrogation. The Town has informed the Firm that no other persons or entities have a subrogation right or lien to the amounts the Town may recover from the OTCs. {00960755 / t } 9/6/2011 5 -2 -5 ROTHGERBER JOHNSON 8 LYONS LLP Mr. Stan Zemler August 31, 2011 Page 6 Nevertheless, if other persons or entities have a subrogation right or lien to the amount the Town recovers, any and all subrogation rights or liens are to be paid by the Town from the Net Amount of Recovery after paying the Firm the contingent fee and the costs advanced by Firm. 14. Termination of Engagement. The Town may at any time terminate our services and representation upon written notice to the Firm. Such termination shall not, however, relieve the Town of its obligations to pay for costs or expenses incurred on behalf of the Town through the date of termination, as required by this Agreement. If the Firm's representation of the Town is terminated by the Town, or the Firm withdraws for any reason other than the Firm's determination that the Town's claims are meritless, frivolous, or groundless, and the Town subsequently recovers any money based on the Town's claims, the Town shall pay the Firm an amount based on quantum meruit; i.e., reasonable value for the services the Firm has rendered not to exceed the fee that would have been earned by the Firm if the contingency described in this agreement had occurred. Any dispute on the amount owed to the Finn based on quantum meruit shall be submitted to arbitration before the Judicial Arbiter Group, Inc. in Denver, Colorado. We reserve the right to withdraw representation at any time for failure to follow any recommendations or advice we may render to the Town. Please also be advised that should any conflict of interest arise in our representation of you, we may be required to withdraw our representation and you may need to obtain new counsel. In the event that the Firm terminates the engagement, we will take such steps as are reasonably practicable to protect the Town's interests in this matter at the time of termination. 15. Retention and Disposition of Documents. At the Town's request, following the termination of this engagement, we will return its papers and property. The Firm will retain our own files pertaining to the matter. We reserve the right to destroy or otherwise dispose of documents or other materials retained by us within a reasonable time after termination of the engagement. 16. Post - Engagement Matters. The Town has engaged the Firm to provide legal services in connection with a specific matter. After completion of the matter, changes may occur in applicable laws or regulations that could impact the Town's future rights and liabilities. If the Town separately engages us after completion of the matter to provide additional advice on issues arising from it, the Firm would be pleased to advise the Town with respect to future legal developments. 17. Town's Representation of Understanding This Agreement. The Town has the right to seek separate legal counsel (at the Town's expense) with respect to this Agreement. 18. Execution. This document has been executed in duplicate, and by signing this document, both the Town and the Firm acknowledge they have received a fully- executed copy of the document. (00960755 / 1 9/6/2011 5 -2 -6 ROTHGERBER JOHNSON 8 LYONS LLP Mr. Stan Zernler August 31, 2011 Page 7 It is our goal to provide the Town quality legal services in this matter on a contingency basis. We will work hard to achieve the goals of this representation as set forth in this Agreement. Should the Town ever have any questions or concerns about our service, work product, billings, or any other aspect of our engagement, please let me know immediately so we can address the situation and better respond to the Town's needs. The Town should review this proposed Agreement carefully. If the Town finds this Agreement acceptable, please sign it. We look forward to representing the Town in this matter. Sincerely, ROTHGERBER JOHNSO & LYONS LLP "<- /1 Thomas M. Rogers III TMR: AGREED TO AND ACCEPTED: Town of Vail By: Stan Zemler, Town Manager Date: cc: Matt Mire, Esq. Michael D. Plachy, Esq. Joy Allen Woller, Esq. (00960755 / 1 } 9/6/2011 5 -2 -7 EXHIBIT A DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Type of Attorney Fee Agreements: I and the Town Council of Vail (the "Council ") have been informed and understand that there are several types of attorney fee arrangements: (1) time based, (2) fixed, (3) contingent, or (4) combinations of these types of fee arrangements. "Time based" means a fee that is determined by the amount of time involved such as so much per hour, day or week. "Fixed" means a fee that is based on an agreed amount regardless of the time or effort involved or the result obtained. "Contingent" means a certain agreed percentage or amount that is payable only upon attaining a recovery regardless of the time or effort involved. I and the Council understand that not all attorneys offer all of these different types of fee arrangements, and acknowledges that the Town of Vail (the "Town ") has the right to contact other attorneys to determine if they may provide such other fee arrangements for the Town's case or matter. After such consideration or consultation, the Council has elected the fee arrangement set forth in the accompanying contingent fee agreement. Specially Awarded Attorney Fees: I and the Council have been informed and understand that the court or an arbitrator may sometimes award attorney fees in addition to amount of recovery being claimed. I and the Council understand that the fee agreement the Town enters into with the Town's attorney should contain a provision as to how any specially awarded fees will be accounted for and handled. Expenses: I and the Council have been informed and understand that there may be expenses (aside from any attorney fee) in pursuing the Town's claim. Examples of such expenses are: fees charged by expert witnesses, fees of investigators, fees of court reporters to take and prepare transcripts of depositions, and expenses involved in preparing exhibits. I and the Council understand that an attorney is required to provide the Town with an estimate of such expenses before the Council enters into an attorney fee agreement and that the attorney fee agreement should include a provision as to how and when such expenses will be paid. I and the Council understand that the fee agreement should tell the Town whether a fee payable from the proceeds of the amount collected on the Town's behalf will be based on the "net" or "gross" recovery. "Net recovery" means the amount remaining after expenses and deductions. "Gross recovery" means the total amount of the recovery before any deductions. The estimated amount of the expenses to handle the Town's case will be set forth in the contingent fee agreement. The Potential of Costs and Attorney's Fees Being Awarded to The Opposing Party: I and the Council have been informed and understand that a court or arbitrator sometimes awards costs and attorney fees to the opposing party. I and the Council have been informed and understand that should that happen in the Town's case, the Town will be responsible to pay such award. I and the Council understand that the fee agreement it enters into with the Town's attorney should provide whether an award against the Town will be paid out of the proceeds of {00948552 / 1} 9/6/2011 5 -2 -8 any amount collected on the Town's behalf. I and the Council also understand that the agreement should provide whether the fee the Town is obligated to pay the Town's attorney will be based on the amount of recovery before or after payment of the awarded costs and attorney fees to an opposing party. Associated Counsel: I and the Council have been informed and understand that the Town's attorney may sometimes hire another attorney to assist in the handling of a case. That other attorney is called an "associated counsel." I and the Council understand that the attorney fee agreement should tell the Town how the fees of associated counsel will be handled. Subrogation: I and the Council have been informed and understand that other persons or entities may have a subrogation right in what the Town recovers in pursuing the Town's claim. "Subrogation" means the right to be paid back. I and the Council understand that the subrogation right may arise in various ways such as when an insurer or a federal or state agency pays money to or on behalf of a claiming party like the Town in situations such as medicare, medicaid, worker's compensation, medical /health insurance, no -fault insurance, uninsured /underinsured motorist insurance, and property insurance situations. I and the Council understand that sometimes a hospital, physician or an attorney will assert a "lien" (a priority right) on a claim such as the one the Town is pursuing. Subrogation rights and liens need to be considered and provided for in the fee agreement that I and the Council reaches with the Town's attorney. The fee agreement should tell the Town whether the subrogation right or lien is being paid by the Town's attorney out of the proceeds of the recovery made on the Town's behalf and whether the fee the Town is obligated to pay the Town's attorney will be based on the amount of recovery before or after payment of the subrogation right or lien. Alternative Attorney Compensation: I and the Council have been informed and understand that if, after entering into a fee agreement with the Town's attorney, Council terminates the employment of the Town's attorney or the Town's attorney justifiably withdraws, the Town may nevertheless be obligated to pay the Town's attorney for the work done by the Town's attorney on the Town's behalf. The fee agreement should contain a provision stating how such alternative compensation, if any, will be handled. I acknowledge that I received a complete copy of this Disclosure Statement and read it this day of , 2011. Town of Vail: By: Stan Zemler Its: Town Manager {00948552 / 1} 9/6/2011 5 -2 -9 EXHIBIT B FINAL DISBURSEMENT STATEMENT Gross Recovery $ Itemization of expenses incurred in handling of case: Total Expenses $ Amount of Expenses Advanced by Attorney: Amount of Expenses Paid by Client: I et Recovery (Gross Recovery Less Expenses Advanced by Attorney) $ Computation of Contingent Fee: 30% of Net Recovery: $ Disbursement to Client (Net Recovery Less Contingent Fee) $ Rothgerber Johnson & Lyons LLP By signature, client acknowledges receipt of a copy of this disbursement statement this day of , 2011. {00948358 / 1} 9/6/2011 5 -2 -10 Town of Vail: By: Stan Zemler Its: Town Manager {00948358 / 1} 9/6/2011 5 -2 -11 EFILED Document DISTRICT COURT, SUMMIT COUNTY, COLORADO CO Summit County District Court 5th JD Filing Date: Jul 25 2011 7:39PM MDT Filing ID: 38884975 Court Address: Summit County Justice Center Review Clerk: Chris Kilkenny 501 North Park Ave., P. O. Box 269 Breckenridge, CO 80424 Plaintiff: TOWN OF BRECKENRIDGE, COLORADO ON * ,� BEHALF OF ITSELF AND OTHER SIMILARLY SITUATED COLORADO HOME RULE MUNICIPALITIES COURT USE OI LY vs. Defendants: COLORADO TRAVEL COMPANY, LLC; Case Number: EGENCIA, LLC; EXPEDIA, INC.; HOTELS.COM, L.P.; HOTELS.COM GP, LLC; HOTWIRE, INC.; Division Courtroom INTERNETWORK PUBLISHING CORP. (d/b /a/ LODGING.COM); LOWEST FARE.COM, INC.; ONETRAVEL, INC. (d/b /a/ onetravel.com); ORBITZ, INC.; ORBITZ, LLC; PRICELINE.COM, INCORPORATED; SITE 59.COM, LLC; TRAVELNOW.COM, INC.; TRAVELOCITY.COM, LP; TRAVELPORT INC. f/k/a CENDANT TRAVEL DISTRIBUTION SERVICES GROUP INC.; TRAVELSCAPE, LLC; TRAVELWEB, LLC; TRIP NETWORK, INC. (d/b /a Cheaptickets.com) and DOES 1 THROUGH 1000, INCLUSIVE, {00936724 /1} 9/6/2011 5 -3 -1 Attorney or Party Without Attorney (Name and Address): Michael D. Plachy, Reg. No. 22014 mplachyArothgerber. com Thomas M. Rogers, Reg. No. 28809 trogersArothgerber. com Joy Allen Woller, Reg. No. 36011 j wollerArothgerber. com Rothgerber Johnson & Lyons LLP One Tabor Center, Suite 3000 1200 Seventeenth Street Denver, Colorado 80202 Phone Number: 303 - 623 -9000 FAX Number: 303 - 623 -9222 DISTRICT COURT CIVIL (CV) CASE COVER SHEET FOR II ITIAL PLEADII G OF COMPLAII T, COUI TERCLAIM, CROSS -CLAIM OR THIRD PARTY COMPLAII T 1. This cover sheet shall be filed with the initial pleading of a complaint, counterclaim, cross - claim or third party complaint in every district court civil (CV) case. It shall not be filed in Domestic Relations (DR), Probate (PR), Water (CW), Juvenile (JA, JR, JD, JV), or Mental Health (MH) cases. 2. Check the boxes applicable to this case. ❑ Simplified Procedure under C.R.C.P. 16.1 applies to this case because this party does not seek a monetary judgment in excess of $100,000.00 against another party, including any attorney fees, penalties or punitive damages but excluding interest and costs and because this case is not a class action or forcible entry and detainer, Rule 106, Rule 120, or other expedited proceeding. ❑ Simplified Procedure under C.R.C.P. 16.1, does not apply to this case because (check one box below identifying why 16.1 does not apply): ❑ This is a class action or forcible entry and detainer, Rule 106, Rule 120, or other similar expedited proceeding, or ❑ This party is seeking a monetary judgment for more than $100,000.00 against another party, including any attorney fees, penalties or punitive damages, but excluding interest and costs (see C.R.C.P. 16.1(c)), or ❑ Another party has previously stated in its cover sheet that C.R.C.P. 16.1 does not apply to this case. 3. ® This party makes a Jury Demand at this time and pays the requisite fee. See C.R.C.P. 38. (Checking this box is optional.) {00936724/1} 9/6/2011 5 -3 -2 4. Date: July 25, 2011 s/ Michael D. Plachy Signature of Party or Attorney for Party Trey M. Rogers III, Esq. Joy Allen Woller, Esq. Attorneys for Plaintiff Town of Breckenridge, Colorado I OTICE ■ This cover sheet must be filed in all District Court Civil (CV) Cases. Failure to file this cover sheet is not a jurisdictional defect in the pleading but may result in a clerk's show cause order requiring its filing. ■ This cover sheet must be served on all other parties along with the initial pleading of a complaint, counterclaim, cross - claim, or third party complaint. ■ This cover sheet shall not be considered a pleading for purposes of C.R.C.P. 11. {00936724 / 1} 9/6/2011 5 -3 -3 EFILED Document DISTRICT COURT, SUMMIT COUNTY, CO Summit County District Court 5th JD Filing Date: Jul 25 2011 7:39PM MDT COLORADO Filing ID: 38884975 Review Clerk: Chris Kilkenny Court Address: Summit County Justice Center 501 North Park Ave., P.O. Box 269 Breckenridge, CO 80424 Plaintiff: TOWN OF BRECKENRIDGE, COLORADO ON BEHALF OF ITSELF AND OTHER SIMILARLY SITUATED COLORADO HOME RULE • COURT USE ONLY • MUNICIPALITIES, Case Number: Type No. vs. Defendants: COLORADO TRAVEL COMPANY, LLC; Div.: Ctrm.: EGENCIA, LLC; EXPEDIA, INC.; HOTELS.COM, L.P.; HOTELS.COM GP, LLC; HOTWIRE, INC.; INTERNETWORK PUBLISHING CORP. (d/b /a/ LODGING.COM); LOWEST FARE.COM, INC.; ONETRAVEL, INC. (d/b /a/ onetravel.com); ORBITZ, INC.; ORBITZ, LLC; PRICELINE.COM, INCORPORATED; SITE 59.COM, LLC; TRAVELNOW.COM, INC.; TRAVELOCITY.COM, LP; TRAVELPORT INC. f/k/a CENDANT TRAVEL DISTRIBUTION SERVICES GROUP INC.; TRAVELSCAPE, LLC; TRAVELWEB, LLC; TRIP NETWORK, INC. (d/b /a Cheaptickets.com) and DOES 1 THROUGH 1000, INCLUSIVE, Attorneys for Plaintiff Name: Michael D. Plachy, #22014 Thomas M. Rogers III, #28809 Joy Allen Woller, #36011 {00951150 / 1} 9/6/2011 5 -3 -4 Firm: Rothgerber Johnson & Lyons LLP Address: One Tabor Center, Suite 3000 1200 Seventeenth Street Denver, Colorado 80202 Tel: 303.623.9000 Fax: 303.623.9222 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT For its Class Action Complaint ( "Complaint ") against Defendants, Plaintiff, the Town of Breckenridge, Colorado, by and through its undersigned counsel and on behalf of itself and other similarly situated Colorado home rule municipalities, states: PARTIES 1. Plaintiff TOWN OF BRECKENRIDGE, COLORADO (hereafter "Breckenridge ") is located in Summit County, Colorado. Plaintiff is a home rule municipality incorporated in 1880. 2. Defendant COLORADO TRAVEL COMPANY, LLC (hereafter "Colorado Travel Company ") is a Colorado limited liability corporation with its principal place of business in Denver, Colorado. 3. Defendant EGENCIA, LLC (hereafter "Egencia ") is a Nevada limited liability corporation with its principal place of business in Bellevue, Washington. 4. Defendant EXPEDIA, INC. (hereafter "Expedia ") is a Washington corporation with its principal place of business in Bellevue, Washington. 5. Defendant HOTELS.COM, L.P. (hereafter "Hotels.com, L.P. ") is a Texas limited partnership with its principal place of business in Dallas, Texas. 6. Defendant HOTELS.COM GP, LLC (hereafter "Hotels.com, GP ") is a Texas limited liability corporation with its principal place of business in Dallas, Texas. 7. Defendant HOTWIRE, INC. (hereafter "Hotwire ") is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. 8. Defendant INTERNETWORK PUBLISHING CORP. (d/b /a/ LODGING.COM) (hereafter "Lodging.com ") is a Florida corporation with its principal place of business in Boca Raton, Florida. 9. Defendant LOWEST FARE.COM, INC. (hereafter "Lowestfare.com ") is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Norwalk, Connecticut. 2 of 18 {00951150 / 11 9/6/2011 5 -3 -5 10. Defendant ONETRAVEL, INC. (hereafter "OneTravel ") is a Texas corporation with its principal place of business in Las Vegas, Nevada. 11. Defendant ORBITZ, INC. (hereafter "Orbitz, Inc ") is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Chicago, Illinois. 12. Defendant ORBITZ, LLC (hereafter "Orbitz, LLC ") is a Delaware limited liability corporation with its principal place of business in Chicago, Illinois. 13. Defendant PRICELINE.COM INCORPORATED (hereafter "Priceline.com ") is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Norwalk, Connecticut. 14. Defendant SITE59.COM, LLC (hereafter "Site59.com ") is a Delaware limited liability corporation with its principal place of business in New York, New York. 15. Defendant TRAVELNOW.COM, INC. (hereafter "Travelnow.com ") is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Springfield, Missouri. 16. Defendant TRAVELOCITY.COM, LP (hereafter "Travelocity.com, LP ") is a Delaware partnership with its principal place of business in Southlake, Texas. 17. Defendant TRAVELPORT INC. f/k/a CENDANT TRAVEL DISTRIBUTION SERVICES GROUP INC. (hereafter "Travelport") is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Parsippany, New Jersey. 18. Defendant TRAVELSCAPE, LLC (hereafter "Travelscape ") is a Nevada limited liability company with its principal place of business in Las Vegas, Nevada. 19. Defendant TRAVELWEB, LLC (hereafter "Travelweb ") is a Delaware limited liability corporation with its principal place of business in Dallas, Texas. 20. Defendant TRIP NETWORK, INC. (d/b /a Cheaptickets.com) (hereafter " Cheaptickets.com") is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Parsippany, New Jersey. 21. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate or otherwise, of each of the Defendants designated herein as a DOE are unknown to Plaintiff at this time and therefore said Defendants are sued by such fictitious names. Plaintiff will ask leave of the Court to amend this Complaint to show their true names and capacities when the same have been ascertained. Upon information and belief, each of the Defendants designated herein as a DOE is legally responsible in some manner and liable for the events and happenings herein alleged and in such manner, proximately caused damages to Plaintiff as hereinafter further alleged. 3 of 18 {00951150 / 1} 9/6/2011 5 -3 -6 22. Upon information and belief, some of the Defendants, including some or all DOE defendants, at all times herein mentioned, were acting as the agent, servant and employee of some or all of the other Defendants and within the scope of said agency and employment (collectively the "Agent Defendants "). Upon information and belief, at the time and place of the matters described, each of the Agent Defendants, their agents, servants and/or employees became liable to Plaintiff for one or more of the reasons described herein. VENUE AND NATURE OF CLAIMS 23. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to Colo. R. Civ. P. 98 because, inter alia, the acts underlying this action arose in this jurisdiction and include claims for recovery of a penalty imposed by statute. 24. This action is brought to remedy violations of local ordinances in connection with Defendants' failure to remit taxes to the named Plaintiff and other similarly situated municipalities located in the State of Colorado. Defendants failed to remit taxes due and owing under similar hotel or other lodging occupancy tax ordinances and /or similarly intentioned excise and/or sales taxes to the Plaintiff and the Class. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 25. Article XX of the Colorado Constitution delineates home rule for cities and towns. Article XX, Section 6 grants home rule municipalities all powers necessary to administer local and municipal powers. Colorado law recognizes the exclusive right of a home rule municipality to govern themselves in matters of local and municipal concern. The constitutional grant of power to home rule cities contained in Article XX, Sec. 6 includes a right to levy and collect a tax to raise revenue with which to conduct the affairs and business of a city. 26. Breckenridge imposes a 3.4% `Breckenridge Public Accommodation Tax" on the price paid for the leasing or rental of any hotel room, motel room, or other accommodation in the town. (See Breckenridge Town Code, Title 3, Chapter 4, Section 3 -4 -3.) 27. It is unlawful "for any lessee or renter" of a hotel room, motel room, or other accommodation in the Town of Breckenridge to fail to pay or collect the tax. (See Breckenridge Town Code, Title 3, Chapter 4, Section 3 -4 -4.) 28. Class Members similarly levy and collect taxes on lodging or overnight accommodations. This tax may be denominated as a hotel occupancy, lodgers tax, lodging tax, accommodation tax, and/or excise tax imposed upon any sale of lodging or overnight accommodations (collectively defined as "Excise Tax "). Regardless of how the tax is titled, it is correctly calculated as a percentage of the retail rate that each consumer occupant pays for lodging ( "Retail Rate "), including service costs (the "Excise Tax Amount "). 29. Defendants are online travel companies and their affiliates or related companies ( "OTC "). Specifically, they are online sellers and/or online resellers of hotel rooms or other 4 of 18 {00951150/11 9/6/2011 5 -3 -7 accommodations ( "Lodging ") to the general public (the "Consumers Occupants" or Consumers "). 30. OTCs, like Defendants, transact business under two models: the "agency model" and the "merchant model." 31. Under the "agency model" the OTCs act as traditional travel agents, facilitating reservations on behalf of a hotel and passing the reservation on to the hotel. The OTC will receive a commission as an agent under this model. 32. Under the "agency model," the transaction is between the hotel and the Consumer. Excise Taxes are calculated and collected by the hotel on the retail rate charged to the Consumer. The Consumers are the taxpayers, and the hotels are the tax collectors. The agency model is not at issue in this Complaint. 33. In 2000 or 2001, the OTCs began a pervasive use of the "merchant model." It is the "merchant model" that is the subject of this Complaint. 34. The "merchant model" adopted by Defendants is a uniform, nationwide model that operates the same for all OTCs in all jurisdictions, including Colorado. 35. Under this "merchant model" the Defendant/ OTCs are the merchants of record in their transactions with the Consumers. 36. Under the "merchant model," the Defendants negotiate with hotels ( "Hotels ") for wholesale or "net" rates on Lodging. The price paid by Defendants to Hotels is referred to in this Complaint as the wholesale rate ( "Wholesale Rate. ") 37. Defendants then profit by contracting with Consumers for Lodging at the Retail Rate which is higher than the Wholesale Rate paid by Defendants to Hotels. 38. Under the "merchant model," Defendants determine the Retail Rate that the Consumer pays. The Defendants have broad discretion in establishing and charging the Retail Rate. The Defendants have control over the price they offer to the Consumer and, therefore, control the profit they make from the markup. 39. The "merchant model" is a prepaid model in which Defendants collect all monies up front from the Consumer at the time the on -line reservation is made and the Consumer's credit card is charged. 40. Under the "merchant model," the taxable transaction is between the Consumer and the Defendants for the purchase of Lodging. There is no taxable transaction between the Hotel and the Consumer for the purchase of Lodging. 5 of 18 {00951150 / 1} 9/6/2011 5 -3 -8 41. Under the "merchant model," the only contract or agreement at the time the taxes at issue are being assessed and collected is between the Defendants and the Consumer. 42. The Defendants sell rooms to Consumers and collect payments, including taxes from the Consumer at the time of booking. Under the "merchant model," the Defendants have been or are currently controlling Hotels. 43. Defendants are charging and collecting amounts as Excise Taxes and fees from Consumers in Colorado, but are not remitting the Excise Tax Amounts to the appropriate Class Members. 44. Instead, Plaintiff Class Members only receive tax amounts based upon the lower, Wholesale Rate (the "Wholesale Tax Amount "). Each Defendant then retains for its own use and benefit the difference between the correct Excise Tax Amount and the incorrect Wholesale Tax Amount. 45. For example, Expedia negotiates with a Hotel for rooms at the lower Wholesale Rate and pays the Hotel a flat rate for each room sold, for instance $60.00 for a room in Breckenridge, Colorado. Under the "merchant model" Expedia then controls the price offered to the Consumer. Expedia then sells the same room to the Consumer for a marked up price, for example $100. Expedia charges taxes and fees that would approximately cover the taxes owed, which should be based upon the Retail Rate of $100. The amount of tax due in this example is 3.4% of $100 or $3.40. (See Breckenridge Town Code, Title 3, Chapter 4, Section 3 -4 -3). 46. However, the amount of Excise Tax remitted to Plaintiff and other Class Members has been based on the lower Wholesale Rate. In this example, Plaintiff would only receive $2.04 (3.4% of $60.00), an underpayment of the tax liability by $1.36. Thus, in this single example transaction, Plaintiffs collected tax would be 40% less than the collected and the proper Excise Tax Amount of $3.40. 47. In this manner, Defendants failed to remit the Excise Taxes due and owing to the Plaintiff and all putative Class Members. 48. Defendants have also failed to properly file required tax reports. Every person required to collect Excise Taxes must report such taxes collected on forms prescribed by the Town and remit said taxes to the Town. (See Breckenridge Town Code, Title 3, Chapter 4, 3 -4 -6.) 49. Defendants are collecting taxes from Consumers but, upon information and belief, have not obtained a Town License in any of the Class Member municipalities and have not reported such taxes to Plaintiff or any Class Members. 50. While a limitation period normally applies to a suit or action to collect such taxes, proceedings for collection of taxes may be commenced at any time in a case, such as this one, 6 of 18 {00951150 / 1} 9/6/2011 5 -3 -9 where a taxpayer fails to file a required return. (See Breckenridge Town Code, Title 3, Chapter 4, 3- 4 -10.) 51. In addition to Excise Taxes, or in the alternative, Defendants are required to remit sales tax ( "Sales Tax ") on the Lodging they sell to the public. Plaintiff and many putative Class Members are entitled to a percentage of the Sales Tax owed based upon their local ordinance. 52. Defendants are charging and collecting Sales Taxes from Consumers in the same manner as they charge and collect Excise Taxes. 53. For example, if a Consumer agrees to buy a room in Breckenridge, Colorado from Expedia for $100.00, Expedia.com would add un- itemized taxes and fees that approximately would cover the taxes due on the Retail Rate ($100.00). Breckenridge imposes a two and one - half percent (2.5 %) sales tax upon gross receipts derived from sales of personal property and services. (See Breckenridge Town Code, Title 3, Chapter 1, Section 3 -1 -5). Expedia.com, however, obtains that room at the lower Wholesale Rate, $60.00 for instance. The proper amount of Sales Tax owed by Defendants in this example is $2.50. However, the amount of Sales Tax actually paid to Breckenridge has been based on the lower Wholesale Rate. In this example, only $1.50 (2.5% of $60.00), instead of the $2.50 (2.5% of $100.00) of the taxes and fees actually owed is paid. Defendants then retain the difference of $1.00 (in this example). As in the previous example, Defendants' unlawful practice in this example would result in a Sales Tax deficiency of 40 percent. 54. In this manner, Defendants have failed to remit Sales Tax due and owing to the Plaintiff and the putative Class Members. 55. As stated, Defendants' business practices include charging Consumers un- itemized taxes and fees on each sale of Lodging. The Consumer is led to believe Defendants are remitting the correct amount of Sales Tax and Excise Tax to the Plaintiff. Defendants, however, are calculating the tax liability of the general public (and Defendants) based upon the Wholesale Rate Defendants paid the Hotel for the room, not upon the Retail Rate that the Consumer paid Defendants. As a result, the Sales and Excise Tax liabilities paid by the general public and owed to Plaintiff are underpaid /unpaid by the Defendants who unlawfully retain the difference. These practices deprive Plaintiff and the Class the full amounts due and owing to them from each sale of Lodging. 56. Also, as stated, in addition to failing to properly pay collected taxes, Defendants do not disclose to the general public the amounts being paid for each specific tax and the amounts, if any, being paid separately as "service fees." Defendants bundle the taxes and "service fees" as a way to keep the Wholesale Rate of the Lodging opaque. 57. Defendants will not disclose the amount of Sales Tax and Excise Tax being assessed even if the Consumer asks them. 7 of 18 {00951150 / 1} 9/6/2011 5 -3 -10 58. Defendants require that the Hotels not reveal to the Consumer what Defendants paid for the Lodging. Likewise, the Hotels do not know what the Consumer paid Defendants for the Lodging. 59. Only the Defendants collect taxes from the Consumer in the "merchant model." The Consumer is the taxpayer, and the Defendants are the tax collectors. 60. Under the "merchant model," the Hotels never collect the required Sales Tax and Excise Tax from the Consumer. 61. Under the "merchant model" and contained in the language of the contracts between the Defendants and the Hotels, it is the Defendants' responsibility to calculate the taxes and collect all monies, including tax monies, from the Consumer at the time of booking. 62. The only way for the Hotel to pay the correct Excise and /or Sales Tax to the Plaintiffs is if Defendants remit the additional tax owed (and which was actually paid by the Consumer to Defendants) to the Class Members. 63. The Defendants' failure to itemize taxes violates basic principles of tax transparency and further supports Plaintiffs claims of the Defendants' tax liability, and specifically violates express code provisions of many of the Plaintiff Class Members. 64. Due to the contractual or factual relationship between the Defendants and the Hotels, the Defendants and the Hotels act on behalf of each other to provide /sell customers Lodging, and are thus agents of one other. As such, they operate as joint enterprise members and have joint enterprise membership liability. 65. Defendants have a physical presence in the State of Colorado, including within the Class Member municipalities. Such presence includes, but is not limited to, providing and/or selling rooms in Hotels, serving as agents for Hotels for purposes of selling or providing rooms in those Hotels and, upon information and belief, by having employees or agents travel to Class Member municipalities within Colorado to negotiate and enter into contracts with Hotels to review and rate those Hotels. Many Defendants Are Affiliated Through A Common Corporate Parent. 66. Defendants Expedia, Hotels.com, L.P., Hotels.com GP, Hotwire, Inc., Travelscape and TravelNow.com are affiliated business entities, related through a common corporate parent Expedia, Inc., a Delaware corporation. Expedia's parent company is IAC /Interactive Corp. 67. Defendants Travelport; Orbitz, Inc.; Orbitz, LLC; Cheaptickets.com; and Lodging.com are affiliated business entities, related through the common corporate parent, Avis Budget Group. 8 of 18 {00951150 / 1} 9/6/2011 5 -3 -11 68. Defendants Site59.com and Travelocity.com LP are affiliated business entities, related though an common ultimate parent, Sabre Holdings Corporation, a Delaware corporation. 69. Defendants Priceline.com; Lowestfare.com, and Travelweb are all affiliated business entities, related through the common corporate parent Defendant Priceline.com, Incorporated, a Delaware corporation. 70. Defendant Lowestfare.com is a wholly owned subsidiary of Defendant Priceline.com. In 2002, Priceline.com, Inc. purchased the Internet URL and trademarks of Lowestfare.com and formed a subsidiary corporation, Defendant Lowestfare.com. Defendant Travelweb is a wholly owned subsidiary of Lowestfare.com. 71. Defendants, in public communications, and through the media, have taken the position that they are not liable for hotel occupancy taxes on the retail amount of their sales of hotel room occupancy. There is, therefore, an actual and live controversy between the parties. Defendants Have Entered into Agreements with Each Other to Market and Sell Hotel Room Inventory. 72. All Defendants, at all times mentioned herein, were acting under common plans, schemes or methodologies, and from time to time entered into agreements and ventures for the common marketing, distribution and sale or resale of Lodging throughout the state of Colorado. 73. Upon information and belief, Defendants have shared products and customers and have entered into agreements and co- ventures for the sale or resale of hotel room inventory by cross - listing available hotel rooms on their respective Internet portals. Examples are listed in paragraphs 74 through 86 below. 74. Upon information and belief, sometime between 1990 and present, Orbitz Inc. and /or Orbitz, LLC entered into an agreement with Travelweb whereby Orbitz, Inc. and /or Orbitz, LLC received prepaid hotel room inventory from Travelweb and other participating entities for display on Orbitz's website. Under this arrangement, Travelweb set the occupant price for the inventory and paid Orbitz, Inc. and/or Orbitz, LLC a commission for each hotel room rented online. 75. Upon information and belief, sometime between 1990 and the present, Hotels.com contracted with its sister company, Expedia, as well as Travelocity.com LP to implement and maintain cooperative ventures including certain cross - selling initiatives. Specifically, these agreements provided that the lodging inventory of Expedia and Hotels.com would be listed on Travelocity's website. 76. Upon information and belief, sometime during 2001 or earlier, Cheaptickets.com, now owned by Defendant Travelport, entered into a private label agreement with Hotels.com that provided for the sharing of hotel room inventories for online booking by occupants. 9 of 18 {00951150 / 1} 9/6/2011 5 -3 -12 77. Upon information and belief, sometime between 1990 and the present, Cheaptickets.com and Lodging. corn shared hotel room inventory. Specifically, Cheaptickets.com sold Lodging.com's hotel room inventory. 78. Upon information and belief, sometime during 2004 or thereafter, Cendant Corporation, the predecessor to Travelport, entered into agreements with Expedia, Inc. and Hotels.com to share hotel room inventory. 79. Upon information and belief, sometime in 2000 or thereafter Site59.com entered into marketing agreements with other entities, including Travelocity LP, Orbitz, Inc. or Orbitz, LLC, Cheaptickets.comn and Priceline.com affiliated companies (whose subsidiaries include Defendants Lowestfare.comn and Travelweb). 80. Upon information and belief, sometime during 2005 or earlier, Orbitz, Inc. and /or Orbitz, LLC and Priceline.com entered into a marketing agreement related to Priceline.com's hotel business unit. 81. Upon information and belief, sometime prior to the institution of this suit, Expedia entered into a partnership agreement with Hotels.com L.P. and /or Hotels.com GP and Hotwire regarding its online hotel room booking business. 82. Upon information and belief, sometime prior to the institution of this suit, Hotels.com entered into a partnership agreement with Hotwire and TravelNow.com regarding its online hotel room booking business. 83. Upon information and belief, sometime prior to the institution of this suit, Hotwire.com entered into a partnership agreement with IAC/Interactive Corp., Expedia and Hotels.com L.P. and/or Hotels.com GP regarding its online hotel room booking business. 84. Upon information and belief, sometime prior to the institution of this suit, Defendant Orbitz, Inc. and/or Orbitz, LLC entered into a partnership agreement with Hotwire regarding its online hotel room booking business. 85. Upon information and belief, sometime prior to the institution of this suit, Defendants Hotels.com and Lowestfare.com entered into an agreement related to the sale or resale of hotel room inventory. 86. On information and belief, there are many other such marketing, distribution and partnership agreements between and among Defendants. Defendants' Conduct Arises Out of the Same Series of Transactions or Occurrences and Involves Common Questions of Law and Fact. 87. Defendants' conduct arises out of the same series of transactions or occurrences and involves common questions of law and fact. The parties are all interested in the principal 10 of 18 {00951150/11 9/6/2011 5 -3 -13 questions raised by this Complaint. Moreover, Defendants' affiliations with each other and their agreements to market, sell and distribute each other's hotel room inventory logically connect their respective conduct. As detailed above, Defendants have engaged and presently engage in a common practice and scheme of selling Lodging to Consumers at Retail Rates but remitting taxes based on their lower, negotiated Wholesale Rates. 88. Further, Defendants' memberships in Interactive Travel Services Association ( "ITSA ") further demonstrates the interrelatedness among Defendants and confirm common practices of Defendants in booking hotel rooms. According to ITSA's website, the following Defendants are members of the organization: Cheaptickets.com; Expedia; Orbitz.com; Priceline.com; Travelocity.com; and Travelport The ITSA website makes numerous representations regarding the manner in which online travel companies do business, the manner in which rooms are booked, and Defendants' tax liabilities as a whole. 89. Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered damages in an amount to be proven at trial. The amount in controversy with respect to one or more Class Members is less than 575,000. CLASS ALLEGATIONS 90. Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court certify this case as a class action. 91. Pursuant to Colo. R. Civ. P. 23, the class is defined as follows: All Colorado home rule municipalities which have enacted and collect any tax of any kind on overnight accommodations or lodging denominated in any manner, including but not limited to, a hotel occupancy tax, lodgers tax, lodging tax, accommodations tax, local occupancy tax, excise tax, or sales tax, but excluding any tax that is calculated on a set dollar per night basis (as opposed to a percentage), and excluding Denver, Colorado. 92. The Class consists of more than fifty (50), but less than one - hundred (100), members. 93. The Class meets the prerequisites for the maintenance of a class action in that: i. the Class is so numerous that joinder of all Class Members is impractical; ii. the Class Members are readily identifiable; iii. there are questions of law and fact common to the Class; iv. the claims of the representative Plaintiff are typical of the claims of each member of the Class. Plaintiff, like all other members of the Class, has sustained damages arising from Defendants' violations of law, including ' See http://www.interactivetravel.org/AboutUs/List_Of Members.asp (last reviewed July 25, 2011) 11 of 18 {00951150/1} 9/6/2011 5 -3 -14 violations of municipal ordinances and hotel occupancy tax schemes. The representative Plaintiff and the members of the Class were and are similarly or identically harmed by the same unlawful, deceptive, unfair, systematic and pervasive pattern of misconduct; v. the representative Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the Class. There are no material conflicts between the claims of the representative Plaintiff and the members of the Class that would make a class certification inappropriate; and, vi. the counsel selected to represent the Class will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Class. They are experienced trial lawyers who have experience in complex class action litigation and are competent counsel for this class action litigation. Counsel for the Class will vigorously assert the claims of all members of the Class. 94. This action is properly maintained as a class action pursuant to Colo.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(2) in that the Defendants have acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class, thus making appropriate declaratory relief with respect to the class as a whole. 95. This action is properly maintained as a class action pursuant to Colo.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(3) in that common questions of law and fact exist as to the members of the Class and predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy, including consideration of: i. the interest of the members of the Class in individually controlling the prosecution or defense of separate actions; ii. the extent and nature of any other proceedings concerning the controversy already commenced by or against members of the Class; iii. the desirability or undesirability of concentrating the claims in a single forum; and iv. the difficulties likely to be encountered in the management of a class action. 96. The members of the Class contemplate the eventual issuance of notice to the proposed Class Members which would set forth the subject and nature of the instant action. The Defendants' own business records and electronic media can be utilized for the contemplated notices. 97. Among the numerous questions of law and fact common to the Class are: i. whether Defendants use the "merchant model" for buying and selling Lodging in the state of Colorado; ii. whether under the "merchant model" Defendants mark up the price from the Wholesale Rate (paid to the Hotel) to the Retail Rate (paid by the Consumer); 12of18 {00951150 / 1} 9/6/2011 5 -3 -15 iii. whether Defendants are the "merchant of record" in their transactions with the Consumer; iv. whether Defendants use the same basic charges, policies, and computer systems together nationwide and including in the state of Colorado; v. whether Defendants have a legal duty to collect Excise and /or Sales Taxes from the Consumers who purchase from Defendants the right to occupy Lodging in the state of Colorado; vi. whether Defendants have a legal duty to remit these Excise and /or Sales Taxes to Plaintiff and/or other Class Members; vii. whether Defendants have collected the at issue tax, in the form of a tax, from the Consumers, but failed to remit the same to the Class Members; viii. whether Defendants' conduct has sufficient nexus to the state of Colorado, including Class Member municipalities, to subject it to the at issue taxes; ix. whether Defendants have failed to remit the taxes at issue based on the Retail Rate; x. whether, under the appropriate municipal ordinance and /or rule in effect at the time of each transaction, the amount of tax due and owing to Plaintiff and the Plaintiff Class is to be calculated as a percentage of the Wholesale Rate or the Retail Rate; xi. whether by voluntarily inserting themselves into the taxing scheme, the Defendants have the legal duty to calculate, collect and remit the taxes upon the Retail Rate regardless of the statutory language of the appropriate municipal ordinances and /or rule in effect at the time of each transaction; xii. whether Defendants have committed acts of conversion; xiii. whether Defendants have been unjustly enriched; xiv. whether, and in what amount, the Plaintiff Class Members are entitled to recover court costs and attorneys' fees. 98. All conditions precedent to the maintenance of this action have been fulfilled. To the extent any administrative remedies have not been satisfied, such exhaustion is not required and would in fact be futile. CAUSES OF ACTION FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF DECLARATORY JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO COLO.R.CIV.P. 57 (Against All Defendants) 99. Plaintiff incorporates each of the above allegations by reference as if fully rewritten herein. 100. Plaintiff seeks a declaration of rights and/or duties with respect to all Defendants. An actual case or controversy exists between Plaintiff and these Defendants as to: 13 of 18 {00951150 / 1} 9/6/2011 5 -3 -16 i. whether Defendants have a duty, under law, to collect Excise Taxes and/or Sales Taxes from Consumers who purchase from Defendants the right to occupy Lodging in the municipalities that comprise the Plaintiff Class; ii. whether the Excise Taxes and/or Sales Taxes are based on the Retail Rate; iii. whether Defendants have a duty to remit these taxes to Plaintiff and the Class; iv. whether Defendants have failed to fulfill their duty under law to remit these taxes to Plaintiff and the Class; and v. whether, under the appropriate ordinance and/or rule, the amount of tax due and owing to Plaintiff and the Class is to be calculated as a percentage of the Retail Rate, without regard to service fees, operating expenses and other amounts currently deducted by Defendants. SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF VIOLATIONS OF MUNICIPAL ORDINANCES (As Against all Defendants) 101. Plaintiff incorporates each of the above allegations by reference as if fully rewritten herein. 102. Plaintiff and Class Members are municipalities which are authorized to levy and collect certain Excise and Sales Taxes. 103. At all times herein, Defendants acted individually or in concert to provide /sell Lodging to Consumers. 104. Defendants are obligated under the various municipal ordinances to collect Excise and/or Sales Taxes on Lodging and to remit such taxes to remit to Plaintiff and the Class Members. 105. Defendants are acting as retailers, vendors, lessors, and /or renters. 106. Defendants have failed to collect and remit to Plaintiff and the Class Members the amounts due and owing to them. 107. Defendants have failed to report taxes collected on Lodging to Plaintiff and Class Members. 108. As a result of their shared efforts, Defendants have a joint interest in the business of providing /selling Lodging to Consumers. 109. Upon information and belief, Defendants have either express or implied agreements to share in the profits and losses of such an enterprise and joint venture. Accordingly, at all times herein, a joint venture and joint enterprise existed between one or more Defendants. 14of18 {00951150 / 1} 9/6/2011 5 -3 -17 110. Defendants are legally and constitutionally liable for the Excise Taxes and Sales Taxes due and owed to the Plaintiff and the Class Members under their respective municipal ordinances. Defendants are liable individually and also as joint venturers. 111. Failure to remit these taxes to Plaintiff and the Class is deemed a debt owed by Defendants individually and also as members of the joint venture to Plaintiff and the Class Members in an amount to be determined at trial. The taxes owed and penalties and interest hereby sought to be recovered is to be determined by and in accordance with these municipal ordinances. THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF CONVERSION (As Against all Defendants) 112. Plaintiff incorporates each of the above allegations by reference as if fully rewritten herein. 113. At all times alleged herein, Plaintiff and the Class were, and are, entitled to and have had the right to the immediate possession of charged and collected taxes due and owing to them. 114. At all times alleged herein, the monies due and owing to Plaintiff and the Class were in the possession and under the control of one or more of the Defendants. Defendants have wrongfully exercised dominion and control over these monies for their own use and benefit, thereby permanently depriving Plaintiff and the Class of the use and benefit thereof. 115. At all times alleged herein, Defendants acted willfully, wantonly, with oppression, and with a conscious disregard of the rights of Plaintiff and the Class. 116. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' conduct, Plaintiff and the Class have suffered and will continue to suffer damage in an amount to be determined according to proof at the time of trial. 117. As set forth above, Defendants are liable for the acts of conversion individually and as members of a joint venture. FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF CIVIL CONSPIRACY (Against all Defendants) 118. Plaintiff incorporates each of the above allegations by reference as if fully rewritten herein. 15 of 18 {00951150 / 1} 9/6/2011 5 -3 -18 119. Defendants agreed by words or conduct to accomplish an unlawful goal including, but not limited to, depriving Plaintiff and Class Members of taxes owed under the municipal ordinances and Defendants performed one of more acts to accomplish that unlawful goal. 120. In addition or in the alternative, Defendants agreed by words or conduct to accomplish a lawful goal through unlawful means including, but not limited to, depriving Plaintiff and Class Members of taxes owed under the municipal ordinances and Defendants performed one or more unlawful acts to accomplish that goal. 121. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendants' conduct, Plaintiff and the Class have suffered and will continue to suffer damages in an amount to be proven at trial. FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF UNJUST ENRICHMENT (Against all Defendants) 122. Plaintiff incorporates each of the above allegations by reference as if fully rewritten herein. 123. Defendants have benefitted from the sales of Lodging to Consumers under circumstances that would make it inequitable for Defendants to retain the benefit of those transactions without paying the required tax to Plaintiff and Class Members, and Defendants have been unjustly enriched thereby. 124. Plaintiff and Class Members are entitled to judgment against Defendants in an amount to be proven at trial, including but not limited to interest, costs, and pre- and post - judgment interest. 16 of 18 {00951150 / 1} 9/6/2011 5 -3 -19 PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests, on behalf of itself and the members of the Plaintiff Class, that this Court certify this suit under Rule 23 of the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure, appoint Plaintiff as class representative, and appoint the below -named attorneys as counsel for the Class. Plaintiff further requests that, upon a final trial of this matter, judgment be entered in favor of the Plaintiff and the Class on all causes of action against the Defendants, including, without limitation, the following: i. An order certifying this case be maintained as a class action; ii. An order declaring the Defendants liable to Plaintiff and the Class Members for the wrongful acts, omissions, practices, and schemes described herein; iii. Pursuant to Colo.R.Civ.P. 57, a declaratory judgment determining that: Defendants have a duty to collect Excise Taxes and /or Sales Taxes from Consumers who purchase from Defendants the right to occupy Lodging in the municipalities that comprise the Plaintiff Class; that the Excise Taxes and /or Sales Taxes are based on the Retail Rate; that Defendants have a duty to remit these taxes to Plaintiff and the Class; that Defendants have failed to fulfill their duty under law to remit these taxes to Plaintiff and the Class; and that, under the appropriate hotel occupancy tax statute, ordinance, and/or rule, the amount of tax due and owing to Plaintiff and the Class is to be calculated as a percentage of the Retail Rate, without regard to service fees, operating expenses and other amounts currently deducted by Defendants. iv. An order imposing a constructive trust on all property in the possession of Defendants that in equity and good conscience belongs to Plaintiff and the Class Members and does not belong to Defendants; v. Damages in an amount to be proven at trial; vi. Pre and post judgment interest, penalties and costs allowed by law; and vii. For such other and further relief as this Court may deem appropriate. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable. 17 of 18 {00951150 / 1} 9/6/2011 5 -3 -20 Respectfully submitted this 25th day of July, 2011. ROTHGERBER JOHNSON & LYONS LLP Pursuant to Colo. R. Civ. P. 121 j1 -26, a duly signed original is on file at the offices of Rothgerber Johnson & Lyons LLP By: s/ Michael D. Plachy Michael D. Plachy, Esq. Thomas M. Rogers III, Esq. Joy Allen Woller, Esq. One Tabor Center, Suite 3000 1200 Seventeenth Street Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: 303-623-9000 Facsimile: 303-623-9222 mplachyArothgerber. com trogers@rothgerber.com l wollerArothgerber. com CRONGEYER LAW FIRM, P.C. John W. Crongeyer, M.D. 2170 DeFoor Hills Road Atlanta, GA 30318 Telephone: 404-873-4696 Facsimile: 404-872-3745 i crongever@vclawfirm. com Pro Hac Vice Application to be Submitted THE BIRD LAW GROUP, P.C. William Q. Bird, Esq. 2170 DeFoor Hills Road Atlanta, GA 30318 Telephone: 404-873-4696 Facsimile: 404-872-3745 jwc@birdlawgroup.com Pro Hac Vice Application to be Submitted THE FINNELL FIRM Robert Finnell, Esq. P.O. Box 63 Rome, GA 30162 -0063 Pro Hac Vice Application to be Submitted Attorneys for the Town of Breckenridge, Colorado and Proposed Class 18 of 18 {00951150 / 1} 9/6/2011 5 -3 -21 } MINN OF Ni VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: September 6, 2011 ITEM /TOPIC: Lionshead Welcome Center Update. PRESENTER(S): Tom Kassmel and Suzanne Silverthorn ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: The Town Council is being asked to review the conceptual programming and budget for the Lionshead Welcome Center as well as associated costs to reprogram the building and to direct staff to proceed accordingly to maintain the construction schedule for completion on December 15, 2011. BACKGROUND: Construction of the Lionshead Welcome Center has been underway by R.A. Nelson since April 27, 2011. The 10,600 square feet building was designed by 4240 Architecture and includes programming on the ground level for a new visitor information center, a transit waiting area, public restrooms and ski lockers, plus Vail Recreation District youth services programs on the second floor and a community gathering area on the building's top floor. Space for food and beverage service was originally included in the design. However, staff has subsequently been directed to remove the food and beverage service aspect from the facility. This enabled a reprogramming of the interior space which has necessitated change orders. Additionally, Phase 1 of the Guest Service Enhancement Program has been underway since May 2011 and has included completion of conceptual programming for the Welcome Center as well as an assessment of the town's signage /wayfinding system for vehicles and pedestrians. Estimated costs for implementation have been prepared for review and direction by the Town Council. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Town Council is being asked to review the conceptual programming and budget for the Lionshead Welcome Center as well as associated costs to reprogram the building and to direct staff to proceed accordingly to maintain the construction schedule for completion on December 15, 2011. ATTACHMENTS: Welcome Center Memorandum Attachment A Lionshead Welcome Center Programming Recommendations Attachment B Lionshead Welcome Center Programming Budget 9/6/2011 TOWN OF VAIL' Memorandum To: Vail Town Council From: Suzanne Silverthorn, Community Information Officer Tom Kassmel, Town Engineer Date: September 6, 2011 Subject: Lionshead Welcome Center Update SUMMARY The purpose of this agenda item is to provide an update on construction and programming of the Lionshead Welcome Center as well as an update on Phase 1 of the Guest Service Enhancement project. This update will also include a review of the construction budget and associated adjustments as well as estimated costs to program the visitor information center space within the Welcome Center. Staff will be seeking authorization from the Town Council on related expenditures to keep the project on schedule for a December 15, 2011 opening. 11. BACKGROUND In 2010 the Vail Town Council identified improved guest service as a top priority to complement the completion of Vail's renaissance. As a result, a far - reaching and comprehensive effort to expand the quality and integration of services to enhance the guest experience in all seasons was initiated. A competitive process to solicit proposals from resort experts from across the country resulted in the selection of CommArts /Stantec in January 2011 from among 8 submittals to assist the town with its guest service goals: To create a master vision for the overall visitor /guest experience that can be implemented in budgeted phases, over a number of years. Appropriate to Vail's world -class status, a mix of aspirational and practical improvements will be considered with an eye toward the approaching milestones of the 50 Anniversary of Vail in 2012 and the World Alpine Ski Championships in 2015 when Vail will receive increased international attention and media exposure. Phase 1 of this work was authorized by the Town Council on May 3, 2011 to address two elements: 1. Program the guest service space in the Lionshead Welcome Center to include recommendations for the future role of the existing Lionshead Visitor Information Center on the Frontage Road. 2. Assess the existing townwide signage /wayfinding system (roads, parking garages, pathways, etc.) and recommend improvements to enhance the guest experience. Construction of the Lionshead Welcome Center by R.A. Nelson has been underway since April 27, 2011. The 10,600 square feet building was designed by 4240 Architecture and includes programming on the ground level for a new visitor information center, a transit waiting area, public restrooms and ski lockers, plus Vail Recreation District youth services programs on the second floor and a community gathering area on the building's top floor. Space for food and beverage service was originally included in the design. However, staff has subsequently been 9/6/2011 6 -1 -1 directed to remove the food and beverage service aspect from the facility. This enabled a reprogramming of the interior space which has necessitated change orders noted in the budget attachment. III. WELCOME CENTER PROGRAMMING To assist in development of the programming for the guest service space in the Welcome Center, a 13- member advisory group was created with representation from the Lionshead business community, Vail Economic Advisory Council, Vail Local Marketing District Advisory Council, Vail Town Council, Vail Chamber and Business Association, Vail Valley Partnership, Vail Homeowners Association and Vail Info Inc. The group was convened three times during the summer and identified the following areas of consensus: 1) Group agrees that we want to create one seamless guest information experience in Vail— doesn't matter if guest is in Golden Peak, Vail Village, Lionshead or Ford Park. One look – one experience. Message of quality, service and care. 2) Need to understand the specific content/technology /presentation and management for the digital media walls in information centers. (This will be addressed in schematic design phase of work). 3) The integrity of the Vail Brand is essential and needs to be maintained throughout. 4) Need to plan ahead and budget for expected 4 year life span /replacement of media /technology. 5) We definitely need both static and dynamic maps available for the guest. 6) The international guest is important, and we want to accommodate their specific needs through international signage /icons, translation assistance and personal interactions. 7) Want to understand how all the parts (Lionshead /Vail Village Welcome Centers, technology, media, personnel, branding and signage) fit together for the Guest Enhancement Initiative. The WOW factor is the seamless integration of all of these elements. As a result of this input, Stantec /CommArts has completed conceptual programming for the Welcome Center space which includes a real -time digital media wall that would be programmed similar to the vail.com web environment to be used as the focal point for information services in a concierge -like environment. This vernacular is proposed to be repeated in the Vail Village Information Center and the new Transit Center on the South Frontage Road in 2012. Additional information modules are proposed to be used at the transit stops to present a higher level of information to Vail's guests. The Welcome Center would also include comfortable and inviting seating areas to accentuate its function as a day lodge. Elimination of the food and beverage component allows the building to extend its welcome center programming throughout the ground level to create a contiguous and inviting space. Once the Welcome Center is operational in mid - December, Stantec /CommArts proposes to relocate the Vail Info Inc. staff to the new building and to close (and eventually remove) the Lionshead Information Center on the Frontage Road. In its place, an information module is proposed to be installed at the same location to provide wayfinding, parking and other essential orientation information for vehicular visitors. The current pull -in parking lane would remain in use and would be accessible to small and large vehicles, including RVs, with public restrooms located a short distance to the west at the new Transit Center. These recommendations are in keeping with the town - directed goal of no net increase in visitor center staffing. IV. SIGNING AND WAYFINDING STRATEGY Town of Vail Page 2 9/6/2011 6 -1 -2 A phased signage strategy is proposed to tie all elements of the visitor information locations together. Recommendations for the location, specific type and relative scale of the necessary signing and wayfinding elements have been identified as follows: • Frontage Road /Roundabout Signing o Use of significant scale banner stanchions at Frontage Roads and Village entrances. o Redesigned Frontage Road, roundabout and parking garage entry signage. • Vail Lionshead Transit Center Interior and Exterior Signing o Includes all necessary exterior identity signing and interior information, regulatory and directional signing. Also included is a 42" interactive flat screen display. • Vail Lionshead Welcome Center Interior and Exterior Signing o There are significant identity opportunities atop the tower on the Welcome Center. These elements could represent a significant cost over and above the more conventional identity signage accessory to the building's entry. o All other necessary interior information, regulatory and directional signing would be included. • "DataPoint" Static and Dynamic Media o Stantec CommArts recommends that a program be implemented converting the two main transit shelters in Vail Village and Lionshead into "Data Points ". These would utilize the interactive technology developed for the Welcome Center. o Static versions would be located at select other transit stops. • The Vail App o The Vail App is the essential software that seamlessly integrates all guest information, interaction, orientation and navigation. It can be easily updated and accessed through the web browsers, smartphones, I -Pads etc., as well as the proposed interactive media walls and directories. It will be developed using content (weather, activities, parking, lodging, retail /restaurants etc.) that is all currently available through different sources. The difference is that the Vail App looks and acts the same, whether the guest is at their home computer, using their I -Phone or standing at an interactive directory. It offers well- organized information with easy accessibility that is the embodiment of the Vail Brand, and represents a collaboration between the Town of Vail, Vail Resorts and all the Vail stakeholders. It will become the new standard of world -class guest information and interaction and becomes the homepage of Vail. V. WELCOME CENTER PROGRAMMING BUDGET A programming budget for the Welcome Center has been prepared for Town Council review based on the concepts presented in Attachment A which was developed by Stantec /CommArts in consultation with the citizen advisory panel. These costs were not reflected in the Welcome Center construction budget approved by the Town Council on April 5. 2011. Recent modifications to the building's first floor design have created expansion opportunities for the guest service components which are now recommended to be integrated throughout the ground level representing additional reprogrammed square feet. The guest service programming costs are eligible to be funded by Tax Increment Financing (TIF) at the Town Council's discretion. Town of Vail Page 3 9/6/2011 6 -1 -3 Staff recommends consideration of a phasing plan for the Welcome Center programming as follows: 2011 — Phase 1 Welcome Center Programming Design Fees $ 46,000 Lighting 12,000 Mill work/Exhibits 50,000 Signage 90,000 Contingency 10% 19,800 Total Phase 1 $217,800 2012 — Phase 2 Welcome Center Programming Lighting $ 12,000 Mill work/Exhibits 25,000 Furniture Additions 30,000 Media Wall 140,000 Media Screen - Transit Ctr 30,000 Iconic Tower Signs (2) 40,000 Contingency 10% 27,700 Total Phase 2 $304,700 Total Welcome Center Programming Phase 1 and 2 $522,500 See itemized budget in Attachment B for additional detail. VI. WELCOME CENTER CONSTRUCTION CHANGE ORDERS The Welcome Center is well under construction and scheduled to open this December. During the afternoon site visit, Town Council will see the progress first -hand: the pre -cast concrete structure is installed, roof framing has begun, interior framing and utilities are well underway, elevators are being installed and exterior stone veneer will begin shortly. There are three -and -a half months left in the construction schedule and with pending changes to the first floor Welcome Center program and interior design, there is a narrow window of opportunity to remain on schedule. Work on the west side of the first floor has been suspended until September 15 to allow final design and approval of the contemplated changes. If the suspension continues into October, the completion date will be subject to delay. It is anticipated that the changes will include framing, mechanical, electrical and plumbing changes, door and window changes, stair removal, ceiling redesign, and changes to the interior finishes and FF &E. The design team and construction team are all committed to keeping the project on schedule pending timely approvals of the modifications. 2011 - Building Modifications Redesign /Construction of 1st Floor $170,000 Contingency 10% 17,000 Total Modifications $187,000 See itemized budget in Attachment B for additional detail. Town of Vail Page 4 9/6/2011 6 -1 -4 VII. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL Staff requests the Town Council accept and /or modify the conceptual programming for the Lionshead Welcome Center space and to provide authorization for Phase 1 costs of up to $217,800 and change order costs of up to $187,000 to be included in the final supplemental budget appropriation for 2011 for a total not to exceed $404,800. Staff further recommends the inclusion of Phase 2 Welcome Center programming costs of $304,700 in the 2012 budget. These actions will keep the construction project on schedule for a December 15, 2011 opening. VIII. ATTACHMENTS A. Lionshead Welcome Center Programming Recommendations B. Lionshead Welcome Center Programming Budget Town of Vail Page 5 9/6/2011 6 -1 -5 4 ( Z 4-) a oremj III CZ al E u Z W V C + 0 u W +1� ce W CED I-• Z W V W O J W 0 r" a N N N W C V1 Z 0 J Mi 1 _I r �v 3.f ' . ; c i _4 .' J 0) E - 0 : I ii. " '? C ci 0 C CZ - , N 05 U _ u ) (` T 0 ± _- C o R) 0 > > D 0 CI ti) c 3 ' o a .� E Li— _ . o _ X co 4 rD • _c v L � � C N O U) Q (1) CO tbAti‘ 0) C, D = - 0 -C -C 0 G) 2 c!) ) c u} Q) L 0 E o 0 0 co 0 a O o N *. U r cll Q -a > > o o CO ti 1 3 in 0 C 0 Cl CD 0 rz ' lit t ill - ''' 74 CD O :.-->. - CD - r .,1= CC5 -- I F) _-(:) - N { � 0 Q U cts O « j j + O 0 Q) Q s a N 4 J Elm nt I: 0 a; — >1 .— 0 . . n cc 0 Et f■ > 3 i • a, a s N H - . o w N. co H . _ 0 0 = i 0 3 a) =o=0 a�� i 0 E e >i 3 (1 ‘ 12 c a * A 0 r� e 3 0 _ 0 2 4. .c >I ., c n O. Co co E c ....... Ca o L a) 3 H 0 0 3 s o 3 — 3 V O E _ U) Q . ' IX it+ CL a. Q c) w .. = + ■- o 5 .. -1 o o �+ CO as 1■ ci f 4 = .— 0 : 1.61 3 = Ui `� 0 0 0 = 0 = 0 t) 3 3 3 0 = 00 R V 0 R y 0 C 0 U ., =3 gy=p _� am, o 0 *+ _ sa RI Ri 0 3 0 4 _ 0 o — o 5 P y J Q V — 10 .--iii ot nv 4 - .2_11 !* , - ' . 3 � ;'' mum o 4, 5 �° fl fl � r � ` e. rdp1 . � -r 4 t9 y S. 13 OS t o w F . - p en 47= n . \ D t r - - a { _��- ..': -:y Y. MI ..o '2, 4110 er‘ _, z -o ma ilff MI 0 ' 1 ' S MI "ME c, r - E : C d i C •-` v; r r A ' - ;.,V, 4 -...- z , f* - m ' N iS� t ..80 W J � � .. - ' . ..a+..... t , . w I' O c) 3C T 4l /- � '�" 4 v 7 ■ ■ • Q W Q Po 5 4 2 O L © F. O U $E> k Ez• ■ o ; � y C C 11 ilm A , C� W E 111 1 W CCA w — J 0 CL/61 N j I O Q . ■■ f . h-- - - ' C. 1 1 > w E o II U z \, 0 (0) \ s' 1 U ' t?' j W 1 d Z o lit ;� �1. d >- ' -, N • w / U `f O O Q r J J J It S co < L7 j- �` y 9.� w a cu E v , A 1d d § 1 , . ` � . U ° z �i�/'r I s„ lid Z z Ill : 1 1 w Ai k , .4 ...!!'±..„ Alp . # Z _1 F- ___,- P fl 4 0 4 P EI 6 ' — LU Z r! H H W O W 1 , O w Z • [ II iiii H ...„ Lu *74F4 I , z *1 I 44 0 a, ' 1. i ' 1 ",..,„ .„ o a : u, -11‘44 ,. _. k LL ,, i 4. ....,4 0 ,.t, s cn / �� ' 1 I S P z3 , _ il i e •. v r a. y it 0 0- gi .. 1 o 41/1S7' i r- = _" J a..6 (.../T; G r - a �� � 4 R / 1 . - 3 .. r / i I — as CD z \ . - ...----,,,,,,.. , -,E) .., +4 >., 11 :. 1 ; 1 1 1 = ° Ir -� 4 ! f1 CO • {Jl � 4 a+ 1 ALA E ■ V = )".....= g 0 1) E z P. 4- '.- ;r 4 :1) (t5 ' 1111$ * ' IA F3 1 CC -L-' ! V ...4/ ♦ I? I . , . 1111F Oa 1, ¢ a �; \ ' , -Ilkillitr r (' T i 9 ,j. A A i r L c U i 1 HI ,,,, „c> . . 4- 8 U r 87 co c 4 CU E E co IL : ,,. , _ I 3 z U = • U 2. ° L 0 i .1 E ICI &1 L C V O Q I ,,.. ) . N ll d;e K. , . .., \ ____ i 1 . ,. ,,,. . , ..?,,,.,,, -„, 1:',.. i r- J.. . i 1 ,,, ..,-,, 3 , , . 4 , 4, ...,„, ..„ et . � 1 'N., . e Ls,- 7". - �1 .. c1 - 1" i 11 Is il ,■ ;' — ...‘lalit.:111.11 4 1 , w.\'...w.--itmri ,, ________ tr,4___r 1 it - ..,44 ! _�_ s `- 1 ih IL---32 3,,: .-1 " --- - ti _ , Prill-TN NN i\ - .; a) i lh, iAi IIW - . .1 v i LA 1 ' ra • pi I I 13 F l I 3j t. ~-� 0 — 1' 7, FAX. Vo.- f -�.J J LT ' IIr. /:� _.. ' rn 1 15 I .2 r ' I ''' 1 At 8 11. - _ V 4 9 'S ili f L q . N Y G y j J 4 • _1♦ y z „S �it■1�1 .a > i g- 0111[ , k 7, a a At E E' �. 2 e ' 011ir„.'-....4,,A1. 6 „lo 1, . N rl rs ,-r 1 E © _ k a _� k _ • V r r, 11 _ , W • al T +I • g c N O P dia / 1 . 1 At "1 ,... / It unrest p • 1 11 r r ---,; ,. cr, 4'.' -, c _ i '' . . 0 : ''' , -, ; • ....,=, i- i _ _., ,,.....,„ , ,, _ _ ,1, a; l L - (1) CL - 4 • \ ''',,,:../; d �; C.) f II , lit y--...„ :„ .. : E ..21 _ ! fill' 1 l -C : I .4* ca + s N - a o J I t 1 ii1 11IIIIIL 1 1 . ' 74 N i f • -�ai- Iff •ate- e•••• F . _ • III��I�� C O a s .I Y A N r Ya. J _ O > I F . , _ rl1IE_ M IF �' 1 ��� 1 L c N CD c V E a) E o _� Q ° ?e�i c © E 7 O o m 0 . CD) 0 0 -C f C L a-J N L Ca O • .) O 't5 Z /�� W ® a1 U a) -. C cd Fe C a) 0 E v m E v> O o aa) E ti CO al E m m E E �E ° CD E -0 m o m a E y -* s ' .2; � ▪ E 7 - m � ( n E - -a L D > m _c-E n _ m . — 0 © c m 5 8 C -- m o p} - . U o_ "E U o 1 f .S ? c.i c cii o3 4 E- N s C N o E +r N_ ro ro E cc o o -S > 5 L o co U N Q us E 4) ro c 0.) U N c i N ' � L (n L cl t3) c a) o a) co O D E o E E c _ 0 m (0 a) p ' '-"f U C 'O U R7 p at ��, C1,1 Q ° c A CT) ti 9 0 ro a) a a' E. u C a E �a � to 2 is ti co 72 o o a) `o 0 n 0 rn o c ... ' o CL � En � >. o f 'E "'al cv m o 0 0 0) z 1- Q Go a I .a? E F- z z ■— 0-) N cn ctl O Cl) >- 5 ci .ci 6 -o 6 2 (n ci . ci al LL r N CO V a) O >, = a) 0) H � Q Q a c 0 a as N > 0 0 O 0 C U C. -0 a E 0 cm U L c 0 V O 5 _ Y cm _c IE Q 0 U O o ro a.=. LL C 7 2 4d Q 0 U 0 c .2 .2 O - 4- lo C C L 7 C 0 a o 0 O O O � 4- N al c 0 c E C Q = Q- — iU c G OL O [L 2 , 0 m M O Q m Q 73 N E 0 .fA N 2 E cm O 0 C E p 3 O � } O j Q vs 0 N Q Cr) C 0 0 Q U) 7, L V) O c L p 01 w a _ C O C 0 c) cr, O 6 2 u 5 o •Fs 2 (0 m 2 O -. N N 2 o -0 N 2 c Y 0 ii Q. 0 . O + 0) CO 73 — ell C 92 a ) a m c° a) O 0 s_ (U a 0 0 E a) a u • g 0 a a cc$ 0 E ta Q U p L L 4 a) To • L Ctl 0 0 m t/) - .c _c . C _ > L C (+7,-; E U C i O7 C C `0 O •-' • - > P 0 (� O LL > CC • D m oo 2 a it LL cc Q C CD 15 Q L- J • • • • • • • • • • CC N • Q CD o CO C a) ,116 l' . 1 it dIP '71" %--- i t . 11 • „.- - - • .k. "... • 0 z o ▪ 4, ' 4 e.r ' oi . % It ' . A • 1 ::i E 3 .4, - a . " • " l' 1 / I O 1 so , E o 11 0. izr . II - .0 CI ,..,; To ,-4 • _ ---..0111.11 3 . Events 0 P. IMES NMI a MEM 3 , Events 1i 11111 m galik elP , , 3 Ott 0 1 4 • • - • information 41 — .., _ 0 $ it_ I 4 Resources • • 41 111111 ilka. .. OS - - 1 IIIW =I A 3 . • • ., . .1- 44 1 *la • 0 I t 44._ -- V , 41'. ti _. 0 .""°` ., .i.,, '', i 4 • - -t -t C -'-' I II' ' ' • , ' .. - 0 L 1 1 . . .. • , S■ 0 CD 4—, a) ......, , . . N ----- • I E - - • . -- Cn iii. I P . ift . > , — • - ■ icy) ill . >L<, 1 f • b , Sil • - - ) . . 0 a c 0 N 0) 0 O. 7 D_ C O < O 7 N U N N � N p� O5 'HlIllI o -9.1111111111P"- m a Q' a s a c 7 w rc 0 0 a U . , 0) O 0) O f0 t1S i' ,' f n D) N . A. . c- c _ m 0 m a, 0 o • \H H O Jra \\/ c O t C u) Z h- C cn C ct Ti 0 N a) C rd U o) O -0 -c N E a) N [7) (7 , C - 7 p E © N s To U /.� 0) C M V l; , ht 0, c c o 0 CLE. , 1 fri• til: cr) ,._ to cr) 0 O U im Om a id 5 j ,, Q o @ C j 42 X CO 0 D m c 0 La 01) N .— � n! p m° 0. CO a 4—+ E aoCC � ) E o O a) a) 0 m e 7) 8 L > 0 m 2 —O a a i o " a) c LL � • to 11. C<I 2 ci v °€ TS e , Q A , d =a f; > C1) co 4 , a A� o o ` 4 { 4 •r x 1x R M I 1m Ct/ C • y >, o 0 ta m m 0 0. co 0. 0 � E O D c 0 c 0 ` u) o c E o c 92 > = .� 0 o m o m To c 0 E - o ` 5, f a s a o c E E p L . - - - - - Go 0 o s hi cli ° m • t6 c 7 - O m p E N 1 E � ca .S t c -c r > 9 S O '-• c L .3 — . N O, 0 O y CST T I Z � . * ld ca • 0 E E a a ° m 1 co — N Y E V cc - - c O m o E E � 3 o E m cn .+, ro o ° ° ; ":J CO CO :5 a o ° 0 s f �I ~ _ c ^ r5 c • E E °—' fi — Fc a a N c C N E ° • E ° b m 3 07 c m n C U —° a - 7 , o E °) 0 ° ' ° cD CC - E N C 03 IF 4 °U LC) ..Q . @ V1 0 1- 4 11) e v CO © i.a --- 3p . ' 4 4:4_,,, _ ; _ . 4_, (1) u., ,. a l 1 . : N E E i co NS 002 it 1 0 .r. 6, nail valle drive r co a6 r ..- : a ti O E ' 1 M ! - p. m 1 --pr. 1. C t :,41 ''' o a Q4,: .44 N �� � ; a) • Gore Creek o a co o l • Q O C �y,� N N m co 0 , . ." :Al .- :AIM . . , ,. A i ( 6 ' co U U _ N o O a ) 0) 0 ) 0, w O C 6) a5 '2 C co 5 (II C 5 @ 0 o U O Q • O- U c) c N g Q co c E UJ 2 A .� °1 a a) c in a) I `. E d) c 'E a rn 0 _ `m E g ' e I E U Q) E c = Q 0 ) C _ - _ -- N , N E m )5 ( r` (d n1 C N N o a o m j E O a) E co -a p a c o V E m E a m— 0 0 0. rn d) p) N C 0 a w i F . CO c 0 a) C C Q0 o 00 ' m 7 0 ro a > 3 _ 0, o a) L - 0 C td d) N co N C a- y E ' O - Q) p U -c c 'O O U_ 93 v E 0 -c O N D 0 E S D o c 3 ai (v 0 C]- iV E J O 0 4[) O c 0 O 0) }}..���� - 0 Z F 0) co • GO a * _,, - ! • • I ) M S R ■ems r ,,� C co ti O E /' a ,,,, N dl'.': d(.. ?9� '� -11r O la r Q 'i Pi .4- U1 wit' r . i ll =o (q Q " o W ......_ -, , ,, ••■04-..._ ,. CO a) .,,,-' ik ' i ' ' -4...N.;•„4,., CO ` ~ emu • VJ CZ 4) fi O} ro as . E _ : .! >. o co 09 Q) m N 0 a li •� U N > Jim in a U m c m J eel o -o Rr N et o ca -4, - -.. - s ' '''. - . - 11° . "(' . '''' ' GI 0 JD r- m r te , o k ., y 0 a C1 C U fA (9 E Q - s Gl O L Q Q y O m a) v" < U o 0 v N G2 U 0 _ Ir' 'Q tp R7 '0 C -0 0 W N V7 •. or C C C c o E i5 v Q. ■ ir-� E . c° 1 ° N CO E .o m E E �■ 3 c m c Q) -0 ) O - -5 — C N O N C O a 0 U S E N il c o U U = O. N C h Q) Cr 5 0 11 'c) E 0 O t C r N E c ' .'C in Z f- ` ' F -=fir 1= .... - . _ r d. Y 9 3 r J ` CO — ,-.T.) J o la - 0 o F II i, ,_ . ..__ .., L O r -+TA"' { L Q V 1 k o • C cts w , o 2 E , Ili ' '1/4 ., L l t 0 in i ; co v "' cu r c a w - 1 r J' t raj ' - . r.ii I ., . 0 4 -6 7 •c,,.,- 7 ,, , ,, ii.,,... , _ .__ .,, ., . .. 01 [�i L ° N N U r Vas m '. a. cc d C.7) a 21- F C Ca Cr) O CCI N a Y ' N 2 e u - CC r o co 0 0 ilaitiat- csi ` r _ rte-- .1 J/ _ 4 h '' 'e, ti`ut . i...IC I i 1 I �� „... C 1. . * . h� 4 c H . ,. cn c 7 rel .— s_ —.... 'Y Alt ' ' - L L 1--1 . tA, ' CO . . I o },- - � + �c + 0 iT N .1 i Q) . �32 r a t5 _c � m ay ' ....' - , \ 'Al ■ ;.,- —9.. .ma ++ Q u, o , c am ° �- o co CO Er.,-1 C C5) ` ~ �� � - 111 [U cd N c N — • O N c a'C'm m 0 - CO — 0 - Z3 is co ro N O C ` C o o 23 ( C 6 CO O C a U th U C eD 0 -0 C m ' _c a U O_ o N Q E T 8 O o N ro O E Uj ° i 0 9 o E > E in C I? c0 0 N O L E D O N O 61 © O 0 90 cn Y N il N -- C fn S & VC 7 E ° � Z7 c _o ca w — cn ro cU - � c ca c t) a) -. N c O c °� c s ° , 4) c u) cri rn o 5 m c cs m 0 o E 0 c >, N„ y7 C C C H • 0) E° E . O c>3 +. E c m c a) Q c� - i 8 m m o 0, m c o E. E m TL'). d " o _ .n a� o o ro c� m CC 1— O= E J N J 0 D to (-6 E o CC r a) -c r ��� sue• 4 . . .. . r:, . , . 1 ''' / ( 1„ b N i + �' ( R r r_ • t r °, Id it) _ _ - f 4 - ti c ~ - ., o -. • Q E r C ' y° • l M . 4 • V/ L ; CO r N 1 * li el WI" 1 N \\„......___,....... \ 1 „Iliiiii 1 e. f. MN i i j ' � 1 1 =__ f W J 4 IMII ____ 0 .ill u ,- ' c ! 0 11 111111 & I.... : il l ' co a o n cy) 0 II Z 1 Vii w co 4: I , al i ..-,: I I I hi' I . D -C Q 5 / a c N m o � _ a ._ a_ E col LL o c a) 4,..7 o-_.§ �_, liw co 0 co 0 al ai 1 m yr ' " — El? u) ,- 1:6 - . 4S ...--f It I 1.1:0°1 , : ,, L Q WI (� ,,,,,,( CO c cc; 0 ,,_ ._, 0. L N -- C13 ' 1. c 1, g ,it..,, r 1 u 8 ❑ = m o N P. c ca as 0 L (n o ai air o: 45 1 (1 `',It' o O E fl 2 o o z7 • r a) { as C m '5 - o m = o = , O Co Z3 U = C 0 - O d p 0 as tt = C p v O j ! ! E C O c E `n c 9 0 5 a� a) A i . p U c p a c h 0_ tL v o Y h (fa J 2- • U] c o E m • • ■ • • • • • • C N a° c o U N z m tis tr+_c o 0 p < a-°'a_0 7 o ` - 0 >' C Cn p (53 N O 4.3: ..... • a ...... • 4-, a) 1r 1 , . k A IF- i CO 11V Ii ! co • ,_ ,, t .' , ,,, ti +r ©� LT !c 1 7_ N .■ • U O o • 4 1 , 11--- a �I f lia U a:, 6 Q }' .,_ ,,_ , 0 . - 8 _c 8_ , ' hi ' 1 u kei- CO c a 0 .,,-- 4 , L _ as . (13 C c � CO I I I ! % 11 M p 1 CO O C C - O RS E ■ r ii 0 T U i ) �. 0 6 c 0 6 N VT 0 Q O a • • a a Q o. • • • • • 3 !7 • • o A► E a - (1) U 1 as = }- • • • • — 2 = • c r 0 • - __ U _ = • s a t - • • a o N A , � . a N N V/ o _ o a • • s e o > _ o m a) _ E 6 ca ▪ E o 0 a 4 u I u n e 0 - a W ° ▪ 0 .2 ° C • y w /� V a E 2 a y v D C C 0 T y 0 O c • � 1 T > 2 2 E 0 m - c - E 0 > 0 > 0 > 0 0 0 > u o • 1:4 d a D f ; a • I N Y s O U 4 d c N C W ' 8 'j 1 1 SS a 1 eg N LLJ — - - m p, iL V N w d' <V w m _ N LU }0} > V D) Z Z C C w N CO 1 0 o r � �- 11111 .111• L 0 CA 4.• 1 . 11111. 1.111 0 ,, I . 11 O N a) N L ' ` x 0. (v) E 3 W E - - _ V _ rn a c- o g. 4 1) le 5 4- E r G _ E E 0 E o MC G r I 1 0 0 0 0 I- 1- 1 ° - o 0 C e e E a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CO n in a v a 0 0 0 a eh n H w N c N `" 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 N 4-- hi Lei o 6 0 o F is s► cul C — N v v n N 0 VI a 0 0_ 0 N V! V/ N aft V1 tN Vr N r c o a . N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 L o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 G1 C O N 6 C•4 •0 N 0% O r n n O. V N H in to to N to N— CO 0 a) ■i■gi 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 L C O 0 O 0 C •• v Lo W /�\ ci N Vf V} . Vr Vt N I 0 •/ _ N C O N N \)0 0 ` A I ' 0 E en i o /Q :: -. V N /� a) W Cr' c Q) 1:3 CD E ° o n 0 CO E _ _ :15 : ec oc o N t _ - m m u L x ° ... G 4 ■ 3 _ as _ _ ° _ Attachment B Lionshead Welcome Center Programming Budget Phase 1 -2011 Phase 2 -2012 Additional Budget Requests Design Construction Construction Building Change Orders Food & Beverage $ 10,000 $ 40,000 Re- design of first floor $ 20,000 $ 100,000 Guest Services Programming Media content, great room, thematic display $ 46,000 Lighting $ 12,000 $ 12,000 Mill work /Exhibits $ 50,000 $ 25,000 Furniture (additional) Sit ons $ 30,000 Media wall $ 140,000 Digital Media for Transit Bldg $ 30,000 Interior /Exterior Signs Sign Design for Transit and Welcome Center $ 25,000 Transit Center Signing $ 25,000 Welcome Center emphasis (additional) $ 40,000 Iconic signs for Tower (2) $ 40,000 ISub Total $ 101,000 $ 267,000 I $ 277,000 I Contingency 10% $ 10,100 $ 26,700 $ 27,700 Total additional Budget Request Phase 12011 $ 111,100 $ 293,700 $ 404,800 Grand Total Total additional Budget Request Phase 2 2012 $ 304,700 $ 304,700 Grand Total Total additonal Budget request Phase 1 and 2 $ 709,500 Grand Total 9/6/2011 6 -3 -1 } MINN J OF Ni VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: September 6, 2011 ITEM /TOPIC: Lionshead Transit Center Phase III - Lionshead East Mall Plaza and Concert Hall Plaza Streetscape Projects; selection of preferred design concept. Please refer to attached memorandum for the remainder of the information. PRESENTER(S): Tom Kassmel and Mary Hart ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Select preferred design concept. BACKGROUND: See memorandum. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: See memorandum. ATTACHMENTS: Town Council Memo and Presentation 9/6/2011 MEMORANDUM To: Town Council From: Public Works Date: September 6, 2011 RE: Lionshead Transit Center Phase III - Lionshead East Mall Plaza and Concert Hall Plaza Streetscape Projects. Background On August 16, 2011 staff and members of the design team outlined functional goals and presented design options for the Lionshead East Mall Plaza and Concert Hall Plaza Streetscape Projects. Direction from Council on the Draft Preferred Concept for Lionshead East Mall Plaza included relocation of the bus shelter out of the view corridor, widening the pedestrian way adjacent to the bus shelter and removal of the stage area and special event electrical power at the bus shelter. Concurrently, the Council was in agreement with moving the loading and delivery area to the north side of East Lionshead Circle, east of the Welcome Center and directed staff to not pursue a revision to the Lionshead Master Plan Build -To lines. Direction from the Council on the Draft Preferred Concept for Concert Hall Plaza included the installation of snowmelt on the inner sidewalk only and not along the street. Staff and the design team have made those changes as directed. The revised Draft Preferred Concept for each area along with updated cost estimates is included in the attached presentation packet. At the August 16, 2011 presentation the majority of the public comment was from the Lionshead merchant's community. Staff and the design team conducted additional outreach with the Lionshead merchants and property owners in the form of 2 on -site discussions and a presentation at the Lionshead Merchants Association August meeting. The merchants requested additional modifications to the design concept to further open up the access routes and sight lines into the mall and to leave the existing arch in the current location. Staff and the design team have made those changes and have included them in an alternate deign concept in the presentation packet. The cost impacts of the merchant's plan are also included in the presentation packet. Council Action Review the 2 concepts for the Lionshead East Mall Plaza presented, select one as the preferred design concept, and provide direction to staff to proceed thru the Town's entitlement process. Review the modified concept for Concert Hall Plaza and provide direction to staff to proceed through the town's entitlement process. 9/6/2011 7 -1 -1 r ` Q C .... L ` • ( \) Y 5 '` lu . �I i Ca 0 CO ii \ N, _ ,..- o i „,. „ \ CL b ti co 0_ -A WN I co 0 _IF i! , li 446iiiip o ;� if ` q I I I � o I rtrow„. 1 14"1.110111111. 0 W CD C13 co j_.- / M r r „,, ca Ca �� ! s . >y — CO • -� ” .• r `, - .rte CO • • ' a . _ 1 CD _A U pl! . . .. ... . E I Lw -:• t: ,r 1 _ •gal .M 2 6 O ' 5 o co v. co 2 2 u) c„,k O -- 0 - 2 Ca O) — 7 0 O W C O U _ Ca 70 _C C > 0 ' � C6 p .. O o a E o Zi5 U 0 c (,) 0 C.) lii ca u) 0 11) cT3 O —, C Ca a) S.- ./■1 CU O X0_ 00 °acca u N i o _ O Cll _o u) J O 0) — D 'U 2 cn O _C O E O � O 2 -0 , O O U N D - 0 a) C/) `~ Ca N U CO 0 -0 C Zi5 r_ z a 0 0 c CL _C O Q H C3) ( 2 0 Ca 0 (/) 8 2200E0 0 0 Ca c O j O •— O E O p co CO W .N 4i U) ''.,, :, C To 0 A $ O ,..., To To C Ca 0 U to 4- U CO 11 L- U O SD >, U • — CD o a� -c CU • - u) 0) CO E L _ co 2 o • – - 6 u ) z,,• 0_ , U = a,c — a) H - t 7 - To 0 CO o 2 2 a) co c > T o 5 O _a 0o 0 7 ,41( • 1 •I` mi 0) 441 • - 0 .S e titi II• Ow co _c (D L u) E O U J o u) _c f!1 •_ >, 'E1 co To _c = 2 a) - a) co 5 2 , "cs La _ _ 0_ c m : , D - N m u) -) 2 - ca3 — › _c p a) .-, 0 c 0 .._, L_ 0 a) a) 2 2 E Ze CL v) U c 1— a) L_ a) a) E ' 73 E _c U O O U c ca - — u) Et2 a) O ) O a) > ._ u) -.= ,_ O a ca a) �--� ca E E c . E a) — ca u) • • co a) -0 > 0) Co 2 a co . _ '0 L_ u) _c c.) _ . 0_ a) -o 2 -c . _ a) co a) u) o_ o_ c - o (i) 2 O 0 - 0 0 C!) O ca ca O 0_ CD u) _0 a) 0 > O s o) a) 0) > L. p! CD p i- = a) u) p 0_ A ; ,.. i lk I ; ! il i , -- - -- �- , ,, 1 _ ..,,,. , , 1 • \ \ \ \\ / --- \ „ ' \ i 0 _, 0 N • A+� ,, ,, ; .-., • . . ,,, ..,,,, ....,.... zi,„ +cU f . ... CO ......, , ,....... ..,_ ........._,_. i , ..., , ,..„.... ai) a,...,,) , _.....,--..-. , 1 ; 0 1 414 _c . „. 1 i i . _ . _ _ , t CO , _ 1110111 rf k V CO 4 121 W 1 R ,' `` t Fo v C N ° ec J c u CIO ® �� l U) 2 a _ ° ft. w o a \r-1\ � ac 4 Oa �� o w Q ■ p r 4 • '9 cc ❑ r 5 u3 ei v� it 2 Ai N till $ - ` ' O LLJ al 6S 2 \O\ ___<,_ -, . _______ . , ,_ 14 t 1., ' ' J Q z Z Ya m ` _ rs.. . / ui AL,. �� + .... . . , i, . , _ „, k , ,/ -----..._._ ..., ..._,C i — _____ _ a) , ---..... ma 11 '16 ti i / 8 s Jfa, 1111 l F l 3 - J EA . , ' m r .,� ' VP Y 6 �' f , , `i tT`.Y. Asa-.,_ - 0 .. E 4 14 0 . / ..., .' '.. • 1 ' (ID 7,,,// f o / 1/ ''''''' t .4 .. mw = 45P O ? Ao ,..„- - :....:: Aiitk,„:::__. . : 1 0 7 __ epr.,,,tr _, I b :: ::* _.- , , ,, ,,, 4 ,' 4:1 ' . .....,.. f 1;.-4":r.91:::: : /.1 4". 1 5LL w t '"7:-----14!"." '''' ..--..- ' \ A \ �.- i 4 1110 / a) , ___, l i a I it N H I ii,, x a H J i uo I if.: ..„`. Q 2 H o Z ft.. \ W a a .. ii ` ,- Cr Q .9 .. \ +4,, . - $.a ti 2 S . 1- •. / J W N cc, 7 i_s,c\ , L______. __. ., - ' 6i - F 2 4_, co w j .� � - �� ! J a T... s / 9 } 1 \ \ './ . . . ' , 2, • \ ", ,Y, . ,„ 1 , T- a) o z i , -,../ '''''''', :47 \ 0 %. tc 0 . E I S ,,. � . ' q �z I f,. it -..,.. ' 1 / ' i 4y � _ Z 4 , �" q�v t >-..,...... • a ' . , . \. .. .' / ,,4,,,, 40 c a) ,, . „..,..„.....„,,, °I ' 2 _.._________ .__ J am- _ � .s -" rig. Fr 4, �. _ - 1 a 1 J LL a 6 CU 1— co N 0 11.1 cn CL a _11 III Z CO o i P E -I ill 2 0 . ui CL 0 L r - 1 1 .' � Z 0 i 0 n 1: Ili 0 u. CU CO , , —I a 1 2 m . 1- - 0. ›-• :, a -3 - m 1 : cc E g 2 \ N o ;,,, 2 3 o 2 7, J 1 0 2 '' § ( \ 2 I'l r i 0 0 L.' ,- ,..... N f \ •-• i • -1 -' ' .1 $ - i ' 1 ' , .w. o- '---' ai) . ..., ....., 4 , ". ‘h, ,,:,:i 40, - ■ ----- i ' 7 - -'-- Cil) - ■•• r ,r • k or 0 o 2 CC C , 0 1 11 1 05 :111, : 8 ... --___ - . ,-, . , • , o m L ,; • • g , 0 LO , . g <,. ,e- g _ ( \ --_ _ ----- Ni, - A■NO 4 f4i/ * --,-_______ f , N ...... --, ...',`, \'› f.' .... ,, . 3..„ , , , 0 , § \ cz .. -1 - ---. -----■....-s, -1 0 ':...4.,.: - -....._ . 0 a 111 MI MR In . . . '-......, N... -' . --...4.?... \ 7) a —I 0 0 . • ' ri \•,/ < , CC \ a) I I IL( i cn n. w a 0 > Sirw•, i ° ' 11111■ 0 1 iimi ,.......... ..„ ., .... ...,, -.- - _ ..... _ ••• IhM i F iv (3..) _ _____. .1 ,:.__:, 1 , , _ a . _ i ‘.. ... . . „.,. Sim ' MI WWII. \ ar . - - -.,fri , . . _ l „\------- \ , , \ c. i i 1 \ • - - . . - r . ..--r- =---- . C C C 0 0 0 - - _ ._ ._ E E E LC) LC) o LC) co o CN CN 0 69- 69- 69- i - ,, ' '-' ----- e. ‘1 111 /1-.■ , CD -- CD CD - - N -0 CD -- , N CL i CD CD - > - - = CS) CO tp c 2 CD - -1- 0 W C CD CD 0 - CD w 0 -1- 0 1• I Q. 1 1 1 0 Co N co O LO O LO LO ti N CO 4"ocli • • a E O Lil .. ° n o UJ CO CO E *a _ E c w 0) 22 0 0 cu E CD W O CO V O U Q N Q ca CO 0 CO ir) E E Lo 0 ° � ti o E (Ni (Ni ._ o 609. 609- 609- W W U) � W c A-0 CL (.1) — 11) CU -4= a) o) 0 *a O O i S. CL CI) co I- 2 1 W o o o) 0) 0 La La 45_ 'CD 0 O SD Ca SD co c O o O C TD_ a Ei_ ,• 0_ co 0 4 E ° La o Lo 2 co 0_ TD CD_ 45 0 E m 2 — c 0 L_ u) c•.. 2 (L. 0_ ca N 'V O) ' o 'V O) _0 } c ' cn ' cn c ' cn U 73 I > D N N Ca 0 ti - 0 a) cu a) v • — c c U • � o LL , c 0_ 0 - fd (1) 4-‘ O o a) o a) cU O a) cm m V, N U cn cn CO cn C, N Q a) x c c N x co D c /)) U O N = O O N 0 0 C 11 — O 1 ct ± C.) T6 L a ,‘ F } , cn () a cn a) cn E c ' > ca 0 O N 0 w 4= 0 i-- U cn 0 ci) •O 0 0 0_ O -0 0_ 0 u) u) ci) ._ 2 > 2 0) ._ O 0_ 0 c Ta 2 O E 0_ 0) 0 E co c o c co 0 c co TD 0 eh > D cU o ,L, ots W _ , • • g 0_ .0) . _ u) 0) " (7) o_ -s _c 0 ,,, cm 7 0 a a) Ca o 0 0 (J) U .c +< ca cm > > X 0( o - ° - ' o -8 2 z rilF.-- v C \\***.\\ 41) jj b z � � r. , � ,- 1 � w r i 5 * , c r Z t; " d 40 • a CD an LI 0 MI 11 1 W t 1 W < — r \I: ' ., Z ILI r , ' �1 iS 3: r . l i • ft. H - Ar I ....1- ti ..GMs Z OJ IIIIIM Y 4F. L r + a '6' i" h ` l! 0 U fl y. _ 4 " ' 9 F l * If ( _ ! te r` I I I L N co . s 11 O) s u j ^/ m I r -e' c m CD C / C CD Q C CD