The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1974-04-02 Town Council MinutesMinutes April 2, 1974 Page 3 • As there was no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:20 P.M. RE -CONVENE AS LOCAL LIQUOR LICENSING AUTHORITY The transcript of the public hearing concerning a request for a retail liquor store license from Vail Village Liquors, Inc. to be located in Units 46 and 48 of the Vail Village Inn is attached hereto in its entirety. (Attachment B) • 9 IN THE DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR THE • COUNTY OF EAGLE STATE OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 2324 VAL d'GORE, INC., a Colorado corporation, and P1TKIN CREEK, INC., a Colorado corporation, in behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, VS. TO;SN. OF FAIL, CO.LO.RADO a municipal corporation, et al, . Defendants. TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING BEFORE TORN COUNCIL, TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO Come now Town of Vail, Colorado, et al, Defendants above named, by their attorney, Gene A. Smith, and certify on information and belief that this is a transcript of the hearing before the Town Council of the Town of Vail, Colorado, held on f. . the 16th day of April, 1974, regardingthe proposed annexation , of a portion of the Bighorn area to the Town of Vail. Index to names set forth on the left margin of the transcript is. as -follows, DOBSON: John A. Dobson, Mayor, Town of Vail, Colorado • MINGER: Terrell J. Minger, Town manager SMITH: Gene A. Smith, Town Attorney STAUFER: Josef Staufer, Town Councilman KLUG: Kathy Klug, Town Councilwoman The transcript which was prepared by the Town Clerk of the Town of Vail, Colorado, is attached hereto. DATED: Vail, Colorado, February 27, 1975. G •. Town Attorney Town of Vail., Colorado P. 0. Box 106 Vail, Colorado 81657 Telephone No. (303)476-5613 Attorney for Defendants • Series of 3974, adopted by Town Council on April 16, 1974 DOBSON: Okay. The next ordinance to be considered ~• is an ordinance establishing special . . . whoops . . . these numbers are all wrong. MINGM Yes, the numbers are screwed up, which number is . SMITH: Are you talking about the annexation? h1INGBR : Yes. SMITH.: That's Resolution No. 9. DOBSON: We'll consider Resolution No. 9 SUITH: I haven'.t seen an agenda, but I think that probably the numbers on the ordinances and resolutions should be correct. DOBSON: Okay, regardless of the number of it, let`s talk about the Bighorn annexation, Sr4ITTi: Yes. The situation as we know from previous i meetings, is that on February 19th a certain number of landowners of the Bighorn area filed the first annexation petition with the Town Clerk, and that was duly processed and then on march 22nd, ten days prior to the public hearing established by Resolution • No. 5, Series of 1974, that is the hearing on the first petition, there was filed a second petition called a petition for an annexa- tion election, and it has now been determined, I believe, that the election petition was signed by at least 100 of the qualified electors who are resident in.and landowners of the area proposed to be annexed. The Town Clerk has, or did, that is, on April 2nd, refer the election petitioiz to the Council. which did on that day consider both petitions, and the matter was referred and continued for further hearing today. The Council has since considered this entire matter in two work sessions today and a week ago, and now the position of the matter is that assuming the Council considers it to be appropriate, it would find the election petition to be in substantial compliance with Section 139-21-6, subparagraph 2 of the Colorado Revised Statutes 1963, and in the event it finds the olection petition in substantial compliance with that section, • which means that it would just be prima facie. a satisfactory petition, then within the range of 30 to 60 days.after this meeting, the Council would have a•second hearing on that election petition, and I would propose that that hearing be held on June 4th, which would be the first meeting that the Council would have after tonight, and it will be in that proper range - not less than 30 nor more than 60 days following this meeting, and at that time if the Council further found that the election petition would be in compliance with additional provisions of the annexation statute, that would warrant the Bighorn area as being entitled to be annexed, then the Council would direct me . to present that petition to the District Court of Eagle County which would presumably appoint three commissioners to conduct and annexation election, and I would estimate that that election would probably be held in the latter part of July. Because -the petition would be presented to the Court probably somewhere I;etween the 5th and the 15th of June, and it would probably be at least six weeks before the election could be held - primarily due to the fact that there is such a large percentage of non- resident landowners,.and there will be a serious problem in conducting the election properly because of the problem of absentee ballots and so forth. So the situation tonight is about where we were back on February 19th when you considered the first petition. This is simply, for practical purposes, the time when the Council will determine whether the election petition is in substantial compliance with the statutory section that relates to that particular type of petition. DOBSON: Okay, so the action that we could take tonight would be to approve this resolution which would set up the mach- inery which you've outlined and also a second hearing. SMITII: Right. DOBSON: Or would it be a first hearing? SMITIi: No, it would be the second hearing to find that tJie petition is in complianf;c ceith additional provisions making the territory proposed to be annexed eligible for annexa- tion. After it has been round that the area is eligible for annexation, which I think is already considered to be certain, then the matter will be presented to the Court. But it's necessary to go through these two proceedings. DOBSON: Okay, any comments from the Council? • Are there any comments from the floor? (UNn1O1VN): Yes, I would like to know what will happen to the people who will be out of town and cannot receive the absentee ballots. SMITH: Well, I think that that would probably be up to the commissioners. That's the reason the Court will appoint co:::: Assionors to control all aspects of the election, • so it's rather difficult for me to predict .exactly what steps they would take,' but I'm sure, in view of the fact, that through- out the suiuner it is known that many resident landowners are absent from the jurisdiction that special arrangements could.be made, such as the commissioners obtaining an order if necessary from the District Court enabling landowners to give a power of attorney, a special power of attorney, to somebody else to cast is their vote for them, or possibly even to have a ballot mailed to them in someplace other than -their normal place of residence or there are all sorts of arrangement.s, power of attorney, some special..address where the ballot could be mailed at a certain time - you know, the person would just have to know where they would be. I would imagine that because it is estimated that 80% of the landowners are non-residents to begin with and are not people who are here locally, that this is going to be a.complex matter and there will be many special arrangements that will be made by the commissioners, and if necessary, approved by the Court. You can be sure that we will raise these points.. DOBSON: We're just checking a date here. So this resolution would be passed on first reading, and the June 4th date is.set for the hearing. SMITH: Yes. I'm sure it is. DOBSON:, It is. That's what we're checking now. It is set for the (inaudible) that would be the second reading of it. Are there any other comments or questions from the floor? From Council? If not, then I'd entertain a motion to approve Resolution No. 9. STAUFI R : So move. w KLUG: Second. DOBSON: Moved and seconded - all those in favor? COUNCIL: Aye. SMITH: Cindy, this is a resolution now that needs to be published. DOBSON: The resolution stands approved. i • (END) • MINUTES REGULAR MEETING TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL APRIL 2, 1974 The regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Vail was convened on April 2, 1974, at 7:40 P.M. in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building. Mayor John A. Dobson and the following councilmembers were present: Josef Staufer John F. Donovan Kathleen Klug Thomas Steinberg Gerry White Joseph Langmaid 6 RESOLUTION NO. 7, Series of 1974,.a second resolution regarding the proposed annexation of a portion of the Bighorn area to the Town, was introduced and explained by the town attorney. After considerable discussion and dissent regarding the validity of the document, no action was taken on the resolution. The transcript of the proceedings concerning this resolution are attached here- to. (Attachment A) RESOLUTION NO. 8, Series of 1974, a resolution suspending the regular meetings of the Town Council in May, 1974, was introduced and renumbered as Resolution No. 7. Councilman White moved to approve the resolution; Councilman Langmaid seconded the motion; the vote was unanimous in favor and the motion carried to suspend regular Town Council meetings during May. RESOLUTION NO. 9, Series of 1974, a resolution extending the term of the Municipal Court Judge, was introduced and • renumbered as Resolution No. 8. The town attorney ex- plained the document referring.to the Home Rule Charter and the Town Code of Vail. The Court will operate as a regular Municipal Court rather than a 'court of record'. The town attorney therefore recommended extending the present judge's term until a new judge could be found. Councilman White moved to approve the resolution; Councilman Langmaid seconded the motion; the vote was unanimous in favor; and the motion carried. RESOLUTION NO. 10, Series of 1974, a resolution approving the capital improvements and planning projects contract with Royston, Hanamoto, Beck & Abey, was tabled until the April 16, 1974 town council meeting. With regard to voucher lists for January, 1974, Councilman Steinberg moved to approve them; Councilman White seconded the motion; the vote was unanimous in favor; and the motion carried. I] Minutes April 2, 1974 Page 2 n LJ With regard to a request by Vail Associates, Inc, for an offset variance for Tract B, Building A, known as the Northwoods project, Jim Lamont explained that the Planning Commission favors the granting of the variance. Jen Wright, Vail Associates architect, explained the details of the off- set problem and used a drawing of the building and land area to illustrate. Councilman Donovan moved to approve the request; Councilman Staufer seconded; the vote was unanimous in favor; and the motion carried to approve the variance. With regard to a request for a setback variance and building bulk control variance for the Mark Resort and Tennis Club, Mr. Rod Seawright, architect, was present to represent the owner, Mr. Kaiser Morcus. Jim Lamont stated that the Planning Commission is in favor of granting the variance. Councilman White stated that he is opposed to granting a setback variance of the sort because the building encroaches on the green space. Councilman Staufer commented that if most of the buildings under construction need variances why isn't the zoning ordi- nance reevaluated and changed? The town attorney stated that a strong zoning law is better than a weak one where no vari- ances are needed. He noted that the request is in two parts. Councilman Donovan moved to grant the variance for building bulk control; Councilwoman Klug seconded the motion; the vote was unanimous in favor; and the motion carried. Councilman White remarked that the zoning ordinance should be amended to indicate the intent of the ordinance. Concerning the second part of the request, Councilman Steinberg suggested that in order to save the green space the building bulk could be cut down. He commented that both green space and space between buildings are desirable and should be respected. Council- woman Klug noted that she has inspected the Mark building and feels it is too close to the road. Councilman Steinberg moved to reject the setback variance; Councilman Staufer seconded the motion; the vote was unanimous in favor; and the motion carried to reject the setback variance request. With regard to a request for a variance for parking not within the building and an offset variance for Montaneros II. It was explained that the parking structure for the building is bermed but required parking would not be within the building. 49 Jim Lamont commented that the Planning Commission favors granting the variance since the Montaneros II building is too small to fit the required parking under the building. Councilman Donovan moved to grant the request; Councilman White seconded with a provision requesting that landscaping be required as part of the approval and that the building permit be issued only after a landscaping plan is submitted. Councilman Donovan then retracted his motion and asked that further study be made regarding need for more car space. The matter was tabled to the April 16, 1974 meeting. The town manager reported that Vail Associates will restrict parking in the Gondola I lot behind the village to non - employees. He explained the working of the new shuttle system and stated that the Lionshead lot would be available for employees. Although the bus system would use the alter- nate route behind the clinic and the Public Service building to Lionshead that route would not be open to all traffic since it is on private property. 0 Attachment A 1[�arin lli lt,lr fhf! Town Council regarding landowners' petition for annexation of a portion of Bighorn area to the Town - April 2, 1974 DOBSON: The number one matter on the agenda, which I skipped, we can now entertain the Resolution No. 7, Series of 1974, a second resolution regarding the proposed annexation of a portion of the Bighorn area to the Town. Mr. John Dunn has approached the table and explained to me that he is a representative for, I believe, Mrs. Carmody and Air. and Mrs. Richards. John, is that correct? Thanks, John. And that he would -like an opportunity to speak at some time. I think it might be helpful to all of us if we first went over the resolution, John, and I'll be more than glad to entertain any comments that you have. Perhaps, then, the best thing to do now would be to ask our Torn Attorney to explain the resolution, which of course the Town Council is familiar with. A letter regarding the general situation has been sent to each of the people who have petitioned for an election with explana- y z " r tions, but in case you aren't familiar with it, I will ask Gene a and then if Terry or any of the other staff members have a comment on it, we'll entertain that. Gene, will you explain the resolution in brief, and then we can entertain questions or comments from the Council or the audience. • SMITE All right. There are two basic aspects of this situation because there are two petitions concerning a proposed annexation which had been filed. The first petition which was filed is so-called "land -owners" petition, which was filed on February 19, 1974. At that time, the petition had been k E .signed by 119 persons who were owners of land in the Bighorn area, which is the territory proposed for annexation. The Council in its regular meeting on that same date, February 19th, i found the petition to be in substantial compliance with the (1(' 1; requisite provisions of the Colorado anneaation.statute, which is Chapter 139, Article 21, of the Colorado Revised Statutes 1963, as amended. In that resolution approving, that was Resolution No. 5, Series of 1974, which approved the first petition. • Tonight, April 2nd, was scheduled as a public meeting to further consider that petition. In the interim there was filed, secondly with the Clerk of the Court, a petition for annexation election. ` This was filed on Barth 22, 1974, which was the last date for the filing of such a petition. The petition is in the same form as the land -owners petition; that is, it consists of separate pages, each of which is signed by one landowner, or in this case, since there is a slightly different qualification to sign the election petition as the landowners petition or to vote in an annexation election, the difference being that to sign an election petition a party must be a so-called "qualified elector" within • the meaning of the annexation statute. But at any rate, there are ten separate inclusionary petitions, which together comprise the petition for annexation election. Of the ten parties that signed the election petition which.was filed on March 22nd as of March 26th, four days after the filing of.the original election petition, two of the ten petitioners voluntarily withdrew.their names from that petition, thereby effectively amending it. ,This left the number of petitioners on that petition as eight, and in my judgment, I felt that three of the eight parties who signed the election petition were not qualified to sign it. Two of these parties were.not landowners within the meaning of the statute. In other words, they have not owned land in the Bighorn area, on which they have paid real property taxes during the preceding tax year, which would be 1973. These parties, these two, were Ken Richards and Patricia Richards, I believe. The record furnished to me by the County of Eagle Assessor's Office did not list either of those parties as being.a landowner, however, it has come to my attention that on March 14th, of this year appar- ently, there were possibly some deeds that were transacted between those parties, but that was too late to make them considered to be landowners in connection with this proceeding. The other party that was disqualified was one of the Blumbergs, I've for- gotten their first names, but the idea is that, together, Mr. and Mrs. Blumberg own a condominium apartment, and it is my position in,interpreting the annexation statute that the owner- ship of one parcel of land by more than one person enables only one of those multiple owners to have a right to vote. In other words, if you had ten parties that owned one condominium unit, they would have to get together and agree on how they would vote, or in the absence of agreeing, they probably would not be able to vote that parcel. So, I don't think its for me to say, really, which of the Blumbergs would be qualified. I'm just saying that at least one of them is not qualified. And, so this left five petitioners that I felt were definitely qualified to sign the election petition. Such a petition must be signed by at least • 100 of the electors or 40, whichever is less, in a county of 25,000 inhabitants or less. And, in this case, the lesser of the two figures would be 100. After a thorough check of county records, several different records that would bear on this matter, records pertaining to voter registration and ownership of land in 1973, it appeared that there were approximately 60 qualified electors within the meaning of the annexation statute. It's possible there might be a few more. Also, it is conceivable there might be one or two less, but at any rate, we think that the best figure that we can come up with is 60. This means that . at least 6 persons would have to sign an election petition. As the election.petition stands, only five parties have properly signed it as far as we are concerned. The Council, however, directed me, and I followed that direction, to send to each of the ten parties originally listed on the petition a notice to the effect that they would be given an opportunity to amend the petition so as, if they wish to obtain the additional signatures that would be necessary to force an election, and.consequently, the resolution tonight, among other things, will extend the further consideration of this entire annexation proceeding and both petitions to April 23rd. And this will necessitate a special Council meeting on that date at 7:30 P.M. in this same room, and at that time, of course, everyone here tonight and anyone else who is concerned with the issue is invited to come and express their views on the matter. So, this resolution No. 7 specifically is a finding that the amended annexation • petition, that's the original landowners' petition, is also in substantial compliance with the annexation statute. What happened is that people kept sending in their inclusionary petitions, so we have simply added ten more to the original 119, making a total of 129 parties that have now signed that petition. The public hearing on the amended annexation petition will be, as I said previously, April 23, 1974, at 7:30 P.M. There is a finding that at this time, as I have already notified the ten petitioners of the election petition that the election petition is not found to be in substantial compliance with the. annexation statute for the reason that less than 10`,0 of the • qualified electors of the area proposed to be annexed signed said petition, that the time within which the amended petition for annexation election may be further amended is extended through the 12th day of April,. 1974, ten days prior to the public hearing of April 23rd. In the event the amended petition for annexation election is further amended, that is if additional" parties sign it, and those parties are qualified to sign it',,j the Council at the same hearing, the same meeting, on April 23rd will of course consider that petition. The reason its necessary to postpone both is because there may not be an amendment to . the election petition. In the absence of that the Council must go ahead and act on the original landowners' petition, however, if the election petition is adequately amended, then it must be given priority over the landowners' petition, and that will be done on April 23rd. The Notice of this hearing of April 23rd will be published for four weeks in The Vail Trail. And also in order to have the public meeting on April 23rd, which was the latest date that it was convenient for the Council to have the hearing this month, it was necessary to meet and go ahead and have a copy of this resolution, presuming it would be enacted tonight; published on March 29th, that was in order to get the four weeks in prior, the four weeks of publication in prior to April 23rd, and it is necessary for the Council to ratify that publication which has already occurred. Otherwise, I have had prepared a small chart which appears over on the bulletin board . which indicates some of the facts that pertain to this issue which I thought were important. I think everybody can probably read that. There are some 400 pieces of land in Bighorn that are involved in this matter which are owned by about 300 and some odd landowners that 129 of those landowners have through . March 20th executed the landowners' petition, and they represent over 730 of the land in that area. The election petition which has been signed by 5 qualified electors represents 1/2 of 1 per cent of the land in that area. I think that the Council could well have just denied the election petition outright tonight and could have proceeded to consider the landowners' petition and would have been'very proper in having done so, however, in its effort to be literally more than fair about this matter, the Council has decided as far as.I am aware to give the election petitioners this additional period of time, through April 12th,. in which to amend their petition and force an election. I.per- sonally do not think an election is going to change the circum- r stances. I don't think that considering that this huge a majority. is obviously in favor of an election is going to change in the event the issue is determined through an election. But if an election 'is what is demanded by 10% of the qualified electors • of this area, an election is what there will be. DOBSON: Thank you, Gene. I'd just to make a brief preliminary statement before whatever comments there may be from other Councilor from the audience. From the outset it has.been our purpose to be as straightforward and as honest and as complet in our approach to Bighorn annexation as was humanly possible, and I for one am completely convinced -that we have been completely honest and completely straightforward. We have spent a consider- able amount of money on planning advice from the Royston firm, a considerable amount of money in staff time, a considerable amount of thought, and have presented to the people of Bighorn the zoning proposals by which they would be annexed should they choose to do so. At the time of the election petitions were received, we studied that matter and have taken under considera- tion the comments from our Town Attorney. In order to be F. e • completely fair to the people of Bighorn, it is our, has been } our policy and is our policy and is announced•by this proposed resolution to make absolutely sure that whatever method is used, be it election or be it the landowners petition, to annex the area of Bighorn involved, be completely legal, be 3 completely free of flaws and as such perform the most fair service to the people of Bighorn. It is the people of Bighorn in the final analysis, or in any other analysis you want to make, who are involved here. we welcome annexation. We have pp done all wa can to provided factual information regarding it. i And our decision to allow further time for a questionable - •because of the questionable nature of the election petition, � I would hope would convince even those who seem to be not in favor of annexation that we are determined to act only in a way which will be legal and will be correct in every way and will be in every way fair to the people who, after all, are the ones basically involved. I _trust that you all understand.. this and appreciate it. If there are any comments from them Council at this point, I'd welcome them, and then we'll certainly open the meeting to any of those who would like to speak from the floor. Are there any comments from Council? Okay, Mr. • Dunn has already indicated that he would like to speak. John, we'd be happy to hear from you. DUNN: Honorable Mayor and Council, my name is John .Dunn as :•.ayor Dobson has indicated to you. I'm appearing on behalf of Carol Richards and Kenneth Richards as well as on behalf of Mrs. !Matti Carmody. 1 first of all would like to commend the Town Attorney on the very orderly presentation which. he made of his position. It makes my work easier to follow his presentation. I also commend him on his chart. I'm sorry - I don't even have one in black and white. I'll do the best I can without. We object to the passage of Resolution No. 7, Series of 1974, on two grounds. The first ground on which we object is the deficiency of the resolution itself. The second ground on which we object is pendancy of what we believe to be a valid I_1 0 i; election pctiLion now pending; before this Council. With regard f . to the latter, we feel, as I will.shortly specify in more detail, that the election petition has been.executed by an adequate num- ber of. electors. With regard to the first ground of our objec- tion, we feel that the resolution is deficient, first of all under Section 8. Se,:tion 8 provides that the first publication i of the Notice of Public fearing on the 29th day of March, 1974, 4 is hereby ratified by the Town Council. We insist that a i publication of a resolution of an act of a municipal body cannot take place validly prior to its adoption. In the case of this i I resolution the first publication was on the 29th of March in The I Vail Ti-ail last Thursday. You are now considering it for the • first time. We submit that that is not legal. Secondly, we object to the notice provision. We feel that the notice provis; ion is inadequate as it is contained in Section 7 of the resolu- tion. That section provides for four publications, I believe, over four weeks in any event. The statute provides, and I am nut aware of any amendment to it, that the first publication of such notice shall be at least 30 days prior to the date of the hearing. Now, not for a moment conceding that the first publi- cation on March 29th was valid, we .insist that, even if it were, you still don't: have 30 days between March 29th and April 23rd. iAnd, therefore, the required 30 days' notice is not given, and we submit, Ladies and Gentlemen, that the requirement of notice is jurisdictional and that this body may not consider any reso- lution or any petition without the necessary notice as is pre- scribed by statute. For these two reasons we submit that the resolution itself is defective. Its notice is inadequate and its notice was invalidly commenced prior to the actual considera- tion of the resolution. Now, turning to my second point, it is our position that there is a valid election petition pending before this Council. The Town Attorney has outlined for you the reasons why, in his judgment-, this petition is at least subject to doubt. It seems to be that it's by question. Either it's a good petition or it's a bad petition. We submit that it is a good petition. The first point made by the Town Attorney is that two of the petitioners withdrew their signa- tures prior to the filing of the petition,, and my facts in that regard may not be accurate, I assume, prior to .the filing of the petition. The statute provides, and I refer to 139-21-6, ` Paragraph 1, subparagraph f, "No person signing a petition for annexation shall be permitted to withdraw his or her signature - from the petition after the petition has been filed with the Clerk." I understand that that is incorrect. The signatures were withdrawn after the petition was filed with the Clerk. They may not be. SMITH: Air. Dunn, does that refer to the landowners' petition or to the election petition. DUNN: Election petition. SMITIi: What paragraph was that? Was that 139-21-6? DUNN: Yes, yes. Now; that . SMITH: That refers to a landowners'.. DUNN: Yes it does, by adoption under Section 139-21-6, 1aragraph 2, subparagraph e, "the requirements and procedures, provided for in subsections if and lg of this section shall ,be met and followed in a proceeding under subsection 2 of this section. So, the prohibition against withdrawal of a signature is carried into.the section or the subsection which specifically • deals with an election petition. It's adopted by reference quite clearly I believe. Now, secondly, it is the opinion of the Town Attorney that three of the petitioners are not qualified. Two of the petitioners are said not to be landowners liable for taxes. Now, I admit that the possibility of some confusion as a matter of record in the courthouse in Eagle exists here, how- ever, I submit that whatever statements I make now could be substantiated by evidence if the need should be. The Richards, Mr. & Mrs. Richards, have engaged in some estate planning, and they have conveyed their property interests back and forth. Nevertheless, within the proper time they have all been land- owners, and they have all been liable for taxes. We have here a tax notice for 1973, addressed to Carol S. Richards but relating to property which is now owned by Kenneth Richards and Patl'icia A. Hichards. Now, as you all are well aware, if ` • taxes are not paid the owner of the r property loses it. In F other words, the tax is a lien against the property. The tax r. being a lien against the property, I think that we must certainly conclude that the owner of the property is liable to pay the tax, lie cannot very well avoid it - otherwise, he loses his property. Now, factually then, we feel that the position of the Town t Attorney is incorrect. We also disagree with his reading of the law with respect . . . excuse me just a moment while..I find. the proper section Section 139-21-21, subsection 8 defines. E landowner, and at the tail end of one curious sentence, inserts . the language relied upon, I believe, by the Town Attorney. I'll read the entire section, the entire sentence: "The entire area of the land signed for shall be computed as petitioning for annexation." Noi%-, that's the main part of the sentence. . . "provided that such signing landowner has become liable for taxes in the last preceding calendar year or is exempt by 1-aw from payment of taxes." We submit, then, that this require-- . , ment of liability for taxes is applicable only in the case of the determination of geographical area presented in a petition. Why, I don't know. There are a lot of things I don't understand that the legislature does. In any event, that's the way I read • the darn thing. It is a proviso in that one odd sentence, perhaps an odd proviso in a fairly reasonable sentence. The Town Attorney r applies that proviso to the entire definition of landowner. I just don't find that in the statute. Now, even if I did, I would submit that it is an unconstitutional provision. The United States Supreme Court is now quite clear that payment of taxes or any other sum of money as a condition to participation in the electoral process is unconstitutional. The United States Supreme Court has also struck down residency requirements, and I submit that that's what this is. It's a residency requirement. ". provided that such signing landowner has become liable for taxes in the last proceding calendar year . . " In other words, it says the man has to be liable for taxes, but we're going to draw an arbitrary line at the end of 1973. You can't do that. ;: The United States Supreme Court has said that you can't do that. • A third signature on the petition has been determined to be invalid by virtue of its belonging to one of two joint tenants in a particular interest in real property. I disagree. The • statute, which at this point is almost impossible to understand, requires or specifies, "For the purpose of determining the com- pliance with the petition requirements, a signature by any land- owner as defined in this subsection, shall be sufficient as long as any other owner in fee of an undivided interest in the same area of land does not object in writing to the City Council of the annexing municipality within 14 days after the filing of the annexation petition." The statute, as I read it, says that where you have,'for example, joint tenants of a piece of property, the husband may sign the annexation petition, and for some reason known only to the legislature, I guess it's for orderly procedure, the wife may veto it within 14 days, or vice -versa. But that section does not say that only one may vote, and the definitions of the persons eligible to sign this petition elsewhere in the statute do not contain that limitation. Any landowner may sign the petition so long as be is a resident of the area to be annexed. For those reasons, we insist that the petition is validly.signed by ten persons,'which is a sufficient number to require this Council to order an election. Now, we disagree also with the number of signatures necessary. 60 is the figure that was given. The figure that we have is 47, and that is based upon a very close research of the records of Eagle County. We have here copies of all the taxpayers or all the property owners, we have the regis- tration lists, and they're all, current to date. They indicate to us 47 people. That worst was first -done on the 22nd of March. 47 was the number come up with. Mrs. Richards has done it again today, and she still comes up with 47. There are no changes. Now, if 47 is the figure, then we only need five. So, for that • reason also, which is a factual one, rather than a legal one, we insist that there are adequate signatures on the petition. Now, the Council has indicated that these petitioners who have filed this election petition, may have an additional time within Which to amend thoi.r petition. They appreciate the courtesy of the Council but question whether it would do any good. (inaudible), now. We are not aware of any additional signers. The only factual dispute we have, which perhaps could be resolved over that period of time, and we would certainly be willing to attempt to resolve it, is as to how many people are eligible out there - 47 or 60. We would certainly cooperate in any way to determine.to everyone's satisfaction what the proper number is. We submit that it isn't necessary, and apart from that, we don't see any point in delaying this matter further. So far as con- s tinning this matter (inaudible), I've already stated we feel that at this state is no good. Now, the Town Attorney has stated that the landowners' petition is in conformity with.the statute. The Richards and Mrs. Carmody have asked on several occasions to be able to view this petition, to examine it to satisfy themselves as to that statement. And, to be frank, they have doubts, which they would like to satisfy. They have not had an opportunity to examine the petition, and they can request - I hesitate to say . demand; perhaps I should -•to examine that petition at this time. The Town Attorney has stated that the people who have signed this petition are a small percentage, and that probably.an election won't change the result. None of us owns'a crystal ball, and we . . don't know.. The fact that these people are small in number in no way diminishes their rights before this Council as residents of an area proposed to be annexed. They have certain rights by statute, guaranteed by the Constitution of this state, of this nation, and they insist upon exercising those rights: DOBSON: If I may interrupt you, Mr. Dunn, as I said in my preliminary remarks, this is exactly because we believe just what you said that we have acted the way we have, and if there if any inference on your part at this time that we are trying to deny those rights, I heartily enter my very heart -felt objection to it. What we are trying to do is to be completely fair, and I want to reiterate that just as often as necessary. Go ahead. I DUNN: In summary, we feel that the resolution pending before the Council is not a valid one for the reasons stated; that the notice requirements have not been complied with - cannot be at this point; and we state further that there is a valid petition pending -- valid election petition - pending before this Council on which there are ten valid sign- atures, which %,.e feel, though small, ought to be recognized. DOBSON: Thank you, Mr. Dunn. I think perhaps the first thing to do now is to ask Mr. Smith to answer for the Council's consideration some of the points brought up by fir. Dunn. SMITH: Before I do that, I would like to ask Mr. Dunn a few questions. DOBSON: Certainly. SMITH: Are you prepared to answer a few questions as well as make statements? DUNN: If I can. S1MITH: I have read in the newspaper that your clients stated that 63 qualified electors exist in that area: Would you deny that?. RICHARDS, C. (?): (inaudible) SMITH: I see. will you turn over your computation of that to the Town Clerk at the conclusion of this meeting? We'd like to check that figure. Are you prepared to do that? DUNN: Certainly, perhaps in exchange for the land- owners' petition. DOBSON: we'll come to that point in due time. SMITH: That was my next point, as a matter of fact. I would say that speaking for -myself, -that none of those parties that you represent ever made one single request of me to view that petition. Had they asked to do so, we would have furnished it to them immediately - of course, in our office, not out some- place where it could be damaged. The Town Clerk has informed me, and she is of course the custodian of the document for the Council, that no request was made of her. What I am wondering is who these parties allegedly made these repeated requests to that were denied. L, D013SON: Mrs. Richards or Mrs. Carmody? RICHARDS or CARMODY: (inaudible) SMITII: Who did you talk to? RICHARDS or CARMODY: (inaudible) DOBSON: Let's have your statement, because the allegation has been made by your attorney that you have been denied access to this petition. Is that true, or is it not true? RICHARDS or CARMODY: I don't think Mr. Dunn meant we'd been denied it DOBSON: Mr. Dunn, did you mean that they weren't denied it or what? If they've not been denied it, there's no problem here. If you have, there is, it's that simple. DUNN: Mrs. Richards has first hand knowledge of what happened, and she can relate what happened, so . . . DOBSON: I would like now a direct statement, bars. , Richards, as to whether you have been'denied access to that petition. RICHARDS: What I was told when I called was that it,` j was in the hands of (inaudible) and was not available. (Res� of statement inaudible - Mrs. Richards did not use a microphone.) DOBSON: Rosie, as Town Clerk, could you clarify this for us? JEFFREY: I have direct never received a message or a phone call from (inaudible). The only time that I spoke with them about: this :�:as March 22FId, the date they riled the election petition, and they did not request (inaudible). (Ms. Jeffrey also did not use a microphone.) DOBSON: Do you have any further comments? RICHARDS, K.: Yes, I do. I was personally present when she made one of those calls, Mayor Dobson. I happen to be Mr. Richards. DOBSON: I know that, sir. Could you help us clarify this, Ken. I'd like to know whether you feel or whether Mrs. Richards feels that they have been denied access to these peti- tions. RICIIARI)S: I feel that they were told that they were • not available. That's exactly the words that she had when she hung up that phone. SMITH: Who told her that? RICHARDS: I don't know. SMITH: Just an unknown person? Okay. All right, Air. Dunn, on this matter of the withdrawal of signatures, are you saying that you think that there is no basis on which a party to a petition of either type can withdraw or add a signa- ture? DUNN: I understand the statute says a signature may not be withdrawn after it's filed with the Clerk. SMITH: You think that an entire petition may be withdrawn?' DUNN: An entire petition? SMITH: Bight. DUNN: I have in sight the statute, looking for an answer to that question, although the thought's passed through my mind. No, I don't think it can be. I think once a petition's . filed, then the Council must act upon it, whatever the wishes of the petitioners may be. SMITH: Does that make sense to you? . DUNN: Well, I'm not sure we're supposed to make sense out of the statutes. DOBSON: You've already, John, based what seems to me to be a fairly empassioned plea ona statute, which at one point you quoted as being almost impossible to understand, so we sympathize with you there. SMITH: You have indicated some constitutional objections to the statute, I believe, such as what you define as a residence requirement, of course. I think you're totally wrong about that, but on your basis that the alleged residence • requirement in this statute is unconstitutional, I ask you whether you think it would be constitutional to deprive a voluntary petitioner of his right to withdraw his signaturQ from any type• of petition like this. DUNN: I'm not aware of any decision of the Colorado . Supreme Court or the United States Supreme Court which would indicate that that would be unconstitutional. SMITI1: Do you think that that is constitutional though, to deprive a person of that right? DUNN: It's constitutional, yes. SMITH: So you're saying that the Council would have to consider a petition presented by petitioners who wish to withdraw it, and also would have to consider a petition on which a sufficient number of signatures have been withdrawn to render that petition in the amended .stage, .having been signed by less than the requisite percentage of petitioners that would be required by the.statute. You'd say yes to both of those - that the Council would have to consider the petition once it's been filed, regardless of the number of signers that wanted to withdraw their name, or even if all of them wanted to withdraw their names. DUNN: Certainly, if some of them wanted to withdraw their names because that's what the statute says. I findit difficult to distinguish between all wanting to withdraw or,,some wanting to withdraw, although I suppose there's a question of reliance. One petitioner relies on the other petitioner in sort of a promissory .(inaudible) situation. I suppose it is to persons . who did notsign the petition assuming that others would sign it. That would be the argument that occurred to me. SMITI3 what type of petitions are you aware of that cannot be withdrawn? Other than your interpretation of this one - other than this one that ,you think is unique? DUNN: Any complaint filed in a court of law, once there has been an answer to it may be_withdrawn only upon leave of the court. It's a similar . . . SMITH: which is freely granted. That'c freely granted, is it not? Unless the rights of the parties would be seriously jeopardized. DUNN: Yes, but that's the particular procedure set up there: There's a recognition that other persons have rights. The people on the other side, the other petitioners, other citizens. It's analonous, but I realize it's not exactly • the same thing. SMITH: Okay, now getting to this just a couple more questions, John. If I could clear up some of these techni- calities before I can answer any questions for the Council. I think one of your most critical objections was the question of whether the multiple owners of one parcel can vote, because if you were right about that, then.there would be enough signatures on this regardless of the other questions that you have raised. Are you suggesting that if there are, say, ten owners of one condominium apartment, that all ten of those parties, assuming that others among the ten did not disagree, that all ten - because there is a requirement, as you know, as you cited your- self, that,there can be an objection by one of several owners that assuming that all ten could agree, and there were no objections filed, you're saying that all ten would be able to vote, sign an election petition, and also well, I guess, both types of petitions and also to vote in an annexation election. Would that be your position? DUNN: That's my reading of the statute, yes. ' SMITH: So, you're saying then, that well., how about this. Other than just partners who would own a con . dominium apartment,. what about the stockholders in a corporation that resided in that area? DUNN: No, because a corporation is a legal. entity. SMITH: I'm talking about to vote. Now, I realize that they can't be registered voters, so they couldn't sign an election petition, but what about to vote in an annexation election.Could the multiple members of some. type of joint venture, corporation, trust, etc., as long as they resided in that area in question, be entitled to vote? DUNN: I think that's difficult to say because you are getting closer to the corporate form, let's say, in the limited partnership - might be a good example. In a corporation a shareholder could not vote because a corporation is a separate entity. The question then would be, is a partnership a separate entity, or are a husband and wife separate entities. I'm not aware of any decisions of the Supreme Court on the case, I think what you're getting . . . as you get to.the larger . . . SMITH: Theoretically, even the shareholders in a corporation theoretically own the corporation, right, and the corporation owns the stock. What would be the difference in concept between that and one of ten ordinary partners coming in and saying, "I am a landowner in an undivided interest." You're saying that any number of joint landowners can use the same piece of property as the basis for their voting. What is the real difference? You're saying just that the type.of structure that you'd say that the members of one particular type of legal entity_ are in multiple numbers entitled to use one piece of property, but if there is a somewhat different legal structure that those owners would not be able to? Is that your position? DUNN: It's a question of the entity, yes. M1ITH: You're saying it's the form of the entity'? DUNN: (inaudible) of the Common Law. SMITH: And you think that's a reasonable interpre- tation - that ten owners of one condominium apartment would have ten votes, and if Vail Associates owns 200 acres, you're saying . that they would be entitled to only one .vote, and of course couldn't even sign the election petition because they're not a registered voter? DUNN: That's my reading of the statute. SMITH: Right. You consider that to be a rational, reasonable, realistic interpretation? DUNN: It's my reading of the statute, and I'm not aware of decisions of any court indicating that it is unreasonable and therefore unconstitutional. SMITH: I have no further questions. • DOBSON: Apparently there were some comments from Council. DONOVAN: I'm just wondering Is Gene through? DOBSON: At the moment, yes. Ut}tiMAN: Wel1., I'c1 1ike to add r,-,s:; our c>1vus to a • couple facts that Mr. Dunn made. If it is 47 . . . Gene, if the figure is 47, in your records you took both parcels versus one, then the election petition is valid, so that negates • all this to do with two owners or one owner or . SMITH: That's true. DONOVAN: Okay. SMITH: If 47 is the right number of qualified electors, apart from all these other technicalities that have been raised, I consider that they have five, and therefore they have enough. However, Diana tells me that she has thoroughly researched the county records in question, and that there are approximately 60. DONOVAN: But has she researched them.over two parcels of land or one parcel? There's a basic . SMITH: Two parcels or one . . . DONOVAN: Two parcels.: Initially, there was a whole parcel - the whole thing, and then there was not enough conti- guous !' SMITH: No, I understand. She did it only in the part in question, I'm certain. DONOVAN: There's one thing that we have to clear up • for sure, The other thing Section whatever had to do, .concerning the 30 day notice, John, if that be true, then that negates this also. SMITH: Yes. I would say that that is a problem, if this were the first consideration of the matter. Now, I would think that the fact that the matter had been considered previously would consider that this would be taken into consider- ation in determining whether adequate notice had been given. On a literal interpretation of this, if you take from the first date of this series of publications, or at least contemplated series of publications, from March 29th through April 23rd, that would not be 23 days. That problem, of course, could be solved if the Council wanted to have the meeting on the.30th instead of the 23rd, but I understand that a number of the Council will be out of town by that date, I would say that that is, very frankly, a serious objection to this, and I was aware of that at the time, however, I presume that if the petition, the election petition, was to be amended, it's going to be amended by that time anyway, and publication is not required for the hearing of an election petition. It's only for the landowners' petition, so if the election petition were amended properly, as, you know, could be done in my theory with only one more person who is qualified signing it, then I felt that that would be the way that we would go anyway, and the publication would become meaningless. So, it was a calculated risk. DO\OZ':AN: One more question. If the Board deems the election petition valid'tonight, can they call for an election and set the date tonight? SMITH: I'm speaking now without having read that particular section in the statute, but my impression at this time is that it could. DONOVAN: Is that your interpretation, Mr. Dunn? Could we proceed with the election petition tonight if we deem the petition correct, valid? SMITH: Actually, John, they way we would do it would be if the•Council would present the petition to the court - to the District Court, and the court appoints commissioners which would call the election. DONOVAN: I'm through. DOBSON: Joe,.did you have a question? STAUI'ER: No, I basically had the same question. Air. Dunn, would you say that in the case of Vail Associates, that big parcel of land, that every one of -those, every stockholder (inaudible) could sign? DUNN: Every shareholder in Vail Associates? STAUI'ER : Yes. DUNN: No. Only Vail Associates could sign. That may seem unfAir, although I think you have to keep in mind the decisions of the United States Supreme Court which has said that concerning, for example, representation in the legislature, the only factor within reasonable bounds to be considered are people • not trees or horses or vast landowners - just people. STAUFE,R: The only other thing thatI - and since you made the statement -- I would like to address my question to you rather than Mrs. Richards - if you needed access to official and legal documents from the county courthouse or from a town government, would you expect that a phone call would get you those documents, or would you deem it necessary that you'd probably have to go there and get those things available to you? Maybe better, do you ever get anything out of the state govern- ment or the county or a town that's an official document that has to be there with the clerk for safekeeping that you could get over the phone? DUNN: I'm not sure the answer accomplishes much, but I would say that I might very well call to see if the docu- ment is available before I made the trip to look at it. I might also say that, for example, the Secretary of State's office, you can get more information over the telephone, cheaper, than f, you can by going down there by mail anyway. The telephone can. be useful, and I understand your point. The point is that the Ricbards.were rebuffed at the time of their initial approach to the clerk's office. • DOBS,ON: That seems to be a matter of some question. DUNN: I grant you we have a factual dispute. SMITH: I understand . . . DOBSON: I don't know whether we've gotten too big or too prejudiced or too something; with each other in this little gallery to really talk about what we are here to talk about or not, but I'm going to try. It was our complete intent, and I think, John, that you were good enough to commend us for our intent, in,making absolutely sure that what we dial in connection with this Bighorn annexation was completely legal, completely • fair. In order to do that, we thought the best way to do it.was to take enough time to resolve among others, some of the questions, John, that you have brought up. It would only take a matter of a few weeks to do this. It is very possible that even if we went ahead with an election, some of the points which ,you have • brought up might be found on the other side of the fence. I can see, for instance, it would be possible that an election petition as admittedly borderline as this is, possibly legal, " possibly not legal, that those, for example, who are unhappy with an election might turn around and say, if we took action tonight with the exact number of election petition signers involved and not knowing some of the answers that we know, might turn around and say, "The election you have insisted upon'we've decided is not really a legal election, or has not been one." So, we're really trying to do this as neighbors, and if we can't be friends, let's at least be honest with each other. We're . trying to make sure that whatever we do to resolve this thing is legal and fair,•and we're saying in essence, let's take a couple of weeks to rind out. And I would like to ask the people who have engaged you, John, and I appreciate your very astute remarks, and as you know through the years we have respect for you as an attorney in the area. But I would like to ask why it wouldn't be better to take the two weeks, let's say, or three or whatever the numbers are that are involved here and make darn sure that whatever mode of election, whether it be landowner petition or election, is completely unclouded. What possible danger would there be in that? And I would direct.that to the people who seem to be so anxious tonight to change it. Ken? RICHARDS, K.- Along that line, Mayor Dobson, ;'d just like to ask you two questions. The thing that was brought out in the last meeting, the (court of three men) asking for this election were, number 1, in favor of asking for an election (inaudible), and number 2, why is the Town still fighting against going ahead with an election for this annexation? (Number 3, just a comment on this whole farce.) If this is wb at all the people want, the majority of them out in Bighorn, 1, for one, would fight for it just as much as anybody. DOBSON: Ken, I lost you. If what was . RICHARDS, K.: If this is what the majority of people in Bighorn want, is annexation to Vail, I would fight for it as • much as anybody. Two questions, one statement. DOBSON: Okay. Again; I just wish we could talk'a little more quietly about this because what I can't understand is that the reason we took the action we did was to make sure that the people of Bighorn did have a completely legal vehicle for doing whatever they want to do, and it's up to them to do it. That's the whole point. Now, if there is some question, and John Dunn agrees with us, I think, after reading the statute, that some of it is just completely incomprehensible. If there are problems regarding either of these vehicles, and if they can be solved, and they must be solved very quickly, isn't it ibetter to make sure where we stand in fairness to the people of Bighorn. And I•don't really care at this point which way the thing goes, but I don't think that - that's not really true; I would like to see them annexed; I'll be honest - but I feel most strongly that our job here as the Council for the Town of Vail is to make absolutely sure that what we do, whichever route we take and whatever results come from that route, is as unassailable r` as we can make it. And it seems to me that the questions John has brought up, in some cases, make more sense than others; I'm not going to fall back on the old "I'm not an attorney" bit; • because I'm a little tired of that, and I think we all can see the areas which are strong and the areas which perhaps are not. There are some glaring inconsistencies between the 47 and the 60. I still don't understand Mr. Dunn's residency requirement portion of: his addresss, but I'll try harder on that. But, again, we're here to try to make surethat whatever we do, whatever happens, is legal and honest and fair; and it seems to me that there are on both sides of the fence here a lot -of unanswered questions which could be cleared very simply probably by having a few more, by having time, a few more people to add their names, and we have allowed that. Again, I think what I resent, if resent is the right word, what I object to is that we have bent over backwards to be fair to everybody involved, and now be we have done that, there seems to be appearing that we haven't been, and I simply cannot understand it. I would welcome some comment, by the way, from others than those who have been heard from now • in fairness to the people of Vail who have some stake in all this, and God knows, there are other people in Bighorn. UNKNOWN: I would like to make a statement and maybe a at the same time a public plea to those who are for the election. I went to the Town, or rather I called up and said, "May I have a look at the petitions?", and they said, "Sure, come and go through them." That to me indicates that the Town is willing for i • I anybody to have access to the.petitions. I took the tax list and marked it off against the petitions; then.I got the regis- tered voter list and marked that off, and came up with 55 • qualified electors. They were attested by Gene. I polled these by telephone, although I needed some help with it, so (inaudible). j Out of those 55, there are 8 known against election; 35 of these turned in their petitions for the annexation. The others would not vote against the annexation; they would vote for it. DOBSON: Ken, I'm not sure if I answered all. of your questions or not. I hope I did. What was your second one, which I thought was really the guts of the matter? RICHARDS: The question is, why doesn't the Town go ahead and force an election to find out what the people want. • DOBSON: Well, my answer to that, Ken, was we're perfectly willing to go ahead and endorse an election if we can be absolutely certain that the election itself on its face value is the legal way to go, and it's so close, that I.think even John would admit that there are a lot of questions that he'd like answered one way or the other. Our attorney would too. • We're not proposing to delay this thing ad.infinitum. We don't want to do that, but we are determined; and I think in all fairness to us, we have gone to great lengths to make sure that what we do ,is fair and completely unassailable by persons who might want to challenge it, be it petition or be it election. And so that's my answer to you. We don't want to stop it, but we want to make damn sure that what we do in the first place is right, because this is the kind of a (inaudible) that we could get involved in at a later date that . . . RICHARDS, K. I think these gals have been both sides of • the fence in this thing. .In fact, I don't think either one of these gals over here have really made up their minds them- selves how they would really vote in an election. DOBSON: Which ones are you talking about, Ken? RICIIARDS, K.: 'Mrs. (inaudible).Richards and Macci Carmody. I don't know - they might vote for an election. They're trying to find out the facts of this thing.. They're trying to get the facts before the people, and to find out what the people want. DOBSON: well, this we are too, Ken. I couldn't agree with you more, and Lord knows we've worked hard on it, and my point has nothing to do with which way the people of • Bighorn feel. It has everything to do with the mechanics, the legality of the mechanics that are involved, and this is the only stand that I think the Council is determined to be completer° safe and fair about.. RICHARDS, K.: That's just exactly the way they feel. They Ant the people in Bighorn to have (inaudible). DOBSON: Okay. I agree with that, but for God's,sake let's make the voice one that is legal, and let's get over that hurdle first . . . RICHARDS, K.: (Inaudible) DOBSON: we can't have an election, Ken, if the election isn't legal. I won't do any good - that's what worries me. So let's get the ground rules first. we can't play football until we decide how many downs there are, you know. KLUG: I have a question of Mr. Dunn and Gene. Maybe we can get a lawyers' consensus on that. If it is illegal to withdraw your name from a petition.that has been filed with the Clerk, it would seem to me that it would be illegal to amend a petition that has been filed with the Clerk by adding another name. Is that correct? . SMITH: Not necessarily. DOBSON: There's the kind of a legal comment that you'll agree with even, won't you, John? I'm sure Gene can explain that. SMITH: Well., there is a specific provision that. . purports to prohibit the withdrawal of any signature. Where is no provision that states whether or not a petition can be amended, so most petitions normally can be amended unless there is an express provision to the contrary. So, I am assuming in the absence of there being a prohibitory provision that precludes an amendment, that it can be amended. So it would be .possible to amend a petition and prohibit a withdrawal of a signature. KLUG: Well, didn't Air. Dunn say that once a petition is filed with the Clerk that the Council must act on that petition as filed? SMITH: Yes, even if they wanted to withdraw it. KLUG: Or amend it. SMITH: Probably. KLUG: Mr. Dunn, is that what you said? DUNN: I (inaudible) the statute. "The City Clerk shall defer the petition to the City Council as a communication. The City Council.shall then without undue delay take appropriate steps to determine if the petition. so filed is in substantial compliance with this section: If the petition is found to be in substantial compliance, the procedures outlined in sections shall then be followed." The whole thing appears to be to me (inaudible). as far as her question, adding signatures to the petition. I agree with Gene that the statute does not specifically touch on that. I did say that I don't think as a practical matter the petitioners are in any position to add signatures. I have some doubts as to whether they could, but we really don't get to that at this point because we're not attempting to. What we did say was we're asking to check out the.factual background of this thing very carefully. This is the only thing (inaudible) idea to determine whether it's 46 or 55 or 60 or just what it is. That would not be amending or changing the petition in any way. • That would merely be determining in light of the statute whether or not the petition is in compliance. DO13SON: I'm trying to figure out where we really stand here now, and what we have to do. A Sy1IT11: Your Tlonor, let me make one observation. . If this 30 day requirement is going to be construed literally, in other words, it would just be starting tonight, for example, and we had to go 30 days from now, regardless of all the past proceedings, then I think Fir. Dunn would agree that we would have to do that regardless of which petition is going to be acted upon. Would you agree with that, air. Dunn? DUNN: Yes sir. SMITH: So, either way, according to his theory, the Council could not act before - not less than 30 days from tonight, which would be sometime in May. We know that there are going to be no Council meetings in May, so that means it's going to be delaying it until June. On the other hand, if we go ahead, regardless of what we do, with there being as many technical objections as could be raised to this type of statutory proceed- ing, the thing is going to be subject to being challenged. In' other words, regardless of what is done, somebody can challenge it, if they wish. And, so, I think that what a court of final determination would do would be to loon at this statute and see whether the statute has been substantially and fairly complied with. I don't believe that in a statute as complex as this with as many - there are probably 10,000 technical objections that could be raised, any one of which could theoretically void a proceeding under i.t,.tbat the failure of the Council to comply with this statute 100`o would be the thing that would occasion a court to void an annexation. So I don't think that we're ever going to reach a stage where we have a unanimity,of opinion on what has been properly done and what hasn't. DUNN: May we take it to the District Court and have them decide the result? If the result that they decide is that the election petition is fair . SMITH, Sure, I think if a court made that determina- tion, as long as it wasn't appealed from, that as soon as it's • judgment became final, that would be a final determination. The problem with proceeding Let us say that hypothetically, this 47 were correct, now, I have no personal knowledge that this J 60 figure that I was previously told by our Building Department is correct. However, I would certainly place more reliance on that than on the 47 figure of the election petitioners, but even if that 47 figure were correct, the Council technically is not • in a position to act tonight. Even on their petition. I think that under these circumstances we would not be able to act even on their petition tonight. It would.require the passing of a resolution that would . . . in other words, all that could be done tonight would be to determine whether the election petition is in substantial compliance with the prerequisites of the statute, then have the public hearing 30 to 60 days from now. Then, if it was approved at that stage, then present it to the court for an election. However, there's one possible exception to that that I can think of, and that would be if the Council has.decided, for• example, that the probabilities of one or two more people adding their names to the election petition would be enough to render it correct regardless, and my own position, I have conceded that it would only take one more signature. In other words, I'm saying it would take six; I think they definitely have five.. If ten people who own one condominium apartment are able to vote., then they have the six. So, you know; that would be a factor. If the Council thought that an election is going to definitely come about despite the fact that only one half of one per cent of the land owners of the land held interests are demanding that, then of course, we are concerned with protecting the rights of the minority. The only alternative I can think of to avoiding this additional delay, and it would prove to be at least two months instead -of just the one month, because of the absence of the Council. here in May, would be if the election petitioners them- selves would be willing to waive the notice requirement, because they are the only ones who could be adversely affected by it, and if they were willing to waive that requirement or say that, in • the alternative, it had been satisfied, then conceivably, the Council could go ahead and act on the election petition tonight. DONOVAN: He did have another small point. It was one that was kind of clear, ghat he:road off concerning the (inaudible). SMITH: Concerning the what? DONOVAN: Section 1.39-21-4, Paragraph f or something, r concerning Gordy and B.J. Rowe. SMITH: )tight. DONOVAN: :TLSat they cannot, cause I remember asking you the same.question, they cannot withdraw their names from a petition once it has entered the hands of the Town Clerk. If this be so, then surely we have seven legitimate names. I mean that seems to be a question that . . . SMITH: Well, we would have seven, then it would be, then the other question would be whether both of them would count, because they both only own the same apartment I believe. You would have six though. KLU G: All right, we have six. DOBSON: There is no way, I would suspect, that we can resolve the question of whether 47.is the.correct figure or } .65 or 63 is correct figure within the next . . . SMITH: Well, Diana tells me that she would be willing to'discuss it with Mr. Dunn and that she thinks that within ten minutes or so, if the Council wanted to have a recess, that she thinks that she could at least explain to him how she computed it, (inaudible) the manner in which the election petitioners computed it, and at least we would know more nearly where we stand. Is that what you think it would take - only about ten minutes to determine that? That would be worth waiting for I would say. DOBSON: Two Richards here. Ladies first, I guess. RICIiARDS, C.: I have one question of Mr. Smith. In the case of dual ownerships, you.can only have one signature? SMITH: That's right: RICHARDS, C.: (Inaudible). SMITH: Just a minute, now. Run that by one more time. i RICIIARDS, C.: (Inaudible). Now, when you're counting the number of qualified elector landowners, (inaudible) the number of (inaudible). SMITH: We only counted one landowner for one parcel. RICITA12DS, C. ; And you only came up with 50? • SMITIi: That's right. Isn't that right? DONOVAN: You follow different requirements for different elections. SMITH: Of qualified electors? (lots of inaudible voices) SMITH: You counted both? If a husband and wife owned one apartment, you counted both of them as qualified. electors? (more inaudible voices) DOBSON: Charlie? SMITH: No, it would be people who could sign the petition, that's what we're talking about. (UNKN011N): (Inaudible). What other property owners, corporations (inaudible) Fail Associates (inaudible) sold (inaudible) to us. (Inaudible).. We all signed the petition to' incorporate the Town of Vail, and if this is illegal, we can all (inaudible). DOBSON: Ken? i R.ICHARDS, K.: Just one other question. Let's say (inaudible - much talking in background) SMIT13: Wheel them in. - we'll let them sign right now. RICIIARDS, K.: Let me ask a question, and maybe the other attorney, Mr. John Dunn, could answer it too. Will this invali- date any of the things that have been brought up tonight (inaud.) for example, withdrawing your petitions after the petitions have been filed with the County Clerk? SMITIi: You're the only one that could object. RICHARDS, K.: In other words, that March 22nd date that the original petitions were filed. If the Town is going to allow additional signatures as they said, in their letter or whatever, (inaudible) or whatever, this will.no.t change that March 22nd date? SMITH: No. We would not consider that to affect the validity of the original petition at all.. RICIiARDS, K. (Inaudible) are more or less right on these Joint ownership deals and (inaudible). We just didn't want to jeopardize this, but we have got several more people that could sign this thing. And this is why we would urge you to get on. with the thing, (inaudible) the election and (inaudible). DOBSON: Ken Was that applause from the _attorney? Again, what we are trying to do is You, say get on with the election - we can get on with a fire, but it's going to be illegal. So let's make darn sure that what we're doing in fair- ness to you is right. That's my only point,.and I'm doing to stick with it. • S.'41T11 Let's ask "r. Dunn that question, Your Honor. Mr. Dunn, are your clients, the election petitioners,.willing to . . . if the Council were to be willing to,proceed tonight on determining whether the election petition is in substantial compliance with the requisite statutory requirements, would your petitioners, who we.feel are the only ones.who could reasonably abject to our proceeding on that question, would they be willing to stipulate that the notice provision has been satisfied so that. that petition could be, and that issued, could be considered right now? DUNN: (Inaudible). SMITH: Okay, waive or consider that it has been satisfied in the alternative. Because if they're not willing to do one or both of those, then there's no way that the Council can consider it tonight in any event. DUNN: It's always kind of dangerous to make deci- sions like that standing up in the middle of a public meeting. SMITH: That's one of the - dangers of being a lawyer representing those people. DUNN: I would be inclined, if that were acceptable, to waive the requirement. I think we all have to take some chances. Someone else might come in and object to it - I don't know. But I suppose that would be probably a (inaudible). SMITH: Who else could object other than the people who are entitled to the notice? DOBSON : This, again . . . Apart from the legal ins and outs here, and I know that we've got to live with them, what really is at issue here? The issue on our side, as I have said about 20 times tonight, is that we were determined to be completely fair because there were several serious questions which our attorney has brought to our attention. John brings more of them as the attorney for the election petitioners tonight. There are still many of them unresolved - the whole matter of the tax payment thing, I think, is unresolved; the residency requirement thing is unresolved; and obviously the 47 or 65 is unresolved. What is the purpose of your objection - what is the purpose of what you have said tonight, John - what is the purpose of the people you represent? I assume that you want to get on with the election. You have said that. If there is any serious question regarding the validity of the election, and if those questions can be solved within a period of a couple of weeks, and knowing, just from what we've heard tonight, that there are several that are, and your reluctance to waive any of these points that Gene has brought up, doesn't it make sense, just! in protection of everybody, that we solve these things before we get involved in the election? How much delay is it going to have - or is delay what you want? Let's be honest with each other; let's. say what we are really trying to do. Now you lawyers can figure out how you can do it. Carol. RICHARDS, C.: (Inaudible). DOBSON: well, this is one of the questions I say we should solve, and we'll do it. We can't do it . SMITH: That can be solved in a recess. DOBSON: But, there are still many others, Carol, and again I say, what if the lawyers could, working together, could work out something so that by the 23rd of April, that we could have these answers, and then proceed either with an election or • without one, wouldn't that be the fairest thing for both sides, for both the people who have . . . well, who may or may not be against or for annexation. Isn't that the fairest way for us to go? To be absolutely sure of protecting you, Carol, and Macci and lien? Yes. . RICHARDS, C.: (Inaudible). There are other people who haven't signed the petition that (inaudible)..*We can't guaran- tee that they won't challenge the (inaudible). We can guarantee that we won't, but we can't guarantee that somebody else won't. DOBSON: Surely. Surely. And the more that they can challenge, the more likely they are to do so, so let's eliminate as many of these problems as we can, and not jump into the thing. RICHARDS, C.?: (Inaudible).. DOBSON: Well, I think what Gene has just said is that: we can take no action. We'cannot take action tonight. . SMITH: and the problem is that the only completely • safe course would be to provide for a hearing within the range of 30 to 60 days from now. That's the.only way that there cannot be a challenge on that 30 day requirement. And I think that obviously that's going to result in a long delay, because that. would mean that there couldn't be a hearing until sometime in .tune, and then the election probably wouldn't be until July or August because of the question of all of the absentee votes; STEINBERG: This may all be academic. If this goes on much longer, I think a lot of us will vote not to annex on.the (inaudible) once they do elect to come in. We're going to spend • $6,000.00 on an election. It's going to. cost us God knows how much every year to support Bighorn with the roads and.the quality of service and everything else that they're immediately going to demand. I'm, beginning to wonder whether we should let them in if they want in. SMITH: Tom, that's the thing that bothers one the most about this whole election petition. I am as much as any- body in the world -in favor of protecting rights of the minority, however, in this instance, the statute provides for two methods of initiating an annexation proceeding -. through a landowners' petition or through an election petition, and in the event of an election petition, a valid election petition and through an election. In this instance, though, I think that it is quite clear that the real purpose of the election petition is not to produce an ,annexation but to attempt to thwart it. So it's an attempt by a tiny minority to use the supposedly democratic election procc>ss in reality to prevent an annexation rather than occasion an annexation to occur. i RICHARDS, K.: I disagree with that statement. when you 1 call that a minority, and the actual questionnaire just went out, three to one, people wanted an election. Now if you ever question that, we've got the proof of that, Gene Smith. SMITH: Well, why didn't more people sign the, petition? DOBSON: Carol? RICHARDS, C. (Inaudible). • STEINBERG: It's a lot bigger majority than five or ten. RICHARDS, C.: (Inaudible). DOBSON: Okay. I think probably emotions are at a pitch. Once more, though, if John and Gene, if there were a way to resolve these questions on both sides of the fence before .April 23rd, so that both sides would feel comfortable with the numbers and with everything else and so the Council could act' i with more complete .faith that they were doing the fairest thing possible. If there were a way to do that, then would it be objectionable to your clients to proceed along those lines? • DUNN: T think'it would be acceptable as long as there is no action on the pending resolution no action be taken until the 20th of April. I'm still bothered by 30 day requirement.: DOBSON: well, if we could clear that and be ready to act by the 23rd of April, would that be a fair thing to do. Now, from the legal standpoint, if the resolution were not adopted, how i could we take action on the 23rd. This is a problem. SMITH: We can't. V DUNN: You can't anyway. i DOBSON: So, we can't anyway. SMITH: By the 23rd, you see, they will have the same objection that 30 days had.not been given, so it's either waiting 30 days or more. It'll be 30 days from tonight plus whatever additional days, if any, would be required to have four publications STAUPER: Gene, let me ask you. something. Do you need . a quorum of•the Council to hold a special hearing of that nature? SMITIi: Certainly, there must be a quorum to conduct any business. There's one other possibility. If we could get; a waiver of the notice requirement from the election petitioners. In other words, where they could not say that tonight's proceeding was invalid, because if they're going to challenge that, then we're really wasting our time. But if the election petitioners wanted to consider that there was .no problem of notice, and the Council decided tonight to go.ahead and have an election, then within a few days I could present the petition to the District _ Court, and I think, get the Court to give us a ruling within a couple of weeks on the thing, and it's conceivable that we could get a timely ruling from the Court. I think once the Court ruled upon it unless there were then a challenge to that decision, then the Court could go ahead and call an election. That would save at least two and a half months. The other procedure - if we have to definitely wait 30 days before there could be a hearing, also 'whatever time it takes to get the four publications in, then obviously there can't even be a hearing until sometime in June, and the election couldn't possibly be before, I would imagine, mid -July or sometime in August. But to do anything tonight is • going to require the cooperation of the election petitioners.. That is certain. DOBSON: And Ave don't have any clear cut . . . John, you said - you prefer not to make any clear statement on that? DUNN: (Inaudible). DOBSON: I didn't hear you. 'DUNN: Going back to a couple of matters that have come up already, perhaps we ought to stipulate that the intentions and motives of the Town are good, and the intentions and motives of the petitioners are good. We canvassed the petitioners, and I . assume the interest of the Town is to arrive at a satisfactory compromise of this matter - or agreement. (Inaudible). That's really the only thing that we want, and if we have to cut corners in order to accomplish a result, while we may reluctantly agree to it, wo may agree to it. I have triad to say that - it's quite • a distinct possibility. (Inaudible), but in all probability, they wouldn't, I suppose, and once the necessary time - 45 days or whatever it is, is (inaudible), the ordinance annexing the territory is adopted finally, then it's as good as gold. SMITH: Would your clients be willing to stipulate that the Council go ahead and determine tonight whether or not the election petition is valid? DUNN: We're prepared to (inaudible) the determina- tion this evening, yes. SMITH: And if that were done, would it also be possible to go ahead and have your petitioners stipulate having . the matter immediately presented to the Court rather than having to have another meeting in June on the matter - because as you're aware, there is no way that there can be another meeting of the Council until June. At least within 30 days; there'll be a meeting in two weeks or three weeks, but that's not satisfying that 30 day requirement. In other words, a meeting before June would be futile according to your clients. So in other words, . the Council could, through the proper stipulation on the part of your election petitioners could go ahead and determine the entire matter tonight and just present it we could present the • matter to the Court within a matter of days then. But that could only be done with your cooperation. DUNN: If it was determined that the election peti- tiori was valid tonight, and the petition ordering the election was filed with the District Court, I do not believe that any of the persons whom I represent would file any objection to that proceed- ing. SMITH: And you do realize that they would be entitled to 30 days' notice, of course. And you would waive that require- ment and agree that . . . DUNN: On behalf of them, yes. • SMITH: I realize that you can't waive it on behalf of anyone else that is not a party to this, of course. DUNN: (Inaudible). DOBSON: John, you mentioned once, I thought, that. • you were not: at all sure that additional names could be added in any event, is that correct? DUNN: I really haven't read the statute carefully to determine the answer to that question, but my gut reaction to it is that (inaudible), and that petition is pretty (inaudible) once it's filed. (Afore inaudible). SMITH: That's the reason right there that it makes sense that it could be amendedbecause you could take the same petitions are good for 190 days. If, for example, and there is nothing that says that the same petition can't be used more than once. So we could take - as n-e did in the case "of .the landowners - add ten more and just say it's a new petition. Can you see any objection to that? And what is the difference between that and calling it an amended petition when it would be the same pieces of paper? DUNN: I suppose the only difference is that you An correct (inaudible). SMITH: You mean, having a later date for the riling date? DUNN: Yes. DOBSON: So, you can have an additional petition, but you can't add to the other one? SMITH: You could just have a new petition that would incorporate the old one. It would be called a new petition instead of an amended petition. WHITE: Air. Aiayor, I don't think we can make that decision tonight. I don't think we can decide tonight whether this petition is valid. We're going to have to determine how many electors there are. I think we've spent enough time on this. I suggest that we put it off until the next meeting in two weeks. We can't have a meeting in May anyway, so the 30 days from the • next meeting would put us in June, where we should be. I don't suggest that we waive the 30 day notice - I think that that would be foolish. I don't suggest that we cut any corners. Bighorn's been out there for ten years; two more months isn't going to make any more difference. I think we just start the process again in • terms of publication, determine whether the election petition is valid, and either accept it or deny it at the next meeting of the Council.. DOBSON: Is that something that we can do? SMITH: Certainly, And also, another position we could take would be simply that because of the various objections to both petitions, we could say that before any petition is going to be considered, that there will just have.to be a new petition. And that would cure any possible defects in the old one just to . Because as long as we are going to consider one that has been challenged, people can continue to object to it. (UNKNOWN): (Inaudible). SMITH: But it can still be challenged, that's the point. A resident of Vail could end up challenging it as being a defective election. DOBSON: This is the point, of course, that I've been laboring all night long. I agree with Gerry; there's nothing," we can do now except Technically, Gene, the resolution before us we cannot act on? Right? SMITH: Well, it would be very easy to act on it. • The only thing that would have to be done, I think, to eliminate any serious oUjection to it, would be to change the date of the hearing. We could pass the resolution could be passed calling for the public hearing in June, and that would avoid . Then both petitions could be considered at that time, I think that would save having to bring it on next time. DOBSON: In any event, that could be done at the next meeting. SMITIi: That could also be done at the next meeting. DOBSON: And it would give us an opportunity for fur- ther legal study and for certain consultation with Mr. Dunn. aU011, I'm inclined to agree that we've labored this thing long enough. Gerry has suggested that we tale no action tonight but study the questions brought up by Mr. Dunn on behalf of his clients and be prepared at the next meeting to enact a new reso lution to either effect an election or to go ahead with the other forin. Gentlemen, is that your Wish? Ladies? Okay, then, that's the course that we will take. SMITH: We're going to have to renumber these other resolutions then. Let's see, that would make the typed no. 8 would be 7, and the typed 9 would be 8. DOBSON: Okay, the next resolution would be then renumbered to no. 8, is that right, Gene? Well, the other one we've already voted on should be renumbered no. 7. SMITH: That would be the one suspending the meetings in May. DOBSON: And so the Resolution No. 8, extending the term of the Municipal Judge would be 8 rather than 9, is that right? SMITH: Correct. Now, Diana did ask me one thing. She said that she would like the list of the qualified voters that the election petitioners have so that she can check it against her own list. Mr. Dunn, are you going to provide the list of your 47 qualified electors to our .Building Official that is, Zoning Administrator? DUNN: IYe were just discussing that and thought perhaps the easiest way to do it would be for Mrs. Richards to ( inaudible).. SMITH: Okay, in other. words . . . DUNN: (Inaudible). SMITH: All right, fine. Thank you. DOBSON: Let's do that, then. (END) 0 0 Attachment B• IN THE DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF EAGLE STATE OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 2182 VAIL VILLAGE LIQUORS, INC., ) a Colorado corporation, ) Plaintiff.-, ) TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING BEFORE VS. ) LOCAL LICENSING AUTHORITY LOCAL LICENSING AUTHORITY, ) TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, ) Defendant•. ) Comes now Defendant above named by its attorney and. certifies on information and belief that this is a transcript of the hearing before the Local Licensing Authority, Town of Vail, Colorado, held on the 2nd day of April, 1974, on the application for a retail. liquor store license of Vail Village Liquors, Inc. Index to names set forth on the left margin of the transcript is as follows: DOBSON: John A. Dobson, Chairman of Local Licensing Authority (LLA) • DONOVAN: John Donovan,Member of LLA KLUG: Kathy Klug, Member of LLA STEINBERG: Thomas Steinberg, M.D., Member of LLA WHITE: Gerry White, Member of LLA 'SMITH: Gene A. Smith, Attorney for. LLA MINGER: Terrell J. Minger, Town Manager (TOV) JEFFERY: Rosalie Jeffery, Town Clerk (TOV) WALL: Gary ]Nall, Police Chief (TOV) MCLAUGHLIN: S, Douglas McLaughlin, Applicant • PETERSON: Jay K. Peterson, Attorney for Applicant BROWN, Stewart If. Brown, Attorney for Protestants STAUFER: Gottfried Staufer, Witness for Applicant COLT: Edward 1V. Colt, Witness for Applicant ANGELOII: Fred L. Angeloh, Witness for Applicant SALLOWAY: Michael M. Salloway, Witness for Applicant CHOATE: Harlan E. Choate, Witness for Applicant MILLER: F.. Gaynor MIller, Witness for Applicant COOPER: Gary L. Cooper, Witness for Applicant" HICKOX: Charles F. Hickox, Protestant GARDNER: Howard F. Gardner, Protestant CROIVLEY: Charles R. Crowley, Protestant The transcript which was prepared by the Town Clerk of the Toian of Vail, Colorado, is attached hereto. DATED: Vail, Colorado, the 1.8th day of June, 1974. - Town Attorney Town of Vail, Colorado P.O. Box 1.00 Vail, Colorado 81657 Telephone No. (303) 476-5613 Attorney for Defendant • • • TRANSCP.IPT OF FEARING i Er ORE LOCAL LICENSING AUTHORITY DOBSON: The application before us tonight is from Vail Village Liquors, Inc., a liquor store, retail' liquor store, to be located in Units 46.and 48 of the Vail Village Inn, Eagle County, Colorado. Has the Town Clerk received all the required informatiori and have fees been supplied and paid by the applicant? JEFFERY: Yes. DOBSON: Has the Town Attorney reviewed the applica- tion and is it properly filled out in compliance with the Colorado Statutes? SMIT14: Yes, your Honor, as far as I can tell based on my own very rapid perusal -of it and representations of the Town Clerk that as the recipient thereof she did thor- oughly check the petition and has consulted with the Chief of r Police and so forth. D013SON: OK. The Board of Trustees (sic) will review the application and perhaps we can do that as we go . along. I don't think you had any other chance to look at it in detail. 14e'll proceed then with the other matters. Has the Police Chief conducted an investigation of the applicant and of the premises sought to be licensed? WALL: Yes, I have, your Honor. DOBSON: For the record, we note that the findings of the Police Chief have been received by the Board, approved, and adopted as such. Do you have these findings now, Gary, on paper for the Board or are they just a repetition of the. last application? 0 Page 2 • WALL: Two are repetitions of the last applica- tion which we had on file. DOBSON: Does the Board have any questions . regarding these findings? Has any petition or letter been received either in favor of or against the application? If so, they will be read into the record. JEFFERY: There have been no written petitions. DOBSON: No written petitions in either case, OK. I am required to read the following to comply with the require- ments of Colorado Revised Statutes 1963, 75-2--42(2), which i • reads as follows: "Before entering any decision approving or denying the application, the local licensing authority shall consider the facts and evidence adduced as a result of its investigation, as well as any other facts, the.reason- able requirements of the neighborhood for the type of license for which application has been made, the number, type, and availability of liquor outlets located in or near the neighbor- . � hood under consideration, and any other pertinent matters affecting the qualifications of the applicant for the conduct of the type of business proposed; provided, that the reason- able requirements of the neighborhood shall not be considered in the issuance of a club liquor license," which is not germaine to the issue tonight. I declare the public hearing open and ask if there are any parties present who care to speak for or against the application. BROWN: Mr. Mayor, I am Stewart Brown, and I represent A & D Enterprises, represented tonight by Charles Crowley as manager of The Liquor Store at 'Vail; Charles Crowley as the owner of the Lionshead Liquor Store; and Charles Hickox as the co-owner of the Liquor and Wine Shop. DOBSON; OK, Stewart thank you. Doug. • MCLAUGHLIN: Yes, Mr. Mayor, I'm here on behalf of the applicant, Vail village Liquors, Inc., of which I am Page 3 • also a co-owner. DOBSON: OK. We'll start then with the applicant or his attorney, whichever one you want to be, and ask if you have anything to say in support of the application. if you have any witnesses, as usual, we would swear them in all together. McLAUGHLIN: Yes, I do, Mr, Mayor, if I could ask my witnesses to stand at the present time and be sworn. If Stu would like to have his stand at the same time, then maybe we could speed it up that way and have them all sworn. I'll read mine off. I've got myself, Mr. ,lay Peterson, Mr. Ed Colt, Mr. Gottfried Staufer, Fred Angeloh, Michael Salloway, Harlan Choat q Gaynor Miller, and Gary Cooper. And I would ask you all not to be scared about the number of witnesses. DOBSON: OK, Stewart, would you like to have. yours stand now? we can (interrupted). BROWN: My witnesses are Chuck Ilickox and Chuck Crowley. DOBSON: OK, gentlemen (interrupted). MINGER: Could we get everybody to stand? BROWN: Anti Howard Gardner. MINGER: could you raise your right hands, please? Do you solemnly swear before the everlasting God that the testimony you are about to give before the Vail Local Liquor Licensing Authority is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? ALL: I do. MINGER: Thank you. MCLAUGIILIN: In that light, although I will be handling the proceeding for Vaal Village Liquors, when I take the stand, • I would ask if it would be all right if Mr. Peterson examines me. Is that all right, Mr. Brown? BROWN: No objection. Page 4 0 MCLAUGHLIN: Before I turn my petitions over to the Board, I have been asked by a number of people if I was asso- ciated with Henschel -Lyon, L,td., which was another corporation which made application for a liquor license not too long ago, approximately 9 months ago, and as you may recall, it was. granted by this Board. We then had another hearing in Denver, and it.was turned dorm in Denver, It was then appealed and it never came to a trial because at that time the space was sold. And we felt that a better location was in hand, so in case any of you had any questions as to the status of that other license, that's it. Gentlemen, I would like to present to 40 you at this time a number of petitions which we have obtained -- in times past with liquor licenses the petitions that have been presented have, and I think rightfully so, been disparaged by Mr. Donovan, and he has often.made the comment that all you have to do is go up and down the gondola line and peopl(- will sign anything you stick in front of them. Because I was a r. . little disturbed about that and because the liquor license` statute specifically sets forth petitions as one of the remonstrances that are one of the items to prove a liquor license and the need for it, I decided that I would try to make our petition a little more than just that. So, I have some traditional petitions tonight, but I have others that specifically set forth the neighborhood, desires, and the needs. Further, two of.these petitions -- one, which I obtained myself, with 54 signatures, and one, which was obtained by Mr. Gottfried Staufer, has 14 signatures. And we have taken the trouble to see that all signators of this petition -- these two petitions --- the 67 (sic) names are all registered voters of the Town of Vail. The other petitions are just the standard petitions where we have • circulated them around Vail and any visitor or resident can sign the same. I would like to present these to the Board Page 5 at this time. Mr. Mayor, I would like to have these entered in evidence as Exhibits for the petitioner. DOBSON: ON. BROWN: Objection, I would like to see the petitions, if you please, Mr. Mayor.. (examines petitions) Does this include the special petitions? MCLAUGIILIN. Yes. BROWN: These are the registered voters? DOBSON: Do you have any comments, Stewart? BROWN: Yes, I have one comment. Two, really; number one, the fact that registered voters are segregated into separate petitions is not particularly significant; indeed, any visitor, resident, registered voter or not, to the Valley is a valid petitioner. I do object, however, to the designation of the neighborhood as a matter- of fact, so stated by the petitioners. It is not within the province of any but this Board to state what the neighborhood is for liquor licensing. As you know, it has always been defined as the Gore Valley. These petitioners have stated as a fact that the neighborhood includes not only the Gore Valley but the lower portions of the Valley extending down to Avon. I would caution that the statement of fact reportedly made by the petitioners is not be taken as a fact by the Board. •MCLAUGHLIN: Mr. Mayor, uh, for purposes of that argument I am willing to concede that the neighborhood is the Gore Valley. DOBSON: OK, thank you both, gentlemen. We'll just enter it for the record. McLAUGIILIN: May I proceed; Mr. Mayor? DOBSON: Yes. MCLAUGHLIN: Mr. Mayor, before I call my first witness; which is myself, I would ask that this Board take administra- tive notice of a list of items here: first, I would ask the Page G Board to take administrative notice of the building applica- tions and statistics contained in the Building Department of the Town of Vail; I would ask that you take administrative notice of the assessed valuation of the Town of Vail; that you take administrative notice of •the sales tax receipts of the Town of Vail; that you take administrative notice of the number of liquor licenses heretofore granted by the Town of Vail; I ask that you take administrative notice of the number of business licenses granted at the present time by the Town of Vail; and I ask that you take judicial (sic) notice of any . official growth statistics which may be had ---- which the Town may have at the present time. DOBSON: OK. McLAUGHLIN: Mr. Mayor, I call Stephen Douglas McLaughlin as my first witness, and Mr. Peterson will examine me. PETERSON: Mr. McLaughlin, for the record, would you please state your name, your age, and your address, please? McLAUGHLIN: Yes, my name is Stephen Douglas McLaughlin, my address is 1448 Vail Valley Drive in Vail, Colorado, and my age is 33 years old. PETERSON: And what is your connection with the applicant? McLAUGHLIN: I am President of Vail Valley Liquors. PETERSON. And are you familiar with the others connected with the applicant? MCLAUGIILIN: Yes, I am. Vice President is Anne Staufer and the Secretary and Treasurer is Jay K. Peterson. I might add that those three individuals own the stock in three equal parts. PETERSON: in connection with this application, would you describe the location and the type of operation which • Vail Village Liquors will be ' A Page 7 McLAUGIILIN: Yes, Vail Village Liquors, as you can see_ from the application, is planned to be located in the Vail. Village Inn, backside of the Vail Village Inn, right around the corner from the Dairy Depot. It would be east of the Dairy Depot. PETERSON: And what units are those? McLAUGHLIN: I'm not sure of the unit numbers, but they are the outside two units so that it will, you know, it will be visible from the street. PETERSON: And is there parking available? McLAUGHLIN: Yes, there's plenty of parking available both there and on the other side by the Dairy Depot. ,KLUG, I'm sorry, I didn't get that. " 1 McLAUGHLIN: It's directly opposite the Dairy Depot, if you're familiar with the Dairy Depot, it's just the reverse of the Dairy Depot. You follow? KLUG: Yes. McLAUGHLIN: Right now, we plan to have 1,000 square'/ feet and if business turns out as we expect, we can expand the operation into other room units, although at the present time we have no particular plans to do that. A little bit • -about why we put or propose to put the liquor store in that particular location -- right now, there has been a liquor licenbe granted, well there is an existing package liquor store in the town, that's The Liquor Store at Vail, which is behind the Checkpoint Charlie, so to speak, and in that particular pedestrian area. There is a liquor store at the Crossroads Liquor Store in the Crossroads. At the present time, East Meadow Drive connects the Vail Village Inn with the Crossroads, but as you gentlemen are, I'm sure, aware,the Master Plan of the Town of Vail creates a pedestrian area of East Meadow Drive and separates the area around the Clinic, Vail Village Page 8 • Inn, holiday Inn, and the new Kaiser Morcus building there, and that area is separated off under the new plan, and you won't be able to drive through that area -W it will be sort of another pedestrian area. And that was the reason we chose the Vail Village Inn; also, the Vail Village Inn had space . available, PETERSON: Ha ve you projected any hours of operation? McLAUGHLIN: Ye"s, we have. We 'project to be open from 9 o'clock in the morning until midnight. And that's all days of the year that it's legal for us to be open. PETERSON: Have you also had an opportunity to decide on a line of.products for your liquor store? McLAUGHLIN; 'Yes, we intend on carrying a full line of products. PE`I~ERSON: OK, and what about prices for those products? McLAUGHLIN: We intend to have the best prices that we possibly can. That's all I can say about prices. PETERSON: And in your opinion, what neighborhood' will you be serving? McLAUGHLIN: My opinion, and I conceded thisfor the record when Mr. Brown made the objection to the petition, I consider the neighborhood to be the entire Gore Valley, and the visitors thereto, I might add. PETERSON: Have you made a study of the growth of Vail? McLAUGHLIN: Yes, T have, in connection with liquor licenses, I, that I have handled in the past, I have gone through a number of statistics and in trying to determine. exactly what is happening in Vail with regard to the growth. If I may refer to my.notes, I can specify what those items are. I don't think i can remember them all. • Page 9 PE�'::IiSON: Mr. Brown, is that all right? BROWN: No objection. McLAUGHLIN: Yes, through personal observation, of course, and from noting the changes in the phone book over the years, number of skier days which I obtained from Vail Associates, the assessed valuation of the Town of Vail, sales tax sheets of the mown of Vail, building permits issued by the Town of Vail and also the Eagle County, the estimated number of beds for the existing units, which information is available downstairs at the Building Department, and the number of business licenses issued by the Town of Vail, and the growth and overcrowding of our schools. PETERSON; Do you have an opinion on an approximation of the percentage growth that Vail has grown in the past several years? i MCLAUGHLIN: Based on what I have been able to'determine from these, I would say that the Town of Vail grows at a rate of approximately 2.0 r 25 per cent a year, PETERSON: • Based on this study, do you have an opinion whether there is a need for an additional liquor_ store in Vail? McLAUGHLIN: Well, based on the study and other things I feel there is a very definite need for another liquor store in Vail. The Town of Vail has not granted a new liquor license east, new liquor license of this type, east of Lionshead since Pemmie Westbye's license was granted some f6ur and a half years ago. I feel that for all practical purposes there are two liquor licenses within the entire Gore Valley. PETERSON, What do you base that upon? MCLAUGHLIN: I base that on the fact that there's the Cross- roads Liquor Store, which is independently owned, and from that I must take it as competing against the other two liquor stores as a body. And I base that opinion on the fact that they jointly advertise all three stores; therefore, from that Page 10 • I take itrl don't see how they could advertise the stores jointly and yet have them compete against each other. PETERSON: Mr. McLaughlin, do you desire that this application be granted by the Board tonight? McLAUGflLIN: Yes, I have the desire, obviously the desire that this license be granted by the Board. I think it's a very definite need and I think that the influx of more competition into the Gore Valley would be a good idea for the existing licenses; I happen to know that of the existing licenses, none of them are open beyond 11 o'clock at night and close very early in the off seasons, and I stated that we intend to be open from 9 to 12 and that's all the days of the year that we can be open; and there are other services that competition will breed, and I think it would be very beneficial to the Town of Vail, and,.there- fore, I think there is a very definite need. And I do have a desire that this license be granted. PETERSON: I have no further questions, your Honor. DOBSON: Stewart. BROWN: Thank you, your Honor, I've got a few questions. Doug, you have stated .that a need exists in terms of the growth of the community. What period of growth do you refer_ to? MGLAUGNLIN: I'm not quite sure, I don't quite under- stand the question. BROWN: You stated that a need exists for a new liquor license based upon growth of the community. What period of growth do you refer to? McLAUGHLIN: I'm referring to just the annual growth of Vail and what it has done since the last competitive liquor license was granted. BROWN: That would be since the Hemmie Westbye liquor license, is that right? Page 11 MCLAUG)ILIN: Yes, basically. BROWN: All right now, does your growth study also include a growth, a study of.the growth, of the existing outlets, in order to serve the needs of the neighborhood? McLAUG))LIN: I know that, I know the number of. outlets, I have an opinion on whether they are adequately serving the neighborhood, and my opinion is that they are not adequately serving the neighborhood. BROWN: That wasn't quite my question. Have you made a study of the growth of existing licenses? In terms of sales. McLAUGHLIN: No, I have not. That would be information to which I would not be privy. BROWN: Would it be fair to say that if they too have grown with the community, that the growth of the community tends to be less of a factor in your reasoning? McLAUGHLIN: I don't understand the question, Mr. Brown. BROWN: All right, I'll rephrase it. If the liquor stores have grown with the community, and kept up with community needs, the growth of the community is an irrelevant factor, is it not? McLAUGHLIN: I think that r I am using the growth of the community simply to show that an existing outlet such as, a proposed outlet, such as ours, can come into the community and can function economically; the other existing outlets can also function economically; and the influx of competition would probably benefit all of the outlets as well as the community. BROTM: Why would the influx of competition benefit all of the conununity? MCLAUGHLIU: Well, the United States was, and always has been, a free enterprise system. BROWN: All right . . . (inter_rupted). Page 12 • McLAUGHLIN: And you can call it the free enterpri.,<% is a better product-, that's the theory of it.. BROWN: Fine, but here in Vail it's a small toxin, we can rationalize what competition means. It means better service, doesn't it?, Does it mean anything else? McLAUGHLIN: As far as I'm concerned, it means better service. Unless you -- I can't chink of anything else -- unless the competition is so•severe you drive each other out of business, which I don't think is the case here. BROWN: Is it your answer that competition is desirable because it will produce better service? . McLAUGHLIN: That's correct. BROWN: And better service means to you, what, better customer service? McLAUGHLIN., Better service to me means better service to the community. BROWN: Well, can you tell me what kinds of ser- vices, what qualities of services, what types of services you have in mind? McLAUGHLIN: I can't get into all the specifics, but I can.tell you that in my mind competition breeds better prices. BROWN: Better prices? McLAUGHLIN: Yes. Number one, I've already stated that I would stay open till twelve. I'd like to see you find a liquor store open right now. In about ten minutes. BROWN: Now, is it your contention then that the addition of another liquor store to the community will better the prices in the community? McLAUGHLIN: No, I'm not saying that, I'm saying competition can lead to better prices. I am not saying that because you have competition a fortiori you have better prices. Page 13 • BROWN: Well, then, you've contradicted your.sel£. You said better prices would result in competiton. McLAUGHLIN; I don't mean to contradict.myself. BROWN: Let me ask the question again, then. is it your contention or is•it not,that competition will lead to better prices in the Vail community? McLAUGHLIN: Eventually, I would have to say 'yes'. BROWN: Now, you also feel that better hours can be offered. McLAUGHLIN: I didn't hear you, Mr, Brown. BROWN: Do you also feel that the addition of a new outlet, particularly yours, will provide better hours of customer service? McLAUGHLIN: Immediately. BROWN: Immediately?. McLAUGHLIN: Yes. BROWN: Because you plan to offer it? McLAUGHLIN Yes. BROWN: Now, if you plan to offer better hours, others can do the same, can they not? MCLAUGHLIN: No question. BROWN: Now, as to the growth in the last four and a half years since the issuance of the Westbye license, assuming that to be the proper period, are you basing your estimate on a count of names in the telephone book? McLAUGHLIN: Mr. Brown, my estimate of the growth .of Vail is simply an estimate, and it's nothing more than that. It's not to be taken as an exact figure of the growth of the Town of Vail. I said that it is an estimate based upon my examination of the number that on that list I read off. And that is strictly my opinion. 0 Page 14 BROWN: All right now, may I ask what your • opinion is based on? McLAUGHLIN: I just read the list, would you like me to read it again? BROWN; No, your opinion of the growth insofar as the increase of telephone usage is concerned, is that based on a count of subscribers? Is that the weight of the tele- phone book? McLAUGHLIN: It's looking at the telephone book and counting the number of pages that it increases every year; it's calling the telephone authorities and asking them how �. many new subscribers there are. BROWN: All right then, general growth of humanity in the area is what you're talking about? McLAUGHLIN: Yes, that's correct. BROIgN: You're not talking about growth in users 1 of liquor or particular types.of persons. It's true that a great deal of growth in the telephone book is corporations and businesses. McLAUGHLIN: No question, that's why you could not base any estimate of the growth of Vail on something as singular as the telephone book. BROWN: Wouldn't you agree that the telephone book is a very low order of evidence for this type of determination? MCI,AUGHLIN: Taken by itself, I would have to say yes. BROWN: All right, is your estimate of the skier day based upon facts and figures? McLAUGHLIN: Uh, I didn't hear you, Mr. Brown? BROWN: I say you have estimated that the skier day has increased in four and a half years? McLAUGHLIN: Yes. Yes, i Page 15 BROWN: Do have facts figures to you and support that? MCLAUGIILIN: I called Vail Associates and have received those, yes. BROWN: All right, Then you have a tabulation' of the increase in skier days, right? McLAUGIILIN: Yes. BROWN: Do you attribute that increaze in. skier days to the increase of the alcohol user, as far as retailing it? MCLAUGIILIN: No, I have not, Mr. Brown. BROWN: Is it true that a great many of those increased skiers are day skiers, are they not? MCLAUGHLIN: That's true. BROWN: And surely they don't buy liquor before they get in their cars and go home at night? McLAUGHLIN; Mr, Broke, I would have no idea. BROWN: I wouldn�t either, Mr. McLaughlin. Now; the assessed valuation of the Town, have you established that as a matter of factsand figures? Have you established the basis far assessed valuation of the Town, the community? McLAUGHLIN; What do you mean by that --- do you mean what is the assessed valuation? BROWN: Have you got a basis for your opinion? Is it dollars? Pounds? MCLAUGHLIN: The assessed valuation is based on dollars, of course. BROWN: It's in dollars, then your dollar figure was received from whom? McLAUGIiLIN: That's received -- I believe the infor- mation is available here at the Town, hut my particular infor- mation I got in Denver at the Revenue Department. I Page 16 BROWN; All right, and it also is a general correlation of trade and business in the Town, is it not? McLAUGHLIN: That's correct. BROWN; And we may gather loosely that it also applies to trade in the liquor industry. But you have not connected the two, have you? McLAUGHLIN: No, I don't think that an actual connec- tion is possible. BROWN: Isn't the same general line of questioning applicable to building permits, estimated beds, and business licenses? �- McLAUGHLxN: Taken individually, each item T stated --. that's quite correct. You cannot make any correlation. Pardon me. BROWN: Mightn't you not also conclude that as in the case of the phone book, all of this in its present shape is a very low order of evidence? McLAUGHLIN; No, I would not conclude that, Mr. Brown. i Quite the contrary; I think taken together it is very strong, evidence that the Town of Vail is growing at a very alarming rate. BROWN: Now, Doug f I asked you, as a .lavyerques-- tioning another lawyer, if it is really fair for you who are only too well aware of legal distinctions, to state as a matter of opinion even that there are only two liquor licenses in this town at this time? McLAUGHLIN; No, I do not, Mr. Brown. BROWN: Would you tell me why -- how you can call the well -established legal fact that there are five? MCLAUGHLIN: Mr. Brown, I show you an ad in a recent issue of The Vail Villager, and if you can tell me how'that signifies three spearate liquor storesor convince me that that's three separate liquor stores, then I'll change my mind. Page 17 BROWN: I'll show you one, Mr. McLaughlin, and ask you if these are three or five separate restaurants? . McLAUGHLIN: Whose are. Mr. Brown, what you have �. showed me is Mid -Vail Cafeteria, Eagle's Nest Restaurant, i Golden Peak Restaurant, and LionsHead Restaurant. BROWN: And I'll ask you to turn over that and ask me or tell me if those are three different restaurants. MCLAUGHLIN: Those are also three different restaurants, € j Mr. Brown, But I've (laughter) OK, Mr. Brown, if I might, with the restaurants, you may notice that all of those restaurants are of different type. They are not three equally the same package liquor stores.. Therefore, they do = not compete against each other. BROWN: Conceding your answer is not the legal question still open (interrupted)'? McLAUGHLIN: The legal question •--- legally speaking, there are tour different liquor licenses. BROWN: Thank you.. McTAUGHLIN: Practically speaking, there are not. BROWN: OK, thank you. You state that your square footage under lease is 1,000 square feet? McLAUGHLIN: Pardon me. BROWN: You have said that there are 1,000 square feet in your leased space. McLAUGHLIN: I said 'approximately', yes. BROWN: Is that also based upon estimate? McLAUGHLIN: I don't know the exact number of square feet? I'in just (interrupted). BROWN; Could it be as little as 600? McLAUGHLIN: No, I don't think it's that little. BROWN: Well, could it be as little as 750? 0. Page IS McLAUGI]LIN; Mr, Brown, you're asking me to guess, and I can's:. I really don't know. The plans are in, and they can determine the exact number of square footage. BROWN. I thought you might know, Well, then, in your opinion, based upon guess, it's somewhere between 600 and 1,000 square feet? MCLAUGHLIN: Mr, Brown, I haven't the slightest idea. I estimated it somewhere around 11000 square feel: by looking at the plans. If it's more or less, I would have no idea. BROWN: Didn't you submit a floor plan? McLAUGHLIN: Yes, I did, but I didn't multiply out the number of square feet, Mr. Brown, BROWN; Could you resort to the record? Answer my question how many square feet are in the proposed facility? MCLAUGHLIN; Mr, Brown, I don't know, and further- more, for the record, I will object to any questions by rule with regard to the number of square feet. It's .totally irrelevant to the present application, BROWN: Mr, McLaughlin, I'll ask you the question again. (inaudible due to both Mr. Brown and Mr, McLaughlin speaking at once) MCLAUGHLIN; I am objecting to that, Mr. Brown. T have not received anything on my objection. I am also an attorney as (sic) record and I'm objecting. DOBSON: OK, let's . . . (interrupted), PETERSON: Mr. Mayor,.may_ I suggest that the Town does have a set of plans available and it would be very easy for the Town to look at those plans.. , (interrupted), DOBSON: That was exactly what I was going to say, .16 Page 19 g I .le PETERSON: (coz,tinued). . , and decide, for itself. Those are architectural drawings (interrupted). BROWN: May I move that administrative notice be taken that there are 526 square feet in the proposed facility. DOBSON; OK, let's proceed. BROWN: Doug, are there any.other business establishments in the portion of the Vail Village Inn that you plan to convert to a liquor store? McLAUGHLIN: You mean in the same building? BROWN: I mean in the same wing of the building. MaLAUGHLIN; Yes, there's Dairy Depot, there's Harlan Choate Realty, there's some kind of a ski rental. business, I'm not sure what. the name of it is. And right next door is Hertz Rent-A-Car and there's a plumber, George Carr, is in one of the units. BROWN: This little shopping center is serviced' by what kind of parking facility? MCLAUGHLIN: Vail Village Inn has a great deal of parking all around that particular wing. BROWN: All around the Vail Village Inn? McLAUGHLIN; Yes. BROWN: Has that parking facility been expanded since the Vail Village Inn was converted from a hotel to a shopping center? McLAUGHLIN: Mr. Brown, I wouldn't have the slightest idea. BROWN: Would you make an estimate? McLAUGHLIN; No, I would not, BROWN; Now, I don't quite get the significance of your reasoning that because East Meadow Drive is going to Page 20 be converted to a pedestrian area, on planning, that, there- fore, a new liquor store is needed in Vail. McLAUGHLIN: I did not say that, Mr. Brown. I said s k that's the reason we chose the Vail Village Inn. BROWN; Would you expand on that reason? i MCLAUGELIN: We chose the Vail Village Inn because i presently you can drive past that and, you.know, go up East j Meadow Drive. When the Vail Plan is finally put into effect, you will not be able to do that. You would have to turn left -- if you were anywhere around that area of the eastern part of the Town of Vail around the Clinic, the Holiday Inn, the Vail iVillage Inn, the Kaiser Morcus buildings there, the Clinic itself if you were in any one of those you would have to turn left where you can presently go straight on East Meadow Drive and go up around the Conoco station. Therefore,.I think that that's a natural place to put the liquor store. That's strictly a business judgment, - BROWN: Do I gather that you feel that when the ' East Meadow Drive is turned into a pedestrian area that your location will afford a particular convenience? MCLAUGHLIN; I think it would be much more convenient to the Holiday Inn, yes, and those buildings around the Holiday Inn, yes I do. BROWN: Doug,.just one last question. Where is the nearest retail store outlet to your proposed location? McLAUGHLIN; The nearest what? BROWN: Retail store outlet. DOBSON: Do you mean retail liquor store? BROWN: Yes, Mr, Mayor, McLAUGHLIN: Where is it? • I 16 • BROWN; Yes, where is if in relation to your proposed outlet? McLAUGIiLIN: It's east of my proposed outlet. BROWN: OK, how many feet east? McLAUGHLIN: I wouldn't have the slightest idea. BROWN: That's a business decision that you haven't investigated, is that correct? McLAUGHLIN: Mr': Brown, I haven't gotten out there with a tape measure and decided exactly how far it is. BROWN: OK, how about an estimate? McLAUGHLIN: I am not going to estimate, Mr, Brown, • . because I have no idea, BROWN: All right, I have no further questions, Mr. Mayor. DOBSON; OK, thank you. Do you have anything further? PETERSON: I just have one. Mr. McLaughlin, have you discussed expansion with your landlord of the Vail Village Inn? McLAUGHLIN: Expansion of the license itself? PETERSON. Yes, if.the growth.is warranted. McLAUGHLIN; Yes, X believe I stated that if the growth warrants, we can expand the license considerably into other room units. There is also a large amount of storage space available underneath the Outback, which is not connected with the present license, but I have been able to determine that under certain circumstances we can annex that to the license for storage. PETERSON: In other words, the 570 some odd square feet could be greatly expanded. McLAUGHLIN: Yes, it could be greatly expanded. PETERSON: I have no further questions.. 0 Page 22 BROWN: Just one more question ---• your proposed storage space is to be on premises other than the licensed • premises? Is that correct? MCLAUGHLIN; No, that`s not correct. BROWN: Didn't I understand you to say that your storage would be in the Outback building? MCLAUGHLIN: Oh, no, I did not say that. I said that there is a possibility in the future that we would apply for that, yes, BROWN: That you would apply for a license on those premises? MCLAUGHLIN: That we would try to get storage space over there, There is a possibility, I'm not saying that we will, Vm just saying that it's a possibility. BROWN: OR, am I right or wrong that storage space is required to be on the licensed premises? McLAUGULIN; I checked this out with Mr,. Kent of the, Liquor Control Division, and I'm just simply stating what Mr. Kent told me. He said that under certain.circumstances, as long as storage space is in plain view and is across parking area from the main store -- in other words, is within a very short distance from the main store, can be made part of the license, yes. I got that information from them, whether that's true or not I have no idea. BROWN: Is it a matter of truth or is it a matter of legislation? MCLAUGHLIN; I haven't any idea, I just (interrupted), BROWN: Did you ask him to cite his authority? McLAUGHLIN: No, I did not (interrupted). BROWN; That's all, u Page 23 i °s s' WHITE: I have one question. You brought up the subject of your previous license the fact that it was denied on the state level. MCLAUGHLIN: Yes, it was, WHITE: And I wonder if you would elaborate on that a Little bit and explain what the conditions. were under which it was denied. McLAUGHLIN: Well, to tell you the honest truth, .Gerry, I didn't understand the opinion. I read it maybe three times, and I did not quite understand it. I would not like to expound on what he meant. I have a copy of the • Opinion, if you would like to read it. From what I was able to determine in the hearing down there, he felt that our attorneys at that time, you may recall I was being repre- sented by another attorney, he felt that I that attorney did not properly establish two things: (1) where the neighborhood was, and (2) needs of the neighborhood. / - 1 BROWN: Would you repeat that, I didn't hear it. McLAUGHLIN: Where the neighborhood was and needs of the neighborhood, is what I felt. As I stated before, I do 'not agree with.the opinion and I did appeal it, but then we dropped the appeal because the space was sold. KLUG: Doug, when you apply for a liquor license and are denied that liquor license, isn't there a time lapse requirement between applying for another one? McLAUGHLIN: Yes,two years. That's the same location and the same applicant. This is a different applicant and a different location. They were both corporate applicants. SMITH: I•would like to ask a few questions to the objectors to the petition. Mr. Brown, based on the evidence that has been produced at this hearing, would you state for the commission very briefly your specific objec- tions to this petition? i Page 24 k BROWN: Yes, the needs of the neighborhood do not require an additional liquor license. SMITH: Would you say that the basic problem for the commission would probably boil down to determining what the neighborhood in question is? BROWN: It has the duty to do so. SMITH: Right. What is.your opinion as to what the neighborhood in question is? BROWN: The.Gore Valley and its environs and the frequent visitors representing our tourist population. SMITH: Very good. Would you say that that would be equivalent to the market area? I BROWN; Yeah, the market area meaning that we serve both the native and visitors, on a regular basis.. SMITH. Right, then, that considering the.type of town this is, that rather than basing the neighborhood definition on matters such as distance, political. boundaries, and so forth, the entire area that would be serviced by an outlet would be the best guideline for the commission to use in determining what the neighborhood is? BROWN; The market has always been the determining . ` SMITH: It is your position that taking the entire valley, Gore Valley, into consideration that there is no reasonable need for one more outlet? Is that your position basically? BROWN: My position basically is that the needs are now adequately being served by existing outlets. SMITH: Then are you also saying there is. no need in this neighbor_hood,•that you have defined as the entire Gore Valley, for even one more licensee in this category? BROWN; That's correct. • Psi ., 25 St,ITil: I think that that is the issue then. DOBSON: I think that that would become apparent as both sides proceed with their case. I just have one point here, we just got a bulletin in that someone has streaked the Academy Awards. (Laughter) Streakers of the Academy Awards on television. Sorry about that, Stewart. Who's on base here now? BROWN: .I'm up for redirect, and I hate to -- if streaking will help to bring some levity to these legal questions, why I'll appoint . . . somebody. (Laughter) Just two questions, Doug, which pertain very much to the law underlying some of your statements, and I do think that you're fair game on these questions. You read the Decision of the Executive Director? McLAUGHLIN: Yes, I did. II BROWN: And you state that you don't understand it? McLAUGHLIN: Well, I do not quite understand it, no r do not. BROWN: Now, you've read the statute underlying issuance of liquor licenses (inaudible, due to both talking at the same time). McLAUGHLIN: First of all, I'm going to object to any line of questioning on the other license and the Decision. It's totally irrelevant to the present application and has nothing to do with it and is prejudicial to the present application. BROWN: Mr. Mayor, the question has been opened up and the question has been answered. I believe I'm entitled to pursue the question further, and particularly in view of certain misrepresentations that have been perfectly apparent to me. 0 Page 26 • n U • 0 DOBSON: I'm going to ask for legal counsel on this. It would seem that we're getting into an area here, Gene, that might be germaine to the issue. SMITH: I think that this is irrelevant under the circumstances, and even though in the preliminary stages there were some questions that were asked and answered, I don't believe that would open up the entire previous hearing and the decisions thereon to further questions. PETERSON: Also, I believe Gerry White was the one that asked the question, and we did not ask the question, nor did Mr. Brown. BROWN: I'll leave it for argument. DOBSON: Excuse me. BROWN; I'll leave it for. argument, Mr. Mayor: DOBSON; Let's proceed then with the direct questioning. BROWN: I have no further questions. DOBSON; OX. PETERSON; I have no further questions. McLAUGHLIN: May I step down? McLAUGHLIN: I call Mr. Jay Peterson. DOBSON: Looks a lot like the lawyer fella. (Laughter) PETERSON: Ile save a lot of money doing this. (Laughter) DOBSON: If this works, we're all lawyers, I think that'd be great. McLAUGHLIN: This is a Watergate hearing, I believe, Mr. Mayor. Will you state your full name, please? PETERSON: Yes, my name is Jay Keith Peterson. McLAUGHLIN: Mr. Peterson, are you connected with the applicant in any way? PETERSON; Yes, I am. I'm Secretary -Treasurer of Vail Village Liquors, Inc. Page 27 MCLAUGHLIN: Mr. Peterson, how old are you? PETERSON: I'm 28 years old. MCLAUGHLIN: Are you in business in the Town of Vail," PETERSON: Yes, I am. I presently practice law in the Town of Vail with the law firm of McLaughlin and Hart. Mcl.hUGHLIN: Are you a partner of that firm? PETERSON: Yes, I am. McLAUGHLIN: Mr, Peterson, do you have an opinion . how long have you lived in the Town of Vail? PETERSON; I've Jived here approximately a year and, • a half. MCLAUGHLIN: In that time by personal observation, do you have any opinion as to the population trends of the Town of Vail? • • PETERSON: Just in the time since I've been here, which has been a year and a half, I've noticed a substantial amount of growth, I've also had an opportunity through my employment by the Town last year to look at the records and notice the growth, not only sales tax, but population figures and also building figures. And I've noticed the growth there to be also very substantial. MCLAUGHLIN: Mr. Peterson, you heard me agree with Mr. Brown that the neighborhood to be served is the entire Gore Valley, do you agree with that? PETERSON: Yes, I would agree with that, McLAUGIILIN: Mr. Peterson, for that particular neighborhood., do you think that there is a need for the present application? PETERSON: Yes, I definitely believe there's a need for another liquor store 3.n the Town of Vail. Page 28 MCLAUGIILIN; And upon what do you base that opinion? 's PETERSON: I base that observation on all my } personal observations of the Town, my study of the records of the Town of Vail which are, which anybody can look at E through the Town, and also, through my looking through the ads in The Vail. Villager and the way they have advertised, � and the present liquor stores in the Town. NcLAUGHLIN: Do you feel the present liquor stores are adequately serving the neighborhood? PETERSON: No, I do not. 1 McLAUGHLIN: Can you give me some specifics? Are they open until all hours that they can? PETERSON: No, I believe that they -- that only one i liquor store is open until 11 o'clock at night; the one at Safeway, I believe, is only open until 8 o'clock at night. i And I believe the one in Town is open some nights till 10 i o'clock at night. McLAUGHLSN: Mr. Peterson, do you personally desire this license to be granted? PETERSON: Yes, I do. MCLAUGIILIN; Thank you, I have no further questions. DOBSON; Stewart? BROWN: No questions. DOBSON: Questions from the Board, Town Attorney? D_ONOVAN: On the needs of the neighborhood not _ being met, your one argument was that the hours are not reasonable, Present y the licenses are not sufficient. PETERSON: That's correct. DONOVAN: Are they not subject to change tomorrow? in other words, if someone were to stay open another hour, wouldn't you say that the needs of the neighborhood are . being met? Page 29 PETERSON: I've noticed that they aren't open now. Why aren't they open now? Possibly, if we get a liquor store, or the threat of another liquor store, they say, "Well, we could be open those hours." in the past I've noticed they've never been open, why haven't they been open? I also notice in past hearings where people have said they could stay open those hours, they immediately go back to their old hours. Also, there's no guarantee that they'll keep their hours open. They have not done so in the past, DONOVAN, Well, wouldn't that indicate to you that maybe there isn't a demand? • PETERSON; I No, I would not. DONOVAN: You mean a person who is in business would not like to stay open if there was a'demand for his sales? PETERSON: I believe that the demand after 10 o'clock at night probably is not as great as the hours between, say 6 and 10, to provide a full service. I think you have to eat the down time when maybe you're only breaking even the ` last two hours. I think in. order to provide that service you have to eat that down time, and we intend to provide that. STEINBERG: Mr. Peterson, you haven't been asked. here how many times have you gone to a liquor store in the Gore Valley and found them closed on a legal day. PETERSON: I have noticed that the Lionshead store . . . (interrupted). STEINBERG; I didn't ask you that, I asked how many times have you personally gone to a liquor store in the year and a half here and found it locked when it could have been opened? To make a purchase? PETERSON: I would say probably only a couple of times, but I had only been in a liquor store maybe 18 or 20 I Page 30 • times, I do not drink very much. McLAUGIILIN: You do not drink, is that correct, Mr, Peterson? PETERSON: No, I drink very., very little, SMITII: Your Ronor, I have one question I -would like to ask of this witness. Mr, Peterson, I think we have pretty well cleared up, since there is no dispute on the point, as to what the neighborhood is, which is in the Gore Valley, at least cleared it up for purposes of this particular proceeding. What would your answer be to the • Page 31 • inquiry as to what limits, if any, there are on the number of outlets that this town could have to satisfy the reasonable needs of this so --called neighborhood? ` PETERSON: well, I've noticed that if I want to go to dinner and have a drink, I have a choice of probably 30 to 35 restaurants that serve alcohol and serve food. I've noticed that Vve got four liquor stores to choose from, and in my opinion, two practically, in my opinion three of them are one. I have no opinion on the outside limit of i-he number of liquor stores. That's always a hard thing to say, I don't think any- body could say one is one too many, just like on the restau- rants. I believe that at the present time the town needs one more liquor store. That's the only thing I think right now, I'm not saying two or three, I'm saying one. I think they definitely need one. SMITH: And you are saying that the present five do not satisfy... (interrupted) PETERSON: I say ... I believe there's four. (r, SMITH: OK, four, whatever the present number is, that clearly does not satisfy, in your opinion, the reasonable: -needs of this neighborhood? • PETERSON: That is correct, Mr. Smith. DOBSON: Doug, do you have any more? MCLAUGHLIN: I have no further questions. DOBSON: St-yawart, do you? BROWN: No further questions. DOBSON: Thank you very much. MCLAUGHLIN: I call Mr. Gottfried Staufer. Would you state your full name, please? STAUFER: Gottfried Staufer. MCLAUGHLIN: Mr. Staufer, what is your present occupation? STAUFER: Food and beverage manager in Vail Village • Inn. I Page 32 MCLAUGHLIN: Do you presently live in the Gore Valley? STAUFER: In Bighorn. MCLAUGHLIN: Bighorn. Mr. Staufer, have you discussed with Mr. Peterson and myself and Mrs. Anne Staufer the pos- sibility of going to work for us? As manager? STAUFER: Yes. k MCLAUGHLIN: Could you state for the Board what your expertise is with the Vail Village Inn? MCLAUGHLIN: Let me rephrase that question. •Are you the food and beverage manager of the Vail Village Inn? STAUFER: Yes, I am with the Vail Village Inn since the beginning of 1970, and since that time I have been food • and beverage manager. Which actually means as far as beverage is concerned - I do the whole buying for the Vail Village Inn. All the beverage, and naturally the food, too. MCLAUGHLIN: Mr. Staufer, do you desire the present application to be granted? i' STAUFER: Yes, I do. r MCLAUGHLIN: Thank you, I have no further_ questions.! DOBSON: Stewart? BROWN: No questions. DOBSON: Thank you, Gottfried. MCLAUGHLIN: I call Mr. Ed Colt, Mr. Colt, would you state your full name, please? COLT: Edward Woodruff Colt. MCLAUGHLIN: Mr. Colt, could you speak into that a little more, I don't think they can hear you. COLT: Edward Woodruff Colt. MCLAUGHLIN: Mr. Colt, what is your occupation? COLT: I'm in the restaurant business in Colorado Springs. MCLAUGHLIN: And how old are you Mr. Colt? That's an unfair question. Are.you over 21? COLT: I'm over 21, yes, Pagc 13 MCLAUGHLIN: Mr. Colt, how many restaurants do you own in Colorado Springs? COLT: Three.` MCLAUGHLIN: Are you also a part-time resident of Vail? COLT: I am. MCLAUGHLIN: And, do you own a condominium in the Vail area? COLT: Yes, Pine Ridge Townhouses. MCLAUGHLIN: Pardon me. COLT: Pine Ridge Townhouses, West Vail. MCLAUGHLIN: Thank you. Mr. Colt, do you often come to the Vail area late at night? COLT: Every week. MCLAUGHLIN: What day is that? Is that on a Monday? COLT: Mondays, yes. MCLAUGHLIN: Mr. Colt, do you...have you ever found upon arriving in Vail that the liquor stores were closed?. COLT: I find it difficult to buy any packaged beverages in Vail when I get here. MCLAUGHLIN: And why is that, Mr. Colt, are they closed? COLT: obviously, they're closed. . MCLAUGHLIN: Mr. Colt, how long did you say you've been coming to Vail? COLT: Probably for five years. hCLAUGHLIN: In that time have you noticed any signifi- cant change in the population of Vail? COLT: It's become a city from a town. MCLAUGHLIN: Mr. Colt, based on your own present needs and desires would you say that there is a need for another liquor store in the Gore Valley? COLT: Very definitely. MCLAUGHLIN: And why is that, Mr. Colt? Page 34 COLT: Well, it's always appeared to me that the existing stores have sorta scraped the cream off the top of the bottle and run their own hours and their own times and haven't actually serviced the public as a licensed liquor store should. MCLAUGHLIN: Mr. Colt, do you personally desire this license to be granted? COLT: Yes, i do. MCLAUGHLIN: Thank you, I have no further questions. DOBSON: Stewart? BROWN: Mr. Coke, your statement... (interrupted) MCLAUGHLIN: Mr. Brown, it's Mr. Colt, I'm sorry. • BROWN: Colt, thank you very much, Mr. Colt, you state that the stores in Vail have not adequately served the public because of freedom in arranging hours? COLT: For my purpose, being part of the public, Yes. BROWN. Well, what hours would you like? COLT: Well, I think they oughta be open till their license...til the licensing authority —as long as they're able to open. They're allowed to open until midnight and they close at 8 o'clock or 7 o'clock or they open from 5 until 9 and then they don't operate during the length of time that the State allows them to. BROWN: OK, have you found this to be true in -every case? COLT: Explain what,you mean, in every case. BROR'N: Well, I think there are five liquor stores in the neighborhood now. Have you found that they're all operating? (inaudible due to Mclaughlin and. Brown talking at once). BROWN: Well, excuse me. MCLAUGHLIN: I'm sorry, Mr. Brown, • COLT: I have never found one open after 11 o'clock. Page 35 • BRM1N: Now, have you upon arrival in town investi- gated every store and ascertained for yourself that they're all closed at 11? COST: I have used the telephone on several oc- casions and I've never found one open after 11. BRO,CN: OK, did you ever make complaint to the stores about their hours? COLT: No. BROWNN. Did you continue to -rely on the bail liquor outlets for "after'll" service? • COLT: No. BROWN, Once having found that it was not available? COLT: That's right. BROWN. Might you not slave? COLT: I'd just as soon spend my money here where I pay my taxes. BROWN: But you might have purchased elsewhere,:' 1 might you not? i COLT. It's difficult to say. BROWN: How many towns do you drive through coming from Colorado springs? COLT: Quite a number. BROWN: How many of those have liquor stores open till midnight? COLT: I have no idea. BROWN: Did you ever investigate? COLT: I hesitate to carry alcohol in my car.. Opened or unopened. BROWN. Even at the expense of not having a drink when you get here> COLT.`: That's my problem. DOBSON: I think, Stewart, we are understanding your line of questioning, and the problems of hours are about Page 36 as well documented as'we can document it. If you don't object, let's get on to some other kind of qu,. '.:inning. BROWN: I have no fur, t..�r questions. • MCL-AUGIILIN: Mr. Colt, I have no further questions. DOBSON: Thank you, bar. Colt. OK, next witness. MCLAUGIILIN: Yes, I call Mr. Fred Angeloh, please. Would you state your full name, please.? ANGELOII: Fred Louis Angeloh, MCLAUGIiLIN: Mr. Angeloh, what is your occupation? AI:GELDIi: I'm a ski shop manager and part-owner. MCLAUGHLIN: Mr. Angeloh, do you...how long have you lived in the Town of Vail? ANGELOH: A little over two years. MCLAUGIiLIN: Are you familiar with where the present . application is*to be situated, if it is granted? ANGELOII : Yes, I am. MCLAUGHLIN: Mr. Angeloh, do you feel that there is a need for such an outlet? ANGELOIi: Yes, I do. MCLAUGHLIN: Mr. Angeloh, do you desire such an outlet? ANGELOII: I do. MCLAUGHLIN: Thank you, I have no further questions. BROWN: No further questions. MCLAUGHLIN: I call Michael Salloway. Mr. Salloway, will you state your full name, please. SALLOWAY. Michael Miles Salloway. MCLAUGIILIN: Mr. Salloway, what is your occupation? SALLOWAY: I'm a part-owner in a ski shop. MCLAUGHLIN; How long have you lived in the Town of Vail? SALLOWAY: Three and one-half years. MCLAUGHLIN: Mr. Salloway, are you familiar with where the present application -is to be situated, if it is granted? SALLOWAY: Yes, I am. MCLAUGIiLIN. Do you feel that there is a need for such an application? Page 37 SALLOWAY: Yes, I do. MCLAUGHLIN. Do you desire such an application? SAL-- •7AY: Yes, I do. iMCLe. HLIN: I have no further questions. I have a question. Why do you desire an additional outlet, Mr. Salloway? SALLOWAY: I basically feel that Vail is a service oriented community, and I feel this will add an added service to the people visiting the 'Sown of Vail as well as•the people in LJ n LJ the area. BROWN: Do you have any other reasons? SALLOWAY: Yes,,I feel competition is good. BROWN: Why? SALLOWAY: Well, I think that Mr. McLaughlin answered essentially... belief in the same, uh, responses he made. I feel that it gives better service to customers and keeps prices very good. BROWN: Thank you, no further questions. MCLAUGHLIN: Mr. Harlan Choate, please. Would you state your full name, please? CHOATE: MCLAUGHLIN: CHOATE: MCLAUGHLIN: CHOATE: Village Inn. Harlan Eugene Choate. 1/ Mr. Choate, what is your occupation? Real. estate broker. Can you tell me where that office is located? It's located on the west side of the Vail MCLAUGHLIN: Is that near the present proposed application? CHOATE: It's on the opposite side of the same wing. MCLAUGHLIN: Mr. Choate, do you feel that there is a need for the present application to be granted? CHOATE: Yes, I do. MCLAUGHLIN: Mr. Choate, do you personally desire it? CHOATE: •Yes. NOW Page 33 MCLAUGILIN: I have no further questions. • DOBSON: St ewart? BROS9Id: Are you involved as a real estate agent in this transaction in any way? CHOATE: I am not. BROWN: Why do you feel. that.... there's a need for the new outlet? CHOATE: I like to see the additional service that would be provided for both the tourist and the local people. DROWN: Better service, is that your answer? CHOATE: That's correct. BROWN: Are there any other reasons? CIIOATE: Not particularly, no. BROWN: Thank you. MCLAUGHLIN: I have no further questions. BROWN: No further questions. DOBSON: Doug? Thank you, Harlan. MCLAUGHLIN: Mr. Gaynor Miller, please. Would you state j. your full name, please? MILLER: F. Gaynor Miller. MCLAUGHLIN: Mr. Miller, how long have you lived in the Town of Vail? iMILLER. Approximately 11 years. MCLAUGHLIN: Approximately since the beginning of Vail? MILLER: Yes. MCLAUGHLIN: have you lived here continpously.since that time? MILLER: Yes. MCLAUGHLIN: Mr. Miller, are you familiar with the approxi- mate location of the present application? MILLER: Yes, I am. MCLAUGHLIN: Inyour opinion, does the neighborhood as: . defined as the Gore Valley need -the present application? PaUc 39 MILLER: Would .you restate? MCLAUGHLIN: Do you feel there is a need for the present application to be granted? HILLER: Yes, I do. MCLAUGHLIN: Mr. Miller, do you personally desire it? MILLER: Yes, I do. MCLAUGHLIN: Thant, you, I have no further questions. DOBSON: Stewart? BIOWN: No further questions. DOBSON: Thank you, Gaynor. MCLAUGHLIN: Mr. Gary Cooper, please. Would you state your full name, please? COOPER: Gary Lee Cooper. MCLAUGILIN: ++� What is your occupation, sir? COOPER: I'm co-owner of the Humphrey Cooper restau- rant. MCLAUGHLIN: Mr. Cooper, are you.familiar with the approxi- mate location of the present application? COOPER: Yes, I am. MCLAUGHLIN: Do you feel that there's a need for this application to be granted? COOPER: I definitely do. MCLAUGHLIN: Do you personally desire this application? COOPER: Yes, I do. . MCLAUGHLIN: Thank you, I have no further questions. BROWN: No further questions. DOBSON: Thank you, Fir. Cooper. I always thought of Gary Cooper as taller. ,MCLAUGHLIN: Mr. Mayor, that concludes the...I think Mr. Donovan has a question. 0 Page 40 DONOVAN: In your petitions...1 have to go back to the petitions... you refer to the neighborhood.as Avon and Minturn. Do you think you oughta add two more liquor stores • to the count then? MCLAUGHLIN: Well, you could but as it's stated in that thing, I am saying that it's basically the Gore Valley, but there are certain people who live in Avon and Edwards and Minturn who do work in Vail, and I would say that you have to, although these people could not technically be classified as "visitors" to the Town of Vail, I would have to say that, yes, they constitute part of the buying public of the Town of Vail. • That's what is meant by that. DONOVAN: But they also could purchase...(inaudible). MCLAUGHLIN: Yes, that's true with Minturn, yes. I don't think there's one in Avon or Edwards. I.think applica- tion has been made, but I don't know. DONOVAN: I think there's one. MCLAUGHLIN: I don't know. I'm not aware of one if' there is. There.is definitely one in Minturn. Mr. Mayor, that'' concludes the presentation for the applicant. DOBSON: Are there any questions from the Town Attorney or the Council? • SMITH: No further questions, your Honor.. BROWN; I'll ask Mr. Charles Hickox to take the witness stand, please. Please state your full name. 11ICKOX: Charles'Predrick Hickox. BROWN: And your address? HICKOX: 104 Scorpio Condominium, which is on East Meadow Drive. BROWN: •S think that you'd bettor speak up a little bit. HICKOX: 104 Scorpio Condominium, which is on East - Meadow Drive. Pagc 41 BROWN: And how long have you tided in 1? HICKOX: Approximately two year.-. BROWN: And what business are you in? IiICKOX: I am the co-owner and manager of the Liquor and Wine Shop in the: Crossroads. BROWN; In the Crossroads Shopping Center at Vail? HICKOX: That's right. BROWN- All right, now, very briefly will you please tell the Council the extent and nature of your liquor store operation. IiICKOX: I realize the evening's getting late and I'll be as...(inaudible)... possible on this. Basically the Liquor and Wine shop in the Crossroads is open from 10 a.m. to 10 p.m. and this is on every legal day of the year. We are closed only on Sundays and on Christmas Day. The hours remain 10 to 10 throughout the rest of the year. The shop area is about 1,200 square feet. Am I coming through? of this about 550 is shop front, we have 150 in cooler, and the rest is in i storage. The latest inventory was taken on January 1, of this year., at which time we had a gross inventory of $57,933.00, 17,917 individual bottles,and it represented 1,300 separate items. I.might point out that at that time we had just come • through the holiday season and our inventory was unusually low. It usually runs about 20 per cent higher than that. We operate with one full --time employee and one part-time em- ployee. ordinarily the working day works as follows: My wife goes in and opens in the morning, she goes in at 9:00 and is relieved at 12:00 noon by either the full-time employee or by myself; and whoever relieves her works from 12.00 until 6:00. The second one comes on at 4:00 and works until 10:00 In other words we have a two-hour overlap period during the peak hours of the day. And we alternate, the employee and I ... if • he's working Monday afternoons, I'll work Monday evenings, of course. The next day, he will work in the evening and I'll work in the afternoon, so we alternate back and forth this way Lugo 42 i { t for six days a week. Basically, that's the way the operation runs. i I3ROWN: Very well, thank you. Do you have any I reason to believe that you are not adequately serving your � customers? HICKOX: I have never been accused of it. BROWN: Have you had any complaints? HICKOX: I have never had any complaints about- the hours or about the service. (noise . Whispered questions to McLaughlin by brown were inaudible.) . DONOVAN: I think I know it. MCLAUGIiLIN: What you ask me for, Stew, you already knew? BROi4N: It wouldn't look good inthe record. Mr. Hickox, I have handed you a document. Can you identify it?. Can you identify the document that I have just handed to you? HICKOX: Yes, I'm sure that the Vail Resort Association can as well. I have superposed (sic) on the VRA map the Location of the existing liquor stores of which you will see that there are thre within the core area. Also, just off the core area, ! 9/1.0ths of a mile to the west is the Gore Valley T,,a r�t�o_rs . which of course has been opened about a month and a half now. Minturn, the village of Minturn, has two liquor stores--Minturn Liquor and the Eagle River Liquor ... andat Avon there's the t Beaver Creek Liquor Store. 7 BROWN. All right, thank you, I think the map will speak for itself, except in one regard: have you paced the distance between your store and the proposed store? HICKOX: Yes, It's a hnndred...(interrupted) BROWN: All right, go ahead. HICKOX: It's 1_az_s�s. i Page 43 BROWN: Mr. Mayon, I propose for admission as • evidence the document which has just been referred to as a map of the Town of Vail, as Protestant's Exhibit 1. DOBSON: Let it be entered. OK. MCLAUGHLIN: I have no objection, your Honor. BROWN: Mr. Hickox, I have handed you a document. I will ask you to identify it. HICKOX: Yes, this is a•petition that I personally have circulated over the last few days. BROWN: All right, then I'll ask you to hand that to Mr. Donovan, and I will ,propose admission of this document into evidence as Petitioner's, of Protestant's Exhibit 2. MCLAUGHLIN: I have no objection. DOBSON: Be .it so entered. BROV7N. Mr. Hickox, how often have you been asked for service after 10:00 p.m.? HICKOX: Never. BROWN: All right, let me ask the question once. again, I didn't ask it right. Ilaw often have you felt the'need to stay open after the hour of 10:00? Both on custom and demand? HICKOX: May I elaborate a little bit? I've found after my few months of experience in the: store that after 8:30, business slacks off decidely and it really, as far as income is concerned, it isn't worth staying open after 8:30, but we remain open until 10:00 p.m. strictly as a service. And it ... from 9:00 on there's just a few stragglers that even bother to come into the store. BROWN: No further questions. MCLAUGHLIN: Mr. Hickox, does your store make a profit? HICKOX: Yes. MCLAUGHLIN: I have no further questions. +e 44 19 DOBSON: BROWN: • • Thank you. Mr. Howard. Gardner, please take the stand. Please state your full name. GARDNER: Howard Francis Gardner. BROWN: Your address? GARDNER: I live in Vail Intermountain. BROWN. Your occupation? GARDNER: I -am part owner and.manager of the Gore Valley Liquor. Store. BROWN: Where -is that located in respect to the intersection of Gore Valley Drive and Bridge Street? GARDNER: It's located ... it's approximately ... it's' a mile to 1 1/2 miles west. of Vail, or west of the Vail inter- change in the Vail Das Schone Shopping Plaza which is better known as Safeway Shopping Center.. BROWN: Does that part of the valley have any designation by name? GARDNER: Gore Valley.. �r BROWN: Is it West Vail? GARDNER: West Vail. BRO'IM: Howard, in about the same fashion as Chuck did, describe the extent of your operations. GARDNER: Well, the Gore Valley Liquor Store occupies a space of 2,800 square feet, 1,150 square feet of which are sales area, 200 square feet are walk-in area ... it's a walk-in cooler.'..and 1,450 square feet are storage area, 800 of which is. in the basement below the store, BROWN: All right, and your hours of operation? GARDNER: We're open from 11:00 a.m: until 9:00 p.m. BROWN: All right, will you comment on demand after 9:00? GARD14ER: Well, actually I could comment on the demand after. 8:00. Normally, the Vail Das Schone Shopping Plaza hasn't really gotten underway yet, but the main drawing card is the Safeway Store which is located right next door. They T Page 45 close at 8:00 p.m. now and consequently business mainly dies then; do few that in we catch a people were the store at 8:00, who got in.the store by 8 o'clock and didn't get out until after 8:00. They're all out by 9:00. There's practically no business by 9:00. BROWN: ''hank you. No further questions. MCLAUGIiLIN: I have no questions.. DOBSON: Thank you, sir. BROWN: Charles Crowley, please take the stand. And state your name. CROWLEY: Charles Robert Crowley. BROWN: And your address? CROWLEY: 394 Beaver Dam Road, Vail, BROWN: And your occupations.? CROWLEY: I'm general manager of A & D Enterprises which owns The Liquor Store at Vail, and I own the Lionshead Liquor Store. BROWN: Perhaps you'd better- speak up a little bit. You are.manager of The Liquor Store at Vail? CROWLEY: That's correct. BROWN: All right, will you please describe the operations of The Liquor Store at Vail; in about the same fashion as Chuck Wilcox did? CROWLEY: We maintain a seasonal fluctuation in hours. Right now, our hours are at their maximum: 9:30 to 11:00. In the past years we've operated from 9:00 to 11:00, but this year with the cutback in, or the opening of the lift hours later, we felt kind of silly opening up in the dark, so we put our hours up to 9:30. In the off-season we'll drop, this year we'll probably drop it back less than we have because I have a full-time staff this year, and we're going to keep them working probably a few more hours. So, we probably could drop • back to maybe 11:00 to 9:.00 after the season's over. Page 46 • BROWN: And your inventory? CROWLEY: Well, right now, of course it's the end of the season and our inventory at The Liquor Store at Vail, I would estimate, is between $60,000.00 and $70,000.00 right now. BR01tL1: And in terms of numbers of items? CROWLEY: Well over 1,300 , about 1,350 or something like that. It fluctuates of course. (Pause). BROWN: Mr. Crowley, first, how do you open this thing? CROWLEY. It=s self --explanatory. BROWN: (Laughs). My fault! BROWN: OK, I'm going to cover this document only very briefly because it speaks for itself. But. I'd like you to tell the Board briefly, as briefly as possible, please, what you did to put together_ these figures? And what they represent in general terms? CRONLEY: Basically, this represents price compari- sons that we've extracted from the top 10 or 20 brands of 1973... the top gin, the top blend, the top vodka, etc —and we stuck in a few wines we know are the top sellers. In our experience in Vail they're the top sellers. And we did a price comparison of 17 stores in Vail and a 30-mile radius. MCLAUGHLIN. Mr. Mayor, I don't know what Mr. Brown's intention is in giving these documents to the Board, but at this time I'm going to object to the Board having them until they are ... until a foundation is laid for entry into evidence through Mr. Crowley. (Inaudible due to both Brown and McLaughlin talking at once). MCLAUGnLIN: It's been delivered and I don't think they should be delivered out to the Board members until that ruling is made. • DOBSON: Do you have a response to that? BROWN: Yes, your honor, I have not offered the document into evidence yet-. The foundation that's been sought I am now building. 'ago 97 DOBSON: Well, will you proceed as fast as you can . to answer the objection of Mr. McLaughlin? BROWN: Yes, I will. All right, then, this repre- sents price comparisons for some half -dozen, dozen outlets in a 30 mile area. CROWLEY: That's right, 17 stores. BROWN: All right now, does it show a comparison of prices in Vail as compared to other communities? CROWLEY.: yes, it does --n the, last sheet on the right, it shows a comparison of average prices in Breckenridge, the Copper Mountain -Frisco -Dillon area, the Leadville area, the Eagle area, and the Avon-Minturn area, and also the Vail area. • BROWN: And based upon this survey, are you able to reach a conclusion as to prices in Vail relative to prices elsewhere? Yes or no, please? CROWLEY: Yes. BROWN: Now, what is your conclusion as to prices in Vaal compared to prices.elsewhere as a.general thing? CROWLEY: our prices are very well in line with the surrounding communities. BROWN; Can you point out particular examples to support your statement? CROWLEY: Let's see, a quart Smirnoff Vodka we average in Vail it's$5.77, and it goes to a high of $6.64 in the Copper Mountain -Dillon -Frisco area, and we are the second lowest I believe in that particular one. A quart of J & B, in the Vail area the average cost is $9.04 which is the lowest of the six areas. You get into wines, I'm looking at Mateus Rose , line 21, $3.16 is the price in Vail which is the lowest of the six areas. BROWN: Now again, briefly, from the results of your survey as tabulated here, have you been able to determine relative operating costs between Vail and communities in the surrounding • areas? CROWLEY: Yes, we have. Rage 48 BPO11N: And, in general, what is your conclusion? CP,Oiii.EY: That our overhead in Vail is considerably higher than ... the figures are right there, rent prices, uh... (inaudible). BROWN: Now, as tooperating hours which are general- ly observed in the business, haveyouu made a tabulation of operating hour.r2 as a part of this survey? CROWLEY: In some cases,. our hours are longer and in some cases they're shorter, but I would say there are, we are open more in Vail, the Vail liquor stores are open more hours than the average store in the surrounding communities. • BROWN: All right, thank you very much. I propose this docwneht for admission into evidence as Protestant's Exhibit No. 3. MCLAUGHLIN: I have no objection. I withdraw my former objection. DOBSUNI: Doug, do you have any further questions?. MCLAUGHLIN: Mr. Crowley, does your liquor store, Tlie Liquor Store at Vail?make a profit? CROWLEY: Pardon? MCLAUGHLIN: Does The Liquor Store at Vail make a • profit? BROWN: Objection to the question. CROWLEY: Yes, sir. MCLAUGHLIN: Thank you, I have no further questions. DOBSON: Thank you, Charlie. BROWN: Two more questions. MCLAUGHLIN: I am going to object to Mr. Brown asking the witness any more questions, I finished my cross-examination and simply asked him about profit. if he intends to.ask him a question with regard to profit,-1 have no objection. other- wise, he's outside the scope of my cross-examination. • BROWN: Mr. Mayor, to the contrary, he was allowed to cross-examine in respect to the particular document. I am not Page 49 through with my examination. DOBSON; Do you have any objections? MCLAUGHLIN; Mr. Mayor, I asked simply one question. • I asked him if he made a profit, nothing.more. SMITH: I think that the direct examination has. been concluded and that the attempted re -direct was beyond the scope of the cross-examination and should be excluded. I think the matter has been adequately explored. DONOVAN: I'm here to hear the applicants, not... (inaudible). BROWN: Mr. Mayor, I'm being cut off., I never con- eluded my examination, I allowed Mr. McLaughlin to do what is known as voir dire a particular exhibit, which means that he gets the right to cross-examination..in respect to.a particular document to -which he makes objection. That does not conclude my examination as a matter of law. DOBSON: Proceed, Mr. Brown. / MCLAUGHLIN: Mr... (Pause). BROWN: Mr_. Crowley, I have placed before you a document, will you identify it, please? CROWLEY: Yes, it's the April 1974 issue of Colorado Business magazine. BROWN: Did you make copies of a particular article? CROWLEY: Yes, I did. BROWN: And are those the copies I just distributed to —the Board? CROWLEY: That's correct. BROWN: In one long, chosen sentence, what does this multi. -page document say? • CROWLEY: It shows that there's a definite downturn in the economic situation here in Vail. • BROWN: Thank you, very much. No further questions on that document. Page 5o DOBSON: Doug, do you...did you get a chance to see the document, or do you want ... (interrupted). MCLAUGHLIN: I have no questions. Mr. Mayor, I have no objection anyway or the other. DOBSON: Do you have any.further comments, Stewart? BROWN: Just a proposal to admit that document into evidence for Protestant's Exhibit No. 4. DOBSON: OK, so directed.. BROWN: Will you, Mr. Crawley, identify the document I have last handed you? CROWLEY: These are petitions that were circulated by me personally under my supervision since last Thursday or Friday, I guess. BROWN: And containing how many signatures? CROWLEY: Oh, I would say approximately 140. BROWN. Do you know. how many Air. Hickox's petitions contained? CROWLEY: No. BROWN: All right, would you hand that to Air.. Dono- Van, please? Air. McLaughlin having had a chance to Examine that...(interrupted). MCLAUGIILIN: I have no objections. BROi4N: I propose their admission into evidence as Protestant's Exhibit No. 5. DOBSON: Would that be 4 or 5? BROWN-. Oh, I'm sorry, I'm ahead of myself, I proposed the magazine article as No. 4, the petition is 5. All right, now, Mr. Crowley, now you've obviously done con- siderable work both in terms of price survey and in terms of research on the economy. You have been in the liquor business... (interrupted). MCLAUGHLIN: Mr. Mayor, I'm going to object to Mr. Brown's testifying for Mr. Crowley. DOBSON: Excuse me. MC.LAUGIILIN: I'm going to object to Mr. Brown's testify- .i.ng for. Mr. Crowley. Pay e 51 DOBSON: Will you rephrase your statement, Mr. Brown? I BROWN: Yes, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Crowley, based upon the sua:vey of: prices that have been admitted into evidence, F based upon the economic report that has been admitted into evidence, based upon your nine years of experience in liquor trades in Vail, which is in the record, do you have an opinion as to whether or not the neighborhood is presently being ade- quately served by the existing retail liquor outlets? CROWLEY Yes, I do. if I can elaborate a little? BR0WN: Please do. CROWLEY: I'm, of course I'rn in the liquor business and I visit liquor stores in other areas when, any chance I get, when r travel I do as much research as possible, and in the western slope area I feel that the liquor stores in Vail are far superior to any in the western slope including Aspen, Glenwood, and Grand Junction. And I would, if the Town Council would like to make a trip, go around and.they should make a trip and go around and loot; at stores and see how far superior we are here in Vail as far as.selection, size,and every mode of: our service. BROWN: All right, Mr. Crowley, during your travels about the area, did you have an opportunity....the caliber of the typical 600 square foot operation. CROWLEY: Yes, I have. BROWN: Let's hear about it. MCLAUGHLIN: Mr. Mayor, they have constantly alluded to the size of the proposed outlet, I`in going to object to any testimony with regard to size. It's totally irrelevant. DOBSON., Gene, do you have any comment on that? SMITH: I would agree with that, size is not the determining factor here. DOBSON: Would you rephrase your line of questioning, • please? BROWN: Yes, Mr. Mayor. Now, Mr. Crowley, you have heard the evidence with respect to the proposed outlet? Page 52 • CROWLEY: Yes, I am. BROWN: You've heard the outlet is.to be 564 square feet. MCLAUGHLIN: Objection, your honor. Objection, Mr. Mayor, he's asking the same, a form of the same question, he's referring to size and it's irrelevant. BROWN: I withdraw the question. You have heard the proposed method of operation, have you not? CROWLEY: Yes, I have. BROWN. You've heard of the proposed hours of operation, have you not? CROWLEY: Yes, I have. BROWN* You know of the location of the operation, do you not? CROWLEY: Yes, I do. BROWN: Do you have an opinion? I ask you whether or not the operation as proposed is feasible? MCLAUGHLIN: Objection, your honor, he's calling for mere, mere speculation on the part of Mr. Crowley, and it's totally out of order. SMITH: I agree with that. I think that whether . or not it would be a successful economic venture is not a determining factor on the issue of whether the reasonable needs of the neighborhood can be satisfied by the applicant's proposed business. BROWN: I would ask the Mayor if the neighborhood needs a cesspool .for a sewer line or a one-man gypney for a bus, and if the needs of the neighborhood are not determined in respect to'the caliber and quality of the facility they are licensed'approve, they are authorized to license? DOBSON: I sorta lost you after the cesspool, St ewart. I think in the strict sense of the law, we are here Page 53 to decide whether the needs of the neighborhood are to be, whether there is a need of the neighborhood. I think in the spirit of getting out of here before morning, we understand what your point is and, if you can, we can go to the next question. BROWN: Very well, Air. Mayor. I have no further questions. MCLAUGIILI14: I have no questions. DOBSON: Good. OK. Any more then, either of you? SMITH: would lake to'ask just one more question here. What is the basic thrust of this economic argument, is it essentially that because the prices charged by existing outlets is allegedly low in comparison with other outlets in the neighborhood, and that the outlook economically for the entire neighborhood is considered to be gloomy., that this is a sign that no further competition is warranted? DONOVAN. Wait a second, before he answers it, how do you object to him and his line of questioning, then turn around and ask him a question on it. i SMITH.: That's not improper. DONOVAN: I think it doesn't seem right to me. If you will not let him bring out the facts that he's trying to prove, then you turn him around and ask him what... SMITH: He did bring out certain facts, certain of these things were introduced in evidence, John. We were just trying to, he was trying to base these last questions on a particular size of business and whether or not this business was going to be economically successful. That, those are probably improper, but what is -in evidence is generally the information that I just based my question on. DON-OVA14 : OK. DOBSON: Stewart, do you have more questions? BROTMN No further —questions, no further witnesses. Page 54 DONOVAN. IIe has a question. Gene still has a question. SMITH: I wondered what the basic thrust of your economic argument is? BROWN, The point was.raised by the applicant. SMITH: The point was raised by the applicant? BROWN: Yeah, he raised the point by -contending that competition would bring increased prices,...that an additional outlet, I'm sorry, not increased prices, that an additional outlet would result in what he called better prices. SMITH: I see. OR. • MINGER: John, I've got one thing for both of them._ STEINBERG: Chuck, do you know of anybody that's done a study on the quantity of liquor that is not purchased in the Gore Valley, but which is consumed here other than restaurants and it so, why? I think this has a bearing on the Town's at- titude and how much sales tax we... (interrupted). CROWLEY, I am personally acquainted with the manager of Applejack Liquor in Denver. Applejack Liquor is probably, it's kinda touch and go between which is larger, Harry Hoffman or Applejack Liquor. They do anywhere from 10 to 12 million dollars a year, they work on a one per cent net. Now this fella, Applejack Liquor is off I-70 off an exit ramp very easily accessible to the entire city of Denver. And I myself have counted in that parking lot on a Saturday morning in ski season 22 busses sitting there, empty, and all those people are in that store. Now, where they're going, going to Vail or Aspen, I mean, they're doing it for price, they can offer the prices 'cause they're working on a one per cent net. If we worked on a one per cent net we'd be out.of business. We wouldn't be here. • DOBSON: Any other questions from the Council? MINGER: I've just got one question for the record. For Mr. Brown and for Mr. McLaughlin. I have Applicant's Exhibit-sA through E, series of petitions for the applicants; Page 55 that is all you have, is that correct? MCLAUGIILIN: Yes. i MINDER: And Mr. Brown, I have Protestants' Exhibits I through 5; is that correct? BROWN: Yes. MINGER: Thank you. DOBSON: Stewart,you say you do not have any further witnesses? BROWN: No further witnesses, Mr. Mayor: I do have a short statement I must make. DOBSON: According to my sheet I will first ask the • Applicant if he would Like to make any closing or summarizing statement. MCLAUGHLIN: Yes, Mr. Mayor, I would like to make a closing statement, if I might. May I proceed? ... Mr. Mayor, n-ay I proceed? DOBSON: Please do. MCLAUGULTN: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, I would like to�� begin my closing argument by referring to something that one of my witnesses, Mr. Ed Colt, of Colorado Springs, said when he testified. He said in his opinion because these stores were closed after 11:00, the latest one, he felt that they were taking the cream off the top and leaving the rest. Mr. Hickox then testified after,10:00 it is only a service. After 10:00 it is only a service. I'd like you gentlemen to think about that for a minute. That is exactly my point. That's exactly what I'm getting at. These liquor stores are not providing the ser- vice that the people of the Town of Vail and the visitors are entitled to. They are taking the profits, they both, both Mr. Hickox and Mr. Crowley admitted that their stores are making a profit. And yet, they are not staying open as late as they can as a small example, just to provide a service to the • people of the Town of Vail. Now, gentlemen, it is my burden to prove number one, what the neighborhood is, that has been Page 56 stipulated to be the Gore Valley. both by me and Mr. Brown and l' t is not a matter of argument at this time. I.must then prove the needs of that neighborhood and I must prove the desires of that neighborhood. To do that I have presented to you a number of petitions. In an effort to make these petitions more believ- able than they have normally been in the past, and I freely admit Mr. Donovan's normal objection to petitions presented before this board, they are somewhat ridiculous in that they are circulated in lift lines or left on counters in stores and things of this nature._ Gentlemen, I took time and trouble to go around and compile a list of registered voters. I have • 67 of them. I consider that to be a significant amount of people on that particular petition. Now, gentlemen, in proving the needs of the neighborhood we are referring to the entire neighborhood. On the one hand, Mr. Brown admits that the entire neighborhood is the Gore Valley. Then, on the other hand, he presents to the board a map of the Town of Vail showing my proximity to this liquor store, my proximity to that liquor store, and so on. Gentlemen, if the entire area to be served is the Gore Valley, I submit that my proximity to any other location is totally irrelevant as far as that other location • is within the Gore Valley. They are all in the same neighbor- hood. Now, Mr. Brown has suggested that the size of my opera- tion may not make it economically feasible. I have testified that I can grow into additional space if necessary. But gentlemen, the size of my operation is totally irrelevant for your decision tonight, and 1, there is a case on this in the Colorado State Supreme Court, and I intend to submit that case to you and to Mr. Brown following this hearing. Now, in proving the needs of the neighborhood as I said I presented petitions; I've shown the fact that there are in effect practically speaking only two licenses; I've shown that the services are not there; by Mr. Hickox's own admission to stay open after 10:00 it was only a service. And, the most important thing that I think Page 57 has been shown here tonight, the three people in opposition F i are -all other liquor store owners. They are all with selfish ' motives for being here tonight. I have presented myself, I obviously have a selfish motive, as does Mr. Peterson, as does Mr. Staufer. However, the other people that I presented tonight have absolutely no connection with the present applica- tion and have no selfish motive whatsoever. Gentlemen, I think. that I have clearly shown that the needs of the neighborhood justify a now license, and I would therefore respectfully ask this board to grant this application. Thank you. DOBSON, Thank you, Doug. Stewart? BROWN: If you don't mind my sitting, I think it's more convenient for both of us. For all of us. The requirement of the law is that an applicant for a liquor license prove by evidence of record that the existing outlets are not ade- quately serving the community. The decision of the State in the last previous hearing reversing the decision of the Board was that there had been no evidence... (interrupted). MCLaUGHLIN: Your honor, Mr. Mayor, I'm gonna object to any argument with regard to the previous decision to the pre- vious liquor license. It has nothing to do with the present • license. BROWN: Arguments (inaudible) the universe, your Honor. You can take anything...(interrupted). MCLAUGHLIN: It is beyond the scope of fair argument, it, was objected to and sustained at the, in the hearing, and I see no reason why Mr. Brown.should be entitled to argue...(in- terrupted). BROWN: V1.1 withdraw the statement, your Honor, let's get on with this. The law of Colorado requires that the inadequacy of existing outlets be shown to entitle the appli- cant to a license. Numerous decisions of the State Director of Internal Revenue have been to the effect that particular applicants in many particular hearings, some of which have occurred in this very town, fail to show that the existing outlets were inadequate in serving the neighborhood. This is such a clear and definite requirement that one recent decision, which has been published and is known to some, and understood i by many, was to this very effect"and this only, that the appli- cant had failed to show that the existing outlets were not adequately meeting the requirements of the neighborhood. I submit that there is not a shred of evidence in this hearing to prove inadequacl, of any degree, sort, type, or quality whatso- ever in the existing outlets. To the contrary, that as -they have for so many years, the particular protestants in this case E f have come in for the showing of exceptionally superior operations, j serving the community in an exceptionally superior manner. There • is no evidence to the contrary in the hearing. None whatso- ever. As a simple imperative of administrative •law without the evidence to support the decision, the decision would be reversed by the superior authority. Your duty as a board is not to see either applicant in any personal, business, social, or economic, or any other light based on the evidence in this case but to see him as having failed to point the finger at the existing outlets and show whether they have failed to meet community requirements. They have not. Thank you very much. DOBSON: OK, are there any further questions? • MCLAUGHLIN: Mr. Mayor, I would like to reply to the law as -stated by Mr. Brown. He stated that I had the burden of showing beyond any question that I had the burden of showing that the existing outlets were not serving the needs of the neighborhood. I challenge that, your Flonor, as existing law. The way I read the law of the State of Colorado, I have the burden of showing that the needs of the neighborhood, I have the burden of showing a prima facie that the desires and the reasonable requirements of the neighborhood dictate the issuance of a license. Once I have made that prima facie case, your . Fl.onor, the burden shifts to the people opposing the license and they then have the burden of showing that the existing outlets are indeed adequately serving the neighborhood. I think, that Page 59 Mr. Drown has improperly stated the law and I, I do not feel they have shown that they have been adequately serving the I neighborhood. Thant; you, your. H onor. DOBSON: We'll take note of that. Stewart, before you leave, in the event there are any questions from Council or the Town Attorney. SMITH: I have no further questions. DOBSON: Gentlemen, Kathy? If not, then, I am required to state that the public hearing is closed and further state that the decision of the local liquor licensing authority approving or denying the application shall be in writing • stating the reasons therefor within 30 days after the day of this public hearing, that a copy of such decision shall be sent by certified mail to the applicants at the addresses shown in the application. Thank you, gentlemen, and I'll declare the public hearing closed. Would you please stand adjourned. (END) f . CERTIFICATION OF ORIGINAL TRANSCRIPT This is a true copy of the tape- recorded transcript which is in my custody in the records of. the Town of Vail, Colorado. own erk tTown of VaiColarhdo