Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-12-15 Town Council MinutesMINUTES VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 15, 1992 7:30 P.M. A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, December 15, 1992, in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building. The meeting was called to order at 7.45 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Peggy Osterfoss, Mayor Mery Lapin, Mayor Pm-Tem Jim Gibson Jim Shearer Tom Steinberg Rob LeVine Bob Buckley TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Ron Phillips, Town Manager Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney Pam Brandmeyer, Assistant to the Town Manager The first item on the agenda Citizen Participation. Josef Staufer submitted a petition from • Vail residents urging the repeal of Ordinance No. 3, Series of 1992, an ordinance amending Section 8.24.090 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail, Colorado, to provide for the owner or occupant of any property within the Town of Vail to keep the sidewalks in the public right- of-way on adjacent or abutting such lot or parcels free and clear from ice, snow, and other obstructions. He felt this ordinance placed an unfair burden on property owners in Vail, and snow removal should be a legitimate function of TOV as a service residents could expect. Pepi Gramshammer, Hermann Staufer, and Kent Williams also expressed concerns about snow removal, plowing, and storage issues. Ron Phillips advised TOV was examining possible procedural changes to address these concerns. Pepi Gramshammer inquired as to why there had been no celebration in recognition of Vail's 30th anniversary. There was no discussion. Richard Carnes advised the Precision Lawn Chair Demonstration Team of Vail had been accepted as participants in the January 19,1993, Inaugural Parade in Washington, D.C. Jeff Atencio felt this was an opportunity for promotion of Vail and the ski industry, and indicated the group would appreciate any assistance from TOV to help cover costs associated with the group's participation in the parade. The airfare and accommodation cost for eleven participants was estimated to be $6,600. Mery Lapin moved to contribute $1,000 from Council contingency to the Precision Lawn Chair Demonstration Team of Vail, with a second from Tom Steinberg. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Josef Staufer and Hermann Staufer spoke against removal of the pedestrian bridge. They felt its removal detracted from pedestrianization of the Vail corridor. Mayor Osterfoss indicated recent public meetings concerning the pedestrian bridge showed support for its removal, however, as a number of citizens present at this meeting seemed to share feelings similar to Joe and Hermann, further consideration would be given to this issue. Bob Buckley noted he had received numerous calls from neighbors concerned with safety at the Bald Mountain bus stop. Larry Grafel explained some of the alternatives offered to residents of the area, and indicated this issue would be revisited in the spring. In the meantime, the underpass pathway would be opened to riders who chose to get off the bus at Aspen Lane to go over to Bald Mountain Road. Larry advised westbound bus service on that route would be continued. Item No. 2 on the agenda was a discussion regarding the proposed TOV Cemetery management plan and conceptual design. Andy Knudtsen advised that before the cemetery master planning process could be completed, Council review and agreement of work done to date was needed. He introduced members of the Cemetery Consultant Team: Eldon Beck, • President of Alpine International, Sherry Dorward, Vice President of Alpine International, Steve Perkins, Vice President of Alpine International, Jack Goodnoe, Landscape Architect I with HEPY from Southfield Michigan, and Larry Sloane, President of LF Sloane Consulting Group from Del Mark, New York. Members of the Cemetery Task Force, Dave Cole and Cissy Dobson, were unable to attend this meeting, but had submitted letters supporting the proposed design and management plans of the cemetery. Background details, evaluation of the design, evaluation of the management options, neighborhood involvement, staff conclusions, and character image drawings of types of plots, cenotaphs, and crypt designs were included in the Community Development Department's (CDD) memo dated December 15, 1992. Eldon Beck briefly reviewed results of the October 27, 1992, public meeting held at the golf course where the consultant team, the task force, staff, and neighbors had discussed a variety of issues regarding the cemetery. Sherry Dorward displayed aerial photos of the cemetery site and character image drawings developed in response to public input. She discussed the conceptual plan, noting there were five types of grave sites proposed to be located on a very small part of the upper bench of Donovan Park at or around the tree line. Jack Goodnoe reviewed details of the site selection process, design impact at the site, and cemetery burial requirements, as well as the special needs associated with memorialization and meditation in the intended naturalistic setting. Paul Hymers, resident of the area adjacent to Donovan Park, felt public concerns about the cemetery had been taken into consideration and he was pleased with the proposed design, but he was concerned about future plans for use of the rest of the park. Mayor Osterfoss felt there was full intent to keep this area designated as a permanent type of open space. Larry Sloane then discussed six management scenarios for the cemetery. He felt the entity best equipped to manage the cemetery was the Cemetery District, and recommended TOV enter into a management agreement with the Cemetery District. TOV should continue to control or own the underlying real property, but the District should be the entity to provide capital funding to develop the first phase of the cemetery, assuring TOV by contract that it would do so within the approved master plan scope. He felt the District, not TOV, should provide operating funds from its existing mill levy and revenue from sales activity at the cemetery, both here and in Minturn. There was brief discussion about how Amendment No. 1 might affect funding of the project, after which Tom Steinberg moved to accept the preliminary Vail cemetery design and management report as presented and proceed with the project as recommended. Rob LeVine seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, note was made that the Minturn Cemetery District's name had been changed to the Eagle Gore Cemetery District, and that District had indicated a willingness to manage the Vail cemetery. Hermann Staufer inquired about the capital outlay for the project, and was advised cost estimates were not finalized at this time. A vote was then taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Item No. 3 was Ordinance No. 31, Series of 1992, second reading, an ordinance accepting certain improvements constructed and installed in and for Booth Creek Local Improvement District, determining the total cost thereof, receiving and accepting the assessment roll apportioning the cost thereof to be paid by special assessments among affected parcels within the District, assessing the cost as apportioned therein against each assessable parcel within the District especially benefitted by the improvements, prescribing the method of paying and collecting the assessments, describing the lien securing payment thereof, making necessary findings with respect to the satisfaction of all conditions and requirements relating to the foregoing, and limiting actions challenging the proceedings. Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full. Larry Eskwith explained this hearing regarded the levying of assessments for the Booth Creek Improvement District, which had been formed to construct mitigation for rock fall in the Booth Creek area. He noted the rock fall berm was now completed. TOV had previously issued bonds to pay for construction of the berm, and the issue now at hand was the amount of the assessments being levied to pay for those bonds. Larry called several TOV staff members to testify about history related to this improvement district. He explained this was the legal approach he would use to produce evidence about essentials required by the ordinance. Ron Phillips was called first to testify about background information regarding formation of this improvement district. He described the formation of this improvement district in depth, beginning in 1983. Ron stated the mechanism that was discussed as primarily a financing mechanism was formation of the improvement district. He indicated property owners asked Council for financial participation from TOV, and Council had approved a $20,000 contribution from TOV's budget to assist in paying for part of the engineering required. Eagle County also approved $20,000 toward this project, but the State of Colorado declined to participate financially. Larry stated at the time the district was formed, a formula for how assessments would be levied was established and • accepted by property owners. Ron described how the formula for reaching the assessments was established. He said the homeowners had strongly encouraged TOV to adopt an assessment that would divide the total cost equally among all of the ownerships, and at the hearing held to set up the improvement district, property owners were present and expressed support of that formula to Council. • Before public input on background information related to formation of this district began, Ron confirmed written notice of this evening's public hearing had been mailed to the property owners as they appeared on the assessors list of ownership on November 24, 1992, and notification of this hearing was published in the Vail Trail on December, 15, 1992, and all notification of this hearing was in conformance with Section 20.04.180 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail. Ray Story asked Ron if he felt the primary issue with accepting the berm was property value. Ron stated he believed the primary issue was the safety of those living, renting, or staying in the properties in that neighborhood. Ned Gwathmey raised questions about a document received by homeowners in the district on June 6, 1989, which indicated the project cost was estimated at $12,116 or 15% more if there were cost overruns, but assessments could not exceed that amount. He was advised financial issues would be addressed during TOV Controller Sieve Thompson's testimony. Greg Hall, Town Engineer, was called next to testify about the nature of the improvement this district was formed to pay for and to supply engineering information related to the project. It was established Greg was not employed with TOV when this project was first discussed, but was the Town Engineer at the time construction commenced on the project. • Greg recalled construction commenced in August, 1989, and involved excavation of a trench, building of a berm, minor drainage work, and revegetation work. Greg testified the improvement in this district was substantially completed at the present time, appeared to be working, and the engineer who designed the structure had appeared before Council and stated in his opinion the berm was completed and working as planned and designed. Greg described problems with construction of the berm; the primary problem being a lack on the part of the contractor to meet compaction requirements as specified in the contract. Banner Engineering, the project supervisor, managed the project for TOV, and subsequently TOV hired Chen Northern of Glenwood Springs to do the actual soils testing. Greg confirmed when he was told by the engineer that the compaction did not meet design standards, TOV shut the job down and refused to pay the contractor. The contractor filed suit against TOV for breach of contract; TOV filed suit back for breach of contract for the contractor not meeting contract specifications. TOV and Banner Engineering had hired attorneys and commenced the litigation process during which expert engineers were retained to provide testimony and to aid in reconstruction of the berm. Greg confirmed that all of the properties included in this local improvement district were within a high rock fall hazard area on TOV's rock fall hazard maps, and since reconstruction and completion of the project, those properties had been removed from any rock fall hazard designation. • Questions concerning future maintenance of the berm were raised by Fred Otto, and Ron stated TOV had committed to maintain it. He said anticipated maintenance would mainly consist of removal of rocks caught by the structure as often as needed, repair of any sloughing, and enhancement of the vegetation on the berm. At this point in time, no annual cost estimate for this maintenance could be determined. Mr. Otto also inquired about the outcome of the previously mentioned litigation. Larry Eskwith indicated the litigation had been a favorable settlement to TOV, and the contractor completed the berm to specifications at his cost. Discussion followed about collection of the contractor's performance bond, and Larry Eskwith explained due to the fact that the contractor had expressed a willingness to complete the job and never refused to perform, TOV was technically unable to collect the bond. There were a number of questions as to whether or not TOV was appropriately vigilant in supervising the contractor and the engineer. Larry Eskwith explained the contractor's job was to perform as he agreed to by completing the project to job specifications; the engineer's job was quality assurance. Larry felt TOV staff performed responsibly when advised by the engineer that the berm was not compacted properly. TOV shut the project down and refused to pay the contractor until the berm was brought into conformance with compaction specifications. Mayor Osterfoss felt this was an important distinction. TOV's role was to respond to the report given by the expert in the form of the engineer as opposed to going out • on a daily or weekly basis to check the compaction. Chen Northern was hired to do the soils testing, and did. Ron reemphasized the project was shut down by TOV as soon as the problem was brought to TOV's attention by the engineer. Sybill Navas initiated further discussion about compaction requirements and the time factor involved with discovery of the compaction problems with this project. • Larry Eskwith next called Steve Thompson, TOV Controller, to testify about the financial records related to this improvement district. Steve confirmed TOV had issued bonds in the amount of $365,000, presently outstanding, to pay for this improvement. The estimated total cost to be assessed against the affected property owners which had been set forth in the notice for the second reading of this ordinance was $366,756. Steve confirmed the actual cost to construct the improvement had exceeded that amount. The actual cost on the original construction budget was $41,486; the amount of the additional construction costs was $51,700, approximately 12-13% of the original cost. Larry noted TOV Code provided for the potential assessment of additional construction costs up to the amount of 15%, and also allowed TOV to assess additional costs where there were separate elements of a nature not foreseen and included in the original estimated cost. Steve distributed and explained a financial report entitled Booth Creek Special Assessment District Budget dated December 15, 1992, detailing the total revenues, and expenditures including total construction costs, engineering costs, legal costs, bond issuance costs and interest on bonds, shortfall amounts, bonds payable, and the total amount currently being assesses at $487,187. Greg Hall gave technical explanations about those sections of Steve's report reflecting construction and engineering costs overruns. Discussion about interest cost on bonds followed. It was explained that a majority of the costs of this matter were interest costs of carrying this project without having assessments is for three years because the assessments could not be made until the project was substantially complete. Further discussion regarding interest income, whether bids were opened prior to second reading, when partial payments were made to the contractor and the engineer, and at what point in time monies were spent on redesign of the project. Ron Phillips advised partial payments to the contractor and the engineer had been made on a percentage completion basis, and no payments were made after the engineer indicated the project was not being done correctly. Steve Thompson confirmed he had prepared the assessment role showing the amount of each assessment. Larry Eskwith then called real estate appraiser, Basil Katsaros, to testify. He confirmed he had acted as an expert witness in previous hearings and court cases. He discussed his appraisal assignment with respect to the Booth Creek Special Improvement District, which included evaluation of enhancement to property values in Booth Creeks as a result of this project. It was his opinion the effect upon the fair market value of the properties in this improvement district had been enhanced in value in excess of the special assessment amount. Larry indicated Council had to make a finding relating to the probable influence from the improvements relating to the protection or preservation of the values of the property in the vicinity of the improvement, and asked Mr. Katsaros for further opinion as to fair market value. Mr. Katsaros said the improvements also added to the protection of the individual homes from rockfall damage evidenced historically, and a primary benefit of the improvements was the loanability in the neighborhood as wells as the elimination of buyer concerns. He said he had reviewed the assessments for each individual property owner in the district and, in his opinion, each property in the district was benefitted at least to the extent of the assessment levied against it. Mr. Katsaros confirmed he would bill TOV for his consultation. There was discussion about the motivation for the formation of this district, and it was agreed the original motivation was safety and peace of mind. Ron Phillips explained when a local improvement district was established, it was a legal necessity for records to reflect that property owners paying assessments had received value for the assessment. Larry Eskwith confirmed one of the requirements of the ordinance was to show Council that properties in the local improvement district had especially benefitted and that there was an effect on the fair market value. After additional input from George Clowes, Pat Dauphinais, and Ed Gunn, specifics of the litigation were again discussed, as well as the series of events leading to the need and • decisions surrounding formation of the district. There were additional financial issue questions, and a suggested review of possible bond renegotiation and assessment payment options. Tom Steinberg then moved to pass Ordinance No. 31, Series of 1992, on second reading, with direction to staff to examine possible renegotiation of the bonds. Jim Gibson seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Pat Dauphinais submitted a proposal for a more equitable way of dividing up the costs. Rob LeVine expressed concern about changing the original formula, and noted people in the district had understood and agreed to the original formula. Council indicated if members of the district wanted to rework the formula amongst themselves, that was something they could do. Larry Eskwith confirmed the members of the district could work out a private agreement amongst themselves, but it would be without the involvement of TOV and would not be affected by what the ordinance said. The assessments, however paid, were still due. Tom Steinberg called the question. A vote was then taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Discussion of Item No. 5 on the agenda preceded discussion of agenda Item No. 4. Item No. 5 on the agenda was Ordinance No. 30, Series of 1992, first reading, an ordinance amending Title 2 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail by the addition of Chapter 2.36 - Limitation of Terms, to provide for the limitation of terms for all members of permanent Town of Vail Boards and Commissions. Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full. Mery Lapin moved to approve Ordinance No. 30, Series of 1992, on first reading, with a second from Jim Gibson. Before a vote was taken, there was brief discussion regarding encouraging wider citizen participation on the various boards. Mery Lapin then moved to amend his motion to approve Ordinance No. 30, Series of 1992, on first reading with a change to Section 2.36.010 of the ordinance to indicate a Board or Commission member who has served eight (8) consecutive years may serve again after a period of one (1) year of non -service. Jim Gibson seconded the • amended motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Item No. 4 was Ordinance No. 32, Series of 1992, second reading, an ordinance making supplemental appropriations from the Town of Vail General Fund, Capital Projects Fund, Vail Marketing Fund, The Real Estate Transfer Tax Fund, Police Confiscation Fund, LionsHead Mall Project Fund, Conservation Trust Fund, LionsHead Mall Debt Service Fund, Booth Creek Debt Service and Construction Fund, Heavy Equipment Fund, Town of Vail Debt Service Fund, West Vail Debt Service Fund, and Police Building Construction Fund of the 1992 Budget and the Financial Plan for the Town of Vail, Colorado; and authorizing the expenditures of said appropriations as set forth herein; establishing a reserve fund balance of $5,740,000; creating an emergency reserve of $550,000; and setting forth details in regard thereto. Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full. Steve Thompson explained changes made since first reading. Jim Gibson asked if assets could be used as part of the emergency reserve. After dialogue concerning this option, discussion led to a unanimous vote, 7-0, to approve Ordinance No. 32, Series of 1992, on second reading, with specific clarification that the emergency reserve of $550,000 to be created be an emergency cash or asset reserve in the value of $550,000. Item No. 6 was Ordinance No. 33, Series of 1992, first reading, an ordinance repealing and reenacting Chapter 18.32 of the Vail Municipal Code, adding sledding and tobogganning parks as a conditional use. The applicant was Vail Associates, Inc. Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full. Bob Buckley stepped down due to a conflict of interest. Kristan Pritz noted this ordinance was unanimously supported by the Planning and Environmental Commission. (PEC.) She explained VA intended to return with a conditional use request to put a tobogganning park in Lionshead on the south side of Gore creek. Jim Gibson moved to approve Ordinance No. 33, Series of 1992, on first reading, with a second from Jim Shearer. Before a vote was taken, Art Abplanalp, representing property owners adjacent to the proposed site, asked the records to reflect there had been little publicity about this, and mentioned a variety of reasons as to why he felt there were going to be a significant number of objections from property owners who would be impacted by this amendment. He asked if this was an appropriate amendment within this zone district, and asked Council to seriously consider the scope, location, and the way it was being incorporated into the broad skiing zone district. Joe Macy, VA, clarified this proposal would allow VA the opportunity to apply for a conditional use permit. He said VA was willing to work with the neighborhood on what the proposed facility would actually entail when applied for. He said VA felt this would be an additional recreational amenity for the community, and VA understood the sensitivity of the neighborhood and did not want to do something that would diminish their enjoyment of their property. Mr. Macy indicated that when an application was actually made, it would probably include a request for nighttime use until 8:00 or 9:00 P.M. He noted that the proposed • facility was on VA property and was fairly removed from the property lines on the east represented by Mr. Abplanalp. Mayor Osterfoss asked Kristan if the proposal was a reasonable conditional use in the context of other conditional uses within this zone district. Kristan said it was felt that it was, and referred to a memo from the CDD to the PEC dated December 7, 1992, detailing the description of the request, background, proposed code amendment, analysis of the proposed code amendment, and staff recommendation regarding ipermitted uses and conditional uses. Before a vote was taken, Mr. Abplanalp added it was his understanding VA had already filed an application for the conditional use permit, and again asked Council to fully consider the proposal's full scope and impact. Jim Gibson called the question. A vote was then taken and the motion passed, 6-0-1, Bob Buckley abstaining. Item No. 7 was Ordinance No. 34, Series of 1992, first reading, an ordinance repealing Section 11 of Ordinance No. 14, Series of 1987, Subsection 9, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (The ordinance concerned a major amendment to SDD #6, Vail Village Inn, to remove a previous condition of approval for Unit No. 30, Phase I, Vail Village Plaza Condominiums/100 East Meadow Drive.) The applicant was BSC of Vail, Colorado, L.P./Frank Cicero. Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full. Bob Buckley stepped down due to a conflict of interest. Kristan Pritz noted this unit was originally the Good's Commercial Space which had been converted to a 6,000 square foot condominium. Full Details were included in the CDD's memo to the PEC dated December 7, 1992. Kristan said in September, 1992, a request to remove the use restriction on the condominium had been denied by Council. At this time, the applicant was proposing to provide an employee housing unit in place of the use restriction. Staff and the PEC recommended approval. Rob Levine moved to approve Ordinance No. 34, Series of 1992, on first reading, with a second from Mery Lapin. Before a vote was taken, it was established that the employee housing unit was a permanently restricted full-time employee housing rental unit. Ken Wilson noted that before 09 the deed restriction could come off of VVI #30, a deed restriction had to go on this property. A vote was then taken and the motion passed, 6-0-1, Bob Buckley abstaining. There being no further business, a motion to adjourn the meeting was made and passed unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 11:50 P.M. Respectfully submitted, M�g=.erfoss, Mayo ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Acting Town Clerk Minutes taken by Dorianne S. Delo • CAINDEC15.92 6 i,rk �6 PETITION TO REPEAL ORDINANCE NO.3, SERIES 1992, • We, the undersigned, urge the Town of Vail to repeal Ordinance No. 3: 2. � 4A✓5d ,, lr�Am ,.f S � 3. 6f -s� Ivry- �✓/�S% 4. 7. FqC 2-7 q v+i S . 9. -1V0% j I 10. l%Ai 12. - 44K 13.�n_ ra�u �n1_Q CO 81(a 14. OK 16. OilA(- n , 18 r/C. vC ��f 19. 20. Continued.. E 0 0 Page 3 Continued.. We, the undersigned, urge the Town of Vail to repeal Ordinance No.3: <TL - 41. mr �x 42. e_0 43. 44. '4- 4 5. 47. 4 8. 49. o 50. 51. 52. 53.- 54. g 55-. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. A Continued.. Page 4 Continued.. . We, the undersigned urge the Town of Vail to repeal Ordinance No.3: 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73, 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. Continued.. r� Page 5 0 Continued.. L lq'Ll CYL 0 We, the undersigned, urge the Town of Vail to repeal ordinance No. 3: 82. /f 8 3 . 84. 8 88.- 92. 93. I IAALL �t�Ct. S'W AU19 DAIA, - 7-- S 9 4. y6al A 95. ✓ I/ 97. 98. 99 100. toContinued.. Page 5 . 0 Continued.. We, the undersigned, urge the Town of Vail to repeal Ordinance No. 3: • 81. 3�J�^�a k& -. 82. 83. 84._l tic 85. 86. 87. 88. 89. 90. 91. 92. 93. 94.— 95. 96. — - 97. 98. 99. 100. 0 Continued.. �J + Page 5 Continued.. We, the undersigned, urge the Town of Vail to repeal Ordinance No. 3: 82. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87. 88. 89. 90. 91. 92. 93. 94. 95. 96. 97. 98. 99. 100. • Continued.. . . . DEC-1�-92 TUE 13:54 BRAND* CADMUS FAX H4, 3034 188 P,01 12-15-1992 12;MPM FROM VRR&R K.G. INC. TO 4763188- P,01 Page 5 b ° �" ! . Continued... FA-V 4 7 b- S t £r F We, the underaiyned, urge the Town of Vail to repeal Ordinance No. 3; V aqz ea. 84. es. ss. 0 89, 90. S7� . 92. 93. 94. 95. 96, 97. 98. 99. 100. Contlnued.. TOTAL P.W1 r • Page 6 Continued.. We, the undersigned, urge the Town of Vail to repeal Ordinance No. 3: 101. 102. 103. J 104. J 105. M1 106. • 107. 108. 109. 110. 112. 113. 114. e ` 115. 116. 117. .Ol✓L�0 7 o��� 118. ......__. _ . 119. 120. Page 7 Continued.. We, the undersigned, urge the Town of Vail to it repeal Ordinance No.3: n 121 122 123 124 12 5. ' �v�" t 126. 127. lta/ 128. 130. 131 ✓��` 132. 133. 134. 135. 136.� 137. V 138. 139 140. �i TOWN OF VAIL 75 Soutb Frontage Road Pam Brandmeyer V 1, Colorado 81657 479-21131FAX 303-479-21i7 . �. 1 5 w D D -iwa,luw • q 44 u.��rr• 7 �-n �•9 � 5 �LI� • I�t�uc.P,' f G 16 �( ut�curr -co COcu"- rG to S 4 RECEIVE® DEC - 7 1992 bee"r i Joeo v�f� ye�/'sirs Oa. I UV/ -0S41 ,� r rrdr�s��'st`� Q% AZ 7,KW-W 7� -'0' 17C' Uzi s l ene, v��,-ve5d/-77 w ©r/1 0�1i1 i �'' f n i`e�I �r �j�r ?/4 i vi terror do nfff inor e- �`� asJ', 94- a J /` t'1�'e' F'eL7l �7 6 • P `l 7 7 Flo • 1"] L 0 9 pkif,fps 4 6 Dec 92 Town Manager's office unicipal Building ail, Co 81657 Gentlemen: 'RECEIVED � � C F a t This letter is my formal protest against the special assessment on my property at 3226 Katsos Ranch Road. Block 1, Lot 2, Unit A, Marquez Duplex, Vail Village 12th Filing 1) I find it improper for the property owners to be charged for the mistakes of others. As I understand it, the original estimate for the creation of the trench -berm complex was in the neighborhood of $10,000 to which the property owners agreed. I see nothing of an unforeseeable or technical nature that should have prevented this estimate from being firm. Then because of errors by the contractor, errors in supervision, interest, & legal fees, the cost overrun was nearly 100%. None of these additional costs were the fault of the property owners an thus they should not be held responsible for them. The overrun costs should be apportioned to those who caused them. If agreement as to this apportionment cannot be made, then this is what the courts are for. •For an area of disagreement of a quarter of a million dollars, I am sure, the legal profession is anxious to assist. Since this will surely add to the already egregious overrun, I suggest every effort be made to avoid this. In the meantime, I suggest that the agreed on assessment be collected so as to eliminate unnecessary interest costs. These should have been levied as costs were incurred anyway. I am willing to pay tomorrow or whenever specified my proper share, but I am not pleased to be paying for the incompetence of others. • 2) I object to what I interpret as the proposed payment plan. I read that if the entire sum is not paid bX 18 Jan 92, then it must be paid in ten installments at an interest of 9.50% per annum. I agree that minimum of 10% for the first payment & a minimum of 10% per annum thereafter is reasonable, but feel that no one should be obligated to maintain a debt if he prefers to reduce or eliminate it sooner. RSC:rc yours very truly, Robt S. Carpenter DEC-- 7-92 MON LS;55. St_ I=I Ia_. F'Hla-F Li1 rvCLi-v P.01 Town Manager's office Municipal. building Vail, Co 81657 I Gentlemen, This letter is my formal protest against the special assessment on my property at 32:26 .KBtsos Rano7 Road, I Block 1, Lot 2, Unit A, MarQl z Duplex, Vail Village 12th Filing 1) 1 find it improper for the property owners to be charged for the mistakes of others. As I understand lit, the original estimate for the creation of the trench -berm complex was in the neighborhood of $10,000 to which the property {owners agreed. 1I see nothing of an unforeseeable) or technical nature tizat should =have prdVented this 'estimate from"being firm. Then because of errors by the contractor, errors in *upervision, interest, & legal fees, the cost overrun was nearly 100. None of these additional costs were the faglt of the property owners an thus they should not be held responsible for 'them. The overrun costs should be apportioned to those who caused them. If agreement as to this apportionment cannot be made, tl'(en t1ijkifis "what the courts are for. For an area of disagreement of a quarter of a million dollars, I am sure, the legal profession is anxious to assist. Since this will •surely add to the already egrQgious overrun, I suggest every effort be made to avoid this. In the ne;antime, I suggest that the agreed on assessment be collected so as to eliminate unnecessary interest coats. Whose should have boon levied as costs were incurred anyway. I am willing to pay tQnoxrQw or whenever poc�ifiad ill �'p p f' aka ie 'but •r : a n" not p] a ed to be paying for the irico2apetez b#*tbf{bthers. 2) I object to what Eiitergret'=fie priposeci `"pa�rnirit ^ plazlt.' `;old that if the entire sum is not paid by 18 Jan 92, then it must, be paid In ten installments at!dif inter0ft :off �d.:itr$ per `'dnnum s V agree tkiat minimum of 10$ for the :first t�ymez ;&:& mini idn Hof` ti0$ -per �inriiim thereafter is reasbnabf0','K but Nddl!' that `no'' dne '-gh!buld- bd1:6blfgated) to maintain a debt if he''Jpri f ars tfd r&duce nr `eliminate it 40fter. i ra€'. : !aEs ''!very` truly',:I, .Mil :.. 'w: 3 'Root a r darp,o ter I w !. ., .+. ii.l DEC— 7-92 MON 1S:SS St. Ell I=. BARRON HE ASISCITNCB LnwAPY (LIBID 47904C1 I ST. ELIZAB" ROSP=AL KWIQL C Sospital 41ice Friona: 317/423-6011 Library Voice Phone: 317/423-6143 Libraa:y:rAX Number: 317/742-5764 VAX Machin Models SHARP Fo-9000 l�ai.3.im+� Address Sh3.pPSxag Adclre8a: P.O. Box 7soi 1SO1 Hartford Street i,ni'ayette, IN 47903 Lafayette, Xx 47904 Tm=Acsn=.S xYtA1;1SMISSION COVER/MS-SAGE SUM TO. Person: i d-tZr Ale" a-._�eh `S OF Company/lykStituti.on: ; c/o Division/Department; toce :...._:.w �.... A _.._ ._ . PROM; Compxany/Institutions x,.- -fit Division/Deportment:: t Please Sena Confidolitiat ReAY; ( ) Call Voice Phosie Nuaabhr: ", :`-.. )BIrm FAXING REPLY R Y Voice Call tio% taeacssary ("7 Pleage Acknowledge ReccfPC Of thi.a Tr=mission: To Parsons V'oiao Phone: miomitox of Pagco 8e3a,4 6eut,, xsacxvpi,ng. T1i . Copc)C_S =t;_. message; .... Library Cite Only: C2621 Paid. Dotas�a..r! Mine Souts . 3 • RECEIVED ^L,,' m 7 W2 OHIN GALT • MY 193 East Gore Creek Drive • Vail, Colorado 81657 • 303/476-1212 December 4, 1992 Mr. Rondall V. Phillips Town of Vail South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Dear Mr. Phillips; Reference is made to then notice of a public hearing on special assessments for the Booth Creek Local, Improvement District. Please take note that any and all future notices regarding the property located at 3245 Katsos Ranch Road and owned by John Galt Mountaineering, Ltd. should be sent to 193 Gore Creek Drive Vail, Colorado 81657. • The documentation provided to property owners at the time the District was created set forth the obligations of the property owners in the then proposed District. It was on the basis of the information provided that the property owners evaluated the facts and made their determinations. At this time the Town of Vailis attempting to increase these obligations by in excess of $4,000 per property owner. This proposed increase arises from a number of factors including but not limited to the following: 1. Failure on the part of the Town of Vail to adequately monitor and inspect the progress of the work being performed. 2. Negligence on the part of the Town of Vail to properly admin- ister the contract while permitting the contractor to circumvent the requirements of the contract. 3. Willfull misconduct oin the part of the Town of Vail to properly advise property owners in the District of contract negotiations which awarded additional monies to the contractor for his failure to properly adhere to the work specifications. • Property owners in the District are, therefore, being asked to pay additional sums arising from the negligence of the Town of Vail. These proposed increases are in direct violation of the provisions of the recently enacted Amendment # 1 (The Bruce Amendment). The hearing scheduled for December 15, 1992 fails to comply with the provisions of the Amendment and violates the constitutional rights of the property owners in the District. Sincerely, ''�n1 Sincerely, l Lasycan f 4&,a t Mountaineering, Ltd. 11 12-09-92 10:34AM FROM LON9 t ,j I� RECEIVED UFC v 9 1992 3241 Katsos Ranch Road Vail, CO 81657 December 9, 1992 Mr. Stave Thompson Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Ft401J..081 Vail, CO 81887 ' Dear Mr. Thompson: F As owners and residents in the Booth Creek Local Improvement District of the Town of Vail, Colorado, we do hereby offer protest to costs of the assessment for the trench - berm complex for the mitigation of rock fall damage effective January 18,1993. This assessment is not consistent with the previous agreements discussed on May 26, 1989 and June 29, 1989 and is therefore unacceptable to the District. We do not Intend to comply with any assessment in excess of the latest agreement effective June 29, 1989. Sincerely, Douglas�t� Wall r�— Brandy McLaughlin Wall f ..., ail. :. :.�.:'.. , •.i�. ..:''l; ... '.. : . P02 12-09-92 19:34AM FROM L Pol Operated by CARD SYSTEMS .8. lNed TRANS;IS 101:111 COVER SHEET Date Number of Pam, Time Includina this one Person., Company, qir Address: Voice Phone: Person: Company: Current location: This "Public Fax CVhW4-'.Number,1 AQir jCK MI J; THAN YdU F611, - R USING OUR SERVICE L . SVbill R. Navas 3255 Katsos Ranch Road Vail, Colorado 81657 December 6, 1992 Mr. Rondall V Phillips Town Manager Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Rd. West Vail, C© 81657 Dear Ron, Jorge A. Navas and Sybill R. Navas; who reside at 3255 Katsos Ranch Road, ( Block 1, Lot 9, Resub of Lot 7, Vail Village 12th Filing) hereby register the following objections to the proposed levying of special assessments against this property located in the Booth Creek Local Improvement District of the Town of Vail. The proposed special assessment of $18,737.97, based on a total cost of $507,187 is substantially in excess of the $12,116 per unit based on a total of $335,000 proposed in June 1989. and which was the figure on which we voted to form the above mentioned local improvement district. A July 1989 budget indicates that this estimate was revised upward to a total • cost of $386.766, with individual property owners each paying $14,106. We would like to know how the final cost came to be 54% higher than the amount which the residents of this district approved by vote. How is it possible that the Town of Vail can allow an expenditure so much in excess of that which was agreed to by the voters of this district? And, how is it possible that the Town of Vail can have allowed the trench -berm complex to have been completed before deciding that it had been improperly compacted; an oversight which required the complete reconstruction of the project in the summer of 1991, two years after the project was initiated! The proposed special assessment is based on an expenditure greatly in excess of what was approved in the summer of 1989, and we do not agree to pay the increased costs which the Town of Vail incurred without the approval of the residents of this district. We both plan to be present at the public hearing concerning this issue on December 15, 1992 and to vocalize our objections at that time. Sincerely,/� • �.- Jorge A. Navas �'` y ill R. Navas cc. Owners in the Booth Creek Local Improvement District, Town of Vail, Colorado 0 • 4EIVED DEC ` 9 IM ROBERT 1. 1,AMMERTS 125 PARK AVENUE OKI_AHOMA CITY, OKLA.73102 0 December 7, 1992 Town Manager's Office Town of Vail, Municipal Building 75 South Frontage Road West Vail, CO 81567 Attn: Rondall V. Phillips, Town Manager Re: Notice of a Public Hearing of Special Assessments for the Booth Creek Local ,Improvements District of the Town of Vail, CO Town of Vail, I am the owner of lot 4, block 2, Vail Village 12th .Filing, Booth Creek Town of Vail. Colorado and in accordance with the Notice of public Hearing I hereby object to the proposed assessment as set out in schedule one attached to the Notice of public Hearing to be held December 16, 1992 at 7:30 pm in Council Chambers, Vail, Co, A public Hearing on this subject was held July 18, 1989 at which time the total estimate of cost was $386,766, which cost was a maximum amount but in no event to be 15% greater than that amount. It is my understanding that the boulder berm was constructed, that the construction was not properly monitored by the city engineer, that the berm was not compacted in accordance with construction and engineering requirements and that consequently overruns have been experienced. I object to the increased assessment from the July 18, 1989 hearing and assessments. It appears that the assessments have been made in an arbitrary and discriminatory manner, not taking in account the size of the lots, the location of the lots or the lot's suseptability to boulder damage. It also appears that certain lots in the 12th filing are not being assessed, being lots 1, 9, 10, 11 and 12 of block 2 and Tract C of block A. I cannot determine the location of "Block - lot parcel All, I object to the arbitrary and discriminatory method of assessment. • • ' ' 9 December 7, 1992 Page Two Town of Vail Lot 4 is a vacant lot. In recent years no boulders have fallen on this lot and it is highly unlikely that any boulders will ever reach this lot. I object to the assessment to the lot in view of the unlikely event of boulder damage. I cannot be present at the meeting to be held December 15, but reserve unto myself all legal remedies that may be available to prohibit any excessive, arbitrary and/or discriminatory assessment that may be made by the Town of Vail as a result of said meeting. Respectfully submitted, ti S obert . Lammer 9s • RPL/pb • 0 1 iRIVED VFC - 9 RE ROBERT P, J�AMMERTS f25 PARK AVENUE - OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLA,731102 0 December 7, 1992 Town Manager's Office Town of Vail, Municipal Building 75 South Frontage Road West Vail, CO 81567 Attn: Rondall V. Phillips, Town Manager Re: Notice of a Public Hearing of Special Assessments for the Booth Creek Local Improvements District of the Town of Vail, CO Town of Vail, . We are the owners of lot 3, block 2, Vail Village 12th Filing, Booth Creek Town of Vail, Colorado and in accordance with the Notice of Public Hearing, We hereby object to the proposed assessment as set out in schedule one attached to the Notice of Public Hearing to be held December 15, 1992 at 7:30 pm in Council Chambers, Vail, Co. A Public Hearing on this subject was held July 18, 1989 at which time the total estimate of cost was $'386.766, which cost was a maximum amount but in no event to be 15% greater than that amount. It is our understanding that the boulder berm was constructed, that the construction was not properly monitored by the city engineer, that the berm was not compacted in accordance with construction and engineering requirements and that consequently overruns have been experienced. We object to the increased assessment from the July 18, 1989 hearing and assessments. It appears that the assessments have been made in an arbitrary and discriminatory manner, not taking in account the size of the lots, the location of the lots or the lot's suseptability to boulder damage. It also appears that certain lots in the 12th filing are not being assessed, being lots 1, 9, 10, 11 and 12 of block 2 and Tract C of block A. We cannot determine the location of "Block -- Lot Parcel All. We object to the arbitrary and discriminatory method of assessment. December 7, 1992 Page Two Town of Vail Lot 3 is a vacant lot. In recent years no boulders have fallen on this lot and it is highly unlikely that any boulders will ever reach this lot. We object to the assessment to the lot in view of the unlikely event of boulder damage. We cannot be present at the meeting to be held December 15, but reserve unto ourselves all legal remedies that may be available to prohibit any excessive, arbitrary and/or discriminatory assessment that may be made by the Town of Vail as a result of said meeting. Respectfully submitted, George A. Clowes, Jr. Robert P. Lammerts 40 By, Robert f/IL-ammerts RPL/pb i-. 0 ` - RECEIVED DEC - 9 IW 0 --7 .VIP �� � o�) qage -9 I • • NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING ON A SPECIAL AND LOCAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT • IN THE BOOTH CREEK AREA OF VAIL, COLORADO A public hearing will be held on the creation of a local improvement district for the construction and installation of certain improvements to mitigate rockfall damage in the Booth Creek area of Vail, Colorado on Tuesday, June 6, 1989, at 7:30 p.m. (or as soon thereafter as the matter can be heard) at the Council Chambers in the Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado. The general nature of the improvements proposed include, but are not limited to, berms for the mitigation of rockfall damage. The total estimated cost of the improvements is $335,000. Of this amount, $20,000 will be provided by the Town •of Vail and $315,000 will be provided by assessments to be levied against specially benefited parcels. The general area to be assessed is Blocks 1 and 2 of Vail Village 12th filing, which is known as the Booth Creek area of the Town of Vail. The legal description of the parcels to be assessed appears on the attached schedule. A map showing the boundaries of the local improvement district is available for public inspection in the Town Manager's office. The Town proposes that the cost of the improvements to be assessed against the specially benefited parcels be apportioned among such parcels so that an equal amount of the total cost to be assessed will be assessed against each parcel of land within the proposed Booth Creek Local Improvement District. "Parcel"' means any lot, tract, or parcel of land within the district which is separately 46 identified on the property tax records of the Eagle County assessor's office. The estimated assessments to be levied against each parcel appear on the attached schedule. These are the maximum amounts that may be levied against the respective NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING ON SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR THE BOOTH CREEK LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO A public hearing will be held on the levying of special assessments against property located in the Booth Creek Local Improvement District of the Town of Vail, Colorado on December 15, 1992, at 7:30 p.m. (or as soon thereafter as the matter can be heard) at the Council Chambers in the Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado. The general nature of the improvements constructed in the District include a trench -berm complex for the mitigation of rock fall damage. The total cost of the improvements is $507,187. Of this amount, $20,000 has been provided by the Town of Vail and 0 $487,187 will be provided by assessments to be levied against specially benefitted properties. Objections to the proposed assessment must be logged in writing by the affected property owner with the Town Manager's office at the Municipal Building, in Vail, Colorado, no less than five (5) days prior to the date of the hearing before the Town Council. The objections must be framed so as to identify the specific issue(s) involved, the grounds therefor, and the witnesses who will present the evidence at the hearing and the general nature of their testimony. The writing must also include the name of the owner(s) and description of the affected property. Prior to the hearing, the Town Manager will forward to the Town Council the written objections which he has received. He may at the same time forward his comments in writing in respect to the project and the 0 ' • 0 BOOTH CREEK ASSESSMENT SCHEDULE 1 Owner and Address/ Mara Grasis Bossow Box 5055 Vail, CO 81658 Rodnie W. Garton Lynne Erion 1545 Lake Drive Loveland, CO 80538 Roy A. Johnston 3135 Booth Falls Court Vail, CO 81657 Johann Mueller 910 Fairway Drive Vail, CO 81657 Brandess-Cadmus Real Estate, Inc. 281 Bridge Street Vail, CO 81657 George H. Clowes, Jr. ✓ Robert Lammerts c/o Lammerts 125 Park Avenue Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Crown Corr, Inc. Box 1750 Highland, IN 46322 Amount of Parcel Owned Assessment Block 1, Lot 5, Vail Village $18,737.97 12th Filing Block 1, Lot 10, Unit B, $18,737.97 Resub of Lot 7, Vail Village 12th Filing Townhouse Lot 1, Parcel B, Vail Village $18,737.97 12th Duplex, Resub of Lot 2 Block 2, Lot 6, Vail Village $18,737.97 12th Filing Block 1, Lot 10, Unit A,Resub $18,737.97 of Lot 7, Vail Village 12th Filing Block 2, Lot 3, Vail Village $18,737.97 12th Filing Block 1, Lot 11, Resub of Lot $18,737.97 7, Vail Village 12th Filing Robert S. Carpenter Block 1, Lot 2, Unit A, Marquez $18,737.97 2170 Tecumseh Park Lane Duplex, Vail Village 12th West Lafayette, IN 47906 Filing Daniel J. and Barbara v Block 2, Lot 2, Unit B, Vail $18,737.97 A. Feeney Village 12th Filing 3145A Booth Falls Vail, CO 81657 John W. Gray �zu/��� Block 1, Lot 6, Unit B, Vail $18,737.97 41 3819 Janitell Road Village 12th Filing Townhouse Colorado Springs, CO 80906 J. Edward Gund v1 Block 2, Lot 8, Vail Village $18,737.97 3100 Booth Falls Court 12th Filing Vail, CO 81657 :, v� �� - } ,;� ;, �� U) N ,0 M o M x 0 n� w W � 0 CUON M o M �-- 0 n } N VnJ %0 l J 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 C 0 a 0 %o LO U) x 0 4 0 1219192 Ron Phillips Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Rd, W. Vail, CO 81657 Steve Thompson Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Rd. W. Vail, CO 81657 0 RECEIVED DEC Re: Notice of a Public Hearing for the Booth Creek Improvement District Ron and Steve: In November of 1989, 1 purchased my home that I had been previously renting. The purchase was from a partnership dba Margem ill. I was informed by Margem III that an assessment of $12,000 would be made upon property owners in the vicinity due to the rockfall mitigation. It was further negotiated that I would pay this assessment. Imagine my surprise when, three years later, I receive a notice of assessment for just under $19,000. As best as I can figure out , not having been a direct party to early notices and forming of a district, we trusted the Town of Vail to act as our agent and the town blew the budget. The increase sure makes me pucker, how Wbout ycpu? I am not a happy camper. Sincerely; Duane 3230 Katsos Ranch Road Vail, CO 81657 December 3, 1992 Mr. Steve Thompson Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road West Vail, CO 81657 Dear Mr. Thompson: In response to the notice of.a public hearing on the levying of special assessments for the Booth Creek Local Improvement District of the the Town of Vail, Colorado, we do hereby offer protest to the suggested costs listed. We have agreed to a Special Development District as per previous meetings and the established budgets of May 26, 1989 and June 29, 1989. The referenced assessment notice of January 18,. 1993 is not consistent with any previous agreements, meetings, notices or budgets and therefore not an acceptable cost for the District • as previously approved. We do not understand when, why.or how the Town of Vail could expend money in excess of the agreed to and.approved costs. We have not agreed to or approved any costs after the June 29, 1989 budget and listed assessment and do not_now.agree to the additional, unapproved costs. Si e y y Story Pamela V. Story cc. Owners in the Booth Creek Local Improvement District, Town of Vail, Colorado Vail Mountain SA.1 6 IECEIVED IS -.Ed 1 0 1992 December 10, 1992 HAND DELIVERED Rondall V. Phillips Town Manager Town of Vail Vail, Colorado Re: Protest of special Assessment, Dear Mr. Phillips: Vail Mountain School ("VMS"), as the record and beneficial owner of Lot 12, Block 2, Vail Village 12th Filing, herein submits its objections to the proposed special assessment against property located in the Booth Creek Local Improvement District of the Town of Vail. OBJECTIONS 1. The increased special assessment is limited to S16.221.90.. By notice on or before July 18, 1989, the TOV notified VMS of a proposed special assessment of $14,106 against its property (referenced above) predicated on a total cost of $386,766 for the construction of a "Rock Fall Berm". The notice further states that the Special Assessment represents ". . . the maximum amounts that may be levied against the respective parcels, unless (1) actual construction costs exceed estimated construction costs, in which case the assessments may be increased by not more than 15 percent; . . ." The notice recently received by VMS references a public hearing to be held December 15, 1992 and states "[t]he total cost of the improvements is $507,187" and levies a special assessment against VMS of 18,737.97, an amount substantially in excess of the 15% limitation. 2. The Town of Vail is solelv responsible for the increase. The TOV has characterized the excess as "construction costs". The Objector believes the excess. cost may emanate from the Contractor's failure to adhere to compaction standards established by the TOV and the inability of the TOV to force compliance. When the resultant litigation was "settled", the TOV undertook the additional financial obligation to cause the berm to be compacted or re -compacted as originally specified. At the public meetings in 1989, staff members of the TOV made numerous representations 3160 KATSOS RANCH ROAD 0 VAIL, COLORADO 81657 • (303) 476-3850 ! 1 1 0 Rondali V. Phillips December 10, 1992 Page Two 46 regarding the ability of the Contractor and construction (quality) and cost controls to be implemented by the TOV. It was these representations that caused VMS to accede to the TOV's request and join the special Improvement District even though the TOV had previously forced VMS to spend in excess of $90,000 to provide the same protections afforded by the rock fall berm. Assuming the foregoing facts to be accurate, property owners should not be responsible for any excess as these costs do not reasonably fall in the category of ". . . additional elements of costs . . . of a nature generally not foreseen . ." Very trul yo s Fre rick S Otto Treasurer- FSO/rgl A • * 0 Mr. Steve Thompson Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Dear Mr. Thompson, December 9, 1992 I wish to express my objection to the manner in which this assessment is to be levied against the property owners in the Booth Creek Local Improvement District. I am including what I believe to be a more equitable and comprehensive formula for cost sharing. I have used the dollar amounts as set forth in Ordinance No. 31 Series of 1992 but I do not agree that they are appropriate. Based upon conversations with other property owners in the district, since I was not involved in any of the original discussions, it seems clear that the town has exceeded the figure which was agreed to in the 1989 meetings. Sincerely, Patrick G. Dauphin is E r1 U • Booth Creek Local Improvement District In order to create an equitable cost sharing of the expenses associated with this district, I suggest the following categories of dwellings and assignment of shares CATEGORY 1 Vacant Lot One share to be paid by January 18, 1993. No additional share is due if a single family residence is built. One additional share is due if second unit is built prior to January 18, 2003. LOTS IN CATEGORY 1 : Lot 11, Block 1 Crown Corr Inc. Lot 3, Block 2 Clowes/Lammerts Lot 4, Block 2 Lammerts CATEGORY 2 Single Family Residence One share to be paid by January 18, 1993. One additional share is due if a second unit is built or existing building is divided and sold separately prior to January 18, 2003 LOTS IN CATEGORY 2 : Lot 1, Block 1 Stiemle Lot 3, Block 1 Story Lot 4, Block 1 Hallenbeck Lot 5, Block 1 Bossow Lot 9, Block 1 Navas Lot 7, Block 2 Dauphinais Lot 8, Block 2 Gund CATEGORY 3 Duplex Residence One share to be paid by each of the two units by January 18, 1993. A total of two shares per lot. LOTS IN CATEGORY 3 : Lot 2, Block 1 Lot 6, Block 1 Lot 8, Block 1 Lot 10, Block 1 Lot 1, Block 2 Lot 2, Block 2 Lot 5, Block 2 Lot 6, Block 2 Gwathmey/Carpenter McLaughlin/Gray Galt/Piper Brandess-Cadmus/Garton Leavitt/Johnston Feeney/Lind Garton/Garton Mueller/Mueller CATEGORY 4 Vail Mountain School, Lot 12, Block 2 One share to be paid by January 18, 1993. Any future Residential Development will be charged at one share per unit built prior to January 18, 2003. Using the categories shown above, there are presently twenty • seven assignable shares. When the first additional share is due, the dollar amount will be arrived at by dividing the original cost, $ 487,187.00, by twenty eight shares, $ 17,399.53. This amount will be charged for the twenty eighth share and refunded to the twenty seven current shareholders in equal payments of $ 644.42 per share. When the second additional share is due, the dollar amount will be arrived at by dividing the original cost, $ 487,187.00, by twenty nine shares, $ 16,799.55. This amount will be charged for the twenty ninth share and refunded to the twenty eight current shareholders in equal payments of $ 599.98 per share. And so on,,, These funds will be collected from the new shareholder by the Town of Vail upon issuance of a building permit for the additional unit or upon transfer of some portion of an existing unit. The additional share must be paid for in full at this time. These funds would then be distributed by a title company at the expense of the new shareholder. Initial payments may be paid in full or amortized over ten years as indicated in the ordinance. If at anytime in the future this berm is extended to protect additional properties in the neighborhood, appropriate compensation will be paid to all shareholder in this district. t t RECEIVED 9 1992 • December 10, 1992 (Hand Delivered) Edward M. and Katherine P. Gwathmey 3226 Katsos Ranch Road Vail CO 81657 Re: Special Assessment for the Booth Creek Local Improvement District Block 1, Lot 2 Unit B Marquez Duplex Concerning the assessment of $18,737.97 for our property, we are not opposed to an assessment and feel that the mitigator has merit. We object to the increase of $4700 over the last adjusted budget figure that we were told. The fact that the compaction was not acceptable to the Engineers and that the job was not completed in a timely fashion was the responsibility of the town and we should not have to pay for it. I feel that we had a contract with the town for the job to be $14,000. So Miss Kitty and I object in part. I also feel that the questions raised by Pat Dauphinais regarding the distribution, especially the Mueller duplex should b discussed. r 1 U ED GOND RECEIVED DEC 1 0 1992 Mr. Rondall V Phillips Town of Vail Vail, CO 81657 Dear Ron: 1 want to object the berm recently constructed) does novccompletely protect Block 2, Lot 8 Vail Village 12th Filing. This was brought to the attention of Stan Berryman during construction. There was a small addition made, but not to provide full protection. Also, no mention has been made when the restriction that has been applied to this area will be removed. Sincerely, 0 3100 Booth Falls Court Vail, Colorado 81657 303-476-1985 J ED GUND 3100 Booth Falls Courtt� Vail, Colorado 81657 Mr. Rondall V. Phillips Town of Vail Vail r 0 . ,, , 0 RECEIVED 1 1 1992 December 9, 1992 Mr. Rondall V. Phillips Town Manager Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Rd. West Vail, CO 81657 Dear Mr. Phillips, Daniel J. Feeney and Barbara A. Feeney who reside at 3145-A Booth Falls Court (Vail Village Fil 12, Block 2, Lot 2, Unit B) object to the levying of special assessments against this property located in the Booth Creek Local Improvement District within the Town of Vail. The proposed special assessment of $18,737.97 is substantially more than the $12,116 assessment proposed in June 1989 which was agreed upon. A July number indicates an increase to $14,106 but never more than this was approved. I would like to know how the increase can be justified, and the reasoning behind the increase in cost. Was there an oversight in supervising and evaluating the project? We do not agree to pay this increase in cost without your seeking approval from the residents of this district. S' cerely Daniel Barbara A. Feeney RECEIVE® A�p' f 4 • Mike Cindy Steimle December 11 1992 3220 Katsos Ranch Road Vail CO 81657 Mr. Ron Phillips Town Manager Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Rd West Vail CO 81657 Dear Mr Phillips In response to the $18,737.97 assessment for the Booth Creek rock fall mitigation, we do file protest to the suggested costs. • The costs are not in accordance with the previously established budgets of $12,116 and finally $14)106. We do not.feel responsible for any incured interest on the bond as a result of delays due to the General Contractor or mismanagement by the town of Vail or or for any reason without notice or explanation. Sincerely, Michael St Cynthia Steimle kr&t JV4 0 a Ll December 9, 1992 PROTEST TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO BOOTH CREEK LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT Property Owners: Rodnie Garton PO Box 1182 Vail, CO 81568 Lynne Erion 1545 Lake Dr. Loveland, CO 80538 Legal Description: Block 1, Lot 10, Unit B, Resub of Lot 7, Vail Village 12th Filing Townhouse • We the affected property owners, do hereby protest the proposed assessment amount of $18,737.97. This amount by far exceeds the proposed assessment of $12,116.00, proposed in 1989. Rodnie Garton being our legal witness when we purchased said property in October of 1991. Lynne Erion 0 Rodnie Garton Ro--�� o-;4� r 16 Q AtCO i ED DEC 15 02 221 South Route 41 Schererville, IN 46375 December 14, 1992 Mr. Steve Thompson Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Dear Mr. Thompson: Consider this letter a formal protest on the levying of special assessments for the Booth Creek Local Improvement District of the Town of Vail, Colorado. The assessment notice of January 18, 1993 is not consistent with prior meetings or budgets and therefore not acceptable for the District. Were the additional costs due to the fact the contractor did not follow the original specifications? Why did the Town of Vail spend the additional monies? Since o� Jos p ,J. Pellar for own Corr, Inc. cc: Owners of Block 1, Lot 11, Resubdivision of Lot 7, Vail, Village 12th Filing JJP/sw AMILL PACKAGE QUESPOAM CALLW0-238-MM M EE raAcxrxs HUua RFMBV 'S COPY Frorq (Your Name) Please Pryot - ) Y6w Phone Nunber (Veryknima n NgTo (RecipfeM's Name) Please Print . Fledvenrs Phone Nmbw Nlrymmw C _______ _. ----__..._.---___.-_-_-..-.____�_._____W__. . conikeiry Oepa�hnenNFloor No. rxnpary r OeparkrlenbFloorNo. Street 0.. , r Exact SHaet Addtras(Itk Camor@liwaPO. Boas orP.O.21p Codes) 71 IL city.. SLOBBPRequimd City /f) .. State ZPR ired M VDURNIHiW MUAWRF"MWEIWON�MTION(goomd)(Firai24ckawk4s mll ronivmm) '1{IFI�rDIDFORPICK4fiIPirRfIDFXAddIes H" .. II:� Address YMIXT t�ll Balder 2❑&Il FecpieM's FedExAat No. 3❑9e3rd Paey Feda W. 4❑Bill Cre"Card City Sl!! IZPRequlred , ❑« II I I i IU - Ghe h SERVICES' 0E1NERYANO $PEClAL NANOlING PA° =' 1D'A1v°wE Emp. No. I Date Fede IEpressi:se (Check only one boa')yl (Checkserelces required) Work' ❑ Hasa Charges ro.r»,yq�„ +•a'w•1 rHOLD)Fini f 1❑TKDAY ' _ _ _ _ _ _ n rtewm Snlpmem FORi j Third Parry ❑ Cng. To Del. ❑ Chy To Fide ")ecWVpJueC Charge aox Fp N -- - -- --- -. necleretl Value Charge 11❑PA�_(A,6 ING 51 M SAIDROA mbwj - ^.J.-. Address Stall Zip DREW ❑PACKAGING KNP �--y I —•--_,---,.-__:___. .. Oft 16J=.I FEDULMER' 56 ❑ M)METTEA' ML M f 2LJ WEE04Y ;.. 12 ❑ FMVPAK' 52 ❑ FYDEXPAK' 3❑ 0'er y...-...... _. _ 13 ❑ PEDLSYBOX 53 ❑ aDLXROX 4 ❑ DANGEROUS GOODS tE-- .l Total )Total Trrtal 2 14 ❑ FEDEXTOM 54 ❑ M)a TURF 5 ❑ i Reecei ed � Total Charges-_ — EoonomyT—I)sy, 3--nnanLOxernighl 6❑DRY ICE DIM SHIPMENT(Chageade weight) --' rud.•on o rrm,mw.•w.�.m ari m.aemielmMSldrpeisDrdaaronrtx.QuyoO DBWTlme Rel FedEx Employee Number —._._........„..._—...,.,...., 30 ❑ ECDNDMY 46 ❑ GGOV7 orxas"m_...__._. x _.....-. xgn ❑ kEVI510N DATE fiI(!2 , Ib3. PART xr#13e FXEA! ar82 41❑GOV7PAWA6E 7❑ OTHERSPEMAL SERVICE _------_--- t: t� . FDiYAYn36' X . ` s X F'ergMServica g ©SA7URDAYPfCK-W r - f 7O OVt1 GHT 80 TMO-DAY r cnvge7 - , 7 Rsgdar sl o o-w Bur. FlIF"�'-'��� ❑ FFIEIGNT"" ❑--_.__..::-----iL:.-_.�_.`__i P� N =DIN xlynym.. err TblSred vdmuvxmo. 12 ❑ HOLIDAYDELNERY Ordr.•dl aka S.C.eBge f us.� •mrern:an. -Tauvde',enarrba+.. s smF lTasur6t'._.J{.G.. :,`..�1.��r•:..r ..... 1Bm dmp,J Obncal: sCSlaLon C J