HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-09-21 Town Council Minutes0
0
to
16
MINUTES
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING
SEPTEMBER 21, 1993
7:30 P.M.
A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, September 21,1993, in the Council
Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Peggy Osterfoss, Mayor
Mery Lapin, Mayor Pro-Tem
Jim Gibson
Jim Shearer
Tom Steinberg
Rob LeVme
Bob Buckley
TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Larry Grafel, Town Manager
Tom Moorhead, Town Attorney
Pam Brandmeyer, Assistant to the Town Manager
Holly L. McCutcheon, Town Clerk
The first item on the agenda was an Executive Session regarding land issues. The Executive Session
began at 7:00 P.M., and was adjourned to the Regular Evening Meeting at 7:30 P.M.
The second item on the agenda was Citizen Participation of which there was none.
Item No. 3 was Ordinance No. 20, Series of 1993, second reading, an ordinance submitting to the
registered electors of the Town of Vail at the Regular Municipal Election to be held on Tuesday, the
16th of November, 1993, the question of whether the Town of Vail should be authorized to collect
and spend the full revenues generated including reduction in debt service during 1993 and each
subsequent year [which amount does not include revenue generated from ad valorem property taxes]
without any increase in such tax rates and to spend such revenues for debt service, municipal
operations, and capital projects, effective January 1, 1993; authorizing the Town Council to adopt
annual budgets and amendments thereto to implement the approval of this referred measure; setting
forth the ballot title; providing for notice of the election; providing for conduct of the election;
providing further details in relation to the foregoing. Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full. Tom
Moorhead advised he had spoken with the Secretary of State's office Election Division to verify if
setting up ballot questions in paragraphs, as directed by Council for easier understanding by voters,
met State requirements. Tom Moorhead said he was advised that the Secretary of State had no
objection to setting ballot questions in paragraphs, and, in fact, setting forth ballot questions in the
most understandable fashion was being encouraged. After brief discussion concerning minor
language changes, Jinn Gibson moved to approve Ordinance No. 20, Series of 1993, on second reading
with the recommended changes. Tom Steinberg seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the
motion passed unanimously, 7-0. With regard to the public informational process on this ballot
question, Steve Thompson stated staff was working on scheduling meetings with various groups
during October and early November, 1993.
Item No. 4. was Ordinance No. 22, Series of 1993, first reading, an ordinance submitting to the
registered electors of the Town of Vail at the Regular Municipal Election to be held on Tuesday, the
16th of November, 1993, the question of whether the Town of Vail should increase annually by the
imposition of a new tax of 0.9% on restaurants and bars and a new tax of 1.8% on lodging beginning
on January 1,1994, and each subsequent year producing approximately $2,100,000.00 in the first year;
the annual revenues shall be designated exclusively for the construction, marketing, and operation
of a performance and conference center; authorizing the Town of Vail to increase debt up to
$12,600,000.00 by issuance of negotiable interest bearing bonds for the purpose of providing the
construction, marketing, and operation of a performance and conference center; providing for the
sunset of such portion of the tax increase that is no longer necessary to service the revenue bonds;
setting forth the ballot title; providing for notice of the election; providing for conduct of the election;
providing further details in relation to the foregoing. Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full. Tom
Moorhead recommended changes in the ballot question set forth in this ordinance based upon his
review of Amendment 1 and conversations with Susan Baird, Staff Attorney in the Election Division
of the Secretary of State's office. He recommended this ballot question be broken down into
paragraphs in a manner similar to the ballot question in Ordinance No. 20, Series of 1993, so it, too,
would be more easily understood by the voters. He suggested this ballot question begin, "Shall the
Town of Vail sales taxes be increased $2,100,000.00 annually by the imposition of a new sales tax of
0.9% on restaurants and bars and a new sales tax of 1.8% on lodging beginning on January 1, 1994,
and each subsequent year?" and eliminating the wording, ..... producing approximately $2,100,000.00
in the first year ...?" Jim Gibson felt that inasmuch as TOV did not have control over how much
revenue the proposed sales tax increases might generate, this ballot question should include the less
V.11 Town Council Evening Meeting Minutes MI/93
definitive language, "... approximately $2,100,000.00." Tom Moorhead said the language he suggested
was exactly as the language was set forth in Amendment 1 on how to begin wording of any
proposed new tax implementation. In response to Jim Gibson's inquiry about the potential
generation of a greater amount in the first year than stated in the ballot question, Tom Moorhead
indicated TOV may have to return to the voters to receive their authorization for TOV to retain any
additional amount. Assuming the ballot question passed, if greater amounts were generated in
subsequent years, Tom Moorhead believed TOV would be able to utilize the additional amounts
without return to the voters. He clarified that potential revenue generated by the sales tax increases
set forth in this ballot question were entirely separate from all other TOV revenues, emphasizing that
Ordinance No. 20, Series of 1993, dealt with the generation and spending of general revenues.
Ordinance No. 22, Series of 1993, was a complete and separate ballot question and potential funds
raised by it were earmarked specifically for the construction, operation and marketing of the
performance and conference center. He stated the best reasoned opinion concerning Amendment 1
at this time was that the first year's generated revenues must be specified and that was the only year
that the specification of amount pertained to, and that it was appropriate for TOV to generate and
expend an increase in those revenues after the first year. In this particular ballot question, he said
TOV would be limited by the conditions earmarked for this particular tax. He noted the ballot
question included the contingency that if in three years construction had not begun, a decision about
whether or not the revenues should be returned, whether or not the revenues should continue to be
collected and retained for the performance and conference center, or what other action should be
taken would then have to be made by the voters.
Tom Moorhead advised that the term "Article X, Section 20" in the ballot question was the technical
name for Amendment 1. It was agreed to include as part of the ballot question that Article X, Section
20 was commonly known as Amendment 1.
There was discussion concerning when these proposed taxes would be reduced and finally sunset.
Steve Thompson felt that if the timeframes were known they should be included in the ballot
question, but he could not predict exactly when these taxes would be reduced and sunset. It was
established the bonds would be thirty year bonds. Mery Lapin felt the ballot question should be as
explicit as possible with taxation issues, but Jim Gibson was concerned about the possibility of
eliminating refinancing the bond, which might be an option at some future date. Caroline Tremblay
stated when the Vail Valley Performance and Conference Center (VVP&CC) Steering Committee
worked with Steve Barwick concerning the recommended wording of this ballot question, the reason
they did not specify when the proposed taxes would be reduced and finally sunset was because of
TOV's early bond retirement history. Jim Gibson said there was also the possibility that TOV might
choose to extend the bonds and felt that possibility would be complicated if a specific reduction
and/or sunset date was set forth. Bob Buckley agreed. Caroline asked for additional language
clarification. She felt the word "sunset" was confusing and suggested the word "cease" be used
instead. After discussion, Council consensus was reached to change "sunset" to "cease."
Jim Gibson moved to approve Ordinance No. 22, Series of 1993, on first reading, with the changes
as suggested by Tom Moorhead and Caroline Tremblay. Tom Steinberg seconded the motion. Before
a vote was taken, Mery Lapin inquired what would happen if it took more than three years to raise
the necessary and required funds. Tom Moorhead said the three years was an imposition Council
had decided to impose upon the collection and retention of these proposed taxes. He said because
Council placed that restriction, at the end of three years if construction had not yet begun, TOV
would have to return to the voters for direction on whether TOV should continue to collect and
retain the funds with the intent of a performance and conference center being started or to return the
funds to the taxpayers of Vail. Tom Moorhead pointed out that it was stated in the ballot question
in Ordinance No. 22, Series of 1993, that if "... construction has not begun the tax will expire on
December 31, 1996, and the revenues collected will then be treated in a manner consistent with the
revenue requirements of Article X, Section 20." Jim Gibson noted that included any reason, not only
finance. There was discussion about the possibility of extending the three year contingency to four
years. Caroline Tremblay said the VVP&CC Steering Committee had recommended that particular
paragraph to Council as a safeguard to the public as assurance that something would happen within
three years. She said the VVP&CC Steering Committee felt three years was the outside time limit
that a local person could imagine the beginning of the construction of the facility and that the
VVP&CC Steering Committee wanted to have a tight rope on themselves. She added that all of the
VVP&CC Steering Committee's cost projections at this point were aimed at having construction
beginning in the spring of 1996. She explained that if they incurred more of an operating expense
than they planned, even using very conservative estimates of what meeting planners would pay for
the use of a conference room, there would be some revenue there they could conservatively expect
to have as income to cushion their budget estimates. After additional discussion, based on the
substantial pro forma evaluation by the VVP&CC Steering Committee, Jun Gibson called the
question. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0.
After the vote, Mery Lapin commented that the VVP&CC was a compromise of many people's ideas,
and he still had major concerns about the conference center. He was primarily concerned that what
was being proposed to handle groups of approximately 300 was basically what could be handled
Vail Town Council Evening Meeting Minutes 9/21M
now in about three or four different facilities in the area. He wondered if there would be enough
of an overflow from those groups presently being handled by local facilities to bring enough business
for a conference center. He indicated he voted for Ordinance No. 22, Series of 1993, because he
wanted to see it go to a vote, but emphasized he did not feel at this point that voting for this
ordinance should be viewed as his decision to vote for both the performance and the conference
centers, only that he was in favor of letting the voters decide. Caroline Tremblay added that the
demand analysis done by Benton & Hire had taken into account that the local facilities with existing
meeting space would fill prior to the conference center because meeting planners would always
prefer to meet in a hotel with meeting space before using a conference center.
Mery Lapin directed Tom Moorhead to be prepared to answer what would happen if there were not
sufficient revenues produced by this ordinance's proposed taxes to cover bonds. Mery asked if that
something that needed to be covered in the ordinance. Bob Buckley asked Caroline Tremblay to
check with the VVP&CC Steering Committee before second reading to determine how strongly they
felt about the three versus four year issue. Bob strongly endorsed the performance and conference
center and did not want to see the project jeopardized if the monies were not available in three years
but would be available in four years. Mery also asked Tom Moorhead to be prepared to address
what Council could and could not do in terms of providing support for the project in the election
process.
Item No. 5 was Ordinance No. 23, Series of 1993, an ordinance amending Sections 3.48.130C and
20.04.370 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail to provide delinquent taxes and/or assessments
to be certified to the Eagle County Treasurer no sooner than October 1st of each year, and declaring
an emergency. Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full. Tom Moorhead said this ordinance was
necessitated by a change in the procedures of the Eagle County government. Eagle County had
requested TOV adopt a procedure consistent with theirs. This ordinance would place TOV's
ordinance in step with Eagle County's procedures. If certifications were received after October 1,
they would not be collected until the following year. The reason this ordinance was declared an
emergency was so it would be effective by October 1, 1993. In response to Mery Lapin's inquiry
about negative aspects of approving this, Torn Moorhead explained TOV had been certifying by
December 1 making it impossible for Eagle County to enter delinquent taxes and/or assessments on
their rolls for the following year. Tom Moorhead said this dealt with real estate transfer taxes and
special assessments only. After discussion, Tom Steinberg moved to approve Ordinance No. 23,
Series of 1993, as an emergency ordinance, with a second from Jim Shearer. Before a vote was taken,
Mery Lapin emphasized that use of an emergency ordinance should be only under extreme
circumstances because emergency ordinances only have one reading and do not give the public and
opportunity to respond and voice their opinions. A vote was taken and the motion passed
unanimously, 7-0.
At this time, Jim Gibson moved to reconsider the vote on Ordinance No. 20, Series of 1993, with a
second from Mery Lapin. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0.
Mery Lapin suggested that instead of reading, "Those remaining restrictions continue to require:"
followed by the requirements, that the last sentence of the second paragraph of Ordinance No. 20,
Series of 1993, read, "The remaining restrictions are:" followed by the listing of the requirements as
already approved. After discussion, Jim Gibson moved to approve Ordinance No. 20, Series of 1993,
on second reading, with this suggested language amendment. Mery Lapin seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Rob LeVine and Tom Steinberg both indicated that they were pleased that
so much time was being spent on the wording of the ballot issues so they were dearly
understandable. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0.
Item No. 6 was Appeal of a Design Review Board (DRB) decision for the Stu Brown property, Lot
G4, 2nd Filing/1330 Sandstone Drive. The applicant was Stu Brown. The appellant was the Vail
Town Council. Andy Knudtsen stated this was a project that had been submitted in the early part
of summer '93 and that the DRB had reviewed it several times. He noted that during the site visit
earlier during Work Session on this date, Council had an opportunity to better understand the site
and location of the buildings, and there had been discussion about the project changes that had been
made. He said staff, since the site visit, had responded to discussion with Council, and suggested
ways this project could be made more compatible with the neighborhood, primarily by screening
with landscaping. Mayor Osterfoss explained that since this was an appeal of a call-up of a DRB
decision, what Council was focusing on was the Design Review Guidelines as they pertained to this
project. She said staff had been specifically directed to look at the landscape plan and make
recommendations to Council as to how that could be enhanced to more fully comply with the Design
Review Guidelines. Council, staff, Hugh Warder, and Hal Engstrom, architect for the project
reviewed site plans and discussed the landscaping and suggested changes. Kathy Douglas indicated
she did not like the density, however, Tom Moorhead advised that Council could not review that
issue. After discussion, Mery Lapin moved to approve the project with the twelve conditions already
set forth by the DRB and detailed in the Commurdty Development Department's letter dated
September 14, 1993, to Stewart H. Brown, Hugh Warder, and Hal Engstrom with the further
condition that the project add landscaping consisting of 94 warranteed 3" - 4" aspen trees, 57
Vail T.— r-il Evening Meeting M.utce 9/21M
Ob
F]
•
warranteed 6' -10' spruce trees, and that the timber wails be changed to boulder walls and they also
be engineered. Bob Buckley seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed, 6-1,
Tom Steinberg opposed.
There being no further business, a motion to adjourn the meeting was made and passed
unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 8:37 P.M.
Pot
:
-)0 &/may
Town clerk
Minutes taken by Donanne S. Deto
CA IINSFPz1.93
Respectfully submitted,
!MargXt A. Osterfoss, Mayor
4 Vail Town Council Evening Meeting Minutes 9/2V93