Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-10-05 Town Council MinutesMINUTES VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 5,1993 7.30 P.M. A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, October 5, 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 LeVine Bob Buckley TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Larry Grafel, Acting Town Manager Tom Moorhead, Town Attorney Pam Brandmeyer, Assistant to the Town Manager Holly McCutcheon, Town Clerk The first item on the agenda was Citizen Participation of which there was none. iItem No. 2 was a Consent Agenda consisting of one item: Approval of the Minutes of the September 7, 1993, and September 21, 1993, Vail Town Council Evening Meetings. Mery Lapin moved to approve the Consent Agenda, with a second from Tom Steinberg. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Item No. 3 was Ordinance No. 22, 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 sales taxes should increase $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; 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 cessation 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 advised he had spoken with Dee Wisor, attorney with the firm of Sherman and Howard, regarding wording of the ballot question proposed in this ordinance, and indicated that the resulting proposed alternative wording for the ballot question as presented to Council at this meeting was reworded to meet Amendment 1 requirements. Tom Moorhead noted that Amendment 1 required the proposed sales tax increase amount for the first year had to be specified, and noted that it was Mr. Wisor's opinion that this proposed ballot question include the proposed sales tax increase amount and repayment cost in the first paragraph of the proposed ballot question. Tom Moorhead addressed other proposed wording changes including language that dealt with making certain TOV would not be limited to $2,100,000.00 if, in fact, more was raised from the proposed tax increases. Additionally, Tom Moorhead proposed wording was added to the last paragraph of the proposed ballot question indicating that the bonds would be payable from the revenues of the tax authorized by this proposed ballot question and other Town of Vail revenues as determined by Council from time to time. This wording had been added at the suggestion of Mr. Wisor, who had indicated that, from the standpoint of issuing the bonds, it would be important for the issuance of the bonds to recognize that they would not be driven solely by the proposed revenues if Council determined that other revenues should be used. Further change to the proposed ballot question would changed the collection and retention period for the revenues from three (3) to four (4) years, which Council had suggested on first reading. Mery Lapin was opposed to the portion of the last paragraph of the proposed ballot question which indicated the bonds could be payable with the revenues of the tax authorized by the proposed ballot question and other Town of Vail revenues. There was lengthy discussion about the coverage factor for these bonds. Steve Thompson indicated these bonds needed 25-50% coverage. Mery felt the proposed wording maintained that other sales taxes could be used in order to pay back the bonds. Mayor Osterfoss felt it was important to note that only existing revenues were being discussed. TOV would have to take the matter to a vote if another new tax was to be a coverage factor for these Vail Town C.=R Enni g Meeting Minote. 30/ W bonds. "There was further language clarification and bond issue coverage discussion. Mery continued to contend people were going to read the proposed ballot question as presented to say if there was not enough money to cover the payment of the operating costs of the facility, TOV could use other sales tax revenues above the proposed 0.9% restaurant and bar sales tax and the proposed 1.8% lodging sales tax to retire the debt, and that was not the intent. Rob LeVine noted that in order to sell the bonds, the coverage indicated by the proposed language was needed. It was the Vail Valley Performance and Conference Center Steering Committee's (VVP&CC's) job to educate the public about the rationale for the proposed bond coverage language. Jim Gibson said what he read int the proposed ballot question was that any source of revenue that presently existed could be used to retire these bonds, and he felt that was a very serious negative. Mery agreed. Mayor Osterfoss maintained that the reality of the situation was the coverage factor. She noted there was always a backup -up position and additional collateral required on any kind of bonds or money lending. Further alternative wording was discussed. Mery Lapin asked how the time schedule would be affected if the ordinance was sent back to the VVP&CC Steering Committee for further work. It was noted the Town Clerk would have a very difficult time meeting required schedules if the ordinance were delayed, but it could be done. Tom Moorhead explained that the only reason the language addition to the last paragraph had been made was at the advice of Mr. Wisor in order to deal with the marketing of the bonds. Jim Gibson did not feel this ballot issue should be used as a method of education, but rather as a method of explanation. His concern was that the proposed language said any source of revenue today could . be used to retire these bonds or make up a shortfall in operating expenses, and he wanted to know if that was needed in the ballot question. Steve Thompson said that it was needed in order to provide the coverage factor for the bonds. Rob LeVine asked if Council would be obligated to pay from the existing revenue stream to make up a shortfall. Steve Thompson confirmed it would, in a worst case scenario. If things did not work out, TOV would then be able to go into sales taxes, and again it was agreed that was not the intent. Caroline Tremblay said it had never been the intention of the Steering Committee or Town staff to use other sources of revenue beyond the restaurant, bar, and lodging taxes in this proposed ballot question to pay for the construction, operations or marketing of the facility. She said it was the bond counsel who advised that TOV's revenues in some way be used as collateral. She said the Steering Committee did not realize that stipulation had to be in the ballot question, but bond counsel had told them they would not be able to sell the bonds without that because the bond rating would be bad. The marketability of the bonds was discussed. Mayor Osterfoss suggested the language state it was the intention that the taxes proposed in this ballot issue be full repayment for the bonds, and if additional bond coverage was required, other existing revenues could be pledged as determined by Council. She felt that was an honest representation of the situation. Mery Lapin felt the alternative was to have the wording say only the revenues from the proposed taxes could be used to sell bonds and all other coverage would have to come from savings or donations. He was very much against the idea of being able to have the ability to resort to other TOV sales taxes. Other funding scenarios were discussed. Stan Cope, member of the Steering Committee, felt if the revenue bonds were made to pay exclusively, the wait for this facility would be three (3) to four (4) years longer. Mr. Cope felt that might even kill the issue. He said he would gamble on trying to explain that half the money proposed to be raised was to go to debt service, the balance, while very necessary, was for appropriations and marketing. He said he realized that put TOV at a slight risk, but because this facility was a benefit across Town, asked if that small risk was worth killing the project. Mayor Osterfoss felt all voters were now responsible for studying and understanding implications of ballot issues. She felt if voters did not know what coverage factors were, they needed to understand that any bond issuance municipalities have ever had always had a back-up in addition to a pledge source of revenue. Jim Gibson indicated he would probably support this ballot issue, but it was not his understanding that TOV could use funds from any source in order to finance a shortfall either in the bond obligation or the operation back-up. Bob Buckley said every revenue bond TOV had had been backed -up by sales tax, but Jim Gibson felt those bonds were for integral parts of the workings of the Town of Vail, i.e. parking structures, the police building, etc., but the performance and conference center, although an integral part of Vail, was not an integral part of the workings of the Town of Vail. Rob LeVine felt anyone who did not understand coverage factors and how bonds were paid off would easily understand the fact that only half of the revenue being raised by this proposed increase tax was going toward the obligation of paying the debt. He said the likelihood of TOV dipping into other existing sales taxes was so remote it was a tiny little risk weighed on an outside factor that was substantial and he felt, Council as a group, had consistently said they would take calculated risks on well thought out projects, the performance and conference center being one. Jim Gibson was not concerned about the voters who understood the bond coverage issue, but was concerned about the education of voters who did not understand in time for the November 16 election. Vail Town council Evening Meeting Minutes IWW3 Caroline Tremblay noted Council had been presented with a ball park figure of $1.2 million in additional costs to TOV if the performance and conference center were to be built. She advised, after further review, the Steering Committee was able to eliminate $500,000.00 from the $1.2 million figure by elimination of duplications in their budgets and from work that did not need to be done. She said it had been assumed by members of the Design Committee, the architectural firm, and members of the construction firm that costs associated with moving the entrance to the parking deck, roadway improvements, lowering of the Vail International roadway, an other miscellaneous improvements to the parking deck were to be paid for by TOV. She stated she had not found a written memo from TOV advising the contractors not to include that in their budget; they had been verbally told that. She listed their outline of construction documents, and reviewed how the $1.2 million was reduced to $700,000. She distributed and reviewed four proforma cash flow spreadsheets based on a 19% construction start date and 1996 bond issuance. She advised that the Steering Committee was recommending the figures listed on the spreadsheet numbered "2" showing a total bond issuance cost of $15,535,000 with a total repayment cost of $38,800,000 for the proposed ballot question, and explained how the figures were calculated. The figures were discussed. Caroline also advised that private fund raising had not kicked in to the extent that might be imagined because significant donors wanted to know that the community was behind this issue before seriously considering participation. Mayor Osterfoss noted the material presented was a substantial amount of new, material to be considered and asked what the impact of not proceeding at this time was in order for Council to review and fully understand the new material. Beside the time£rames for the Town Clerk's mailing schedule, Caroline stated the window of public education on the issue would disappear. After further discussion, Rob LeVine moved to approve Ordinance No. 22, Series of 1993, on second reading, with the bond issuance amount being $15,535,000, the total repayment cost being $38,800,000, and wording changes to the proposed ballot question to include the fact that funds would be collected for no longer than four years, and if construction had not begun on December 31, 1997, a vote would be taken to determine the utilization of the unused revenues at the General Election in November, 1998, and that the last paragraph of the proposed ballot question would consist of an explanation which would state that the intention of the tax references therein would be full repayment for the bonds and if additional bond coverage was required other existing revenue sources could be pledged as determined by the Town Council. Bob Buckley seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Jim Gibson stated he wanted to delay a decision until October 19,1993, after Council had time to more thoroughly digest the options and the impact on TOV. Torn Steinberg and Jim Shearer agreed. When reminded about the decreased opportunity to provide information to voters as a result of that delay, it was suggested this be further discussed at the October 12, 1993, Work Session. Mery Lapin suggested Dee Wisor be asked to come to Vail on October 12 to discuss the bond coverage issue in greater detail. Mery did not agree that sales tax revenues beyond 0.9% and 1.8% were needed if the numbers presented to Council were correct. Jim. Gibson agreed. Steve Thompson also noted with the shortened timeframe, it would be difficult to produce and distribute the pro and con statement which were to be part of the mailing scheduled for October 22,1993. In fact, no con statements had been received yet because there was no ballot measure yet for anyone to respond to. After examining the potential problems with delaying passage of this ordinance on second reading at this meeting, Rob LeVine withdrew his motion, although he said he felt comfortable passing the ordinance at this meeting. Bob Buckley withdrew his second. After brief discussion, Jim Shearer moved to table Ordinance No. 22, Series of 1993, second reading, until a special meeting on October 12,1993, following a meeting with Dee Wisor on that date. Jim Gibson seconded this motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Item No. 4 was Ordinance No. 24, Series of 1993, first reading, an ordinance repealing and reenacting Section 3.40.170 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail deleting the definition of "charitable." Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full. Steve Thompson advised that TOV did not presently exempt all non-profit organizations. This ordinance would remove the present restrictive definition of "charitable organization" currently in TOV's Municipal Code, and would allow TOV to follow the State of Colorado's, Aspen's, Breckenridge's, and Steamboat Springs' policy. Jim Gibson moved to approve Ordinance No. 24, Series of 1993, on first reading, with a second from Mery Lapin. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Item No. 5 was a public hearing regarding newly proposed parking structure rates. It was noted the number one issue raised on this year's Citizen Survey responses was the need for action on parking problems. Mayor Osterfoss advised that Council had discussed the issue at a recent budget session, and it was agreed that an opportunity for additional public comment on the issue was in order. Greg Hall reviewed the newly proposed parking structure rates. He said the recommendation of the Parking and Transportation Task Force was based on the goals of reducing vehicle traffic in Town, reducing vehicle demand on infrastructure, developing good commuting habits, reducing dependency on automobiles, reducing automobile emissions, and encouraging use of alternate transportation Vail Town Council Evening Meeting Minutes 1015M modes. As proposed and detailed in the Town of Vail news release dated October 1, 1993, free parking in the Vail Village and Lionshead structures would be shortened from 90 minutes to 45 minutes with a $1.00 fee up to 90 minutes. A second part of the proposal would extend free evening parking in the structures to 21 /2 hours between 6:00 P.M. and 10:00 P.M. This plan was expected to generate additional revenue to be used for increased bus service on outlying routes and reduce gridlock traffic as experienced in the past. The goal was to increase average daily ridership on the West Vail and Sandstone routes by 80/.; and 41% on the East Vail route. Simultaneously, it was hoped this proposal would reduce the number of free parking transactions in the structures by 40%, thereby reducing overall congestion throughout Town. The proposal to expand free parking after 6:00 P.M. was intended to help shop and restaurant owners increase their evening business. Further, the plan proposed conversion of the 250 parking spaces at Ford Park into a carpool lot, with free parking for riders of three or more between the hours of 7.00 A.M. and 2:00 P.M. seven days per week. Non carpool vehicles would be charged $10.00. It was noted paid parking would begin the day before Thanksgiving, regardless of any decision by Vail Associates, Inc. to begin the ski season early. Mayor Osterfoss noted the suggested changes were not so TOV could generate additional funds as much as it was an attempt to respond to increased traffic congestion and problems people had reported over the last year as they had tried to get in to Town. After hearing the Parking and Transportation Task Force's proposal, Mayor Osterfoss said Council had an additional suggestion. The restaurant and retail community felt it would be helpful to introduce a longer period of free parking in the evening. This would be in face of what was perceived as increased competition from other restaurants and shopping areas located in other parts of the Valley. The longer free evening parking was proposed in order to encourage patrons to return to Vail in the evening to increase business during that time. Council had suggested going to 21 /2 • hours free parking for anyone who came into the parking structure between 6:00 P.M. and midnight. She also mentioned that Council felt the parking structure fit Douglas Bruce's "enterprise concept." An enterprise fund was one which could only get up to 10% of its funding from a government source. At this point in time, TOV was not free to turn parking into free parking because that would result in substantial subsidy coming from other Town of Vail sources. She added Council had been told that the existing level of bus service and existing frequency apparently had to be supplemented on a regular basis in order to accommodate everyone who was trying to use it. Greg Hall displayed and reviewed charts and graphs detailing the 1992-93 Village and Lionshead parking structure lengths of stay, number of vehicles, and fee paid details. He particularly noted 167,000 parking transactions were free parking transactions, and those transactions were fairly even throughout the day. Input was received from Ken Koenig, Rod Slifer, Mike Staughton, Mark Halsted, Sybill Navas, Jeff Christianson, Rick Sackbauer, Stan Cope, George Knox, Beth Slifer, Chaz Bernhardt, Bob Moroni, and Jack Curtin, all who primarily collectively agreed something had to be done to compete with free parking. They felt the Parking and Transportation Task Force's goals were well stated, but did not solve the problems for reasons including: parking fees that would be an irritant to locals and tourists at the expense of small businesses in Vail and sales tax revenues that would be further eroded by encouraging people to go down Valley where alternatives to eat and shop without paid parking had grown. It was felt peak traffic tunes in Town were at 8:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. when people were arriving or leaving work or skiing, but after 5:30 P.M. the traffic flowed smoothly. It was also agreed that the proposed 45 minutes of free parking in the evening was much too short - it took at least three hours to park, have dinner and browse; that the current bus schedule was too complicated, infrequent, and un-synchronized; that the proposed free parking times were confusing; that people who were least able to afford parking were being targeted the most and encouraged what was referred to as "turning" - employees and others returning to the parking structures just before their free parking time expired and driving right back into the structure for another free parking period, only to repeat this ritual several times a day; that the bus system needed to be made more convenient to use as it was not getting locals around expediently, only skiers; that the whole bus system was not user friendly; and that carpooling was difficult with the variety of different employee work schedules. Parking for use of the library and other public facilities and events for locals such as hockey were noted as areas requiring specific parking use analysis. Park 'n Rides, 1 /2 price employee parking, one-time fee extended parking passes, outlying lots, were some of the suggestions other than those proposed, but all agreed alternative parking places were needed if the buses were not synchronized. Interspersed with public input were explanations by Mayors Osterfoss on efforts being made by the Regional Transportation Authority and how the parking structure issues were related to the bus schedule as it could reduce subsidies that would have to be paid to the enterprise fund. Some hesitancy was express by Council and public about making major changes all at once. It was felt changes should be made, but after further analysis. After all input was hearing, Mayor Osterfoss directed staff to review and analyze the input, get a grip on the 167,000 free parking transactions, and respond with suggestions to structure the ideas. She advised that Teresa Albertson at Town of Avon was taking bus problem input, and that Jody Doster could be reached to discuss bus schedules needed. 4 Vail Town Council l•.v.Wi g Meeting Mint. 10r><93 A 0 L There being no further business, a motion to adjourn the meeting was made and passed unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 10.40 P.M. ATTEST: POV off' `�2 d &LIVAMA Town Clerk Minutes taken by Dorianne S. Date C:IMINSOCT5.93 Respectfully submitted, kMga,�etOsterfss, Mayor 5 Vail T.—Conrail Fleniag Meeting Minute 30)WS