No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 01/20/05 ,. SPECIAL PUBLIC HEARING January 20, 2005 Present: Am Menconi Tom Stone Peter Runyon Jack Ingstad Walter Mathews Teak Simonton Chairman Commissioner Commissioner County Administrator Deputy County AttorneY Clerk to the Board this being a scheduled Special Public Hearing, the following items were presented to the Board of County Commissioners for their consideration: 1. Vail Valley Foundation Presentation on Eaton Ranch Open Space Ceil Folz, Bob Knous, Vail Valley Foundation l\1s.Folz introduced Jen Wright and Bob Knaus from the Vail Valley Foundation. She thanked the CortJ.rtJ.issioners for the opportunity to present the request. She reiterated the position of the Foundation to preserve the open space in question. She informed the Board that if the County chooses not to participate, the Foundation will step back ahd allow the developers to proceed. Her preSehtation included a slide show in support OftherequesC8he spoke about Ron Wolfe's comparison between Central Park in New York and the Eaton- property. CentralPatk was originally a swamp and there were two factors involved in the Central Park project- vision and opportuhity. She asked if Eagle County has the vision about what this property could be and if this is the right opportunity available. She spoke about the increase in prices of property and land since she moved here. She does not believe that the Eaton Ranch will be less expensive in the future. There ate those who believe that this property is the right place for development.. Others believe that only some of the property should be developed. there are also others who believe that this could be a special place, and the purchase of it will be greatly. appreciated in the future. There are currently 9,000 residents in the general area of Eaton Ranch. It is a historic ranch located on the Eagle River that was also a stage coach stop and a cattle range. In 2006, B&B is required to return the property to its natural state. It is also bordered by another 105 acre parcel, the B&B parcel that is primarily wetlands and floodplain. She showed photos of the property at present. This is a public/private partnership, which will also be important in the future. This allows the County to own 100% of the property for 50% of the money. The Open Space Cortun.ittee might not be able to afford to purchase open space on its own in the future. There would be a conServation easement placed on the property with the Eagle Valley Land Trust. The future use is open to discussion and resolution, but the general current consensus is for passive open space. She has received a lot of feedback about possible USes and prohibited uses. They have worked with several organizations to make these usage lists. She presented a conceptual property plan with historic buildings, walking and biking paths, wetlands, etc. The players to this proposal include the Vail Valley Foundation, Eagle Valley Land Trust, Eagle County, and the citizens of Eagle County. She thanked the Open Space Committee for their comments and feedback. The reason the Vail Valley Foundation feels it is the right decision to purchase this property: opportunity, location, quality of life, legacy, and urgency. She highlighted several recent comments in the Vail Daily. She compared this property with the vision associated with other open space projects in the county; various national parks, the Chicago lakefront, Central Park, etc. She asked Mr. Wright to speak about the Hermes proposal. Mr. Wright stated that the Hermes proposal included a split of the property between the Vail Valley Foundation and the Hermes Development Company. The Vail Valley Foundation felt that the land should be maintained in totality and not split and allowed for development. Ms. Folz continued and spoke about the cost of maintaining open space. Residential development services cost more than the taxes collected on it; commercial development brings a surplus, but open space doesn't cost as much. She spoke about the wisdom of conserving this land in relation to the Master Plan. She also spoke about the fact that the Edwards area had received a lot of favor lately, but related that the entities that contribute 75% of the monies to the Open Space Fund favor this purchase. She talked about the cost to the County and how citizens would have $l2 million of property for an investment of $6 millio)1. She compared the purchase to Ford Park which cost $3 million for 36 acres, 30 years ago. She spoke about lost opportunity costs, and the fact that this would be a much longer-term issue, as land is expensive. She spoke about the current status: a non-refundable 1 112012005 $100,000 deposit was given in the fall; they have 1,500 signatures in favor of this project and County commitment; and the deadline for the $500,000 has been extended. She spoke about the status of all comm:itments, $2 million in total, and the importance of receiving the $6 million from the County. If the County chooses not to support this proposal the Vail Valley Foundation would step away. If the County chooses to support this project, the Foundation will have a lot of fund raising to initiate in a short amount oftime. 2. Recollunendation by the Open Space Committee Cliff Simonton, Community Development TITLE: LOCATION: Eagle River Preserve (The Eaton Ranch) North and west of downtown Edwards, the subject property includeS the eastern end of the B&B gravel pit. Bruce Eaton and Winifred Grimshaw-Edwards, LLC Cecilia Folz, President, Vail Valley Foundation OWNER: REPRESENTAtIVES: 1. PROPOSAL the Vail Valley Foundation (herein after "the Foundation';) has entered into a contract to purchase in fee simple 72 acreS of the EatdnRa.nch (herein after referred to as the "Eagle River Preserve") just west ofthe downtown center of the unincorporated community of Edwards. They propose that the property become public open space owned by Eagle County for the benefit of its residents and visitors. The property includes 2000 feet of Eagle River frontage and several small irrigated pastures, but is otherwise dominated by excavations of the CalhounlB&B gravel pit, which has operated for 40 some years on this tract and on the adjacent land to the west., The lease for gravel and sandexti'action on the prOperty expires in}uly of 2005 and B&B, as the gravel pit operator, will be requited to fully restore the land to its "approximate Original contours" and surface conditions. It is difficult to determine at this time whatthat will look like; giventhe fact that a majority amount of the original land mass has been excavated, processed and shipped off the site. It is assumed that the operator will accomplish this goal by simply spreading stock-piled topsoil over the existing surface contours of the mined area. The owners of the property, Bruce Eaton and Winifred Grimshaw-Edwards, have established a purchase price of $12 million dollars, and a closing date of September 5, 2005. The FOl.llldation is working to raise one half of this amQunt though local and regional grants and private funds. The remaining $6 million is being requested from the COl.lnty. hi keeping with the County's open space program, the site is intended to support passive recreation uses only. A conceptual site plan for the property has been developed, and indicates pastures, ponds and wetlands, fishing and river access, pastures for small scale ranching or grazing, walking paths, a parking lot and a rustic or historic structure that would include rest room facilities. The Foundation is requesting that a conservation easement be established in order to lirriit the property to these uses in perpetuity. At the OSAC meeting of November 29th, the Foundation also committed to raising additional monies, over and above the $12 million purchase price, to pay for improvements to the site, 2. LAND DESCRIPTION The property consists of 72 acres bounded to the east by commercial development in Edwards, to the north by the Eagle River, to the northwest and west by 95 acres owned by B&B, the operator of the gravel pit and to the south by several small lots of mixed zoning and the right-of-way of US Highway 6. The property, which has been contoured and benched by gravel extraction, slopes north from its highpoint near US Highway 6 to its low point on the Eagle River. Access is through the privately owned gravel pit to the west, or an access easement through commercial properties in Edwards to the east. There is also a historic agricultural access gate off of US Highway 6, which the site plan indicates as the eventual public access to the property. 2 1/2012005 ,.., The property has approximately 12 acres of undisturbed or reclaimed pasture which are flood irrigated during the summer to support a small amount of grazing and/or hay production. The Eaton Ranch owns 4.1 cubic feet per second of junior water rights, currently delivered through the Dodd Ditch from a headgate on Lake Creek. Seventy percent (70%) ofthis water is proposed to stay with the 72 acre parcel, and could be used for future irrigation. fhe Eagle River is the only water feature on the property. Approximately six acres of mixed riparian habitats, which include large cottonwoods and blue spruce mixed with smaller trees, riparian shrubs and forbs in varying densities, are fOllnd in a narrow band paralleling the boulders and rocks of the river channel. These riparian areas are undisturbed and in good condition, although they are of only moderate riparian "quality" given the presence of weeds and other introduced species. Several small areas of native juniper, sage and dry-land grasses also exist on the property. Rare or endangered vegetative species were not identified during a study by Gteystone Environmental Consultants, Inc. which was done in October, 2004, after the leaves had fallen. Habitats related to rare species were reported, however, and could support individual plants or plant groups. Additional study is needed in this regard. The property does not provide significant large game wildlife habitat. It is isolated from mapped winter or SumrtJ.er ranges and is not on any identifi~d migration route. No endangered species have been identified. Most wildlife species cortJ.rtJ.on to the valley have been occasionally sighted on the property, however, and the river corridor provides good small animal and bird habitat, including winter habitat for bald eagles. The river would likely serve as a localized Wildlife movement corridor through the area. The Biological and Ecological Assessment for the property conducted by Greystone Environmental Consultants, Inc. in November of 2004 recommended a number of measures that should be taken to protect and/or enhance wildlife values. 'The remainder oftheproperty, some 54 acres, has been leased for mining for many years, and has been' significantly disturbed as result of resource extraction. The mining lease, which expires next year, requires that the site bere~gtaded and top soiled "to approximate its original contour". No specific plan for this re-grading has been submitted, and again, it is not known what the land form will look like at the end of restoration. The lease also mandates the construction of a pond on the lower bench of the property to provide storm water runoff control. This work should be completed by B&B by July or August of 2005. As a result ofminirrg, approximately 12 acres ofthe restored property will contain slopes steeper than 30%. Other areas will be more level and would be suitable for the development of pastures and/or open meadows should the open space acquisition be approved. Approximately 54 acres of the site would be usable by County Standards. The river corridor and the existing pastures to the east will remain undisturbed. The property, which is underlain by river alluvium, is geologically stable, and no natural hazards other than the 100 year flood plain adjacent to the river have been identified. A Phase I Environmental Assessment was conducted in October of 2004, and no evidence of environmental liabilities or concerns requiring corrective action was found. There are no structures or above ground improvements associated with the property. There are, however, several sewer line easements which generally parallel the river, and a natural gas line easement parallels US Highway 6 along the property's southern border. 3. CHRONOLOGY The original 120 acre ranch Was purchased by the current owner in the late 1960's. Over time, various peripheral portions ofthe original ranch were sold and developed as commercial and residential properties, resulting in a 92 acre parcel. Gravel mining on lands south of the river started in the late 1960's, and related extraction and processing activities have continued on the subject property until the present. On July 6th, 2004, the Board of County Commissioners approved File No SMA-00021, a Minor Type A Subdivision, which subdivided.the 92 acre ranch into two parts; a 20 acre parcel, which contains the original homestead located north ofthe Eagle River, and the 72 acre parcel which is the subject of this proposal. 4. SITE / TRANSACTION INFORMATION: 3 1/2012005 T otalland area Current land Uses 72 acres Predominantly gravel and sand extraction with some grazing and hay production Surrounding Land Uses / Zoning: East: West: North: South: CortJ.rtJ.ercial / Commercial General Gravel Extraction and Processing (for some undetetrtlined time) / Resource Residential Agricultural/ResoUrce Limited Commercial, Residential, Highway ROW / Commercial General, Residential Suburban Low Density, PUD Junior appropriation #202 and #387 totaling 4.1 cubic feet per second for irrigation, 78% of which is to remain with the subject property. No information available Sewer line and gas line easements are present From the B&B gravel pit to the west, via established easement through commercial development to the east, and through a historic agricultural gate on US Highway 6. No above ground structures. Sewer lines and gas lines serving others are within established easement Water Rights Mineral Rights Other rights (easements, etc) Access: lhfrastructure: Type of acquisition: Proposed Ownership: Appraised value of ranch Owners asking price Owner contribution Price lacre Fee Simple Eagle County An appraisal is being conducted but is not available at this time $12,000,000 $0 $166,667 gross, 72 acres, $222,222 net developable land, 54 acres $6,000,000 Fund raising is underway, and potential funding sources have been identified. Private contributions total $500,000 to date. 50% September 5,2005 Requested funding a.mount Partners, Partner contributions % ofTotal(s), Leveraging Proposed closing date 5. OSAC RECOMMENDATION: At their scheduled meeting of November 29th, 2004, the Citizen's Open Space Advisory Committee (OSAC) considered the infotrtlation submitted by the owner, the staff report, a presentation by both staff and the proponent of the project, and the conformance ofthe proposal to applicable Eagle County Open Space criteria (as indicated in the report that follows) before deliberating the overall merits of this funding request. By a vote of six to five (6 to 5), OSAC recommended that the Eagle River Preserve Proposal be funded by the County in the amount of $6 million dollars with the following conditions 1) That no more that $3 million dollars be allocated to the project from the County's Open Space Fund. 2) Thatthe subject property should be appraised by a qualified appraiser, and that the appraisal should be formally reviewed and approved by the Eagle County Assessors office and other appropriate Eagle County staff 3) That OSAC be presented with a final and detailed land use plan for the Eagle River Preserve, showing any and all land uses and facilities, and that it be provided with an estimate of the future maintenance costs that would be required for those uses and facilities. 4) That the property be covered in its entirety by a permanent conservation easement, ensuring that it will be protected as open space in perpetuity and never sold or developed by Eagle County for other purposes 5) That the Vail Valley Foundation agrees to fund $2 million in additional costs for post-restoration improvements and achievement of the land use plan submitted for the project 6) That all County funding, from all sources, shall be contingent upon the Vail Valley Foundation raising, in full, (their portion of) the $12 million purchase price by the sale deadline. 4 1/2012005 DUring deliberation, the Committee made the following additional observations: . A detailed restoration plan for the gravel mine indicating what is intended to be done by the gravel pit operator would be helpful. . More specific inforrtJ.ation regarding the funding sources anticipated by the Foundation is needed . $12 million is a lot of money forjust one project. Funding this project would tie up the County's Open Space Program funds for the next (several) year(s). . Other towns in Eagle County may not be pleased that all this money is being spent in the EdWards area. . The Foundation should consider a plan that would develop some portion of the property to help off-set the ~ . purchase price ofthe land. . Setting aside this significantly disturbed property, which county master plans have identified as an area where development should occur, could result in future development being placed on undisturbed lands of significantly gre~ter conservation value. . Eagle County would own the land, which is proposed to have park-like improvements and uses. Long term maintenance would be the responsibility ofthe County. . Theproperty includes agricultural water rights. The restoration ofthe property could create irrigated pastures that could then be leased for grazing and other agricultural uses. . Can uses on adjacent properties be influenced or leveraged by this project? The river property owned by B&B to the west is an integral part of the scenic quality of the area. The 20 acres of the Eaton Ranch on the north side of the river, where the historic homestead exists, should be included in a conservation easement for the targeted 72 acres on the south side ofthe river. . No contribution (reduction in cost) is being offered by the property owner. The County should enforce a policy that requires some contribution by an owner who will receive open space tax dollars. . The potential exists for other (open space) projects of this magnitude in Eagle County. The County should investigate bonding as a possible funding solution. . A long range open space,plan for Eagle County is needed, and would help to:anticipate and prioritize projects that might compete with this proposal. A funding cycle with several submittal deadlines a year might also help in identifying other potential open space projects. An analysis of the project follows. Staffs recommendation to OSAC regarding the conformance of the Eagle River Preserve to established Open Space Criteria is provided, along with the Open Space Advisory Committee's deterrtJ.ination of the Same. 6. OPENSPACE CRITERIA DISCUSSION Pursua.nt to EagleCoullty Resolution 2004-021, Approving and Adopting Open Space Criteria to Prioritize the Selectioll of Eligible Lands for Open Space: 1. Open Space Criteria On November 5, 2002, the voters of Eagle County approved Referendum 1 H, which provided for an increase in taxes tofund an open space acquisition and maintenance program for the County. The ballot provided that open spacefunds could be used for preserving wildlife habitat, protecting working farms and ranches, conserving scenic landscapes and vistas, protecting wetlands and floodplains, providing public access points to rivers and streams and servicing future voter approved debt related to this purpose. Pursuant to this end, six criteria were developed to be used by the Citizen's Open Space Advisory Committee (OSAC) to evaluate properties that might be acquired or set aside as open space within the County. For each criterion, qualitative ratings of High, Medium, Low and Not Applicable can be assigned based on the property's known physical characteristics. '((or the Advisory Committee's consideration, Staffprovided a discussion regarding the attributes of the Eagle River 'reserve proposal, and a recommendation for a ranking of High, Medium or Low for each of the open space 5 1120/2005 evaluation criteria. The Committee deliberated conformance to each criterion, and then established their ranking through majority vote. I. Scenic Landscavesand Vistas Preserve and protect Eagle County's outstanding natural beauty and visual quality. The property has high visibility from the scenic overlook on 1-70, and from other primary travel routes and properties in the Edwards area. As such, it is part of a scenic landscape that is witnessed by thousands of residents and visitors every day. It is not large, but as an element ofthe undeveloped Eagle River valley bottom that extends west from Edwards to the Villas at Brett Ranch housing development, it contributes significantly to the quality of the views of the town and up the Lake Creek Valley to the New York Mountains. These views are often photographed, are referenced as significant in the County's Master Plans, and are integral to the County's pastoral identity. Most of the property is disturbed by mining, but it is scheduled to be re-graded and revegetated with a native seed mix sometime next summer. Eventually, the scars of mining could be reduced to a negligible level. Whether Qr not the mined area will be re-graded to mimic a "naturalized contour", or the degree to which the revegetation efforts will be successful in the short term in producing a healthy ground cover on the site,. is not known. Also, the development of the 95 acre B&B property to the west of the site as residential or commercial property could diminish the Eaton Ranch site's contribution to the scenic quality of the area. Industrial activities and the processing of gravel and sand materials at the present day B&B office location west of the Eaton Ranch is anticipated to continue for the foreseeable future. Relative to the surrounding developments, the property could be considered an "in-holding" whose protection as public open space would greatly add to the surrounding community. Staff suggested a ranking of HIGB for Scenic Landscapes and Vistas. OSACvoted 8to 3 to rank the property BIGB for Scenic Landscapes and Vistas. II. Re!!ionaIHeritasie. A!!riculture and Ranchin!! Retain Eagle County's history, culture and agricultural land uses. The land has been mined for many decades, has little to no specific or unique ranching history, and is therefore of minimal value in tetrtls.ofregional heritage. That portion of the parcel currently devoted to agriculture is relatively small, and is limited to the far eastern end of the property. There are no agricultural stn:lctures on the property, although in the future the property could be used as a repository for buildings of historical significance that might be moved from other areas, so long as the use of those buildings remained consistent with the intent of the County's open space program, Irrigation water is included in the sale, and restoration of the property could produce pastures that would be available for "hobby" grazing and perhaps even hay production. The water quantities are significant at 2.8 cfs; but are represented as being ')uniot" rights. In dry years water might not be available. The irrigation water delivery system is through the Dodd Ditch, which intersects Lake Creek at a head gate located over a mile to the south of the property. This ditch crosses numerous private holdings and supplies many other users. It has been maintained through the years by the present owner ofthis property, and a new owner of this land would obviously assume some ditch maintenance responsibilities. Given the location of the. subject site near the core of the Edwards Community and its intended use as public open space, agricultural uses of the scale contemplated by this criterion may not be viable. Staff suggested a ranking of LOW for Regional Heritage, Agriculture and Ranching. OSAC voted 10 to 1 to rank the property LOWfor Re!!ional Herita!!e. A!!riculture and Ranchin!! 6 1120/2005 III. Wildlife. Wildlife Habitat and Mi2ration Routes Set aside areas critical to the long term health and vitality of indigenous wildlife The prOperty is small by wildlife standards and is generally isolated from surrounding areas of productive wildlife habitat by high density development, busy roads and active mining operations. While it is not indicated as mportant to wildlife on County wildlife maps, it does include the river corridor, and the Biological and Ecological Assessment for the property conducted by Greystone Environmental Consultants, Inc. (November of 2004) noted the occasional presence of a variety of wildlife species. The river corridor and associated riparian areas are in good to pristine condition and provide considerable small animal and bird habitat, including winter habitat for bald eagles. The corridor may also serve as a local travel route for deer and elk. No endangered species have been identified. The reintroduction of meadows and pastures and the possible creation of ponds and wetlands to the site through post mining reclamation could result in an increased utilization by wildlife, although increased visitation by people and dogs will work against this goal. In their report, Greystone Environmental listed a number of measures that could be taken to protect wildlife on the property. These measures should be incorporated into any fmal management plan should the land become public open space. Staff suggested a ranking of MEDIUM / LOW for Wildlife. Wildlife Habitat and Migration Routes. OSAC voted 11 to oto rank the property MEDIUM / LOW for Wildlife. Wildlife Habitat and Mi2ration Routes. IV. Sensitive Lands & EnVironments Protect riparian areas, flood plains, and other sensitive, unique or endangered ecosystems or environments. No unique or endangered ecosystems or environments have been identified. The subject property does contain approximately 6 acres of Eagle River frontage and associated flood plain and riparian areas, which have remained . argely undisturbed through the years. To the degree that adjacent development has allowed a "functional river cosystem" to exist along the Eagle River, the undisturbed and isolated river corridor on this property would contribute sigrtificant1y to its quality. Development of the property as public open space, however, could diminish that attribute. Greystone Environmental determined that a potential for rare plants existed, but found no specific sites, and noted the presence of introduced grasses and weeds in the riparian areas which diminishes their overall quality. The river in this area likely supports an excellent fishery. The flood plain, which widens considerably below the property, is generally narrow through the subject site, which has been found to be free of any other environmental hazards. Upon restoration, and given the underlying alluvial soils, the land once mined may serve as a ground-water re- charge area, especially if pastures and meadows created are flood irrigated. Staff suggested a ranking of MEDIUM for Sensitive Lands and Environments. OSAC voted 11 to 0 to rank the property MEDIUM for Sensitive Lands and Environments V. Access to Streams. Rivers. Public Lands and Dispersed Recreation OPDortunities Provide access to public lands, and improve opportunities for high quality dispersed recreation Much of the Eagle River flows through properties that are privately owned, and public access to the river continues to be in relatively short supply in the valley. A conceptual site plan has been submitted which includes vehicular access to a parking lot on the property, and the connection of proposed pathways to existing or proposed paths on adjacent properties. As such, and as a primary benefit, this project would allow pedestrian access via developed pathways to approximately 2000 feet of the south bank of the Eagle River. 7 112012005 The site is not large, and it is not contiguous to adjacent open space areas or public lands. Given its location immediately adjacent to a conununity center, considerable potential exists for high visitation should it becorne public open space, and it will be important to design public spaces and pathways with consideration for the sensitive nature of the river, the riparian e:nvironment and the character of the land in general as a place of "dispersed recreation". Best management strategies should be utilized to help lessen negative impacts to plant and animal habitats and to the nature of the human experience that will be provided by the land and water features. Staff suggested a ranking of HIGH for Access to Streams. Rivers. Public Lands and Dispersed Recreation Opportunities. OSAC voted 7 to 3 (with one abstaining) to rank the property HIGH for Access to Streams. Rivers. Public Lands.and Dispersed Recreation Opportunities. VI. :Phvsical andV'isuatBllffers Promote cOlllmunity separation and distinction, and provide separation betWeen develop'ed areas and sensitive lands According to the County's Future Land USe Map (FLUM), this open space tract would be located in the middle of lanuidentified as "Conununity Center" in Edwards. When combined with the wide flood plain area owned by B&B west of the property, the preservation of the Eaton Ranch would provide a sig:nificant visual break between core area cortln'lercial development in downtown Edwards and developments in the area known as West Edwards, where the Villas at Brett Ranch, the affordable housing units at Lake Creek Village, and the residentia110ts along US Highway 6 east of Squaw Creek are located. These two areas are not separate communities, and "establishing separate cOlIlIllunity identification arid distinction" would not seem an appropriate goal in this case. Additionally, the future development of those portions of the B&B property located to the west of the Eaton Ranch that are not In the flood plain would diminish the overall impact of visual buffering that would,be provided by this project. Ofi.the positive side, creati11g alarge open space tract along the river and where the gravel pit currently operates would provide physical separation between proposed development areas and sensitive flood plain and riparian areas, and would also Contribute to the "feathering" of perceived development density as one moves west from: Edwards towards the constriction in the valley just west of Squaw Creek. Stafr suggested a ranking of MEDIUM for Physical and Visual Buffers. OSAC voted 9 to 2 to rank the property MEDIUM for Phvsical and Visual Buffers. Summary of OSAC Criterion Rankin2s t. Scenic Landscapes and Vistas II. Regional Heritage, Agriculture and Ranching III. Wildlife, Wildlife Habitat and Migration Routes IV. Sensitive Lands & Environments V. Access tbStreams, Rivers, Pub. Lands and Dispersed Rec. Opportunities VI. Physical and Visual Bnffets IDGH LOW MEDILOW MEDIUM IDGH MEDIUM 2. Re2ionalWei2htin2 When OSAC's open space criteria were developed, regional weighting considerations were incorporated to provide further disti:nction between competing projects. Lacking competition with other projects at this time, regional weighting considerations have been deemed irrelevant, and are not a part of this evaluation. 3. Additional ProiectConsiderations The following represents those items listed as "Additional Criteria and Considerations" in the Open Space Advisory Committee's Open Space Criteria. For the purpose of discussion, the two sections, "Factors Favoring 8 1/2012005 Land Protection" and "FactorS Weighing Against Land Protection" have been consolidated into single positive statements that can be evaluated for conformance. At their meeting of November 29, 2004, the Open Space Advisory Committee endorsed without modification the following analysis provided by Staff, with the exception of item E. Precedent, and item K, Maintenance, to which hey added comment (as n(Jted in bold under those headings). A. Economy. Discounts, other funding, partnerships, land donation, and/or endowment contribtttionfavorably reduce the County's portion of the purchase cost. The location of the Eaton Ranch and the final grades that will be created through the restoration ofthe gravel pit will result in property that is highly desirable for high density housing and/or commercial development. The owner's asking price of$l2 million works out to approximately $220,000 per acre of usable land (54 acres). A $l2mil1ion offer has already been made on the property by a local developer. The VailV alley Foundation proposes to raise half of the total purchase price, or $6 million, through furtdraisingand grants. Though fund raising efforts are in the early stages, possible contributors have been identified and include Great Outdoors Cor'orado, the Land and Water Conservancy Fund, the El Pomar Foundation, the Hemy Vogt Foundation, the Gates Foundation, the Conservation Fl.1t1d, the Trust for Public Lands, area metropolitan districts, area homeowners associations, area businesses and other affiliates and donors of the Foundation. The County is being asked to contribute half of the project cost, or $6 million, and would end up owning the entirety of the property in fee simple. Projected revenues from the County's open space tax remain unchanged al$2.9mil1ion per year. Approximately $840,000 will carry forward from the 2004 open space fundaccountto the furtdaccount for 2005.\ B. Master Plan. Land or development rights acquiSition is supported by the intent and purposes of applicable Eagle County Master Plan documents. The Edwards Area Community Master Plan was adopted by Eagle County's Planning Commissions in January of 2003, and identifies this property on a Future Land Use Map as one that "may provide the best location for implementing the vision of the area community plan". That vision includes the expansion of the Colorado Mountain College campus, and lists mixed use, commercial, office, and residential high-density projects as suitable for those portions of the site that are currently the gravel pit. A linear recreational park along the river is also indicated. Goal # 50fthe Area Plan speaks to Open Space, and includes preserving environmentally sensitive lands, providing connections through proposed developments to adjacent open space areas and enforcement of open space standards as primary objectives. This proposal is not supported by Edwards Area Community Plan, however, the importance of preserving Eagle County's open space, visual quality and rural character is noted often in all ofthe County's various master plan documents. C. Ut2eIicy. Development of the property, to a degree that open space values would be significantly compromised, is imminent. The Vail Valley F oundationis contractually obligated to a closing date of September 5, 2005. The owner has offered no flexibility on this date, and a similar purchase offer has been made for the property by a local developer. Should this open space proposal fail, development of the property is imminent. Given the asking price, a future development plan would likely maximize potential for financial return through the full utilization of all buildable space on the property. It is also possible, however, that a future development plan would include significant areas of open space within the development as a marketing strategy. College campuses traditionally include open areas, and planned unit developments (POO's) in Eagle County are encouraged to 9 1120/2005 set aside a minimum of 25% of "usable" land as open space. Development would be discouraged on any steep slopes, and county subdivision regulations require preservation of mapped riparian areas and flood plains. Any re'-zoning or development proposals would require review by the Eagle County Planning Commission, and approval by the Board of County Commissioners through the public hearing process. D. Uniqueness. The subject property is the only remaining, or one of a very few remaining, opportunities to protect open space of its kind This is a property on the valley floor with frontage on the Eagle River that is immediately adjacent to an established community center. With the exception of the 95 acre B&B property just to the west, there are no tracts of land of similar characteristic east of the Squaw Creek drainage in unincorporated Eagle County that would provide a similar opportunity. E. Precedent. The project sets positive precedent for open space preservation values and objectives, and may motivate other landowners to consider preservation alternatives. The involvement of the Vail Valley Foundation, and the consortium of local partners that may result throu.gh their fund raising efforts, will likely set an excellent example for future projects in Eagle County. The creation of a relatively large open space tract in immediate proximity to a community center, on lands ta.rgeted by community master plans for future high density development, would also set a precedent for the need for flexibility in master planning, and the need to be ready and responsive to sudden opportunities for open space acquisition. The Advisory CoIilfi1ittee stressed that they would not support a precedent whereby this or any open space project Would be used as a vehicle to change an approved County Master Plan, and generally noted the importance of adhering to Master Plans, especially in the area of lan:d planning. F.Education. Prese'rvation would provide unique educational opportunities The Foundation has indicated that the land, if preserved, could provide many opportunities for education oriented activities. As the future owner and trustee of the land, the Eagle County Board ofCoUIlty Commissioners could establish guidelines related to the use of the property in this regard. G. Support. There is wide-spread community support for the project. The project is in its iIifancy in terms of development, and it would appear that the public is either 100% supportive, oris holding its breath to see how things develop. No negative letters or comments have been received, and a number ofletters in support of the project have been submitted to local papers. The Foundation has also indicated positive local response to early requests for financial support. II. Bi2_Picttt're. The project has potentially significant benefit on a regional or state-wide basis. The benefits of this project could impact a large segment of Eagle County's residents and guests on a daily basis. Relative to the purpose of this heading, however, the benefits would be generally local, and not regional, in nature. I. Encumbrance. The property is not negatively encumbered by mineral rights, rights of way or easements. Several sewer easements parallel the river on the southern edge of riparian areas, and a third travels north of the developed lots on the property's southeast comer. A natural gas line easement parallels US Highway 60n the property's southern border. No specific information on mineral rights ownership has been submitted. Most or all ofthe sand and gravel resources on the property have been removed. There are no known oil or gas fields in the area, and according 10 1/20/2005 to a study conducted by Greystone Environmental Consultants, the likelihood of oil, gas or coal resources on the property is low. The property would not appear to be encumbered in a manner that would threaten its open space values. r. Environmental Hazards The property is not significantly burdened by environmental hazards (chemicals) or other waste or refuse. The property has been mined for sand and gravel for many years. Activities where limited to extraction only, however, and all material removed was transported west to the B&B site for processing. A Phase I EnvirOhmental Assessment was conducted in October of 2004, and found no envitomnental hazards or liabilities associated with the property. K. Maintenance. The long term cost to the County of maintaining and/or monitoring the land is expected to be reasonably low. Ownership by the County will require maintenance by the County, or its assigns. No estimates are available for potential maintenance costs, which would ultimately depend on number and types of improvements on the property and the intensity of use by the public. The AdvisoryComoottee noted that maintenance costs may not be reasonably low, especially given the proposed improvements and the posSibility that this site would see extensive public use. Cliff Simonton of Community Development reviewed the recottrmendationofthe OSAC, and showed several pictlltes of the property in question. He highlighted the different parcels in question, including the B&B gravel pit, the B&B processing yard, and Marty Jones' nursery operation. He showed the view from the Fiesta's Restaurant looking towards the interstate, along with views from the interstate. The committee's recommendation is to fund the project at $6 million dollars and included some conditions. He showed the summary slide which listed the conditions and the OSAC's criteria. The first condition is that no more than $3 rnillioncomefrom the Open Space Fund; second is that an appraisal be required; third is that a detailed post- restoration land use plan be presented to the advisory committee; fourth is that a permanent conservation easement be placed on the property; fifth is that the Vail Valley Foundation agrees to fund an additional $2 million for post-restora.tion improvements on the property; and sixth is that any County funding be contingent upon the Vail Valley FoUhdation raising, in full, their portion of the $12 million purchase price. He went over the ctiteria used by the OSAC when considering this file. These criteria and OSAC's ratings can be found in the Staff Report within these minutes. Other factors studied included: the economy, master plan conformance, urgency, uniqueness, precedent setting, educational opportunities and local support, big picture, regional significance, environmental hazards, property encumbrance, and maintenance and monitoring. The OSAC committee did not support any precedent whereby this project would change the master plan. Chairman Menconi opened public comment and asked that it be kept to one minute per person. Ja.y Precourt spoke to the Boatd as President of the Eagle Valley Land Trust. He feels that the Eagle River Corridor preservation is a desperate situation. There are less than 10 years to make a difference in the Valley. These highly prized parcels will only become more expensive in the futllte. If these 72 acres ate not purchased, they will likely never again become available. He spoke of the many benefits. Passing on this today is probably a pass for this century. He urged approval of the proposal. Darrell White stated that he opposed the project. Tony O'Rourke, Executive Director of the Beaver Creek Resort Company spoke on behalf of the 4,000 property owners of Beaver Creek. They strongly endorse the County funding this project of this very valuable open space. The first reason is the necessity to preserve the County's true heritage and natlltal environment. The number one reason his guests visit the area is the natural environment. This is a rare opportunity to preserve a property in the core ofthe Valley, and the County should do everything possible to grow smartly. The County has a resort economy and this should be remembered. This is the first time that the resort company has been before the County. One issue is that the County might be open to legal challenges. Mr. O'Roarke stated that they had researched this situation and there is no prohibition to using capital project or general fund monies for this type of purchase. This property could also be lease purchased and this would not be impacted by the Tabor 11 1/20/2005 amendment. He is aware that the County has a $38.6 million operating reserve, which is 49%. He requested that the money be put to work for this purchase. He looked at recent purchases. Over the last several years $6.9 million had been spent in Berry Creek, the E1 Jebel Community Center cost $5.7 million, the courthouse remodel cost $3.1 million, the Commissioners plan to spend $4.8 million on the fairgrounds, and $l.l million for a daycare facility. The purchase of this open space will not be too costly for the County. Patrick Welch spoke to the Board. He was born in the Valley and read a letter from his father Don Welch, a fortner Commissioner. This letter was strongly in support ofthis purchase. Julia Foster, resident of Eagle-Vail informed the Board that she moved to Eagle County from New York City to get away from heavy development and moved here for the open space. She stated that Central Park was the small haven of hope. She stated that the open space in the future would be a drive to Toponas, not Wolcott. She implored the COmlllissioners to approve the request. \ Kim Lahgmaid spoke in favor of the project as a lifelong resident of the Valley. She spoke about the extinction of experience, and creating natural experiences for children who had never had this opportunity. She spoke about a collective community story. This is the kind of collaborative project for the whole cortJ.rtJ.unity and the County should be spending money on it. Donna Meyers, resident of Eagle, has lived in the Valley for 40 years. She is curious about how many were for and against the project. Mr. Simonton stated that there had been 214 emails and several petitions and only 2 of these were opposed. Ms. Meyers stated that this tells the COmlllissioners something. The taxpayers are here to request this apprO'val and the Commissioners should listen to the overwhelming positive feedback. Steve Jones of Beaver Creek Stables stated that 27 years ago when he ftrst leased this property stated that he would like to work there again. He believes it is a wonderful opportunity to purchase something positive. Byron Brown, a 40 year resident, stated that this is an opportunity, and the Commissioners should support the project. Mac McDevitt, Avon Town Council member, stated that he is in favor of the project but he questions the COtlrtty's ifrvolvement. The OSAC vote was very close and at least 2 of the yes votes had very serious reservations. He is concerned about this. He is more concerned with the balance of the funds needed in addition to the open space funds available. He stated that the people of Edwards would be the primary beneficiaries. He wondered why these folks had not come forward with a signiftcant contribution. He suggested asking the Edwards residents to contribute. Ellen Eaton spoke in favor of the project. She and her husband don't want the property to be sold. But, understanding that it needs to be sold, this purchase is the best option. She believes the future residents will salute the COmlllissioners for their vision. Cartnen Albert questioned the wisdom of this project. She can't buy property in Edwards and does not want to mOve. She wondered why the County would not want 115 acres instead of 75. She would rather see 115 acres along the river on both sides. She was not in favor of the proposal. Dick Gustafson spoke against this proposal. He is in favor of open space in Eagle County, and is in favor of the acquisition of this space. He is concerned about the future. He is also concerned about the fact that there is an Open Space Fund and an Emergency Fund. He does not believe the purchase of this property is an emergency. He spoke about fund balances and the budget process. This process has been set and the standard is that the former Com:rnissioners set the budget. He is in favor, but he is concerned about where the money will come from. Maggie Emlller, spoke to the Board. She is in favor of the Board approving this proposal. She believes that turning the property into open space will give families opportunities to enjoy open space outside. Teller Emmer told the Board he preferred open space to parking, apartments or shopping. He asked the Board to keep the area open for the future. David Huffman, resident in Homestead spoke about the fact that he had never met anyone who was against open space. The question for the Board is how to acquire open space. He felt that if75 acres is good, then 115 acres is better. He questioned the wisdom of spending $6 million to purchase this land when the developer was going to give the County ll5 acres. If this choice were taken then this money would be available for other open space. Paying half price for less property is better doesn't make sense. Colleen McCarthy, Edwards business owner, spoke in support of this proposal. She stated that there is a good balance of residential and commercial in Edwards currently. She asked that the Commissioners not let the opportunity pass by. 12 1/20/2005 Gail Mulloy stated that she has lived in East Vail since 1970. She was driving down and her nieces and nephews asked why any new development must happen. She knows that development is going to happen and, because of the pending development, this purchase is even more urgent. Dave Lach stated that the Edwards Metro District had a Board meeting where they discussed this property. He stated that he would be able to loan the County $2 million dollars at 3% to facilitate this purchase. Ron Wolfe, Mayor of Avon spoke on behalf of the Town Council. The council stated that the majority of them were in favor of the project. They feel that future generations will recognize this valuable purchase. They believe that no more than $3 million should be used from the Open Space Fund. They also feel that the Vail Valley Foundation requirement fot a conservation easement is also supported. They also wondered about using open space funds to support a borrowing. The council believes that Edwards should be expected to donate funds for the purchase and maintenance ofthe property, as it will benefit greatly by it. Kristin Kenney Williams, read a letter written by Mr. Doll. He is in favor of honoring the Eagle River. He spoke about the appraised value and the fact that this should reflect open market sales desire. Jean Nauman, resident since 1967, stated that she is representing the residents of the Bond area of the County. She urged the Commissioners to purchase the land. Diana Cecala, coordinator of Eagle County Citizens for Open Space spoke. She urged approval of funding for this very important project. She spoke about the difficulty in raising funds for open space. The public dollars ate very much needed, as 100% of this land would be open to the public. This represents a unique opportunity for green space. She corrected several misconceptions. Even though this project is expensive, the County should consider it. She spoke about leveraging vehicles to fund this, such as bonds. She spoke about several editorials which indicated that without this purchase the wetlands would still be preserved. She mentioned the Two Rivers parcel in Dotsero which was built on wetlands. Susie Apple spoke to the Board. She spoke about her passion for the Valley and County. The open space is not a question. The question is how to work within the process. She wondered if the taxpayers or the developers should pay for this.. Historically, the developers have paid for this type of preservation. She spoke aboutfiduciaty responsibility to preserve this property. She isn't interested in using reserves to fund this type of purchase. She is not in favor ofthisprop6sal. Joe Schmitt stated that he is in favor of this proposal. He read a speech from Chief Seattle, written 100 years ago. This speech was in favor of preserving this open space. Kraige Kinney, Trustee on the Eagle Town Board, supported the OSAC recommendations. The Eagle Town Board will undoubtedly come before the Board in the future for some like funds to help with open space purchases. He is concerned that the Edwards Metro has offered to loan the County the money instead of having the Edwards residents pay a portion of the cost. He believes in using the open space funding available. Jon Stavney, Mayor of Eagle spoke. He was speaking as a citizen, not the Mayor of the Town of Eagle. He asked that the Board not limit the scope of public amenities solely to open space. In his experience as a public official, he is aware that the preservation of open space can be attained through the PUD process. He also wondered where the residents of Edwards are on this issue, and how best they could be organized to help with the funding. He asked that the funding be capped to this and last year's open space funding. Dan Gibbs, working with Congressman Udall's office, spoke. He stated that Mr. Udall is in favor of this proposal and offered his help. New New Wallace spoke. She is a member of the Homestead Homeowner's Association and spoke about the Vail Daily's comments. She spoke about the new Commissioners' platforms ofpresetving open space and their election reflected the citizens' will. She spoke about Mr. Hermes plans for 450,000 square feet of cOll1ll1ercial Space, four lanes of traffic, and three roundabouts. She asked that the Commissioners listen to long- time residents and their desire that this proposal be supported. Mary Ellen Cope spoke to the Board. She, at one time, served on the Berry Creek Metro District. In the mid-1990's, the parcel was available for $1 million. She is in favor of this purchase at this time. Rod Slifer spoke. He spoke as a resident of Eagle County, not as the Mayor of the Town of Vail. He is in support of this use of County funds. In addition to Ford Park, the Real Estate Transfer Tax allowed the Town of Vail to purchase 1,300+ acres. The decisions to purchase these pieces of land were contentious but right. He questioned the wisdom of the need for an appraisal. He asked that this purchase be the Commissioners' legacy. Bobby Warner spoke and stated that he agreed with Tony O'Roarke. He believes this is a good purchase. Many who have spoken in favor have the opportunity to make a commission on the land. He believes this is an opportunity that needs to be taken. He believes there are great houses available at Berry Creek, so the development of this parcel is not necessary. 13 1/20/2005 George Gregory, spoke to the Board. He echoed all sentiments that favor the project. He urged the Commissioners' support and thanked the Vail Valley Foundation for their efforts. Becky Bultemeier spoke. She wondered about the problem of open space 100 years from today. She is very much in support of the proposal. She is a member of the Edwards Metro Board. She stated that their prior offer isthe opening ofa dialog, not the end of the offer. ,she urged the Board to think long-term and not to lose this chance. Stan Cope, Edwards resident, spoke. He added that this parcel is a full-blown watershed niche. The area is naturally framed by beautiful surroundings. He feels that the entir.e parcel needs to be maintained together, not cut in half. Shane Madsen, an attorney from Denver, represents a homeowner who is concerned about rushing the proposal through. They urge caution, study, and taking one step at a time. Jennifer Colson stated that she is concerned and confused as to why this money should be spent when someone is offering more land. She urged consideration of this situation. Brian Sipes spoke and stated that the Board had heard broad support that transcends personal gain. He supports the project because it is good for all Eagle County citizens. He asked about the 115 versus the 72 acreS. Mr. Simonton stated that the property that is owned by B&B is 105 acres, but was not sure ofthe overall size of the pa.rcel. Mr. Sipes stated that the investment of $6 million would double the land in trUe open space, as the 115 acre parcel can not be developed anyway. Chairma.n Menconi closed public comment. He thanked all who attended and stated that, in April, the meetings would be held in the evenings. Ms. Folz stated that the confusion related to the developer's offer was incorrect. She showed the 72 acre parcel and explained the reason why this was not a good deal. She mentioned that the County was probably going to be spending $6 million dollars, even if the developer's proposal was accepted, as the donors to the Foundation would probably Withdraw their support. She showed the parcel in question and the adjacent parcel. Chairman Menconi asked the Finance Director, Jack Ingstad, asked about the Reserve Fund balance. Mr. Ingstad stated that the County is in the process of closing out the 2004 books. The current General Fund reserve is $9.77 million, which is $2.36 million in excess of the 25% General Fund reserve balance. Cotritnissioher Runyon thanked the public for attending the meeting. He asked Mr. Wright to put on his developer hatfora moment. He wondered how he might develop the land ifhe had the opportunity. Mr. Wright stated that the entire 72 acres is developable, except the stream corridor, and this is prime develOpment property. He stated that the density would be significant, and at the low end of the spectrum, it would be single family lots at 3 units per acre and maybe 150 lots in total. The next level would be 400 multi- family urtits, but it wouldn't work well from a fmancial standpoint. The higher density, such as you would see in Riverwalk, would be a fairly dense plan to make the economics work. He has been reflecting on the Red Mountain Ranch property that the Town of Eagle is dealing with currently. It would have about 450,000 square feet of cortJ.mercial development With 30'0 multi-family units, and this would mean 15,0'0'0 ~ 16,00'0' cars per day. It seems to him that 300,000-400,00'0 square feet of commercial land, along with the residential units, in Edwards would mean a similar traffic impact. CortJ.missioner Runyon stated that he had suggested that this is a core area, and not a traditional western development, which develops around a crossroads and builds out. Because of the gravel pit, the core of Edwards has been uniquely saved. He believes that the County is using the buzzword open space, but is really talking about a park. He is concerned about the financing of the property. He believes that the money in the Open Space Fund should go towards it. The additional money is available in the General Fund and he can't think of a better way to spend it. He wants a small percentage of the property to be dedicated to a public facility. He referred to Ford Park as cortJ.munity space, not open space. He asked the Vail Valley Foundation to consider a small section set aside in the southeast comer to accommodate some easements, such as the land only being used by a vote of the people of Eagle County, couldn't be used for five years, for the public good only, but could never be sold, perhaps a performing arts center or some other public good. He would like this to be a unanimous vote by the Commissioners and believes that this will allow it to happen. He is against using the entire Open Space Fund, because he wants to buy more land. He spoke about the need to buy the land fast because it is disappearing. He asked about a possible compromise. Ms. Folz stated that, when the project was begun there was no interest in development. She understands that if, to make this happen, there needs to be a small concession, there is a 3.5 acre parcel that might support 14 112012005 sOme development. This is about the people, and the collfort level of having it put to a vote of the people would help. Co11ntiissioner Runyon was also concerned about raising the extra money. He wants to be sure that the Vail Valley Foundation is committed to making the improvements. He spoke about Edwards getting its undue Share. He wants to make certain that the maintenance costs are considered by the Edwards Metro District. Chairtnan Menconi stated that he had no questions and thanked the Vail Valley Foundation for their excellent presentation. He is in favor ofthe project and is willing to accept this request. Commissioner Runyon moved that the Board of County Commissioners contribute $6 million which shall be paid with the remainder of the 2004 Open Space Fund and all of the 2005 Open Space Funds and the balance from County General Fund Dollars toward the purchase of the Eagle River Preserve (Eaton Ranch Property) with the understanding that the County will acquire title to the property in fee via warranty deed free of any liens and subject to the following conditions: 1. That prior to the release of any funds, the Vail Valley Foundation must demonstrate to the Board's satisfaction that the Vail Valley Foundation has raised its share ($6 million) of the $12 million before the closing date for the purchase of the Eagle River Preserve; 2. Prior to the release of any funds by Eagle County, County shall have an opportunity to review and cortJ.rtJ.ent and approve any assignments, easements, closing documents and other materials that may related to the contribution of funds by Eagle County or necessary for the acquisition of the property by Eagle County; 3. Funding by Eagle County is subject to review and approval of a satisfactory appraisal by County Staff and the Board of County CortJ.rtJ.issioners. 4, A conservation easement preserving the properly as open space shall be placed on the entire 72 acre parcel; such easement shall be subject to review and approval by the Board of County CoI11ri1issioners, along with further dialog about exploring other uSes of the properly; 5. That allmatetial representations made by the requesting party in Submittal materials and public meetings shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval unless otherwise amended by other conditions; Chairtnan Menconi seconded the motion. Commissioner Stone asked CortJ.rtJ.issioner Runyon about the use of some of the land for public purposes. CortJ.rtJ.issioner Runyon stated that he had included this wording in his motion. Commissioner Stone asked for an opportunity to have a discussion. Commissioner Runyon stated that he did intend to include this in his motion. He stated he wished to have an ongoing discussion about setting aside space for the public good. Conl1i1issioner Stone asked whether this was a condition of the motion. COn1Il1issioner Runyon asked Commissioner Stone how this could be a unanimous decision. Commissioner Stone stated he was not sure. He clarified his feelings. He feels that the County has a funding stream for Open Space just as they do for ECO Transit. He believes it would be inappropriate for the County to subsidize either of these funds. He is perplexed about the OSAC committee advice to not spend all of the Open Space Fund dollars for this purchase. He feels the timing of this proposal is difficult. During the.. County budget process, General Fund dollars were considered related to other requests. He asked Mr. Ingstad what the requests were for capital dollars or additional employees. Mr. Ingstad responded that the General Fund increase was limited to 2.1 % increase. Commissioner Stone stated that the reason he brings this up is because when he came to work at the County he inherited a fi~cally conservative and responsible County. He considers this his charge to keep. They asked the employees to voluntarily change their health care benefits. They agreed to increase their own health care costs. He feels it is unfair to purchase and use the money for this purpose on the back of the County's employees. He is in favor of preserving the land in a responsible way. He doesn't want an undue burden on the County employees. He stated that if it had been known several months ago that this money was available, some ofthe County directors and elected officials may have gotten more staff. He believes that the fund should be used to get open space. He liked going along with Commissioner Runyon's suggestion of using open space monies and to get a loan. He did not believe that the debt offered by the Edwards Metro District was feasible based on Tabor limitations. He suggested that the Eatons grant an extension to 2006 so that the Open Space Fund could be used extensively. He feels that this property should be preserved as a passive park. He has struggled to understand 15 1120/2005 why the County funds should be used now and the Open Space Fund later. He prefers no development on the property. He would love to be in the position of struggling to come up with the money to purchase the B&B property, also. Commissioner Runyon responded that a very large portion of the reason for his request for other uses was an effort to appeal to Commissioner Stone's fiscal responsibility. Based on the fact that Commissioner Stone is not interested in public use, he would amend his motion to remove this condition. He doesn't believe next year's funds from the Open Space Fund could be used. He has tried to gain an extension of the closing date and failed. He agrees that the time constraint is very annoying because of the fact that there is no time available for negotiation. Commissioner Stone asked Mr. Ingstad about a mechanism where the Open Space Fund could pay back the General Fund. Mr. Matthews suggested Executive Session to discuss this possibility. Commissioner Stone suggested this as an alternative. Commissioner Runyon stated that, nevertheless, the cupboard would be bare in the future for any additional open space acquisitions. He asked to withdraw his last motion. He stated that he intended to withdraw his stipulationfor requiring a dialog between the Vail Valley Foundation. Chairman Menconi stated that he would like to call for the question. He called for the vote, with Commissioner Runyon's stipulation for dialog with the Foundation still part of the tnotion. Cha.-irman Menconi and CortJ.rtJ.issioher Runyon voted in favor of the motion and Commissioner Stone voted against. }''''''':.f There being no further business to be'b~ht before the Board~eeting was adjourned until February 1,2005. " ~ Attest:~~S:~~/ :~"{f~C:' . (!~ i J l6 1120/2005