No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 12/04/12 PUBLIC HEARING December 4, 2012 Present: Peter Runyon Chairman Jon Stavney Commissioner Sara Fisher Commissioner Keith Montag County Manager Bryan Treu County Attorney Beth Ayres-Oliver Assistant County Attorney Kathy Scriver Deputy Clerk to the Board This being a scheduled Public Hearing,the following items were presented to the Board of County Commissioners for their consideration: Consent Agenda Chairman Runyon stated the first item before the Board was the Consent Agenda as follows: A. Approval of Bill Paying for the Week of December 3,2012 (subject to review by the Finance Director) Finance Department Representative B. Approval of Payroll for December 13, 2012 (subject to review by the Finance Director) Finance Department Representative C. Resolution 2012-119 Authorizing any of the Eagle County Commissioners to Execute all Documents Necessary for the Acquisition and Preservation of the Saltonstall Property Toby Sprunk, Open Space D. Agreement between Eagle County and Community Health Services for the Provision of Prenatal Care Services Jennie Wahrer,Health&Human Services E. Encroachment Agreement between Eagle County and Terrace Ridge at Homestead Association, Inc. for Boulder Placement in the Edwards Village Boulevard Right of Way Mike.Gruber,Engineering F. Resolution Concerning Hearings on Taxpayer Generated Petitions for Abatement and Refund of Taxes before the Eagle County Board of Commissioners Assessor's Office Representative G. Resolution 2012-120 Approval of an Extension to Special Use Permit ZS-00152/Fosters Accessory Dwelling Unit(Eagle County File No.PR-4001) Scot Hunn,Planning Chairman Runyon asked the Attorney's Office if there were any changes to the Consent Agenda. Bryan Treu, County Attorney advised the board to consider item F separately. Commissioner Stavney moved to approve the Consent Agenda,Items A-G, excluding Item F. Commissioner Fisher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Resolution 2012-121 Concerning Hearings on Taxpayer Generated Petitions for Abatement and Refund of Taxes before the Eagle County Board of Commissioners 1 12/04/2012 Ida Hancock, County Appraiser explained that the premise for denial was standing due to lack of ownership by the requester during 2010,which was the year being considered for abatement. Kevin Cassidy,Appraiser Manager stated that the ownership at the time was not by the petitioner. Chairman Runyon opened and closed public comment, as there was none. Commissioner Stavney moved to approve based on staff's input,the resolution concerning hearings on taxpayer generated petitions for abatement and refund of taxes before the Eagle County Board of Commissioners. Commissioner Fisher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Citizen Input Chairman Runyon opened and closed citizen Input, as there was none. Planning Files PR-4060 Bair Subdivision Extension Scot Hunn,Planning Department Greg Schroeder,Engineering Department Doug Dotson,Representative ACTION: The purpose of this Plan Review is to request a second extension on an existing PUD Sketch Plan (Eagle County File No.PDS-00054). The Sketch Plan for PUD was approved on November 18, 2008. On November 16,2010 an approval for a 2-year extension was granted by the Board of County Commissioners;the current extension expired on November 18,2012. Due to economic conditions the Applicant is requesting an additional 2-year extension to secure financing and to submit the PUD Preliminary Plan application. LOCATION: 675 Frying Pan Road,Basalt area PROJECT NAME: Bair Family Subdivision(Sketch Plan for Planned Unit Development) LOCATION: 675 Frying Pan Road,Basalt Area OWNER: Virginia and Lowell Bair APPLICANT: Owner REPRESENTATIVE: Doug Dotson STAFF PLANNER: Scot Hunn 1. SUMMARY OF REQUEST The purpose of this application is to request a second,two-year extension to the previously approved Sketch Plan for Planned Unit Development(PUD)to allow for the subdivision of this 10.37 acre parcel into six(6) Single- Family residential lots ranging in size from.365 acres to .587 acres(along with a 7.88 acre common open space parcel).The Sketch Plan was approved in November,2008 (resolution attached)and the Applicant applied for and was granted a two (2)year extension for the Sketch Plan in November, 2010 (resolution attached). II. BACKGROUND Background and Chronology The Applicant received approval with conditions in November, 2008 for the Sketch Plan to re-zone the historic "Bair Property" from "Agricultural Residential" (AR) to Planned Unit Development (PUD) and to subdivide the property into six (6) residential lots, inclusive of open space. The property is located on the eastern-most edge of 2 12/04/2012 the Town of Basalt, and,historically,has been accessed via Frying Pan Road. There is one(1) existing residence on the property.Therefore,the Sketch Plan contemplated the creation of five(5) additional lots. The stated intent for the project is: 1. To create housing opportunities for family members; 2. To carry out family estate planning; 3. To correct several life-safety and infrastructure (access and utility) issues existing on the subject property and within the surrounding neighborhood, and; 4. To provide a small lot, compact subdivision that will serve the needs of the family and which may be marketable to others in the community. And, as stated in the application for extension, "The Bair's project includes only five new single family residential lots. As proposed under the Sketch Plan, this project: a) provides only lots that are substantially smaller than ordinarily allowed under the County Code, and; b) restricts the size of a dwelling unit on those lots to substantially less square footage than ordinarily allowed by the Code." In November 2010, prior to expiration of the Sketch Plan, the Applicant applied for and was granted a two-year extension based on a demonstration that failure to move forward with the development of the Preliminary Plan for PUD was due to economic conditions beyond the Applicant's control, and 1)that the project was not speculative in nature; 2) that the project still complied with the Eagle County Land Use Regulations and Comprehensive Plan, and; 3) there was a reasonable likelihood that the project would move forward. That extension was granted until November 18, 2012. A resolution approving the extension request is attached for reference. Since the time of original approval, local economic conditions have not changed significantly enough to warrant proceeding with the project. However, the Applicant has worked in good faith to address and/or satisfy certain substantive conditions of approval. Notably, the Applicant has conducted a detailed geotechnical study of the property to ensure that the subdivision, as proposed, can be developed safely. Similar to other recent requests for extensions of previously approved development permits or Sketch Plan proposals, the Applicant has continued to work towards meeting their obligations and requirements of the original approval but has not been able to move forward with the project primarily due to economic conditions. Essentially, the Owners are caught between wanting and needing to move forward with the project in order to address long- standing access and utility issues (as well as more recent estate planning objectives) and waiting for local market conditions to warrant financing of the project via personal savings. In this instance, the Applicants are requesting a two-year extension; however, they also believe they will be able to move forward with the development of the Preliminary Plan within the next twelve(12)month period. And, as with other recent requests, staff believes that there is a reasonable likelihood that the Preliminary Plan can be developed and submitted for review within the allotted two year time period. Further, staff believes that letting the Sketch Plan expire will achieve no strategic or planning related goals, and that the project, as originally approved and conditioned, still meets the standards of the ECLURs and applicable Comprehensive plan documents. The Effect of the Special Use Permit and Extension Sketch Plans are valid for two (2) years from the time of approval. Specifically, an Applicant must act submit(not receive approval for) a Preliminary Plan for PUD within the two-year period in order to avoid expiration of the Sketch Plan. In this case, the Sketch Plan was originally granted November 18, 2008. An extension was granted in November 2010 which extended the Sketch Plan approval until November 18, 2012. Because the Applicant submitted a written request for a second, two-year extension on or about October 24, 2012 (prior to the expiration 3 12/04/2012 date of the current extension) in accordance with the ECLURs, the Sketch Plan is deemed "extended" until such time the Board of County Commissioners acts to either extend, or expire the Sketch Plan. There is no limit stated within the ECLURs as to the number of extensions that may be granted for a Special Use Permit, and all original conditions of approval (as listed on the attached resolutions) will remain in full effect upon any approval of an extension. III. FINDINGS Pursuant to Section 5-240.F.2.e (5)—Extension of Sketch Plan Approval, only the Board of County Commissioners may grant an extension,of up to two years,based on a demonstration by the Applicant that: (a) Failure to proceed with the development was beyond the Applicant's control; (b) The development complies with the Land Use Regulations and the Comprehensive Plan; and (c) There is a reasonable likelihood the next step in the development application will be submitted in the next two years. In this case, staff believes the Applicant has provided evidence to support each of the necessary findings. IV. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OPTIONS: 1. APPROVE PR-4060 with or without conditions if it is determined that the petition DOES meet the standards outlined in Section 5-240.F.2.e (5) 2. DENY PR-4060 if it is determined that the petition DOES NOT meet the standards outlined in Section 5-240.F.2.e (5) 3. TABLE the PR-4060 if additional information is required to fully evaluate the petition. Give specific direction to the petitioner and staff. DISCUSSION: Mr. Hunn presented the request. Commissioner Fisher asked if there was a limit to the number of extensions one might request. Mr.Hunn stated that there was not. Michael Bair spoke on behalf of his parents stating that their decision was purely due to economics. Since the last extension,they had done all the work for the preliminary. Chairman Runyon wondered about the advantage with going with the PUD option versus subdividing the property into separate lots. Mr. Hunn stated that the advantage was more flexibility. Mr. Bair explained that his family restricted the size of the homes in the PUD and made the lots relatively small. Mr.Hunn presented the findings and provided the board with the options to approve, deny or table the file. Commissioner Fisher asked about the existing water. Mr. Bair stated that by working with the town of Basalt,they could simply come up the driveway with a new line. Commissioner Stavney stated that he had no problem with the request. Chairman Stavney moved to approve file no.PR4060 without additional conditions. Commissioner Fisher seconded the motion. She supported the continuance based on the family's history of property ownership. Chairman Runyon agreed with Commissioner Fisher's comments. 4 12/04/2012 The vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Stavney moved to adjourn as the Eagle County Board of County Commissioners and re- convene as the Eagle County Air Terminal Corporation. Commissioner Fisher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Eagle County Air Terminal Corporation Chris Anderson,Airport Gregg Phillips,Aviation Director introduced the new Airport Project Coordinator,Jeff Brownback. 1. Agreement between Eagle County Air Terminal Corporation and Videotronix,Incorporated, DBA VT Security Integrators Chris Anderson spoke about upgrade to the existing video surveillance system that was installed in the terminal and other part of the airport in 2006. The upgrade would make the system more useful. The project included a 5 year software upgrade and patch agreement with the software provider. The upgrade included the replacement of a switch, server, 5 cameras, and a workstation. In addition,would include the addition of 4 additional cameras in some key locations. The total project cost was $44,141.00. They worked with IT throughout the course of the project. Mr. Phillips added that the upgrade of the system would allow for more cameras and enhanced resolution. Ms.Fisher moved to approve the agreement between Eagle County Air Terminal Corporation and Videotronix, Incorporated,DBA VT Security Integrators. Mr. Montag seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. 2. New Business Mr.Phillips stated that they would be issuing a press release to announce the Open House at the airport from 2-4 pm, on Monday, December 10, 2012. He hoped to see everyone. Commissioner Fisher moved to adjourn as the Eagle County Air Terminal Corporation and re-convene as the Eagle County Liquor License Authority. Commissioner Runyon seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Eagle County Liquor License Authority Kathy Scriver, Clerk and Recorder's Office APPLICANT: Vail Valley Pharmacy,LLC TRADE NAME: Vail Valley Pharmacy REPRESENTATIVE: Laurence,Nisonoff, Owner LOCATION: 0105 Edwards Village Blvd.,Unit G 106-108 Edwards Village Center, Edwards 81632 REQUEST: Liquor-Licensed Drugstore license STAFF REPRESENTATIVE: Kathy Scriver DESCRIPTION: The applicant,Vail Valley Pharmacy, LLC submitted an application for a Liquor-Licensed Drugstore license on August 6,2012. Vail Valley Pharmacy has been open since March of 2012 and offers a full-service pharmacy staffed with licensed pharmacists and technicians. They also carry a full array of over-the-counter 5 12/04/2012 products including pain relievers,cold and flu products,vitamins/supplements,hair care products,bath products, baby products, and dental hygiene products. In addition,they offer boutique moisturizers and bath products, all- natural household products, soy-based candles, and gifts items such as watches,beads, scarfs and handbags. The store will mostly sell wine and some spirits(scotch,vodka, etc.). A liquor-licensed drugstore license allows the selling of malt,vinous, and spirituous liquors in sealed containers for consumption off the premise. Licensees must maintain a bona fide pharmacy and maintain drugstore operations at all times as a condition of this class of license. A licensed pharmacist must staff the prescription compounding area, 50%of the time, each day. The license also allow for tastings and delivery services. ESTABLISH NEIGHBORHOOD: The first order of business is to establish the neighborhood. Staff recommended that the definition of the"neighborhood"include the area within a two-mile radius from the proposed location(0105 Edwards Village Blvd.)This area includes but is not limited to Arrowhead,The Reserve, River Pines,Homestead, Old Edwards Estates, and Singletree. Stavney moved that the Local Liquor Licensing Authority establish the neighborhood to include the area within a two-mile radius from the proposed location. Commissioner Fisher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. NEEDS AND DESIRES OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD 1. All members of the Local Licensing Authority have been provided with copies of the petition submitted by the applicant along with various letters in support of and opposing the issuance of this license. The Board will consider the reasonable requirements of the neighborhood,the desires of the adult inhabitants of the neighborhood and whether the existing licenses are adequate to meet these needs and desires,per the Colorado Liquor Code, Section 12-47-301 (2) (a). 2. The first petition was circulated by owner,Kent Lambrecht,Vail Valley Pharmacy. The results were as follows: • 95 Signatures Favoring Issuance 3. A second petition was circulated by Larry Nisonoff,Vail Valley Pharmacy. The results were as follows: • 86 Signatures Favoring Issuance 4. A third petition was circulated by Oedipus, Inc. • 319 Signatures were gathered in the residential areas of the defined neighborhood,253 signatures favoring the issuance, 66 signatures opposing the issuance of the license. OTHER LIQUOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATIONS: 1. Whether the licensee shall possess and maintain possession of the premises for which the license is issued by ownership, lease,rental,or other arrangement for possession of such premises. 2. Whether the premises are within 500 feet of any public or parochial school or the campus of any college, university, or seminary. 3. Whether the fees have been paid. 6 12/04/2012 4. Whether the applicant is of good moral character. STAFF FINDINGS: 1. The applicant has filed an application on forms provided by the state licensing authority and provided information as required by the state licensing authority. All applicable requirements have been met,all the proper forms have been provided, and all fees paid. 2. The applicant is over 21 years of age and reported to be of good moral character. 3. Public notice was given by the posting of a sign in a conspicuous place on the premises November 21,2012 and publication in the Eagle Valley Enterprise on November 22 and 29, 2012. 4. The premises is not within 500 feet of a location for which, within 2 years preceding the application, a license of the same class was denied for the reason that the reasonable requirements of the neighborhood and the desires of the adult inhabitants were satisfied by existing outlets. 5. The premises are not within 500 feet of any public or parochial school or the campus of any college, university, or seminary. 6. The applicant has submitted proof of possession of premises. 7. There were no concerns expressed by the Eagle County Engineering Department, Sheriff's Office, Treasurer Office, Community Development Department, or Building Department. 8. The applicant has provided an alcohol management plan per the requirements of the Eagle County Local Licensing Authority and server training will follow with the approval of this application. 9. The applicant has met all the necessary requirements for this class of license. DISCUSSION: Ms. Ayres-Oliver stated that the liquor code allowed the local licensing authority to determine the need for the issuance of a particular license. The standards for consideration were the reasonable requirements and desires of the neighborhood. She encouraged the board to keep in mind those two standards when reviewing the application. The board should not consider parking issues,traffic,problems associated with underage drinking,the potential shoplifting or even the combination for drugs and alcohol. The board could not condition the approval either. As for enforcement, if there were a complaint,Eagle County would investigate the alleged violation. If a violation of the liquor code were found,the authority could then decide whether to suspend or revoke the license. Ms. Scriver indicated that new license and transfers received two inspections in the first year. Ms.Ayres-Oliver stated that at the hearing in October some direction was given that there would be no cross-examining of witnesses,but since the process is a bit more formal than a typical commissioner hearing they would allow the applicant to call witnesses. It was recommended that the hearing be continued to December 11th to allow Larry Eskwith or other parties in interest to attend. Jean Fioramonti, owner of Edwards Liquors spoke. She had been collecting signatures within the 2-mile radius. It was her understanding that anyone signing the petition had to live in the 2-mile radius. Ms. Ayres-Oliver explained that a party in interest under state statute was the applicant, adult resident of the neighborhood,the owner or manager of a business located in the neighborhood under consideration or the principal or representative of a school located within 500 ft. of the premises. The authority could allow cross- examination and questioning of witness but could limit the presentation of evidence and cross-examinations to prevent repetitive questioning. Ms. Scriver presented a memo from Rohn Robbins, an updated alcohol management plan, a letter in support from Gary Pesso, a petition submitted by Oedipus, and alternative motion if needed. 7 12/04/2012 Rohn Robbins, spoke on behalf of the applicant. He stated that he and the applicant were in objection to the continuance and giving Mr. Eskwith the opportunity to be heard. This was a posted hearing. Mr. Eskwith was an attorney and could have had someone appear on his behalf. The applicants request to continue the file was denied,justice should be equal. Larry Nisonoff stated that he requested a continuance because he was busy and the petitioning was a timely process. Mr. Robbins requested to call witness and interview them in mass. Tom Hyatt,Edwards resident introduced himself. Tab Bonidy,Edwards business owner introduced himself John Kirkutis,Edwards resident introduced himself. Taylor Ryan, Edwards resident introduced himself Mr. Robbins asked the witnesses if they were business owners or residents within the two-mile radius. The witnesses stated yes. Mr.Robbins asked the witnesses if they were at least 21 years of age. The witnesses stated yes. Mr.Robbins asked the witnesses if on occasion,they had the opportunity to drink alcoholic beverages. The witnesses stated yes. Mr. Robbins asked the witnesses if they were appear of their own free choice. The witnesses stated yes. Mr. Robbins asked the witnesses if they felt there was a need or desire within the community for the licensure of Vail Valley Pharmacy to carry alcohol. Mr. Hyatt believed there was a need in Edwards for new businesses. He believed the county should be business friendly and encourage new investments in Edwards. This was a service that was good for the county and good for the tourists. He believed the storeowners were responsible and there was no risk of violations. Mr. Bonidy concurred with Mr. Hyatt's comments. He knows the owners personally and considers them in the highest regards. He believed competition was good. Mr.Kirkutis stated that pharmacy was well staffed. The owner was merely trying to expand his business with an additional feature. He encouraged the board to approve the application. Mr. Ryan stated that he knew the pharmacists. He believed them to be responsible. The staff was friendly and helpful. Mr. Robbins asked the witnesses if the license were grant would they patronize the Vail Valley Pharmacy for these services. The witnesses stated they would continue to do so. Mr.Robbins asked the witnesses if they believed the license should be granted. The witnesses stated yes. Mr. Robbins spoke about the saturation argument. This was a license for a liquor-license drugstore and not a retail liquor store. Ms. Ayres-Oliver understood that the statute had different regulations for each type of license but believed there was case law on the subject that allowed the authority to consider other licenses in the area that sell the same type of alcoholic beverages. The focus was on whether the license was needed and if people desired it. Mr.Hyatt believed that the community needed businesses and jobs and that should be a consideration as well. He had complete confidence that the applicant would follow all the rules and regulations. Ms. Ayres-Oliver stated that the focus was not on the neighborhoods desire for businesses or jobs. Commissioner Fisher asked the witnesses if they would continue to use the pharmacy if the liquor license were denied. The witnesses all stated no. Commissioner Stavney believed it was really about undue concentration of the same class of license. He was hard pressed that public safety would be compromised by 150 square feet of liquor space in the store. The risk of selling drugs for a pharmacist was much higher than a liquor store clerk. He believed that 95%of what had been discussed in the testimony seemed to be missing the point.He agreed that Mr. Eskwith could have had someone present to represent him. He was ready to act. Commissioner Fisher stated that the last time there was this much opposition for a liquor license was in 2004 when drink!, Inc. applied for a retail liquor store license. She wondered about the population and growth in Edwards within the last couple of years. 8 12/04/2012 Mr. Robbins provided a graph from the Vail Valley Partnership Economic Council that indicated projection growth for 2010-2020 at 37%. Commissioner Runyon stated that the board had received advice to continue the file to give the other side the opportunity to call witnesses. He stated that he would not second a motion. Commissioner Fisher stated that she would honor the request by the Attorney's Office to continue the file. Mr. Eskwith was denied the ability to call witnesses at the last hearing and to avoid any future litigation over the matter would like to give him that opportunity. Commissioner Stavney understood the matter. However,he heard the testimony and felt clearly about the application. Mr. Robbins stated that per capita Edwards had fewer liquor licenses than Eagle,Avon, or Vail. He introduced the applicants and Max Scott owner of Oedipus, Inc. Mr. Scott stated that he owned and operated Oedipus,Inc., located in unincorporated Boulder County. He was a professional surveyor; most of what his business did was liquor and 3.2%beer applications. They had done about 6,000 surveys in the state of Colorado. They had numerous municipal contracts with several jurisdictions. His office was contacted by Larry Eskwith to protest a license known as drink!. His office agreed to do this on with the condition that no matter what the survey results would were they would filed with the local licensing staff,Mr. Eskwith opposed the condition. Mr. Scott stated that he was retained by the applicant to do a survey. He presented the report. The surveying was done by a long time employee with his company and contrary to the protesters petitions they went door to door in the defined neighborhood. The format was the same that had been used since the 1970s. The survey was designed to provide a sampling of what the opinion of the neighborhood was. Based on needs and desires the survey statistics were 93% favoring the issuance of the license. Chairman Runyon believed that the survey seemed to be very objective. Mr. Scott stated that his office did not guarantee survey results. Commissioner Stavney stated that there appeared to be no conclusive evidence against the license given all the testimony. Ms. Fioramonti stated that Commissioner Stavney seemed to be biased. She presented a number of petition pages to the staff and did not believe they had been considered. Mr. Scott spoke believed the over the counter petitions were a survey of customers that visited the existing liquor stores. They seemed to have about an 18% error rate. Commissioner Fisher asked Mr. Scott if he'd ever been hired by an establishment to collect signatures that showed a majority in opposition. Mr. Scott stated that they had have surveys come out negative. They do not guarantee any survey results. Ms. Ayres-Oliver stated that it was the Attorney's recommendation that the file be continued to December 11`"giving everyone the opportunity to present whatever evidence they felt was necessary and/or ask whatever questions they need for additional information. Mr.Robbins stated that the opposition letters in the file did not speak to the needs and desires instead spoke to moral objections and competition objections. The application was in order,the applicant was of good moral character,the needs and desires of the neighborhood were clear by the petitioning and by the testimony. The surveys were dramatically in favor of approval. Competition should not be a consideration. The liquor-licensed drugstore was distinct and different from a retail liquor store and should be considered as the statute intended it. Mr. Eskwith and any other opponents had been provided due process and a decision should be rendered and the license be granted. Chairman Runyon opened public comment. Michael Caccioppo spoke in favor of letting the market dictate who should stay in business and who should not. He believed that competition made America great. He believed there was enough of the market for all of them to survive. Terry Benedict, Riverwalk Wine and Spirits owner spoke. She believed the 4 liquor store outlets currently in Edwards met the requirements and desires of the neighborhood. They all carried the same product and they all delivered. Jean Fioramonti believed that a loss of business could mean letting an employee go. Her store made deliveries but were careful about who they delivered alcohol to. Chairman Runyon closed public comment. The vote was declared unanimous. 9 12/04/2012 Commissioner moved to table the application until December 11, 2012. Commissioner Fisher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. APPLICANT: The Eagle County Early Childhood Programs REQUEST: Special Events Permit EVENT: Yule Log Hunt DATE OF THE EVENT: Saturday-December 8, 2012 REPRESENTATIVE: Angela Mueller,Event Manger LOCATION: Eagle Vail Pavilion—538 Eagle Rd.,Avon(Eagle Vail) STAFF REPRESENTATIVE: Kathy Scriver DESCRIPTION: The applicant has requested a permit for an event being held at the Eagle Vail Pavilion on Saturday, December 8, 2012. The"Yule Log Hunt"is a first for the applicant. This is a family event open to all ages and the funds generated from the event will benefit local programs. Various activities will be held throughout the day with dinner, live music and silent auction being held in the pavilion from 4-7 pm. Lonestar security will oversee the event security. Wine,beer,and seasonal wine will be available. STAFF FINDINGS: 1. The applicant has submitted all the required documents and associated fees for the permit. 2. Public notice has been given by the posting of a sign in a conspicuous place on the premises on November 21,2012, at least 10 days prior to the hearing. 3. No protests have been received in the Clerk's Office. 4. The applicant has provided proof of server training, an alcohol management plan,and Sheriff's Office Notification Form per the requirements of the Eagle County Local Licensing Authority. CONCERNS/ISSUES: None DISCUSSION: Ms. Scriver presented the request. Although this is the first event for the applicant,Ms. Mueller has been very involved in the Taste of Vail events held every year on Vail Mountain. Ms. Mueller stated that the applicant had done"Casino Night"for 25 years and they felt that they needed to do something new. The ticket price would include dinner and 2 drinks. The trainers would be server trained and they had a security guard from Lonestar. Commissioner Fisher moved that the Local Liquor Licensing Authority approve the permit for the Eagle County Early Childhood Programs"Yule Log Hunt"being held at the Eagle Vail Pavilion on December 8,2012 from*8:00 a.m.to 8:00 p.m. Commissioner Stavney seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. *The hours approved in the motion are the hours requested on the application and are not necessarily the hours of the event, as additional time may have been included to allow for set up and tear down. Commissioner Stavney moved to adjourn as the Eagle County Liquor Licensing Authority and re-convene as the Eagle County Board of County Commissioners. Commissioner Fisher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. 10 12/04/2012 Colorado Parks and Wildlife Elk Management Plan (recorded) Julie Mao and Craig Wescoatt, Colorado Parks and Wildlife Approval of the use of Open Space Funds for the Purchase of the Minturn Boneyard Property Toby Sprunk, Open Space Mr. Sprunk presented the request. The funding details were unique as it was similar to an eBay auction. There was a reserve price and the minimum bid was $1.25 million. The town of Minturn raised about$232,000 to go towards the purchase of the property and offered to manage it. The property was currently owned by the US Forest Service and was administrative parcel they were looking to sell. The town of Minturn had a formal agreement allowing them to use the building on the property. They recently learned that the property did not go to the river's edge but was in public ownership. Future uses would include bird watching, access to the river, a boat launch, and picnicking. There were already access enhancements to the driveway and it could be used soon after acquisition to facilitate public access. Jim White,Minturn Town Manager stated that the current use of the facility on site was storage. He hoped to continue this use if the property were placed in a conservation easement. Commissioner Fisher asked about the river bank ownership. Mr. Sprunk stated that the river bank was not a buildable site and was a floodplain. There had been no offer to re-adjust the boundary. They had talked about re-appraising the property. Mr. White stated that the property did allow access to the river. Mr. Sprunk believed that more importantly the bid process was the current means to acquire the property. George Borodin, Mayor Pro Tern expressed support for the purchase and requested a commitment from the board in terms of the bidding process. He believed the property was a perfect fit to the open space criteria. Mr. Sprunk presented the open space criteria. The property ranked high as to access to streams,rivers, public lands and dispersed recreation opportunities. Mr. White stated that some land opportunities would include a boat ramp and fishing. They did have a minor contribution from Holy Cross Energy. Mr. Sprunk stated that currently there were no other funding partners. The project was consistent with the Master Plan. Collaboration with the town of Minturn created an interesting precedent. A title commitment had not been received. Environment hazards on the property were not anticipated. Maintenance costs would be absorbed by the town of Minturn. The bid amount was uncertain. Procedurally, if approval from the board was granted today,they could register as a perspective bidder. Commissioner Stavney stated that he had no interest in the property in its natural state. He requested a commitment from Minturn to make some light improvements. He did not believe the property was suitable for a boat ramp. Mr. White stated that they had a draft management plan. The plan addressed the property uses. Chairman Runyon spoke about the property value and encouraged putting a cap on the bidding process. Mr.White stated that he was concerned with the upcoming holidays and having enough time to identify a higher amount. Ms. Ayres-Oliver stated that a special meeting could take place if there was a need to approve a higher amount. Mr. Sprunk wondered if the bid amount of$1.5 million included the town of Minturn contribution. Mr.White encouraged the board to bid$1.5 and allow the town of Minturn to increase the amount as needed. Commissioner Fisher stated that the meeting on the 18`h would allow the board another opportunity to put more money towards the purchase if necessary. Ms.Ayres-Oliver stated that it was her understanding that there was not a close date on the auction. Commissioner Stavney requested that staff revise the language in the resolution per this discussion. Commissioner Stavney moved to approve the resolution approving the use of Commissioner Fisher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. 11 12/04/2012 Agreement between Eagle County and Eagle River Watershed Council for Colorado River Inventory and Assessment Project Toby Sprunk,Open Space Mr. Sprunk presented the funding request to fund involvement in the Colorado River Inventory and Assessment project, a partnership between Eagle County and the Eagle River Watershed Council. Through the Open Space program,the county was now managing property on the river, and to manage the properties effectively, it was important to understand the natural resources. This study was proposed by the Eagle River Watershed Council to analyze and understand the river. OSAC supported the request and understanding the tie between data and good open space management. He believed this was a modest request. Commissioner Stavney believed it was responsible stewardship of the river and felt strongly that this was within the guidelines of the program. Chairman Runyon stated that this was one section of the river that had not been studied. He supported good management and believed it would save the county money in the long run. Commissioner Stavney moved to approve the agreement between Eagle County and the Eagle River Watershed Council for Colorado River Inventory and Assessment Project. Commissioner Fisher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Dedication Ceremony for Eagle County National Weather Transmitter Jim Pringle and Barry Smith Barry Smith spoke about the purchase of the weather transmitter that was installed last summer. The transmitter was purchased with grant funding from the USDA Rural Utility Service and support of Holy Cross Energy as the grant recipient. He introduced Ben Moyer,meteorologist with the National Weather Service and Jim Pringle,Warning Coordination Meteorologist. Mr.Moyer,believed it was a good example of how the Federal Government in partnership with local officials, local communities, and other entities could work together to provide a public service. On behalf of the National Weather Services Director and all the employees at the weather service in Grand Junction,he congratulated the county for receiving the new services. Jim Pringle demonstrated how the radio receiver worked. He believed the main goal of the service was to protect lives and property. If only one life was saved as a result of this Eagle radio warning system,then this project would be worth all the time,money,and effort expended. Chairman Runyon thanked everyone involved in the purchase. Mr. Smith stated that there were a number of locations were weather radio receivers could be purchased. The radios ranged in price from$20-50 dollars. There was also an application available for smart phones. Commissioner Stavney believed the service was great resource. 2013 Budget Presentation Public Meeting Keith Montag, County Manager Tom Hyatt,Finance John Lewis,Finance Mr.Montag stated he would be presenting the budget highlights and that the budget would be on the next agenda for an official approval. Chairman Runyon acknowledged that Commissioner Elect,Jill Ryan was present for the presentation. Mr.Montag was delighted to report that the 2013 budget was balanced. He spoke about the challenge as the result of decline in property values. Through the hard work, sacrifices, dedication, and support of the elected officials,departments, and the teams involved with the budget,they were able to balance the budget. Chairman Runyon acknowledged Mr.Montag's leadership. 12 12/04/2012 Mr.Montag believed it was a team effort. The approach and process supported the overall mission of Eagle County to continue being a"Model of Excellence".The process looked at the Alignment 2012 Plan. They insured that the Countywide Strategic Plan and various departments work plans were in alignment with the budget. They encouraged employee participation through the"Budget Think Tank", and over 300 suggestions, ideas,and comments were received. The biggest budget challenges were loss in projected revenue due to the 20%drop in property values, construction permits, interest income, and grant money. He expected sales tax to increase 2%but was optimistic as far as licenses,permits and fee increases. Solutions included, looking for cost savings, streamlining processes, looking for other revenue generating opportunities and decreasing expenditures. Consultants were used to review cost allocations and a health care consultant helped to change funding levels for improved claims. They decreased the number of FTE's and expenditures. John Lewis presented a schedule forecasting 2011-2015 revenue. They hoped that sales tax would continue the upper trend. Interest and investments would continue to rise slightly. He thanked the Financial Advisory Board for their input. Using very conservative revenue growth assumptions,they forecasted a balanced budget through 2017. They would be putting continued pressure on departments to hold the line on their budgets. Mr.Montag stated that FTE's (Full time employees)in the General Fund had dropped 25% from a high of 312 in 2008 to 235 in 2013. Total FTE's in all funds decreased from 467 in 2010 to 430 in 2012. Total FTE's in all funds were flat at 430. Mr. Lewis presented the expenditure reductions. In 2009, expenditures were close to $42,984,609,the 2013 budget proposed an expenditure total of$29,602,883. Supplemental contingency would be held to a minimum. Tom Hyatt presented the General Fund Earnings Change Analysis. The intent of the chart was to show the major items. The chart showed an increase in sales tax, grants, admin fees and election costs would come back,the District Attorney's Office gave back$12,000. The fuel contingency fund was removed. There were significant reductions in Early Head Start,Public Health, and Social Services. Health Insurance funding was reduced due to better claims experience. Commissioner Stavney appreciated the efforts made by Health and Human Services. Commissioner Fisher complimented Health and Human Services because at the same time they continue to reduce expenditures they were serving larger numbers of people. Mr. Hyatt presented the fund balance percentage of expenditures. He believed that 2013 was the transition year preparing for 2014. Commissioner Fisher believed the county had taken the most conservative route for 2013 and in years past. Mr. Hyatt concurred with Commissioner Fisher and stated that there had been no real indication that things would improve. Mr.Montag made the comment that the county must continue to be prudent with the budget given the challenges ahead. The budget PowerPoint would be on the county website. Mr. Lewis stated that they would be doing some preliminary projections around the middle of February and by the first of March; a budget publication would be available online. Mr.Montag believed that there would be a lot of easily understandable information in the annual report. Chairman Runyon opened public comment. Gordon Adams recognized Tom Hyatt for his assistance with the Road and Bridge finances. Chairman Runyon closed public comment. Commissioner Fisher complimented everyone for his or her work on the budget. Chairman Stavney thanked staff and everyone for their professionalism. There being no further business befors0Vie the meeting was adjourne. . 'til December 11,2012. Airr!. 4 :\ $. Attest:l —� —/ ( 'lam`' * Clerk to the Board 0 • n A 13 12/04/2012