New MVOA Board Members Question Value of Proposed Rec Center

Newly elected members of the Mountain Village Owners Association board of directors strongly voiced their concerns about the necessity and viability of a much debated recreation center at a joint meeting with the Mountain Village Town Council and the Mountain Village Metro District board on Tuesday.

Since the previous MVOA board supported the project, and funding for it is slated to come largely from MVOA coffers, the changed tone could spell trouble for the Mountain Village Family Adventure Sports Facility, which is proposed to be incorporated into a large multi-use development immediately adjacent to the Mountain Village Core gondola station.

With the Mountain Village Town Council forced to recuse itself from the discussion because it could later be required to sit in a quasi-judicial capacity when it considers the application, representatives of the project developer, Monument Realty, presented preliminary plans for the project, which recently received sketch plan approval from the Mountain Village Design Review Board and Town Council. DRB granted sketch plan approval with numerous conditions on Aug. 24.

The new development as proposed would contain 57 condominium units, 24 lodge units, 24 efficiency lodge units, five employee housing units, approximately 15,000 square feet of retail space, a 2,600-square-foot ski club, a 3,600-square-foot restaurant and bar as well as public use spaces, a gondola level plaza, and parking along with the much-debated, publicly funded recreation center.

Design concepts for the recreation center, the largest public benefit of the project, include numerous water elements, including pools, multiple slides for users of all ages, a "lazy river," lap pool, a "wave rider" and hot tubs, as well as a "cabana-style" locker room, six bowling lanes, a games area, fitness center including weight and aerobic training rooms, a three-story "climbing pinnacle," a party room, children's playroom and a café.

Cost analysis of the project is still being developed and is scheduled for a special Mountain Village joint meeting on Oct. 18.

While the focus of the presentation was on the design of the recreation center and issues of "flow" to and from the project, members of the MVOA board voiced much broader concerns relating to the overall public benefit of the project and its impact on the Mountain Village's economic health.

Newly elected MVOA member Bob Franzese challenged the necessity for more retail space in the struggling Village Core, arguing that the proposed retail space would have a distinct advantage over other businesses in the Mountain Village due to its proximity to the gondola. Franzese proposed that while retail space in that location might be appropriate, occupancy should be limited to those businesses that would not compete with existing town core businesses.

MVOA member Jeff Proteau echoed Franzese's concern that the new development would harm core businesses.

"Do we really believe [people] are going to leave this space and go into the core," he asked. "Or are they going to find everything they need right there and hop on the gondola and leave?"

In a discussion of Mountain Village planning, Mountain Village Town councilmember Bob Delves commented that having come from the suburbs of Chicago, he had seen numerous efforts at community revitalization, and that in almost every case economic analysis showed the strength of a town to be their train station. Time and again, he said, the answer to business vitality was to center attractive business heavily around the station, which in turn would help existing businesses. "We have a train station," said Delves, referring to the Gondola Plaza.

Franzese also questioned the operating costs of the recreation center. Metro District Chair Phil Evans explained that a detailed analysis of operating costs and opportunities to limit elements during slow seasons had been completed by Ballard King and Associates in March and is available to the public on the Mountain Village website.

Proteau questioned whether the project offered enough public benefits and the overall appropriateness of the design of the project. Proteau, along with others, said they felt the current design of the over-all project was more appropriate to Denver than to the "European village" design of the Village Core.

Evans commented that issues of design were not really the purview of the MVMD or MVOA and were best left to the Design Review Board.

Mike Stornello of Tin Roof Design, one of the presenters of the project, explained that the issue of design compatibility with the rest of the core had already been raised by the DRB and new exterior designs were being formulated to address those concerns.

"I'm worried that people are going to be surprised [by this project]," continued Proteau, questioning whether the time was right for a public information piece. MVOA member Mollye Wolahan said she would feel very comfortable familiarizing the public with the recreation center portion of the project, but that a requirement to make the applicant publicize their design process beyond the noticing to neighbors and the public DRB meetings could be considered onerous.

Evans said that there is a growing effort to make the public aware of large projects outside of DRB or council meetings and that any effort that could be made to make more information available via the Internet would be welcome.

A virtual tour of an earlier version of the project was available on the Town of Mountain Village website, said Mountain Village PR and Communications Director Kerri Cardin, and it would soon be updated and made easier to locate, allowing anyone interested to view the project.

Despite pressure from MVMD members to voice support for the project so that the bonding process for the recreation center could move forward, MVOA members' concerns were not relieved during the meeting and they opted to continue discussion of the project during their individual meeting the following day.

At that Wednesday MVOA meeting, MVOA members repeated their concerns of the day before and requested that a special meeting be scheduled prior to the Oct. 18 special meeting.

Executive Vice-President of Monument Realty Bill Krakowski voiced confusion over what was specifically being requested of the applicant. "We've presented everything we have," he said. "If there is something else you need that we haven't presented, just let us know."

"I want to understand the overall public benefit," repeated Proteau. "Do we see the Rec Center as contributing to the economic vitality of the Village Core?" After a prolonged discussion it was determined that what was needed was not more information from the applicant, but that some members of the board were seeking analysis of how the project would affect the economics of the Village Core.

Staff was directed to contact Ford Frick of BBC Research, who had conducted prior economic analysis of the Mountain Village, and to present his consideration of the project in relation to the rest of Mountain Village at a special meeting of the MVOA on Oct. 11.

Speaking as a Mountain Village homeowner, Evans said, he was frustrated with the reluctance of the MVOA to move forward with the project. Evans referenced the successful vote a year ago to authorize $4 million to fund a recreation center. Of 1,000 MVOA member residents who voted, he said, 73 percent were in favor of funding. Commercial MVOA members also voted in favor of the funding, he added, and hotel MVOA members voted against.

"When you have your special meeting I would like you to take into consideration that you did ask your membership what they thought about [a recreation center]," said Evans, "and your membership told you pretty loud and clear what they thought."

MVOA Board May Slam Brakes on Dial-A-Ride

By Thomas Wirth

In the aftermath of an election last month that changed the composition of the Mountain Village Owners Association board of directors, there was marked frustration and confusion during a discussion Tuesday of the proposed merger of the Mountain Village town government and the Mountain Village Metro District.

"In February, the Long Range Planning and Budget Committee endorsed this proposed post-merger comprehensive financial schematic," said a memo from Finance Director Willie Wilson, "and in March the joint Boards and Council further approved the program as well. In an effort to insure that the current Boards and Council still accept this financial restructuring, this memo and presentation is being represented."

The Long Range Planning and Budget Committee is a six-person board made up of two members from each entity. Wilson is the finance director for all three entities. The consolidation of the Town of Mountain Village and MVMD into one entity necessitates a restructuring of some of the government entities' finances.

The sticking point in the discussion came in response to MVOA's financial assumption of the Dial-a-Ride service and the Village Shuttle Bus under the realignment.

"Does MVOA have the room to fit this into their budget?" Wilson asked rhetorically. "Yes. I do believe it does. Is it appropriate to move it over to MVOA? Yes, it is….

"What we are looking for [from the new MVOA board] is a re-recognition that the plan we've adopted is appropriate, has been well thought out and is the right way to go."

That re-recognition was not forthcoming.

All of the MVOA board members at the meeting, with the exception of Mollye Wolahan, expressed discomfort with the realignment, although often for different reasons, but the price tag, approximately $1.1 million, was a common concern.

Of that budget, Operations Manager Junior Mahoney estimated that 80 percent goes to Dial-a-Ride operations with the remaining 20 percent supporting fixed route and shuttle service. Town Manager Kathy Mahoney pointed out that fixed route service was put in place when Dial-a-Ride services at a particular time and place had suggested regular service, so it could, in a sense, be considered as a Dial-a-Ride service.

New MVOA board member Bob Franzese questioned the necessity and cost effectiveness of the Dial-a-Ride service. He suggested that it might be time to reevaluate the service and survey homeowners as to whether they are willing to continue to fund the service at current levels.

While other board members agreed that a more in depth evaluation of costs and users was in order, they felt the service was a unique and valuable service to the community, and one that was unlikely to go away.

Another new MVOA board member, Jonathan Sweet, who is also on the Mountain Village Town Council, voiced a discomfort with the unfixed nature of the expenditure, a lack of oversight of the program, and a desire to look at perhaps directing the available funding to the town's affordable housing effort instead of transportation.

Wilson explained that the agreement could be drafted to reflect only a short-term one-year commitment, so that the risk of incurring higher than average costs for the program were negligible, and that oversight of the program could come directly through the MVOA's budget process.

In response to the suggestion that MVOA fund housing instead of Dial-a-Ride, a somewhat frustrated Wilson responded, "John, that's a great idea, but let's look at it in 2007."

"We previously agreed that this was the way to go," said Mountain Village Town Councilmember Phil Evans. "Budgets have been prepared based on an agreement of the previous board. I have to say … it's pretty frustrating for me to have to sit here and deal with an entirely new perspective from a board that is elected on an annual basis. How can we plan if every time a new board is elected everything that hasn't had a written agreement is now subject to discussion again?"

"It is frustrating," said Sweet. "The problem is that the two members of [the MVOA] board who sat on the [Long Range Planning and Budget] committee are no longer on this board. I'm reflecting the perspective of my board….

"The feedback I've gotten from the [August MVOA election] is that people want a sense of more accountability and impact on the funding that is coming from the MVOA."

"With all due respect," responded Mayor Davis Fansler, "to suggest that you are trying to be prudent and accountable implies that those who participated in the process prior to that weren't, and I have to believe that they were….

"We're two and a half months away from merging and trying to get the budgets figured out and we're revisiting it."

"I don't see what it can hurt to approve this thing and revisit it in '07," added Wilson.

Incumbent MVOA board members Jeff Proteau and Ken Stone, Telluride Ski and Golf appointees, both said they needed more time to study the proposal to feel comfortable in support.

"What I don't understand is that by transferring this over from the town, what is the town picking up that this is creating room for?" asked Proteau.

Wilson answered with an example of long-term commitments to employee housing projects, into which the town is just entering, as well as related costs, such as transportation, for those projects.

While Stone said he had gained greater clarity on the issue over the course of the meeting, he needed more time. "I'm just not ready today to approve this," he said.

"Ken, it seems to me that you were part of the commitment that was already made on this," countered Evans, referring to Stone's tenure on the board.

"I've learned an awful lot since [the original discussions]," responded Stone, "and I'll be quite frank, I didn't understand the issues very well at that time on the board, and that's why I'm trying as a board member to understand them much better."

"I want to move forward," said Wolahan, in contrast to her fellow MVOA board members. "I feel like we are throwing a wrench into our relationship with the town and I don't want to start off like that."

"If we had known during the long-term planning process that MVOA did not want to take on this responsibility, we would have had it as an item under our expenses," said a visibly frustrated Evans. "So our choices would have been, what do we cut? Do we cut affordable housing? Should we bypass the opportunity to buy Sunshine [for affordable housing]? Do we decrease the funding level for Dial-a-Ride? Do we go to the voters with a mill levy?

"We would have approached the whole planning process differently. We were relying on the word of the previous MVOA board that this was the way we were prepared to operate."

"I didn't create the August election," replied Sweet. "If you don't have the votes, I can't give them to you. I have to respect the fact that there are different people on this board."

The MVOA board members agreed to discuss the issue at their Sept. 27 meeting, the following day, in order to expedite the issue so that other budgets could be devised in the event MVOA rejected the agreement.