Silverline, Now More Complicated

Developer Submits New Plan to MV; Council Talks of Refunding $12.9 million Rec Center Bond

Telluride Daily Planet
Published:9/24/07

By Matthew Beaudin

Just a month before Mountain Village voters again decide the fate of the Silverline and rec center project, absolutely nothing is certain.

Monument Realty, the Washington, D.C., developer, submitted an alternate plan to Mountain Village, which will be reviewed by the Design Review Board Thursday. The squabbles over the programming in the would-be rec center continue and just last week town council members publicly discussed pulling the plug on some $13 million in public bonds, should Silverline fall in the Oct. 22 special election. Nothing, from the tall buildings and sleek rooflines, the glass-faced rec center and lazy river, is a given.

“We don’t know what the outcome of the election is going to be,” said Pam Frentzel-Beyme, Monument vice president. “We’re going to build what DRB asked us to build when we first went before them, which is something iconic and that’s a real asset to the village core.”

But just what that iconic piece of metal and stone will look like is anyone’s guess. Monument still has an approval in hand from town council that voters will have a chance to seal or kill entirely. That project is slated to house a rec center that proponents say will be a boon to the Village economy. Opponents have criticized the programs offered, the cost — anticipated at some $18 million — and the variances given, from height to density.

The current approval would see buildings reach nearly 100 feet tall in one area — though a great majority of the development is around 50 feet — and tip the scales at 500,000 square feet total, including underground parking and the recreation center. It signifies the final piece to the Mountain Village Core.

The new plan, should voters reject that proposal or the rec center continue to complicate developing the property, would be much smaller. Developers will not seek height variances — meaning the whole development is at or under 60 feet tall — and they will not have to pass through town council for another approval.

“We would like a project that is great for the town,” Frentzel-Beyme said. “We don’t want to feel like we’re ramming anything down anyone’s throat.”

She would not discuss the political saga that surrounds the property, from a tainted special election to a rabid political support and disdain for the project.

Either way, the developer is ready to get into the ground.

“We were prepared to start it earlier this year and we certainly spent a lot more money than we planned,” she said.

But the confusion doesn’t end with two different building applications on one piece of property, in re-votes or re-zones. In its meeting last Thursday, the town council questioned if it should keep public bonds in hand should Silverline and the rec center fall in the special election.

Some council members said they shouldn’t have discussed the matter, but Mayor Bob Delves wanted the issue on the table.

“To me, ‘no’ means the project’s done. The bonds are done. Everything,” Delves said.

The majority of the council said they would favor refunding the bonds should the election result in a “no” vote.

Jonathan Greenspan, however, did not.

“I don’t feel the urgency at all to refund these,” he said.

Jonathan Sweet, meanwhile, was in stark opposition to talking about the matter at all.

“I didn’t want these bonds issued in the first place,” he said. “I really don’t think it’s appropriate to be discussing this at all … I’m frustrated that we’re doing it.”

Some Village citizens were on hand, and Richard Child, a sharp critic of the rec center and Silverline, urged the council to be careful.

“I do believe council is walking a fine line,” he said. “And making some people feel uncomfortable.”

“I think you would be doing a disservice to the community if we were to do away with that financing vehicle without knowing what has to be done.”

The costs to issue the bonds was $500,000, and the last day council can send the bonds back is Dec. 1, 2009. The town would then lose the $.5 million. Should the town keep the bonds the estimated total cost to repay them over about 16 years is $22.1 million at 4.5 percent interest.