Vail Daily letter: Critic mixed up about Eagle-Gypsum revenue deal | VailDaily.com
YOUR AD HERE »

Vail Daily letter: Critic mixed up about Eagle-Gypsum revenue deal

Paul Witt
Vail, CO, Colorado

In her letter of June 27 about the revenue-sharing agreement between Eagle and Gypsum, Suzie Shepard has once again gotten it wrong.

First, I signed the letter because I was a member of the Eagle Town Board of Trustees when the original revenue-sharing agreement was signed. It had absolutely nothing to do with RED Development or my relationship with them (a relationship, by the way, which did not start until long after I was no longer on the Board of Trustees).

Second, there is no mention of revenue sharing in the development agreement between RED and the town of Eagle because it does not concern the developer.

The revenue sharing is an agreement between the towns of Gypsum and Eagle regardless of which retailers or developers generate the tax revenue. Although I don’t know for a fact, I would imagine that in Costco’s development agreement with Gypsum, there’s no mention of Eagle.

Third, Suzie is mixing past and present. Yes, if there was tax revenue from Eagle to share while I was on the board, I would have done so as stated in the June 21 letter.

With the current Eagle River Station, I was not on the board and therefore had no standing or “concern” about the revenue-sharing agreement between the towns. My “concern” in signing on the letter was simply to clarify the original intent of the Eagle Town Board when I was a member.

I have been and will continue to be thankful to Gypsum for honoring the revenue-sharing agreement these past years.

I have no objection to their right to end the agreement. What I do object to, however, is the implication that by approving Eagle River Station, the town has somehow changed the rules of the game.

The original agreement always anticipated that the east Eagle property would be developed and that tax revenues generated from there would be shared with Gypsum.

The intent was never meant to be that one town would sacrifice to the other its right to economic development. Rather, it was that both towns would share in success.

I still believe that Eagle and Gypsum can be successful communities, both separately and together, and I look forward to both towns finding ways to work together in the future.

Paul Witt

Eagle


Support Local Journalism


Start a dialogue, stay on topic and be civil.
If you don't follow the rules, your comment may be deleted.

User Legend: iconModerator iconTrusted User