DENVER AND COLORADO OLYMPIC AND PARALYMPIC EXPLORATORY COMMITTEE FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS I JUNE 2018 DENVER AND COLORADO OLYMPIC AND PARALYMPIC EXPLORATORY COMMITTEE Honorary Chair The Honorable Mayor Michael B. Hancock City of Denver Honorary Chair The Honorable Governor John Hickenlooper State of Colorado Committee Chair Robert Cohen The IMA Financial Group Mike Fries, Liberty Global Carrie Besnette Hauser, Colorado Mountain College Happy Haynes, Denver Department of Parks and Recreation Bill Hybl, El Pomar Foundation Mike Imhof, Vail Valley Foundation Committee Members and Affiliation Jandel Allen-Davis, Kaiser Permanente Walter Isenberg, Sage Hospitality Christine Benero, Mile High United Way Bruce James, Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck Maria Garcia Berry, CRL Associates Chris Jarnot, Vail Resorts Chauncey Billups, Former Professional Athlete, Philanthropist Michelle Lucero, Children’s Hospital Colorado Jeremy Bloom, Integrate, Olympian The Honorable Albus Brooks, Denver City Council, District 9 Peyton Manning, Former Professional Athlete, Businessman, Philanthropist Steve McConahey, SGM Capital Ken Schanzer, NBC Sports (retired) Kelly Brough, Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce Denise Burgess, Burgess Services Richard Scharf, VISIT DENVER Janice Sinden, Denver Center for the Performing Arts Terrance Carroll, Denver Public Schools Luella Chavez D’Angelo, University of Colorado South Denver The Honorable Mayor Marjorie Sloan, City of Golden Jerome Davis, Xcel Energy Bill Vidal, Former Mayor, City and County of Denver Navin Dimond, Stonebridge Companies Paul Washington, JLL Tami Door, Downtown Denver Partnership Wellington Webb, Webb Group International and Former Mayor, City and County of Denver Don Elliman, University of Colorado - Anschutz Medical Campus Tracy Winchester, Five Points Business District Mike Ferrufino, Hispanic Chamber of Commerce of Metro Denver Cole Finegan, Hogan Lovells Elaine Torres Workman, CBS4 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS ABBREVIATIONS AND TERMINOLOGY ....................................................................................................................... 5 CURRENT POSITION OF THE IOC AND USOC REGARDING A FUTURE OLYMPIC AND PARALYMPIC WINTER GAMES..................................................................................................................................... 5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................................. 6 EXPLORATORY COMMITTEE REPORT ...................................................................................................................... 10 SUBCOMMITTEES: BACKGROUND AND CHARGE ........................................................................................... 10 COULD DENVER AND COLORADO HOST THE WINTER GAMES? .................................................................. 11 GAMES OPERATIONS .................................................................................................................................. 11 FINANCE ....................................................................................................................................................... 12 LEGAL ............................................................................................................................................................ 13 SHOULD DENVER AND COLORADO BID? ......................................................................................................... 14 COMMUNITY AND CIVIC ENGAGEMENT ................................................................................................ 14 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................................... 20 SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS ........................................................................................................................................ 23 GAMES OPERATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE ............................................................................................................ 23 FINANCE SUBCOMMITTEE ................................................................................................................................. 68 LEGAL SUBCOMMITTEE ...................................................................................................................................... 74 COMMUNITY AND CIVIC ENGAGEMENT SUBCOMMITTEE ............................................................................ 78 APPENDIX .................................................................................................................................................................... 92 Press Release - Announcing the Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games Exploratory Committee ................... 92 Additional Olympic Winter Sporting Events ........................................................................................................ 94 Additional Large-Scale Non-Olympic Events ....................................................................................................... 97 Colorado Subject Matter Experts (SME) .............................................................................................................. 99 Denver Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games Summary Budget for National Games Hosting Option ........ 103 Letters of Support from Denver and Colorado Venue Owners and Operators ................................................ 104 Press Release - Announcing Opportunities for Community Engagement ........................................................ 123 Metro Denver Sharing the Gold Advisory (STGA) - Member List...................................................................... 125 Metro Denver STGA - Meeting 1 Agenda ......................................................................................................... 127 Metro Denver STGA - Meeting 1 Presentation .................................................................................................. 128 Metro Denver STGA - Meeting 1 Q&A .............................................................................................................. 143 Metro Denver STGA - Meeting 1 Meeting Notes .............................................................................................. 148 Metro Denver STGA - Meeting 2 Agenda ......................................................................................................... 150 Metro Denver STGA - Meeting 2 Presentation .................................................................................................. 151 Metro Denver STGA - Meeting 2 Dot Voting Analysis ...................................................................................... 156 Metro Denver STGA - Meeting 2 Q&A .............................................................................................................. 160 3 Metro Denver STGA - Meeting 3 Agenda ......................................................................................................... 164 Metro Denver STGA - Meeting 3 Presentation .................................................................................................. 165 Metro Denver STGA - Meeting 3 Q&A .............................................................................................................. 169 Metro Denver STGA - Meeting 3 Meeting Notes .............................................................................................. 172 Metro Denver STGA - Meeting 4 Agenda ......................................................................................................... 177 Metro Denver STGA - Meeting 4 Presentation .................................................................................................. 178 Metro Denver STGA - Meeting 4 Meeting Notes .............................................................................................. 183 Metro Denver STGA - Final Recommendations to the Community and Civic Engagement Subcommittee .... 186 Mountain Communities STGA - Sample Agenda ............................................................................................... 189 Mountain Communities STGA - Summary Report.............................................................................................. 191 Online Community Meeting Presentation.......................................................................................................... 198 Speakers Bureau Meeting Spreadsheet ............................................................................................................. 213 Letter of Support from the I-70 Collaborative Effort......................................................................................... 216 I-70 Collaborative Effort Membership ............................................................................................................... 218 Letter of Support from the Metro Denver Lodging Council ............................................................................. 219 Executive Summary of Online Survey Results .................................................................................................... 220 Executive Summary of Statewide Poll Results ................................................................................................... 224 Sharing the Gold Fact Sheet .............................................................................................................................. 225 Denver Olympic Exploratory Committee Media Coverage............................................................................... 226 Communications Subcommittee Members ........................................................................................................ 230 The Exploratory Committee would like to acknowledge and thank the following individuals who assisted the committee in its work: Jerry Anderson Carrie Atiyeh Rachel Benedick Reeves Brown Wes Friednash Tyler Gamble Anthony E. Graves Khadija Haynes Michael Hopper Jeff Keas Kristen Kelly Hannah LaForest Steve McCarthy Derek Okubo Matthew Payne Ramonna Robinson Jesus Salazar Steve Sander Brittany Morris Saunders Katy Strascina Tamra Ward 4 ABBREVIATIONS AND TERMINOLOGY Throughout this report, abbreviations and terminology are used to describe organizations and concepts within the Olympic Movement. These include: Bid Committee The entity that would be responsible for coordinating and presenting a bid to host the Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games to the USOC, IOC and IOC membership IOC International Olympic Committee IPC International Paralympic Committee The New Norm A set of 118 reforms that reimagine how the Olympic Games are delivered1 Olympic Agenda 2020 The strategic road map for the future of the Olympic Movement2 Olympic Movement A term used to describe athletes, organizations, and other parties who operate under the Olympic Charter Organizing Committee The entity that would be responsible for organizing and delivering an Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games, if Denver and Colorado were to win a bid USOC United States Olympic Committee CURRENT POSITION OF THE IOC AND USOC REGARDING A FUTURE OLYMPIC AND PARALYMPIC WINTER GAMES The IOC is currently in the Dialogue Phase of its 2026 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games bid process. No U.S. cities are a part of the process to award the 2026 Winter Games, as the USOC has previously indicated it is not currently pursuing a Candidate City to host the 2026 Winter Games. With the Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games taking place every four years, the next Winter Games that Denver and Colorado could pursue would be the 2030 Winter Games. The USOC has publicly stated that it is focused on pursuing a 2030 bid or beyond. The USOC is the sole entity that will determine whether to submit a bid for the Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games. Based on historic timing, the 2030 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games will be awarded in 2023: 2020: Creation of a Bid Committee 2020–2022: IOC Dialogue Phase 2022–2023: IOC Candidate City Phase 2023: Host City of the 2030 Winter Games Selected https://stillmed.olympic.org/media/Document%20Library/OlympicOrg/News/2018/02/2018-02-06-OlympicGames-the-New-Norm-Report.pdf#_ga=2.47824551.1097714348.1525980835-244100682.1461550896 1 https://stillmed.olympic.org/Documents/Olympic_Agenda_2020/Olympic_Agenda_2020-2020_Recommendations-ENG.pdf 2 5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Denver and Colorado have a legacy of producing world-class events, coupled with a unique position within the history of Olympic Games host cities. When Mayor Michael B. Hancock and Governor John Hickenlooper determined that Denver and Colorado should embark on an Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games exploratory process in late 2017, they set an expectation that this exploratory process would be different. This endeavor would be done the Colorado Way—with an eye toward an innovative approach, robust community engagement and feedback, and a focus on understanding how embarking on such a process could benefit the Olympic and Paralympic Movements and leave a long-term legacy for the Centennial State. And so, not only would this Exploratory Committee be challenged to determine if Colorado could host the Winter Games, this committee would need to determine if we, the residents of Colorado, should bid to host the Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games at some point in the future. To complete its work, the Mayor and the Governor seated a committee composed of civic and community leaders from around Colorado, and that committee created five distinct subcommittees (Community and Civic Engagement, Communications, Finance, Games Operations and Legal) to complete this important work. The Finance, Games Operations, and Legal Subcommittees focused on the question of could Colorado host the Winter Games. With the understanding that Denver and the mountain communities have already bid on, funded, and hosted major events like the MLB, NBA, and NHL All-Star Games; FIS World Cups and Championships; the Winter X Games; and the 2008 Democratic National Convention, the subcommittees were aware that Colorado is capable of successfully executing major events. Additionally, Colorado has a long and storied history of delivering opportunities and events for the adaptive sports community. Colorado is home to many adaptive sports organizations, including the National Sports Center for the Disabled. This facility, which is located in Winter Park, Colorado, has been in existence since 19703—six years before the first Paralympic Winter Games took place. Further, the Annual Winter Park Open has been in existence for more than 30 years, and Aspen Snowmass has hosted the National Disabled Veterans Winter Sports Clinic on an annual basis for more than three decades. Credit: Aaron Dodds 3 http://nscd.org/about-nscd-adaptive-sports/ 6 The outstanding question then was, could Denver and Colorado host a privately financed Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games? With that question in mind, the three subcommittees set forth to explore: What venues could be used? Were they available to rent? If Colorado was lacking a required venue, could it identify a fiscally prudent way to solve that challenge? Was it conceivable that a future Organizing Committee could raise the needed funds through traditional Olympic Games–related revenue streams? Could a mix of private insurance and other risk management strategies be developed to protect the residents of Colorado from risks associated with hosting the Winter Games? How could a privately financed bid be structured (e.g., non-profit entity) to manage risk and deliver the most value to the residents of Colorado? Relying on their combined expertise, publicly available information, and information available through the IOC Olympic Games Knowledge Management program, the Finance, Games Operations, and Legal Subcommittees organized their findings and produced their first rounds of conclusions. These outcomes were shared with the full Exploratory Committee for feedback, as well as with independent third parties with relevant expertise. Simultaneously, the Community and Civic Engagement Subcommittee set about the task of determining if Colorado should bid for a future Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games—a more subjective question that must take into account the opportunities and challenges faced by the various communities in which Winter Games events might take place, as well as the potential legacy that would be left across the state. Community engagement started with the launch of the website Explorethegames.com on January 30, 2018. Included on the website was the opportunity to participate in a public survey that allowed residents across Colorado to share their thoughts on the potential benefits and concerns around hosting a future Winter Games. During the period the survey was open, some concerns regarding the tone of the questions were raised, and the committee sought the review and feedback of an independent third party, who provided revisions to select survey questions. In the end, 9,511 surveys were determined to be valid, complete responses by residents of Colorado. Across all valid responses, the common themes that arose included: • Desire for a privately financed hosting strategy • Post–Winter Games plan for any new construction and, potentially, a budget surplus • Questions regarding how the I-70 Mountain Corridor would operate during a Winter Games and interest in transportation investment that could lead to improvements As the Community and Civic Engagement Subcommittee continued its work, the themes witnessed in the survey were echoed by the residents who participated in online community meetings and who were invited to participate in the Sharing the Gold Advisory (STGA). Across Metro Denver and in the mountain communities of Breckenridge, Frisco, Georgetown, Steamboat Springs, Vail, and Winter Park, STGA members represented the diversity within our communities, including faith-based organizations, foundations, neighborhoods, minority chambers of commerce, people with disabilities, arts professionals and cultural institutions, young professionals, and others. Through these meetings, voices representing the collective perspective of the opportunities, challenges, and risks of bidding on an Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games came together for direct dialogue and discussion. 7 Throughout this process, and in true Colorado fashion, dissenting voices were encouraged, and direct dialogue was preferred. Whether in an STGA meeting or at a public meeting hosted by Inter-Neighborhood Cooperation (INC), members of the Exploratory Committee engaged in fact-based discussions with the intent to inform the audiences, while also learning from them. In particular, former Governor Dick Lamm’s call for a public vote on whether Colorado should host a future Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games appears to have struck a chord with many residents, as well as members of the Exploratory Committee. As an additional means of collecting community sentiment on the topic of whether Colorado should bid for a future Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games, the leadership of the Exploratory Committee commissioned a statistically valid statewide poll in late January 2018. The poll found that in every region of Colorado, a majority of voters favors hosting the Winter Games, including 65% in Denver, 76% in Eagle County, and 61% statewide. (Additional details about the poll can be found in the appendix.) With a stronger understanding of how Colorado could host a privately financed Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games and robust public input regarding if Denver and Colorado should put forward a future bid, the Exploratory Committee stopped to consider why—why should the residents of Colorado invest their time in the Olympic Movement and the Winter Games. The Exploratory Committee believes that hosting the Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games in the Centennial State would be as much about the values Coloradans can offer to the Olympic Movement as it would be about the benefits and legacy Colorado may gain through the experience of hosting a Winter Games. The committee also believes in the profound ability of sports to unite and inspire people of different backgrounds, and the committee endeavors to utilize this powerful tool to foster meaningful conversation among Coloradans. In Colorado, we place the Olympic values of excellence, friendship, and respect, as well as the Paralympic values of courage, determination, equality, and inspiration at the heart of many of our decisions. The committee has conducted its work in line with these values, and the body of this report, as well as the appendix, provides great detail regarding the process and methodology utilized by the subcommittees and ultimately the Exploratory Committee to come to their final recommendation. This recommendation provides a possible Bid Committee, which could be formed in the future, with a road map to host the Winter Games in a way that would make Colorado residents proud. Beyond values, hosting a future Winter Games could have a real, tangible impact on many segments of Colorado’s economy. The Winter Games would solidify Colorado’s position as a winter sports and recreation leader, while also providing the state with an opportunity to pursue a long-term economic impact like Utah witnessed as a result of the 2002 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games. In a policy brief from the Center for Public Policy & Administration at the University of Utah, the total sales that could be attributed to the 2002 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games totaled $4.8 billion.4 Therefore, the Exploratory Committee’s final recommendation to Mayor Michael B. Hancock and Governor John Hickenlooper, endorsed by a supermajority of the committee is: A future Bid Committee representing Denver and Colorado should pursue a future Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games in a manner that is: Privately financed to safeguard Colorado residents from any budget overruns associated with hosting • the Winter Games • Protected by insurance and other risk management strategies to satisfy IOC and USOC requirements • Structured to provide a level of transparency to the public-at-large • Designed to prioritize the legacy or temporary use of venues rather than constructing new ones • Sustainable and explores all options to limit environmental impact Sensitive to the needs of all residents, while exploring how the Winter Games could be a catalyst for • creative solutions to pressing challenges, such as traffic congestion and affordable housing Voted on by the residents of Colorado through a statewide initiative • 4 http://gardner.utah.edu/_documents/publications/econ-dev/olympics-econ-impact.pdf 8 Credit: Jack Affleck EXPLORATORY COMMITTEE REPORT Throughout the Exploratory Committee’s work, numerous options, recommendations, and concerns were taken into consideration. With this report, the Exploratory Committee has attempted to provide a future Bid Committee with relevant information and recommendations on the key decisions that will need to be made if an Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games is pursued. SUBCOMMITTEES: BACKGROUND AND CHARGE The subcommittees began looking into two distinct questions: could Denver and Colorado host a future Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games, and should Denver and Colorado consider hosting a future Winter Games. The Finance, Games Operations, and Legal Subcommittees began focusing on the question of could, while the Community and Civic Engagement Subcommittee focused on the question of should. The Communications Subcommittee provided support, with necessary reference materials, collateral, and presentations, while also managing media relations and social media related to the process. Each subcommittee started by defining its own criteria: Games Operations Do Denver and Colorado have the ability to provide the competition and non-competition venues required by the IOC to host the Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games? Regarding new construction, specifically the Olympic Villages (Denver and mountains), are there potential funding mechanisms and legacy plans? Are the venue owners receptive to the idea of using their venues for the Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games? Finance How much will it cost to execute an Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games? Legal Can a private entity operate a future Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games? Should Colorado voters play a role in a decision to bid for, and host, a Winter Games? Community and Civic Engagement Was the community engaged, and were community opinions considered throughout the exploratory process? Do the final report and recommendations address the community’s concerns? Do the final report and recommendations address the community’s vision/legacy? What is the proposed mechanism to raise the funds necessary to cover the associated costs? Could a risk management plan be developed without government subsidies and guarantees, and still meet the IOC requirement for a financial guarantee? 10 COULD DENVER AND COLORADO HOST THE WINTER GAMES? GAMES OPERATIONS To answer whether Denver and Colorado could host the Winter Games, the Games Operations Subcommittee first needed to review the venues and sports expertise already in place. Colorado is already home to numerous world-class venues, including, but not limited to: • Coors Field • Copper Mountain • Howelsen Hill in Steamboat Springs • Mile High Stadium • Pepsi Center • Vail Resorts • Winter Park Resort The city and state also have a proven record of delivering more than 300 successful domestic and international winter sports events, such as: • FIS Denver Big Air 2011 (snowboard) • FIS World Championships 1999 and 2015 (Alpine skiing) • FIS World Cup at Beaver Creek since 1988 (Alpine skiing) • Halfpipe, slopestyle, and snowboard cross World Cups since 1999 • Winter Park Open for Paralympic events since 2003 • Winter X Games (Colorado has hosted 19 of the 24 Winter X Games) The region has served as host to many other major events, including: • 2008 Democratic National Convention • Denver Summit of the Eight (G8) - 1997 • Major League Baseball (MLB), National Football League (NFL), National Basketball Association (NBA), and National Hockey League (NHL) games and special events • National Western Stock Show (annually since 1906) • World Youth Day - 1993 With a firm understanding of Colorado’s event hosting history, and a thorough analysis of the venues and infrastructure that currently exist in Colorado, the Games Operations Subcommittee determined there were three viable options by which Colorado could host the Winter Games. National Concept In alignment with IOC Agenda 2020, Colorado could cohost an Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games in partnership with another city. Specifically, for Denver’s Olympic interests, this would mean partnering with a city that already has permanent venues for Nordic events, sliding sports, and existing infrastructure that meets the requirements for ski jumping. Legacy Concept In this option, a future Bid Committee could consider establishing a permanent legacy venue while still partnering with another city that has permanent venues for sliding sports. The Games Operations Subcommittee studied adding a new, larger ski jump to the existing jump facility at Howelsen Hill in Steamboat Springs. Adding a large jump to the existing six smaller jumps at this facility would provide future athletes with a premier training facility. Temporary Concept If a future Bid Committee determined that there was not a sufficient need to partner with another city and/or a need for a legacy venue, the required infrastructure to host the Winter Games could be developed on a temporary basis along the Front Range. Utilizing this option would place the entire Winter Games in Colorado. With the venue and sporting questions answered, the subcommittee turned its attention to the IOC and USOC requirements for accommodations, security, sustainability, and transportation. In each of these areas, the subcommittee found that Colorado met or exceeded the IOC and USOC requirements. With more than 81,000 hotel rooms spread across Denver, the metro area, and Eagle and Summit counties, as well as regional emergency services that have worked many high-profile events, Colorado could easily meet the IOC and USOC requirements for accommodations and security. The region especially stood out when measured against the sustainability and transportation requirements. On sustainability, Colorado’s commitment to meeting 11 the goals of the Paris Climate Agreement5 and reducing statewide greenhouse gas emissions by 26% (from 2005 levels) by 2025 exceeds the IOC requirements. Similarly, Denver International Airport and RTD’s bus and rail options provide a strong basis for an Olympic Route Network. I-70 Mountain Corridor Due to its importance to Denver and Colorado, the I-70 Mountain Corridor was given careful consideration. As part of the exploratory process, the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) was asked to analyze the current capabilities of the Corridor, as well as view Olympic transportation requirements through the lens of planned improvements (Record of Decision, 2011).6 To that end, CDOT issued an official policy statement that included the following points: • If the Olympics were to happen in Denver this year (2018), CDOT believes that the traffic impacts would not be so great that we (CDOT) wouldn’t be able to make it work. • Today, peak weekend winter travel on the I-70 Mountain Corridor is between 40,000 and 45,000 vehicles per day. During the week, traffic is 30,000 vehicles daily. With many of the Olympic and Paralympic events happening during the week, I-70 is already capable of handling the increased traffic volumes. • With RTD’s existing rail lines, along with funded, managed lane improvements on Central 70 and C-470, CDOT believes Denver is well-positioned to handle the traffic impacts of the Winter Games from the airport to downtown and throughout the region. • CDOT has already constructed I-70 EB Mountain Express Lanes, and with SB 267 funding, WB Mountain Express Lanes could be under construction in 2019. This would provide three lanes of travel to and from Empire, Colorado. CDOT is planning for substantial improvements in the Floyd Hill area, which would provide additional capacity. • Colorado is already very familiar with successful high-volume ski competitions. The four-day Winter X Games in Aspen has a total attendance of 115,000, for example. http://www.5280.com/2017/07/colorado-joins-u-sclimate-alliance-with-hicks-pledge-to-uphold-parisclimate-goals/ 5 Based on the analysis and projections of Olympic transportation experts, as well as the analysis conducted by the Colorado Department of Transportation, Denver and the mountain communities are capable of meeting or exceeding the transportation requirements associated with the Winter Games, while also meeting the day-to-day needs of Colorado residents. FINANCE With the insights from the Games Operations Subcommittee, the Finance Subcommittee developed a revenue budget for hosting the Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games based on the national concept envisioned by the Games Operations Subcommittee. When factoring in all of the cost drivers traditionally used in calculating the operating expense budget (games operations, venues, staffing, and IT and telecommunications), the Finance Subcommittee has determined that a National Hosting Concept would incur the least amount of expenditures. Further, the subcommittee determined that if a future Organizing Committee elects to outsource three particular Winter Olympic venues (Nordic, ski jumping, and sliding) to a city with the existing infrastructure required to host these events, a future Organizing Committee would need to generate revenues of approximately $1.861 billion from Olympic Games revenue sources to cover the costs associated with the national concept. The other hosting options, which focus on legacy venues or utilize temporary infrastructure, would have incremental costs that would need to be funded through additional domestic sponsorships or more diligent cost management. The Finance Subcommittee is confident a future Organizing Committee would be successful in balancing the budget for these hosting concepts, as well. https://www.codot.gov/projects/i-70-oldmountaincorridor/documents/Final_I70_ROD_Combi ned_061611maintext.pdf 6 12 The subcommittee then evaluated the common sources of revenue for funding the Winter Games: ticket sales, business revenues, IOC contribution, private donations, and sponsorships, while maintaining a focus on funding the Winter Games without direct financial support from the City and County of Denver, other municipalities, or the State of Colorado. The Finance Subcommittee projected a future Organizing Committee could likely raise $566 million in domestic sponsorships and produce $504 million in ticket sales revenue. Additional revenues would come from an estimated IOC contribution of $559 million, representing the 2018 value of budget relieving amounts based on the IOC’s stated $925 million expected contribution to the 2026 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games. Also, $232 million of revenue is attributable to other revenue sources (e.g., business operations, donations, and licensing and merchandising). Unique to this proposal is the use of private insurance policies and other risk management strategies to protect Denver and Colorado residents from any budget overruns associated with hosting the Winter Games. The subcommittee looked into various risk mitigation strategies, from $250 million to address cost overages to up to $1.4 billion to cover event cancellation and other major risks. According to current estimates, it would cost approximately $115 million to fund a risk management strategy that would protect the Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games from financial risks. This additional cost is included in the expenditure budget under games operations. Lastly, this subcommittee explored and tested the concept of establishing an innovative contingency fund that would be financed through guarantees from private companies. In this concept, companies would allocate these funds to a future Organizing Committee, and if the funds are not ultimately required in order to balance the budget, they could either be returned or reallocated to a Legacy Fund. The benefit of the privately financed model is to alleviate public concern that hosting the Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games would require direct financial support from the City and County of Denver, other municipalities, and the State of Colorado. It must be noted that while the public benefit is clear, the risk management structure and reliance on private financing that is being recommended has not been discussed with the IOC and USOC and therefore could be an approach that is not acceptable to them as a method to meet the required financial guarantee. Under these circumstances, a future Bid Committee would need to determine if there is an alternative financial structure that is acceptable to the IOC and USOC, while still meeting the community desire for the Winter Games to be privately financed. LEGAL The Legal Subcommittee then set out to determine the legal structure for a privately financed Winter Games. The subcommittee determined that creating a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization would result in the greatest public benefit, with the most flexibility for the organization to deliver a worldclass Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games. The exact structure of the non-profit entity would be determined at a later date, including elements relating to the composition of the Board of Directors and procurement rules, including City and County of Denver certifications, which may include but are not limited to Minority- and Women-Owned Business Enterprise (M/WBE), Small Business Enterprise (SBE), and Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE). Public Vote Throughout the work of the Exploratory Committee, and across the Olympic Movement, the question of a public vote has become an increasingly noteworthy issue to study. Given the importance of this matter, the Legal Subcommittee researched this possibility, and the Exploratory Committee spent much time discussing this topic. Because the committee proposes a privately financed Winter Games, no taxpayer funds would be at risk if a future Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games suffered a deficit. Thus, without residents bearing financial responsibility, the Winter Games could be held in Colorado without a legally mandated vote of its citizens. 13 While it is the Legal Subcommittee’s conclusion that a vote is not legally mandated, there are voices, both inside the Exploratory Committee and outside, who feel that a decision to bid should be accompanied by a statewide vote. The subcommittee explored both whether a vote should be conducted, and, if so, how it could be accomplished. The subcommittee first considered a statewide vote in 2019, but ruled it out due to Colorado’s statewide initiative requirements. In odd years in Colorado, statewide initiative questions must relate solely to questions of taxation. Since no taxpayer liability will be at risk if the Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games are awarded to Denver and Colorado, a vote in 2019 did not seem appropriate. With the statewide initiative requirement and the USOC’s stated interest in pursuing a Winter Games in 2030 or beyond, the Legal Subcommittee recommended a statewide vote take place no earlier than 2020. Apart from a statewide vote, the question of whether to hold a vote solely in the City and County of Denver has been discussed. Despite the filing of a Denver ballot initiative on April 30, 2018, the Exploratory Committee does not believe a vote limited to residents of Denver would be appropriate since the Winter Games would be conducted throughout Colorado. Moreover, since Denver residents would not bear financial responsibility for hosting the Winter Games, any vote (if taken) should involve all voters in Colorado. SHOULD DENVER AND COLORADO BID? COMMUNITY AND CIVIC ENGAGEMENT The more complex question facing the Exploratory Committee was should Denver and Colorado pursue a bid to host a future Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games. To answer this question, the Exploratory Committee engaged with tens of thousands of Colorado residents who had shared many different opinions and perspectives on the opportunities and risks associated with hosting the Winter Games. The Exploratory Committee diligently recorded these discussions and recommends a future Bid Committee take these insights into consideration. It should also be noted that while all the recommendations are thoughtful and noble, the challenging issues currently facing Denver and Colorado will not be solved by hosting a future Winter Games. The Community and Civic Engagement Subcommittee utilized several methods to engage with Denver and Colorado residents. Website Explorethegames.com and Sharingthegold.org went live on January 30, 2018. Explorethegames.com was the primary site for sharing information about the exploratory process, while Sharingthegold.org provided a direct link to the Community and Civic Engagement information on the website. The FAQs and an online survey were available in Spanish. The site also included Google Translate functionality, making it possible for all pages on the site to be translated into nine languages that were recommended by the Denver Office of Human Rights and Community Partnerships. Online Survey The online survey was launched with the website and was available through March 3, 2018. The survey was developed and administered by a third party, and the goal of the survey was to gain feedback from as many Colorado residents as possible to learn about what they considered potential benefits and concerns related to hosting a future Winter Games. Early in the process, concerns were raised that certain questions prompted survey respondents to pick from positive outcomes only. The survey was reviewed by an additional independent third party, and six minor revisions were made to adjust the 14 sections in question; however, the modifications did not change the meaning of the questions or the integrity of the data. A total of 9,511 surveys were available for analysis. The survey ended with a 71% completion rate, which is in line with the industry average. The benefit ranked as most important by survey participants was: “The values of the Olympic Games include athletes competing equally, diversity and equality, clean sport and peace through sport.” The challenge ranked as most important by survey participants was: “I believe the I-70 Mountain Corridor, as it is currently configured, is not capable of managing the traffic congestion associated with hosting the Winter Games.” The legacy potential ranked as most important by survey participants was: “I-70 congestion relief between Denver and the mountains.” Online Community Meetings The Community and Civic Engagement Subcommittee conducted online community meetings on February 8 and February 24, 2018. The presentation was viewable online, and presentation audio was available over the phone with English and Spanish closed captioning. Both presentations included a Q&A session during which the online audience could submit questions. As of April 25, 2018, 163 people participated in the live online community meetings, with another 250 watching the recorded presentations on Explorethegames.com at a later time. Sharing the Gold Advisory To assist the Exploratory Committee in determining if Colorado should host a future Winter Games, the Community and Civic Engagement Subcommittee established the Sharing the Gold Advisory (STGA), meant to spur statewide discussion of the benefits and challenges of hosting an Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games. Metro Denver STGA The Metro Denver STGA included 64 local leaders from a diverse set of communities across the Metro Denver area. The Advisory was comprised of members that represented the diversity within our communities, including faith-based organizations, foundations, neighborhoods, minority chambers of commerce, people with disabilities, arts professionals and cultural institutions, young professionals, and others. Through four meetings of the Metro Denver STGA, members participated in discussions, debates, and decision-making exercises to test assumptions about the Winter Games and explore where they and the communities they represent saw opportunities and risks for Denver and Colorado as a potential Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games host. Throughout these meetings, members of the Exploratory Committee were available to answer questions. However, the committee members did not have a say regarding the final recommendations produced by the Metro Denver STGA. The final set of recommendations was reached by consensus of the members. The final, unedited recommendations of the Metro Denver STGA, as defined by its process, are shared on the following pages. As previously noted, these suggestions will be provided to a future Bid Committee for its consideration. The Metro Denver STGA’s recommendations provide a strong set of considerations that would drive a future Bid and Organizing Committee to host the Winter Games in a way that would make Coloradans proud. 15 VISION Recommendations of the Metro Denver STGA • The public will have full transparency into how the Winter Games are financed, who benefits, and how decisions are made. Any authority or agency created to host the Winter Games is subject to applicable public record requests. • There is no taxpayer liability in the event of any initial debt load, budget overruns, or other unknown circumstances. • There will be an inclusive and diverse community task force established to ensure that there is accountability to the recommendations of this group. • Organizers in Metro Denver and throughout Colorado will purposefully work to include the voices from all communities and will set a new standard for what inclusion looks like, setting an example for future hosts of the Games to emulate. • Part of the budget for hosting the Winter Games will be specifically allocated for contracting opportunities for local, minority, women, and disadvantaged small businesses in the metro area and mountain communities. • There is a commitment to the creation of a specific program or an expansion of existing programs that increases access to mountain sports and winter activities for underserved and disabled youth. • The Winter Games will showcase the beauty of our state and the passion and spirit of ALL our people and cultures. • Hosting the Winter Games is a catalyst for improvements in multimodal, public transportation throughout the I-70 Mountain Corridor with a preference toward mass transit options over roadway improvements. • The service levels for existing public services (e.g. emergency response, transit, etc.) remain uninterrupted by the Winter Games. • Metro Denver and Colorado will not hide or mask our societal challenges but will use the Winter Games as an opportunity to address them. • Organizers will place an emphasis on social and environmental sustainability that sets a new international standard. • The community will celebrate a successfully executed “zero-waste event” that maintains the environmental integrity of our communities. • There will be a formal and efficient system to capture and address challenges as they arise throughout the preparation and during the execution of the Winter Games. LEGACY Recommendations of the Metro Denver STGA • Underserved communities, as well as our youth and future generations, will have greater access to engagement opportunities in outdoor and mountain activities. • Denver and Colorado will be globally recognized for the creativity we applied in leveraging the Winter Games to maximize social benefit and the innovative ways in which we addressed challenges that may arise. • The community will be able to say, with confidence, that hosting the Winter Games accelerated our collective ambitions and did not distract us from our community, social, and economic priorities. • Colorado will benefit from innovative, multimodal, public transportation improvements that reduce congestion and increase safety and accessibility for people in our urban and mountain communities. • Coloradans, especially our most vulnerable, will have a voice in how a financial surplus would be utilized. • Metro Denver and mountain communities will benefit from increased access to affordable housing resulting directly from the Games. 16 RISK AND CHALLENGE Concerns of the Metro Denver STGA • Uncertainty over taxpayer liability in the event of any initial debt load, budget overruns, or other unknown circumstances, even with the proposed model, where local and state government would not be required to subsidize or guarantee the finances of the Winter Games. • Lack of transparency regarding funding and financial commitments, making it difficult to know who benefits most from Colorado hosting the Winter Games. • Concern that those who are most impacted by the Winter Games (e.g., the transit dependent) could also be the ones that benefit the least, and that those may also be the individuals who are least able to participate in the Winter Games due to lack of geographic access, socioeconomic challenges, and other barriers. • There is a concern that low-income, homeless, and elderly people will be displaced by the build-up to, and execution of, the Winter Games – not only in Denver, but throughout the I-70 Mountain Corridor. • There is a concern that Metro Denver and Colorado could fail to use the Winter Games as a catalyst for improvements to the transportation challenges currently present in Metro Denver and throughout the I-70 corridor, such as significant traffic congestion. • There is a concern about potentially beneficial legacy projects (e.g., affordable housing) and that they would require significant debt to be maintained and operated long term. • There is concern because the final report is still under development; therefore, we have remaining questions that can’t be addressed at this time. Mountain Communities STGA STGA community engagement meetings were also conducted in Breckenridge, Frisco, Georgetown, Steamboat Springs, Vail, and Winter Park. Over the course of these six meetings, 211 community members were engaged. Most participants favored the prospect of hosting a future Winter Games, with a positive outlook around “Vision” and “Legacy” outpacing concerns about “Challenges” by a 4:1 ratio. When summarizing the results of all the mountain community meetings, the following topics stood out: VISION RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE MOUNTAIN COMMUNITIES STGA LEGACY RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE MOUNTAIN COMMUNITIES STGA RISK/CHALLENGE CONCERNS OF THE MOUNTAIN COMMUNITIES STGA Accelerate multimodal improvements to the I-70 Mountain Corridor Multimodal mass transit solution for the I-70 Mountain Corridor Inadequate transportation infrastructure on the I-70 Mountain Corridor Promote our community/ Colorado as a great place to live, work, and play Develop workforce housing Negative perception/antigrowth sentiment Improve community infrastructure Develop additional housing inventory Promote global stewardship/ sustainability by hosting a “green” games Promote Colorado’s reputation as a world-class destination Questions around potential to finance Olympic and Paralympic Games privately Inadequate workforce resources 17 Speakers Bureau Nearly 40 individuals who were well-versed in the exploratory process delivered remarks to approximately 1,700 individuals over the course of nearly 70 presentations. Elected leaders at the local, state, and federal level were also briefed. (A full list of organizations the Speakers Bureau presented to can be found in the appendix.) The groups that received presentations expressed aspirations for a potential Winter Games to reflect the “Colorado values” of inclusivity, environmental stewardship, and smart development. Beyond a strong message against using taxpayer dollars, other key themes included improved transportation, more affordable housing options, and a desire to prevent displacement of socioeconomically fragile communities. Addressing Voices Opposed to the Olympic Games in Denver and Colorado While the Exploratory Committee’s efforts were underway, some opposing voices joined to form a NOlympics committee. The group hosted a gathering on February 18, 2018, with a featured speaker who acknowledged the benefits of hosting the Olympic and Paralympic Games (e.g., tourism effects, transportation legacies, and increased international prestige for the host city/ region) as well as negatives (e.g., financing, costs, and social impacts.) It was noted that the presentation omitted a complete analysis of IOC Agenda 2020 and The New Norm, which are crafted with the intent of making it easier, less expensive, and more sustainable for cities to bid on and host an Olympic Games. The group also held a press conference at the State Capitol to share its perspective on what they perceived as higher-priority issues for Denver, such as affordable housing and transportation. Members of the Exploratory Committee also participated in a discussion hosted by InterNeighborhood Cooperation (INC) that presented differing viewpoints on the pros and cons of hosting an Olympic Games. During the panel discussion and audience Q&A, the topics of financing, venues, transportation, public outreach, and affordable housing were discussed. In each of their presentations, members of the NOlympics committee provided examples of Olympic Games-related challenges that other countries faced, but did not recognize the success the Olympic Games has found in North American host cities, such as the substantial Legacy Funds created in Salt Lake City and Vancouver. Lastly, despite the filing of a Denver ballot initiative on April 30, 2018 by members of the NOlympics committee, the Exploratory Committee recommends that all Coloradans have the opportunity to vote on whether Denver and Colorado should host a future Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games through a future statewide initiative. 18 Statewide Poll Keating Research conducted a statistically valid statewide poll in January 2018 of 735 active voters in Colorado, including an oversample in Denver and Eagle County. In order to fully respect the community and civic engagement process, the poll has not previously been discussed publicly. Several headlines stood out when reviewing the results, including: By nearly a 2:1 margin, Colorado voters favor Denver and Colorado hosting a future Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games. Denver Eagle County Statewide 65% in favor 76% in favor 61% in favor When compared to the first poll results of other cities and regions that have shown interest in bidding for the Olympic and Paralympic Games, Colorado’s poll results are comparable and, in some instances, more favorable. The poll also found that support for Colorado hosting the Winter Games was strengthened by a well-liked brand. More than eight in ten (84%) of Colorado voters view the Olympics favorably. Voters also shared clear aspirations for the benefits they would like to see the Winter Games deliver to Denver and Colorado, including: • Opportunities for the disabled and disabled veterans by hosting the Paralympic Games. • Housing for athletes being converted into affordable housing for Colorado workers once the Winter Games are over. • Transportation and mobility options needed to host the Winter Games will remain long after the Games are over. • Colorado will see economic benefits, just as the 2002 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games were positive for Utah’s economy. Credit: Stan Obe 19 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the extensive work completed by the Finance, Games Operations, and Legal Subcommittees, the Exploratory Committee is confident that Denver and Colorado could host a future Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games. Further, the committee believes that a completely privately financed hosting structure would be viewed favorably by both the IOC and USOC. Additionally, in reviewing the findings of the Sharing the Gold Advisory, speakers bureau presentations, online community meetings, website, public survey, and poll, it is the recommendation of the Exploratory Committee that Colorado should pursue a future Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games. Furthermore, although not mandated, the Exploratory Committee recommends running a statewide initiative in 2020 or beyond to ensure Coloradans will have the opportunity to express their point of view. Therefore, based on the recently completed exploratory process, a firm understanding of the IOC’s interest in assisting partner cities, and the indepth analysis of Denver and the mountain communities’ ability to integrate Olympic needs into their current planning, it is the recommendation of this Exploratory Committee that should the USOC determine a need, we should bid for a future Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games, with a specific focus on 2030 and beyond. The Exploratory Committee went beyond the standards that have typically defined other exploratory efforts, while also studying possible options to answer the questions posed by Mayor Hancock and Governor Hickenlooper, which served as the basis of this committee’s work. From an unprecedented community engagement program during the exploratory phase to a commitment to a 100% privately financed hosting strategy, this committee was determined to rise higher. And if there should be a formal bid for a future Winter Games, the Bid Committee must undertake that task with a vision of inclusiveness for the residents of https://www.denverpost.com/2018/02/05/coloradowinter-olympics-2018-athletes-pyeongchang/ 8 https://www.denverpost.com/2018/03/22/denverpopulation-growth-100000-7-years-pace-slowing/ 7 Denver, the mountain communities, and all Coloradans. Finally, a future Organizing Committee must also aim to deliver an exemplary Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games that makes Coloradans proud. WHY Colorado already holds a prominent position in the Olympic Movement - Colorado sent more athletes7 to the 2018 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games in PyeongChang than any other State in the U.S. and hosting the Winter Games would be a way to honor all of our Olympians and Paralympians, while inspiring generations of new ones. The committee recognizes that both Denver and Colorado are experiencing steady and continued growth. Since 2010, Denver’s population has grown by 101,403.8 This type of accelerated growth exacerbates issues that face many American cities: affordable housing, gentrification, homelessness, aging transportation systems, and disparate impacts on quality of life. With that said, many in the community believe that growing in a smart way is better than being stagnant in today’s global economy. And that by 2030, Denver and Colorado’s economy may be in need of an economic stimulus and would benefit from the economic impact associated with hosting the Winter Games (e.g. $4.8 billion in total sales9 and worldwide exposure noted by Salt Lake City for hosting the Winter Games in 2002). With that in mind, this committee’s approach was to consider the evolution of Denver and Colorado through the prism of hosting an Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games and the Winter Games’ potential legacy. We listened to our neighbors, considered their concerns and hopes, and designed a hosting model that could be a catalyst to speed up dialogue about projects that may be planned or are under consideration. Additionally, the committee focused on enhancing Colorado’s Olympic and Paralympic stature while minimizing the need for new construction. This strategy, along with support from a Legacy Fund, has the potential to enhance Colorado’s position as a global leader in winter sports and recreation, while guiding Colorado http://gardner.utah.edu/_documents/publications/e con-dev/olympics-econ-impact.pdf 9 20 toward meaningful and actionable results around some of our most difficult civic challenges. And then there’s the Spirit of ’7610—the lessons learned that hosting the Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games must spring from the will of the people and serve the people. This spirit has impacted the Olympic Movement in cities across North America and Europe and had a very intentional impact on the work of this committee. With important lessons learned from 1976, this Exploratory Committee takes full accountability for its findings. Engaging the most important partners in this endeavor, the residents of Colorado, was a primary goal. The work of this committee has set a new precedent of community engagement never attempted by previous Exploratory Committees, and it far exceeds the requirements set forth by the IOC. WHY NOW Not bidding on a future Winter Games will not change the trajectory of Denver and Colorado. There will still be new construction, more residents, complex transportation issues to solve, and concerns about open space. IOC Agenda 2020 and The New Norm have indicated a new willingness by the IOC to work with host cities as a partner. The IOC has acknowledged this is a new moment in time for the Olympic Movement—one that involves listening to the concerns and hopes of potential host cities and assisting them in achieving their goals. If hosting the Winter Games can be a catalyst for needed infrastructure improvements, such as I-70 Mountain Corridor modernization and affordable housing inventory, now is the time to integrate those projects. The growth-related needs of Denver and the mountain communities currently align with the opportunities provided by the Winter Games. Additionally, it should be noted that the process of being the official U.S. Bid City has its own benefits, even if the Olympic Games don’t come to fruition. A future bid will require Colorado to answer difficult questions about land use, zoning, environmental 10 https://www.si.com/olympics/2018/02/06/wintergames-denver-olympics-bids-1976 11 https://ny.curbed.com/maps/winter-olympics2018-nyc2012-bid-hudson-yards impact, and transportation. The lead-up to an official bid process will also provide opportunities for Colorado to host new events and conferences that can generate new economic development. With a bid that requires concrete details and a firm deadline, there is an opportunity for a platform for all parties to work toward a shared goal. New York City is a good example of how the bid process led to city decisions that had a legacy impact, even though NYC was not selected to host the 2012 Olympic Games.11 Examples include: • Extension of the 7-line subway • Site preparation and development of hundreds of apartments in Hunters Point South (Queens) that would have been the Olympic Village WHAT HAPPENS NEXT The USOC has stated they are focused on pursuing a 2030 bid or beyond. Accordingly, the 2030 Winter Olympic and Paralympic Games will be awarded in 2023 with the dialogue and bid process starting in 2021. This timing will allow our community leaders and elected officials to focus on the important issues raised during the exploratory process. While our community focuses on the critical issues facing our state, there will continue to be a working group within Denver Sports that will monitor the Olympic process. This group will periodically report back to all stakeholders and help the community to decide when it is time to formalize a bid process. The Exploratory Committee recommends that any bid process should include a statewide vote of the people in the year 2020 or later, depending on which Winter Games we are invited to bid on. Consistent with its mission, Denver Sports - a private, non-profit that proactively identifies, pursues, and attracts new sporting opportunities and helps Denver to compete regionally, nationally, and internationally to host amateur and professional athletic competitions and events12 - will be used for monitoring the Olympic process. The working group’s ongoing monitoring will also ensure that if our citizens vote to host the Winter Games, no important dates are missed while we focus on the community issues that demand our attention. https://www.denver.org/sportscommission/about/ 12 21 Credit: Vail Resorts SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS GAMES OPERATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE Throughout the Exploratory Committee’s work, numerous options, recommendations, and concerns were taken into consideration. With this report, the Exploratory Committee has attempted to provide a future Bid Committee with relevant information and recommendations on the key decisions that will need to be made if an Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games is pursued. The Games Operations Subcommittee, co-chaired by Jerome Davis and Carrie Besnette Hauser, is made up of representatives from Colorado who have experience and critical vision in event operations, transportation, and infrastructure. The list of subcommittee members—ranging from venue owners and operators, to experts in their fields in the Games, construction, transportation, sustainability, and security—is included at the end of this section. Games Operations is a significant element in the staging of an Olympic and Paralympic Games. It encompasses the full life cycle of the Games, from planning to implementation to final removal and restoration. This functional area brings together all aspects of the venues and venue operations. It is typically composed of 25 to 30 different operating functions such as venue development, facility operations, sport, transportation, accreditation, security, decor, IT, broadcast, press, Olympic Family, people management, and many more. The exploratory process focused on six key functions, highlighted in the diagram below. These represent the primary departments that demonstrate the viability and potential preparations required of a city and region to physically and financially host the Olympic Games. This exploratory subcommittee examined Denver and Colorado’s history, experience, and assets related to these areas. The results have been coordinated with the other subcommittees to understand costs, revenues, community impacts, and developmental opportunities and constraints. Venues Accommodations Sports Transportation Safety and Security Sustainability and Environment 23 Venues The subcommittee reviewed the competition and non-competition venues available within the City and County of Denver and State of Colorado in order to demonstrate the region’s ability to host a future Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games. Based on the International Olympic Committee’s (IOC) Agenda 2020 and the recently released New Norm, a priority has been placed on existing venues and constructing only venues that have a strong legacy. These goals are in line with the goals of the members of this subcommittee and the Exploratory Committee as a whole. Denver and Colorado have a significant inventory of existing and planned venues that meet the requirements for the Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games. The list of potential venues—the Venue Matrix—and corresponding maps are included on the following pages. As noted in previous sections, in consideration of Agenda 2020 and The New Norm, these maps include options outside of Denver and Colorado. These maps are for illustration purposes only, and final plans would be determined by a future Bid or Organizing Committee. Criteria Games Operations’ review focused on three criteria that have been identified based on priorities of both the IOC and the Exploratory Committee. These criteria were agreed upon based on experience and understanding of previous Olympic Games, bids, and interaction with the IOC. The criteria were: • Do Denver and Colorado have the ability to provide the competition and noncompetition venues required by the IOC to host the Winter Games? • Regarding new construction, specifically the Olympic Villages (Denver and mountains), are there potential funding mechanisms and legacy plans? • Are the venue owners receptive to the idea of using their venues for the Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games? 24 Venue Matrix Gympic - Maintain (?nduchg Para) Arena National Western Livestodr Arena National Western Arena National Western Livestodr Arena Coors Field Mile Stbdum under Summit County - site - site TBD Budweiser Events Center 1st Bank Center Coiseum 1st Berk Center Coors Field Mile Stadum under Summit Candy - site Springs - site TBD Park - site TBD - site TBD 1st Bonk Center National Western Arena Coliseum 1st Bank Center Coors Field Mile Stbdum and/or Summit Courty - site TBD Winter Park - site TBD 25 OLYMPIC + PARALYMPIC WINTER GAMES EXPLORATORY STUDY 20 April 2018 COLORADO MAP VENUES OPTION 1 New Olympic Village - Denver Olympic Village - Mountains NATIONAL WESTERN ARENA NATIONAL WESTERN EXPO HALL VAIL NATIONAL WESTERN LIVESTOCK ARENA BEAVER CREEK COORS FIELD MILE HIGH STADIUM PEPSI CENTER COPPER MOUNTAIN BRECKENRIDGE Olympic Village + Paralympic Village EAGLE COUNTY OR SUMMIT COUNTY COLORADO CONVENTION CENTER MAGNESS ARENA Olympic Village + Paralympic Village DENVER Olympic Village + Paralympic Village NATIONAL NATIONAL SLIDING CENTER NORDIC CENTER JUMPING CENTER 26 OLYMPIC WINTER GAMES EXPLORATORY smov COLORADO MAP VENUES OPTION 2 8M 31. . SHJunpKIZS-Smmuboat 27 OLYMPIC + PARALYMPIC WINTER GAMES EXPLORATORY STUDY 20 April 2018 COLORADO MAP VENUES OPTION 3 New Olympic Village - Denver Olympic Village - Mountains Temporary Sliding Center Ski Jumping (relo K125) Nordic Center BUDWEISER EVENTS CENTER 1ST BANK CENTER DENVER COLISEUM WINTER PARK VAIL BEAVER CREEK FRONT RANGE: SLIDING CENTER NORDIC CENTER JUMPING CENTER DENVER OUTDOOR/ OPEN AIR TEMPORARY COORS FIELD MILE HIGH STADIUM KEYSTONE CIVIC CENTER PARK PEPSI CENTER COPPER MOUNTAIN BRECKENRIDGE Olympic Village + Paralympic Village EAGLE COUNTY OR SUMMIT COUNTY COLORADO CONVENTION CENTER Olympic OlympicVillage Village++ Paralympic ParalympicVillage Village DENVER DENVER NATIONAL LONG TRACK SPEED SKATING 28 Skiing and Snowboard Venues Four to five ski resorts are needed for Alpine skiing, freestyle skiing, and snowboard competitions. Colorado has six ski resorts with proximity to the I70 Mountain Corridor that will accommodate and support the venue requirements: Beaver Creek, Vail, Copper Mountain, Breckenridge, Keystone, and Winter Park, all within a two-hour drive of Denver. Each of these resorts has hosted major national and/or international championships. The available viewing capacity at each of these venues varies from 8,000 to 15,000 spectators. As a related point, Denver has hosted a Big Air competition in Civic Center Park. The Olympic Games venue for snowboard big air could take place in a number of locations, including Civic Center Park, Coors Field, Mile High Stadium, Dick’s Sporting Goods Park, or other green field sites within the City of Denver, or in the mountains. The capacity for this venue could range from 15,000 to 40,000, pending the final location selection. Ski Jump Venues The ski jump venue for the Winter Games is required to have a Normal Hill (K-90/95) and a Big Hill (K120/125). Denver and Colorado can offer alternatives for this venue. • To avoid any new or temporary construction, an existing facility could be used, such as a facility elsewhere in the U.S. • • A strong legacy solution can be proposed for Howelsen Hill in Steamboat Springs, where there is an existing jump center with seven jumps. The only additional jump to be constructed would be the Big Hill (K-120/125). A temporary ski jump center could be built in a location along the Front Range of Denver where the contours are viable. The Big Hill component could be designed to be temporary or in a method where it could be relocated to Howelsen Hill after the Winter Games. Nordic Venues Nordic venues are required for cross-country skiing and biathlon and para competitions. Denver and Colorado can provide a number of options to be considered for these venues. • It is possible to consider a “national” option and use an existing venue in another state. • If under Agenda 2020 and The New Norm consideration can be given for a variance to the venue elevation (5,905 feet), numerous existing Nordic centers in Colorado could be considered, such as at Steamboat Springs/Howelsen Hill, Devil’s Thumb Resort, and many of the Nordic centers in Breckenridge, Keystone, and Vail. • The Howelsen Hill Nordic Center may be combined with the ski jumping center in Steamboat Springs to form a strong complex. • Temporary venues along the Front Range are also possible. The IOC requirements for these venues can be met through existing or temporary facilities. The capacity in any of the options would be in the range of 12,000 to 20,000 spectators. The following maps detail which sports could take place at which venues. These maps are for illustration purposes only, and final plans would be determined by a future Bid or Organizing Committee. 29 93.30 35345822835833.8339 wm>1 8.5 7.33 7?5 7.03 6.92 6.83 6.81 6.82 6.challenges. ?o h} 222 At; Tfil?iARlNG Messaging GOLD While responses to individual questions largely mirrored the aggregate sentiment, several questions stood out. In the ?rst series of questions which asked about possible bene?ts, the Olympics embracing important values and the ability of Colorado to host the Olympics with private ?nancing resonated most with respondents. Alternatively, Olympic villages providing long?term a?'ordable housing and Colorado receiving funding from the International Olympic Committee for long?term solutions received the highest number of low scores. In the second series of questions, more than 83 percent of respondents identi?ed the I-70 corridor, as it is currently con?gured, being incapable of managing traf?c congestion associated with the Olympic, as a possible challenge if Colorado hosted the Winter Games. In second place, 57.5 percent of respondents identi?ed the ability of mountain communities to accommodate crowds associated with the Olympics as a possible challenge. One of the least important concerns according to respondents was the effect that the Olympics would have on individuals? everyday lives. Possible challenges like environmental sustainability and Denver?s ability to host the Olympics were also identi?ed less-o?en as potential hurdles. Open-Ended Responses Respondents were provided four opportunities to provide open?ended feedback regarding Colorado hosting the Olympics: once alter the ?rst series of questions, again a?er the second series of questions, yet again alter the third series of questions, and ?nally, at the end of the survey. By far the most popular place to leave comments was at the end of the survey with 4,362 people (46 percent of respondents) taking the opportunity to do so. The ?nal open-ended question asked, ?Do you have any other comments, questions or concerns to share with the Exploratory Committee?? Analysis of the responses shows that 2,320 or 53 percent of all comments responsive to this ?nal question came from people who had previously identi?ed potential challenges or made otherwise critical comments in their responses to the previous open?ended questions. Meanwhile, respondents who had identi?ed possible bene?ts or le? otherwise positive comments through their responses to the previous open?ended questions left 1,049 comments, accounting for 24 percent of ?nal comments. Those respondents whose answers to the previous open-ended questions did not mention possible bene?ts or challenges and were more neutral in tone tallied 992 ?nal comments, or nearly 23 percent of ?nal comments. Compared to the total number of completed surveys, comments that focused on possible challenges or were otherwise critical in response to the ?nal open-ended question made up less than a quarter of all those who completed the survey. Conclusions Based on the data obtained from the online survey regarding public sentiment toward Colorado hosting the Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games in 2026 or 2030, the following conclusions can be drawn. 0 Respondents aged 36-45 years old provided the highest number of complete responses with 1,998 individual responses (21 percent of all responses). 0 Roughly 67 percent of respondents (6,376 individuals) read or watched media coverage about the exploratory process while one third of respondents (3,157 individuals) heard about the exploratory process from friends, family, or co?workers. 0 The potential bene?t ranked as most important by respondents was, ?The values of the Olympic Games? include athletes competing equally, diversity and equality, clean sport and peace through sport.? 0 The potential challenge ranked as most important by respondents was, believe the mountain corridor, as it is currently con?gured, is not capable of managing the traf?c congestion associated with hosting the Winter Games.? 0 The potential legacy that could be le? by hosting the Games ranked as most important by respondents was, ?1-70 congestion relief between Denver and the mountains.? 4 223 Aft; Executive Summary of Statewide Poll Results to: Denver Exploratory From: Chris Keatrru, Keatm Research Date: January 31,2018 KEATING Re: Key 2018 ColoradoStatemde by nearly Z-to-l, Colorado Voters ?avor Dave Hosting the 2026 Winter amks A [61%lof Colorado voters favor Denver the 2026 Wmter compared to just 33% of voters who 00 you by? or Opp?. oppose a thter bld. represents a nealy 2:1 bum the ho? the 2026 margln, rs relnforced by 43% of voters who strongly mm" wond"? favor Denver host? the 2026 Wmter Otvmpucs. . - the potentlalfor Denver to host the WInter ts a now Strongy partrsanmue as anequalnumber of Democrats '73? Republlcans and voters favor an Somewhat 0 me but Don?t Know] In every regron of Colorado, at favor Denver Not the WInter In {65%Iof gm. voters favor a Winter bad. In Eagle County.where Somewhat many oftheoutdoor wouldbeerpectedtobe .0 - located, voters favora wanter bad by a 4:1 margln, Stravy 76% favorrng to just 19%opposm. Doyou favoror oppae Dawn bah; the 2026 WitterOanloinColotado? taakCo 0mm I'm CR 1% 20K 30a 305 Colorado Votes Haveon Fowrubb Wewol the Ohmplu Support for Denver hoser the 2026 rs strengthened by a brand. More than 8-of- 10 Colorado voters vrew the favorably. whole the WrnterOtympIcs attracts favorable Views from 76% ofColorado voters. Voters Want the to Derek Cabrodons If Denver were to pursue a and host the Wrnter voters want the Games to delwer benefrts to the people of Colorado Includmg the followrng: Opportunltles for the dlsabled and disabled veterans by the Games; 0 Houslm for athletes belt; converted lnto affordable houslrg for Colorado workers once the are over; 0 Transportatlon and optIons needed to host the remam Iorg after the Games are over. 0 Colorado benefits. just as the 2002 Games were for Utah?s 0 Colorado's local bushesses beneflt and ofdollars In tounsm and 0 Colorado the Gates wlthout a lot of money because manyof the needed already enst. polldota Is based on 735 acme voters In Colorado, Indudlng on oversample ol200 voters In Denver and 200 voters In Eagle County. KeotIng Research, Inc. conducted these live telephone mtawews, Including cell phones, from January 22-28, 2018. the worst-case morgln of error at the 95% level for the total sample of 735 )3 plus or mrnus for the sample ofzomn Denver IS plus or manus 69%ond for the sample of 100m Eagle Caumws 9.8x 224 Sharing the Gold Fact Sheet The Sharing the Gold engagement plan was developed to spur statewide discussion about whether hosting an Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games would be good for Denver and the entire state. COMMUNITY AND CIVIC ENGAGEMENT PROCESS Community and Civic Engagement Subcommittee 64 Sharing the Gold Advisory (Denver Metro) invited members – thousands of contacts Sharing the Gold Advisory (Mountains) 211 participants in 6 locations Speakers Bureau (civic and community meetings) 65+ Online Community Meetings Online Survey meetings 163 participants online views 9,511 completed Explorethegames.com SHARING THE GOLD MEETING LOCATIONS Steamboat Springs Frisco Vail in favor participants 250 Statewide Poll 2:1 1,700+ 20,363 unique visitors Winter Park Denver Georgetown Breckenridge COLORADO 56% to CCE page 225 Denver Olympic Exploratory Committee Media Coverage Date Outlet 1/30 KUSA-NBC 1/30 KDVR-FOX 1/30 Denver Post 1/30 KCNC-CBS 1/31 KMGH-ABC 1/31 KOAA-NBC 1/31 2/1 Real Vail Denver Business Journal Colorado Public Radio 2/1 Denverite 2/3 Denverite 2/3 Denver Post KMGH-ABC Facebook Live 1/31 2/6 2/7 2/8 KDVR-FOX Colorado Public Radio 2/8 Summit Daily 2/8 KCNC-CBS 2/9 2/9 KUSA-NBC Denver Business Journal Loveland Herald 2/9 Denver Post 2/9 Article Focus Community Engagement Community Engagement Community Engagement Community Engagement Community Engagement Exploratory Process Community Engagement Link http://www.9news.com/article/news/local/next/should-denverhost-the-olympics-share-your-thoughts/73-512979953 Exploratory Process Exploratory Process Exploratory Process Exploratory Process Exploratory Process Exploratory process Community Engagement Exploratory Process https://www.bizjournals.com/denver/news/2018/02/05/shoulddenver-go-for-the-gold-committee-is.html http://www.cpr.org/news/story/colorado-once-said-no-to-thewinter-olympics-boosters-to-try-again https://www.denverite.com/winter-olympics-tourism-mindedofficials-denver-desire-crowd-conscious-residents-fear-48214/ https://www.denverpost.com/2018/01/30/denver-winter-olympicsbid-public-outreach/ http://denver.cbslocal.com/2018/01/30/public-input-olympicscolorado/ https://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/local-news/coloradomulling-bid-for-winter-olympics http://www.koaa.com/story/37394358/should-denver-try-forwinter-olympics-bid http://www.realvail.com/denver-colorado-winter-olympicsexploratory-committee-seeks-public-input/a4783 https://www.denverite.com/denver-winter-olympics-bid-48295/ https://www.denverpost.com/2018/02/03/denver-olympicexploratory-committee-winter-olympics/ Exploratory process Community Engagement Community Engagement N/A http://kdvr.com/2018/02/08/exploratory-committee-seeks-inputon-whether-denver-should-bid-for-winter-olympics/ http://www.cpr.org/news/story/governor-hickenlooper-upsidecolorado-olympic-bid https://www.summitdaily.com/news/sports/olympic-odds-endstrends-so-just-how-do-you-become-an-olympic-luger-and-flagbearer-anyway/ http://denver.cbslocal.com/2018/02/08/olympics-denver-host-citymeeting/ http://www.9news.com/article/news/local/could-and-shoulddenver-host-the-winter-olympics/73-516368358 Exploratory Process Denver Winter Olympics 2030 Exploratory Process https://www.bizjournals.com/denver/news/2018/02/09/denver-toshift-focus-after-u-s-olympic-committee.html http://www.reporterherald.com/news/colorado/ci_31655759/denve r-winter-olympics-committee-forges-ahead-after-usoc https://www.denverpost.com/2018/02/09/denver-winter-olympics2030-bid/ 226 2/9 Exploratory Process Another SLC Olympic bid would be slowed Exploratory Process Competitive Landscape Exploratory Process 2/9 Deseret News 2/9 2/10 Real Vail Inside the Games blog 2/11 KMGH-ABC 2/16 Denverite 2/16 Denver Post 2/22 KUSA-NBC 2/22 2/22 KMGH-ABC Colorado Public Radio 2/22 KCNC-CBS Exploratory Process Exploratory Process Exploratory Process 2/23 Summit Daily Exploratory Process 2/24 Aspen Daily News 2/25 Inside the Games blog 2/26 Denverite 2/26 Denver Post Associated Press 2/27 KCNC-CBS 2/27 KMGH-ABC 2/28 KRCC-Radio 2/28 Vail Daily 3/1 Summit Daily STGA Exploratory Process Exploratory Process Exploratory Process Mountain Community Meetings Exploratory Process Exploratory Process Mountain Community Meetings Exploratory Process Exploratory Process Mountain Community Meetings Mountain Community Meetings https://www.denverite.com/usoc-announces-2026-wintersolympics-bid-unlikely-denver-still-exploring-future-years-48519/ https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900009846/another-slcolympic-bid-would-be-slowed-but-not-stopped-if-usoc-doesnt-seek2026-games.html http://www.realvail.com/usoc-confirms-2030-winter-olympicstarget-as-denver-pushes-forward-with-exploratory-process/a4824 https://www.insidethegames.biz/articles/1061314/salt-lake-cityofficials-remain-confident-they-can-host-2030-winter-olympics https://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/360/when-it-comes-tothe-winter-olympics-colorado-is-more-infamous-than-anything-else https://www.denverite.com/denver-winter-olympics-committee48817/ https://www.denverpost.com/2018/02/16/keeping-an-open-mindabout-a-denver-winter-olympics-bid/ http://www.9news.com/article/news/local/an-update-from-thegroup-exploring-a-denver-olympics-bid/73-522336699 https://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/frontrange/denver/denver-olympic-committee-focuses-on-2030-wintergames-extends-deadline http://www.cpr.org/news/story/should-the-olympics-come-tocolorado-time-is-running-out-to-have-your-say http://denver.cbslocal.com/2018/02/22/exploratory-committee-noi-70-improvements-needed-to-host-olympics/ https://www.summitdaily.com/news/sports/summit-county-leadersskeptical-of-a-colorado-olympics-but-see-opportunity-for-fixinginterstate-70/ https://www.aspendailynews.com/news/the-olympic-spirit-edgescloser-to-the-valley/article_2940dcb2-1918-11e8-96f617ffb70ef8e8.html https://www.insidethegames.biz/articles/1061932/denver-stilldeciding-whether-or-not-to-bid-for-2030-winter-olympic-andparalympic-games https://www.denverpost.com/2018/02/26/how-to-pay-for-denverwinter-olympics/ http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_WINTER_OLYMPICS_D ENVER_COOLhttp://denver.cbslocal.com/2018/02/27/winter-olympics-eaglecounty-vail-i-70/ https://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/local-news/denvercouncilman-wants-community-input-on-possible-olympic-bid http://krcc.org/post/denver-weighing-bid-future-winter-olympics https://www.vaildaily.com/news/sports/please-do-not-bring-thewinter-olympics-to-colorado/ https://www.summitdaily.com/news/please-dont-bring-the-winterolympics-to-colorado/ 227 3/1 Glenwood Post Independent 3/1 Summit Daily 3/2 95Rock 3/2 Times (Summit Daily) Denver Post (Summit Daily) 3/3 Denver Post 3/3 3/8 Park Record Colorado Public Radio 3/8 KUSA-NBC 3/9 KMGH-ABC 3/9 KUSA-NBC 3/9 USA Latest News 3/9 Denver Post 3/9 3/10 KUSA-NBC Associated Press 3/10 KUSA-NBC s3/10 3/13 Denver Post Inside the Games 3/13 Salt Lake Tribune 3/2 3/13 3/21 Deseret News Steamboat Pilot 3/21 Denver Post Exploratory Process Mountain Community Meetings Mountain Community Meetings Exploratory Process Exploratory Process Community Meetings Exploratory Process Exploratory Process Exploratory Process Exploratory Process Exploratory Process Exploratory Process Exploratory Process Exploratory Process Community Meetings Community Meetings Community Meeting Community Meetings Exploratory Process Exploratory Process Mountain STGA in Steamboat Mountain STGA in Steamboat https://www.postindependent.com/opinion/toussaint-column-anolympic-sized-miscalculation/ https://www.summitdaily.com/news/2030-olympic-bid-for-denverwould-require-major-land-housing-commitments-for-mountaintowns/ http://95rockfm.com/2026-winter-olympics-coming-to-colorado/ https://www.aspentimes.com/news/2030-olympic-bid-for-denverwould-require-major-land-housing-commitments-for-mountaintowns/ https://www.denverpost.com/2018/03/02/denver-olympics-bidmountain-town-requirements/ https://www.denverpost.com/2018/03/03/olympics-bid-listeningsession/ https://www.parkrecord.com/news/winter-olympics-2030-vailresorts-could-medal-in-any-u-s-bid/ http://www.cpr.org/news/story/colorado-winter-olympics-ornolympics-opponents-want-voters-to-decide http://www.9news.com/article/news/local/next/how-could-denverhost-the-olympics-and-stay-on-budget/73-527326754 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_x80-6nc4g http://www.9news.com/article/news/local/this-group-really-doesntwant-colorado-to-host-the-olympics/73-527154102 https://usa-latestnews.com/politics/should-colorado-seek-olympicsor-should-voters-get-a-say-first-potential-bid-draws-oppositionbefore-exploratory-committee-is-finished/ https://www.denverpost.com/2018/03/09/colorado-olympicsopposition/ http://www.9news.com/article/news/local/this-group-really-doesntwant-colorado-to-host-the-olympics/73-527154102 https://www.apnews.com/75ba1e7f835d41cf86d66ad6c2d5c40d/F ormer-Colorado-governor,-Boston-activist-back-Olympic-vote http://www.9news.com/article/news/local/debate-over-2030olympics-bid/73-527534980 https://www.denverpost.com/2018/03/10/denver-potentialolympic-winter-games-bid-community-debate/ https://www.insidethegames.biz/articles/1062585/opponents-to2030-olympic-bid-claim-denver-should-hold-public-referendum https://www.sltrib.com/sports/2018/03/14/usoc-tells-ioc-it-wantsto-put-an-american-city-up-for-next-round-of-bidding-for-thewinter-games/ https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900012963/this-is-wow-saltlake-able-to-participate-in-2026-winter-games-bidding-process.html https://www.steamboattoday.com/news/steamboat-springs-anolympic-venue-option-for-potential-denver-bid/ https://www.denverpost.com/2018/03/21/colorado-winterolympics-bid-steamboat-springs/ 228 3/21 Summit Daily 3/21 Aspen Times Summit Daily Olympic meeting Mountain STGA in Steamboat Vail Daily Mountain STGA in Steamboat 3/22 4/10 Inside the Rings Steamboat Pilot The News & Observer Salt Lake Tribune/AP Colorado Freedom of Information Coalition blog 4/11 La Voz 3/25 3/27 3/30 3/30 Exploratory Process Exploratory Process Exploratory Process Exploratory Process Exploratory Process Exploratory Process https://www.summitdaily.com/news/sports/takeaways-fromsummit-dailys-colorado-olympics-discussion/ https://www.aspentimes.com/news/sports/steamboat-springs-anolympic-venue-option-for-potential-denver-bid/ https://www.vaildaily.com/news/if-colorado-makes-an-olympic-bidit-will-create-a-new-paradigm-about-how-you-do-the-olympicsexploratory-committee-pitchman-says/ https://www.insidethegames.biz/index.php/articles/1063080/poten tial-host-denver-claim-can-host-financially-sustainable-winterolympics-if-chosen-for-2030 https://www.steamboattoday.com/news/our-view-a-place-at-theolympics-bid-table/ http://www.newsobserver.com/sports/article207406344.html https://www.sltrib.com/sports/2018/03/30/no-lillehammer-olympicbid-in-2026-setting-up-a-possible-2030-bid-against-salt-lake/ http://coloradofoic.org/why-doesnt-the-winter-olympicsexploratory-committee-comply-with-the-sunshine-law/ http://www.lavozcolorado.com/detail.php?id=9639 229 Aim Communications Subcommittee Members COMMUNICATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERS Steve Sander (co-chair) Elaine Torres (co-chair) Leanna Clark Lori Fox Laura Giacomo Kathy Hagan Dan lgoe Amy Kemp Patricia Lepiani Jennifer Nealson Kate Peters Darryi Seibel Tray Winchester 230 DENVER AND COLORADO OLYMPIC AND PARALYMPIC EXPLORATORY COMMITTEE FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS JUNE 2018 231