Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-06-16 Support Documentation Town Council Work Session r ? VAIL TOWN COUNCtL WORK SESSION TUESDAY, JUNE 16, 1998 2:00 P.M. AT TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS AGENDA - NOTE: Times of items are approximate, subject to change, and cannot be relied upon to • determine at what time Council wiil consider an item. 1 • March 1998 Town of Vail Bus Ridership Study. (30 mins.) Linda Hill Mike Rose 2• Discussion of Parking Program for the 1998/1999 Ski Season. (10 mins.) Larry Grafel Mike Rose BACKGROUND RATIONALE: Council has received in their packet Steve Thompson information on this evening's presentation. Staff is available to answer any questions you may have prior to this public discussion. 3. Vail Valley Tourism & Convention Bureau request for reaUocation of Council Bill Brice funds previously allocated to support the AVP Open at Vail (pro beach volleyball event), which was to take place in Lionshead June 12-14. Total amount of Council funds allocated to this event =$30,000. (10 mins.) ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: WTC&B requests the consideration of the Vai! Town Council to rea!locate all, or a portion, of the $30,000 for two purposes. WTC&B would like to bring a new event to Lionshead to replace the loss of the AVP tournament, and would also like to create and/or - enhance the '98/99 Championship Season events in Vail. BACKGROUND RATIONALE: Because the AVP Open at Vail has been canceled, the Wl"C&B would like to bring an Eagfe County Fair and Rodeo Kick-Off Night to Lionshead. The WTC&B has been working with Laurie Asmussen of the Eagle County Fair and Rodeo to put together ideas for a Vail Rodeo parade and family night in Lionshead with a country band, and western-themed family entertainment. Requested allocation =$5,000. The Championship Season events the VVTC&B would create and/or enhance with these funds include: Parade of Champions/Street Party - November 14-15 Sports Expo - November 21-22 The 25th Annual President Ford Tree Lighting Ceremony - December 19 New Years Eve Celebration - December 31 Vail Valley Winter Carnival - January 22-24 The extent of which VVTC&B would create or enhance events will be determined by the amount of funds remaining. 4. Work session to discuss proposed Ordinance No. 10, Series of 1998. This Dominic Mauriello ordinance revises the Design Review Chapter (adding a design review trinriarl -aIIL,%.yS wi i'vci 5ivil5 iul muiiipie-Tamiiy dwelling units, reorganizes the Conditional tJse Chapter and allows Type II, Employee Housing Units as a permitted use in Single-Family, Two-Family and Primary/Secondary Residential Zone Districts. (45 mins.) ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Discuss the proposal and provide direction to staff if changes are needed. First reading is scheduled for July 7, 1998. BACKGROUND RATIONALE: See attachment memo for details of proposal. , ~ STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Provide direction to staff. 5• Funding proposal for the August 1998 Sister CitiesNail Valley Exchange Sybill Navas trip to Mt. Buller, Australia. (10 mins.) BACKGROUND RATIONALE: I confirmed with Karen Phillips the following costs per person with the late August '98 trip to Mt. Buller, Australia - $1,000.00 ground fare 2,300.00 to $2,800.00 airtare (this amount continues to "move" because the dates for the trip have not yet been confirmed). WORST CASE SCENARlO: $3,800/per Council member. Although Merv Lapin did suggest a subsidy through the Vail Valley Exchange (WE) for the town's participants, this subsidy has not been voted upon by the board members. The subsidies Merv suggested were as follows: $800.00 -$1,000.00 for the Council's appointed WE member and $500.00 for the Council's at-large member. The town currently pays WE membership dues in the amount of $6,300.00 annually. If the Council wishes to approve an allocation from Council Contingency, the total not-to-exceed could be as much as $7,600 (assuming the WE as a board does not approve the suggested subsidy). 6. Discussion of Motorola funding/purchase of radios. (30 mins.) Bob McLaurin Greg Morrison ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Approve purchase of new radio Larry Grafel system. Dick Duran BACKGROUND RATIONALE:.The UHF radio system now utilized by Vail's fire, police, public works and transportation departments is over 10 years old and will need replacing in the next few years. Additionally, our UHF radio system is not compatible with the 800 mhz radio system being used by all the other down valley public safety agencies (except Avon). Motorola is a sponsor for the 1999 World Alpine Ski Championships and is offering Vail a new 800 mhz radio system at a 30% reduced price if the system is ordered in June 1998 to be installed prior to the Ski Championships. The proposed system would provide all fire, police, public works and transportation vehicles and people that currently have UHF radios with new 800 mhz radios. These costs are included in the attached memorandum. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Authorize the purchase. 7• Continued Fourth of July discussion. (20 mins.) Greg Morrison ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Provide funding for July 4th Activities. BACKGROUND RATiONALE: The Council directed staff to prepare for a very busy July 4th weekend, including an increased police presence and alternative entertainment for persons under 21 years of age who otherwise would congregate on Bridge Street late at night. The staff has prepared cost estimates for increased police staffing and for alternative entertainment. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Fund the proposal by staff. Village Core Construction Update. (10 mins.) Larry Grafel 9• Information Update. (10 mins.) 10. Council Reports. (10 mins.) 11. Other. (10 mins.) 2 i r 12• Adjournment - 5:15 p.m. NOTE UPCOMING MEETING START TIMES BELOW: (ALL TIMES ARE APPROXIMATE AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE) I I I I ( I I THE NEXT VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR WORK SESSION WILL BE ON TUESDAY, 6/23/98, BEGINNING AT 2:00 P M IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS. THE FOLLOWING VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR WORK SESSION WILL BE ON TUESDAY, 7/7/98, BEGINNING AT 2:00 P M IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS. THE NEXT VAIL TOWN COUNCIL SPECIAL COMMON GROUND EVENING MEETING WILL BE ON TUESDAY, 6/30198, BEGINNING AT 7:00 P M IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS. IIIIIII Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Ptease call 479-2332 voice or 479-2356 TDD for information. C: WGENDA. WS 3 VAIL TOWN COUNCIL EVENING MEETING TUESDAY, JUNE 16, 1998 7:00 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS AGENDA NOTE: Times of items are approximate, subject to change, and cannot be relied upon to determine at what time Council will consider an item. 1 • CITIZEN PARTICIPATION. (5 mins.) 2• Community Survey Results. (45 mins.) Chris Cares Suzanne Silverthorn 3• Discussion of Parking Program for the 1998/1999 Ski Season. (1 hr.) Larry Grafel Mike Rose ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Discuss parking rates, Free After Steve Thompson 3:00 program, pass program, valet parking, and summer parking. BACKGROUND RATIONALE: We need to establish rates for the upcoming ski season and the programs associated with parking. This is an annual discussion as we develop the 1999/2000 year budget. Staff has reviewed parking revenues, sales tax revenues, and utilization of the various programs that were initiated last year and has developed recommendations for this season. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Review and discuss the staff recommendations. Change or modify recommendations as appropriate. This item will come back to Council for a decision on the evening of July 7th. 4• Resolution No. 6, Series of 1998, a Resolution designating an additional Steve Thompson signer Simone Spector and removing signer Gwen Thomas on an imprest checking account for library deposit transactions for the Town of Vail, permitted by the Charter of the State of Colorado. (5 mins.) ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Approve Resolution No. 6, Series of 1998. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve Resolution No. 6, Series of 1998. 5• Town Manager Report. (10 mins.) Bob McLaurin 6. Adjournment - 9:05 p.m. NOTE UPCOMING MEETING START TIMES BELOW: (ALL TIMES ARE APPROXIMATE AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE) I I I I I I I THE NEXT Vi4Il. TOWN COl1tJC1L RECI!LAR :"dL'P:t SESSiON WILL BE ON TUESDAY, 6/23/98, BEGINNING AT 2:00 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS. THE FOLLOWING VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR WORK SESSION WILL BE ON TUESDAY, 7/7/98, BEGINNING AT 2:00 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS. THE NEXT VAIL TOWN COUNCIL SPECIAL COMMON GROUND EVENING MEETING WILL BE ON TUESDAY, 6/30/98, BEGINNING AT 7:00 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS. I I I I I I I Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479-2332 voice or 479-2356 TDD for information. C:UIGENDA.TC COUNCIL FOLLOW-UP TOPIC QUESTIONS FOLLOW-UP SOLUTIONS 1998 4121/98 CORRIDOR NOISE BOB MCLAURINIGREG MORRISON: Although noise Bob will write to Col. King wICSP. Kevin Foley/Council "barriers" are included on CDOT'S 20 year STIP, the Council is interested in a more pro-active stance. Should we be considering a more multi-faceted approach, i.e., request a step up in enforcement by CSP, request a lowering of the speed limit to 55 through this corridor, involve our own PD, enlist the aid of all TOV residents in calling the 1-800 # to REPORT A GOOD DRIVER, etc. 4128/98 DOWN JUNCTION BIKE PATH LARRY: This item was discussetl again at the recent Eagle The bike path re-opens on Monday, June 15. Kevin Foley County Regional Transportation Authority meeting - is there a time line on the wildlife study that's being conducted? What is the status? 5/19/98 EAST VAIL LIGHTS LARRY: 2 of the 6 East Vail lights are still out. What is the CDOT has repaired 6 of the 8 lights. There is still a break in the service Kevin Foley status? line and will be repaired when CDOT can re-schedule their crew back here. 5126198 REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL AND LARRY: With the current construction for heated pavers in LARGER PRINT SIGNS FOR THE VTRC - the VTRC, clear, concise, readable, user-fr-iendly signs are Ludwig Kurz needed. Current signs contain too small print (on the concrete supports) and we need to step up our efforts to compliment the progress of the VTRC project progress on a dail basis. June 11, 1998, Pa€e 1 6/9/98 DANCING BEAR CHECK TODD 0: Since we're almost ready to sign off on the W. Vail Bob Armour roundabout landscaping, what are we doing w/the $1,100+ check we received from the Dancing Bear? Let's see a plaque or a bench or something installed to commemorate this donation. 6/9/98 VTRC CLEANLINESS John Gallegos: The transportation center is really looking Kevin Foley cluttered and trashy. Can we step up our efforts to keep it clean, even during all the construction? 6/9198 BETTY NEAL COMPUTER TRAINING Anne: Please contact Betty to arrange a training session for Kevin Foley interested Council members. This should be attached to a work session afternoon, probably in July, for approximately 1 hour. You will need to poll the individual Council members to know which ones would like to sit down w/Betty. June 11, 1998, Page 2 ;k pbaa r~ .rxn +Mw l~+as~.* ~e=. R ~ , ~ n~ ~ + ~ ~ F t - ~ ro~ uw , das y C{- ~ - = L . r 9 W " n "7 4 . eM~~"' ~Y. ~ T? q ~ ~ . . _ ~ - , n . .~a, ~r^:- ; }y • p . - . . . . c. , _ m , : . ~y~p T'. - Y. +,m4• . - ,-~rR h~ r - . . , , _ ! . ~ , . . . ' ' ' . . ~ ~ . ' • , . _ - . . ' , . . , . 7e. ' ~ . . , - . , ~ . . ' , . y . . . i . i ~ : . . ' . " ~ . ~ • ^ r. N, ~ . , y , , ' n . ; . ..'i~' . - ~ . :Y . , . _ . . ' ~ p . ~ . . . ~ d , _ ' . • ~ ' ' . , . i ' . - • 'h~' ~ , ~ . Y , . . ~ . . ~ ~ ~ i ) ~ ' ~ ~ ` ! , . ' r , . ~ ~ i~ ry~ , E .%'g- ~ . ~ t I' ? { r • ~ ~ ~'V . '.F~~.' yy.~11 . ~ ' •I . 'i . . . ~ ~ - • rs{ n,a . y A ~ f b. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ x ~ , ~ , . ~ ' ' • :1- ~C+ ~ ~ - ~~_A , . . . . ~ T ~ . .a . ~ . - ~ . . . . ~ µ . ~ ` ' , . ' 1 t r . ~I ; , - . , ~p _ . . . . ' ' ~ i - , - - . ~ - . ~ a ~r h ~ldefshtp 'bul dy ~ . ` dnn119QR ~ , , . . " . _ . ' , _ - ti..,, ' ` - , . ? - a - 11~~p ~IIY . „ , . ~ ; ' • ` ~ . , ~ ^ ' ~ ' . ~ ~ . Town,of liaiE ~ Prwnted by: HiU & Taslriro Narketing and Adver6sing, ':~~~-~$.w.,myre`Lr.,.x-. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ MARCH RIDERSHIP STUDY • ~ Town of Vail ~ Bus System • • • • • ~ APRIL, 1998 ~ ~ Presented by: ~ Hill & Tashiro Marketing • and Advertising, Inc. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ TABLE OF CONTENTS • • ~ I. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................1 ~ II. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................3 6 ~ lII. DETAILED FlNDINGS ~ TYPE OF RIDER 6 ~ AWARENESS AND USAGE OF THE BUS SERVICE ........................7 ~ How Riders Became Familiar With The Service 7 Familiarity With The Bus System Name 8 ~ Length Of Time Respondent Has Been Riding The Bus 9 Whether Other Options Are Available .........................................1 0 ~ Average Number Of Bus Trips Taken By These Riders ...................1 1 Time Spent Traveling To And From The Bus Stop .........................1 2 ~ Purpose Of The Bus Trip .........................................................1 3 Boarding And Final Destination Areas ........................................14 ~ EMPLOYMENT DETAILS ..........................................................15 ~ Work Location .......................................................................1 5 Hours Employment Is Started And Finished .................................1 6 ~ Whether Employer Provides A Parking Space ..............................1 7 ~ RATINGS ON ASPECTS OF THE BUS SYSTEM ............................1 8 Opinion On Number Of Bus Stops .............................................1 8 ~ Ratings On Selected Attributes ................................................1 9 Volunteered Suggestions For I.mprovement ................................2 2 DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF SURVEY RESPONDENTS..2 3 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I. INTRODUCTION • • ~ PURPOSE This research was conducted to better understand the Vail bus rider and to investigate perceived quality of service provided by the bus system. ~ ~ RESEARCH OBJECTIVES ~ The specifiic objectives of this research were to: ~ • Explore familiarity with the bus system including ~ - How rider first became aware of the service . - Familiarity with the bus system name - Length of time riding the bus ~ - Availability of other transportation options ~ - Average number of bus trips • - Time spent to and from the bus stop - Purpose of the bus trip taken at time of survey ~ - Boarding area and final destination ~ • Employment information ~ - Whether employed in the Vail Valley ~ - Community work in ~ - Time of day start and finish work • - Bus benefits provided by employer ~ • Ratings on the bus system ~ - Opinion on bus fare • - Opinion on number and quality of bus stops - Ratings on bus drivers, service, schedules, cleanliness and comfort ~ - Suggestions for improvement ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ METHODOLOGY ~ Questionnaires were administered to 250 bus riders during the time period of March 21-31, 1998. • Interviewing took place as follows: . # of Survevs ~ Route Red Sandstone/West VailNail Village/East Vail 170 ~ East Vail to Vail Village 71 Leadville (through Minturn) to Vail Village 2 ~ Not specified 7 ~ Day of Week Interviewed Monday 0 ~ Tuesday 0 Wednesday 68 ~ Thursday 0 Friday 33 ~ Saturday 66 Sunday 83 ~ Time of Interview ~ Early morning (6:00 am - 8:30 am) 2 Mid morning (8:31 am - 10:45 am) 34 ~ Lunch hour (10:46 am - 1:00 pm) 26 Early afternoon (1:01 pm - 2:45 pm) 42 ~ Late afternoon (2:46 pm - 4:45 pm) 58 Early evening (4:46 pm - 6:45 pm) 42 ~ Evening (6:46 pm - 8:45 pm) 16 Late evening (8;46 pm - 11:00 pm) 28 ~ Not specified 2 ~ SIGNIFICANCE TEST i On the data tables in the Detailed Findings section of this report, the symbol <s> indicates where ~ differences between residents and visitors are significant at the 95% confidence level. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 2 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ II. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY • • ~ This report presents the findings from 250 interviews conducted with riders on the Vail bus system during March, 1998. The data was reviewed in terms of total riders as weil as to examine ~ differences between residents (122 respondents) and visitors to the Vail area (128 respondents). ~ Type of Rider ~ • The sample was about evenly divided between visitors/tourists (51 and residents . 48% . The latter included year-round (28%) and seasonal (20%) residents. ~ Awareness And Usage Of The Bus Service ~ • Awareness of the bus service has come from a variery of sources. For residents, their • knowledge stemmed primarily from referrals (from friends and other local residents), the Transportation Center and the local newspaper. Visitors also relied somewhat on • referrals, and were significantly more likely to have heard about the bus from hotel staff and travel agents. ~ • The bus service is most commonly known as the `Town of Vail" bus. ~ • Experience with the bus is varied. One-half of the residents (50%) have been riding the • bus for six months or less, while an additional one-fourth (26%) having far more experience (riding over two years). ~ • If the bus service were not available a personal vehicle would be the most relied upon ~ method of transportation, although residents were much more likely than visitors to have a car available for their personal use. Aside from their own car, residents would be most ~ likely to car pool or hitch hike, while visitors would rely on a rental car or private transport company. • • Residents reportedly make an average of 14 bus trips each week (7 each way). Visitors ~ expected to use the bus an average of nine times each way during their stay. ~ • On average, residents and visitors estimated that the bus was four minutes away, and that it would take approximately nine minutes to reach their final destination once they left the ~ bus. ~ • Residents were most likely to be going to or from work, skiing/recreation or personal business when they were interviewed for this research. Visitors were significantly more ~ likely to be going skiing/recreation or shopping. ~ • The key spots for boarding the bus were the Vail Transportation Center (28%). West Vail • (20%). Red Sandstone (19%) and East Vail (17%). The largest proportion of riders were headed to the Vail Transportation Center (39%). ~ ~ 3 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Employment Detaiis ~ • Three-fourths of the residents are employed in the Vail Vallev, primarily in Lionshead, Vail • Village, or VVest Vail. Work is typically begun somewhere between 7:00 and 10:00 in the morning. Hours when work is over were very varied. ~ • Employees were more likelv to not have aparking space provided by their employer ~ (63%) than to have a space provided (32%). ~ Ratings On Spec.ific Aspects Of The Bus System • • Many riders felt the number of bus sto~s is just riaht (70%). For the two extremes, 10% ~ said there are too many bus stops and 4% said there are too few. ~ • Specific attr-ibutes dealing with the bus drivers, service schedules, bus stops and bus cleanliness and comfort were all highlv rated on averaqe by residents and visitors alike. ~ Mean Ratings (1-5 Scale) ~ Total Residents Visitors • % % % • Bus Drivers: Practicing safe driving 4.4 4.3 4.5 Being courteous 4.3 4.2 4.5 ~ Bus Service: Running on time 4.3 4.0 4.5 • Frequency of bus service 4.3 4.3 4.3 Ease of connecting buses 4.4 4.3 4.6 • Number of times bus service has been canceled 4.5 4.3 4.6 ~ Schedules: Easily accessible 4.3 4.2 4.4 • Clear and easy to understand 4.3 4.2 4.4 ~ Bus Stops: Quality of covered stops 4.3 4.2 4.4 • Quality of uncovered stops 4.1 3.9 4.2 • Bus Interior: Cleanliness of buses 4.2 4.1 4.3 Comfort while riding bus 4.2 4.2 4.2 ~ • A great majority of respondents (82%) did not offer any comments or suggestions for • improvement regarding the bus system. Among those who did have something to say, the main idem offered was to have bus service run later in the evenina. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 4 ~ ~ ~ ~ Demographic CFnaracteristics ~ • More males than females were interviewed (60% vs 40%). ~ • Nearly all re;5oondents are Caucasian (82%). Other ethnic groups included Hispanic ~ (12%), African American (3%) and Asian (3%). ~ • While a wide range of ages was represented, residents were more likely to be in the 18-34 year age qrou~ (74% residents vs. 55% visitors), while visitors had a larger representation ~ in the 35-54 aQe category (34% visitors vs. 14% residents). ~ • Residents re;ported employment primarily as service workers (39%) or sales (25%). The highest conrentration of visitors was in the managerial/,professional category (38%) and ~ students (20% . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 5 ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ III. DETAILED FINDINGS • • ~ TYPE OF RIDER ~ Respondents to this survey were about evenly divided between those who live in the area (48%) and those who tivere just visiting (51 Residents were also split between those who live in Vail ~ year-round versus triose who are seasonal residents (28% vs. 20%, respectively). ~ • TYPE OF RIDER • Total % • Visitorrf'ourist 51 • Resident 48 ~ Year-round 28 Seasonal 20 ~ • BASE: Total Respondents (250) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 6 ~ ~ ~ ~ AWARENESS AND USAGE OF THE BUS SERVICE ~ How Riders Became Familiar With The Service • A variety of sources have served to inform potential riders about the Vail bus service. For ~ residents, referrals irom friends and neighbors have been infiuential and, to a lesser degree, the Transportation Center and local newspaper (primarily the Vail Daily) have increased awareness of • the service. Visitors were informed about the bus mostly from hotel staff as well as referrals from both friends and local residents. ~ ~ FIRST AWARENESS OF THE BUS SERVICE ~ Total Residents Visitors • % % % How Rider Learned About The Service ~ Referrall from friend 25 27 23 ~ Referrall from local resident 18 21 16 • Hotel si:aff/concierge 14 2 <s> 27 Transportation Center 10 1 1 9 ~ Local newspaper 8 10 6 ~ Local ra.dio 6 7 5 • Local Tv 4 3 6 Internel: 3 0 <s> 5 ~ Commoin knowledge/live here 3 6 <s> 0 ~ Travel agent 3 0 <s> 5 • At work 2 3 0 Saw the bus 2 4 1 ~ ~ Don't kriow 14 21 6 • BASE: Total Respondents (250) (122) (128) R~a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 7 ~ ~ ~ ~ Familiarity With The Bus System Name • The bus service is known almost exclusively as the "Town of Vail" bus system. As would be ~ expected, residents vvere more likely than visitors to be familiar with the bus name (18% vs. 44% "don't know"). ~ ~ FAMILIARITY WITH BUS NAME ~ Total Residents Visitors • % % % Name Of The 8us System ~ Town of Vail 57 65 <s> 49 ~ Eagle County Regional Transportation Authority 8 12 <s> 5 • Avon/Beaver Creek Transit 1 2 1 ECRTA 1 2 1 ~ Other 1 2 1 Don't know/no answer 31 18 44 ~ BASE: Total Respondents (250) (122) (128) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 8 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Length Of 7ime Respondent Has Been Riding The Bus ~ One-half of the resiclents surveyed (50%) are relative newcomers to the bus system, having been ~ riding the bus for six months or less. There was also a substantial segment who have far more experience with the system one-fourth of the residents (26%) have been riding the Vail bus for ~ at least two years. ~ EXPERIENCE WITH RIDING THE BUS ~ (Among Residents) , Residents ~ % • Length of Time Riding The Bus • 0-3 moriths 20 4-6 moriths 30 ~ 7-12 months 14 ~ 13 months - 2 years 8 • Over 2 years 26 No answer 2 ~ , BASE: Total Residents (122) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 9 ~ ~ ~ ~ Whether Other Options Are Available ~ Visitors riding the bus were most iikely to not have a vehicle at their disposal while in town about • two-thirds (65%) said they either "never" or "seldom" have access to a car for this trip. The comparable proportion among residents was 39%, as they were more likely to have the option of ~ driving a car instead of using the bus. • If the bus service was not available, visitors would be most inclined to use either their personal vehicle or hired transportation such as renting a car. Most residents would drive their own car, car ~ pool with others or hitch hike. ~ • OTHER TRANSPORTATION OPTIONS • Total Residents Visitors ~ Frequency Of Access To Vehicle For • Personal IUse Always 30 37 <s> 23 • Frequeritly 17 24 <s> 11 Seldom 14 14 13 • Never/don't have vehicle 38 25 <s> 52 No answer 1 1 1 ~ How Trip 1Nould Be Made If Bus Service • Was Not Available • Personal vehicle 45 48 41 Hitch hiN;e 14 20 <s> 9 • Private transport company 13 3 <s> 22 Car pool _ 13 20 <s> 5 • Rent a car 7 0 <s> 14 Walk 4 7 <s> 1 • Ask famlily/friends for ride 3 5 2 Ride bike 2 5 <s> 0 • Taxi 2 0 <s> 4 Other 2 2 2 ~ Would not be able to make the trip 8 6 10 • Don't know 2 2 1 BASE: Total Respondents (250) (122) (128) ~ NOTE: Multiple answers. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 10 ~ ~ ~ ~ Average Number Of Bus Trips Taken By These Riders ~ Residents reportedly make an average of seven bus trips each week both leaving and returning. • One in five said they take at least ten trips each way during a typical week. • Visitors were asked their expected number of trips during the+r stay. They expected to take the bus, on average, approximately nine times each way during their stay. AVERAGE NUMBER OF BUS TRIPS ~ • Leavin Returninq % % • RESIDENTS: # of Bus Trilps Taken In Average Week • 0 1 1 1 2 2 • 2 5 6 3 9 11 • 4 9 9 5 16 16 • 6 13 9 7 14 13 • 8 5 4 9 0 0 . • 10 or more 21 23 No answer 5 7 • M ean 6.6 6.7 • BASE: Total Residents (122) ` VISITORrl): # of Bus Trips In Total Will Take During Stay 0 1 2 ~ 1 3 3 2 6 6 ~ 3 2 3 • 4 6 5 5 9 9 • 6 6 7 7 5 5 • 8 6 5 9 2 2 • 10 or more 36 35 No answer 17 19 • Mean 8.9 9.6 • BASE: Total Visitors (128) ~ ~ ~ 11 ' ~ ' ~ ~ ~ Time Spent TravEfling To And From The Bus Stoq ~ Responses from residents and visitors were very similar in regards to the amount of time spent • getting to the bus as weli as the amount of time from the bus to their final destination. Getting to the bus appears to be relatively easy, since an average trip was said to take four minutes. After the • bus ride, respondents spend an average of nine minutes proceeding to where they need to be. ~ . TIME TO AND FROM BUS STOP Total Residents Visitors ~ % % % ~ Average miinutes to get to bus stop 1 minute or less 20 23 ~ 2 20 25 15 3 14 10 19 ~ 4 8 10 7 5 18 16 20 ~ 6-9 6 6 6 10 5 6 4 ~ 11-19 2 4 1 20-60 2 1 3 ~ No answrer 3 2 4 ~ Mean 4.0 4.1 3.9 ~ Average rYUinutes from bus to final destination 1 minute or less 5 6 4 ~ 2 8 9 6 • ~ 9 12 5 6 6 5 • 5 26 26 26 6-9 11 8 13 10 11 6 16 ~ 11-19 12 12 12 • 20-30 9 10 9 31 or more 2 2 1 • No ansuver 3 2 3 • Mean 9.0 9.2 8.7 BASE: Total IRespondents (250) (122) (128) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 12 ~ ~ ~ ~ Purpose Of The Bus Trio ~ Visitors were most typically riding the Vail bus either to go skiing (or some other recreation) or do • some shopping. These activities account for 89% of the sample. • Many residents had a different purpose in mind, as about hatf (45%) were taking the bus to work. Some were on their onray to or from a recreational activity (31 while a sizable number were • running errands or c;onducting personal business (19%). ~ PURPOSE OF BUS TRIP ~ (At Time Of Survey) ~ Total Residents Visitors • % % % • Skiing/recreation 49 31 <s> 66 Work 22 45 <s> 0 ~ Shoppiing 16 9 <s> 23 ~ Personcil business/errand 14 19 <s> 9 • Going home/condo/hotel 3 2 3 Party/bars/restaurants 2 1 4 ~ School/college 1 2 0 • SASE: l"otal Respondents (250) (122) (128) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 13 ~ ~ ~ ~ Boarding And Final Destination Areas • Vail bus riders boarcied from four main locations the Vail 7ransportation Center, West Vail, Red ~ Sandstone or East uail. Points of destination were varied, but the largest proportion were headed to the Vail Transportation Center. • The findings were samilar between visitors and residents. • Most riders (86%) had no need to transfer to another bus in order to complete their trip. ~ ~ TRIP DETAILS • Boarding Area & Final Destination • Boardina Destination • Major mentions: Vail Transportation Center 28 39 • West Vciil 20 16 Red Sandstone 19 8 • East Vail 17 12 Avon 1 2 • LionshE;ad 1 11 Beaver Creek * 2 ~ Refused 10 8 ~ BASE: Total Respondents (250) • 'Less than 0.5% ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 14 ~ i ~ ~ ~ EMPLOYMENT CIETAILS ~ Work Location • Among the Resident respondents, three-fourths (75%) are employed in the Vail Valley. Of those ~ who are employed iri the Valiey, the primary communities represented included Lionshead, Vail Viliage and West Vail. ~ ~ EMPLOYMENT • (Among Residents) • Residents ~ % ~ Employed in the Vail Valley • Yes 75 No 18 • No ansuwer 7 ~ BASE: Total IResidents (122) ~ ~ Community In Which They Work* • Lionshead 29 Vail Village 28 • West Vail 17 East Vail 7 • Beaver Creek 4 Avon 4 • Red Sandstone 2 Golden/IPeak . 2 • Minturn 2 ~ BASE: Tota! Employed In Valley (92) *Includes mentions of 2% or more. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 15 ~ ~ ~ ~ Hours Empioyment Is Started And Finished ~ It was most typical for these riders to say that they begin work between 7:00 and 10:00 in the • morning. Hours when work is over varied greatly. ~ • EMPLOYMENT INFORMATION ~ Time of Day StarUFinish Work Start Finish • % % • 4-4:59 am 1 0 5-5:59 am 1 5 • 6-6;59 am 4 1 7-7:59 am 14 2 • 8-8:59 am 25 1 9-9:59 am 13 0 • 10-10:59 am 9 2 11-11:59 am 3 0 ~ 12-12:59 pm 7 2 • 1-1:59 pm 2 1 2-2:59 pm 4 2 • 3-3:59 pm 7 8 4-4:59 pm 11 16 • 5-5:59 pm 7 8 • 6-6:59 pm 1 8 7-7:59 pm 0 4 • 8-8:59 pm 0 3 9-9:59 pm _ 0 4 • 10-10:59 pm 0 4 11-11:59 pm 0 10 ~ 12-12:59 am 0 4 • 1-1:59 am 0 3 2-2:59 am 0 3 ~ No ansvwer 1 15 ~ BASE: Total Employed In Valley (92) Multiple answers possible. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 16 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Whether Emqlover Provides A Parking Space ~ Employees without an empioyer-provided parking space outnumber those who have a parking ~ space by about a 2:1 margin (63% vs. 32% respectively). ~ ~ IPARKING SPACE PROVIDED BY EMPLOYER Total ~ Employed • % Whether Empioyer Provides A Parking Space ~ No, a parking space is not provided 63 ~ Yes, a space is provided 32 ~ Other 2 ~ No answer 3 ~ ~ BASE; Total Employed (92) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 17 ~ . ~ ~ ~ RATINGS ON ASPECTS OF THE BUS SYSTEM ~ • Opinion On Number Of Bus Stons • Most riders expressied satisfaction with the number of bus stops that are made, with residents a little more positive than visitors. The number of bus stops was slightly more Iikeiy to be criticized • for being "too many'° (10%) than "too few" (4%). ~ • OPINION ON NUMBER OF BUS STOPS ~ Total Residents Visitors ~ % % % • Number Of Bus Stops • Just right 70 74 66 • Too mainy 10 8 12 • Too few 4 6 2 • No ansvver 16 12 20 BASE: Total Respondents (250) (122) (128) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 18 ~ ~ Ratings On Selected Attributes ~ Respondents were asked to rate various aspects of the Vail bus system using a scale from 1 to 5 • where a"1" meant "poor" and a rating of "5" meant "excellenY". ~ Specific aspects of the following areas were assessed: ~ • bus drivers • bus service ~ • bus schedules and transit information • bus stops ~ • bus cleanliness and comfort ~ All areas of the systerrr, on average, were highly rated as each item received a mean rating of at least 4.1 on the 1 to 5 scale. Also, each attribute received a high proportion of the most favorable • ratings (4 or 5 on the 1-5 scale), as summarized below. Visitors tended to be as positive, or even more positive, about the Vail bus than residents. ~ 4's & 5's on 1 to 5 scale ~ Total Residents Visitors ~ Bus Drivers: Practicing safe driving 86 86 87 ~ Being courteous 82 80 85 ~ Bus Service: Running on time 79 72 86 Frequency of bus service 76 75 77 ~ Ease of connecting buses 73 67 78 Number of times bus service has ~ been canceled 59 57 60 ~ Schedules: Easily accessible 77 72 82 Clear and easy to understand 75 73 78 ~ ~ Bus Stops: Quality of covered stops 74 70 78 Quality of uncovered stops 60 57 63 ~ Bus Interior: Cleanliness of buses 77 73 80 ~ Comfort while riding bus 76 76 76 ~ Bus Drivers. Of all the attributes in question, the two pertaining to bus driver performance were ~ most highly rated. ~ Bus Service. This i:opic generated few low ratirigs as most were very satisfied. The question of "number of times bus service has been canceled" was something which many could not answer. ~ Bus Schedules/Transit Information. Schedules were rated high by three-fourths of the ~ riders for being easily accessible, clear and easy to understand. ~ Bus Stops. Covered bus stops were slightly higher rated than uncovered stops, but neither . type received many louv ratings. ~ ~ 19 ~ ~ ~ ~ • Bus Cleanliness & Comfort. Bus interiors generated few complaints. Explanations for low ratings to "comfort while riding the bus" included comments about: ~ • buses are dirty (2 mentions) ~ • need better climate control (1 mention) ~ ~ RATINGS ON SERVICE ~ Excellent (5) to Poor (1) Rating Scale Don't ~ 5 4 3 2 1 Know Mean • % % % % % % Bus Drivers ~ Practicing safe. drivin • Total 56 30 10 2 0 2 4.4 Residerits 47 39 11 2 0 2 4.3 • Visitors 65 22 9 2 0 2 4.5 • Beina court eous Total 54 28 14 2 1 1 4.3 • Residerits 47 33 14 3 2 2 4.2 Visitors 62 23 13 2 0 1 4.5 ~ Bus Service ~ Running on time ~ Total 51 28 15 4 1 1 4.3 ResidE:rits 42 30 18 7 2 2 4.0 • Visitors 59 27 12 2 0 1 4.5 ~ Frequency of bus service Total 53 23 14 3 2 6 4.3 ~ Residents 52 23 13 4 1 7 4.3 Visitors 54 23 15 2 2 4 4.3 • Ease of connecting buses ~ Total 53 20 9 3 1 5 4.4 ResidE:nts 50 17 10 6 1 16 4.3 ~ Visitors 56 22 8 0 0 14 4.6 ~ Number of times bus service has been canceled ~ Total 47 1 2 4 2 2 33 4.5 Residf:nts 43 14 5 3 3 31 4.3 ~ Visitors 51 9 4 0 2 34 4.6 ~ (continued) ~ ~ 20 ~ ~ ~ ~ • RATINGS ON SERVICE (continued) • Excellent (5) to Poor (1) Rating Scale Don't • 5 4 3 2 1 Know Mean • Bus Schedules & Transit Information ~ Clear and easy to understand • Total 52 23 17 3 1 4• 4.3 Residents 49 24 18 6 1 2 4.2 • Visitors 55 23 16 1 1 5 4.4 • Easily accessibie Total 51 26 14 3 1 4 4.3 • Residents 49 23 15 5 2 7 4.2 Visitors 53 29 13 2 1 2 4.4 ~ Bus Stops ~ Quality of the covered bus stops • Total 49 25 16 3 7 4.3 Residents 45 25 18 5 0 7 4.2 • Visitors 53 25 13 1 1 7 4.4 • Quality of the uncovered bus stops Total 36 24 19 4 1 1 6 4.1 ~ Residents 33 24 20 7 2 15 3.9 Visitors 40 23 17 2 1 16 4.2 • Bus Cleanliness & Comfort • Cleanliness of buses ~ Total 44 33 17 3 1 2 4.2 Residents 38 35 19 2 2 4 4.1 ~ Visitors 49 31 15 4 0 1 4.3 ~ Comfort while riding bus Total 42 34 18 2 1 3 4.2 ~ Residents 38 38 16 2 2 6 4.2 Visitors 45 31 20 2 1 1 4.2 ~ 'Less than 0.5%. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . 21 ~ ~ ~ ~ Volunteered Suggestions For Improvement ~ Survey participants were given an opportunity to voice concerns or suggestions for improvements • about the bus service, but most (82%) offered no comments. ~ The main idea proposed was to have bus service run later in the evening. ~ SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT ~ Total Suggestions % ~ - None offered 82 • Major Mentions: • Extended bus service hours 3 ~ Bus service should be availabie when bars close/real late (3) ~ Bus service should run later More buses 2 ~ On time/more reliable 1 More buses on busy routes/times i ~ Some drivers are not courteous 1 Music 1 ~ Schedules in Spanish 1 . BASE: Total Respondents (250) 'Less than 0.5%. ~ • A variety of other comments were offered by one respondent each: • • More service during off-season • Lower fares • Don't overload buses ~ • Heaters for covered stops • Drivers speaking better English ~ • Allow smoking • Longer stop at Post Office to pick up mail ~ • Passenger vans for off-season • • Bike racks in winter • Clean bus stops • • Mature drivers • Buses sometimes jerky • • Drivers shouldn't play music/that music • Snack carts/snacks available • • Fewer stops • Makes it easier to load skis • Bus stop announcements need to be clear ~ • Free to Beaver Creek • More stops ~ • Better drivers • • Lights are too bright at night ~ 22 ~ ~ ~ ~ DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF SURVEY RESPONDENTS ~ Gender. More males than females were interviewed (60% vs. 40%, respectively). ~ Age. A wide variety of ages were represented. About two-thirds of the respondents (65%) are in • the 18-34 year old age group. • Ethnicity. Nearly all respondents are Caucasian (82%). A smail proportion represent the Hispanic community (12%). ~ Occupation. Differences in occupation were evident between residents and visitors. Most • residents are employed in service (39%) or sales (25%) positions, while visitors were more likely to work in a managerial/professional capacity (38%). There were also significantly more students • represented in the visitor segment than among the residents (20% vs. 2%). ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 23 ~ " ~ ~ ~ ~ DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS ~ Total Residents Visitors • % % % Gender • Male 60 64 55 Female 40 36 45 ~ Age Under 18 3 4 2 ~ 18-24 28 35 <s> 21 • 25-34 37 39 34 35-44 15 10 <s> 20 • 45-54 9 4 <s> 14 55-64 6 5 6 65 or older 2 2 2 ~ No age given * 0 1 ~ Ethnicity • White/Caucasian 82 83 80 Hispanic 12 15 10 • African American 3 1 5 Asian 3 1 5 ~ Occupation • Managerial/professional 24 9 <s> 38 Service worker 20 39 <s> 2 • Sales 17 25 <s> 9 Technical/administrative 6 2 <s> 9 • Production/craft/repair/machine operator 6 8 3 Laborer 2 2 1 • Unemployed 4 4 3 • Student 11 2 <s> 20 Homemaker 3 3 3 • Retired 2 0 <s> 5 Other 1 1 2 , Refused 5 5 5 BASE: Total Respondents (250) (122) (128) ~ 'Less than 0.5%. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 24 ~ ~ ~ TOWN OF VAIL MARCH 1998 BUS SURVEY ~ Hello, my name is with a marketing research firm. We are conducting a • survey among bus riders in an effort to monitor the quality of service provided by the Town of Vail. May I ask you just a few questions. I assure you, I am not selling anything and that the information • gathered wili be used for research purposes only and to improve the services provided. • 1. What is the purpose of your bus trip today/where will you be going: 1 Skiing/recreation • 2 Shopping 3 Personal Business/errands • 4 Work 5 School/college • 6 Other (please specify) • 2. Are you in the area as a: 1 Year-round resident • 2 Seasonal resident 3 Visitor/Tourist > SKIP TO Q.10 ~ ~ 3. Are you employed anywhere in the Vail Valley? 1 Yes ~ 12 No > SKIP TO Q.7 ~ 4. In what communiry do you work? 01 East Vail 08 Avon ~ 02 Lionshead 09 Edwards 03 West Vail 10 Leadville ~ 04 Red Sandstone 11 Redcliff 05 Minturn 12 Gypsum ~ 06 Eagle-Vail 13 Eagle 07 Beaver Creek 14 Other ~ 99 REFUSED ~ 5. What time of day you start work? ~ 01 5-5:59 am 13 5-5:59 pm 02 6-6:59 am 14 6-6:59 pm ~ 03 7-7:59 am 15 7-7:59 pm 04 8-8:59 am 16 8-8:59 pm ~ 05 9-9:59 am 17 9-9:59 pm 06 10-10:59 am 18 10-10:59 pm ~ 07 11-11:59 am 19 11-11:59 pm 08 12-12:59 am 20, 12-12:59 pm ~ 09 1-1:59 pm 21 1-1:59 am 10 2-2:59 am 22 2-2:59 am ~ 11 3-3:59 am 23 3-3:59 am 12 4-4:59 am 24 4-4:59 am ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 6. What time of day you finish work? ~ 01 5-5:59 am 13 5-5:59 pm 02 6-6:59 am 14 6-6:59 pm ~ 03 7-7:59 am 15 7-7:59 pm 04 8-8:59 am 16 8-8:59 pm ~ 05 9-9:59 am 17 9-9:59 pm 06 10-10:59 am 18 10-10:59 pm ~ 07 11-11:59 am 19 11-11:59 pm 08 12-12:59 am 20 12-12:59 pm ~ 09 1-1:59 pm 21 1-1:59 am 10 2-2:59 am 22 2-2:59 am ~ 11 3-3:59 am 23 3-3:59 am 12 4-4:59 am 24 4-4:59 am ~ ~ 7. How long, in total, have you been riding the bus? 1 0-3 months 4 13 months-2 years ~ 2 4-6 months 5 Over 2 years 3 7-12 months ~ ~ 9. Does your employer provide a parking space for you while at work? 1 Yes ~ 2 No 3 Other_ • 10. On average, approximately how many minutes does it take for you to get to your bus ~ stop? minutes ~ 106. On average, approximately how many minutes does it take for you to get to your final ~ destination once you have gotten off the bus? ~ minutes ~ 11. How often do you have access to a vehicle for your personal use in this area? 1 Always ~ 2 Frequently 3 Seldom ~ 4 Never/don't have vehicle ~ 12. If this service did not operate, how would you make this trip? ~ 1 Personal vehicle 2 Car pool ~ 3 Private transport company 4 Hitch hike ~ 5 Other (please describe) 6 Would not be able to make trip ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 13A. Where did you board this bus? CIRCLE ANSWER IN COL.A ~ 136. Will you transfer to another bus? • Yes IF YES Where wili you transfer? CIRCLE ANSWER IN COL.B • 13C. What is your final destination? CIRCLE ANSWER IN COL.C • Board Trans Final A B C ~ 01 01 01 East Vail 02 02 02 Vail Transportation Center ~ 03 03 03 Lionshead 04 04 04 West Vail . ~ 05 05 05 Red Sandstone 06 06 06 Minturn ~ 07 07 07 Eagle-Vail 08 08 08 Beaver Creek ~ 09 09 09 Avon 10 10 10 Edwards ~ 11 11 11 Leadviile 12 12 12 Redciiff ~ 13 13 13 Gypsum 14 14 14 Eagle ~ 15 15 15 Other NA 98 NA No, Will not transfer ~ 99 99 99 REFUSED ~ ~ 14. IF RESIDENT ASK: How many bus trips do you take in an average week.. • a. leaving from home? b. returning to home? ~ IF VISITOR ASK: How many bus trips in total will you take during your stay... • a. leaving from home? b. returning to home? ~ • 16. Do you know the name of this bus system? IF YES What is the name? • 1 ECRTA 2 Eagle County Regional Transportation Authority ~ 3 Eagle County 4 Town of Vail ~ 5 Avon/Beaver Creek Transit 6 Other ~ 7 Don't know/no answer ~ 17. How do you feel about the number of bus stops? 1 Too few ~ 2 Too many 3 Just right • 4 No answer ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ 18. How did you first learn about this bus service? • 01 Local Radio: KZYR 02 KSKE • 03 other • 04 Local TV: TV8 05 The Vacation Channel • 06 other • 07 Local Newspaper: Vail Daily 08 Vail Trail • 09 Vail Valley Times 10 Eagie-Valley Enterprise ~ 11 Hotel Staff/Concierge • 12 Transportation Center 13 Referral: Friend • 14 Local resident 15 I nternet • 16 Other 17 No answer/don't know ~ • 19. On a scale of 1 to 5 where a 5= excellent and 1= very poor, how would you rate the following: ~ a. 1 2 3 4 5 NA Bus drivers practicing safe driving • b. 1 2 3 4 5 NA Bus drivers being courteous c. 1 2 3 4 5 NA Bus service running on time ~ d. 1 2 3 4 5 NA Number of times bus service has been canceled , e. 1 2 3 4 5 NA Frequency of bus service f. 1 2 3 4 5 NA Ease of connecting buses ~ g. 1 2 3 4 5 NA The bus schedules and transit information being • clear and easy to understand • h. 1 2 3 4 5 NA The bus schedules and transit information being easily accessible ~ i. 1 2 3 4 5 NA The quality of the covered bus stops • j. 1 2 3 4 5 NA The quality of the uncovered bus stops • k. 1 2 3 4 5 NA Cleanliness of bus 1. 1 2 3 4 5 NA Comfort while riding bus ~ • 20. IF RATED 1 OR 2 TO COMFORT ASK: Why did you give a low rating to "Comfort while riding bus?" What improvements/suggestions would you make to improve the comfort level? ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 21. Do you have any additional comments or concerns or suggestions for improvement regarding • this bus service? ~ ~ ~ ~ • My last few questions are just for classification purposes only... • 22. What is your age? 1 Under 18 • 2 18-24 3 25-34 • 4 35-44 5 45-54 • 6 55-64 7 65-74 • 8 75+ • 23. What is your occupation? • 01 managerial/professional 02 sales • 03 tech n ical/admin istrative 04 prod uction/craft/repai r /machine operator , • 05 service worker 06 laborer • 07 student 08 homemaker • 09 retired 10 unemployed • 11 Other__ 99 REFUSED ~ • Thank you for participating in our survey today! ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ " • • ~ A. Route: • 1 East Vail to Vail Village 2 Red Sandstone/West Vail to Vail Village • 3 Leadviile (through Minturn) to Vail Village 4 Redcliff (through Minturn) to Vail Village • 5 Gypsum to Vail Village 6 Eagle to Vail Village • 7 Edwards (through Avon/Eagle Vail) to Vail Village • B. Bus Number: • C. Day of week: 1 Monday • 2 Tuesday 3 Wednesday • 4 Thursday 5 Friday • 6 Saturday 7 Sunday ~ D. Time of Day: ~ 1 Early moming 6am - 8:30am 2 Mid-morning 8:31 am - 10:45am • 3 Lunch hour 10:46am -1:00pm 4 early afternoon 1:01 pm -2:45pm • 5 late afternoon 2:46pm -4:45pm 6 early evening 4:46pm -6:45pm • 7 evening 6:46 pm -8:45pm 8 late evening 8:46pm - 11:00pm • 9 IatenighUpre-dawn11:01pm -2:00am • E. Gender 1 Male • 2 Female • F. Ethnicity _ 1 White/Caucasian • 2 Hispanic 3 African American • 4 Asian. 5 Other ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Proposed 1998 -1999 Parking rates 0 - 1.5 $ 0,00 1.5-2 $ 2.00 2-3 $ 5,00 3-4 $ 6.00 4-5 $ 7.00 5-6 $ $.OQ 6-7 $ 9.00 7-8 $10.00 8-9 $11.00 9 -11 $12.00 I1 - 1S $13.00 IS - 24 $14.00 FREE AFTER 3 Short term recommendation: Role ahead two hours. Replace with Drive after Five. Long term recommendation: Replace all free structured parking, including 1 1/2 hour free, with a merchant validation program. Rationale: Last year we received complaints that the structures had filled with locals going to work, this left fewer spaces for austomers. GOLD PASS Recommendation: Status Quo • $1,000 per season plus a$25 refundable deposit • Valid any time in both Vail Village and Lionshead structures • Limited to 120 passes • Must return for deposit by May 31, 1999 BLUE PASS Recommendation: Price, Status Qua Not valid at the Vail Transportation Center from November 1998 to March 1, 1999. Rationale: The top deck, 226 spaces, will be used for an exhibitor tent for the 1999 Championships. These spaces are currently used for Value Pass parking. • $525 per season plus $25 refizndable deposit • Limited to Lionshead only. • Not valid in the Vail Village from November 1998 ta March l, 1999. No restrictions in Lianshead • N1ust be returned for deposit by May 31, 1999 VALUE PASS Recommendation: Price, Status Quo. Not valid at Vail Transportation Center from November 1998 to March 1, 1999. Not valid at the Lionshead structure during the 10 day event. Rationale: The spaces formerly used for this program, will be used as a exhibition area for the 1999 Championships. During the 1999 event, extra bus service will be provided. Parking will be in demand, locals will have alternative free transportation. • $5.00 for each 24 hour maxirnum period with a 10 purchase minitnum, limit of 100 per person. • $5,00 pex card / 2 card maximum. • Sold to Eagle County residents, employees or homeowners with valid identificatian such as: tax bill, Eagle County driver's license or a lacal paycheck stub. • Value pass can be used an any level of Lionshead structure, • Not valid at Vail Village structure from November 1998 to March l, 1999. • Not valid at Lionshead during the 1999 Championships. FORD PARK Recoarrniendation: Prior to the Championships, the lot wi11 remain free. During ths event the use will be restricted to event related vehicles and/or credentialed parking. Valet Par" Recommendation: Continue program. Dedicate space at Ford Park for this program. Rationale: In ski season 1997-98 Mountain Valet provided 3901 parking transactions. Summer Parking Recommendation: Implement summer 1999. $2.00 per entry will generate $175,000.00. Capital outlay will be $30,000.00 to equip both structures to provide the service without additional personnel. Rationale: Paid parking will help manage the increasing summer traffic issues. 1998-1999 Parking fMgram THE NUMBERS for 1997-1998 Ski Season • Parking Transactions UP 176,980 • Parking Revenue DOWN $255,240 • Sales Tax UP $368,289 • Valet - Parked 3901 cars - Average 27 cars /day - Reached capacity 11 days - Golden Peak / Ford Park worked well - Helped control skier/guest drop-off - Filled a niche for enhanced skier services Sales Tax Breakdown 97/98 97/98 YTD YTD 10Jun-98 DOLLAR PERCENT DOLLAR PERCENT 97/98 SKI SEASON-PRELIMINARY 96/97 97/98 YTD 97 YTD 98 CHANGE CHANGE CHANGE CHANGE Vaii Village - Retail 2,028,899 2.043,929 15,030 0.74% p Vail Village - Lodging 1.792.p~ 1,853,887 o ERR Vail Viilage - Food & Beverage 1,357,202 1,432,679 6t,810 3.45 / 0 ERR Vaii Villa e- Other 75,477 5.56% 0 ERR 9 76,317 66271 (10,046) -13.16% 0 ERR 5,254,495 5,396,766 0 0 142,271 2.71% 0 ERR Lionshead - Retail 820,607 802,512 (18,095) -2.21% 0 ERR Lionshead - Lodging 1,035,954 1,009,424 (26,530) -2.56% 0 ERR Lionshead - Food & Beveraqe 413,809 404,730 (9,079) -2.19% 0 ERR Lionshead - Other 51,450 43,200 (8,250) -16.03% 0 ERR 2,321,820 2,259,866 0 0 (61,954) -2.67% 0 ERR Other Areas - Retail 795,596 955,359 0 0 159,763 20.08% 0 ERR Other Areas - Lodging 819,535 867,574 0 0 48,039 5.86% 0 ERR Other Areas - Food & Beverage 252,991 235,420 0 0 (17,571) -6.95% 0 ERR Oiher Areas - Other 50,381 67,424 0 0 17,043 33.83% 0 ERR 1,918,503 2,125,777 0 0 207,274 10.80% 0 ERR Out - Retail 175,303 206,677 31,374 17.909% 0 ERR Out - Lodgin9 19,756 25,861 6,105 30.90% U ERR Out - Food & Beverage 5,120 3,588 (1,532) -29.92% 0 ERR Out - Other 579,322 624,073 44,751 7.72% 0 ERR total for out of town 779,501 860,199 0 0 80,698 10.35% 0 ERR TOTAL FOR 97/98 REPORT 10,274,319 10,642,608 0 0 368,289 3.58% 0 ERR TOTAL-RETAIL 3,820,405 4,008,477 0 0 188,072 4.92% 0 ERR TOTAL-LODGE 3,667,322 3,756,746 0 0 89,424 2.441/. 0 ERR TOTAL-FOOD 2,029,122 2,076,417 0 0 47,295 2.33% 0 ERR TOTAL-OTHER 757,470 800,968 0 0 43,498 5.74% 0 ERR GRAND TOTAL 10,274,319 70,642,608 0 0 368,289 3.58% 0 ERR 10,642,608 0 06/12I1998 10:56 9704766008 VVTCB PAGE 02/02 J~tn-11-98 13:Di Frcm-VAIL VALtEY FOUNDATION + T-103 P.02I02 F-213 `TAIL CHA.MI'IONSHIP SEASON EVENTS (Nav.1998-j'm 29,1999) Pazade of Champ,ions/Street Parry - November 14-15/~ I'rojected Can. To lcick otf the Champioraips SeASon, the WoTld Alpine SU Chanpionships OrganiZnX Committ+ee has pla:uled a parade of Champiors to include current and tnrmer U5 ski mm atexiebers and local "c&ampions" designawd by area bushwsses This event wiR be held m cotyunctinn with the US sb beaai s"ReAtm af tbe C.hampms" sace held annually in Beaves Cseek, amulde-tatLse]evision productioiz uulzing a format that awrrhes former tesm menctbers with che cusrent US ski team. Loca1 commutury members. Rehun of the Champims race particapants, Aiarching b&rds, tpzaous jncal canuws, HarIey DavidsoYls, kid.s, and ski clubs wili ioin m the parade to rreate a festive silmsphere for tbe 1999 Championships Season. R stseet puty wrth kve music witl fnllow tlte parade. ConceWpns wM he soid including food and drinks by !oG?1 uerchanis with +s 99-eent theme- There wiR alsa be a special publu _ autogzaph sessioll wich the U.S_ ski team Spurts Expo Ngvember 21-211998 . Projected Cost: Sposts equapurent aiu?4Facturc+rs wiII be gsesers displsyuig snd de~?onsaating the ]atesc ter.hnolo&ical advanoes in their indtxstries. The event wili featme the newest sports eqnipmet?t for demos, free beg3nxtcr ska lessons, cross rnuntxy skuitg, and a snowslwe dernos. The Expo includes a c.3,imbing walY. and sJraceboard exhibitions, prize give-aw ays, an4 A varsety of entertuiriu?ent featµrai$ the Vail/ Smver Creek Ski School De7na Team and a wrchttg,bt ski-down Tree Iaghting - pecember 19.1998 Pmjacfed Cast As a rnntutued annual tradid4n. PresidenT Getald Ford wilI host Va"sI s tree-Iighbng eerem0ty, while the children's poetxy reaciing winner will light Beaver Creek s uee. rialiday trees wdl feature arnaments creabed bY participatictg s1;i fedemtions frum arouad the world, rrflectung theu country's culture New Yees Eve - December 31,1998 P~jecfed cCSt The evenft besins with t~irewor]c.s g" otf sinaulaixieously in ihe communicies wi[bin;be valley_ The second pcunon of she celebranoa wiR fesAsne the sqowshoe r2?ce on sAp of .Vail Mounun. Ttre =ce wsll be 1.999 uules at &agle's Nest- Pamcipants of a13 sb;kacs wM be iuviwd. Once rhe racers have fiaished, a light e8ampagY?e was: wM greei ihe New Yeac. Vaii valley winter Carnivat = 14nu4rX22-2441999 Prajected Cast: This vaAey-wide festiv$I wiA iticlude an moernationat snow scuIpttue contest. Sculptures will be on . dispiay thrvughout the two weeks of the Champianslups at venues in Vail, Avon„ and Beaver Cseek. A, vasiety of western eatertit.loent rvill add w the "akl weSt, new frattims" theme- Fx;endty competirions mCludmg b7iTZ0 mces, dog sled mcc+s, and ski joris?g wiU offer a nostalgir flavor te the Carnivai. At 5:30 pm on Saturday these wiR be a hot air balloaa glow ~ r a VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA REQUEST ADDENDUM PROPOSED BUDGET Eagle County Fair and Rodeo Night in Lionshead: Advertising $1,000 Band 1,500 Family entertainment 2,000 Equipment and supplies 500 Total $5,000 Vail Championship Season Events: 25th Annual President Ford Tree Lighting Ceremonies: * Advertising $5,000 Printing 500 Sponsor Recognition 1,500 Equipment and Supplies 2,000 Signage 500 Lodging 2,000 Entertainment 10,000 Total $21,500 New Years Eve: * Fireworks $5,000 Other Championship Season Events: No supporting budgetary information has been provided by the Vail Valley Foundation, to date. *Current VVTCB budgets for these events. MEMORANDUM TO: Town Council FROM: Community Development Department DATE: June 16, 1998 RE: Ordinance revising the Design Review Chapter (adding a design review trigger), allowing interior conversions for multiple-family dwelling units, reorganizing the Conditional Use Chapter and allowing Type I!, Employee Housing Units as a permitted use in Single-Family, Two-Family and Primary/Secondary Residential Zone Districts. 1. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST. On March 17, 1998, the Town Council directed staff to prepare an ordinance which would clarify when a nonconforming site must be upgraded to meet the Design Review Guidelines. The Design Guidelines include such requirements as paving parking areas, placing utility service lines underground, compliance with the lighting restrictions, and not utilizing plywood as a siding material. The code currently requires all nonconforming properties to be brought into compliance with the Design Guidelines with any addition of square footage. The staff interpretation, which has been used for the past couple of years, allows expansions to single-family, two-family, and primary/secondary residential uses of 150 sq. ft. or less without complying with the guidelines. The Town Council directed staff to increase the threshotd to 500 sq. ft. (excluding 250 ordinance additions) and therefore, staff has been implementing the 500 sq. ft. over the past several months. Staff presented 2 alternatives to the Town Council. One proposal allowed expansions of up to 500 sq. ft. for single-family, two-family, and multiple family developments. Council did not want to extend this new threshold of 500 sq. ft. to multiple-family developments but instead directed staff to include multiple-family developments in the interior conversion regulations. The proposal requires the upgrading of commercial and multiple-family developments with any addition of floor area, units, common area, or garage area. The proposal allows nonconforming single-family, two-family, and primary/secondary uses a one-time expansion of up to 500 sq. ft. without compliance with the Design Guidelines. In addition, staff is proposing to amend the Zoning Regulations to allow Type II, Employee Housing as a permitted use instead of as a conditional use. Staff believes the current conditional use permit requirement is a barrier to applicant's wanting to build these units. It adds additional time and expense to a development project. This change would also help reduce staff worktoad and all staff to concentrate in other needed areas. There has not been a denial of such a request, for a long time. Staff is also proposing to clean-up the conditional use section af the code by creating a new subsection which will contain a(I use specific criteria and standards for uses listed as conditional uses. The proposal will eliminate the use specific criteria which are repeated throughout the 1 ]Y1VYN *VX . zone districts and consolidate them in one section. For example, the section from the code listed below is from the CC2 Zone district, under the conditional use section: 12-7C-4: CONDITIONAL USES; GENERALLY: The following conditional uses shall be permitted, subject to issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 16 of this Title: Bed and breakfast as further regulated by Section 12-14-18 of this Title. "Brew pubs" as defined in Section 12-2-2 of this Title, subject to the following conditions: A. There is no exterior storage of supplies, refuse, or materials on the property upon which the brew pub is operated; and B. The operator of the brew pub shall comply with the Town's loading and delivery regulations as set forth in this Title; and C. Brew pubs which sell beer or ale at wholesale or which sell beer for off-site consumption are allowed so long as the total of wholesale sales and sales for off-site consumption do not exceed forty five percent (45%) of the product manufactured by the brew pub on an annual basis. Under the proposed ordinance, A, B, and C above would be deleted and replaced with simply, "Brew Pubs." These criteria wilf then be moved to the new subsection in the Conditional Use Chapter. This is similar to what was done for fractional fee clubs last year. Specific criteria were created for this use and placed as additional standards in the conditional use section of the code. This amendment will create a consistent way of treating such criteria when amending the code in the future. II. SUMMARY OF CHANGES (see ordinance for specific language): Design Review Trigger Section 1. This section creates a new paragraph within the Design Review chapter. This contains the language allowing the 500 sq. ft. expansions without requiring upgrades of existing nonconforming conditions on site. 250 Ordinance Sections 2 and 3. These sections eliminate the 250 sq. ft. additions for multiple-family developments. 250 additions for multiple family dwelling units are only allowed to be interior, and therefore by adding multiple-family dwelling units to the Interior Conversion section, there is no use for these provisions. Interior Conversions Sections 4 and 5. These sections amend the Interior Conversion section of the code by adding multiple- family dwelling units. All regulations in the area stay the same sxcept that provisions precluding multiple family developments are removed. 2 r Conditional Uses Sections 6 -14. These sections amend the conditional uses listed in each zone district by removing any specific conditions that a use must meet. These specific conditions are moved to the conditional use chapter of the code. This is similar to what was done last year for fractional fee clubs. Any use specific criteria is list in the conditional use chapter, instead of being repeated throughout every district in the code. Section 15. This section creates a new subsection (12-16-7) in Chapter 16 of the Zoning Regulations, entitled "Use Specific Criteria and Standards." In this subsection, all conditional use permit standards and criteria are listed for any use requirirrg additional review criteria and standards. This reorganization is needed to develop a consistent method of amending the code. The Town Council directed staff to revise this seciion in review of a proposed amendment to ihe code. Staff believes this will make the code less cumbersome to read. Type II, Employee Housing Unit. Sections 16 -18. These sections delete a Type II EHU as a conditional use in the Single-Family Residential, Two-Family Residential, Primary/Secondary Residential, and the Agriculture and Open Space Zone Districts and list a Type tl EHU as a permitted use in these same zone districts. Additionally, the Employee Housing Chapter is amended to list a Type II EHU as a permitted use in these chapters. Additional Provision. Under the provision for a Type II, EHU, it states that when a request for additional GRFA is being made for a Type II, EHU, the approval shall be made by the Design Review Board. Staff has been including the additional square footage request along with the Conditional Use permit for these projects. It was the belief by staff that the provision allowing DRB approval was in error and that it should have been the PEC reviewing these requests. Staff is proposing to allow the DRB to review these proposals in accordance with code provision as written from now forward. III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION. The Community Development Department recommends accepting ordinance and scheduling for first reading on July 7, 1998. F:\EVERYON E\COUNCI LU1A EMOS\98\DESIGNTR.616 3 ~ , ORDINANCE NO. Series of 1998 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 12, ZONING REGULATIONS, CHAPTER 11, DESIGN REVIEW, SECTION 12-11-5: DESIGN GUIDELINES; ADDING A PROVISION ALLOWING LEGAL NONCONFORMING SINGLE-FAMILY, TWO-FAMILY, AND PRIMARY/SECONDARY RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS TO BE EXPANDED BY 500 SO. FT. OR LESS WITHOUT REQUIRING STRUCTURES AND SITES TO BE FULLY COMPLIANT WITH THE DESIGN GUIDEIINES; AMENDING CHAPTER 15, GROSS RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA (GRFA), SECTION 12-15-5: ADDITIONAL GROSS RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA (250 ORDINANCE), DELETING SUBSECTION 12-15-5(C) WHICH ALLOWS A 250 SQ. FT. ADDITION TO MULTIPLE-FAMILY DWELLING UNITS; AMENDING CHAPTER 15, GROSS RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA (GRFA), SECTION 12-15-4: INTERIOR CONVERSIONS, TO ALLOW INTERIOR CONVERSIONS IN MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS; AMENDING CHAPTER 16, CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS, CREATING A NEW SECTION 12- 16-7: USE SPECIFIC CRITERIA AND STANDARDS; AND AMENDiNG CHAPTER 6, RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, SECTIONS 12-6B-2, 12-6B-3,12-6C-2,12-6C-3, 12-6C-2, AND 12- 6D-3 AND CHAPTER 13; EMPLOYEE HOUSING, SUBSECTION 12-13-5(B)(1) TO ALLOW TYPE II EMPLOYEE HOUSING UNITS AS A PERMITTED USE IN THE SINGLE-FAMILY, TWO-FAMILY, AND PRIMARY/SECONDARY RESIDENTIAL ZONE DISTRICTS. WHEREAS, the Town Council desires to allow homeowners the ability to construct small additions to dwelling units without overburdening owners with costs associated with bringing legat nonconformities into compliance with existing design guidelines; and WHEREAS, the Town Council believes reorganizing certain sections of the Zoning Regulations will make them easier to read and use; WHEREAS, it is advantageous to allow Type II, Employee Housing Units, to be approved by the staff or Design Review Board, in order to make the process less cumbersome for the applicant and less time consuming for Town staff; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Ehvironmental Commission of the Town of Vail has recommended approval of this amendment to the Vail Municipal Code at its meeting; and WHEREAS, the Town Council considers it in the interest of the public health, safery, and welfare to amend said Chapter and Sections of the Municipal Code. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1. Title 12, Chapter 11, Design Review, subsection 12-11-3 is hereby amended to add the following paragraph: C. Nonconforming sites and structures; Effect of Design Guidelines: Buildings and sites which are not in conformance with the Design Guidelines, due to annexations or changes in code provisions (i.e., legal nonconformities), shall be required to conform with the Design Guidelines when allowable gross residential floor area (GRFA) (the GRFA that is permitted by the density control section of various zone districts), commercial floor area, or garage area credit is added to any existing structure or site. From the effective date of this ordinance (July 2, 1998), there shall be permitted a one-time exclusion from this provision for an expansion to single-family, two-family, and primary/secondary residential dwelling units. This one-time exclusion shail be allowed for a single expansion of 500 sq. ft. or less of allowable GRFA or garage area credit per dwelling unit. in which case, Ordinance, Series ot 1998 1 , . structures may be expanded without requiring upgrades to entire structures and sites to conform with the Design Guidelines. The addition itself, however, shall conform with the Design Guidelines. An expansion which is greater than 500 sq. ft., or any subsequent expansion to a structure, regardless of size, shall require full compliance of the entire site (including other dwelling units located on the lot) with the Design Guidelines. General maintenance and upkeep of a property shall continue to be required regardless of the amount of floor area added to a structure. The one-time exctusion noted above shall not preclude the Design Review Board, pursuant to the Design Guidelines, from requiring landscaping and other improvements necessary to buffer or mitigate development impacts associated with the expansion/remodel. Expansions made pursuant to Section 12-15-5, Additional Gross Residential Floor Area (250 Ordinance), shail require full compliance of the entire site with the Design Guidelines. Interior • conversion additions pursuant to Section 12-15-4, Interior Conversions, shall not trigger the requirement for upgrading sites and structures to fully comply with the Design Guidelines,, unless it can be classified as a demo/rebuild, pursuant to Section 12-2-2 of this Title. Section 2. Title 12, Chapter 15, Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA), subsection 12- 15-5(A) (Additional Gross residential Floor Area (250 Ordinance)) is hereby amended to read as follows: A. Purpose: The purpose of this Section is to provide an inducement for the upgrading of existing dwelling units which have been in existence within the Town for a period of at least five (5) years by permitting the addition of up to two hundred fifty (250) square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) to such dwelling units, provided the criteria set forth in this Section are met. This Section does not assure each single-family or two-family dwelling unit located within the Town an additional two hundred fifty (250) square feet, and proposals for any additions hereunder shall be reviewed closely with respect to site planning, impact on adjacent properties, and applicable Town development standards. The two hundred fifty (250) square feet of additional gross residential floor area may be granted to existing single-family dwellings; and existing two-family ' dwelling units only once, but may be requested and granted in more than one increment of less than two hundred fifty (250) square feet. Upgrading of an existing dwelling unit under this Section shall include additions thereto or renovations thereof, but a demolrebuild shall not be included as being eligible for additional gross residential floor area. Section 3. Title 12, Chapter 15, Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA), subsection 12- 15-5(C) is hereby deleted in its entirety. Section 4. Title 12, Chapter 15, Gross Residential Ffoor Area (GRFA), subsection 12- 15-4(B) (Interior Conversions) is hereby amended to read as follows: B. Applicability: At1y dwelting unit ' dweN+mg-units that exceeds allowable GRFA will be eligible to make interior conversions provided _ the following criteria are satisfied: 1. Any existing sing}e-!an»ilq dwelling unit shall be eligible to add GRFA, via the "interior space conversion" provision in excess of existing or allowable GRFA including such units located in a speciat development district; provided, that such GRFA compties with the standards outlined herein. 2. For the purpose of this Section, "existing unit" shall mean any dwelling unit w+thirre that has been constructed prior to August 5, 1997 and has received a certificate of occupancy, or has been issued a building permit prior to August 5, 1997 or has received final Design Review Board approval prior to August 5, 1997. . Section 5. Title 12, Chapter 15, Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA), subsection 12- 15-4(D) (Interior Conversions) is hereby amended to read as follows: D. Process: Applications shall be made to the Department of Community Development staff on forms provided by the Department. Applications for interior conversions to any dwelling unit Ordinance , Series of 1998 2 ' located in a special development district (SDD) pursuant to this Section shalf also be allowed without amending the GRFA provisions af the SDD. However, properties with GRFA restrictions recorded on the plat for the development shall be regulated according to the plat restrictions unless the plat is modified to remove such restrictions. The planning staff will review the application to ensure the proposed addition complies with all provisions of the interior conversion section. Submittals shall include: [remainder of paragraph remains unchanged] Section 6. Major arcade, et al, listed in Title 12, Chapter 7, Sections 12-78-2(C) and 12-7E-4 of the Municipal Code shall be deleted and replaced with: Major arcade. Section 7. Barber shops, et al, listed in Title 12, Chapter 7, Section 12-76-3(C) of the _ Municipal Code shall be deleted and replaced with: Barber shops, beauty shops, and beaury parlors. Section 8. Bakeries and confectioneries, et al, listed in Title 12, Chapter 7, Sections 12-7B-2(B)(1), 12-76-2(B)(3), 12-7B-3(B)(1), 12-7B-4(A)(6), 12-76-4(A)(7),12-7B-5(B)(1) and 12- 7B-5(B)(2) of the Municipal Code shall be deleted and replaced with: Bakeries and confectioneries. Section 9. Brew Pubs, et al, listed in Title 12, Chapter 7, Sections 12-7C-4, 12-7D-2, 12-7E-4, 12-7F-4(A), and 12-7F-4(B) of the Municipal Code shall be deleted and replaced with: Brew pubs. Section 10. Commercial storage, et al, listed in Title 12, Chapter 7, Sections 12-7C-4 and 12-7D-2 of the Municipal Code shall be deleted and replaced with: Commerciat storage. Section 11. Television stations, et al, listed in Title 12, Chapter 7, Section 12-7C-4 of the Municipal Code shall be deleted and replaced with: Television stations. Section 12. Transportation businesses, et al, listed in Title 12, Chapter 7, Sections 12- 7D-2, 12-7F-4(A), and 12-7G-3 of the Municipal Code shall be deleted and replaced with: Transportation businesses. Section 13. Title 12, Chapter 16, Conditional Use Permits, subsection 12-16-6(A)(7) is hereby deleted in its entirety. Section 14. Title 12, Chapter 16, Conditionai Use Permits, Sections 12-16-7 and 12- 16-8 are hereby renumber as 12-16-8 and 12-16-9, respectively. Section 15. Title 12, Chapter 16, Conditional Use Permits, Section 12-16-7 is hereby added to read as follows: • 12-16-7: Use Specific Criteria and Standards: The following criteria and standards . shall be applicable to the uses listed below in consideration of a conditional use permit. These criteria and standards shall be in addition to the criteria and findings required by Section 12-16-6. Uses and Criteria: Bakeries and confectioneries The use shall be restricted to preparation of products specifically for sale on the premises. Barber shops, beauty shops and beauty parlors No exterior frontage on any public way, street, walkway, or mall area is permitted. Brew pubs a. There shail be no exterior storage of supplies, refuse, or materials on the property upon which the brew pub is operated. b. The operator of the brew pub shall comply with the Town's loading and deiivery regulations as set forth in this Title. c. Brew pubs which sell beer or ale at wholesale or which sell beer for off-site consumption are allowed so long as the total of wholesale sales and sales for off- site consumption do not exceed forty five percent (45%) of the product manufactured by the brew pub on an annual basis. Ordinance , Series of 1998 3 Commercial storage No exterior frontage on any public way, street, walkway, or mall area is permitted. Convenience food stores a. Maximum store size shall be 8,000 sq. ft. b. No more than thirty three percent (33%) of the gross buifding area of the entire structure on-site. Major arcade a. No exterior frontage on any public way, street, walkway, or mall area is permitted. b. Amusement devices shall not be visible or audible from any public way, street, walkway, or mall area. Television stations a. The production room/studio shall be visible from the street or pedestrian mall, " b. The television station shall be "cable-casY" only, requiring no additional antennas. Time-share estate, fractional fee, fractional fee club, or time-share license proposal: Prior to the approval of a conditional use permit for a time-share estate, fractionai fee, fractional fee club, or time-share license proposal, the following shall be considered: a. If the proposal for a fractional fee club is a redevelopment of an existing faciliry, the fractional fee club shall maintain an equivalency of accommodation units as are presently existing. Equivalency shall be maintained either by an equal number of units or by square footage. If the proposal is a new development, it shall provide at least as much accommodation unit gross residential floor area (GRFA) as fractionai fee club unit gross residential floor area (GRFA). b. Lock-off units and lock-off unit square footage shall not be inciuded in the calculation when determining the equivalency of existing accommodation units or equivalency of existing square footage. c. The ability of the proposed project to create and maintain a high level of occupancy. d. Empfoyee housing units may be required as part of any new or redevelopment fractional fee club project requesting density over that allowed by zoning. The number of employee housing units required will be consistent with employee impacts that are expected as a result of the project. e. The applicant shall submit to the Town a list of all owners of existing units within the project or building; and written statements from one hundred percent (100%) of the owners of existing units indicating their approval, without condition, of the proposed fractional fee club. No written approval shall be valid if it was signed by the owner more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of filing the application for a conditional use. Transportation businesses a. All vehicles shall be parked upon approved parking areas. b. All vehicles shall be adequately screened from public rights of way and adjacent properties, consisting of landscaping and berms, in combination with walls and fences, where deemed necessary to reduce the deleterious effects of vehicle storage. c. The number, size and location of vehicles permitted to be stored shall be determined by the Planning and Environmental Commission based on the adequacy of the site for vehicle storage. Consideration shall be given to the adequacy of landscaping and other screening methods to prevent impacts to adjacent properties and other commercial and/or residential uses. Ordinance, Series of 1998 4 d. Parking associated with transportation businesses shall not reduce or compromise the parking required for other uses on-site. Section 16. Title 12, Chapter 6, Residential Districts, Sections 12-613-3, 12-6C-3, 12-6D-3, and 12-8A-3 are hereby amended by defeting the following: Type II employee housing unit as set forth in Section 12-13-5 of this Title. Section 17. Title 12, Chapter 6, Residential Districts, Sections 12-613-2, 12-6C-2, 12- 6D-2, and 12-8A-2 are hereby amended by adding the following use: Type II employee housing unit as set forth in Section 12-13-5 of this Title. Section 18. Title 12, Chapter 13, Employee Housing, Section 12-13-5(B)(1) is hereby amended to read as follows: 1. It shall be a permitted use in the Single-Family Residential, Two-Family Residential and Primary/Secondary Residential Zone Districts. Section 19. If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not effect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. Section 20. The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety and welfare of the Town of Vail and the inhabitants thereof. Section 21. The amendment of any provision of the Vail Municipal Code as provided in this ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceeding as commenced under or by virtue of the provision amended. The amendment of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein. Section 22. All bylaws, orders, resolutions and ordinances, or parts thereof, inconsistent herewith are repea{ed to the extent only of such inconsistency. This repealer shall not be construed to revise any bylaw, order, resoiution or ordinance, or part thereof, theretofore repealed. INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, APPROVED, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL ON FIRST READING this day of 1998, and a public hearing for second reading of this Ordinance set for the day of 1998, in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado. Robert E. Ford, Mayor Attest: Lorelei Donaidson, Town Clerk READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED NI FULL this day of 1998. Ordinance, Series o11998 5 Robert E. Ford, Mayor Attest: Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk F:\EVERYONE\ORD\98iCLEAN UP. WP D Ordinance No. , Series of 1998 6 ~y TOWN OF VAIL •RLD Office of the Town Manager CHAMPIONSHIPS 75 South Frontage Road Yail, Colorado 81657 1999-VAIL-BEAVER . .R 970-479-2105/Fax 970-479-2157 TM MEMORANDUM TO: Vail Town Council FROM: Robert W. McLaurin, Town Manager DATE: June 12, 1998 RE: Radio System Purchase As indicated in the background rationale on the Council agenda, the UHF radio system we currently utilize is over ten years old and will need to be replaced within the next few years. The life of this system cannot be predicted precisely, but it is estimated that between the next three and five years this radio system would be functionally obsolete and parts no longer available to maintain it. The Sheriff s office and most of the public safety agencies in Eagle County have moved to the 800 MHZ standard last year. Additionally the State Patrol will be moving to this standard in the next 2-3 years. While we can dispatch 800 and UHF simultaneously, it requires "patch throughs" at the dispatch consoles. Motorola is a sponsor of the communications of the World Championships and has offered to sell radios to the Town of Vail following the event at a significant discount. As we have discussed, given the limited life of the current radio system and the opportunity to purchase this equipment thirty percent below the state contract, I believe we should move forward to replace our radio system. The estimated cost for purchase and installation and extended two year warranties for a complete 800 MHZ radio system is approximately $800,000. These funds would need to come from the capital projects budget. Therefore, they would compete with street projects and other capital improvements projects for funding. Motorola is willing to enter into a lease/purchase agreement (with a non-appropriation clause to comply with Tabor) for a five year period. The interest rate for this lease/purchase would be 5.1 It is estimated that would pay approximately $70,000 in interest over the five year period. We have discussed this matter extensively internally with the Police Department, Fire Department and Public Works Department and feel that given these circumstances it would be prudent to move forward on this issue at this time. I an requesting that you authorize me to negotiate and execute the necessary contract to move forward with this issue. RWM/aw RECYCLEDPAPER 4VAIL TOWN O•~ ~ Office of the Town Manager 75 South Frontage Road Yail, Colorado 81657 . 970-479-2105/Fax 970-479-2157 TM MEMORANDUM TO: Vail Town Council FROM: Robert W. McLaurin, Town Manager Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Assistant Town Manager Greg Morrison, Police Chief DATE: June 12, 1998 SUBJECT: Fourth of July The Council directed staffto prepare for a very busy July 4th weekend, including an increased police presence and alternative entertainment for persons under 21 years of age, who otherwise would congregate on Bridge Street late at night. The staff has prepared cost estimates for increased police staffing and for alternative entertainment. - Law Enforcement Outside Agency Officers - labor/housing/per diem: $15,000 Vail Police Department Overtime: $ 7,000* Fire Dept Overtime: $ 2,100* Public Works: $ 700 Miscellaneous - (video and lights): $ 975 Entertainment: 10 000 (approximate) TOTAL: $35,775 * Overtime previously included in 1997-98 budget; however, the increased staffing provided by the Town of Vail personnel will be included in the supplemental at this level. However, given the increased level of activity on the Fourth of July, we believe it is prudent to move in this direction and to implement the plan we have discussed. We look forward to discussing this with you on Tuesday afternoon. RWM/aw attachment L~~ RECYCLED PAPER ~6-11-1998 4-55PM FROM RESORT ENTERTAINMENT 970 476 0218 P.2 rRO Fowvrn Dated June ll, 1995 ROCK'N DJ SHOW EVENT: July 4th Town oi Vail DATE: 4 July,1998 EXPENSES BUDGET PROJECTED ACI'UAL Artist Eapenses Artist Fee/Booking 1,200.00 Lodging: 2 x$ 70 x 8.5°/a 152.00 Catering 100.00 Ground '1'ransport n/a Air Transportation n/a Miscellaneous n/a Artist Sub Total - 1,452.00 - Production Expenses Sound Rental 500.00 Lighting Rental 2,500.00 Stage Rental n/a Roof Rental n/a ElectricaUGenerator a/a BquipmentlBackIine n/a Lodging: 2 x$70 x 8,5% 152.00 Production Mgr 750.00 Spot Light Operators n/a Crew: 6 x 6hr x$18 ESTTMATE 648.00 Security: ESTIMATE 1,500.00' Police TBD • Tent Rentai n/a Chair Rental n/a Fencing n/a Advertising: Posters 150.00 Vail Daily 1,000.00 Venue Rental TBD Miscellaneous 500.00 Prod.Exp Sub Total - 7,700.00 - Totat Expense - 9,152.00 - ~ , '6-11-1998 4:55PM FROM RESORT ENTERTAINMENT 970 476 0218 P.3 PRO FORMA Dated June 10,1998 REGIONAL SAND VEN : July 4th Town of Vai! DATE: 4 Juiy,1998 EXPENSES BUDGET PRO.TECTED ACTUAL Artist Expenses Artist Fee 2,500.00 Booking Fee 450.00 Lodging: 6 x$70 x 8.5% 456.00 Catering 250.00 Ground Transport n/a Air Traqsporfation n/a Miscellaneous n/a Artist Sub Total - 3,656.00. - Production Expenses Sound Rental 2,500.00 Lights Rental: Spotlight n/a • Stage Rental n/a Roof Rental n/a ElectricaUGeneratar nLa EquipmentBackline n/a Lodging: 2 x$70 x 8.5% 152.00 Production Mgr 750.00 Spot Light Operators Crew: 6 x 6hr x$18 ESTIMATE • 648.00 Secunty: ESTIMATE ' 1,500.00 Police ' TBD Tent Rental n/a Chair Rental n/a Fencing nla Advertising: Posters 150.00 Vail Daily 1,000.00 Venue Rental D Miscellaneous 500.00 Prod.Eap Sub Total - 7,200.00 - 'Y'otal Expense - 10,856.00 - TOWN OF VAIL COMMUNITY RESEARCH 1998 PREPARED FOR Town of Vail PREPARED BY RRC Associates 4940 Pearl East Circle, Suite 103 Boulder, Colorado 80301 TOWN OF VAIL CO1VIIr4iJNITY SURVEY 1998 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTI ON . . . ........1 SLTMMARY OF RESULTS ....................................................................................................................................2 Profile ofRespondents .................................................................................................................................2 The Three Biggest Issues Facing the Town 4 Ratings Results S ~ - Community Development Ratrngs 6 ' Library Ratings 6 Government Responsiveness and Satisfaction 9 The Bus System and Parking 9 „TooLittle"or "Too Much "Attention .........................................................................................................9 Sense of Communiry ...................................................................................................................................10 The Local Economy 10 Housing .....................................................................................................................................................10 Priorities for Improvement -Additional Use of Town Lands ......................................................................10 Sources of Funding for Housing Programs 12 The Internet and Communications ..............................................................................................................14 Second Homeowners ..................................................................................................................................14 DETAILED SURVEY RESiJI,TS ........................................................................................................................16 TOWN OF VAIL GOVERNMENT ......................................................................................................................16 ADMIIVI STRATION ............................................................................................................................................17 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 17 PUBLIC WORKS .................................................................................................................................................19 EMERGENCY SERVICES ..................................................................................................................................20 AIVIMAL CONTROL (CONTRACTED FROM EAGLE COUNTY) ........................................:.....................................23 TOV BUS SYSTEM AND PUBLIC PARKING 23 LIBRARY 26 TOWN OF VAIL PRIORITIES ............................................................................................................................29 LOCAL ECONOMI' 31 RRC ASSOCIATES CONTENTS TOWN OF VAIL COMMUNITY SURVEY 1998 An Overview of Results for A Vail Town Council Review Session _ June,1998 INTRODUCTION For the eleventh consecutive year, the Town of Vail conducted a survey of Town residents and absentee properry owners and business owners to evaluate opinions on a variety of issues. RRC Associates was again retained to assist in this program. The purpose of the survey program was to evaluate the respondents' level of satisfaction with respect to a full range of community services, and to gather opinions on key issues currently facing the Vail community. This year there was particular interest in a number of issues related to community priorities for the use of town-owned lands, an outgrowth of the ongoing "Common Ground" process. This year's survey was designed to parallel previous surveys in terms of a number of questions related to household demographic profiles, as well as ratings of services and facilities. As in recent years, there were several new questions asked to directly reflect current issues facing the Town. The Town of Vail mailed approximately 7,200 questionnaires to Vail residents, businesses and post office box holders. In addition, in an effort to reach to out to second homeowners, and to more fully investigate their opinions and priorities, all "absentee" (second homeowners) were mailed a survey. A total of 4,000 surveys were mailed to homeowners identified as receiving their tax notices outside the county. (This method of identification was used as a proxy for reaching second homeowners since no single accurate list exists for this segment of the communiry.) In addition to the two survey programs described above, a third survey was conducted this year with down valley residents. It was distributed by hand to a sampling of individuals expressing interest in participating in Town of Vail evaluation efforts. A total of 1,000 Down Valley surveys were distributed with 141 returned for a response rate of 14 percent. The number of returned Town and Absentee surveys represent a response rate of approximately 11.6 percent. The response rate for absentee property owners (14.7 percent) was higher than for Town residents (9.9 percent). It is important to note that response rates to the survey have fallen over the past several years, perhaps indicative of a need to consider alternative methods of soliciting community input. RRC Associates entered the data and transcribed the open-ended comments for processing and interpretation. A sampling of typical statements from the open-ended comments are provided with this report. A complete summary of a sample of responses to open-ended questions and sets of quantitative tables are provided in separate documents and are available through the Town of Vail Community Information office. RRC ASSOCIATES 1 TOWNT OF VAIL COMMiJNITY SURVEY 1998 This report is an overview sununary of the results of the study. Following the Town Council review session, a complete report will be presented summarizing the results from the 1998 Community Survey. The results of the survey are presented in two sections. The first section is the Summary of Results that reviews key findings from the survey. The second section, titled Detailed SurveyResults, consists of a copy of the original questionnaire with the response frequencies (given in percentages) and average (mean) scores, provided where appropriate for each answer. The number of responses to questions are also indicated by the symbol "n=" on the survey form. Graphs are used to summarize the results where appropriate. It is important to remember that some of the results from this year's Communiry Survey have been presented at previous meetings held in conjunction with Common Ground. This report covers some -of the same materials but it generally emphasizes subjects that have not yet been presented or discussed. SUMMARY OF RESULTS PROFII.E OF RESPONDENTS The survey has once again drawn participation from throughout the community. Response rates by subarea are similar when 1998 results are compared to 1997 findings. As expected, the absentee respondents are more clustered in neighborhoods with more second homes such as East Vail, Vail Village and Lionshead. TAsLE 1 WHERE IS YOUR RESIDENCE WITHIN THE TOWN OF VAIL LOCATED? RESIDENT ABSENTEE East Vail 23 30 Booth Falls and Bald Mountain Road 5 2 areas Booth Creek/Aspen Lane 1 1 - Golf Course 4 5 Vail Village 5 18 Lionshead 2 15 Potato Patch, Sandstone 10 10 Buffehr Creek, Lionsridge, the Valley 5 3 Vail Commons/Safeway area 3 1 West Vail (north of I-70) 12 6 Matterhorn, Glen Lyon 11 4 intermountain g 5 Not a resident of the Town of Vail 12 - A slight shift in the demographic profile of respondents was experienced this year. This year's sample included a greater proportion of absentee owners, in part the result of sampling all absentee owners this year. In general, the absentee owners tend to be older than year-round residents and have a household with children and a higher annual income. There are sharp variations in the profile of residents compared to second homeowners, but little difference in the profiles of these segments when 1998 is compared to 1997. The following table summarizes the profiles of Town of Vail residents and absentee property owners separately. RRC ASSOCIATES 2 TOWNT OF VAIL COMMUNITY SURVEY 1998 . TABLE 2 TOWN OF VAIL RESIDENT AND ABSENTEE PROPERTY OWNER PROFILE OWWRENT RESIDENCE 1998 1997 RESIDENT ABSENTEE RESIDENT ABSENTEE Own 76 100 66 97 Rert 23 - 31 3 Other 1 - 3 _ OWWOPERATE A BUSINESS WITHIN THE TOWN OF VAIL 1998 1997 . RESIDENT ABSENTEE RESIDENT ABSENTEE Yes 33 4 32 4 No 67 96 68 96 TENURE WITHIN TOWN OF VAIL (OR LENGTH OF TIME OWNED PROPERTY IF NON- RESIDENT) 1998 1997 RESIDENT ABSENTEE RESIDENT ABSENTEE Less than 1 year 5 5 6 5 1-5 years 20 22 25 24 6-15 years 35 40 34 37 More than 15 years 41 33 35 34 MARITAL STATUS 1998 1997 RESIDENT ABSENTEE RESIDENT ABSENTEE Single, no children 38 7 40 9 Couple, no children 22 14 20 13 Household with children 23 32 26 33 Empty nester 19 47 14 45 (children no longer at home) AGE 1998 1997 RESIDENT ABSENTEE RESIDENT A65ENTEE Under 20 - - _ _ 20-24 2 - 2 - 25-34 23 1 30 5 35-44 24 14 27 13 45-54 28 33 23 30 55-64 15 33 11 32 65 or over g 17 5 18 Do not wish to reply 1 2 1 2 ANNUAL HOUSEHOLD INCOME (BEFORE 1998 1997 TAXES) RESIDENT ABSENTEE RESIDENT ABSENTEE $0-14,999 2 - 2 - $15,000-34,999 16 1 22 1 $35,000-49,999 16 1 16 3 $50,000-74,999 18 5 18 6 $75,000-99,999 12 6 10 6 $100,000-149,999 10 10 8 10 $150,000 or more 16 55 11 52 Do not wish to reply 10 22 10 21 RRC ASSOCIATES 3 TOWA1 OF VAIL COMMiJNITY SURVEY 1998 THE THREE BIGGEST ISSUES FACING TfE TOWN The survey began with an "open-ended" question asking respondents the "three biggest issues in order of priority" facing the Town. This is a question that was asked last year in identical format; interestingly, the results have varied over the past two years. Last spring the responses were diverse with many different issues identified and a variety of concerns expressed. In 1996/97 the order of prioritized issues was: first, issues related to the maintenance of infrastructure and redevelopment; second, affordable housing; and third, "growth." These were followed by (loss o fl sense of community, traffic and the cost of living. Perhaps surprisingly, the top three categories identified by residents were identical to those of absentee respondents. " This year, as presented in several meetings in conjunction with the Common Ground process, the dominant issue has been "affordable housing" with no other single issue close to housing in terms of the frequency of mention in the top prioriry position. The results concerning the "Top Issues" this year are pornayed by the graphs below. FiGURE 1 MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE FACING THE TOWN OF VAIL RESIDENTS AND SECOND HOMEOWNERS COMBINED, SUMMARIZED FROM OPEN-ENDED COIvIIvIENTS Percent of Respondents 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% Housing , (employee, affordable, general, local) • . . . > ~4.3°k i Controlled growth / development 11.70% I I i i i Open space / environmern Lionsheadredevelopment ' 4.9° , Parkin9 > ..;,:I4J°k ; ~ I i I I Vail Associates comrol 3.6°k I Traffic 3.i% I I ~ ~ I! I Improving communrty (retail, infrastructure, appearance) ' ~3'1~~° Sense of community 2.41)~ Category III 1.8%j RRC ASSOCIATES 4 TOWN OF VAIL COM'14UNITY SURVEY 1998 FIGURE 2 TOP THREB ISSUES FACING THE TOWN OF VAIL RESIDENTS AND SECOND HOMEOWNERS COMBINED, (SUMMARIZED FROM OPEN-ENDED CO:vIIvIENTS Percent of Respondents 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60°! Housing (employee, affordable, local, generaq : : _ _ 53.6% - 22.9~ I , . I _ a . I Open space / environment (pollution, preservation) - 15.5% ~ i : 14.2% ~ j i • Affordability (skiing, retail, taxes, real estate) .13,3% 13.0% Lionshead 7,4% . 7.4 ~ Recreational facilities/events 7,4z I i :6.1^/0l ~ I II ~ Category lll / slti area expansion 5.5% I 4.4% ~ Employees (tumover, shortage, qualified, lowwages) 4.1°k , i 3.0°k I ~ I I Congestion/overcrowding 3.0% 2.2°k RATINGS RESULTS Results from this year's survey indicate that residents and absentee properry owners are generally satisfied with the quality of services provided by the Town and are also satisfied with the attitudes of Town employees. In general, absentee owners are more positive than residents, but both groups are typically positive. However, there are notable differences in the ratings of departments and services and minor shifts in the responses from previous surveys. There is room for improvement in various aspects of Town services. It is also important to note that the patterns of responses by those reporting that they used a particular service (such as the library or community Development) are quite different (and typically more positive) than those that had not used the services. While we have not fully analyzed all departments for results that would explain changes in ratings, we have focused on two programs, Community Development and the Library for preliminary review. RRC ASSOCIATES 5 TOW2v' OF VAIL COivLMLl?rTITY SURVEY 1998 CONIlVIIJNITY DEVELOPMENT RATINGS Communiry Development is one of the departments that has continued to receive relatively low ratings. The data suggest that ratings are especially low if all resident responses are evaluated, but if the analysis is restricted to those that actuallv used Community Development in the past year, the results are more positive. These fmdings are summarized in the graph of Question 6(Figure A) in the attached Survey Summary. - Probing the open ended comments for indications of the source of some of the negative Community - Development ratings reveals several patterns. First, Community Development is one of the departments that is frequently charged with telling members of the community what they can and cannot do, always a challenge. The comments reveal that some respondents want more controls, others want less, and it is very difficult to please both sides on ma,ny development issues. Second, Community Development has experienced heavy turnover. There are a number of comments that suggest community support for the recent direction of the department, and a number of individuals suggested that turnover needs to be targeted. "Pay the planners more to reduce turnover. They work so hard" was a comment that typifies an idea expressed by several. Finally, there were several comments directed at the Design Review Board and also the Gross Residential Floor Area ratio. All of these areas of concern are probably contributing to some of the relatively low ratings. LIBRARY RATINGS The Library again gained very high ratings, with both residents and second homeowners giving similar responses although there is evidence of some decline in ratings of the library. It is important to note that the ratings by persons that actually used the library are down only slightly over the past two years. The library questions included an evaluation of the idea of a"privately operated coffee house in the back of the communiry room in the library." Although 43 percent of respondents said they are "not at all likely" to use a community room, about 17 percent of residents and absentee alike said they would be very likely to use the service, with another 13 percent somewhat likely. In other words, with about one in five respondents indicating positive interest the coffee house idea may be one worth exploring further. Unlike Communiry Development, the Library is rated relatively high compared to other departments and services and has always received very positive ratings but there has been a general pattern of slight decline over the past two years. One of the sources of concern regarding the Library is clearly access. This is the lowest rated aspect of the program and is sometimes identified in the open-ended responses as a specific concern, especially among residents (as compared to second homeowners). Other comments indicate some concerns with access to the Internet through the library, hours of operation and some youth oriented issues. In general, the Library is a service that most people like very much but the little frustrations, and particularly parking, cause relatively major irritation that may be reflected in some of the ratings shifts. RRC ASSOCIATES 6 TOWN OF VAIL COMMUNITY SURVEY ¦ Average Satisfaction Ra6ng 1998 Satisfaction Ratings -1998 vs. 9997 ? Average Satisfac6on Rating 1997 Average Satisfaction Rating (1="Not At All Satisfied"/5="Very Satisfied") 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 Town Of Vail Staff - - - - - ' Government Town Council Finance/Cashier Window General Administration Information Dissemination Administration Municipal Court . ~ ' Sales Tax/Business License Service Courtesy And Attitude Overall Seroice And Efficiency Building Inspections DRP - Staff Env. Ptanning Program 'C0111111UIllty Development Restaurant Inspection Building Permit Plan Review Build Permit 7umaround Snow Removal - Park Playground Equipment Safety ~ , Road & Street Mainienance Public Works Frontage Road Maintenance Emergency Medical Services Courtesy And Attitude Fire Emergency Response Time ; Fire Prevention/Inspection Program ~ Fire Code Enforcement Fire Fire Department Plan Review Feeling Of Security/Safety Friendiiness/Approachability Overall Quality of Service ; Police Fairness Of Police Visibility Of Police , Overall Quality of Seroice - - - - ~ ' Animal Control Response Time To Complainfs In-Town Shuttle Frequency ~ Bus Driver Courtesy - - - ~ BUS Dependability of Bus Seroice Cleanliness Of Buses Cleanliness Of Terminal "Park Afler 3" Program Booth Attendant Courtesy Speed Of Transacfion At Booth ~ Parking Discount Parking Program Cfeanliness/Lighting Of Structures Overall Parking Fees/Pricing Magazines And Newspapers Youth Programs Youth Materials Circulation Seroices Altemate Media LlbCil)/ I Research Information On-Line Databases Source: RRC Associates - Boulder, CO ¦ Resident Average Satisfaction Rating TOWN OF VAIL COMMUNITY SURVEY * Absentee Average Satisfaction Rating Satisfaction Ratings Local Residents vs. Absentee Respondents,1998 Average Satisfaction Rating •(1="Not At All Satisfied"15="Very Satisfied") 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 Town Of Vail Staff Town Council Art in Public Places ~ Planning 8 Environ. Commission Town Design Review Board ' Govemment Finance/Cashier Window Information Dissemination General Administration MoLn ~ Town Municipal Court , ; Sales Tax/Business License Service AdminisUation Courtesy And Attitude Overali Service And Efficiency DRP - Stafi Building Inspections Env. Planning Program Building Permit Plan Review Community Development Restaurant Inspection DRP - Planning & Environ. Commision Build Permii Turnaround DRP - Design Review Board . Snow Removal Overall Park Maintenance - Park Playground Equipment Satety AppearancelCondition of Town Buildings Public Road & Street Maintenance Works Cleanliness of Public Spaces ~ I Frontage Road Maintenance Emergency Medical Services Courtesy And Attitude . ; Fire Emergency Response Time Overall Fire Services Provided Fire Prevention/Inspection Program . ; Fire Public Education Services Fire Fire Code Entorcement , Fire Deparfment Plan Review Feeling Of Security/Safety Friendliness/Approachability ~ Overall Quality of Service Visibility Of Police ~ Police Faimess Of Police Overall Quality of Service Anima! Response Time To Complaints Control Dependability of Bus Service In-Town Shuttle Frequency I Bus Driver Courtesy Cleanliness Of 8uses " Bus Cleaniiness Of Terminal ; 'Park After 3' Program 8ooth AttendaniCourtesy ; Speed Oi Transaction At Booih ~ Pa/king Discount Parking Program CleanlinesslLighting Of Structures Overall Parking Fees/Pricing ~ Magazines And Newspapers ; Youth Programs Youth Materials Lf6?ary Circulation Services Community Roan Alternate Media New Library Physical Layout ; Fiction and Nonfiction books On-Line Databases ; I ~ Research Information ~ Parking/Access Source: RRC Associates 1998 Results Boulder, CO I • . TOWN OF VAIL COMrdUNITY SURVEY 1998 GOVERNMENT RESPONSNENESS AND SATISFACTION Last year almost half of resident respondents reported that the responsiveness of the Town Council was "getting better" (46 percent compared to 37 percent this yea.r). This year more are saying council "stayed the same" in responsiveness (54 percent of residents compared to 46 percent last year), with a minority (9 percent) saying council is "worse." The "good news" is that the ratings in the "getting worse" category remain low, and the overall satisfaction scores are up slightly among residents and absentee owners alike. Regarding ratings of Town of Vail staff, more respondents are saying "the same" this year with less, saying "better." The ratings of staff are high overall, however, with most respondents indicating high levels of ' satisfaction, with scores identical to last year. Respondents indicated dissatisfaction with the Design Review Board and the Planning and Environmental Commission last year. Results suggest that these organizations have improved, with better ratings this year. Art in Public Places was rated for the first time this year. In spite of improvement in the ratings, the Design Review Board, Planning and Environmental Commission and Art in Public Places are all rated lower than Town Council or staff. THE BUS SYSTEM AND PARKING A new series of questions were asked concerning use of the TOV bus system About 87 percent of residents and 93 percent of second homeowners report using the TOV bus system in the past 12 months. Most respondents report living within an eighth of a mile of a bus stop, with one in four residents (24 percent) indicating they are more than a quarter of a mile from a stop. Most residents (48 percent) also work within an eighth of a mile of a stop. Residents report using the bus 3.7 times in a typical week (a one way trip equals one ride). In other words, the bus is used heavily by residents and second homeowners alike, with most of the community living and working close to bus stops, which is part of the explanation for the system's success. About 96 percent of residents and 83 percent of absentee respondents, report that they used public parking in Vail within the past 12 months. Most aspects of the program are rated favorably (and similarly) by respondents, with the "Park Free after 3" receiving particularly high ratings by both groups. Clearly this program is highly regarded and has struck a cord with both residents and second homeowners alike. "Too Lrrru" ox "Too MUCx" ATrENTiorr A series of questions asked respondents to indicate whether services/facilities in the Town receive "too little" or "too much" attention. Results indicate that most respondents are satisfied with the levels of attention being given to services. However, Art in Public Places was called out more frequently than any category as receiving "too much" attention. Notably, housing was seldom mentioned as receiving too much attention, a further indication of community sentiment in support of the prioriry attention being given to this matter. The library was most often mentioned as receiving "too little" attention, followed by cleanliness (in general) infrastructure upgrades, and police patrols. RRC ASSOCIATES 9 1 TOWN OF VAIL CON4hfUNITY SURVEY 1998 • SENSE OF COMMUNTfY There remains a general concern with a lack of "sense of community," although results are largely unchanged from last year. Resident respondents, in particular, feel the "sense of communiry" within the Town of Vail has "gotten worse" over the past several years (43 percent compared to 25 percent of the absentee owners). THE LocAL Ecorromy A series of questions addressed opinion concerning whether, "The TOV needs to take action to improve the communiry's economic vitality (retail quality and yariety, keeping businesses in Vail) in commercial areas." Results suggest that there is strong support for this direction among residents (76 percent said "yes" with 6 percent uncertain). Among second homeowners support was still evident (56 percent said "yes") with 17 percent uncertain. Regarding the importance of various actions, the single most identified action item for local residents was to "create seasonal housing" followed by expanded summer marketing. On this question there were relatively large differences between residents and second homeowners, with the latter group most likely to favor improvements to summer marketing, improving retailing and improving streetscapes. HOUSING As mentioned previously, support for housing issues was a recurring theme in this year's survey. This was further reinforced by the response to a question concerning whether new development should be responsible for housing some of their workers. About 82 percent of residents.and 60 percent of second homeowners support this requirement, with both groups indicating an average of about half (50 percent) as a target percentage. PRIORTfIES FOR IMPROVEMENT - ADDITIONAL USE OF TOWN LANDS As noted previously, a number of the survey fmdings concerning topics related to the Common Ground process have been presented previously. Several of the graphs that were used in the previous meeting are provided below for convenience. In general, the results of the surveys showed strong interest in both a "youth center" and other family oriented programs, especially among residents and particularly the Down Valley residents that were tracked separately from the random sampling of respondents to the survey. A performing arts center, conference facilities, an indoor swimming pool and a community theater also garnered support. While there were differences in the responses to survey questions between residents and second homeowners, these differences were relatively small and would not significantly change the overall ranking of priorities as illustrated below. RRC ASSOCIATES 10 f TOWIvT OF VAIL CO:vIlKLRvITY SURVEY 1998 . FIGliRE 3 RATE HOW IMPORTANT EACH ADDITIONAL USE FOR TOW:V LANDS IS TO THE VAIL COMMLTiITY RESIDENTS AND SECOND HOMEOWNERS COMBINIEb Mean Rating 1= Not At All Important / 5= Very Important 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 Youth center .a ~ - I ; j ! I Performing Arts Center sz j ; Conference Convention Center 3.1 ¦ Mean Rating of ImpoRance I I I i Community theatre ~.s i ; I I ! ~ ' Family Fun Center z, j Indoor swimming pool z. I Multi-purpose meeting rooms 2.7 Outdoor swimming pool ; Skateboard park 2.5 i I II ~ ' Gymnastics facility ~s ~ Second ice rink ; I , i RRC ASSOCIATES 11 TOW!V OF VAIL COIN'ASIJNITY SURVEY 1998 FiGUxE 4 RATE HOW IMPORT.ANTT EACH ADDITIONAL USE FOR TOWN LANDS IS TO THE VAIL COMMiJNITY RESIDENTS VS. SECOND HOMEOWNERS Mean Rating 1= Not At All Important I 5= Very Important . 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 Youth center 3,6 3.2 I..,. . I ! Performing Arts Center ~ I i ~ I Conference Convention Center 13.0 32 ~ I Indoor swimming pool Z.~ I ¦ Residents z. , 0 Second homeowners Family Fun Center Z' ' >2.7 ( Community theatre i 3.2 i ' i -:-:-::::::.~..:.;:._......_....I...........2.7......I...... ; Skateboard park 2.1 I I I i' ~ Multi-purpose meeting rooms 2'7 ' ! I I 2.6 ! ~ I Outdoor swimming pool : 2'6 ' I I 2.6 I I ~ ; ; I Gymnasticsfacility 2.5 22 ' i 2.1 I , I ! Second ice rink 2.0 SOURCES OF FUNDING FOR HOUSING PROGRAMS The survey also probed the preferred method of funding housing oriented initiatives. The wording of the question on the survey read, "The Town Council has indicated it will create a dedicated funding source(s) to facilitate the provision of affordable housing. From the list below, prioritize your top three choices for funding sources." The results showed that dedicating a portion of sales tax, and reallocating a portion of the real estate transfer tax were the preferred methods of funding housing programs. There were differences between residents and second homeowners (residents favored using RETT monies, second homeowners prefened sales taxes) and by length of time in the community (longer term residents favor tapping RETT) but overall it is clear that from the list provided, the sales tax and RETT options do have support from a significant segment of the community. RRc assocIATES 12 TOWN OF VAIL C0MMUNITY SURVEY 1998 FiGuxE 5 TOP FUNDING CHOICE FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING COMPARISON BY SURVEY VERSION 45% , ¦Resident Survey Version 40°k pSecond Homeowner Survey Version ~ 35% ~ q 30°k ~ ~ 25% e 'v 0 20°h N oC t5% ~ u a 10°h . 5% 0% Reallocate a Dedicate a Initiate Other Property tax Take on Initiate business portion of RETT portion of existing employee tax sources increase more debt improvement sales tax (paid by business via bond issue district owner) FiGUxE 6 TOP THREE FUNDING CHOICES FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSI\G COMPARISON BY SURVEY VERSION AND BUSINESS OWNERSHIP ao~io ¦ ResideM Survey Version 70'° pSecond Homeowner Survey Version OTOV Business Owners I Operators ' ~ 60% • o U d 50% iE 0 ~ 40% ,c v e y 30% m ~ lu 20% u a f~ 10% > 0°h Reallocate a Dedicate a Initiate Take on Property tax Initiafe business Other portion of RETT portion of existing employce tan more debt increase improvemeM sources sales tax (paid by business via bond issue district owner) RRC ASSOCIATES 13 TOW?rT OF VAIL COMMUNITY SURVEY 1998 THE INTERNET AND COMMIJNICATIONS As noted previously, the survey response rates declined this year suggesting that there might be a need to investigate other alternatives to solicit community input. One of the clear possibilities is the Internet which has seen tremendous growth over the past year. Last year's survey showed tha.t 49 percent of residents had access to the Internet; this year the figure is at 64 percent. Similarly, among second home owners the figure climbed from 38 percent last year to 74 percent this year. Further, many in the community, particularly second homeowners, indicate that they will use the Internet to "keep up to date on TOV activities. Approximately 40 percent of second homeowners and 24 percent of residents said they would use this medium. - As we look to the future there may be opportunities to continue to expand upon some of the already successful techniques (such as newsletters, the Internet, community forums, etc.) for both communicating town programs and objectives and receiving input. While we believe the survey can be a very important tool, it may be appropriate to consider fielding it on an every other year basis, or changing some aspects of the program to increase interest and participation in the future. SECOrm HoMEOwrrExs Several customized questions were included in the survey form directed at second homeowners. The results ma,y for tell the future use of many of the second homes in Town. Results indicate that the use of Vail Valley homes by second homeowners continues to increase. We believe that this pattern can have significant impacts on Vail over the next few years. For example, when asked to "Think back over the past two years, are you spending more, less or about the same amount of time in the Vail Valley'?" 37 percent of second homeowners reported "more" with only 15 percent reporting "less" time. Further, most respondents (83 percent) expect to increase their use of their Vail residence in the future. These results are further reflected in the response concerning the average number of da.ys spent in second homes by season. The totals for Summer and Fall are about equal to Winter (27.8 days) reflecting the commonly stated theme that second homeowners relish all seasons in the Valley, not just winter. A previous surve_y (1996) indicated high levels of interest (about one in four respondents) to make the Vail area residence a"primary residence." The recent 1998 survey explored the services and infrastructure that would be needed to make the move to the Vail Valley. More respondents (66 percent) identified an airport with "affordable and accessible year-round service as a primary concern," followed by "improvements to pedestrian areas and parking" (35 percent). Next most identified was "competition in stores" (33 percent) and improved telecommunications (24 percent). As summarized in the attached survey, about 40 percent of survey respondents indicate they rent their Vail residence on a short term ("nightly rental") basis. More of the respondents are anticipating taking their units out of nightly rental than placing them into a program, suggesting another significant trend for the community. Further, the results suggest that relatively few of the respondents intend to sell their Vail area property (less than 12 percent), with most expecting to continue to increase their personal use of the property. In a positive indication of the future of second homes, almost half (47 percent) of respondents indicated that they expect tom make "significant improvements/renovations) to their unit, with those owners that are short ternung their units especially likely to be upgrading. This suggests that the overall bed base, which is in some need of upgrade, may receive some of this attention through the efforts of individual RRC ASSOCIATES 14 TOWN OF VAIL CO:vIIviLTNITY SURVEY 1995 property owners. Finally, among those few intending to sell their area property, most (64 percent) indicate they will buy another property. Taken together, these results suggest that there may be continuing shifts in the use of second homes by owners. More use in summer and the shoulder seasons, more likely to call their Vail residence a"primary" residence, and more likely to invest in significant upgrades and improvements are three of the trends suggested by the data. Looking to the future, these shifts could signal a segment of owners that are more likely to become interested and involved in community, culture, recreation and elections. While the shifts remain somewhat speculative at this point, they deserve continued thought and attention as Vail officials anticipate and plan for the future. • RRC ASSOCIATES 15 TOWti OF VAIL COM1vICJNITY SURVEY 1998 . DETAILED SURVEY RESULTS The detailed results from the survey are presented below by individual question. Each question is reported by the separate results for residents from the Town of Vail and absentee properry owners individually. Where overall results compared to the previous year, are of interest, the data have been represented in a graph format. What do you believe are the three biggest issues, in order of priority, facing the Town of Vail? (see attached summary) _ TOWN OF VAIL GOVERNMENT 1. How satisfied are you, in general, with the overall performance and responsiveness of the Town of Vail govemment? NOT AT ALL VERY SATISFIED SATISFIED mean n 1 2 3 4 5 Current Town Council resident 4 9 41 36 10 3.4 580 absentee 3 6 41 41 9 3.5 325 Planning and Environmental resident 11 22 38 24 5 2.9 529 Commision absentee 7 15 39 30 9 3.2 323 Design Review Board resident 13 23 38 21 4 2.8 498 absentee 11 16 33 32 8 3.1 310 Art in Pubiic Places resident 15 21 32 23 10 2.9 517 absentee 9 11 26 37 17 3.4 81 Town of Vaii staff resident 4 10 30 41 15 3.5 572 absentee 3 7 29 44 18 3.7 337 2. Specifically, over the past year, how would you rate the responsiveness of the following groups: GOTTEN STAYED THE GETTING WORSE SAME BETTER n 1 2 3 Current Town Council resident 9 54 37 598 absentee 8 63 29 72 Planning and Environmental resident 16 69 15 542 Commision absentee 7 72 20 69 Design Review Board resident 18 69 12 529 absentee 14 71 15 65 Art in Public Places resident 19 64 17 519 absentee 13 70 16 67 Town of Vail staff resident 8 69 22 632 absentee 8 76 16 74 3. Specifically, over the past year, how would you rate the responsiveness of the Town of Vail government? GOTTEN STAYED THE GETTING WORSE SAME BETTER n 1 2 3 absentee 5 72 23 314 RRC ASSOCIATES 16 TOW1V OF VAIL CO?vIMUNITY SURVEY 1998 , ADMINISTRATION 4. How satisfietl are you with town administration services? NOTATALL VERY SATISFIED SATISFIED mean n 1 2 3 4 5 General administration (manager's office, resident 3 8 36 37 17 3.6 472 finance department, clerk's office, staff) absentee - 5 38 46 11 3.6 63 Information dissemination (meeting notices, resident 3 7 29 41 21 3.7 551 announcements, project updates) absentee 7 13 30 33 18 3.4 399 Municipal Court resident 4 7 38 29 21 3.6 310 absentee - 3 47 31 19 3.7 32 Finance/cashier window resident 1 6 35 36 22 3.7 345 absentee 3 3 32 41 21 3.7 34 Sales tax & business license services resident 9 13 36 29 13 3.3 349 a6sentee 8 6 53 28 6 3.2 36 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT The Community Development Department provides planning, design review, environmental health, and building inspection services. 5. Have you used the Community Development Department with the past 12 months? RE5IDENT A85ENTEE n=670 n=543 32 10 Yes 68 90 No RRC ASSOCIATES 17 TOWN OF VAIL COMMUNITY SURVEY 1998 6. Please rate your satisfaction with the following aspects of the Community Development Department. FIGURE A SATISFACTION RATINGS OF COMMUIN'ITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT-2-YEAR Co..MPARISON ONLY RESIDENTS THAT HAVE USED THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. WITHIN THE LAST 12 MONTHS Mean Rating 1 = Not At All Satisfied / 5 = Very Satisfied 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 Courtesy And Attitude 3.7 I Overall Service And Efficiency i 3.5 I DRP - Staff 3 S i 3.1 Building Inspections 3S Env. Planning Program 3.o :3 P.o Restaurant Inspection 3.2 Building Permit Plan Review' 3.2 ¦ Average Satisfaction Rating 1998 © Average Planning & Environ. 2{9 Satisfaction Rating 1997 Commision s 2 ~ 231 DRP - Design Review Board 2.7 I I I 2e Build Permit Turnaround 3.3 ~ I RRC ASSOCIATES 18 TOWN OF VAIL CONIMiJNITY SURVEY 1998 6. (Continued) Please rate your satisfaction with the following aspects of the Community Development Department. NOT AT ALL VERY SATISFIED SATISFIED mean n Overall seroice and efficiency resident 7 17 30 32 13 3.3 261 absentee 8 11 40 29 12 3.3 85 Courtesy and attitude resident 8 13 22 36 22 3.5 272 . absentee 4 15 24. 35 21 3.5 91 Development review proeess-staff resident 13 22 26 26 13 3.0 215 absentee 18 24 29 18 12 2.8 17 Development review process-Design Review Board resident 19 22 35 18 7 2.7 217 absentee 21 17 25 29 8 2.9 24 Development review process--Planning and resident 19 23 33 15 10 2.8 226 Environmental Commission absentee 21 14 36 29 - 2.7 14 Builtling permit plan review resident 15 26 29 21 9 2.8 207 absentee 20 17 32 19 12 2.9 75 Building permit turnaround time resident 20 24 28 20 8 2.7 180 absentee 18 21 32 18 11 2.8 66 Builtling inspections resident 13 21 30 24 12 3.0 179 absentee 7 21 36 29 7 3.1 14 Restaurant inspection antl education program resident 20 16 36 19 9 2.8 111 absentee - 14 43 29 14 3.4 7 Environmental pianning program resident 16 17 34 24 9 2.9 184 absentee 30 10 40 10 10 2.6 10 PUBLIC WORKS 7. Rate your satisfaction with Public Works services in the Town of Vail: NOT AT ALL VERY . SATISFIED SATISFIED mean n 1 2 3 4 5 Snow removal resident 2 5 17 39 37 4.0 682 absentee 1 1 14 41 43 4.2 510 Frontage Road maintenance resident 8 14 31 32 16 3.4 677 (provided by the State of Colorado) a6sentee 2 7 22 37 32 3.9 510 Road and street maintenance resident 4 13 31 36 17 3.5 677 (provitletl by the Town of Vail) absentee 2 7 21 41 29 3.9 517 Cleanliness of public spaces resident 6 12 26 41 15 3.5 681 absentee 2 6 20 40 32 3.9 521 Park piayground equipment safety resident 1 4 24 49 22 3.9 427 absentee - 2 14 45 39 4.2 318 Overall park maintenance resident 1 4 23 51 22 3.9 594 absentee - 1 16 47 35 4.2 417 Appearance and condition of town resident 2 7 25 49 18 3.7 657 owned buildings absentee 1 3 23 44 30 4.0 479 RRC ASSOCIATES 19 TOWN OF VAIL COINIMUNITY SURVEY 1998 EMERGENCY SERVICES 8. Have you utilized Fire Services within the past 12 months? HESIDENT ABSENTEE n=584 n=524 12 6 Yes 88 94 No 9. Rate your satisfaction with Fire Services in the Town of Vail: FIGURE B SATISFACTION RATINGS OF FIRE DEPARTMENT SERVICES 2-YEAR COMI'ARISON ~ Percem Responding "Very Satisfied" 1998 80% 0 Percem Responding "4ery Satisfied" 1997 ~ 5.0 I ~ --*-Average Satisfaction Rating 1998 ~ 759/ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I! ~--d - Average Satisfaction Rating 1997 i 70%+--- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ ± 4.5 i 65%~ - - - - a.- - - - - - - - d . . . . ~ • ° c A 0 ~ 60 / 1i - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 4.0 d d II~ ~ • ~ G d o Ss% + ' _ ' _ _ _ ' _ _ _ _ _ _ _ " _ _ ' _ _ _ _ _ _ " ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' _ ' ' ' _ ' ' ' _ _ _II ~ tn C N N O n a U - - - - - - - - - - s 50% ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - rt3.5 d' N ~ N I a 45% i - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - i ~ 40%T- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - L 3.0 I, ° I - - - - - - i 35/T- 30% 2.5 Emergency Medical CourtesyAndAttitude Fire Emergency Fire PrevemioNlnspection Fire Code Enforcement Fire Departmem Plan Services Response Time Program Review RRC ASSOCIATES ~p TOWN OF VAIL COMiviiJNITY SURVEY 1998 9. (Continued) Rate your satisfaction with Fire Services in the Town of Vail: NOT AT ALL VERY SATISFIED SATISFIED mean n 1 2 3 4 5 Fire emergency response time resident 1 6 11 33 49 4.2 213 absentee - 1 7 29 62 4.5 85 Emergency medical services resident 1 1 9 34 55 4.4 184 absentee 1 - 8 28 63 4.5 87 Courtesy antl attitude resident 3 3 9 33 53 4.3 291 absentee - 3 8 30 59 4.5 116 Fire public education services resident 1 6 24 29 39 4.0 176 absentee - - 33 17 50 4.2 12 Fire department plan review resident 7 9 23 24 37 3.8 120 absentee 13 13 25 13 38 3.5 8 Fire prevention/inspection program resident 2 4 24 32 39 4.0 196 abseniee - 9 27 18 45 4.0 11 Fire cotle enforcement resident 5 5 25 29 36 3.8 183 absentee 8 - 31 23 38 3.8 13 Overall fire services provided resrdenf 2 2 13 42 42 4.2 257 absentee - 1 9 31 60 4.5 94 RRC ASSOCIATES 21 TOWNT OF VAIL COIvIIMLTNITY SURVEY 1998 . 10. Rate your satisfaction with Police Services in the Town of Vail: FIGURE C SATISFACTION RATINGS OF POLICE DEPARTMENT SERVICES-2-YEAR COMPARISON SOW , 5.0 j ~ Percem Responding "Very Satisiied" 1998 I ~ p Percem Responding "Very Satistied" 1997 ~ i 45 % rt - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -*-Average Satislaction Rating 1998 - ~ 4.5 - ! --d - Average Satistaclion Rating 1997 i 40% T - - - - - - - - - - ` • ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + 4.0 •y ~ y • d m ~n 6 9 35% i - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ 3.5 Z; d c il ~ tp' o I 2 s ¢ i w st ~S u ! m ~ a a 30% - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 7- 3.0 ° ~ i _ _ 25a - - - - - - _ - + 2.5 I i 20% ! 2.0 Feeling O1 Securiry/Satery FriendlinesslApproachabi!iry Overal! Oualiry ot Service Faimess 01 Pofice Visibilily Ot Pof'ice 10. (Continuetl) Rate your satisfaction with Police Services in the Town of Vail: NOT AT ALL VERY SATISFIED SATISFIED mean n " - 1 2 3 4 5 Overall feeling of safety and security resident 2 4 21 39 33 4.0 645 absentee 1 - 12 45 41 4.3 471 Visibility of police fooUvehicle patrol resident 3 9 25 37 27 3.7 641 absentee 2 5 27 40 26 3.8 472 Friendliness and approachability of resident 5 7 20 34 35 3.9 614 Vail police department employees absentee 1 3 13 39 44 4.2 387 Overall quality of service resident 3 5 28 39 26 3.8 599 absentee 1 1 16 49 33 4.1 402 Overall fairness of police employees resident 6 8 27 32 26 3.6 483 absentee 2 3 14 41 40 4.1 275 T00 JUST T00 dont LITTLE RIGHT MUCH know n 1 2 3 - - - Enforcement of traffic regulations (speedin9,reckless driving, Dui, etc.) resident 20 50 16 14 643 absentee 9 53 7 30 518 RRC ASSOCIATES 22 TOWN OF VAIL COMMUNITY SURVEY 1998 ANIMAL CONTROL (CONTRACTED FROM EAGLE COUNTY) 11. Rate your satisfaction with Animal Control Services in the Town of Vail: NOT AT ALL VERY SATISFIED SATISFIED mean n 1 2 3 4 5 Response time to complaints resident 22 17 27 18 17 2.9 254 abseniee 13 6 35 26 19 33 31 Overall quality of service resident 17 16 31 21 15 3.0 308 . absentee 15 5 43 25 13 3.2 40 T00 JUST T00 don't LITTLE RIGHT MUCH know n 1 2 3 - - Patrols for leash law violations resident 33 24 9 34 649 absentee 35 15 6 44 118 TOV BUS SYSTEM AND PUBLIC PARKING 12. Have you usetl the TOV bus system within the past 12 months? RESIDENT ABSENTEE n=690 n=133 87 93 Yes 13 7 No 13. What is the distance from your home to the nearest TOV bus stop? RESIDENT ABSENTEE n=646 n=558 55 70 Less than 1/8 mile 21 19 1/8 to 1/4 mile 24 11 More than 1/4 mile 14. From your work to the nearest TOV bus stop? RESIDENT ABSENTEE n= 612 n=97 48 11 Less than 1/8 mile 14 4 1/8 to 1/4 mile 9- 3 More than 1/4 mile 28 81 Not applicable 15. How frequently do you ride the TOV bus in a typical week? (Each one way trip = one ride) RESIDENT ABSENTEE n=609 n=538 3.7 2.0 mean RRC ASSOCIATES 23 TOWN OF VAIL COMIlMUNIT1' SURVEY 1998 16. If less than twice a week, why don't you ritle the bus? (For absentee owners, if haven't used in past 12 months) RESIDENT ABSENTEE n=420 n=55 18 18 Bus schedule doesn't meet travel needs 16 20 Bus stop is too far from my home 36 7 Automobile is needed for work 33 33 Drive my car because parking is available 22 420ther: , 17. Rate your satisfaction with bus service: NOT AT ALL VERY ' SATISFIED SATISFIED mean n 1 2 3 4 5 Frequency of TOV bus service: In-town shuttle resident 3 7 18 34 38 4.0 593 absentee 1 6 15 30 49 4.2 508 Quality of bus service: Bus driver courtesy resident 4 9 22 36 29 3.8 595 absentee 1 3 20 35 41 4.1 514 Dependability of bus service resident 3 5 18 38 37 4.0 598 absentee 1 5 12 37 45 4.2 508 Cleanliness of buses resident 3 7 27 41 23 3.7 599 absentee 1 3 24 39 33 4.0 508 Cleanliness of Vaii Transportation resident 6 6 31 40 17 3.5 507 Bus Terminal absentee 2 8 25 38 26 3.8 422 18. Have you used public parking in Vail within the past 12 months? RESIDENT ABSENTEE n=681 n=547 96 83 Yes 4 17 No RRC ASSOCIATES 24 TOWN OF VAIL COMD,4UNITY SURVEY 1998 19. Rate your satisfaction with public parking services in Vail: FiGtrRE D SATISFACTION RATINGS OF PARKING-2-YEAR COMPARISON 80% 5.0 i Percent Responding "Very Satisfied" 1998 I r --.--.-Percent Responding "Very Satisfied" 1997 I ~ 70 % - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I + 4.5 ~ -+-Average Satisfaction Rating 1998 . ~ 6 - Average Satisfaction Rating 1997 60% I - n-~~: ----------I rt4.0 • ~ ~ ~ ~ 50%- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - =d' - - - - - - - - - - - - - i ~a N ~ 3.5 ~ z d d ~ I ? ~ rn ~ • n m ' _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - . N d 40% + - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ • ~ - - ~ 3.0 ~ H C ~ 4q1 I • O N I N 7 d ~30%+ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -~-2.Sd5 a I n I I 20% - _ _ _ _ _ ' ' _ _ _ -F 2.0 ( , I , 10/ - - - - - - - - - - ~ - - 1.5 T , I i , I~ 0% ' 1.0 "Park After 3" Program Booth Attendant Courtesy Speed Of Transaction Diswuni Parking Program Cleanliness/Lighting Oi Overall Parking At 8ooth Structwes Fees/Pricing 19. (Continued) Rate your satisfaction with public parking services in Vail: NOT AT ALL VERY , SATISFIED SATISFIED mean n 1 2 3 4 5 Discount parking program (debic oard/tiue, gold pass) resident 10 7 24 29 30 3.6 393 absentee 8 8 20 34 30 3.7 246 Booth attentlant courtesy resident 2 5 23 42 29 3.9 640 absentee 1 4 24 41 29 3.9 415 Speed of transaction at exit booth resident 5 9 26 39 22 3.6 641 absentee 5 6 30 37 23 3.7 422 Overall parking fees/pricing structure residenf 15 12 28 29 16 3.2 610 absentee 13 18 29 27 14 3,1 422 The "Park Free After 3" program resident 4 2 5 13 77 4,6 643 absentee 1 - 4 17 78 4,7 424 Cleanliness and lighting of parking structures resident 7 14 33 31 15 3.3 653 absentee 3 9 31 32 25 3.7 462 RRC ASSOCIATES 25 TOWN OF VAIL COMMLJNITY SURVEY 1998 LIBRARY 20. Do you hold a library card in the Town of Vail? RESIDENT ABSENTEE n=699 n=556 77 44 Yes 23 56 No 21. Do you and your family members feel welcome at the library? RESIDENT ABSENTEE ' n=658 n=485 87 65 Yes 4 1 No 9 33 Don't knowino opinion 22. Have you visitetl the library within the past 12 months? RESIDENT ABSENTEE n=681 n=538 85 50 Yes 15 50 No 23. Would you be likely to use a privately operated coffee house in the back of the community room at the library? NOT AT ALL VERY LIKELY LIKELY mean n 1 2 3 4 5 resident 43 13 13 13 17 2.5 628 absentee 43 14 13 14 15 2.4 425 RRC ASSOCIATES 26 TOWN OF VAIL COMR4LJIvTITY SURVEY 1998 24. How satisfied are you with the following library services/facilities? FtGUxE E SATISFACTIOIv' RATINGS OF TOWA1 OF VAIL LIBRARY-2-YEAR CO:bIPARISON ONLY RESIDENTS THAT HAVE USED THE LIBRARY WITHIN THE LAST IZ MONTHS Mean Rating 1= Not At All Satisfied I 5= Very Satisfied 1.0 1.5 2.0 2,5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 Magazines And Newspapers :::42 i 43 _ . . . 2 Youth Programs , . a.~ : : : : : : : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I I Youth Materials 42 I, . 4.3 ~ , ~ , Circulation Services I a i .o a ~ ~ , Community Room 4•0 ~ Fiction and Nonfiction books I aA ~ Aiternate Media aA 4.1 4.0 New Library Physical Layout i On-Line Databases 3~ ! 4.0 _ : . . . . , , . . . . . , 3 ~ Research Information ~ ao , , , . . - Parking/Access 3.1 , i ~ 4 1 ¦Average Satisfaction Ral ti ng 1998 0 Average Satisfaction ting 1997 RRC ASSOCIATES 27 TOWN OF VAIL COM1e1UNIITY SURVEY 1998 24. (Continued) How satisfied are you with the following library services/facilities? NOT AT ALL VERY SATISFIED SATISFIED mean n 1 2 3 4 5 Research information resident 2 5 24 41 28 3.9 437 absentee 1 2 29 36 32 4.0 154 Circulation services resident 1 3 23 40 33 4.0 422 absentee 2 1 25 40 34 4.0 182 Fiction books and nonfiction books resident 1 3 28 38 30 4.0 447 absentee 2 1 23 41 32 4.0 201 Magazines and newspapers resident - 2 18 39 42 4.2 453 absentee 2 2 18 37 41 4.1 216 Alternate media inciuding videos and books on tape resident 1 5 26 37 33 4.0 393 absentee 5 2 24 37 32 3.9 148 On-line tlatabases resident 3 6 22 36 33 3.9 310 absentee 3 1 32 36 29 3.8 105 Youth materials resident - 3 21 35 42 4.2 185 absentee 2 - 28 38 32 4.0 97 Youth programs resident - 3 18 35 44 4.2 175 absentee 1 2 28 34 34 4.0 85 Community room resident - 4 24 41 32 4.0 340 absentee 1 3 24 42 31 4.0 120 New library physical layout resident 2 2 25 41 30 4.0 413 absentee 2 1 19 41 38 4.1 192 Parking/access resident 14 20 24 25 16 3.1 501 absentee • 9 17 21 32 21 3.4 184 Are there any services or facilities listed previously (including public works, emergency services, bus, parking, library, etc.) that - currently receiue too much or too little attention (expenditures) from the Town? Too Much: Too Little: RRC ASSOCIATES 28 TOWN OF VAIL COMil4UNITY SURVEY 1998 TOWN OF VAIL PRIORITIES The Vail Town Council has initiated a public involvement process to develop a comprehensive plan which identifies:l) the most important public uses for TOV land; 2) the most appropriate sites for those uses; antl 3) which tools (funding or other implementation strategies) to use to make them happen. (You shouid be aware that the Town council has already made a commitment to pursue affordable housing opportunities where appropriate, on some Town of Vail owned lands.) The comprehensive plan will be used to make budget and policy decisions about how town property and other resources will be used. Your input is requested to help shape plan priorities. 25. For many years, the Town of Vail has contemplated civic uses that could be pursued via public-private partnerships. From the list below please itlentify how important each additional use for Town lands is to the Vail community? NOT AT ALL VERY IMPORTANT IMPORTANT mean n 1 2 3 4 5 Performing arts center (approx. 1,200 seats) resident 23 15 21 17 24 3.0 645 absentee 13 10 19 32 27 3.5 500 Community theatre (approx. 250 seats) resident 26 17 23 18 16 2.8 639 absentee 15 14 26 30 15 3.2 484 Conference/convention center resident 25 15 19 19 22 3.0 627 absentee 17 12 23 26 21 3.2 489 Family fun center (billiards, bowling, resident 26 16 21 19 19 2.9 621 indoor playground, video arcatle) absentee 25 24 22 16 13 2.7 488 Gymnastics facility resident 30 24 25 10 12 2.5 617 absentee 35 27 23 11 4 2.2 474 Indoor swimming pooi resident 26 15 21 20 18 2.9 640 absentee 23 17 23 20 16 2.9 494 Outdoor swimming pool resident 31 18 21 17 14 2.6 639 absentee 30 19 23 17 11 2.6 484 Multi-purpose meeting rooms resident 25 21 24 20 11 2.7 606 absentee 24 22 32 16 7 2.6 459 Second ice rink resident 53 16 11 9 10 2.1 631 absentee 49 23 16 6 7 2.0 478 Skateboartl park resident 28 15 25 20 12 2.7 628 absentee 41 24 20 11 5 2.1 470 Youth center resident 10 10 23 28 30 3.6 627 absentee 14 14 30 27 15 3.2 477 Other: resident 14 - 4 18 63 4.2 71 absentee 24 10 - 17 48 3.6 29 From the list in the last question, rank the three improvements you consider to be of greatest importance to the Vail community (INSERT # FROM LIST) and indicate where you think it should be locatetl: Top Choices: Location: RRC ASSOCIATES 29 TOWNT OF VAIL COMMiJINTITY SURVEY 1998 26. Do you think the Town has an adequate supply of the following facilities? T00 JUST T00 don't LITTLE RIGHT MUCH know n 1 2 3 Small neighborhood pocket parks resident 37 56 2 5 673 absentee 30 55 1 15 522 Large community parks resident 33 59 2 6 665 absentee 21 63 1 16 506 Ballfields resideni 16 69 7 8 661 absentee 7 62 4 26 508 Bike paths/lanes resident 42 54 2 2 666 absentee 36 56 2 7 520 Walking trails resident 46 49 1 3 665 absentee 40 52 - 7 513 Designatetl open Space resident 55 34 5 6 662 absentee 38 43 2 18 514 27. Below is a list of criteria that is proposetl for siting affordable housing on Town of Vail owned lands. Using a scale from 1 to 5 where 1 is "Not at all ImportanY" and 5 is "Extremely Important," how important are the following criteria NOT AT ALL EXTREMELY IMPORTANT IMPORTANT mean n 1 2 3 4 5 Compatibility with adjacent uses resident 8 8 22 26 36 3.7 611 absentee 2 7 15 24 52 4.2 466 Proximity to bus routes/stops resident 2 3 12 28 55 4.3 628 absentee 1 2 10 30 57 4.4 488 Proximity to empioyment resident 11 13 30 24 22 3.3 620 absentee 11 13 30 24 22 3.3 620 . Proximity to parks/open space resident 20 28 37 9 6 2.5 618 absentee 22 29 32 11 6 2.5 477 Proximity to commercial services resident 11 16 40 24 10 3.0 621 absentee 7 19 40 24 10 3.1 479 Livability for residents of the development resident 3 5 17 33 42 4.1 626 (balconies, on-site storage, etc.) absentee 3 8 28 36 26 3.7 485 RRC ASSOCIATES 30 TOWN OF VAIL COMMUNITY SURVEY 1998 28. The Town Council has indicated it will create a dedicated funding source(s) to facilitate the provision of affordable housing. From the list below prioritize your top three choices for funding sources. RESIDENT ABSENTEE RANKED RANKED RANKED RANKED FIRST IN TOP 3 fIRST IN TOP 3 5 69 1 65 Property tax increase 32 63 45 75 Dedicate a portion of existing sales tax 40 30 26 34 Reallocate a portion of RETT (real estate transfer tax) 4 26 7 28 Take on more debt via bond issue 11 25 14 19 Initiate employee's tax (paid by business owner) 2 23 3 23 Initiate business improvement district 6 12 2 6 Other sources: (describe) n=499 n=575 n=411 n=471 LOCAL ECONOMY 29. Do you feel the Town of Vail needs to take action to improve the community's economic vitality (retaii quality and variety, keeping businesses in Vail) in commercial areas? RESIDENT ABSENTEE n=504 n=454 76 56 Yes 17 27 No 6 17 Don't know/no opinion 30. How important are the following potential actions the Town could take? NOTATALL EXTREMELY IMPORTANT IMPORTANT mean n 1 2 3 4 5 ` Increase commercial space resident 30 18 28 12 12 2.6 519 absentee 25 18 31 18 9 2.7 302 Increase lodge beds resident 29 21 21 14 14 2.6 521 absentee 27 26 28 13 7 2.5 298 Increase lodge occupancy resident 22 15 20 22 22 3.1 523 absentee 17 15 31 23 15 3.0 294 Improve retaii quality resident 13 6 18 31 31 3.6 541 absentee 9 5 24 34 29 3.7 323 Improve lodge quality resident 14 8 18 27 33 3.6 531 absentee 12 10 26 30 22 3.4 322 Expand summer marketing resident 10 6 18 28 38 3.8 546 absentee 5 5 14 31 46 4.1 333 improve streetscape resident 9 9 25 26 32 3.6 563 absentee 8 8 19 33 32 3.8 318 Create seasonal housing resident 12 6 15 25 41 3.8 531 abseniee 14 14 28 21 23 3.2 276 RRC ASSOCIATES 31 ~ - TOWN OF VAIL COMMLTNITY SURVEY 1998 31. Shoultl new development in Vail be responsible for housing some of their workers? RESIDENT ABSENTEE n=647 n=516 82 60 Yes (what percent? ) 11 19 No 7 20 Don't know/no opinion 32. To what extent are the following a problem for your household or business? NO LARGE PROBLEM PROBLEM mean n 1 2 3 4 5 • 1-70 noise resident 26 15 20 16 23 2.9 661 absentee 35 15 19 15 16 2.6 536 General noise (barking dogs, construction, etc.) resident 34 24 19 12 12 2.4 652 absentee 42 24 18 10 6 2.1 518 33. Over the past two years has the sense of community within the Town improved, gotten worse or stayed the same? FiGURE F OVER THE PAST SEVERAL YEARS HAS THE SENSE OF COMIIvIiJNITY WITHIIV THE TOWN IMPROVED, GOTTEN WORSE OR STAYED THE SAME? 2-YEAx Comr.axisoN 50% ~ I 45% I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ ¦1998 01997 - 40%I------- d35%T - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - H I I > 30% ~ _ _ _ _ ' _ _ _ ' _ _ ' _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ II I ~25%I----- - - - - - - - - - - _ b ' - i G d 20-/ _ ' _ " ' _ " ' ' ' ' _ _ . ' _ _ _ _ ' _ _ ' ' " _ _ ' ~ ¢ ` : , y I d 15%+ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - a I o 1oi- - - ~ - - j , 5% = _ - - - - I i 0 0/ Improved Gotten worse Stayed the same DonR know/ no opinoin 33. (Continuetl) Over the past two years has the sense of community within the Town improved, gotten worse or stayed the same? RESIDENT ABSENTEE n=661 n=128 17 19 Improved 43 25 Gotten worse 29 32 Stayetl the same 10 24 Don't know/no opinion RRC ASSOCIATES 32 , TOWN OF VAIL COMAKJNITY SURVEY 1998 RRC ASSOCIATES 33 TOWNT OF VAIL COMNfCI?v'ITY SURVEY 1998 Please provide the following demographic information. Feel free to leave blank any questions you are not comfortable answering. Again, surveys will remain anonymous. There is no need to put your name on the survey form. 34. Where is your residence within the Town of Vail located? RESIDENT ABSENTEE n=675 n=559 23 30 East Vail 5 2 Booth Falls and Bald Mountain Road areas 1 1 Booth Creek/Aspen Lane _ 4 5 Golf Course 5 18 Vail Village 2 15 Lionshead 10 10 Potato Patch, Sandstone 5 3 Buffehr Creek, Lionsridge, the Valley 3 1 Vail Commons/Safeway area 12 6 West Vail (north of I-70) 11 4 Matterhom, Glen Lyon 8 5 Intermountain 12 - Not a resident of the Town of Vail 35. Do you own or rent your residence? RESIDENT ABSENTEE n=678 n=137 76 100 Own 23 - Rent 1 --0ther (specify) 36. How long have you lived within the Town of Vail (or owned property if a non-resident)? RESIDENT ABSENTEE n=664 n=572 5 5 Less than 1 year 20 22 1-5 years 35 40 6-15 years 41 33 More than 15 years 37. Approximately how many days did you spend in the Vail Valley by season? ABSENTEE n=206 27.8 mean: Winter 1997/98 9.9 mean: Fall 1997 18.8 mean: Summer 1997 8.0 mean: Spring 1997 63.8 TOTAL DAYS 38. Thinking back over the past two years, are you spending more, less or about the same amount of time in the Vail Valley? ABSENTEE n=432 37 More 15 Less 47 About the same RRC ASSOCIATES 34 TOWN OF VAIL COMMLINITY SURVEY 1998 . 39. If you coutd make Vail your primary residence, what services or infrastructure woultl you need to be able to make the move? ABSENTEE n=332 66 Airport: affordable, accessible year-round service 33 Competition in stores (grocery, etc.) 24 Improved telecommunications access 14 improved office/other seroices 35 Improvements to pedestrian areas and parking _ 15 Other: 40. Do you currently rent your resitlence in Vail on a nightly (short-term) basis? ABSENTEE n=431 42 Yes 58 No 41. Over the next few years are you likely to: NOT AT ALL VERY LIKELY LIKELY mean n 1 2 3 4 5 Take your residence out of a nightly rental program absentee 60 11 9 10 11 2.0 209 Place your residence in a nightly rental program absentee 71 6 5 4 14 1.8 258 42. Thinking about your residence at Vail and looking ahead, how likely are you to: NOT AT ALL VERY LIKELY LIKELY mean n 1 2 3 4 5 Make significant improvements/renovations absentee 15 16 21 22 25 3.3 414 Increase your personal use of residence absentee 8 8 23 30 30 3.6 410 Increase use by friends/extended family absentee 13 13 26 30 18 3.3 404 Sell your property absentee 56 22 10 6 6 1.8 406 43. If you are likely to sell your current property in Vail, will you buy another second home/resort property? ABSENTEE n=199 64 Yes 36 No 44. Please indicate how well Vail is providing the following aspects of a great resort. Are Vail's efforts declining, staying the same, or improving? dont DECLINING SAME IMPROVING know n 1 2 3 Outstanding customer service absentee 24 51 21 4 428 Friendly residents absentee 14 71 12 4 428 Clean surroundings absentee 13 68 18 1 428 Protected natural environment absentee 27 53 17 4 424 RRC ASSOCIATES 35 TOWN OF VAIL COivIlvAJNITY SURVEY 1998 A weli rounded economy absentee 20 47 22 10 415 45. Do you have computer access to the Internet? RESIDENT ABSENTEE n=694 n=542 64 74 Yes 38 26 No 46. Do you or will you use the Internet to keep up-to-date on Town of Vail activities? REStDENT ABSENTEE n=637 n=486 24 40 Yes 76 60 No 47. Which of the following best describes you? RESIDENT ABSENTEE n=669 n=113 3 9 Non-resident owner of business/comm. property 86 2 Year-round resident (12 months/year) 11 89 Seasonal resident 48. If seasonal, how much time per year do you spend in the Vail Valley? RESIDENT ABSENTEE n=102 n=120 56 9 Seasonal resident: 6-12 months/year 41 44 Seasonal resitlent: 2- 5 months/year 3 47 Seasonal resident: less than 2 months/year 49. Are you a registered voter of Vail? RESIDENT ABSENTEE n=678 n=137 74 4 Yes 26 96 No 50. Do you own or operate a business within the Town of Vail? • RESIDENT ABSENTEE n=657 n=134 33 4 Yes 67 96 No 51. Which of these categories best describes your marital status? RESIDENT ABSENTEE n=688 n=563 36 7 Singie, no chiltlren 22 14 Couple, no children 23 32 Household with children 19 47 Empty-nester, children no longer at home 52. (IF YOU HAVE CHILDREN) How many children do you have under 18 years? RESIDENT ABSENTEE mean n mean n 1.0 122 0.7 175 0-5 years 0.8 122 0.9 175 6-12 years 0.0 122 0.6 175 13-18 years 1•7 121 2.1 172 Total children in household RRC ASSOCIATES 36 . TOWN OF VAIL CONIMUNITY SURVEY 1998 53. How many vehicles are kept at your residence? RESIDENT ABSENTEE n=583 n=129 2.0 1.0 mean 54. Including yourself, how many persons reside in your householtl? RESIDENT ABSENTEE n=678 n=131 2.4 2.7 mean , . 55. Including yourself, how many persons in your household are employed? RESIDENT ABSENTEE n=673 n=136 1.8 1.3 mean 56. How many full and part time jobs do you currently have? RESIDENT ABSENTEE n=626 n=126 1.0 0.9 mean - Full-time jobs RESIDENT ABSENTEE n=494 n=83 0.7 0.3 mean - Part-time jobs 57. Are any of your jobs in the Town of Vail? RESIDENT ABSENTEE n=630 n=128 71 6 Yes 29 94 No 58. Which of these categories best tlescribes your age? RESIDENT ABSENTEE n=682 n=553 - - Under 20 2 - 20-24 23 1 25-34 24 14 35-44 28 33 45-54 15 33 55-64 8 18 65 or over - - Do not wish to reply 59. Which of these categories best describes the annual income of your household (before taxes)? RESIDENT ABSENTEE n=603 n=437 3 - $0-14,999 18 1 $15,000-34,999 18 1 $35,000-49,999 20 6 $50,000-74,999 13 8 $75,000-99,999 12 13 $100,000-149,999 18 70 $150,000 or more Thank you for your participation in our continuing evaluation program. RRC ASSOCIATES 37 RESOLUTION N0. 6 Series of 1998 A RESOLUTION DESIGNATING AN ADDITIONAL SIGNER SIMONE SPECTOR AND REMOVING SIGNER GWEN THOMAS ON AN IMPREST CHECKING ACCOUNT FOR LIBRARY DEPOSIT TRANSACTIONS FOR THE TOWN OF VAIL, PERMITTED BY THE CHARTER OF THE TOWN, ITS ORDINANCES, AND THE STATUTES OF THE STATE OF COLORADO. WHEREAS, the Town has the power to designate banks or financial institutions for funds of the Town; and WHEREAS, the Town wishes to designate Simone Spector as a signer on this account. WHEREAS, the Town wishes to remove Gwen Thomas as a signer on this account. N04V, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Town Council of the Town of Vail, Colorado, as follows: 1. Simone Spector is designated as a signer for the existing imprest library checking account for the funds of the Town of vail. 2. Gwen Thomas is hereby removed as a signer for the existing imprest library checking account for the funds of the Town of Vail. 3. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its passage. INTRODUCED, READ, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 16th day of June 1998. Robert E. Ford, Mayor ATTEST: Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk ~~A\ u ~y TOWN OF VAIL ~ Office of the Town Manager 75 South Frontage Road Yail, Colorado 81657 1999-VAIL-BEAVER . 970-479-2105/Fax 970-479-2157 TM MEMORANDUM TO: Vail Town Council FROM: Robert W. McLaurin, Town Manager/-- DATE: June 12, 1998 SUBJECT: Town Manager's Report Urban Land Institute Economic Studv We have been approached by the Vail Valley Foundation about working with the Foundation and Vail Associates to contract with the Urban Land Institute's Advisory Service to conduct an economic development analysis and strategic plan. The ULI Advisory Services typically last five days and involve a comprehensive analysis of the local situation. The final product of this work is a report with a series of recommendations for addressing the particular issue in question. ULI typically brings in approximately four to six experts from around the country in the particular field. The cost for this exercise would be approximately $100,000. At this point the Vail Valley Foundation has offered to fund one-third of this cost, and it is my understanding that the Foundation has talked to Vail Associates about funding one-third of the cost, which would leave one-third to be born by the Town. The essence of this work would be to answer the questions of how Vail can remain a competitive and world class resort as we go forward into the 21 st century. I will be providing additional information regarding this proposed exercise in the coming weeks. If you are interested in pursuing this issue we would try to schedule this exercise in November, 1998. If it cannot be scheduled in November we would do it following the Championships next spring. Contv-Wide Dispatch We have everything in place to implement county-wide dispatch for the additional agencies that will be contracting with us. Specifically, we have hired and trained the required number of dispatchers, coordinated radio protocol for each of the agencies, worked out the necessary intergovernmental agreements, and are ready to go on-line. We intend to go live with these new additional agencies at 8:00 a.m. on Sunday morning, June 28th. RECYCLEDPAPER I t . , Town of Vail Internet When we established our relationship this spring with InternetWorks (VailNet) to expand our presence on the Internet, we had looked at an initial period of June 30th to terminate this relationship. At that time, we believed we would be able to handle our TOV website internally. While we have established a significant presence on the Internet, we are not yet ready to take this work in-house. Therefore, I recommend that we continue our relationship with InternetWorks beyond our original June 30th date. At this point, it is reasonable to assume that this contract will need to be extended through the end of 1998. The approximate cost to fund this for the balance of the year is $2,500. This will fund our current updates and provide funding for some additional page development recommended by Council. These funds will need to come from either Council contingency or a supplemental appropriation at the end of the year. Town Manager Vacation As I indicated to you previously, I will be out of town from June 17th and will be returning June 27th. During this time Pam Brandmeyer will be the Acting Town Manager. Please feel free to contact her if you need anything. RWM/aw ~C- RECElVEO JUN # 2 10 . Ja vrz . G~ - k) . ~ ~ ~ s J ~ A/e•'~i ~e ~L-~~:ec.,~~ ~ ~ . awi, a, ?a-Gt~ ~Ol'Vl c,° o2c/j't,l ? i vl. -Ae~ US'Yl / is d~ ll..L v~V~:'1'?~t`. ~L La vt,t T~ive. ~t- - C~ ~ ~ v~ I~~ a. f ~ ~~-n ~ ~~so l i'v-eu / ~t ~ ?~Gt `~i~,( (it ~~i (;Ul l/t G~ ~'Gt~~ ~ t -71u ~5st,,~e (a 1. l U-e , k . - ~ a/a 7e-~- e~ ~-~ve~ p.(i,C re ~e oC ~ w4- UI/G ot~uc i ~ . t.c./~~ _ p,~.~/`e~ G~,~-~- ~u ~-C ~ a.?~~ • - _ , ve~7 C a Vu. U~..e W(,t,t ~ ~,e c m/\-e m- 6D'O•LA..el w~ t,,~ . ~ r~(. ~ a~C~- a~ ~ , ~'c~ ~ vc ~ ~ ~z 7b ~ kv/ waaw anvvc,vvk- r 1 / / c de,sci ~t, P~ ~0 "t~a /t. - ~ . , _ c~ It ~ F. . . ~ ~~f ~ C~. v?~JY~~~C !do~ I P.01 i"~~'q •:ti~ ` r ~ ~ i, L~'~Y~lE TRAIL A 'Fotlow The Troil.,.rt leads to resvlts!' 3 (470) 949-4004 ` Drpwer 6200 - VCII, COtorado 81658 FQR IMIlVIEDIATE RELEASE ' CONTACT: Bob Knox Sales Manager Davia o. wauams Managing Editor 949-4004 Vail's greatest newspaper since 1965 to publish daily VAII., - The Vail Traitl, Vail's dominant weekly newspaper siace 1965, is going daily with the launching of The Aaily Trai,l on June 29, Allen Knox, president of Knox Publishing Co., announced Friday. , "The community has grown up considerably in the past 35 years; it deserves a grown-up daiiy paper," Knox said. The baily Trail wilt be pubfished five days a wcek, Monday througb Friday. The free paper, with a circulation of 10,000, will be distributed throughout Eagle County from VaH to Crypsum_ The weekly Vail Trail, with its extensive Real Estate and Arts and Entertainmern sections, wfll continue to come out on Fridays and remain in the racks seven days a week. George Knox Sr. gave the fledgling s!d town of Va its frst newspa,pet in 1965 when he founded The Vail Trail. When he passed away in 1975, his son, Atleq took overe The family-ovvitled newspager spazas thtee generations, with Allen's childreq Bob Knox and Carolyn ICnox-Ke.ep, serving as co-pubtishers. "With The Daily Trail, it's ow goal-to became t~.te area's only famaitly-owned, locally-driven, free comnunity newspaper," Cazolyn Kttox-Keep said. "Numerous advertisers and community members have Rpproached us in the last several months asking us to go daUy," Bob Knox added. Ten-year newspaper veteran David O. Williams, who has lived in the Vail Va(ley for six years, will be the managing editor of The Daily Trail. Robert Kelly-Goss wiill xemain as managing editor of The Vail Trail. "Eagle County is $ouzishing economically, but it faces many of the same cballenges that are reported in newspapers across the country: growth, crime, the environmeat, education, traffic and housing," Williams said_ "By providing in- depth, izisightful reports by experienced reporters, photographers, graptuc artists and editors with ties to the community, The Daily Traii will give readers a choice_ We wiU let residents know how events and issues impact their lives on a daily b8515. AISO, we will not be afraid to deliver our opinions on a toplc, expressing our point of view in intelligeirt, balanced editox-jals and columns by longtime local writers." An editozial retauonship with the Roclcy Mountain News and Scripps Howard News Service will ensure ihat The Aaily Trail offers the most irfoz'mative regional, state, national and international news and sports. The Eagle Valley Enterprise : ' June 4, 1998 ~ Commissioners hammer out .housin g policy that has • ~ inciusionar zon . y ing If regulations back up the "inclusionary Zoning," a concept that tory for the concept. wor policy, new projects will projects that in I dermohe than one n~the drafhlan age~ whik? housing type. County offictals point to reviewed by the c uny's Roaring Fork include spectrum of units the Brett Ranch and Adam's Rib Ranch and Eagle Valle lann By Scott N. Miller projects as examples of building across in the coming ~yeeks ~the policy cjalls . Assistant editor a wide economic spectrum. "Inclusionary zoning" is part of Ea le Inclusion for the county to draft regulations that County's proposed housing policie , point of conte tion between c m ist houstnggin a subdivis on~A less desiof But maybe we shouldn't call it that. sioners Johnnette Philltps and Jame3 able alternative -which, in theo The Eagle County Board of Commis- Johnson. ry, new sioners spent two hours M,~nday pick- Phillips had vl orousl o regulattons would make, more expen- ing at small, bu t significant pieces of t?ght definition of the term wh chQin her in somewheae uts dee a~ os of hous- the county's proposed housing policy. mind, would have put less-expensive ve opment. The third-and th oet cally Among the most important of those and more-expensive housing side-by- most expensive - alternative would be pleces ts a policy statement that reads, side, instead of in different areas of a a cash contribution to a county hous- "Develop regulations requiring new resi- subdivision. Even after Monday's meet- ing fund. dential subdtvisions to provide a per- tng, Phillips was stlll hesitant to call the No matter what the new policy is centage of housing for the three identi- housing policy "inclusionary zoning." eventually called, ail three commission- fled categories of households." Those But, she added, "We do need all types ers now su three categories are for very low, low, of housing in new subdivisions." PPort the idea. Sald Phillfps: and lower-middle-income families. Johnson had favored inclusionary work worlds good. We ne d housing The policy also reflects a fairly un- zoning from the start, and was quick to for people to live and work here, and , amblguous statement of support for call the housing policy language a vic- this may help get that done." ' E ` THE STATE-LOCAL . TechMca/ Asslstance CONNECTION A NEWSLETTER iR i iRAii OCAL GO , 1999 V41.6N0.1 NMENTS . s..... This newsietter is;published by the Colorado Division af Local Governrnent ta pravide a farum forthe state to aduise gavernntent officials aboiz# rnatters which crsncern thern. If you have ideas on future topics which you ` wauld like us to add:iess; piease eontact the Divi.sivn of I.ocat Government at (303) 866-2156, Economy Changes Affordability of Housing r'rhe change in our economy has ignited environmental sustainability. However, development fees and other exactions, the changes in many Colorado many rnmmunities are faced with hovsing ability of a developer to build affordable communities. State and local costs which precludes their own employees housing is severely lunited. Many governments are working hard to address the from living in the aties where they work communities are adopting the rationale that need for more roads, schools, social services, Depending on the community, owning a development should pay its own way. and other infrastructure impmvements to home is no longer an op6on for a growing Passing on increased costs to consumers may support private investment in new jobs and number of middle-income families. The bad be finanaally feasible for market rate housing housing. news for many workers is that the situation is but is infeasible for housing developments not improving. Housing costs are increasing with restricted rents and profit. The first quarter 1998, Colorado Division of faster than income. Housing's Multifamily Housing Vacancy and Many people look to the availability of Rental Survey reports the average statewide Private developers react to the basic economic favorable finanang to lower the cost of rent is $630 and the vacancy rate is 4.7%. This concepts of supply, demand, and profit housing development. t,ocal governments survey is conducted semiannually for the similar to other industries. The solution is not can have an impact on housing alfordability benefit of apartment owners and managers, necessarily building more housing. Today, a in other ways. Often overlooked in the real estate investors, state and local officials, developer must charge at least $700 per comprehensive planning process is the and residents. The chart below shows month to cover the cost of constructing a two linkage between affordable housing, apartment rents and vacanaes for a number bedroom apartment in metro Denver. Private transportation, economic development, and of the state's larger housing markets. When deveIopers have limited control over the cost inhastructure improvements. The considering the condition of these individual of labor, materials, and building techniques. consequence for not including housing in the market areas, keep in mind that a vacancy of However, other factors are out of their comprehensive planning process is higher five percent is generally considered to be an control, such as financing costs, land prices, development cost and dimnvshed equilibrium rate. When considering the utility access, and land use restrictions. When availability of affordable housing in these these factors are combined with a variety of Continued on page S areas, the vacancy rates for affordable apartments is far less than the area vacancy GRAPH OF VACANCY RATES BY MARKET rate. 30 01990 E] 1995-3Qtr 1996-1 Qtr 0 1996-3Qtr Given the state's average rent, many employees earning $10 to $15 per hour are 1997-1 Qtr ~ 1997-3Qtr 1998-1 Qtr unable to afford to live in the mmmunities 25 where they work This is becoming increasingly true for local government 20 employees, who would prefer to live in their communities. The average home in the metro Denver area is selling for $180,000. For many 15 middle-income families, owning a home would represent a high percentage of their income. 10 In many communities the cost of housing is becoming a source of community-wide 5 - L I concern. The availability of a diversified housing inventory is an essential component i of successful communities. A balanced ~ housin stoek allows for a diversified work C°lO °irigo F°'t Fc. ""°'y~" Gie""'°°d Grand Greeky ~e ~ su~,ir g sprinys caa,cr camns stenxy sp" imcnon caumr courci force and contributes to economic and MMMpUAs THE STATE-IOCAI CONNECTION PAGE 1 TABO: Inflation created by intergovernmental agreements prinaple of TABOR is to not work a reduction (i.e., housing or 911 authorities). in government services, as noted in these The percent change in the Consumer Price A third issue in the case centers on the cases, then a common interpretation of the Index in 1997 was 3.3%, as released by the distinction between taxes and assessments. TABOR mill levy limit may be in error. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BIS). The The irrigation district does not derive revenue 1996 figure was 3.5%. In TABOR from general taxation, and this distinction The paper does not attempt to answer all the 'unplementation, these numbers are used as may cause the Court to rule that such a questions around this issue, since it would ' ulflation" in calculating TABOR property tax district is not a'1oca1 governmenY' for require a court deasion to do so. This revenue and "fiscal year spending" limits. TABOR purposes. Some observers are examination is intended to pmvoke Inflation is added to "local growth" for an hopeful that the Cowt's decision will say that discussion about an important subject. allowed percentage increase in these two TABOR applies only to entities which receive Copies of the second edition of this paper are hn-dts• revenue from taxes. A decision is expected available from the Division of Loral this summer. Government,1313 Sherman Street, Room 521, Current projections for 1998 inflation, which Denver, CO 80203, (303) 866-2156, and can be can be used in 1999 budgets, are 3.4% from ordered by using the Reply Form in this the Legislative Council and 3.3% from the newsletter. Governor's Office of State Planning and proPerty Tax Revenue Budgeting. BIS will not release an aMual Many of the numemus successful local figure for 1998 until about March 1,1999. You "de-Brucing" elections have also dealt with Amend TABOR can call the Division of Local Government at the limitations on property tax revenue. The (303) 866-2156 for more information, Division of Local Governmenfs (DLG) legal A number of ballot measures which would including updates on projections and a responsibility of monitoring implementation amend TABOR have been filed with the historical listing of CPI changes dating of the "55%" limitation (not the TABOR limit SeQetary of State for a title on November's from 1968. on the same revenue source) has required ballot. A series of them have been filed by DLG staff to analyze ballot questions to Douglas Bnzce, noted TABOR activist, which determine whether or not the election might would provide cuts in state and loral taxes. Litiation have modified the way that this statutory (He has stated that only one will be on the ~ limitation applies. ballot.) Each of them offers a slightly different One active case which may shed more light plan to cut a variety of taxes, with losses in on the local implementation of TABOR The variety of wording of these ballot local tax revenue being reimbursed by the enterprises is Campbell v Orchard Mesa questions has caused a good deal of confusion state. Local government officiaLs have Irrigation District (97SA303). The Supreme as to their applicability under the "5.5%" expressed a number of concerns about this, Court has been asked by U.S. District Court to limitation. As a result, DLG has requested an two of which are: rule on three questions: opinion of the Attorney General on some specific issues which these elections raise. 1. With tax cuts at the state level, there may 1. Is an irrigation district a"districY' to The Division expects a formal opinion this not be adequate state revenue to fully which all the limitations of TABOR summer, hopefully with ample time for locals reimburse locaLs for expected losses in apply? to adequately plan for the 1998 November some fizture year, especially when the election. currently booming Colorado economy 2. ff so, may an irrigation district create a slows down, and "water activity enterprise" pursuant to Any reader who would like to receive a rnpy 37-45.1-101, C.RS.? of this opinion, once it is published, may do 2. The potential loss of local mntrol with so by using the Reply Form in this newsletter. the state paying for more local 3. If so, is the °water activity enterprise" govemment activities. While this is not subject to the provisions of TABOR? On a related note, DLG has been circulating speafically addressed in the measures, the 1997 research publication entitled TABOR, some local offiaals fear that future As is apparent from questions 2 and 3, above, Gallagher and Mill Levies: Are Local General Assemblies may use this state the Court may rule on the constitutionality of Revenues Being Shortchanged?. The funding of local general government the Water Activity Enterprise statute. A statewide effect of the "Gallagher functions as a reason to mandate number of local practitioners have questioned Amendment" (Art. X, Sec. 3, Colo. Const.) is programmatical responsibilities for local some of the pmvisions of that statute, and this briefly examined, as are the limitations on governments. case may help clarify those issues. increases in pmperty tax revenue (TABOR and "5.5%"). The focus of the paper, On another subject, this case may finally however, is on local implementation of the define the term "local government' for TABOR mill levy limit and whether an TABOR purposes. The ultimate deasion may alternative interpretation of that limit is help to define the applicability of TABOR to justified, given the Supreme Court rulings in various rorms of locai entities such as those the Havens and Bolt cases. ff an overriding ~ PAGE 2 THE STATE-LOCAL CONNEtTION A ril '98 election trends; man towns dum term limits ~ all the limitations on terms of office P y P posed by Section 11 of Article 18 of the Colorado Constitution be eliminated as it by David W. Broadwell, Colarado Municipal described below. When the Colorado applies to terms of office for the board of League Sta ff Attorney (reprinted with Consritution was amended in 1994 to impose trustees of the town of Johnstown, thereby permission from the Apri124,1998, edition of locai government term limits, the amenclment allowing the citizens of Johnstown to elect any CML Newsletter) speafically allowed local voters to modify or quaiified candiciate of their choice." On Apn17, muniapal voters faced fewer eliminate term limits entirely in their (Emphasis added.) ballot questions than they have seen in ~ localiction. option q Before the Auestionpris1 7 elecctisucceededons, only T~ugh Apri17, 42 out of 69 term limit opt- previous elections, but man y got their first hal{ {he t i e t h ey w e re s u b m i tte d. out questions have been approved in chance to give thumbs up or down to an Colorado muniapalities. The number of important question on who will be allowed to However, the results on Apri17 may reflect these ballot questions will continue to govern their communities in the future. The something of a breakthrough with 19 out of increase as the day approaches when term big story was the strong success rate of 23 pmposals to eliminate local term limits limita6on actually begins to force muniapal pmpositions to opt out of term limits for being approved by muniapal voters. It is officiaLs from office. elected offiaals in smaller towns. important to note, however, that none of the This was the biennial election date for 176 19 municipalities that opted out has a Revenue retention measures statutory towns and 23 of the state's 76 home population of more than 3,000 (Yuma was the The absolute number of voter-aPpmved rule muniapalities. Voters elected candidates larm~Qgest). P~ In ties contrastvotin, g in a on the couple issue, of the larParkerger and revenue changes or "de-Brucing" measures and, in 57 muniapalities, had occasion to Evans, the decision was made to retain term d~~ dramatically in ~°mPa~s°n to prior pass judgment on one or more ballot elections, although the overall success rate limits. Thus, the appeal of term limitation ~e same. o~ 39 questions. In approximately one fourth of the 1ust two Y ears aS could be viewed as being in inverse re retention measures were ut to towns, the election was canceled due to the proportion to the size of the muniapality. revenue P fact that the number of candidates mm-ing muniapal voters. On Apri17, there were only did not equal or exceed the number of The constitution does not dictate any 24, perhaps reflecting the fact that so many positions available, and there were no ballot particular ballot wording for an opt-out muniapalities have already obtained voter questions to be deaded in those localities. question. Johnstown, which was one of those approval to retain excess revenue in the years eliminating term limits on Apri17, came up since the TABOR amendment was adopted. Term limit opt out with a novel way to frame the issue on the MuniQPal voters continue to approve these For the first time ever, on Apri17 the number ballot with an approach that inadentally ~g~~~ one of the most contentious measures well over 90 percent of the time. of term-limit questions rivaled the number of of term limitation: ~ April 7, ~ out of the 24 revenue-retention revenue retention measures under TABOR, Continued on page 4 THE STATE-LOCAL CONNECTION REPLY FORM Name: Phone: Address: street/p.o box city zip Jurisdiction / Representing: Suggestions for Future Issues of the Connection: Please note any other comments you may have: Please Check any of the following which apply: ? PLEASE MAIL A COPY OF Tf-IE TABOR, GALLAGHER AND MILL LEVIES: ARE LOCAL REVENUES BEING SHORTCHANGED? (SECOND EDTTION) ? PLEASE MAIL A COPY OF TFE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OPIlVION ON THE STATUTORY PROPERTY TAX LIMIT Send this form to: Colorado Division of Local Govemment 1313 Sherman Street, Room 521 Denver, Colorado 80203 Inquiries can be d'uected to the Division of Local Government 303/866-2156 THE STATE-LOCAL CONNECTION PAGE 3 Continued from page 3 other municipalities but, so far, the push to said they were not even interested in studying measures put to the voters were appmved. impose a numerical cap on growth at the restrictions on smoldng in public places in The two municipalities where the question ballot box appears to be gaining little steam. that city, let alone actually adopting an failed, Glendale and Parker, coincidentally However, at the same time as the Estes Park onlinance. experienced hotly contested council races measure was going down to defeat, voters in Two questions decided on Apri17 may be of which may have had some influence on the Buena V'ista approved an initiated ordinance ~terest to muniapal managers. Fnuta has a outcome of the ballot questions as well. imposing a moratorium on new subdivisions uni que home rule charter provision that sets All but one of the revenue retention measures ~ that town unless and until the town builds new water storage facilities. The sheer up a formal process of public comment on the appmved on Apri17 was framed in the open- inadequacy of infrastructure has tradidonally evaluation and performance of the aty ended "de-Bnzang" style of voter approval. manager. An attempt to repeal this provision For all muniapal elections since the adoption pmvided a legal basis for imposing development moratoria in other Colorado was rejected by a 2-1 margin. Meanwhile, of TABOR, 309 out of 337 revenue changes m~Qp~ti~ Olathe attempted to lift a ban on the hiring of submitted to the voters have been approved. a town administrator that has been on the Parker and Montrose tendered advisory books in that muniapality since 1986. Once Tax and debt questions questions to the voters on two incendiary again, the voters refused to go along with it. There were also si cand fewer tax and subjects -fireworks and public smoking. ~ Y (CML acknow[edges the assistance of Julie debt increase measunes on the A n17 ballot Paz'ker voters said, no, they were not P interested in banning the sale of fireworks ~~on and Kathleen Harrison on the League than there had been in previous biennial staf f as well as all of the municipal clerks around elections. within the aty limits, although that town is one of the few in the Denver me~o area that the stnte who assisted in assembiing the Only six tax-increase measures were put to allows such sales. Likewise, Montrose voters in fo»nation that appears in this article.) muniapal voters and, consistent with trends throughout the past decade, half of them passed. The largest of these was in Eagle, as Local Accounting and Auditing that town followed the lead of any number of others in recent years that have begun to Legislation Signed into Law exerase their statutory authority to charge a use tax in addition to a sales tax. Tax increases were also approved in Haxtun and Two bills affecctinng local govemments were governmenis in this category had to be Hooper but were defeated in Meeker, sponsored by members of the Legislative audited every third year. Governments with Hudson, and Gmver. Audit Committee during the 1998 Legislative revenues or expendihires exceeding $125,000 Since the adoption of TABOR, 92 out of 167 Session. SB 98-032 and HB 98-1020 were a were to be audited every year. HB 98-1020 proposed tax increases have been appmved result of discussions with the Advisory changes the exemption thresholds as follows: Committee on Governmental Accounting, the • Governments with revenues or by muniapal voters. Colorado Muniapal L,eague, the Colorado expenditures of M,000 or less are Apri17 also saw slim pickings on the Society of CPAs, the Speaal District exempt from audit, if the Application for muniapal finance front, although four out of Association, and various other local Exemption is approved by the State five debt questions were approved. T'he govemment professional associations. Auditor. largest by far was in Montrose, where the • Governments with revenues or voters approved a$,5 million bond issue for SB 98-032 permits the goveming boards of expenditures less than $100,000 may file street improvements. Likewise, Woodland local governments to establish their own an Application for Exemption from Park voters approved approximately half that threshold for the annual inventory of amount for streets and drainage. Qust two property, so long as that threshold is not Audit. The Applicafion must be years ago, Woodland Park voters had rejecteci higher than the amount established for state PreP~ by a person skilled in governmental acrnunting. a couple of bond issues for recreational agencies-presently$5.000• Local purposes, proving again the worth of govemments had been required to conduct • Govemments with revenues or redirecting the focus of a capital improvement an annual inventory of any property items expenditures between $100,000 and push if at first you don't succeed.) Fraser having an original cost of $500 or more. $300,000 may aLso file an Application for voters also approved a couple of million 'i'here was general agreement that invenrory Ecemption from Audit. In this category, dollars for street and drainage improvements, controls could be impmved if local governing the Application must be prepared by an and Haxtun voters approved a$300,000 loan bodies were allowed to establish inventory independent accountant with for a new community center. The only requirements appropriate for their lrnowledge of governmental measure to fail was a controversial government. This bill was signed into law by accounting. assessment bond proposal for downtown the Governor on Apri12,1998. • Those governments with revenues or Windsor. expenditures exceeding $300,000 would HB 98-1020 makes a change to the Local be required to have an annual audit. Since TABOR,113 of 172 debt questions have Government Audit Law exemption fihng been a roved in Colorado munia alities. The bills were signed by the Governor and PP P thresholds. In the past, any local government ~ apply to fiscal years commencing on or with revenues or ex nditures less than Other questions of note ~p ppp ~y approval of the State after January 1,1998. Estes Park voters ovenvhelmingly rejected Auditor, be exempt from audit. Those ~ have anuestions reardin these the opporiunity to follow the lead of Golden governments with revenues or expendituies 0 1ou hanues, ge conh gact the and Lafayette and impose an annual limit on ~,~n ~p ppp and $125,000 could also Officeeof thelative cState A ditorleaat (303) 866-2051. the number of new residential building apply for an audit exempiion. However, permits issued in that town. Similar measums have been initiated or threatened in ~ PAGE 4 THE STATE-LOCAL CONNECTION • Senate Bill 98-91(Feeley) would use Legislative Agenda Includes Fiscal Polic $100millionperyearorl/3ofexcess y revenues, whichever is less, for loans to local school districts for capital construction projects. The second regular session of the Sixty-first provisions of the Colorado Constitution. General Assembly convened in January faced They would set the assessment rate for • Senate Bi119&140 (Blickensderfer) with the dilemma of too much state revenues. residential property at 10% of its actual would use all excess revenues or $2$0 When viewed with other problems of state value, change nonresidential to 25% million, whichever is less, for properly and local finance, such as mounting pressure (from the cuirent 29%) in increments tax relief by lowering local school district to provide property tax relief to businesses, over six years, and vacant land at a rate ~ levies. dwindling local revenues for schools, and the varying hom 26% to 20% over six years. . Senate Bil1150 (Bishop) would use all increasing needs of transportation and school This proposal would also provide for a state excess revenues for grants and construction, a number of legislators have "homestead exemption" for owner- loans to local school districts for capital pmposed a variety of solutions to these occupied real property for residents of construction pmjects of instructional problems. Some aze very targeted to one two years or longer of $25,000 of actual facilities only. issue, while others address more than one. value or 30%, whichever is less in the We will address only those bills addressing year 2000. This would increase to Two bills would affect local sales tax intergovernmental fiscal policy which are still $75,000 or 50% by the year 2004. An being considered as of this writing. additional feature would allow local revenues: property tax levies to be raised without . Senate 8ill 98-49 (Schroder/May) would Two bills call for a study of these pmblems. voter approval through 2006, but within prohibit the state and local govemments Senate Bill 98-83, sponsored by Senator the TABOR revenue limit, to offset the from imposing sales tax on internet Feeley, would set up a Task Force to study the decrease in valuation resulting from service providers. effectiveness and impact of state and local these changes in assessment rates. government fiscal policy issues. They would • House Bill 98-1065 consider the effect of government •:::.Senate Concurrent Resolution 984 (McElhany/Lamborn) would exempt organization and structure on fiscal policy (Norton/Anderson) would place a telephone and telegraph services from and deal with equity, stability, and adequacy question on this November's ballot the state sales base but would allow issues. The bill would require them to which, if approved, would establish a statutory municipalities and counties to recommend legislation by October 15, 2000: 9.6% residential assessment rate, a tax them. $75,000 or 30% (whichever is less) House Bill 98-1329, sponsored by residential property tax "homestead" Representative Schauer and Senator Amenf; exemption specifically for school levies, also creates a Task Force but with a much estabIish a statewide property tax for Economy Gops Affordabity of HooseNJ broader perspective. In this bill the wark local sehools, and exempt school levies Continued from page 1 called for is a study of overall effectiveness fmm the mill levy limitation in ffectiveness in efforts to accommodate and effiaency of state and local gcavernments, fiABt~R(4}(a). The measure would also e including an evaluation of the necessify of all use all exeess state revenues or $75 growth• Complementing this long-term existing governmental subdivisions and niillion (wtsicliever is less) for local strategic review is an analysis of the benefits which ones could best provide gavernznenta1; ' sehool funding. and impacts local land use regulations have services to atizens. The Task Force would on the cost of proposed development projects. make an interim report to the General=- House Bill 98=1005, by Representative This review is not intended to Assembly by March 1,1999 and a final xeport Spradley= 6vould give businesses an indiscriminately roll back land use by December 31,1999. exemption for personal pmperty from restrictions, but a review could result in a - ` the current $2;5IX1, graduallyincer~eassing selective and thoughtful modification of House BiII 98-1329 also would provide for a to $10,000 in 2003. The bill would ereate restrictions, ensuring that goaLs reflected in legislative-commissioned review and analysis a"backfll fund""in the sfate ireasury . " zoning and other land use standards are of state and iocal revenue and expendifure ' which would be used to: reimburse Icacal ; preserved: The resWt can be reduced costs of trencis, including taxes, and tIie fscaI poli,eies governments (except schooI distriets) #or " housing develt~pmenk „ oE state and local governments as they relate_ , lossesin ProPerty tax revenue resuiiing to Colorado's economy. Fairness of the tax from the nieasure. The Calanda Division csf HOsing r~ntly burden, capaaty and adequacy of siate and published a trook.entitteci'Housm~ Colorado: local revenues, espeaaIly as local revenues Four bills wvuId ask the voters for permission A Guide Fvr Local (}fficiaLs. T'his book are afEeeted by state poficy, are all to be tfl use state revenues in excess oE the TABOR includes chapters on;hQUSUtg suppl}+ and included in the final study, which would be "•f'?scal year spending" limit;. instead of demand,.manufactured hausing crptions, due by December 31,1999: autonaatically gmvicling:arefund: modifyinglazpd use mgulatzons, anci the changing rale of goQernment:in housing. The A number of ineasures have been intniducecl •-House &ill 1256 (Anderson/tNhaat)Division sta&is avaiLable to meeE wiftt:iocal which deal with specifie areas of fiscal policy: wouId use $100 ' million per year or aII officiaais to ~~uss the handbook and _ state exeess revenues (whichever is less) methods-foraddressing locai housing needs. ? • House Concnaenf Resalution 48=1002 far Tocai school constructiot4 higher PIease corbct the L?ivision of Housing.at _ (George), and its companion, House BiII education construction; and state and (3E13) 866-2033 and ask for the D(1H. 1152; wozaId ask for voter approval to local highways, roads, and streets; development staff person assig:ted ta:yotu' amend the "TABOR" and "GallaghEr`• _ camuruutity.:: < `THESTQTE-LOCAICONNECTION PAGES . ; n~.. New Smart Growth objectives. Eligibie projects include to have been received no later than 5 p.m. on pmfessional analysis, crearive design work, May 15,1998. The second application ParEnerships surveys, facilitated public processes, and deadline is currently scheduled for August 1, Regional education. A qualifying project must be 1998. Program innovative and strategic, demonstrate long- term and tangible impacts, facilitate a transfer The funds which make this program possible Govemor Roy Romer announced a new grant of knowledge to communities across the state, come from the Govemor's Office of Energy and assistance pmgram in February, created u?clude a 25 percent cash or in-kind match, Conservation and the State Depariment of to help regions respond to important issues and demonstrate commihnent from a Local Affairs. Additional funding partners that have emerged as a result of Colorado's diversity of regional project partners. While may be added in subsequent rounds. Grants rapid growth. The Smart Growth Regional ProJect ideas can originate from anyone in the are intended to be used as seed money for Partnerships Program will address a bmad community, appIicants must be politicai planning purposes and do not cover capitat range of regional growth concerns and subdivisions or regional governmental infrastructure costs such as purchase of land parallel the goals of Romer's Smart Growth entities (including school districts and or equipment. and Development Initiative. housing and regional transit authorities). Project proponents are strongly enrnuraged to For a copy of the pmgram guidelines and The pmgram's goal is to support innovative discm Project ideas with the program application materials or for more information and cooperative local initiatives which contacts listed below before submitting a about the new Smart Gnrwth Regional effectively manage growth. This includes Srant application. Parhterships Program, contact Kate Fay at (303) creating working partnerships between state 444-1214 or Adam Van de Water at (303) 866- and local governments, atizens, non-profit The Smart Grawth Regional Partnerships 2818. gram will offer nearly $1 million in 1998 in organizations, and the private sector to look pro ~ants of up to $75,000. Grants will be at the problems of growth from a regional awarded to qualified applicants to assist them perspective. in forming new and innovative regional The Smart Growth Regional Partnerships Planning Partnerships throughout Colorado. Program will fund projects that cross Depending on the volume and quality of muniapal and county lines; involve private, applications received, up to $350,000 will be public, and non-pmfit sectors; and address available for the first funding cycle. several related growth management Applications for the first funding cycle were ~ i i` BUL:~C MAi ~ I~~T~i~ ' , U.S. I Technical Assistarfae DETIVERThe State-Local Connection PERM~-~ Published by the Division of Local Government 1313 Sherman St., Room 521 Denver, Colorado 80203 Telephone: (303) 866-2156 Fax: (303) 866-4819 ~ Town of Vail Attn: Pa ndmeyer,~ ~n~ 75 S. ro~ge R'd.~'; Vail, Colorado 81657 44& , . ~ w;f A f attltilt ' - m "Ae propeller of his beanie, but his dad, Dave, came to the rescue, while taking part in the fishing derby last Saturday at Silverthorne's Trent Park. High'way 9 work will be in Monda J y ¦ Motorists can Drivers can expect 5- to 15- signal at Tiger Road. minute traffic delays during the Keller plans to update drivers on expect delays on Wo=k, scheduled for completion by expected delays throughout the pro- Oct. 15. Crews will work night and ject duration via newspaper articles the trek between day, said project manager John and advertisements. ' Frisco and Breck KellerO . "n the night work, we're going fUghway 9 from Frisco to Breck- By Jane Reuter . to have one-way traffic and during ecuidge has been the subject of many Daily News 8taff Writer the day, we'll have two-way traffic meetings during the past four but you'll be driving through cones months, meetings that aim to make SUMMTT COUNTY - p and barrels," he said. "During the the highway safer as welt as to edu- months-long construction project on day, we'll have to stop people to let cate drivers. Those actions were trig- . ~ Highway 9 begins Monday. The $3.5 trucks in and out." gered by the deaths of four local ~ million in improvements aze slated Changes planned for the highway youths who died in car crashes on for the section of highway_between include wider shoulders, enhanced Highway 9 during the'past year. The Frisco and Breckenridge, with much drainage, new pavement and guard two accidents occurred within one- of fhat work concentrated on the rails, overhead signs to delineate the half mile of one another, between four-lane passing section that has four lanes of traffic during the winter Agape Outpost Church and Tiger been the site of many aecidents. months and the addition of a traffic Run RV Park. Breck explores more parking options . By Stephanie Sylvester street, would serve to encourage dri- patronizing those businesses." Daily News Staff Writer vers to park in the lots, Myers said. Several streets are also targeted In addition to Tiger Dredge and F- for pay pazking in the proposed man- BRECKENRIDGE - Parking Lot, the Icehouse lot, Upper and agement plan, including Main Street, took center stage at the Breckenridge Lower Exchange lots, and Tonopah Ridge Street and Lincoln Avenue. Town Council meeting Tuesday, lot aze tapped to become pay park- While previous plans slated meters to << with discussions about a pazking ing, accoOng to the proposed man- be installed this summer, Myers said + management plan for the upcoming agement plan. there was "a long way to go before season and improvements to the East Discussion from the council that." ~ Sawmill Parking Lot. prompted the suggestion that the "We want to get people involved In Tuesday's worksession, the Lower Exchange lot remain free before we make any drastic decisions council looked at the management pazking since it was mostly used by about this," Myers said. plan proposed by the town's parking locals working in the Lincoln West Overall, the town council was department. The plan heralds some Mall. receptive to the proposed parking major changes to the parking situa- Despite the possibiliTy of several management plan and the pay park- tion in Breckenridge, including the lots becoming pay parking, there will ing that was part of it. Public input introduction of pay pazking in the still be free parking at oudying lots, from residents, businesses, employ- downtown core area as well as a pay such as East Sawmill, Weliington, ees and visitors is encouraged during and display system in some of the Courthouse, Ice Rink, French Street upcoming pazking discussions at ' neighboring lots. and Klack Placer. Public transporta- town council meetings. "We're at a very preliminary tion services each lot to bring visitors Myers said the town wilI adver- Is stage in the plan," parking director and residents into the downtown core ' tise these meetings in the Summit ' Jeff Myers said. "We want to hold area, Daily News. ° focus groups and get public feedback The council did approve changes S on this." • at F-Lot, which include a iower East Sawmill Myers acknowledged that pay hourly rate of $1 an hour, with a improvements " parking would be a controversial maximum of $6 per day. It will also The council also perused three subject, among Breckenridge resi- become. a pay-upon-exit lot, so dri- options for improving the recently dent& vers will only have to pay for the purchased East Sawmill lot, which i "People should not take it (pay dme they park in the lot. Parking will included repaving and/or reconfigur- parking) as a punishment, but as be free from 7 a.m. to 9 a.m., and ing, and a possibility of extending the management control," he said after 3 p.m. Because the booth will Riverwaik. Leaming from this past winter's oniy be staffed until8 p.m., it is con- The first option, according to ezperiment in pay parking at both the ceivable for someone to park in the tawn engineer Eric Guth, was mini- Tiger Qredge Lot and F-Lot, town Iot from 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. withbut hav- malist. It would cost $94,000 and staff proposed lowering the honrly ing to pay, Myers said consist of repaving the lot, and rate, but increasing the number of "The intention is to keep cars in putting in curbs, gqttezs and land- ] PaY 1ots. ocie location,,, Myers said. "Hopeful- scaping. A lower rate of 25 cents an hour, ly those parked in F-L.ot for that long The second, or maximum, option as opposed to 50 cents an hour on the wi}I be -in the downtown core, pleam we py„bna page 7 a Summlt Parkin from page ~ Which of Th included a total reconfiguration of The last option represented a property. Specifically, both spoke to Mistake the lot that would add 23 spaces to compromise between the previous the possibility of connecUng the bike %en Yol the existing 84, repaving, gutter, curb two options. The plan would pave, path to center downtown. and light installation, as well as a curb, gutter and landscape the exist- "°I'his is the opportunity to look at Summit County - A nei+ provision for a future Riverwalk ing parcel, but also account for a pos- that trail connection," said coun- has just been released which extension. Improvements to the lot sible extension of the Riverwalk by cilmember Luis Alonso. 7 costly mistakes that itself woutd run the town $328,000, leaving a 10-foot buffer along the lot. The council then charged Guth to homeowners make when and with the Riverwalk path would Mayor Steve West and coun- look into the possibility of the bike their home, and a 9 Step ~ cost $150,000, the total cost to the cilmember John Warner were both traii and did not come to a resolution that can help you sell ynu town would equal an estimated concerned about the lack of uail . regarding the East Sawmill improve- fast and for the most amc $478,000• opportunities on the East Sawinill ments. money. This industry report cleazly how the traditional i Fiight For Lif ~Lm Selling homes have b . frpm PaSe I increasingly less and less. e; ° in today's market. The fact member of Summit County Rescue Whiie Vellman attempted to sup- often grounded ttie belicopter. ~~t15 that fully three q~'`' Group. "It will not replace what the port Centura's decision with charts, "That was something that, five homesellers don t get wh~ want for the'u home- or conc helicopter has done for us. It's a race O'Brien shot down one of those yeazs ago, we never thoughf was become disiflusioned and -N against time. Some of the successes reports. T'hat chart showed that the going to be thaf big of a deal," he financially disadvantaged we've achieved in the last five years Denver-based Cenhtra helicopter has said. they put their home on the m can't be duplicated with the CCT." made 605 flights to date in 1998; "(With the CCT), unless state As this report uncover,- But Vellman said Flight For Life Summit's has made 196 flights. patrol shuts down the interstate, we only received five calls for assistance "The Denver helicopter, with a will get through," Kearns said. "I from the backcountry rescue team in base population of 1.4 million peo- think that's something that should a two-yeaz period. ple, made 605 flights," he said. "We provide a higher level of comfort if I "The requests have not been ran one-third of that with our base of lived here" huge," he said. 20,000. And we really need the quick Dr• Ed Noordewier, a physician at Vellman said emergency service." the Keystone office of High Country 1 response to such incidents may have "You're going to lose that golden Health Care, voiced support for the ~ been ideal with the helicopter, but he hour of getting somebody into an OR change. defended the CCT as a better deal for from a ski hill," said Dr. Paul "When I heard (Flight was leav- the majority of patients. DeChant, who works at the Brecken- ing), there was some concern," he "If you look at the overall good ridge Medical Center. said. "Bat I see the CCT as such an - the overall good is we can roll more Again, Vellman disputed that addition. I think this is a dramatic often," Vellman said. idea. improvement. It just advances the Realtor Eddie O'Brien, who "Getting someone to an OR in the care here for our visitors and resi- dents. worked for three years to try to find golden hour, in realiry, it just doesdt Dr. Garrett Sullivan agreed. a Summit County site for a perma- happen," he said. "In the past five yeazs, SummiC nent Flight For Life hangaz, -also "That happens all the time," County has been privileged to be part seemed disappointed. Money raised DeChant disagreed. of a trial," he said. "Other areas - in an effort to build a permanent "The CC (crifical caze) nursing Aspen, Telluride - where trauma $Z*vU Flight For Life hangar in Summit team, they can do literally everything can happen in an instant, they never County will now be used to house I can do in the emergency depart- even got a chance to try. To sa that DRINK CCT staff, to train Summit County ment, short of (a couple of proce- because it was available for five medical personnel and to buy CCT dures)," Vellman said. "It's years it becomes a right, a standard equipment. becoming incredibly sophisticated." of caze, is (wrong)." 4-7 m, "Money was never the issue," Kearns said some medical tech- Vellman said this most recent O'Brien said of his unsuccessful niques are easier to do in an ambu- decision may not be the last word on 9pm-L~OSC quest. "1'he issue was finding a piece lance. the issue. of land. I believe if the facility was "You have better access to the "We wili re-evaluate this con- Valid in bar onfy built, we wouldn't be here having patient," he said. "T'here are limita- stantly," he said. this conversation." tions imposed by the aircraft. It's He also said Centura has a contin- Vellman disagreed. cramped quarters." uing commitment to the mountains. "I think with the hangar,'the deci- "Centura is looking to build a per- - sion would have been the same," he $UpP01't VOIC@d manent facility here," Vellman said said. "It would have made the deci- Brunko also noted the problems "ff the hospitai is built, a lot of these sion more difficult posed by inclement weather, wtuch issues willgo away very quickly." . _ . . . TR I RECONSTRI S= The Town ot Breckenrid _ ll TOWN OF VAIL 75 South Frontage Road Yail, Colorado 81657 970-479-2100 FAX 970-479-2157 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE June 10, 1998 Contact: Todd Oppenheimer, 479-2161 TO`J Parks Superintendent TOV TARGETS 300 TREES IN PINE BEETLE BATTLE PREVENTIVE SPRAYING BECaINS THIS WEEK (Vail)--The Tawn of Vail has authorized the use of a chemical spray that will be applied to 300 trees within Vail to help pro#ect them from pine beetle infestation. The work will begin this week and will be handled by Preventive Tree Spraying, a Dillon- based contractor. The spraying will occur over the next three weeks on town-owned lands including parks, stream tracts and open space areas from Intermountain to East Vail. Todd Oppenheimer, TOV parks superintendent, says the contractor will be applying a chemical called carbaryl (trade name Sevin) to high landscape-valued lodgepole pines that are eight inches or larger in diameter. The pesticide will be applied to the trunk of the live trees which are most susceptible to the pine beetles. The orange-brown , colored trees, which are already dead, pose no further danger of infecting other trees, Oppenheimer said. "If we find infested trees in the areas we're spraying, we'll try to get them cut down and covered with plastic, peeled of bark, or hauled off to a safe site before the beetlss fly," Oppenheimer said. (more) L~ RECYCLEDPAPER Add 1/Pine Beetles Vail's mitigation efforts are of little consolation to the overall magnitude of the pine beetle outbreak, which has left more than 10,000 lodgepole pines from East Vaii to Eagle-Vail, or 98 percent of the stands, at risk. No large-scale treatment of forest stands is planned by the Forest Service, according to Oppenheimer; however, private landowners may want to consider doing so before the beetles fly in July. The outbreak is approaching year two of a four-year cycle, which cause the pines to lose their water supply, eventually killing them. For more information, contact Oppenheimer at 479-2161. # # # ~ ~ u ~y TOWN OF VAIL 75 South Frontage Road Yail, Colorado 81657 970-479-2100 FAX 970-479-2157 MEDIA ADVISORY June 10, 1998 Contact: Suzanne Silverthorn, 479-2115 Community Information Office VAIL TOWN COUNCIL HtGHLIGHTS FOR JUNE 9 Work Session Briefs Council members present: Armour, Arnett, Foley, Ford, Jewett, Kurz, Navas --Red Sandstone Employee Housing Development The Council gave its approvai to plans associated with the Red Sandstone Employee Housing development, an 18-unit project sponsored by the town and the Eagle River Water and Sanitation District. Developer Tom Stevens of the Aspen-based Stevens Group said the design had been reconfigured from five buildings to two buildings to allow for useable open space in the middle of the 1.6 acre parcel. The $2.5 million project would include two one-bedroom units to be priced in the low $100,000s; 12 two- bedroom units priced in the $130,000s; and four threa-bedroom units to be priced in the $170,000s. All 18 units would have an attached garage; each unit would be allowed two parking spaces. During discussion, Councilmembers asked that six to eight guest parking spaces be added to the site plan. Councilmembers also acknowledged the need to modify the town's design guidelines to allow use of alternate building treatments, such as synthetic roek, during construction of deed-restricted housing. The Red Sandstone design will return for final approval by the Design Review Board on June 17. Once approved, a building permit will be pulled within 30 days, Stevens said. Construction is expected to be completed by May 1999 with units to be allocated between the town and the water district, with 12 going to the district and six going to the town. The town will be making four of its units available to the public through a lottery and will be selling the balance, two units, directly to TOV employees. The Upper Eagle River Water and Sanitation District will be purchasing four units, will sell approximately five to its employees and will be making the rest available to the public through the same lottery. Although the final numbers may fluctuate, it appears that seven units will be available to the public through the lottery. For more information, contact Andy Knudtsen, senior housing policy planner, at 479-2440. For a copy of a color rendering of the development, call the Community Information Office at 479-2115. --Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan During a discussion on the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, Councilmembers (more) ZAM~* RECYCLEDPAPER TOV Council Highlights for June 9/Add 1 reviewed a summary of a detailed analysis showing future benefits and impacts that might occur with new and redevelopment of selected properties under the height scenarios of four, five and six stories. At the greatest population scenario, the summary showed the following: --a doubling of retail square footage, from the current 92,839 sq. ft. to 185,000 sq. ft. --a density range of 30 to 40 dwelling units per acre, up from the current zoning standard of 25 dwelling units per acre. --An addition of between 750 and 833 new employees, based on a 1991 employee generation formula. (Differing height scenarios weren't found to have had a substantial impact on the number of new employees, since most would be generated by expansion of the first floor retail). --At six stories, Lionshead would experience a 69 percent increase in residential units. --There would be an 85 percent increase in the visitor population, assuming the west end properties are not developed as employee housing. --Lionshead would experience a 150,000 increase in annual skier days, given greatest building height scenario that would be weighted toward fractional fee dwelling unit development. --Fractional fee units, with estimated annual occupancy rates of 75 percent, would yield higher returns in visitors and skier days than condos, which have estimated annual occupancy rates of 30 percent. During discussion, Councilmembers continued to react with caution to the building height proposals recommended by the master plan team and modified by the Planning and Environmental Commission. Councilman Michael Arnett said a recommendation to create a performance-based bonus height that would enable heights greater than a by- right baseline height is a "nightmare waiting to happen." He said the height allowances should be based on the opportunities for new development in Lionshead rather than redevelopment, therefore reducing the need for the town to provide incentives, such as additional height. Councilman Bob Armour said he'd prefer a plan that would discourage creation of additional condominiums in Lionshead, noting their traditionally low occupancy rates. Councilmember Sybill Navas wondered if the town could require any new condominium units to be kept in the rental pool. Councilman Ludwig Kurz expressed discomfort with the building height recommendations, noting the town hasn't been very good at "controlling the uses and misuses of units." If and when those uses change, he said the additional building height that would have been granted under the bonus scenario would leave the town with tall buildings without additional community benefit. Sybill Navas said she'd be more comfortable with the bonus height recommendation if it were tied to physical conditions (such as north-south orientation) rather than economic conditions, such as the type of uses allowed inside the building. Councilman Kevin Foley cautioned that whatever is decided in Lionshead will create similar expectations for Vail Village. Mayor Rob Ford also expressed concerns about the building height recommendation, noting the Council has to evaluate the community's support and understanding of the concept. Also yesterday, Councilmembers approved the following master plan schedule: June 23 work session, discuss townwide employee generation policies; July 7 work session, discuss building (more) Y Y TOV Council Highlights for June 9/Add 2 height and economic analysis; July 7 evening meeting, provide decision on buifding height. For a copy of the detailed density analysis, contact Suzanne Silverthorn in the Community Information Office at 479-2115. --Vail Valley Exchange Discussion Regarding Council/Sister City Relationship Merv Lapin of the Vail Valley Exchange (sister cities program) provided an overview of the organization and its benefits in connecting Vail with its two sister cities, St. Moritz, Switzerland and Mt. Buller, Australia. An employee exchange program with. Mt. Buller provides the opportunity to improve Vail's labor pool during ski season, he said. The program is available to all employers in the Vail Valley through membership in the local Vail Valley Exchange. Lapin said a Vail Valley delegation has been invited to visit Mt. Buller in August. He said the Exchange would provide partial funding to send two Town of Vail representatives. For more information, contact Karen Phillips at 845-2472. --Village Core Construction Update Larry Grafel, Public Works/Transportation Director, presented a brief update on the town's three construction projects in Vail Village. Grafel said the Transportation Center snowmelt project, renovation of Slifer Plaza and the streetscape project at Seibert Circle are all on schedule. Also, he said, artist Jesus Moroles will arrive in Vail July 20 to set granite slabs that will be incorporated into the Seibert Circle art piece design. --Information Update Councilmembers were reminded that the next managed parking date in Ford Park will occur June 16 when the park will fill with softball players and those attending the Hot Summer Nights concert. A private company will be used to facilitate free parking at Ford Park's close-in lots. Town Manager Bob McLaurin provided an update on discussions with Motorola regarding a proposal to lease-purchase an 800 megahertz radio system for the town's dispatch operations. The $775,000 proposal is $254,000 less than the "state contract" rate due to a partner sponsorship by Motorola for the 1999 World Atpine Ski Championships. McLaurin said he'll ask Council for a decision next week after presenting a more detailed presentation. Also, McLaurin said an option to refinance the town's debt continues to make sense given the favorable municipal bond market. McLaurin said he'd arrange for an investment banker to make a presentation to Council at an upcoming meeting. The town's current debt service is $22.9 million. By extending the payment period and locking into a lower interest rate, refinancing could free up between $2.5 million and $3 million between 1998 and 2005. After hearing an update from Police Chief Greg Morrison about the possibility of sponsoring a concert in the Ford Amphitheater following the July 4 fireworks, Councilmembers voted 5-2 (Foley and Navas against) against the concept and instead directed Morrison to continue exploring creative ideas that would help with crowd (more) tl 1 TOV Counci{ Highlights for June 9iAdd 3 control following the fireworks. A local concert promoter had presented several bands to choose from, including the Samples, a popular Boulder-based band. But most Councilmembers said a concert might exacerbate the situation. Following the vote, Councilmember Sybill Navas expressed disappointment in the Council's unwillingness to take the risk, noting that Vail is in the entertainment business and that a concert , would have been a creative way to mitigate problems associated with the large crowds that traditionally gather on Bridge Street. Chief Morrison was asked to come back with other ideas. Mayor Rob Ford said he remained hopeful that a lower-key event cauld be created that would help reduce the number of disruptions that occurred on Bridge Street folllowing last year's fireworks. --Council Reports Sybill Navas reported on a possible reorganization of the Northwest Colorado Council of Governments (NWCCOG) following the resignation of its executive director and a recent membership withdrawal by Summit County. Navas has suggested the six- county organization include a focus on managed growth issues. She also asked councilmembers to share other topics NWCCOG could address that would benefit Vail's $9,000 annual membership. --Other Bob Armour inquired about #he status of ptacing a bench or plaque at the West Vail roundabouts to recognize a$1,182 contribution by the Dancing Bear. Sybill Navas said the construction walls at Pepi's in Vail Village are looking festive, thanks to a joint marketing promotion funded by the Vai{ Vi{lage Merchant Association, Vail Associates and the Town of Vail (plus some individual merchant contributions) underway by Brian Hall and Blue Creek Productions. Navas also asked for a council volunteer to help her redefine the criteria for Vail Youth Award nominations. The award recognizes two local high school juniors with an opportunity to spend time working in Mt. Buller, Australia before the start of their senior year. Kevin Foley shared an invitation by Internetworks to receive an orientation on the town's new Internet website, as well as e-mail. A date will be selected in July or August with the orientation to occur at a computer lab at Colorado Mountain College. Also, at Foley's suggestion, the Council agreed to take $300 out of its contingency funds to cost-share a campaign sponsored by the Colorado Association of Ski Towns to promote alternative forms of transportation. The campaign will be directed to 12,000 travel agents worldwide in an effort to reduce the number of vehicles driven into the ski towns by destination guests. The Eagle County Regional Transportation Authority also will be asked to assist with funding. (more) TOV Council Highlights for June 9/Add 4 UPCOMING DISCUSSION TOPICS June 16 Work Session VVTCB Request for Special Event Funding Reallocation Discussion of Ordinance # 10, Design Review Trigger Discussion of Park Free After 3, Parking Revenues, Ski Season Sales Tax Collections . Bus Survey Motorola Discussion Vail Valley Exchange/Mt. Buller Funding Discussion July 4th Crowd Control Discussion June 16 Evening Meeting TOV Annual Community Survey Results Resolution No. 8, Adding New Signator to Library Account Discussion of Park Free After 3, Parking Revenues, Ski Season Sales Tax Collections June 23 Work Session PEC/DRB Review Mtn. Haus Request to Proceed through Planning Process Appeal of PEC Decision re: Slifer Variance Denial Discussion of Business License Fee by Vail First Discussion of Ordinance No. 7, RV Parking Lionshead Employee Generation Discussion June 30 Special Evening Meeting Common Ground Decision - # # # . ~ u ~y TOWN OF VAIL 75 South Frontage Road Yail, Colorado 81657 970-479-2100 FAX 970-479-2157 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE . June 9, 1998 " Contact: Rob Ford, Vail Mayor, 479-1860 or Bob McLaurin, Vail Town Manager, 479-2105 or Andy Knudtsen, Project Manager, 479-2440 SUPPORT OF FOR-SALE AFFORDABLE HOUSING, ATTENTION TO HOUSING DENSITY, PROTECTION OF OPEN SPACE GENERAL THEMES OF COMMON GROUND PUBLIC WORKSHOPS PUBLIC RESPONSE TO PROPOSED PLAN BEGINS NEXT WEEK (Vail)--Community residents attending last week's Common Ground public workshops made it clear they have strong preferences and concerns when it comes to siting affordable housing, open space, parks and community facilities in Vail. Given the_option of e'ither selecting f'.ve different alternative siting "packages" or creating their own package, most of the over 200 people working in small groups at the workshops chose to create their own based on one or more of the alternatives presented. Most of the packages they created showed consistent support for the addition of for-sale housing to improve the sense of community within Vail as well as seasonal housing on a few targeted sites. Aesthetics, parking and property management were noted as priorities, as was campatibility with tiie surrounding neighborhood with careful attention given to density. In general, people also registered their concerns about the (more) L~~ RECYCLED PAPER Common Ground/Add 1 long-term protection of open space and offered support for the addition of more parks in West Vail, as well as land to be set aside for community facilities. "These Common Ground discussions have been extremely productive in identifying what people in our community prefer and what they're worried about," Vail Mayor Rob Ford said, especially when it comes to affordable housing. The Mayor said the final plan will reflect consistencies expressed during public workshops in April and June. "It's important to keep in mind that on June 3 and 4 over 200 people worked for more than four hours to sift through five alternative site plans and more than a dazen funding options. It's amazing to think that people have given more than 1,000 hours of their time to this process," Ford said. "They've also had the opportunity to experience Vail's challenges first-hand and to hear a variety of viewpoints, as well as delve into an incredible amount of detail prepared by the staff. And they have given us back very thoughtful responses. We really can't thank people enough for getting involved on the front end of this process when it really counts," ` Ford said. The Common Ground process is a citizen involvement process sponsored by the Town of Vail to get community direction on where to site affordable housing, open space, community facilities and parks within Town limits, as well as how to fund affordable housing. The. process began in March with a special questionnaire insert in the Town of Vail annual community survey. In April, approximately 200 people attended public workshops to identify which community uses they betieve are most important, and to give the Town direction on where they would like those uses located. (more) Common Ground/Add 2 Based on the responses received through the Town survey and the April workshops, Town planners developed five different site plan alternatives, which were presented and reviewed at last week's workshops. Using the direction they received from people at the June 3 and 4 workshops, Town planners are now in the process of developing a draft site and funding plan. That plan, to be published in local newspapers next week, will be presented to the Town Council for formal action on June 30. People at the workshops gave overwhelming support to seven affordable housing sites: a concept to redevelop the 198-unit privately-owned Timber Ridge site for additional seasonal units (the deed-restrictions on the site expire in 2001); constructing for-sale units on a privately-owned lot near the West Vail roundabouts, known as the Hud Wirth site; the addition of for-sale units on the middle bench of Donovan Park; construction of seasonal housing at the Lionshead parking structure; a for-sale housing development on the Mountain Bell site located north of the Main Vail exit and east of the Mountain Bell tower; a seasonal housing development on a portion of the lower bench of Donovan Park; and a for-sale housing development on a site known as Tract C east of Vail Mountain School on Katsos Rancfi Rd. Six other parcels, including a site at the southwest corner of South Frontage Rd, and Kinnickinnick Rd. in Intermountain; a site in West Vail near the intersection of Arosa, Garmisch and Chamonix; the upper bench of Donovan Park, the old town shops site located west of the sewer plant and south of the Vail Associates maintenance yards; a site known as Tract A and once proposed to be used as a par 3 golf course in the Bald Mountain Road neighborhood; and the water treatment plant site in East Vail were (more) t Common Ground/Add 3 identified for mixed uses with a combination of seasonal or for sale housing and/or parks. The most frequently mentioned parcels for dedicated open space included four areas: the upper bench of Donovan Park; a lot at the far eastern end of Snowberry in - the Intermountain neighborhood; the water tank site in East Vail; and the middle portion of Tract A, a portion of the parcel once proposed to be used as a par 3 golf course in the Bald Mountain Road neighborhood. People at the workshops also continued to identify sites for parks identified by April workshop participants: a portion of a site in West Vail near the intersection of Arosa Dr., Garmisch and Chamonix; and some portion of the lower bench of Donovan Park. Preferences for the west end of Tract A in the Bald Mountain Road neighborhood included a park or open space. Preferred sites for community facilities include the charter bus lot east of the Lionshead parking structure; on top of the Lionshead parking structure; and an expansion of the Golf Course Clubhouse facility. In addition to creating siting plans, people at last weeks' workshops also reviewed and ranked 17 potential funding options for housing. The most popular funding options include using about $2 million in proceeds from a recent land exchange; refinancing the Town's debt which would provide about $3 million between 1998 and 2005; selling three Town-owned developable parcels for up to $3 million; utilizing a portion of the Real Estate Transfer Tax (RETT) which will provide an estimated $9 million surplus in the next 10 years; continuing to use $300,000 dedicated by the Town to a housing (more) Common Ground/Add 4 fund; partnering with the private sector; using proceeds from Vail's $300,000 business license tax if a permanent funding source for regional marketing wins approval in.the November election; and creation of an employee generation policy which would require that new businesses or expansions of existing businesses provide housing or contribute to a housing fund. The nine other funding options, all of which would require a public vote, were considered less desirable. Ford says the final funding package will likely include a combination of funding sources so as not to pit one funding source against another. "This Town Council was elected on a housing platform and we're committed to finding the money to facilitate this effort," he said. "If one funding source becomes tied up, we're prepared to find an alternate source to keep this process moving forward." Ford said he spent much of his time at the recent public workshops clarifying the Town's stated role as a housing facilitator. "It's not our intention to become an affordable housing landlord," the Mayor said. "We want to work with the private sector to see that housing is built, but we have no interest in, nor do we think it's the appropriate role of the Town, to become a builder or an owner of affordable housing, except for housing our own employees, if needed." The site plan ultimately approved could add between 400 and 500 affordable housing units, or 1,200 to 1,700 beds, throughout the community, whife adding at least four additional parcels for open space, plus creation of three to four new parks, as well as reserving land for community facilities. A draft of the site and funding plan will be published in ali iocal newspapers beginning June 17, mailed to all those who attended (more) ~ , Common Ground/Add 5 either the April or June workshops and posted on the Town's website. People are asked to send a response about the plan back to the Town by June 24. In addition, Town Council and Common Ground staff planning team will field questions and record public comments by hosting a public open house from 5 to 7 p.m. June 25 in the Vail Town Council Chambers. Additional public input on the preferred site plan and funding package will be taken throughout the remainder of June. From there, the plan will be forwarded to the Town Council for consideration on June 30. Ford says it's important for citizens to become familiar with the plan before it reaches the Council. "There will be impacts associated with this plan, that's a given." But, Ford said, people should not count on requesting major changes in the plan at the "11th hour." "The Town Council plans to honor the process we've conducted, and we've gotten some pretty clear direction from the people who've participated in this process. We'll be open to some adjustments, if needed, but we won't be starting over on June 30." Ford said. "Providing adequate housing, parks, open space and community facilities for the people in the Vail community is a problem that we've got to face, and it will best be solved if we can continue to work together to come up with the best plan to do that." For more information about the Common Ground process, contact Ford at 479-1860; Bob McLaurin, Vail Town Manager, at 479-2105; or Andy Knudtsen, project manager, at 479-2440. # # # JUN 10 ' 98 11= 22AI`1 V A PLfN CONST P. 2i2 Xe : TL - RECErvEO juN 1 9% I7ate: ~ . Town Couacii Bob Armour 1Vlichae.l Arnett Kevin Foley Rob Pord,1Vlayar Mchael Jewett Ludwig Kuxz Sybii Navas Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colarado 81657 Dear Council Members: As propexty owners in tlxe Town of Vail, we are in strong support of the Town's efforts in connectian with the Varil Tomorrow initiative w'h the gaal of enhancing the overall quality of our town and promoting Vail's desired image of a wozld class community. In the spirit of supporting the Town's goais, we commend and support the Council's recogrrition of the need to regulate the parlciang of recreational vehicles (R'V's) within the Town limfts. We betieve RV°s, when parked for lorg periods or permanently, detract from the image of the Town and negatively affect property values and enjoyrnent of our mountain environmeztt. ~ We support a new regulation v??hich would limit the pazking/storage ofRV's of more than 24 feet in length_ We belierre these lergc veWcles should be allowed to park within the Town of Vail, for enmple, for ao uaore thin three (3) consecutive davs in any 30-da,y en riad. The ZQ-foot limit shduld inc[ude not ainly the RV itsel£but also any towing or towed vehicle, We believe a flexable regulation such as this would be a ressonable accomunodation for RV owners. We appre-ciate the Town Council's cc»nsideration of this matter and the inaportaaee that a favorahle a.ction on the part of the Towrt Council will have on the future of aur T~ovun. Sineerely, Name ~ ~ . V' c, Signature ~--5--% ~ ,--Address ~ ~ ~ ~ - RECEIvEO JuN 4 ,r ~ Rural Resort Region ~ Eagle, Garfield, Lake, Pitkin, Summit Counties Western Colorado xc: C'6~v,t~c. June 2, 1998 ~ Rob Ford ' 75 S. Frontage Rd. Vail, CO 81657 Dear Mr. Ford: I , On behalf of the Rural Resort Region effort m Eagle, Garfieid, Lake, Pitkin and Summit counties, I am pleased to enclose your copy of the 1998 Benchmark Report. This document outlines the status of our community's child and health care, workforce, transportation, environment, education, housing and safety. If you have not yet seen the report, I hope you will take this opportunity to review it. As a follow up to the benchmarking study, the Rural Resort Region is working to determine priorities within the ~ eight study areas. We hope you agree that the challenges presented in these study areas are regional in nature ~ and can only be successfully addressed through regional cooperation and collaborative effort. Together, we ~ need to begin determining priorities, procedures and solutions to meet our joint economic and social responsibilities. To begin cooperative brainstorming, we would like to invite your participation in a workshop to address Eagle/Summit/Lake counties' and towns' common issues. Please join the county commissioners from the Region to begin working toward common goals and solutions: Thursday, June 18 11 a.m. - 1:30 p.m.; working lunch (provided) Summit County Commons, Frisco RSVP 800-406-7274 I have included an agenda for the meeting, which will be facilitated by Sandy Blaha. Please plan to join us on the 18'h. I will look forward to seeing you there. Sincerely, Marian Smith, Chair Rural Resort Region 1332 Grand Avenue Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 (970)945-1377 RURAL RESORT REGION MEETING WITH MUrTICIPAL REPRESENTATIVES THURSDAY, JUNE 18, 1998 11 A.M. - 1:30 P.M. AGENDA Purpose of Meeting: To build relationships between the counties and towns of the Rura1 Resort Region. Intended Outcomes: 1. Welcome the municipal representatives to the Rural. Resort Region effort; invite participation at the Fall Conference. 2. Provide information on the Rural Resort Region and its activities, interests and goals. 3. Provide opportunity for countieslmunicipalities to begin discussion of regional economic issues; determine priorities to be discussed at the Fa11 Conference. 11 a.m. Welcome Overview of the Rural Resort Region effort 11:30 a.m. Introductions and Discussion: "Shared Responsibilities in a Regional Economy" 12:15 p.m. Lunch (discussion continues) 12:30 p.m. What IS Working in the Regional Economy What is NOT Working in the Regional Economy 1 P.M. Defining Priorities Next Steps - Call to Action (invitation to Fall Conference; addressing voiced concerns and interests) 1:30 p.m. Adjournment , ~ ~ RURAL RESORT REGION ~ ~ ~ ~ - - ~ ZI ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ 1997 BENCHMARK REPORT ~ Presented by Third Sector Innovations, inc. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 3L ~ RURAL RESORT REGION ` f f 1 I ~ I ' I . ~ i I ( Published by E Third Sector Innovations, Inc. Illene Roggensack Jim Spehar 480 31 '/4 Road Grand Junction, CO 81504 970.434.7621 1.800.406.7274 2 I t - RURAL RESORT REGION ~ TABLE OF CONTENTS ~ ~ ~ ~ Introduction 4 =3 _ ~ History of Rural Resort Region 5 ~ Regionai Statistics 6 ~ ~ Executive Summary 7 =3 -:111 Benchmark Categories =411 Child Care 8 -:3 :3 Education 10 =3 Environment 12 =3 Health Care 14 ~ - . :3 Housing 16 =3 Safety 18 =8 Transportation 20 ~ Workforce 22 ~ Regional Map 24 ~ ~ Sources/Acknowledgments 25 ~ ~ ~ 3 ~ c RURAL RESORT REGION ~ INTRODUCTION ~ ~ ~ ~ December 1997 ~ ~ ~ Dear Friends: ~ It now has been several years since representatives from Eagle, Gartield, Lake, Pitkin and Summit counties came together to work on issues and concerns of common interest and impact, Through this effort; we have worked with many outstanding representatives from local and state government, human services agencies and local business. We are confident in the ability and merits of this group - the Rural Resort Region - to bring a multi-county approach to problem-solving. ~ Our thanks to the U.S. Department of Agriculture/Forest Service for funding the research, compilation and publication of this benchmarking report. The report and its findings will be a significant step in positioning the Rura! Resort Region to initiate long- term projects that will benefit our five counties. As the Rural Resort Region moves to action, we invite and encourage your participation. Please join us in 1998 as we identify and begin work on projects that will result in improved health and quality of life for all residents, workers, businesses and institutions of the region. Please feel free to contact either of us, or any member of the Rural Resort Steering Committee for additional information. Sincerely; C.~ Mick Ireland Marian Smith Co-Chair Co-Chair Rural Resort Region Ruraf Resort Region Steering Committee Steering Committee ~ 4 ~ ~ W RURAL RESORT REGION HISTORY OF RURAL RESORT REGION ~ s ~ ~ The Rural Resort Region is an effort of Eagle, Lake, Garfield, Pitkin and Summit counties to resolve growth-related issues that cross traditional county boundaries. This ~ unique geographic area inctudes prosperous resort communities and struggling ~ jurisdictions which house many of the resort workers. This organized effort began in . July of 1993. . ~ ~ ~ The regional effort has concentrated on: . passing legislation to gain State assistance for local governments to deal with ~ growth-related issues; . a benchmarking effort to give the region an understanding of historical/current ~ trends and a basis for setting future goals; . activation of various regional work groups; . expansion of the ongoing partnerships between local governments, non-profits and :3 the business community. :3 The U.S. Department of Agriculture/Forest Service has been a major partner with its :3 grant to fund the benchmarking effort. ~ RRR work is guided by a Steering Committee of commissioners from the five counties. The effort is funded by these counties and a grant from the U.S. Department of Agriculture/Forest Service. Other public and private sector participants attend the 72 :3 regular meetings of the Rural Resort Region and participate in its work. Overall coordination of the effort has been provided by Third Sector Innovations through the :3 Grand Junction firm's President Illene Roggensack and Principal Consultant Jim ~ Spehar. ~ ~ ~ Rural Resort Region Steering Committee Members include: Marian Smith Commissioner/Garfield County Co-Chair ~ Mick Ireland Commissioner/Pitkin County Co-Chair ~ Johnnette Phillips Commissioner/Eagle County Member Earl Boeve Commissioner/Lake County Member ~ Bill Wallace Commissioner/Summit County Member ~ ~ 5 ~ RURAL RESORT REGION REGIONAL STATISTICS ~ People, their sheer numbers and how they are dispersed in the Rural Resort Region, ~ are the force behind the probtems and opportunities in Eagle, Garfield, Lake, Pitkin and ~ Summit counties. Four of the five counties have outpaced statewide average growth rates since 1990; two of them more than double the annual rate of increase. Summit ~ and Eagle counties are near the top of the list of 63 Colorado counties in annual rate of growth in the `90s. And, although Lake County lags behind average statewide growth, ~ its special problems as a bedroom community for the resort counties will be apparent in this report. . ~ An additional note is that the following numbers do not account for a seasonal influx of ~ tourists, which can increase local population as much as five times in the resort ~ communities. Po ulation Growth in Re ion ¦ Location 1980 Total 1990 Total 1996 Total Annual Growth ~ Po ulation Po ulation Po ulation 1990-1996 % EAGLE COUNTY TOTAL 13,320 21,928 30,140 5.22% Avon 640 1,798 2,706 6.76% Basalt 529 1,084 1,549 5.88% Ea le 950 1,580 2,194 5.39% ~ G sum 743 1,750 2,368 4.96% Minturn 1,060 1,066 1,099 0.49% ~ Red Cliff 409 297 297 0.00°k Vail 3,555 3,718 4,372 2.64°k ~ Unincor orated 5,434 10,637 15,555 6.27% GARFIELD COUNTY TOTAL 22,514 29,974 36,832 3.35% ~ Carbondale 2,084 3,004 4,214 5.56% Glenwood S rin s 4,637 6,561 7,738 2.68% ~ New Castle 563 679 1,446 12.86°.6 Parachute 338 658 1,100 8.57% ~ Rifle 3,215 4,858 5,847 3.0196 Silt 923 1,095 1,283 2.57% Unincor orated 10,754 13,119 15,204 2.3996 it LAKE COUNTY TOTAL 8.830 6,007 7,860 4.40°k Leadville 3,879 2,629 3,262 3.51% ~ Unmcor orated 4,951 ' 3,378 4,598 5.06% PITKIN COUNTY TOTAL 10,338 12,661 14,119 1.76°k ~ As en 3,678 5,049 5,524 1.45% Basalt 0 126 278 13.50% ~ S nowmass 999 1,449 1,561 1.20% Unincor orated 5,661 6,037 6,756 1.82% ~ SUMMIT COUNTY TOTAL 8,848 12,881 17,978 5.48% Blue River 230 440 595 4.95% ~ Breckenrid e 818 1,285 1,720 4.78% Dillon 337 553 698 3.80% ~ Frisco 1,221 1,601 2,564 7.83% Montezuma 17 60 72 2.96% ~ Silverthorne 989 1,768 2,947 8.52% Unincor orated 5,236 7,174 9,382 4.39% c RURAL RESORT REGION TOTAL 63,850 83,451 106,929 4.22% ~ COLORADO 2,889,735 3,294,473 3,822,676 2.41°~ Source: Coloredo Department of Local Affairs, Demography Information Services It 6 ~ . ~ 71• RURAL P ESORT REGION ~ EXECUTIVE SL'MMARY ~ Just as residents of the Rural Resort Region move routinely across the borders of the ~ region's five counties' to live, work and play, their issues spread across traditional political boundaries. This 1997 Benchmark Report includes among its findings the following highlights from the eight areas surveyed: ~ ~ • Job growth in the region runs well ahead of statewide averages, but wage scales • are below state averages. Most of the jobs in the region are in the lower-paying ~ service and retail sectors and leave workers inadequately prepared for the higher ~ cost of housing and other living expenses. • Eagle, Pitkin and Summit counties, home to world-class resorts and a growing =3 tourism economy, import as many as 44% of their workers, while the "bedroom" communities in Lake and Garfield counties export up to one-third of their resident =3 workforce. • Availability of child care is a function of the commuting lifestyle of many Rural 7-1 Resort Region workers. Shortages of child care faciiities occur in the bedroorri ~ communities, while there are surplus child care slots available in the resort areas. • School enrollments in some of the Rural Resort Region counties are growing up to ~ three times the statewide rate. Student numbers in specialized programs, such as those used by children of foreign workers, are increasing even more quickly. Lower J, property values in "bedroom" counties affect the ability of schools in their counties ~ to provide resources for public education. • Nearly 25% of the workers offered health insurance at their place of work do not =2 take advantage of this availability for a variety of reasons. And caseloads of physicians accepting Medicare/Medicaid clients vary significantly, ranging from four ~ patients to nearly 85 patients on average. ~ • Housing prices vary widely within the Rural Resort Region, helping to create the commuter lifestyle. As an example, many l.ake County residents live there because ~ average housing prices are one-third the cost of Summit County where they work. ~ • Double-digit increases in public safety indicators, such as traffic accidents, arrests ~ and criminal cases impact virtually every county in the region. ~ • The number of building permits issued in the Rural Resort Region has tripled since the beginning of the decade, reflecting increased building and raising concerns ta about various environmental issues. • While workers living within the resort counties have access to mass transit, their co- workers from the "bedroom" communities face lengthy commutes in often difficult 4-:2 conditions. These are the issues and impacts that the Rurat Resort Region hopes to address in the future. This 1997 Benchmark Study will help set priorities and guide future action. =2 w ~ 7 w ~ ~ RURAL RESORT REGION ~ CHILD CARE ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Child care is of particular concern to the family in which one or both parents are commuting long distances to work. The following chart iilustrates the number of ~ children needing care (1995 actual, 1997 estimates based on growth rates) versus the number of child care slots available by county: ~ ~ ~ Child Care Availabili and Demand ~ County Total Child Care Estimated Estimated Total Estimated Slots Number of Number of Percentage of Unmet V Children Unmet Need Need over/under Needin Care Availabili C 1995 1997 1995 1997 1995 1997 1995 1997 9: Ea le 5.2% rowth 963 1805 1,543 1,707 580 98 6096 5% 9: Gafield 3.4% rowth 836 1350 1,890 2,020 1,054 670 119% 50% ~ Lake 4.4% rowth 265 274 378 412 113 138 43% 50% ~ Pitkin 1.8 rowth 676 861 562 582 114 279 17% 3296 ~ Summit 5.5% rawth 810 1182 823 916 13 262 2% 22~ 5472 5,196 5,637 1,6 169 46% 173.41 Rural Resort R ion 3,550 64 Source: Colorado Department of Human Services ~ V ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ g ~ ~ ~ . RURAL RESORT REGION ~ CHILD CARE ccorrrirruEn> ~ ~ ~ ~ The disparity b-etween child care need and availability is most dramatic in those counties with more commuting workers - Garfield and Lake counties. Although young ~ children could be placed in the "extra" child care slots in the resort communities, costs - become a factor; as illustrated below. ~ ~ ~ The average cost of child care in Colorado resort areas, as compared with Colorado :1 urban (defined as the ten highest populated counties, plus Douglas County) and rural :3 areas: :3 Child Care Centers - 21 % higher than urban; 56% higher than rural, non-resort areas Child Care Homes - 4% higher than urban; 51 % higher than rural, non-resort areas 3 ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ Linkages: Although large gains have been made in availability of child care provision ~ during the past two years, particularly in Eagle and Summit counties, significant gaps ~ remain in service availability for Garfield and Lake County residents. This becomes of particular concern in families where one or both parents are commuting to work in the ~ resort communities, adding an additional 2+ hours each day to the need for child care. ~ The situation may be even more distressing than these numbers illustrate, based on indicators that the region's child population may be growing more rapidly than the ~ adult/overall population (see Education, following page). ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ RURAL RESORT REGION ~ EDUCATION ~ ~ Public school enroliments in the Rural Resort Region are growing even more ~ dramaticaily than the generai population. Only in Pitkin County does the growth in student population approximate the statewide enroilment growth of 9.9% from 1992- ~ 1996. In each of the other counties, and the Rural Resort Region as a whole, student populations have grown at more than twice the statewide rate in that same period (does ~ not include private school enrollment numbers). ~ Public School Enrollment Growth ~ Area 1992 : 1996 % ..................:.............Pupils.-=---..._..........Pupils ~ Cha~e Eagle County 3, 094 ; 3,954, 27.8% ~ Garfield County 7,180 ; 8,640 : 20.0% Lake County 1,118 1,338 : 19,7% ~ Pitkin County 1,125 : 1,245 ; 10.7% ~ Summit County ~ 1,891 2,380 25.9% Region Total 14,408 : 17,557 20.8% ~ Colorado 612,635 673,438 ` 9.9% Source: Colorado Department of Education ~ ~ Whiie overall enrollment is skyrocketing, another resort-area phenomenon surfaces ~ when growth trends in special programs for students not proficient in the English ~ language are calculated. The influx of foreign workers and their families is particularly apparent in schools in Garfield and Eagle counties, but all counties are impacted by the ~ need to provide educational and other services to these families. These charts do not reflect enrollment in, or impacts of, private schools. ~ ~ Growth In English Language Pro6ciency Act j ~ 350 (ELPA) Programs ~ ~ 249 ~1 ? 1992-93 Enrollment i I 250 , 2~ ¦ 199Cr97 Enrollment i I 150 96 11 120 104 ; 100 76 i '0 ~ 0 2 ~ 20 p 8 0 ~ v v -o d c i, m 'B W ~ w W Y 'E I w ~cr C~ (r tu J a (f) I ~ I Source: Colorado Department of Education J Garfield RE-1 - Glenwood Spnngs and the Roaring Fork Valley Gartield RE-2 - Rifle, New CasUe, Silt Gartield RE-16 - Parachute 10 ~ - RURAL RLSORT REGION EDUCATION (CO:VTINUED) J Money to educate all these students also is an issue. Districts that are home to major resorts or population centers with higher property values have more resources. ~ Districts which house many of the resort workers, but do not have the high resort ~ valuations, spend less per pupil. Total Per Pupil Revenue IB 1990 $12,000 Local, Count , State, Federal ~ 1996' ~ $11.940 035 $11012 _ ~ $10,000 $9,619 ~,385 $8,139 , ~ ~ 000 $7,703 $5.903 $7, $7,697 $6,656 022 ~ $6,259 $6,000 $5,317 $5,448 ~ $4 000 ~ $2,000 2 $0 Eagle Garfield Garfield Garfield Lake Pitkin Summit ~ RE-1 RE-2 16 ~ Source: Colorado Department of Education Pupil/Selected Teacher Ratios ~ Area 1994 1996 Available revenues also are reflected Eagle 20.7 ~s.5 in student-teacher ratios. Those ratios ~ Ga~eld ~ 23.4 23.3 Lake 23.5 27.0 are improving in high revenue ~ ~ Pitkin 18.3 19.2 counties, but declining in the bedroom Summit i..-------*23.3-.....~..----21.4 Counties. ~ Colorado 24.5 24.5 Source: Coloredo Department of Education ~ Graduation rates, one fanal measurement in the educational process, vary widely among districts in the Rural Resort Region. ~ Area 1994 Graduation ` 1996 Graduation Rate / : Rate ti ~ Eagle 81.6% . 82.3% Garfield RE-1 (Glenwood Springs 84.1 78.0°i6 and Roaring Fork Va{ky) ~ Garfield RE-2 (Rifle, New Castle, Sitt) 85.7% . 88.7°i6 Garfield 16 (Parachute) 78.6% : 75.9°r6 ~ Lake 72.0% : 59.596 Pitkin 95.7% . 80.6% ~ Summit 81.9% ' 95.0% ~ Colorado 78.8°r6 : 77.7% ~ Source: Colorado Department of Education Linkages: Dramatic population growth certainly impacts the quality of education in the ~ Rural Resort Region. Sheer numbers of people are important, but characteristics of the population, such as where people live, the value of their property and their special ~ needs might be more important to the provision of vital services such as education. ~ ~ 11 ~ ~ RURAL RESORT REGION ~ ENVIRONMENT ~ ~ Any number of indicators could be used to provide a snapshot of environmental issues ~ in the Rural Resort Region. Those chosen reflect a range of issues from air quality and wildlife to indicators of population pressures, such as landfill volumes and building E permits. ~ A common measurement of air quality is the amount of particulate matter in the ~ atmosphere (PM10). This level of particulate matter most commonly reflects atmospheric particles of dust and smoke of a size likely to accumulate in the lungs. In ~ the Rural Resort Region, all areas measured are below state limits and have, in most ~ instances, improved over time. There is no PM10 measurement tracked in Lake County. ~ PM10 (Particulate Matter) In the Atmosphere Standard 50 ug/m3 (micro rams/cubic meter) ~ ~ Lxation 1992 Annua/ 1992 3- Year 1996 Annua/ 1996 3-Year 1 `........Avera9e.. . g•• ...:_..____Avera~.e_._ ~ Avera~e............ 6.Ypril ~ Eagle County ; Vail 19 20.0 18 17.3 ~ ~ Garfieid Courtty ~ Rifle 28 30.3 33 33.3 ~ Glenwood Springs : 25 27.0 19 21.0 ~ i Lake Courrty N/A N/A N/A N/A ; Pitkin County ~ ~ Aspen 40 35.3 19 29.3 ~ ~ Summit County Breckenridge 22 N!A 13 18.3 ~ Silverthorne N/A N/A 25 28.0 ~ Source: Colorado Department pf Public Heatth and Environment, Air Pollution Control Division (PM10 monitoring was not done in Lake County in the years cfted and was not done in ~ Silverthorne in 1992. The 3-year average for Breckenridge is not available for 1992.) ~ Building permits issued in the Rural Resort Region reflect population trends. Variances C in the way permits are recorded make comparisons befinreen the counties problematic, ~ but overall trends in the individual counties and the region can be determined. ~ Total Building Permits Issued Area 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 ~ Eagle County 1,129 1,427 1,502 1,784 2.111 G Garfie{d County 269 333 403 366 418 ~ Lake County 61 69 109 132 115 ~ Pitkin County 26 476 484 456 qsp Summit County 329 Sgg 1,004 882 1,061 Rural Resort Region 1814 2,843 3,502 3,620 4,155 Source: Building Departments in Eagle, Garteld, Lake, Summit and Pitkin Cour~ies Municipal building departments in individual counties where appropriate. 12 . RURAL PESORT REGION ~ ~ EITVIRONMENT ccorrrrr~'L-En> ~ ~ Wildlife populations aiso are impacted by growth, particularly as building occurs in breeding and wintering areas and along traditional migration routes. Population 3 changes may reflect a variety of issues, including severe weather, human population impacts and changing wildlife management criteria. ~ ~ Big Garrie Populations (Post Hunt Area 1990 1992 1994 1996 1990s Avera e :3 State Deer 600,600 574,400 539,300 547,000 560,329 2 Elk 185,500 211,300 196,200 216,300 201,086 Eagle County (Areas D-8, D-14IE-12) 28,139 22.963 18,255 22,158 22,205 ~ Deer Elk 4,237 3,832 3,663 3,704 3,859 3 Garfield County (Areas D-12, D-42, D-43, D-531E-6) Deer 72,757 58,641 463423 52,356 55,093 ~ EIk 35,287 32,877 31,620 32,219 34,088 Lake County (Areas D-15/E-17) peer 6,890 5,643 5,562 5,512 5,885 ~ EIk 2,421 2,343 2,202 2,015 2,282 ~ Pitkin County {Areas D-131E-15} Deer 13,460 12.694 10,019 11,090 11,452 Elk 4,888 4,596 4,742 4,113 4,580 ~ Summit County (Areas D-91E-13) 10,978 11,022 11,613 Deer 13, 053 11, 573 6,037 5,144 5,992 ~ Elk 6,248 6,331 Source: Colorado Division of Wildl'rfe ~ Another measure of the impact of population growth is the amount of solid waste ~ accumulating in area landfills. The hope, over time, is that increased consumer ~ awareness and recycling will keep the rate of increase in landfill volumes below the rate of population gain. ~ Landfill Volumes (Cubic yards per year) Area 1993 1994 1995 1996 Eagie County 247,135 282,795 312,459 369,649 Gafield County 105,330 135,556 148,257 156,074 Lake County 6,900 7,949 12,400 13,000 Pitkin County 140,000 150,000 153,000 152,000 ~ Summit County 157,000 192,933 198,241 232,487 Rural Resort Region 656,365 769,233 824,357 923,210 ~ Sources: Eagle Coun P tk n Counry R'esource Reco Landfill, La eC O~DiTyposal~ & B dge Dept Twin Landfi I Corp. (Summit CouMy) ~ ~ Linkages: People and the way they choose to live impact their natural surroundings. ~ Adjustments to their lifestyle, such as the location and amount of development, recycling, gas log fireplaces and less sand on the roadways can help mitigate harmful ~ impacts on the environment. =2 ~ 13 ~ t i RURAL RESORT REGION HEAL'rH Access to quality, affordable health care is of national concern, and no exception in the ~ Rural Resort Region. Most recent statistics indicate that 16% of all Coloradans are ( uninsured. In 1993, 22% were or had been uninsured at some time during the previous ~ year. . ~ Businesses Offering Health Insurance Plans . ~ Colorado - 50+ employees 95% ' RRR - 50+ employees (estimated) 88% Colorado - all employees 57% ~ RRR - all employees 53% Colorado - less than 5 employees 39% [ RRR - less than 5 em lo ees estimated 36% I Source: 1993 Robert Wood Johnson Survey t ~ ~ Of concern, and perhaps an area demanding more public education, is that 23% of our region's population is offered employment-based health insurance but not participating ~ in these programs. ~ { ~ Percent of Employees Offered and Enrolled in ` Empioyment-Based Health Insurance ~ ! 90% ` 8A96 ¦ 70% 60% ~ ~ ! ~ 4096 co ~ tO ~ `w 3096 O 7E '5 ~ 20% W c w 1096 ~ 0% Region Region Statewide Statewide ~ Estimate Estimate Source: 1993 Robert Wood Johnson Survey 9 ! 14 ~ ~ il ~ - RURAL RLSORT REGION . ~ HEALTH ccoNmr-UEv> ~ Medicaid enroliment levels indicate the number of residents who receive health care via government assistance: 1996 Medicaid Enrollment . : . : <:>::::::>::::>::::;>:>:>:<_::>:<:::>::>:N .::::u1#t<> . . ~y:. ::T~. ~ . ~ . PU . . ~ Eagle County 549 1.8% . . . ~ Lake County 254 3.2% - . ~.~.>z.:>':>::'_:<:`:<`:::>::= . ~ Summit County 148 0.8% #3~<:' : ...:::~:~k?>::: '~:::=:::.....r . . . >::>::::>::::::>;»:<<»::>::::::::>;::::: . . Statewicte 6.5°!0 ~ Source: Colorado Department of Local Affairs, Division of Local Govemment ~ However, finding physicians, dentists and other medical providers who will accept =3 Medicaid patients is a difficult task, due to the low reimbursement rate offered to these providers. The following numbers include both Medicaid and Medicare providers; =3 please note that many will accept Medicare (elderly) but not Medicaid patients, based on different reimbursement rates. ~ ~ 1997 Medicaid/Medicare Providers County Physicians Non Physician Specialists Dentists Hospice/ Home Clinicsl Practitioners (Eye, Ear, Heakh Hospitals ~ (Midwives, etc.) Nose, Chiropractic, ~ etc Ea le 28 1 1 4 ~y Garfield 53 16 9 7 2 5 ~i Lake 3 2 2 2 1 2 Pitkin 27 2 1 2 1 4 ~ Summit 27 8 4 3 2 1 Rural Resort R ion 138 28 14 15 7 16 ~ Source: Colorado Department of Social Services ~ The physician self-reporting procedure from which this data was gathered is of questionable accuracy. However, by simply applying the number of Medicaid patients ~ to the number of report providers (Medicaid/Medicare combined), the following patient- to-provider ratios are derived: ~ Phvsicians HosqitallClinics 20 to 1 Eagle County 137 to 1 ~ 38 to 1 Garfield County 401 to 1 85 to 1 Lake County 127 to 1 ~ 4 to 1 Pitkin County 25 to 1 5 to 1 Summit Countv 148 to 1 t3 22 to 1 Rural Resort Region Total 191 to 1 ~ Linkages: Quality health care is largely dependent on adequate insurarce coverage. ~ Areas that appear to warrant special attention include enrollment in employee-provided insurance plans, and reimbursement rates/provider participation in Medicaid programs. ~ ~ 15 tj - RURAL RESORT REGION ~ HOL'SING CONCERNS Long commutes to work, out of necessity or because of desire to live in a location away from the job, are a fact of life in the Rural Resort Region. Many times, this is driven by housing prices. The Colorado Division of Housing tracks rental and sales prices statewide and the . following graph demonstrates housing prices in the region. The Division of Housing tracks median sales prices, more accurately reflecting the marketplace availability, with equal numbers of units available betow and above the median price. ~ t E ! 1996 - Median Sales Price, Single Family Unit ! $400,000 c s350,000 S355°0° $350,000 $300,000 $250,000 $212,500 ~ $200,000 $165.000 ~ $150,000 $100,000 ~,667 ~ s5 0,000 $o ~ Eagle Garffeld Lake Pitkin Summit ~ Source: Colorado Department of Local Affairs, Division of Housing ~ ~ 1996 - Average Sales Price, Single Family Unit ~ $900,000 $800,000 a874,1a7 ~ $700,000 ~ $600,000 $soo,ooo $450,682 ~ $400,000 $300,000 s176,546 $215. 1sa $200,000 ~ $100, 000 L, m N!A $0 r Eagle Garfleld Lake Pitkin Summit ~ Source: Aspen Board of REALTORS; Summd Association of REAL70RS; ~ Glenwood Spnngs Board of REALTORS; Vail Board of REALTORS ~ ! 16 ~ ~ ~r RUI2AL RESORT REGION HOUSINC CONCERNS (CON-TINTUED) 3 3 Details of the labor market appear elsewhere in this study. Most of the jobs in the Rural Resort Region are in lower paying service and retail industries. The following ~ graphic demonstrates why many resort workers commute long distances to their jobs. 3 Number of Full Time Jobs Needed to Buy Average Single Family Unit -1997 ~ U, - ~ 6 ~ C C'i ' N C ~ 2 ~j E E CV w ~ 10 `b in Eagle ~ _ y 4 ~ E . ¦ Ga~eld (GS Y ; ) ~ N E 3 C3 Lake 0 Pitkin (ILspen) ~ 2 d ¦ Summit . : . ...:2: Y ;rrq . 1 . y ~ ~ 0 Jobs @ $10/hr Jobs @ 515Ihr ~ Source: Colorado Department of Local Affairs, Division of Housing ~ ~ There also are significant differences between resort communities and the "bedroom" counties when renting a pface to live. The following chart tracks average rents for units ~ of all sizes in the Rural Resort Region counties. ~ 1997 Average Monthly Rental for ~ Single Family Unit In Rural Resort Region ~ Eagle County $ 886 Garfield (Glenwood Springs) $ 569 ~ Lake County $ 404 ~ Pitkin (Aspen) $1,055 ummit ount 76$ ~ Source: Coloredo Department of Local Affairs, Division of Housing ~ Linkages: The varying cost of housing may be the most significant factor driving resort economics in neighboring counties. In the Rural Resort Region, workers often face the choice of holding multiple jobs or living in crowded conditions if they want to live where they work. Or, because they seek more affordable housing, residents commute from ~ GarField and Lake counties (or even from Kremmling, Buena Vista or Paonia) to work in ~ Summit, Eagle and Pitkin counties. ~ ~ 17 ~ . ~ RURAL RESORT REGION SAFETY ~ Safety becomes a primary concern in communities experiencing growth. This is* ~ magnified by a largely transitory population in resort areas. ~ The Rural Resort Region has seen increases in both traffic accidents and criminal ~ arrests as a direct result of area growth. Most significant is that all counties saw ` significant increases in juvenile crime in just one year, . t Traffic Accidents - Calendar Year 1995 ~ ..------••-•---••--•~CountY .....................:........---.--....1990 Total........-.------.;.....__...._..... 1995 Total_ Percent lncrease...... Eagle 787 ' 1048 : 33°k ~ Garfield 784, 960 _ 22°k Lake 98 ` 111 : 13% Pitkin 626 ; 627: 0% ~ Summit 691 ; 1001 : 45% Rural Resort Region 2986 ; 3747 : 25°k ~ State Total 81371 ? 98424 : 21 % Source: Colorado Department of Transportation ~ Adult and Juvenile Criminal Arrests ~ County Adult Juvenile Adult Juvenile % Juvenife % Increase- % Increase - ~ Arrests - Arrests - Arrests - Arrests - Crime of Juvenile Adutt 1995 1995 1996 1996 Total Arrests Arrests ~ Ea le 543 17 837 28 3% 65% 54% ~ Garfield 350 ~ 40 478 44 10°k 1046 37°r6 ~ Lake 42 3 17 5 14°k 67% 60°~ lc Pitkin 263 6 262 9 29% 50% - ~ Summit 300 19 441 21 5% 11% 47°r6 ~ Total 1498 85 2035 107 5% 26% 36% ~ Combined 1583 2142 35% Combined Saurce: Colorado Department of Public Satety, Division of Criminal Justice ~ C (NOTE: In 1995 and 1996, most Colorado counties and municipalities converted from ~ a traditional method for crime reporting, which impacts comparative analysis and may lead to lower than expected figures for recent years. ) ~ ~ 18 ~ ~ ~ RURAL RESORT REGION 3 SAFETY tcorrrir-uEn> 3 ~ The Rural Resort Region includes the majority of finro Colorado Judicial Districts - the 5th and 9th. Colorado's 5th Judicial District includes Eagle, Lake and Summit counties ~ (plus Clear Creek County); Colorado's 9`h Judicial District includes Garfield and Pitkin counties (plus Rio Blanco County). The following charts illustrate that while the region 3 . has experienced a drop in new probation cases since 1992-93, increases have been 04 realized in the number of.active probation cases, criminal and juvenile delinquency filings. , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 5 ~ New Probation Cases pTo9th tall Active Probation Cases p 9th 1500 pTotal ~ 800 soo ; 1000 ~ aoo I 200 (p . ~ . :N o ~ 0 I 92-93 95-96 i 92-93 95-96 ~ ~ Crimina! Filings a5cn ¦stn ~ 0 gth Juveniie Deiinquency Filings p9th ? Total ~ ? Total ~ i 1000 _ _ i _ 800 , . _ ~ 800 ; 600 • ~ 600 Ii 400 ~ 4400 ~ cmn ~ cmo ac~i ~ I 2M ~ cLn~n ~ I 200 ~ ~ . 0 ~ 92-93 95-96 j j 92-93 95-96 Source: Colorado Department of Public Safety, Division of Criminal Justice A 2 Linkages: Quality of life is threatened in communities when the level of personal Is safety and security drops. With pace-setting growth rates in the Rural Resort Region, communities will be required to invest additional resources to ensure safety for the :2 area's residents and visitors. ~ ~ 19 ~ _ RURAL RESORT REGION 11 . ~ r TRANSPORTATION ~ t t Transportation becomes a major concern in a region with commuting workers. Rura! ~ Resort Region assets include a major highway (I-70) and several communities with extensive public transportation systems; difFiculties include treacherous driving ~ conditions and construction delays, coupled with great distances (152 linear miles of I- 70 corridor). t ~ Commute Times from Select Communities to Resort Areas t Distance 75 mph 0 mph 45 mph 30 mph Eagle County t Gypsum Vail 30 minutes 40 minutes 50 minutes 1 hr. 15 minutes Garfield County ~ Rifle Aspen N/A 1 hour 1 hr. 25 minutes 2 hours Glenwood Springs-' Aspen N/A 45 minutes 55 minutes 1 hr. 25 minutes ~ Lake County Leadville-? Vail N/A N/A 40 mmutes 1 hr. 20 minutes Leadville Breckenridge N/A N1A 50 minutes 1 hr. 40 minutes t: Source: Third Sector Innor2tiorts ~ ~ ~ Other less common commutes include those from outside the five-county region: C Fairplay (Park County)Breckenridge 23 miles ~ Kremmling (Grand County)._~ Breckenridge 52 miles ~ . Buena Vista (Chaffee County) ~ Breckenridge 59 miles Paonia (Delta County) Aspen 83 miles ~ Grand Junction (Mesa County)? Aspen 132 miles Source: Third Sector Innovations ~ c ic It it E ~ ic C 24 It ~ ~ - RURAL RESORT REGION ~ TRA?\ SPORTATION ccorrrir~-vEn> ~ ~ Mass transit is most readily availabie in the resort communities. Additionally, some employer/resort areas provide regular bus services during tourism season from the ~j outlying eommunities. ~ Major providers and their riderships are noted: ~ . . ~ Mass Transit Service In Re ion Transit Service 1992 1993 1995 1996 Annual °k Estimated % ~ Increase Residents (vs. vsitors Avon-13C Transit (Avon, BC, 1,036,227 1,270,172 1,443,309 1,270,470 •10% 4296 ~ Ea le Co u from 3596 in 1992 Vail Transit (Vail Valley, Eagle 2,634,696 2,405,522 (9%) 42°16 ~ Co RFTA (Aspen, Basatt, Carbondale, 2,167,411 3,731,037 18% 74% Glenwood Springs, Eagle, Garfield, (up from 68% in 1992) ~ Pitkin cos. Summit Stage (Copper Mountain, 432,064 934,367 29% 73% ~ Frisco, Dilbn, Silverthorne, (up from 47% in 1992) 8reckenridge, ICeystone, Summit Co ~ Sources: Town of Vail Trensd, Summd Stage, Roaring Fork Transit Agency, Avon-Beaver Creek Transit ' 1996 drop in ridership resutted from 65% loss of contract with 8eaver Creek Resorts. Despite this drop, overall ridership, number of routes and number of runs all have continuously increased. ~ ~ ~ All transit groups provide fixed route and some demand services; ~ disabled/handicapped and elderly transportation; services to residential areas. Hours of operation vary by season but generally offer service 18-22 hourslday, seven days ~ each, week. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Linkages: For those residing in resort communities, publicly provided transportation options are readily accessible and available. However, these options do not cover the 2 vast distances that many commuters face daily. The Roaring Fork Valley (Glenwood Springs/Aspen corridor) is the only area within the region with significant services for ~ commuters. ~ ~ Z 21 Z ~ RURAL RESORT REGION WORKFORCE ~ Job availability, in addition to the environment and lifestyle, is a driving force behind ~ population growth in the Rural Resort Region. With the exception of Lake County, ~ each of the region's counties outpaced statewide job expansion from 1991-1996, but at wage scales significantly below the statewide average. ~ Job Growth in the Rural Resort Re ion ~ Coun 1991 Jobs 1996 Jobs ' % Chan e ~ . . . ' Eagle 15,119 22,612 : 49.6 % Gartield 11,981 15,487: 29.3% ~ Lake 1,940 2,083 : 7.4% Pitkin 11,822 14,929 : 26.3% Summit 12,132 16,499 : 26.0% f Region Total 52,994 ' 71,610 ; 27.72% Colorado 1,526,382 1, 873, 725 : 22. 896 ~ Source: Colorado Department of Labor and Employment Avera e Wage 9 County WMH . .:1991 Wage % State Averaye : 1998 Wage X Slate Awesrage ........................................_.......~..._......__..._t~ c Eagle $19,421 76.896 $24,309 85296 Garfield $20,651 86.1 % $23,360 78.4'!6 Lake $19.257 80.39b $20,134 70.696 ~ Pitkin $21,195 88.4% $25,575 89.7% Sunrnit $16.286 67.996 $19,838 69.696 ~ Calorada $23,979 10096 $28,517 100% 5ource: Colorado Department of Labor and Employment ~ Average wages in the region, while below the state average, are still above most ~ guidelines for many assistance programs, creating a population of "the working poor." Most jobs, as many as 70% in some Rurai Resort Region counties, are in the lower- ~ paying service and retail sectors. While these jobs may pay more than similar work elsewhere in Colorado, the difference seldom makes up for the higher cost of living in ~ resort areas. Even within the region, significant salary differences from county-to- t county promote travel to better paying areas. 1996 Average Wage in Top 5 Job Categories If (152 line percentage of jobs in category; 2nd line average wage in category) ~ County Services Construction Retail ~ Financial/ Wholesale TranspoRation Agriculture/ ~ Insurance/ Cormnunication Forestry/ Real Estate Public Utilities Fish lc Ea le 35.4% 14.596 25.1 % 8.3% 3.1 % $23,819 $31,140 $18,111 $27,906 $24,999 ~ Garfield 25.0% 12.796 24.496 5.4% 3.9% $22 357 $27,717 $16,606 $25,970 $24.515 Lake 23.5% 7.1 % 18.896 3.5% 1.7% ~ $15 330 $22,471 $11,112 $16,714 $26,208 Pitkin 38.7% 26.996 8.9% 3.196 1.3% ~ $24.379 $18,486 $37,592 $29,394 $23,876 Summit 42.1 % 7.2% 29.7% 7.0% 0.1 $17,925 $30,210 $15,283 $26,243 $25.054 Colorado 27.3% 1.6% 26.096 7.9% 2.096 5.5% 1.196 $18.555 $32.783 $13,053 $24,004 $33,091 $32,693 $15,206 ~ Source: Colorado Department of Labor and Employment C ~ r - RURAL RESORT REGION WORKFORCE WorMNuEV> The following two graphics show the impacts of commuting in the Rural Resort Region. Counties housing the resorts have a surplus of jobs, while Lake and Garfield counties have more workers than jobs. The resulting commuter lifestyles help create the many issues discussed in the various sections of this report. i ~ ~ Workers Imported (Exporbed) By County 1991/1997 ~ 50 ~ 40 33.1322:: ~ i 30 ~ 20 ~ County ~ Local : Local : Local : Local io Jobs : Workers : Jobs : Workers . . . ~ 1991 : 1951 : 1997 ' 1997 o ~ o~agie Pitk~n. sumn* Eagle : 15,119 ; 12,683 : 22,612 : 17,046 1 ; Garfield : 11,981 : 15,901 : 15,487 ; 20,555 i' 20 ~ Lake 1,940: 2,896: 2,083: 3,208 ~ Pitkin ~ 12,132 : 7,048 : 14,929 ; 8,417 ~ Summit : 12,136 : 8,122 : 16,499 ' 11,184 ~-40 Imported (6cported) Workers 1991 ¦ % Imported (Exported) Workers 1997 I ~ . ~ Source: Colorado Department of Labor and Employment ~ ~ ~ ~ Linkages: Available jobs, higher costs of living and the inability to meet these costs at ~ current satary levels create the commuter lifestyle that many workers in the Rural ~ Resort Region live on a day-to-day basis. Working in a resort community (which enjoys higher property and sales tax revenues to finance public services) and living in a ~ "bedroom" county (which must provide services to those workers without benefiting ~ from these higher tax revenues) creates the imbaiance the Rural Resort Region is ~ attempting to address. ~ A ~ ~ 23 , ~ . i ~ - RURAL RESORT REGION , F r SAFETY ~ State of Colorado Department of Transportation, 4201 E. Arkansas Avenue, Denver, CO 80222 State of Colorado Department of Public Safety, Division of C?iminal Justice, 700 Kipling St., Suite 3000, ~ Denver, CO 80215 ~ TRANSPORTATION ~ State of Colorado Department of Transportation, 4201 E. Arkansas Avenue, Denver, CO 80222 Town of Vail Transit, 75 S. Frontage Road, Vail, CO 81658 ~ Summit Stage, 0222 SC Road 1004, Frisco, CO 80443 Roaring Fork Transit Agency, 51 Service Center Drive, Aspen, CO 81611 Avon-Beaver Creek Transit, PO Box 1726, 500 Swift Gulch, Avon, CO 81620 WORKFORCE ~ State of Colorado Department of Labor and Employment, 1515 Arapahoe Street, Tower 2, Suite 700, ~ Denver, CO 80202 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~S ~ ~ ~ `6 ~ ~ ariW~WU ui , 14 Y XC~ • 7 SUNDAY, MAY 17, 1998 ' National ~ 0:h e NQut ~"k F~Pi ~ y Pol [ ~ A By I Jam , k_ though °'~~~~a< ~ ,ti• ~SFS~n~'x' .3~' ~ ; of 5 ir: tures c ° back N: Mr. F would outlanc " Afte, . naissar spent ~ • :~v E~~~,~~ line pil 11I'. BI two da 18, 199 airline z X'~ ~Q_ tA «I m who st vate je home '.e---° ~ haulin, At .~•y~.,~~F~ ~~.F~,' ~ "n ~ ~P'~ .,j '~..~Yw~;. L1V1Ilg gress . ~ retire; ' . . . 4 . when . . ..r.. a.x9A ,.m E Sy~Y Pho[ographs by Kevin Moloney for 2he New York Times abOllt Aspen's residential real estate prices are the nation's highest. Michael Hoffman, a real estate lawyer, with his Feder: wife, Sharon, and son, Noah, 8, inspected their new Aspen home, which should be finished later this month. still fri age 6f ,,-ubsidies for Hih-Income FamilieS aThe . g appli~ By JAMES BROOKE ing ground for the super rich," said Pilots, . ASPEN, Colo., May 11 - On a Dave Tolen, director of the Aspen/ Promc sunny afternoon, a Porsche, a BMW In Aspen, where pitkin County Housing Office. Using disput atid two Mercedeses sparkled in the housing is sky two approaches, the city buys land ~dn~t tenant parking lot of this city's larg- and buitds units for sale or rent, or it est public housing project. y,lg Salal~leS forces develo~rs to reserve 70 ~r no me, . Up the hill, Michael and Sharon hlghU , cent of new units for the affordable Still Hoffman inspected construction housing program. mainti are no bar to aid. Under the housin ro ram, a sophis town work on house, their a new three-city-bedroom unit subsidized three-bedroom duplex atthe base of a°d at wfith views of Aspen Mountain. the ski mountain recently sold for detern "We couldn't afford to live in As- starts to enforce a twaweek maxi- $180,000. On the free market, it could might pen without this program," said Mr. mum stay rule at local camp- have fetched $3 million. Resale cov- cockpi Hoffman, a real estate lawyer. "The grounds. enants on housing program units tion" t gay next door has a computer busi- "Affordable housing is absolutely limit price increases to 3 percent a Torr overto ness. The guy next to him is an fundamental to our efforts to keep year. ~ough the city is short of its goal will a~ engineer." I Aspen real," said John Bennett, As- • of providing subsidized housing to 60 t'?e aF The Hoffmans and their neighbors pen's Mayor, who has seen about 70, conten ualified for subsidized housing b percent of local workers, progress is 4 Y percent of the city's private housing being made. For the first time since the F faliing below the city's maximum become vacation homes. "We don't the 1970's, Aspen's public school dis- crimit ir?come cutoff -$118,000 a year for a Want to be just an empty theme park, trict is operating at capacity, 1,300 choose family with two children. full of houses that are occupied only students, reflecting the return of three-i ' Welcome to Aspen, home of the a few weeks out of the year. We want #amilies to town. States tnost expensive residential real es- to remain a real-life town, with liv- °°For the first time I feel the log- last J cate in the nation. Last year, the ing, breathing people who have real jam breaking up a Iittle bit," said older typical home here sold for $1.5 mil- jobs." Weems Westfeldt, an Aspen-area ski If lion -12 times the national avPraQQ. _ Aspen residents joke that their school director who is trying to move Why c I l; i in Aspen are just blue- town is divided into two groups: peo- from Basalt, about 15 miles away, to saia "Doctors bf th? ~ collar workers," said Mallory Harl- ple With three jobs, and people with Aspen, where his 12-year-old triplets tion, necologist who three houses. are in school. "People like us would iAg , an obstetrician-gy ,I.hE s in public housing with his wife, Without the housing program, As- Weework.e closer to the town where OPPOS live ` Naren. pen would become an elephant bury- F.A.A Aspen has built public housing - and s the polite term here is "affordable not cc housing" - for about 3,000 people, 50 ! tics. percent of its year-round population. whic Full-time county residents who meet try's the income requirements can pur- . „ lots, age-E chase or rent homes for well under bigg~ market prices. ~ Un : "IYs easy to lampoon Aspen," said belie~Myles Rademan, spokesman for o~e Park' City, Utah, town strugglinganother Rocky ~ cen Mountain resort with a severe shortage of affordable , ~y ~ cult housing. moI., ` But.they are just 10 years ahead , yof the other towns," he said, refer- capt ring to Aspen's efforts. "We have Don built units, Vail has built units. the Steamboat is talking about it." w~, With "Aspenization" a scare word w~ in the region, the saga of roaring reai ~e estate prices in Rocky Mountain re- S sorts can best be told in this silver has mining town, built over a century ago ~ at the end of a box canyon, at the top z. exc of the Roaring F Western ymountain ~ ~n As in many cer towns, about SO percent of the valley an is owned by the Federal Govern- ment, held as National Forest Serv- jo ice land. The remaining 20 percent of an privately held land has been subject br ~ to strict growth controls, starting 0 to two decades ago. , . The result has been soaring prices pE for real estate. In 1996, a house at the pi base of Aspen Mountain sold for $9 Noah azed at his family's new subsidized home in spen, t~t V Hoffman g m million. Last summer, a house atop Where rents are on a par with those in Manhattan• ci Red Mountain sold for $19.7 million. to This spring a 67-acre ranch and m, house just outside town is on the ' SuS eCt r market for $24.8 miliion. Real estate agents sniff that $1 million will buy Trail Hikers Told of Bom l~ p oniy a"fixer-upper." Mr. Rudolph is the only suspect ~ which With about 80 percent of Aspen ANDREWS, N.C., May 16 (AP) ~t bom killed homes selling for cashne d to rent an Alabama abortion cliniclmay off-duty polce ing,off cer and seril a} wounded ously vacation homes feel no age have inic to localst ' sV~1 st Endtgw th chian uTra~lhas2an 160-escape route, Rudolph was last seen n Murphy, 0; payments AsPen f its $3 million cottages, is a mani- and Federal investigators cau- N.C., the day after the eacplosion. ~ cured ghost town. Sometimes, after a tioned hikers that he might be Fliers were tacked uP night snowfall, tire tracks are not hiding in the mountains of west- ply points along the Appalachian seen on streets until midmorning. ern North Carolina. Trail, Mr. Turchie said. Agents T'he suspect, Eric Robert Ru- also distributed fliers at a week- par with Elsewhere New in York town, Cit rynts are on a dolph, 31, told acquaintances be- end festival in Damascus, Va., "I'm paying $1,240 for a one-bed- fore the bombing that he might v,,here about 10,000 hikers were room studio, about the same as what escape along the trail, a Federal expected to gather. I, was paying in Manhattan," said Bureau of Investigation inspec- Mr. Rudolph, an Army veteran Western Bonime, a New York fash- tor, Terry Turchie, said at a news and outdoorsman, is also being sought for questioning in connec- ion designer who moved here six conference on Friday. The F.B.I. months ago to tend bar. did not say whether Mr. Rudolph tion with other bombings, inciud- At the bar, the Motherlode, Ms. told anyone why he might need to ~ng the July 1996 bombing at the Bonime met a visitor from Sweden escape. 01 mpic Games in Atlanta. who coped with the housing shortage Investigators believe Mr. Ru- Investigators have received last winter by digging a snow cave. dolph may have used the trail, neW information and tips daily, Today> with spring warmth greening the said, since Mr. Rudolph was the aspens here, workers sometimes which elude a winds widespread through 14 hunt after states, to the added to the F.B.I.'s 10 Most sieep in cars, and the Forest Service bombing of the New Woman All Wanted List and a$i million re- Women Clinic in Birmingham, Ward was offered for hisArrest. Ala., on Jan. 29• THE FRESH AIR FUND: OVEN FIELDS/OPEN HEARTS C,~,{,.t,o ~ ~ WISTERNECEIVED JUN 0 1~ ~ WEATHER - CONSULTANTS, L LC. P.O. BOX 58 * DURANGO, COLORADO 81302-0058 * PHONE (970) 247-8813 Town Manager May 28, 1998 Town of Vail 75 So. Frontage Rd. Vail, Colorado 81657 RE: Cloud Seeding Contract-Vail Ski Area Town Manager: Enclosed is a copy of the Fina1 Report on the Cloud Seeding Operations for the Vail and Beaver Creek Ski Areas during this last winter. This Report is also being sent to the State for their records. If you have any quesrions, comments or suggestions for consideration in next season's program, please contact me at your convenience (1-800-394-5361). Thank You. Sincerely, Larry Hjermstad, Manager r ,~YZL ~ Western Weattier Consultants, LLC Enclosure VVFATNER NIODIFICATION ~ RESEARCH ~ FORECASTWG ~ CLIMATOLOGY CONSULTING METEOROLOGISTS TO BUSINESS - INDUSTRY - AGRICULTURE - GOVERNMENT , t ~ FINAL OPERATIONAL SEEDING SUMMARY REPORT for the CENTRAL COLORADO MOUNTAINS WEATHER MODIFICATION PROGRAM Sponsoring Organizations: Vail Associates, Inc. Town of Vail Beaver Creek Resort Company of Colorado Beaver Creek Associates, Incorporated Operational Period: November 1, 1997 - March 31, 1998 Program Conducted by: WESTERN WEATHER CONSULTANTS, LLC P.O. BOX 58 DURANGO, COLORADO 81302 May 27, 1998 _ .r. , , VAIL ASSOCIATES, INC., TOWN OF VAIL, BEAVER CREEK RESORT CO.OF COLORADO AND BEAVER CREEK ASSOCIATES, INC --1997-98 FOR THE VAIL AND BEAVER CREEK SKI AREAS The 1997-1998 winter season weather pattern in the United States was significantly influenced by El Niilo, a warming of the Peruvian coastal waters in the Pacific Ocean due to the slowing (or reversal) of the southern hemisphere's easterly winds. This slowing (or reversal) of the easterly winds inhibited the normal upwelling of deeper cooler ocean water. Moisture evaporated from the Pacific Ocean over the resulting warmer water was more abundant and at a closer proximity to the United States than normal which caused changes to the "normal" winter weather pattern. Generally, in an El Niiio year, higher precipitation amounts are seen at the Western coastal and mountainous regions and in the Southern U.S. In an El Niflo event, a split flow between the northern and southern jet streams occurs. This caused Western Colorado in particular to receive lower precipitation than normal during the 1997-98 winter season. El Nifto years generally have slightly higher precipitation in the Springtime for Western Colorado. There was extensive media coverage about El Nifto's potential for causing above normal snowfall in the Western mountainous areas (which may have included Colorado an a less intensive El Niho year. As it turned out, this winter's precipitation was well below normal in snowfall because of EI Niilo the split flow weather pattern did not allow for many seeding opportunities and many precipitation systems missed Colorado. ! . Operationat Summarv for 1997-98 Seeding Season Seeding Total Total Event Operational # of Gen. Rate Operating Calendar Seeding Total Grams No. tes erated (Grn/Hr) Period Davs Hour AGIOutput 1 Nov. 12, 1997 3 10 0900-2120 1 34:20 343.33 2 Nov. 17-18, 1997 5 7.5 2130-11:00 2 62:12 466.50 3 Nov. 19-21, 1997 8 5-7.5-10 1515-1000 3 225:50 1595.00_ 4 Nov. 21-22, 1997 9 5-7.5 1 S 15-1230 2 67:45 453.12 . 5 Dec. 09-10, 1997 3 5 0900-1030 2 74:30 372.50 6 Dec. 15-16, 1997 6 5 2100-1100 2 57:30 287.50 7 Dec. 27, 1997 5 5 1500-2230 1 33:30 167.50 8 Dec. 29, 1997 5 5-7.5 2105-2200 1 61:25 430.00 9 Jan. 02-03, 1998 3 10 2130-2100 2 59:00 590.00 10 ]an. O5, 1998 8 5-7.5 1130-2230 1 54:45 374.37 11 Jan. 08, 1998 3 5 1100-2130 1 27:15 136.25 12 Jan. 10-12, 1998 5 7.5-10 0945-1200 3 194:15 1692.50 13 Jan. 12-14, 1998 4 5-7.5 2130-2100 3 99:30 655.00 14 Jan. 15-16, 1998 5 7.5-10 1000-0900 Z 99:15 867.08 15 Jan. 16-17, 1998 8 7.5-10 2100-2200 2 180:45 1713.12 16 Jan. 22, 1998 4 5 1200-2200 1 31:30 157.50 17 Jan. 24-25, 1998 6 5-7.5 1200-1000 2 88:00 538.75 18 Feb. O5, 1998 5 7.5 0750-1800 1 42:10 316.25 19 Feb. 07-08, 1998 4 10 1700-1145 2 50:00 500.00 20 Feb. 09-10, 1998 5 5-7.5 0900-2100 2 93:15 643.75 21 Feb. 11, 1998 4 7.5 1145-2215 1 37:00 277.50 22 Feb. 22-24, 1998 6 7.5 1400-0800 3 152:30 1143.75 23 Feb. 25-26, 1998 9 5 0830-0945 2 106:30 532.50 . 24 • Mar. 03-05, 1998 5 5-7.5 0900-0830 3 213:50 1246.25 25 Mar. t 8-19, 1998 5 5-7.5 0900-1810 2 98:00 570.42 26 Mar. 27, 1998 6 7.5 0800-2200 1 69:10 518.75 27 Mar. 30-31, 1998 5 5-7.5 2030-1200 2 62:25 435.63 TOTALS 50 2376:07 17024.83 Below is a table listing the monthly current, normal and percent of normal liquid water equivalent from the SNOTEL site for Vail Mountain. Date urren Averaae % of Av¢. Dec. 1, 1997 4.7 4.8 98 Jan. 1, 1998 6.7 8.9 75 Feb. 1, 1998 8.6 13.0 66 March 1, 1998 12.3 16.9 73 April 1, 1998 16.1 21.8 74 JLqY 10 ' 98 11 :22AM V A PLAN CONST P. 22 Y-~ ' TL RECEIVEp juN 1998 , 17ate: Town Council Bob Armour M'ichael.Arnett . _ Kevin Foley Rob Porc, Mayor M'ichae.l 7ewett Ludwig Kurz • Sybif Navas Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorddo 81657 Aear Couacil Members; As proparty awners in tlae Tawn of Vail, we are in strong support of the Town's efforts in connecbion with the Y'adl Tomorrow initiative with the goal of enhancing the overall quality of our town and promoting Vail's desired image of a world class community. In the spirit of supporting the Town's gaals, we commend artd support the Council's recognition af the need to regulate the parlduig of recreational vehicles (RV's) within the Town iimits. We believe RV's, when parked for long periods or germanmtly, detract from the image of the Town and negatively affect property values and enjoymern of our mountain environment, We support a new regulation v??hich would limit the padcing/storage of RV's of more than . 20 feex in lengtlL We belierre these large vehicles should be allowed to park within the Town of Vai1, for e,xample, for no u,ore than thrce (3) conaecative davs in any 34-dav pCnO(1. The 20-foot limit should inctude not oniy the RV itself but also any towing or towed vehiclc. We believe a flexzble regulation such as ttris would be a reasonable accommodation for RV owners. We appreciate the Toam Council's consideration ofr this matter and #hc importance that a favorable action on the part of the Town Council will have on the future of our T~own. ~ Sineerely, i 4Name i el. V' r? / f,' ' o SignatUrC Address ~ RECEIVED JUN 1 1 1998 1672 Matterhorn Circle Vail, CO 81657 June 10, 1998 Rob Ford Mayor Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Dear Mr. Ford: In attending the June session of the Vail Common Ground Workshop, we were shocked and outraged at the Town's proposals for new affordable housing in Matterhom's Donovan Pazk. We support the Town's efforts to create affordable housing, and, in the April Common Ground Gv'orkshop, we supported placing affordable housing in our neighborhood (.'Viatterhom). However, in making that recommendation, it was inconceivable to us that the Town could even imagine putting 60 new beds in the 2.3 acre middle bench of Donovan park (presumably about 30 new units, assuming equal numbers of 1, 2 and 3-bedroom units). That level of densiiy is wildly inappropriate for a duplex and primary-secondary neighborhood like Matterhorn, and vastly beyond what the Town would allow for any private individual or developer. Moreover, we were stunned by the extremely heavy dependence on Donovan Pazk as a potential site for new affordable housing. If we eYClude Timber Ridge from the calculation of new beds (because it is already a high-density housing site in a special development district), four of the five alternatives presented by the Town call for 24% to 61 % of the new affordable housing beds to be located in Donovan Pazk (24% for Altemarive E, 30% for Alternative B, 41 % for Alternarive A and 61 % for Alternative C). That is an excessive burden for one small part of one small neighborhood in a town of Vail's size to beaz in the effort to provide affordable housing, particularly when all of the neighborhood's homeowners had every reason to believe that Donovan Park would remain permanently designated as pazk or open space, and paid prices for their property which reflected that universally-held belief. The most galling aspect of this is that the Town tells us that other parl:s (like Bighom Park), which have the same zoning designarion Donovan Park, cannot be considered as affordable housing sites because they have been "improved." Thus, instead of being compensated for the Town's past neglect, we are to , be penalized for it. Another frightening aspect of making Matterhorn a high-density housing neighborhood is that when private re-development begins (and we espect it soon), the Town will have little incentive to prevent crearion of privately-developed high-density housing. Let us reiterate. We aze not opposed to affordable housing. We are not opposed to affordable housing in our neighborhood. We are opposed to the high density of the housing proposed for Matterhorn, and we are opposed to the very high percentage of new affordable housing units to be concentrated in Matterhom. Si elv ~ / ~ Guy Ayr t Sally A. Jackle/ ~ cc All Other Vail Town Council Members Russell Fonest and Andv Knudtsen, Community Development Department Vail Daily, Vail Trail, Vail Valley Times ~ Date: Town Council Bob Armour Michael Arnett Kevin Foley Rob Ford, Mayor Michael Jewett Ludwig Kurz Sybil Navas Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Dear Council Members: As property owners in the Town of Vail, we are in strong support of the Town's efforts in connection with the Vail Tomorrow initiative with the goal of enhancing the overall quality of our town and promoting Vail's desired image of a world class community. In the spirit of supporting the Town's goals, we commend and support the Council's recognition of the need to regulate the parking of recreational vehicles (RV's) within the Town limits. We believe RV's, when parked for long periods or permanently, detract from the image of the Town and negatively affect property values and enjoyment of our mountain environment. We support a new regulation which would limit the parking/storage of RV's of more than 20 feet-in length. We believe these large vehicles should be allowed to park within the Town of Vail, for example, for no more than three (3) consecutive davs in anv 30-dav eriod. The 20-foot limit should include not only the RV itself but also any towing or towed vehicle. We believe a flexible regulation such as this would be a reasonable accommodation for RV owners. We appreciate the Town Council's consideration of this matter and the importance that a favorable action on the part of the Town Council will have on the future of our Town. Sincerely, Name Signature f Address _ ~ y'3 Date: (o • ~ v• 4 8 Town Council Bob Armour Michael Arnett Kevin Foley Rob Ford, Mayor ` Michael Jewett Ludwig Kurz • Sybil Navas Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Dear Council Members: As property owners in the Town of Vail, we are in strong support of the Town's efforts in connection with the Vail Tomorrow initiative with the goal of enhancing the overall quality of our town and promoting Vail's desired image of a world class community. In the spirit of supporting the Town's goals, we commend and support the Council's recognition of the need to regulate the parking of recreational vehicles (RV's) within the Town limits. We believe RV's, when parked for long periods or permanently, detract from the image of the Town and negatively affect property values and enjoyment of our mountain environment. We support a new regulation which would limit the parking/storage of RV's of more than 20 feet in length. We believe these large vehicles should be allowed to park within the Town of Vail, for example, for no more than three (3) consecutive davs in anv 30-day eriod. The 20-foot limit should include not only the RV itself but also any towing or towed vehicle. We believe a flexible regulation such as this would be a reasonable accommodation for RV owners. We appreciate the Town Council's consideration of this matter and the importance that a favorable action on the part of the Town Council will have on the future of our Town. Sincerely, Name 6-Co,2Uf_ S- 3 Signature Address Slsi /1'1+,,,i ('ryQ-t_ /)2. ~ Date: Town Council Bob Armour Michael Arnett Kevin Foley Rob Ford, Mayor Michael Jewett ' Ludwig Kurz - Sybil Navas Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Dear Council Members: As property owners in the Town of Vail, we are in strong support of the Town's efforts in connection with the Vail Tomorrow initiative with the goal of enhancing the overall - quality of our town and promoting Vail's desired image of a world class community. In the spirit of supporting the Town's goals, we commend and support the Council's recognition of the need to regulate the parking of recreational vehicles (RV's) within the Town limits. We believe RV's, when parked for long periods or permanently, detract from the image of the Town and negatively affect property values and enjoyment of our mountain environment. We support a new regulation which would limit the parking/storage of RV's of more than 20 feet in length. We believe these large vehicles should be allowed to park within the Town of Vail, for example, for no more than three (3) consecutive davs in anv 30-dav ep riod. The 20-foot limit should include not only the RV itself but also any towing or towed vehicle. We believe a flexible regulation such as this would be a reasonable accommodation for RV owners. We appreciate the Town Council's consideration of this matter and the importance that a favorable action on the part of the Town Council will have on the future of our Town. Sincerely, Name Signature Address ~j0 re Date: Town Council Bob Armour Michael Arnett Kevin Foley Rob Ford, Mayor , Michael Jewett Ludwig Kurz Sybil Navas Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Dear Council Members: As property owners in the Town of Vail, we are in strong support of the Town's efforts in connection with the Vail Tomorrow initiative with the goal of enhancing the overall quality of our town and promoting Vail's desired image of a world class community. In the spirit of supporting the Town's goals, we commend and support the Council's recognition of the need to regulate the parking of recreational vehicles (RV's) within the Town limits. We believe RV's, when parked for long periods or permanently, detract from the image of the Town and negatively affect property values and enjoyment of our mountain environment. We support a new regulation which would limit the parking/storage of RV's of more than 20 feet in length: We believe these large vehicles should be allowed to park within the Town of Vail, for example, for no more than three (3) consecutive davs in anv 30 dav eriod. The 20-foot limit should include not only the RV itself but also any towing or towed vehicle. We believe a flexible regulation such as this would be a reasonable accommodation for RV owners. We appreciate the Town Council's consideration of this matter and the importance that a favorable action on the part of the Town Council will have on the future of our Town. Sincerely, Name Signature Address Date: Town Council Bob Armour Michael Arnett Kevin Foley Rob Ford, Mayor Michael Jewett Ludwig Kurz - Sybil Navas Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Dear Council Members: As property owners in the Town of Vail, we are in strong support of the Town's efforts in connection with the Vail Tomorrow initiative with the goal of enhancing the overall quality of our town and promoting Vail's desired image of a world class community. In the spirit of supporting the Town's goals, we commend and support the CounciPs recognition of the need to regulate the parking of recreational vehicles (RV's) within the Town limits. We believe RV's, when parked for long periods or permanently, detract from the image of the Town and negatively affect property values and enjoyment of our mountain environment. We support a new regulation which would limit the parking/storage of RV's of more than 20 feet in length. We believe these large vehicles should be allowed to park within the Town of Vail, for example, for no more than three (3) consecutive davs in anv 30-dav eriod. The 20-foot limit should include not only the RV itself but also any towing or towed vehicle. We believe a flexible regulation such as this would be a reasonable accommodation for RV owners. We appreciate the Town Council's consideration of this matter and the importance that a favorable action on the part of the Town Council will have on the future of our Town. Sincerely, V ' Name ignature Address 5 / l Date: Town Council Bob Armour Michael Arnett Kevin Foley Rob Ford, Mayor Michael Jewett Ludwig Kurz Sybil Navas Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Dear Council Members: As property owners in the Town of Vail, we are in strong support of the Town's efforts in connection with the Vail Tomorrow initiative with the goal of enhancing the overall quality of our town and promoting Vail's desired image of a world class community. In the spirit of supporting the Town's goals, we commend and support the Council's recognition of the need to regulate the parking of recreational vehicles (RV's) within the Town limits. We believe RV's, when parked for long periods or permanently, detract from the image of the Town and negatively affect property values and enjoyment of our mountain environment. We support a new regulation which would limit the parking/storage of RV's of more than 20 feet in length. We believe these large vehicles should be allowed to park within the Town of Vail, for example, for no more than three (3) consecutive davs in anv 30-dav eriod. The 20-foot limit should include not only the RV itself but also any towing or towed vehicle. We believe a flexible regulation such as this would be a reasonable accommodation for RV owners. We appreciate the Town Council's consideration of this matter and the importance that a favorable action on the part of the Town Council will have on the future of our Town. Sincerely, Name Signature Address Date: J-, Town Council Bob Armour Michael Arnett Kevin Foley Rob Ford, Mayor Michael Jewett Ludwig Kurz Sybil Navas Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Dear Council Members: As property owners in the Town of Vail, we are in strong support of the Town's efforts in connection with the Vail Tomorrow initiative with the goal of enhancing the overall quality of our town and promoting Vail's desired image of a world class community. In the spirit of supporting the Town's goals, we commend and support the Council's recognition of the need to regulate the parking of recreational vehicles (RV's) within the Town (imits. We believe RV's, when parked for long periods or permanently, detract from the image of the Town and negatively affect property values and enjoyment of our mountain environment. We support a new regulation which would limit the parking/storage of RV's of more than 20 feet-in length. We believe these large vehicles should be allowed to park within the Town of Vail, for example, for no more than three (3) consecutive davs in anv 30-dav eriod. The 20-foot limit should include not only the RV itself but also any towing or towed vehicle. We believe a flexible regulation such as this would be a reasonable accommodation for RV owners. We appreciate the Town Council's consideration of this matter and the importance that a favorable action on the part of the Town Council will have on the future of our Town. Sincerely, Name Signatur Address Date: Town Council Bob Armour Michael Arnett . Kevin Foley - Rob Ford, Mayor ` Michael Jewett Ludwig Kurz • Sybil Navas Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Dear Council Members: As property owners in the Town of Vail, we are in strong support of the Town's efforts in connection with the Vail Tomorrow initiative with the goal of enhancing the overall quality of our town and promoting Vail's desired image of a world class community. In the spirit of supporting the Town's goals, we commend and support the Council's recognition of the need to regulate the parking of recreational vehicles (RV's) within the Town limits. We believe RV's, when parked for long periods or permanently, detract from the image of the Town and negatively affect property values and enjoyment of our mountain environment. We support a new regulation which would limit the parking/storage of RV's of more than 20 feet in length. We believe these large vehicles should be allowed to park within the Town of Vail, for example, for no more than three (3) consecutive davs in anv 30-dav eriod. The 20-foot limit should include not only the RV itself but also any towing or towed vehicle. We believe a flexible regulation such as this would be a reasonable accommodation for RV owners. We appreciate the Town Council's consideration of this matter and the importance that a favorable action on the part of the Town Council will have on the future of our Town. Sincerely, , . Name JG1 r ~at Signature f Address Date: C~ - ~ - C'j g Town Council Bob Armour Michael Arnett Kevin Foley Rob Ford, Mayor Michae! Jewett Ludwig Kurz Sybil Navas Town af Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 . Dear Council Members: As property owners in the Town of Vail, we are in strong support of the Town's efforts in connection with the Vail Tomorrow initiative with the goal of enhancing the overall - quality of our tawn and promoting Vail's desired image of a world class cammunity. In the spirit of supporting the Town's goals, we commend and support the Council's recogrution of the need to regulate the parking of recreational vehicles (RV's) within the Town limits. We betieve RV's, when parked for long periods or permanently, detract from the image of the Town and negative(y affect property values antt enjoyment of our mountain environment. We support a new regulation which would limit the parking/storage of RV's of more than 20 feet in length. We believe these large vehicles shauld be allowed to park within the Town of Vail, for example, for nfl more than three (3) consecutive davs in anv 30-dav eriod. The 20-foot limit shouid include not only the RV itself but also any towing or towed vehicle. We believe a flexible regulation such as this would be a reasonable accommodation for RV owners. We appreciate the Town Counci!'s consideration of this matter and the importa.nce that a favorable action on the part of the Town Council will have on the future of our Town. Sincerely, Name G. B 6v°d91 (ignature Address #64 t,, l +'eC..le- 060 Co _ .ILI!y :e ' ag 11=17P'`1 V R F'_PN CCI^'57 ..,i•, Daie: r + ! ~ To,xm Council Bob Arthour • N.schmpl Arnett IS,-_Vin Poley Rob Ford, Mayor Michaci Jowett Ltdwig Ruaz ^•ibil ivavas • Tovn of Vail 75 Sauth Fzonxagc RQed Va::, Colorado 81657 Dwz Council Mernbecs: As propeztp otivners iay the ?owa v€'V'a we a:e in sirong svpport af the 7owes efflttz i* car.necction with the Vail Tomwvw icdtaetivo wi*h tbe goal of en2aanciag the overall qur',+*y of our town and pxomodng VaH's cted*ed im, age of $world class ca~.~nunity. In *'w spirit af suPPodinS the Towte's gods, wc vorrmend axtd support the Coumci's rGCOgmation afthe n,eed to tegulste ilse parldag of recnational vdnicles (R'V"s) witthm the Tows lirnits_ Wc beLeve RV's, whsn pac'ced for 3a+n$ Feciiads of petrawa.ttly, desract f(orn the image of the Toam and n,cgativaly ffect prap" valuos and enjoyment of au mo~..m~tain anviranment. We ssttFpvrt a new cegula.tioa which would lirnit the parldaestmage aPRV's of mare th,.~.n 20 :Rxt iu lena h. We believe these large vehicles st,ouid be sllawed to park within the Town of Vail, for exampley for an azore than tbn* (3) cansefativc d= ie M 3ti-gg~T perInI, The 20-£uot iinlit shtwid indude n+st an2y the RV itaelf but alao any t+owing Qr towed vahicle. We belu.eve a flemble regc:',atitm su6 as tlbis would be e teasoaable am--mmodation for xv own«n. We- appreciate the Town Counvel's cossiuration of Vis mattct and ft irzportanco that f.8lti^!a,TBbIC aCtion on the part of the Z'avun Cmmcil wi'l havC OA the attU,rG Of Ouf Tvwn. $DlGffBly, < Na..**w S U r CL ~~--Iz S_'g".atuse Address ko,m n s PaVIu/1 U q 1(~75`0~ Date: Town Council Bob Armour Michael Arnett Kevin Foley Rob Ford, Mayor Michael Jewett ' . Ludwig Kurz Sybil Navas Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Dear Council Members: As property owners in the Town of Vail, we are in strong support of the Town's efforts in connection with the Vail Tomorrow initiative with the goal of enhancing the overall quality of our town and promoting Vail's desired image of a world class community. In the spirit of supporting the Town's goals, we commend and support the Council's recognition of the need to regulate the parking of recreational vehicles (RV's) within the Town limits. We believe RV's, when parked for long periods or permanently, detract from the image of the Town and negatively affect property values and enjoyment of our mountain environment. We support a new regulation which would limit the parking/storage of RV's of more than 20 feet in length. We believe these large vehicles should be allowed to park within the Town of Vail, for example, for no more than three (3) consecutive davs in anv 30-dav ep riod. The 20-foot limit should include not only the RV itself but also any towing or towed vehicle. We believe a flexible regulation such as this would be a reasonable accommodation for RV owners. We appreciate the Town Council's consideration of this matter and the importance that a favorable action on the part of the Town Council will have on the future of our Town. Sincerely, Name Signature Address ~uN-b~-IySo ~1~31 970 470 2171 P.01 Dai.e: 41119' Town CouttCil Bch A=mour Mucttad Amett Kevia Folry Rob Ford, Mayor Ivfichaul Jewett Ludwig Kwrz Sybil Navas . Town of Vai,l 75 5outh Frorctagc Road . Va:±, Colorado 81657 Du-"; Couacil Members: As property owmers in t!u Tvwa of V4 we are in sorong supporc of the Town's efferts in ccraaectioa aith the Yaif Tomo»ow iaitiative with the goal of eahancia,g the overa;l quaiity of our toym and promoting Vai;'s dcsimd image of a worid class communiry. In the spirit of supporcing the Town's goaLs, we wmmefld and support the Council's rewgtution of the need to regulate the pariciag of recreational vehicks (Rv's) withiri :he Town iimits. We believe RV's, when parked for Iong periods or permanently, detr= from the iIDage of the Town and neganvely affect prvperty va}ues and eajoyment of c,ur r:wtillLaiA 2LVITOAmCIIY. We support a ntw reguiatioa whuch wauld limit the paridng/atorage of RV's of more than 20 :ed in tecWl. Wa believe these large vehicles should be aItowed to park within thc Town of Vail, for example, for no more than tEam (3) consecutive days in aoy 30-d2y oermd. The 20-foot timit stcauld iaclude not oiuy the RV itseif but also arry towing or towed vehicte. We betieve afleAble regulation svch as tbis woutd be a reasonable accommodation for RV owners. Wz appreciate the Town Counal's cor.~ideration of ttus m=er aad the imporcance that a favorabie acdon on the part of the Town Coiu?cii will have on the fature of our Towrn. Siucerely, Naure Addross S~.?+~ ay Z 3it.; 4-1 1-. TOTAL P.01 FROM : PHGyE NO. : 970 476 5159 JUN. 09 1998 01:49PM P1 Jti~l . l3'D 'DO V PLr+`• :uNST F' : ~ . q Q 4 i own Council $ob Armour Ifickael Arnett . Kevin Fotey . Xob Ford, Ivtayor V=.schaol sewett :.udwig Ktsrz Syioil Navas T;,wr, of Vail 7S South Frontage koad V~::, Colorado 81657 :car CouncillVfemba:s. ,~-s property owners in the Town o: Vaii, we ut Iis stro:lg support of the 'Iown's affocts in coanect3on with the Yail Tomorrow irntiative with the goal of enhancing the overall c;,Xuty of our town and promoting Vail's dosired ima,ge of a world class commur.:ty. :n the spirit of supporting the Town's goa;s, we commond attd euppart the Counc;:`s :acogrution of tlze need to regulate tr,z pazking of recreatzonal vehicles (IZV's) wiLhn tba : owa kmite. Wo betieve RV 's, wher? parked for long periods or permanently, deiLract ftn the isnage of the Tawn and negseively affect propeny vatues and enjoyment olt ouI :r,oun~in environment, Wa_stippott a now regulatiorl which would limit the parkin,g/stera$e of RV's of moze than bG feet in length. Vtle believe these large vel.icles shbuld be allowed to park withi~, *e Tcwn of Vail, for exstuple, for eao ~ore_thay three (31 cQnseeuteve dsvs in arm 34-dsy i-,, The 20-foot limit shoutd include not only the RV itmtf but also arty tow;7g or towed vehicle, WB believe a flexiblE regulation such as this woc?ld be a reasonabia 6.;co.zunodation for RV owners. We appreciate the Town Council's consideration of thla matter and the impoctance that e :avorable action on tho part of the Town Council will have on the future of our Town. S;ncerely, e NSIrie J„4368A ~iL1 L.i S Slgri3Lt1t0 ~ Address 'S ~ti? • FROM : PNuyc NJ. : 970 470 5159 JUN. e5 1998 01:49PM P2 JUN 09 'S3 01:32FM V PLAN CONST P.2%2 _ Town Council . :4pb Arnr.our ,f chael Arnett ' Kevia Foley :wb Ford, Mayor . Michael Jewett ~udwig Kucz Syb:l Navas own of Vail 75 South Frontage Road V.~:;, Colorado 81657 Doa: Council Members; rz properry owners in the Town of Vait, we are iri stroag suppQ:t of the Tawn's eearts in ca:.aection with the Yail Tomorrow initiative with the goal of enhancing the ove: ag c;;.Zty of our tawn and pr4m.oting Vsil's desired image V. a worid clas$ comrnunity. i:, the spirit of supporting the Town's gaals, we commend and support the Cowncil's recognition of the need to regulate the parking of recreational vehictes (R'V's) wi~~n the i ;,vvrt limits. We believe RV's, when parked for lorig pariods or perm8rrently, detract f:Lm the image of the Town and neptively affect property vaiues azd enjoyment oi our r..ounta:n env:ro.'Sment. We support a new regulation wkich wouid lxmit. the parking/storage of RV's of raer, e than 20 feet in length. We believe theee lsrge vehicles shauld be altawed to park within the I ovrn of Vail, for example, fQr na more ttar, t rm (Z) cQe ecltive daVg ir~ ~R ~,O-da c; The 20-foot limit ahQU{d incjude not oaly the RV itself but also any towing or towed vehicle. We beii€ve a flexible re ;uletion such as this woc:ld be a reasonable ac;commodatian for RV owners. We appreciate the Town Counc?l's consideration of th:s m.atter and the importance that a :avorable action on the part of the Tawn Couacil will have on the future of ovr Tawn. Sincereiy, Name ~ Bignature • ,n qlq~PS Address Mtt~ V~?lt , Co. 9 1c..5 7 vUn ii so ~~:~ia ,uilZ kosenthai a%ji4"lS-7Su5 P_ JuN I ; I sa ;a: e7PO v a PL.aN cONs- P.2/2 ~'iate: ! • 4 ~i Tawr', Council Bob krmour Niicfza€: Arr'.eti :Cevin ~;oiey Rob Fozd, Mayar '.v;;chgel 3ewett iudwtg Kurz - " .~iyuii :rY.ti/d.? TuWr, o: Vaii 75 Sauth Frontabe Road Va;11, Cc?orado 81657 Cowicit Metnbzrs: As proper5y ownexs in the Towr? of Vai,, we are in strong s?~pport of.he Towrs's effo:ts ir~ connection wi.h the YQiI Tomorrow initiative W;.h the goat c,f enhancing the overau Sua.ixy of o4r cown and promoring Vaii's desired irriage of a world c.ass commu?tity. ~a the sp:lzt of suppotci„g tie Tow:i's goa.;s, we commend 2ind, suppart the Council's recognit:on of the need to regulate the parkitig ai rec;eational v0dcles (Rv's) with:n the Town 14m.::s, We believe RV's, when puked for iong periods or parrt-ianently, deiract : o;n the image of the : own atid negasively aP:ecz propercy values and enjoymen: of our m8un:a.Z eA,VtCOFu'n231t. We support a new regutscion wiuch would limit the parking/storage of RV's of r,lore thar 20 fca't yn lesgth. We believe these large vet,icltc 8hould `oe allowed eo par;c witfun the ;own of Vait, for example, fot no morc !han three (3) consctnteve days Yra anv 30-day nerioQ. i he 20-foot :irr.it stould inciude r.ot only the RV itse;f but aiso any towing or tiawed vehictc, We believe a flexibte regu?ation sueh ac this would te a reasanablc bvCOi9'itil0dbdOR f0: RV OwfICTS, We apprecsate the Town Counci.'s considerat?on o:'th;s matzu arcd the imporcvnce thae a favorable actian on the part o.` the Town Council wil{ have on the .rlcture of aus Town S incerely, Name C .LC~ ~Zi2`1^ Signature C.~ wedress ol 7G ' 7'YtJ~.-~ i2za tl. S~/ f 3 5 T) FRUM : Jarnes M. Dapnne S;ev:n PFu;iE tvO. : 970 470 5709 JUh. 1993 01:07P11 P? ' JUN 11 :-o '2;3°1r M`i rr PL-AN COhST P.ti2 Tcvva Council Bob Armour lvF.ichazI Amett Kzv.,~ Faley - . . I'.ob Fard, lvfayor :VLc:.a,a: ewett " iu4~~ y< SYDiL 1V`d.VaJ A 0wig rJa~ Y 3I: 75 S 3Sii i F:G ;iage R03d Vari:, Colorado 8i557 ~~L'.- Coi:r.ciZ iv.zrr.be:s: As Yrope rty awr.ers i7 the Towr, of Vau, we are :n straao support of the Tawn's efforts i.~ co:sr.e:;r.6n w:th *,e Yczil 'Corrtorr-ow i,Zit~auvQ - with the goa; of enhancing the ove:A;; (Zua:;ty G',~Gur 20Wri Bf.L~ pldrlOtL~g Vail'; desuza imaSe af a world G;ass con-rriunity. spic:, af supportir.g the Tor,vn's goals, we comxsiend and support the Counc:l's rec:~;..ztior~ of the need to :egt:la~e the garkin~ c„rzcreatiar,nl vel~;clas (RV's) within Z Taw: ipmits. We believe RV's, wheil p;::iced :or long, periods or peznanentiy, detraci 4 om tI=es fr.age of the Tawn and negatively a;act property va2uES and enjoyxxi,ent of o4z m.ountair, enviror ::ent. ` We suppor-i a-;tew regu[atiaa wWch woLid Iimit tr.a parking/31torage af RV's of more rhan 20 ir. lengt`ri_ We oelieve these Iarge vehicles shoutd be sllowed to pa:k within trie Town of Vai;, fo: examp7e, far no tndre thaB three (3) cohsecutive davs in anv 3,01-• dav mr^d. The 20-foot limit should include not ortly the R'V itself but also any towing or toweu veh:cle. We bei'reve aff:ex:ble :cgulatior suck, as trds would be a reasonable a,xcrr.mocation far RV owners, We aNpraciate the : own Council's consider&tian of this matter aZd the importance th$t a +avo: aole a.etion on the part of the Tawr~ Gouncil will have an tne :u.tute of out Towr:, Sir.ce: ely, ~ Nar..e J~'M l+ n! C S l...e J 1 nl Sio ature ".t. . - Add.ess ! q8S Svfv9 URs1- h2ivEr ~ ~ ~ ~ u ~y TOWN OF VAIL 75 South Frontage Road Yail, Colorado 81657 970-479-2100 FAX 970-479-2157 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE June 15, 1998 Contact: Terri Partch, 479-2169 Town of Vail Project Engineer TOWN OF VAIL BEGINS ANNUAL STREET MAiNTENANCE PROJECTS THIS 4'VEEK (Vail)--The Town of Vail will launch its annual street maintenance program beginning Wednesday (6-17) this week with a$200,000 chip seal project that includes the ABC/Learning Tree School road, the gravel portion of Nlatterhorn Circle and all East Vail roads, except Bighorn Road. The chip seal project wiil take approximately two weeks to complete starting in East Vail and moving west. The contractor is GMCO Inc., of Carbondale. Individual streets will take approximately ore-half days to cempfete. A reminder notice to residents will be posted in doorways along with signs on streets the day before the actual work will take place. Residents will also receive notices of changes since all dates are weather dependent. In addition, the Ford Park lots will be chipped sealed and visitors attending events on June 17 are encouraged to use the Village Parking Structure, as the gravel lot will be closed that day until the afternoon of June 18. For more information, contact Terri Partch, the town's project engineer at 479-2169 or 390-4675. RECYCLEDP.4PER 7-09-1995 2:54PM FROM SNOWDON AND HOPKINS970d767d91 ~c.7c - " : i- r~.9 . t Date: . . k . • s:'`ei.., . . . TOWIl COURCII . . • . ° ~`a."; BOb AiiriOUr Nfichael Arnett . s , s Kevin Foley Rob Ford, Mayor ~ "I ' 4~"' Michael7ewett Ludwig Kurz ' ~ ~'#r~'6, a „ Sybil Navas ti Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road . Vail, Colorado 81657 ~ Dear Council MeLnbers: ' As property ownc;irs in the Town of V4 we are in strong support of the Town's efforts in connection with the Yail Tomorraw initiative with the goal o£enhancing the overall quatity of our tov+m and promoting Vail's desired inage of a worid class commurrity. ` ln the spirit nf supporting the Tovvn's.goals, we commend atad support the Council's recognition of thE: need to regulate the parking of recreational vehicles (RV's) within the Tawn liamits. We beiieve RV's, when parked for long periods or permanently, detract. from the image ofthe Town and negatively affeat propezty values and enjoymern'of our mountai,n environJnent_ We support a new regulation which would limit the parking/stflrage of RV's of more than 20 feet in Iength. We believe these large vehicles should be allowed to park within the Town of Vail, foi' example, for no morc than t6rec (3) consecutivt daws in anv 30-dav ` eriod. The 20-5oot limit shoWd include not only the R'V itself hut also any towinp, or towed vehicle. VVe believe a flexible regulation such as ihis would be a zeasonable acc4mmodation 1:or RV owners. • We appreciate the Town Council's consideration -of this matter and thC importance that a favorable action on the part of the Town Cown;cil will have on the future of our Tawn_ Sincerely, . Name (/t~ • Signawre _ Address r . j l~ Nevin Nelson 2498 Arosa Drive Vail, Colorado 81657 The Vail Town Council 75 South Frontage Road West Vail, Colorado 81657 Re: West Vail Open Space Dear Members of the Vail Town Council: As you know, I live directly across the street #rom the proposed high-density employee housing project. 1 therefore will be most affected by what happens to this property. I have several thoughts and comments about employee housing in general, and this land in particular. 1. First and foremost, I don't think that the Town should be financially involved in employee housing to the extent that I understand they are. I approve of tax incentives and additions to existing homes for the purpose of housing employees, but I have a real problem with outpouring of funds from the Town, which we, the taxpayers, would have to finance. 2. Since, however, it seems that the Town is determined to be the driving force, financially, in this endeavor, l do not approve of invading established neighborhoods with high density housing. If any housing is to be built in Vail, the existing zoning regulations should be followed by the Town. 3. The feelings of the residents of the neighborhoods where you would tike to build employee housing should be taken into consideration. This needs to be a win-win situation, not just the Town and the employees getFing what they want, and to heck with the residents. Many of us have lived here a long time and have chosen this neighborhood because of its communrty spirit, charm, and small neighborhood feeling. During the last six years since I have lived here, a lot of development has taken place, making this area one of the most congested neighborhoods in Vail. A high-density project could ruin what we all came here for. Fitteen units in one-half an acre! The ears, people, noise, and dogs would be way too much for that small space, or even for the entire parcel, no matter how it is laid out. 4. The original parcel was purchased with RETT funds, and every West Vail resident expected this entire parcel to remain open space, which was the original intent of the purchase (despite the claim that employee hQUSing was mentioned at the time). One-half an acre for a park is too small for this neighborhood. This is a large established neighborhood, and we are the only neighborhood in the Valley without a park. Please consider our needs and desires whEn you make this decision. And please consider the congestion and safety issues as well. 5. At the recent meeting on June 3, where we were all asked to come up with a choice from the different alternatives you had provided, our table could not come up with a consensus because of the stubborness of a pro-employee housing person sitting at our table (Anne something). She absolutely refused to compromise on any issue and was determined that all of our neighborhoods should be infiltrated wrth high-density employee housing. This kind of atFitude is the kind of thing we need to avoid. As 1 mentioned before, we all need to face the problem and come up with a happy solution. Nobody wants just the Town Council and Staff to make these decisions and jam them down our throats. 6. Many of us feel that the communiiy spirit that Vail used to have is gradually disappearing, and we feel that we are being ignored. The consequence of this is that more and more of the old-time locals are moving down valley or are moving out of Vail aftogether. We worked very hard for this quality of life, and our feetings need to be heard. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely yours, Nevin Nelson Vail resident since 1970 ~ ~ - I' THE ~.L TRAIL . =z. ~"Foflow The TraiL..it leads to resuftsr" (970) 949-4004 Drawer 6200 - Vail, Coiorado 81658 Vail TraiUDaily Trail Community Survey 1998 On June 29, 1998, the publisher of the Vail Trail will launch a daily newspaper to be called The Daily Trail. The Daily Trail will appear in newsstands throughout Eagle County Monday through Friday; distriburion will take place between 4 a.m. and 7 a.m. The weekly Vail Trail, with its extensive Rea1 Estate and Arts and Entertainment sections, will continue to come out on Fridays and remain in the racks seven days a week. In an attempt to learn how we can best serve you, a member of the Eagle River Va11ey community, please take a few minutes to answer the following questions. Rate 1-5, with 1 being "Very Satisfied" and 5 being "Not at All Satisfied." Thank you for taking the time to fill out our survey. VAIL TRAIL In general, how satisfied are you with the overall performance of The Vail Trail? How satisfied are you with the responsiveness of the following departments: Advertising Accounting EditoriaVPhotography Production Distribution Comments/suggestions for improvement with regard to the above: DAII.,Y TRAII., PRIORITIES Please rate 1-5, with 1 being "Very Important" a.nd 5 being "Not at All Important." More locat news, less state, national and international news Equal amount of local, state, national and international news Community news, including coverage of charitable events Cops and courts coverage Coverage of the west end of the county Features Profiles of community members Education Arts and entertainment A local "gossip" column More local sports, less state, national Equal amount of local, state and national sports Y Regional news Business, including local, state, national and stock listings Longer stories Shorter stories Editorial column More columns Guest columns by government and business officials Comics, horoscopes, crossword puzzles Special sections (ie. Home and Garden, Wedding, Holiday) Comments/suggestions with regard to the above: What time of day do you pick up your newspaper(s)? _ mozning _ noon _ late afternoon Where do you pick up your newspaper(s)? _ home delivery _ box _ business Comments/suggestions with regard to distribution: How long have you lived in Eagle County? _ Less than a year _ 6-15 years _ 1-5 years _ More than 15 years Which of these categories best describes your age? Under 20 45 to 54 ' 20-24 55-64 25-34 65 or over _ 35-44 _ Do not wish to reply Which of these categories best describes the gross annual income of your household? _ $0-14,999 _ $75,000-99,999 _ $15,000-34,999 _ $100,000-149,999 _ $35,000-49,999 _ $150,000 or more _$50,000-74,999 _ Do not wish to reply Additional comments/suggestions: me Xn at Vail . ~ • / ( j~ ~i y ~ • /y •--S' ~ ~ ' ! C L,` • ' ~ G , r / / ~ ~ ` F ~ i / - - / _ • ' ~ ~ , - ~ ` c-., _ . ~ . - ~ ~ ~ ' `f • • f"' ! , _ ~ i; . R ~L -L 174 East Gore Creek Drive ~ Vail, Colorado 81657 •(970) 476-5011 Fax (970) 476-7425 Thet at Vail 1\ ' ^~l`I L ~r~ ~ -v~ _ - -Z t - ~ t r---- I ~ ~ ~ , , i.^ t_ 174 East Gore Creek Drive • Vail, Colorado 81657 •(970) 476-5011 Fax (970) 476-7425 Re: CommonGround Subject: Re: CommonGround Date: Tue, 09 Jun 1998 09:10:17 -0500 From: marlene <marlene@vail.net> To: ssilver@vail.net Suzanne Silverthorn wrote: > Marlene, we've just about finished preparing a summary and wi11 make that > available at Town Ha11 in the next few days. Or, I'd be happy to mail this > to you if you'11 forward your address. Wou1d you like me to pass along your > previous comments to the Town Council? I'd be happy to do so. Just Iet me > know. Suzanne > > marlene wrote: > Just returned from being out of town and missed the review held on June > > 3 andJune 4. > > Wou1d like to be up to date if there is a place where the project is > > available to be seen. If ou are interested, m in ut is to y p preserve Vai 1 ra ther than make i t G>A into a modern day city. If amenities are not available for people moving here, then perhaps they should consider another place to 1ive. I donot want cemented walkways or every inch of land covered with > > buildings, developments, etc. > > > > MARLENE ZAMITES Hello Suzanne Thank you so much for your reply. Yes, please pass on my remarks to the Town Council. I have left messages for Mr. Foley who has not returned my calls, so maybe your way is a better way. And yes, please do mail me the report when it is available. Please mail to: Marlene Zamites 1881 Lions Ridge Loop Unit 34 Vail, CO 81657 Appreciate all your efforts Marlene I of 1 6i9/98 10:29 AM 7-09-1995 2: 5dPM FE20M SNOWDON AND HOPK I NS 9704767491 P. 1-f ` !c . J v Date: ~Fllllft ,i = Y ` • Town Council Bob Armaur . ' . M?chaet Arnett . - • ~ Kevin Foley Rob Ford, Mayor ~ • M Michael Jewett ~ Ludwig Kurz Sybil Navas Town of Vail . 75 South Frontage Road . Vail, Coaorado 81657 Dear Council Members: As property owners in the Town of V4 we are in strong support of the Town's efforts in connection with the Yail Tomorrow irutiative - with the goal of enhancing the overall quality of our town and promoting Vail's desired image of a wodd class commurrity. lm the spirit of supporting the Town's.goals, we commend andsupport the Council's recognition of the need to regulate the parking of recreational vehic}es (RV's) within the Town limits. We believe RV's, when parked for long periods ar permanently, detract. from the image ofthe Town and negaxively affeot property values and enjoyment of our ' mountain environment_ We support a mew regulation which would limit the parking/storage of RV's of more than ` 20 feet in length. We believe these large vehicles should be allowed to park within the Town of Vail, for example, for no more than threc (3) consecutive days in anv 30-day eriod. The 20-foot limit should include not only the R'V itself but also any towing or towed velnicle. We believe a flexibte regulation such as this would be a reasonable accommodation for RV owners. . We appreciate the Town Council's consideration -of this matter and thC importance that a favorable action on the part of the Town Council will have on the future of our Town. Sincexely, Name ~ , ~ • Signature Address RECEIVED JUN 1 5 19M CHARLES S. MARSTON 2670 BALD MOUNTAIN ROAD VAIL, CO 81657 ~ June 9, 1998 Vail Town Council 75 South Frontage Road, West Vail, CO 81657 Gentlemen, Several years ago the residents of Vail, Colorado were asked if they would permit the construction of a par three golf course at the intersection of North Frontage Road and Bald Mountain Road. The vote count in the referendum opposed development in this area, as the residents strongly wanted it to remain wetland, open space. It has been brought to my attention that the Town Council is considering altering the will of the people. What is most shocking is that the council is being pressured by growth minded elements to turn this preserve into a housing development. Who suffers from this? Surely the local residents who's properties will be devalued, but more importantly there is a loss to the whole community as one of the last remaining preserves is lost to development. And who is it that truly stands to benefit? The rich New York City developers who will continue to develop the Vail mountain and open up vast areas of housing. As in the past, these developments will be offered at prices too high for the local residents and infrastructure personnel to afford. I am violently opposed to programs which rob Peter to pay Paul. The destruction of this preserve is not necessary. I pray that the council will honor their promise to the voters and continue to protect this property by taking this new proposal and placing it where it belongs - in the ash can. Sincerely, Charles S. Marston vair RECEiV lpine ED JUN 1 5 Garden ~ Foundatiorl June 10,1998 , Mr. Rob Ford, Mayor Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Dear Rob, ' On behalf of theVail Alpine Garden Foundation, I would like to thank the Town of Vail for its most recent pledge payment of $15,000. As per Helen Fritch, I understand that these funds have been reallocated to our current project, the construction of our new Alpine Rock Garden. . I hope you have had a chance to stop by the Gardens this spring. Our volunteers have . been very busy working and the flowers are about to burst forth in all their glory! It will be wonderful to have the fourth and final phase of the Gardens (and Ford Park) complete! So many people delight in the Gardens each summer - we are so grateful for the Town of Vai1's ongoing generosity which helps provide this beautiful space for our visitors to enjoy! Sincerely, _ ; Nancy Young Director of Development CC: Helen Fritch '`i izil will lie as well k.iaowrz ira thesctrnynei-_for-its floueis as it is isz thE winterfor its sk.iing. ' 183 GORE CREEK DRIVE • VAIL, COLORADO 81657 • 303.476.0103 ~ Pnntetl on Rttycletl Peper TOWN OF AVON, POB 975, Avon, CO 81620 6/98 949-4280/(FAX 949-9139) Jack Fawcett, Mayor Judy Yoder, Mayor Pro-Tem Council Members Buz Reynolds Jim Benson Richard Carnes David Gilman Bob McIlveen Bill Efting, Town Manager TOWN OF EAGLE, POB 609, Eagle, CO 81631 328-6354/(FAX 328-5203) Roxie Deane, Mayor Trustees Pam Holmes Tom Ehrenberg Paul Gregg Bruce Hasbrouck Bill Heicher John Stavney Willy Powell, Town Manager TOWN OF GYPSUM, POB 875, Gypsum, CO 81637 524-7514/(FAX 524-7522) Steve Carver, Mayor Council Larry Morgan Richard Mayne Bob Mayne Gary Lebo Tom Collins Pam Schultz Jeff Shroll, Town Manager TOWN OF MINTURN, POB 308, Minturn, CO 81645 827-5645 (FAX 827-5545) Gordon "Hawkeye" Flaherty, Mayor Council Brian Canepa Bill Burnett Fred Haslee Darell Wegert Larry Stone Earl Bidez Alan Lanning Town Manager TOWN OF RED CLIFF, POB 40, Red Cliff, CO 81649 827-5303 (FAX 827-5300) Betty Sandoval, Mayor Tom Weisen, Mayor Pro-Tem Council Peter Colthard Louella Romero Barbara Fresquez Bill Beck Sidney Summers EAGLE COiTNTY, POB 850, Eagle, CO 81631 328-8605 (FAX 328-7207) Bud Gates, County Commissioner James Johnson, County Commissioner Johnnette Phillips, County Commissioner Jim Hartman, County Administrator Jack Instad, Assistant County Administrator City Attorney's Office 328-8685 F: WNNEW U.ISIIEAGLECTY.LST s . ' June 12, 1998 Dear Council Members, You will officially receive these petitions, with additional names, next week. We want to make you aware that these petitions are circulating as early as possible, in this week's packet, since you are moving so quickly. This is only a copy of some of the names you will receive. . ; PETITION We, the undersigned, oppose the building of any housing on the town-owned West Vail property adjacent to the town manager's house, for the following reasons: • The narrow hillside roads of the neighborhood can not safely accommodate any increase in •auto or pedestrian traffic. • This is the olv space that can serve as a park or natural space for this fully developed neighborhood. Compared to what the town has provided other neighborhoods, a small pocket park surrounded by new housing is not adequate or fair to this locals neighborhood. The entire parcel should remain open. • This site is heavily used and valuable as a centrally located natural dog-walking area. It reduces fouling of the very popular Davos hiking trail and private yards. • The central and hillside location of this site make it very visible, and development would create high visual impact. We believe the town council can come up with other creative ways to increase the number of locals and employees living in Vail. We urge them to do so, instead of sacrificing the integrity of the existing locals ne'ghborhoods that are still well-balanced and livable enough to be desirable to permanent residents. J , 1998. 5I 1~J~1?' ::>:<::::<: :>:>::::;;:::>;>:<:::>::::;;:::«::<:::::>;::>::;; >::>:;:<:>::::::>:::<::::::::::` : :>:::s :>;;:::<:::::::<'~;!»> : ~ , UF~~:. r~M~ f~;:.;:.;:.;:.;;:.;::; E r . . p/ease pri t-------------------------------------- qq . %L ~2 y ,x Va , 57 17 7' 6v ~v a s~ A70,Sja 0- ~IA IL ~ • ~ , ~ - . ,r. ,V 7 9 _1 9_~ . ` rAe-rs m rni, ,S, c~. /Jr ~~ti0 ~f 7~-31 y3 ~ ~j F) V.~-1 L- `7& -«3 L) . iU,x. t~ a,nj~ jINNDIIIX Li~tC, y~ n kmw~ z~c) . ; PETITION We, the undersigned, oppose the building of any housing on the town-owned West Vail property adjacent to the town manager's house, for the following reasons: • The narrow hillside roads of the neighborhood can not safely accommodate any increase in auto or pedestrian traffic. • This is the onlv space that can serve as a park or natural space for this fully developed neighborhood. Compared to what the town has provided other neighborhoods, a small pocket park sunounded by new housing is not adequate or fair to this locals neighborhood. The entire parcel should remain open. • This site is heavily used and valuable as a centrally located natural dog-walking area. It reduces fouling of the very popular Davos hiking trail and private yards. _ • The central and hillside location of this site make it very visibie, and development would create high visual impact. We believe the town council can come up with other creative ways to increase the number of locals and employees living in Vail. We urge them to do so, instead of sacrificing the integrity of the existing locals neighborhoods that are still well-balanced and livable enough to be desirable to permanent residents. June, 1998. SI~t~JATM.'_°»:<:::::> <!!:':::::>:::::::::>:::::::::;>;::;<><<'.;'"> <;;<'«<;<:::>:<::::>>:::;:`?>.»:>>::>;:»>::>::::>:::<::::<:::::>::»:::<::::::::<:>::>::::::>::::>::::::>:::':`: : E:.: . M~ . ~O[~R.;:;;::>::>:<:>:::>::>:; > ~~I~IE please print------------------------------------- ~ ' fo.,,•~ 2, 3 ~ 'v ZH47 ~ 7W - z /471 "78 5 7 1~ ~ ~ lql Grs~v__pll~~ ~?~'r'i•i, °r'.~-~ 6--/2-. 41~79~~7 C~~~ /-+7 - ~s-~ ~ tt ` f ~ Y D ~ ~ ~n„ ~ t , G~~C I Trj 4 r C~_K -~OCs J:\~yzw& 1~- Z : ;/~c i Zz~~ ~2,70 7 1J. iv 7- s7 3 7 ~ , PETITION We, the undersigned, oppose the building of any housing on the town-owned West Vail property adjacent to the town manager's house, for the following reasons: • The narrow hillside roads of the neighborhood can not safely accommodate any increase in auto or pedestrian traffic. • This is the onlv space that can serve as a park or natural space for this fully developed neighborhood. Compared to what the town has provided other neighborhoods, a small pocket park surrounded by new housing is not adequate or fair to this locals neighborhood. The entire parcel should remain open. • This site is heavily used and valuable as a centrally located natural dog-walking area. It reduces fouling of the very popular Davos hiking trail and private yards. ~ • The central and hillside location of this site make it very visible, and development would create high visual impact. We believe the town council can come up with other creative ways to increase the number of locals and employees living in Vail. We urge them to do so, instead of sacrificing the integrity of the existing locals neighborhoods that are still well-balanced and livable enough to be desirable to permanent residents. June, 1998. .~::<_>>::~::::;:::::::i~:::::;:::;;::;::;::::::::;:::::::~~:::::::;~:::;:::: S'~'~: "::;;::.`~:::X:::`:~: _]y.:;~k.':;.>:`:: : ~1'S~ . ......::.:s;::>:.::: ~~~.:>::::::r,:::::.r:.::::.~..::::>::::I'3.~.~~~~~ . t.Fi. . . . . _ . . . _ . _ . . . . . ~ . . p/eose print------------ti-------- - , , ? L C < ~ 1._ 7E> . r.: ' ~ !f t L%~i~~?~/-` ~7~~ /,1 ~ ` `t !~7 IV • i ~ ~ Ww--~.. U L1 ~ ~ 1j I ~'v~ ~ 3 ` j j' ~ ~ ~ lfl ~ J ~ ` C ~_c ~ ~r lr i"-1 1_ i , c-: ~ r, ~ i • J~ . ~r % ~ ~ `J ~ Petition to the Vail Town Council Spring 1998 We, Vail residents, prefer that the West Vail parcel referred to as Hud Wirth remain as open space or at its present zoning of primary- , secondary status, which was assigned to this land for years. Under no circumstances should this land become high density. If . housing needs to be built on it, the zoning should be consistent with the adjacent homes, which are single family, primary/secondary. Signature Name Address Phone e r , , a~Ih I ~ c .'2 ~161-o,<.5, ~ 1'y', yw' . < ~n (.3-c l r L/ 7V3013 1 iol, r~ rsrr~ / , ` - 7~~1 G ri ~ 5 ,d r, Z~-~~ < < < 4A&I ~Y t~ Z~~ C_ 14 ? L- ~~30 76-1 kO( xilw . 61 ct~ 1l l(9 7-Srci ~ v I~u. u w4ri, S~- , V/k, 2,70 Z G•> • C0 4~,;It GN ~7~ - J'7 3 7 . t Petition to the Vail Town Council Spring 1998 We, Vail residents, prefer that the West Vail parcel referred to as Hud Wirth remain as open space or at its present zoning of primary- secondary status, which was assigned to this land for years. Under no circumstances should this land become high density. If . housing needs to be built on it, the zoning should be consistent with the adjacent homes, which are single family, primary/secondary. Signature Name Address Phone Z d~ - 21~-a L? k. I~~~?~` I;~~It~ ` 17C,.._ ~c.°`~1 -L/772ZI--= Z - ~ , % i'c, ~ . ~ - ~ ' ^ ~ ~ .